Excellent question Pat. Martin Hengel and Bruce Metzger are the two scholars that I know of which have dealt with this sort of a concern, albeit in a less direct manner than you have posed the question. I will dig around in their works and see if they say anything generally about this. Hengel's famous work is Judaism and Hellenism and Metzger's in this regard is The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content. The latter might seem, by its title to limit itself to the era of the formation of the New Testament but, if memory serves, it goes beyond that and addresses the church fathers a bit as well. I would say that in general, from my own knowledge of the subject, they were more influenced by Greek/Roman culture than they were by Hebrew. Of the church fathers it seems to me, on my remembrances of reading them, that Augustine (though he is later in time - Post-Nicene) is the most knowledgeable about Hebrew practices. In order to answer this question properly I think one would need to look at the influence of Philo of Alexandria on the Hebrew culture of his time. Thee seems to be a "bleeding" together of categories due to his writings. He brings Greek notions to bear on Judaism.

This is a very complex question, Pat, that I think needs a multi-layered approach. Judaism in the 1st century was not monolithic, with distinct divisions of belief between the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and other factions. And the society had been significantly Hellenised for 300+ years, and under Roman influence for over a century.

Will try to add more later, but I would suggest you start with the letters of Paul that can be reliably be attributed to Paul. Paul was a Roman Citizen and had been a Pharisee until his conversion. It is interesting to look at the Hebrew texts he cites in them, and the references he makes to Jesus' teachings. Paul's letters also embody the division between his mission to the Gentiles, and the Jewish Christian Church led by James.

A good starting point that I'd recommend is John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus, though I do not agree with all his conclusions or attributions.

And I do feel some of his other works need to be approached with caution.

Thanks, Kathleen.

Yes, the sort of careful, multi-layered approach you mention is exactly what I'm looking for. I have some exposure to Crossan and a few others of the "popular" texts, but I'm also interested in finding recommendations about authors who write from a purely historical perspective, somewhat like the approach I found in R.W. Southern's "Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages."

And thanks also to Bill. I'll make note of the names you mentioned.

Writing answers to RG questions such as yours, Pat, is always a bit hit and miss, because you know so little about the background to the question. Personally, I’m not sure that there are any works on early Christianity that can be considered to have been written from a “purely historical perspective”, because we all bring our baggage with us. Christians will always write to some extent from the perspective of their own particular brand of faith. Jewish scholars will often now seek to argue that Jesus was a good Jew whose real teachings have been distorted. And atheists will have their own agendas as well. (That is the Phenomenologist in me, speaking.)

I still hold that Crossan’s Historical Jesus, if you haven’t read it, can be very useful, as a review of Jesus place in history. If you are not familiar with it, you may like to have a look at the encyclopaedic Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, in English as Rise and Decline of the Roman World, commonly referred to as ANRW. (And here I’m extracting from Wikipaedia for simplicity.) “It is an extensive collection of books dealing with the history and culture (including religions) of ancient Rome. Akin to a journal and published in various series, each number of the ANRW comprises scholarly essays contributed by individual authors. The essays are in various modern European languages, but are primarily written in German or English.” (I was going to add an article as a sample, but it appears to be to large.)

I will assume you know Bart Ehrman’s work, but look him up of not. There is also in my own library The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, by C K Barrett, which you might find useful, if you can find a copy; particularly the sections on Philosophy and Rabbinic Literature and Rabbinic Judaism.

From my readings generally, I would suggest the following as possible significant influences on the shaping of the early Church; the fall of Jerusalem in 70 (which seems to have removed the influence of the Jewish Christian Church and the influence of Neo-Platonist philosophy. You can also throw into the persecutions, the Mystery Religions and Gnosticism. The latter two being perhaps being important less as influences, than as objects to be differentiated from. If that makes sense.

Let me know how you’re going, and feel free to toss ideas my way, if you want feedback. This is a subject that interests me, which I cannot see me getting to in the foreseeable future.

As Kathleen put it, very interesting question. I am way out of my topic here, I just wanted to add, maybe you should be more specific with use of "Roman". Which period of the Roman Empire and which region are you interested in? Are we talking about the culture of the Capital or the provinces, each region of that Empire had its own native population with big variable in beliefs, art, traditions that added to the Roman culture. And lost was inherited from older cultures. And forget using only works of historical background, I think that such a broad, multu-layered question needs interdisciplinary approach. This is just my humble two cents, as I said I am way out of my topic here. All the best with future work in this field!

Pat, at a local Ancient History Day at University of Queensland a couple of days ago I picked up a copy of a book that might be of use to you: A.N. Sherwin-White's Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (OUP). It is based on a series of 8 lectures delivered in 1960-61.

The work looks at Paul, Acts and the trial of Jesus as portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, in the context of Roman law and Roman provincial government in the 1st century C E in particular, but with some interesting notes on subsequent legal developments. See, for example, the discussion of the lex Iulia de vi publica, in Chapters 3 and 4: the law on which Paul, as a Roman Citizen, based his appeal to have his case heard in Rome.

I've only had a quick run through it so far, and I'm aware that some aspects of it may now be out of date, there has still been a lot of points in it on Roman law, the authority, and limits to that authority of Roman governors and other officials, and the context of Paul's Roman citizenship.

