#45 The Gospels as History #8

The Importance of the Historical/Cultural Context

Anachronism is a common trap we fall into when examining history. We look at the past through the lenses of our present day assumptions and biases and project those filters onto figures and events from the past. The gospels were written during a time now referred to as the Second Temple Period in Israel's history, described events from that period, and included assumptions and biases appropriate for that period. I believe a very brief examination of that period will help us in a couple of ways. First, it will hopefully help us to at least recognize our own biases and attempt to see past them, to, as much as we can, put ourselves into their story so that we can more fully understand their story. Secondly, I believe it will help us identify how the story of Jesus' life and death fits within that context and, as importantly, how
it is a significant departure from all they might have been expecting. The gospels can only be understood historically as a development within Second Temple Period Judaism. The connections and similarities are a part of their historical credibility. And yet they are, at the same time, a significant departure from contemporary Jewish thought, praxis, and expectation. The dissimilarity from that context is also relevant, for in the difference the historical becomes historic. Two events occurred: 1) Jesus and 2) the Church. The gospels provide us with the link that explains the historical narrative development.

Why did this group of Jews embrace something so familiar and linked with their history and expectation (a Messiah) while, at the same time, so altogether different from the way any Jew would have anticipated the Messiah coming? In other words: given the Jews, why the Church? The Church, initially Jewish, later Gentile, turned the known world on its head. This change demands a cause. What events were catalytic to this change? The gospels tell us this story. They are witnesses. At least that's what is claimed. My goal is to examine 1) the internal evidence, and 2) the external evidence for the reliability of their witness. As a preliminary step, however, I think it will be helpful to take a look at the Jewish context from which these documents emerged (right or wrong, inspired or not). I don't believe a valid evaluation of evidence can take place apart from this perspective.

I'm not a historian. So I need to just admit up front that N.T. Wright, who is a historian, has radically influenced my understanding of Second Temple Period Judaism. Most of my input on this will simply be my paraphrase of his conclusions, at times bordering on down right plagiarism. Hopefully this citation up front will save me from that charge.

My next post will be my attempt at summarizing this cultural/historical/religious/political context.