Geoff's Page

Last October, Jon Rosebank and Penelope Middleboe gave a talk to Root and Branch about the Catholic Church's Apostolic claims. Broadly speaking, this is the idea that the Church’s authority rests on the fact that Jesus appointed Peter to lead the Church, following His Ascension to Heaven.* Peter, it is believed, ended his days in Rome and died a martyr's death. He effectively became the first Pope and all subsequent popes are in a direct line that can be traced back to St Peter and ultimately to Jesus. Consequently, there is what is described as an 'Apostolic Succession' which underpins the authority of the Church. One of the Pope's numerous titles is the 'Vicar of Christ,' ie. Jesus's deputy on Earth.

Jon's talk looked at these claims and found them to be very weak from a historical viewpoint. He also made some bold claims of his own, one of which was that Peter never actually went to Rome.** So I thought I would look at the competing claims about St. Peter myself, in order to see whether Jon and Penelope's opinions were fair.

As a scholar of modern history, Jon is used to having evidence often contemporaneous with momentous events, such as the movie footage of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. You hardly ever get this with ancient history - well certainly not movie footage anyway . The best we do get is ancient writers who may have witnessed events which they then wrote about some years later, such as the Jewish historian Josephus (c. 35 - c.100 AD) and his book about the Jewish War.***

Mostly, we have to put up with accounts written many years afterwards by people who were not eyewitnesses, were not professional historians and who may have had a personal axe to grind. Sometimes, they would have used earlier sources, which have long since disappeared, and you might think that this was encouraging. But then we have no means of evaluating those earlier sources.

So, these uncertainties can often enable students of ancient history to suggest competing theories, based on whether they think the available evidence is either unreliable or, conversely, reliable enough for their purposes. An example of this, in our Church, is where some Catholic historians say that the evidence for female deacons in the early Church is not good enough to support a case for such a role to be recreated. But, on the other hand, some also argue that Jesus ordained priests at the Last Supper. Our earliest, historical evidence for the Last Supper are brief references to it in St Paul's First letter to the Corinthians (chapter 11:23 ff). 1 Corinthians was written around 53 AD, ie. 20 years after the event, by someone who wasn't there. But maybe Paul got his information from people who were there - he almost certainly did - but then, of course, people's memories can play tricks. I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make and can see the problems. Ancient History, as opposed to Theology, is in the business of developing plausible scenarios based on the best possible evidence available, even when that evidence isn't particularly good.

In Part 2, I'll look at what evidence we do have for St Peter actually going to Rome.

* Matthew 16:18 is often cited as scriptural evidence of this.

** to be fair, he began by saying that Peter probably never went to Rome but, as the talk progressed, the word 'probably' gradually disappeared and Jon suggested that Peter most likely died in the Holy Land.

*** But even this book is not without its problems. Josephus was not a professional historian and he wrote the book primarily to persuade his fellow Jews not to embark on anything so stupid ever again. They clearly didn't get the memo (or buy the book) as there was another revolt in the 130s AD. And Josephus' dubious role in the war - he turned traitor - together with the need not to unduly antagonise his new Roman pals hardly gave grounds for an impartial work.

Ancient Historians also rely on archaeological evidence, although a lot of that is open to a great degree of interpretation.

Part 2

In Part 1, I looked at some of the problems facing students of Ancient History, such as limited and possibly unreliable evidence. In Parts 2 and 3, I will consider the evidence that we do have for St Peter's presence in Rome and then look at the claim that he was the first Pope.

As far as the NT goes, we say goodbye to Peter in Acts, chapter 15,* at the Council of Jerusalem, where he talks about the need to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, without requiring them to follow the Jewish Law. Acts was written around 90 AD, long after Peter's death. In John’s Gospel, which was also written around 90 AD, we have verses 17-19 in the final chapter (21), which suggest that Peter will suffer a martyr's death. Neither passage provides a clear statement that he went to Rome, but the implication is that he travelled and was likely martyred.

