Historical Background of the New Testament (Part 5): Jewish Subgroups

It would be incorrect to speak of “normative Judaism” in the New Testament era, as though it had a singular, homogeneous expression. The diverse and complex nature of 1st-century Judaism is evidenced by its various subgroupings.

The Pharisees. The name “Pharisees” comes from a Semitic root meaning “the separated ones, separatists …. It was the purpose of the Pharisees to take the pattern of the pious Israelite as established by the scribes, and to put it into practice as nearly as possible” (BAGD 853). The Pharisees arose during the Intertestamental Period presumably as the Hasidim, the orthodox Jews who emphasized religious purity in opposition to the Hellenizers and later the Hasmoneans.¹ They were a prominent sect who exercised significant influence among the people of Israel during the time of Christ and his apostles. They are probably best remembered for their antagonism against Jesus, although not all Pharisees or pharisaic tendencies were bad. Since they correctly acknowledged God’s power to raise the dead (Acts 23:6-8; 26:5-7), they were prime candidates for the gospel. Many of them did become Christians (Acts 2:41; 15:5), the most notable of whom was Paul of Tarsus (Acts 23:6; 26:5).

The Sadducees. The designation “Sadducee” may be derived from the name Zadok, who served as high priest when the first temple was built and whose descendants maintained this office until just before the Maccabean revolt.² During the Post-Exilic Period the center of Jewish society was the Jerusalem temple, controlled by the priests with the high priest recognized as the primary authority figure. From the 2nd century BC until the temple was destroyed in AD 70, the priestly sect of the Sadducees was among the upper echelons of Jewish society and often viewed as corrupt (cf. John 19:15). Their rejection of oral tradition and the doctrines of resurrection, angels, and spirits (Acts 23:8; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1.4) distinguished them from the Pharisees. Yet in the early years of the Christian movement, “the word of God increased and the number of disciples in Jerusalem greatly multiplied, and a considerable number of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7, author’s own translation). After the temple was destroyed, the Sadducees dwindled to the point of insignificance (not even mentioned in John’s Gospel). 

The Essenes. This group is not mentioned in the New Testament, having no direct involvement with Jesus or the early church, whereas Josephus writes more about them than any other Jewish sect (Ant. 13.5.9; 18.1.4-5; War 2.8.2-13). The Essenes were a relatively small isolationist community of ascetics, apparently disillusioned by the corruption and disunity they observed among their fellow Jews following the Maccabean revolution. Some scholars contend that the Qumran community who preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls was a branch of this sect. 

The Hellenists. The designation “Hellenist” (Greek hellēnistēs) is similar to the words hellēnos (Greek person) and hellēnikos (Greek language), generally referring to a Jew who settled in another country and adopted the Greek language and culture (cf. Acts 9:29; 11:20); sometimes rendered “Grecian” (KJV). Even though tensions between the more traditional Jews and the more Hellenized Jews seem to have persisted in the 1st century AD (cf. Acts 6:1), the two were inextricably blended together and not as compartmentalized as we might assume (cf. Acts 6:9, 12; 9:28-29). Hellenism “was more a matter of degree than something providing a difference in substance between ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Palestinian’ Judaism” (E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity [3rd ed.] 428).

The Scribes. The Greek term grammateús generally refers to a man of learning and stems from the noun grámma in reference to something written. In secular usage a scribe was a secretary or recorder (Esth. 3:12; 8:9; Acts 19:35), but among the Jews he was someone devoted to the Mosaic Law and recognized as an expert, a scholar, an esteemed interpreter and teacher. The key function of the earliest Hebrew scribes was writing (Jer. 36:32; 52:25), but later interpreting and teaching (1 Chron. 27:32; Ezra 7:6, 11). In the New Testament many Jewish scribes were Pharisees or at least closely linked with them,³ but also associated with the chief priests and/or elders.⁴ Despite being highly esteemed among the Jewish people, they were no match for the insight and teaching ability of Jesus and were often rebuked by him.⁵ Nevertheless, there were scribes who were useful in the Lord’s service (Matt. 13:51-52; 23:34). 

