Historical Background of the New Testament (Part 1): to the 4th Century BC

Every culture has been shaped by historical influences. The initial reading audience of each New Testament document would have been familiar with its own history, as well as current events. Assumptions and subtle allusions did not have to be explained to them. Because modern readers are otherwise groping in the dark, knowledge of the New Testament’s historical context is indispensable. 

Our focused investigation begins in the 4th century BC with the Hellenistic Age. From Alexander the Great (336 BC) to the Roman emperor Augustus (27 BC), Grecian influence was the predominant political and cultural force. This leads into the New Testament era, during and after which Rome is the controlling world power. The immediate foreground of the New Testament would extend at least to the second Jewish war with Rome in AD 132-135,¹ and even further into the 4th century to the time of Constantine, reportedly the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity.²

While the entirety of Hebrew scripture provides much of the New Testament’s historical background, there is a gap of over three centuries separating the respective eras of the Old and New Testaments. At the end of Old Testament history the Persian Empire is dominating the world scene,³ whereas New Testament history opens (and closes) with the dominion of the Roman Empire. In between these two periods – the Intertestamental Period⁴ – the immediate background of the New Testament develops, “an understanding of which is essential to a correct interpretation of the situation of the Jews in the time of Jesus. Religiously, Judaism was transformed into a set of beliefs and practices often quite different from Old Testament religion…. numerous events occurred that prepared the way for the first-century world to be more receptive to the message of the gospel than in many other periods in history” (C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels 10). 

Brief Historical Synopsis

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, having been born of woman, having been born under [the] law” (Gal. 4:4, author’s own translation). When New Testament history opens, the world scene in general and Judaism in particular are considerably different than where the Old Testament record leaves off. The nation of Israel had reached the height of its glory when David ruled as king (1010-970 BC) and on into the reign of his son Solomon (970-931 BC). Israel’s downfall ensued as the nation divided (931 BC), the northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians (722 BC), the southern kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians (597 BC), followed by seven decades of exile.⁵

The Persian Period

Also known as the Post-Exilic Period, concurrent with the end of Daniel’s life⁶ and the lives of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah, this segment of history covers about two centuries, from 539 to 331 BC. The dating in later Jewish writings coincides with the reigns of Persian kings (e.g. Dan. 1:21; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 1:1; Ezra 1:1; Neh. 2:1). 

Having conquered the Babylonians in 539 BC, Cyrus the Great permitted the Jews to return to their homeland (2 Chron. 36:20-23). Darius I came to the throne around 521 BC, and in his sixth year the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple was completed (Ezra 6:15). His son Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 BC) is believed to have been the Ahasuerus [Persian title] in the book of Esther (cf. Ezra 4:6; Dan. 11:2). After the failed attempt of his father to conquer Greece in 492-490 BC (ending at the Battle of Marathon), Xerxes I ordered the second Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC, during which the famous Battle of Thermopylae occurred where King Leonidas’ 300 Spartan soldiers fought to the death. The following year Grecian troops forced the retreat of the Persians. 

Artaxerxes I, the son of Xerxes I, ruled ca. 465-425 BC, and in his seventh year Ezra and other Jews moved from Babylon to Jerusalem to reform the Jewish state (Ezra 7:7). Nehemiah followed in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign to oversee the rebuilding of the city’s walls, and after a brief return to Babylon twelve years later, he moved back to Jerusalem to live out the rest of his days (Neh. 13:6). The last Persian king mentioned by name in the Hebrew scriptures is “Darius the Persian” (Neh. 12:22), which may refer to Artaxerxes’ successor Darius II (ca. 424-405 BC) or perhaps his great-grandson Darius III (ca. 336-330 BC),⁷ the last king of Persia, defeated by Alexander the Great in 331 BC, inaugurating a new age.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This was the third Jewish-Roman war if the revolt of 115-117 (Kitos War) is counted. Following the last rebellion, the Romans banned the Jews from Jerusalem.

    ² Galerius (305-311) continued his predecessors’ persecution of Christians for a time, but came to realize it accomplished no useful purpose and he issued the Edict of Toleration in 311. Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (a.k.a. Constantine I) was recognized as emperor of the western regions as early as 306 and reigned over the entire Empire from 324 to 337. He issued the Edict of Milan in 313, granting toleration to all religions and allowing Christianity the right to exist with provisions for restitution. “In the first twenty years of the fourth century the whole situation changed, as the Emperor Constantine (274-337) progressively showed himself favourable to the new religion, accepted it as the religion of the state, and as the last act of his life accepted Christian baptism at the hands of his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia” (S. Neill, History of Christian Missions 39). It has been estimated that the number of Christians in the Roman Empire at least quadrupled in the century following Constantine.

