Jesus the Galilean: Soundings in a First Century Life 9781463210861

Citation preview

Jesus the Galilean

Jesus the Galilean Soundings in a First Century Life

DAVID A. FIENSY

GORGIAS PRESS 2007

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007 Copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-59333-313-3

Gorgias Press

46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fiensy, David A. Jesus the Galilean : soundings in a first century life / David A. Fiensy. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Jesus Christ.--Biography--History and criticism. I. Title. BT301.9.F54 2007 232.9’01--dc22 2007014282 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

For Molly animae dimidium meae

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents..................................................................................................vii List of Illustrations .................................................................................................xi List of Tables.........................................................................................................xiii Preface.....................................................................................................................xv Aknowledgments .................................................................................................xvii Abbreviations ........................................................................................................xix Jesus and Culture: The Use of New Testament “Backgrounds”.....................1 Why New Testament “Culture”? .................................................................1 What is the Content of New Testament Backgrounds?...........................5 An Example...................................................................................................11 Introduction to the Rest of the Book .......................................................23 Jesus in Galilee: the evidence from Archaeology .............................................25 A. Important Collections of Essays...........................................................25 B. Encyclopedic Resources.........................................................................25 Archaeology and the Youth of Jesus.........................................................26 An Overview of Galilean Society and Culture in Jesus’ Time ..............29 The Region of Galilee..................................................................................29 The People of Galilee ..................................................................................30 Cities and Villages.........................................................................................50 Jesus as WHNWZQ ............................................................................................66 Historicity of Mark 6:3 ................................................................................68 How He Became a Carpenter.....................................................................69 Economic Level of Artisans .......................................................................70 Social Standing of Craftsmen .....................................................................71 Galilean Opportunities ................................................................................74 Conclusion.....................................................................................................82 Jesus and Community: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Wealth..............................85 A. Bibliographic Resources:........................................................................85 B. Texts and Translations:...........................................................................85 vii

viii

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls ....................................................85 Jesus, the Essenes, and Wealth...................................................................88 Poverty and Wealth in the Greco-Roman World....................................91 Wealth and Poverty within Palestinian Judaism ......................................96 The Hebrew Bible ........................................................................................96 The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Rabbinic Literature ....................98 The Dead Sea Scrolls .................................................................................101 Negative Statements about Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls................102 Regulation of Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls .......................................105 The Poor ......................................................................................................110 Renunciation in Jesus’ Teaching and Practice .......................................113 Call Stories ...................................................................................................115 Selling Texts ................................................................................................118 Texts That Show a Freewheeling Attitude Toward Possessions ........120 Texts about Itinerancy ...............................................................................121 Texts about Family.....................................................................................123 Statements about Wealth...........................................................................125 Statements about Rich Persons................................................................126 Statement about Poor (i.e., Destitute) Persons......................................127 Wealthy Friends ..........................................................................................129 Jesus’ Teaching of Renunciation in Comparison ..................................131 Why Did Jesus Require Poverty? .............................................................135 The Rich Man..............................................................................................141 Jesus and Purity: Insights from the Mishnah ..................................................147 A. Bibliographic Resources:......................................................................147 B. Texts: .......................................................................................................147 C. Translations: ...........................................................................................147 A Brief Definition and Description of the Mishnah ............................147 Jesus, the Pharisees and the Mishnah......................................................150 Ritual Purity: What It Was and How It Worked ...................................154 Ritual Purity in the Torah..........................................................................154 Ritual Purity in the Mishnah .....................................................................156 Why It is Likely That Jesus Maintained Ritual Purity...........................163 Four General Arguments ..........................................................................163 Jesus’ View of Ritual Purity (Three Arguments) ...................................177 1. Jesus Frequented the Temple...............................................................177 2. Jesus Ate with Pharisees........................................................................178 3. Jesus Seems Meticulous About “Legal Minutiae”.............................179 Mark 7 in the Context of the Mishnah ...................................................180

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Jesus and the Temple: What the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Can Tell Us ..........................................................................................................187 Introduction to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ...........................187 Bibliographic Resources: ...........................................................................187 Translations: ................................................................................................187 Using the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to Understand the Teachings of Jesus .............................................................................188 Sacred Space According to Mircea Eliade ..............................................189 The Temple in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ............................191 Jesus’ Predictions About the Temple......................................................202 Jesus’ Action in the Temple......................................................................208 Postscript: Jesus and His Jewish Backgrounds ...............................................229 Bibliography .........................................................................................................233 General Index.......................................................................................................261 Index of Ancient Text References....................................................................269

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Map of Palestine in the Time of Jesus.............................................................. 9 Figure 2 Map of Galilee ................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3 Excavations in the western domestic area, Sepphoris (Photo by the author) ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 4 The Great Plain from Mt. Carmel (Photo by the author) ........................... 44 Figure 5 The Social Pyramid ........................................................................................... 50 Figure 6 Sepphoris and Vicinity...................................................................................... 53 Figure 7 House and Courtyard, Capernaum (Photo by the author) .......................... 54 Figure 8 Plan of Sepphoris Courtesy of Prof. Zeev Weiss, The Sepphoris Expedition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Photo: G. Laron ........................ 60 Figure 9 Theatre of Sepphoris, early 1st century or late 1st century? (Photo by the author)................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 10 Map of Dead Sea Region ............................................................................... 87 Figure 11 Qumran Cave 4 (Photo by the author) ......................................................105 Figure 12 Qumran Ruins: The “Scriptorium” (Photo by the author) .....................111 Figure 13 The Oral Torah .............................................................................................148 Figure 14 Ritual Bath, Jerusalem (Photo by the author) ...........................................174 Figure 15 Stoneware vessels, Jerusalem (Photo by the author)................................176 Figure 16 The Sanctuary (Jerusalem, The Model. Photo by the author).................204 Figure 17 Plan of Temple Precincts in the Time of Jesus.........................................216

