The Roman governor at the time (6–9 CE), Coponius, faced additional problems. According to Josephus, during this time a group of Samaritans entered the Temple during the Passover celebration and profaned its sanctity by scattering human bones. This is one of many episodes that testifies to the enmity between Samaritans and Jews; the phrase “good Samaritan,” based on the parable of Jesus in Luke 10.30–37, would have seemed to most Jews an oxymoron.
Meanwhile, in Galilee, Antipas was continuing the building practices of his father, Herod the Great, by creating the city of Tiberias in honor of Augustus’s successor, Tiberius. Like his father, Antipas also faced problems within his own household: rejecting his wife, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, the tetrarch married Herodias, the sister of Agrippa I. This did not please the Nabateans, who successfully battled Antipas’s troops. Nor, according to the Gospels, did it please John the Baptist, a Jewish prophet who condemned the remarriage as a violation of biblical law, for Herodias had been the wife of Antipas’s half brother Herod. (She was not, contrary to Mark 6.17, the wife of Philip; he was married instead to Herodias’s daughter, Salome.)
As both popular leader and political prophet, John presented a danger to Antipas. According to the authors of the Gospels, he was beheaded at the instigation of Herodias and her daughter. Josephus confirms the execution, but not the Gospel story of the daughter’s dance, the silver platter, or the condemnation of the marriage. According to Josephus, John the Baptist was killed because his enormous popular support threatened Herod’s rule. He states that John was a pious man who immersed Jews “for the purification of the body when the soul had previously been cleansed by righteous conduct. Others joined crowds about him because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons…. His eloquence had so great an effect on the people that it might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did”(Antiquities 18.5.2).
Following the death of Tiberius in 37 CE and in light of the subsequent friendship of Herod Agrippa with Gaius Caligula, Antipas fell out of favor with Rome. In 39, the emperor banished him to Gaul, or possibly Spain, where he was accompanied by Herodias.
Philip, the third brother, inherited a region populated almost entirely by non-Jews. Thus the particular problems caused by conflicting cultural and religious norms that brought unrest to the rules of Archelaus and Antipas did not affect him. Continuing the family’s interest in reconstruction, Philip rebuilt the city of Panias near the head of the Jordan River and renamed it Caesarea Philippi; here, according to the Gospels, Peter confessed Jesus to be the Messiah (Mark 8; Matt. 16). Upon Philip’s death, his territory was annexed to Syria.
The extent to which various members of the population resisted Roman occupation and colonialism is unclear. The overarching power of the empire, while antithetical to the sensibilities of Jews like Judas the Galilean, was to some extent buffered by the continuing role of the Herodian household, now represented in Rome by Herod’s grandson Agrippa I (called Herod Agrippa in Acts 12), and his son, Agrippa II. The relatively homogeneous population, as well as the lack of strong, consistent policies either from the procurator’s palace at Caesarea or from the imperial throne itself, also limited Roman oppressiveness. Between the death of Augustus and the First Jewish Revolt of 66 CE, Rome was ruled by Tiberius (14–37), Gaius Caligula (37–41), Claudius (41–54), and Nero (54–68). It is not known how often Jews came in direct contact with representatives of Rome; the experiences of the metropolitan population of Caesarea would have been different from that of residents of a village like Nazareth. Also unknown is the extent to which various Roman social services, such as fighting bandits, building roads, and constructing aqueducts, might have been appreciated. But for many the financial drain of Roman exactions substantially outweighed the benefits of these services.
When the situation did become intolerable, either the governor would be recalled by the emperor or the emperor himself would be involuntarily recalled to his ancestors. The ineptitude, if not the sheer malevolence, of the governors is epitomized by their most famous representative, Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE), who deliberately provoked the local population by bringing Roman shields, probably decorated with images of the emperor, into Jerusalem. The population protested the action by baring their throats to the soldiers; rather than risk a bloodbath, Pilate sent the standards back to Caesarea. But his problems with the locals continued. Attempting to raid the Temple treasury for funds to construct an aqueduct in Jerusalem, Pilate provoked another protest that ended when he sent his soldiers into the unarmed crowd, massacring them.
Pilate’s difficulties, and those of other Roman officials, were not only with Jewish groups. In 36, Pilate learned of a Samaritan prophet who promised his people that he would show them the vessels of the wilderness tabernacle; local tradition taught that the sacred implements were buried somewhere on Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritan temple had stood. Pilate sent his troops to intercept the crowd, even though the people involved may not have had revolutionary goals. When the news of the Roman attack reached Vitellius, Pilate’s superior in Syria, the governor was finally, after ten years of hatred by and for the local population, recalled. His replacements, Marcellus (36–37) and Marullus (37–41), did little to appease the Jewish population but also little to antagonize them.
