Palestine in the First Century

palestine in the 1st century

"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard."
- Matthew 20:1

socio-economic conditions

· During the Roman Era, Jewish peasants living in Palestine depended on access to land for their well-being.

In order to survive, they had to raise not just enough food to last until the next harvest.

They needed extra grain for seed for next year's crop.
Food for draft animals.
Enough to trade for necessities.
Extra food for the necessary rituals/celebrations required throughout the year.

Usually, peasants barely produced enough to meet these needs.
Under the Roman occupation, peasants were expected to produce a surplus:

This was taken from them by the ruling elite in the form of taxation, and used by that elite as a source of revenue to create wealth.
Jews were already under an obligation to pay the traditional tithe to the temple, which supported the priesthood.
The Romans also required a tribute collected in the form of taxation.
This amounted to double taxation, and it could sometimes consume as much as 40% of production.
This was an impossible demand to meet, and it was seen as robbery/banditry by the Jews.
It amounted to slavery.
To the Romans, non-payment of tribute was seen as rebellion, to which the Romans usually responded with military force.
To make matters worse, the Romans would also draw additional resources from the provinces during times of war (esp. civil war), often demanding funds immediately.

Families that did not have enough to live off of after paying the tribute were forced to borrow to survive.

Continued borrowing would increase a family's indebtedness- eventually causing complete loss of land.
Jews were often forced to become sharecroppers/tenant farmers on the very land that had belonged to their families for generations.
As a result, large estates run by stewards/landlords (sometimes absentee) and worked by tenants were common.

They were worked from sunrise to sunset.
They raised "cash crops" like grapes or olives (for oil). Such crops made a great deal of profit for elites, but were of little use to peasants who could not live off of them.
Sudden droughts or famines could devastate crops making it impossible to pay the tribute.

These factors combined to create a situation for Jews that was impossible to escape:

enormous, unpayable taxes
the threat of military action for non-payment
unusual occurences or natural disasters that added to the burden.

Jews were left with essentially two options:

Accept Roman oppression, and accept slavery.
Reject Oppression, and become an enemy of the empire.

Why would Jews have accepted slavery?

social banditry

Those Jews who resisted Roman oppression often did so by resorting to banditry.
In the NT, the word for bandits is sometimes also translated "revolutionaries," "robbers," "murderers."

Social bandits were peasants who had been repressed and separated from their land and village.
usually because they had been excessively taxed and forced to sell everything they owned, including their land.
Examples from the bible:

David is described as a bandit in 1 Sam 22:2.
Jesus is also linked to banditry several times:

Mk 14:48= "Have you come to arrest me like a bandit?"
Mk 15:27= He is crucified between two bandits.
Mk 15:6-15= Barabbas is described as a bandit.

Jesus himself is even portrayed as bandit-like:

He was from the villages
He associated with disreputable people
He made statements against taxation and the temple

Banditry in Jesus’ time:

Bandits formed organized bands that would raid and steal to survive- usually attacking elites.
They were seen as "Robin Hood"-type figures, even though they rarely if ever gave any of what they took to the poor.
Social banditry apparently began during the Maccabean era, and peaked in the mid-first century AD, when bandits made up a significant portion of the forces who fought against Rome in the First Revolt (66-70 AD).
Bandits were seen as the champions of the common people.

They were considered enemies of the state by Rome.

As Rome became more and more oppressive, banditry became more and more commonplace, until it came to a head in the First Revolt, which was fought primarily by organized bands of bandits.
Banditry increased sharply around the middle of the first century, because of a famine that occurred during the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander.
Josephus mentions that the problem continued to rise during the procuratorships of:

Cumanus (48-52 AD)
Felix (52-60 AD)
Festus (60-62 AD)
and it grew out of control during the reign of Albinus (62-64 AD), who made matters worse by further increasing taxes, helping to start the first revolt.

