Jesus and His Jewish Influences

by Jodi Magness

From Audible description:
Jesus - a Jewish man from first-century Judea - was perhaps the most influential person in world history. His life and beliefs sparked a movement that influenced the course of global civilization, and his teachings gave rise to a faith currently practiced by over two billion people around the world. And yet, as revolutionary and lasting as his ideas are, few of us think to ask: Where did they come from?

It's important to realize that Jesus' actions and teachings didn't emerge from a vacuum. Rather, they were the products of a fascinating dialogue with - and reaction to - the traditions, cultures, and historical developments of ancient Jewish beliefs. In search of a more complete comprehension of Jesus' legacy, this course explores fundamental questions such as: How was early Judaism different from the Rabbinic Judaism practiced today? What kind of world did early Jewish sects envision, and how does Jesus' worldview relate to theirs? How did events like the Babylonian exile and the reign of Herod the Great affect the development of Judaism up to Jesus' time?

Follow an acclaimed archaeologist to unearth the roots of Jesus' actions and teachings within the traditions and beliefs of ancient Judaism. These fascinating 24 lectures approach the subject of Jesus from a historical rather than scriptural perspective - one rooted in ancient texts and archaeological discoveries. This investigation reveals hidden insights into how the tumultuous events of early Jewish history shaped an individual - and a movement - whose legacy endures to this day.

Genres: Religion, History, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Christianity, Judaism, Jewish

Audio CD

Published January 1, 2015

About the author

Jodi Magness is the Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author and editor of several books, including Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (2011); The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine (2003); and The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002).

Reviews

[Christen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is a bit misleading. Rather than “JESUS and his Jewish Influences” it should be “The Historical context of the Old and New Testament”. The current title emphasizes the wrong part of the lectures.

[Kara of BookishBytes · Rating 4 out of 5]

In each lecture, Ms. Magness explores a historical or cultural event or element of Jewish history in some detail. And then at the end of each lecture, she briefly discusses how that influenced or impacted some event in the New Testament. Basically, these lectures are heavy on history and light on Jesus. I found this course quite educational and enjoyed it very much. I could listen to this course several times over and continue to learn from it.

[Monte Hickingbottom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This provides so much context for the New Testament. Just note that the professor is not a believer, so there is a level of skepticism in her approach. Still very good stuff

[Jill · Rating 3 out of 5]

23 minutes into the lecture, Magness introduces the term “monolatry”, and states that there is evidence that supports ancient Judaism as monolatry rather than monotheistic religion. She claims that Judaism acknowledged that the God of Israel was not the only God. He was just the “chief deity”. She sites as evidence, Psalm 86:8 (there is none like you among the Gods, oh Lord). She adds a Greek term, which is Theos Hypsistos, meaning “the Highest God” or “the God Most High”, and that ancient Greeks used this word to refer to the chief god in their pantheon (e.g. Zeus). While I agree that plenty of early Jews worshipped gods other than Jehovah, I absolutely do not subscribe to the conclusion that said worship conformed to Judaism.

I can see her argument, and it can be easily defended with stand-alone verses. The verses she cites are interactions between pagans and Jews – meaning it is pagans who are speaking to Jews about the God of Israel, referring to Him as higher than their own gods - the context of a pantheon. However, within the context of the whole Bible, I don’t believe there is an argument. These verses/words are used so the people to whom they are speaking (idolaters/former idolaters) have a point of reference as to what they’re talking about – milk before meat, as it were. Several Bible verses reiterate that there is only one God according to Judaism (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, James 2:19, 1 Cor 8:6 to name a few).

In the Hebrew Bible, “I AM THAT I AM” is what God calls Himself. Really, it’s the infinitive of the Hebrew verb “to be” (which covers past, present, and future i.e. eternity). Could God have made a clearer statement about His own existence, verses none of these other “gods” even exist? Idols and statues must be referred to as “gods” because the people God is dealing with are in cultures who worship them, and the entire point of referencing them is to warn Israel from worshipping them. I think the strongest argument Magness could have made is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” You could say that God is acknowledging that other gods exist. Well, they “exist” in that idols that mean make exist and are treated as gods…but their “godhood” doesn’t exist. These “gods” are only idols, and the people “worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. Their land also is full of idols. They worship the work of their own hands…” (Isaiah 28). Paul references “dumb idols” (1 Cor 12:2). The “gods” of the ancients can’t even speak!...because they’re not real. Without referring to these idols as gods (which is what the people treat them as), how are the people even to understand the first commandment?

