First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161534898, 9783161535413

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

378

Bradley W. Root

First Century Galilee A Fresh Examination of the Sources

Mohr Siebeck

Bradley W. Root, born 1980; 2002 BA in History; 2009 PhD in Ancient Jewish History; 2011–14 Visiting Assistant Professor of History at St. Mary’s University (San Antonio, Texas); currently Assistant Professor of Ancient History at St. Mary’s University.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153541-3 ISBN 978-3-16-153489-8 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de 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, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

 

This book is dedicated to my wife, Shannon.

Preface My research on first century Galilee began almost a decade ago with a series of research papers I wrote for the Ancient History/Judaic Studies graduate seminar at the University of California, San Diego. My first paper for this seminar focused on the provenance of the Synoptic Sayings Source (Q), challenging the common view that the document was composed in Galilee. While conducting research for this paper, I developed an interest in studying Early Roman Galilee in its own right. My subsequent papers for the graduate seminar investigated Galilee’s socio-economic conditions, and I eventually decided to make this subject the focus of my PhD dissertation, From Antipas to Agrippa II: Galilee in the First Century CE. This book is a substantially revised, updated, and expanded version of that dissertation. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who helped me with my research – providing me with unpublished research, taking the time to discuss important issues with me, or offering critiques one or more chapters of the manuscript. These scholars include Jonathan L. Reed, Morten Hørning Jensen, Danny Syon, Mordechai Aviam, Uzi Leibner, Milton Moreland, Stefano De Luca, Yoav Arbel, Anthony J. Blasi, William H.C. Propp, David Noel Freedman, Richard Elliott Friedman, David Miano, Alden Mosshammer, Thomas E. Levy, and Dayna S. Kalleres. Special thanks go to my doctoral adviser, David Goodblatt, whose advice and direction I relied upon at every stage of this project. I simply could not have asked for a better mentor. I would also like to thank the editors of WUNT II – Jörg Frey, Markus Bockmuehl, James A. Kelhoffer, Hans-Josef Klauck, Tobias Nicklas and J. Ross Wagner – for accepting my manuscript and Morten Jensen for bringing my work to Dr. Frey’s attention. In addition, I deeply appreciate the professionalism with which Henning Ziebritzki, Jana Trispel, Kendra Mäschke, and the rest of the staff at Mohr Siebeck guided me through the publication process and answered my many questions. I also wish to express my gratitude to the faculty, staff, and students at St. Mary’s University for all of the support they have given me over the past four years. I am especially grateful for the hard work done by three St. Mary’s students – Matthew Finnie, Erica Cortez, and Jason Maupin – who assisted

VIII

Preface

my research and helped me as I revised this manuscript and prepared the book for publication. My research would not have been possible without financial support provided by the Waitt Foundation Dissertation Fellowship in Biblical Studies and Archeology, the Wexler Family Judaic Studies Fellowship, the Dorot Travel Grant, and the UCSD History Department’s Dissertation Writing Fellowship. I would also like to thank my family. My parents, Walter and Debra, taught me to ask questions, to seek answers, and to be intellectually unconventional. My mother also read and provided a thorough critique of the entire book manuscript. My children, Caitlin and Jonathan, have been an immense source of joy in my life; they serve as a constant reminder that there are more important things in life than academic pursuits. Most importantly, I am thankful for my wife, Shannon, who has supported me throughout our thirteen years of marriage. I cannot express in words how much her love and encouragement mean to me. St. Mary’s University San Antonio, Texas August 2014

Table of Contents Preface ...........................................................................................................VII Abbreviations ............................................................................................... XVI

Chapter 1. Aims, Method, and Procedure ............................................. 1 1.1 Aims ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Method and Procedure ......................................................................... 3 1.3 Structure ............................................................................................... 5 1.4 Translations .......................................................................................... 5 1.5 Terminology......................................................................................... 6 1.5.1 Judea and Iudaea .............................................................................. 6 1.5.2 Toponyms ....................................................................................... 6 1.5.3 Synoptic Gospel Sources .................................................................... 7 1.6 Archaeological Periods ........................................................................ 7

Part One: Josephus Chapter 2. Josephus as a Historian ...................................................... 10 2.1 Using Josephus as a Source for Galilee ............................................. 11 2.1.1 Josephus’ Personal Agenda ............................................................... 11 2.1.2 Josephus and His Audience............................................................... 12 2.1.3 Josephus’ Rhetorical Aims ............................................................... 13 2.1.4 Outside Checks on Josephus’ Reliability ............................................. 14 2.1.5 Using Josephus as a Historical Source ................................................ 14 2.2 A Methodological Note ..................................................................... 14

Chapter 3. Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee ......................................... 16 3.1 Ethnicity ............................................................................................. 16 3.1.1 Ethnic Identity in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Periods ............................ 16 3.1.2 Ethnic Identity in the Hasmonean Period ............................................. 16 3.1.3 Ethnic Identity in the Early Roman Period ........................................... 16 3.2 Urbanization....................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Population Numbers According to Josephus......................................... 17 3.2.2 Major Cities in Galilee ..................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Urban-Rural Relations ..................................................................... 18 3.2.4 Urbanization and Taxation................................................................ 19

X

Table of Contents

3.3 The Economy ..................................................................................... 20 3.3.1 Monetization ................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Prosperity and Poverty ..................................................................... 21 3.3.3 Interregional Trade ......................................................................... 21 3.3.4 Taxation ....................................................................................... 22 3.4 Political Climate ................................................................................ 25 3.4.1 Rulers of Galilee ............................................................................ 25 3.4.2 Patronage ...................................................................................... 30 3.4.3 John of Gischala as a Local Leader .................................................... 31 3.4.4 Local Politics in Tiberias .................................................................. 32 3.4.5 Class Conflict ................................................................................ 32 3.4.6 Bandits and Revolutionaries Before 66 CE .......................................... 33 3.5 Religious Ethos .................................................................................. 34 3.5.1 Jewish Religious Identity ................................................................. 34 3.5.2 Aniconism ..................................................................................... 35 3.5.3 Pharisees ....................................................................................... 35 3.6 Hellenization and Romanization ........................................................ 36 3.6.1 The Herodian Rulers and Pro-Roman Propaganda ................................. 36 3.6.2 Greco-Roman Institutions................................................................. 36 3.6.3 Linguistic Milieu ............................................................................ 37 3.7 Participation in the Great Revolt ....................................................... 37 3.7.1 Fortifications ................................................................................. 38 3.7.2 Banditry During the Great Revolt ...................................................... 38 3.7.3 Troops in Galilee ............................................................................ 39 3.7.4 Collaboration with Rome ................................................................. 39 3.7.5 Captives and Casualties ................................................................... 40 3.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations ................................................................... 41 3.8.1 Ethnic Tensions .............................................................................. 41 3.8.2 Jewish-Samaritan Relations .............................................................. 42 3.9 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ........................................... 42

Part Two: The Gospels Chapter 4. The Gospel of Mark.............................................................. 44 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 44 4.1.1 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 45 4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee ............................................................... 45 4.2.1 Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 45 4.2.2 Urbanization .................................................................................. 46 4.2.3 The Economy ................................................................................ 46 4.2.4 Political Climate ............................................................................. 47 4.2.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 47 4.2.6 Hellenization and Romanization ........................................................ 49 4.2.7 Jewish-Gentile Relations .................................................................. 50 4.2.8 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ............................................. 51

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter 5. The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q) ..................................... 53 5.1 Redaction Criticism and Q ................................................................. 53 5.1.1 Redaction in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke .................................... 53 5.1.2 Methodological Issues ..................................................................... 54 5.1.3 Methodological Implications for This Inquiry....................................... 55 5.2 Q’s Provenance .................................................................................. 56 5.2.1 Arguments for a Galilean Provenance ................................................. 56 5.2.2 Conclusions About Q’s Provenance.................................................... 60 5.3 Using Q as a Source for Galilee......................................................... 61 5.3.1 Q’s Literary Setting ......................................................................... 61 5.3.2 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 61 5.4 Q’s Portrayal of Galilee ..................................................................... 61 5.4.1 Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 61 5.4.2 Urbanization .................................................................................. 61 5.4.3 The Economy ................................................................................ 62 5.4.4 Political Climate ............................................................................. 63 5.4.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 64 5.4.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations .................................................................. 65 5.4.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ............................................. 65

Chapter 6. The Gospel of Matthew ....................................................... 66 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 66 6.1.1 The Special Matthean Material .......................................................... 66 6.1.2 Matthean Redaction to Mark and Q .................................................... 66 6.1.3 Methodological Implications of the Synoptic Problem ........................... 67 6.1.4 Date and Provenance ....................................................................... 67 6.1.5 About the Author ............................................................................ 69 6.1.6 Matthew’s Tendencies ..................................................................... 69 6.1.7 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 70 6.2 Matthew’s Portrayal of Galilee .......................................................... 70 6.2.1 Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 70 6.2.2 Urbanization .................................................................................. 71 6.2.3 The Economy ................................................................................ 71 6.2.4 Political Climate ............................................................................. 72 6.2.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 73 6.2.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations .................................................................. 74 6.2.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ............................................. 74

Chapter 7. The Gospel of Luke............................................................... 75 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 75 7.1.1 About the Author ............................................................................ 75 7.1.2 Date and Provenance ....................................................................... 76 7.1.3 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 77

XII

Table of Contents

7.2 Luke’s Portrayal of Galilee ................................................................ 78 7.2.1 Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 78 7.2.2 Urbanization .................................................................................. 78 7.2.3 The Economy ................................................................................ 79 7.2.4 Political Climate ............................................................................. 79 7.2.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 81 7.2.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations .................................................................. 82 7.2.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ............................................. 83

Chapter 8. The Gospel of John............................................................... 84 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 84 8.1.1 Date and Provenance ....................................................................... 84 8.1.2 Cultural and Religious Context .......................................................... 85 8.1.3 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 86 8.2 John’s Portrayal of Galilee ................................................................ 86 8.2.1 Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 86 8.2.2 Urbanization .................................................................................. 86 8.2.3 The Economy ................................................................................ 87 8.2.4 Political Climate ............................................................................. 87 8.2.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 87 8.2.6 Hellenization and Romanization ........................................................ 88 8.2.7 Jewish-Gentile Relations .................................................................. 89 8.2.8 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ............................................. 90

Chapter 9. The Gospel of Thomas ......................................................... 92 9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 92 9.1.1 Date ............................................................................................. 92 9.1.2 Provenance .................................................................................... 93 9.1.3 Theological Tendencies ................................................................... 94 9.1.4 Literary Setting .............................................................................. 94 9.1.5 Information Relevant to This Inquiry .................................................. 94 9.2 Thomas’ Portrayal of Galilee ............................................................. 94 9.2.1 The Economy ................................................................................ 94 9.2.2 Political Climate ............................................................................. 95 9.2.3 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 95

Part Three: Archaeology Chapter 10. Galilee’s Material Culture ................................................ 98 10.1 Population Size and Settlement Patterns ......................................... 99 10.1.1 The Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (ca. 500–100 BCE) ............... 99 10.1.2 The Late Hellenistic Period (ca. 100–50 BCE) .................................... 99 10.1.3 The Early Roman Period (ca. 50 BCE–135 CE) .................................. 99 10.2 Human and Animal Remains ......................................................... 100 10.2.1 Human Remains ......................................................................... 100 10.2.2 Pig Bones .................................................................................. 101

Table of Contents

XIII

10.3 Small Finds .................................................................................... 101 10.3.1 Pottery and Limestone Vessels ...................................................... 101 10.3.2 Brass ........................................................................................ 103 10.3.3 Epigraphy .................................................................................. 104 10.4 Coins .............................................................................................. 104 10.4.1 Coins Circulating in Galilee .......................................................... 104 10.4.2 Coins Minted in Galilee ............................................................... 105 10.5 Architecture ................................................................................... 106 10.5.1 Synagogues ............................................................................... 106 10.5.2 Basilicas.................................................................................... 107 10.5.3 Theaters .................................................................................... 107 10.5.4 Other Public Structures in Tiberias ................................................. 109 10.5.5 Marble and Frescoes .................................................................... 110 10.5.6 Fortifications .............................................................................. 110 10.5.7 Miqvaot .................................................................................... 111 10.5.8 Olive and Wine Presses ................................................................ 111

Chapter 11. Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence......... 112 11.1 Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 112 11.1.1 Ethnic Identity in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods ......................... 112 11.1.2 Ethnic Identity in the Late Hellenistic Period .................................... 112 11.1.3 Ethnic Identity in the Early Roman Period ....................................... 113 11.2 Urbanization................................................................................... 114 11.2.1 Urbanization in Galilee ................................................................ 114 11.2.2 Rural Settlements ........................................................................ 115 11.2.3 Bronze Coinage and Urbanization .................................................. 116 11.3 The Economy ................................................................................. 117 11.3.1 Economic Growth ....................................................................... 117 11.3.2 Social Stratification ..................................................................... 117 11.3.3 Demographics, Population Pressures, and Living Standards ................ 118 11.3.4 Human Remains and Living Standards ............................................ 119 11.3.5 Trade ........................................................................................ 120 11.3.6 Monetization .............................................................................. 123 11.4 Political Climate ............................................................................ 125 11.4.1 Local Politics ............................................................................. 125 11.4.2 Pro-Roman Propaganda ................................................................ 125 11.4.3 Antipas’ Rivalries With Other Rulers .............................................. 126 11.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 126 11.5.1 Absence of Pagan Temples and Cultic Objects.................................. 127 11.5.2 Synagogues ............................................................................... 127 11.5.3 Absence of Figurative Art ............................................................. 127 11.5.4 Ritual Purity in Galilee ................................................................. 128 11.6 Hellenization and Romanization .................................................... 129 11.6.1 Greek Language in Galilee ............................................................ 129 11.6.2 Evidence of Romanization ............................................................ 130 11.6.3 Evidence of Galilean Resistance to Romanization ............................. 132

XIV

Table of Contents

11.7 Participation in the Great Revolt ................................................... 135 11.7.1 Fortifications .............................................................................. 135 11.7.2 Evidence of Sieges and Destruction ................................................ 138 11.7.3 Numismatic Evidence for Galilean Sentiment About the Revolt ........... 138 11.7.4 Human Remains at Yodefat .......................................................... 140 11.7.5 Depopulation After the Revolt ....................................................... 140 11.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations ............................................................... 140 11.8.1 Interregional Trade ...................................................................... 140 11.8.2 Ethnic Tensions .......................................................................... 141 11.8.3 Galilean Insularity ....................................................................... 142 11.9 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea ....................................... 142 11.9.1 Parallel Cultural Trends in Galilee and Judea .................................... 142 11.9.2 Trade Between Galilee and Judea ................................................... 143

Part Four: Historical Interpretation Chapter 12. Synthesis and Conclusions ............................................. 146 12.1 Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 146 12.1.1 Who Was and Was Not Jewish in Antiquity? ................................... 146 12.1.2 Horsley’s Northern Israelite Theory ................................................ 147 12.1.3 Galileans as Judean Settlers .......................................................... 149 12.2 Urbanization................................................................................... 150 12.2.1 The Context: Mediterranean Urbanization ........................................ 150 12.2.2 Urbanization .............................................................................. 151 12.2.3 Rural Growth ............................................................................. 151 12.2.4 Urban-Rural Relations ................................................................. 152 12.3 The Economy ................................................................................. 152 12.3.1 How Much Can We Know About Ancient Economies? ..................... 152 12.3.2 Ancient Economies as Underdeveloped ........................................... 153 12.3.3 The Pax Romana ......................................................................... 154 12.3.4 The Economic Consequences of Urbanization .................................. 155 12.3.5 Monetization .............................................................................. 159 12.3.6 Evidence for Economic Problems Before the Revolt .......................... 159 12.3.7 Evidence for Economic Growth and Stability Before the Revolt ........... 159 12.3.8 The Economic Impact of Antipas’ Rule ........................................... 160 12.3.9 The Economy During and After the Revolt ...................................... 161 12.4 Political Climate ............................................................................ 162 12.4.1 Galilee's Political Climate Under Herod the Great ............................. 162 12.4.2 The Political Climate Under Antipas and Agrippa I ........................... 162 12.4.3 The Political Climate After Agrippa I’s Death ................................. 164 12.4.4 The Political Climate During the Revolt .......................................... 164 12.4.5 Banditry .................................................................................... 164 12.4.6 Class Relations ........................................................................... 165 12.5 Religious Ethos .............................................................................. 167 12.5.1 Stricter Religious Practices ........................................................... 168 12.5.2 Synagogues ............................................................................... 168 12.5.3 Pharisees ................................................................................... 169

Table of Contents

XV

12.6 Hellenization and Romanization .................................................... 171 12.6.1 Regional Cultures Within Galilee ................................................... 171 12.6.2 Resistance to Romanization .......................................................... 173 12.6.3 Language .................................................................................. 174 12.6.4 Hellenization and Romanization in Galilee....................................... 174 12.7 Participation in the Great Revolt ................................................... 175 12.7.1 Josephus vs. Archaeology ............................................................. 175 12.7.2 Galilean Support for the Revolt...................................................... 175 12.7.3 Why Was Galilee Less Revolutionary Than Judea? ........................... 176 12.7.4 The Revolt’s Aftermath ................................................................ 177 12.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations ............................................................... 178 12.8.1 Interregional Trade ...................................................................... 178 12.8.2 Ethic Tensions and Violence ......................................................... 178 12.8.3 Jewish-Samaritan Relations .......................................................... 179 12.8.4 Contact Between Galileans and Gentiles .......................................... 179 12.9 Galilee and Judea ........................................................................... 179 12.9.1 Galilean and Judean Culture .......................................................... 179 12.9.2 Trade Between Galilee and Judea ................................................... 180 12.9.3 Galilean Subordination to Judea? .................................................. 180 12.9.4 Temple/Religious Authorities and Galilee ........................................ 181 12.10 Summary of Conclusions ............................................................. 182 12.10.1 The Picture of Conflict or the Picture of Harmony? .......................... 183 Appendix 1: Q Passages ............................................................................... 185 Appendix 2: The Special Matthean Material (M) ......................................... 186 Appendix 3: The Special Lukan Material (L) ............................................... 187 Bibliography ................................................................................................. 189 Index of Ancient Sources .............................................................................. 209 Old Testament ............................................................................................ 209 New Testament .......................................................................................... 209 Rabbinic Sources ........................................................................................ 215 Josephus ................................................................................................... 215 Apocryphal Christian Texts .......................................................................... 219 Other Greek and Latin Sources ...................................................................... 220 Index of Modern Authors .............................................................................. 221 Index of Subjects and Key Terms .................................................................. 225

Abbreviations AJP AncSoc ANRW

ASOR BA BAR BASOR Bib BJS BTB CBQ CQ ErIsr ESA ESI GCW HA-ESI HSCP HTR IAA IEJ IJS IQP JBL JFA JJS JRA JRS JSHJ JSJ JSOTSup JTS KHW NEA NovT NTS PEQ

American Journal of Philology Ancient Society Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– American Schools of Oriental Research Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblica Brown Judaic Studies Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classical Quarterly Eretz-Israel Eastern Sigillata A Excavations and Surveys in Israel Galilean Coarse Ware Hadashot Arkheologiyot/Excavations and Surveys in Israel Harvard Studies in Classical Philology The Harvard Theological Review Israel Antiquities Authority Israel Exploration Journal Institute of Jewish Studies International Q Project Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Field Archaeology Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology The Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series The Journal of Theological Studies Kefar Hananya Ware Near Eastern Archaeology Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Quarterly

Abbreviations SBEC SBL SBLCS SBLSP ScrHier SJT SNTSMS SW TSAJ WUNT ZNW

Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Scripta hierosolymitana Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Shikhin Ware Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

XVII

Chapter 1

Aims, Method, and Procedure Scholarly interest in the social history of Early Roman Galilee is a relatively recent development. Although Galilee served as the birthplace for both Christianity in the first century CE and rabbinic Judaism in the second century CE, members of both faiths generally ignored the region’s history until the twentieth century.1 The current fascination with first century Galilee is mostly a byproduct of the “third quest” for the historical Jesus, which emphasized the importance of insights from archaeology, anthropology, and other social sciences. One of the third quest’s basic goals was to understand how Jesus functioned as part of his specific social, cultural, political, and economic environment.2 Consequently, Galilee’s social history has now become an integral part of historical Jesus research, and the number of archaeological excavations conducted in the region has increased dramatically over the past few decades. All of these developments have greatly expanded our knowledge of first century Galilee’s history and culture.3 1 Even in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when New Testament scholarship was engaged in the so-called “first quest” and “second quest” for the historical Jesus, Galilee’s social history was not a major concern. For a detailed discussion of the relationship between the various quests for the historical Jesus and Galilean studies, see J.L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 4–22. 2 G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: William Collins Sons & Co., 1973); E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991); M.J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994); J.P. Meier, “The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain,” Bib 80 (1999). 3 Influential works on first century Galilee are too numerous to list. The following works provide a good overview of the state of the field since the turn of the century: D.A. Fiensy, Jesus the Galilean: Soundings in a First Century Life (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007); S. Freyne, “Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions,” in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, WUNT 210 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); M.H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, WUNT 2.215 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); U. Leibner, Settlement

2

Chapter 1: Aims, Method, and Procedure

1.1 Aims Recent research on first century Galilee has largely been shaped by debates about the region’s socio-economic conditions, cultural ethos, religious ethos, and political climate.4 The current majority view among scholars is that Galilee experienced rapid urbanization and a socio-economic crisis in the firstcentury CE as a result of major changes initiated by Herod the Great and his successors.5 Therefore, Galilee is often seen as an unstable region that was rife with social conflict. and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee, TSAJ 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); M. Moreland, “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee; Reed, Galilean Jesus; Z. Weiss, “Jewish Galilee in the First Century CE: An Archaeological View,” in Flavius Josephus, Vita: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, ed. D.R. Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2007); Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee; J.K. Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee,” Early Christianity 1 (2010). 4 M. Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy and Its Economic Foundations in First Century Galilee: The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. J. Pastor, M. Mor, and P. Stern (Leiden: Brill, 2011); D.R. Edwards, “The SocioEconomic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement,” in Studies on the Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992); S. Freyne, “Herodian Economics in Galilee: Searching for a Suitable Model,” in Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, ed. P.F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 1995); M. Moreland, “Q and the Economics of Early Roman Galilee,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Sterling: Peeters, 2001); D.E. Aune, “Jesus and the Romans in Galilee: Jews and Gentiles in the Decapolis,” in Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz, ed. A.Y. Collins (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998); A.M. Berlin, “Romanization and Anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Galilee,” in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman (New York: Routledge, 2002); M.A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002); Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005); Fiensy, Jesus the Galilean; E.M. Meyers, “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism,” in ANRW 19.2.1, ed. W. Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1979). 5 W.E. Arnal, “The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels,” HTR 88 (1995); “The Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of the Peasantry,” in Text and Artifact: Religions in Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, ed. S.G. Wilson and M. Desjardins, Studies in Christianity and Judaism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2000); K.C. Hanson, “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,” BTB 27 (1997); W. Stegemann, “Vagabond Radicalism in Early Christianity?: A Historical and Theological Discussion of a Thesis Proposed by Gerd Theissen,” ed. W. Schottroff and E. Stegemann (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1984); The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century, trans. O.C. Dean (Minneapolis: Fortress,

1.2 Method and Procedure

3

This work aims to offer a fresh evaluation of Galilee’s religious, social, political, and economic character between Herod the Great’s death in 4 BCE and the death of Herod’s great-grandson, Agrippa II, toward the end of the first century CE.6 Since no historical study can be truly comprehensive, I have chosen to investigate nine features of Galilean society that are the subject of frequent scholarly debate: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Galilee’s ethnic makeup The extent to which Galilee was urbanized in the first century CE The state of Galilee’s economy Galilee’s political climate Galilee’s religious ethos The extent to which Galilean society assimilated to Greco-Roman culture The extent to which Galileans supported and participated in the Great Revolt 8) Jewish-Gentile relations in Galilee 9) The political, economic, cultural, and religious relationship between Galilee and Judea

1.2 Method and Procedure My method of historical inquiry is significantly influenced by the work of Jacob Neusner, Lester Grabbe, and Steve Mason.7 Both Neusner and Mason have criticized the tendency of modern scholars to ask “the historical question” too early in the intellectual process.8 Thus, they argue, most scholars begin searching for conclusions before they have a clear sense of what each 1999); J.S. Kloppenborg Verbin, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine, WUNT 195 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); D.E. Oakman, “Money in the Moral Universe of the New Testament,” in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. B.J. Malina, W. Stegemann, and G. Theissen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); P. Trudinger, “Exposing the Depths of Oppression (Luke 16:1b–8a): The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” in Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today, ed. V.G. Shillington (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997). 6 The precise date of Agrippa II’s death is not known. 7 J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70: The Houses (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 1–2; Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 47; S. Mason, “Josephus’ Pharisees: the Narratives,” in In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, ed. J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton (Waco: Baylor UP, 2007), 3–5. This approach is one of the hallmarks of Neusner’s scholarship in general, and he has made similar methodological points about other historical quests as well. See J. Neusner, Three Questions of Formative Judaism: History, Literature, and Religion (Boston: Brill, 2002), 12. 8 Mason, “Josephus’ Pharisees,” 3.

Chapter 1: Aims, Method, and Procedure

4

source contributes to our knowledge of the past. Consequently, Mason and Neusner have both stressed the need to address the “literary questions” (i.e., to interpret each source by itself without recourse to outside information) before engaging in historical reconstruction. Most of the recent studies on first century Galilee offer historical reconstructions without determining how each of the literary sources depicts the region. Thus, important inconsistencies among the sources go unrecognized, and it becomes all too easy for the scholar to allow his or her understanding of the entire data set to influence the interpretation of specific sources. Furthermore, current scholarship on Galilee frequently fails to maintain an analogous distinction between the archaeological evidence and the evidence derived from each literary source.9 To avoid these problems, this book addresses the literary and archaeological questions discretely before it engages in historical interpretation. Each of the relevant literary sources is analyzed individually without considering outside information.10 Likewise, the archaeological evidence is first analyzed by itself without reference to any literary material. 9

J.D. Crossan and J.L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), xvii–xxi; W.G. Dever, “Archeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution,” BA 43 (1980); Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (University of Washington Press, 1989), 31–36. 10 I have decided not to use the evidence from the later rabbinic materials because those materials are simply too far removed from the first century to provide reliable information about the socio-economic conditions and religious practices in the first century CE. There are two major reasons that the rabbinic material is considered too unreliable to be a source for the first century CE: 1) The earliest written rabbinic materials (the Mishnah and Tosefta) are universally regarded as products of the third century. 2) The traditions attributed to figures from the first and second centuries were subject to considerable redaction, literary changes, and ideological coloring. For more detailed discussions on the unreliability of the rabbinic material as a source for the first century, see H.A. Fischel, “Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism,” in American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume, ed. D. Sinor (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1969); J. Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yoḥanan ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1970); S. Safrai, “Tales of the Sages in Palestinian Tradition and the Babylonian Talmud,” ScrHier 22 (1971); Y. Fraenkel, “Ma’aseh BeR. Shila,” Tarbiz 40 (5731 [70–71]); “Hermeneutic Problems in the Study of Aggadic Narrative,” Tarbiz 47 (5738 [77–78]); P. Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentumes (Leiden: Brill, 1978); W.S. Green, “What’s in a Name?: The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography’,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Pactice, ed. W.S. Green (Missoula: Scholars, 1978); “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition,” in ANRW 2.l9.2 (1979); D. Goodblatt, “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History,” in History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, ed. B.M. Bokser, BJS 21 (Chico: Scholars, 1980); S. Freyne, “The Charismatic,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nicklesburg, SBLSCS (Chico: Scholars, 1980); B.M. Bokser, “Wonder-

1.3 Structure

5

1.3 Structure The rest of this book is divided into four parts. The first two parts analyze each written source individually, answering the literary questions without addressing the historical ones. Archaeological data and historical documents do not speak for themselves, and any interpretation of these sources necessarily involves subjective judgments that also deserve close scrutiny.11 Part One, which includes chapters 2 and 3, focuses solely on Josephus’ works. Chapter 2 provides some background information about the historian and explains this book’s approach to his accounts as historical sources. Chapter 3 engages the literary questions, determining how Josephus’ writings depict Galilee without addressing the historical questions. This chapter is organized according to the nine features of Galilean society described earlier in this chapter. Part Two, which includes chapters 4 through 9, investigates each of the first century Gospels’ depiction of Jesus’ Galilean environment. Like chapter 3, each of these chapters addresses only the literary questions, and each chapter is organized around the nine features of Galilean society.12 Part Three, which includes chapters 10 and 11, examines the archaeological evidence without reference to the literary sources.13 Chapter 10 provides a brief summary of the relevant archaeological data, and chapter 11 evaluates the archaeological evidence for each of the features mentioned above. Part Four (chapter 12) engages the historical questions, analyzing all of the relevant data to provide a comprehensive reconstruction of the nine major features of Galilean society. Part Four incorporates insights from anthropology, sociology, demography, and economics, applying relevant models to the historical information in order to generate a more complete historical reconstruction of first century Galilee.

1.4 Translations Unless otherwise noted, all English quotations of biblical material come from the New Revised Standard Version. Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,” JSJ 16, no. 1 (1985); Crossan, Historical Jesus. 11 I anticipate that these chapters will also provide a foundation upon which others can develop their own historical reconstructions. 12 The introduction to each chapter briefly identifies which cultural features are addressed in each Gospel and which are not. 13 I analyze all of the archaeological data collectively in chapter 11.

6

Chapter 1: Aims, Method, and Procedure

1.5 Terminology 1.5.1 Judea and Iudaea There is quite a bit of controversy over what modern scholars should call the territory ruled by Herod the Great, especially in the first century CE, when this area was divided into separate political entities. The term “Judea” can refer to either the territory that had formerly comprised Herod’s kingdom (i.e. as a collective reference to Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea, Perea, and Gaulanitis), the province of Judea, or the region of Judea in a stricter sense – excluding Galilee, Samaria, Idumea, etc. Most scholars have decided to solve this problem by using the term “Judea” to refer to both the province and the region of Judea and then using a more general term – such as “Palestine” or “the Land of Israel” – to refer to the territory that Herod ruled. However, the terms “Palestine” and “the Land of Israel” are both imprecise and politically loaded today. In the first century, the political unit in question was not called Palestine, but Judea. The province of Palestine was the name the Roman government gave the province after the Bar Kokhba War in the second century CE. Given the political connotations associated with the word “Palestine” in modern times, many people, especially Israelis, are offended by its anachronistic use by those who study the Second Temple Period. Unfortunately, the term “the Land of Israel” is also somewhat anachronistic since no political entity called Israel existed in the first century. In order to avoid anachronism, offense, and ambiguity, I have decided to use three different forms of the word Judea to refer to each of the three possible meanings of this term. For the Roman province, I will always use the Latinized “Iudaea.” I will refer to the geographic territory that constituted Herod the Great’s kingdom as “Judea (broad sense).” I will refer to the region of Judea (the term’s strictest sense) simply as “Judea.” Hopefully, this convention will clear up ambiguities without confusing the reader. 1.5.2 Toponyms Although most locals probably referred to Galilean settlements by their Semitic names, it has become common scholarly practice to refer to many Galilean sites by the Greek names used by either Josephus or the Gospels. To avoid confusion, I will always use the Greek names for the following places: Bethsaida, Capernaum, Gamala, Nazareth, Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Magdala/Tarichea. In addition, I will always refer to Jotapata by its Semitic name, Yodefat. For all other sites in Galilee, I will use Semitic names when discussing the archaeological evidence and Greek names when considering the literary evidence.

1.6 Archaeological Periods

7

1.5.3 Synoptic Gospel Sources I use the standard one-letter abbreviations for the theoretical documents that serve as sources for Matthew and Luke: “Q” for the Synoptic Sayings Source used by both Matthew and Luke, “M” for the material that is unique to Matthew, and “L” for the material unique to Luke.

1.6 Archaeological Periods Most of the methods used by archaeologists to date material remains – pottery sequencing, radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, epigraphy, etc. – do not yield specific dates; rather, they provide a range of possible dates that usually span 100 years or more. Occasionally, however, the data provide a specific chronological anchor, such as a dated coin, a destruction layer from a welldocumented battle, or a sudden, region-wide change in the material culture that allows for more precise dating.14 Major historical events, such as the Great Revolt, affected the material remains of multiple sites and can often provide chronological anchors for an entire region. Archaeologists typically use such watershed moments to divide the past into historical periods; however, not all scholars employ the same periodization scheme. Unless otherwise noted, the archaeological data will be presented according to the following chronological framework:15 Persian Period (539–323 BCE) Hellenistic Period (ca. 323–63 BCE) Ptolemaic Period (ca. 300–200 BCE) Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE) Hasmonean Period (ca. 125–63 BCE) Early Roman Period (63 BCE–135 CE) Early Roman Period I (63 BCE–70 CE) Early Roman Period II (70–135 CE) Middle Roman Period (135–ca. 250 CE)

14

J. Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land: From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), 6–7. 15 This chronological framework is based on Danny Syon’s chronology of Galilean coins and Uzi Leibner’s chronology of Galilean pottery. D. Syon, “Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods” (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, 2004), 127–140; Leibner, Settlement and History, 48–49.

Part One

Josephus

Chapter 2

Josephus as a Historian The most detailed extant literary sources for first century Galilean society are the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Born Joseph, son of Matthias, to a priestly family in Judea, Josephus was a young Judean aristocrat when the Jews revolted against Rome in 66 CE.1 Josephus was appointed commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee. During the course of the war, he attempted to make a stand against Vespasian’s army at Yodefat (Jotapata) and was taken prisoner when the Romans sacked the town. While a Roman prisoner, Josephus provided considerable aid to his captors’ military efforts against the Jewish rebels, and he eventually gained the trust of the Flavians, who freed him, gave him Roman citizenship, and became the most notable of his patrons.2 Josephus spent the following decades writing, and his four known works have survived intact. They are: The Jewish War (ca. 75 CE) – A history of the Jewish revolt against Rome and the events that precipitated it. The work was probably finished by the mid 70s. The Jewish Antiquities (ca. 94 CE) – A comprehensive history of the Jewish people. It was probably composed in the early to mid 90s. Against Apion (ca. 97 CE) – An apologetic work defending the Jewish religion and stressing its morality and antiquity. The Life of Josephus (ca. 99 CE) – An autobiographical addendum to the Antiquities focused on defending the author’s actions while he was the commander of the Jewish rebel forces in Galilee.

Since portions of the Jewish War (BJ) and the Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) and the vast majority of the Life of Flavius Josephus (Vita) are set in Galilee, Jo1 For detailed biographies of Josephus, see S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, vol. 8, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1979); T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983); P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). For a discussion of Josephus’ activities in Galilee, see G. Jossa, “Josephus’ Action in Galilee During the Jewish War,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Honor of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1987). 2 Upon receiving Roman citizenship, Josephus adopted the Roman name Titus Flavius Josephus in honor of his patrons.

2.1 Using Josephus as a Source for Galilee

11

sephus’ works are among the most important sources for the history of first century Galilee.

2.1 Using Josephus as a Source for Galilee Any attempt to glean historical information from Josephus’ works must begin by acknowledging the problems associated with using Josephus as a historical source. The most commonly recognized problem is that BJ, Ant., and Vita, frequently contradict one another. Some of these discrepancies are insignificant and could easily be the results of honest mistakes or the discovery of new information by Josephus. Other differences, however, are so dramatic that they probably reflect a conscious decision by Josephus to alter his presentation of events.3 2.1.1 Josephus’ Personal Agenda A major problem with using Josephus as a historical source for Galilee is that he was not an unbiased observer of the events he recorded. He began the revolt as a rebel commander in Galilee, and, after the Romans enslaved him, Josephus helped the Romans subdue the remaining Judean (broad sense) rebels. Josephus’ subsequent manumission made him a client of Vespasian and Titus, who had led the Roman forces in Galilee. After the war, Josephus faced many attacks on his character.4 One of his Jewish rivals, Justus of Tiberias, wrote a rival history in which he accused Josephus of all sorts of misdeeds during the latter’s time in Galilee (Vita 336). Josephus even admitted that both Jews and Romans regarded him as a traitor to the Jewish people.5 Josephus often expressed his outrage over these allegations.6 In response, he demonized his rivals – most notably his Galilean rivals such as John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias – in his historical accounts and whitewashed 3

For detailed discussions of the contradictions in Josephus’ works, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 3–23; U. Rappaport, “Where Was Josephus Lying – In His Life or in the War?” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Honor of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1987); “Josephus’ Personality and the Credibility of His Narrrative,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Z. Rodgers, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2007); M. Broshi, “The Credibility of Josephus,” in Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner (Totowa, 1983). 4 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91, 123, 125, 139, 144, 200, 204, 212, 223, 229– 230, 239; Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality.” 5 BJ 3.439; Vita 416. 6 Josephus claimed that he faced frequent accusations throughout his life after the war (BJ 7.437–450; Vita 260, 302, 424–429).

Chapter 2: Josephus as a Historian

12

his own actions.7 Shaye Cohen’s landmark study on Josephus’ development as a historian argues that one of Josephus’ main biases in BJ was his desire to present himself as an ideal general, a popular leader, a dutiful servant of God, and a person of just character.8 Consequently, Josephus had strong reasons to slant his presentation of events in ways that would highlight his own good character, discredit his opponents, and assist the political ambitions of his various patrons, especially those within the imperial family.9 It is also generally agreed that Josephus exaggerated the size of Galilee’s population and the number of troops that he commanded in order to embellish his description of his own military career.10 2.1.2 Josephus and His Audience Over the past two decades, Steve Mason has raised serious doubts about the ways in which scholars use Josephus as a historical source. He argues that most simply mine Josephus’s works for historical data without understanding their construction, intended audiences, or aims. Mason contends that Josephus’ works were essentially rhetorical in style and structure and that they adhered to the prevailing literary conventions of Flavian Rome – even at the expense of what we would call historical accuracy. Mason has also drawn needed attention to how the nature of “publication” in the ancient Mediterranean should influence our interpretation of Josephus. The composition and distribution of literature was a highly social and interactive process in the Classical world. Since the culture was largely an oral one and since copying a written text was expensive and time-consuming, public oral recitation was the primary means of publicizing, evaluating, and disseminating one’s written work. Works of history – like those of other genres – were drafted, performed in rented halls or private homes, revised in light of the previous draft’s reception, and then publicly performed again. Only after multiple recitations and revisions would an author have a “standard” version of a work copied and presented to his friends, patrons, and other important associates.11 Mason argues convincingly that, in order to understand Josephus’ works, we must understand the literary circles for which he recited drafts of his histo7

Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91–100. Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality.” Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91–97. 9 Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality,” 68; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18 (New York: Brill, 1990); Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 147–151, 154–159, 177–280, 235–238; Rappaport, “Josephus Lying.” 10 Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality”; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 90–99. 11 S. Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience,” in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. J. Sievers and G. Lembi (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 8

2.1 Using Josephus as a Source for Galilee

13

ries. He argues persuasively that Josephus’ original audience consisted of educated people in Rome who were interested in Jewish history. Although some members of the audience may have been Jewish, Josephus’ works generally assume a Gentile audience that is unfamiliar with even the basics of Judean (broad sense) culture, geography, or history.12 Thus, Josephus would have tailored his presentation of Galilee to meet the expectations and interests of his audience. Mason also stresses the important role that Josephus’ reputation would have played in conferring legitimacy upon his work. Ancient Roman historians were expected to appear disinterested, and thus Josephus would have been expected to keep his own biases in check. Nevertheless, Josephus’ own aims and perspectives would have influenced his presentation of his time in Galilee. 2.1.3 Josephus’ Rhetorical Aims In order to excuse the majority of Jews and Jewish leaders, Josephus attempted to distance them from the revolt’s instigators and from those rebels who were captured and punished by Rome as traitors. For example, Josephus maintained that the Jewish aristocracy, who established the initial revolutionary leadership, desired peace with Rome, but had to pretend to support the revolt in order to maintain their power and lives (Vita 175–176). It is extremely unlikely that the revolt would have lasted very long without the support of either the official revolutionary government or the Judean populace, yet this is precisely what Josephus claims.13 Thus, it is probable that Josephus altered his presentation of the beginning of the revolt in order to exonerate the Judean leadership. Furthermore, Josephus’ works blame specific revolutionary leaders – especially Simon bar Giora, Eleazar ben Simon, and John of Gischala – for hijacking and radicalizing the Judean revolt. It is probably no coincidence that these were the three men who controlled Jerusalem when Vespasian began his siege of the city. Although Josephus mysteriously omits Eleazar’s fate, we know that the Romans punished John and Simon as traitors.14 Thus, Eleazar, Simon, and John made convenient scapegoats, and Josephus was eager to distinguish them from the “legitimate” leaders who were in control at the beginning of the rebellion. Josephus went to especially great lengths to distance himself from John and to portray John as his archrival while the two figures vied for 12

Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning”; Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary, ed. S. Mason, vol. 9, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Boston: Brill, 2001), xx. 13 BJ 2.301–304, 316, 321–324, 332, 338, 405, 411–419, 422–437, 525–529, 556. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 98–101. 14 BJ 6.433–434; 7.154, 265.

14

Chapter 2: Josephus as a Historian

power in Galilee. Because Josephus was so interested in isolating these scapegoats and branding them as “bandits” (lestai), his claims about the political leanings of rebel leaders, the popularity of Jewish leaders, and the conduct of his political enemies are suspect.15 2.1.4 Outside Checks on Josephus’ Reliability Even when Josephus did choose to alter history to suit his interests, there were important restraints on his ability to misrepresent historical events. First, his contemporary audience consisted of many people – including his Flavian patrons – who had actually participated in the revolt. At the very least, he would have had to construct a narrative that would withstand scrutiny from a number of influential eyewitnesses. Second, Josephus was not the only person to write an account of the Jewish revolt,16 and the existence of these other accounts would probably have limited his ability to publish a biased history. Nevertheless, these constraints would not have prevented Josephus from “spinning” events to suit his needs and even fabricating accounts that could not be refuted by his contemporaries. 2.1.5 Using Josephus as a Historical Source Given the numerous contradictions and biases present in Josephus’ work, it is difficult to know when to trust what he says. The modern scholar, however, should not overstate the unreliability of Josephus’ accounts. Most of the information contained in his works that can be corroborated by other sources is reasonably accurate. The evidence suggests that Josephus was genuinely interested in relating history as accurately as he was able – as long as it would not endanger his own reputation or career. Unfortunately for scholars studying first century Galilee, it is about the events that took place in that region that Josephus had the greatest incentive to lie.17

2.2 A Methodological Note When I began investigating Josephus’ portrayal of Galilee, I was careful to distinguish between his presentation of the region in each work. I had assumed that his depiction of Galilee would have changed in important ways throughout his career. However, although I did find some minor discrepancies 15 BJ 2.254–265, 585–632, 652–653; Vita 82–95, 101, 122–125, 189–195, 217–218, 236– 241, 246, 253–256, 271–274. 16 Justus of Tiberias also wrote a history of the revolt in Galilee (Vita 336–367). 17 Bilde, Josephus Between; Rajak, Josephus; Rappaport, “Josephus Lying”; “Josephus’ Personality”; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome; Schwartz, Josephus and Politics.

2.2 A Methodological Note

15

between his representations of Galilee in BJ, Ant., and Vita, I was surprised to discover that Josephus’ portrayal of Galilee was usually very consistent. Consequently, the following chapter analyzes all of Josephus’ works collectively and identifies those few instances in which the relevant information in Josephus’ work is contradictory.

Chapter 3

Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee 3.1 Ethnicity 3.1.1 Ethnic Identity in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Periods The Antiquities relates the biblical tradition (2 Kings 15:29) that the Assyrians deported Galilee’s population in the eighth century BCE (Ant. 9.235), and Josephus’ account also implies that the deportations left Galilee virtually depopulated. Galilee is not mentioned again in the Antiquities until the Hasmonean Period, and it is not clear from Josephus’ works who lived in the region between the Assyrian conquest and the Maccabean Revolt. 3.1.2 Ethnic Identity in the Hasmonean Period According to Ant. 12.331–334, Judas sent Simon north to protect the “Jews (Ioudaioi) of Galilee” from a hostile coalition that included the “Gentiles of Galilee.” This passage suggests that Galilee’s population was ethnically mixed in the 160s BCE. However, the region’s Jewish population appears to have become predominant over the next generation. In fact, Galilee’s Jewish population was large enough by the 140s that Demetrius II was able to prevent Jonathan from invading Syria by threatening the Galileans, “who were his [Jonathan’s] own people” (Ant. 13.154–162). Josephus’ works do not explain the origins of Galilee’s Jewish population. He does not describe a Hasmonean conquest of the region, and he is silent about the fate of Galilee’s Gentile inhabitants under Judean rule.1 3.1.3 Ethnic Identity in the Early Roman Period I All of Josephus’ works assume that Galilee’s population was Jewish in the early Roman Period I. He used the term “Jew” (Ioudaios) to refer to the general population of Galilee, Sepphoris’ inhabitants (Vita 112–113, 149–154), the Galilean pilgrims who were attacked in Samaria, and individuals who

1 Some contend that Galilee was included in Alexander Jannaeus’ conquest of Ituraea; however, Josephus’ assertion that Alexander Jannaeus was raised in Galilee (Ant. 13.322) indicates that the region was already part of the Hasmonean State before Jannaeus’ reign.

3.2 Urbanization

17

were natives of Galilee.2 In fact, Josephus sometimes used the terms “Galileans” and “Jews” interchangeably.3

3.2 Urbanization 3.2.1 Population Numbers According to Josephus Josephus consistently portrayed pre-revolt Galilee as densely populated. In BJ 3.43, he claimed that Galilee’s cities (poleis), “are thickly distributed, and even the villages (kōmōn), thanks to the fertility of the soil, are all so densely populated that the smallest of them contains above fifteen thousand inhabitants.” In Vita 235, Josephus quoted a letter he wrote to John of Gischala in which he claimed that there were 204 cities and villages in Galilee. A literal interpretation of these two passages would indicate that Galilee’s population exceeded 3,000,000 people in the first century CE!4 However, given the propensity of ancient authors to inflate population numbers dramatically, it is likely that Josephus’ claims were hyperbolic.5 3.2.2 Major Cities in Galilee Josephus singled out Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Gabara as the three “greatest” cities in Galilee, and he noted that Sepphoris was the largest.6 Josephus also referred to Tarichea as a city and claimed that it had 40,000 residents and a hippodrome that could hold 100,000 people.7 Presumably, each of the three “greatest” cities had an even larger population than this.8 Josephus’ figures

2

BJ 2.232–233; 3.229, 359; Ant. 20.43–48; Vita 130, 136, 151, 346. See my in-depth discussion on the meaning of Ioudaios in Chapter 12. 4 15,000 x 204 = 3,060,000. Since Josephus’ description of Galilee and Gaulinitis (which Josephus often includes as part of Galilee) encompassed only 1,500 square km, Josephus’ numbers would indicate that Galilee as a whole had a population density of 2,000 persons per square km. C. Ben-David, “Were There 204 Settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62, no. 1 (2011): 30. 5 See my discussion of Galilean urbanization in Chapter 12. 6 BJ 3.34; Vita 123, 203, 232, 346. L.H. Feldman and G. Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 307. 7 Tarichea is called a city in BJ 2.252, 629 and Vita 188, 276. According to BJ 2.598–609, 100,000 men congregated in the hippodrome, and Josephus had 40,000 Taricheans supporting him. The parallel passage, Vita 132–136, says only that a “large crowd” gathered in the hippodrome. 8 Again, these numbers are probably gross exaggerations. 3

18

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

also imply that Galilee experienced rapid urbanization during Antipas’ reign since the Tetrarch built both Sepphoris and Tiberias.9 3.2.3 Urban-Rural Relations Josephus claimed that the “Galileans” (those who were not citizens of Sepphoris, Tiberias, or Gabara) hated Sepphoris and Tiberias during the Great Revolt.10 Some scholars have interpreted this dynamic as evidence that the cities’ exploitation of the countryside caused urban-rural tensions.11 However, there are three major reasons to doubt such a hypothesis. First, it was in Josephus’ interest to portray Sepphoris and Tiberias as hated by rural Galileans. The city of Sepphoris refused to join Josephus in rebellion, and Tiberias was divided between Roman loyalists and supporters of the revolt (Vita 32–36). Furthermore, Tiberias’ leaders frequently challenged Josephus’ authority.12 His failure to win over either of Galilee’s major cities would have undermined Josephus’ claims about the Galileans’ support for himself and for the Jewish revolt. However, Josephus’ characterization of the animosity between “the Galileans” and these two cities implies that it would not have been possible for him to secure the support of Sepphoris and Tiberias while placating the rest of Galilee’s inhabitants.13 Second, Josephus blamed the Galileans’ hatred of Sepphoris on that city’s pro-Roman stance during the revolt (Vita 39) and not on its economic impact on the region.14 If, in fact, the animosity toward Sepphoris was sparked by the

9 BJ 2.168; Ant 18.26, 36–38. According to Josephus, Sepphoris was an important city before Antipas’ reign (BJ 1.167; Ant 14.89). However, Varus destroyed the city in retribution for Judas’ revolt in 4 BCE (BJ 2.66–68; Ant. 17.286). 10 Vita 30–31, 39, 97–100, 373–389. 11 S. Freyne, “Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary Sources,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992); “Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee,” in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997). 12 BJ 2.595–607; Vita 62–69, 80–101, 104–111, 122–125, 134, 141–144, 155–175, 199– 203, 271–308. 13 Josephus’ comment in Vita 84 is a good example of how Josephus associated the Galileans’ hatred of Tiberias with their support for him. See also Vita 97–100, 262–265, 373–389. Similarly, Josephus probably uses the Galileans’ hatred of Tiberias to excuse his bizarre capture, imprisonment, and immediate release of Crispus (Vita 381–389). Shaye Cohen argues that Crispus had escaped without Josephus’ consent and that Josephus fabricated this story to cover up his own incompetence. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 136. 14 Josephus also notes in section 38 that Tiberians hated Sepphoris because it was made the capital of Galilee and given “the royal bank and the archives” after Sepphoris demonstrated its loyalty to Rome at the beginning of the revolt.

3.2 Urbanization

19

city’s loyalty to Rome, then Josephus’ comments tell us very little about the relationship between Sepphoris and the countryside before the revolt. Third, most of Josephus’ supporters came from Tarichea, which was the most prominent site on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee before Antipas founded Tiberias.15 Because Tarichea suffered a loss of prominence after Tiberias’ founding, the people of Tarichea resented the new city. With so many followers from Tarichea, Josephus may have had a skewed view of how “the Galileans” viewed Tiberias. Given Josephus’ strong motives for portraying Sepphoris and Tiberias as unpopular with the rest of Galilee, his statements to this effect are suspect. While it is likely that pro-revolt Galileans would have developed a hatred for Sepphoris because of its loyalty to Rome, the evidence in Josephus does not suggest that this antipathy existed before the revolt. Similarly, while it is possible that Galileans were incensed at the Tiberians’ overtures to Agrippa16 or their inconsistent support for the revolt, Josephus probably exaggerated the extent of their rage. Furthermore, Josephus never claims that the Galileans’ hatred of these two cities had anything to do with the impact of urban construction on the Galilean economy. It is, therefore, an unwarranted logical leap to use these statements as evidence that heightened urban-rural tensions existed in Galilee before the revolt. 3.2.4 Urbanization and Taxation Both Antipas and Agrippa II engaged in urbanization projects that may have increased the tax burden on Galilee’s rural population. The foundation and development of urban centers required expensive construction projects, and both rulers were forced to offer expensive government subsidies to new residents in order to populate their new or expanded cities.17 Since both rulers probably financed much of their construction projects with tax revenues, these expenses may have resulted in higher taxes. While we cannot determine how much the tax burden would have increased, we do know that tax revenues were not the only sources of funds for the Herodians’ building projects. Herod and his successors made considerable amounts of money from their private land holdings, business ventures, and money lending. It is almost certain that some of the construction costs would have been funded by the rulers’ personal wealth,18 and some of the Herodian

15

Vita 94–96, 141–144, 155–164, 168, 174, 188, 276, 304, 404–406. BJ 2.632–645; Vita 155–178. 17 Ant. 18.36–38; 20.211–214. Agrippa II’s subsidies were aimed at quickly populating the new areas he had added to Caesarea Philippi. 18 E. Gabba, “The Finances of King Herod,” in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration 16

20

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

rulers incurred substantial debt as a result of excessive public spending. However, Josephus’ works provide too little evidence for us to determine whether the increased economic activity stimulated by Herodian urbanization resulted in a net benefit for the average Galilean villager.

3.3 The Economy 3.3.1 Monetization Josephus’ accounts of financial transactions that occurred in Galilee imply that the region’s economy was already substantially monetized by the Great Revolt.19 Josephus usually ignored the actual coin types and denominations used in Galilee, providing his readers with an equivalent value in drachmae.20 Consequently, although Josephus asserted that monetary transactions were somewhat common in Galilee, his works say little about the volume of coins circulating in the region or about the types of currencies commonly used by Galileans.21 Josephus also claimed to have confiscated a large amount of uncoined silver, which had been looted from Agrippa’s palace in Tiberias (Vita 68).22 It is not clear if the silver was meant to be coined or if Agrippa simply kept a stock of uncoined metal in Tiberias.23 What we do know about the silver is that Josephus spent some of it – apparently without coining it – and was criticized by his opponents for doing so (Vita 294–298). This account implies that uncoined silver may have been commonly used in Galilee for extremely large purchases.

Society, 1990). Of course, all the Herodian rulers held large swaths of land, and the produce from those lands was a major source of their personal wealth. Ant. 17.317–320. 19 BJ 2.590–594; Vita 74–76, 199–203, 216–227. 20 This was doubtless for his audience’s convenience. Compare, for example, BJ 2.590– 594, which only mentions drachmae, with the parallel passage in the Vita (74–76), which claims that John used Tyrian coinage but still gives the value in drachmae. 21 He did note on one occasion that Tyrian Jews paid for John of Gischala’s olive oil in Tyrian currency (BJ 2.590–594; Vita 74–76). However, it is not clear if such transactions were commonplace or were a result of the unique economic conditions during the revolt. 22 Josephus also mentions a large sum of silver that was stolen from Ptolemy’s wife (Vita 126–131), but it is not clear if that silver was coined. 23 Such a treasury of uncoined silver would have had many uses for both Agrippa and his agents in Tiberias.

3.3 The Economy

21

3.3.2 Prosperity and Poverty Josephus’ portrayal of Galilee’s economy was consistent: he repeatedly emphasized the region’s abundant resources and prosperity.24 In BJ 3.41–44, Josephus offered a lengthy description of the region’s exceptionally fertile soil and pasturage. He also claimed that the land was cultivated to its maximum capacity and that the region was densely packed with large towns and villages.25 There are important reasons to be skeptical of Josephus’ claims about Galilean prosperity. Like many ancient authors, Josephus was prone to selfserving exaggeration. It would likely have undermined his dignity to claim that he commanded an impoverished, backwater region. Therefore, he had an incentive to inflate the importance of Galilee, and an effective way to do that was to exaggerate the region’s wealth. Moreover, since Josephus was an aristocrat, he may have been unaware of or unconcerned with the economic conditions facing most Galileans. Nevertheless, there are two strong reasons for believing Josephus’ claims about the region’s economic conditions. First, although Josephus tried to depict Antipas as a poor ruler, he was unable to come up with any major problems that Galilee experienced while Antipas was Tetrarch. Had Galilee suffered through an economic crisis or a famine during the reign of Antipas, Josephus would probably have included the event in his histories.26 Second, Josephus’ propensity to exaggerate his hardships as general of Galilee makes his claims to have had an easy time supplying the settlements with food and other resources more credible. If there were problems with getting these supplies, Josephus would have reported them. 3.3.3 Interregional Trade Although his works rarely mentioned commercial activities, Josephus did note that John of Gischala exported large quantities of ritually pure olive oil to Syrian Jews at a substantial markup.27 Apparently, John was able to charge such high prices because the revolt cut the Jews of Syria and Caesarea Philippi off from their usual sources of ritually pure olive oil. At the same time that Syrian Jews were experiencing a shortage of “kosher” olive oil, the war-torn Galileans had a large surplus. Such a situation implies that the revolt interrupted the regular export of olive oil from Galilee to Syria. Therefore, Jose24 The major exception is when Josephus mentions economic problems that affected all of Judea (broad sense), such as the famine in the mid 40s (Ant. 20.51, 100–102). 25 Although this statement was probably hyperbolic, Josephus clearly indicated that Galilee was considerably richer in resources than Perea and that most Galileans were relatively well off. 26 Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 307–310. 27 BJ 2.590–594; Vita 74–76.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

22

phus’ works indicate that olive oil exports played an important role in Galilee’s economy. 3.3.4 Taxation The economic activity mentioned most frequently in Josephus’ Galilean narratives is taxation. Unfortunately, he rarely discussed the methods of taxation and focused instead on the tax revenues gained by the rulers.28 a. Tax Farming In general, Josephus’ statements about tax collection under the Herodians and the Roman governors suggest that both groups hired tax farmers to collect revenues in Galilee.29 Throughout antiquity, such tax farmers made most of their profits by collecting extra money, which they kept for themselves. Consequently, the interaction between tax farmers and Galilean subjects would have been fundamentally oppressive and exploitative.30 b. Herodian Taxation Josephus described two specific Judean taxes that the Herodian rulers may also have collected in Galilee. Before his deposition, Archelaus was asked by some Judeans to reduce some of the multiple annual taxes31 they paid, and his Judean subjects also asked him to abolish the region’s sales tax (Ant. 17.205). Although Archelaus did not rule over Galilee, he probably inherited this taxation system from his father. Therefore, it is likely that Antipas inherited a similar system in Galilee.32 28

BJ 1.220–222, 314–316; 2.93–100, 272–276; 4.333–336; Ant. 17.304–314, 317–320; 18.273–278; 19.351–352; 20.211–214. Given Josephus’ position as a priest and a client of the Flavians, perhaps Josephus’ failure to mention methods of taxation is to be expected. After all, tax collection methods in the Roman Empire were typically brutal. 29 In the late Republic and the Empire, the Roman governors typically auctioned off the right to collect taxes to private contractors called tax farmers (Latin: publicani). Usually, the tax farmers were given considerable latitude with respect to their methods. These tax farmers were allowed to keep any collected money in excess of the amount specified by the government. A.H.M. Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 151–185; P. Garnsey and R. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 21. 30 G. Woolf, Rome: An Empire’s Story (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012), 188. 31 The nature of the annual taxes is unclear, but it is likely that they included taxes on produce and real property. 32 It is unclear how effectively and under what conditions a sales tax could have been enforced. It would have been relatively easy for Herod and Archelaus to tax transactions that occurred in the city of Jerusalem, where hundreds of merchants operated in close proximity, and Galilee’s urban centers (Sepphoris, Tiberias, Gabara, and maybe Tarichea) would have

3.3 The Economy

23

Josephus also claimed that Agrippa I exempted the residents of Jerusalem from the usual property tax (Ant. 19.299). Such a statement implies that Agrippa’s other subjects (which included Galilee’s inhabitants) were required to pay the tax.33 c. Roman Taxation Once Archelaus was deposed and Iudaea became a Roman province, the Iudaeans would have been subject to additional direct taxes.34 Galilee would not have been subject to these taxes at this time because it was still ruled by Herod Antipas. However, Galilee became subject to such direct Roman taxation once it was incorporated into the Province of Iudaea, and the new taxation system probably increased the tax burden borne by the Galileans.35 d. Tax Revenue as a Measure of Economic Activity Josephus’ reports about the rulers’ tax revenues can be used to detect changes in the relative wealth of the Judean (broad sense) regions at certain points in the first century. For example, Josephus claimed that 100 of the 700 talents (or about 15%) paid as tribute to Cassius by Antipater in 43 BCE was raised in Galilee (BJ 1.220–222). If we assume that each region’s tax revenues corresponded roughly to its wealth, then Galilee would have constituted approximately 15% of the Judean (broad sense) economy in the middle of the last century BCE. By the beginning of Antipas’ reign in 4 BCE, however, Galilee and Perea yielded a tax revenue of 200 talents, and it is reasonable to suppose that almost all of this money came from Galilee.36 That same year, all of Herod’s provided similarly suitable places to tax commercial transactions. Collecting a sales tax in the more remote portions of Galilee, however, would probably have been impractical. 33 Although Josephus does not specify the property tax rate, the one percent rate paid in the Roman provinces of Syria and Cilicia (Appian, Bell. Syr. 50) would be a reasonable guess. 34 It is precisely against these taxes that Judas the Galilean (apparently operating in Jerusalem) urged his fellow Jews to revolt (BJ 2.117–118). 35 For a more thorough treatment of the nature and severity of the tax burden in Early Roman I Judea (broad sense), see F.E. Udoh, To Caesar What is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 BCE–70 CE) (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005). 36 It is not clear if the 200-talent figure for Antipas’ tax revenues refers to the total taxes raised by Antipas or the total tax revenue he retained after paying tribute to Rome. In fact, scholars are divided as to whether Antipas even had to pay a regular tribute to Rome. Josephus tells us that Pompey made Jerusalem subject to Roman tribute (Ant. 14.74) in 63 BCE and that Herod paid mandatory tributes to his Roman patrons in 43 and 39 BCE (BJ 1.220– 222; Ant. 15.106–107). Some scholars argue that, since we know that the Judean (broad sense) client rulers paid tribute from 63 to 39 BCE, we have no reason to believe that Herod

24

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

successors collected a combined total of 960 talents from the king’s former territories.37 This would suggest that Galilee and Perea contained about onefifth of Judea’s (broad sense) total wealth at the end of the last century BCE. Given the poverty of Perea and the revenues from Philip and Salome’s territories, it is likely that Galilee’s economy experienced significant growth during Herod’s reign. Later in the first century, Agrippa I derived 12,000,000 drachmae – or about 1,200 talents – from all of Judea (broad sense).38 This represents a 25% increase in tax revenues in less than half a century. If we assume that tax rates remained roughly constant, then these figures indicate that Judea (broad sense) experienced rapid growth (by ancient standards) during the halfcentury following Herod’s death.39 It is, of course, likely that Galilee participated in this economic growth along with the rest of Judea (broad sense). If, on the other hand, we assume that the increased revenues came from higher tax rates rather than economic growth, the effects of such an increased tax burden would have hurt the Galilean economy – and done disproportionate harm to the region’s lower classes. Given Agrippa’s popularity, however,

and his successors were ever excused from paying tribute. H.W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983), 298–300; S. Applebaum, “Judaea as a Roman Province: The Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor,” in ANRW (New York: de Gruyer, 1977), 373; M. Stern, ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), 189–190. Others, however, contend that, since Josephus does not mention any tributes paid by Herodian rulers to Rome and since Herod had become an invaluable Roman ally, the Julio-Claudian emperors may have lightened or abolished the tribute requirement for Herod and his descendants. Gabba, “Finances of Herod,” 164–165. Jack Pastor even makes the case that Herod may have been allowed to build imperial monuments at home and fund them abroad as a substitute for paying tribute. J. Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (New York: Routledge, 1997), 110. 37 Archelaus collected 600 talents from Judea, Samaria, Idumea, and a number of semiindependent cities under his control; Philip collected 100 talents from Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Ituraea; and Salome collected 60 talents from Jamnia, Ashdod, Phasaelis, and the palace at Ashkelon (BJ 2.93–100; Ant. 17.318–321). Therefore, the total tax revenue collected from all of Judea (broad sense), including Galilee, was 960 talents. 38 Ant. 19.351–352. Jack Pastor assumes that Josephus provided his tax revenue figures in Tyrian drachmae (10,000 per talent), which means that Agrippa received 12,000 talents in tax revenue. Pastor, Land and Economy, 227–228. If we assume that Josephus gave his tax figures in Attic drachmae (6,000 per talent), then Agrippa received 2,000 talents. 39 Sustained economic growth was very rare in pre-industrial societies. R.W. Goldsmith, “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire,” Review of Income and Wealth 30 (1984). W.M. Jongman, “The Early Roman Empire: Consumption,” in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Saller (New York: Cambridge UP, 2007).