During Roman rule, heavy taxation and the economic stratification of rich and poor intensified. Under the authority of the procurators, the Sanhedrin was responsible for collecting taxes on agricultural produce, which had been paid since 63 BCE, and the poll tax, which began in 6 CE after the annexation of Judea and Samaria. This latter tax is probably referred to in the question put to Jesus: Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar? Jesus’ answer, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12.17), is, perhaps characteristically, ambiguous: either pay the tax, the traditional interpretation, or do precisely the opposite, if one assumes that all things belong to God.
The contradictory interpretations of Jesus’ answer reveal the contradictory ways that taxation was viewed by the local populations. For the rich and for the tax collector, it was, respectively, tolerable and possibly lucrative, if socially unacceptable; for the poor, it was, well, taxing. Tolls, a second form of tribute, were levied on imports and exports, and for the use of roads, ports, and markets. To collect funds, the Romans contracted with wealthy locals, who in turn subcontracted to tax collectors. Condemned by the population as agents of an oppressive government, liable to corruption, and badly paid as well, the tax collector—the “publican” of the King James Version—was generally despised. Compounding his problems was the system itself: given the siphoning of funds by various Roman officials, more taxes had to be collected than what imperial records mandated, simply to meet demands.
Social Movements
As taxation increasingly oppressed ordinary people, and as famine and drought reduced substantial portions of the population to poverty, the wealthy—including many members of the high priestly families—were filling their own coffers. Meanwhile farmers, forced to sell their land at reduced prices, found themselves reduced to tenant laborers often working for absentee landlords. The landlords themselves had substantial representation among the high priestly families. Worse was the situation of the day laborer, and worse still that of individuals forced to sell themselves or their relations into slavery in order to pay their debts. Unemployment in some areas ran high, and beggars were common sights.
Between laborers and landowners came a social stratum of artisans and traders. Neither impoverished nor financially secure, this middle stratum—members of the retainer class, scribes, minor priests, small farmers, and merchants—may well have given the impetus to social and religious reform. It was perhaps from this group that the Pharisees and the followers of Jesus both gained adherents, and from this group as well may have come the Zealots of the revolt against Rome in 66–70CE.
O
ther movements and leaders gained members and sympathizers from various social and economic strata. The Qumran community, John the Baptist, and several charismatic leaders in one way or another addressed the spiritual and material needs of the population, by variously promising revolt against Rome, the deity’s direct intervention in human affairs, or the assurance of life after death. How individual Judeans and Galileans reacted depended on such issues as personal concerns, economic circumstances, familial responsibilities, and their view of Rome. There was no monolithic theological system and no single reaction to occupation.
Josephus describes four prominent philosophic schools, or haireseis, in Judea in the early decades of the first centuryCE. In the context of discussing the reign of Jonathan the high priest (ca. 145 BCE), he records the origins of the first three:
Now at this time there were three haireseis among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of fate, but not all; as to other events it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not. The sect of Essenes, however, declares that Fate is the mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls people unless in accordance with her decree. But the Sadducees do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power. (Antiquities 13.5.9)
Josephus repeats these descriptions in the context of the Herodian monarchy a century and a half later. For this cosmopolitan Jew living in Rome, the Judean movements are philosophic schools divided principally over the perennial question of fate and free will. Josephus goes on to compare the Pharisees with the Stoics, the Essenes with the Pythagoreans, and, implicitly, the Sadducees with the Epicureans. Unfortunately absent from his descriptions are such concerns of modern historians as detailed reports of lifestyle, views of the Torah, and attitudes toward the Temple.
The Sadducees and Pharisees are also mentioned by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, by early Christian texts, and by the later rabbinic documents. The Essenes appear in the writings of the Roman naturalist Pliny, and many scholars associate one group of Essenes with the people responsible for the various scrolls located near the Dead Sea settlement of Qumran. While the Greek texts (Josephus, the Gospels, Philo) emphasize philosophic and theological differences, the Hebrew and Aramaic documents (the Qumran scrolls, the rabbinic documents) focus on issues of practice. Only through comparison of all the data can we reconstruct the practices and beliefs of these groups and their histories.
Even more amorphous were what Josephus labels a “fourth philosophy,” the Zealots. To these movements can be added various revitalization and reformist groups, including the followers of John the Baptist, the growing movement known for its claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the diverse congregations of Diaspora Judaism, and various “proselytes” and “sympathizers.”
Sadducees
Although the Temple was the most important and influential institution of the second commonwealth, contemporary comments on its priests and the party most closely connected with them, the Sadducees, are—not unexpectedly—scant. The Sadducees lost power with the onset of the revolt against Rome. All sources describing their beliefs and practices both postdate their fall and are composed by individuals who define themselves in opposition to Sadducaic practice: Josephus, the early Christians, and the rabbis.