     ³ See 2 Chron. 36:20-23; Neh. 12:22. Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire in 550 BC and it continued until Alexander the Great defeated Darius III around 331 BC.

     ⁴ The description “Intertestamental” is a Christian designation based on the understanding of the New Testament as a collection of divinely inspired writings corresponding to the ancient Hebrew scriptures. Also called the Second Temple era – the period beginning with the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in the late 6th century BC and ending with its destruction in AD 70.

     ⁵ There were three major deportations into Babylonian exile: 597, 587, and 582 BC.

     ⁶ While Daniel’s prophetic career spanned the entire Babylonian exile (ca. 605-536 BC), he outlived the Babylonian Empire (Dan. 1:21; 10:1).

     ⁷ His original name appears to have been Artashata, but the Greeks called him Codomannus. He was the son of Arsames, son of Ostanes, son of Darius II.

Related Posts: Chronology of Postexilic Period BC, Study of Ancient History, Historical Background NT Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6 

Image credit: https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Old-books/299445/3396996/view

The Bible’s Radical View on Women

From her earliest days a girl in contemporary western society is bombarded with images, characterizations, advice, and expectations about how she’s supposed to look, think, and act. Of course we should all be aiming for mutual respect, fairness, and recognition of intrinsic value. But the ideology of gender equality, while reacting to woeful abuses, can veer to an unhealthy extreme. Fundamental differences between the sexes are now being blurred or denied. Masculinity is demonized, as militant feminism dictates popular opinion. 

In such an atmosphere the biblical model of gender roles is dismissed outright or modified to conform to modern sensibilities. Conservative Christian ideals are attacked and ridiculed as archaic and misogynistic. But may I suggest a more reasonable approach? What if we read the Bible in context? What if we consider the intended message of scripture? How would biblical directives have been received and understood by those to whom they were originally addressed? By removing our tainted 21st-century westernized spectacles and viewing scripture as the good news it was meant to be, we will have a much clearer perspective. 

The Context of the Bible 

The Bible emerged in an ancient Mediterranean environment. While its message is timeless, each inspired author through whom the divine will has been conveyed (and targeted audience) lived in a particular historical-sociocultural-real-life setting. To better appreciate the true state of affairs, we need to examine these teachings in view of the general plight of women in antiquity. 

The Greek Context

Among the Greeks, females were considered by nature inferior to males and hardly afforded any rights (see Aristotle, Politics 1.1259b). Since at least the early Classical period (5th century BC), boys attended school but girls did not. The “education” of females was pretty much limited to the home, where only domestic duties were learned.¹ Violence was endemic in Greek society, so men were valued as fighters. Women were valued for reproduction and as a means of demonstrating male control through physical abuse.²

The Roman Context

Since the early Roman Republic, a female was under the authority and control of her father or husband and deemed incapable of acting for herself. An educated woman was the exception rather than the rule.³ The choice of whether or not to have children was not hers to make, and the husband decided whether to keep or discard a newborn. Many baby girls were exposed to the elements simply because they couldn’t carry on the family name.⁴ A culture of violence against women was not uncommon in Rome, especially among those outside the socially elite.⁵

The Jewish Context

A very different scenario emerges in ancient Judaism, although we need to distinguish between what was taught in their sacred writings and what was sometimes practiced.⁶ Jewish law elevated women to a unique status. Any injustice, contempt, or maltreatment was contrary to and in violation of the divine will. Israelite women were not second-class citizens to be suppressed and victimized. Wives, mothers, and widows were to be honored, protected, and treated with dignity and respect (Ex. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; 10:18; 27:16; Psa. 146:9; Prov. 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; et al.). 

Sons and daughters alike were educated in their respective households (Deut. 6:6-7; 11:19). During and after the Babylonian exile, synagogues functioned as schools, where both boys and girls attended from age 5 or 6; girls continued until marriage at a relatively young age.⁷ Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a good example of an educated Jewish young lady. In her song recorded in Luke 1:46-55, she quotes and alludes to copious passages from all three sections of the Hebrew Bible. Thanks to the biblical knowledge and faith of a Jewish mother and grandmother, Timothy learned the holy scriptures from childhood (1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 1:5). 