I have to wonder why it is Magness feels it’s important to brand Judaism as a monolatrous religion rather than a monotheistic religion. I’ve never heard this argument made from a Jew nor a Christian. I’ve not yet met a member of either faith who would validate her argument. Being a very frequent victim myself of the “you believe this” argument, when I, in fact, do NOT believe what is being ascribed to me, I am far more reliant upon actual practicing members of a faith to tell me what it is they believe. Granted, this is ancient Judaism, but still. It also fascinates me why someone who does not believe would bother spending so much time on it. Why is it even important if it’s just a history lesson? I guess it’s interesting to her.

Next, I thought it odd that Magness talks about the origin of the Jews beginning with Exodus. Huh? The Israelites were in the Exodus. Jews come from Judah. The Israelites were comprised of all 12 tribes – all of the sons of Jacob – not just Judah and his descendants. It was so peculiar to me that she’d start there – in a foreign land, and talk about the Israelites as if they were only Jews. But perhaps she meant those who practice Judaism. Even then, I think it an odd place to start. Maybe she found it an easy common ground point, but it really put me off.

Later, when Magness talks about needing to be careful of authors’ biases in their writings, she mentions temple worship, and how Jeroboam was disobedient for worshipping (the implication is that he is worshipping Yahweh) in temples he builds. Magness says Jeroboam’s sin is that he is worshipping God outside “the” temple. Huh? Why does she completely omit the fact that Jeroboam set up image worship? Magness already cited that image worship was strictly prohibited. Jeroboam also ordained priests who were not Levites. This isn’t mentioned either. I’m confused as to why she says Jeroboam is marked a sinner for having built temples and worshipped God there. He couldn’t have been worshipping Yahweh if he built calves to worship – in express opposition to what Yahweh commanded.

Next, Magness cites that although Ahab was a capable political ruler, and Jezebel a promoter of Yahweh worship, the Bible denounces them both. Her point here is that the Bible is biased against any non-Israelites, because its authors are Hebrew. I can accept her point (even though I disagree), but the evidence she cites isn’t evidence at all. Here’s why: worship of Yahweh CANNOT, by definition, include any other worship of any other thing. That means if a worshipper “worships” Yahweh and/or anyone/anything else, it’s not actually worship of Yahweh. Worship of Yahweh is, by definition, completely an utterly exclusive.

Another glaring omission here is that Jezebel “cut off” and murdered the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13)! Leaving this out, Magness sums up Jezebel’s gruesome death and recounts her demise in a light that makes it sound as though it was merely because Jezebel was a woman. Jezebel really didn’t do anything to offend Yahweh. After all, she was inclusive of Him. Huh? I don’t think her arguments make sense.

When Magness talks about the Jews’ return from exile after they’re freed by Cyrus, she says that Ezra reads them a new practice of the law, which is that there shouldn’t be any marriage with non-Jews. HUH? What about Deuteronomy 7:3-4? This is not new at all. Not by a long shot.

It seems to me that Magness is confusing practice with doctrine and/or policy. The Jews are notorious all throughout their own record for not being obedient to their own laws. Plenty of intermarriage was practiced…along with idolatry, lying, stealing, etc. But even when the people practice things outside of their religion, it doesn’t mean the religion has changed.

I loved Magness’s recounting of The Good Samaritan. It had never been pointed out to me before that the priest and the Levite were keeping Jewish law by not having anything to do with the Samaritan whom they perceived to be dead. My best guess is that the law in the time it was given served the purpose of separating Israel from idolatrous practices (which seems to me also to be the case in most, if not all of the dietary laws). The Jews in Jesus’ time were hardly in danger of adopting Egyptian mummification processes. Regardless of my speculation, I just loved learning this and appreciate Magness shedding light on this.