xi

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Social Segmentation ........................................................................................... 32 Table 2 Itinerancy in Three Mediterranean Groups ..................................................134 Table 3 Comparison of Views on Possessions...........................................................135 Table 4 Extra-Torah Demands.....................................................................................144 Table 5 Torah’s Rule of Uncleanness (Adapted from Sanders)...............................156 Table 6 Tractates of the Order Tohorot .....................................................................157 Table 7 Gradations of the Fathers of Uncleanness ...................................................161 Table 8 Gradations of Holiness....................................................................................161 Table 9 Levels of Strictness...........................................................................................162 Table 10 Grades of Strictness in Purity in First Century Judaism ...........................176 Table 11 Symbolic Prophetic Acts in Hebrew Scripture...........................................220

xiii

PREFACE Even the most casual observer knows that the last thirty years have witnessed a revival of interest in the historical Jesus. Studies have ranged from sober works by gifted historians, to sensationalist "revelations" about the real Jesus, to tomes penned by conservative Christians as a protest to the previous group, to books labeled fiction but which are really only a thinly disguised attempt at revisionist history. Not only Christians but those of other religions and even those who would identify themselves as secular seem to be interested in what Jesus taught and did. I offer this monograph not because those who have come before me have gotten it all wrong (or even mostly wrong). The reader will discover in the course of my work that I favor certain scholars' contributions and think somewhat less of others. Such is the way of scholarly inquiry. But I have learned from them all and I value their labor. I have even learned a thing or two from the sensationalists. We all build on the foundation of others. Nor do I present this monograph because I think I have gotten it all right. Obviously I will press my views but I do not presume to say that everything that I have concluded is correct. For one thing, I am at this point uncomfortable in claiming to know Jesus' aims or certainly in writing anything like a biography of Jesus. Perhaps those who have done so know more than I. Rather, I offer smaller bites—the reader can decide if they are more thoroughly chewed. I can promise no shocking results—certainly nothing sensationalist— but perhaps the reader will find a new perspective. I suspect that some if not most will experience a bit of culture shock in reading about the Jesus I describe. To some readers Jesus may perhaps even seem a little strange. He is a very non-western Jesus. I will present no here-to-fore secret documents that narrate scandalous behavior. But I hope to do a decent job of adhering to the cry of the Renaissance: ad fontes. It seems to me that it is wise to slow down the process and look around more carefully at the sources roughly contemporaneous with Jesus. The key to understanding Jesus is in the sources. I have been preparing to write this book for almost thirty years. The place at which I chose to study for my Ph.D., the courses I took at that institution, and the professors with whom I worked have all influenced my xv

xvi

JESUS THE GALILEAN

perspective. Since then I have further prepared for this effort by the books and essays that I have written both about Jesus directly and about the history and culture of Palestine in the first century. I have prepared for this book additionally by the classes that I have taught in the last twenty five years and by interacting with the wonderful students in those classes. David Fiensy

AKNOWLEDGMENTS This book project was made possible by several financial grants. A Mellon grant, administered through the Appalachian College Association, enabled me to participate in the excavations at Bethsaida, Israel. A second ACA grant financed my summer with the Kerak Resources Project in Jordan. In addition, Kentucky Christian University awarded me two travel grants. One afforded me the opportunity of summer study in Israel and the other sent me to Europe. I am very grateful for this financial support. I also wish to thank those who have assisted me in acquiring the necessary bibliographic resources. The staff of the Tyndale House in Cambridge, England was most helpful during my stay there. I am especially indebted to the library staff at Kentucky Christian University for their excellent efforts especially through interlibrary loan. To those who read rough drafts of this effort and made suggestions, I also say thank you. Professors Eric Meyers of Duke University and Lawrence Schiffman of New York University kindly read portions of the manuscript and offered helpful advice. I also benefited greatly from the comments and criticisms of my colleagues in the Society of Biblical Literature who responded to my presentations of several of the chapters of this volume. Obviously, however, the weaknesses in this work are mine alone. Our departmental administrative assistant, Mrs. Terry Golightly, formatted the entire manuscript. Many thanks for her conscientious attention to detail. I also wish to thank my brother, Chris Fiensy, who read the manuscript over to check for English style. The writing was made much clearer through his efforts.

xvii

ABBREVIATIONS ABD ANRW Ant ARN AZ b. BA BAG BAR BASOR BB BCE Bik BM BTB CBQ CD CE EDSS ExT GenR GNaz GT HUCA Hull HTR IDB idem IEJ

