Borg's chapter 4, while not thorough, it is a basic introduction to the topic of Judaism in the time of Jesus. Since we are dealing with this topic from a historical perspective, it makes sense that all of these scholars wish to place Jesus within his own proper historical milieu. But there are a variety of dimensions to this project. Sixty years ago Life of Jesus scholars were mostly interested in the various religious groups operating within Palestine during the time of Jesus. But there were two significant developments that has changed how this whole project is undertaken. The FIRST development was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran (just south of modern day Jericho). The scholars who first studied these scrolls wondered if John the Baptist and maybe even Jesus spent time with the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, due to the prevalence of apocalyptic themes of divine judgment in the writings. Few serious scholars today believe there was any direct contact between the Essenes of Qumran and John the Baptist or Jesus (but all three and probably many others were influenced by a literal interpretation of Isaiah 40:3). What this discovery Dead Sea Scrolls accomplished was to force the recognition of the great diversity of Judaism in Palestine in the time of Jesus. The Pharisees were not the "top dogs" in any religious establishment; they simply had a degree of influence that far exceeded their numbers. The Sadducees probably were a much smaller group, but their viewpoint was popular within the high priestly circles. There may have been other prophets of judgment besides John the Baptist, but he was the most significant. The Essenes at Qumran (writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) may not have been the only reclusive group in the desert waiting for a dramatic/apocalyptic divine intervention into history to redeem God's people, Israel. Also recent examination shows that the role of the high priestly families in Palestine during the time of Jesus is as much a story of power politics and big money in Palestine as it is the story of a religious organization.
The SECOND development that has changed the way that scholars view life in Palestine in the time of Jesus is the emergence in the 1960's of social history as we know it today, and asking sociological questions about historical issues and then attempting to examine an ancient society by applying such investigative models to ancient texts (like the New Testament). In other words, there is more to history than the story of the "winners" and "losers." Earlier ways of writing history never thought much about the lives of manual laborers and the servant class, or even the local merchant class. Nor was there much interest in how economic factors affected political and social change. Nor were there academic resources or tools with which to work to discover such things. But more recent examinations of life in Palestine in the time of Jesus using social science models produces a much richer appreciation of the diversity and tensions within Palestinian society in Jesus' time.
Now to Borg, chapter 4. Borg makes reference to "a pre-industrial agricultural domination system," which is a fancy way of saying that life was not all that wonderful in Palestine during Jesus' time. As with most pre-industrial societies, the opportunities for advancing oneself beyond one's parents were practically nil. It also shows that the economy was primarily dependent on agriculture. But not like in the USA a hundred years ago when the majority of Americans lived on family farms. Note the parables of Jesus that speak of absentee landlords (Talents, Wicked Tenants). There was a lot of that in Jesus' time and here is the best answer I have found for why this is so (in addition to what Borg says about Herod's role, but I think he gives Herod too much credit for this phenomenon of absentee landlords).
The biggest industry in Palestine at this time is the Temple in Jerusalem. Some have estimated that it took 1,000 people to run the whole operation. The Gospel of Luke likes to portray the Temple as a place of prayer, but in reality it's primary function was as a major slaughterhouse, with the high priestly families keeping the majority of the profits for themselves. Here is how it worked: ordinary Joe Jew wants to offer a sacrifice at the temple, but it has to be a perfect animal (without blemish). He might own a perfect animal (sheep or goat) suitable for the occasion, but if he walks it all the way to Jerusalem, it might not be perfect when he arrives there, and it is too hot and difficult to carry such an animal. So, a better route (but costlier) is to purchase an already approved animal on the site. But if you carried Roman government coinage you may have to exchange your coinage for the correct currency for temple purchases (for a small exchange fee). Then you have to purchase the animal suitable for the sacrifice, which would be a lot more expensive than market rates. (Now you know the background of the story of Jesus upsetting the tables of the money-changers and letting the animals out of their pens in the temple outer courtyard). By the time Joe has purchased his animal and led it to the priests for sacrifice (death by one quick upward slice into the jugular to make sure all the blood drains out), he has quite an investment in this animal. But after the sacrificial ritual Joe only receives a small portion of the meat in return to share and eat with his family. The priests keep the majority, but they can only eat so much, so they sell the rest to the local butcher shops.