So what other evidence do we have? Two early texts, outside the NT,** that mention Peter are the letter known as 1 Clement, which was written from Rome, and the letter sent by St Ignatius of Antioch to the Church in Rome. In the first of these, 'Clement,' refers early on to Ss Peter and Paul. He says that Peter died as a result of jealousy and 'left us' for his reward in Heaven. The phrase 'left us' could mean that Peter was in Rome when he died. By way of background, Clement is supposed to have been an early Pope, although the letter is from an anonymous source - the sender is described merely as 'the Church of God temporarily residing in Rome'. It is addressed to the Church in Corinth, which Paul established, and is attempting to get them to reverse their decision to replace their presbyters with ones less acceptable to Rome. So this is an early example of the Church in Rome exerting its authority over other churches. It even uses the Apostolic Succession argument in order to get the old presbyters restored to their posts, since they were appointed by people who, in turn, had been appointed by an Apostle, ie. Paul!

However, for our purposes, it is likely that whoever wrote the letter was either old enough to have remembered Peter and Paul's presence in Rome or he would have known people who did.***

St Ignatius' letter was probably written later than 1 Clement - maybe around 112 AD. He was en route to Rome under guard and wrote letters to various churches along the way. In his letter to the Church in Rome, he is essentially asking them not to try to save him as he really wants to be martyred (his letters get a little masochistic at times). But he does refer to Peter and Paul, saying that he has no desire to give orders to the Roman Christians in the way that great Apostles like them did. Again, this does suggest that Peter and Paul were in Rome. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and was possibly of an age to have known whether Peter went to Rome or not. Now, none of this is conclusive, but it does give a strong impression that Peter made it to Rome and probably died there.

In the final part, (3), I'll wrap this up by looking at the remaining evidence and considering whether Peter was the first Pope.

* Verses 7-11

** 1 Clement could be as early as some NT books (ie. 90s AD) and it was actually included in some early collections of canonical writings.

*** As I said in Part 1, one of the 'hopes' of students of ancient history is that, when the ancient sources themselves aren't as close as we'd like to the events they describe then, ideally, they should draw on other ancient sources, now lost, that were much closer. The reliability of those earlier sources is, of course, a moot point.

Part 3

In Part 2, we looked at evidence from both inside and outside the NT for Peter's presence in Rome. There are strong hints from Acts, John, 1 Clement and the letter* of St Ignatius of Antioch that Peter was martyred and this most likely took place in Rome. But where does most of our information about Peter's later life come from? The answer is another early Christian writing from outside of the NT - the Acts of Peter.

This work was produced sometime in the second century, probably late. It survives in a Latin copy, although it was originally written in Greek. In it, Peter pursues the arch heretic, Simon Magus,** to Italy, where he has a showdown with him in the Roman Forum. Peter's prayers prove more effective than Simon's magic - he even attempts to fly at one point but is brought down to Earth, literally. Simon eventually dies as a result of what we would describe today as medical negligence. As the victorious Peter is now on the Authorities' radar, he is forced to flee from Rome but meets Christ on the Appian Way and utters the famous phrase, 'Quo Vadis, Domine?'*** Jesus replies that he is going to Rome to be crucified a second time as Peter appears to be abandoning His sheep. This remark shames Peter into returning to Rome, where he manages to annoy a Roman official by persuading his concubines to lead a chaste life. He is then arrested and crucified upside down. This latter detail has prompted much comment, with the consensus among later Christian writers that Peter chose this variation because he felt that he was unworthy to die in the manner of his Lord. However, closer reading of the text suggests that it was Peter's way of cocking a snook at the Romans' topsy-turvy values.

The Acts of Peter was a later work, produced a century or so after Peter’s death. And it contains a lot of legendary and fantastical material, such as the battle with Simon Magus, but it does help to underpin the tradition that Peter died in Rome. Later Christian writers, like Eusebius, the friend of the Emperor Constantine, were clear that Peter had died in Rome. Eusebius, in his magisterial Church History, quotes two 2nd century sources (which are now lost) to back this up.

So, to sum up, did Peter go to Rome? The evidence isn't great but, on balance, I'd say that he did go there. Fairly early documents written by those who should know the facts clearly suggest that he was there which, by the normal standards of ancient historical evidence, isn't too bad.