3.4 Political Climate

25

it seems unlikely that Agrippa would have had such substantially higher tax rates than his predecessors.40

3.4 Political Climate 3.4.1 Rulers of Galilee a. Herod the Great Galilee offered Herod his first taste of executive power when his father made him governor of the region at the age of 25 (Ant. 14.158-160). Although Josephus said very little about Herod’s early activities in Galilee, he did mention that the young Herod made his reputation there fighting the region’s local brigands (BJ 1.204–207) and collecting taxes more efficiently than his counterparts (BJ 1.220–222). Herod also developed a reputation at this time for being ruthless and power-hungry (BJ 1.208–209). Galilee appears to have played an important role in Herod’s consolidation of power following his father’s death. Josephus claimed that almost all of Galilee – Sepphoris was the major exception – supported Herod during his war against Antigonus (Ant. 14.394–395). It makes sense that Herod would have had a strong base of support in Galilee since he had been the region’s governor and still had retainers throughout the region. However, we should not take Josephus’ claims about Herod’s support in Galilee as evidence that he was popular among the common people.41 There are important indications that Herod faced substantial popular opposition in Galilee. Sepphoris, the largest city in Galilee, opposed him (BJ 1.304), and Herod was forced to exert considerable energy pacifying Galilee at the beginning of his reign.42 Moreover, he essentially neglected Galilee once he gained control of all Judea (broad sense). Herod – one of the great builders of the ancient world – built nothing in Galilee, which suggests that he had a strained relationship with the region’s inhabitants.

40

We at least hear of a major tax cut made by Agrippa, who released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from property taxes (Ant. 19.299). 41 M. Toher, “Nicolaus and Herod in the ‘Antiquities Judaicae,’” HSCP 101 (2003); G.C. Richards, “The Composition of Josephus’ Antiquities,” CQ 33, no. 1 (1939); B.Z. Wacholder, “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L.H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989). Josephus’ main source for Herod’s life was Nicolaus of Damascus – a prolific historian and philosopher who was also a close friend of Herod the Great. Therefore, Josephus may simply be repeating Nicolaus’ pro-Herod propaganda. 42 BJ 1.304–308; Ant. 14.413–417, 433, 448–450. Herod also had to defend Galilee from a Tyrian invasion (Ant. 14.297–300).

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

26 b. Herod Antipas

Josephus said less about Antipas than he did about any other Herodian ruler. Josephus briefly mentioned Antipas’ attempt to gain his father’s throne, his reconstruction of Sepphoris, his founding of Tiberias in Galilee and Julias in Perea, the destruction of his army by Aretas, a few of his interactions with Roman officials and Agrippa I, and his banishment.43 Both the paucity of information about him and the characterization of Antipas in Josephus’ works suggest that he was the least ambitious of the Herodian rulers.44 Josephus generally mentioned the tetrarch’s accomplishments in passing and regarded Antipas’ achievements as less important than those of the other Herodians.45 In his power struggles with Archelaus and Agrippa I, Antipas was portrayed as more complacent than his brothers. According to Josephus, Antipas desired “tranquility” more than power.46 In fact, tranquility was probably Antipas’ most important achievement. When he first took control of Galilee, the region was in turmoil. While Antipas and his brothers vied for control of Judea (broad sense) before the emperor in Rome, several revolts erupted in their father’s former kingdom.47 In Galilee, Judas the Galilean seized Sepphoris in a rebellion that had to be put down by the Syrian Legate, Varus. Varus destroyed the city, which was the largest in Galilee, and enslaved it inhabitants (Vita 286–289). Thus, Antipas assumed control of a territory in which there had recently been a major rebellion and in which the most important city had just been destroyed and depopulated. It is, therefore, notable that Antipas’ 43-year reign was free of any major political or economic disturbances.48 Economically, Antipas’ subjects probably benefitted from his relative lack of ambition. His comparatively modest building projects would have been less of a burden on the Galilean economy than the more extravagant construction activities of most other client-rulers (including his father). Furthermore, the fact that Antipas had a surplus of wealth when he was banished – as op43

BJ 2.20–22, 94–95, 178–183; Ant. 17.188, 224–227, 238, 318; 18.27, 36–38, 247–255. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 240–255. 45 BJ 2.20–25, 93–100, 167–168, 181–183; Ant. 17.188, 318–321; 18.27, 36–38, 101–105, 109–124, 148–150, 240–256. Of course, Antipas and Philip stayed in power longer than Archelaus, and once Antipas decided to take a more aggressive course of action, he was deposed. Perhaps this means that Antipas was smart to lay low for most of his reign. 46 Ant. 18.245. See also BJ 2.181–183 in which Antipas is called ambitious, but Josephus notes that Antipas’ ambition was only aroused after his wife called him lazy. 47 BJ 2.55–65; Ant. 17.269–285. 48 It could be argued that the absence of information regarding Galilee was the result of Josephus’ Jerusalem-centered viewpoint. However, Morten Jensen has made a compelling case that, even if we take Josephus’ focus on Judea into account, his failure to mention political turmoil during Antipas’ reign is still very significant. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 307–310. 44

3.4 Political Climate

27

posed to the severe debts Agrippa I had when he died – suggests that he probably did a good job of managing his finances.49 Overall, Josephus’ portrait of Antipas’ reign is one of quiet stability. Modern scholars often dismiss the Tetrarch as a mediocre or unremarkable ruler; however, the average Galilean probably fared much better under Antipas’ stable governance than under the more ambitious and ruthless rule of the other Herodian dynasts. c. Agrippa I According to most interpreters, Josephus presented Agrippa I as the ideal Jewish ruler and portrayed his rise to power as the result of divine providence.50 Josephus frequently referred to him as “Agrippa the Great” and claimed that the king was highly esteemed by both Gentiles and Jews.51 Josephus also presented Agrippa I as devoted to Jewish traditions and as a vigorous advocate of Jewish interests.52 Agrippa’s most important intercession on behalf of his subjects involved a massive protest in Galilee, which infuriated the emperor. Josephus claimed that tens of thousands of Jews gathered to prevent the transport of Caligula’s statue, which the emperor had ordered to be placed in the Jerusalem Temple.53 Josephus claimed that the protests were non-violent but that the Jews were willing to die rather than have the Temple defiled. Agrippa led a delegation of Jewish leaders who persuaded Petronius (the emperor’s emissary) to abandon the plan.54 In this, Agrippa took a major risk. Caligula was cruel and unpredictable, and he responded by ordering Petronius’ execution for siding with the Jews in this affair.55 Thus, Agrippa was willing to risk his life to protect his people’s way of life. The protest over Caligula’s statue also sheds light on the political climate in Galilee during Agrippa’s reign. This was the first time in over forty years that Galilee’s inhabitants demonstrated a willingness to die resisting Roman authority. The incident shows that Galilean Jews felt more loyalty toward their ancestral laws and their Temple than they did to the Roman Empire. Without Agrippa’s intervention, the affair may have become violent. 49

Antipas’ finances stand in stark contrast to those of Agrippa I, who had accumulated substantial debts during his short reign (Ant. 18.252–255; 19.351–352). 50 Ant. 18.197. D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 33–36; Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 84. 51 Ant. 17.28; 18.110; 19.328–342; 20.104. 52 Ant. 17.28; 18.289–301; 19.279–288, 300–311. 53 BJ 2.184–204; Ant. 18.261–284. 54 Ant. 18.273–302. The story of Agrippa’s intercession was not part of Josephus’ account of this affair in BJ 2.184–203. 55 BJ 2.202–203; Ant. 18.302–305. Caligula’s assassination nullified this order before it could be carried out.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

28

Perhaps the only negative trait that Josephus attributed to Agrippa was his constant borrowing and spending of money – both in private life and as a ruler (Ant. 18.142–204). Although there are many reasons to think that the king’s overspending would have damaged the Judean (broad sense) economy, Josephus regarded his spending habits as a positive quality. For Josephus, Agrippa’s expenditures were a sign of his generosity (Ant. 19.328–337). d. The Roman Procurators Following Agrippa I’s death in 44 CE, Galilee was incorporated into the reconstituted province of Iudaea, though the region’s easternmost cities were transferred to Agrippa II in the mid 50s.56 Josephus claimed that the next two procurators, Fadus (44–46 CE) and Tiberius Alexander (46–48 CE) kept the expanded province at peace.57 However, the political situation quickly deteriorated during the procuratorship of Cumanus (48–52 CE) when multiple violent confrontations erupted between Jews and Roman soldiers because members of the latter group had allegedly engaged in acts of lewdness and sacrilege.58 Cumanus also failed to address the murder of a Galilean pilgrim by Samaritans, and Josephus implied that Cumanus’ negligence allowed the situation to spiral out of control. The conflict eventually resulted in a Jewish massacre of Samaritans, Cumanus’ massacre of the aforementioned Jews, and Cumanus’ banishment by the emperor for maladministration.59 Josephus claimed that relations between Judeans (broad sense) and Roman officials grew progressively worse under subsequent governors. Jewish revolutionary movements steadily gained popularity, and the Roman governors resorted to increasingly more extreme measures to eliminate the rebellious elements from Iudaea.60 Josephus charged Felix (52–ca. 58 CE) with assassinating the High Priest, Albinius (ca. 62–64 CE) with abetting banditry, and Florus (64–66 CE) with excessive cruelty and theft.61 Josephus heaped much of the blame for the Great Revolt on the chaos and ill will generated by these last few governors. e. Agrippa II Most of Galilee never came under Agrippa II’s rule. However, Agrippa did acquire control over the Galilean communities near of the Sea of Galilee in 56

BJ 2.219–220, 252; Ant. 20.1–9, 159; Vita 37–38. BJ 2.220; Ant. 20.97–103. Fadus, however, did have to deal with Theudas’ movement. 58 BJ 2.224–231; Ant. 20.113–117. 59 BJ 2.232–246; Ant. 20.118–136. 60 BJ 2.252–283; Ant. 20.159–255. 61 BJ 2.272–283, 293–308; Ant. 20.162–164, 197–215, 252–257. Surprisingly, Josephus had no major criticism of Festus, who ruled from ca. 59 to 62 CE (BJ 2.271; Ant. 20.182– 188) 57

3.4 Political Climate

29

the mid 50s.62 Overall, Josephus’ portrayal of Agrippa II is significantly less flattering than his portrayal of Agrippa I. It is important to note that in BJ – which was written at a time when Josephus apparently needed to avoid offending the king – Agrippa is presented in a more positive light than he is in Ant. and the Vita, which were probably written after Agrippa’s death.63 Taking into account the political circumstances that appear to have biased BJ, Josephus’ description of Agrippa is more negative than positive. Josephus claimed that Agrippa earned the resentment of his subjects by appearing to favor nearby Gentile territories, especially Berytus (Ant. 20.211– 214). The Judeans (broad sense) saw him as a Roman puppet and as disloyal to the Jewish religion. His subjects resented his meddling in priestly affairs, especially his frequent deposition of the High Priests.64 At the beginning of the revolt, Agrippa’s failed attempts to pacify both the province of Iudaea and his own territories demonstrate his lack of influence among the Jewish people.65 Ironically, though the Jews saw Agrippa as too close to the Romans, some Romans suspected that Agrippa was secretly involved in the revolt (Vita 407–408). The fact that cities in Agrippa’s own territory joined the Jewish Revolt is significant because they were not subject to direct Roman rule. It would have signified his subjects’ rejection of Agrippa as much as their rejection of Rome.66 Even some of Agrippa’s administrators and military personnel joined the revolt.67 Moreover, in Batanea – a Herodian military colony that remained loyal to Rome (BJ 2.481–486) – many of the local Jews fled to Gamala to join the revolt after Varus’ treachery.68 In short, Josephus presented Agrippa II as an unpopular and ineffective ruler. The historian also claimed that Agrippa’s subjects viewed him as weak and unjust.

62

BJ 2.252; Ant. 20.159. See also Vita 37-38. The cities were Tiberias, Tarichea, Julias (Bethsaida), and Abila (though Abila is not mentioned in the Antiquities). The exact date of Agrippa II’s acquisition of this territory is debated. 63 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 177–180. 64 Ant. 20.179, 203, 213–214. 65 BJ 2.344–407, 418–429, 483. 66 Vespasian’s reaction to the news that some of Agrippa’s cities had revolted as well suggests that he did not expect these cities to join the revolt (BJ 3.443–452). 67 BJ 2.52, 57–59, 520; 3.11–19; Vita 220, 397. 68 Vita 46–61. It seems likely that Tiberias’ participation in the revolt was partially motivated by the loss of status (and probably of political independence as well) the city suffered when it was annexed to Agrippa’s territory (Vita 37–39). However, this does not explain the revolutionary activities of the other cities in Agrippa’s domain. Tiberias and Tarichea’s resentment of Agrippa may also imply that those two cities suffered economically under Agrippa.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

30 3.4.2 Patronage

Josephus frequently highlighted the importance of local elites in Galilean politics. In his attempt to gain control of Galilee during the revolt, Josephus began by gaining the trust of the local strongmen, who worked in turn to gain the support of the masses for Josephus.69 When necessary, Josephus held important Galileans hostage to ensure the cooperation of the locals, and it may be that many of the elites who “supported” Josephus did so under compulsion (BJ 2.638–641). Yet, although Josephus claimed that he was able to win over a substantial number of Galilean elites, much of his time in Galilee seems to have been spent fighting those who would not support him.70 In fact, Josephus’ most loyal support came from Tarichea, which Josephus claimed was overrun by foreigners (i.e. Jews from neighboring regions) who had fled from their own countries.71 Josephus even went so far as to claim that the town’s natives opposed the revolt and that most of the revolutionaries in Tarichea during the revolt were foreigners.72 The political situation in Tarichea, combined with Josephus’ need to ensure the Galileans’ cooperation by holding their elites hostage, suggests that he enjoyed much less support in the region than he wanted his readers to imagine. Josephus seems to have had little trouble controlling the influential men from Galilee’s smaller villages. These men probably lacked the resources to oppose Josephus and so lent him their support in the interest of selfpreservation. However, in the larger settlements of Galilee – Sepphoris, Tiberias, Gabara, and Gischala – Josephus ran into considerable opposition.73 It is not surprising that the larger settlements – which had more powerful and numerous upper classes – resisted Josephus, who attempted to bully the local elites into submission. Of the communities that opposed Josephus, Sepphoris and Gischala offered the strongest resistance.74 Both were wealthy communities with residents who could have financed their own cities’ fortifications (BJ 2.572–576). Sepphoris’ opposition to Josephus was a result of the city’s loyalty to Rome, but this was not the case in Gischala. Gischala supported the revolt, but the residents refused to recognize Josephus as their leader. Instead, they followed

69

BJ 2.569–571; Vita 77–79. Vita 62–69, 80–101, 104–111, 122–125, 134, 141–144, 155–175, 199–203, 271–308. 71 BJ 3.463, 492–502, 532–542; Vita 96–97, 127, 157–168, 174, 276, 304, 404. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 209. 72 BJ 3.532–542. Although I call Tarichea a town, Josephus called it a polis (BJ 2.252). 73 BJ 2.614–631, 638–641. Gamala also opposed Josephus at this time (BJ 2.626–631). 74 Although both cities opposed Josephus, they had very different political goals. Sepphoris desired peace with Rome, and Gischala wanted John to be the revolutionary commander in Galilee. Sepphoris, however, did support John of Gischala against Josephus at one point. 70

3.4 Political Climate

31

a local leader, John of Gischala, who was Josephus’ main rival for power during the revolt (BJ 2.585–594). Josephus also faced significant opposition in Tiberias, which was divided politically both on the issue of the revolt and on who should lead the city during the revolt.75 However, he was often able to control the city through violence and by taking advantage of his adversaries’ disunity.76 In sum, the political fault lines in Galilee during the revolt were essentially determined by patronage loyalties. Local leaders such as John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias received support from members of their communities and from their local political allies. Josephus, on the other hand, received most of his support from foreign refugees and from the clients of local elites whom he held hostage. The intensity of these patron-client loyalties during the revolt suggests that patronage played an important role in Galilean politics. 3.4.3 John of Gischala as a Local Leader According to Josephus, John of Gischala was the most prominent native Galilean leader during the revolt. During the Great Revolt, John enjoyed the support of the people from his hometown and from Gabara, which was led by John’s ally, Simon (Vita 124). John sometimes also had considerable support in Tiberias because of his personal connections with faction leaders in the city.77 Josephus portrayed John as someone of low social standing, who exploited his fellow Galileans for personal gain and who did not have widespread support in Galilee (BJ 2.585). However, the historian’s own work undermines this caricature. John was able to rally the most prominent cities against Josephus mainly because of his relationship with prominent Galilean leaders.78 This suggests that John possessed considerable social standing in the region. John’s close friendship with Simeon ben Gamaliel, an influential leader in Jerusalem, (Vita 189–193) suggests that John’s standing and influence extended beyond Galilee’s borders. Moreover, the fact that many Galileans followed John to Jerusalem after Gischala fell suggests that John had much more support among the Galilean populace than Josephus wanted to admit.

75

Vita 31–42, 87–107, 271–286, 381–392. Vita 82, 155–179, 305–335. 77 BJ 2.590–609; Vita 123–125; U. Rappaport, “John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem,” JJS 33 (1982). 78 Vita 80–101, 123–125, 228–235. 76

32

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

3.4.4 Local Politics in Tiberias Josephus provided specific details about Tiberias’ political organization.79 He noted that Antipas founded the city and that it contained significant numbers of Jews and Gentiles.80 The city’s organization was similar to that of a Greek polis, but it probably lacked the (very limited) political independence enjoyed by such cities.81 On the eve of the revolt, the city’s government included a council (boulē) of 600, ten “leaders” (prōtoi), an archon, and a popular assembly.82 Despite its Hellenistic organization, Tiberias’ distinctive political features highlight the city’s Jewish character. For example, the assembly apparently met in the city’s synagogue (proseuchē), and a religious meeting there could quickly turn into a political one (Vita 295). The assembly also appears to have adjourned early on the Sabbath (Vita 279). Upon its founding, Tiberias became the new capital of Galilee, and the city probably housed many of Antipas’ administrators. The presence of Herodian subordinates in Tiberias is reflected in the names of some of the city’s most prominent leaders in 66 (Vita 32–34). Tiberias remained the capital of Galilee for about a generation, losing that distinction when it was added to Agrippa II’s territory. At that point, Sepphoris re-assumed the role of Galilee’s capital (Vita 37–39). The consequent loss of prominence experienced by Tiberias bred Tiberian resentment toward Sepphoris (and perhaps toward Agrippa as well) (Vita 36–39). 3.4.5 Class Conflict Josephus drew a sharp contrast between the class relations of Galilee and those of Judea. In Judea, the lower class resentment of the elites was palpable.83 The rebel leaders frequently had to enact radical economic reforms to placate the poor multitude at the expense of the rich. Galilee, however, experienced no major class conflicts, and the local political leaders apparently had little need to placate the lower classes in order to gain their support.84 79 For a more detailed discussion of Tiberias’ political structure, see T. Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias,” CQ 23 (1973): 346–351; M. Sigmismund, “Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Century CE Tiberias,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 316. 80 Ant. 18.36–38; Vita 65–67. 81 Rajak, “Justus.” 82 BJ 2.639, 641; Vita 64–66, 69, 284, 296. M. Bernett, “Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions, and Dynamics,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee. 83 BJ 2.425–441; 4.183–241, 327, 335–336, 364–365; 5.440–441; Ant. 20.214. 84 As mentioned above, Jesus the son of Sapphias led a faction of sailors and the impoverished in plundering Agrippa II’s palace in Tiberias (Vita 62–67). However, his followers did not appear to be driven by resentment against rich people other than Agrippa since they did not seek reprisals against any other Tiberian elites. Instead, their massacre of “the Greeks” in

3.4 Political Climate

33

Instead of turning on the upper classes, the Galilean masses backed their local elites fiercely.85 Moreover, although Josephus occasionally tried to portray his Galilean adversaries as vulgar, reckless, and radical, he never suggested that their agendas included economic reforms.86 The solidarity between the various classes in Galilean communities suggests that the economic situation in Galilee was probably less oppressive than that in Judea and that there was a stronger culture of patronage in Galilee.87 3.4.6 Bandits and Revolutionaries Before 66 CE One of the more difficult elements of Josephus’ writings to interpret is his use of the term lēstai (“bandits” or “brigands”). Although the word literally referred to people engaged in violent theft, most Greco-Roman authors used the term in reference to any group of armed men who acted outside of the law.88 Thus, the term “bandits” applied to gangs of thieves, revolutionary bands, or any other group of violent criminals. In fact, Josephus usually equated revolutionaries and bandits. Thus, he labeled most of the Judean (broad sense) rebels as bandits and frequently ascribed political ambitions to armed highwaymen.89 While Josephus claimed banditry was a chronic issue in Judea, it only became a serious problem in Galilee on three occasions: during Herod’s conquest of Judea (broad sense) and consolidation of power, immediately after Herod’s death, and during the Great Revolt.90 On all three occasions, the Tiberias suggests that this faction was primarily motivated by their hatred of either Gentiles or Hellenism. 85 BJ 2.599; 3.450; Vita 33–45, 66–67, 134–136, 235, 308, 340. 86 BJ 2.590–594; 4.133–134; Vita 70–71, 87, 391. 87 Cf. S. Schwartz, “Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown,” in Parente and Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. 88 B.D. Shaw, “Bandits in the Roman Empire,” Past and Present 105 (1984): 21–24. T. Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality, trans. J. Drinkwater (New York: Routledge, 2004), 15–17. 89 D.M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 6–74 CE: A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 159–162. Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 91–109. 90 BJ 1.204–207, 304–316; 2.55–56, 585–594; 3.443–452, 532–542; 4.84–91, 97–105, 566–576; Ant. 14.415–430; 17.269–272, 285; 20.252–258; Vita 30–31, 62–67, 77–79, 104– 111, 126–131, 204–207. Josephus did call one of the revolutionary Fourth Philosophy’s founders “Judas the Galilean” (or sometimes “Judas the Gaulonite”). However, Josephus never claimed that Judas had a following in Galilee, and there are good reasons to think that most of Judas’ political activity occurred in Judea. See M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation,” HTR 64, no. 1 (1971). Although some scholars have attempted to connect the Zealots or the Sicarii to Galilee through Judas, it is not clear that either of these parties is synonymous with the Fourth Philosophy (BJ 2.118, 433; Ant. 18.4–10, 23–25). Moreover, Josephus never implied the existence of either group in Galilee.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

34

“bandit” groups formed in response to a political vacuum throughout Judea (broad sense). In the first case, the armed bands formed amidst the lawlessness of Herod’s civil war with Antigonus.91 The second uprising, led by Judas the son of Hezekiah, was one of several “rebellions” that broke out all over Judea (broad sense) in the wake of Herod’s death.92 When Herod died without a clear heir, his sons absconded to Rome to compete for Augustus’ backing. Their abandonment of the kingdom essentially left Judea in a state of anarchy, and strongmen all over Judea (broad sense) tried to seize power. The third period of significant banditry in Galilee occurred during the Great Revolt, when the distinction between rebel soldiers, mercenaries, and armed thieves was simply a matter of opinion. All of them were groups of armed men who engaged in violence and who stole (or confiscated depending on your perspective) from the general population. This eruption of banditry was a clear consequence of the Great Revolt and the political vacuum it created.93 It is significant that all three crises occurred when Galilee was ruled (at least in theory) by authorities in Judea. In each case, it was the collapse of the government in Judea that left the region in a state of anarchy. It is also noteworthy that many of the bandits in Galilee during the revolt were not Galileans, but Jewish refugees from neighboring regions.94 In sum, Josephus’ works suggest that brigandage and revolutionary movements were not major problems in Galilee. Furthermore, the banditry that did occur in Galilee was not a symptom of chronic political unrest within the region.

3.5 Religious Ethos 3.5.1 Jewish Religious Identity Although Josephus did not offer much detail about how Galilean Jews practiced their religion, he did describe some of the general features of Galilee’s religious traditions. Josephus claimed that the Galileans paid tithes to Jerusalem’s priests, assembled and prayed in “prayer-houses” (proseuchē), observed the Sabbath, and made pilgrimages to Jerusalem on festivals.95 He noted that 91

The social breakdown caused by civil wars often fostered the creation of robber bands and private armies. Shaw, “Bandits in the Empire,” 30–33. 92 BJ 2.56; Ant. 17.271–272. 93 The Judean rebels had overthrown the provincial government, seized control of Jerusalem, and defeated Cestius Gallus’ army (BJ 2.422–555). 94 BJ 3.450–452, 492–502, 532–542; Vita 77–78, 371. 95 BJ 2.232–233, 254; Ant. 20.118; Vita 63, 80–83, 155–164, 271–275, 276–282, 290– 293, 371.

3.5 Religious Ethos

35

most Galilean Jews were unwilling to settle in Tiberias because the city’s graveyards (which predated Antipas’ re-founding of the city) imparted ritual impurity to its inhabitants (Ant. 18.36–38). He also described occasions in which public figures appealed to the Galileans’ religious devotion.96 This evidence suggests that the majority of Galileans saw themselves as following the ancestral customs of the Jewish people. 3.5.2 Aniconism Three events mentioned in Josephus’ work highlight the Galilean Jews’ aversion to iconography. First, Caligula’s attempt to place his statue in the Temple met with fierce opposition from Galilee’s inhabitants.97 Second, a delegation of Jews met Vitellius near Galilee’s western border in order to prevent his army from parading their figurative standards through Jewish territory.98 Third, some independent Galilean rebels destroyed Antipas’s palace in Tiberias during the Great Revolt. Although Josephus claimed that the Galileans razed and plundered the palace out of greed, it is possible that their outrage over the building’s iconography motivated them as well. In fact, Josephus himself wanted to destroy the palace because of its offensive images.99 3.5.3 Pharisees Josephus never identified any Galilean as a Pharisee; however, he did imply that the Pharisees were well respected in the region. Both of the major delegations sent to Galilee by the rebel leaders in Judea were dominated by Pharisees,100 which implies that the rebels thought the Pharisees would be particularly well-received by the Galileans. Josephus also claimed that John of Gischala, one of the most influential Galileans, had close ties to the Judean Pharisee Simeon ben Gamaliel (Vita 189–192). Both of these assertions imply that the Judean Pharisees were highly respected in Galilean society. 96

BJ 3.355–360, 369–382; Vita 74–76, 275, 290–298. John of Gischala also appeals to Titus to postpone the surrender of Gischala until after the Sabbath because of the sanctity of that day among the city’s people (BJ 4.97–105). 97 BJ 2.184–204; Ant. 18.261–284. 98 Vitellius satisfied the Jews by offering to have the army march across the Great Plain, which served as the border between Galilee and Samaria (Ant. 18.120–124). 99 Vita 62–67. Josephus actually claimed that he was sent by the Jerusalem authorities to destroy the palace. However, Josephus frequently discredited his opponents by undermining their religious convictions (BJ 2.391–394, 414, 456, 517; 4.98–106; 5.36–39, 562–566; Vita 290–293). Josephus’ claims about Jesus the son of Sapphias’ motives in destroying the palace should not be trusted. It would be presumptuous to suggest that religious sensibilities motivated Jesus when the textual evidence gives no indication of that whatsoever. 100 Vita 12, 29, 197. Josephus portrayed himself as the leader of his delegation (and claimed to have adopted Pharisaic practices), and he claimed that three of the four delegates sent to remove him were also Pharisees.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

36

3.6 Hellenization and Romanization Since Josephus’ immediate audience probably consisted of Gentiles in Rome, he tried to describe Judean (broad sense) society in terms that his audience members could easily understand. Consequently, his histories conformed to the conventions of Greco-Roman historical writing. For example, he portrayed Moses as a national lawgiver (in the mold of Lycurgus or Solon), he substituted analogous Greek monetary terms for local coin denominations, and he described the major Jewish sects as if they were Hellenistic philosophies.101 Consequently, it is often unclear whether the Greco-Roman cultural elements in Josephus’ Galilean accounts truly reflected the region’s cultural ethos or whether he was simply making the details in his narratives more familiar to his audience members. Nevertheless, Josephus’ accounts do imply Galilee had already experienced some Hellenization and Romanization before the Great Revolt. 3.6.1 The Herodian Rulers and Pro-Roman Propaganda As a client-king, Herod the Great used his building projects as a way to honor his patron, Augustus Caesar. He named his newly constructed capital, Caesarea, after the emperor and built an immense temple there dedicated to – and containing the statues of – Roma and Augustus.102 He constructed a similar temple at Paneas (Ant. 15.360). Both Caesarea and Paneas were Gentile cities,103 and Herod smartly avoided erecting imperial temples in his Jewish settlements, where they would have offended religious sensibilities. Herod Archelaus and Herod Philip had little problem continuing their father’s participation in the imperial cult since they inherited Caesarea and Paneas, respectively. Probably in deference to Jewish beliefs, Antipas avoided building imperial cult centers in Galilee. He did, however, express his appreciation of his patron by renaming Sepphoris “Autokratoris” in honor of Augustus and by naming Tiberias in honor of the emperor Tiberius (Ant. 18.27). 3.6.2 Greco-Roman Institutions Josephus’ portrayal of Galilee suggests that the region’s cities adopted many Greco-Roman institutions and conventions. Tiberias’ governmental organization was clearly modeled after Hellenistic poleis. It had a boulē (council) of 101

BJ 2.162–163; Ant. 18.11–15. BJ 1.408–415; Ant. 15.331–339. 103 BJ 3.409 A. Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332 BCE–70 CE) (Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 258. 102

3.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

37

600, ten protoi (principal men),104 and lesser officials, such as the agoranomos (market regulator) (Ant 18.149), and the hyparchoi (lieutenants) (BJ 2.615). Furthermore, both Tiberias and Tarichea contained important GrecoRoman public buildings. Tarichea had a large hippodrome, and Tiberias contained a stadium.105 Thus, Josephus implied that Tiberias and Tarichea had adopted many formal elements of Hellenistic society. 3.6.3 Linguistic Milieu Josephus’ works contain little evidence about the specific linguistic milieu of first century Galilee; however, they provide important information about the languages spoken by Judean (broad sense) Jews during the period. On more than one occasion, Josephus implied that extensive knowledge of Greek was restricted to the most educated Judeans (broad sense). During the siege of Jerusalem, Josephus had to translate the Romans’ demands into Aramaic to ensure that the Jews understood (BJ 6.96–110). Josephus addressed Judea’s linguistic situation more directly in Ant. 20.262–264, in which he used his Jewish education as an excuse for his poor Greek pronunciation. He maintained that his Greek was much better than that of other Judeans (broad sense), who generally avoided learning foreign languages (such as Greek). As a priest, Josephus was part of the Judean aristocracy. Therefore, his knowledge of Greek was much more extensive than that of the average Judean. In short, Josephus’ histories imply that only the Judean (broad sense) upper class had extensive knowledge of Greek and that the common language was Aramaic.

3.7 Participation in the Great Revolt Josephus’ characterization of Galilee’s support for the revolt is complicated. Although he claimed that most Galileans enthusiastically supported the Great Revolt, he also indicated that a significant minority of Galileans opposed the 104

BJ 2.639; Vita 69, 296. BJ 2.599, 618; Vita 92, 132–136. Josephus often confused the terms amphitheater, stadium, and hippodrome, so it is not clear from his works precisely which of those institutions he actually meant. P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 187; J. Patrich, “The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea Maritima and Connections with the Circus Maximus,” JRA 14 (2001); “Herodian Entertainment Structures,” in Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005, ed. D.M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos, IJS Studies in Judaica: Conference Proceedings of the Institute of Jewish Studies, University College London (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 105

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

38

rebellion. In addition, Josephus portrayed some Galilean leaders as switching positions with respect to the revolt. 3.7.1 Fortifications Josephus portrayed pre-revolt Galilee as largely unfortified. He claimed that Sepphoris was the only city that already possessed defensive walls, which still needed to be strengthened in order to resist the rebel forces. 106 A major part of Josephus’ mission in Galilee was to fortify the entire region in preparation for war. The fortification project was Josephus’ most significant achievement in Galilee, and he was careful to emphasize his personal involvement in the activities. He claimed to have personally overseen and participated in the construction of every fortification except those in Sepphoris and Gischala.107 His strongest fortifications were built at Gamala and Yodefat. These two cities were the main rebel refuges during the war, and they were the only two Galilean settlements that the Romans needed to besiege.108 3.7.2 Banditry During the Great Revolt Josephus’ accounts imply that the revolt fostered the formation of armed bandit groups throughout Judea.109 The war would have attracted Jewish nationalists from the Diaspora who hoped to participate in the liberation of the homeland, Jewish refugees from neighboring Gentile territories, mercenaries, and fugitives who could hope to earn a living or start a new life in Judea (broad sense).110 Josephus claimed that many of the revolutionaries in Galilee – including many of his own troops – were refugees from nearby Gentile territories.111 The large influx of refugees probably explains the prevalence of bandits in Galilee during the revolt. Foreigners who came to the region to join in the revolution would not have had a stable source of income or sustenance. It is very likely that some of these newcomers resorted to banditry and mercenary work in order to survive. The uncertain conditions and the expectation that their farms would soon be destroyed in the war might have made a career as a 106

BJ 2.572–576; Ant. 18.26–28; Vita 185–188, 346–347. BJ 2.572–576. Josephus claimed that these two cities sought and received his permission to erect their own defenses. It is likely that this claim is a typical Josephan exaggeration since he almost certainly lacked the power to permit or prevent the construction of these fortifications. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 247–248; Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality,” 72. 108 BJ 3.110–111, 240–270, 316–339; 4.9–10. 109 BJ 2.271–279; Ant. 20.160–167, 185–188, 252–258; Vita 28. 110 BJ 2.457–460, 477–478; 3.532–542; Vita 77–78, 371. 111 BJ 3.450–452, 492–502, 532–542; Vita 77–78, 371. 107

3.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

39

bandit or mercenary more appealing to Galilean peasants as well. Furthermore, those people whose homes or crops were destroyed by banditry may have been forced to resort to banditry themselves.112 Although there is good evidence to suggest that most of the inhabitants of the Herodian military colonies remained loyal to Rome and Agrippa during the revolt, a few notable revolutionaries were former soldiers in the Jewish Royal Army.113 Given the martial skill Josephus attributes to some of the bandits, the modern scholar needs to consider the possibility that many of the bandits or bandit leaders were actually veterans of the Herodian armies. 3.7.3 Troops In Galilee A major discrepancy between BJ and the Vita concerns the number of troops Josephus commanded in Galilee. In the BJ, Josephus claimed to have commanded a total of 100,000 soldiers; however, in the Vita, he never claimed to have had more than 10,000 troops.114 The scholarly consensus is that Josephus inflated his numbers in the BJ, but later offered more accurate figures in the Vita.115 In fact, Josephus may have reduced his figures in response to the publication of contradictory accounts published by his rivals in Rome. 3.7.4 Collaboration with Rome Although scholars tend to focus on the Galileans who participated in the Jewish revolt, Josephus claimed that many Galilean Jews sided with Rome. In fact, Josephus portrayed the Galileans as significantly less enthusiastic about the revolt than their Judean and Idumean counterparts. The city of Sepphoris remained loyal to Rome throughout the revolt and assisted Rome in subduing the revolutionaries, and an important faction of Tiberians opposed the revolt 112

Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 29, 31, 33–34, 89, 92–96, 100–102. BJ 2.52, 57–59, 520; 3.11–19; Vita 220, 397. 114 BJ 2.576, 583; Vita 321, 331. 115 Josephus simply lacked the resources to train an army of 100,000 soldiers. Both Shaye Cohen and Jonathan Roth make compelling cases that the total number of armed rebels in Galilee would have been about 10,000 or less (with Josephus probably commanding roughly half of them according to Cohen). 10,000 soldiers would have been enough for the rebels to control most of Galilee and hold off Agrippa’s army (which was probably about the same size as the Galilean rebel forces). However, 10,000 rebels of varying levels of martial skill would have been no match for Vespasian’s force of ca. 60,000 well-trained soldiers. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 201; Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality,” 72; J. Roth, “Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Antonio, November 2004); J. Roth, “Jews and the Roman Army. Perceptions and Realities,” in The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC–AD 476): Papers of the 6th Workshop on the Impact of Empire; The Roman Army, eds. L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio (Leiden: B.J. Brill, 2007), 409–420; S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001), 93. 113

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

40

as well.116 Most of the members of Agrippa’s army who assisted the Roman forces would have been Jews, and there are reasons to believe that some retired veterans of the Jewish Royal Army also joined the Roman side.117 Moreover, since Archelaus’ army was probably assimilated into the Roman army once Iudaea became a province, the “Roman” garrison in Iudaea would have contained many Jews and Samaritans.118 The more moderate stance of the Galileans during the revolt and their willingness to collaborate with Rome should not be construed as evidence that they were somehow more Hellenized or less “Jewish” than their revolutionary contemporaries. In fact, as Roth has pointed out, service in Jewish cohorts of the Roman and Herodian armies did not conflict with Jewish observance, and there were very rational reasons for devout Jews to believe that Roman rule was in the best interests of the Jewish people.119 The Galileans may also have had practical reasons to be cautious about revolution. Because of the region’s location, Galilee was more vulnerable to invasion. Moreover, the Romans’ destruction of Sepphoris in response to the Jewish uprisings in 4 BCE had already shown Galilee’s population the dangers associated with rebellion (Ant. 17.286–294). The Galileans must have known that the Romans would invade from Syria, subduing Galilee before assaulting Judea. Furthermore, because the region lacked adequate fortifications, Galilee was less equipped to resist a Roman attack. All of these factors would have made the Galileans’ less enthusiastic about the rebellion than their Judean counterparts. 3.7.5 Captives and Casualties When Vespasian’s army arrived in Galilee, most of the rebels realized the hopelessness of their situation and quickly abandoned their cause (BJ 3.127– 129). Nevertheless, Josephus maintained that many did resist the Romans, who killed more than 75,000 Galileans and enslaved at least 35,000 more.120 116

BJ 2.632; 3.29–34; Vita 32–42, 124, 155, 391. BJ 4.10–11, 81–83; Vita 114–118, 398–406. 118 It was standard policy for the Roman army to assimilate the military forces of former client states that were annexed peacefully. Roth, “Military Forces”; “Jews and Roman Army.” 119 Even John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias – two men whom Josephus claims were among the main revolutionary instigators in Galilee – initially opposed the revolt (Vita 36, 43–44). 120 Josephus gave the following casualty figures: Japha – 15,000 killed and 2,130 enslaved (BJ 3.289–306); Yodefat – 40,000 killed (BJ 3.329–339); Tarichea – 2,200 killed and 36,400 enslaved (BJ 3.532–542); the Battle on the Sea of Galilee – 6,500 killed (BJ 3.522–531); Gamala – 4,000 killed by the Romans and 5,000 “suicides,” (BJ 4.70–83); Gischala – 6,000 of the fleeing women and children killed (BJ 4.112–120). Josephus also claimed that the Romans destroyed the villages near Sepphoris (BJ 3.59–63), Gadara, and Gadara’s suburbs (BJ 117

3.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations

41

If Josephus’ figures are accurate, then Vespasian’s campaign left Galilee severely depopulated. However, since it was common for ancient authors to inflate such figures, the true number of Galileans killed or enslaved during the revolt was probably much smaller.121 Clearly, Vespasian would have killed a large number of Galileans during his campaign, but we cannot rely on Josephus to give us an accurate estimate of casualties. One suggestion that casualties were relatively low (at least compared to those in Judea) is the fact that Vespasian’s conquest of Galilee was considerably easier than Titus’ conquest of Judea.

3.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations 3.8.1 Ethnic Tensions According to Josephus, hostile feelings between Jews and Gentiles – both in Judea (broad sense) and in the neighboring territories – stewed for generations prior to the revolt.122 In 66 CE, these ethnic tensions erupted in Caesarea Maritima, and the local Gentile population killed or expelled all of the city’s Jews (BJ 2.457–460). Many other Gentile settlements near Judea (broad sense) quickly followed this example, exiling their Jewish inhabitants (BJ 2.457– 460, 477–478). This, in turn, triggered widespread violence between Jews and Gentiles throughout most of Perea, the Decapolis, Gaulanitis, Syria, and in the Gentile cities along the Mediterranean Coast (BJ 2.477–478). Josephus claimed that Justus of Tiberias attacked the villages surrounding Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis and that Jesus the son of Sapphias led a mob that killed all the Gentile inhabitants of Tiberias (Vita 41–42, 62–67). Josephus also asserts that the inhabitants of Gadara, Tyre, and Aganaia sacked Gischala.123 A further sign of Jewish-Gentile conflict in the region is Josephus’ account of two Gentiles from Trachonitis who fled to Galilee and wanted to help the revolt. Josephus claimed that he had to restrain the Galileans from harming or forcibly circumcising these Gentiles (Vita 112–113, 149–154).

3.132–134), killing or enslaving all the inhabitants. In all, BJ implies that roughly 75,000 to 100,000 Galileans died in revolt. 121 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 247–248; Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality,” 72; Roth, “Military Forces”; “Jews and Roman Army.” 122 BJ 2.457–506; 4.105; Ant. 13.329; 14.313–315; CA 1.13; Vita 32–42. 123 This attack turned John of Gischala into a supporter of the rebellion (Vita 43–45). Note: the text, which appears to be corrupt, calls the inhabitants of this city “Baraganaioi.” “Aganeans” is merely a best guess as to the identity of the intended people. The city in question appears to be a town near Gischala. See Mason, Life of Josephus, 48n262.

Chapter 3: Josephus’ Portrayal of Galilee

42

3.8.2 Jewish-Samaritan Relations Josephus’ account of the violence that resulted from the murder of a Galilean Jew in Samaria indicates that relations between Jews and Samaritans were extremely poor in this period.124 In fact, the ensuing feud required the Roman Emperor, Claudius, to intervene before it calmed down.

3.9 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea Most of the information about Galilean-Judean relations in Josephus’ works comes from his narratives about the power struggle between John of Gischala and himself. Overall, the evidence indicates that the Judean elites had a significant amount of influence in Galilee. John had evidently cultivated alliances with important Judean leaders before the revolt, and all of the major revolutionary leaders in Galilee at least paid lip service to the idea that the Jerusalem authorities should have the final say over who governed Galilee.125 However, the Galilean leaders’ political dependence on Jerusalem during the Great Revolt should not lead us to overestimate the impact of Judean politics on Galilee during the rest of the first century CE. Because the revolt was started by Judeans in Judea, Galilean revolutionary leaders could legitimize their authority only by associating themselves with the Judean rebels. However, since neither Josephus’ nor John’s appeals to the support of the Judean elites appears to have been very successful in swaying Galilean loyalties, the evidence suggests that the allegiance Galileans felt toward Judea as a political entity was weaker than Josephus wanted to admit.126 To be sure, some Galileans recognized the authority of the Judean leaders, but a number of Galileans, including an overwhelming majority of Sepphoreans, rejected it. Similarly, while Galileans would have respected Josephus and other Judean priests as religious leaders, their religious clout did not necessarily result in political influence.

124

BJ 2.232–246; Ant. 20.118–136. Vita 189–194, 216–218, 304–316, 340–341. Naturally, Josephus and John only seemed to recognize the authority of Judean leaders when it was convenient for them to do so. Both men also ignored the Judean authorities’ orders from to relinquish power in Galilee (Vita 208–215, 252–261, 313–316). 126 The opposition to Josephus, a Judean, does not seem to have been fundamentally antiJudean. After all, John’s party sought help from other Judean commanders (Vita 189–194). Instead, the support appears to be the product of local loyalties born out of social networks and patronage. Moreover, the rumors that Josephus wanted to betray the revolution probably helped to undermine Josephus’ authority and drive the Galileans into John’s camp (Vita 132– 135). 125

Part Two

The Gospels

Chapter 4

The Gospel of Mark 4.1 Introduction Most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest extant Gospel, written sometime between 65 and 75 CE.1 Although there are still a few who challenge it, the theory of Markan priority is accepted by the vast majority of New Testament scholars.2 Therefore, all the material in Mark can be considered independent of the other Gospels. Though a number of scholars have attempted to identify the location in which Mark was written, there does not seem to be enough evidence in the text of the Gospel itself to determine its provenance.3 It is possible, however, to deduce some important things about the author and his environment. The author apparently knew Aramaic since he sometimes quoted Jesus by transliterating Jesus’ Aramaic words in Greek letters and then translating the quotations into Greek for his audience.4 The author was also familiar with Jewish customs, and he sometimes felt compelled to explain those practices to his readers (Mark 7:2–4; 15:42). These two features suggest that the author was a

1 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 429–430; J. Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 27, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 37–39; B. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 31; J.R. Donahue and D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005), 41–43. 2 The theory holds that Mark was the earliest of the canonical Gospels and that it served as a source for both Matthew and Luke. For a good summary of the arguments in favor of Markan priority, see R.H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), 45–88. 3 D.N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate, ed. R.A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff, vol. 48, Biblical Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2000), 192–199; Ben Witherington and Brian J. Incigneri make strong cases that Mark was written in Rome. See Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 20–21; B.J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel, ed. R.A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff, vol. 65, Biblical Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2003). H. N. Roskam argues that it was composed in Galilee. See H.N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context, NovTSup 114 (Boston: Brill, 2004), 101. Joel Marcus thinks that Mark was written in Syria. See Marcus, Mark 1–8, 33–37. 4 Mark 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:22, 34.

4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee

45

Jew writing to an audience that included a substantial number of Gentiles who may not have known much about Judaism.5 We can also determine some important things about the author of Mark from his writing style. The Gospel is filled with grammatical errors, its sentence structure and word choice are very simple, and it lacks effective transitions between topics. These characteristics suggest that the Gospel’s author was not well educated and, therefore, that he came from a lower socioeconomic class than the other Gospel authors.6 As the earliest extant Gospel, Mark is considered by some to be the most important New Testament source for understanding first century Galilee. Although it is not clear how much, if any, first-hand knowledge the author of Mark had of Galilee, his Gospel is likely based on earlier oral traditions and perhaps even earlier written sources.7 4.1.1 Information Relevant to This Inquiry The Gospel of Mark contains information about Galilee’s ethnic makeup, the region’s level of urbanization, the Galilean economy, the region’s political climate, its religious ethos, the impact of Greco-Roman culture in Galilee, the relationship between Galilean Jews and Gentiles, and Galilee’s relationship with Judea. The Gospel does not offer any significant information about Galilean participation in the Great Revolt.

4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee 4.2.1 Ethnicity Although the Gospel of Mark does not directly comment on Galilee’s ethnic makeup, a handful of passages in the Gospel assume that Jews were the region’s dominant ethnic group. Jesus’ reluctance to heal the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:25–30) because she was a Gentile suggests that he did not encounter many Gentiles while preaching in Galilee. In addition, Jesus’ references to “the Gentiles” and “their rulers” in 10:33 and 10:42 characterize them as distant tyrants, not members of the local community. 5

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 19–20. Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 18–19; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 60–61; H.C. Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel (London: SCM, 1977), 5–7; W.L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, rev. ed. (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 1974), 25–26. 7 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 19, 21, 57–59; Roskam, Purpose of Mark, 97–100; Incigneri, Gospel to Romans, 97–98. Contra Roskam, who argues that Mark was written in Galilee. Purpose of Mark, 101. 6

46

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Mark

4.2.2 Urbanization The author of Mark distinguished the terms “city” (polis), “village” (komē), and “farm/field” (agros), never using more than one of these terms in reference to the same place.8 The Gospel refers to Capernaum as a “city” (polis) (Mark 1:33, 45), and it implies that some of the other Galilean settlements Jesus visited in Galilee were “cities” with “marketplaces” (agorais).9 By identifying some Galilean communities as cities, Mark’s author implied that these settlements had at least a few urban features. 4.2.3 The Economy a. Monetization Although the socio-economic situation in Galilee is not a major focus of Mark, some of the details mentioned in the text indicate its author’s conception of Galilee’s socio-economic environment. For example, just before Jesus performed the miracle of the fish and loaves in chapter six, his disciples asked him if they should buy 200 denarii worth of bread to feed the crowd (Mark 6:36–37). The disciples’ reflexive valuation of bread in monetary amounts implies that they lived in a substantially monetized economy. b. Poverty Mark’s Jesus almost never mentioned poverty, wealth, economic hardship, or oppression while he was in Galilee.10 Furthermore, the Gospel never portrays any Galilean as particularly poor or needy. Even when Jesus fed the crowd by multiplying the fish and loaves, his disciples assumed that the people could afford food. Jesus fed them simply because they were too far from any place that sold food.11 The author of Mark, however, was not unconcerned with economic issues or the plight of the less fortunate. In fact, while in Judea, Mark’s Jesus frequently talked about economic justice.12 If economic justice was a major part of Jesus’ message when he was in Judea, then his silence about economic issues during his Galilean ministry seems significant.13 The fact that Mark’s 8 Mark 1:33, 45; 5:14; 6:6, 33, 36, 56; 8:23, 26, 27; 10:29, 30; 11:2, 8, 19; 13:16; 14:13, 16; 15:21; 16:12. 9 Mark 6:56. After crossing the Sea of Galilee from Gerasa, Jesus visited multiple villages and cities. Presumably, these cities were located in Galilee. 10 The one mention of wealth is in Mark 4:19. 11 Mark 6:35–42; 8:1–4. 12 Mark 10:17–27, 46–52; 11:15–17, 35–40; 12:41–44. 13 It is not clear whether this distinction between Judea and Galilee already existed in the sources used by the author of Mark or if it was a result of the author’s redaction of those sources.

4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee

47

Jesus did not encounter economic problems until he arrived in Judea suggests that the Gospel’s author considered economic hardship and oppression to have been characteristic of Judea – but not of Galilee.14 4.2.4 Political Climate Mark’s Gospel contains very little information about the political situation in Galilee. The story of John the Baptist’s execution portrays Antipas as a corrupt ruler who did not tolerate dissent and who feared popular leaders (Mark 6:14–28). This passage also reveals something about Antipas’ supporters in Galilee. According to Mark 6:21, Herod invited his “great men” (megistasin), “captains” (chiliarchois), and the “foremost of the Galileans” (prōtois tēs Galilaias) to his birthday banquet (Mark 6:21). This claim suggests that the author considered Galilee to have had a distinct class of elites who were allied with Antipas. Elsewhere, the Gospel refers to a group of people as “the Herodians,” who were probably Antipas’ supporters.15 These Herodians were allied with the Pharisees, and the two groups conspired against Jesus (Mark 3:6; 8:15). This alliance implies that the Pharisees were powerful people in first century Galilee. 4.2.5 Religious Ethos There are several indications in the Gospel of Mark that the population of Galilee was both Jewish and religiously observant. For example, the Gospel mentions three Galilean synagogues that functioned as local religious centers: one in Capernaum, one (presumably) in Nazareth, and one in some unspecified Galilean location.16 Mark also indicates that Jesus wore fringes on his garment in accordance with Jewish Law (Mark 6:56). Even the major religious disagreements in the Gospel attest to the religiosity of the Galileans. The two Sabbath conflicts in Mark – in which both Jesus and the Pharisees claimed to be upholding the law – highlight the importance of the Jewish Law in the society of Mark’s Galilee (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6). Moreover, John the Baptist’s major criticism of Antipas was that he violated Jewish Law by committing incest (6:18).17

14 Of course, this may simply have been a literary convention in which the contrast between idyllic Galilee and oppressive Judea highlights the undesirable qualities of the latter region. 15 Mark 3:6; 8:15; 12:13. 16 Mark 1:21–27, 39; 3:1, 5:22–24, 35–43; 6:1. 17 It is not clear if John the Baptist voiced these criticisms in Galilee, Perea, or some other part of Judea (broad sense).

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Mark

48 a. Religious Leaders

According to the Gospel of Mark, the Pharisees were the major religious authorities in Galilee. They had substantial authority and respect from the people18 and were Jesus’ major critics and opponents in the region. The Gospel also implies that the Pharisees were allied with Herod Antipas’ supporters.19 While the Pharisees were important authorities in Galilee, they did not enjoy a similar level of influence in Judea. In his Judean narratives, Mark’s author portrayed the priests, scribes, Sadducees, and elders as the major local authorities.20 The Pharisees, however, kept a relatively low profile in Judea and were subordinate to the other religious authorities. The disparity between the Pharisees’ power in Galilee and in Judea suggests that the Gospel’s author viewed Galilee as Pharisaic territory. The other major authorities in Galilee were the scribes, whom Mark’s author mentioned in three of his Galilean narratives. On two of those occasions, however, the author noted that the scribes were visiting Galilee from Judea.21 Nevertheless, although most of the scribes in Mark’s Galilean narratives were Judean, their presence in Galilee seems to have been a relatively common occurrence, and the Galilean people twice implied that they considered the scribes’ doctrine to be normative (Mark 1:22; 9:11). Apart from Jesus and his associates, the Pharisees and scribes were the only religious authorities in Mark’s Galilee. The Sadducees, elders, and priests are not mentioned in any of Mark’s Galilean narratives despite their high profiles in the Gospel’s Judean narratives.22 b. Exorcism and Miraculous Healing The Gospel of Mark suggests that belief in supernatural healing and exorcism was widespread among Galileans. None of the Galileans in Mark ever expressed skepticism about Jesus’ ability to heal and cast out demons.23 Instead, the Gospel claims that Jesus’ first such miracle instantly earned him a large 18

Mark 2:16–17, 23–28; 3:6; 7:1–5; 8:11, 15. Presumably, the term “Herodians” in Mark 3:6, 8:15, and 12:13 referred to either Antipas’ retainers or the supporters of the Herodian Dynasty. In either case, the Herodians would have been Antipas’ supporters. 20 Mark 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 12:10–12, 18–27; 14:1–2, 10–11, 43, 53–69; 15:1–3, 10– 11, 31. 21 Mark 2:6–7; 3:22–27; 7:1–5. 22 The exception is Mark 7:3–5, which is set in Galilee. Mark’s author included an explanatory note that the Pharisees followed the traditions of the elders. 23 Mark 1:23–27, 32–34, 39; 3:15; 6:13; 9:38–39. The only people to question Jesus’ abilities and his source of power were the scribes from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22–27). See my discussion of this matter in the section on the “Relationship Between Galilee and Judea” later in this chapter. 19

4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee

49

following (Mark 1:27–28). By the end of that same day, Jesus was surrounded by a mob of people afflicted by diseases or unclean spirits (Mark 1:32–34). Within 24 hours, Jesus had become so famous that he had to begin traveling in secret and avoiding population centers (Mark 1:45). Thus, Jesus’ fame in Galilee was largely the result of his reputation as a healer, and much of his activities in the region – and those of his disciples as well – involved healing people or casting out demons.24 According to Mark 9:38–39, even people who were not associated with Jesus began casting out demons in his name. The ready acceptance of Jesus and his followers as healers and exorcists indicates that exorcism and miraculous healing were not complete novelties in Galilee. Therefore, the Gospel implies that other charismatic healers and exorcists operated in Galilee as well. 4.2.6 Hellenization and Romanization One of the most debated questions about Galilee is the degree to which Greek was spoken in the region.25 Although the Gospel of Mark was written in Greek, it implies that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic. The Gospel’s author included Aramaic quotations of Jesus, which he then translated into Greek for the audience (Mark 5:41; 15:34). In addition, the Gospel preserves some Aramaic nicknames that Jesus gave his disciples. He named one “Thomas” (probably Aramaic for “twin”) and referred to James and John as the “sons of thunder” in Aramaic (boanērges).26 The only clear indication of the use of Greek among Galileans in Mark is that two of Jesus’ disciples, Philip and Andrew, had Greek names (Mark 3:18). While this may suggest that these two came from a Hellenized family or community, it is unclear to what extent these names imply the prevalence of Greek in Galilee’s linguistic milieu.27 24 Mark 1:23–27, 29–30, 32–34, 40–42; 2:3–12; 3:10–11, 15; 5:22–24, 28–34, 35–43; 6:7, 13, 53; 8:22–26. Mark also mentions a Galilean exorcist who was not part of Jesus’ group (9:38–39). 25 Chancey, Myth of Galilee; S. Lieberman, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1963); J.N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: Brill, 1968); W. Argyle, “Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times,” NTS 20 (1973); J.A. Fitzmyer, “Did Jesus Speak Greek?” BAR 18, no. 5 (1992); P.W. van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. J.J. Collins and G.E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); Roskam, Purpose of Mark, 110. 26 Mark 3:17–18. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 264. It is not clear from the context in Mark whether “Thomas” is a first name, a nickname, or a surname. 27 Andrew and Philip’s origins are unclear in Mark. Mark 1:16 states only that Jesus found Simon and Andrew along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, but it is possible that they grew up elsewhere. Since Mark’s Jesus spent a good deal of his ministry in the region east of the Sea

50

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Mark

Another possible indication that some Galileans knew Greek is Jesus’ conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30).28 Mark’s author identified this woman as a “Greek,” probably indicating that she was a native Greek speaker. The reference to her language may suggest that she spoke with Jesus in Greek. However, it is also quite possible that this Phoenician woman was bilingual, speaking both Greek and Aramaic.29 Overall, the evidence in the Gospel of Mark suggests that both Aramaic and Greek were important elements of first century Galilee’s linguistic milieu. However, there is not sufficient information to determine which language predominated and how many people were conversant in each language. 4.2.7 Jewish-Gentile Relations According to Mark, Jesus often visited the Gentile communities near Galilee, and he even became a popular figure in many of these places.30 Nevertheless, since each of these “Gentile” settlements probably had a sizable Jewish minority population, it is possible that Jesus interacted primarily with the Jews living in these regions.31 In fact, Jesus’ encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7:24–30 suggests that he usually avoided Gentiles. Although Jesus did eventually heal the woman, he initially refused and relented only after she begged, and he compared Gentiles to unworthy dogs. This episode suggests that disdain for Gentiles was probably common among Galilean Jews.

of Galilee and since John the Baptist was probably not a Galilean, it would not be surprising if some of Jesus’ followers were from outside Galilee as well. 28 J. Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. R. Cornman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 81. In this period, the term “Greek” referred to people who spoke fluent Greek (without regard to that person’s ancestry). Therefore, the identification of the woman as a “Greek” implies that she spoke Greek. Moreover, the fact that the author felt compelled to call her a Greek may suggest that the conversation happened in Greek. Perhaps this was even how Jesus identifies the woman as a Gentile. 29 The Aramaic dialects in Judea (broad sense) and Syria were mutually intelligible. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, ed. W.F. Albright and D.N. Freedman, vol. 26, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), clxxii; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 462. 30 Mark 1:9; 3:7–9; 4:35; 5:1–20; 6:45; 7:31–37; 8:10, 13, 27; 10:1. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 19–21. According to Mark, Jesus and his message were popular in the regions of Galilee, Judea, Idumea, the Transjordan, Tyre and Sidon, and the Decapolis (Mark 1:28, 32–34, 45; 2:1–2, 12–13; 3:7–9, 11; 4:1; 5:20; 6:14, 53–56; 7:24, 36; 8:34; 9:14–15; 10:17; 11:8, 12, 18; 14:1–2). 31 A.M. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew’s Gospel (New York: Continuum, 2005); D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 9–10.

