Archaeology and the Itinerant Jesus: A Historical Enquiry into Jesus Itinerant Ministry in the North (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161593475, 9783161601316, 3161593472

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

564

J. A. Lloyd

Archaeology and the Itinerant Jesus A Historical Enquiry into Jesus’ Itinerant Ministry in the North

Mohr Siebeck

J. A. Lloyd, born 1963; Master of Theological Studies from Laidlaw College (New Zealand); MA from Macquarie University (Australia); 2017 PhD from the University of Otago (New Zealand); currently Senior Research Fellow at Laidlaw College.

ISBN 978-3-16-159347-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-160131-6 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160131-6 ISSN 0340-9570  / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

This is dedicated to Roy Lloyd whose inspiration made this work possible.

Preface This study is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was completed at the University of Otago, New Zealand in 2017 under the supervision of Dr Paul Trebilco, and Dr Christopher Forbes from Macquarie University, Australia. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my PhD supervisors for their encouragement, expertise, and advice. I would also like to thank Dr Joan Taylor whose recommendations proved invaluable, Professor Jörg Frey, the series editor, and Elena Müller, Bettina Gade, and Tobias Stäbler at Mohr Siebeck who were instrumental in the refining process. I am deeply grateful to Drs Rod Edwards, Chris Marshall, Mark Keown, and Mark Strom, former colleagues from Laidlaw College, New Zealand. Without their wisdom and encouragement over the years I may never have embarked on this journey. I would also like to thank Dr Rami Arav, the director of Bethsaida Excavations, and area supervisors Drs Carl Savage and Kate Raphael for their warm welcome, for sharing their expertise, and for enabling myself and my team of undergraduate students from Laidlaw College to participate in the varied activities that take place on a dig. My sincere thanks also go to the staff at Tyndale House, Cambridge, who made it possible for me to stay for three months and make full use of their extensive library. I am also deeply grateful to Dr Dirk Jongkind who read some of my early research and provided timely insights and suggestions. Finally, I wish to thank my parents and friends, particularly Steve Pavarno, Lydia McSweeney, Alison Gardner, Makerita Siaosi, and Amanda Rogers. Their practical support and encouragement over the years has helped make this work possible. Auckland, July 2020

J. A. Lloyd

Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………….….......VII List of Abbreviations.……………………………………………………....XIX Chronological periods for Palestine.……………………………………...XXIII Important historical dates…...…………………………………..…………XXV Hasmonean dynasty.………..…..…………………………..…………….XXVI Herodian dynasty…...………..……..…………………………………….XXVI Maps……………………………………….…………………………….XXVII

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………...1 A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources……………………………………2 I. Jesus’ itinerancy in Mark………………….……………………………..2 II. Jesus’ itinerancy in Matthew and Luke………………………………….4 III. Jesus’ itinerancy in the sayings source Q………………………………..5 IV. Jesus’ itinerancy in other sources………………………………………..6 V. Jesus’ itinerancy: some initial observations……………………………..7 B. A review of what scholars are saying about Mark…………………….……8 I. The influence of Wrede and Schweitzer…………………………………8 II. The form critics and the Gospel of Mark………………………………...9 III. The influence of the form critics on other scholars.…………………….11 IV. Redaction critics and the Gospel of Mark……………………………...12 V. Literary critics and the Gospel of Mark………………………………..13 C. The quest for the historical Jesus………………………………………….14 D. The scope and purpose of this work………………………………………15 E. The nature of our sources………………………………………………….18 I. The genre of the canonical Gospels…………………………………….18 II. Q, L, John, and Thomas………………………………………………...23 III. The works of Josephus…………………..……………………………..26 IV. Other literary sources…………………………………………………..34

X

Table of Contents

F. Archaeology and method……………………………………..…..…….....35 I. The value of archaeology for historical Jesus research…………………35 II. Archaeology and methodology…………………………………….......38 G. Establishing a historical framework……………………………………....40 I. “Almost indisputable facts”.………………………………….………...40 II. Jesus’ baptism by John and its significance for Jesus’ ministry…….....42 III. A prophet with a message for Israel…………………………………....44 IV. Israel, Jews, and Judeans……………………………………………….48 H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy………………………………………..........52 I. A strategy to reach all Israel……………………………………............52 II. A strategy to avoid capture…................................................................58 I. An overview of the project………………………………………………….62

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity……………………..65 A. Introduction……..………………………………………………………....65 B. Defining the region of Galilee………………………………………….….66 I. The term “Galilee”………………………………………………….…..66 II. Differing definitions of Galilee and its boundaries……………….……67 III. The borders of Galilee as defined by Josephus………………….……..69 C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity……………………………….………70 D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity……………………………………………78 E. Archaeology and Jewish identity markers………………………………...87 I. Material culture…………………………………………………….…...87 II. Jewish identity markers…………………………………………….…..88 III. Category A markers...…………………………………………………..90 1. Limestone/Chalk vessels…………………………………………….90 2. Ossuaries for secondary burial……………………………………….93 3. Mikva’ot…………………………………………………………..…..94 4. Jewish Revolt coins……………………………………………..……95 5. Synagogues and Jewish symbols…………………………………….96 IV. Category B markers…………………………………………………...100 1. Absence of pork bones in the bone profile………………………….100 2. Hasmonean coins…………………………………………………...100

Table of Contents

XI

3. Subterranean tunnels and secret hideaways………………………..102 4. Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin storage jars……………………..103 5. Herodian oil lamps……………………………………………….…106 V. The absence of non-Jewish shrines and cult artefacts…….….……....107 F. ESA fineware and Tyrian silver………………………………………….108 I. Eastern Terra Sigillata Ware………………………………….……….108 II. Tyrian Silver…………………………………………………………..109 G. Galilean settlement history………………………………………………110 I. From the Iron Age IIB to the end of the Persian period……………...110 II. The Persian period (539–332 BCE)…………………………………..111 III. Early Hellenistic period (332–167 BCE)……………………………..112 IV. Late Hellenistic period (167–63 BCE)……….………………………114 V. Early Roman I period (63 BCE–70 CE)………………………………118 H. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….119

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity.…………….……...121 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………121 B. Gischala/Gush Ḥalav………………………………………………….…122 I. Literary sources……………………………………………………. …122 II. Archaeological evidence…………………………………………… ...123 C. Jotapata/Yodefat…………………………………………………………124 I. Literary sources……………………………………….………………124 II. Archaeological evidence……………………………………………...124 D. Sepphoris/Zippori……………………………………………….……….126 I. Literary sources……………………………………………………….126 II. Archaeological evidence……………………………………………...128 E. Nazareth………………………………………………………………….132 I. Literary sources………………………………………………….……132 II. Archaeological evidence……………………………………………...133

XII

Table of Contents

F. Tiberias…………………………………………………………………..136 I. Literary sources……………………………………………….…….…136 II. Archaeological evidence……………………………………………....139 G. Magdala/Taricheae……………………………………………………….142 I. Literary sources………………………………………………………..143 II. Archaeological evidence…….…………………………………….…..145 H. Capernaum/Kefar Nahum………………………………………………..148 I. Literary sources………………………………………………………………148 II. Archaeological evidence……………………………………………...150 I. Cana: Khirbet Qana or Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras…………………….…153 I. Literary sources………………………………………………………………153 II. Archaeological evidence from Khirbet Qana………………………....154 III. Archaeological evidence from Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras…………… 154 J. “Galilee of the Gentiles?”………………………………………………..155 K. Implications for the historical Jesus………….………………………….159 I. Jesus and his Jewish Galilean context…………………..…………….160 II. Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee…….………………………...160 III. Jesus and the named settlements of Galilee…………….…………….162 IV. Did Jesus minister in Sepphoris and Tiberias?……………………….164 V. Conclusion………………………………………………………….…165

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel……….….…..167 A. Introduction……………………………………………….……………...167 B. The number of towns and villages in Galilee…………………….………170 I. Named and unnamed settlements in Josephus……………….………..171 II. References to Jewish settlements in other Graeco-Roman sources…...175 III. Named settlements in the Gospels……………………………….……175 IV. Named settlements in Rabbinic sources……………………………...178 V. The number of settlements based on archaeological surveys…………179 C. The size of the Galilean population……………………………………...183 I. Josephus’ population figures…………………..……………………...183

Table of Contents

XIII

II. Estimating population size through archaeology…..………………….186 III. Population estimates for Jotapata …………………….………………189 IV. Population estimates for Capernaum………………………………....189 V. Population estimates for Sepphoris and Tiberias.……………….…....190 VI. Population estimates for Magdala/Taricheae.………………………...191 VII. Population estimates for Nazareth……………….…………………...192 VIII. The population of Galilee as a whole…………………………………192 D. Travel and the road network…………………………………………….....194 I. Galilean roads……………..…………………..……………………....194 II. Inter-regional highways…………………………………………….....196 E. Implications for the historical Jesus……….............................................197 I. The extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee…………….…........197 II. Why are there so few named settlements?............................................202 III. Why is there no explicit itinerary in Mark?..........................................203 IV. Did Jesus attract large crowds?............................................................204

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel……………………….…………..207 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………207 I. Jesus at Bethsaida……………………………….……………….........207 II. Jesus and the other towns and villages of Gaulanitis………….……....213 B. The boundaries of Gaulanitis……………………………….……………214 C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis…………………………….……………219 D. Archaeology and the material culture of Gaulanitis……..………………224 I. Seleucia, Sogane, and Solyma………………………………………...227 II. Ḥorvat Kanaf………………………………………………………….228 III. Qazrin……………………………….…………………………….......228 IV. ‘Ein Nashut/‘En Nashut………………………………………………229 V. Dabiyye……………………………………………………………………….229 VI. Dabura………………………………………………………………...230 VII. Dier ‘Aziz……………………………………………………………..231 E. Bethsaida/Julias: Et-Tell or El-Araj…...………………………………...231 I. Literary sources on Bethsaida/Julias…..……….………………..........232

XIV

Table of Contents

II. Archaeology and Et-Tell……………………….…………..................234 III. Archaeology and El-Araj………………………………………….…..242 F. Gamla/Gamala…………………………………………………………………..243 I. Literary sources on Gamla…………..……….………………..............243 II. Archaeology and Gamla......................................................................244 G. The size of the population in Gaulanitis……………………………………..247 H. Travel and Gaulanitis …………………………………………………...249 I. Roads in Gaulanitis……………….....……….……………….............249 II. Literary sources and travel across the Sea of Galilee...........................250 III. Archaeology and travel across the Sea of Galilee……………..………250 I. Where was Dalmanutha?..........................................................................254 J. Implications for the historical Jesus…….……..…………………………255

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel……………………………….…..259 A. Introduction……………………………………………………………....259 B. Literary sources and the northern Golan………………………………...261 I. The Early Hellenistic period…………………………………………..261 II. The Late Hellenistic period…..............................................................262 III. The Early Roman I period………………………………………….….264 IV. Jewish communities in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi………….…267 C. Archaeology and the northern Golan…………………………………....268 I. The Early Hellenistic period……………….........................................268 II. The Late Hellenistic period……………………………………...........270 III. The Early Roman I period…….………………………………………271 D. Did Aristobulus I convert the Itureans to Judaism?.………………….....273 E. Caesarea Philippi and its district……………………………….…….....274 I. The population of Caesarea Philippi....................................................274 II. The temple at Ḥorvat Omrit…………………………..........................275 III. Jewish indicators in the district of Caesarea Philippi…………………276 IV. Caesarea Philippi and the “Baraita of the Borders”………………….277

Table of Contents

XV

F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley ……………….………………………....283 I. Tel Anafa in the Huleh Valley…….....................................................284 II. Jewish villages in the Huleh Valley……………….............................286 G. Other indicators of Jewish settlement ………………………..…………....288 H. The road network ………………………………..…………….…………....290 I. Implications for the historical Jesus……………………………………...291

Chapter 7: Jesus and the Regions of Tyre and Sidon: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel…………….……………………..299 A. Introduction……………………………………….……………………...299 B. Literary sources and Phoenicia…………………….…………................301 I. The land and people of Phoenicia……………………………….........301 II. Determining the boundaries of the region of Tyre…...........................302 III. Phoenician and Galilean relations…………………………………….304 IV. Jewish communities in Phoenicia…………………………………….309 C. Archaeology and Phoenicia………………………………......................311 I. The material culture of Phoenicia……..………………………............311 II. Kedesh/Tel Qedesh…..........................................................................312 III. Ptolemais: a predominantly Gentile city……………………………...313 D. Jewish communities in and around Ptolemais……………......................314 I. A Jewish presence at Ptolemais…………………………....................314 II. A Jewish presence in the vicinity of Ptolemais....................................315 1. Ḥ. ‘Uza ……………………………………………………………..315 2. Ḥ. Gaḥosh…………………………………….……………………..315 3. Kh. Musliḥ……………………………….………………………….316 4. En Hamifraz………………………………………………………...316 5. Tel Afeq……………………………………………………………..316 6. Tel Keisan…………………………………………………………..317 7. El-Makr……………………………………………………………..317 E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre………….........................317 I. The material culture of the region……………………….....................317 1. Ḥ. ‘Eved/ Ḥ. ‘Oved……………….…………………………………318

XVI

Table of Contents

2. The fortress at Ḥ. Tefen…………………………………………….319 3. Ḥ. Belaya ……………………..………………………….………... 320 4. Ḥ. Qazyon……..………………………………………………………….. 320 5. Qeren Naftali ……………………………………………………….321 II. Other sites which may have had a Jewish population…......................322 1. Dar el-Gharbiya…………………………………………….……….322 2. Ḥ. Bulu‘a……………………………………………………………322 3. Ḥ. Baẓir…………………………………………………………......322 F. Ambiguous sites in the hill country of Tyre…………..............................323 I. Ḥ. Bet Zenata/Kh. Zuweinita………………………............................323 II. Other sites yielding ambiguous data………………………………….325 G. Implications for the historical Jesus........................................................327 H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee...............................................337 I. Jesus’ route through the region of Sidon…………..............................338 II. Jesus’ probable route through the Decapolis………………………….343 III. Conclusion………………….…………………………………………345

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel……………………………….…..347 A. Introduction……………………………………………………………....347 I. Jesus in the Decapolis……………......................................................347 II. The districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara….....................................348 III. Jesus’ motive for visiting predominantly Gentile districts? ………….350 B. Literary sources and Hippos/Sussita and Gadara...................................352 C. Archaeology and Hippos/Sussita………………………………………...355 I. A predominantly Gentile city…...........................................................355 II. Jewish remains at Hippos/Sussita…………….....................................357 D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos/Sussita…………………......358 I. Jewish remains at Fiq/Afiq…..............................................................358 II. The Jewish village of Umm el-Qanatir/Kanatir....................................360 III. Tel el-Kursi and the Kursi/Qursi Beach settlement……….………….361 1. Tel el-Kursi……………………………………………….…………362 2. The Kursi/Qursi Beach settlement……….………………………….362

Table of Contents

XVII

IV. Forbidden towns in the district of Hippos/Sussita……….……………363 1. HSFYYH, Khisfiya/Khisfin…..………………………………………...364 2. ‘YNWSH, ‘Einosh…………………………………………….…….365 3. Other settlements in the list of forbidden towns……………………366 4. A Jewish presence at El ‘Al………………………………………...367 E. Archaeology and Gadara…………………..............................................368 I. The city of Gadara…...........................................................................368 II. Jewish remains at Gadara.....................................................................368 F. Jewish settlements in the district of Gadara.............................................369 I. Ḥammat Gader ....................................................................................369 II. Tel Dover.............................................................................................370 III. Tel Zar‘a……………..…..……………………………….…………...370 G. Travel……………………………………................................................371 I. Roads and terrain.................................................................................371 II. Travel across the Sea of Galilee...........................................................371 H. Implications for the historical Jesus........................................................372 I. Jesus in the region of the Gerasenes?..................................................373 II. Jesus’ return to the Decapolis..............................................................381 III. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….386

Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusion: Jesus’ Itinerancy in the North…………………………………………387 A. The purpose and approach of this work……………………….………...387 B. Jesus’ itinerancy in Galilee…………………………………...................388 C. Jesus’ itinerancy in surrounding regions……………….........................390 D. Additional points emerging from this work……………..........................393 E. Suggestions for further research………………………………………………393 I. An exploration of Jesus’ itinerancy in the south...................................393 II. Enquiry into the length of Jesus’ itinerant ministry.............................394 III. Implications of itinerancy for the formation of oral traditions……….395

XVIII

Table of Contents

Bibliography…………………………………………………………….…..397 Index of References…….……………………………………………..…….433 Index of Modern Authors…………………………………………………...443 Index of Subjects ……….……………………………………………….….447

List of Abbreviations ABD ABS AJ AJA ANRW

AsJT AS ATR AYB BA BAIAS BAR BARIS BASOR BBB BTB BZ CBQ CBR CH CIG

CIJ

COJS CW DJG

The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Anchor Bible Series Antiquaries Journal American Journal of Archaeology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–. Asia Journal of Theology Aramaic Studies Anglican Theology Review Anchor Yale Bible Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Biblical Archaeology Review BAR (British Archaeological Reports) International Series Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner Biblische Beiträge Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Church History Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by August Boeckh. 4 vols. Reimer: Berlin, 1828–1877. Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1977. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Frey. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952. Centre for Online Judaic Studies Classical World Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd ed. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown and Nicholas Perrin. Downers

XX

DNTB

EAEHL

EC EDEJ

EHJ EKK ER ESI ExpT FCNTECW FRLANT GELNTECL HA-ESI HThKNT HTR IAA ICC IEJ IMSA INJ ISBE

JAJSup JAR JBL JFA JHG JJS JLA

List of Abbreviations

Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2013. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Michael Avi-Yonah. 4 vols. London: Oxford University Press; Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1975–1978. Early Christianity Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2010. Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Craig A. Evans. New York: Routledge, 2008. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Ecumenical Review Excavations and Surveys in Israel The Expository Times Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Israel Antiquities Authority Reports International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology Israel Numismatic Journal International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979–1988. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Archaeological Research Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Historical Geography Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Late Antiquity

List of Abbreviations

JR JRA JRASup JSHJ JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSPSup LA LCL LMDLB NEA NEAEHL

NewDocs

NIDB

NIGTC NovT NovTSup NSR NTOA NTS NTTS OCD

OEANE

OEBA

PEQ RB RBS

XXI

Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplementary Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Liber Annuus Loeb Classical Library Le Monde de la Bible Near Eastern Archaeology The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by Ephraim Stern. 5 vols. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993–2008. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by Greg H. R. Horsley and Stephen Llewellyn. Vols. 1–7 North Ryde, N.S.W: Macquarie University Press; Vols. 8–10 Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981–2012. New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009. New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testament Numismatic Studies and Researches Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology. Vol. 1. Edited by Daniel M. Master. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Resources for Biblical Studies

XXII RINAP RRJ SBF SBFCMa SBFCMi SBL SBTS SEG SFSHJ SH SJOT SJT SNTSMS TENTS TIR

TSAJ TynBul VCSup VE WBC WUNT ZDPV ZNW ZPE

List of Abbreviations

The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Review of Rabbinic Judaism Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Major Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Minor Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden; Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1923–. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism Studia Hierosolymitana Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Texts and Editions for New Testament Study Tabula Imperii Romani: Judaea-Palaestina Maps and Gaz etteer. Edited by Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni, and Judith Green. Jerusalem: Israel Academy, 1994. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Tyndale Bulletin Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Vox Evangelica Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Chronological periods for Palestine1 Iron Age II A period2 Iron Age II B period Babylonian and Persian periods Early Hellenistic period3 Late Hellenistic period Early Roman I period4 Early Roman II period Middle Roman period Late Roman period5 Byzantine period

IA IIA IA IIB BP EH LH ER I ER II MR LR Byz

1000–733/32 BCE ca. 733/32–586 BCE 586–332 BCE 332–167 BCE 167–63 BCE 63 BCE–70 CE 71 CE–135 CE 135–250 CE 250–363 CE 363–640 CE

1 Lists of chronological periods vary across regions and among scholars. This list reflects the archaeological periods of settlements in Galilee. It draws on the work of Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 21; Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 188 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), xii; David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange, eds., The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple Period and Mishnaic Periods (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), ix; and Ephraim Stern et al., eds., NEAEHL 4.1529. 2 For Palestine, the Iron Age spans the period 1200–586 BCE. Iron Age II has been divided into A and B to denote the periods before and after the Assyrian conquest of Galilee. 3 I have followed Reed with regards to the Hellenistic period. His dates better reflect the decline in Seleucid influence in Galilee and shifts in the material culture after 167 BCE. 4 I have followed Chancey and Reed in marking the beginning of the Early Roman period at 63 BCE, the year Pompey conquered Judea and brought an end to Hasmonean independent rule over Palestine. The Early Roman period has been divided to mark the periods before and after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. 5 The end of the Late Roman period in Palestine is usually set at 324 CE. However, the material culture of Galilee during the Byzantine period is more evident after 363 CE, when a violent earthquake struck the region and destroyed towns and villages.

Important historical dates1 Assyrian conquest of Galilee and the Golan Assyrian conquest of Samaria Babylonian conquest of Judah Period of Hasmonean rule Pompey conquers Judea Period of Hasmonean ethnarchy2 Reign of Herod the Great3 Archelaus: ethnarch of Judea and Samaria Herod Antipas: tetrarch of Galilee and Perea Philip: tetrarch of the central and northern Golan, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea Roman province of Judaea4 Jesus’ itinerant ministry The First Jewish Revolt

733/732 BCE 722/721 BCE 587/586 BCE 142–63 BCE 63 BCE 63–37 BCE 37–4 BCE 4 BCE–6 CE 4 BCE–39 CE 4 BCE–34 CE 6–40 CE ca. 28–30 CE5 66–70CE

1 The following material is largely derived from David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange, eds., The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), xi–xv. 2 The Jewish territories became a vassal state of Rome, attached to the province of Syria. They were ruled by the ethnarch and High Priest Hyrcanus II, along with the governor (ἐπίτροπος) Antipater. 3 The Roman Senate, with the support of Antony and Octavian, declared Herod the Great the ‘King of the Jews’ in 40 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 14.377–379; War 1.280–285). During the next three years, Herod subdued opposing forces in the Jewish territories, including Galilee. He conquered Jerusalem and defeated the last Hasmonean contender in 37 BCE. 4 After the removal of Archelaus in 6 CE, Judea and Samaria became the Roman province of Judaea. It was annexed to Syria and ruled by governors of equestrian rank. 5 This is probably the period within which Jesus conducted his public ministry, although there is a slim possibility that Jesus died in 33 CE. See John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 372–409.

Hasmonean dynasty Jonathan: governor of Judea Simon: High Priest and ethnarch Reign of John Hyrcanus I Reign of Aristobulus I Reign of Alexander Jannaeus Reign of Salome Alexandra Aristobulus II and period of civil war John Hyrcanus II: High Priest and ethnarch Matthias Antigonus II: contender for the throne

160–142 BCE 142–135 BCE 135–104 BCE 104–103 BCE 103–76 BCE 76–67 BCE 67–63 BCE 63–40 BCE 40–37 BCE

Herodian dynasty Herod the Great: Governor of Galilee Herod the Great: King of the Jews Archelaus: ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, Samaria Herod Antipas: tetrarch of Galilee and Perea Philip: tetrarch of the central and northern Golan, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea Agrippa I: ruler over Philip’s former territories, and Judea, Galilee, and Perea Agrippa II: ruler over Philip’s former territories and Tiberias and Taricheae and their districts

47–37 BCE 37–4 BCE 4 BCE–6 CE 4 BCE–39 CE 4 BCE–34 CE 37–44 CE 41–44 CE 53–ca. 93 CE

Maps

Map 1: East Galilee and the Golan.1

1 Chaim Ben David, “Golan Gem,” BAR 33.6 (2007): 44–51. Used by permission. © Biblical Archaeology Society. The shaded region represents the central Golan (Gaulanitis). Apart from Gamla, the synagogue sites in this map post-date the Early Roman I period. Banias is the Arabic name for ancient Paneas.

XXVIII

Maps

Josephus’ border -----------------------

Baraita borderline ………………......

Map 2: First century CE Galilee and surrounding regions.2

2

This map is adapted from that of John Paul Meier, “The Galilee of Jesus’ Ministry,” in A Marginal Jew, 1.435. Lake Semechonitis was also known as Lake Huleh. © Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.

Maps

XXIX

Map 3: Phoenicia, Hulatha (Oulatha), Paneas, and the Tyre-Damascus Highway.3 3 Siegfried Mittmann and Götz Schmitt, eds., Tübinger Bibelatlas/Tübingen Bible Atlas. Map BV 18 © Dr. Ludwig Reichert Wiesbaden. Tübinger Bibelatlas /Tübingen Bible Atlas © 2001 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart. Used by permission. This map shows the highway which ran from Tyre (Tyros) to Damascus via Paneas/Caesarea Philippi, and the beginning of the highway which ran from Paneas in a north-westerly direction into Sidon. This map also distinguishes the district of Paneas from Gaulanitis.

Chapter 1

Introduction There is a general consensus among New Testament scholars and historians that the historical Jesus was itinerant.1 The itinerant nature of Jesus’ ministry is attested in the Gospel of Mark, the sayings source Q, some of the special material in the Gospel of Luke (L), the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Thomas. However, there has been uncertainty as to the geographical extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry and whether he did in fact travel to the places indicated in the Gospels. This work will explore the extent and plausibility of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the north, particularly as it is depicted in Mark.2 Drawing on literary sources and archaeology, this work will argue that Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in and around Galilee is historically plausible. We will begin, however, with a brief survey of what the sources listed above say about Jesus’ itinerancy and where he travelled.

1 See e.g. Gerd Theissen, “Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections from Social History on Jesus’ Roles,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. The First Princeton– Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 98–122; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 1996), 148, 168–171, 657; E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 13; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 345–348, 422; J. Ramsey Michaels, “The Itinerant Jesus and his Hometown,” Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 177–193; Eckhard Schnabel, Jesus and the Twelve, vol. 1 of Early Christian Mission (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 207–265; Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and his Followers, trans. James C.G. Greig (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 14–15; and Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), 566. 2 Henceforth, when referring to the Gospel of Mark or to the Markan evangelist I will use the designation Mark, without any assumption regarding the actual name or identity of the author. The same will apply to the authors and Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources

I. Jesus’ itinerancy in Mark Mark conveys the impression that Jesus travelled extensively throughout Galilee and surrounding regions, before heading south towards Jerusalem. In a few summary statements Mark claims that Jesus journeyed among the towns and villages of Galilee.3 Mark also includes topographical references to indicate places to which Jesus travelled. Two settlements in particular deserve special mention: Capernaum, which appears to have been Jesus’ base of operations,4 and Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown.5 Mark also depicts Jesus teaching and healing people in the synagogues of Galilee,6 beside the Sea of Galilee,7 and in private homes.8 Jesus is also depicted journeying through neighbouring regions. He visits Bethsaida in Gaulanitis, crosses the border into the region of Tyre, passes through the region of Sidon, ministers to people in the Decapolis, and travels north to the villages of Caesarea Philippi.9 Mark also describes Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee and coming ashore in the region of the Gerasenes, the region of Dalmanutha, and the region of Gennesaret.10 Finally, Mark depicts Jesus travelling south to Judea and across the Jordan, and passing through Jericho, Bethphage, and Bethany before arriving in Jerusalem.11 Thus, at face value, Mark conveys the impression that Jesus’ itinerant ministry was extensive: that Jesus covered a broad geographical area, visited numerous towns and villages, and taught in synagogues, in private homes, and in the open air. Mark also conveys the impression that Jesus attracted large crowds.12 Further insight into the way Jesus conducted his itinerant ministry is suggested in his instructions to the twelve disciples whom he appointed and sent out on mission.13 In addition, Jesus’ itinerancy is reflected in the frequent 3

Mark 1.39; 6.6b, 56. See also Mark 1.14–15 and the saying of Jesus in Mark 1.38. Mark 1.21; 2.1; 9.33. 5 Mark 1.9; cf. 6.1. Nazareth is also indicated in references to Jesus the Nazarene (Mark 1.24; 10.47; 14.67; 16.6). 6 Mark 1.21, 39; 3.1; 6.1–2. 7 See e.g. Mark 2.13; 3.7–9; 4.1; 6.34. 8 Mark 1.29–34; 2.1–2; 3.20, 31−32; 5.38–39; 7.17; 7.24; 9.33–35; 14.3–9. 9 Mark 5.1, 20; 7.24, 31; 8.22, 27. 10 Mark 5.1; 6.53; 8.10. Mark records another occasion when Jesus and his disciples set out across the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida (Mark 6.45), but in this instance they did not arrive there. This will be discussed in Chapter Five. 11 Mark 10.1, 46; 11.1, 11. 12 See e.g. Mark 1.32–33; 2.1–2, 13; 3.7–9; 4.1; 5.21, 24; 6.31, 34, 54–56; 7.17, 33; 8.1, 9, 34; 9.14; 10.1, 46; 11.7–8. Mark also reports that some of the people came from as far afield as Judea, Idumea, the Transjordan, and Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3.8). 13 Mark 6.7−13. The selection of the twelve will be discussed below. 4

A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources

3

use of verbs of movement, such as variants of ἐξελθεῖν, ἀπελθεῖν, ἔρχεσθαι, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, ἀναχωρεῖν, and διαπερᾶν,14 in the repeated phrase “on the way” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ),15 and in Jesus’ call to potential disciples to “follow me” (δεũτε ὀπίσω μου).16 We can see from this brief overview that Mark provides numerous details of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. However, it is also evident that only a small number of settlements or regions are mentioned by name, and for the most part Mark does not provide a clear itinerary of Jesus’ travels. Questions have also been raised about the historical value of Mark’s summary statements which depict Jesus’ itinerancy, and the topographical references which locate him in various places.17 Are these narrative settings just Markan inventions which have no bearing on history, or do they provide historical information about where Jesus travelled? For over a hundred years there has been doubt as to whether Mark provides reliable geographical information about Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Yet as this work will show, the results of archaeological investigation over the past few decades, require that we rethink this position. Finally, it is widely accepted that Mark was probably the first of the canonical Gospels to be written,18 and that Mark, or an earlier edition of Mark, was a primary source used by Matthew and Luke,19 in addition to the sayings source

14 See e.g. Mark 1.29, 35; 2.13; 5.1, 21; 6.1, 32, 46, 53; 7.24, 31; 8.10, 13, 22, 27; 9.30; 10.1, 17, 46, 11.12, 27; 13.1; 14.32. 15 See e.g. Mark 10.17, 32. The phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ will be discussed in Chapter Six. 16 Mark 1.17. See also ἀκολούθει μοί in Mark 2.14. 17 Some of these will be discussed below and in subsequent chapters. 18 The Gospel of Mark was probably written between 65 and 75 CE. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1. The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1991), 43; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 14; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 37–39; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1. Teil. Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1–8,26. HThKNT II (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 12–14; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans. John Bowden (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 1–28; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1. Teilband: Mk 1–8, 26. EKK II.1 (Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 34–35; Chris Forbes, “The Historical Jesus,” in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, ed. Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 237. 19 The hypothesis of Markan priority best accounts for the considerable amount of material common to Mark, Matthew, and Luke. David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 166–167; James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 143–146; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1998), 25–26; and Forbes, “The Historical Jesus,” 236.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Q.20 Therefore, Mark is still recognised as a valuable source for historical Jesus study. II. Jesus’ itinerancy in Matthew and Luke Matthew and Luke generally adopt Mark’s geographical framework where the bulk of Jesus’ ministry is conducted in and around Galilee, followed by a journey south to Jerusalem. Matthew and Luke also follow Mark in depicting Jesus travelling among the towns and villages of Galilee, attracting large crowds, and teaching in their synagogues,21 although Luke widens the geographical scope of this to include all Judaea (’Ιουδαία).22 In addition, most of the topographical references in Matthew and Luke are derived from Mark.23 Also Matthew and Luke follow Mark in recording journeys across the Sea of Galilee,24 and they both include an account of Jesus sending the twelve out on mission.25 Matthew follows Mark in recording a journey of Jesus to the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and Caesarea Philippi.26 Matthew also follows Mark in noting Jesus’ journey south to Judea and across the Jordan,27 whereas Luke depicts Jesus travelling among the villages of Samaria on his way to Jerusalem.28 Both,

20

Q and the two-source hypothesis will be discussed below. See e.g. Matt. 4.12, 17, 23, 25; 8.1, 18; 9.35; 11.1; 12.9, 15; and Luke 4.14–16, 33, 38, 43–44; 5.1, 19; 6.6, 17; 7.11; 8.1–3. For other references to synagogues see e.g. Matt. 10.17 and Luke 7.5. 22 Luke 4.43–44 (Mark 1.38–39). While the term ’Ιουδαία could denote the smaller region of Judea, it could also refer to the broader province which included Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. Thus Luke may be intentionally expanding the geographical range of Jesus’ ministry to include Galilee and Judea. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster Press, 1978), 197; John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20. WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), 216. Schnabel believes that Luke 4.44 refers only to the small region of Judea, as distinct from Galilee. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.258–259. The meaning of ’Ιουδαία will be discussed further below. 23 See e.g. Matt. 4.13; 8.5; and Luke 4.31 (Mark 1.21) in relation to Capernaum; and Matt. 13.54 and Luke 4.16 (Mark 6.1–2) in relation to Nazareth. See also Matt. 4.18; 8.5; 14.34; 15.21; 16.13; 17.24; and Luke 4.23; 5.1; 7.1; 8.26; and 9.10. One exception to this is the reference to Magadan in Matthew 15.39. 24 See e.g. Matt. 8.28; 14.34; 15.39; Luke 8.26; 9.10. 25 Matt. 10.5–15; Luke 9.1–6. Later in Luke, Jesus sends out seventy or seventy-two disciples (Luke 10.1–12). 26 Matt. 15.21; 16.13. Luke includes the story of Peter’s messianic confession but omits the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi (Luke 9.18–22; cf. Mark 8.27–30; Matt. 16.13–20). 27 Matt. 19.1–2. 28 Luke 9.52 seems to place Jesus in Samaria. Later in the Lucan narrative Jesus appears on the border between Galilee and Samaria, probably in the Jezreel Valley (Luke 17.11). 21

A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources

5

however, record Jesus passing through Jericho, Bethphage, and Bethany before arriving in Jerusalem.29 III. Jesus’ itinerancy in the sayings source Q The itinerancy of Jesus is also attested in Q. It is evident that there is material common to Matthew and Luke that they did not derive from Mark, and while some have argued that Matthew borrowed material from Luke,30 or that Luke borrowed material from Matthew,31 I accept the majority view that Matthew and Luke probably borrowed from a common source, or collection of sources, which has been designated Q.32 Thus Mark and Q form two early and independent sources for historical Jesus research.33 Also, the formation of Q probably pre-dated or was roughly contemporary with Mark.34 Two sayings/logia of Jesus in Q support the claim that Jesus was itinerant. In one Jesus responds to a would-be follower with the words, “Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”35 This saying conveys the impression that Jesus was constantly on the move and that his itinerancy was a way of life, at least while he was engaged in public ministry.36 In the second saying Jesus extends a warning to the people 29

Matt. 20.29; 21.1, 10; Luke 18.35; 19.29. See e.g. Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 2000), 169–207. 31 See e.g. Mark Goodacre, The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Tradition (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002). 32 For a brief introduction to the origin of the designation Q see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.50, n. 9. 33 For a brief introduction to the two-source hypothesis see DeSilva, Introduction to the New Testament, 161–171. See also Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43–44; and Forbes, “The Historical Jesus,” 237. 34 For example, Robinson dates the formation of the Q sayings to the fifties, and its final redaction to ca. 70 CE. James M. Robinson, “History of Q Research,” in James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Supplements (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), lv, lxi–lxiii. Meier suggests a date between 40–60 CE. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43– 44. Theissen suggests a date between 40–70 CE. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 221. William Arnal proposes a date in the forties but suggests that some of the earliest material in Q1 may have been formulated during the time of Jesus. William E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 164, 168. Similarly, Dunn suggests that some of the oral traditions behind Q were formed prior to Jesus’ crucifixion. James D.G. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 26−28. 35 Q 9.58 (Matt 8.20; Luke 9.58). Q references in English will be taken from the Critical Edition of Q. 36 This saying will be discussed further in Chapter Four. 30

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, because they failed to respond to his message.37 Apart from this saying, we would not know that Jesus ministered in Chorazin, except for Mark’s general statement that Jesus taught in the towns and villages of Galilee. IV. Jesus’ itinerancy in other sources Jesus’ itinerancy is also attested in Luke’s special source material (L) and in Acts. For example, Luke states that Jesus visited the town of Nain in Galilee.38 And in Acts, Jesus’ itinerancy is attested in a speech attributed to Peter. Luke writes that Jesus began his ministry in Galilee and that he “went about doing good” (διῆλθεν εὐεργετῶν).39 John also attests to Jesus’ itinerancy, although the material is arranged according to multiple trips between Galilee and Judea, and Jesus’ attendance at religious festivals in Jerusalem.40 John also states that Jesus came from Galilee,41 spent time in Galilee,42 attracted large crowds,43 and crossed the Sea of Galilee.44 John also refers explicitly to Capernaum,45 Nazareth,46 Cana,47 and Tiberias in Galilee,48 and Bethsaida which he also locates in Galilee.49 Finally, a variant of Q 9.58 is preserved in the Gospel of Thomas (GTh). It can be translated, “[Foxes ha]ve [hole]s, and birds have their nests, but the son of man does not have a place to lay down his head and rest hi[msel]f.”50 This saying may preserve an independent tradition which reflects Jesus’ itinerancy. However, it is also possible that this saying was derived from Matthew or

37 Q 10.13–15 (Matt. 11.21–24; Luke 10.13–15). This saying will be discussed further in Chapters Three and Five. 38 Luke 7.11. Luke also draws on his special source material for Jesus’ rejection by a village in Samaria (Luke 9.52), and his encounter with Zacchaeus in Jericho (Luke 19.1–2). 39 Acts 10.37−38. 40 John 2.13, 23; 5.1; 7.2, 14; 10.22–23; 12.1. 41 John 7.41, 52. 42 John 1.43; 2.1, 11; 4.3, 43, 45–46, 54; 7.1–3, 9; 21.1. 43 John 6.2, 22, 24. 44 John 6.1, 17, 25. 45 John 2.12; 4.46–47; 6.16–17, 24. 46 John 1.45–46; 19.19. 47 John 2.1, 11; 4.46; and 21.2. 48 John 6.23. John also refers to the Sea of Galilee as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6.1). 49 The location and identification of Bethsaida will be discussed in Chapter Five. John also states that Jesus spent time at Bethany in Judea (John 11.1–2, 17–18; 12.1–2), stayed in a village called Ephraim (John 11.54), ministered near the Jordan River (John 1.28–29; 3.22; 4.1–2; 10.40–41), and travelled through Samaria (John 4.4–5, 40). 50 GTh. 86 [Nag Hammadi II.2] (trans. Gathercole). Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary. TENTS 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 518–519.

A. Jesus’ itinerancy in the literary sources

7

Luke.51 Also, in the context of Thomas this saying may take on a different meaning, having more to say about the plight of humans in the world than the itinerancy of Jesus.52 V. Jesus’ itinerancy: some initial observations It can be seen, therefore, that Jesus’ itinerancy is attested in a few independent sources: Mark, Q, L, John, and possibly GTh. It also appears in different forms, in narrative and in the sayings/logia of Jesus. Consequently, there is general agreement among New Testament scholars and historians that the historical Jesus was itinerant. Whether Jesus is described as a wandering charismatic teacher,53 an eschatological prophet,54 a Cynic-like peasant teacher,55 or a homeless and displaced individual,56 Jesus’ itinerancy is generally regarded as historical. Yet it is also evident from this brief survey that only a small number of settlements or regions are mentioned by name and, as with Mark, none of these sources provide a clear itinerary of Jesus’ travels. Similarly, questions have been raised about the historical value of the various topographical references.57 Thus there is uncertainty concerning the geographical extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Did Jesus travel throughout all Galilee visiting many of its towns and villages and preaching in their synagogues? Or did Jesus focus on the settlements near the Sea of Galilee and make only a few day trips beyond this area? Also, did Jesus travel through the regions round about, and if so, for what purpose? Given Markan priority and the fact that Mark has several things to say about where Jesus travelled, let us review what scholars are saying about Mark, and the implications of this for the itinerant ministry of the historical Jesus.

51 Gathercole, Gospel of Thomas, 178–181. Meier argues that while the logia in GTh that have parallels in the Gospels may be independent, on the whole they show a “tendency to conflate and/or abbreviate the various forms of the Synoptics to produce the Thomasine version.” Meier, A Marginal Jew, 5.147. 52 Gathercole suggests the saying concerns the lack of rest and solace humans find in the material world. Gathercole, Gospel of Thomas, 519. 53 Gerd Theissen, The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1978), 8–16; and Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 98–122. 54 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 168–171, 657. 55 Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 345–348, esp. 346, and 422. 56 Robert J. Myles, The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014). 57 Some of these will be discussed in the following chapters.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

B. A review of what scholars are saying about Mark B. What scholars are saying about Mark

During the early decades of the twentieth century scholars began to recognise that most of the topographical references in Mark belong to editorial material and are therefore secondary. This in and of itself is not a problem. However, for an increasing number of scholars this was understood to mean that most, if not all, of these references were historically unreliable. This in turn impacted scholarly views on the extent of Jesus’ itinerancy. I. The influence of Wrede and Schweitzer In 1901 William Wrede challenged the historical reliability of Mark in his work, Des Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien.58 He was not the first to do so.59 However, Wrede’s analysis of the “messianic secret” in Mark led to the contention that the entire framework of the Gospel was a Markan construct motivated by Markan theological concerns.60 Wrede therefore doubted whether any of the specific topographical references belonged to pre-Markan tradition, and he argued that since Mark was not an eye-witness, much of this information must have been provided by him.61 Wrede’s thesis was challenged by Albert Schweitzer in his 1906 work, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung.62 Schweitzer argued that the historical Jesus must be understood within the context of firstcentury apocalyptic Judaism. He therefore saw greater continuity between Jesus and first-century Judaism, and was able to incorporate more of Mark’s material in his historical reconstruction than Wrede. Schweitzer’s work has had a lasting influence on historical Jesus research. It ensured that Mark retained its status as a primary source for historical Jesus research, and it explains the

58

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. James C.G. Greig. The Library of Theological Translations (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971). Translation of Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). 59 For example, as early as 1835 David Strauss had argued that the four canonical Gospels were replete with myth, legend, and editorial additions to the extent that the critical scholar had to work carefully to peel back these layers to recover a few historical facts. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, rev. ed. Peter C. Hodgson, trans. George Eliot (London: SCM Press, 1973), 39–92. Translation of Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (Tübingen: Verlag von C.F. Osiander, 1835). 60 See e.g. Wrede, The Messianic Secret, 130–131. 61 See e.g. Wrede, The Messianic Secret, 145–146. 62 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. John Bowden (London: A & C Black, 1954). Translation of Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906).

B. What scholars are saying about Mark

9

ongoing recognition that Jesus must be interpreted within the context of firstcentury Judaism. N.T. Wright describes the influence of Wrede and Schweitzer on subsequent historical Jesus research in terms of two highways: the thorough-going scepticism of the Wredestrasse versus the thorough-going eschatology of the Schweitzerstrasse.63 While many studies in the twentieth century do not fall neatly into either category, this is a helpful paradigm for understanding how Markan research and historical Jesus research developed in the twentieth century. II. The form critics and the Gospel of Mark In 1919 Karl Ludwig Schmidt, in Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, drew attention to the pre-Markan units of tradition in the Gospel, and analysed the way these were arranged into Mark’s geographical and chronological framework. He concluded that before Mark wrote his Gospel, most of the units of tradition existed without any fixed geographical or temporal context, and that only fragments of an itinerary survived. Therefore, the entire narrative framework was a Markan creation and should not be taken as historical.64 He also argued that the Gospel was the product of a community, not an individual, and that it was not a biography but Kleinliteratur i.e. folk literature, and cult-legend.65 This meant that while some topographical references may have been pre-Markan,66 in the Gospel they belonged to Mark’s redactional framework and were therefore governed by Mark’s theological interests. In 1931 in Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Rudolf Bultmann sought to determine the forms of the individual units of tradition, to discover their Sitz im Leben in the life of the early church, and to distinguish earlier units of tradition from secondary additions and forms. He sought to determine whether a unit of tradition reflected primitive Palestinian Christianity or exhibited influence of Hellenistic Christianity. As with Wrede and Schmidt, Bultmann accepted that most of the topographical references in Mark belong to editorial material,67 and argued that while some may have belonged to pre63

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 20–21. Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1919), v–vii, 17, 317. 65 Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturgeschichte,” in ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, ed. Hans Schmidt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1923), 2.50–134, esp. 76. 66 See e.g. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 208–210. 67 Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 242; trans. of Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2nd ed. FRLANT 29 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931). 64

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

Markan traditions, they were not securely attached to any particular unit and could therefore have been transferred from one unit to another.68 Bultmann also argued that Mark created many of these geographical contexts and added them to the various apophthegms and stories he found in the tradition.69 Finally, like Schmidt, Bultmann concluded that the Gospels were not biographies but “expanded cult legends.”70 Therefore, they could not be expected to provide historically reliable material. Bultmann argued that in writing his Gospel, Mark had created a new and unique literary genre, sui generis, and not concerned with history but with theology and kerygma.71 The form critics were correct to recognise that much of the material in Mark was drawn from pre-Markan traditions, many of which were oral traditions that had probably circulated independently in the early church. They were also correct to note that Mark had gathered and arranged this material into the cohesive narrative of his Gospel. However, it is not evident that Mark created geographical contexts because these were lacking in his sources. When we observe the way in which Matthew and Luke used their Markan source material, assuming Markan priority, they sometimes generalise details and drop topographical references.72 While we cannot be certain that Mark did the same with some of his sources, it is certainly plausible. One of the assumptions of the form critics was 68 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 242, 338, 341–342. For example, he acknowledged that Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee were probably firmly established in the tradition, but argued that the references to Capernaum in Mark 1.21 and 2.1 were editorial. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 242. 69 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 242, 349–350. He considered the reference to Bethsaida in Mark 8.22 as unhistorical, and characterised the story in Mark 8.27–30, which refers to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, as legendary. He also described the references to Tyre and Sidon in Mark 7.24 and 31 as editorial trimming, and the entire trip as a pointless excursion. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 64–65, 213, 257. Even the historical reliability of references like Jesus leaving the synagogue or entering the house of Simon in Mark 1.29, were questioned because these were editorial formulations. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 339–340. 70 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 371. Bultmann adds, “There is no historical-biographical interest in the Gospels, and that is why they have nothing to say about Jesus’ human personality, his appearance and character, his origin, education and development.” Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 372. 71 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 370–374. 72 For example, Mark states that Peter’s declaration of Jesus as the Messiah occurred on the road to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8.27−30). Matthew simplifies the geographical context to the region of Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16.13−16). However, Luke omits the topographical reference altogether (Luke 9.18−20). In each case, the core of the pericope is preserved but the geographical context becomes more generalised. As E.P. Sanders has noted concerning the development of the synoptic traditions, there is no clear trend towards the expansion of the material and the addition of place names. Sometimes this does occur, but the trend can also work the other way. E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).

B. What scholars are saying about Mark

11

that the evangelists had little material with which to work. However, Luke and John claim that they had a wealth of source material from which to draw up their accounts.73 It is plausible, therefore, that Mark also knew of numerous stories and sayings of Jesus, and that a number of these preserved the place names of locations where Jesus was active.74 III. The influence of the form critics on other scholars Due to the work of the form critics, Markan scholars and historical Jesus scholars became more aware of the influence of the Markan redactor on the material. Many began to interpret Mark’s summary statements and topographical references in terms of Mark’s theological and literary concerns, or as reflections of the missionary activities of the early church. For example Guignebert, in his life of Jesus, suspected Mark of “having taken Jesus to this place or that merely because he needed to have him go there, and not because he knew that he had actually gone.”75 Such approaches also influenced scholars outside of the field of New Testament studies. For example, the Jewish historian Catherine Hezser described Jesus’ constant movements as “random and arbitrary,” and she suggested they may have been a literary device to distinguish one episode from another, or that they reflected the travels of missionaries in the early church.76 Thus while most scholars accepted that Jesus was active in Galilee, particularly among the settlements near the northern shoreline, there has been doubt among many as to whether Jesus travelled extensively, and whether the various topographical references and summary statements in Mark are historically reliable.77 Once the narrative framework of the Gospel was understood to be a Markan construct, a number of scholars sought to examine how Mark’s geographical scheme served his theological purposes. Ernst Lohmeyer and Robert Lightfoot noted that Jesus’ activity was mostly conducted in Galilee, and ended after a single journey to Jerusalem, but with the promise of a return to Galilee. Lohmeyer argued from this that there were two centres of primitive Christianity, the earlier centre based in Galilee and the later centre based in Jerusalem. He argued that Galilee during the time of Mark was the greater region, a Christian land, where the primitive Christian community waited for the return of the

73

Luke 1.1–4; John 21.24–25. The historical plausibility of Mark’s topographical references will be discussed further under the topic of genre. 75 Charles Guignebert, Jesus, trans. S.H. Hooke. History of Civilization Series, ed. C.K. Ogden (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, 1935), 227. 76 Catherine Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity. TSAJ 144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 42–43. 77 This will be discussed further in Chapters Three through Eight. 74

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

Son of Man.78 Lightfoot developed this idea, arguing that Mark’s scheme served to show that Galilee was the divinely chosen region of God’s revelation, whereas Jerusalem was the city of hostility, rejection, and sin.79 Towards the end of the twentieth century, Joachim Gnilka argued that for Mark, Galilee was the home of the Gospel where the crowds assembled to hear Jesus. However, the road to Jerusalem was the road toward suffering and death. After the cross and resurrection, the disciples returned to Galilee, the only place where they could understand Jesus. Thus for Gnilka, the movement of the disciples away from Jerusalem to Galilee after the resurrection could be interpreted as a move toward the conversion of Gentiles.80 More recently, Jacob Ashkenazi has argued for renewed recognition of the form critics, particularly Schmidt, and drawn attention again to the kerygmatic message of the Gospels, and the ways the evangelists used the geographical landscape as a theological construct. However, he goes too far when he says, “the landscapes as narrated in the Gospels are first and foremost a premediated constructed form and nothing short of a vessel for the kerygmatic message of the Gospels.”81 The problem with Jacob’s “nothing short of” claim, is that it overlooks the mounting evidence that Mark’s theological message was grounded in the historical and geographical realities of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in and around first century CE Galilee. IV. Redaction critics and the Gospel of Mark The focus on the role of Mark as a redactor and author has continued in Markan research to this day. Therefore, the topographical references which occur in editorial seams and in summary statements are examined by many scholars in terms of Markan concerns.82 As C. Clifton Black writes concerning the summary statements in Mark, redaction critics generally assume that “Mark was responsible for their composition, and fashioned them according to his theological purposes.”83 This in and of itself is not a problem. It is evident that Mark did indeed select, arrange, and fashion his material according to his theological purposes. Therefore, it is legitimate for scholars to consider what Mark may be 78 Ernst Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem. FRLANT 34 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1937), 25–48, 80–104. 79 Robert Henry Lightfoot, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938), 124–125. 80 Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.70–71. 81 Jacob Ashkenazi, “Kerygmatic Landscapes of the Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus,” EC 10 (2019): 358. 82 For example, Collins suggests that Mark shifted the location of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman from Galilee to the region of Tyre to foreshadow the churches mission to the Gentiles. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, 364. 83 C. Clifton Black, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 22–25.

B. What scholars are saying about Mark

13

trying to communicate when examining this material. However, while the focus of many scholars is on the Markan redactor, there is a general reluctance to consider whether these summary statements and topographical references have anything to say about the historical Jesus and where he travelled. For example, Gnilka argues that the depiction of Jesus leaving Capernaum to minister among the “towns” (κωμοπóλεις) of Galilee in Mark 1.35–39, probably reflects the concerns of the Markan redactor and the activities of the missionary church, and not the activity of the historical Jesus.84 The Gospel of Mark is also mined for clues as to the geographical location of the author and his community.85 Interestingly, this assumes that Mark was familiar with some of the regions and places to which he refers. Yet it is not uncommon to hear others claim that Mark was geographically ignorant or incompetent.86 Nonetheless, the implication of this is that the Gospel of Mark is perceived by many scholars to be saying more about Mark and his community than about the historical Jesus. V. Literary critics and the Gospel of Mark The stress on the author paved the way for literary and narrative critical approaches to Mark. These scholars focus on the narrative as a whole, and employ literary tools of analysis to investigate plot, characterisation, themes, and the like.87 Some literary critics also seek to deconstruct the text, or employ a

84

Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.89. For example, Theissen proposes that the Markan community was located in Syria, and that Mark selected the material about Jesus’ journey through Tyre and Sidon because these regions were close to Syria. Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 242–245, 249. Joel Marcus argues that the Gospel of Mark was probably produced in Galilee. Joel Marcus, “The Jewish War and the Sitz-im-Leben of Mark,” JBL 111.3 (1992): 441– 462. H.N. Roskam also locates Mark and his community in Galilee. H.N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context. NovTSup 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 94–113. 86 See e.g. F. Lang, “‘Über Sidon mitten ins Gebiet der Dekapolis,’ Geographie und Theologie in Markus 7, 31,” ZDPV 94 (1978): 24–37; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 244–245, 249; and John Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin, and Capernaum,” in Q in Context II: Social Setting and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source, ed. Markus Tiwald. BBB 173 (Göttingen: V&R unipress; Bonn University Press, 2015), 63. Marcus argues that these “apparent geographical errors” may be due to Mark trying to fit some pre-Markan traditions into his geographical framework. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 21. The question of Markan geographical competency will be discussed in Chapter Seven in relation to Mark 7.31. 87 See e.g. Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. SNTSMS 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Elizabeth Struthers Malborn, In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000). 85

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

reader–response approach, such as reading the text from a feminist perspective.88 Narrative criticism has made some important contributions to Markan research. One is the raised awareness of the coherence and unity of the final form of the narrative.89 Another is the recognition that Mark was not a clumsy redactor but a skilled, sophisticated, and theologically competent author.90 Narrative criticism has also sparked renewed interest in the genre of the Gospel, which has implications for historical Jesus research.91 For the most part, however, narrative critical approaches are not generally concerned with historical questions.

C. The quest for the historical Jesus C. Quest for the historical Jesus

While Markan research progressed along redaction and narrative critical lines, historical Jesus research also progressed.92 In 1996, N.T. Wright referred to this bourgeoning field of research as the “third quest” for the historical Jesus.93 Wright claimed that he coined this term to denote “one particular type of contemporary Jesus-research … which regards Jesus as an eschatological prophet announcing the long-awaited kingdom, and which undertakes serious historiography around that point.”94 He added that such research must take Jesus’ first-century Jewish context seriously and make full use of the literary sources from that period. However, it quickly became evident that this so-called “third quest” meant different things to different people. For some the term was seen to denote all current research on the historical Jesus, regardless of whether one interpreted 88 See e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, ed. A Feminist Companion to Mark. FCNTECW 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). It should be noted at this point that not all feminist approaches to Scripture fall under the broad category of literary or narrative criticism. The recent commentary on Mark by Warren Carter is a case in point. While applying a feminist lens to the reading of Mark, it interprets Jesus in his socio-political context. Warren Carter, Mark. Wisdom Commentary 42 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2019). 89 Marshall, Faith as a Theme, 21–26. 90 Marshall, Faith as a Theme, 16–21. 91 The genre of the Gospel of Mark will be discussed below. 92 The field is so vast today that a series of volumes has been produced to cover the wealth of research emerging on the historical Jesus. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011). There is also a journal publication, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Robert L. Webb (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill), and an encyclopaedia, Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, ed. Craig A. Evans (New York: Routledge, 2008). 93 For an overview of historical Jesus research from the old quest, to the new quest, and the third quest, see Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 3–124. 94 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, xiv.

D. The scope and purpose of this work

15

Jesus in the context of apocalyptic Judaism. For example, James Charlesworth defined the third quest as “a scientific study of Jesus in his time in light of all relevant data,” including “a systematic examination of archaeology and topography,” undertaken by scholars from a variety of disciplines.95 Others have challenged the paradigm of three quests.96 Current historical Jesus research involves scholars from around the world and from multiple disciplines, and the field has become increasingly expansive, multi-faceted, and methodologically diverse. Nonetheless, there are some common features. One is the recognition that such research must take seriously Jesus’ first-century Jewish context. Another is the recognition of the importance of drawing upon a broad range of primary literary and documentary sources, and upon archaeology. Another feature is the appearance of multidisciplinary research e.g. the application of social-scientific approaches.97 It is within this broad field of current historical Jesus research that this study is located. It is also for this reason that a wide range of sources will be used, including archaeological data. Until the last few decades of the twentieth century, scholars relied primarily on literary sources to understand Jesus’ cultural and historical context, and the places to which he travelled. However, information gaps and inconsistencies in these sources, and their tendentious nature, resulted in divergent and contradictory hypotheses about the region of Galilee, the ethnicity of the Galilean population, the relationship between Galilee and Judea, and the person and mission of the historical Jesus.98 Since the 1970s, however, significant advances have been made in the field of archaeology and this has shed considerable light on Galilee and the regions round about. This in turn has implications for understanding the historical Jesus.

D. The scope and purpose of this work D. The scope and purpose of this work

The survey of Mark and other sources outlined at the beginning of this chapter reveals not only that Jesus was itinerant but suggests that he travelled extensively and covered a broad geographical area. Since much of this material is found in Mark, and given Markan priority and the value of Mark for historical 95 James H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 9. 96 See e.g. Fernando Bermejo Rubio, “The Fiction of the ‘Three Quests’: An argument for Dismantling a Dubious Historiographical Paradigm,” JSHJ 7 (2009): 211–253. 97 For an excellent definition of social-scientific approaches in biblical scholarship see Beth M. Sheppard, The Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament. RBS 60 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 143–147. 98 Divergent views have also emerged concerning the Galilean political economy, the influence of Herod Antipas on the region, and relations between village and city.

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

Jesus research, this work will focus primarily on the journeys of Jesus as they are depicted in Mark. However, important references to Jesus’ itinerancy in Q, L, and GTh will also be discussed, including some topographical references which appear in Q, L, M, and the Gospel of John. These will then be examined in the light of other literary sources and archaeology. According to Mark, Jesus travelled through Galilee, the regions of Tyre and Sidon, the Golan, the Decapolis, Judea, and the region beyond the Jordan. An itinerant ministry through all these regions would be extensive, not because of the size of these regions, for their geographical area was not great. Rather, because of the diverse topography of these regions, the condition of their roads, which were generally winding and unpaved, and the number of towns and villages in Galilee.99 In addition, the archaeological data emerging from these regions is enormous. However, most of Jesus’ itinerancy appears to have taken place in the north i.e. in Galilee and in the regions around Galilee. Approximately half of Mark’s narrative is devoted to Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the north, up to and including Jesus’ journey to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (i.e. from Mark 1.14–8.30). After this point the focus of the narrative shifts, with predictions of Jesus’ death and an account of Jesus’ journey towards Jerusalem. It begins in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi and Mount Hermon in the north and ends with Jesus’ trial and execution in Jerusalem in the south.100 Mark does state that during Jesus’ journey south he travelled to Judea and across the Jordan.101 This would place Jesus in the region of Perea. Mark then records a few incidents which appear to occur in this region,102 before the travelling party arrives at Jericho.103 Thus it is possible that the events described prior to Jesus’ arrival in Jericho occurred in the region of Perea. However, this is by no means certain, for Mark does not describe Jesus visiting any towns or villages in Perea. There is also no description of an itinerant mission among the villages of Judea, although Mark does say that Jesus cured a blind man at Jericho,104 and he describes Jesus passing through Bethphage and Bethany on his way to Jerusalem.105

99

These factors will be discussed at various points in Chapters Three to Eight. Mark 8.31–16.8. 101 Mark 10.1. 102 These include Jesus’ discussion with some Pharisees concerning a matter of divorce (Mark 10.2–12); people bringing children to Jesus to be blessed (Mark 10.13−16); Jesus discussing with a rich man what one must do to inherit eternal life (Mark 10.17–31); and two disciples requesting places of honour (Mark 10.32–45). See also the parallel journey in Matthew 19.1–20.28. The journey of Jesus to Jerusalem in Luke is more complicated. 103 Mark 10.46. 104 Mark 10.46; 11.1–2. 105 Mark 11.1. Jesus also appears to have stayed in Bethany during the evenings (Mark 11.12; 14.3. Cf. Mark 11.19). 100

D. The scope and purpose of this work

17

Of course this geographical scheme is part of Mark’s narrative construction, as Lohmeyer and Lightfoot observed,106 although their interpretation of its significance was overly speculative.107 However, we must begin our historical inquiry with what our sources tell us, and in Mark it appears that a significant portion of Jesus’ itinerant ministry was conducted in and around Galilee. Therefore, this work will focus on Jesus’ itinerancy in the north, particularly as it is depicted in Mark 1.14–8.30. The aim of this work will be to explore the extent of Jesus’ itinerancy in the north i.e. to discover where and how far Jesus was likely to have travelled. It will seek to answer the following questions. Did Jesus travel extensively throughout the towns and villages of Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and attracting large crowds, as Mark seems to indicate? Also, did Jesus travel beyond Galilee to the regions round about? Most of this work will be directed toward answering these questions. However, it will also consider some plausible reasons for why Jesus conducted an itinerant form of ministry, and why he extended the geographical scope of this beyond Galilee to the regions round about. This work will therefore examine some of the summary statements of Jesus’ itinerancy in Mark 1.14–8.30, and some of the topographical references which locate Jesus in various places. Also, as noted above, it will draw on references to Jesus’ itinerancy in Q, L, and GTh, and some of the topographical references in Q, L, M, and the Gospel of John. It will also draw on sources which shed light on places in and around Galilee, on travel and trade routes in these regions, and on important historical events and personalities related to these regions. Thus the works of Josephus are particularly important for this study.108 This study will also draw on the results of archaeology and what these reveal about the settlements in and around Galilee, the ethnicity of their populations, some important trade routes in and around Galilee, and travel on the Sea of Galilee. However, before we turn to the question of methodology, it is important to comment on the nature of some of the literary sources noted above.

106 See also the discussion of Mark’s geographical scheme in R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 33– 35. 107 In response to Lightfoot and others who see Galilee–Jerusalem relations in terms of opposition, see Sean Freyne, “Geography of Restoration: Galilee–Jerusalem Relations in Early Jewish and Christian Experience,” NTS 47 (2001): 289–311. 108 Josephus and his works will be discussed below.

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

E. The nature of our sources E. The nature of our sources

I. The genre of the canonical Gospels For much of the twentieth century, and with few notable exceptions,109 the Gospels were perceived to be a unique genre, primarily concerned with theology and unconcerned with history.110 However, with the publication of Richard Burridge’s comprehensive study of Gospel genre in 1992,111 an increasing number of scholars now recognise that the Gospels belong to the broad and flexible genre of Graeco-Roman biography (Greek: βίoς; Latin: vita).112 There were some challenges to Burridge’s initial publication, and these were addressed in his second edition in 2004.113 However, some commentators continue to assign a different genre to the Gospels. For example, Joel Marcus follows Schmidt and Bultmann, claiming that the Gospel of Mark is essentially “a new creation,” “a dramatization of the good news that was originally staged in the context of a Christian worship service,” although he acknowledges that it shares generic features with Hellenistic biography, drama, and biblical

109 See e.g. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1987), 17–115; Hengel, Studies in Mark, 32–33; and Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 19. Robert Guelich, writing before Richard Burridge’s comprehensive research on Gospel genre, argued that formally Mark’s Gospel belonged to the category of Graeco-Roman biography, but materially it was sui generis. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26. WBC 34A (Nashville, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1989), xix–xxii. 110 Subsequent to Schmidt and Bultmann see e.g. C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament. BNTC (London: A & C Black, 1962), 4–5; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.1– 3; D.E. Nineham, The Gospel of Saint Mark (England: Penguin, 1963), 29, 35–38; and Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.17. 111 This was followed by a second edition in 2004. Richard A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). 112 See e.g. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 184–186; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20. WBC 34B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), lxiv−lxvii; Sean Freyne, Jesus: A Jewish Galilean. A New Reading of the Jesus-story (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 5; France, Gospel of Mark, 4–6; Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 1–9; and Graham N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 192. Wright describes the Gospels as sharing characteristics of both biography and religious propaganda. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 112–113. Such has been Burridge’s influence that the Oxford Classical Dictionary now includes the Gospels in its section on Greek Biography. See e.g. C.B.R. Pelling, “Biography, Greek,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford University Press, 2003), 242. 113 See e.g. the review by Adela Yarbro Collins, “Genre and the Gospels,” JR, 75.2 (1995): 239–246, and Burridge’s response in the second edition of his work. Burridge, What are the Gospels, 261.

E. The nature of our sources

19

histories.114 Alternatively, Adela Yarbro Collins describes Mark as an eschatological historical monograph. She argues that whether one opts for biography or historical monograph depends on where one places the emphasis in Mark. For Collins the emphasis in Mark is not so much on “the activity and fate of Jesus” but on “God’s plan for the fulfilment of history in which [Jesus] played a decisive role.”115 However, an assessment of the subject verbs in Mark and the amount of narrative space dedicated to Jesus make it clear that Jesus is the primary subject of the narrative.116 Yet this does not exclude a focus in Mark on God’s plan for the fulfilment of history, because it is through the life and teaching of Jesus that this plan is revealed. An increasing number of scholars now recognise that when the Gospels are assessed in terms of all of their generic features,117 and the purposes or style of the author are not confused with genre categorisation, the Gospels belong to the broad and flexible genre of Graeco-Roman biography.118 This is not to deny that the Gospels contain theological reflection, but rather to affirm that they are “theologically reflective biographies.”119 As Geza Vermes writes, “A theological interest is no more incompatible with a concern for history than is a political or philosophical conviction.”120 In addition, recognising that the Gospels belong to the genre of βίoς need not discount the fact that the Gospels incorporate smaller units of written and oral traditions,121 which have parallels

114

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 69. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 15–44, esp. 33. 116 One way to deduce the subject of the narrative is to calculate the percentage of verb subjects. Burridge has calculated that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is the subject of 24.4% of the verbs. He adds that no other individual character in the narrative receives more than 1% of the verbs, including God. A further 20.2% of verbs occur in the sayings and parables of Jesus. The remainder are attributed to groups, such as the disciples, those whom Jesus encountered, the Jewish leaders, scribes, and Pharisees, etc. Burridge, What are the Gospels, 110–112, 130–133, 158–163, 189–193. 117 See Burridge, What are the Gospels, 105–212. 118 For some more recent publications see Steve Walton, “What are the Gospels? Richard Burridge’s Impact on Scholarly Understanding of the Genre of the Gospels,” CBR 14.1 (2015): 81–93; Samuel Byrskog, “The Historicity of Jesus: How do we know that Jesus Existed?” in The Historical Jesus, vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén & Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2192; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 16– 24; and Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 73–84. 119 Tom Wright, Who was Jesus? (London: SPCK, 1992), 96. See also Burridge, What are the Gospels, 248–250. 120 Geza Vermes, Jesus in his Jewish Context (London: SCM Press, 2003), 18. 121 As Meier observes, “The form critics of the 1920s rightly pointed out that behind Mark … lie collections of oral and written traditions tied together by common forms, themes, and key words.” Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.41–42. 115

20

Chapter 1: Introduction

in rabbinic literature and the Hebrew Scriptures;122 nor does it discount the fact that the evangelists may have had multiple reasons for writing, including encomiastic and apologetic purposes.123 As Burridge writes, the flexible genre of βίoς was nestled between and overlapped with “history, encomium and moral philosophy.”124 This means that while the evangelists selected their sources, arranged them, and incorporated their own theological reflections on the material at hand, they nonetheless set out to write about Jesus.125 Moreover, “because this is a Life of a historical person written within the lifetime of his contemporaries, there are limits on free composition.”126 This has implications for historical Jesus research. One characteristic of Graeco-Roman biography is the focus on the subject of the narrative.127 A corresponding characteristic is that geographical settings “are chosen because this is where the subject was active.”128 Therefore, “if the subject was mobile, then so is the setting.”129 This characteristic of a βίoς is evident in the Gospels. Jesus is portrayed in various locations: in Galilee, in Judea, in villages and in the countryside, in synagogues and beside the Sea of Galilee. However, in each case the focus of the narrative is on the subject, not the setting. As Burridge states, “We move to these settings… by following Jesus.”130 This suggests that these various settings were retained in the tradition because this was where Jesus was remembered as being active. It also suggests that the topographical references in Mark may have more to say about where Jesus travelled, than where Mark or his community were located.131 122 See e.g. Philip S. Alexander, “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament,” ZNW 74 (1983): 237–246; and Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, with Tradition & Transmission in Early Christianity, trans. Eric J. Sharpe (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). 123 For example, Roskam accepts that Mark adopted the form of ancient biography but argues that this categorisation is not helpful because scholars differ about the purpose of biography, and Mark’s purpose was primarily apologetic. Roskam, Purpose of the Gospel of Mark, 11–14. However, Roskam appears to be confusing authorial intent with literary genre. Moreover, apology was a common feature of Graeco-Roman βίoι. Burridge, What are the Gospels, 210. 124 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 65, 208–211. 125 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 248–250. 126 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 249–250. 127 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 110–112, 130–133, 158–163, 189–193. 128 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 140. 129 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 172. 130 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 200. 131 In addition, the genre of βίος would suggest that even though Mark may have produced his work with a community in mind, it is likely that he expected his work to appeal to a wider audience. Richard A. Burridge, “About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Gospel Audiences,” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 113–145.

E. The nature of our sources

21

Another characteristic of Graeco-Roman biographies is that they need not present all their material in strict chronological order. They generally have a loose chronological structure into which narrative units can be arranged topically.132 The author is free to order and arrange the material as he sees fit. Thus, Mark was free to combine all of his material concerning Jesus’ activity in and around Galilee into the first half of his narrative, and all the material concerning Jesus’ journey toward Jerusalem and his activity in and around Jerusalem in the second half of his narrative. However, this need not mean that Mark’s chronological and geographical framework was entirely a creation with little historical foundation, as the form critics and Lohmeyer and Lightfoot assumed. As Ellis argues, while the editorial arrangement of the material in the Gospels was certainly the work of the evangelists, it was also “often a reworking of received traditions.”133 The author also had a degree of freedom over allocation of space. He could compress material, omit material, and insert topical material within an overall chronological framework. For example, the author could omit the subject’s childhood, or the years preceding the subject’s public activity, and devote more space to one or two events in the subject’s life and less to others.134 Thus the diverse arrangements of material we find among the Synoptic Gospels, and between the Synoptic Gospels and John, plus the large amount of space devoted to Jesus’ arrest, trial, and execution, cannot be explained by asserting that the evangelists were unconcerned with history, or that their geographical references are unreliable. Rather, their historical and geographical concerns do not parallel those of modern biographers.135 Nonetheless, Graeco-Roman βίοι do have “a basic chronological framework, which may be just the birth or public arrival of the subject as a starting point and the death of the subject as the end, together with topical inserts.”136 We can observe this with the canonical Gospels. While Matthew and Luke include a brief account of Jesus’ birth and infancy,137 all four Gospels place the 132 See the discussion on structure in the Synoptic Gospels. Burridge, What are the Gospels, 194–196. 133 E. Earle Ellis, “The Synoptic Gospels and History,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999), 56. See further Ellis’ critique of some of the assumptions of form criticism in “The Synoptic Gospels and History,” 49–57. 134 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 131, 133, 163, 166. 135 Wright, Who was Jesus, 96; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 81–82. This is a point that Bultmann failed to recognise when he argued that the Gospels cannot be biography because they “lack any interest of a scientific-historical kind,” and “have nothing to say about Jesus’ human personality, his appearance and character, his origin, education and development.” Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 371–372. 136 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 136; cf. 166. 137 Luke 2.1–7; Matt. 2.1.

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

beginning of Jesus’ public ministry at the time of John the Baptist,138 and conclude with the events surrounding Jesus’ death during the season of Passover.139 As Burridge writes, “The gospel’s exterior framework of a chronological sequence with topical material inserted is thus a structure typical of GraecoRoman βίοι.”140 One implication of this is that any attempt to reconstruct an exact chronological sequence of Jesus’ public ministry on the basis of the four canonical Gospels, will probably fail due to the nature and composition of these primary sources. Nonetheless, within the broad chronological framework supplied by each evangelist, the summary travel statements of Jesus’ itinerancy and the various topographical references can be examined to ascertain their historical plausibility. Another characteristic of Graeco-Roman βίοι is that rather than employing direct character analysis, the author portrays the character of the subject indirectly through his words and deeds. As Burridge writes, “Each author selects common literary units, such as anecdotes, stories, speeches and quotations, drawn from a variety of oral and written sources to portray the subject’s character through the indirect means of narrating his deeds and words.”141 Thus one cannot claim, as Bultmann did, that the Gospels show no interest in Jesus’ personality.142 The depiction of the subject’s character through the narration of his words does not imply that the subject’s words were quoted verbatim. Rather, they were intended to be a record of the kinds of things the subject said. Thus “no one form of a saying can be designated the original form,”143 but a comparison of sayings does suggest that they retain the substance of what the subject said, without concern for the precise wording. Meier and Wright add that some variations of sayings in the Gospels can be explained by the fact that Jesus was itinerant, and therefore would have repeated the same material in various ways.144 However, Jesus’ itinerancy cannot account for all the variations. Jesus’ words over the bread and wine during the Last Supper were spoken only once. Yet while the substance of these words is retained in four surviving

138

Matt. 3.1, 13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3.1–3, 21–23; John 1.28–29. Matthew and Luke also indicate that the high priest Caiaphas was in office at this time (Matt. 26.17, 57; 27.1–2, 2; Mark 14.1–2; 15.1, 24; Luke 22.1–2; 23.1, 5–7, 33; John 18.12– 14, 28; 19.13–14, 16). 140 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 196. 141 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 149. 142 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 371–372. 143 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43. Dunn says essentially the same thing in relation to oral tradition. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus, 51. 144 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 170; and N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 422–424. 139

E. The nature of our sources

23

reports, the exact wording varies.145 Thus both the fact of Jesus’ itinerant ministry and the transmission of this material in the decades following Jesus’ execution, probably accounts for many of the variations in the tradition.146 II. Q, L, John, and Thomas While the focus of this work will be on Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ itinerancy, a brief note should be made about some of the other sources we will refer to from time to time in relation to Mark. One such source is the Q source material. Various approaches have been taken concerning the formation, content, and reconstruction of Q.147 However, these need not concern us here. For practical 145 Mark 14.22–25; Matt 26.26–29; Luke 22.19–20; 1 Cor. 11.23–26. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43. 146 This work will not discuss the transmission of oral traditions, the role of eye-witnesses, the reliability of memory, and the debates concerning these. Rather, it will assess the historical reliability of particular sayings and deeds of Jesus as they appear in the final form of our sources. Nonetheless, the conclusions of Robert McIver’s work on memory are worthy of note. Human memory can preserve the meaning, significance, and trend of events, but can get up to 20% of the details wrong because personal memories are subject to transience, hindsight bias, and suggestibility. Collective memories are more resistant to change, but the process of their formation is ill-defined. This is instructive for the historical Jesus. Jesus was remembered as a teacher/rabbi, and given the teaching practices of the day, he probably used repetition and memorisation when instructing his disciples, and this would assist in the formation of collective memory. Jesus also used aphorisms and parables which would assist memory. Thus McIver may be correct in concluding that the Gospels should probably be considered as “generally reliable.” Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. RBS 59 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 183–187, esp. 187. For earlier discussions on oral transmission see Dunn, New Perspective on Jesus; K. E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” AsJT 5 (1991): 34–54; Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript. For discussions on the role of eyewitnesses see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006); and the collection of articles written in response to Bauckham’s work by Samuel Byrskog, David Catchpole, I. Howard Marshall, Stephen J. Patterson, Theodore J. Weeden Sr., and Bauckham’s reply, in JSHJ 6.2 (2008): 131–253. 147 Note e.g. the diverse approaches of John Kloppenborg, Christopher Tucket, and Dale C. Allison Jr. John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987); John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000); John Kloppenborg, “Literary Convention, Self-Evidence and the Social History of the Q People,” Semeia 55 (1991): 77–102; Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996); and Dale C. Allison Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997). Some scholars have mined Q for clues as to the geographical provenance of a hypothetical Q community, or communities, and have proposed a Galilean provenance. See e.g. Jonathan L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 182–196; and Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 157–164. Some have attributed an antiJerusalem bias to this Q community. See e.g. John Kloppenborg, “City and Wasteland: The

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

purposes I will use The Critical Edition of Q for the sayings common to Matthew and Luke, and distinct from Mark. I will also on occasion draw on references from the special source lying behind Luke (L).148 And on occasion I will draw upon John, particularly those references which shed light on places in and around Galilee to which Jesus reportedly travelled. The Gospel of John probably emerged in its final form around the end of the first century CE. Yet although the prevailing view for nearly a century has been that John is the least reliable of the canonical Gospels, the tide is beginning to turn. A growing number of scholars are recognising the value of John for historical Jesus research.149 The results of recent archaeological excavations indicate that the narrative portions of John retain traditions that reflect a pre-70 CE Jewish Palestinian provenance.150 In fact, Paul Anderson may be correct in claiming that there is “more archaeological, topographical, and apparently historical material in John than in any other Gospel.”151 Moreover, although John may have been written Narrative World and the Beginnings of the Sayings Gospel (Q),” Semeia 52 (1990): 145– 160; and John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), 253– 271, 415. Questions have also been raised concerning Q, identification of earlier collections and a redactional layer within Q, and speculations about the theology of a Q community. See e.g. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 41–43, 48, 64; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 147– 158, 328; and Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 249–285. Moreover, since the subject of the sayings in Q was Jesus, who was active in Galilee, the clues that suggest a Galilean provenance for a Q community are the same clues that argue for a Galilean provenance for the historical Jesus. Bradley W. Root, First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources WUNT 2. Reihe 378 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 56–60. 148 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.43–44; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 160–161; Charlesworth, Historical Jesus, 36. 149 Since 2002 the John, Jesus, and History Project of SBL has assessed the historical value of the Gospel of John and published their research in the following series. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, S.J., and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Jesus and History, 3 vols. (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2007–2016). See also Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered (New York: T&T Clark, 2007); James H. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” JSHJ 8.1 (2010): 3– 46. 150 See e.g. Charlesworth, “Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel,” 16–17, 31–34, 40–46; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.53. 151 Paul N. Anderson, “Aspects of Historicity in the Gospel of John: Implications for Investigations of Jesus and Archaeology,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 587–618, esp. 587. Urban von Wahlde identifies thirteen topographical references in John that do not occur in the Synoptic Gospels, and a further seven about which John’s material has substantial archaeological support. Urban C. Von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s Gospel,” in Charlesworth, ed. Jesus and Archaeology, 523–586. John also sheds light on Jewish practices such as the use of stone vessels and pools for ritual purification (John 2.6; 9.7). Von Wahlde, “Archaeology and John’s

E. The nature of our sources

25

to complement Mark, it appears to have incorporated many independent traditions.152 Thus John can be used as an independent source for historical Jesus research. On occasion I will also refer to the Gospel of Thomas. This collection of 114 verses of sayings or logia attributed to Jesus was written in Coptic and found among the Nag Hammadi codices discovered in Egypt in 1945.153 As for the date of this document, some sayings exhibit Gnostic influence and/or appear to draw on earlier sources, such as the canonical Gospels and possibly Tatian’s Diatessaron. These factors suggest a date for this document that is later than the first century CE. However, a few second century Greek fragments of the document were found among the Oxyrhynchus papyri, indicating that the document cannot be later than the second century CE.154 Therefore the Gospel of Thomas is generally given a second century CE date. Nonetheless, it is possible that some sayings reflect independent traditions that go back to the first century CE.155

Gospel,” 523–586; Anderson, “Aspects of Historicity,” 587–618; and Charlesworth “Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel,” 3–46. 152 In the last few decades there has been a renewed case for seeing John as complementing Mark. Without denying that John had access to independent traditions, these scholars assert that John wrote in such a way as to accommodate readers who knew Mark. See e.g. Anderson, Fourth Gospel and Quest for Jesus, 48–49; and Richard Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark,” in Gospels for All Christians, ed. Richard Bauckham, 147–171. 153 The Nag Hammadi codices provide valuable information about the beliefs of early Gnostic Christian groups in Egypt, and how traditions about Jesus were received and developed. For an introduction to the Nag Hammadi codices see Christopher Tuckett, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition. Studies of the New Testament and Its World (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986); Simon J. Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 479–533; and Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.123–139. 154 P.Oxy. 1 contains sayings 26–30, 31–33, and 77; P.Oxy. 654 contains sayings 1–7; and P.Oxy. 655 contains sayings 36–40. Meier, A Marginal Jew 1.123–139. 155 John Dominic Crossan has proposed that earlier renditions of the document pre-date Mark. He places an early rendition of the Gospel of Thomas in his “First Stratum” (i.e. 30– 60 CE) of the Jesus tradition along with Q and a number of other documents, which precede the Gospel of Mark which he locates in his “Second Stratum” (60–80 CE), and Matthew and Luke in his “Third Stratum” (80–120 CE). Crossan, Historical Jesus, xxx, 427. However, although the Gospel of Thomas is a sayings source, and in that way similar to Q, it is unlikely to have been a first century CE source for the reasons outlined above.

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

III. The works of Josephus In terms of literary sources, most of what we know of first-century Palestine comes from the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and his Jewish War (henceforth War), Jewish Antiquities (henceforth Antiquities), Life, and Against Apion.156 Thus Josephus is an important source for this project. Yet debate continues over the reliability of Josephus as a historian, and the best historiographical methods to employ when investigating his work. Therefore, it is important to provide a brief review of scholarship on Josephus and outline the approach to Josephus that will be taken in this work. Most of the research conducted prior to 1980 was highly critical of Josephus as a person and a historian, and deeply sceptical of his historical reliability.157 However, in the last few decades a shift has occurred in Josephan research, with a new appreciation of the historian and his works. For the sake of simplicity, one could argue that there are currently three main approaches to Josephus, two of which are outlined in Per Bilde’s 1988 publication, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome.158 Bilde divides scholarship on Josephus into two distinct approaches. The first approach he calls the “Classical View,” which had nearly universal assent during the early half of the twentieth century. The second approach Bilde calls the “Modern Conception.”159 Essentially, those who hold to the “Classical View” see inconsistency in Josephus. The multiple contradictions between Josephus’ War, Antiquities, and Life, are understood to reflect Josephus’ shifting biases in response to changing circumstances, and his poor and sloppy use of sources. Josephus is seen as changing and developing throughout the course of his adult life. He is understood to have been in support of the First Jewish Revolt, but during the fall of Jotapata he abandoned his post and shifted his loyalties in favour of Rome.160 Thus Josephus’ War is interpreted as a work of Flavian propaganda,161 and Josephus is considered a Jewish traitor and an unreliable historian.162 Later in life he is understood to have shifted his loyalties toward a more pro-Jewish position, which is reflected in Antiquities and Life. Yet this shift is not seen as genuine. These scholars argue that Josephus was not interested in Jewish theology but wrote Antiquities and Life for self-serving 156

Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans. Primary Readings (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), xvii. 157 The achievements of over five decades of research prior to 1980 are noted in Louis Feldman’s comprehensive and critical bibliography of scholarship on Josephus. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984). 158 Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988). 159 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 173–174. 160 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 174. 161 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 177. 162 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 182–183.

E. The nature of our sources

27

purposes.163 In terms of methodology, these scholars seek to uncover Josephus’ sources and to determine the ways in which he used them and deviated from them. Simply put, they aim to separate “facts” from “fiction” in order to reconstruct a more plausible account of historical events. One current proponent of the “Classical View” is Shaye J.D. Cohen, whose detailed and meticulous analysis of Josephus’ works is an excellent example of a source-critical approach to Josephus.164 In the new approach to Josephus, which Per Bilde calls the “Modern Conception,”165 scholars focus more on Josephus as a person, historian, and author. Two proponents of this approach are Bilde himself, and Tessa Rajak whose book Josephus: The Historian and His Society sparked renewed interest in Josephus, particularly among English speaking scholars and historians of ancient Rome.166 These scholars are more inclined to see continuity where source

163

Some have argued that Josephus used his religion “as a cover-up for his treacherous desertion to the Romans,” or that he misused “Jewish messianic hope” in his prophecy to Vespasian, or that he presented a pro-Jewish persona in his Antiquities and Life to ingratiate himself with Jewish rabbinic leaders. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 175, 182–183. 164 Cohen investigates Josephus’ career in Galilee with the aim of reconstructing his involvement in the First Jewish Revolt. He notes multiple inconsistencies and contradictions between Josephus’ War and Life, and from these he examines the way in which Josephus used his sources. For example, he examines Josephus’ use of biblical sources in Antiquities, and concludes that while Josephus paraphrased the language of his sources, omitted certain episodes, changed details, and rearranged the order of events, he nonetheless preserved their contents and the overall essence of the stories. When discussing the literary relationship between War and Life, Cohen suggests that Josephus may have worked from his own source, a hypomneuma i.e. a sketch or outline of events in Galilee. He writes that Antiquities and Life retain a concern for chronology, whereas War is arranged thematically. In War, Josephus portrays himself as the ideal general in full support of the Jewish Revolt. Yet in Life, his source material is reworked and the story is altered for apologetic purposes. Josephus’ support for the revolt is suppressed in favour of a new apologetic, that the Jews initially wanted peace. Cohen accepts that Josephus became more oriented toward Judaism as he aged, but attributes this to Josephus’ apologetic interests in Life. Cohen concludes that Josephus is always tendentious, and frequently unreliable and sloppy. Cohen demonstrates the challenges and limitations of applying a source-critical approach to the Josephan corpus. Nonetheless, he attempts to reconstruct Josephus’ career in Galilee based on what he perceives to be a general historical outline and some kernels of truth. Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 24–47, 80, 160, 181–231. 165 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 175. Despite being called a “Modern Conception,” one important scholar who was perhaps ahead of his time and a forerunner of this approach was Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929). Thackeray also edited and translated books 1–4 of the Loeb edition of Josephus’ War in 1929, and books 1–4 of Josephus’ Antiquities in 1930. 166 Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth, 2002).

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

critics find contradiction.167 They are not unaware of Josephus’ tendentious and apologetic aims. However, they attempt to explain Josephus’ “inconsistencies” in terms of the distinctive nature and purpose of each work,168 and in terms of Josephus’ social standing as a Jewish aristocrat attempting to make the best of a complex and conflicting political and cultural situation, first in Galilee, and later in Rome.169 These scholars usually interpret War in the light of Life. In terms of genre, they see War as conforming to the expectations of a military Thucydidean history.170 Thus War is concerned with conflicts, uprisings, armies, fortifications, and sieges,171 and it depicts Josephus as an exemplary Jewish general, and the Jews as worthy opponents of the Roman army.172 In War the pace is quick and the material is often arranged thematically. However, in Life, Josephus had the flexibility to describe the complexities of the political situation in Galilee, and the various groups and their agendas, and to defend his actions against his opponents.173 Thus many of the details passed over or smoothed out in War, can be found in Life.174 But whereas Bilde describes Life as an autobiography, Rajak claims it was more of a defence of Josephus’ career and qualifications, which he attached to Antiquities.175 Thus Rajak argues that Josephus was not likely to “get away with outright fabrications.”176 When War and Life are considered together, what emerges is “a fusion of the two representations—the aspirations to order embodied in the War and the underlying anarchy exposed in the Life—which brings us close to grasping the real situation in Galilee. If the War shows what Josephus tried to make of things, the Life reveals how many obstacles stood in his way.”177 167

Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 176. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 178. 169 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 179. Rajak recognises that Josephus belonged to the Jewish élite. Thus to better understand his actions and motivations she compares him with similar groups and individuals in the Roman Empire known from other sources. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 5–7. 170 Rajak describes Josephus’ War as “the only complete surviving example of a Thucydidean history of a war from the early imperial period.” Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 14. 171 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 178–181. 172 In addition, details and complexities which would complicate and slow the pace of the narrative are omitted or smoothed out, and events are described in “simple, bold and almost crude terms.” Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 155–156. 173 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 178–181. 174 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 157. 175 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 12–13. 176 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 14. Rajak adds that in Life Josephus describes in detail the challenges he encountered in Galilee, he corrects earlier mistakes made in War, he provides reflections in the light of hindsight or new information, and attempts to explain and defend his actions. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 154–155. 177 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 160. 168

E. The nature of our sources

29

In terms of social standing Bilde writes, “Josephus was a wealthy aristocrat, and this position prompted him to accept the Roman presence in Palestine as a political reality.”178 It was for this reason that Josephus initially opposed the revolt against Rome, but when his efforts failed, he feigned allegiance with rebel groups in order to bring them under his control.179 He also prepared Galilee for the inevitable conflict to come, while at the same time taking steps to maintain a relationship with Agrippa II, and thereby Rome. After his surrender, Josephus worked towards “re-establishing and/or preserving the Jewish privileges and the traditional Roman policy of tolerance towards Judaism.”180 Thus Josephus is seen as remaining faithful to Judaism throughout his adult life, and his religious statements are taken seriously.181 As a historian Josephus was an eye-witness to many of the events described in War and Life. However, when writing Antiquities he was primarily dependent on written sources. While noting the limitations of source-criticism, the “Modern Conception” recognises the value of analysing the way in which Josephus reworked his biblical sources and shaped this material in Antiquities. Josephus supplemented his sources with additional information, adjusted their linguistic style and form, and attempted to entertain his readers by strengthening the “dramatic, pathetic, erotic, and short-story features in the sources.”182 Yet despite significant reworking, Josephus treated the content and important data of his sources carefully.183 In short, Josephus is increasingly recognised as a skilled historian who composed in Antiquities and War a cohesive and carefully crafted historical narrative that is accepted as generally trustworthy,184 while also conforming to the rhetorical culture and expectations of the day. The third approach can be described as a literary approach. These scholars are concerned with Josephus as an author and creative writer. An important

178

Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 179–180. Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 176. 180 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 176. 181 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 182–191. See also Rajak’s discussion of Josephus’ family, education, and formation in Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 11–45. 182 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 196. For example, in the discussion of Josephus’ account of the Gaius incident in War and Antiquities, where the Emperor Gaius “Caligula” issued an edict to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple (War 2.184–203; Ant.18.261–309), Bilde notes that in Antiquities Josephus generally retains the main sequence of events, persons, and chronology, and attempts to correct mistakes made in War, while also presenting new information. Josephus finds it difficult to be impartial and his work is tendentious, moralising, and marked with his own understanding of events, but this runs in parallel with his “nearly passionate historical interest.” Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 197. 183 Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 195–196. 184 Steve Mason, “Josephus, Jewish Antiquities,” and James S. McLaren, “Josephus, Jewish War,” in EDEJ 834–838, and 838–841 respectively. 179

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

advocate of this approach is Steve Mason,185 who has now written a new analysis of Josephus’ Jewish War using his own method.186 Mason questions the validity of source-critical approaches to Josephus which assume that narrative contradiction is the key to uncovering more reliable sources.187 The problem, he argues, is that Josephus has thoroughly reworked his sources. Josephus is “regularly ironing out conflicts, dropping doublets and other inconvenient items, rearranging sequences, and weaving his thematic threads through the whole tapestry.”188 Mason argues that Josephus was not an “inept Redactor,” but a “careful and creative writer.”189 Mason does not dismiss the value of historical investigation altogether. He argues that historians can focus on Josephus and his works as historical phenomena in their own right.190 This is his approach in A History of the Jewish War. Mason’s discussion on the nature of historiography, and his insights into Josephus as a history writer, his Roman audience and their expectations, and the rhetorical culture of the day, as well as his detailed literary analysis of Josephus’ Jewish War, are immensely valuable. Mason reminds us that we cannot expect Josephus to conform to modern expectations on history writing. “We can only try to understand his work as a product of its time.”191 However, most historians today would not want to abandon their use of Josephus as a primary source for studying first-century

185

Mason has made a significant contribution to modern research on Josephus. See e.g. Steve Mason, ed. Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003); Steve Mason, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Mason, “Josephus, Jewish Antiquities,” EDEJ 834–838; and Steve Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” RRJ 6.2– 3 (2003): 145–188. 186 Mason, Steve, A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66–74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 187 Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint,” 147. 188 Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint,” 148. 189 Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint,” 148. 190 Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint,” 187–188. This is Mason’s approach in Josephus and the New Testament and A History of the Jewish War. His conclusions about Josephus’ life and career are derived from careful analysis of Josephus’ works, including the rhetorical conventions he used, the narrative structure of his works, their main themes, and the literary devices he employed. At times Mason claims it may be impossible to deduce what really happened because an account is so rhetorically stylized or contradictory. He nonetheless brings to light many important points. For example, based on his analysis of War, he writes that Josephus sought to demonstrate that he, and the rest of the Jewish aristocracy, did all in their power to prevent war; that civil strife was part of the problem; that God or providence, rather than Titus and his armies, was the real architect behind these events; and that the Jews were not naturally prone to rebelliousness, but were nonetheless brave and resourceful in the face of war. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 69–99. 191 Mason, A History of the Jewish War, 136.

E. The nature of our sources

31

Palestine or the history of the Jewish War, simply to focus on Josephus as history writer or on his works as historical phenomena. Further along the literary scale is Horst Moehring who espouses a purely literary approach to Josephus’ historical works.192 Moehring sharply criticised Cohen for his attempt to reconstruct the career of Josephus in Galilee on the basis of Josephus’ works, stating that all such reconstructions are doomed to failure.193 He argued that it is not possible to separate “fact” from “fiction,” because “every single sentence of Josephus is determined and coloured by his aims and tendencies.”194 My approach to Josephus fits within the “Modern Conception” as applied by Bilde and Rajak. I recognise the challenges that face historians working with Josephus, and I acknowledge that at many points we have only Josephus’ interpretation of events. We cannot accept uncritically Josephus’ accounts, and we may never be able to explain some of his inconsistencies. We must reckon with his tendentious and apologetic approach, his habit of skewing details in favour of particular groups and individuals while apportioning blame to others, his tendency to attribute motives to individuals and groups that do not always tally with his sources, and his tendency towards self-aggrandisement. We must also take note of Josephus’ penchant for inflating numbers,195 and his tendency to embellish accounts. Yet for all this, there are grounds for a more positive appraisal of Josephus as a historian and creative writer. We must consider Josephus’ portrayal of events in Galilee in War and Life in terms of the genre and purpose of each work. These both constrain and help explain their contents, their style, and their differing arrangements. As noted above, War closely resembles a military Thucydidian history.196 Therefore, when Josephus arranges his material thematically, this does not mean that he has little regard for chronology. Also, when Josephus exaggerates the size of his army, or magnifies his role as a military general, this is not simply for the sake of vanity. The genre and rhetorical conventions of the day require that he provide a vivid and impressive account of the war, and shine the spotlight on its causes, its military preparations, its campaigns, and Josephus’ role as a military general. As for purpose, Josephus claims that he was compelled to write a history of the war because other accounts were ill informed and unfairly 192 See e.g. Horst R. Moehring, Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus. (Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of the Division of the Humanities, University of Chicago, 1957); and Horst R. Moehring, “Joseph Ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian,” ANRW II.21.2l (1984): 864–944, esp. 868, and 939. 193 Horst R. Moehring, “Review of Shaye Cohen’s, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian,” JJS 31 (1980): 240–241. 194 Moehring, “Review of Cohen’s, Josephus,” 240–241. 195 This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four in relation to population figures. 196 He describes the war of the Jews against the Romans as the greatest war of his time (War 1.1).

32

Chapter 1: Introduction

disparaged the Jews.197 Thus in War Josephus portrays the Jews as a noble race and formidable opponents of the Romans.198 Life on the other hand was autobiographical and apologetic—a defence of Josephus’ actions as governor of Galilee during the First Jewish Revolt. Thus we find in Life a discussion on Josephus’ heritage, the circumstances of his appointment to Galilee, and the problems he encountered there. Life depicts the complex challenges Josephus faced, although scepticism is warranted where Josephus describes his opponents and their motives. And while Josephus inflates population figures and the size of his army in War, the numbers he provides in Life tend to be more plausible.199 I agree with Rajak and Bilde that Josephus considered himself a loyal Jew, who held the law in high regard.200 This explains his knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, his prophecy to Vespasian, and his numerous references to providence or fate.201 Consideration of Josephus’ aristocratic status helps explain why he was sent to Galilee to promote peace, but ended up preparing the region for war.202 It also explains his depictions of “the mob” (τὸ πλῆθος) as being

197 Josephus claimed that these historians underestimated the size and duration of the conflict, and they diminished the accomplishment of the Romans (War 1.7–8). 198 It is true that Josephus praises the actions of certain Roman generals and governors, but this should not be interpreted as Flavian propaganda. Josephus also points out the failings of certain generals and governors, and he praises the accomplishments of Jewish fighters. See e.g. War 3.229–230; 6.147–148. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 90. 199 Population figures will be discussed further in Chapter Four. 200 War 2.119, 162–163, 166. It remains an open question as to whether Josephus remained a Pharisee throughout his adult life. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 204. Bilde argues that “Josephus’ ‘Pharisaic’ theology runs like a red thread throughout his works.” Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 182–191. Josephus notes that the Pharisees were held in high regard (Ant. 13.297–298; 18.12–15; Life 10–12). Yet he was not uncritical of the Pharisees. He claims that at times they used their influence for political ends, resorting to bribery, deceit, and murder. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 198–205. For discussions on Josephus and the Pharisees see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 202–208; Jacob Neusner, “Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1987): 274–292; and Jacob Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton, eds., In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007). 201 See e.g. Life 1–3, 10–12; Ant. 18.11–25; War 2.119–166; 3.293, 551–354, 399–408; Ag. Ap. 1.38–42. 202 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 7, 144–145; Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 176, 179–180.

E. The nature of our sources

33

easily manipulated,203 and his opponents as self-serving manipulators, rebels, innovators, or tyrants.204 Progress in archaeology has further advanced a more favourable picture of Josephus as a historian. As James McLaren writes: The various digressions, on topography and buildings, reflect an accurate knowledge of the subject matter, and many of the archaeological excavations of locations described by Josephus have affirmed the general picture of his account.205

Josephus’ knowledge of first-century Galilee and surrounding regions is vast and rich in detail.206 Many of his geographical descriptions have been supported by archaeology, and his works have enabled archaeologists to locate and identify numerous sites. Josephus’ portrayal of certain individuals in Palestine during the Early Roman I period is also important for historical Jesus studies, particularly his portrayal of Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist.207 Finally, a brief word must be said about the way Josephus uses certain cultural and ethnic terms. Josephus tends to distinguish the Jews of Palestine from other ethnic and cultural groups, such as the Greeks and the Syrians,208 but he uses these terms loosely. Josephus sometimes uses the term “Greek” in a general sense to denote people who were not Jewish.209 At other times he uses it

203 See e.g. Life 31, 103, 113, 149–151, 262–265, 381–389. Mason, Life of Josephus, 38. In one report Josephus reveals his intention to return stolen property to Ptolemy, the officer of Agrippa II, while deceiving the citizens of Tiberias and Taricheae by claiming that he intended to use the property to fortify these cities (Life 126–144). He applauds his ability to convince the people that he supported the revolt, while remaining loyal to Agrippa II. 204 Note the way he depicts Justus of Tiberias (Life 36, 40–42), John of Gischala (Life 70–73), and Judas of Gamla (Ant. 18.4, 7–9, 23; War 2.118). He also attributes the main cause of the revolt to civil strife ignited by tyrants (War 1.10). 205 James S. McLaren, “Josephus, Jewish War,” EDEJ 840. 206 Contrary to Mason’s claim, such data is not “trivial.” Mason, “Contradiction and Counterpoint,” 157, n. 63. 207 Mason, Jesus and the New Testament, 213–248. Josephus also mentions Jesus of Nazareth and James the brother of Jesus. Unfortunately, the historical value of Antiquities 18.63– 64 concerning Jesus of Nazareth is diminished due to its reworking by a later Christian scribe. Therefore I will not draw on this text, although careful analysis of the manuscript traditions, and excision of phrases that are clearly additions, reveals a text which may plausibly be attributed to Josephus. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.56–69. Cf. Mason, Jesus and the New Testament, 225–236. 208 Tessa Rajak, “The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham, vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 1–14. 209 See e.g. War 1.94; Ant. 18.257; Life 67, 74.

34

Chapter 1: Introduction

more narrowly to denote the Hellenised citizens of a city.210 The term “Syrian” on the other hand, technically applied to those living in the Roman province of Syria. However, Josephus also uses it to denote the indigenous populations of Phoenicia, the northern Golan, and the Decapolis, particularly when referring to those living in rural areas.211 For this reason Josephus claims that the territories of Agrippa II had a mixed population of Jews and Syrians.212 However, Josephus sometimes uses the term “Syrian” to denote the non-Jewish inhabitants of a city.213 Thus the term “Syrian” is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “Greek.” IV. Other Literary Sources Other literary sources will be used from time to time where they provide information pertinent to the topic at hand. Preference will be given to sources which were written close to the time of Jesus, and/or were written by authors who had knowledge of Palestine. These sources include Acts,214 Philo,215 and Greek and Roman sources such as Strabo and Pliny the Elder.216 I will also refer on occasion to rabbinic sources, for while these postdate the period under discussion, they preserve earlier traditions.217 Preference will be 210

See e.g. War 2.97. Josephus uses this term for a few prominent Gentile residents living in Tiberias (Life 67). 211 See e.g. War 2.458–462; 3.57; Life 25, 52–53, 59, 81. He also described as Syrians those who made up the auxiliary forces used to supplement the Roman army (War 1.133). 212 War 3.57. 213 Note e.g. the Syrians of Caesarea Maritima (Ant. 20.173, 184), and the Syrians of Caesarea Philippi (Life 52–53). He also sometimes describes Ptolemais, Tyre, Hippos, and Gadara as cities of Syria (War 2.477–478). 214 The date and historical reliability of Acts will be discussed where it relates to points discussed in this thesis. 215 The Jewish philosopher Philo had extensive knowledge of Palestine, including knowledge of personalities like Pontius Pilate, and groups like the Essenes. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.93. 216 The Greek geographer and historian Strabo (64/3 BCE–21 CE), travelled widely and wrote his Geography around the turn of the first century CE. He provides some important insights into the geography of Palestine and Jewish culture. Pliny the Elder wrote his Natural History during the first century CE. He provides insights into the geography and culture of Palestine and how this was perceived by a Roman nobleman. For these and other early Graeco-Roman writers see Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1. From Herodotus to Plutarch. Edited with Introductions, Translations and Commentary (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974). 217 Charlesworth, Historical Jesus, 36. For brief surveys of the rabbinic corpus and its value for historical Jesus research, see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.93–98; and Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teachings, trans. Herbert Danby (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1929), 18–54. See also Shaye J.D. Cohen, “Mishnah” and “Tosefta,” EDEJ 960–961 and 1132–1134 respectively; Christine Hayes, “Palestinian Talmud,” EDEJ 1018–1021; and Richard Kalmin, “Rabbis,” in EDEJ 1317–1318.

F. Archaeology and method

35

given to the works of the Tannaitic period. Direct references or allusions to Jesus are for the most part late, polemical, confused, and retain little that is historically valuable for this study.218 However, references to Galilee and the surrounding regions, and to Jewish practices during the Second Temple period, particularly where these are incidental to the point in question or run counter to the probable bias of the rabbi in question, can prove helpful in providing a fuller picture of life in first-century Palestine when supported by additional evidence. The historical value of some important passages will be discussed at various points.

F. Archaeology and method F. Archaeology and method

I. The value of archaeology for historical Jesus research A major contribution to this work will be the research drawn from archaeology. The analysis of structural remains and the realia of everyday life discovered through archaeology can provide valuable information about first-century Galilee and surrounding regions. Yet there is still ambivalence among many biblical scholars as to the value of archaeology, perhaps due in part to some of the mistakes of biblical archaeology in the past, or perhaps because the “discipline is foreign” to biblical scholars.219 William Dever is correct when he states that biblical archaeology is not really a discipline in and of itself. It is rather an “inquiry between two disciplines—archaeology and biblical studies—a dialogue at the intersection of text and artefact.”220 Archaeology and New Testament scholarship are distinct disciplines, asking different questions and using different sources and methods to discover and reconstruct the past.221 The distinction between the two disciplines must be maintained. This is perhaps the primary lesson learned from biblical archaeology over the last century.222 218

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.95. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective,” in Charlesworth, ed. Jesus and Archaeology, 24. 220 William G. Dever, “Does ‘Biblical Archaeology’ Have a Future,” in Thomas E. Levy, ed. Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: A New Pragmatism (London: Equinox, 2010), 350. John McRay makes a similar point in Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1991), 20. 221 There are also differences in the way that New Testament scholars and historians approach ancient sources, and in the methods and terminology they use. It was to foster greater understanding between New Testament scholars and historians that Beth M. Sheppard wrote, The Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament. RBS 60 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). 222 Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt. SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 184. 219

36

Chapter 1: Introduction

Archaeology has its own terminology and methodology.223 Since the rise of the New Archaeology, or Processual Archaeology, anthropological questions tend to govern the field.224 Archaeologists seek to answer social and cultural questions about such things as family and community organisation, and trade and economic structures. And material remains are viewed as the result of complex environmental and ecological processes over long periods of time.225 Archaeologists have also welcomed advances in science and technology. They make use of such technologies as Ground Penetrating Radar, Radiocarbon dating, aerial and satellite photography, petrographic analysis, neutron-activation analysis, and DNA analysis, and it is not uncommon to find experts in geology, zooarchaeology, anthropology, and paleoethnobotany, working alongside archaeologists.226 Nonetheless, archaeology is still a study of the past through the discovery and analysis of material remains i.e. human “material culture.”227 While New Testament scholars and historians critically examine texts, and archaeologists study artefacts, both seek to discover and understand the past. It is at the point of historical inquiry that archaeology can be brought into conversation with New Testament scholarship. In fact, Anthony Frendo argues that archaeology and history are really two sides of the same coin,228 even though “archaeological and textual analyses” must be conducted separately, according to the rules of each discipline, before the resulting interpretations are brought together and compared.229 It is only then that we can seek to learn “as much as possible about a possible connection between material culture and the text.”230

223 Avraham Biram, “What is Biblical Archaeology,” in Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, 2. 224 John D. Currid, Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible: A Basic Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 17. 225 Shlomo Bunimovitz and Avraham Faust, “Re-constructing Biblical Archaeology: Toward an Integration of Archaeology and the Bible,” in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, ed. Thomas E. Levy (London: Equinox, 2010), 45. 226 Eric H. Cline, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 132–133; and McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament, 20–22. 227 Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 7. 228 Anthony J. Frendo, Pre-Exilic Israel, The Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 10, 25. 229 Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel: Integrating Text and Artefact, 28; see also 27, 81 & 98. Aren Maeir, “Stones, Bones, Texts and Relevance: Or, How I Lost my Fear of Biblical Archaeology and Started Enjoying It,” in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, ed. Thomas E. Levy (London: Equinox, 2010), 300; and Finkelstein and Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel, 184. 230 This is also the approach of Richard A. Freund, Digging through the Bible: Understanding Biblical People, Places, and Controversies through Archaeology (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).

F. Archaeology and method

37

In this work I will endeavour to maintain the integrity of both disciplines, analysing the two types of evidence separately, before bringing the results into conversation. In this way, both archaeology and New Testament scholarship can become sources for historical inquiry. In the words of Kevin McGeough: We should try to understand how the differences and similarities in the evidence can make sense together. By using as many types of evidence as we can and treating this evidence with the academic rigour expected of different fields of study, we then have access to multiple, potentially intersecting but rarely identical approaches to understanding the Biblical past.231

When the results of research from both fields are brought together in dialogue, archaeology can complement the picture we gain from literary sources, contribute to a fuller picture of the world within which historical persons lived, and sometimes provide a helpful corrective.232 Archaeology can never prove a historian’s hypothesis, or prove the historicity of events as they are recorded in literary sources. But archaeology can refute a hypothesis, and it can indicate whether a hypothesis is plausible. Archaeology can also fill in some of the gaps in our literary sources. Excavations of Early Roman I period strata can provide valuable insight into Jesus’ historical and cultural context,233 and shed light on some of the more ambiguous or debated aspects of Jesus’ teaching and practice. It is for reasons such as this that historical Jesus research “is becoming increasingly influenced by archaeological research.”234 R. Alan Culpepper is correct when he writes that “The importance of archaeology for understanding Jesus’ setting is now beyond question, and the dialogue between Jesus scholars and archaeologists, now rigorous, will continue as new discoveries are made and the methods employed are refined.”235 Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz have argued that due to the limited topographical information in the canonical Gospels, it is no longer possible to reconstruct the places to which Jesus travelled or the routes he may have taken.236 To a certain degree this is still the case. However, as a result of archaeological surveys in Galilee, it is now evident that there may have been as many as 200 towns and villages in the region during the Early Roman I period.237 Moreover, 231 Kevin McGeough, “Should Archaeology be used as a Source of Testable Hypotheses about the Bible?” BAR 38.5 (2012): 64. 232 McGeough, “Archaeology as a Source of Testable Hypotheses,” 28. 233 Cline, Biblical Archaeology, 3. Charlesworth is correct when he states that “the archaeological evidence now available for reconstructing Jesus’ time is not only abundant; it is impressive.” Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology,” 55. 234 Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology,” 26. 235 R. Alan Culpepper, “The Galilee Quest: The Historical Jesus and the Historical Galilee,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 45.2 (2018): 221. 236 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 168. 237 This will be discussed in Chapter Four.

38

Chapter 1: Introduction

it is becoming increasingly evident that the vast majority of the population in Galilee at that time was Jewish.238 These results have a direct bearing on the itinerant ministry of Jesus. They suggest, as this work will show, that Mark’s depiction of Jesus travelling among the towns and villages of Galilee, and teaching in their synagogues, is historically plausible.239 II. Archaeology and methodology There are a few things to note when working with archaeological data. First, all archaeological data is provisional and fragmentary. There is always more to discover. This sometimes requires that archaeologists adjust or correct earlier interpretations.240 All the sites mentioned in this work have been surveyed, but many have not been excavated. Others are in the process of being excavated. Thus, while I have tried to be as up to date as possible, some of the data provided here may soon be out of date. Second, as with literary sources, archaeological data is interpreted. Archaeologists begin with questions and these inform their research design, their rationale, the procedures and methods they employ, and what they hope to achieve. The initial questions influence what they expect to find. The important thing for archaeologists is not to insist on a specific answer, but to be flexible and allow the data to inform, and if necessary, reframe the questions.241 Inevitably, the data will also raise new questions. The more we discover, the more our understanding of the past is informed. This in turn enables us to engage in a process of self-correction.242 There will be times when the data is ambiguous, or the record we have from historical sources does not tally with the archaeological record and we are left with unanswered questions. Sometimes the data requires that we re-think our interpretation of the literary sources. Artefacts must be interpreted in the light of their typology, regional context, and stratigraphy, and excavators must beware of forcing data to conform to biblical or rabbinic expectations,243 or manipulating data to support hypotheses or political agendas. Conflicting and inconvenient data must be acknowledged and where possible explained.244

238

This will be discussed further below, and in Chapters Two and Three. This will be discussed further in Chapters Two to Four. 240 Carl E. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida: An Archaeological Study of the First Century (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2011), 9. 241 Thomas W. Davis, Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 151–152. 242 Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel: Integrating Text and Artefact, 59. 243 For example, there has been debate as to whether certain stepped pools were mikva‘ot or simply baths, because they do not conform to rabbinic standards. Mikva‘ot will be discussed further in Chapters Two and Three. 244 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 12. 239

F. Archaeology and method

39

Another requirement is that strata be carefully distinguished,245 since “stratigraphic excavation constitutes the backbone of serious archaeological research.”246 Careful distinction of strata is vital in regions like Galilee where the boundaries fluctuated over time and the population changed. Until the last few decades of the twentieth century, material finds from Hellenistic and Roman period strata in Galilee were generally combined, resulting in a picture of a cosmopolitan and ethnically mixed population. Since then significant effort has been made to distinguish Late Hellenistic, Early Roman, and Middle Roman period strata.247 This has resulted in a more nuanced and accurate picture of settlement history, recognition of shifts in the material culture over time, and greater clarity into the material culture of sites during the time of Jesus. A significant portion of this work will focus on the ethnicity of the Galileans, and those living in surrounding regions. This falls under the sub-category known as “the archaeology of difference” or “the archaeology of ethnicity.”248 “The archaeology of ethnicity” observes differences in material culture between loci and strata, and across sites and regions. It can help “distinguish between different ethnic groups and religions, based on their preference for or avoidance of certain elements of material culture—so-called ethnic markers.”249 There is considerable debate as to whether archaeology can be used to identify specific ethnic groups. Indeed, using material culture to determine ethnicity is fraught with difficulties. For instance, ethnicity is not the same as culture, and a society may have one culture but be comprised of more than one ethnic group.250 In addition, the material culture of one ethnic group can over time become assimilated to that of another ethnic group living in the same region.251 Nonetheless, there are cases where the material culture can reveal the presence of a particular ethnic group. As this work will show, the material 245

Sometimes later activity at a site can disturb earlier strata, resulting in loci with mixed remains. This complicates the process of interpretation. However, even where mixed contexts occur, if excavators find identifiable remains such as diagnostic ceramic fragments, coins, and stamped amphora handles, one can draw from these material remains insights into the population at the site and its settlement history. 246 Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel: Integrating Text and Artefact, 61. Stratigraphic “excavation of a site involves peeling off the soil layers in the reverse order to that in which they were laid down, all the while keeping each layer separate (viewed as such on the basis of texture and colour) from another.” Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel: Integrating Text and Artefact, 61. 247 This has been assisted by the identification of pre-70 CE pottery forms and Jewish identity markers in the destruction layer at Jotapata/Yodefat and Gamla. Jewish identity markers will be discussed in Chapter Two. 248 Danny Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. NSR 11 (Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society, 2015), 18, 87–88. 249 Syon, Small Change, 87. 250 Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, 11. 251 Frendo, Pre-exilic Israel, 11.

40

Chapter 1: Introduction

culture of those living in Galilee and the central Golan during the Early Roman I period corresponds so closely to that of sites in Judea during the same period, and differs so markedly from the majority of sites in the predominantly nonJewish regions surrounding them, that an increasing number of scholars now recognise the value of such studies for identifying Jewish areas of settlement and for better understanding first-century Galilee. Finally, I am not a trained archaeologist, although I have taken part in three seasons of excavation at Bethsaida under the direction of Dr Rami Arav. Therefore, I will for the most part take the approach employed by Mark Chancey in his monograph, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee.252 I will rely predominantly on the published works of archaeologists and/or field reports, and will usually follow their interpretations as to the date, identification, and function of particular artefacts and structures, unless the evidence for this is questionable. Where there is disagreement about the interpretation of data, I will note this, and where possible provide my own interpretation. I will also refer the reader to some important studies published in Hebrew, and will draw on English summaries of Hebrew works, and information presented in charts and maps in Hebrew. In terms of chronology, my focus will be on the stratum and finds from the Early Roman I period i.e. between 63 BCE and 70 CE. In terms of geographical area, my focus will be on Galilee and surrounding regions, and on the numerous settlements in these regions.253 I will also note some of the important trade routes through these regions, and the harbour facilities around the Sea of Galilee.

G. Establishing a historical framework G. Establishing a historical framework

I. “Almost indisputable facts” This project is concerned with Jesus’ journeys throughout Galilee and surrounding regions, particularly as depicted in Mark. It is, therefore, primarily concerned with actions of Jesus. On occasion we will investigate a saying of Jesus which points to his itinerant ministry or locates him in a particular place, but for the most part this work will focus on what Jesus did. When conducting such work, Sanders proposed that “one should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points.”254 He identified several “almost 252 Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 118 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 8. 253 I will include New Israeli Grid (NIG) coordinates for sites in those regions which have been surveyed and documented under “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” on the Israel Antiquities Authority website, where these are accessible, particularly the lesser known sites in the Golan. http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 254 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), 3.

G. Establishing a historical framework

41

indisputable facts” about Jesus,255 which could provide a historical framework from which to assess the plausibility of other activities and sayings of Jesus. By beginning with a historical framework, we can better assess the plausibility of Jesus’ journeys as depicted in Mark 1.14–8.30, and also suggest some plausible reasons for why Jesus conducted an itinerant form of ministry, and why he extended the geographical scope of this beyond Galilee to the regions round about.256 The “almost indisputable facts” identified by Sanders which are most relevant to this work are as follows: that “Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist,” that he was “a Galilean who preached and healed,” that he “called disciples and spoke of there being twelve,” that he “confined his activity to Israel,” and that he “was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.”257 For the most part, historical Jesus scholars agree with these “almost indisputable facts” of Sanders, although some would want to qualify or nuance some of them. Wright produced a similar list of activities of Jesus, as a “necessary starting point for further investigation,”258 and added the following actions which are also relevant to this work: that Jesus journeyed around the villages of Galilee, he summoned people to repent, he announced the kingdom of God,259 and he had an inner group of twelve disciples.260 These points will be discussed briefly below, because they support the overall picture of Jesus directing his mission to Israel. In fact, it is widely accepted by historical Jesus scholars, and convincingly argued by Wright, that Jesus was recognised as a prophet to Israel.261 In an essay titled “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” Craig Evans agreed with the approach taken by Sanders and Wright to establish a historical framework from which one could assess the plausibility of other activities and 255

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. It should be noted that Sanders was not the first scholar to establish a historical framework of fairly secure events in the life of Jesus, from which to investigate further the actions and sayings of Jesus. See e.g. Leon Defour, who established a basic chronological framework of events from within which he could order other events in the life of Jesus. Xavier Léon-Dufour S.J., The Gospels and the Jesus of History, trans. John McHugh (New York: Image Books, 1970), 236–242. 257 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. 258 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147–148. 259 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147. 260 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 299–300. 261 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147–197; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 240–280; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 655–664; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 41–46; Richard Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012); and Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 44–52. See also Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 276. Some scholars during the early half of the twentieth century also held this view. See e.g. Maurice Goguel, The Life of Jesus, trans. Olive Wyon (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1933), 309. 256

42

Chapter 1: Introduction

sayings of Jesus.262 Evans also agreed with the probable facts proposed by Sanders and Wright, but argued that they need to be clarified before application.263 Like Wright, Evans also considered it “highly probable” that Jesus was perceived by the public to be a prophet,264 and that he appointed “twelve” disciples.265 These generally recognised activities of Jesus can serve as a “plausible framework” from which to assess other details of Jesus’ ministry.266 It is not necessary here to discuss in detail all of the probable “facts” listed by Sanders, Wright, and Evans. This has been adequately covered by these authors. However, it is important to consider the significance of some of these “facts” for understanding Jesus’ itinerant ministry to Israel.267 II. Jesus’ baptism by John and its significance for Jesus’ ministry Jesus’ baptism by John, which is generally accepted by historical Jesus scholars,268 is significant for what it tells us about Jesus. It suggests that Jesus agreed with John and with what John set out to achieve.269 John the Baptist issued a 262 Craig A. Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 3–29. 263 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 5. 264 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 5. 265 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 10–11. 266 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 28. 267 In this work, given its focus on Jesus’ itinerant ministry in and around Galilee during the Early Roman I period, the word “Israel” will be virtually synonymous with Jews/Jewish people (’Ιουδαίοι). See the discussion below. 268 Jesus’ baptism by John is accepted by most historical Jesus scholars because it satisfies the criterion of embarrassment and is multiply attested (Mark 1.9; Matt. 3.13–16; Luke 3.21; the Gospel of the Ebionites, 4, quoted by Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7–9; and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, 2, quoted by Jerome, Dialogi contra Pelagianos 3.2). The last two references are probably dependent on the canonical Gospels, but illustrate the increased measures taken to minimise the embarrassment posed by Jesus’ baptism by John. For the texts of these documents see James K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); or A.F.J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, VCSup 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 70, 102–103. For further discussion on Jesus’ baptism by John, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 5, 91–93; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.100–105; Taylor, The Immerser, 4–5, 262–263; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 6–7; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 175–176; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 31–33; Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 44–45; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 350–351; Charlesworth, Historical Jesus, 76–77; Robert L. Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism by John: Its Historicity and Significance,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 95–150; and Joachim Jeremias, The Proclamation of Jesus, vol. 1 of New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1971), 45. 269 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 7; Taylor, The Immerser, 314–316.

G. Establishing a historical framework

43

summons to Israel to repent, and to demonstrate this change of heart by baptism.270 That his call was directed to Israel is indicated by a Q saying in which John identifies the people as “sons of Abraham.”271 John’s message also had an eschatological focus, warning people of imminent judgement.272 Thus in the words of Sanders, John the Baptist was “an eschatological prophet of repentance.”273 Jesus’ baptism by John indicates his support for John and his message.274 Moreover, according to Mark, Jesus did not set out for Galilee until after John was arrested,275 and his message began where John left off i.e. with a call to Israel to repent (μετανοεῖτε).276 In the parallel account in Matthew, the words of Jesus are identical to those of John the Baptist: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν).277 Of course, Matthew may have shaped these words, but it is unlikely that he invented them, for he attributed to John the Baptist the proclamation of the 270 Mark 1.4. Other prophets in Israel’s tradition had issued a similar call for repentance, though without the added component of baptism. See e.g. Isa. 44.22; 55.7; Hos. 3.5; 6.1; 14.2; Jer. 3.12, 14, 22; Ez. 18.30. Thus, John was bringing a prophetic critique from within. For a discussion of John’s message of repentance see Taylor, The Immerser, 106–112; cf. C.H. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity (London: William Collins Sons, 1971), 87–88. 271 Q 3.8 [Matt 3.8–9; Luke 3.8]). 272 Q 3.7–17 (Matt 3.7–12; Luke 3.7–9, 16–17). Taylor, The Immerser, 132–149; and Dale C. Allison, Jr, “The Continuity Between John and Jesus,” JSHJ 1.1 (2003): 16–22. 273 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 92. For a discussion on John, his message, and his baptism see Taylor, The Immerser, 49–259; Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism by John,” 95–150; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.19–23, 174; Dunn, Jesus’ Remembered, 362–364; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 165–177; Bruce Chilton, “John the Baptist,” EHJ 339–342; Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, 121–122; and Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 43–46. For a discussion on Josephus’ account of John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116–119), see Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.21; Taylor, The Immerser, 213, 238–241; Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism by John,” 119, 128–132; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.174; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 377–379; Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 160–166; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 166–168; and Knut Backhaus, “Echoes from the Wilderness: The Historical John the Baptist,” in Holmén and Porter, Handbook, 2.1780; and Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 213–225. 274 Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism by John,” 135; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.19–23, 116–123, 129; Taylor, The Immerser, 261–299; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 7–8. In fact, some argue on the basis of John 3.22, that Jesus also baptised people. Graham H. Twelftree, “Jesus the Baptist,” JSHJ 7 (2009): 103–125; Taylor, The Immerser, 297–299; and Joan Taylor and Federico Adinolfi, “John the Baptist and Jesus the Baptist: A Narrative Critical Approach,” JSHJ 10.3 (2012): 247–284. 275 Mark 1.14. 276 Mark 1.15. Taylor, The Immerser, 295; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 350–353; Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.219–221; Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, 88. For a discussion on the continuity between John and Jesus see Allison, “Continuity Between John and Jesus,” 6–27; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 31–33; and Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.100–177. 277 Compare Matt. 4.17 with Matt. 3.1.

44

Chapter 1: Introduction

kingdom of God, a point that is otherwise omitted by the evangelists. Thus, Matthew and Mark have almost certainly captured the essence of Jesus’ message in this summary statement. Jesus began his ministry by “repeating more or less what John had been saying, after John’s own voice had been silenced.”278 III. A prophet with a message for Israel Jesus began his public ministry to Israel by announcing the kingdom of God and like John the Baptist, calling people to repent.279 Some scholars have questioned whether Jesus called people to repent,280 even though the concept is multiply attested.281 Sanders argued that Jesus offered tax collectors and sinners inclusion in his kingdom “not only while they were still sinners but also without requiring repentance as normally understood.”282 But it is important to note Sander’s qualification here. In his discussion on the charge that Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners, Sanders argued that for the truly wicked, Jesus offered them inclusion in his group without requiring that they offer a sacrifice for their sins or make restitution.283 Thus as Wright argues, Sanders was “right to see that Jesus did not ask for repentance in the normal sense, but was wrong to deny that he asked for it at all.”284 Like John the Baptist, and the prophets before him, Jesus was calling Israel to turn back to God. As Dunn rightly notes, behind the Greek word μετανοεῖτε: 278

Taylor, The Immerser, 295. Mark 1.14–15. 280 See e.g. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 106–113; and 204–211. Funk and the Jesus Seminar also discount the claim that Jesus called people to repent, arguing that Jesus’ proclamation in Mark 1.15 is embedded in a Markan summary statement and reflects the concerns of the early church. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 40. The Jesus Seminar are correct to note that repentance was a concern of the early church, but, as we have seen, it did not originate with the early church. Moreover, the placement of Jesus’ proclamation in a Markan summary statement, does not necessitate that it is inauthentic to the historical Jesus. As Dale Allison affirms, “Jesus contributed as much to Mark 1.15 as did the evangelist.” Dale C. Allison, Jr. “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” in Holmén and Porter, Handbook, 1.14. It is possible that in rejecting Jesus’ call to repentance, the Jesus Seminar are attempting to correct a caricature of Judaism as being overly legalistic. This caricature of Judaism led some older commentators on Mark 1.15 to misinterpret Jesus’ call to repentance as a call to individuals to stop trying to get right with God on the basis of the Jewish law. See the discussion in Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 247–248. 281 See e.g. Mark 1.15; 6.12; Matt. 4.17; Q 10.13 (Matt 11.21; Luke 10.13); Q 11.32 (Matt 12.41; Luke 11.32); Luke 15.17–20; and 18.13–14. 282 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 206. 283 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 204–211. Sanders also rejected the caricature of Judaism as being overly legalistic. 284 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 248. 279

G. Establishing a historical framework

45

lies the much more radical Hebrew/Aramaic term šub/tub, ‘to go back again, return’. This was more effectively translated in the LXX by the Greek epistrephō, with the same meaning. This enables us to recognize that the Baptist and Jesus were in effect calling for a ‘return to the Lord’, in echo of a constant refrain in their Scriptures, particularly the prophets.285

Historical Jesus scholars generally accept that Jesus announced the kingdom of God,286 although some have questioned whether Jesus understood this in apocalyptic terms. The language of Mark 1.15 is very similar to two Aramaic Targums on Isaiah which can be translated, “The kingdom of your God is revealed” (‫)אתגליאת מלכותא דאלחכון‬.287 This differs from the Masoretic Text of Isaiah which reads “Here is your God” (‫)הנה אלהיכם‬,288 and “Your God reigns” (‫)מלך אלהיך‬.289 It seems likely, therefore, that Mark 1.15 is not simply a Markan construction, but that it captures in Greek the essence of Jesus’ proclamation in Aramaic, particularly given that the concept of the kingdom of God is not well attested in the early church.290 Jesus’ proclamation in Mark 1.15 also comes with a sense of urgency. “The time is fulfilled” (πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς) and “the kingdom of God is near” (ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ).291 It appears that like John the Baptist, Jesus believed Israel was on the cusp of a new era, and that the response of the people to his message was crucial in determining how the future would unfold.292 Repentance was “what Israel must do if YHWH is to restore her fortunes at last.”293 Thus Jesus’ message, like that of John the Baptist, had an

285

Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 499, 506. See also Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 247; and Allison, “Continuity Between John and Jesus,” 18. 286 See e.g. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 198–474; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.237–506; Freyne, Jewish Galilean, 136–143; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 383–487; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 246–280; Christopher Marshall, Kingdom Come: The Kingdom of God in the Teachings of Jesus (Auckland, NZ: Impetus, 1993). 287 Tg. Isa. 40.9; Tg. Isa. 52.7. See Bruce D. Chilton, “Regnum Dei Deus Est,” SJT 31 (1978): 267; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 9, n.13. For a recent argument for the validity of comparing the Targumim with the New Testament see Bruce Chilton, “Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison,” AS 11 (2013): 225– 251. 288 Isa. 40.9. 289 Isa. 52.7. 290 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.238–239. 291 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.207, 210–212. 292 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 503–505. 293 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 249. Cf. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 152. Jeremias also argued that Jesus’ message of repentance was crucial and carried a sense of urgency, although he defined repentance in more individualistic terms that included an affirmation of guilt, a turning away from sin, and as trusting like a child “in the grace of God.” Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 153, 156.

46

Chapter 1: Introduction

eschatological dimension, and it explains in part why Jesus was perceived to be a prophet to Israel,294 and why he confined his activity to Israel.295 Although some scholars argue that Mark depicts Jesus inaugurating a mission to the Gentiles,296 few historical Jesus scholars today think that Jesus engaged in a mission to the Gentiles.297 Yet until recently, a number of scholars argued that Galilee had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, and that Jesus probably had significant contact with Gentiles.298 This picture of Galilee is no longer credible.299 The Synoptic Gospels note that Jesus did on occasion encounter a Gentile, and did respond to their requests for help.300 Jesus also held up certain Gentiles as models of faith,301 and he may have foreseen the eventual inclusion of the Gentiles among the people of God.302 Luke also records that during Jesus’

294 Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 9. The crowds, Herod Antipas, and others identify Jesus as a prophet (Mark 6.14–15; 8.28; Matt. 14.1–2; 21.10–11, 46; Luke 7.16; 24.19; John 4.19). Others question whether he is a prophet (Luke 7.39; Mark 14.65; Matt. 26.68). Jesus implies that he is a prophet when he responds to the people in his hometown with the words, “A prophet is not without honour except in his home town” (Mark 6.4; cf. Matt. 13.57; Luke 4.24; John 4.44; and GTh 31.1). A Q tradition also records Jesus saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!” Q 13.34 [Matt. 23.37; Luke 13.34]. See Wright’s discussion in Jesus and the Victory of God, 162–197. 295 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. 296 See e.g. K.R. Iverson, “Gentiles,” DJG 302–303; Collins, Mark, 364; and France, Gospel of Mark, 294–295. 297 One exception is Eckhard Schnabel. He notes that some of the summary statements indicate that Jesus attracted people from predominantly Gentile regions, and he argues that after Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman, he expanded his mission to include the Gentiles. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.329–340. Unfortunately, while Jesus did continue to travel through predominantly Gentile regions, there is little evidence to support Eckhard’s claim. 298 This will be discussed further in Chapters Two and Three. See e.g. Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 33, 79; Burton Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993), 51–68. On this basis some have argued that Jesus modelled his ministry on the practice of cynic philosophers. See e.g. F. Gerald Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), and Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992); and Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 421. There were exceptions to this. For example, Goguel considered Galilee to be a Jewish region, and argued that Jesus confined his ministry to the Jews. Goguel, Life of Jesus, 321–322. 299 This will be discussed in detail in Chapters Two and Three. 300 See e.g. Mark 7.24–30; Matt. 8.5–13; 15.28; Luke 7.1–10. 301 See e.g. Q 7.9 (Matt. 8.10–11; Luke 7.9); Q 11.31–32 (Matt. 12.41–42; Luke 11.31– 32); and Matt. 15.28. 302 See e.g. Mark 7.27; Matt. 8.11; 28.18–20.

G. Establishing a historical framework

47

journey to Jerusalem he widened the scope of his ministry to include Samaritans.303 However, there is no clear evidence that Jesus set out to minister to Gentiles. Certainly, Mark says that Jesus travelled through predominantly Gentile regions, and he does record on occasion that Jesus encountered a Gentile, but nowhere does he state that Jesus’ purpose was to minister to Gentiles. Jesus appears to have confined his ministry to Israel.304 Even in the predominantly Gentile region of Tyre where, according to Mark, Jesus encountered a Syro-Phoenician woman, Jesus indicates that his primary objective was to meet the needs of his own people.305 In Matthew, Jesus states explicitly what is implied in Mark, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”306 Thus many historical Jesus scholars accept that Jesus’ ministry was directed towards Israel.307 This is further indicated by Jesus’ selection of twelve envoys (ἀπóστολοι) to share in his mission.308 As an itinerant prophet to Israel, Jesus would want his message to reach as many of his people as possible. The mission of the twelve could help him achieve this. According to Mark, Jesus gave these ἀπóστολοι specific instructions and sent them out to the towns and villages of Galilee.309 In Matthew, Jesus adds that they are not to go to the Gentiles or to the Samaritans, but only to the “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”310 This is unlikely to have been a Matthean innovation for it runs counter to the missionary activity of the early church and the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s Gospel.311 Moreover, it is also noteworthy that Jesus chose twelve disciples to make up this inner group, and not ten or fifteen or some other number.312 The 303 Luke 9.51–52; 17.11–16. Cf. John 4.39–41. While Jesus’ ministry among Samaritans is worth investigation, these encounters are depicted geographically south of Galilee. Therefore, they fall outside of the limits of this work, which is focused on Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the north, particularly as depicted in Mark. 304 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11, 218–219; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 11; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 537–539; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 300; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 315, 415–416. 305 See Mark 7.27. This will be discussed in Chapter Seven. 306 Matt. 15.24. 307 See e.g. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 506–511; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 11; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.315; 3.148–154; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 300; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 49. 308 Mark 6.30; Matt. 10.2. In Mark they are sometimes simply referred to as the twelve. See e.g. Mark 6.7; 10.32; and 14.20. 309 Mark 6.6b–13; Matt. 10.1–8. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.154–163. 310 Matt. 10.5–6. While the Samaritans may have traced their ancestry back to the ancient Israelites, it seems that Jesus’ understanding of ‘the house of Israel,’ as indicated by Matthew, applied only to the Jews (’Ιουδαίοι). See discussion on Jews and Judaism below. 311 Matt. 28.18–20. Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 11. 312 Meier has made a strong case for the historical probability that there was an inner circle of twelve among Jesus disciples. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.125–197. See also John P. Meier,

48

Chapter 1: Introduction

appointment of twelve was almost certainly intended to symbolise the twelve tribes of Israel.313 Some of the literature of the Second Temple period expresses a hope for the ingathering of the twelve tribes and the renewal or restoration of Israel.314 Jesus’ selection of twelve ἀπóστολοι, and the Q statement that the twelve would sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel,315 strongly suggests that Jesus shared this hope. While there is debate among scholars as to which individuals constituted this group of twelve, most accept that there was probably an inner circle of twelve.316 Thus, Jesus’ baptism by John, his proclamation of the kingdom of God, his call to Israel to return to God, and his appointment of an inner group of twelve ἀπóστολοι, strongly indicates that Jesus saw his movement as working towards the renewal or restoration of Israel.317 But what do we mean by the term “Israel” in this context, and who were the people that Jesus sought to reach? IV. Israel, Jews, and Judeans By the Early Roman I period, the term “Jew/Judean” (’Ιουδαίος) was virtually synonymous with the term “Israelite” (’Ισραηλίτης) when used by Jews (’Ιουδαίος),318 though it should be noted that the Samaritans also referred to

“The Circle of the Twelve: Did it Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?” JBL 116 (1997): 635–672. The appointment of twelve is multiply attested (Mark 6.6b–13; Q 22.28–30 [Matt. 19.28; Luke 22.28–30]; 1 Cor. 15.5), and it is rendered plausible by the embarrassing claim that one of the twelve betrayed Jesus (Mark 14.43–46; Matt. 26.47–49; 27.3–10; Luke 22.47–48; John 18.1–5; Acts 1.18). Such a claim is unlikely to have been invented. 313 See Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.148–154; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 10–11; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 507–510. 314 See e.g. Isa. 60.1–4; Jer. 31.1–21; Ezek. 20.39–42; Tob. 13.1–10 [13.1–12]; Bar. 5.5– 9; Sir. 36.1–17 [36.1–17]; 48.10; 2 Macc. 1.27; Pss. Sol. 11.2–7; 17.26–32. According to the War Scroll from Qumran, the names of the twelve tribes of Israel would be written on a military banner and a shield during the eschatological battle (1QM 3.13–14; 5.1–2). 315 Q 22.28–30 (Matt. 19.28; Luke 22.28–30). In the reconstruction of Q by Robinson et al., the reference to the twelve tribes is retained, but the reference to “twelve” thrones is omitted. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q, 558–561. 316 See e.g. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11, 98–106; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 299–300; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 507–511; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 10; Freyne, Jesus Movement, 140–142. 317 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98–106; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 300; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 510; Evans, “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus,” 10–11; Keener, The Historical Jesus, 246–247; Seán Freyne, The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 140–143. Horsley sees Jesus as a prophet seeking the renewal of Israelite society and non-violent opposition to Rome and the rulers of Israel. Horsley, Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 79–94, 111–157. 318 L. Novakovic, “Israel,” DJG 403; Root, First Century Galilee, 60, 147–148.