The Christian Context

Although the pivotal value of honor vs. shame was firmly embedded in the male-dominated Greco-Roman world,⁸ the NT consistently challenges society’s status quo and reconfigures the boundaries of honor and shame. All who might be dishonored because of ethnicity, social standing, or gender can now be unashamed in Christ, where no one is considered inferior to anyone else (1 Cor. 12:12-27; Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:9-11). In this regard NT writers are seen as deviants and radicals, swimming against the current of popular culture. 

The “Controversial” Passages

Bible students and most Bible critics are familiar with the apostle Paul’s directives to the mid-1st-century church at Corinth: “the women are to keep silence in the assemblies, for it is not allowed for them to publicly speak but to be in submission … but if they desire to learn anything …” (1 Cor. 14:34-35a).⁹ A similar prohibition is included in Paul’s letter to the young evangelist in mid-1st-century Ephesus: “Let a woman learn in quietness, in all submissiveness. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Historically these passages have been interpreted in at least four different ways. (1) Paul is a confirmed chauvinistic woman-hater (John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism 100-101). (2) A pseudepigrapher is responsible for these non-Pauline texts (James Veitch, Faith for a New Age 165-66). (3) The directives are culturally limited and no longer relevant to modern times (Glenn Rogers, The Bible Culturally Speaking 196-214). (4) Distinct gender roles are divinely enjoined with ongoing applicability (F. LaGard Smith, Male Spiritual Leadership 252-64). 

A Contextual Approach

What would instructions like this have communicated to a Christian woman in mid-1st-century Corinth or Ephesus? Seeing that she would have heard the document read aloud in the corporate assembly, this in itself is quite remarkable. In the pagan world women were isolated from most public gatherings.¹⁰ In the fellowship of Jesus Christ they are welcomed into the church where social, ethnic, and gender differences remain, yet barriers are removed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2-11; 12:12-13; 14:23a; 15:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:1-2).

Modern readers, perhaps with embarrassment or consternation, tend to hone in on words like “silence,” “submission,” and “do not permit.” But in the 1st-century Greco-Roman environment of the early church, the same words would have seemed rather innocuous in relation to the radical appeal, “if they desire to learn anything …. let a woman learn …”¹¹ Talk about revolutionary! In their culture a woman wasn’t supposed to learn. Her intellectual capacity was questioned, educational prospects were rare, and she certainly wasn’t encouraged to pursue knowledge.¹² Contrary to the societal arena into which it entered, Christianity afforded women opportunities to learn and to be accepted (Acts 1:14; 2:41; 5:14; 8:12; 16:13-18; 17:4, 11-12, 34).

The Biblical Perspective

The Bible has consistently clashed with the secular world’s entrenched standards – past and present. The cultural pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, whereas the biblical model of male-female complementarity goes all the way back to creation and remains unchanged (Gen. 1:27; 2:18-23; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

According to God’s design, men and women are not the same. There are about 100 gender differences in the human brain,¹³ not to mention anatomical, emotional, and a host of other distinctions any married couple can verify. Neither gender is superior to the other (Gal. 3:28; 1 Pet. 3:7). Both are equally valued and mutually dependent (1 Cor. 11:11; 12:18-25). And the Creator has assigned each a specific role (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33). 

The “silence” enjoined on women in the church assembly is no more demeaning than the silence enjoined on male tongue-speakers and prophets in the same assembly (1 Cor. 14:27-35). The “submission” of women is no more oppressive or devaluing than Christ’s submission to the Father (Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Cor. 15:28), the church’s submission to Christ (Eph. 5:23-24), the submission of church members to local leaders (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-5), or our mutual submission to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3). 

The oft-cited examples of women serving the Lord (e.g. Luke 2:36-38; John 4:28-29; 20:1-2; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; Rom. 16:1-3; Phil. 4:2-3) are a far anachronistic cry from the modern concept of female authority figures. Christian activity is by no means limited to public leadership, and women are among the finest examples of faith, generosity, and service recorded in scripture.¹⁴ Men are not exempt from fulfilling their God-given role or from treating women with anything less than dignity, respect, and gratitude.