4.2 Mark’s Portrayal of Galilee

51

a. Samaritans Although Jesus frequently visited nearby Gentile territories in the Gospel of Mark, he never ventured into Samaria. In fact, the Gospel never mentions Samaria or Samaritans, and Jesus even went out of his way to avoid Samaria when he travelled to Judea.32 Given how frequently Jesus visited places outside Galilee, the absence of Samaria and Samaritans in Mark seems both significant and intentional. It implies that Galileans avoided contact with Samaritans. 4.2.8 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea The Gospel of Mark implies that Galileans and Judeans frequently associated and traded with one another and that they shared a common culture. It is not surprising that Galileans travelled to Jerusalem because of the Jewish pilgrimage festivals, but it is surprising that many Judeans visited Galilee in Mark.33 The Gospel also indicates that Judeans and Galileans shared a common religious culture. Galileans worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple and respected the authority of Judean religious officials.34 Moreover, some religious groups, such as the Pharisees and scribes, operated in both Judea and Galilee and often travelled between the two regions.35 Even Jesus’ religious movement had strong ties in Judea. Although most of Jesus’ followers were Galileans, he did have some dedicated adherents in Judea, and the crowd he attracted while entering Jerusalem (Mark 11:5–11) implies that he was already well known in the city. Furthermore, Jesus saw himself as the successor to John the Baptist, whose followers were mostly Judeans (Mark 1:5). a. Galileans Standing Out in Judea According to Mark 14:70, Peter was unable to hide among the Judeans during Jesus’ trial because strangers could easily identify him as Galilean. The Gospel does not indicate what made Peter stand out among the Judeans, but it must have been something conspicuous, such as clothing, customs, or an accent.36

32

Mark 10:1, 46. Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem through the Transjordan, not Samaria. Jesus and his disciples made a pilgrimage from Galilee to Jerusalem on Passover (Mark 10:33–34). Jesus’ preaching in Galilee drew large crowds from Judea (3:8), and Jesus twice encountered Pharisees or scribes who were visiting Galilee from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22; 7:1). 34 Mark 10:33–34; 11:1–11, 15–19; 14:10–16, 48–50. 35 Mark 2:6–7; 3:22–27; 7:1–5. 36 Matthew 26:73 indicates that Peter was betrayed by his accent, but the Gospel of Mark does not specify what gave Peter away. 33

52

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Mark

b. Religious Differences Between Galileans and Judeans The author of Mark depicted Galileans and Judeans as having different attitudes about exorcism and supernatural healing. The Galileans frequently sought such miracles from Jesus. However, nobody in Judea asked Jesus to perform an exorcism, and the only Judean to ask for Jesus’ healing was the beggar Bartimaeus, whom the crowd ordered to be silent (Mark 10:46–52). Furthermore, the Judean scribes accused Jesus of using demonic powers to perform his exorcisms (Mark 3:22–30). Mark’s portrayal of the Judeans as either ignoring or rejecting faith healers and exorcists implies that the author believed Galileans and Judeans had different attitudes toward these phenomena. At least in this respect, the Gospel of Mark portrays Galilean Judaism as distinct from Judean Judaism.

Chapter 5

The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q) 5.1 Redaction Criticism and Q Because Q is a theoretical document derived from parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, its use in the current study is somewhat problematic. Although some scholars have tried to argue that certain passages and variants found only in Luke or Matthew were originally part of Q, I am uncomfortable with such claims. Q lacks an overarching narrative structure or plot, and since the individual sayings in question are too short to demonstrate that they fit Q’s style, it is very difficult to determine whether or not a given saying was originally part of the document.1 In fact, if we were missing either Matthew or Luke, it is doubtful that we would have ever detected the existence of a distinct body of Q material. Because Q survives only as part of Matthew and Luke, it is important to begin by examining how the authors of these Gospels redacted their source material. 5.1.1 Redaction in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke The authors of both Matthew and Luke made frequent changes to their Markan source material. In each of these cases, the redactions to Markan passages in Matthew and Luke reflect the style and biases of the surrounding Matthean and Lukan material, respectively. An examination of these changes also reveals how each Gospel’s author generally treated his source materials. A few important trends bear mention: 1) Both authors changed substantial portions of the Markan material to suit their Gospels’ rhetorical, ideological, and artistic aims. 2) The author of Matthew included far more of Mark (90%) than the author of Luke (50%).2 The Gospel of Luke omits all of Mark 6:45–8:26 (“the Great Omission”) and several other important Markan pericopes. Furthermore,

1 Although it is possible that the original text of Q was structured in a coherent way, the extant text rarely contains narrative elements and is best described as a sayings collection. 2 B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 214; K.F. Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 89.

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

54

3)

4) 5) 6)

Luke’s author was far more likely than Matthew’s to omit one or more full sentences from the Markan passages he preserved.3 In the material that they adopted from Mark, the authors of Matthew and Luke were equally likely to preserve Mark’s wording. The Gospel of Matthew preserves the exact Markan wording 51% of the time, and the Gospel of Luke preserves it 53% of the time.4 The authors of both Matthew and Luke usually abbreviated the Markan pericopes that they adopted.5 While both Gospel authors preserved Mark’s general narrative order, the author of Luke preserved this order more consistently.6 The author of Luke was more likely to rewrite his Markan source material so that his Gospel would have a more consistent writing style and vocabulary.7

5.1.2 Methodological Issues It is reasonable to assume that the Matthean and Lukan redactions of Q were similar to their respective redactions of Mark. Given the significant changes that the authors of Matthew and Luke made to the Markan narrative, it is almost certain that both versions of the Q material were substantially altered as well. Consequently, when the Matthean and Lukan versions of a Q passage differ significantly, it is often difficult to determine which variant is more original.8 The International Q Project (IQP) attempts to deal with the problem by refusing to privilege either the Matthean or Lukan version categorically. Instead, the IQP scholars try to identify the more original variant of each passage through a combination of statistical analysis and traditional textual criticism. This approach favors the variant that preserves the more problematic, shorter, or “more primitive” reading.9 While I agree with many of the IQP’s methods, I have two objections to the Project’s preferences for shorter readings. First, since the authors of both Matthew and Luke almost always abbreviated the Markan pericopes incorporated into their Gospels,10 they would have been more likely to shorten Q pas3

Streeter, Four Gospels, 161. Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 214. 5 Streeter, Four Gospels, 295. As Streeter put it, both authors “abbreviate practically every paragraph in the whole of Mark….” 6 Streeter, Four Gospels, 161. 7 Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 214. 8 J.M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q, Hermenia Supplement (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), lxviii. 9 J.S. Kloppenborg, “On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew,” NTS 49 (2003). 10 Streeter, Four Gospels, 295. 4

5.1 Redaction Criticism and Q

55

sages as well. Second, recent research on textual transmission has demonstrated that unintentional transmission errors were far more likely to produce shorter variants.11 There are simply too many plausible explanations for why a scribe might have shortened the text he was copying – laziness, haplography, homoioarcton, homoioteleuton, etc. As Emanuel Tov put it, “Lectio difficilior and lectio brevior can be applied to only a small percentage of the readings that need to be evaluated…. They should be used sparingly and with full recognition of their subjective nature.”12 Thus, a systematic preference for the shorter variant ignores both authors’ strong tendencies to abbreviate their source material. 5.1.3 Methodological Implications for This Inquiry Since this chapter’s goal is to examine Q as an independent source for Galilee, I have adopted the most conservative definition of Q.13 Only those elements that are found in both Luke and Matthew will be treated as part of Q. When the wording in Matthew and Luke differs without changing a passage’s sense, I assume that the original Q passage’s sense has been preserved in Matthew and Luke, but I do not attempt to determine which variant has the more original wording.14 Those elements that appear in only one of the two Gospels 11

D.N. Freedman and J.R. Lundbom, “Haplography in Jeremiah 1–20,” ErIsr 26 (1999); D.N. Freedman and D.R. Miano, “Is the Shorter Reading Better?: Haplography in the First Book of Chronicles,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S.M. Paul et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2003); D.N. Freedman and S. Dolansky Overton, “Omitting the Omissions: The Case for Haplography in the Transmission of the Biblical Texts,” in Imagining Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan, ed. D.M. Gunn and P.M. McNutt, JSOTSup (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); D.N. Freedman and D.R. Miano, “Slip of the Eye: Accidental Omission in the Masoretic Tradition,” in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Essays in Honor of Ronald F. Youngblood, ed. G.G. Scorgie, M.L. Strauss, and S.M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); B. Root, “Scribal Error and the Transmission of 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39,” in Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. S. Dolansky (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008). 12 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2011), 279. 13 Because I am not treating any of the material in Matthew and Luke as independent from Mark or Q, it is safest to employ a narrow definition of Q and a broad definition of M and L. Such a definition excludes those unique passages in Matthew or Luke that many scholars believe were part of Q. However, even if the passages were part of Q, the absence of a parallel version makes it almost impossible to determine how much the passages were altered by Matthean or Lukan redaction. 14 In Luke 12:59 (Matthew 5:26), for example, Jesus warns potential litigants that they may be jailed until they have paid the last of a small coin. In Luke, the coin is a lepton; in Matthew, it is a quadrans. In this case, I assume that the original Q pericope mentioned some unit of currency, but I do not attempt to determine what the specific unit was.

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

56

are automatically treated as suspect. In short, this chapter defines Q material as whatever non-Markan material is common to Matthew and Luke (See Appendix 1 for a complete list of Q passages).

5.2 Q’s Provenance Most scholars argue that Q was written in Galilee.15 In fact, this view has become so influential that much of the recent Q scholarship simply assumes – without argument – a Galilean provenance for Q.16 Consequently, Q is frequently treated as the most trustworthy of the New Testament sources concerning the realities of life in first century Galilee.17 If Q actually were composed in Galilee, it would indeed be an invaluable source of information about the region. If, however, Q were written somewhere outside Galilee, then the document’s evidence for Galilean life should be considered no more reliable than the evidence in the other first century gospels. It is therefore necessary to assess the evidence that Q was written in Galilee. 5.2.1 Arguments for a Galilean Provenance While it is true that a tentative case can be made that Q was composed in Galilee, the evidence is not as conclusive as many New Testament scholars now claim. The following four arguments for a Galilean provenance have gained widespread acceptance among Q scholars: 1) The geographic references in Q provide a “social map” that reflects a Galilean geographic perspective. 2) Q’s suspicion of urban institutions reflects the rapid urbanization that took place in first century CE Galilee.

15

Crossan, Historical Jesus; J.S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000); M.J. Borg, “The Palestinian Background for a Life of Jesus,” in The Search for Jesus, ed. H. Shanks (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994). 16 A good example of this is D.C.J. Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997). 17 J.S. Kloppenborg, Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008); Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, 214–261; B.L. Mack, “Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus,” in Whose Historical Jesus? ed. W.E. Arnal and M. Desjardins (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 1997); Moreland, “Q and Economics”; J.L. Reed, “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities,’ and the Sayings Gospel Q,” in Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. E.M. Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999); Reed, Galilean Jesus, 170–196.

5.2 Q’s Provenance

57

3) Q’s use of the term “Israel” instead of “Jew” (Ioudaios) reflects a uniquely Galilean taxonomy. 4) Q does not mention some of the major problems Jews faced in Gentile cities. I will address each of these four arguments in turn. a. Q’s Social Map Jonathan Reed developed the first argument in his book Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus.18 Reed claims that, although Q’s authors rarely set Jesus’ actions and sayings in specific locations, the place names mentioned in Q form a “social map” that reflects a Galilean geographic perspective. Reed contends that Q’s eight geographic references indicate that its authors lived in northeastern Galilee, along the coast of the Sea of Galilee.19 According to Reed, these place names form a series of three concentric circles around the Q community’s own location in Galilee. The cities that make up these three circles are as follows: 1) Chorazin (Luke 10:13/Matthew 11:21), Bethsaida (Luke 10:13/Matthew 11:21), Capernaum (Luke 7:1; 10:13/Matthew 8:5; 11:23) 2) Tyre (Luke 10:13–14/Matthew 11:21), Sidon (Luke 10:13–14/Matthew 11:21), Jerusalem (Luke 4:9; 13:34/Matthew 4:5; 23:37)20 3) Sodom (Luke 10:12/Matthew 10:15; 11:23–24),21 Nineveh (Luke 10:32/ Matthew 12:41) The three settlements in the first circle were all situated within fifteen kilometers of one another and were relatively unimportant in the first century CE. Chorazin, for example, was not mentioned in any first century documents, and Capernaum and Bethsaida were only mentioned rarely. Reed finds it unlikely that a person living outside Galilee would have had the geographic knowledge to list three obscure Galilean cities that were so close to one another. Instead, he argues that these cities were probably part of the authors’ immediate surroundings. Reed proposes that the Q community had been in conflict with the inhabitants of these towns and that Q’s condemnation of the settlements was designed to shame the authors’ opponents. The cities in the second circle were powerful settlements that exerted considerable economic and cultural influence over Galilee. Reed believes Q’s at18

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 178–9; “Places in Early Christianity: Galilee, Archaeology, Urbanisation, and Q” (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1994). 19 The one place name that Reed does not include in this social map is Nazareth. 20 Matthew 4:5 has “the holy city” instead of “Jerusalem.” 21 Reed also cites Luke 17:29, but this particular reference to Sodom is not paralleled in Matthew.

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

58

titude toward these cities was ambivalent.22 The sayings source mentions Jerusalem only twice: once while Satan is tempting Jesus (Luke 4:9/Matthew 4:5) and once during Jesus’ lament that Jerusalem will become desolate because it kills God’s prophets (Luke 13:34–35/Matthew 23:37). Moreover, Q mentions the other two cities, Tyre and Sidon, for the sole purpose of juxtaposing them with the Galilean villages in the first circle, Bethsaida and Chorazin. Although the first two circles sketched the geographic boundaries of Q’s social environment, Reed believes that the third circle had no political or economic importance for the Q community. Instead, the references are historical and almost mythical. Sodom and Nineveh were two distant cities that had suffered God’s wrath because the inhabitants were disobedient, and Q’s authors invoked them as examples of the fate that their opponents would receive as punishment.23 Although Reed believes that Sodom must have held an important place in the Q community’s imagination, he does not believe that Q’s references to Sodom reveal anything about Q’s provenance. He does, however, believe that Q’s reference to Nineveh is significant. Reed argues that Q’s allusion to Nineveh and Jonah would have been more appropriate in Galilee where the locals venerated Jonah’s tomb at Gath-Hepher.24 Unfortunately, Reed’s argument about Q’s “social map” is not compelling because it does not demonstrate that Q’s geographic references reflect a Galilean perspective better than those found in the other Gospels. Bethsaida and Capernaum are also mentioned throughout the other Gospels, and it seems likely that both cities were well known in many diaspora Christian communities. Although Chorazin is not mentioned in any other first century CE texts, one obscure geographic reference does not prove that Q had to have been written in Galilee. The Gospel of Mark, for example, contains an equally obscure reference to the town of Dalmanutha which was supposed to be very close to the city of Magdala, yet most scholars reject a Galilean provenance for Mark.25 Furthermore, Reed’s contention that Q’s geographic references imply a Galilean provenance is weakened by the fact that the main character in Q is a Galilean. It makes sense that the geographic references would be focused on the main character’s own environment. b. Resentment of Urban Institutions Reed also developed the second major argument for situating Q in Galilee: that Q’s suspicion of urban institutions reflects the cultural environment of 22

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 182–189. In fact, Q’s Jesus claimed that both Sodom and Nineveh will have fared better than the cities that rejected Jesus’ message. 24 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 187–189. 25 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 35–36; Witherington, Gospel of Mark, 20–31. 23

5.2 Q’s Provenance

59

first century Galilee.26 He argues that Q’s authors conveyed their suspicions of two particular urban institutions: markets and courts.27 Q’s attitude toward these institutions suggests to Reed that its authors were city-dwellers who had become uncomfortable with urban life. Since Reed believes that Galilee underwent such a rapid process of urbanization, Reed argues that the most likely environment to produce Q’s anti-urban sentiments was Galilee. Although Reed is correct in pointing out Q’s unease with urban institutions, this attitude was not unique to Galilee. Anti-urban sentiment was commonplace in both the Israelite and the Greco-Roman traditions, and the classic tension between center and periphery often bred dissatisfaction with urbanization in every ancient society.28 Paul, for example, expressed the same suspicion of courts while writing to a Greek audience (1 Corinthians 5). Therefore, while Q’s opinion of urban institutions may reveal something significant about the text’s authors, it does not suggest a specific location for the composition of Q. c. Q’s Use of “Israelite” The third argument that Q is of Galilean origin was first articulated by Richard A. Horsley, who believes that first century Galileans were the literal descendants of pre-exilic northern Israelites. According to Horsley, the fact that Q uses the term “Israelite” instead of “Jew” suggests that the authors distinguished themselves from the inhabitants of Judea.29 He also argues that the Q community was attempting to reconstitute the pre-exilic northern Kingdom of Israel.30 Reed has accepted a modified version of Horsley’s argument. He maintains that, although the Galileans were not the literal descendants of the pre-exilic Northern Israelites, the members of the Q community imagined themselves as the spiritual heirs of the inhabitants of the northern kingdom. For scholars 26

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 192. Luke 6:27–36 (Matthew 5:39–42, 44–48; 7:5, 12); Luke 7:31 (Matthew 11:16); Luke 12:57–59 (Matthew 5:25–26). 28 A.W. Southall, The City in Time and Space (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998), 54–88; L.L. Grabbe and R.D. Haak, “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Freyne, “Urban-Rural Relations,” 76–78. 29 The term “Jew” (Ioudaios) only appears in the Lukan version of Q (Luke 7:3). 30 R.A. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), 178–185; R.A. Horsley and J.A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1999), 54–57; R.A. Horsley, Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 49–52; Jesus in Context: Power, People, and Performance (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 67–71. See my discussion of Horsley’s arguments in Chapter 12. 27

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

60

who accept this modified version of Horsley’s argument, Q’s use of the term “Israel” was part of a new taxonomy that reflected the Q community’s rejection of its ties with Judea.31 However, this argument is based on the false assumption that Q’s use of “Israel” was unique. In fact, Jews from this period usually referred to themselves as Israelites and not as Jews. Although Gentiles generally called them “Jews,” Jewish people in this period appear to have used this term only in their interactions with Gentiles.32 Within Jewish contexts, the term “Israel” was strongly preferred. It is interesting to note that the three Synoptic Gospels use these terms in precisely this way. d. Q’s Failure to Address Problems Faced by Diaspora Jews The fourth argument – that Q’s failure to mention important problems Jews faced in Gentile cities suggests a Judean (broad sense) origin for the document – ignores the fact that Q is set in Galilee.33 One should not expect a narrative set in Galilee to make overt references to the everyday problems of Diaspora Jews. 5.2.2 Conclusions About Q’s Provenance As the above discussion demonstrates, the evidence that Q was written in Galilee is far from conclusive. Although Galilee is certainly a possible provenance for Q, other communities in the eastern Mediterranean would have provided equally suitable locations for Q’s composition. Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence for Q’s place of origin, the most reasonable course of action is to remain agnostic concerning Q’s provenance. Such a conclusion does not imply that Q preserves no accurate information about life in first century Galilee. It does, however, mean that scholars should stop privileging the Q material as a source for Galilee. Instead, we should employ the same level of circumspection when using evidence from Q as we do when using evidence from the other first century Gospels.

31

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 58–60. “Ἰσραηλ” Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. ed. G. Kittel, Vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933); D.M. Miller, “The Meaning of Ioudaios and Its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient ‘Judaism,’” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2010); D. Goodblatt, “‘The Israelites Who Reside in Judah’ (Judith 4:1): On the Conflicted Identities of the Hasmonean State,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. L.I. Levine and D.R. Schwartz, TSAJ 130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); “Varieties of Identity in Late Second Temple Judah,” in Jewish Identity and Politics Between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba, ed. B. Eckhardt (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 33 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 178. 32

5.3 Using Q as a Source for Galilee

61

5.3 Using Q as a Source for Galilee 5.3.1 Q’s Literary Setting As a collection of Jesus’ sayings, Q lacks a general narrative framework and rarely locates its pericopes geographically. However, since the few geographic references in Q imply that most of Jesus’ ministry took place in Galilee, it makes sense to assume that, unless the text says otherwise, the intended setting of Q material is Galilee.34 5.3.2 Information Relevant to This Inquiry Q addresses this study’s questions about Galilee’s ethnic makeup, the region’s level of urbanization, the local economy, Galilean politics, the local religious ethos, the relationship between Galilean Jews and nearby Gentiles, and Galilee’s relationship with Judea. The gospel does not offer any significant information concerning the level of Hellenization and Romanization in Galilee or the extent to which Galileans participated in the Great Revolt.

5.4 Q’s Portrayal of Galilee 5.4.1 Ethnicity The Q document says relatively little about Galilee’s ethnic makeup. Q occasionally implies that most of the people in Galilee were Israelites,35 but this point is never stated clearly. The only Gentile mentioned in Q is the centurion living in Capernaum, and the text makes it clear that he was viewed as an outsider by the village’s Jewish majority (Luke 7:1–10/Matthew 8:5–13). Thus, Q’s authors appear to have assumed that most Galileans were Jewish but that there was a minority Gentile population in the region as well. 5.4.2 Urbanization The Q document sheds very little light on the extent to which Galilee was urbanized or on the effects that urbanization may have had on Galilean society. The gospel never mentions any of Galilee’s urban centers (Sepphoris, Tiberias, or Magdala) directly, but it does convey a suspicion of urban legal institutions.36 According to Luke 12:57–59 (Matthew 5:25–26), Jesus cautioned people not to settle disputes in courts so that they could avoid extortion by 34

See my detailed discussion above of Reed’s argument about Q’s social map. Luke 7:1– 10 (Matthew 8:5–13); Luke 10:13–15 (Matthew 11:21–23). 35 Luke 7:9 (Matthew 8:10); Luke 22:28–30 (Matthew 19:28). 36 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 98–99.

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

62

judges and prison guards (urban officials) whom Jesus characterized as categorically corrupt. 5.4.3 The Economy a. Monetization Three passages in Q imply that Galilee’s economy was significantly monetized. The first is Jesus’ famous saying about not worrying, in which he compared the values of human beings and sparrows. According to both the Lukan (12:6) and the Matthean (10:29) versions, Jesus assumed that his audience was sufficiently immersed in a monetized economy to know the typical market price of a sparrow.37 The second passage is Jesus’ admonition to avoid litigation. In both versions (Luke 12:59 and Matthew 5:26), Jesus warned that taking a dispute to court might result in being unjustly imprisoned and fined.38 This passage not only implies that Jesus lived in a substantially monetized economy, but it also reflects a fear of the consequences of monetization, such as being assessed a monetary fine. Jesus’ words may have also conveyed concern about the increasing government interference in private commerce that results from monetization. The third passage is the Parable of the Talents (Luke 19:12–26/Matthew 25:14–30). The parable not only assumes a monetized economy, but also mentions banking and lending money at interest.39 Thus, Jesus’ words in Q assume that those who heard him were familiar with a monetized economy. Therefore, the gospel implies that Galilee’s economy had already experienced significant monetization in the early first century CE. b. Poverty While the poor are occasionally mentioned in Q, there is no indication that the gospel’s authors considered poverty to be an unusually severe problem in Jesus’ environment.40 Q’s Jesus saw wealth as corrupting, and he made outreach 37

In both versions, the price is given in a Roman denomination, the as. In Luke, the coin is a lepton; in Matthew, it is a quadrans. 39 Each version uses a both a word for the specific amount of money – mina in Luke 19:16, 18, 24, and 25; and talent in Matthew 25:15, 16, 20, 22, and 28 – and a general term for money, argurion, which is used in both versions (Luke 19:23/Matthew 25:27). 40 The Lukan version of Q’s Beatitudes contains condemnations of the rich and predictions of reversals of fortunes that may imply a pronounced gap between the rich and poor (Luke 6:20–26). However, since these condemnations are found only in the Lukan version and since they fit so well with the Lukan agenda, they cannot be treated as original elements of the Q material. The same is true for Jesus’ focus on the poor in Luke’s version of the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:16–24; cf. Matthew 22:1–10). 38

5.4 Q’s Portrayal of Galilee

63

to the poor an essential part of his ministry.41 However, it is not clear if the authors supposed such an attitude to be typical of Jesus’ fellow Galileans. His prohibition against worrying about tomorrow’s bodily necessities (Luke 12:22–31/Matthew 6:25–33), his promise to reverse the fortunes of the poor and hungry,42 and his request that God give people their daily bread in the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2–4/Matthew 6:9–13) all suggest that a substantial portion of Jesus’ audience frequently had to worry about such things. Clearly, a significant portion of Jesus’ message in Q was aimed at comforting the poor. This suggests that many of Jesus’ followers were from the lower classes and that they were unhappy with their plight. 5.4.4 Political Climate Both the Parable of the Talents (Luke 19:12–26/Matthew 25:14–30) and the Parable of the Overseer (Luke 12:42–46/Matthew 24:45–51) reflect a fear of the upper class. Both parables mention acts of violence by elite figures against their slaves, and the Parable of the Talents specifically refers to the nobleman/master as a “harsh” man who reaps what he does not sow.43 The fact that Q’s Jesus portrayed these rich men as harsh figures suggests that his Galilean audience considered members of the upper class to be intimidating figures. Nevertheless, since the wealthy figures in both parables are portrayed as just, the parables imply that the rich were generally respected as well. On the other hand, Q’s characterization of the retainer class is much more clearly negative than its depiction of the elites.44 Q consistently portrays retainers, such as judges, overseers, and tax collectors, as corrupt and oppressive.45 This negative portrayal implies that the authors of Q viewed Jesus’ contemporaries in Galilee as harboring such a resentment against retainers.46 Many sociologists argue that often the lower classes resent the retainers more 41

Luke 6:30 (Matthew 5:42); Luke 7:22–23 (Matthew 11:4–6); Luke 16:13 (Matthew 6:24); Luke 12:33–34 (Matthew 6:19–21). Jesus also mentioned wealth without condemning it twice in Q – Luke 6:45/Matthew 12:35 and Luke 19:12–26/Matthew 25:14–30 – but “wealth” was a metaphor for something else in both of these cases. 42 Luke 6:20–23 (Matthew 5:3–4, 6, 11–12). The focus on economic conditions is a much more prominent feature of the Lukan version of the Beatitudes; however, it is still present in the Matthean version. 43 The Greek word for “harsh” is austēros in Luke 19:21 and sklēros in Matthew 25:24. 44 G.E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 243. According to Lenski’s classic definition, the retainer class includes the “small army of officials, professional soldiers, household servants, and personal retainers” who served the governing class and relied on the latter for its social position. 45 Luke 7:34 (Matthew 11:19); Luke 12:42–46 (Matthew 24:45–51); Luke 12:58–59 (Matthew 5:25–26); Luke 19:12–26 (Matthew 25:14–30). 46 The only evidence, however, of someone other than Jesus resenting a member of the retainer class is Jesus’ quotation of other people condemning him: “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:34/Matthew 11:19).

Chapter 5: The Synoptic Sayings Source (Q)

64

than the members of the governing class because the retainers are the ones who actually carry out the oppression of the lower classes.47 5.4.5 Religious Ethos As I mentioned above in my discussion of Q’s provenance, the authors presented Galilee’s residents as both Jewish and religiously observant. Both Jesus and his adversaries accepted the validity of the Jewish Law and observed Jewish customs. The Q document refers to the Jewish Law on two separate occasions. The first is when Q’s Jesus explicitly affirmed the Torah’s validity (Luke 16:17/Matthew 5:18). The second occurs during one of Jesus’ tirades against the Pharisees’ hypocrisy.48 In both passages, Jesus professed adherence to the Torah’s commandments. a. Religious Leadership The only religious leaders mentioned in Q are the Pharisees, whom the document portrays as hypocritical, overly concerned with outside appearances, and greedy.49 The Pharisees’ prominence in Q suggests that they were influential in Galilee, and Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees implies that they were wealthy and powerful members of Galilean society. b. Belief in Miraculous Healing and Exorcism Jesus’ activities as a healer and exorcist play a prominent role in Q, and he repeatedly claimed that healing the sick was an integral part of both his and his disciples’ mission.50 Moreover, others readily accepted Jesus’ healing powers as validating his religious authority. The Galileans’ ready acceptance of Jesus’ healing powers as proof of his religious authority suggests that supernatural healing was an important element of the region’s religious culture. Similarly, Jesus’ activities as an exorcist and the accusations he faced of being demonically possessed himself imply that a belief in possession and exorcism was common in Galilee.51 47

Lenski, Power and Privilege, 243–244. Luke 11:39–52 (Matthew 23:4, 13, 23, 25–27, 29–32, 34–36). 49 Luke 11:39–41 (Matthew 23:25–26); Luke 11:42 (Matthew 23:23); Luke 11:44 (Matthew 23:27). There is no mention in Q of “teachers of the law,” hypocrites, Herodians, the council, Sadducees, elders, lawyers, priests, or Levites. There are, however, a few places where the Matthean version of a Q passage mentions scribes, but the Lukan version does not (Matthew 8:19; 23:13, 23, 25, 27, 29, 34. Cf. Luke 9:57; 11:52, 42, 39, 44, 47, and 49, respectively). 50 Luke 7:1–10 (Matthew 8:5–10, 13); Luke 7:22–23 (Matthew 11:4–6); Luke 10:9 (Matthew 10:8); Luke 11:14, 19–20 (Matthew 12:22, 27–28). 51 Luke 7:33 (Matthew 11:18); Luke 11:14, 19–20 (Matthew 12:22, 27–28); Luke 11:24– 26 (Matthew 12:43–45). Q also associates demonic possession with diseases. 48

5.4 Q’s Portrayal of Galilee

65

c. Apocalyptic Expectations in Galilee The Q document strongly implies that apocalyptic movements were common in Galilee. Q’s Jesus had an apocalyptic message, and the text indicates that there were other eschatological movements in the region as well. In fact, such beliefs were apparently so widespread that Q’s Jesus felt compelled to warn his followers against being misled by false apocalyptic prophets.52 5.4.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations The subject of Gentiles only appears twice in Q.53 While in Capernaum, Jesus agreed to heal a centurion’s son because the officer had so much faith (Luke 7:1–10/Matthew 8:5–10, 13). This centurion was probably not a Roman soldier, but a member of Antipas’ military; however, Q points out that he was a Gentile.54 The authors of Q presented this centurion as a good man and had Jesus use the centurion’s example to shame the Jew’s lack of faith (Luke 7:9/Matthew 8:10). Nevertheless, the fact that Jesus could shame Galileans with a Gentile’s comparative virtues implies that most Galileans viewed Gentiles as less moral than Jews. Such a view is reflected in Q’s other reference to Gentiles (Luke 12:29–30/Matthew 6:31–32), in which Jesus claimed that his followers should not be like the Gentiles, worrying about daily, physical necessities. Overall, Q implies that Galilean Jews saw Gentiles as morally and spiritually inferior. However, there is no indication in the document of strong tensions between Jews and Gentiles. 5.4.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea The portrayal of Jerusalem in Q implies that the gospel’s authors viewed the city with hostility. Jerusalem served as the location for part of Satan’s temptation of Jesus (Luke 4:1–13/Matthew 4:1–7, 9–11a, 13), and Jesus singled it out as the city that kills prophets (Luke 13:34–35/Matthew 23:37–39). This may be an indication of a more widespread hostility toward Judea among Galileans; however, it may only reflect an attitude specific to the Jesus Movement or even the Q community itself. 52

Luke 17:23–24, 26–27, 30, 34–35, 37 (Matthew 24:26–28, 37, 39–41). The Gospels of Matthew and Luke have different perspectives on the Gentile mission. Luke’s author wholeheartedly supported the mission and even went so far as to claim in that God had rejected the Jews as “unworthy of eternal life” (Acts 13:46–7). The author of Matthew, on the other hand, was somewhat less comfortable with the Gentile mission since he added a stipulation to the beginning of Q’s mission charge that forbade the disciples from entering Gentile and Samaritan towns (Matthew 10:5–6). Since Matthew and Luke present such different opinions of Gentiles, any statement about Gentiles that is preserved by both authors probably reflects the attitudes of Q’s authors. 54 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 162. 53

Chapter 6

The Gospel of Matthew 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 The Special Matthean Material It is generally accepted among New Testament scholars that the major sources for both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were the Gospel of Mark and the Q document.1 However, Matthew contains material that is not paralleled in either of the other Synoptic Gospels. The unique material in Matthew is generally called the “Special Matthean Material,” or “M” for short.2 As a corollary to my basic definition of Q, I define M simply as non-Markan, non-Q material in Matthew (see Appendix 2 for a complete list of M’s contents). The Special Matthean Material is not attested outside of the Gospel of Matthew, and we know almost nothing of its origins. We do not even know if all of M came from the same document or if it derived from multiple sources. Most of M was probably taken from earlier written and oral sources, and some of the material may have been the Gospel author’s original compositions.3 What is clear is that none of M would have escaped being redacted by Matthew’s author before its inclusion in the Gospel. Therefore, although some of M may not originally have been composed by Matthew’s author, the only version of M that exists today exists as an integral part of that Gospel. 6.1.2 Matthean Redaction to Mark and Q The special Matthean material is not the only material that differentiates the Gospel of Matthew from the other Synoptics, however. The author of Matthew often revised his source material to suit his own agenda, to create a coherent overall narrative, and to harmonize his various sources.4 The Matthean redactions to Mark and Q were probably made by Matthew’s author as he 1 Streeter, Four Gospels; L.M. White, Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), 429–430. 2 Harrington, Gospel of Matthew, 6–7; D. Senior, The Gospel of Matthew, Interpreting Biblical Texts Series (Nashville: Abingdon, 2011), 23. 3 Harrington, Gospel of Matthew, 7; Senior, Matthew, 19–24. 4 J.A. Doole, What Was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew’s Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

6.1 Introduction

67

compiled the Gospel. Because of these revisions, the pericopes from Mark and Q that were included in Matthew sometimes depict Galilee differently than they would have in the original sources.5 6.1.3 Methodological Implications of the Synoptic Problem Because the author of Matthew preserved most of his source material from Mark and Q without making dramatic changes, it is likely that he treated his other sources in a similar manner. Therefore, the majority of M was probably first written by someone (or perhaps multiple people) other than Matthew’s author. Like Mark and Q, M would then have been redacted by the author of Matthew as it was incorporated into the Gospel. While M and the Matthean redactions to Q and Mark may have been composed by different people, they are only attested in the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, they cannot be treated as independent sources. Moreover, since it is unclear which portions of M were the results of Matthean redaction, M cannot be treated as independent of Mark and Q. Thus, all of the unique material in Matthew must be treated as a distinct collection that is independent of Luke, John, and Thomas, but not independent of Mark and Q.6 Since all of the material in Matthew was either composed or redacted by the Gospel’s author, it was all influenced by the author’s conception of Galilee. Therefore, the present study will examine all of the unique material in Matthew (including M and the Matthean redactions to Mark and Q) collectively.7 6.1.4 Date and Provenance The Gospel of Matthew must have been written between the composition of the Gospel of Mark (around 70 CE) and the early second century when Mat5

Because we have the Gospel of Mark, it is easy to see how Matthew’s author revised his Markan material. This sort of redaction criticism, however, is more difficult with the Q material since the only versions of Q we have are in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both versions were redacted by the Gospel authors, and it is often difficult to determine whether the Matthean or Lukan version of a pericope is more original. 6 This is not to say that a distinction between M and the Matthean redaction of Mark and Q is not valid in other inquiries. In other circumstances, such a distinction might make perfect sense. 7 Because it would be redundant to include Markan and Q material that was not altered by Matthew’s redactor, this chapter will only concern itself with the material unique to Matthew. My treatment of M of and the Matthean revisions to Mark and Q as a discrete set of interdependent evidence is consistent with my approach to the other literary sources (e.g. Josephus’ works, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and Q). The authors of each document almost certainly relied on source material; however, those sources are now lost.

68

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Matthew

thew had already gained wide circulation.8 Thus, the Gospel must have been composed in the last quarter of the first century CE. Some researchers believe that the Gospel was written in Judea (broad sense),9 but most argue that it originated in Syria. The latter position is based on features in the Gospel that are consistent with a Syrian provenance.10 First, the Gospel implies that the author was writing for a community that contained a large number of both Jews and Gentiles.11 Second, the book’s focus on Jesus’ activities in Syria suggests that the author may have lived in that region.12 Third, Matthew’s conservative theology and its allusions to sharp divisions within the author’s community fit the religious milieu of late first century Syria.13 8 F.W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary (Harper: San Francisco, 1982), 7–8; R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 18–19; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 14; C.S. Keener, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 44. 9 For arguments that Matthew was composed in Galilee, see A.J. Saldarini, “The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 24–25; Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); L.M. White, “Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of the Matthean Community,” in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, ed. D.L. Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 10 D. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 10–11; J.D. Kingsbury, “Conclusion: Analysis of a Conversation,” in Balch, Social History of the Matthean Community; R. Stark, “Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew’s Gospel,” in Balch, Social History of the Matthean Community; White, “Crisis Management.” Even Saldarini, who has argued for a Galilean setting for Matthew, says that Syria is a likely location for Matthew’s composition. Saldarini, Matthew’s Community, 198. 11 Matthew 24:14; 26:13; 28:19–20. 12 The major piece of textual evidence for a Syrian provenance is a change that the author of Matthew made to his Markan source. In Mark 1:28, Jesus’ fame is said to have spread throughout the “surrounding regions of Galilee.” According to Matthew, Jesus’ reputation reached beyond the boundaries of Galilee and spread throughout Syria (Matthew 4:24). Many scholars believe that the author of Matthew made this change to appeal to his Syrian audience. Sim, Matthew and Judaism, 10–11; Kingsbury, “Conclusion”; Stark, “Antioch”; White, “Crisis Management.” 13 Stark, “Antioch”; Kingsbury, “Conclusion”; Sim, Matthew and Judaism, 10–11. Most consider Antioch to be the most likely setting for Matthew’s composition since the city had one of the largest Jewish and Jewish-Christian populations in the first century. Moreover, Galatians and Acts tell us that the Jewish-Christian population living at Antioch was sharply divided between the more liberal Jewish Christians who did not require Gentile converts to be circumcised and their more conservative coreligionists who believed that all Christians should observe the Torah (Galatians 2:11–19; Acts 11:19–30; 15:22–41). Matthew’s insistence that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and that Jewish practices were an essential part of Jesus’ religion may be a reaction to the aforementioned division among Jewish Chris-

6.1 Introduction

69

6.1.5 About the Author The Gospel of Matthew contains a few clues about the author’s religious views, his education, his audience, and his social environment. For example, the author’s focus on the importance of the Jewish Law, his frequent attempts to connect Jesus to various Israelite prophets and prophecies, and his insistence that Jesus rejected the Gentile mission during his lifetime suggest that the author was a Jewish Christian who still observed the Jewish Law.14 These features suggest that the Gospel’s audience was most likely Jewish as well. In fact, the general consensus about Matthew is that he was writing to persuade the Jews and Jewish Christians that Jesus was a thoroughly Jewish Messiah.15 However, the author’s command of the Greek language, the fact that Matthew’s scriptural quotations are usually from the LXX, and the fact that the Gospel’s two major sources (Mark and Q) were Greek documents imply that the Gospel was composed by a significantly Hellenized author, probably a Greek-speaking Jew.16 6.1.6 Matthew’s Tendencies Because the author of Matthew used Mark as a source, we can use redaction criticism to help determine Matthew’s editorial tendencies. 17 The major changes that Matthew’s author made to his source material often reflect his dedication to the Jewish Law. Likewise, the author sometimes altered Markan pericopes to eliminate elements that might have undermined Jesus’ appeal to a conservative Jewish community.18 Occasionally, the author also changed a Markan story to make it conform to an Israelite prophecy or even altered his quotations of biblical prophecies to match the Markan narrative more

tians. J.A. Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 216–219; Sim, Matthew and Judaism, 28. 14 Albright and Mann, Matthew, clxxxiii; Beare, Gospel According to Matthew, 9–10; Saldarini, Matthew’s Community; A.O. Ewherido, Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century CE: The Evidence from Matthew’s Chapter on Parables (Matthew 13:1–52), Studies in Biblical Literature 91 (New York: Peter Lang, 2006), 21. 15 White, “Crisis Management”; Saldarini, Matthew’s Community, 7. 16 Albright and Mann, Matthew, clxxxiii; Beare, Gospel According to Matthew, 9–10; Saldarini, Matthew’s Community. 17 Since the only extant attestations of the Q material are in Matthew and Luke, redaction criticism in the case of Q material is much more difficult than it is for Markan material, and it is often unclear if the Matthean or Lukan variant is more original. As a result, my observations about Matthew’s tendencies are based primarily on its author’s redactions to the Markan material. 18 E.g. Matthew 9:17 (Mark 2:22); Matthew 13:55 (Mark 6:3); Matthew 15:17 (Mark 7:19). Matthew omits all of Mark 8:22–26. See Sim, Matthew and Judaism, 251–256.

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Matthew

70

closesly.19 Because the author of Matthew altered his source materials to emphasize Jesus’ dedication to the Jewish Law – even when Matthew’s source material suggests something different – evidence from Matthew for the “Jewishness” of Galilee should be treated with suspicion. 6.1.7 Information Relevant to This Inquiry The Gospel of Matthew contains evidence relevant to this inquiry’s questions about Galilee’s ethnic makeup, the level of urbanization in Galilee, the regional economy, Galilean politics, the local religious ethos, Galilee’s ethnic makeup, the relationship between Galilean Jews and nearby Gentiles, and Galilee’s relationship with Judea. The Gospel does not offer any significant information concerning the extent to which Galilee was Hellenized or about Galilean participation in the Great Revolt.

6.2 Matthew’s Portrayal of Galilee 6.2.1 Ethnicity Although Matthew 4:15 quotes Isaiah 9:1–2, which refers to the region as “Galilee of the Gentiles,” the Gospel implies that Galilee’s population was mostly Jewish. The strongest indication of Galilee’s Jewish population is Jesus’ command (given in Galilee) that his disciples “[g]o nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5). Although Jesus reversed this command after the resurrection (Matthew 28:19), the Gospel implies that Jesus’ Galilean ministry was only intended for Jews.20 Such an exclusive ministry makes more sense if Jesus lived in a predominantly Jewish society rather than an ethnically mixed one. Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew does imply that Jesus had very limited interaction with Gentiles. In fact, Jesus’ references to Gentiles suggest that he considered them to be distant and contemptible people who were predisposed to sin.21

19

Overman, Matthew and Judaism, 74. After the resurrection, of course, Jesus’ ministry was extended to the Gentiles who had previously been excluded. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, trans. R.R. Barr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Sim, Matthew and Judaism, 158. 21 Matthew 5:47; 6:7, 32; 18:17. 20

6.2 Matthew’s Portrayal of Galilee

71

6.2.2 Urbanization The Gospel of Matthew refers to Nazareth as a city (polis) (2:23). This may indicate that the author considered Nazareth to be an urban center. On the other hand, the author may simply have been using the term in its least restrictive sense. All other indications of urbanization in Matthew were copied from the Gospel of Mark.22 Therefore, the Gospel of Matthew contains too little information to draw any firm conclusions about the extent to which Galilee was urbanized. 6.2.3 The Economy Matthew does not paint a very clear picture of the socio-economic situation in first century Galilee. However, it does offer a few relevant details. For instance, the frequent mention of money in Jesus’ parables and the indication that Galilean taxes were paid in coin suggest that the author of Matthew considered Galilee’s economy to be significantly monetized.23 a. Economic Inequality? The Gospel of Matthew provides scant evidence for economic inequality in Galilee. Although three of Matthew’s unique parables mention debt or large estates, these features are not portrayed as major problems in Galilee.24 The one mention of debt in M – in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23–38) – has been seized upon by some scholars as an indication of a debt crisis in Galilee.25 Such an interpretation, however, misses the essential meaning of the parable. The servant, after all, owed his master 1,000 talents, or 50 times the annual tribute paid by Antipas to Rome.26 Instead of reflecting the social situation of Matthew’s Jesus, the debt in this parable was meant to be impossibly large so that the master’s forgiveness of the debt could convey God’s amazing capacity for forgiveness.27 Therefore, this par22 Matthew 9:1 mentions Jesus’ “own city,” which is probably a reference to Capernaum (Matthew 4:13). However, since the Gospel of Mark also called Capernaum a city (Mark 1:33, 45), Matthew cannot provide independent attestation that Capernaum was considered a city. Similarly, Matthew 9:35 preserves the implication in Mark 6:56 that Galilee contained multiple cities. 23 Matthew 13:44, 45; 17:27; 18:23–28. 24 Matthew 13:24–43; 18:23–38. 25 W.R. Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 131–149; V.G. Shillington, Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 61, 63. 26 Keener, Commentary on Matthew, 458; Herzog, Subversive Speech. 27 A.J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 21–32; B.B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 269.

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Matthew

72

ticular passage should not be construed as evidence that debt was a major problem in Galilee. Similarly, although some scholars seize upon the references to large estates in Matthew as evidence that these estates were disrupting the Galilean economy,28 such claims appear weaker when the textual evidence is examined in context. The Special Matthean Material contains two parables set in large estates: the Parable of the Wheat and the Darnel, which was told in Galilee, and the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, which was told in Judea.29 These parables clearly assumed that Jesus’ audience knew something about the functioning of large estates. However, the large estates and their owners were not portrayed as disruptive or oppressive. Rather, in both cases, the estate represented the Kingdom of Heaven, and the owner represented either Jesus or God.30 Such a comparison suggests that Matthew’s Jesus expected his audience to have – at worst – a neutral attitude toward the owners of large estates. Otherwise, a comparison between God and an estate owner might have offended Jesus’ audience. b. Taxation There was one element of Galilee’s economy that Matthew portrayed as oppressive: taxation. Jesus criticized tax collectors three times in M (twice in Galilee and once in Judea), portraying them as agents of oppression.31 Jesus implied that kings were economic parasites who lived off other people’s labor (Matthew 17:25–27), and he lumped tax collectors together with prostitutes and Gentiles, suggesting that they were all beyond the pale.32 6.2.4 Political Climate a. Galilee The Gospel of Matthew’s birth narrative suggests that Galilee’s political conditions were preferable to Judea’s in the years following Herod the Great’s death. At this time, the Gospel says that God commanded Joseph to return from Egypt to “the land of Israel” (Matthew 2:20). At first, Joseph intended to return to his hometown in Judea, but after hearing about Archelaus’ new regime there, Joseph moved his family to Galilee instead (Matthew 2:22). This indicates that Matthew’s author considered Antipas’ Galilee to have been less oppressive than Archelaus’ Judea. 28

R.A. Horsley and J.S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (New York: Winston, 1985), 59. 29 Matthew 13:24–50; 20:1–13. 30 Hultgren, Parables of Jesus, 33–45, 292–302. 31 Matthew 17:24–27; 18:17; 21:31–32. 32 Matthew 18:17; 21:31–32.

6.2 Matthew’s Portrayal of Galilee

73

b. Tax Collectors As I mentioned above, the Gospel of Matthew singled out tax collectors as agents of oppression.33 In fact, they are the only group so characterized in the special Matthean Material. Jesus’ focus on tax collectors suggests that they were the chief representatives of political and economic oppression in Galilee, and his criticism may reflect more widespread resentment of either ruthless tax collectors or over-taxation. 6.2.5 Religious Ethos The population of Galilee in Matthew appears to be largely Jewish and observant.34 The text claims that there were synagogues throughout Galilee and that the influence of rival religious leaders (i.e. Pharisees and scribes) was significant enough for Jesus to warn the Galileans about them on several occasions.35 a. Religious Leaders According to Matthew, Jesus’ main religious opponents in Galilee were the Pharisees and the scribes.36 The exact nature of Pharisaic and scribal influence in Galilee is unclear in M; the material merely suggests that both groups had solid reputations for piety.37 Aside from their reputation for piety, however, the Pharisees’ role in Galilean society is not specified in M. The fact that the Pharisees and scribes enjoyed a good reputation in Galilean society does not mean that they also had substantial influence. It is quite possible for people to respect the piety of a religious figure without adopting his doctrines and practices.38 Moreover, Jesus’ popularity among the Galileans may have been a consequence of their dissatisfaction with the Pharisees and scribes. 33

Matthew 17:24–27; 18:17; 21:31–32. Matthew 5:21–24, 27–28, 33–37; 9:20, 35; 12:7, 36–37. 35 Matthew 5:20; 9:34, 35; 15:12. 36 The term “scribe” has a somewhat ambiguous meaning in Matthew. Usually, the scribes are portrayed as Jesus’ adversaries, and they are generally treated as a united religious group like the Pharisees. However, in Matthew 13:52, which is set in Galilee, Jesus praised “every scribe who has been trained for the Kingdom of Heaven.” Here, Jesus implied that the scribes were members of a profession rather than a political or religious group. The passage also suggests that some scribes were aligned with Jesus’ movement. Nevertheless, Matthew’s Galilean scribes were usually allied with the religious elites who employed them. In Galilee, they were usually associated with the Pharisees, and in Judea, scribes were connected with either the Pharisees or the Chief Priests. (Matthew 2:4; 5:20; 21:15; 23:2, 15). 37 Matthew 5:20; 9:34; 15:12. The Matthean material treats the Pharisees as if they are the normative religious authorities. 38 In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the rabbis of the second century were in a similar position of being respected by the general population even though their rulings were probably ignored by most people. L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late 34

74

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Matthew

In Matthew, Jesus also singled out a group of Galilean opponents he called “the hypocrites” (Matthew 6:2–6, 16–18). Most interpreters, however, assume that the term “hypocrites” encompassed the religious establishment in Galilee, including the Pharisees and scribes.39 6.2.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus avoided contact with Gentiles (including Samaritans) and commanded his disciples to do likewise during his earthly ministry. 40 The Gospel does not indicate whether other Galileans shared Jesus’ attitude concerning Gentiles. 6.2.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea Although the Gospel of Matthew frequently criticized tax collectors, it only mentioned one specific tax that was collected in Galilee: the Temple tax (17:24–27). Jesus’ excursus on paying the Temple Tax (17:25–27) suggests that he considered it a form of oppression,41 and his motive for paying the tax was to avoid offending those in power. This passage could be interpreted as evidence of Galilean resentment toward the Jerusalem Temple or its officials.42 However, it could also be interpreted as a condemnation of taxation in general.43

Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989); M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000); Schwartz, Imperialism. 39 Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 932; H.C. Kee and L.H. Cohick, Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (New York: Continuum, 1999), 97. 40 Matthew 10:5. Matthew 15:21–28 also preserves the Markan story of Jesus’ reluctance to heal the Gentile woman and his anti-Gentile remarks (Mark 7:24–30). 41 “‘From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?’ When Peter said, ‘From others,’ Jesus said to him, “Then the children are free.’” (Matthew 17:25b–26). 42 It is also possible that that the author of Matthew was simply imposing his own community’s anti-tax sentiments on the narrative. 43 Jesus’ excursus identifies kings, not Judeans or priests, as the economic parasites who lived on other people’s labor.

Chapter 7

The Gospel of Luke 7.1 Introduction Like the author of Matthew, Luke’s author relied on Mark and Q as his two main sources. Thus, the Gospel of Luke contains two types of unique material: Lukan redactions to Mark and Q, and the Special Lukan Material (L).1 As with M, it is difficult to determine which parts of L were composed by Luke’s author and which were inherited from earlier sources.2 Consequently, I have adopted the same approach to the unique material in Luke as I did to the unique material in Matthew: I will consider L and the Lukan redactions to Mark and Q collectively as material unique to the Gospel of Luke.3 This material was not dependent upon Matthew, John, or Thomas; however, it may have been influenced by Mark and Q. 7.1.1 About the Author A careful reading of Luke and Acts4 can reveal much about the documents’ author and his background.5 Both texts contain several indications that their 1

Like M, L consists of all non-Markan, non-Q material in the Gospel of Luke. For a complete list of L passages, see Appendix 3. 2 See, for example, the debate over the origin of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32). J.T. Sanders, “Tradition and Redaction in Luke XV.11–32,” NTS 15 (1968); J. Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel (London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1976), 143–147; J. Jeremias, “Tradition und Redaktion in Lukas 15,” ZNW 62 (1971). Sanders argued that the parable is a Lukan adaptation of earlier material. Drury has argued that the story was entirely a Lukan creation. Jeremias, however, argued that Luke did not compose any of the parable. 3 As I mentioned in the previous chapter, this is a matter of methodological consistency and practicality. I am not arguing that the same person wrote all of the unique material in Luke. 4 Both Luke and Acts were almost certainly written by the same person. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. D.N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 47–64. 5 Although some have argued that Luke was written by a woman, Luke 1:3 uses a masculine participle to describe the author’s “investigating.” This suggests that the author was either a man or a woman who assumed a masculine literary persona. Therefore, I follow D’Angelo’s logic for referring to Luke’s author as “he.” M.R. D’Angelo, “Women in LukeActs: A Redactional View,” JBL 109, no. 3 (1990): 443.

76

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Luke

author received an excellent Greek education. Luke and Acts were both written in impeccable Greek, and both contain stylistic elements that reflect a high level of education.6 On several occasions, the author alluded to or quoted important pieces of Greco-Roman literature.7 Furthermore, the introductions to Luke and Acts conform particularly well to the conventions of Greco-Roman literature.8 The author’s comfort with Greek, his high level of education, and his focus on the importance of the Gentile mission all suggest that he was a Gentile.9 7.1.2 Date and Provenance It is generally agreed that Luke was written about the same time as Matthew, between 70 and 100 CE. Because Luke’s author was a Gentile who wrote in sophisticated Greek and because he appears to have been well traveled, the Gospel could have been written in any number of places.10 However, virtually all scholars agree that Luke was not written in Judea (broad sense).11 The author was clearly ignorant of Judean (broad sense) geography, and it is difficult to imagine a Gospel so focused on the Gentile mission being composed for a

6 F. Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, trans. C.M. Thomas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 3; L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, vol. 3, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), 3. 7 He appears to have been especially fond of Homer. D.R. MacDonald, “The Soporific Angel in Acts 12:1–17 and Hermes’ Visit to Priam in Iliad 24: Luke’s Emulation of the Epic,” Forum 2, no. 2 (1999); “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul,” NTS 45 (1999). “The Ending of Luke and the Ending of the Odyssey,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. R.A. Argall (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000); “Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector’s Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, ed. T. Penner and C.V. Stichele (Atlanta: SBL, 2003); “The Breasts of Hecuba and Those of the Daughters of Jerusalem: Luke’s Transvaluation of a Famous Iliadic Scene,” in Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, ed. J.A. Brant, C.W. Hedrick, and C. Shea, SBL Symposium Series 32 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005). 8 L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (New York: Cambridge UP, 1993); Bovon, Luke 1, 18–25. Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 5–9. 9 Bovon, Luke 1, 8. Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 9–10. 10 Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 2–3; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 28, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 58; Bovon, Luke 1, 8–9. Johnson argues that it is not possible to determine where Luke was composed. Fitzmyer contends that Luke was written in Antioch; Bovon claims that Luke originated in Macedonia. 11 Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 57.

7.1 Introduction

77

community in Judea (broad sense). Instead, it is likely that the Gospel of Luke was composed for a predominantly Gentile audience.12 While it may not be possible to determine Luke’s exact place of origin, there are two good reasons to suspect that the author had a close connection to the city of Antioch. First, the tradition that the author of Luke was a Syrian who wrote the gospel in his hometown of Antioch is reflected in a number of early prologues appended to the Gospel of Luke.13 Second, Acts contains a disproportionate amount of material concerning the Christian community in Antioch,14 which indicates that the author probably had access to written material and other traditions from Antioch.15 While the author’s familiarity with Antiochene traditions does not necessarily imply that Luke and Acts were composed in Antioch, it does suggest that he had close ties to the Christian communities there. 7.1.3 Information Relevant to This Inquiry The Gospel of Luke contains evidence relevant to this inquiry’s questions about Galilee’s ethnic makeup, the level of urbanization in Galilee, the regional economy, Galilean politics, the local religious ethos, the relationship between Galilean Jews and nearby Gentiles, and Galilee’s relationship with Judea. The Gospel does not offer any significant information concerning the extent to which Galilee was Hellenized or about Galilean participation in the Great Revolt.

12

Luke’s author’s style varies greatly throughout his work. In his Gospel, he imitated the Semitic style of the LXX, but throughout much of Acts, he adopted the style of Greek historians. Such a facile command of the Greek language suggests both that Luke’s author was well educated and that Greek was his native tongue. Luke omits most of the non-Greek terms found in Mark, and it eliminates much of the Markan material that would have been of particular interest to Jewish readers: ritual purity, piety, etc. E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969), 148; Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 58; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 6–12, 85–87, 115, 360; I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 190. 13 The Anti-Marcionite and Monarchian Prologues to Luke describe the Gospel’s author as a Syrian from Antioch. In his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer makes a tenable, though not compelling, case that this tradition is historically accurate. Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 58. 14 Acts 6:5; 11:19–27; 13:1, 14; 14:19–26; 15:22–35; 18:22. Moreover, the Antiochene narratives often provide more details than the rest of Acts. 15 For example, Acts 15:23–9 purports to be a reproduction of a letter sent from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem “to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (Acts 15:23). After relating the contents of the letter, Acts goes on to tell of its reception in Antioch (15:30–32). While this account does not necessarily locate the composition of LukeActs in Antioch, it does provide evidence that the author of Luke-Acts had access to documents from Antioch.

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Luke

78

7.2 Luke’s Portrayal of Galilee 7.2.1 Ethnicity The Gospel of Luke assumes that Galilee’s population was predominantly Jewish; however, the Special Lukan Material follows Q’s convention of using the term “Israelite” instead of “Jew.”16 Moreover, although both Luke and Acts emphasize the primary importance of the Gentile mission,17 the Gospel only mentions one Gentile in Galilee, the centurion at Capernaum (Luke 7:1– 10). However, since the author copied this story from the Gospel of Mark, Luke does not provide independent attestation of a Gentile presence in Galilee. 7.2.2 Urbanization The Gospel of Luke calls several Galilean settlements “cities” (poleis)18 but rarely refers to a Galilean community as a village (komē).19 In fact, Luke’s author even altered his Markan source material to call Bethsaida a city instead of a village.20 This contrasts with the Gospel’s classification of Judean and Samaritan settlements, which are frequently referred to as villages.21 Thus, the 16

Luke 2:32–34; 4:25–27. Interestingly, the Lukan version of the story about the centurion’s slave refers to the Galilean elders as “Jewish” (Luke 7:3), but this ethnic identification is not paralleled in the Matthean version. Although some scholars have argued that Jesus’ movement distinguished between “Jews” and “Israelites,” their arguments do not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, it was common for Jews in this period to refer to themselves as Israelites, especially among other Jews. Goodblatt, “Israelites in Judah”; Miller, “Meaning of Ioudaios.” 17 Luke 4:25–30; 17:12–29; 24:46–47. According to Acts 13:44–52, God eventually rejected the Jewish people. 18 Luke 2:4; 4:31. 19 Luke 5:17 mentions people who had come from “every village of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem.” However, the passage does not refer to any specific settlements. The Gospel of Luke also preserves two narrative transitions from the Gospel of Mark that refer to indefinite numbers of villages and/or cities (Luke 8:1/Mark 6:56 and Luke 9:6/Mark 6:6). 20 Luke 9:10 (cf. Mark 8:22–26). Since it was part of Philip’s domain, Bethsaida was not technically part of Galilee. However, Bethsaida was located near Galilee’s border, only 13 km from Capernaum. It is not clear from the text whether the author of Luke considered Bethsaida to be part of Galilee. However, since the city was grouped with Capernaum and Chorazin in Luke’s source material (Luke 10:13–15/Matthew 11:21–23), the Gospel’s author would at least have known that Bethsaida was close to Jesus’ hometown. 21 Luke 9:52, 56; 10:38; 13:22; 17:12; 19:30; 24:13. The author of Luke does not appear to have known much about Judean (broad sense) geography. For example, during Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Jesus enters Samaria (9:51–55) and then passes several more towns on the road to Jerusalem (13:22) before arriving at a village located in the “region between Samaria and Galilee” (17:11–12). Nevertheless, all the passages cited at the beginning of this note are set in Judea, Samaria, or somewhere on the road between the Samaritan village and Jerusalem.