The following may be of interest, Pat, if only for what it has to say about the influence of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the development of early church hierarchy. (All new to me, but fascinating if true.)

WHY PRIESTS? A Failed Tradition, By Garry Wills

I haven't read it, but have heard talk of it, so have posted an excerpt of a review from the NY Times, with links to the review site and the Wikipedia entry on the author.

Garry Wills wants us to know that he really bears no animus toward priests. Truly. Some of his best friends, not to mention his mentors, are priests. His quarrel is not with priests but with the specious notion of the priesthood, which, he argues, finds no precedent in the early church and precious little warrant in the New Testament.

Jesus never claimed for himself the mantle of priesthood, nor did he, a Jew, hail from the priestly tribe of Levi. The sole reference to Jesus as priest in the New Testament, Wills says, occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews, an enigmatic letter of unknown provenance. The writer of the letter introduces the notion of Jesus as priest not in the line of Aaron (Levite) but in the tradition of Melchizedek, the obscure Canaanite king of Salem who makes a cameo appearance in Genesis and is mentioned again briefly in Psalm 110.

Using his linguistic skills and his impressive command of both secondary literature and patristic sources, Wills raises doubts aplenty about “the Melchizedek myth,” and the priestly claims for Jesus in the “idiosyncratic” Epistle to the Hebrews. He notes as well the linguistic anomalies of the Genesis passage and even questions the inclusion of Hebrews in the canon of Scripture.

The Epistle to the Hebrews also posits a novel interpretation of the Crucifixion, Wills argues, that of substitutionary atonement: the death of Jesus was necessary to placate the anger of a wrathful God against a sinful humanity. In this scheme, God demanded the blood sacrifice of his own son. Wills challenges this notion on several grounds, including its regressive “substitution of human sacrifice for animal sacrifice.” In fact, he points out, the Greek word for “sacrifice” occurs 15 times in Hebrews, more than in the rest of the New Testament combined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/books/review/why-priests-by-garry-wills.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills

Hey, guys. Thanks for your replies. I've been up to my neck in things to do as of late, but I'm going to make a proper reply to all of these at the first opportunity. I just didn't want to go any longer without any sort of reply at all.

A multi-layered question indeed.

And quite complex also: in physics the mechanic outcome of elastic collision can be easily calculated in case of two balls. That is not thruth in case of three balls.

It is somehow similar the case of the collision of the roman, hebrew and christian religion – during the first centuries. Sorry, during the last centuries. Khmm, during few millennia ago…

Because even by using a christian, roman or hebrew calendar, the user may lost her/his/it’s (!) objectivity.

The question is formulated in a kind of holistic vision. It can be approached by simplifying.

1. the R-C relation : romans did not regarded christianity as a religion, but as a superstition. And they regarded christians as high-nutritive-valued food for their captive lions. Good for circus of the Panem et circenses slogan

2. the H-C relation: hebrews regarded Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, not as a Messiah. So, they considered christianity a sect which took a wrong turn.

3. The R-H relation was marked by the first jewish revolt (ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70) and the third revolt led by BarKochba, ended by Julius Severus’s 12 legion, which accomplished the first genocide in 135 (580.000 Jew killed in Judea. Roman soldiers stopped stabbing and killing the Jews to save their own horses, because the jewish blood rose till the level of their horses’s nostrils – according to the Torah)

These aspects can shed some light to the complex interrelations which shaped the evolution of these religions. These relations were driven mostly by the desire of physical extermination, territorial and financial dominance of the opponents - or sometimes to force them to convert (this had an unconvenient aspect: converted people could not be taken as slaves, expropriated or forced to pay double taxes.)

But if we approach this multi-layered question in this simplified way, we will find a lot of similarities with our modern problems. We fight and kill people in name of Christ (modern crusades), Allah the (Djihad) or to build the Third Temple – saying that we fight for democracy and justice. We declare that the territorial claims, the petrol, the interest rates are on a secondary plane.

Early christianity, the last roman emperors or the Kingdom of Judea had to find their ways of survive in a highly complex situation – and one of them has failed. The biggest and strongest.

Did we learned something from their exemple?

It's an excellent question indeed! I think we can't set aside the fact that both the Hebrews and the Romans were also influenced by the Greeks. The Hellenistic culture was present even in the first century. Most of the NT was written in greek, Paul learned the greek culture, quoted 2 philosophers in his epistles, and even used the greek rhetorics, etc.

Regarding the hebrew beliefs, I recommend an excellent book wrote by Risto Santala intitled : THE MESSIAH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF RABBINICAL WRITINGS

Humble layman's perspective:

A. Hebrew (language) culture may be a misnomer. It should be the Jewish culture. This is the root of the Christian heritage (as it is of Islam). Starting from the prophesies to the fulfillment through crucifixion. Whosoever is responsible for the crucifixion must also get the credit for the origin of Christianity.

B. In the Arabic speaking Christian communities "the Christ" is called Ibn Allah (or Bin Allah or Ben Allah) i.e., "son of God". The word Allah originates in the Hebrew word "Ellie". I'd say the influence is strong and unequivocal.

