The Oxford History of the Biblical World (90 page)

The war also gave rise to a new relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the land. Judea was proclaimed a separate Roman province, which entailed stationing troops. The Tenth Legion, comprised of soldiers who had already fought in the war, was permanently located to Jerusalem; together with their families, these soldiers substantially increased the Gentile population of a city that before 70 had been almost entirely Jewish. Major tracts of land were given to Roman officials and imperial favorites, and Rome constructed new cities for the growing imperial presence. Vespasian, for example, built Neapolis (modern Nablus) near the site of Shechem. Jews were, in turn, expelled from several cities, such as Caesarea. Galilee and Transjordan, which had always had significant non-Jewish populations, also saw demographic shifts.

To survive these various challenges to religious practice and cultural integrity, many Jews turned to their scriptures, and to the teachers who studied them. The Gospels and Josephus both suggest that the Pharisees gained dominance at this time. They were the logical successors to the previous leaders. Although Zealotry would flare up again in the Diaspora revolts at the beginning of the second century and,
more completely, in the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132–35, the principal Zealot leaders were either dead, in prison, or in exile. The Sadducees, many of whom had collaborated with the Romans early in the war, and who with the destruction of the Temple had lost their raison d’etre, had neither the numbers nor the influence to unite the community. The Essenes living in the towns had no political structure on which to rely, and apparently no inclination to enter politics; whether they even survived as a coherent group after 70 is doubtful.

The Pharisees, now leaders in the political as well as in the religious sphere, also underwent changes. Together with the scribes, who prior to 70 represented a separate class of Torah scholars (the Gospels mention Sadducaic and Pharisaic scribes, as well as scribes as a group distinguished from both), they became known as “rabbis.” The term literally means, in Aramaic, “my teacher” (see John 1.38); originally a title for someone in an authoritative position, it came to signal a member of the group responsible for development and codification of specific sets of literature (Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, Midrashim). These “rabbinic” writings refer to individuals as
rabbi,
as
rob
(teacher), and as
rabban
(our teacher), the collective being
ha-hakamim,
“the sages” or “the wise.” No longer would this group be “Pharisees” in the sense of “separated ones”; they would be teachers.

And teach they did. Emphasizing personal piety and study of the Torah over the practices of the Temple, they continued to develop their interpretation of scripture, which came to be known as the “oral law.” While the rabbis were united in their desire to live according to the way they believed the Torah taught and God wanted, they were not united around specific beliefs and practices. Nevertheless, during the period between the First and Second Revolts (70–135
CE
) they apparently did work to establish greater harmony than they had prior to the First Revolt. For example, the houses of Hillel and Shammai appear now to be united. From their school in Jamnia, led by Jochanan ben Zakkai immediately after the revolt and then, from approximately 80 to 120, by Gamaliel II, their teachings spread gradually throughout Judea. Their establishment of a “house of judgment”
(bet din)
filled the gap left by the loss of the Sanhedrin. Meanwhile, other such centers developed, as at Tiberias.

Judaism thus continued, but in a much different form. Gone were the Temple, the power of the Sadducees, the challenge of the Essenes; only latent now were impulses toward political revolt. The Christian movement was increasingly turning toward the Gentile world, separating itself from both Jewish people and Jewish practice. The Diaspora communities continued, but they too faced religious changes occasioned by the loss of the Temple and political changes occasioned by the repercussions of the revolt. Yet through the teachings of the rabbis, the preservation of scripture, the ongoing practice of tradition, and continuing faith in God, Judaism would persevere.

Cohen, Shaye J. D.
From the Maccabees to the Mishna.
Library of Early Christian Classics, 7. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Accessible thematic guide to formative Judaism’s history, society, and politics, notable for discerning the unity among various religious expressions.

Goodman, Martin.
The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome
A.D
. 66–70.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Concise summary of the political, economic, and social issues leading to the First Revolt which posits the inability of the upper class to rule as a major cause of the unrest.

Grabbe, Lester L.
Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian: Sources, History, Synthesis.
Vol. 2,
The Roman Period.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Detailed, well-annotated study with excellent discussions of primary sources, a helpful time line, and a superb bibliography.

Horsley, Richard A.
Galilee: History, Politics, People.
Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995. A focused study, substantially informed by a social-scientific approach, on the effects of Roman rule on village culture and economics.

Jagersma, Henk.
A History of Israel from Alexander the Great to Bar Kochba.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. A concise, lucid summary of major political events.

Kraft, Robert, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds.
Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters.
Atlanta: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Essays on the literature, history, and religious beliefs and practices of Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Neusner, Jacob.
From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Systematic analysis of Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources accompanied by cogent warnings about how one does “history.”