G. Establishing a historical framework

49

themselves as Israelites.319 Among the Jews (’Ιουδαίοι) the term “Israelite” (’Ισραηλίτης) tended to be an “insider self-designation,”320 whereas “Jew/Judean” (’Ιουδαῖος) was generally used by Jews when speaking to outsiders, or was used by outsiders when speaking to or about Jews. Therefore, when I speak of Jesus being a prophet to Israel, I mean essentially that his mission was to the Jews (’Ιουδαίοι) living in and around Judea and Galilee in the first century CE. There is currently debate over whether the term ’Ιουδαίοι should be translated “Jews” or “Judeans.” What is important to note here is that the term ’Ιουδαίοι during the Graeco-Roman period was an ethnic designation.321 It was the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yehudim, meaning the people of Yehudah.322 Josephus writes that the name ’Ιουδαίοι was derived from the tribe of Judah, was associated with the land of Judah, and was the name by which they were called since they came up out of Babylon.323 The ’Ιουδαίοι were an ethnic

319

The Delos synagogue inscription demonstrates that the Samaritans believed they were Israelites, sharing in a common heritage with the Jews. See Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritanism,” EDEJ 1186–1187. See also Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 64–69. Josephus acknowledges that the Samaritans claimed to be descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh (Ant. 11.341). Doron Mendel’s analysis of some of the literature of the Second Temple period reveals that the Hasmoneans and Samaritans were engaged in a propaganda war concerning their Israelite heritage and the land of Israel during the second century BCE. Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). Since this work is concerned primarily with the Gospel of Mark and Jesus’ itinerancy in the north, any engagement between Jesus and the Samaritans falls outside its purview. Though it should be noted that according to Luke, when Jesus was heading south towards Jerusalem, he did send his disciples ahead of him to the villages of Samaria (Luke 9.52–53). 320 See e.g. Matt. 9.33; 10.6; 15.24, 31; Mark 15.32; Luke 1.54, 68; 2.32, 34; 24.21; Q 7.9 Matt. 8.10; Luke 7.9); John 1.31, 47; Acts 2.22; 3.12; 5.35; 2 Cor. 11.22–23. The point about the term “Israelite” being an insider designation, is rightly made by John Elliot, although he goes on to argue that the Galileans, and Jesus, were not Jews. This will be discussed in Chapter Two. John H. Elliot, “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5.2 (2007): 123, 139. 321 Steve Mason, A History of the Jewish War A.D. 66–74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 88–91; John Barclay Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE –117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 402; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 24. The usage of ’Ιουδαίοι as an ethnic designation is borne out by the writings of Jews and non-Jews in the Early Roman period. See e.g. Josephus (Ant. 20.17, 38, 41, 75, 139); Strabo (Geogr. 16.2.2); Philo (Spec. Laws 2.163, 166; 4.179, 224); and the second century CE philosopher Celsus (Origen, Contr. Cels. 25.5). For further reading on whether ’Ιουδαῖος should be translated Jew or Judean, see Marginalia Review of Books: http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/. 322 Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 460. 323 Ant.11.173. Tessa Rajak, “The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus,” in Bauckham, Acts in its Palestinian Setting, 10.

50

Chapter 1: Introduction

group like other ethnic groups (ἔθνοι) in the Graeco-Roman world.324 They had their own ancestral homeland “Judea” (’Ιουδαία), and their own “ancestral traditions” (πάτρια),325 “customs” (ἔθη),326 and “legal code/conventions” (νόμιμα).327 This was “standard terminology … for the laws and customs of ethnic groups.”328 Moreover, the designation ’Ιουδαίοι in the Early Roman period applied to Jews/Judeans regardless of where they lived in the Roman Empire. The term was not restricted geographically to Jews living in Judea, or to Jews who had been born in Judea, even though Judea was recognised as their ancestral homeland. This was because the term also related to their common ancestry.329 Thus we find references to ’Ιουδαίοι living in Galilee and in other regions outside of Judea.330 As Philo writes: So populous are the Jews/Judeans (’Ιουδαίοι) that no one country can hold them, and therefore they settle in very many of the most prosperous countries in Europe and Asia … while they hold the Holy City (ἱερόπολιν) where stands the sacred temple of the most high God (ὁ του ὑψίστου θεοῦ νεὼς ἃγιος) to be their mother city (μητρόπολιν) … It was to be feared that people everywhere might take their cue from Alexandria, and outrage their Jewish fellow-citizens by rioting against their synagogues (προσευχὰς) and ancestral customs (τὰ πáτρια).331

In a similar way that a person today can be a citizen of one country and reside in another, a Jew/Judean (’Ιουδαίος) in the first century CE could live outside

324 Barclay writes that ethnicity refers to “a combination of kinship and custom, reflecting both shared genealogy and common behaviour.” Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 402. Reed defines ethnicity as “not simply a matter of genetics, but a concept that reflects the symbols and behaviours with which a group defines itself and distinguishes itself from others.” Reed, Galilean Jesus, 24. These definitions are apt when considering the Jews of the Early Roman I period. 325 Josephus, Ant. 20.41; Philo, Flaccus 47. 326 Josephus, Ant. 20.17, 38, 75, and 139. 327 Ag. Ap. 2.237. 328 Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 480; see also 489–493. According to Origen, even the Greek philosopher Celsus, who had little regard for the Jewish ἔθνος, granted that their laws (νόμοι) and ancestral traditions (πάτρια) were legitimate. “They behave like the rest of mankind, because each nation follows its traditional customs” (Contr. Cels. 25.5). 329 As noted above. See e.g. Josephus, Ant. 11.173. 330 For example, Luke refers to ’Ιουδαίοι (Jews/Judeans) in Iconium (Acts 14.1; 19); Antioch (Acts 14.19); Berea and Thessalonica (Acts 17.10–11); and Corinth (Acts 18.1–2). Luke also refers to the expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18.2). Josephus refers to Galileans attending festivals in Jerusalem (Ant. 20.118; War 2.232), and Philo refers to the ἔθνος of the Jews in Alexandria (Flaccus 1). For the transcript of Claudius’ edict to the Alexandrians see P.Lond.1912 in Select Papyri II. Public Documents, trans. A.S. Hunt and C.C. Edgar. LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 85–87. For a discussion on Diaspora Jews see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 402–413. 331 Philo, Flaccus 43, 45–47.

G. Establishing a historical framework

51

of Judea and be counted as a resident of another city or region.332 Similarly, a child born and raised of Jewish/Judean parents in Galilee would still be recognised as a Jew/Judean (’Ιουδαίος),333 although he/she may also be referred to as a Galilean.334 In this work, I will translate ’Ιουδαίος as Jew. However, I reiterate that this was an ethnic designation during the Early Roman period. Moreover, the Jews of first-century Palestine should not be equated with the Jews of today. While there is an ethnic and historical link between the two groups, rabbinic Judaism today is the sum of two thousand years of development since the fall of the Second Temple. Moreover, in the ancient world there was “no separate category of ‘religion.’”335 What we conceive of as religion was an integral part of ancient culture. Therefore, on the few occasions I use the term “Judaism,” I essentially mean the Jewish/Judean way of life. This included observing Jewish ancestral laws, traditions, customs, and ancestral forms of worship, reverence for Judea and Jerusalem as one’s ancestral homeland and city, and identification with Jewish foundation stories, histories, and people. Finally, it should be noted that it was possible for foreigners in the Early Roman period to join the Jewish ethnos and adopt their laws, customs, and ancestral traditions. This was not simply a matter of “religious conversion,” but rather a “change of ethnic-ancestral culture, the joining of another people,” and by contrast, the forsaking of the ancestral laws, customs, and traditions of one’s former ethnic group.336 For this reason, Philo exhorts the Jews to

332 Thus, diaspora Jews, including the apostle Paul, referred to themselves as ’Ιουδαίοι. James D.G. Dunn, “Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity,” NTS 45 (1999): 174–193, esp. 180. 333 As we will see, Galilee during the Early Roman I period was predominantly Jewish. See e.g. Mordechai Aviam, “The Transformation from Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee: The Archaeological Testimony of an Ethnic Change,” in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages, vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 9–21; Root, First Century Galilee, 146–150,167–171; and Sean Freyne, “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi,” in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. E.M. Meyers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 50–55. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter Two. 334 See e.g. Josephus’ usage in War 1.21; 2.232, 520; 4.105. 335 Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 480. Mason adds, “When surveys of the Roman world come to speak of ‘religion,’ they often observe that no Greek or Latin … word corresponds to our category—not even the Latin religio.” Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 482. 336 Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 491. This point will become important when we discuss the ethnicity of the Galileans. See particularly Mason’s critique of Shaye Cohen with regard to Josephus’ account of Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates becoming Judean (Ant. 20.38– 39). Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 506–507.

52

Chapter 1: Introduction

welcome newcomers who have left behind their own relatives, homeland, and customs.337 Thus, when I speak of Jesus being a prophet to Israel, I mean essentially that he was a prophet to the Jews (’Ιουδαίοι), particularly those who lived in and around Judea and Galilee in the first century CE. Jesus’ baptism by John, his call to Israel to return to God, his proclamation of the kingdom of God, and his appointment of an inner group of twelve ἀπóστολοι, strongly suggest that Jesus saw his movement as working toward the renewal or restoration of Israel. These “almost indisputable facts” provide a historical framework from which to assess the journeys of Jesus, particularly as depicted in Mark 1.14–8.30. It is on this basis that I now propose two probable reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy, both of which help to explain why Jesus extended his mission beyond Galilee to the regions round about.

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

It is widely accepted that Jesus functioned as a Jewish prophet to Israel. But calling Israel to return to God and preaching the kingdom of God did not necessitate an itinerant form of ministry. John the Baptist was an eschatological prophet of repentance but as far as we know, he did not travel extensively or preach in towns and villages. He positioned himself at various locations along the Jordan River and people went out to see him.338 So why was Jesus itinerant? I. A strategy to reach all of Israel Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus did not position himself in the vicinity of the Jordan River and wait for Israel to come to him. He adopted a different strategy. Jesus engaged in an extensive itinerant ministry that included preaching in multiple towns and villages in Galilee and traveling through the surrounding regions.339 In a short episode early in Mark, Jesus leaves Capernaum to find a solitary place to pray. When his disciples find him, he says, “Let us go on to the 337 Philo, Virt. 102–103, 108. See also Spec. Laws 1.51–53; and Moses 2.43–44. Alternatively, Tacitus criticises those who join the Jews and renounce their ancestral traditions, send contributions to Jerusalem, despise the gods, disown their own country, and have little regard for their relatives (Hist. 5.5.1–2). Dio Cassius also states that those of other nations who join the Jews and follow their legal code/conventions (νόμιμα) are considered Jews (’Ιουδαίοι) (Hist. Rom. 37.16.5–37.17.1). 338 Mark 1.4–5, 9; Matt. 3.1, 5, 13; Luke 3.3; and Q 7.24 (Matt. 11.7; Luke 7.24; cf. GTh 78.1). Taylor may be correct in suggesting that John “roamed up and down” the Jordan River. Taylor, The Immerser, 46. 339 This claim will be discussed in the chapters that follow.

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

53

neighbouring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do” (ἄγωμεν ἀλλαχοῦ εἰς τὰς ἐχομένας κωμοπόλεις, ἵνα καὶ ἐκεῖ κηρύξω· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον).340 In this verse, Mark reveals one motive behind Jesus’ itinerant ministry i.e. to visit other towns and to preach there also. According to Bultmann, this verse was editorial and therefore not a genuine saying of the historical Jesus.341 Many contemporary scholars have followed Bultmann in this assessment, noting that the saying, with its purpose clause, is redactional.342 Yet although this statement bears the marks of Markan redaction, it does not mean that Mark was incorrect in his summary of Jesus’ purpose for ministering among the towns and villages of Galilee. Even the Jesus Seminar, who attribute the entire episode to Markan construction and who describe the saying as “Mark’s notion of the mission of Jesus,”343 acknowledge that the saying provides some reliable information.344 Mark depicts Jesus ministering at various locations, as we have seen, calling people to repent, and teaching about the kingdom of God. This suggests intentionality. Mark also records Jesus sending out twelve ἀπóστολοι to continue his work among the towns and villages of Galilee.345 In the parallel passage in Matthew, Jesus instructs the twelve to go only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.”346 Thus Mark 1.38 almost certainly captures Jesus’ motive for travelling to the towns and villages of Galilee. Jesus engaged in an itinerant form of ministry to ensure that all Israel heard his message. This mission was so important to Jesus that he called disciples to literally follow him on the road. This meant leaving home and family obligations, which would have been counter-cultural in first-century Jewish Palestine.347 In fact, Jesus’ family were so disturbed by his behaviour, they tried to take him back

340

Mark 1.38. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 155. 342 For example, Pesch argues that the focus on preaching in the explanatory clause is an indicator of Markan redaction. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 138. The focus on preaching occurs in other summary statements and Markan seams (e.g. Mark 1.14–15, 39). However, it also appears in pre-Markan traditions. For others who see this saying as redactional see e.g. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 68–69; and Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 177. 343 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 42–42. 344 Funk et al., The Acts of Jesus, 61. 345 Mark 3.14; 6.6b–13. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.154–163. 346 Matt. 10.5–6, 11; cf. Mark 3.14–15; 6.7–13. 347 Jesus’ call to disciples to literally follow him, and the demands of itinerant ministry, are seen in Mark, Q, and L. See e.g. Mark 1.16–20; 10.29–30; Q 9.59–60 (Matt. 8.21–22; Luke 9.59–60); and the independent tradition in Luke 9.61–62. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.54–55; and Pheme Perkins, Jesus as Teacher (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 27–30. 341

54

Chapter 1: Introduction

home.348 The dissimilarity between Jesus call to disciples to follow on the road and Jewish family obligations, suggests that we are in touch here with history. Mark also states that when Jesus travelled throughout Galilee, he proclaimed the message in their synagogues.349 Some have argued that such claims are anachronistic and reflect the circumstances of the early church.350 Such claims are also contingent upon Galilee having a sizable Jewish population, a point that is still debated by some.351 However, as we will see in Chapters Two and Three, Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period, and there is growing archaeological evidence that there were synagogues in the region prior to 70 CE. Thus Mark’s depiction of Jesus preaching in the synagogues of Galilee is entirely plausible.352 Moreover, Josephus claims that there were 204 towns and villages in Galilee.353 For most of the twentieth century this was dismissed as excessive exaggeration. Yet recent archaeological surveys have revealed that Galilee was indeed a densely populated region during the Early Roman I period, with perhaps as many as 200 towns and villages.354 Thus Mark’s depiction of Jesus engaging in an extensive itinerant ministry among the towns and villages of Galilee and preaching in their synagogues is plausible.355 Jesus may not have visited every single settlement in the region. However, given the number of settlements in Galilee, the Jewish ethnicity of the Galilean population, and Jesus’ itinerant and prophetic ministry, it seems likely that Jesus, with the support of his twelve ἀπóστολοι, set out to visit as many towns and villages as possible. In fact, Jesus probably sent out the twelve because there were too many towns and 348

Mark 3.21, 31–32; Matt. 12.46–47. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.69. Mark 1.39. 350 See e.g. Howard Clark Kee, “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990): 1–24. This will be discussed in Chapters Two and Three. 351 Some scholars still work with the understanding that Galilee had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. See e.g. Roskam, Purpose of the Gospel of Mark, 111. Collins seems to accept Mark Chancey’s thesis that Galilee was predominantly Jewish during the Early Roman period, but still considers it likely that Jesus encountered the Syro-Phoenician woman in Galilee (Mark 7.24). Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 364. Others argue that the Galileans were Israelites, i.e. descendants of the northern Israelite tribes and therefore not Jews/Judeans. See e.g. Richard Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 25–29, 40–42, 147–149. John Elliot also argues that Jesus was not “Jewish” or “Judean” but an “Israelite,” although he argues his case on linguistic grounds. John H. Elliot, “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5.2 (2007): 119–154. This will be discussed further in Chapter Two. 352 See Jordan J. Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue in the Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017). 353 Life, 235. 354 This will be discussed in detail in Chapter Four. 355 See Mark 1.39; cf. 6.6b, 56. 349

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

55

villages for him to visit alone. The ministry of the twelve ἀπóστολοι was “a necessary extension of Jesus’ own mission of proclamation.”356 In a recent work by Robert Myles, The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Myles argues that Jesus’ itinerant mission was not a self-directed choice, but “a reaction to his physical and social displacement within firstcentury Palestinian society.”357 Myles has made an important contribution to understanding Jesus’ itinerancy by drawing attention to the ways in which societal structures and power dynamics force people into situations where they become marginalised and displaced, and by highlighting the hardships and displacement experienced by the Matthean Jesus.358 Unfortunately, much of Myles argument is based on a picture of Galilean political-economy where the majority of the population experienced hardship, indebtedness, loss of property, and exploitation.359 Such portraits of Galilee during the time of Antipas are for the most part exaggerated, and have rightly been challenged.360 Myles is probably correct in noting that certain societal pressures may have pushed Jesus toward an itinerant form of ministry. This will be discussed briefly below in reference to Herod Antipas. However, economic displacement does not appear to have been one of those factors. According to Mark, Jesus had a home and family in Nazareth where he worked as a “craftsman/wood worker” (τέκτων).361 He left Galilee to be baptised by John, and then took up an itinerant ministry that included preaching, healing, and calling disciples. That Jesus’ itinerancy was in part a matter of choice is indicated when Jesus’ mother and brothers tried to take him back home and Jesus refused to go with them.362 Even after leaving Nazareth, Jesus could have probably made his home in Capernaum.363 But it seems he realised that he could reach more people by going to where they lived. As Theissen states, “Jesus’ itinerant existence … served to spread his message more effectively.”364 Mark also describes Jesus crossing the Galilean border into the region of Tyre, passing through Sidon, visiting the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and 356

Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 146. Myles, The Homeless Jesus, 83, 111. 358 Myles also draws attention to the ways in which ideologies of homelessness before the text can influence interpretations of Jesus’ itinerancy. 359 For example, after noting K.C. Hanson’s article on the Galilean fishing economy, Myles concludes that it was the hardship and indebtedness of the fishermen that “provoked them to abandon work and live as drifters.” Myles, The Homeless Jesus, 106. See K.C. Hanson, “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,” BTB 27.3 (1997): 99–111. 360 See e.g. Morton Hørning Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus.” JSHJ 5.1 (2007): 7–32; and Root, First Century Galilee, 152–161, 182. 361 Mark 1.9; 6.1, 3. 362 Mark 3.20–21, 31–35. 363 According to Mark, Peter and Andrew had a home in Capernaum (Mark 1.29), and the disciples returned there after a period of itinerant ministry (Mark 2.1). 364 Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 121. 357

56

Chapter 1: Introduction

travelling through the Decapolis. These were predominantly Gentile regions.365 Therefore, Jesus’ presence in these regions is often interpreted in terms of a Gentile mission. However, as I will argue in Chapters Six to Eight, there were also Jewish communities living in these regions. In addition, the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara had only recently been severed from the Jewish kingdom after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE,366 and the region of Caesarea Philippi at the time of Jesus was ruled by Herod’s son, Philip.367 Moreover, as I will argue, these regions were considered by many Jews of the Second Temple period to be part of Israel’s inheritance, at least as it was ideally understood.368 It appears therefore that in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus travelled through the northern limits of the land of Israel, as it was ideally understood, and that his primary motive for doing so was to minister among the Jewish communities living in these regions.369 It should be noted at this point, that the broad geographical region that encompassed Judea (which included Idumea by the first century CE), Samaria, Perea, Galilee, and the central and northern Golan, was widely known as Palaestina or Syria-Palaestina during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.370 It was also sometimes referred to as Judaea (Greek: ’Ιουδαία; Latin: Iudaea) during the Early Roman I period,371 even though the name also denoted the small 365 When referring to the regions round about Galilee, where there were mixed ethnic groups, some of whom are unknown, I will use the terms “Gentile” or “non-Jewish” to distinguish these people from the Jews living in these regions. While the term “Gentile” is anachronistic, and certainly not a term employed by the peoples living in these regions, it seems a better designation than “pagan” which is sometimes felt to be pejorative. The term “Gentile” is derived from the Latin gentilis, meaning belonging to the same family or clan (gens), and came to be used by Christians to denote those who were not Christian or Jewish. It also frequently translated the Hebrew gôyim, and Greek ἔθνη, which was used during the Second Temple period to denote the nations. See Iverson, “Gentiles,” DJG 302. 366 This will be discussed in Chapter Eight. 367 This will be discussed in Chapter Six. 368 This has already been argued by Sean Freyne and will be discussed further in Chapters Six and Seven. Freyne, Jewish Galilean, 74–91; and Jesus Movement, 139–146. 369 Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 103; Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 147. 370 See e.g. Herodotus (Hist. 2.3; 3.91); Philo (Good Person 75); Dio Cassius (Hist. 60.8.2). See the discussion by Joan E. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls and the Dead Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 146–147. 371 The name Judaea was derived from the Hebrew Yehudah. For use of the Greek ’Ιουδαία see Strabo (Geogr. 16.2.2, 34); Josephus (Αnt. 13.50, 318; War 3.53); Ptolemy (Apotelesmatica 2.3.65–66; Geogr. 5.15.5–6; 5.16.1–8); and Acts 10.37. For the use of the Latin Iudaea see Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 5.66, 70); and Tacitus (Hist. 2.78; 5.1−2, 8; Ann. 12.23.1). Prior to the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE, Yehudah was the name of the southern kingdom of Judah, with its capital at Jerusalem, and was distinct from the northern kingdom of Israel, with its capital at Samaria. During the Persian period, Judah was known as the Persian province of Yehud. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the province of Yehudah was known in Greek as ’Ιουδαία, and its people were the 'Ιουδαίοι (i.e. Jews/Judeans). However, with the Hasmonean conquest the geographical boundaries of the region expanded to include

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

57

region south of Samaria. Lee Levine attempted to resolve the problem by using “Judea” to denote the smaller region, and the Latinised Judaea to denote the larger province.372 While initially this appears an elegant solution, it is also problematic, for between 6 CE and 39 CE, the Roman province of Judaea only included Judea proper (including Idumea) and Samaria.373 Galilee and Perea were ruled by Herod Antipas.374 After 44 CE, Galilee and Perea were added to the province of Judaea, but the central and northern Golan passed to Agrippa II.375 Thus, for the purposes of this study I will use the term Judaea only to denote the Roman province, and the shortened form “Judea” to denote the smaller region of Judea (which included Idumea), while recognising that the boundaries of both these regions fluctuated during the Early Roman period. I will employ the term Palestine to denote the broad geographical region which included Judea, Idumea, Perea, Samaria, Galilee, and the central and northern Golan. However, when referring only to those regions that were predominantly Jewish i.e. Judea (including Idumea), Perea, Galilee, and the central Golan, I will use the term “Jewish territories.” As we will see in this work, Jesus spent most of his time in the north travelling through the predominantly Jewish territories of Galilee and the centralGolan, but he also extended his ministry to include the Jewish communities living in the predominantly Gentile regions of the northern Golan, Tyre and Sidon, and the Decapolis cities of Hippos and Gadara. Jesus’ objective seems to have been to visit as many towns and villages as possible in the region of Galilee, and to reach the Jewish communities living in the regions round about Galilee.376

the coastal plain, Idumea, Perea, Samaria, Galilee, and the central Golan. Thus, by the mid60s BCE the name ’Ιουδαία took on two meanings. It could denote the smaller region of Judea proper, or the entire Hasmonean kingdom. Later ’Ιουδαία came under the rule of Herod the Great. After the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE, the province of Judaea reverted to Syria-Palaestina. Joshua J. Schwart, “Judea,” EDEJ 850–851. 372 Lee I. Levine, “The Ancient Synagogue in First-Century Palestine,” in Q in Context III: Social Setting and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source, ed. Markus Tiwald. BBB 173 (Göttingen: V&R Academic, Bonn University Press, 2015), 23 n. 1. 373 Its administrative capital city was moved to Caesarea Maritima, although the Jews continued to consider Jerusalem as their principal city. Schwart, “Judea,” EDEJ 850–851. 374 James F. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee and Judea,” EHJ 36–38. 375 Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee and Judea,” EHJ 36–38; Schwart, “Judea,” EDEJ 850–851. 376 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.210. Léon-Dufour suggests that Jesus’ motive to journey south to Jerusalem was also governed by the need to proclaim the gospel to all the Jews. Léon-Dufour, Gospels and the Jesus of History, 240.

58

Chapter 1: Introduction

II. A strategy to avoid capture It is possible that Jesus had additional motives for being itinerant. One reason may have been to stay one step ahead of the ruling authorities. In Mark’s narrative, Jesus moves to Galilee after John was arrested by Herod Antipas.377 In the parallel account in Matthew the evangelist states explicitly that Jesus withdrew to Galilee “when he heard that John had been arrested”378 (Ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἰωάννης παρεδόθη ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν).379 Where Mark makes a temporal observation, Matthew implies a causal link. Jesus withdrew to Galilee in response to the news of John’s arrest. In addition, Myles has observed that Matthew tends to use the term “withdraw” (ἀναχωρέω) in the context of “socio-political danger.”380 From the time of John’s arrest, Jesus almost certainly knew the risk involved in engaging in this kind of prophetic, public ministry. The Jewish prophetic tradition suggested as much,381 and the arrest and imprisonment of John the Baptist almost certainly confirmed it for him. Josephus claims that Antipas arrested John because he feared his influence with the crowds.382 This suggests that although John had committed no crime and led no insurrection, he was perceived to be a threat because of his influence with the crowds. Thus Dunn writes: We have a good example of the arbitrary power which rulers of the period were able to exercise. Both the Synoptics and Josephus agree that Herod was able to arrest and execute John without any obvious ‘good cause’ and without any formal procedure – ‘on suspicion’ (hypopsia), says Josephus. We need to bear this in mind when we ask later whether Jesus foresaw his own death. Given the precedent of what had happened to his mentor, the Baptist … it would be very odd indeed if Jesus did not reckon with the possibility of his life being abruptly cut short by quasi-judicial or other means.383

John the Baptist conducted his ministry near the Jordan River, and probably chose this site because of its symbolic significance,384 and its abundance of 377

Mark 1.14. Emphasis mine. 379 Matt. 4.12. 380 For example, in the infancy narratives the term was used in connection with Jesus’ move from Bethlehem to Egypt to escape Herod the Great (Matt. 2.14), and again to describe the move from Judea to Galilee to avoid Herod’s son Archelaus (Matt. 2.22). Myles, The Homeless Jesus, 88. 381 Jesus was aware of the fate of the prophets before him. See e.g. Q 11.51 (Matt. 23.35; Luke 11.51). 382 Ant. 18.119. 383 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 378. 384 This was the river through which the twelve tribes of Israel had crossed into the land of Canaan. Thus John’s baptism may have symbolised a re-crossing of the Jordan River. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 142. John the Baptist was not the only person to lead a renewal movement near the Jordan River. Josephus recalls a so-called prophet named Theudas, 378

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

59

water. However, by remaining in the vicinity of the Jordan, John could be easily tracked down and arrested. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that after John’s arrest, Jesus left the Jordan, moved to Galilee, and adopted an itinerant form of ministry. Jesus was probably aware that attracting large crowds could draw the attention of the authorities, and that Antipas could have him arrested as he had arrested John.385 Thus, we can observe in Mark a pattern in the movements of Jesus. Whenever a large crowd gathered in one location Jesus taught and healed for a while, but then quickly moved on to another location. The morning after Jesus ministered to a crowd in Capernaum, he set out for other towns and villages.386 On another occasion when streams of people were coming and going, Jesus withdrew to find a place where he and his disciples could be alone.387 This particular withdrawal occurred after the account of John’s execution.388 Later after the first feeding miracle, Jesus sent his disciples on ahead to Bethsaida while he dismissed the crowd and withdrew into the hills.389 After the second feeding in the Decapolis, Jesus dismissed the crowd, and he and his disciples set off to Dalmanutha.390 In each case Jesus ministered to the crowd and then quickly moved on.391 Thus many scholars regard Jesus’ constant movement from place to place as an attempt to stay one step ahead of Antipas and his forces.392 As who in the mid-first century CE led a multitude to the Jordan River claiming that at his command the waters would part (Ant. 20.97–99). 385 A Q saying of Jesus may provide a veiled critique of Antipas. Jesus contrasts John the Baptist with a reed shaken by the wind, or someone dressed in fine garments and occupying royal palaces (Q 7.24–25 [Matt. 11.7–8; Luke 7.24–25]). See also GTh 78.1–2 (Nag Hammadi II 2). A reed was displayed on the coins minted by Antipas in Tiberias in 19/20 CE. Root, First Century Galilee, 105, n. 29. Other issues bore such images as a palm branch, a palm tree, and clusters of dates. For an introduction to the coins of Antipas see Morton Hørning Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, 2nd ed. WUNT 215 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 203–209. If the reed was a veiled reference to Antipas, then the reference to a king in fine palaces might also refer to Antipas and his palace in Tiberias (Life 66). Theissen, Gospels in Context, 26–29. 386 Mark 1.32–39. 387 Mark 6.30–32. 388 Mark 6.17–29. 389 Mark 6.45–46. 390 Mark 8.9–10. 391 The same pattern can be observed in Matthew, although, presuming Markan priority, Matthew is largely borrowing from Mark. See e.g. Matt. 8.18; 14.13. In Matt. 12.14−15, Jesus withdrew when he became aware some Pharisees were plotting to kill him. 392 See e.g. Seán Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 222; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 166; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee and Judea,” in EHJ 220. For earlier examples see Guignebert, Jesus, 225; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 286–287. A number of scholars have suggested further that the death of John the Baptist marked the end of Jesus’ ministry

60

Chapter 1: Introduction

Freyne writes, “The frequent withdrawals of Jesus might be interpreted as indicative of his need for constant vigilance before the threat of Herod.”393 Some have questioned whether Herod Antipas would really be a threat to Jesus. Mark states that Herod did not want to kill John the Baptist, but protected him and enjoyed listening to him.394 There is also the question about the identity of the “Herodians,” whom Mark says joined with the Pharisees in wanting to have Jesus destroyed.395 Were they connected with Herod’s court,396 or were they simply supporters of Herod? Joan Taylor argues that they were essentially Essenes, whose opposition to Jesus was based on religiously legal grounds,397 and that they did not have “the ear of the tetrarch Herod Antipas.”398 Whichever is the case, what we do know is that even though Herod may have wanted to protect John, the fact is that he did have John arrested and he did have him executed.399 Moreover, Mark reports that Herod was aware of Jesus’ activities.400 And according to Luke’s special source material, some Pharisees warned Jesus to leave a certain place because Herod wanted to kill him.401 Another objection is that if Jesus wanted to avoid Herod Antipas, why would he move to Galilee in the first place, a region ruled by Antipas? There are at least three possible reasons for this. First, Jesus was familiar with the region. He was after all from the town of Nazareth and was known as a “Nazarene.”402 Second, Jesus appears to have spent considerable time near the north-western shoreline of the Sea of Galilee. This would have made it possible for a quick

in Galilee. See e.g. Léon-Defour, Gospels and the Jesus of History, 239; and Goguel, although he argued that Jesus’ itinerating occurred outside of Galilee. Goguel, Life of Jesus, 309. Flusser also recognised the threat Herod Antipas posed for the historical Jesus, but incorrectly stated that after the death of John the Baptist, Jesus moved to Jerusalem. Flusser, Jesus, 54. This is not supported by our sources. 393 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 222. 394 Mark 6.19–20. 395 Mark 3.6; 12.13. Cf. Matthew 12.14. 396 See e.g. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Macmillan, 1920), 19–20; John P. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians,” JBL 119 (2000): 744; and Carter, Mark, 65–66. 397 Taylor, The Essenes, 109–130. 398 Taylor, The Essenes, 119. 399 Mark 6.17, 27. 400 Mark 6.14. Mark adds that Herod believed Jesus was John redivivus (Mark 6.16). 401 Luke 13.31. Jesus responds by describing Antipas as “that fox” (τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ) (Luke 13:32). Flusser describes Jesus’ comment as “a not-so-subtle insult directed at the Galilean tetrarch.” David Flusser, in collaboration with R. Steven Notley, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1977), 52. 402 Mark 1.9, 24; 10.47; 14.67; 16.6; Matt 21.11; Luke 4.16, 24; Cf. John 1.45–46; 7.41. Vermes suggests that one reason the rulers of Jerusalem later considered Jesus a political suspect was because he was Galilean. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 57.

H. Reasons for Jesus’ itinerancy

61

exit from the region across the lake if necessary.403 Third, at the time that Jesus left for Galilee, Antipas had his eye on the region of the Jordan. This was where John had been arrested, and according to Josephus, John was taken to the fortress of Machaerus at the southern end of Perea.404 Moreover, Herod’s attention may also have been divided at this time between Galilee and Perea. For when Herod planned to divorce his wife (the daughter of Aretas of Nabatea) to marry Herodias the wife of his brother Philip,405 she escaped and returned home to Petra via Machaerus.406 From this point on, tensions between Antipas and Aretas escalated until they erupted in open warfare,407 resulting in the loss of Antipas’ forces and his eventual recall to Rome in 39 CE. In fact, Josephus mentions the execution of John the Baptist in the course of recounting the conflict between Antipas and Aretas, because the people had attributed Antipas’ downfall to divine judgement for his execution of John.408 Thus for the most part, Galilee was a good place for Jesus to begin his ministry to Israel, so long as he kept on the move. Others have argued that the pattern of constant movement may simply have been a Markan literary device.409 However, the danger inherent in this kind of public ministry is evident in the fact that John the Baptist was arrested and executed, and that Jesus was later arrested and crucified.410 There can be no doubt that public ministry of this kind was dangerous in Roman Palestine.411 Awareness of this fact almost certainly contributed to Jesus’s decision to move constantly from place to place. Of course, we cannot rule out the probability that Jesus and his disciples also needed to get away from the crowds and to rest from time to time. This is stated explicitly in Mark 6.31–32. This may also have been a reason Jesus and his disciples roamed the countryside and lakeshore on occasion.412

403 This point is made by Jonathan Reed, Galilean Jesus, 165–166. See also Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 121. 404 Ant. 18.119. Perea was also ruled by Antipas, and Machaerus was situated east of the Dead Sea (War 7.165–170). 405 Mark 6.17–19; cf. Matt 14.3–5. 406 Ant. 18.109–113; 18.136. 407 Ant. 18.113. 408 Ant. 18.116–117. 409 See e.g. Hezser, Jewish Travel in Antiquity, 42–43; and Guignebert, Jesus, 227. 410 Three references attribute one of the causes for Jesus’ arrest and execution as his influence among the crowds (Mark 11.18; Luke 23.2; John 11.47–48). See also Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 548–550. 411 This can also be seen in the arrest and execution of other popular leaders during the first century CE, such as Theudas and his followers (Ant. 20.97–98); the Samaritan and his followers (Ant. 18.85–87); and the Egyptian (Ant. 20.169–171; War 2.261–263). Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 303. 412 See e.g. Mark 1.16, 45; 2.13, 23; 3.13; 4.1; 6.32; and 9.2.

62

Chapter 1: Introduction

Thus, itinerancy became Jesus’ modus operandi. It was a way of reaching all Israel while also staying one step ahead of the authorities. By promptly dismissing large crowds and moving from place to place Jesus could avoid drawing the attention of Antipas’ forces to a specific location, and thereby elude capture.

I. An overview of the project I. An overview of the project

This study will explore the extent and plausibility of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee and in the surrounding regions, particularly as depicted in Mark 1.14–8.30. It will consider the implications of these depictions in the light of what is known about Galilee and surrounding regions from primary sources and archaeology. This work aims to discover where and how far Jesus is likely to have travelled during his itinerant ministry in the north. We have noted already that Jesus functioned as an itinerant prophet, calling people to repent, proclaiming the kingdom of God, and working towards the renewal or restoration of Israel. We have also noted that one of the reasons Jesus chose an itinerant form of ministry was so that he could reach more of Israel. However, the plausibility of these conclusions is dependent upon Galilee being at least a predominantly Jewish region, and there being Jewish communities in the regions around Galilee. Therefore, much of this project will be directed toward establishing that Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region, and that there were Jewish communities living in the Golan, the region of Tyre, and in the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara. We will begin in Chapter Two by exploring what is known about the ethnicity of the Galilean population during the Early Roman I period. The question of Galilean ethnicity has been a matter of debate for over a century, with proposals ranging from Galilee being a predominantly Jewish region, to having a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, and/or converted Itureans, and/or descendants of ancient Israelites. However, due to extensive archaeological surveys and excavations in the region, and the discovery of Jewish identity markers in the material culture of Early Roman I period strata, it has become increasingly evident that the vast majority of the population during the first century CE was Jewish. Despite this, there are still claims to the contrary. This chapter will therefore discuss what is known from primary literary sources, and the mounting data emerging from archaeology, to show that Galilee during the Early Roman I period was essentially a Jewish region. Chapter Three will delve deeper into the question of Galilean ethnicity. It will explore what is known about nine settlements in the region, from primary literary sources and archaeology. These settlements are selected for their geographical spread and their importance in the Gospels or the works of Josephus. Tiberias and Sepphoris will be included because the question of ethnicity is

I. An overview of the project

63

particularly pertinent when it comes to these Herodian cities. Other settlements have been selected to draw attention to some recent and important archaeological discoveries. This chapter will also address an important objection to a Jewish Galilee: the reference to Galilee of the Gentiles in Matthew 4.15. We will find that Mark’s claim that Jesus ministered among the towns and villages of Galilee and taught in their synagogues is indeed plausible. Chapter Four will investigate the number of towns and villages in Galilee during the Early Roman I period, and the density of the Galilean population. The impression Mark conveys is that Jesus visited many towns and villages in Galilee and attracted large crowds. However, this claim is dependent upon Galilee having a sizable population. Josephus claims there were 204 villages in Galilee during the first century CE,413 and for most of the twentieth century this statement was considered an exaggeration. However, surface surveys and excavations across the region in the last few decades have revealed that Josephus was not far from the truth. This chapter will also consider the road network which connected the many settlements of Galilee. I will argue that Galilee was indeed a densely populated region during the Early Roman I period, and that this has implications for Jesus’ itinerant ministry. It also helps to explain why so few settlements are mentioned by name in the Gospels, and why there is no clear itinerary of Jesus’ travels in Galilee. Chapter Five will discuss what is known about the settlements and population of the central Golan. Mark records that Jesus visited Bethsaida, but apart from this, nothing more is said about the central Golan. Moreover, very little is known about this region from literary sources. However, the archaeological remains of sites in the region have revealed that the central Golan during the Early Roman I period had a predominantly Jewish population. Therefore, this chapter will consider whether Jesus extended his itinerant ministry beyond Bethsaida to include the other towns and villages in the central Golan. This chapter will also include a discussion on sea travel and some of the harbours around the Sea of Galilee. Chapter Six will explore what is known about the settlements and population of the northern Golan. According to Mark, Jesus set out to visit the villages of Caesarea Philippi. The question is, why? The little we know of the region from literary sources and archaeological surveys and excavations, indicates that the northern Golan was a predominantly Gentile region during the Early Roman I period. However, Josephus states that there were Jews living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi during the time of the First Jewish Revolt, and there are archaeological indicators of Jewish settlement in the region prior to 70 CE, particularly near Lake Huleh. This suggests that the primary reason for Jesus visiting the northern Golan was to minister among the Jewish communities living in the region. 413

Life, 235; cf. War 3.43.

64

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter Seven will discuss what is known about the settlements and population of the region of Tyre. According to Mark, Jesus crossed the border into the region of Tyre and encountered a Syro-Phoenician woman there. Most scholars interpret this story in terms of the Gentile mission of the early church. Therefore, few consider whether the historical Jesus visited the region. Yet there are indicators in the story that Jesus may have visited the region to minister among the Jewish population living there. This chapter will therefore explore what is known about the region from literary sources and archaeological surveys and excavations. We will find that there are indicators of Jewish settlement in the region of Tyre, which may explain Jesus’ journey to the region. This chapter will also discuss the circuitous route depicted in Mark 7.31, where Jesus is said to have travelled from Tyre, through Sidon, to the Decapolis. Chapter Eight will discuss what is known of Jewish settlement in the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara. According to Mark, Jesus cured a man possessed of demons in the Decapolis and healed a deaf/mute in the Decapolis. It also appears that the story of the second feeding miracle was set in the Decapolis. In each case, Jesus appears to have been near the Sea of Galilee, which suggests that these events occurred in the districts of Hippos/Sussita and/or Gadara, although the textual and geographical difficulties inherent in the reference to the region of the Gerasenes in Mark 5.1 warrant discussion. Although Jesus’ journeys to the Decapolis are generally interpreted in terms of a Gentile mission, the literary sources indicate that there were Jewish communities living in the region, and this is now supported by archaeology. It seems likely therefore that Jesus’ primary reason for visiting the Decapolis was to minister among the Jewish communities living there. Chapter Nine will draw to a conclusion the findings of this work. It will note that the journeys of Jesus depicted Mark 1.14–8.30 are historically plausible. Moreover, it will be seen that Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the north was extensive, in terms of the geographical area covered on foot, the number of towns and villages visited, and the numbers of people Jesus reached. This chapter will also suggest possible avenues for future research. For now, however, let us turn to the region of Galilee, and consider what is known about the ethnicity of the Galileans during the Early Roman I period.

Chapter 2

The Question of Galilean Ethnicity A. Introduction A. Introduction

As I have shown in Chapter One, it is generally accepted that Jesus functioned as an itinerant prophet to Israel, and that he conducted much of his public ministry in Galilee. Mark describes Jesus travelling through the towns and villages of Galilee, preaching in their synagogues, and attracting large crowds.1 The plausibility of these claims is dependent upon at least two factors: that Galilee was at least a predominantly Jewish region where those living in the towns and villages met in local synagogues; and the region was sufficiently populated for Jesus to attract large crowds. This chapter will address the question of Galilean ethnicity. During the twentieth century many scholars believed that Galilee had an ethnically mixed population. While literary sources generally conveyed the impression of a Jewish Galilee, certain elements in these sources led scholars to question this picture, and to ask whether the Galileans were predominantly Jewish, or a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, or Jews and descendants of Itureans who had only nominally converted to Judaism, or descendants of the ancient Israelites from the northern kingdom of Israel who adopted a veneer of Judaism but maintained their own traditions.2 The answer one gives to the question of Galilean ethnicity will influence his/her understanding of Galilee’s cultural context, relations between Galilee and Judea, Jesus’ identity, and his itinerant ministry.3 What has become clear in the last few decades, is that much can be gained by drawing on literary sources and archaeology. Only by critically analysing the data from both sources can we achieve a clearer picture of Galilee in the time of Jesus. The results of such research in the past few decades have led to a growing recognition among historical Jesus scholars and archaeologists 1

See Chapter One for the various references to Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee. This will be discussed further below. 3 For instance, on the basis that Galilee had an ethnically mixed population, acquainted with Greek culture and philosophy, some scholars have proposed that Jesus functioned like a Cynic philosopher, that there were no synagogues in Galilee during the first century CE, and that references to synagogues in the Synoptic Gospels are anachronistic. These claims will be discussed below. 2

66

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

working in Galilee, that the region was predominantly Jewish during the Early Roman I period.4 This chapter will discuss what is known about the ethnicity of the Galilean population, drawing on primary literary sources and archaeological data. It will begin by defining the boundaries of the region and will note what the primary literary sources say about the ethnicity of those living in the region. It will then discuss what scholars have been saying about the ethnicity of the Galilean population during the Early Roman I period, the contribution of archaeology to this discussion, and the emerging consensus that Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region. Finally, this chapter will discuss Jewish identify markers which enable archaeologists to distinguish a Jewish population from other ethnic groups on the basis of their material remains. To begin with, however, we must define what we mean by the term “Galilee,” and note the boundaries of the region during the Early Roman I period.

B. Defining the region of Galilee B. Defining the region of Galilee

I. The term “Galilee” The term “Galilee” probably derives from the Hebrew ‫( גלל‬gālil), meaning “circle” or “district.”5 The feminine form ‫ גלילה‬was also used to denote a district or region, and could be applied to several regions. In early usage it tended to denote the northernmost region of ancient Israel, and the term “circle” may have arisen from the fact that the early Israelite settlers in the north were surrounded by powerful Canaanite city states.6 Josephus depicts Galilee as a 4 See e.g. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 167–182; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 23–55, 216–218; Root, First Century Galilee, 146–150; Aviam, “Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple, ed. Fiensy and Strange, 9–21; Eric M. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough. SFSHJ 143 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), 58–59; Jonathan L. Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective.” JBL 129.2 (2010): 343. 5 “Γαλιλαία,” Greek-English Lexicon, 3rd ed., 187; Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 391; Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 653. See also Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 26. 6 Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 391; Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 653. Early references to Galilee include Kedesh in Galilee (Josh. 20.7; 21.32; 1 Chron. 6.67); a list of towns in Galilee (1 Kings 9.11–13); Tiglath-Pileser’s conquest of Galilee (2 Kings 15.29); the expression “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isa. 8.23 ‫ ;הגל׳ל הגוים‬LXX Isa. 9.1 Γαλιλαία ἐθνῶν. Cf. Joel 3.4 and 1 Macc. 15.5 (LXX) (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν); and the third century BCE Zenon Papyrus which mentions Γαλιλα in connection with Ptolemaic administration (P.Columbia Zenon, No. 2, 1.22). See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.304. See also Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, and Avi Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee. IAA Reports 14 (Jerusalem: Israel

B. Defining the region of Galilee

67

northern region of Jewish settlement surrounded by foreign territories: Phoenicia in the west and north, the Decapolis in the east, and Samaria in the south.7 Mark also differentiates Galilee from surrounding regions when he describes Jesus travelling from Galilee into the region of Tyre (εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου),8 and into the Decapolis (τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως).9 Similarly, Luke describes Jesus passing between Samaria and Galilee (διὰ μέσον Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας).10 Each reference provides a clear distinction between Galilee and the regions surrounding it. II. Differing definitions of Galilee and its boundaries The borders of Galilee fluctuated over the centuries.11 Thus not all scholars have the same borders in mind when they speak of Roman period Galilee. For some scholars, the term “Galilee” refers to the region as it existed during the first century CE prior to 70 CE i.e. the region whose political/administrative borders were described by Josephus.12 New Testament scholars generally work with a similar understanding of Galilee.13 For other scholars, however, the term Galilee refers to the geographical region as it exists today in the modern state of Israel. Thus Milton Moreland includes Ptolemais in his discussion of the inhabitants of Galilee, despite the fact that this was a Phoenician city during the Early Roman I period, lying beyond the borders of Galilee as defined by

Antiquities Authority, 2001), 108. A further reference to Galilee as the northern region of ancient Israel surrounded by foreign territories, appears in an account where Solomon gifts twenty towns in the ‘land of Galilee’ (‫ )בארז הגליל‬to Hiram King of Tyre (1 Kings 9.11–13). 7 War 3.35–38. References to Galilee also appear in the works of other Graeco-Roman writers. Strabo identifies Galilee (Γαλιλαίαν) as one of the territories of Judaea (’Ιουδαίας) near Scythopolis (Geogr. 16.2.34, 40). Pliny the Elder identifies Galilaea as the region of Iudaea adjoining Syria (Nat. Hist. 5.70). And the second century CE geographer Ptolemy depicts Galilee (Γαλιλαίας) as a region near Judea (’Ιουδαία) bordering Syria and Samaria (Geogr.5.15.6, 9; 5.16.1, 3–8). 8 Mark 7.24. The parallel passage in Matthew 15.21 reads, “εἰς τὰ μέρη Τύρου.” 9 Mark 7.31. 10 Luke 17.11. On another occasion Luke speaks of Jesus receiving an unwelcome reception from a Samaritan village (Luke 9.52–53). 11 For instance, early references to Kedesh identify the settlement as an Israelite town in Galilee (Josh. 20.7; 21.32). By the Early Roman period, however, Kedesh was a Tyrian settlement lying beyond the northern border of Galilee, as defined by Josephus (War 4.104). 12 War 3.35–38. 13 Note e.g. the distinction between Galilee and Phoenicia in Siegfried Mittmann and Götz Schmitt, eds., Tübinger Bibelatlas/Tübingen Bible Atlas (Tübingen: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart, 2001), Map BV 18.

68

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Josephus.14 Similarly, Andrea Berlin locates Kedesh in Upper Galilee,15 even though Josephus claims that Kedesh belonged to Tyre in the first century CE.16 It is not surprising, therefore, that Moreland and Berlin speak of Jews and Gentiles living in Galilee during the Early Roman I period. These different conceptions of the boundaries of Galilee have resulted in confusion, particularly when discussing the ethnicity of the Galilean population in the first century CE. One must ask, which Galilee is being referred to? When I speak of Galilee, I am referring to Galilee as it existed during the first century CE prior to 70 CE, and as it was defined by Josephus. This is the Galilee which I will argue was predominantly Jewish during the Early Roman I period. Confusion can also emerge when discussions of Galilean ethnicity incorporate more than one chronological period without clear distinction. This is particularly so if the Early and Late Hellenistic periods are combined with the Early and Middle Roman periods, because it can obscure the shifts that occurred in the material culture of sites during these periods.17 As will be seen, during the Late Hellenistic period the administration of the region shifted from Seleucid to Hasmonean rule. This change in administration resulted in a corresponding shift in the ethnicity of the Galilean population. Thus it is important in a work like this, which focuses on the itinerant ministry of Jesus, to distinguish where possible Early Roman I period strata from that of the Late Hellenistic period or Early Roman II and Middle Roman periods. It is also evident that scholars can employ different chronological tables. For instance, Chancey dates the Late Hellenistic period from 198 BCE–63 BCE, Reed dates this period from 167 BCE–63 BCE, and Fiensy and Strange date this period from 152–37 BCE. Thus references to a particular period may not mean the same in every work. It is important, therefore, to note the limits of 14 Milton Moreland, “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 144–146. Similarly, when discussing excavations at Tyrian Kedesh, Moorland writes of “the importance of the Phoenicians in the northern region of Galilee.” Moreland, “Inhabitants of Galilee,” 151–153. 15 Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman, eds., The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 2002), 66. 16 War 4.104. 17 For example, Moreland acknowledges the predominantly Jewish ethnicity of the Galilean population during the Early Roman period but nuances this by noting the diversity of the population during the Hellenistic periods, and the close economic links between Galilee and Phoenicia. Much of what he says is not in dispute. The pertinent question is whether the close economic link between Galilee and Phoenicia during the Early Hellenistic period continued into the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods, and whether there was continuity in the material culture of sites in Galilee from the Early Hellenistic through to the Early Roman period. Moreland, “Inhabitants of Galilee,” 142.

B. Defining the region of Galilee

69

each chronological period with which a given scholar is working. In this work, the Late Hellenistic Period will denote the years 167 BCE–63 BCE.18 III. The borders of Galilee as defined by Josephus Our best literary source for knowledge of first-century CE Galilee is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Josephus describes the administrative boundaries of Galilee during the first century CE prior to 70 CE.19 He claims that Galilee was divided into two geographical sub-regions: Upper Galilee, with its mountain ranges, plateaus, and steep ravines in the north; and Lower Galilee with its hills, valleys, and plains in the south. He adds that the two Galilees were surrounded by Phoenicia and Syria,20 and then lists the specific territories that bordered the region: Hippos, Gadara, and Gaulanitis in the east; Scythopolis and Samaria in the south; Mount Carmel, Gaba/Geba, and Ptolemais in the west; and the hinterland of Tyre in the north.21 To define the territory of Galilee more precisely Josephus names the towns and villages that marked its borders.22 In Lower Galilee the easternmost settlement was the city of Tiberias, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.23 The southernmost settlement was the village of Xaloth in the Jezreel Valley.24 Although 18

The beginning of the period roughly corresponds to the waning years of the Seleucid Empire and the rise of the Hasmoneans, and the end of the period is marked by the arrival of the Roman general Pompey in the region in 63 BCE (Ant. 14.74–75; War 1.155–157). Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 654. For other chronological periods refer to the list at the beginning of this work. 19 These were the boundaries of Galilee when Josephus was governor of the region in 66– 67 CE (War 2.568). Mason, “Josephus,” EDEJ 730–731. See also Mordechai Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys, Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods, vol. 1 of The Land of Galilee. Institute for Galilean Archaeology (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2004), 9–21. Josephus conveys the impression that these boundaries were also in place during the reign of Antipas. He gives no indication that these borders shifted during the first century CE, although as we will see, he does note that Jewish villages came under attack during the time of Herod the Great in the first century BCE, and around the time of the First Jewish Revolt. Thus Chancey writes that the boundaries of Josephus, “also roughly correspond to the limits of Herod Antipas’ territory.” Mark A. Chancey, Graeco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. SNTSMS 134 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 19. 20 War 3.35. 21 War 3.35–38. 22 With regard to the names of sites, I will sometimes use the Greek, or an Anglicised form of this, or Hebrew, or Arabic, depending on which name is better known e.g. Sepphoris, Capernaum, Tiberias, Khirbet Qana, etc. Where a site is known by two names, I may use both for clarification e.g. Sepphoris/Zippori, Magdala/Taricheae, Jotapata/Yodefat, Bethsaida/Julias, Scythopolis/Beth Shean. 23 War 3.37. 24 Josephus refers to the Jezreel Valley as the Great Plain (War 3.39; Life 227). Xaloth is identified with Iksal.

70

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Josephus sometimes implies that Galilee included part of the Jezreel Valley,25 references to villages in Lower Galilee seem to indicate that the border ran close to the southern foothills.26 Galilee’s westernmost settlement was Chabulon, near the border separating Galilee from the district of Ptolemais.27 Josephus identifies Bersabe/Beersheba of Galilee as the town marking the boundary between Lower and Upper Galilee.28 The northernmost town of Upper Galilee was Meroth, now identified with Marus.29 Its westernmost settlement was Baca,30 and its easternmost settlement was Thella near the Jordan.31 These were the administrative boundaries of Galilee during the first century CE prior to 70 CE, according to Josephus. While the size of Galilee was relatively small, its hilly terrain increased the surface area available for settlement and cultivation.32

C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity

As noted above, the twentieth century saw significant debate over the question of Galilean ethnicity. The varying proposals and lack of consensus was due in part to the meagre and sometimes contradictory evidence in the literary

25

War 3.37. See e.g. Simonias (Life 24), Japhia (War 2.573; 3.289), Xaloth (War 3.3), Dabaritta (War 2.595; Life 62). 27 War 3.38. See also War 2.503; Life 213. Chabulon is identified with modern Kabul. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13. Ptolemais was a Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast, formerly known as Akko. 28 War 3.39. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. The Mishnah locates the boundary at Kefar Hananya (m. Šeb. 9.2), but there is no great discrepancy here. Bersabe and Kefar Hananya were close to each other in the Beth Kerem valley. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 9. 29 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13. Meroth is referred to as Mero in War 2.573. 30 War 3.39. Baca/Peqi‘in (Hebrew), has been identified with el Buqei‘a. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13; Yoram Tsafrir, Leah Di Segni and Judith Green, “Baca, Beca,” Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea Palaestina: Maps and Gazetteer (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 73. 31 War 3.40. This was initially identified with Kh. Tleil/Tuleil near Lake Huleh. However, Idan Shaked and Dina Avshalom-Gorni have recently challenged this and suggest that Thella be identified with Kh. Maqbara Bamat Yaqub, a site located southwest of Lake Huleh which has yielded remains indicative of Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. Idan Shaked and Dina Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Southeastern Hula Valley in the First Century CE,” in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. Douglas R. Edwards (New York: Routledge, 2004), 30. Aviam, who formerly identified Thella with Kh. Tliel, now also accepts the identification of Thella with Maqbara Bamat Yaqub. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13. 32 War 3.41–44. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 3–16. 26

C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity

71

sources, and due to doubts as to the historical value of their claims. Let us consider what these sources say. Scholars have generally recognised that Josephus conveys the impression of a Jewish Galilee during the first century CE. Josephus calls the Galileans “fellow countrymen,”33 and writes that it was customary for the Galileans to attend religious festivals in Jerusalem.34 He describes the residents of certain towns observing the Sabbath,35 and he notes the opposition of residents in Tiberias to the presence of “unlawful” images in Antipas’ palace.36 He also notes occasions when Galileans and Judeans united to resist violation of Jewish customs,37 such as the protest in 39/40 CE against the decree of Gaius Caligula to erect a statue of his image in the Jerusalem temple.38 The close connection between Galilee and Judea is further indicated by the fact that Josephus was appointed governor of Galilee by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin in 66 CE. As Chancey writes, “They clearly felt Galilee was within their authority and would respond, to some degree at least, to their leadership.”39 Josephus himself claims that his priestly heritage helped him gain Galilean

33

Life 142. Ant. 20.118; War 2.232. Pilgrims travelled to Jerusalem from all over the country, including Galilee, as well as from the diaspora (War 2.42–43; 2.224, 280; Ant. 17.213–214; Ant. 20.105–12). See also Philo (Spec. Laws 1.69). Even Herod Antipas was seen at festivals in Jerusalem (Ant. 18.122; Luke 23.7). 35 These were recorded because Sabbath observance influenced the course of events in these towns. They should not be taken to imply that other towns did not observe the Sabbath. In the case of Asochis observance of the Sabbath led to the town being captured by Ptolemy toward the end of the second century BCE (Ant. 13.337). This attack was quickly followed by an assault on Sepphoris, indicating that this town was also Jewish at this time (Ant. 13.338; cf. Ant. 13.322). During the first century CE there are references to the residents of Taricheae (Life 159), Tiberias (Life 275–276), and Gischala (War 4.99) observing the Sabbath. 36 Life 65–66. 37 See e.g. Ant. 17.254–58; 20.120; War 2.232, 234; Life 354. 38 On this occasion, Josephus writes a delegation of Jews went to meet the Syrian legate Petronius in the plains of Ptolemais. They pleaded with Petronius not to carry out the emperor’s orders. It is noteworthy that when Petronius moved his council to Tiberias, he left the bulk of his forces and their standards behind. These standards depicted images of the emperor and would have caused offence (War 2.192–193; Ant. 19.338–342). Thousands of Galileans assembled in Tiberias and refused to return to their fields without some assurance that the image of the emperor would not be set up in the Jerusalem temple. Josephus writes they insisted, “We will sooner die than violate our laws” (Ant. 18.271–272. Cf. War 2.192– 193). Although the narrative is probably embellished, the incident only makes sense if it was understood that the Galileans were loyal to the Jerusalem temple and Jewish customs. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 54. 39 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 55. 34

72

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

support.40 Elsewhere he notes that during the First Jewish Revolt, many Galileans fled to Jerusalem for safety.41 Perhaps most telling is that a large portion of Josephus’ Jewish War, which was introduced as the war of the Jews against the Romans (’Επειδὴ τὸν ’Ιουδαίων πρὸς ‘Ρωμαίους),42 is dedicated to events which occurred in Galilee. Nonetheless, at certain points this portrayal of a Jewish Galilee is called into question. In Taricheae, Josephus records an incident where he exhorted the crowd to extend hospitality to certain Greek officials of Agrippa II.43 It should be noted, however, that the number of officials was small enough to occupy one house. Moreover, their presence aroused such opposition that they were threatened with violence if they did not adopt Jewish customs.44 A similar incident occurred in Tiberias, but in that case the few Greek diplomats in the city were slaughtered in their sleep.45 However, both incidents post-date the time of Jesus, and by this time, Tiberias and Taricheae had been added to the territory of Agrippa II.46 It is in this context that we read of Agrippa II entertaining Herod of Chalcis and the kings of Commagene, Emesa, Armenia Minor, and Pontus in the city of Tiberias.47 Questions have also been raised over whether Josephus viewed the Galileans as a different ethnic group from the Jews, because on at least two occasions Josephus describes the Galileans as an ἔθνος.48 Yet in the first instance the Galileans are described as an ἔθνος in contrast to the Roman general Caesennius Gallus and his forces. In the second the Galileans are described as an ἔθνος in contrast to the Tyrians of Kedesh. At no point does Josephus describe the Galileans as an ἔθνος distinct from the Jews, and on at least one occasion Josephus indicates the Galileans were Jews.49 More difficult are some of the accounts of events which took place during the Hellenistic period, where details conflict with other sources. For example, 40 Life 28, 80; War 2.568–569. Although this claim is self-serving, it is generally consistent with the way many Galileans supported him in the face of opposition. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 56. 41 Life 354; War 4.61. 42 War 1.1. 43 Life 142. 44 Josephus eventually helped them escape (Life 142, 149, 151–153). 45 Life 67. As Chancey writes, “The massacre of Greeks at Tiberias is the exception rather than the rule.” Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 58. 46 Ant. 20.59. Adam Marshak, “Herodian Dynasty,” 738. 47 Ant. 19.338. 48 War 2.510; 4.105. See for example the discussion by Richard Horsley, Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 27. 49 He writes, “A Galilean, one of a large company of Jews (’Ιουδαίοι) on their way to the festival, was murdered” (War 2.232; cf. Ant. 20.118–120). The incident occurred in Samaria, as the group was travelling from Galilee to Jerusalem.

C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity

73

during the reign of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE), Josephus writes that forces from “Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon and the other nations (ἔθνων) of Galilee” came against the Jews of Galilee.50 Likewise, First Maccabees reports that the Jews of Galilee were being harassed by neighbouring Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, and all the Galilee of the Gentiles.51 The meaning of the phrase “Galilee of the Gentiles” will be discussed in the next chapter. For now it is important to note that both accounts seem to indicate that Galilee at this time had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, and both accounts record that Simon the Hasmonean pursued these Gentiles back to the gates of Ptolemais.52 However, after this event, First Maccabees claims that Simon brought the Jews back to Judea, which raises the question as to whether any Jews were left in Galilee.53 Josephus on the other hand implies that the Jews, who had been captured and held by the Phoenicians in Ptolemais, were freed by Simon and returned to their homes, presumably in Galilee.54 There is also a discrepancy between Josephus and First Maccabees concerning the Seleucid ruler Demetrius and his proposal to Jonathan the Hasmonean to grant tax relief and certain privileges to all Jews (’Ιουδαίοι). These privileges included the freedom to keep the Sabbath, celebrate the Jewish festivals, and live according to their ancestral traditions (πάτρια). For the most part Josephus’ account is faithful to that of First Maccabees. One exception, however, concerns the Jewish territories to which these privileges applied. According to Josephus, the territories were Judea, and the three toparchies of Samaria, Galilee, and Perea.55 First Maccabees, however, reads Judea and the “three nomes from Samaria and Galilee,”56 which are later identified as Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim, districts which once belonged to Samaria.57 This discrepancy seems to suggest that Josephus reframed the account to include Galilee and Perea, in order to bolster the Hasmonean claim on Galilee and further 50

Ant. 12.331. 1 Macc. 5.15–17. Also, in these verses the Jewish Galileans are twice described by the Judeans as fellow countrymen. 52 Ant. 12.334; 1 Macc. 5.21–23. 53 1 Macc. 5.21–23. Emil Schürer concluded, on the basis of this passage, that when the Jews were removed from Galilee the region was left to the Gentiles until the time of the Hasmonean conquest. Emil Schürer, Einleitung und politische Geschichte, vol. 1 of Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4th ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901), 275–276; and Emil Schürer, Die inneren Zustände, vol. 2 of Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 4th ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs,1907), 9–12. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1. Rev., ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 142. Schürer’s initial argument for a converted Iturean population is retained in the revised edition. 54 Ant. 12.334. 55 Ant. 13.49–54. 56 1 Macc. 10.30. 57 1 Macc. 11.28, 34. 51

74

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

legitimise his authority as governor of the region.58 Inconsistencies like these have raised questions as to the accuracy of Josephus’ general picture of a predominantly Jewish Galilee.59 Apart from this, both Josephus and First Maccabees agree that there were Jews living in Galilee during the reign of Jonathan (160–142 BCE). When Demetrius II marched south from Syria to remove the Hasmoneans from Galilee, Jonathan’s army marched out from their camp at Gennesaret to meet the generals of Demetrius in the plain of Hazor. Eventually Jonathan’s army forced them to retreat as far as Kedesh.60 Josephus adds that Jonathan fought to protect the Galileans because they were his people.61 Later Josephus notes that Alexander Jannaeus was brought up in Sepphoris in Galilee.62 After succeeding Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus made an unsuccessful attempt to take Ptolemais.63 Ptolemy retaliated by attacking Asochis on the Sabbath, and making a failed attempt on Sepphoris.64 These accounts make it clear that there were Jews living in Lower Galilee during the second half of the second century BCE. What is not clear, from literary sources alone, is the extent of Jewish settlement in the region at that time, and whether there were Jews also living in Upper Galilee.65 Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that when the Roman general Pompey severed the Decapolis cities from the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE, and confined

58

It also seems to imply that the region was largely populated by Jews at this time. For example, Timothy Lukritz Marquis argues that this alteration was intended to establish the legitimacy of Galilee coming under Judean leadership, and to bolster Josephus’ own presentation as a leader loyal to Jewish customs but also open to establishing friendships with foreigners. He may be correct in this regard. However, Marquis also implies that the Galileans during the time of Josephus were not Jews in the same sense as those living in Judea. He suggests we ask not “how Jewish or Judean Galilee was, but in what ways it was Jewish or Judean?” Timothy Lukritz Marquis, “Re-Presenting Galilean Identity” in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 55–67, esp. 67. 60 Ant. 13.158–168; 1 Macc. 11.63–74. Simon meanwhile attacked Bethzur and expelled the inhabitants from that place and set up a garrison there (1 Macc. 11.65–66). Jonathan then appointed him as military commissioner for the entire coastal region ‘from the Ladder of Tyre to Egypt’ (1 Macc. 11.59). Frankel et al., write “Akko/Ptolemais thus became part of the Land of Israel and the Ladder of Tyre came to define the border between ‘Akko and Tyre, and thus also that between the Land of Israel and Phoenicia.” Frankel, et al., Settlement Dynamics, 108. It seems unlikely, however, that either Jonathan or Simon captured the city of Ptolemais, since Alexander Jannaeus later attempted to take the city and failed (Ant.13.324). 61 Ant. 13.154. This point is noted by Frankel, et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109. 62 Ant. 13.322. 63 Ant. 13.324. Alexander Jannaeus ruled from 103–76 BCE. 64 Ant. 13.337–338. 65 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109–110. 59

C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity

75

the Jewish ἔθνος “within its own borders,”66 these borders included Galilee.67 Pompey recognised the Jewish claim on Galilee, and included the region in the new temple state.68 The new Jewish ethnarchy was granted a degree of autonomy under the leadership of the High Priest and ethnarch Hyrcanus II, who was answerable to the Roman legate based in Syria.69 Governing alongside him was the Idumean Antipater, the father of Herod the Great.70 After Pompey was defeated in 48 BCE, Julius Caesar appointed Antipater as governor (ἐπιτροπος) and reconfirmed Hyrcanus II as High Priest and ethnarch over the Jewish people (τοῦ ’Ιουδαίων ἔθνους) in accordance with their ancestral customs (πάτρια ἔθη).71 Antipater then appointed his young son Herod as governor (ἐπιτροπος) of Galilee.72 Herod did not have widespread support among the Galileans, many of whom continued to support the Hasmoneans. Herod was also criticised for executing Hezekiah and his men without trial.73 Josephus labelled Hezekiah a Galilean brigand chief, but Hezekiah’s raids along the Syrian border probably had the support of many Galileans, and Sean Freyne may be correct in suggesting that Hezekiah was an ousted Hasmonean noble.74 In 42 BCE Mark Antony appointed Herod as tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Phasael as tetrarch of Judea.75 But in 40 BCE, the Hasmonean contender Antigonus supported the Parthian invasion of Judea and captured Phasael and Hyrcanus II.76 After fleeing to Rome, Herod gained the support of Antony and Octavian, and the senate declared him king of the Jews.77 Herod then returned from Rome, gathered troops in Ptolemais, and set out to subdue the strongholds of Antigonus in Galilee. Although Josephus claims “all Galilee, except for a few of its inhabitants, came over to his side,” the reality was

66

Ant. 14.74–75; War 1.155–157. The inclusion of Gaulanitis within the Jewish ἔθνος will be discussed in Chapter Five. 68 Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 654. 69 Ant. 14.73; War 1.153. 70 A few years later the Roman governor Gabinius, based in Syria, reconfirmed Hyrcanus as High Priest over the Jewish ethnarchy, but he adjusted the administrative structure of Palestine by establishing five regional councils to administer local affairs. In Galilee the council was located at Sepphoris (Ant. 14.90–91; War 1.170). 71 Ant. 14.143, 192–6, 199; cf. War 1.197–200. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 61. 72 Ant. 14.158; War 1.203. 73 Ant. 14.159, 167–168; War 1.204–205, 209–210. The Sanhedrin was indignant at Herod’s action, and the Galilean mothers of the slain raised an outcry in the Jerusalem temple demanding Herod be tried for his crimes. 74 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 63–64, and 93, n.21. 75 Ant. 14.326; War 1.244. 76 War 1.248–255, 268–273. 77 Ant. 14.381–389; War 1.282–285. For an introduction to Herod the Great, see Adam Marshak, “Herod the Great,” EDEJ 729–735. 67

76

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

probably somewhat different.78 Antigonus had forces in Sepphoris and resistance fighters in the caves of Arbel. Herod pushed through a winter snowstorm to capture Antigonus at Sepphoris,79 and slaughtered many of Antigonus’ supporters between Arbel and the Jordan River.80 In the following year Herod removed the last of the rebels living in the caves of Arbel.81 He appointed Ptolemy as general over the region, but shortly afterward Ptolemy was killed by Herod’s opponents in Galilee. Herod returned again and slew some of the rebels and exacted tribute from the cities.82 On another occasion Antigonus drowned the supporters of Herod in the Sea of Galilee.83 Each episode reveals the extent to which some Galileans were willing to go to remove Herod and restore the Hasmoneans.84 Such anti-Herodian and pro-Hasmonean sentiment is consistent with Josephus’ depiction of a predominantly Jewish Galilee. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, when Galilee passed to his son Antipas, revolt erupted again in the region. This time it was led by Judas, the son of Hezekiah, who raised an army at Sepphoris, broke into the royal arsenals, and slew his opponents.85 Rome retaliated with the destruction of Sepphoris.86 Although Judas may have had royal ambitions, this revolt was also probably anti-Herodian. Then when Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was exiled in 6 CE, Judea became a Roman province. At this time, a certain Judas the Galilean, also known as Judas the Gaulanite from Gamla, led a revolt opposing payment of tribute to Rome.87 He claimed that Jews could not worship God according to their laws while subject to Rome. The fact that this controversy erupted in Judea, was led by a Galilean (or Gaulanite), and centred on Jewish concerns, highlights the close ethnic ties between these regions. Finally, throughout the long reign of Herod the Great, and despite his investment in building projects and Josephus’ condemnation of his “cultural innovations,” Josephus informs us that Herod did not construct any pagan temples in Jewish areas, including Galilee.88 In addition, while Herod Antipas was 78

Ant. 14.395; War 1.292. War 1.304; cf. Ant. 14.413–414. 80 War 1.305–307. 81 Ant. 14.415–430; War 1.309–314. 82 Ant. 14.433; War 1.315–316. 83 War 1.326. Once more Herod returned to Galilee with Roman reinforcements to put down these forces (Ant. 14.452; War 1.329–330). 84 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 65–68. 85 Ant. 17.27–2, 278; War 2.56, 67–68. 86 Ant. 17.289; War 2.68. Josephus may have exaggerated the extent of the damage, since evidence of this destruction has not yet been uncovered. Meyers, Galilee Through the Centuries, 114. 87 Ant. 18.4, 23; War 2.118. See also Acts 5.37. 88 Ant. 15.328–330. He did, however, renovate and expand the Jerusalem temple (Ant. 15.380). 79

C. Literary sources and Galilean ethnicity

77

tetrarch over Galilee (4 BCE–39 CE), he did not erect any pagan temples or shrines in Galilee.89 This is consistent with the picture of a predominantly Jewish Galilee during the Early Roman I period. In 39 CE Herod Antipas was exiled and Galilee passed to Agrippa I.90 After the death of the Emperor Gaius in 40 CE, Claudius added to Agrippa’s reign the territories of Judea and Samaria. Thus Agrippa I ruled the kingdom that had once belonged to his grandfather Herod the Great.91 However, Agrippa came to an abrupt end in 44 CE, and his kingdom came under direct Roman rule. From this point on, Galilee, along with Samaria and Judea, was ruled by Roman procurators until the time of the First Jewish Revolt in 66 CE.92 The New Testament Gospels convey a similar impression of a predominantly Jewish Galilee. Jesus discusses matters of Jewish law, such as ritual purity and Sabbath observance;93 he preaches in Galilean synagogues;94 and he travels to Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish Passover.95 Luke also recalls Samaritan hostility toward Jesus and his followers as they travel through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem.96 A further incident recalls that Pilate slaughtered a number of Galileans, and was said to have mixed their blood with the temple sacrifices.97 Whether this should be understood literally or metaphorically, it suggests the incident occurred while Galileans were sacrificing in the Jerusalem temple.98 Thus the Synoptic Gospels convey the impression that Galilee was a Jewish region. However, there are two notable exceptions. A Q tradition records that Jesus encountered a centurion in Capernaum,99 and Matthew echoes Isaiah’s reference to “Galilee of the Gentiles.”100 From these two references, some scholars have drawn the conclusion that Galilee had a mixed population in the first century CE.101 89

In fact, Josephus records Herod Antipas travelling to the temple in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices (Ant. 18.122–123). Whether this reflects any genuine religious conviction on the part of Herod Antipas is debated. 90 Ant. 18.252. 91 Ant. 19.274; War 2.215; cf. Dio Cassius 60.8.2. 92 Ant. 19.343–352; cf. Acts 12.21–23. 93 See e.g. Matt 5.17–7.27; Matt 12.1–2, 9–10; 15.1–2; Mark 2.23; 7.1–4; Luke 6.1–2, 6– 7, 27–49; 11.37–41. 94 See e.g. Matt 4.23; Mark 1.21, 6.2; Luke 4.16. 95 See e.g. Matt 26.17; Mark 14.12; and Luke 22.7–8. Cf. Luke 2.21–52. John records Jesus making frequent trips to Jerusalem to attend religious festivals (John 2.13; 5.1; 6:4; 7.2, 10; 10.22; 11.55; 12.12). 96 Luke 9.51–53. 97 Luke 13.1–3. 98 Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 553. 99 Q 7.3–9 (Matt 8.5–10; Luke 1–10). Cf. John 4.46–47. This will be discussed further in Chapter Three. 100 Matt. 4.15 (Isa. 8:23 [MT]; Isa. 9.1 [LXX]). This will be discussed in Chapter Three. 101 This will be discussed below.

78

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Certain Graeco-Roman writers also refer to Galilee and comment on its connection to Judaea. Strabo includes Galilee (Γαλιλαίαv) in his list of districts belonging to Judaea (’Ιουδαίας).102 Pliny the Elder identifies Galilee (Galilaea) as that part of Judaea (Iudaea) adjoining Syria.103 The geographer Ptolemy also describes Galilee (Γαλιλαίας) as belonging to Judaea, and he correctly locates three towns in the region: Sepphoris (Σαπφουρεί), Caparcotni (Καπαρκοτνεί), and Tiberias (Τιβεριάς).104 In conclusion, the literary sources give the overall impression that Galilee was a Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. However, a few references raise questions about this general picture, and this has led to varying hypotheses regarding Galilean ethnicity.

D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity

Around the turn of the last century Emil Schürer proposed that the Galileans were descendants of converted Itureans. This hypothesis was based primarily on two events. First, Schürer argued that the small community of diaspora Jews living among the Gentiles of Galilee were extracted from the region during the time of Simon the Hasmonean. This left Galilee wholly Gentile. Second, Schürer argued that these Gentile Galileans were Itureans, who were later forced to convert to Judaism during the reign of Aristobulus I.105 This was based on Josephus’ account of Aristobulus I’s campaign against the Itureans, 102

Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.34. The other districts of Judaea are listed as: Idumea, Joppa, Samaria, Jericho, and Philadelphia. Strabo was mistaken with regards to Philadelphia, since the Jewish territory of Perea extended only as far as the boundary of Philadelphia (Josephus, Ant. 20.2). Strabo added that the Jewish territories were populated by Egyptian, Arabian, and Phoenician tribes (Geogr. 16.2.34). His reference to Egyptians was probably derived from a mistaken belief that the Jews were originally Egyptians. This was also the understanding of Diodorus Siculus (Bib. Hist. 1.28.2; 1.55.5), and Tacitus (Hist. 5.3.1–2). Strabo’s reference to Arabian tribes reflects the inclusion of Idumea in the Hasmonean kingdom. Strabo also appears to have thought the entire coastal region belonged to Phoenicia (Geogr. 16.2.2), but as Stern notes, “We must go back to the Persian period for the inclusion of the Palestinian coast in Phoenicia.” Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.290. 103 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.70. 104 Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.16.4. Ptolemy was the first non-Jewish author to mention Sepphoris. Caparcotni/Kefar ‘Othnay, on the southern boundary of Galilee, was later renamed Legio when garrisoned by the Sixth Legion. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.170. 105 Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 1.275–276; and 2.9–12. See also Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 1.142, 217–18, 561–573. Schürer added that the region Aristobulus conquered must have been Galilee because Hyrcanus had only extended the Judean kingdom as far as Samaria and Scythopolis, and the regions around Galilee remained Gentile. However, the records of Hyrcanus’ expansion are too meagre to conclude that Galilee was not part of Judea by the end of his reign.

D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity

79

and his annexation of their territory ca. 105/4 BCE.106 The problem with Schürer’s hypothesis was that Josephus does not mention Galilee in connection with Aristobulus I’s conquest of the Itureans. Moreover, Josephus claims that Aristobulus I “brought over” (ᾠκειώσατο) (or “made kinsmen”) only part of (μέρος) the Iturean nation, and there is no literary evidence for any Itureans living in Galilee during the Late Hellenistic period. Nonetheless, Schürer’s hypothesis was widely accepted, so that from the mid-twentieth century many scholars assumed the population of Galilee in the first century CE was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, with the majority of the Jews being descendants of converted Itureans.107 Walter Bauer went so far as to claim that Galilee was predominantly Gentile with only a Jewish veneer, and that there was significant hostility between the Galileans and the Jews.108 Alternatively, Gnilka accepted that there were Jews living in Galilee, but argued that Galilee was significantly Hellenised by the time of Jesus, with Hellenistic landowners controlling vast tracts of fertile land in the region.109 Freyne offered an alternative view of a Jewish Galilee orientated towards Jerusalem.110 He argued there was no solid evidence for Schürer’s hypothesis that the Jews of Galilee were descendants of converted Itureans, and that it

106 Ant. 13.318–319. Aristobulus demanded the Itureans adhere to Jewish customs if they wished to remain in the land, and their territory was then added to Judaea. Josephus states this information was sourced by Strabo from Timagenes of Alexandria. Elsewhere he notes that Aristobulus received military decorations in Galilee (War 1.76). 107 See e.g. Charles Guignebert, The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, trans. S.H. Hooke (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1939), 7–11; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1960), 42; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 233; Maurice Goguel, Jesus and the Origins of Christianity, vol. 2, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1960), 254–255; Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, 13th ed. (London: Mathieson and Co., n.d), 13–14, 37; Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33, 79; Mack, The Lost Gospel, 51–68; Tsafrir, et al., TIR 9; James F. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36; and Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 169. Chancey suggests that some of the first century Galilean Jews may have been descendants of converted Itureans, although he acknowledges that the archaeological evidence does not support this. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 42. Joan Taylor accepts Schürer’s hypothesis, but recognises that the Galileans of the first century CE were Jews nonetheless, given that their ancestors converted. Joan E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The myth of Jewish-Christian origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 49. Alternatively, Louis Feldman stated that Antiquities 13.318 speaks of “the forcible conversion of the Itureans who lived in Lebanon, not in Galilee.” Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 369. 108 Walter Bauer, “Jesus der Galilӓer,” in Aufsӓtze und kleine Schriften, ed. Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 91–108. 109 Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.69–70. Gnilka also attributed the distinctive accent of the Galileans to the impact of the Greek language. 110 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 43–44.

80

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

should therefore be abandoned.111 During the 1980s, Freyne had an alternative hypothesis regarding Galilean ancestry. He argued that the Jews of Galilee were descendants of the northern Israelite tribes. He claimed that during the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century BCE only the “upper levels of society” were removed from Galilee, leaving behind the remainder of the Israelite population.112 These Israelite communities then continued “relatively unscathed,”113 until the Hasmonean period when they “passed naturally into the emerging Jewish state.”114 He added that when Pompey severed the Decapolis cities from the Hasmonean kingdom, “Galilee with its Jewish loyalties rooted in its Israelite past, was in no danger of being annexed to the new Roman province of Syria.”115 Thus Freyne argued that the Galileans were Jews (’Ιουδαίοι) by the Early Roman I period. He wrote: Galileans, insofar as they share in the customs—especially the religious ones—relating to worship in the single Temple in Jerusalem, are naturally designated Ioudaioi.116

Freyne added that when the Galileans fought alongside the Judeans in the First Jewish Revolt, they did so “on behalf of the distinctive Jewish way of life, expressed in the laws, customs and practices of those who worshipped at the Jerusalem temple.”117 It should be noted that prior to the 1990s, Freyne relied primarily on literary sources. After this time, he began to take account of the archaeological data emerging from Galilee. Consequently, by 2000, Freyne amended his position to say that the Jews of Galilee during the first century CE were not descendants of ancient Israelites, but probably descendants of recent immigrants from Judea.118

111 Freyne noted that the Itureans migrated into Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, and into the Jordan valley around Lake Huleh, and conceded they may have infiltrated the most northern reaches of Upper Galilee, but argues that there is no literary basis for the claim that they settled in Galilee and were converted there to Judaism. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 43. Sanders agrees with Freyne’s assessment of Schürer’s hypothesis. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 169, n.57. 112 Freyne was correct to note that unlike Samaria, Galilee was not repopulated with immigrants from elsewhere (2 Kgs 17.4, 6, 24). Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 25. 113 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 38. 114 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 50. 115 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 59. 116 Freyne, “Behind the Names,” in Meyers, Galilee through the Centuries, 54. 117 Sean Freyne, “The Revolt from a Regional Perspective,” in Berlin and Overman, First Jewish Revolt, 43. 118 See e.g. Sean Freyne, “Galilee, Jesus and the Contribution of Archaeology,” ExpT 119.12 (2008): 573–581; and Sean Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 176–182. This will be discussed further below.

D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity

81

Geza Vermes also contended that Galilee had a predominantly Jewish population during the Early Roman I period, the majority of whom were migrants from Judea. Prior to the Hasmonean conquest, however, Vermes claimed that Galilee had a mixed population of Gentiles, a small colony of Jews, and descendants of the ancient Israelites who had “never ceased altogether.”119 The 1970s saw the beginning of a new wave of excavations in Galilee which influenced Jesus research and debates over Galilean ethnicity. The Meiron Excavation Project in Upper Galilee led by Eric and Carol Meyers, and James F. Strange, was followed in the 1980s by excavations at Sepphoris in Lower Galilee. Israeli excavations were also underway at Jotapata/Yodefat and Gamla, two fortified Jewish towns which fell to the Romans in 67 CE. The material remains from Jotapata and Gamla revealed a Jewish population in the Early Roman I period.120 However, the initial findings from Sepphoris seemed to confirm the hypothesis of a culturally mixed and significantly Hellenised Galilee.121 This led to a flurry of publications arguing for a portrait of Jesus who was at home among Jews and Gentiles. On the assumption of a Gentile presence in Galilee, some scholars claimed that Jesus modelled his ministry on the practice of cynic philosophers.122 It was also argued that many of the Jews of Galilee adhered to a superficial form of Judaism, because they were descendants of Gentiles who had been coerced into adopting Judaism by the Hasmoneans. The problem with many such publications was that they were based on remains spanning a period of four or five centuries, much of which post-dated the first century CE. Careful differentiation between Late Hellenistic, Early Roman, and Middle and Late Roman period strata was needed, along with recognition of the shifts in material culture which took place during these periods. A second problem was the assumption that Graeco-Roman forms of 119

Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 44. Jotapata/Yodefat will be discussed in Chapter Three, and Gamla in Chapter Five. 121 Sepphoris appeared to be a cosmopolitan city which from the second century CE onward was populated with Jews, pagans and Christians. Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange, “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: A Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 2.19.1, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), 686–702. See also Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange in “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Palestinian Judaism,” in Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981), 31– 47; Eric M. Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research,” in Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee Levine (New York; Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 321–338; James F. Strange, “Sepphoris,” ABD 5.1090–1093; and James F. Strange, “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies,” in What has Archaeology to do with Faith? Ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 43–44. 122 See e.g. Downing, Christ and the Cynics, and Cynics and Christian Origins; and Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 421. 120

82

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

artwork and architecture implied the presence of Gentiles. What has become clear is that forms of Graeco-Roman architecture and artwork were adopted by the Jews of Galilee, specifically in Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Taricheae, from the time of the Hasmoneans onward.123 Also, as we will see, there is an absence of temples and cultic artefacts in Early Roman I period Galilee. It is of note, therefore, that throughout these years of excavation, Eric Meyers maintained that Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. He wrote: On the basis of Galilean regionalism, archaeology, the gospels, and Josephus, it is the inescapable and unavoidable conclusion that Jesus’ Galilean context was first and foremost a Jewish one both in content and in its political, administrative form.124

Drawing on both literary sources and archaeological data, Richard Horsley proposed that the majority of the Galileans in the first century CE were descendants of ancient Israelites who had survived the Assyrian invasion (733/732 BCE).125 Like Freyne, he conceded that 2 Kings 15.29 and the Assyrian annals portray the impression that the Israelite settlements were destroyed and the population deported,126 but he claimed that only the ruling class were taken, along with their servants, artisans, military officials, and scribes, and that the Assyrian policy in Galilee was similar to that in Samaria in 721 BCE where the majority of the peasants were left behind.127 Unlike Freyne, Horsley argued that the Galileans did not fully assimilate into the Jewish ethnos during the time of Hasmonean expansion. Rather, they held onto their own traditions, and

123

This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 57–66, esp. 64. 125 Richard Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995); and Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). Horsley was not the first to propose this view. See Albrecht Alt, “Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judӓaa und Samaria” and “Galilӓische Probleme,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der Volkes Israel, vol. 2 (Munich: C.H. Beck’sche, 1959), 346–362; and 374–384. 126 2 Kings 15.29 refers to the destruction of Galilee and all the land of Naphtali, and the Assyrian annals list several Galilean towns that were destroyed. In Lower Galilee these included Gabara, Hinatuma, Qana, Iatbite (i.e. Yodefat), and Irruna; and in Upper Galilee these included Ijon, Kedesh, and Hazor. K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Deportations of the Israelites,” JBL 117 (1998): 201–227. See also Annals 18 and 24, and the commentary on the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III in Northern Israel by Hayim Tadmor, in the new critical edition of the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser III. Hayim Tadmor, “Supplementary Study G: Tiglath-pileser’s Campaigns Against Israel 733–732: The Textual Evidence,” in The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007), 81– 83, 279–282. 127 Horsley, Galilee: History, 25–29, 40–42. See also 2 Kings 17.3−6. 124

D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity

83

continued to do so over and against the official or “great tradition” of Judea.128 Freyne disagreed with Horsley’s proposal arguing that if the first century Galileans were Israelites one would expect them to have more in common with the Samaritans, which is evidently not the case.129 Horsley’s hypothesis certainly seemed to provide a way of explaining some of the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. However, his hypothesis did not coincide with the findings of Zvi Gal’s surface survey of Lower Galilee. This survey revealed an abundance of ceramic sherds dating to the Iron Age II, Hellenistic, and Roman periods, but a notable lack of remains for the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, corresponding to the time of the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms. Zvi Gal took this as evidence that Galilee was largely emptied of its population during the Assyrian conquest. He also saw this as a general corroboration of 2 Kings 15.29 and the Assyrian Annals which recorded the destruction of Galilean settlements and the exile of its population.130 Horsley was correct to note that the scope of Zvi Gal’s survey was limited to Lower Galilee, and that surface surveys in general provide only preliminary data which needs to be corroborated by excavation.131 It is also correct that an absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.132 Important events can happen without leaving a trace. Only in this case, the absence covers an entire region, and subsequent stratified digs in Galilee and the Golan have verified Zvi Gal’s findings. These have revealed destruction of Iron Age II settlements, including in some cases evidence of battle, followed by a marked absence of structures and ceramic remains for the following two centuries.133 This is not an argument from silence, in the traditional sense. It is evidence of absence. The lack of architectural structures and other material remains is evidence that the region was largely unoccupied during this period. Consequently, there can be little direct continuity between the ancient Israelites of the region, and the Galileans of the first century CE.134 Nonetheless, by the end of the twentieth century there was still little consensus as to the ethnicity of the Galileans in the first century CE. In 2007 John 128

Horsley, Galilee: History, 147–149. In support of this Horsley noted that the Mishnah sometimes refers to the Galileans as Israelites, and sometimes Josephus simply uses the term Galileans. Horsley, Galilee: History, 13. 129 Freyne, “Behind the Names,” 40. 130 Zvi Gal, Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. ASOR Dissertation Series (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 131 Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 290, n. 13. 132 Frendo, Pre-Exilic Israel and Archaeology, 30. 133 Lawson Younger Jr., “Deportations of the Israelites,” 201–227. 134 Despite the mounting data for a Jewish Galilee, Horsley still holds to his original hypothesis. See e.g. Richard Horsley, review of The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission, by Sean Freyne. Review of Biblical Literature, SBL (2017). http://www.bookreviews.org.

84

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Elliot claimed that Jesus was not a “Judean” (’Ιουδαῖος), but an Israelite.135 He argued that the term “Israelite” (’Ισραηλίτης) was the preferred self-identifying term used by Jesus and fellow Galileans during the Early Roman I period.136 Elliot is correct to note that ’Ισραηλίτης was “an insider self-designation.”137 However, Galileans were not the only ones who used this self-designation. Those living in Judea also used this self-designation. As noted earlier, by the Early Roman I period the term ’Ιουδαίος was virtually synonymous with ’Ισραηλίτης.138 Moreover, although Josephus tends to use the term “Galilean” to denote those living in Galilee who were not citizens of a city (e.g. Sepphoris or Tiberias),139 he also refers to the Galileans as Jews (’Ιουδαίοι).140 Thus while Jesus was a Galilean in the sense that he came from a small village in Galilee, the evidence strongly suggests that in terms of ethnicity, Jesus was Jewish/Judean.141 In fact, we will soon see that many of those living in Galilee during the first century CE, were probably descendants of recent immigrants from Judea.142 In the past few decades the scholarly tide has begun to turn. Multiple publications have come to the same general conclusion: that the population of Galilee during the Early Roman I period was predominantly Jewish. Among these publications was Jonathan Reed’s Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, and Mark Chancey’s The Myth of a Gentile Galilee.143 What is particularly instructive about these two works is that they both explain how archaeological remains can reveal the material culture of a region and its settlement history, and

135

John H. Elliot, “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5.2 (2007): 119–154, esp. 125–127, 146. 136 See e.g. Matt. 9.33; 10.6; 15.24, 31; Mark 15.32; Luke 1.54, 68; 2.32, 34; 24.21; Q 7.9 (Matt. 8.10; Luke 7.9); John 1.31, 47; Acts 2.22; 3.12; 5.35; 2 Cor. 11.22–23. 137 Elliot, “Jesus the Israelite,” 123, 139. 138 L. Novakovic, “Israel,” DJG 403; Root, First Century Galilee, 60, 147–148. Note for example how ’Ιουδαίοι is used interchangeably with ’Ισραηλίτης in referring to the Jews who were rescued from Galilee and Gilead during the Maccabean uprising. 139 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 166. 140 See e.g. Ant. 20.118; War 2.232. This is acknowledged by Elliot, “Jesus the Israelite,” 133. 141 See again the discussion in Chapter One concerning Jesus’ role as a Jewish prophet. There are also indicators that Jesus may have belonged to the tribe of Judah. See e.g. Matt. 1.1–16; Mark 10.47; Matt. 21.9; Luke 3.23–34. 142 Root, First Century Galilee, 149–150. 143 See also Charlesworth, ed. Jesus and Archaeology; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians; Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2004); Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012); and Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 192–203.

D. Debate over Galilean ethnicity

85

thereby help to settle questions about the ethnicity of the Galileans arising from reliance on literary sources alone. Reed’s work draws primarily on archaeology and brings this into conversation with the Q source material. The main body of his work demonstrates how the material culture of Galilean sites from Early Roman I period strata reveals a Jewish population. In particular, he draws attention to the material culture of Sepphoris, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Tiberias. The strength of his work lies in its weight of archaeological evidence and his careful distinction of Early Roman period strata from Late Hellenistic, and Middle and Late Roman period strata. Its limitation lies in the fact that only four settlements are discussed in detail, and these are all located in Lower Galilee. Chancey’s work lacks Reed’s archaeological expertise but is broader in focus. He draws on the published findings of archaeologists and brings these into conversation with first century literary sources, mainly Josephus and the Gospels, to provide a survey of multiple sites in Upper and Lower Galilee, and to demonstrate that the vast majority of Galileans in the first century CE were Jewish. Neither Chancey nor Reed denies the possible presence of some Gentiles in the region, but they argue that their numbers were so small that they left almost no impact “in the literary and archaeological records.”144 Both scholars also discuss Galilee’s settlement history, explaining how the region became predominantly Jewish. An important point made by Chancey is that during the early days of Hasmonean expansion, their campaigns in Galilee were not against local Gentiles living in the region, but rather with Phoenician and Syrian forces attempting to gain or maintain control over the region.145 For instance, it was raids emanating from Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, that led Simon the Hasmonean to come to the aid of the Jews in Galilee, and according to First Maccabees, he drove these forces back to the “gates of Ptolemais.”146 This is not to say that there were no Gentiles living in Galilee during the Hellenistic period, for there certainly were, but rather that Galilee was becoming a contested region during the waning years of the Seleucid Empire. At the time when the Hasmoneans were extending their territory north into Galilee, the Phoenicians were pushing east into the same region. One point on which Reed and Chancey differ is their assessment of Schürer’s hypothesis that the Galileans were descendants of converted Itureans. Chancey accepts the possibility that some Itureans may have migrated 144

Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 5. See also Reed, Galilean Jesus, 161–163. 1 Macc. 5.9–23; 11.63–74; 13.46–52; and Ant. 13.158–162. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 41. 146 1 Macc 5.22. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 37. It is possible that the expedition of Simon to the region was exaggerated and intended to convey the impression that the Hasmoneans were fulfilling biblical prophecy, but this does not detract from the point that the region being referred to was near the coast and the Phoenician cities of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, rather than the Galilean hinterland. 145

86

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

into Galilee, and that parts of Galilee were under Iturean control at the time of Aristobulus’ I invasion.147 Thus he considers it possible that some of the Jewish population in Galilee during the Early Roman I period may have been descendants of converted Itureans. However, Chancey admits that the Itureans mainly occupied the Lebanon and Counter-Lebanon ranges, and that while their distinctive pottery has been found at sites on Mount Hermon and in the northern Golan,148 there is no explicit literary or archaeological evidence of their presence in Galilee.149 Reed on the other hand argues strongly that the distinctive pottery of the Itureans is absent from Galilee, and that they did not migrate as far south as Upper Galilee, let alone Lower Galilee. The evidence for the presence of Itureans on Mount Hermon and in the northern Golan is abundant, but not in Galilee.150 Moreover, the presence of Itureans in the Golan fits with Josephus’ claim that the Iturean king Zenodorus owned large tracts of land around Paneas, and in Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis.151 If Aristobulus I did annex Iturean territory as Josephus reports, then this territory was probably in the Golan, although some assert that Josephus’ report may be unreliable and that the Itureans never became part of the Hasmonean kingdom.152 What is important to note here is that if the conquest of these regions occurred during the one year reign of Aristobulus I, then it is likely that Galilee was already part of the Hasmonean kingdom by 104 BCE. So if Galilee was not populated by Itureans or by descendants of the ancient Israelites prior to the Hasmonean conquest, who was living in the region and what became of them? This will be discussed further below. For now, what both Reed and Chancey reveal, based on the material evidence, is that Galilee during the Early Roman I period was a predominantly Jewish region. Moreover, an increasing number of scholars now recognise that the majority of this population seem to have migrated into the region from Judea during the Hasmonean and Herodian administrations.153 This is not only 147

Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 42–45, esp. 44. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 44. See also Shimon Dar, “The History of the Hermon Settlements,” PEQ 120 (1988): 26–44; and Moshe Hartel, “Khirbet Zemel, 1985– 86,” IEJ 37 (1987): 270–272. The association of Golan ware with the Itureans will be discussed in Chapter Six. 149 He writes, “Archaeologists have certainly not identified any ‘Iturean phase’ of settlement in Galilee.” Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 44. 150 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 38–39. See also Uzi Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. TSAJ 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 321; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 45; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 38. 151 Ant. 15.318–319, 343–4, 360; War 2.93–95. 152 See e.g. Leibner, Settlement and History, 320–321. 153 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 42–43, 55, 177; Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 655; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 56–62; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46–49; Danny Syon, Small Change 148

E. Jewish identity markers

87

reflected in the shift in material culture at sites during the Late Hellenistic period, but is also indicated in the abandonment of some sites, the destruction of others, and the founding of new towns and villages during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods.154 However, before we can discuss in detail the ethnicity of particular settlements in Galilee, it is necessary to note how archaeologists are able to distinguish a Jewish population from other ethnic groups on the basis of their material remains.

E. Archaeology and Jewish identity markers E. Jewish identity markers

I. Material culture The socialised patterns of behaviour of a particular people group can be observed in their material remains.155 This material culture enables archaeologists to distinguish one group from another, and to observe their settlement history.156 With some ethnic groups, these patterns of behaviour are particularly distinctive. This is the case with the Jewish population of Palestine during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods. As Carl Savage writes: We see beginning in the first half of the first century BCE and developing into the first century CE markers that indicate a conspicuous self-identity for Jews in Galilee and also in Jerusalem. In their daily lives most Jews were more alike than different among themselves, and certainly they were more different than alike compared to the greater Hellenistic culture around them.157

The material culture of settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period is markedly different from that of most settlements on the Phoenician coast or in the Tyrian hinterland north of Upper Galilee, as defined by Josephus. The settlements of Galilee reveal a material culture which corresponds to that of

in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. NSR 11 (Jerusalem: The Israel Numismatic Society, 2015), 93. 154 This will be discussed in Chapter Four. 155 This includes patterns of settlement and types of architecture, artwork, ceramic forms, and cultic artefacts, etc. For a brief introduction to Jewish material culture in Galilee see Andrea Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” JSJ 36.4 (2005): 417–470; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 23–55. 156 Some groups are recognisable by their material culture but cannot be identified. Such is the case for those who manufactured Galilean courseware (GCW) during the Early Hellenistic period. This will be discussed below. 157 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 4.

88

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Judea and reflects a population whose trade is orientated more towards Jerusalem than the Phoenician coast.158 II. Jewish identity markers Several Jewish identity markers have been recognised in the archaeological profile of sites in Galilee and Judea during the Early Roman I period. These Jewish identity markers reflect shared religious practices and concern for religious purity. As Andrea Berlin writes: The archaeological evidence shows that Jews throughout Judea, Galilee and Gaulanitis were closely linked by religious practices … Beginning in the early first century BCE, workshops for kitchen pottery, standardized oil jars, and household or neighbourhood mikva’ot reveal that Jewish women and men adopted overtly religious activities and attitudes into their daily households and daily lives. In the later first century BCE and early first century CE, they began using stone vessels and a specific new form of oil lamp to further distinguish and identify themselves.159

Jonathan Reed lists four Jewish identity markers which are found in domestic or private space: chalk/limestone vessels; stepped and plastered pools (mikva’ot); secondary burial of bones in ossuaries (i.e. limestone boxes) and placed in kokhim-style tombs; and the absence of pork bones in the bone profile.160 Reed adds, “Together, this fourfold cluster offers a reliable indicator of Jewish religious identity, which is the well-established pattern in Jerusalem and Judea of the period.”161 Mordechai Aviam adds a further four cultural 158 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 43–51; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 5; and Sean Freyne, “Galilee as Laboratory: Experiments for New Testament Historians and Theologians,” NTS 53.2 (2007): 150–161. 159 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 419. Various explanations have been offered for the appearance of these Jewish identity markers, but Morten Hørning Jensen is probably correct in claiming that they cannot simply be attributed to a surplus of craftsmen, or shifts in fashion, or a rise in anti-Roman sentiment, although each of these may have been a contributing factor. For while the appearance of limestone vessels and ossuaries coincides with Herod the Great’s construction work on the temple and the quarrying of limestone near Jerusalem, the evidence from literary sources and their widespread distribution in Jewish territories with a corresponding absence in Gentile contexts in surrounding regions, and the rapid decline in the importation of Phoenician fineware, reflects an increasing concern for religious purity in the Early Roman I period. Morten Hørning Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’ Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation,” JSHJ 11 (2013): 3–34, esp. 15. See also Hannah K. Harrington, “Purity and Impurity,” EDEJ 1121–1123; Stuart S. Miller, “Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, and other Identity Markers of ‘Complex Common Judaism,” JSJ 41 (2010): 214–243. 160 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 44–51. 161 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49. Reed adds that in the predominantly Gentile regions outside of Galilee, the central Golan, and Judea, this combination of Jewish identity markers is rarely found in private space. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 51. For the most part Reed is correct. However, as we will see, small quantities of Jewish identity markers have been found at some sites in

E. Jewish identity markers

89

markers of Jewish identity: Hasmonaean coins; undecorated Kefar Hananya ware; secret hideaways; and synagogues.162 We may categorise these Jewish identity markers into two groups, with primary indicators in Category A, and secondary indicators in Category B. In Category A we can place limestone vessels, mikva’ot, ossuaries, and Jewish Revolt coins. These were used almost exclusively by Jews in Palestine. Limestone vessels are particularly important for dating because they appear in Early Roman I strata around the end of the first century BCE, and then rapidly decline in use around the end of the first century CE, although there is some evidence for their continued use at a few sites until ca. 135 CE.163 While most Jews in Galilee did not construct a private mikveh in their homes, and it is unclear how many of the ossuaries discovered were in use before 70 CE, the presence of limestone vessels is ubiquitous in the towns and villages of Galilee during the Early Roman I period. We may also add synagogues to the list in Category A, although most of those uncovered in Galilee postdate the Early Roman I period. Category B includes the absence of pork bones in the bone profile, secret hideaways, and the presence of Hasmonean coins, Kefar Hananya ware, and Herodian type oil lamps. Each of these is suggestive of a Jewish population, although not as certain as those which appear in Category A. For example, while Kefar Hananya ware is ubiquitous at Jewish sites in Galilee, fragments of Kefar Hananya ware have also been found at some Gentile settlements in the regions surrounding Galilee. Similarly, while the absence of pork bones is characteristic of domestic dwellings in Galilee and Judea during the Early Roman period, Jews were not the only ethnic group to abstain from pork.164 Thus in surrounding regions, the absence of pork bones alone is insufficient as a Jewish indicator. However, the absence of pork bones is an important identifier when found in contexts alongside other Jewish identity markers. In the case of Herodian type oil lamps, where it can be demonstrated that these were manufactured in the Jerusalem area, they generally reflect more than simply trade between Galilee and Judea. They are indicative of Jewish ethnicity. This will the Decapolis, in and around Ptolemais, in the hill country west of Upper Galilee, and in the Upper Golan. 162 Mordechai Aviam, “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation,” in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin WUNT 210 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 115–132. 163 Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 12, 16–17; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 51. These Jewish identity markers will be discussed below. 164 A number of Arab and Semitic groups in the Middle East abstained from pork. Richard Redding attributes the rise of this practice ca. 1000 BCE to the introduction of chickens to the region. Richard W. Redding, "The Pig and the Chicken in the Middle East: Modeling Human Subsistence Behavior in the Archaeological Record Using Historical and Animal Husbandry Data." JAR 23.4 (2015): 325–368.

90

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

be discussed further below. Where oil lamps simply conform to this type but have not been tested to determine the source of their clay, they should be considered a Category B item. Thus the strongest evidence for a Jewish population at any given site occurs where multiple Jewish identity markers are found, particularly if these include Category A examples, and a corresponding lack of non-Jewish markers such as shrines and iconography.165 The presence of Jewish identity markers in one or a few domestic spaces cannot be extrapolated to mean the entire settlement was Jewish, but they do suggest a Jewish presence in the loci concerned. Let us now consider each of these Jewish markers of identity in turn, to see why it is that they are indicative or suggestive of a Jewish population. III. Category A markers 1. Limestone/Chalk Vessels References to stone vessels appear in the literary sources from the first and second centuries CE, and link these to Jewish concerns for ritual purity. For example, the Gospel of John mentions “six stone water jars … for the Jewish rites of purification” (John 2.6). Several references to stone, and the ability of stone vessels to maintain the purity of their contents, also appear in early rabbinic sources.166 There is broad scholarly agreement concerning the chronology of limestone vessels, their distribution, and their role as a Jewish ethnic identity marker.167 Soft limestone or chalk vessels, such as jars, mugs, bowls, and plates, were used for food service, and others were used for food storage or for containing liquids.168 They begin to appear in and around Jerusalem in Early Roman I period strata during the reign of Herod the Great, which suggests that their production was prompted by the extensive quarrying of limestone which took place for Herod’s building programme.169 Nonetheless, their rapid expansion 165

The absence of shrines and iconography will be discussed further below. See for example m. Beṣ. 2.3; m. Kelim 6.2, 10.1; m. ’Ohal. 5.5; m. Parah 5.5; and m. Yad. 1.2; t. Šabb. 16.11. For a discussion of purity concerns see Harrington, “Purity and Impurity,” EDEJ 1121–1123. 167 See e.g. Mark A. Chancey, “Stone Vessels,” EDEJ 1256–1257; Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 12–16; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 432–434; and Yitzhak Magen, “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age,” BAR Sept/Oct (1998): 46–52. 168 The priestly homes of Jerusalem also had stone tables. Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 78. 169 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 78; Yitzhak Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 244–256; and Stuart S. Miller, At the Intersection of Texts and Material Finds: Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, and Ritual Purity Among the Jews of Roman Galilee (Gӧttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 173–182. 166

E. Jewish identity markers

91

and widespread appeal was almost certainly linked to the view that stone vessels were impervious to impurities. From Jerusalem they spread so quickly that by the end of the first century BCE, limestone vessels were in use throughout Judea, Perea, Galilee, and the central Golan.170 Toward the end of the first century CE their appearance in these Jewish territories begins to decline, although their continued use is evident until the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135 CE). After this point, their appearance at sites is rare.171 Thus limestone vessels are an important indicator of Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. Fragments of limestone vessels are almost entirely absent in Samaria, and are rare in the predominantly Gentile regions of Phoenicia and the Decapolis.172 Where they do appear in these regions they are usually found with other Jewish identity markers, and therefore indicate a Jewish presence at that particular location.173 Recently Stuart Miller argued that the occurrence of stone vessels in Graeco-Roman cities need not point to a Jewish presence. In support of this he noted the presence of stone vessels at Dura-Europos in Syria.174 However, the stoneware found at Dura is different in form from that produced in Jewish Palestine. Moreover, Dura is situated near the Euphrates River, at a considerable distance from Palestine. It is evident, therefore, that the presence of stoneware vessels at this site is unrelated to the stone vessel industry in the Jewish territories of Palestine. While stone vessels are a Jewish identity marker, the absence of stone vessels at a given site, or private dwelling, is not necessarily a non-Jewish indicator. It is evident from excavations of Early Roman I period strata that not all Jews used stone vessels. What is difficult to determine is the reason for this 170

Yonatan Adler notes that limestone vessels have been found at over 250 sites in Palestine, including as many as seventy sites in Galilee. Yonatan Adler, The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Erez–Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the end of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE–400 CE). PhD Dissertation (Ramat–Gan, Israel: Bar–Ilan University, 2011), 368–375. See also Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 13; and Yitzhak Magen, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Ḥizma and the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Judea and Samaria Publications 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002). Crossan and Reed suggest the number of sites may be larger, writing that stone vessels have been found at every Galilean site where there is “a substantial first-century CE layer.” John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 166. 171 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 193–195. Reed suggests their “fragmentary presence in Middle or Late Roman Period fill indicates their use at the site in earlier periods.” Reed, Galilean Jesus, 44, 51. 172 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 51, 128. Stone vessels have been found at only two sites in Samaria, in the city of Samaria itself, and near the Jezreel Valley. No stone manufacturing centre has been found in Samaria. 173 Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 13; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 430. 174 Miller, Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, 177–180.

92

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

variation. It seems unlikely that this division reflects socio-economic status, since stone vessels have been found across the economic spectrum in the wealthier homes of Sepphoris, and in the smaller private dwellings of Nazareth and Capernaum. It could be that certain Jewish groups used stone vessels, but if so, it is not clear which groups. As Mark Chancey writes: Theoretically, their users could have been Pharisees, Essenes, members of other parties or sects, priests, priestly supporters, Jews with few or no sectarian leanings, or all of the above.175

Thus while stone vessels are a Jewish identity marker, it is not clear which Jewish groups made use of these vessels. Moreover, one cannot say that those who did not use stone vessels were not concerned with maintaining purity. What can be said is that they may not have viewed stone vessels as a necessary requirement for maintaining purity. Fragments of limestone vessels have been found at over seventy sites in Galilee.176 The majority of these vessels were manufactured from the limestone quarries near Jerusalem, but there was also a small manufacturing centre at Reina near Nazareth in Lower Galilee.177 Waste debris has also been found at other locations, which suggests the presence of smaller workshops at Sepphoris, Capernaum, Nabratein, and Bethlehem in Galilee, and at Gamla in Gaulanitis.178 175

Mark A. Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and First-Century CE Galilee,” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 210. 176 These include Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Thella, Meiron/Meron, Meroth, Nevoraya/Nabratein, Acchabaron/‘Akbara, Bersabe/Beersheba, Kefar Hananya, Capernaum, Ḥuqoq, ’Ibillin, Jotapata/Yodefat, Kh. Qana, Arbel, Arbel Caves, Magdala/Taricheae, Tiberias, Hammath Tiberias, Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras, Nazareth, Sepphoris/Zippori, Asochis/Shikhin, Bethlehem of Galilee, Reina, Migdal Ha-‘Emeq, Tel Rekhesh, ‘Afula, ‘Iyei Me‘arot, Maqbarat Bint Ya’aqub, Ḥ Shema‘, Ḥ. Qiyuma, Ḥ. Rom, Rosh Pinna, Nebi Shu‘eib, Kh. Zeitun er-Rama, Ḥ. Kamon, Ḥazon, Ḥ. Netofa, Kh. Wadi Ḥamam, Maghar, Ḥ. Beza‘, Mi‘ar, ‘Elabbon, Ḥ. Ravid, Ḥ. Mimlaḥ, ‘Ein Najmiah/Dier Hanna, Ḥ. Hamam, Ḥ. Ruma, Nebi Shu‘eib, el-Khirbeh, Beth Ma’on, Kh. Nasr ed-Din, Ḥ. Lubiya, Ḥ. Binit (west), Ḥ. Binit, Yafia‘, ‘Ilut, Sawa‘ed Ḥumera, Ḥ. Qoshet, Zarzir, and Kefar ‘Othnay/Legio in the Jezreel Valley. Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368–375 [Table 2; and Map 9]; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee” 209–210; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36, 39; and Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 433. Limestone vessels have also been found at sites in the central Golan, including Bethsaida, Gamla, and Ḥ. Kanaf. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 429–430; Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2:536. 177 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 430; Zvi Gal, “A Stone-Vessel Manufacturing Site in the Lower Galilee,” ‘Atiqot 20 (1991): 179–180; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee” 209–210. 178 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 430; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee” 209–210.

E. Jewish identity markers

93

2. Ossuaries for secondary burial Jews as well as non-Jews used rock cut tombs with multiple loculi (i.e. kokhim) to bury their dead. However, the use of clay and limestone ossuaries for secondary burial was a specifically Jewish practice.179 It appears to have begun in the Jerusalem area around 20 BCE. From there it spread throughout Judea and Galilee until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (135 CE), after which time the use of ossuaries began to decline.180 Ossuaries for secondary burial have been found at a number of sites in Galilee.181 While there is some debate about whether any of these pre-date 70 CE, first-century kokhim-style tombs with ossuaries have been excavated in Beth Shearim, Ḥuqoq, Nazareth, Nabratein, and Kefar Kana.182 Moreover, ossuaries generally appear at sites where there are other indicators of a Jewish presence from the first century BCE or early first century CE onwards.183 Ossuaries could also be used for the bones of more than one person. The use of limestone ossuaries may indicate a degree of wealth, since not all Jews used ossuaries for secondary burial. In some cases, the bones of the deceased were placed in a niche in the wall of the tomb, or in a pit dug into the floor.

179

The practice of secondary burial is attested in rabbinic literature. See e.g. m. Sanh.

6.6. 180

Byron McCane attributes the decline in Judea to the violence of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE) and the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem. Byron McCane, “Ossuaries,” EDEJ 1009–1011. On the use of limestone ossuaries see Mordechai Aviam and Danny Syon, “Jewish Ossilegium in Galilee,” in What Athens has to do with Jerusalem? Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster, ed. Leonard Victor Rutgers (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 151–187; Eric M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971); Eric M. Meyers, “Secondary Burials in Palestine,” BA 33.1 (1970): 2–29; Rachel Hachlili, “Burials: Ancient Jewish,” ABD 1.789–794; Evans, Jesus and His World, 113–143; and Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 214–215. 181 These include Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Sasa, Meiron/Meron, Shezor, Ḥuqoq, Chabulon, Magdala/Taricheae, Tiberias, Hammath Tiberias, ‘Ibillin, Sepphoris/Zippori, Nazareth, Reina, Kefar Kana, Dabburiya, Tive’on, Beth Shearim, Migdal Ha-‘Emeq, Mi‘ar, Kokhva/Kaukab, Ḥittin, Ḥ. ‘Ofrat, et-Taiyiba, Mashhad, Ginnegar, Kefar Barukh, and Sha‘ar Ha–‘Amaqim. Syon, Small Change, 99 [Fig. 20]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 125 [Map 9]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Fanny Vitto, “A Roman-Period Burial Cave on Ha-Ḥoresh Street, Qiryat Tiv‘on,” in ‘Atiqot 65 (2011): 27–61; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50–51; Leibner, Settlement and History, 117, 151, 266; and Mordechai Aviam, “Finds from a Burial Cave at Daburriya,” in Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, ed. Zvi Gal (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), 135–139 [Hebrew], 180 [English]. 182 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 51. 183 Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 214–215; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 464–466.

94

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

3. Mikva’ot A mikveh is a stepped and plastered pool, dug into bedrock, and filled with rainwater for the purpose of ritual purification.184 Thus mikva’ot are widely recognised as a Jewish indicator. A few detractors have claimed that some of the stepped pools found in Galilee are not mikva’ot because they fail to conform to rabbinic stipulations e.g. they may lack an ozer (a small storage pool), or a partition in the steps so that a person could descend into the water on one side and ascend on the other.185 However, there is a wide variety in the forms of mikva’ot from the Early Roman I period. Therefore, it is not surprising that some fail to conform to later rabbinical standards.186 In fact, it could be argued that it was the variety of mikva‘ot that gave rise to these rabbinic stipulations. Moreover, it is anachronistic to interpret mikva’ot from the Late Second Temple period in terms of later rabbinic stipulations. It is also doubtful that people dug stepped pools into bedrock simply to have a bath. If that was the case, we would expect to find similar small baths outside of the Jewish territories, which is not the case.187 Private mikva’ot have been found in Early Roman I period strata in the homes of priestly families in Jerusalem; in the Hasmonean and Herodian fortresses and palaces at Jericho, Machaerus, Herodium, and Masada; at the sectarian site of Qumran; and in private homes in the towns and villages of Judea and Galilee, and at Gamla in the central Golan. Public mikva’ot have been found near synagogues, olive oil presses, wine presses, and burial sites. A number have also been discovered at the entrance to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.188 As many as 850 mikva’ot have been recorded from sites throughout the Jewish territories, and more than a hundred of these are in Galilee.189 While 184

For an introduction to mikva’ot see Ronny Reich, “Ritual Baths,” OEANE 4.430–431; and Byron R. McCane, “Miqva’ot,” EDEJ 954–956. For primary references to bathing for the purpose of purification see Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.198, 203). Josephus also notes that the Essenes bathed before eating (War 2.129–131). See also Philo, Spec. Laws 3.206; 363. 185 See e.g. Hanan Eshel, “A Note on ‘Miqva’ot’ at Sepphoris,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 131–134; and H. Eshel, D.R. Edwards, and C.T. McCollough, “The Pools of Sepphoris–Ritual Baths or Bathtubs: They’re Not Ritual Baths,” BAR 26.4 (2000): 42–45, 49. 186 See Eric Meyer’s response to Eshel, Edwards, and McCollough, in Eric Meyers, “The Pools of Sepphoris–Ritual Baths or Bathtubs: Yes, They Are,” BAR 26.4 (2000): 46–49, 60– 61. 187 Chancy, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 211. See also Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 16–20, esp. 19. 188 McCane, “Miqva’ot,” EDEJ 954–956; Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 16–20; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 452–453; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50; Yonatan Adler, “Second Temple Period Ritual Baths Adjacent to Agricultural Installations: The Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic Sources,” JJS 59.1 (2008): 62–72. 189 Forty-one mikva’ot were excavated at Sepphoris alone. Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 321– 322 [Table 1]; Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 17. Other sites where Early Roman period

E. Jewish identity markers

95

some mikva’ot post-date 70 CE, many were constructed before this time, including the mikva’ot found at Jotapata/Yodefat and Gamla, two sites which were destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt in 67 CE. The earliest found in Galilee to date is the Late Hellenistic period mikveh from Qeren Naftali.190 It should be noted that mikva’ot were more common in Judea than in Galilee during the Early Roman I period, although the reasons for this are unclear. Also mikva’ot have not been found at all Early Roman I period sites in Galilee and Judea. The absence of mikva’ot at particular settlements may indicate that immersion for purity was not a legal requirement but simply reflected heightened concerns for purity.191 Mikva’ot found near olive oil presses may indicate the production of olive oil for use in the temple, and mikva’ot in private dwellings may indicate the presence of a priestly family.192 However, mikva’ot were not restricted to these purposes. Also, their presence or absence in private space may reflect the socio-economic status of the occupants, since mikva’ot tend to be found in larger, wealthier homes. Therefore, the lack of mikva’ot at a village like Capernaum may simply reflect the modest socio-economic status of its population.193 Another explanation may be the close proximity of Capernaum to the Sea of Galilee which, being a fresh-water lake, provided water suitable for purification.194 4. Jewish Revolt coins Jewish Revolt coins are a particularly important Jewish identity marker. They were minted in Jerusalem during the First Jewish Revolt to express Jewish autonomy. These coins were also aniconic, like the Hasmonean coins before them. Ninety-four bronze Jewish Revolt coins have been found to date in the

mikva’ot have been found include Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Chorazin, ’Ibillin, Kh. Qana, Sepphoris/Zippori, Karm er–Ras, Nazareth, Ḥ. Shema‘, Ḥ. Kamon, and Sawa‘ed Humera. Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 321– 322 [Table 1], Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. Other mikva’ot, for which the period of construction is uncertain, have been found at Meroth, Meron, Sasa, Acchabaron/‘Akhbara, Bersabe/Beersheba, Ḥuqoq, Tiberias, Kefar Kana, Beth Shearim, and Arbel, Parod, Nebi Shu‘eib, Beit Yinam, Yafia‘, Alonim, Zarzir, ‘En Rani, and ‘Illut. Mikva‘ot have also been found at Kefar ‘Othnay/Legio and Qedesh in the Jezreel Valley. Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 321– 322 [Table 1], Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50–51; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 210–112; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36. 190 Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 191 For discussions of mikva’ot and their use for purification see E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990), 214–227. 192 Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, 231–233, 244–245; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 210–112. 193 Concerning the modest economic status of Capernaum see Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 157–160. 194 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 212; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50, 158.

96

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

Jewish territories, with a few also found in surrounding regions.195 Moreover, seven Jewish Revolt coins have been found that were minted at Gamla, to express their solidarity with Jerusalem.196 5. Synagogues and Jewish symbols Synagogues are clear indicators of Jewish communities. The Gospels depict Jesus teaching in synagogues in the towns and villages of Galilee.197 Josephus also refers to a few first century CE synagogues, but these are located outside of Galilee.198 One exception is his reference to a προσευχή in Tiberias, which should probably be identified as a synagogue.199 Philo also refers to synagogues in first-century CE Palestine when he describes the practices of the Essenes. He writes: On the seventh day … they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred spots (εἰς ἱεροὺς … τόπους) which they call synagogues (συναγωγαί). There, arranged in rows according to their ages, the younger below the elder, they sit decorously as befits the occasion with attentive ears. Then one takes the books and reads aloud and another of especial proficiency comes forward and expounds what is not understood.200

The reference to sacred places called “synagogues,” and the description of the people being arranged in rows, strongly suggests that synagogue buildings are envisaged here. The discovery of the Theodotus inscription in the “City of David” in Jerusalem, in 1913, has provided further indication of the existence of synagogue buildings in Palestine prior to 70 CE (CIJ 1404).201 195 Most of these are from Year 2 of the First Jewish Revolt (i.e. 67 CE). Syon, Small Change, 67, 186. 196 Syon, Small Change, 69, 187. These will be discussed in Chapter Five. 197 In addition to general descriptions of Jesus teaching in synagogues, the Gospels mention the synagogue in Capernaum (Mark 1.21–29; 3.1; Matt 12.9; Luke 4.31–38; 6.6; 7.4–5; John 6.59); and Nazareth (Mark 6.2; Matt 13.54; and Luke 4.15); and two other synagogues are mentioned in unnamed locations (Luke 8.41; 13.10). The reference in Luke 7.4–5, which belongs to the Q tradition, explicitly refers to a synagogue building in Capernaum. 198 Josephus refers to three synagogue buildings which existed in the first century CE. One was located in Caesarea Maritima (War 2.285, 289), one in Dor (Αnt. 19.300), and one in Antioch (War 7.44). 199 Life 277, 280, and 293. Lee I. Levine, “The First-Century Synagogue: Critical Reassessments and Assessments of the Critical,” in Douglas Edwards, Religion and Society in Roman Palestine, 77. See also Mason, Josephus’ Life, 122. 200 Philo, Good Person, 81–82 201 John Kloppenborg has made a convincing case for dating this inscription prior to 70 CE. He argues that the Ophel, i.e. the ‘City of David’ where the inscription was found by R. Weill, was not occupied during the Roman period after the First Jewish Revolt, except for a few small areas in the Late Roman period. Also, the stratum in which the inscription was found consisted almost entirely of debris from the destruction of the city in 70 CE. Finally, a first century CE date is supported by the names mentioned in the inscription, and its script type (palaeography) which is consistent with other inscriptions of the Herodian period. Thus

E. Jewish identity markers

97

The remains of numerous synagogues have been discovered throughout the Jewish territories, but most of these post-date the first century CE.202 In Galilee, until recently, all of the synagogues discovered post-dated the Early Roman I period, including the famed limestone synagogue at Capernaum.203 Given the scarcity of Early Roman period synagogues, Howard Clark Kee argued that no synagogue buildings existed in Palestine before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. He added that all references to synagogue buildings in the Gospels and the works of Josephus were anachronistic, and the term “synagogue” should be interpreted as “assembly” rather than a “building.”204 Horsley made a similar claim stating that references to synagogues by Josephus and the evangelists should be understood as “village assemblies,” and he added that no synagogue building was constructed in Galilee before the third century CE.205 Kee the Theodotus inscription attests to the presence of a synagogue in Jerusalem prior to 70 CE. John Kloppenborg Verbin, “Dating Theodotus (CIJ 1404),” JJS 51 (2000): 243–280; John S. Kloppenborg, “The Theodotus Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of the First-Century Synagogue Buildings,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 236–282. See also Levine, “First-Century Synagogue,” 77– 79. 202 For an overview of synagogues in ancient Palestine see Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues–Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. Handbook of Oriental Studies, vol. 105. Section 1: Ancient Near East, ed. W.H. van Sholdt, G. Beckman, C. Leitz, P. Michalowski, P. Miglus, and H. Gzella (Leiden: Brill, 2013); and Anders Runesson, Donald D. Binder and Birger Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 20–117. See also Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 203–238; Anders Runesson, “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity and Identity, 231–257; and Lee I. Levine, “First-Century Synagogue,” 70–102. For earlier discussions see Eric M. Meyers, “Synagogues of Galilee,” Archaeology 35 (1982): 51–58; Levine, ed. Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 42–81; Lester L. Grabbe, “Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment,” and Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher, “Palestinian Synagogues Before 70 CE: A Review of the Evidence,” in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1.17–26; and 27–39; Shaye J.D. Cohen, “The Temple and the Synagogue,” in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 151–174; and Martin Hengel, “Proseuchē and Synagoguē: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus, und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palestina,” in Tradition und Glaube: Festschrift für Karl Georg Kuhn, ed. G. Jeremias, H.W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 157–184. 203 This synagogue will be discussed in Chapter Three. 204 Howard Clark Kee, “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990): 1–24. For a counter argument see Richard E. Oster, “Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts’ Use of συναγωγή: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee,’ NTS 39 (1993): 178–208; and Kloppenborg Verbin, “Dating Theodotus (CIJ 1404),” 243–280. 205 Horsley also claims that the reference to the centurion who built the synagogue in Luke 7.5 is a Lucan addition to Q. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 222–237, esp. 225. In response to Horsley’s claim that no synagogue was built in Galilee until the third

98

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

and Horsley were correct to note that the Greek term “synagogue” meant “assembly,” and Horsley may be correct in stating that village assemblies took place for more than just religious purposes.206 Ryan describes the synagogues as “local-official public institutions that are best described as religiopolitical town halls.”207 But he also argues that synagogue buildings existed in Galilee during the time of Jesus and played a significant role in his ministry.208 The discovery of the synagogue at Gamla in Gaulanitis, which was destroyed in 67 CE, undermines any charge of anachronism in the Gospels and Josephus.209 Moreover, in 2009 Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar uncovered a small but elegant Early Roman I period synagogue at Magdala/Taricheae in Galilee.210 This synagogue appears to have been constructed in the first century BCE, and will be discussed in Chapter Three. Its discovery demonstrates that synagogue buildings were constructed in Galilee prior to 70 CE. Thus by 2009, Rachel Hachlili concluded that there were at least two Second Temple period synagogues in Galilee and the Golan: the synagogue at Magdala [Migdal I]; and the synagogue at Gamla.211 She also noted the possibility of a third synagogue at Capernaum, based on the discovery of a basalt pavement beneath the floor of the limestone synagogue.212 Then in 2016, another Second Temple period synagogue was discovered at Rekhesh in Lower Galilee, during an excavation led by Dr. Yizhak Paz on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority.213 This discovery is significant because century CE, Meyers and Strange drew attention to the second century synagogue discovered at Nabratein in Galilee. E.M. Meyers, J.F. Strange, and C.L. Meyers, “Preliminary Report on the 1980 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel,” BASOR 244 (1981): 1–26; and their “Second Preliminary Report on the 1981 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel,” BASOR 246 (1982): 35–54. See also E.M. Meyers, “Nabratein (Kefar Neburaya),” in NEAEHL 3.1077– 1079. 206 Mason also concedes this point. Mason, Life of Josephus, 122. 207 Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 278. 208 Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 205, 278–279. 209 This will be discussed in Chapter Five. 210 Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar, “Migdal: Preliminary Report,” HA–ESI 125. IAA (2013). http://www.hadashot–esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120 Jürgen K. Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee,” EC 1.3 (2010): 471–484; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 212; Evans, Jesus and His World, 53. 211 Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 41–42. See also her discussion on the characteristic features of Second Temple period synagogues on pages 43–45. 212 This will be discussed in Chapter Three. 213 Rekhesh (NIG: 243776/728600). Yitzhak Tessler, “Ancient Synagogue Discovered in Galilee,” Y Net News (2016). http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L– 4841308,00.html. Accessed 26 March, 2017. Mordechai Aviam, Hisao Kuwabara, Suichi Hasegawa, and Yitzhak Paz, “A 1st–2nd Century CE Assembly Room (Synagogue?) in a Jewish Estate at Tel Rekhesh, Lower Galilee,” 46/1 Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University (2019): 128–142. DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2019.1587227. Accessed

E. Jewish identity markers

99

the synagogue belonged to a small community living on an estate near the Jezreel Valley, which would indicate that even small settlements could have a synagogue building. The synagogue was constructed of limestone blocks, with limestone benches lining the walls, and pillars which held up the roof. Other Jewish indicators from the settlement include limestone vessels and an absence of pork bones in the bone profile. Apart from the Magdala and Rekhesh synagogues in Galilee, and the remains of the basalt pavement which may have been part of a first century CE synagogue at Capernaum, the other synagogues of Galilee post-date the Early Roman I period. The limited number of Second Temple period synagogues discovered to date may be attributed to several factors. In some cases modern towns exist on sites that were occupied during the first century CE, as in the case of Tiberias and Nazareth. This presents a challenge for those wishing to excavate substrata. Other sites have only been partially excavated or identified through surface surveys. At some sites, where impressive Late Roman or Byzantine synagogues have been preserved, these structures obscure remains from earlier periods. This is the case for the monumental limestone synagogue at Capernaum.214 Other sites, as we shall see, were destroyed by the Roman armies in 67 CE. Nonetheless, the discovery of two Early Roman I period synagogues is significant. They render plausible Mark’s claim that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Galilee.215 The discovery of later synagogues is also important. At settlements in Galilee where Late Roman or Byzantine period synagogues are found, the excavators usually also find sherds of Early Roman I period pottery and Hasmonean coins, which date the foundation of these Jewish settlements to the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman I period.216 Depictions of the menorah and Torah Ark, which symbolically represent these objects from the Jerusalem temple, are

18 Jan, 2021. The discovery of limestone vessel fragments and early forms of Kefar Hananya ware at the site indicate the site was occupied during the Early Roman period. A stepped and plastered structure has also been discovered, which some of the excavators consider to be a mikveh. At this stage, however, it is unclear whether this structure dates to the Early Roman period or the Iron Age. Shuichi Hasegawa, Hisao Kuwabara, and Yitzhak Paz, “Who Built Tel Rekhesh?” BAR 46/4 (2020): 37–39. See also the Tel Rekhesh project website: rekhesh.com/rekhesh. 214 The synagogue at Capernaum rests upon a basalt foundation of an earlier building, and partially covers the remains of a pavement from the Early Roman period, which will be discussed further in Chapter Three. 215 Mark 1.39. 216 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48.

100

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

often also found among Late Roman and Byzantine remains,217 along with inscriptions written in Aramaic and Hebrew.218 IV. Category B markers 1. Absence of pork bones in the bone profile Another indicator of a Jewish presence is the absence of pork bones in the bone profile of Early Roman I period strata.219 By itself the absence of pork bones would not necessarily denote Jewish ethnicity, particularly at sites outside the Jewish territories, because as I have noted, Jews were not the only ethnic group to avoid pork. Other Semitic and Arab groups in the Middle East also avoided pork.220 However, the absence of pork does rule out Greek, Roman, or Phoenician settlement. Also, where there is an absence of pork bones in the bone profile of Early Roman I period strata alongside other Jewish identity markers, then this is indicative of a Jewish population.221 2. Hasmonean coins Hasmonean coins have been found in abundance at many Galilean sites in Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I period strata.222 During the waning years of the Seleucid Empire the coastal cities and a number of smaller states began to assert their independence by minting their own coins.223 Toward the end of the second century BCE, the Hasmoneans also began to mint their own coins. The first of these were the coins of Hyrcanus I, which were probably minted ca. 125 BCE.224 The largest and most widespread of these were the coins of 217 Josephus describes the capture of the seven-branch candlestick from the Jerusalem temple, and a copy of the Jewish law, during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE (War 7.148– 150). 218 Note e.g. the five stone doors found at Baca, and inscribed tombstones in Hebrew and Aramaic found at Sepphoris and Tiberias. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 299–304; 305–306. 219 According to Jewish law the flesh of swine was considered “unclean” and must not be eaten. See e.g. Lev. 11.7, 24; Deut. 14.8; Isa. 65.41; 1 Macc. 1.41–50; and m. B. Qam. 7.7. 220 For example, according to Herodotus the Egyptians considered the pig to be an unclean animal (Hist. 2.47), although it is possible in this statement that Herodotus mistook the Jews for Egyptians. For a discussion on the possible reasons for the emergence of pork abstinence see Marvin Harris, “The Abominable Pig,” in The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 70–72. 221 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49. 222 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46. 223 The coastal cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Ptolemais began minting their own coins towards the end of the second century BCE, along with the Hasmoneans. The Nabateans and Itureans also began minting coins in the first century BCE. Syon, Small Change, 57–61; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 44. 224 Syon, Small Change, 59.