Regarding temples, Magness says that the Jews didn’t want any temples outside of Jerusalem, but then puts a lot of emphasis on a few temples outside of Jerusalem, about which the Jews didn’t appear to have any objection (Elephantine being one). She implies a double standard, since if one temple outside of Jerusalem isn’t endorsed, none should be. At issue, though is not where the temple is built (inside or outside of Jerusalem) but whether the temple is authorized by God. Are the priests His priests or were they appointed arbitrarily by the latest ruler for political reasons? 1 Chronicles 28:3 shows that David himself is prohibited (by God) from building a temple, because he’s got too much blood on his hands. Geography is not at issue here. Instead, worthiness is. In addition, it must be God who authorizes the temple and who is ordained to use His priesthood in worship there.


Because of the questionable conclusions and statements Magness makes in other parts other lectures, when she got to Lecture 6, which talks about “The Golden Rule” and how different sects (e.g. the Essenes at Qumran) understood it to be that you hate everyone except those of your own sect. I am very skeptical about this understanding. It’s entirely possible that she’s 100% correct, but at this point, I would really prefer to see the data on this rather than just take Magness at her interpretation.

In Lecture 7, we get to the comparison of Alexander the Great and Jesus. This was definitely a new angle for me, so it was interesting to hear about. However, again, I take a strong objection at her paralleling them as to when she says because they both died at 33, they’re presumed not to have finished their purpose/mission (I’m broadly paraphrasing here). Any Christian will tell you that although Christ died at 33, that was part of the crowing point of His mission! He was to die as an offering for sin for all and resurrect Himself after the third day. Per Christian belief, Christ wasn’t cut short from His mission at all. He completed it exactly as was His plan.

In Lecture 8, Magness shares a lot of fascinating and really useful information about tax collectors – specifically “tax farming” (which was a new term to me). All I ever knew is that tax collectors were hated, because it was assumed that they overcharged the citizens and pocketed the rest of the money themselves. Magness gives the whole background behind this, which I never knew about before. It makes a lot of sense and helped me understand the New Testament context much better. I loved this part of her lecture!

In Lecture 9, Magness mentions Heliodorus affair and Maccabean revolt, which was a name/concept new to me. I was aware of Green influence, but there is a whole history here, which helps give context to the day that Jesus was living in, and like the excerpt on tax collecting, I really enjoyed this part and found it to be useful in understanding the peoples and cultures of the Bible better.

Lecture 10 goes over apocalyptic works and how they differ from eschatological works. This was maybe the most fascinating lecture for me, because she outlines the differences, commonalities, and covers apocalyptic material and its origin. Also, she mentions the aim, which is to give encouragement: no empire will last except, ultimately, the Kingdom of God. That was a really elucidating to hear, because it’s easy to forget that focus when you’re reading about the horrors of Revelation. She also mentions the Apocrypha in addition to all manner of books about Enoch and flood traditions. I was aware of almost none of what she covered here and found it really interesting.

Also in this lecture, Magness takes a look at the different meanings of “Son of Man” – including in apocalyptic descriptions, depending on the context, including whether the verse uses a definite or an indefinite article (Heb 2:6, Psalms 8:4; Rev 1:13, 14:14 Dan 7:13, Matt 24:30-31, 37-39, Luke 17:22-30). That was really great information – both useful and interesting!

In Lecture 12, Magness talks about Jesus citing Isaiah when he chides the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, drawing near with their lips but not with their hearts. She continues that His criticism is due to their not following the written law, but the oral law. That concept was new to me, and I think it’s perhaps part of what Jesus meant, but far more was that they were keeping only the letter of the law and not the spirit. Though Matt 23:27 isn’t cited, I believe it’s key here, because it illustrates what Christ means. They look good with their outward doings, but their souls are not godly, but instead, inside it is as if they have dead men’s bones. I would expect a scholar to focus on the practical/logical application and completely miss the spiritual teaching here, but I think it’s possible He may have meant both. Her point is an interesting one to consider, but I hardly think it was Christ’s primary concern.

In Lecture 15, Magness mentions the Essenes again. I had forgotten that the Essenes were Zadokites, and therefore inherited the priesthood through their lineage. I had no idea that the Essenes believed in three separate messianic figures – the royal, the priestly, and the prophetic. She adds that for Jesus, He and His disciples considered Him all three on one. I agree with her overall assessment of the Essenes but thought it interesting she omits their referring to themselves as the Saints of the Latter Days. I had no idea that there were scholars who believe Christ might be an Essene. I again agree 100% with Magness and with her reasoning that He was not.

