Good question...

But to continue this study, I want to look now at the NT authors and ask the basic question of influences.

• Question One: How would they have come in contact with these religions?
• Question Two: Why might they have accepted some of these religious ideas (and correspondingly, interpreted Jesus in those categories)?
• Question Three: What factors would have retarded their acceptance of these foreign-to-Judaism notions?
• Question Four: Where there any public 'checks and balances' that would have hindered publication of these views by the early Christian community, even if a lone NT author would have accepted them?
• Question Five: What does the literature and/or history they produced tell us about the views they accepted?

We will look at seven major authors in the NT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter. (I will be using the position of the early church on authorship--I judge their "closer-to-the-data" testimony (and the Mss. Testimony) to be more likely to be true than our "modern" judgments based on 'internal factors'.) I will also examine two related issues: (1) were there Jewish "legends" that might have influenced these writers (such as miracle-working holymen); and (2) did the gospel writers write 'legendizing' midrash?
 
 
 
 

Matthew

What do we know about Matthew/Levi?

He was a tax-collector (customs official) in the small town of Capernaum, in the country of Galilee.

So, what do we know about tax-collectors, Capernaum, and Galilee, with regard to foreign influences?

• Tax-collectors.


In the time frame we are concerned with (basically, the lifespan of each reputed NT author prior to meeting Jesus--probably 15 BC To 30 AD), there were several different kinds of taxes levied in the different parts of Palestine. There were the Roman taxes on property and people (e.g. the poll-tax), there were the import/export customs on trade, there were regional/ municipal levies, and there were religious taxes, such as the temple-tax.

The Roman taxes were the responsibility of the head of state in each country, and the religious taxes were the responsibility of local groups throughout the world [JPB:52, 84,156]. However, customs taxes were auctioned/leased out to the highest bidder, and administered through a network [HJP:1.2.17, p.71ff]. In the case of Matthew, he was a lower level customs collector, probably from Capernaum, who reported up through a chain of command to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, who lived in the city of Tiberas. The proceeds from the toll went into Antipas' pockets, not Rome's--with the collectors pocketing a good bit of the overcharge themselves.

Matthew would have had a toll-both on the major thoroughfare into Gaulanitis (Golan Heights) [SHJ:136]. Capernaum was connected via the Wadi Beth ha-Kerem to Acco-Ptolemais [NTSE:93], and formed a major hub on the trade to/from Tyre and the regions east of the Sea of Galilee--Philip's territory and the Decapolis [GLA:16].

Tax-collectors were a wealthy lot, although they were ostracized by the local populace (probably) and religious authorities of Judaism (definitely). They had social connections with other tax-collectors (e.g. Mt 9:10: "While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and 'sinners' came and ate with him and his disciples. "), and would have had enough wide linguistic skills to maintain social contacts with other 'outcasts' such as Gentiles, certain types of herdsmen, and usurers.

On the other hand they were both despised by the locals and altogether rejected by the religious establishment of Jewry. Since they levied tariffs on even the basic necessities of life needed by the peasantry, they were despised by the locals [HFJ:229].

But it is the religious and civic rejection that is most striking in this case. The later Rabbinic writings (seeming to agree with the general picture of the Gospels) portray the religious establishment as rendering the tax-collector as almost impossible to save. Jeremias, in discussing the "despised trade lists" in the literature [HI:JTJ:chapter 14], shows the almost irredeemable nature of tax-collectors [p. 310-311]:

"In the same way experience had shown that tax- collectors and publicans, whose post went to the highest bidder, together with their subordinates, almost always abused their position to enrich themselves by dishonesty. 'For herdsmen, tax collectors and publicans is repentance hard', it was once said (b. B.K. 94b Bar.). The reason was that they could never know every person they had injured or cheated, and to whom they must make amends."

E.P. Sanders points out that this judgment was based on the conviction that these trades were usurious [HJ:34-35], and a radical violation of Leviticus 25.36-38.

But it gets worse...The literature about tax-collectors (of all types, by the way) is almost unanimous in painting tax-collectors as greedy and dishonest, with only one exception by Josephus [HFJ:228-229]. In fact, in the Rabbinic material (Nedarim iii.4) it was okay for the common Jew to lie to one about his property (!), and beggars and merchants were not even supposed to take money from their cash-box (Baba kamma 10.1,2) [for discussion, see Schurer, HJP:1.2.17, p. 71, note 108].

But it gets worse yet...If the later rabbinic traditions DO have a substantial measure of applicability to the earlier setting we are discussing, then Jeremias' discussion of 'official' viewpoints of tax-collectors points to abject civil rejection as well [HI:JTJ:311-312]:

"Characteristically, linguistic custom associates tax-collectors and thieves (M. Toh. vii.6), publicans and robbers (M.B.K. x.2; b. Shebu. 39a Bar.; cf. Luke 18.II; M. Ned. iii.4; Derek eres 2); tax-collectors, robbers, money-changers and publicans (Derek eres 2); publicans and sinners (Mark 2.I5f; Matt. 9.10f.; Luke 5.30; Matt. 11.19 par. Luke 7.34; Luke 15.If) ; publicans and Gentiles (Matt. 18.17); publicans and harlots (Matt. 21.31f); extortioners, impostors, adulterers and publicans (Luke 18.11); murderers, robbers and taxgatherers (M. Ned. iii.4); indeed 'publican' was generally almost a synonym for 'sinner' (Luke 19.7). It was forbidden to accept alms for the poor or to use money for exchange, from 'the counter of excisemen or from the wallet of tax-gatherers', for such money was tainted. If tax-collectors and publicans had belonged to a Pharisaic community before taking on the office, they were expelled and could not be reinstated until they had given up the posts (T. Dem. iii.4, 49; j. Dem. ii.3, 23a.10)."