E. Jewish identity markers

101

Alexander Jannaeus. The majority of Hasmonean coins were bronze issues minted for everyday trading and commerce.225 Thus Hasmonean coins are found at many sites in Galilee and the central Golan. Coins generally reflect the political administration of a region and commercial relationships rather than ethnicity.226 However, Hasmonean coins were unusual in that they were aniconic. They avoided any image of a king, a deity, or an animal.227 Therefore, Hasmonean coins not only signified Jewish independence, but also reflected Jewish tradition. Consequently, these coins rapidly became the preferred bronze currency among the Jewish population living in and around Palestine. Hasmonean coins are generally found at sites, or in loci, which feature other Jewish identity markers. Their appearance in the Decapolis reflects the extent of Hasmonean expansion during the first century BCE, and the presence of Jewish communities in the region.228 Small quantities of Hasmonean coins have also been found at some sites west of Josephus’ Galilee,229 but are rare on the Phoenician coast.230 Where Hasmonean coins are found outside the Jewish territories in Early Roman I period strata, they generally indicate the presence of Jewish persons at least in the loci where the coins are found. This conclusion can be strengthened, however, by the presence of other Jewish identity markers. The observed shifts in the coin profile at sites in Galilee and the central Golan are also instructive. Early forms of Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Tyrian silver and bronze coins are abundant until the end of the second century BCE. Then early in the first century BCE the number of silver coins rapidly declines, and the bronze issues disappear altogether. This occurs during the same period that Hasmonean coins appear.231 This shift in the numismatic profile is 225

Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 44–45. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46. 227 Syon, Small Change, 60; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 44; See also David M. Jacobson, “The Lily and the Rose: A Review of Some Hasmonean Coin Types,” NEA 76.1 (2013): 16–27. 228 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 44–46. 229 Note e.g. the presence of Hasmonean coins at the abandoned fortress at Tefen, in the hill country between Ptolemais and Galilee. These coins reflect Jewish occupation of the site for a time, until it was retaken by Phoenician forces. Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 23–24. 230 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110. 231 For example, at Jotapata there is a notable shift from Seleucid and Tyrian bronze issues to Hasmonean coins towards the end of the Late Hellenistic period. David Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Seasons,” JRA 10 (1997): 155–161, esp. 161. Thus Chancey writes, “At precisely the time when these issues disappear … Hasmonean coinage appears, with six coins of John Hyrcanus, and sixty of Alexander Jannaeus. A similar situation occurs with the coins of Meiron.” Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46. 226

102

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

accompanied by a corresponding shift in the ceramic profile and the appearance of other Jewish identity markers. These shifts in the material culture reflect more than simply a change in administration or trade orientation because there is also evidence of abandonment of some sites, the destruction of others, the abandonment and resettlement of others, the founding of new sites, and a notable increase in the size of the population. The shift in the material culture seems to reflect the influx of Jewish migrants into the region, though we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the former population remained in the region and adopted a Jewish way of life.232 What is evident is that by the first century CE, Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region. Hasmonean coins are important for dating Early Roman I period strata, because although most of them were minted in the first century BCE, they continued in use during the first century CE. Herodian coins are also important for dating Early Roman I period strata, for they begin to appear in the second half of the first century BCE. It is also instructive that both Herod the Great and Herod Antipas minted coins which avoided images that might offend their Jewish subjects.233 Danny Syon categorises such coins as Jewish coins i.e. nonfigurative coins which “continued in the tradition of Hasmonean coins.”234 Other so-called Jewish coins include those of Archelaus, the coins of Agrippa I minted in Jerusalem, and the coins of the First Jewish Revolt. However, since Herod the Great and Archelaus ruled over Jewish and non-Jewish territories, Herodian coins are not counted as Jewish identity markers in the same way that Hasmonean coins or Jewish Revolt coins are. 3. Subterranean tunnels and secret hideaways The presence of subterranean tunnels and secret hideaways is also helpful for dating strata, since these are peculiar to the first and second centuries CE. It was once thought that the subterranean tunnels found in Galilee were built during the Bar Kochba Revolt (ca. 135 CE). However, few if any coins or pottery sherds from that period were found in these subterranean passages. The evidence points rather to their construction during the First Jewish Revolt (66–67 CE). Josephus describes the Roman army searching the hiding places and the subterranean vaults and caverns at Jotapata, looking for people who had taken refuge there.235 232

Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46. Herod Antipas’ coins depicted such images as reeds, palm branches, and palm trees. Jensen adds that throughout the Early Roman period, “we find a peculiar and most notable avoidance of offensive images.” Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 21. In contrast, Philip the tetrarch issued coins depicting temples, images of the gods, and images of Caesar. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 52. 234 Syon, Small Change, 174. 235 War 3.336–339. 233

E. Jewish identity markers

103

Aviam lists twenty-two settlements in Galilee known to have subterranean tunnels and hiding places.236 Subterranean tunnels also appear at other sites, but without the remains of Early Roman I ceramic fragments, coins, or limestone vessels to date them, it is unclear when they were constructed.237 4. Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin storage jars The Jewish population of Galilee also used undecorated forms of table ware and cooking ware produced at Kefar Hananya, and storage jars manufactured at Shikhin. Kefar Hananya was a small potter’s village located at the northeastern end of the Beth Kerem valley,238 and Shikhin was located just one and a half kilometres from Sepphoris.239 Small scale excavations at Kefar Hananya have confirmed the site as a Jewish pottery manufacturing centre.240 Also studies undertaken by David AdenBayewitz on the production and distribution patterns of Kefar Hananya ware indicate that the pottery workshops were established around the mid-first century BCE, and continued production until the mid-fifth century CE.241 These workshops produced cooking ware such as casseroles and cooking pots, and table vessels such as bowls and jugs. Production at the site does not appear to have commenced in response to increased demand due to population growth, since a new pottery production centre was established around the same time in Judea, despite the population numbers in Judea remaining stable. It also 236 These include Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Meroth, and Nabratein/Nevoraya in Upper Galilee; and Nazareth, Sepphoris/Zippori, Ḥ. Qana, Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras, Ḥuqoq, ‘Ibillin, and Migdal Ha-Emeq in Lower Galilee. Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 126 [Map 10]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 18; Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.454. 237 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]. 238 Kefar Hananya is also noted as the village which marked the boundary between Upper and Lower Galilee (m. Šeb. 9.2), and as the hometown of Rabbi Ḥalafta (m. ’Abot 3.6; t. Kelim B. Qam. 4.17). Tsafrir et al., “Kefar Ḥanania,” TIR 163. 239 Shikhin produced pottery on a smaller scale than Kefar Hananya. The Shikhin storage jar became the standard measure in rabbinic sources. See e.g. t. Ter. 7.14. David AdanBayewitz and Isadore Pearlman, “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period,” IEJ 40.2/3 (1990): 168. See also Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 37; Tsafrir et al., “Asochis, Shiḥin,” TIR 70. 240 Remains include fragments of limestone vessels, a pottery kiln, and an abundance of discarded pottery sherds. Masonry from what may have been a synagogue has also been found, but not yet dated. David Adan-Bayewitz, “Kefar Hananya,” NEAEHL 5.1909–1911; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9], and 96; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 31, 111, 151–152; Salomon E. Grootkerk, Ancient Sites in Galilee: A Toponymic Gazetteer, vol. 1 of Church and History of the Ancient Near East, ed. B. Halpern, et al (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 209. 241 David Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 87. See also Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 420.

104

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

appears that production did not commence to meet a demand for new pottery forms, since the pottery forms produced at Kefar Hananya were almost identical to previous forms. Thus Berlin may be correct when she claims that what mattered was that these vessels were produced by Jewish potters from locally sourced clay.242 As for the increased demand for Shikhin storage jars, some scholars have attributed this to the emergence of Galilee as an olive oil producing region.243 Substantiating this claim has been difficult since analysis of the contents of Shikhin storage jars is complicated by their secondary use.244 However, the recent discovery of eleven intact Shikhin storage jars at Karm er-Ras, all laid on their sides, would suggest that they were used to store dry goods rather than olive oil.245 It seems, therefore, that the establishment of a pottery workshop at Shikhin was not connected to the rise in olive oil production. Nonetheless, it seems to have reflected an increased concern among the Jewish population for ritual purity.246 The distribution pattern of Kefar Hananya ware has been determined on the basis of chemical analysis of the clay of over 250 samples of cooking pots, with the clay from the Kefar Hananya region and the discarded pottery sherds found at Kefar Hananya. This study has revealed that most of the Early Roman period cooking vessels found in Galilee, and some of the cooking vessels found in the central Golan, were produced at Kefar Hananya.247 Kefar Hananya and Shikhin were also major suppliers of the cooking ware, table ware, and storage jars of Sepphoris.248

242

Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 420–425. Berlin suggests the increased demand may not have been necessitated by growth in olive oil production alone, but also in wine production. Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 426–428. See also Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 51–58. 244 Adan-Bayewitz and Pearlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 171. 245 Yardenna Alexandré, “The Archaeological Evidence of the Great Revolt at Karm erRas (Kfar Kanna) in the Lower Galilee,” in Ofra Guri-Rimon, The Great Revolt in the Galilee (Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, 2008), 77. 246 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 420, 424. 247 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 201–223; Adan-Bayewitz, “Kefar Hananya,” NEAEHL 5.1910. In Upper Galilee considerable quantities of Kefar Hananya ware were found at Beersheba, Kh. Marus, Sasa, Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Nabratein/Nevoraya, Meiron, Khirbet Shema, Rama, and Kefar Hananya itself. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 65; AdanBayewitz, Common Pottery, 56–59. In Lower Galilee considerable quantities of Kefar Hananya ware were found at Jotapata/Yodefat, Sepphoris, Capernaum, Magdala/Taricheae, and Hammath Tiberias. Kefar Hananya vessels were also found on the floor of the Sea of Galilee, probably due to shipwreck, and in and around the boat discovered near Magdala. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 56–59, 204–205, 213–214. 248 Adan-Bayewitz and Pearlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 153–172. Storage jars from Shikhin were also found at Hammath Tiberias, Capernaum, Meiron, Nabratein, Kefar 243

E. Jewish identity markers

105

Sherds of Kefar Hananya ware are abundant at Roman period sites in Galilee. However, not all sherds are identifiable. Diagnostic fragments, such as rims, bases, and handles, enable excavators to identify not only the type of ware, but also the form of the vessel from which it came. Since pottery forms change over time, these diagnostic sherds, along with other indicators such as coins, enable excavators to date strata. Two Kefar Hananya cooking vessels are important for identifying Early Roman period strata. The first is the widemouthed, everted rim casserole or cooking pot KH3A, with rounded sides. The second is the closed cooking pot KH4A, with its vertical neck and a small step inside the rim. These vessels were produced at Kefar Hananya from the middle of the first century BCE to the middle of the second century CE.249 While abundant fragments of these vessels appear at sites all over Galilee and the central Golan, their export to surrounding regions is significantly reduced, and at some sites they are entirely absent.250 Two additional forms are important to note for they are also found in Early Roman period strata. The first is the Galilean bowl KH1A, and the second is the cooking pot KH4B. Manufacture of these vessels began in the decades leading up to the First Jewish Revolt,251 and continued into the second century CE. Kefar Hananya ware was marketed primarily to Jews and is generally recognised as a Jewish identity marker. However, small quantities have been discovered at some predominantly Gentile sites outside of Galilee, such as Ptolemais on the Phoenician coast, and Hippos/Sussita, Gadara, and Beth Shean/Scythopolis in the Decapolis. The export of Kefar Hananya ware to these sites probably reflects a demand for such vessels by the Jewish minority living in these cities. However, it is also possible that some non-Jewish residents purchased Kefar Hananya ware from Galilee.252 This was certainly the case for the predominantly Gentile site of Tel Anafa in the northern Golan.253 One explanation for this may be that Tel Anafa during the early decades of the first century CE was used by Philip the tetrarch as a base for Herodian troops stationed in the region, and/or for the Italian artisans working on construction at Caesarea Philippi and Ḥ. Omrit.254 With the exception of Tel Anafa, Kana, and Gamla. Adan-Bayewitz and Pearlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 167; and Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 77. 249 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 85–87, 111–119, 124–126, 149; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 65. 250 A good example of the latter is the Tyrian settlement of Kedesh. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 65. 251 This is evident by the presence of KH1A bowls among the pottery assemblage at Gamla. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 88, 238. 252 Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 207–208. 253 Many fragments of the casserole KH3A and cooking pot KH4A were found at Tel Anafa. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 52–53, 220. 254 This is discussed in Chapter Six.

106

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

however, Kefar Hananya ware was produced by Jewish potters to supply Jewish settlements in Galilee and the central Golan, and when such vessels are found outside of these areas, they generally appear at sites known to have had a minority Jewish population. 5. Herodian oil lamps Knife-pared Herodian oil lamps manufactured in the Jerusalem area are also an important Jewish identity marker. The problem is that these lamps are virtually identical in form to other undecorated Herodian-style oil lamps which were not produced in Jerusalem, but are found at sites in the regions around Galilee.255 Therefore, visual identification of Herodian-style oil lamps is an insufficient indicator of Jewish ethnicity, particularly in settlements outside of Judea, Galilee, and the central Golan. However, they are suggestive. Only with chemical analysis can it be determined whether these lamps were manufactured locally or imported from Jerusalem. Such analysis has found that the vast majority of Herodian-style oil lamps from Galilee were manufactured in the Jerusalem area.256 Although the Galileans could have produced Herodian oil lamps from locally sourced clay, they preferred instead to purchase their oil lamps from Jerusalem, even though these lamps had to be transported over a hundred kilometres.257 David Adan-Bayewitz et al., have demonstrated that the distribution of Herodian oil lamps from Jerusalem was not impacted by administrative boundaries.258 Nor was the Galilean preference for Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps due to the quality of these oil lamps, since they are virtually indistinguishable from other Herodian oil lamps.259 Moreover, their use cannot be attributed to urban-rural differences since these lamps have been found in rural 255 For example, chemical analysis of Herodian style oil lamps found at Beth Shean/Scythopolis revealed that the majority of these were not manufactured in the Jerusalem area but were manufactured locally. David Adan-Bayewitz, Moshe Wieder, Frank Asaro, and Robert D. Giauque, “Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century BCE–70 CE),” BASOR 350 (2008): 72. 256 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 39, 47, 74. See also Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 89, n.6. Toward the end of the first century BCE, when many Jewish sites in Galilee began exclusively adopting undecorated Kefar Hananya ware and limestone vessels, they also ceased using the Hellenistic mould-made lamps in preference for unadorned wheel-made, knife-pared Herodian oil lamps manufactured in the Jerusalem area. Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 434–435; Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanization,” 63–64; Syon, Small Change, 91. For a detailed discussion of the distribution of Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps during the Second Temple Period see Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 37–85. 257 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 47, 77. 258 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 73, 77. 259 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 72–73, 77.

E. Jewish identity markers

107

Jotapata and urban Sepphoris.260 They argue, therefore, that these Jerusalem manufactured oil lamps were preferred because they had “socio-religious or ritualistic significance.”261 This is supported by the fact that they appear around the same time as the production of limestone vessels and the use of mikva’ot.262 These lamps are an important indicator of Jewish settlement in Galilee. They also indicate that there were strong cultural ties between the Jews of Galilee and Jerusalem. V. The absence of non-Jewish shrines and cult artefacts In the regions around Galilee in Early Roman I period strata, one frequently finds shrines, statues, statue bases, figurines, amulets, and inscriptions dedicated to the gods or the imperial cult. Images of gods and heroes are also depicted on oil lamps, table ware, and coins, and in mosaics and frescoes. However, such iconography is almost entirely absent in Galilee and the central Golan during the Early Roman I period. Shrines and images are evident in Galilee in Early Hellenistic strata, and depictions of gods and heroes appear in mosaics and on coins in Galilee in Middle Roman to Late Byzantine strata. One well known example is the third century CE Dionysian mosaic from the Roman villa in Sepphoris.263 However, there is a noticeable lack of such images during the Early Roman I period, with one possible exception. According to literary sources, the palace of Herod Antipas in Tiberias held a number of objects that were deemed foreign and unlawful.264 Apart from this, the absence of iconography in Galilee reflects not only the Jewish character of the region, but suggests that the population actively resisted this kind of Hellenistic and Roman influence.265

260

Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 44–47, 77. Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 75. Adan-Bayewitz et al., add that their use may have been linked to the importance of lighting a lamp at the commencement of the Sabbath. Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 75. 262 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 434–435; Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 21– 22, 32–34. 263 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 128–130; Eric M. Meyers, Ehud Netzer and Carol L. Meyers, “Artistry in Stone: The Mosaics of Ancient Sepphoris,” BA 50 (1987): 223–231; Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Ehud Netzer, “The Dionysos Mosaic,” in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 111–115. 264 This will be discussed in Chapter Three. 265 Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 40–41, 85, 90. 261

108

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

F. ESA fineware and Tyrian silver F. ESA Fineware and Tyrian silver

I. Eastern Terra Sigillata Ware In the regions around Galilee the material remains from Early Roman I period sites include an abundance of red-slipped fineware known variously as Eastern Terra Sigillata, Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), or simply Phoenician fine or semifineware. Fragments of these vessels are easy to identify because of their shiny, smooth surface, and red colouring. This pottery group may have originated in eastern Cyprus, but large quantities have also appeared at Antioch in Syria, and at sites on the Phoenician coast.266 It appears in strata which date from the end of the second century BCE to the early second century CE. Therefore, the appearance of Eastern Sigillata A, henceforth ESA, at a site is a good indicator of Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period settlement.267 This fine or semifine table ware has been found at sites throughout Phoenicia, the Decapolis, the Golan, the Jezreel Valley, and as far south as Idumea.268 It also appears in smaller quantities at some sites in Galilee, Judea, and the central Golan. ESA fineware tends to be found at more urban sites in Galilee and the central Golan where there were wealthy residents, such as at Sepphoris or Tiberias. This is not an indicator of Gentile ethnicity, however, since sherds of ESA have at times been found in the same loci as fragments of limestone vessels and Kefar Hananya ware. Some of the domestic dwellings where ESA fragments were found, also had a mikveh. Moreover, an abundance of ESA was found alongside limestone vessels and mikva’ot in the wealthy priestly houses of Jerusalem, which were destroyed in 70 CE.269 What is interesting is that at some sites in Galilee and the central Golan, residents who had imported ESA in the first century BCE, abandoned this practice toward the end of the century in preference for limestone vessels and undecorated Kefar Hananya ware.270 This shift in material culture was not due to a limited supply of ESA fineware, since these vessels continue to appear at non-Jewish sites on the periphery of Galilee. Rather, it seems to reflect a conscious decision on the part of the residents at Capernaum, Gamla, and other Jewish settlements to either differentiate themselves from their Phoenician

266

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 442– 444; and Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 246. 267 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 442–443. Frankel et al., date this ware from the middle of the first century BCE. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63. 268 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 58; Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 443. 269 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 419–420. 270 Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 419–420.

F. ESA Fineware and Tyrian silver

109

neighbours, or perhaps, as Andrea Berlin argues, to outwardly express their anti-Roman and pro-Jewish sentiment.271 Moreover, the population of some towns and villages never imported ESA fineware during the Early Roman I period. In Ken Dark’s recent archaeological survey of settlements in the Nahal Zippori valley, lying between Nazareth and Sepphoris, he discovered a densely populated region of farms and small villages, all of which were Jewish settlements probably founded by the end of the first century BCE. What is particularly interesting in this survey was the degree to which these Jewish settlements adopted or resisted foreign influence. The remains from these settlements indicate that those located on the southern side of the valley near the Nazareth Ridge and further away from urban influence, used only Jewish made products like Kefar Hananya ware and limestone vessels. Those lying closer to Sepphoris also used these materials, but also imported ESA fineware. This would seem to indicate that those settlements near the Nazareth Ridge, including Nazareth itself, exhibited strong anti-foreign sentiments. Ken Dark writes: A cultural frontier is … visible running through the valley between communities that, while both Jewish, accepted some part of Roman provincial culture and those that asserted a most strongly Jewish and more overtly religious identity. This may be the only place in the Roman Empire where one can identify a linear boundary to the local adoption and adaptation of Roman provincial culture so exactly, and explain this in religious and cultural terms, using archaeological evidence so unambiguously.272

II. Tyrian silver When Seleucid silver coins were no longer minted toward the end of the second century BCE, the silver shekels of Tyre became the dominant mint in the region.273 As noted above, the Hasmoneans for the most part did not mint silver coins, and neither did the Herodians. Thus it became necessary for the Jewish population of Galilee and the central Golan to use Tyrian silver shekels and half-shekels for large transactions, and to a lesser extent, silver shekels from Sidon. Thus Tyrian silver has been found at a number of sites in Galilee and the central Golan. Tyrian silver shekels were prized for their purity.274 It was probably for this reason that the Tyrian half-shekel was used to pay the annual temple tax, 271 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 67–69. While sherds of ESA appear in earlier contexts at Capernaum and Gamla, they are generally absent in loci dating to the first century CE. Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 433. See also Andrea Berlin, “From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine,” BASOR 306 (1997): 75– 88; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 52. 272 Ken R. Dark, “The Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape between Sepphoris and Nazareth, PEQ 140.2 (2008): 98–99. 273 Syon, Small Change, 60. 274 Syon, Small Change, 70.

110

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

despite the fact that this coin depicted the image of Herakles-Melqart, the patron deity of Tyre.275 As Freyne writes, “Good money was no respector of cultural boundaries in antiquity, as also today.”276 The use of Tyrian silver probably also reflected the ongoing export of agricultural products from Galilee to Tyre.277 However, when it came to small transactions, the Jewish population preferred Hasmonean coins.

G. Galilean settlement history G. Galilean settlement history

Jewish identity markers have been found at multiple sites across the region of Galilee, within the borders defined by Josephus. Some of these have been observed during surface surveys. Others have been found during excavations of Early Roman I period strata. The presence of these Jewish identity markers, with a corresponding absence of Gentile markers for the same period, indicates that Galilee during the Early Roman I period was a predominantly Jewish region. During excavation of strata, archaeologists are able to observe shifts in the material culture of sites. From this they can reconstruct the settlement history of a site. In the case of Galilee, when this research is considered in the light of literary sources, the following can be proposed regarding the settlement history of Galilee, and how the region became Jewish by the first century CE. I. From the Iron Age IIB to the end of the Persian period The author of Second Kings records that Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria conquered Gilead, Galilee, and the land of Naphtali, and deported its population to Assyria.278 The royal inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III also list towns conquered in Galilee and the expulsion of their populations.279 The general picture of conquest and deportation in these sources has been corroborated by archaeology. 275 Syon, Small Change, 70; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 45–46; Chris Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1083–1084. In 59 CE Nero replaced these shekels with the less pure Eagle tetradrachms of Antioch, which have also been found in the Jewish territories. By 66 CE, the Tyrian shekel was discontinued. Syon, Small Change, 70–71. 276 Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 86. 277 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 42, 186; Freyne, “Galilee as Laboratory,” 160. 278 2 Kgs 15.29. The author also lists several captured towns: Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh, and Hazor. 279 See particularly Annals 18 and 24, and the commentary on the campaign of TiglathPileser III in Tadmor, Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, 81–83, 279–282. The settlements conquered include: Gabara, Hinatuma, Qana, Iatbite (Yodefat), Irruna and Marum (Meiron). See also Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria. RINAP 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011); and the note by Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 24, 51, n.8.

G. Galilean settlement history

111

Zvi Gal’s surface survey of eighty sites in Lower Galilee revealed a depopulated region following the Assyrian conquest of 732 BCE. Also excavations in Galilee and the central Golan have uncovered evidence of destruction and conflagration of Iron Age IIB sites, and their subsequent abandonment until the Persian or Early Hellenistic periods.280 Apart from a few Assyrian outposts,281 there was no sustained settlement in Galilee during the seventh and sixth centuries. If any Israelites survived the Assyrian invasion, they have not been detected in the material record.282 Nor did the Assyrians repopulate the region with immigrants, as they reportedly did in Samaria in 721 BCE.283 Thus there is no evidence for direct continuity between the Galileans of the Early Roman I period and the ancient Israelites of the northern kingdom, contrary to the proposal put forward by Horsley.284 II. The Persian period (539–332 BCE) During the Persian period Galilee was part of the fifth Persian satrapy,285 and there appears to be only sparse evidence of human occupation in the region at 280

Zvi Gal, “Israel in Exile,” BAR 24.3 (1998): 48–53; and Zvi Gal, “The Lower Galilee in the Iron Age II: Analysis of Survey Material and its Historical Interpretation,” Tel Aviv 15–16 (1988–1989): 56–64. See also Reed, Galilean Jesus, 28–34; and Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 31–33. 281 For example, following the destruction of Hazor, an Assyrian citadel and palace appears to have been built at the site and occupied for a time. R. Reich, “The Persian Building at Ayyelet ha-Shaḥar: The Assyrian Palace of Hazor?” IEJ 25.4 (1975): 233–237. See also reference to the citadel by Yigael Yadin, “Hazor,” in NEAEHL 2.603; and mention of the palace by Amnon Ben-Tor, “Fifth Season of Excavations (1968–1969),” in NEAEHL 2.605. 282 A few literary references are sometimes noted in support of Israelite survivors of the Assyrian conquest, but these are inconclusive. Second Chronicles 30.11 records a decree of Hezekiah calling the Israelites to join in a celebration of the Passover. While the couriers are directed to travel as far as Dan, they only get as far as Zebulun, and that may only be as far as its southern border. While a few pilgrims from Asher and Zebulun are said to have responded, it is not clear where these were living at the time. It is also notable that there is no mention of Naphtali. In Second Chronicles 24.6, Josiah is depicted purging Israel of Asherah poles and altars to Baal and Asherah in the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, as far as Naphtali. Again, this may simply indicate that they travelled as far as the southern border of Naphtali. There is no mention of such purging in Naphtali itself, although there is mention of there being ruins roundabout. 283 2 Kings 17.5–6; 24. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 29; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109; Younger, “Deportations of the Israelites,” 201–227, esp. 206–214. As Freyne notes, “The Assyrian conquest of the north in the eighth century took place in two quite distinct phases.” Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 24. The first phase occurred ca. 732/731 BCE. This included the conquest of Syria, the Golan, and the destruction and depopulation of Galilee. The second phase in 722/721 BCE focused on Samaria. 284 Horsley, Galilee: History, 25–29, 40. 285 This satrapy was known as Eber ha-Nahar, meaning “Beyond the River” (Ezra 4; 8.36; Neh. 2.7, 9). It was established by Darius I (522–485 BCE). M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land

112

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

that time. There was a small outpost at Sepphoris and another at Gischala, and a few rural settlements in the area of Mount Meiron. However, most of the remains from this period are located on the periphery of Galilee at places like Megiddo on the edge of the Jezreel Valley, and Kedesh just north of Upper Galilee, as it was defined by Josephus. These sites served as administrative centres for the region. The construction of a Phoenician watchtower at Mizpe Yammim on the southern slopes of Mount Meiron, and the discovery of early forms of Phoenician fineware at Kedesh, suggests that Upper Galilee during this period came under Tyrian control.286 Some of the population during the Persian period began manufacturing Galilean Coarse Ware, henceforth GCW, which became most prominent in the Early Hellenistic period.287 These large, handmade vessels, grey/pink in colour with large white grits, were “virtually the hallmark of the indigenous, preJewish population.”288 During this period an open air shrine was constructed at Mizpeh Yammim, and the votive remains include GCW and Phoenician fineware.289 This suggests that the sanctuary was used by the local Gentile population as well as by visitors from the Phoenician coast.290 Apart from this, Galilee appears to have been largely vacant at this time. It was not until the Early Hellenistic period that there was a marked increase in population numbers and the re-establishment of older settlements.291 III. Early Hellenistic period (332–167 BCE) During the reign of the Ptolemies and Seleucids new cities were founded in the circle around Galilee including Ptolemais near the old site of Akko, Scythopolis/Beth Shean in the Jezreel Valley, Philoteria/Beth Yerah at the southern end from the Persian to the Arab Conquests. An Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1966), 11; and Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 23. 286 Andrea M. Berlin and Rafael Frankel, “The Sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim: Phoenician Cult and Territory in the Upper Galilee during the Persian Period,” BASOR 366 (2012): 60– 61, 68. 287 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 61–62. 288 James F. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36. 289 The surveyors also found perfumed oil juglets made from Phoenician semi-fineware, Seleucid and Tyrian coins, a bronze situla with Phoenician inscriptions written in honour of Astarte, a bronze figurine of Osiris, a bronze Apis bull, and a schist statuette depicting Isis, Osiris, and Horus. A few bowls and fish plates were also found, and a large quantity of GCW sherds from jugs and jars. Berlin and Frankel, “Mizpe Yammim,” 25–78, esp. 43–51. See also Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 38, 109; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 36. 290 The reduced number of offerings from later periods suggests the number of visitors to the sanctuary declined after the fourth century BCE. Berlin and Frankel, “Mizpe Yammim,” 68. 291 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 34–35; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 35–36.

G. Galilean settlement history

113

of the Sea of Galilee, and Hippos/Sussita in the east.292 Tyre retained its control over Upper Galilee, and Ptolemais became the administrative centre for the paralia district during the Seleucid era, which included Lower Galilee.293 Fortresses were constructed on Mount Carmel and Mount Tabor, and along the trade routes leading from Galilee to Ptolemais.294 Additional settlements were founded in Lower Galilee, such as Jotapata/Yodefat and Bersabe/Beersheba, and abandoned Iron Age sites like Hazor were rebuilt. A surface survey of sites in Upper Galilee discovered a total of 131 settlements which exhibited remains from the Early Hellenistic period.295 The population during this period was predominantly Gentile. This is indicated by the cultic artefacts found at many sites in Early Hellenistic strata.296 Some of the local population continued to visit the open air temple at Mizpeh Yammim, although in smaller numbers.297 Abundant fragments of GCW vessels have also been found in Early Hellenistic strata.298 Interestingly, few

292 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 35; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 315; Leibner, Settlement and History, 315. 293 Syon, Small Change, 144. 294 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.453. 295 Most of these were built in naturally fortified areas such as hill tops, although some also constructed their own fortifications. They were also built close to valleys for the purpose of agricultural production. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 108; Leibner, Settlement and History, 316–317. 296 Note for example the figurines of Aphrodite, Apis, and Horus discovered at Bersabe. James F. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110; Leibner, Settlement and History, 328. 297 Berlin and Frankel, “Mizpe Yammim,” 25–78; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 38, 61, 109; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36. Columbaria for raising pigeons have also been found at several sites, and Strange links these to the worship of Astarte or Aphrodite. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36. 298 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109. Following Emil Schürer’s suggestion that Galilee at this time was populated by Itureans, some scholars initially wondered whether GCW should be associated with the Itureans. However, as noted above, there is no literary or material evidence to indicate that the Itureans populated Galilee, and GCW is quite different from the brownish and heavily tempered pottery found in southern Lebanon, which is generally identified with the Itureans. When the Seleucid Empire began to wane, the Itureans expanded south from the Lebanon and CounterLebanon ranges into the northern Golan, but there is little evidence that they migrated into Galilee. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 38–39; Leibner, Settlement and History, 321; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 206–207; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 38; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 45. Moreover, when Aristobulus I set out to conquer the Itureans (Ant. 13.318–319), it appears that Galilee was already part of his kingdom. As Aviam writes, “The campaign against the Ituraeans was conducted after the Galilee was conquered.” [sic] Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 45.

114

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

remains of GCW have been found on the Phoenician coast.299 Thus it appears that there were two distinct ethnic groups inhabiting Galilee during the Early Hellenistic period: those who manufactured GCW, and those who had migrated into the region from the Phoenician coast.300 Nonetheless, the material culture of most settlements in Galilee at this time reflects strong cultural and economic links with Ptolemais and Tyre. A further indicator is the number of bronze coins from Ptolemais and Tyre found at sites during the second century BCE, and to a lesser degree coins from Sidon and Antioch.301 Those living in Galilee supplied the coastal cities with flax, grain, and wine.302 Indeed, Lower Galilee at this time was “the breadbasket of ‘Akko.”303 The predominantly Gentile population living in Galilee also benefitted economically from this arrangement. They imported Phoenician fineware,304 and Rhodian wine.305 They also used the Hellenistic period Phoenician Jar, and toward the end of the second century BCE they began to import Phoenician glassware.306 Toward the end of the Early Hellenistic period it is evident that there were also Jewish communities living in Galilee, although “we do not know when they arrived in the Galilee, what the extent of their settlement was, or where in the Galilee they settled.”307 Nonetheless, by the middle of the second century BCE we know there were Jewish settlements in Lower Galilee. Two of these were Sepphoris and Asochis/Shikhin.308 IV. Late Hellenistic period (167–63 BCE) It should be noted that throughout the Hellenistic period the population of Galilee was still relatively small, and there was plenty of room for expansion and 299

Leibner, Settlement and History, 321. Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 206–207; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 43, 167; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36–38. In fact, migration from Phoenicia during the Early Hellenistic period also extended across the Jordan into the Golan. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 57–62. 301 Syon, Small Change, 139–142. 302 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 114–121; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 73; Syon, Small Change, 85–87. 303 Leibner, Settlement and History, 326. 304 Berlin and Overman, eds., First Jewish Revolt, 66. 305 The latter is indicated by the discovery of stamped handles from Rhodian wine amphorae. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63. 306 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63. Glass blowing was invented along the Phoenician coast near the end of the second century BCE. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 37. 307 Leibner, Settlement and History, 319–320. 308 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 40; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48; Leibner, Settlement and History, 320–321. 300

G. Galilean settlement history

115

establishment of new settlements. During the second half of the second century BCE, with the waning of the Seleucid Empire, Galilee became a contested region. The coastal cities of Tyre and Ptolemais sought to strengthen their control over the region, while the Hasmoneans began to expand their kingdom into the Transjordan and Galilee.309 Thus the Jews living in Galilee came under increasing pressure from their Gentile neighbours. It was this conflict between the Jews of Lower Galilee and the coastal cities which led to their appeal to Simon the Hasmonean for help.310 It is during this period that bronze coins of Antiochus VII appear in Galilee. These were aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem ca. 132/1–131/0 BCE, during the reign of Hyrcanus I.311 Thus they appear to have been minted in respect for the Jewish prohibition of images. Locally minted bronze coins generally did not circulate far from their mint, yet these have been found at Gishala/Gush Ḥalav, Jotapata/Yodefat, Shikhin, and Arbel in Galilee.312 This suggests that the minority Jewish population living in Galilee during the last decades of the second century BCE, sought to demonstrate their identification with Jerusalem. Beginning in the last decade of the second century BCE there appears a shift in the material culture at sites in Galilee, coupled with the destruction of some sites and the apparent abandonment of others.313 Twenty-five of the sites surveyed in Upper Galilee which exhibited GCW during the Early Hellenistic period, did not continue into the Early Roman period.314 Fifteen of these were on the Mount Meiron block,315 including the Gentile sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim 309 Berlin suggests that the importation of Phoenician fineware among the Gentile population of Galilee at this time, when other locally produced forms were available, may have been “a deliberate strategy of cultural identification,” for it was in ca. 145 BCE that Jonathan the Hasmonean made his advance on Kedesh (Ant. 13.158–168; 1 Macc. 11.63–74). Berlin and Overman, First Jewish Revolt, 66. This is possible. However, some of the Jewish communities in Lower Galilee at this time also imported Phoenician fineware. 310 1 Macc. 5.15, 21–23; Ant. 12.331, 334. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 43. 311 They depicted the Seleucid anchor on the obverse and a lily on the reverse. Syon, Small Change, 146–148. 312 Four of these coins were also found at Gamla, in the central Golan. Syon, Small Change, 146. 313 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46; Leibner, Settlement and History, 322–323; Aviam, “From Galil Ha–Goyim to Jewish Galilee,” 18–20. 314 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109–110. For example, at Esh Shuhara where GCW and second century BCE Hellenistic coins were present, “Hasmonean coins were found” in the destruction layer. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48. See also Danny Syon, “Coins from the Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara,” Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology, ed. Zvi Gal (Jerusalem: IAA, 2002), 123–124. A similar story appears at Beer Sheva’ Ha Gelilit (Kh. esh Sheba), and Ḥ. Tefen. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 23, 48. 315 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109. This was half the number of sites in the region containing GCW during the Early Hellenistic Period.

116

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

which was destroyed and abandoned.316 The combined evidence of abandoned sites, with others exhibiting a destruction layer, suggests that a significant portion of the Gentile inhabitants of Galilee did not remain in the region. Unlike the Idumeans in the south, it seems that many chose to leave their settlements rather than live under Hasmonean rule and adopt a Jewish way of life.317 However, Mordechai Aviam may be correct when he suggests that some of the Gentile population, particularly those who used GCW, may have chosen to stay and adopt a Jewish way of life.318 The shift in material culture at sites which continued into the Early Roman I period, need not preclude the possibility that some of the former inhabitants chose to stay, even though their numbers may have been small. The fortress at Jotapata was restored, a new defence was built at Khirbet elTuraniyeh,319 and the settlement of Bersabe/Beersheba was repopulated.320 Magdala/Taricheae was also built during the last few decades of the second century BCE, on a site that had previously been a small Gentile settlement where the inhabitants used GCW.321 The new settlers used locally manufactured, unadorned, coarse ware similar to that manufactured in Judea,322 although some of the wealthier residents also imported Phoenician fineware. A notable shift in the coin profile, particularly the bronze issues, also occurred during the Late Hellenistic period. Seleucid and Phoenician city bronze coins were replaced with Hasmonean coins. For example, there was a marked decline in the use of Tyrian bronze coins in Galilee between 125 BCE and 98 BCE, and after this time their appearance is rare.323 The circulation of civic coins from Ptolemais continued until the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76

316

Figurines from this site were found smashed in the destruction layer. These included a bronze Apis bull and a “statuette of the Egyptian gods, Osiris, Horus, and Isis.” Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109; Rafael Frankel, “Har Mitṣpe Yamim 1988–1989,” ESI 9 (1989–1990): 100–102; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46. 317 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 47, 167–168; Gregory Jenks, “The Quest for the Historical Nazareth,” in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture. A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene, ed. J. Harold Ellens (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014), 254. 318 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48; Aviam, “From Galil Ha–Goyim to Jewish Galilee,” 19–20. 319 Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus, and Siege of 67,” 42–44; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46; and Israel Shatzman, The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 83–87. 320 Leibner, Settlement and History, 323. 321 Aviam, “Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee,” 19; and De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 303. 322 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48; Freyne, “Galilee as Laboratory,” 160. 323 At Shikhin none of the 29 Tyrian bronze coins that were found post-date 98 BCE. Syon, Small Change, 153.

G. Galilean settlement history

117

BCE), when these were also replaced with Hasmonean coins.324 The combined evidence reveals that by the end of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, Upper and Lower Galilee were part of the Hasmonean kingdom of Judaea, and the vast majority of the population were Jews.325 In the words of Syon, “there is no positive evidence of non-Jewish settlements within Hasmonean Galilee by the reign of Alexander Yannai.”326 Moreland acknowledges that some Jews probably migrated into Galilee from Judea at this time, but he claims that these were only “a fraction of the whole.”327 However, the archaeological evidence suggests there was a marked increase in population numbers during the first century BCE, with the rapid growth of some settlements and the founding of new settlements, all with a material culture corresponding to that of Judea.328 Arbel was established early in the first century BCE,329 followed by Capernaum, Hammath Tiberias, Nazareth, and others by the end of the first century BCE.330 Aviam and Leibner are probably correct to note that the founding of new Jewish settlements in Galilee, and the restoration of old settlements, could only have occurred with the encouragement and protection of the Hasmoneans.331 As Leibner writes: In view of the archaeological evidence concerning ethnic change that points to a considerable portion of the indigenous population not remaining in the region and the large number of new settlements founded at the beginning of the period … a picture emerges of a very considerable wave of settlement. These new settlers were most likely immigrants, possibly connected with a settlement project initiated by the Hasmoneans … This wave of settlement, which Judaized the region, is probably the reason for the inclusion of the Galilee in the area of Jewish domain following the Roman conquest. It also explains the massive support of Hasmonean descendants by the inhabitants of the Galilee in their struggle first against Rome and later against Herod. This support cannot be understood if we assume that the population of the Galilee was forcibly converted or a remnant of the ancient Kingdom of Israel with which contact had been broken centuries earlier … most of the Jewish settlement in the region was a result of the Hasmonean conquest.332

The shift in material culture to one which corresponded to the material culture of Judea, coupled with the establishment of new settlements and a marked increase in population numbers, suggests that the new arrivals in Galilee 324

Syon, Small Change, 154. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 40. 326 Syon, Small Change, 156. 327 Moreland, “Inhabitants of Galilee,” 142. 328 Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 35. 329 Leibner, Settlement and History, 329. 330 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 40, 42; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46; Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.453; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 41–51; Freyne, “Galilee as Laboratory,” 159–60. 331 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 48–49; Leibner, Settlement and History, 322. 332 Leibner, Settlement and History, 336. 325

118

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

migrated into the region from Judea.333 This conclusion is supported by the sudden appearance of “industrial” olive oil presses across Galilee and the central Golan in the first century BCE.334 By the end of this period, Josephus writes that Mount Carmel, Mount Tabor, and the Jezreel Valley were part of Lower Galilee, and the Hasmoneans had control over Scythopolis/Beth Shean, Gadara, and Hippos/Sussita.335 V. Early Roman I period (63 BCE–70 CE) When the Roman general Pompey dissolved the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE and severed the Decapolis cities from Judaea,336 the Jewish character of Galilee was recognised and its territory, along with the central Golan, Judea, and Perea, was brought under the administration of the Hasmonean ethnarch and High Priest Hyrcanus.337 This situation was reconfirmed later by Julius Caesar.338 After a period of civil war between opposing Hasmonean factions, the Roman senate, with the endorsement of Antony and Octavian, awarded the Jewish territories to Herod the Great in 40 BCE. However, it took Herod three years to defeat his Hasmonean opponent Antigonus. Thus it was not until 37 BCE that Herod finally entered Jerusalem as “King of the Jews.”339 Despite his victory, Herod continued to face opposition from Hasmonean contenders for the throne. As discussed earlier, there was considerable support in Galilee for these

333 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 42–43, 55, 177; Sean Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 655; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 56–62; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46–49; Syon, Small Change, 93; R. Alan Culpepper, “The Galilee Quest: The Historical Jesus and Historical Galilee,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 45.2 (2018): 224. 334 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 51–58; Rafael Frankel, “Corn, Oil, and Wine. Food Processing and Food–Processing Installations in Galilee in the First Century CE,” in Ofra Guri-Ramon, The Great Revolt in the Galilee, 24–26; Syon, Small Change, 93–95. According to Aviam, the only olive oil installation from the Early Hellenistic period is the one found at the fortress of Tefen in the foothills west of Galilee. Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 53. Moreover, the presses which have been excavated were found to be leverand-weight presses of the Judean “Maresha” type. Frankel, “Corn, Oil, and Wine,” 25; Syon, Small Change, 93–95. This is a further indicator that it was Jews from Judea who migrated into Galilee at this time, bringing with them their knowledge of olive oil production. 335 Ant. 13.396. 336 War 1.155–156; Ant. 14.74–76. The Decapolis cities were granted the status of free cities, annexed to the Roman province of Syria. 337 Ant. 14.73–74; War 1.153. Thus the Hasmoneans continued to rule their Jewish territories on behalf of Rome, but in a more limited capacity. They were also forced to pay tribute as reparation (War 1.154). Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 47–48. The inclusion of the central Golan in the Hasmonean ethnarchy will be discussed in Chapter Five. 338 Ant. 14.190–198; War 1.194. 339 Ant. 14.476–491; War 1.349–357.

H. Conclusion

119

ousted Hasmoneans. The resulting conflicts, along with the consistent material record, point to the continued presence of a Jewish population in the region. Although Herod the Great minted his own bronze aniconic coins, which are found throughout the Jewish territories, the Jews of Galilee continued to use Hasmonean coins. Also, around the middle of the first century BCE the Jews of Kefar Hananya in Galilee began manufacturing and distributing their own distinctive pottery. Mikva‘ot were also built at a number of sites in Galilee, and towards the end of the first century BCE the population began to use limestone vessels and Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps.340 After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, Galilee passed to his son Antipas, who ruled the region until 39 CE. During this time Sepphoris was rebuilt, and new settlements were founded, including Antipas’ new capital Tiberias.341 After the exile of Antipas in 39 CE, Galilee was transferred to Agrippa I until his death in 44 CE, when Galilee, Samaria, and Judea came under the rule of the Roman procurators. Galilee also took part in the First Jewish Revolt, further attesting to the Jewish population of the region.342

H. Conclusion H. Conclusion

Mark depicts Jesus as an itinerant prophet, preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. The degree to which this is plausible depends upon Galilee being at least a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. In this chapter we have noted some of the conflicting proposals over the last century concerning the ethnicity of the Galilean population. The lack of consensus was due in part to the meagre and sometimes contradictory evidence in our primary sources, and doubts concerning the historical value of their claims. In the past few decades, however, a new consensus has begun to emerge— that Galilee during the Early Roman I period was a predominantly Jewish region. This emerging consensus is the result of extensive archaeological surveys and excavations in the region, and the recognition of Jewish identity markers 340

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 43; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 36. While Antipas grafted “a Graeco-Roman urban veneer” onto his new cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias, the population of these cities and the region remained predominantly Jewish. Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee,” 343–365. Additional settlements were founded in the Nahal Zippori valley, and in the plain of Gennesaret. Dark, “Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape,” 98–99; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 41. 342 After the First Jewish Revolt, another wave of Jewish migrants arrived in the region, and Galilee remained a predominantly Jewish region throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 37–38. However, in the second century CE a Roman legion was stationed nearby at Legio, and by the Byzantine period there was also a minority Christian population in the region, particularly at sites made famous by their association with Jesus. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 60–61. 341

120

Chapter 2: The Question of Galilean Ethnicity

in the material culture. At site after site across the region, Jewish identity markers have been found in Early Roman I period strata, with a corresponding absence of non-Jewish markers for the same period. In fact, within the borders of Galilee described by Josephus, no Gentile settlements have been found from the Early Roman I period. Moreover, stratified excavations of sites in the region have enabled archaeologists to reconstruct the settlement history of Galilee and explain how the region became predominantly Jewish. In the next chapter we will explore in more detail nine Galilean settlements, which will illustrate further the Jewish character of the region during the Early Roman I period. We will note what the literary sources say about these sites, and what has been observed of their material culture during excavations. We will also note some of the recent discoveries made in the past two decades, and discuss one of the main objections to a Jewish Galilee: the reference to “Galilee of the Gentiles” in Matthew 4.15. Finally, we will consider the implications of these findings for our understanding of the historical Jesus, and his itinerant ministry among the towns and villages of Galilee.

Chapter 3

Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity A. Introduction The overwhelming evidence from the material remains of sites in Galilee is that the region, as it was defined by Josephus, was predominantly Jewish during the Early Roman I period. This renders plausible the claim that Jesus was an itinerant prophet to Israel who travelled among the towns and villages of Galilee and preached in their synagogues. Chancey has provided an overview of twenty-one settlements in Galilee, plus three sites which lay just beyond the boundaries of Galilee as defined by Josephus.1 His work need not be repeated here. However, it is important to discuss a number of settlements in the region, to illustrate the Jewish character of these sites during the Early Roman I period. I have selected nine settlements for discussion according to the following criteria. First, some sites were chosen for their geographical spread. It is important to demonstrate that the Jewish population of Galilee was not located in one area, but spread across the region.2 Second, sites were selected because of their prominence in the works of Josephus and/or the Gospels.3 Third, Sepphoris and Tiberias were included to demonstrate that even these Herodian cities had a predominantly Jewish population. And finally, a few settlements were included to draw attention to some recent and significant discoveries.

1 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 63–119. These are Sepphoris, Nazareth, Asochis/Shikhin, Khirbet Qana, Kefar Kanna, Jotapata, Tiberias, Hammath Tiberias, Magdala/Taricheae, Arbela, Capernaum, Chorazin, Beth She’arim, Qiryat Tiv’on, Kefar Hananya, Mizpeh Yamim, Gischala/Gush Ḥalav, Khirbet Shema‘, Meiron, Meroth and Nabratein. He also discusses Beth Yerah at the southern end of the lake, Sha’ar Ha’amaqim which may have been situated just west of the boundary of Lower Galilee, as defined by Josephus, and Bethsaida in Gaulanitis. 2 For this reason the selection includes Gischala/Gush Ḥalav in the north of Upper Galilee, Nazareth in the south of Lower Galilee, Sepphoris near the western end of the Naḥal Zippori valley, and Magdala/Taricheae in the east. 3 For this reason Jotapata/Yodefat and Capernaum are included. The siege on Jotapata and its destruction in 67 CE is discussed in detail by Josephus, and the site provides a unique snapshot of life in Galilee at the time of the First Jewish Revolt. Capernaum is included because of its importance in the ministry of Jesus.

122

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

For each settlement we will note what the literary sources have to say, and where applicable we will note the settlement history of the site. For the most part, however, the discussion will focus on the material remains found in Early Roman period I strata and what they reveal about the ethnicity of the population at the time. This chapter will also address one of the main objections to a Jewish Galilee: the reference in Matthew’s Gospel to “Galilee of the Gentiles.”4 We will conclude by discussing some of the implications of these findings for understanding the historical Jesus and his itinerant ministry.

B. Gischala/Gush Ḥalav B. Gischala/Gush Ḥalav

Gischala/Gush Ḥalav was a Jewish town during the Early Roman I period. It was located in the hill country of Upper Galilee, about eight kilometres north of modern Safed.5 I. Literary sources According to Josephus, Gischala was fortified during the First Jewish Revolt, not only to resist Roman invasion, but also to ward off attacks from Tyrian Kedesh.6 Gischala was also the hometown of Josephus’ rival, John of Gischala.7 Josephus’ accounts of John enable us to catch a glimpse of life in Gischala and the ethnicity of its population. He writes that when the Jewish population of Caesarea Philippi were being held captive, they sent a request to John of Gischala asking for a supply of kosher olive oil.8 Elsewhere, Josephus claims that during the siege on Gischala, John convinced the Roman general Titus to allow the town a reprieve on the Sabbath.9 This was a pretext enabling some of the population to escape to Jerusalem.10 Although Josephus has probably embellished this account, it nonetheless indicates that the residents of Gischala were Jewish. Eventually, Josephus writes, the town surrendered to Titus.11 This may indeed have been the case, since Gischala continued into the Middle and

4

Matt. 4.15. Gischala (Heb: Gush Ḥalav/Arabic: el-Jish). Tsafrir et al, “Gischala, Gush Ḥalav,” TIR 136. For an introduction to Gischala see James F. Strange, “Gush Ḥalav,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.389–403. 6 War 2.575; Life 10, 43–45, 189. 7 See e.g. Life 45, 70–73. 8 Life 74–76. This suggests the region produced enough oil for the local population and export. 9 War 4.99–100. 10 According to Josephus, a number of them were cut down on the way. 11 War 4.106–120. 5

B. Gischala/Gush Ḥalav

123

Late Roman periods. There are references to Gischala, its synagogue, and its fine olive oil, in Tannaitic sources.12 II. Archaeological evidence After the destruction of the Iron Age IIB settlement, there was no sustained settlement at Gischala until the site was repopulated during the Early Hellenistic period. This is evident by the appearance of Early Hellenistic forms of GCW. However, there is an observable shift in the material culture at the site during the Late Hellenistic period. The earlier GCW gives way to Kefar Hananya ware. There is also a shift in the coin profile for this period. 248 Hasmonean coins were found, compared with five bronze coins from Tyre, one from Ptolemais, and three from Antioch.13 By the end of the Late Hellenistic period, Gischala had become a predominantly Jewish settlement. By the first century CE, the residents of Gischala were also using Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps and limestone vessels.14 Two Jewish Revolt coins were also found at the site.15 In addition, rock cut chambers and a cistern connected by tunnels, were found along with Early Roman I period remains, and an earthen rampart which may have been part of Josephus’ fortifications.16 Ossuaries for secondary burial were also found at Gischala. There is no doubt, therefore, that during the Early Roman I period Gischala was a Jewish settlement in Upper Galilee, whose residents took part in the First Jewish Revolt. Gischala continued into the Middle and Late Roman periods and retained its Jewish character. This is indicated in the remains of a third century CE synagogue.17

12

See for e.g. m. ‘Arak. 9.6; t. Menaḥ. 9.5. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 74]. 14 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 114; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; 93, 106–109. 15 Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 74]. 16 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 42, 151 [Site 348]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 127; and Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.454. 17 Eric M. Meyers, “Gush Ḥalav,” NEAEHL 2.546–549; Strange, “Gush Ḥalav,” 393– 396, 400–401; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 113; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 42, 151 [Site 348]. 13

124

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

C. Jotapata/Yodefat C. Jotapata/Yodefat

Jotapata/Yodefat was a rural town in Lower Galilee located about seven kilometres north of Sepphoris. It was situated on a hill surrounded on three sides by steep ravines.18 I. Literary sources There is no doubt that Jotapata was a Jewish town in the first century CE. It was fortified by Josephus during the First Jewish Revolt,19 and Josephus provides an eyewitness account of the siege of Jotapata.20 He also describes the Roman forces searching the hiding places and subterranean vaults where men, women, and children sought refuge. Josephus himself was captured at Jotapata before the town was razed and its fortresses burned to the ground.21 II. Archaeological evidence The archaeological remains indicate that Jotapata was settled during the Early Hellenistic period and had a Gentile population at that time. The remains from this period include GCW, the Hellenistic period Phoenician Jar, Seleucid and Tyrian coins, and a stamped amphora handle dating to the second century BCE.22 Two moulded oil lamps depicting cupids were also found. This stratum was destroyed toward the end of the second century BCE, leaving a thick layer of ash which separated what remained of the Hellenistic settlement from the Early Roman I period settlement.23 The site was resettled during the early half of the first century BCE. The material culture from that time on and into the first century CE differs significantly from that found in Early Hellenistic strata. The ceramic profile includes Kefar Hananya ware and barrel-shaped storage jars produced on site or at

18 Mordechai Aviam, “Yodefat–Jotapata,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.109–126; Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Nimrod Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” in Berlin and Overman, First Jewish Revolt, 74; Tsafrir et al, “Iotapata,” TIR 154; Mason, Life of Josephus, 95–97; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83. 19 Life 187–188; War 2.573; 3.181–182. Cf. Life 234; and War 3.158–160. 20 He also records Galileans flocking to the town for refuge when the armies of Vespasian advanced into Galilee. 21 War 3.111, 141–147, 161–288, 316–335, 336–339. 22 Mordechai Aviam, “Yodefat,” NEAEHL 5.2076–2078. See also Andrea Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 59–62, 69; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 47, 89–90. 23 Aviam, “Yodefat,” NEAEHL 5.2076.

C. Jotapata/Yodefat

125

Shikhin.24 Although the population initially imported ESA red-slipped fineware, by the end of the first century BCE they replaced this with limestone vessels. Over a hundred sherds of limestone vessels were found at Jotapata.25 There is also a shift in oil lamp typology at this time to Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps.26 Two mikva’ot were also found at Jotapata.27 The numismatic profile also reflects a shift to a predominantly Jewish population. 380 Hasmonean coins were found at Jotapata. Sixteen of these were coins of John Hyrcanus I, but the vast majority were coins of Alexander Jannaeus.28 The majority of bronze coins from the Early Roman I period were also aniconic coins. Twenty-five were from the Jerusalem mint, including one Jewish Revolt coin. And there were eight coins of Herod Antipas, which were minted in Tiberias.29 It is evident therefore that Jotapata in the first century CE was a Jewish village. Other remains from the site include cooking ovens, pottery kilns, spindle whorls and 200 loom weights, cisterns, an olive oil press, and a villa with frescoed walls and floors, imitating the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho, Herodium, Masada, and Jerusalem. Remains from the Roman siege in 67 CE were also evident across the site. A section of the city wall was discovered and amid the ruins excavators found thirty-five ballista stones, seventy arrowheads, a tip of a Roman dagger, an iron spear head, iron nails, and numerous skeletal remains.30 These corroborate Josephus’ claim that Jotapata took part in the First Jewish Revolt. After the destruction of Jotapata, a new settlement was constructed to the north of the site at Khirbet Jifat.

24 Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 76–81; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 146; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 205, 216; Aviam, “Yodefat-Jotapata,” 114, 124; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 47, 89–90. 25 Aviam, “Yodefat,” NEAEHL 5.2077; David Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus, and Siege of 67,” 131–165; Aviam, “Yodefat-Jotapata,” 122–123. Andrea Berlin attributes this shift not only to the adoption of a “simple, unadorned, Jewish lifestyle,” but also to the desire to demonstrate a united opposition “to the newly looming Roman presence.” Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 59–64, 69. 26 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 45, 47; Aviam, “Yodefat-Jotapata,” 123–124. 27 Aviam, “Yodefat,” NEAEHL 5.2077; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 146. Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 49. 28 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 139]; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 46. 29 Syon, Small Change, 179 [Fig. 45, Site 139], and 198 [Table 18, Site 139]. 30 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 110–122; Aviam, “Yodefat,” NEAEHL 5.2076– 2078; Aviam, “Yodefat-Jotapata,” 116–121; and Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 74–76.

126

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

D. Sepphoris/Zippori D. Sepphoris/Zippori

Sepphoris/Zippori was a hill top city in Lower Galilee about five kilometres northwest of Nazareth.31 It is important to note the material culture of Sepphoris because this city, perhaps more than any other, has been portrayed as a Graeco-Roman city (πόλις) with a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles.32 I. Literary sources Our best literary source for Sepphoris is Josephus, although occasional mention of the city appears in the works of other ancient writers.33 Josephus describes Sepphoris as the largest and strongest city in Galilee.34 During the first century BCE, Sepphoris was a prominent Hasmonaean town with a Jewish population. It was here that Alexander Jannaeus was raised.35 Also, when Sepphoris and nearby Asochis came under attack from Ptolemais, Josephus indicates that Asochis was defeated because it was attacked on the Sabbath.36 Sepphoris became the administrative centre of Galilee after the region became part of the Jewish ethnarchy under Roman rule.37 Later when the Jewish territories passed to Herod the Great, Sepphoris became a centre for Hasmonean opposition, and when the city revolted after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, Josephus reports that Varus had it burned to the ground and its citizens reduced to slavery.38 Herod Antipas restored and fortified Sepphoris to be his capital and “the ornament of all Galilee.”39 It is possible at this time

31 Sepphoris (Heb: Zippori/Arabic: Saffuriya). (NIG: 738998,225480). Tsafrir et al, “Sepphoris, Diocaesarea,” TIR 227. For an introduction to Sepphoris see James F. Strange, “Sepphoris: A. The Jewel of the Galilee,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.22–38. 32 Some scholars have argued that at Sepphoris, Jesus encountered Graeco-Roman culture and cynic philosophy. See e.g. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 421; and Gerald Downing, “The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Deconstruction,” NTS 33 (1987): 439–451. A more extreme view was put forward by Walter Bauer who argued that Sepphoris was predominantly Gentile. Bauer, “Jesus der Galilӓer,” 91–108. 33 See for example Ant. 13.338; 17.289; 18.27; War 1.304–308; 2.68, 117–118, 511; 3.30– 34, 68; Life 103, 232, 346. Ptolemy is the first non-Jewish author to mention Sepphoris (Σαπφουρεί) in Galilee (Γαλιλαίας) (Geogr. 5.16.4). Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.170. 34 Life 232, 346; War 2.511; 3.34. 35 Ant. 13.322. 36 Ant. 13.337–338; War 1.170. 37 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 71. 38 Ant. 17.289; War 2.67–68. However, Josephus’ description of Sepphoris’ destruction may have been exaggerated, for there is little evidence of this in its archaeological remains. Meyers, Galilee Through the Centuries, 114. 39 Ant. 18.27.

D. Sepphoris/Zippori

127

that some of the officials stationed in the city were foreigners,40 although there is no mention of this in the literary sources. In ca. 19 CE Antipas moved his capital to the newly founded city of Tiberias, and Sepphoris was effectively demoted.41 According to Life, Josephus fortified Sepphoris during the First Jewish Revolt, and supplied the city with grain and arms.42 But in Jewish War, Josephus claims that he authorised the inhabitants of Sepphoris to erect their own walls because they had ample means and were eager to defend their city against the Romans.43 Josephus later seems to contradict this when he describes the city’s pro-Roman stance.44 It is difficult to reconcile these statements, but it may be that the population during the early days of the revolt was divided on the issue of whether to fight or surrender. As time progressed it seems that cooler heads prevailed and the city adopted a pro-Roman stance, much to the dismay of the surrounding rural population.45 This pro-Roman stance has sometimes been claimed as evidence that Sepphoris had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. Yet as Eric Meyers notes, “There are some indications in Josephus … that the adoption of a pro-Roman policy did not come easily.”46 Part of the problem lies in the fact that Josephus describes Sepphoris and the Galileans as opponents in the days leading up to the Roman invasion.47 However, there is no indication that this conflict fell along ethnic lines. Rather, they reflected “intra-Jewish rivalries and urban-rural tensions.”48 Josephus frequently uses the term “Galileans” not as an ethnic designation, but as a catch-all for the rural population who were not citizens of a city.49 The Galileans opposed Sepphoris because it was a Jewish city and it was perceived to be betraying the Jewish people by appealing to Rome. This is indicated in Josephus’ attempts to bring the city under his control.50 Furthermore, 40 Herod Antipas was after all the son of Herod the Great, an Idumean, and his wife Malthace, who was from Samaria (Ant. 14.403; 17.188; War 1.561). John H. Hayes and Sara R. Mandell, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 134, 146. 41 Life 38. 42 Life 187–188. 43 War 2.511, 574. 44 War 3.30; Life 30, 124, 348, 394, 411. 45 The citizens of Sepphoris were probably keenly aware of what happened the last time the city had revolted against Rome (Ant. 17.289; War 2.67–68). 46 See e.g. War 2.574, 629, 645–646. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 63. 47 He writes that when Sepphoris declared its friendship with Rome, the Galileans tried to plunder the city (Life 30–31; 124). Later when the city appealed to Cestius Gallus for protection, Josephus writes that the Galileans broke into the city and set it alight because they detested the city (Life 373–376). 48 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 72. 49 Mason, Life of Josephus, 30, 38–39. 50 Life 81–82, 111; War 2.645–646.

128

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

in an address to the people of Tiberias, Josephus condemned Sepphoris for not coming to the aid of Jerusalem “our greatest city,” or helping when “the temple common to all” was at risk of being overtaken by the Romans.51 These comments make it clear that the Galileans felt the residents of Sepphoris had betrayed them. Thus Josephus largely portrays the population of Sepphoris as Jewish, and the archaeological evidence supports this. II. Archaeological evidence Most of the remains excavated at Sepphoris post-date the first century CE. This includes the third century CE Roman villa with its triclinium mosaic depicting scenes of Dionysius,52 the fifth century synagogue with its zodiac mosaic,53 and the Byzantine period Nile House with its mosaics of Alexandria, animal hunts, and the Amazons.54 On the basis of such finds, some scholars have argued that Sepphoris was a cosmopolitan city with a mixed population. However, while these structures and art forms do reflect Graeco-Roman influence, they are almost entirely absent in Early Roman I period strata.55 The earliest architectural structure uncovered at Sepphoris is a large building on the western slope of the acropolis. Given the strength of its defences and the remains of ballista stones, two mikva’ot, dozens of coins of Alexander Jannaeus, and an ostracon inscribed in Hebrew dated to ca. 100 BCE, the building was probably a Hasmonean fortress.56

51

Life 346–350. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 128–130; Meyers, et al., “Artistry in Stone,” 223–231; Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Ehud Netzer, “The Dionysos Mosaic,” in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 111–115; and Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Ehud Netzer, “Sepphoris (Ṣippori), 1986 (I)–Joint Sepphoris Project,” IEJ 37 (1987): 277. 53 Zeev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, “The Synagogue Mosaic,” in Rebecca Martin et al., Sepphoris in Galilee, 133–139; Zeev Weiss, “The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic,” BAR 26.5 (2000): 48–61, 70. 54 Zeev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, “The Mosaics of the Nile Festival Building,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, 127–131. 55 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 79–81. For the development of Sepphoris after the First Jewish Revolt see Zeev Weiss, “C. From Galilean Town to Roman City, 100–200 CE,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.58–73. 56 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 71; Eric M. Meyers, “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” in Berlin and Overman, First Jewish Revolt, 117; and Eric M. Meyers, Ehud Netzer, and Carol L. Meyers, Sepphoris (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 19–21; Zeev Weiss, “Sepphoris,” NEAEHL 5.2029; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 41, 77. The text of the ostracon may be translated “manager” or “overseer.” Meyers, “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” 111; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 121–122. 52

D. Sepphoris/Zippori

129

Remains of Antipas’ city have been uncovered on the western slopes of the summit and the eastern plateaux.57 These include a few paved and colonnaded streets, possibly a bathhouse, a few remains of public structures, an aqueduct and reservoir, and a large basilica which may have served as a market place, forum, or administrative building.58 These structures clearly reflect GraecoRoman cultural influence, but do not necessitate an ethnically mixed population. James Strange describes these features as a Roman “urban overlay” onto a Jewish culture.59 Similarly, Meyers writes: Not all aspects of urban life have clear associations with Gentile, Roman culture. Rather, they constitute an urban overlay that has been grafted on to Galilean society.60

If Early Roman I period Sepphoris had been a fully-fledged Graeco-Roman city (πόλις) with a mixed population, one would expect to find cultic artefacts, temples, statues, gymnasia, and imperial inscriptions typical of other GraecoRoman cities (πόλεις) in the regions surrounding Galilee. Yet these are strikingly absent.61 Even the pro-Roman coins struck in 68 CE, which declared the loyalty of Sepphoris to Rome with the superscript “Eirenopolis” (City of Peace), did not bear an image of the emperor, a pagan temple, or a deity.62 As Jensen observes, Sepphoris during the reign of Antipas was in its “urban infancy” and “only just deserving the designation as a polis.”63 Among the courtyard houses uncovered in Early Roman I period strata, excavators found the remains of paved floors, plastered walls, decorative frescoes, mosaics of geometric shapes, water installations, and walls sturdy enough to support a second story. The vast majority of pottery fragments from the period were Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin storage jars.64 Fragments of ESA fineware have also been uncovered, but many of these were found in the same

57

For an introduction to these remains see Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Benjamin D. Gordon, “B. Residential Area of the Western Summit,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.39–52. 58 Zeev Weiss suggests this was an Early Roman period forum. Weiss, “Sepphoris,” NEAEHL 5.2031. See also Reed, Galilean Jesus, 118; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 76; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee” EHJ 37. 59 James F. Strange, “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies,” in What Has Archaeology to Do with Faith? Ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1992), 31–33. 60 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 62. See also the discussion by Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 82–84. 61 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 83; Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 60. 62 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 81; Meyers, “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” 116. 63 Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 23. 64 Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 153–172.

130

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

loci as Kefar Hananya ware and limestone vessels.65 To date, over a hundred fragments of limestone vessels have been found, and fifty-one mikva’ot, along with an absence of pork bones in the bone profile.66 Moreover, chemical analysis of the oil lamp fragments recovered indicate that eighty percent were Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps,67 and in one residence on the acropolis a lamp was found depicting a menorah.68 Also a total of 186 Hasmonean coins have been recorded from Sepphoris.69 Most of these are coins of Alexander Jannaeus, but twelve are coins of Hyrcanus I.70 Also, 124 aniconic bronze coins from the Jerusalem mint were found from the period 63 BCE–70 CE,71 and ten of these were Jewish Revolt coins.72 This suggests that although the city declared its allegiance to Rome in 68 CE, there were some living in Sepphoris who opposed this decision. It is evident, therefore, that Sepphoris during the Early Roman I period was a Jewish town. Even though some residents imported ESA fineware and decorated their homes with frescoes and mosaics, these displays of luxury are rare in first-century Sepphoris.73 Moreover, even though Sepphoris was Antipas’ 65

See e.g. Reed’s discussion of the ceramic remains uncovered in Unit II on the acropolis. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 126. Moreover, Reed notes that in all the seasons of excavation, only two stamped handles of Rhodian wine amphorae have been found for this period. 66 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 322 [Table 1]. For earlier results see Weiss, “Sepphoris,” NEAEHL 5.2032; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49, 126–128, 134; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 79–81; Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, Sepphoris, 28; and Meyers, “Jesus in his Galilean Context,” 63–65. In addition, a market weight was discovered with a Greek inscription dating to the first century CE. The obverse notes the weight, and the reverse lists the names of the market inspectors. Names are not always a clear indicator of ethnicity, since Palestinian Jews in the Early Roman I period frequently took Greek names, and on occasion Latin names. Nonetheless, two of the names are identified as Jewish: ΑΙΑΝΟΥ “John”, and ΖΙΜΩΝΟ “Simon,” both of which were popular during the Early Roman I period. The third name is Latin, ΙΟΨΣΤΟΣ “Justus.” While the ethnicity of this person is uncertain, it is doubtful that he was Roman. The name probably reflects the fact that Sepphoris was a Herodian city and the administrative centre of Galilee. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 121–122. For a brief introduction to Jewish names in the Early Roman period see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 67–91. For a full discussion and database see Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE. TSAJ 91 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 67 Adan-Bayewitz, et al., “Distribution of Lamps” 47. 68 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 128. Several mosaic fragments depicting Hebrew letters and a menorah were also discovered in a residential area on the western summit, although these may post-date the first century CE. Meyers et al., Sepphoris, 19–21. 69 Syon, Small Change, 170 [Table 15, Site 178]. 70 Syon, Small Change, 165 [Fig. 34, Site 178]. 71 Syon, Small Change, 198 [Table 18, Site 178]. 72 Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 178]; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 81; Meyers, “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” 116. 73 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 49.

D. Sepphoris/Zippori

131

administrative capital, evidence for the presence of Gentiles in the city is largely lacking in the material remains. There is some debate as to whether the theatre at Sepphoris dates to the first century CE or early second century CE. This may have arisen because different teams excavating in different areas of the theatre, produced different results.74 Richard Batey may be correct in suggesting that the stage area and the front two sections of seating were built during the time of Antipas, and further renovations were undertaken early in the second century CE, including the addition of upper benches which enlarged the seating capacity from 3,000 to 4,500.75 However, given the uncertainty of the date, it is speculative to claim that Jesus visited the theatre.76 Even if the theatre was in use during the time of Jesus, we cannot presume that Greek plays were performed given the fairly conservative and Jewish character of the city at the time. Sepphoris was indeed the administrative capital of Galilee, but not a GraecoRoman city (πόλις) on the scale of Hippos/Sussita or Beth Shean/Scythopolis. 74 When Leroy Waterman began excavating the theatre in 1931, he proposed a first century CE date for its construction. S. Yeivin agreed, based on the discovery of Hasmonean coins above the floor of the orchestra, including coins of Alexander Jannaeus. These indicated that the theatre was probably constructed early in the first century CE by Herod Antipas. S. Yeivin, “Historical and Archaeological Notes,” in Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931, ed. Leroy Waterman (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1937), 17–34, esp. 29. In 1938 William Albright argued on stylistic grounds that the theatre was probably constructed in the second century CE. William F. Albright, “Review of Waterman’s Preliminary Report on the 1931 Excavations,” CW 21 (1938): 148. In 1983 James F. Strange began excavating the theatre, and on the basis of the latest pottery fragments his team found on bedrock under the theatre, he attributed its construction to Antipas. James F. Strange, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983–1989,” Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 342–343; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37. In 1985 Ehud Netzer and Eric and Carol Meyers began excavating a different section of the theatre. In one of the cisterns which existed before the theatre was built, they found pottery vessels from the first century CE. They proposed three possible dates of construction: the first during the time of Antipas; the second during the procuratorship of Felix (ca. 52 CE); and the third during the early second century CE. Meyers et al., Sepphoris, 33; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, “Sepphoris,” OEANE 4.533. This conflicting data is reflected in Zeev Weiss entries in NEAEHL. In his first entry he proposed a first century date for construction during the time of Antipas. Weiss, “Sepphoris,” NEAEHL 4.1325–1326. In the supplementary volume he proposed an early second century date. Zeev Weiss, “Sepphoris,” NEAEHL 5.2031. Reed dates the theatre to the latter half of the first century CE. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 119–121. See also the discussion in Chancey, GrecoRoman Culture and the Galilee, 84–85. 75 Richard A. Batey, “Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater [sic]?” Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 111–119. 76 Batey proposes that Jesus visited the theatre. Richard A. Batey, “Jesus and the Theatre,” NTS 30 (1984): 563–574, esp. 563.

132

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

It was a Jewish city “onto which Antipas had grafted a Greco-Roman architectural veneer.”77 As Meyers states: The archaeology and history of Sepphoris strongly supports a case for Sepphoris in the time of Jesus being overwhelmingly Jewish in population, traditional in orientation toward language and common religious practice, urban in character but still not a city of the magnitude of one of the Gentile cities, connected to the other towns and villages of Galilee by trade and the new requirements of an expanding population base, somewhat aristocratic because of its priestly component, retainer class and pro-Roman posture during the Great War, and perhaps an uncongenial but not unfamiliar place for Jesus.78

Any claim that Sepphoris had even a significant Gentile minority which exerted a cultural influence on Galilee in the first century CE, has no literary or archaeological support.79

E. Nazareth E. Nazareth

Located in a small depression in the hills of Lower Galilee, about five kilometres southeast of Sepphoris, was the ancient village of Nazareth.80 This small village is attested in literary sources, but until recently it was thought to be a poor settlement of no more than 400 people. In fact, in 2008, René Salm claimed there was no Jewish village called Nazareth during the early half of the first century CE.81 However, excavations in the past two decades have made some important discoveries, adding significantly to our knowledge of first-century CE Nazareth. I. Literary sources The earliest literary evidence for Nazareth comes from the New Testament Gospels, which identify the village as Jesus’ hometown.82 They also indicate

77

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 22; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 76–77. Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 64. 79 In the words of Keener, “Sepphoris was Hellenized in many respects, was the most Roman city in Galilee, and refused to participate in the revolt against Rome in 66 CE. Sepphoris was, however, a thoroughly Jewish city, and remained faithful to Judaism as its inhabitants understood it.” Keener, Historical Jesus, 22. 80 Nazareth (NIG: 734198,228131). Yardenna Alexandré, Mary’s Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods. IAA Reports 49 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012), 1–2; James F. Strange, “Nazareth,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.167–169; and Tsafrir et al, “Nazareth,” TIR 194. 81 René Salm, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2008). 82 References to Nazareth in the Gospels include: Matt. 2.23; 4.13; 13.54; 21.11; 26.71; Mark 1.9, 24; 6.1; 10.47; 14.67; 16.66; Luke 1.26; 2.4, 39, 51; 4.16, 34; 18.37; 24.19; and 78

E. Nazareth

133

that Nazareth during the Early Roman I period was a Jewish settlement whose occupants observed the Sabbath and attended synagogue.83 Although Josephus makes no mention of Nazareth, this should not be taken as evidence that the village did not exist. Nazareth would have been one of many small and unremarkable villages in Galilee during the Early Roman I period.84 In the fourth century CE, Eusebius described Nazareth as a village in Galilee, about fifteen Roman miles from Legio. He also noted that it was from Nazareth that Christ was called a “Nazarene,” and that before the followers of Jesus were called “Christians” (Χριστιανοί), they were known as “Nazarenes” (Ναζαρηνοὶ).85 II. Archaeological evidence Nazareth was excavated under the direction of the Franciscan monks Benedict Blaminck and Prosper Viaud during the first three decades of the twentieth century. They were followed by Bellarmino Bagatti, from the Franciscan Institute for Biblical Research, from 1955 to 1966.86 Among the remains excavated under the Church of the Annunciation, the Church of St. Joseph, and the Terra Santa Convent, they found a number of rock-hewn chambers, tunnels, water cisterns, olive oil presses and wine presses, grinding stones, granaries, depressions indicative of earlier domestic dwellings, and two mikva’ot. On the outskirts of Nazareth, they found traces of terracing and the remains of a vineyard watchtower. From these structural remains it was deduced that Nazareth was a small agricultural village during the Early Roman I period.87 A number of tombs were also excavated, twenty of which were kokhim style tombs. In some of these tombs the excavators found limestone vessels and Herodian oil lamps.88

John 1.45–46; 18.5, 7; 19.19. Nazareth is also mentioned in Acts 2.22; 3.6; 4.10; 6.14; 10.38; 22.8; 24.5; and 26.9. 83 Matt. 13.54; Mark 6.2; and Luke 4.16. 84 In fact, John’s Gospel records Nathaniel alluding to the insignificance or questionable character of the village when he asked if anything good could come from Nazareth (John 1.45–46). 85 Eusebius, Onom. 138.24. 86 Bellarmino Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth. Vol 1: From the Beginning till the XII Century, trans. E. Hoade. SBFCMi 17 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969). 87 Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, 1.228–233; Bellarmino Bagatti, “Nazareth,” EAEHL 3.919–922; Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 6–9; Craig A. Evans, “Nazareth,” EHJ 243–245; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 83–85; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 131–132; Strange, “Nazareth,” 176; and James F. Strange, “Nazareth,” ABD 4.1050–1051. Other remains of public structures such as capitals, column bases, the marble and stone feet of a statue, and the stepped basin with its mosaic, date from the Middle Roman to Byzantine periods. 88 Strange, “Nazareth,” 176. Six Early Roman period lamps were found in one cave. Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 9.

134

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

Limestone and clay ossuaries were also discovered,89 along with a Roman imperial inscription written in Greek which forbade grave robbing.90 In 1997 excavations resumed at Mary’s Well and the Church Square Area in Nazareth under the direction of Yardenna Alexandré.91 Between 1997 and 1998 ten coins of Alexander Jannaeus were found at Mary’s Well. Eleven Hasmonean coins have been found in total at Nazareth to date.92 Also, four Jewish aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem were found for the Early Roman I period. Two were coins of Herod the Great, one of Archelaus, and one of the Roman governor Antonius Felix from the reign of Claudius.93 Fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin ware were also found in this area. While most of the ceramic fragments date to the Middle and Late Roman periods, the nozzle of a Herodian oil lamp was also found, attesting to a Jewish presence during the Early Roman I period.94 In 2006 the architectural remains underneath the Sisters of Nazareth Convent were re-examined by the Nazareth Archaeological Project. They found two Early Roman period tombs, remains of a Byzantine Church which was rebuilt during the Crusader period, and an Early Roman I period courtyard house. They observed fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and limestone vessels from the courtyard house, and fragments of plaster which had once covered the walls.95 A salvage excavation also took place in 2008–2009 prior to the construction of the International Marian Centre. Here another courtyard house was found resting above a “three-level silo complex,” which Alexandré suggests may

89

Strange, “Nazareth,” 175–176. See also, no author, “Nazareth ’Illit,” ESI 1 (1982): 78–

79. 90 SEG 8.13; 13.59; and 16.828. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, Rabbis, 83–84. The inscription may not have been found in situ. 91 For a detailed report on the results of these and earlier excavations see Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 1–88. See also Strange, “Nazareth,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.167–180; and Gregory C. Jenks, “The Quest for the Historical Nazareth,” in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Green, ed. J. Harold Ellens (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014), 252–267. For a brief report on the Early Roman period coins found see Ariel Berman, “The Numismatic Evidence,” in Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 107, 111–112. 92 Berman, “The Numismatic Evidence,” in Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 107, 111; Syon, Small Change, 170 [Table 15, Site 195]. 93 Berman, “The Numismatic Evidence,” in Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 107, 111–112; Syon, Small Change, 198 [Table 18, Site 195]. 94 Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 59–61. 95 K.R. Dark, “Early Roman-Period Nazareth and the Sisters of Nazareth Convent,” AJ 92 (2012): 37–64; Ken Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” BAR 41.21 (2015): 54–63, 72; Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 7, 9. The nearby tombs were constructed after the house was no longer in use.

E. Nazareth

135

have served as an underground hiding place. The excavators also found fragments of Early Roman I period pottery and limestone vessels.96 These results counter the claim made by René Salm that Nazareth was constructed around the end of the first century CE.97 The remains of courtyard houses, early forms of Kefar Hananya and Shikhin ware, limestone vessels, Herodian oil lamps, and Hasmonean coins, indicate that Nazareth was a small Jewish village during the Early Roman I period. If it was not founded during the Late Hellenistic period, it was certainly settled by the end of the first century BCE.98 Furthermore, Nazareth continued as a Jewish village throughout the Roman and Early Byzantine periods.99 Excavations were also conducted at the Nazareth Village Farm Project. No structures were found there, but the excavators did observe remains of ancient terraces and sherds of Early Roman period I pottery.100 Also, the survey conducted by Ken Dark, which revealed numerous settlements on the Nazareth side of the Naḥal Zippori valley and along the Nazareth Ridge, showed a marked preference for use of limestone vessels and Kefar Hananya ware over imported ESA fineware. It seems that the people of first century CE Nazareth and its environs, were not only Jewish, but were resistant to foreign influence.101

96

Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 7; Strange, “Nazareth,” 176. For a response to René Salm see, K.R. Dark, “Review of René Salm, The Myth of Nazareth,” BAIAS 26 (2008): 140–146; Stephen Pfann and Yehudah Rapuano, “On the Nazareth Village Farm Report: A Reply to Salm,” BAIAS 26 (2008): 105–108. See also Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 9, 153–154. 98 Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 7–9, 153–154. 99 Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 337–338. 100 Pfann and Rapuano, “Nazareth Village Farm,” 105–108; Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano, “Surveys and Excavations at Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002). Final Report,” BAIAS 25 (2007): 19–79. 101 Dark, “The Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape, 98–99; and Dark, “Jesus’ Nazareth House,” 60–61. 97

136

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

F. Tiberias F. Tiberias

Herod Antipas founded the city of Tiberias in ca. 19/20 CE in honour of the Emperor Tiberius.102 It was built on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee directly opposite Hippos/Sussita.103 I. Literary sources Josephus counted Tiberias as one of the three cities of Galilee.104 He added that it was built on the site of ancient tombs. This was contrary to Jewish law, so Antipas drafted Galileans and others to populate the city.105 Tiberias was also a Herodian city, with a palace and a stadium.106 Thus at any given time there may have been foreign diplomats in the city, and foreign merchants passing through. There may also have been Gentile officials among Antipas’ administration.107 According to Luke, Herod Antipas employed a manager (ἐπίτροπος) by the name of Chuza (Χουζᾶ),108 a name which appears in Nabatean and Syrian inscriptions as Aramaic Kûzā’.109 Therefore, Chuza may have been a Nabatean who joined Antipas’ administration, perhaps after the tetrarch married the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas.110 However, apart from some

102 Tiberias (NIG: 742040,251360). Josephus, Ant. 18.36; War 2.168; Life 37. Herod Antipas minted his coins in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, which suggests Tiberias was founded ca. 19/20 CE. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 38; and Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Tiberias,” OEANE 1.203. Michael Avi-Yonah proposed an earlier date of 18 CE. Michael AviYonah, “The Foundation of Tiberias,” IEJ (1950–1951): 160–169. See also Tsafrir et al, “Tiberias,” TIR 249. 103 Tiberias is mentioned by Pliny the Elder who comments on its hot springs and its location by the Lake of Genesar (Genesaram lacum) (Nat. Hist. 5.71); and by the second century geographer Ptolemy, who identifies Tiberias (Τιβεριάς) as one of four interior towns of Galilee (Geogr. 5.16.4) Tiberias was also close to the settlement of Hammath, where there were hot baths believed to have healing properties (Ant. 18.36; Life 85). 104 The other two cities were Sepphoris and Gabara (Life 123–124), although elsewhere Josephus describes Gabara as a village (Life 242). 105 Ant. 18.37–38. 106 Life 65–66, 92, 331; War 2.618. 107 Herod Antipas was after all the son of an Idumean father and a Samaritan mother (Ant 18.194). 108 Chuza was married to Joanna, one of the women who followed Jesus (Luke 8.3). 109 Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2002), 135–143, 151–161. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1–9 (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 698; and Nolland, Luke 1– 9.20, 366. A few decades later, one of Josephus’ bodyguards in Tiberias was called Herod (Life 96). This name connects him with the Herodian court, but his ethnicity is unknown. 110 Ant. 18.109. Sawicki suggests that Chuza was probably an Idumean. This is a possible alternative, given that Herod the Great was Idumean. Marianne Sawicki, Crossing Galilee:

F. Tiberias

137

who were employed in Antipas’ administration, the vast majority of the population of Tiberias seem to have been Jewish.111 Josephus describes the people of Tiberias observing the Sabbath, and assembling in a προσευχή.112 The term προσευχή was used widely in the Diaspora to denote a synagogue,113 although it could also denote a Jewish place of prayer outdoors.114 In this case, however, Josephus seems to be referring to a synagogue building. Josephus also helped the Tiberians fortify the city’s walls during the First Jewish Revolt,115 and he claims that two thousand Tiberians helped defend Jerusalem when it came under attack.116 These references strongly suggest that Tiberias was a predominantly Jewish city prior to 70 CE. Additional events provide further confirmation of the Jewish ethnicity of the residents of Tiberias. During the Gaius affair, when the emperor decreed an imperial statue be erected in the Jerusalem temple, the Syrian governor Petronius left his armies and standards in Ptolemais when he journeyed to Tiberias, so as not to offend the Galilean Jews, including those living in Tiberias.117 Josephus adds that “tens of thousands” of Galileans neglected their fields to bring their concerns to Petronius at Tiberias.118 While these numbers are certainly exaggerated, the response testifies to the solidarity of the Jews of Galilee with the people of Tiberias when it came to the threat of violation of the Jerusalem temple. On another occasion, Josephus requested permission of the leaders of Tiberias to destroy Antipas’ palace, on account of there being images there which violated Jewish law.119 Before the task got underway, however, Jesus son of Sapphias, whom Josephus identified as the city’s chief magistrate, led a group of men who set fire to the palace. Josephus was able to salvage some of the royal furniture and silver, stating his intention to return them to Agrippa II, and Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 146. 111 As Mason claims, there is no indication from Josephus that Greeks came to Tiberias when Antipas founded the city. Mason, Life of Josephus, 60. 112 Life 277, 280, 297. 113 See e.g. Philo, Flaccus, 41, 45, 47. Mason, Life of Josephus, 122, and 280. Some of the earliest references to a προσευχή as a synagogue come from Egypt. Note e.g. the third century BCE inscription (CIJ 1440; Horbury-Noy [No. 22]; G.H.R. Horsley, New Docs, 3.121 [No. 94]). 114 Ant. 14.258; Ag. Ap. 2.10. Luke refers to a Jewish place of prayer outside of Philippi (Acts 16.13–16). 115 War 2.573; Life 188. 116 Life 354. 117 Ant. 18.269. 118 Ant 18.272. See also War 2.193. 119 As Mason writes, “although Antipas’ known coins do not bear animal or human images, but only a reed or wreath … out of deference to the Judean sector of the populace, it was to be expected that his palace would contain such images.” Mason, Life of Josephus, 59.

138

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

he denounced Jesus and his men as rebels motivated by greed.120 However, the report is so muddled and self-serving that one suspects that Josephus was playing both sides: that on the one hand he proposed the destruction of the palace to gain the support of the Jewish rebels, while on the other hand he planned to return the furniture to Agrippa II to demonstrate his loyalty to Rome. Whatever the case, Josephus records the zeal of these so-called “rebels” for the Jewish law. Their actions may also reflect a degree of anti-Herodian sentiment.121 On another occasion certain men from Dabaritta raided the caravan of Ptolemy, an official of Agrippa II, as it passed through the Jezreel valley.122 Joining men from Tiberias, the raiders brought these goods to Josephus at Taricheae. However, when they suspected that Josephus planned to return the goods to Ptolemy, they protested. Josephus claims that he intended to send the goods to Jerusalem where they could be sold, and the proceeds be used to rebuild the city’s walls. The raiders, however, suspected Josephus of duplicity, and during the night raced through the surrounding villages claiming that Josephus was a traitor. The next day, Josephus writes, 100,000 men converged on the hippodrome at Taricheae. Regardless of the exaggerated number of the crowd, its size was no doubt significant. Jesus son of Sapphias then stood before them holding up a copy of the Torah and claiming that Josephus had betrayed them and their laws. Josephus narrowly escaped with his life.123 Whatever Josephus’ intentions, it is clear that Jesus’ appeal could only have worked if the population was Jewish. Moreover, Josephus appeals to the crowd as “fellow countrymen” (ἄνδρες … ὁμόφυλοι).124 The only explicit references to foreigners in Tiberias occur after 61CE, when Nero added Tiberias and Taricheae to the kingdom of Agrippa II.125 These references post-date the time of Jesus. Yet even then, the number of Gentiles in the city appears to have been very small. Also, the division in the city between those who were loyal to Agrippa II, and thereby Rome, and those who joined the revolt against Rome, did not fall along ethnic lines. Josephus writes that there were three factions in the city: one led by Julius Capellus who was proRoman; one led by Jesus son of Sapphias who was prepared to fight; and a third led by Josephus’ rival Justus who was also prepared to fight.126 Jesus, introduced earlier, was clearly Jewish, as was Justus who set fire to the Gentile villages of Gadara and Hippos/Sussita which lay between Tiberias and

120

Life 65–66. Yuval Shahar, “Comparable Elements between the Galilee and Judea in the Great Revolt,” in Ofra Guri-Ramon, The Great Revolt in Galilee, 33. 122 Life 126–132. See also War 2.595–599. 123 Life 129–141; War 2.598–619. 124 Life 141. 125 War 2.252; Ant. 20.159; Life 37–38. 126 Life 32–36. 121

F. Tiberias

139

Scythopolis.127 Julius Capellus was probably a Herodian official, since the name Julius was adopted by the Herodian family when Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, was granted Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar.128 However, although his name is Latin, his ethnicity is unknown. In addition, the conflict between the Tiberians and rural Galileans did not fall along ethnic lines. The rural Galileans only ravaged Tiberias when its inhabitants decided to take a pro-Roman stance.129 It was precisely because the Tiberians were Jews, that the rural Galileans perceived their actions as a betrayal.130 Eventually Tiberias joined the First Jewish Revolt, and this brought upon them the armies of Vespasian and Titus. Tiberias was caught in a pincer movement between Vespasian’s army descending from the north, and Titus’ army advancing from the south. After a siege on Tiberias and Taricheae, most of those caught up in the revolt were assembled in the stadium, where they were subsequently slaughtered or enslaved.131 There can be no doubt from this that Tiberias was a predominantly Jewish city. II. Archaeological evidence Excavation of ancient Tiberias has been difficult because most of the remains lie beneath the modern town. In addition, many of the structures uncovered post-date the Early Roman I period. Nonetheless, a few structures can be dated to the first century CE. These include the gate complex and towers, a portion of the paved cardo, and the ancient harbour.132 Also, not far from the 127

This attack was probably a retaliatory response for earlier border infringements (Life 42, 341–342). Mason, Life of Josephus, 139–140. 128 This conclusion is supported by the fact that two of his men were named Herod. Mason, The Life of Josephus, 40. 129 Life 381–384. In response, Josephus raised a fleet of boats to take back the city and arrest the council (War 2.632–641; Life 163, 165, 167–169). 130 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 95 n.43. 131 Josephus writes that the elderly were slaughtered, 6,000 youths were sent in chains to work on the Corinthian canal, a small group were gifted to Agrippa II, and the rest were enslaved (War 3.444–466; cf. Suet. Nero, 19). 132 The twelve metre-wide cardo extended northwards from the basalt gate complex. For an introduction to Tiberias and its archaeological remains see Yizhar Hirschfeld and Katharina Galor, “New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity, 207–229; Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee,” 471–484; Katia Cytryn-Silverman, “Tiberias, from its Foundation to the End of the Early Islamic Period,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.186–197; Yizhar Hirshfeld, Gideon Foerster, and Fanny Vitto, “Tiberias,” NEAEHL 4.1464–1470; Yosef Stepansky, “Tiberias,” NEAEHL 5.2048–2053; and Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 89–95. For the harbour see Mendel Nun, Sea of Galilee: Newly Discovered Harbours from New Testament Days, 3rd ed. (Ein Gev: Kibbutz Ein Gev, 1992), 27–29.

140

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

monumental city gates, a large theatre was discovered dug into the hillside. Excavation of the theatre revealed two phases of construction: the first during the reign of Antipas, and the second during the second or third century CE.133 Also, beneath the floor of a fourth century CE villa or basilica, the excavators found what may have been the remains of Antipas’ palace. This includes a room with a marble floor and fragments of painted plaster. One rarely finds imported marble in Early Roman period Palestine, except in the palaces of Herod the Great. This structure also rests on a deep foundation of fieldstones, among which were found ceramic fragments dating the time of construction to the first century CE. A deep layer of ash lay on top of these ruins, which suggests the building was destroyed by fire in the latter half of the first century CE.134 Excavators also uncovered a residential area. Among the ruins they found sherds of Early Roman I period pottery and Herodian oil lamps.135 Under the floor of one large first or second century CE public building they also found fragments of stone vessels and a mikveh.136 These indicate a Jewish presence at Tiberias during the first century CE. However, also lying among the remains they found a small figurine, which is difficult to date. Yizhar Hirschfeld suggests it belonged to a second century CE noblewoman, although it could also have belonged to a first century Herodian official.137 In a nearby burial chamber, two limestone ossuaries were discovered, along with sherds of pottery and oil lamps. These remains date the chamber to the first or early second century CE.138 Of the seven bronze coins recorded from the period between 125 BCE–63 BCE, six are Hasmonean coins.139 Of the thirty-two bronze coins recorded for the Early Roman I period, fifteen are aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem. Four of these are Jewish Revolt coins. Two coins were minted in Sepphoris, and seven were minted in Tiberias.140 To commemorate the founding of Tiberias, Antipas issued his first series of coins in the twenty-fourth year of his reign (ca. 19/20 CE). The coins of Antipas depict symbols such as a reed, a palm 133

Zangenberg is correct to note that this has implications for the theatre at Sepphoris. If the theatre at Tiberias was constructed in two phases, this might explain the conflicting data which emerged from excavations of the theatre at Sepphoris. Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee,” 473–475. 134 Zangenberg, “Archaeological News,” 472–473; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 19; and Hirshfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 114, 220. 135 Hirshfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 212–214, 220. 136 Hirschfeld et al, “Tiberias,” NEAEHL 4.1467. 137 Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Tiberias,” ESI 9 (1989/1990): 107–109. 138 See Fanny Vitto’s discussion of the Roman Tomb in Hirschfeld et al, “Tiberias,” NEAEHL 4.1473. 139 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 167]. 140 Syon, Small Change, 187 [Fig. 49, Site 167]. The Jewish Revolt coins were minted in Year 2 of the First Jewish Revolt.

F. Tiberias

141

tree, palm branches, a wreath, or bunches of dates. It seems that Antipas avoided using images that would offend his Jewish subjects.141 Freyne notes: This is striking in contrast to Antipas’ brother Philip, who … had no scruple in having both his own and the emperor’s image on his coins … This numismatic evidence … is an indication that at least during Antipas’ reign, and probably until the revolt of 66-67 had been put down, it was necessary to proceed cautiously in openly displaying the signs of Hellenism … This can only mean that the total ethos … was still thoroughly Jewish.142

Two first century lead weights were also found at Tiberias. The first weight dates to year 34 of the reign of Antipas (ca. 30/31 CE).143 On the reverse it bears the name of Gaius Julius, the city’s market official. Given this Latin name, Shraga Qedar argues that the market official was Roman.144 Yet deriving ethnicity from names is fraught with difficulty. The Latin name certainly indicates Roman influence, but this is not surprising given that Tiberias was a Herodian city named in honour of the Emperor Tiberius. There is in fact little evidence for a Roman presence in Galilee during the reign of Antipas.145 However, as noted earlier, the name Julius was adopted by the Herodian family when Antipater was granted Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar.146 It is more likely, therefore, that the market official was connected in some way to Herod Antipas. As for his ethnicity, this is unknown. The second lead weight bears an inscription to Agrippa II.147 It was initially proposed the weight dated to year 43 of the founding of Tiberias (ca. 61/62 CE),148 but upon further examination it became evident that it reads year 23, which if dated according to the regnal years of Agrippa II, would be ca. 71/72 or 82/83 CE.149 The reverse of this weight bears the names of two market officials. Qedar reads the first name on the inscription as: “Iaesaias [son of] 141

Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 26–30. Syon, Small Change, 174, Avi-Yonah, “The Foundation of Tiberias,” IEJ 1.3 (1950–51): 160–169; and Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” EHJ 38. 142 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 144. 143 H.W. Pleket, R.S. Stroud, and J.H.M. Strubbe, “SEG 42-1473. Tiberias: Lead weight, 30/31 A.D.,” in SEG, ed. A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R.A. Tybout. . 144 Shraga Qedar, “Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early History of Tiberias,” INJ 9 (1986–1987): 30. 145 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 53; Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 43–70. 146 Mason, The Life of Josephus, 40. 147 A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud, and R.A. Tybout, “SEG 52-1693–1694. Tiberias (area of). Inscriptions on two lead weights of Agrippa II, 70–72 or 81–83 A.D.,” in SEG, ed. A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R.A. Tybout. . 148 Qedar, “Two Lead Weights,” 31. 149 Alla Kushnir-Stein, “Two inscribed Lead Weights of Agrippa II,” ZPE 141 (2012): 295–297.

142

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

Mathias.” The first market official is probably Jewish, although Kushnir-Stein has shown the spelling is more accurately “Iasoaias.”150 The second name, Animos [son of] Monimos, sounds Semitic but is more difficult to identify.151 Nonetheless, this market weight supports the conclusion that Tiberias was a predominantly Jewish city. The discovery of the city gate, the paved cardo, the theatre, the probable remains of Antipas’ palace, and the inscribed market weight with the Latin name for a market official, corroborate the literary evidence that Tiberias was a Herodian city reflecting Roman influence. The discovery of a small figurine may also indicate the presence of a few Gentiles in the city. However, as Meyers states: No statues of Octavian or Tiberius have been recovered, there is no trace of an imperial cult, and no images of the Greco-Roman pantheon … Indeed the coins of Antipas were aniconic, lacking any figural devices. All in all one would have to conclude that the Tetrarch displayed marked sensitivity to Jewish religious concerns, or at the very least opportunistically honoured Jewish laws in order to rule more effectively.152

The absence of temples, statues, and other cultic artefacts, along with the presence of limestone vessels, Hasmonean and Jewish Revolt coins, early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, Herodian oil lamps, and at least one mikveh and two stone ossuaries, indicate that Tiberias was a predominantly Jewish city during the Early Roman I period. The small village of Hammath Tiberias, just one kilometre south of Tiberias, was also a Jewish settlement. This was the village noted for its hot springs.153 Excavations uncovered two synagogues at Hammath Tiberias. These post-date the Early Roman I period. However, fragments of limestone vessels were discovered in the foundation of one synagogue, along with many fragments of Kefar Hananya ware.154

G. Magdala/Taricheae G. Magdala/Taricheae

Taricheae has been identified with a site on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee at the southern end of the Gennesar plain, about ten kilometres southwest of Capernaum and six kilometres north of Tiberias.155 This site has also 150

Kushnir-Stein, “Two Lead Weights,” 295–297. Qedar, “Two Lead Weights,” 32; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 90–91. 152 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 60. 153 Ant. 18.36; War 4.11; Life 85. 154 Hirschfeld et al., “Tiberias,” NEAEHL 4.1468; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 219; Tsafrir et al., “Ḥammath, Hammé Tiveria, Ammathous,” TIR 138. 155 For an introduction to Magdala/Taricheae see Stefano De Luca and Anna Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.280–342; 151

G. Magdala/Taricheae

143

been associated with Mary Magdalene from the Gospels, and referred to by its Aramaic name, Magdala. While the identification of this site as Taricheae or Magdala has its detractors,156 what is certain is that at this location there was a significant Early Roman I period town, which had a predominantly Jewish population. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, my working assumption will be that this was the site of Josephus’ Taricheae, and possibly also the hometown of Mary Magdalene. The town was founded in the last decades of the second century BCE, although there is evidence that a small settlement existed at the site prior to this.157 By the turn of the first century CE, Taricheae was a significant urban centre. The Greek name Taricheae is related to ταριχείος, meaning ‘preserving,’ ‘pickling,’ or ‘salting,’ and probably identifies Taricheae as a town known for its drying, pickling, or salting of fish.158 The Hebrew Migdāl (‫ )מגדל‬means “tower,” and Migdāl Nunayya means “fish tower.”159 I. Literary sources There are numerous references to Taricheae from the Early Roman period. It was already a Hasmonean town when it was attacked in 53 BCE by the Roman Governor Cassius. Josephus writes that 30,000 of its citizens were enslaved, a claim that is clearly exaggerated since the area of the city at that time could not James F. Strange, “Magdala,” ABD 4.463–464; Richard Bauckham and Stefan De Luca, “Magdala As We Now Know It,” EC 6 (2015): 91–118. See also Tsafrir et al, “Magdala, Taricheae, Migdal Nunia, Migdal Ṣebaya,” TIR 173. 156 See e.g. Nikkos Kokkinos, “The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of Tiberias?” PEQ 142.1 (2010): 7–23; and Joan E. Taylor, “Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary Magdalene,” PEQ 146.3 (2014): 205–223. 157 The remains of the small settlement during the Early Hellenistic period are indicated by the discovery of fragments of GCW jars. Aviam, “Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee,” 19; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 303. Zangenberg notes the presence of coins and pottery from the second and even third century BCE, retrieved from harbour sediments, which supports the conclusion that there was a settlement at that location during the Early Hellenistic period. Jürgen K. Zangenberg, “Anchoring Ancient Galilee at the Lakeshore: Towards Re-conceptualizing Ancient Galilee as a Mediterranean Environment,” EC 10.3 (2019): 282. 158 Strabo claimed that the fish from Taricheae was good for salting or pickling (Geogr. 16.2.45). De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 280, 283; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 99; Mordechai Aviam, “Magdala,” OEANE 3.399–400; Taylor, “Missing Magdala,” 217; and Facundo D. Troche, “Ancient Fishing Methods and Fishing Grounds in the Lake of Galilee,” PEQ 148.4 (2016): 290. 159 De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 287. Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke 1–9, 697; Nolland, Luke 1–9.20, 366; Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 393. Rabbinic references to Migdal Nunayya or Magdala, and Gospel references to Mary Magdalene, show a preference among the Galileans for the Hebrew or Aramaic name of the town, rather than the Greek name Taricheae. Leibner, Settlement and History, 222.

144

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

accommodate such a great number.160 Taricheae was also known to the Roman senator Cicero, to Strabo, to Pliny the Elder, and to Suetonius.161 The town has also been associated with Mary Magdalene from the Gospels.162 The Aramaic name Magdala does not appear in the Gospels, but the appellation “Magdalene” is thought to identify Mary with her hometown. There are also references to Magdala/Migdal in rabbinic sources.163 Josephus records that Taricheae had a population of some 40,000 residents,164 and that its hippodrome was large enough to accommodate thousands of people.165 These numbers are certainly exaggerated but they nonetheless indicate that Taricheae was a significant and prosperous town.166 A more realistic figure appears in Josephus’ claim that he raised a fleet of 230 boats.167 Josephus also remarks that the medical physicians of Taricheae were more proficient than those of Capernaum.168 Josephus conveys the impression that Taricheae was a Jewish town. It was probably constructed with Hasmonean support and funding, and the population appears to have remained loyal to the Hasmoneans into the first century CE.169 They also observed the Sabbath,170 and took part in the First Jewish Revolt.171

160

Ant. 14.120; War, 1.180. Leibner, Settlement and History, 219. About ten years after the attack on Taricheae, Cicero received a letter from Cassius who was camped near the city with his army (Ad Fam. 12.11). Strabo, as noted above, referred to the high quality of fish from Taricheae that was good for salting or pickling (Geogr. 16.2.45). Pliny the Elder incorrectly located Taricheae at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee (Nat. Hist. 5.71), but Josephus’ account of Vespasian’s journey from Beth Yerah, via Tiberias, to Taricheae, locates the city north of Tiberias (War 3.445–462). Josephus adds that the distance between Tiberias and Taricheae was 30 stadia i.e. about 5.4 km (Life 157). Suetonius lists Taricheae among the Jewish cities conquered by Titus (Tit. 4.3). 162 Mary Magdalene travelled with Jesus during his itinerant ministry and provided for him out of her own resources. She is also noted as the first to proclaim the resurrection (Mark 15.40–41; Matt. 27.56; Luke 8.1–3; 23.49, 55–56; 24.1, 6–10). 163 For a brief introduction to these see De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 280. 164 War 2.608. 165 War 2.599. 166 Leibner, Settlement and History, 222. Josephus also indicates that the city had the facility to imprison a large number of people (War 2.641). 167 War 2.634–635; Life 163. 168 Life 404. 169 It may have been for this reason that Antipas founded the new city of Tiberias as his capital. For a discussion on the pro-Hasmonean loyalties of Taricheae see Leibner, Settlement and History, 224–225. 170 Life 159; War 2.632–641. 171 The city was fortified and supplied with grain and arms in preparation for the war (Life 187–188; War 2.573). During the revolt, many Galileans flocked to Taricheae for refuge and/or to join the battle. A fleet of boats was also made ready in the event that the population may need to make a quick escape. Josephus also sometimes resided in Taricheae (See e.g. 161

G. Magdala/Taricheae

145

On one occasion Josephus refers to a small delegation of foreign dignitaries who were staying in the city. The local population opposed their presence on the charge that they did not follow Jewish customs. Some threatened to kill them. Therefore Josephus helped these dignitaries escape by building a trench from their house to the lake, where they sailed off in the direction of Hippos/Sussita.172 Thus while a few Gentiles were residing in Taricheae at that time, their numbers were small enough to be accommodated in one house. Moreover, this event occurred during the reign of Agrippa II, and therefore post-dates the time of Jesus.173 II. Archaeological evidence Excavations at Magdala/Taricheae have been undertaken by different teams working independently in different areas and at different times. Virgilio Corbo and Stanislao Lofreda led an excavation of the southern area of Magdala in the 1970s, and this was resumed in 2006 under the direction of Stefan de Luca. In 2009 Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar began excavating the northern area of town, after a first century synagogue was discovered during construction of the proposed Magdala Centre.174 This was followed by the Magdala Archaeological Project from 2010.175 Magdala/Taricheae has some features of a planned town, with an urban centre at the southern end of town and streets laid out in a Hippodamian grid. Portions of the paved cardo and decumanus have been uncovered, and these date the foundation of the town to the late second or early first century BCE.176 Running under these roads was a water system which supplied fountains, wells, and a bath complex.177 The famous floor mosaic depicting a boat, fish, and other objects is thought to have decorated the floor of one of the baths.178 The War 2.634). Eventually, the city fell to Titus and Vespasian. For an account of the fall of Taricheae see Life 97, 142–143, 163; War 3.445, 463–466, 492, 532–537. 172 Life 149–153. See also Life 162. 173 After the death of Claudius, Nero severed Taricheae and Tiberias from Galilee, and joined them to the kingdom of Agrippa II (Ant. 20.159; War 2.252–253). 174 Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 92; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 299–303. 175 Marcela Zapata-Meza et al., “The Magdala Archaeological Project (2010–2012): A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Migdal,” ‘Atiqot 90 (2018): 83–125. 176 Zangenberg, “Archaeological News,” 471, 475–477; Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 95–96; and De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 303–305. See also Leibner, Settlement and History, 214–237. 177 The bath complex opens up into a courtyard which may have been a palaestra, surrounded by colonnaded porticoes. De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 319–325; Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 102. 178 S. De Luca and A. Lena, “The Mosaic of the Thermal Bath Complex of Magdala Reconsidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphy and Iconography,” in Knowledge and

146

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

harbour of Magdala/Taricheae has also been found with its tower, breakwater, and promenade, and a short distance north of the town, a first century CE fishing boat was discovered.179 Both the harbour and bath complex were probably constructed during the Hasmonean period.180 Given these discoveries, Zangenberg describes Magdala/Taricheae as a “Mediterranean” city like the “large Hellenistic cities in Greece or Asia Minor.”181 However, although Magdala was from the start constructed along Graeco-Roman lines, it was small compared with cities like Gadara, Beth Shean/Scythopolis, and Hippos/Sussita. Also, while Magdala certainly traded goods across the Sea of Galilee, the material culture of Magdala/Taricheae indicates that it was a predominantly Jewish town during the Early Roman I period. Multiple fragments of limestone vessels have been found, along with sherds of Kefar Hananya ware, and fragments of Herodian oil lamps.182 In fact, the vast majority of pottery fragments from this period were locally produced at Kefar Hananya or Shikhin.183 Mikva‘ot have also been found in domestic space,184 and in the bath complex, but no statues were found or images of the gods.185 The discovery of many fragments of glass vessels of varied types and colours, plus evidence of glass production, also suggests there may have been a local glass workshop in or near Magdala at this time.186 In addition, of the 233 bronze coins found at Magdala/Taricheae from the period 125 BCE–63 BCE, 231 are Hasmonean coins.187 For the Early Roman I period, 22 bronze

Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essay in Honour of Leah Di Segni, ed. G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcala and J. Patrich. SBFCMa 54 (Milan: Franciscan Printing Press, 2014), 1–33. 179 This will be discussed further in Chapter Five. 180 Ehud Galili, Uzi Dahari, and Jacob Sharvit, “Underwater Survey along the Coast of Israel,” ESI 10 (1991): 160–166; Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 95– 99. Cf. Nun, Newly Discovered Harbours, 34–35; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 325–326. 181 Zangenberg, “Archaeological News,” 475; and Zangenberg, “Anchoring Ancient Galilee,” 280–285. 182 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 118; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 307. In one room alone seventeen fragments of the casserole KH3A were found, and sixteen fragments of the cooking pot KH4A. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 118. 183 Zapata-Meza et al., “The Magdala Archaeological Project,” 109. 184 In the so-called “House of the Dice,” which had fifteen rooms and a courtyard, there were two mikva’ot. Across the street in a similar house, which had ten rooms and a courtyard, there was another mikveh. Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 113. 185 Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 105; and De Luca and Lena, Magdala/Taricheae,” 305–308. 186 Zapata-Meza et al., “The Magdala Archaeological Project,” 117. 187 The remaining two bronze coins were from Tyre and Antioch. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 152].

G. Magdala/Taricheae

147

coins of Herod Antipas were found,188 and 76 aniconic bronze coins from the Jerusalem mint.189 Also thirteen of these were Jewish Revolt coins.190 Arguably the most significant find was the small synagogue discovered in 2009 in the northern district of Magdala/Taricheae.191 This was the first pre-70 CE synagogue to be found in Galilee. It measures 120 metres square and includes a main hall, a long narrow room which may have served as a Bet Midrash, and another small room. The main hall is lined with stone benches. It has a black and white mosaic floor of rosettes and meander patterns, and frescoed walls with red, blue, yellow, black, and white panels. The roof of this hall was probably supported by six basalt columns, although only two column bases remain. The sherds of pottery and limestone vessels discovered on the floor date the synagogue to the Early Roman I period. A coin was also found dating to the year 43 CE.192 Near the centre of the main hall the excavators found a cube-like limestone slab, engraved on five sides with Jewish symbols including a menorah, two amphorae, rosettes, and trees. These symbols indicate a strong link between this Galilean synagogue and the Jerusalem temple.193 The combined features 188

Syon, Small Change, 179 [Fig. 45, Site 152]. Syon, Small Change, 198 [Table 18, Site 152]. 190 Most of these were minted in Year 2 of the First Jewish Revolt. Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 152]. 191 Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 92; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 299–303; and Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 33–34, 40–41. This synagogue should not be confused with the earlier discovery of a fountain/springhouse, which was incorrectly identified as a synagogue. Virgilio C. Corbo, “Scavi archeologici a Magdala, 1971– 1973,” LA 24 (1974): 19–37; Virgilio C. Corbo, “La mini-synagogue de Magdala,” Le Monde De La Bible 57 (1989): 15; and James F. Strange, “Magdala,” ABD 4.463–464. For its re-identification as fountain or bathhouse see Eric M. Meyers and A. Thomas Kraabel, “Archaeology, Iconography, and Non-Literary Written Remains,” in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and W.E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 179. See also R. Bonnie and J. Richard, “Building D1 at Magdala Revisited in the Light of Public-Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic East,” IEJ 62 (2012): 71–88. 192 A second coin was found on the street outside the synagogue, dating to the second year of the First Jewish Revolt (67 CE). Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar, “Migdal: Preliminary Report,” HA-ESI 125 (2013): n.p. Release date: 06/08/2013. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120. Zangenberg, “Archaeological News,” 475–477; Mordechai Aviam, “The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A Holistic Interpretation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean Jews at the Time of Jesus,” NovT 55.3 (2013): 205–220; D.B. Binder, “The Mystery of the Magdala Stone,” in A City Set on a Hill: Essays in Honor of James F. Strange, ed. D.A. Warner (Mountain Home, AR: Border Stone, 2014), 17–48, esp. 20–22; Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 106–110; De Luca and Lena, “Magdala/Taricheae,” 312–319; and Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 212. 193 They also indicate that the building was not simply a community centre. Aviam suggests the central stone functioned as a lectern for reading the Torah. Aviam, “Decorated 189

148

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

of the structure, including the central limestone slab with its engraved menorah, make this building’s identification as a synagogue certain. Thus Magdala/Taricheae could be described as a small city or town constructed along Graeco-Roman lines, and prior to the founding of Tiberias in ca. 19 CE, it was probably the largest and most prosperous urban centre on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. In terms of ethnic character, Magdala/Taricheae was a Jewish town, founded during the height of the Hasmonean era.

H. Capernaum/Kefar Nahum H. Capernaum/Kefar Nahum

Capernaum, or the village of Nahum, was located on the north-western shore of the Sea of Galilee, about fifteen kilometres north of Tiberias. In the first century CE it was a large unwalled village, probably covering an area of six to ten hectares.194 I. Literary sources Josephus makes only two passing references to Capernaum.195 However, the village was made famous as Jesus’ base of operations.196 According to Mark, Jesus cured a number of people in Capernaum,197 and at least two of Jesus’

Stone,” 205–220. See also Richard Bauckham, “Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone,” NovT 57 (2015): 113–135 and Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 78. 194 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 151; Sharon Lea Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum, from Hellenistic to Byzantine Times,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.217–257; Tsafrir et. al., “Capernaum, Kefar Naḥum,” TIR 97. Reisner suggests Capernaum may have extended as far as the springs of Heptapegon. Reisner, “Geography of Galilee” 218. 195 He mentions the springs of Capernaum (War 3.519), and the village of Capernaum (Life 403). Despite the variant spellings in the manuscript tradition, e.g. κεφαρνωκον, κεφαρνωκων, κεφανωμων, and κεφαρνωμων, the geographical referents make the identification of the village fairly certain. Mason, Life of Josephus, 160. Josephus also notes that Capernaum was near the Jordan River, and not far from Bethsaida (Life 399). 196 Mark 1.21; 2.1; 9.33; Matt 4.13; 9.1; Luke 4.23; 7.1. See also John 2.12; 6.17, 24, although Richardson argues that John gives preference to Cana over Capernaum. Peter Richardson, “What has Cana to do with Capernaum?” NTS 48 (2002): 314–331. 197 Matt 4.13; 8.5, 13, 14–16; 9.1–8; 11.23; Mark 1.21, 29–34; 2.1–12, 13–17; 9.33; Luke 4.40–41; 5.17–26.

H. Capernaum/Kefar Nahum

149

disciples, Peter and Andrew, had a home in the village.198 The Gospels also refer to a synagogue at Capernaum,199 and a nearby toll station.200 One objection to Capernaum being a predominantly Jewish village during the first century CE, is the Q reference to a centurion (ἑκατοντάρχος) in the town.201 The Greek term suggests that he was a commander of 100 men, and it is sometimes taken to mean that he was a Roman officer.202 There is no doubt from the context that the man was Gentile, but neither Matthew nor Luke state that he was Roman. Galilee was not under direct Roman rule at this time, so the presence of a Roman official stationed in a village like Capernaum prior to 70 CE is unlikely. As Chancey writes, “The popular image of Roman soldiers patrolling the highways and villages of first century Galilee is erroneous.”203 It is far more likely that he was a military officer in the army of Antipas. Herod the Great had modelled his army according to those of Rome and used Greek

198

Mark 1.16–18, 21, 29. Cf. Matt 4.18–20; 8.5, 14; and Luke 4.31, 38; 5.3, 8–11. Mark 1.21; Luke 4.31, 38; 7.1–5; John 6.59. Further support for the presence of a synagogue at Capernaum comes from Egeria via Peter the Deacon, De Locis Sanctis, 5.2. John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (London: SPCK, 1973), 194, 196. 200 The Synoptic Gospels state that Matthew/Levi was stationed at this toll office when he was called to follow Jesus (Mark 2.13–14; Matt 9.1, 9; Luke 5.27–28). 201 See the Q 7.3, 6–9 (Matt 8.5, 13; Luke 7.1–2). According to Luke, it was this centurion who had the synagogue at Capernaum built (Luke 7.5). 202 See e.g. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 284–286; W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2. ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 18– 19; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 263–265. 203 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 52–53, 59–60. Before the First Jewish Revolt, Roman incursions into Galilee were rare. Most advances into Palestine tended to bypass Galilee (e.g. Ant. 18.121–122). Military activities in the region were generally conducted by the forces of Herod the Great and Herod Antipas. When Herod the Great was first appointed king by Anthony and Octavian, he returned with a Roman force to help him defeat his Hasmonean opponent Antigonus. The remainder of his troops were made up of auxiliary units from surrounding regions, and his own Jewish forces (Ant. 14.394, 410; War 1.290, 301–302, 304–305, 329, 351). However, it appears that the Roman army did not remain in the region after 30 BCE, and there were no Roman troops stationed in Galilee. Moreover, Herod’s own forces would have been stationed at fortresses like Herodion, Masada, and Jericho, and at the city of Caesarea. Herod also retained a force in Jerusalem which was supplemented during pilgrimage festivals, and he established a cavalry base at Geba in the Jezreel Valley (Ant. 15.294; War 3.36). Caesar also gifted Herod with a bodyguard of 400 Gauls (War 1.397). Herod could also call upon additional troops from Syria if necessary. But it was not until the second century CE that a Roman military base was established in the region, at Legio in the Jezreel Valley. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 44– 55, 69; Israel Shatzman, The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 205–210; Adrian N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. The Sarum Lectures, 1960–1961 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 137; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 161–162. 199

150

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

terms for his officials. Therefore, it is likely that Antipas did the same.204 It is noteworthy that the Johannine evangelist uses the title “royal official” (βασιλικός) to describe what was quite possibly the same person.205 The presence of a Herodian official in Capernaum may be explained by the proximity of the village to the border between Galilee and Gaulanitis. This may also account for the presence of a toll office.206 Also the centurion may have had a few soldiers with him to serve as bodyguards, and these may or may not have been Jewish.207 However, there is no literary or archaeological evidence for the presence of a military base near Capernaum during the early half of the first century CE. If this official was indeed a military commander, it is possible that his force was based in or near Tiberias, Antipas’ capital city in Galilee. Whatever the role of this Herodian official, one should not take this reference as indicative of an ethnically mixed population at Capernaum or a Roman presence in Galilee.208 All indicators are that Capernaum was a Jewish village, and the presence of this Herodian official appears to have been an exception. II. Archaeological evidence Most of the remains excavated at Capernaum date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. Nonetheless, there are areas where excavators have uncovered earlier strata. A small number of pottery sherds indicate a small camp existed at the site during the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, but it was not until near the end of the second century BCE that a sizeable settlement emerged.

204

Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and Galilee, 52–55; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 162; Root, First Century Galilee, 65; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 10; and Evans, Jesus and His World, 45–46; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 279. For a detailed discussion see Shatzman, Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod, 198–216. 205 John 4.46. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 278. 206 Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” EHJ 218. Capernaum also had a small fishing harbour and tolls may have been collected for fishing rights and fish catches. For a discussion of the fishing industry of Galilee see Hanson, “Galilean Fishing Economy,” 99–111. Note, however, that this article tends to exaggerate the detrimental effects of Antipas’ rule in Galilee and the plight of the fishermen. See also K.C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008), 93–122. For an introduction to the harbour at Capernaum see Nun, Newly Discovered Harbours, 40–42. 207 After Herod’s death in 4 BCE, his forces were probably divided among his sons (War 1.667; 2.93–97). Thus we may assume that Antipas also had a small army, among whom there were probably Jews and Gentiles, as there had been in his father’s army. Some of them would have been stationed at his fortress of Machaerus in Perea, but there must also have been some soldiers with him at Tiberias. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 47–49. 208 Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee, 55.

H. Capernaum/Kefar Nahum

151

This corresponds with the time of Hasmonean expansion.209 The material remains indicate that Capernaum was a fairly large but socio-economically modest Jewish village during the Early Roman I period.210 The streets were unpaved and lacked drainage channels, and there were no civic structures like a theatre, agora, or hippodrome.211 The private courtyard houses were constructed with basalt fieldstones and given the lack of tile fragments, Reed suggests the roofs were probably made of thatched reeds.212 Among the remains found in Early Roman I period strata, including the house attributed to Simon Peter (Insula 1), excavators found multiple fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and other locally produced common ware, Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps, and over 150 limestone vessel fragments.213 In an examination of the pottery from Room 31 of Insula 1, AdanBayewitz noted samples of the Galilean bowl KH1A and the casserole KH3A, as well as Herodian oil lamps, and limestone vessel fragments. From Room 6 of Insula 1 he noted more fragments of Herodian oil lamps, limestone vessels, and eleven samples of the casserole KH3A, and seven of the cooking pot KH4A.214 Fragments of ESA fineware were also found at Capernaum, particularly from the first century BCE, but there is a noticeable lack of ESA fineware from the first century CE. It seems that the population of Capernaum, like those at Jotapata, made a conscious decision to cease importing ESA fineware around the turn of the first century CE.215 There is also a noticeable absence of pork bones in the bone profile.216

209

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 145. For an introduction to Capernaum see Reed, Galilean Jesus, 139–160; Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum,” 217–257; Stanislao Loffreda, “Capernaum,” NEAEHL 1.291– 295; Stanislao Loffreda, “Capernaum: From Jesus’ Time and After,” BAR 19.5 (1993): 54– 61; and Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 101–105. See also Virgilio C. Corbo, The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum: A Preliminary Report on the First Two Campaigns of Excavations, April 16–June 19, Sept. 12–Nov. 26, 1968, trans. Sylvester Saller. SBFCMi 5 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1969). 211 The remains of a small Roman bathhouse post-date the time of Jesus. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 155. 212 Thus Mark appears to have been more accurate than Luke when he described men digging through the roof to lower a paralytic down to see Jesus (Mark 2.5; Luke 5.19). 213 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50, 145, 160; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 114, 117; Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum,” 244–245; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]. For a detailed report see Virgilio Corbo, Gli edifici della città, vol. 1 of Cafarnao. SBF 19 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1975). Excavators also found fishhooks, loom weights, grinding stones, and tabun ovens. 214 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 56–57, 88–89, 114, 117, and 127. 215 Berlin, First Jewish Revolt, 60–61. 216 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 134. 210

152

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

As for the numismatic profile, among the fifteen identifiable coins recorded by Mattila dating between 103 BCE–70 CE, one was a Tyrian silver shekel, one was a civic issue from Sidon, three were minted by Agrippa II from Sepphoris and Caesarea Philippi, and the remainder were aniconic coins from the Jerusalem mint, including two Jewish Revolt coins.217 This record may also include the two Hasmonean coins noted by Syon,218 although according to Corbo, many coins of Alexander Jannaeus were found.219 Also, a rare silver Jewish Revolt half shekel was found at Capernaum.220 No mikva’ot have been found at Capernaum. However, this may be attributed to the modest socio-economic status of the population, and perhaps also their proximity to the Sea of Galilee. The lake provided a suitable water source for ritual washing.221 The most significant discovery at Capernaum has been the monumental limestone synagogue. The date of this synagogue remains unresolved. The primary reason for this is that while its architectural features point to a third century CE date, the coins and pottery fragments found in sealed strata beneath the synagogue suggest a fifth or early sixth century CE date.222 What is evident is that this was not the synagogue of Jesus. However, a section of the basalt foundation and the pavement underneath the nave of the synagogue may have belonged to an earlier synagogue building. The basalt foundation is smaller than the limestone synagogue and out of alignment. Therefore, it was not constructed at the same time as the limestone synagogue. Moreover, pottery fragments such as Kefar Hananya ware forms KH3A and KH4A date the construction of this pavement to the first century CE.223 The size of the pavement also suggests it was not part of a courtyard house but a public building. Given the tendency in the region to build later synagogues at the site of an earlier synagogue, the basalt foundations and pavement may have belonged to the first century CE synagogue mentioned in the Gospels.224

217

Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum,” 244–245. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 123]. 219 Corbo, Cafarnao, 1.215. See also Reed, Galilean Jesus, 145, n.19. 220 Syon, Small Change, 187. 221 M. Miqw. 5.4. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 158. 222 Runesson, “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation,” 231–257; Corbo, Cafarnao, 1.117–169; Virgilio C. Corbo, “Capernaum,” ABD 1.867; Loffreda “Capernaum,” in NEAEHL 1.291–295; Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum,” 220–225; Runesson, et al., The Ancient Synagogue, 29–32; G. Foerster, “Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum,” in Levine, ed., Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 57–59; and M. Avi-Yonah, “Some Comments on the Capernaum Excavations,” in Levine ed., Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 60–62. 223 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 114. 224 Runesson, “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity,” 237–240; Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 23, 25–26; Virgilio C. Corbo, “Resti della sinagoga del primo secolo a Cafarnao,” SH 3 (1982): 314–257; Runesson, et al., The Ancient Synagogue, 32; Michael Avi-Yonah, 218

I. Cana: Khirbet Qana or Kefar Kana

153

Capernaum remained a large Jewish village throughout the Roman and Early Byzantine periods.225

I. Cana: Khirbet Qana or Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras I. Cana: Khirbet Qana or Kefar Kana

I. Literary sources Numerous sources refer to the ancient village of Cana.226 Josephus writes that he stayed in Cana for a time while he was governor of Galilee.227 The Gospel of John records that Jesus attended a wedding at Cana,228 and healed the son of a royal official while staying at Cana.229 Cana was also said to be the hometown of Nathaniel, one of Jesus’ disciples.230 Locating Cana has been difficult. The two main contenders since medieval times have been the Arab village of Kefar Kana, located about five kilometres north of Nazareth, and the ancient site of Khirbet Qana, situated about thirteen kilometres north of Nazareth.231 Khirbet Qana (Arabic Gana) is currently accepted by many scholars as the Cana of first-century CE Galilee,232 although recent discoveries at Kefar Kana have reopened the debate.233 Determining the original site of Cana of Galilee is not essential for this work. What can be said

“Editor’s Note,” IEJ 23 (1973): 43; Evans, Jesus and His World, 48; and Dunn, “Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue?” 217. 225 Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 337–338. 226 For a brief overview of these ancient sources see Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 100–101. 227 Life 86. There are two additional references to Cana which are uncertain (Life 16, 41). 228 John 2.1, 11. This account refers to six stone water jars “used by Jews for ceremonial washing” (John 2.6). 229 John 4.46–56. 230 John 21.2. 231 James F. Strange, “Cana of Galilee,” ABD 1.827; Tsafrir et al., “Cana,” TIR 96; Richard M. Mackowski, “Scholar’s Qanah: A Re-examination of the Evidence in Favour of Khirbet Qanah,” BZ 23 (1979): 278–284; Bellarmino Bagatti, “Le Antichità di Kh. Qana e di Kefr Kenna in Galilee,” LA 15 (1964–1965): 251–292; Douglas R. Edwards, “Khirbet Qana: from Jewish Village to Christian Pilgrimage Site,” in vol. 3 of The Roman and Byzantine Near East, ed. John H. Humphrey. JRASup 49 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002), 101–132; Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 73–79; and Rami Arav, “Cana in Galilee,” EHJ 89–91. 232 See e.g. Edwards, "Khirbet Qana,” 101–132; Mackowski, “Scholar’s Qanah,” 278– 284; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 219; and Schnabel, Early Christian Mission 1.232– 233. 233 Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 73–79. See also Arav, “Cana in Galilee,” 89–91.

154

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

is that both sites provide evidence of Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. II. Archaeological evidence from Khirbet Qana Khirbet Qana is situated about two and a half kilometres east of Jotapata on the summit of a steep hill about 100 metres above the Beth Netofa valley.234 Under the direction of Douglas Edwards and Jack Olive, excavations of Early Roman period strata revealed an unwalled village with terraced housing and courtyard houses, pottery kilns, dyeing facilities, and a glass making workshop. A second century synagogue was also discovered.235 Although no stone ossuaries were found, there appears to have been space for them in one of the kokhim style tombs. In domestic space excavators found limestone vessels, early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and a mikveh.236 In fact, from the period between 125 BCE–63 BCE, of the nine bronze coins recorded from Kh. Qana, seven were Hasmonean coins.237 The other two coins were from Ptolemais. These combined remains indicate that Kh. Qana was a Jewish village during the first century CE. III. Archaeological evidence from Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras Until recently, Early Roman I period remains from Kefar Kana were meagre.238 They included some burial caves and ossuaries from the late first or early second century CE.239 Between 1999 and 2006, however, the Israel Antiquities Authority conducted over twenty small scale salvage excavations on the slopes

234

For an introduction to Kh. Qana see Peter Richardson, “Khirbet Qana (and other Villages) as a Context for Jesus,” James H. Charlesworth, ed. Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 120–144; Richardson, Building Jewish, 91–107; Edwards, “Khirbet Qana,” 101–132; and C. Thomas McCollough, “Khirbet Qana,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.127–145. See also Mason, Life of Josephus, 69; and Aviam, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 184. 235 Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 144. 236 Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 120–144; Richardson, Building Jewish, 91–107; Edwards, "Khirbet Qana," 101–132; and Mordechai Aviam and Peter Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee in Archaeological Perspective. Appendix A,” in S.N. Mason, Life of Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 184. 237 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 148]. 238 Karm er Ras (NIG: 739499,231580). 239 Nassim Najjar, “Kafr Kanna (A),” ESI 16 (1997): 47–48; and Hana Abu Uqsa and Nassim Najjar, “Kafr Kanna (B),” ESI 16 (1997): 48–49.

J. “Galilee of the Gentiles?”

155

of a low hill at the western edge of the modern town. This site is known as Karm er-Ras.240 Here archaeologists found remains spanning many periods.241 The Hellenistic settlement at the site appears to have been destroyed towards the end of the second century BCE. Then the site was resettled during the first century BCE. New buildings were constructed and some of the older Hellenistic buildings were restored. Finds include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, limestone vessels, mikva’ot,242 and fourteen Hasmonean coins.243 These establish Karm er-Ras as a Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. Several tunnels and hideaway complexes were also found which had been sealed for nearly two millennia. Among the artefacts discovered in these hideaway complexes were eleven undamaged storage jars from Shikhin, and two bronze coins from the First Jewish Revolt.244 This site was abandoned during the Byzantine period. However, a new settlement and church was built to the east of this site, which may have preserved the name of the original village, Kefar Kana.245 Whether one claims that Khirbet Qana or Kefar Kana was the Cana of the New Testament, both sites were Jewish villages during the first century CE.

J. “Galilee of the Gentiles?” J. “Galilee of the Gentiles?”

The extensive surveys of Galilee and excavations of numerous sites in the region have revealed that Galilee, during the Early Roman 1 period, was a predominantly Jewish region. So how do we explain Matthew’s reference to “Galilee of the Gentiles/nations” (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν)?246 First, it is important to recognise that this is the only reference from the period that associates Galilee with Gentiles. Second, Matthew 4.15 is a reworded quote from Isaiah.

240 It is situated five kilometres north of Nazareth, just south of the ancient road leading from Sepphoris to Tiberias. For an introduction to Karm er-Ras see Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 73–80; and Alexandré, “Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.146–157. 241 The site was occupied during the Iron Age IIB, but it was destroyed around the time of the Assyrian conquest in 732 CE. A small number of inhabitants repopulated the site during the Persian period, but it was not until the Hellenistic period that numbers increased significantly. Arav, “Cana in Galilee,” 90. 242 Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 74; Arav, “Cana in Galilee,” 90. 243 Syon, Small Change, 170 [Table 15, Site 180], and 188 [Table 16, Site 180]. 244 Alexandré “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 76–77; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9], 125; and Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 180]. 245 Alexandré, “Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras,” 73–79; and Arav, “Cana in Galilee,” 91. 246 Matthew 4.15.

156

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

The term gālil (‫ )גליל‬occurs on numerous occasions in the Hebrew Bible. It can be translated “district/region” or “circle.”247 Yet as Chancey notes, it appears only six times in relation to the northernmost district of ancient Israel, and in only one of these occurrences does it appear with the added descriptor, “Galilee of the Gentiles” (‫)גליל הגוים‬.248 In the Septuagint the term “Galilee” appears twenty-seven times, but on only three occasions does it appear with the added descriptor. The first is in Isaiah 9.1 (LXX) where the Hebrew of Isaiah 8.23 is translated “Galilee of the Gentiles/nations” (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν). The other occurrences are in First Maccabees 5.15 and Joel 3.4 which are translated “Galilee of the Gentiles/foreigners” (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν).249 Matthew 4.15 draws on Isaiah 9.1 (LXX) to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled prophecy when he settled in Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee.250 The verse begins: Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. (γῆ Ζαβουλὼν καὶ γῆ Νεφθαλίμ, ὁδὸν θαλάσσης, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν)

Zebulun and Naphtali were two tribal districts located in the north of ancient Israel. Their territory corresponded closely, but not exactly, to the region of Galilee in the Early Roman I period. Matthew links Jesus’ arrival in Galilee with Isaiah 8.23 (Isa. 9.1 LXX) by noting his hometown of Nazareth (in the former district of Zebulun), and his move to Capernaum (in the district of Naphtali).251 The “way of the sea” generally denoted the Mediterranean coastal road, and “beyond the Jordan” usually denoted the region east of the Jordan River.252 However, this interpretation is by no means certain in Matthew 4.15 because the wording differs from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, and the historical contexts of Isaiah and Matthew differ.253 There is also little 247

J.F. Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 391. Isa. 8.23 (MT). 249 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 170–174. 250 This is indicated in the previous verse (Matt. 4.14). 251 Matt 4.14. 252 Thus John Nolland writes that this verse is “normally understood to designate a tripartite larger area within which Zebulun and Naphtali were to be found: the Mediterranean Sea coast in the west, Galilee in the centre, and a region east of the Jordan.” Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 172. 253 By emphasising the location of Capernaum “by the sea” (παραθαλασσίαν) (Matt. 4.14) the evangelist may be linking Isaiah’s phrase “way of the sea” (ὁδον θαλασσης) with the Sea of Galilee. In Isaiah 8.23 the territory “beyond the Jordan” may refer to Gilead, which went into exile at the same time as Galilee (2 Kgs 15.29). However, given that Isaiah 8.23 looks forward to a post-exilic context, “beyond the Jordan” may in fact refer to the western shore of the Jordan River. Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 172. For a discussion of Matthew 4.14–15 see also W.D. Davis and Dale C. Allison Jr. Matthew, vol. 1. ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 382–383. 248

J. “Galilee of the Gentiles?”

157

consensus regarding the meaning of “district/circle/Galilee of the Gentiles,” although New Testament scholars generally argue that Matthew is foreshadowing the church’s mission to the Gentiles.254 Isaiah 8.23 probably alluded to the suffering experienced by the inhabitants of Zebulun and Naphtali during the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century BCE, especially since these tribes were among the first to go into exile.255 Moreover, with the reference to Zebulun and Naphtali being shamed in former times, and the promise that in the days to come the “Galilee of the Gentiles” (‫ ;גליל הגוים‬Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν) would be glorified, the prophet seems to be equating Zebulun and Naphtali with the “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Thus, the phrase has been understood by numerous scholars to imply that the region of Galilee was populated with Gentiles after the Assyrian conquest. However, this does not agree with the archaeological record. A better interpretation may be that it alluded to the district being devastated and overrun by the Gentiles, or that it was encircled by the Gentiles. The appearance of “Galilee of the Gentiles/foreigners” (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν) in First Maccabees and the Septuagint of Joel seems to pick up on the idea of the region being surrounded by Gentiles. As Freyne writes: It was precisely in the surrounding circle that Israelite and later Jewish believers experienced the threat of the outsider, as the expression ‫גליל הגים‬, Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν suggests. It is no accident that it was in this very circle, the outer perimeter of Galilee, that we find all the major Hellenistic foundations.256

However, Chancey is correct to note that in First Maccabees 5.15 the reference is more narrowly focused on Phoenicia. The invasion of the Jewish communities during the Hellenistic period originated from Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, as noted above.257 Chancey proposes, therefore, that the expression “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν) in the context of First Maccabees 5.15 refers specifically to the Phoenician coast.258 This is supported by the fact that the term ἀλλοφυλῶν, which can be translated “Gentiles/foreigners,” was also

254

See e.g. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 146; and Luz, Matthew 1–7, 158. 2 Kgs. 15.29. Davis and Allison Jr. Matthew 1.380–382. 256 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 102. See also Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 44. 257 1 Macc. 5.15; Ant. 12.331. Alternatively, Frankel et al., suggest “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν), may have referred to Upper Galilee as opposed to “Galilee of the Jews” in Lower Galilee. This is unlikely, however, because while Gentiles did occupy the most northern regions of Upper Galilee during the Early Hellenistic period, and there were Jewish communities in Lower Galilee, it is by no means clear that all of Upper Galilee was Gentile at this time, or that all of Lower Galilee was Jewish. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110. 258 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 37–39. 255

158

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew “Philistine” (‫)פלשת‬, a race of people who previously occupied the Palestinian coast.259 This reading is supported by Joel 3.4 (LXX), which translates the Hebrew of Joel 4.4 (MT) “districts of the Philistines” as “Galilee of the Gentiles/foreigners” (Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφυλῶν). Thus, it appears that the phrase “Galilee of the Gentiles” did not apply to the regions of Zebulun or Naphtali or to the region of Galilee as it was known to Josephus in the first century CE. It seems to have referred to the Phoenician coast, and associated the foreigners living there with Israel’s ancient enemies, the Philistines. It is noteworthy therefore that Joel 3.4 begins with an address to the cities of Tyre and Sidon: “What are you to me Tyre and Sidon, and all the Galilee of the Gentiles” (καὶ τί ὑμεῖς ἐμοί, Τύρος καὶ Σειδών, καὶ πᾶσα Γαλειλαία ἀλλοφύλων).260 Thus, in the Hellenistic period, the term “Galilee of the Gentiles” seems to have drawn on the reality of a region surrounded by Gentiles, while at the same time alluding to those foreigners who lived on the Phoenician coast. It is notable that centuries later, Eusebius wrote that there were two Galilees: one known as “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Γαλιλαία ἐθνῶν) near the territory of Tyre (ἐν ορίοις Τυρίων παρακειμένη), and the other located around Tiberias and the lake.261 Whether Matthew interpreted the phrase “Galilee of the Gentiles” as a reference to the Phoenician coast, or more generally to the regions encircling Galilee, is unclear. What is evident is that throughout the Gospel, Matthew depicts Galilee as a Jewish region.262 He also makes a clear distinction between Galilee and Phoenicia when he describes Jesus travelling to the districts of Tyre and Sidon (μέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος).263 Finally, Matthew states explicitly that Jesus’ mission was directed toward his own people,264 even though he also says 259

This may also have included the region north of Josephus’ northern border, which was the natural hinterland of Tyre and Sidon. This was where the Tyrian settlement of Kedesh was located. Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 391. Josephus describes Kedesh as “a strong inland village of the Tyrians, always at feud and strife with the Galileans” (War 4.105), and he records a number of assaults upon Jewish towns in Upper Galilee emanating from Tyre (Life 43–45). Mason may be correct in suggesting these attacks probably came from Kedesh. Mason, Life of Josephus, 48. Moreover, when Titus laid siege to the town of Gischala, he pitched his camp at Kedesh (War 4.104). See also Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. 260 Joel 3.4 (LXX). See also Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 38. 261 Eusebius, Onom. 72.18. 262 For example, Jesus teaches in the synagogues of Galilee (Matt. 4.23; 13.54); and talks about the Sabbath (Matt.12.5, 11–12). Drawing on Q, Matthew records Jesus’ speaking about the Law and the prophets (Matt. 5.17–20; 11.13–14; 12.39–41; 19.16–22); about Israel’s ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 8.11), David (Matt. 12.3–4), and Solomon (Matt. 12.42); and about behaviour in the synagogues (Matt. 10.17; 23.6). He also directs his disciples to go only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10.5–6). The only explicit reference to a Gentile in Galilee is the reference to a centurion (Matt. 8.5). 263 Matt 15.21. 264 Matt. 15.24, 26. Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, 158.