In Lecture 17, a lot of fascinating background information is given on Herod and the politics of his day. It was so helpful to have this context, and I look forward to studying the New Testament with the illumination of this information. The many intrigues of Herod’s life really help in understanding the context of his paranoia, his practices, and his reasons for his conduct. I had no idea that there were scholars who believe that Herod never issued an edict to murder the babies in Jesus’ time. That was definitely new info.

In Lecture 23, Magness shares some information about Jesus’ miracles. She points out specifically that in the story of the leper who is made “clean” (as opposed to “healed”), and the instructions he receives to go to the priest and why (not to be healed, but to be pronounced/diagnosed as clean and to begin ritual purification), this relates to the Kingdom of God insofar as the Jews of Jesus’ day saw. I didn’t know that according to the law, all the miracles Jesus performed insofar as healing people comprehensively addressed all “uncleanness” according to the law: leprosy, paralysis, a withered hand, hemorrhages, deafness, dumbness, unclean spirits, demonic possessions, and blindness. The physical ones all correspond with afflictions mentioned in The Rule of the Congregation as disqualifying people to the eschatological assembly. It was an overpoweringly emotional moment for me to realize this, because it drives home the point in a very literal way that Christ both has and exercises His ability to heal every part of us: physical, spiritual, emotional, mental, social, EVERYTHING. She also points out Jesus’s inclusivity vs. the Essenes’ exclusivity. Her final analysis comes out very literal and mundane: Jesus understood that no physically unclean thing could enter God’s presence, so He healed people to make them eligible. Though she clearly opines this as nothing more than a connecting of the dots, it is so beautiful and profound.

In Lecture 24, I was bowled over with the information she provides on Mark 9:43-48. Magness posits that this is specifically talking about male sexual transgressions. In Hebrew, the word “hand” can also mean “penis”. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically addresses genitalia being uncovered due to torn clothing. Rabbinic literature also references the hand as the penis and prohibits male masturbation. The foot also refers to sexual transgression, because it can also mean “penis”. She cites Isaiah 6:2 to. The eye refers to male sexual transgression – specifically referencing Samson in Rabbinic literature of Samson’s eyes lusting after the female flesh. My first thought was that she was citing a New Testament text, but talking about Hebrew translations. However, since these laws are referencing the Law from the Old Testament, it makes sense.

Also in this lecture, she mentions “shaol”, as cited in the Old Testament, which we think of as hell, but which is more accurately rendered simply as a place of darkness. Gehenna is also mentioned as well as background info on that. These words will be super interesting subjects for me to study further, once I can pull out my Concordance. This lecture had the most meat in it for me, and I loved that I could listen to it again and again. I learned a ton.

Last of all, I loved the insight (no pun intended) Magness gives regarding the miracle of Christ spitting into the dirt/clay to heal the blind man. That was truly beautiful.

Even though I take some pretty major issue with several of Magness’s presmises, I appreciated all the information she provides, which I really think accomplishes her purpose: educating the student on what Judaism was like in Jesus’s time so that the information we have can shed light on His teachings. I’d recommend it to anyone who has any interest in history and/or Jesus. It was a fascinating series of lectures. For anyone who struggles with Midwestern and/or Maryland accents like I do, prepare yourself.

[Nicholas Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Better than any sermon I've ever sat through.

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't want to give a rating of 2 stars, but the course didn't add very much to my understanding of Jesus. It is an overview from a Pro-Christian point of view that uses scholarly opinion to walk a path through the scholarship that would not upset a believing Christian too much. The professor is an expert in ancient Jewish history... NOT in New Testament analysis. Thus she seems to take what the New Testament says at face value and without much critical analysis.

I suggesting listening to "The Triumph of Christianity" by Bart D. Ehrman.

The professor handles the analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls well, but glosses over some things. I don't blame her for that. The Dead Sea Scrolls were only barely relevant to the discussion of Jesus. She gives enough background to make the point that Jesus was not an Essene. She certainly convinced me, but I'd like to hear more of about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes to be sure. I think she could handle that easily.

I was also glad to hear her analysis of Herod the Great and his successors along with the analysis of what the Romans could have been thinking at that time. That added a lot to my understanding.