The Rabbis. The word “rabbi” is of Hebrew origin, essentially meaning “master” and used as an honorary title for “teacher” (see Education of Jesus the Rabbi). The rabbinic tradition developed along with the Pharisee movement, as learned men collaborated to standardize the written and oral laws of the Jewish people. The first usage of the term in the Mishnah (oral traditions put into writing) is in reference to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai (d. AD 90), a staunch opponent of the Sadducees in the early-to-mid-1st century AD. It has been alleged that the title “rabbi” was not commonly used prior to AD 70 (cf. A. A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the NT World 33). However, C. Hezer argues that the editors of the Mishnah avoided using the term to give the impression that the highly respected R. Yohanan ben Zakkai initiated the rabbinic movement (Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement 64). The New Testament record indicates that the expression was not uncommon in the first half of the 1st century AD (see Matt. 23:7, 8; 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38-39, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 14:45). After the temple’s destruction in AD 70, rabbinic scholars saw the need to codify their opinions and teachings, eventually producing the Talmud.⁶

The Chief Priests. In the Old Testament there was only one chief priest, viz. the high priest (Lev. 21:10; 2 Chron. 19:11; 24:6, 11; 31:10; Ezra 7:5). But in the New Testament we read of multiple “chief priests” [archiereîs] (Matt. 2:4; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15) distinct from the high priest (Matt. 26:3, 57-59). Obviously recognized as authority figures among the Jewish people in Jerusalem, they may have been leaders of the priestly classes responsible for temple services (cf. Luke 1:9; 22:4, 52; Acts 4:1; 5:24), or more likely prominent representatives of priestly households, including former high priests and members of the high priest’s family (Acts 4:5-6; cf. Josephus, Vita 38).

The Zealots (see Ancient Terrorists). Corresponding to the Hebrew kanai and the Aramaic kananitēs, the Greek term zēlōtēs refers to one who is eagerly desirous or devoted or zealous. When Judea was established as a Roman province in AD 6 and forced to pay taxes to the Romans, the Jewish people begrudgingly transitioned from an autonomous nation to the occupation and control of a foreign power. It was in this context that the Zealot movement was born, similar to the Maccabean revolt of the 2nd century BC. Evidently the celebrated victories of Judas Maccabeus were still fresh on their minds, with the annual observances of Hanukkah and the Day of Nicanor (cf. John 10:22; 1 Macc. 4:36-59; 7:39-50; 2 Macc. 1:18-36; 10:1-8; Josephus, Ant. 12.5–13.7; War 1.3-6). Some historians classify the Zealots as a separate Jewish sect, whereas others consider them to have been an extreme wing of the Pharisees.⁷ They were zealous for Jewish sovereignty, promoted insurrection and violence against the pagan occupiers, and engaged in assassinations and armed conflict. It was in this environment that Jesus said, “but from the days of John the baptizer until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent forcefully seize it” (Matt. 11:12). Barabbas, who was pardoned from execution instead of Jesus, appears to have been one of these political extremists; he and his fellow rebels “had committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7; cf. Luke 23:19, 25). Luke explicitly labels one of the Lord’s personal disciples as “the zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Others involved in this movement were Theudas, Judas of Galilee, and an unnamed Egyptian (Acts 5:36-37; 21:38). Saul of Tarsus maliciously targeted Jewish Christians whom he considered apostates from the Jewish faith (Acts 8:1; 9:1, 21; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:10; etc.). In the Greek text of Acts 22:3, as Paul recounts his violent past, the noun form is used to identify him as “a zealot” of God. Also, in Gal. 1:14 Paul again employs the noun form to describe his former activity in Judaism as “a zealot.” The Zealots were responsible for instigating the Jewish revolt of AD 66, provoking the brutal response of the Romans that resulted in the demolition of the Jewish temple and city of Jerusalem in AD 70. 

The Herods. Since the Babylonian conquest of Judah in the 6th century BC, the southern territory had been inhabited by the Idumeans (a.k.a. Edomites), descendants of Jacob’s brother Esau (Gen. 36:9). Idumea was conquered by Judas Maccabeus in 163 BC and reclaimed by his nephew John Hyrcanus in 125 BC, who then forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism. When Rome started making inroads into the region, the Idumeans readily accepted Roman sovereignty. Antipater, a Judaized Idumean loyal to Rome, was named governor of Judea, and his son Herod the Great was appointed by the Roman Senate as Judea’s king in 37 BC, reigning as a friend of Rome until his death in 4 BC. He married Mariamne of the Hasmonean family to bolster favorability among the Jewish elite, and he was the recognized “king of the Jews” when Jesus was born (Matt. 2:1). After Herod’s death his kingdom was divided among three of his sons: (1) Archelaus became ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (Matt. 2:22) but was replaced by a Roman prefect in AD 6; (2) Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea throughout Jesus’ childhood and adulthood, reigning until AD 39; (3) Philip II was tetrarch of the northern Hellenistic territories, including Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13) and Bethsaida (John 1:44), until his death in AD 34. Herod the Great’s grandson Agrippa I (son of Aristobulus IV) was given control of the tetrarchies of his uncles Philip and Antipas, then Judea and Samaria, and ruled as king until his death in AD 44 (Acts 12:1-23). His domain was then administered by Roman procurators until his son Agrippa II, brother of Drusilla (Acts 24:24) and Bernice (Acts 25:13, 23), was old enough to be appointed over the northern regions, including parts of Galilee and Perea (Acts 25:13–26:32). He reigned until AD 93.