7.2 Luke’s Portrayal of Galilee

79

terminology employed in Luke implies that Galilee was significantly urbanized during Jesus’ lifetime. 7.2.3 The Economy a. Monetization Three of Jesus’ unique Galilean parables in Luke assume that the Galileans were familiar with the characteristic features of a monetized economy.22 This assumption implies that Galilee had already become significantly monetized by the early first century CE. b. Economic Problems Luke’s author made confronting economic injustice the major focus of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In the Special Lukan Material, Jesus frequently referred to economic inequality, debt, robbery, the evils of wealth, and the importance of charity.23 Luke’s Jesus also predicted an impending event that would fundamentally reverse people’s fortunes, causing the rich to lose everything and the poor to gain whatever they lacked.24 Jesus’ constant discussion of economic hardship and oppression in Galilee suggests that Luke’s author considered these phenomena characteristic of Galilean society. 7.2.4 Political Climate a. Instability The Gospel of Luke contains three indications of political instability in Galilee. First, Herod Antipas felt sufficiently threatened by Jesus that he wanted to kill Jesus (13:31). Antipas’ reaction to Jesus’ activities implies that the ruler did not feel secure in his authority. Second, one of Jesus’ disciples was a Zealot,25 which suggests that Jesus’ movement had violent, revolutionary ad22

Luke 7:41–43; 10:30–37; 15:8–9. Luke 4:18; 6:23–26; 7:41–43; 10:30–37; 11:21–22; 12:13–14, 16–21; 14:12–15, 33; 16:19–31. Although the author of Luke made economic justice the focus of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, the subject is rarely mentioned in Luke’s unique Judean narratives. This is probably because the Judean narratives that Luke’s author copied from Mark already contained plenty of material on economic issues. Therefore, the author of Luke probably inserted most of his unique material on economic justice in the Galilean narratives, where such concerns had been ignored by Mark’s author. 24 Luke 1:52–53; 4:18. 25 Luke 6:15 says that Simon was called a Zealot. Although I do not list 6:15 as part of the Special Lukan Material, Luke’s use of the term “Zealot” is an alteration of his source, Mark. Mark 3:18 uses the term kananaion, which is probably a Semitic term for “Zealot.” However, the exact meaning is unclear, and it is noteworthy that the author of Luke altered his Markan source by translating the word as “Zealot” for his Gentile audience. This term would be espe23

80

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Luke

herents. Third, the author of Luke portrayed Antipas as politically isolated and unpopular. Even the Galilean Pharisees worked against Antipas (13:31– 33), and the author noted that Herod and Pilate had been enemies before reconciling during Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:12). Overall, the Gospel of Luke suggests that Antipas’ control of Galilee was tenuous and that it aroused resentment among his Galilean subjects. b. Class Conflict The Gospel of Luke frequently alludes to economic problems and tensions that resulted from economic inequality.26 The Gospel’s author portrayed Jesus as a fierce critic of the rich.27 Even when he was not attacking the rich directly, Luke’s Jesus usually portrayed the affluent as irresponsible fools.28 This attitude pervades both L and the Lukan redaction of Mark and Q,29 and it strongly implies that the author of Luke considered Galilee’s economy to have been characterized by inequality and tension between the classes. c. Tax Collectors The frequent criticism of tax collectors in Luke by both Jesus and his opponents indicates that the Gospel’s author believed that publicans were widely despised in Galilee.30 Jesus’ primary criticism of tax collectors in Luke was that they defrauded people by collecting more money than required. However, there is no hint that Jesus criticized the taxes themselves or the right of the authority to collect such taxes.31

cially significant to any of Luke’s readers who had also read any of Josephus’ works. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 264; Lane, Gospel According to Mark, 136. 26 Poverty – Luke 4:18; 14:13; 16:20. Debt – Luke 7:41–43; 16:20. Robbery – Luke 10:30–37; 11:21–22. Dishonesty and oppression – Luke 16:1–13. 27 Luke 6:20–26; 12:16–21; 14:33; 16:1–12, 19–31. 28 Luke 12:16–20; 15:11–32. 29 E.g. Luke’s expansions to Mark 2:13–17 (Luke 5:27–32) and Mark 14:3–9 (Luke 7:36– 50). Compare the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20–26/Matthew 5:3–12), Jesus’ teachings about loving one’s enemies (Luke 6:27–36/Matthew 5:39–42, 44– 48; 7:5, 12), and his pericope on possessions (Luke 12:33–34/Matthew 6:19–21). 30 Luke 2:1–5; 7:29; 15:1–2. In this, Luke agrees with Matthew, but Jesus’ criticism of tax collectors in Luke and Matthew does differ in one important way. In Matthew, Jesus’ criticism seems to be focused on the injustice of the taxes themselves (Matthew 17:24–27). In Luke, however, the author appears to accept taxation – specifically, taxation by the Roman government – as legitimate. 31 In fact, the Lukan nativity story involves Jesus’ parents willingly complying with the census that established direct Roman taxation in Judea (Luke 2:1).

7.2 Luke’s Portrayal of Galilee

81

7.2.5 Religious Ethos The Gospel of Luke portrays Galilee’s population as Jewish and religiously observant. It claims that there were synagogues throughout the region32 and implies that the Galileans considered Pharisaic rulings on halakhic matters normative.33 Furthermore, Luke’s author emphasized the importance of Judean religious authorities in Galilean religious life by noting that Jesus’ family made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to perform Jewish religious rites.34 a. Pharisees Although L portrays the Pharisees as Galilee’s most prominent religious leaders,35 there is no indication that they had any official power in the region. In fact, L’s Jesus frequently and publicly opposed the Pharisee’s strict halakhic interpretations.36 Yet, despite his opposition to the Pharisees, Jesus had a relatively good relationship with many of them. Several Pharisees, for example, invited Jesus to dine with them, and the Gospel claims that the Pharisees even warned Jesus about Herod Antipas’ plans to kill him.37 This implies that, while the Pharisees disagreed with Jesus, they did not feel threatened by him. The Pharisees’ tolerance of Jesus’s movement suggests that Galilean Judaism was diverse in the early first century CE.38 b. Other Religious Leaders The Pharisees were not Jesus’ only opponents in Galilee, however. The text also mentions “teachers of the law,” scribes, and lawyers as Galilean opponents of Jesus.39 It is noteworthy that L always mentions these groups in con32

Luke 4:14b–15, 37; 13:10–17. Luke 5:17; 7:29–30, 36; 11:37–38, 53–54; 13:31; 14:2–6; 15:1–2; 16:14–15. 34 Luke 2:21–43; 22:15, 56. 35 Luke 5:17; 7:29–30, 36; 11:37–38, 53–54; 13:31; 14:2–6; 15:1–2; 16:14–15. 36 Luke 4:25–30; 7:36–49; 11:37–38; 13:11–17; 14:2–6. 37 Luke 7:36; 11:37–38; 13:31. 38 If the Pharisees had a monopoly on religious authority in Galilee, they would have seen Jesus’ ministry as more of a threat. If, however, there were several religious movements and leaders in Galilee, Jesus would merely have been one of many non-Pharisaic religious leaders in Galilee. In the latter scenario, Jesus would not have posed a direct or novel threat to Pharisaic authority. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Jesus would have gained a following if there were not other, non-Pharisaic leaders among Galilee’s Jews. 39 Luke 5:17; 7:29–30; 10:25–26, 29; 11:45, 53–54; 14:2–6; 15:1–2. Neither the Sadducees, the elders, “the council,” nor “the Herodians” appear in L. The priests only appear in Luke’s Judean material (Luke 1:5; 23:10–21); however, Jesus did send some people off to the priests while he was in “the region between Samaria and Galilee” (17:11–19). Jesus also mentioned priests twice during his Galilean ministry: once in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) and once in his instructions to the healed lepers (Luke 17:14). However, neither of these passages suggests that there were priests in Galilee. 33

82

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Luke

nection with the Pharisees in L, and it is not clear what – if anything – distinguished these groups from the Pharisees.40 c. Table Fellowship According to Luke, Jesus and the Pharisees clashed over matters of table fellowship (i.e. with whom a religious person could eat a meal). The Pharisees only ate with observant Jews, but Jesus ate with both Pharisees and sinners.41 The Gospel of Luke emphasizes the importance of Jesus’ form of table fellowship, which embraced the social and religious outcasts in society.42 By implication, Jesus’ focus on including outcasts in Luke suggests that elitism and ostracism were common in Galilean society. Otherwise, Jesus would not have had much to criticize. 7.2.6 Jewish-Gentile Relations The Gospel of Luke only mentions three occasions in which Jews and Gentiles interacted with one another: when Jesus healed the centurion’s slave at Capernaum (Luke 7:1–10), when Jesus cured the demoniac in “the country of the Gerasenes” (Luke 8:26–37),43 and during Jesus’ trial and execution in Jerusalem (Luke 23:1–25, 47–52). All of these interactions were cordial. In fact, Luke’s author even omitted the Markan narrative in which Jesus insulted the Syro-Phoenician woman for being a Gentile (Mark 7:24–30). 44 Thus, the Gospel implies that Jewish-Gentile relations were relatively harmonious in first century Judea (broad sense). Nevertheless, Jesus received a violent reaction from the people in Nazareth when he suggested that God sometimes preferred to help Gentiles over Israelites (Luke 4:25–30). This passage suggests that Galilean Jews were prejudiced against Gentiles and that they would not have supported a “Gentile mission.”

40 J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 300–307; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 212. 41 Luke 7:36; 11:37–38; 14:1–15. 42 Luke 7:36; 11:37–38; 14:1, 7, 12–15; 15:1–2. J.D. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 66–101. 43 The fact that the demoniac was from Gerasa implies that he was a Gentile, but the Gospel does not specify his ethnicity. 44 The narrative is part of the “Great Omission,” in which the author of Luke omitted Mark 6:45–8:26. D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1989), 126–127.

7.2 Luke’s Portrayal of Galilee

83

a. Samaritans The passages in Luke that touch on Jewish-Samaritan relations imply that the groups regarded one another with mutual hostility. According to Luke 9:52– 53, the inhabitants of a Samaritan village refused to accommodate Jesus’ group because he was traveling to Jerusalem. Other passages in Luke subtly imply that there was hostility between Jews and Samaritans. For example, although the Samaritan treated the injured man with generosity in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37), the parable was premised on Jesus’ audience knowing that Jews and Samaritans did not get along.45 Similarly, Jesus’ reaction to the recently healed Samaritan’s piety was intended to shame those Jews who fell short of the example set by the “foreigner” (Luke 17:15–18). 7.2.7 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea The trips taken by Jesus, his followers, and his parents to Judea for religious observances imply that Galilean Jews accepted the authority of the Jerusalem Temple’s priesthood.46 Likewise, Jesus’ directive that the ten men he cured of leprosy present themselves to the priests (Luke 17:14) demonstrated his recognition of priestly authority. However, the Gospel does not indicate the extent to which the priests or other Judean leaders influenced Galilee’s local religious culture.

45 J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 28A, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 883–884; Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 446; F.B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 150– 151. The Gospel does not specify the traveller’s ethnicity. However, since he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, the parable implies that he was Jewish. 46 Luke 2:21–43; 22:15, 56.

Chapter 8

The Gospel of John 8.1 Introduction Of the New Testament evidence for first century Galilee, the material from the Fourth Gospel is probably the most difficult to evaluate. Because of the differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels and because of John’s strong theological agenda, the Fourth Gospel is often regarded as the least historically reliable of the canonical Gospels. The authors of John were more concerned with theological “truth” than historical fact, and they often altered descriptions of events to suit their theological biases.1 In addition, the Johannine community’s focus on theological issues often led the authors to ignore the more mundane aspects of life in the Gospel’s narratives. Consequently, the Gospel says very little about everyday life in first century Galilee. Furthermore, since it focuses primarily on Jesus’ activities in Judea and not in Galilee, the Gospel of John’s depiction of Galilee is more cursory than those of the Synoptic Gospels. Despite these limitations, the Gospel of John contains important information about Galilee. The Gospel provides an independent account2 of Jesus’ life, contains unique information, and can sometimes corroborate information from other sources. 8.1.1 Date and Provenance The Gospel of John was expanded and redacted multiple times before reaching its current form.3 Though John’s complicated redaction-history makes it 1

E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 285–286; Crossan, Historical Jesus. 2 I.e. John’s account is not dependent upon any of the other Gospels. 3 The major proponent of this view is Raymond Brown, who argues that the Gospel developed gradually over a period of decades. R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 29, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), xxxii–xxxix; An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. D.N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 46, 58–62, 81–82, 165, 168, 211. The other major view is that the Gospel was composed in two stages and that most of the Gospel was built around a core “signs source,” a collection of stories about Jesus’ miracles. R.T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative

8.1 Introduction

85

difficult to determine the date and origin of its component layers, there is a general consensus that the Gospel was finalized around 90 CE by the leaders of a Jewish-Christian community in Asia Minor.4 The authors were probably followers of John, the Beloved Disciple.5 8.1.2 Cultural and Religious Context It is generally accepted that the Johannine community was largely composed of Jewish Christians, and there are many parallels between the Gospel of John and Jewish apocalyptic texts from the same period.6 However, John also reflects a very Hellenized world-view.7 The Gospel’s use of Greek philosophical terms, such as the Word (logos),8 and its numerous Greek puns suggest that the text’s authors were reasonably well educated in Greek literature and thought.9 In addition, John’s Gnostic affinities suggest that the Johannine community may have been involved in some of the early trends toward Gnosticism.10 Although John’s authors were most likely Jewish Christians, the Gospel’s frequent allusions to expulsion from Jewish synagogues imply that it was composed after the Johannine Christians had been ostracized from their local

Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1970); The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessors: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); F.J. Moloney and D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of John (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998). 4 Since the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles appear to have been produced by the same community, the information in the epistles allows scholars to determine a more precise date and provenance for the Gospel of John than for the other Gospels. R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Mahwah: Paulist, 1978), 16, 24, 147–150; The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 30, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 55, 65, 67, 70–71, 101–103, 105–106, 112–114, 289, 344, 374, 495, 656, 748; A.T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 14–20. 5 Brown, Community of Beloved Disciple, 101–102. 6 Brown, Introduction to John, 140. 7 C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968); Brown, Introduction to John, 8, 28, 92–93, 322–325. 8 John 1:1, 14; 5:38; 8:37; 10:35; 14:23–24. 9 John 2:19; 3:3; 4:32; 6:33; 8:31, 38; 11:11, 23; 13:8; 14:4, 7, 21; 16:16. B.J. Malina, The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective: Protocol of the Forty-Eighth Colloquy (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1985), 13, 44; E. Schweizer, “What About the Johannine ‘Parables’?” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. D.M. Smith, R.A. Culpepper, and C.C. Black (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 226. 10 E. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), 30–73; Brown, Introduction to John, 117–126; Moloney and Harrington, Gospel of John, 7–13.

86

Chapter 8: The Gospel of John

Jewish community.11 The authors’ bitterness over this event is reflected in the text’s frequent disparaging remarks about “the Jews.”12 8.1.3 Information Relevant to This Inquiry The Gospel of John contains information relevant to this study’s questions about Galilee’s ethnic makeup, economy, political climate, religious ethos, level of Hellenization, Jewish-Gentile relations, and relationship with Judea. The Gospel does not offer any significant information concerning the level of urbanization in Galilee or the extent to which Galileans participated in the Great Revolt.

8.2 John’s Portrayal of Galilee 8.2.1 Ethnicity Although Galilee’s ethnic makeup is not addressed directly in John, there are a few indications that the Gospel’s authors believed most Galileans were Jewish. The Gospel indicates that Jesus was Jewish (John 4:9), and most of Jesus’ family, friends, and disciples had Jewish names.13 8.2.2 Urbanization Very little can be gleaned from the Gospel of John about the extent to which Galilee was urbanized. The Gospel only refers to one Galilean settlement – Bethsaida – as a city, but it gives no further details about the city’s particular urban features.14

11 F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 215–216; Moloney and Harrington, Gospel of John, 3, 12, 164, 190, 258; J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 3rd ed. (Louisville: John Knox, 2003). 12 John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:1–3; 9:22; 11:7–8; 12:42. 13 John, Mary, Joseph, Judas, and Nathaniel are Hebrew names. The name in John that has been traditionally translated into English as “James” is actually “Jacob,” another Hebrew name. 14 John 1:44; 12:21. Since it was part of Philip’s domain, Bethsaida was not technically part of Galilee. The authors of John, however, were either unaware of this fact or had a definition of Galilee that did not correspond to the political borders in Jesus’ lifetime. Pliny also located Bethsaida in Galilee (Nat. 5.21).

8.2 John’s Portrayal of Galilee

87

8.2.3 The Economy John 6:5–7 implies that Galilee’s economy was substantially monetized during Jesus’ lifetime. In this passage, Jesus asked Philip where they could obtain food for the gathered crowd, and Philip replied that “two hundred denarii”15 would not be enough to feed them. The fact that Philip’s first response was to value the food in monetary terms suggests that he and Jesus were acculturated to a monetary economy.16 8.2.4 Political Climate The Fourth Gospel contains very little information about Galilee’s political climate. However, chapter six does imply that some of Galilee’s inhabitants had revolutionary tendencies. At one point, Jesus even secluded himself on a mountain because he feared that the Galileans would try to force kingship upon him (John 6:15). 8.2.5 Religious Ethos The Gospel of John portrays the majority of Galilee’s inhabitants as observant Jews. John’s Galileans made pilgrimages to Jerusalem for religious festivals (John 4:45), used stone water jars for ritual washing (John 2:6), and congregated in synagogues (John 6:59). However, it is not clear whether Galilean Judaism had any distinguishing characteristics in the first century. a. Religious Leaders The Gospel never mentions any Galilean religious leaders besides Jesus.17 Instead, all the religious leaders mentioned in John – the Pharisees, priests, and Levites – were Judeans. These Judean leaders repeatedly tried to apprehend and kill Jesus when he visited Judea.18 However, while Jesus was in Galilee, he and his disciples felt confident that they were safe from the Judean religious authorities (John 11:8). This situation implies that the Judean religious leaders’ influence was significantly limited in Galilee. 15

My translation. The NRSV renders this term as “six months’ wages” for the convenience of modern readers. 16 Although this exchange occurred on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (which belonged to the Gentile cities of the Decapolis), the Gospel presents both men as Galileans (according to John 12:21, Philip was from “Bethsaida in Galilee”). Their reflexive use of monetary value to express cost suggests that Galileans lived in a thoroughly monetized economy. 17 Even John the Baptist’s activities appear to have taken place outside of Galilee (John 1:28; 3:23). The absence of Galilean religious leaders in John was probably a consequence of the authors’ theological agenda, which was only concerned with other religious leaders when they were in direct conflict with Jesus. 18 John 5:18; 7:1, 19–25; 8:37–40.

88

Chapter 8: The Gospel of John

b. The Capernaum Synagogue The Gospel claims that Jesus taught a large crowd and debated with “the Jews”19 (John 6:41, 52) in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:59).20 The use of Capernaum’s synagogue for such matters suggests that the institution functioned either as a town hall, a place for religious congregation, or both. c. Stone Vessels for Purification According to John 2:6–10, Jesus turned the water in large stone washing vessels into wine during the wedding at Cana. In a narrative aside, the author explained that these stone jars were used for “Jewish rites of purification” (John 2:6). The fact that several stone washing jars were present at a wedding suggests that ritual washing was an important element of Galilean religious culture. d. Popular Belief in Miracles and Miraculous Healing According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ miraculous abilities were the primary reason that he gained followers in Galilee and Judea. In fact, the Gospel implies that most Galileans considered miraculous power to be an important and reliable sign of religious legitimacy.21 8.2.6 Hellenization and Romanization a. Aramaic in Galilee The Aramaic titles and nicknames used by Jesus and his disciples in the Gospel of John imply that Aramaic was commonly used in Galilee. Jesus’ disciples regularly addressed him by the Aramaic title rabbi,22 and Jesus gave two of his disciples Aramaic nicknames: Cephas and Thomas.23 These Aramaic terms appear to have been preserved from earlier traditions since the authors

19 See the “Relationship Between Galilee and Judea” section below for my discussion of Jewish identity in John. 20 The Capernaum synagogue is the only Galilean synagogue mentioned in John. The other three synagogues in John were located in Judea (John 9:18–22; 12:42–43; 16:1–3). 21 Although most of Jesus’ miracles in John took place in Judea, Jesus did perform two important miracles in Galilee (changing water into wine [John 2:1–11] and healing the royal official’s son [John 4:46–53]). Furthermore, the text implies that many of the people who witnessed Jesus’ miraculous feeding of the 5,000 in the Decapolis region (John 6:5–14) were Galileans. In each case, the Gospel points out that the miracle was the main reason that those present came to accept Jesus’ spiritual authority (John 2:11, 4:53, 6:14). 22 John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8. 23 John 1:42; 11:16; 20:24; 21:2.

8.2 John’s Portrayal of Galilee

89

felt the need to translate them into Greek for the Gospel’s audience.24 The use of such foreign terms in a Greek text implies that the Gospel’s authors believed Jesus and his disciples regularly spoke in Aramaic. b. Greek in Galilee The Gospel of John contains two indications that Greek was an important part of Galilee’s cultural milieu. First, two of the disciples, Andrew and Philip, had Greek names.25 Second, while in Jerusalem, Philip and Andrew acted as intermediaries between a group of Greek speakers26 and Jesus (John 12:20– 22). It is noteworthy that both indications of Greek usage involved Andrew and Philip, who were from Bethsaida (John 1:40–44). In fact, the Gospel implies that their interaction with the Greek speakers in chapter twelve was connected to their city of origin. The account suggests that its authors considered people from Bethsaida to have been proficient in Greek. However, the account may also imply, by extension, that those same authors believed Jesus and his other disciples were less comfortable with Greek. Since Bethsaida was on the border of the Jewish and Gentile territories, the authors may have believed that Bethsaida was more Hellenized than other parts of Galilee. 8.2.7 Jewish-Gentile Relations The events in John 4:4–43 make it clear that Galilean Jews spurned Samaritans and that Jesus’ willingness to interact with them was unusual.27 In fact, the anonymous Samaritan woman in this passage was utterly shocked when Jesus asked her for a drink because “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans” (John 4:9). However, the Gospel implies that the hostility was

24 John 1:38, 42; 11:16; 20:24; 21:2. The disciple is referred to as “Thomas (who was) called (the) twin.” It is unclear if the authors actually understood Didymos as a translation of Thomas’ nickname or if the authors believed that Thomas was his given name and Didymos was a nickname. 25 John 1:40, 43. Andrew’s brother, Simon, also had a Greek name. However, this name was often used interchangeably in Greek texts of this period with the Semitic “Simeon.” Therefore, the fact that his name is given as Simon instead of Simeon does not tell us anything significant about Galilee’s linguistic milieu. Simeon/Simon is the most frequently attested name among Jews of this period. J.A. Fitzmyer, “The Name Simon,” HTR 56, no. 1 (1963). 26 Literally: “Greeks.” It is not clear if this term is meant to refer to Gentiles or Greek speaking Jews. However, the Gospel does say that the Greeks had come to Jerusalem for Passover, which strongly suggests the latter interpretation. Contra Brown, Gospel According to John, 466. 27 The disciples interacted with Samaritans when they went into the Samaritan city of Sychar (John 4:8) and stayed there for two days (John 4:39–43).

Chapter 8: The Gospel of John

90

one-sided since all the Samaritans in the city of Sychar treated Jesus’ entourage with hospitality.28 8.2.8 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea a. The Term Ioudaios in John The Gospel of John exhibits a palpable antipathy toward a group it calls the “Jews/Judeans.”29 The Greek term used in John for a member of this group is Ioudaios, which could refer either to a follower of the Jewish religion, to an ethnic Jew, or to any resident of Judea (in any sense of the word).30 Although there is some debate about the meaning of the word “Jew” in John, context makes it clear that the Gospel almost always uses the term “Jew” to refer specifically to the residents of Judea.31 The three exceptions to this usage are: 1) when the author described the six water jars used for “Jewish purification” (John 2:6), 2) when the Samaritan women called Jesus a Jew, and the narrator explained the enmity between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:9), and 3) when Jesus was called “the king of the Jews” during his trial and execution.32 In each of these cases, the author had no choice but to use the term in a more general sense. In every other case, however, the Gospel’s authors were careful to use “Jew” only in reference to Judeans. The following are the only two references to Jews (except for the aforementioned notice about Jewish purification jars) in John’s Galilean narratives: After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing;” (John 7:1–3) Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?” (John 11:7–8)

28

The Samaritan woman was willing to interact with Jesus, and the inhabitants of Sychar sold the disciples food (John 4:8), came to believe in Jesus (John 4:39), and invited Jesus and the disciples to stay in the city (John 4:40). 29 John 1:19; 2:6, 13, 18, 20; 3:1, 22, 25; 5:1, 10, 15, 16, 18; 6:4, 41, 52; 7:1, 2, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8:22, 31, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22; 10:19, 24, 31, 33; 11:8, 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 54, 55; 12:9, 11; 13:33; 18:12, 14, 20, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39; 19:3, 7, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 31, 38, 40, 42; 20:19. 30 For a thorough overview of the major interpretations of Ioudaios in John, see L. Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context (Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 13–35. 31 M. Lowe, “Who Were the ‘Ioudaioi’?” Novum Testamentum 18, no. 2 (1976); Contra C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2 ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1978), 172. 32 John 18:39; 19:3, 14, 19, 21.

8.2 John’s Portrayal of Galilee

91

These two passages illustrate John’s use of Ioudaios. In each case, it is clear that the term referred specifically to Judeans. Although some scholars argue that “the Jews” referred specifically to Judean religious authorities, the Gospel frequently used the term for ordinary Judeans as well.33 b. The Judeans in John The authors portrayed the Judeans as prejudiced against Galileans, whom they saw as inferior and incapable of producing prophets (John 4:41, 52). According to the Fourth Gospel, the Judeans were Jesus’ main adversaries, and they were constantly seeking an opportunity to kill him.34 Thus, the Gospel of John indicates that there were tensions between Galileans and Judeans during Jesus’ lifetime. However, we should be careful not to take this characterization of Galilean-Judean relations at face value since it may have been strongly influenced by the authors’ antagonistic relationship with their local Jewish community.35 c. Judea as a Religious Center Despite the Gospel’s animosity toward Judeans, John’s authors frequently underscored the important role Judea played in Galilee’s religious culture. Jesus and the other Galileans made frequent pilgrimages to Jerusalem for every major and minor religious holiday.36 Furthermore, Jesus’ decision to challenge Judea’s religious authorities instead of Galilee’s religious leadership implies that the former group exerted considerable influence over Galilee’s religious culture. d. Galilean Judaism vs. Judean Judaism The Gospel of John contains no clear indication that Galileans and Judeans had different religious practices and beliefs. However, the derogatory remarks that the Judeans made about Galileans in John 7:40–52 probably reflect the authors’ belief that Galilean Jews were less scrupulous in their religious observances than their Judean counterparts.

33 John 2:18–21; 5:9–18; 8:31–33, 48, 57–59; 10:19–21, 24, 31–33; 12:9–11. U.C. von Wahlde, “The Johannine ‘Jews’: A Critical Survey,” NTS 28, no. 1 (1982). 34 John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:22, 37, 40. 35 Bruce, Gospel of John, 215–216; Moloney and Harrington, Gospel of John, 3, 12, 164, 190, 258. 36 Passover – John 2:13; 4:45; 6:4; 12:12–19. Sukkot – John 7:2–10. Hanukkah – John 10:22. An unspecified Jewish festival – John 5:1.

Chapter 9

The Gospel of Thomas 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 Date There is much debate among New Testament scholars about the Gospel of Thomas’ date and its relationship to the canonical Gospels. Proposed dates for Thomas range from the mid first century to the late second century.1 The main arguments for a late dating of Thomas are: 1) That the earliest manuscript fragments of Thomas date to the late second century.2 2) That the similarities between Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels could suggest that Thomas was dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels.3 3) That the text is generally considered to be the product of Gnostic Christianity, which developed in the second century.4 The first argument is simply unconvincing. After all, the oldest surviving fragment of the Gospel of Luke, P75, also dates to the late second or early third century. Given the paucity of manuscripts that have survived from antiquity, the earliest extant fragments of most ancient texts were copied decades or even centuries after the works’ initial composition. The second argument is weakened considerably by comparative studies of Thomas’ parallels with the Synoptic Gospels, which have demonstrated that the parallels are far too superficial to suggest literary dependence.5 Instead, it 1 H. Koester, “Introduction to ‘The Gospel of Thomas,’” in The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. J.M. Robinson (San Fransisco: Harper, 1990), 124–6; B. Blatz, “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 112–3; J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 123–139; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 55. 2 Koester, “Introduction to Thomas.” 3 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 55; Meier, Marginal Jew, 123–139. 4 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 55. 5 S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983), 1–17; J.D. Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (Minneapolis:

9.1 Introduction

93

seems that Thomas and the Synoptics were part of a common tradition in early Christianity and that they drew from related sources about Jesus.6 The fact that Thomas drew from such early traditions suggests that it was composed around the same time as the Synoptic Gospels. Recent scholarship on Thomas has undermined the third argument by demonstrating that the Gospel’s theology is not thoroughly Gnostic. Although Thomas was found among the collection of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi, the Gospel lacks certain theological hallmarks that distinguished Gnostic theology: a belief that the body is evil, an advocacy of asceticism or libertinism, a cosmological dualism, and a distinction between “true father” and “world creator.”7 Thomas’ primitive theology and its prominence in second and third century Gnostic communities indicates that the Gospel was composed before the development of Gnosticism’s main theological tenants. Thus, the available evidence suggests that the Gospel of Thomas was probably written in the late first or early second century. 9.1.2 Provenance Although ancient copies of Thomas have only been found in Egypt, the Gospel is generally considered to have been written in Syria for two major reasons.8 First, Thomas was the most prominent disciple in the Syrian Christian tradition, which produced a number of texts attributed to Thomas, such as the Acts of Thomas.9 Second, the Gospel’s style of Greek is consistent with the highly Semitized Greek that pervaded the bilingual (Syriac and Greek) environment of first and second century Syria.10

Winston Press, 1985); S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993). 6 K.L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2005). 7 However, later Gnostic communities may have imposed Gnostic interpretations on the text. King, Gnosticism, 197; R. Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (New York: T & T Clark, 2003), 31–53; Davies, Thomas and Christian Wisdom. For 8 The existing texts include a complete Coptic manuscript from the fourth century found at Nag Hammadi. Greek fragments of the Gospel, which date to the end of the second century, have also been found at Oxyrhynchus. 9 The Syrian Church revered Thomas as a dedicated apostle and the twin brother of Jesus. A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, rev. ed. (Boston: Brill, 2003), 15. 10 Davies, Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 18–21; S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained (Woodstock: Skylight Paths, 2002), xxxii.

Chapter 9: The Gospel of Thomas

94

9.1.3 Theological Tendencies Although the Gospel lacks some of the hallmarks of later Gnosticism, the text does have some strong proto-Gnostic tendencies. Its authors renounced the world and worldly things, believed in a realized eschatology, and opposed the Jewish Law.11 9.1.4 Literary Setting Like Q, Thomas is a collection of sayings, not a narrative. Consequently, the Gospel lacks many of the ancillary narrative details that might shed light on how the authors envisioned Galilean society. However, unlike the Synoptic Sayings source, which includes a few geographic references that suggest a Galilean setting for Jesus’ sayings,12 Thomas lacks any indication of its intended setting. Nevertheless, since the Gospel’s primary speaker was a Galilean, Thomas may still provide some indirect information about first century Galilee. 9.1.5 Information Relevant to This Inquiry Thomas contains information relevant to this study’s questions about Galilee’s economy, politics, and religious ethos. It lacks information concerning the region’s ethnic makeup, its level of urbanization, the extent to which Galileans supported the Great Revolt, the region’s level of Hellenization and Romanization, the relationship between Galilean Jews and nearby Gentiles, and Galilee’s relationship with Judea.

9.2 Thomas’ Portrayal of Galilee 9.2.1 The Economy Jesus’ discussions of economic issues in Thomas provide some clues about how the Gospel’s authors viewed Galilee’s economic conditions. For example, Jesus’ criticism of wealth may suggest that his Galilean followers resented the rich people in their society,13 and the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Thomas 65) implies that the large estate was a familiar concept to Jesus’ Galilean audience. Similarly, Jesus’ references to monetary transactions, com-

11

King, Gnosticism? Luke 7:1–10 (Matthew 8:5–13); Luke 10:13–15 (Matthew 11:21–23). 13 Thomas 63, 64, 110. 12

9.2 Thomas’ Portrayal of Galilee

95

merce, debt, and lending imply that these activities were common features of Galilee’s economy.14 9.2.2 Political Climate Thomas contains multiple references to class-based conflicts, including economic exploitation, theft, class-based violence, and antagonism between the rich and poor.15 These references suggest that the Gospel’s authors believed class conflict was common in Galilee. 9.2.3 Religious Ethos a. Common Religious Beliefs and Practices Since Thomas is a sayings gospel, the text focuses mainly on Jesus’ philosophical teaching rather than his religious activities. Nevertheless, the Gospel does contain some information about its authors’ conception of Galilee’s religious culture. Jesus’ command that his followers perform healing miracles on a regular basis (Thomas 14) suggests that such practices were important in Galilean society. Similarly, Jesus’ repeated condemnations of Jewish rituals in Thomas (14, 53, 104) imply that the authors considered observant Jews to be a significant portion of Galilee’s population.16 b. The Pharisees The only religious figures mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas are the Pharisees, who appear to have been Jesus’ chief rivals.17 Unfortunately, the Gospel does not indicate what particular role the Pharisees played in Galilean society.

14

Thomas 63, 64, 76, 95, 100, 109. Thomas 21, 35, 65, 98. 16 This, however, does not settle the question of Galilee’s ethnic makeup since it is possible that the Galileans converted to Judaism despite being members of a Gentile ethnic group. 17 Thomas 39, 102. 15

Part Three

Archaeology

Chapter 10

Galilee’s Material Culture Given the paucity of primary literary sources, any historical reconstruction of first century Galilee must be firmly rooted in the archaeological evidence.1 Since the 1970s, archaeologists have excavated dozens of sites in Galilee and have conducted extensive surveys to locate other unexcavated sites in the region. The new archaeological data have revolutionized Galilean studies and are often the driving force behind new historical interpretations. The archaeological record provides us with important information about the region’s economy, architecture, and culture. It also provides valuable insights into the lives of common people who were often ignored in the historical records. However, a culture’s material remains do not speak for themselves. Like literary documents, archaeological finds must be interpreted before they yield information. Since many elements of archaeological interpretation are subjective, archaeologists may draw radically different conclusions from the same data set.2 It is also possible for a scholar’s interpretation of the archaeological evidence to be unduly influenced by his or her knowledge of the written historical records.3 Therefore, it is important to determine what the archaeological record says on its own before using the literary evidence to contextualize the material culture. The purpose of this part of the book is to examine the archaeological data without reference to Josephus’ works or the Gospels. Since many elements of Galilee’s archaeological record are relevant to more than one of this book’s main questions, I have divided my discussion of the archaeological remains into two chapters. This chapter presents a broad summary of the evidence to provide a basic foundation for the following 1

D.E. Oakman, “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus,” in SBLSP 1994, ed. E.H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: SBL, 1994); D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough, “Archaeology and the Galilee: An Introduction,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee; J.F. Strange, “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee; Reed, Galilean Jesus; Chancey, Myth of Galilee; E.M. Meyers, “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” in Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt. 2 V. Buchli, “Interpreting Material Culture: The Trouble With Text,” in Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, ed. I. Hodder et al. (London: Routledge, 1995). 3 Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, xvii–xxi; Dever, “Archeological Method in Israel”; Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, 31–36.

10.1 Population Size and Settlement Patterns

99

chapter’s more detailed discussions. Chapter eleven examines the relevant archaeological evidence for answers to each of the book’s nine questions.

10.1 Population Size and Settlement Patterns 10.1.1 The Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (ca. 500–100 BCE)4 Archaeological surveys show that in the late eighth century BCE Galilee experienced a dramatic depopulation, which was almost certainly the result of the Assyrian conquest.5 From this point until the end of the second century BCE, the region’s population remained relatively small and sparsely settled. Galilee’s inhabitants tended to cluster at fortified (or naturally fortified) sites that were near water sources and were located “at the margins of the western and central valleys.”6 10.1.2 The Late Hellenistic Period (ca. 100–50 BCE) Around the end of the second or beginning of the last century BCE, Galilee experienced a major influx of new people that precipitated a dramatic shift in the region’s settlement patterns. Although most of the earlier sites continued to be occupied in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods, several new communities of varying sizes were founded over the next four or five generations. In comparison to those from the earlier periods, these new settlements were usually smaller and more widely dispersed throughout the region. Furthermore, the new sites were rarely fortified or located near permanent water sources.7 10.1.3 The Early Roman Period (ca. 50 BCE–135 CE) The settlement patterns established in the Late Hellenistic Period continued throughout the Early Roman Period as Galilee’s population grew rapidly. The population reached a zenith sometime in the early first century CE, when it 4

The periodization used in in this section (10.1) is based on Leibner’s chronology. Thus, it differs slightly from the chronological framework outlined in Chapter 1. See Leibner, Settlement and History, 315–345. 5 R. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, IAA Reports 14 (Jerusalem: IAA, 2001), 106; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 30–39. 6 Leibner, Settlement and History, 316–318, 322, 333; U. Leibner, “The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, November 2007); Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 107; Reed, “Village Communities.” 7 Leibner, Settlement and History, 116, 316–317, 322, 329, 332–333.

100

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

contained roughly twice as many people as it had in the mid second century BCE.8 Unlike Judea, Galilee did not experience severe depopulation after the Great Revolt. Although a handful of sites (such as Yodefat and Gamala) were suddenly abandoned in the late first century, most of the sites continued to be inhabited in the late first and early second century CE.9

10.2 Human and Animal Remains 10.2.1 Human Remains Human remains have been found at just two first century Galilean sites, Yodefat and Gamala. At Gamala, archaeologists have found only a single human jawbone.10 However, the remains of dozens of individuals have been excavated at Yodefat. They include:11 1) The bones of about twenty individuals (eight adult males, four adult females, and eight children), all of whom were buried en masse in a cistern 2) An adult male skeleton found near arrowheads on the floor of the “frescoed home” 3) The skeletons of two adults and a child buried at the bottom of another cistern 4) Bones (some of them burnt) found in an olive press cave’s weight pit 5) Bones found in the upper level of a third cistern

8 U. Leibner, “History of Settlement in the Eastern Galilee During the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey” (Bar-Ilan University, 2004), 362–368; Leibner, Settlement and History, 332–335, 341–345. See also M. Aviam, “Borders Between Jews and Gentiles in the Galilee,” in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004), 14; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110–111. 9 Leibner, “History of Settlement,” 362–368; M. Aviam, “Epilogue,” in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee. 10 D. Syon, “Gamla: City of Refuge,” in Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 151. 11 M. Aviam, “The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat,” in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 118–119.

10.3 Small Finds

101

10.2.2 Pig Bones One of the distinguishing features of Galilee’s material culture is the almost complete absence of pig bones at sites in the region. Pig bones, however, are commonly found at many sites bordering Galilee.12

10.3 Small Finds 10.3.1 Pottery and Limestone Vessels Galilee’s pottery record contains two abrupt and distinct changes in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods. The first major change occurred at the end of the second century BCE. At this time, Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW), a type of vessel typically found at Galilean sites throughout the Persian and Hellenistic Periods, suddenly disappeared from the archaeological record. This change coincided with the sudden abandonment of most of the settlements containing GCW.13 The second major change occurred around the beginning of the first century CE. At this point, Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) and mold-made lamps – two major pottery types that were commonplace in Galilee in the last century BCE – disappeared from almost all Galilean settlements.14 However, both ESA and mold-made lamps remained popular in neighboring regions throughout the first century CE.15 12

Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49, 117–119; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 66; C. Savage, “Supporting Evidence for First Century Bethsaida,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 205. 13 M. Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective,” in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D.R. Edwards (New York: Routledge, 2004), 7–8; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 62; M. Aviam, “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee; Leibner, Settlement and History, 22, 327–328. 14 J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 76; R. Bar-Nathan, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, vol. 3: The Pottery (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002), 119. ESA (also known as Eastern Terra Sigillata I [ETS I]) is a type of Red Slip Tableware common to the Levant in the Early Roman Period. Similar Terra Sigillata pottery was produced throughout the Roman Empire at this time. ESA was usually decorated with figurative art depicting deities, people, and animals. Mold-made lamps were found virtually everywhere in the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. They usually featured pagan, anthropomorphic, or zoomorphic designs. 15 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63, 113; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19; Berlin, “Romanization,” 58–59; A.M. Berlin, “Jewish Life Before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence,” JSJ 36, no. 4 (2005): 434–436; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 105, 115, 155. ESA and mold-made lamps also disappeared from most of the rural sites in Judea.

102

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

At the same time, the following new and distinctive pottery types began to dominate Galilee’s material culture: Herodian Knife-Pared Lamps – a distinctively Judean (broad sense) lamp that developed in the final decades of the last century BCE, probably in Jerusalem. Unlike mold-made lamps, the Herodian knife-pared lamps were not decorated with figurative art. They became popular throughout Judea, Galilee, and the Golan in the Early Roman Period I.16 Kefar Hananya Ware (KHW) – a distinctive cooking ware that constitutes the majority of the cooking ware found throughout Galilee. KHW was the most common pottery type found at almost every site in the region.17 Chemical and petrographic analyses have confirmed that virtually all examples of this pottery type were produced at the site of Kefar Hananya.18 Shikhin Ware (SW) – the most common type of storage jar found in Early Roman Galilee. Chemical analyses (INAA and HPXRF) indicate that all known samples of SW in Galilee were made at Shikhin. Production of the jars began in the Late Hellenistic Period and continued throughout the Early Roman Period.19 16

Bar-Nathan, Palaces at Jericho, 112–113, 189–190; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 105, 115, 155; Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 434–436; D. Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century BCE– 70 CE),” BASOR 350 (2008). 17 Technically, the term “Kefar Hananya Ware” refers specifically to pottery made at the site of Kefar Hananya and not to a specific group of pottery forms. Archaeologists have discovered imitation KHW (cooking pots that had the same forms as KHW but were not produced at Kefar Hananya) at Yodefat. Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18. 18 Chemical analyses included instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and highprecision X-ray fluorescence (HPXRF). D. Adan-Bayewitz, “On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine,” in One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. G.C. Bottini, L. di Segni, and L.D. Chrupcala, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collection Maior (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003), 9–10; D. Adan-Bayewitz and M. Wieder, “Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization,” JFA 19 (1992); D. Adan-Bayewitz, F. Asaro, and R.D. Giauque, “Determining Pottery Provenance: Application of a New High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence Method and Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,” Archaeometry 41 (1999): 11–14; D. AdanBayewitz and I. Perlman, “Local Pottery Provenance Studies: A Role for Clay Analysis,” Archaeometry 27, no. 2 (1985); D. Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Pottery Manufacture in Roman Galilee: Distinguishing Similar Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,” in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics: Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, ed. V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, and Y. Maniatis, BAR International Series (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002); M. Wieder and D. Adan-Bayewitz, “Pottery Manufacture in Early Roman Galilee: A Micromorphological Study,” Catena 35, no. 2–4 (1999); D. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan UP, 1993), 165, 211–213; Adan-Bayewitz, “Chronology of Pottery,” 7; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 154. KHW also makes up approximately 10–20% of the tableware found at Jewish sites in the Golan. 19 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 211; Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Pottery Manufacture,” 363–4; Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, “Determining Pottery Provenance,” 17; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 153. The chemical analysis that determined the provenance of Shikhin

10.3 Small Finds

103

Limestone Vessels20 – Throughout the Early Roman Period I, Jews in Galilee, Judea, and the Golan regularly used containers fashioned from limestone (mostly measuring cups and large jars).21 Production of these limestone vessels stopped suddenly after the Great Revolt and resumed briefly during the Bar Kochba Revolt. Some of the stone vessels found in Galilee were probably imported from Jerusalem. However, archaeologists have uncovered a largescale stone vessel-manufacturing site at Reina, near Nazareth, and there is evidence for smallscale manufacture of the vessels at several Galilean villages, including Capernaum, Sepphoris, Nabratien, and Bethlehem.22

10.3.2 Brass Another feature that distinguishes Galilee’s material culture from those of Phoenicia and the Decapolis is the absence of brass objects. Knowledge of brass making spread rapidly throughout the eastern Mediterranean in the last century BCE. By the first century CE, brass was common throughout most of the southern Levant, but it was still rare in Galilee and Judea.23 Ware is important because one of the most common storage jars produced at Shikhin is indistinguishable both in form and by microscopic fabric analysis from the most common storage jar produced at the nearby Gentile site of Yavor. In fact, the two types of pottery are difficult to tell apart even with INAA. It is only through the use of HPXRF that the types can be distinguished. 20 These vessels are also called “chalk vessels” or “stone vessels.” 21 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 44; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 66; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 20; Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 430; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 155; S. Gibson, “Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment,” in Bottini, Segni, and Chrupcala, One Land, Many Cultures (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003); Y. Magen, “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times,” BAR 24, no. 5 (1998); D.R. Edwards, “Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 372; Y. Arbel, “The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2005), 425– 429; D. Syon and Z. Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” ‘Atiqot 50 (2005): 49, 57; M. Hartal, “Tiberias: Galei Kinneret,” HA-ESI 120 (2008); “Gush Halav,” HA-ESI 120 (2008). Stone vessels appear in Judea, the Golan, and Galilee, but they are virtually absent from first century Samaria. 22 Gibson, “Stone Vessels”; Y. Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple Period,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 255. 23 M.J. Ponting, “The Chemical Analysis of a Selection of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork from the Early Roman Fortified Complex,” in Ramat HaNadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, ed. Y. Hirschfeld (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000); “Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artifacts from Israel: Questions of Organization and Ethnicity,” Archaeometry 44, no. 4 (2002); “Keeping Up with the Romans? Romanisation and Copper Alloys in First Revolt Palestine,” Journal of the Institute of Archaeometallurgical Studies 22 (2002); “Scientific Analysis and Interpretation of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork,” in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, vol. 4: The Burnt House of Area B, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2010); “Chemical Analysis of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork from the

104

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

10.3.3 Epigraphy Inscriptions and other epigraphic evidence from the first century CE are rarer in Galilee than they are in the rest of the Mediterranean. In fact, almost all the epigraphic evidence from this period is found on coins. The few inscriptions from the first century CE were predominantly written in Greek, which is consistent with the epigraphic habit of the rest of the eastern Mediterranean at that time.24

10.4 Coins 10.4.1 Coins Circulating in Galilee Multiple numismatic studies have demonstrated that most of the silver coinage circulating in Galilee from the Ptolemaic Period to the Middle Roman Period was minted in Phoenicia.25 The consistent predominance of Phoenician currency, however, is only true for silver currency, which was not minted by the Judean (broad sense) authorities in the Hasmonean Period or Early Roman Period I. The circulation patterns of bronze coinage, however, look very different from those of silver currency in the last century BCE and first century CE. Phoenician issues dominated the bronze coinage circulating in Galilee during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Periods and again in the Middle Roman Period. However, there was a significant drop in the circulation of Phoenician currency during the Hasmonean and Early Roman Periods, and Phoenician bronze coinage was rarest during the Early Roman Period. Interestingly, the decline in Phoenician coinage was not offset by a new influx of foreign currency. Instead, the inhabitants of Early Roman Galilee primarily used bronze coins minted by Hasmonean and Herodian rulers.26

Roman Contexts,” in Tel Anafa II, ii: Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels, ed. A.M. Berlin and S.C. Herbert (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 2012). 24 M.A. Chancey, “The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 87; H. Lapin, “Palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity,” in Meyers, Galilee Through the Centuries. 25 R.S. Hanson, Tyrian Influence in Upper Galilee, ed. E.M. Meyers, vol. 2, Meiron Excavation Project (Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980); D. Barag, “Tyrian Currency in Galilee,” Israel Numismatic Journal 6/7 (1982); A. Kindler, “The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected by Their Coins,” Israel Numismatic Journal 6–7 (1982); Syon, “Tyre and Gamla.” 26 Roman imperial coins and coins from the Decapolis are both rare at sites from this period. Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 14, 18, 225, 237, 250–251.

10.4 Coins

105

10.4.2 Coins Minted in Galilee Only ten series of coins were minted in Galilee (including Gamala) in the first century CE, and six of these were produced by Antipas during his 43 years as tetrarch. Antipas’ first series, which dates to the fourth year of his reign, was minted at Sepphoris.27 The other five series were minted in Tiberias between 20 and 39 CE. According to Meshorer, each of the Tiberias series “consisted of four denominations…. The large coin in each series was the ‘whole’ denomination that was divided into a ‘half,’ a ‘quarter,’ and an ‘eighth.’” Since the value of bronze coinage was not intrinsic, it is difficult to establish the value of Antipas’ coins relative to other currencies.28 Antipas styled himself “Herod the Tetrarch” on all his coins, and his coins usually depicted a palm branch on the obverse and a wreath on the reverse.29 The two subsequent coin series minted in Tiberias by later authorities continued to employ the same iconography as Antipas’ coins. The first series was probably struck by Roman-appointed authorities when the city was under direct Roman rule.30 These coins bear the date “the 13th year of Emperor Claudius” (53/54 CE) on the obverses and have “Tiberias” inscribed on the reveres. About two decades later, Agrippa II issued another series of coins bearing the inscription, “King Agrippa, the emperor’s victory, year 15.” “The emperor’s victory” almost certainly referred to the Roman defeat of the Jewish rebels.31 Interestingly, Agrippa’s were not the only Galilean coins to allude to the Great Revolt. During the revolt, city authorities in Gamala and Sepphoris each minted coins to advertise their support of and opposition to the rebellion, respectively. A few generalizations can be made about the coins minted in first century Galilee. All the coins were made of bronze and avoided depictions of humans,

27

D. Hendin, “A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas,” Israel Numismatic Journal 15 (2006). 28 The series are dated to Antipas’ 24th (19/20 CE), 33rd (29/30 CE), 34th (30/31 CE), 37th (33/34 CE), and 43rd (39 CE) regnal years. Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001), 83–84. 29 The palm branch was featured on the obverse of all the coins minted between 29 and 34 CE and on the half and eighth denominations minted in 39 CE. The whole and quarter denominations struck in 39 CE contain a palm tree and a cluster of palm dates, respectively. The coins minted in 19/20 CE have a reed. Antipas’ Sepphoris coin depicts a palm tree and is the earliest known Jewish coin to adopt this symbol. Hendin, “New Coin Type”; Meshorer, Treasury, 81–83. 30 Meshorer, Treasury, 176. Although they all had the same design and inscriptions, these coins came in either three or four denominations (1, 1/2, 1/4, and perhaps 1/8). 31 Meshorer, Treasury, nos. 347–349a. Scholars are divided on whether Agrippa’s regnal years began in 56 or 61 CE, so the coins were issued in either 70/71 or 75/76 CE.

106

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

animals, or divinities. With the sole exception of the Gamala coins (which had Hebrew epigraphs), Galilean coins consistently featured Greek inscriptions.

10.5 Architecture 10.5.1 Synagogues Three buildings that probably served as synagogues have been excavated at Gamala, Magdala, and Capernaum. 32 The Gamala synagogue (measuring 21.5x17.5 m) was built either at the end of the last century BCE or at the beginning of the first century CE, and it ceased to be used after the city was sacked in the late first century CE.33 The center of the room was an open, unpaved area that was surrounded by stone columns along all four of its sides. Outside the columns, paved aisles provided access to the tiered stone benches that lined all four of the synagogues walls.34 The northwestern corner of the building contained a niche that was probably used for storage. The synagogue adjoined both a miqveh and a smaller room that may have served as a study room.35 The Magdala synagogue, which was discovered in 2009 by Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar, was constructed in the Early Roman Period.36 It enclosed an area of about 120 m2 and had stone benches along its walls. The synagogue also had a mosaic floor and frescoed walls; however, it is not clear if these decorations were originally part of the synagogue or if they were added decades or centuries after the building’s construction. At the center of the main room, the excavators discovered a large, rectangular stone with engraving on every side except the bottom. The engravings include floral and geometric patterns, depictions of Greek-style columns, and a menorah flanked by

32

In addition, Moshe Dothan has argued that a first century synagogue may lie beneath the fourth century one at Hammath Tiberias; however, this position has not garnered much support. M. Dothan, Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains, Ancient Synagogue Studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 15–19. 33 S. Gutman, “Gamla – 1983,” ESI 3 (1984). Gutman dated the synagogue to the end of the last century BCE, but Syon has modified this dating and claims that the synagogue was constructed (in its present form at least) in the early first century CE. Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 40; L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale UP, 2005), 54–55. 34 Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 54–55; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 40; A. Runesson, D.D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 33–34. 35 Gutman, “Gamla”; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 54–55; Runesson, Binder, and Olsson, Ancient Synagogue, 33–34. 36 D. Avshalom-Gorni and A. Najar, “Migdal: Preliminary Report,” HA-ESI 125 (2013).

10.5 Architecture

107

two amphorae.37 Given the large dimensions of the building and the presence of a menorah as part of the central stone’s decoration, the building’s designation as a synagogue is almost certain. Most scholars also contend that the remains of a first century synagogue lie beneath the more famous fifth century synagogue at Capernaum.38 The designation of the first century building as a synagogue rests largely on its large dimensions (approximately 24.5x18.7 m with walls 1.2–1.3 m thick), which suggest that it was a public building. Furthermore, it would have made sense for the fifth century inhabitants of Capernaum to build their new synagogue upon the remains of the old one.39 However, the evidence that the building was actually a synagogue is circumstantial and far from conclusive.40 Furthermore, some scholars question the building’s first century date.41 10.5.2 Basilicas Two large public buildings found at Gamala and Sepphoris do not appear to have served as synagogues since neither had a place for a large congregation of people. Instead, the buildings appear to have served some other community function. The layouts of the buildings strongly resemble those of contemporary Roman basilicas. Syon and Yavor therefore argue that the structures were basilicas or that they served a similar purpose.42 10.5.3 Theaters a. The Sepphoris Theater The date of Sepphoris’ theater has been the subject of heated debate among New Testament scholars for decades. In the 1980s and early 1990s, two dif-

37 Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee,” 6–8; Avshalom-Gorni and Najar, “Migdal”; IAA, “One of the Oldest Synagogues in the World Was Exposed at Migdal (9/13),” (IAA Press Release, 2009). 38 S. Loffreda, Recovering Capharnaum, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Guides, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1985), 46–49; D.T. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 192; A. Runesson, “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in Capernaum from the First to Sixth Century,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 239, 245–246. The building in question was made of basalt, and a fifth century synagogue was built directly on top of it. 39 Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 71, 186. 40 Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 128–129. 41 J. Magness, “The Question of the Synagogue: The Problem of Typology,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 3: The Special Problem of the Synagogue, ed. A.J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 19–21. 42 D. Syon and Y. Zvi, “Gamla 1997–2000,” HA-ESI 114 (2002).

108

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

ferent archaeological teams excavated two separate sections of the theater.43 James Strange and Richard Batey’s University of South Florida team excavated the northern portions of the theater, which included the stage and the front (lower) seats. They concluded that the theater had been built in the Early Roman Period I, probably during Antipas’ reign.44 The Joint Sepphoris Project, headed by Ehud Netzer and Eric Meyers, excavated the theater’s rear seats, which were to the south of the USF’s excavated area. This team dated the structure to the late first century or the second century CE.45 The excavators from each team immediately began a debate over the theater’s date, and no consensus has yet been reached. Batey, however, has offered a compromise position. He argues that both the USF and JSP dates are correct, and that the apparent discrepancy indicates that the theater was built in two stages. Batey contends that Antipas built the lower portions of the theater (seating 2,500 to 3,000 people) in the early first century CE and that the theater was expanded in the Middle Roman Period to accommodate Sepphoris’ larger population (seating about 4,000 people).46 This compromise position offers the best explanation for all of the available evidence. b. The Tiberias Theater The perimeter of Tiberias’ theater was initially discovered by Hirschfeld in 1990, and it has since been fully excavated by Walid Atrash and Avner Hillman, who date the structure to the Early Roman Period I.47 The theater was probably built when the city was founded in 19 CE, and it was one of several public buildings constructed along or near Tiberias’ Cardo Maximus. 43

The University of Michigan had previously spent one season excavating the site in 1931. L. Waterman, Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine in 1931 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1937). 44 J.F. Strange and T.R.W. Longstaff, “Sepphoris, 1985,” IEJ 35 (1986); Waterman, University of Michigan, 29. The USF team agrees with the dating initially offered by the University of Michigan team. 45 E.M. Meyers, “Identifying Religious and Ethnic Groups Through Archaeology,” in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Keterpress, 1993), 741–742; E.M. Meyers, E. Netzer, and C.L. Meyers, “The Roman Theater at Sepphoris,” BA 53 (1990); E.M. Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L.I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 325; E. Netzer and Z. Weiss, Zippori (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 18–19. 46 R.A. Batey, “Jesus and the Theatre,” NTS 30 (1984): 570, n. 35; “Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater?” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Cf. Reed’s estimate of the theater’s capacity. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 119. 47 W. Atrash, “Tiberias, The Roman Theater: Preliminary Report,” HA-ESI 122 (2010).

10.5 Architecture

109

The Tiberias theater contributes new evidence to the debate over the Sepphoris Theater’s date. The fact that Antipas built a theater in Tiberias makes it more likely that he also built one in Sepphoris, which was his first capital city. 10.5.4 Other Public Structures in Tiberias Three additional structures from Early Roman I Tiberias deserve mention: 1) a luxurious residential building, 2) a large city gate, and 3) a stadium. The residential building, which lay underneath the ruins of a Late Roman Period basilica, was probably Herod Antipas’ palace in Tiberias.48 It was a large, lavish home adorned with marble-covered pillars, Herodian style ashlars, opus sectile floors, and colorful frescoes.49 Hirschfeld notes that this palace is similar “in style and quality to the Herodian palaces uncovered in other parts of Judea [broad sense], at Masada, Cypros, Jericho, and Caesearea.”50 The building was destroyed in the late first century CE, probably during the Great Revolt. The city “gate” was initially constructed at the beginning of the first century CE. At the time, however, it was not a true gate, but a freestanding monumental archway supported by two stone towers on either side of the road.51 The archway marked the beginning of the city’s stone-paved cardo and connected it to a stone bridge, which passed over a stream at the city’s southern border.52 The stadium was built in the early first century CE and was destroyed in the third century. The strucutre’s walls contained at least one figurative piece of art: “a small bronze figurine of a winged-boy that should probably be identified as Cupid.”53 However, the dating of the figurine is uncertain since it 48

Y. Hirschfeld and E. Meir, “Tiberias – 2004,” HA-ESI 118 (2006); Y. Hirschfeld and K. Galor, “New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 223–224. 49 Y. Hirschfeld and E. Meir, “Tiberias – 2004”; Hirschfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 223. 50 Hirschfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 223. 51 Y. Hirschfeld, A Guide to Antiquity Sites in Tiberias (Jerusalem: IAA, 1992), 25–26; Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 87; M. Hartal, E. Amos, and A. Hillman, “Tiberias: Preliminary Report,” HA-ESI 122 (2010). 52 In the Byzantine Period, the arch was connected to a defensive wall and, therefore, began to serve as a true city gate. The fact that the city’s archway was not connected to a wall in the first century is strong evidence that Tiberias was not fortified at the time of the Great Revolt. Hartal, Amos, and Hillman, “Tiberias: Report”; Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee”; M. Bernett, Der Kaiserkult als Teil der politischen Geschichte Iudeas unter den Herodianern und Römern (30 v.Chr. –66 n.Chr.) (Munich: University of Munich, 2002). 53 Hartal, “Tiberias: Galei Kinneret”; M.H. Jensen, “Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus’ Narratives on Herod Antipas,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical

110

Chapter 10: Galilee’s Material Culture

may have been added at any point between the stadium’s initial construction and its destruction. 10.5.5 Marble and Frescoes One striking feature of both public and private buildings in Early Roman I Galilee is the near absence of marble and faux marble. Aside from the marble tiles in the opus sectile floor of the “palace” at Tiberias, only one loose marble fragment has been found from first century CE strata in the region.54 Similarly, frescoes, which often functioned as imitation marble during this period, were also scarcer in Galilee than in the neighboring regions, including Judea.55 In general, these frescoes were significantly inferior and less expensive than contemporary ones found in Jerusalem. 10.5.6 Fortifications Archaeological excavations and surveys have discovered defensive walls at several settlements in the region. At most of these sites, the fortifications date to the Hellenistic Period, rather than the Early Roman Period. In the late first century, however, some of the Hellenistic fortifications were repaired, and new fortifications were constructed at Yodefat, Gush Halav, and Gamala.56 Method, ed. Z. Rodgers (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 144–145. The presence of first century pottery near the structure indicates that it was built around that time. 54 The only piece found outside of Antipas’ palace is a loose marble fragment from Sepphoris that is probably too thin to have been used in flooring. Hirschfeld and Meir, “Tiberias – 2004”; J.L. Reed, “Romanizing Galilee?: Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space Under Herod Antipas,” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, November 2007); Hirschfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 223–224. For the opus sectile floor, see Y. Hirschfeld, Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, vol. 22, IAA Reports (Jerusalem: IAA, 2004). 55 Reed, “Romanizing Galilee”; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 17; “SocioEconomic Hierarchy”; M. Aviam, “Yodfat: A Test Case for the Development of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the Second Temple Period” (PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 240–242. Frescoes have been found with some frequency at Sepphoris. See L.V. Rutgers, “Some Reflections on the Archaeological Finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sepphoris,” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, ed. H. Lapin, Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture (Bethesda: UP of Maryland, 1998). There are also a number of frescoes at Antipas’ palace in Tiberias. See Hirschfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias,” 223; Hirschfeld and Meir, “Tiberias – 2004.” Elsewhere in Galilee, however, frescoes were very rare. The fact that all frescoes and other building decorations in first century Galilee were an-iconic (consisting of either floral or geometric patterns) provides further support for the argument that Jewish Galileans in this period held to a very strict interpretation of the biblical prohibition against images. 56 Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 137; M. Aviam, “The Identification and Function of Josephus Flavius’ Fortifications in the Galilee,” in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee; “Battle of Yodefat”; “The Archaeological Illumination of Josephus’ Battles at Yodefat and

10.5 Architecture

111

10.5.7 Miqvaot Miqvaot (Jewish ritual baths) have been found at many sites in Galilee, including Beit Yinam, Beth She`arim, Chorazin, Gamala, Khirbet Shema, Mt. Arbel, Nazareth, Susa, and Yodefat.57 Although a few scholars have questioned the identification of the baths at Sepphoris as miqvaot, the baths’ considerable similarity to Judean miqvaot and the absence of similar installations in neighboring non-Jewish sites make the identification of the baths as miqvaot all but certain.58 10.5.8 Olive and Wine Presses Olive and wine presses have been found at several Galilean sites. These presses were usually built adjacent to miqvaot, suggesting that the agricultural presses were used in conjunction with ritual bathing.59

Gamla,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Z. Rodgers, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007); D. Adan-Bayewitz and M. Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Seasons,” JRA 10 (1997): 163; Leibner, Settlement and History, 108, 116, 127, 164, 236, 242, 255–256, 316–317, 340–341. The early Roman fortification at Yodefat incorporates portions of an earlier defensive wall from the Hellenistic Period; however, most of the early Roman wall was built in the first century CE. 57 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 47–51; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee”; M.A. Chancey and E.M. Meyers, “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000); E.M. Meyers, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special Reference to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths,” in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. J.R. Bartlett (New York: Routledge, 2002); Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 49. 58 H. Eshel, “A Note on ‘Miqvaot’ at Sepphoris,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee; “They’re Not Ritual Baths,” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000); “We Need More Data,” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000); E.M. Meyers, “Yes, They Are,” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000). 59 M. Aviam, “Viticulture and Olive Growing in Ancient Upper Galilee,” in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee; “An Early Roman Oil Press in a Cave at Yodefat,” in Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee; D. Wagner, “Oil Production at Gamla,” in Olive Oil in Antiquity, ed. D. Eitam and M. Heltzer (Padova: Sargon, 1996). The presence of miqvaot next to agricultural installations such as olive and wine presses is also widely attested in Judea. Y. Adler, “Second Temple Period Ritual Baths Adjacent to Agricultural Installations: The Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic Sources,” JJS 59, no. 1 (2008); “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)” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2011), 92–96.

Chapter 11

Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence 11.1 Ethnicity 11.1.1 Ethnic Identity in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods Archaeological surveys reveal that Galilee had a different material culture and settlement pattern at the end of the Iron Age II than it did in the previous centuries. These changes indicate that a new ethnic group (or groups) took over the region in the late eighth century, probably after the Assyrian conquest.1 The new settlement pattern persisted throughout the Persian Period and most of the Hellenistic Period, and the cultic artifacts from these periods indicate that Galilee’s inhabitants were predominantly pagan.2 11.1.2 Ethnic Identity in the Late Hellenistic Period The growth of Galilee’s population in the last century BCE occurred too quickly to have been caused by indigenous growth.3 Such a rapid demographic expansion must have been resulted from significant immigration to Galilee in the last century BCE. The population boom coincided with several important changes in the archaeological record: the establishment of new settlement patterns, the disappearance of pig bones, the appearance of miqvaot, the 1

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 106–107. In the Iron Age I, both the western and eastern hills had a substantial number of settlements, but the archaeologists could only find two settlements on the coastal plain. In Iron II, the western hills were quickly depopulated, the population of the coastal plain actually increased, and the region’s eastern hills retained a “substantial” population. The survey found 71 Iron I sites, 36 Iron II sites, and 23 Iron Age sites that cannot be assigned to a sub-period. The authors note that, although Iron II includes about a century (according to their chronology) during which the Kingdom of Israel still stood, the changes in settlement patterns between Iron I and Iron II are probably the result of the Assyrian conquest. See also Z. Gal, Lower Galilee During the Iron Age, ed. H. Baruch and J. Marcia Reines, vol. 8, ASOR Dissertation Series (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 108–109; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 30–39; Leibner, Settlement and History, 315. 2 Archaeologists have discovered Phoenician temples, votive objects that imply Astarte worship, and statuettes of Egyptian deities. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 107–110; Leibner, Settlement and History, 126. 3 Archaeological estimates suggest that Galilee’s population doubled in the last century BCE. Leibner, “History of Settlement,” 362–368; Settlement and History, 332–335, 341–345; See also Aviam, “Borders,” 14; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 110–111.

11.1 Ethnicity

113

disappearance of GCW, the abandonment of most sites containing GCW, a decline in the circulation of Tyrian coinage, and a dramatic increase in the use of Hasmonean coinage.4 The combination of a rapidly growing population and so many changes in the material culture indicates that Galilee experienced significant immigration by a new ethnic group in the last century BCE. The virtual disappearance of pig bones, the presence of miqvaot, and the widespread circulation of Hasmonean coins all suggest that the new inhabitants were Jewish.5 Furthermore, since Judea was the only nearby region with a Jewish population large enough to have provided these immigrants, most of Galilee’s new inhabitants were probably colonists from Judea.6 11.1.3 Ethnic Identity in the Early Roman Period The ethnic markers that appeared in the Late Hellenistic Period (the absence of pig bones, the presence of miqvaot, and the preference for Judean coins) remained characteristic features of Galilean settlements throughout the Early Roman Period.7 However, around the turn of the millenium, Galilee’s inhabitants suddenly abandoned the common pottery styles of the Late Hellenistic 4 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 66; M.A. Chancey, “The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris,” NTS 47, no. 2 (2001); Chancey and Meyers, “How Jewish?” Leibner, Settlement and History, 404–406; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 109–110; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 18, 244–251. Syon argues that the circulation of Jewish coins during the Hasmonean and Early Roman Periods reveals the ethnicity of the settlements in Galilee, the Golan, and southern Syria. Jews appear to have had a strong preference for Jewish coins while Gentiles avoided them. The distribution of Jewish coins during these periods reflects a stable ethnic border. 5 Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee”; “Epilogue.” Contra D. Syon, “Numismatic Evidence of Jewish Presence in Galilee Before the Hasmonean Annexation,” Israel Numismatic Research 1 (2006). Syon argues that the numismatic evidence implies the existence of a significant Jewish population in Galilee decades before the Hasmonean conquest. 6 Reed, “Village Communities,” 104; Leibner, “Origins of Jewish Galilee”; Settlement and History, 236, 289, 295, 336. Leibner argues that the settlers were among the hardcore supporters of the Hasmonean regime and probably had been military settlers. While it is reasonable to assume that some of the settlers were military personnel, it would be hard to believe that all of them were part of a centralized colonization effort. Several factors – including population strains in Judea and economic opportunity – would have motivated the Judean settlement of Galilee. Therefore, I think it is unreasonable to assume that a vast majority of the Galileans were zealous supporters of the Hasmoneans. 7 The northern borders of Jewish settlement in Galilee did recede slightly during the middle of the first century CE. At this time, a Gentile population – probably Phoenician – drove out and replaced the Jewish residents at a handful of settlements along the border (including Qeren Naftali). This event, however, only nudged the ethnic border a few kilometers south; it did not alter the region’s ethnic makeup in any fundamental way. Arbel, “Intense Religious Movements,” 230; Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 111; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 148– 149; Aviam, “Borders,” 14.

114

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

Period (ESA and mold-made lamps) and adopted new types of pottery that were conspicuously plain in appearance (KHW, SW, limestone vessels, and Herodian knife-pared lamps). Furthermore, similar changes occurred simultaneously at many Judean settlements.8 As I will demonstrate in this chapter’s sections on “Religious Ethos” and “Hellenization and Romanization,” all of these changes reflect new cultural practices that developed in the Early Roman Period to distinguish Judean (broad sense) Jews from the surrounding Gentile populations. The parallel changes that occurred in Galilee and Judea during this period provide further evidence that Galilee’s population was primarily Jewish in the Early Roman Period.9

11.2 Urbanization 11.2.1 Urbanization in Galilee Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Magdala were the largest Galilean settlements in the last century BCE.10 Jonathan Reed estimates that Sepphoris contained only about 1,000 people in the Hasmonean Period.11 Despite its small size, Sepphoris’ organization probably resembled that of a small Hellenistic polis. Epigraphic evidence from Sepphoris demonstrates that the city already had urban officials with Greek titles in the Late Hellenistic Period.12 Nevertheless, the city was “refounded” at the turn of the millennium as Galilee’s capital, and its population grew significantly in the first century CE. Roughly a generation later, in 19/20 CE, Antipas founded a new capital city, Tiberias, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, just a few miles south of Magdala. The new city grew rapidly, and it already contained a palace, a theater, and a stadium by the middle of the century.13

8

Berlin, “Jewish Life.” See my detailed discussion of these changes in chapter 10. Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee”; “Epilogue.” 10 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 78–82; S. De Luca, “La città ellenistico-romana di Magdala/Taricheae. Gli scavi del Magdala Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione preliminare e prospettive di indagine,” Liber Annuus 59 (2009); “Urban Development of the City of Magdala/Tarichaeae in the Light of the New Excavations: Remains, Problems and Perspectives,” in Symposium Greco-Roman Galilee (21st e 23rd June 2009), (Forthcoming). 11 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 78. 12 J. Naveh, “Jar Fragment with Inscription in Hebrew,” in Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. R.M. Nagy et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996); E.M. Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67–68 CE): Archaeology and Josephus,” in Meyers, Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, 113–114. 13 De Luca, “La città ellenistico-romana”; J. Zangenberg, “Urbanization,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life (2010); De Luca, “Urban Development.” 9

11.2 Urbanization

115

According to Reed’s calculations, Sepphoris and Tiberias probably had populations between 8,000 and 12,000 by the mid first century.14 Although not enough data from the recent Magdala excavations have been published to permit a proper estimate of the city’s Early Roman population, preliminary reports indicate that the city had a much more urban character than most scholars had previously believed.15 While Magdala itself contained a smaller population than Tiberias, it served as the nucleus for a cluster of nearby suburban settlements. Thus, Magdala and its suburbs probably functioned collectively much like an urban center.16 11.2.2 Rural Settlements Although the urbanization of Galilee has attracted much attention, many scholars have overlooked the significant growth of rural settlements throughout the region in the Early Roman Period I. Rural settlements were a prominent feature of Judean (broad sense) society before the Bar Kokhba revolt.17 Archaeologists have discovered many Second Temple Period farmsteads and estate manors in Judea, and recent excavations have begun to uncover some of the more rural settlements in Early Roman Galilee as well.18 Because an ancient citiy relied heavily on the surrounding countryside for food and other goods, some scholars have argued that Galilee’s new urban centers would have put significant economic strain on the nearby villages. However, the new demand created by Sepphoris and Tiberias could have been absorbed if the region’s agricultural output increased at the same time. Therefore, an assessment of the effect that urbanization had on Galilee must consider the growth of the region’s rural population in relation to its urban population. To date, the most comprehensive study of rural Galilee is Uzi Leibner’s 2009 study of settlement patterns in eastern Galilee. According to Leibner, Galilee was only sparsely settled throughout most of the Hellenistic Period. These Hellenistic settlements were generally medium- to large-sized villages, 14

These numbers are based on Jonathan Reed’s calculations. Reed assumes that both cities had population densities between 150 and 250 persons per hectare, and he estimates the size of each site at 40–60 hectares. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 79–82. See also Chancey, Myth of Galilee, 75–76; Jensen, “Josephus and Antipas,” 160. 15 De Luca, “La città ellenistico-romana”; Leibner, Settlement and History, 221–222; Zangenberg, “Urbanization”; De Luca, “Urban Development.” 16 De Luca, “La città ellenistico-romana”; “Urban Development”; K.R. Dark, “Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognised Town Near the Sea of Galilee,” PEQ 145, no. 3 (2013): 185–202. 17 Y. Hirschfeld, “Jewish Rural Settlement in Judaea in the Early Roman Period,” in The Early Roman Empire in the East, ed. S.E. Alcock (Oxford: Oxbow, 1997). 18 Leibner, Settlement and History. Leibner’s study of eastern Galilee provides the most comprehensive overview of these settlements.

116

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

and they were only located near the region’s largest agricultural plains.19 Consequently, most of the smaller agricultural plots remained untouched. All of this changed abruptly during the Hasmonean Period and Early Roman Period I, when Galilee’s population expanded significantly. Although most of the existing sites continued to be inhabited, several new, unfortified towns and villages of all sizes were founded as well. These new settlements took advantage of land that had not been used in the Hellenistic Period. In fact, Leibner found that the total settled area in eastern Galilee doubled in less than a century and a half.20 This rapid expansion of rural settlements would have increased Galilee’s agricultural production dramatically. Thus, the growth of Galilee’s rural population would have alleviated any economic strains that Sepphoris and Tiberias might have imposed upon the countryside. 21

11.2.3 Bronze Coinage and Urbanization The proliferation of base metal coinage often accompanied urbanization in preindustrial societies because the proliferation of fractional currency facilitated small-scale commercial activity and trade specialization in turn. It is, therefore, surprising that the construction of two new urban centers in Galilee did not have an appreciable effect on the amount of bronze currency circulating in Galilee.22 I can think of four possible explanations for the small numismatic impact of Sepphoris and Tiberias: 1) The low-end estimates of Sepphoris and Tiberias’ populations (ca. 6,000– 8,000 people) are correct, and the cities, therefore, had only a small impact on the regional economy. 2) Unique circumstances caused at least one of the new cities to have a smaller impact on the region’s economy than was typical in antiquity. For example, perhaps Tiberias had more economic ties to the Decapolis and Philip’s territories than it did to the rest of Galilee. If so, its effect on the Galilean economy might have been more muted than usual.

19

Leibner, Settlement and History, 318. Leibner, Settlement and History, 333–335. 21 Although some of the new settlements were located within less fertile agricultural lands and probably relied more on craft production or pastoralism than agriculture, the growth in cultivated land during this period is still staggering. 22 Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. 2 (Dix Hills: Amphora Books, 1982), 41; Meshorer, Treasury, 85; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 247; Jensen, “Josephus and Antipas,” 214– 215; “Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in Their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee,” in Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 309–313. 20

11.3 The Economy

117

3) Galilee experienced more urbanization in the Hasmonean Period (when the supply of bronze coins did rise rapidly) and less urbanization in the Early Roman Period I than scholars have previously assumed. 4) The high level of urbanization in surrounding areas, such as Phoenicia and the Decapolis, meant that Galilee was already integrated into a significantly urbanized interregional economy. Therefore, the growth of Sepphoris and Tiberias did not significantly alter the existing economic conditions in Galilee. Given what we know about Galilee’s trade with other regions, the last explanation seems improbable. However, without further evidence, any combination of the first three explanations is plausible.

11.3 The Economy 11.3.1 Economic Growth Galilee’s population growth, urbanization, and increased agricultural output are all strong indicators that the regional economy grew significantly during the first century CE.23 However, such aggregate growth would not necessarily have benefitted all Galileans equally.24 11.3.2 Social Stratification The archaeological remains suggest that the growth of Galilee’s economy led to increased social stratification in the first century CE. There are noticeable differences in size, quality of construction, and decoration among homes in Galilee’s cities, towns, and villages. Furthermore, there is a correlation between the size of the settlement and the degree of wealth attained by the richest members of that city. The contrast between Sepphoris and Galilee’s villages in terms of luxury items, household decoration, and the prevalence of private miqvaot suggests that there was a significant income gap between the urban and rural elites. However, even in the smaller settlements, such as Gamala and Yodefat, there is a noticeable difference in the quality of domestic

23

Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 236–237; J.L. Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective,” JBL 129, no. 2 (2010): 352; M. Moreland, “The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Subsistence Ethic,” in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D.R. Edwards (New York: Routledge, 2004), 43; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 49–52; Syon and Yavor tentatively suggest that olive oil sales may have been the driving force behind Gamala’s economic growth. 24 Reed, “Instability.”

118

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

construction. At most sites, the wealth gap began to grow around the turn of the millennium.25 Nevertheless, the gaps between those at the high, middle, and low points of the economic spectrum – as well as the income gap between the rural and urban elites – were significantly smaller in Galilee than in Judea, the Decapolis, or Phoenicia.26 Hence, although inequality did increase during the Early Roman Period I, Galilee’s economy was much more egalitarian than was typical in antiquity.27 11.3.3 Demographics, Population Pressures, and Living Standards Although it is tempting to equate economic growth with a rise in living standards, the two phenomena did not often go hand-in-hand in antiquity. In premodern economies, economic growth almost always led to higher population densities. Unfortunately, higher population densities usually made a region’s finite agricultural resources increasingly scarce and facilitated the spread of deadly diseases.28 Consequently, population growth in pre-industrial societies generally led to a decline in the average person’s standard of living, even during periods of economic expansion.29 Since Galilee’s population boomed in the Early Roman Period, Reed has argued that the region’s living standard must have dropped during this period as a consequence.30 25

Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; K. Galor, “Domestic Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Galilee and Golan,” NEA 66, no. 1–2 (2003); Reed, “Instability”; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 49–52. 26 Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy.” 27 M.H. Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes: An Investigation of the SocioEconomic Dynamics and Developments in Roman Galilee,” Bib 91, no. 1 (2012). 28 Reed, “Instability.” 29 W. Scheidel, “Disease and Death in the Ancient City of Rome,” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2009), http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/ 091006.pdf; Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 2001); “Demographic and Economic Development in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 160, no. 4 (2004); “Population and Demography,” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2006), http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/040604.pdf; “Demography,” in Scheidel, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World; “Demography and Human Development in the Roman World” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, 2007); “Economy and Quality of Life in the Roman World,” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2009), http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/ 010902.pdf; B.W. Frier, “Statistics and Roman Society,” JRA 5 (1992); T.G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992); Reed, “Instability.” 30 Reed, “Instability.” See also Leibner, “History of Settlement”; “Origins of Jewish Galilee”; Moreland, “Inhabitants of Galilee”; Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; D. AdanBayewitz and I. Perlman, “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period,” IEJ 40 (1990).

11.3 The Economy

119

Reed’s argument, however, ignores the special conditions in which population growth sometimes resulted in static or even improved living standards. When an area was too sparsely settled for its inhabitants to consume most of the available agricultural resources, significant population growth did not exert downward pressure on living standards.31 This is because there was still ample cultivable land available to support the rising population. The establishment of new rural settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman Period I doubled the total amount of settled land in the region.32 This fact indicates that Hellenistic Galilee was under-populated. Therefore, there was enough available farmland for the region to experience substantial population growth without a concomitant drop in the living standard.33 Furthermore, since Galilee’s new cities probably opened up new markets for peasant artisans and farmers, the region’s increased population density may even have benefitted the peasants in the short term.34 11.3.4 Human Remains and Living Standards The human remains at Yodefat constitute virtually all of the osteological data from first century Galilee. The skeletal remains at Yodefat include those of men, women, and children – all of whom apparently died violently during the city’s siege.35 Since rural villagers usually fled to nearby fortified cities and towns when their lands were invaded, the remains probably belonged to residents of both Yodefat and the smaller communities in its vicinity. Therefore, 31

Scheidel, “Demography,” 50–52, 63. Leibner, Settlement and History, 333–335. 33 Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (New York: Routledge, 1994), 335, 436– 442; Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; Leibner, Settlement and History, 333–335. R.B. Hitchner, “Olive Production and the Roman Economy: The Case for Intensive Growth in the Roman Empire,” in The Ancient Economy, ed. W. Scheidel and S. von Reden, Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2002); “The Advantages of Wealth and Luxury: The Case for Economic Growth in the Roman Empire,” in The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models, ed. J.G. Manning and I. Morris, Social Science History (Stanford: Stanford UP, 2005); W. Scheidel, “A Model of Real Income Growth in Roman Italy,” Historia 56 (2007); “In Search of Roman Economic Growth,” JRA 22 (2009); “Human Development and Quality of Life in the Long Run: The Case of Greece,” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2010), http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/ 091006.pdf. Cf. Reed, “Instability.” 34 Generally speaking, increases in population density have a negative effect on living standards because they render resources scarcer and increase people’s exposure to disease. However, the effects of urbanization are often delayed by a generation or more. It is also quite possible that Galilee’s population was still too small for these changes to have had a major impact on the economy. 35 Aviam, “Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle,” in Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt; “Battle of Yodefat”; “Socio-Economic Hierarchy.” Aviam notes that some of the bones contain evidence that the people died violently. 32

120

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

the bones at Yodefat provide a representative cross-section of Lower Galilee’s population. Mordechai Aviam, who directed the excavation of Yodefat, conducted a field examination of a sample of the human remains, which represents about 25 individuals.36 According to his analysis, the osteo-archaeological remains show no signs of dietary deficiencies, malaria, or other severe diseases.37 Although Aviam’s sample size was small, the good condition of the skeletal remains corroborates the other archaeological evidence that peasants generally fared better in Galilee than they did in most other parts of the Mediterranean.38 11.3.5 Trade a. The Roads There is no evidence that well-maintained Roman-style roads that would have fostered interregional trade existed in pre-revolt Galilee. The earliest milestone found in Galilee is from the Legio-Scythopolis Road, which dates to 69 CE.39 This makes sense since the Roman army built roads primarily for its own use.40 Before the revolt, Galilee appears to have been connected by a number of local roads that were probably poorly maintained, uneven, and illsuited for transporting goods.41 After the revolt, the construction of the Legio-Scythopolis Road would have drastically altered Galilee’s cultural ties with its neighbors.42 The new road likely accelerated the economic development and Hellenization of the region in the first century. b. Local Trade The dramatic rise of locally produced goods and the predominance of KHW and SW, likely used as containers to ship food and other local commodities,

36

The majority of the human remains have yet to be examined by anyone. Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy.” 38 Malnutrition, malaria, and other severe maladies were even common throughout the more prosperous communities of the Mediterranean. W. Scheidel, “Physical Well-Being,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. W. Scheidel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012). 39 B. Isaac, Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road (Oxford: BAR, 1982), 9. 40 The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 111. 41 Reed, “Romanizing Galilee”; Isaac, Roman Roads, 7–9. 42 Isaac, Roman Roads, 7–9. 37

11.3 The Economy

121

indicate that local trade constituted a growing share of Galilee’s economic activity in the first century CE.43 Such evidence for extensive local trade, however, also raises important logistical questions. Given the poor road system in pre-revolt Galilee and the high cost of overland transport, it would have been difficult for local artisans to sell their wares by traveling from settlement to settlement. How, then, did pottery from Kefar Hananya and Shikhin come to dominate the pottery market throughout Galilee? David Adan-Bayewitz has proposed that Sepphoris and Tiberias served as major markets/distribution centers where potters from nearby villages could sell to people from all over Galilee.44 This proposal explains how KHW and SW could have been so well distributed throughout a region with such a poor road system. The potters would only have had to ship their wares to the major cities, and the consumers could then bring their purchased pottery back home without much trouble because a few pieces of cooking ware would not have been very heavy. If Adan-Bayewitz’s proposal is correct, then the trade of KHW and SW in Galilee not only demonstrates the economic ties between city and countryside in Galilee, but also suggests that these cities would have facilitated the local trade of other goods produced in small settlements throughout the region. In short, the wide distribution of KHW and SW despite Galilee’s poor road system suggests that the nascent urbanization Galilee experienced in the first century might have yielded significant economic benefits for rural artisans and farmers.45 c. Olive and Wine Trade The presence of wine and olive presses at several Early Roman I settlements in Galilee attests to the important role these goods played in the region’s economy.46 Olive oil and wine were cash crops that were significantly more profitable than staples; however, they also required greater investment. Olives in particular require substantial initial investment since they do not reach full 43 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery; “The Pottery of the Galilee in the Roman Period: Production Locations, Specialization and Ceramic Ecology,” in Mehkerei Galil (Galilee Research), ed. Z. Safrai (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2009); Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, “Determining Pottery Provenance”; Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Pottery Manufacture”; Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder, “Ceramics from Galilee”; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Pottery”; “Local Trade.” 44 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 233–234. 45 Edwards, “Identity and Social Location.” The trade of KHW and SW also provides an example of how the urbanization of Galilee in the first century CE may have facilitated cultural trends in the region that emphasized the distinctively Jewish character of Galilee’s population. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 228–238; Strange, “First Century Galilee,” 41–42. 46 Aviam, “Viticulture and Olive Growing”; “Early Roman Oil Press.”

122

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

maturity for at least a decade. Thus, the prevalence of olive groves and vineyards in Galilee suggests that the region enjoyed relative peace and prosperity throughout most of the Early Roman Period I.47 Although some have suggested that these products might have been major Galilean exports, the importance of wine and olive oil should not be overestimated. Based on archaeological surveys and excavations, Aviam has argued that the region probably did not produce sufficient amounts of these products for Galileans to have engaged in extensive exporting of olive oil and wine. Instead, it appears that Galileans produced enough of these products to meet local demands and probably a small amount to export to nearby Jewish communities.48 d. Numismatic Evidence of Interregional Trade Two changes in Galilee’s numismatic record indicate transformations in the trade relationships between Galilee and its neighbors during the Hasmonean Period and Early Roman Period I. First, the decline in Phoenician coinage circulating in the region suggests that Galilean trade with the nearby Phoenician cities diminished significantly. Second, the predominance of Judean coins implies that Judea became Galilee’s principal trade partner during this period.49 e. Interregional Trade In general, the archaeological evidence suggests that Galilee engaged in significantly less trade with neighboring Gentile regions in the first century CE than in the preceding or following centuries.50 However, there are indications that interregional trade still played an important role in Galilee’s economy during this period. The presence of Galilean pottery in neighboring Gentile regions indicates the persistence of regular trade contacts between Galileans and their neighbors, even if such interactions became less frequent in the Early Roman Period I.51 As I mentioned earlier in this chapter, Galilee’s roads were not suitable for overland transport, and this makes it unlikely that trade caravans from Gentile territories frequently passed through Galilee. Instead, Galileans probably traveled to the larger cities of Phoenicia and the Decapolis in order to conduct business and buy goods.

47

Hitchner, “Olive Production.” Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy.” 49 Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 14, 18, 225, 237, 251. Cf. Hanson, Tyrian Influence. 50 D. Avshalom-Gorni and N. Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews: A Ceramic Case-Study,” in Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 81. 51 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 247. 48

11.3 The Economy

123

While trade between Galilee and the neighboring Gentile territories declined in the first century, trade between Galilee and Judea became more common during the first century CE. The frequent presence in Galilee of Herodian lamps that were made in Jerusalem attests to such regular trade between the regions.52 Conversely, there is no evidence of trade between Galilee and Samaria in this period. 11.3.6 Monetization a. Minting and Monetization Most of the coins issued in first century Galilee were struck by Herod Antipas, and some scholars have argued that the tetrarch’s minting activities were an attempt to monetize the region’s economy.53 Some further suggest that the monetization of Galilee’s economy under Antipas had a severely negative impact on the economic well-being of many Galilean peasants.54 The numismatic evidence, however, does not support the idea that Galilee’s economy became significantly more monetized in the first century CE. Under Antipas, coins were issued too infrequently and in insufficient quantities to have increased the region’s money supply.55 In fact, the new coins were too few to replace the coins that were lost by individuals or forgotten in hoards.56 Furthermore, the infrequency of Antipas’ minting activities suggests that issuing coins was not a priority for the tetrarch.57 Rather, Antipas’ primary reasons for minting coins were probably political. His Sepphoris coins, issued in the fourth year of his reign, would have helped legitimize his authority in Galilee (Philip issued his first coin series only a 52

Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Distribution of Lamps,” 72–77. Arnal, “Parable of Tenants,” 138; Freyne, “Herodian Economics,” 46. 54 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 83–89; Arnal, “Parable of Tenants,” 140. Their argument is that monetization would have destabilized the rural economy and facilitated debt problems for peasant farmers. Arnal also argues that bronze coins would have facilitated Antipas’ tax collection efforts; however, bronze coins were not sufficiently valuable for this to have been the case. 55 Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 41; Treasury, 85; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 247; Jensen, “Josephus and Antipas,” 214–215; “Message and Minting,” 309–313. Jensen also notes that, although some scholars have tried to link Antipas’ minting activities with increased tax collection, bronze coinage would not have been valuable enough to be used for paying taxes. 56 K. Hopkins, “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire,” JRS 70 (1980); “Rome, Taxes, Rents and Trade,” in Scheidel and von Reden, The Ancient Economy. R. Duncan-Jones, Money and Government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994), 169–170. Hopkins assumes a loss rate of 2% for silver coins in antiquity, and he notes that the loss rate would have increased as the coins’ value decreased. Duncan-Jones estimates a low loss-rate of 1% per year. 57 Meshorer, Treasury, 84. 53

124

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

year later). The coins minted in 19/20 CE commemorated Tiberias’ founding,58 and Antipas’ last coin series was clearly intended to curry favor with Caligula.59 Moreover, Fred Strickert has made a convincing case that Antipas issued three series of coins in 29/30, 30/31, and 33/34 CE in response to Pontius Pilate’s minting of large coin series in 29, 30, and 31 CE.60 Since even fewer Galilean coins were minted in the sixty years after Antipas’ reign, it is unlikely that local coin issues would have substantially affected the monetization of Galilee’s economy. Instead, coins from neighboring regions would have been the primary catalyst for any monetization that occurred. b. Evidence of Monetization in Circulated Coins Evidence for coin circulation in Galilee also undermines the theory that the region became more monetized in the first century CE. To date, the most thorough study of the coins circulating in Galilee is Danny Syon’s dissertation, which demonstrates that Galilee’s economy was already substantially monetized in the second century BCE.61 This should come as no surprise since Galilee was very close to some of the more important commercial centers in the Hellenistic Mediterranean (Akko, Tyre, and Sidon) and since the region spent most of the Hellenistic Period under Seleucid or Ptolemaic control. Two major changes in the numismatic record occurred in the last century BCE: 1) Hasmonean coins replaced Phoenician bronze coinage as the region’s major currency, and 2) the number of silver coins in circulation actually decreased.62 The number of coins circulating in Galilee did not increase in the first century CE either. In fact, new coins entered the Galilean economy at a much slower rate in this period than they did in the Hasmonean Period. Fur-

58

Y. Meshorer, Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins (Haifa: University of Haifa, 1998), 80; Meshorer, Treasury, 84. 59 The coins’ inscriptions read: “In honor of Caesar Gaius Germanicus.” Although the coin’s precise political context cannot be determined without reference to the historical sources, any coin honoring the Emperor would have been intended to strengthen Antipas’ relationship with Caligula. Meshorer, Treasury, 82–83. 60 Strickert notes that Philip also issued multiple coins series in these years in response to Pilate’s coinage. F. Strickert, “The Coins of Philip,” in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, ed. R. Arav and R.A. Freund, vol. 1 (Kirksville: Truman State UP, 1995), 170. 61 Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 218; Jensen, “Message and Minting.” Morten Jensen’s article on coinage, which builds upon Syon’s data, is also essential reading on the subject. 62 Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 103, 109–110, 227, 244. The latter change actually indicates that Galilee’s economy became less monetized in the Hellenistic Period since silver coins are a better indicators of monetization than coins made from base metals.

11.4 Political Climate

125

ther monetization of Galilee’s economy did not occur until the Middle Roman Period, when Galilee’s population also grew substantially.63 In sum, the numismatic evidence clearly demonstrates that, while Galilee experienced significant monetization in the Hellenistic and Middle Roman Periods, its money supply remained essentially static during the first century CE.

11.4 Political Climate 11.4.1 Local Politics The archaeological evidence sheds very little light on the internal politics of first century Galilee. The population size, public architecture, and numismatic evidence all suggest that Sepphoris and Tiberias served as the region’s major administrative centers, and it appears that, once Tiberias was built, the newer city quickly surpassed Sepphoris in importance. The typical dynamics of urban-rural relationships in antiquity suggest that these two cities and some of Galilee’s larger towns, such as Magdala, Gush Halav, and Yodefat, exerted some political and economic influence over nearby settlements. However, the particulars of Galilee’s internal politics cannot be deduced from the excavated material remains. 11.4.2 Pro-Roman Propaganda While Galilee’s material remains shed little light on the region’s internal politics, they do provide important information about the interaction between Galilee’s rulers and the Roman imperial government. The Romans expected client-rulers, governors, and provincial elites to support the empire through various forms of propaganda. Provincial authorities often minted coins, commissioned statues and monuments, and held public celebrations to honor the emperor. In most places imperial propaganda involved the establishment of temples and cults to honor Roma (a goddess who personified the Roman state) and the emperor.64 However, religious sensibilities prevented the Jews from participating in the imperial cult. Consequently, the Herodian dynasts, provincial governors, and other officials who administered Galilee had to find alternative ways to advertise their allegiance to Rome. Antipas named his capital Tiberias in hon-

63

Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 19, 248; Jensen, “Message and Minting.” C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); Bernett, “Imperial Cult”; M.A. Chancey and A. Porter, “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine,” NEA 64 (2001): 170. 64

126

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

or of Tiberius and issued a series of coins in 39 CE to honor Caligula.65 Under the Roman governors, city authorities in Tiberias issued coins honoring the Emperor Claudius. During the Great Revolt, the city of Sepphoris struck coins that both honored Nero and emphasized the city’s loyalty to Rome.66 After the revolt, Agrippa II minted coins in Tiberias that celebrated “the emperor’s victory” over the Judean rebels.67 Even the adoption of Greco-Roman institutions and architectural styles served as symbols of Rome’s influence over Galilee. Although imperial propaganda was more muted in Galilee than in other parts of the empire, the local rulers made their submission to Rome clear to the public. Even when all or part of Galilee was under Herodian control, there was probably little doubt among Galileans that the Roman Empire was really in charge. 11.4.3 Antipas’ Rivalries With Other Rulers Despite the Herodian Dynasty’s consistent displays of submission to Rome and the emperor, the numismatic record implies that Herod Antipas saw both the other members of the Herodian Dynasty and the Roman governors of Iudaea as rivals for power and prestige. As I mentioned earlier (section 11.3.6), Antipas’ primary motive for issuing coins was probably political rather than economic. All his coins identify Antipas simply as “Herod Tetrarch.” After inheriting only a portion of his father’s territory, Antipas’ use of the dynastic name alone may have been intended to present the tetrarch as Herod the Great’s true successor. If so, it suggests that Antipas saw his brothers as rivals for power. The coins Antipas issued in 29/30, 30/31, and 33/34 CE provide further evidence of Antipas’ competition with other Judean (broad sense) rulers. As I mentioned above, it is likely that Antipas struck these coins because he felt that Pontius Pilate’s large coin issues between 29 and 31 CE diminished his own political standing in the region.68

11.5 Religious Ethos The archaeological remains from Early Roman I Galilee indicate that the regions inhabitants were predominantly observant Jews. Specifically, Galilee’s material remains are characterized by four distinctive elements that reflect the region’s religious culture: 1) the absence of pagan temples and artifacts, 2) the 65

The coins’ inscriptions read, “in honor of Caesar Gaius Germanicus.” Meshorer, Treasury, 82–83. 66 Y. Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris,” in Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 195. 67 Meshorer, Treasury, 106. 68 Philip also issued multiple coin series between 29 and 34 CE in response to Pilate’s coinage. Strickert, “Coins of Philip,” 170.

11.5 Religious Ethos

127

presence of synagogues, 3) the avoidance of figurative art, and 4) an unusually intense focus on ritual purity. 11.5.1 Absence of Pagan Temples and Cultic Objects Although archaeologists have discovered pagan temples and cultic objects at many of the cities bordering Galilee, there is virtually no evidence for pagan worship in first century Galilee.69 The absence of pagan institutions and paraphernalia indicates that Galilee’s population was predominantly monotheistic. 11.5.2 Synagogues There is no evidence of synagogues in Galilee during the Hasmonean Period. However, the presence of first century synagogues at Magdala, at Gamala, and possibly at Capernaum implies that this institution had become an important part of Galilee’s religious culture in the first half of the century.70 It is not clear what specific effects the emergence of synagogues would have had on Galilean Judaism, but I will explore some possibilities in Chapter 12. 11.5.3 Absence of Figurative Art The material remains from first century Galilee contain virtually no depictions of deities, people, or animals. At the turn of the millennium, Galileans abandoned pottery types that were decorated with such images (such as ESA and mold-made lamps) and substituted analogous types that lacked decoration (such as KHW, SW, limestone vessels, and Herodian knife-pared lamps).71 The region’s architecture also lacked figurative decorations, and the few frescoes that have been excavated featured only abstract or floral decorations.72 69

Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 14; Leibner, Settlement and History, 322. Avshalom-Gorni and Najar, “Migdal”; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 38–40; V.C. Corbo, “Capernaum,” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:866–869; S. Loffreda, “Capernaum,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 1:291–295; S. Loffreda, “Capernaum.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E.M. Meyers (New York: Oxford UP, 1997) 1:416–419. 71 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 113; Berlin, “Romanization”; “Jewish Life”; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19. 72 Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus”; Hartal, “Tiberias: Galei Kinneret”; K.G. Hoglund and E. Meyers, “The Residential Quarter on the Western Summit,” in Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 40; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee”; Berlin, “Jewish Life”; Hirschfeld and Meir, “Tiberias – 2004.” A bronze figurine of a winged boy – probably Cupid – was discovered on top of a wall at the stadium just outside of Tiberias. However, since the stadium remained in use until the late third or early fourth century, the figurine may have been added to the structure at any time in the first, second, or third centuries. The frescoes at Sepphoris and Gamala contain botanical decorations. The frescoes at Tiberias and Yodefat lack any figurative art. 70

128

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

Even the coins minted in Galilee during the first century CE avoided any depiction of deities, humans, or animals.73 The virtual absence of human, animal, and divine images is evidence that aniconism was a fundamental part of Galilean culture at this time. Although opposition to icons has always been a key element of Judaism, first century Galileans practiced a more extreme form of aniconism than most Jews did in antiquity. In fact, Galilean aniconism peaked in the first century CE. 11.5.4 Ritual Purity in Galilee The scarcity of pig bones and the presence of miqvaot in Galilee during the last century BCE suggest that Jewish dietary laws were normative in the region and that some Galileans practiced ritual bathing.74 However, the archaeological record indicates that Galilean society became even more scrupulous about ritual purity in the first century CE.75 The growing importance of ritual purity is reflected in the types of vessels used by first century Galileans in their daily lives. The need for ritually pure vessels was almost certainly the main reason that limestone vessels, which Jews believed were immune to ritual impurity, became popular among Galileans.76 Similarly, an aversion to “impure” pottery probably also explains the disappearance of imported pottery from the region and the burgeoning of local pottery production.77 Another indication of heightened purity concerns is the proliferation of miqvaot throughout Galilee.78 Virtually every community that was not near a large, natural body of water had a miqveh in the first century CE.79 Moreover, the frequent presence of miqvaot near Galilean agricultural presses implies a significant demand among Galilean consumers for ritually pure food.80 The 73

Meshorer, Treasury, 81–85, 106. Reed, Galilean Jesus, 49; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 66. 75 For a more detailed examination of the growing emphasis on purity matters in first century Galilee, see M.H. Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation,” JSHJ 11 (2013). 76 Gibson, “Stone Vessels,” 302–303; Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center,” 252–255; “Israel’s Stone Age,” 50. 77 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 237; Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, “Phoenicians and Jews,” 81; Berlin, “Romanization,” 59. 78 Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 452. 79 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 45–51; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee”; Chancey and Meyers, “How Jewish?” Meyers, “Aspects of Everyday Life”; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 49; R. Reich, “Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer,” IEJ 31 (1981): 49; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1992), 223. 80 Aviam, “Early Roman Oil Press”; Wagner, “Oil Production.” The presence of miqvaot next to agricultural installations such as olive and wine presses is also widely attested in Judea. Adler, “Ritual Baths”; “Archaeology of Purity,” 92–96. 74

11.6 Hellenization and Romanization

129

ubiquity of miqvaot, however, does not necessarily indicate that Galilee’s inhabitants shared a uniform ideology about purity. Because the locations and quantities of miqvaot varied from community to community, it is possible that the specific practices concerning ritual bathing were not uniform throughout the region.81 Nevertheless, it is clear that ritual purity became a more central part of life throughout Galilee in the first century.

11.6 Hellenization and Romanization 11.6.1 Greek Language in Galilee A society’s archaeological remains only provide indirect evidence of what languages its people spoke: public inscriptions, coins and market weights, burial inscriptions, graffiti, ostraca, and – rarely – preserved manuscripts. The available epigraphic data from first century Galilee are even less informative than usual because that society produced an extraordinarily small number of inscriptions.82 Nevertheless, there is enough information to determine that, in Early Roman Galilee, public inscriptions were normally written in Greek. While it is tempting to interpret the predominance of Greek inscriptions as evidence that Greek was commonly spoken in Galilee, such an interpretation misconstrues the function of inscriptions in the ancient world. The vast majority of the population was illiterate in antiquity, and there are good reasons to think that literacy rates in Galilee were even lower than those of the Mediterranean as a whole.83 Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that inscriptions were intended to be read by the common people. Instead, ancient elites generally used inscriptions to display their wealth and power.84 Furthermore, Greek was the typical language for inscriptions throughout the eastern Mediterranean, regardless of the language actually spoken by most members of the community. Local aristocrats were expected to know Greek in order to assimilate to the common Mediterranean culture. Consequently, the epigraphic evidence cannot reveal the extent to which average Galileans used Greek in their daily lives.85 81

Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 451–453. Chancey, “Epigraphic Habit.” 83 W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1989), 20–22, 177; C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 496–504. 84 M.A. Chancey, “Galilee and Greco-Roman Culture in the Time of Jesus: The Neglected Significance of Chronology,” in SBLSP 2003 (Atlanta: Scholars, 2003); Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society, 168; Hezser, Jewish Literacy, 357–358. 85 Chancey, Myth of Galilee, 78. Although there is some epigraphic evidence for the use of Aramaic among less wealthy Galileans, it is far too limited for us to draw substantial conclusions from it. 82

130

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

11.6.2 Evidence of Romanization a. Greco-Roman Architecture The strongest evidence that Galilean society was increasingly influenced by Greek and Roman culture during the Early Roman Period I is the presence of Greco-Roman institutions and architecture in the region’s urban centers. Throughout their empire, the Romans employed a deliberate strategy of making provincial elites sympathetic to Roman rule by assimilating them into the common Greco-Roman culture and by integrating them into the Roman political system. Those provincial nobles who proved cooperative were rewarded with citizenship, political rights, and patronage – all of which provided further incentives to remain loyal to Rome. To accomplish this, the Romans and their client rulers erected public buildings in the provinces that allowed the native aristocrats to participate in the intellectual, religious, social, and political culture of the empire. Therefore, the presence of theaters at Sepphoris and Tiberias, a stadium at Tiberias, and basilicas at Sepphoris and Gamala – all of which date to the Early Roman Period I – implies that Galilee’s rulers attempted to introduce elements of Greco-Roman culture to at least some segments of the local population.86 The Romans also encouraged local rulers to incorporate Greco-Roman architectural forms in their new building projects. The Greco-Roman architecture in the client states and provinces proclaimed these regions’ participation in the common culture of the Roman Empire and provided a visual reminder of Roman power and authority. The public architecture in Galilee suggests that the region’s cities and large towns were beginning to look more Romanized in the first century CE. Tiberias, with its theater, stadium, palace, and monumental gate, was probably suffused with Greco-Roman architecture. Such architectural forms were also prominent in Magdala.87 In the 1980s and early 1990s, some scholars saw the presence of GrecoRoman institutions and architecture as evidence that Greek and Roman culture had already permeated Galilean culture by the early first century CE.88 86 Meyers, “Religious and Ethnic Groups,” 741–742; Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers, “Roman Theater”; Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris,” 325; Netzer, Zippori, 18–19; Hartal, “Tiberias: Galei Kinneret”; Jensen, “Josephus and Antipas,” 144–145; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997–2000,” 59. For a more general overview of theaters and other public buildings in the southern Levant, see A. Segal, Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia (Leiden: Brill, 1995); Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia (Mnemosyne Supplements). (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 87 De Luca, “Urban Development”; Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee.” 88 Richard Batey, for example, argued that even rural villagers, such as Jesus, would have been exposed to Hellenistic culture when they visited Sepphoris. Batey, “Jesus and Theatre,”

11.6 Hellenization and Romanization

131

However, more recent research into the role of Antipas’ building projects in promulgating Greco-Roman culture suggests that his activities would have had only a cosmetic effect on the region. Most scholars now view Antipas’ Greco-Roman buildings as creating a superficial Greco-Roman “veneer” that did not fundamentally alter the local culture.89 b. Evidence of Hellenistic Organization in Sepphoris and Tiberias During the Hellenistic Period, the monarchs in the eastern Mediterranean typically granted limited autonomy and tax exemptions to cities that were loyal and had assimilated to Greek culture.90 These semi-independent cities were called poleis,91 and the structure of a typical polis was essentially standardized by the end of the Hellenistic Period. Moreover, most Hellenistic cities adopted similar organizational features and nomenclature even if they had not been granted polis status by the ruling authorities. For pragmatic reasons, the Romans preserved the polis system in the east but circumscribed the cities’ autonomy.92 In fact, Rome consistently encouraged the development of self-governing cities throughout the empire. As a result, urban centers in the eastern half of the empire often adopted the organizational framework of a polis whether or not the imperial government recognized them as such.93 There is some archaeological evidence that the governments of Sepphoris and Tiberias were organized like poleis in the Early Roman Period. At Sepphoris, archaeologists have found a jar handle from the second or last century BCE inscribed with the Greek title epimeletes (an overseer or commander of

in Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991). 89 J.F. Strange, “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies,” in What Has Archaeology to Do With Faith? ed. J.H. Charlesworth and W.P. Weaver (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992); D.R. Edwards, “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” in SBLSP 1988, ed. D.J. Lull (Atlanta: SBL, 1988); Chancey and Meyers, “How Jewish?” E.M. Meyers, “The Challenge of Hellenism for Early Judaism and Christianity,” BA 55 (1992); “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee. 90 S. Dmitriev, City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005); G. Rogers, “From the Greek Polis to the Greco-Roman Polis: Augustus and the Artemision of Ephesos,” in Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: Acts of the Conference, Hartford, Connecticut (USA), August 22–24, 1997, ed. H. Eltron and G.L. Reger (Pessac: Ausonius, 2007). 91 Poleis is the plural of polis. 92 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 26–32; L.I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 86–87. 93 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 26–32.

132

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

some sort) transliterated in Hebrew/Aramaic letters.94 This inscription implies that the city already had a Greek organization in the Late Hellenistic Period.95 Archaeologists have also discovered at Sepphoris a first century CE market weight that mentions two agoranomoi (market inspectors) with Jewish names (Justus and Simeon). The Greek titles of the market inspectors indicate that Sepphoris’ Greek organization continued in the Early Roman Period I.96 A market weight from first century Tiberias also names an agoranomos, implying that Tiberias was organized along similar lines as well. Although the legal statuses of Sepphoris and Tiberias are not clear from the archaeological remains, it is clear that both cities’ governments were fundamentally shaped by the Hellenistic and Roman political traditions. 11.6.3 Evidence of Galilean Resistance to Romanization The best archaeological evidence that first century Galilean society was not significantly Romanized is the paucity of five types of artifacts associated with Greco-Roman culture: 1) Terra Sigillata pottery (usually ESA in the southern Levant), 2) mold-made lamps, 3) public inscriptions, 4) marble and faux marble, and 5) brass. a. ESA and Mold-Made Lamps ESA and mold-made lamps were commonplace in Late Hellenistic Galilee, and they continued to be popular at Gentile settlements throughout the Levant in the Early Roman Period. These pottery types, however, vanished abruptly from Jewish settlements in Galilee, the Golan, and Judea at the beginning of the Early Roman Period. Thus, it appears that the disuse of ESA and moldmade lamps was part of a cultural change that affected only Judea (broad sense).97 b. Brass Throughout most of the Hellenistic Period, brass – an alloy of copper and zinc – was exceptionally rare in the eastern Mediterranean.98 However, a standardized process for the production of brass was discovered near the end of the 94

Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve,” 112–113. Naveh, “Jar Fragment”; Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve,” 113–114. 96 Y. Meshorer, “Market Weight,” in Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 201. 97 Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63, 113; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19; Berlin, “Romanization,” 58–59; “Jewish Life,” 434–436; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 105, 115, 155; Leibner, Settlement and History, 126, 163. 98 Hes. Sc. 122; Pl. Criti. 114e, 116b, 116d, 119c. T.J.N. Smekalova, “The Earliest Application of Brass and ‘Pure’ Copper in the Hellenistic Coinages of Asia Minor and the Northern Black Sea Coast,” in Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom, ed. J.M. Højte, Black Sea Studies (Aarhus: Aarhus UP, 2009). 95

11.6 Hellenization and Romanization

133

second century BCE. At the beginning of the last century BCE, Mithridates VI began minting brass coinage in Asia Minor to finance his war against Rome.99 Once exposed to the new alloy, the Romans immediately adopted brass as the metal of choice for many pieces of military equipment.100 In 23 BCE, Augustus introduced a reformed currency that included brass denominations, and this new Roman monetary system quickly spread brass throughout the Mediterranean. Because the Romans brought brass with them to newly conquered territories, provincials often associated brass with Rome.101 By the early first century CE, brass items were common throughout the Gentile regions that bordered Galilee, but they were virtually absent in Galilee itself. Because brass was so closely associated with Rome, the lack of brass in Galilee indicates that the region’s inhabitants resisted Romanization.102 c. Inscriptions Inscriptions were another strong indicator of Roman influence in the provinces. Although most Mediterranean societies had some inscriptions before they were conquered by Rome, the establishment of Roman administration in the provinces almost always resulted in a dramatic proliferation of public and private inscriptions in the newly annexed territories.103 In Galilee, however, the trend was delayed. Although the Romans took over indirect rule of the region 99

P.T. Craddock, A.M. Burnett, and K. Preston, “Hellenistic Copper-Base Coinage and the Origins of Brass,” in Scientific Studies in Numismatics, ed. W.A. Oddy, British Museum Occasional Papers (London: British Museum, 1980); T.J.N. Smekalova, “Hellenistic Coinages.” 100 D. Dungworth, “Roman Copper Alloys: Analysis of Artefacts from Northern Britain,” Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997); Ponting, “Copper-Alloy Artifacts”; “Keeping Up”; J. Istenič and Ž. Šmit, “The Beginning of the Use of Brass in Europe with Particular Reference to the Southeastern Alpine Region,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, ed. S.L. Niece, D. Hook, and P.T. Craddock (London: Archetype Publications, 2007); J. Istenič, “An Early Roman Dagger from the Vicinity of Štanjel,” in Studies in Celtic Archaeology (Montagnac: M. Mergoil, 2009). 101 J. Bayley, “Production of Brass in Antiquity with Particular Reference to Roman Britain,” in 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, ed. P.T. Craddock, British Museum Occasional Papers (London: British Museum Publications, 1990); P.T. Craddock, “The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 3: The Origins and Early Use of Brass,” Journal of Archaeological Science 5, no. 1 (1978); Istenič and Šmit, “Use of Brass”; Ponting, “Copper-Alloy Artifacts”; “Keeping Up”; “Roman Contexts”; T. Rehren, “Small Size, Large Scale Roman Brass Production in Germania Inferior,” Journal of Archaeological Science 26 (1999). 102 Craddock, “Copper Alloys 3,” 8–9; Dungworth, “Roman Copper Alloys”; Dmitriev, City Government; Istenič, “Roman Dagger”; Istenič and Šmit, “Use of Brass”; Ponting, “Copper-Alloy Artifacts”; “Keeping Up.” 103 G. Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire,” JRS 86 (1996): 22–39; Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 141–142.

134

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

in 63 BCE and assumed direct rule in 44 CE, inscriptions remained rare in the region until the second century CE. Why then were Galileans so slow to adopt a Romanized “epigraphic habit?”104 Mark Chancey makes a persuasive case that the failure of first century Galileans to adopt Roman inscription practices reflects a deliberate resistance to this aspect of Roman culture.105 Chancey’s analysis reinforces the argument that many first century Galileans made conscious attempts to avoid cultural practices associated with Rome. d. Marble Both the Greeks and Romans used marble extensively to decorate buildings, monuments, and even pavements.106 However, because Italy lacked a known source of quality marble before the last century BCE and because large pieces of marble were too heavy and expensive to import, the Romans developed decorations that imitated marble: frescoes painted to look like marble (First, Second, and Third Pompeian styles)107 and opus sectile pavements (mosaics composed of thin, polished tiles of marble and similar stones).108 In the last century BCE, however, the Romans discovered a domestic source of quality marble at Luna. Augustus used the new quarries to remake Rome as “a city of marble” like those in Greece. Once renovated, the new marble Rome quickly became a model for other Mediterranean cities, and the use of marble increased dramatically throughout the Mediterranean during the first two centuries CE.109 In many outlying areas, however, marble was still difficult to obtain.110 Consequently, the elites in these regions adopted the old Italian practice of 104 The term “epigraphic habit” was made famous by Ramsay MacMullen and has been adopted by several scholars, including Chancey. It refers to a society’s customs regarding inscriptions, including the type, frequency, language, commissioning, and purpose of the inscriptions. R. MacMullen, “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire,” AJP 103 (1982); Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture, 141. 105 Chancey, Myth of Galilee, 77, 90; Greco-Roman Culture, 141–150; “Epigraphic Habit,” 94. 106 The Greeks were among the first people to make extensive use of marble for decoration, but the Romans had enthusiastically adopted this practice by the last century BCE. K.M.D. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999), 255. 107 Suetonius, Augustus 28. 108 Dunbabin, Mosaics, 254–255. 109 A. Rabban and K.G. Holum, Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 252–253. 110 Overland shipping of large marble pieces (such as column drums and other architectural components) was only possible on Roman roads, which had deeper foundations that could bear such heavy items. These roads did not reach Galilee until the second century CE. Reed, “Romanizing Galilee.”

11.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

135

decorating their homes and public buildings with faux marble. Herod the Great embraced this trend in Judea and frequently decorated his palaces with faux marble.111 The situation in Galilee, however, was quite different. Marble and faux marble (opus sectile floors and frescoes) were exceptionally rare in Galilee during the first century CE. Archaeologists have only discovered one opus sectile floor in the entire region – in the large residence that probably served as Antipas’ palace in Tiberias.112 Only one other marble fragment has been found in Galilee: a single piece of marble that is probably too thin to have been used in opus sectile flooring. Likewise, only a handful of frescoes have been found in Galilee’s larger settlements (Tiberias, Sepphoris, Magdala, Yodefat, and Gamala), and none have been found in the smaller villages. Jonathan Reed argues that the virtual absence of marble and faux marble in Galilee indicates “that under Herod Antipas Romanization was in its absolute infancy.”113 He also raises the possibility that the absence of faux marble could reflect deliberate Galilean resistance to Romanization; however, Reed also suggests that the lack of expensive decoration may simply indicate that few Galileans were wealthy enough to afford such luxuries.

11.7 Participation in the Great Revolt 11.7.1 Fortifications The strongest archaeological indications of Galilean participation in the Great Revolt are the fortifications that were built in the late first century CE. Many of the fortified sites from the Hellenistic Period had their walls repaired and reinforced. At the same time, new defensive walls or ramparts were erected at Yodefat, Gush Halav, and Gamala.114

111 R. Talgam and O. Peleg, “Mosaic Pavements in Herod’s Day,” in The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, ed. E. Netzer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 112 Hirschfeld and Galor, “New Excavations in Tiberias.” 113 Reed, “Romanizing Galilee.” 114 Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 137; Aviam, “Josephus Flavius’ Fortifications”; “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18; Leibner, Settlement and History, 108, 116, 127, 164, 236, 242, 255–256, 316–317, 340–341. Although there is evidence of fortifications at Yodefat from the Hellenistic period, the walls did not encompass the first century settlement and, therefore, could not have provided sufficient defense for Yodefat’s inhabitants during the revolt. AdanBayewitz and Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus,” 163.

136

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

a. The Defenses at Gamala and Yodefat At Gamala and Yodefat, the defensive walls were poorly and hastily constructed just before the cities were destroyed. For the most part, the defensive walls were made by connecting and reinforcing the outer walls of existing buildings along each city’s perimeter.115 Unlike Gamala and Yodefat, Gush Halav was protected with a rampart rather than a solid wall. This is probably because the lack of available building materials and the site’s cracked bedrock made it far more practical to build a rampart.116 Archaeologists discovered geodes along the entire rampart, and Moshe Hartal argues that they were collected for use as projectile weapons in the event that the village was besieged.117 Overall, the fortification of Gamala, Yodefat, and Gush Halav suggests that some Galileans in the late first century CE were preparing to defend against an imminent military threat. The fact that the fortifications were built hastily, often using existing structures, suggests that the inhabitants had insufficient time to construct more conventional defensive walls. Surprisingly, no archaeological evidence of Early Roman fortifications has been found at the three largest Galilean settlements: Tiberias, Magdala, or Sepphoris. The lack of fortifications might indicate that these cities did not participate in the armed conflict for which Gamala, Yodefat, and Gush Halav were preparing. Alternatively, since many of the smaller settlements throughout Galilee contained pre-existing fortifications, perhaps it was simply not cost effective for the rebels to fortify the region’s largest cities. b. The Filled Garrison at Sepphoris One other fortification deserves mention: the garrison building at Sepphoris, which was erected ca. 100 BCE. Its thick walls and the ballista stones and arrowheads found within the structure both suggest that the building was initially a military installation; however, the presence of weaving equipment from the first century CE implies that the structure was later put to industrial use.118

115 Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 136–137; Aviam, “Battle of Yodefat,” 110–115, 121; “Josephus’ Battles,” 373–374. Aviam, who directed the excavation at Yodefat, concluded that the final fortifications that enclosed the settlement were constructed just before the site’s destruction in 67 CE. He was able to date the site so precisely because the excavators discovered a pottery kiln that was covered by a defensive wall. A smaller kiln was built nearby, apparently as a replacement, but the potter never had the opportunity to use it. 116 Hartal, “Gush Halav.” The only other rampart from first century Galilee is the one surrounding Yodefat. 117 M. Hartal, “Gush Halav: Preliminary Report (11/10/2010),” HA-ESI 122 (2010). 118 Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve,” 114, 119.

11.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

137

Sometime between 53 and 70 CE, the building was dismantled, its basements were filled, and its grounds were leveled to create an open space.119 There are many possible explanations for why the building was taken down. Since Sepphoris minted coins in 68 CE declaring itself the “City of Peace” and honoring Nero, it is plausible that the Sepphoreans dismantled the garrison during the revolt as a gesture of loyalty to Rome. However, the archaeological evidence cannot rule out other explanations. It may be that the Romans leveled the fortification after the revolt to eliminate one of Galilee’s few military installations. It is also possible that the building was dismantled for reasons unrelated to the revolt.120 c. Fortified Caves and Underground Hideouts Archaeological surveys have identified several fortified caves and more than twenty man-made, subterranean complexes that were occupied in the first century CE. Many of the caves had pre-existing fortifications that were repaired and enhanced in the first century. These caves were used sporadically throughout antiquity, but they contain both Early Roman pottery and fortifications that were prepared in the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman Period.121 The caves’ remote locations and the martial character of their material remains suggest that they served as military refuges or as hideouts for rebels, bandits, or both. Although the caves were probably used by multiple groups for various reasons, the extensive evidence that they were occupied in the Early Roman Period suggests that they were probably used as refuges during the Great Revolt.122 The subterranean complexes, however, were all constructed in the first century CE, probably in preparation for the revolt. Each underground complex consists of a series of chambers connected by narrow tunnels and accessed through small entrances that were camouflaged and could be closed from the inside. These warrens were supplied with fresh air through ventilation shafts, and they often had storage spaces for water and other provisions. Aviam makes a persuasive case that the underground hideouts would not have

119 Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve,” 110. The dating is based on the predominance of “Herodian” pottery and the presence of a coin minted by Agrippa II in 53 CE. 120 “Sepphoris: City of Peace,” 117–118. Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve,” 118, 121. It is also possible that the building was disassembled so that its building materials could be used elsewhere, because the Sepphoreans wanted to build something else at its site, or because the city’s inhabitants wanted to create an open space. 121 M. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 98–101; Leibner, Settlement and History, 145–146, 211, 213–214, 239–242, 255–256. The Arbel caves also contained plastered pools that were probably miqvaot. 122 Leibner, Settlement and History, 145–146, 214, 239–242, 255–256.

138

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

made effective military bases. He therefore concludes that they were probably designed as refuges for non-combatants.123 11.7.2 Evidence of Sieges and Destruction Excavators have identified both the Roman assault ramps and the breaches in the defensive walls at Yodefat and Gamala.124 Both sites contain large numbers of arrowheads and ballista stones along their defensive walls.125 The projectiles are usually clustered at specific sections of the walls, probably because the attacking army concentrated its fire at these points. At Gamala, the assailants probably had intelligence about which parts of the wall were vulnerable since the major breach at Gamala occurred at one of the weakest points in the wall. Syon offers two plausible explanations for the Romans’ knowledge of this vulnerable point: 1) the room adjacent to the breach lacked a roof, and the Roman attackers were able to use the surrounding cliffs to scout; 2) the Romans had an informant with inside information about the city’s defenses.126 Although there is no evidence that Magdala was besieged, Stefano De Luca’s recent excavations at the site have uncovered significant damage to the city from the time of the Great Revolt. It is not clear whether the city was assaulted by the Romans, attacked by the Jewish rebels, or damaged by internecine fighting among the rebels. However, the archaeological evidence suggests that a large, violent conflict occurred there.127 11.7.3 Numismatic Evidence for Galilean Sentiment About the Revolt Because government-minted currency was the basic medium of exchange in the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, circulated coinage provided governments with a powerful medium for disseminating propaganda. Since the designs and epigraphs on ancient coins were almost always meant to convey political messages, the coins minted in Galilee during the revolt can shed light on the political situation in Galilee at this time. Two Galilean cities minted coins during the revolt: Gamala and Sepphoris. 123

Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, 123, 131–132. “Battle of Yodefat,” 115–117; Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus,” 162; Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 136–137. 125 Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam, “Iotapata, Josephus,” 162; Aviam, “Yodefat/Jotapata,” 128–129; “Battle of Yodefat,” 117; Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 140–144. Archaeologists have discovered 70 arrowheads and 35 ballista stones at Yodefat, and ca. 2,000 ballista stones and 1,600 arrowheads were found at Gamala. In fact, more ballista stones and arrowheads have been found at Gamala than at any other site in the Roman Empire. 126 The wall at the breach was only two meters thick, but it was about four meters thick on either side of the house at which the wall was breached. Syon, “Gamla: Refuge,” 140–141. 127 Zangenberg, “Archaeological News from the Galilee,” 576. 124

11.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

139

The bronze coins minted in Gamala during the revolt are the only rebel coins from the Great Revolt not minted in Jerusalem.128 The coins’ obverse, which depicts a chalice, clearly imitates a series of silver shekels minted in Jerusalem by rebel authorities during the first year of the revolt.129 Although the inscription on the reverse is uncertain, most scholars agree that it mentions “Jerusalem.”130 Therefore, the Gamala coins were probably meant to express the city’s solidarity with the rebels in Jerusalem.131 Conversely, the two bronze denominations struck by the city of Sepphoris in 68 CE were clearly meant to advertise the city’s loyalty to Rome against the rebels. The reverses of both coins contain the inscription “Under Vespasian, Eirenopolis Neronias Sepphoris.”132 These coins mention both the Roman Emperor (Nero) and the commander sent to put down the revolt (Vespasian). Moreover, these coins indicate that the city had adopted two new names, Eirenopolis (“City of Peace”) and Neronia (“in honor of Nero”); the former signified the city’s non-participation in the revolt, and the latter its loyalty to the emperor. One of the coins also featured the abbreviation “SC” (senatus consulto), which frequently appeared on Roman coinage during this period. In sum, the numismatic evidence demonstrates that Galileans held conflicting views about the revolt. The coins also demonstrate that the Galileans saw the revolt as a conflict between Jerusalem (supported by Gamala) and Rome (supported by Sepphoris) since their political messages address the revolt only through expressions of loyalty to one of these cities.