But what about Peter being the first Pope? Well, that's more of a stretch. The idea of the Papacy developed over time and certainly wasn't there from the get go. If Peter died around 64/5 AD, at the time of Nero's persecution of the Christians, then there probably weren't any bishops either. The role of Bishop seems to have emerged towards the end of the first century AD, as a kind of super presbyter or priest with a supervisory role. However, there were Apostles, like Peter and Paul, who did exercise leadership roles. An association with someone of Peter's stature would have given the Roman Church a great deal of kudos and Apostolic authority, especially if he had died in the City. And we know from the reverential tone of St Ignatius's letter and the theme of 1 Clement that the Roman Church had a special, pre-eminent status from an early period, possibly also because of its location in the capital of the Empire and the relative affluence of some of its members. It is often pointed out that Paul's Letter to the Romans doesn't mention Peter but that could be because he hadn't gone there at the time Paul wrote it, which was roughly around 57 AD.

So Peter didn't establish the Church in Rome. It was up and running long before he went there. And there wasn't an unbroken line of bishops of Rome either, at least not until the mid-2nd century onwards.**** But Peter, along with Paul, would have been the Roman Church's most celebrated early visitors and their presence lent it an authority that, arguably, was quickly recognised by other Christian communities in the West. Therefore, I feel Jon was wrong to play down the possibility that Peter ended his days in Rome. I believe that he did go there, if only for a relatively short time, based on the available evidence. But Jon is correct to say that there was no Apostolic succession in the strict, unbroken sense that the Modern Church claims. But, I feel that there is a good case to be made that the Roman Catholic Church has a clear Apostolic authority (as does the Orthodox Church too). However, I can agree with Jon and Penelope that that authority is not always exercised as wisely as it could be.

* 1 Clement and the letters of St Ignatius are from the collection of writings known as 'The Apostolic Fathers.'

** Simon Magus is mentioned briefly in Acts (8:9-24). I talk about him in my background notes for this coming Sunday, (10th May). NT scholar Michael Goulder suggested that Simon might have been seen as a coded version of Paul by those Christians who preferred the 'Jewish' Christianity of Peter. Goulder also wrote a paper suggesting that Peter never went to Rome, which might have influenced Jon Rosebank's thinking. Goulder (who died in 2010) was a respected scholar, from Birmingham University no less, but some of his ideas were not exactly mainstream (to put it politely). Goulder had been an Anglican minister but left the priesthood and later became an atheist.

*** Quo Vadis? means 'where are you going?' However, your Latin teacher would probably tell you that the Roman in the street (via) would have just said 'quo is?' rather than 'quo vadis?' But it does make for a good movie title

**** sketchy evidence from various early Christian writings etc. suggests that the Church in Rome may have been fragmented at times; perhaps doctrinally as well as organisationally. It was certainly split between several different house churches, at least in the early years. And there may have been more than one bishop during certain periods and none at all at others as a result of the ongoing persecutions.

As we will be meeting on St Patrick's Day, I thought I'd take a brief look at Patrick's world and the historical context. I won't talk much about Patrick himself as his life is now pretty much mired in legend. So I'll just start by saying that he was probably a Romano-Briton who travelled to Ireland around 425-450 AD to proclaim the Christian message. At that time, the Irish still practised Druidism, an animist religion overseen by shamanic priests called Druids. In many ways, Druidism was not unlike native American religions. It had also been practised throughout most of North Western Europe prior to the Roman era and may have continued in Ireland until at least the 8th century.

We think Patrick was born in what was then still Roman Britain. His name is a Roman name, Patricius, which means patrician. The patricians were the ancient Roman aristocratic families (the word derives from 'pater' = father) but they had all died out by Patrick's time, although the name retained its meaning of 'noble.'*

In 407, the commander of the Roman garrison in Britain, a man named Constantine,** declared himself emperor, as Constantine III, and took his soldiers across the Channel to pursue his claim. It didn't go well however and he was defeated and killed by the Western Emperor, Honorius. Constantine's surviving troops were absorbed into the continental Roman army and Britain was left to defend itself. At this point, Patrick may have been a teenager.