The Herodians. As the Zealots were resisting Roman occupation, the Herodians found it more advantageous to collaborate with the Romans. They appear to have been political supporters of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Jesus and his followers raised their suspicions as a possible threat to the political stability of the region. The Herodians plotted with the Pharisees against Jesus (Mark 3:6), and on one occasion attempted to entrap him by asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; cf. Luke 20:20-26). The anticipated response had the potential of inciting the wrath of the hostile Zealots, on one hand, or the fury of the Romans, on the other. The wife of Chuza, a household manager of Herod Antipas, financially supported Christ’s ministry (Luke 8:1-3). 

The Samaritans. In 722 BC the Assyrians conquered and exiled the northern kingdom of Israel, and the land was repopulated with pagans from various Gentile nations (2 Kgs. 17:5-24). An Israelite priest was repatriated to teach them how to worship the God of Israel (vv. 27-28), and the intermingling of these new settlers with a remnant of the former populace resulted in what came to be known as the Samaritan race (vv. 29-41; cf. Ezra 4:2). 
When the Jewish people returned from Babylonian exile, there was instant hostility with the local Samaritans that continued for centuries (Ezra 4:1-6; John 4:29; 8:48). During Hasmonean rule Samaria was devastated by Jewish armies (Josephus, Ant. 13.10.2). Jesus very much disrupted the status quo by traveling through Samaria and interacting with the locals (Luke 9:52; John 4:4-43), providing healing (Luke 17:11-16), and making a Samaritan the hero of one of his parables (Luke 10:30-36). Once the Lord’s church was established in Judea, Samaria was the first mission field (Acts 1:8; 8:1-5; 9:31).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The first time the name “Pharisee” occurs is when John Hyrcanus I persecuted them due to their resistance to Hasmonean rule (Josephus, Ant. 13.171-72). It has thus been proposed that the designation “Pharisees” (meaning “separatists”) is to be traced back to their official break from the Hasmoneans at this time (see F. F. Bruce, NT History 71).

     ² A reasonable proposal is that the name was coined by the Hasidim and eventually became “a party name applied to all the aristocratic circles connected with the high priests by marriage and other social relations …. The party name was retained long after the Zadokite high priests had made way for the Hasmonean house and the very origin of the name had been forgotten” (K. Kohler, s.v. “Sadducees,” Jewish Encyclopedia); cf. Josephus, War 2.8.14; Ant. 13.10.6. The designation first appears during the time of John Hyrcanus and could be a transliteration of the Greek sundikoi (“council members”), as they were advisors to the Hasmonean rulers (T. W. Manson, “Sadducees and Pharisees” 144-159).

     ³ See esp. Mark 2:16[NA/UBS]; Luke 5:30; Acts 23:9; cp. Matt. 12:24/ Mark 3:22. See also Matt. 5:20; 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13-15, 23-29; Mark 7:1-5; Luke 5:21, 30; 6:7; 9:22; 11:53; 15:2; John 8:3; Acts 23:9.

     ⁴ Matt. 2:4; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15; 26:57; 27:41; Mark 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31; Luke 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 66; 23:10; Acts 4:5; 6:12.

     ⁵ Matt. 7:29; 8:19; 9:3-4; 17:10; Mark 1:22; 2:6-8; 9:11, 14-15; 12:28, 32, 35; Luke 20:39. N.B. Matt. 23:13-29; Mark 12:38-40; Luke 20:46.

     ⁶ The Talmud (meaning “instruction” or “learning”) is a collection of writings in two versions (Talmudim–Jerusalem and Babylonian) consisting of the Mishnah (oral traditions written down) and the Gemara (commentary), containing the teachings of thousands of rabbis from before the time of Christ to the 5th century AD. “This literature must be read with discernment since it does not always reflect perspectives contemporary with NT times; nonetheless, it provides a wealth of material useful in interpreting various NT texts” (J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald, The NT World 4).