128 Y. Farhi, “The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered,” Israel Numismatic Journal 15 (2006): 69; Y. Arbel, “The Gamla Coin: A New Perspective on the Circumstances and Date of Their Minting,” in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, ed. D.R. Miano and S. Malena (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 257. 129 Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris”; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 54. 130 Meshorer, Treasury, 131; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 56; S. Pfann, “Dated Bronze Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeology Society 24 (2006); Farhi, “Coins at Gamla,” 74–75; Arbel, “Gamla Coin.” 131 D. Syon, “The Coins from Gamala: Interim Report,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992): 34; Farhi, “Coins at Gamla”; Arbel, “Gamla Coin.” It is also noteworthy that Gamala contained no coins of Agrippa II despite being part of his territory at the time of the revolt. Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 112. 132 Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris.” The obverse inscriptions date the coins to the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign.

140

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

11.7.4 Human Remains at Yodefat The human remains found in the cisterns, the frescoed home, and the mass grave at Yodefat reinforce the argument that the city was taken by siege. The cut marks and burns on these bones indicate that many of these individuals died violently.133 Furthermore, the use of a mass grave within one of Yodefat’s residential areas implies: 1) that they all died around the same time, 2) that the town’s inhabitants were unwilling, unaccustomed, or unable to bury their dead individually, and 3) that the community was not able to bury the dead elsewhere.134 The simplest explanation for all of this information is that the bones are the remains of some of those who died during the siege. The presence of women and children among the dead indicates that at least some of the noncombatants were not spared by the conquerors. Since the town was abandoned after it was sacked, the skeletons at Yodefat may indicate that the entire population was slaughtered after the city was taken. 11.7.5 Depopulation After the Revolt Although a few sites in Galilee were abandoned after the revolt, Leibner’s survey of Galilean sites suggests that the Roman defeat of the Jews did not result in significant depopulation in Galilee. Instead, most Galilean settlements survived relatively unscathed,135 which implies that their communities offered little resistance once the Roman army appeared.

11.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations 11.8.1 Interregional Trade The archaeological evidence reflects a decrease in trade between Galilee and neighboring Gentile territories in the first century CE. The pottery remains show that Galileans stopped importing ESA and mold-made lamps from neighboring regions and mainly used pottery, lamps, and stone vessels that 133

Aviam, “Yodefat/Jotapata,” 118–119. No other settlement in Galilee contains graves from the first century, so it was probably local custom to bury the dead away from inhabited areas. Aviam suggests that the bones were not buried for at least a year. “Battle of Yodefat,” 118–119. 135 Gamala and five Galilean sites (Yodefat, Tel Basul, Kul‘at esh-Shuneh, the Wadi ‘Amud, and a small farmstead at Kaḥal) were abandoned in the late first century, probably because of the revolt. Leibner, Settlement and History, 341–342. Contra Arbel, “Intense Religious Movements,” 365. Arbel argues that the revolt caused significant depopulation throughout Judea (broad sense). His evidence for depopulation in Galilee, however, is anecdotal (Yodefat was abandoned) and not very compelling. 134

11.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations

141

were produced in either Galilee or Judea. Likewise, the relative importance of coins from Phoenicia and the Decapolis waned during the Early Roman Period, when Hasmonean and Herodian coins dominated Galilee’s circulated currency.136 Despite Galilee’s reduced imports, the region seems to have increased its exports during the Early Roman Period. This is reflected in the distribution of Galilean-made KHW, which constituted a significant minority of pottery finds at many surrounding Gentile sites.137 The KHW at these sites probably either belonged to local Jewish minorities or to Gentiles who preferred it because of its superior quality.138 Either way, the wide distribution of KHW suggests that the Galilean trade networks gave the region’s artisans access to foreign markets. Tellingly, the only neighboring region that did not import KHW was Samaria. In fact, there is virtually no evidence of trade between Galilee and Samaria, which implies that Galileans had even less to do with Samaritans than they did with other Gentiles.139 11.8.2 Ethnic Tensions The main archaeological evidence for ethnic tensions in Galilee is at the Late Hellenistic fortress of Qeren Naphtali, which was abandoned by Jews and taken over by Gentiles at the end of the last century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE. Once the Gentiles occupied the fortress, they used its miqveh as a dump, and filled the miqveh with ESA, mold-made lamps, and nonkosher animal bones. This act, which appears to have been an attempt to desecrate the miqveh, probably reflects the anti-Jewish sentiments of the new occupants.140 It is likely that the neighboring Jews reciprocated the animosity displayed by the Gentiles at Qeren Naphtali. While it is not clear whether the fortress 136

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63, 113; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19; Berlin, “Romanization,” 58–59; “Jewish Life,” 434–436; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 14, 18, 105, 112–115, 153, 155225, 237, 251; Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, “Determining Pottery Provenance,” 17. 137 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 220. 138 Most archaeologists prefer the latter explanation since the clay at Kefar Hananya produced pottery that was more durable and easier to fire than pottery from most other sites. Moreover, the composition of the soil eliminated the need for potters to add temper to their cooking ware. Adan-Bayewitz and Wieder, “Ceramics from Galilee,” 193, 198, 201; AdanBayewitz, “Chronology of Pottery,” 9–10. 139 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 213–220; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Pottery.” 140 Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 15; M. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee (New York: University of Rochester Press, 2004); Aviam, “Distribution Maps,” 137.

142

Chapter 11: Interpretation of the Archaeological Evidence

changed hands because of a political reorganization or a military conquest, it is unlikely that the fortress’s Jewish defenders would have abandoned it voluntarily. Whatever the circumstances, the annexation of Qeren Naphtali would have benefitted the fortress’s new inhabitants (probably Syrians) at the expense of Jewish Galileans, and such an event must have generated resentment among the local Jewish population. 11.8.3 Galilean Insularity Overall, there is strong evidence that the Galileans became more insular in the first century CE. There is also some evidence for hostility between Galilean Jews and nearby Gentiles. I suspect that these two phenomena were linked somehow; however, it is not clear whether the ethnic tensions caused or resulted from the Galileans’ insularity. Most likely, each trend reinforced the other and created a self-sustaining cycle that would have continued to damage Jewish-Gentile relations.

11.9 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea Since most of first century Galilee’s inhabitants were the descendants of immigrants from Judea in the last century BCE,141 we should expect that the two regions remained connected throughout the Early Roman Period. Indeed, there is considerable archaeological evidence of strong cultural ties between Galilee and Judea at this time.142 11.9.1 Parallel Cultural Trends in Galilee and Judea The strongest indications of a cultural link between Galilee and Judea are the changes that took place simultaneously in both regions in the Early Roman Period. At the turn of the millennium, ESA and mold-made lamps suddenly disappeared from sites in both Galilee and rural Judea. At the same time, the inhabitants of both regions began widespread use of Herodian lamps, limestone vessels, and plain, locally made pottery.143 The fact that of these chang141

See my discussion of Galilean ethnicity earlier in this chapter. Reed, “Village Communities,” 104; Leibner, “Origins of Jewish Galilee”; Settlement and History, 236, 289, 295, 336. 142 Berlin, “Jewish Life”; Arbel, “Intense Religious Movements,” 403–411; Ponting, “Keeping Up.” 143 Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Distribution of Lamps”; "Pottery Manufacture,” 201–202, 219– 220, 228, 234–237; Adan-Bayewitz, “Chronology of Pottery,” 7, 10; Gibson, “Stone Vessels”; Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center”; Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 429–431, 434–436. Each region produced its own pottery types; however, all of the new types were characterized by

11.9 Relationship Between Galilee and Judea

143

es occurred contemporaneously in both Galilee and Judea suggests that the regions were culturally interdependent. Since Judea was wealthier and more populous than Galilee and since Judea contained Judaism’s central religious institutions and leaders, it is more likely that these new elements of Judean (broad sense) culture developed in Judea than in Galilee. 11.9.2 Trade Between Galilee and Judea The archaeological evidence for trade also attests to the strong connection between Galilee and Judea in the first century. Although there is little evidence of Galilean goods in Judea, plenty of artifacts from Judea have been discovered at Early Roman sites in Galilee. The fact that coins minted in Jerusalem constituted the majority of new coins entering the Galilean economy during this period implies that most of Galilee’s interregional trade was with Judea.144 Similarly, the abundance of Jerusalem-made knife-pared lamps provides further evidence for such commercial activity.145

their plainness. Some sites in the Golan did import a significant minority of pottery from Galilee. 144 Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 14. 145 Adan-Bayewitz et al., “Distribution of Lamps”; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19. Many of the knife-pared lamps found in these regions were also made locally.

Part Four

Historical Interpretation

Chapter 12

Synthesis and Conclusions This chapter offers a synthesis of the evidence presented in the previous chapters. The chapter investigates each of the nine issues that were raised in chapter 1 and offers a reconstruction of first century Galilee based on the most widely attested features of Galilean society.

12.1 Ethnicity All of the evidence for Galilee’s ethnic makeup indicates that the region’s inhabitants were predominantly Jewish in the first century CE. Authors from this period consistently referred to first century Galileans as Jews (Ioudaioi).1 Both the archaeological record and Josephus’ works imply that Galilee’s population was either Gentile or mixed in the Early Hellenistic Periods and that this population was displaced from the region once it came under Hasmonean control in the late second century BCE. Moreover, Josephus, each of the Gospels, and the archaeological data all attest to Galilean observance of Jewish customs in the Early Roman Period. In short, there is little reason to doubt that first century Galilee’s population was predominantly Jewish. 12.1.1 Who Was and Was Not Jewish in Antiquity? While it is clear that first century Galileans were Jewish, there is considerable debate among scholars over what precisely the term Ioudaios meant in the Early Roman Period. It would be anachronistic to assume that Ioudaios simply referred to a person’s religious identity. The modern concept of religion did 1 S.J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Hellenistic Culture and Society (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999); M.A. Chancey, “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and First-Century CE Galilee: The Limits of Evidence,” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. D.D. Margaret et al., Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2009); M. Cromhout, “Were the Galileans ‘Religious Jews’ or ‘Ethnic Judeans?’” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64, no. 3 (2008); S. Freyne, “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi,” in Meyers, Galilee Through the Centuries; Goodblatt, “Israelites in Judah”; S. Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007); Miller, “Meaning of Ioudaios.”

12.1 Ethnicity

147

not exist in the first century Mediterranean, and there is no evidence of a distinction between Jewish religion and ethnicity in the first century.2 The Greeks and Romans typically grouped people into groups called ethnē (Singular: ethnos), which were distinguished by their “ancestral customs.” The customs of an ethnos often included values, laws, a national cult, foundation stories, cultural norms, and even political traditions. In Hellenistic and Roman societies, it is clear that the Ioudaioi constituted a distinct ethnos. However, although Ioudaios was an ethnic term, Jewish ethnicity was more a matter of culture than ancestry. A convert to Judaism, for example, became a Ioudaios despite his or her Gentile birth. However, the conversion marked a change in the person’s ethnic identity, not just his or her religious practices. By adopting the Jews’ ancestral customs, the convert abandoned his or her ancestral ethnos and became a member of the Jewish ethnos.3 Thus, Jewish religious and ethnic identities could not be separated in the Early Roman Period. The fact that Galileans were considered Ioudaioi tells us that they were part of the Jewish ethnos in the first century.4 However, it does not tell us if the Galileans were the descendants of Judean immigrants or if the Galilean population had been forcibly converted to Judaism like the Idumeans and the Itureans.5 12.1.2 Horsley’s Northern Israelite Theory The most influential argument that the Galileans were not of Jewish descent is Richard Horsley’s claim that Galilee’s population descended from the northern Israelite tribes.6 Horsley rejects the scholarly consensus that most of the inhabitants of the (northern) Kingdom of Israel were deported during the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century BCE. He believes that the northern Israelites occupied Galilee continuously until the Hasmoneans conquered them in the second century BCE. Although neither Josephus nor 1 and 2 Maccabees specifically mention the Hasmonean conquest of Galilee, Horsley assumes 2

Mason, “Jews, Judaeans.” Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 109–174; Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 488–492. 4 Cromhout, “Religious Jews?” 5 R.A. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 34–60; W. Grundmann, Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum (Leipzig: Georg Wigand, 1940), 169–170. Sean Freyne, on the other hand, argued that there is no evidence for such a conquest or forced conversion. Freyne, “Behind the Names,” 52–53. 6 Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society, 19–34, 42–44. Horsley claims that the Galileans’ common Israelite heritage would have made them more amenable to adopting Judaism. There was also a theory that gained currency in the mid-twentieth century that the Galileans were the descendants of Ituraeans, but this theory has been thoroughly discredited. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), 1.142, 216–218, 561–573. See also my discussion of Galilean ethnicity in Chapter 11. 3

148

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

that these “northern Israelites” were among the “Itureans” whom the Hasmoneans conquered and forced to adopt Jewish customs. Horsley also rejects the idea that “Ioudaios” was an ethnic or religious term in the Early Roman Period. Instead, he maintains that it was a geopolitical term, referring to the inhabitants of “the Judean Temple-State” rather than a particular ethnic group.7 Consequently, Horsley does not believe that the Galileans’ status as Ioudaioi reveals anything about their ethnicity. Although Horsley believes that the Galileans adopted Jewish customs, he contends that they remained a separate ethnos with a unique cultural identity. a. Problems with Horsley’s Theory There are four major problems with Horsley’s theory. First, Horsley’s claim about a distinct Galilean ethnicity is largely based on two passages in which Josephus referred to Galilee as an ethnos. Horsley argues that, since Galilee constituted its own ethnos, Galileans must not have been part of the Jewish/Judean ethnos. This argument, however, ignores the way “ethnos” was used in koine Greek. Although the term usually described to a group of people with a common ancestry and set of customs, it could also refer to groups of all kinds: trade guilds, animal populations, warrior bands, or even a geographic region – regardless of its ethnic makeup.8 Neither of the passages cited by Horsley indicates that the Galileans were not part of the Jewish ethnos. Second, Horsley’s argument that Ioudaios referred to the inhabitants of Judea (broad sense) cannot be reconciled with the term’s actual usage in the Early Roman Period. Jewish, Greek, and Roman authors frequently called diaspora Jews Ioudaioi even though most diaspora Jews had never lived within the borders of “the Judean Temple-State.”9 Even converts, who were not of Judean descent and may never have been to Judea, were considered Ioudaioi in this period.10 Instead, Ioudaios was almost always used in reference to a member of the Jewish ethnos, whether that membership was achieved by birth or by conversion. Third, the archaeological evidence does not support Horsley’s claims that northern Israelites maintained a distinct and continuous cultural tradition in Galilee in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. As I noted in chapters 10 and 11, the archaeological record clearly demonstrates that Galilee experienced substantial depopulation following the Assyrian conquest. It also indicates 7

Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society, 39, 50–51. Cromhout, “Religious Jews?” 16; D.C. Duling, “Ethnicity, Ethnocentrism, and the Matthean Ethnos,” BTB 35, no. 4 (2005): 129; Saldarini, Matthew’s Community, 59–60; L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude Towards the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence,” in Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 117–118. 9 Horsley, Galilee, 64–51. 10 Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 134–137; Mason, “Jews, Judaeans,” 170–183. 8

12.1 Ethnicity

149

that Galilee’s population was predominantly pagan in the Persian and Seleucid Periods, that a new ethnic group displaced the pagan population in the late second or early last century BCE, and that this new ethnic group occupied the region throughout the Early Roman Period.11 In short, the archaeological data suggest that the predominant ethnic group in Early Roman Galilee had immigrated to the region near the end of the Hellenistic Period. Thus, they could not have been the descendants of Iron Age Israelites. Finally, there is no evidence that Galileans actually maintained distinct cultural practices in the Hasmonean or Early Roman Periods. Although the Hasmoneans conquered them, both the Samaritans and Idumeans maintained their separate ethnic identities in the Early Roman Period I. The Samaritans managed to preserve their own religious system and refused to assimilate to Judaism. Moreover, although most Idumeans were forcibly assimilated to Jewish customs, they maintained a unique identity, and some continued to practice their ancestral religion and traditions in the first century CE. If the Galileans were indeed forcibly assimilated to Judaism by the Hasmoneans, the Jewish authorities would have faced significant local opposition as they did in Samaria and Idumea. Because neither the historical record nor the archaeological remains reflect such opposition in Galilee, it is unlikely that the region’s inhabitants were forcibly converted.12 12.1.3 Galileans as Judean Settlers So where did Galilee’s first century population originate? The evidence strongly suggests that the Galileans descended from Judean colonists who settled in Galilee as Hasmonean control spread north. These colonists displaced Galilee’s earlier population in the late second and early first centuries BCE and doubled the region’s population over the next hundred years. This Judean immigrant theory is consistent with all of the literary and archaeological evidence that the population was Jewish, that Jewish religious customs were generally stricter in Galilee than in most diaspora communities, and that new, distinctive cultural practices emerged in Judea and Galilee simultaneously.13 First century BCE Judeans would have had compelling reasons to emigrate to Galilee, which contained more fertile land than Judea was sparsely populated. Given the population pressures Judea probably experienced in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, one would expect the Judean population to expand into the Galilean frontier after conquering the region. It is not surprising that the historical sources say little about the Judean immigrants to Galilee 11

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 106–110; Gal, Lower Galilee, 108–109; Reed, Galilean Jesus, 30–39; Leibner, Settlement and History, 126, 315. 12 Cromhout, “Religious Jews?” 13 Berlin, “Romanization”; “Jewish Life.”

150

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

since most of them would have come from the lower echelons of Judean society. However, the literary sources frequently mention the Judean ancestry of at least one Galilean: Jesus of Nazareth. The Synoptic Gospels consistently claim that Jesus (or at least Joseph) was a descendant of David.14 The Gospel of Matthew actually claims that Jesus’ family lived in Judea when he was born (Matthew 2:1), and the Gospel of Luke states that Joseph’s “own city” was Bethlehem in Judea (Luke 2:3) and that Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, was a descendant of Aaron who lived in Judea (Luke 1:5, 39).

12.2 Urbanization 12.2.1 The Context: Mediterranean Urbanization Archaeologists have long recognized the prominent role that urbanization played in the classical world. Because Greco-Roman culture was fundamentally urban in character, Hellenistic and Roman leaders considered urban life to be morally and culturally superior to its rustic alternatives. Consequently, the Greeks and Romans both attempted to assimilate conquered peoples by deliberately urbanizing their territories. Most of the urbanization promoted by Rome occurred in western Europe, which contained few cities before the Romans arrived. The situation, however, was very different in the eastern Mediterranean, where Hellenistic monarchs had been engaging in extensive urbanization efforts for centuries. In fact, Egypt, Syria, and parts of Asia Minor were already more urbanized than Italy by the second century BCE.15 In these parts of the empire, the Romans often had to do little more than perpetuate the existing urbanization processes. Unlike most of its neighboring regions, Galilee had not experienced significant urbanization under the Ptolemies and Seleucids. It was only sparsely inhabited in the second century BCE, but its population grew rapidly throughout the last century BCE. This sort of rapid demographic expansion was often accompanied by urbanization in antiquity.

14 Matthew 1:1–17, 20; 12:3, 23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47–48; 11:10; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:23–31; 18:39. 15 B.W. Frier, “Demography,” in A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone, The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 11: The High Empire: A.D. 70–192 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000), 812.

12.2 Urbanization

151

12.2.2 Urbanization Most of the literary sources suggest that Galilee contained urban settlements in the first century CE. The Gospel of Mark classifies Capernaum as a city (polis), and both Matthew and Luke apply that term to Nazareth as well. Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels’ summaries of Jesus’ activities in Galilee imply that there were other, unnamed urban centers in the region.16 The clearest evidence that Galilee was substantially urbanized, however, comes from Josephus, who claimed that the region had 204 cities, each with populations above 15,000 (Vita 235). Unfortunately, these population estimates are simply not credible. Josephus numbers imply that Galilee had more than 3,000,000 inhabitants and a population density of over 2,000 persons/km2.17 However, archaeological surveys and census data from other parts of the ancient Mediterranean suggest that such a high population density was not achievable in the first century Mediterranean. Egypt, for example, was easily the most densely populated part of the Roman Empire, and its average population density in the first century CE was somewhere between 150 and 300 p/km2. Syria-Palestine as a whole had an estimated population density of about 40 p/km2.18 In other words, Josephus’ estimate of Galilee’s population is at least ten times more than what the region could have realistically supported in the Early Roman Period. Thus, neither Josephus nor the Gospels provide specific, reliable information about Galilee’s urban character. Therefore, any estimate of Galilean urbanization in the first century must be based primarily on the archaeological evidence, which indicates that Galilee experienced a modest amount of urbanization in the first century CE. The region’s largest settlements, Sepphoris and Tiberias, were true cities, with populations between 8,000 and 12,000.19 Collectively, Magdala and its suburbs probably functioned much like a third urban center in Galilee.20 However, these settlements would still have been dwarfed by dozens of cities in nearby Syria, Judea, and the Decapolis. 12.2.3 Rural Growth Most of Galilee’s population growth occurred in the countryside, where new rural settlements allowed Galilean farmers to cultivate land that had been un16

See the relevant discussions in Chapters 4, 6, and 7. Ben-David, “204 Settlements?” 18 Scheidel, Death on the Nile, 115; B.W. Frier, “Demography”; A.P. Monson, Agrarian Institutions in Transition: Privatization from Ptolemaic to Roman Egypt (PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, 2008); Goldsmith, “National Product”; Frier, “Demography,” 812. Syria actually had one of the highest population densities in the Roman world. 19 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 79–82. 20 De Luca, “Urban Development.” 17

152

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

used in the Hellenistic Period. Rural settlements covered twice as much land in the early first century CE than they had a century earlier.21 12.2.4 Urban-Rural Relations The strongest evidence for tensions between Galilee’s urban and rural population is found in Josephus’ Vita, which portrays rural Galileans as hating Sepphoris and Tiberias. However, the Vita characterizes the Galileans’ anti-urban hostility as a consequence of the two cities’ lack of support for the revolt.22 Thus, while Josephus’ account suggests that significant urban-rural tensions existed during the war, they provide no evidence that such conflicts existed beforehand. The only possible indication of urban-rural hostility in pre-revolt Galilee is a passage in Q that portrays judicial officials as fundamentally corrupt (Luke 12:57–59/Matthew 5:25–26). Since judges and prison guards would have been city officials in antiquity, Reed argues that the passage reflects a significant anti-urban sentiment in pre-revolt Galilee.23 However, the evidence is too poorly attested and circumstantial to warrant such a conclusion. A certain amount of urban-rural tension is bound to have existed in every agrarian society because urbanites and villagers lived very different lifestyles and often had divergent economic interests. However, there is no reason to believe that these tensions were especially bad in pre-revolt Galilee.

12.3 The Economy 12.3.1 How Much Can We Know About Ancient Economies? The nature of the sources available to ancient historians often severely limits our ability to draw specific conclusions about a society’s economic conditions in antiquity. The ancients had virtually no concept of economic theory or economic policy, and ancient authors usually ignored financial and commercial matters.24 Consequently, the literary sources rarely provide much information about ancient economies. Furthermore, while the archaeological remains may sometimes indicate that a residence’s inhabitants were particularly wealthy, it 21

Leibner, Settlement and History, 333–335. Vita 30–31, 39, 97–100, 373–389. 23 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 98–99. 24 M.I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973): 21; Scheidel and von Reden, The Ancient Economy, 244–245; P.A. Harland, “The Economy of First Century Palestine: The State of Scholarly Discussion,” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, ed. A.J. Blasi, P.A. Turcotte, and J. Duhaime (Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press, 2002), 523. 22

12.3 The Economy

153

is difficult to determine the average person’s standard of living based solely on material remains.25 Because ancient historians must base their reconstructions on very limited information, there is a very real possibility that unrepresentative data could dramatically skew our perception of a society’s socio-economic conditions. Consequently, scholars must be cautious not to go beyond the limits of the available information, and we must be willing to accept that the data usually permit us to draw only modest, generalized conclusions. Fortunately, it is often possible to augment our knowledge of a specific society’s economy with information from better-documented societies in comparable circumstances. For example, there are a number of general characteristics shared by virtually all pre-industrial economies. We can also learn something about Galilee’s economy by examining how the larger trends in the Mediterranean economy might have affected the region.26 12.3.2 Ancient Economies as Underdeveloped The general consensus among economic historians is that ancient economies were fundamentally underdeveloped. Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller characterize the basic conditions of underdeveloped economies as follows: This means essentially that the mass of the population lived at or near subsistence level. In a typical underdeveloped, pre-industrial economy, a large proportion of the labour force is employed in agriculture, which is the main avenue for investment and source of wealth. The level of investment in manufacturing industries is low. Resources that might in theory be devoted to growth-inducing investment are diverted into consumption or into unproductive speculation and usury…. Finally, there is no class of entrepreneurs who are both capable of perceiving opportunities for profit in large-scale organization of manufacture and prepared to undergo the risks entailed in making the necessary investment.27

In addition, ancient agricultural techniques were generally too primitive for most regions to produce enough food for large-scale export. Thus, commerce played an extremely small role in rural economies.28 25

Scheidel, “Physical Well-Being”; L.L. Klepinger, “Nutritional Assessment from Bone,” Annual Review of Anthropology 13 (1984); P. Garnsey, “Mass Diet and Nutrition in the City of Rome,” in Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History, ed. W. Scheidel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 1998). 26 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 41–56; J. Bintliff, “Regional Survey, Demography, and the Rise of Complex Societies in the Ancient Aegean: Core-Periphery, Neo-Malthusian, and Other Interpretive Models,” JFA 24, no. 1 (1997); Frier, “Demography”; C. Holleran and A. Pudsey, eds., Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011); Parkin, Demography; Scheidel, “Demographic and Economic Development”; “Population and Demography.” 27 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 43. 28 A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1971), 83; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 44.

154

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

In addition to these problems, virtually all ancient economies shared certain features that made economic growth almost impossible: backward technology, costly and risky modes of transport, chronic political instability, institutional corruption among the elites, the state’s inability to prevent piracy and banditry, inefficient banking and legal systems, and a dominant aristocratic value system that disparaged innovation and commercial activity.29 Therefore, sustained economic growth was a very rare phenomenon in pre-modern economies. 12.3.3 The Pax Romana Despite its relative economic isolation, Galilee must still have been affected by general trends in the Roman Empire’s economy. Therefore, any investigation of Galilee’s economic circumstances must be grounded by what we know about the Mediterranean economy in the first century. Although long-term economic growth was rare in antiquity, it was possible in particularly favorable conditions. Most economic historians agree that the peace and stability of the Pax Romana fostered a few generations of sustained economic growth (albeit meager by modern standards) in the first and early second centuries.30 Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the economic gains of the Pax Romana were accompanied by both population growth and a general increase in the standard of living.31 This is an unusual combination

29 Jones, Roman Economy, 30, 83; K. Greene, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 14; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 44– 45. 30 Jongman, “Early Roman Empire,” 596; K. Hopkins, “Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity,” in Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology, ed. P. Abrams and E.A. Wrigley (New York: Cambridge UP, 1978); Greene, Archaeology of Roman Economy. Eventually, however, disease and other consequences of population growth, combined with an increasingly oppressive tax system, destroyed the economic gains enjoyed during the early Principate. C.D.J. DeLorme, S. Isom, and D.R. Kamerschen, “Rent Seeking and Taxation in the Ancient Roman Empire,” Applied Economics 37 (2005); Scheidel, “Demography,” 48–49; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 51. 31 Jongman, “Early Roman Empire,” 616. According to Jongman, “The late Republic and early Empire were a period of increasing population, but as we have seen, there are strong indications that the standard of living of the mass of the population was nevertheless improving at the same time. The only one explanation for this is that per capita incomes were increasing (since it is unlikely that the average standard of living improved because the rich became poorer). Moreover, this implies that the mass of the population succeeded in securing its share of that increased prosperity.” Cf. E.L. Cascio, “The Early Roman Empire: The State and the Economy,” in Scheidel, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World.

12.3 The Economy

155

since higher population densities usually led to lower living standards in preindustrial economies. 32 In summary, the economic conditions in the first century Mediterranean appear to have been extraordinarily favorable. The Pax Romana was one of the few periods in history in which a large, interregional economy enjoyed economic growth, population growth, and a rising standard of living. Thus, the Roman economy can only be considered prosperous in comparison to other ancient economies. Nevertheless, it was still fundamentally an underdeveloped economy in which the vast majority of people lived at subsistence level.33 The brutal reality is that most people in antiquity faced crushing economic hardships – even in the most favorable economic conditions. 12.3.4 The Economic Consequences of Urbanization a. The Negative Consequences of Urbanization The archaeological evidence indicates that Galilee’s population grew rapidly during the last century BCE and the first century CE. Rural settlements multiplied, and the region’s first two urban centers were founded in this period. In a recent article on Galilean demographics, Jonathan Reed argued that population growth would have depressed Galilean standards of living in two ways: 1) by spreading debilitating and deadly diseases and 2) by making the region’s finite resources scarcer.34 Reed’s arguments are strong, and it is true that population growth often resulted in higher rates of disease and lower per capita incomes in antiquity. However, the degree to which these forces impacted the quality of life in a given society could vary significantly because of local conditions.35 Therefore, it is important to understand how Galilee’s unique circumstances would have modified the impact of local population growth on living standards. b. Urbanization, Morbidity, and Mortality Reed’s first argument is that both urbanization and the establishment of new rural settlements would have exposed Galileans to significantly more diseases, and, thus, increased the region’s mortality and morbidity rates in the first century CE. He argues that the unsanitary conditions in ancient cities fostered the spread of infectious disease. Furthermore, Reed contends that the new, 32 Scheidel, “Disease and Death”; Death on the Nile; “Demographic and Economic Development”; “Population and Demography”; “Demography”; “Demography and Human Development”; “Economy and Quality of Life”; Frier, “Statistics”; Parkin, Demography and Roman Society. 33 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 51–52. 34 Reed, “Instability.” 35 Scheidel, “Demography,” 39–40.

156

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

rural settlements in Galilee were founded in malarial areas that would have been significantly less healthy than the higher altitude sites inhabited in the Hellenistic Period. These two factors would have combined to decrease the quality of life throughout Galilee as the region’s population grew.36 This is a sound argument, but we should be cautious not to exaggerate these negative effects of these phenomena. While concentrated populations in Sepphoris and Tiberias would have helped disease spread more quickly, the Galilean cities were still comparatively small, and their impact on the region’s overall living standard would have been small as well. Instead, it is likely that the increased spread of malaria among Galilee’s rural population posed a more serious threat to the general health of Galilee’s population than urbanization. A good portion of Galilee’s farmland was in lowland areas where malaria spread more easily.37 Furthermore, most Galileans who were not farmers probably lived near the Sea of Galilee,38 which would have been a malarial area as well. Therefore, it is probable that malaria became a more significant problem in Galilee during the Early Roman Period I. This assumption, however, must be weighed against the available osteological evidence from Yodefat. None of the individuals whose bones have been examined appear to have contracted malaria in their lifetimes.39 Although malaria was probably less common in highland settlements such as Yodefat, many of the examined individuals were probably villagers from nearby settlements that were more likely to have problems with malaria. The human remains examined at Yodefat only represent 25 individuals, and it would be imprudent to draw firm conclusions based on such a small sample. Nevertheless, the fact that all of these individuals had extremely healthy lives before being killed in the revolt does suggest that health conditions in Galilee may not have been as bad as Reed contends. Overall, it seems likely that population growth resulted in a higher incidence of infectious diseases. However, there is insufficient data to determine the magnitude of this problem or to estimate its effect on Galilee’s living standard or its overall economic conditions. c. Urbanization, Scarcity, and Living Standards Reed’s second argument about the impact of demographic growth is that higher population densities usually make a region’s finite resources – such as land, food, and mineral deposits – scarcer. Consequently, there was usually a 36

Reed, “Instability.” See also R. Sallares, Malaria and Rome: A History of Malaria in Ancient Italy (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002), 120–121; Scheidel, Death on the Nile, 160–164. 37 Sallares, Malaria and Rome, 279. 38 The region’s proximity to the Sea of Galilee and to trade routes would have made it the most logical place for Galilean merchants, fishermen, and artisans to live. 39 Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy.”

12.3 The Economy

157

strong, inverse correlation between population density and per capita income in pre-industrial economies. In light of these findings, Reed contends that Galilee’s population growth would have depressed wages. However, there are important reasons to believe that Galilee’s unique conditions prevented population growth from lowering living standards. Occasionally, unique conditions allowed an ancient society to experience rapid population growth over decades or even centuries without a decline in per capita income.40 These “sustainable” population booms have generally involved either substantial technological advances or the settlement of large amounts of previously deserted land. In such cases, the increased productivity that resulted from improved technology or the newly available land allowed the supply of scarce resources to keep up with increasing demand.41 In fact, when populations are insufficiently dense to exploit a region’s resources efficiently, population growth can actually increase real wages.42 The settlement patterns from Hellenistic and Early Roman Galilee suggest that Galilee was probably under-populated at the beginning of the last century BCE and that most of the region’s natural resources were untapped. Galilee was thinly populated in the Hellenistic Period, and settled communities were generally restricted to fortified settlements located on easily defensible sites.43 Because defense appears to have been the major consideration in site selection, many of the region’s most fertile agricultural plains were left uncultivated. Consequently, Galileans in the Hellenistic Period were unable to exploit one of the region’s richest natural resources: its fertile soil.44 In the Early Roman Period, however, the newfound political stability and security provided by the Herodian and Roman governments allowed Galilee’s inhabitants to establish unfortified settlements in these unclaimed and fertile agricultural fields. In other words, Galilee’s population growth coincided with the sudden availability of abundant farmland. Thus, Galilee could sustain a much larger population without experiencing a decline in living standards because its resources had been under-exploited.45 Moreover, the increased agri40 W. Scheidel, “Livitina’s Bitter Gains: Seasonal Mortality and Endemic Disease in the Ancient World,” AncSoc 25 (1994): 42–60. 41 P. Temin, “The Contribution of Economics,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, ed. W. Scheidel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012), 67–69. 42 R.D. Lee, “Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis,” in The State of Population Theory: Forward from Malthus, ed. D. Coleman and R. Schofield (New York: Blackwell, 1986); Scheidel, “Demography,” 50–55; Temin, “Contribution,” 67–69. 43 I.e. sites that were high and rocky and had easy access to water. Leibner, Settlement and History, 322. 44 Leibner, “History of Settlement”; “Origins of Jewish Galilee.” 45 Lee, “Malthus and Boserup”; Scheidel, “Demography,” 50–55; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 51. This scenario is consistent with Josephus’ description of Galilee in BJ 3.41–44. Even if Josephus exaggerated the abundance of resources. Furthermore, something similar probably occurred on a larger scale throughout the Mediterranean in the first century,

158

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

cultural capacity would have allowed the region to feed and support Antipas’ new urban centers, Sepphoris and Tiberias. d. The Benefits of Urbanization Although most scholarship has focused on the negative consequences of urbanization, a moderate degree of urban growth in a region such as Galilee (one without an existing urban center) would have had some positive effects on the regional economy as well. While Sepphoris and Tiberias were much smaller than nearby cities in Syria, the Decapolis, and Judea, these new cities would have provided important central markets and infrastructure, which would have stimulated local trade. In fact, Adan Bayewitz’s research on Galilean trade indicates that Sepphoris and Tiberias served as commercial hubs where village artisans and farmers could market their goods to customers from all over the region.46 In this respect, the urban centers of Sepphoris and Tiberias would have been a major benefit for many rural Galileans. Furthermore, the sharp rise in locally produced goods and the decline in imported goods found at Galilean sites from the first century suggest that Galilee’s nascent urbanization may have helped the region become more economically independent. The construction and expansion of Galilee’s two cities may also have improved the regional economy by providing work for many Galileans.47 Antipas must have built various administrative and public buildings in Sepphoris to convert the large village into a fully functional capital city. Furthermore, the likelihood that Antipas commissioned the construction of Sepphoris’ theater suggests that Antipas would have built other cultural and monumental structures there as well. It seems likely that Antipas began using Sepphoris as his administrative capital immediately and that construction continued for years after the city was re-founded. In the meantime, Sepphoris’ status as Galilee’s capital would probably have attracted a host of bureaucrats, tax collectors, merchants, and other new settlers to the city. If these assumptions are true, then the city’s public and private sectors would have grown side-by side, and Sepphoris would have experienced steady growth (and therefore, steady construction) until Antipas founded Tiberias. Tiberias’ construction progressed differently than that of Sepphoris for two reasons. First, Antipas had no urgent need to transfer his capital to Tiberias. Second, the tetrarch had to settle Tiberias’ initial inhabitants by force (Ant. 18.36–38). Nevertheless, Tiberias would also have attracted a large number of with the less settled areas of the Mediterranean “absorbing” the Roman Empire’s growing population. 46 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Trade.” 47 Edwards, “Ethos of Lower Galilee,” 62–65.

12.3 The Economy

159

new settlers once the city became Galilee’s capital. Moreover, the construction of new homes and the new business opportunities available in Tiberias (especially in the fishing industry and in trade with other settlements near the Sea of Galilee) probably alleviated much of the unemployment problem created when government-directed building began to slow. 12.3.5 Monetization There is very little evidence that Galilee experienced a significant amount of monetization in the first century. Rather, while the region experienced significant monetization during the Hellenistic Period, the monetary supply did not increase appreciably in the Early Roman Period I.48 12.3.6 Evidence for Economic Problems Before the Revolt The evidence for severe economic problems in Galilee before the Great Revolt is anecdotal, poorly attested, and weak. A number of Jesus’ sayings in Q and Thomas imply that poverty and economic exploitation were commonplace; they also suggest that some Galileans were upset with these economic problems.49 Unfortunately, both Q and Thomas are sayings Gospels, which rarely provide narrative contexts for Jesus’ words. Consequently, we cannot be sure if the pericopes concerning economic exploitation were originally directed to a Galilean audience or if the original contexts of these sayings would have altered their meanings. Poverty and exploitation were endemic problems in antiquity, and the lower classes in even the most prosperous ancient societies experienced substantial hardships. There has been class-based resentment in every society, and the harsh realities of pre-industrial, agricultural economies would have made such sentiments more widespread in antiquity than they are in developed countries today. However, there is very little evidence to support claims that economic conditions deteriorated in first century Galilee or that such conditions were worse in Galilee than they were in the average Mediterranean society. 12.3.7 Evidence for Economic Growth and Stability Before the Revolt On the other hand, the evidence for positive economic conditions in pre-revolt Galilee is much stronger. Both the archaeological evidence and Josephus’ works indicate that the region was relatively prosperous in the first century CE. The archaeological data further suggest that Galilee experienced substantial economic growth throughout the Early Roman Period I. The material cul48

Jensen, “Message and Minting.” See fig. 71 in Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 248. E.g. Q 6:20–23 (Matthew 5:3–4, 6, 11–12) and Thomas 63, 64, 110. There are also indications of socio-economic problems in the Gospel of Luke. However, since Luke used Q as a source, only Q and Thomas provide independent attestation of these economic problems. 49

160

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

ture also implies that the gap between rich and poor was small in comparison to most ancient societies and that members of the lower classes fared better in Galilee than they did in most other parts of the Mediterranean (including Judea).50 The Gospel of Mark also portrays Galilee’s economic conditions as favorable.51 However, this depiction may simply have been a literary device, presenting Galilee as an idealized counterpoint to Judea. After all, the stark contrast between idyllic Galilee and corrupt and oppressive Judea in Mark highlights the latter region’s negative qualities and makes Judea a more ominous setting for the Gospel’s passion narrative. By itself, the Gospel of Mark’s depiction of Galilee is of questionable historical value. Nevertheless, the Gospel evidence corroborates the much stronger evidence in Josephus’ works and the archaeological record that Galilee’s economic conditions were favorable in the early first century. At the very least, Mark’s presentation of Galilee reflects a tradition among first century Christians that Galilee’s economic situation was better than Judea’s during Jesus’ lifetime. 12.3.8 The Economic Impact of Antipas’ Rule It is also important to consider how Galilee’s political environment affected the population’s economic wellbeing. As I will argue in more detail below (Section 12.4), Galilee enjoyed political stability in the early first century CE, and such a calm political environment was the most basic and important condition for economic growth in antiquity.52 Moreover, there are reasons to believe that Galilee’s economy fared particularly well during Antipas’ reign. Given the ancients’ ignorance of economic theory, governmental interference in the economy usually did more harm than good.53 In the Roman world, members of the ruling class often caused considerable economic harm by diverting precious resources to fund expensive (and

50

Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery, 236–237; Reed, “Instability,” 352; Moreland, “Galilean Response,” 43; Syon and Yavor, “Gamla 1997– 2000,” 49–52. See my discussions of this matter in chapters 3 and 11. 51 See “The Economy” section in Chapter 4. The Gospel of Matthew follows Mark’s idyllic portrayal of Galilee. 52 Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire; Leibner, “Origins of Jewish Galilee.” Leibner notes the rapid increase of unfortified settlements in Galilee during the Early Roman Period. The shift from fortified settlements to unfortified settlements implies that the region was probably more peaceful in this period than it was in the preceding periods. 53 Jones, Roman Economy, 30, 83; Greene, Archaeology of Roman Economy, 14; Garnsey and Saller, Roman Empire, 44–45.

12.3 The Economy

161

unnecessary) building projects, to fight unnecessary wars, and to engage in various forms of rent-seeking activity.54 Antipas, however, engaged in relatively few of these harmful activities. His building projects were comparatively modest, and the construction of Sepphoris and Tiberias created productive infrastructure and new markets to aid the trade of local goods.55 Furthermore, Antipas appears to have devoted far fewer resources to military expenditures than was typical in antiquity.56 These actions, combined with the peace and stability of Antipas’ reign, would have created a relatively favorable economic climate in Galilee.57 It is ironic that the very quality for which Antipas has so frequently been condemned – his lack of ambition – was probably the main reason his subjects fared so well. 12.3.9 The Economy During and After the Revolt The political instability that occurred immediately before and during the revolt would certainly have had a negative effect on Galilee’s economy. The revolt disrupted trade, fostered banditry, and probably prevented most rural communities from engaging in agriculture.58 Although the revolt hobbled Galilee’s economy for a time, it is unlikely that the region’s economic problems persisted after the revolt ended. Because most Galileans surrendered to Vespasian quickly, the region suffered very little destruction or depopulation. Moreover, the archaeological evidence contains no indication of an economic downturn in the late first century, so it appears that Galilee’s economy recovered relatively quickly after the revolt.59 54 DeLorme, Isom, and Kamerschen, “Rent Seeking.” Economic “rent” refers to any activity that wastes resources. These activities are almost always performed or abetted by governments, since few private entities have the power to sustain such wasteful activities. 55 Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery; Adan-Bayewitz and Perlman, “Local Trade”; DeLorme, Isom, and Kamerschen, “Rent Seeking.” Expensive construction projects that do not contribute needed infrastructure tend to have negative effects on the economy. Antipas’ construction of Sepphoris and Tiberias probably created productive infrastructure and markets for local goods (see my discussion of this matter in Chapter 11). On the other hand, Herod the Great’s more lavish building projects – such as the renovation of the Jerusalem Temple and the construction of several impressive public structures at Caesarea Maritima – combined with his large donations to several foreign cities outside of his territory – would have provided much less economic benefit for his subjects at a much greater cost. 56 D.A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land Is Mine, SBEC 20 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991), 21–60; Moreland, “Galilean Response,” 42–43. Military expenditures constituted the vast majority of government spending in virtually all ancient societies. 57 Moreland, “Q and Economics.” 58 BJ 2.590–594; 3.450–452, 492–502, 532–542; Vita 74–78, 371. 59 Leibner, Settlement and History, 341–342.

162

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

12.4 Political Climate 12.4.1 Galilee’s Political Climate Under Herod the Great The archaeological evidence and Josephus’ works both suggest that Galilee was a dangerous frontier region in the Hellenistic Period and the early decades of the Early Roman Period I.60 Herod the Great was the first ruler who was able to stabilize and pacify the region. Both as governor of Galilee and later as King of Judea (broad sense), Herod’s forces curbed Galilean raids into Syria, expelled an invading Tyrian army from Galilee, and conducted extensive campaigns against bandits who threatened the region’s stability.61 Herod’s efforts appear to have been successful since we know of no further insurrections, invasions, or bandit problems until the monarch’s death. The stability and protection that Herod provided probably had two important effects in Galilee. First, it would have encouraged Jewish immigration from neighboring regions. Archaeological surveys suggest that Galilee’s population doubled during the last century BCE, and it is likely that most of this population growth occurred after Herod pacified the region. Second, the new conditions made it much easier for Galileans to exploit the land’s agricultural resources. Many of Galilee’s arable fields were left uncultivated in the Hellenistic Period because no defensible settlements could be built in their vicinities. Once Galilee was under Herod’s protection, however, defensive considerations would have been much less important. The archaeological record reflects dramatic growth in the last century BCE of unfortified agricultural villages that allowed Galileans to farm areas that had been unsettled in previous centuries.62 12.4.2 The Political Climate Under Antipas and Agrippa I Despite a major revolt that erupted in Galilee immediately following Herod’s death in 4 BCE, Herod Antipas managed to pacify the region relatively quickly. Afterward, Galilee remained the most pacified region in Judea (broad sense) until the Great Revolt.63 Although Antipas is often dismissed as an un60

Leibner, Settlement and History, 322. The danger posed to Galilee’s residents is reflected in the absence of unfortified settlements in the region. Josephus’ works are consistent with such a conclusion. They imply that Galilee was constantly terrorized by banditry, civil war, and foreign invasion. BJ 1.175–178, 204–207, 238, 304–308, 314–316; Ant. 14.99–102, 297– 300, 413–417, 448–450. See also Josephus’ claims that Galilee was “inured to war” (BJ 3.41– 45). 61 BJ 1.204–207, 238, 304–313; Ant. 14.159–160, 297–300, 415. 62 Leibner, Settlement and History, 333–335. 63 BJ 2.55–56; Ant. 17.285–290. One could object that Josephus, our main source for Judean (broad sense) brigandage, may not have reported Galilean banditry during Antipas’ reign because Antipas was politically irrelevant. However, given Josephus’ attempts to por-

12.4 Political Climate

163

remarkable ruler, the region enjoyed an unprecedented period of political stability and economic growth during his 43 years as tetrarch. There is also no evidence of violent uprisings or major economic crises in Galilee during Agrippa I’s reign.64 However, there was a mass demonstration in Galilee aimed at preventing Caligula from erecting his statue in the Jerusalem Temple. Although the situation was resolved peacefully, it demonstrated the willingness of Galilean Jews to defy Roman authority in defense of their religious traditions.65 This incident also illustrates how the presence of a politically adept clientruler, who could act as a buffer between the Jews and the imperial authorities, contributed to Galilee’s stability in the early first century CE. Cultural misunderstandings often led to conflicts between Jews and Roman authorities in both Judea and in the diaspora. However, a client ruler, such as Antipas or Agrippa, understood both groups and could mediate such disputes before they intensified. In this case, Agrippa’s intercession with the emperor probably prevented considerable bloodshed.66 It is also likely that Antipas played a similar role in diffusing the conflict over Pilate’s placement of golden shields in the Jerusalem palace.67 In fact, the archaeological and literary evidence suggest that both rulers maintained a careful balance between supporting their Roman patrons and respecting their Galilean subjects’ sensibilities.68

tray Antipas as a poor ruler and to highlight the persistency of the bandit problem in Galilee, it is unlikely that he would have omitted any important uprisings in Galilee. In fact, Josephus’ mention of John the Baptist’s execution by Antipas (Ant. 18.116) is a good example of the author’s interest in highlighting Antipas’ minor shortcomings. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 53–100; “Josephus and Antipas.” 64 Agrippa I ruled Galilee as Tetrarch from 39 to 41 CE and as King of Judea (broad sense) from 41 to 44 CE. 65 BJ 2.184–204; Ant. 18.261–284. The Jewish demonstrators were probably from all over Judea (broad sense). However, since the incident took place in Galilee, a substantial portion of the protesters were probably Galilean. 66 Ant. 18.289–301. See my treatment of this affair in Chapter 3. 67 Philo, Legat. 276–329. Although Philo did not name the Herodians who appealed to Tiberius, it is all but certain that Antipas was among them. Moreover, since Antipas would have been the most senior member of the Herodian family at the time, it is likely that he led the delegation. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 106–107; H.W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, SNTSMS 17 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972), 178; E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 302–305. 68 Antipas honored the emperors and introduced some elements of Greco-Roman culture to the residents of his important cities. However, he was careful not to offend Jewish religious sensibilities. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 202–203; Bernett, Der Kaiserkult; “Imperial Cult.” See my discussion of this matter in Chapter 11 for more details.

164

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

12.4.3 The Political Climate After Agrippa I’s Death Galilee was incorporated into the province of Iudaea in 44 CE. Judea (broad sense) remained pacified throughout the 40s; however, Josephus claimed that the political situation deteriorated steadily from the early 50s to the outbreak of the revolt. He blamed the rising instability primarily on the Roman procurators’ maladministration and the increasing influence of Judean revolutionary agitators.69 Although only one of the crises mentioned by Josephus involved Galileans, it is likely that the growing instability in Judea also affected Galilee. Around 55/56 CE, Nero divided Galilee, giving Galilee’s easternmost settlements to Agrippa II while retaining western and central Galilee as part of the province of Iudaea.70 Unlike his predecessors, Agrippa II failed in his attempts to resolve the conflicts between the Judeans (broad sense) and the Romans. Previous Herodians had managed to diffuse most of the major political crises before they resulted in bloodshed, but Agrippa II’s attempts at mediation repeatedly failed to satisfy either the Jews or the Romans.71 One of Agrippa’s problems was that he had to deal with Nero, who refused to restrain his governors. Nevertheless, Agrippa II could not gain his subjects’ loyalty. Some of his administrators and many of his soldiers even defected to the rebels during the Great Revolt. Just as Antipas and Agrippa I’s abilities to diffuse potential conflicts between their subjects and Rome helped keep Galilee peaceful in the first half of the century, Agrippa II’s failure to do the same helped push most of the region into open revolt. 12.4.4 The Political Climate During the Revolt During the revolt, Galilee’s political climate was characterized by unrest. Multiple revolutionary leaders (Josephus, John of Gischala, Jesus the son of Sapphias, etc.) constantly vied for control of the region, and banditry became a major problem.72 Although there were many Galileans who initially supported the revolt, a significant minority of Galileans actively opposed the rebellion. Thus, it appears that Galilee was embroiled in internal conflict from the revolt’s outbreak until Vespasian’s army re-conquered the region. 12.4.5 Banditry Although Josephus’ works are the most detailed sources of information about Galilean banditry, there is some archaeological evidence of bandit activity as 69

BJ 2.252–283; Ant. 20.159–255. BJ 2.252; Ant. 20.159; Vita 37–38. See my more detailed discussion of this matter in Chapter 3. 71 BJ 2.344–407, 418–429, 483; Vita 407–408. 72 Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire. 70

12.4 Political Climate

165

well. For example, the material remains found at many of the cave complexes near the Sea of Galilee are consistent with Josephus’ claims that bandits used the caves as hideouts during their struggle against Herod the Great.73 Banditry was a fact of life in the ancient world; however, brigands usually occupied uninhabited areas and preyed on poorly defended travelers. Nevertheless, there were times in which brigandage was so rampant that it threatened the inhabitants of settled communities.74 Josephus maintained that banditry became a major problem in Galilee on three separate occasions: during Herod’s civil war with Antigonus, when Herod’s sons vied to inherit his kingdom, and during the Great Revolt.75 Some scholars, such as Richard Horsley, have argued that Galilean banditry was a chronic phenomenon triggered by constant socio-economic turmoil in the region.76 However, there is no evidence that banditry was a major problem in Galilee during times of peace. Instead, Galilean banditry only became a significant problem when revolution or civil war plunged all of Judea (broad sense) into lawlessness. It is also important to note that all of these revolutions and wars began in Judea, not Galilee. Furthermore, all of Josephus’ examples of Galilean banditry occurred when Galilee was under Judean control. When Galilee and Judea were governed separately, banditry was only a problem in Judea. Therefore, the periodic eruption of brigandage in Galilee was not a symptom of chronic political or economic turmoil. However, it may have been a consequence of Galilee’s intermittent political subordination to Judea, a region that was unstable throughout the first century. 12.4.6 Class Relations a. Evidence of Class Conflict Many of Jesus’ parables in Q, Luke, and Thomas imply that there were class tensions in first century Galilee. In these parables, interactions between members of different classes are generally characterized by theft, exploitation, ha73

Leibner, Settlement and History, 145–146, 213–214, 239–242, 255–256. BJ 3.450–452, 492–502, 532–542; Vita 77–78, 371. 75 BJ 1.204–207, 304–316; 2.55–56, 585–594; 3.443–452, 532–542; 4.84–91, 97–105, 566–576; Ant. 14.415–430; 17.269–272, 285; 20.252–258; Vita 30–31, 62–67, 77–79, 104– 111, 126–131, 204–207. 76 R.A. Horsley, “Josephus and the Bandits,” JSJ 10, no. 1 (1979); “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66–70,” CBQ 43 (1981); Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs; R.A. Horsley, “Bandits, Messiahs, and Longshoremen: Popular Unrest in Galilee Around the Time of Jesus,” in SBLSP 1988, ed. D.J. Lull (Atlanta: SBL, 1988). Contra Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire, 93–96; L. Blumell, “Social Banditry?: Galilean Banditry from Herod Until the Outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt,” Scripta Classica Israelica 27 (2008); B. Shaw, “Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus,” JJS 44 (1993). See my detailed treatment of this in chapter 3. 74

166

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

tred, and violence.77 Many New Testament scholars contend that Jesus’ parables would have reflected his socio-economic environment in Galilee. They therefore conclude that Q, Luke, and Thomas suggest that Galilean class relations were extremely tense in Jesus’ lifetime.78 Such a conclusion, however, is based on poorly attested evidence. Since Luke used Q as a source, only Thomas and Q provide independent attestations of class conflict. Furthermore, there are two good reasons to doubt that the parables in Q and Thomas accurately reflect Jesus’ socio-economic environment. First, the parables in the Gospels were based on decades-old oral traditions, and anthropological studies have consistently found that the content of oral traditions changes rapidly in societies that are predominantly illiterate. While the essence of an orally transmitted tale often endures, the incidental details of the story vary considerably as each community, generation, and individual storyteller adapts the story for a new audience.79 Thus, as Jesus’ parables circulated throughout the Mediterranean, their details – such as characters’ occupations, sums of money, social settings, etc. – would have changed constantly. Since the details would have morphed to suit the storyteller’s audience, it is likely that the socio-economic conditions portrayed in the parables reflect the Gospel authors’ socio-economic environments rather than Jesus’.80 Second, like most parables, the Gospels’ parables employ hyperbole to drive home their moral lessons. They usually present hypothetical scenarios in which moral choices have exaggerated consequences. Since parables as a genre are usually based upon presenting logical extremes, their scenarios are by definition atypical. Thus, the genre conventions upon which Jesus’ parables were based make it unlikely that they represented his socio-economic conditions realistically. b. Evidence of Good Class Relations There are strong indications in both the literary sources and the archaeological record that Galilean class relations were generally civil. For example, the archaeological evidence suggests that Galilean society was particularly egalitarian and that the lower classes fared better in Galilee than they did in most of 77 Luke 12:42–46 (Matthew 24:45–51); Luke 19:12–26 (Matthew 25:14–30). Luke 4:18; 7:41–43; 10:30–37; 11:21–22; 12:16–21; 14:13, 33; 16:1–31. Thomas 21, 35, 65, 98. See “The Economy” and “Political Climate” sections of Chapters 5, 7, and 9. 78 Herzog, Subversive Speech; Trudinger, “Depths of Oppression.” 79 J.D.G. Dunn, The Oral Gospel Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). 80 Many New Testament scholars argue that Q was written in Galilee and that the parables in Q reflect conditions in Galilee. As I argued in Chapter 5, however, the arguments that Q was composed in Galilee are not compelling. An equally good or better case can be made that Q was composed in Syria. Although Syria was located near Galilee, its economic and social environment would probably have been very different.

12.5 Religious Ethos

167

the Roman world.81 Thus, Galilee’s material remains demonstrate that the region lacked the significant levels of inequality or poverty that usually fueled tensions between the rich and poor. Much of the literary evidence also implies that relations between the upper and lower classes were peaceful. Josephus portrayed most Galilean commoners as fiercely loyal to their local elites. Furthermore, although Josephus’ works and the Gospel of Mark both present class conflict as an endemic problem in Judea, neither implies that such conflicts existed in Galilee.82 In fact, class struggles feature so prominently in Josephus’s and Mark’s Judean accounts that the absence of such problems in both authors’ Galilean narratives is conspicuous. c. Conclusions About Galilean Class Relations The evidence for good class relations is stronger and better attested than for hostile relations. However, the evidence is by no means conclusive. Although the archaeological record demonstrates that Galilee’s lower classes were better off than most of their counterparts in antiquity, the region’s poor still endured very real hardships. Galilee’s economy may have been less conducive than normal to the development of class conflict, but all ancient economies produced enough misery to inspire class-based hostility in the right political climate.

12.5 Religious Ethos The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Early Roman Galilee’s population was predominantly Jewish and that the local religious practices strongly resembled those of the Judean countryside. Galilee’s inhabitants observed the Jewish Sabbath, observed Jewish purity regulations, abjured idols, paid taxes to the Jerusalem Temple’s priesthood, made regular pilgrimages to the Temple, accepted the authority of Jewish religious officials, and considered the Jewish scriptures sacred.83

81

Aviam, “Socio-Economic Hierarchy”; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes.” See my discussion of the relevant archaeological evidence in Chapter 11. 82 Mark 10:17–27, 46–52; 11:15–17, 35–40; 12:41–44; BJ 2.425–441; 4.183–241, 327, 335–336, 364–365; 5.440–441; Ant. 20.214. See my discussions of Galilee’s economy and political climate in Chapters 3 and 4. See also Blumell, “Social Banditry?” 83 For details, see the “Religious Ethos” sections in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11.

168

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

12.5.1 Stricter Religious Practices During the Early Roman Period I, Galilean Jews adopted several new cultural practices that included: frequent ritual bathing, the discontinued use of imported pottery, the use of limestone vessels, and the eschewal figurative art. Since the new conventions usually concerned more scrupulous attention to matters of ritual purity and the avoidance of figurative art, their widespread adoption indicates that most Galileans adhered to stricter halakhic traditions in the Early Roman Period I than they had in previous (or subsequent) periods. The adoption of more demanding religious practices also suggests that religious matters played an unusually important role in first century Galilean society.84 12.5.2 Synagogues There is ample evidence that synagogues were an integral part of Jewish life in first century Galilee. Galilean synagogues are mentioned in Josephus’ works and in all four canonical Gospels, and the archaeological remains of synagogues have been found at Gamala and Magdala (and probably at Capernaum as well). The synagogue was a relatively new institution in Judea (broad sense). It developed first in the diaspora and probably only became commonplace in Judea (broad sense) during the Early Roman Period I. It is difficult to judge how synagogues would have altered Galilee’s religious culture, but it is likely that these new places for congregation created a greater sense of communal identity among Galilee’s Jews. By the first century CE, the synagogue had become the most important communal institution in most Judean (broad sense) settlements. It served as a town hall, a community center, and a place for worship and study. Since synagogues almost certainly increased the frequency with which Galileans engaged in communal religious activities, these new institutions probably helped to standardize religious customs within each community. Moreover, having an institution that was both a civic and a religious center probably gave religious matters a higher profile in Galilean society. It also would have linked a person’s Jewish identity to his membership in the local community. Consequently, the spread of synagogues in Galilee may have fostered the Galileans’ adoption of more demanding religious practices in the Early Roman Period I.

84

Adler, “Ritual Baths”; “Archaeology of Purity”; Berlin, “Romanization”; “Jewish Life”; Magen, “Israel’s Stone Age.” These same innovations were adopted by most of the Jews living in Judea and the Golan; however, they did not make significant inroads in any other Jewish communities in the Diaspora.