"But men who followed the trades in list IV were not only despised, nay hated, by the people; they were de jure and officially deprived of rights and ostracized. Anyone engaging in such trades could never be a judge, and his inadmissibility as a witness put him on the same footing as a gentile slave (M.R. Sh. i.8). In other words he was deprived of civil and political rights to which every Israelite had claim, even those such as bastards who were of seriously blemished descent. This makes us realize the enormity of Jesus' act in calling a publican to be one of his intimate disciples (Matt. 9.9 par.; 10.3), and announcing the Good News to publicans and 'sinners' by sitting down to eat with them."

On the other hand, we have no way of knowing to what extent these rabbinic admonitions and perspectives would have been shared by the populace of Capernaum--although, as Galileans they were certainly in conflict with other rabbinic traditions in other settings. Although only 5% of the Palestinian populace of the day was even associated with a "party" (i.e. Pharisee, Sadducee, Zealot, Essene) [NTF:90], the Pharisees played a very important part in public life, due largely to their close connection with country, lay-run synagogues [NTF:80, 85-86].

But overall, we get a view of Matthew as a wealthy, unpopular, ostracized Jew in the town of Capernaum. His employer would have been Herod Antipas (not as bad as his predecessors, but not really popular at the time--see below). He would have not had access to the traditional Jewish cultic rituals that presupposed Jerusalem or official sanction (e.g. public feasts). As a highly literate individual (and probably selected for the post in part due to that), and as probably a Jew, he would have had perhaps better-than-average access to the biblical materials as well. His social circles would have been with "outcasts" (many wealthy and/or aristocratic and/or official personages).

• Capernaum.


What do we know about Capernaum at the time?

1. Population: Estimates range from "a thousand at most" [HI:AHSG:114], to the standard estimate of 12-15K [SHJ:136], up to 20K [GLA:27]. It is understood to have been one of the most densely populated areas in the Roman world [SHJ:136]. This would have been a mixture of Jew and Gentile--but predominately Jewish-- so Matthew presumably would have had access to gentiles as well [NTSE:83].
2. Economics: The economic conditions at the time were mixed. There was growth in the economy due to the economic expansion programs of Herod Antipas, but this would have also had a negative impact due to increased taxation. The principal export of the city was salted fish, with some grain and vegetable trade as well[SHJ:136]. The family of James and John, recruited by Jesus there, was apparently a large enough operation as to warrant hired help (Mark 1.19-20). As noted above, however, it was also a major boundary city between the various areas of the region, and as such, would have had an economy also influenced by distribution and export/import.
3. Organization: There are several indications of the internal organization and administration of the city.
• The presence of a Roman military detachment. In Matthew 8.5ff, we read :

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, `Go,' and he goes; and that one, `Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, `Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.

This soldier would not actually have been a Roman centurion, but an auxiliary centurion, likely chosen from the surrounding areas of Caesarea and the Decapolis [RLRS:124; GLA:104], perhaps even commanding a group of Hellenistic-Jewish soldiers [EBC, in. loc. Matt 8.5] in service to Herod. On a border town, especially a major trade route, they would be a 'peacekeeping' force. There was a Roman road there, which typically had soldiers stationed there for police activities (e.g. retarding bandits and brigands) [Atlas of the Roman World, Facts on File:1982, p. 156-157].

This centurion is painted in glowing terms by Luke (in his parallel account), in virtue of his attitude toward the Jews of the city, with the additional historical detail (Luke 7.2f):The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." 6 So Jesus went with them. .

There is an interesting piece of archaeological data that illuminates this [NT:BAFCSP:203-204]:

"Perhaps archaeology also has something to contribute. The splendid limestone synagogue visible today in Capernaum is to be dated to the end of the 4th century AD. But underneath the assembly hall lies a basalt building of the same ground plan. By means of the ceramics below the walls that earlier building was dated by S. Loffreda to the 3rd century AD. Exactly under the central nave of the two later buildings is located a pavement of basalt stones dating back to the 1st century AD. According to Loffreda we have here the remains of the centurion's synagogue. Nearby, but separated by an uninhabited piece of land, V. Tsaferis found other houses of the 1st century AD. They were built in a better fashion than the houses of the main settlement, and one of them was a typical Roman bathhouse. We may think of the centurion living here, separated as a pagan mercenary (cf. Lk 7.6) from the Jewish village."