The temple in Jerusalem was a religious monopoly, and the high priestly families worked it to their advantage. They produced significant profits that they then invested in purchasing farm land throughout Palestine. So the average person suffered economically from this religious/economic arrangement. The high priestly family served at the pleasure of the Roman governor, so they had to be on good terms and do nothing to upset the Roman authorities. But the imperial Roman government based in Rome exacted high taxes from the lands they occupied and Palestine was no exception, and these high taxes and the underlying resentment of them by the average person is the background for the question to Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar, in wanting to see if Jesus would advocate tax resistance. But the fact that his questioners had a Roman coin in their possession showed which side of that debate they were on. The high taxation also was a major factor in the revolt that took place in 66 CE. To enforce their rule and put down revolts the Romans garrisoned troops in Palestine, and this was another sore point with the average person. Most people were happy to stay clear of any Romans. To the average rural Galilean, life was just trying to scratch an agricultural living out of rocky soil on land that the person did not even own.
Borg does a good job in chapter 4 presenting background historical information on life in Palestine at the time of Jesus. I would differ on a couple points. First, I think he overplays the role of Herod in the whole economic scheme, at the expense of the political and economic role of the high priestly families (Borg does make my point briefly at the bottom of page 90). The high priestly families were the rulers until the Romans came along and they managed to continue their influence by cooperating first with Herod and later with the provincial Roman governor. Herod needed the high priestly family to provide religious legitimization for his reign. Later, when Rome ruled directly through the local governor (Pontius Pilate in Jesus' time), the high priestly group through the Sanhedrin governed most of the civil affairs in the territory in which Jerusalem sits (Judea).
A major sore point with the working class people was the high rate of taxation. No wonder tax collectors were despised by the local population, in addition to the fact that the tax collectors often over-stated the taxes due and pocketed the difference for themselves (thus the economic/moral significance of the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19). But the smoldering resentment brought on by the economic and political oppression did Not result in a multitude of overt acts of violent resistance during Jesus' time, but only much later became organized into an armed revolt (year 66 CE). It is also possible that scholars like Borg read too much of the oppression-resentment factor into the stories of Jesus. Scholars are divided on exactly how much of a role this oppression-resentment factor actually plays in understanding the life of Jesus, even if it was part of the social background. One thing is for sure, the Romans were brutal in enforcing their control on the land of Palestine and everyone knew it. But on the other hand, democracy did not exist in the world at this time. The entire world was ruled by a variety of autocratic leaders, some tyrannical and some not so bad. Biblical historian E. P. Sanders points out that the Jews living in Palestine during the time of Jesus really did not have it any worse than anyone else in the world in that day and time. Oppressive taxation was common in the ancient world and most of the time people just bore the weight of that burden.
Regarding village life in Nazareth, Borg may be too skeptical about whether Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible. It is rather common for many modern scholars to doubt that Jesus could read, because of his place in the peasant class. But Jesus seems to me to know too much to be relegated to illiterate status. If Borg and others of the Jesus Seminar are correct that Jesus was illiterate, then all of Jesus' activities within synagogues are historically suspect as well as his interactions with the Pharisees, who treat him in the Gospels as if he is a strange version of themselves. We will come back to this in a few weeks. Thus, I am very skeptical about Borg's assertion that Jesus was illiterate.
A few more comments on Borg chapter 4. Herod was called Herod the Great because of his magnificent building projects. After he killed his wife Mariamne and her sons (because she fell out of favor and Herod did not want any of her sons to inherit the throne), it was said that it was safer to be Herod's pig than his son (because he refrained from eating pork so that his subjects would think him more Jewish than he actually was).
On synagogues: it seems that synagogues only began to be built as structures in the first century. Note the line in Luke 7:5 about the centurion who built our synagogue, which implies that Capernaum did not have a synagogue building before that. Orthodox Judaism posits that synagogues began soon after the return from the Babylonian exile. But no structural archaeological evidence prior to the first century has been conclusively labeled a synagogue. Likewise, the widespread existence of schools for boys taught by the local rabbi in the local synagogues may reflect a practice that developed about 500 CE rather than soon after the return from exile as believed by Orthodox Judaism. But that still does not mean that Jesus was illiterate.
A note on identifying dates. Modern scholarship uses CE and BCE to refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era. Of course the line of demarcation is the birth of Jesus. However, modern sensibilities see the continued use of AD (anno domini - year of the Lord) as an imposition of Christian ideas on non-Christians. Interestingly, CE was originally used by non- Christian scholars (Jewish and Muslim) to refer to the "Christian Era" (seeing the use of AD as an endorsement of Christianity). But with a shift toward modern sensibilities of tolerance (and wanting to avoid giving one religious tradition precedence over another), scholarly writing changed this to the more generic Common Era.