D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Aboth of Rabbi Nathan Avodah Zarah The Babylonian Talmud Biblical Archaeologist G. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3rd edition) Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Baba Bathra Before the Common Era (=BC) Bikkurim Baba Metsia Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Damascus Document (Cairo manuscript) Common Era (=AD) L. Schiffman and J. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Expository Times Genesis Rabbah The Gospel of the Nazoreans The Gospel of Thomas Hebrew Union College Annual Hullin Harvard Theological Review G. A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible The same (author as in the previous citation) Israel Exploration Journal xix

xx j. Jastrow

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols.) JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament Kel Kelim Ket Ketuvot Kid Kiddushin LevR Leviticus Rabbah Life Josephus, Life LSJM H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, and R. McKenzie, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (9th edition) m. The Mishnah Maas Ma’aserot Meg Megillah MK Mo’ed Katan NEAEHL E. Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Ned Nedarim NovT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies OCD N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd edition) OEANE E. M. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of the Near East OTP J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha pace “With due respect to.” (Written before a scholar’s name to indicate disagreement with his/her opinion.) PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PesRab Pesiqta Rabbati POxy Papyrus text from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt PW Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 4QD The Qumran Damascus Document (from cave 4) 1QH The Qumran Thanksgiving Psalms 1QM The Qumran War Scroll 1QpHab The Qumran Habakkuk Pesher 4QMMT The Qumran Halakic Letter

ABBREVIATIONS 1QS, 4QS 11QT Sanh SBL Shab Sot t. TDNT War Zeb ZNW

xxi

The Qumran Community Rule (from caves 1 and 4) The Qumran Temple Scroll Sanhedrin Society of Biblical Literature Shabbat Sotah The Tosephta G. Kittel, et al., eds., The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Josephus, Jewish War Zebahim Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

JESUS AND CULTURE: THE USE OF NEW TESTAMENT “BACKGROUNDS” ROXFQR9WRXVZPDWR9HVWLQRRITDOPR9VRX RWDQRRITDOPR9VRXDSORX9K NDLRORQWRVZPDVRXIZWHLQRQHVWLQ HSDQGHSRQKUR9K NDLWRVZPDVRXVNRWHLQRQ (Luke 11:34)                (m. Avot 2:16)

The words above, whether written (in different alphabets from ours!) or spoken, are strange to us. They roll off our tongues only with difficulty, in word orders that seem most unhandy, and, even when we learn the words and understand the message, we find the texts speaking about things that are foreign. We are clearly in another cultural world, in another time, and with a different people. This is the world of the New Testament. It is not a world that we can readily or instinctively comprehend. It is a world that, were we to be transported into it, would puzzle us and send us into a profound culture shock.

WHY NEW TESTAMENT “CULTURE”? I once took a course, years ago, with a title similar to this chapter. The professor began his lectures with a modest statement something like this: This course is a luxury, not a necessity. If you can take an exegesis course in its stead, then you should do it. This course is only for those who have extra time on their hands.

I almost dropped the course at that point, but since I was mildly intrigued by the topic, I decided to stick it out. Half way through the course, I 1

2

JESUS THE GALILEAN

was very glad that I had remained because I found the topic utterly fascinating and enjoyable. Whether it was a luxury to study this or not, I loved it and had to know more. Years later, I decided that “New Testament backgrounds” or New Testament culture is not the icing on the cake of New Testament studies; it is the flour from which the cake is made. This enterprise is not a hobby one pursues in addition to the serious stuff of exegesis; it is the way the serious stuff is done. It is the means for a contextual understanding of the New Testament. The reason I maintain this thesis is first of all because the New Testament was written in history. The New Testament is historically grounded and historically oriented. That means that people spoke not only in their own languages, but also within the understanding of their own worldview. We must understand then the human element in revelation. On the one hand, Christian theology teaches us that the biblical authors were extraordinary people, guided by the Holy Spirit, and were conveying the timeless revelation of God; but, on the other hand, history teaches us that they were all people of their time. This conclusion means that our subject is both distant and different. We read of demons, visions, healings, and expectations of the imminent end of the age. These beliefs are immediately dismissed by some persons from western culture and all but passed over, much like a reader who passes over the genealogies in reading the Hebrew Bible. But as Martin Hengel 1 has pleaded, we must relinquish our post-Enlightenment feeling of superiority here and seek to understand these phenomena in their own time and in their own language. To look at them through the lens of our culture alone is to misrepresent and misunderstand them. When I speak of culture in this chapter and subsequent ones, I mean not just that aggregate that most of us think of (language, customs, ideas, forms of entertainment, foods, clothing, housing styles, and so forth). These are some of the manifestations of culture, but not the essence of it. These features show some of the ways in which cultures differ, but not how the persons within these cultures differ. A good definition which gets at the heart of the matter is that of C. Geertz. He maintains that culture: 1

Martin Hengel, “Problems of the History of Christianity,” Paper presented to Asbury Seminary, April 1997. Cf. J. J. Scott “On the Value of Intertestamental Jewish Literature for New Testament Theology” JETS 23 (1980) 315–323: “History is the setting and framework for Biblical revelation and is also a part of that revelation itself.”

JESUS AND CULTURE

3

Denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.2

Culture is not just customs; it is a way of looking at reality. Culture is not just a different language and different foods; it is a way of viewing the world and a way of thinking about issues. Our culture is so deeply embedded in our thinking that we cannot easily separate ourselves from it. It seems so natural to us—so obvious really—that we do not realize that there may be many other ways of looking at the same problem or idea. And if we encounter other ways of thinking—not just other ways of living—we instinctively respond with disbelief or even ridicule at the “senseless” way other people think. How can they believe in something obviously so foolish or superstitious? Second, as a confessing Christian, I believe in the incarnation of the Christ. The creeds teach that he was both truly God and truly man. Thus he acted and spoke as a man. As John Dominic Crossan observes, 3 this view of Jesus gives him a “full, normal, human body.” But being a man not only means having a flesh and blood body; it also means existing and thinking in a certain human culture. As N. T. Wright 4 has explained, scholars have tried to describe Jesus in one of three ways. The first he calls an icon, the second a silhouette, and the third a portrait. The first places little emphasis on the humanity and historical situation of Jesus. The second despairs of seeing little more of the historical Jesus than his shadow or bare outline. The third view says that we can see the historical Jesus essentially for what he was. The last view takes seriously the humanity of Jesus and of course requires investigation of the historical sources such as those I present in the subsequent chapters of this monograph. I would also add that the last view must understand “incarnation” as enculturation.