12.5 Religious Ethos

169

12.5.3 Pharisees The literary and archaeological evidence strongly indicates that the Pharisees were the most important religious leaders in first century Galilee.85 Nevertheless, most of the recent scholarship on Galilee assumes that the Pharisees had little clout in the region. This assumption is based on two major arguments. First, most scholars contend that Pharisaism was essentially a Judean movement and that it did not make significant inroads in Galilee until after 70 CE.86 This conclusion is based largely on Rabbinic traditions that depict Galileans as insufficiently observant.87 These Rabbinic traditions, however, date to the third century or later, and many of the Rabbis’ claims about Judea’s (broad sense) religious and political situation from 100 BCE to 200 CE are demonstrably anachronistic.88 Therefore, the Rabbinic material cannot be relied upon to provide an accurate portrayal of the Pharisees’ position in first century Galilee. Second, most scholars argue that the Pharisees had little authority even in Judea.89 Despite the later Rabbis’ claims about Pharisaic preeminence in the first century, the current scholarly consensus is that the Pharisees were usually excluded from official positions of power because they did not belong to the priestly aristocracy. Many scholars consequently assume that, if the Pharisees lacked authority in Judea, they could not have been influential in Galilee either. 85 See my sections on Galilee’s religious culture in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that implies the Pharisees had little authority in Galilee. The archaeological evidence for purity observances in Galilee is generally consistent with what we know about Pharisaic practices in the first century. 86 J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973), 72; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 157; S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 BCE to 135 CE (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1980), 329–334; E.P. Sanders, “Jesus in Historical Context,” Theology Today 50 (1993): 445; A.J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Most scholars consider the Gospels’ portrayal of the Pharisees in Galilee to be essentially anachronistic or fictional. Neusner, for example, claims that the Pharisees served as a convenient “narrative convention,” acting as archetypal villains who embodied the negative aspects of Judaism. 87 E.g. y. Šhabb. 16.15d; b. Ḥag 24b; b. ͑Erub. 53 a–b; b. Meg. 24b. 88 For in-depth arguments against the historicity of the Rabbinic narrative for this period, see D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Goodman, State and Society; Levine, Rabbinic Class; C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 89 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187–204; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 39–48, 295–297. Contra M. Hengel and R. Deines, “E. P. Sanders' ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees,” JTS 46, no. 1 (1995): 1–70.

170

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

This second argument ignores the likelihood that Galilee’s religious leaders probably came from more humble backgrounds than those in Judea. Because the Temple was located in Jerusalem, priests would have been much more common in Judea than in Galilee. In Judea, the priests’ domination of religious and governmental authority probably kept the Pharisees marginalized.90 However, in Galilee, the lack of priests would have allowed knowledgeable laypersons, such as the Pharisees, to assume leadership roles more frequently. Neither of these arguments provides sufficient reason to discount the evidence of Pharisaic influence in Galilee. Therefore, it seems likely that Pharisaic Judaism was an important part of Galilee’s religious milieu. However, such a conclusion does not imply that most Galileans were Pharisees. Josephus claimed that only a small percentage of Judeans (broad sense) actually belonged to one of the major Jewish “philosophies,”91 and modern investigation has demonstrated that most Judeans (broad sense) lacked the education, time, or interest even to understand most of the disagreements between the philosophies. The vast majority of scholars accept Sanders’s argument that most Judeans (broad sense) practiced “common Judaism” and would have respected Sadducees, Pharisees, and other religious authorities as well.92 In summary, although the Pharisees were most likely respected and influential religious figures in first century Galilee, they actually constituted a tiny fraction of the region’s population. While many Galileans were probably influenced by Pharisaic ideas, most people in the region lacked the education, means, and desire to adopt truly Pharisaic lifestyles.93 Nevertheless, the archaeological and literary evidence indicates that Pharisaic Judaism’s core principle – the extension of priestly purity into the everyday lives of laypeople – gained popularity in Galilee during the first century CE.94 Although most

90

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187–204. BJ 2.162–163; Ant. 18.11–15. 92 Sanders, Judaism: Practice. 93 Berlin, “Jewish Life,” 451–453; A. Oppenheimer, “Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period,” in Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society, ed. N. Oppenheimer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). The adoption of only some elements of Pharisaic practice would explain the variation in ritual purity traditions in different Galilean communities. 94 Neusner, From Politics to Piety. Neusner sees this as Pharisaic Judaism’s essential element. For other views on the centrality of purity in the Pharisaic movement, see H.K. Harrington, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity?” JSJ 26 (1995); Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 212–216, 233–234, 285–287, 290–291; J.D.G. Dunn, “Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate,” NTS 48, no. 4 (2002); Cf. E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (SCM/Trinity International, 1990), 131– 254. For Neusner’s response to Sanders, see “Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah,” SJT 44, no. 1 (1991). 91

12.6 Hellenization and Romanization

171

Galileans would not have considered themselves Pharisees, Pharisaic ideology had a significant impact on Galilee’s religious culture.

12.6 Hellenization and Romanization By the first century CE, Greek and Roman cultural influence could be felt throughout the Mediterranean world. However, the process of assimilation to Greco-Roman culture was slower in more rural regions, such as Galilee. There is still considerable scholarly debate concerning the extent to which first century Galilee was Hellenized and Romanized. 12.6.1 Regional Cultures Within Galilee Decades ago, Eric Meyers divided Galilee into two distinct cultural regions: lower Galilee, which was more urbanized and Hellenized, and upper Galilee, which was more rural and less Hellenized.95 Although data from subsequent excavations indicate that the cultural divide between upper and lower Galilee was less extreme than Meyers had originally suggested, a tempered version of Meyers’s “Galilean regionalism” model is still widely accepted. However, new data emerging from recent excavations suggest that the cultural and economic environment in what I call “Lakeside Galilee” (i.e. the sites along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee) was distinct from that of the rest of Lower Galilee. Specifically, the evidence suggests that Lakeside Galilee was significantly more urbanized and Hellenized than the rest of Lower Galilee. The region’s largest city, Tiberias, had a significant Gentile population, and its government was organized like a Hellenistic polis. 96 Moreover, the public architecture at Tiberias and Magdala reflects stronger Greco-Roman influence than has been found at sites in other parts of Lower Galilee, including Sepphoris. It is not surprising that the prevailing culture was more Hellenized in Galilee’s lakeside communities than in other parts of the district. The two major Gentile communities near the lake – Hippos (Sussita) and Kursi – were within fifteen kilometers of both Tiberias and Magdala. Furthermore, Bethsaida, which had a mixed Jewish and Gentile population, was only a few kilometers

95

E.M. Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction,” BASOR 221 (1976); “Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal,” in W. Green, Approaches to Ancient Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 5:115–131. 96 Rajak, “Justus,” 346–351; Sigmismund, “Small Change?” 316. Ant. 18.37 implies that Antipas settled some Gentiles in Tiberias when he founded the city, and Vita 67 claims that the Jews of Tiberias massacred the city’s Gentile population during the revolt.

172

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

east of Galilee’s political border.97 The proximity of Lakeside Galilee to several Gentile settlements almost certainly led to more frequent interaction between Lakeside Galilean Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, the Sea of Galilee itself would have fostered interaction between Lakeside Galilean Jews and the Gentile sites on the lake’s eastern shore. Although in the 21st century, we tend to regard water as a barrier, bodies of water actually served to connect people in pre-industrial societies. Since it was considerably faster and cheaper to travel and ship goods over water than over land in antiquity, the Sea of Galilee would have fostered trade and other types of contact among nearby settlements.98 Indeed, the Synoptic Gospels indicate that travel between the Jewish and Gentile sites around the lake was commonplace in the first century.99 In such an environment, it is difficult to imagine how Lakeside Galilean culture could have avoided significant Greco-Roman influence. Access to the Sea of Galilee would have also linked lakeside settlements to the interregional trade routes that passed through Hippos and Gadara, both of which were within ten kilometers of the lake. Moreover, Antipas’ founding of Tiberias in 17/18 CE and Philip’s re-founding of Bethsaida-Julias in 30 CE 97 For detailed information on Bethsaida’s ethnic and cultural makeup, see R. Arav, “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987–1993,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 1; “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994–1996,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 2; R. Arav, R.A. Freund, and J. F. Shroder, “Bethsaida Rediscovered,” BAR 26, no. 1 (2000); Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 3; H. Avalos, “Bethsaida in Light of the Study of Ancient Health Care,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 3; J.T. Greene, “The Honorific Naming of Bethsaida-Julias,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 2; A. Kindler, “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 2; “The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 2; H.W. Kuhn, “An Introduction to the Excavations of Bethsaida (et-Tell) from a New Testament Perspective,” in Arav and Freund, Bethsaida, vol. 2; Savage, “First Century Bethsaida”; F. 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, vol. 3. 98 K. Hopkins, “Models, Ships and Staples,” in Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity, ed. P. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983); W. Scheidel, “The Shape of the Roman World,” (Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2013), http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/041306.pdf; Cf. R. Laurence, “Land Transport in Roman Italy: Costs, Practice and the Economy,” in Trade, Traders and the Ancient City (London: Routledge, 1998). Walter Scheidel and Elijah Meeks at Stanford have developed an online model for calculating transportation routes, costs, and times in the ancient world: “ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World,” http://orbis.stanford.edu. 99 According to the Gospel of Mark (and consequently the Gospels of Matthew and Luke), Jesus spent far more of his adult ministry visiting the settlements east of the Sea of Galilee than he did in the Galilean settlements west of Tiberias (Mark 4:35; 5:1–20; 6:45; 7:31–37; 8:10, 13, 27).

12.6 Hellenization and Romanization

173

probably boosted the commercial traffic passing along the lake’s western coastline.100 These conditions would have made “Lakeside Galilee” significantly more urbanized, Hellenized, and involved in interregional trade than the rest of Lower Galilee, which was far more isolated from neighboring regions. Since the mountains surrounding the lake would have isolated the lakeside settlements from the rest of Galilee, it appears that Lakeside Galilee constituted its own distinct cultural region. Consequently, it no longer makes sense to regard Lakeside Galilee as part of Lower Galilee in terms of its regional culture. Instead, it is more appropriate to revise Meyers’s regionalism model by dividing Galilee into three cultural regions: 1) Upper Galilee – the most rural and least Hellenized region 2) Lower Galilee – more urban and Hellenized than Upper Galilee, but less so than the lakeside area 3) Lakeside Galilee – the most urban and Hellenized portion of Galilee 12.6.2 Resistance to Romanization One of the distinguishing characteristics of first century Galilee’s material culture is the extreme rarity of items commonly associated with Greco-Roman culture: brass, marble (and faux marble), ESA pottery, mold-made lamps, and public inscriptions. Andrea Berlin and Jonathan Reed have made compelling arguments that the Galileans’ avoidance of these artifacts was part of a conscious and widespread effort to resist assimilation into Greco-Roman culture.101 In addition, Berlin contends that resisting Greco-Roman culture took on religious significance among Judeans (broad sense) in the Early Roman Period I. She claims that this Judean (broad sense) aversion to Roman artifacts was related to new religious observances that Galilean Jews adopted in the Early Roman Period I. She argues that both phenomena were actually part of a larger cultural trend in which Judeans and Galileans adopted new customs that emphasized their Jewish identity.102 Thus, the rise of “household Judaism” 100 Reed, Galilean Jesus, 146–147. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, the two major Levantine trade routes, the via maris and the King’s Highway, completely bypassed Galilee. A smaller trade route may have connected Ptolemais, Sepphoris, and Tiberias, but this was probably not an important route. Furthermore, trade passing near the Sea of Galilee usually passed through the cities to the lake’s east rather than its west. Nevertheless, the development of urban centers on the lake’s west bank would have diverted some commercial activity to the new communities. 101 Berlin, “Jewish Life”; Reed, “Romanizing Galilee.” 102 Berlin, “Jewish Life”; Magen, “Israel’s Stone Age”; Arbel, “Intense Religious Movements”, 403–411.

174

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

(Berlin’s collective term for these new practices) would have associated antiRoman sentiment with religious piety, and this may have made opposition to Rome more appealing to some Galileans and Judeans. 12.6.3 Language The evidence concerning Galilee’s linguistic milieu is extremely limited. Almost all the epigraphy in the region was written in Greek, and both Josephus and the archaeological data suggest that many Galilean government officials had Greek job titles. As I argued in Chapter 11, however, this evidence only indicates that Galilee’s administrative language was Greek, which was the case in all of Rome’s eastern provinces and client states. In fact, local languages are relatively rare among epigraphs throughout the Roman Empire. Given the rarity of any public inscriptions in Galilee, it is unlikely that the region’s epigraphy accurately reflected its linguistic milieu.103 Instead, the best evidence for Galilee’s common language(s) comes from the literary sources. Although they were all written in Greek for Greek-speaking audiences, Josephus’ Vita, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of John imply that the region’s common language was Aramaic, not Greek.104 It is likely that both Aramaic and Greek played important roles in Galilean society. Aramaic would have been the common language for most Galilean Jews (and perhaps for some Galilean Gentiles as well).105 However, since interregional trade would have brought many Galilean merchants and artisans in contact with Greek-speakers, a significant portion of the population would probably have known at least a little Greek. Greek would have been used most frequently in the urban centers, by government officials, among the wealthiest Galileans, and in the settlements by the Sea of Galilee, where Jewish communities sometimes had significant Gentile minority populations.106 12.6.4 Hellenization and Romanization in Galilee Collectively, the evidence indicates that Greco-Roman cultural influence was most pronounced in Galilee’s cities and especially in the lakeside settlements. Overall, however, the process of Hellenization was much less further along in Galilee than it was in Judea, Syria, or Gaulanitis. Most first century Galileans would have had some exposure to Greco-Roman culture; however, the dominant cultural trends in the region actually emphasized both the people’s Jewish identity and their refusal to assimilate. 103

Chancey, Myth of Galilee, 78. See the relevant discussions in Chapters 3, 4, and 8. 105 Hezser, Jewish Literacy, 446–449; Chancey, Myth of Galilee, 122–165. Many of the Gentiles who lived to the east of Judea (broad sense) also spoke Aramaic. 106 Ant. 18.37; Vita 67. 104

12.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

175

12.7 Participation in the Great Revolt 12.7.1 Josephus vs. Archaeology Almost everything we know about Galilee during the Great Revolt comes from either the archaeological evidence or Josephus’ histories. While there are some discrepancies, the archaeological evidence generally substantiates Josephus’ portrayal. Josephus claimed that most of Galilee supported the revolt and that he and other rebel leaders constructed defensive fortifications at several sites throughout the region. Most of these fortifications have been found by archaeologists, and it does appear that they were either built or repaired around the time of the revolt.107 Furthermore, numismatic data confirm Josephus’ assertions that Gamala supported the rebellion and that Sepphoris opposed it.108 The archaeological remains also corroborate Josephus’ accounts of what happened after Vespasian’s army arrived in Galilee. The Romans sacked Gamala and Yodefat and slaughtered many of the rebels they found at Magdala. However, most of the other Galilean settlements surrendered to Vespasian without a fight. 12.7.2 Galilean Support for the Revolt The archaeological evidence and Josephus’ works paint a consistent picture of Galilean support for the revolt. Although most Galileans supported the revolt, they appear to have been less fervently committed to the rebellion than their counterparts in Judea. The rebellion had few outspoken opponents in Judea, but a significant minority of Galilee’s population opposed the revolt. Sepphoris remained loyal to Rome, and the city of Tiberias was locked in a power struggle between loyalist and various rebel factions throughout the war.109 Even John of Gischala, who eventually became a prominent rebel leader, ini107

Leibner, Settlement and History, 108, 116, 127, 164, 236, 242, 255–256, 316–317, 340–341; “Gamla: Refuge,” 137; Aviam, “Josephus Flavius’ Fortifications”; “Battle of Yodefat”; “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18; Meyers, “Sepphoris on the Eve.” Archaeologists have found hastily constructed fortifications at Gamala, Yodefat, and Gush Halav. They have also found many sites at which the existing defenses were repaired and enhanced around the time of the revolt. Fortifications have not been found at Magdala, Tiberias, or Sepphoris. Archaeologists have uncovered a first century city gate at Tiberias, but it was not attached to a defensive wall in the Early Roman Period. At Sepphoris, archaeologists have found a garrison building, which was built in the Late Hellenistic Period; however, the building was converted for non-military uses by the first century. Perhaps Josephus merely barricaded those cities (or just sections of the cities) and later exaggerated their defenses. It is also possible that Josephus simply lied or that the excavations have not yet found the walls. 108 Meshorer, “Coins of Sepphoris”; Syon, “Coins from Gamala,” 34; Farhi, “Coins at Gamla”; Arbel, “Gamla Coin”; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 112. 109 BJ 2.614–631, 638–641; Vita 31–42, 87–107, 271–286, 381–392.

176

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

tially opposed the revolt. Moreover, when Vespasian’s army arrived in Galilee, most of the communities that had initially supported the rebellion quickly surrendered.110 12.7.3 Why Was Galilee Less Revolutionary Than Judea? The relative ease with which Rome subdued Galilee suggests that, by the time Vespasian arrived in Judea (broad sense), most Galileans either opposed the revolt or had given up on it.111 Was Galilean support for the rebellion always mixed or lukewarm, or did it dissipate as Galilee prepared for war? Sepphoris remained loyal to Rome throughout the rebellion, and many in Tiberias opposed the revolt as well.112 However, Josephus maintained that most Galilean communities supported the rebels when the revolt began, and the archaeological remains of hastily built fortifications throughout the region substantiate these assertions.113 Thus, both the literary and archaeological evidence indicate that a large number of Galileans supported the revolt when it began. What, then, could have caused Galilean support for the rebellion to dissolve by the time Vespasian’s army arrived? Josephus’ accounts suggest four possible reasons that support for the revolt declined in Galilee. First, it seems that Galilee’s political environment prevented the Judean rebel government from creating a consolidated command structure in Galilee. The strength of local patronage relationships in Galilee would have made it difficult for the Galileans to unify once the Roman-imposed political order broke down.114 Second, the power struggles between rebel leaders eroded their popular support in the region. Galileans who were initially sympathetic to the rebellion may simply have been disheartened by their leaders’ constant infighting and consequent ineffectiveness. Josephus’ works certainly indicate that many Galileans became increasingly frustrated with both John of Gischala and Josephus.

110

BJ 3.127–131, 135–144, 193–206, 289–306, 316–322, 340–344, 350–368, 438–442, 453–461, 497–502; 4.1–8, 49–69, 84–85, 106–111. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 230–231. 111 Admittedly, a number of hard-liners did make their final stands against the Romans at Gabara, Yodefat, Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee, and Gamala (many of John’s followers made their final stand in Jerusalem). However, the Roman army appears to have had relatively little trouble subduing Galilee. BJ 3.132–134, 323–339, 462–470, 497–505, 522–531; 4.70–83, 106–111. 112 BJ 2.614–631, 638–641; Vita 31–42, 87–107, 271–286, 381–392. 113 See my discussion of this matter in Chapter 3. 114 Although it is true that the rebels in Judea also divided into factions and fought amongst themselves, they were able to unite for a about a year and a half (or more than one third of the duration of the revolt) under the leadership of the high priestly families.

12.7 Participation in the Great Revolt

177

Third, when the Romans arrived, many Galileans were probably forced to accept the revolt’s futility. Galilee had a small population and few resources. Its major cities lacked defenses, and the region’s meager fortifications could have held only a tiny fraction of Galilee’s inhabitants. The rebels were poorly prepared, divided into antagonistic factions, and vastly outnumbered by Vespasian’s troops.115 Moreover, the constant conflicts between the rebel leaders would have hamstrung their preparations for war. In these circumstances, even a committed revolutionary would have had difficulty believing that the rebels had any chance of success. Such a situation could have caused Galilean support for the revolt to evaporate quickly.116 Fourth, the Galileans who supported the rebellion were less loyal to the cause than their Judean counterparts. After all, the revolt was started by Judean aristocrats and triggered by events that took place within Judea. Because most Galileans would not have experienced first-hand the events that precipitated the revolt, their reasons for supporting the rebellion would have been more abstract and less visceral than those of the Judeans. In addition, Galilee had spent significantly less time than Judea under direct Roman rule. The entire region had been part of Antipas and Agrippa I’s territories for most of the century, and Agrippa II ruled the eastern portion of Galilee when the war broke out. Furthermore, even when Galilee was subject to provincial administration, Galilee’s largely rural population would have felt the effects of Roman rule much less than those living in Judea.117 In short, the Galileans simply had fewer reasons than their Judean counterparts to resent Roman rule. 12.7.4 The Revolt’s Aftermath The archaeological evidence confirms Josephus’ reports that the Romans only had to attack a handful of settlements to subdue Galilee. Because most of the region succumbed to the Roman army without a fight, Galilee experienced comparatively little damage, and it was able to recover from the war much more quickly than Judea.118 Consequently, the region did not experience a significant drop in population or economic output following the uprising.

115

Roth, “Military Forces”; Roth, “Jews and Roman Army”; Rappaport, “Josephus’ Personality,” 72; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 201–202. 116 This scenario is consistent with Josephus’ accounts in BJ 3.127–131, 135–144, 193– 206, 289–306, 316–322, 340–344, 350–368, 438–442, 453–461, 497–502; 4.1–8, 49–69, 84– 85, 106–111. 117 Governments in the ancient Mediterranean had far less control over remote territories than they did over urban and suburban areas. 118 Leibner, Settlement and History, 341–345.

178

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

12.8 Jewish-Gentile Relations 12.8.1 Interregional Trade The archaeological record indicates that Galileans imported significantly fewer goods in the Early Roman Period than they had in previous eras.119 However, both the archaeological data and Josephus’ works imply that the Galileans regularly exported certain goods to nearby Gentile settlements. The export of such goods, however, does not necessarily indicate that Galileans regularly engaged in commerce with Gentiles. Rather, the Galileans exports, such as pottery and olive oil, were probably marketed to the Jewish minorities in neighboring regions who regarded certain Gentile-made products as ritually impure. Thus, most commercial activity between Galilee and its neighbors involved trade between Jews in each region, not between Jews and Gentiles. Overall, the evidence suggests that, while the inhabitants of Lakeside Galilee may have traded with Gentiles from nearby communities, people in upper and lower Galilee generally avoided commercial contact with Gentiles. Purity concerns were probably their main motives for doing so, but the decline in interregional trade may also reflect growing ethnic tensions between Jews and Gentiles. 12.8.2 Ethnic Tensions and Violence The archaeological and literary evidence demonstrate that Jewish-Gentile relations were hostile and sometimes violent in the first century CE.120 When the Great Revolt broke out, these ethic tensions boiled over, and both Jews and Gentiles engaged in violence against each other.121 Although most of the ethnic fighting during the revolt probably occurred on too small a scale to show up in the archaeological record, there is still archaeological evidence for Jewish-Gentile hostility. Sometime in the Early Roman Period I, Gentiles took over the Hasmonean fortress at Qeren Naphtali (in northern Galilee).122 The Gentiles who took over the fortress defiled its miqveh with refuse that included non-kosher animal remains and broken pot119

Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics, 63, 113; Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 18–19; Berlin, “Romanization,” 58–59; “Jewish Life,” 434–436; Syon, “Tyre and Gamla,” 105, 112–115, 153, 155; Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, “Determining Pottery Provenance,” 17. 120 Josephus claims that the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the southern Levant was mutually hostile throughout the Early Roman Period I, and his portrayal is corroborated by the archaeological evidence. See the “Jewish–Gentile Relations” sections in Chapters 3 and 11. 121 BJ 2.457–460, 477–478; Vita 32–42, 62–67. 122 Aviam, “First Century Jewish Galilee,” 15; Jews, Pagans and Christians. “Distribution Maps,” 137.

12.9 Galilee and Judea

179

tery with iconic art. This was almost certainly a deliberate act of desecration and thus a reflection of the antipathy that existed between Gentiles and Jews who lived near the regional borders. 12.8.3 Jewish-Samaritan Relations All of the available evidence reflects significant hostility between Galileans and Samaritans in the first century CE. The archaeological evidence suggests that commerce between the two groups was virtually non-existent in the Early Roman Period. Moreover, Josephus claims that a deadly Samaritan attack on Galilean pilgrims to Jerusalem spiraled into a series of violent conflicts that required the intervention of Emperor Claudius before order could be restored.123 All of the canonical Gospels claim or imply that there were considerable tensions between Galileans and Samaritans. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew both had Jesus avoid Samaria completely, and Matthew’s Jesus specifically forbade his disciples from entering Samaritan towns (Matthew 10:5). Similarly, both of the references to Samaritans in Luke indicate that they had poor relations with Galilean Jews.124 Although Jesus did interact with a Samaritan in the Gospel of John, the action was seen as a shocking breach of custom since, “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans” (John 4:9). Clearly then, Galileans and Samaritans did not mix in the first century. Usually, the two groups simply refrained from interacting with one another; however, Josephus’ account shows that their mutual hostility could sometimes turn violent. 12.8.4 Contact Between Galileans and Gentiles It is clear that Galileans became more isolated from their Gentile neighbors in the Early Roman Period I. Galilee’s cultural isolation probably exacerbated the existing racial tensions in Judea (broad sense) and may have fueled some of the ethnic violence that occurred at the beginning of the Great Revolt.

12.9 Galilee and Judea 12.9.1 Galilean and Judean Culture The available evidence clearly indicates that Galileans and Judeans had a common ancestry, culture, and religion in the first century CE. Despite being 123 124

BJ 2.232–246; Ant. 20.118–136. Luke 9:52–53; 10:30–37.

180

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

geographically separated by Samaria, the two regions maintained close cultural and commercial ties throughout the Early Roman Period. In fact, Galilee was more closely connected to Judea than it was to any of the regions it bordered at this time. Despite this strong cultural connection, however, there were probably minor differences between Galilean and Judean culture. The two regions had different demographic profiles, did not share a border, and were often ruled by different governments. It would be absurd to think that Galilean culture lacked any distinctive elements.125 Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that the cultural similarities between Galileans and Judeans far outweighed any differences. 12.9.2 Trade Between Galilee and Judea The archaeological record reflects significant commercial trade between Galilee and Judea in the Early Roman Period I. This trade, however, was basically one-sided; Galileans often bought Judean goods, but Judeans rarely purchased Galilean products. This pattern was probably established for two reasons. First, Judea was more sophisticated, wealthy, and urban; therefore, its goods would have been usually superior in quality and more up-to-date with cultural trends. Second, Galilean Jews made regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem for religious festivals multiple times per year while most Judeans would not have made routine trips to Galilee. Galilee’s extensive trade with Judea would have helped preserve the cultural ties between the two regions. It also explains why both regions’ material cultures experienced similar changes in the Early Roman Period I. 12.9.3 Galilean Subordination to Judea? Governance of Galilee changed hands several times in the Early Roman Period I. The region was politically separate from Judea for roughly half the period and was a political adjunct to Judea for the other half.126 The frequent changes in Galilee’s political situation must have complicated the region’s perceived status vis-à-vis Judea. 125

For example, Peter’s failure to blend in among the Judeans in Mark 14:70 implies that there were some immediately noticeable differences between Judeans and Galileans. Unfortunately, the Gospel does not specify what these differences might have been. Matthew 26:73 claims that Peter stood out because of his accent. However, it is not clear if this expansion of the Markan narrative was based on another tradition known to Matthew’s author or if the author merely took poetic license in expanding the Markan account. 126 Either as part of the Province of Iudaea or as part of Herod’s and Agrippa I’s kingdoms.

12.9 Galilee and Judea

181

Regardless of the political situation, Jerusalem remained the religious, cultural, and economic center of Judea (broad sense). The city contained the wealthiest and most powerful Judeans (broad sense), and the Jerusalem Temple was the only place at which most of Judaism’s cultic rituals (e.g. sacrifices, libations, etc.) could be carried out. Furthermore, Galilean Jews were required to pay annual taxes to the Temple priests, even when Galilee was politically independent of Judea. Consequently, most Galileans probably saw their region as subordinate to Judea. It is unlikely that average Galileans fully understood the political organization of Judea (broad sense); however, they would have known that they paid annual taxes and made regular pilgrimages to the Jerusalem Temple. Moreover, because the wealthiest and most powerful Judeans (broad sense) generally lived in Jerusalem, Judea’s elites probably wielded significant influence over Galilean politics. The archaeological and literary data support the idea that many Galileans saw their region as a subsidiary of Judea. Josephus’ accounts suggest that important Galileans relied on Judean patrons to maintain their power, and the canonical Gospels indicate that Galileans accepted the authority of Judean religious leaders. In addition, the widespread support in Galilee for the Judeans’ revolt against Rome reflects the loyalty many Galileans felt toward Jerusalem as the seat of both political and religious authority. On the other hand, the Judeans’ relative wealth and power may have generated resentment among some Galileans. Most of the Gospels imply that Jesus criticized Judea’s rich and powerful, whom he saw as oppressive and often beyond redemption. Furthermore, when powerful Judeans interfered in Galilean affairs, they may have been seen as undermining the authority of Galilee’s own elites.127 Josephus, who was Judean, faced this issue when he tried to assume command of Galilee. His appointment by the rebel government as governor of Galilee marginalized the region’s existing leaders, such as John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias, who responded by rejecting Josephus’ authority. Their opposition was not directed against the rebel government in Judea (to which they appealed for legitimacy as well), but against having their power in Galilee usurped by someone from outside the region.128 12.9.4 Temple/Religious Authorities and Galilee Although Herod the Great, Agrippa I, and the Roman procurators ruled from Caesarea, Jerusalem was essentially the cultural and religious capital of the 127 The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke portray Judea as oppressive. Q and Thomas both contain passages in which Jesus mentioned economic injustice; however, these passages were not set in specific locations. 128 U. Rappaport, John of Gischala: From the Mountains of Galilee to the Walls of Jerusalem, (2013), 92. http://jewish-history.haifa.ac.il/John-of-Gischala.pdf.

182

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

Jewish ethnos. The city contained the Jewish Temple and was therefore the seat of power for the Judean (broad sense) priestly aristocracy. Under both the Herodians and the Roman procurators, the Jewish high priest was given considerable legal powers that often left him in charge of the city. Moreover, because they were in charge of the Temple, the priests would have been the preeminent Jewish religious authorities. Galileans paid annual taxes to the Temple, and the ability to collect such taxes would have reinforced the priestly families’ legitimate authority over the Jewish people. However, the archaeological evidence also reflects a growing divide between Jerusalem’s ruling class and the average Galilean (and many common Judeans as well). Around the turn of the millennium, Galileans and rural Judeans began to spurn items associated with Greco-Roman culture and developed new cultural practices that further differentiated them from the Gentiles. At the same time, Jerusalem’s ruling class, the hereditary priests, continued to adopt many elements of Greco-Roman culture. The dichotomy between the material remains of Jerusalem’s elite and those of rural Judea and Galilee may imply that there was a growing cultural divide between the Judean priests and the rural inhabitants of Galilee and Judea.

12.10 Summary of Conclusions Overall, the evidence suggests that Galilee was relatively prosperous and politically stable between Herod the Great’s death and the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt. During this time, the region experienced the unusual combination of aggregate economic growth, urbanization, and significant population growth without suffering a concomitant decline in living standards. In terms of politics, the reigns of Antipas and Agrippa I were especially tranquil. In the 50s and 60s, however, Galilee was probably indirectly affected by the political instability brewing in Judea and the growing animosity between Jews and Gentiles in borderland communities. These tensions continued to intensify until Judea (broad sense) was consumed by rebellion and ethnic violence. Nonetheless, Galilee’s population was significantly less committed to the revolt than the Judeans. The Galileans remained divided in their loyalties throughout the rebellion, and most of them offered very little resistance to the Roman army when it arrived. Consequently, Galilee suffered far less than Judea did after the revolt, and all of the available evidence suggests that the region recovered quickly once the rebellion ended. This study’s findings have important implications for our understanding of Galilee’s cultural milieu. The evidence clearly demonstrates that most of Galilee’s inhabitants were ethnically Jewish, followed Jewish religious customs, and maintained strong cultural ties with Judea. At the same time, Gali-

12.10 Summary of Conclusions

183

leans became more isolated from their Gentile neighbors, and this insularity may have fueled the growing ethnic tensions between Jews and Gentiles in this period. The evidence also indicates that the Hellenization (and Romanization) of Galilee was more complicated and less uniform than most scholars have previously claimed. Lakeside Galilee, for example, was significantly more Hellenized and urbanized than the rest of the district. On the other hand, most of the rural settlements in both Upper and Lower Galilee had assimilated very few elements of Greco-Roman culture by the first century CE. Despite these differences, however, Jews throughout Galilee adopted new, common cultural practices that further distinguished them from Gentiles and resisted key elements of Greek and Roman culture. Thus, many Galileans simultaneously assimilated some features of Greco-Roman culture while vehemently rejecting others. 12.10.1 The Picture of Conflict or the Picture of Harmony? Morten Jensen has accurately described the major scholarly disagreements over Galilee’s socio-economic and political conditions as a conflict between two general “pictures” of early Roman Galilee. The “picture of conflict” portrays first century Galilee as a region that experienced several negative consequences of rapid urbanization, Hellenization, monetization, and social stratification. On the other hand, the “picture of harmony” presents first century Galilee as a society that was politically stable, relatively egalitarian, without major economic problems, and only modestly urbanized. Jensen also correctly points out that scholars who advocate similar pictures generally employ similar methods and emphasize the same types of evidence. Those who argue for the picture of conflict generally rely more on the literary evidence and on sociological models, while those who argue for the picture of harmony tend to emphasize the archaeological data.129 The current study has attempted to avoid such problems by separating the sources of evidence and interpreting each type of evidence separately before offering a comprehensive synthesis that does not rely too heavily on any one source of information. My findings suggest that the perceived discrepancies between the depictions of Galilee in the literary sources and the archaeological data have been overblown. In fact, many of the literary sources – including Josephus, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Matthew – portray Galilee as prosperous or even idyllic. In fact, the only primary source that supports the picture of conflict is the Gospel of Luke, which was probably written by someone who had little first-hand knowledge of the region’s socioeconomic environment. 129

Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 10–29, 46–47.

184

Chapter 12: Synthesis and Conclusions

In short, the preponderance of evidence concerning Galilee’s socioeconomic conditions is more consistent with the picture of harmony. Although, by today’s standards, economic hardship and oppression were common in all ancient societies, these problems were generally less pronounced in first century Galilee than they were in most parts of the Mediterranean.

Appendix 1

Q Passages Luke 3:7–9/Matthew 3:7–10 Luke 3:16–17/Matthew 3:11–12 Luke 4:1–13/Matthew 4:1–7, 9–11a, 13 Luke 6:20–23/Matthew 5:3–4, 6, 11–12 Luke 6:27–36/Matthew 5:39–42, 44–48; 7:5, 12 Luke 6:37–38a/Matthew 7:1–2a Luke 6:39–40/Matthew 15:14; 10:24–25 Luke 6:41–42/Matthew 7:3–5 Luke 6:43–45/Matthew 7:16–20; 12:33–35 Luke 6:46–49/Matthew 7:21, 24–27 Luke 7:1–10/Matthew 8:5–10, 13 Luke 7:18–20, 22–23/Matthew 11:2–6 Luke 7:24–28/Matthew 11:7–11 Luke 7:31–35/Matthew 11:16–19 Luke 9:57–60/Matthew 8:19–22 Luke 10:2–7, 9–10, 12/Matthew 9:37–38; 10:7–8, 12–13, 15–16 Luke 10:13–15/Matthew 11:21–23 Luke 10:16/Matthew 10:40 Luke 10:21–22/Matthew 11:25–27 Luke 10:23–24/Matthew 13:16–17 Luke 11:2–4/Matthew 6:9–13 Luke 11:9–13/Matthew 7:7–11 Luke 11:14, 19–20, 23/Matthew 12:22, 27– 28, 30 Luke 11:24–26/Matthew 12:43–45 Luke 11:29–32/Matthew 12:39–42 Luke 11:34–35/Matthew 6:22–23 Luke 11:39–41/Matthew 23:25–26 Luke 11:42/Matthew 23:23 Luke 11:44/Matthew 23:27

Luke 11:46/Matthew 23:4 Luke 11:47–48/Matthew 23:29–32 Luke 11:49–51/Matthew 23:34–36 Luke 11:52/Matthew 23:13 Luke 12:2–3/Matthew 10:27 Luke 12:4–7/Matthew 10:28–31 Luke 12:8–9/Matthew 10:32–33 Luke 12:22–31/Matthew 6:25–33 Luke 12:33–34/Matthew 6:19–21 Luke 12:39–40/Matthew 24:43–44 Luke 12:42–46/Matthew 24:45–51 Luke 12:51–53/Matthew 10:34–36 Luke 12:54–56/Matthew 16:2–3 Luke 12:57–59/Matthew 5:25–26 Luke 13:20–21/Matthew 13:33 Luke 13:24, 26–27/Matthew 7:13–14, 22–23 Luke 13:28–29/Matthew 8:11–12 Luke 13:34–35/Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 14:11, 18:14/Matthew 23:12 Luke 14:16–24/Matthew 22:1–10 Luke 14:26–27/Matthew 10:37–38 Luke 15:4–5, 7/Matthew 18:12–13 Luke 16:13/Matthew 6:24 Luke 16:16/Matthew 11:12–13 Luke 16:17/Matthew 5:18 Luke 17:1/Matthew 18:7 Luke 17:3–4/Matthew 18:15, 21–22 Luke 17:6/Matthew 17:20 Luke 17:23–24, 26–27, 30, 34–35, 37 /Matthew 24:26–28, 37, 39–41 Luke 19:12–26/Matthew 25:14–30 Luke 22:28–30/Matthew 19:28

Appendix 2

The Special Matthean Material (M) Matthew 1:1–2:23 Matthew 3:14–15 Matthew 4:14–16, 24 Matthew 5:1–2, 5, 7–10, 13b–14, 16–17, 19–24, 27–28, 33–38, 43 Matthew 6:1–8, 15–18, 34 Matthew 7:6, 15 Matthew 8:1, 17 Matthew 9:28, 30–36 Matthew 10:5–6, 23, 41 Matthew 11:1, 14, 20, 28–30 Matthew 12:6–7, 11–12, 17–21, 23, 36–37 Matthew 13:24–30, 35–52 Matthew 14:28–31, 33–36 Matthew 15:12–13, 23–24 Matthew 16:17–19 Matthew 17:6–7, 13, 20a, 24–27 Matthew 18:10, 14, 16–20, 23–35 Matthew 19:10–12 Matthew 20:1–15 Matthew 21:4–5, 10b–11, 14–16, 28–32, 44 Matthew 22:11–14, 33, 46 Matthew 23:13–, 5, 7–11, 15–22, 24, 33 Matthew 24: 10, 12, 38 Matthew 25:1–12, 31–46 Matthew 26:1, 25, 52–53 Matthew 27:3–10, 19, 23–25, 52–53, 62–66 Matthew 28:2–4, 9–20

Appendix 3

The Special Lukan Material (L) Luke 1:1–3:3 Luke 3:5–6, 10–15, 18, 23–38 Luke 4:14b–15, 17–22a, 23, 25–30, 37 Luke 5:2, 4–9, 61–17, 39 Luke 6:23–26 Luke 7:11–17, 21, 29–30, 36–50 Luke 8:1 Luke 9:31–32, 36b, 51–56, 61–62 Luke 10:1, 8, 11, 17–20, 25–26, 29–42 Luke 11:1, 5–8, 21–22, 27–28, 36–38, 45, 53–54 Luke 12:13–21, 32, 35–36, 41, 47–50 Luke 13:1–17, 22–23, 25, 31–33 Luke 14:1–10, 12–15, 25, 28–33, 35 Luke 15:1–3, 6, 8–32 Luke 16:1–12, 14–15, 19–31 Luke 17:5, 7–22, 25, 28–29, 32 Luke 18:1–14a, 34, 43b Luke 19:1–11, 27, 37, 39–44 Luke 20:16b, 18 Luke 21:18, 24, 34–35, 37–38 Luke 22:15, 24–27, 31–32, 35–38, 43–44, 51 Luke 23:2, 4–16, 25, 27–32, 40–43, 47–48, 56 Luke 24:11–53

Bibliography Adan-Bayewitz, D. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan UP, 1993. – “On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine.” In One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, edited by G.C. Bottini, L. di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collection Maior, 5–32. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003. – “The Pottery of the Galilee in the Roman Period: Production Locations, Specialization and Ceramic Ecology.” In Mehkerei Galil (Galilee Research), edited by Z. Safrai, 78–100. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2009. Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, and R.D. Giauque. “Determining Pottery Provenance: Application of a New High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence Method and Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis.” Archaeometry 41 (1999): 1–24. Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, R.D. Giauque, M. Wieder, I. Shaked, D. Avshalom-Gorni, and D. Gan. “Pottery Manufacture in Roman Galilee: Distinguishing Similar Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis.” In Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics: Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y. Maniatis. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002. Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, M. Wieder, and R.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. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and M. Aviam. “Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Seasons.” JRA 10 (1997): 131–165. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and I. Perlman. “Local Pottery Provenance Studies: A Role for Clay Analysis.” Archaeometry 27, no. 2 (1985): 203–217. – “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period.” IEJ 40 (1990): 153–172. Adan-Bayewitz, D., and M. Wieder. “Ceramics from Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization.” JFA 19 (1992): 189–205. Adler, Y. “Second Temple Period Ritual Baths Adjacent to Agricultural Installations: The Archaeological Evidence in Light of the Halakhic Sources.” JJS 59, no. 1 (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).” Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2011. Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible, edited by W.F. Albright and D.N. Freedman. Vol. 26, Garden City: Doubleday, 1971. Alexander, L. The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1. New York: Cambridge UP, 1993. Allison, D.C.J. The Jesus Tradition In Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997. Ando, C. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

190

Bibliography

Applebaum, S. “Judaea as a Roman Province: The Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor.” In ANRW, 355–396. New York: de Gruyer, 1977. Arav, R. “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987–1993.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 1, 3–63. – “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994–1996.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 2, 3–113. Arav, R., and R.A. Freund. Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. 4 vols. Bethsaida Excavations Project: Reports and Contextual Studies. Kirksville: Truman State UP, 1995–2009. Arav, R., R.A. Freund, and J.F. Shroder. “Bethsaida Rediscovered.” BAR 26, no. 1 (2000): 44–56. Arbel, Y. “The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2005. – “The Gamla Coin: A New Perspective on the Circumstances and Date of Their Minting.” In Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, edited by D.R. Miano and S. Malena, 257–275. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Argyle, W. “Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times.” NTS 20 (1973): 87–89. Arnal, W.E. “The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels.” HTR 88 (1995): 471–494. – “The Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of the Peasantry.” In Text and Artifact: Religions in Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, edited by S.G. Wilson and M. Desjardins. Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 135–57. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2000. Atrash, W. “Tiberias, The Roman Theater: Preliminary Report.” HA-ESI 122 (2010). Aune, D.E. “Jesus and the Romans in Galilee: Jews and Gentiles in the Decapolis.” In Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz, edited by A.Y. Collins, 230–251. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. Avalos, H. “Bethsaida in Light of the Study of Ancient Health Care.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 3, 213–231. Aviam, M. “Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle.” In Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 121–133. – “The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 110–122. – “Borders Between Jews and Gentiles in the Galilee.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 9–21. – “An Early Roman Oil Press in a Cave at Yodefat.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 89–91. – “Epilogue.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 314–318. – “First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective.” In Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, edited by D.R. Edwards, 7–27. New York: Routledge, 2004. – “The Identification and Function of Josephus Flavius’ Fortifications in the Galilee.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 92–105. – Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004. – “Viticulture and Olive Growing in Ancient Upper Galilee.” In Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 170–180.

Bibliography

191

– “Yodfat: A Test Case for the Development of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the Second Temple Period.” PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2005. – “The Archaeological Illumination of Josephus’ Battles at Yodefat and Gamla.” In Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, edited by Z. Rodgers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2007. – “Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 115–132. – “Socio-Economic Hierarchy and Its Economic Foundations in First Century Galilee: The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla.” In Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, edited by J. Pastor, M. Mor and P. Stern, 29–38. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Avshalom-Gorni, D., and N. Getzov. “Phoenicians and Jews: A Ceramic Case-Study.” In Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 74–83. Avshalom-Gorni, D., and A. Najar. “Migdal: Preliminary Report.” HA-ESI 125 (2013). Bar-Nathan, R. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973– 1987 Excavations. Vol. 3: The Pottery, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002. Barag, D. “Tyrian Currency in Galilee.” Israel Numismatic Journal, no. 6/7 (1982): 7–13. Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2 ed. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox , 1978. Batey, R.A. “Jesus and the Theatre.” NTS 30 (1984): 563–574. – Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. – “Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater?” In Jesus and Archaeology, edited by J.H. Charlesworth, 111–119. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bayley, J. “Production of Brass in Antiquity with Particular Reference to Roman Britain.” In 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, edited by P.T. Craddock. British Museum Occasional Papers. London: British Museum Publications, 1990. Beare, F.W. The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Harper: San Francisco, 1982. Ben-David, C. “Were There 204 Settlements in Galilee at the Time of Josephus Flavius?” JJS 62, no. 1 (2011): 21–36. Berlin, A.M. “Romanization and Anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Galilee.” In Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 57–73. – “Jewish Life Before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence.” JSJ 36, no. 4 (November 2005): 417–470. Berlin, A.M., and J.A. Overman, eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. New York: Routledge, 2002. Bernett, M. Der Kaiserkult als Teil der politischen Geschichte Iudeas unter den Herodianern und Römern (30 v.Chr.–66 n.Chr.). Munich: University of Munich, 2002. – “Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions, and Dynamics.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 337–356. Bilde, P. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Binder, D.D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. Atlanta: SBL, 1999. Bintliff, J. “Regional Survey, Demography, and the Rise of Complex Societies in the Ancient Aegean: Core-Periphery, Neo-Malthusian, and Other Interpretive Models.” JFA 24, no. 1 (1997): 1–38.

192

Bibliography

Blatz, B. “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” Translated by R.M. Wilson. In New Testament Apocrypha, edited by W. Schneemelcher, 110–114. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Blumell, L. “Social Banditry?: Galilean Banditry from Herod Until the Outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt.” Scripta Classica Israelica 27 (2008): 35–53. Bokser, B.M. “Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa.” JSJ 16, no. 1 (1985): 42–92. Borg, M.J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. – “The Palestinian Background for a Life of Jesus.” In The Search for Jesus, edited by H. Shanks, 37–58. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994. Bovon, F. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Translated by C.M. Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Broshi, M. “The Credibility of Josephus.” In Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin, edited by G. Vermes and J. Neusner: Totowa, 1983. Brown, R.E. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 29, Garden City: Doubleday, 1966. – The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Mahwah: Paulist, 1978. – The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 30, New York: Doubleday, 1982. – An Introduction to the Gospel of John. The Anchor Bible Reference Library, edited by D.N. Freedman New York: Doubleday, 2003. Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Buchli, V. “Interpreting Material Culture: The Trouble With Text.” In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last and G. Lucas, 181–193. London: Routledge, 1995. Cascio, E.L. “The Early Roman Empire: The State and the Economy.” In Scheidel and von Reden, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, 619–650. Chancey, M.A. “The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris.” NTS, 47, no. 2 (2001): 127–145. – The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. – “Galilee and Greco-Roman Culture in the Time of Jesus: The Neglected Significance of Chronology.” In SBLSP 2003, 173–188. Atlanta: Scholars, 2003. – Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. – “The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 83–89. – “Archaeology, Ethnicity, and First-Century CE Galilee: The Limits of Evidence.” In A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, edited by D.D. Margaret, M. Brian, M. Anne Fitzpatrick and R. Zuleika. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 205–218. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Chancey, M.A., and E.M. Meyers. “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 18–33. Chancey, M.A., and A. Porter. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” NEA, 64 (2001): 164–203. Cohen, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition. Vol. 8, Leiden: Brill, 1979. – The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Corbo, V.C. “Capernaum.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 866–869.

Bibliography

193

Craddock, F.B. Luke. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Lousiville: Westminster John Knox, 1990. Craddock, P.T. “The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 3: The Origins and Early Use of Brass.” Journal of Archaeological Science 5, no. 1 (1978): 1–16. Craddock, P.T., A.M. Burnett, and K. Preston. “Hellenistic Copper-Base Coinage and the Origins of Brass.” In Scientific Studies in Numismatics, edited by W.A. Oddy. British Museum Occasional Papers, 53–64. London: British Museum, 1980. Cromhout, M. “Were the Galileans ‘Religious Jews’ or ‘Ethnic Judeans?'“ Hervormde Teologiese Studies 64, no. 3 (2008): 1279–1297. Crossan, J.D. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon. Minneapolis: Winston , 1985. – The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Crossan, J.D., and J.L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. D’Angelo, M.R. “Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View.” JBL 109, no. 3 (1990): 441– 461. Dark, K.R. “Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognised Town Near the Sea of Galilee.” PEQ 145, no. 3 (2013) 185–202. Davies, S.L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. New York: Seabury, 1983. – The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained. Woodstock: Skylight Paths, 2002. – The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. Oregon House: Bardic , 2005. De Luca, S. “La città ellenistico-romana di Magdala/Taricheae. Gli scavi del Magdala Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione preliminare e prospettive di indagine.” Liber Annuus 59 (2009): 343–349. – “Urban Development of the City of Magdala/Tarichaeae in the Light of the New Excavations: Remains, Problems and Perspectives.” In Symposium Greco-Roman Galilee (21st e 23rd June 2009), Forthcoming. DeLorme, C.D.J., S. Isom, and D.R. Kamerschen. “Rent Seeking and Taxation in the Ancient Roman Empire.” Applied Economics 37 (2005): 705–711. Dever, W.G. “Archeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution.” BA 43 (1980): 41– 48. – Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. University of Washington Press, 1989. Dmitriev, S. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968. Donahue, J.R., and D.J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005. Doole, J.A. What Was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew’s Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Dothan, M. Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains. Ancient Synagogue Studies. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Drury, J. Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel. London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1976. Duling, D.C. “Ethnicity, Ethnocentrism, and the Matthean Ethnos.” BTB 35, no. 4 (2005): 125–143. Dunbabin, K.M.D. The Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.

194

Bibliography

Duncan-Jones, R. Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Dungworth, D. “Roman Copper Alloys: Analysis of Artefacts from Northern Britain.” Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997): 901–910. Dunn, J.D.G. “Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate.” NTS 48, no. 4 (2002): 449–467. – The Oral Gospel Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013 Edwards, D.R. “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence.” In SBLSP 1988, edited by D.J. Lull, 169–182. Atlanta: SBL, 1988. – “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement.” In Studies on the Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L.I. Levine, 53–74. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. – “Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 357–374. Edwards, D.R., and C.T. McCollough. “Archaeology and the Galilee: An Introduction.” In Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 1–6. Edwards, D.R., and C.T. McCollough., eds. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Eshel, H. “A Note on ‘Miqvaot’ at Sepphoris.” In Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 131–133. – “They’re Not Ritual Baths.” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 42–45. – “We Need More Data.” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 49. Ewherido, A.O. Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century CE: The Evidence from Matthew’s Chapter on Parables (Matthew 13:1–52). Studies in Biblical Literature 91, New York: Peter Lang, 2006. Farhi, Y. “The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered.” Israel Numismatic Journal 15 (2006): 69–76. Feldman, L.H. “Josephus’ Attitude Towards the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence.” In Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, 114–136. Leiden: Brill, 1996. – Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. University of California Press, 1998. Feldman, L.H., and G. Hata. Josephus, the Bible, and History. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Fiensy, D.A. The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land Is Mine. SBEC 20. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991. – Jesus the Galilean: Soundings in a First Century Life. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2007. Finley, M.I. The Ancient Economy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). Fischel, H.A. “Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria.” In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, edited by J. Neusner, 372–411. Leiden: Brill, 1968. – “Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism.” In American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-Centennial Volume, edited by D. Sinor, 59– 88. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1969. Fitzmyer, J.A. “The Name Simon.” HTR 56, no. 1 (1963): 1–5. – The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 28, Garden City: Doubleday, 1981. – The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV): Introduciton, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 28A, Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. – “Did Jesus Speak Greek?” BAR 18, no. 5 (1992): 58–77. – The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Bibliography

195

Fortna, R.T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1970. – The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessors: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Fraenkel, Y. “Ma’aseh BeR. Shila.” Tarbiz 40 (5731 [1970–1971]): 33–40. – “Hermeneutic Problems in the Study of Aggadic Narrative.” Tarbiz 47 (5738 [1977–1978]): 139–172. France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Frankel, R., N. Getzov, M. Aviam, and A. Degani. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey. IAA Reports, No. 14. Jerusalem: IAA, 2001. Freedman, D.N., and S. Dolansky Overton. “Omitting the Omissions: The Case for Haplography in the Transmission of the Biblical Texts.” In Imagining Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan, edited by D.M. Gunn and P.M. McNutt. JSOTSup, 99–116. London: Sheffield Academic , 2002. Freedman, D.N., and J.R. Lundbom. “Haplography in Jeremiah 1–20.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 28– 38. Freedman, D.N., and D.R. Miano. “Is the Shorter Reading Better?: Haplography in the First Book of Chronicles.” In Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, edited by S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman and W.W. Fields, 685–698. Leiden: Brill, 2003. – “Slip of the Eye: Accidental Omission in the Masoretic Tradition.” In The Challenge of Bible Translation: Essays in Honor of Ronald F. Youngblood, edited by G.G. Scorgie, M.L. Strauss and S.M. Voth, 273–299. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Freyne, S. “The Charismatic.” In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, edited by J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nicklesburg. SBLSCS, 223–258. Chico: Scholars, 1980. – Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 BCE to 135 CE. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1980. – “Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary Sources.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L.I. Levine, 75–91. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. – “Herodian Economics in Galilee: Searching for a Suitable Model.” In Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its context, edited by P.F. Esler, 23–46. New York: Routledge, 1995. – “Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee.” In Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 49–56. – “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi.” In Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E.M. Meyers, 39–55. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. – “Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 13–32. Frier, B.W. “Statistics and Roman Society.” JRA 5 (1992): 286–290. – “Demography.” In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbonem The High Empire: A.D. 70–192. 2nd ed. Vol. 11 of The Cambridge Ancient History, 788–816. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Gabba, E. “The Finances of King Herod.” In Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuks, 160–168. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990. Gal, Z. Lower Galilee During the Iron Age. ASOR Dissertation Series. Vol. 8, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

196

Bibliography

Gale, A.M. Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew’s Gospel. New York: Continuum, 2005. Galor, K. “Domestic Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Galilee and Golan.” NEA 66, no. 1–2 (2003): 44–57. Garnsey, P. “Mass Diet and Nutrition in the City of Rome.” In Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History, edited by W. Scheidel, 226– 252. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Garnsey, P., and R. Saller. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Gibson, S. “Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment.” In One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM, edited by G.C. Bottini, L.d. Segni and L.D. Chrupcala, 287–308. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003. Goldsmith, R.W. “An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire.” Review of Income and Wealth 30 (1984): 263–88. Goodblatt, D. “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History.” In History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, edited by B.M. Bokser. BJS 21, 31–44. Chico: Scholars, 1980. – The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. – “‘The Israelites Who Reside in Judah’ (Judith 4:1): On the Conflicted Identities of the Hasmonean State.” In Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, edited by L.I. Levine and D.R. Schwartz. TSAJ 130, 114–38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. – “Varieties of Identity in Late Second Temple Judah.” In Jewish Identity and Politics Between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba, edited by B. Eckhardt, 11–27. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Goodman, M. State and Society in Roman Galilee, AD 132–212. Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000. Grabbe, L.L., and R.D. Haak. “Every City Shall Be Forsaken”: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Green, J.B. The Gospel of Luke: New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Green, W.S. “What’s in a Name?: The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography’.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Pactice, edited by W.S. Green, 77–96. Missoula: Scholars, 1978. – “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition.” ANRW 2.l9.2 (1979), 619–647. Greene, J.T. “The Honorific Naming of Bethsaida-Julias.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 2, 307–346. Greene, K. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Grundmann, W. Jesus der Galiläer und das Judentum. Leipzig: Georg Wigand, 1940. Grünewald, T. Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality. Translated by J. Drinkwater. New York: Routledge, 2004. Gutman, S. “Gamla – 1983.” ESI 3 (1984): 26–27. Hanson, A.T. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Hanson, K.C. “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition.” BTB 27 (1997): 99– 111.

Bibliography

197

Hanson, R.S. Tyrian Influence in Upper Galilee. Meiron Excavation Project, edited by E.M. Meyers. Vol. 2, Cambridge, MA: ASOR, 1980. Harland, P.A. “The Economy of First Century Palestine: The State of Scholarly Discussion.” In Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by A.J. Blasi, P.A. Turcotte and J. Duhaime, 511–27. Walnut Creek: Alta Mira , 2002. Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991. Harrington, H.K. “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity?” JSJ 26 (1995): 42–54. Harris, W.V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1989. Hartal, M. “Gush Halav.” HA-ESI 120 (2008). – “Tiberias: Galei Kinneret.” HA-ESI 120 (2008). – “Gush Halav: Preliminary Report (11/10/2010).” HA-ESI 122 (2010). Hartal, M., E. Amos, and A. Hillman. “Tiberias: Preliminary Report.” HA-ESI 122 (2010). Hendin, D. “A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas.” Israel Numismatic Journal 15 (2006): 56– 61. Hengel, M., and R. Deines, “E. P. Sanders' ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees.” JTS 46, no. 1 (1995): 1–70. Herzog, W.R. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Hezser, C. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. – Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Hirschfeld, Y. A Guide to Antiquity Sites in Tiberias. Jerusalem: IAAy, 1992. – “Jewish Rural Settlement in Judaea in the Early Roman Period.” In The Early Roman Empire in the East, edited by S.E. Alcock, p. 72–88. Oxford: Oxbow, 1997. – Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994. IAA Reports. Vol. 22, Jerusalem: IAA, 2004. Hirschfeld, Y., and K. Galor. “New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 207–231. Hirschfeld, Y., and E. Meir. “Tiberias – 2004.” HA-ESI 118 (2006). Hitchner, R.B. “Olive Production and the Roman Economy: The Case for Intensive Growth in the Roman Empire.” In Scheidel and von Reden, The Ancient Economy, 71–83. – “The Advantages of Wealth and Luxury: The Case for Economic Growth in the Roman Empire.” In The Ancient Economy: Evidence and Models, edited by J.G. Manning and I. Morris. Social Science History, 207–222. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2005. Hoehner, H.W. Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972. – Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983. 1972. Hoglund, K.G., and E. Meyers. “The Residential Quarter on the Western Summit.” In Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 39–43. Holleran, C., and A. Pudsey, eds. Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Hopkins, K. “Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity.” In Towns in Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology, edited by P. Abrams and E.A. Wrigley, 35–79. New York: Cambridge UP, 1978. – “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire.” JRS 70 (1980): 101–25. – “Models, Ships and Staples.” In Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity, edited by P. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker, 84–109. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. – “Rome, Taxes, Rents and Trade.” In Scheidel and von Reden, The Ancient Economy, 190– 230. Horsley, R.A. “Josephus and the Bandits.” JSJ 10, no. 1 (1979): 37–63.

198

Bibliography

– “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against Rome, AD 66–70.” CBQ 43 (1981): 409– 432. – “Bandits, Messiahs, and Longshoremen: Popular Unrest in Galilee Around the Time of Jesus.” In SBLSP 1988, edited by D.J. Lull, 183–199. Atlanta: SBL, 1988. – Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1995. – Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis. Valley Forge: Trinity International, 1996. – Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. – Jesus in Context: Power, People, and Performance. Minneapolis: Fortress , 2008. Horsley, R.A., and J.A. Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity , 1999. Horsley, R.A., and J.S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. New York: Winston, 1985. Hultgren, A.J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Incigneri, B.J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65, Boston: Brill, 2003. Isaac, B. Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road. Oxford: BAR, 1982. – The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon , 1990. IAA. “One of the Oldest Synagogues in the World Was Exposed at Migdal (9/13).” IAA Press Release, 2009. Istenič, J. “An Early Roman Dagger from the Vicinity of Štanjel.” In Studies in Celtic Archaeology, 332–342. Montagnac: M. Mergoil, 2009. Istenič, J., and Ž. Šmit. “The Beginning of the Use of Brass in Europe with Particular Reference to the Southeastern Alpine Region.” In Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, edited by S.L. Niece, D. Hook and P.T. Craddock, 140–147. London: Archetype Publications, 2007. Jensen, M.H. “Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus’ Narratives on Herod Antipas.” In Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, edited by Z. Rodgers. Leiden: Brill, 2005. – Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee. WUNT 2.215. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. – “Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in Their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 277–314. – “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes: An Investigation of the Socio-Economic Dynamics and Developments in Roman Galilee.” Bib 91, no. 1 (2012): 43–67. – “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation.” JSHJ 11 (2013): 3–34. Jeremias, J. “Tradition und Redaktion in Lukas 15.” ZNW 62 (1971): 172–181. Johnson, L.T. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina Series. Vol. 3, Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992. Jones, A.H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1971. – The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974. Jongman, W.M. “The Early Roman Empire: Consumption.” In Scheidel, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, 592–618. Jossa, G. “Josephus’ Action in Galilee During the Jewish War.” In Parente and Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 265–275.

Bibliography

199

Kasher, A. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332 BCE–70 CE). Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Kee, H.C. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel. London: SCM, 1977. Kee, H.C., and L.H. Cohick. Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress. New York: Continuum, 1999. Keener, C.S. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kierspel, L. The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kindler, A. “The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected by Their Coins.” Israel Numismatic Journal, no. 6–7 (1982): 79–87. – “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 2, 250–268. – “The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 2, 245–249. King, K.L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2005. Kingsbury, J.D. “Conclusion: Analysis of a Conversation.” In Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D.L. Balch, 259–269. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Klepinger, L.L. “Nutritional Assessment from Bone.” Annual Review of Anthropology 13 (1984): 75–96. Klijn, A.F.J. The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. rev. ed. Boston: Brill, 2003. Kloppenborg, J.S. “On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew.” NTS 49 (2003): 210–236. – Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Kloppenborg Verbin, J.S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. – The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. WUNT 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Koester, H. “Introduction to ‘The Gospel of Thomas’.” In The Nag Hammadi Library, edited by J.M. Robinson, 124–126. San Fransisco: Harper, 1990. Kuhn, H.W. “An Introduction to the Excavations of Bethsaida (et-Tell) from a New Testament Perspective.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 2, 283–294. Lane, W.L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. rev. ed. Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 1974. Lapin, H. “Palestinian Inscriptions and Jewish Ethnicity.” In Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E.M. Meyers, 239–268. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Laurence, R. “Land Transport in Roman Italy: Costs, Practice and the Economy.” In Trade, Traders and the Ancient City, 129–148. London: Routledge, 1998. Lee, R.D. “Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis.” In The State of Population Theory: Forward from Malthus, edited by D. Coleman and R. Schofield, 96–130. New York: Blackwell, 1986. Leibner, U. “History of Settlement in the Eastern Galilee During the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey.” Bar-Ilan University, 2004. – “The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, November 2007.