Although in normal circumstances one could expect the Roman soldiers to be "missionaries" for the imperial cult (and in a century or two later, for the cult of Mithras), in the case of local militia/mercenaries, this would not typically be the case. Instead, they would be 'carriers' for the local religions of THEIR source of origin. In this case we have a centurion who was obviously impressed with the beauty and strength of the core Jewish faith.
• A local administrator of Herod's was there. In John 4.46ff we have the following account:

Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum. 47 When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. 48 "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." 49 The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 50 Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed. 51 While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. 52 When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour." 53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.

The term 'royal official' probably refers to an officer of Herod's (so Morris, NICNT: in.loc.). He was probably the local representative in Capernaum, overseeing the town and reporting up through the toparch intermediary (see below). He could very easily have been a Jew, but there is no indication one way or another in the passage. That he is called "royal" indicates a close connection with Herodian authority.
• There was a synagogue there. Although early synagogues functioned both as religious centers and as "town halls" [HI:AHSG:chapter 6], their presence is typically indicative of the influence of Pharisaism at his time. This would suggest that Jerusalem also had considerable influence and authority in the city.
• There was Matthew, a customs official. This in itself indicated a large enough and important enough city to warrant a paid-employee of the hierarchy. This would have been true for any border town with significant enough trade routes to warrant a military presence.
• There would have been a local village council, probably presided over by the royal official, to maintain order, taxation, judicial functions of a minor nature [GLA:67].

 

 

4. Jesus used it as a base of operations (Mk 1.29; 2.1; 7.17; 9.33--the home of Simon and Andrew). From this point, He made his travels into Galilean villages, Tyre and Sidon, the Greek free cities in the Decapolis, the Hellenistic cities in Philip's region (e.g. Bethsaida), and Caesarea Philippi.
• Galilee?


So, what do we know about Galilee?

• The population was concentrated in small towns, rather than the big cities. "The vast majority of Jews in Jesus' lifetime in Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea lived in small towns, not in the large cities such as Tiberias and Jerusalem" [NTSE:83].
• The populace would have been predominately Jewish in religion. The Maccabees (c. mid 1st century BC) forced all the Gentiles in Palestine to either leave or convert to Judaism. The result was a predominantly Jewish cast to the culture, in most of the land [NTSE:82].
• The Jews in the villages were generally alienated from the Jews living in the cities: "It remains true, however, that the Jews living in the towns of Capernaum and Tarichaea were alienated from the Jews in the Greek cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias" [NTSE:104; SHJ:109, 118], with this being not altogether unrelieved [GLA:71].
• Galilee had 204 villages, organized into 5 regions called toparchies, which reported into Herod Antipas, whose headquarters were in the city of Tiberias [BSNT:43ff]. The region was densely populated[GLA:55].
• The capital of Galilee was Tiberias, although the only other large city--Sepphoris--constantly battled with it for the place of administrative preeminence [GLA:67 ]. They were both being either rebuilt or refurbished, adding to the tax burden of the area [SHJ:104].
• The capital cities were predominately Jewish in population, but were thoroughly Hellenistic [SHJ:84; GLA:17; NTSE:90] in organization and administration. Herod build Tiberias on a graveyard and used animal figures as decorations--both practices were anathema to strict Jews--and forced Jews to live there (but compensated them with land grants) [SHJ:86, 89, 108f; GLA:17]. Sepphoris was a few miles northwest of Nazareth had all the features of a Hellenistic city--"including a theater, hippodrome, and temples" [GLA:15], although it was a "priestly city, populated by wealthy Jewish landowners who favored the Romans during the Jewish wars" [NTSE:92].
• Galilee was surrounded by Hellenism: "As Hengel points out, Galilee was completely surrounded by Hellenistic culture, with Acco-Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon in the west and north-west, Panias-Caesarea Philippi, Hippos and Gadara in the north-east, east and south-east, and Scythopolis and Gaba in the south" [SHJ:135].
• Hellenism had made considerable impact on Galilean trade, political organization, language, and commerce [SHJ:105; NTSE:89], but in matters of religion, the regular pilgrimage of Galileans to Jerusalem "demonstrates the religious and cultural loyalty of Galilean Jews to the Temple of Jerusalem" [NTSE:94]. Their loyalty to Jerusalem did NOT imply their acceptance of the full range of Pharisaic demands--for example, the rural populace simply did NOT observe their purity laws [NTSE:103]. So Martin [NTF:91]:

"The common people were alienated from official religion. No matter how much they admired the zeal of the Pharisees and were impressed by the grandeur of the temple ritual, accepting the religious regimen was, for the mass of them, an invitation to assume a heavy yoke."

• Exports were mainly the salted fish of Taricheae [SHJ:110], pottery from Kefar Hanania [SHJ:111], and oil [SHJ:82].
• Imports typically came through Acco-Ptolemais, and originated in such regions as Babylon (beer), Egypt (barley beer, smoked fish, lentils, parchment, papyrus, jewelry), Bythinia (cheese), Spain (mackerel), Lydia (wines, asses), and Tyre (dye).

 

 

Well, what are the possibilities?