2 Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System” in Donald Cutler, ed., The Religious Situation 1968 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968) 641. 3 Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) xxiii. Crossan states: “As with the Word of God made text, so also with the Word of God made flesh. Historical reconstruction interweaves with Christian faith, and neither can substitute for the other.” Crossan names his view, “sarcophilic.” 4 N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 9.

4

JESUS THE GALILEAN

This endeavor immediately plunges us into the debate of Jesus’ cultural environment. As Richard Horsley warns, 5 some have attempted—especially recently, but the attempt is an old one—to “de-Judaize” Jesus. A careful look at the resources I will suggest in the following chapters will, I think, make that portrait of Jesus unlikely. Again, Wright sees two main streams of thought and research on the historical Jesus in this century. The first has seen Jesus in essentially nonJewish Hellenistic terms and the second has seen Jesus in essentially Jewish terms. 6 The first school he calls the “New Quest” (he places the leaders of the Jesus Seminar in this stream) 7 and the second he terms the “Third Quest.” For example, Burton Mack 8 maintains that Jesus was a Cynic philosopher, or close to it; but Brad Young 9 calls Jesus the “Jewish Theologian.” The same situation is true for Paul. Jewish detractors have, in the distant past as well as recently, termed Paul an apostate while Christian detractors have called him the Hellenizer of the pristine faith. 10 But Mark Nanos 11 states that “(w)e can now read the New Testament as a Jewish book” and calls the author of Romans, “A thoroughly Jewish Paul.” We even have this debate taking place about geography. Sean Freyne 12 reminds us that we have not only at present a quest for the historical Jesus, 5

R. Horsley, Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1996) 1. See also the authors listed by S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 2 which claim that Galilee was not truly Jewish religiously and that Jesus was not a Jew. Freyne takes issue with these authors. 6 Wright, Victory, 28–124 7 See Crossan’s response in Birth, 44–45 8 B. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 68f. 9 B. H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995). 10 See most recently H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1986) and idem., Paul and Hellenism (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1991). This view stands in a long line of tradition. See A. von Harnak, What is Christianity? (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957 [1900]) 176–189. 11 M. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 4. Nanos also builds on previous work on Paul. See e.g., W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Harper & Row, 1948). 12 S. Freyne, “The Geography, Politics, and Economics in Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus” in B. Chilton and C. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 76

JESUS AND CULTURE

5

but also a quest for the historical Galilee. Was it Hellenistic? Jewish? Destitute? Well-off? Urban? Rural? One can see from this observation that the New Testament culture is not simply a luxury subject, but that it makes a crucial difference in how one sees Jesus. Finally, we must observe that reading the New Testament is a cross cultural experience. Learning a new culture is never easy. There are new languages, customs, foods, and other things too vague to recognize easily. Anyone who has ever lived in a cross-cultural environment knows the process. First, one is excited and fascinated by the differences. Next, one becomes very critical of the differences and wonders why the new culture, “can’t do things like normal people.” Finally, most guests come to an appreciation of the new culture even while recognizing how different it is from their original culture. As R. Rohrbaugh 13 observes: Not only does one have much new to learn, but also one frequently grows uneasy when one finally realizes that one’s own familiar and much-loved culture is not the standard for all humanity. As anxiety over societal difference mounts, a profoundly unpleasant culture shock often sets in.

The problem with most of us is that we do not experience any culture shock when we read the New Testament and, for that matter, we never have. We read it as if it were written by Americans for Americans. We assume that we instinctively know what it means. Just as people who visit other lands and presume that everyone thinks as they do often make cultural blunders, so interpreters of the Bible make blunders in interpretation.

WHAT IS THE CONTENT OF NEW TESTAMENT BACKGROUNDS? This ethnocentric hermeneutic is modified somewhat when we first begin to study the biblical languages. The Greek language is strange—and all of those endings! We begin to realize that interpreting the New Testament is not really so easy. We had been cheating up to then by relying on someone else’s translation. It is like the high school student that took a course in Cicero’s Latin but read all semester only the English translation or “pony.” 14 13

R. Rohrbaugh, “Introduction” in R. Rohrbaugh, ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) 2. 14 I sometimes hear students say, “I just want to read the New Testament. I don’t want all those opinions of other people.” I respond that I think that is a good impulse. Now to realize this goal you need to learn Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic,