K. Implications for the historical Jesus

159

that people from Syria and the Decapolis were among the crowds that came to hear Jesus’ preaching.265 As noted in Chapter Two, the western administrative boundary of Galilee during the Early Roman I period did not coincide with the Mediterranean coast. In fact, for much of Israel’s history the coastal region had belonged to the Gentiles, and during the Early Roman I period it belonged to the Phoenicians. At no time when describing events in the first century CE do Josephus or the evangelists include within the term “Galilee,” the Phoenician coast or the territory north of Meroth which belonged to Tyre.266 When Josephus or the evangelists speak of Galilee, they are referring to Jewish Galilee, the region ruled by Antipas during the time of Jesus, and governed by Josephus during the First Jewish Revolt. The only apparent exception to this is Matthew 4.15, where the evangelist draws on Isaiah 8.23 to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophet’s prediction.

K. Implications for the historical Jesus K. Implications for the historical Jesus

In the past our primary sources for understanding Galilee in the first century CE were, for the most part, limited to the works of Josephus, the New Testament Gospels, and rabbinic sources from the Tannaitic period. These have now been supplemented by surveys and excavations of sites across the region, and the discovery of Jewish identity markers in Early Roman I period strata. The material culture of Galilee parallels that of Judea for the same period, and is markedly different from the material culture of most sites in the surrounding regions, with one notable exception, the settlements in the central Golan.267 Thus an increasing number of scholars now recognise that Galilee, within the borders defined by Josephus, was a Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. Moreover, the mounting evidence suggests that much of the population in Galilee during the Early Roman I period were recent immigrants from Judea.268 Thus, while it was once thought that there may have been ethnic differences between the Galileans and the Judeans, it is becoming increasingly 265

Matt. 4.24–25. There is perhaps one exception. Josephus on one occasion claims that Ptolemais was a maritime city of Galilee (War 2.188). During the Iron Age the ancient city of Akko did indeed belong to Galilee, but it was destroyed during the Assyrian invasion. The city of Ptolemais was founded by the Ptolemies near the old site of Akko, but at no time did it come under Hasmonean or Herodian rule. Ptolemais will be discussed in Chapter Seven. 267 This will be discussed in Chapter Five. 268 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 42–43, 55, 177; Freyne, “Galilee,” EDEJ 655; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 56–62; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 46–49; Root, First Century Galilee, 113–114, 126–129, 149–150; Syon, Small Change, 93, 195; Culpepper, “The Galilee Quest,” 221–224. 266

160

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

evident that the cultural and ethnic ties between the two regions were very strong.269 I. Jesus and his Jewish Galilean context A Jewish Galilee coheres with the depiction of Jesus in the Gospels as a Jewish prophet with an important message for Israel. It explains Jesus’ knowledge of the Torah, and it coheres with Jesus’ call to the people to repent, his proclamation of the kingdom of God, and his appointment of twelve ἀπóστολοι.270 Scholarly claims that Galilee had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles are no longer plausible. Antipas may have employed some non-Jews in his service, particularly in his army, but the closest evidence for this is the reference to one Gentile official in Capernaum,271 and the discovery of a small figurine in Tiberias which may not even date to the first century CE.272 Josephus refers to a few foreign dignitaries in Magdala/Taricheae during the time of Agrippa II, but even the presence of this small group resulted in opposition from the local population, who demanded they be circumcised and follow Jewish customs.273 Thus the material and literary evidence to date strongly indicates that Galilee was a Jewish region during the first century CE. The claim that the Galileans were descendants of the northern Israelite tribes, who survived the Assyrian conquest and maintained their own traditions in contra-distinction to those of Judea, is also implausible.274 Equally implausible is the notion that Jesus may have modelled his ministry on the ideas and lifestyle of cynic philosophers, whom it is argued may have been active in Sepphoris.275 There is no evidence of cynic influence or ideas in Galilee during the early half of the first century CE, or prior to this. However, there are indicators that Jesus was influenced by the ministry of John the Baptist.276 II. Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee The Jewish ethnicity of the Galilean population, and the recent discovery of two pre-70 CE synagogues in the region at Magdala and Rekhesh, also renders plausible Mark’s claim that Jesus preached in the synagogues of Galilee. The charge made by Howard Clark Kee and Richard Horsley that references to 269 Freyne, “Behind the Names,” 50–55; Root, First Century Galilee, 126–129, 142–143; Syon, Small Change, 195. 270 These points were discussed in Chapter One. 271 Q 7.3, 6–9 (Matt 8.5–13; Luke 7.1–10). 272 Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Tiberias,” ESI 9 (1989/1990): 107–109. 273 Life 149–153. 274 This was proposed by Richard Horsley. Refer to the discussion in Chapter Two. 275 See e.g. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 421; and Downing, “Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher,” 445, 449; and Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). 276 Refer to the discussion in Chapter One.

K. Implications for the historical Jesus

161

synagogue buildings in the canonical Gospels are anachronistic,277 no longer holds. While Horsley may be correct in suggesting that references to synagogues in Josephus and the Gospels could indicate “village assemblies,”278 this does not discount the growing evidence that these village communities also met for religious purposes, and some at least met in a synagogue building.279 In a summary statement, Mark says Jesus “came preaching in their synagogues” (ἦλθεν κηρύσσων τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν) “in all Galilee” (εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν).280 Note here that the term “synagogues” is plural, and that this refers to the entire region of Galilee. This Markan claim is supported by three narrative accounts in which Jesus is depicted teaching in a synagogue: one in Capernaum, one in Nazareth, and one in a synagogue at an unnamed location.281 Other references to synagogues in Mark include mention of a synagogue leader,282 and Jesus’ disapproval of teachers of the law who love the most important seats in the synagogue.283 Jesus also warns his disciples not to fear what to say when brought before synagogues.284 Luke states explicitly that it was Jesus’ custom to preach in synagogues on the Sabbath.285 In a saying in Matthew Jesus instructs his disciples not to pray like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the synagogues.286 John also attests to Jesus teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.287 And as noted earlier, Josephus claims that the people of Tiberias observed the Sabbath and assembled in a προσευχή,288 a term widely used in the Diaspora to denote a synagogue.289 The witness to synagogues in Galilee in these literary sources is now attested by archaeology. For as we have seen, two Late Second Temple period synagogues have been excavated in Galilee: one at Magdala and one at Rekhesh.290

277

See e.g. Kee, “Transformation of the Synagogue,” 1–24; and Horsley, Galilee: History, 222–237. For a counter argument see Oster, “Supposed Anachronism,” 178–208; and Kloppenborg Verbin, “Dating Theodotus (CIJ 1404),” 243–280. 278 Horsley also claims that the reference to the centurion who built the synagogue in Luke 7.5 is a Lucan addition to Q. Horsley, Galilee: History, 222–237, esp. 225. 279 Root, First Century Galilee, 106, 168. 280 Mark 1.39. See also Matt. 4.23; 9.35; Luke 4.15, and 44. 281 Mark 1.9; 3.1; 6.1–2. See also Matt. 12.9; Luke 6.6; 13.10. 282 Mark 5.22. See also the parallel texts in Matt. 9.18 and Luke 8.41. 283 Mark 12.38–39; cf. Matt. 23.6; and Luke 11.43. 284 Mark 13. 9, 11; cf. Matt. 10.17, 19a; 23.34; and Luke 12.11–12; 21.12, 14. 285 Luke 4.15. 286 Matt. 6.5. 287 John 6.59. 288 Life 277, 280, 297. 289 Mason, Life of Josephus, 122, 280. See also Philo, Flaccus, 41, 45, 47. Also, Philo refers to a synagogue building in Palestine, in Good Person, 81–82. 290 Refer to Magdala earlier in this chapter, and to Chapter Two for the synagogue at Rekhesh.

162

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

A third has been excavated at Gamla in the central Golan.291 The discovery of these synagogues renders implausible any claims that references to synagogues in the Gospels are anachronistic.292 Also, as I have noted, at other sites where impressive Late Roman or Byzantine synagogues have been preserved, many rest on earlier remains which may also have been a synagogue, particularly given the practice of building sacred structures in the same location. The monumental limestone synagogue at Capernaum is a case in point.293 Jesus was a Jewish Galilean who was recognised as a prophet to Israel. Given the Jewish character of Galilee, and the discovery to two synagogues from the Early Roman I period, Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled to the towns and villages of Galilee and preached in their synagogues is no longer historically implausible. In fact, the most logical place for a Jewish prophet to convey his message would be in the synagogues of Galilee.294 III. Jesus and the named settlements of Galilee The identification of Nazareth as Jesus’ hometown is fairly secure in the tradition.295 The name is multiply attested, and given its relative obscurity it is unlikely that such a hometown would be invented by the early church. Given what we know of Nazareth from archaeology, Jesus may well have grown up in a courtyard house similar to the ones that have been excavated. He probably ate food from Kefar Hananya vessels, drank water from limestone cups, and bought items from the market using Hasmonean coins. Moreover, given the Jewish character of Nazareth, and despite its relatively small size, the village may well have had a synagogue that is yet undiscovered. Regular attendance at a synagogue during Jesus’ formative years would explain his extensive knowledge of the Torah.296 It is also fairly certain that Jesus settled for a time in the large village of Capernaum.297 As we have seen, references to Capernaum appear in multiple sources and forms, and excavations of the site confirm that Capernaum was a 291

This will be discussed in Chapter Five. Root, First Century Galilee, 127, 168; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 208–217; Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Archaeology,” and Dunn, “Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue?” in Jesus and Archaeology, 27–29, 206–222; Evans, Jesus and His World, 38–62. 293 Refer to Capernaum earlier in this chapter. 294 Dunn, “Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue?” 216–222; Evans, Jesus and His World, 38– 62; and Graham H. Twelftree, “Jesus and the Synagogue,” in Holmén and Porter, HSHJ, 4.3105–3134. 295 See the discussion above. Note, however, that Gnilka states that Mark had no redactional interest in Nazareth, or other place names for that matter, although he was interested in Galilee. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 49–50. See also Collins, Mark, 148. 296 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 315–317. 297 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 317–319. 292

K. Implications for the historical Jesus

163

large Jewish village during the Early Roman I period. Mark’s claim that Jesus preached in the synagogue of Capernaum is also historically plausible, especially given the discovery of the basalt pavement and foundation beneath the limestone synagogue, which may have belonged to an Early Roman I period synagogue. One of the women who followed Jesus was Mary Magdalene.298 As discussed above, it is generally thought that the appellation “Magdalene” links Mary with a town called Magdala, a town which has been equated with Taricheae by the Sea of Galilee.299 Given the proximity of this town to Capernaum, and the inclusion of Mary Magdalene among those who followed Jesus in Galilee, it seems likely that Jesus visited Magdala and taught in its synagogue at some point during his itinerant ministry in Galilee. John claims that Jesus visited Cana,300 and that one of Jesus’ disciples came from Cana.301 As we have seen, the presence of a site by this name in Galilee is confirmed by Josephus. Whether the settlement mentioned in these sources refers to Karm er-Ras or Khirbet Qana is unclear. What is evident is that both villages were Jewish settlements during the Early Roman I period. Therefore, Jesus may well have visited both sites during his public career in Galilee. Luke claims that Jesus also visited a village called Nain.302 This topographical reference has come from Luke’s special source material (L), and is otherwise unattested.303 However, Mark does indicate that Jesus visited villages around Nazareth,304 and this would place him in close proximity to Nain. This settlement has been identified with a village called Nein in Lower Galilee, a few kilometres southeast of Nazareth and southwest of Mount Tabor.305 Nein is also near the site of Rekhesh, where a synagogue was recently discovered. Thus, Luke’s claim that Jesus visited a village called Nain is historically plausible.

298

Mark 15.40–41; Matt. 27.55–56; and Luke 8.1–3. Strange, “Galilee,” DNTB 393. 300 John 2.1, 11; 4.46. 301 John 21.2. 302 Luke 7.11. Luke concludes the account about Jesus’ visit to Nain by saying the news of Jesus spread throughout Judaea (’Ιουδαίᾳ) (Luke 7.17), which raises a question as to whether Nain was located in Galilee or Judea, especially given that Josephus knew a village called Nain in Judea (War 4.511). It is likely, however, that Luke used the term Judaea in its broadest sense, which would include Galilee, since Jesus’ activity in Nain echoes that of Elijah who also ministered in the north (2 Kgs 4.18–37). 303 Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 283. 304 Mark 6.6b. 305 James F. Strange, “Nain,” ABD 4.1001; Tsafrir et al., “Nain, Nein,” TIR 192. 299

164

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

IV. Did Jesus minister in Sepphoris and Tiberias? We cannot be certain about whether Jesus ministered in Sepphoris and Tiberias during the time of his public ministry in Galilee. To argue that Jesus did not visit Sepphoris or Tiberias because these cities are not mentioned in the Gospels is to argue from silence. To argue that he did visit these cities because of their prominence in the region is speculative. The fact is that we do not know. However, what we do know of Jesus’ itinerancy suggests that he may have avoided these cities. Mark portrays Jesus working in predominantly rural areas among small towns and villages. This is evident not only in Galilee, but in the surrounding regions. Jesus travels within the borders of Tyre (εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου),306 to the district of the Gerasenes (εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν),307 and to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου).308 The only city Jesus is said to have visited was Jerusalem. Thus, Freyne argues that Jesus probably avoided the cities of Galilee and focused instead on the villages.309 One counter argument to this is that while Sepphoris and Tiberias were cities, they were small by comparison with the Graeco-Roman cities in surrounding regions. Therefore, Jesus may not have perceived them in the same way as the urban centres in predominantly Gentile regions. Moreover, as we have seen, Sepphoris and Tiberias were predominantly Jewish cities during the Early Roman I period. Therefore, if Jesus did avoid these cities, he certainly did not do so for ethnic reasons. A second possible indicator that Jesus may have avoided Sepphoris and Tiberias is that they were Herodian cities. Ministry in these cities would bring Jesus into the heart of Antipas’ territory and within metres of Herodian officials. Thus, Jesus would have good reason to avoid these cities during his public ministry,310 even though it is by no means certain that he did.311 Another suggestion has been that Jesus may have avoided these cities because he directed his message to the poor, and thought that his message would be better received among the villages than in these wealthy urban centres.312 306

Mark 7.24. This will be discussed in Chapter Seven. Mark 5.1. This will be discussed in Chapter Eight. 308 Mark 8.27. Michael J. Wilkins, “Peter’s Declaration Concerning Jesus’ Identity in Caesarea Philippi,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 312. This will be discussed in Chapter Six. 309 Freyne, Galilee and Gospel, 175. 310 See e.g. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 222; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 100–104, 138; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee and Judea,” EHJ 218; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 319–321; Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 64. 311 Chancey argues that all explanations for the omission of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Gospels are speculative. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 69. 312 See e.g. Freyne, Galilee and Gospel, 196; Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 12. 307

K. Implications for the historical Jesus

165

Certainly Josephus described the residents of Sepphoris as “rich and wealthy,”313 and some of the houses excavated in first century CE Sepphoris exhibited features indicative of wealth.314 Similar wealth is also evident in Tiberias.315 The problem is that there were also wealthy people living in some of the smaller villages of Galilee, and poor people living in Sepphoris and Tiberias. Therefore, economic factors probably did not play a role in this regard. Some may argue there was an additional reason for Jesus to avoid Tiberias. According to Josephus, it was built on a graveyard.316 Of course, this did not prevent Tiberias from becoming a sizable city with a predominantly Jewish population. Therefore, its questionable location and origins may not have prevented Jesus from visiting the city. Indeed, the portrait of Jesus we see in the Gospels, suggests that he did not place concerns for ritual purity before ministry to people. Even if Jesus did not visit Sepphoris and Tiberias, those living in these cities would have been able to see Jesus, particularly if he was ministering nearby. According to Luke, one of Jesus’ followers was a woman called Joanna.317 She was reportedly the wife of Chuza, a manager in Herod’s household. It is likely, therefore, that Joanna and her husband lived in Tiberias, since the administrative capital of the region shifted from Sepphoris to Tiberias in ca. 19/20 CE.318 Thus even if Jesus never preached in Tiberias, at least one probable resident became a follower of Jesus and travelled with him throughout Galilee. Finally, although Jesus may have avoided ministering in these cities during the time of his public ministry, it is almost certain that he would have visited these cities prior to this time, for Nazareth was located only a few kilometres from Sepphoris, and Capernaum only a few kilometres from Tiberias. Also, the main north-south road, which ran alongside the western shoreline of the Sea of Galilee, went directly through Tiberias. It is likely, therefore, that Jesus and his disciples passed through this city on their final journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem.319 V. Conclusion In this chapter we have discussed nine Jewish settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period, and the Markan claim that Jesus travelled among the 313

War, 2.574. Reed describes homes which had red-tiled rooves, white plastered walls, an upper story, storage rooms, internal cisterns, mikva’ot, mosaic floors, frescoed walls, and expensive household goods such as glassware and cosmetic items. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 126–128. 315 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49. 316 Ant. 18.36–38. 317 Luke 8.1–3. 318 Bauckham, Gospel Women, 137–141; Sawicki, Crossing Galilee, 146–147. 319 Mark 9.33; 10.1. 314

166

Chapter 3: Galilee: Settlements and Ethnicity

towns and villages of Galilee and taught in their synagogues. In the next chapter we will explore further the number of towns and villages in the region, and the density of the Galilean population. Mark conveys the impression of an extensive mission to multiple towns and villages, and describes Jesus attracting large crowds. In the next chapter we will find that these claims are also historically plausible.

Chapter 4

Galilee: Population Density and Travel A. Introduction A. Introduction

The overwhelming evidence from archaeological surveys and excavations is that Galilee, within the borders defined by Josephus, was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. In this chapter we will find that Galilee was also a densely populated region with approximately 200 towns and villages. According to Josephus there were 204 towns and villages in Galilee during the first century CE.1 For most of the twentieth century, it was assumed that Josephus had exaggerated this figure. This was not an unreasonable assumption. Many of Josephus’ figures are inflated.2 And given the limited number of villages mentioned by name in the Gospels,3 and the awareness that the summary travel statements in Mark belonged to Mark’s editorial material, many scholars doubted that Jesus travelled extensively and visited multiple towns and villages. Some scholars suggested that Jesus did not travel far beyond the Sea of Galilee, but focused his activity on the towns and villages near the northern shoreline.4 Some added that if Jesus did visit other villages, these were probably just day trips.5 Others argued that Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ itinerancy reveals more about the activity of the early missionary church, than the historical 1

Life 235. Note e.g. Josephus’ claim that the smallest village in Galilee contained 15,000 inhabitants (War 3.43). As H. St. J. Thackeray stated concerning this figure, “We may suspect exaggeration.” Josephus: The Jewish War, 2.16. See also Reed, Galilean Jesus, 70; and Root, First Century Galilee, 17. However, Broshi rightly argues that some of Josephus’ figures are credible. See Magen Broshi, “The Credibility of Josephus,” JJS 50 (1982): 379–384. 3 Refer back to Chapters Two and Three. 4 See e.g. Klausner who suggested that Jesus’ ministry was probably conducted between “Chorazin and Migdal (Nunaia) on the west, and between Beth Saida (Julias) and Gadara on the east.” Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 262. See also Goguel, The Life of Jesus, 309. Reed does not state that Jesus restricted his itinerant ministry to the shoreline, but he does imply that the northern shoreline was the focus of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 165–166. 5 See e.g. Goguel, Life of Jesus, 309; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 322. See also Arnal’s discussion in relation to the mission discourse and its influence on the Q community. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 199–200. 2

168

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

Jesus.6 It has also been observed that most of the journeys depicted in Mark do not add up to proper itineraries.7 Some scholars have also argued that references to large crowds in the Gospels are exaggerated.8 Bultmann and Gnilka attributed such claims to the Markan redactor and his schematic presentation.9 Guignebert envisaged Jesus travelling with only a “handful of disciples” and attracting only a small following from “the little towns of Galilee.”10 Consequently, some have concluded that Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee would have taken no more than a few months, and that his entire public ministry probably took no more than a year.11 Guignebert argued that Jesus’ ministry in Galilee could have been conducted in a few weeks.12 Of course, there were exceptions to the rule. Referring to one of the summary statements in the Gospel of Matthew, Ogg argued: There may indeed be a certain measure of exaggeration in the statement that ‘Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching …’ (Mt. iv, 23). Nevertheless what undoubtedly is suggested … is an extensive mission embracing most of that province. Now Galilee in the time of Jesus … was densely populated. Josephus states that it contained 204 cities and villages and the smallest of which numbered above 15,000 inhabitants, and this is confirmed by Dio Cassius, who in his Roman History reports that in the days of the Bar-cochba rebellion the rebels

6 See e.g. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.89. This approach is also applied by Bultmann and Kloppenborg to a Q saying which reflects on the lack of response in Chorazin and Bethsaida to the miracles performed there (Q 10.13 [Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13]). Bultmann attributes this saying to the failure of early Christian preaching in these villages, whereas Kloppenborg attributes it to envoys of the Q community. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 112; Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 82. This will be discussed further in Chapter Five. 7 See e.g. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, v–vii; C.C. McCown, “Gospel Geography: Fiction, Fact, and Truth,” JBL 60.1 (1941): 3; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 168; and Hezser, Jewish Travel, 42–43. 8 For example, Bultmann claimed that Mark frequently used hyperbole to exaggerate the numbers of people around Jesus. He lists the following examples: Mark 1.32–33; 2.2; 2.13; 3.7, 9; 3.20; 4.1; 5.21; 5.24; 6.31; 6.55; 8.1. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 342–343. See also Guignebert, Jesus, 215. There were exceptions to this. See e.g. Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, 129–130; and A.T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942), 127. Klausner accepted that Jesus probably did attract crowds but argued that the estimates of 4,000 and 5,000 people are exaggerated. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 276–277. 9 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 343; Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.70. 10 Guignebert, Jesus, 215. 11 In fact, it was Klausner’s opinion that most scholars of his day considered the length of Jesus’ ministry to be about one year. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 259. See also Goguel, Life of Jesus, 233–252, esp. 251; Guignebert, Jesus, 210; Von Soden, “Chronology,” 802– 803, 809; Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, 319–320. 12 Guignebert, Jesus, 210.

A. Introduction

169

were in possession of 50 strong castles and 985 villages in all Judaea. A mission throughout a province thus dotted all over with places of considerable size may well have occupied not weeks, but months and seasons.13

We cannot accept uncritically the information provided by Dio Cassius, and Josephus’ claim that the smallest village contained 15,000 inhabitants does not tally with the archaeological evidence.14 Nonetheless, Ogg was correct to note that the phrase “all of Galilee” suggests a mission that covered the entire region, and he was also correct in stating that the number of towns and villages in the region, and the size of their populations, would have a bearing on the amount of time it would take for Jesus to accomplish that mission.15 More recently Eckhard Schnabel came to a similar conclusion. Drawing on early surveys of archaeologists in Galilee he wrote: If Jesus spent two days in each of the one hundred and thirty-eight settlements of Galilee that Mordechai Aviam mentions, he would have needed two hundred and seventy-six days, or forty-six weeks (not counting Sabbath days), to reach every single Galilean town and village.16

Schnabel was correct to note the correlation between the number of towns and villages in Galilee, and the extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Of course, his estimated number of days assumes that Jesus visited every single settlement in Galilee and remained there for at least two days, and this cannot be known for certain. Nonetheless, it is plausible that Jesus would have set out to reach as many towns and villages as possible.17 However, the number of 138 settlements proposed by Aviam was not the total number of settlements in Galilee, as Schnabel seems to suggest. It was the total number of settlements surveyed in Upper Galilee.18 Also, Aviam’s figure was provisional since at the time of publication, surveys of Upper Galilee were still underway. Moreover, the figure of 138 settlements applied to the entire Roman period and covered a geographical area which extended from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan River. Thus Aviam’s use of the term “Galilee” was not restricted to the region defined by Josephus. Almost half of the region under consideration lay beyond the borders of Galilee defined by Josephus i.e. they included the coastal plain, the western hill country, and the area north of Upper Galilee which belonged to Tyre. It is for this reason that Aviam distinguishes between “western Galilee,” which was

13

Ogg, Chronology of the Public Ministry, 9. Josephus, Life 45; War 3.3.2; Dio Cassius, 69.14. 14 War 3.43. 15 Ogg, Chronology of the Public Ministry, 10. 16 Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.247. 17 Schnabel’s assessment also rightly factors in the impact of Sabbath days on Jesus’ itinerancy. 18 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455.

170

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

controlled by Tyre and Ptolemais, and “Jewish Galilee” which was established by the Hasmoneans.19 Nonetheless, in the last few decades archaeological surveys have located many settlements in Galilee, analysed their material culture, and determined when they were settled. It is now evident that there may have been as many as 200 settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period, and that the figure provided by Josephus was fairly accurate. Therefore, as Ogg and Schnabel have argued, this has implications for our understanding of the historical Jesus and the extent of his itinerant ministry in Galilee. Jesus was an itinerant prophet working for the renewal or restoration of Israel. Since he set out to deliver his message in the towns and villages of Galilee, it is likely that he would endeavour to visit as many towns and villages as possible. This is in fact the impression conveyed by Mark. The presence of such a densely populated Jewish region makes plausible Mark’s claim that Jesus preached in the synagogues “in all Galilee” (εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν),20 and journeyed “to villages” (εἰς κώμας) and “to towns” (εἰς πόλεις),21 and attracted large crowds.22 Jesus’ itinerant ministry was probably more extensive, covered more ground, and reached more people, than is generally supposed. This chapter will consider the number of settlements in Galilee and possible population figures to illustrate the density of the population during the first century CE. It will also consider means of travel in the region during the Early Roman I period, and it will conclude with a brief discussion of some of the implications of these findings for our understanding of the historical Jesus and his itinerant ministry.

B. The number of towns and villages in Galilee B. The number of towns in Galilee

Galilee was a relatively small geographical region, covering an area of approximately 1,200 square kilometres,23 but until the 1970s it was also presumed that Galilee was sparsely populated during the Early Roman I period. Historians recognised that Galilee experienced population growth during the Late Roman period, with some attributing this to Palestine’s new status as the “Holy Land” which brought pilgrims to the region. However, Doran Bar recently demonstrated that the region had experienced population growth since the second

19

Aviam, “Galile,” NEAEHL 2.453. Mark 1.39. 21 Mark 6.56. 22 See e.g. Mark 3.7, 20; 4.1; 5.21; 6.31, 34. 23 This is an approximate area based on the boundaries defined by Josephus. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 30. 20

B. The number of towns in Galilee

171

century CE.24 In this he was correct, but Bar’s analysis did not go back far enough. Galilee had in fact experienced population growth since the Early Hellenistic period. Such growth is not uncommon in sparsely populated frontier regions, particularly where there is arable land, rich soils, and an adequate water supply. These conditions support population growth through migration. They also tend to result in increased birth rates.25 The population of Galilee increased significantly in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods, due to another influx of migrants into the region, this time from Judea. Archaeological surveys and excavations conducted in Galilee over the past few decades have revealed that Galilee was a densely populated region during the Early Roman I period, so much so that Josephus’ figure of 204 towns and villages is no longer implausible. In fact, given the precise nature of this figure, some scholars have suggested that Josephus may have been working from an official list.26 Before discussing the results of archaeological surveys and excavations, let us consider what Josephus and other writers of the period had to say about the number of towns and villages in Galilee. I. Named and unnamed settlements in Josephus Josephus mentions by name approximately thirty-four towns or villages in Galilee.27 The vast majority have been identified, and all exhibit indicators of Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period.28 They include Josephus’ fifteen fortified settlements.29 In Upper Galilee these settlements are: Jamnia, Meroth, Acchabaron, and Seph.30 Jamnia has been identified with Kh. Banit, where remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware KH3A and KH4A.31 Meroth has been identified with Ḥ Marus. Remains include early forms of 24

Doran Bar, “Geographical Implications of Population and Settlement Growth in Late Antique Palestine,” JHG 30 (2004): 1–10. 25 Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee,” 352. 26 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 181; Horsley, Galilee, History, 190; and Chaim Ben David, “Were there 204 settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62.1 (2011): 21–36. 27 Ben David proposes thirty-five settlements. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee?” 22. He may have included Komos, which is uncertain due to manuscript corruption of Life 188. Mason, Life of Josephus, 95. 28 A summary and identification of most of these sites is provided by Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 92–105. Horsley discusses thirty-two of these named settlements, along with others known from rabbinical sources and archaeological surveys. Horsley, Galilee, History, 190–195. 29 Life 187–188. War mentions fourteen settlements (War 2.573–574). For a discussion on Josephus’ fortified settlements see Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 158. 30 Jamnia/Jamnith (Life 188; War 2.573); Meroth/Mero/Ameroth (Life 188; War 2. 573; 3.40); Acchabaron/‘Akhbara (Life 188; War 2.573; 3.39–40); and Seph (War 2.573). 31 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 88, 151 [Site 335]; Mason, Life of Josephus, 95– 96; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 93, 101.

172

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

Kefar Hananya ware, coins, limestone vessels, and secret hideaways.32 Acchabaron has been identified with the Arab village of Akhbara, although Aviam suggests it be identified with the cliff south of the village where manmade caves, fortified walls, and Kefar Hananya ware forms KH1A, KH3A, and KH4A were found.33 Seph/Zefat is usually identified with Safed, although Aviam identifies the site with ruins near the old citadel where rock-cut tombs were found, and Kefar Hananya ware KH4A.34 In Lower Galilee the fortified settlements are: Taricheae, Tiberias, Arbel, Bersabe, Selame, Jotapata, Capharath, Soganae, Japha, Itabyrion, and Sepphoris.35 Arbel has been identified with Kh. ‘Irbid about 7.5 kilometres northwest of Tiberias, where remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, coins, and limestone vessels.36 Bersabe has been identified with Kh. esh Shiba in the Beth Kerem valley, where remains include limestone vessels and early forms of Kefar Hananya ware.37 Selame has been identified with Tel Zalmon/Kh. es Sallama, where remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware and coins.38 Capharath should probably be identified with Kefar Ata/Kufritta,39 and Soganae with Sakhnin.40 Japha, which was described by Josephus as a large,

32

A synagogue (ca. 400 CE) was also discovered at Meroth. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 88, 151 [Site 366]; Mason, Life of Josephus, 95–97; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9], 93, 102. 33 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 181; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 93, 100–101. 34 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 39, 151 [323. See also 322]. Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 93, 101. 35 Taricheae (Life 188; War 2.573); Tiberias (Life 188; War 2.573); Arbel/Arbela (Life 188; 311; War 1.305; 2.573; Ant. 14.415. Cf. m. Abot. 1.6–7; m. Hag. 2.2); Bersabe/Bersoubai/Beersheba (Life 188; War 2.573; 3.39–40); Selame/Selamen (Life 188; War 2.573. Cf. m. Paraḥ 9.2); Jotapata/Yodefat (Life 188; War 2.573); Capharath/Caphareccho/Kafrata (Life 188; War 2.573); Soganae/Sigoph (Life 188; War 2.573; Life 265); Japha/Yapha/Yafi’a (Life 188; War 2.573; 3.289); Itabyrion (Life 188; War 1.177, 180; 2.573; 4.1–2, 54–56; Ant. 13.395–397); and Sepphoris/Zippori (Life 188; War 2.573). 36 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 93, 98; Zvi Ilan and Avraham Izdarechet, “Arbel,” NEAEHL 1.87, 89; Zvi Ilan, “Horvat Arbel,” IEJ 39 (1989): 100–102; Tsafrir et al., “Arbela I,” TIR 66; and Mason, Life of Josephus, 129. 37 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 92, 95–96; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 32, 152; Tsafrir et al., “Beersheba II,” TIR 75–76; Mason, Life of Josephus, 95–96. 38 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 92, 95–96; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 208–209. 39 Mason, Life of Josephus, 95–95; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 13, 92, 97; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 250–251. 40 Mason, Life of Josephus, 97; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 92, 97.

B. The number of towns in Galilee

173

walled village,41 has yielded fragments of limestone vessels. Itabyrion was a fortress on Mount Tabor.42 Elsewhere Josephus refers to other towns and villages. In Upper Galilee he mentions Baca, Thella, and Gischala.43 Baca has been identified with the village of el-Buqei‘a. It marked the western boundary of Upper Galilee. Here remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, and a synagogue.44 In Lower Galilee Josephus mentions Gabara, Chabolos, Asochis, Xaloth, Cana, Garis, Besara, Capernaum, Ruma, Saba, Bethmaus, Ammathus, Homonoia,45 Adamah, Simonias, and Dabburiya/Dabaritta.46 Gabara has been identified with the Arab village of ‘Arabeh,47 and Chabolos/Chabulon has been identified with the Arab village of Kabul. It was a Jewish town on the western frontier of Lower Galilee.48 Asochis/Shikhin was a pottery production centre about two kilometres northwest of Sepphoris. Remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, Shikhin ware, coins, and limestone vessels.49 Xaloth has 41

Life 230–231; 270. Mason, Life of Josephus, 97, 111; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 92, 97. 42 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 92–94. For more details on Jotapata/Yodefat, Taricheae, Tiberias, and Sepphoris/Zippori see Chapter Three. 43 Baca/Peqi‘in (War 3.39); Thella (War 3.40); and Gischala/Gush Ḥalav (Life 43–45, 71, 189, 235; War 2.575, 590, 621; 4.1–2, 84). For more on Gischala see Chapter Three. Thella will be discussed in Chapter Six. 44 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 32, 151 [Site 244]; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 182; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 77; Tsafrir et al., “Baca, Beca,” TIR 73. 45 Life 281. Mason suggests the name Homonoia may have been a play on words rather than an actual village. Mason, Life of Josephus, 123–124. 46 Gabara/Gabaroth (Life 123–124, 229, 235, 240, 242, 265; War 2.269; 3.132); Asochis/Shikhin (Life 207, 233, 384; Ant. 13.337; War 1.86); Xaloth (Life 227; War 3.39); Cana (Life 86); Garis (Life 395, 412; War 3.129); Besara/Beit She’arim (Life 115, 118–119); Capernaum/Cepharnocus (Life 403; War 3.519); Ruma (Life 232; 346); Saba (War 3.229); Bethmaus/Beth Maon (Life 64, 67); Amathus/Hammath (Ant. 18.36. War 3.462; 4.11; Life 85); Simonias (Life 115, 118–19); Dabaritta/Dabburiya (Life 318. See also Life 126–130; War 2.595–597). According to Josephus, Chabolos/Chabulon was pillaged and set alight by Cestius Gallus in 66 CE (Life 213, 227–229, 233–234; War 2.503–504; 3.38). As for Adamah, Josephus ordered soldiers to wait at Adamah (Life 321). Some manuscripts replace “Adamah” with “in shelters” or “in villages.” Yet Josephus says that he led another thousand to “a different… village” (Life 322), suggesting two villages were in view. Interestingly, eight kilometres southwest of Tiberias, there was a village and spring called Adami. Mason, Life of Josephus, 132. For more on Garis see Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 189. For more on Capernaum, Cana, and Amathus/Hammath see Chapter Three. 47 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 187. 48 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 143; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 195; Tsafrir et al., “Chabulon,” TIR 102–103. 49 Mason, Life of Josephus, 112, 154; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 182; James F. Strange, et al., “Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin,” IEJ 44 (1944): 216–227; 45 (1995): 171–187; Tsafrir et al., “Asochis, Shiḥin,” TIR 70.

174

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

been identified with the Arab village of Iksal on Galilee’s southern frontier. Here ossuaries for secondary burial have been found.50 In the south-western hills of Lower Galilee, a stone inscription was found identifying Basara with Beth Shearim. Remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, ossuaries, and a synagogue.51 Bethmaus/Beth Ma‘on has been identified with modern Naser e-Din, located .8 kilometres northwest of Tiberias. Here early forms of Kefar Hananya ware have been found, along with Hasmonean coins and limestone vessels.52 Simonias has been identified with Tell Shimron in southern Lower Galilee, and Dabburiya/Dabaritta was situated near Mount Tabor. Here remains include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware and limestone ossuaries.53 This brings us to a total of thirty-four Early Roman I period Jewish settlements in Galilee mentioned by name. Josephus also refers to a station called Sennabris, not far from Tiberias, where Vespasian set up camp.54 However, it is unclear whether Sennabris belonged to Early Roman I period Galilee. Josephus also refers to many unnamed villages. He writes that Sepphoris was surrounded by villages,55 that people flocked to Jotapata from surrounding villages,56 and that John of Gischala collected grain from surrounding villages.57 He refers to unnamed villages in the vicinity of Japha,58 Tiberias,59 and

50

Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 189. Mason, Life of Josephus, 76; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Mazar, “Beth Shearim,” NEAEHL 1.236–248; and AdanBayewitz, Common Pottery, 209. 52 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee” 183; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]. 53 Tsafrir et al., “Dabaritta,” TIR 106. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 185; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]. 54 War 3.447; 4.445. Sennabris has been identified with Kh. el-Karak, a site which has also been identified with Hellenistic Philoteria and Roman period Beth Yerah. It has yielded remains of Roman military fortifications, and a synagogue. A reference in the Palestinian Talmud describes Beth Yerah as a village of Jews and Gentiles near Sennabris (y. Meg. 70a, 74a.), which suggests that Sennabris and Beth Yerah were distinct sites. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 193; and Ruth Hestrin, “Beth Yerah,” NEAEHL 1.255–259. 55 Life 346. Mason writes that within a seven-kilometre radius there were the villages of Garis (Life 395), Asochis (Life 207), Japha (Life 270), and Nazareth. Mason, Life of Josephus, 47. Yet Josephus may not have Japha and Nazareth in mind, but rather the villages and farmsteads near Sepphoris in the Naḥal Zippori and Bet Netofa valleys. Dark, “Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape,” 89, 98–99. 56 War 3.141–142. 57 Life 71. On another occasion John of Gischala wrote to the cities and villages in Galilee (Life 237). 58 Life 231. 59 Life 129. Josephus also refers to the district (χώρα) of Tiberias, which included these villages (Life 120–121). Mason, Life of Josephus, 78, 98. 51

B. The number of towns in Galilee

175

Taricheae,60 and writes of Vespasian destroying the villages near Gabara,61 and Cestius Gallus burning the villages near Chabulon.62 Elsewhere Josephus states that the towns of Galilee were “thickly distributed.”63 Josephus also refers to fortresses in Galilee surrounded by villages.64 He describes Herod destroying the fortresses of the rebels in Galilee,65 and Vespasian receiving submissions from the fortresses and towns of Galilee.66 From these passing references it is evident that there were many more settlements in Galilee than those named by Josephus.67 II. References to Jewish settlements in other Graeco-Roman sources Other writers also commented on the density of towns and villages in the Jewish territories. Josephus cites Hecataeus saying, “The Jews have many fortresses and villages in different parts of the country.”68 Tacitus wrote that the entire province of Judaea was “covered with scattered villages” (Magna pars Iudaeae vicis dispergitur), and some towns (habent et oppida).69 And the Greek historian Dio Cassius claimed that fifty fortresses and 985 villages were destroyed by the Roman army.70 This was probably a fair assessment of the number of settlements in Palestine, despite the exaggerated claim that all of them were destroyed. A good number in fact survived. III. Named settlements in the Gospels The Gospels also mention a few Galilean settlements by name. Capernaum, Cana, Tiberias, Nazareth, and Magdala (if we accept that Mary’s appellation ‘Magdalene’ was a reference to her hometown). These settlements were discussed in detail in Chapter Three. Two other named villages in the Gospels that do not appear in the works of Josephus are Chorazin,71 and Nain.72 Most of the remains found at Chorazin post-date the Early Roman I period, including a 60

War 2.598. War 3.132–134; Life 229–43. 62 War 2.505. See also Life 213–214. 63 War 3.43. 64 War 1.329–330. 65 War 1.315–316. 66 War 4.1. Some of these fortresses may have been fortified settlements. 67 Josephus also notes villages in the vicinity of Besara/Beth Shearim, but given that they belonged to the royal estate of Berenice, they may not have been counted among the villages of Galilee during the first century CE (Life 118–119). 68 Ag. Ap.1.197. 69 Tacitus, Hist. 5.8.1. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.46. 70 Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 69.14.1. 71 As noted above, Chorazin appears in a Q saying as a village censured by Jesus for not responding to his message (Q 10.13 [Matt 11.21; Luke 10.13]). 72 Luke 7.11. See the discussion in Chapter Three. 61

176

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

mikveh and a basalt synagogue, although a Hasmonean coin and some Early Roman period ceramics were found. It is unclear exactly where the village was located during the Early Roman I period.73 The village of Nain has been identified with Nein, eight kilometres south of Nazareth.74 In addition, Mark writes that on one occasion after crossing the lake, Jesus and the disciples came to land at Gennesaret (εἰς Γεννησαρὲτ), where they anchored (προσωρμίσθησαν).75 The precise wording suggests that a harbour and settlement were in view, especially given that people soon appeared on the scene. Josephus does not mention a settlement called Gennesaret, but he does refer to the lake of Gennesar/Gennesaret and the plain of Gennesar.76 The author of First Maccabees also refers to the plain of Gennesaret,77 and a reference in the Tosefta refers to the valley of Gennesar.78 Luke refers to the Lake of Gennesaret (λίμνην Γεννησρέτ),79 as do Strabo (Γεννησαρῖτις) and Pliny the Elder (Genesaram).80 Leibner has observed three rabbinic references that suggest Gennesaret was also the name of a settlement.81 Zangenberg states that we can only be certain the name Gennesaret applied to a plain.82 Yet given the number of unidentified settlements in the region, references in Tannaitic sources and in Mark that suggest a settlement, and the practice of naming the Sea of Galilee after a settlement on its shoreline, it seems likely that there was a settlement in the region known as Gennesaret.83 Leibner suggests that Gennesaret be identified with Abu Shushe, on the edge of the plain of 73 Zeev Yeivin, “Chorazin,” NEAEHL 1.301–304; 182; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 250– 251; Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 74–76; Tsafrir et al., “Chorazin,” TIR 103. 74 Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 219; Tsafrir et al., “Nain, Nein,” TIR 192. 75 Mark 6.53; Matt. 14.34. 76 Ant. 13.1163; War 2.573; 3.463, 516; Life 349. 77 1 Macc. 11.67. 78 T. Šeb. 7.11. 79 Luke 5.1. 80 Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71. 81 Uzi Leibner, “Identifying Gennesaret on the Sea of Galilee,” JRA 27 (2014): 231. The first refers to the second century CE rabbi, “Jonathan of Gennesar” (t. Kelim 5.6; y. Ma‘aś. 1.1 [48d]). The second refers to an enclosed area at Gennesar (t. ‘Erub. 7.13), and the third identifies the ancient town of Kinneret with Gennesar (y. Meg. 1.5 [70a]). 82 J.K. Zangenberg, “Observations on the Function, Character and Location of the New Testament Toponym Γεννησαρέτ (Mk 6:53; Mt 14:34),” in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge, ed. R. Buitenwerf, H.W. Hollander, and J. Tromp (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 439–470. 83 Historically the lake was named the Sea of Kinneret, after the town of Kinneret. During the Hasmonean period it became the Sea of Taricheae, and when Tiberias became the chief city on the shoreline, it became the Sea of Tiberias. Leibner, “Identifying Gennesaret,” 229. This is also the view of Mendel Nun and Shelley Wachsmann. Shelley Wachsmann, The Sea of Galilee Boat: An Extraordinary 2000 Year Old Discovery (New York: Plenum Press, 1995), 39–40.

B. The number of towns in Galilee

177

Gennesaret, northwest of Magdala.84 Tsafrir et al., identify Gennesaret with Kh. ‘Ureime.85 Ken Dark has proposed an alternative location, north of Magdala, where he observed extensive remains between modern Migdal and the shore.86 Dark adds that the beaches of Ilanot and Tamor would have provided the settlement with “two good natural harbours.”87 Dark suggests that this site may have been Dalmanutha, but he does not rule out the possibility that it was Gennesaret.88 The problem is that these remains extend as far as the site of Magdala. Thus while it may have begun as an independent settlement, by the first century CE it may have been a northern district of Magdala. Excavation of the site will help to clarify its history and relationship to Magdala. Mark adds that Jesus travelled by boat to the district of Dalmanutha (τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθας).89 This is the only place name in Mark that is otherwise unattested, and its location is unknown. The impression is that of a district surrounding a settlement called Dalmanutha. Bruce Metzger notes that copyists were puzzled by the name and replaced it with Magadan (Μαγεδά(ν) or Magdala (Μαγδαλας), which also appears in the parallel passage in Matthew (Matt. 15:39). However, Dalmanutha has the best manuscript support.90 Reisner proposes that both Dalmanutha and Magadan were sites in Galilee, and he suggests possible locations north of Magdala or at Tagba.91 However, given the number of identified settlements on the western shoreline of the Sea of Galilee, the fact that Mark refers to a district of Dalmanutha, and that Jesus and his disciples

84

Leibner, “Identifying Gennesaret,” 238–244. See also Leibner, Settlement and History, 180–191. Although this site is two kilometres from the shoreline, it was the largest settlement in the region prior to the founding of Magdala. Sherds of early Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin ware indicate the site was settled in the first century CE. 85 Tsafrir et al., “Gennesar, Gennesaret, Kinereth,” TIR 132. 86 Ken R. Dark, “Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognised Roman Town near the Sea of Galilee,” PEQ 145.3 (2013): 185–202. Remains include fragments of Kefar Hananya ware, Shikhin ware, and stone weights and anchors. Limestone and basalt columns and capitals were also found in secondary use in modern Migdal. 87 Dark, “Archaeological Evidence,” 188. It was along this shoreline that the famous first century CE fishing boat was discovered. Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 40, 367. 88 Dark, “Archaeological Evidence,” 196. 89 Mark 8.10. In its parallel passage in Matthew τὰ μέρη is replaced with τὰ ὁρια. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 83. 90 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 83. The manuscript evidence includes ‫ א‬A B C K L Γ Δ. The authenticity of the name is supported by its Aramaic ending -θα, which appears in other settlements such as Gabatha and Sussita. Richard Bauckham, “Where was Dalmanutha?” Mark 8.10,” in Texts and Contexts: Gospels and Pauline Studies, ed. Todd D. Still (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 23, 25. 91 Reisner, “Geography of Galilee and Judea,” 219.

178

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

travelled there by boat, Bauckham may be correct in locating Dalmanutha on the north-eastern shoreline in Gaulanitis.92 Thus, we can note a total of thirty-seven named settlements in Galilee attested by Josephus and the Gospels, with a probability of thirty-eight if we include Gennesaret. IV. Named settlements in Rabbinic sources Numerous Galilean settlements also appear in rabbinic sources. While these references post-date the Early Roman I period, many have been identified and surveyed, and found to have Early Roman I period remains. It is beyond the limits of this project to discuss all these settlements, but we can note a sample to illustrate further the density of settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period. Important sites in Upper Galilee include: Meiron, Nabratein, and Ḥ. Shema‘.93 Remains from Meiron, on the Meiron plateau, include Kefar Hananya ware forms KH1A, KH3A, and KH4A, limestone vessels, a mikveh, ossuaries, an olive oil press, and a third century CE synagogue.94 Remains from Nabratein, north of Safed/Zefat, include a second century CE synagogue, secret hideaways, Kefar Hananya ware forms KH1A and KH3A, and limestone vessels.95 Ḥ. Shema‘, located three kilometres from Meiron, has yielded early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, Hasmonean coins, limestone vessels, mikva’ot, and a third/fourth century CE synagogue.96

92

This will be discussed further in Chapter Five. Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai has been associated with Meiron/Meron (t. Demai 4.13), and rabbinic tradition records priestly families living there after 70 CE. Kefar Nevoraya/Nabratein is associated with Jacob of Nevoraya (y. Yebam. 2.4a.6). 94 Eric M. Meyers, James F. Strange, and Carol L. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1971–1972, 1974–1975, 1977. Meiron Excavation Project 3 (Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1981). See also Eric M. Meyers, “Meiron,” NEAEHL 3.1024–1027; Eric M. Meyers and Carol L. Meyers, “Meiron in Upper Galilee,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.379–388; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 38, 88, 151 [Site 305]; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 54, 205, 208; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; and Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 321 [Table 1]; and 368 [Table 2]. 95 Eric M. Meyers, “Nabratein (Kefar Neburaya),” NEAEHL 3.1077–1079; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics 40, 151 [Site 331]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 17, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 208. 96 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50–51; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 208; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 38, 88, 151 [304]; Eric M. Meyers, “Khirbet Shema‘,” EAEHL 4.1094–1097; and Eric M. Meyers, “Khirbet Shema‘,” OEANE 5.26–27. Frankel et al., identify this site with Teqoa (m. Menaḥ. 8.3; t. Šeb. 7.15). 93

B. The number of towns in Galilee

179

Settlements in Lower Galilee include: Ḥuqoq, Migdal Ha-Emeq, Ibillin, Kefar Otni, and Kefar Hananya.97 Ḥuqoq was located eight kilometres west of Capernaum. While most of the remains postdate the Early Roman period, including the impressive fifth/sixth century CE synagogue with its mosaics, other remains include mikva’ot, ossuaries, Kefar Hananya ware forms KH3A and KH4A, Herodian oil lamps, Hasmonean coins, and fragments of limestone vessels.98 Remains from Migdal Ha-Emeq, south of Beth Shearim, include limestone vessels, ossuaries, secret hideaways, and Hasmonean coins.99 Remains from Ibillin, west of Jotapata/Yodefat, include a synagogue, Hasmonean coins, limestone vessels, secret hideaways, and ossuaries.100 Kefar Otni/‘Othnay was located in the Jezreel valley. Remains include mikva’ot and Hasmonean coins. The town was renamed Legio in the second century CE and became a Roman garrison for the Sixth Legion.101 If we add this cursory list of rabbinical sites to those discussed above, we arrive at a figure of at least forty-five named settlements in Galilee known to have been settled during the Early Roman I period, not including many other towns and villages named in rabbinic sources, and the unnamed villages referred to by Josephus. V. The number of settlements based on archaeological surveys A survey of Upper Galilee from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, found 170 settlements which exhibited Early Roman period remains.102 A 97 See e.g. y. Sanh. 3.10 [21d]; and y. Šeb. 9.1 [38c] for Ḥuqoq; and M. Giṭ. 1.5; 7.7 for Kefar Otni. The second century CE geographer Ptolemy also referred to Caparcotni (Καπαρκοτνεί) (Geogr. 5.16.4). For Kefar Hananya see M. Šeb. 9.2; t. B. Meṣ. 6.3. For a more details on Kefar Hananya see Chapter Two in connection with Kefar Hananya ware. 98 Jodi Magness, et al., “Ḥuqoq (Lower Galilee) and its Synagogue Mosaics: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 2011–2013,” JRA 27 (2014): 327–355; Jodi Magness, et al., “The Huqoq Excavation Project: 2014–2017 Interim Report,” BASOR 380 (2018): 61–131; Jodi Magness “Samson in the Synagogue,” BAR Jan/Feb (2013): 32–39, 66–67; Jodi Magness “New Mosaics from the Ḥuqoq Synagogue,” BAR Sept/Oct (2013): 66–68; Matthew J. Grey and Chad S. Spigel, “Ḥuqoq in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.362–378; Tsafrir et al., “Ḥuqoq,” TIR,148. 99 Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 213, 209, n. 19; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]. 100 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, Christians, 12 [Fig. 1.2], and 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.454; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 115–132, esp. 117–120; Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Galilee,” 213, 209, n.19; and Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 174–175. 101 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.170; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 274–275; and Tsafrir et al., “Legio, Capercotani, Kefar ‘Othnai,” TIR 170. 102 The results have been published by Rafael Frankel, et al., Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee. IAA Reports 14 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001).

180

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

significant proportion of these were located within the boundaries of Josephus’ Upper Galilee. To date, an exact figure of settlements for both Upper and Lower Galilee as defined by Josephus cannot be given, since some areas of Lower Galilee are still being surveyed. However, as will be seen, we can provide here a probable estimate based on the data received from the surveys and excavations conducted to date. A survey led by Uzi Leibner in Eastern Galilee covered an area of 285 square kilometres. It included the eastern edges of the Hananya Valley, the Sakhnin Valley, the Beth Netofa Valley, the Tur’an Valley, and the Plain of Gennesar.103 Only settlements .5 dunams or more in size were recorded, which meant that Leibner’s survey did not include farmsteads or very small settlements.104 Nonetheless, he observed a total of forty Early Roman period sites in the area, up from nineteen during the Hellenistic Period.105 These sites include Magdala/Taricheae, Ḥuqoq, Arbel, and Abu Shusheh. Chaim Ben David attempted to determine the plausibility of Josephus’ claim that there were 204 villages in Galilee, by extrapolating from the number of settlements found in Leibner’s survey area in eastern Galilee. Noting only those settlements which were four dunams in size or over (i.e. thirty-five settlements), and noting the number of named settlements in the area mentioned by Josephus, Ben David observed a ratio of thirty-five surveyed settlements to five named settlements.106 Extrapolating from this, and including the central Golan (i.e. Gaulanitis) which had a similar ratio of five named settlements to thirtythree surveyed settlements, Ben David was able to demonstrate the high probability that Josephus’ 204 settlements was “not far from the actual number of settlements in Galilee and Gaulanitis prior to the Jewish revolt.”107 However, 103

For a map of the area see Leibner, Settlement and History, 15. The survey drew on knowledge of previously identified sites, old maps, aerial photographs, field surveys, shovel tests, and a few excavations. See also Uzi Leibner, “Determining the Settlement History of Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Sites in the Galilee, Israel,” JFA 39.4 (2014): 389. 104 One dunam equals .10 of a hectare i.e. 1,000 square metres. Leibner, “Determining Settlement History,” 392. 105 Early Roman I period remains from these sites include Kefar Hananya ware forms KH3A and KH4A, limestone vessels, Herodian oil lamps, and Hasmonean and Herodian coins. In fact, the most abundant remains in the region date to the Early and Middle Roman periods. Leibner, “Determining Settlement History,” 392, 398; Leibner, Settlement and History, 95, 309–310, 397. At Kh. Wadi Hamam alone they found over ninety first-century BCE coins, most of them coins of Alexander Jannaeus. Leibner, “Determining Settlement History,” 398. 106 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee?” 35–36. Ben David does not list the sites in Leibner’s survey area which were named by Josephus but judging from those exhibiting early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, he probably had in mind Acchabaron/Akbara, Bersabe/Beersheba, Selame/Ḥ. Zalmon, Arbel, and Magdala/Taricheae. Leibner, Settlement and History, 95. 107 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee?” 36.

B. The number of towns in Galilee

181

we probably do not need to include Gaulanitis in Josephus’ count of 204 villages. Ben David is correct to note that Josephus had authority over Gaulanitis along with the rest of Galilee, and that Gaulanitis was at times understood to be a part of Galilee, but the results of ongoing surveys in Galilee suggest there were about 200 settlements within Galilee without adding to these the settlements of Gaulanitis. Leibner’s survey revealed forty Early Roman period settlements in eastern Galilee. However, a small slice in the north of the survey area overlapped with the area surveyed by Frankel et al. Thus we are left with approximately thirtyfive settlements for eastern Galilee. Nonetheless, we can add to this the settlements of Capernaum, Chorazin, Tiberias, Hammath Tiberias, and Simonias, which were located just northeast or southeast of Leibner’s survey area but still in Galilee. This brings us back to forty settlements in eastern Lower Galilee. A second survey in Lower Galilee was conducted by Zvi Gal in the region of Mount Tabor. He found thirty Roman period sites, up from ten during the Hellenistic period.108 It is not clear from this report whether all of these were settled in the Early Roman period, although this is likely given that most of the Jewish settlements in Lower Galilee were founded either in the first century BCE or first century CE. This survey included the south-eastern edge of the Nazareth Ridge, and the settlement of Karm er-Ras. It also included Dabburiya.109 In the Nahalal region of Lower Galilee, west and southwest of Sepphoris, Reed noted fifty Roman period sites, up from nineteen during the Hellenistic period.110 However, only twenty of these exhibited Early Roman period remains. Excavation of the others may reveal that they were founded prior to or during the Early Roman period, but with this survey alone we can only be certain of twenty. Moreover, it is unclear from the report whether all these sites were Jewish during the Early Roman I period, although they probably were because they are located within the political borders of Galilee outlined by Josephus. Jewish settlements in this area include Shimron, Ḥ. Qoshet, Ḥ. Buzin, Bethlehem of Galilee, Tive’on, and nearby Beth Shearim. Moreover, Aviam notes that generally, “no mixed communities existed in … rural areas. Unlike cities… small villages were closed societies, especially during periods when

108 Reed, “Instability in Galilee,” 351; and Bar, “Population and Settlement,” 4. Zvi Gal, “Har Tavor–41,” Archaeological Survey of Israel (Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998). [Heb]. For the 2013 English edition online: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx#Index_of_Sites_Listed_by_Period. 109 Life 126–130, 318; War 2.595–597. 110 Reed, “Instability in Galilee,” 351; and Bar, “Population and Settlement,” 4.

182

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

deep antagonism existed.”111 This does seem to have been the norm during Early Roman I period Galilee.112 We can add to this the survey conducted by Ken Dark in the Naḥal Zippori valley lying between Nazareth and Sepphoris.113 This five by three kilometre area exhibited no less than thirty sites with Early Roman I period remains.114 While Dark included sites as small as farmsteads, we can offset this by noting other Early Roman period settlements on the Nazareth Ridge and elsewhere in southeast Lower Galilee which were not included in this survey or the Mount Tabor survey, such as Nazareth and Japhia and its villages. Thus there were probably as many as thirty villages in the region.115 The areas so far surveyed in Lower Galilee bring us to a figure of approximately 120 settlements. If we add to this the Jewish villages of Upper Galilee, within the boundaries set by Josephus, we arrive at a figure approaching 200. Reed arrives at a figure of 251 sites in Galilee, but this includes all 170 settlements surveyed by Frankel et al., and we have already noted that many of these lay outside the borders of Upper Galilee as defined by Josephus.116 Moreover, while the information provided above applies to the entire Early Roman period i.e. from 63 BCE to 135 CE, in every case pre-70 CE remains were evident. It is no exaggeration to say, therefore, that Galilee during the Early Roman I period was a densely populated region with approximately 200 towns and villages. In the words of Millar: Galilee was … surely the most heavily populated of the various zones of Jewish villages which surrounded Judaea itself ... The impression of a dense population, in large villages and small towns, is not misleading.117

The Early Roman I period was a time of rapid population growth and settlement, partly due to the fertility of the region, political stability under Herod the Great and his son Antipas, and the construction of two new cities, Sepphoris and Tiberias.118

111

Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 20. By the Byzantine period, there were some settlements with mixed populations of Jews and Christians in Galilee e.g. Nazareth and Capernaum, and as we will see, mixed settlements of Christians and pagans in Phoenicia and in the Decapolis. 113 Dark, “Roman-Period Landscapes,” 87–102. 114 Dark, “Roman-Period Landscapes,” 95. 115 Dark, “Roman-Period Landscapes,” 96–97. 116 Reed, “Instability in Galilee,” 351, n.29. 117 Millar, Roman Near East, 347. 118 Reed, “Instability in Galilee,” 350–351; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 84; and Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 103. 112

C. The size of the Galilean population

183

C. The size of the Galilean population C. The size of the Galilean population

I. Josephus’ population figures Determining population numbers in antiquity is difficult. Population figures in literary sources are often inflated, round numbers, and Josephus provides excellent examples of this. In War he claims that the smallest village in Galilee had a population of 15,000 inhabitants.119 Such a figure is implausible, as is the implication that there were no villages smaller than this. In a small region with approximately 204 towns and villages, if the smallest village contained 15,000 inhabitants, then the population of Galilee would be greater than 3,000,000.120 We might wonder how an agricultural region as small as Galilee could sustain such a large population. One might try to gauge the size of the population from Josephus’ references to the numbers of slain or captured persons during the First Jewish Revolt. For example, Josephus claims that 40,000 people were slain during the battle for Jotapata, and 1,200 were captured.121 Yet even granting that this small town was packed with refugees from surrounding villages, the number is clearly exaggerated. Some have tried to determine the population of Galilee based on the size of Josephus’ army. However, this too is problematic. Josephus claims that he trained 60,000 infantry.122 From this Avi-Yonah extrapolates a population of 750,000 persons.123 However, Josephus also claims that he raised 350 cavalry, 4,500 mercenaries, and 600 bodyguards,124 and he writes that John of Gischala had a further 5,500 men at his disposal. This would bring us to a total of 70,950 armed men in Galilee. Yet prior to this Josephus claimed he raised an army of 100,000 young men.125 Both figures cannot be correct.126 It seems inadvisable, therefore, to extrapolate from these figures an estimated population of Galilee.

119

War 3.42–43. Byatt estimates that the total population of first-century Palestine would have been 2,265,000. Thus the figure for Galilee would be considerably less than this. Anthony Byatt, “Josephus and Population Numbers in First-Century Palestine,” PEQ 105.1 (1973): 51–60. As for the population size of settlements, Mason writes that even Rome at this time had only about a million people, and Jerusalem about 100,000. Mason, Life of Josephus, 112. 121 War 3.335–338. 122 War 2.583. 123 Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, 219–220. 124 War 2.583. 125 War 2.576. 126 According to Broshi, such numbers are typological and have biblical associations, “for instance the 60 myriads of warriors amongst those leaving Egypt (Num. 1.45–46). Magen Broshi, “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period,” BASOR 236 (1979): 6. 120

184

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

Such inflated figures are understandable given that Josephus was writing a military Thucydidian history.127 They serve to magnify the conflict, heighten the drama, raise the profile of the Jewish forces, and support Josephus’ claim that the First Jewish Revolt was “the greatest war of our time.”128 Yet even Rajak admits that Josephus’ account of training such a large military force is “the ‘ideal general’ motif run riot.”129 The infantry numbers alone exceed that of ten Roman legions!130 In War, therefore, we have good reason to suspect Josephus’ population figures. In Life, however, Josephus was not so constrained by literary conventions. As noted in Chapter One, the genre of autobiography was relatively new and less defined, which meant that Josephus could use this form to provide an apology of his credentials and career in Galilee, and attach it to Antiquities. So while Josephus had a vested interest in depicting himself in the best possible light, we may assume that he also endeavoured to be as accurate as possible, to provide a credible defence.131 It is instructive, therefore, that we often find in Life population figures that are more plausible, such as Josephus’ reference to 204 towns and villages in Galilee. Yet even in Life many of the population figures are round numbers and not without exaggeration. In Life Josephus claims that he sent a force of 2,000 men ahead of him to defend the roads near Bethsaida, and that he followed later with a further 3,000.132 Elsewhere he ordered a few thousand soldiers to wait at Adamah, and then led another 1,000 to a different village.133 He pursued Aebutius on foot with 2,000 armed soldiers,134 and travelled from Chabolos to Jotapata with 3,000 soldiers.135 Thus Freyne writes: Turning to Life we do find a regular army of much smaller proportions independent of the Galilean reserves who can be summoned for special engagements of a shorter period when a special danger threatens (Life 98.102.213.315) … He has only a small force when he attempts to prevent the Romans coming to the aid of Sepphoris (Life 394–7), but he claims to have 10,000 men for his attack on Tiberias without any mention of Galilean reinforcements (Life 321.327.331). He sends James with 200 men to guard the routes to Galilee from Gabara, and Jeremiah with 600 to watch the roads leading to Jerusalem in an attempt to cut off the delegation. He can supply an escort for his counter-embassy (Life 240f) and a soldier for each of the 30 Galilean notables whom he sends to … the Jerusalem embassy (Life 228). 127

See the discussion in Chapter One. War 1.1. 129 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 159. Freyne considers Josephus’ troop numbers and training in War as “a piece of self-glorification by the general turned historian” (War 2.577– 582), but this may be too harsh. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 82–83. 130 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian, 159. 131 Rajak, Josephus: Classical Life, 14. 132 Life 399–400. 133 Life 321–322. 134 Life 118. 135 Life 234. 128

C. The size of the Galilean population

185

From these figures it is obvious that Josephus’ army was of rather modest proportions… The various strategies he employs to avoid taking or destroying such places as Sepphoris and Tiberias are rather thinly veiled excuses for his own inability to impose a strong will on all the various dissidents, especially the larger towns (Life 104–11; 155–73; 246–65; 373– 80; 394–6).136

Josephus probably had a few hundred men permanently at his disposal. This is supported by Uriel Rappaport’s observation that nowhere in Josephus’ narrative do his soldiers appear on the battlefield. The main battles occur at the fortified towns, like Jotapata and Gamla.137 Josephus does, however, describe a few skirmishes. In one such skirmish Josephus leads his men against Sulla, the captain of Agrippa II’s army, who was encamped near Bethsaida blockading the main road leading into the central Golan from Galilee. From this account we learn that Josephus and his men were able to rout Sulla, but only after additional forces arrived from Taricheae.138 Thus Josephus probably commanded a few hundred men, although during moments of crisis he was able to raise a larger force. Similarly, when Josephus needed to subdue rebel forces in Tiberias, he raised a fleet of 230 boats in Taricheae.139 Most of these boats would have been fishing vessels belonging to families living in Taricheae. Based on studies of the recently discovered “Ginosar Boat,” each vessel required a crew of five: four to row it, and one to steer.140 Josephus states that he only had sufficient forces for a four-man crew for each boat, a point which suggests that in this account his numbers were not exaggerated. Thus, Josephus was able to raise the support of at least 920 men. In War Josephus states he returned to Taricheae with 2,600 prisoners from Tiberias.141 Wachsmann has calculated that a vessel like the “Ginosar Boat” could hold as many as fifteen persons, a figure that would enable 230 vessels to return with 2,600 prisoners.142 Therefore, while Josephus did exaggerate the population of Galilean towns and villages, and at times the number of his armed forces, there are accounts which enable us to capture a more moderate glimpse of the Galilean population.143 136 137

Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 82–83. Uriel Rappaport, “The Great Revolt: An Overview,” in Great Revolt in the Galilee,

12. 138

Life 399–406. Life 163; War 2.635. 140 Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 315. Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca have come to the same conclusion. Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala as We Know it,” 97–99. 141 War 2.641. 142 Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 314–317. The Galilee boat will be discussed further in Chapter Five. 143 Graeco-Roman writers also commented on the size of the Jewish population, not only in Palestine, but throughout the Roman world. They attributed these numbers to the Jewish practice of raising all their children. See e.g. Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.3) and Strabo (Geogr. 17.2.5). Josephus confirms that Jewish law required them “to bring up all their offspring, and not to 139

186

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

One might suppose Josephus’ use of the terms πóλις (town/city) or κώμη (village) might provide a guide as to the size of a given settlement or its population. However, Josephus uses these terms loosely,144 and sometimes he uses both terms to describe the same settlement.145 The Synoptic Gospels also exhibit a certain looseness of terminology in relation to κώμη and πóλις.146 Moreover, whether a settlement was deemed a πóλις or κώμη was not dependant primarily on population size. Therefore, Josephus’ use of such terms cannot provide us with accurate information about their area or population size.147 II. Estimating population size through archaeology A number of approaches have been undertaken to estimate the population size of a region. One has been to calculate the carrying capacity of the land to determine the maximum population a region could sustain. For example, Magen Broshi estimates the size of the population based on the grain-growing capacity of the land and the average annual consumption of individuals.148 He argues that Palestine could sustain a population of about a million people.149 However, while such research can provide a limit on population figures, it cannot tell us abort an unborn child, or destroy it after it is born” (Ag. Ap. 2.202). As Stern writes, “The Jew’s religious duty to rear all their children and their view that the exposure of new-born children is tantamount to murder offer a striking contrast to the Greek habit of killing (ἒχθεσις) infants, a constant feature of Greek life, as exemplified in Greek literature…both Greek and Roman writers were struck by the contrast afforded by the Jews.” Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.33. 144 This point has been noted by numerous scholars. See e.g. Horsley, Galilee, History, 326 n. 2; Leibner, Settlement and History, 222; and Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 103. 145 For example, he depicts Gabara as a πóλις (Life 123–124) and a κώμη (Life 242–243). 146 For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to Capernaum as a πóλις (Matt. 4:13; 9:1; Mark 1.21, 33; Luke 4:31) whereas Josephus calls Capernaum a κώμη (Life 403; War 3:519). Mark refers to Bethsaida as a κώμη (Mark 8.23), whereas Matthew and Luke refer to Bethsaida as a πóλις (Matt. 11:20; Luke 9:10). Numerous explanations have been posited for these variations. 147 For Josephus’ use of πóλις and κώμη in relation to Galilee, and how these terms may have been understood, see Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, 130; Leibner, Settlement and History, 221–225; Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 103; Horsley, Galilee, History, 190; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 167; Mason, Life of Josephus, 47; and Jewish War, 89. 148 Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 6–7. He argues that grain consumption has remained fairly constant over the centuries. Thus the average consumption of a labourer in Palestine during the Roman-Byzantine period would have been about 250 kg of grain per annum. This is based on research of communities as diverse as ancient Athens, villages in ancient Egypt, labourers during the Roman period, the citizens of Greece around the turn of the 20th century, and two Arab villages in Galilee during 1930. As for the grain-growing capacity of Palestine he writes that during 1940–1942 the average annual yield was 266,411 tons, which he judges would have corresponded to the grain-growing capacity of Palestine during the Byzantine period. 149 Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 7.

C. The size of the Galilean population

187

the actual population of a region during a given period in history. Also, the grain-growing capacity of the region may not have been constant over the centuries. For example, during the Roman period many of the slopes in Galilee were terraced to increase production. Moreover, grain consumption is reduced in regions where there are abundant sources of meat. Analysis of the bone profile at Bethsaida, just a hundred metres east of the Jordan River, revealed the occupants ate sheep, goats, gazelles, deer, and fish.150 Thus greater analysis of the region of Galilee may be needed before assessments are made concerning average annual consumption of grain. Probably the most effective way of determining population size is by estimating the approximate population density per hectare of a given site and multiplying this “coefficient” by its area. Some factors must be considered, however, if one is to arrive at a plausible estimate. First, settlements expand and contract over time. Therefore, in order to determine the size of a settlement during the Early Roman I period, the site must be excavated. One cannot simply measure the extent of the ruins on the surface for these may be larger than the size of the site during earlier periods.151 A second factor to consider is the degree to which a walled settlement is likely to have a greater population density than an unwalled settlement. Drawing upon research into the population density of “old cities” like Damascus, Aleppo, Tripoli in Lebanon, and Jerusalem in 1918, Magen Broshi claims, “The maximum population of an ancient walled … city can be estimated by applying a coefficient of 400–500 persons per hectare.”152 Since this is a maximum population density, Broshi suggests a coefficient of about 400 persons per hectare for cities in Palestine during the Byzantine period, including Tiberias and Sepphoris.153 However, there is a difference between population density in the “old cities” mentioned by Broshi, and the walled and unwalled settlements of Galilee. In “old cities” private dwellings are often stacked two and three stories high, and 150 Toni Fisher, “Faunal Analysis: Zooarchaeology in Syro-Palestinian/Israeli Archaeology,” in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History, and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014), 111, 115. 151 When Meyers and Strange first determined the population of Capernaum, they based their estimate on the extent of the ruins on the surface, which covered an area of about thirty hectares. Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, Rabbis, 58. However, Capernaum was smaller during the Early Roman I period. Reed estimates the site at this time covered an area between six and ten hectares, and at the very most seventeen hectares. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 151– 152. The uncertainty about its actual size is due to some of the remains from the Early Roman period lying beneath the Byzantine ruins visible today. Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Nahum,” 226, 229. 152 That is, 160–200 per acre, or 40–50 per dunam. Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 1. 153 Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 5.

188

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

the walls do indeed lead to increased population density. However, in Galilee very few, if any of the courtyard or terraced houses appear to have had three stories. Thus, Reed proposes a co-efficient of between 150–250 persons per hectare for the walled cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias,154 and a coefficient of approximately 100 persons per hectare in unwalled settlements in Galilee like Capernaum.155 However, there is another factor to consider. There seems to have been very little difference in the way private dwellings were constructed in Galilee, regardless of whether the settlement was walled or unwalled. Over the past forty years excavators have uncovered the same kinds of closely packed private dwellings in settlement after settlement. On hill slopes these tend to be terraced dwellings of varying sizes with some having a second story or access to the roof of the house below. In flatter locations these tend to be closely packed courtyard houses of varying sizes and number of rooms, with some having a second story above one or more rooms. Thus, the population density across settlements tends to be very similar, whether they are walled or unwalled. As Peter Richardson argues, the private terraced houses of the unwalled town of Khirbet Qana are just as densely packed as those of the walled town of Jotapata.156 Moreover, prior to the First Jewish Revolt, most of the settlements of Galilee were unwalled, and Josephus’ efforts to fortify settlements amounted to constructing a few walls, and filling in gaps between private dwellings to present the appearance of a secure wall. Therefore, the presence or absence of a wall in Early Roman I period Galilean settlements seems to have had little bearing on the density of their populations. As Richardson states: The density of buildings in an unwalled town results from traditional social organisation and principles of layout, not from containment. The tight clustering of buildings in towns and villages in early Roman Galilee was simply the way towns developed, and reconstructions that show dispersed buildings in a built-up area are likely to be wrong.157

A third factor to consider is whether a private dwelling had a second story. Two story dwellings can accommodate a greater number of people, and a settlement which comprises a greater number of such dwellings would have a larger population than a settlement with only a few. Sometimes the remains of a staircase or landing provide evidence of a second floor, although it may not be clear whether the staircase led to an upper room, or simply the roof. A dwelling must also have sufficiently strong walls and foundations to support a second story. 154

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 79–82. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 152, 82–83. He adds, “Without a city wall to drive the population density upward, new buildings could easily be added on Capernaum’s periphery given the topography.” Reed, Galilean Jesus, 150–151. 156 Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 126. 157 Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 126. 155

C. The size of the Galilean population

189

Where a dwelling appears capable of supporting a second floor, but reveals no evidence of a staircase or landing, one might presume the inhabitants made use of a ladder which has subsequently disintegrated, but this is by no means certain. With these points in mind, a population density coefficient of 100 persons per hectare for an unwalled settlement like Capernaum, or in fact any settlement in Galilee, is likely too small. On the other hand, Broshi’s coefficient of 400 persons per hectare for towns in Palestine is probably too great. Thus, a coefficient of 200–250 persons per hectare is probably a fair estimate for Galilean settlements during the Roman period. This is in fact very similar to the coefficient Reed applies to Jotapata.158 With this coefficient, therefore, let us consider the population of some Galilean towns and villages. III. Population estimates for Jotapata Jotapata covered an area of about five hectares prior to the First Jewish Revolt. Since Jotapata was a walled town, Reed applies a coefficient of 200–300 persons per hectare to arrive at a maximum population between 1,000–1,500 persons.159 Aviam arrives at a slightly larger figure of 1,500–2,000, with the addition of up to 5,000 refugees flooding into the town in advance of the siege in 67 CE. He suggests therefore that Josephus’ claim that 1,200 captives were taken from Jotapata may be accurate.160 We have noted, however, that there was very little difference in population density between walled and unwalled settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period. Moreover, in the case of Jotapata the wall was constructed only months before the town was destroyed. If we apply instead a coefficient of 200–250 persons per hectare, this would give us an estimated figure of approximately 1,000–1,250 persons. IV. Population estimates for Capernaum Estimates of the population size of Capernaum have ranged from 600– 15,000.161 The larger figure of 12,000–15,000 was proposed by Meyers and Strange, but was based on a surface area of thirty hectares, and upon Broshi’s maximum population density of 400–500 persons per hectare.162 They have since corrected their estimate to bring it into line with that of Reed.

158

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83. 160 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 119. 161 Horsley suggests that Capernaum had a population of around 1,000 people. Horsley, Galilee, History, 194. Reisner suggests 1,500–2,000 inhabitants. Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 218. 162 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, Rabbis, 58. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 149–150. 159

190

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

Reed may be correct in estimating the area of Capernaum during the Early Roman period as between six and ten hectares.163 He then employs a low population density coefficient of 100 persons per hectare because Capernaum was unwalled. From this he estimates a total population of 600–1,500 people.164 Yet Reed’s coefficient may be too low. As discussed above, the presence or absence of a wall seems to have had little bearing on population density in Roman period Galilee. It seems more likely, therefore, that the population density was closer to 200 or 250 persons per hectare. If we multiply this coefficient with the area of the settlement i.e. between six and ten hectares, then Capernaum would probably have a population of 1,200 and 2,500 persons.165 Moreover, if Capernaum did approach ten hectares in area, it would have been roughly the same size as Taricheae. V. Population estimates for Sepphoris and Tiberias During the Roman-Byzantine period Sepphoris covered an area of about sixty hectares.166 However, after the fall of the Second Temple in 70 CE the site experienced a surge in population growth. Therefore, Reed is probably correct to suggest the area of the site during the Early Roman I period was smaller, perhaps between forty and sixty hectares.167 The extent of Tiberias is more difficult to determine because the modern town covers much of the ancient site. This has led to estimates ranging from forty to eighty hectares.168 The dispersion of a few excavated areas has helped to uncover portions of Early Roman period Tiberias, but not enough to clarify

163

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 150–151. However, he adds that Early Roman period Capernaum may have covered an area up to seventeen hectares. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 82–83. 164 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 149–152. 165 Reed also describes the walls of private dwellings, writing that they were “crudely made of mud-packed basalt fieldstones, and would not have supported second stories.” Reed, Galilean Jesus, 150. It is difficult to test this claim since most of the private dwellings visible in Capernaum today date to the Byzantine period. Yet while these were also constructed of fieldstones and plastered with mud, a number of these did have a staircase and could support a second floor. Mattila, “Capernaum, Village of Nahum,” 231. Thus, it is possible that some of the Early Roman period houses lying beneath these remains also supported a second story. 166 Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 5. Sixty hectares is also the area determined by Eric Meyers for the Roman period. Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59. 167 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 79–80. 168 Broshi estimates the area of Tiberias during the Byzantine period to have been about forty hectares. Broshi, “Population of Western Palestine,” 5. Meyers proposes an area of eighty hectares. Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59.

C. The size of the Galilean population

191

its actual extent. Reed may be correct, however, when he says the city covered an area no greater than sixty hectares.169 Due to varying estimates of the size of Sepphoris and the density of its population per hectare, proposals have ranged from 6,000 to 20,000 persons.170 Reed is probably closer to the truth with his estimate of 6,000 to 12,000 inhabitants, with a possible maximum of 15,000.171 This is based on a coefficient of 150–250 persons per hectare, because he argues Sepphoris was a walled city. Yet as Zeev Weiss observes, the courtyard houses and terraced dwellings of Sepphoris are similar to those of other Early Roman period towns and villages in Galilee.172 Reed is correct, however, to note the strength of the foundations and walls of these dwellings, which were able to support a second story.173 Some of these houses also had a basement.174 It is possible therefore that Sepphoris did have a slightly higher population density than other towns and villages in Galilee. However, without clear evidence of staircases or landings indicative of a second floor, it seems best to retain our proposed coefficient of 200–250 persons per hectare, which would give us a population for Sepphoris between 8,000 and 15,000 persons. Population estimates for Tiberias range from 6,000–24,000 persons.175 If the city did indeed cover an area of sixty hectares during the Early Roman I period, then we could expect a population between 12,000–15,000 persons. Thus Tiberias may have been comparable in size to Sepphoris. VI. Population estimates for Magdala/Taricheae Josephus writes that Taricheae had a population of 40,000 inhabitants,176 but this figure is grossly exaggerated. Meyers estimates the population of 169

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 81. The higher figure comes from Reisner, who estimated the population of Sepphoris to be somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 inhabitants. Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 218. Meyer, in his earlier estimate, suggested Sepphoris had a population in the vicinity of 18,000. Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59. 171 The lower figure is based on a population density as low as 150 persons per hectare, and the extent of the ruins as low as forty hectares. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 80, 82. 172 Zeev Weiss, “From Galilean Town to Roman City,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.55. 173 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 79 174 Weiss, “Galilean Town to Roman City,” 55. 175 Reed proposes a similar population size for Tiberias as he did for Sepphoris, i.e. between 6,000 and 12,000 persons. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 81. Reisner also suggests a similar figure for Tiberias as he did for Sepphoris, i.e. 10,000–20,000 inhabitants. Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 218. Meyers proposed a population for Tiberias of around 24,000, but this was based on his earlier population density coefficient of 400–500 persons per hectare, which has since been revised. Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59. 176 War 2.608. 170

192

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

Taricheae, with an area of about twenty hectares, to be about 3,000 persons.177 However, the area of Taricheae may have been smaller during the Early Roman I period. Reed suggests the site covered no more than ten hectares.178 This is corroborated by Leibner who writes that Taricheae covered an area of more than ninety dunams, which is a little less than ten hectares.179 Thus Taricheae was only a little larger than Capernaum during the Early Roman I period, and considerably smaller than Sepphoris and Tiberias. Reed proposes a population figure between 1,000–1,500 persons.180 However, this is based on a population density of 100–150 persons per hectare, which as we have seen, is probably too low. The population density of Taricheae was probably similar to that of Sepphoris and Tiberias. Therefore, applying a coefficient of 200–250 persons per hectare, the population of Taricheae would have been between 2,000 and 2,500 persons. This figure is consistent with Josephus’ claim that he raised a fleet of 230 boats from Taricheae.181 VII. Population estimates for Nazareth Reed estimates the area of Early Roman period Nazareth to be about four to five hectares,182 and proposes a population of no more than 400 persons.183 However, the recent discovery of domestic dwellings typical of those found elsewhere in Galilee suggest that this coefficient is probably too low. Moreover, recent excavations suggest the ancient village probably covered an area of at least five hectares.184 Therefore, with a population density of 200–250 persons per hectare, the population of Nazareth would have been between 1,000– 1,250 persons. VIII. The population of Galilee as a whole It is not possible to discuss the population size of every settlement in Galilee, because most have not been excavated. Therefore, their area during the Early Roman I period is unknown. Nonetheless, from what we have noted already, it

177

Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83. 179 Leibner, Settlement and History, 222. 180 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 23 [Table 3.2]. 181 War 2.635. 182 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83, 131. 183 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83, 131. 184 Alexandré provides a rough estimate of the area of Early Roman period Nazareth in Alexandré, Mary’s Well, 6 [Fig.1.5], and 9. However, some Early Roman period remains fall outside of this area, for example the remains of the courtyard house beneath the Sisters of Nazareth Convent. Refer back to Chapter Three. 178

C. The size of the Galilean population

193

may be possible to extrapolate and estimate a plausible figure for the Galilean population. Many proposals have been suggested for the size of the Galilean population, some as many as 2,000,000 persons. Until recently these were little more than unsupported hypotheses.185 More recently Meyers proposed the following: Taking the figures of 200 villages in all Galilee, at approximately 500 inhabitants per village, which seems reasonable, we estimate the population to be 150,000–175,000 with the vast majority of inhabitants occupying villages rather than cities, not far from the figure of 200,000 proposed by Hoehner. As Jonathan Reed has recently cautioned in proposing a “modest” population estimate of 1700 for Capernaum, making accurate estimates based on limited excavation and exposure is problematical.186

The total population for Galilee proposed by Meyers is probably about right. His calculation of 200 villages with an average population of 500 inhabitants would amount to a total of 100,000, with the remainder coming from the larger centres like Sepphoris and Tiberias, and the smaller towns like Taricheae. We may also be able estimate an approximate total population by considering the work of Leibner. In his survey of eastern Galilee, Leibner estimated the size of the Early Roman period settlements from the extent of Early Roman period sherds and coins found on the surface, in samples from shovel testing, and the number of pottery sherds collected for that period. While such estimations are preliminary and should be corroborated by excavation, Leibner’s findings are nonetheless instructive. He found that in eastern Galilee, eight villages were between one and two hectares in size, seven between two and four hectares in size, five between four and six hectares in size, and one which was over nine hectares in size, namely Magdala/Taricheae.187 Moreover, Leibner did not include in this assessment any settlements smaller than one to two hectares. Extrapolating from this, the average size of settlements in Galilee, minus the two cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris, would be about three hectares. With an average population density of 200–250 persons per hectare, this would give us an average of about 600–750 persons per settlement, although in reality the size of settlements varied greatly. If we then multiplied this figure by the estimated number of about 200 settlements in Galilee, we would arrive at a total population for the towns and villages of Galilee between 120,000 and 150,000. To this we could then add our estimated population figures for Sepphoris (8,000–12,000) and Tiberias (12,000–15,000), which would bring us to an approximate total population for Galilee of 140,000–177,000 persons. Granted 185

Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.29–31. Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 59. Horsley proposes a similar figure when he estimates the average size of a village in Upper Galilee as having “roughly 300–700 people.” Horsley, Galilee, History, 193–194. 187 Leibner, “Determining Settlement History,” 392; and Leibner, Settlement and History, 235. 186

194

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

that Josephus states there were 204 towns and villages in Galilee, the actual population figure may have been a little higher. We see therefore that whichever way the figures are calculated, scholars are beginning to arrive at similar estimates. Of course, numerous judgements have been made along the way, and most of these sites have not been excavated, which means that over time we will need to refine our estimates. Nonetheless, from this we can see that despite Josephus’ grossly exaggerated population figures, Galilee was indeed a densely populated region.188

D. Travel and the road network D. Travel and the road network

I. Galilean roads Given the number of Jewish towns and villages in Galilee, and the density of its population, an itinerant prophet like Jesus with a message for Israel, would certainly have an incentive to visit as many towns and villages as possible. He also had the means, for numerous roads traversed the region in the first century CE. The main east-west route ran from Ptolemais to Tiberias, passing through the Tir’an valley just north of Sepphoris.189 However, it was not until the reign of Hadrian that this road was paved to assist Roman troop movements through the region.190

188 Josephus attributes this to the fertility of the soil (War 3.43). One might object that the soil was thin in places and rocky, but it was nonetheless fertile. Consequently, literary sources and archaeological reports note the cultivation of olives and grapes on the hilly slopes, and grain and flax in the valleys. Note the descriptions of the land by Tacitus, Hist. 5.6.1–2; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16, 45; and Josephus, War 3.516–21. Leibner, Settlement and History, 11; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 199; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37. The region was also irrigated by numerous streams, and although some of these dried up during the hot, dry, summer months, there was sufficient rainfall for the cultivation of olives and grapes. The River Jordan and the Sea of Galilee also provided a source of fresh water and fish (War 3.508). Galilee was indeed able to support a dense population. 189 It was probably the western end of this road that Josephus referred to when he described Vespasian sending men to straighten the sinuous route, to clear and level the path, and to cut down the surrounding woods (War 3.118–126). Given that the cavalry followed, along with infantry marching six abreast and mules carrying siege engines, it is likely that the road was also widened. Hezser, Jewish Travel, 61; Benjamin Isaac, “Infrastructure,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine, ed. Catherine Hezser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 148. A short branch connected this road to Sepphoris. Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 42. 190 A section of the road and several milestones were found in the Naḥal Eblayim, and another broad stretch through the Tir’an Valley. Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 136–137; Hezser, Jewish Travel, 74; Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 40; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37; M. Avi-Yonah, “The Development of

D. Travel and the road network

195

Another east-west route ran from Ptolemais via Kefar Hananya and Chorazin to Bethsaida. This route was not paved until the second century CE. Toward the eastern end of the route it joined up with the main north-south road, which followed the western shoreline of the Sea of Galilee. This road cut through a section of the Chorazin plateau before descending to the River Jordan.191 Another stretch of this road is still visible northwest of et-Tell Bethsaida.192 The main north-south road ran through Capernaum, Magdala/Taricheae, and Tiberias, and continued south to Beth Shean/Scythopolis.193 This route was also unpaved during the Early Roman I period, although it may have been plastered to assist with the volume of foot traffic. The only portions that were paved were those approaching Tiberias and Magdala/Taricheae. During the second century CE this road was widened and brought up to Imperial standard. It was also one of the main pilgrimage routes for Galileans travelling south to Jerusalem.194 Another north-south route ran from Sepphoris to the village of Kefar ‘Othnay in the Jezreel Valley. According to one Tannaitic source, this was also an important route for Galileans travelling to Judea.195 Kefar ‘Othnay was later renamed Legio, and the road was paved early in the second century CE to aid the movements of the Sixth Legion stationed at Legio.196 Most of the roads through Galilee during the Early Roman I period were narrow dirt paths, beaten down by years of foot traffic, although usually wide enough for a donkey. Some would have been private pathways. Most connected villages, and depending upon the terrain, may have been two to four metres the Roman Road System in Palestine,” IEJ 1 (1950–1951): 60; Albert Lukaszewski, “Roads and Commerce in Galilee and Judea,” EHJ 515; and Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 234. 191 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455. 192 Hezser, Jewish Travel, 75; Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 40; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37. 193 Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 40; Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 63. South of Tiberias another branch turned southeast toward Gadara. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 234. 194 From Beth Shean/Scythopolis pilgrims could continue south through the Jordan Valley to Jericho, then turn west and follow the steep ascent through the Judean hills to the Mount of Olives and Jerusalem. Alternatively, a Galilean could take a shorter route via Xaloth and through the hills of Ephraim in Samaria. However, this route was risky. Josephus records an occasion when certain Galilean pilgrims were attacked in Samaria while on route to Jerusalem (Ant. 20.118; War 2.232). Susan Haber, “Going up to Jerusalem: Pilgrimage, Purity, the Historical Jesus,” in Travel and Religion in Antiquity, ed. Philip A. Harland. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 21 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2011), 52. 195 T. Giṭ. 7.9. 196 A few paved sections of this road were found with inscribed milestones, which date its construction to 130 CE. Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455; Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 37, 40, 42; Benjamin Isaac and Israel Roll, The Legio-Scythopolis Road, vol. 1 of Roman Roads in Judaea. BAR International Series 141 (Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports, 1982), 8; Isaac, “Infrastructure,” 148, 158; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 234.

196

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

wide.197 They generally wound their way around hills to avoid low lying areas that were prone to flooding in winter.198 Some were narrow, rocky, mountain tracks.199 Since most settlements were situated on hills, the distances between sites were generally greater than that suggested by a cursory glance at a map. Nonetheless, travellers on foot would be able to reach any town or village in Galilee within a day or two.200 These routes joined up with the inter-regional highways which skirted the region, and enabled the transport of goods like Kefar Hananya ware to settlements in Galilee and surrounding regions.201 II. Inter-regional highways None of the inter-regional highways of the Roman period passed through Galilee, although three were located nearby. One major north-south route, the Via Maris, followed the Mediterranean coast from Syria, through Phoenicia to Egypt, and passed to the west of Galilee.202 A second major north-south route, the King’s Highway, ran from Damascus along the Golan and Transjordan plateau to the Red Sea. This road was paved during the second century CE and renamed the Via Nova Traiana, in honour of the Emperor Trajan.203 The major east-west highways were located to the north and south of Galilee. One of these ran from Ptolemais through the Jezreel Valley to Legio, where it joined another route which ran from Caesarea Maritima to Legio and then continued on to Beth Shean/Scythopolis.204 From there it continued across the Jordan River where one branch ran on via Gadara up to the King’s Highway,

197

Hezser, Jewish Travel, 69. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 12. 199 For example, during the First Jewish Revolt, Vespasian sent some of his infantry ahead to level and broaden the narrow path leading up to Jotapata. Even after completing the task it took a full day for the army to travel less than nine kilometres from Gabara to Jotapata (War 3.141–142, 145, 147). Hezser, Jewish Travel, 62. 200 Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 42. 201 Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 219. 202 A portion of this road between Antioch and Ptolemais was paved in the mid-first century CE to aid troop movements from Syria to Ptolemais. Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, 1.3, 8; Isaac, “Infrastructure,” 150; Hezser, Jewish Travel, 54; Lukaszewski, “Roads and Commerce,” 514. 203 Avi-Yonah, “The Roman Road System,” 54–55; Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, 1.3; Lukaszewski, “Roads and Commerce,” 514; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 146. Milestones were set up along these arterial highways, indicating the year of construction and any subsequent repairs and upgrades, and the name of the reigning emperor at that time. Most of the inscribed milestones date to the second and third centuries CE. Hezser, Jewish Travel, 60. 204 Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads, 1.7–8. According to Josephus, the Roman governor Vitellius passed along this road with his troops in 37 CE (Ant. 13.120–122). Most of the paving of this road dates to the second century CE, but one milestone found between Legio and Scythopolis dates to 69 CE. Isaac, “Infrastructure,” 150. 198

E. Implications for the historical Jesus

197

and the other turned south towards Pella and Gerasa.205 The other major eastwest route was the Tyre-Damascus highway. This route was located north of Upper Galilee and passed through the city of Caesarea Philippi.206

E. Implications for the historical Jesus E. Implications for the historical Jesus

As noted at the start of this chapter, it used to be thought that Galilee had a small number of towns and villages, and a relatively small population. Therefore, many assumed that Mark’s depiction of Jesus being constantly on the move, travelling to numerous unnamed villages, and attracting large crowds, were exaggerated. However, archaeological surveys and excavations now indicate that Josephus’ figure of 204 towns and villages in Galilee is not implausible. This has implications for our understanding of the historical Jesus and his itinerant ministry. It suggests that Mark’s depiction of Jesus travelling among multiple towns and village in all Galilee is historically plausible. I. The extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee The extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee is indicated in a few summary statements in the Gospel of Mark.207 In one Mark claims that Jesus preached in the synagogues in all Galilee, or in the whole of Galilee (εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν).208 Until recently this claim could be dismissed as hyperbole, but given the presence of approximately 200 towns and villages in the region, it seems more likely that Mark was stressing the point that Jesus covered the entire region, even though only a small number of settlements are mentioned by name. We cannot know for certain whether Jesus visited every single town and village in Galilee. In fact, since he sent out twelve of his disciples, the ἀπóστολοι, to preach on his behalf,209 it is likely that he did not. However, it is probable that Jesus set out to visit as many towns and villages as possible, and that his message did indeed reach all Galilee. After leaving Nazareth, Mark describes Jesus travelling and teaching among the villages round about (περιῆγεν τὰς κώμας κύκλῳ διδάσκων).210 The word

205 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 147; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37; and Avi-Yonah, “The Roman Road System,” 55. 206 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 133–135; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 146–147. 207 Mark 1.39; 6.6b; and 6.56. 208 Mark 1.39. 209 Mark 6.7–13. 210 Mark 6.6b. Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth did not put a stop to his itinerant ministry. Michaels, “Itinerant Jesus and his Hometown,” 189.

198

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

κύκλος generally means circle, round, or around.211 By positioning this summary statement immediately after Jesus’ activity in Nazareth, Mark seems to be indicating that Nazareth was the geographical reference point for the term κύκλος.212 Jesus journeyed among the villages around Nazareth and taught there also. Collins suggests instead that the term κύκλος implies that Jesus returned to Capernaum.213 However, it is difficult to see how a direct trip from Capernaum to Nazareth, followed by a return trip to Capernaum, even accounting for visits to villages along the way, would warrant the use of the term κύκλος. It is only after the twelve ἀπóστολοι were sent out on mission that they met up again near the Sea of Galilee.214 Since Nazareth was located in the hill country in southern Lower Galilee, we might conclude that Jesus ministered among the towns and villages in this region. Later in Mark, after arriving at Gennesaret, Jesus is depicted again journeying through villages, towns, and countryside (εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγρούς).215 Mark claims that everywhere Jesus went, people placed the sick in the marketplaces (ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς), and begged Jesus to heal them. In this summary statement, Mark again describes Jesus’ itinerant ministry, but also stresses his popularity and the crowds of people desperately seeking a cure. The reference to marketplaces also indicates that he travelled through towns and villages. Markan scholars tend to overlook the historical value of these summary statements. They recognise that they belong to Mark’s editorial material, and attempt to determine whether they are Markan creations or draw on pre-Markan traditions, and to assess their literary and theological function in the narrative.216 Thus for the most part, little is said about the implications of these summary statements for the itinerant ministry of the historical Jesus. However, given what we now know of Galilee, the historical plausibility of these claims should be considered. The plausibility of these summary statements is supported by Mark’s claim that a group of women journeyed with Jesus during his ministry in Galilee.

211 The same word appears in Mark 3.34, where Jesus looks at the disciples seated around him. Josephus uses this word to describe the mountains around Jotapata (War 3.160). It is also used to refer to the inhabitants living round about where Herod was stationed in Galilee (Ant. 14.418). 212 Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 314–315; and Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 300, 306. 213 Collins, Mark, 297. 214 Mark 6.30–32. 215 Mark 6.56. 216 See e.g. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.236, 271–272; Nineham, Saint Mark, 185–186; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 69, 71, 354–358; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 388, 437; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.137–138, 327.

E. Implications for the historical Jesus

199

Ἦσαν δὲ καὶ γυναῖκες ἀπὸ μακρόθεν θεωροῦσαι, ἐν αἷς καὶ ⸀Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Ἰωσῆτος μήτηρ καὶ Σαλώμη, αἳ ὅτε ἦν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ.217 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee.

Mark seems to add this as an afterthought at the end of his narrative, to explain the presence of these women at Jesus’ crucifixion. Luke, however, includes this in a summary statement of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee. He writes that many women accompanied Jesus and the twelve as they journeyed (διοδεύω) among the towns and villages of Galilee.218 Luke also draws on his special source material (L) for the names of two women who are not mentioned by Mark.219 Thus the claim that Jesus had women followers, who travelled with him and the twelve through Galilee, has rarely been doubted. It is doubly attested,220 and “firmly fixed in the tradition.”221 The presence of women travelling with Jesus also meets the criterion of dissimilarity since “unchaperoned women sharing the preaching tours of a celibate male teacher is discontinuous with ... the Judaism of the time.”222 It also meets the criterion of embarrassment, since it would not have served Luke’s purposes to invent such a “potentially shocking picture” of women travelling with Jesus in first century CE Galilee.223 Thus Luke’s inclusion of these women among Jesus’ travelling party, strongly supports Mark’s claim that Jesus and his 217 Mark 15.40–41. Mark mentions a group of women, but names three in particular: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome. In the parallel passage in Matt. 27.55–56, the named women are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Mary the mother of Zebedee’s sons James and John. The mother of James and John also features in Matt 20:20–21. 218 Luke 8.1–3. 219 Luke names Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Suzanna (Luke 8:1–3). Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 315. Mary Magdalene and Joanna remain with Jesus for the remainder of Luke’s narrative and are present at Jesus’ crucifixion and burial along with Mary the mother of James (Luke 23:49, 55; 24:10). For an introduction to the women who followed Jesus see Bauckham, Gospel Women; Martin Hengel, “Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen,” in Jesus und die Evangelien, by Herausgegeben von Claus-Jürgen Thornton. Kleine Schriften V. WUNT 211 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 28–39; Jacqueline Lloyd, “The Women Who Followed Jesus,” Stimulus 20.2–3 (2013): 4–12; 24–31; and Ben Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 220 The Gospel of John also notes the presence of Mary Magdalene (John 19.25). Hengel, “Maria Magdalena,” 32. 221 Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 315–317. See also Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 221–24; Funk, Acts of Jesus, 292–293, 476. 222 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.76. 223 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.76. See also Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 317; Witherington III, Women and Christianity, 110.

200

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

disciples journeyed among the towns and villages of Galilee. Simply put, one need not dismiss the historical value of Mark’s summary statements which describe Jesus travelling throughout Galilee, simply on the basis that they belong to editorial material. As is evident in Luke 8.1–3, summary statements can record historically reliable data. Some have argued that we should not exaggerate the extent of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. Since much of the focus in the Gospel of Mark is on the region near the Sea of Galilee, and this is where most of the named settlements are located, it is argued that Jesus probably did not travel far from here, and when he did visit other villages these were probably only day trips.224 It is certainly true that Jesus could visit villages near Capernaum which were close enough to return home in the evening. However, it is hardly conceivable that Jesus would return home each night from a trip to villages in Upper Galilee, or in the southern hill country of Lower Galilee, or in western Lower Galilee, only to set out again the next day on the same road to visit villages within two or three kilometres of where they had been the day before. Moreover, our sources indicate that Jesus did not return each night to Capernaum. For example, after embarking on his first tour, Mark implies that it was some time before Jesus returned to Capernaum. This is indicated by the statement, “When he entered Capernaum again after some days…” (εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ διʼ ἡμερῶν), and in the response of the people when they heard he was home.225 In Jesus’ visit to Nazareth there is also a temporal gap between the day of his arrival, and the day of the Sabbath when Jesus preached in the synagogue.226 Elsewhere, Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples of the rewards due to those who have left homes and families to follow him.227 If Peter returned with Jesus each night to Capernaum, it could not be said that he had left his home and family to follow Jesus. Also, as noted in Chapter One, in a Q saying Jesus tells a would-be disciple the cost of itinerant ministry i.e. he has no home or place to lay his head.228 This Q saying is generally considered an early unit of tradition which probably originated with the historical Jesus.229 While the identity of the would-be disciple differs in the narrative contexts of Matthew and Luke, in both cases Jesus is taking to someone who wishes to follow him, which suggests that the saying probably originated in such a context. The Jesus Seminar adds that if Jesus was

224

See e.g. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 262; Goguel, Life of Jesus, 309; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 322. 225 Mark 2.1–2. 226 Mark 6.1–2. 227 Mark 10.28–30. 228 Q 9.58 [Matt 8.20; Luke 9.58]. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q, 152–1153. 229 Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 409; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 273; Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 160; Theissen, The First Followers, 10.

E. Implications for the historical Jesus

201

referring to himself, then “the saying suggests that Jesus is homeless,”230 but that in the context of Q, “Jesus warns a prospective follower that discipleship entails a homeless existence.”231 However, as noted in Chapter One, our sources tell us that Jesus initially had a home in Nazareth, which suggests that his itinerant and homeless lifestyle was a self-directed choice. He left his home, and called others to follow him, in order to reach all Israel. This saying also implies that Jesus’ itinerant ministry was ongoing, and there was no guarantee of hospitality.232 An extensive itinerant ministry is also indicated in Jesus’ instructions to the twelve ἀπóστολοι before he sent them out on mission. We have noted already that one of the probable reasons Jesus appointed an inner circle of twelve was so that he could send them out on mission.233 This in itself is an indication that Jesus meant to get his message out to all Galilee. Jesus also tells his disciples that when they are offered hospitality, they are to stay in that home until they leave town (ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν).234 It is likely that this instruction reflected Jesus’ own practice. Note also the variant instruction in Q,235 and in the Gospel of Thomas,236 which indicates that this practice is multiply attested.237 Finally, Jesus’ journeys to the regions around Galilee, also counter the claim that Jesus’ confined his ministry to the region around the Sea of Galilee and returned each evening to Capernaum.238 Finally, one might argue that Jesus’ itinerant ministry was not extensive given the relatively small size of the region. But as noted above, Jesus and his disciples were travelling on foot on narrow, winding, and unpaved roads, up and down hills, visiting as many as 200 towns and villages. The uneven terrain with its hills and valleys would significantly increase the surface area covered, and during the rainy season some of these roads would have been muddy or even impassable. One should also take account of the average height of individuals living in Galilee at that time. According to research on skeletal remains of Jewish persons living in Palestine during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, the average height was about 166 cm for males (i.e. 5 feet, 3.5 inches)

230

Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 161. Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 161. 232 Theissen, The First Followers, 10. 233 Mark 3.14–15; 6.7, 10, 12. Refer back to Chapter One. 234 Mark 6.10. 235 Q 10.5 (Matt. 10.11–12; Luke 10.5); Q 10.7–8 (Matt. 10.10b–11; Luke 9.4; 10. 7–8). 236 GTh 14.4a–b [Nag. Hammadi II.2]. 237 Nineham, Saint Mark, 168. 238 Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 103. The journeys to surrounding regions will be discussed in Chapters Five to Eight. 231

202

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

and 147 cm for females (i.e. 4 feet, 9.8 inches).239 Since Jesus’ travelling party included men and women who set out to reach as many towns and villages as possible, it is likely that they were on the road for extended periods of time. II. Why are there so few named settlements? If Jesus and his disciples travelled to many towns and villages in all Galilee, why are there so few named settlements in the Gospels, and why are they mostly located near the Sea of Galilee? One plausible answer is that given the large number of settlements in the region, and the purposes for which the traditions were formed, it was deemed unnecessary to name every single village Jesus visited. Moreover, most of these villages would have been unknown to anyone living outside the region, and by omitting their names the evangelists could conserve valuable writing space. The settlements which are mentioned by name, probably survived the traditioning process for very specific reasons. First, these towns may have been remembered because they were visited on multiple occasions. Capernaum would be a good example of this. Chorazin and Bethsaida may also fit this category, because according to a Q saying, a number of miracles were performed there.240 Also, Chorazin was probably only about four kilometres from Capernaum.241 Second, some settlements may have been remembered because an unusual and/or memorable incident took place there. Again, Capernaum would feature in this regard, also Bethsaida, Nain, and Cana. A third reason the names of some settlements were retained in the tradition was probably due to their association with Jesus or one or more of his disciples. As we have seen, Nazareth was the hometown of Jesus. Capernaum served as Jesus’ base of operations, and Peter and Andrew also had a house there. Capernaum may also have been the hometown of Levi, who appeared at the nearby toll booth, and of James and John who were fishermen along with Peter and Andrew. Magdala, as has been discussed, may have been the hometown of Mary Magdalene. Cana was remembered in the Gospel of John as the hometown of Nathaniel, and Bethsaida in Gaulanitis was remembered as the hometown of Philip, Andrew and Peter.242 239 Yossi Nagar, “Biological characteristics of Jewish burial in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods,” IEJ 53 (2003): 169. Shelly Wachsmann came to a slightly different conclusion based on analysis of skeletal remains from the Hellenistic through to the Byzantine period. She suggests the average height of a man to be about 5 feet, 5 ½ inches tall, and the average woman about 4 feet, 11 ½ inches tall. Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 314–317. Nonetheless, we can see that the average height of an individual living in Galilee during the Early Roman I period was significantly smaller than the average height of individuals living in western countries today. 240 See the notes on Chorazin above. Bethsaida will be discussed in the next chapter. 241 Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 75. 242 See Chapter Five for Bethsaida.

E. Implications for the historical Jesus

203

The focus in the Gospel of Mark on the Sea of Galilee and the settlements around the north-western shoreline may also be attributed to another factor. According to Mark, four of Jesus’ twelve ἀπóστολοι were fisherman: Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Therefore, they would have had an intimate knowledge of the lake and the settlements around the shore. These were also the first disciples to be called by Jesus, at least in the Gospel narratives, and apart from Levi, they were the only disciples for whom we have a detailed account of their calling.243 If these disciples played a key role in transmitting some of the traditions we find in Mark, then it would go a long way towards explaining why we have more detail about this region and the villages located there, than any other area of Galilee. If we add to this the fact that Philip was reportedly from Bethsaida, and Levi had worked at a toll booth near Capernaum, then half of the twelve ἀπóστολοι appointed by Jesus came from this region. It is not surprising therefore that the settlements in this region were retained in the traditions used by Mark. We can also add to this the prominent place of Simon Peter in Mark’s narrative,244 and the external testimony of Papias who claimed that Mark based his Gospel on the teaching of Peter.245 The value of Papias’ claim is a matter of debate, which I will not enter into here. However, it is worth noting that if Peter was indeed a primary source for Mark, or even a contributing source among others, it would go a long way toward explaining the focus on the Sea of Galilee in Mark, and the prominence of Peter in the Gospel.246 III. Why is there no explicit itinerary in Mark? Nearly a century ago it was noted by Schmidt that one cannot reconstruct an itinerary of Jesus based on the few temporal and topographical references in Mark.247 This has subsequently been noted by various scholars.248 For example, Hezser writes that Jesus’ movements: appear random and arbitrary … the places visited are not located geographically, nor is there a description of roads or routes. There is not even an attempt of constructing a logical

243

Mark 1.16–20. See also the parallel accounts in Matt. 4.18–22; Luke 5.1–11. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 50–53; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eye-witnesses, 155–182. 245 Papias is cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14. Justin Martyr also referred to the Gospels as the memoirs of the apostles, and he noted specifically the memoirs of Peter (Justin Martyr, Dial. 106.3). Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 47–50. 246 Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” EHJ 220. 247 Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, v–vii. 248 See e.g. McCown, “Gospel Geography,” 3–6; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 168; and Hezser, Jewish Travel, 42–43. 244

204

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

sequence of places visited. The places rather appear as dots scattered mainly around the northern part of the Sea of Galilee, with random crisscrossing lines between them.249

Certainly, we cannot know in which order the villages of Galilee were visited, when they were visited, and which routes were taken. However, the lack of an itinerary in Mark is explicable given the number of towns and villages in Galilee. If for the sake of the argument we say that Jesus and his disciples visited only half of the settlements in Galilee, it is likely that they would have crisscrossed the region a number of times, travelling along multiple unpaved roads in multiple directions. Moreover, given the focus of Graeco-Roman biography on the subject of the narrative, and revealing the subject’s character and significance through accounts of his words and deeds, it would not have served Mark’s purposes to name every settlement Jesus visited and the order in which they were visited. The summary statements make it clear enough that Jesus ministered in multiple towns and villages throughout the entire region.250 Nevertheless, while we may not be able to reconstruct an itinerary, there does appear to be a pattern in the way that Jesus undertook this mission. Mark states that Jesus began his itinerant ministry among the villages around Capernaum.251 Such villages probably included Chorazin and Bethsaida.252 Later Jesus is depicted travelling to Nazareth, and the villages around Nazareth.253 On another occasion Jesus arrives in the region of Gennesaret, and travels among the towns and villages there.254 Thus Jesus appears to have approached the task of reaching all Galilee by focusing on one geographical area at a time. It is plausible therefore that by the time Jesus set out for the regions of Tyre and Sidon, the Decapolis, and the villages of Caesarea Philippi,255 he had covered most if not all of Galilee. IV. Did Jesus attract large crowds? Mark records a number of occasions when Jesus attracted large crowds.256 In some instances the press of the crowds posed a potential health risk.257 On other 249

Hezser, Jewish Travel, 42–43. Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 102–103. 251 Mark 1.38. 252 A Q saying records that Jesus performed miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida and suggests that this occurred over an extended period of time (Q 10.13 [Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13]). Meier adds that the mention of Chorazin in this saying, a village “otherwise unattested as a locus of activity either by Jesus or by the early church, is itself an argument for the logion’s authenticity.” Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.740. 253 Mark 6.6b. 254 Mark 6.56. 255 Mark 7.24; Mark 5.1; 7.31; Mark 8.27 256 See e.g. Mark 1.32–33; 2.1–2, 13; 3.7–10; 4.1–2; 5.21, 24; 6.31, 33–34, 55–56; 7.17; 8.1, 9, 34. 257 Mark 3.9–10; 4.1; 5.24, 31, 56. 250

E. Implications for the historical Jesus

205

occasions the crowds pursued Jesus while he was travelling,258 impeding his movements and even detaining him.259 On two occasions the crowds prevented Jesus and his disciples from taking time out to eat.260 Bultmann argued that such references were examples of hyperbole. However, even genuine examples of hyperbole, such as Mark’s claim that on one occasion the whole town of Capernaum was gathered at the door,261 may be interpreted as an attempt to press home the point that it seemed like everyone was at the door. Surely it was the mounting congestion of the crowds in Capernaum that necessitated Jesus’ move to the lake as a better teaching location.262 Meier has investigated whether Jesus did attract large crowds, or whether the crowds were simply “a stage prop of the evangelists.”263 On the basis of multiple attestation (Mark, John, Q, M, & L), and multiple forms (i.e. both narrative accounts and sayings/logia), Meier concluded that Jesus did attract large crowds.264 This conclusion is supported by the fact that Galilee was a densely populated region. As I have argued, Galilee may have had a population size of 140,000–177,000 people. Also, Jesus quickly gained a reputation as a healer, a point about which most historical Jesus scholars agree. Moreover, according to Mark, crowds also came from as far afield as Judea, Idumea, the Transjordan, Tyre, and Sidon.265 Therefore, depictions of crowds following Jesus are not only historically plausible, but probable. Even Mark’s claim that one crowd consisted of 5,000 people,266 and another of 4,000,267 may be a plausible approximation, if not exact. Certainly these are round numbers, or as we might say “ball park” figures. But in a region where a few runners could carry news to the villages around Taricheae and Tiberias, and within a few hours raise a multitude to fill the hippodrome at Taricheae,268 it would be surprising indeed if the arrival of a reputed healer in the district did not quickly draw a crowd. In fact, Mark’s figures of 5,000 and 4,000 show a

258

Mark 5.24; 6.33, 54–56. See for example Mark 1.45; 2.2; 3.9; 5.22–24, 31; 6.32–34. 260 Mark 3.20; 6.31. 261 Mark 1.33; cf. 2.1–2. 262 Mark 2.13; 4.1; 5.21. Theissen suggests that the intensity of the crowds contributed to Jesus becoming itinerant. Theissen, “Itinerant Teacher,” 102. In fact, it is possible that Jesus settled in Capernaum because of the number of settlements near the north-western shoreline. Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala as we now know it,” 115. 263 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.22. 264 See his discussion in Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.21–30. 265 Mark 3.8. 266 Mark 6.44. In the parallel passage in Matthew this figure did not include the women and children (Matt. 15.38). 267 Mark 8.9. 268 War 2.598–599; cf. Life 129. 259

206

Chapter 4: Galilee: Population Density and Travel

degree of restraint when compared with Josephus’ claim that 100,000 assembled in the hippodrome at Taricheae.269 Moreover, if Jesus had not attracted large crowds he probably would not have been perceived as a threat by the ruling authorities.270 Jesus was not the only popular leader in the first century CE to draw large crowds. Josephus mentions a number of such leaders, including John the Baptist,271 Theudas,272 the so-called Egyptian,273 and the Samaritan.274 In each case the ruling authorities considered these men to be a threat because of their influence with the crowds, and they were summarily executed. Such was also the fate of Jesus.275 Jesus’ execution cannot be easily explained if he did not attract large crowds, and thereby come to the attention of the ruling authorities. If the historical Jesus did not attract crowds in their thousands, he almost certainly attracted crowds in their hundreds.276 In the next four chapters we will consider the regions around Galilee where Jesus is also said to have travelled, beginning in Chapter Five with Gaulanitis. In Chapter One I argued that one of the main reasons Jesus chose an itinerant form of ministry was to reach all Israel. It was probably also for this reason that Jesus extended his mission beyond Galilee to the regions round about. The next four chapters will draw attention to the Jewish communities living in these regions during the Early Roman I period, in areas that were considered by many Jews of the Second Temple period to be a part of Israel’s inheritance.277 We will also consider the interregional highways which connected these regions, and the likely routes Jesus may have taken. In short, these chapters will provide a basis for accepting Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled to the regions around Galilee.278 In fact, these journeys appear to have been a logical extension of Jesus’ ministry among the towns and villages of Galilee.

269

War 2.598. See e.g. Mark 11.18; Luke 23.2, 5; John 11.47–50. See also the discussion in Chapter One concerning the execution of John the Baptist and one reason for Jesus’ itinerancy. 271 Ant. 18.116–119. 272 Ant. 20.97–99. See also Acts 5.36. 273 Ant. 20.170; War 2.261–263. See also Acts 21.33–35. 274 Ant. 18.85–87. 275 Mark 12.12; 14.1–2; Luke 23.2, 5; and John 11.47–50. 276 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3.22. 277 Freyne, Jewish Galilean, 74–91; and Jesus Movement, 139–146. It will be discussed in detail in Chapter Six. 278 Mark 5.1; 7.24, 31; 8.22, 27. 270

Chapter 5

Jesus and Gaulanitis: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel A. Introduction A. Introduction

Several references situate Jesus in or on the way to Gaulanitis. On two occasions Mark refers to Bethsaida, a settlement located at the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, just east of the Jordan River, in the central Golan. This region, which was known to Josephus as Gaulanitis, was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. However, before we consider Jesus’ ministry among the towns and villages of Gaulanitis, we must first establish that he visited Bethsaida. I. Jesus at Bethsaida The first reference to Bethsaida in Mark occurs after the feeding of the 5,000, when Jesus sends his disciples across the lake to Bethsaida (εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν).1 In the second account Jesus heals a blind man after arriving in Bethsaida (ἔρχονται εἰς Βηθσαϊδάν).2 This account does not appear in Matthew and Luke. However, Luke places the feeding of the 5,000 in the vicinity of Bethsaida.3 A Q tradition provides further indication that Jesus visited 1

Mark 6.45. In Mark’s narrative the disciples encounter a head wind and do not arrive at Bethsaida but come ashore at Gennesaret (Mark 6.45–53). Mark may well have inserted additional material into the narrative at this point. Collins, Mark, 326, 333. Nonetheless, the reference to Bethsaida remains. These and other references to Bethsaida suggest that Jesus did visit the site. 2 Mark 8.22. 3 Luke 9:10. This differs from Mark’s narrative where Jesus sends his disciples on to Bethsaida after the feeding of the 5,000. For a discussion of the geographical difficulties see France, Gospel of Mark, 264–265. John states that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred on the far shore of the lake (John 6.1–2), which could conceivably place the feeding miracle in the Decapolis. However, in John’s account Jesus asks Philip where they can buy bread (John 6.5). It is of note that elsewhere we are told that Philp came from Bethsaida (John 1.44; 12.21). If Philip did come from Bethsaida and the feeding of the 5,000 occurred near the eastern shore, we might suppose that Jesus posed this question to Philip because he was familiar with the region. Despite the discrepancies between these accounts and Luke’s claim that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred in a deserted place (Luke 9.10–17), it does appear that

208

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Bethsaida.4 In this instance Jesus speaks of having performing mighty deeds at Bethsaida.5 Finally, John names Bethsaida as the hometown of the disciples Peter, Andrew, and Philip.6 Thus our two earliest sources Mark and Q locate Jesus in or near Bethsaida. Moreover, these two sources represent two different literary forms: narrative and sayings/logia. This dual attestation of sources and forms has led many New Testament scholars to accept the historical probability that Jesus did in fact visit Bethsaida.7 There are, however, some who have questioned this. Bultmann dismissed Mark’s claim that Jesus visited Bethsaida. His main objection was that according to Mark 8.23, Jesus healed the blind man outside a village (κώμη), and Bultmann argued that Bethsaida was not a village.8 This conclusion was probably based on Josephus’ statement that Philip the tetrarch raised the status of Bethsaida to a town/city (πóλις) and renamed it Julias in honour of Julia, the daughter of Augustus.9 It was also probably based on the assumption that this occurred prior to Julia’s exile in 2 BCE. However, as we will see, the status of Bethsaida was probably raised in 30 CE. Moreover, excavation of the site has revealed that even after this date the settlement remained little more than a large village.10 Thus Mark was not inaccurate in denoting Bethsaida a village.11 Bultmann’s second objection was that the reference to Bethsaida in Mark 8.22 appears in editorial material, which he argued was designed to provide stories with a geographical or chronological context. Thus he dismissed the possibility that Bethsaida appeared in pre-Markan tradition.12 Bultmann was

Bethsaida was linked in some way with the tradition. Richard A. Freund, “Ereimos: Was Bethsaida a ‘Lonely Place’ in the First Century CE,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.183–209. 4 Q 10.13 (Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13). Robinson, et.al., The Critical Edition of Q, 182– 183. 5 This will be discussed later in this chapter. 6 John 1.44; 12.21. 7 See e.g. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2. 690–694; and Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Bethsaida in the Gospel of Mark,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.115–124. It should be noted, however, that Meier thought Jesus visited a small fishing village known as Bethsaida, rather than the site that was upgraded and renamed Julias. France came to the same conclusion. France, Mark, 324. 8 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 213. 9 Josephus, Ant. 18.28. See also Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71; and Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.16.4. 10 The identity and status of Bethsaida will be discussed below. 11 This point is also noted by Marcus, Mark 8–16, 593. 12 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 213. Kuhn also discounts the possibility that the topographical reference to Bethsaida in Mark 8.22 was found in pre-Markan tradition. However, Kuhn argues that Mark may have placed the name there based on its

A. Introduction

209

correct to note that the topographical reference in Mark 8.22 belonged to Mark’s editorial material, but his assumption that it was an addition, or fabrication, does not necessarily follow. There are accounts of miracles in Mark that are not attached to any named village.13 Therefore one cannot argue that Mark felt the need to supply place names where these were lacking in his source material. Also, as noted in Chapter One, it is plausible that Mark knew of stories and sayings of Jesus which preserved the place names of locations where Jesus was active. One of these was probably Bethsaida, since the reference to Bethsaida in Mark 6.45 does not belong to editorial material.14 Kloppenborg also discounts Mark’s claim that Jesus healed a man in Bethsaida, because Mark writes that Jesus led the man outside the village.15 However, we need not imagine that this healing took place a long way from the village. Mark might simply be indicating that they walked outside the village entrance to find a private place nearby. Meier notes a number of elements in Mark 8.22–25 which suggest that there is a “historical core to the story.”16 Mark describes Jesus spitting in the eyes of the blind man, and healing him in two stages after the first attempt was only partially successful. These elements may have been embarrassing for the early church and perhaps the reason why Matthew and Luke did not include this account in their works. The story also contains a number of hapax legomena which are concentrated at the core of the story in Mark 8.23–25.17 This suggests we are dealing with pre-Markan tradition here and that Mark has retained the core of the tradition with very little reworking. John Rousseau, a member of the Jesus Seminar, also argues that Jesus probably did heal a blind man at

appearance in Mark 6.45, and because Mark knew of “Jesus’ general activity at Bethsaida.” Kuhn, “Bethsaida in the Gospel of Mark,” 121, 124. 13 This point is also noted by Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.692. See e.g. the healing of the man with leprosy (Mark 1.40–42), or the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5.35–42). In both cases the village where these miracles occurred is not named. 14 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 597. As noted above, the disciples did not arrive in Bethsaida on this occasion (Mark 6.45), and Mark may have inserted additional material at this point in his narrative for theological reasons. He seems to have delayed the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida to a later point in the narrative where it can symbolise the disciples’ slowness to perceive Jesus’ identity. In doing so he has shifted the subsequent account of Peter’s declaration of Jesus as Messiah to a more central location in the narrative (Mark 8.27–29). Collins, Mark, 333. It is clear from this that Mark felt free to arrange his material as he saw fit, but it is doubtful that Mark invented the place name Bethsaida. 15 Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 71. 16 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.692, 693–694. 17 These include ἐπιλαμβάνομαι, ὄμμα, δένδρον, διαβλέπω, and τηλαυγῶς. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.694 n. 76.

210

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Bethsaida. He bases this on the criterion of embarrassment, as does Meier, and the fact that the account coheres with Jesus’ sociohistorical context.18 Further support for Jesus’ ministry in Bethsaida comes from the Q saying in which Jesus condemned the villages of Chorazin and Bethsaida.19 It reads: Οὐαί σοι, Χοραζίν, οὐαί σοι, Βηθσαϊδά· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγεν[ήθησαν]20 αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ21 μετενόησαν.22 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.”

This saying suggests that Bethsaida was one of the villages at the centre of Jesus’ ministry, and that he performed mighty deeds there.23 It also implies that these deeds occurred over an extended period of time, for it is claimed that if the deeds performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been performed in Tyre and Sidon the inhabitants of these cities would have repented “long ago” (πάλαι).24 Thus the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida had sufficient time to respond to Jesus’ message. The extended period of time would also have enabled Jesus to make a number of trips to Bethsaida. The Jesus Seminar argue that this saying reflects the failure of an early Christian mission to these towns.25 This view goes back to Bultmann who argued that since this saying looks back on a ministry already completed it must have been a “community formulation” reflecting the failure of Christian preaching in these villages.26 However, the retrospective view in this Q saying need not be attributed to a post-Easter setting. Jesus could have made a statement like this toward the end of his Galilean ministry, and Matthew and Luke certainly attribute this saying to Jesus. Furthermore, there is no direct witness to a post-Easter, early Christian mission to these towns. Kloppenborg discusses this Q saying in terms of what it may reveal about the provenance of the Q community, and the response of these villages to the preaching of Q’s envoys.27 He adds that the saying belongs to a redactional stage of Q’s formation reflecting the “imaginative map of the framers of Q,” 18 John J. Rousseau, “The Healing of the Blind Man at Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 1.257–265. 19 Q 10.13 (Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13). 20 Or Matthew’s ἐγεν[οντο]. 21 Luke’s [καθήμενοι]. 22 Robinson, et.al., The Critical Edition of Q, 182. 23 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.692. 24 The use of πάλαι in Matthew 11.21 and Luke 10.13 “pertains to a point of time in the past, long ago…” Danker, ed. Greek-English Lexicon, 751. 25 Funk, The Five Gospels, 181. 26 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 112. 27 Kloppernborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 61–90, esp. 82.

A. Introduction

211

and is therefore not merely “the accidental consequence of the historical Jesus’ activity in Galilee.”28 In the critical edition of Q the woe directed at Chorazin and Bethsaida (Q 10.13) appears in the midst of Jesus’ mission instructions to his disciples (Q 10.2–16). This is also how the material appears in Luke 10.10– 16. Therefore, Kloppenborg may be correct in asserting that these woes were a secondary insertion into an earlier block of mission instructions.29 He adds that the themes of judgement and repentance in this saying suggest that it belonged to the “final stage of Q’s composition.”30 Yet even if this is correct, it need not mean that this woe reflects the preaching of Q envoys or the “imaginative map of the framers of Q.”31 As Kloppenborg elsewhere argues, “It is quite possible, indeed probable, that some of the materials from the secondary compositional phase are dominical.”32 Indeed the theme of repentance is consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and as noted in Chapter One, it appears in the teaching of John the Baptist and was deeply rooted in Israel’s prophetic traditions. Also, in Matthew this woe was not inserted into a mission discourse. It was placed after Jesus’ discourse on John the Baptist. This suggests that the Q saying was an early unit of tradition which may have circulated independently. Its later insertion into the mission discourse in Q need not mean that it was a late formulation. Moreover, while the theme of repentance does reflect the teaching of the early church, the warning directed at Chorazin and Bethsaida and the favourable portrayal of Tyre and Sidon are in keeping with Jesus’ tendency to speak provocatively.33 It also reflects a time when Tyre and Sidon had not yet heard the gospel. This points to an early date for this saying because by the fifties there seems to have been a Christian community in these cities.34 Therefore, 28

Kloppernborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 66. Kloppernborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 66–67. 30 Kloppernborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 69. 31 Kloppernborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 66, 82. 32 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 245. 33 Kuhn, “Bethsaida in the Gospel of Mark,” 116; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 51. 34 Acts 21.3–6; 27.3. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 344; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 52; and Kuhn, “Bethsaida in the Gospel of Mark,” 117. This conclusion is dependent upon the historical reliability of Acts and its depiction of Christian communities in Tyre and Sidon by the fifties CE. See Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3. 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 3079–3085. The question of the historical value of Acts has been rigorously debated in recent years. One issue concerns the date of Acts and whether it was a first or second century CE work. However, the evidence supporting a first century CE date (ca. 70–100 CE) is stronger and accepted by many scholars. There is also debate over the genre of Acts. Richard Pervo has argued that Acts shares features in common with ancient novels. Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987). However, many of the features common to Acts and ancient novels can also be found in historical works. Also, novels do not tend to use sources in the way the author of Acts does or leave the storylines of some characters 29

212

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

this tradition probably conveys Jesus’ reflection on the lack of response to his miracles in these villages.35 Moreover, if Jesus was an itinerant prophet ministering in this area of Galilee from ca. 28 CE to 30 CE, would early Christian missionaries or Q envoys in the following two decades tread the same ground, visit the same villages, and preach roughly the same message, if the people did not respond the first time when Jesus was actually among them? According to Mark and Q, Jesus gave his twelve ἀπóστολοι specific instructions concerning villages that did not welcome them: they were to shake the dust off their feet and move on.36 If Jesus instructed his disciples to move on when faced with unresponsive villages, it seems unlikely that his disciples would conduct a mission to Galilean villages that failed to respond to Jesus’ message when he was among them. In fact, while a few sources indicate that some of Jesus’ disciples did return to Galilee after his crucifixion,37 none indicate that they continued to preach in Galilean villages. Rather, all indications are that they did move on.38 There is good reason therefore to accept the claim that Jesus visited Bethsaida. This is indicated by its attestation in two early sources, Mark and Q. It is strengthened by the criterion of embarrassment, and the probability that Mark 8.22–26 belonged to pre-Markan tradition. Furthermore, according to John, Bethsaida was the hometown of at least one, and possibly three of Jesus’ disciples.39 It is not inconceivable therefore that at least one of these disciples

without closure. Acts also appears as a sequel to Luke. However, while it does not fit well within the genre of Graeco-Roman biography, as the Gospel of Luke does, it does fall within the genre of ancient historiography. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1. Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 383–401. As for the content of Acts, many details cannot be corroborated, some are difficult to reconcile with other sources, and still others have proven to be remarkably accurate. Nonetheless, given the rapid spread of Christianity into Syria and Asia Minor in the first century CE, the author may well be correct in noting that Paul met with believers in Tyre and Sidon during his journeys to Jerusalem and Rome. Finally, reading Acts in its first-century context has opened new avenues of research and led to increased collaboration between New Testament scholars, Ancient Historians, and Classicists. Note for example the series by Bruce W. Winter, ed., The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vols. 1–5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993–1999). See also Alanna Nobbs, “What do Ancient Historians Make of the New Testament?” TynBul 57.2 (2006): 285–290. 35 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 51; Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 343–344. 36 Mark 6.11; Q 10.10–11 (Matt. 10.14; Luke 10.10–11). 37 Matt. 28.16; John 21.1. This is also implied in Mark 16.7. 38 It appears that the leaders of the Jesus movement initially established a new base of operations in Jerusalem (Acts 3.1; 4.1–3, 5; 8.1; Gal. 1.18–19; 2.1, 9), although Luke indicates that there were believers still in Galilee (Acts 9.31). See the relevant discussions concerning these references in Acts in Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2. 3.1–14.28 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). 39 John 1.44; 12.21.

A. Introduction

213

had friends and family living in the village, and would wish Jesus to visit them. In fact, he probably visited the village on numerous occasions. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Bethsaida was located only a few kilometres from Capernaum.40 It could be accessed relatively easily by following the coastal road and crossing into Gaulanitis at a ford on the Jordan River, or by rowing or sailing across the north-western stretch of the Sea of Galilee. Moreover, as we shall see, Bethsaida had a predominantly Jewish population during the first century CE. Therefore, as an itinerant prophet to Israel, Jesus would have good reason to visit the site. II. Jesus and the other towns and villages of Gaulanitis A more pressing question is whether Jesus travelled beyond Bethsaida to the other towns and villages of Gaulanitis. In his efforts to locate the Q community, Reed notes that the nine place names which appear in Q form three concentric circles around one concentrated area: the northern end of the Sea of Galilee and the settlements of Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida.41 His observation is instructive, even though he attributes Q 10.13 to the experience of a Q community located in Capernaum, rather than to the experience of the historical Jesus in the region.42 These three settlements, Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida, formed the geographical centre of Jesus’ ministry as depicted in Q, and these settlements straddled Galilee and Gaulanitis. Therefore, given Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled to other towns and villages in Galilee,43 it is highly probable that he also extended his ministry eastward beyond Bethsaida to the other towns and villages in Gaulanitis. Mark records Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee on at least six occasions,44 although these journeys were probably representative of many such crossings. These journeys may be explained by Mark’s claim that four of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen, two of whom appear to have had access to a fishing boat.45 40 Rami Arav and Carl E. Savage, “Bethsaida,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.258–279. 41 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 182–189. 42 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 184–185. 43 Mark 1.39; 6.6b, 56. 44 For references in Mark to travel on the Sea of Galilee see Mark 4.35–36; 5.1, 21; 6.32, 45–47, 53; 8.10, 13, 22. 45 Mark 1.16–20. Apparently, the call of the fishermen in Mark 1.18 did not leave them without the means to access a boat when needed. See France, Gospel of Mark, 154. On a related point, one might assume that only Jesus and the twelve made these journeys across the lake. Yet on at least one occasion Mark records that other boats went with them (Mark 4.36). On other occasions Jesus taught the crowds near the Sea of Galilee (Mark 2.13; 3.7– 10; 4.1; 6.34; 8.1, 10. Cf. 5.21), and on one of these occasions he had a boat made ready in the event that he might need to escape the crush of the crowd (Mark 3.9). On another occasion Jesus sat in a boat teaching while the crowd sat on the shoreline listening (Mark 4.1–2).

214

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

While none of these boat journeys explicitly mentions Jesus and his disciples coming ashore in Gaulanitis, it is likely that some journeys did. On one occasion Mark describes Jesus and his disciples coming ashore in the district of Dalmanutha.46 While this topographical reference has several textual problems and its geographical identification is uncertain, Bauckham may be correct in proposing that Dalmanutha was in Gaulanitis.47 Yet if Jesus did travel to other towns and villages in Gaulanitis, why is there no mention of this in Mark, or any of the canonical Gospels? This chapter aims to demonstrate that Gaulanitis was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. It was dotted with towns and villages which shared a similar settlement history to Galilee and had close cultural ties with Galilee. This chapter will also show that while Gaulanitis was recognised as a distinct geographical district located east of the Jordan River, and politically and administratively separate from Galilee,48 for many Jews in first century CE Palestine, Gaulanitis was perceived to be culturally linked with Galilee.49 As we will see, the term “Galilee” was sometimes used in a broad cultural sense to denote the whole region of Jewish settlement in the north, which included Gaulanitis. Therefore, the summary statements in Mark which depict Jesus travelling among the towns and villages of Galilee,50 should probably be understood as including the Jewish villages of Gaulanitis. We will also see that Gaulanitis was easily accessible from Galilee, either by road or across the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, given that Jesus functioned as an itinerant prophet to Israel, he would have had good reason to extend his ministry beyond Bethsaida to the other towns and villages of Gaulanitis.

B. The boundaries of Gaulanitis B. The boundaries of Gaulanitis

Before we discuss the settlements of Gaulanitis it is important to define the boundaries of the region. Numerous scholars have referred to Gaulanitis but there are varying understandings about the geographical extent and boundaries of the region. Gaulanitis is situated within the broader geographical and geological region known as the “Golan” (Arabic: Jaulan), which extends from Mount Hermon in the north to the Yarmuk River in the south.51 It is widely 46

Mark 8.10. Richard Bauckham, “Where was Dalmanutha? Mark 8:10,” in Texts and Contexts: Gospels and Pauline Studies, ed. Todd D. Still (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 23–29. This will be discussed later in this chapter. 48 During the decades that Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas (4 BCE–39 CE), the region of Gaulanitis was ruled by his brother Philip (4 BCE–34 CE) (Ant. 18.106). 49 This will be discussed further below. 50 See e.g. Mark 1.39; 6.6b, 56. 51 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525; Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 24. 47

B. The boundaries of Gaulanitis

215

recognised that the southern Golan belonged to the Decapolis cities of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara during the Roman period. Therefore, Gaulanitis is often identified with the central and northern Golan.52 However, Josephus does not use the term in this way. Josephus is the first extant writer in antiquity to use the term “Gaulanitis” (Γαυλανιτικὴ/Γαυλανίτιδα) as a regional designation.53 Prior to Josephus, the term “Golan” (‫ )גולן‬appeared in the Hebrew Scriptures, with variant spellings, to denote a “city of refuge” or settlement in the region of Bashan.54 Josephus refers to this settlement when he mentions a “city of refuge” called Gaulana (Γαυλανά) in Batanea.55 He also uses the name Gaulana/Gaulane (Γαυλανά/Γαυλάνην) to refer to a settlement in the same region as Gamla and Seleucia. These settlements, and their districts, were under the rule of Demetrius in the first century BCE, but were conquered by Alexander Jannaeus.56 It was probably the conquest of Alexander Jannaeus, and subsequent Jewish settlement in the area, that led to the formation of a distinct and predominantly Jewish region which derived its name from the conquered settlement of Gaulane.57 Josephus refers to Gaulanitis on seventeen occasions,58 but unlike Galilee, he does not define its boundaries. Nonetheless, a few references provide a sense of the location and extent of the region during the first century CE. Josephus describes Gaulanitis as one of three regions which bordered Galilee in the east.