Most historical reference works on this period/area do not mention the religions of the Far East as plausible candidates for 'influence'. So John Ferguson, in his book The Religions of the Roman Empire [Cornell:1970] does not even list or discuss these religions as players. The only references to India and China are Post-Jesus (Apollonius, p. 51; and Basilides, p. 131). Likewise, NTSE surveys the practical options, describing three basic options in the core NT setting: Olympian deities (Greek/Roman gods), the Imperial Cult ("Emperor" worship), Mystery Religions (MR's)--both Greek and Oriental--but does NOT list other 'candidates' such as Buddhism or Hinduism. And most of the references to 'influence' are too late for our period. So Frend, mentions Buddhist influences on Mani (early 3rd century AD heretic) and on Clement of Alexandria (same time period) [FRC:315ff; 372]. His quote about Clement shows that this situation was a novel one for the West, and one that by its time-frame, would not have been operative in NT times [p.372]:

"Nonetheless, Clement's ideal would not have been unacceptable to his Gnostic opponents and seemed even to be more Buddhist than Christian. His knowledge of Indian religion, shown by his numerous if critical references to Indian customs and the correct distinction he bade between the Brahmins and Sarmanians, may be more relevant to his outlook than is sometimes admitted. The early third century saw strong links being made between the Roman Empire and India and these links affected thought as well as trade."

The interplay between the Greek/Roman empires and the regions/religions of the Far East is a very, very complex one.

The situation for China is perhaps the easiest to understand [RW:304]:

"Until the opening of the Silk Road in the first century B.C., communication across the land and sea spaces between China and western Asia was too slight to leave traces at either end."

1. Greek colonies are known to have existed in India at least since the time of the Buddha in the 6th century B.C. The Buddha actually refers to the Greeks in a discourse in the Middle Length Sayings, as he is trying to convince someone against a fixed caste system [WR:AW:3].
2. Prior to Alexander the Great's invasion of northern India in 327 BC, what little exchanges had occurred between East and Mid-East was confined to the Indus Valley, and was probably trade-based [RW:298-9].
3. Alexander's invasion brought Hellenism to India during the rise of the brilliant Mauryan empire (322-185 BC) in Northern India, and had significant impact on the upper class and urban segments. So, McNeill [RW:298]:

"On the whole, diffracted elements of Hellenistic civilization attracted a larger share of favorable attention than did the achievements of any of the other cultures of the world between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D. The history of art gives the clearest evidence for this; for both Indian and Chinese art styles of the period were profoundly affected by Greek sculpture. In religion and in science, a parallel, though less striking, process may be detected. Mahayana Buddhism, for example, shows influence of Hellenistic religious conceptions, while Indian and Chinese astronomy and astrology appropriated numerous Hellenistic elements, though important local differences of course remained."

and again [RW:304]:

"To sum up: India's development to the time of Alexander's invasion appears to have pursued lines laid down at the beginning of the fifth century or before. With the new intimacy between India and the Hellenistic world that resulted from Alexander's venture, and with the rise of the 'philhellenic' Mauryan dynasty within India itself, new, though still comparatively superficial, foreign influences upon Indian society became apparent. The royal court patronized a westernizing art style, and perhaps promulgated Greco-Iranian patterns of administration and political theory. "

We know, for example, of an early Buddhist sculptor in Gandhara (now Pakistan) who copied in stone a scene from a sub-Homeric epic showing the wooden horse at the fall of Troy--which he used as a miracle of the Buddha. Similarly, we have a silver cup from Tibet "of the finest post-Greek workmanship" with a scene on it which began life as an illustration to Euripides [Atlas of the Greek World, p. 189].
4. Although the most significant cultural impact was eastward, from the Greeks to the Indians, there was also a brief spurt of knowledge flow that went from India to Greece in the subsequent period.


After Alexander died, his empire divided into several pieces--one of which was called the Seleucid dynasty. In spite of the fact that the Seleucid and Mauryan dynasties were border-competitors, they still had a great deal of friendly interchange between them, and the first two kings of the Mauryan dynasty are referred to in Greek sources. The peace treaty between them in 303 BC included a marriage alliance, and Seleucus' ambassador Megasthenes lived for 10 years and traveled extensively in the Mauryan empire [WR:HI:71] during the reign of the founding king Chandragupta (Sandrocottos in the Greek). Megasthenes gathered huge amounts of information about India and wrote a book (which is lost), many parts/information of which are preserved in the writings of Strabo, Arrian, and Diodorus [HSC:197].

There were two other Greek-oriented contacts made with that empire--the 2nd Seleucid ambassador Deimarchos, and Dionysios an envoy from Ptolemaios Philadelphos--but neither of these left any writings [HSC:198]. Any information about religious practices of India at this point would have been concerning the brahmanical system. So Bachelor in WR:AW:7-8:

"Megasthenes lived for an entire decade in the heartland of the Buddha's dispensation, less than two hundred years after the Buddha's death--but there is no mention in the Indika of Buddhist monks. At the time of Megasthenes, Buddhism was a small sect with no influential followers. Chandragupta, a staunch upholder of brahmanical values, was certainly no Buddhist. And Kautilya, Chandragupta's chief minister, fails to even mention Buddhism in his famous book on statecraft, the Arthashastra.

"Yet within fifty years of Megasthenes' departure from India Buddhism had exploded across the subcontinent as the imperial philosophy of Chandragupta's grandson Ashoka. Europe, however, was to wait another fifteen hundred years (until 1255) before it received a first-hand report of Buddhism and its practices."

The most famous of the three kings was the last--Ashoka. He was originally Hindu, but converted to Buddhist while on the throne. Although he is not mentioned in any Greek sources, he "records having sent missions from India bearing his message of the victory of the Dharma [i.e. Buddhism in his life] to the Greek kings Antiochus II of Syria, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirius...There is no mention in Western sources, however, of the arrival of any such missions." [WR:AW:9]. Until his death in 232 BC, he maintained frequent communications with the south and the west [WR:HI:73], even sending missionaries to Ceylon (definitely) and to the West (probably) [HSC:204].

As the data and quotes above show, there was some, but very sporadic and limited information about the religious content of proto-Hinduism transmitted to the West, and even less about Buddhism.

5. At this point in time, the window of exchange simply closes. The last two centuries B.C. saw the rise of the Parthian empire, which quickly became a barrier to cultural exchange. So HSC:521-2:

"The essential difference between the Parthian empire and the Seleucid one which it partly replaced lies in the fact that the Seleucid rulers were of Greek origin and the main champions of Hellenism in Asia, while the Arsacids were Scythians or Asiatics, who were not at all hypnotized by Greek culture."

"All considered, it would seem that the Parthian empire was (at least in pre-Christian times) a barrier to the Hellenization of the East and the Orientalization of the West, rather than a channel for them. It was not a solid barrier, however, but a kind of grille or trellis permitting a little silk, as well as peaches and apricots, to move westward and pomegranates to go east."

6. Most of our information about East-West exchanges after this comes from post-Christian times [HSC:523]. The transmission of information about the East at this point came through traveling merchants, many of whom passed through Egypt and Alexandria. Bachelor describes some of these [WR:AW:25]:

"Commerce between Asia and the Roman Empire increased; luxury goods were imported from China; a community of Indian merchants was settled in Alexandria; an Indian holy man immolated himself in public in Athens; and a Ceylonese embassy reached the court of Claudius in Rome."

These are, of course, all post-NT situations and the first mentions in the West of the Buddha were 2nd and 3rd century AD figures such as Clement and Basilides of Alexandria [WR:AW:27ff].

In summary, the influence and dissemination of Hindu and Buddhist thought from India far enough west to make a difference simply had not occurred by the time of the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth on the scene.

So that basically leaves us with the three options of NTSE:

• Olympian deities: These were the Greek gods (and Roman versions of them) that were honored by leading families in Roman cities. As a tax-collector, Matthew would have been in the hire of the cities, WITHOUT the responsibility to collect Roman taxes (e.g. poll tax and property tax). Rural Galilee, per se, was Hellenized only in areas of economy, city organization, and language. There is virtually no Hellenistic influence on religious praxis in the smaller cities and villages. Capernaum's only exposure to these deities would be through the frequent local traveler (who generally would not stay long enough to do any serious evangelism work!) on his way through or to the Roman administrative centers at Caesarea or Sepphoris. There was also a strongly pharisaic element at Capernaum, which having lost its political power under the persecutions of Herod, became a distinctly religious force in "urban" parts of Galilee [NTSE:101]. This tended to discourage the public display or discussion relative to foreign cults. [Local indigenous cults had been virtually destroyed in the 'forced conversion' to Judaism enforced by the Hasmoneans 142-63 BC.] So, there would have been little chance for substantial exposure to these ideas in Capernaum.
• The imperial cult (or ruler cult): This was the worship of the emperor, involving traditional elements--images, shrines, temples, sacrifices, prayers, etc. This tended to exist among the wealthy, Roman families, and occasionally among aristocratic families in the cities--families that would have had ties to Rome. It would have also been manifest in Roman soldiers, although not in the case of local auxiliary militia (as in Capernaum). In the case of Capernaum, the number of aristocratic families that would have strong ties to Rome would be few indeed. Actually, the Jews of these smaller Galilean towns had little respect for those aristocratic Jews. So NTSE:104:

"It remains true, however, that the Jews living in the towns of Capernaum and Tarichaea were alienated from the Jews in the Greek cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias."

Presumably, Matthew would have seen aspects of this in scattered contacts with magistrates and soldiers, but the absence of any regular center of the cult in Capernaum reduces the probability of influence considerably.
• The Mystery Cults (both Greek and Oriental): We have seen earlier that there are some chronological problems with having these be a major influence ANYWHERE in the early 1st century AD, but this is specifically acute in regards to areas outside of Greece and Asia Minor. The MR's were originally local-only cults of various agricultural and nature deities, and hence were largely confined to their specific locality [NTSE:132ff]. At this time in history, they would not have been a presence in lower Galilee, including Capernaum. Again, however, we would have the possibility of some traveling merchant, bring his god with him (as was done often in cases of colonists and migration--cf. NTSE:41-42). Since these are systems with rather elaborate ritual and paraphernalia, they are not quite as 'portable' as others--they require some level of critical mass to take root. Again, this would entail very minimal exposure for Matthew.

..................................................................................................
Question Two: Why might they (i.e. Matthew) have accepted some of these religious ideas (and correspondingly, interpreted Jesus in those categories)?
..................................................................................................