200

Bibliography

– Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. TSAJ 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lenski, G.E. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGrawHill, 1966. Levine, L.I. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1989. – Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington, 1998. – The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale UP, 2005. 2000. Lieberman, S. “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” In Biblical and Other Studies, edited by A. Altmann, 123–141. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1963. Loffreda, S. Recovering Capharnaum. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Guides. Vol. 1, Jerusalem 1985. – “Capernaum.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993, 291– 295. – “Capernaum.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E.M. Meyers. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford UP, 1997, 416–419. Lowe, M. “Who Were the “Ioudaioi’?” NovT 18, no. 2 (1976): 101–130. MacDonald, D.R. “The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul.” NTS 45 (1999): 88–107. – “The Soporific Angel in Acts 12:1–17 and Hermes’ Visit to Priam in Iliad 24: Luke’s Emulation of the Epic.” Forum 2, no. 2 (1999): 179–187. – “The Ending of Luke and the Ending of the Odyssey.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.A. Argall, 161–168. Harrisburg: Trinity International, 2000. – “Paul’s Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector’s Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer’s Iliad.” In Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, edited by T. Penner and C.V. Stichele, 189–203. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. – “The Breasts of Hecuba and Those of the Daughters of Jerusalem: Luke’s Transvaluation of a Famous Iliadic Scene.” In Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, edited by J.A. Brant, C.W. Hedrick and C. Shea. SBL Symposium Series 32, 239–254. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Mack, B.L. “Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus.” In Whose Historical Jesus? edited by W.E. Arnal and M. Desjardins, 25–36. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier UP, 1997. MacMullen, R. “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire.” AJP 103 (1982): 233–246. Magen, Y. “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple Period.” In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, edited by H. Geva, 244–256. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. – “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times.” BAR 24, no. 5 (1998): 46– 52. Magness, J. “The Question of the Synagogue: The Problem of Typology.” In Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 3: The Special Problem of the Synagogue, edited by A.J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner, 1–48. Leiden: Brill, 2001. – The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. – The Archaeology of the Holy Land: From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. Malina, B.J. The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective: Protocol of the Forty-Eighth Colloquy. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1985.

Bibliography

201

Marcus, J. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 27, New York: Doubleday, 2000. Marshall, I.H. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Martyn, J.L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Third ed. Louisville: John Knox, 2003. Mason, S. Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Vol. 9, Boston: Brill, 2001. – “Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience.” In Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, edited by J. Sievers and G. Lembi, 71–100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. – “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. – “Josephus’ Pharisees: the Narratives.” In In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, edited by J. Neusner and B.D. Chilton, 3–40. Waco: Baylor UP, 2007. Meier, J.P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. The Anchor Bible Reference Library, edited by D.N. Freedman. Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, New York: Doubleday, 1991. – “The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain.” Bib 80 (1999): 459–486. Meshorer, Y. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Vol. 2, Dix Hills: Amphora Books, 1982. – “Coins of Sepphoris.” In Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 195–198. – “Market Weight.” In Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 201. – Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins. Haifa: University of Haifa, 1998. – A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 2001. Meyers, E.M. “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction.” BASOR 221 (1976): 92–102. – “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism.” In ANRW 19.2.1, edited by W. Haase, 686–702. New York: de Gruyter, 1979. – “Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal,” in W. Green, Approaches to Ancient Judaism, 5:115-131. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985. – “The Challenge of Hellenism for Early Judaism and Christianity.” BA 55 (1992): 84–91. – “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L.I. Levine, 321–338. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. – “Identifying Religious and Ethnic Groups Through Archaeology.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram, 738–745. Jerusalem: Keterpress, 1993. – “Jesus and His Galilean Context.” In Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 57–66. – “Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67–68 CE): Archaeology and Josephus.” In Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E.M. Meyers, 109–122. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. – “Yes, They Are.” BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 46–49. – “Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special Reference to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths.” In Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, edited by J.R. Bartlett, 193–220. New York: Routledge, 2002. – “Sepphoris: City of Peace.” In Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 110–119.

202

Bibliography

Meyers, E.M., E. Netzer, and C.L. Meyers. “The Roman Theater at Sepphoris.” BA 53 (1990): 190–191. Miller, D.M. “The Meaning of Ioudaios and Its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient ‘Judaism’.” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2010): 98–126. Modrzejewski, J. The Jews of Egypt: from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Translated by R. Cornman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Moloney, F.J. and D.J. Harrington. The Gospel of John. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998. Monson, A.P. Agrarian Institutions in Transition: Privatization from Ptolemaic to Roman Egypt. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, 2008. Moreland, M. “Q and the Economics of Early Roman Galilee.” In The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, edited by A. Lindemann, 561–576. Sterling: Peeters, 2001. – “The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Subsistence Ethic.” In Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, edited by D.R. Edwards, 37–48. New York: Routledge, 2004. – “The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 133–162. Nagy, R.M., C.L. Meyers, E.M. Meyers and Z. Weiss, eds. Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Naveh, J. “Jar Fragment with Inscription in Hebrew.” In Nagy, Sepphoris in Galilee, 170. Netzer, E. and Z. Weiss. Zippori. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. Neusner, J. Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Leiden: Brill, 1970. – The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70: The Houses. Leiden: Brill, 1971. – From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973. – Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. – “Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah.” SJT 44, no. 01 (1991): 73–96. – Three Questions of Formative Judaism: History, Literature, and Religion. Boston: Brill, 2002. Nickle, K.F. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Nolland, J. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Oakman, D.E. “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus.” In SBLSP 1994, edited by E.H. Lovering, Jr., 220–251. Atlanta: SBL, 1994. – “Money in the Moral Universe of the New Testament.” In The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by B.J. Malina, W. Stegemann, and G. Theissen, 335–349. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Oppenheimer, A. “Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period.” In Between Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society, edited by N. Oppenheimer, 100–114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Overman, J.A. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Pagels, E. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003. Parente, F., and J. Sievers, eds. Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Honor of Morton Smith. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Parkin, T.G. Demography and Roman Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992.

Bibliography

203

Pastor, J. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. New York: Routledge, 1997. Patrich, J. “The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea Maritima and Connections with the Circus Maximus.” JRA 14 (2001): 269–283. – “Herodian Entertainment Structures.” In Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005. Edited by D.M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos. IJS Studies in Judaica: Conference Proceedings of the IJS, University College London, 181–213. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Patterson, S.J. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge , 1993. Peterson, D.N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 48, Boston: Brill, 2000. Pfann, S. “Dated Bronze Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin.” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeology Society 24 (2006): 101–113. Ponting, M.J. “The Chemical Analysis of a Selection of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork from the Early Roman Fortified Complex.” In Ramat HaNadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, edited by Y. Hirschfeld, 504–510. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. – “Keeping Up with the Romans? Romanisation and Copper Alloys in First Revolt Palestine.” Journal of the Institute of Archaeometallurgical Studies 22 (2002): 3–6. – “Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artifacts from Israel: Questions of Organization and Ethnicity.” Archaeometry 44, no. 4 (2002): 555–571. – “Scientific Analysis and Interpretation of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Vol. 4: The Burnt House of Area B, edited by H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2010. – “Chemical Analysis of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork from the Roman Contexts.” In Tel Anafa II, ii: Glass Vessels, Lamps, Objects of Metal, and Groundstone and Other Stone Tools and Vessels, edited by A.M. Berlin and S.C. Herbert, 287–298. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan, 2012. Rabban, A., and K.G. Holum. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Rajak, T. “Justus of Tiberias.” CQ 23 (1973): 345–368. – Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 1983. Rappaport, U. “John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem.” JJS 33 (1982): 479–493. – “Where Was Josephus Lying – In His Life or in the War?” In Parente and Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 279–289. – “Josephus’ Personality and the Credibility of His Narrrative.” In Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, edited by Z. Rodgers. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 68–81. Boston: Brill, 2007. – John of Gischala: From the Mountains of Galilee to the Walls of Jerusalem. 2013. http://jewish-history.haifa.ac.il/John-of-Gischala.pdf. Reed, J.L. “Places in Early Christianity: Galilee, Archaeology, Urbanisation, and Q.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1994. – “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities,’ and the Sayings Gospel Q.” In Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E.M. Meyers, 87–108. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999. – Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. – “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspective.” JBL 129, no. 2 (2010): 343– 365.

204

Bibliography

– “Romanizing Galilee?: Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space Under Herod Antipas.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, November 2007. Rehren, T. “Small Size, Large Scale Roman Brass Production in Germania Inferior.” Journal of Archoelogical Science 26 (1999): 1083–1087. Reich, R. “Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer.” IEJ 31 (1981): 48–52. Rhoads, D.M. Israel in Revolution, 6–74 CE: A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Richards, G.C. “The Composition of Josephus’ Antiquities.” CQ 33, no. 1 (1939): 36–40. Richardson, P. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. Robinson, J.M., P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition of Q. Hermenia Supplement. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Rogers, G. “From the Greek Polis to the Greco-Roman Polis: Augustus and the Artemision of Ephesos.” In Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA), August 22–24, 1997, edited by H. Eltron and G.L. Reger, 137–145. Pessac: Ausonius, 2007. Root, B. “Scribal Error and the Transmission of 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39.” In Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible, and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by S. Dolansky, 51–60. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Roskam, H.N. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in Its Historical and Social Context. NovTSup 114, Boston: Brill, 2004. Roth, J. “Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Antonio, November 2004. – “Jews and the Roman Army. Perceptions and Realities” in L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio, The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476): Papers of the 6th Workshop on the Impact of Empire; The Roman Army, 409–420. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Runesson, A. “Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in Capernaum from the First to Sixth Century.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 231–258. Runesson, A., D.D. Binder, and B. Olsson. The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Rutgers, L.V. “Some Reflections on the Archaeological Finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sepphoris.” In Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later Roman Palestine, edited by H. Lapin. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture. Bethesda: UP of Maryland, 1998. Safrai, S. “Tales of the Sages in Palestinian Tradition and the Babylonian Talmud.” ScrHier 22 (1971): 209–232. Safrai, Z. The Economy of Roman Palestine. New York: Routledge, 1994. Saldarini, A.J. “The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L.I. Levine, 23–38. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. – Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. – Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Sallares, R. Malaria and Rome: A History of Malaria in Ancient Italy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Sanders, E.P. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969.

Bibliography

205

– Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. – Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. SCM/Trinity International, 1990. – Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1992. – The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993. – “Jesus in Historical Context.” Theology Today 50 (1993): 429–448. Sanders, J.T. “Tradition and Redaction in Luke XV.11–32.” NTS 15 (1968): 433–38. Savage, C. “Supporting Evidence for First Century Bethsaida.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 193–206. Schäfer, P. Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentumes. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Scheidel, W. “Livitina’s Bitter Gains: Seasonal Mortality and Endemic Disease in the Ancient World.” AncSoc 25 (1994): 151–175. – Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 2001. – “Demographic and Economic Development in the Ancient Mediterranean World.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 160, no. 4 (December 2004): 743–757. – “Population and Demography.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2006. http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/040604.pdf. – “Demography.” In Scheidel, The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, 38–86. – “Demography and Human Development in the Roman World.” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Conference, San Diego, 2007. – “A Model of Real Income Growth in Roman Italy.” Historia 56 (2007): 332–346. – “Disease and Death in the Ancient City of Rome.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2009. http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/091006.pdf. – “Economy and Quality of Life in the Roman World.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2009. http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010902.pdf. – “In Search of Roman Economic Growth.” JRA 22 (2009): 46–70. – “Human Development and Quality of Life in the Long Run: The Case of Greece.” Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2010. http://www.princeton.edu /~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/091006.pdf. – “Physical Well-Being.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, edited by W. Scheidel, 321–333. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. – “The Shape of the Roman World.” 1–27: Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, 2013. http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/041306.pdf. Scheidel, W., and E. Meeks. “ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World.” http://orbis.stanford.edu. Scheidel, W., I. Morris, and R. Saller, eds. The Cambridge Economic History of the GrecoRoman World. New York: Cambridge UP, 2007. Scheidel, W., and S. von Reden, eds. The Ancient Economy, Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2002. Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel of Matthew. Translated by R.R. Barr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135). Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973. Schwartz, D.R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Schwartz, S. “Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown.” In Parente and Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 290–308. – Josephus and Judaean Politics. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18, New York: Brill, 1990. – Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001.

206

Bibliography

Schweizer, E. “What About the Johannine ‘Parables’?” In Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, edited by D.M. Smith, R.A. Culpepper and C.C. Black, 208– 219. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Scott, B.B. Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Segal, A. Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden: Brill, 1995. – Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia (Mnemosyne Supplements). Leiden: Brill, 1997. Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1989. – The Gospel of Matthew. Interpreting Biblical Texts Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 2011. Sevenster, J.N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? Leiden: Brill, 1968. Shaw, B.D. “Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus.” JJS 44 (1993): 176– 204. – “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present 105 (1984): 3–52. Shillington, V.G. Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997. Sigmismund, M. “Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Century CE Tiberias.” In Zangenberg, Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee, 315–336. Sim, D. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Smallwood, E.M. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Smekalova, T.J.N. “The Earliest Application of Brass and ‘Pure’ Copper in the Hellenistic Coinages of Asia Minor and the Northern Black Sea Coast.” In Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom, edited by J.M. Højte. Black Sea Studies, 233–248. Aarhus: Aarhus UP, 2009. Smith, M. “Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation.” HTR 64, no. 1 (1971): 1–19. – Jesus the Magician. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Southall, A.W. The City in Time and Space. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Stark, R. “Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew’s Gospel.” In Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D.L. Balch, 189–210. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Stegemann, W. “Vagabond Radicalism in Early Christianity?: A Historical and Theological Discussion of a Thesis Proposed by Gerd Theissen.” In God of the Lowly: Socio-Historical Interpretations of the Bible. Edited by W. Schottroff and E. Stegemann. Translated by M.J. O’Connell. 148–168. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1984. – The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Translated by O.C. Dean. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Stein, R.H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. Stern, M., ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Strange, J.F. “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies.” In What Has Archaeology to Do With Faith? edited by J.H. Charlesworth and W.P. Weaver, 23–59. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. – “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts.” In Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 39–48. Strange, J.F., and T.R.W. Longstaff. “Sepphoris, 1985.” IEJ 35 (1986): 297– 299. Streeter, B.H. The Four Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1924.

Bibliography

207

Strickert, F. “The Coins of Philip.” In Arav and Freund, Bethsaida. Vol. 1, 165–189. In Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, edited by R. Arav and R.A. Freund, 165–189. Kirksville: Truman State UP, 1995. – “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. Vol. 3, 93–118. Syon, D. “The Coins from Gamala: Interim Report.” Israel Numismatic Journal, no. 12 (1992): 34–55. – “Gamla: City of Refuge.” In Berlin and Overman, The First Jewish Revolt, 134–153. – “Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew University, 2004. – “Numismatic Evidence of Jewish Presence in Galilee Before the Hasmonean Annexation.” Israel Numismatic Research 1 (2006): 21–24. Syon, D., and Z. Yavor. “Gamla 1997–2000.” ‘Atiqot 50 (2005): 37–71. Syon, D., and Y. Zvi. “Gamla 1997–2000.” HA-ESI, no. 114 (2002): 2–4. Talgam, R., and O. Peleg. “Mosaic Pavements in Herod’s Day.” In The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, edited by E. Netzer, 377–383. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Temin, P. “The Contribution of Economics.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, edited by W. Scheidel, 45–70. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. Toher, M. “Nicolaus and Herod in the “Antiquitates Judaicae”.” HSCP 101 (2003): 427–447. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2011. Trudinger, P. “Exposing the Depths of Oppression (Luke 16:1b–8a): The Parable of the Unjust Steward.” In Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today, edited by V.G. Shillington, 121–137. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997. Udoh, F.E. To Caesar What is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 BCE–70 CE). Providence: BJS, 2005. Uro, R. Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas. New York: T & T Clark, 2003. van der Horst, P.W. “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy.” In Hellenism in the Land of Israel, edited by J.J. Collins and G.E. Sterling, 154–174. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew. London: William Collins Sons & Co., 1973. von Wahlde, U.C. “The Johannine ‘Jews’: A Critical Survey.” NTS 28, no. 01 (1982): 33–60. Wacholder, B.Z. “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus.” In Josephus, the Bible, and History, edited by L.H. Feldman and G. Hata, 147–172. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989. Wagner, D. “Oil Production at Gamla.” In Olive Oil in Antiquity, edited by D. Eitam and M. Heltzer, 301–306. Padova: Sargon, 1996. Waterman, L. Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine in 1931. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1937. Weiss, Z. “Jewish Galilee in the First Century CE: An Archaeological View.” In Flavius Josephus, Vita: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, edited by D.R. Schwartz, 15–60. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi , 2007. White, L.M. “Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of the Matthean Community.” In Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D.L. Balch, 211–247. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. – Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Wieder, M., and D. Adan-Bayewitz. “Pottery Manufacture in Early Roman Galilee: A Micromorphological Study.” Catena 35, no. 2–4 (May 1999): 327–341. Witherington, B. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. – The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

208

Bibliography

Woolf, G. “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire.” The JRS 86 Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (1996): 22–39. – Rome: An Empire’s Story. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Zangenberg, J.K. “Urbanization.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life, 165–188, 2010. – “Archaeological News from the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural Galilee.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 3–14. Zangenberg, J., H.W. Attridge, and D.B. Martin, eds. Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, WUNT 210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

! !

!

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament 2 Kings 15:29

Isaiah 9:1–2

16

70

New Testament Matthew 1:1–17 1:20 2:1 2:4 2:20 2:22 2:23 4:1–7 4:5 4:9–11a 4:13 4:15 4:24 5:3–4 5:3–12 5:6 5:11–12 5:18 5:20 5:21–22 5:25–26 5:26 5:27–28 5:33–37 5:39–42 5:42 5:44–48 5:47

! !

150 150 150 73 72 72 71 65 57–58 65 65, 71 70 68 63, 159 80 63, 159 63, 159 64 73 73 59, 61, 53, 152 55, 62 73 73 59, 80 63 59, 80 70

6:2–6 6:7 6:9–13 6:16–18 6:19–21 6:24 6:25–33 6:31–32 6:32 7:5 7:12 8:5 8:5–10 8:5–13 8:10 8:13 8:19 9:1 9:17 9:20 9:34 9:35 10:5 10:5–6 10:8 10:15 10:29 11:4–6 11:16

!

74 70 63 74 63, 80 63 63 65 70 59, 80 59, 80 57 64–65 61, 94 61, 65 64–65 64 71 69 73 73 71, 73 70, 179 65 64 57 62 63–64 59

Index of Ancient Sources

210 11:18 11:19 11:21 11:21–23 11:23 11:23–24 12:3 12:7 12:22 12:23 12:27–28 12:35 12:36–37 12:41 12:43–45 13:24–43 13:24–50 13:44 13:45 13:52 13:55 15:12 15:17 15:21–28 15:22 17:24–27 17:25–27 17:25b–26 17:27 18:17 18:23–28 18:23–38 19:28 20:1–13 20:30–31 21:9 21:15 21:31–32 22:1–10 23:2 23:4 23:13 23:15 23:23 23:25 23:25–27 23:27 23:29 23:29–32 23:34

! !

64 63 57 61, 78, 94 57 57 150 73 64 150 64 63 73 57 64 71 72 71 71 73 69 73 69 74 150 72–74, 80 72, 74 74 71 70, 72–73 71 71 61 72 150 150 73, 150 72–73 62 73 64 64 73 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

23:34–36 23:37 23:37–39 24:14 24:26–28 24:37 24:39–41 24:45–51 25:14–30 25:15 25:16 25:20 25:22 25:24 25:27 25:28 26:13 26:73 28:19 28:19–20

64 57–58 65 68 65 65 65 63, 166 62–63, 166 62 62 62 62, 64 63 62, 64 62. 64 68 51, 180 70 68

Mark 1:5 1:9 1:16 1:21–27 1:22 1:23–27 1:27–28 1:28 1:29–30 1:32–34 1:33 1:39 1:40–42 1:45 2:1–2 2:3–12 2:6–7 2:12–13 2:13–17 2:16–17 2:22 2:23–28 3:1 3:1–6 3:6 3:7–9 3:8 3:10–11

51 50 49 47 48 48–49 49 50, 68 49 48–50 46, 71 47–48 49 46, 49–50, 71 50 49 48, 51 50 80 48 69 47–48 47 47 47–48 50 51 49

!

Index of Ancient Sources 3:11 3:15 3:17 3:18 3:22 3:22–27 3:22–30 4:1 4:19 4:35 5:1–20 5:14 5:20 5:22–24 5:28–34 5:35–43 5:41 6:1 6:3 6:6 6:7 6:13 6:14 6:14–28 6:18 6:21 6:33 6:35–42 6:36 6:36–37 6:45 6:45–8:26 6:53 6:53–56 6:56 7:1 7:1–5 7:2–4 7:3–5 7:19 7:24 7:24–30 7:25–30 7:31–37 7:34 7:36 8:1–4 8:10 8:11 8:13

! !

50 48–49 49 49, 79 51 48, 51 52 50 46 50, 172 50, 172 46 50 47, 49 49 47, 49 44, 49 47 69 46, 78 49 48–49 50 47 47 47 46 46 46 46 50, 172 53, 82 49 50 46–47, 71, 78 51 48, 51 44 48 69 50 50, 74, 82 45 45, 50, 172 44 50 46 50, 172 48 50, 172

8:15 8:22–26 8:23 8:26 8:27 8:31 8:34 9:11 9:14–15 9:38–39 10:1 10:17 10:17–27 10:29 10:30 10:33 10:33–34 10:42 10:46 10:46–52 10:47–48 11:1–11 11:2 11:5–11 11:8 11:10 11:12 11:15–17 11:15–19 11:18 11:19 11:27 11:35–40 12:10–12 12:13 12:18–27 12:41–44 13:16 14:1–2 14:3–9 14:10–11 14:10–16 14:13 14:16 14:36 14:43 14:48–50 14:53–69 14:70 15:1–3

!

211 47–48 49, 69, 78 46 46 46, 50, 172 48 50 48 50 48–49 50–51 50 46, 167 46 46 45, 48 51 45 51–52 46, 167 150 51 46 51 46, 50 150 50 46, 167 51 48, 50 46 48 46, 167 48 47–48 48 46, 167 46 48, 50 80 48 51 46 46 44 48 51 48 51, 180 48

Index of Ancient Sources

212 15:10–11 15:21 15:22 15:31 15:34 15:42 16:12

48 46 44 48 44, 49 44 46

Luke 1:3 1:5 1:27 1:32 1:39 1:52–53 1:69 2:1 2:1–5 2:3 2:4 2:11 2:21–43 2:32–34 3:23–31 4:1–13 4:9 4:14b–15 4:18 4:25–30 4:25–47 4:31 4:37 5:17 5:27–32 6:15 6:20–23 6:20–26 6:23–26 6:27–36 6:30 6:45 7:1 7:1–10 7:3 7:9 7:22–23 7:29 7:29–30 7:31 7:33

75 81, 150 150 150 150 79 150 80 80 150 78, 150 150 81, 83 78 150 65 57–58 81 79–80, 166 78, 81–82 78 78 81 78, 81 80 79 63, 159 80 62, 79–80 59, 80 63 63 57 61, 64–65, 78, 82, 94 59, 78 61, 65 63–64 80 81 59 64

! !

7:34 7:36 7:36–49 7:36–50 7:41–43 8:1 8:26–37 9:6 9:10 9:51–55 9:52 9:52–53 9:56 9:57 10:9 10:12 10:13 10:13–14 10:13–15 10:25–26 10:29 10:30–37 10:32 10:38 11:2–4 11:14 11:19–20 11:21–22 11:24–26 11:37–38 11:39 11:39–41 11:39–52 11:42 11:44 11:45 11:47 11:49 11:52 11:53–54 12:6 12:13–14 12:16–20 12:16–21 12:22–31 12:29–30 12:33–34 12:42–46 12:57–59 12:58–59

!

63 81–82 81 80 79–80, 166 78 82 78 78 78 78, 179 78, 83 78 64 64 57 57 57 61, 78, 94 81 81 79–81, 83, 166, 179 57 78 63 64 64 79–80, 166 64 81–82 64 64 64 64 64 81 64 64 64 81 62 79 79–80, 166 80 63 65 63, 80 63, 166 59, 61, 152 63

Index of Ancient Sources 12:59 13:10–17 13:11–17 13:22 13:31 13:31–33 13:34 13:34–35 14:1 14:1–15 14:2–6 14:7 14:12–15 14:13 14:16–24 14:33 15:1–2 15:8–9 15:11–32 16:1–12 16:1–13 16:1–31 16:13 16:14–15 16:17 16:19–31 16:20 17:11–12 17:11–19 17:12 17:12–29 17:14 17:15–18 17:23–24 17:26–27 17:29 17:30 17:34–35 17:37 18:39 19:12–26 19:16 19:18 19:21 19:23 19:24 19:25 19:30 22:15 22:28–30

! !

55, 62 81 81 78 79, 81 80 57 58, 65 82 82 81 82 79, 82 80, 166 62 79–80 80–82 79 80 80 80 166 63 81 64 79–80 80 78 81 78 78 81, 83 83 65 65 57 65 65 65 150 62–63, 166 62 62 63 62 62 62 78 81, 83 61

213

22:56 23:1–25 23:10–21 23:12 23:47–52 24:13 24:46–47

81, 83 82 81 80 82 78 78

John 1:1 1:14 1:19 1:28 1:38 1:40 1:40–44 1:42 1:43 1:44 1:49 2:1–11 2:11 2:6 2:6–10 2:13 2:18 2:18–21 2:19 2:20 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:22 3:23 3:25 3:26 4:4–43 4:8 4:9 4:31 4:32 4:39 4:39–43 4:40 4:41 4:45 4:46–53 4:52 4:53 5:1

85 85 90 87 88–89 89 86, 89 88–89 89 86 88 88 88 87–88, 90 88 86, 90–91 90 91 85 90 90 88 85 90 87 90 88 89 89–90 86, 89–90, 179 88 85 90 89 90 91 87, 91 88 91 88 86, 90–91

!

Index of Ancient Sources

214 5:9–18 5:10 5:15 5:16 5:18 5:38 6:4 6:5–7 6:5–14 6:14 6:15 6:25 6:33 6:41 6:52 6:59 7:1 7:1–3 7:2 7:2–10 7:11 7:13 7:15 7:19 7:19–25 7:25 7:35 7:40–52 8:22 8:31 8:31–33 8:37 8:37–40 8:38 8:40 8:48 8:52 8:57 8:57–59 9:2 9:18 9:18–22 9:22 10:19 10:19–21 10:22 10:24 10:31 10:31–33 10:33

! !

91 90 90 90 87, 90–91 85 86, 90–91 87 88 88 87 88 85 88, 90 88, 90 87–88 87, 90–91 86, 90 90 91 90 90 90 91 87 91 90 91 90–91 85, 90 91 85, 91 87 85 91 90–91 90 90 91 88 90 88 86, 90 90 91 91 90–91 90 91 90

10:35 11:7–8 11:8 11:11 11:16 11:19 11:23 11:31 11:33 11:36 11:45 11:54 11:55 12:9 12:9–11 12:11 12:12–19 12:20–22 12:21 12:42 12:42–43 13:8 13:33 14:4 14:7 14:21 14:23–24 16:1–3 16:16 18:12 18:14 18:20 18:31 18:33 18:35 18:36 18:38 18:39 19:3 19:7 19:12 19:14 19:19–21 19:31 19:38 19:40 19:42 20:19 20:24 21:2

!

85 86, 90 87–88, 90 85 88–89 90 85 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 91 87, 90 91 89 86 86 88 85 90 85 85 85 85 88 85 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 88–89 88–89

Index of Ancient Sources Acts 6:5 11:19–27 11:19–30 13:1 13:14 13:44–52 13:46–47 14:19–26 15:22–35

77 77 68 77 77 78 65 77 77

215

15:22–41 15:23 15:23–29 15:30–32 18:22

68 77 77 77 77

1 Corinthians 5

59

Galatians 2:11–19

68

Rabbinic Sources y. Šhabb. 16.15d

169

b.‘Erub. 53 a–b

169

b. Ḥag 24b

169

b. Meg. 24b

169

Josephus The Jewish War (BJ) 1.167 18 1.175–178 162 1.204–207 25, 33, 162, 165 1.208–209 25 1.220–222 22–23, 25 1.238 162 1.304 25 1.304–308 25, 162 1.304–313 162 1.304–316 33, 165 1.314–316 22, 162 1.408–415 36 2.20–22 26 2.20–25 26 2.52 29, 39 2.55–56 33, 162, 165 2.55–65 26 2.56 34 2.57–59 29, 39 2.66–68 18 2.93–100 22, 24, 26 2.94–95 26

! !

2.117–118 2.118 2.162–163 2.167–168 2.168 2.178–183 2.181–183 2.184–203 2.184–204 2.202–203 2.219–220 2.220 2.224–231 2.232–233 2.232–246 2.252 2.252–283 2.254 2.254–265 2.271 2.271–279 2.272–276 2.277–283

!

23 33 36, 170 26 18 26 26 27 27, 35, 163 27 28 28 28 17, 34 28, 42, 178 17, 28–30 28, 164 34 14 28 38 22 28

216 2.293–308 2.301–304 2.316 2.321–324 2.332 2.338 2.344–407 2.391–394 2.405 2.411–419 2.414 2.418–429 2.422–437 2.422–555 2.425–441 2.433 2.456 2.457–460 2.457–506 2.477–478 2.481–486 2.483 2.517 2.520 2.525–529 2.556 2.569–571 2.572–576 2.576 2.583 2.585 2.585–594 2.585–632 2.590–594 2.590–609 2.595–607 2.598–609 2.599 2.614–631 2.615 2.618 2.626–631 2.629 2.632 2.632–645 2.638–641 2.639 2.641 2.652–653 3.11–19

! !

Index of Ancient Sources 28 13 13 13 13 13 29, 164 35 13 13 35 29, 164 13 34 32, 167 33 35 38, 41, 178 41 38, 41, 178 29 29, 164 35 29, 39 13 13 30 30, 38 39 39 31 31, 33, 165 14 20–21, 33, 161 31 18 17 33, 37 30, 175–176 37 37 30 17 40 19 30, 175–176 32, 37 32 14 39

3.29–34 3.34 3.41–44 3.41–45 3.43 3.59–63 3.110–111 3.127–129 3.127–131 3.132–134 3.135–144 3.193–206 3.229 3.240–270 3.289–306 3.316–322 3.316–339 3.323–339 3.329–339 3.340–344 3.350–368 3.355–360 3.359 3.369–382 3.438–442 3.439 3.443–452 3.450 3.450–452 3.453–461 3.462–470 3.492–502 3.497–502 3.497–505 3.522–531 3.532–542 4.1–8 4.9–10 4.10–11 4.49–69 4.70–83 4.81–83 4.84–85 4.84–91 4.97–105 4.98–106 4.105 4.106–111 4.112–120

!

40 17 21, 157 162 17 40 38 40 176–177 40–41, 176 176–177 176–177 17 38 40, 176–177 176–177 38 176 40 176–177 176–177 35 17 35 176–177 11 29, 33, 165 33 34, 38, 161, 165 176–177 30, 176 30, 34, 38, 161, 165 176–177 176 40, 176 30, 33–34, 38, 40, 161, 165 176–177 38 40 176–177 40, 176 40 176–177 33, 165 33, 35, 165 35 41 176–177 40

Index of Ancient Sources 4.133–134 4.183–241 4.327 4.333–336 4.335–336 4.364–365 4.566–576 5.36–39 5.440–441 5.562–566 6.433–434 6.96–110 7.154 7.265 7.437–450

33 32, 167 32, 167 22 32, 167 32, 167 33, 165 35 32, 167 35 13 37 13 13 11

The Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) 9.235 16 12.331–334 16 13.154–162 16 13.322 16 13.329 41 14.74 23 14.89 18 14.99–102 162 14.158–160 25 14.159–160 162 14.297–300 25, 162 14.313–315 41 14.394–395 25 14.413–417 25, 162 14.414 14.415 162 14.415–430 33, 165 14.433 25 14.448–450 25, 162 15.106–107 23 15.360 36 15.331–339 36 17.28 27 17.188 26 17.205 21 17.224–227 26 17.238 26 17.269–272 33, 165 17.269–285 26 17.271–272 34 17.285 33, 165 17.285–290 162 17.286 18

! !

17.286–294 17.304–314 17.317–320 17.318 17.318–321 18.4–10 18.11–15 18.23–25 18.26 18.26–28 18.27 18.36–38 18.37 18.101–105 18.109–124 18.110 18.116 18.120–124 18.142–204 18.148–150 18.149 18.197 18.240–256 18.245 18.247–255 18.252–255 18.261–284 18.273–278 18.273–302 18.289–301 18.302–305 19.279–288 19.299 19.300–311 19.328–337 19.328–342 19.351–352 20.1–9 20.43–48 20.51 20.97–103 20.100–102 20.104 20.113–117 20.118 20.118–136 20.159 20.159–255 20.160–167

!

217 40 22 20, 22 26 24, 26 33 36, 170 33 18 38 26, 36 18–19, 26, 32, 35, 158 171, 174 26 26 27 163 35 28 26 37 27 26 26 26 27 27, 35, 163 22 27 27, 163 27 27 23, 25 27 28 27 22, 24, 27 28 17 21 28 21 27 28 34 28, 42, 179 28–29, 164 28, 164 38

Index of Ancient Sources

218 20.162–164 20.179 20.182–188 20.185–188 20.197–215 20.203 20.211–214 20.213–214 20.214 20.252–257 20.252–258 20.262–264

28 29 28 38 28 29 19, 22, 29 29 32, 167 28 33, 38, 165 37

Against Apion (CA) 1.13 41 The Life of Josephus (Vita) 12 35 28 38 29 35 30–31 18, 33, 152, 165 31–42 31, 175–176 32–36 18 32–42 32, 40–41, 178 33–45 33 36 40 36–39 32 37–38 28–29, 164 37–39 29, 32 39 18, 152 41–42 41 43–44 40 43–45 41 46–61 29 62–67 32–33, 35, 41, 165, 178 62–69 18, 30 63 34 64–66 32 65–67 32 66–67 33 67 171, 174 68 20 69 32, 37 70–71 33 74–76 20–21, 35 74–78 161 77–78 34, 38, 165 77–79 30, 33, 165 80–83 34

! !

80–101 82 82–95 84 87–107 87 92 94–96 96–97 97–100 101 104–111 112–113 114–118 122–125 123 123–125 124 126–131 127 130 132–135 132–136 134 134–136 136 141–144 149–154 151 155 155–164 155–175 155–178 155–179 157–168 168 174 175–176 185–188 188 189–192 189–193 189–194 189–195 197 199–203 203 204–207 208–215 216–218

!

18, 30–31 31 14 18 31, 175–176 33 37 19 30 18, 152 14 18, 30, 33, 165 16, 41 40 14, 18, 30 17 31 31, 40 20, 33, 165 30 17 42 17, 37 18, 30 33 17 18–19, 30 16, 41 17 40 19, 34 18, 30 19 31 30 19 19, 30 13 38 17, 19 35 31 42 14 35 18, 20, 30 17 33, 165 42 42

Index of Ancient Sources 216–227 217–218 220 228–235 232 235 236–241 246 252–261 253–256 260 262–265 271–274 271–275 271–286 271–308 275 276 276–282 279 284 286–289 290–293 290–298 294–298 295 296

20 14 29, 39 31 17 17, 33, 151 14 14 42 14 11 18 14 34 31, 175–176 18, 30 35 17, 19, 30 34 32 32 26 34–35 35 20 32 32, 37

302 304 304–316 305–335 308 313–316 321 331 336 336–367 340 340–341 346 346–347 371 373–389 381–389 381–392 391 397 398–406 404 404–406 407–408 416 424–429

219 11 19, 30 42 31 33 42 39 39 11 14 33 42 17 38 34, 38, 161, 165 18, 152 18 31, 175–176 33, 40 29, 39 40 30 19 29, 164 11 11

Apocryphal Christian Texts Gospel of Thomas 3 14 21 35 39 53 63 64 65

95 95, 166 95, 166 95 95 94, 159 94, 159 95, 166

76 95 98 100 102 104 109 110 113

!

! !

!

95 95 95, 166 95 95 95 95 94, 159

Index of Ancient Sources

220

Other Greek and Latin Sources Appian Bell. Syr. 50

23

Hesiod Sc. 122

132

Suetonius Augustus 28

134

Philo Legat. 276–329

163

! !

Plato Criti. 114e 116b 116d 119c

132 132 132 132

Pliny Nat. 5–21

86

!

Index of Modern Authors Adan-Bayewitz, D. 102, 111, 117–118, 121–123,127–128, 135, 138, 141–143, 158, 160–161, 178 Adler, Y. 111, 128, 168 Albright, W.F. 50, 69 Alexander, L. 76 Allison, D.C.J. 56 Amos, E. 109 Ando, C. 125 Applebaum, S. 24 Arav, R. 172 Arbel, Y. 103, 113,139–140, 142, 173, 175 Argyle, W. 49 Arnal, W.E. 2, 56, 123 Asaro, F. 102, 121, 141, 178 Atrash, W. 108 Aune, D.E. 2 Avalos, H. 172 Aviam, M. 2, 100–103, 110–114, 117– 122, 127–128, 132, 135–138, 140–141, 143, 156, 160, 167, 175, 178 Avshalom-Gorni, D. 102, 106–107, 122, 127–128 Bar-Nathan, R. 101–102 Barag, D. 104 Barrett, C.K. 90 Batey, R.A. 108, 130–131 Bayley, J. 133 Beare, F.W. 68–69 Ben-David, C. 17, 151 Berlin, A.M. 2, 98, 100–104, 114, 119, 122, 127–129, 132, 141–142, 149, 168, 170, 173–174, 178 Bernett, M. 32, 109, 125, 163 Bilde, P. 10, 14 Binder, D.D. 106–107 Bintliff, J. 153 Blatz, B. 92 Blumell, L. 165, 167 Bokser, B.M. 4

Borg, M.J. 1, 56 Bovon, F. 76 Broshi, M. 11 Brown, R.E. 84–85, 89 Bruce, F.F. 86, 91 Buchli, V. 98 Burnett, A.M. 133 Cascio, E.L. 39, 154 Chancey, M.A. 2, 49, 98, 104, 109, 111, 113, 115, 125, 128–129, 131, 133–134, 146, 174 Cohen, S.J.D. 10–14, 18, 29,–30, 38–39, 41, 146–148, 176–177 Cohick, L.H. 74 Corbo, V.C. 127 Craddock, F.B. 83 Craddock, P.T. 133 Cromhout, M. 146–149 Crossan, J.D. 1, 4–5, 44, 56, 82, 84, 92, 98, 101, 103, 107, 113, 128 D’Angelo, M.R. 75 Dark, K.R. 115 Davies, S.L. 92–93 De Luca, S. 114–115, 130, 151 Degani, A. 99–101, 112–113, 127, 132, 141, 149, 178 DeLorme, C.D.J. 154, 161 Dever, W.G. 4, 98 Dmitriev, S. 131, 133 Dodd, C.H. 85 Dolansky Overton, S. 55 Donahue, J.R. 44 Doole, J.A. 66 Dothan, M. 106 Draper, J.A. 59 Drury, J. 75 Duling, D.C. 148 Dunbabin, K.M.D. 134 Duncan-Jones, R. 123 Dungworth, D. 133

222

Index of Modern Authors

Dunn, J.D.G. 166, 170 Edwards, D.R. 2, 18, 98, 103, 121, 131, 158 Eshel, H. 111 Ewherido, A.O. 69 Farhi, Y. 139, 175 Feldman, L.H. 17, 25, 148 Fiensy, D.A. 1–2, 161 Finley, M.I. 152 Fischel, H.A. 4 Fitzmyer, J.A. 49, 75–77, 83, 89 Fortna, R.T. 84 Fraenkel, Y. 4 France, R.T. 68 Freedman, D.N. 55 Freund, R.A. 124, 172 Freyne, S. 1-2, 4, 18, 59, 123, 146–147, 169, Frier, B.W. 118, 150–151, 153, 155 Gabba, E. 19, 24 Gal, Z. 26, 56, 60, 65, 94, 112, 125, 138, 143, 149, 183 Gale, A.M. 50 Galor, K. 109–110, 118, 135 Gan, D. 102 Garnsey, P. 22, 131, 153–155, 157, 160 Getzov, N. 122, 128 Giauque, R.D. 102, 121, 141, 178 Gibson, S. 103, 128, 142 Goldsmith, R.W. 24, 151 Goodblatt, D. 4, 60, 78, 146, 169 Goodman, M. 74, 169 Grabbe, L.L. 3, 59 Green, J.B. 82 Green, W.S. 4 Greene, J.T. 172 Greene, K. 154, 160 Grundmann, W. 147 Grünewald, T. 33, 39, 164–165 Gutman, S. 106 Haak, R.D. 59 Hanson, A.T. 85 Hanson, J.S. 72, 165 Hanson, K.C. 2 Hanson, R.S. 104, 122 Harland, P.A. 152

Harrington, D.J. 44, 50, 66, 85–86, 91 Harrington, H.K. 170 Harris, W.V. 129 Hartal, M. 103, 109, 127, 130, 136 Hata, G. 17 Hendin, D. 105 Hengel, M. 169 Herzog, W.R. 71, 166 Hezser, C. 129, 169, 174 Hillman, A. 109 Hirschfeld, Y. 108–110, 115, 127, 135 Hitchner, R.B. 119, 122 Hoehner, H.W. 24, 163 Hoffmann, P. 54 Hoglund, K.G. 127 Holleran, C. 153 Holum, K.G. 134 Hopkins, K. 123, 154, 172 Horsley, R.A. 59–60, 72, 129, 147–148, 165 Hultgren, A.J. 71–72 Incigneri, B.J. 44–45 Isaac, B. 120 Isom, S. 154, 161 Istenič, J. 133 Jensen, M.H. 1, 21, 26–27, 109, 115–116, 118, 123–125, 128, 130, 159, 163, 167, 183 Jeremias, J. 75 Johnson, L.T. 76–77 Jones, A.H.M. 22, 153–154, 160 Jongman, W.M. 24, 154 Jossa, G. 10 Kamerschen, D.R. 154, 161 Kasher, A. 19, 36 Kee, H.C. 45, 74 Keener, C.S. 68, 71 Kierspel, L. 90 Kindler, A. 104, 172 King, K.L. 93–94 Kingsbury, J.D. 68 Klepinger, L.L. 153 Klijn, A.F.J. 93 Kloppenborg Verbin, J.S. 3, 54, 56 Koester, H. 92 Kuhn, H.W. 172

Index of Modern Authors Lane, W.L. 45, 80 Lapin, H. 104, 110 Laurence, R. 172 Lee, R.D. 157 Leibner, U. 1, 7, 99–101, 11–113, 115– 116, 118–119, 127, 132, 135, 137, 140, 142, 149, 152, 157, 160–162, 165, 175, 177 Lenski, G.E. 63–64 Levine, L.I. 73, 106–107, 131, 169 Lieberman, S. 49 Loffreda, S. 107, 127 Longstaff, T.R.W. 108 Lowe, M. 90 Lundbom, J.R. 55 MacDonald, D.R. 76 Mack, B.L. 56 MacMullen, R. 134 Magen, Y. 103, 128, 142, 168, 173 Magness, J. 7, 101, 107 Malina, B.J. 3, 85 Mann, C.S. 50, 69 Marcus, J. 44–45, 49–50, 58, 80, 90 Marshall, I.H. 70, 82–83 Martyn, J.L. 86 Mason, S. 3–4, 12–13, 41, 146–148 McCollough, C.T. 18, 98, 111, 131 Meeks, E. 172 Meier, J.P. 1, 92 Meir, E. 109–110, 127 Meshorer, Y. 105, 116, 123–124, 126, 132, 139, 175 Meyers, C.L. 108, 130 Meyers, E.M. 2, 98, 108, 111, 113–114, 127–128, 130–132, 136–137, 146, 171, 173 Miano, D.R. 55 Miller, D.M. 60, 78, 146 Modrzejewski, J. 50 Moloney, F.J. 85–86, 91 Monson, A.P. 151 Moreland, M. 2, 56, 117–118, 160–161 Najar, A. 106–107, 127 Naveh, J. 114, 132 Netzer, E. 108, 130 Neusner, J. 3–4, 11, 107, 169–170 Nickle, K.F. 53 Nolland, J. 68–69, 74

223

Oakman, D.E. 3, 98 Olsson, B. 106 Oppenheimer, A. 170 Overman, J.A. 69–70 Pagels, E. 85 Parkin, T.G. 118, 153, 155 Pastor, J. 2, 24 Patrich, J. 37 Patterson, S.J. 93 Peleg, O. 135 Perlman, I. 102, 118, 121, 141, 158, 161 Peterson, D.N. 44 Pfann, S. 139 Ponting, M.J. 103, 133, 142 Porter, A. 125 Preston, K. 133 Rabban, A. 134 Rajak, T. 10, 14, 32, 171 Rappaport, U. 11–12, 14, 19, 31, 38–39, 41, 177, 181 Reed, J.L. 1–2, 4, 56–61, 65, 98–99, 101, 103, 105, 107–108, 110–115, 117–120, 123, 128, 134–135, 142, 149, 151–152, 155–157, 160, 173 Rehren, T. 133 Reich, R. 128 Rhoads, D.M. 33 Richards, G.C. 25 Richardson, P. 37 Robinson, J.M. 54 Rogers, G. 131 Root, B. 55 Roskam, H.N. 44–45, 49 Roth, J. 39–41, 177 Runesson, A. 106–107 Rutgers, L.V. 110 Safrai, S. 4 Safrai, Z. 119 Saldarini, A.J. 68–69, 148, 169–170 Sallares, R. 156 Saller, R. 22, 131, 153–155, 157, 160 Sanders, E.P. 1, 77, 84, 128, 169–170 Sanders, J.T. 75 Savage, C. 101, 172 Schäfer, P. 4 Scheidel, W. 118–120, 151–157, 172 Schnackenburg, R. 70

224

Index of Modern Authors

Schürer, E. 147 Schwartz, D.R. 27 Schwartz, S. 12, 14, 33, 39, 74 Schweizer, E. 85 Scott, B.B. 71 Segal, A. 130 Senior, D. 66, 82 Sevenster, 49 Shaked, I. 102 Shaw, B.D. 33–34, 165 Shillington, V.G. 3, 71 Shroder, J. F. 172 Sigmismund, M. 32, 171 Sim, D. 68–70 Smallwood, E.M. 163 Smekalova, T.J.N. 132–133 Šmit, Ž. 133 Smith, M. 33, 169 Southall, A.W. 59 Stark, R. 27, 68, 160 Stegemann, W. 2–3 Stein, R.H. 44 Strange, J.F. 98, 108, 121, 131 Streeter, B.H. 54, 66 Strickert, F. 124, 126, 172 Syon, D. 7, 100–104, 106–107, 110–111, 113, 116–118, 122–125, 127–128, 130, 132, 125–136, 138–139, 141, 143, 159–160, 175, 178

Talgam, R. 135 Temin, P. 157 Toher, M. 25 Trudinger, P. 3, 166 Udoh, F.E. 23 Uro, R. 93 van der Horst, P.W. 49 Vermes, G. 1 von Wahlde, U.C. 91 Wacholder, B.Z. 25 Wagner, D. 111, 128 Waterman, L. 108 Weiss, Z. 2, 108 White, L.M. 66, 68–69 Wieder, M. 102, 121, 141 Witherington, B. 44–45, 53–54, 58 Woolf, G. 22, 133 Yavor, Z. 106–107, 111, 117–118, 127– 128, 130, 160 Zangenberg, J.K. 2, 107, 109, 114–115, 130,138 Zvi, Y. 107

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Agriculture 115–119, 151–153, 156–158, 161–162 Agricultural (olive and wine) presses 100, 111, 121–122, 128 Agrippa I 23–29, 162–164, 177, 181–182 Agrippa II 19–20, 28–29, 32, 39–40, 105, 126, 164, 177, Andrew (disciple of Jesus) 49, 89 Aniconism (see Images) Antipas (see Herod Antipas) Antipater 23 Archaeological/Historical Periods 7, 98– 100 – Persian Period 99, 112, 115 – Hellenistic Period 99, 110–112, 124– 125, 131–132, 135, 137–138, 146, 151–152, 156–157, 159, 162 – Late Hellenistic Period 99, 101–102, 112–114, 132, 137, 141, 175 – Ptolemaic and Seleucid Periods 16, 104 – Hasmonean Period (Late Hellenistic Period) 16, 104, 113–114, 116–117, 122, 124, 127, 141, 149 – Early Roman Period 99–100, 106, 113–116, 118, 131–132, 137–138, 141–142, 178–180 – Early Roman Period I 16–17, 101– 104, 108–111, 115–119, 122, 130, 146–149, 151–152, 156–157, 159– 160, 162, 168, 173, 175, 178–180 – Early Roman Period II – Middle Roman Period 104, 108, 125 Archelaus 22–24, 26, 36, 40, 72 Assimilation (see Hellenization) Augustus 34, 36–37, 131, 134 Banditry – in Galilee 25, 33–34, 38–39, 137, 161–165 – in Judea 33, 165

– in Judea (broad sense) 14, 28, 34, 162, 165 – in the Greco-Roman world 33, 154, 165 Bar Kokbha Revolt 6, 103, 115 Basilicas 107, 109, 130 Baths (see miqvaot) Bethsaida 6, 29, 58–58, 78, 86–87, 89, 101, 124, 171–172 Brass 103, 132–133, 173 Caesarea Maritima 36, 41, 161 Caesarea Philippi; Paneas 19, 21, 36 Cana 88 Capernaum 6, 46–47, 57–58, 61, 65, 71, 78, 82, 88, 103, 106–107, 127, 151 Chalk vessels (see Limestone vessels) Chorazin 57–58, 78, 111 Cities (see Urbanization) Class conflict 32–33, 63–64, 80, 95, 165– 167 Claudius 42, 126, 179 Client rulers and states in the Roman Empire 23–24, 26, 36, 40, 130, 163, 174 Coins (see also Monetization) 20, 104– 106, 113–117, 122–126, 128–129, 137–139, 141, 143, 175 – of Agrippa II 105, 126, 137, 139 – Aniconic 105–106 – of Archelaus – circulation 104, 113, 117, 124–125 – of Gamala 106, 138–139 – Hasmonean 104, 113 – of Herod Antipas 105, 123–124, 126 – iconography – of Philip the Tetrarch 123–124 – of Pontius Pilate 124, 126 – propaganda – of Sepphoris 123, 137–139 – of Tiberias 105, 124, 126

226

Index of Subjects and Key Terms

– Phoenician; Tyrian 20, 24, 104, 113, 116, 122, 124–125, 141!

– Galilean participation in the 37–41, 135–140, 175–177, 181–182

Debt 71–72, 79–80, 95, 123 – of Herodian rulers 20, 26–27 Decapolis 41, 50, 87–88, 103, 104, 116– 118, 122, 141, 151, 158

Hasmonean Family – Alexander Jannaeus 16 – conquest of Galilee 16 – Judas 16 – Antigonus 25, 34, 165 – Simon 16 Hellenization and Romanization 36–37, 49–50, 88–89, 120, 129–135, 171– 174, 183 Herod Antipas 17–19, 21–24, 26–27, 32, 35–36, 47–48, 65, 71–72, 79–81, 105, 108–110, 114–116, 123–126, 131, 135, 158–164, 171–172, 177, 182 – building and urbanization projects 19– 20, 26–27, 32, 71, 114–116, 125–126, 130–131, 158–159, 172 – finances 23, 26–27, 161! – relationship with Rome 23, 26, 36, 125–126, 130–131, 162–163 Herod Philip (see Philip the Tetrarch) Herod the Great 2–3, 6, 22–25, 34, 36, 72, 126, 135, 161–162, 165, 181–182 Hippodrome 17, 37 Hippos 41, 171–172

Economy – Common features of ancient economies 118, 152–157 – Galilean 20–25, 46–47, 62–63, 71–72, 79, 87, 94–95, 118–125, 152–161 – Mediterranean 154–155 Elites in Galilean society 30–33, 47, 63, 73, 117–118, 167, 181–182 Epigraphy; inscriptions 104–106, 114, 124, 126, 129, 132–134, 138–139, 173–175 – on coinage 105–106, 124, 126, 129, 138–139, 175 – public/monumental 129, 132–134, 173–174 Ethnic makeup of Galilee – in the Persian Period 16, 112, 148 – in the Hellenistic Period 16, 112–113, 147–148 – in the Early Roman Period 16–17, 45, 61, 70, 78, 86, 113–114, 146, 149–150 Ethnic Tensions 41–42, 141–142, 178– 179, 182–183 Flavian Dynasty (see Domitian, Titus, Vespasian) Frescoe 100, 106, 109, 134–135, 140 – Scarcity in Galilee 110, 127, 135

Idumea; Idumeans 6, 24, 39, 50, 147, 149 Images 35, 102, 105–106, 109–110, 127– 128, 168, 179 – Galilean avoidance of 35, 105–106, 110, 127–128, 168, 179 Inscriptions (see Epigraphy) Iudaea 6, 23, 28–29, 40, 126, 164, 180 Iturea; Itureans 16, 24 147–148

Gabara 17–18, 22, 30–31, 176 Gadara 40–41, 172 Gaius Caligula 27, 35, 124, 126, 163 Gamala 6, 29–30, 38, 40, 100, 105–107, 110–111, 117, 127, 130, 135–136, 138–140, 168, 175–176 Gischala (Gush Halav) 38, 110, 125, 135– 136, 175 Golan (Gaulanitis) 41, 174 – Common culture with Galilee 102– 103, 113, 132, 168 – Trade with Galilee 102, 143 Great Revolt 10–14, 18–19, 21, 28–34, 100, 105, 109, 126, 161, 164–165, 179,

Jerusalem 13, 22–23, 25–27, 31, 34–35, 37, 42, 48, 51, 57–58, 65, 74, 77–78, 81–83, 87, 89, 91, 102–103, 110, 123, 139, 143, 161, 163, 167, 170, 179–182 – Temple 27, 51, 74, 161, 163, 167, 181–182 Jesus the son of Sapphias 32, 35, 41, 164 Jewish-Gentile Relations 41–42, 65, 74, 82–83, 89–90, 140–142, 178–179, 182–183 Jewish Law (see Torah) John of Gischala 11, 13, 17, 20–21, 30– 31, 35, 40–42, 164, 175–176, 181 John the Baptist 47, 50–51, 87, 163 Judas the Galilean 23, 26, 33,

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Judas the son of Hezekiah 18, 34 Judea 6, 13, 22–24, 32–35, 38–42, 48, 51– 52, 59–61, 65, 68, 72–74, 77–81, 83, 87, 90–91, 103, 110–111, 113–115, 118, 122–123, 132, 135, 140–143, 147–150, 160, 169, 175–177, 179–182 – Relationship with Galilee 16, 33–34, 42, 51–52, 60–61, 65, 74, 83, 87, 90– 91,113–114, 122–123, 142–143, 147– 150, 179–182 – Economic conditions 22, 32, 46–47, 115, 118, 160 – Political conditions 13, 32–35, 39–40, 72–73, 169–170, 175–177 Judea (broad sense) 6, 13, 21, 26, 33–34, 36–38, 41, 59–60, 76, 102–104, 109– 111, 115, 126, 132, 162–165, 167– 169, 173, 179 – Economic conditions 21–25 – Political conditions 13, 25–26, 33–34, 41, 126, 162–165, 167 Justus of Tiberias 11, 14, 31–32, 40–41, 132, 181 Lakeside Galilee 171–174, 178, 183 Large estates 71–72, 94, 115 Limestone vessels; stone vessels; chalk vessels 88, 101, 103, 114, 127–128, 140, 142, 168 Lower Galilee 120, 171–173, 183 Magdala; Tarichea 6, 17, 19, 22, 29–30, 37, 58, 40, 61, 106, 114–115, 125, 127, 130, 135–136, 138, 151, 168, 171, 175 Marble 109–110, 132, 134–135, 173 – Rarity in Galilee 110, 135, 173 – As evidence of Romanization 132, 134–135, 173 – Opus sectile 109–110, 134–135 Miqvaot; ritual baths 106, 111–113, 117, 128–129, 137, 141, 168, 178 Monetization 20, 46, 62, 71, 79, 87, 94, 123–125, 159, 183 Nazareth 6, 47, 57, 71, 82, 103, 111, 150– 151 Nero 126, 137, 139,164 Oil presses (see Agricultural presses)

227

Pagans; pagan religious practices 112, 126–127; 149; – Absence in Galilee 126–127 Parables of Jesus of Nazareth 62–63, 69, 71–72, 75, 79, 81, 83, 94, 165–166 Patronage among Galileans 30–31, 33, 176 Peasants (see Rural population) Perea 6, 21, 23–24, 26, 41, 47 Periodization (see Archaeological/Historical Periods) Pharisees 35, 47–48, 51, 64, 73–74, 80– 82, 87, 95, 169–171 Philip (disciple of Jesus) 49, 87, 89 Philip the Tetrarch 24, 26, 36, 78, 86, 116, 123–124, 126, 172 Phoenicia; Phoenicians 45, 50, 82, 103– 104, 112–113, 117–118, 122, 141 Polis; Poleis 17, 30, 32, 36, 46, 71, 78; 114, 131, 151, 181 Population density 17, 119, 151, 157 Pottery (see also Limestone vessels) – Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) 101, 114, 127, 132, 140–142, 173 – Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW) 101, 113 – Herodian Knife-Pared Lamps 102, 114, 123, 127, 142–143, – Kefar Hananya Ware (KHW) 102, 114, 120–121, 127, 141 – Mold-made lamps 101, 114, 127, 132, 140–142, 173 – Shikhin Ware (SW) 102–103, 114, 120–121, 127 Poverty 21, 46–47, 62–63, 80, 159, 167 Priests 10, 22, 28–29, 34, 37, 42, 48, 64, 73–74, 81, 83, 87, 167, 169–170, 176, 181–182 Qeren Naftali 113 Rabbinic sources (ancient) 4–5, 169 Regionalism 171–173, 183 Religious ethos 34–36, 42, 47–49, 51–52, 64–65, 73–74, 81–83, 87–88, 91, 95, 114, 125–129, 143, 146–149, 163, 167–171, 173–174, 179–182 Revolutionary activity (see Great Revolt) Ritual Purity (see also Miqvaot) 21, 35, 77, 87–88, 103, 127–129, 167–170, 178 Roads 120–122, 134

228

Index of Subjects and Key Terms

Roman procurators 22, 28, 125–126, 164, 181–182 – Pontius Pilate 80, 124, 126, 163 Romanization (see Hellenization and Romanization) Ruralization; Rural population 115–116, 118–119, 121, 123, 151–152, 155– 158, 161, 171, 177, 183 Samaria; Samaritans 6, 16, 24, 28, 40, 42, 51, 65, 70, 74, 78, 81, 83, 89–90, 103, 123, 141, 149, 179–180 Scribe(s) 48, 51–52, 55, 64, 73–74, 81 Sea of Galilee 19, 28, 40, 46, 49, 57, 87, 114, 156, 159, 165, 171–174, 176 Sepphoris 6, 16–19, 22, 25–26, 30, 32, 36, 38–40, 42, 61, 98, 103, 105, 107–111, 113–118, 121, 123, 125–127, 130– 132, 135–139, 151–152, 156, 158, 161, 171, 173, 175–176 Sicarii 33 Sidon 50, 57–58, 124 Socio-economic climate (see Economy) Stadium 37, 109–110, 114, 127, 130 Stone vessels (see Limestone vessels) Synagogues 32, 47, 73, 81, 85, 87–88, 106–107, 127, 168 Tarichea (see Magdala) Taxation; Tax collectors 19–20, 22–25, 63, 71–74, 80, 123, 131, 154, 158, 167, 181–182 Theater(s) 37, 107–109, 114, 130, 158 Simon bar Giora 13 Simon Peter 49, 88–89

Thomas (disciple of Jesus) 49, 88–89, 93 Tiberias 6, 17–120, 22, 26, 29–33, 35–37, 39–41, 61, 105–106, 108–110, 114– 117, 121, 124–127, 130–132, 135– 136, 151–152, 156, 158–159, 161, 171–173, 175–176 Tiberius 36, 126, 163 Titus 11, 35, 41 Torah; Jewish Law 47, 64, 68–70, 94 Trade 21–22, 51, 117, 120–123, 140–141, 143, 158–159, 161, 172–174, 178, 180 Tyre; Tyrians 21, 25, 41, 50, 57–58, 124 – Coinage of (see Coins) Upper Galilee 171–173, 178, 183 Urbanization 2–3, 17–20, 45–46, 59, 61– 62, 71, 78–79, 86, 114–117, 119, 150– 152, 155–159, 171, 173–174, 182–183 Urban-rural relations 18–19, 56, 58–59, 61–62, 121, 125, 152, 155–158 Varus 18, 26, 29 Vespasian 10–11, 13, 29, 39–41, 139, 161, 164, 175–177 Yodefat 6, 10, 38, 40, 100, 102, 110–111, 117–120, 127, 135–136, 138, 140, 156, 175–176 Zealot(s) 33, 79 – Simon the Zealot (disciple of Jesus) 79