Conclusion

Suffice it to say that the true intent of any biblical text is rarely if ever discovered by agenda-driven hermeneutics. To claim the Bible is misogynistic and degrading toward women is to demonstrate ignorance of what it actually says in the context in which it is said. If scriptural teachings result in a woman experiencing shame, low self-esteem, or prideful envy, the Bible is not to blame. It is the ravenous influence of our sinful world that produces such a distorted perception. A godly woman with the Christ-like spirit of humility does not decry her gender assignment at birth or bemoan the special role God himself has allocated. Rather, she embraces her honored status and meekly devotes her unique qualities to HIS glory. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Aleksander Wolicki, “The Education of Women in Ancient Greece,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 305-320.

     ² Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, “Domestic Abuse and Violence Against Women in Ancient Greece,” in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S. Lambert (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011): 231-66.

     ³ William Smith, William Wayte, and G. E. Marindin, eds. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1890); E. A. Hemelrijk, “The Education of Women in Ancient Rome,” in A Companion to Ancient Education, ed. W. Martin Bloomer (W. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2015): 292-304.

     ⁴ Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did (New York: Oxford, 1988): 27-28.

     ⁵ Serena S. Witzke, “Violence Against Women in Ancient Rome: Ideology versus Reality,” in Topographies of Ancient Greek and Roman Violence, eds. Garrett G. Fagan and Werner Riess (University of Michigan Press, 2015): 248-74.

     ⁶ When divorce became prevalent among the Israelites (Deut. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), it was permitted only because of “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8), serving to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery (Deut. 24:1-4; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). In the Jewish Talmud, a written record of oral tradition, men offered the daily prayer: “Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave” (Menachot 43b-44a). But this is not biblical.

     ⁷ Note the Mishnah: Judah ben Tema, Avot 5.21.

     ⁸ Literature on this is plethoric. See, e.g., B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd ed. (Louiville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001): xii, 27-57; B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. J. H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991): 25-66; H. Moxnes, “The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995): 203-230; W. Mischke, “Honor-Status Reversal,” Orality Journal 4:1 (2015): 11-36.

     ⁹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, see Let the Women Keep Silent. For a more thorough discussion of 1 Tim. 2:11-12, see Jesus Couldn't Be a Priest.

     ¹⁰ A. Wolicki, op. cit. 310.

     ¹¹ Thanks to Derek McNamara for this insight at Freed-Hardeman University’s Scholars Day, 26 Oct. 2018. Craig L. Blomberg calls our attention to “what would have stood out to the initial readers as unique and therefore distinctively Christian. One thinks, for example, of the conventional commands to slaves, children, and women to submit to those in authority over them as compared with the highly countercultural calls to masters, fathers, and husbands to love and serve those under them and to use their authority in a sacrificial, self-giving way” (Handbook of NT Exegesis 104).

     ¹² See also Gary K. Clabaugh, “A History of Male Attitudes toward Educating Women,” Educational Horizons (Spring 2010): 166-69, <Link>; Mark Cartwright, “Women in Ancient Greece,” Ancient History Encyclopedia (27 July 2016), <Link>; Craig Keener, “Women’s Education and Public Speech in Antiquity,” JETS 50/4 (Dec. 2007): 747-50 <Link>. Keener observes, “men normally being more educated than women should be clear to anyone who reads through ancient literature and not just collections of exceptions” (748 n. 4).

     ¹³ Gregory L. Jantz, “Brain Differences Between Genders,” in Psychology Today (27 Feb. 2014), <Link>. See also Leonard Sax, "A New Study," in Psychology Today (27 March 2019), <Link>.

     ¹⁴ In the NT alone, see, e.g., Matt. 9:20-22; 15:22-28; 27:55-56; 28:1-10; Mark 12:41-44; 14:8-9; Luke 1:28-30; John 4:28-30, 39-42; Acts 1:14; 2:17-18; 5:14; 8:3, 12; 9:2, 36; 17:4, 12, 34; 17:11-12; 16:13-18, 40; 21:9; 22:4; Rom. 16:1-4, 6, 12; 1 Cor. 7:34; 11:5; Phil. 4:2-3; 1 Tim. 5:5, 10; 2 Tim. 1:5; Tit. 2:3; Heb. 11:11, 23, 31; 1 Pet. 3:3-5; 2 John 1. 