It is difficult to construct a plausible scenario in which Matthew would find any foreign ideas more attractive than the rudimentary Jewish faith that he no doubt originally had as a local resident.

One can easily see why Matthew would be disenchanted with official Judaism (since it would have radically marginalized and excluded him from specific forms of community ritual), but it is difficult to see how he would have abandoned a more basic form of personal faith in favor of the elaborate trappings of the foreign cults. The simple fact that he responded positively to a Galilean messianic figure so easily (Matt 9.9: As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. ) indicates at least some adherence to aspects of messianic Judaism. The most plausible scenario would have him as an aware, but non-practicing Jew, and not rather as a practicing member of the imperial cult (e.g. emperor worship) nor of any of the more exotic Olympian deities.

We do know that he did have a social circle constituted by other 'sinners', which would have included other of the despised trades (e.g. gamblers, camel drivers, bath attendants, select types of merchants). These would have been local Jews as well, at various levels of non-practice. How much social interaction he had with the higher-ups in the Hellenistic cities is unclear, but even the hierarchy in which he was positioned was generally filled with Jews. For example, the one good example of a tax collector was a Jew in Caesarea, and the 'bad' examples scorned by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria were also from large cities. His "social pressures" would have been still that of non-practicing or culturally-Hellenized Judaism--NOT the pagan religions with which we are concerned here.

Given the infrequent contact that he would have had with any foreign religion (he would not have been at his 'post' ALL the time, plus he probably shared some of his duties with others--cf. Mt 9.10), it is likewise difficult to see how he would have been persuaded by any foreign "savior" figures or motifs, nor would he accrue any social and/or membership advantages of such religions.

In short, there does not seem to be any compelling reason (or even opportunity) for Matthew to adopt foreign religious theologies/praxis, and we actually have data that indicates his more basic Jewish faith.

..................................................................................................
Question Three: What factors would have retarded their acceptance of these foreign-to-Judaism notions?
..................................................................................................

Here we want to look at the opposite--what 'influences' would be operating on Matthew AGAINST adoption of foreign cults?

There are some factors in this category, which are mostly community and social.

• The local communities of Galilee did not "take kindly" to defilement of the land by foreign idols. Cultic practices involving pagan temples/shrines (as all of the 'candidate' cults would have had) were seen as affecting the very community, and NOT simply the individual. There would have been a strong negative pressure on Matthew to avoid adopting (or at least to avoid displaying) such practices.
• There was actually a small social force on him from the Centurion who loved the Jewish people. As an authority figure, this would have exerted exemplar-force (i.e. "the foreign gods must not be really any better that the Jewish God, or this fellow would not have 'converted'").
• The sheer wealth-addiction issue would have militated against Matthew/Levi from adopting ANY vigorous religion--irrespective of land of origin.
• There is a distinct possibility that many of the foreign cults would have been somewhat incomprehensible to him. Some of the proto-Gnostic notions in some early MR's, for example, require an understanding of Greek metaphysics of spirit/matter. Although Matthew would have been fluent in Greek, the probability that he was versed in Greek philosophy to the degree required to understand some of the subtleties of the oriental cults/MR's is extremely minute.
• There would have been a political force from Antipas that would have retarded adoption of pagan deities. Herod Antipas had built Tiberias in defiance of Jewish scruples, but in deference to them had not put images on his coinage [SHJ:86]. He had learned from his father's mistakes and made genuine attempts at compromise around Jewish religious sensibilities. This policy of limited-agitation would have frowned upon overtly antagonistic practices (esp. practice of pagan religions in the rural areas--the main source of rebels!) by those in the employ of Herod (i.e. Matthew).

 

 

..............................................................................................
Question Four: Where there any public 'checks and balances' that would have hindered publication of these views by the early Christian community, even if a lone NT author would have accepted them?
..................................................................................................

This question is a fascinating one, and the data indicates a STRONG 'check and balance' environment This data falls into three categories: (1) indication that the NT documents are mostly group products; (2) indications of close interactions/associations among the authors; and (3) indications of relatively close apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content.

1. Indications that the NT documents are mostly GROUP products:
• To state this in summary form is Ellis in GAG:46:

"Although the (synoptic) evangelists are probably identified correctly by the second-century sources, their individual role may be overstated there and indeed, with the possible exception of Luke, it is difficult to assess with any precision. In some of these sources, however, Matthew, Mark, and John are presented as arrangers of gospel traditions whose work, in the case of Mark and John, is then ratified by others. That is, they are participants in a corporate enterprise"

• Matthew was said by Papias to have 'collected the sayings' (Eusebius, HE, 3.39.16)
• Papias also recounted the tradition that Mark "became Peter's expositor/interpreter and wrote...Peter ratified (kurosai) the writing for study" (Eusebius, HE, 3.39.15; 2.14f).
• The Muratorian Canon has this comment: "When (John was) exhorted by his fellow disciples and bishops (to write)...it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John was to write all things in his own name, and they were all to certify"
• Ellis points out that Luke's "mention of the 'many' who drew up a narrative possibly refers to the corporate composition of one document, as the singular may suggest, rather than the individual composition of many narratives" [GAG:46].
• The usage of prior sources by the evangelists points to at least one dimension of collegial effort. Mark certainly used sources--esp. the pre-Markan passion narrative [Pesch, in GAG:106ff]--and Matthew uses "special exegetical traditions that appear to reflect the work of a circle of highly skilled prophets and/or teachers" [GAG:47] Since "prior documents" would be kept in official places, this appears to be activity that takes place in a scribal/school setting.
• John actually indicates (or at least hints) that collaboration was involved in his gospel:

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. (John 19.34-35)

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 21.24)

• Stendahl in the classic The School of St. Matthew argues that Matthew 13.52 (He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." ) indicates a scribal school setting.
• The letters of the NT consistently manifest group-construction data. The usage of amanuenses (dictation scribes) is well attested: Rom 16.22; I Cor 16.21; Col 4.18; 2 Thess 3.17; Phlm 19. These co-writers often influenced the wording, which in the case of the gifted individuals used by Paul, would be expected.
• Another more important piece on the epistles is the use of a "co-sender" which would have had considerable impact on the content. For example, we have these in I Cor 1.1 (Sosthenes); 2 Cor 1.1 (Timothy ); Gal 1.2 ("all the brothers with me"); Phil 1.1 (Timothy). So, PLW:

"Such contemporary data suggests that the mention of those associated with Paul in the address should be explained in terms of the letter; that is, he selected them to play a role in the creation of the epistle as coauthors. It seems obvious that the recipients of such letters would have taken the 'we' at face value as referring to the senders." (p. 19)

"How did coauthorship work in practice? In light of what Pliny the Younger has said about his working habits (Letters 9.36)..., we might reasonably assume that, whereas Pliny communed with himself, Paul consulted his companions and, as the lead, did the actual dictation. Within this broad framework, however, circumstances influenced the exact procedure in each letter...At the time of the composition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul was still a neophyte both as a leader and a writer. The committee of three (note: Paul, Silas, Timothy) produced the letters, and Paul kept his personal comments to the minimum. As the one dictating, however, he could interject without difficulty...The circumstances of 1 Corinthians were different." (p. 33)

• The epistle of Peter manifests this as well--I Pet 5.12 cites Silas as co-author.
• Indeed, Wenham suggests as the best explanation for the basic order in the synoptic material, that:

"The canonical gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, were major works, written by leaders of great competence, and it is unlikely that knowledge of their projected books was kept secret. Rather, we would expect one evangelist to be glad of another's help while preparing his own work." [RMML:10].

• In the case of Paul, the "corporate" nature of his letters extends to his mission as well. So Gamble, BREC:99:

"It was Paul's custom to name others together with himself as cosenders of his letters. This was probably not a formality but a reflection of the involvement of his associates in the conception, if not in the composition, of many of the letters. The evidence strongly suggests that Paul's missionary enterprise had a corporate structure and a school dimension..."

This stream of data strongly suggests that "the same apostolic circles were involved in the formation and/or transmission of both gospel and epistolary traditions" (E. Earle Ellis, in GAG:52). The fact that the NT literature was a group-effort or collaborative in nature would have acted as a significant barrier to the individual writers "smuggling in" pagan and/or foreign images of Jesus.
2. Indications of close interactions/associations among the authors:


It is quite easy to demonstrate that the various writers/sources of NT documents were in constant communication and collaborative work. Some of the data are as follows:

• The letters of James, I Peter, and the Pauline letters were written by apostles who--according to Paul and his sometime companion Luke--worked together. The data is extensive: Gal 1.18; 2.1, 9; I Cor 3.22-4.1; 9.5; 11.16, 23ff; 14.33ff; 15.3-7; Rom 15.25; Acts 11.29f; 12.25; 15.6-35; 21.17f; cf. 2 Pet 3.15f; Jude 17f with I Tim 4.1).
• The letters and the Book of Acts connect their authors with the synoptic authors:
• Peter and Paul with Mark (Col 4.10f;2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; I Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.5, 13; 15.37ff).
• Paul and James with Luke (Paul: Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; Acts 16.10-17; 20.5-21.17; 27.1-28.16 ["we"]; James: Acts 21.17f ["we"]).
• Acts puts James and Matthew together in Jerusalem (Acts 1.13f with 12.12-17, 25)

 

 

• The epistles reveal that Paul and Peter and James know a number of synoptic traditions [GAG:44]
1. Paul: I Cor 7.10; 9.14 (I Tim 5.18); I Cor 11.23; 15.3; cf. Col2.8; see GP:II:345-375 for a substantial list of Pauline overlaps with the Synoptic Apocalypse.
2. Peter: I Pet 1.10ff (Luke 10.24=Matt 13.17); 2.7 (Mark 12:10); 2.12 (Matt 5.16); 4.13f (Matt 5.11f=Luke 6.22f).
3. James shows special affinities to Matthew: 1:5,6, 22f; 2:5, 13; 4.10; 5.12.
• Peter was apparently the source of much information for Paul--Gal 1.18.

The NT writers were in constant communication and collaboration with each other, and demonstrate this in their writings. It would have been difficult if not impossible for one of this group to have held to foreign, pagan notions without it becoming widely known. We even know of disagreements within the early church, and that they are surfaced quite visibly(!)--such as Peter vs. Paul in Galatians and the circumcision issue in Acts 14-15. All the indications along these lines are well within Jewish-Christian thought, and foreign notions do not start to show up until after the NT era at the earliest.