The temple in Jerusalem was a religious monopoly, and the high priestly families worked it to their advantage. They produced significant profits that they then invested in purchasing farm land throughout Palestine. So the average person suffered economically from this religious/economic arrangement. The high priestly family served at the pleasure of the Roman governor, so they had to be on good terms and do nothing to upset the Roman authorities. But the imperial Roman government based in Rome exacted high taxes from the lands they occupied and Palestine was no exception, and these high taxes and the underlying resentment of them by the average person is the background for the question to Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar, in wanting to see if Jesus would advocate tax resistance. But the fact that his questioners had a Roman coin in their possession showed which side of that debate they were on. The high taxation also was a major factor in the revolt that took place in 66 CE. To enforce their rule and put down revolts the Romans garrisoned troops in Palestine, and this was another sore point with the average person. Most people were happy to stay clear of any Romans. To the average rural Galilean, life was just trying to scratch an agricultural living out of rocky soil on land that the person did not even own.
Borg does a good job in chapter 4 presenting background historical information on life in Palestine at the time of Jesus. I would differ on a couple points. First, I think he overplays the role of Herod in the whole economic scheme, at the expense of the political and economic role of the high priestly families (Borg does make my point briefly at the bottom of page 90). The high priestly families were the rulers until the Romans came along and they managed to continue their influence by cooperating first with Herod and later with the provincial Roman governor. Herod needed the high priestly family to provide religious legitimization for his reign. Later, when Rome ruled directly through the local governor (Pontius Pilate in Jesus' time), the high priestly group through the Sanhedrin governed most of the civil affairs in the territory in which Jerusalem sits (Judea).
A major sore point with the working class people was the high rate of taxation. No wonder tax collectors were despised by the local population, in addition to the fact that the tax collectors often over-stated the taxes due and pocketed the difference for themselves (thus the economic/moral significance of the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19). But the smoldering resentment brought on by the economic and political oppression did Not result in a multitude of overt acts of violent resistance during Jesus' time, but only much later became organized into an armed revolt (year 66 CE). It is also possible that scholars like Borg read too much of the oppression-resentment factor into the stories of Jesus. Scholars are divided on exactly how much of a role this oppression-resentment factor actually plays in understanding the life of Jesus, even if it was part of the social background. One thing is for sure, the Romans were brutal in enforcing their control on the land of Palestine and everyone knew it. But on the other hand, democracy did not exist in the world at this time. The entire world was ruled by a variety of autocratic leaders, some tyrannical and some not so bad. Biblical historian E. P. Sanders points out that the Jews living in Palestine during the time of Jesus really did not have it any worse than anyone else in the world in that day and time. Oppressive taxation was common in the ancient world and most of the time people just bore the weight of that burden.
Regarding village life in Nazareth, Borg may be too skeptical about whether Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible. It is rather common for many modern scholars to doubt that Jesus could read, because of his place in the peasant class. But Jesus seems to me to know too much to be relegated to illiterate status. If Borg and others of the Jesus Seminar are correct that Jesus was illiterate, then all of Jesus' activities within synagogues are historically suspect as well as his interactions with the Pharisees, who treat him in the Gospels as if he is a strange version of themselves. We will come back to this in a few weeks. Thus, I am very skeptical about Borg's assertion that Jesus was illiterate.
A few more comments on Borg chapter 4. Herod was called Herod the Great because of his magnificent building projects. After he killed his wife Mariamne and her sons (because she fell out of favor and Herod did not want any of her sons to inherit the throne), it was said that it was safer to be Herod's pig than his son (because he refrained from eating pork so that his subjects would think him more Jewish than he actually was).
On synagogues: it seems that synagogues only began to be built as structures in the first century. Note the line in Luke 7:5 about the centurion who built our synagogue, which implies that Capernaum did not have a synagogue building before that. Orthodox Judaism posits that synagogues began soon after the return from the Babylonian exile. But no structural archaeological evidence prior to the first century has been conclusively labeled a synagogue. Likewise, the widespread existence of schools for boys taught by the local rabbi in the local synagogues may reflect a practice that developed about 500 CE rather than soon after the return from exile as believed by Orthodox Judaism. But that still does not mean that Jesus was illiterate.
A note on identifying dates. Modern scholarship uses CE and BCE to refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era. Of course the line of demarcation is the birth of Jesus. However, modern sensibilities see the continued use of AD (anno domini - year of the Lord) as an imposition of Christian ideas on non-Christians. Interestingly, CE was originally used by non- Christian scholars (Jewish and Muslim) to refer to the "Christian Era" (seeing the use of AD as an endorsement of Christianity). But with a shift toward modern sensibilities of tolerance (and wanting to avoid giving one religious tradition precedence over another), scholarly writing changed this to the more generic Common Era.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment