New Testament Survey Notes

General Introduction

A. Orientation to the Course

The New Testament consists of 27 books made up of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts, 21 epistles (13

belonging to Paul, 8 General Epistles) and 1 Apocalypse. It can be divided into two broad

sections: The Historical section and the doctrinal teaching sections. The Historical section is

made of Four Gospels and the Book of Acts. In this section, written accounts by eye witnesses of

the events that occurred during the time of Jesus Christ and His disciples are provided. The

doctrinal section contains twenty-two books mainly epistles of different forms and sizes. In this

section is found each of the apostles giving out instructions, exhortations and also rebuking of

the churches. However, there has been controversies surrounding the order of the arrangement of

these books. The books of the New Testament were composed over a period of fifty years and is

a reflection of the beliefs and teachings of the early church as Christianity spread across the

Christian world.

B. Reasons for Studying the New Testament

The Books that make up the New Testament were written about 2,000 years ago. As such, why

do we need to study the New Testament in the 21st Century.

1. The New Testament is a record of God’s final revelation to mankind. Jesus is the final

revelation. It is God’s ultimate revelation of himself to humanity.

2. It contains the record of the beginning of the greatest movement in history, which is the

Christian movement, that began with 12 unlearned men who soon turned the mighty Roman
 Empire around and ever since, has created tremendous impact on every generation and

everywhere humanity is found.

3. It contains the greatest message ever proclaimed that “God was in Christ reconciling the

world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). It is the story of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ.

4. Apart from its spiritual reasons, other reasons such as its literary composition makes it

worthy of study. It is a literary piece per excellence. Its literary genre is unique.

5. It is good as a guide for morality due to its spiritual and moral content.

6. To prevent over-dependence on the Holy-Spirit.

C. Principles of Interpretation

Basically, two principles of NT interpretation abound.

1. Historical Principle

2. The Application Principle.

1. Historical Principle.

A long time has elapsed from when the writings that make up the NT were written. This time

lag means that the culture of the initial recipients of these writings is radically different from our

own, as such implies a different world view. The historical principle is anchored on a

formidable conviction that in order to grasp the meaning of scripture for today, one must first

understand its meaning to its original readers.

Questions that need to be answered are:

1. What is the literary form of the New Testament writing? The New Testament comprises different

genres such as Poetry, Narrative, Parables, Apocalypse.

2. Who wrote the book? In a situation where the authorship is undetermined, what are the options

available? An example is, having known that the author of the Luke-Acts is a gentile helps us to

understand his interest in events that involved non-Jews. The Centurion in LK 7:1ff, the Good

Samaritan; the Syro-phoenician woman, Simon of Cyrene, etc. Also, the fact that he is a

physician provides us with vital information on his interest in the healing miracles of Jesus and

his penchant for medical details.

3. What was the historical situation surrounding the book? When was it written, and what was the

situation been addressed? It can be tied down to the purpose of the book. Almost every book in

the NT and by extension the whole Bible was an occasional book. Knowing the situation that led

to its writing and the cultural milieu surrounding the book is a prerequisite to understanding and

interpreting the text rightly. Example is the Book of Philemon written to persuade the recipient to

accept the runaway slave, Onesimus, “if Onesimus had not stolen his master’s money and ran

away probably Philemon would not have been written.

4. What is the context of the pericope? In reference to what has gone before and what follows. One

great danger in the process of interpretation is taking a scriptural text out of the context in which

it was written. With this approach, the Bible can be used to support anything under the sun. To

avoid making such plunders, the question that needs to be answered is “What is the central idea

or truth of this passage?” What is the place of the selected text in the book as a whole and what is

its significance in the immediate context?

5. What is the linguistic or grammatical context? It must be understood that the NT was written in a

language quite different from English and its own. It must be remembered that no language

translates adequately into another. The interpretation of the NT involves some understanding of

its original language, Greek.

6. What are the important words in the text, how are they used by the writer and by some other

writers and its peculiarity to the writer? This brings to the fore the importance of understanding

Greek, and equipping one’s self with Greek Lexicons and dictionaries.

Note: Every interpreter of the NT must have in mind the central affirmation of the NT, God was

in Christ reconciling the whole world unto himself. Jesus should be looked upon as the fulfilment

of all OT prophesies.

11. The Application Principle

The second critical step in the interpretation of the New Testament is the application of the

original meaning to the situation faced by the contemporary reader. This involves two steps:

1. Discovery of the universal principle at the back of the original concrete meaning of the text.

2. Application of the universal principle to the situation confronting the believer at the

particular time. It should be noted that care must be taken in ensuring that the universal

principle derived from the passage under consideration is actually derived from the concrete

meaning of the text. Also this universal principle must be applied in a proper manner to the

particular situation at hand.

D. The Language of the New Testament

Most at times people feel that the Bible, in particular, New Testament was originally written

in English language or their native dialect. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and

Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek (Koine). This was as a result of the

Hellenization of the world by Alexander, the Great, who conquered the Mediterranean region

in 323BC. Greek became the lingua franca in most parts of the world.

Five stages of the Greek Language can be identified:

1. The Pre-Homeric (Up to 1000BCE).

 2. The Age of the Dialect or the Classical era (1000-330BCE)

3. Koine Greek (330 BCE to the time of the early Church): Koine was due to the conquest

of Alexander the Great. First, there was a mixture of Alexander’s troops which came

from Athens as well as other Greek cities and regions. They had to speak to each other.

This closeness produced a convergent Greek that inevitably softened the rough edges of

some dialects and lost the subtleties of others. Second, the conquered cites and colonies

studied Greek as a second language. By the first century CE. Greek became the lingua

franca of the whole Mediterranean region and beyond. Since most learnt it as a second

language, it further led to its loss of subtleties and moved it toward greater explicitness.

E. The Text of the New Testament

Most readers of the New Testament take its wording hook, line and sinker, without giving

thought to what it really says. The question “What does it really say?” sounds strange to most.

However, this question is quite significant for a student of the New Testament. About 2000 years

have elapsed since the books and epistles that make up the New Testament were compiled and its

autograph are no longer in existence. What is available are only copies of copies. There are over

5,000 copies of NT manuscripts of various parts in circulation, with no two exactly alike. This is

borne out of the fact that prior to the invention of the printing machine in 15 th century, all books

were copied by hand. In the process of copying of any manuscript- even biblical manuscript,

errors were bound to creep into the text, whether accidental or intentional errors. As such, before

the NT can be read in its original language or is translated into any other modern language, an

attempt must be made to determine as much as possible, the one closest to the original text.

Accidental errors of copyists were of various kinds. At times a word or even an entire line was

omitted. A word might be repeated or omitted; one letter may be mistaken for another. Sometime
an alternate reading may have been placed at the margin by a scribe, and this reading was

incorporated into the text of a later manuscript in the course of its transmission.

Alterations came in various forms; some were made in order to make the text read more

smoothly, and at times the text was altered to make it agree with another text or another gospel.

However, changes were rarely made to stress doctrinal difference.

The task of Textual Critics is to recover the original text in its original form. In pursuant of their

goal, the textual critic makes use of a great mass of materials. These include the Greek

manuscripts of the NT, early translations of the NT into other languages, and quotations from the

NT as found in the writings of the Church fathers.

The most important of the Greek manuscripts of the NT are the Uncial manuscripts. These

manuscripts were written on vellum, a material for writing produced from the skin of animals, in

block letters, 257 extant vellum manuscripts of the New Testament abound. These were

designated by Greek or Roman letters originally. Codex Sinaiticus was designated by the first

letter of the Hebrew alphabet Aleph ((a). when it was realized that there were not enough letters

to designate all the uncial manuscripts, a different system by which uncials will be identified was

introduced. In this system, all uncials are designated by the numeral with a zero prefixed,

examples are 01, 023, 0168. Most uncials with both a letter and a numeral designation are better

known by their letters.

The most important of Uncial Manuscripts are four, all produced in the fourth and fifth centuries.

1. Codex Sinaiticus aleph from the 4th century contains all the NT.

2. Codex Vaticanus B from the 4th Century contains all the NT except Philemon, the

Pastorals, and Revelation

3. Codex Alexandrianus A from 5th century contain most of the NT

 4. Codex Bezae D from either 4th or 5th century. Contain the four gospels and the Acts. The

term codex distinguishes manuscripts in the book form from earlier manuscripts

produced on scrolls.

In addition to these uncials were earlier manuscripts of the NT produced on papyrus sheet.

Papyrus manuscripts were designated by the letter P and a superimposed numeral from P1 to P 88.

Apart from the uncials, there are also lectionaries. Lectionaries are manuscripts copied out for

use in liturgy. Over 2000 of these have been catalogued. The final significance of the lectionaries

for study of the text of the NT has not been determined.

1. Principles Used by Textual Critics.

External evidence has to do with the date of the witness (manuscripts), the geographical

distribution of the witness in support of a particular variant, and the relations between types of

texts. In evaluating the significance of the geographical distribution of the witnesses, it is to be

noted that geographically remote witnesses tend to be independent of one another. If two early

independent witnesses support the same reading, this lends strong support to the originality of

the reading. The relations between families of texts are important. Some texts are superior to

others, just as some manuscripts are superior to others. At the same time, no type of text or any

manuscript is infallible. No text or manuscript is to be accepted without question. Since no

manuscript or text is to be accepted without question, external evidence must be supplemented

with internal evidence.

Two types of Probabilities are involved in internal evidence.

A. Transcriptional Probabilities

B. Intrinsic Probabilities

Transcriptional is based on the habit of the scribes.

 Intrinsic is based on consideration of what the writer was likely to have written, taking into

consideration the style and vocabulary of the writing as a whole. The immediate context,

harmony with the teaching of the writer.

The Principle of Internal evidence is narrowed into four.

1. The shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer.

2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier.

3. The reading most characteristic of the writer is to be preferred.

4. The reading is to be preferred which best explains the origin of the other readings.

5. The Canon of the Text.

The word canon is derived from the Greek word kanon which literally means a straight rod or bat:

like a ruler being used by masons or carpenters to measure objects. Kanon was used as a ruler, and

it developed from the process of measuring to keep the standard. Theologically, its meaning came

to be “a measure, rule, norm, or standard.” When used in reference to the scripture, the word canon

came to be associated with the sixty-six books of the Bible that measured up to the standard, and

were therefore made to be part of the Bible. Canonization is the name given to the process that God,

through the church Fathers, used to determine which among the books should be considered as

scripture. Canonization of the Old Testament books has never been of any serious debate because

they constituted, and were accepted as authoritative writings by the Jews, even before the days of

Jesus. But, there existed other Jewish writings such as the Apocryphal, which were not accepted by

the Jews as God’s Word, though they had historical value, and good for devotional reading.

A. Canonization of New Testament.

Patzia notes that the books that make up the New Testament were compiled in later years based

on certain observations: 1) The early church inherited a body of authoritative literature known as
 Hebrew Scripture; 2) All the documents that constitute the New Testament were probably

written before the end of the first century;3) Each of the Four Gospels was part of the four-fold

Gospel collection by the end of the second century; 4. Paul’s letters became part of a thirteen-

letter corpus by the beginning of the third century;5) The catholic letters initially circulated

independently, but were compiled under this title by the fourth century; and 6) the copying,

collection, and use of these books during the first four centuries shows that all of them had

universal appeal and authority for the church before the final canonical list was made in AD

397.1

In discussing the criteria for selection of some books, Patzia observes further that the New

Testament teaches that the ultimate authority for the early Church was the authority of the

resurrected and exalted Lord. Another criterion was that the book must have been written by an

Apostle, and would, therefore, be within the Apostolic Age. Also, books that were finally

canonized are those that enjoyed a special status, and were utilized, both frequently and

universally, by the church. Those that had had only a temporary importance were not given

canonical status. The last criterion was the affirmation of their inspiration, because the early

Christians believed that the Holy Spirit possessed and inspired every believer and the entire

community, not just the writers, but also its sacred literature.

B. Reasons for the Canonization of the New Testament.

Due to some major developments, considered as problems, that confronted the early church, the

early church fathers were encouraged to establish the Holy Canon. These are:

a. Spurious writings

1
Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament Texts: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Illinois: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1995), 102.
There were so many epistles at the time of early church. These were from the apostles and

others. Writing was a difficult task then, however, many written documents were available and

also circulated. This brought difficulties in authenticating books which should be part of the NT

canon, and considered authoritative in the lives of Christians. Even Gnostics had their own

writings. Some of these writings were pseudonymous and presenting fictitious accounts of Jesus’

life. Others wrote under false identities by borrowing names to authenticate their writings. These

books are referred to as pseudepigrapha (false writings). The contents of some of the books were

good, but were rejected due to a false claim on its authorship, claiming the apostles to have

written them. Actually, some other letters abound which are also considered by some to be

inspired but were not canonized. These include: 1& 11 Clement, The Didache, The Epistle of

Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermes, Apocalypse of Peter; Acts of Paul etc.

b. Marcion’s Canon

Other canons were being developed, especially, the one by a man named Marcion, who

developed a list of his own canonical books in AD 140. Marcion was considered a heretic who

believed in Gnosticism. As such, he omitted some of Apostle Paul’s letters because they

conflicted with his doctrine. This prompted the church to begin the canonization of the NT so as

to refute Marcion’s Canon.

c. Severe Persecution

There were mass persecutions of the early church in the Roman Empire, especially with the Edict

of Diocletan in AD 303 which declared that all religious books were to be destroyed. And that

Christians were to be penalized by death if found in possession of any of those books. By the

time of the Edict of Diocletan, majority of Christians had recognized the sacredness of these
 books, and were prepared to die for their preservation. As such, the need to ascertain which

books were truly inspired.

Several church councils were organized in order to discuss and ratify the Canon of the New

Testament, amongst which are: Council of Nicaea in AD 325, Laodicea Council in AD 363, and

Council of Carthage in AD 397. The 27 New Testament books had previously been accepted by

various bodies and individuals, but its approval was done at the Council at Carthage in AD 397.

Danny McCain notes four key tests were used to determine whether or not a book should be

included in the collection of the NT canon. These are:

a. Apostolicity: The Council had to authenticate the authorship of the book, whether it was written

by an apostle or not. Luke and Mark were considered close associates of Jesus, and their books

were considered authoritative and included in the Canon. The books of James and Hebrews

were much debated due to its unresolved authorship.

b. Contents: Issues considered were; a) was the spiritual content of the book good enough for it to

be presented for canonization? Most Apocryphal books were disqualified based on this

criterion. b). There was no need of adding a book that primarily covered an established doctrine,

hence, the question: Did the book add any significant spiritual information to the existing body

of sacred writings. c) The teachings of the book must not disagree with the known doctrines of

Jesus and the apostles. As such, the question was: is the teachings of the book consistent with

the oral teachings and traditions which were recognized at that time; and was it consistent with

the acceptable doctrines?

c. Universality: For any book to be included in the canon, there must be evidence of its acceptance

universally, not just acceptance within a region. As such books such as 1 Clement and the

epistle of Barnabas, accepted by only some parts of the church, were not included in the Canon.
d. Inspiration: There must be evidence of the book being divinely inspired, even after all other test

had been passed. The test of inspiration was based upon the spiritual values and testimonies of

the book in its use of such books by church members. The goal was to avoid wrong teachings/

indoctrination which is considered hazardous to spiritual health of the church.

Intertestamental Period
The history of the New Testament is set in a particular socio-cultural, political, and religious

background. For a proper understanding of the NT, one must take into cognizance its historical

background. The starting point should be from the Babylonia captivity to the Roman period to

the time Jesus the son of Joseph was born.

Much of the Babylonian period is studied in Old Testament survey, our concern in this class is

after the exile to the time Christ was born. About 400 years separate the close of the Old

Testament and the beginning of the events of the New Testament. These years have been looked

upon as “Four hundred Silent years”. This is borne out the notion that this period is silent in

respect of any inspired revelation. But this period provides us with some of the most fascinating

and impactful events in the ancient world. Most events that shaped the environment of the

Christian world occurred within this period.

The history of Israel from Nehemiah to Christ can be grouped naturally into four sections.:

a. The Persian Period (539-331 B.C)

b. The Greek Period (331-63B.C)

I. Greek rule under Alexander (331-323 B.C)

II. Greek rule under the Ptolemies of Egypt (323-198 B.C)

III. Greek rule under the seleucids of Syria (198-164 B.C)

c. The Hasmonean Period

 d. The Roman Period

A. THE PERSIAN PERIOD

Beginning from Cyrus who conquered Babylon in 539 B.C, and allowed the Jews to reoccupy

Jerusalem, the Medo-Persian Empire boasted of a linage of great kings.

a) Cyrus (559-530 B.C)

Cyrus was raised up by God to restore the Jews to their promised land (Isaiah 45:1-2, Ezra 1:1-

11, 5:13-14, 6:3).

b) Cambyses (530-522 B.C)

He completed the expansion of the empire into Egypt

c) Darius 1, the Great (522-486 B.C)

He organized the empire satrapies, facilitated communications and travel and made initial attack

on Greece-the battle of Marathon (490 B.C). He was sympathetic with the Jews. The

completion and dedication of the Temple took place under his reign.

Others are Xerxes, same as biblical Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther (486-465 B.C), Artaxerxes

1, 465- 424 B.C). He was the last of the powerful rulers of the Empire; return of the priest and

scribe Ezra to Jerusalem (485 B.C) and return of Nehemiah to Jerusalem (445 B.C). With the

death of Artaxerxes 1, the Persian empire declined rapidly. Other kings that ruled with less

powers are: Xerxes 11 (423 B.C), Darius 11 (423-405 B.C) and Artaxerxes 11 (405 -358 B.C),

Artaxerxes 111 (358-338 B.C). Arses (338-336 B.C) and Darius 111 (336-331 B.C).

The Persians were generally sympathetic to the Jews. They allowed them to worship Yahweh in

their own way; and also gave them a limited amount of self-rule. The high Priest ruled Judah
during this time and served, basically, as the liaison officer between the Jewish people and the

Persian government. This laid a wrong precedent, as the office of the high Priest later lost its

religious significance

The Samaritans

During the reign of the Persians, in the fourth century the Samaritans built a Temple on Mount

Gerizim, which was regarded as sacred by the Samaritans. The rift between the inhabitants of

Judah and Samaria, began to widen.

During the reign of the Persians, Aramaic, the lingua franca and the language of other nations in

the region began to replace Hebrew as the most commonly spoken language in Judah. In

addition, the Aramaic square letter alphabet was adopted to write their Hebrew works, leading

to a discharge of older Hebrew alphabet. Also, many Greek speaking people came and settled in

the near East, and Greek culture started influencing the Israelites.

b. THE GREEK PERIOD (331-135 BC)

1. Alexander the Great (331-323 BC)

Alexander was the son of Philip of Macedonia, a very capable general and administrator. Philip

prepared the way for the rise of the Greek Empire. He was able to unite the independent and

warring city-states of Macedonia and Greece proper into a national identity. Philip employed the

services of the best teachers for his young son Alexander, foremost amongst them is Aristotle.

Philip was murdered in 336 BC, which propelled young Alexander to fend for himself and

assuming military leadership of the nation which his father had brought together. Alexander was

aggressive, a natural genius and had unsurpassed military leadership. To exercise total control,

he captured and burned the city of Thoebes and sold its inhabitants to slavery. In 333BC
Alexander went from Macedonia into Asia Minor and defeated the outposts of the Persian army.

From there, he moved eastward into Syria and then Southward through Palestine and back

westward into Egypt. After, the conquest of Egypt, he turned eastward once gain and took his

armies as far as Punjab in India. Alexander dominated the Persian leadership, even though they

were vastly outnumbered. Darius 111 of Persia, initially, did not take Alexander’s campaign

seriously. But soon it was clear that Alexander was focused on liberating all of Asia Minor from

Persian control. Darius with a large army encountered Alexander at Issus, near the Cilician

Gates. There the superior military tactics of Alexander played out. His cavalry attack routed the

Persians, and even captured the royal household. Darius barely escaped with his life. This battle

of Issus (333BC) marked the end of Persian dominance over the Near East.

Alexander the Great could be said to be quite generous to the Jews. Some even say that he was

impressed by the fact that prophet Daniel had predicted his own military conquests. Alexander

allowed the Jews to live in their lands and even exempted them from taxes during Sabbatical

years. He invited the Jews to settle in the city of Alexandria in Egypt after he created it, giving

them basically the same privileges as Greek subjects. As such, more Jews lived in Alexandia

than in Jerusalem during the intertestamental period.

Alexander attempted to establish Greek life and culture wherever he went. He usually built a

Greek city to serve as a model for the local people. The local people were encouraged to learn

Greek, adopt Greek styles of dressing and even Greek names. This process of adopting Greek

culture is known as Hellenization.

Alexander, convinced of the virtue of his ideas, he committed himself to the spread of Greek

culture around the world. Alexander refined the phalanx system of attack and defense, developed

by his father. In furtherance, he made superior use of his cavalry.

Alexander had just married a Bactrian princess named Roxana, but before their child was born,

Alexander died in Babylon (323 B.C). he was just between 32 and 33 years old when he died.

Due to his death, the empire was thrown into confusion. It was eventually divided amongst his

four successors (diadochoi), Greek generals who carved up Alexander’s empire among

themselves after his death. One of them, Cassander, murdered Alexander’s widow Roxana and

his infant son Alexander 1V, paving the way for the generals to claim the rule. After seven years

of intense fighting the four generals emerged as the most powerful:

a. Macedonia was under Cassander

b. Thrace and Western Asia was under Lysimachus.

c. Egypt was given to Ptolemy 1.

Syria (Mediterranean Sea to Asia) was given to Antigonus. However, his reign was short lived as

the other three generals formed an alliance and defeated him. His part of the kingdom was given

to Seleucus who formed a dynasty in Syria known as the Seleucidae dynasty. Most leaders

afterwards used the name Seleucus or Antiochus.

2. Ptolemies (323-198 BC).

In general, the Jews were much tolerated and enjoyed peace during the third century, but

little in particular is known of the Jews in Judah during this time. Apparently, they were

under the dominance of the local rule of the high priest, sending annual tribute to Egypt.

Archaeological evidence point to the presence of Jews all over Egypt during this period. The

Ptolemies built up Alexandria to become the largest city in Egypt.

The Pseudepigraphical Letter of Aristeas reveals that seventy-seven Jews translated the law

of Moses into Greek in Alexandia under the sponsorship of Ptolemy 11 Philadelphus (285-
246 B.C). Due to the influence of Hellenism, the Jews living in Egypt soon began speakin

Greek as their first language, this made it inevitable that the Old Testament be translated into

Greek. Several translations of the books were produced over the years, and gradually some

achieved prominence, producing an unofficial Greek Translation called the Septuagint. The

LXX was used by Jews in diaspora, and later became widely distributed through Pagan

nations.

The Tobiads

The house of Joseph Tobias grew in power, wealth, and prestige during the rule of the

Ptolemies. Many Jews believed that he was a descendant of Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh.

2:10). The Tobiads were in charge of taxes in the Trans Jordan area. They represented the

upper classes of the Jews, as they tended to be pro-Egyptian.

Simon the Just

The most important person in Israel during the period of the Ptolemies was the high priest

Simon the Just. He is the main character in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. In his

time, the Jews were given the liberty to rule over their affairs in an independent manner.

However, they were obligated to pay taxes to the Egyptian government. Simon the Just

directed the rebuilding of the city walls, the construction of a huge water reservoir, and the

repairing of the Temple. He is also remembered as a great teacher of the law.

Seleucus 1 split from Ptolemy 1 in 311 B.C, this led to fight amongst the two dynasties over

the control of Palestine. This fighting continue unabated over a hundred years as accurately

predicted in Dan.11, where the “King of the North” represents Seleucids and the “King of the

South” represents Ptolemies.

 3. Seleucids (198-166BC)

Seleucus 1, also known as Nicanor, was the founder of the Seleucid Empire. The capital of the

Seleucid empire was the new city of Antioch, established by Seleucus 1 to honor his father

Antiochus; this city is at times called Antioch-Syria in order to distinguish it from Antioch-

Pisidia, a city that Paul had visited in the book of Acts. It was designed to rival the Ptolemaic

Alexandria. It turned out to be one of the great cities of the Roman Empire. It was this city that

Christianity made its first major entrance into the Gentiles, and believers were first called

Christians. It was where Paul based his missionary travels. During the third century the Seleucid

empire became weaker, until Antiochus 111, the sixth king in line, took the throne. He was

capable and ambitious, and was able to assert his dominion over much of Asia and to add the

territory of Palestine.

In 199 or 198 BC Antiochus 111 defeated Egypt and gained control of Judea. This was the dawn

of a new era for the Jews. The Ptolemies had tolerated the Jews to a certain extent. However,

once the Seleucids took control, they began to enforce Hellenization. Rome stripped Antiochus

11 of Asia Minor, and forced him to surrender his navy and his war elephants. They also

demanded a huge payment, to be spread over twelve years. To assur payments, which amounted

to tons of silver, the Romans took as one of their hostages his younger son, to become Antiochus

1V. to meet up, Antiochus was forced to levy burdensome taxes and to plunder temples. This

eventually led to his death, ashe was killed in an attempt to rob a temple in Elam.

The Hellenism of Judea reached its highest peak under Antiochus 1V, also known as Epiphanes,

at times referred to by both names, Antiochus Epiphanes. He had total hatred for everything

Jewish. He insisted on the complete Hellenization of Judea. He is remembered as the wicked and
cruel persecutor of the faithful Jews in Jerusalem. His career was predicted by Daniel (Daniel

11:21-35). His place in Judaism rivals that of Nero in Christian History.

As a little child, he grew up in Rome, where he lived for twelve years. There, he further imbibed

the Hellenistic spirit, and learned a healthy respect for Roman power. When his father Antiochus

111 was murdered, his older son Seleucus 1V succeeded him. In 175 BC, as Antiochus was

coming home from Rome, Seleucus 1V was assassinated, making the younger brother Antiochus

1V king. Here, he proclaimed himself “Epiphanes” (God is manifested”. There was a high Priest

at this time named Onias 111 who was a strict orthodox Jew. Due to the politicization of the

priesthood, a certain Jason, by promising to pay more money to Antiochus, got himself

appointed as high Priest. Jason built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, where Pagan Greek games and

ceremonies were practiced. Young men competed in their nudity, and some even undertook

surgical operation to disguise their circumcision. Even many priest were corrupted due to his

leadership. This led to the ridicule of Jewish customs and ordinances throughout Judea. They

wanted to make Jerusalem the “New Antioch”.

Jason served as Priest for only three years before he was removed as Priest. Another priest

named Menalaus, more wicked than Jason took over. Menalaus offered an even larger bribe to

Antiochus 1V, which made the king to remove Jason and install him as priest. 2 Maccabbees

state thar Menalaus was not even in the tribe of Levi, but was a Benjamite. Though some

manuscript place him in the priestly line, but not a Zadokite family. Menaleus took the office and

began plundering thetemple to pay the bribe to Antiochus 1V. Menaleus arranged to have Onias

111 murdered, and Jason fled across the Jordan.

Jason raised an army to back his claim to the High Priesthood, and Menaleus sought for the favor

of Antiochus. The Syrians, involved in a campaign against Egypt, felt the need to have effective
control over Palestine. Antiochus staged a snitch attack on Jerusalem one Sabbath Day and

slaughtered a large number of the enemies of Menaleus. The city walls were destroyed, Akra, a

new fortress, was built on the site of the citadel. Antiochus was so determined to remove all

traces of orthodox Jewish faith which made him to erect a bearded image of the pagan (Zeus) on

the temple altar, with swine offered in sacrifice. Israel’s God was identified with Jupiter. Jews

were even forbidden to practice circumcision under death penalty, Sabbath observance and the

celebration of the feasts of the Jewish calendar were also forbidden. The Jews called the final

pagan deeds “the abomination of desolation,” quoting Daniel.

The Samaritans, eager to protect their interests, assured Antiochus of their cooperation. They

denied been Jews, and claimed to be Sidonians. They renamed their Temple on Mt Gerizim “The

Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.” This duplicity contributed to increased hatred by the Jews in NT

times.

C The Hasmonean Period (166- 63 B.C)

For relatively short period of about 100 years the Jews in Jerusalem had a time of independence

under Jewish dynasty. However, during the earlier period they were under threat from the more

powerful kingdom of Syria, and much later were subservient to Rome, until the Romans took

official control in 63 B.C.

The Macabean Period (166-63BC)

The Syrians were bent on enforcing their new laws upon the Jews. A Syrian officer was sent to a

little village named Modin to enforce some Hellenistic practices. Modin was a village located

about 20 miles NW of Jerusalem, and only 10 miles east of the provincial district capital Lydda,

where Syrian trrops were stationed. The officer demanded that an aged priest named Mattathias,
come forward and offer a sacrifice upon a heathen altar. Mattathias refused to carry out the

sacrifice. However, another Jew came forward to offer the sacrifice apparently scared of the

consequences of disobeying the officer. The old priest was so angered that he rushed forward

and killed the apostate Jew, as well as the Syrian officer. He also destroyed the heathen altar.

Mattathias took his five sons and other loyal Jews and fled into hills, probably the Gophna hills,

about15 miles to the NE. This was to avoid reprisals that would certainly come as a result of

their rebellion. They were joined there by many other orthodox Jews. From their mountain base

the family of Mattathias conducted guerilla warfare against the Syrians and the sympathizers.

The orthodox Jews had one very serious handicap. They refused to fight on the sabbath. After

incurring so many deaths in an attack carried out on the Sabbath, Mattathias decreed that it

would be permissible to fight in self defense on the Sabbath. Day. The revolt began late in 167

B.C and within a few months Mattathias died of old age. Before his death, he appointed his third

son Judas, also known as Maccabeus, a word that means hammer, to be military leader.

Judas was extremely a capable military leader, and with his small force he was able to defeat

several larger forces sent against him. The most important victory for Judas was the battle at

Emmaus (165 B.C). there he defeated the armies of three generals by his superior tactics. Since

Antiochus was busy fighting wars in the East, Judas was eventually in control of Judea, except

for the Syrians stationed in the Akra. Finally, 25 Kislev(Dec. 25, 164 B>C, Judas was able to

gain control of the temple area ( not Akra) and lead the Jews in Purifying and rededicating the

temple in Jerusalem. The cleansing of the temple became a national holiday, Hanukkah (feasts of

Lights, Feast of Dedication, John 10; 22). In the next year, Antichus IV died in Persia, and was

succeeded by his son son Antiochus V.

After capturing the temple, the Maccabee brothers continued to conduct successful military

campaigns throughout Palestine. But in 162 B.C. the Syrian general Lysuis came with a huge

army to retake Jerusalem. In a great battle south of the city, Eleazer, a youger brother, was killed

by an elephant. Lysuis and Antiochus went further to captire the temple area and breach the

walls, but they did not interfere with the Jewsish worship.

In the same year Semetrius 1, a rival for the throne sof Syria, captured and executed Antiochus

V. He gave his general Bacchides control over Judea. Bacchides had Menacleus executed and

installed as high Priest a Man from the Aaronic line named Alcimus. Most of the Hasidim agreed

to recognize Syrian rule and recognized Alchimus. Judas, hiding in the Gophna Hills, warned

them that religious independence required political independence, but the Hasidim refused to

heed his advice. It was not long before Alcimus and Bacchides revealed themselves as enemies

of the Jews; they both soon executed many Jews and began supporting Hellenism. Alcimus even

had the Hasidim leaders murdered. 161 B.C. Bacchides took a large army to drive Judas out of

the mountains. Judas met the army with only 880 men, and was killed in the battle. His three

brothers, under the leadership of Jonathan, fled to Tekoa, in the Judan desert.

Jonathan, Judas’ brother, succeeded Judas as the leader of the Maccabean revolt. Jonathan was

the leader of the Jews from 160 to 142. In the first ten years of his leadership Jonathan rebuilt his

base of support. In one skirmish with the Syrians John, a brother to Johnathan was killed; so only

Jonathan and Simon were the only brothers left. By 150 B,C Johnathan was the de facto ruler of

Judah, controlling the entire area, except the Akra in Jerusalem. He was also awarded the title of

high priest by one of the contenders for the Syrian throne. Johnathan sent a message to Rome

assuring them that Judah desired to be a “friend of Rome.” In less than 100 years, Rome

conquered Jerusalem. In 142 B.C there were two contenders for the Syrian Throne, Tryphon and
Demetrius 11. Tryphon wanted Johnathan’s spport but tricked him. He invited Johnathan to

Ptolemiais with only 1,000 men with him. There Tryphon had all his men killed, and imprisoned

and finally murdered Jonathan himself. As such, only one brother was left.

When Jonathan died, Simon, another Maccabean brother, became the next leader. He ruled from

142 to 135 BC. He was also a diplomat. He quickly made alliance with Demetrius 11, who was

then able to take the throne of Syria. In 142 B,C Demetrius 11 officially granted independence to

Judea, along with immunity from taxation. In the following year Jews finally were able to drive

the Syrian garrison out of the Akra. They broght it down and built the Hasmonean palace on its

foundation. The Hasidim gave Simon the title “ Leader and High Priest forever, “that is , until

there should arise a faithful prophet” to instruct them further (1 Macc. 14: 25-49). The

descendants of Onias111 had moved to Egypt, thus forfeiting the high priesthood. Thus Simon

began the Hasmonean Dynasty, named after an ancestor named Hashmon (or Asmonnaeus). In

135 B.C, Simon and two of his sons treacherously were murdered by an ambitous son-in-law.

Simon’s third son John Hycarnus escaped. This dynasty was formed by the sons of the

Maccabean brothers.

The Later Hasmoneans

The family that descended from the Maccabees became a typical dynastic ruling family, adopting

the attitudes and methods of the other rulers in the region. Eventually they left their original

purpose, supporting pious Judaism, and became enemies of the Hasidim who had original

supported them.

The Hasmonean dynasty could be said to have begun technically with John Hycarnus, son of

Simon. He was the first to be a second-generation leader; who did not appreciate the convictions
and sacrifices of his predecessors. In the early part of his rule John Hycarnus had to beware of

Antiochus V11, the last strong king of the Seleucid line. when that King died in 1229 B.C ,

Hycarnus was free to expand his holdings. First, Hyrcanus annexed territory in Perea, then he

conquered the Idumeans, the Edomites then living to the south of Judea. He forced the Idumeans

to be circumcised; later king Herod the Great would come from this tribe. Hyrcanus also

conquered the Samaritans to the north, destroyed the Samaritans temple on Mount Gerizim and

defeated several strong Greek cities in the region, which blocked further expansion into Galilee.

During the reign of Hyrcanus, an important religious and political development occurred in

Judea itself. When Antiochus VII died and the Syrians gave up serious interference in Judea, the

Jewish Hellenizers lost their reason for being. They therefore tended to become supporters of

Saduccees. Although the Pharisees could not criticize his personal life, which was flawless, they

did oppose his holding his holding the two offices of secular ruler and priest.

When Hycarnus died in 104BC, a struggle began amongst his family members on who would

take over the leadership of Judea. His eldest son Aristobulus, won the battle and began to rule.

Aristobulus 1 (104-103 BC)

Aristobulus placed three of his brothers in prison, and two of them, plus his mother were said to

have died of starvation in prison, while he murdered another one in the palace. He is considered

as the first Hasmonean to assume the title of “King”. Josephus mentions the Pharisees for the

first time in this historical context. In his short reign, he continued the expansion of the nation’s

territory northwards all the way to Mt. Lebanon, annexing the territory of Galilee. This area was

inhabited with many Jews, as such, they were quite loyal to Judaism. Aristobulus reigned only

one year, dying due to drinking and disease. His widow’s name was Salome Alexandra. At his

death, his brother named Alexander Jannaeus assumed leadership.

Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC).

Jannaeus was a surviving brother of Aristobulus. At the death of Aristobulus, Salome Slexandra

had him set free from prison and then married him. Jannaeus killed a surviving brother, but

allowed his last one live in retirement. Under his rule, Israel reached its greatest extent,

extending its territory to include around the Dead sea, the Philistine coast, most of the Greek

cities east of the Jordan and the sea of Galilee, and the coast south of Mt. Carmel. His interest

was in building a Jewish Navy.

Great tension arose between the Pharisees and Alexander Jannaeus. The Pharisee sought to

adhere strictly to Jewish law rejecting Hellenism. The Sadducees, were. On the other hand less

committed to the law, and more sympathetic to the and influence of Hellenism. He is said to

have crucified about 800 leaders among the Pharisees during a particular conflict. It is also

believed that he repented from his deeds on his deathbed and asked his wife to turn to the

Pharisees. He died is 76BC. Upon his death Salome Alwexandra, became the leaders for the next

seven years. She had also been married to Aristobulus, as such, she was actually the widow of

two of the Hasmonean leaders. She concentrated power among two of her sons during her reign.

Salome Alexandra (76-67 BC)

When Alexandra finally became queen, she was 70 years old. She hastily made peace with the

Pharisees, and during her rule the Pharisees were able to exact some vengeance on the

Sadducees. Since she was a woman, Alexandra could not be high priest. She appointed her elder

son Hyrcanus to that position. She made her younger son Aristobulus head of the army. The Jews

enjoyed relative peace during this decade. Alexandra’s brother, Simeon ben-Shetah, the

President of the Sanhedrin, began universal primary education throughout Israel, to take place in
the Synagogues. The main subject was Hebrew Scriptures. As Alexandra grew older the two

brothers started opposing each other. Hycarnus favoring the Pharisees and Aristobulus the

Sadducees.

Civil War: Hyrcanus 11 and Aristobulus 11 (67-63 B.C)

When Alexandra died in 67 B.C. strife broke out immediately. Hyrcanus 11, the rightful heir,

claimed the crown, but he meekly retired from office when Aristobulus arrived with the

Sadducees and at the head of his army. Hyrcanus soon fled for refuge to his allies in the south,

Aretas 111 of the Nabeteans (Arabs in Petra) and Antipater 11 of the Idumeans. These kings

were in support of the claims of Hyrcanus, hoping to use him to secure and strengthen their own

positions. Aristobulus quickly crowned himself Aristobulus 11 and sought to confirm his claim

by having his son Alexander marry the daughter of Hyrcanus, Alexandra. Aided by Aretas and

Antipater, Hyrcanus was able to seize most of Judea, taking the countryside first. The Warfare

between the two brothers continued for several months, but news of their fighting reached the

Roman General Pompey, who was campaigning in the East. Pompey, eager to add to his

conquests, moved south to “arbitrate.”

THE ROMAN RULE (63 BC- NT Times)

The Roman empire was the fourth kingdom predicted by Daniel (ch. 2,7), and approached its

greatest power during the New Testament period. By the time, the Romans took control of Israel,

they had spent several centuries growing from a local and regional power to the most powerful

empire in the world.

Pompey
After the defeat of Antiochus 111 of Syria, the Roman Empire assimilated most of the western

Hellenistic states. By the first Century B.C Rome was expanding into the Eastern Empire.

Pompey, one of Rome’s greatest generals had been busy defeating the king of Pontus, and in 64

B.C. proceeded to enter Damascus and annex the province of Syria to the Roman Empire. When

news of the war between Hyrcanus 11 and Aristobulus 11 first reached him, he dispatched an

ambassador and ordered the fighting to cease, when it did not, he marched south.

In 63 B. C. Pompey determined that Hyrcanus was a better candidate for leadership, and

compelled Aristobulus to surrender. But some of the supporters of Aristobulus held out in

Jerusalem, barricading themselves in the temple area on the hill of the Old city. When Pompey

got to Jerusalem with his army, Hyrcanus’ supporters allowed him into the western half of the

city, from where he was able to besiege the eastern part for three months. He rebuilt the bridge

with a ramp joining the two parts of the city and finally captured the temple and the rest of the

city. About 12,000 Jews were killed in the fight that ensued. Pompey did not interfere with the

worship of the Jews or their practices, but out of curiosity, entered the most holy place in the

temple, as such alienating the Jews from Rome. The Pseudepigraphal “Psalms of Solomon” (Ca

50 B.C) excoriated Pompey posthumously and anonymously: “ I had not long to wait before God

showed me the insolent one slain on the mountains of Egypt… with none to bury him, since he

had rejected God with dishonor.” (2:30-32). Pompey incorporated Palestine into the Roman

province of Syria (cf. Matt. 4:24) and appointed Hyrcanus 11 to be the ethnarch and high priest,

which offices he held from 63-40 B.C. He also granted semi-autonomy to Samaria and to the

Greek cities of the Decapolis, formerly under the control of the Hasmoneans.
Galilee remained under Jewish jurisdiction. Under Pompey’s arrangements the real power behind

the throne in Judea was the capable Antipater 11. He was entrusted with the actual administration

of the district.

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar was a great Roman general who eventually dominated the Roman Empire. While

not elevated by the senate to the status of emperor before his murder, since the Roman republic

allowed no such honor, he achieved during his life the de facto power of an emperor.

Campaign against Pompey

As soon Pompey had fame and power in the East, Julius Caesar began becoming more powerful

in the west. Conflicts between the two was inevitable. Their rivalry escalated to war, and finally

was resolved when Julios Caesar overthrew Pompey and pursued him to Egypt, where he was

murdered. During the last segment of the battle Antipater 11 and Hyrcanus 11 gave valuable aid

to Caesar by sending relief to Caesar while he was surrounded in Alexandria.

Antipater 11, Phaseal and Herod

In appreciation Caesar confirmed Hyrcanus appointment as ethnarch and appointed Antipater

procurator of Judea (47 B. C). Caesar also added to Judea several territories taken from it by

Pompey. Antipater 11 then appointed his two sons to important posts. His older son, Phaseal he

made governor of Jerusalem, and his younger son Herod, he designated governor of Galilee.

Cassius and Brutus

In 44 B. C Brutus and Cassius led in the assassination of Julius Caesar in Rome. Cassius,

proconsul of Syria, quickly seized control of Antipater’s territory. Cassius was quite tyrannical,
but Antipater aided him and raised taxes for him. The following year Antipater 11 was murdered,

but young Herod stepped in. executed the murderers, and restored order in the territory. In 42

B.C Phasael and Herod were appointed joint rulers of all Judea.

Mark Anthony and Octavian

Octavian was Julius Caesar’s nephew, a clever politician and statesman, Mark Anthony was the

most powerful general . Together they defeated Cassius and Brutus in the battle of Philippi (42

B. C). Many of Anthony’s troops remained there in Phillipi, which was granted the status of a

Roman colony, making them all Roman citizens (Acts 16:12, cf Phil. 1:27; 3:20). Mark Anthony

controlled the eastern part of the empire; and although Phasael and Herod had supported

Cassius, they quickly switched allegiance to Anthony, and were conformed in their position. In

40 B.C, the Parthians invaded Palestine and set up as ruler Antigonus, of the house of the

Hasmoneans (40-37 B. C). They captured and imprisoned Hyrcanus 11 and Phasael. Hyrcanus

they maimed so as to make him ineligible for priesthood. Phasael committed suicide in Prison.

Herod managed to escape the Parthians. He fled south from Jerusalem into the desert, then

crossed the Dead Sea and sought refuge in Petra. When the Arabs refused him protection, he

moved on to Alexandria, and finally made his way to Rome.

In Rome Herod made a good impression on Octavian and Anthony, who persuaded the Senate to

appoint him “King of the Jews” (40 B.C; cf. Luke 19: 11-12). In addition, the Romans also

added additional parts of Samaria and Idumea to his kingdom. But at this point his kingdom was

only theoretical; it was actually in the control of Antigonus and the Parthians.

Herod the Great (37-4 B.C).

Herod is famous as the king under whom Jesus was born, and for Jealous cruelty when he sought

to destroy the young Jesus and killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem. Herod had 10 wives and

many children. Having been pronounced king, Herod set out the following year to seize his

kingdom from the Parthians and Antigonus. He had the support of Roman troops. First, he

captured Galilee, then he took parts of the kingdom of Idumea and eastern Galilee. His first

attack on Jerusalem failed when Antigonus bribed his Roman soldiers and they left the city. The

next year Roman help was more effective; Herod retook much of the Jordan valley and Judah

and besieged Jerusalem. Finally, Jerusalem fell to Herod, Antigonus was executed, many Jews

were slaughtered also (37 B.C). To strengthen his claim to the throne, during that same year

Herod married Marriane, the Hasmonean princess, granddaughter of both Hyrcanus 11 and

Aristobulus.

To make the Jews like him, Herod built a number of cities, parks and roads. Herod donated many

buildings and temples to other cities. This was part of his effective foreign policy. Within his

kingom Herod established several cities, the most renown was Caesarea, the “capital of the sea”.

He also rebuilt Samaria, renaming it Sabaste, in honour of Augustus. In addition, he built many

gymnasiums, baths, parks, and streets throughout Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. He also built a

number of fortresses: the Herodiun near Jericho, Macherus on the eastern shore of the Dead sea;

and the famous Masada on the western shore of the Dead Sea, where the last valiant band of

Jews held out against the Romans till A.D. 73

Within Jerusalem, Herod built a magnificent palace for himself in the northwest corner of the

upper City (Western Hill), and, capped it with three magnificent towers named Phasael,

Mariamne, and his friend Hippicus. The base of the largest tower, Phasael, still remains, and

today is called the Tower of David. Herod rebuilt and enlarged the old Maccabean fortress just
north of the temple, called Baris, and renamed it Antonia in honor of his friend Mark Anthony.

He also sponsored various civic improvements in Jerusalem. He built a theater in the upper city

and a stadium in Tyropoeon Valley. Also, he built an additional protective wall south and east of

the upper city, and rebuilt the wall north of the Mishneh and east of Ophel.

One of his most outstanding projects was the rebuilding or remodeling of the temple and its

surrounding courts and buildings that continued many years after his death. The work began in

19 B. C. From John 2:20 (This temple has been forty -six years in building”) that Jesus must

have begun his ministry in year A. D 27. Work on the temple area was not completed until A. D.

64, only six years before it was all destroyed.

As Herod grew older, he became more and more suspicious, hostile, and cruel. By the time of his

death he had lost the confidence and favor of the Romans. This fact can explain why Quirinius

ordered a tax registration in Herod’s Kingdom Ca 8 B.C. Herod’s claim to fame in History is his

order to slay all the male infants in Bethlehem (Mathew 2:16-18). Although this deed is not

recorded in secular history, it was no worse than many other evil atrocities he committed, and it

has resemblance to the pattern of his life. His insane jealousy for power surely would not have

allowed unchallenged even an infant’s claim to be “King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:21). In 4 B.C

shortly after the birth of Jesus, Herod contracted a terrible disease, described in gruesome detail

by Josephus. Som have suggested dropsy, or cancer of the intestines. Josephus says Herod knew

that the people would rejoice over his death, so he imprisoned the principal Jewish leaders and

ordered that they should be executed when he died, so that there would be mourning in

Jerusalem on that day. Another tradition says that before Herod died he had ordered the

execution of hundreds of Jewish leaders at the same time so that if there was no mourning over
his death, there would be mourning at the time of his death in the city. Fortunately, the order

died alongside with him as it was not carried out.

Right up to the time of his death Herod kept executing his sons and heirs and rewriting his will;

the final will was written only five days before he died. In the end three of his younger sons

inherited the kingdom. Because of strife by the sons over Herod’s will, the Romans did not

bestow the title of “king” on any of his sons, although Augustus promised Archelaus could have

Archelaus (4 B.C – A.D. 6)

The most important of Herod’s kingdom was given to Archelaus, who was the son of Herod the

Great and Malthace (a Samaritan). He took over Herod’s kingdom after Herod died, became

ethnarch of the Jews, with general oversight of all of his father’s territory. His own territory

included Judea, Idumea, and Samaria. Archelaus was an incompetent and cruel ruler. His bad

reputation is reflected in Matt. 2:22, where it states that Joseph and Mary avoided his territory

when they took Jesus out of Egypt to Nazareth. In A.D 6 a delegation of Jews and Samaritans

agreed, and went to Rome to complain about Archelaus. Augustus deposed him and, instead of

appointing another ethnarch, demoted his territory to an imperial province under the rule of a

Roman prefect.

Herod Antipas (4 B.C – A.D 39)

Antipas was granted the title of tetrarch, while not given the “King” title, he was given the

family title “Herod” by the Romans. The title “tetrarch” (Greek tetrarches) originally meant

“ruler of a fourth part” of a district; later it was applied to any petty dependent prince below the

rank of a king. Both Herod Antipas and his brother Philip held this title (Matt 14:; Luke 3:1).

Occasionally the Gospels use the word “king” for Herod Antipas, but this word is used not in a
precise way, but as a popular designation (Matt 14:9; Mark 6: 14 -26). Antipas was given the

territories of Galilee and Perea. Antipas ruled for many years, and he is the “Herod” mentioned

in the Gospels (except in the birth narrative, when Herod the Great is intended). Since Jesus grew

up in Galilee, he belonged to Herod Antipas’ jurisdiction (Luke 23:6-12). Herod Antipas is

remembered for beheading John the Baptist in Perea. While Herod was visiting Rome, he was

attracted to Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip ( not Philip the Tetrarch). She forsook her

husband, and with her daughter Salome she went with Herod back to Galilee. John the Baptist

declared that Herod was guilty of grave sin. For this reason Herod imprisoned John and later

executed him (Matt 14:1-2 = Mark 6: 14-29). Antipas is related to Jesus in three incidents: the

first, when he heard of Jesus’ miraculous power, he concluded that he was John the Baptist

( Mathew 14: 1f, Mark 6:14-16, Luke 9:7-9). Second, when Jesus was warned to flee from

Herod’s territory of Perea, Jesus took his time in leaving, and called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:31-

32). The third, during his trial, Jesus refused to speak at all to Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9).

Philip the Tetrarch (4 B. C – A.D. 34).

Herod the Great’s son Philip received the least important section of his kingdom, the territories

NE of the sea of Galilee, including Iturea, Trachonitis. Philip is mentioned in the NT only in

Luke 3:1. He seems on the whole to have been a good ruler. He married Salome, who had

danced for his brother Herod Antipas. Jesus visited Caesrea Philippi, a city in Philip’s territory

which he had built up and named for himself. While Jesus was there, Peter gave his great

confession (Matt. 16:13-20). Nearby Mt Hermon may have been the site of Christ’s

transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-2).

Herod Agrippa 1 (AD 37- 44)

He was the son of Aristobulus and therefore the grandson of Herod the Great. He spent a good

part of his early life in Rome with the emperor’s family. He once made an off-hand comment

that Tiberius should hand over the rulership to Caligula. When Tiberius got wind of this, he

imprisoned him. However, Tiberius died shortly thereafter and Caligula became emperor. He

immediately released Agrippa and gave him the tetrachies of Philip and Lysanius. He also

crowned him king. When Caligula was assassinated, Agrippa happened to be in Rome and

helped Claudius succeed Caligula. As a result, Caligula compensated Agrippa with Judea and

Samaria, which gave him dominion over the entire region of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

He lived mostly in Jerusalem during his reign and also partook in worship at the temple

regularly. He observed the strict rituals of Judaism. His desire to please the Jews led him to

persecute the church, making him the first to do so. He was responsible for the execution of

James and also the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12 :11-19).

Luke and Josephus both record that Agrippa had a strange death. He saw himself as someone to

be worshipped, on a special occasion, he accepted that was rendered to him by certain devotees

and God struck him down. He was inflicted with some kind of severe infection with worms that

killed him in a few days. (Acts 20:20-23).

Herod Agrippa 11 (AD 50-110)

He was the son of Agrippa 1 and a great grandson of Herod the Great. He was just 17 when his

father died and as such, was overlooked when Rome replaced Agrippa. However, about six years

after, Agrippa 11 was handed over the small kingdom of Chalcis. Later, he gave up this for other

territories and eventually reigned over what had been the tetrarchy of Philip. He grew to become
a religious advisor to Roman rulers and is considered as the reason for his stay in Caesarea when

Festus became the procurator of Judea. This was when he came in contact with Paul who was

imprisoned (Acts 25:13 -Acts 26:32). Agrippa’s private life was characterized by scandal, not the

least of which was the accusation of incest with his sister Bernice. He sided with the Roman

government during the war with Judah and eventually retired to Rome.

NEW TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

Jewish Religious Writings

In addition to the Old Testament, available to the Jews is the original Hebrew Bible, the Aramaic

Targums, and the LXX; with other Jewish religious writings produced up to the New Testament

times. Protestant Christians do not accept the inspiration of these other writings; however, they

have valuable information concerning the popular religious beliefs and aspirations of the Jews at

that time.

Intertestamental Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

From ca. 200 B.C to ca. A.D 100 various Jews and early Christians produced many writings

which are religious in nature and were considered by many to be important or even canonical.

These writings can be divided into two broad groups:

The Apocrypha: These consists of works which were considered canonical by some, and many

of which are official part of the Roman Catholic Scriptures.

The Pseudepigrapha: These are works under a false or assumed name.

Apocrypha
The term apocryphal means “hidden,” and was applied by the Jews to books they felt were

unsuitable for reading in the synagogues. Most of these books have transmitted in the Greek

manuscripts of the Septuagint. A few of them have been found in Aramaic or Hebrew among the

Dead Sea Scrolls. The apocryphal books are:

1) Judith 2) Wisdom of Solomon 3) Tobit 4) Ecclesiasticus 5) Letter of Jeremiah 6) 1

Maccabees 7) 2 Maccabees 8) Additions to Esther 9) Additions to Daniel 10) Prayer of

Manasseh 11) 3 Ezra (or 3 Esdras)

While the Apocrypha is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical, the early church

did not. Protestants accept the same canon held by the Jews in the apostolic age, the 39 books of

the Old Testament. Nowhere does the New Testament quote the Apocrypha as scripture.

Pseudepigrapha

These writings are designated as “falsely named”, they are attributed to authors who did not

write them. The list is as follows: 1) Letter of Aristeas 2) 3 Maccabees 3) 4 Maccabees 5) Enoch

(Slavonic & Ethiopic eds.) 6) Sibyline Oracles 7) Apocalypse of Baruch (Greek and Syriac) 8)

Psalms of Solomon 9) Jubilees 10) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 11) Assumption of

Moses 12) Martyrdom of Isaiah 13) Life of Adam and Eve.

These works have a lower claim of credibility than do even the Apocrypha. But they are of great

importance in revealing some of the underlying attitudes of Judaism in its various groups during

the NT period. In a few places the New Testament parallels the pseudepigrapha in its

information. In these cases, we assume the pseudepigrapha records true tradition

Heb. 11:37; cf Martyrdom of Isaiah

Jude 9, cf. Assumption of Moses

Jude 14-15; Book of Enoch.

Other Intertestamental Writings

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945 at Qumran and in the surrounding caves has

revealed several writings that were in existence. The non-canonical writings are these:

1. Rule of the Community (or Manual of Discipline)

2. Damascus Document

3. War Scroll

4. Commentary on Habakkuk

5. Genesis Apocryphon

6. Thanksgiving Scroll

7. Temple Scroll

Jewish Groups in the New Testament Period

Many prominent Jewish groups or subcultures developed by the end of the intertestamental

period. Many of them are mentioned in New Testament

Pharisees

Theologically and practically, the Pharisees were the most powerful force in Judaism in the time

of Jesus and the apostles. They had the most allegiance from the Jewish population, set the tone

for traditional and orthodox Judaism ever since.

The Pharisees were the successors of the earlier Hasidim; who became the strong popular party

under the Hasmoneans. Uncertainty surrounds the origin of the name; most take it that it came

from the verb paras “to separate”. In this instance, the Pharisees saw themselves as being

separated from the wicked rabble around them. Others say that it originated from the term Parsi,

“Persian” and that the pharisees were given that name by their opponents, who accused them of

sympathizing with the Zorostrian ideals and traditions. They were first heard of in the reign of

John Hyrcanus. At that time, they opposed the monarchy, being popular and anti-aristocratic.

Later the Pharisees opposed Herod the Great and his family, and nursed an underlying hostility

to Rome. After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70 all Jews sympathized with the pharisee

position, and the Pharisaism became normative Judaism, and continued to do so until modern

times. It survives today in Orthodox Jewry.

Beliefs

The Pharisees boasted about their high ideals, especially in their desire to live according to the

laws of the Torah and the related regulations promulgated by the rabbis, later codified in the

Mishnah and Talmud. Thus their law consisted in the 613 commandments found in the books of

Moses plus hundreds of additional laws passed on by oral tradition. Theologically, the Pharisees

were more ready to believe supernatural doctrines, and in that sense could be considered as

conservatives. They had the following beliefs:

 Inspiration of the Old Testament

 Supreme authority of the law and oral tradition
 Divine sovereignty
 Angels and demons
 Immortality of the soul
 Bodily resurrection of the dead
  Rewards and punishment after life.

While many of these beliefs were good (cf. Acts 23: 6-9), the Pharisees adherence to their
tradition and their spiritual pride blinded them to the heart of the gospel (Matt. 15:3; 23:13,23).

Sadducees

In the days of Christ, the Sadducees although fewer in number, were the most powerful group

politically. The high priestly family was Sadducee, and that group ruled the Sanhedrin, and

cooperated with the Romans in the rule of Judea.

Background

In the same way the Pharisees were products of earlier Hasidim, the Sadducees were the

descendants of the Hellenizers. However, when the Hasmonean Kings obtained freedom from

Syrian (as such, Hellenistic) pressure, the Hellenizers lost focus. As such, they became the

powerful pro-monarchy party, as opposed to the more popular Pharisees. This political evolution

produced the historical irony that the descendants of the Hellenizers were now allied with the

descendants of the Maccabees. The word “Sadducee” come from an unknown source. Many

posit that it is related to the name Zadok, the high priest under David and Solomon, whose line

dominated the high Priesthood for hundreds of years. Others associate the name with the word

“sadiq”, righteous, or the Greek word Sundikos, “syndic,” meaning “judge” or “fiscal

controller.” The Sadducees from the time of John Hyrcanus were the pro-monarchy party. They

were exclusive and Aristocratic. While many of them were priests, and their leaders were high

priests, many Sadducees were not priests. Quite often, Jews who returned to Israel from the

Dispersion joined the Sadducee party, because they were more at home in the Greek and Roman
culture then current. In all ramifications, the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin, but were a

minority party in Judaism. They were largely indebted to the Romans for their place of power; as

such they felt threatened by Jesus’ ministry and claims (John 11:48-51). After the revolt in A.D.

67-70, the Jews considered the Sadducees as pro-Roman traitors, and Sadduceeism ceased to be

a force in Judaism.

Beliefs

The Sadducees considered themselves the conservative party in Judaism. Unlike the Pharisees,

the Sadducees held on to only the written law, and refused to add the traditions of men to its

requirements. Only in the area of ritual Levitical purity were they legalistic, observing many

traditions related to the temple service itself. Most of what we know about their doctrines is in

the form of negations, they contradicted Pharisaical doctrines in the following way:

1. No law or scripture but the Torah (with the exception of Temple regulations)
2. “Free will” instead of predestination
3. No angels or demons
4. No soul or afterlife
5. No resurrection
6. No rewards or retribution after death
In two instances in the NT the Sadducees doctrine is quite pronounced:

Dispute with Jesus in the temple (Matt 22:23-33 and parallels)

Paul’s defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6-10)

The Sadducees, along with the Pharisees, opposed the ministry of Christ and his apostles (cf.

Acts 5:17-18, 40).

The Essenes
The Essenes comprised a subculture of diverse groups that denied the spiritual leadership of the

mainline Jewish groups. Often mystical or reclusive, the Essenes lived on the fringes of Jewish

society. Many believed they were represented by the Dead Sea community that produced the

Dead Sea Scrolls.

Background

The Essenes possibly originated as Hasidic refugees under Alexander Jannaeus. These purists

separated themselves from institutional corruptions as well as the ceremonial ones, Therefore,

they established their own customs and ceremonies.

Beliefs

The only historical literary sources that describe the Essenes are references in Ohilo and in

Josephus. The Essenes were an extremely legalistic sect of Jews, which held itself aloof from

normal Jewish religious life. The Essenes were separate from the Jerusalem temple; they

believed it was tainted and corrupt. They worshipped the Lord with their own calendar and ritual.

Their writings appear to have an apocalyptic emphasis, with their living in the end times. The

Essenes were very exclusive, with a period of trial for every new candidate for their sect. Also,

they did not believe in marriage, but remained celibate. Josephus describes them as wearing

white garments, traveling two by two, preaching their doctrines throughout the villages of Judea.

Possible Relation with Qumran

In many ways the rigid rules and austere life of the Qumran community are similar to the

lifestyle of the Essenes. Yet there are important differences, including differences in ceremonies

and sacrifices, dietary regulations, special days, and especially marriage-the Qumran community

may have lived in families, as remains of children have been found there. In addition, the
Essenes apparently were pacifists, while Qumran literature glorifies “holy” warfare. These

results have led many scholars to conclude that Qumran sect was a group related to the Essenes,

but perhaps a break away from them. Others suggest that there were many such independent

groups at that time, the Qumran sect being one of such.

Possible Relation to John the Baptist.

Some have suggested that Luke 1:80 indicates that John spent his childhood and youth under the

tutelage of an Essene community in the Judean desert, perhaps even in Qumran itself. They point

also to his unusual clothing and eating habits (Matt 3:4). While it is possible that he had contacts

with such sects, it is apparent from his preaching that John’s source of values was not derived

from the Essenes, but from the Old Testament. In addition, as the last of the prophets of that

dispensation, he received divine guidance in his preaching. In constract to the Essenes, he

encouraged the normal worship of the Jews, including the temple services in Jerusalem; only he

insisted that the religious leaders should repent and bring forth the fruits of righteousness. Jesus

shared the same perspective

Scribes

In the NT accounts of Jesus’ ministry he often was questioned and interacted with scribes,

translated ‘teachers of the law’ in the NIV. They are mostly found in the company of various

Jewish groups.

Background

In the earlier Old Testament times, a scribe was an amanuensis, one who took dictation or copied

manuscripts. Such as Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah (Jer. 36:4, 32). However, by the time of the
return from Babylon, a scribe was also considered a student and teacher of the law, the most

prominent example being Ezra the scribe ( Ezra 7:6, 10).

In the intertestamental period the scribes were the leaders in establishing and conducting the

Synagogue schools throughout Israel, and they also often directed the synagogues themselves.

Because of their interest in the fine points of the law, and later, the tradition of the elders, nearly

all scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees. When the gospels speak of “the scribes and the

Pharisees,” normally they consider them as one group, that is a group of Pharisees, some of

whom were also scribes.

Duties of Scribes

The Jewish scribes in the time of Jesus had three main functions:

1. To preserve and develop the law. The scribes remembered and passed down to the next

generation all the “traditions of the Elders,”; these consisted of the 613 individual

commandments of the Torah and the various additional interpretations and regulations

designed to “hedge” these laws about, so that no one could break them.

2. To teach the law. The scribes were the ones who taught the Jewish Children and the

whole populace what these laws, regulations and traditions were.

3. To administer the law. Often the scribes, because of their detailed knowledge of the law

and jurisprudence, served as lawyers and judges (cf. Matt. 22:35; Mark 2:16).

The scribes wielded much power in Jewish society and were highly respected by the Jewish

people. For this reason, a scribe was called ‘Rabbi’ meaning “my great one” or “My master”.

This form of address is used one time in the NT for John the Baptist (John 3:26) and often for
 Jesus (e.g. John 4:31). John and Jesus both received this title because they were religious

teachers.

Zealots

The Zealots were a more of a political party than a religious group. They were the active

opponents to Roman rule. Their main Jewish enemies were the Herodians, the pro-Roman party

(cf. Mark 3:6, 12:13). In Acts 5:35-39 Gamaliel referred to the Zealot leader Judas the son of

Ezekias. Most of these Zealot-led revolts began in Galilee.

The radical or fanatical wing of the Zealots was the Sicarii (from Latin word sica, (“dagger”).

These people used terrorism, assassination, and revolution to fight for independence. The Roman

tribune in Jerusalem mistakenly associated Paul with this movement (Acts 21:28). As history

moved closer toward the revolt of A.D. 67-70, the Zealots became bolder.

By A.D. 66 the Zealots had acquired sufficient influence to bring the whole country into revolt

against Rome. Apparently, one of Jesus’ disciples was a Zealot. His name is recorded twice as

Simon Zealotes, or Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In two other places, his name takes

another form. In the KJV, it is rendered “Simon the Canaanite”; but that is a mistranslation of the

Textus Receptus, which has only one a and should be rendered “Simon the Cananite,” that is, a

man from Cana in Galilee (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18). However, the best manuscripts read in those

two references “Simon the Cananaean” (Simon ho Kananaios); his name is rendered such in

many standard translations (ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV). The word “Cananaean” probably does not

refer to a town, but to the Zealots, coming from the Aramaic word Qanan, meaning “enthusiast,

Zealot”. If that is the case, his name should be translated “Simon the Zealot” in all four
occurrences, as is done in the NIV. It is assumed that after becoming an apostle of Jesus, Simon

gave up his involvement with Zealots.

THE GOSPELS

The four Gospels are unique in ancient literature. They are not biographies as such. Rather, each

gospel presents a different view of Jesus, especially his work and teachings, emphasizing his

passion, death, and resurrection. The word gospel means “good news” (Greek euangelion, from

which we get our English word evangel and its related words). The Gospels were written by men

who either knew Jesus closely and personally or who were close disciples of them. Mathew and

John were originally apostles; Mark was a disciple of the apostle Peter; Luke was a disciple of

Paul and also extensively interviewed other witnesses. In addition to their good historical

connection to Jesus, the Gospel writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who guided them as to

what to write, aided their memory, and kept them from error. Therefore, we consider the Gospels

to be not only reliable witnesses to Jesus’ life and work, but authoritative witnesses.

Although the four gospels were written separately and at first circulated separately, the early

Christians very soon gathered them and considered them a single collection. The titles of the

earliest Gospel manuscripts are parallel, using the Greek kata (“according to”) with the name

following: “According to Mark,” etc. Longer and more elaborate titles are found in the

manuscripts from later centuries. These titles go back at least to AD 125. Augustine and many

others in the history of the church have associated each gospel with one of the creatures marking
the cherubs in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation. There have been various arrangements; with the

following commonly used today.

Gospel Symbol Emphasis

Mathew: Lion, Jesus is the King

Mark-Ox- Jesus is the Servant

Luke- Man, Jesus is the Man

John-Eagle, Jesus is the son of God

CRITICAL ISSUES IN THE GOSPELS

The Synoptic Gospels

The word synoptic is derived from the Greek word sunoptikos, literally, “seen together”. This

name has been given to the first three Gospels because they are remarkably similar in their

content and wording. Yet, they are not identical, each author maintains his own literary style.

They are different from John’s gospel.

Duplication of Material.

According to William Hendriksen,

1. Mark has 661 verses:

606 of them are also in Mathew

350 are also in Luke

2. Mathew has 1,068 verses

500 are also in Mark

3. Luke has 1,149 verse:

350 are also in Mark

Mathew and Luke have 200 verses in common that are not in Mark.

The Synoptic Problem

The “Synoptic Gospels” are so similar to each other that , in a sense, they view Jesus “with the

same eye” (syn-optic), in contrast to the very different picture of Jesus presented in the Fourth

Gospel (John) or the non-canonical Gospels. Yet, there are also many significant differences

among the three Synoptic Gospels. The “synoptic problem” – The similarities between Mathew,

Mark, and Luke are so numerous and so close, not just in the order of the material presented but

also in the exact wording of long stretches of text, that it is not sufficient to explain these

similarities on the basis of common oral tradition alone. Rather, some type of literary

dependence must be assumed as well. That is, someone copied from someone else’s previously

written text, several evangelists must have used one or more of the earlier Gospels as sources for

their own compositions. The situation is complicated because some of the material is common to

all three Synoptic; while other material is found only in two out of these three Gospels.

Moreover, the common material is not always presented in the same order in the various

Gospels. So, the question remains, who wrote first, who copied from who?

Some older proposals

 The Traditional Theory The Griesbach Theory The Farer/Goulder Theory

(Augustinian Hypothesis) (Two-Gospel Hypothesis) (Positing Markan Priority)

Matt Matt Mark

Mark
Luke Matt
Luke Mark Luke

Note: Many other solutions have been proposed over the years, but most are variations of one of

these three basic theories.

The Four-Source Theory (the solution accepted by most scholars today):

Mark Q
M L

Matt Luke

Mark = the oldest written gospel, which provided the narrative framework for both Matt & Luke.

Q= “Quelle”= a hypothetical written “source” of some sayings/ teachings of Jesus (now lost).

M= Various other materials (mostly oral, others probably written) found only in Mathew

L= Various other materials (mostly oral, others probably written) found only in Luke

Note: the arrows indicate direction of influence, older material are above, later Gospels below.

Note: By definition, Q consists of materials found in Mathew and Luke, but not found in Mark.
 Markan Priority – For most of Christian history, people thought that Mathew was first and oldest

Gospel, and that Mark was a later, shorter version of the same basic message. From the mid-19th

century until today, however, most scholars are convinced that Mark is the first and oldest

Gospel (at least in the final version, as we have it today) and that Mathew and Luke are later

expansions of Mark. Why?

1. Mark’s Gospel is embedded with several grammatical, literary, historical and geographical

difficulties (minor errors) that are found in Mathew and/ or Luke. If Mathew was first, it is easy

to see how Mathew and/ or Luke wanted to and were able to correct Mark’s minor mistakes.

2. Mark’s Gospel contains several episodes that are obscure (4:26-29, 14:51-52) or make Jesus

look crazy (3:19-21), magical (7:32-37), or weak (8:22-26). If Mathew was first, it is harder

to explain why Mark added these strange episodes; but if Mark was first, it is easier to

understand why both Mathew and Mark omitted them.

3. Mark’s basic chronological/geographical structure is the same as in the other two synoptics;

but the material found in both Mathew and Luke (but not in Mark) is in very different orders

in these two Gospels. If Mathew was first and Mark second, it is hard to understand why

Luke would have kept the same order for all the material found in both Mathew and Mark,

but substantially rearranged all the other material found in Mathew but not in Mark. If Mark

was first, however, then it is easy to explain how Mathew and Luke inserted the extra

material they have in common (from the Q source?) into Mark’s overall outline, although in

significantly different ways.

It should be noted that scholars who believe that historically Mark was first are not suggesting

that the order of the four Gospels in the New Testament should be changed; there is no reason

why the traditional order (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) cannot be retained in printed Bibles.
However, in textbooks and academic works, many scholars treat Mark first, followed by Mathew

and Luke, with John usually still last.

Objections against the “Q-Hypothesis”- Some scholars object to the hypothesis of a no-longer

extant collection of the sayings and teachings of Jesus (as the “Q-document” is thought to be) for

various reasons; but each of these objections can easily be countered:

1. Objection: the “Q-document” no longer exists, if there was one. Response: if almost all of

the material in “Q” was incorporated into Mathew’s and /or Luke’s Gospels, then early

Christians would have had little need or desire to preserve “Q” as a separate document.

When people find a “revised and expanded edition” of a work, they do not always keep

the older shorter edition. Rather than wondering why “Q” was lost, it would be more

important to ask why Mark was preserved.

2. Objection: No early Christians would have composed a collection of the sayings and

teachings of Jesus, as “Q” was supposedly was (like the sayings of Confucius” or “the

sayings of chairman Mao”), without also including some stories of his miracles and other

actions, and his passion, death, and resurrection. Response: The non-canonical “Gospel

of Thomas,” rediscovered in 1948, is a collection of 114 sayings, parables and short

teachings of Jesus that does not include any miracles or other stories about events in

Jesus’ life. Although the Gospel of Thomas is not the same as “Q” ( Its contents are

significantly different), it is proof that early Christians did indeed compose the same type

or genre of Literature that the Q-document seems to have been.

3. Objection: the “Q-hypothesis” is not necessary for explaining the relationship among the

three Synoptic Gospels. Response: All the other solutions that try to solve the synoptic

Problem without positing a “Q-document” have their own significant problems. Although
 it should not be forgotten that the past existence of a Q-document is only a hypothesis,

not a proven fact, it seems to provide the best solution.

The preservation and canonization of Mark- Given that Mark’s Gospel is so short and has

several difficulties, it is something of interest to ask why Mark was not lost, but rather was

accepted into the NT canon. There are at least three reasons why Mark was preserved and

canonized, despite its shortcomings:

1. Mark was the secretary or “interpreter” of Peter, so in a way, the Gospel according to

Mark could be thought of as “Peter’s Gospel.” And since Peter was the leader amongst

the apostles, early Christians would have had good reason to preserve what they

considered to be a written record of Peter’s preaching.

2. Mark’s Gospel was thought to have been written in Rome and/ or for the early Christian

community in Rome; so in a sense, Mark’s Gospel could be considered the “Gospel of/

from Rome.” Not only was the city of Rome the capital and largest city of the Roman

empire, but the two most important Christian apostles, Peter and Paul, both preached,

were martyred, and were buried there. Thus, the Christian community in Rome became

prominent and influential very early in Christian history, and it is easy to understand why

“their” Gospel would have been preserved and accepted into NT canon.

3. If Markan priority is correct and Mark’s was indeed the first Gospel to have been written,

then it would be the oldest available record of the words and deeds of Jesus, yet another

reason why early Christians might have preserved and continued to use it despite its

brevity and short comings.

History of Research into the Synoptic Questions

Augustine (354 -430) claimed the canonical order (Mathew, Mark, Luke) was the order

in which the gospels were written. In addition, he said that the synoptic writers who

composed later both knew, and used the earlier compositions. This implies that the gospel

of Mathew was written first, and was then abbreviated by Mark. Luke then used both

gospels as sources for his own. How Augustine knew this is, however, not clear.

Augustine’s explanation of the literary relationships amongst the synoptic gospels was

upheld universally until the rise of modern, Protestant scholarship in the 18 th century. It

became the official view of the Roman Catholic church in 1912, when the Biblical

commission made a pronouncement to this effect. This view was supposed to be binding

on all Roman catholic scholars. In the 20 th century B.C Butler (The originality of St.

Mathew) and L. Vaganay (Le Probleme Synoptique) both present a revised version of the

Augustinian explanation: Mathew is the first gospel, which was used by Mark as a source

for his own gospel; Luke made use of both Mathew and Mark as sources. Recently, J.

Wenham has taken up a modified version of the Augustinian explanation (Redating

Mathew, Mark, and Luke: A fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problems).

Beginning in the 18th century Protestant Biblical scholars began to investigate seriously

the question of how the synoptic gospels were related to one another. Most concluded

that the relationship was a literary one. In the late 18th century, J.J. Griesbach argued that

the gospel of Mathew appeared first and was used by Luke as a source for his own

gospel. Mark then used both gospels as sources. This has come to be known as the

Griesbach hypothesis (more recently as the two-source theory) and has been revived in

the middle of the 20th century, after many decades of neglect, by W.R. Farmer (The

Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis), whose views have gained some adherents.
Although there is not complete unanimity among scholars, the most accepted answer to

the synoptic question of how the synoptic gospels are literally related was first proposed

in 1838 by C.H, Weisse, who postulated that Mathew and Luke independently used Mark

as a source and independently combined their Markan source with another source of

tradition, what has come to be known as Q (Quelle = source, as in Spruche-Quelle or

saying-source). This has come to be known as “the two-source hypothesis,” and was

given its classical expression by H.J. Holtzmann (Die synoptische Evangelien: Ihr

Ursprung und ihr geschichtlicher Charakter). In the early twentieth century, B.F. Streeter

expanded the two-source hypothesis to become the four-source hypothesis (The four

Gospel: A study in Origins). Although such material may be tradition from a common

source unused by the other, it is possible that what is unique to Matthew and Luke was

available only to one or the other gospel writer. Thus, in order to take into account, the

Lukan and Matthean “special tradition,” Streeter proposed that the three synoptic gospel

ultimately derive from four source: Mark, Q, M (Matthean special Tradition), L (Lukan

special Tradition). For our purposes, the two-source hypothesis and the four-source

hypothesis shall be considered as the same; the latter is only a further refinement of the

former. A variation of the two-source hypothesis is known as the “Farrar Hypothesis,”

named after Austin M. Farrer, who accepted Markan priority but dispensed with the idea

of a common source used independently by Matthew Luke; instead he argued that

Matthew added to his Markan source and then Luke used Matthew as a source (”On

Dispensing with Q,” studies in the Gospel: Essays in the Memory of R.H. Lightfoot, 55-

88). (See S. Carlson’s Annotated Bibliography.).

Critical Theories
Form Criticism

It was Herman Gunkel who first applied this theory to the old Testament. His idea was

borrowed and applied to the New Testament by three scholars who had come to

recognize that the source critical approach pursued for several decades by scholars had

exhausted its potential (Carson, Moo and Morris). These men were K. L. Schmidt, M.

Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. These pioneers of form criticism had in common at

least six assumptions and beliefs that came to be the basis of form criticism.

1. The story and saying of Jesus circulated in small independent units.

2. Transmission of the gospel material can be compared to the transmission of other

folk and religious traditions. Responsibility of this tradition rest not with individual

but with the community, within which the material took shape.

3. The stories and sayings of Jesus took on certain standard forms, for most part still

readily visible in the Gospels. These stories or sayings are described in various forms

a. Paradigms or apothegms or BS: brief sayings of Jesus or short narrative of Jesus

e.g Mark 12:13 -17

b. Tales or miracle stories: stories about Jesus’ miraculous deed e.g feeding of 5000

people

c. Legends or stories about Jesus: stories that magnify Jesus as hero.

d. Parables and other sayings like prophetic sayings e.g saying of Jesus which does

not climax in a single saying e.g the Lord’s Prayer.

4. The form of a specific story or saying makes it possible to determine the sitz im leben

that is, the life setting or setting in the life of the early church
 5. As the story is being passed down, the early Christian community did not only put the

material into certain forms, it modified it under the impetus of its own needs and

situation.

6. Form critics have adopted various criteria to enable to determine the age and

historical worthiness of a particular pericope. These criteria are based on certain laws

of transmission that are thought to hold good f or any orally transmitted material.

According to these laws people tend to lengthen their stories 2) add details to them 3)

conform them more and more to their language 4) generally preserve and create only

w hat fits their own needs and beliefs.

Note: some of these criteria are: criterion of dissimilarity which argues that a saying was

authentic when it could not emerge either from Judaism nor from the early church. Criterion of

multiple attestation argue that those sayings that appear in variety of distinct sources are more

likely to be authentic. Criterion of coherence is the most subjective category. This criterion

argues that the other sayings that fit together or cohere with already demonstrated authentic

sayings are most likely to be authentic as well.

With this assumption, form critic believed that not all stories and sayings about the life and

teaching of Jesus were preserved but only those that met the need of the early Christian

community were recorded. They concluded therefore, that we cannot know actually all the

history about Jesus’ life and ministry but only those that the early church had modified and suits

their needs and beliefs.

Evaluation of the Approach:

First, it is probable that more of the Gospel material than many form critics allow existed from

very early periods in written form and that much of the rest of it may already have been

connected together into larger literary units.

Second, one must be careful not to impose straight jacket of specified clearly delineated forms on

the material.

Third, the claim of the form critic to be able to identify the setting in the life of the church from

specific forms must be treated with healthy skepticism.

The assumptions of many of the form critics about the nature of the transmission process are

suspect. Several authors have argued that most form critic have not sufficiently appreciated the

dynamics and nature of oral transmission and that far too little attention has been given to the

role of individuals in shaping and handing down the materials. The various units or forms which

the oral tradition took include the following:

a) The form critics fail to come to grips with the presence of eye witnesses, some of them

hostile, who were in a position to contest any wholesale creation of gospel incident and

saying.

b) Form critics are guilty of underestimating the degree to which first century Jews would

have been able to remember and transmit accurately by word of mouth what Jesus had

said and done.

Weakness of Form Critical Approach

1. The first weakness has to do with the methodology itself. These methodologies are

working hypothesis which cannot be verified. They are merely speculations and have no

concrete evidence to support their claims.

2. There is no consensus among scholars regarding the use of the methods adopted in

approaching or interpreting the gospel.

3. They do not believe in divine origin of the scriptures; every explanation has been

subjected to rational and scientific approach which has rendered the scriptures

ineffective.

4. The approach has reduced the Gospels to smaller literary unit or fragments.

5. The approach has reduced the supernatural event or the miraculous in the gospel to mere

myths and superstitions.

6. Form criticism is not by itself a comprehensive tool nor one that can be used exclusively

without recourse to other equally important methods.

Strength of Form Critical Approach

1. It helps to discover afresh the vitality of the word of God

2. It helps in the discoveries of the original text, its setting and the history of the text

development.

3. It discovers the Gospels as kerygmatic in nature and not biographical.

4. The order of writing the Gospel is determined by topical and theological considerations

rather than by the actual course of event.

5. It makes the Gospel a book worthy of Research.

6. At every stage in the transmission, the selection and shaping of the material was

governed by the practical needs of the community, preaching, teaching, liturgical,

apologetic and controversial.

Source Criticism
Source Criticism is devoted to the investigation of the written stage in the production of the

synoptic gospel. It asks and seeks to answer the question: what written sources, if any, did

the evangelists use in compiling their gospel? The question is of particular interest to the

historian of the early Christian movement and one that any student of the synoptic gospels is

bound to ask. For there are startling similarities, both in general outline and in particular

wording among the Synoptic Gospels. Examine these texts: Mt. 9:6, Mark 2:10-11 and Luke

5:24. Not only is the wording almost exact but each of the three evangelists inserts an abrupt

break in Jesus’ words at the same point. What concerns the student of the Synoptic Gospel is

the how do we account for the similarity in wording since the author wrote at different times

in history.

Alongside these striking agreements is also found puzzling differences. In the example

above, Mathew omits “I tell you” found in Mark and Luke. In Mathew 23: 37- 35 Mathew

omits the part about the paralyzed man’s friends opening a hole in the roof in order to let his

mat down in front of Jesus. This combination of agreement and disagreement extend to the

larger structure of the Gospels as well. When one considers the enormous materials in the

synoptic gospel that similar in order and content, one cannot but ask why they are so? This is

where the significance of the Synoptic problem comes to the fore.

Redaction Criticism

To redact literally means “to compress,” “edit,” or “to reduce.” This process is usually done

through modifying the original material to conform to the standard or purpose of the new

document. Redaction starts from where form criticism stops. Principally, the Redactors are

concerned with the aims and theology of the author as well as to decipher the actual words of

Jesus as distin guished from the evangelist’s additions. In their bid to do this, they
concentrate on the editorial framework linking the various fragment units of the Gospels

story. Thus, they conclude that Mathew was interested in the development of the church and

therefore provided a manual for teachers while Mark endeavored to show that Jesus was a

wonder worker and Luke was concerned about universal salvation.