C. In my opinion the relationship between the two "Hebrew Culture" (persecuted) and "Roman Culture" (persecutor) culminated in the "Crusades". The "Cross" for the "Romans" was "mightier than the sword". It was political expediency. Tantamount to "Jihad" today.

D. "Burial" is from the Jewish tradition while "cremation" is Roman. "Communion" is Jewish while the hierarchical control at the "Vatican" is Roman.

E. "Circumcision" was/is a Jewish tradition/sacrament. The Romans didn't have the challenge of camping in the "desert" for decades with limited water supplies. Yet it is the "rule rather than the exception" in Christendom today. Copiously practiced in US and European Hospitals.

F. "ARMAGEDON" will be upon us - Jewish! We'll bring it to you - Roman (& Jihad)! LOL!

If the "religious" could only grow a "sense of humor" besides a "back-bone" called faith, we could avoid many wars and much grief!

A widely respected authority for the contributions of Hebrews and Romans to Christianity is Adolf von Harnack´s Dogmengeschichte, translated into a multivolume work titled "The History of Dogma." This work is biased against Church dogma as such and the entrance of irrationalism into Christianity, but it offers perhaps the richest treatment extant of the Church Fathers and the various major Church Councils.

Thanks, Nelson. I'll make a note of it.

Pat,

You may or may not be aware that the Church Fathers' writings, even to the most obscure, are to be found on the web in the original languages and in translation. Hence you can draw your own inferences through direct consultation of their texts. My suggestion would be to consult the experts first, then confirm (or deny) their opinions through direct readings.

Nelson! Please post a link to "the Church Fathers' writings". I'm very much interested in this line of thought for self-education purposes. What was the original language and when was this scribed? Who would these "Church Fathers" be? Just to establish the voracity of such compilations. Thanks!

Ravi,

The original languages were Greek and Latin. The list of Church Fathers is to be found in http://wwwccel.org/fathers.html.

Texts can be located in http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu

Nelson! The first link is not working for some reason. I'll keep looking.

Ravi:

Try http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

This is the website of Christian Classical Ethereal Library. I forgot the period after www.

Nelson! Much to absorb. It seem like an awful lot of words & languages to explain a simple concept of selfless love & sacrifice that many humans still practice on a daily basis. I appreciate you turning us on to this information resource.

Ravi,

I have used quotations from the Church Fathers in Latin and Greek to prepare a critical edition of philosopher of religion Miguel de Unamuno´s main work, "The Tragic Sense of Life." He quotes the Church fathers in Spanish, and I needed to quote them in the original Greek and Latin to determine how Unamuno differs. The difference informs us of Unamuno´s personal ideas on the Christian religion.

Many words and languages, yes. But each Christian has his own nuances or personal visions of selfless love and sacrifice. The hope is that Unamuno´s readers may find some comfort from his view of love of God and love of the world.

I would also note that the earliest history of the church makes the most sense, at least to me, if we view it as more a political movement rather than a theological one. To my mind, Luke (or the author of Luke/Acts) actively tried to downplay the political nature of earliest Christianity as a result of seeing the outcome of the political approach, that is Christians being brutally tortured for political reasons. The timing and location of the persecutions, as well as other factors, suggest that politics was the crucial factor in these first years, and that the Roman government never forgot that.

One simple example would be the language Paul used in his epistles. This language borrows heavily from the language used to describe the Caesars, and applies it to Jesus. As theologians we tend not to see this as a political statement anymore because we have been trained not to. However, in the first century, this would have been obvious political language, as would be "ecclesia" for describing the church. Again this was a political term, not a theological one, in the first century.

Hi Pat,

This is just a thought, but it's probably worth considering this question using what we know of cultural assimilation, appropriation and rejection in the Old Testament.  Issues of cultural separatism arise very early in the Old Testament scriptures and this theme is continued throughout the whole bible.  Look into the word "sanctify".  The issue is never separatism for the sake of separatism, but maintaining a culture that is constantly readying the community.  

In this sense, it's never about maintaining status quo, but proactively nurturing a culture that is prepared for what is to come.  In the case of the Old Testament, this is a culture prepared for the coming of the Messiah and, in the case of the New Testament, this is a culture that is prepared to make that same Messiah known to the world while preparing for his final return.  

If cultural influences in any way cut across these objectives, then they were rejected on these grounds.   As long as cultural influences did not undermine these directives, it seems that other cultures were absorbed and appropriated quite freely.  A good case study for this in Old Testament times is the book of Daniel.

As far as the Hebrew and Roman cultures shaping Christianity, I would again suggest that this was more about the 'look' of Christianity rather than Christianity itself.   The contemporary Hebrew culture during the time of the early church was heavily based on legalism and the contemporary Roman culture lent towards hedonism.  Legalism and Hedonism were clearly rejected in early Christianity, and in fact could be said to be the antithesis of early Christianity.  

In this sense then we can see that the Hebrew and Roman cultural influences were predominantly acting upon the external face of Christianity  (eg. the use of political language as William mentioned) but were having limited to no impact upon Christianity itself.