6

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The Greek language begins to unlock the texts for us but does not completely open the door. In the first place, Greek is not the only New Testament language. As A. J. Festugiere 15 wrote, often Greek is only a “diaphanous veil” over the original Semitic language. Thus, one must learn Hebrew and Aramaic as well to be able to interpret the New Testament. Not only are there many Aramaic words in the New Testament, but often the Greek expressions preserve an Aramaic or Hebrew grammatical structure. 16 The second reason that merely studying Greek alone does not empower one properly to interpret the New Testament is that languages are only the first step. Craig Evans 17 points out that those who aspire to interpret the New Testament must face two principal difficulties. The first is learning the biblical languages; the second is becoming familiar with the cognate literatures. This cognate literature (the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Greek Old Testament; Philo; Josephus; Rabbinic literature including the Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums; the New Testament apocrypha; the early church fathers; and the Gnostic writings) is crucial for the New Testament exegete. I agree with Evans, essentially, and would cite the following five reasons for researching these sources in studying the New Testament: 1. The study of these sources helps one avoid anti-Jewish bias. The typical understanding of ancient Jews (contemporaries of Jesus), at least by some Protestants, is that they were legalists and interested only in externals. One can read this in popular magazines and one can certainly hear it from the pulpit. But the people who wrote the Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were not externally minded legalists. Rather and Coptic. You need to buy yourself several airplane tickets to libraries of ancient manuscripts and then begin to collate the manuscripts to form your own text. Next, master the ancient literature. Now you can begin “just to read the New Testament.” 15 A. J. Festugiere and P. Fabre, Le monde greco-romain au temps de Notre Seigneur (Paris: Bloud & Gray, 1935). 16 Many have observed the Semitic background to the New Testament. See e.g., M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946); D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: University Press, 1967). One might even add, without too much fear of being accused of fanaticism, that today Latin and Coptic should also be studied since those languages are also very useful in reading the apocryphal New Testament writings. 17 C. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992) 1.

JESUS AND CULTURE

7

than being satisfied with stereotypes created by those with more bias than information, the intelligent reader of the New Testament should let the Jewish sources speak for themselves. 2. The study of these sources gives the theological and legal background into which to put the New Testament. Many ideas in ancient Judaism are not as clear without the rabbinic, pseudepigraphical, and Qumranic texts to compare. For example, the controversy over the works of the Law in the Pauline letters can be illuminated when we compare Paul’s letters with the Qumran document called 4QMMT. 18 Only when one can contrast the view of Jewish life, evident in this text, with that of Paul, do we see the point. 3. This study sensitizes one to the Hebrew Bible text. We—or at least I—tend to read the Hebrew Bible only with a view toward understanding New Testament theology. These studies press one to take the Hebrew Bible on its own terms. These Jewish texts are extremely serious about understanding the minutiae of what Christians call the Old Testament. Things I pass over are debated at length. Surely this approach is similar to that which serious students took in the New Testament Period. 19 4. These texts ground one in the hermeneutic often found in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s letters. 20 One does not have to read far in the New Testament to realize that the authors seem to interpret the quotations from the Hebrew Bible in a “funny way.” They often do not take the quotations in a literal way, but seem to read more into them than we would. Where did they get the idea that such interpretation would be acceptable? As anyone knows who has studied the texts of Jewish midrash or the Qumran pesherim, this method of interpreting the Hebrew scriptures was very common. 5. The texts confront one with a mass of social and cultural issues and customs that may illumine the New Testament. For example, in western culture, persons of talent and industry think they can succeed by virtue of their effort. But in ancient Mediterranean culture, everyone knew that he needed a patron. Without a wealthy and powerful patron, one could 18

See M. Abegg, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT” BAR 20/6 (1994) 52–

55, 82 19

See especially the Hebrew Midrashim, a careful reading of which opens new vistas in understanding of the Hebrew Bible. 20 See e.g., F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959); D. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).

8

JESUS THE GALILEAN

not expect to rise in social rank and status. 21 Some persons in the New Testament function in exactly that way. One could correctly say that much of the value of reading this background literature is indirect, not direct. That conclusion does not make it any less important, however. As a matter of fact, it is likely that simply looking for direct parallels—or only doing that—can be misleading. Such a use of these texts fails to appreciate them in their own right first. This failure can lead to a misunderstanding of this literature and a misuse of it. Each text must be taken in its own context. Evans’ admonition to go beyond merely studying the languages to the study of the literature, though correct, is, in my judgment, incomplete. I would like to suggest three reasons why we need to go further: First, we need also to study pagan classical literature. This is not the time to explore this rich mine of information, 22 but we can say that attention only to Jewish and Christian literature would be a serious failure. Second, we must not neglect to study the archaeology of the Mediterranean world. Crossan 23 has argued for the following methodology in the Jesus quest. We should, he maintains, study the 1. Context, 2. Text, and 3. Conjunction. That is to say, we should endeavor to understand: 1. What is the historical background? 2. What are the earliest texts? 3. Do the texts seem to fit well into their contexts? By contextual or historical background, Crossan means: a. Palestinian archaeology; b. Jewish and Roman history; c. Cross-cultural anthropology. I find Crossan’s approach more complete. The use of archaeology has been given recent emphasis by Richard Horsley and Jonathan Reed. 24 As they maintain, only by a thorough comparison of the Gospels, the rabbinic literature and archaeological remains, can we begin to get an accurate picture of Galilee in the days of Jesus and his disciples. The differentiation, archaeologically and epigraphically, of Upper and Lower Galilee; the excavation of cities—such as Sepphoris, espe21

See J. Elliott, “Patronage and Clientage” in R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) 144– 156. 22 See e.g., H. D. Betz, “Antiquity and Christianity” JBL 117 (1998) 3–22; and P. W. van der Horst, “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti” in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) I, 1157–1161. 23 J. D. Crossan, “Methodology and Historical Jesus Research,” Paper read at the SBL in New Orleans, 1996. 24 R. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee, 2–8; Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2000).

