How the Study of Judaism and the Greco-Roman World are Essential to understanding the New Testament

Recently, I have been accepted into the John Rawling School of Divinity. As someone soon to pursue a interested in both Biblical Studies and Theological Studies (and New Testament Studies and Historical Theology in particular), I am also interested in what the teachings and literature of the Old and New Testaments, along with the theological doctrines espoused in the Bible, the historical development of the canon of Scripture, and the history of the ancient world in which the Scriptures were born. 

Those who study Biblical Studies are not simply interested in opening an ESV Bible and reading Romans 8 in English. Biblical theologians wish to understand the language in which Paul wrote this letter to the church of Rome and much more. 

One of the principles of hermeneutics is understanding the grammatical, historical, literary, and religious context of the time. And how is this done better than reading from those sources that were written at the time of the New Testament's composition? If we turn to the early centuries of Christianity, we will find Jewish, Christian, and pagan works, which help us better understand not only the ancient world but the Scriptures themselves. 

There are several important sources concerning the era of Christ and the early church. Among them are Eusiubius's Ecclesiastical History, The Jewish War by Josephus, the other writings of Josephus, the writings of Philo, The Shepherd of Hermas,  The Didache, and the Annuals of Tacitus, just to name a few. All of these works, even those not written by Christians, illuminate the reader to more clearly understand what the Bible was referring to in Jesus's prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13). Yet, without reading Jospephus, a person reading Mark 13 may not understand what Christ was talking about. 

The early Christians believed that they feasted on the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Contrary to modern perceptions, their beliefs did not derive from paganism. If their beliefs had dried from paganism, then the Romans would not have accused them of being cannibals. But those today who make this claim about the early Christians show that they have no knowledge of first-century Rome. 

On the other hand, those who study topics like justification or predestination according to people centuries or thousands of years later are more likely to misunderstand the meaning of Scripture, as they will be reading Scripture without a Jewish perspective. Contrary to what some thought in the past, Christianity was always a Jewish movement, which many historians now believe. In the first century, Christians and Jews were generally not enemies until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (though, to a certain extent, Christians had been persecuted by many of the Jews beforehand). It was during AD 70 that a gradual rift occurred between the Jews and Christians and has generally lasted ever since. The cause of the difference was that the Christians did not believe it was their right to overthrow the Roman government, which the Jews insisted on attempting to do. 

This is the danger of people like Steven Anderson, a controversial independent Baptist preacher, who, like many others, claims that no commentary on Scripture is needed (though Anderson doesn't see his preaching as a commentary on Scripture). Certain phrases and concepts in Scripture cannot be understood unless the person reading the Scriptures understands the historical context of the time. For example, in Acts 17: 27-8, Paul quoted Greek philosophers. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15: 33, his phrase ''bad company corrupts good morals'' is actually a reference to the writings of Menader, a Greek dramatist who lived long before Paul*1. The modern reader studying Scripture, however, would not understand any of this by simply reading the translated texts of the Bible in English---which is why it is helpful for modern Christians to know both the Biblical languages that the Scriptures were composed in, as well as a sufficient historical background in the Jewish and Roman world of ancient times. Indeed, some of the phrases that Paul used in the New Testament had actually been written by someone else before him, but by using these phrases, he related to the Gentile world, which was increasingly turning to Christianity. 

As discussed in previous posts, the church preceded the New Testament, not the other way around. Luther, even despite all his disagreements with the Catholic Church, acknowledges that it was the Catholic Church who gave Protestants the Bible (though technically, Eastern Orthodox did as well, and it was the Jews who gave the Old Testament to all). To avoid church interpretation of the one who gave others the canon of Scripture is quite illogical. It cannot be known what books are canonical by simply reading the Bible, as the Bible never said this. Since the beginning, Christ gave authority to church leaders (Matthew 16, Acts 15). In Acts 15, for instance, God worked through men in the Jerusalem council to end a dispute in the church about circumcision. Although Paul does tell us that the Holy Spirit does illuminate believers through the Holy Spirit, it was not simply the Holy Spirit enlightening individuals to the truth at the Council of Jerusalem, but the Holy Spirit inspiring an entire council of church leaders to make the right decision for the church. Indeed, the idea that we are all just individuals is more or less an Enlightenment-era thought. For most of church history, Christians have trusted that Christ will never let his church fall into error---just as he Had not let the Council of Jerusalem, which interpreted doctrine and theology and bound the entire church by their decision. Those who preached true doctrine in Acts 15 were those in agreement with the council, while those against its decisions were closer to those who believe in the Holy Spirit only, maintaining the individual to understand Scripture without the guidance of the church as a whole. And the Council of Jerusalem was not just a decision for one particular congregation, the autonomy of every church, but included apostles present, such as Peter, who was not the head of the church in Jerusalem, as the church leaders decided what was binding for the church as a whole to believe. In the same way, if we believe Matthew 16, then we believe the Holy Spirit has never let the universal church fall into error, and if we think otherwise, then we claim Christ's premise was void, and the gates of hell did prevail against the church. 

Many Evangelicals today have been told to believe in Sola Scriptura, but I would argue that belief in Sola Scriptura, as it is often understood in the non-Lutheran world, runs contrary to the arguments I have priced above in favor of a deeper Jewish understanding of Scripture. It should be noted that not only did Martin Luther extensively quote many church fathers, but in composing the Latin phrase, he was rejecting many concepts and practices in the Western Church that historically had not always been taught in Western Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, generally followed the thought of the Eastern church fathers and seven ecumenical councils, and therefore, there was never a need to emphasize Sola Scriptura in the East as there was in the West. 

And while the words of Jesus preceded the New Testament canon, those who claim Sola Scriptura (who often define it differently than had Luther) are interpreting far more than the words of Christ. Likewise, the Pentetauch canon long preceded Christ, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were universally accepted by the Jews. And the Pentateuch did not fall out of Heaven but was the canon of all Jews because the Jewish priesthood affirmed it to be so. Long before Christ or the Apostles lived, God had preserved these books through the Jewish priesthood. Furthermore, the words of Jesus say nothing about leadership, church government, or common practices of the ship---Jesus never affirmed what books are canonical and which ones aren't---neither did the writers of the New Testament, but those in the ancient church gradually realized over time which books were the inspired Word of God. Those simply reading the Bible cannot tell either the Christian or the atheist the Epistle of Barnabas is not Scripture, but the Christian who knows early Christian history can. Certainly, the Bible did not fall out of Heaven as one book, but many books were compiled from various cultures through different eras of time. Indeed, only the Ten Commandments were written directly by the hand of God; Scripture, as a whole, has always been compiled by the people of God. 

How has much of Christianity today ended up so far from early Judaism and early Christianity? Because for many American Christians, the Bible is interpreted according to later interpretations or even to the interpretations of others now. Now, many Americans read the New Testament with no knowledge whatsoever of Judaism, but according to how modern people, two thousand years later, understand the meaning of the text. Many of these same people have never read the early Christian texts and yet think that they can understand Scripture better than those who lived in the ancient world, even more than theologians like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, who actually knew the apostles. Ignatius, for example, would have understood the historical, grammatical, literary, and religious context of the New Testament. 

In short, how can a person best understand the Scriptures? By understanding historical Judaism and early Christianity. 

*1-https://carm.org/defending-the-faith/did-paul-quote-pagan-philosophers/