     ⁷ Another suggestion is that the idea of a separate, organized group of rebels was invented by Josephus in order to divert the hostile attention of the Romans away from the general Jewish populace (see M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” HTR 64.1 [1971]: 5). There is little evidence of the Zealots as an organized group prior to the revolt of AD 66. See Josephus, War 4.129-62.

Related Posts: Historical Background NT Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 6

Image credit: http://www.crystalinks.com/judaism.html

Does the Bible condone sexual assault and rape?

With eager attempts to discredit the Bible’s integrity, critics have included in their attacks the outrageous claim that the scriptures endorse and even promote immoral behaviors like sexual assault and rape. Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse have written: “Rape is endemic in the Bible (both literally and metaphorically) and, more often than not, functions as a conduit for male competition and a tool to uphold patriarchy.”¹ Michael Martin states further, “To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible. However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for the victim's welfare.”²

Before we address specific charges, let’s note some basic interpretive guidelines. 

1. To determine the true state of affairs, key contextual and translational matters cannot be avoided. It is a fundamental error to limit one’s investigation of the Bible to a particular English translation, scrutinized from a present-day westernized perspective and postmodern agenda. Failure to take into account the original historical, linguistic, literary, and sociocultural contexts invariably results in misconstruing just about anything the Bible says. 

2. Objectivity and fairness demand gathering all relevant information that would help explain or qualify any given issue, rather than isolating a single text or a select handful of texts to reinforce predetermined conclusions. On any question, we ought to determine the Bible’s overall message and interpret seemingly anomalous passages accordingly.

3. Scriptures that are misused because of contextual disregard should be eliminated from the trumped-up indictment. For example, Judges 5:30 is not a divine endorsement but descriptive of Canaanite pillaging. The account in Judges 21:10-24 was not a scheme devised by God but by wayward Israelites, as “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (v. 25, NKJV).

4. The historical-cultural settings of biblical stories and directives must be understood in light of and in contrast to the pagan surroundings, particularly with regard to the pervasive maltreatment of women. Critics are quick to ridicule and condemn just about anything in the Bible that does not conform to modern-day sensibilities, while hardly noticing the brutality, repression, and immorality of contemporaneous cultures.

5. As human wickedness is exposed in the biblical narratives, sexual harassment and assault are not restricted to female victims (Gen. 19:4-9, 32-35; 39:7-16; Judg. 19:22-23). 

What the Bible Says About Sexual Abuse

Accounts of rape are reported in Genesis 34:1-7; Judges 19:22–20:5; and 2 Samuel 13:1-22, each depicted as a heinous crime. The absence of God is something all these stories share in common, occasioned by the persistent abandonment of his moral code. Conversely, scripture reveals that God’s desire for his people is sanctification, to abstain from sexual immorality, to control our bodies in holiness and honor rather than passion of lust like those who do not know God (1 Thess. 4:1-7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 5:1-5).

What About Captives of War?

In Numbers 31, after defeating the Midianites in war, Moses allowed the Israelite men to keep for themselves 32,000 Midianite virgins (vv. 18, 35). When critics describe these women as “sex slaves” and cite this passage as an alleged sanction of “rape,” they are demonstrating prejudicial ignorance. In a cultural environment where marriages were formed as socioeconomic arrangements (like most nonwestern cultures throughout history), to expect the modern concept of fairy-tale romance is incredibly naïve. Detractors seem oblivious to the moral depravity of the Midianites (Num. 25:1-3, 18; 31:16; cf. Judg. 6:1-7) and know nothing of the condition or the plight of these women before Israelite intervention. Compared to typical ravages of war, and in contrast to the ruthless societies surrounding them, the Jews had strict laws for how captives were to be treated, particularly a marriageable woman (Deut. 21:10-14): “you shall not mistreat her” (v. 14, NASB).

The Golden Proof-Text

The 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy lists various laws concerning sexual misconduct, including consensual relations and rape. When both parties consent to an adulterous affair or show no restraint in a sordid rendezvous involving a betrothed woman, neither is free of guilt and both are punished accordingly (vv. 22-24). On the other hand, when a woman resists a sexual aggressor and gives no consent, only the rapist is held accountable (vv. 25-27). 