The origin of their name is not clear. Perhaps it derived from Zadok, the high priest appointed by King David. Yet the Sadducees are also associated with the Boethusians, a high-priestly family from Alexandria in Egypt, who gained ascendancy under Herod the Great, perhaps because Herod needed them as a counter to the high-priestly claims of the Hasmonean household.
The various sources provide a composite view of the Sadducees: they were pre-dominantly wealthy and aristocratic; their social interests were therefore not surprisingly in preserving the status quo. Such a conservative agenda also extended to their religious preferences. They apparently did not accept such theological innovations as resurrection or angels (see Acts 23.8), and they believed strongly in free will. While many were priests, not all were.
As Temple officials, the Sadducees in the first century CE also dominated the Sanhedrin. The high priest was its president, and its senior leaders were members of the Sadducaic party. Pharisees also served in the Sanhedrin, but not infrequently the two groups disagreed.
Pharisees
Although the origins of the Pharisees are not clear, their name apparently comes from a Hebrew root that means “to separate.” The Pharisees may thus have separated themselves from other Jews in order to practice particular forms of personal piety, or they may have separated themselves from the Gentiles (see 1 Mace. 1.11). According to Josephus, they were immersed in Hasmonean politics, first as enemies of Janneus and later as friends of his wife, Salome Alexandra. The queen promoted the Pharisees, but her action was later reversed by her son Aristobulus. The group found itself again empowered under Herod, in part because the Pharisee Pollio advised the people to accept his rule.
Under Herod the Great, the Pharisees numbered about six thousand (so Josephus). Herod apparently provided them some support, and they in turn appear to have shifted from their strongly political orientation during the reign of Alexander Janneus to a greater emphasis on inward religiosity. Their political activities did not cease, however. At the time of the First Revolt against Rome, the Pharisee Simon ben Gamaliel, along with several Pharisaic colleagues, strongly supported the rebels.
Josephus also remarks upon the Pharisees’ influence with the women of the Herodian court and among the Jewish population at large. Because these comments appear in the Antiquities, written in the last decade of the first century CE, but are not recorded in his Jewish War, written at least a decade earlier, it is plausible that Josephus rewrote history to the advantage of the movement that survived the revolt. Nevertheless, the Pharisees were influential even before 70, as Christian texts also indicate. Paul, writing before the First Revolt, proclaims himself to have been a Pharisee (Phil. 3.5–6), and Acts 22.3, written after, adds that Paul was educated “at the feet of Gamaliel… strictly according to our ancestral law” (see also Acts 5.34–39 on Gamaliel’s view that the followers of Jesus should be tolerated). Regardless of the accuracy of the statements in Acts, their testimony to the importance of the Pharisees remains. For all the Gospels, and especially for Matthew, the Pharisees represent the standard of piety even as they present the greatest challenge to the nascent church.
From the writings of Josephus, early Christian texts, and rabbinic sources, the Pharisees’ beliefs can be tentatively reconstructed. This confederation of like-minded individuals valued both the Torah and their own elaboration of its contents to fit the new questions and circumstances of the changing world. Josephus notes that they “handed down to the people certain regulations from the ancestral succession and not recorded in the laws of Moses”(Antiquities 13.10.6). This tradition of interpretation, which came to be known as the “oral law,” thus took its place alongside the “written law,” the Torah. The Pharisees extended the holiness of the Temple and its functionaries to domestic life: for them the home became a focal point for religious practice, and the household table matched the Temple altar in sanctity. Doctrinally expanding beyond scripture, the Pharisees also promoted such non-Pentateuchal concepts as the resurrection of the dead, and they coupled belief in free will with an acknowledgment of divine omnipotence.
To accomplish their extension of Torah and practice, the Pharisees engaged in ritualized eating practices, insisted that their food be tithed according to scriptural mandate, and sought to live their daily lives in conformity to the will of heaven. They apparently fasted, a practice shared by many in early Judaism (see Mark 2.18). Some may have practiced private prayer. Yet how specific laws and beliefs were
to be interpreted and implemented differed among Pharisaic groups. Rabbinic texts suggest that by the mid-first century CE, divisions arose within the movement itself, the most famous being the “house of Hillel” and the “house of Shammai.” Hillel and Shammai themselves were teachers during the end of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first centuryCE. Their debates concerned such matters as Sabbath observance, table fellowship, and purity regulations. Shammai is best known today for his impatience. Hillel—whose spiritual heirs, the rabbis, are responsible for telling the stories about him and about his rival—is remembered as having told the Gentile who asked to be taught the Torah while standing on one foot, “What is hateful to you, do not do to others. This is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn!” Despite the several rabbinic references to these figures and their schools, it is extremely difficult to peel away the layers of legend to find the real Hillel or Shammai, much as it is difficult to find the “historical Jesus” beneath the Gospel texts.
The Oxford History of the Biblical World Page 62