Safrai, S., and M. Stern, eds.
The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. 2
vols. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974–76. Critical, accessible essays from American and Israeli scholars.

Saldarini, A. J.
Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach.
Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988. A well-balanced study informed by social-science methodology.

Sanders, E. P.
Judaism: Practice and Belief 63
BCE
-66
CE
.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1994. An attempt to define “common Judaism” as represented by personal and communal observances and views.

Schürer, Emil.
The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (175
B.C
.–
A.D
. 135).
Rev. by Geza Vermes et al. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87. Substantially updated version of a classic work.

Segal, Alan A. F.
Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986. Readable treatment of both religious movements as responses to similar social situations.

The Jesus Movement in the Roman World

DANIEL N. SCHOWALTER

T
he Jesus movement consisted at first of a small group of Jews who held the unorthodox view that their teacher was the expected Messiah of Jewish tradition. Few non-Jews would have understood the importance of this peculiar point of view or why it was contested so intensely. Certainly, most Romans would not have been able to distinguish between followers of Jesus and the other unusual groups within Judaism. Officials of the vast empire had little interest in making this distinction, caring only about collecting taxes and maintaining order. If social unrest arose out of this internal Jewish conflict, both sides were liable to punishment regardless of their perspective on Jesus.

In its earliest stages, few Romans would even have been aware of the Jesus movement. Had events veered only slightly, the movement might have remained a mere blip on history’s radar screen. Instead, it evolved into a system of belief and an ecclesiastical structure that would profoundly affect the Western world. This chapter covers the beginning of that evolution up until the middle of the second century
CE
. By then, many changes had occurred in the movement, and several characteristics of later Christianity had begun to develop.

By the middle of the second century, the majority of Jesus followers were non-Jews who were widely known as Christians. Although the title
Christ
(from the Greek for “anointed one,” translating the Hebrew
mashiah,
or “messiah”) had been incorporated into the group’s name, the original issue—whether Jesus was the Messiah/Christ—had become peripheral. Jesus was still referred to as Christ, but the term now served more as a surname than as a title. By the middle of the second century, the Christians stood apart from other sects within Judaism. They were increasingly
recognized and distrusted by Roman officials, who were prepared to suppress individuals and groups of believers, and to execute them when necessary.

How did the Jesus movement develop from an obscure Jewish sectarian group into an independent religion with a wide spectrum of followers and adversaries? The answers must rest on careful consideration of the religious, political, and social realities of the Roman world of the first century
CE
, along with the standard means of communication and expression in that world. Within the context of first-century society, one can examine the evidence for the evolution of the Jesus movement in the New Testament, as well as in early Christian writings outside the canon. These works provide information on how a variety of early believers in Jesus viewed the world around them and tried to respond to it.

The dominance of Christianity in later centuries makes it hard to comprehend how vulnerable these early groups of believers were. A tiny minority, they were surrounded by people who recognized a very different political, social, and religious reality—a reality based on the overwhelming power of imperial Rome.

Gaius Octavius Augustus Caesar, emperor and princeps of the Roman people, died in the forty-first year of his reign, at the age of seventy-six. In that same year, 14
CE,
Jesus son of Joseph was in his middle teens, past the age of maturity for a Jewish male of his time, and would have been fully engaged in his chosen career. Augustus had no reason to be aware of the existence of Jesus, but the latter would certainly have known about the great emperor. Coins commemorating the death of Augustus circulated in Galilee, where Jesus lived, and other coins, statues, official decrees, and even milestones provided a regular reminder that the Roman emperor was in control.

On the surface, Jesus and most other Jews in Palestine were numbered among the great majority of people in the empire who were subjugated by the Romans and either apathetic or antagonistic toward them. At a deeper level, however, no thinking person in the empire could ignore entirely the emperors and their representatives in the provinces. Even local officials might have seemed distant to an average resident of the empire, but these governors, generals, legates, and others had the authority to enact farreaching social and economic policies, not to mention life-and-death powers over individuals. Understanding the influence of Roman authority, even at the farthest extent of the empire, is essential to tracing the development of the Jesus movement. The basis for much of the power and influence of Rome in the first century
CE
was the long and eventful reign of Augustus Caesar—Julius Caesar’s grandnephew, originally named Octavian.

Julius Caesar had laid the foundations of Augustus’s empire. After successfully waging war in Gaul during the 50s
BCE
, Caesar was voted dictator for life over the expiring Roman republic in 49
BCE
. Despite his continuing military successes, Caesar’s opponents soon tired of his autocratic rulership and divine pretensions, and they assassinated him on the “Ides [15th] of March,” 44
BCE
.