The main point of contention concerns the next two verses. A straightforward translation of vv. 28-29 reads as follows: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days” (ASV). However, the passage reads much differently when English translators submit more interpretive renderings, like “seizes her” (ESV, ISV, NASB, N/RSV), “forces her to have sex with him” (CEV), “rapes her” (CSB, GW, ISV, NIV), “overpowers her and rapes her” (NET). Of course Bible critics exploit these versions to bolster their claim that the Bible endorses the victimization of women. But let us not forget that the Bible was not originally written in English, and the original texts could readily assume the targeted reading audience was already familiar with the cases described therein.

The Hebrew verb שָׁכַב [shakab] simply means to “lie down” (Ezek. 4:4, 6), while most often used idiomatically with varying nuances, including to “sleep” (Gen. 19:4; 28:11; Lev. 14:27), to “die” (Gen. 47:30; Judg. 5:27; Lam. 2:21), and to “have sexual relations” (Lev. 15:18, 24). In the latter case, the context must determine whether the intercourse is consensual (e.g. Gen. 30:15-16; Deut. 22:22; 2 Sam. 11:11) or not (e.g. Gen. 34:2-7; 39:14; Deut. 22:25; 28:30; 2 Sam. 13:14).

In the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22, a rapist is to be put to death (v. 25). Yet a few verses later, a man “takes hold of” [תָּפַשׂ taphas, cf. 9:17; 21:19] a young woman who is not betrothed and “lies with” [שָׁכַב shakab, cf. 22:22] her, and then they are “found out” [מָצָא matsa, cf. 22:22]. Mutual consent is implied as no death penalty is enjoined, and the man is obligated to pay the dowry or bride-price (cf. Ex. 22:16-17).

Conclusion

If the Bible does in fact condone, endorse, and promote sexual assault, you would think Bible-believers would be condoning, endorsing, and promoting sexual assault! Apparently those of us who take the Bible seriously and study it diligently know more about its message than those who harbor a predisposition against it. Selectively reading the Bible to expose what appears to be its worst parts, while ignoring qualifying information that would expose the fallacy of this approach, is negligent at best and deceitful at worst.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Katie Edwards and Emma Nagouse, “How the Bible shapes contemporary attitudes to rape and sexual assault,” The Conversation (2 May 2017), <Link>.

     ² Michael Martin, “Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape,” The Secular Web (1997), <Link>.

*See Sandra L. Richter, "Rape in Israel's World ... And Ours: A Study of Deuteronomy 22:23-29," JETS 64.1 (2021):59-76. Richter concludes, "within its societal context, the laws of Deuteronomy did indeed protect women, often more effectively than surrounding law codes, and perhaps more effectively than modern legal systems."

Related Posts: The Bible's Radical View on Women, Was Polygamy Acceptable?

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1278&bih=689&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hgfJXJnODaac0gK3r7PICQ&q=shocked&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.12..35i39l2j0i67j0l4j0i67l3.116924.119849..122015...0.0..0.168.1132.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.aXDH54fHEVo#imgrc=HkHUQWzt2zx80M:

Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 2 of 2)

Continuing from our previous post, British writer Sam Woolfe maintains that the biblical account of Jesus’ life is not original, “probably the story which actually has the most parallels with other religions,” representing “the archetypal story of the archetypal hero.”¹ As evidence Woolfe points to Peter Joseph’s conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist, even though Woolfe admits the film contains factual errors and overstates comparisons “in order to support his conspiracy theory.” Nonetheless, Woofe insists “there are still similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions.” He particularly notes the “dying-and-returning-god” pattern of various myths, particularly Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, and Krishna, concluding this “suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.”

An Open-and-Shut Case?

The idea of an ancient “dying-and-returning god” archetype comes from Sir James George Frazer’s 1890 The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. However, subsequent scholarship has proven the claim to be farcical. These so-called dying (or disappearing) and returning gods of ancient mythology are actually accounts of deities that died and did not return, or deities that returned but had not died. “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”²

The same would apply to the alleged pagan origins of the virgin-birth narrative in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.³ Reputable scholarship avoids such erroneous claims, even among liberal critics who deny the historicity of Christ’s virgin birth.⁴ One such scholar, Thomas Boslooper, writes: “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.”⁵

Did Jesus Plagiarize His Teachings?

Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NKJV). It has been purported that he or his followers plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis.⁶ But the statement, which is merely a tiny segment of an extensive discourse, is noticeably different from the prevailing ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) or the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” Beyond a presumed maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator, and irrespective of the fact that Jesus is the first on record to express the positive and active form of the principle, he also cited “the Law and the Prophets,” which predate these eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. Critics are assuming their conclusion to be true without proof.