The role of Banditry in the First Revolt:

Gessius Florus (64-66 AD) was procurator at the beginning of the revolt.
Right before the revolt, the Romans began trying to eliminate banditry by pillaging the countryside, looting property and burning down villages, which only caused more people to join the bandit groups.
In 66 AD, a coalition of priests in the temple who were fed up with Roman exploitation refused to continue offering sacrifices in the temple for Roman and the emperor, and Rome saw this as an act of rebellion.
In 67 AD, bandit groups moved into Jerusalem and formed the Zealot party in opposition to Rome.
One of the two most important leaders of the Jewish resistance was a bandit, John of Gischala.

the messiah

There is in the OT a cycle of events that occurs repeatedly to the Jews:
It has been called the "Cycle of Salvation History"

They are in God's favor, his "Chosen," or "bride," or "first-born son."
They do something against his law (sin), such as worshipping pagan gods (they are "unfaithful."
They are punished by being removed from God's presence, or rejected.
They repent, to get back in God's favor.
Eventually, they are accepted back, only to begin the cycle again.

Jews recognized that the general course of history followed this cycle- they knew that if they sinned against God they could repent and be taken back.

But they also envisioned a time when the cycle would finally come to an end, with God's final judgment on the good and the bad.
Because of the many chosen/anointed men from Israel's past who led the nation to repentance, the Jews believed that an anointed would lead them to the final judgment, when God would welcome his chosen into the kingdom.

This "anointed" was in Hebrew "Mashiah"- from which we get the word "Messiah."
In Greek "anointed" is Christos- from which we get Christ.
The term originally applied simply to God's "anointed." It came to mean someone chosen by God to perform a task affecting the future of God's chosen people.
It has been applied most often to kings (David, Saul, etc.) and priests (Aaron and his sons).
Rarely, it is applied to prophets, and once it was applied to a pagan, Cyrus the Great.
It seems only to apply to those great leaders from Israel's history who have somehow played a decisive role in shaping Israel's future.

The Messiah could be someone who freed Israel from oppression, or

Someone who led the chosen to greatness.

By the second century, B.C., the Messiah came to refer specifically to that person who would act on God's behalf to bring about his kingdom.

Jews began to speculate about who/what the messiah would be like, and when he would appear on the scene (most thought very soon).
Jews found inspiration for their images of the messiah by searching through their scriptures, and early Christians would do the same.
Most Jews pictured the Messiah as someone who would actually physically remove their oppressors, a great military leader like Joshua or the Maccabees, or a great king like David. They were willing to fall in behind such a leader no matter the odds, confident that God would be on their side.
Some saw the Messiah as a great priest or prophet, who would "purify" (usually violently) Israel of corruption- both Jewish and Roman- and return it to a state of purity to be ready for the judgment.

messiah figures

Messianic Claimants in Palestine During Roman Oppression

Jesus was not the first, nor the last, Jew in antiquity to claim the title of Messiah.
Common peasant Jews did not necessarily expect the messiah to be an actual "son" of David (it is doubtful that many people could have actually traced their lineage back that far anyways)
they expected him to be like David himself.
Recall some key events from David's life:

David is portrayed as coming from humble (shepherd) origins (i.e. "the shepherd king").
When he fell out of favor with Saul, David was forced to live for a while as a bandit.
Until he is finally anointed king by popular demand (not heredity) at Hebron.
He is anointed by peasants who are tired of Saul's oppressive reign.
He is actually anointed twice at Hebron:

Once as king of Judah
Then as king of all of the tribes

"Common" Jews wanted a king like David, but not necessarily from David's line

because by the end of the Davidic monarchy, David's descendants had become just as oppressive as Saul, Solomon, etc.- kings they had sought to replace.
Only the elites who had benefitted from the monarchy were concerned about Davidic lineage.

Jews began to look for a new king or Messiah for two reasons:

The present state of affairs under oppressive Roman rule, represented by Herod the Great, who was seen as a false king ruling by the grace of Rome, not the grace of God.
Their understanding of the cycle of salvation history and how it had changed.

In the past, the Jews had always interpreted foreign oppression, natural disaster, etc., as punishment for the peoples' sins against God (acc. to the prophets).
But since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Seleucids, it appeared that the Jews were being punished for being faithful to God.
Jews were forced to reinterpret their present state of affairs, and saw this not as a time of punishment, but as a time of testing to see who would remain faithful.
This test was thought to precede the end of time- the "judgment day" when God's kingdom would enter/conquer the world.
This change in outlook is reflected in a change in the literature of this time, from

Prophetic: warning of future punishment for past/present sins to
Apocalyptic: explaining how present events are related to the coming divine judgment.