52 See e.g. Richard B. Vinson, “Gaulanitis,” NIDB, 2.526; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 178–179; Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, 166 [Map 18]; E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1981), xvi; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 216; and Tim Dowley, ed. The Atlas of the Bible and the History of Christianity (Swindon: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1997), 59. 53 See e.g. War 2.168, 574; 3.37; and Life 187. Cf. Ant. 18.4. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 178; Dan Urman, “Public Structures and Jewish Communities in the Golan Heights,” in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 2.424. 54 See e.g. Deut. 4.43; 1 Chron. 6.56 (1 Chron. 6.71); and the corrupted forms of the name in Josh. 20.8; 21.27. 55 Ant. 4.173. Eusebius also refers to the town of Gaulana (Γαυλανά) in Batanea (Onom. 64.6). Interestingly, he adds that the surrounding region shared the same name as the village. 56 Ant. 13.393–394; War 1.90, 105. 57 Moshe Hartal, “History of Rafid on the Background of the History of Northern Transjordan,” in Dan Urman, Rafid on the Golan—A Profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine Village, ed. Shimon Dar, Moshe Hartal, and Etan Ayalon. BAR International Series 1555 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2006), 271. Urman suggests the term “Gaulanitis” originated with “a Roman administrative division enacted after the Great Revolt.” Urman, “Public Structures,” in Ancient Synagogues, 2.380. However, as we will see, the need to distinguish this region from the predominantly Gentile settlements to the north and south occurred long before 70 CE. 58 Urman, “Public Structures,” 424.

216

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

The other two regions were the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara.59 Thus Josephus distinguishes Gaulanitis geographically from Galilee in the west,60 and the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara in the southern Golan.61 Josephus also distinguishes Gaulanitis geographically from the district of Paneas in the northern Golan. He writes that Philip the tetrarch, built Caesarea (i.e. Caesarea Philippi) in the district of Paneas near the sources of the Jordan River, and he raised the status of Julias (i.e. Bethsaida) in lower Gaulanitis.62 Josephus never locates Paneas in Gaulanitis.63 Rather, he states that Paneas and its surrounding district, which included the southern end of Mount Hermon and the Huleh Valley (Ulatha), had been Iturean territory under the rule of the Iturean king Zenodorus until it passed to Herod the Great in 20 BCE.64 Thus Josephus distinguishes Jewish Gaulanitis in the central Golan from the predominantly Gentile district of Paneas, formerly Iturea, in the northern Golan. Josephus also states that Seleucia, Gamla, Bethsaida/Julias, Sogane, and Solyma were situated in Gaulanitis,65 and as we will see, those that have been identified are located in the central Golan.66 It seems evident therefore that Josephus used the term “Gaulanitis” to denote the predominantly Jewish region of settlement in the central Golan,67 distinct from the district of Hippos/Sussita in the south and the district of Paneas in the north. This conclusion is now supported by archaeology. Surface surveys and excavations in the central Golan have revealed a material culture during the Early Roman I period which is different from that found in the northern and southern 59

War 3.37. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 27. 61 See e.g. Josephus, Ant. 14.74–76; War 1.155–157. See also Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.46; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.74; and Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.15.22. 62 War 2.168; Ant. 18.28. The district of Paneas, modern Banias, was named after the sanctuary of Pan (War 1.404; 2.95). 63 See also Polybius, Hist. 16.18.2; 28.1.3; and Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71, 74. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 26. 64 Ant. 15.359–363; War 1.400–406; 2.95. See also Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 54.9.3; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.10. Sean Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans. A Study of Regional Contrasts in the Hellenistic Age,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquities Series 13 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) 206; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 272–273. 65 War 2.168, 574; Ant. 13.396; Life 187. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 28, 30. It should be noted, however, that on one occasion Josephus seems to imply that Seleucia near Lake Semechonitis (Lake Huleh) lay just outside of Gaulanitis (War 4.2). Josephus also divided the region into Upper Gaulanitis and Lower Gaulanitis, corresponding to the elevated plateaux in the northeast, and the lower hills and valleys in the southwest (War 4.3). 66 The exact location of Seleucia, Sogane, and Solyma are still in dispute. Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 24–30; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526; R.C. Gregg and D. Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), xxiii and Map i. 67 War 2.168, 574; 4.2; Ant. 13.396; Life 187. Urman, “Public Structures,” 380, 423–427. 60

B. The boundaries of Gaulanitis

217

Golan.68 The northern Golan was a predominantly Gentile region, exhibiting a material culture indicative of Iturean and Syro-Phoenician peoples. Following the death of Herod in 4 BCE, the region passed to Philip the tetrarch, along with Gaulanitis.69 The southern Golan belonged to the Graeco-Roman cities of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara. These districts were also predominantly Gentile during the Early Roman I period. Thus an increasing number of scholars are recognising that the Golan during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods was divided into three distinct regions: the region of Paneas in the north, the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara in the south, and Gaulanitis in the centre.70 As Moshe Hartal writes: Gaulanitis district was created following Jannaeus’ conquests, in the area between the territory of Hippos/Sussita and the Iturean domains in the northern Golan Heights … Because Jewish Gaulanitis bordered on pagan territories north and south of it, its boundaries can be determined by the extent of Jewish settlement as reflected in the … material culture, especially the variation and distribution of ceramic vessels within Golan and outside of it.71

On the basis of material culture, Hartal traces the northern boundary of Gaulanitis in a diagonal line from the southern end of Lake Huleh in the northwest to Rafid in the southeast.72 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz situates the northern boundary a little further north at Naḥal Shu’aḥ,73 and both Ma‘oz and Hartal trace the southern boundary roughly from Naḥal Samakh (i.e. Wadi es-Samakh) in the southwest, to Rafid in the northeast.74 These ethnographic boundaries help distinguish the predominantly Jewish region of the central Golan from the predominantly Gentile regions of the northern and southern Golan. However, it must be stressed that the actual boundaries of Gaulanitis are unknown. Therefore, these boundaries are approximate rather than exact.75 Also, during the reign of Philip the 68

Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525. Josephus, Ant. 15.360; War 1.400; 2.95; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20, 46. Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271. 70 See e.g. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525–526; Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 24–30; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 270–278; and Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, xxiii and map i. See also the map of the Golan in Mittmann and Schmitt, eds. Tübingen Bible Atlas, Map BV 18. 71 Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271. 72 Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 272 [Map 5]. 73 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525. 74 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271, 272; Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 25–26 [Map 1]. 75 There were also scattered Jewish communities north and south of these boundaries, and isolated fragments of “Golan ware,” commonly associated with the Itureans, have been found in the central Golan. Moshe Hartal, “The Use of Pottery as a Tool for the Definition of Provincial Borders,” in In the Hill-Country, and in the Shepheleh, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey, ed. Shay Bar (Jerusalem: Arial Publishing House, 2008), 211. 69

218

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

tetrarch, there was no political boundary between Gaulanitis and the region of Paneas, since both regions belonged to Philip’s tetrarchy. The Huleh Valley was located in the Jordan Rift valley,76 but it was linked with the district of Paneas during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.77 The presence of Jewish settlements at the southern end of the valley near Lake Huleh seems to have marked the northern limit of Hasmonean control in the first century BCE.78 However, there are some indicators of Jewish settlement to the east and northeast of Lake Huleh which continued into the Early Roman I period. Thus, it is not clear exactly where the northernmost boundary of Gaulanitis was situated in the valley. If it was located at Naḥal Shu’aḥ as Ma‘oz proposes,79 this would capture most but not all of these Jewish communities.80 Danny Syon proposes the boundary be set further north at Tel Yardinon, due to the discovery of Hasmonean coins and other aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem at sites further north in the Huleh Valley.81 However, Josephus seems to indicate that the Hasmoneans did not retain their hold on the Huleh Valley,82 and the majority of settlements in the valley have a material culture indicative of a Gentile population. Thus, it seems best to discuss the Jewish settlements in the Huleh Valley as part of the broader region of the northern Golan.83 The central Golan was the main region of Jewish settlement in the Golan during the first centuries BCE and CE,84 and the ethnographic boundaries proposed by Ma‘oz and Hartal help establish its approximate area. This region, known as Gaulanitis, came under the administrative responsibility of Josephus

76 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni state that the Huleh Valley was situated between Upper Galilee and the Golan, but during the Early Roman I period, Upper Galilee did not include the Galilee panhandle as it does today. Idan Shaked and Dina Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Southeastern Hula Valley in the First Century CE,” in Douglas R. Edwards, ed., Religion and Society, 28; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271. 77 Both areas were part of the territory of the Iturean king Zenodorus (Ant. 15.359–360; War 1.400). 78 Wolfgang Zwickel, “The Huleh Valley from the Iron Age to the Muslim Period,” in Zangenberg, et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity, 179. See also Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 272 [Map 5]. 79 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525. 80 The village of Ureifiya is a case in point. Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30, 32. 81 Syon, Small Change, 157, 182. 82 Josephus claimed that Alexander Jannaeus took the Valley/Ravine of Antiochus, which is generally identified with the Huleh Valley, but he does not seem to have captured the city of Antiochia (Ant. 17.24). It is not included in the list of conquered cities (Ant. 13.393–397; War 1.105). Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 36; Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 114. 83 This will be covered in Chapter Six. 84 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 178.

C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis

219

during the First Jewish Revolt.85 So let us consider what the literary sources say about Gaulanitis, its settlements, and the ethnicity of its population. We will then consider what has been discovered through archaeology.

C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis

The names given to the Hellenistic city of Seleucia in the central Golan, and the Valley of Antiochus in the northern Golan,86 indicate that both regions were part of the Seleucid Empire during the Early Hellenistic period. Josephus writes that Alexander Jannaeus conquered Seleucia, Gaulane, and the fortress of Gamla, and therefore incorporated the central Golan into the Hasmonean Kingdom (ca. 83–81 BCE).87 This region then became known as Gaulanitis. Josephus recognises that Gaulanitis was a region geographically distinct from Galilee.88 He also notes that for most of the first century CE, Gaulanitis was a separate administrative district. From 4 BCE–34 CE Gaulanitis belonged to the tetrarchy of Philip, whereas from 4 BCE–39 CE Galilee was part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas.89 From 44–93 CE Gaulanitis was one of the territories of Agrippa II.90 Nonetheless, Josephus conveys the impression that by the first century CE Gaulanitis was a predominantly Jewish region with close cultural and economic ties to Galilee.91 Thus when Josephus was sent by the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to govern Galilee in 66 CE, the assignment included administrative responsibility for Gaulanitis.92 Therefore Josephus fortified the settlements of Gamla, Seleucia, and Sogane/Soganaea in Gaulanitis.93 Also, when Sulla the commander of Agrippa II’s army blockaded the roads near Bethsaida to cut off supplies from Galilee to Seleucia and Gamla,

85 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 25–26; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271, 272 [Map 5]. 86 Ant. 13.393–394; War 1.104–105. 87 Ant. 13.393–394; War 1.104–105. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 1.283; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2:526; Urman, “Public Structures,” 379. 88 Josephus lists Gaulanitis among the regions that marked the eastern boundary of Galilee (War 3.37). 89 Ant. 18.106. For a brief period after the death of Philip Gaulanitis was annexed to Syria (Ant. 18.108), then later passed to Agrippa I (37–44 CE). 90 Ant. 20.138. Although Nero added the towns of Tiberias and Taricheae to the territory of Agrippa II (War 20.159). Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2:526. 91 One exception to this is Josephus’ claim that during the First Jewish Revolt, parties of Jews sacked Syrian villages in Gaulanitis (War 2.459). Apart from this, Josephus conveys the impression of a predominantly Jewish region, and this is supported by archaeology. 92 War 2.568. 93 Life 186–187; War 2.574. Mordechai Aviam, “Fortified Settlements of Josephus,” in The Great Revolt in the Galilee, 39–52.

220

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Josephus and his forces, with reinforcements from Taricheae, engaged Sulla’s forces and brought an end to the blockade.94 Yet while Josephus recognises Gaulanitis as a separate administrative and geographical district, he also recognises that Gaulanitis was culturally linked with Galilee. In fact, he sometimes uses the term “Galilee” in a broader cultural sense to denote the whole area of Jewish settlement in the north, which included Gaulanitis. Thus he describes Gamla as the strongest city in Galilee,95 and after noting that Galilee would bear the brunt of the Roman attack, he writes that he fortified settlements in Galilee and Gaulanitis.96 Josephus also refers to the prominent Jewish rebel leader from Gamla as “Judas the Gaulanite” (Γαυλανίτης),97 and “Judas the Galilean.”98 Thus Dan Urman writes, “Josephus reflects the Jewish conception which regards Jewish sites in the Golan as inseparable from the Jewish Galilee.”99 This perception that the term “Galilee” could be understood in a broader cultural sense to denote the whole area of Jewish settlement in the north, including Gaulanitis, was not restricted to Josephus. It appears to have been a common understanding among the Jews of Palestine during the Roman period. This may explain the noticeable absence of any mention of Gaulanitis in the Gospels, even though the settlement of Bethsaida is mentioned. In the Q saying where Jesus censures three towns which did not repent,100 Chorazin and Bethsaida are linked together even though one was located in Galilee, and the other in Gaulanitis. As Theissen writes: As far as local perspective…the two towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida are closely related to one another … In the first four decades of the first century CE they were separated by a political frontier … [but] the boundary vanished at the Jordan and was artificially drawn, since the Jews on both sides of the border considered themselves united … The mention of both cities in a logion that goes back to the first half of the century clearly reflects a popular sense of belonging together that long outlasted artificial political boundaries.101

The perception that Galilee could be understood in a broader cultural sense to include Gaulanitis may also explain why John identifies Bethsaida as a town in Galilee (Βηθσαϊδὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας).102 It may also explain why Mark

94

Life 398–406. War 2.568. 96 Life 186–187; War 2.573–574. 97 Ant. 18.4. 98 War 2.118; Ant. 18.23. Josephus claims that Judas from Gamla was also the founder of the Jewish “fourth philosophy” (Ant. 18.4–10, 23). 99 Urman, “Public Structures,” 380. See also Syon, Small Change, 22. 100 Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13. 101 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 50. 102 John 12.21. The second century geographer Ptolemy also located Bethsaida/Julias in Galilee (Geogr. 5.16.4). The identification of Bethsaida in Galilee should not be taken to 95

C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis

221

describes people coming from the regions around Galilee to see Jesus, but he makes no mention of Gaulanitis.103 It is plausible, therefore, that when Mark describes Jesus travelling among the towns and villages of Galilee,104 he is including in this designation Bethsaida and the other Jewish settlements in Gaulanitis. The same perspective is reflected in Tannaitic sources which refer to the three provinces or regions (‫ )שלוש ארצות‬of Jewish settlement in the land of Israel. These were Judea, the Transjordan, and Galilee.105 In these sources Gaulanitis was considered a part of Galilee, and not part of the Transjordan, for in the Sipre version, Gamla is listed as one of the cities of Galilee.106 Thus the political and geographical boundary between Galilee and Gaulanitis during the Roman period after 4 BCE, appears to have had little bearing on the cultural perceptions of those Jews living these regions. As we will see in our discussion below, after Alexander Jannaeus added Gaulanitis to the Hasmonean kingdom,107 Jewish migrants began to settle there.108 They forged strong cultural and economic ties with those living in Galilee for they lived in close geographical proximity and shared a common ethnicity and settlement history. This close connection between Galilee and Gaulanitis was probably reinforced when Pompey severed the predominantly Gentile districts of Hippos/Sussita, Gadara, and Beth Shean/Scythopolis from the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE.109 This action geographically separated Galilee and Gaulanitis from the Jewish territories in the south. Gaulanitis was separated from the predominantly Jewish region of Perea, and Galilee was separated from Judea by Samaria and the predominantly Gentile district of Beth Shean/Scythopolis. Literary sources are unclear as to the administration of Gaulanitis from 63 BCE until 4 BCE. Scholars have generally presumed that the region was severed from the Jewish administration, along with the rest of the Golan and the Decapolis, and attached to Syria.110 Yet nowhere does Josephus or any other mean there were two Bethsaidas, one in Galilee and one in Gaulanitis. This will be discussed further below. 103 Mark 3.8. 104 Mark 1.38–39; 6.6b; 6.56. 105 M. Šeb. 9.2; m. Ketub. 13.10; m. B. Bat. 3.2; t. Sanh. 2.3; and Sipre BeHar 4.1. These are noted by Ben David, “204 Settlements in Galilee,” 28. 106 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 29. 107 Ant. 13.393–394; War 1.104–105. 108 The arrival of Jewish migrants in the region, as we will see, is indicated by the shift in material culture. 109 Ant. 14.74–76; War 1.155–156. 110 See e.g. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 121; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Betsaida/Bethsaida–Julias (et-Tell): Die ersten 25 Jahre der Ausgrabung (1987–2011) mit

222

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

ancient source state this.111 Some also suggest that Gaulanitis was later gifted to Herod the Great,112 perhaps when Augustus granted him the towns of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara in 30 BCE,113 or when he granted Herod the territories of Batanea, Trachonitis, and the Hauran (Auranitis) in ca. 23 BCE,114 or still later when Herod was granted the territories that had belonged to Zenodorus (i.e. Ulatha and Paneas) in 20 BCE.115 Yet as Ben David states, Josephus nowhere says that Gaulanitis was later gifted to Herod the Great.116 Josephus claims that when Pompey carved up the Hasmonean kingdom (63 BCE) the Jewish ἔθνος was confined within its own borders.117 It is usually assumed these borders excluded Gaulanitis (central Golan). Yet given the presence of Jewish settlements in the region, as will be discussed below, and the fact that nowhere does Josephus say the region was severed from Hasmonean control, or later granted to Herod the Great, the logical conclusion must be that the region was recognised by Pompey as being part of the Jewish ἔθνος, and remained under Hasmonean administration as an adjunct district of Galilee.118 As Ben David writes: Pompey’s actions in the Golan Heights were different for each of its districts. The Hippos district, where the pagan component remained significant, was torn from the Hasmonean kingdom, while Jewish Gaulanitis remained part of a Jewish ‘autonomy’. Therefore, Josephus did not subsequently mention Gaulanitis as having been given to Herod.119

Nachträgen bis 2013; The First Twenty-Five Years of Excavation (1987–2011) with Postscripts until 2013. NTOA Archaeologica 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 241–243; and the earlier work of Urman, “Golan,” EAEHL 2:456. See also the map in Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, Ze’ev Safrai, and R. Steven Notley, eds., The Carta Bible Atlas, 5th ed. Revised and expanded. (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011), 166. 111 Chancey acknowledges this. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 121. 112 See e.g. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 121; and the earlier work of Urman, “Public Structures,” 380. 113 Ant. 15.217; War 1.396. 114 Ant. 15:343–345; War 1.398. 115 Ant. 15.359–360; War 1.400. 116 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 29. 117 Ant. 14.74: War 1.155. 118 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 28–29; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271–273. Thus, when Gabinius divided the Jewish ἔθνος into five administrative districts, Gaulanitis was probably included as part of Galilee (Ant.14.91; War 1.170). Later, when Ezekias the Galilean brigand chief led raids on the Syrian frontier (War 1.24–204), he was probably raiding along the border between Upper Galilee and the hinterland of Tyre, and between Gaulanitis and the region of Paneas. As Pliny the Elder states, Galilee was that part of Judaea adjoining Syria (Nat. Hist. 5.70). 119 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 29.

C. Literary sources and Gaulanitis

223

When Antipater passed administrative responsibility for Galilee to his son Herod (ca. 47 BCE),120 this almost certainly included Gaulanitis, just as it did many years later when the Jewish Sanhedrin granted Josephus administration of Galilee. It was not until the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE that Galilee and Gaulanitis became separate administrative districts, with Herod Antipas ruling Galilee, and Philip ruling Gaulanitis along with Paneas.121 Thus for many decades, and despite numerous political shifts, Gaulanitis was considered by many Jews to be an adjunct district of Galilee. Even after the two regions became administratively distinct in 4 BCE, Galilee and Gaulanitis retained their close ethnic and economic ties. Josephus mentions five settlements in Gaulanitis: Gamla,122 Seleucia,123 Solyma,124 Sogane/Soganaea,125 and Bethsaida/Julias.126 Bethsaida and Gamla will be discussed in detail below. As for Seleucia, its name suggests it was founded by the Seleucids.127 It was located near Lake Huleh, and was conquered by Alexander Jannaeus.128 Later the town appears to have become a Jewish settlement, because Josephus writes that Seleucia joined the First Jewish Revolt.129 After the fall of Jotapata, however, Agrippa II persuaded Seleucia to come to terms and to take no further part in the revolt.130 Josephus locates Sogane/Soganaea in Upper Gaulanitis, but the identification of the town is disputed.131 Sogane also joined the First Jewish Revolt, and Josephus claims that he fortified the town.132 However, Sogane also came to terms with Agrippa II.133 The village of Solyma is mentioned only once by Josephus, and is noted for having joined the First Jewish Revolt. Based on 120

Josephus writes that when the Jewish ethnarch and High Priest Hyrcanus was growing old, Antipater divided his responsibilities between his sons Herod and Phasael, and Herod was given Galilee (Ant. 14.158; War 1.203). 121 Philip’s territory included Gaulanitis, the region of Paneas, Trachonitis and Batanea. For this reason, Josephus writes that there were Jews and Syrians living in the territories of Philip (War 2.94–100). 122 Ant. 13.394, 397; Life 187; War 2.574 123 Ant. 13.393, 397; War 1.104–105; 2.574; 4.2, 4; Life 187. 124 Life 187. 125 Ant. 13.393; War 2.574; 4.2, 4; Life 187. 126 War 2.168; 4.2. 127 Urman, “Public Structures,” 36. 128 Ant. 13.393, 397; War 1.104–105. 129 Josephus claims that he also fortified Seleucia (Life 187; War 2.574). When Appion of Alexandria describes the triumphal procession of Pompey (ca. 61 BCE), he lists Aristobulus of the Jews as one of the kings conquered, and Seleucia in Palestine as one of the cities conquered (Mithridaticus Liber, 117.573, 576). Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.183–184. 130 War 4.1–4. 131 War 4.2. Aviam, “The Fortified Settlements,” 40. 132 Life 187; War 2.574. 133 War 4.4.

224

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Josephus’ description it seems that the village was located near the eastern border of Gaulanitis.134 Thus Josephus explicitly names five Jewish settlements in Gaulanitis. He also refers to another unnamed village in the district of Gamla,135 and during the siege on Gamla he claims that the town was packed with fugitives,136 some of whom were probably from the surrounding villages.

D. Archaeology and the material culture of Gaulanitis D. The material culture of Gaulanitis

Surface surveys have been conducted across the region, along with excavation of several sites. These include Bethsaida, Gamla, Qazrin, ‘Ein Nashut, Dabiyye, Dabura, and Ḥ. Kanaf.137 At most of these sites the structural remains visible on the surface date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods.138 Bethsaida and Gamla, however, have yielded significant Early Roman I period remains.139 These shed light not only on the material culture of the region during the Early Roman I period and the ethnicity of the population, but also on the events of the First Jewish Revolt, and the settlement history of the region. So what is currently known about the settlement history of Gaulanitis, and the ethnicity of its population during the Early Roman I period? As with Galilee, the towns of the central Golan were destroyed during the Iron Age IIB, a period which coincides with the Assyrian conquest in 832 BCE.140 The region was left relatively uninhabited until resettlement began in the third century BCE.141 These early settlers reoccupied some of the old 134

Life 187. Mason, Life of Josephus, 94–95. See also Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 195. 135 Life 46. 136 War 4.10. 137 Ma‘oz also notes the possibility of an Early Roman period stratum at Giv‘at Orḥa (Tell Jukhadar), east of Gamla. This is indicated by the ceramic remains, including Herodian oil lamps, which were found in fills from later periods. Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Giv‘at Orḥa,” NEAEHL 2.521–523. 138 During these periods Gaulanitis was a hub of Jewish activity. This is attested by the remains of synagogues, Jewish symbols, and Hebrew inscriptions. Dan Urman, The Golan: A Profile of a Region during the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1985). 139 Some scholars have argued that most of the Jewish settlements in the central Golan were destroyed in the late first century CE, and the region was depopulated until resettlement commenced in the fourth century CE. See e.g. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 21 n.4. Recent excavations at Bethsaida, however, suggest that settlement continued at some sites into the Middle Roman period. 140 For an account of the destruction of Bethsaida during the Iron Age IIB, see Rami Arav, “A Chronicle of Inevitable Destruction: Stages of the Conquest and Destruction of Bethsaida by Tiglath-Pileser III,” in J. Harold Ellens, ed. Bethsaida in Archaeology, 2–25. 141 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.534.

D. The material culture of Gaulanitis

225

Bronze Age and Iron Age sites.142 They constructed sturdy and sometimes large courtyard houses, and imported expensive goods such as decorated fineware from Phoenicia and Rhodian wine.143 These remains indicate that the inhabitants at this time had close economic links with Tyre and Sidon, and had probably migrated into the region from Phoenicia. During the first century BCE a shift occurs in the material culture at sites in Gaulanitis, similar to that observed in Galilee. This is particularly evident in Late Hellenistic strata excavated at Bethsaida, Gamla, and Ḥ. Kanaf, although surface remains at other sites suggest a similar shift in material culture at this time. The earlier Seleucid coins are replaced with Hasmonean coins, and the imported Phoenician fineware and Rhodian wine amphorae are replaced with plain, undecorated, locally manufactured ware, and Kefar Hananya ware. Thirty-three settlements with Early Roman I period remains have been identified in the central Golan, and these remains are indicative of a Jewish population.144 They include diagnostic sherds of early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, such as the everted rim casserole KH3A and the cooking pot KH4A.145 The vast majority of the remaining pottery fragments are locally produced forms almost identical to Kefar Hananya ware.146 Many of these fragments were manufactured at the village of ‘el-Jumeizah near Gamla, where pottery production began around the middle of the first century BCE.147 Thus Berlin writes: What differentiated the cooking pots made at … Kfar Hananya or ‘el-Jumeizah was… the people who made them. Jewish potters made these vessels … from local clay beds at Kfar Hananya and ‘el-Jumeizah.148

Fragments of limestone vessels were also found at ‘Ateret, Dabiyye, Bethsaida, Gamla, and Ḥ. Kanaf.149 Waste debris from limestone vessels at Gamla may 142 These were usually situated in defensible locations. The Hellenistic settlement at Gamla was constructed on the site of an ancient Bronze Age settlement. Shmaryahu Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.463. Bethsaida was rebuilt on the site of an ancient Iron Age II settlement. Rami Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response to Steven Notley,” NEA 74.2 (2011): 94. 143 See e.g. Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94. 144 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 34–35; Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94; Danny Syon and Ziv Yavor, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 5.1739–1742. For a discussion of the material culture shared across Jewish sites in Judea, Galilee, and Gaulanitis see Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt, 417–470. 145 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 34. Such results have also been noted by Leibner, Settlement and History, 336, n.24. For a discussion on the export of Kefar Hananya ware to the central Golan see Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 212–213, 216–217. 146 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 117, 165–200. See also Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 65. 147 El-Jumeizah (NIG: 756900,267400). Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 420– 421. 148 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 424. 149 Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18].

226

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

also indicate the presence of a small limestone workshop at the site.150 It is noteworthy that fragments of limestone ware appear at these sites around the same time that importation of ESA fineware ceases. Berlin argues that this cannot be due to lack of supply, since later forms of ESA appear in the Decapolis cities, at Tel Anafa, and at Caesarea Philippi.151 Thus Berlin is probably correct when she suggests that limestone dishes replaced imported fineware at Jewish sites in Galilee and Gaulanitis, and may “have served as conspicuous signals of Jewish identity.”152 Jerusalem manufactured knife-pared Herodian oil lamps were also found at numerous sites in Gaulanitis,153 along with Hasmonean coins,154 and aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem between 63 BCE–70 CE.155 Three mikva’ot and a first century BCE synagogue were also found at Gamla.156 It is not possible in this study to discuss all thirty-three sites exhibiting Early Roman I period remains, for several reasons. Excavation in Gaulanitis lags behind that of Galilee, and surface surveys provide only an introductory glimpse into the archaeological history of these sites. Thus any conclusions drawn from surface surveys require corroboration through stratified excavation. Some of the first century CE settlements, like Gamla and Ḥ. Kanaf, were destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt and subsequently abandoned.157 Thus the Early Roman I period stratum at these sites was preserved, and excavations have provided a wealth of data. Bethsaida provides a slightly different picture, since the settlement survived the First Jewish Revolt and continued into the Middle and Late Roman periods before it was abandoned.158 At Qazrin, the majority of the preserved structures date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, thereby obscuring the remains of earlier periods. Nonetheless, each site provides us with a piece of the puzzle and enables us to gain a clearer picture of Gaulanitis. One thing that has not yet been determined is whether there were any nonJewish settlements in Gaulanitis during the Early Roman I period. If there were, they may have been located closer to the border of Paneas. Apart from this, the picture emerging to date is that Gaulanitis during the Early Roman I period was a predominantly Jewish region. 150

Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 430. Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 445. 152 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 433, 444–445. There were exceptions to the rule, however. Some of the wealthy residents of Sepphoris and Gamla continued to import ESA fineware as well as use limestone vessels. 153 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 434–436. 154 Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18], 169 [Table 15, Sites 86, 89, 125, 126, 133]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]; and Urman, “Public Structures,” 379. 155 Syon, Small Change, 196–198 [Table 18, Sites 86, 89, 125, 126, 133]. 156 Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 428. 157 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 158 This will be discussed below. 151

D. The material culture of Gaulanitis

227

What follows will be a brief introduction to some of the settlements in Gaulanitis during the Early Roman I period, drawing on literary sources and archaeological data, and a detailed discussion of Bethsaida and Gamla. These last two sites have been extensively excavated, and provide abundant data concerning their populations and settlement history. I. Seleucia, Sogane, and Solyma The location and identification of Seleucia, Sogane, and Solyma, three towns mentioned by Josephus, is disputed, although a number of potential sites have been suggested.159 Seleucia has been identified with the ancient ruin of Seluqiyeh near Quṣbiyyeh el-Jdeideh,160 and with Dabura.161 However, without systematic excavation of each site, one cannot be certain which site was the location of Josephus’ Seleucia. Suggestions for Sogane/Soganni include Yehudiyye,162 and Sujen/Siyar esSujen.163 These sites have been surveyed, and both have exhibited Roman period remains. The location of Solyma is unknown, but a comment made by Josephus suggests it may have been situated near the eastern border of Gaulanitis.164

159

Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 193, 195. This site is situated near the modern village of Qusbiyyeh el-Jdeideh, also known as Seluqiyeh. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.534; Urman, “Public Structures,” 481–483; Tsafrir et al., “Seleucia,” TIR 226. It is located about sixteen kilometres northeast of Bethsaida/Julias. Mason, Life of Josephus, 97, 158. The inhabitants of Quṣbiyyeh el-Jdeideh identified the ancient tell as Seluqiyeh, and a survey of the site conducted by Urman found ceramic remains from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Urman initially accepted the identification of Seluqiyeh with Josephus’ Seleucia but has since proposed that Dabura is the better candidate. Urman, “Public Structures,” 483. Another surface survey and salvage excavation, conducted by Oren Zingboym, found remains of Roman period buildings and a possible mikveh. However, due to the paucity of Early Roman period ceramics, there is some doubt as to whether Seluqiyeh should be identified with Josephus’ Seleucia. Also, Josephus located Seleucia near Lake Huleh, and Seluqiyeh is over ten kilometres southeast of Lake Huleh. Oren Zingboym, “Tell Selukiyeh. Final Report,” HA-ESI 121 (2009): n.p. Released 02/11/2009. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1244&mag_id=115 161 See the discussion on Dabura below. 162 Surveys of Yehudiyye indicate that this four-hectare site was a Jewish town during the Roman period. The remains of a thick wall surround the site, and public structures, an olive oil press, and a synagogue have also been found. Ma‘oz dates the synagogue to the sixth century CE. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544; Urman, “Public Structures,” 487–489; Mason, Life of Josephus, 95–97; Tsafrir et al., “Sogane II,” TIR 235. 163 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 195; Urman, “Public Structures,” 391. 164 Life 187. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 195. 160

228

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

II. Ḥorvat Kanaf Ḥorvat Kanaf lies a few kilometres southwest of Gamla.165 During excavation of the site the remains of a Hellenistic watchtower were uncovered.166 Above these remains a new structure was built, and in the fill beneath the floor the excavators found fragments of Kefar Hananya ware forms KH3A and KH4A, limestone vessels, and Hasmonean coins.167 Moreover, the Hasmonean coins were the only bronze coins found from the period 125 BCE–63 BCE.168 These remains indicate that Ḥ. Kanaf became a Jewish settlement during the first century BCE. The site was destroyed toward the end of the first century CE, which suggests that the people of Ḥ. Kanaf took part in the First Jewish Revolt.169 III. Qazrin The site of Qazrin, located north of Gamla, has been surveyed and excavated.170 Most of the published data focuses on the settlement during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, with its reconstructed village and Byzantine synagogue.171 However, remains of Hellenistic black-slipped pottery found in various fills indicate the site was settled as early as the second century BCE.172 A small quantity of Early Roman I period Kefar Hananya ware was found,173 along with two Hasmonean coins, and two first century CE aniconic coins: one

165

Ḥorvat Kanaf (NIG: 753100,264500). Tsafrir et al., “Ḥ. Kanaf, Mazra‘at Kanaf,” TIR

160. 166

In the fill of its foundations, fragments of red and black-slipped pottery were found, along with stamped amphorae handles, and Seleucid and Tyrian coins. These indicate that the site was occupied during the second century BCE. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535; Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Ḥorvat Kanaf,” NEAEHL 3.848. 167 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536; Ma‘oz, “Ḥorvat Kanaf,” NEAEHL 3.847–850; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 216–217; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18], 153 [Fig. 31, Site 133]. 168 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 133]. 169 According to Ma‘oz, the site was not resettled until the Late Roman period. Ma‘oz, “Ḥorvat Kanaf,” NEAEHL 3.847–848, 850. However, in a survey conducted by Urman, he observed coins and ceramic fragments from the second and third centuries CE. Urman, “Public Structures,” 534–541. 170 Qazrin (NIG: 766100,266200). Tsafrir et al., “Qaẓrin,” TIR 208. 171 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.539; Urman, “Public Structures,” 463–480. 172 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Qaẓrin,” NEAEHL 4.1219–1224; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 40. Recent excavations near the entrance to Qazrin park yielded ceramic remains, including Kefar Hananya ware from the third to fifth centuries CE, which suggest the area of the town was greater during the Late Roman period than initially thought. Oren Zingboym, “Qazrin: Final Report,” HA–ESI 126 (2014): n.p. Released 15/09/2014. http: www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=10614&mag_id=121 173 Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2].

D. The material culture of Gaulanitis

229

from the Jerusalem mint and the other of Herod Antipas from Tiberias.174 There was also an absence of other bronze coins for the same period. These indicate that Qazrin was a Jewish settlement by the first century CE. Ma‘oz proposes that Qazrin was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt, and left abandoned until it was resettled in the third and fourth centuries CE.175 However, without further excavation beneath the Late Roman and Byzantine strata, which is unlikely to occur due to the wealth of material remains from that period, it is difficult to be certain of the fate of the settlement during the Early Roman I period. IV. ‘Ein Nashut/‘En Nashut ‘Ein Nashut is situated about 2.5 kilometres north of Qazrin.176 This site has been surveyed and excavated, and most of the remains, including the fifth century CE synagogue, date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. However, the discovery of early forms of Kefar Hananya ware KH3A and KH4A, indicate the site was settled during the Early Roman I period. Coins from the first century CE were also found,177 including one bronze aniconic coin from the Jerusalem mint.178 There was also a lack of other bronze coins for the same period. These results suggest the site was a Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. The fate of ‘Ein Nashut during the First Jewish Revolt is unknown, although Ma‘oz suggests the site was destroyed.179 V. Dabiyye Dabiyye was located about 3.3 kilometres northeast of Qaẓrin.180 Ma‘oz led a salvage excavation at the site and concluded that the village was settled toward the end of the third century CE, and continued into the Byzantine period.181 He also identified one of the partially excavated structures as a synagogue, and dated its construction to the Byzantine period.182 A fragment of a lintel with an engraved menorah was also found, although not in situ. Additional buildings have yielded ceramics and coins, most of which date to the Late Roman 174

Syon, Small Change, 153, 169 [Table 15, Site 89], 179 [Fig. 45, Site 89], and 197 [Table 18, Site 89]. 175 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 176 ‘Ein Nashut (NIG: 768500,264800). 177 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 216–217; Urman, “Public Structures,” 439–447, esp. 443. 178 Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Site 87]. 179 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “En Nashuṭ,” NEAEHL 2.412–414; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 53. 180 Dabiyye (NIG: 768400,268400). Tsafrir et al., “Dabiye,” TIR 107. 181 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Dabiyye,” NEAEHL 1.318. 182 Ma‘oz, “Dabiyye,” NEAEHL 1.318.

230

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

period.183 However, a few earlier forms of Kefar Hananya ware KH3A and KH4A were found, which point to settlement during the Early Roman I period.184 This is supported by the recent discovery of limestone vessel fragments.185 As with ‘Ein Nashut, Ma‘oz suggests the earlier Jewish settlement was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt.186 VI. Dabura Dabura was situated on the northern banks of the Naḥal Gilbon, east of Lake Huleh.187 Thus Dabura was situated near the northern boundary of Gaulanitis, as defined by Ma‘oz. In fact, it was so close to the boundary that Fergus Millar suggests it may have belonged to the region of Paneas.188 In either case, the town was a Jewish settlement during the Roman period. The remains of monumental buildings and some olive oil installations are visible on the surface, including what appears to be an ancient synagogue. Most of these remains belong to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods,189 and their extent suggests that Dabura may have been the largest Jewish settlement in the Golan at this time.190 While the site has been surveyed, it still awaits systematic excavation. Nonetheless, quantities of Early Roman I period pottery have been found at Dabura.191 Also, a Hebrew inscription was discovered which identifies the academy of Rabbi Eleazar ha-Qappar, who was active during the late second century CE. It reads: ‫אליעזר הקפר‬ ‫זה בית‬ ‫מדרשו‬ ‫שהלרבי‬

183 Ma‘oz, “Dabiyye,” NEAEHL 1.318; Urman, “Public Structures,” 447–152. Urman questions some of the conclusions of Ma‘oz. He considers the identification of the public building as a synagogue to be premature, since the excavation was incomplete. He also argues that there is a discrepancy of about a hundred years between some of Ma‘oz’ conclusions concerning periods the site was occupied, and the dates of some ceramic remains and coins. Apart from this, both scholars identify the site as a Jewish settlement. 184 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 53, 208. 185 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2]; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 186 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 187 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544; Urman, “Public Structures,” 427. Tsafrir et al., “Dabura,” TIR 107. 188 Fergus Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues and Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine,” JSJ 42 (2011): 263. 189 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544–545; Urman, “Public Structures,” 427–433. 190 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544–545. 191 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544–545; Urman, “Public Structures,” 427–433, 483.

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

231

“Eliezer ha-Qappar / This is the Beth Midrash / of Rabbi.”192 While the inscription post-dates the second century CE, it points to Jewish settlement at Dabura during the Middle Roman period and suggests that Rabbi Eliezer founded a school there at this time. Thus, we have evidence of continuous Jewish settlement at Dabura from the first century CE through to the Byzantine period.193 VII. Dier ‘Aziz Dier ‘Aziz was a predominantly Jewish village during the Roman and Byzantine periods, although some finds indicate a minority Christian population lived there during the Byzantine period. While most of the remains belong to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, such as the olive oil press and synagogue, ceramic remains indicate the site was settled during the Early Roman I period.194

E. Bethsaida/Julias: Et-Tell or El-Araj E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

There are two main contenders for the site of Bethsaida/Julias: Et-Tell and ElAraj.195 Et-Tell is an eight hectare mound located approximately 100 metres east of the Jordan River, and two kilometres north of the Sea of Galilee.196 El192

Dan Urman, “Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura in the Golan,” IEJ 22.1 (1972): 21. This article also comments on the unusual spelling of ‫שהלרבי‬. Urman, “Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura,” 21–23. This article was also published in Hebrew. Dan Urman, “Jewish Inscriptions from Dabboura in the Golan,” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 406–408 [Hebrew]. See also Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues,” 263–264; J. Naveh, “Ancient Synagogue Inscriptions,” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), 137; Urman, “Public Structures,” 432–433. 193 Ma‘oz suggests that Dabura may have been one of the few Jewish settlements in the central Golan that was not destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.544–545. 194 Dier ‘Aziz (NIG: 752300,267000). Tsafrir et al., “Dier ‘Aziz,” TIR 110. 195 This is indicated in Tsafrir et al., “Bethsaida, Iulias,” TIR 85. Other early contenders for Bethsaida were et-Tabgha and el-Mesadiyeh. 196 For publications on et-Tell Bethsaida see Rami Arav and Carl E. Savage, “Bethsaida,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 258–279; Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund, Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. 4 vols. (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1995–2009); J. Harold Ellens, ed. Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014; and Carl E. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida: An Archaeological Study of the First Century (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011). For responses to the claim that el-Araj is Bethsaida, see Rami Arav, “Searching for Bethsaida: The Case for Et-Tell” BAR 46.2 (2020): 40–47; Rami Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” NEA 74.2

232

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Araj lies in the Beteiha plain closer to the northern shoreline.197 Despite centuries of debate over the exact location of Bethsaida, the evidence to date weighs in favour of et-Tell.198 Nonetheless, recent excavations at el-Araj have yielded some interesting results that may also indicate a Jewish presence during the Early Roman I period. Therefore, both sites will be discussed below. Let us begin, however, with what some of the literary sources say about Bethsaida. I. Literary sources on Bethsaida/Julias Bethsaida/Julias is mentioned in a number of literary sources from the Roman period. Pliny the Elder described Julias as a pleasant πóλις on the eastern side of Lake Gennesaret, not far from where the Jordan River flows into the lake.199 This places Bethsaida in Gaulanitis. Yet writing early in the second century CE, Ptolemy included Julias in his list of cities in Galilee.200 John the evangelist also located Bethsaida in Galilee.201 Ptolemy’s association of Bethsaida with Galilee may have been due to its close proximity to the border between Galilee and Gaulanitis.202 However, the association of Bethsaida with Galilee in the Gospel of John may reflect the Jewish conception of Gaulanitis being connected to Galilee.203 References to Bethsaida also appear in the writings of the early church fathers, but these are generally dependent on the Gospels.204

(2011): 92–104; and John F. Shroder Jr., Harry D. Jol, and Philip P. Reeder, “El Araj as Bethsaida: Spatial and Temporal Improbabilities,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 4.293–309. 197 For publications on el-Araj see, R. Steven Notley and Mordechai Aviam, “Searching for Bethsaida: The Case for El-Araj” BAR 46.2 (2020): 28–39; and R.S. Notley, “Et-Tell is Not Bethsaida,” NEA 70.4 (2007): 220–230. 198 This will be discussed further below. 199 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71. 200 Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.16.4. 201 John 12.21. 202 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.170. 203 For some time it was thought there may be two Bethsaidas: one in Galilee and one in Gaulanitis. To complicate matters, maps of Galilee during the Middle Ages sometimes located Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, sometimes on the western side, and in one case on a peninsular between two rivers, the Jor and the Dan! Some of these discrepancies may be attributed to errors in transmission or inaccurate mapping, but they may also reflect the changing landscape over the centuries, particularly given the destructive earthquakes which shook the region in the fourth and eighth centuries. It is not surprising therefore that for nearly fifteen hundred years the exact location of Bethsaida remained a mystery. Richard A. Freund, “Ereimos: A ‘Lonely Place,’” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.183–209. 204 For example, Eusebius follows John in locating Bethsaida in Galilee (Onom. 58.11). See also Mark D. Smith, “Appendix of Greek and Latin Sources on Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.261–264.

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

233

Josephus describes Bethsaida as a town east of the Jordan River in the territory of Gaulanitis, near the Sea of Galilee.205 In an incident recorded in Life he confirms the close proximity of Bethsaida to the Jordan River, and also to Capernaum.206 Apart from this Josephus says little about Bethsaida. His inclusion of Bethsaida in his list of settlements in Gaulanitis implies that the settlement had a predominantly Jewish population during the Early Roman I period. However, Bethsaida was not listed among Josephus’ fortified settlements, although this might be explained by the fact that its Iron Age II walls had earlier been strengthened by Philip.207 Josephus’ omission may also indicate that Bethsaida remained loyal to Agrippa II and took no part in the First Jewish Revolt. The fact that Bethsaida was not destroyed like Gamla would seem to support this conclusion. Josephus writes that Philip the tetrarch raised the status of Bethsaida from a village (κώμη) to a city (πóλις), strengthened its fortifications, supplemented its population, and renamed the settlement Julias in honour of the Emperor’s daughter Julia.208 This claim presented a puzzle to historians for shortly after Philip became tetrarch (4 BCE) Julia was disgraced and exiled (2 BCE), and it was generally recognised that Philip would not honour Julia after she had been exiled.209 Also, Josephus elsewhere implies that the status of Bethsaida was raised after Philip had founded Caesarea Philippi,210 and there was very little time between 4 BCE and 2 BCE for Philip to found the city of Caesarea Philippi and raise the status of Bethsaida. Interestingly, Eusebius wrote in his Chronicon that Bethsaida was rebuilt and renamed Julias in the tenth year of the reign of Tiberius (i.e. ca. 24/25 CE). However, only a few fragments of the Greek text are extant, and Jerome’s translation includes many additions.211 Nonetheless, until excavations began at the site it was presumed that Josephus was correct and that Philip raised the status of Bethsaida prior to 2 BCE in honour of the emperor’s daughter Julia. However, the coins of Philip appear to indicate that he raised the status of Bethsaida in 30 CE in honour of Livia Julia, the wife 205

Ant. 18.27–28; War 2.168. He writes that when he and his men engaged the forces of Sulla, who had pitched their camp near Bethsaida, he was thrown from his horse near the Jordan River and injured. His men then carried him to Capernaum to convalesce (Life 398–404). 207 Ant. 18.28. 208 Ant. 18.28. 209 Emil Schürer drew attention to this problem over a century ago. However, assuming that Josephus was correct, Schürer concluded that Philip must have raised the status of Bethsaida early in his career for it would be inconceivable that he would honour Julia after she had been exiled. Emil Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 2.208. See also Mason, Life of Josephus, 158. 210 War 2.168; Ant. 18.28. 211 See the discussion by Mark D. Smith, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Fate of Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.254–255. 206

234

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

of Caesar Augustus.212 Finally, Josephus records that Philip the tetrarch died at Bethsaida (ca. 33/34 CE).213 Despite the renaming of Bethsaida to Julias, Mark and Q retain the Aramaic name of Bethsaida.214 Mark also uses the term κώμη to describe Bethsaida, more accurately reflecting the status of Bethsaida during the time of Jesus’ ministry.215 Prior to excavation at et-Tell, the literary sources raised questions about the ethnicity of the population of Bethsaida during the first century CE. As we have seen, the impression conveyed by the Gospels is that Bethsaida was a predominantly Jewish settlement, for some of Jesus’ disciples came from Bethsaida and Jesus ministered in Bethsaida. This impression is also conveyed in rabbinic sources which refer to rabbis who lived at Bethsaida.216 However, Josephus’ claim that Philip raised the status of Bethsaida and supplemented its population, coupled with the impression that Bethsaida took no part in the First Jewish Revolt, has led to questions about the ethnicity of the population during the first century CE. Excavation of the site has since helped to address these questions also. II. Archaeology and Et-Tell It was the distance of et-Tell from the northern shoreline that raised initial doubt over its identification with Bethsaida, since it seemed an unlikely location for a first century CE fishing village.217 However, research into 212 Fred Strickert, “The Renaming of Bethsaida in Honor of Livia, a.k.a. Julia, the Daughter of Caesar, in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.27–28,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.93–111, esp. 94. This will be discussed further below. 213 Ant. 18.108. 214 Mark 6.45; 8.22; Q 10.13 (Matt 11.21; Luke 10.13). See also Luke 9.10; John 1.44; and 12.21. 215 Mark 8.22, 26. Luke and John ascribe to Bethsaida the status of a πóλις (Luke 9.10; John 1.44). Given that Luke had access to Mark, he may have intentionally changed the status from κώμη to πóλις to reflect the raised status of Bethsaida. The status of Bethsaida during the ministry of Jesus is dependent upon the year of his death. New Testament scholars generally attribute the death of Jesus to 30 CE or 33 CE. This would place the public ministry of Jesus at some point between 27/28 and 33 CE. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.372–375; Theissen, The Historical Jesus, 157–160. If Jesus died in 30 CE, which seems the most likely date, then during the time of his public ministry Bethsaida was indeed a κώμη, and this may explain Mark’s consistent designation of the site as a κώμη. Even if Jesus was active until 33 CE, given that construction at Bethsaida seems to have ground to a halt with the death of Philip (33/34 CE), Jesus’ disciples may have continued to consider Bethsaida as a village. 216 For a discussion on Bethsaida in rabbinical sources, and the difficulties associated with this see Richard A. Freund, “The Search for Bethsaida in Rabbinic Literature,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 1.267–311. See also Urman, “Public Structures,” 381. 217 For an introduction to the problem of locating and identifying Bethsaida see Rami Arav, “Bethsaida (Et-Tell)” NEAEHL 5:1611–1612.

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

235

geomorphic processes along the Jordan River and the northern shoreline of the lake have shown that when et-Tell was first settled in the tenth century BCE, the Sea of Galilee extended as far as the southern slopes of the mound. By the first century CE some of the Beteiha plain had filled in with silt and rocks deposited during floods along the Jordan River, but the site still had access to the lake via shallow lagoons. Et-Tell was probably separated from the northern shoreline during the earthquake of 363 CE, resulting in the eventual abandonment of the site.218 Excavations have been undertaken annually at et-Tell since 1987, under the direction of Dr Rami Arav.219 These have shed light on the settlement history of et-Tell, and noted important shifts in the material culture at the site during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. They have revealed that the site had a predominantly Jewish population during the Early Roman I period. They have also helped clarify when the status of the city was raised, and what this entailed. However, it is important to begin our survey with the Iron Age, for the settlement history of et-Tell from this time on is similar to that of some sites in Galilee, and this will help to explain how the site became a predominantly Jewish village by the first century CE. Like the Iron Age IIB settlements in Galilee, the ancient city located at etTel was destroyed.220 The timing of its destruction coincides with the Assyrian conquest in 832 BCE.221 For the next three centuries the site remained virtually uninhabited. It was not until the Early Hellenistic period that the site was significantly repopulated, and the ancient walls were partially restored. The small finds from this period include Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Tyrian coins,222 stamped handles from Rhodian wine amphorae,223 and fragments of Phoenician glassware. During the Late Hellenistic period the population also imported ESA red-slipped fine ware.224 These material finds indicate a strong economic 218 J.F. Shroder, Jr., M.P. Bishop, K.J. Cornwell, and M. Inbar, “Catastrophic Geomorphic Processes and Bethsaida Archaeology, Israel,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 2.115–173; Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 97. See also Kenneth W. Russel, “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-8th Century A.D.,” BASOR 260 (1985): 39, 42. The separation of Bethsaida from the northern shoreline may have led to the foundation of the new fishing village at el-Araj. 219 Rami Arav, “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 1.xiv. 220 The excavators found the monumental inner and outer walls of the city collapsed, and the four-chambered city gate with its paved courtyard, high place, and iconic stele, was found battered and scorched. For a description of the attack on the city gate see Rami Arav, “Final Report: The City Gate,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 4.64–65. 221 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94. 222 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 71–80. 223 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 80–87; and Carl Savage, “Supporting Evidence for a FirstCentury Bethsaida,” in Zangenberg, et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity, 198. 224 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 110; Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94.

236

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

and cultural link between the inhabitants of et-Tell and the cities on the Phoenician coast.225 The discovery of large courtyard houses and luxury items such as jewellery, Tyrian silver, and large quantities of ESA fineware, attest to the relative wealth of these early settlers.226 The size of the population dropped significantly towards the end of the second century BCE however, followed by a shift in the material culture that parallels settlements in Galilee and corresponds to the time of Hasmonaean expansion. There is no evidence of destruction at this time and the numismatic sequence is continuous. However, the Seleucid and Tyrian coins of the second century BCE give way to Hasmonaean coins in the first century BCE. Seventyeight Tyrian coins were found dating to the second-century BCE, but only three for the first century BCE, and two for the first century CE.227 While there is a lack of a destruction layer during the Late Hellenistic period, the shift in material culture suggests that some or all the earlier population left the site. For not only is there a shift in the types of pottery and coins used, there is also a marked drop in the size of the population and a change in its socio-economic status.228 The predominantly Jewish population of the site during the Early Roman I period was smaller in number than the previous occupants, and less wealthy.229 Some lived in the older courtyard houses, but others built more modest homes which were smaller in size and constructed with fieldstones.230 These shifts in material culture suggest that while some of the earlier population may have remained at et-Tell and converted to Judaism, the site was largely resettled by Jewish migrants who had close economic and ethnic ties with Galilee and Judea.231 Some scholars have suggested that the Early Roman period remains at etTell are meagre. In an article on the settlements around the Sea of Galilee, Wolfgang Zwickel argued there are few ceramic remains and coins from first225

Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94. Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 94. 227 For a summary of the coins found prior to 2013 see Gregory C. Jenks, “More than Just Couch Change: Bethsaida Coin Report 2001–2012,” in Ellens, ed. Bethsaida in Archaeology, 152–179. Syon groups the coins differently and records only bronze issues. Nonetheless, he notes three coins from Ptolemais and one from Sidon between 125 BCE and 63 BCE, and five from Tyre between 63 BCE and 70 CE. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 125], and 198 [Table 18, Site 125]. For earlier reports see Arie Kindler, “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 2.250–268; and Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 71. 228 Arav and Savage, “Bethsaida,” 264–265. 229 For example, fourteen stamped handles of Rhodian wine amphorae were found spanning the period between 205 BCE–108 BCE. However, after this time the importation of wine ceased. Savage, “Supporting Evidence,” 198. Stamped handles of Rhodian wine amphorae can be used to date strata. 230 Arav and Savage, “Bethsaida,” 265; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 123. 231 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 123. 226

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

237

century CE Bethsaida.232 Similarly, Notley argued there was a shortage of Early Roman period remains.233 Certainly when compared with the Iron Age II settlement or the Early Hellenistic settlement, the Early Roman period remains appear less spectacular, but they are not insignificant. While it is true that etTell during the Early Roman I period was a smaller settlement, according to Arav, the material “surpasses that found in Capernaum, Chorazin, Nazareth, and Khirbet Kana combined.”234 Fragments of household wares have been discovered across the site, the vast majority being table ware and cooking ware from Kefar Hananya, and storage jars manufactured at Shikhin.235 Many diagnostic fragments of the everted rim casserole KH3A and the cooking pot KH4A have been found, with a corresponding absence of later forms of ESA fineware. This is an indicator of a modest Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period.236 Over two dozen oil lamps from the first century BCE and CE have been discovered, half of which were Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps.237 The remaining lamps were either undecorated Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period forms or they had simple geometric designs on the nozzle. Only one decorated oil lamp was discovered from this time, which may have been of Nabatean origin.238 A further indicator of Jewish settlement at et-Tell is the presence of limestone vessel fragments. Mark Appold is correct to note that these are few.239 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn lists only twenty certain fragments of limestone ware which he observed between 1987 and 2012.240 However, there may well have been more. In an earlier work, Carl Savage discussed eleven diagnostic fragments of limestone vessels,241 but he observed that over fifty pieces of limestone were referred to either in pottery diaries from previous seasons, or were preserved in the lab.242 Moreover, numerous unidentifiable lumps of limestone were discovered across the site, along with several lime pits indicating that the

232 Wolfgang Zwickel, “Der See Gennesaret in hellenistischer und frührömischer Zeit,” ZNW 104 (2013): 163. 233 Notley, “Et-Tell is Not Bethsaida,” 225–226. 234 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 93. 235 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 111. 236 It was not until the beginning of the second century CE that a resurgence of imported ware becomes evident again at Bethsaida. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 110–118. 237 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 95; Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 103–110. 238 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 110. 239 Mark Appold, “Peter in Profile: From Bethsaida to Rome,” Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.142. 240 Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Revised List of Limestone Vessels found on Et-Tell (Bethsaida) from 1987–2012,” in Ellens, Bethsaida in Archaeology, 134–151. 241 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 91–99. 242 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 129 n. 50.

238

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

site was later mined for lime for use as fertilizer.243 Whether or not the limestone lumps were remnants of vessels eroded by weather or mining, the diagnostic fragments provide clear evidence of a Jewish presence at the site, even though the total number is small when compared with Capernaum or Sepphoris.244 Appold is also correct to note that no mikva’ot have been discovered at etTell. There are two possible explanations for this. First, the presence of a mikveh in private dwellings is indicative of wealth, as is evident in the wealthy private dwellings excavated at Sepphoris.245 Yet as we have seen, the population of Early Roman I period et-Tell was not wealthy. A second point to note is that no mikva’ot have been discovered at Capernaum, a site which also had a Jewish population during the Early Roman I period. The absence of mikva’ot at these sites may be explained by their proximity to the Sea of Galilee. The lake would provide an ample supply of water suitable for the purpose of purification.246 As for the numismatic profile, thirty-five Hasmonaean coins were discovered, with the majority being coins of Alexander Jannaeus. Fourteen Herodian coins were also found, including six of Herod the Great, five of Philip the tetrarch, and one of Herod Antipas.247 Zwickel is correct in noting that no Jewish Revolt coins have been found at et-Tell.248 This is consistent with the emerging picture that Bethsaida did not take part in the First Jewish Revolt. Et-Tell was a large Jewish village during the time of Jesus. It was not, however, beyond the reach of Philip the tetrarch. Numismatic evidence suggests that Philip raised the status of Bethsaida in 30 CE, in honour of Livia Julia, the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius who had died in 29 CE.249 In the 34th 243

Savage argues that these unidentifiable lumps may be the remnants of limestone vessels which were eroded given that many of the remains were located on or very near the surface. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 95. 244 Approximately 150 fragments of limestone vessels were recovered at Capernaum, and 100 fragments at Sepphoris. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49–50. 245 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 134. 246 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 50. 247 Jenks, “More than Just Couch Change,” 156. The remainder of the first-century Herodian issues belonged to Archelaus, Agrippa I, and Agrippa II. 248 Zwickel, “Der See Gennesaret,” 163. 249 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 93; Fred Strickert, “The Founding of the City of Julias,” JJS 61.2 (2010): 230–231. It should be noted that Nikos Kokkinos has rejected this conclusion. Nikos Kokkinos, “The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch,” JJS 59.2 (2008): 236–251. Kokkinos argues that there is no evidence that Philip commemorated the founding of Bethsaida/Julias on his coins, and that the Greek title κτίστης, which can also mean builder, probably referred to Philip’s building of Caesarea-Philippi at Paneas. Kokkinos also draws attention to the different uses of the terms ‘Augusta’ in the West and ‘Sebaste’ in the East. According to Tacitus, Livia Julia was welcomed into the Julian clan and given the honourific title, “Sebaste” (Ann. 1.8).

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

239

year of his reign, Philip issued three coins. The first coin bore an image of the emperor on the obverse, and a temple façade on the reverse. The inscription reads EPI PHILIPPOU TETRARCHOU with the letters KTIS (an abbreviation of KTISTES, meaning “founder” or “builder”). The second smaller denomination depicted the image of Philip himself. The third coin bore the image of Livia, along with the inscription IOULIA SEBASTE.250 This coin was issued in the 34th year of the tetrarch’s reign, which corresponds with 30 CE. However, the name of the tetrarch does not appear on the coin. Given that Herod Antipas did not issue coins bearing images and the coin was issued in honour of Livia Julia and found during excavation at et-Tell, this final coin was also probably issued by Philip. Despite the claim of Josephus that Bethsaida was raised to the status of a πóλις, the absence of public buildings suggests the site essentially remained a large village.251 No theatres, public baths, administrative buildings, or colonnaded streets have been found. It is possible that the death of Philip, within four years of his raising the status of Bethsaida (33/34 CE), brought an end to construction at the site.252 However, Leibner may also be correct in noting that a village like Bethsaida could be awarded the status of a πóλις and granted certain royal privileges, simply in connection to “a royal construction or fortification…”253 The strengthening of the Iron Age walls at et-Tell and the construction of a small public building at the summit of the site may have been all that was needed to secure this raised status.254 Although little more than the shell of this building has survived due to looting, a few remains suggest it was a small temple. These include dressed stones, a lintel decorated with a meander 250 Strickert, “The Founding of Julias,” 230; Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 96; Arie Kindler, “The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida,” Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 2.245–249; and Strickert, “The Renaming of Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.93–113. 251 Savage, “Supporting Evidence,” 206. See also Appold, “Peter in Profile,” 142. Also, Bethsaida did not mint its own coins, and Josephus never refers to there being a town council at Bethsaida. 252 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 93. 253 Leiber, Settlement and History, 223. This practice is also noted by Arthur Segal, “Urban plan and city landscape,” in Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011), by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler (Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013), 1.66. 254 This rectangular structure, measuring twenty by six metres, may have been a Phoenician temple during the third or second centuries BCE. In the first century CE it was renovated. It was oriented in an east-west direction with thick outer walls averaging a width of 1.2 metres, and comprised three rooms identified as a naos, pronaos, and opisthodomous. The excavators also found a stone relief nearby depicting a bunch of grapes, identical to those found in the synagogue at Chorazin. Arav, “Bethsaida Preliminary Report, 1994– 1996,” 19.

240

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

pattern and rosettes, a column base, fragments of a marble floor, and a cache containing “two bronze incense shovels, a bronze ladle, two bronze bowls ... and several high-quality jugs and juglets.”255 Nearby, the head of a small female figurine was also discovered, measuring two centimetres by four centimetres. The veiled image resembles Livia Julia, “depicted in one of her characteristic poses as priestess of Augustus.”256 These items suggest the building was renovated to promote the imperial cult at Bethsaida.257 Apart from this, the site bears no remains characteristic of a Graeco-Roman πóλις. In the words of Carl Savage: Those desiring to find a romanticized Bethsaida where Jesus and his barefoot band walked amid Greco-Roman institutions enshrined in monumental architecture complete with columns and capitals will be disappointed. We may have to accept another reality, that perhaps Philip Herod’s “second city” was filled with unrealized delusions of grandeur, images that appear only in the imagination, not actualized in the humble basalt structures at et-Tell.258

Josephus writes that new settlers were added to the population at this time,259 and it would be odd indeed if a few Gentiles were not employed in the construction of the small temple or commissioned to perform its cultic services. This imposition on the predominantly Jewish population must have been a matter of concern. However, Appold goes beyond the evidence when he states that Bethsaida at this time was “characterised by a mixed population and strong Greek influence.”260 As Savage writes: “If there were pagans at Bethsaida during the first century CE, they are largely invisible in the archaeological record.”261 Nonetheless, the presence of a few Gentiles at the site may explain the small number of pig bones found near the small temple. Toni Fisher argues that the presence of pig bones among the faunal remains during the Early Roman period never rises above 3%, and this percentage only occurs in the vicinity of the small temple.262 For the remainder of the site, the percentage of pig bones amounts to no more than 1% of the faunal remains, and in some areas, no pig remains were found. This is significantly less than that recovered from non255

Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 96. Arav, “Bethsaida Preliminary Report, 1987–1993,” 21; Strickert, “The Founding of Julias,” 232. 257 Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 96. 258 Savage, “Supporting Evidence,” 194. 259 Ant. 18.28. 260 Appold, “Peter in Profile,” 142. 261 Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 135. 262 Fisher is the zooarchaeologist for the Bethsaida Excavations Project. Toni Fisher, “Faunal Analysis: Zooarchaeology in Syro-Palestinian/Israeli Archaeology,” in Ellens, ed., Bethsaida in Archaeology, 111, 115. Fisher’s findings counter the earlier claim of Appold for a “surprising abundance of pig bones” from Early Roman period et-Tell. Appold, “Peter in Profile,” 142. 256

E. Bethsaida: Et-Tell or El-Araj

241

Jewish sites in surrounding regions, such as the “ratio of 5:1 pigs to caprids at Tel Anafa during the Roman period.”263 The small percentage of pig bones found near the small temple may reflect the presence of a few Gentile residents who settled at the site after 30 CE. Outside the temple area the population relied primarily on caprids (sheep and goats),264 and wild game (gazelles, deer, and fish).265 There is also evidence of a thriving fishing industry at et-Tell. Hundreds of fishing implements have been found in Early Roman period strata across the site. These include lead, basalt, and limestone weights for fishing nets, iron fish hooks and line sinkers, basalt anchors, and bronze and iron needles used to repair nets.266 These finds indicate that fishing was an important activity for many living at et-Tell during the first century CE. They also corroborate the literary sources which indicate that et-Tell Bethsaida had access to the Sea of Galilee during the Early Roman period. In fact, Facundo Troche argues that etTell, or Bethsaida which means “House of Fishermen” or “Fishermens’ Village,” was strategically positioned for commercial fishing during the whole year and it was probably the hometown of many fisherman.267 Et-Tell was a large Jewish fishing village during the time of Jesus, and it remains the most probable site for Bethsaida/Julias. Its residents traded using Hasmonean coins. They purchased Kefar Hananya ware from Galilee, and imported Herodian oil lamps and limestone vessels from Jerusalem. Philip the tetrarch does appear to have imposed an imperial shrine on the village, but apart from this there is little evidence of a Gentile presence at the site prior to the second century CE. To sum up in the words of Carl Savage: First c. et-Tell appears to be less wealthy, less oriented to the Phoenician coast and more oriented to the west and south—the Jewish Galilee—than the earlier Hellenistic period 263 264

Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 123. Caprids comprised 57% of these faunal remains. Fisher, “Faunal Analysis,” 107–110,

115. 265

Wild game comprised 16% of these faunal remains. Fisher, “Faunal Analysis,” 107– 110, 115. Although the paucity of fish bones recovered is initially surprising, this may be explained by the fact that small fish, like the Kinnereth sardine, had very small, digestible bones which could be consumed along with the flesh or erode over time. Also, until recently, 1/8 inch screening and flotation or wet sieving to recover small fish bones, were not in use at et-Tell. However, the bones of larger fish, such as catfish, were recovered, and these make up about five per cent of the faunal remains at Bethsaida. Fisher, “Faunal Analysis,” 111, 115. According to Nun, the Kinnereth sardine made up about fifty percent of the fish in the lake. Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 6. 266 Sandra Fortner, “The Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities of Bethsaida-Julias (et-Tell),” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 2.269–280; Arav and Savage, “Bethsaida,” 266; and Arav, “Bethsaida–A Response,” 94, 96. A large quantity of fishing items discovered in the courtyard of one house led to it being named the “House of the Fisherman.” 267 Facundo D. Troche, “Ancient Fishing Methods and Fishing Grounds in the Lake of Galilee,” PEQ 148.4 (2016): 289.

242

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

settlement. Further, in terms of its ethnic identity it shows elements of being a Jewish, not a Gentile, settlement, and therefore remains the most viable candidate for Biblical Bethsaida.268

III. Archaeology and El-Araj When the excavators of et-Tell first surveyed el-Araj in 1987, preliminary probes discovered that the earliest stratum of occupation dated to the Byzantine period.269 Later ground penetrating radar revealed that below this Byzantine stratum there was beach sediment.270 It was for these reasons that el-Araj was deemed an improbable site for Bethsaida. While some fragments of Early Roman period pottery were found at el-Araj, the lack of an Early Roman period stratum suggested these pottery fragments were either washed downstream by the Jordan River or moved to the site after Bethsaida (et-Tell) was abandoned. Nonetheless, Steven R. Notley continued to argue that el-Araj was Bethsaida, drawing largely on literary sources and noting the site’s proximity to the Sea of Galilee.271 Then in 2017, a report in Haaretz claimed the city of Bethsaida/Julias had been found at el-Araj.272 Unfortunately, this claim far exceeded the evidence. The excavators did discover a structure ten feet beneath the Byzantine stratum under layers of silt. The remains of a mosaic floor with black and white tesserae are thought to be part of a Roman-styled bath. The excavators also found a silver coin of Nero, which may suggest the structure was in use during the Early Roman I period. However, one structure is not a city. In fact, this structure had already been noted during the preliminary survey of el-Araj in 1987.273 Nonetheless, the results were intriguing. Further shovel testing, probes, and small areas of excavation have discovered sections of walls, and among the small fragments of Roman period remains they have found evidence of Early Roman period oil lamps, coins from the first century CE, fragments of limestone vessels, and Kefar Hananya ware.274 As for the Byzantine stratum, the excavators believe they have found the remains of a Byzantine church. Moreover, when they probed beneath the

268

Savage, “Supporting Evidence,” 206. Arav, “Bethsaida—A Response,” 92–104. 270 John F. Shroder Jr., Harry D. Jol, and Philip P. Reeder, “El Araj as Bethsaida: Spatial and Temporal Improbabilities,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 4:293–309. 271 R.S. Notley, “Et-Tell is Not Bethsaida,” NEA 70 (2007) 220–230. 272 Noa Shpigel and Ruth Schuster, “The Lost City of Jesus' Apostles Has Just Been Found, Archaeologists Say,” Haaretz (8 August, 2017) http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/ 1.805402. 273 This information came from a report emailed by Rami Arav on 23 August 2017, to those associated with Bethsaida excavations. 274 Notley and Aviam, “Searching for Bethsaida,” 38–39. 269

F. Gamla/Gamala

243

Byzantine pavement, they found additional pottery and coins from the first to third centuries CE. Exactly what coins and pottery was not indicated.275 Nonetheless, these early results do suggest there may have been a Jewish settlement at el-Araj during the Early Roman I period. We wait to see if this is confirmed by the discovery of an Early Roman period stratum with domestic dwellings.

F. Gamla/Gamala F. Gamla/Gamala

The identification of Gamla with es-Sanem is now widely accepted, for the site corresponds to Josephus’ geographical description.276 It lies on a rocky ridge about eleven kilometres east of Bethsaida, and is surrounded on three sides by steep ravines.277 From a distance it bares the resemblance of a camel. It was probably for this reason that the settlement was named Gamla, the Aramaic word for “camel.”278 Gamla is arguably the best preserved Jewish settlement of the Early Roman I period in the Golan, for after its destruction in 67 CE the site was abandoned and its remains were sealed for two millennia.279 I. Literary sources on Gamla According to Josephus, Gamla came under Jewish control during the first century BCE when Alexander Jannaeus conquered the fortress.280 Strabo also notes that Gamla was captured by the Hasmoneans and added to their kingdom.281

275

Notley and Aviam, “Searching for Bethsaida,” 39. Gamla (NIG: 756500,269400). Josephus, War 2.168; 4.2–8. Pliny the Elder incorrectly placed Gamla in Samaria (Nat. Hist. 5.69). Danny Syon, “‘City of Refuge’ The Archaeological Evidence,” in The Great Revolt in the Galilee, 54; and Shmaryahu Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.459. See also Tsafrir et al., “Gamala,” TIR 128. 277 Gamla covers an area of about ten hectares which can only be accessed via a narrow saddle to the east. Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.459. From the summit one can see across the Sea of Galilee to Taricheae. For an introduction to Gamla and its excavations see Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.459–463; Danny Syon and Zvi Yavor, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 5.1739–1742; Kenneth Atkinson, “Gamla,” EDEJ 657–658; and Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 188–189. 278 Atkinson, “Gamla,” EDEJ 657. In Arabic the site is known as es-Sanem “the hump.” Syon, “City of Refuge,” 53; Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.459; Aviam, “The Fortified Settlements,” 40. 279 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 55. 280 Ant. 13.393–394; War 1.105. See also Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 1.283. 281 Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.21. 276

244

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Josephus says little about the site during subsequent decades, although he notes that when the Roman governor Gabinius divided the Jewish territories into five administrative districts, he rebuilt and repopulated Gamla.282 Josephus does not say who populated the site at this time, but his record of subsequent events suggests that Gamla remained a Jewish settlement. For example, when Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE and replaced by the Roman governor Coponius, Judas of Gamla, also known as “Judas the Galilean” and “Judas the Gaulanite,” opposed the census and incited his countrymen to revolt by refusing to pay taxes to Rome. Judas insisted that one could not serve God and Rome.283 Gamla also took part in the First Jewish Revolt.284 According to Josephus, Agrippa II laid siege to Gamla for seven months but failed to capture the town.285 Therefore, even after Vespasian had captured Jotapata and Taricheae, Gamla refused to surrender, believing that their natural defences and fortifications would protect them.286 Refugees from surrounding villages also flooded into the town for safety.287 However, in 67 CE the army of Vespasian laid siege to the town, and after thirty days they breached the wall and poured into the city.288 It is clear from Josephus’ account that Gamla was an important Jewish town in the district, and much of what he recounts has been corroborated through archaeology. II. Archaeology and Gamla Excavation began at Gamla in 1976 and continued for fourteen seasons under the direction of Shmaryahu Gutman.289 They were renewed again in 1997 under the direction of Danny Syon and Zvi Yavor. The site was initially settled during the Early Bronze Age, followed by an archaeological gap until it was resettled

282

War 1.165–166. War 2.117–118; Ant. 18.4. Judas the Galilean is also referred to in Acts 5.37. 284 War 2.574. In the early days of the revolt the town remained loyal to Agrippa II (Life 46, 61), but later they joined the revolt and fortified the town’s walls. Josephus also records that Gamla imported goods from Galilee (Life 398), further indicating the close ethnic and economic links between Galilee and Gamla. 285 War 4.10; Life 114. 286 War 4.1–4, 10. 287 Some refugees may have fled the Roman forces in Galilee. Syon, “City of Refuge,” 61. Then a deep trench was cult across the spur in front of the eastern wall to make it difficult for the Romans to access the site (War 4.6). 288 Josephus, who was probably an eyewitness to the event, described the fall of Gamla in detail (War 4.11–53, 62–83). Suetonius wrote that Titus subdued two strong cities in Judaea, one of which was Gamla (Gamalan) (Tit. 4.3). Judaea, in this context, is being used in the broadest sense of the term. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1.125. 289 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 55. 283

F. Gamla/Gamala

245

in the Early Hellenistic period.290 The recent discovery of a Hasmonean quarter indicates the site came under Hasmonean administration during the early half of the first century BCE.291 During the Early Roman I period the population of Gamla appears to have been economically diverse,292 and ethnically Jewish. Arguably the most significant discovery is the public building widely held to be a synagogue. The synagogue was probably constructed toward the end of the first century BCE,293 and it measured 13.4 metres by 9.3 metres. Its central room was lined with benches which could seat about 150 people, and the roof was supported by sixteen columns. Additional rooms were situated on the eastern side of the synagogue, and an open courtyard and public mikveh on the western side.294 Two additional mikva’ot were discovered at Gamla. One was discovered in an olive oil installation.295 The other mikveh was found near some tightly packed buildings which lined a street. These buildings were probably workshops.296 Although some of the wealthier residents of Gamla imported ESA fineware during the first century BCE, there was a dramatic drop in import toward the end of that century. While predominantly Gentile sites in surrounding regions continued to import ESA fineware, the residents at Gamla replaced these with limestone vessels.297 Two hundred and fifty-eight fragments of limestone vessels were found across the site.298 Berlin suggests the appearance of such large numbers at the same time that importation of ESA fineware ceased, suggests 290 For an introduction to the Early Bronze Age I–II settlement see Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.463; and Syon and Yavor, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 5.1740. Early Hellenistic period occupation is indicated by the presence of Seleucid coins, including those of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE). Syon, “City of Refuge,” 151–152, n.3. 291 Syon and Yavor, “Gamla,” NEAEHL 5.1739. 292 The private dwellings vary from modest terraced housing to wealthy homes constructed of dressed stones, with white and coloured plaster walls which supported a second story. Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.462–463; Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 450; and Syon and Yavor, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 5.1741. 293 On the basis of small finds discovered in the foundation, Syon and Yavor date the synagogue no earlier than the end of the reign of Herod the Great. Syon and Yavor, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 5.1739. 294 Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.460–461; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 212–214; and Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 26–28. 295 The room held two olive oil presses and a large oil vat. Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.463. As previously noted, the presence of a mikveh near an oil press suggests a concern for purity. Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 428 296 Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.463. 297 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 59–67, esp. p65. 298 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine 151; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla,” NEAEHL 5.1741–1742; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9].

246

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

that the inhabitants of Gamla wished to make a clear statement about their Jewish identity and allegiance.299 The residents of Gamla also imported Kefar Hananya ware from Galilee, in addition to using locally produced, undecorated ware.300 Among the forms discovered at Gamla were the Galilean bowl KH1A, the casserole KH3A, and the cooking pot KH4A.301 In fact, Berlin writes that over 4,000 rim fragments of KH3A and KH4A forms were found,302 which according to Ben David accounted for “70% of all the cooking pots found at Gamla.”303 In addition, 1,577 diagnostic samples of Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps were found, which represents 93% of all the Early Roman I period lamps found at Gamla.304 This is remarkable given that virtually identical forms not manufactured in Jerusalem were available in the Golan, and these forms were no less superior in quality, construction, or raw materials. Thus the inhabitants of Gamla appear to have preferred Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps for ethnic reasons, and were therefore willing to transport these lamps over a distance of 132 kilometres.305 Many coins were also found at Gamla from the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods. These include 4,092 Hasmonean coins: 316 of Hyrcanus I, thirty of Aristobulus I, and 3,142 of Alexander Jannaeus.306 694 bronze coins from Tyre were also found for the same period, but only seventeen of these post-date 98 BCE. This represents a rapid decline in the use of Tyrian bronze coins and their replacement with Hasmonean coins.307 Tyrian silver coins have also been found at Gamla, and to a lesser extent silver coins from Sidon. As noted in Chapter Two, it is not uncommon to find Tyrian silver at Jewish sites. These were used for larger transactions because the vast majority of coins minted by the Hasmoneans and Herodians were bronze issues. Moreover, the silver coins at Gamla were found in the same loci as Jewish identity markers.308 Two first century CE imperial coins were also found: one of Claudius, and the

299

Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 433. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 56. 301 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 88, 118, 205–206, 216–217. 302 Andrea Berlin, Gamla 1: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period, IAA Reports 29 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006), 17–20, 32–46, 62. 303 Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 34. 304 Adan-Bayewitz, et. al., “Distribution of Lamps 47, 74. See also Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 434–436; and Syon and Yavor, “Gamla,” NEAEHL 5.1741–1742. 305 Adan-Bayewitz, et. al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 47, 73. 306 Syon, Small Change, 163, 165 [Fig. 34], and 166 [Fig. 35]. 307 Syon, Small Change, 163, 169 [Table 15, Site 126]. 308 Danny Syon, “The Coins of Gamala: An Interim Report,” INJ 12 (1992/93): 34–55; Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.462–463; Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans, 202; and Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 300

G. The size of the population

247

other of Vespasian. The latter was found in an olive oil press along with a Jewish Revolt coin.309 The residents of Gamla also minted their own Jewish Revolt coins in Year 2 (67 CE) of the First Jewish Revolt, to depict their solidarity with Jerusalem.310 Seven of these “crudely made” bronze shekels were found at Gamla.311 On the obverse they depict a cup similar to the temple vessel depicted on the First Jewish Revolt shekels from Jerusalem. Both sides are inscribed in paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic script, and the inscription is usually translated, “For the redemption of Jerusalem the Holy.”312 Thus Danny Syon writes: This coin type challenges the traditional view of a fragmented Jewish front that was preoccupied mainly with internal strife and the defence of isolated sites by pockets of rebels … It shows that even under the most difficult conditions, the people of Gamla still remembered the original aims of the revolt, symbolized by “the redemption of Holy Jerusalem.”313

Finally, material remains from the final destruction of Gamla litter the site, particularly in and around the buildings nearest the eastern wall, the tower, and the synagogue. These include 2,000 basalt ballista balls, 1,600 arrowheads, and 100 catapult bolts which attest to the ferocity of the siege.314 Other Roman military remains include a helmet visor, cheek guards, spear tips, scabbard chapes, and military buttons.315 The presence of a synagogue, three mikva’ot, 4,092 Hasmonean coins, and multiple fragments of limestone vessels, Kefar Hananya ware, and Jerusalem manufactured Herodian oil lamps provide abundant evidence that Gamla during the Early Roman I period was a Jewish settlement. This is further indicated by their involvement in the First Jewish Revolt and the minting of Jewish Revolt coins. Although Gamla is not mentioned in the Gospels, given the Jewish character of the site and its location in Gaulanitis, it would be surprising indeed if Gamla was not one of the towns visited by Jesus.

G. The size of the population in Gaulanitis G. The size of the population

Gaulanitis was smaller in area than Galilee and had fewer towns and villages. Nonetheless, surface surveys of the region recorded thirty-four settlements for the entire Roman period.316 Thirty-three of these exhibited early forms of Kefar 309

Gutman, “Gamala,” NEAEHL 2.462–463. Syon, Small Change, 187–188, 195; and Syon, “City of Refuge,” 62. 311 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 62. 312 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 62; Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt,” 468. 313 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 62. 314 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 59–60. 315 Syon, “City of Refuge,” 61. 316 Bar, “Population and Settlement,” 3. 310

248

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Hananya ware KH3A and KH4A, indicating settlement during the Early Roman I period.317 As with Galilee, these settlements varied in size, but given that most have not been excavated, it is difficult to determine the extent of their area during the Early Roman I period. This makes it virtually impossible to estimate of the size of the population in Gaulanitis at this time. More can be said about et-Tell Bethsaida and Gamla, however. The mound and ruins of et-Tell Bethsaida cover an area of approximately eight hectares. However, it is unclear to date whether the entire site was populated during the Early Roman I period, and if the settlement expanded beyond the mound into the surrounding plain. Roman period remains have been found in Areas A, B, and C on the tell, and the sizes and variety of domestic dwellings are comparable with Galilee. If only six hectares of the site were occupied during the Early Roman I period, then based on a co-efficient of 200–250 persons per hectare, et-Tell Bethsaida would have had a population between 1,200 and 1,500 persons. If, however, the settlement covered an area of eight hectares, then the population would likely have been between 1,600–2,000 persons. This would make et-Tell Bethsaida a little smaller than Capernaum. According to Josephus, 4,000 people were killed at Gamla, and a further 5,000 threw themselves into the ravines.318 Even accounting for the refugees who flooded into Gamla for safety,319 Josephus seems to have exaggerated these figures. Gamla covered an area of about ten hectares. Thus given a coefficient of 200–250 persons per hectare,320 Gamla may have had a population between 2,000 and 2,500 persons during the first century CE. One might argue that since Gamla was a walled settlement, its population density would have been greater. However, according to Josephus, the town was fortified during the First Jewish Revolt. Excavation of the site has revealed that there was no continuous wall to drive up population density prior to the revolt.321 On the other hand, the geographical location of Gamla on a narrow ridge surrounded by steep ravines may have increased its population density, and certainly the town would have been densely populated after the arrival of refugees during the First Jewish Revolt.

317

Ben David, “204 settlements in Galilee,” 33–34. War 4.79–80. It seems unlikely that the residents of Gamla intended to commit suicide, as Josephus implies. Syon is probably correct in suggesting that they probably tried to escape down the steep slopes but lost their footing and plunged to their deaths. Syon, “City of Refuge,” 64. 319 War 4.10. Also, Jews from Batanea had earlier sought refuge at Gamla and may have remained there (Life 58). 320 See Chapter Four for my discussion on population density. 321 Excavation at Gamla has revealed the nature of Josephus’ fortifications. Gaps between the buildings near the eastern spur were closed, a second wall was constructed, and rooms at the outer edge of the town were filled with fieldstones. Syon, “City of Refuge,” 56. 318

H. Travel and Gaulanitis

249

H. Travel and Gaulanitis H. Travel and Gaulanitis

I. Roads in Gaulanitis During the Iron Age the main north-south route ran west of the Jordan River and linked the ancient settlements of Dan, Hazor, and Kinnereth. During the Hellenistic period this route shifted to the eastern bank to link the sanctuary of Paneas with Tel Anafa and et-Tell Bethsaida.322 Near Bethsaida this route joined two additional roads. The first followed the western shoreline of the lake south to Beth She’an/Scythopolis, and the second followed the eastern shoreline of the lake south to Gadara. Thus, first century CE et-Tell Bethsaida was strategically located at crossroads enabling trade north to Caesarea Philippi, south to Beth Shean/Scythopolis via Capernaum, Magdala, and Tiberias, or south to Gadara via Hippos/Sussita. The distance between Bethsaida and Capernaum was only about five kilometres,323 and travellers on foot could cross the Jordan River at a ford near Bethsaida.324 Another route ran west from the ford via Chorazin and Kefar Hananya to Ptolemais.325 East of Bethsaida two additional roads turned off the route which followed the eastern shoreline of the lake. One ran to the fortress of Gamla,326 and the second turned off between Ḥorvat Kanaf and Kursi toward Rafid. Sections of this road, which was paved during the second century CE, have been found, along with a number of milestones.327 During the Early Roman I period the roads of the central Golan were unpaved, except for short stretches approaching settlements like Bethsaida.328 Parts of Gaulanitis were also cut by deep gorges making transportation difficult.329 In such cases narrow paths were cut into the steep slopes to connect the towns and villages. However, for an itinerant prophet travelling on foot with his disciples, these roads were sufficient to reach even the remotest village.

322

Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176. See also Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 63. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 144. 324 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455. 325 Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455; Hezser, Jewish Travel, 75; Strange, “First Century Galilee” 40; Appold, “Peter in Profile,” 143; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 136– 137; Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 37; Meyers, “Jesus Galilean Context,” 63; and AviYonah, “The Roman Road System,” 60. 326 Josephus refers to this road in Life 398. 327 See the maps in Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536. 328 A section of paved road from the Iron Age II is visible today leading up to the gates of Bethsaida. Fragments of Roman period pottery found on the surface of this road indicate that it was still in use during the first century CE. 329 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 178. 323

250

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

II. Literary sources and travel across the Sea of Galilee Jesus and his disciples could also travel to Gaulanitis by boat.330 The Sea of Galilee, known also as the Lake of Gennesaret, the Sea of Tiberias, and the Yam Kinneret (Hebrew),331 was bounded by three regions: Galilee, Gaulanitis, and the Decapolis. Josephus describes vibrant trade and activity across the lake between these regions.332 Mark records Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee on at least six occasions.333 The frequency of sea travel may be explained by the claim that four of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen.334 Therefore they probably had access to a fishing boat. During one crossing, Mark describes a sudden storm on the lake which threatened to sink the boat. On another occasion Mark mentions a strong headwind which prevented the rowers from making headway.335 The occurrence of sudden storms and strong winds is attested by those who fish on the lake today.336 III. Archaeology and travel across the Sea of Galilee As we have seen, fishing activity on the lake is indicated by the abundant remains of fishing implements found at towns and villages along the shoreline, 330 The Sea of Galilee currently measures about twenty-one kilometres in length, and twelve kilometres in width at its widest point. Wachsmann, “Sea of Galilee,” EHJ 57. Josephus measured the lake at “forty furlongs broad and a hundred and forty long” (War 3.506). According to Thackeray this is about 16 miles long and 4 ½ broad (i.e. 25.7 km in length, and just over 7 km in width). Thackeray, Josephus: Jewish War, vol. 3–4 (Loeb), 146. The Sea of Galilee was sourced by natural springs near Paneas and the snows of Mount Hermon. These flowed into the River Jordan and continued south via Lake Huleh to the Sea of Galilee, emerging near et-Tell Bethsaida (War 2.168). 331 For the Lake of Gennesaret see Luke 5.1; Josephus, War 3.506, 509–510, 515; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.16; and Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.15.9. For the Sea of Tiberias see Josephus War 3.56; 4.456; John 6.1; 21.1; and Pausanius, Graeciae Descriptio, 5.7.4. For the Sea of Galilee see Mark 1.16; 7.31; Matt 4.18; and John 6.1. For the Yam Kinneret see Shelley Wachsmann, “Sea of Galilee,” EHJ 57. 332 For trips between Taricheae and Tiberias see War 2.635, 641; Life 96, 163–165, 167; between Tiberias and Hippos/Sussita see Life 153; and between Taricheae and Bethsaida/Julias see Life 398, 406. 333 For references to travel on the Sea of Galilee see Mark 4.35–36; 5.1, 21; 6.32, 45–47, 53; 8.10, 13, 22. 334 Mark 1.16–20. One might assume that only Jesus and the twelve made these journeys across the lake. However, as noted in an earlier chapter, on at least one occasion Mark records that other boats went with them (Mark 4.36). 335 Mark 4.37; Mark 6.48. 336 Nun, Newly Discovered Harbours, 4, 34. As B.M. Rapske writes, “The lake’s geographic situation at the base of the Jordan Rift created atmospheric conditions resulting in sudden and frequent storms dangerous to watercraft.” Brian M. Rapske, “Travel and Trade,” DNTB 1247.

H. Travel and Gaulanitis

251

including et-Tell Bethsaida.337 Trade and transport on the sea is also indicated by the discovery of Hasmonean coins and fragments of Kefar Hananya ware among shipwrecks on the seabed,338 and by the remains of harbours around the shoreline. These stone-built harbours follow a basic plan, with a breakwater to protect the area from wind and waves, and a promenade on the shore enabling access to the boats.339 These structures were found at a depth of about 211 to 212 metres below mean Mediterranean Sea level, due to the Sea of Galilee being one of the lowest lying bodies of water in the world.340 Galili and Rosen suggest the majority of these harbours were built during the Roman period, including the harbours of Tiberias, Magdala/Taricheae, Gennesaret, Capernaum, Kefar Aqavya, Gergesa/Kursi, Hippos/Sussita, and Gadara.341 However, Nun may be correct when he suggests the harbours at Hippos/Sussita and Gadara were constructed during the Hellenistic period when these cities were founded.342 A harbour or quay at et-Tell Bethsaida has not been found, and almost certainly lies buried beneath the silt which filled in the lagoons and raised the floor of the lake at the Jordan delta. However, references in literary sources to boats arriving at Bethsaida, and the discovery of numerous fishing implements at the site, confirm that the residents of et-Tell Bethsaida had access to the Sea of Galilee during the Early Roman I period. If the harbour at Kefar Aqavya was in use during the Early Roman I period, it would have provided a second port for Gaulanitis. This harbour was located southeast of Bethsaida and about four kilometres north of Kursi. It had a breakwater with a base five metres wide, which protected a deep harbour at about 212.5 metres below sea level. Such a harbour would have enabled large vessels to dock. The harbour also had a promenade which today lies above the water line.343 The conclusions of Galili and Rosen are based largely on the work of Mendel Nun, who located and surveyed many of the harbours of Galilee, beginning at Kursi in 1970.344 On the basis of ceramics and coins found spanning the 337

Fortner, “Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities,” 269–280. To date, 125 coins of Alexander Jannaeus have been recovered from the lake. Syon, Small Change, 61 [Table 5, Site 142]. 339 Wachsmann, “Sea of Galilee,” EHJ 557–560. 340 Since the foundations of these structures needed to be below the minimum water level, Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen estimate the water level at the time of their construction was about 210–211 metres below sea level. Galili and Rosen, “Marine Archaeology,” NEAEHL 5.1933. 341 Galili and Rosen, “Marine Archaeology,” NEAEHL 5.1933–1934. 342 Mendel Nun, “Ports of Galilee. Modern Drought Reveals Harbors from Jesus’ Time,” BAR 25.4 (1999): 29. 343 Nun, Newly Discovered Harbors, 12–13. 344 It was during the three-year drought of 1989–1991 when the water level dropped to 213 metres below sea level, that Nun was able to find many of these harbours. Nun, Newly Discovered Harbors, 12–13. 338

252

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Hellenistic to Byzantine periods, Nun concluded that these harbours were in existence during the Early Roman period. Also, noting that some of the breakwaters were found at a depth of at least 211.25 metres below sea level, Nun estimated that the average water level during the Early Roman period would have been about 210 metres below sea level. Stefano De Luca and Anna Lena recently challenged Nun’s conclusion. Based on their excavation of an Early Roman period quay at Magdala, which had four mooring stones (MS 4–7) in situ at an average elevation of 208.28 metres below sea level, they concluded that most of the harbours surveyed by Nun were too deep to have been in use during the Early Roman period, and should be dated to the Byzantine period.345 However, significant geological shifts occurred in this region during the first millennia of the Common Era, including several severe earthquakes.346 These toppled settlements, changed the shape of the shoreline, and silted up the Jordan delta. Thus many factors may need to be taken into consideration before the depth of the harbours and the height of the water level during the Early Roman period can be determined. Also, most of the harbour facilities around the Sea of Galilee have not been fully excavated.347 A fuller picture should emerge concerning the time these harbours were constructed and the geological changes along the coastline, when data from further excavations and marine archaeology becomes available. In addition, most of the stone-built harbours have been beaten down by the waves over the last two millennia, so that only their foundations remain. Yet there is no reason to suppose that large and deep harbours were not constructed, with breakwaters built to a height of at least 3.5 metres or more to accommodate both minimum and maximum water levels, and to protect the shore during storms.348 Josephus claims that he raised a fleet of 230 boats at Taricheae.349 If so, then the town would need a fairly large harbour to accommodate this

345 They suggest the average water level during the Early Roman period was between 209 and 208 metres below sea level. Stefano De Luca and Anna Lena, “The Harbor of the City of Magdala/Taricheae on the Shores of the Sea of Galilee, from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Times. New Discoveries and Preliminary Results,” Byzas 19–Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Byzantine Period: Recent Discoveries and Current Approaches, ed. Sabine Ladstätter, Felix Pirson, and Thomas Schmidts (Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2014): 113–163, esp. 136–146. See also Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 35. 346 Kenneth W. Russel, “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the Mid-8th Century A.D.,” BASOR 260 (1985), 42. 347 Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 29. 348 Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 22; Nun, Newly Discovered Harbors, 7, 47. 349 War 2.634–635; Life 163. Most of these were probably fishing boats which required a five-man crew: four rowers and a steersman. Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 97–100.

H. Travel and Gaulanitis

253

number of vessels.350 It is also of note that no remains of secondary breakwaters have been found around the Sea of Galilee. While it is possible that a breakwater could be dismantled and repositioned if lake levels dropped, it seems more likely that they were constructed with sufficient depth, width, and height to cope with fluctuating water levels and storm surges. It is noteworthy therefore that the “Galilee Boat,” also known as the “Kinneret Boat,” was discovered in 1986 near the shore between Magdala and modern Ginosar, at a depth of 211–212 metres below sea level.351 In other words, this boat was resting at the same depth as most of the harbour facilities observed by Nun. Also fragments of Kefar Hananya ware found in and around the vessel, including one whole casserole KH3A and a Herodian oil lamp, date the boat to the Early Roman I period.352 This suggests that the harbours observed by Nun were probably in use during the Early Roman I period. The Galilee boat is important for three additional reasons. First, the discovery of Kefar Hananya ware and Herodian oil lamps in and around the boat indicates that the vessel was used to carry goods across the lake. Such trade helps explain the predominance of Kefar Hananya ware and Herodian oil lamps found at sites in Gaulanitis. A second point to note is that a boat like this, with its shallow sides, could also be used for fishing with a seine net.353 Finally, the boat measures 8.27 metres in length and 2.3 metres in width, and has a maximum preserved height of 1.3 metres. As noted in Chapter Four, on the basis of these dimensions the excavators estimated that the boat could accommodate up to fifteen persons.354 This means that a boat of this size could accommodate Jesus and twelve of his disciples.

350

War 2.634–635; Life 163. Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 258. 352 This date is consistent with the results of carbon 14 dating taken on the different timbers of the boat. Ten C14 datings were taken, with results ranging from 130 BCE to 80 CE. Thus the average date was 40 BCE ± 80 (i.e. 40 BCE with a standard deviation of 80 years). Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 242–245, 249. 353 Shelley Wachsmann and Kurt Raveh, “Ginnosar,” NEAEHL 2.520; Nun, Newly Discovered Harbors, 45. For a description of fishing with a seine net see Troche, “Ancient Fishing Methods,” 282–285. 354 Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 280, 314–316. As noted in Chapter Four, this figure included four rowers and a helmsman/steersman. This figure was checked against the weight such a vessel could carry. It was also based on the estimated height and weight of an average man during the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods. As note earlier, on the basis of skeletal remains discovered in Palestine during these periods, Wachsmann suggests the height of an average man would have been about 5 feet 5⅓ inches tall, and the average woman about 4 feet 11½ inches tall. The weight of an average man would have been approximately 65 kg. On this basis it was concluded that fifteen men would weigh a little less than a ton, a weight the Galilee boat could support. Wachsmann, Sea of Galilee Boat, 314–317. 351

254

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

I. Where was Dalmanutha? I. Where was Dalmanutha?

According to Mark 8.10, Jesus and his disciples got into a boat and travelled to the district of Dalmanutha (τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθά). This is the only place in the New Testament where this topographical reference occurs, and it is attested in no other literary or documentary source. It is highly unlikely therefore that Mark invented the name of Dalmanutha, even though the location of the place is unknown.355 Dalmanutha has strong support in the manuscript tradition of Mark.356 However, it is evident that it presented a puzzle since in the parallel passage in Matthew the name is replaced with the equally unknown Μαγαδάν,357 which some copyists adjusted to Magdala.358 However, while the location and name of Dalmanutha is otherwise unknown, the authenticity of the name is indicated by its ending – θα, derived from the Aramaic – ‫תא‬, which denotes a specific place.359 This is attested in other place names in Palestine such as Sussita in the Decapolis, Gabatha in Galilee, and Golgotha near Jerusalem. Thus, Dalmanutha appears to have been a genuine place. It is evident in Mark 8.10 that Dalmanutha was located along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, it must have been located in one of three regions: Galilee, Gaulanitis, or the Decapolis. Mark states that when Jesus arrived in Dalmanutha he was met by some Pharisees.360 This presupposes that Jesus was in Jewish territory. While we cannot rule out the Decapolis, since there were some Jewish villages in the region,361 the evidence weighs in favour of a predominantly Jewish region. Thus, most scholars assume that Jesus had sailed back to Galilee.362 However, Gaulanitis was also a Jewish region. The Galilean coastline from Tiberias to Capernaum was densely populated and there was little room along this stretch of shoreline to locate an unknown district. South of Tiberias there was the settlement of Sennabris, but as noted 355

The uncertainty of the topographical reference and its occurrence with the uncommon use of μέρη by Mark, rather than the more usual ὅρια, points not only to pre-Markan tradition but also to its historicity. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary, 403. 356 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 83. The manuscripts include ‫ א‬A B C K L Γ Δ 0131. 0274. 33. 579. 357 Matt. 15.39. Μαγαδάν appears in manuscripts ‫ *א‬B D. Eusebius found Μαγεδάν in his text of Matt. 15.39 and Μαγεδὰν in his text of Mark 8.10. He added that this district was located around Γερασάν (Οnom. 138.18). Thus Bauckham argues that this would place it on the eastern shore. Bauckham, “Where was Dalmanutha?” 23. 358 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 32. Μαγδαλα appears in manuscripts K L Γ Δ Θ. 359 Bauckham, “Where was Dalmanutha?” 27. 360 Mark 8.11. 361 We will discuss the Jewish settlements in the Decapolis in Chapter Eight. 362 See e.g. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary, 404; Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 412–413; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 498; and France, Gospel of Mark, 310.

J. Implications for the historical Jesus

255

in the previous chapter, it is unclear whether this belonged to Galilee or the Decapolis. Bauckham suggests the district of Dalmanutha was located along a stretch of coastline in Gaulanitis between Bethsaida and Kursi.363 The remnants of the ancient harbour of Kefar Aqavya were found along this shoreline,364 and the nearby settlement was known variously as ed-Dugâ, ed-Dukâ, and Dukâth Kafr ‘Aqâb. This site was surveyed by Urman and found to exhibit ceramic fragments from the Roman period.365 A second site, located about a kilometre inland near the modern village of ‘Aqib, has been identified with ancient Kefar Aqavya/‘Akabya. This site is attested in a synagogue inscription found at Ḥammat Gader.366 Roman period ceramic fragments were also found, although the site had been severely disturbed by Syrian installations.367 Thus while we cannot be certain, the district referred to as Dalmanutha may well have been located near the harbour of Kefar Aqavya in Gaulanitis. According to Mark, Jesus travelled to Dalmanutha after the feeding of the 4,000,368 an event which Mark appears to locate in the Decapolis.369 Mark does not state that Jesus crossed the lake after this miracle. Rather, he got into the boat with his disciples and came to the district of Dalmanutha (ηλθεν τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθά).370 Thus he could have sailed to another district on the eastern shore. After the awkward encounter with the Pharisees there, Jesus got back into the boat and crossed over to the other side.371 If Dalmanutha was located in Gaulanitis, then Jesus’ final crossing would bring him back to Galilee.372

J. Implications for the historical Jesus J. Implications for the historical Jesus

As noted earlier in this chapter, the evidence strongly suggests that Jesus ministered in Bethsaida. Jesus’ activity in Bethsaida is doubly attested in Mark and Q,373 and the Q reference suggests that Jesus performed mighty deeds in 363

Bauckham, “Where was Dalmanutha?” 25. Nun, Newly Discovered Harbors, 12–13. 365 Urman, “Public Structures,” 552–553. 366 Avi-Yonah, “Ḥammat Gader,” NEAEHL 2.568. 367 Urman, “Public Structures,” 552. 368 Mark 8.10. 369 The last topographical reference was to the Decapolis (Mark 7.31). 370 Mark 8.10. 371 Mark 8.13. 372 Later, in Mark 8.22, Jesus and his disciples arrive in Bethsaida. This need not pose a geographical problem however, for while the account of Jesus in the district of Dalmanutha precedes the account of his arrival in Bethsaida in the Markan narrative, the events do not seem to be connected, and may not have occurred in the same chronological order in the life of the historical Jesus. 373 Mark 8.22; Q 10.13 (Matt 11.21; Luke 10.13). 364

256

Chapter 5: Jesus and Gaulanitis

Bethsaida over an extended period of time. Also, as a result of excavations, it is evident that et-Tell Bethsaida was a predominantly Jewish village prior to 70 CE, and while its status was raised from a κώμη to a πóλις in 30 CE, Bethsaida remained little more than a large village. Thus, Mark’s designation of Bethsaida as a κώμη was an accurate description,374 and may suggest that we are in touch here with early traditions that knew of Bethsaida as a village. In addition, if Jesus’ public ministry began ca. 28 CE,375 then during the early days of his ministry Bethsaida was indeed a village. The close geographical proximity of et-Tell Bethsaida to Capernaum supports the conclusion that Jesus ministered in Bethsaida. It also suggests that when Jesus left Capernaum to preach in the neighbouring towns and villages,376 this tour probably included a trip to Bethsaida. To reach the village Jesus and his disciples could walk there, following the coastline and crossing a ford at the Jordan River, or they could sail there across the north-western corner of the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, few scholars doubt that Jesus visited Bethsaida during his itinerant ministry. Should we imagine then that Jesus travelled no further than Bethsaida, and think that he neglected the other Jewish towns and villages of Gaulanitis? Given that Jesus’ base of operations was Capernaum on the north-western shoreline, and given that he travelled not only to other towns and villages in the vicinity of Capernaum, but also journeyed southwest to Nazareth,377 and sent his disciples on mission around the interior of Galilee,378 it would be surprising indeed if Jesus did not also extend his mission eastward beyond Bethsaida to at least some of the other thirty-two Jewish towns and villages known to have existed in Gaulanitis during the Early Roman period. That he did so is suggested by at least two boat journeys to Bethsaida depicted in Mark, although these are probably representative of many trips to Gaulanitis. From there Jesus and his disciples could travel on foot throughout the region along its many unpaved roads. It is also possible, as noted above, that Jesus’ journey to Dalmanutha entailed a visit to Gaulanitis, and that he perhaps came ashore at the harbour near Kefar Aqavya. The likelihood that Jesus journeyed throughout Gaulanitis is supported by other factors we now know about the region, such as the strong ethnic ties between Galilee and Gaulanitis, its similar settlement history, the extent of trade 374 Mark 8.26. In the Gospels of Luke and John, Bethsaida is designated a πóλις (See e.g. Luke 9.10; John 1.44). It appears that these evangelists felt the need to correct the designation they found in Mark, in light of the raised status of Bethsaida in 30 CE, although it is also possible that they used the term πóλις loosely. 375 See the excellent discussion on the chronology of Jesus’ ministry by Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.372–433. 376 Mark 1.38. 377 Mark 6.1. See also Mark 1.9. 378 Mark 6.6b, 7, 12.

J. Implications for the historical Jesus

257

between the two regions, and the involvement of both regions in the First Jewish Revolt. Jesus had as much incentive to visit the villages of Gaulanitis as he did the villages of Galilee, and his message was no less relevant to their circumstances than they were to those living in Galilee. Moreover, given that many Jews of the day thought of Galilee more broadly as including Gaulanitis, and given Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled around the towns and villages of Galilee,379 it is likely that the Jewish villages of Gaulanitis were included in these summary statements. Mark and the other evangelists did not refer to Gaulanitis by name. Nor did they state explicitly that Jesus visited the region. But Mark did state explicitly that Jesus visited Bethsaida.380 The apparent omission concerning Gaulanitis is explicable if the Jewish settlements in the region were perceived to be a part of Galilee. Finally, it is unlikely that Jesus would venture further afield to the villages of Caesarea Philippi,381 without first ministering to his closest neighbours in Gaulanitis. It is highly probable, therefore, that the historical Jesus ministered among the towns and villages of Gaulanitis, just as he did in Galilee.

379

Mark 1.38–39; 6.6b, 56. Mark 8.22. 381 Mark 8.27. See the discussion in Chapter Six. 380

Chapter 6

Jesus and the northern Golan: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel A. Introduction A. Introduction

During the Roman period the northern Golan stretched from the Counter-Lebanon mountain range in the north to the central Golan (Gaulanitis) in the south. It included the southern slopes of Mount Hermon,1 the region of Paneas, and the Huleh valley.2 From 4 BCE until 34 CE this region was ruled by Philip the tetrarch,3 and it was at the south-western foot of Mount Hermon, near the ancient site of Paneas, that Philip built his new city. He named it Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus, and it became known as the Caesarea of Philip, or Caesarea Philippi.4 Mark writes that Jesus and his disciples travelled “to the villages of Caesarea Philippi” (εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου).5 This is the only mention of Caesarea Philippi in Mark.6 One might be tempted to imagine Jesus walking through Philip’s new Graeco-Roman city, but Mark does not state that Jesus entered the city. He claims that Jesus journeyed to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. As Michael J. Wilkins writes:

1 Mount Hermon (modern Jabal esh-Sheikh) is located at the southern end of the CounterLebanon range. It is the highest mountain in Palestine at 2814 metres above sea level. Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 216. 2 The Huleh Valley, or Huleh Basin, was known as the district of Ulatha/Oulatha during the Early Roman period. Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.136. See also Tübingen Bible Atlas, Map BV 18. 3 Ant. 17.189, 319; 18.28; War 2.95. See also Ant. 18.106. 4 Ant. 18.28; Life 52, 53, 59. Mark A. Chancey and Adam Porter, “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine,” NEA 64.4 (2001): 181. This was to distinguish the city from the other Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast. See also Tsafrir et al, “Paneas, Caesarea Philippi,” TIR 199. 5 Mark 8.27a. The reference to “the villages” (τὰς κώμας) of Caesarea Philippi is strongly attested in the manuscript tradition. Only one manuscript, the fifth century CE Bezae Cantabrigiensis, omits the reference to “the villages.” It reads: εἰς Καισαρείαν τῆς Φιλίππου. 6 Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20, 13.

260

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

Mark meticulously suggests that Jesus operated within the orbit of the cities of the pagan regions (“region of Tyre,” 7.24; “country of the Gerasenes,” 5.1; “in the region of the Decapolis,” 7.31; “the villages around Caesarea Philippi,” 9.27), but he does not mention any ministry within any of the cities mentioned.7

Recounting the same episode, Matthew writes that Jesus came “into the district of Caesarea-Philippi” (εἰς τὰ μέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου).8 Although Matthew is probably borrowing from Mark at this point, it is noteworthy that he mentions the area around Caesarea Philippi rather than the city itself. Luke, on the other hand, omits the topographical reference to Caesarea-Philippi.9 A number of scholars have doubted Mark’s claim that Jesus visited the villages of Caesarea Philippi.10 Bultmann claimed that this topographical reference lacked all historical validity.11 More recently Collins suggested that this topographical reference was added by Mark for symbolic reasons.12 John Francis Wilson has proposed the reference be attributed to an apocalyptic JewishChristian community living in the region of Caesarea Philippi.13 Yet, as we will see, there are good reasons for accepting Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. This chapter will briefly outline what is known about the northern Golan from literary sources and archaeology. We will see that although the northern Golan was a predominantly Gentile region, literary sources also acknowledge the presence of Jewish communities in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi during the first century CE. As for archaeological remains, brief mention will be made of Caesarea-Philippi and its district, including the temple precinct at Ḥorvat Omrit, and the settlement of Tel Anafa in the Huleh Valley. These sites exhibit a material culture during the Early Roman I period which differs from that of Jewish Galilee. Therefore, they serve as a good comparison. The remainder of the chapter will focus on those sites which have yielded Jewish identity 7 Michael J. Wilkins, “Peter’s Declaration Concerning Jesus’ Identity in Caesarea Philippi,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 312. 8 Matt. 16.13. The term μέρος literally denoted a “part” or “share” but could also be used to denote a district or region that surrounded a city. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon, 633. 9 Luke 9.18. 10 Mark 8.27. 11 Bultmann also described the account of Peter’s messianic declaration “a phantasy.” Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 64–65, cf. 257. 12 These will be discussed later in this chapter. Collins, Mark, 400–401. 13 He argues that although this community was later viewed suspiciously by “orthodox” Christianity, they nonetheless contributed some of the material incorporated into Mark’s gospel. John Francis Wilson, “Paneas, Caesarea Philippi and the World of the Gospels,” Forum. Third Series 3.1 (2014): 19. See also John Francis Wilson, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan (London: I.B. Tauros, 2004), 78–84.

B. Literary sources and the northern Golan

261

markers. A number of these are located near the southern end of the Huleh Valley. There was also a direct route linking Bethsaida with Caesarea Philippi, and this road passed by the eastern shore of Lake Huleh where some of these villages were located. The presence of Jewish communities in the northern Golan makes explicable Jesus’ journey to the region.

B. Literary sources and the northern Golan B. Literary sources and the northern Golan

The region of Paneas derived its name from the sanctuary of Pan (πάνειον), located at the foot of Mount Hermon.14 It was near Paneas (modern Banias) that Herod the Great built an imperial temple in honour of Caesar Augustus,15 and Philip founded his new city Caesarea Philippi.16 I. The Early Hellenistic period The northern Golan during the Early Hellenistic period was largely populated by Itureans and Syro-Phoenicians. The Itureans appear to have been a seminomadic tribe who in the second century BCE expanded their territory from the mountains of Lebanon south-eastward into Paneas, Ulatha, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea.17 The Seleucids also expanded their territory south into the Golan. Their influence in the region is reflected in the names of the cities they founded, such as Antiochia and Seleucia, and the name given to the Huleh

14 Ancient references to Paneas include Josephus, Ant. 15.363–364; War 1.404–406; Polybius, Hist. 16.18.2; 28.1.3; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71, 74; and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.18. For an introduction to Paneas and excavations at the site see Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.136–137; Vassilios Tzaferis, “Banias,” NEAEHL 5.1587; David W. Suter, “Paneion,” EDEJ , 1021; Chancey and Porter, “Archaeology of Roman Palestine,” 181; and Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 179. 15 Josephus, Ant. 15.363–364; War 1.404. See also Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 136– 137; Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.136. 16 Ant. 18.28; War 2.168. See also Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71, 74; Ptolemy Geogr. 5.15.21; Mark 8.27; and Matt. 16.13. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 137; and Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.136. 17 In ancient sources the Itureans are sometimes described as robbers who descended from their mountain hideouts to prey upon farmers and settlements in the plains. Such portrayals may have been prejudicial and exaggerated, however, and reflect the perspective of their Greek and Roman conquerors. The chief city of the Itureans appears to have been Chalcis in the Beqa Valley, between the Lebanon and Counter-Lebanon ranges. From there the Iturean kings, Ptolemy, Lysanias, and Zenodorus ruled over Paneas and Ulatha, until these regions were torn from Zenodorus by Augustus in 20 BCE, and given to Herod the Great (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20, 46; Josephus, Ant. 15.359–360; War 1.398–400; 2.95). See also John F. Healey, “Iturea,” OCD 776.

262

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

Valley i.e. the Valley of Antiochus.18 At the same time, Tyre expanded its influence in the Golan and founded the settlement at Tel Anafa. II. The Late Hellenistic period The northern Golan remained a predominantly Gentile region throughout the Late Hellenisitc and Roman periods. This is indicated by references to religious sites in the region, such as the sanctuary of Pan.19 It is not surprising therefore that when Philip built his new city of Caesarea Philippi, Josephus recorded it was populated with Syrians, a designation which probably included Itureans and Phoenicians.20 However, Josephus also notes the presence of a minority Jewish population in the northern Golan during the Early Roman I period.21 What is unclear is when these Jews began to appear in the region. Josephus claims that Alexander Jannaeus captured the valley of Antiochus (i.e. the Huleh Valley) in ca. 83–81 BCE.22 Yet Josephus does not include any northern Golan settlements in his list of cities which came under Hasmonean control.23 This suggests that while the Hasmoneans may have ventured into the northern Golan, they did not gain control over the region. This may also explain why the small number of Jewish sites found in the region to date, are located near the southern end of the Huleh Valley near Gaulanitis.24 Whether these Jewish settlements were founded during the time of the Hasmoneans or during the reign of Herod the Great is yet to be determined. A further indicator that the Hasmoneans did not control the northern Golan is that the region is not listed among the territories torn from the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE.25 Rather, Josephus writes that the Iturean king Ptolemy 18 Josephus, Ant. 13.394; War 1.105. It is generally accepted that the Valley of Antiochus should be equated with the Huleh Valley. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 36; Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 114. See also Tübingen Bible Atlas, Map BV 18. 19 Josephus refers to another shrine near Lake Huleh known as the “temple of the golden cow” (War 4.3). This site has not yet been identified. Zwickel doubts current arguments in favour of a temple named Daphne in the Huleh region. Wolfgang Zwickel, “The Huleh Valley from the Iron Age to the Muslim Period,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity, 167. 20 Josephus, Life 52, 53, 59. Josephus’ term “Syrian” generally denotes the rural, Gentile, residents occupying the regions around Galilee. See the discussion in Chapter One. 21 See e.g. Life 53, 55, 61, 74; War 2.591–592. There were also Jewish communities in the Trachonitis and Batanea (Ant. 17.23–27). Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 179. 22 Ant. 13.394; 17.24; and War 1.105. This occurred during Alexander’s campaign through the Transjordan and the Golan. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 1.283; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2:526; Urman, “Public Structures,” 379. 23 The cities in the central Golan conquered by Alexander Jannaeus were Seleucia, Gaulana, and Gamla (Ant. 13.396). 24 This will be discussed below. 25 War 1.155–157; Ant. 14.75–76.

B. Literary sources and the northern Golan

263

(ca. 85–40 BCE) retained his rule over the region, even though this cost him a considerable amount of money which he paid to Pompey.26 It appears therefore that while some Jews may have settled in the northern Golan during the Late Hellenistic period, the region remained predominantly Iturean and Syro-Phoenician. A related point concerns Josephus’ claim that Aristobulus I (ca. 105/104 BCE) conquered some of the territory of the Itureans and compelled those who wished to remain there, to become circumcised and live according to Jewish laws.27 We have already noted that this claim did not apply to the region of Galilee. Therefore some scholars have suggested that the territory concerned was the northern Golan, and that some of the Itureans in the northern Golan were converted to Judaism at this time.28 However, as we will see, his conclusion does not tally with the archaeological evidence from the region. Nonetheless, the Hasmoneans do appear to have entered into a political alliance with the Itureans,29 for Josephus records that Ptolemy (ca. 85–40 BCE) allied himself with Antigonus and married his sister Alexandra.30 Also, Ptolemy’s successor Lysanias (40–34 CE) allied himself with Antigonus against Herod the Great.31 These events suggest that there was a political arrangement between the Itureans and the Hasmoneans which began during the Late Hellenistic period.

26

Ant. 14.39, 126, 330. The region of Paneas later passed to his son Lysanias (Ant. 14.330). Pompey also restored the kingdom of Chalcis to Ptolemy, where he ruled as ethnarch until 40 BCE (Ant. 14.126). This kingdom eventually passed to Herod of Chalcis, then after his death it was annexed to Syria (Ant. 20.103–104). 27 Ant. 13.318–319. See also War 1.105. Josephus cited Strabo as his source, who in turn got this information from Timagenes (Josephus, Ap. 2.84). However, as noted in Chapter Two, Josephus did not name the region concerned. It was partly for this reason that Emil Schürer incorrectly linked the account of Aristobulus I’s conquest of the Itureans with the region of Galilee. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, 4th ed., 1.275–276; and 2.9–12. 28 See e.g. Wilson, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, 7, 70; and “Paneas, Caesarea Philippi,” 11–14. 29 Sean Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” in Collins and Sterling, Hellenism in the Land of Israel, 207; Syon, Small Change, 85. One possibility is that Aristobulus I may have encountered Iturean settlements in the central Golan, and these agreed to conform to Jewish law in order to remain in the region. The best way to test this would be to excavate some of the smaller settlements, particularly those near the boundary between the central and northern Golan. 30 Ant. 14.126, 297. 31 Ant. 14.330. It is also noteworthy that in the first century CE, another descendent of Herod the Great became the ruler of Chalcis, the chief city of the Itureans in the Beqa valley between the Lebanon and Counter-Lebanon ranges.

264

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

III. The Early Roman I period In 40 BCE, Zenodorus, the grandson of the Iturean king Ptolemy, inherited Paneas, Ulatha, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea. However, due to ongoing instability in Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea, Augustus removed these regions from his kingdom in 24 BCE, and gave them to Herod the Great.32 After the death of Zenodorus in 20 BCE, Augustus added the regions of Paneas and Ulatha to the kingdom of Herod the Great.33 Given the privileges awarded the Jews living in the regions of Trachonitis and Batanea,34 and Herod’s practice of minting non-figurative coins in deference to the Jewish aversion to images, it is likely that the Jewish minority living in the northern Golan at this time was afforded a degree of protection. After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE these territories passed to Herod’s son Philip.35 Thus the population of Philip’s tetrarchy included Itureans, Syro-Phoenicians, and Jews. The northern Golan appears to have remained relatively peaceful during the reign of Philip,36 and it was probably during this period that a small community of Jews settled in Caesarea Philippi. Conditions were such that an itinerant prophet like Jesus could travel with relative ease and safety between Galilee, Gaulanitis, and the region of Paneas. Following the death of Philip in 34 CE, the political administration of the region changed hands several times. Initially the region, along with Gaulanitis, was annexed to the province of Syria.37 However, after the death of Tiberias in 37 CE, Gaius “Caligula” granted these territories to Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod the Great.38 Galilee was then added to the territories of Agrippa I after the exile of Herod Antipas in 39 CE,39 followed by Judea and Samaria in 40 CE after the assassination of Gaius “Caligula.”40 However, Agrippa I died in

32 Ant. 15.344–349; War 1.398–400; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20, 46. Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 271. Herod then settled a colony of Babylonian Jews in Batanea and granted them exemption from taxes in return for bringing stability to the region (Ant. 17.23–27). 33 Ant. 15.359–360; War 1.400; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 54.9.3; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20, 46. Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 206; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 272– 273. 34 See e.g. Ant. 17.23–27. 35 War 2.93–95. See also War 2.168. Luke writes that Philip the tetrarch ruled Trachonitis and Iturea (Luke 3.1). The reference to Iturea here should probably be understood to mean the former Iturean territories of Paneas and Ulatha. Eusebius seems to identify Iturea with the Trachonitis, which he acknowledges was ruled by Philip (Onom. 110.27). 36 Josephus describes Philip as a modest ruler who took with him only a few companions and a portable throne when he made circuits around his tetrarchy (Ant. 18.106–107). 37 Ant. 18.106–108. 38 Ant. 18.237; War 2.181. 39 Ant. 18.252. 40 Ant 19.274; War 2.215. See also Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 60.8.2.

B. Literary sources and the northern Golan

265

44 CE.41 At this point Galilee, Judea, and Samaria became the Roman province of Judaea.42 Meanwhile, Philip’s former territories were again annexed to Syria until 53 CE, when Claudius granted these territories to Agrippa II.43 After the death of Claudius in 54 CE, Nero added the cities of Tiberias and Taricheae, and their districts, to the territory of Agrippa II.44 It was during this time that Agrippa II enlarged the city of Caesarea Philippi and renamed it Neronias in honour of the emperor.45 Thus within a period of three decades the administration of the northern Golan changed hands at least five times. Other factors added to the gradual deterioration of conditions throughout Palestine at this time, including the northern regions of Galilee, Gaulanitis, and Paneas. In 39–40 CE Gaius “Caligula” ordered the placement of his image in the temple at Jerusalem.46 This edict caused considerable upset throughout the Jewish territories, and would almost certainly have led to a Jewish uprising had not Gaius “Caligula” been assassinated before the edict was enforced. This may not have directly impacted the northern Golan, but it certainly disturbed the Galileans, who left their fields to appeal to the Syrian legate Petronius. According to Josephus, a drought also hit the region during the same year.47 It is therefore likely that trade between Galilee and the Golan was disrupted at this time. When Galilee was attached to the province of Judaea in 44 CE, customs duties were almost certainly levied on goods passing between Galilee and the Golan. This probably increased the cost of transporting goods like Kefar Hananya ware and olive oil from Galilee to the northern Golan. Also in the mid-forties, during the reign of Claudius (41–54 CE), Palestine was hit by a severe famine which resulted in considerable loss of life.48 Josephus reports the 41

Ant. 19.343–350. These regions remained under the administration of Roman procurators until the First Jewish Revolt in 66 CE (Ant. 19.343–352; War 2.247, 252–253). Syon, Small Change, 83. 43 Adam Marshak, “Herodian Dynasty,” EDEJ 738. This was in exchange for the Iturean territory of Chalcis, which passed to Herod of Chalcis (War 2.217). Thus Agrippa II ruled the regions of Paneas, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulanitis. He was also granted the district of Abila (Ant. 20.138; War 2.247). It is sometimes thought that Agrippa II received these territories in 44 CE after the death of Agrippa I, but according to Josephus, Agrippa II remained in Rome at this time. Tessa Rajak, “Iulius Agrippa II, Marcus,” OCD 779. 44 Ant. 20.159; War 2.252–253. Agrippa II then regained Chalcis after the death of Herod of Chalcis (War 2.223–227). 45 Ant. 20.211. Mason, Life of Josephus, 63. 46 Ant. 18.271–272; 19.338–342; War 2.192–193. See also Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 54. 47 Ant. 18.285; War 2.184–185. Millar, Roman Near East, 58–59; David W.J. Gill, “Acts and Roman Policy in Judaea,” in Bauckham, Acts in its Palestinian Setting, 18. 48 Ant. 20.51–53, 101; Acts 11.28–30. The exact date of the famine is disputed, but it appears to have hit around 45/46 CE, when Judaea was governed by Cuspius Fadus (44–46 CE) and Tiberius Alexander (46–48 CE). The severity of the famine was caused by crop 42

266

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

impact of this famine on Jerusalem,49 but according to Orosius the famine also included parts of Syria.50 Therefore this famine would also have impacted Galilee, the central Golan, and the northern Golan. The decades leading up to the First Jewish Revolt were also marked by the rise of bandit groups and messianic claimants in the Jewish territories. These men attracted followers and were inevitably cut down by one procurator or another.51 Josephus also reports raids on travelling parties through these regions.52 Then in 66 CE Agrippa II blockaded the main road leading from Galilee to the Golan to prevent travel and trade between the two regions,53 and conflict erupted between Jews and Gentiles throughout Palestine and surrounding territories, which resulted in the death and captivity of many Jews.54 During the first few decades of the first century CE, however, conditions were such that travel between Galilee and the Golan would have been relatively easy and reasonably safe. This is important to keep in mind when scholars attribute the itinerancy of Jesus, as recorded in Mark, to the activities of unnamed missionaries travelling through these regions in the decades leading up to the First Jewish Revolt.

failure in Egypt due to flooding, compounded by drought in Palestine. Bruce W. Winter, “Acts and Food Shortages,” in The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 59–78; Morten Hørning Jensen, “Climate, Droughts, Wars, and Famines in Galilee as a Background for Understanding the Historical Jesus,” JBL 131.2 (2012): 320–324. See also the discussion on Acts 11.27– 30 in Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2. 3:1–14:28 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013); and Gill, “Acts and Roman Policy,” Bauckham, Acts in its Palestinian Setting, 20. 49 Ant. 20.51, 101; and Acts 11.28. 50 Orosius, Hist. 7.6.12. This may well be correct, since during the famine grain was imported into Judaea from Egypt, but not from Syria (Ant. 20.51). Also, this grain must have been purchased at considerable expense since the famine had already hit Egypt. This famine is also mentioned in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.6.3–2.7.1–3. 51 According to Josephus, one of these was the bandit chief Eleazar who reportedly ravaged the region for twenty years until he was captured during the procuratorship of Felix (War 2.253). Another was the so-called Egyptian prophet who gained a large following and led them to the Mount of Olives expecting the walls of Jerusalem to crumble (Ant. 20.169– 172; War 2.261–263). Another was the messianic claimant Theudas, who led a large following out to the River Jordan where he intended to part the waters. However, they were cut down by the soldiers of Fadus (Ant. 20.97–98). 52 Note for example the Jews from Galilee who were slaughtered in Samaria on route to a festival in Jerusalem (Ant. 20.118; War 2.232–235), and the raid on Ptolemy’s wife while she was travelling through the Jezreel valley (War 2.595–696; Life 126–127). 53 Life 398. 54 See e.g. War 2.458–462; 3.56–58.

B. Literary sources and the northern Golan

267

IV. Jewish communities in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi Two incidents recorded by Josephus point to the presence of a Jewish minority living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi during the First Jewish Revolt. In the first account Josephus writes that Varus, the aide of Agrippa II, killed many of the Jews of Caesarea to gratify the Syrians living there.55 Mason suggests that this concerned the city of Caesarea Maritima in Judea.56 However, Josephus does on occasion use the term Caesarea to denote Caesarea Philippi.57 Moreover, the narrative context suggests a city within the territory of Agrippa II.58 As an aide of Agrippa II, Varus would have administrative authority within the realm of Agrippa II, but it is unlikely that he would have authority over the Jews of Caesarea Maritima. In addition, Josephus records that Varus was an Iturean and the heir of Soaemus who, according to Tacitus and Dio Cassius, had ruled Iturean territory in the Lebanon ranges.59 Thus it appears that Varus was an Iturean of royal descent. Josephus suggests that Varus was of the opinion that if the Romans deposed Agrippa II on account of the Jewish uprisings, Varus might regain his family’s former territory.60 This suggests that Varus resented the fact that the region of Paneas had passed to the Herodian family. It is possible therefore that Varus also resented the Jewish population living in and around Caesarea Philippi. Josephus goes on to describe delegations of Jews traveling between Caesarea and Batanea and writes that seventy of these were slaughtered by Varus at Caesarea. Subsequently, the remaining Jews of Ecbatana in Batanea fled to the one place in Agrippa’s territory still presumed to be safe, i.e. Gamla.61 Once Agrippa II heard that Varus intended to dispose of more Jews living in Caesarea, he gave his position to Modius.62 It is evident therefore that the Caesarea under discussion was Caesarea Philippi. Furthermore, the account indicates that Caesarea Philippi and its district, although inhabited by Syrians and Itureans, also had a sizable Jewish population.

55

Life 53, 55, 61. Varus is called Noarus in the parallel account in War 2.481–483. Mason, Life of Josephus, 52–56, especially n.301. 57 See e.g. the use of “Caesarea Philippi” in Life 74, and “Caesarea” in Life 75, in reference to the same city. 58 Most scholars accept this account as referring to Caesarea Philippi. See e.g. Urman, “Public Structures,” 389–390; and Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.138. The parallel account in War, despite some discrepancies between that and the account in Life, places this in the context of events occurring in the territory of Agrippa II (War 2.481). 59 Tacitus, Ann. 12.23; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 59.12.2. This territory had been granted to Soaemus by Gaius “Caligula” in ca. 38 CE. See the discussion of Mason, Life of Josephus, 53, n. 305. 60 Life 52. See also War 2.247. 61 Life 54–55. 62 Life 61. 56

268

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

In the second account Josephus writes that the Jews of Caesarea Philippi were held captive in the city by Modius, at the order of Agrippa II. This action may have been taken to prevent them from joining the First Jewish Revolt. Whatever the reason, Josephus reports that under these conditions, the Jews of Caesarea Philippi were unable to acquire “pure olive oil” from Galilee.63 He adds that John of Gischala used this situation to exploit the Jews of Caesarea Philippi by inflating the price of Galilean oil, although John claimed he was exporting the oil so that the Jews would not have to violate Jewish law by using Greek oil. Despite the tendentious nature of this account, Josephus is unlikely to have fabricated the claim that there were Jews living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, since this information could be verified by official records.64 Finally, Josephus writes that after the capture of Jerusalem, Titus marched his army to Caesarea Philippi. There they celebrated games in honour of Titus’ victory, and watched the destruction of many of their Jewish captives.65 While Josephus makes no mention of the Jewish population living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi at this time, one can imagine that these games would leave an indelible mark on their memory.

C. Archaeology and the northern Golan C. Archaeology and the northern Golan

Excavation in the northern Golan has lagged behind that of Galilee. Consequently, our knowledge of the region is limited and sketchy. Therefore, while archaeological research is generally accepted as provisional, this is even more applicable when considering the northern Golan. Nonetheless, the surface surveys and excavations conducted to date do enable us to make some preliminary comments. Although this work is largely concerned with identifying Jewish sites to which Jesus may have visited, it is instructive to briefly comment on the material culture of some non-Jewish sites by way of comparison. I. The Early Hellenistic period It seems that the northern Golan was sparsely populated until the Early Hellenistic period. From this time on there are indicators that Phoenicians began to migrate eastward from the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and settled in the Huleh

63

Life 74. Cf. War 2.591–592. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 14. Despite the events which occurred at Caesarea Philippi during the First Jewish Revolt, Jewish settlement appears to have continued into the Middle Roman period. Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.138; Urman, “Public Structures,” 381. 65 War 7.22–24. 64

C. Archaeology and the northern Golan

269

Valley.66 Tel Anafa was founded in the Huleh Valley during the third century BCE when the region was under Ptolemaic rule,67 and it grew in size and prosperity under the Seleucids in the second century BCE.68 The inhabitants of Tel Anafa exported agricultural produce to Tyre and Sidon,69 and imported luxury goods from Phoenicia and the wider Mediterranean. These goods included Phoenician fineware, Phoenician glassware, and Rhodian wine.70 During the second century BCE, small and semi-permanent settlements also began to appear around Paneas and on Mount Hermon.71 These settlements have yielded a distinctive form of pottery known as Golan ware. This pottery consists of locally produced, handmade, large and heavily tempered pithoi of a light brownish-pink colour.72 The appearance of Golan ware in the region, and also in the Beqa Valley and Lebanon ranges, has led scholars to identify Golan ware with the Itureans, who according to literary sources occupied these regions.73 According to Ma‘oz, thirty-three Iturean settlements were

66 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.243–256; Shimon Dar, “The History of the Hermon Settlements,” PEQ 120 (1988): 26–44; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 36; Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 206; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 145. 67 Sharon Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1. 58–61; Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,”14; and Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 125. For further information on Tel Anafa see Appendix A. 68 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.61; Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176. 69 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 179. 70 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.58–61; Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 41; Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 58–59; and Berlin, The Plain Wares, 9–10. 71 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.243–256; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 36; Dar, “Hermon Settlements,” 26–44; and Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 206. Fragments of Golan ware have been found in strata spanning the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods. Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 213. Some of these settlements were no larger than farmsteads. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535. See also Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 36. 72 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 38–39; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 37; Dar, “Hermon Settlements,” 26–44; M. Hartal, “‘Khirbet Zemel’ 1985– 6,” IEJ 37 (1987): 270–272; and Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 190. 73 It should be noted that the identification of Golan ware with the Itureans has been called into question by E.A. Meyers, The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 147 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 47, 51–55. Meyer’s work is the first serious study on the Itureans to date. Yet while it raises important questions about the identification of Golan ware with the Itureans, provides an important critique of previous stereotypical portraits of the Itureans, and incorporates archaeological data, it tends to say more about what we cannot know about the Itureans than what we can know. At times it also fails to work carefully with the primary sources available, including some of the archaeological data. Thus while the work is an important contribution to research on the Itureans, the general consensus that Golan ware should be associated with the Itureans still stands. This is further indicated by the presence of Iturean inscriptions and Iturean coins in the same areas where Golan ware has been discovered.

270

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

established in the northern Golan at this time,74 including Khirbet Zemel which has been excavated.75 The population in the northern Golan during this period was predominantly Gentile. Numerous cultic sites were established on Mount Hermon, as is indicated by the remains of “inscriptions, altars, stelae, statues, and figurines,”76 and the pottery left behind by visiting pilgrims. It is not clear which deities were worshipped at some of these sites, but it is evident that the sanctuary at Paneas was dedicated to the Greek god Pan.77 Fragments of pottery found at Paneas suggest the sanctuary was founded during the third century BCE, but Phoenician and Iturean pilgrims continued to visit the site during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods.78 II. The Late Hellenistic period During the Late Hellenistic period some of the earlier Iturean settlements were abandoned, and new settlements were founded. Others were occupied continuously from the second century BCE into the Early Roman period. The Itureans continued to use their distinctive Golan ware and to worship at cultic sites on Mount Hermon.79 The close cultural and economic links between the northern Golan and Phoenicia also continued into the Late Hellenistic period. The population at Tel Anafa and at other sites in the region continued to import Phoenician semifineware and other luxury goods,80 and many of the coins from the late second century BCE and early first century BCE were minted in Tyre and Sidon.81

74

Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.534. Hartal, “‘Khirbet Zemel’ 1985–6,” 270–272; and Moshe Hartal, “Excavations at Khirbet Zemel, Northern Golan: Iturean Settlement Site,” in Eretz Zafon, ed. Zvi Gal (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), 74–117. For the coins of Khirbet Zemel see Donald T. Ariel, “Coins from Khirbet Zemel,” in Eretz Zafon, ed. Zvi Gal (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), 118–122. 76 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 122–123. See also Julien Aliquot, “Sanctuaries and villages on Mount Hermon during the Roman Period,” in The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, ed. Ted Kaizer (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 73–96. 77 Tzaferis, “Banias,” NEAEHL 5:1587; Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176. 78 Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 14. Many of these remains are consistent with those found at Tel Anafa. See also Andrea Berlin, The Plain Wares, vol. 1 of Tel Anafa 2: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, ed. Sharon C. Herbert. JRASup 10, Part 2.1 (Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 1997), 9–10. 79 Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 36–37; Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 207. 80 Berlin, “Monarchy to Markets,” 82–83. 81 Also, some of the coins in the region were from Antioch. Syon, Small Change, 143– 144 [Fig. 27], 153–155. 75

C. Archaeology and the northern Golan

271

A small number of Jews may have settled in the region during the first few decades of the first century BCE. This is suggested by the appearance of Hasmonean coins in the region. While Hasmonean coins continued to circulate in the Early Roman I period, a number of the coins found are early coins of Hyrcanus I (135–105 BCE).82 Also, twelve Hasmonean coins were found at Tel Anafa, which was abandoned by 75 BCE.83 This suggests that while the Hasmoneans did not gain control over the region, they certainly left their mark in the material record.84 III. The Early Roman I period The number of settlements in the northern Golan continued to increase during the Early Roman I period. One archaeological survey of the Huleh Valley observed a rise from fifteen settlements for the entire Hellenistic period, to twenty-seven settlements for the Roman period.85 Another survey, conducted by Idan Shaked on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, found sixty-two sites exhibiting Early Roman period remains.86 According to Ma‘oz, thirtyeight of the settlements surveyed exhibited Early Roman period forms of Golan ware.87 It was during this period that Tel Anafa was resettled.88 The discovery of boundary markers with inscriptions indicate that the region of Paneas during the Roman period shared boundaries with the region of Tyre in the west, Sidon in the northwest, and Damascus in the northeast.89 The close economic links between the region of Paneas and Phoenicia continued during the Early Roman I period, and is evident in the number of coins found from Tyre and Sidon.90 The Itureans also began to mint their own currency at this time.91 Unlike the central Golan, the population of the northern Golan remained predominantly Gentile. Phoenician and Iturean pilgrims continued to visit the 82

Syon, Small Change, 153 [Fig. 31]. One of these coins was found at Ḥ. Senaim north of Paneas. Syon, Small Change, 165 [Fig. 34]. 83 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.60–61; Syon, Small Change, 153, 157. 84 Syon, Small Change, 157. 85 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 177. 86 This survey covered a broader geographical area including Dan, Metulla, and the Huleh Valley. Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. This compares with the survey of the northern Golan noted by Doran Bar, which may have covered a smaller area, and found fifty-one settlements exhibiting Early Roman period remains. Bar, “Population and Settlement Growth,” 4. 87 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535. 88 See Appendix A. 89 Syon, Small Change, 156 [Fig. 32]. 90 Syon, Small Change, 173 [Fig. 39]. 91 Syon, Small Change, 191–194 [Figs. 52, 53]. Nabatean coins have also been found in the region.