Let’s Be Honest

When deceptive ploys, whether intentional or not, are used to challenge the Bible’s integrity, this ought to have the opposite effect once exposed. Secondary sources are not always credible. The popular charge that biblical writers borrowed from pagan mythology tends to be “characterized by brief word, phrase and sentence quotations that have been lifted out of context or incorrectly translated and used to support preconceived theories. Sweeping generalizations based on questionable evidence have become dogmatic conclusions that cannot be substantiated on the basis of careful investigation.”⁷

Commonsense Observations⁸

1. There is nothing unusual or suspect about any ancient record corresponding to the environment in which it emerged. There are only so many options available. Linguistic, historical, and cultural parallels can often confirm the realism and credence of biblical narratives but do not necessarily prove borrowing in any direction.

2. If something is historically true, it is not unprecedented to find similar reports in multiple accounts, albeit with variations developing over time. The prospect of different versions sharing a common historical core does not constitute anyone copying from anyone else.

3. When direct dependence can be established (e.g. quotes and illustrations), it is important to consider the nature of the usage and how it either affects or does not affect the matter at hand. Long before the modern copyright mentality, ancient authors could reasonably expect their contemporary readers to recognize well-known allusions and quoted materials.

4. If borrowing did occur yet historical positioning is overlooked, or if the dating of a presumed source is tentative or inaccurate, the Bible may have been the original source rather than vice versa.⁹ This would also include oral traditions that predate written texts.

5. Biblical documents were written by multiple authors for particular reading audiences at various times in different environments addressing a variety of issues. Effective communication naturally involves the employment of images and terminology intelligible and meaningful to the targeted audience (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22).

6. Apparent similarities do not override or discount significant differences. The uniqueness of the biblical record must still be accounted for.

7. When alleged parallels are artificial, exaggerated, and distorted, preconceptions may appear to be bolstered but the pursuit of truth is disrupted. 

Concluding Remarks

It is helpful to remember, “though the Bible arose in the ancient world, it was not entirely of it; though its history and its people resemble those of the surrounding nations, yet it radiates an atmosphere, a spirit, a faith far more profound than, and radically different from, that of any other ancient literature.”¹⁰ May we approach the biblical text, if not with eagerness to learn, at least with honesty and fairness.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (London: Macmillan, 1987): 4:521-27. This would apply to all the deities Woolfe has listed, including Osiris, the Egyptian patron of the dead, who was reportedly murdered by his brother but then brought back to life by Isis. This “rebirth” enabled him to be lord of the underworld in the afterlife, since he could no longer rule the world of the living. Ancient Egyptians considered various facets of reality but did not envision a resurrection in this world (see Ogden Goeler, “Commentary,” in The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth By Day, The Complete Papyrus of Ani, ed. Eva von Dasso [San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994]: 153). See also Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperCollins, 2012); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “The ‘Dying and Rising God’: A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts,” eds. B. F. Bernard and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 373-86.

     ³ Walter Bundy opines, “The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan, and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels” (Jesus and the First Three Gospels [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955]: 11).

     ⁴ See Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), who attributes the virgin-birth story to the influence of Philo’s allegorical method on Hellenistic Jewish Christianity. Also James Veitch, The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth? (Wellington: St Andrew’s Trust, 1997), who surmises that Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives were derived from stories in the Hebrew Bible.

     ⁵ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.136. Reginald H. Fuller, in his critical review of Boslooper’s work, states: “In an amazingly comprehensive historical survey of the doctrine from its first appearance in the infancy narratives to the later phases of biblical criticism, the author offers at every point shrewd and penetrating judgments. The historical survey in itself makes the work invaluable” (The Journal of Religion 43:3 [July 1963]: 254-55). Louis Matthews Sweet observes: “After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births” (The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1906]: 188).

     ⁶ This is ranked # 1 among Melloson Allen’s “10 Influences on the Bible,” in Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014).

     ⁷ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.135.

     ⁸ See Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003): 1-4.

     ⁹ For example, Apollonius of Tyana (AD 15-100) was a philosopher and mystic, and his biographer Philostratus (ca. 172-250) claims he performed miracles like Jesus (Life of Apollonius 3.38-39); by the late 2nd century he had become a cult figure rivaling Jesus. However, these stories “are at several points obviously influenced by stories about Jesus, not the other way around” (Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998]: 131).

     ¹⁰ G. Ernest Wright, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962): xi.

Related Posts: Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths? (Part 1), The Study of Ancient History, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Related articles and videos: Dewayne Bryant, Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?

Image credit: http://www.featheredprop.com/did-christianity-borrow-from-other-religions/