Over the next 60 years, eastern Britain was gradually overrun by pagan Germanic peoples from Northern Germany and Southern Denmark (principally the Saxons and Angles).***

Some links with the Empire remained: St Germanus, a Gallic (French) warrior bishop made a couple of trips to Britain (?430 AD), to help the people in their struggles, both theological and military. He may even have crossed paths with Patrick at some point.

But, despite this, it seems that Britain may have reverted, fairly quickly, to the kind of society it had been before the Roman Conquest. This is naturally a matter of great debate among historians. Some believe that Britain had fiercely resisted becoming Romanised and so was able to quickly slip back into its more primitive state. Others argue the polar opposite and, to some extent, recent archaeological finds appear to support this latter view. But the Anglo-Saxon incursions, which may not have involved large numbers of people at any one time, were nevertheless protracted and had the effect of eradicating much of the Celtic and Roman past in the lands settled. Virtually all place names in what would become England are now in the invader's language and the Germanic Old English soon replaced Latin and the Celtic tongue. Spain and Gaul (France), on the other hand, despite also having been countries originally settled by people of Celtic stock, developed languages based on Latin.

If Patrick was descended from native Britons rather than more recent Roman settlers, he may have spoken a local British-Celtic language, of a type that developed into modern Welsh. And if that was the case, he might have been able to communicate with his Irish converts more easily, albeit via some kind of Celtic version of pidgin. It is possible (but not certain) that the Celtic languages spoken in the British Isles in pre-Roman times were mutually intelligible up to a point, allowing for regional variations.

Ireland, like the Scottish Highlands, was never conquered by the Romans, although we think that they established a trading post there. It is therefore possible that a few Irish people spoke passable Latin. Ireland also had links with the west coast of Scotland (Argyll) and there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of peoples.

Irish society was probably similar to pre-conquest Britain, with tribal areas and strongholds controlled by local chieftains. Ireland did however boast a High King, who resided at Tara, a fortress in County Meath, but he was probably only a figurehead until the 8th or 9th century. The High King, while Patrick was still a boy, was one of the most famous - Niall of the Nine Hostages.**** One possibility is that Niall died by drowning, around 405 AD, while leading an invasion fleet or large raiding party against Roman Britain. He may have died in rough weather, just off the Isle of Wight (an island near the southern coast of England near Portsmouth). This suggests that he was more than just a figurehead if he was able to muster and command an invasion fleet.***** However, other accounts maintain that he died somewhere in Scotland, although definitely outside Ireland. And it may have been the remnants of Niall's fleet who turned to pirate raiding and captured, among their many victims, a young lad called Patrick - but that's just a guess .

PS. Patrick may have died around the mid 470s AD, when the Roman Empire in the West finally collapsed, despite what some modern historians like to claim.******

* in Patrick's time, the Roman Upper class consisted of a new aristocracy made up of wealthy families and those who had achieved senior positions in society. They were called 'Honestiores' (the more honourable ones), whereas everyone else were the Humiliores (the more humble ones).

** he had no known connection to the original Christian emperor, Constantine, who was also, coincidentally, proclaimed in Britain (York). The Roman army in Britain had been earlier depleted (in 383 AD) by a similar adventurer, called Magnus Maximus (whose name means the Greatest Great One).

*** another figure 'mired in legend' from this period is King Arthur. Whether or not he actually existed and organised British resistance against the Saxon invaders is a matter of debate. Most serious historians have doubts, whereas many amateur enthusiasts have made a good living arguing that he was a real person. In any event, the Saxons eventually prevailed.

**** Geraldine claims that King Niall is one of her ancestors. That would make her an honsestior, whereas I am definitely a humilior (see above * note).

***** imagine how history would have been different if Niall's invasion of Britain had succeeded. But, as with the Spanish Armada nearly 1200 years later, the bad old British weather played a crucial role.

****** it all began with Belgian Historian, Henri Pirenne, (1862-1935), who suggested that the Western Roman empire effectively carried on until the Muslim invasions (7th century onwards). And this view gained traction with Irish historian, Peter Brown, and others, who thought in terms of transformation rather than collapse and coined the term 'Late Antiquity' for this final stage of the, supposedly, continuing Western empire. The Roman Empire in the East, known as the Byzantine Empire, after the town of Byzantium where its capital of Constantinople was built, did however survive until the Fifteenth century.