272

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

sanctuary at Paneas, leaving behind fragments of ESA red-slipped fineware and Golan ware.92 Fragments of Italian terra sigilatta were also found on the terraced slope, which may indicate that Herod the Great brought Italian masons to the region during the final decades of the first century BCE to build the temple in honour of Caesar Augustus.93 Another temple complex was built four kilometres southwest of Paneas at Ḥ. Omrit. Some scholars consider this to be the best candidate for Herod’s temple. This will be discussed further below. Numerous fragments of Golan ware have also been found at sites in the northern half of the Huleh Valley, although some of these sites have also yielded ESA fineware, and small quantities of Kefar Hananya and Shikhin ware.94 These appear to have been non-Jewish sites where the inhabitants purchased a variety of pottery forms. Kefar Hananya ware was probably readily accessible when the central and northern Golan were part of the tetrarchy of Philip. However, after Galilee became part of the Roman province of Judaea in 44 CE, and the Golan became part of the territory of Agrippa II,95 it is likely that customs duties were levied on Kefar Hananya exported from Galilee to the Golan. This probably contributed to the decline in use of Kefar Hananya ware in the northern Golan in the second half of the first century CE, and the establishment of local pottery production centres at Paneas and Hawarit early in the second century CE.96 The extent of Jewish settlement in the region is yet to be determined. As noted above, Josephus reports that there were Jews living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi. However, their presence in the archaeological record to date is minimal, and no Jewish settlements have yet been found on Mount Hermon.97 The limited remains may be due in part to the fact that the Jews were a minority group in the region, and compounded by the limited number of excavations conducted to date. However, as we will see, Jewish indicators have been found at some sites in the region, particularly in the southern half of the Huleh Valley.

92

Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 9–10. The architecture and designs of the temple are consistent with those of Italy during the same period. Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.141; Tzaferis, “Banias,” NEAEHL 5.1588. See also War 1.404; Ant. 15.363–364. 94 These sites include Korperativ Galil Elyon, Givat Shkhumit, Tel Wawiyat, Kh. Ruweihina, Qeitiya, Three Trees, Kh. Sharf Ed Din, and Kh. Ein Zagh. Shaked and AvshalomGorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. 95 This probably occurred in 54 CE rather than in 44 CE when Agrippa II was still in Rome. Adam Marshak, “Herodian Dynasty,” EDEJ 738; Tessa Rajak, “Iulius Agrippa II, Marcus,” OCD 779. 96 Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 218–220. 97 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 122. 93

D. Did Aristobulus I convert the Itureans?

273

D. Did Aristobulus I convert the Itureans to Judaism? D. Did Aristobulus I convert the Itureans?

John Francis Wilson has proposed that the territory conquered by Aristobulus I was the area in and around Paneas.98 This is based on Josephus’ claim that Aristobulus I (ca. 104/3 BCE) conquered a portion of Iturean territory and compelled those living in the region to convert to Judaism.99 However, Josephus’ claim does not tally with the archaeological remains observed in the northern Golan to date. As noted above, there is little evidence that the Hasmoneans gained control over the northern Golan. Moreover, Berlin argues that no Iturean sites during the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods reveal evidence of destruction indicative of a Hasmonean conquest. Of course, we know from excavations in Galilee and the Golan that the Hasmoneans did not destroy all settlements in their advance. Et-tell Bethsaida is a case in point. Nonetheless, Berlin is correct to note that those Iturean sites which were occupied continuously from the second century BCE through to the end of the first century BCE, show no evident shift in material culture consistent with the adoption of a Jewish way of life. In fact, the Itureans continued to use their distinctive Golan ware and began to mint their own currency.100 Also, fragments of Golan ware from the Early Roman period have been found at cultic sites on Mount Hermon, which indicates that the Itureans continued to visit these local shrines.101 Thus Berlin concludes that Josephus “misreported the conquests of Aristobulus.”102 It should be recalled, however, that when Josephus reported Aristobulus I’s conquest, he did not name the territory concerned. Given that excavation of the northern Golan is still in its early stages, we may yet discover settlements exhibiting the kinds of shift in material culture consistent with Itureans adopting a Jewish way of life, perhaps further south near the border with the central Golan. As Hartal notes, isolated fragments of Golan ware have been found in 98 Wilson, Caesarea Philippi, 7, 70. See also Wilson, “Paneas,” 11–12, 13–14. Wilson goes on to argue that there were two kinds of Itureans in the region during the first century CE: those who were pagan, and those who were converts to Judaism. He then suggests that a community of converted Itureans lived at Caesarea Philippi during the first century CE. Wilson, Caesarea Philippi, 70. However, as discussed in Chapter One, terms like “Iturean” and “Jew/Judean” were ethnic designations in the Graeco-Roman world. If an Iturean adopted a Jewish way of life, this would entail a shift in ethnic allegiance. Henceforth, the convert would be considered Jewish. One could not be both Jewish and Iturean. If there were any Jews living in the northern Golan who were descendants of former Itureans, this has not been observed in the archaeological record. 99 Ant. 13.318–319. 100 Syon, Small Change, 191, 193 [Fig. 52]. 101 Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 36–37; Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 207. 102 Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 37.

274

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

the central Golan.103 However, if Josephus had the northern Golan in view, there may be another explanation for his claim. The Itureans appear to have been an Arab group, and may have already practiced circumcision.104 On this basis Aristobulus I may have permitted the Itureans to remain in the region, and forged a political alliance with them, as previously discussed.105 If so, Josephus appears to have embellished his sources to exaggerate the achievements of Aristobulus I. In either case, Berlin is correct to note there is no evidence to date for the conversion of Itureans in the northern Golan.

E. Caesarea Philippi and its district E. Caesarea Philippi and its district

I. The population of Caesarea Philippi Foundation coins of Philip the tetrarch indicate that Caesarea Philippi, located just south of the sanctuary of Pan, was probably built ca. 2/1 BCE.106 To date the city has only been partially excavated. Nonetheless, a section of a colonnaded street from the Early Roman period has been discovered, along with the partial remains of a large palace which may have belonged to Agrippa II.107 Excavators have also uncovered fragments of ESA red-slipped fineware, Roman style mould-made lamps,108 and Golan ware, indicating at least a small residential population at the site. The material culture indicates a predominantly Gentile population, with a probable ethnic mix of Itureans and SyroPhoenicians.109 Noticeably absent at Caesarea Philippi are fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and Herodian oil lamps typical of Galilee and the central Golan.110 However, out of a total of eleven bronze coins found at Paneas dating from 125 BCE to 63 BCE, five were Hasmonean coins.111 This may seem meagre, but it is not 103

Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 218. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 44–45. 105 Hartal adds that Alexander Jannaeus, who succeeded Aristobulus I, “probably avoided confrontation with the Itureans in the north because of the friendly relations between the two nations.” Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 211. 106 These coins feature the inscription KTIC(THS) (founder). Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.138. Subsequent coins depict a structure with four Ionic columns, which may represent the temple built by Herod the Great in honour of Augustus. Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.138; Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 70; Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 275. 107 Baniyas (NIG: 794600,265300). Tzaferis, “Banias,” NEAEHL 5.1590–1591. Few remains indicative of a residential quarter from the first century CE have yet been found. It is possible that during the time of Philip, Caesarea Philippi was an administrative centre. 108 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 59–61. 109 Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.138. 110 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 64. 111 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 5]. 104

E. Caesarea Philippi and its district

275

insignificant when compared with three bronze coins from Tyre, one from Ptolemais, and two from Antioch.112 In addition, thirteen aniconic bronze coins minted in Jerusalem were found at Caesarea Philippi from the Early Roman I period. These outnumber the bronze issues from Tyre for the same period.113 Moreover, two of these were Jewish Revolt coins.114 These support the claim that there was a Jewish minority living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi prior to 70 CE. The other bronze issues include three coins of Herod Antipas from Tiberias, and five of Philip from the mint at Caesarea Philippi.115 II. The temple at Ḥorvat Omrit About four kilometres southwest of Caesarea Philippi, lay the temple complex of Ḥ. Omrit.116 This temple complex marked the boundary of the district of Caesarea Philippi, and was connected to the city via a paved road which was partly lined with columns. It was also situated by the east-west Tyre-Damascus highway. This temple went through several phases of construction, expansion, and reconstruction. The early shrine complex and Temple One phase can, however, be dated to the Early Roman I period. This is evidenced by pottery and glass fragments, coins minted by the tetrarch Philip which feature the temple façade, and fragments of the wall frescoes which share features in common with other Herodian complexes of the period. Overman and Schowalter date the earliest shrine complex and Temple One to the time of Herod the Great.117 Andrea Berlin argues, however, that it is more likely that Temple One was constructed by Philip to commemorate the founding of his new city.118 In support of this she notes Silvia Rozenberg’s dating of the wall fragments, the discovery of Philip’s coins, and a closer examination of Josephus’ description which suggests that Ḥ. Omrit was not Herod the Great’s temple, for that was built near the cave at

112

Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 5]. These coins are listed under Paneas in Syon, Small Change, 176. 114 Syon, Small Change, 187 [Fig. 49, Site 5], 188 [Table 16, Site 5]. 115 Syon, Small Change, 179 [Fig. 45, Site 5], 196 [Table 18, Site 5]. 116 Ḥorvat Omrit (NIG: 791530,262200). For a summary of excavations and discoveries at this site between 1999 and 2011 see Daniel N. Schowalter, “The Omrit Temple Excavations: Recovering History in the Upper Galilee,” EC 10.3 (2019): 315–352; J. Andrew Overman and Daniel N. Schowalter, eds. The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report. BAR International Series 2205 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011). See also Michael C. Nelson, ed., The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit 1: The Architecture. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 45 (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2015). 117 Schowalter, “Omrit Temple Excavations,” 330; Overman and Schowalter, Roman Temple Complex, 102; J. Andrew Overman, “Omrit, Horvat,” NEAEHL 5.1987–1988. See also Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 179; and Wilson, “Paneas,” 8. 118 Andrea Berlin, “The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: A Review Article,” BASOR 369 (2013): 244–247. 113

276

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

Paneon.119 In either case, for this work it is enough to note that the Temple One complex existed during the time of Jesus’ itinerant ministry. It also provides further evidence that the city and district of Caesarea Philippi was predominantly Gentile during the Early Roman I period. III. Jewish indicators in the district of Caesarea Philippi At Hagoshrim, about five kilometres west of Caesarea Philippi, another Hasmonean coin was found,120 along with fourteen bronze aniconic coins from Jerusalem from the Early Roman I period. Most of the other bronze issues found at Hagoshrim were from Tyre, Sidon, Tiberias, and Paneas, plus three bronze Nabatean coins.121 Despite the number of coins found at this site, there are no architectural remains. Thus Syon suggests Hagroshrim may have been the location of a market or fair during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.122 The coins from Jerusalem and Tiberias prior to 70 CE probably reflect trade between Galilee and the Golan, particularly during the early decades of the first century CE. However, additional finds suggest they also reflect a Jewish presence in the district. A Hasmonean coin was found at Ḥ. Senaim, a few kilometres northwest of Caesarea Philippi,123 and other aniconic coins from Jerusalem were found at Dan-Dafna, Snir, and Tel Sheikh Yusuf.124 Fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were also found at Tel Sheikh Yusuf,125 and limestone vessel fragments were found at Kh. Yarda, just a few kilometres southwest of Caesarea Philippi.126 The discovery of these Jewish coins and limestone vessel fragments holds out promise that there may be more Jewish identity markers to discover. Further excavation of Caesarea Philippi and its district should provide a clearer picture of the region, and those areas where a Jewish minority was present.127

119

Ant. 15.363; War 1.404. Hagoshrim, also known as Hagoshrim Avacado, should not be confused with another site a few kilometres to the south with the same name. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 10]; Ariel, “Coins from Khirbet Zemel,” 119; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 121 Syon, Small Change, 196 [Table 18, Site 10]. 122 Syon, Small Change, 186. 123 Syon, Small Change, 165 [Fig. 34, Site 2], and 169 [Table 15, Site 2]. See also Ariel, “Coins from Khirbet Zemel,” 119; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 124 Syon, Small Change, 196 [Table 18, Sites 11, 12, and 21]. 125 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 31. 126 Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 127 Urman, “Public Structures,” 389–390. 120

E. Caesarea Philippi and its district

277

IV. Caesarea Philippi and the “Baraita of the Borders” Additional support for a Jewish presence in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi comes from a Byzantine mosaic floor inscription discovered in the synagogue of Rehob, about six kilometres south of Beth Shean/Scythopolis.128 This halakhic inscription probably dates to the end of the fifth century CE or the sixth century CE.129 The mosaic floor inscription depicts rules pertaining to tithing and the sabbatical year, and provides a detailed list of which fruits and vegetables were permitted or forbidden in particular towns and districts during the sabbatical year. The inscription is twenty-nine lines in length, and comprises 365 words in eight paragraphs, with each paragraph referring to a different geographical region. The paragraphs appear in the following order: the cities and districts of Beth Shean, Sussita, Naveh, and Tyre; the Borders of Eretz Israel; the cities and districts of Caesarea Paneas, Caesarea Maritima, and Sebaste.130 Various versions of these laws are known from rabbinic sources.131 However, the inscription is important because it is the earliest extant record of these 128 The inscription was first published by Jacob Sussmann, “A Halakhic Inscription from the Bet-She’an Valley,” Tarbiz 43 (1974): 88–158 [Hebrew]; and “The Boundaries of Eretz Israel,” Tarbiz 45 (1976): 213–257 [Hebrew]; II–III [English Summary]. See also J. Sussmann, “The Inscription in the Synagogue at Reḥob,” in Levine, ed. Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 146–151; R. Ovadiah and A. Ovadiah, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel (Rome: Bretschneider, 1987), 120–124; Fergus Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues and Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine,” JSJ 42 (2011): 272–277; Chaim Ben David “The Rehov Inscription: A Galilean Halakhic Text Formula?” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy, ed. Albert I. Baumgarten, Hanan Eshel, Ranon Katzoff, and Shani Tzoref. JAJSup 3 (Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 231–240. From 1974–1980 the Rehob synagogue was excavated under the direction of Fanny Vito. Fanny Vito, “Rehob,” NEAEHL 4.1272–1274. 129 Additional inscriptions, which predate the mosaic floor inscription by about a century, appear in red paint on the white plaster walls and columns of the synagogue. Most of these were written in Aramaic, but only portions of them have been published to date. Fanny Vitto, “Wall Paintings in the Synagogue of Rehov: An Account of Their Discovery,” IMSA 7 (2015): 2–13; Haggai Misgav, “The List of Fast Days from the Synagogue of Rehov,” IMSA 7 (2015): 14–23. See also Steven D. Fraade, “The Rehov Inscriptions and Rabbinic Literature—Matters of Language,” in Talmuda De-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine, ed. Steven Fine and Aaron Koller. Studia Judaica 73 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 234–235; Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues,” 272; and Ben David, “Rehov Inscription,” 232. 130 Sussmann, “Inscription at Reḥob,” 146–151; Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues,” 273; Ben David, “Rehov Inscription,” 234. 131 Parallel versions of this inscription appear in two Tannaitic sources: t. Šeb. 4 and Sipre Deuteronomy 51. See also the Talmudic version, y. Šeb. 6.1 [36c]. This baraita expands on m. Šeb. 6.1, which refers to the land of Israel settled by the Babylonian ascenders i.e. those who returned from Babylon, as extending as far as Keziv in the north (i.e. Akhziv). The Rehob inscription is unique in that it provides additional information concerning the district of Beth Shean, and an entire paragraph on Sebaste and its district which is not found in other

278

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

halakhic instructions.132 The text is also independent of the manuscript tradition.133 Two paragraphs of the inscription concern us here. The first is the paragraph known as “The Baraita of the Borders of Eretz Israel,” [lines 13–18]. The second is the paragraph pertaining to the district of Paneas [lines 18–22]. The text of the “Baraita of the Borders” in the Rehob inscription, henceforth the baraita, begins: “The Borders of Eretz Israel se[cured] by the Babylonian ascenders.” ‫ תחומי ארץ ישראל מקום שה]חזיקו[ עולי בבל‬134 It goes on to define the halakhic boundaries of the land of Israel by listing settlements along the borders. It is important to note at this point that we are not talking about political boundaries, but rather halakhic conceptions of the land of Israel which required practices which differed from the Diaspora. By defining the halakhic boundaries of the land of Israel, as it was ideally understood, the writers were able to clarify those regions where agricultural rules concerning tithing and the sabbatical year were binding.135 Given that this baraita is “of unquestionable antiquity” and “the oldest extant copy of any portion of Talmudic literature,”136 its discovery has helped to clarify a number of place names which were uncertain due to variant readings in the manuscript tradition. Two locations which concern us in this baraita mark the northern limits of the land of Israel, as it was ideally understood. The first location is “the gap or pass of ‘Iyyon” (‫)וניקבחה דעיון‬, which was situated near the southern end of the Beqa valley, west of Mount Hermon.137 The second is “Tarnegola above Qisrion” (‫)ותרנגולה עלייה דקיסריון‬, i.e. Tarnegola above Caesarea Philippi.138 Both sites were located geographically north of Caesarea Philippi. Therefore, according to the Rehob inscription and the other rabbinic sources of this baraita, the northern Golan was located within the halakhic boundaries of the rabbinic sources. The inscription also lists over a hundred place names. Sussmann, “Inscription at Reḥob,” 146–147. 132 Sussmann, “Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” II. 133 Sussmann, “Inscription at Reḥob,” 146–147. 134 That is, those Jews who returned from Babylon during the Second Temple period. 135 David W. Suter, “Paneion,” EDEJ 1021–1022. As Freyne observes, “The Rabbis were particularly interested in establishing exact boundaries of the land for the purpose of religious observances.” Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77. 136 Sussmann, “Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” II; and Sussmann, “Inscription at Rehob,” 149. 137 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 112 [Fig. 4.2]; Steven Fine, “The Rehov Synagogue Inscriptions: The Earliest Preserved Text of the Talmudic Literature,” in Amoraim. Centre for Online Judaic Studies (2016). http://cojs.org/steven_fine-_the_rehov_synagogue_inscriptions-_the_earliest_preserved_text_of_the_talmudic_literature/ 138 Sussmann, “Inscription at Reḥob,” 146–151; Ovadiah and Ovadiah, Mosaic Pavements, 120–124; Ben David “Rehov Inscription,” 231–240.

E. Caesarea Philippi and its district

279

land of Israel, and Jews living in this region were expected to meet certain requirements pertaining to tithing and the sabbatical year.139 The second paragraph of interest to us concerns the region of Paneas (‫)בפניס‬. It denotes those fruits, vegetables, and nuts which were forbidden during the sabbatical year and tithed during the intervening years in this region.140 A further geographical note states that these requirements applied to the region from Upper Tarnegola (‫ )תרנגולה עלייה‬and beyond. It is evident from this that the rabbis recognised that Jews living in the region of Paneas needed clarification concerning the halakhic requirements applicable to them given their geographical and cultural context.141 Even though the region of Paneas was a predominantly Gentile region, it was understood to be located within the halakhic boundaries of Israel. Both of these paragraphs from the Rehob inscription imply that at least a minority Jewish population lived in the region of Paneas at the time the inscription was constructed. The question that remains is whether this inscription, which has at the earliest a fifth century CE date, bears any relevance for the Early Roman I period.142 It is noteworthy that a similar version of the baraita appears in two Tannaitic sources: Tosefta Šebi‘it 4 and Sipre Deuteronomy 51.143 In fact, the wording of this baraita in the Rehob inscription is very close to that of Sipre Deuteronomy 51, and therefore corroborates this tradition.144 It is evident, therefore, that while the Rehob inscription dates to the fifth or sixth century CE, the text of this baraita was compiled at least two to three centuries earlier, probably during the Tannaitic period (70–225 CE). Thus while this baraita was still considered relevant during the sixth century CE, its origin dates at least to the second or early third century CE.145 While these documents were primarily concerned with halakhic injunctions, this need not mean that they had little historical or geographical relevance. As Frankel et al., argue, the name given to this baraita, “‘the land held by those 139

Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77. See the parallel version in y. Dem. 2.1 [22c–d]. 141 Sussmann “Inscription at Reḥob,” 149. 142 For a brief discussion of the “Baraita of the Borders” and its significance for the Late Second Temple period, see Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111–113; Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 65; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 11. 143 The Tosefta was compiled during the second and early third century CE, and was probably published by 230 CE. Sipre Deuteronomy was compiled in the fourth century CE, but it includes Tannaitic traditions drawn up between 80 CE–225 CE. Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 224, 231, 235. See also Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111– 112. 144 Sussmann, “Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” III. 145 It is also recognised that rabbinical sources incorporate material from earlier periods. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 151. 140

280

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

who came up from Babylon’ implies some degree of historical perspective.”146 It suggests that the land denoted began to be settled at some point during the Second Temple period. And while this baraita exhibits a degree of rabbinical idealisation of the land of Israel, it also recognises historical and geographical realities. For instance, although this baraita includes within its boundaries territory which belonged to Phoenicia,147 this does not mean that the rabbis were unaware of provincial boundaries. For as Freyne argues, if the boundaries depicted merely reflected rabbinic idealization of the land “we would expect that there would be no mention of the territory of Tyre.”148 Thus Millar is only partly correct when he writes, “Rabbinic conceptions of the boundaries of Eretz Israel took no account whatsoever of Roman provincial borders.”149 The fact that Tyre is mentioned indicates some recognition of provincial boundaries. It seems better to consider this baraita not as reflecting the political boundaries of Israel during the Roman period, but rather as reflecting the geographical extent of Jewish resettlement in the land that was remembered as belonging to ancient Israel. This brings us to a third point. The extent of Jewish settlement reflected in this baraita can be tested against other literary sources and the material culture of sites excavated or surveyed within the borders depicted.150 It is of note therefore that the extent of Jewish settlement depicted in this baraita closely reflects those conditions which existed toward the end of the Second Temple period. With reference to the north-western border Frankel et al., write: None of the places in the list are mentioned in any other Talmudic text, and … all the evidence suggests that Jewish settlement in this region was not very substantial after the war in Galilee in 67 CE. The list must have been based largely on what people still remembered a generation later as to which were Jewish villages before the First War or even earlier.151

This argument also applies to the border near Paneas. We have already noted from literary sources the presence of a Jewish minority in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi during the first century CE. We will also see from archaeological surveys that prior to the First Jewish Revolt there were areas of Jewish settlement near Lake Huleh. However, after the First Jewish Revolt the Jewish population in the region seems to have declined significantly. From this point on it appears that Jewish settlement in the region was restricted for the most part

146

Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. This territory extended as far west at the Mediterranean Coast and as far north as Akhziv. 148 Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77. 149 Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues,” 255. 150 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. 151 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. 147

E. Caesarea Philippi and its district

281

to the area in and around Caesarea Philippi.152 Thus, although this baraita reflects an idealised conception of the boundaries of Israel and its compilation post-dates the Early Roman I period, the extent of Jewish settlement indicated in this baraita best reflects conditions which existed prior to the fall of the Second Temple.153 As Frankel et al., argue: The border described in this text represents the maximum extent of Jewish occupation—a situation that could only have arisen under Jewish rule—and … the list of places in the text probably provides an approximate record of the border of the Hasmonean kingdom or that of the Herodian kingdom.154

The “Baraita of the Borders” places the northern boundary at the Pass of ‘Iyyon/‘Ayun and Upper Tarnegola, north of Caesarea Philippi. It is possible that Jews began to settle this far north during the Hasmonean period, and with further excavation in the region we may be able to determine whether this was the case. However, the Hasmoneans did not extend their political control as far north as Paneas, although they may well have tried.155 In 20 BCE, Augustus added the region of Paneas to the kingdom of Herod the Great,156 and during the reign of Herod and his son Philip, Jewish settlement in the region increased. Therefore, it seems that in respect to the region of Paneas, this baraita best reflects those conditions which existed during the reigns of Herod the Great and Philip the tetrarch. After the First Jewish Revolt, the majority of the Jewish population was concentrated in Galilee and the central Golan, although there was a continued presence at Caesarea Philippi. Thus the boundaries depicted in this baraita provide further indication of Jewish settlement in the region of Paneas prior to 70 CE. The appearance of the “Baraita of the Borders” in these rabbinic sources testifies to the importance of defining the halakhic boundaries of Israel.157 However, halakhic concerns are also evident prior to 70 CE. Josephus records that during the First Jewish Revolt, the Jews of Caesarea Philippi were 152 Based on archaeological surveys of the Golan, it seems that during the Middle and Late Roman periods the only place in the northern Golan where a small Jewish population still existed was at Caesarea Philippi. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” 2.536, 538. 153 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 108, 111–113; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 11; and Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 65–67. 154 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 112. 155 Refer back to the discussion on the boundaries of Gaulanitis in Chapter Six. 156 Ant. 15.359–360; War 1.400; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 54.9.3. See also Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20, 46. Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 206; and Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 272–273. 157 The Mishnah also speaks of the land of Israel occupied by those who returned from Babylon, and describes the north-western boundary as extending as far as Keziv (i.e. Akhziv), located on the coast between Ptolemais and Tyre (m. Šeb. 6.1). The Mishnah adds that “one who acquires land in Syria is like one who acquires land in the outskirts of Jerusalem” (m. Ḥal. 4.11; cf. t. B. Qam. 1.5).

282

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

determined to purchase pure olive oil from Galilee, rather than use Greek oil.158 It seems that this community was also aware that they were living within the halakhic boundaries of Israel.159 The concept of an ideal Israel, the borders of which transcended the political realities of the day, can be seen in several sources from the Second Temple period. For example, the prophet Ezekiel had an expansive vision of the boundaries of Israel which extended beyond Damascus in the northeast.160 The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran describes Abraham travelling through the land of Israel, the boundaries of which extended as far as the Euphrates River in the northeast.161 In a retelling of Israel’s history, Josephus writes that the land between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea as far as Sidon fell within the tribal boundaries allotted to Zebulon, and the mountains of Lebanon and the city of Damascus fell within the tribal boundaries allotted to Naphtali. He also claimed that the tribe of Dan occupied Mount Lebanon, the plain of Sidon, and the source of the Jordan.162 Freyne describes this concept as “the ‘greater Israel’ ideology,”163 which, as we have seen above, was rooted in Israel’s patriarchal narratives and the stories of the tribal allocation of the land.164 This concept of a ‘greater Israel’ ideology, may explain why Saul, later called Paul, and the High Priest in Jerusalem believed they had jurisdiction over the Jewish population living in Damascus. This city lay beyond the borders of Jewish administration, yet the High Priest appears to have written letters to the synagogues of Damascus endorsing Saul’s mission to arrest and bring back to Jerusalem any Jewish followers of Jesus he found there.165 Linked to the concept of a ‘greater Israel’ ideology, were Jewish hopes for the restoration of Israel. Freyne writes that these hopes were expressed in different ways, given the political realities of the time. One approach was that of the Hasmoneans, who took advantage of the waning power of the Seleucids in the latter half of the second century BCE to assert their independence and conquer territories in the Transjordan. The author of First Maccabees, in a speech attributed to Simon the Hasmonean, argues that the Hasmoneans did not take any foreign land but only the inheritance of their ancestors.166 Much of this territory was lost with the advance of Pompey in 63 BCE, yet the aspiration to

158

Life 74. This point is also noted by Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77. 160 Ezek. 47.13, 15–18. 161 1QapGen 21. This account is an expanded version of Genesis 13.14–18. 162 Ant. 5.84, 86, 178. 163 Freyne, Jesus: A Jewish Galilean, 79. 164 Freyne, Jesus: A Jewish Galilean, 60–91. 165 Acts 9.1–2. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 2.1628. 166 1 Macc. 15.33. 159

F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley

283

throw off foreign rule was still alive in the first century CE, giving rise to the First Jewish Revolt and its devastating consequences. Freyne argues that Jesus and the rabbis found alternative ways to express their hopes for Israel’s restoration. The rabbis used the “territorial symbolism of restoration … by extending the boundaries of the land, not for military conquest, but for halachic observance.”167 Jesus, on the other hand, took his message to those Jews living near the boundaries of ‘greater Israel,’ as ideally understood, in order that they too could be included and invited to respond to his message.168 In fact, Jordan Ryan argues that Jesus not only travelled through the land of ‘greater Israel,’ but that he did so with the intention of restoring Israel “one municipality at a time, bringing each locale into the realised eschatological reign of God, by convincing them to believe in his message and to repent in response.”169 Jesus does not seem to have been concerned with the territorial boundaries of Israel for political reasons or halakhic purposes. The focus of his preaching concerned the kingdom of God, a concept which transcended political boundaries.170 Nonetheless, Jesus was a Jewish prophet to Israel. Therefore, Freyne is probably correct when he writes that it would have been natural for Jesus to journey “Abraham-like” through the northernmost regions of the land of ‘greater Israel,’ as it was ideally understood, to minister among the Jewish communities living there and ensure they were all given the opportunity to hear and respond to his message.171

F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley

There were numerous settlements in the Huleh Valley during the Early Roman I period. The majority of these had a material culture indicative of a SyroPhoenician or Iturean population. Arguably, one of the most interesting of these was Tel Anafa. However, there are also indicators of Jewish settlement the Huleh Valley.

167

Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 80. Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77, 80. 169 Ryan, The Role of the Synagogue, 147. 170 Refer back to Chapter One. 171 Freyne, Jesus: A Jewish Galilean, 75. 168

284

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

I. Tel Anafa in the Huleh Valley Tel Anafa was founded during the third century BCE, about nine and a half kilometres south of Paneas.172 The material culture of Tel Anafa during the Hellenistic period is indicative of a Gentile population with strong cultural and economic ties to the Phoenician Coast.173 Tyre and Sidon acquired agricultural produce from the Huleh Valley,174 and Tel Anafa imported luxury goods from these Phoenician Cities and the wider Mediterranean. Multiple fragments of imported glass bowls were found at Tel Anafa, 122 stamped amphorae handles, numerous mould-made lamps, and an abundance of Phoenician semi-fine ware.175 During the excavations leading up to and including 1981, 278 coins were recovered. 185 of these were independent coins from Tyre and Sidon.176 More recently, Syon has recorded a total of 156 bronze coins found from the period 125 BCE–63 CE. Seventeen of these are from Tyre, eighty-one from Sidon, thirty-seven from Antioch, and a further seven from Damascus. Figurines of deities were also found at Tel Anafa, including one of Pan. These, coupled with an abundance of pig bones in the bone profile, provide further indication that Tel Anafa was a Gentile site.177 Tel Anafa was abandoned during the third decade of the first century BCE. This is indicated by the cessation of bronze coins from Tyre around 84 BCE,178 coupled with the absence of stamped amphorae handles after 80 BCE.179 Sharon Herbert attributes this abandonment to the “chaotic conditions surrounding the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire.”180 This was indeed a factor, compounded by the increasing number of Itureans migrating into the northern Golan, and the advance of the Hasmoneans into the Huleh Valley.181 Berlin and 172 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.58–61; Tsafrir et al., “Tel Anafa,” TIR 241; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,”14; Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 125; Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176. 173 Trade between the Phoenician coast and Tel Anafa was enabled by its close proximity to the Tyre-Damascus highway. This road will be discussed below. 174 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 179. 175 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.58–61; Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 41; Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 58–59; and Berlin, The Plain Wares, 9–10. In addition to the importation of luxury goods, the residents of Tel Anafa also constructed elaborate buildings. One of these was a three-roomed bath complex with painted and stuccoed walls and a courtyard flanked by Ionic and Corinthian columns. The floor of one basin had a mosaic made of “black diorite and white marble tesserae.” Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.59–60; and Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 43, 47. 176 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” 60; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 40. 177 Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 41. 178 Syon, Small Change, 153. 179 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.60–61. 180 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.61. 181 Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 41; Douglas R. Edwards, “Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity,

F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley

285

Herbert tend to dismiss the impact of the Hasmoneans on Tel Anafa, pointing to the lack of a destruction layer.182 However, as noted previously, no destruction layer was found at Bethsaida for the same period, yet many of the Phoenician occupants appear to have abandoned the site. Moreover, twelve Hasmonean coins were found at Tel Anafa from this stratum.183 This suggests that even though Tel Anafa was not occupied by the Hasmoneans, they did leave traces of their presence at the site.184 Moreover, just a few kilometres southeast of Tel Anafa, there are indicators that a Jewish community settled at Tel Yardinon and remained there into the first century CE.185 It is likely, therefore, that it was a combination of factors, including the Hasmonean advance, that precipitated the abandonment of Tel Anafa, even though the Hasmoneans were unable to retain their hold over the Huleh Valley. Tel Anafa was resettled in the first century CE, but it remained a Gentile site. This is evident even though its occupants imported Kefar Hananya ware.186 While the appearance of Kefar Hananya ware generally reflects the presence of a Jewish population, in this instance it does not appear to be the case,187 for fragments of spatter ware jars common at Iturean sites,188 and ESA red-slipped fineware were also found.189 In addition, multiple fragments of Italian style cooking pans were found.190 These pans amount to 11% of the cooking vessels recovered at Tel Anafa, which is unusual given that cooking pans were rare in the Levant at this time. Berlin concludes that at least some of the residents of Tel Anafa at this time must have been Roman or Italian. If so, it is possible that Tel Anafa served as a military base for the forces of Philip the tetrarch,191 or a settlement for the builders and artisans employed in the construction of Caesarea Philippi. In either case, if this was a Herodian centre, it may explain why its Gentile population imported Kefar Hananya ware.

371; and Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 35. Aviam notes the discovery of a few Hasmonean coins at the site. Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 182 Herbert, “Tel Anafa,” NEAEHL 1.60–61; Berlin, “Between Large Forces,” 40. 183 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 23]. 184 Syon, Small Change, 157, 240. 185 Refer back to Chapter Five for references to Tel Yardinon. 186 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 215. 187 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 220. The Hasmonean coins found at Tel Anafa may also reflect the importation of Kefar Hananya ware from Galilee. Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 188 Berlin, The Plain Wares, 157. 189 Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 58–59. 190 Berlin, The Plain Wares, 30–32. 191 Berlin, The Plain Wares, 30–32. See also Chancey and Porter, “Archaeology of Roman Palestine,” 182.

286

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

The abundance of pig bones found at Tel Anafa is another indicator that the population was predominantly Gentile.192 Also, most of the bronze coins from Tel Anafa are issues from Tyre, Sidon, and Paneas. Only one bronze aniconic coin comes from Jerusalem.193 In addition, 1,186 fragments of Roman period mould-made lamps were found at Tel Anafa, compared with only seven Herodian type oil lamps.194 These combined remains indicate that Tel Anafa at this time was a predominantly Gentile settlement. Tel Anafa was again abandoned around the middle of the first century CE.195 If the Italian artisans at the site had been employed to construct Philip’s temple and palace, then it is possible that their employment ended with his death in 34 CE, resulting in the eventual abandonment of Tel Anafa. II. Jewish villages in the Huleh Valley There are also indicators of Jewish settlement near the southern end of the Huleh Valley. The difficulty in determining the extent of Jewish settlement in this area is that most of the sites revealing material remains indicative of a Jewish population have not been excavated. As Wolfgang Zwickel notes, “The Huleh Valley is archaeologically among the least explored regions in present day Israel.”196 Therefore most of our current findings are dependent upon surface surveys. Nonetheless, these findings deserve mention. Fragments of limestone vessels have been found at several sites surveyed in the south-eastern area of the Huleh Valley. One site which yielded multiple Jewish ethnic identity markers is Kh. Maqbara Bamat Yaqub,197 located just south of Lake Huleh and west of the Jordan River. Thirty-nine fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and Shikhin type ware were found at this site, and ten fragments of limestone vessels.198 Correspondingly, there are no finds indicative of a Gentile population. Given the location of this site west of the Jordan, Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni suggest the site be identified with Josephus’ 192 The number of pig bones is five times greater than that of caprids, which indicates that the population had a preference for pork. Savage, Biblical Bethsaida, 123; Chancey and Porter, “Archaeology of Palestine,” 182. 193 Syon, Small Change, 196 [Table 18, Site 23]. 194 This amounted to “0.6 percent of the Roman-period lamps” recovered at Tel Anafa. This is in sharp contrast to the 1577 fragments of Herodian oil lamps found at Gamla, which made up 93 percent of the Roman period lamps found at that site. Adan-Bayewitz, et al, “Distribution of Lamps,” 74. 195 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 215; Berlin, The Plain Wares, 32. 196 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 163. 197 Also spelled Maqbarat Bint Ya‘aqub. Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. 198 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30; Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No. 5]. See also Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18, Site 76].

F. Settlements in the Huleh Valley

287

“Thella.”199 If they are correct it would make Kh. Maqbara Bamat Yaqub the easternmost settlement of Upper Galilee, rather than a settlement in the northern Golan. Nonetheless, Kh. Maqbara Bamat Yaqub lies close to several other sites at the southern end of the Huleh Valley, which lie east of the Jordan River and Lake Huleh. These have also yielded fragments of limestone vessels indicative of a Jewish population. They are Kh. Ed Dureijat, Kh. Jalabine, and Kh. Ein Tina.200 During a surface survey of Kh. Ein Tina, Early Roman I period fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were also found.201 A little further north of Lake Huleh other sites have yielded remains indicative of a Jewish presence. Fragments of limestone vessels were found at Ureifiya,202 along with fragments of Kefar Hananya ware.203 Fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were also found at Tel Sh. Mahmud, along with a Herodian oil lamp. Two further fragments of Herodian oil lamps were found at Kh. Samman, and Kefar Hananya ware was found at Kh. Zahmul, Lehavot Habashan, and Kh. Khiyam Walid.204 A Jewish community may also have settled at Darbashiya during the Hasmonean period, for while the recorded number of fragments of Kefar Hananya ware is minimal and outnumbered by ESA red-slipped fineware and Golan ware,205 fourteen Hasmonean coins were found at Darbashiya.206 One of these was a coin of Hyrcanus I.207 There was also a noticeable absence of all other bronze issues from the period between 125 BCE–70 CE.208 Excavation of the site should provide a clearer picture of its settlement history and the ethnicity of its population during the Early Roman I period. Further north, between Lake Huleh and Caesarea Philippi, and a short distance southeast of Tel Anafa, Tel Yardinon yielded five bronze coins dating

199

Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30; Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No’s. 3, 4, 7]. See also Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 119 [Map 4]. 201 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. 202 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30; Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No. 2]; and Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 203 Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]; Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30. 204 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30, 32. 205 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 30; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 206 Syon, Small Change, 153 [Fig. 31, Site 50], 169 [Table 15, Site 50], and 243 [Table 29, Site 50]. 207 Syon, Small Change, 165 [Fig. 34, Site 50]. 208 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 50], 197 [Table 18]. 200

288

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

from 125 BCE–63 BCE, and four of these were Hasmonean coins.209 Moreover, sixteen aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem were found from the time of Herod the Great to 70 CE, and four of these were Jewish Revolt coins.210 There is also a corresponding absence of alternative bronze coins for the same period.211 These finds suggest that Tel Yardinon was a predominantly Jewish site prior to 70 CE. Another Hasmonean coin was found nearby at Bab el-Hawa, with a corresponding absence of other bronze issues,212 which may indicate that Bab el-Hawa was also a Jewish settlement at this time. While the quantity of remains from these surface surveys is limited, they nonetheless suggest there was a Jewish minority living in the Huleh Valley, whose settlement probably began during the Hasmonean period and continued at least until 70 CE. Most of these sites are located at the southern end of the valley near Lake Huleh.213 Nonetheless, there are indicators that some Jews settled further north in the predominantly Gentile area of the northern Huleh Valley.

G. Other indicators of Jewish settlement G. Other indicators of Jewish settlement

During the Early Roman I period Jews may have inhabited other sites in the northern Golan. This is the conclusion of Robert Gregg and Dan Urman, and is based on their detailed survey of inscriptions and religious symbols found at Roman and Byzantine period sites in the Golan.214 However, many of these were isolated finds or discovered in secondary use, making them difficult to date. Also, the majority of surface remains at these sites post-date the Early Roman I period. For example, the bracelet found at the Bab el-Hawa with the impression of a Jewish menorah, certainly indicates the presence of a Jewish individual at this site. However, there is no way to determine when this person lived, or whether there were other Jews present at that time, because most of the surface remains at Bab el-Hawa date to the Byzantine period and are indicative of a Christian population.215 Therefore, while this isolated find is promising, it does not tell us much more than this. Having said that, a Hasmonean coin was also found at Bab el-Hawa, and while one coin tells us little, it is 209

The other bronze coin was from Antioch. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site

29]. 210

Syon, Small Change, 187 [Fig. 49, Site 29], and 188 [Table 16, Site 29]. Syon, Small Change, 182–183, and 196 [Table 18, Site 29]. 212 Syon, Small Change, 153 [Fig. 31, Site 31], 169 [Table 15, Site 31]. 213 Shaked and Avshalom-Gorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 31. 214 See Urman, “Public Structures,” 373–618. For a more detailed discussion, see Gregg and Dan Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 215 Urman, “Public Structures,” 392. 211

G. Other indicators of Jewish settlement

289

noteworthy that there is a corresponding absence of other bronze coins from the same period.216 Thus further excavation of the site may indeed yield remains indicative of a Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. A few inscriptions on gravestones have been found at Ṣurman, along with a relief of a menorah and other symbols and geometric shapes which point to at least a few Jewish inhabitants at the site. Some of these inscriptions are also dated.217 Since Gregg and Urman judge Ṣurman to be outside the region of Paneas, they interpret these dates according to the Seleucid calendar, which would place them in the first century CE. However, Ṣurman, as well as Bab elHawa and Quneiṭra, were probably located in the region of Paneas during the Roman period, and the era of Paneas began in 2 BCE. Thus these inscriptions probably date to the fourth and fifth centuries CE.218 However, while most of the population at Ṣurman during the Byzantine period seems to have been Christian, excavation of the site may yet reveal that there was a Jewish presence at the site during earlier periods. This brings us to another issue: that of determining ethnicity based on the names found on inscriptions. This is fraught with difficulty.219 For example, Gregg and Urman argue that some names found at Quneiṭra (Sarisai), such as Alapho and Salamanos, may indicate a Jewish presence at the site.220 This is possible, but Semitic names like these are known for Jews and non-Jews.221 Urman also suggests that the site had a Jewish population during the Herodian administration.222 However, excavation of the site is needed to provide a clearer picture of its settlement history. The date of some Jewish indicators at these and other sites in the northern Golan are unclear, and therefore cannot tell us whether there was a Jewish presence at these sites during the Early Roman I period. Nonetheless, these finds do indicate the presence of at least a few Jewish individuals at these sites during the Late Roman or Byzantine periods. Detailed analysis of the ceramic corpus, oil lamp typology, and numismatic profile of these sites, and

216

Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 31] See for example the discussion of inscription 176 in Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 300; and the discussion of Ṣurman in Urman, “Public Structures,” 398–404. 218 See the review of Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, by Benjamin Isaac, “Inscriptions and religious identity on the Golan,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 2. Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. J.H. Humphrey in JRASup. 31 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island: JRASup., 1999), 184. 219 Ma‘oz notes some of the problems associated with using names to determine ethnicity, in his critique of Gregg and Urman in Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Jews and Christians in the Ancient Golan Heights,” IEJ 60.1 (2010): 91. 220 Urman, “Public Structures,” 387, 397–8. 221 Isaac, “Inscriptions and religious identity,” 179–188, esp. 184. 222 Urman, “Public Structures,” 398. 217

290

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

excavation of earlier strata, will reveal more of their settlement history and provide a clearer picture of the ethnic makeup of their populations.

H. The road network H. The road network

A number of important roads passed through the northern Golan, and Jesus and his disciples probably travelled along some of these. Perhaps the most important was the interregional highway which linked Tyre with Damascus. It ran in an east-west direction through the mountains of southern Lebanon. Sections of this road have been observed near modern Misgav Am, where it descended and wound its way through the foothills into the Jordan Rift valley. Milestones along the road have also been found near modern Kefar Yuval.223 The road then continued south of Tel Dan, where a third century milestone was found dating to the reign of Gordian III. It then passed near Ḥ. Omrit before winding its way up to Caesarea Philippi where it passed through the centre of Philip’s new city.224 This highway then continued southeast for a stretch, where parts of it have been identified through the Odem Forest and the Buq‘ata Valley.225 It then continued in a north-easterly direction toward Damascus. A branch turned off this road in a south-easterly direction towards Quneitra, Khushniyye, and Rafid, which lay at the boundary between the region of Paneas, Gaulanitis, and Batanea.226 At Quneitra another important road ran in a south-westerly direction, cutting across the northern Golan in a diagonal line toward the modern Benot Ya‘akov Bridge on the Jordan River just south of Lake Huleh. This ancient route then continued on into Upper Galilee.227 Another important road through the region was the north-south road which linked Caesarea Philippi with et-Tell Bethsaida. Travelling north from Bethsaida, this road followed the eastern bank of the Jordan River and passed through the area of Jewish settlement near Lake Huleh. It continued north

223

Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 133–135. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.537; Aviam, “Galilee,” 455; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 133–135. Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 1.137; J.A. Overman, “Omrit, Ḥorvat,” NEAEHL 5.1987; Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 63; and Reed, Galilean Jesus, 146–147. Josephus mentioned a similar road in this region which continued east toward Trachonitis until it reached the King’s Highway (War 3.510). 225 Ma‘oz noted two watchtowers, and a stretch of this road “6.6 m wide, with two rows of large curbstones and a central spine also built of large stones.” Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.537. 226 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536. 227 By the Late Roman period this was a main road linking Galilee, Gaulanitis, and Batanaea. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536. 224

I. Implications for the historical Jesus

291

passed Tel Anafa until it joined the main Tyre-Damascus highway near Ḥ. Omrit.228 From there it was a short distance to Caesarea Philippi. None of these important roads, or the many smaller roads which linked the towns and villages in the region, were paved during the Early Roman I period. Some were also steep and winding in places. Nonetheless, these roads were adequate for travellers on foot and traders with donkey caravans, even though most travellers would avoid long journeys during the wet winter months, or during the hottest time of the day in midsummer. Josephus even describes Philip the tetrarch travelling along these roads as he made his way around his territories.229

I. Implications for the historical Jesus I. Implications for the historical Jesus

Mark claims that Jesus set out with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi.230 Caesarea Philippi was situated in the predominantly Gentile region of Paneas. Yet as we have seen, literary sources attest to the presence of a Jewish minority in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, and archaeological surveys have revealed indicators of Jewish settlement near Lake Huleh during the Early Roman I period. The existence of these Jewish communities in the region provides a plausible explanation for why an itinerant prophet like Jesus, with an important message for Israel, would visit the northern Golan. Also, as we have seen, there was a direct route connecting Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi during the first century CE. It is noteworthy, therefore, that in Mark’s narrative, Jesus journeys to Caesarea Philippi after healing a blind man in Bethsaida.231 The main north-south road which linked these two settlements was the shortest route available during the first century CE,232 covering a distance of about thirty-eight kilometres.233 In addition, this route would have passed through the area of Jewish settlement near Lake Huleh. Thus if Jesus wished to visit the villages of Caesarea Philippi, this would be the optimum

228 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 176; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525; Appold, “Peter in Profile,” 143; Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 63. 229 Josephus adds that Philip had his throne brought with him so that wherever he went he could judge cases that were brought to him (Ant. 18.107). 230 Mark 8.27. 231 In Mark 8.22 Jesus is said to have arrived in Bethsaida where he encountered a blind man. After healing the blind man, Mark claims that Jesus and his disciples set out to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8.27). 232 Zwickel, “Huleh Valley,” 178–179. 233 Mason, Life of Josephus, 158.

292

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

route to take. It is unlikely therefore that the juxtaposition of the two accounts in Mark’s narrative is accidental.234 Despite these factors, Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi is often considered a Markan creation or innovation, invented to provide a suitable geographical setting for Peter’s messianic declaration and the subsequent story of Jesus’ transfiguration.235 As noted at the start of this chapter, Bultmann considered the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi as an editorial addition, and the journey to the villages of Caesarea Philippi as lacking any historical validity.236 He also considered the account of Peter’s declaration of Jesus as messiah as a legendary postEaster story projected back onto the ministry of Jesus.237 This argument might carry some weight if Mark or one of the other evangelists had recorded postresurrection appearances in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi and Mount Hermon, but this is not the case. In fact, no post-resurrection appearances are recorded in Mark, although it is possible that a resurrection appearance was separated from the original document and lost.238 What Mark does record is that after Jesus’ crucifixion the women at the empty tomb were instructed to tell the disciples to return to Galilee, for there they would see Jesus.239 There is no explanation therefore as to why the disciples would be in the region of Caesarea Philippi after Jesus’ crucifixion.240 However, as we have seen, there was good reason for Jesus to be in the region during his itinerant ministry. Collins suggests the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi was a Markan creation for symbolic reasons.241 She writes that one reason for locating 234

This is not to say that Peter’s messianic declaration on the road to Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8.27–30) followed directly after Jesus’ healing of the blind man in Bethsaida (Mark 8.22–26) in the life of the historical Jesus. The Q saying preserved in Matthew 11.21 and Luke 10.13 implies that Jesus visited Bethsaida on a number of occasions. Thus Jesus could have healed the blind man at Bethsaida during any one of these visits, and he could have headed north to Caesarea Philippi after any one of these visits to Bethsaida. The point to note here is simply that the tradition preserves the memory that Jesus headed north to the villages of Caesarea Philippi from Bethsaida, at some point during his itinerant ministry. 235 Mark 8.29; 9.2–8. 236 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 64–65. 237 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 257–259. 238 The earliest extant manuscripts of Mark finish at Mark 16.8. Scholars have puzzled over this abrupt ending of the Gospel and have proposed various explanations for it. It is possible that Mark intentionally ended the narrative at this point, although some have also argued that the end of the gospel may have been unintentionally severed from the document and lost. Due to the abrupt ending, alternative endings were added in the centuries which followed. For a brief discussion see Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20, 539–547; and Gundry, Mark, 1009–1012. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 102–106. 239 Mark 16.7. 240 Wilkins, “Peter’s Declaration,” 311. 241 Collins, Mark, 400.

I. Implications for the historical Jesus

293

Peter’s confession in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, and locating the subsequent story of Jesus’ transfiguration on “a high mountain” (ὄρος ὑψηλóν),242 would be that an audience “familiar with the topography of Caesarea Philippi” would identify the mountain as Mount Hermon, a mountain that was sacred to both Israelites and Gentiles living in the region of Paneas.243 She writes therefore that Peter’s declaration of Jesus as messiah would take on “the connotations of oracular utterances for those familiar with the oracular character of the region.”244 Collins adds that a second symbolic reason for locating Peter’s declaration near Caesarea Philippi would be that since Herod the Great had built a temple to Augustus near Caesarea Philippi, the reference would effectively “contrast Jesus as messiah with other rulers.”245 In this way Mark could be making the point that “Jesus is the agent of the supreme deity, not the emperor.”246 Finally Collins suggests that by placing the confession of Peter in a setting that was primarily non-Jewish, the effect is to place “Christian reverence for Jesus in competition with pagan religious belief and practice.”247 There are several points to consider with regard to these proposals. First, the identification of Mark’s reference to a “high mountain” with Mount Hermon is probably correct. However, the suggestion that Mark invented the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi in order to make this connection, presupposes that Mark and his audience were familiar with the region. The accounts recorded in Mark 8.27–9.29 certainly do reflect some geographical knowledge of the region of Paneas. This is indicated not only in the juxtaposition of a high mountain in proximity to Caesarea Philippi, but also in the awareness of villages in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, and knowledge of a route connecting Bethsaida with Caesarea Philippi. However, this information does not appear to have come from Mark. If it had, one might wonder why Mark did not identify the high mountain as Mount Hermon. It seems that Mark did not know the name of the “high mountain,” which suggests that the reference to a high mountain was part of the received tradition although its specific identification had been forgotten. This brings us to Collins’ second proposal, that the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi was a Markan innovation for the purpose of contrasting Jesus’ messianic identity with that of other rulers. Mark may well have wished to challenge imperial claims.248 However, it is doubtful that Mark invented the reference to Caesarea Philippi for this reason. If he had been willing to fabricate geographical settings to contrast Jesus with the emperor, why not state that 242

Mark 9.2. Collins, Mark, 400. 244 Collins, Mark, 400. 245 Collins, Mark, 400–401. 246 Collins, Mark, 401. 247 Collins, Mark, 401. 248 Evans, Mark 8.27–16.20, xi. 243

294

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

Jesus set out for the city of Caesarea Philippi? In fact, why not place the account of Peter’s messianic declaration in the city itself, rather than in an obscure location on the way.249 Better yet, Mark could have placed Jesus right on the steps of the imperial temple. Yet he did not do this. Rather, the focus is on Jesus’ journey to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. This suggests that the point Mark is making here is that Jesus set out to minister among the Jewish communities living near Caesarea Philippi. In fact, Gundry suggests the awkward phrasing, εἰς τὰς κώμας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου, points to its historical validity.250 Similarly, if Mark had wanted to contrast pagan worship with Christian reverence for Jesus, as Collins suggests, he could have placed Jesus at the sanctuary of Paneas, or on the steps to the grotto of Pan. Instead, Mark states that Peter’s messianic declaration occurred while Jesus and his disciples were “on the way.”251 Bultmann argued that Mark used the phrase “on the way” (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ), as a literary device to introduce some traditional material.252 Alternatively, Marcus argues that the phrase was a redactional touch indicating that Mark had shaped his material for theological purposes.253 Gundry disputes the connection between Mark’s use of the phrase ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ and its association with the way of discipleship, or the way of the cross. He writes: “The way” is simply the road on which an event takes place as Jesus and others travel between localities, whatever the direction or destination of their travel … We should translate ὁδóς with “road” to avoid unintended theological connotations associated with “way.” Jesus’ constant itineration must have had him talking theology often in settings like this. 254

However, we need not take an either-or position on this matter. Marcus may be correct in stating that the phrase “on the way” took on theological significance in Mark. However, Mark could only have imbued this phrase with theological meaning if it was widely understood that Jesus was itinerant and constantly on the move. Therefore, the phrase “on the way” should also be interpreted literally as “on the road.”255 This is supported by the fact that at this point in Mark’s narrative, Jesus was not yet on the road to Jerusalem and the cross. He was travelling north to the villages of Caesarea Philippi,256 not south toward 249

Mark 8.27b. Gundry, Mark, 425–426. 251 Mark 8.27b. This phrase appears a number of times in Mark. See e.g. Mark 9.33; 10.17, 32. 252 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 257. 253 Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord. Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 31–37; Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Yale Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 609. 254 Gundry, Mark, 442. 255 Gundry, Mark, 442; Collins, Mark, 398. 256 Gundry, Mark, 442. 250

I. Implications for the historical Jesus

295

Jerusalem. The phrase also indicates that Jesus and his disciples had not yet arrived at their destination. They were still on the road. It is doubtful therefore that this topographical reference was a Markan creation. This is not to say that Mark was unaware of its symbolic significance. Rather, it is simply to say that Mark did not invent the topographical reference for this purpose, but that it was already part of the received tradition. An alternative proposal has been offered by John Francis Wilson. He attributes the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi, and the tradition of Jesus’ activity in the district of Caesarea Philippi, to an “apocalyptic JewishChristian community” who lived in the region, and whose traditions were “partially preserved” in the Gospel of Mark.257 Wilson does not discount the possibility that the historical Jesus travelled to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. He simply argues that this tradition came to be incorporated into the Gospel of Mark via this Jewish-Christian community whose traditions, he argues, developed separately from those of Christian “orthodoxy.”258 The strength of Wilson’s argument is that he incorporates current knowledge of the region from literary sources and archaeology in his analysis of the Gospel traditions. He also draws attention to the presence of early Jewish followers of Christ who lived in Phoenicia, Syria, and the Transjordan, and he raises some interesting questions about the possibility of their existence in the area of Caesarea Philippi. However, his claim that an unorthodox, apocalyptic Jewish-Christian group lived in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi in the decades leading up to the First Jewish Revolt, is speculative.259 Certainly there may have been a group of Jewish believers in Christ living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi prior to 70 CE, particularly given references to Jewish believers in Christ in neighbouring Tyre and Damascus in the forties and fifties.260 But

257 Wilson, “Paneas,” 19; Wilson, Caesarea Philippi, 78–84. Wilson calls this material the Banias-tradition, and he argues that it is preserved in Mark 7.20–9.29 and Matthew 16.1– 17.20. 258 Wilson, “Paneas,” 23. 259 In fact, Wilson’s proposal that there were “orthodox,” and by implication heterodox, Jewish-Christian groups in Palestine prior to the First Jewish Revolt, is questionable. Even in the early half of the second century CE, Justin Martyr did not consider it unorthodox that some Jews who believed in Christ also retained their Jewish customs, so long as they did not require Gentiles to do the same (Dial. 47). As Joan Taylor argues, until around the midsecond century CE, Jewish-Christians who retained their Jewish customs were “generally accepted in the church.” Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 21. 260 Acts 9.1–3, 19–20; 21.36. This point is noted by Wilson, “Paneas,” 22. Refer back to Chapter Five for a brief comment on the historical value of Acts. Also, some of the details of Paul’s stay with the church in Damascus (Acts 9.1–25), particularly his narrow escape from the city, are corroborated by Paul’s own account in 2 Cor. 11.32–33.

296

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

there is currently no direct evidence for a heterodox Jewish-Christian group in the area of Caesarea Philippi prior to the First Jewish Revolt.261 Wilson suggests this heterodox Jewish-Christian community at Caesarea Philippi may have been associated with the Ebionites, or perhaps the Nazoreans or Elkesaites.262 However, our knowledge of these groups is sketchy.263 Certainly Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century CE, stated that Paneas was one of a number of locations from which the Ebionites arose.264 But he also wrote that Ebion first began to teach at Kokabe in Bashanitis i.e. Batanea.265 Eusebius, on the other hand, identified a village called Choba in the vicinity of Damascus as the location of the Ebionites.266 Even if we take Epiphanius at face value and consider that there were Ebionites active in the area of Caesarea Philippi, according to Epiphanius this did not occur until after the fall of Jerusalem.267 Moreover, given that Epiphanius was writing in the fourth century CE and had a particularly prejudicial view of these groups and some fanciful ideas about their origins, his work must be treated with caution.268 In short, the idea that the topographical reference to Caesarea-Philippi should be attributed to a heterodox Jewish-Christian community living in the region prior to the First Jewish Revolt is difficult to substantiate. One might also question how their traditions ended up in the Gospel of Mark if, as Wilson claims, their theology and practice were developing along different lines to “orthodox” Christianity.269

261 In fact, if there were any Jewish-Christian communities in the region during the first century CE, it might be impossible to identify them on the basis of their material culture, since it is likely that this would be virtually indistinguishable from other Jews living in the region. 262 Wilson, “Paneas,” 23. 263 For an introduction to the Ebionites, Nazoreans/Nazarenes, and Elkesaites see: Sakari Häkkinen, “Ebionites,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’,” ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 247–278; Petri Luomanen, “Nazarenes,” in Marjanen and Luomanen, Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’,” 279–314; and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen “Elchasaites and their Book,” in Marjanen and Luomanen, Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’,” 335–364. Note also that the three Gospels associated with Jewish-Christianity, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Gospel of the Ebionites, are generally considered second-century CE works. Johan Ferreira, “The Non-Canonical Gospels,” in Harding and Nobbs, Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition, 212–213, 216–220. 264 Epiphanius, Pan. 30.18.1. 265 Epiphanius, Pan. 30.2.7–8. 266 Eusebius, Onom. 172.1–3. In this reference Eusebius describes the Ebionites simply as Hebrews who believed in Christ. Eusebius describes them further in Hist. Eccl. 3.27.5–6. 267 Epiphanius, Pan. 30.2.7. 268 Häkkinen, “Ebionites,” 272–275. 269 Wilson, “Paneas,” 23.

I. Implications for the historical Jesus

297

What we do have is a source which states that Jesus and his disciples travelled to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8.27). It is plausible, therefore, that the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi originated with these disciples who were with Jesus on the road, rather than with an anonymous community living in the region who were probably not privy to the conversation that took place on the road. Moreover, political and economic conditions during the first third of the first century CE were such that there was relative ease of travel between Galilee and the Golan. This is reflected in the works of Josephus, and in the trade in Kefar Hananya ware and olive oil between Galilee and the Golan. There was also relative peace between Jews and Gentiles living in the Golan at this time. However, the decades following the death of Philip in 34 CE were marked by five changes in the political administration of the region, a famine in the mid-forties,270 a decline in the importation of Kefar Hananya ware,271 a second abandonment of Tel Anafa,272 and an increase in conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the region.273 In 66 CE a blockade was set on the main road leading from Galilee to the Golan,274 and Agrippa II made a failed attempt to capture Gamla.275 By 67 CE the Jews of Caesarea Philippi were being held captive in the city.276 Thus Jesus was itinerant at a time when it was relatively safe for a Jewish prophet to travel with his disciples from Galilee to the northern Golan, in contrast to the situation in the three decades leading up to the First Jewish Revolt. France suggests that Jesus journeyed to the region of Caesarea Philippi to “retreat with his disciples in the countryside.”277 Certainly there were idyllic places in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi and on Mount Hermon where Jesus and his disciples could rest, but if Jesus intended to retreat with his disciples it seems odd that Mark would write that he set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi rather than to the wilderness or to the mountains. Moreover, Mark records that while Jesus was on the way to the villages of Caesarea Philippi there were crowds with him, and crowds also gathered around the disciples near the foot of Mount Hermon.278 Moreover, Mark records an account where Jesus cured a young man in the region.279 This supports the conclusion that Jesus

270

Ant. 20.51, 101; and Acts 11.28. Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 218–220. 272 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 215; Berlin, The Plain Wares, 32. 273 See for example Josephus’ War 2.459, 481; Life 52–61. 274 Life 398. 275 Josephus, War 4.10; Life 114. 276 Life 74. 277 France, Gospel of Mark, 328. 278 Mark 8.34; 9.14. 279 Mark 9.14–29. 271

298

Chapter 6: Jesus and the northern Golan

travelled to the northern Golan to minister among the Jewish communities living there. It is probable therefore that the topographical reference to Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8.27 recalls a journey made by the historical Jesus to the region. We know from Josephus that there were Jewish communities living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi during the First Jewish Revolt, and that they were concerned about obtaining pure olive oil from Galilee.280 It appears therefore that this community understood that they were living within the halakhic boundaries of ‘greater Israel,’ as it was ideally understood, and they were therefore expected to meet the requirements of halakha. Thus it is entirely plausible that Jesus would visit these Jewish communities living on the margins of the land of Israel. As Freyne writes: There is nothing historically implausible, therefore, in suggesting that a journey of Jesus to the region could well have been based on his concern ‘for these lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ while operating within a different perspective on what constituted the ideal Israel. People living in border areas might well have felt themselves marginalized … From Jesus’ point of view they did live within the borders of Israel as this was ideally understood, and they too should be reassured that they were invited to participate in the new ‘family’ which he was gathering.281

Similarly, Wilkins writes that Jesus’ ministry in the north was “in keeping with his primary concern for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”282 Finally, the genre of the Gospel of Mark also has a bearing on the topic at hand. In Graeco-Roman biographies (βίοι) the geographical setting follows the subject of the narrative,283 and “If the subject was mobile, then so is the setting.”284 I propose therefore that Jesus did visit villages in the region of Caesarea Philippi at some point during his itinerant ministry. Not only was such a journey possible given the direct north-south route between Bethsaida and Caesarea, Jesus had every incentive to visit the region. For while the northern Golan was a predominantly Gentile region, there were Jewish communities living in the vicinity of Caesarea-Philippi, and Jewish villages near Lake Huleh. Their presence in the region best accounts for the appearance of this topographical reference in Mark 8.27.

280

Life 74–75; War 2.592. Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 77. 282 Matt 10.5–6; 15.24. Wilkins, “Peter’s Declaration,” 312. 283 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 200. 284 Burridge, What are the Gospels, 172. 281

Chapter 7

Jesus and the Regions of Tyre and Sidon: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel A. Introduction A. Introduction

Tyre and Sidon were maritime cities of Phoenicia, each controlling a large territory. According to Mark, Jesus crossed the border into the region of Tyre (ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου).1 While he was there he encountered a woman whom Mark describes as Greek (Ἑλληνίς), and Syro-Phoenician by race (Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει), who pleaded with Jesus to heal her daughter.2 After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus passed through Sidon (ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος) to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis.3 The same journey is depicted in Matthew 15.21–28, who probably sourced it from Mark. However, there are some notable differences, one of which is that Matthew describes the woman as a Canaanite.4 Numerous scholars have noted that the topographical reference to the region of Tyre appears in Mark’s editorial material.5 Some have therefore concluded that Mark added this topographical reference for theological reasons, and have discussed the significance of the story in terms of Markan redaction. Bultmann described the entire account as an imaginary scene and a product of the early church.6 Guignebert argued that the story was artificial, that it was set in the region of Tyre to “authorize the reception of Gentiles into the faith,”7 and that it had nothing to do with the historical Jesus.8 Collins accepts that the story was probably found in Mark’s sources, but argues that it was probably originally located in Galilee, or perhaps Bethsaida. She suggests that the topographical reference was added by Mark to link this story with Mark 7.1–23, which

1

Mark 7.24. Mark 7.25–30. 3 Mark 7.31. 4 Matt.15.22. 5 See e.g. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 38–39; Collins, Mark, 364; and Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.660. 6 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 39. 7 Guignebert, Jesus, 225. 8 Guignebert, Jesus, 225. 2

300

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

described a dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees over what defiles,9 and to depict Jesus “initiating a mission to the Gentiles.”10 Meier considers the possibility that Jesus may have visited the region of Tyre, but concludes that Mark 7.24–31 “is so shot through with Christian missionary theology and concerns that creation by first-generation Christians is the more likely conclusion.”11 One thing that is often overlooked is that there were Jewish communities living in the region of Tyre during the Early Roman I period.12 According to literary sources there were Jewish communities living in the cities of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, and in their districts.13 It is not implausible therefore that an itinerant prophet like Jesus, with an important message for Israel, would extend his mission beyond Galilee to those Jews living within the administrative borders of the region of Tyre, but who were also located within the halakhic boundaries of Israel, as it was ideally understood.14 Mark also describes Jesus passing through Sidon to arrive at the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis.15 This unusual itinerary has raised a number of questions, for Mark describes Jesus travelling north to Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee in the southeast. Some have concluded that either Mark or his sources were confused about the geography of Galilee and surrounding regions. Guignebert described Mark 7.31 onwards as “very confused … Mark has ruthlessly mixed up his times and places.”16 Kloppenborg has described Mark’s geography as “notoriously unrealistic.”17 Yet elsewhere, as we have seen, Mark’s geography is very accurate.18 Therefore, the unusual route depicted in Mark 7.31 will also be discussed. This chapter will briefly outline what is known about Phoenicia from literary sources, including references to Jewish communities living in the region. It will also discuss the problem of identifying the boundaries of the region of Tyre, and the nature of Phoenician and Galilean relations, for these factors shed light on the story depicted in Mark 7.24–30. 9

Collins, Mark, 364. Collins, Mark, 364. 11 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.660–661. 12 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 67; and Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 88–89. 13 This will be discussed below. 14 See the discussion on the “Baraita of the Borders” in Chapter Six. See also Freyne, Jewish Galilean, 89–90; and Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 60. 15 Mark 7.31. 16 Guignebert, Jesus, 225–226. 17 Kloppenborg, “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum,” 72. 18 For example, he correctly locates Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Gennesaret near the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1.16, 21, 29.6.45, 53). He accurately describes Bethsaida as a village, and depicts Jesus travelling to the villages of Caesarea Philippi from Bethsaida (Mark 8.22–23, 27). This suggests that either Mark had some geographical knowledge of the region, or that he found this information in his sources. See Dean W. Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark: A Model of Agrarian Biography,” BTB 25 (1995): 24. 10

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

301

In terms of archaeological remains, brief mention will be made of Ptolemais and Kedesh because these sites exhibit a material culture during the Roman period which for the most part differs from that of Jewish Galilee. Therefore, these sites serve as a good comparison. Brief mention will also be made of Jewish identity markers found at Ptolemais. The remainder of the chapter will focus on the presence of Jewish identity markers at sites near Ptolemais, and in the hill country of Tyre lying to the west and north of Upper Galilee. All these sites have been surveyed but very few have been excavated, and most of these have only been partial or salvage excavations. Therefore, the material data available on the region is limited. Nonetheless, while these areas were predominantly Gentile, there are indicators of a Jewish presence at some sites during the first century CE. The unusual route depicted in Mark 7.31 will also be discussed. Despite scholarly reluctance to accept Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled through Sidon to the Decapolis, we will find that such a journey was by no means implausible. However, there will be no discussion of settlements in the region of Sidon, for while Mark states that Jesus travelled through Sidon, he provides no account of Jesus’ activity in the region. It is possible therefore that Jesus simply passed through the region without preaching in any of its towns and villages. For this reason, only the probable route Jesus made through Sidon will be discussed.

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

I. The land and people of Phoenicia The ancient Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon were situated on the Mediterranean coast.19 During the Iron Age the Phoenicians were numbered among the Canaanites, a heritage which was recalled centuries later in literary sources,20 and can be observed in their material remains.21 During the eighth century BCE, Tyre and Sidon were destroyed by the Assyrians,22 along with Akko which at the time belonged to Galilee. Under Persian rule Tyre and Sidon were 19 Ancient sources locate Phoenicia, with its maritime cities and districts, between the Mediterranean Sea in the west and Galilee and Syria in the east (Strabo, Geogr.16.2.21–24; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.66–67, 76; Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.15.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. Hist. 19.93.7). For a brief introduction to Phoenicia see Chris Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1082– 1085; Tessa Rajak, “Ptolemais,” OCD 1271; Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, Henry Seyrig, and Jean Franҫois Salles, “Tyre,” OCD 1568; and Arnold Hugh Martin Jones and Jean Franҫois Salles, “Sidon,” OCD 1404. See also Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 181. 20 See e.g. Josephus, Ant. 5.76, 85; and Matthew 15.22. 21 For example, a second century BCE coin hailed the city of Berytus as the “Metropolis of Canaan.” Chris Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1082. 22 The ruins of ancient Tyre were still visible during the Early Roman I period (Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.76; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.24).

302

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

rebuilt and prospered, only to suffer defeat again in the fourth century BCE by the forces of Alexander the Great.23 Yet with their unique skills, coastal location, and access to mineral resources, Tyre and Sidon quickly recovered, and Akko was rebuilt as a Phoenician town and renamed Ptolemais (261 BCE).24 Tyre, Sidon, and Ptolemais eventually emerged as independent and prosperous Graeco-Roman cities,25 incorporating aspects of Canaanite, Egyptian, and Greek culture. This is reflected in the image of Herakles-Melqart depicted on Tyrian silver shekels,26 and in the remains of religious artefacts and temples dedicated to various Canaanite, Egyptian, and Greek deities. Given the rich history and cultural identity of the Phoenicians, it is not surprising that Mark described the woman Jesus encountered in the region as “Greek” and “SyroPhoenician by race,” and Matthew identified her as a “Canaanite.”27 Yet although Phoenicia had a predominantly Gentile population, literary sources also attest to the presence of Jewish communities in the region.28 II. Determining the boundaries of the region of Tyre The boundaries between the regions belonging to Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, fluctuated over time and are not known with certainty. However, to determine where Jesus may have travelled it is necessary to establish as far as is possible the boundaries between Galilee and the regions of Tyre and Ptolemais. According to Josephus the region of Tyre extended as far south as Mount Carmel.29 Syon suggests that what Josephus meant was that Mount Carmel

23

Tyre was remembered as the island city that fiercely resisted Alexander’s advance, but eventually succumbed when his forces built a causeway from the mainland to the island and scaled the city’s walls. Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.76; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.22–23. 24 War 2.188; 3.35. Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1082–1085; Jones et al., “Tyre,” OCD 1568; Lukaszewski, “Roads and Commerce in Galilee,” 516. Ptolemais was named after Ptolemy II. Tessa Rajak, “Ptolemais,” OCD 1271. 25 Graeco-Roman writers described the Phoenicians as skilled in astronomy, mathematics, navigation, and commerce, and known for their invention of the alphabet (Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.66–67; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.22–24). The second century CE scholar Ptolemy described the Phoenicians as a kindly people, addicted to astrology, and worshippers of the sun (Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.3.66). Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.165. Tyre and Sidon were also noted for their manufacture of glassware and production of purple dye (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.25; Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.76). The vitreous sand used to produce this glass came from a beach near Ptolemais, and the dye was produced from locally sourced shellfish. Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1083. 26 Melquart was the patron Canaanite deity of Tyre, later identified with Greek Herakles. Meyers and Chancey, Alexander to Constantine, 45–46; Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1083– 1084; Freyne, “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans,” 185–186. 27 Mark 7.26; Matt. 15.22. 28 These will be discussed below. 29 War 3.35.

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

303

belonged to the “Phoenicians of ‘Akko-Ptolemais.”30 It is possible that Josephus used the term “Tyre” loosely to denote Phoenicia, but this is by no means certain. In earlier centuries Tyre and Sidon controlled towns further south than Mount Carmel.31 Also Josephus claimed that the boundary between Upper Galilee and Tyre lay just beyond the town of Baca.32 This suggests that the hill country west of Upper Galilee belonged to Tyre, and not to Ptolemais. Josephus acknowledges that Ptolemais had its own district, but he writes that this district shared a boundary with Lower Galilee near Chabulon.33 Therefore Ptolemais may have controlled only a small district in the coastal plain, which did not include the hill country west of Upper Galilee. Aviam places the territorial boundary between Tyre and Ptolemais at the River Keziv,34 near the maritime town of Akhziv.35 However, his conclusion may depend upon rabbinical sources. Three texts in the Mishnah place the north-western boundary of Israel at Keziv, the rabbinic name for Akhziv.36 The Tosefta defines the boundary more specifically at Naḥal Ga‘aton to the south of Keziv.37 If the boundary lay at Naḥal Ga‘aton, then Akhziv would be located in the region of Tyre. However, it is questionable whether sources concerned with the halakhic boundaries of Israel, can be used to determine the political boundary between Ptolemais and Tyre during the Early Roman I period. Drawing on a related text which lists the forbidden villages in the territory of Tyre, some of which have been identified on the mountain range of Rekhes Ha-Sulam, Frankel et al., locate the border between Tyre and Ptolemais below the mountain at Naḥal Beẓet, north of Akhziv.38 This mountain range was 30

Syon, Small Change, 83. During the Persian period Tyre and Sidon controlled Dor, Jaffa, and Ascalon, south of Mount Carmel. Even during the Early Roman I period, Pliny the Elder thought Jaffa was a Phoenician city (Nat. Hist. 5.68). 32 War 3.39. 33 War 2.503; 3.35. Syon, Small Change, 83. 34 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 22. See also Notley and Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon, 33, n. 126. 35 Akhziv/Ekdippa was located between Ptolemais and Tyre on the Via Marus (Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.75; Josephus, War 1.256; Claudius Ptolemaeus, 5.15.5; and Eusebius, Onom. 30.12). References to Akhziv in the Hebrew Scriptures identify it as one of the Canaanite towns allotted to the tribe of Asher, but never captured (Josh. 19.24, 29; Judg. 1.31). 36 m. Ḥal. 4.8; m. Šeb. 6:1; and m. Demai 1:3. 37 t. Ḥal. 2.6. See also the boundary at Naḥal Ga‘aton in the “Baraita of the Borders,” t. Šeb. 4.8–11; Sipre Deuteronomy 51; and the Rehob Synagogue inscription. Sussmann, “A Halakhic Inscription,” 88–158; Sussmann, “Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” 213–257, and II– III; Sussmann, “Inscription in the Synagogue at Reḥob,” 146–151; Ovadiah and Ovadiah, Mosaic Pavements, 120–124; Tsafrir et al., “Ga‘aton,” TIR 125. 38 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. According to Rabbinic sources and the Rehob inscription, Bezet was a Jewish village in the region of Tyre. Tsafrir et al., “Bezeth,” TIR 89. 31

304

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

known as “The Ladder of Tyre,” which supports the claim that it belonged to Tyre.39 However, the claim that the boundary between Tyre and Ptolemais was located at Naḥal Beẓet is no more certain than Aviam’s claim that it was located at the Keziv River. In either case, these scholars tend to regard the hill country west of Upper Galilee as belonging to Ptolemais. Certainly this region was geographically closer to Ptolemais than to Tyre. Yet Josephus claims that the hill country west of Baca belonged to Tyre,40 and not to Ptolemais. This claim has additional support. One of the villages listed among the forbidden villages in the territory of Tyre was Bibra (‫)ביברה‬, a site which has been identified with Ḥ. Sugar just half a kilometre from Kh. Bobriyeh.41 Thus Bibra was located south of Naḥal Keziv, and yet was listed as a village in the region of Tyre. This suggests that there was territory south of Naḥal Keziv which belonged to Tyre and not to Ptolemais, including the hill country lying west of Baca.42 Therefore, Ptolemais seems to have controlled only a small district in the coastal plain which extended southward and shared a border with Lower Galilee.43 However, although Ptolemais and its district were distinct from the region of Tyre, Ptolemais will be included in this discussion because it was the closest Phoenician city to Galilee and it also had a minority Jewish population. III. Phoenician and Galilean relations Given the proximity of Ptolemais and Tyre to Galilee, and the limited availability of arable land for these cities, they depended upon the agricultural produce of Galilee.44 The Galileans in turn benefitted from this commercial relationship. During the Hellenistic period the Galileans imported Phoenician 39

War 2.188. War 3.39. 41 The name of this settlement in rabbinic sources varied, making identification difficult. However, with the discovery of the Rehob inscription and the clarification of the settlement’s name as Bibra, the Roman and Byzantine site was located near Kh. Bobriyeh, a crusader site which retained the name of the ancient village. Rafael Frankel, “Bibra’—A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre,” IEJ 29.3/4 (1979): 196. See also Tsafrir et al., “Bibra,” TIR 89. 42 Many contemporary scholars refer to this hill country and the coastal plain as western Galilee. However, during the Early Roman I period this region was part of Phoenicia. See the discussion on the borders of Galilee in Chapter Two. 43 War 2.503; 3.38; Life 213. 44 Josephus, Ant. 15.305–306. See also Acts 12.20. Josephus conveys the impression that Galilee had been the bread-basket of Tyre for centuries (Ant. 8.54, 57, 141). The dependence of Tyre and Sidon for food from Palestine, including Galilee, is also attested in 1 Kings 5.11, and Ezekiel 27.17. Commercial links between Ptolemais, Galilee, and Egypt during the reign of the Ptolemies is also attested in the Zenon Papyri (P.Cair.Zen. 1:59012 and 59004). Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 114–121; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 73; and Syon, Small Change, 85–87. 40

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

305

fineware and glassware from these coastal cities, and they had access to the harbour at Ptolemais through which they could import luxury goods like Rhodian wine from the wider Mediterranean.45 Yet for the Jews of Galilee during the Early Roman I period, the Phoenicians were also at times considered an enemy.46 We have already noted some of the conflicts and disputes over territory which arose between the Phoenicians and the Jews of Galilee during the waning years of the Seleucid Empire.47 As Uriel Rappaport and Sylvie Cohen claim: Lors des guerres hasmoneénnes, les Phéniciens furent parmi les principaux adversaires des Juifs et, dès Judas Maccabée, les cites de Phénicie du sud, Acre, Tyr et Sidon, firent déjà partie du front anti-judéen.48

Part of the problem was that there was no clear geographical boundary between the hinterland of Tyre and Upper Galilee, and Tyre was dependent on this region for produce.49 It was the need for agricultural land that led to the rise of Phoenician settlements in the Golan during the Early Hellenistic period. However, with the waning of Seleucid control over the Golan during the Late Hellenistic period, and the migration of Itureans from the north and the advance of Hasmoneans from the south, the majority of this population seems to have left the Golan, as in the case of Bethsaida, or abandoned their settlements altogether, as in the case of Tel Anafa.50 By the Early Roman I period the arable land available to Tyre was significantly reduced, and the Tyrians almost certainly resented this.51 Nonetheless, by allying themselves with the Romans, and prospering through maritime trade, Tyre and Sidon became wealthy GraecoRoman cities (πóλεις).52

45 See Chapters Two and Three and the discussions on the material culture of sites in Galilee during the Hellenistic period. During the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, the Galileans also used Tyrian silver for transactions requiring large sums of money because the vast majority of Hasmonean and Herodian coins were bronze issues. Syon, Small Change, 70–72; Chris Seeman, “Phoenicia,” EDEJ 1083; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 73. 46 See the discussion on the relationship between the Galileans and the people of Ptolemais in Sean Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 104–108. 47 Josephus, Ant. 12.331–334; 13.322, 337; 1 Macc. 5.15–17, 21–23; 12.48–53. 48 Uriel Rappaport and Sylvie Cohen, “Les Juifs et leurs voisens a l’époque perse, hellénistique et romain,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences, Sociales, 5 (1996): 959. 49 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 75–77; Rappaport and Cohen, “Les Juifs et leurs voisens,” 973. 50 Refer to Chapters Five and Six. 51 Strabo claimed that when the Hasmoneans were in power, the Jews seized the property of others and subdued much of Syria and Phoenicia (Geogr. 16.2.37). See also Rappaport and Cohen, “Les Juifs et leurs voisens,” 973. 52 Rappaport and Cohen, “Les Juifs et leurs voisens,” 959.

306

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

During the conquest of Pompey in 63 BCE, Tyre supplied the siege engines and battering rams for the siege on Jerusalem.53 After the Hasmonean kingdom was reduced to a small temple state, the territorial disputes and grievances between Galilee and Phoenicia were not forgotten.54 The Tyrians saw an opportunity to reclaim some of their lost territory. It was probably in response to raids on Jewish settlements that Hezekiah, the Galilean “brigand chief,” led a force to pillage and destroy Syrian villages near the Galilean border.55 Julius Caesar issued an imperial decree directing Tyre and Sidon to return land and property to Hyrcanus II which they had confiscated from Galilee.56 Later Marion of Tyre and his men captured three Galilean fortresses before he was put down by Herod the Great.57 Mark Antony then issued a second imperial decree demanding that Tyre and Sidon return confiscated territory and property to the Jews (42 BCE).58 In a strategic move Herod the Great lavished gifts on Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, probably with the aim of quelling ongoing hostility.59 A further point of contention was that Ptolemais served as a military base. It was at Ptolemais that generals raised auxiliary forces and invaded Galilee.60 In ca. 54 CE Claudius elevated the city of Ptolemais to the status of a colonia, and settled Syrian veterans in the district.61 This status was usually associated with subduing a troublesome region, and the proximity of Ptolemais to Galilee suggests that the troublesome region in question was Galilee.62 After this date

53

War 1.147. Rappaport and Cohen, “Les Juifs et leurs voisens,” 973. 55 War 1.204; Ant. 14.159. He was eventually executed by Herod the Great in 46 BCE, and the villages and towns of Syria hailed Herod as the “restorer of their peace and possessions” (War 1.205). 56 Ant. 14.196–198, 209. 57 War 1.238; Ant. 14.158, 271, 297–298. 58 Ant. 14.313–323. 59 He provided Tyre with “halls, porticoes, temples, and market-places,” Ptolemais with a gymnasium, and Sidon with a theatre (War 1.422; Ant. 19.335–337; 20.211). The Galileans probably did not appreciate their taxes being used to finance gifts to these Phoenician cities. Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 66. 60 From Ptolemais, Herod the Great raised an army and advanced into Galilee (War 1.290; Ant. 14.394, 452). In 4 BCE the Syrian legate Varus gathered additional forces at Ptolemais before sending a detachment into Galilee to destroy villages and capture Sepphoris (War 2.68; Ant. 17.289). During the Gaius affair in 40 CE, when the emperor decreed that a statue of his image be placed in the Jerusalem temple, the Syrian legate Petronius gathered his forces at Ptolemais. His intention was to march from there into Galilee and then on to Jerusalem, but he was eventually persuaded to keep the bulk of his army at Ptolemais (War 2.507–509; Ant. 18.261–264). Tacitus also briefly refers to the Gaius affair (Ann. 12.54). 61 Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 53; Freyne, “The Revolt from a Regional Perspective,” in Berlin and Overman, First Jewish Revolt, 45. 62 Freyne, “Revolt from a Regional Perspective,” 45. This occurred just two years after Cumanus was sent to put an end to disturbances in the region. According to Tacitus, Claudius 54

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

307

Cestius Gallus,63 Placidus,64 Vespasian,65 and Titus,66 gathered additional forces at Ptolemais before invading Galilee. According to Josephus, the large auxiliary force raised by Cestius Gallus made up for their lack of military experience by their ardour and contempt for the Jews.67 Notwithstanding the tendentious nature of Josephus’ report, there was certainly a degree of animosity between Galilee and the Phoenicians of Tyre and Ptolemais.68 It is not surprising therefore that during the First Jewish Revolt hostilities between the Phoenicians and the Galileans erupted again.69 Josephus claims that the Tyrians were bitter enemies of the Jews and particularly hostile to them.70 He records an attack on Gischala in Galilee, which probably emanated from Tyrian Kedesh,71 for later a party of Jews advanced on Kedesh destroying property and setting fire to their villages.72 The citizens of Tyre and Ptolemais then slew some of their Jewish population and imprisoned the rest.73 According to Josephus, Sidon was one of the few cities in the southern Levant that did not kill or imprison its Jewish residents.74 Thus, despite the commercial relationship between the Galileans and Phoenicians, it seems the potential for conflict was never far beneath the surface. Freyne is probably correct when he writes that the Galileans probably perceived the people of Ptolemais as foreign and sometimes hostile.75 Moreland questions this on the ground that Jews resided in Ptolemais; that the Phoenicians had settlements in Galilee; and that Phoenicia and Galilee had had mutually

sent Cumanus to govern Galilee, while Felix ruled Judea and Samaria (Ann. 12.54). Some of the disturbances at this time were also between the Galileans and Samaritans. 63 Josephus, War 2.502–505, 507–509. Cestius Gallus continued south into Judea, and dispatched Caesennius Gallus, commander of the twelfth legion to subdue Galilee (War 2.510; cf. 3.31). 64 Josephus, War 3.111; Life 213–214. 65 Josephus, War 3.29–34; 110, 115, 409. 66 Josephus, War 3.110. 67 War 2.502. Even the Tyrian style architecture of the houses in Chabulon, did not prevent Cestius Gallus and his troops from pillaging the Jewish town and setting it alight (War 2.503–504; Life 213). 68 As Berlin states, “For the Jews of Galilee…Tyre and its villages were clearly a specific locus of animus.” Berlin, “Romanization and anti-Romanisation,” 66. 69 Freyne, “Revolt from a Regional Perspective,” 43–56. 70 Ag. Ap. 1.70. 71 Life 44–45. As Mason writes, these forces may not have come from the city of Tyre itself, over thirty kilometres away. They probably came from the Tyrian town of Kedesh, which was located only ten kilometres northeast of Gischala. Mason, Life of Josephus, 48. 72 War 2.458–459. 73 War 2.461, 477–478. 74 War 2.479. 75 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 107–108.

308

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

beneficial relations for centuries with only two periods of major hostility.76 It is certainly true that Ptolemais had a Jewish population.77 However, the majority of those living in Ptolemais were not Jewish.78 Also, there were no Phoenician settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period. As we have seen, the Phoenicians did establish settlements inland at places like Kedesh, Jotapata, Tel Anafa, and Bethsaida in the third century BCE. However, by the first century CE, Kedesh was located beyond the borders of Upper Galilee as defined by Josephus, and it was known for its hostility toward the Galileans.79 Tel Anafa and Bethsaida were located in the Golan. As for Jotapata and other early Phoenician settlements in Galilee, we have observed that these changed hands around the turn of the first century BCE.80 Thus by the Early Roman I period there were no Phoenician settlements in Galilee. As for Moreland’s claim regarding centuries of mutually beneficial relations, the fact is that there were very few settlements in Galilee in the two centuries following the Iron Age II. During the Early Hellenistic period there were probably mutually beneficial relations between Phoenicia and the inhabitants of Galilee, but as the Jewish population in the region increased, tensions mounted. As for the claim that there were only two periods of hostility—one during the time of Hasmonean expansion and the other during the First Jewish Revolt—it is true that these were times of marked hostility. However, as we have seen, conflict also erupted during the intervening period. Thus while commercial relations continued, the ethnic differences and border disputes between the Galileans and Phoenicians should not be minimised.81 This history of repeated conflict is reflected in Josephus’ claim that Galilee had for many years resisted hostile invasion.82 It also helps us understand the conversation which 76

Milton Moreland, “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity and Identity, 145–146. 77 War 2.477. 78 As noted in Chapter Three, most of those living in Galilee by the Early Roman I period were taking steps to distance themselves from their Phoenician neighbours to the point where they ceased importing ESA red-slipped fineware. This distancing may also explain the reticence of the Galileans to enter the city of Ptolemais to meet the Syrian legate Petronius in 40 CE. Instead, they assembled in the plain outside the city. Petronius also left the army’s standards behind when he journeyed through Galilee, to avoid causing offence to the Jewish population (War 2.192–193). 79 War 4.104–105. See also Ant. 13.154, 162; and 1 Macc. 11.63, 73. The proximity of Kedesh to Galilee did not lend itself to warm Galilean-Phoenician relations. Kedesh will be discussed below. 80 Refer back to Chapter Two. 81 As John Barclay writes, “Territorial disputes, economic grievances and the settling of personal scores were just as important as ethnic/religious factors, but every new skirmish and every reported atrocity built up stores of animosity which were not easily dispersed.” Barclay, Jews in the Diaspora, 246. 82 War 3.41–42.

B. Literary sources and Phoenicia

309

unfolded between Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7.24–30. As Theissen writes: The story of the Syrophoenician woman is much easier to understand … if the tellers and hearers were acquainted with the situation in the border regions of Galilee and Tyre. Aggressive prejudices, supported by economic dependency and legitimated by religious traditions, strained the relationships between the more thoroughly Hellenized Tyrians and the Jewish minority population living either in Tyre or its vicinity.83

IV. Jewish communities in Phoenicia Literary sources attest to the presence of Jewish communities in Phoenicia. Philo records that colonies of Jews had settled in Phoenicia,84 and Josephus reports conflicts between the Jews and Gentiles of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon during the First Jewish Revolt.85 According to Acts, the apostle Paul visited early Christian communities in Tyre and Sidon, which almost certainly had a Jewish component.86 Also, a number of Tannaitic sources indicate that Jews had settled in Ptolemais, Akhziv, and Tyre.87 A reference of Josephus also points to a Jewish presence in the hill country of Tyre, for he writes that John of Gischala raised a force of four hundred men who had fled these villages for Galilee.88 The rabbinic document known as the “Baraita of the Borders,” which was discussed in Chapter Six, also points to a Jewish presence in the region of Tyre.89 The north-western border between the land of Israel and Tyre is particularly detailed in this baraita, and some of these settlements along the border

83

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 78–79. Philo, Embassy, 281. 85 War 2.477–479. 86 Acts 21.3–7; 27.3. 87 See e.g. m. Šeb. 6.1; t. Ter. 2.13; t. Mo‘ed Qaṭ. 2.15; t. Pesaḥ. 1.27–28; and t. Ma‘aś. Š. 3.18. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 112. For a discussion on the circuits of Rabbi Gamaliel of Yavneh see Aharon Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon. Studies in Leadership and Society, ed. Nili Oppenheimer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 145–155. Several tractates refer to sages living in Ptolemais, Akhziv, and Tyre during the Roman period. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 112, 152; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 131 [Map 14]; and Syon, Small Change, 101 [Fig. 22]. Grootkerk also notes that Akhziv had a synagogue. Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 7. 88 War 2.588. See also Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. 89 As noted in Chapter Six, this document defines the halakhic boundaries of Israel, and appears in five sources in slightly different forms (t. Šeb. 4; Sipre Deuteronomy 51; y. Demai 2.22c–d; y. Šeb. 6.36c; and in the Rehob synagogue inscription). Sussmann, “Inscription at Rehob,” 146–153; Ben David, “Rehob Inscription,” 231–240. See also Evans, Ancient Texts, 224, 231, 235. 84

310

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

have been identified and surveyed.90 It lies further north and west of the border of Upper Galilee as defined by Josephus.91 Thus Frankel et al., suggest the borders depicted in this baraita represent the maximum extent of Jewish settlement which could only have existed when the region was under Jewish administration.92 While it is unlikely that the north-western border depicted in the baraita ever reflected the political boundary of Galilee, it does suggest that there were Jewish settlements in the hill country west of Upper Galilee, and as we will see, this conclusion is supported by the material culture of some sites in the region. Moreover, it seems that some of the sites were abandoned by the end of the first century CE.93 Exactly when their abandonment occurred is a matter of debate. Some place this during the time of upheaval following the conquest of Pompey in 63 BCE.94 Others suggest this occurred after the exile of Herod Antipas in 39 CE.95 As noted above, after the conquest of Pompey, Tyre did seize the opportunity to capture Jewish settlements. Freyne suggests these settlements were in Galilee.96 However, archaeological surveys and excavations of sites in Galilee indicate that these settlements remained largely intact until the time of the First Jewish Revolt. It is more likely that the Jewish settlements indicated were located in the hill country to the west and north of Upper Galilee, in the area between the baraita borderline and the border of Upper Galilee as defined by Josephus.97 Herod’s action in bestowing gifts on Tyre and Sidon seems to have prevented further attacks on Jewish property, at least until the end of the rule of Herod Antipas in 39 CE. Therefore, Jesus could well have 90

These include Kabrita (el-Kabiri), Rosh Mei Ga‘aton (Ga‘aton Spring), Ga‘aton Aẓma (Ḥ. Ga‘aton), Bet Zeneta (Ḥ. Zuweinita), and Kastra de Galila (Ḥ. Galil). Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 153. 91 See Map 3 for a rough outline of the baraita border and its location in comparison with Josephus’ border. 92 This would have been either during the height of the Hasmonean kingdom or during the reign of Herod the Great. Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 108, 111. While either of these periods is possible, these authors argue that the baraita best reflects the borders during the time of the Hasmonaean kingdom. 93 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 8. 94 See e.g. Strange, “Archaeology of Galilee,” 35–36. 95 Aviam and Richardson write that it was in the mid-first century CE that the Jewish communities in the region of Tyre “retreated to the east behind the line of the valley of Peqi‘in,” i.e. Baca. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 179–180; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 14. 96 Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 6, 8, 61–62. 97 Caesar issued a decree to Tyre and Sidon instructing them to return Jewish property which had been confiscated (Ant. 14.197). If this property was restored it was short lived for in 42 BCE Mark Antony issued a similar edict demanding the Tyrians restore Jewish property and free those they had enslaved (Ant. 14.313–323). Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 62; and Berlin, First Jewish Revolt, 66.

C. Archaeology and Phoenicia

311

visited some of these Jewish settlements located in the region of Tyre during the time he was active in and around Galilee. By the time Josephus arrived in Galilee, however, Jews were fleeing the region of Tyre for the safety of Galilee.98 The Tannaitic document which lists the forbidden villages in the territory of Tyre,99 also points to the presence of Jewish settlements in the region of Tyre, or perhaps villages which had a mixed Jewish and Gentile population. These villages were located beyond the boundaries defined in the “Baraita of the Borders,” but those Jews living there were required to keep the same halakhic obligations as those living within Israel as defined by the “Baraita of the Borders.” Some of these villages have been identified on the mountain range known as the Ladder of Tyre.100 If these villages did have at least a minority Jewish population during the Roman period, as these documents suggest, then Jesus may have visited these also. However, surveys of some of these sites have produced mixed results.

C. Archaeology and Phoenicia C. Archaeology and Phoenicia

I. The material culture of Phoenicia As noted from literary sources, the coastal cities and the hill country west of Upper Galilee was a predominantly Gentile region during the Early Roman I period. Jews living in this region made up only a small percentage of the population, and this is reflected in the material culture of sites surveyed and excavated.101 The remains of temples were found at Ptolemais, Tyre, and Kedesh, along with statue bases, and images of the gods depicted in mosaics, frescoes, and sarcophagi.102 Smaller finds such as figurines, amulets, coins, and decorated pottery and oil lamps depicting gods and heroes, were found at many sites in the region. Fragments of ESA fineware are also common at Phoenician sites during the first century CE.103 Another indicator of Phoenician settlement is the Roman period Phoenician Jar, which is rarely found in Jewish Galilee.104 This jar developed from its 98

Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 108, 111. See t. Šeb. 4.9; y. Demai 2.1, 22d; and the Rehob inscription. Sussman, “The Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” Tarbiz 45 (1976): 213–257 [Hebrew]; Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 113, 153. 100 They include Sheẓet, Beẓeṭ (el-Baṣṣa), Pi Maẓẓuba (Kh. Maṣub), and Hanita ‘Elita (Kh. Ḥanuta). Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 112–113, 153. 101 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 145. 102 Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 120, 124 [Maps 5 & 8]. 103 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63. 104 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. 99

312

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

Persian and Hellenistic predecessors, and is mostly found in Middle and Late Roman period contexts.105 Therefore there is some uncertainty as to when this form came into use. In terms of its pattern of distribution, the Roman period Phoenician Jar is mostly found in the northwest in closer proximity to Tyre, which is opposite to the distribution pattern of Kefar Hananya ware which is found further east and south towards Galilee.106 Comparing the distribution pattern of the Galilean Bowl KH1C-E with the Roman period Phoenician Jar, Aviam writes: The “Galilean bowl” … was commonly used by Jews … The “Roman Phoenician” jar … was mainly used by the non-Jewish population in the western Galilee.107 They both existed in the 2nd and 3rd c. CE. Their distribution is a stunning example of a complete “mirror view.”108

While Persian forms of the Phoenician Jar are found in Upper Galilee as far as the Meiron block, its distribution pattern retreats west during the Hellenistic and Roman periods until it roughly corresponds with the baraita border line. Thus Frankel et al., conclude that the diminished quantity of these vessels in the hill country west of Upper Galilee during the Early Roman I periods was probably linked to the presence of Jewish settlements in this area. This also suggests that the Roman period Phoenician Jar had “ethnic connotations.”109 II. Kedesh/Tel Qedesh Kedesh is a good example of a Tyrian settlement with a material culture very different from that of Jewish sites in Galilee. It was a fortified village in the hill country north of Upper Galilee, about ten kilometres northeast of Gischala.110 During surveys and an excavation of Tel Kedesh an impressive Hellenistic administrative building was discovered, with living quarters, a courtyard, and a bathhouse.111 Finds included Rhodian wine amphorae, fourteen large storage jars, more than fifty pottery vessels, and over 2,000 clay bulae 105

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 132. 107 Note that Aviam is using the term Galilee here in its broader geographical sense. Thus his reference to western Galilee refers to the hill country west of Upper Galilee which belonged to Tyre during the Early Roman I period. 108 Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 121, 123. 109 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 132. 110 War 2.459; 3.38; 4.104–105. Cf. Eusebius (Onom. 116.8). Tsafrir et al., “Cadasa,” TIR 93. For an introduction to Kedesh see Andrea M. Berlin and Sharon C. Herbert, “Kedesh of Upper Galilee,” in Fiensy and Strange, Galilee in the Late Second Temple, 2.424–441; Andrea Berlin and Sharon Herbert, “Kedesh, Tel (In Upper Galilee),” NEAEHL 5.1905–1906; and Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 190–191. As noted above, Josephus describes Kedesh as particularly hostile toward the Galileans (War 2.458–459; 4.104–105; Life 44–45; Ant. 13.154, 162; 1 Macc. 11.63, 73). 111 Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh, Tel,” NEAEHL 5.1905–1906. 106

C. Archaeology and Phoenicia

313

bearing images of the gods, heroes, and portraits of Seleucid rulers.112 Fifteen of these depict the Phoenician deity Tanit. Some bear the image of Ba’al, and a number bear Phoenician inscriptions referring to Tyre. One Greek inscription includes the name of the town: KYΔISS[OΣ].113 Most of the bronze coins found from the period 125 BCE–63 BCE were Seleucid coins, plus two civic coins from Ptolemais, one from Tyre, and five from Antioch.114 Few structural remains from the first century CE were found, although the presence of ESA fineware indicates the site was settled at this time.115 As one might expect from a Tyrian settlement, there is a noticeable absence of Kefar Hananya ware,116 and the only bronze coins found for the period between 63 BCE–70 CE were three coins from Tyre.117 In the second century CE a large temple was constructed near the site,118 possibly in honour of Baalshamin “The Lord of Heaven,” whose name appears on an inscription.119 Other finds include statue bases and human figurines.120 Four mausoleums and stone sarcophagi were also found, with decorations similar to those excavated at Tyre. These provide a further indicator of the link between Kedesh and the city of Tyre.121 III. Ptolemais: a predominantly Gentile city Ptolemais has only been partially excavated to date, but surveys and a few salvage excavations confirm that the site was settled during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Finds include a small Hellenistic temple, a large marble statue, dozens of clay figurines, a Roman bathhouse, fragments of ESA fineware, and a second century BCE Greek inscription dedicated to Zeus Soter.122 These finds 112

Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh, Tel,” NEAEHL 5.1905. Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh of Upper Galilee,” 431–432; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 317. Around the mid-second century BCE this building was set alight and may have been abandoned for a time. The site was soon resettled and seems to have prospered, with the residents importing vessels from as far afield as Egypt and Cyprus. Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh, Tel,” NEAEHL 5.1905–1906; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 89. 114 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 46, 47]. 115 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 44, 89 [Site 369]; Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh, Tel,” NEAEHL 5.1906. 116 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 208; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 65. 117 Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Sites 46 and 47] 118 Meyers describes this temple as “the most impressive one found in all of Eretz Israel.” Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 61. See also Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh of Upper Galilee,” 438; and Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 139–146. 119 Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh of Upper Galilee,” 438. 120 Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 124–125. 121 Berlin and Herbert, “Kedesh of Upper Galilee,” 438; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 278–284, 307. 122 A coin dating to the time of Vespasian (69–79CE) was also found. Zeev Goldman, “Acco: Excavations in the Modern City,” NEAEHL 1.25; Moshe Dothan, “Acco: Excavations in the Modern City,” NEAEHL 1.23–24; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 36–40; 113

314

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

attest to the predominantly Gentile character of the population. However, the appearance of Jewish identity markers also indicates a Jewish presence in the city.

D. Jewish communities in and around Ptolemais D. Jewish communities around Ptolemais

I. A Jewish presence at Ptolemais Early Roman I period Jewish identity markers have been found at Ptolemais. Approximately 10–35% of the cooking vessels found at Ptolemais came from Kefar Hananya, including the casserole form KH3A, the cooking pot forms KH4A and KH4B, and the Galilean Bowl KH1A–B.123 These vessels could be purchased by non-Jews, but given references in literary sources to Jewish residents at Ptolemais it seems likely that most of these vessels were purchased by Jews. As Meyers claims, in most cases Kefar Hananya ware is found at sites where Jews settled.124 This is supported by the fact that small quantities of the Herodian oil lamp were also found.125 In addition, nine Hasmonean coins were found at Ptolemais.126 This compares with sixty-six other bronze coins for the same period, including thirtythree civic coins from Ptolemais.127 However, for the Early Roman I period, of the thirty bronze coins found at Ptolemais, nine were aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem.128 This represents a little less than a third of the total bronze coins from this period. Moreover, two of these were Jewish Revolt coins.129 Thus while some of these Jewish coins might simply reflect trade between Galilee and Ptolemais, the Jewish Revolt coins provide a strong indicator of Jewish settlement in the city.

Tsafrir et al., “Ptolemais, Ake,” TIR 204–205. Excavation of the harbour recovered more ESA fineware, storage jars, Western terra sigilatta ware, and the sunken hull of a ship dating to the second or third century CE. Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen, “Acco: The Harbour,” NEAEHL 5.1559. 123 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 206, 214, 216–217, 220. 124 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62. 125 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62. 126 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 116]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. Most of these are coins of Alexander Jannaeus, but two are coins of Hyrcanus I. Syon, Small Change, 135 [Fig. 34]. 127 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 116]. 128 Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Site 116]. 129 Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 116].

D. Jewish communities around Ptolemais

315

II. A Jewish presence in the vicinity of Ptolemais There are also indicators of Jewish settlement at other sites in the district of Ptolemais. 1. Ḥ. ‘Uza Ḥ. ‘Uza is located eight kilometres east of Ptolemais.130 During surveys and excavations of the site, fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found including early forms such as the cooking pot KH4B.131 A second century CE clay ossuary was also discovered in a burial cave nearby.132 In 1999, a fragment of a storage jar was found which depicted a menorah, and a number of lampstands including one inscribed with the word “Shabbat.”133 Then in 2012, a Byzantine period bread stamp was found which depicted a menorah.134 It is evident therefore that Ḥ. ‘Uza was a Jewish settlement during the Roman and Byzantine periods, and given the presence of early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, it is likely the site was also a Jewish settlement in the first century CE. 2. Ḥ. Gaḥosh The large site of Ḥ. Gaḥosh has not been excavated, but during surveys of the site five Hasmonean coins were found, two of which were early coins of Hyrcanus I.135 In addition, six aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem between 6 CE– 70 CE were found, one of which was a Jewish Revolt coin.136 During the same period, not a single bronze coin from Ptolemais or Tyre was found. Thus Syon may be correct in suggesting that Ḥ. Gaḥosh was a Jewish settlement from the time of the Hasmoneans and into the Early Roman I period.137

130

For an introduction to excavations at Ḥ. ‘Uza see Nimrod Getzov, “‘Uẓa, Ḥorvat,” NEAEHL 5.2065–2066; Nimrod Getzov, R. Leiberman-Wander, Howard Smithline, and Danny Syon, Ḥorbat ‘Uẓa. The 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods. IAA Reports 41 (Jerusalem: IAA, 2009); and Nimrod Getzov, Dina Avshalom-Gorni, Yael Gorin-Rosen, Edna J. Stern, Danny Syon, and Ayelet Tatcher, Ḥorbat ‘Uẓa. The 1991 Excavations II: The Late Periods. IAA Reports 42 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2009). 131 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 83 [Site 19]. 132 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 11, 83; Getzov, “‘Uẓa, Ḥorvat,” NEAEHL 5.2066; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.9]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 125–126; Syon, Small Change, 99 [Fig. 20, Site 118], and 182. 133 Getzov, “‘Uẓa, Ḥorvat,” NEAEHL 5.2066; Syon, Small Change, 182. 134 Syon, Small Change, 182. 135 Syon, Small Change, 160. 136 Syon, Small Change, 181, 188 [Table 16, Site 137]. This was minted in Year 2 of the First Jewish Revolt. 137 Syon, Small Change, 160, 181.

316

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

3. Kh. Musliḥ During surveys of Kh. Musliḥ, fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found.138 Most of these date from the Middle and Late Roman periods, although some fragments of the cooking pot KH4B were also found. Quantities of ESA red-slipped fineware confirm that the site was settled during the Early Roman I period. There is also a corresponding absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar.139 As for the site’s numismatic profile, although bronze coins from Tyre and Ptolemais predominate, a coin of Alexander Jannaeus was also found.140 Thus it is possible that there was a small Jewish community living at or nearby Kh. Musliḥ during the Early Roman I period, although this is by no means certain. 4. En Hamifraz En Hamifraz is located about two kilometres south of Ptolemais. There are no architectural remains at this site, but thousands of coins have been found. Thus Syon suggests that En Hamifraz was the site of a market or fair during the Early Roman period. Only three coins of Alexander Jannaeus were found at this site,141 but from the period between 6 CE–70 CE, sixty-three bronze aniconic coins from Jerusalem were found.142 This compares with six bronze coins from Ptolemais and one from Sidon during the same period.143 These results suggest that Jews living in the district of Ptolemais sold some of their agricultural produce at this market. 5. Tel Afeq During surveys of Tel Afeq, two aniconic bronze coins from Jerusalem were found from the period between 6 CE–70 CE.144 This is significant given that there is an absence of other bronze coins from the same period. Moreover, one of these was a Jewish Revolt coin.145 Thus Syon may be correct in suggesting that some Jews were also settled at Tel Afeq at this time.

138 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 12, 83 [Site 28]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 139 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 12, 83 [Site 28]. 140 Syon, Small Change, 160. 141 Syon, Small Change, 160, 169 [Table 15, Site 117]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 142 Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Site 117]. Seventeen of these were coins of Agrippa I. Syon, Small Change, 176 [Fig. 43, Site 117], and 185. 143 Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Site 117]. 144 Syon, Small Change, 181 [Fig. 38, Site 136], 187 [Fig. 49], and 198 [Table 18, Site 136]. 145 Syon, Small Change, 181 [Fig. 38, Site 136], and 188 [Table 16, Site 136].

E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre

317

6. Tel Keisan One Hasmonean coin was found at the large site of Tel Keisan, compared with seven bronze coins from Ptolemais during the period between 125–63 BCE.146 However, only two coins were recovered from the first century CE, one of which was an aniconic coin minted in Jerusalem.147 Thus there may have been a Jewish presence at this site, although this is by no means certain. 7. El-Makr El-Makr is located northeast of Ptolemais in the foothills west of Upper Galilee.148 Given its proximity to Ptolemais, it may have been a settlement in the district of Ptolemais.149 However, since it was also located in the hills west of Upper Galilee it may have belonged to Tyre. In either case, multiple fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found at El-Makr,150 including the casserole KH3A and the Galilean bowl KH1A-B. Fragments of ESA fineware were also found,151 but there is a noticeable absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. Thus el-Makr may have had a Jewish population during the Early Roman I period. Moreover, although el-Makr had a mixed population during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, with a Christian presence,152 a bronze lamp holder inscribed in Hebrew was also found, indicating at least a Jewish minority at the site at that time.153

E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre

I. The material culture of the region The hill country west and north of Upper Galilee, lying between Baca and the baraita borderline, was a predominantly Gentile area. At many sites fragments of ESA fineware were found, along with the Roman period Phoenician Jar, 146 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 127]; and 181 [Fig. 47]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 147 Syon, Small Change, 176 [Fig. 43, Site 127], and 198 [Table 18, Site 127]. 148 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 11 [Site 18]. 149 In fact, Frankel et al., suggest that el-Makr may have been the village known as Kefar ‘Akko in the Babylonian Talmud, the location of which is still disputed. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 152. 150 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 11 [Site 18]. 151 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 83. 152 This is indicated by remains of churches and Christian symbols on tombs. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 11; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 193; Jacob Ashkenazi and Mordechai Aviam, “Monasteries, Monks, and Villages in Western Galilee in Late Antiquity,” JLA 5.2 (2013): 270 [Fig.1]. 153 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 11; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 160–161.

318

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

imported vessels from the Aegean, mould-made lamps depicting images of the gods and heroes, and imperial coins and city coins from Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon.154 However, there are also hints of a Jewish presence in the region during the first century CE. Fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found at some sites,155 along with Hasmonean and other aniconic coins minted in Jerusalem. With the exception of Ḥ. ‘Eved, little has been recorded regarding the presence of limestone vessels in the region. This may indicate an absence of such vessels, although it is also possible that small fragments were overlooked or went unrecorded during surface surveys.156 If there were any Herodian oil lamps in the region these have also largely gone unrecorded. Further surveys and excavations should produce a clearer picture of the population in the region and help to determine whether there were shifts in the material culture at some sites during the Roman period. For now, we will note sites where fragments of Kefar Hananya ware and/or Hasmonean coins have been found. 1. Ḥ. ‘Eved/ Ḥ. ‘Oved Ḥ. ‘Eved was situated on high ground about two kilometres northwest of Baca. Since Josephus named Baca as the westernmost settlement of Upper Galilee, Ḥ ‘Eved was probably located just inside the Tyrian border.157 Here remains from the Persian through to the Byzantine period were found.158 Fragments of GCW and the Hellenistic Rhodian Jar indicate that the site was settled during the Early Hellenistic period and had a Gentile population at the time. However, as with many sites in neighbouring Galilee, a shift occurred in the material culture during the Late Hellenistic period. The discovery of limestone vessel fragments,159 and early forms of Kefar Hananya ware such as the casserole KH3A and the cooking pot KH4B,160 indicate that Ḥ. ‘Eved was a Jewish 154 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 132. Berlin suggests the Gentiles in the region may have made a conscious decision to use ceramic forms which identified them culturally with the coastal cities. Berlin, First Jewish Revolt, 66. 155 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 132. 156 This was the case during early surveys of the southern Huleh Valley. When surveyors went back to these sites, they did find fragments of limestone vessels. Shaked and AvshalomGorni, “Jewish Settlement in the Hula Valley,” 35, n.6. It is also possible that small quantities of limestone vessels lie buried in strata that have not been excavated. 157 Tsafrir et al., “Ḥ. ‘Eved, Kh. ‘Abbad,” TIR 124. Perhaps due to its material remains and proximity to Baca, Ḥ. ‘Eved has been included in the map of first-century CE Upper Galilee in Fiensy and Strange, eds. Galilee in the Late Second Temple, [Map 4A]. 158 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 32 [Site 238]; Leea Porat, “Horbat ‘Eved,” HA– ESI 120 (2008): n.p. Released 16/07/2008. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=824&mag_id=114 159 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No. 15]; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 119 [Map 4]. 160 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 87.

E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre

319

settlement by the Early Roman I period.161 Thus when Jesus crossed the border into the region of Tyre, Ḥ ‘Eved may have been one of the first villages he visited.162 2. The fortress at Ḥ. Tefen Located in the hill country southwest of Baca are the remains of the fortress of Ḥ. Tefen.163 Its appearance on the edge of a ridge suggests it was constructed to watch the road leading from Galilee to Ptolemais.164 Ḥ. Tefen was originally a Hellenistic fortress.165 However, a shift in the material culture during the first half of the first century BCE indicates the site changed hands and became a Hasmonean fortress. These remains include twelve coins of Alexander Jannaeus,166 early forms of Kefar Hananya ware such as the casserole KH3A, the Galilean bowl KH1A-B,167 and large quantities of the cooking pot KH4B, and ESA fineware.168 Noticeably absent are any fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. Given the occurrence of the cooking pot KH4B it appears that Ḥ. Tefen remained in Jewish hands until the middle of the first century CE. By the end of the first century CE, however, the site was abandoned. Thus when Jesus crossed the border into the region of Tyre, Ḥ. Tefen was still a Jewish fortress. However, it was probably manned by Herodian forces. Therefore, it is unlikely that Jesus would visit the site. Nonetheless, the existence of the fortress suggests that there were Jewish settlements in the district in need of protection. One such settlement may have been Ḥ. Belaya. 161 Thus Grootkerk lists Ḥ ‘Eved as a possible Jewish settlement. Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 76–77. 162 From the second century CE the remains become more ambiguous. Later forms of Kefar Hananya ware were found, but also fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar, locally manufactured and imported Byzantine period fineware, and a monastery. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 87; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 122 [Map 6]; Ashkenazi and Aviam, “Monasteries, Monks, and Villages,” 270 [Fig.1]. 163 Tsafrir et al., “Ḥ. Tefen, Kh. Tufaniya, Qal‘at et Tufanniya,” TIR 240. 164 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 23–24. Frankel et al., suggest that Ḥ. Tefan [Site 158] was part of a line of fortresses which included Ras Kalban [Site 141] and Maẓad Har Sené [167A]. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109; 24, 85 [Site 158]. Syon suggests these fortresses may have marked the boundary of Galilee during the Hasmonean period. Syon, Small Change, 80. This may in fact be correct. 165 This is indicated by fragments of GCW, Rhodian Jar handles, and the Hellenistic Phoenician Jar. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 80; Donald T. Ariel, “Appendix IV: Stamped Amphora Handles,” in Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 156. 166 Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 107]. Frankel et al., suggest the fortress may have been captured when Jannaeus attempted to take Ptolemais. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110. See also Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 23–24; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 167 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 85. 168 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 85.

320

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

3. Ḥ. Belaya Ḥ. Belaya is a small site located a short distance southwest of the fortress of Ḥ. Tefen.169 Early forms of Kefar Hananya ware such as the Galilean bowl KH1AB and the cooking pot KH4B were found at Ḥ. Belaya,170 with a corresponding absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. Also, a nearby tomb was found which depicted a menorah.171 While the menorah probably post-dates the Early Roman I period, its presence along with the early forms of Kefar Hananya ware suggests there was probably a Jewish presence at the site during the first century CE. 4. Ḥ. Qazyon Ḥ. Qazyon is situated a few kilometres north of Meroth/Ḥ Marus in Upper Galilee. Since Josephus marked the northern border of Upper Galilee at Meroth, this would place Ḥ. Qazyon just across the border in the region of Tyre, although Frankel et al., locate the geographical boundary at Naḥal Dishon just north of the site. If correct, this would place Ḥ. Qazyon in Upper Galilee. However, if this was the case, one might wonder why Josephus did not name Ḥ. Qazyon as the northernmost site in Upper Galilee.172 Ḥ. Qazyon has been surveyed and excavated. During the Early Hellenistic period the site had a Gentile population.173 However, a shift occurred in the material culture during the Late Hellenistic period. Multiple fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found, including the casserole KH3A and the cooking pot KH4B,174 with a corresponding absence of Phoenician ceramic forms until the Byzantine period. A bronze coin of Herod Antipas was also found,175 and a second century CE Jewish inscription written in Greek (ca. 197–198 CE).176 Also the remains of a large structure which may have been a synagogue was

169

Here traces of walls, a water cistern, rock-hewn tombs, and olive oil presses were found. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 22, 85 [Site 135]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 207. 170 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 85. 171 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 153. By the Byzantine period Ḥ. Belaya also had a Christian population. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 207; Ashkenazi and Aviam, “Monasteries, Monks, and Villages,” 270 [Fig.1]. 172 It is possible that Ḥ. Qazyon became a contested site. Nonetheless, the name of the settlement does appear in the Palestinian Talmud in association with Rabbi Yohanan of Ḥ. Qazyon (y. Ber. 8.12b.7). Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 151; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 131. This suggests that Ḥ. Qazyon remained a Jewish settlement during the Roman period. Tsafrir et al., “Qiṣion,” TIR 209. 173 This is indicated by the remains of GCW. 174 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 88. 175 Syon, Small Change, 179 [Fig. 45, Site 64], 197 [Table 18, Site 64]. 176 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 151.

E. Jewish communities in the hill country of Tyre

321

found.177 Thus Ḥ. Qazyon may have been one of the villages Jesus visited as he crossed the border into the region of Tyre. 5. Qeren Naftali Qeren Naftali is located north of the border of Upper Galilee, as defined by Josephus, about four kilometres southeast of Kedesh.178 Thus Qeren Naftali was situated within the region of Tyre by the time Josephus became governor of Galilee in 66 CE. The site has been surveyed and excavated, and its remains include a fortress with square towers.179 Qeren Naftali was occupied during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but it changed hands at least twice during this time. The large quantity of GCW sherds found at the site indicates that Qeren Naftali had a Gentile population during the Early Hellenistic period.180 However, around the turn of the first century BCE the fortress was captured by the Hasmoneans. This is indicated by the discovery of a plastered mikveh, eight Hasmonean coins, a coin of Philip the tetrarch, fragments of limestone vessels, and early forms of Kefar Hananya ware including the casserole KH3A and the cooking pot KH4B.181 These indicate that Qeren Naftali became a Jewish settlement and remained so at least until the middle of the first century CE.182 Qeren Naftali appears to have been captured by Tyrian forces at some point between the mid-first century CE and the First Jewish Revolt.183 The mikveh was filled with ash and refuse and seems to have been used as a dump.184 In the second century CE a new village and a temple were built at the site,185 177

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 43, 111, 151. Syon, Small Change, 81; Tsafrir et al., “Qeren Naftali, Kh. El Harrawi,” TIR 209. 179 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 59. 180 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 45. 181 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 89 [Site 380]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 59–88; Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 48]. 182 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 89 [Site 380]; Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 120–121. It is possible the fortress was recaptured for a short period during the second half of the first century BCE, perhaps by Marion of Tyre, for Josephus writes that Marion of Tyre captured three strongholds of Galilee. If so, he was quickly defeated by Herod the Great (War 1.238– 239). Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 63–64, 67, 74–84. 183 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. 184 Among the finds in the fill were sherds of GCW, ESA fineware, mould-made and decorated oil lamps, and a variety of animal bones, including a small percentage of pig bones. Additional sherds of ESA fineware were found during a survey of the site, along with a first century BCE city coin from Sidon. Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 84. 185 Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 86. The remains of the temple include columns, capitals, and dressed stones. Also a Greek inscription dedicated to Athena was found on a lintel, and another dedicated to Zeus Heliopolitanus was found on a “tabula ansata.” Second century CE mould-made discus lamps were also found, including one depicting a naked image of Aphrodite. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 14, 82. 178

322

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

providing clear evidence that Qeren Naftali had become a Phoenician site. During the time of Jesus, however, Qeren Naftali was a Jewish settlement. II. Other sites which may have had a Jewish population 1. Dar el-Gharbiya Dar el-Gharbiya is located in the foothills west of Upper Galilee, a few kilometres northeast of El-Makr.186 Most of the remains date to the Byzantine or Crusader periods.187 However, early forms of Kefar Hananya ware were also found including the casserole KH3A and cooking pot KH4B, and fragments of ESA fineware.188 There is also a corresponding absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. These finds suggest the site may have had a Jewish population during the first century CE.189 2. Ḥ. Bulu‘a Ḥ. Bulu‘a is a small site located a few kilometres northwest of Baca.190 The discovery of large quantities of Kefar Hananya ware, including the casserole KH3A, the Galilean bowl KH1A–B, and the cooking pot KH4B, indicate the site was settled during the Early Roman I period and may have been a Jewish settlement at that time. Ḥ. Bulu‘a also yielded significant quantities of ESA fineware,191 but there is a noticeable absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. 3. Ḥ. Baẓir The ancient settlement of Ḥ. Baẓir is located on a hill near the modern Lebanese border.192 An abundance of ESA fineware indicates the site was settled during the Early Roman period. However, fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were also found, including the casserole KH3A.193 There is also a corresponding absence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. It is possible therefore that Ḥ. Baẓir also had a Jewish population during the Early Roman I period. 186

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 13 [Site 33]. Danny Syon and Edna J. Stern, “Excavations at the Dar el-Gharbiya Neighbourhood of Kafr Yasif: A Crusader Estate in the Territory of ‘Akko,” ‘Atiqot 79 (2014): 233–261. 188 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 13, 83. 189 By the Byzantine period the site also had a Christian population. This is indicated in the remains of a monastery. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 19 [Fig. 1.10]; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 122 [Map 6]; and Ashkenazi and Aviam, “Monasteries, Monks, and Villages,” 270, 295 [Fig.1]. 190 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 26 [Site 178]. 191 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 26, 86. 192 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 30 [Site 221]. 193 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 83–85. 187

F. Ambiguous sites in the hill country of Tyre

323

F. Ambiguous sites in the hill country of Tyre F. Ambiguous sites in the hill country of Tyre

The shifts in population noted at Ḥ. Tefen and Qeren Naphtali, which occurred during the second half of the first century CE, suggest the Jewish population in the region of Tyre at this time was diminishing, with some abandoning sites and retreating south and east into Galilee.194 An eastward retreat has also been observed in the distribution patterns of Kefar Hananya ware, with earlier forms such as the cooking pot KH4A being found further west than later forms like the Galilean bowl KH1C-E.195 Thus Frankel et al., may be correct in concluding that this reflects “the eastward retreat of Jewish settlement and influence” around the time of the First Jewish Revolt.196 This eastward retreat and decline in Jewish settlement in the hill country of Tyre toward the end of the first century CE may explain some of the ambiguous evidence observed at other sites. I. Ḥ. Bet Zeneta/Kh. Zuweinita One site yielding ambiguous data is Ḥ. Bet Zeneta. It is listed among the settlements marking the boundary of Israel in the “Baraita of the Borders.”197 This suggests the site during the Early and/or Middle Roman period was Jewish.198 However, the material remains present a more complex picture.199 A salvage excavation conducted in 1993 revealed two main periods of occupation: one during the crusader period, and one during the Roman period.200 During the Roman period, Ḥ. Bet Zeneta was a farmstead surrounding a courtyard and part of a field system with boundary walls.201 However, most of the Roman period remains were cleared to bedrock to make way for the later crusader settlement. Thus many of the ceramic fragments and other artefacts from the Roman period were not found in situ. Nonetheless, their distinctive character has enabled identification. They include ESA fineware and Kefar Hananya ware.202 194

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113, 132. 196 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113, 132. 197 It is located on a hill about eleven kilometres west of Baca. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 108, 153 [Site 143]; Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 11, 14. 198 Frankel et al., write that the settlements listed in the “Baraita of the Borders” and the forbidden villages in the territory of Tyre, “provide clear evidence of Jewish settlement … the implication being that these were completely or partly Jewish villages.” Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 153. 199 Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 23, 108 [Site 143]. 200 Nimrod Getzov, “An Excavation at Ḥorbat Bet Zeneta,” Atiqot 39, IAA (2000): 75– 106 [Hebrew]; 202 [English summary]. 201 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. In fact, Bet Zeneta was one of several walled farmsteads with a field system surrounded by boundary walls. 202 Frankel et. al., Settlement Dynamics, 85; Getzov, “Ḥorbat Bet Zeneta,” 81 [Fig.7]. 195

324

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

During excavation a tabun oven was discovered in a destruction layer. Inside the oven the excavators found a Kefar Hananya cooking pot KH4B, which came into use around the middle of the first century CE.203 Within the pot there was an imperial coin from the reign of Claudius (50–51 CE).204 This cooking pot and coin provide a terminus post quem for the site during the latter half of the first century CE.205 Avshalom-Gorni, Getzov, and Aviam date all the Roman period ceramic remains to the Early Roman period.206 However, Frankel et al., have noted fragments of the Galilean bowl KH1C–E, which was in use during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and the cooking pot KH3B which came into use during the second century CE. They also noted diagnostic fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar, discovered in a second century CE context.207 Grootkerk suggests that Bet Zeneta was a Jewish site, probably on the basis that it is mentioned in the “Baraita of the Borders.”208 Aviam suggests the site was a Jewish settlement which was abandoned around the middle of the first century CE.209 Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov appear to be arguing that Bet Zeneta was not a Jewish site, given the presence of the Roman period Phoenician Jar, although they may simply be saying that the Phoenician Jar reflects the location of the site in Phoenician territory.210 Thus the appearance of the Phoenician Jar at Bet Zeneta may not be related to the population living at the site when it was destroyed during the first century CE. Aviam is correct to note that generally the Galilean bowl KH1C–E was “commonly used by Jews” in Galilee, and the Roman period Phoenician Jar “was mainly used by the non-Jewish population” of Phoenicia.211 Yet at Bet Zeneta both forms are evident. Given that the site was a small farmstead during the Roman period, it is unlikely that it was a mixed settlement. So did the site change hands toward the end of the first century CE, with a Gentile population 203

Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 128. Getzov, “Ḥorbat Bet Zeneta,” 102 [Fig. 33], and 202; Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 76. 205 Getzov, “Ḥorbat Bet Zeneta,” 202; Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 76. Aviam dates the destruction to the middle of the first century CE. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 14. An Early Roman I period bronze coin from Ptolemais was also found at the site. Syon, Small Change, 197 [Table 18, Site 68]. 206 Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 76, 78–81. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 14. 207 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 23, 64, 85. 208 He also refers to a synagogue at the site. Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 47. Shimon Applebaum also lists Bet Zeneta as a Jewish site, primarily on the basis of its mention in the “Baraita of the Borders.” Shimon Applebaum, Judea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 90. 209 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 14. 210 Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 74, 76, and 81. 211 Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 121. 204

F. Ambiguous sites in the hill country of Tyre

325

moving in and deciding to import Kefar Hananya ware? Or did the settlement remain Jewish with occupants willing to use the Roman period Phoenician Jar? It may be impossible to answer these questions, because the Crusader settlers disturbed most of the earlier strata.212 Nonetheless, Bet Zeneta appears to have been a Jewish settlement at least until the middle of the first century CE. This is suggested by its mention in the “Baraita of the Borders,” and the presence of early forms of Kefar Hananya ware. The evidence of destruction in the second half of the first century CE also corresponds well to the conflict between Jews and non-Jews in the region of Tyre during the First Jewish Revolt. II. Other sites yielding ambiguous data Several other sites have also produced mixed results. Fragments of Kefar Hananya ware were found at Tel ‘Emeq,213 Kh. Zabadi/Zabdi,214 Ḥ. Ṭabburit,215 and Ḥ. ‘Akhir.216 The fragments of Kefar Hananya ware discovered in an olive oil press at Kh. Zabadi were examined by Adan-Bayewitz. He found that the majority were Early or Middle Roman period forms, and the proportion of this 212 Bet Zeneta was one of several walled farmsteads with a field system surrounded by boundary walls. Frankel et al., note that the field system does not conform to “the classical Roman centurion type of land division,” and wonder whether it may have been “a project of the colonia at Ptolemais.” Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113. However, based on coins found in the region, Syon argues that Bet Zeneta could not have been part of the district of Ptolemais or used to settle Roman veterans after Ptolemais became a colony. Syon, Small Change, 83. Syon was probably correct, since Bet Zeneta was located in the hill country northwest of Baca. Thus it was almost certainly located within the territory of Tyre. 213 These include KH4A, KH4B, and KH1A-B. ESA fineware was also found. However, no Hasmonean or bronze aniconic coins from Jerusalem were found. Most of the bronze coins for the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman I periods are civic coins from Ptolemais. Syon, Small Change, 169 [Table 15, Site 98], 197 [Table 15, Site 98]. Later forms of Kefar Hananya ware were also found, but also the Roman period Phoenician Jar. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 83 [Site 34]. 214 Kh. Zabadi was a Roman period farmstead, part of a complex of farmsteads surrounded by boundary walls, which included Bet Zeneta and Ḥ. Tabburit. Fragments of ESA fineware were found, along with Kefar Hananya ware, including KH4B. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 19, 84, 113 [Site 101]. However, fragments from the second century CE onward include the Roman period Phoenician Jar and Masref Amphorae. 215 Remains of boundary walls, olive oil presses, and cisterns were found, along with early forms of Kefar Hananya ware including KH1A, KH3B, and KH4B. However, fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar were also found. The site was abandoned in the third century CE. Frankel et al, Settlement Dynamics, 21, 85, 114 [Site 119]. 216 Located on the northern bank of Naḥal Bet Ha-‘Emek, Ḥ. ‘Akhir may have been the Talmudic settlement known as Kefar ‘Akko. Remains include an oil and wine press, significant quantities of Kefar Hananya ware including KH1C-E, KH3B, and KH4B, and ESA fineware. However, there are also fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 16, 84 [Site 63].

326

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

assemblage was similar to that found at Galilean sites.217 However, these sites also featured the Roman period Phoenician Jar. It is difficult to tell, therefore, whether there was a Jewish population at these sites during the first century CE. Another ambiguous site is Yanoah/Yanuḥ, which may have had a Jewish population during the first century CE.218 A number of sites, including Bezet,219 and Kefar ‘Amiqo,220 appear in rabbinic sources but have material remains which exhibit a culturally ambiguous picture. Although there are indicators of at least a minority Jewish presence at these sites, it is unclear whether this was the case during the Early Roman period. Kefar Yaṣif presents a different picture. The site has yielded an abundance of Byzantine period pottery, and among nearby tombs dating to the Roman and Byzantine periods, a stone door was discovered depicting a menorah and the façade of a Torah Ark.221 Another burial stone was found depicting a menorah, along with a Greek inscription.222 Grootkerk also notes the presence of a synagogue at the site.223 It is clear that there was at least a minority Jewish population living at the site during the Byzantine period, and perhaps also during the

217

Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 205, 208, 214, 216–217. Yanoaḥ/Yanuḥ was possibly the settlement of Abba Yossi Ben Hanan of Yanoah (t. Kil. 2.1, 4). The site located in the hill country west of Galilee has yielded fragments of Kefar Hananya ware including the Galilean bowl KH1A–B and the cooking pot KH4B, and ESA fineware. However, fragments of the Roman period Phoenician Jar were also found. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 24, 85, 153 [Site 155]. Yanoah is also mentioned in Second Kings 15.29 as one of the towns captured by Tiglath-Pilesar, yet Yanoah in western Galilee has yielded no Iron Age remains, although Iron Age finds were found nearby at Ḥ. Gov Yanoaḥ. There is also another site by the same name in modern Lebanon. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 149. Therefore, the identification of Yanoaḥ is uncertain. 219 Bezet and Ḥanita ‘Elita are listed as forbidden villages in the territory of Tyre in t. Šeb. 4.9; y. Demai 2.1, 22d; and the Rehob synagogue inscription. Sussmann, “The Inscription at Rehob,” 152. Bezet has been identified with El-Bassa, where remains of a large village were found with multiple ceramic fragments from the Byzantine period. Nearby some Roman and Byzantine tombs were discovered, with at least one depicting a menorah. Thus, Bezet is sometimes listed as a Jewish settlement. See e.g. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 17, 84 [Site 82]. Grootkerk and Aviam identify the site as Shlomi. Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 2–3; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 122 [Map 6]). 220 Kefar ‘Amiqo appears in t. B. Qam. 8.10. Therefore, it is sometimes listed is as a Jewish settlement. See e.g. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 14, 152 [Site 49]; and Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 36–37. Structural remains of an ancient village were found with ESA fineware indicating settlement during the Early Roman period, but no Kefar Hananya ware was recorded by Frankel et al., at this site. 221 Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 304. 222 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 14, 153 [Site 43]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 122 [Map 6]. 223 Grootkerk, Ancient Sites, 36–37; Applebaum, Judea in Roman Times, 90, n.103. 218

G. Implications for the historical Jesus

327

Roman period.224 However, it is unknown whether there was a Jewish presence at the site during the Early Roman I period.225

G. Implications for the historical Jesus G. Implications for the historical Jesus

It is evident from this survey that while the full extent of Jewish settlement in the hill country of Tyre is unknown, Jews were living in this predominantly Gentile region during the early half of the first century CE.226 It is plausible therefore that an itinerant prophet like Jesus would extend his ministry across the borders of Upper Galilee into the hill country of Tyre. As Mark claims: Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν· ἀλλʼ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, ἐλθοῦσα προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ· ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει· καὶ ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ· ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν (Mark 7.24–27). From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was Greek, of Syro-Phoencian origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first. It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

A number of scholars have questioned Mark’s claim that Jesus visited the region of Tyre. Collins suggests that while Mark probably found the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman in his sources, it is unlikely that Jesus met the SyroPhoenician woman in the region of Tyre.227 She argues that Mark probably placed this encounter in the region of Tyre to link the story with the previous account of Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees in Mark 7.1–23.228 That dispute concerned the issue of defilement and its prevention by ritual handwashing, a practice which Jesus deemed unnecessary.229 After this Mark depicts Jesus 224

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 14, 83, 153 [Site 43]. It may be that if any Roman period ceramic fragments were observed they were deemed insufficient in quantity to warrant mention. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 5. 226 Future surveys and excavations should provide a clearer picture of settlement history in this region, and of some of the more ambiguous sites noted above. 227 Collins, Mark, 364. 228 Collins, Mark, 364. 229 Thus Jesus responded, “There is nothing outside of a man which, by going into him, is able to defile him” (Mark 7.15). In an editorial comment, Mark stresses the theological implication of this statement: that Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7.19). This reflects 225

328

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

travelling into Gentile territory. Collins is probably correct in asserting that Mark arranged his source material so that the dispute over what defiles would precede the story of Jesus’ journey into Gentile territory. However, the arrangement of Mark’s source material in this way does not necessitate that Mark invented the journey of Jesus to the region of Tyre. Collins also suggests that Mark placed Jesus in the region of Tyre to present him “as initiating a mission to the Gentiles.”230 France also claims that the focus of this passage is on the extension of Jesus’ mission to the Gentiles.231 Certainly the region of Tyre during the Early Roman I period had a predominantly Gentile population, and we may concede that Mark probably arranged his material in this way to provide a rationale for the church’s mission to the Gentiles. Mark may also have included this account to hold up the Syro-Phoenician woman as a model of faith, and to show that Jesus did eventually respond to a Gentile in need. However, Mark does not depict Jesus actively engaged in a mission to the Gentiles.232 The Syro-Phoenician woman is the only person in the Gospel of Mark explicitly identified as a Gentile who is assisted by Jesus,233 and she approached Jesus.234 He did not go out seeking Gentiles. Jesus was also in Gentile territory when he reportedly healed the Gerasene demoniac and cured the deaf-mute.235 Yet in these accounts Mark does not comment on the ethnicity of these individuals. Collins suggests that Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman originally occurred in Galilee, or perhaps Bethsaida.236 She argues that Mark’s careful identification of the woman as Greek and Syro-Phoenician “makes more sense in Galilee than in the region around Tyre.”237 This argument may have seemed plausible two decades ago when it was assumed that Galilee had an ethnically mixed population. However, such a claim is now unlikely. As we have seen, the literary and material evidence for a Jewish Galilee, and a predominantly Jewish Gaulanitis in the first century CE, is substantial. It is no the theology of the early church. Craig A. Evans, “Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament,” JSNT 38.1 (2015): 39–40. 230 Collins, Mark, 364. 231 France, Gospel of Mark, 294–295. Note that France appears to accept the historicity of Jesus’ journey to the region of Tyre. 232 See the discussion on Jesus and the Gentiles by Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 212–221. He concludes that while Jesus did not engage in a mission to the Gentiles, “the overwhelming impression is that Jesus started a movement which came to see the Gentile mission as a logical extension of itself.” Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 220. 233 This is also noted by Witherington III. He writes, “This is the only passage in Mark where the healed person is definitely a Gentile pagan. [sic]” Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 231. 234 Mark 7.25. 235 Mark 5.1–20; Mark 7.31–37. These accounts will be discussed in the next chapter. 236 Collins, Mark, 364. 237 Collins, Mark, 364.