Related posts: A Woman's Service in the Church, Noah and Her Sisters, Sarah Andrews, Phoebe: Servant of the Church, Prisca & Aquilla, Andronicus & Junia(s) 

Related articles: Hans Fiene’s Toxic Masculinity; Wes McAdams’ People Demeaning Women; Helen Hennig's A high school student speaks out on feminism; Kyle Butt's Biblical View of Women; Tyler Boyd's Do Paul's Instructions Apply?; Patrick Swayne's Submission is a Two-Way Street, Jack Wilke's Misconception about Headship & Submission

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1276&bih=688&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=y650XJfDJvzI0PEP29Ot0A0&q=shocked+face&oq=shocked&gs_l=img.1.2.0i131i67j0j0i67j0l7.165515.167719..170573...0.0..0.157.1075.0j7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.d5Y6pTlncXU#imgrc=P47JdULKcjHHAM:

A Closer Look at Apparent Discrepancies Among the Gospels (Part 3)

The Anointing at Bethany 

A few days after Jesus arrived in Bethany, not long before his arrest and crucifixion, he was in the home of Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Lazarus and his sisters were also present, and Mary is identified as the one who anointed the Lord with very costly spikenard oil (John 12:1-8). According to Matthew and Mark, she anointed Jesus’ head (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:4), whereas John reports that she anointed his feet (John 12:3). 

Rather than an “either-or” discrepancy, the combined accounts provide a “both-and” narrative. As a sign of honor and/or blessing, the customary practice was to anoint the head (Psa. 23:5; 133:2; Luke 7:46; cf. Ex. 29:7; Lev. 8:12; 21:10), which Mary did as reported by Matthew and Mark. John, however, focuses on the extended act of humility and reverence in the anointing of the Lord’s feet (perhaps a prelude to 13:1-17), although the other writers also include a reference to his anointed “body” (Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Instead of merely reiterating the twice-documented, customary head-anointing in the earlier Gospels, John fills in the detail of the less conventional feet-anointing elsewhere unreported.¹

A similar account is found in Luke 7:36-50, but this appears to have involved a different woman on a different occasion in another place. In Luke’s record the host is Simon the Pharisee, not Simon the leper, living in Galilee instead of Judea, and the incident occurred about a year into Christ’s public ministry rather than at the end. In contrast to the subsequent event, Luke describes “a woman in the city who was a sinner,” shedding tears, kissing the Lord’s feet, and receiving forgiveness. Luke also reports the disgust of the homeowner, whereas the other occasion involved the indignation of the disciples (Judas in particular). 

Words Spoken from Heaven?

In Matthew’s record of Jesus’ baptism, the voice from heaven is quoted as saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Mark and Luke, however, record the statement as follows: “You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Was the voice speaking in the third person about Jesus, as Matthew reports, or in the second person to Jesus, as Mark and Luke report? 

Matthew’s account highlights the onlookers’ perspective, as they hear words of recognition and affirmation that Matthew’s Jewish readership needed to understand as well. The other accounts take notice of Christ’s vantage point, as he receives a message of support and reassurance. As Greek translations of what was probably spoken in Aramaic, the respective renderings capture the essence of what was said.

Order of the Lord’s Supper?

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, Matthew and Mark note that he first broke bread, followed by offering the cup of the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25). Luke, however, says Jesus took the cup first, then broke bread, followed by offering the cup again (Luke 22:14-20). 

Rather than being confused about how to observe the Lord’s Supper, we just need to consider the context. Jesus and his disciples lived under the Mosaic Law and faithfully observed its rituals and regulations. It was in the context of the Passover feast that Jesus instituted the sacred memorial of his impending death. According to the Mishnah (an ancient record of Jewish traditions), during the Passover meal celebrants were to drink four times from the cup (Pesahim 10.1). Whatever relevance this might have to the earthly life of Jesus,² it helps us realize that Luke simply provides additional information about the observance of a Jewish convention, whereas Matthew and Mark limit their focus to the Lord’s Supper itself.

In 1 Cor. 11:23-26, long after Jewish feasts were rendered obsolete under Christ’s new covenant (cf. Gal. 4:9-11), Paul delivers to his Christian readers what he had received from the Lord concerning the bread and cup, eliminating potential confusion.³  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See The Triumphal Entry. 

     ² “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).

     ³ See The Frequency of the Lord's Supper.

Related Posts: Apparent Discrepancies Part 1, Part 2, Synoptic Confusion

Image credit: https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonsensechristianity/2014/11/questioning-convention-its-part-of-growth.html