* * * * *

Some Afterthoughts on St Patrick

Following on from my previous piece about St Patrick's historical milieu, I thought I might focus in a little more detail on a couple of points.

In yesterday's email, I mentioned St Germanus, the French bishop who came to Britain, after the Romans had left, to help with a couple of matters. One of these was the suppression of Pelagianism, a heresy that had arisen in Britain. I have written to P and A about Pelagianism before but, briefly, it concerned a dispute between a monk called Pelagius and St Augustine (the bishop of Hippo). Pelagius felt that we all start with a clean slate and it was up to us individually whether we go to heaven or not, through our actions. We are not burdened by Original Sin. Pelagius was very much playing the Free Will card.

Augustine, on the other hand, felt Original Sin, coupled with God's grace, could not be ignored. This led to a diminution, in some people's minds, of the idea of Free Will.

Broadly speaking, we have ended up with a compromise between the two standpoints. But, at the time, Pelagius was declared a heretic.

Pelagius, according to some accounts, was Irish. He would have been around 30-40 years older than Patrick and so this suggests that Christianity had reached Ireland much earlier. However, it is more likely that Pelagius was British.

But, could Patrick have been a Pelagian Christian? Pelagianism would have been fairly endemic in Britain as he was growing up. A TV movie about the life of St Patrick (made in 2000)* depicts the anti-Pelagian Germanus helping Patrick to mount his mission to Ireland. This may be the filmmakers’ licence but it is thought that Patrick was ordained as a priest by Germanus, when he spent time in Gaul (France) as a young man. This was after escaping from his initial captivity in Ireland. In his own surviving writings, Patrick defends himself against some charges made by other Christians. As far as we can tell (Patrick is a little vague about them) they did not include heresy. And so he is unlikely to have been a Pelagian.

Later Celtic Christianity in Ireland and Western Britain differed in some respects from Roman Christianity but, as far as we can tell, these differences related to relatively minor organisational or liturgical practices, not to fundamental theology.

My final point relates to the ethnic origins of the peoples of these islands following the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. For a long time it was believed that the Irish, Scots and Welsh were predominantly Celts - the main, pre-Roman inhabitants of the Isles - and the English were of mainly Germanic Anglo-Saxon stock. However, recent work, principally by genetics expert Bryan Sykes, on the DNA of the British and Irish has blown this notion out of the water.** The picture is very complicated but, allowing for some regional variations and a few anomalies, it appears that the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English are quite closely related in DNA terms. The vast majority of us have a lot of DNA relating to the original neolithic inhabitants of the British Isles*** overlaid by DNA from other, later waves of invaders - Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings etc. This suggests that the Anglo-Saxons didn't invade in huge numbers and nor did they either kill or kick everyone else out of what later became England. Rather they intermarried with the locals. In fact, there was a LOT of intermarriage. As with other areas of the world, DNA research is often showing that we are far more closely related than we perhaps like to think.****

So, how does that Sister Sledge song go? Oh, yes, 'We are Family. I got all my sisters and me!'

I think that's a very good note to end on.

Have a happy St Patrick's Day,

Geoff

* 'St Patrick: the Irish Legend', starring Patrick Bergin as the man himself (Fox Family Channel, 2000)

** Bryan Sykes set out his findings in a fascinating book entitled, Blood of the Isles. It is very readable and does not require any specialist knowledge.

*** the earliest inhabitants arrived in various waves and may have originated in Eastern Europe or Asia. They were the people who built the neolithic sites at Stonehenge, Skara Brae and Newgrange. Many of us are related to people who lived here 10,000 years ago.

**** In his excellent book, A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson makes the point that, if you go back far enough, you will find that you are related, at some level, to most other people in your part of the world. This is because climatic disasters in the past, eg. major volcanic eruptions etc., have reduced the human race to just a few thousand people at times. Bryan Sykes also makes this point. In fact, ALL of us in P and A will probably have an ancestor in common and perhaps not so far back as you might think. Not even as far back as Niall of the Nine Hostages .

by Geoff

July 2025

As the Summer Holiday/Vacation season is upon us, I thought I'd bombard you with a little light reading for the beach or wherever . Please feel free to ignore it, delete it or even read it; however your fancy takes you.