G. Implications for the historical Jesus

329

longer plausible to imagine that a sizable minority of Romans, Greeks, or Phoenicians lived in Galilee, or even Bethsaida during the first three decades of the first century CE.238 Certainly someone might imagine a Gentile official in the service of Herod Antipas having a Syro-Phoenician wife. But given Antipas’ efforts not to offend his Jewish subjects,239 and the history of conflict between the Galileans and Phoenicians, this seems unlikely. Antipas may have employed Idumeans, and possibly Nabateans,240 but there are no indications that there were Phoenicians employed in his service. It is more likely that Jesus would encounter a Syro-Phoenician woman in the region of Tyre, than in Galilee or Bethsaida. Alternatively, one might suppose the Syro-Phoenician woman could travel to Galilee from the region of Tyre to meet Jesus. Certainly, women of high social standing and independent means had a certain freedom of movement during the Early Roman I period. This is attested in Josephus’ account of Helena, Queen of Adiabene, who travelled with her attendants to a Jewish festival in Jerusalem.241 It is also evident in the journey of the wife of Ptolemy, an administrator of Agrippa II, who travelled with an entourage through the Jezreel valley. However, in this case the travelling group were set upon by a Jewish raiding party from Dabaritta, and the woman barely escaped with her life.242 If Jesus was located near Capernaum or Bethsaida and the Syro-Phoenician woman travelled to meet him from the region of Tyre, this would entail a round trip of three to four days along the narrow, winding paths through the hilly terrain of Upper Galilee. She would also require an entourage for protection 238

Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 53; Mason, Life of Josephus, 60. It was not until after the First Jewish Revolt that there was a Roman military presence in Galilee, even though at that time the military bases were located outside of the region at Ptolemais and Legio. Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 23. 239 Herod Antipas did not build any shrines or temples in Galilee but attended religious festivals in Jerusalem (Ant. 18.122–123), and unlike his brother Philip, he minted coins which avoided any image that might offend his Jewish subjects. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 52; Jensen, “Purity and Politics,” 21. 240 Given that Antipas married the daughter of Aretas, the king of Nabatea, it is possible that he employed Nabateans in his service. As noted in Chapter Three, Antipas had a manager (ἐπίτροπος) by the name of Chuza (Χουζᾶ), who was the husband of Joanna, a follower of Jesus (Luke 8.3). The name Chuza appears in Nabatean and Syrian inscriptions as Aramaic Kûzā’. Bauckham, Gospel Women, 135–143, 151–161. See also Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, 1–9, 698; and Nolland, Luke 1–9.20, 366. 241 Josephus, Ant. 20.51, 101 242 Josephus, Life 126–127. Cf. War 2.595–599. By the first century CE, much of the Jezreel Valley had become crown land, and the road through the valley from Ptolemais to Beth Shean/Scythopolis was already a significant interregional highway. Isaac and Roll, Roman Roads in Judaea I, 7–8, 105–106. However, the village of Dabaritta on the edge of the valley belonged to Galilee, and it seems the men of Dabaritta saw an opportunity to seize the goods of Ptolemy as they were being transported through the valley.

330

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

while travelling through this foreign and unfamiliar territory, and there would be no way stations or inns along the way in which to rest.243 Of course, the woman could have come from the district of Ptolemais. In this case she could travel along the east-west road from Ptolemais to Bethsaida which followed the border between Upper and Lower Galilee and passed by Kefar Hananya. Or she could take the east-west route through Lower Galilee via Sepphoris to Tiberias. These routes might be safer to travel, and one might find an inn at Sepphoris or Tiberias. But these roads were still unpaved, uneven, and rough in places. When Vespasian set out from Ptolemais a few decades later, he sent parties ahead to widen and straighten the road into Lower Galilee, and to clear obstructions along the way.244 Thus while such a journey might be possible on these roads, it seems unlikely given their poor condition, the unfamiliarity of the territory, and the history of conflict between Galilee and Phoenicia. So why did Mark identify the woman as Greek and Syro-Phoenician? Her identification as Greek (‘Ελληνις) probably indicated that she spoke Greek and was immersed in Greek culture. Some have argued that she may also have been a woman of high status, perhaps belonging to one of the leading families of Tyre,245 but this is by no means certain. Her designation as Syro-Phoenician denoted her ethnicity. However, it would also indicate that she belonged to a people perceived to be hostile toward the Jews of Galilee.246 Thus her identification would introduce a degree of tension into the story. Matthew’s designation of the woman as “Canaanite” would carry similar connotations,247 while also calling to mind the memory of the Canaanites as the historical enemies of ancient Israel. Thus, Mark’s careful identification of the woman would raise a question in the minds of those hearing this story for the first time: how will Jesus respond to this woman? Meier doubts the historicity of the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, and attributes it to the early church. He argues that Jesus’ response to the woman, “Let the children be fed first,”248 reflects Paul’s theology of mission, “To the Jew first and then to the Greek.”249 He adds that since this saying is at the core

243

While a person of standing could use the cursus publicus when travelling along an interregional highway, and might spend a night at an inn along the way, such services were not available in inland rural Upper Galilee. Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1994), 182–186. 244 War 3.118. 245 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 69–72; Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 89. 246 Josephus describes the Tyrians as bitter enemies of the Jews (Apology 1.70). Even if Josephus exaggerated this claim, the perception still existed. 247 Matt. 15.22. 248 Mark 7.27a. 249 Rom. 1.16.

G. Implications for the historical Jesus

331

of the story and so clearly reflects “Christian missionary theology,” the story must have been the creation of “first generation Christians.”250 However, there are several factors which count in favour of the historicity of this account. One is that it meets the criterion of embarrassment. After the woman approaches Jesus and falls at his feet in deference to him, she pleads with him to heal her daughter. But Jesus responds by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”251 There is no doubt that this statement was offensive.252 Jesus is implying that the woman and her daughter are dogs! It is unlikely such a statement would have originated with the early church, given that the church was engaged in a mission to the Gentiles. Matthew also retains this part of the saying despite its offensive note.253 Luke omits the story entirely, and it is possible that it was Jesus’ offensive remark that caused Luke to exclude the story from his work.254 It seems more likely that these words originated with the historical Jesus than with the early church. Jesus’ saying, “Let the children be fed first,” can be seen to be credible within the context of first century Judaism, although somewhat subversive. Having grown up in Galilee, it would be remarkable if Jesus had never considered Galilean-Phoenician relations, the history of conflict between the two regions, and the place of the Gentiles in God’s plan. Jesus’ response to the SyroPhoenician woman reflects to some degree the tensions experienced by those living near the Galilean-Tyrian border.255 Yet rather than viewing the Phoenicians as Gentile enemies deserving of divine judgement, Jesus appears to be drawing on an alternative vision evident in some Second Temple literature that the restoration of Israel would result in blessing for the Gentiles.256 By saying “Let the children be fed first,” Jesus seems to be implying that when his work among Israel is completed, the Gentiles will be fed.257 Thus the saying can also be seen to be credible as the nucleus of an idea that was later developed by the

250

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.660–661. Similarly, Bultmann argued that Mark 7.27 was the subject of later editing, and that if Mark did not write the entire sentence, he at least inserted the word πρῶτον. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 155. 251 Mark 7.27b. 252 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.660; Collins, Mark, 366–367; Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 232. 253 Matt. 15.26. 254 Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 231, n. 99. 255 Freyne, A Jewish Galilean, 89–90. 256 See e.g. Isa. 42.6; 49.6; 56.3–8; Zeph. 3.9; Zech. 8.20–22; Tob. 13.11. See also earlier texts Isa.2.2–4; and Mic. 4.1–4. See also the discussion by Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 262–268. 257 Freyne, Galilee and Gospel, 189; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 308–310.

332

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

early church,258 and became a guiding principal in missionary practice, “to the Jew first and then to the Greek.”259 The historicity of this saying is further supported by the fact that it comes in the form of a parable, a literary device frequently used by Jesus to disclose his understanding of the kingdom of God. It is more likely that such a parable would originate with the historical Jesus than with the early church. Matthew does not include the first part of this saying, “Let the children be fed first.” He replaces it with another parable which conveys a similar message, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel,”260 and even Bultmann suggested this was probably an old logion that had circulated independently.261 In seeking to understand the significance of the parable in Mark 7.27, some scholars have linked the image of bread with the feeding miracles.262 Pesch has noted the verbal links between Jesus’ response to the woman and the two feeding miracles, particularly in the words “to take the bread” (λαβεῖν τòν ἄρτον) and “be fed/satisfied” (χορτασθῆναι).263 He therefore sees Jesus’ words, “Let the children be fed first,” as a reference to the first feeding miracle,264 with the expectation that the Gentiles will also be fed in the second feeding miracle.265 France similarly suggests the image of bread will become “a developing ‘bread’ motif,” and an image which symbolises blessing through the Messiah’s ministry to Jews and Gentiles.266 Collins also notes these verbal links and

258 Rather than seeing Jesus’ saying in Mark 7.27 as a later insertion, given other aspects of the story which argue for its historicity, it seems more likely that Jesus’ response to the Phoenician woman contained the nucleus of an idea that was later developed by the early church. As Wolfgang Schadewaldt writes, “In reading the Synoptic Gospels we come across sayings of Jesus or situations whose character is … that they contain theological or kerygmatic nuclei. These are the tiniest little nuclei, preformations. It would be natural to claim that here we have the germs of later things. But New Testament scholars seem to claim that the reverse must be the case. If I come up against these things in the sayings of Jesus, the sayings are thought to be late, secondary.” Wolfgang Schadewaldt, “The Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition,” in Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 103. In support of his argument he adds that classical scholars used to think the unusual occurrence of the dike of Zeus in Homer was a later insertion. But now these verses are generally regarded as authentic to Homer and the nucleus of a Zeus-dike theology which was later developed by Hesiod. Schadewaldt, “Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition,” 103–104. 259 This is particularly evident in the missionary activity of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 1.16). 260 Matt. 15.24. 261 Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 155. 262 Mark 6.35–44, 52, 8.1–10. 263 λαβεῖν τòν ἄρτον (Mark 6.41; 7.27; 8.6), and χορτασθῆναι (6.42; 7.27; 8.4, 8). Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 391. 264 Mark 6.32–44. 265 Mark 8.1–9. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 391. 266 France, Gospel of Mark, 296.

G. Implications for the historical Jesus

333

suggests the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman may have originally ended with a feeding miracle.267 There are certainly verbal links between Mark 7.27 and the feeding miracles. However, there is also a separation in Mark’s narrative between this parable and the two feeding miracles. Moreover, as Gundry notes, apart from the SyroPhoenician woman’s daughter, there is no indication “that the little dogs are ‘filled,’ only the children.”268 While Jesus’ words to the woman anticipate a future mission to the Gentiles, and his healing of the woman’s daughter can be seen as a foretaste of what is to come, Jesus himself does not appear to have engaged in a mission to the Gentiles. Therefore, while a link between this parable and the feeding miracles is possible, one is left wondering if there is more to Jesus’ words than this. Theissen has offered an intriguing proposal concerning the image of bread. As we have seen, Galilee was essentially the bread-basket for the city of Tyre.269 Tyre was dependent on Galilee to supplement its stores of grain, wine and oil. However, in times of famine, this sometimes left those in rural Galilee with limited supplies. Thus Theissen suggests Jesus’ response to the SyroPhoenician woman, “Let the children be fed first,” may have carried a socioeconomic association.270 The Syro-Phoenician woman is asking Jesus to meet a need she cannot meet herself, but she represents a people who had probably already taken more from Galilee than the Galileans could afford to give. This would place the Galileans in a position of vulnerability: they may have enough to eat most of the time, but not enough to be fully satisfied, and when times of famine hit they would go hungry.271 Thus Jesus’ parable not only equates the Gentiles with dogs, it probably also implies that the woman and her people have taken enough already, and Jesus was not going to give away what rightly belonged to his own people.272 The woman, for her part, accepts Jesus’ critique, but suggests that he need not give away the children’s share. She would be content with the leftovers.273 In this brief encounter, the woman not only exhibits faith, but also humility and wisdom. In response, Jesus grants the woman’s request. Theissen may be 267

Collins, Mark, 367. Gundry, Mark, 377. 269 Ant. 8.54, 57, 141; 15.305–306. See also Acts 12.20. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander, 114–121; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 73. Lower Galilee also supplied grain to Ptolemais. Leibner, Settlement and History, 326. 270 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 72–75. 271 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 72–75, 79; cf. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 417. 272 Theissen may be correct in suggesting that Jesus’ response may have been a saying frequently expressed in Galilee. He writes, “It is possible that there was a common saying that condemned this situation: should one take food away from one’s own children and give it to the dogs (i.e. the pagans)?” Theissen, Gospels in Context, 79. 273 Mark 7.28. 268

334

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

correct therefore in associating Jesus’ bread imagery with the cultural and economic tensions created by Galilee’s supply of grain to Tyre. If so, this provides a further indication that the story did not originate in the early church.274 The context reflects the circumstances of those living near the borders of Galilee and the region of Tyre, and the tensions which existed between these two peoples. Thus it meets another criterion of authenticity, the criterion of Palestinian Jewish context. Another point of interest is Mark’s statement that when Jesus arrived in the region he entered a house (εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν).275 This is significant. The general practice of Jews was to keep kosher food laws and avoid entering Gentile homes and eating with Gentiles. Thus, Mark’s reference to Jesus entering a house while in the region of Tyre, strongly suggests that Jesus was entering a Jewish home. This provides further evidence for a Jewish presence in the region of Tyre. Gundry writes that since Mark’s concern at this point is with Jesus’ privacy rather than “cultic violation,” we cannot be certain whether Jesus entered a Jewish home.276 However, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus never enters the home of a Gentile. When he encountered the centurion in Capernaum, he healed the man’s servant from a distance.277 Similarly, Jesus healed the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter from a distance. He did not return with the woman to her home.278 In fact, Rebecca Harrocks has noted that when Jesus effected the healing of a Gentile, he did not even touch them. Mark records numerous instances where Jesus touches the sick and heals them.279 But when he heals a Gentile, he does so from a distance.280 Finally, although Jesus questioned the traditional practice of hand washing, there is no indication that he ever violated Jewish food laws.281 If it had been the practice of Jesus to eat non-kosher food and enter Gentile homes with his disciples, one might wonder why Peter later denied ever having done so.282 In addition, when Peter eventually broke with tradition, he was criticised by the 274

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 79. Mark 7.24b. 276 Gundry, Mark, 376. 277 Matt. 8.5–13; Luke 7.1–10; cf. John 4.46–53. Luz writes concerning Jesus’ initial response to the centurion in Matt. 8.7, “As a Jew he cannot enter a Gentile’s house. Matthew is concerned to demonstrate that Jesus is faithful to the law.” Luz, Matthew 8–20, 9–10. 278 Mark 7.29–30. 279 See e.g. Mark 1.31, 41; 5.41; 7.33; 8.23–25; 9.27. 280 Mark 5.1–20; 7:24–30. This pattern is repeated throughout the Synoptic Gospels. Rebecca Harrocks, “Jesus’ Gentile Healings: The Absence of Bodily Contact and the Requirement of Faith,” in Joan E. Taylor, ed., The Body in Biblical, Christian and Jewish Texts (London: T&T Clark Bloomsbury, 2014), 83–101. 281 Mark 7.2–19. 282 Acts 11.8. This point is also noted by Geza Vermes. He doubts that Jesus ever rejected any of the basic tenets of Judaism, although he agrees that Jesus took issue with some “nonscriptural customs held to be important by other teachers.” Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 28–29. 275

G. Implications for the historical Jesus

335

Jewish believers in Jerusalem for doing so and was required to explain his actions to them.283 These incidents suggest that while Jesus challenged some of the traditions of the Pharisees, he never violated Jewish food laws or entered Gentile homes. We must conclude therefore that when Jesus crossed the border into the region of Tyre and then entered a house, he was entering a Jewish home. Finally, Jesus’ response to the Syro-Phoenician woman, “Let the children be fed first,” indicates that even while in the region of Tyre, Jesus’ missionary focus was directed toward his own people. Some have argued that Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre to escape the crowds and take time to rest.284 This is certainly possible, since prior to this Mark depicted the crowds following Jesus wherever he went.285 However, even allowing for Mark’s claim that Jesus did not wish his whereabouts to become known,286 it seems that his intent was to minister among the Jews living in the region, albeit in the privacy of their homes. This intent is also conveyed in Matthew’s version of the story where Jesus claims, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”287 Thus whether Jesus described his mission in terms of “feeding the children” or “searching for the lost sheep of Israel,” it is evident that his mission was directed toward his own people. In fact, if Jesus was not ministering to Jews in the region of Tyre, even in the privacy of their own homes, one might wonder how word leaked out to the Syro-Phoenician woman that a Jewish prophet was staying there. Presumably she heard this from a Jewish neighbour. Another argument in favour of the historicity of this account is that Mark does not describe Jesus visiting the city of Tyre. Mark writes that Jesus went away “to the region of Tyre” or more literally, “into the borders of Tyre” (εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου).288 This suggests that Jesus crossed the border separating Upper Galilee from the rural hill country of Tyre. Therefore, he probably did not travel to the coast or along the Via Maris, which linked Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon.289 This is a point of dissimilarity between Jesus and the missionary 283

Acts 11.2–18. See e.g. France, Gospel of Mark, 297; Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 384. See also the following comment made concerning the parallel account in Matt. 15.21. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 415. 285 Mark 6.31–34, 53–56; 7.14. 286 Mark 7.24. One need not attribute this to the Markan “messianic secret” motif. Jesus was not attempting to keep his messianic identity hidden. He was trying to keep his presence hidden from the general public. 287 Matt. 15.24. 288 Mark 7.24. Note Josephus’ reference to this region of Tyre in War 2.588. 289 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 63. From Sidon the road continued north to Antioch in Syria. This was probably the route travelled by Paul when he left Antioch for Jerusalem (Acts 15.3). It was also the route taken by the early fourth century Roman official Theophanes, and the pilgrim of Bordeaux. For the relevant section of Theophanes’ journey see P.Ryl. 627. For the itinerary of the pilgrim of Bordeaux see Corpus Christianorum, Series 284

336

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

practice of Paul, who focused his attention on urban centres. Thus we have here a further indication that we are probably in touch with the activity of the historical Jesus. As Theissen writes, “The restriction of Jesus to the rural area may thus correspond to the real pre-Easter situation.”290 Jesus may also have moved to the region of Tyre to keep one step ahead of Antipas’ forces. After the execution of John the Baptist,291 Jesus probably had no illusions about the danger of leading a renewal movement and attracting large crowds in Antipas’ Galilee. Yet everywhere he went the crowds followed him.292 This public interest in Jesus had the potential of attracting unwanted attention. There was also a rumour circulating that Antipas suspected Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead.293 A journey to the surrounding regions would remove Jesus geographically from Antipas’ territory for a time, and from the clamour of the crowds, while also providing him with an opportunity to minister to those Jews living in the region of Tyre. According to Mark, Jesus set out on this journey from Galilee. In fact, the last topographical reference was to Gennesaret near the Sea of Galilee.294 If Jesus had set out from there, then the easiest route would be to travel west along the road which ran from Tiberias to Ptolemais, and then north along the Via Maris. However, if Jesus was attempting to avoid the crowds and urban centres, as Mark seems to imply, then taking this east-west road through the heart of Lower Galilee would not be the optimal choice. It is more likely therefore that Jesus returned to Capernaum, and then set out for the steep and winding road which passed Chorazin and continued up onto the Meiron plateau in Upper Galilee. From there Jesus could take a northerly route via Meroth or Gischala and cross the border into the region of Tyre. However, apart from Qazyon and Qeren Naphtali, there were no known Jewish villages on the northern side of this border. There was also the hostile town of Kedesh. A better option would be to take a more westerly route in the direction of Baca, and Latina CLXXV (1965), I, 1–25. For a discussion of both journeys, see John Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes. Travel, Business, and Daily Life in the Roman East (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 56–59, 68–70; and Casson, Travel in the Ancient World, 190– 193, 307–309. 290 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 67. 291 Mark 6.16. 292 Mark 6.31–34, 53–56; Matt. 14.1–2, 13; 15.21. The danger of attracting large crowds and leading a prophetic or messianic movement in Roman Palestine is indicated in the works of Josephus. Pilate ordered his soldiers to slay members of a movement in Samaria as they prepared to climb Mount Gerazim (Ant 18.85–87). Fadus’ troops slaughtered Theudas and his movement when they went out to the Jordan River (Ant 20.97–99). And Festus’ troops slew the followers of the Egyptian, although he managed to escape. The Egyptian had led his movement up to the Mount of Olives, and told them that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down (War 2.261–263; Ant. 20.170). 293 Mark 6.16. 294 Mark 6.53.

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

337

from there cross into the hill country of Tyre west of Upper Galilee. In this area, between the baraita border line and Baca, there were several sites with material remains indicative of a Jewish population. It seems that this was the border Mark envisaged when he described Jesus entering the region of Tyre.295 Finally, let us consider again the Q saying where Jesus portrays the people of Tyre and Sidon in a more favourable light than those of Chorazin and Bethsaida.296 Jesus states that if the mighty deeds performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago.297 It is evident that the contrast between Tyre and Sidon and Bethsaida and Chorazin was used for rhetorical purposes. Tyre and Sidon were two Gentile cities perceived as foreign and sometimes hostile towards Jewish Galilee. Thus when Jesus portrays Tyre and Sidon more favourably than Chorazin and Bethsaida, he is clearly trying to provoke his audience into considering their response to his message. Nonetheless, Jesus’ prediction that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented if he had performed marvellous deeds in these regions, also presupposes that Jesus had some knowledge of these regions. One might ask therefore, from where did Jesus derive this knowledge? The Q saying presupposes what Mark makes explicit—that even though Jesus never visited the cities of Tyre and Sidon, he had travelled through their regions and knew something about the Gentile population living there. Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman seems to have left a positive impression with him. Therefore he claims that if he had engaged in a mission to the Gentiles living in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago.

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

Following the story of Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman, Mark writes:

295

Mark 7.24. Q 10.13 (Matt. 11.21; Luke 10.13). 297 We noted in Chapter Five that this saying precedes any Christian missionary activity in Tyre and Sidon, and therefore should not attributed to early Christian communities or missionaries to those cities, but rather to the historical Jesus. As Theissen writes, “The saying does not presuppose any Christian communities in Tyre and Sidon. Their conversion is played up as an unreal possibility against the Galilean cities. But in the fifties, at the latest, there was a Christian community in Tyre. Paul visited it on his last journey to Jerusalem (Acts 21.3–6). There were also Christians in Sidon whom Paul was permitted to visit when he was being conducted to Rome (Acts 27.3). The saying in Mt 10.20–24 should predate the existence of these communities.” Theissen, Gospels in Context, 52. 296

338

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

Καὶ πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων Τύρου ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως (Mark 7.31). And when he left the region of Tyre he went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in/through the midst of the region of the Decapolis.

We know from literary sources that there were Jews living in the region of Sidon during the Early Roman I period.298 It is possible therefore that Jesus may have ministered among them when he journeyed through Sidon. However, Mark gives no account of Jesus’ activities in the region, and without this we cannot be certain that Jesus conducted any ministry there.299 Mark’s statement may simply mean that Jesus passed through the region of Sidon as he made his way to the Sea of Galilee via the Decapolis. For this reason, there will be no discussion of the material remains of settlements in the region of Sidon. Nonetheless, it is important to discuss the circuitous route depicted in Mark 7.31, for this has often been taken as evidence of Mark’s confused geography. If Mark was in error on this point, it calls into question the historicity of Jesus’ journey through the region of Sidon, and his return to the Sea of Galilee via the Decapolis. However, there are good reasons for accepting the historicity of Mark’s claim. With an understanding of the geographical boundaries of the region by the first century CE, the way ancient writers perceived the region in relation to others, and the location of its main inland trade routes, it will become evident that Mark was not geographically incompetent, but working with a different mental picture of the region. I. Jesus’ route through the region of Sidon There are essentially two geographical difficulties with Mark 7.31. The first is that Jesus appears to be travelling north through Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee in the southeast. The second is the phrase which appears to locate the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis. These are sometimes seen as examples of Mark’s confused geography.300 Theissen describes the route depicted in Mark 7.31 as “imaginary” but suggests that the geographical difficulties were not due to Mark’s lack of knowledge, but rather his desire to place Jesus’ activity in regions close to Syria, where Theissen argues the Gospel was written.301 He adds that if Mark’s 298

Refer back to the beginning of this chapter. It is true that Matthew places the account of Jesus’ encounter with the “Canaanite” woman after his statement that Jesus travelled through the regions of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 15.21). This could mean that Jesus met the Canaanite woman in either region. However, it is more likely that Matthew, who used Mark as a source, was condensing his source material. 300 Another example appears in Mark 5.1, where Jesus is said to have crossed the Sea of Galilee and landed at Gerasa. This will be discussed in the next chapter. 301 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 244–245, 249. 299

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

339

community was located in Syria, perhaps near Chalcis in the Beqa valley or Damascus, Jesus’ tour “would have led him into the neighbourhood of Markan Christianity.”302 We have noted already that there were Jewish communities in Damascus during the first century, and Christians by the mid-first century CE. However, Theissen’s proposal implies that Mark invented this part of Jesus’ itinerary. If this was so, and Mark’s purpose was to draw a link between Jesus’ journey and the location of Mark’s communities, one might wonder why Mark did not include at least one episode of Jesus’ activity in the region of Sidon. Marcus also considers the journey depicted in Mark 7.31 as historically implausible, and agrees with Theissen’s proposal noted above.303 He adds that the redactional comment can be explained by Mark’s Gentile theme (i.e. of emphasising Jesus’ concern for the Gentiles and their positive response to him). Thus he writes that Mark “may be deliberately constructing a tour of Gentile areas rather than inadvertently revealing his ignorance of Palestinian geography.”304 However, given that there is no record of a Gentile mission in the region of Sidon, or even a single encounter with a Gentile in the region, this is difficult to substantiate. Moreover, Mark does not comment on the ethnicity of the deaf-mute man whom Jesus encounters in the Decapolis. Therefore, it is not clear that he ministered to a Gentile.305 There is in fact no evident reason for the evangelist to invent the protracted journey depicted in Mark 7.31.306 The most likely explanation for its inclusion is that Mark found this itinerary in his sources. Moreover, while the route is circuitous, it is not geographically or historically implausible. As Morna Hooker argues, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus always took the quickest route from place to place. Mark may simply have written “a compressed summary of a journey which he believes Jesus to have made in the north.”307 It appears that the northern boundary of the region of Tyre was located north of the Litani River,308 for inscriptions dating from the era of Tyre have been found at Duweir and Nabatiya north of the river.309 To the north of this lay the 302

Theissen, Gospels in Context, 245. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 472. 304 Marcus, “The Jewish War and the Sitz Im Leben of Mark,” 453 n. 56. 305 Mark 7.32–35. This will be discussed in the next chapter. 306 Gundry, Mark, 387. 307 Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 185. 308 This river was known as the Leontes in the Roman period. Millar, Roman Near East, 286. 309 Julien Aliquot, Mont Hermon (Liban et Syrie): Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, 11. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Tome 183 (Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2008), 17; Syon, Small Change, 156 [Fig. 32]. See also the summary on the dated eras of the dedicatory and funerary inscriptions found on Mount Hermon, which suggests where the boundaries between Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, and Paneas were located during the Roman period. Aliquot, Mont Hermon, 17–25. While these inscriptions post-date the 303

340

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

region of Sidon. Some scholars have interpreted Mark 7.31 as indicating that Jesus travelled in a north-south loop along the coastal road through Sidon before turning southeast.310 This is certainly possible, but there is no indication in Mark 7.31 that Jesus doubled back before turning southeast. Also, this main road would have taken Jesus toward the city of Sidon, and given his practice of avoiding urban centres, it is questionable whether he would do this. The itinerary depicted in Mark 7.31 is very similar to a description of the region in the work of Pliny the Elder.311 He writes: Behind Sidon begins Mount Lebanon, a chain extending as far as Zimyra in the district called Hollow Syria, a distance of nearly 190 miles. Facing Lebanon, with a valley between, stretches the equally long range of Counter-Lebanon, which was formerly connected with Lebanon by a wall. Behind Counter-Lebanon inland is the region of the Ten Cities, and with it the tetrarchies already mentioned, and the whole of the wide expanse of Palestine.312 (Trans. H. Rackham, LCL)

In the perception of Pliny the Elder, who lived without the aid of modern cartography, one could travel beyond Sidon and the Lebanon ranges and arrive in the Decapolis.313 Similarly, Strabo writes that beyond Sidon lay the two Lebanon ranges which stretched as far as Damascus, Trachonitis, and the sources of the Jordan River.314 The perception that the region of Sidon shared a boundary with the Decapolis may be explained by the fact that Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy counted Damascus among the cities of the Decapolis.315 During the first century CE, the region of Sidon shared a boundary with the district of Damascus, for when Augustus divided up the territories of the Itureans and gave Paneas and Ulatha to Herod the Great (20 BCE), he also expanded the territory of Sidon as far as Mount Hermon.316 Thus during the time of Jesus, the region of Sidon included the Lebanon range, the Beqa valley, and the western slopes of Mount Hermon, and shared a boundary with the regions of Damascus and Paneas.317 This is confirmed by Josephus who noted a border dispute between Sidon and Damascus during the reign of Agrippa II,318 time of Jesus, the earliest from Rakhla dating from 60 CE, the boundaries probably existed from the time Augustus expanded the territory of Sidon as far as Mount Hermon in 20 CE. 310 See e.g. Gundry, Mark, 382. 311 This point is also noted by Theissen, Galilee in Context, 243. 312 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.77. 313 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.66, 77. 314 Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16. See also Tacitus, Hist. 5.6.1–2. 315 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.74; Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.15.22. Pliny the Elder adds that he was not the only person to include Damascus among the Decapolis cities. 316 Aliquot, Mont Hermon, 17; Syon, Small Change, 156 [Fig. 32]; Jones and Salles, “Sidon,” OCD 1404; and Millar, Roman Near East, 286–287. 317 Jones and Salles, “Sidon,” OCD 1404; Aliquot, Mont Hermon, 17–18; Millar, Roman Near East, 286–287; Syon, Small Change, 82; Gundry, Mark, 383. 318 Ant. 18.153.

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

341

and the discovery of Roman period inscriptions that mark the boundary between Sidon and Damascus along the summit of the Hermon range.319 Therefore, in Mark 7.31 the evangelist seems to be working with the same geographical perspective as Pliny the Elder, Strabo, and Ptolemy when he writes that Jesus went from the region of Tyre, through Sidon and the Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee. If Damascus was counted as one of the Decapolis cities, and Damascus shared a boundary with Sidon, then one could travel directly from Sidon to the Decapolis.320 One probable route for Jesus to take would be the Tyre-Damascus highway, which ran in a west-east direction through the hills of northern Tyre just south of the Litani River.321 This was the main road linking the Phoenician coast with the regions of Damascus and Paneas. It was paved during the second century CE, and portions of it have been surveyed. Travelling along this road Jesus would pass south of the Litani River before descending to the Jordan Rift valley.322 From there he could continue in an easterly direction to Caesarea Philippi, and from there on to Damascus. Or he could turn northeast into the Beqa valley in the direction of Mount Hermon. The Beqa valley and the western slopes of Mount Hermon belonged to Sidon during the first century CE.323 Alternatively, Jesus could have continued north along the Via Maris, crossed the Litani River, and continued on the coastal road through the region of Sidon to the ancient site of Zarephath/Sarepta.324 Near this site an ancient road ran from the Mediterranean coast in a south-easterly direction toward the southern end of the Beqa valley, passing just south of the Lebanon range.325 The tail end of this road can be seen in Map 3 above. If Jesus took this route, he would have passed through the region of Sidon before arriving at Caesarea Philippi. Interestingly, Jerome and Epiphanius claimed that there were Nazoreans living at Syrian Beroea near Chalcis in the Beqa valley during the fourth century

319

Aliquot, Mont Hermon, 17–18. Chancey, Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 177; Gundry, Mark, 383. 321 Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 63; Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455. This was probably the route taken by Pompey to Judea, for Florus writes that Pompey passed through “the Lebanon of Syria and through Damascus,” before turning south (Epitoma, 1.40.29). See also Josephus, Ant. 14.54. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 2.133. 322 For a description of this road see Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 133–135. See also Aviam, “Galilee,” NEAEHL 2.455. 323 Aliquot, Mont Hermon, 17–18; Syon, Small Change, 156 [Fig. 32]. Many rural sanctuaries were found in this area. Ma‘oz, “Banias,” NEAEHL 2.137; Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 63, n. 32. 324 This was where the ancient prophet Elijah reportedly stayed during a period of famine in Israel (1 Kgs. 17.10). 325 This was recently noted as a possible route for Jesus travelling through Sidon by Michael Flowers, “Jesus’ ‘Journey’ in Mark 7:31,” JSHJ 14 (2016): 170. 320

342

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

CE.326 Although Epiphanius’ pejorative comments concerning this group must be read critically, Jerome had a more favourable opinion of the Nazoreans, and given that he had lived for a time in Syria, it is likely that he was correct in locating some of them in this region. This raises the possibility that there may have been Jewish communities living in the Beqa valley west of Mount Hermon as early as the first century CE, especially given that the region was ruled for a time by Herod of Chalcis, a descendent of Herod the Great.327 Moreover, the “Baraita of the Borders,” which was discussed in Chapter Six, marked the northern boundary of Israel at the pass of ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon and Tarnegola above Caesarea Philippi. The pass of ‘Ayun was situated northwest of Caesarea Philippi near the southern end of the Beqa valley, which would place it near the border of Sidon during the first century CE. Since this baraita provided halakhic instructions to Jewish communities living within its borders, it suggests there may have been Jewish settlements near the pass of ‘Ayun or in the Beqa valley during the Roman period. Whether this was the case is currently unknown. In fact, it may be difficult to identify Jewish settlements in this area on the basis of their material culture, for given their geographical distance from Galilee and Judaea they may not have imported such items as Kefar Hananya ware or limestone vessels.328 However, as noted above, we know from literary sources that there were Jews living in the region of Sidon during the first century CE, and Jewish communities living in Damascus. We also know that there were Jews living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi who, during the first century CE, showed a concern for maintaining halakha by purchasing pure olive oil from Galilee.329 Therefore, there may also have been Jewish communities living northwest of Caesarea Philippi near the southern end of the Beqa valley who also counted themselves among those living within the boundaries of ‘greater Israel,’ as it was ideally understood. Certainly Josephus was of the opinion that this region had once been part of Israel’s inheritance, for he writes that this area was once settled by the ancient tribe of Dan.330 If there were Jewish communities in this part of Sidon during the first century CE, Jesus would have an incentive to visit the region. As Freyne writes, Jesus would have been “operating within what had 326

Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7; Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 3. See also Luomanen, “Nazarenes,” in Marjanen and Luomanen, Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’,” 289; and J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 46, 48–49. 327 Ant. 14.330. 328 It is noteworthy, however, that Hasmonean coins were found a short distance south of this area at Hagoshrim, Kh. Senaim, and Paneas. Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]; Ariel, “Coins from Khirbet Zemel,” 119. 329 Life 74. Cf. War 2.591–592. 330 Ant. 5.178. Avraham Biran, “Dan,” NEAEHL 1.323–332; Avraham Biran, “Dan,” NEAEHL 5.1688–1689.

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

343

once been claimed as the land of Israel and therefore of interest to a Judean prophet/preacher intent on proclaiming the imminent arrival of God’s kingly rule to all Israel.”331 II. Jesus’ probable route through the Decapolis The second geographical puzzle is Mark’s claim that Jesus travelled “to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the Decapolis” (εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως). It is doubtful that Mark intended this to mean that the Sea of Galilee was located in the middle of the Decapolis.332 Mark has already demonstrated his awareness that Galilee and the Decapolis shared a shoreline with the Sea of Galilee. Rather, Mark’s focus seems to be the destination of Jesus, and the regions through which he travelled to get there.333 As Gundry writes: ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως need not be an adjectival phrase modifying the Sea of Galilee, as though the Sea of Galilee were in the middle of the Decapolis. It is not, and Mark has already shown his knowledge that it is not …The phrase in question modifies Jesus’ going (ἦλθεν) … so the destination (‘the Sea of Galilee’) is followed by the locality through which Jesus arrives.334

If Jesus arrived at the Sea of Galilee by passing through the Decapolis, he probably chose a route which descended to the eastern shore of the lake in the district of Hippos/Sussita or Gadara, as both districts had access to the eastern shoreline.335 Thus Theissen translates Mark 7.31 as follows: “From the region of Tyre … by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.”336 A different approach to this topic has been proposed by Dean Chapman. He also suggests that what appear to be geographical “mistakes” in Mark are not mistakes at all, but can be attributed to “a different cultural paradigm of geography.”337 His thesis draws on the work of Piaget and Inhelder regarding the way people perceive and reconstruct space, the work of Catherine Delano Smith on ancient cartography, and the discovery of the “Rajum Hani’ Stone” in Jordan, which dates to the first three centuries of the common era.338 331

Freyne, The Jesus Movement, 144. See e.g. Mark 1.16, 21; 2.13; 3.7; 4.1 5.1; 8.10, 23. 333 Gundry, Mark, 382–383. 334 Gundry, Mark, 387. 335 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 162–163; Gundry, Mark, 383. See Chapter Eight for Gadara’s access to the Sea of Galilee, and the location of its harbour. 336 Theissen, Galilee in Context, 243. 337 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 25. 338 Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder, The Child’s Conception of Space, trans. F.J. Landon & J.L. Lunzer (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956); G. Lankester Harding, “The Cairn of Hani’,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 2 (1953): 8–56 [Fig. 5, no. 73]. 332

344

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

Chapman argues that an educated, ancient peasant from Palestine in the first century CE would perceive geography by means of a “colloidal space paradigm,”339 and he lists a number of features characteristic of this paradigm. They include: a certain egocentrism, where locations exist in relation to the subject; a lack of scale, where nearer space expands with familiarity and distant places are perceived as being closer to each other than they actually are; and where the boundaries of the space are defined by the limits of the subject’s geographical experience. These mental maps also have a certain plasticity i.e. they can shift in response to the subject’s experience; they include certain topographical characteristics; and they retain a sense of three-dimensionality.340 With such a representation of space, he proposes that Tyre and Sidon may be perceived to be much closer to each other than they actually were, and the distance between them and the Decapolis may also be concentrated as they reach the limits of Mark’s geographical experience, and therefore the limits of his “world map.”341 Chapman’s work helps explain Mark’s detailed and accurate knowledge of places near the Sea of Galilee and the area in and around Jerusalem, while also accounting for Mark’s so-called “mistakes.” He makes a convincing case for Mark perceiving geography according to a “colloidal space paradigm,” and he may be correct in concluding that Mark was a native of Palestine who was familiar with these regions, even though his geographical knowledge of Galilee may have been second-hand.342 He adds that if Mark was a native of Palestine, then the entire land of Israel would be part of Mark’s “geography of meaning,” and would mark the geographical limits of his “world map.”343 However, there may be other factors at work which account for aspects of Mark’s geography. For instance, Chapman states that Mark mentions no place name in Galilee except those located on the shoreline of the Sea of Galilee,344 although Mark is aware that Nazareth was in Galilee.345 This may indeed reflect Mark’s “colloidal space paradigm,” but it is an argument from silence. Should we assume that Mark knew of no other places in Galilee and where they were located? Or is it possible that in the process of condensing his source material This 50 x 95cm map depicts the livestock enclosure of Rajum Hani’ as part-plan and partprofile. It was found with an inscription explaining the map. Chapman’s thesis also draws on the work of Catherine Delano Smith, “Cartography in the Prehistoric Period in the Old World: Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa,” in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, ed. J.B. Harley and David Woodward, vol. 1 of History of Cartography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 54–101. 339 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32. 340 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 30–31. 341 See Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32 [Fig. 4]. 342 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32–34. 343 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32. 344 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 34. 345 Mark 1.9; 6.1.

H. Travel through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

345

into chreia form, Mark chose to pass over other place names? Similarly, while Tyre and Sidon may have been located at the limits of Mark’s geographical experience,346 his depiction of Jesus’ journey from Tyre through Sidon to the Decapolis may not simply be a matter of conflating space at the limits of his “colloidal space paradigm.” It might be a matter of condensing his source material so that he can quickly transition Jesus from the region of Tyre to the Decapolis, without omitting the detail that Jesus passed through Sidon. Also, if Mark was from Jerusalem, and knew influential members of the Jerusalem community, as Chapman proposes,347 he would surely have heard of the travels of others along the Phoenician coast, and perhaps even journeyed along this coastline himself.348 In either case, this would mean that the regions of Tyre and Sidon were also part of Mark’s “colloidal space paradigm.” Apart from this, Chapman’s argument does explain some of the geographical material in Mark, and sheds light on the way Mark may have perceived geographical space. III. Conclusion In conclusion, the itinerary of Jesus depicted in Mark 7.31 is geographically and historically plausible. Jesus could have travelled along the Tyre-Damascus highway before descending into the Jordan rift valley and turning northeast into the region of Sidon before continuing to Caesarea Philippi. Or he could have crossed the Litani River and travelled further north into the region of Sidon before turning inland on the south-eastern route passing through the southern end of the Lebanon range and Beqa Valley toward Caesarea Philippi. From Caesarea Philippi Jesus does not seem to have taken the south road towards Bethsaida and the Sea of Galilee. The description Mark gives suggests Jesus continued east along the road toward Damascus until he reached the next major north-south route. This road would take him in a south-easterly direction across the Golan plateau towards Rafid, near the border of Batanea.349 This region was part of the tetrarchy of Philip, and according to Josephus, a number of Jewish communities were located there during the Early Roman I period.350 From there Jesus could continue south to the district of Hippos/Sussita, and then descend to the eastern shoreline of the Sea of Galilee passing by the city 346

Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32. Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 34. 348 See e.g. some of the journeys along this coastline in Acts 11.19; 12.25; 15.3; 21.3, 7; 27.3. This, or course, is dependent upon on a first century date for the book of Acts and its recognition as a work of ancient historiography. See Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 1.383–401. 349 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536; Avi-Yonah, “Roman Road System in Palestine,” 57. 350 Ant. 17.23–27. 347

346

Chapter 7: Jesus and the regions of Tyre and Sidon

of Hippos/Sussita, or travel further south to the district of Gadara and descend from there to the Sea of Galilee. These two districts of the Decapolis will be discussed in the next chapter. Mark does not tell us why Jesus made this journey through Sidon to the Decapolis. However, given that Jesus functioned as a Jewish itinerant prophet with an important message for Israel, it may not be insignificant that this journey took him through the regions located near the northern boundaries of ‘greater Israel’ as it was ideally understood. For this reason, Chapman may be correct in suggesting that for Mark: Jesus’ staking out of the entire Holy Land—Mark’s entire geography of meaning—as his own, is a physical expression of the confession, “Jesus is Lord.” In a peasant culture, such a confession must be understood literally, i.e. “Jesus rules my (physical) world.”351

This journey through the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and back to the Sea of Galilee via the Decapolis, would bring Jesus within reach of Jewish settlements located at the geographical margins of the land of Israel, as it was ideally understood. There is no reason therefore to dismiss the journey depicted in Mark 7.31 as an example of Mark’s confused geography. Such a journey was both historically and geographically plausible.

351

Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 35.

Chapter 8

Jesus and the Decapolis: Settlements, Ethnicity, and Travel A. Introduction A. Introduction

The term “Decapolis” refers to ten Graeco-Roman cities which were attached to the province of Syria after the conquest of Pompey in 63 BCE. These cities were located in the Transjordan with one exception, Scythopolis/Beth Shean which was situated in the Jordan Rift Valley south of Galilee, a few kilometres west of the Jordan River.1 I. Jesus in the Decapolis Mark places Jesus in the Decapolis on at least two occasions. In the first account Mark claims that Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee and arrived in the region of the Gerasenes (Γερασηνῶν).2 There he encountered a man with an “unclean spirit,” whom he cured.3 At the end of the account the healed man travelled through the Decapolis (Δεκαπόλει), proclaiming what Jesus has done for him.4 The reading “Gerasenes” has the strongest manuscript support in Mark.5 However, two variant readings also have good support: the region of the “Gadarenes” (Γαδαρηνῶν) and the “Gergesenes” (Γεργεσηνῶν).6 These textual variants also appear in the parallel accounts in Matthew 8.28 and Luke 8.26, although in Matthew the reading Gadarenes (Γαδαρηνῶν) is generally considered to have the strongest manuscript support.7

1 R.E. Ciampa, “Decapolis,” DNTB 266–268; John D. Wineland, “Decapolis,” NIDB 2.77–80. 2 Mark 5.1, 20. 3 Mark 5.2, 13, 15. 4 Mark 5.20. 5 Omanson, A Textual Guide, 70; Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 72. The manuscripts supporting Γερασηνῶν include, ‫ *א‬B D latt sa. 6 The manuscripts supporting Γαδαρηνῶν include, A C K f 13 l 2211 M p.h . Those supporting Γεργεσηνῶν include, ‫א‬2 L Δ θ f 1 28. 7 Omanson, A Textual Guide, 12; Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 18–19. The manuscripts supporting Γαδαρηνῶν include, B C Θ Σ 1010. The variant Γαραδηνῶν appears in Δ, and Γαζαρηνῶν appears ‫*א‬.

348

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

These variant readings pose not only a textual puzzle, but also a geographical problem. In each synoptic account Jesus arrives in the region after crossing the Sea of Galilee. Yet one cannot reach the region of the Gerasenes simply by crossing the Sea of Galilee, if by that Mark meant the district of Gerasa. The city of Gerasa, modern Jerash, was located about sixty kilometres southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Gadara poses less of a problem because the city had a harbour on the Sea of Galilee,8 and Gergesa has been identified with the ancient site of Qursi/Kursi near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.9 This textual and geographical puzzle will be discussed later in this chapter. For now we may simply note that despite the variant readings, each account depicts the incident occurring in the Decapolis after Jesus had crossed the Sea of Galilee. The second time Jesus appears in the Decapolis is at the conclusion of a tour which began in the region of Tyre, which we discussed in Chapter Seven.10 Having arrived near the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is said to have healed a deaf-mute man,11 and fed 4,000 people.12 While the healing of the deaf-mute is unique to Mark, Matthew also records a second feeding miracle.13 And while Luke and John do not have a second feeding miracle, they both locate the feeding of the 5,000 near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.14 II. The districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara Since the incidents described in Mark occur near the Sea of Galilee, this chapter will focus on the two Decapolis districts which had direct access to the Sea of Galilee i.e. the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara. The ancient city of Hippos/Sussita was located on the flat surface of a steep hill in the southern Golan. It overlooked the Sea of Galilee and its district extended to the eastern shoreline.15 Gadara, modern Umm Qeis, was situated on an elevated spur high 8 This will be discussed below. See also Orit Peleg, “Jordan: Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1858– 1859. 9 Vassilios Tzaferis, “Kursi,” NEAEHL 3.893–896. 10 Mark 7.31. 11 Mark 7.32–37. 12 Mark 8.1–10. 13 Matt. 15.29–39. Like Mark, this second feeding miracle follows Jesus’ return to the Sea of Galilee from the region of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 15.21, 29). 14 John places the feeding miracle on the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 6.1). This is confirmed by his report that afterwards Jesus and his disciples crossed the lake and arrived in Capernaum (John 6.17). This suggests a location in the Decapolis, although Gaulanitis cannot be ruled out. Luke places the feeding miracle in a remote place on the eastern shore, but he implies that the location was near Bethsaida in Gaulanitis (Luke 9.10–12). 15 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.71. Hippos/Sussita was situated directly opposite Tiberias at a distance of about ten kilometres. Josephus gives a distance of thirty stadia (Life 349), which would be about six kilometres which is too short. Mason, Life of Josephus, 142. See also Arthur Segal and Michael Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis: Town Planning

A. Introduction

349

above the southern bank of the Yarmuk River.16 Despite its location, the territory of Gadara extended north of the river, sharing a border with Galilee in the west, and the district of Hippos/Sussita in the north.17 Beth Shean/Scythopolis will not be included in this discussion because its district did not extend as far as the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, it is unlikely that the events noted above occurred in this district.18 Jesus probably passed through the district at some point when travelling between Galilee and Jerusalem.19 Therefore he may have also ministered in the district during his itinerant ministry. Certainly literary sources and archaeology indicate that a Jewish minority lived in Beth Shean/Scythopolis and its district during the first century CE.20 However, since there is no clear indication in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus ministered in the region, it will not be discussed in this study.

and Architecture of a Roman-Byzantine City,” NEA 70.2 (2007): 86–107; and Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 190. 16 Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.74; Eusebius, Onom. 74.10. Gadara was situated about eighteen kilometres southeast of Tiberias. Josephus gives a distance of sixty stadia (Life 349), but this would amount to only twelve kilometres. Mason, Life of Josephus, 142. For an introduction to Gadara and excavations at the site see Orit Peleg, “Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1858–1859; and Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 187–188. 17 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 163. 18 One possible exception may be derived from Luke who records that Jesus entered a village near the borders of Galilee and Samaria (Luke 17.11–12). This would place him in the Jezreel Valley and perhaps in the district of Beth Shean/Scythopolis. Later Luke describes Jesus approaching Jericho, which would suggest a journey through the Jordan Rift Valley (Luke 18.35). If Luke has accurately depicted Jesus’ itinerary at this point, and if the village mentioned in Luke 17.11 was situated in the district of Beth Shean/Scythopolis, then Jesus may have ministered among the Jewish communities living in this district. However, it is not clear that Luke’s geography is accurate at this point, for in his narrative Jesus begins his journey toward Jerusalem at Luke 9.51, then travels through Samaria (Luke 9.52), and yet by Luke 17.11–12 Jesus is back near the border of Galilee. Clearly Luke has arranged his material for purposes other than geographical or chronological accuracy, although it is possible that he has conflated multiple journeys to Jerusalem into one. 19 When Jesus returned to Galilee after the arrest of John the Baptist, he probably passed through this district (Mark 1.14; Matt. 4.12; Luke 4.14). He may also have passed through this district during his final journey to Jerusalem (Mark 10.1; Matt.19.1). 20 See e.g. Josephus, War 2.466; Life 26; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.40; and m. ‘Abod. Zar. 1.4; 4.12. See also Chaim Ben David, “The Jewish settlements in the districts of Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara,” ARAM 23 (2011): 309–314. For the presence of Kefar Hananya ware and Herodian oil lamps in the district see Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 58; and AdanBayewitz et. al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 52, 73 n.72. During surface surveys of Tel Basul, a village located two kilometres west of Beth Shean/Scythopolis, sixteen Hasmonean coins were found, with a corresponding absence of all other bronze issues between 125 BCE–63 BCE, and of the twenty-six coins found from the period 63 BCE–70 CE, twenty-four were aniconic coins from Jerusalem. Moreover, Tel Basul may have been destroyed or abandoned during the First Jewish Revolt. Thus Tel Basul was probably a Jewish village during the

350

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

III. Jesus’ motive for visiting predominantly Gentile districts? Several elements in Mark’s accounts noted above indicate that the events took place in predominantly Gentile territory. We have already noted Mark’s references to the “land of the Gerasenes,”21 to the Decapolis,22 and to crossing the lake.23 In the story of the Gerasene demoniac there is also mention of a herd of pigs,24 which the Jews regarded as unclean animals.25 Some scholars have also seen a link between the name “legion” in Mark 5.9, and the presence of the Legio X Fretensis in the region. This legion, whose standards depicted a boar, was stationed in Syria during the early half of the first century CE and ensured the independence of the Decapolis cities.26 Thus the reference to pigs and the name “legion” not only reinforces the conclusion that this story was set in Gentile territory and the man was possessed by many demons, it may also symbolically link the demoniac’s wretched condition with the presence of a foreign military power in the region. Given the setting of these events in predominantly Gentile territory, the theological significance of Jesus’ forays into the region is usually understood in terms of the church’s mission to the Gentiles. It is concluded that Mark wished his readers to understand that the church’s mission to the Gentiles had its roots in the mission of Jesus.27 This interpretation is legitimate to a point, given the Gentile context of the stories. However, it is generally emphasised to the exclusion of a probable mission of Jesus to the Jews of the Decapolis. Moreover, this conclusion presumes that the Gerasene demoniac and the deaf-mute man were Gentiles, and the crowd who shared in the second feeding miracle was predominantly Gentile. Some scholars have argued that the setting leads the reader to this conclusion, particularly in the account of the Gerasene demoniac with its reference to a herd of pigs.28 Yet Mark makes no statement

Early Roman I period. Syon, Small Change, 148, 170 [Table 15, Site 237], 180, and 198 [Table 18, Site 237]. 21 Mark 5.1. 22 Mark 5.20; 7.31. 23 Mark 5.1. 24 Mark 5.11–13. 25 See e.g. Lev. 11.1, 7, 24; 1 Macc. 1.41–50; m. B. Qam. 7.7. France, Gospel of Mark, 227; Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 179; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 110; and Hooker, Gospel According to Mark, 143. 26 It was the success of the Roman legions which resulted in the severance of these districts from the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE, and were later responsible for the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 110; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 163. 27 See e.g. France, Gospel of Mark, 226; Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 288–289; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.652, 667 n. 25; and K.R. Iverson, “Gentiles,” DJG 302–303. 28 See e.g. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.403–405; Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 277, 278, 285; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.652. This will be discussed further below.

A. Introduction

351

about the ethnicity of this individual, or that of the deaf-mute man,29 or the crowd during the second feeding miracle.30 This is noteworthy since Mark thought it important to clarify the ethnicity of the Syro-Phoenician woman in the region of Tyre.31 It is possible that the ethnicity of these individuals was unknown to the evangelist, given that these stories were dependent upon preMarkan traditions.32 Nonetheless, the evangelist’s lack of comment on the matter should give us reason to pause. We should also recall Jesus’ words to the Syro-Phoenician woman, in which he claimed that his priority was to minister to his own people. The statement “Let the children be fed first,” implies that the time for the Gentiles had not yet come.33 Although Jesus did respond to the request of the Syro-Phoenician woman,34 there is no indication that he then went on to engage in a ministry to the Gentiles. While some scholars have noted that there were Jews living in the Decapolis, few have given this adequate attention. Yet, as we will see, there were Jews living in Hippos/Sussita and Gadara, and there were Jewish communities in their districts. For this reason, Collins rightly urges scholars not to overemphasise the Gentile character of the region.35 When Jesus travelled to the Decapolis his intention was probably to minister among the Jewish communities living there. Unfortunately, during his first visit, Jesus was greeted by a severely disturbed individual, and although Mark reports that he expelled the demons from this man, Jesus was requested to leave the region.36 Mark later records that Jesus returned to the Decapolis.37 Again it was probably his intention to minister among the Jews living there since Mark records no change in Jesus’ missionary strategy. In addition, during Jesus’ encounter with the deaf-mute man, there are several indicators which suggest that either he or his companions were Jewish.38

29 30

Mark 7.32. Mark 8.1, 9–10. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 391; and Hooker, Gospel According to Mark,

188. 31

Mark 7.26. This will be discussed below. 33 Mark 7.27. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 394, 403, 407. 34 Mark 7.24–30. 35 Collins, Mark, 267. These communities were probably founded when Hippos/Sussita and Gadara were incorporated into the Hasmonean kingdom in the first century BCE. Later these districts were added to the kingdom of Herod the Great. Moreover, traditionally this geographical region was part of ancient Bashan and Gilead, where the Israelite tribe of Gad and some from the half-tribe of Manasseh supposedly settled (Num. 32.33, 39–40; Deut. 3.8–10; 1 Chron. 5.16; 6.71). Sherri L. Louda, “Gilead,” NIDB 2.572. For a brief history of the Golan see Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525–526. 36 Mark 5.1–20. 37 Mark 7.31. 38 Mark 7.31–37. This will be discussed below. 32

352

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

This chapter will therefore consider what is known about the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara. We will find that although these districts were predominantly Gentile during the Early Roman I period, the literary sources and archaeological remains attest to the presence of Jewish communities there. These sources also suggest that there was significant contact between the Jews of these districts and the Jews of Galilee. Thus it is more likely that Jesus set out to minister to the Jews of the Decapolis and that this engagement impacted the Gentiles living in the region, than that Jesus set out to minister to the Gentiles of the Decapolis to the exclusion of the Jews living in the region. We should read the events recorded in Mark 5.1–20 and 7.31–8.10 in terms of Jesus’ mission to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,”39 while also acknowledging Jesus’ compassionate response to Gentiles in need, and the importance of this for Mark and his audience.

B. Literary sources and Hippos/Sussita and Gadara B. Literary sources and Hippos and Gadara

After the conquest of Tiglath Pileser III in ca. 732 BCE,40 the southern Golan remained largely vacant until it was resettled during the Early Hellenistic period. If Polybius is correct, Gadara was founded by the Ptolemies,41 and as we will see, Hippos/Sussita was also probably settled around this time. Both cities, and their districts, were predominantly Gentile at this time, although according to First Maccabees a number of Jews had already settled in the region. When these Jews came under attack they appealed to Judas Maccabaeus, who led a rescue mission and brought them back to Judea.42 Later, Josephus reports that Alexander Jannaeus captured Gadara after a ten month siege (ca. 98 BCE).43 During a second campaign through the Transjordan (ca. 82/81), Alexander Jannaeus advanced as far as Gaulanitis, capturing Gaulana, Seleucia, and Gamla.44 39

Matt. 15.24. 2 Kgs. 15.29; 1 Chron. 5.16, 26. 41 Polybius states that Gadara was already a fortified town when it fell to Antiochus III (ca. 218 BCE) (Hist. 5.71.3). See also Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526; and Lester L. Grabbe, The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175), vol. 2 of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 43. 42 1 Macc. 5.9, 24, 30–36, 45, 52–54. 43 Ant. 13.356; War 1.86. Thomas M. Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” in Zangenberg et al., Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity, 454. Alexander’s success may have been short lived because his forces later suffered a defeat in the region. Thus it is possible that by 90 BCE the local population had retaken the city (Ant. 13.375, 382). If so, the city must have been reconquered during Alexander’s second campaign (ca. 82/81 BCE), for it appears in Josephus’ list of cities conquered by Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. 13.393–396). Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 454–457. 44 Ant. 13.393–394. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526. 40

B. Literary sources and Hippos and Gadara

353

Josephus does not mention Hippos/Sussita at this time, and it is not listed among the cities conquered by Alexander Jannaeus.45 However, Hippos/ Sussita was probably conquered during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, for it is listed as one of the cities later severed from the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE.46 It was probably after the campaigns of Alexander Jannaeus that Jewish settlement in the region increased.47 In 63 BCE Pompey severed Hippos/Sussita and Gadara from the Hasmonean kingdom. He granted them the status of independent Greek cities (πóλεις) annexed to the province of Syria, and they were numbered among the cities of the Decapolis.48 Gadara was rebuilt, and both cities were returned to their former occupants. They began to mint their own coins and marked the years from 63 BCE, the year of their liberation and renewed foundation.49 Hippos/Sussita and Gadara became “outposts of Hellenistic language, culture, religion, institutions, and political affiliations, functioning as essentially independent poleis, with all the features of a typical Greek polis.”50 However, Augustus added Hippos/Sussita and Gadara to the kingdom of Herod the Great in 30 BCE.51 Herod held onto these districts until his death in 4 BCE, after which time they were annexed once again to the province of 45

Ant. 13.395–397. Ant. 14.74–75; War 1.155–156. Dvorjetski suggests that Hippos/Sussita was conquered during the first campaign in the region when Gadara was conquered. Estēe, Dvorjetski, “‘City mostly of non-Jews, such as this Sussita’: The Historical Geography of Sussita-Antiochia Hippos-Qal’at el-Ḥuṣn,” in Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011), vol. 1, by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler (Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013), 49. 47 Hartal, “History of Rafid,” 270; Hartal, “Use of Pottery as a Tool,” 211. 48 Josephus, Ant. 14.74–76; War 1.155–157; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.46. According to Pliny the Elder there were different lists of the cities of the Decapolis. His list included Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Pella, Galasa, and Canatha (Nat. Hist. 5.74). Josephus referred to Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Scythopolis, Dium, Abila, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Bostra, and Canatha (Ant. 14.75; War 1.155–156; 2.458–459). Ptolemy also listed Damascus, Hippos, and Gadara among the cities of the Decapolis (Geogr. 5.15.22). See also Eusebius (Onom. 32.16). Gadara has been identified with modern Umm Qeis, Pella with Tabaqat Fahil, Dium with Tell el-Asharia, Abila with Qweilbeh, Philadelphia with Amman, Gerasa with Jerash, Bostra with Bosra, and Canatha with Qanawat. Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 180. 49 Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 50. 50 Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 180. 51 Josephus, War 1.396; Ant. 15.217. Hartal, “Use of Pottery as a Tool,” 211. The citizens of Gadara appealed to Augustus on at least two occasions, bringing charges against Herod in the hope that these would lead to his downfall and they would regain their independence (Ant.15.351, 354–358). Martin Goodman, “Jews in the Decapolis,” ARAM Periodical 4.1 (1992): 49. Their attempt was not only unsuccessful, but Augustus granted Herod more territory (ca. 20 BCE). Hartal, “Pottery as a Tool,” 211. 46

354

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

Syria.52 Despite these shifting political circumstances, Hippos/Sussita and Gadara retained their predominantly Gentile and Greek character.53 Yet both cities also had a Jewish minority, and there were Jewish villages in their districts (χώραι).54 During the First Jewish Revolt conflict erupted throughout the Decapolis. Josephus describes Jews attacking Syrian villages in the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara,55 and Syrians killing many Jews.56 Then the citizens of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara slaughtered the most daring of the Jews living among them, and held the remainder of the Jewish population in custody.57 Perhaps it was at this time that some of the Jews managed to escape to Galilee, for they were later recorded defending Taricheae and Tiberias against the forces of Vespasian and Titus.58 It is evident from these accounts that there were Jews living in Hippos/Sussita and Gadara, and their districts, during the first century CE.59 It is also evident that some of them felt an obligation to take part in the First Jewish Revolt, and to join with their Galilean countrymen in defending Taricheae and Tiberias against the Roman invasion. This suggests that there were strong cultural and ethnic ties between the Jews of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara, and the Jews of Galilee. There are also numerous references to Hippos/Sussita in rabbinic sources, indicating that a small Jewish community continued there after 70 CE, and testifying to significant trade across the Sea of Galilee between Hippos/Sussita and Tiberias.60

52

Josephus, War 2.97; Ant. 17.320. Ben David, “204 Settlements in Galilee,” 26. Gadara was famous for its third century BCE philosopher Menippus, its first century BCE lyric poet Meleager, the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, and the orator Theodorus who tutored the Emperor Tiberias (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.29). Dvorjetski, “City mostly of nonJews,” 50–51; Aviam and Richardson, “Josephus’ Galilee,” 187. 54 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62; Hartal, “The History of Rafid,” 270– 271; Urman, “Public Structures,” 385; Goodman, “Jews in the Decapolis,” 50. Each city controlled a district (χώρα) comprised of a number of villages. Mason, Life of Josephus, 47. 55 War 2.458–459. He also records an attack led by Justus of Tiberias on the villages of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara near the boundary of Tiberias (Life 42). Later, residents from the Decapolis assembled before Vespasian at Ptolemais, requesting that he punish those involved in the attack (Life 341–342, 410). Mason, Life of Josephus, 139–140. 56 War 2.461–462. Another attack was made on Gischala by a force which included men from Gadara (Life 44). 57 War 2.477–478. 58 War 3.542. 59 Urman, “Public Structures,” 385. 60 For an overview see Dvorjetsky, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 53–57. 53

C. Archaeology and Hippos/Sussita

355

C. Archaeology and Hippos/Sussita C. Archaeology and Hippos/Sussita

I. A predominantly Gentile city Excavation of Hippos/Sussita began in 2000 under the direction of Arthur Segal, and in 2015 passed to Michael Eisenberg.61 During the Roman period Hippos/Sussita was a flourishing Graeco-Roman city with monumental buildings. Its main street, the Decumanus Maximus, was paved and colonnaded.62 It ran through the centre of the city and was intersected by roads running north to south. At each end of the main street there was a gate complex and towers where the street met the city wall.63 In the centre of the city there was a large colonnaded forum,64 with an imperial temple,65 and just north of the forum there was a basilica.66 A large enclosed Hellenistic compound (τέμενος) was also found, with remains of a paved plaza and a limestone temple. The small finds discovered there and the probes beneath the Hellenistic compound indicate the city was probably founded during the early half of the second century BCE, although there was a Ptolemaic fortress at the site before that time.67 Above the ruins of this temple there was a Roman basalt temple.68 Other 61 Hippos/Sussita (NIG: 742700,262100). Tsafrir et al., “Hippos, Susita,” TIR 147. For a detailed report see Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler, Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011), vol. 1. (Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013). See also Michael Eisenberg, “New Discoveries at Antiochia Hippos of the Decapolis and Its Sea of Galilee Connection,” EC 10.3 (2019): 363–382; No author, “Archaeological High Horse,” BAR 40.6 (2016): 55–57; Arthur Segal, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 5.1782; and Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis: Town Planning and Architecture of a Roman-Byzantine City,” NEA 70 (2007): 86–107. For archaeological reports visit: http://hippos.haifa.ac.il. 62 Arthur Segal, “Urban plan and city landscape,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 65. 63 The east gate was probably built in the first century CE. Segal and Eisenberg, “SussitaHippos of the Decapolis,” 95, 98; Segal, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 5.1782– 1787. For an introduction to the city walls, gates, and towers see Michael Eisenberg, “Military Architecture,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 87–127. 64 The forum was probably built during the late first or early second century CE. See Victoria Mesistrano, “Forum,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 148–163. 65 Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 102. 66 The basilica was probably built toward the end of the first century CE or early in the second century CE. Arthur Segal, “Basilica,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 164–181. 67 Eisenberg, “New Discoveries at Antiochia Hippos,” 367; Arthur Segal, “Hellenistic Sanctuary,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 145; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526; Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 86. 68 This temple was built toward the end of the first century BCE, or early in the first century CE. Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 102; Segal, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 5.1785; Segal, “Hellenistic Sanctuary,” 129–147.

356

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

structures in the city include another colonnaded plaza,69 bathhouses, a theatre, an odeion,70 and an aqueduct.71 Segal and Eisenberg conclude that while the population was “proud of their Greek culture… the urban and architectural repertoire of forms through which they expressed their civic pride was imperial Roman.”72 Like other Graeco-Roman cities of the Decapolis, Hippos/Sussita had a predominantly Gentile population during the Early Roman I period. This is indicated by the presence of Roman period temples, statues, statue bases, figurines,73 dedicatory inscriptions to the gods,74 and images of Zeus, Tyche, and other Greek deities and heroes depicted on oil lamps, city coins, mosaics, and frescoes.75 The population was comprised of a diverse group of peoples including Syrians, Nabateans, Itureans, Jews, and possibly a few Greeks.76 By the second century CE there were also Roman veterans living in the region. Thus Meyers is probably correct when he suggests that the cities of the Decapolis should not be perceived “solely as purveyors of Greco-Roman culture but rather as eastern cities with a Hellenistic overlay that often facilitated the expression of aspects of Semitic religion and practice, including Judaism.”77 By the Byzantine period, the population was predominantly Christian.78 In 749 CE a 69

Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 102. Arthur Segal, “Odeion,” in Segal, et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 182–193. 71 Segal, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 5.1782–1787; Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 102–103; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 57. 72 Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 107. 73 Such as the three figurines of Aphrodite found “south of the southeast corner of the forum.” Mesistrano, “Forum,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 160. 74 Note e.g. references to Tyche i.e. Good Fortune (Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ) in Greek inscriptions in Adam Łajtar, “Greek Inscriptions,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 250– 277. 75 Note e.g. the fresco of Tyche wearing a crown of the city. Mark Schuler, “Northeast Insula Project (NIP),” in Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations (July 2010), by Arthur Segal, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg (Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2010), 71–77 [Fig. 81]; no author, “Archaeological High Horse,” BAR 40.6 (2016): 55–57; and Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 124 [Map 8]. A coin from Hippos depicts Zeus Arotesios in his temple. Julian Bowsher, “Architecture and Religion in the Decapolis: A Numismatic Survey,” PEQ 119 (1987): 66. Another first century BCE city coin depicts Tyche (observe) and a horse (reverse). The horse was the symbol of the city and the source of its name, “Hippos” (Greek) and “Sussita” (Aramaic). Achim Lichtenberger, “City Foundation Legends in the Decapolis,” BAIAS 22 (2004): 29. 76 For instance, the numismatic profile includes Nabatean, Iturean, Hasmonean, Herodian, Seleucid, imperial, and city coins. Ariel Berman, “The Coin Finds of Hippos-Sussita,” in Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis, 278–301; and Ariel Berman, “Coins Catalogue,” Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season, 161–169. 77 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62. 78 Five Byzantine churches were excavated at Hippos/Sussita, and a further two were surveyed. However, a recent BAR article claims that eight churches have now been 70

C. Archaeology and Hippos/Sussita

357

severe earthquake struck the region and levelled the city, and Hippos/Sussita was subsequently abandoned.79 II. Jewish remains at Hippos/Sussita Although the majority of remains are indicative of a Gentile population during the Early Roman I period, Jewish identity markers have also been found which point to at least a minority Jewish presence in the city at that time. These include early forms of Kefar Hananya ware, such as the Galilean bowl KH1A, the casserole KH3A, and the cooking pot KH4A.80 This is noteworthy because it indicates that not only did some of the population import Kefar Hananya ware from Galilee, but they did so when similar, locally produced forms were available.81 This may suggest that it was the Jewish population in the city who drove the importation of Kefar Hananya ware. Although, in some areas of the city, Kefar Hananya ware predominates. Thus it may be that Kefar Hananya ware was the preferred kitchenware of residents of Hippos at this time, regardless of ethnicity.82 If so, this might be explained by the fact that Hippos/Sussita was part of the kingdom of Herod the Great until his death in 4 BCE. Interestingly, most of the Roman period lamps from Hippos/Sussita are mould-made

identified. No author, “Archaeological High Horse,” BAR 40.6 (2016): 55–57. See also Urman, “Public Structures,” 576. 79 Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis,” 86. 80 For example, during season eight a probe cut into the foundation of the Hellenistic compound found ceramic remains from the Early Roman I period including ESA fineware, and Kefar Hananya ware such as the Galilean bowl KH1A–B and the cooking pot KH4A. Another fragment of a cooking pot KH4A was found near the north wall, and still another cooking pot KH4B near the southwest wall. Jolanta Młynarczyk, “Pottery Report, 2007,” in Hippos-Sussita: Eighth Season of Excavations (July 2007), by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg (Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2007), 110, 114–115 [No’s. 65, 72, 73, 175, 215]. See also Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 209, 57, 220; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 155 [Fig 1], 157. 81 The results of micromorphological analysis of common kitchenware shows that for the Early Roman period, most Kefar Hananya types were imported from Galilee. Eisenberg, “New Discoveries at Antiochia Hippos,” 379; Mechael Osband and Michael Eisenberg, “Interregional Trade in the Roman Period: A Diachronic Study of Common Kitchenware from Hippos of the Decapolis,” Tel Aviv 45.2 (2018): 273–278. As for the Gentile population, most of the pottery forms were locally produced from clays available in the region. AdanBayewitz, Common Pottery, 165–189; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Trade of Sepphoris,” 158. 82 Eisenberg, “New Discoveries at Antiochia Hippos,” 379; Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62.

358

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

discus lamps,83 although fragments of Herodian oil lamps have also been found.84 Numerous bronze coins have been found from the period 125 BCE–63 BCE. Most of these are issues from Tyre, Sidon, and Damascus. However, eleven Hasmonean coins have also been found: three coins of Hyrcanus I and eight of Alexander Jannaeus.85 Between 63 BCE–70 CE, at least thirteen aniconic coins from the Jerusalem mint were found.86 Six coins of Herod Antipas from Tiberias were also found,87 and a coin of Agrippa II.88 Finally, and perhaps most significant of all, was the discovery of a Jewish Revolt coin.89 These combined remains support Josephus’ claim that there were Jews living in Hippos/Sussita prior to 70 CE,90 although they also reflect vibrant trade across the Sea of Galilee, probably with Tiberias and Magdala/Taricheae.

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos/Sussita D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

I. Jewish remains at Fiq/Afiq Fiq appears to have been a sizable and prosperous town during the Byzantine period, located a few kilometres east of Hippos/Sussita.91 Most of the ruins of 83 For example, 300 or so Roman oil lamps were found in the southern bath complex. Alexander Iermolin, “Roman Oil Lamps Catalogue,” Segal et al., Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season, 118–122. 84 For example, nozzles from three Herodian oil lamps were found during the 2006–2008 seasons. Jolanta Młynarczyk, “Pottery Report, 2006,” Hippos-Sussita: Seventh Season of Excavations (July 2006), by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg (University of Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2006), 115; Młynarczyk, “Pottery Report, 2007,” 139 [No. 230]; Jolanta Młynarczyk, “Pottery Report, 2008,” in Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations (2008), by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg (Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2008), 84. 85 Eisenberg, “New Discoveries from Antiochia Hippos,” 368. See also Berman, “Coins Catalogue,” 161; and Syon, Small Change, 170. 86 Syon, Small Change, 198 [Table 18, Site 169]; Berman, “Coin Finds of Hippos-Sussita,” 282, 290. 87 Berman, “Coin Finds of Hippos-Sussita,” 279, 290. 88 Berman, “Coins Catalogue,” 161–162. 89 Berman, “Coins Catalogue,” 162; Syon, Small Change, 188 [Table 16, Site 169]. 90 A Jewish minority may have continued into the Byzantine period, for a fifth century CE inscription from the synagogue at Ḥammat Gader names a certain Monica of Sussita as one of its contributors. Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 53. 91 Fiq/Afiq (NIG: 742400,266120). Eusebius described Fiq (i.e. Ἀφεκά) as a large village in the district of Hippos, which he identified with ancient Aphek in Joshua 13.4 (Onom. 22.19–20). Tsafrir et al., “Apheca, Afiq,” TIR 64.

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

359

Fiq have not yet been excavated, but a number of surveys have been conducted.92 These have observed a large number of architectural fragments including columns, column bases, capitals, and lintels, and a nearby cemetery with at least nineteen graves.93 However, the ceramic remains span the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods. A significant portion of the population appears to have been Gentile,94 although by the Byzantine period the majority of the population seems to have been Christian.95 However, Fiq also had a Jewish community during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. Among the remains the surveyors found a basalt column with an engraved menorah, and an Aramaic inscription identifying an individual by the name of “Yehudah.”96 A lintel was also found depicting a menorah with a shofar and ethrog.97 These architectural fragments suggest that Fiq not only had a Jewish community, but that it may have been sizable enough to warrant the construction of a synagogue.98 In fact, Ben David argues that by the Byzantine period, Fiq was the only settlement left in the district of Hippos/Sussita with a substantial Jewish community.99 Another menorah was found etched on a lintel above a tomb entrance, suggesting that the tomb

92

Information on Fiq/Afiq appears under the ‘Ein Gev Survey, Map 40 [Site 95] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel,” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 93 Ibid. See also Urman, “Public Structures,” 580. 94 This is indicated by items such as statue bases, a bronze figurine of a boy, a mask featuring Zeus-Ammon, and a burial marker noting the immortality of the gods. Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 124 [Map 8]. Robert C. Gregg, “Marking Religious and Ethnic Boundaries: Cases from the Ancient Golan Heights,” CH 69.3 (2000): 535. The bronze figurine was found in a tomb nearby at Dabouzeh. It was probably imported from Alexandria. It is now housed in the Damascus museum (inv.-No. 4082/8928). Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 452. A military diploma was also found identifying a veteran soldier who settled at Fiq in the second century CE (CIL XVI 87). Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity on the Golan,” 181, 186. 95 This is indicated by depictions of the cross carved into lintels and other stone blocks in the cemetery. A church dedication mentions a presbyter, deacon, and bishop. Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 534–536. Gregg and Urman suggest the site had a mixed population of Jews, pagans, and Christians by the Byzantine period. Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 535–536; and Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 557. While this is possible, it cannot be determined on surface remains alone. 96 Urman, “Public Structures,” 580–581; Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 535. 97 Urman, “Public Structures,” 582–583. 98 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.540; Urman, “Public Structures,” 580–581; Claire Epstein, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 2.634. 99 Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 319.

360

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

belonged to a Jewish family.100 An additional lintel was found depicting an image which may have been a menorah or an engraving of the tree of life.101 Systematic excavation of the site and analysis of its ceramic remains and numismatic corpus should provide further information about the population of Fiq. It is likely that the Jewish community at Fiq was founded either during the days of Alexander Jannaeus or the reign of Herod the Great,102 although this is yet to be confirmed. If this was the case, then Jesus may well have ministered in the vicinity of Fiq and perhaps even have visited the town. II. The Jewish village of Umm el-Qanatir/Kanatir The ancient Jewish settlement of Umm el-Qanatir is located on a ridge overlooking the northern branch of the Wadi es-Samakh (i.e. Naḥal Samakh), northeast of Hippos/Sussita.103 Given that Umm el-Qanatir was a Jewish village during the Roman and Byzantine periods, some scholars have included it among the settlements of Gaulanitis.104 Certainly the residents of Umm El-Qanatir would have had close connections with the Jewish settlements of Gaulanitis. However, if the geographical and political boundary between the district of Hippos/Sussita and Gaulanitis was located at the Wadi es-Samakh,105 then Umm El-Qanatir would have been a Jewish settlement in the district of Hippos/Sussita.106 The remains of a magnificent synagogue were found at Umm-el-Qanatir.107 The synagogue was either constructed during the latter half of the fifth century 100 The Jewish tomb is noted as Tomb 1 from Fiq (West) under Map 40 [Site 100] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel,” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx A cross was engraved on the entrance to another tomb in the same cemetery, which suggests that Jews and Christians were buried alongside each other at Fiq during the Byzantine period. The Christian tomb is known as Tomb 2. 101 Urman, “Public Structures,” 583. 102 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 103 Umm el-Qanatir/Kanatir (NIG: 750700,269400). Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan: Umm ElQanatir,” NEAEHL 2.542; Tsafrir et al., “Umm el Qanatir,” TIR 254. Its name in Arabic means “Mother of Arches,” and is derived from the arches covering a nearby spring. Urman, “Public Structures,” 546; Haim Ben David and Oren Zingboym, “Umm el-Qanatir, Area A— The Spring: Preliminary Report,” HA ESI 126 (2014), n.p. Released 10/11/2014. www.hadashotesi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=12642&mag_id=121 104 See e.g. Ma‘oz, “Golan: Umm El-Qanatir,” NEAEHL 2.542; and Urman, “Public Structures,” 546. 105 Refer to Chapter Five. 106 Epstein, “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 2.634; Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 46. 107 Excavation and reconstruction of the fifth century CE synagogue began in 2003. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this synagogue is the Torah shrine. It was positioned to the left of the main entrance on the southern “Jerusalem facing” wall and was flanked by four columns. The two inner columns are decorated with rosettes, vines, amphorae, and

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

361

CE,108 or during the sixth century.109 However, remains of a third century CE structure were found beneath the synagogue, which also had rows of benches lining three walls. Therefore, it is likely that this structure was also a synagogue.110 Among the remains from the Roman-Byzantine settlement there were olive oil presses, domestic dwellings, ceramic remains,111 and a spring complex.112 More significantly, fragments of limestone vessels were found at Umm elQanatir.113 These indicate that there was a Jewish community living at the site during the first century CE.114 Therefore it is likely that Jesus would have ministered in the area and perhaps even visited the site. In 749 CE a devastating earthquake shook the region. It destroyed the settlement at Umm El-Qanatir, levelled its monumental synagogue,115 and eventually led to the abandonment of the town.116 III. Tel el-Kursi and the Kursi/Qursi Beach settlement As noted above, Mark records that Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee and arrived in the district of the Gerasenes.117 As noted above, there are numerous textual and geographical difficulties with this topographical reference. For now, menorahs. Chaim Ben David, “Um el-Kanatir,” BAR 42.4 (2016): 40–49; Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 158. 108 Ma‘oz, “Golan: Umm El-Qanatir,” NEAEHL 2.542; Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 159. 109 Ben David, “Um el-Kanatir,” 45; Ma‘oz, “Synagogues of the Golan,” BA 51.2 (1988): 125. 110 Ben David, “Um el-Kanatir,” 46. Also, a cache of almost 7,500 coins was found in the synagogue foundations. 111 Urman, “Public Structures,” 550. See also the Ma‘ale Gamla survey Map 36/1 [Site 103] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel,” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 112 Numerous pottery fragments from the fourth–seventh centuries were also found inside the plastered pool. The excavators suggest that earlier fragments were not found because the pool was cleaned while in use. Ben David and Zingboym, “Umm el-Qanatir, Area A—The Spring,” n.p. 113 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No. 35]; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 114 Therefore, the Jewish settlement was probably founded in the first century BCE, during the Hasmonean period or the reign of Herod the Great. 115 This was the same earthquake that levelled Hippos/Sussita and Beth Shean/Scythopolis. Urman, “Public Structures,” 546; Neta Wechsler, Oded Katz, Yehoshua Dray, Ilana Gonen, and Shmuel Marco, “Estimating Location and Size of Historical Earthquake by Combining Archaeology and Geology in Umm-El-Qanatir, Dead Sea Transform,” Natural Hazards (2008). Published online: DOI 10.1007/s11069-008-9315-6. 116 Ben David, “Um el-Kanatir,” 45. 117 Mark 5.1.

362

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

however, I wish to draw attention to two sites which have been associated with this Markan reference. They are located just south of the Wadi Samekh in the district of Hippos/Sussita. The first is the Byzantine settlement at Tel el-Kursi, and the second is the newly discovered Kursi Beach settlement. 1. Tel el-Kursi Tel el-Kursi is located a short distance inland from the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.118 From 1970–1974 the site was excavated under the direction of Vassilios Tsaferis. A Christian basilica and the remains of a monastery were found dating from the late fifth century or early sixth century CE. A chapel from the same period was also found on the slopes nearby.119 The excavators concluded that Tel el-Kursi was probably a Christian pilgrimage site which commemorated the healing of the Gerasene demoniac.120 2. The Kursi/Qursi Beach Settlement On the shoreline near Tel el-Kursi there are remains of another settlement and harbour facilities from the Roman and Byzantine periods.121 Mendel Nun may have been the first to discover the submerged harbour, with its breakwater and place for anchorage.122 Nun also observed part of a large structure with broken columns and a mosaic floor, which he proposed was the synagogue of Kursi/Qursi mentioned in rabbinic literature.123 Urman also surveyed the site in 1970 and noted the artificial anchorage,124 pottery fragments spanning the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods,125 and the remains of the public building which he also proposed was a synagogue. Thus, Urman also concluded that this was probably the Jewish settlement known as Kursi/Qursi in rabbinic sources.126 118 Tel el-Kursi (NIG: 748000,261200). Tsafrir et al., “Chorsia, Gergesa,” TIR 104. Vassilios Tzaferis, “Kursi,” NEAEHL 3.893. 119 Tzaferis, “Kursi,” NEAEHL 3.893–896. See also Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 528. 120 Mark 5.1–20; Matt. 8.28–34; Luke 8.26–39. Tzaferis, “Kursi,” NEAEHL 3.896. 121 Kursi Beach (NIG: 748500,260300). Information on Kursi Beach appears under the ‘Ein Gev Survey, Map 40 [Site 13] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel,” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 122 This harbour became visible when the water level dropped. Nun also observed numerous lead weights and a plastered pool which he suggested was used to hold and preserve fish. Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 9–11. After further investigation, however, Galili and Rosen argued that the plastered structure must have stood on dry land. Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen, “Marine Archaeology,” NEAEHL 5.1933–1934. 123 Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 11. 124 Urman, “Public Structures,” 563–564. 125 Urman, “Public Structures,” 563. 126 Urman, “Public Structures,” 562–563.

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

363

Ma‘oz has urged caution regarding the identification of the public building, rightly arguing that many of the architectural features noted can also be found in Roman-Byzantine period temples and Christian churches.127 However, a menorah was recently observed on one of the masonry fragments.128 Thus the building may well have been a synagogue, although this needs to be verified. At the very least it indicates a Jewish presence at the site. Excavation began at the Kursi beach settlement in 2015 under the direction of Haim Cohen and Michal Artzy.129 To date they have uncovered basalt structural remains and pottery from the Roman and Byzantine periods. But arguably the most important discovery to date has been an Aramaic inscription written in Hebrew letters on a marble slab. The inscription probably dates to ca. 500 CE.130 Due to this discovery, the excavators agree that the site be identified with the Jewish settlement of Kursi/Qursi mentioned in rabbinical sources. They also link the site with the miracle recorded in Mark 5.1–20, Matt. 8.28–34, and Luke 8.26–39. Given that a Christian pilgrimage site was constructed nearby at Tel el-Kursi during the Late Roman or Byzantine period, they may well be correct. If so, the presence of a Jewish village on the eastern shoreline in the predominantly Gentile district of Hippos/Sussita, may explain why Jesus set out across the Sea of Galilee to visit the region. We wait with anticipation for what may yet be discovered at the Kursi beach settlement in the seasons to follow, and for confirmation that this was a Jewish settlement during the Early Roman I period. IV. The forbidden towns in the district of Hippos/Sussita Additional settlements are listed in the Rehob inscription and in parallel rabbinic sources concerning the forbidden towns in the district of Hippos/Sussita.131 These were Jewish towns located in predominantly Gentile territory. Therefore, specific instructions were given concerning which fruits and vegetables were permitted or forbidden during the Sabbath year, and which were liable to the tithe in other years. Lines nine and ten of the Rehob inscription pertain to the district of Hippos/Sussita, and can be translated as follows: 127

Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Jews and Christians in the Ancient Golan Heights,” IEJ 60.1 (2010):

91. 128

Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 530. For updates on excavation at the site see the Kursi beach website: http://kursibeach.haifa.ac.il. Information also appears under the ‘Ein Gev Map 40 [Site 13] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 130 Kursi beach website: http://kursibeach.haifa.ac.il 131 T. Šeb. 4.5; and y. Dem. 2.1 (22c–d). For the Rehob inscription, refer back to Chapter Six. Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 45–46. 129

364

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

The forbidden towns in the territory of Sussita: ‘YNWSH ( ‫)עינוש‬, and ‘YNHRH (‫)עינחרה‬, and DMBR (‫)דמבר‬, ‘YWN (‫ )עיון‬and Y‘RWT (‫ )יערוט‬and KFR YHRYB ( ‫)כפר יחריב‬, and NWB (‫)נוב‬, and HSFYYH (‫)חספייה‬, and KFR ZMH (‫)כפר צמח‬, and Rabbi permitted KFR ZMH.132

Depending on the degree to which this text reflects historical circumstances, it provides another witness to the presence of Jewish settlements in the district during the second to fourth century CE.133 However, as noted in earlier chapters, this document also sometimes reflects conditions which existed prior to the fall of the Second Temple. Ben David writes that of the nine settlements listed as forbidden towns in the district of Hippos/Sussita, six have been identified.134 However, few have been excavated, and most of the surface remains date to the Byzantine period and reflect a predominantly Christian population.135 So what do we currently know about the identification and ethnic character of these settlements during the Early Roman I period? 1. HSFYYH, Khisfiya/Khisfin HSFYYH, or Khisfiya/Khisfin, was located in the northeast of the district of Hippos/Sussita. Not only is the site mentioned in the rabbinic list of forbidden towns in the district, it may also have been the settlement referred to as Casphon (Χασφών) in First Maccabees in connection with the campaign of Judas Maccabeus.136 Most of the architectural remains, Greek inscriptions, and ceramics from Khisfin date to the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and reflect a mixed Gentile (polytheistic) and Christian character at that time.137 Thus Ma‘oz suggests the site of Khisfin was moved during the Late Roman period from nearby Tell edh-Dhuhab, located about 1.5 km southeast of Khisfin, where multiple 132 Millar, “Inscriptions, Synagogues, 274; Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 315; and Sussmann, “The Inscription in the Synagogue at Reḥob,” 152. 133 Urman writes that the list “testifies that during the third and the fourth centuries CE, seven large Jewish communities were in existence in the District of Sûsîta.” Urman, “Public Structures,” 284. However, given that the Mishnah and Tosefta were compiled during the Tannaitic period, it is likely the list of forbidden towns also reflects to some degree conditions during the second century CE. 134 Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 315. 135 Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 318. 136 1 Macc. 5.26. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526; Tsafrir et al., “Chaspin, Khisfin,” TIR 103. 137 Khisfin (NIG: 750700,276600). Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Ḥaspin,” NEAEHL 2.586. See also the information on Khisfin under Rujem-el Hiri Map 36/2 [Site 147] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx. Two churches have been partly excavated from the fifth and sixth centuries CE, and no less than eighteen Greek inscriptions were found. Urman, “Public Structures,” 317.

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

365

fragments of Hellenistic, Early Roman, and Middle Roman period pottery have been found.138 Urman disputes this claim arguing that during surveys of the site between 1968 and 1972 he found Hellenistic and Roman period ceramics at Khisfin.139 Regardless of whether the site of Khisfin shifted, the presence of Early Roman period ceramics at Khisfin and nearby Tell edh-Dhuhab suggests that both sites were occupied at this time. A Hasmonean coin was also found at Khisfin which may indicate the presence of a small Jewish community in the area prior to 70 CE, especially given that no other bronze issues were found from the same period.140 An engraved menorah was also found on a doorpost dating to the Late Roman or Byzantine period.141 With further excavation of the site and of nearby Tell edh-Dhuhab, a clearer picture of the history of Khisfin should emerge. 2. ‘YNWSH, ‘Einosh ‘YNWSH or ‘Einosh has been identified with El-‘Awanish/‘Ein ‘Uwenish, a site on the slopes of the Wadi es-Samakh (i.e. Naḥal Samakh).142 During surveys of this site pottery from the Hellenistic through to the Late Roman period

138

Ma‘oz, “Ḥaspin,” NEAEHL 2.586. He suggests the site was probably moved when the new Roman road to the Bashan was constructed. Ben David agrees that the site was moved at this time, but argues that it probably coincided with the arrival of Roman veterans from the Third Legion Cyrenaica, which was stationed in Bostra during the second and third centuries CE. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 321. A dedicatory inscription to Zeus Belos from a Roman veteran called Ulpius Aurelius from the Third Legion Cyrenaica was found at the site. Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 75. Isaac suggests this inscription should be dated to the third century CE. Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity,” 182–183. 139 He adds that greater quantities were not found because the excavators did not dig below Byzantine strata. Urman, “Public Structures,” 556, n. 5. Urman also points to the significant damage caused by the Syrian military camp located at the site during the Six Day War. Urman, “Public Structures,” 558. 140 Syon, Small Change, 153, 169 [Table 15, Site 143], Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 141 Urman, “Public Structures,” 559. This suggests that at least a few Jewish individuals continued at the site into Middle and Late Roman periods, even though Ma‘oz claims that the Jewish community was destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. Ben David suggests it was the arrival of the Third Roman Legion Cyrenaica that marked the end of Jewish settlement at Khisfin. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 321. 142 ‘Ein ‘Uwenish/el ‘Awanish (NIG: 747100,262500). Tsafrir et al., “‘Ayyanosh, ‘Awanish,” TIR 71. See also El-‘Awanish/‘Ein ‘Uwenish in the ‘Ein Gev Map 40 [Site 25] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx

366

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

were found, including ceramics from the Early Roman period.143 More importantly, fragments of limestone vessels were found during a recent survey of the site, confirming a Jewish presence at El-‘Awanish during the Early Roman I period.144 3. Other settlements in the list of forbidden towns The other settlements in the list of forbidden towns in the district of Hippos/Sussita fall into one of two categories. The first group of sites include ‘YWN,145 KFR YHRYB,146 and NWB.147 These sites have been identified and shown to have remains from the Roman period, but it is currently unclear if there was a Jewish community present at the site during the Early Roman I period. The second group includes sites where the identification is uncertain or disputed. This group includes KFR ZMH,148 Y‘RWT,149 YNHRH,150 and DMBR. 143

These include fragments of a bowl, two cooking pots, and a jug and juglet. Unfortunately, the type of ware was not recorded. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 315, 320; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; and Urman, “Public Structures,” 566. 144 This survey was conducted by Sarya Friedman, and the results recorded in Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 369 [Table 2, No. 45]. See also Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 145 ‘YWN has been identified with the ruin of el ‘Uyun/‘Ayun above Wadi Mas‘ud. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 316; Urman, “Public Structures,” 589–591; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.526. See also ‘Ayun under Ḥammat Gader Map 44 [Site 60] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 146 The identification of KFR YHRYB (Kefar Yahrib/Ḥarib) has been confirmed by a boundary stone with a Greek inscription. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 316; Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity,” 181. Among the Greek inscriptions found here is a reference to a Roman soldier from the Legio X Fretensis. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 316–317; Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, 7; and Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity,” 181. Information on Ḥarib/Kfar Ḥaruv also appears under ‘Ein Gev Map 40 [Site 113] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 147 NWB (Nov/Nāb) was a small settlement located in the east of the district. Surveys and a salvage excavation found columns, capitals, and ceramics from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Urman suggests that some of the architectural remains could have belonged to a Jewish public building, but this is by no means certain. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 317; S. Weksler-Bdolah, “An Excavation at Tel Nov,” ‘Atiqot 39 (2000): 13–16 [Hebrew]; 194 [English summary]; Urman, “Public Structures,” 564–565. 148 According to Ben David, KFR ZMH (Kefar Zemah) has not yet been identified. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 318. 149 Y‘RWT (Ya‘arut) has been tentatively identified with Khirbet el-‘Aris/el-‘Arāis, near where the Ruqqad Stream flows into the Yarmuk River. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 316; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; Urman, “Public Structures,” 594–595. However, its location near the cease-fire line has prevented further investigation. 150 Ma‘oz suggests that ‘YNHRH (‘Ein Ḥarrah) be identified with el-Khara el-Aret. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. Urman questions this, noting that there is little evidence

D. Jewish settlements in the district of Hippos

367

Before the discovery of the Rehob inscription there was uncertainty as to the correct form of the name of DMBR. Suggestions such as Ram Baraq and Rambark-Dambar led to its initial identification with Breik‘ah.151 However, with its clarification as DMBR, Ben David suggests the site be identified with Kh. elMabra where fragments of limestone vessels have been found.152 These indicate that there was a Jewish presence at Kh. el-Mabra during the Early Roman I period. 4. A Jewish presence at El ‘Al In 1995 Urman suggested there may have been a Jewish community at El ‘Al, northeast of Hippos/Sussita. This was based on the discovery of three coins of Alexander Jannaeus, on some architectural fragments which he argued could have belonged to a Jewish public building, and some Greek inscriptions which may have referred to Jewish individuals.153 However, most of the remains from the Roman period suggest that El ‘Al was a predominantly Gentile settlement.154 Thus Isaac urged caution before ascribing a Jewish community to the site.155 However, since Urman’s publication, six Hasmonean coins have been found at El ‘Al. There is also a noticeable absence of other bronze issues for the same period.156 This raises the possibility that there was a small Jewish community at the site prior to 70 CE.157 Analysis of the ceramic remains and excavation of the site should provide a clearer picture as to whether this was the case.

for this name in the district. Urman, “Public Structures,” 594. Ben David claims a new proposal for ‘YNHRH is forthcoming. Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 315, n.44. 151 Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536; Urman, “Public Structures,” 592. Sussman notes a further complication. In the Rehob inscription there is no conjunctive ‘vav’ between DMBR and ‘YWN. Thus the two names may have applied to one village, not two. Sussmann, “A Halakhic Inscription from the Bet-She’an Valley,” Tarbiz 43 (1974): 122; Urman, “Public Structures,” 593–594. 152 Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 316. For the presence of limestone vessels at Kh. el-Mabra see Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 368 [Table 2, No. 36]; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18]. 153 Urman, “Public Structures,” 379, 570. 154 These include altars, basalt statues, and images of deities such as Tyche and Nike. Many of the Greek inscriptions also reflect a Gentile context, such as the inscription to a veteran of the Legio I Parthica Severiana. Gregg, “Religious and Ethnic Boundaries,” 527; Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.357; Urman, “Public Structures,” 570–571. See also Map 40/1 [Site 34] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 155 Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity,” 182, 188. 156 Syon, Small Change, 153 [Fig. 31, Site 157], 169 [Table 15, Site 157]; Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 117 [Map 2]. 157 Urman seems confident that this was the case. Urman, “Public Structures,” 572–573.

368

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

E. Archaeology and Gadara E. Archaeology and Gadara

I. The city of Gadara Gadara was a predominantly Gentile city during the Early Hellenistic to Middle Roman periods.158 This is evident in the remains of a large second century BCE temple,159 and a marble statue of Zeus Nikephorus.160 It is also indicated in the Roman period bronze figurines of Sarapis,161 and the discovery of a nymphaeum.162 Also civic coins from the Roman period depict Zeus enthroned.163 Thus Zeus may have been the chief deity of the city.164 The temple was destroyed during the early half of the first century BCE, which corresponds to the time of the Hasmonean conquest.165 However, the city was severed from the Hasmonean kingdom in 63 BCE. During the first century CE it expanded west of the acropolis, and at the western end of the decumanus maximus a monumental arch was constructed flanked by two round towers.166 A theatre was also built in the late first century CE or early second century,167 and a hippodrome.168 However, Gadara also had a minority Jewish population during the Early Roman period.169 II. Jewish remains at Gadara The witness of literary sources to a Jewish minority at Gadara is supported by the presence of a few Early Roman period Jewish identity markers. Large quantities of Kefar Hananya ware were found at Gadara, including early forms such as the Galilean bowl KH1A.170 These indicate strong economic links between Gadara and Galilee, and suggest a Jewish presence at the site. Herodian oil 158

Polybius claimed that Gadara was already a fortified town when it was attacked by Antiochus III (Hist. 5.71.3). This has not yet been verified, but it is evident that Gadara was fortified during the time of the Seleucids. Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 461; Orit Peleg, “Jordan: Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1858–1859. 159 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 461–462. 160 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 461, 463–464. 161 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 452. 162 Peleg, “Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1859. 163 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 461, 464. 164 In the Decapolis, Zeus was probably associated with the Semitic deity, Baal-Shamin (i.e. the Lord of Heaven). Bowsher, “Architecture and Religion in the Decapolis,” 66. 165 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 463. 166 This gate complex is similar to that found at Tiberias, Beth Shean/Scythopolis, and Hippos/Sussita. Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 465–469. 167 Peleg, “Jordan: Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1859. 168 Peleg, “Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1859. 169 By the Byzantine period the city was predominantly Christian. Peleg, “Gadara,” NEAEHL 5.1858–1859. 170 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 460.

F. Jewish settlements in the district of Gadara

369

lamps were also found at Gadara, along with Darom lamps which are found at many sites in Judea during the Early Roman period.171 These provide a further indicator of Jewish settlement at Gadara. Given Jesus’ tendency to avoid cities, it seems unlikely that he would have visited Gadara. However, there are also indicators of Jewish settlement at other sites in the district.172 If Jesus did travel through the district of Gadara and visit some of the smaller settlements, it is plausible that some of those living in the city of Gadara would go out to see him.

F. Jewish settlements in the district of Gadara F. Jewish settlements in the district of Gadara

I. Ḥammat Gader Ḥammat Gader is located on the northern bank of the River Yarmuk, a short distance across the river from Gadara.173 The town became famous during the Roman period on account of its five hot springs.174 It also had a theatre,175 and a paved road lined with shops which led from the theatre to the bath complex.176 During the Middle and Late Roman periods the elaborate bath complex attracted visitors from all over Palestine, including sages from Galilee and Judea.177 Ḥammat Gader was a predominantly Gentile settlement during the Early and Middle Roman periods.178 However, it also had a Jewish minority. This is indicated by the discovery of fragments of Kefar Hananya ware,179 and a bronze aniconic coin from the Jerusalem mint.180 While one Jewish coin may seem 171 Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62; Benjamin W. Porter, “Clay Lamps Shed New Light on Daily Life in Antiquity,” NEA 67.3 (2004): 175. 172 These will be discussed below. 173 Ḥammat Gader (NIG: 732800,262500). Tsafrir et al., “Ḥammatha, Emmatha,” TIR 139. For information on surveys conducted at Ḥammat Gader see Map 44 [Site 75] of the IAA “The Archaeological Survey of Israel” website: http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx 174 Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Ḥammat Gader,” NEAEHL 2.565. The earliest extant reference to the hot springs at Ḥammat Gader was Strabo (Geogr. 16.2.29, 45). The town and its baths are also mentioned by Eusebius (Onom. 22.23). 175 Michael Avi-Yonah, “Ḥammat Gader: The Theatre,” NEAEHL 2.569. 176 Hirschfeld, “Ḥammat Gader: the Roman Baths,” NEAEHL 2.569–570. 177 Hirschfeld, “Ḥammat Gader: the Roman Baths,” NEAEHL 2.569–573; Urman, “Public Structures,” 597–598; Esti Dvorjetski, “Medicinal Hot Springs in Eretz-Israel and in the Decapolis during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods,” ARAM Periodical, 4.2 (1992), 437, 449 [Fig. 6]. 178 By the Byzantine period, Ḥammat Gader was a predominantly Christian site. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.536. 179 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 460. 180 Syon, Small Change, 198 [Table 18, Site 206].

370

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

insignificant, it is the only bronze coin from the period 63 BCE–70 CE that was found at the site. Also, nearby at Tell El-Ḥammeh a synagogue was discovered, which was probably built early in the fifth century CE.181 Part of a marble chancel tablet from the synagogue was also found, depicting a wreath and a menorah.182 In the mosaic floor of the synagogue the excavators found Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions acknowledging the contributions of individuals toward the construction of the synagogue.183 Among these names there were individuals from Sepphoris, Capernaum, and Arbela in Galilee, and Kefar ‘Aqavya in Gaulanitis.184 These inscriptions demonstrate strong links between the Jews of Ḥammat Gader and those of Galilee and Gaulanitis during the Byzantine period. However, two earlier stages of the synagogue were also found, attesting to a Jewish presence at Ḥammat Gader during the Roman period. The combined remains of the synagogue and fragments of early forms of Kefar Hananya ware indicate that Ḥammat Gader had a sizable Jewish community during the Roman and Byzantine periods.185 Thus if Jesus did travel through the district of Gadara, he may well have visited Ḥammat Gader. II. Tel Dover Tel Dover is located on the northern bank of the Yarmuk River. Various strata were uncovered during salvage excavations in 1997, and among these were found Early Roman I period pottery and numerous limestone vessel fragments.186 Syon also notes the presence of a mikveh.187 These provide a strong indicator of a Jewish settlement at Tel Dover during the Early Roman I period. III. Tel Zar‘a Tel Zar‘a is located about 4.5 kilometres southwest of Gadara. The majority of the remains from this site date to the Bronze and Iron Ages.188 Nonetheless, the handle of a limestone vessel was found at the site.189 The significance of this 181 Avi-Yonah, “Ḥammat Gader: Tell El-Ḥammeh,” NEAEHL 2.568; Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 475–476. 182 Urman, “Public Structures,” 604. 183 Urman, “Public Structures,” 599–605. 184 Urman, “Public Structures,” 599–601; Avi-Yonah, “Ḥammat Gader,” NEAEHL 2.568; Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 475–476. 185 Urman, “Public Structures,” 598. 186 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 369 [Table 2, No. 65]; Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 323; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18, Site 205]. 187 Syon dates this mikveh to somewhere between 70–138 CE. Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18, Site 205]. 188 After this time the settlement was abandoned. Dieter Vieweger, “Tel Zira‘a,” NEAEHL 5.1841–1843. 189 Adler, Archaeology of Purity, 369 [Table 2, No. 69]; Ben David, “Jewish Settlements,” 323; Syon, Small Change, 97 [Fig. 18].

G. Travel

371

one fragment is not yet determined, but it does provide further indication of Jewish settlement in the region during the Early Roman I period.

G. Travel G. Travel

I. Roads and Terrain As noted above, during the Hellenistic period an ancient north-south route was opened up along the eastern side of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee to connect Damascus and Paneas with the newly founded towns of Tel Anafa, Bethsaida, Hippos/Sussita, and Gadara.190 It was paved during the second century CE and sections of the road near Hippos/Sussita have been found, along with milestones north of ‘En Gev and near Kursi.191 A branch turned off this road in a north-easterly direction up to the Golan plateaux passing just south of Hippos/Sussita.192 Another branch turned off the main north-south route between Ḥorvat Kanaf and Kursi, and ran in a similar direction to join up with the road to Rafid.193 This Roman road postdates the Early Roman I period but it probably followed an earlier route. At Gadara the north-south route joined an east-west route which ran through the centre of the city. From there the eastern road continued to Bosra in Syria,194 and the western route descended into the Jordan Rift Valley where it branched into two main roads. The south-western road continued to Beth Shean/Scythopolis,195 and the north-western road ran via Philoteria/Beth Yerah to Tiberias in Galilee. 2. Travel across the Sea of Galilee The districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara extended to the eastern and southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and each city had its own harbour.196 These harbours were probably built during the Early Hellenistic period when the cities were founded.197 An additional harbour was found near Kursi/Qursi.198

190

Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.534; Zwickel, “The Huleh Valley,” 176. Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.537. 192 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536. 193 See the maps in Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.535–536; Bauckham and De Luca, “Magdala As We Now Know It,” 99–100. 194 Weber, “Gadara and the Galilee,” 450–451. 195 Zvi Uri Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.537. 196 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 163; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee and Judea,” in EHJ 221. 197 Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 29; Nun, Sea of Galilee Harbours, 13. 198 Galili and Rosen, “Marine Archaeology,” NEAEHL 5.1933; Richard Bauckham and Stefan De Luca, “Magdala As We Know It,” 99–100. 191

372

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

The harbour at Hippos/Sussita was relatively deep, with a breakwater at 211.25 meters below sea level.199 There was also a port village on the shoreline,200 with a Roman road connecting the harbour and village to the city. Ceramic fragments found along this road span the Hellenistic to the Arab periods.201 Coins and other finds in the area show that the harbour was in use throughout the Roman period. Artefacts from shipwrecks have also been found on the seabed in and around the harbour. These include cooking vessels, storage jars, and oil lamps from the Roman period.202 The harbour of Gadara was located on the south-eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee near Tel Samra.203 It was larger and deeper than the harbour of Hippos/Sussita, with a promenade and tower, and a long, wide breakwater which was found at a depth of 212 metres below sea level.204 The coins found in and around the harbour indicate that it was built during the Hellenistic period and remained in use throughout the Roman period. Interestingly, some of the coins of Gadara depict maritime symbols. Esti Dvorjetski suggests that these symbols were linked to the work of the Legio X Fretensis in building the bath houses at Ḥammat Gader, since this legion also used maritime symbols.205 However, it is also possible that these symbols reflected Gadara’s access to trade on the Sea of Galilee and civic pride in their monumental harbour.

H. Implications for the historical Jesus H. Implications for the historical Jesus

This brief survey of the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara provides clear evidence of Jewish settlement in the region during the Early Roman I period. The extent of this settlement is not yet known, since many sites have only been surveyed. Nonetheless, the combined witness of literary sources and material remains observed to date leads to the conclusion that there was a significant Jewish minority living in these districts during the Early Roman I period. Given their presence in the region, and the evidence of trade and travel between the Jews of Gadara and Galilee, there is good reason to believe that Jesus’ primary reason for visiting the region was to minister among the Jews living there. As 199 Nun, Sea of Galilee Harbours, 13. Refer back to Chapter Five for a discussion on the harbour facilities. 200 This is indicated in an account of Josephus, where he sends dignitaries of Agrippa II across the lake from Tiberias to the frontier of the Hippenes (Life 153). See also Mason, Life of Josephus, 86. 201 Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 30. 202 Ehud Galili and Baruch Rosen, “Marine Archaeology,” NEAEHL 5.1933. 203 Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 31. 204 Nun, Sea of Galilee Harbours, 20; Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” 31–32. 205 Dvorjetski, “Medicinal Hot Springs,” 438.

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

373

Meyers writes, “contacts between Lower Galilee… and some cities of the Decapolis were far greater than we had thought… with substantial Jewish communities there also, Jesus’ visits to such territories are much more understandable.”206 I. Jesus in the region of the Gerasenes? We noted at the start of this chapter that Mark places Jesus in the Decapolis on at least two occasions. In the first account in Mark 5.1–20 we noted there were textual and geographical difficulties associated with the “region of the Gerasenes.”207 During the course of the narrative Mark describes a herd of pigs plummeting off a steep bank into the Sea of Galilee,208 which suggests a location near the shore. The geographical problem lies in the fact that the city of Gerasa was situated about sixty kilometres southeast of the Sea of Galilee, and its district did not extend as far as the sea. As for the alternative reading in Matthew, “the region of the Gadarenes,”209 the district of Gadara did have access to the Sea of Galilee, even though the city was located about ten kilometres southeast of the Sea of Galilee. However, the south-eastern coastline does not fit the geographical description found in Mark 5.1–20 and parallels.210 Scholars have generally attempted to resolve the issue in one of two ways. They either focus on the textual variants and the history of the text’s transmission, or address the geographical problem in order to determine the most likely location of the event described. John Paul Meier serves as a good example of the former. He accepts that the “region of the Gerasenes” in Mark 5.1 has the strongest manuscript support.211 It certainly explains the variants which followed. He also accepts that Matthew probably corrected the location to the “region of the Gadarenes,” knowing that Gerasa was an improbable location given its distance from the Sea of Galilee. Meier adds that Origen found even Gadara improbable and “championed Gergesa” on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee,212 and that it was probably Origen’s influence that accounts for the

206

Meyers, “Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 62–63; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee and Judea,” in EHJ 221. 207 Refer back to the introduction of this chapter. 208 Mark 5.11–13. 209 Matt. 8.28. 210 Dvorjetski states that during the early half of the first century CE, the area of Kursi/Gergesa was transferred from the district of Gadara to the district of Hippos/Sussita, implying that Matthew’s reference to Gadara was correct. No evidence is provided in support of this statement, however, and it seems odd that Gadara, located south of Hippos/Sussita, would hold territory north of Hippos. Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 46. 211 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.651. See also Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.284; and Michael F. Bird, “Textual Criticism and the Historical Jesus,” JSHJ 6 (2008): 154. 212 Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.24. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.651.

374

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

occurrence of “Gergasenes” in some manuscripts.213 The argument to this point makes sense of the textual variants, and the possible history of their transmission. It should be noted, however, that Origen did not suggest Gergesa simply because he deemed Gerasa and Gadara improbable. He argued that the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were often incorrect when it came to place names, and he considered “Gerasa” to be an example of this. Moreover, he stated that he had visited the places where Jesus was active, and that Gergesa was an old town on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee which was remembered as the location where the miracle had occurred.214 Meier argues that the lengthy story in Mark 5.1–20 probably evolved over time and gained a number of accretions before it achieved its final form. This argument was earlier proposed by Pesch, and both Meier and Pesch propose that the incident concerning the pigs was one such “secondary accretion.”215 Both argue, therefore, that the geographical problem is resolved if the incident of the pigs throwing themselves into the sea is removed from the story, for then the site of the miracle can be located in the region of Gerasa. Certainly it is possible that the incident of the pigs was added to the story. However, other problems emerge if we think that the region of Gerasa was the original location of the story. First, Mark states that Jesus arrived in the “region of the Gerasenes” after crossing the Sea of Galilee in a boat.216 Thus even if we remove the pig episode, we are still left with the introduction of the story which places Jesus on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Pesch argues that although this introduction was part of the tradition Mark received,217 it was not part of the original story. It was added when a pre-Markan redactor joined this episode with the preceding episode of the storm on the lake.218 However, is it likely that a pre-Markan Palestinian redactor working within a decade or two of the death of Jesus, would add this incident to a series of stories located around the Sea of Galilee, if he knew the episode occurred in the region of Gerasa? Is it not more likely that these episodes were joined together because they did occur in the vicinity of the lake? A second point to note is that all the events described in the Markan narrative from Mark 1.14 to Mark 10.1 occur in or around Galilee. This suggests that the account of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5.1–20 also belongs in this general area. To relocate it approximately sixty kilometres away presents not only a geographical puzzle, but also a literary one. If the historical Jesus did in fact 213

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.651. See also Collins, Mark, 264. Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.24. 215 Meyer, A Marginal Jew, 2.651; Rudolf Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” ER 23 (1971): 350–351, 368; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.284. 216 Mark 5.1. 217 Pesch, “The Markan Version,” 351–352. 218 Pesch, “The Markan Version,” 352. 214

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

375

visit the district of Gerasa, then this story does not belong in this part of the Markan narrative. It would be better located in connection with Jesus’ ministry across the Jordan River which begins at Mark 10.1,219 for according to Josephus the region of Perea, on the eastern side of the Jordan River, shared a border with the district of Gerasa.220 Others have tended to focus on the geographical problem and from there have attempted to determine the most likely location. For example Gundry “tentatively” accepts the reading “Gergesenes” (Γεργεσηνῶν),221 arguing that Gerasa was located too far from the Sea of Galilee, and “Gergesa” is identified with modern Kursi on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee in the district of Hippos/Sussita.222 He argues that it was the relative obscurity of the name “Gergesenes” that led to attempts at scribal corrections. He adds that it is more likely that Mark, or a pre-Markan traditioner, knew the topography of the region and named it the region of the “Gergesenes,” than that later scribes, or even Origen, changed the reading from “Gerasenes” to “Gergesenes.”223 This argument is not impossible, but it does raise the question as to why the better attested reading in the Markan manuscripts appears to be “Gerasenes.” Chapman resolves the geographical problem in a different way. He attributes the geographical difficulties to Mark’s mental map. He proposes that Mark was writing in Palestine and did believe the incident occurred in the district of Gerasa, but was unaware of its distance from the Sea of Galilee.224 However, this presumes that Mark was working in relative isolation, even though Chapman himself states that Mark probably knew influential members of the Jerusalem community.225 Surely if this was the case, some of his contemporaries would know that the district of Gerasa was located nowhere near the Sea of Galilee, and would correct him on the matter. If we begin by accepting that the “region of the Gerasenes” has the best manuscript support, and was therefore most likely the original reading in Mark 5.1, there may be another way to explain the textual variants that also resolves the geographical problem. In the Hebrew Scriptures, part of the region on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee was known as “Geshur” (‫)גשור‬, or the land of

219

See also Matthew 19.1. War 3.47. 221 Mark 5.1. 222 Gundry, Mark, 255–256. 223 Gundry, Mark, 256. A similar argument is made by Witherington III, who suggests that Gergesa was the original name of the region, and that this was later corrected by Mark “or an early copyist” to Gerasa, and by Matthew to Gadara. Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 180, n.141. 224 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 32–34. 225 Chapman, “Locating the Gospel of Mark,” 34. 220

376

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

the “Geshuri” (‫)גשורי‬.226 In the Septuagint this was translated “Gesouri” (Γεσουρι) or “Gergesi” (Γεργεσί).227 The name Kursi/Qursi or Qursa appears to have retained the memory of ancient Geshuri/Gesouri. It is notable, however, that during the intervening centuries the consonants switched from GSR to GRS, and the guttural “Gimel ‫ ”ג‬was replaced with the guttural “Qoph ‫ק‬.” In the earliest stages of the tradition the story recorded in Mark 5.1–20 would have been transmitted orally, and whether the name of the region in Mark 5.1 was transmitted in Hebrew or Aramaic, it probably sounded very similar to the better known city of Gerasa. Moreover, in Hebrew the written form of the name would have been very similar, if not the same as that used for Gerasa. It is not difficult to imagine therefore, that at some point during the translation of the story into Greek, the name of the region was altered from something akin to “Qursa,” to the better known “Gerasa.” This is essentially the view of Cranfield who argued that: Mark wrote ‘Gerasenes’ with reference to a town by the lake (whose name may be preserved in the modern Kersa or Koursi on the eastern shore), but … early readers mistook this for a reference to the well-known Gerasa.228

This might also explain why the best attested place name in Luke is also “Gerasenes” (Γερασηνῶν),229 yet Luke stresses that this region was located across the lake from Galilee.230

226 See e.g. Joshua 12.5; 13.11, 13. The other territories of the southern Golan were Maacah, and parts of Gilead and Bashan (Josh. 12.4–5). Kevin A. Wilson, “Geshur, Geshurites,” NIDB 2.560. In the tenth century BCE Geshur was a small Aramean kingdom. According to 2 Samuel 3.3, King David married Maacah, the daughter of Talmai King of Geshur, and she bore him Absalom. He later fled Israel and returned to Geshur (2 Sam. 13.37–38; Ant. 7.180). After the death of Solomon, the territories of the southern Golan were incorporated into the kingdom of Aram i.e. Damascus (1 Kgs. 20.24. Cf. 2 Sam. 8.5–15; 1 Chron. 2.23; and Josephus, Ant. 7.104). See also Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525; Segal, “Decapolis,” EDEJ 529; and Ciampa, “Decapolis,” DNTB 267; and Dvorjetski, “City mostly of non-Jews,” 47. Benjamin Mazar proposes that the land of Geshur be identified with the “land of Gari/Garu” mentioned in the el-Amarna letter from the fourteenth century BCE (EA 256). Benjamin Mazar, “Geshur and Maacah,” JBL 80 (1961): 18–21; and “Geshur and Maacah,” in The Early Biblical Period, ed. Shmuel Ahitub and Baruch A. Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 113–125. This conclusion is supported by Ma‘oz and Arav. Ma‘oz, “Golan,” NEAEHL 2.525; Rami Arav, “Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida: A City, 3.1–2. However, it has recently been challenged by Nadav Na’amen, “The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory,” SJOT 26.1 (2012): 88–101. 227 This was also noted by Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 14–15. 228 C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark. The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, Ed. C.F.D. Moule (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 176. 229 Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 18–19. 230 Luke 8.26.

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

377

Thus it seems that the confusion about the name of the region arose due to the relative obscurity of the site, and the similarity in the sound of the name and its written form to “Gerasa.” This would also explain Origen’s attempt to correct the misunderstanding.231 Eusebius, perhaps following Origen, identified Geshur in Josh. 12.5 with Gergasa (Γαργασεί), and also identified the place name in Mark 5.1 as Γεργεσά.232 He added that in his day there was a village there, on the hill near the lake where the pigs were cast down. He also acknowledges that some translations of Mark 5.1 referred to the land of the Gerasenes.233 Consequently, the region referred to in Mark 5.1 is now generally identified with the site of Kursi/Qursi,234 although there remain a few detractors.235 Kursi/Qursi during the Early Roman I period was located in the district of Hippos/Sussita. The topography of the area and the presence of nearby tombs conforms to the description provided in Mark 5.1–20. After crossing the Sea of Galilee, Mark depicts Jesus arriving at the eastern shore in a region which was remembered as the land of the Geshuri, but was known in the Roman period as Kursi/Qursi/Qursa, or Gergesa. The distance between Capernaum and Kursi/Gergesa was only a matter of about eight kilometres on the Sea of Galilee.236 Therefore such a journey would not normally be difficult. In Mark’s Gospel this is Jesus’ first foray into predominantly Gentile territory. Thus scholars tend to interpret this account in terms of its significance for the Gentile mission of the early church. For example, Meier states that the story served the “theological purpose of symbolizing the bringing of the healing, liberating message of the Christian gospel to the unclean Gentiles.”237 Similarly, Witherington III suggests that “Mark’s largely Gentile audience would have understood this story to suggest that while Jesus did not inaugurate a fullfledged Gentile mission himself during his lifetime, he did provide certain precedents for that sort of mission.”238 France argues that the proclamation of the healed demoniac laid the foundation “for the extension to the Gentiles of 231

Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.24. Eusebius, Onom. 68.8; 74.13. 233 Eusebius, Onom. 64.1. 234 See e.g. C. Thomas McCollough, “Gerasa,” EHJ 223; Vassilios Tzaferis, “Kursi,” NEAEHL 3.896; Vassilios Tzaferis, “A Pilgrimage to the Site of the Swine Miracle,” BAR March/April (1989): 45–51; Reisner, “Geography of Galilee,” 220; Notley and Safrai, Eusebius, Onomasticon, 63 n. 304; Isaac, “Inscriptions and Religious Identity,” 182; Gundry, Mark, 248; Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.201; Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 180; France, Gospel of Mark, 227; and Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 14–15. 235 For example, Richard Bauckhan identifies Gergesa with Tel Hadar, located about two kilometres north of Kursi. Richard Bauckham, “Gergesa is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” RB 122 (2015): 268–283. 236 Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), 14. 237 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.652. 238 Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 178. 232

378

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

the ministry and mission of the Jewish Messiah.”239 Pesch suggests that Jesus commissioned the healed demoniac as “the first Gentile to proclaim to his own country what ‘the Lord’ had done for him.”240 Certainly Jesus told the man to return home and to tell his family what Jesus had done, but it seems to have been the man’s own initiative to spread the story throughout the Decapolis.241 Gnilka makes a valid point in suggesting that the man was sent home to be reintegrated with his own family.242 These interpretations are dependent upon the assumption that the demonised man was Gentile. Certainly Jesus was located in predominantly Gentile territory, but Mark does not state that the man was Gentile. In fact, Mark makes no statement about the ethnicity of the man, which is striking since Mark was careful to spell out the ethnicity of the Syro-Phoenician woman in the region of Tyre.243 Perhaps in this instance Mark did not know the ethnicity of the man concerned. Some have argued that the Gentile ethnicity of the man is implied in his use of the term “Most High God” (τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου).244 This is possible since the term was used in the Graeco-Roman world to denote the supreme deity, which usually meant Zeus, although it was also used to denote other deities, including the God of the Jews.245 The term “Most High God” therefore appears in communications between Jews and non-Jews to denote the God worshipped by the Jews.246 However, the term was not restricted to such a context. It appears in the Septuagint, where it denotes the God of Israel,247 and in other Jewish sources from the Second Temple period.248 Thus the term could be used by Jews addressing Jews. Therefore, while its use by the Gerasene demoniac may reflect the predominantly Gentile character of the 239 240

France, Gospel of Mark, 233. Pesch, “The Markan Version,” 373. See also Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.293–

294. 241

Mark 5.19–20. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 1.206. 243 Mark 7.26. 244 Mark 5.7. See e.g. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 279. 245 Danker, ed. “ὑψίστος,” Greek-English Lexicon, 3rd ed., 1045. For the use of Zeus ὑψίστος and θεὸς ὑψίστος in dedicatory inscriptions see G.H.R. Horsley, “Dedications to ‘The Most High God’” in NewDocs 1.25–29. For a discussion on the use of ὑψίστος, Zeus ὑψίστος, and θεὸς ὑψίστος by Jews and non-Jews, and its significance in Acts 16.16–18, see Paul R. Trebilco, “Paul and Silas—‘Servants of the Most High God,’ (Acts 16.16–18),” JSNT 36 (1989): 51–73. 246 See e.g. Ant. 16.163; and Philo, Legat. 278, and Flacc. 46. 247 See e.g. Gen. 14.18–20; Num. 24.16; Isa. 14.14; Dan. 3.26, 4.2, 5.18; 2 Macc. 3.31; Ps. 43.5; 56.3; 77.35. Trebilco, “Servants of the Most High God,” 53. 248 See e.g. the Qumran source 4Q243. Gundry, Mark, 250. It also appears in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph and Asaneth, and Sirach. It is also used on occasion by the Lukan evangelist. See e.g. Luke 1.32, 76; 6.35; Acts 7.48; 16.16–18. Trebilco, “Servants of the Most High God,” 53–59. 242

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

379

district, it need not mean that the man himself was Gentile. We should also note that in the narrative context, it is not simply the man who is speaking, but “legion” that is speaking. Witherington III argues that the presence of the demoniac among the tombs and in the vicinity of pigs supports the conclusion that he was Gentile, for no Jew would live among the tombs of the dead, or would be associated with pigs.249 This would normally be true. However, in this instance we are not dealing with a sane man. Mark makes it clear that this individual was not in his right mind.250 Moreover, in Luke’s special material, Jesus told a parable about a young Jewish man who took his inheritance, left for a foreign country, squandered all that he had, and was reduced to such poverty that he ended up feeding pigs.251 Thus while the presence of pigs in the narrative certainly places Jesus in predominantly Gentile territory, the ethnicity of this severely disturbed individual cannot be determined on the basis of his proximity to a herd of pigs or to a graveyard. These factors may simply illustrate the depths to which he had fallen. My point here is not to argue that the man was Jewish either. It is simply to note that in this instance we do not know for Mark does not tell us. This point is even more pertinent now that we know there was a Jewish settlement on the shoreline near Kursi. Thus while one might argue from the broader geographical context of the district of Hippos/Sussita that the man was Gentile, another could argue from the local context that the man was Jewish, and had perhaps been driven out of the nearby Jewish settlement due to the severity of his condition. One could also speculate that Mark kept the ethnic identity of the demoniac deliberately ambiguous. In doing so, the story could appeal to both the Jews and Gentiles among Mark’s audience. To the Gentiles it would illustrate Jesus’ power over demons, and his willingness to heal a Gentile afflicted in this way. They might also identify with the man, who then proclaimed among his own people what Jesus had done for him. In that sense, the man could be viewed as a forerunner of the church’s mission to the Gentiles. To the Jews among Mark’s audience the story could be interpreted as a rescue mission, an illustration of Jesus’ determination to reach a lost son of Abraham, even though that meant 249 Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 178. On the association of pigs with “uncleanness” see Lev. 11.7–8, 24; Deut. 14.8; Isa. 65.4; 66.3, 17; 1 Macc. 1.41–50; m. B. Qam. 7.7. On the association of corpses (human or animal), tombs and grave yards with “uncleanness” see Num. 19.11–16; Lev. 11.39, Isa. 65.4; m. Naz. 3.5; and 7.3. 250 A tractate from the Tosefta describes an imbecile as one who goes out alone, sleeps in a graveyard, and rips his clothing (t. Ter. 1.3. Cf. b. Hag. 3b). Bruce Chilton, Darrell Bock, Daniel M. Gurtner, Jacob Neusner, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Daniel Oden, eds. A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 191–192. 251 Luke 15.15.

380

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

travelling into a predominantly “unclean” territory. It would also demonstrate Jesus’ power over “unclean” spirits, symbolically illustrated by the herd of pigs plunging off the hillside and drowning in the sea. One scholar who takes a different approach is Daniel Cohen. He recognises that this story is generally interpreted as “foreshadowing a Gentile mission,” and posits an alternative “reading from the perspective of Jewish liberation.”252 He argues that Mark wished his audience to understand that Jesus had symbolically come to cleanse the land from “the abominable practices of the Gentiles,”253 and to liberate the land from “imperial Gentile forces.”254 While some of Cohen’s arguments are strained,255 he makes a valid point in stating that the Decapolis had a significant Jewish population during the first century CE. He also notes that most scholars do not consider this when interpreting Mark’s story of the Gerasene demoniac. However, he stretches the argument too far when he states that the rural areas of the Decapolis were “predominantly Jewish.”256 The surveys and archaeological excavations conducted in the region to date do not support this conclusion. Perhaps most surprising of all, however, is that despite reading this story from a Jewish perspective, Cohen also assumes that the Gerasene demoniac was Gentile.257 The focus of scholars on the theological significance of this passage for the Gentile mission has meant that there is sometimes little discussion about whether the historical Jesus may have actually visited the Decapolis. For 252

Daniel Cohen, “The Gerasene Demoniac: A Jewish approach to Liberation Before 70 CE,” Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey, ed. James G. Crossley (London; Oakfield, CT: Equinox Publishing, 2010), 152. 253 Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 159. 254 Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 152, 159. 255 For example, Cohen argues that Mark wished to demonstrate that Jesus could drive out imperial forces and unclean animals from the land, and that Gentiles would be “permitted to live in Eretz Israel, but it must be under Jewish sovereignty.” Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 157, 159. It is a moot point whether Mark intended the story to convey this significance. J.D.G. Dunn, review of “The Gerasene Demoniac: A Jewish Approach to Liberation before 70 CE,” by Daniel Cohen, in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey, ed. J.G. Crossley, JTS 63.1 (2012): 282–283, esp. 283. Another problem stems from the fact that Cohen does not attempt to resolve the geographical problem in the story. He appears to accept that the event is located in the Decapolis region of Gerasa, and associates this with Gilead in ancient Israel (Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 152–153), but he does not reconcile this with the sea crossing and the destruction of the pigs in the Sea of Galilee. If the event took place on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee near Kursi, rather than in the district of Gerasa, then it occurred in a region which historically belonged to the kingdom of Geshur, rather than ancient Israel, even though the region would have been considered by Jews as part of the land of Israel, as ideally understood. Thus Cohen’s claim that Mark wanted to show Jesus’ power to cleanse the land of Israel by driving out unclean animals, requires some nuance. 256 Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 155. 257 Cohen, “Gerasene Demoniac,” 153.