Josephus mentions several messianic pretenders who tried to claim the throne before Jesus, at about the time Herod the Great died:

Simon:

"a servant of Herod"
"of great size and strength"
he was captured and beheaded by Gratus, a leader of Herod's royal troops.

Athronges

"of great size and strength"
"a former shepherd"
he was captured and probably executed by Gratus
Aside from Jesus, there are no known messiahs in the 65 years leading up to the first revolt.

At the beginning of the revolt, two more appeared:

Menahem:

He was declared king in 66AD by the Sicarii who were active in the revolt.
He was the son of Judas the Galilean, founder of the fourth philosophy.

Simon bar Giora

Declared king in 68 AD
Main leader of the Jewish forces in Jerusalem
Initially a bandit leader
"of great size and strength"
Josephus mentions that, on his rise to kingship, he captured Hebron.
Between 66-68 AD, Simon became powerful enough to take control of most of Judea and Idumea.
In 68, the high priests and "citizens" of Jerusalem let him into the city, with the hopes that he would overthrow John of Gischala and the Zealots.
Once inside, however, Simon took control of the city and ignored the demands of its citizens.
For the remainder of the war, Simon was the main leader in the city, while John and his forces remained in the temple.
Titus (Vespasian's son) put Jerusalem under seige in April of 70 AD.
Because of famine and conflict within the city, as well as constant Roman assaults, Jerusalem fell in five months.
The Romans entered the city, butchered the weakened and helpless Jews, burned everything and destroyed the temple.
Simon attempted to escape through an underground passage in the city, but found his way blocked.
Acc. to Josephus, he suddenly reappeared on the place where the temple had stood, wearing a "white tunic and purple cape."- a royal garment.
He was handed over to the Romans, who paraded him through the streets of Rome and executed him by ceremonial beheading.
While John of Gischala was simply imprisoned, Simon was ritually executed because he took for himself the title of king.

honor & shame

To the ancients, maintaining family honor was vital to life. The quest for honor was seen as the most important goal in life.

Honor was determined by (and often determined):

rank or position
wealth
family

The word "gloria" was created to describe the great honor one could acheive.

To be "glorified" was to ascend to the level of the gods.
Jews refered to the "glory" of Yahweh, but Romans used the word in reference to humans.
Glorious/honorable leaders were thought to bring the blessings of the gods on the whole community.

The ultimate honor was usually ascribed to the emperor (usually after his death) by "deifying" him, or giving him divine status.
The ultimate shame was at the other end of the spectrum- to be indebted, or enslaved.
Public buildings were always dedicated to someone's honor, with an inscription.

As a result, these have become vital pieces of evidence about first century culture.

The ancient concept of honor is reflected in the idea of "boasting."

We see boasting as immodest, but the ancients saw it as essential.
To boast was to draw attention to one's honor- and it was essential to maintaining that honor.

The Jews saw honor/shame in terms of the law.

Those who followed the law acquired honor, while those who violated it were impure- and therefore shamed.

Ancients assumed that honor was a "limited good"- there was not enough of it to go around, so they competed for it.

To lose the competition was to "fall short"- and therefore to be worthy of shame.

In honor/shame cultures, genealogies become extremely important:

They ensure inheritance rights
They establish marriage eligibility
They secure social status/ honor
They establish religious purity
They establish claims to leadership/office.

honor/shame influences gender roles:

Men embody honor through public/aggressive behavior.
Women must protect the family from shame by protecting their chastity, being restrained/modest, and raising children properly.

kinship

In modern society, individualism and independence ("doing your own thing") are highly valued.
In ancient society, the family/group was most important.
"Doing your own thing" was dangerous to the survival of the family.
An individual's actions reflected on the whole family and could affect family honor- ultimately affecting the family's status or rank in society.
family interdependence created strict gender roles:

patrons & clients

Patronage
Individuals did not survive on their own in antiquity- they survived by being connected to "networks" of people:

family
friends
brokers
patrons

Patrons were elites who provided benefits to others on a personal basis. These benefits could include:

wealth
protection
prestige/rank
honor
exemption from taxes
legal representation

essay questions