It's entirely my own work (not copied from anywhere) although I have tried to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. The first instalment will be with you shortly. I hope you find it interesting and entertaining.

As promised - this is part 1 of a three part series of short essays on a subject of relevance to early Christianity and the Bible in general.

I thought it might be helpful to look at a topic that you may have come across before - Second Temple Judaism, but possibly don't know much about. It has been said that having some knowledge of it helps us to understand Christianity a little better as Christianity emerged out of Second Temple Judaism.

The period of the Second Temple runs roughly from when it was built, circa 516 BC, until 70 AD, when it was destroyed by the Romans following a major rebellion by the Jews of Galilee and Judaea. The original Temple, built by King Solomon, was destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar in around 586 BC and a new, second temple was built after the Persians, who had conquered the Babylonians, allowed the Jews to return to their homeland, from around 535 BC onwards.

The Second Temple period was an extremely vibrant period for Jewish culture and thought. It produced the Pharisees, the Essenes (who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Sadducees and the Zealots. It also produced a certain itinerant rabbi, called Jesus of Nazareth.

But it was also a particularly turbulent period, historically. The Jews were ruled, in turn, by Persians, Greeks and Romans and, for a brief period, they ruled themselves with Kings (and one Queen) from a Dynasty known as the Hasmoneans*. These Jewish kings gradually increased the size of their kingdom, returning it, roughly, to the dimensions enjoyed under David and Solomon. They invaded and annexed Galilee, parts of Transjordan, Edom (Idumea) and coastal areas, including Gaza. In some cases, they forcibly converted the local population to Judaism - the only time, as far as we know, that Jews have been guilty of this practice.

Under the Romans, the Jewish people initially had some autonomy. The most famous of the client Kings of this period, Herod the Great, was responsible for substantially refurbishing and enlarging the second temple to the point that it became one of the most impressive buildings in the entire Graeco-Roman World (more on this later). Herod, incidentally, was the son of one of the Idumeans who had been forcibly converted to Judaism.

One of the tensions of the Second Temple period was that between traditional Jewish customs and values and the Hellenisation (or 'Greekification') of the Jewish state. Many Jews took Greek names and spoke Greek as their mother tongue (eg. St Paul). In fact, the term 'Synagogue' derives from two Greek words. The famous Septuagint**, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was necessary because so many Jews had lost touch with their Hebrew roots and embraced Hellenism, eg. the philosopher Philo, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Others, like the Essenes, wanted a purer Jewish culture and religion, but the invasiveness of Greek is demonstrated by the presence of some Greek texts, even among the Essenes' own Dead Sea Scrolls.

Ultimately, these tensions, which also included a desire for freedom from Gentile rule, exploded into open warfare with the Romans in 66 AD.

The Second Temple period ended with the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Without a temple as the focus for national worship, the synagogues became more central to Judaism and what we know today as Rabbinical Judaism developed largely through the subsequent activities of the Pharisees.

Finally, another, important aspect of Second Temple Judaism was the emergence of Apocalypticism as a means of making sense of the fact that Davidic kings no longer ruled Israel. Even the Hasmoneans were not of the line of David. Apocalyptic thought is also evident in some of the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Essentially, Apocalypticists argued that God had temporarily lost control of the world to the Devil, which was was why good people suffered and the wicked prospered. However, He would soon restore control through a Messiah - a descendant of David, and perhaps a priestly Messiah too, from the line of Levi (according to some texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

In some scenarios, a heavenly or divine judge, known as the Son of Man, (from a phrase used in the Book of Daniel) would also be sent to establish God's Kingdom on Earth and all of this would happen soon, when bad people would finally get their comeuppance and the righteous their reward.

Some scholars (most famously Albert Schweitzer) saw Jesus as a prophet in the apocalyptic tradition but this is very much a matter of debate and others, such as John Dominic Crossan, offer quite different opinions***. But, either way, the legacy of Second Temple Judaism is very much a part of the Christian movement.

Notes

* the Hasmoneans ruled Israel from 140 BC to 37 BC, although, from 63 BC, Rome began to exercise an increasing level of influence and control over Jewish affairs.