JESUS AND CULTURE

9

cially, but also Bethsaida, Tiberias, and others—and the analysis of Galilean economy can have an interesting bearing on our understanding of the times in which Jesus lived. Again, the gain is not so much in direct parallels to the New Testament verses, but in a context for reading the New Testament texts. It is, therefore, imperative for New Testament interpreters to be somewhat conversant with what is going on in Palestinian and Mediterranean archaeology in the Herodian or Roman period.

Figure 1 Map of Palestine in the Time of Jesus

Third, we must give attention to the study of cultural anthropology. One must, in my opinion, learn about social science studies of the Mediterranean world. Here we follow not only R. Rohrbaugh, but especially Bruce Malina, who, in a multitude of publications, has sought to point out the core values of Mediterranean society (honor and shame, limited good) and to describe the ancient Mediterranean personality as contrasted with some-

10

JESUS THE GALILEAN

one in the United States in the Twentieth century. Concerning the latter, Malina maintains 25 that the Mediterranean person is: a) not introspective and b) is dyadic or collectivistic. Americans are, by way of contrast, introspective and individualistic. Ancient Mediterranean folk thought of themselves in terms of the opinion of at least one other person (the central person of the group). They needed at least one other person to feel that they knew who they really were. In our culture, we value self-reliance and pursuing our own goals, not group goals. In dyadic or collectivistic societies, the group goals are the end and, thus, most people’s behavior is determined by group goals. The defining attributes in the Mediterranean culture are family integrity, solidarity, and keeping the primary in-group in good health. Malina further maintains that ancient Mediterranean culture was antiintrospective: … if persons felt badly or well, they should look outside themselves to persons around them rather than inside, into the psyche, the soul, the mind, for the cause of their feeling. For it was outside that one could find an answer to why one felt depressed or elated, anxious or at ease, worried or excited, fearful or confident, and the like. 26

Thus, individuals are always playing to an audience from which they want approval or honor. The most significant in-group for Mediterranean peoples is the kin group. The results of Malina’s research are fascinating, but often surprising and discomfiting. Yet, these are insights that no conscientious exegete can afford to ignore. Malina states: … if some value or behavior emerges from interpretation (of the Bible) and that value or behavior makes perfect U.S. sense or finds perfect fit in U.S. social life, then it is undoubtedly wrong … 27

In other words, the culture of the ancient Mediterranean is so different from ours that we should be cautious at first when we read the New Testament. If our interpretation feels too comfortable, it is probably wrong. But if we properly understand it, we should feel a bit of culture shock. Other25 B. Malina, “Understanding New Testament Persons” in R. Rohrbaugh, ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 41–61. See also by Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1993). 26 Ibid., p. 47. 27 Malina, “Why Interpret the Bible with the Social Sciences?” American Baptist Quarterly 2 (1983) 119–133

JESUS AND CULTURE

11

wise, we have only superimposed our own culture on it; or, in other words, we have practiced eisogesis. Malina’s dictum should make us cautious in assuming too easily that the New Testament is in our hip pocket, so to speak. We must appreciate its cultural difference.

AN EXAMPLE Philologist, Talmudist, archaeologist, and social anthropologist. These are demanding roles for anyone to play. We may not be an expert in all (or for that matter, any) of these fields of learning, but in my opinion, we should be using them. The New Testament exegete or historian must be a serious observer in all of these areas. Let us now take as an example the text about the evil eye quoted at the beginning of this paper: “Jesus said, ‘The eye is the lamp of the body. When the eye is sincere, the whole body is illuminated; and when the eye is evil, the body is in darkness.’” (Luke 11:34)

Most commentators understand the verse 28 to refer to a healthy eye (reading haplous as healthy or sound) and to mean that when one listens to Jesus’ teaching (or God’s light), he/she is like a person who can see. Or others interpret the word as meaning “pure” or “generous” and thus see this as an ethical admonition. Thus, when one is pure of heart or is a generous person, he/she has the light of God. 29 28 There is a general agreement that this saying is an authentic saying of Jesus. Allison (“Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23=Luke 11.34–36)” NTS 33 (1987) 80–81) lists six arguments to support this conclusion. 1. One can easily translate the saying back into Aramaic. 2. The saying contains nothing distinctly Christian. 3. Comparing one’s inner moral life with outward behavior was common for Jesus. 4. The saying is a riddle/proverb, a common form of teaching for Jesus. 5. The saying has the same structure as several other of Jesus’ commonly accepted sayings. 6. Jesus was fond of taking up traditional materials and reworking them for his own purposes as he may have done with the opening proverbial statement, “The lamp of the body is the eye.” Elliott, “Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount” Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994) 65 also accepts the authenticity of the saying and adds that he finds a partial parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 24. 29 The Greek word DSORX9haplous) means, according to F. W. Danker, “single, without guile, sincere, straightforward (without a hidden agenda).” See BAG, 104. Most commentators suggest translating the word either “not diseased” or “generous.” See for the first view: O. Bauernfeind, “DSORX9” in TDNT, I, 386f, who says the word means either healthy or pure; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus

12

JESUS THE GALILEAN

What is striking when one reads ancient texts is how often the concept of the evil eye appears: The evil eye and the evil inclination and hatred of mankind drive a man out of the world (i.e., shorten his life). (m. Avot 2:16, the text quoted at the beginning of this paper.) (Raban Yohanan ben Zakkai) used to say, “Go and see which is that evil way which a man should shun.” R. Eliezer said, “An evil eye.” R. Yehoshua said, “An evil associate.” R. Yose said, “An evil neighbor.” (m. Avot 2:13)

As one can discern from these two texts from the Mishnah, the evil eye is not simply an unhealthy eye, but it really is evil. If the evil eye is known by the company it keeps, then it is truly evil, not just unhealthy. It appears first alongside the evil inclination (inclination to sin) and hatred of mankind and next alongside an evil associate and an evil neighbor. The evil eye is that which does evil, as all of these other entities do evil. The following inscription lists, along with the general burden of evil fate, the bitter evil eye, both of which have caused him to suffer horribly: I know within myself that I have never done anything bad, but experiencing evil fate and bitter evil eye, I suffered such things which no one has yet (suffered). (CIG 4.9668) 30

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 93, who writes that the haplous eye is clear, sound, or healthy; and D. S. Bock, Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) II, 1101. For those who want to translate the word “generous,” see: D. C. Allison, “The Eye is the lamp of the Body” 61–83; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 489, who writes that haplous means simple, single, sincere, or generous. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (Dallas: Word, 1993) 159; A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960) 581; and E. M. Yamauchi, “Magic in the Biblical World” Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 169–200. E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. D. E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 163 writes that haplous is the simple eye that admits God’s light into the entire body. J. H. Elliott, “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount,” 51 translates the term, “integral.” J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV (New York: Doubleday, 1985) 940 seems to understand the significance of the evil eye, but argues that that meaning will not fit the context here. I would maintain that in this context, haplous contrasts with the evil eye (poneros, not kakos) and thus should be rendered with the vague “sincere.” 30 Greek text in G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1987) IV, 30.

JESUS AND CULTURE

13

As in the case of the text quoted above from the Mishnaic tractate, Aboth, the great evil of the evil eye is proven, in the inscription, by the company it keeps. The sufferer lists it alongside the terrible burden of fate (HLPDUPHQKheimarmene) as the cause of all of his suffering. The evil can be either merely ethical or both ethical and supernatural. The expression, “evil eye,” 31 can mean envy, greed or stinginess (metaphorical use of the expression) or a curse or spell, whether intentional or unintentional, that does someone harm (literal use of the expression). The metaphorical meaning is found widely in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: “A man with an evil eye hastens after wealth” (Proverbs 28:22). “Can I not do what I want with what is mine, or is your eye evil because I am generous? (Matthew 20:15). Even in the first case, the envy may cause a person unintentionally to harm with his/her eye. That is, envy of someone’s good fortune may itself, if the envious one looks on the fortunate one, cause harm. The second meaning of the expression was that certain persons had the ability by looking at someone or something intentionally to cast a spell which would do great damage to persons, animals, crops, or other possessions. How widespread was this “superstition” in the ancient Mediterranean world? It was believed—feared, rather—widely throughout the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East. It already had a long tradition behind it by the first century CE. The earliest references to this belief are in the texts from Mesopotamia from the second millennium BCE. 32 The Greek authors

31 The Greek expressions are SRQKUR9RITDOPR9and EDVNDQLD. The Latin terms are oculus malus, invidia, and fascinatio. For the double meaning of these expressions, see: A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Shocken, 1949) 270–274 (but for the equivalent Hebrew expression) and LSJM, 310 (under EDVNDLQZ). See also Rohrbaugh, “Introduction” in Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 3. For the evil as “envy,” see Matthew 20:15 and Testament of Issachar 3:1. For the meaning of “greedy,” see Proverbs 18:22. For the expression meaning “stingy,” see Sirach 14:8–9 and Deuteronomy 15:9–11. For the supernatural meaning, see Galatians 3:1, b. Nedarim 7b and b. Sanhedrin 93a. 32 Marie-Louise Thompson, “The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51 (1992) 19–32, who translates seven evil eye texts. See also J. N. Ford, “Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes” Ugarit Forschungen 30 (1998) 201–278. Ford gives a translation and commentary with numerous parallels of an evil eye text from Ugarit.

14

JESUS THE GALILEAN

wrote about it from at least the seventh century BCE on. 33 The Romans not only believed that persons in their own society had such powers, but that the “barbarians,” those living outside the empire, had even more extraordinarily powerful evil eyes that could kill with only a glance. 34 Nor were the Jews excluded from this cultural characteristic. Numerous texts, from the New Testament period and from the later Talmudic period, attest to the influence in Judaism of the belief in the evil eye. The Babylonian Talmud, for example, exclaimed that ninety-nine persons die from the evil eye to one from natural causes (b. BM 107b). 35 The widespread fear of being harmed by the evil eye is reflected in the everyday language of the ancient Mediterranean folk. The Greek papyrus letters from Egypt show that their authors possessed a continual anxiety over the threat of the eye. It is usual in the greetings of these letters to pray that the evil eye may not harm the recipients: Before all things I pray that you are in good health and not harmed by the evil eye.” (POxy. II.292; 25 CE) 36 Semproniur to Saturnila, his mother and lady, many greetings. Before all I pray that you are well and that my brothers also escape the evil eye. (2nd century CE) 37 Greet most excellent Alexander and (may the evil eye not harm them!) Sarapion, Theon, Aristoklea and her children. (POxy. 3313, 2nd century CE) 38

33 See P. Walcot, Envy and the Greeks: A Study of Human Behavior (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1978) 107–115, who lists numerous references to the evil eye among the Greeks. The earliest is from Hesiod, seventh century BCE. 34 Carlin A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 93. 35 See Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 272; Brigitte Kern-Ulmer, “The Power of the Evil Eye and the Good Eye in Midrashic Literature” Judaism 40 (1991) 344–353; and see the references in J. H. Elliott, “Matthew 10:1/15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation” BTB 22 (1992) 52–65, especially 55, 62, 64, 69. 36 Greek text in J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1930) 106. 37 The Greek text is found in A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965) 192. 38 The Greek text is in E. A. Judge, Rank and Status in the World of The Caesars and St. Paul (Canterbury: University of Canterbury, 1982) 24.