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

381

example, Pesch focuses on the development of the story in three distinct stages,258 and suggests that it may be dependent on Mark 1.21–28, and that its Sitz im Leben should be “sought in the Galilean Jewish-Hellenistic (Gentile) mission.”259 Theissen claims that unlike the sayings of Jesus, which were “handed down by the disciples,” this miracle story was drawn from a popular tale which circulated in the Decapolis and probably also among the Jewish population of Galilee.260 But he does not discuss whether there may be a basis for this story in the life of the historical Jesus. Some concede that an event in the life of the historical Jesus may lie behind the story. Meier considers this a possibility, particularly given the unique reference to the region of the Gerasenes in Mark 5.1, and the early textual witness to the Decapolis in Mark 5.20.261 He adds that if Jesus did heal a man in the Decapolis, it is likely that this would stick in the “collective memory of his disciples.”262 Similarly, Guelich concedes that while the story played a significant role in the context of the early church’s Gentile mission, it was “likely rooted in an event in Jesus’ ministry.”263 However, a journey by Jesus to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee becomes more plausible when one considers that there were Jewish communities in the Decapolis, and a Jewish settlement on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee near Kursi. We can also factor in the presence of a harbour near Kursi, where Jesus and his disciples could have disembarked. As a prophet to Israel, Jesus had every incentive to visit the region and to minister among the Jewish population living there, and he also had the means to get there. In fact, he may have intended to begin this work among the Jews living in the settlement on the shoreline near Kursi. Unfortunately, in this instance, he was prevented from doing so as a result of his encounter with the demoniac. II. Jesus’ return to the Decapolis Later in Mark’s narrative, Jesus returns to the Sea of Galilee via a circuitous tour through Sidon and the Decapolis.264 We have already discussed the plausibility of such a journey, even allowing for the fact that this itinerary belongs to Mark’s editorial material.265 We are not told exactly which route Jesus took

258

Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 1.292–293. Pesch, “The Markan Version,” 371. 260 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 111–112. 261 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.653. 262 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.653. 263 Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 288–289. 264 Mark 7.31. 265 See Chapter Seven for a discussion on the geographical difficulties entailed in Mark 7.31. 259

382

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

on his return journey to the Sea of Galilee,266 but Mark’s claim that Jesus returned through the Decapolis suggests that he did not travel along the northsouth route which linked Caesarea Philippi with Bethsaida. It seems likely, therefore, that Jesus continued east on the Tyre-Damascus highway toward Damascus, which Pliny the Elder counted among the Decapolis cities,267 before turning south and travelling via the north-south route which ran along the Golan plateaux.268 Once arriving in the district of Hippos/Sussita, Jesus could turn off the main road and descend in a westerly direction toward the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, either via the road which led to Kursi, or the road which passed just south of Hippos/Sussita. Or he could travel further south and approach the Sea of Galilee through the district of Gadara. As for Jesus’ return journey across the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum, he could have departed from any one of three harbours: the harbour near Kursi, the harbour of Hippos/Sussita, or the harbour of Gadara. Mark claims that upon arriving near the Sea of Galilee in the Decapolis, Jesus cured a man who was deaf (κωφὸς) and who found it difficult to speak (μογιλάλος).269 Later Jesus reportedly fed a crowd of 4,000 people.270 The grouping of these two accounts in the narrative, without any change in geographical setting, suggests not only that these events occurred in the Decapolis, but that Jesus ministered in the region long enough to attract a large crowd.271 Some scholars have questioned the likelihood of the historical Jesus returning to the Decapolis. Meier states that the journey to the Decapolis is probably “more theological than geographical,” since Jesus is now seen “bringing healing and food … to pagans and thus foreshadowing the Christian mission.”272 A more plausible explanation is that Jesus returned to the Decapolis to continue his work among the Jewish communities living there. Certainly there was nothing to prevent such a journey. Most scholars deduce from the predominantly Gentile context of the Decapolis, that the deaf-mute man was Gentile.273 However, there are elements in the story which may suggest that either he and/or his friends were Jewish. Mark does not comment on the ethnicity of this man,274 but he does say that those

266

Mark 7.31. Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.77. 268 Refer back to the discussion in Chapter Seven. 269 Mark 7.32–37. Collins, Mark, 370. 270 Mark 8.1–10. 271 Mark 7.33, 37; 8.1. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 398, 402. 272 Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.712. 273 See e.g. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 394; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.712. Schnabel states that the crowd that was present was Gentile. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.339. See also France who presumes that the crowd was largely Gentile. France, Gospel of Mark, 304. 274 This point is also noted by Gundry, Mark, 382. 267

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

383

who brought the deaf-mute man to Jesus asked that he place his hand on him.275 A number of references in Mark refer to people requesting that Jesus place his hands on a sick person, and Jesus using this method to elicit healing.276 The laying on of hands appears to have been a common Jewish practice.277 If so, this would suggest that either the man or his friends were Jewish. Also, the praise from the crowds at the conclusion of the story echoes Isaiah 35.5–6,278 which further suggests that there were Jews among the crowd. Thus Collins concludes that the story was originally set in a Jewish context, and that Mark has transferred it from there to the Decapolis.279 However, if we take seriously the evidence that there were Jewish communities in the Decapolis, and the probability that these would be the first to seek out Jesus upon hearing of his arrival in the region, we need not suppose that the story has been removed from its original geographical context. Other factors in the story suggest that it has its basis in the life of the historical Jesus. While the story of the deaf-mute is unique to Mark, and therefore lacks multiple attestation, a saying in the Q source material indicates that Jesus was known as a healer of the deaf.280 It is also generally accepted that the story belonged to pre-Markan tradition for it contains a number of hapax legomena.281 These include the Aramaic “ἐφφαθα,” which is one of the “few Aramaic words of Jesus preserved in the Gospels.”282 Thus the story appears to preserve very early tradition. It also contains actions of Jesus which are unusual among miracles stories in the Synoptic Gospels.283 One of these is Mark’s claim that Jesus spat, and then placed his fingers on the man’s tongue.284 While spittle was believed to have healing properties in the ancient world,285 in this instance Jesus’ actions may satisfy the criterion of embarrassment. Certainly

275

Mark 7.32. See e.g. Mark 1.31, 41; 5.23, 41; 6.5; 8.25. 277 Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 234. In the Genesis Apocryphon, Abraham is asked to place his hands on the king to heal him (1QapGen 20.21–22, 28–29). See also Collins, Mark, 375–376. 278 Collins, Mark, 375–376. 279 Collins, Mark, 369, 376. 280 Q 7.22 (Matt. 11.5; Luke 7.22). 281 These include μογιλάλον (speech impediment), ἀπολαμβάνω (to take aside), δάκτυλος (finger), ἐφφαθα and διανοίγω (“open”), ἀνοίγω (to open), δεσμὸς (bond), ὀρθῶς (properly/correctly), ὑπερπερισσῶς (beyond all measure). Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.712, 758 n.154; Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 233. 282 Mark 7.34. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.713. Aramaic was still common in the Decapolis at this time. Gundry, Mark, 390. 283 Such as Jesus putting his fingers in the man’s ears, raising his head to heaven, groaning, and placing spittle on the man’s tongue (Mark 7.33–34). 284 Mark 7.33. 285 See Collins, Mark, 370–371. 276

384

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

Matthew and Luke chose not to include this story in their Gospels. Thus Meier concludes that this story probably “reflects some event in the life of Jesus.”286 Mark also records two feeding miracles, the first in Mark 6.34–44 and the second in Mark 8.1–10.287 This doublet of feeding miracles has led a number of scholars to consider these as two versions of the same incident.288 Certainly it is possible that during the oral phase of the story’s transmission, more than one version of the event emerged, although Mark clearly thought there were two events for he reports Jesus discussing the significance of both of them with his disciples.289 Several differences between the two accounts may suggest there were two feeding events. These include differences in the size of the crowd,290 differences in the blessing Jesus used over the bread,291 differences in the terms used for the baskets,292 and differences in the number of baskets of leftovers.293

286

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1.714. See also the parallel accounts in Matthew 14.13–21; and 15.32–39. 288 See e.g. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 401. 289 Mark 8.19–20. See also the parallel passage in Matthew 16.8–10. 290 5,000 in Galilee (Mark 6.44), and 4,000 in the Decapolis (Mark 8.9). 291 In the first feeding Jesus looks up to heaven and blesses the bread (εὐλογέω) (Mark 6.41), whereas in the second feeding Jesus gives thanks for the bread (εὐχαριστέω) (Mark 8.6). See e.g. Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 236. Some see a eucharistic symbolism in the second feeding as indicative of this story originating among a Hellenistic-Jewish Christian community. However, in the next verse Mark states that Jesus blessed the fish (εὐλογέω) (Mark 8.7). Thus as Guelich argues, the interchangeable use of terms weakens the argument. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 401. 292 The term used for basket in the first feeding is κόφινος (Mark 6.43), whereas the term used in the second feeding is σπυρίς (Mark 8.8. See also the parallel passages in Matt. 14.20 and 15.37). Some have suggested the two terms indicate different sized baskets, with κόφινος denoting a smaller basket, and σπυρίς denoting a larger basket or hamper. See e.g. Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 236. Certainly the σπυρίς used in Acts 9.25 denoted a basket large enough to hold the apostle Paul when he was let down the side of a building. However, the κόφινος could have come in varying sizes, and may also have been quite large. Danker et al., “κόφινος,” A Greek-English Lexicon, 563. Witherington also suggests the two names reflect the different cultural settings of the two feeding stories. He writes that the κόφινος was commonly used by Jews, whereas the σπυρίς was familiar in a “wider cultural setting.” Witherington III, Gospel of Mark, 236. France also suggests that the different names for basket may hint that the first feeding occurred in a Jewish setting, and the second in a Gentile setting. France, Gospel of Mark, 305. However, Josephus uses the term κόφινος for the basket carried by the Roman infantry (War 3.95). Given that he wrote War primarily for a Graeco-Roman audience, it is unlikely that he would use the term κόφινος to denote a basket carried by Roman infantrymen if the term primarily denoted a basket carried by Jews. 293 In the first feeding story there were twelve baskets of bread and fish left over (Mark 6.43). In the second feeding story there were seven baskets of bread left over (Mark 8.8). In addition, there were seven loaves in the second feeding story (Mark 8.6). Thus some scholars have suggested the number “seven” is used symbolically to represent the Gentiles, for there 287

H. Implications for the historical Jesus

385

There is also the apparent difference in location. In Mark 6.34–44 the feeding appears to take place on the western shore, for while Jesus and the disciples travelled by boat, the crowd followed on foot around the coast and arrived ahead of them.294 By contrast, in Mark 8.1–10 Jesus appears to still be in the Decapolis. Also, the story begins with the phrase, “In those days” (Ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις),295 which provides a temporal link between the second feeding story and the healing of the deaf-mute man in the Decapolis, with no apparent change in geographical setting. Mark’s use of the phrase “In those days,” also suggests that Jesus spent some time in the region, time enough to attract a large crowd. This is further indicated in Jesus’ statement during the second feeding story that the crowd had been with him for three days.296 Given Jesus’ location in the Decapolis, the crowd was probably composed of Jews who heard that a prophet from Galilee had arrived in the region, and perhaps also some Gentiles who were interested in hearing what Jesus had to say.297 Some have assumed that the crowd was predominantly Gentile.298 However, this is highly unlikely given the presence of Jewish communities in the region. Even if one was to argue that this second feeding story in Mark is a supplementary version of one event in the life of the historical Jesus, it is worth noting that Luke and John, who record only one feeding miracle, locate the feeding of the 5,000 in a remote place on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Luke implies that this remote place was somewhere in the vicinity of Bethsaida.299 This would suggest a location in Gaulanitis. John, however, implies a setting in the Decapolis. He states that Jesus crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (ἀπῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας),300 where the feeding miracle took place. This would place Jesus on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is supported by the claim that after the feeding miracle, Jesus’ disciples returned across the lake to Capernaum.301 Matthew follows Mark in recording two feeding miracles, and like Mark, he also locates the second feeding miracle near the Sea of Galilee after Jesus’ tour through Tyre and Sidon. It is not clear whether this took place on the eastern or western shore. However, Matthew states that the event took place on a

were seven commandments in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9.1–6), and seventy Gentile nations (Gen. 10). See e.g. Pesch, Das Markusevangelion, 1.403–404. 294 Mark 6.33. 295 Mark 8.1. 296 Mark 8.2. 297 Guelich, Mark 1–8.26, 394, 409. 298 See e.g. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1.339. 299 Luke 9.10–11. 300 John 6.1. 301 John 6.16–17.

386

Chapter 8: Jesus and the Decapolis

mountain (και αναβὰς εις τὸ ὄρος).302 This favours a location on the eastern shore in the district of Hippos/Sussita, where the mountains are close to the lake, as opposed to the western shore which is generally marked by smaller hills and plains.303 Thus all four evangelists appear to locate at least one feeding miracle on the eastern shore.304 While we cannot be certain whether this occurred in Gaulanitis or the Decapolis, it is clear that Mark places Jesus in the Decapolis on at least two occasions.305 III. Conclusion It is highly likely therefore that Jesus travelled to the Decapolis. Mark places Jesus in the Decapolis on at least two occasions, and Matthew and Luke place Jesus in the Decapolis on at least one occasion.306 Most scholars discuss the significance of Jesus’ ministry in the region in terms of a Gentile mission. While this is legitimate, it has for the most part overshadowed the most plausible reason for Jesus visiting the Decapolis i.e. to minister among the Jewish communities living in the districts of Hippos/Sussita and Gadara.

302

Matt. 15.29. Moreover, although Matthew mentions only one visit by Jesus to the Decapolis (Matt. 8.28), he reports elsewhere that people from the Decapolis were among the crowds who followed him (Matt. 4.25). 304 Mark 8.1–10; Matt. 15.29; Luke 9.10–11; John 6.1. Of note is a recent discovery of a Byzantine period church, known as the burnt church, which overlooks the eastern shoreline. Part of its floor mosaic depicts a basket with five loaves, and various fish, reminiscent of Jesus’ multiplication of the loaves and fishes. Ruth Schuster, “Miracle of the Multiplication Mosaic Found on the ‘Wrong’ side of the Sea of Galilee,” Haaretz, August 21, 2019, np. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-miracle-of-the-multiplication-mosaic-found-on-wrong-side-of-sea-of-galilee-1.7729171. The appearance of this mosaic in a church on the eastern shore, does not prove there was a second feeding miracle, or that it occurred in the Decapolis. But it does suggest this church at Hippos wished to commemorate the feeding miracle and perhaps also to identify with its supposed location. 305 Mark 5.1; 7.31. 306 Mark 5.1; 7.31; Matt. 8.28; Luke 8.26. Mark and Matthew also report that Jesus attracted crowds of people from the Decapolis (Mark 7.37; 8.1; Matt. 4.25). 303

Chapter 9

Summary and Conclusion: Jesus’ Itinerancy in the North A. The purpose and approach of this work A. Purpose and approach of this work

This work has explored the extent and plausibility of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the north, particularly as it is depicted in Mark 1.14–8.30. It began by considering four foundational matters. First, this work set out to draw upon primary literary sources and archaeological data. Second, it took account of the genre of the most important literary sources for this project, the Gospel of Mark and Josephus’ War, Antiquities, and Life, and considered the implications of this for historical Jesus research. Third, it laid a historical framework of “almost indisputable facts” about the historical Jesus, from which to assess additional information about Jesus. And fourth, it considered some plausible reasons for Jesus’ itinerant ministry. The Gospel of Mark belongs to the broad and flexible genre of Graeco-Roman biography (βίος). This means that Mark set out to write about Jesus, his words and his deeds, and their significance. Understanding the genre of the Gospel does not necessitate that we take everything Mark says about Jesus at face value, but it does indicate that the author intended to write about Jesus. It follows, therefore, that the Gospel will probably convey more information about Jesus and his context, than about the author and his community. One feature of Graeco-Roman biography is that the geographical setting follows the subject of the narrative. Therefore, the few topographical references supplied by Mark are important indicators as to where Jesus travelled. Another feature of this genre is that while the author may adopt a loose rather than an exact chronology, into which material can be inserted and arranged topically, as Mark has done, it does not mean the author was unconcerned with history. Drawing on the widely held view that Jesus was a Jewish prophet to Israel, I have argued that Jesus probably adopted an itinerant form of ministry for at least two reasons: first, and most importantly, to reach as many of his people as possible; and second, to avoid capture by the ruling authorities. According to Mark, Jesus travelled among the towns and villages of Galilee. He preached in their synagogues and on occasion he also preached in the open air. He called people to repent, proclaimed the kingdom of God, and attracted large crowds. While much of this is conveyed through Markan summary statements, it is not

388

Chapter 9: Summary and conclusion

historically implausible. The summary statements are supported by topographical references in Mark, Q, L, and the Gospel of John. However, until recently, it was difficult to know how far Jesus and his disciples probably travelled, how many towns and villages Jesus may have visited, and how many people Jesus probably reached. There were also conflicting proposals about the ethnicity of the Galilean population, and disagreement about whether references to Jesus preaching in synagogues were anachronistic.

B. Jesus’ itinerancy in Galilee B. Jesus’ itinerancy in Galilee

With few exceptions, the primary literary sources convey the impression that Galilee, as defined by Josephus, was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period. This picture has now been confirmed through archaeological surveys and excavations. Galilee had been a predominantly Gentile region during the Early Hellenistic period. However, with the push of the Hasmoneans into the region in the Late Hellenistic period, it appears that most of the former population left the region, although we cannot discount the possibility that some remained and adopted a Jewish way of life. There followed then a new wave of migration into the region from Judea in the first century BCE. This is indicated by the abandonment of some sites during the Late Hellenistic period, the destruction of others, the founding of many new settlements in the first century BCE with a material culture which paralleled that of Judea, and a shift in the material culture at previously occupied sites. By the Early Roman I period, Galilee was a predominantly Jewish region.1 There is no evidence of a direct link between the Galilean population in the first century CE and the ancient Israelites who lived in the region during the eighth century BCE. Most of the Galilean population appears to have migrated into the region from Judea during the first century BCE. The literary sources, particularly the works of Josephus and the canonical Gospels, indicate that the inhabitants of Galilee observed the Sabbath and met in synagogues. This is now supported by archaeology. Most of the synagogues excavated in the region post-date the Early Roman I period, although many rest on remains of earlier structures which were also probably synagogues. In the last two decades, however, two first century CE synagogues have been excavated in Galilee: one at Magdala and the other at Rekhesh. We can add to this the first century BCE synagogue of Gamla in the central Golan. Some might argue that the discovery of two first century CE synagogues in Galilee does not tell us about whether other towns and villages had synagogue buildings. This is a valid point. However, the discovery of these two synagogues is not insignificant. It means that references to synagogues in first century CE Galilee can 1

See the discussions in Chapters Two and Three.

B. Jesus’ itinerancy in Galilee

389

no longer be dismissed as anachronistic. Furthermore, the discovery of the synagogue at Rekhesh indicates that a synagogue could be built even in a small village in Galilee. Therefore, one cannot argue that such synagogues would only be built in larger towns. The synagogue at Magdala is significant for other reasons. The discovery of its limestone block with an engraved menorah indicates that there existed a symbolic link between the synagogue and the Jerusalem temple, and that artistic depictions of the menorah were being crafted before the fall of the Second Temple. Given these discoveries it is historically plausible that Jesus would teach in the synagogues of Galilee. In fact, it would have been the most effective way for an itinerant prophet like Jesus to get his message out to the people. Josephus claimed that there were 204 towns and villages in Galilee when he was governor of the region. Yet for most of the twentieth century this was thought to be an exaggeration. Therefore, a number of scholars argued that Jesus’ itinerancy in Galilee probably amounted to visiting a small number of towns and villages, mostly near the north-western shoreline of the Sea of Galilee, and that these journeys were probably just day trips with Jesus and his disciples returning in the evening to Capernaum. Many also thought that references to Jesus attracting large crowds were exaggerated. In short, as I have argued, many underestimated how far Jesus probably travelled, how many villages he probably visited, and how many people he probably impacted. Surface surveys of sites in Galilee exhibiting remains from the Early Roman I period, have shown that there were approximately 200 towns and villages in Galilee at this time.2 Moreover, it is likely that the population of Galilee at this time was somewhere within the range of 140,000 to 177,000 persons. Given that Jesus was an itinerant prophet to Israel who preached in the synagogues of Galilee, it is likely that he would try to visit as many of these towns and villages as possible and to reach as many people as possible. The only exceptions may have been the Herodian cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias. Furthermore, one of the probable reasons Jesus selected a group of twelve ἀπóστολοι and sent them out on mission was so they could assist him in the task of getting his message out to all the towns and villages of Galilee. Therefore, even if Jesus did not visit every single settlement himself, it is likely that his message reached every settlement in Galilee. Moreover, given the size of the Galilean population, it is historically plausible that Jesus could attract crowds of hundreds, even a few thousand, although it is important to acknowledge the figures provided by Mark are rough estimates and rounded numbers. The significant number of settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman I period also makes explicable the few named settlements mentioned in the Gospel of Mark. Given the nature of Graeco-Roman biography, it would not have served Mark’s purposes to name every single settlement Jesus or his disciples 2

See the discussion in Chapter Four.

390

Chapter 9: Summary and conclusion

visited in Galilee. It would suffice to simply state, as Mark does, that Jesus travelled through all Galilee and preached in their synagogues. As for the named settlements that do appear in our sources, in most cases they represent the hometown of Jesus or one of his disciples, and/or a settlement where an extraordinary event took place. One probable reason why most of these settlements were located near the northwest shoreline of the Sea of Galilee, is that according to Mark, at least half of the twelve disciples appointed by Jesus and sent out on mission came from this area. Therefore, they would have been more familiar with this area than with any other part of Galilee, and more likely to remember important events that took place there. If these disciples played a key role in preserving some of the traditions we find in Mark and Q, then it would go a long way towards explaining why we have more detailed information about this region in our sources, and the villages located there, than any other area of Galilee. Given the number of towns and villages in Galilee, Jesus and his disciples probably spent months travelling on foot from village to village along dirt roads, winding up and down hills, and passing through valleys. They also probably encountered thousands of people and proclaimed roughly the same message in every town and village they visited. Thus after a while one village must have looked very much like the next, and when they tried to recall events, there must have been differences of opinion about which incident occurred where. It was probably only the particularly unusual and memorable events, and places of significance, that survived the traditioning process. It would not be an exaggeration to say, therefore, that Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Galilee was extensive, even granting the relatively small size of the region. Yet Jesus did not stop there. He also set out to minister among the Jewish communities living in the regions around Galilee.

C. Jesus’ itinerancy in surrounding regions C. Jesus’ itinerancy in surrounding regions

Several sources indicate that Jesus visited Bethsaida. However, Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the central Golan almost certainly did not stop at Bethsaida. As I have argued, the central Golan, which was known to Josephus as Gaulanitis, was a predominantly Jewish region during the Early Roman I period, with at least thirty-three settlements. The region also had at least two landing places on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, one near the village of Bethsaida, which had access to the Sea of Galilee during the Early Roman I period, and the other at the harbour of Aqavya. Moreover, with the discovery of the first century CE Galilean boat, we now know that such vessels could accommodate up to fifteen persons. It would have been relatively straight forward, therefore, for Jesus and the twelve to travel to Gaulanitis. In addition, although most of the roads in the central Golan were unpaved, like those in Galilee, they could accommodate a

C. Jesus’ itinerancy in surrounding regions

391

travelling party on foot. It is highly probable, therefore, that Jesus and his disciples travelled among the towns and villages of Gaulanitis, just as they had done in Galilee. This conclusion is supported by Mark’s claim that Jesus also travelled to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. It would be surprising indeed if Jesus visited the small number of Jewish communities in the northern Golan, as I have argued, and did not first minister among the thirty-three Jewish villages in the central Golan. So why is there no mention of Gaulanitis in the canonical Gospels? The most probable explanation for this absence, as we have seen, is that even though the central Golan was geographically and administratively distinct from Galilee during the first century CE, from a Jewish perspective it was culturally linked to Galilee. For during the reign of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great, the two geographical regions were united as one broad region of Jewish settlement in the north, sharing a common ethnicity and similar settlement history. It was probably for this reason that even in the first century CE, when Galilee and Gaulanitis were ruled by separate administrations, that Jewish sources like Josephus and the Gospel of John continued to depict settlements like Bethsaida and Gamla as belonging to Galilee.3 Mark also claims that Jesus travelled to the villages of Caesarea Philippi, and as we have seen, this claim is also historically plausible. Josephus attests to the presence of a Jewish minority living in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, and the recent discovery of Jewish identity markers at some sites near Lake Huleh points to the presence of Jewish communities in the southern half of the Huleh Valley. Moreover, travel to the northern Golan would have been relatively safe during the first few decades of the first century CE, and there was a direct route leading from Bethsaida to Caesarea Philippi which would have passed through the area of Jewish settlement near Lake Huleh. The presence of these Jewish communities would provide an itinerant prophet like Jesus with an incentive to travel to the region. Moreover, these communities were located within the halakhic boundaries of ‘greater Israel,’ as it was ideally understood.4 Thus in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus appears to have travelled to the northernmost boundaries of the land of Israel to ensure that those living near the geographical margins of Israel, were also able to hear his message. It seems to have been for similar reasons that Jesus travelled into the region of Tyre. This journey is usually interpreted in terms of a Markan desire to portray Jesus as foreshadowing the church’s mission to the Gentiles. While there is some validity in this approach, the result is that this story is generally viewed as saying more about Mark and his community than about Jesus. The problem with this is that while Mark probably did see the significance of Jesus’ journeys 3

Refer back to Chapter Five. Refer back to Chapter Six for the discussion on the ideal boundaries of the Land of Israel and the “Baraita of the Borders.” 4

392

Chapter 9: Summary and conclusion

through predominantly Gentile regions for the Gentile mission of the early church, he nonetheless states that Jesus’ mission was to Israel.5 Therefore, while we may acknowledge the insights gained from redaction criticism, it is important that we also take seriously what Mark says about Jesus’ itinerant ministry, where he travelled, and his probable motives for travelling there. As we have seen, Jesus probably did travel to the region of Tyre, and his primary reason for doing so was probably to minister among the Jewish communities living there. Literary sources attest to the presence of Jewish communities in the vicinity of Ptolemais and in the region of Tyre, and the discovery of Jewish identity markers at some sites in the region supports these claims. Admittedly, much of the archaeological data for this region is derived from surface surveys and incomplete records of the material remains found at sites. Much is yet to be discovered and some of the provisional conclusions in this work may need to be adjusted or corrected as more data comes to light. For now, however, it does appear that there were Jewish communities living in the hill country west of Baca. Therefore, Jesus’ withdrawal to the region of Tyre may not simply have been to get away from the crowds. His response to the Syro-Phoenician woman makes it clear that he still saw his mission as directed to Israel.6 Therefore, the most plausible reason for Jesus travelling to the region of Tyre, would be to minister among the Jewish communities living there. What appears to be a strange route through Sidon to the Decapolis is also explicable given the presence of two major roads through the region and the inclusion of Damascus among the cities of the Decapolis. The first major road was the Tyre-Damascus highway. This road would bring Jesus close to the border of Sidon, and to the Beqa valley and the western slopes of Mount Hermon which belonged to Sidon. The second major route ran from the Mediterranean coast near Zarephath in a south-easterly direction through Sidon toward the southern end of the Beqa valley. It is not known which route Jesus may have taken, but these are the two most probable routes given Mark’s description. Moreover, if Jesus did travel from Tyre through Sidon along one of these roads, he would have been journeying through the northernmost reaches of the land of ‘greater Israel’ as it was ideally understood. Both of these routes converged at Caesarea Philippi, and from there Jesus could continue eastward and up onto the Golan plateaux in the direction of Damascus, before turning south and eventually descending toward the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee through the midst of the Decapolis. Jesus’ ministry in the Decapolis is also explicable. Mark does not tell us whether Jesus travelled to the towns and villages of the Decapolis, or whether most of his activity took place in the countryside. What is clear is that there were Jewish communities living in the predominantly Gentile districts of 5 6

Refer back to Chapter One and Chapter Seven. Refer back to Chapter Seven for details.

D. Additional points emerging from this work

393

Hippos/Sussita and Gadara during the first century CE. This is attested in literary sources and is now supported by archaeology. Therefore, Jesus had every incentive to travel to these districts. Moreover, our sources report that Jesus attracted large crowds while in the Decapolis, and although it is probable that Gentiles were among them, it is likely that the majority of those who went out to see Jesus were Jews who lived in these districts.

D. Additional points emerging from this work D. Additional points emerging from this work

This study has drawn attention to two additional points worth noting. One is that Mark was not geographically incompetent. While Mark’s geography reflects the perspective of a first century CE writer, and while some of his geographical knowledge may have been second-hand, there are instances where Mark’s geographical knowledge is very accurate, and there are alternative explanations for the few apparent geographical problems that appear in the Gospel. A second point to note is the value of drawing on archaeological data in addition to literary sources when engaging in historical Jesus research. This point has often been made, but it is strongly reiterated by this study. This study would not have been possible without the work of archaeologists surveying and excavating multiple sites in Galilee and the Golan and publishing their findings. Such research is invaluable when attempting to reconstruct the past.

E. Suggestions for further research E. Suggestions for further research

It remains to be seen where research could go from here. The following are a few thoughts on this. I. An exploration of Jesus’ itinerancy in the south In addition to Jesus’ journeys in the north, Mark claims that Jesus journeyed south to Judea, and across the Jordan River.7 He then returned via Jericho and travelled on to Jerusalem.8 Further studies could draw on literary sources and archaeological surveys and excavations to investigate what is known about the regions of Judea and Perea during the Early Roman I period, the number of settlements in these regions, and the ethnicity of their populations. The findings from this research could then be brought into conversation with what is known about Jesus’ itinerancy in these regions in the Gospel of Mark and other early 7 8

See Mark 10.1 and the parallel reference in Matt. 19.1–2. Mark 10.46; Matt. 20.29.

394

Chapter 9: Summary and conclusion

sources. This study could also include the district of Beth Shean/Scythopolis, since it is likely that Jesus passed through this region during his journey south to Jerusalem, and we know there were Jewish communities living in this region during the Early Roman 1 period. Such a study could also potentially include the region of Samaria, since according to Luke, Jesus widened the scope of his ministry to include the Samaritans and sent seventy or seventy-two of his disciples out to minister in the villages of Samaria on the way to Jerusalem.9 II. Enquiry into the length of Jesus’ itinerant ministry Based on the cumulative evidence of such research, one could explore the possible length of Jesus’ itinerant ministry based primarily on the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus visiting Jerusalem on one occasion during the time of his public ministry. This has led scholars to conclude that Jesus’ ministered over a period of about one year. However, when one considers all the regions to which Jesus reportedly travelled in the Synoptic Gospels, it seems unlikely that such an extensive ministry could be completed within the time frame of one year. The problem is not so much with the geographical distance covered, but with the number of settlements in these regions, the density of the population, the condition of the roads, the hilly terrain and winding paths, and the average distance a person could travel on foot per day.10 One would also need to factor in the impact of the seasons on travel. For instance, some of the roads were probably impassable during the rainy season given that most roads at this time were unpaved. Also, during the height of summer it seems unlikely that people would travel extensively during the heat of the day. Furthermore, during times of planting and harvesting it is doubtful that people would leave their fields to listen to an itinerant prophet, except perhaps on the Sabbath. One would also need to investigate whether there are indicators that Jesus may have attended more than one Jewish pilgrimage festival in Jerusalem, and the time involved if he did so. There are hints in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus was familiar with Jerusalem and surrounding villages.11 It is also unlikely that Jesus and his disciples would travel extensively on Sabbath days. Other chronological indicators may prove helpful, such as temporal references,12 and seasonal 9

Luke 9.51–52; 10.1. To estimate the distance a person could travel on foot per day, one would need to account for the average height and health of people at the time. 11 For example, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus knows where his disciples can find a colt for him to use in Bethany (Mark 11.1–3), appears to have a place to stay in Bethany, and knows people in Bethany (Mark 11.11–12; 14.3). Jesus also has a guest room in Jerusalem (Mark 14.12–16). In a Q saying Jesus indicates that for some time he had hoped that the people of Jerusalem would respond to his message (Q 13.34 [Matt. 23.37; Luke 13.34]). 12 For example, the reference to the passing of six days (Mark 9.2). 10

E. Suggestions for further research

395

references.13 In conclusion, it would be interesting to see whether such research might indicate that Jesus’ itinerant ministry in the Synoptic Gospels took longer than one year to accomplish. III. Implications of itinerancy for the formation of oral traditions Finally, a significant area of study in the last few decades has been the transmission of oral traditions. Such studies have critiqued some of the form critical assumptions concerning the content, form, and transmission of oral traditions, offered alternative models of the process of oral transmission,14 and addressed such factors as the role of eyewitnesses,15 and the reliability of individual and collective memories.16 Most of the focus to date has been on the formation and transmission of traditions in the early church, particularly during the period between Jesus’ death and the writing of Mark’s Gospel. One area that has not been explored in detail, although it has on occasion been noted, is the impact of Jesus’ itinerancy on the formation and transmission of Jesus’ teachings prior to his death. As Theissen writes: The familiarity of the disciples with Jesus’ message was virtually an automatic consequence of his wandering existence. When Jesus travelled with them from place to place, they heard the basic elements of his message over and over again … When, in addition, Jesus sent his disciples out on an itinerant mission, they must have had to repeat the same message in its basic features in a number of different places! Nothing reinforces the memory so much as active repetition. The disciples must therefore soon have had a stock of oral texts that they could reproduce by heart and vary as needed … Since Jesus sent out his disciples in pairs, there was even an informal “social control” on conformity with his message. And so … Jesus not only ensured that his message would reach all villages … without intending it, he also created the basis for passing on his message after his death.17

13

For example, the reference to people reclining on “green grass” during the first feeding miracle (Mark 6.39). 14 See e.g. Byskog, Story as History; Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript; K.E. Bailey, “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” AJT 5 (1991): 34–54; and K.E. Bailey, “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” ExpT 106 (1995): 363–367. 15 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. 16 McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. See also the counter argument by Judith Redman, “How accurate are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research,” JBL 129 (2010): 177–197; and Robert K. McIver’s response in “Eyewitnesses as Guarantors of the Accuracy of the Gospel Traditions in the Light of Psychological Research,” JBL 131.3 (2012): 529–546. 17 Theissen, “Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher,” 122. See also Wright, New Testament and People of God, 422–423. Dunn has also drawn attention to the fact that the formation and transmission of traditions about Jesus and the sayings of Jesus, would have begun during the time of Jesus’ ministry prior to his death. See e.g. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus.

396

Chapter 9: Summary and conclusion

Drawing on the results of this research, one could explore a model of the formation and transmission of Jesus’ sayings that took account of Jesus’ itinerancy, his Jewish context, his intention to reach all the towns and villages of Galilee either in person or via the twelve ἀπóστολοι, research in memory studies, and the various ways in which oral traditions are formed and passed on in oral cultures.

Bibliography Primary Sources Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1 (Sects 1–46). 2nd ed., Revised and expanded. Translated by Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Vols. I–V. Translated by Kirsopp Lake, J.E.L. Oulton. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1932. –. Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture, including the Latin edition of Jerome. Translation and Commentary by R. Steven Notley and Ze’ev Safrai. Vol. 9 of Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series. Edited by Marcel J.H.M. Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Freek Van Der Steen. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea: Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D. Translated by Greville Freeman-Grenville. Edited and introduced by Joan E. Taylor. Jerusalem: Carta, 2003. Josephus. Judean War. Vol. 1b of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Translated by Steve N. Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. Works. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman. 13 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Philo. Translated by Francis H. Colson, George H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–1962. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham and D.E. Eichholz. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938–1962. Select Papyri. Translated by A.S. Hunt and C.C. Edgar. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932–1934. Strabo. Geography. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917–1932. Tacitus. Histories and Annals. Translated by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. Vols. 2– 5. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925–1937. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Zenon Papyri, Vol. 1 (P.Cair.Zen.) Edited by C.C. Edgar. Cairo: L’Institut Franҫais D’Archéologie Orientale, 1925. Also known as P.Mich.Zen. C.C. Edgar, ed. Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection (P.Mich.Zen). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1931.

398

Bibliography

Reference Works and Maps Reference Works and Maps Aharoni, Yohanan, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, Ze’ev Safrai, and R. Steven Notley. The Carta Bible Atlas. 5th ed. Revised and expanded. Jerusalem: Carta, 2011. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (BDAG) Revised and edited. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dowley, Tim. ed. The Atlas of the Bible and the History of Christianity. Swindon: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1997. Horbury, William, and David Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Mittmann, Siegfried, and Götz Schmitt, eds. Tübinger Bibelatlas / Tübingen Bible Atlas. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Talbert, Richard J.A., ed. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Secondary Sources Secondary Sources Adan-Bayewitz, David. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. RamatGan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993. –. “Kefar Hananya.” NEAEHL 5.1909–1911. Adan-Bayewitz, David, and Isadore Perlman. “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period.” IEJ 40 (1990): 153–172. Adan-Bayewitz, David, and Mordechai Aviam. “Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Seasons.” JRA 10 (1997): 131–165. Adan-Bayewitz, David, and Moshe Wieder, Frank Asaro, and Robert D. Giauque. “Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century BCE–70 CE).” BASOR 350 (2008): 37–85. Adler, Yonatan. “Second Temple Period Ritual Baths Adjacent to Agricultural Installations: The Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic Sources.” JJS 59 (2008): 62–72. –. The Archaeology of Purity: Archaeological Evidence for the Observance of Ritual Purity in Ereẓ-Israel from the Hasmonean Period until the End of the Talmudic Era (164 BCE– 400 CE). PhD Dissertation. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University, 2011. Albright, William F. “Review of Waterman’s Preliminary Report on the 1931 Excavations.” CW 21 (1938): 148. Alexander, Philip S. “Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament.” ZNW 74 (1983): 237–246. Alexandré, Yardenna. Mary’s Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods. IAA Reports 49. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012. –. “Karm er-Ras near Kafr Kanna.” Pages 146–157 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “The Archaeological Evidence of the Great Revolt at Karm er-Ras (Kfar Kanna) in the Lower Galilee.” Pages 73–79 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra GuriRimon. Hecht Museum: University of Haifa, 2008.

Secondary Sources

399

Aliquot, Julien. Mont Hermon (Liban et Syrie): Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie, 11. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Tome 183. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient, 2008. –. “Sanctuaries and villages on Mount Hermon during the Roman Period.” Pages 73–96 in The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Edited by Ted Kaizer. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Allison, Jr. Dale C. “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity.” Pages 2– 30 in How to Study the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “The Continuity Between John and Jesus.” JSHJ 1 (2003): 6–27. –. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. Alt, Albrecht. “Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judӓaa und Samaria.” Pages 346–362 in vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der Volkes Israel. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche, 1959. –. “Galilӓische Probleme.” Pages 374–384 in vol. 2 of Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der Volkes Israel. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche, 1959. Anderson, Paul N. “Aspects of Historicity in the Gospel of John: Implications for Investigations of Jesus and Archaeology.” Pages 587–618 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, S.J., and Tom Thatcher, eds. John, Jesus and History. 3 vols. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2007–2016. Applebaum, Shimon. Judea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Appold, Mark. “Peter in Profile: From Bethsaida to Rome.” Pages 133–148 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Freund, Richard A. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. Arav, Rami. “A Chronicle of Inevitable Destruction: Stages of the Conquest and Destruction of Bethsaida by Tiglath-Pileser III.” Pages 2–25 in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. –. “Bethsaida–A Response to Steven Notley.” NEA 74 (2011): 92–100. –. “Bethsaida (Et-Tell).” NEAEHL 5.1611–1616. –. “Searching for Bethsaida: The Case for Et-Tell.” BAR 46.2 (2020): 40–47. –. “Toward a Comprehensive History of Geshur.” Pages 1–48 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. Arav, Rami, and Carl E. Savage. “Bethsaida.” Pages 258–279 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Arav, Rami, and Richard A. Freund, eds. Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Vols. 1–4. Bethsaida Excavations Project. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University, 1995–2009. Ariel, Donald T. “Coins from Khirbet Zemel.” Pages 118–122 in Eretz Zafon. Edited by Zvi Gal. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. –. “Appendix IV: Stamped Amphora Handles.” Pages 154–163 in Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee.

400

Bibliography

Edited by Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, and Avi Degani. IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001. Arnal, William E. Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Ashkenazi, Jacob. “Kerygmatic Landscapes of the Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” EC 10 (2019): 333–358. Ashkenazi, Jacob, and Mordechai Aviam. “Monasteries, Monks, and Villages in Western Galilee in Late Antiquity.” JLA 5 (2013): 269–297. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Gamla.” EDEJ 657–658. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1987. Aviam, Mordechai. “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation.” Pages 115–132 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “Find from a Burial Cave at Daburriya.” Pages 135–139 [Hebrew], 180 [English summary] in Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Edited by Zvi Gal. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. –. “Galilee: The Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods.” NEAEHL 2.453–458. –. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys, Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Vol. 1 of Land of Galilee. Institute for Galilean Archaeology. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2004. –. “Magdala.” OEANE 3.399–400. –. “The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A Holistic Interpretation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean Jews at the Time of Jesus.” NovT 55 (2013): 205–220. –. “The Fortified Settlements of Josephus Flavius and their Significance against the Background of the Excavations of Yodefat and Gamla.” Pages 39–52 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra Guri-Rimon. Hecht Museum: University of Haifa, 2008. –. “The Transformation from Galil Ha-Goyim to Jewish Galilee: The Archaeological Testimony of an Ethnic Change.” Pages 9–21 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “Yodefat–Jotapata.” Pages 109–126 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “Yodefat.” NEAEHL 5.2076–2078. Aviam, Mordechai, and Danny Syon. “Jewish Ossilegium in Galilee.” Pages 151–187 in What Athens has to do with Jerusalem? Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Edited by Leonard Victor Rutgers. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Aviam, Mordechai, and Peter Richardson. “Josephus’ Galilee in Archaeological Perspective: Appendix A.” Pages 177–209 in Life of Josephus. Edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Aviam, Mordechai, Hisao Kuwabara, Suichi Hasegawa, and Yitzhak Paz. “A 1st–2nd Century CE Assembly Room (Synagogue?) in a Jewish Estate at Tel Rekhesh, Lower Galilee.” 46/1 Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University (2019): 128– 142. DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2019.1587227. Avigad, Nahman, and Benjamin Mazar. “Beth Shearim.” NEAEHL 1.236–248.

Secondary Sources

401

Avi-Yonah, Michael. “Ḥammat Gader: The Theatre.” NEAEHL 2.566–569. –. “The Development of the Roman Road System in Palestine.” IEJ 1 (1950–1951): 54–61. –. “The Foundation of Tiberias.” IEJ 1 (1950–51): 160–169. –. “Historical Geography of Palestine.” Pages 78–116 in The Jewish People in the First Century I. Edited by Shemuel Safrai and Menachem Stern. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1974. –. The Holy Land. From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 BC to AD 640): An Historical Geography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1966. –. “Some Comments on the Capernaum Excavations.” Pages 60–62 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981. Avshalom-Gorni, Dina and Arfan Najar. “Migdal: Preliminary Report.” HA-ESI 125 (2013): n.p. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120 Avshalom-Gorni, Dina and Nimrod Getzov. “Phoenicians and Jews: A Ceramic CaseStudy.” Pages 74–83 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. and J. Andrew Overman. London; New York: Routledge, 2002. Backhaus, Knut. “Echoes from the Wilderness: The Historical John the Baptist.” Pages 1747–1785 in The Study of Jesus. Vol. 2 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bagatti, Bellarmino. Excavations in Nazareth. Vol. 1 of From the Beginning till the XII Century. Translated by E. Hoade. SBFCMi 17. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969. –. “Le Antichità di Kh. Qana e di Kefr Kenna in Galilee.” LA 15 (1964–1965): 251–292. –. “Nazareth.” EAEHL 3.919–922. Bailey, K.E. “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels.” AsJT 5 (1991): 34–54. Bar, Doran. “Geographical Implications of Population and Settlement Growth in Late Antique Palestine,” JHG 30 (2004): 1–10. Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Batey, Richard A. “Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater [sic]?” Pages 111–119 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. “Jesus and the Theatre.” NTS 30 (1984): 563–574. Bauckham, Richard. “Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone.” NovT 57 (2015): 113–135. –. “Gergesa is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi.” RB 122 (2015): 268–283. –. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2002. –. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. ed. The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. –. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Where was Dalmanutha? Mark 8.10.” Pages 23–29 in Texts and Contexts: Gospels and Pauline Studies. Edited by Todd D. Still. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017. Bauckham, Richard, and Stefan De Luca. “Magdala As We Now Know It.” EC 6 (2015): 91–118. Bauer, Walter. “Jesus der Galilӓer.” Pages 91–108 in Aufsӓtze und kleine Schriften. Edited by Georg Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. Originally published in Festgabe für

402

Bibliography

Adolf Jülicher zum 70. Geburtstag, 26 Januar 1927. Edited by Rudolf Bultmann et al. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1927, 16–34. Ben David, Chaim. “Golan Gem.” BAR 33 (2007): 44–51. –. “The Jewish Settlements in the Districts of Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara.” ARAM 23 (2011): 309–323. –. “The Rehov Inscription: A Galilean Halakhic Text Formula?” Pages 231–240 in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy. Edited by Albert I. Baumgarten, Hanan Eshel, Ranon Katzoff, and Shani Tzoref. JAJSup 3. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –. “Um el-Kanatir.” BAR 42.4 (2016): 40–49. –. “Were There 204 Settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62 (2011): 21–36. Ben David, Haim, and Oren Zingboym. “Umm el-Qanatir, Area A–The Spring: Preliminary Report.” HA-ESI 126 (2014): n.p. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=12642&mag_id=121 Ben-Tor, Amnon. “Hazor: Fifth Season of Excavations (1968–1969).” NEAEHL 2.604–606. Berlin, Andrea. “Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period.” BA 60 (1997): 2–51. –. “From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine,” BASOR 306 (1997): 75–88. –. Gamla 1: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period. IAA Reports 29. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2006. –. “The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: A Review Article.” BASOR 369 (2013): 244–247. –. “Jewish Life Before the Revolt.” JSJ 36 (2005): 417–470. –. “Romanization and anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Galilee.” Pages 57–73 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London: Routledge, 2002. –. The Plain Wares. Vol. 1 of Tel Anafa 2: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. Edited by Sharon C. Herbert. JRASup 10, Part 2.1. Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 1997. Berlin, Andrea M., and J. Andrew Overman, eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. London: Routledge, 2002. Berlin, Andrea M., and Rafael Frankel. “The Sanctuary at Mizpe Yammim: Phoenician Cult and Territory in the Upper Galilee during the Persian Period.” BASOR 366 (2012): 25– 78. Berlin, Andrea M., and Sharon C. Herbert. “Kedesh of Upper Galilee.” Pages 424–441 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. –. “Kedesh, Tel (In Upper Galilee).” NEAEHL 5.1905–1906. Berman, Ariel. “Coins Catalogue.” Pages 153–171 in Hippos-Sussita, Eleventh Season of Excavations (July 2010). Edited by Arthur Segal, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2010. –. “The Coin Finds of Hippos-Sussita.” Pages 278–301 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013.

Secondary Sources

403

–. “The Numismatic Evidence.” Pages 107–120 in Mary’s Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods. By Yardenna Alexandré. IAA Reports, 49. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012. Bermejo Rubio, Fernando. “The Fiction of the ‘Three Quests’: An argument for Dismantling a Dubious Historiographical Paradigm.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 211–253. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and their Importance. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Binder, D.B. “The Mystery of the Magdala Stone.” Pages 17–48 in A City Set on a Hill: Essays in Honor of James F. Strange. Edited by Daniel A. Warner and Donald D. Binder. Mountain Home, AR: Border Stone Press, 2014. Biram, Avraham. “What is Biblical Archaeology.” Pages 1–8 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Bird, Michael F. “Textual Criticism and the Historical Jesus.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 133–156. Black, C. Clifton. The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Bock, Darrell L., and Robert L. Webb, eds. Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Bonnie, R., and J. Richard. “Building D1 at Magdala Revisited in the Light of Public-Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic East.” IEJ 62 (2012): 71–88. Bowsher, Julian. “Architecture and Religion in the Decapolis: A Numismatic Survey.” PEQ 119 (1987): 62–69. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Mark and Galilee: Text World and Historical World.” Pages 75–85 in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Broshi, Magen. “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period.” BASOR 236 (1979): 1–10. Bruce, F.F. New Testament History. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1969. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. Translation of Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2nd ed. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. Bunimovitz, Shlomo, and Avraham Faust. “Re-constructing Biblical Archaeology: Toward an Integration of Archaeology and the Bible.” Pages 43–54 in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism. Edited by Thomas E. Levy. London: Equinox, 2010. Burridge, Richard A. “About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences.” Pages 113–145 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Byatt, Anthony. “Josephus and Population Numbers in First-Century Palestine.” PEQ 105 (1973): 51–60. Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “The Eyewitnesses as Interpreters of the Past: Reflections on Richard Bauckham’s, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” JSHJ 6.2 (2008): 157–168. –. “The Historicity of Jesus: How do we know that Jesus Existed?” Pages 2183–2212 in The Historical Jesus. Vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén & Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Carter, Warren. Mark. Wisdom Commentary 42. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2019.

404

Bibliography

Casson, Lionel. Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore; London: John Hopkins University Press, 1994. Catchpole, David. “On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 169–181. Chancey, Mark A. “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and First-Century CE Galilee: The Limits of Evidence.” Pages 205–218 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers with Margaret Daly-Denton and Anne Fitzpatrick McKinley. Leiden: Brill, 2009. –. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. SNTSMS 134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. –. “How Jewish Was Jesus’ Galilee?” BAR 33 (2007): 42–50, 76. –. “Stone Vessels.” EDEJ 1256–1257. –. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Chancey, Mark A., and Adam Porter. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” NEA 64 2001): 164–203. Chaniotis, A., T. Corsten, R.S. Stroud, and R.A. Tybout. “SEG 52-1693–1694. Tiberias (area of). Inscriptions on two lead weights of Agrippa II, 70–72 or 81–83 A.D.” SEG. Edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R.A. Tybout. . Chapman, Dean W. “Locating the Gospel of Mark: A Model of Agrarian Biography.” BTB 25 (1995): 24–36. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2006. Charlesworth, James H. “Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective.” Pages 11– 63 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008. –. “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” JSHJ 8 (2010): 23–24. Charlesworth, James H., and Craig A. Evans. “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels.” Pages 479–533 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Chilton, Bruce. “Archaeology and Jesus.” EHJ 32–35. –. “Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison.” AS 11 (2013): 225–251. –. “John the Baptist.” EHJ 339–342. –. “Regnum Dei Deus Est.” SJT 31 (1978): 261–270. Chilton, Bruce and Craig A. Evans, eds. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Chilton, Bruce, Darrell Bock, Daniel M. Gurtner, Jacob Neusner, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Daniel Oden, eds. A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Scrolls, and Rabbinic Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ciampa, R.E. “Decapolis.” DNTB 266–268. Cline, Eric H. Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Cohen, Daniel. “The Gerasene Demoniac: A Jewish approach to Liberation Before 70 CE.” Pages 152–173 in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition. Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey, Edited by James G. Crossley. London: Equinox Publishing, 2010.

Secondary Sources

405

Cohen, Shaye J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: Brill, 1979. –. “Mishnah.” EDEJ 960–961. –. “The Temple and the Synagogue.” Pages 151–174 in The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives. Edited by Truman G. Madsen. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984. –. “Tosefta.” EDEJ 1132–1134. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Genre and the Gospels.” JR 75 (1995): 239–246. –. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. Conzelmann, Hans. History of Primitive Christianity. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1973. Corbo, Virgilio C. Gli Edifici della Città. Vol. 1 of Cafarnao. SBF 19. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1975. –. “La mini-synagogue de Magdala.” Le Monde De La Bible 57 (1989): 15. –. “Resti della sinagoga del primo secolo a Cafarnao.” SH 3 (1982): 314–257. –. “Scavi archeologici a Magdala, 1971–1973.” LA 24 (1974): 19–37. –. The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum: A Preliminary Report on the First Two Campaigns of Excavations, April 16–June 19, Sept. 12–Nov. 26, 1968. Translated by Sylvester Saller. SBFCMi 5. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1969. Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. The Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Crook, Zeba A. “Collective Memory Distortion and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” JSHJ 11 (2013): 53–76. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. –. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1998. –. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan Reed. Excavating Jesus. Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. San Francisco; New York: HarperCollins, 2001. Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Galilee Quest: The Historical Jesus and the Historical Galilee.” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 45.2 (2018): 213–227. Currid, John D. Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible: A Basic Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999. Cytryn-Silverman, Katia. “Tiberias, from its Foundation to the End of the Early Islamic Period.” Pages 186–197 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Dar, Shimon. “The History of the Hermon Settlements.” PEQ 120 (1988): 26–44. Dark, Ken R. “Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognised Roman Town Near the Sea of Galilee.” PEQ 145 (2013): 185–202. –. “Early Roman-Period Nazareth and the Sisters of Nazareth Convent.” AJ 92 (2012): 37– 64. –. “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” BAR 41 (2015): 60–61. –. “Review of René Salm, The Myth of Nazareth.” BAIAS 26 (2008): 140–146. –. “The Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape between Sepphoris and Nazareth.” PEQ 140 (2008): 97–102.

406

Bibliography

Davies, W.D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997. Davis, Thomas W. Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. De Luca, Stefano, and Anna Lena. “The Mosaic of the Thermal Bath Complex of Magdala Reconsidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphy and Iconography.” Pages 1–33 in Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essay in Honour of Leah Di Segni. Edited by G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcala and J. Patrich. SBFCMa 54. Milan: Franciscan Printing Press, 2014. –. “Magdala/Taricheae.” Page 280–342 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “The Harbor of the City of Magdala/Taricheae on the Shores of Galilee, from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Times. New Discoveries and Preliminary Results.” Pages 113–163 in BYZAS 19–Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern Mediterranean from Antiquity to the Byzantine Period: Recent Discoveries and Current Approaches. Edited by Sabine Ladstätter, Felix Pirson, and Thomas Schmidts. Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari, 2014. De Silva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Dickson, John. Jesus a Short Life: The Historical Evidence. Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson, 2008. Dever, William G. “Does ‘Biblical Archaeology’ Have a Future?’ Pages 349–360 in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism. Edited by Thomas E. Levy. London: Equinox, 2010. Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. –. The Founder of Christianity. London: William Collins Sons, 1971. Doering, Lutz. “Sabbath and Festivals.” Pages 566–586 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Donfried, Karl P. “Chronology: New Testament.” ABD 1.1011–1022. Dothan, Moshe. “Acco: Excavations in the Modern City.” NEAEHL 1.23–24. Downing, F. Gerald. Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in FirstCentury Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. –. Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. –. “In Quest of First-Century C.E. Galilee.” CBQ 66 (2004): 78–97. –. “The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Deconstruction.” NTS 33 (1987): 439–451. Downs, David J. “Chronology of the NT.” NIDB 1.633–636. Dunn, James D.G. A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. –. “Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue?” Pages 206–222 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. “Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 85–105. –. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. –. “Kenneth Bailey’s Theory of Oral Tradition: Critiquing Theodore Weeden’s Critique.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 44–62.

Secondary Sources

407

–. “Khirbet Qana: From Jewish Village to Christian Pilgrimage Site.” Pages 101–132 in vol. 3 of The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Edited by John H. Humphrey. JRASup 49. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2002. –. “Review of ‘The Gerasene Demoniac: A Jewish Approach to Liberation before 70 CE,’ by Daniel Cohen, in Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey. Edited by J.G. Crossley.” JTS 63 (2012): 282–283. –. “Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity.” NTS 45 (1999): 174–193. Dunn, James D.G., and Scot McKnight, eds. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. SBTS 10. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Dvorjetski, Estēe. “‘City mostly of non-Jews, such as this Sussita’: The Historical Geography of Sussita-Antiochia Hippos-Qal’at el-Ḥuṣn.” Pages 40–63 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. –. “Medicinal Hot Springs in Eretz-Israel and in the Decapolis during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods.” ARAM Periodical 4 (1992): 425–449. Editor’s note. “The Israel Exploration Society: 100 Years of Archaeological Activity,” IEJ 63 (2013): 1–5. Edwards, Douglas R. “Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages.” Pages 357–374 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –., ed. Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. New York; London: Routledge, 2004. Edwards, Douglas R., and C. Thomas McCollough, eds. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Eisenberg, Michael. “Military Architecture.” Pages 86–127 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. –. “New Discoveries at Antiochia Hippos of the Decapolis and Its Sea of Galilee Connection.” EC 10.3 (2019): 363–382. Ellens, J. Harold, ed. Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Green. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. Elliot, John H. “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature.” JSHJ 5 (2007): 119–154. Elliott, J. Keith. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. “The Synoptic Gospels and History.” Pages 49–57 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Epstein, Claire. “Hippos (Sussita),” NEAEHL 2.634–636. Eshel, Hanan. “A Note on ‘Miqva’ot’ at Sepphoris.” Pages 131–134 in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Greco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Edited by D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. Eshel, H., D.R. Edwards, and C.T. McCollough, “The Pools of Sepphoris—Ritual Baths or Bathtubs: They’re Not Ritual Baths.” BAR 26 (2000): 42–45, 49.

408

Bibliography

Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. –. “Authenticating the Activities of Jesus.” Pages 3–29 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. –. Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. –. Mark 8.27–16.20. WBC 34B. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001. –. “Nazareth.” EHJ 243–245. –. “Why Did the New Testament Writers Appeal to the Old Testament.” JSNT 38 (2015): 36–48. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. –. “Josephus (c.37–c.100).” Pages 901–921 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William Horbury, W.D. Davies, and John Sturdy. Cambridge University Press, 1999. Cambridge Histories Online: http//dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHOL978052 1243 773.029 Feldman, Louis H. and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996. Ferreira, Johan. “The Non-Canonical Gospels.” Pages 209–230 in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition. Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Fiensy, David. “Did Large Estates Exist in Lower Galilee in the First Half of the First Century CE?” JSHJ 10 (2012): 133–153. Fine, Steven. “The Rehov Synagogue Inscriptions: The Earliest Preserved Text of the Talmudic Literature.” In Amoraim. COJS (2016). http://cojs.org/steven_fine-_the_rehov_synagogue_inscriptions-the_earliest_preserved_text_of_the_talmudic_literature/ Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Finkelstein, Israel and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Israel. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Fisher, Toni. “Faunal Analysis: Zooarchaeology in Syro-Palestinian/Israeli Archaeology.” Pages 84–121 in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. ABS. New York: Doubleday, 1970. Flesher, Paul Virgil McCracken. “Palestinian Synagogues Before 70 CE: A Review of the Evidence.” Pages 27–39 in vol. 1 of Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Flowers, Michael. “Jesus’ ‘Journey’ in Mark 7:31.” JSHJ 14 (2016): 158–185. Flusser, David, with R. Steven Notley. Jesus. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1997. Foerster, G. “Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum.” Pages 57–59 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981. Forbes, Chris. “The Historical Jesus.” Pages 231–262 in The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition. Edited by Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Secondary Sources

409

Fortner, Sandra. “The Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities of Bethsaida-Julias (etTell).” Pages 269–280 in vol. 2 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999. Fraade, Steven D. “The Rehov Inscriptions and Rabbinic Literature–Matters of Language.” Pages 225–238 in Talmuda De-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine. Edited by Steven Fine and Aaron Koller. Studia Judaica 73. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Frankel, Rafael. “Bibra’–A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre.” IEJ 29 (1979): 194– 196. –. “Corn, Oil, and Wine. Food Processing and Food–Processing Installations in Galilee in the First Century CE.” Pages 19–28 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra Guri-Rimon. Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, 2008. –. “Har Mitṣpe Yamim 1988–1989.” ESI 9 (1989–1990): 100–102. –. “Some Oil Presses from Western Galilee.” BASOR 286 (1992): 39–71. Frankel, Rafael, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, and Avi Degani. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee. IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001. Frendo, Anthony J. Pre-exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2011. Freund, Richard A. Digging Through the Bible. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. –. “Ereimos: ‘A Lonely Place.’” Pages 183–209 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. –. “The Search for Bethsaida in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 267–311 in vol. 1 of Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1995. Freyne, Sean. “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi.” Pages 39–56 in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. –. Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. WUNT 125. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Galilee as Laboratory: Experiments for New Testament Historians and Theologians.” NTS 53 (2007): 147–164. –. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980. –. “Galilee, Jesus and the Contribution of Archaeology.” ExpT 119 (2008): 573–581. –. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. –. “Galileans, Phoenicians, and Itureans. A Study of Regional Contrasts in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 182–215 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 13. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. –. Jesus: A Jewish Galilean. A New Reading of the Jesus Story. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.

410

Bibliography

–. “The Revolt from a Regional Perspective.” Pages 43–56 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London; New York: Routledge, 2002. Funk, Robert W. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Funk, Robert W., and the Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Gal, Zvi. Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Har Tavor (41) and Map of ‘En Dor (45). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1998. –. “A Stone-Vessel Manufacturing Site in the Lower Galilee.” ‘Atiqot 20 (1991): 179–180. –. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. –. “Israel in Exile.” BAR 24 (1998): 48–53. –. Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. ASOR Dissertation Series. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. –. “The Lower Galilee in the Iron Age II: Analysis of Survey Material and its Historical Interpretation.” Tel Aviv 15–16 (1988–1989): 56–64. Galili, Ehud, and Baruch Rosen. “Acco: The Harbour.” NEAEHL 5.1559. –. “Marine Archaeology.” NEAEHL 5.1925–1934. Galili, Ehud, Uzi Dahari and Jacob Sharvit. “Underwater Survey along the Coast of Israel.” ESI 10 (1991): 160–166. Galor, Katharina. “Domestic Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Galilee and Golan.” NEA 66 (2003): 44–57. Gathercole, Simon J. The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences. SNTSMS 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. –. The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary. TENTS 11. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, with Tradition & Transmission in Early Christianity. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. –. The Gospel Tradition. NTS 15. Liber Fōrlag, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1986. Getzov, Nimrod. “An Excavation at Ḥorbat Bet Zeneta.” Atiqot 39. IAA (2000): 75–106 [Hebrew]; 202 [English summary]. –. “Uẓa, Ḥorvat.” NEAEHL 5.2065–2066. Getzov, Nimrod, R. Leiberman-Wander, Howard Smithline, and Danny Syon. Ḥorbat ‘Uẓa. The 1991 Excavations I: The Early Periods. IAA Reports 41. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2009. Getzov, Nimrod, Dina Avshalom-Gorni, Yael Gorin-Rosen, Edna J. Stern, Danny Syon, and Ayelet Tatcher. Ḥorbat ‘Uẓa. The 1991 Excavations II: The Late Periods. IAA Reports 42. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2009. Gill, David W.J. “Acts and Roman Policy in Judaea.” Pages 15–26 in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 vols. EKK II. Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998.

Secondary Sources

411

Goguel, Maurice. Jesus and the Origins of Christianity. Vol. 2. New York: Harper Brothers, 1960. –. The Life of Jesus. Translated by Olive Wyon. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1933. Goldman, Zeev. “Acco: Excavations in the Modern City.” NEAEHL 1.25. Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Tradition. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Goodblatt, David. “Population Structure and Jewish Identity.” Pages 102–121 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Goodman, Martin. “Jews in the Decapolis.” ARAM Periodical 4 (1992): 49–56. Grabbe, Lester L. “Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment.” Pages 17–26 in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. 1. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175). Vol. 2 of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Gregg, Robert C. “Marking Religious and Ethnic Boundaries. Cases from the Ancient Golan Heights.” CH 69 (2000): 519–557. Gregg, Robert C., and Dan Urman. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Golan Heights: Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman and Byzantine Eras. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 140. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Grey, Matthew J., and Chad S. Spigel. “Ḥuqoq in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.” Pages 362–378 in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Vol 2 of The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Grootkerk, Salomon E. Ancient Sites in Galilee: A Toponymic Gazetteer. Vol. 1 of Culture &History of the Ancient Near East. Edited by B. Halpern, M.H.E. Weippert, Th. P.J. Van Den Hout, and I. Winter. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Nashville, TX: Thomas Nelson, 1989. Guignebert, Charles. Jesus. Translated by S.H. Hooke. History of Civilization Series. Edited by C.K. Ogden. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1935. –. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus. Translated by S.H. Hooke. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1939. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Guri-Rimon, Ofra, ed. The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Haifa, Israel: Hecht Museum, University of Haifa, 2008. Gutman, Shmaryahu. “Gamala.” NEAEHL 2.459–463. Haber, Susan. “Going up to Jerusalem: Pilgrimage, Purity, the Historical Jesus.” Pages 49– 67 in Travel and Religion in Antiquity. Edited by Philip A. Harland. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 21. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2011. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues–Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. Vol. 105 of Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 1: Ancient Near East. Edited by W.H. van Soldt, G. Beckman, C. Leitz, P. Michalowski, P. Miglus, and H. Gzella. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –. “Burials: Ancient Jewish.” ABD 1.789–794. Häkkinen, Sakari. “Ebionites.” Pages 247–278 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’.” Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

412

Bibliography

Hanson, K.C. “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition.” BTB 27 (1997): 99– 111. Hanson, K.C., and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998. Harding, Mark, and Alanna Nobbs, eds. The Content and Setting of the Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Harding, G. Lankester. “The Cairn of Hani’.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 2 (1953): 8–56. Harrington, Hannah K. “Purity and Impurity.” EDEJ 1121–1123. Harris, Marvin. “The Abominable Pig.” Pages 70–72 in The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987. Harrocks, Rebecca. “Jesus’ Gentile Healings: The Absence of Bodily Contact and the Requirement of Faith.” Pages 83–101 in The Body in Biblical, Christian and Jewish Texts. Edited by Joan E. Taylor. London: T&T Clark Bloomsbury, 2014. Hartal, Moshe. “Excavations at Khirbet Zemel, Northern Golan: Iturean Settlement Site.” Pages 270–272 in Eretz Zafon. Edited by Zvi Gal. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002. –. “‘Khirbet Zemel’ 1985–6.” IEJ 37 (1987): 270–272. –. “The History of Rafid on the Background of the History of Northern Tranjordan.” Pages 269–290 in Dan Urman, Rafid on the Golan–A Profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine Village. Edited by Shimon Dar, Moshe Hartal, and Etan Ayalon. BARIS 1555. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 2006. –. “The Use of Pottery as a Tool for the Definition of Provincial Borders.” Pages 211–222 in In the Hill-Country, and in the Shepheleh, and in the Arabah (Joshua 12, 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal in the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Editor-in-Chief, Shay Bar. Jerusalem: Arial Publishing House, 2008. Hayes, Christine. “Palestinian Talmud.” EDEJ 1018–1021. Hayes, John H., and Sara R. Mandell. The Jewish People in Antiquity. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Healey, John F. “Iturea.” OCD 776. Hengel, Martin. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1979. –. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by J. Bowden. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1974. –. “Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen.” Pages 28–39 in Jesus und die Evangelien. Edited by Claus-Jürgen Thornton. Kleine Schriften V. WUNT 211. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “Proseuchē und Synagoguē: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus, und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palestina.” Pages 157–184 in Tradition und Glaube: Festschrift für Karl Georg Kuhn. Edited by G. Jeremias, H.W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. –. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Translated by John Bowden. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. –. The Charismatic Leader and his Followers. Translated by James C.G. Greig. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. –. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 2000.

Secondary Sources

413

–. “The Geography of Palestine in Acts.” Pages 27–78 in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its Ancient Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Herbert, Sharon. “Tel Anafa.” NEAEHL 2.58–61. Hasegawa, Shuichi, Hisao Kuwabara, and Yitzhak Paz. “Who Built Tel Rekhesh?” BAR 46/4 (2020): 37–39. Hestrin, Ruth. “Beth Yerah.” NEAEHL 1.255–259. Hezser, Catherine. “Correlating Literary, Epigraphic, and Archaeological Sources.” Pages 9–27 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –. Jewish Travel in Antiquity. TSAJ 144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hirschfeld, Yizhar. “Ḥammat Gader.” NEAEHL 2.565–566, 569–573. –. “Tiberias.” ESI 9 (1989–1990): 107–109. –. “Tiberias.” OEANE 1.203–206. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, Gideon Foerster, and Fanny Vitto. “Tiberias.” NEAEHL 4.1467–1470. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, and Katharina Galor. “New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias.” Pages 207–229 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Hoehner, H.W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977. –. “Chronology.” EHJ 114–118. Hoehner, H.W., and J.K. Brown. “Chronology.” DJG 134–138. Holmén, Tom. “Authenticity Criteria.” EHJ 43–54. Holmén, Tom and Stanley E. Porter. Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Holmes, Michael, ed. The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hooker, Morna D. “Christology and Methodology.” NTS 17 (1970–1971): 480–487. –. The Gospel According to Mark. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Hopkins, David C. “Agriculture.” OEANE 1.22–30. Horsley, G.H.R. “Dedications to ‘The Most High God.’” in NewDocs 1.25–29. Horsley, Richard. Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. –. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. –. “Review of The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission, by Sean Freyne.” Review of Biblical Literature, SBL [http:.//www.bookreviews.org] (2017). –. The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Iermolin, Alexander. “Roman Oil Lamps Catalogue.” Pages 119–152 in Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations (July 2010). Edited by Arthur Segal, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2010. Ilan, Zvi, and Avraham Izdarechet. “Arbel.” NEAEHL 1.87– 89. –. “Horvat Arbel.” IEJ 39 (1989): 100–102. Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. Part 1: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE. TSAJ 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Isaac, Benjamin. “Infrastructure.” Pages 145–164 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

414

Bibliography

–. “Inscriptions and Religious Identity on the Golan.” Pages 179–188 in Some Recent Archaeological Research. Vol 2 of The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Edited by J.H. Humphrey. JRASup 31. Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 1999. Isaac, Benjamin, and Israel Roll. The Legio-Scythopolis Road. Vol. 1 of Roman Roads in Judaea. BARIS 141. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1982. Iverson, K.R. “Gentiles.” DJG 302–303. Jackson, F. J. Foakes, and Kirsopp Lake, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1, The Acts of the Apostles. London: Macmillan, 1933. Jacobson, David M. “The Lily and the Rose: A Review of Some Hasmonean Coin Types.” NEA 76 (2013): 16–27. Jenks, Gregory C. “More than Just Couch Change: Bethsaida Coin Report 2001–2012.” Pages 152–179 in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History, and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. –. “The Quest for the Historical Nazareth.” Pages 252–267 in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Green. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. Jensen, Morten Hørning. “Climate, Droughts, Wars, and Famines in Galilee as a Background for Understanding the Historical Jesus.” JBL 131 (2012): 307–324. –. “Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus.” JSHJ 5 (2007): 7–32. –. Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, 2nd ed. WUNT 215. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’ Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation.” JSHJ 11 (2013): 3–34. Jeremias, Joachim. The Proclamation of Jesus. Vol. 1 of New Testament Theology. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1971. Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, Henry Seyrig, and Jean Franҫois Salles. “Tyre.” OCD 1568. Jones, Arnold Hugh Martin, and Jean Franҫois Salles. “Sidon.” OCD 1404. Kalmin, Richard. “Rabbis.” EDEJ 1317–1318. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE: Its Import for Early Christianity.” NTS 36 (1990): 1–24. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2014. –. “Assumptions in Historical-Jesus Research: Using Ancient Biographies and Disciples Traditioning as a Control.” JSHJ 9 (2011): 26–58. –. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. –. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Kelber, Werner H., and Samuel Byrskog, eds. Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Kelly, J.N.D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Kindler, Arie. “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida.” Pages 250–268 in vol. 2 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999. –. “The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida.” Pages 245–249 in vol. 2 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999.

Secondary Sources

415

Killebrew, Ann E. “Village and Countryside.” Pages 189–209 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teachings. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1929. Klijn, A.F.J. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. VCSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Kloppenborg, John. “City and Wasteland: The Narrative World and the Beginnings of the Sayings Gospel (Q).” Semeia 52 (1990): 145–160. –. “Dating Theodotus (CIJ 1404).” JJS 51 (2000): 243–280. –. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000. –. “Literary Convention, Self-Evidence and the Social History of the Q People.” Semeia 55 (1991): 77–102. –. “Q, Bethsaida, Khorazin and Capernaum.” Pages 61–90 in Q in Context II: Social Setting and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source. Edited by Markus Tiwald. BBB 173. Göttingen: V& R unipress; Bonn University Press, 2015. –. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987. –. “The Theodotus Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of the First-Century Synagogue Buildings.” Pages 236–282 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Koester, Helmet. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2 of Introduction to the New Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Kokkinos, Nikos. “The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch.” JJS 59.2 (2008): 236–251. –. “The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of Tiberias?” PEQ 142.1 (2010): 7–23. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Bethsaida in the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 115–131 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. –. “Bethsaida in the Gospels: The Feeding Story in Luke 9 and the Q Saying in Luke 10.” Pages 243–256 in vol. 1 of Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University, 1995. –. Betsaida/Bethsaida–Julias (et-Tell): Die ersten 25 Jahre der Ausgrabung (1987–2011) mit Nachträgen bis 2013; The First Twenty-Five Years of Excavation (1987–2011) with Postscripts until 2013. NTOA Archaeologica 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. –. “Betsaida und et-Tell in frührӧmischer Zeit: Historische, archäologische und philologische Probleme einer als Wirkungsstätte Jesu angenommenen Ortslage.” ZNW 101 (2010): 1–32; 174–203. –. “Revised List of Limestone Vessels found on Et-Tell (Bethsaida) from 1987–2012.” Pages 134–151 in Bethsaida in Archaeology, History and Ancient Culture: A Festschrift in Honor of John T. Greene. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. Kushnir-Stein, Alla. “Two inscribed Lead Weight of Agrippa II.” ZPE 141 (2012): 295–297. Łajtar, Adam. “Greek Inscriptions.” Pages 250–277 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013.

416

Bibliography

Lang, F. “‘Über Sidon mitten ins Gebiet der Dekapolis.’ Geographie und Theologie in Markus 7, 31,” ZDPV 94 (1978): 24–37. Le Donne, Anthony. “The Problem of Selectivity in Memory Research: A Response to Zeba Crook.” JSHJ 11 (2013): 77–97. –. “The Rise of the Quest for an Authentic Jesus: An Introduction to the Crumbling Foundations of Jesus Research.” Pages 3–21 in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity. Edited by Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Leibner, Uzi. “Determining the Settlement History of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine sites in the Galilee, Israel: Comparing surface, subsurface, and stratified artifact assemblages.” JFA 39 (2014): 387–400. –. “Identifying Gennesaret on the Sea of Galilee.” JRA 27 (2014): 230–232. –. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. TSAJ 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Levine, Amy-Jill, ed. A Feminist Companion to Mark. FCNTECW 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. –. “Christian Faith and the Study of the Historical Jesus: A Response to Bock, Keener, and Webb.” JSHJ 9 (2011): 96–106. Levine, Lee I., ed. Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1981. –. “The Ancient Synagogue in First-Century Palestine.” Pages 23–41 in Q in Context II: Social Setting and Archaeological Background of the Sayings Source. Edited by Markus Tiwald. BBB 173. Göttingen: V&R Academic, Bonn University Press, 2015. –. “The First-Century Synagogue: Critical Reassessments and Assessments of the Critical.” Pages 70–102 in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards. New York, NY: Routledge, 2004. –. “The Synagogue.” Pages 521–544 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Catherine Hezser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Léon-Dufour, Xavier S.J. The Gospels and the Jesus of History. Translated by J. McHugh. New York: Image Books, 1970. Levy, Thomas E., Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism. London: Equinox, 2010. Lichtenberger, Achim. “City Foundation Legends in the Decapolis,” BAIAS 22 (2004): 23– 34. Lightfoot, Robert Henry. Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938. Lloyd, Jacqueline. “The Women Who Followed Jesus–Parts 1 and 2.” Stimulus 20 (2013): 4–12; and 24–31. Loffreda, Stanislao. “Capernaum: From Jesus’ Time and After.” BAR 19 (1993): 54–61. –. Recovering Capernaum, 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 1993. –. “Capernaum.” NEAEHL 1.291–295. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Galiläa und Jerusalem. FRLANT 34. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1937. Louda, Sherri L. “Gilead.” NIDB 2.572. Lukaszewski, Albert. “Roads and Commerce in Galilee and Judea.” EHJ 515. Luomanen, Petri. “Nazarenes.” Pages 279–314 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’.” Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Secondary Sources

417

Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “Elchasaites and their Book.” Pages 335–364 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’.” Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. VCSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. –. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. Lyons, William John. “A Prophet Is Rejected in His Home Town (Mark 6.4 and Parallels): A Study in the Methodological (In)Consistency of the Jesus Seminar.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 59–84. Mack, Burton. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993. Mackowski, Richard M. “Scholar’s Qanah: A Re-examination of the Evidence in Favour of Khirbet Qanah.” BZ 23 (1979): 278–284. Maeir, Aren. “Stones, Bones, Texts and Relevance: Or, How I Lost my Fear of Biblical Archaeology and Started Enjoying It.” Pages 295–303 in Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism. Edited by Thomas E. Levy. London: Equinox, 2010. Magen, Yitzhak. “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age.” BAR Sept/Oct (1998): 46–52. –. “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period.” Pages 244–256 in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Edited by Hillel Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. –. The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period: Excavations at Hizmah and the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Judea and Samaria Publications 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of the Holy Land from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. –. “New Mosaics from the Ḥuqoq Synagogue.” BAR 39 (2013): 66–68. –. “Samson in the Synagogue.” BAR 39 (2013): 32–39, 66–67. Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Karen Britt, Matthew Grey, and Chad Spigel. “Ḥuqoq (Lower Galilee) and its Synagogue Mosaics: Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 2011–2013.” JRA 27 (2014): 327–355. Magness, Jodi, Shua Kisilevitz, Matthew Grey, Dennis Mizzi, Daniel Schindler, Martin Wells, Karen Britt, Ra‘anan Boustan, Shana O’Connell, Emily Hubbard, Jessie George, Jennifer Ramsay, Elisabetta Boaretto, and Michael Chazan. “The Huqoq Excavation Project: 2014–2017 Interim Report.” BASOR 380 (2018): 61–131. Malborn, Elizabeth Struthers. In the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Ma‘oz, Zvi Uri. “Banias.” NEAEHL 1.136–143. –. “Dabiyye.” NEAEHL 1.318. –. “En Nashuṭ.” NEAEHL 2.412–414. –. “Giv‘at Orḥa.” NEAEHL 2.521–523. –. “Golan.” NEAEHL 2.525–527, 534–546. –. “Golan: Umm El-Qanatir.” NEAEHL 2.542. –. “Ḥaspin.” NEAEHL 2.586–588. –. “Ḥorvat Kanaf.” NEAEHL 3.847–850 –. “Jews and Christians in the Ancient Golan Heights.” IEJ 60 (2010): 89–93. –. “Qaẓrin.” NEAEHL 4.1219–1224. –. “Synagogues of the Golan.” BA 51 (1988): 125.

418

Bibliography

Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ABS. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2000. –. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. –. “The Jewish War and the Sitz Im Leben of Mark.” JBL 111 (1992): 441–462. –. The Way of the Lord. Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Marshak, Adam. “Herod the Great.” EDEJ 729–735. –. “Herodian Dynasty.” EDEJ 735–39. Marshall, Christopher D. Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative. SNTSMS 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. –. Kingdom Come: The Kingdom of God in the Teachings of Jesus. Auckland, NZ: Impetus, 1993. Marshall, I. Howard. “A New Consensus on Oral Tradition? A Review of Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 182–193. –. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster Press, 1978. Martel, M. “‘Khirbet Zemel’ 1985–6.” IEJ 37 (1987): 270–272. Marquis, Timothy Lukritz. “Re-Presenting Galilean Identity.” Pages 55–68 in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War A.D. 66–74. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. –. “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method.” RRJ 6 (2003): 145– 188. –. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. –. Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. –. “Josephus, Jewish Antiquities.” EDEJ 834–838. –. Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –., ed. Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Matthews, John. The Journey of Theophanes. Travel, Business, and Daily Life in the Roman East. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2006. Mattila, Sharon Lea. “Capernaum, Village of Naḥum, from Hellenistic to Byzantine Times.” Pages 217–257 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Mazar, Benjamin. “Beth Shearim.” NEAEHL 1.236–248. –. “Geshur and Maacah,” JBL 80 (1961): 18–21. –. “Geshur and Maacah.” Pages 113–125 in The Early Biblical Period. Edited by Shmuel Ahitub and Baruch A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986. McCane, Byron R. “Miqva’ot.” EDEJ 954–956. –. “Ossuaries.” EDEJ 1009–1011. McCollough, C. Thomas. “Gerasa.” EHJ 223–224. McCown, C.C. “Gospel Geography: Fiction, Fact, and Truth.” JBL 60 (1941): 1–25. McGeough, Kevin. “Should Archaeology be Used as a Source of Testable Hypotheses about the Bible?” BAR 38 (2012): 28, 64. McIver, Robert K. “Eyewitnesses as Guarantors of the Accuracy of the Gospel Traditions in the Light of Psychological Research.” JBL 131 (2012): 529–546.

Secondary Sources

419

–. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. RBS 59. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. McLaren, James S. “Josephus, Jewish War.” EDEJ 838–841. McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1991. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 5 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991–2016. –. “The Circle of the Twelve: Did it Exist during Jesus’ Public Ministry?” JBL 116 (1997): 635–672. –. “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians.” JBL 119 (2000): 740–746. Mendels, Doron. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Herod the Great Through to Bar Kochba. Vol. 2 of Ancient Jewish Coinage. New York: Amphora Books, 1982. Mesistrano, Victoria. “Forum.” Pages 148–163 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers, “Sepphoris.” OEANE 4.327–356. Meyers, E.A. The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. SNTSMS 147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Meyers, Eric M., ed. Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. –. “Gush Ḥalav.” NEAEHL 2.546–550. –. “Jesus and his Galilean Context.” Pages 57–66 in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough. SFSHJ 143. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. –. Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. –. “Khirbet Shema‘.” EAEHL 4.1094–1097. –. “Khirbet Shema‘.” OEANE 5.26–27. –. “Meiron.” NEAEHL 3.1024–1027. –. “Nabratein (Kefar Neburaya).” NEAEHL 3.1077–1079. –. “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research.” Pages 321–338 in Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee Levine. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. –. “Secondary Burials in Palestine.” BA 33 (1970): 2–29. –. “Sepphoris: City of Peace.” Pages 110–120 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London: Routledge, 2002. –. “Synagogues of Galilee.” Archaeology 35 (1982): 51–58. –. “The Pools of Sepphoris–Ritual Baths or Bathtubs: Yes, They Are.” BAR 26 (2000): 46– 49, 60–61. Meyers, Eric M., and A. Thomas Kraabel. “Archaeology, Iconography, and Non-Literary Written Remains.” Pages 175–210 in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and W.E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.

420

Bibliography

Meyers, Eric M., and Carol L. Meyers. “Meiron in Upper Galilee.” Pages 379–388 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Meyers, Eric M., Carol L. Meyers, and Benjamin D. Gordon. “B. Residential Area of the Western Summit.” Pages 39–52 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Meyers, Eric M., Carol L. Meyers, and Ehud Netzer. “Sepphoris (Ṣippori), 1986 (I)–Joint Sepphoris Project.” IEJ 37 (1987): 275–288. –. “The Dionysos Mosaic.” Pages 111–115 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Edited by Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. –. “Artistry in Stone: The Mosaics of Ancient Sepphoris.” BA 50 (1987): 223–231. –. Sepphoris. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Meyers, Eric M., and James F. Strange. Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981. –. “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: A Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism.” in ANRW 2.19.1 (1979): 686–702. Meyers, Eric M., James F. Strange, and Carol L. Meyers. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1971–1972, 1974–1975, 1977. Meiron Excavation Project 3. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1981. –. “Preliminary Report on the 1980 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel.” BASOR 244 (1981): 1–26. –. “Second Preliminary Report on the 1981 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel.” BASOR 246 (1982): 35–54. Meyers, Eric M., and Mark A. Chancey. Alexander to Constantine: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Michaels, J. Ramsey. “The Itinerant Jesus and His Hometown.” Pages 177–193 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2002. Millar, Fergus. “Inscriptions, Synagogues and Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine.” JSJ 42 (2011): 253–277. –. The Roman Near East. 31 BCE–337 CE. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1993. Miller, Stuart S. At the Intersection of Texts and Material Finds: Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, and Ritual Purity Among the Jews of Roman Galilee. Gӧttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. –. “Stepped Pools, Stone Vessels, and other Identity Markers of ‘Complex Common Judaism.’” JSJ 41 (2010): 214–243. Misgav, Haggai. “The List of Fast Days from the Synagogue of Rehov.” IMSA 7 (2015): 14– 23. Młynarczyk, Jolanta. “Pottery Report, 2006.” Pages 91–126 in Hippos-Sussita: Seventh Season of Excavation (July 2006). Edited by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. University of Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, 2006. –. “Pottery Report, 2007.” Pages 105–154 in Hippos-Sussita. Eighth Season of Excavations (July 2007). Edited by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark

Secondary Sources

421

Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. University of Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, 2007. –. “Pottery Report, 2008.” Pages 59-109 in Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations (2008). Edited by Arthur Segal, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. University of Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, 2008. Moehring, Horst R. “Joseph Ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian.” ANRW II.21 (1984): 864–944. –. Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus. PhD thesis. Faculty of the Division of the Humanities, University of Chicago, 1957. –. “Review of Shaye Cohen’s, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian.” JJS 31 (1980): 240–241. Moreland, Milton. “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods.” Pages 133–162 in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Mosley, A.W. “Historical Reporting in the Ancient World.” NTS 12 (1966): 10–26. Moule, C.F.D. The Birth of the New Testament. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1962. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. The Holy Land. An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Myles, Robert J. The Homeless Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014. Na’amen, Nadav. “The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory.” SJOT 26 (2012): 88– 101. Nagy, Rebecca Martin, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss, ed. Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Nagar, Yossi. “Biological characteristics of Jewish burial in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods.” IEJ 53 (2003): 164–171. Najjar, Nassim. “Kafr Kanna (A).” ESI 16 (1997): 47–48. Naveh, J. “Inscriptions and Small Finds. Ancient Synagogue Inscriptions.” Pages 133–139 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981. Nelson, Michael C., ed. The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit 1: The Architecture. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 45. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2015. Neusner, Jacob, and Bruce D. Chilton, eds. In Quest of the Historical Pharisees. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Nineham, D.E. The Gospel of Saint Mark. Middlesex: Penguin, 1963. Nobbs, Alanna. “What do Ancient Historians Make of the New Testament?” TynBul 57 (2006): 285–290. Nolland, John. Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. –. Luke 1-9.20. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989. Notley, R. Steven. “Et-Tell is Not Bethsaida.” NEA 70 (2007): 220–230. –. “The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym.” JBL 128 (2009): 183–188. Notley, R. Steven, and Mordechai Aviam. “Searching for Bethsaida: The Case for El-Araj.” BAR 46.2 (2020): 28–39. Notley, R. Steven, and Ze’ev Safrai, eds. Eusebius Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Vol. 9 of Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series. Edited by Marcel

422

Bibliography

J.H.M. Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Freek Van der Steen. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. Novakovic, L. “Israel.” DJG 403. Nun, Mendel. Ancient Stone Anchors and Net Sinkers From the Sea of Galilee. Ein Gev: Kibbutz Ein Gev, 1993. –. Gergesa (Kursi): Site of a Miracle Church & Fishing Village. Ein Gev: Kibbutz Ein Gev, 1989. –. “Ports of Galilee. Modern Drought Reveals Harbors from Jesus’ Time.” BAR 25 (1999): 18–31, 64. –. Sea of Galilee: Newly Discovered Harbours From New Testament Days. 3rd ed. Revised and enlarged. Ein Gev: Ein Gev Kibbutz, 1992. Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940. Olmstead, A.T. Jesus in the Light of History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Oppenheimer, Aharon. Between Rome and Babylon. Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society. Edited by Nili Oppenheimer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Osband, Mechael, and Michael Eisenberg. “Interregional Trade in the Roman Period: A Diachronic Study of Common Kitchenware from Hippos of the Decapolis.” Tel Aviv 45.2 (2018): 273–278. Oster, Richard E. “Supposed Anachronism in Luke–Acts’ Use of συναγωγή: A Rejoinder to H.C. Kee.” NTS 39 (1993): 178–208. Ovadiah R., and A. Ovadiah. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Rome: Bretschneider, 1987. Overman, J. Andrew. “Omrit, Horvat.” NEAEHL 5.1987–1988. Overman, J. Andrew, and Daniel N. Schowalter, eds. The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report. BAR International Series 2205. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011. Painter, John. “Bultmann, Archaeology and the Historical Jesus.” Pages 619–638 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Patterson, Stephen J. “Can You Trust a Gospel? A Review of Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 194–210. Peleg, Orit. “Jordan: Gadara.” NEAEHL 5.1858–1859. Perkins, Pheme. Jesus as Teacher. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pervo, Richard I. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 1. Teil. Einleitung und Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1– 8,26. HThKNT II. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. Pesch, Rudolf. “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac.” ER 23 (1971): 349–376. Piaget, Jean, and Bärbel Inhelder. The Child’s Conception of Space. Translated by F.J. Landon & J.L. Lunzer. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956. Pfann, Stephen, and Yehudah Rapuano. “On the Nazareth Village Farm Report: A Reply to Salm,” BAIAS 26 (2008): 105–108. Pfann, Stephen, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano. “Surveys and Excavations at Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002). Final Report.” BAIAS 25 (2007): 19–79. Pleket, H.W., R.S. Stroud, and J.H.M. Strubbe. “Tiberias. Lead Weight, 30/31 A.D. (431076).” SEG. Edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, R.A. Tybout. Brill

Secondary Sources

423

Online, 2015. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum/tiberias-lead-weight-3031-ad-43-1076-a43_1076 –. “SEG 42-1473. Tiberias. Lead weight, 30/31 A.D.” SEG. Edited by A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, N. Papazarkadas, and R.A. Tybout. . Porat, Leea. “Horbat ‘Eved.” HA–ESI 120 (2008): n.p. Released 16/07/2008. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=824&mag_id=114 Porter, Benjamin W. “Clay Lamps Shed New Light on Daily Life in Antiquity.” NEA 67 (2004): 174–175. Prausnitz, Moshe W. “Achzib.” NEAEHL 1.32. –. “Achziv.” OEANE 1.13–14. Pummer, Reinhard. “Samaritanism.” EDEJ 1186–1187. Qedar, Shraga. “Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early History of Tiberias.” INJ 9 (1986): 29–35. Rajak, Tessa. “Iulius Agrippa II, Marcus.” OCD 779. –. Josephus. The Historian and His Society. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 2002. –. “Ptolemais.” OCD 1271. –. “The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus.” Pages 1–14 in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Rappaport, Uriel. “The Great Revolt: An Overview.” Pages 9–14 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra Guri-Rimon. Hecht Museum: University of Haifa, 2008. Rappaport, Uriel, and Sylvie Cohen. “Les Juifs et leurs voisens à l’époque perse, hellénistique et romain.” Annales: Histoire, Sciences, Sociales 5 (1996): 955–974. Rapske, Brian M. “Travel and Trade.” DNTB 1247. Redman, Judith. “How accurate are Eyewitnesses? Bauckham and the Eyewitnesses in the Light of Psychological Research.” JBL 129 (2010): 177-197. Reed, Jonathan L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. –. “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective,” JBL 129 (2010): 343–365. Reich, Ronny. “Ritual Baths.” OEANE 4.430–431. –. “The Persian Building at Ayyelet ha-Shaḥar: The Assyrian Palace of Hazor?” IEJ 25.4 (1975): 233–237. Reisner, Rainer. “Geography of Galilee and Judaea.” EHJ 216–217. Richardson, Peter. Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. –. “Khirbet Qana (and other Villages) as a Context for Jesus.” Pages 120–144 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. –. “What has Cana to do with Capernaum?” NTS 48 (2002): 314–331. Robinson, Edward. Biblical Researches in Palestine and the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Years 1838–1852. 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1856. –. Physical Geography of the Holy Land: A Supplement. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1865. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q. Hermeneia–A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible: Supplements. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000. Rodgers, Zuleika, Margaret Daly-Denton and Anne Fitzpatrick McKinley, eds. A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne. London; Boston: Brill, 2009.

424

Bibliography

Rodríguez, Rafael. “Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 152–167. Root, Bradley W. First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources. WUNT 2. Reihe 378. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Roskam, H.N. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context. NovTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Rubio, Fernando Bermejo. “The Fiction of the ‘Three Quests’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Historiographical Paradigm.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 211–253. Runesson, Anders. “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation.” Pages 231–257 in Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. Edited by Zangenberg et al. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Runesson, Anders, Donald D. Binder and Birger Olsson. The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Russel, Kenneth W. “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-8th Century A.D.” BASOR 260 (1985): 37–59. Ryan, Jordan J. The Role of the Synagogue in the Aims of Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017. Salm, René. The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus. Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2008. Sanders, E.P. “How Do We Know What We Know about Jesus?” Pages 38–61 in Jesus Two Thousand Years Later. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver. Faith and Scholarship Colloquies. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. –. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM Press, 1985. –. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. London: SCM Press, 1990. –. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin Books, 1993. –. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Savage, Carl E. Biblical Bethsaida: An Archaeological Study of the First Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011. –. “Supporting Evidence for a First-Century Bethsaida.” Pages 193–206 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Sawicki, Marianne. Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Schadewaldt, Wolfgang. “The Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition.” Pages 89–113 in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, by Martin Hengel. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1985. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1919. –. “Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen Literaturge-schichte.” Pages 50–134 in vol. 2 of ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Edited by Hans Schmidt. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1923. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Jesus and the Twelve. Vol. 1 of Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Introduction and Commentary on Chapters 1–4. Vol. 1 of The Gospel According to St. John. Translated by Kevin Smyth. London: Burns & Oates, 1968. Schowalter, Daniel N. “The Omrit Temple Excavations: Recovering History in the Upper Galilee.” EC 10.3 (2019): 315–352.

Secondary Sources

425

Schuler, Mark. “Northeast Insula Project (NIP).” Pages 71–77 in Hippos-Sussita: Eleventh Season of Excavations (July 2010). Edited by Arthur Segal, Mark Schuler, and Michael Eisenberg. Haifa, Israel: Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2010). Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 4th ed. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901–1909. –. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C – A.D. 135). 3 vols. Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987. Schuster, Ruth. “Miracle of the Multiplication Mosaic Found on the ‘Wrong’ Side of the Sea of Galilee.” Haaretz, August 21 (2019): np. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-miracle-of-the-multiplication-mosaic-found-on-wrong-side-of-seaof-galilee-1.7729171. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Translated by John Bowden. London: A&C Black, 1954. Translation of Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906. Seeman, Chris. “Phoenicia.” EDEJ 1082–1085. Segal, Arthur. “Basilica.” Pages 164–181 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. –. “Decapolis.” EDEJ 528–530. –. “Hellenistic Sanctuary.” Pages 128–147 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. –. “Hippos (Sussita).” NEAEHL 5.1782–1787. –. “Odeion.” Pages 182–193 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. –. “Urban plan and city landscape.” Pages 64–85 in vol. 1 of Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Edited by Arthur Segal, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. Segal, Arthur, and Michael Eisenberg. “Sussita-Hippos of the Decapolis: Town Planning and Architecture of a Roman-Byzantine City.” NEA 70 (2007): 86–107. Segal, Arthur, Michael Eisenberg, Jolanta Młynarczyk, Mariusz Burdajewicz, and Mark Schuler, eds. Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations (2000–2011). Vol. 1. Haifa, Israel: The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, 2013. Shahar, Yuval. “Comparable Elements between the Galilee and Judea in the Great Revolt.” Pages 29–37 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra Guri-Rimon. Hecht Museum: University of Haifa, 2008. Shaked, Idan, and Dina Avshalom-Gorni. “Jewish Settlement in the Southeastern Hula Valley in the First Century CE.” Pages 28–36 in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards. New York, NY: Routledge, 2004.

426

Bibliography

Shanks, Hershel, ed. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2011. Shatzman, Israel. The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod. TSAJ 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Sheppard, Beth M. The Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament. RBS 60. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Sherwin-White, Adrian N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. The Sarum Lectures, 1960–1961. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Shroder, J.F. Jr., M.P. Bishop, K.J. Cornwell, and M. Inbar. “Catastrophic Geomorphic Processes and Bethsaida Archaeology, Israel.” Pages 115–173 in vol. 2 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999. Shroder, John F. Jr., Harry D. Jol, and Philip P. Reeder, “El Araj as Bethsaida: Spatial and Temporal Improbabilities.” Pages 293–309 in vol. 4 of Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2009. Smallwood, E.M. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Smith, Catherine Delano. “Cartography in the Prehistoric Period in the Old World: Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.” Pages 54–101 in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Edited by J.B. Harley and David Wordward. Vol. 1 of History of Cartography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Smith, Mark D. “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Fate of Bethsaida.” Pages 252–272 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. Stanton, Graham N. Jesus and Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Stepansky, Yosef, “Tiberias.” NEAEHL 5.2048–2053. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: Edited with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–1984. Strange, James F. “Archaeology of Galilee and Judea.” EHJ 35–41. –. “Cana of Galilee.” ABD 1.827. –. “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and From the Texts.” Pages 39–48 in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Edited by Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997. –. “Galilee.” DNTB 391–398. –. “Gush Ḥalav.” Pages 389–403 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “Magdala.” ABD 4.463–464. –. “Nazareth.” ABD 4.1050–1051. –. “Sepphoris.” ABD 5.1090–1093. –. “Sepphoris: A. The Jewel of the Galilee.” Pages 22–38 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015.

Secondary Sources

427

–. “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983–1989.” Pages 339–347 in Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. –. “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies.” Pages 23–59 in What Has Archaeology to Do with Faith? Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter Weaver. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1992. Strange, James F., Dennis E. Groh, Thomas R.W. Longstaff. “Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin.” IEJ 44 (1944): 216–227; 45 (1995): 171–187. Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Edited by Peter C. Hodgson. Translated by George Eliot. London: SCM Press, 1973. Translation of Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet. Tübingen: Verlag von C.F. Osiander, 1835. Strickert, Fred. “The Founding of the City of Julias by the Tetrarch Philip in 30 CE.” JJS 61 (2010): 220–233. –. “The Renaming of Bethsaida in Honor of Livia, a.k.a. Julia, the Daughter of Caesar, in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.27–28.” Pages 93–113 in vol. 3 of Bethsaida: A City on the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Edited by Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2004. Sussmann, Jacob. “A Halakhic Inscription from the Bet-She’an Valley.” Tarbiz 43 (1974): 88–158 [Hebrew]. –. “The Boundaries of Eretz-Israel.” Tarbiz 45 (1976): 213–257 [Hebrew]; II-III [English summary]. –. “The Inscription in the Synagogue at Reḥob.” Pages 146–151 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Edited by Lee I. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981. Suter, David W. “Paneion.” EDEJ 1021–1022. Syon, Danny. “‘City of Refuge’ The Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 53–66 in The Great Revolt in the Galilee. Edited by Ofra Guri-Rimon. Hecht Museum: University of Haifa, 2008. –. “Coins from the Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara.” Pages 123–124 in Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Edited by Zvi Gal. Jerusalem: IAA, 2002. –. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. NSR 11. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society, 2015. –. “The Coins of Gamala: An Interim Report.” INJ 12 (1992/93): 34–55. Syon, Danny, and Edna J. Stern. “Excavations at the Dar el-Gharbiya Neighbourhood of Kafr Yasif: A Crusader Estate in the Territory of ‘Akko.” ‘Atiqot 79 (2014): 233–261. Syon, Danny, and Zvi Yavor. “Gamala.” NEAEHL 5.1739–1742. Tadmor, Hayim. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007. Tadmor, Hayim, and Shigeo Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744– 727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria. RINAP 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. –. “Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary ‘Magdalene’.” PEQ 146.3 (2014): 205–223. –. The Body in Biblical, Christian and Jewish Texts. London: T&T Clark Bloomsbury, 2014. –. The Essenes, the Scrolls and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. –. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997.

428

Bibliography

Taylor, Joan E., and Federico Adinolfi. “John the Baptist and Jesus the Baptist: A Narrative Critical Approach.” JSHJ 10 (2012): 247–284. Tessler, Yitzhak. “Ancient Synagogue Discovered in Galilee.” Y Net News. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L–4841308,00.html. Thackeray, Henry St. John. Josephus, the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929. Theissen, Gerd. “Jesus as an Itinerant Teacher: Reflections from Social History on Jesus’ Roles.” Pages 98–122 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. The First Princeton–Prague Symposium on Jesus Research. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. –. The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1978. –. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998. Trebilco, Paul R. “Paul and Silas–‘Servants of the Most High God,’ (Acts 16.16–18).” JSNT 36 (1989): 51–73. Troche, Facundo D. “Ancient Fishing Methods and Fishing Grounds in the Lake of Galilee.” PEQ 148.4 (2016): 281–293. Tsafrir, Yoram, Leah Di Segni, and Judith Green. Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods: Maps and Gazetteer. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, 1994. Tuckett, Christopher M. Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. –. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Twelftree, Graham H. “Jesus the Baptist.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 103–125. Tzaferis, Vassilios. “A Pilgrimage to the Site of the Swine Miracle.” BAR 15.2 (1989): 44– 51. –. “Banias.” NEAEHL 5.1587–1592. –. “Kursi.” NEAEHL 3.893–896. Uqsa, Hana Abu, and Nassim Najar. “Kafr Kanna (B).” ESI 16 (1997): 48–49. Urman, Dan. “Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura in the Golan,” IEJ 22 (1972): 16–23. –. “Public Structures and Jewish Communities in the Golan Heights.” Pages 373–606 in vol. 2 of Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. Vol. 47.2 of Studia Post-Biblica. Edited by David S. Katz Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. The Golan: A Profile of a Region during the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1985. Vermes, Geza. Christian Beginnings From Nazareth to Nicea (AD 30–325). London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books, 2012. –. Jesus in his Jewish Context. London: SCM Press, 2003. –. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Vieweger, Dieter. “Tel Zira‘a.” NEAEHL 5.1841–1843. Vinson, Richard B. “Gaulanitis.” NIDB, 2.526. Vitto, Fanny. “A Roman-Period Burial Cave on Ha-Ḥoresh Street, Qiryat Tiv‘on.” ‘Atiqot 65 (2011): 27–61. –. “Rehob.” NEAEHL 4.1272–1274.

Secondary Sources

429

–. “Wall Paintings in the Synagogue of Rehov: An Account of Their Discovery.” IMSA 7 (2015): 2–13. Von Wahlde, Urban C. “Archaeology and John’s Gospel.” Pages 523–586 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006. Wachsmann, Shelley. “Sea of Galilee.” EHJ (2008): 557–560. –. The Sea of Galilee Boat: An Extraordinary 2000 Year Old Discovery. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1995. Wachsmann, Shelley, and Kurt Raveh. “Ginnosar.” NEAEHL 2.520. Walton, Steve. “What are the Gospels? Richard Burridge’s Impact on Scholarly Understanding of the Genre of the Gospels.” CBR 14 (2015): 81–93. Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Webb, Robert L. “Jesus’ Baptism by John: Its Historicity and Significance.” Pages 95-150 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Weber, Thomas M. “Gadara and the Galilee.” Pages 449–477 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wechsler, Neta, Oded Katz, Yehoshua Dray, Ilana Gonen, and Shmuel Marco, “Estimating Location and Size of Historical Earthquake by Combining Archaeology and Geology in Umm-El-Qanatir, Dead Sea Transform.” Natural Hazards (2008). Published online: DOI 10.1007/s11069-008-9315–6. Wedderburn, Alexander J.M. Jesus and the Historians. WUNT 269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Weeden, Sr. Theodore J. “Kenneth Bailey’s Theory of Oral Tradition: A Theory Contested by its Evidence.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 3–43. Weeden, Sr. Theodore J. “Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” JSHJ 6 (2008): 211–224. Weiss, Zeev. “C. From Galilean Town to Roman City, 100-200 CE.” Pages 58–73 in The Archaeological Record from Cities, Towns, and Villages. Vol. 2 of Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Edited by David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. –. “Sepphoris.” NEAEHL 5.2029. –. “The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic.” BAR 26 (2000): 48–61, 70. Weiss, Zeev, and Ehud Netzer, “The Mosaics of the Nile Festival Building.” Pages 127–131 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Edited by Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. –. “The Synagogue Mosaic.” Pages 133–139 in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Edited by Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Weksler-Bdolah, S. “An Excavation at Tel Nov.” ‘Atiqot 39 (2000): 13–16 [Hebrew]; 194 [English summary]. Wilkins, Michael J. “Peter’s Declaration concerning Jesus’ Identity in Caesarea Philippi.” Pages 293–381 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrel L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Wilkinson, John. Egeria’s Travels. London: SPCK, 1973.

430

Bibliography

Wilson, John Francis. Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan. London: I.B. Tauros, 2004. –. “Paneas, Caesarea Philippi and the World of the Gospels.” Forum. Third Series 3 (2014): 7–26. Wilson, Kevin A. “Geshur, Geshurites.” NIDB 2.560. Wineland, John D. “Decapolis.” NIDB 2.77–80. Winter, Bruce W. “Acts and Food Shortages.” Pages 59–78 in The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting. Edited by David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf. Vol. 2 of The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1994. –., ed. The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vols. 1–5. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993–1999. Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. –. Women and the Genesis of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. The Library of Theological Translations. Translated by James C. G. Grieg. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971. Translation of Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 1996. –. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. –. Who Was Jesus? London: SPCK, 1992. Yadin, Yigael. “Hazor.” NEAEHL 2.594–603. Yeivin, S. “Historical and Archaeological Notes.” Pages 17–34 in Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931. Edited by Leroy Waterman. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1937. Yeivin, Zeev. “Chorazin.” NEAEHL 1.301–304. Younger, K. Lawson Jr., “The Deportations of the Israelites.” JBL 177 (1998): 201–227. Zangenberg, Jürgen K. “Anchoring Ancient Galilee at the Lakeshore: Towards Re-conceptualizing Ancient Galilee as a Mediterranean Environment.” EC 10.3 (2019): 265–291. –. “Archaeological News from the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee.” EC 1.3 (2010): 471–484. –. “Observations on the Function, Character and Location of the New Testament Toponym Γεννησαρέτ (Mk 6:53; Mt 14:34).” Pages 439–370 in Jesus, Paul and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan de Jonge. Edited by R. Buitenwerf, H.W. Hollander, and J. Tromp. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Zangenberg, Jürgen, Harold W. Attridge and Dale B. Martin, eds. Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Zapata-Meza, Marcela, Andrea Garza, Diaz Barriga and Rosaura Sanz-Rincón, “The Magdala Archaeological Project (2010–2012): A Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Migdal.” ‘Atiqot 90 (2018): 83–125. Zingboym, Oren. “Tell Selukiyeh: Final Report.” HA-ESI 121 (2009): n.p. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1244&mag_id=115 –. “Qazrin: Final Report.” HA–ESI 126 (2014): n.p. http: www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=10614&mag_id=121 Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Der See Gennesaret in hellenistischer und frührömischer Zeit.” ZNW 104 (2013): 153–176.

Online Databases

431

–. “The Huleh Valley from the Iron Age to the Muslim Period.” Pages 163–192 in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin. WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007.

Online Databases Online Databases Bethsaida Excavations Project: https://bethsaidaarchaeology.org/ Centre for Online Judaic Studies (COJS). http://cojs.org/cojs-jewish-history-101/Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel (HA–ESI) IAA e-journal: www.hadashot-esi.org.il Hippos-Sussita Excavations Project. The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa. http://hippos.haifa.ac.il Israel Antiquities Authority, “The Archaeological Survey of Israel.” http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx Kursi Beach Excavation. http://www.kursibeachexcavation.com/ Marginalia Review of Books: http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/

Index of References Index of References

Old Testament Joshua 12.5 13.11 13.13

376–377 376 376

42.6 49.6 56.3−8

331 331 331

2 Kings 15.29 17.3−6

82−83, 157 82

Ezekiel 47.13 47.15−18

282 282

Isaiah 8.23 (MT) 9.1 (LXX)

156−157 156−157

Joel 3.4 (LXX) 4.4 (MT)

156, 158 158

Deuterocanonical Books 1 Maccabees 5.9 5.24 5.30−36 5.45 5.52−54 5.15−17 5.15

352 352 352 352 352 73 156−157

5.21−23 5.26 10.30 11.28 11.34 11.67 15.33

73 364 73 73 73 176 282

New Testament [Q source] 7.3 7.6−9 7.22 9.58 10.5

149 149 383 5, 200 201

10.7−8 10.10−11 10.13−15 10.13 13.34

201 212 6 175, 208, 210, 337 394

434

Index of References

Matthew 2.14 2.22 2.23 3.1 3.8−9 3.13−16 4.12 4.13 4.15 4.17 4.18−20 4.23 4.25 5.17−20 8.1 8.5 8.11 8.13 8.14−16 8.14 8.18 8.20 8.28 9.1−8 9.1 9.9 9.35 10.1 10.5−15 10.5−6 10.7 10.10b−12 10.14 10.17 11.1

58 58 132 43 42 42 4, 58 4, 132, 148 155−157 4, 43 149 4, 158 4 158 4 4, 148, 149, 158 158 148, 149 148 149 4, 59 5, 200 347, 373 148 148−149 149 4 47 4 47, 53, 158 47 201 212 4, 158 4

11.5 11.13−14 11.21−24 11.21 11.23 12.3−4 12.5 12.9 12.11−12 12.14−15 12.15 12.39−41 12.42 13.54 14.34 15.21 15.22 15.24 15.26 15.29–39 15.29 16.13−16 16.13 17.24 19.1−2 19.16−22 20.29 21.1 21.10 21.11 23.6 23.37 26.71 27.56

383 158 6 175, 208, 210, 337 148 158 158 4 158 59 4 158 158 4, 132, 158 4, 176 4, 158 299, 330 47, 158, 332, 352 158 348 386 4, 10 4, 260−261 4 4 158 5 5 5 132 158 394 132 144

Mark 1.4 1.9 1.14 1.14−15 1.16−18 1.17 1.21 1.24 1.29−34 1.29 1.32−33

42 2, 42, 132 43, 58 2, 43−45 149 3 2, 148−149 2, 132 2, 148 10, 149 2

1.38−39 1.38 1.39 2.1−12 2.1−2 2.1 2.5 2.13−17 2.13−14 2.13 2.14

221 2, 52−53 2, 53, 161, 197 148 2 2, 148 151 148 149 2 3

435

Index of References Mark (cont.) 3.1 3.7−9 3.8 3.14 3.20 3.31−32 4.1 5.1−20 5.1 5.9 5.11–13 5.20 5.21 5.24 5.38−39 6.1−2 6.1 6.2 6.6b−13 6.6b 6.10 6.11 6.30−32 6.31 6.34−36 6.34 6.39 6.45−46 6.45 6.53 6.54−56 6.56 7.1−23 7.17 7.24−27 7.24 7.25−30 7.27 7.31−8.10

2 2 221 53 2 2 2 352, 373−377 2, 347, 373−377 350 350 2, 347 2 2 2 2 2, 132 133 53 2, 197−198, 221 201 212 59 2 385 2 395 59 207, 209 2, 176 2 2, 198, 221 327 2 327 2, 10, 299 299 331−332 352

Luke 1.1−4 1.26 2.4 2.39 2.51 3.1 3.8

11 132 132 132 132 264 42

7.31

8.34 9.2 9.14 9.33−35 9.33 10.1 10.10−11 10.17 10.28−30 10.32 10.46 10.47 11.1−3 11.1 11.7−8 11.11−12 11.11 11.18 14.3−9 14.3 14.67 15.40−41 16.6

2, 10, 299−300, 338, 343, 345−346, 348, 381–382 348, 382−383 383 2, 382 383 382 348, 382, 384−385 2, 382, 385 2, 177 209 2, 10, 207 10 2, 259−261, 291, 298 2, 297 293, 394 2, 297 2 148 2, 16 212 3 200 3 2, 16 2, 132 394 2 2 394 2 61 2 394 2, 132 144, 199 2, 132

4.14−16 4.16 4.23 4.31 4.33 4.34 4.38

4 4, 132 4, 148 4, 149 4 132 4, 149

7.32−7.37 7.32 7.33 7.34 7.37 8.1−10 8.1 8.10 8.22−25 8.22 8.27−30 8.27

436

Index of References

Luke (cont.) 4.40−41 4.43−44 5.1−3 5.1 5.9−11 5.17−26 5.19 5.27−28 6.6 6.17 7.1−5 7.1−2 7.1 7.5 7.11 7.22 8.1−3 8.26 8.49 9.1−6 9.4 9.10–12

148 4 149 4 149 148 4, 151 149 4 4 149 149 4, 148 4, 149 4, 6 383 4, 144, 199 4, 347, 376 144 4 201 248

9.10 9.51−52 9.52 9.58 10.1−12 10.1 10.5 10.7−8 10.13−15 10.13 13.34 17.11–12 17.11 18.35 18.37 19.1−2 19.29 23.49 23.55−56 24.1 24.6−10 24.19

4, 207, 385 394 4, 6 5, 200 4 394 201 201 5 175, 208, 210, 337 394 349 4 5 132 6 5 144 144 144 144 132

John 1.43 1.44 1.45−46 2.1 2.6 2.11 2.12 4.3 4.43 4.45−46 4.46−56 4.46 4.54

6 207 133 6, 153 90, 153 6, 153 148 6 6 6 153 6, 150 6

6.1 6.17 6.23 6.24 6.59 7.41 7.52 11.47−48 12.21 18.5, 7 19.19 21.2 21.24−25

348, 385 148 6 148 149 6 6 61 207, 232 133 133 6, 153 11

Acts 2.22 3.6 4.10 6.14 9.1−2 10.37−38 10.38 14.1

133 133 133 133 282 6 133 50

14.19 16.13−16 17.10−11 18.1−2 22.8 24.5 26.9

50 137 50 50 133 133 133

437

Index of References

Ancient Jewish Writers Genesis Apocryphon 1QapGen 21 282 Josephus Against Apion 1.70 1.197 2.10 2.202 2.237

307 175 137 186 50

Antiquities 5.84 5.86 5.178 11.173 12.331 12.334 13.49−54 13.50 13.318−319 13.318 13.332 13.337−338 13.356 13.393−394 13.394 13.396 14.39 14.74−76 14.74 14.75−76 14.120 14.126 14.158 14.196−198 14.209 14.258 14.271 14.297−298 14.313−323

282 282 282, 342 49−50 73, 158 73 73 56 273 56 126 126 352 219, 223, 243, 352 261−262 216, 262 262 221, 353 222 262 144 262 306 306 306 137 306 306 306

Life 10 26 30−31

122 349 127

14.330 14.394 14.410 15.217 15.294 15.344−349 15.359−363 15.359−360 15.360 15.363−364 17.23−27 17.24 17.289 17.320 18.4 18.23 18.27−28 18.27 18.28 18.36 18.85−87 18.106−108 18.106 18.107 18.121−122 18.153 18.237 18.252 18.269 18.272 19.274 19.343−352 20.17 20.38 20.41 20.75 20.118 30.139 20.159 20.169−171

262 149 149 353 149 264 216 261, 264 217 261 264 262 126−127 354 220 220 233 126 208, 216, 259, 261 136, 142 61 264 219 291 149 340 264 264 137 137 264 265 49−50 49−50 49 49−50 195 49−50 138, 145 61

32−36 37−38 37

138 138 136

438

Index of References

38 42 43−45 44 52 53 54−55 55 59 61 65−66 70−73 74−76 74−75 74 81−82 85 86 97 111 118 123−124 124 126−132 129−141 142−143 149−153 157 159 162 163

127 139 122, 158 354 251, 261 251, 261, 267 267 261, 267 251, 261 261, 267 138 122 122 266 261, 268, 282 127 136, 142 153 145 127 184 136 127 138 138 145 145 144 144 145 139, 144−145, 185

165 167−169 186−187 187−188 187 188 189 232 234 277 280 297 321−322 341−342 346−350 346 348 349 354 373−376 381−384 394 398−404 398 399−406 399−400 399 403 404 411

139 139 219−220 124, 127, 144, 171−172 215−216, 223 137 122 126 124, 184 137 137 137 184 139 128 126 127 348 137 127 139 127 233 266 185 184 148 148 144 127

War 1.21 1.86 1.104−106 1.104−105 1.105 1.147 1.155−157 1.155−156 1.155 1.170 1.180 1.238 1.290 1.301−302 1.304−308 1.304−305

51 352 261 219 243, 261−262 306 262, 353 221, 353 222 126 144 306 149 149 126 149

1.329 1.351 1.396 1.397 1.398−400 1.400−406 1.400 1.404−406 1.404 1.422 1.667 2.67−68 2.93−97 2.93−95 2.94−100 2.95

149 149 353 149 261 216 217 261 216, 261 306 150 126−127 150 264 223 216−217

439

Index of References War (cont.) 2.97 2.117−118 2.118 2.168 2.181 2.188 2.192−193 2.193 2.215 2.232 2.247 2.252−253 2.458−459 2.459 2.461−462 2.466 2.477−479 2.477–478 2.503 2.511 2.520 2.252−253 2.252 2.568 2.573−574 2.573 2.574 2.575 2.576 2.583 2.588 2.591−592 2.595−599 2.598−619 2.599 2.608 2.629 2.632−641 2.634−635 2.634

354 126 220 136, 215−216, 233, 261, 264 264 159, 304 265 137 264 51, 195 265 265 353–354 312 354 349 309 354 303 126−127 51 145, 265 138 219−220 220 124, 137, 144, 171−172 127, 215−216, 219, 223 122, 124 183 183 309 268 138 138 144 144 127 139, 144 144 145

2.635 2.641 2.645−646 3.30−34 3.30 3.35−38 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.42−43 3.43 3.47 3.68 3.111 3.118−126 3.141−147 3.158−160 3.161−288 3.181−182 3.335−338 3.336−339 3.444−466 3.445 3.445−462 3.463−466 3.492 3.508 3.516−521 3.519 3.532−537 3.542 4.2 4.10 4.11−53 4.68−83 4.11 4.99−100 4.104−105 4.104 4.105 4.106−120

185 144, 185 127 126 127 67 303 149 215, 219 70, 303, 312 70, 303−304 183 194 375 126 124 194 124 124 124 124 183 124 139 145 144 145 145 194 194 148 145 354 216 244 244 244 142 122 312 67 51, 158 122

309

Flaccus 1 41

50 137, 161

Philo Embassy 281

440 43 45−47 45 47 Good Person 75 81−82

Index of References 50 50 137, 161 50, 137, 161

56 96, 161

On the Virtues 102−103 108

51 51

Special Laws 1.51−53 2.163 2.166 4.179 4.224

51 49 49 49 49

Graeco-Roman Literature Dio Cassius Roman History 37.16.5−37.17.1 60.8.2 69.14.1

Ptolemy

52 56, 264 175

Herodotus History 2.3 3.91

56 56

Pliny the Elder Natural History 5.66−67 5.66 5.70 5.71 5.74 5.77

301 56, 340 56, 78 136, 144, 176, 208, 232, 261, 348 261, 340, 349, 353 340

Polybius History 5.71.3 16.18.2 28.1.3

352 261 261

Geography 5.15.5 5.15.6−6 5.15.21 5.15.22 5.16.1−8 5.16.4

301 56 261 340, 353 56 78, 126, 136, 179, 208, 232

Strabo Geography 16.2.2 16.2.16 16.2.20 16.2.21−24 16.2.21 16.2.34 16.2.37 16.2.40 16.2.45 16.2.46 16.2.45 17.2.5

49, 56 176, 194, 340 217, 261 301 243 56, 78 305 349 143, 194 217, 353 143 185

Suetonius Titus 4.3

144, 244

441

Index of References Tacitus Histories 2.78 5.1−2 5.5.3

56 56 185

5.6.1 5.8 5.8.1

194 51, 56 175

Annals 12.23.1

56

Early Christian Writings and/or Gnostic Writings Gospel of Thomas 14.4a−b 86

201 6

Epiphanius Panarion 29.7.7 30.18.1 30.2.7−8

74.10 74.13 110.27 138.24 172.1−3

347 377 264 133 296

Jerome 341−342 296 296

De Viris Illustribus 3 341−342

Eusebius

Justin Martyr

Ecclesiastical History 6.18 261

Dialogue 47

Onomasticon 22.19–20 32.16 58.11 64.1 68.8 72.18

Origen 358 353 232 377 377 158

295

Comm. Jo. 6.24

374, 377

Contr. Cels 25.5

50

Rabbinic Works Mishnah ‘Abod. Zar. 1.4 ‘Abod. Zar. 4.12 ‘Arak. 9.6 B. Bat. 3.2 Demai 1.3 Giṭ. 1.5; 7.7 Hal. 4.8 Ketub. 13.10 Menaḥ. 8.3 Šeb. 6.1

349 349 123 221 303 179 303 221 178 277, 303, 309

Šeb. 9.2

179, 221

Tosefta B. Meṣ. 6.3 Demai 4.13 Hal. 2.6 Giṭ. 7.9 Kelim 5.6 Ma‘aś. Š. 3.18 Menaḥ. 9.5 Mo‘ed Qaṭ.

179 178 303 195 176 309 123 309

442 Pesaḥ. 1.27−28 Sanh. 2.3 Šeb. 4 Šeb. 4.8−11 Šeb. 4.9 Šeb. 7.11 Šeb. 7.15 Ter. 2.13

Index of References 309 221 277, 279 303 311 176 178 309

Sipre Deuteronomy 51 277, 279, 303

Sipre BeHar 4.1

221

Palestinian Talmud Demai 2.1 [22d] 311 Ma‘aś. 1.1 [48d] 176 Meg. 1.5 [70a] 176 Sanh. 3.10 [21d] 179 Šeb. 6.1 [36c] 277 Šeb. 9.1 [38c] 179 Yebam. 2.4a.6 178

Index of Modern Authors Index of Modern Authors Aden-Bayewitz, David 103−107, 151, 325−326, 349 Adler, Yonatan 91, 361, 370 Albright, William 131 Alexandré, Yardenna 132−135, 155 Aliquot, Julien 339−340 Allison, Jr., Dale C. 44 Anderson, Paul 24−25 Appold, Mark 237−238, 240 Arav, Rami 231, 235−237, 239 Artzy, Michal 363 Ashkenazi, Jacob 12 Aviam, Mordechai 51, 88−89, 103, 116, 169, 181, 189, 195, 303, 310, 312, 324 Avi-Yonah, Michael 183 Avshalom-Gorni, Dina 98, 145, 271, 286−287, 324 Bagatti, Bellarmino 133 Bar, Doran 170−171 Barclay, John 308 Batey, Richard 131 Bauckham, Richard 178, 254−255, 329 Ben David, Chaim 180−181, 222, 246, 277, 349, 359−361, 364−365 Berlin, Andrea 88, 225−226, 245−246, 270, 273−275, 284−285, 312 Berman, Ariel 134, 356, 358 Bilde, Per 26−29, 31−32 Black, C. Clifton 12 Broshi, Magen 186−187, 189 Bultmann, Rudolf 9−10, 22, 53, 160, 168, 208−210, 292, 294, 299, 332 Burridge, Richard A. 18−22 Carter, Warren 14

Chancey, Mark 84−86, 92, 121, 123, 149, 156−157, 329 Chapman, Dean 300, 343−346, 375 Charlesworth, James H. 15, 37 Cohen, Daniel 380 Cohen, Haim 363 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 27 Cohen, Sylvie 305 Collins, Adela Yarbro 19, 198, 260, 292−294, 299, 327−328, 332−333, 351, 383 Corbo, Virgilio 145 Cranfield, C.E.B. 376 Crossan, John Dominic 1, 7, 23−25, 91 Culpepper, R. Alan 37 Dark, Ken 134−135, 177, 182 De Luca, Stefano 142, 145, 252 Dever, William 35 Downing, F. Gerald 46, 81, 126 Dunn, James D.G. 44−45, 58, 395 Dvorjetski, Esti 353, 358, 372 Edwards, Douglas 154 Eisenberg, Michael 355−357 Elliot, John 49, 54, 84 Evans, Craig A. 41−42, 279 Ferreira, Johan 296 Fine, Steven 278 Fisher, Toni 240−241 France, R.T. 297, 328, 332, 377-378, 384 Frankel, Rafael 74, 181−182, 278−281, 298, 303−304, 310−312, 319−320, 323−324 Frendo, Anthony 36, 39

444

Index of Modern Authors

Freund, Richard A. 232, 234 Freyne, Sean 79−80, 82, 110, 141, 157, 184−185, 280, 282−283, 298, 307, 342−343 Funk, Robert W. et al. 44, 200−201, 210 Gal, Zvi 83, 181 Galili, Ehud 251 Getzov, Nimrod 324 Gnilka, Joachim 12−13, 79, 162, 168, 378 Gregg, Robert 288−289 Grootkerk, Salomon E. 319, 324, 326 Guelich, Robert A. 381 Guignebert, Charles 11, 168, 299−300 Gundry, Robert H. 254, 294, 333−334, 343, 375 Gutman, Shmaryahu 244 Haber, Susan 195 Hachlili, Rachel 97−98 Häkkinen, Sakari 296 Harrocks, Rebecca 334 Hartal, Moshe 217−218, 270, 273−274 Herbert, Sharon 284−285, 312 Hezser, Catherine 11, 203−204 Hirschfeld, Yizhar 140 Hooker, Morna 339 Horsley, Richard 82−83, 97−98, 160−161

Lofreda, Stanislao 145 Lohmeyer, Ernst 11, 16 Luomanen, Petri 296 Luttikhuizen, Gerald P. 296 Ma‘oz, Zvi Uri 217−218, 269, 271, 274, 363–365 Magen, Yitzhak 90−91 Marcus, Joel 13, 18, 294, 339 Marquis, Timothy Lukritz 74 Mason, Steve 29−30, 137 McGeough, Kevin 37 McIver, Robert 23 Meier, John Paul 47, 199, 205, 209, 300, 330−332, 373−374, 377, 381– 382, 384 Merz, Annette 37 Meyers, Carol 81, 128−131 Meyers, E.A. 269 Meyers, Eric 81−82, 123, 128−132, 142, 189, 193, 314, 356, 373 Millar, Fergus 180 Miller, Stuart S. 91 Młynarczyk, Jolanta 357−358 Moreland, Milton 307−308 Myles, Robert 54−55, 58 Nagar, Yossi 201−202 Najjar, Arfan 98, 145 Netzer, Ehud 128, 130−131 Notley, R. Steven 237, 242−243 Nun, Mendel 251−252, 362, 372

Isaac, Benjamin 195−196, 329, 367 Jenks, Gregory 134, 236 Jensen, Morton Hørning 88, 102, 129, 329 Kee, Howard Clark 97, 160−161 Klausner, Joseph 167 Kloppenborg, John S. 23, 96−97, 209−211, 300 Kokkinos, Nikos 238 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 237 Leibner, Uzi 117, 176, 180−181, 192−193, 239 Lena, Anna 142, 252 Lightfoot, Robert 11−12, 16−17

Ogg, George 168−169 Olive, Jack 154 Overman, J. Andrew 275 Paz, Yizhak 98−99 Pesch, Rudolf 332, 374, 378, 381 Rajak, Tessa 27−29, 31−32 Rappaport, Uriel 185, 305 Reed, Jonathan 84−86, 88, 91, 128, 130−132, 133, 181, 188−192, 213 Reisner, Rainer 177 Richardson, Peter 154, 188 Roll, Israel 195, 329 Root, Bradley 24, 59, 161 Rosen, Baruch 251

Index of Modern Authors Rozenberg, Silvia 275 Runesson, Anders 96 Ryan, Jordan 54, 98, 283 Salm, René 132, 135 Sanders, E.P. 40−41, 44 Savage, Carl 87, 231, 237, 240−242 Schmidt, Karl Ludwig 9, 203 Schnabel, Eckhard 46, 169−170 Schowalter, Daniel N. 275 Schürer, Emil 73, 78−79, 233 Schweitzer, Albert 8 Segal, Arthur 355−356 Shaked, Idan 218, 271, 286 Strange, James F. 81, 123, 129, 131−134, 189 Strauss, David Freidrich 8 Sussmann, Jacob 277−279 Syon, Danny 39, 102, 117, 130, 218, 244, 247, 275, 284, 286, 319, 370

445

Tsaferis, Vassilios 362 Urman, Dan 220, 288−289, 362, 365, 367 Vermes, Geza 19, 81, 334 Vito, Fanny 277 Von Wahlde, Urban 24 Wachsmann, Shelley 185, 202, 253 Waterman, Leroy 131 Weber, Thomas M. 352, 368 Weiss, Zeev 128−131, 191 Wilkens, Michael J. 259−260, 298 Wilson, John Francis 260, 273, 295−296 Witherington III, Ben 377, 379, 384 Wrede, William 8 Wright, N.T. 8−9, 14, 41, 44 Yavor, Zvi 244

Taylor, Joan 43, 60, 295 Theissen, Gerd 13, 37, 55, 220, 309, 333−334, 336−339, 343, 381, 395 Troche, Facundo 241

Zangenberg, Jürgen 140, 143, 146, 176 Zwickel, Wolfgang 236−238, 268, 286

Index of Subjects Index of Subjects ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon, pass of 278, 281, 342 ‘Ayun/‘Uyun 366 ‘Ein Ḥarrah 366 ‘Ein Nashut/‘En Nashut 224, 229 ‘Einosh/El-‘Awanish 365−366 ‘El-Jumeizah 225 Acchabaron/Akhbara 172 Akhziv/Keziv 303−304 Akko 301−302 – see also Ptolemais Alexander Jannaeus, see Hasmonean dynasty Antipas, see Herodian dynasty Arbel xvii, 172 Archaeological method 35−40 Archaeology of ethnicity 39 Aristobulus, see Hasmonean dynasty Asochis/Shikhin 74, 173 Augustus 264, 353 Auranitis 264 Bab el-Hawa 288 Baca xviii, 173, 303 Baraita of the Borders 277−281, 311, 342 Bar‘am xvii Batanea 215, 264 Beqa valley 269, 339−342 Bersabe 172 Besara/Beth Shearim 174 Bethmaus/Beth Ma‘on 174 Bethsaida/Julias xvii, xviii, 207−213, 220, 231−236 – Jesus at 207−213 – see also Et Tell and El-Araj Beth Shean/Scythopolis xviii – district 349 Bezet/El-Bassa 326

Caesarea (Maritima) xviii Caesarea Philippi xviii, 259−262, 267−268, 274−282, 345 Cana 153−155 – see also Kefar Kana/Karm erRas and Khirbet Qana Capernaum xvii, xviii, 148−153, 162, 189 Capharath 172 Central Golan, see Golan, central Chabolos/Chabulon 173, 175 Chalcis 339, 342 Chorazin/Chorazim xvii, xviii, 175 Coins 95−96, 100−102 – Hasmonean 100−102 – Herodian 102, 140−141, 239 – Jewish Revolt 95−96, 102, 247 – of Herod Antipas 102, 140−141 – of Philip the tetrarch 239 – Tyrian Silver 109−110 Crowds 204 Dabburiya/Dabaritta 174 Dabiyye 224, 229−230 Dabura 224, 230 Dalmanutha 177−178, 214, 254−255 Damascus 340−342 Dan 282, 342 Dan-Dafna 276 Darbashiya 287 Dar el-Gharbiya 322 Decapolis xviii, 340−341, 343, 347, 350−351, 392−393 – Jesus’ itinerancy in 345−348, 350– 352, 372–386, 392−393 Dier ‘Aziz xvii, 231 Eastern Terra Sigillata ware 108−109 Ebionites 296

448

Index of Subjects

El ‘Al 367 El-Araj 231−232, 242 El-Makr 317 En Hamifraz 316 Et Tell 231−232, 234−242 Fiq/Afiq 358−360 First Jewish Revolt xv, 281 Form critics 9−11 Gabara 173, 175 Gadara xviii, 348–349, 352–354, 368– 369, 371 – district of 348–349, 369–371 Gadarenes, region of 347, 373 Galilean course ware 112−113, 115−116 Galilee xvii, xviii – boat 185, 253 – boundaries of 66−70 – ethnicity 78−87, 388−389 – Jesus’ itinerancy in 159−166, 197−206, 387−390 – of the Gentiles 155−159 – population size 167−194, 389−390 – roads 194−196 – settlement history 110−119 – settlements 171−192, 389 Gamla xvii, xviii, 219−220, 243−247, 267 Gap of ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon, see ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon Gaulana/Gaulane 215 Gaulanitis xix, 207−257, 390−391 – boundaries of 214−219 – ethnicity 225−226, 390 – Jesus’ itinerancy in 207−214, 255−257, 390−391 – population size 247−248 – roads 249, 390 – settlements 216, 223−247, 390 Gennesaret xviii, 176 Genre 18−23, 387 Gentiles 46 Gerasenes, region 347−348, 373–377 Geshur/Gesouri 375 Ginosar boat, see Galilee boat Gischala/Gush Ḥalav xviii, 122−123 Golan xvii, 215

Golan, central 216 – see also Gaulanitis Golan, northern 259−298, 391 – ethnicity 262−264, 267−268, 270−272 – Jesus itinerancy in 291−298, 391 – roads 290−291 – settlements 268−272, 274−276, 283−290 Golan ware 269−270, 272 Gospel of Luke 4−6 Gospel of John 6, 24−25 Gospel of Mark 8−14, 388 – Markan geography 338−341, 343−345, 393 Gospel of Matthew 4−5 Gospel of Thomas 6−7, 25 Ḥ. ‘Akhir 325 Ḥ. ‘Eved/ Ḥ. ‘Oved xviii, 318−319 Ḥ. ‘Uza 315 Ḥ. Baẓir 322 Ḥ. Belaya 320 Ḥ. Bet Zeneta/Kh. Zuweinita 323−325 Ḥ. Bulu‘a 322 Ḥ. Gaḥosh 315 Ḥ. Kanaf 224, 228 Ḥ. Omrit 272, 275−276 Ḥ. Qazyon 320−321 Ḥ. Senaim 276 Ḥ. Shema‘/Khirbet Shema‘ 178 Ḥ. Ṭabburit 325 Ḥ. Tefen 319 Hagroshrim 276 Ḥammat Gader xvii, xviii, 369−370 Hammath Tiberias xvii, 142 Hasmonean dynasty xvi, 262, 284−285 – Alexander Jannaeus xvi, 74, 219, 221, 262, 352–353 – Antigonus xvi, 74−75, 263 – Aristobulus I xvi, 78, 86, 263, 273−274 – John Hyrcanus I xv, 75, 118 – John Hyrcanus II xvi Herodian dynasty xvi – Agrippa I xvi, 264 – Agrippa II xvi, 265−268 – Antipas, see Herod Antipas

Index of Subjects – Antipater 75 – Archelaus xvi, 76 – Herod Antipas xvi, 58−61, 77, 119, 137, 140−141 – Herod of Chalcis 342 – Herod the Great xvi, 75−76, 118, 222, 264, 272, 281, 306, 353 – Philip the tetrarch xvi, 219, 259, 264, 281 Herodian oil lamps 106−107 Hezekiah the Galilean 75 Hippos/Sussita xvii, xviii, 348, 352−358, 371 – district of 358−367 Historical Jesus – prophet to Israel 44−48, 52−57, 387−388 – quest for the 14–15 Huleh Valley/Ulatha xix, 218, 259, 262, 264, 271, 283−288 Ḥuqoq 179 Ibillin 179 Israel 48−52 – see also Jews/Judeans Itabyrion 173 Iturean ware, see Golan ware Itureans 261−263, 269−271, 273−274, 283−284 – Lysanias 261, 263 – Ptolemy 261−263 – Varus 267 – Zenodorus 86, 261, 264 Jamnia 171 Japha 172, 174 Jesus’ itinerancy – in Mark 2−4, 197−205, 291−294, 298 – in Q 5−6, 200−202 – in other sources 6−7 – see also Historical Jesus Jesus Seminar 210 Jewish identity markers 87−107 Jewish Revolt, see First Jewish Revolt Jews/Judeans 48−52 John, Gospel of see Gospel of John John Hyrcanus, see Hasmonean dynasty John of Gischala 268

449

John the Baptist 42−43, 58 Jordan River xvii, xviii Josephus – person and works 26−33, 69−71, 122, 124, 126−128 – population figures 183−186 Jotapata/Yodefat xviii, 124−125, 189 Judas the Gaulanite/Galilean 220 Judea/Judaea 56−57 Judeans, see Jews/Judeans Kedesh/Tel Qedesh xviii, 307−308, 312−313 Kefar ‘Amiqo 326 Kefar ‘Aqavya 251, 255 Kefar Hananya 103 Kefar Hananya ware 103−106 Kefar Kana/Karm er-Ras 154−155, 163 Kefar Otni/‘Othnay 179, 195 Kefar Yahrib/Ḥarib 366 Kefar Yaṣif 326 Kefar Zemah 366 Keziv, see Akhziv Kh. Ed Dureijat 287 Kh. Ein Tina 287 Kh. el-Mabra 367 Kh. Jalabine 287 Kh. Khiyam Walid 287 Kh. Maqbara Bamat Yaqub 286−287 Kh. Musliḥ 316 Kh. Qana 154 Kh. Samman 287 Kh. Yarda 276 Kh. Zabadi 325 Kh. Zahmul 287 Kh. Zemel 270 Khisfiya/Khisfin 364−365 Kingdom of God 43−45 Kursi/Gergesa xviii, 373–374, 376 – see also Gerasenes Kursi/Qursi Beach settlement 361−363, 371 Lake Semechonitis xviii Lebanon ranges 269 Legio, see Kefar Otni/’Othnay Lehavot Habashan 287 Limestone/chalk vessels 90−92

450

Index of Subjects

Magdala/Taricheae xviii, 98−99, 142−148, 163, 191−192 Material culture 26, 87−88 Meiron/Meron 178 Meroth 171 Migdal Ha-Emeq 179 Mikva’ot 94−95 Modius 267−268 Mount Hermon xvii, 259, 269−270, 293, 340−341 Mount Tabor xviii Nabratein 178 Nahal Ga‘aton 303 Nain/Nein xviii, 163, 176 Nazareth xviii, 132−135, 162, 192 Nazoreans 296, 341−342 Nob/Nāb 366 Northern Golan, see Golan, northern Numismatics, see Coins Oulatha, see Huleh valley Ossuaries 93 Palestine 56–57 Paneas/Banias xvii, xix, 259, 261−262, 269−270, 272 – Paneas, region of xix, 216, 264, 279, 340 Pass of ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon, see ‘Ayun/‘Iyyon Philip the Tetrarch, see Herodian dynasty Phoenicia xviii, xix, 157−159, 301−302, 309−313 Phoenicians 268, 271, 301, 304−309, 311 – Syro-Phoenicians 261, 263, 274, 283, 299−300, 309, 327, 330−331 Phoenician storage jars 311−312 Pompey, Roman general 74−75, 118, 222, 353 Pontius Pilate 77 Pork bones, absence of 100 Ptolemais xviii, 159, 302−304, 306−308, 313−314 Q 5−6, 23−24, 42 Qana xviii – see also Kh. Qana

Qazrin 224, 228−229 Qeren Naftali 321−322 Quest for the historical Jesus, see Historical Jesus Rabbinic sources 34−35 Rehob inscription 277−279, 363−364 Rekhesh 98−99 Roads 194−197, 290−291, 345−346, 371 − Inter-regional highways 196−197 − Tyre-Damascus highway xix, 197, 290, 341, 345 Samaria 394 Scythopolis, see Beth Shean/Scythopolis Sea of Galilee xvii − Galilee boat 185, 253 − Travel and harbours 250−253, 371−372 Selame 172 Seleucia xviii, 216, 219, 223, 227 Seleucids 261 Sennabris 174 Seph/Zefat 172 Sepphoris/Zippori xvii, xviii, 76, 126−132, 164−165, 190−191 Shikhin, see Asochis/Shikhin Shikhin storage jars 103−104 Sidon 299, 301−302, 306 Sidon, region of 157−158, 301−302, 340−342, 345, 392 − Jesus’ route through 337−343, 392 Simonias 174 Skeletal remains 201−202 Snir 276 Soganae, in Galilee 172 Sogane, in Galanitis 216, 219, 223, 227 Solyma 216, 223, 227 Stone vessels, see Limestone/chalk vessels Subterranean tunnels 102−103 Ṣurman 289 Synagogue 96−99, 160−161, 245, 388 − in Capernaum xvii, 99, 152 − in Gamla xvii, 98, 245 − in Magdala/Taricheae 98, 147−148 − in Rekhesh 98−99

Index of Subjects Taricheae 98−99, 142−148, 191−192 – see also Magdala/Taricheae Tarnegola above Qisrion/Upper Tarnegola 278, 281, 342 Tel Afeq 316 Tel Anafa 262, 269−271, 283−286 Tel Basul 349 Tel Dover 370 Tel el-Kursi 361−362 Tel ‘Emeq 325 Tel Keisan 317 Tel Sh. Mahmud 287 Tel Sheikh Yusuf 276 Tel Yardinon 285, 287−288 Tel Zar‘a 370 The Critical Edition of Q 23 − see also Q Thella 287 Thomas, see Gospel of Thomas Tiberias xviii, 136−142, 164−165, 190−191 Titus 268 Trachonitis 264

451

Travel, see Roads Tyre xviii, 299, 301−302, 305−307 − region of 157−158, 302−304, 317−326, 391−392 − boundaries 302−304 − Jesus’ itinerancy in 327−337, 391−392 − Ladder of Tyre 303−304, 311 − Tyre-Damascus Highway, see Roads Tyrians 305−307 Ulatha, see Huleh Valley Umm el-Qanatir/Kanatir xvii, 360−361 Ureifiya 287 Ya‘arut 366 Yamuk River xvii, xviii Yanoah/Yanuḥ 326 Xaloth 173 Zarephath/Sarepta 341