** the Septuagint was produced by Jews living in Ptolemaic Egypt around 250 BC. The Legend goes that 72 scholars (hence 'septuagint', which is Latin for 70) working independently each produced an identical Greek translation of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The remaining books were translated over the next 100 years or so.

*** Crossan argues that Jesus was more like a Greek cynic philosopher. Cynics may have been active among the Greek population of Galilee and believed in living strictly virtuous lives, devoid of virtually all material possessions.

Part 2

Most of what we know about the Jerusalem Temple comes from the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus*, who was from a priestly family. Little remains of the Temple itself, apart from some paving stones, inscriptions and sections of the outer walls, so Josephus's account is of great importance. The total area covered by the Temple and its courts was about half a kilometre by 300 metres. Its rebuilding, inaugurated by Herod the Great, began in 20 BC. The Temple itself was completed in around 2 years but the building and decoration of the outer courts was finished only when Jesus began his ministry (c. 26 AD), which was less than 50 years before it was finally destroyed by the Romans. The main function of the temple was the offering of sacrifices by priests at an outdoor altar near the entrance to the sanctuary. Offerings could be animals, vegetables or incense. Sacrifices took place more or less continuously but especially on festival days and at the Sabbath. Individuals could arrange to have sacrifices offered by the priests on their behalf. This might be for various reasons, such as the fulfilment of a vow. Poor people could usually only afford to sacrifice birds. Certain parts of the animal were always burned. The blood of the victim belonged to God and was sprinkled on the altar. The rest was eaten by the priests and the person making the offering. Traders at the Temple sold birds in wicker baskets. Occasionally, the authorities had to step in and control prices in order to protect customers, ie. those making the offerings. Around 18,000 priests (yes, really that many) were employed at the Temple and served on a rota basis, to ensure that there was always a sufficient number on duty around the clock. Priests were drawn from the tribe of Levi, wore white robes and were occasionally required to interpret the Mosaic law. They were fed, clothed and housed at public expense, hence the temple tax, which is mentioned in Matthew (17: 24-27) and was levied on all male Jews over 20.

A priest's day began before dawn and involved ritual bathing to avoid impurity. Their duties, which were assigned by lot, included offering sacrifices, lighting lamps, cleaning the altar, attending lengthy ceremonies, keeping the altar fire burning and patrolling the Temple and its courts as guards. Priests were even trained as builders so that they could construct the holiest parts of the Temple complex. The High Priest was a political appointment** and came from an aristocratic family. His vestments were far more elaborate than those of the ordinary priests. The High Priest only officiated on Sabbaths, new moons and national festivals. Parts of the temple complex were off limits to women and Gentiles and the death penalty could be imposed (in theory) for transgressors. A notice giving warning of this has been discovered and it was, as you've probably guessed, written in Greek.

The Sanhedrin,*** the court where Jesus was tried, met in one of the halls of the Temple. It was originally a legislative as well as a judicial body and had about 70 members who acted as judges. Local sanhedrins also existed elsewhere in Judaea. By Jesus's time, the Sanhedrin's remit had become confined to purely religious matters.

In the final part, I'll look at the various Jewish sects and groups (such as the Sadducees and Pharisees) who helped shape the cultural landscape of the Second Temple period.

Notes

* Josephus fought as a commander on the Jewish side, during the uprising against Rome in the 60s AD. He then defected to the enemy and became a friend of the Emperor Vespasian. He ended his days living in Rome, where he wrote histories of the Jewish people, in Greek, mainly for Gentile consumption. He was not a Christian and was regarded as a traitor by most Jews.

** High Priests should, in theory, have been direct descendants of Zadok, the priest at the time of King David but this was probably no longer the case by the time of Jesus. Caiaphas, for instance, who was High Priest at the time of the Crucifixion, may have been of the family of Zadok but not necessarily a direct descendant. The Roman Emperor would have had a say in the High Priest's appointment.

*** Sanhedrin is another Greek loan word, like synagogue. Sanhedrin means 'sitting together' and the 'hedrin' part of the word comes from the same root as 'hedral', as in cathedral, which also means 'seat', ie. bishop's seat.