I doubt I will listen to this audio course again.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jesus and His Jewish influences by Jodi Magness is quite a good introduction to the Judaistic world and traditions that Jesus came out of. She is a colleague of Bart Ehrman, but she has a very different style. She's more careful in her speech and points and seems more narrowly confined to her source material. Some have noted that Jesus is not that prominent in the course, and that is a fair criticism. Hardly a lecture goes by when he isn't mentioned, but he is very much a background character for about 4/5ths of the course. I do not think that this is a bad thing, however. While Jesus wasn't prominently featured, this wasn't a generic course on Judaism in antiquity. Rather, the emphasis on Judaism and the Judaic world is only mentioned in so far as it directly links to some other material that is relevant for understanding Jesus' context. If Magness wanted to give us a course on the Jewish world without a linkage to Jesus Christ, this would have been a very, very different course.

90/100

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is more of a course in the political landscape of Rome and the Ancient Middle East in the time of Jesus (100BC-100AD or so with ancient Jewish history as a separate discussion in the beginning lectures) than it does with Jesus. It’s a very thorough overview, but I found it a little bit disjointed, going from topic to topic rather than cohesive.

If you’re looking for information on how this history directly affected Jesus from his childhood through his death and beyond, I highly recommend “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” by Reza Aslan. But if you’re looking for a basic overview of the politics of the time, this is a good overview. Not exactly what I was thinking it would be, but still lots of history here of Rome and the Jews in general.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. A good number of the beginning lectures are more about Jewish history up to the time of Jesus, which of course did have an influence of sorts by contributing to the milieu in which he was born and lived his life, but after that I felt that it began to conform more to the title of the course.

The whole course provided a lot of interesting and useful information given in an easy-to-understand way, even for someone who knows a fair amount about the period, but I have to admit that I found Professor Magness's case for Jesus not accepting the Oral Law and therefore not being a Pharisee (I would imagine he was, if not actually loosely affiliated with them, at least more closely aligned than to any of the other sects) to be a bit of a stretch.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some excellent, and probably scholarly, lectures on the Judaism of Jesus and his times. However, after a while I got tired of her use of Scripture while refusing to allow that same Scripture to tell its story - always with the "scholars cannot show evidence for.." sort of language.. A whole bunch of references to "the mythical rather than the historical" Jesus made me question her agenda.

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating lecture series via The Great Courses in my library. Appreciate the incredible amount of work presenting each block in 30 or 40 minute segments which include many references for further exploration. Would look forward to future works.

[Alana Amunrud-Sharp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I listened to this as part of my study on the Gospel of John. Some of it I was familiar with, but it was really helpful to go through some second temple history and review the politial and social things going on at the time.

[Gregory R · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a historical overview of ancient Jewish and early Christian history. It is very concise and an interesting topic. Well worth listening to.

[Marti Martinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why can't sermons be this interesting?

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good course, but I feel like the title isn't accurate. I would guess around 10% of this lecture series was about Jesus, and the other 90% was on Jewish history and Judaism.

[LemontreeLime · Rating 3 out of 5]

Parts of this were a revelation to me. Slow start tho.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

The course was a bit uneven. It had interesting moments, but no overarching arc to follow. The last lecture ended abruptly and didn't draw things together for reflection or recapitulation. Oh well.

[Debra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know. This was alright. I had a hard time following all the names and sects via the audiobook version.

[Nick Heim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty excellent context for the world of second temple Judaism. Low key you can just read Josephus and get most of this

[Hannah Scanlon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an incredibly helpful and careful history of Judaism. It brought Jesus, the theological figure, "down to earth" for me, bringing Jesus, the 1st century Palestinian Jew into the fore.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good historical background; however, if your looking for a book with historical relevance to Jesus this is not the one. Magness mentions that the popularity of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most likely to their connection to Jesus. So, in the same vain she seems to link her scholarly work to Jesus, most likely to draw interest. Most connections are weak at best. She also treads carefully regarding the historical veracity of Biblical claims, most likely not to offend a Christian audience. This is unlike her colleague Bart Ehrman's approach.
A few of her conclusions regarding the temple tax and Jesus' reference to cutting off your hand, foot or eye (she links all three to sexual innuendo) were views I had not heard before and look forward to researching.