3. Indications of relatively close apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content:
1. The early church had a center (Jerusalem) and leaders (apostles).
2. When the church expanded into Samaria, there was interaction with the leaders of the founding church (Acts 8.14): "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them". [By all accounts, Peter and John would have been closest to ANY information about Jesus' acts/words.]
3. When the church expanded into Antioch, we see the same pattern occur (Act 11:22): "News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch."
4. When the issue of circumcision came up, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas "to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15.2)
5. The first church council was held at Jerusalem (Act 15:23-29)
6. The reference in Acts 15:24--"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you..."--is a STRONG indication of a 'sense of control'!
7. ...as is 16.6: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. .
8. Paul accepted the importance of the Jerusalem center (Gal 2.1-2): "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain."
9. Davids points out how significant this was [GP:I:87f]:

"Confirmation of the picture in Acts comes from the fact that even Paul felt the power and authority of the Jerusalem church and the apostles. While Paul insists that his legitimacy as an apostle comes directly from Christ, he still reports that he found it necessary to go to Jerusalem at least twice and on one occasion to seek formal approval of his gospel from the apostles (Gal. 2.1-10). This would be most astounding if Paul did not feel that the apostles had at least some type of authority over the content of the tradition. Thus although Paul refuses to become dependent upon Jerusalem, he has the highest respect for the role of the community as a stronghold of pure doctrine and tradition".

10. At Jrs. Paul was welcomed and sent to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9f): "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."
11. Paul (a native of Tarsus!) returned to Jerusalem after EACH missionary journey.
12. Even Peter is subject to the apostles as a group (Acts 8.4).
13. The leading apostles and evangelists had traveling ministries, bringing them into contact with churches and believers everywhere.
14. The early churches did NOT live in a vacuum. They corresponded with each other (cf. I Clement, a letter from Rome to Corinth, A.D. 95, see NT:ATNT:48-49) and exchanged NT documents (cf. Col. 4.16).
15. Bauckham summarizes the authority succinctly [BAFCSPS:450]:

"The Jerusalem council presupposes the authority of Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile Christians' obedience to the Law (Acts 15). Its decision binds not only Antioch and its daughter churches (15.22-31) but also the churches founded by Paul and Barnabas (16.4). When James recalls the decision in 21.25, the effect is to imply that Paul's Gentile mission is still subject to it."

This controlling group of apostles and elders would have been a serious 'check and balance' against any foreign notions, held by any individual or minority.
 
 

..................................................................................................
Question Five: What does the literature they produced, and/or post-Easter history tell us about the views they accepted?
..................................................................................................

In the case of Matthew, the issue of post-Easter history is easy--we have very, very little information about him. By far and away the most consistent data we have has to do with his authorship of the Gospel! Early tradition is unanimous in stating that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and for Hebrews. Wenham discusses these witnesses in RMML, chapter 5 (i.e. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusibius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Augustine, et. al.!).

The issue of literature is a bit more straightforward:

1. It is widely agreed (as well as obvious to the most casual reader!) that Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the gospels (see NT Wright's discussion in NTPG:384ff, and standard commentaries).
2. We have seen already in Part A of this study that pagan elements do not manifest themselves in Matthew's portrayal of Christ.
3. It would have been evangelistic 'suicide' to have appealed to the Jewish population in 1st century Roman-occupied Palestine on behalf of a Jesus colored by pagan associations (transmitted by gentile merchants or slaves) or the imperial cult (transmitted by Roman soldiers or the oppressive Hellenistic/Roman elite)!!!
4. The very argumentation content and methods of Matthew reflect the basic milieu of the Jewish community--not the argument forms of pagan theologies [BEAP:140-152].
5. Matthew's argument for the Messianic status of Jesus is NOT from his 'divine powers', but from His fulfillment of OT scriptures--the opposite approach of pagan deities.
6. Jesus appears in a number of non-Jewish or Hellenistic cities (e.g. Phoenicia, Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi), but there is NO hint that Matthew (or Jesus) tries to 'relate' to the pagan theological figures/concepts that were present in those areas. This would have been the perfect setting for Matthew to "smuggle" those associations into the narrative.
7. Likewise, the visit of the pagan Magi in Matthew 2.1-12 would have been a great place to insert something about Persian and/or Iranian legends, but he didn't.

 

 

................................................................................
Conclusion
................................................................................

We have seen that:

1. Matthew had minimal contact with outside religions.
2. Matthew had minimal forces on him to adopt such outside religious ideas.
3. Matthew had non-trivial forces upon him to avoid adopting outside religious ideas.
4. Production of the NT literature (including Matthew's gospel) would have been largely a group effort, in constant review/feedback with apostolic figures, and under the authority of the 'keepers of the tradition' in Jerusalem.
5. The very character of Matthew's literary production demonstrates a strong argument that he did not maintain foreign religious ideas.

We have seen in Part A that Matthew's portrait of Jesus is unique, and not a mere copy of pagan religious motifs; in this study we can understand part of why that was the case.
-------------------------------------------------------
[ .... copycat2.html ........  ]