Part 3

The four main groups/sects/movements - call them what you will - in Second Temple Judaism (other than Christianity) were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots and the Essenes. The first three are mentioned in the NT and the Essenes are best known for their connection to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Sadducees and the Pharisees emerged in the 2nd century BC as two divergent forms of Judaism. Both groups numbered a mere few thousand members so most Jews belonged to neither group. However, the Pharisees, who were made up of reasonably well educated, middle class men, probably had the greatest influence on the population as a whole. They believed that the Torah was a living code that needed constant interpretation. This has led to them being characterised, especially in the NT, as nitpickers. But this is not entirely fair. They believed in an afterlife and in many respects they were close to Jesus, theologically. They were also, in the main, Jewish patriots, resenting Roman rule, but they were not as extreme as the Zealots who we'll get to shortly. Pharisaic Judaism ultimately led to the rabbinic form that is most prevalent today.

The Sadducees were an even smaller group made up mostly of aristocratic families, usually with a priestly connection. (The name Sadducee is probably derived from Zadok, the name of the high priest in David's time). Their preoccupation with the Temple and their collaboration with the Romans made them remote and often unpopular with the common people. They followed a 'by the numbers' approach to Judaism, ignoring everything except the Torah (ie. The five books of Moses). Consequently they didn't believe in an Afterlife as this is mentioned elsewhere in the OT and took a very literalistic approach to Scripture. They were also highly ritualistic.

The Essenes have been compared to a prototype monastic community although the scholarly jury is still out on that. But they were similar to monks in some ways, living in the desert, spending their days copying manuscripts and living an ascetic, celibate lifestyle. The Dead Sea Scrolls* give us an insight into their way of life and beliefs. They followed a very strict interpretation of the law, and had an apocalyptic philosophy (see Part 1). They expected the end times to arrive very soon. The Essenes are not mentioned in the NT but, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, we knew about them from the ancient writers, Josephus, Philo and Pliny the Elder.** There has been speculation that John the Baptist had links with the Essene community because of his austere life style. Excavations at Qumran, the site most associated with the Essenes, which is near the Dead Sea, have led to various controversies. The discovery of graves containing female skeletons has cast doubts on the Essenes' supposed celibacy and other scholars have also challenged the widely held view that the sect produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in caves nearby.

The Zealots were a group of religious Jews, who believed that armed resistance was necessary in order to free God's people from foreign rule.*** They were also referred to, by Josephus, as the Fourth Philosophy. A subgroup of the Zealots was known as the Sicarii, who were terrorists by our standards. The Sicarii were named after the sica or dagger that they carried (so their name actually means 'daggermen'), which they used to stab to death, often in public, known Jewish collaborators. One intriguing possibility is that the name Iscariot is a corruption of the word 'Sicarius' and that Judas had at one time been a daggerman.**** After the failure of the Jewish Revolt in 70 AD, the last stand of the Zealots took place at the famous siege of Masada three years later. According to Josephus, they took their own lives rather than fall into Roman hands.

Conclusion

The Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots all ceased to exist in the years following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Pharisees did continue as a movement for several centuries but eventually evolved into modern Rabbinical Judaism. The only Second Temple Jewish movement that has continued into the modern era and still exists today is one that you have all heard of. No prizes for guessing its name .

Notes

* The Scrolls consist of copies of all the books of the OT (apart from Esther), copies of some of the Apocrypha (eg. The book of Jubilees, Sirach and Tobit) and texts specific to the Qumran community itself, setting out its rules and beliefs. The copies of the OT books are, apart from a few fragments, the oldest we have.

** Pliny died during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. His nephew, Pliny the Younger, gave us our first account by a Roman of a new religious sect called the Christians. Philo mentions another ascetic Jewish group called the Therapeutae, who lived in Egypt. Very little is known about them, but it is possible that they were linked in some way to the Essenes.

*** some of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the Essenes also had an anti-Roman, militaristic outlook.

**** it is more likely that Iscariot is derived from Ish-Kerioth, ie. man from Kerioth, an obscure town in Southern Judaea. However, if that's true, it makes Judas the only non-Galilean among Jesus's disciples.