JESUS AND CULTURE

15

These three letters, which are not at all unusual in their references to the evil eye, indicate how common the fear of a hurtful look was. The letter writers pray for general good health for the recipients and, specifically, that they may escape the destructive power of someone’s evil eye. How can someone’s stare cause harm? How did the ancients explain it? In a lengthy discussion (Moralia V. 7,680–683), Plutarch (2nd century CE) gave a rationalistic explanation for why the evil eye is effective. There are emanations (DSRUURLDLaporroiai) of particles, he maintains, from all bodies, especially living bodies. The eye gives off these particles most abundantly. Indeed, I said, you yourself are on the right track of the cause (of the effectiveness of the evil eye) when you come to the emanations of the bodies … and by far living things are more likely to give out such things because of their warmth and movement … and probably these (emanations) are especially given out through the eyes. (Plutarch, Moralia V.7,680) 39

Most ancient persons had a completely different understanding about how eyesight works. According to our way of understanding the eye, light enters the eye. Therefore, it is what goes into the eye that matters. But as this text makes clear, the ancients believed that small particles or influences emanated from one’s eye and could have either a good or bad effect on the object they encountered. 40 It was what came from the eye that counted. Therefore, if one had envy and possessed certain powers, one could, simply by staring at someone, cause him or her much harm, even without intending to do so. The emanations of the eyes were considered quite powerful. For example, the ancients believed that those with a jaundiced eye would turn certain flowers away from them when they looked at the flowers (Plutarch V.7,681). Likewise, the evil eye could do enormous damage, they believed. 39

Translation is the author’s and is based on the text in P. A. Clement and H. B. Hoffleit, Plutarch’s Moralia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969; LCL) VIII, 420. 40 See Allison, “The Eye is a Lamp,” 61–83. Allison demonstrates that although there were four ancient theories concerning how the eyes work, the most common one throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East (including Judaism) was that the eye sent out rays or particles. Cf. also F. T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye (London: Collier Books, 1958) 8. See e.g., Plato, Timaeus 45B–46A; Philo, de Abrahamo 150–156; Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1.140; 1 Samuel 18:9.

16

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The Babylonian Talmud tells tales of the evil eye causing famines and a scorched earth (b. Hagigah 5b, Taanith 24b). Any sudden sickness, death, change in matrimonial arrangement, loss of livestock, or loss of crops was, therefore, attributed to the evil eye. 41 People would usually conclude that some envious person must have looked at the victim. Although a passage elsewhere in Plutarch hints that not all educated people in antiquity believed in the power of the evil eye, both Plutarch and his friend, Mestrius Florus, a prominent Roman, stoutly defended the belief (V7,680). They maintained that it was common knowledge that people with the evil eye can hurt others, especially children (V.7,680). There were even certain races (they mentioned the Thibaeans of northern Pontus) that were believed to be deadly in their power of the evil eye (V.6,680). Plutarch offers the influence of a lover’s glance as proof that a look can do harm. Just as a lover’s gaze can excite the passions in the recipient of the gaze, so can an evil look do harm in the recipient (V.7,681). Thus, it appears that the upper classes also believed in the power of the evil eye. 42 Educated persons, like Plutarch, might explain the power of the evil eye by “emanations” or particles streaming from the eyes like sunbeams, but the common folk probably considered the effect of the evil eye to be a supernatural event. Probably most persons did not have a clear picture as to how the power of the eye worked but attributed it to a miraculous phenomenon. Some eyes, they probably reasoned, simply have supernatural power. But many of the common folk thought that demons played a role. The envious person aroused the envy also of evil supernatural beings, and they, in turn, cast their evil eyes at the victim. This understanding is assumed by the incantations which try to ward off the evil eyes of demons. 43 The state41

See V. Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil: Basil of Caesarea’s Homily, ‘On Envy’” HTR 84 (1991) 163–184, especially 176, Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village” in C. Malony, The Evil Eye (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) 42–62. 42 See V. Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil,” 177, who cites an archaeological study of southern Isauria in the Byzantine period which reports a mosaic from the house of a wealthy family. The mosaic had an evil eye protective symbol. 43 See G. Delling, “EDVNDLQZ” TDNT I, 595; Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil,” 177; Thompson, “The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia,” 27; Ford, “Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye,” 211, 214, 232; and Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village” in C. Malony, The Evil Eye (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), esp. 13, 15.

JESUS AND CULTURE

17

ment of Libanius (4th century CE) illustrates this idea. He reports that he knew that three young men would be cursed by the evil eye when they were praised: I knew that a certain bewitchment (baskania) would look at your sons since it has arisen to look at those being praised, because an envious demon could not bear what was being said about them. (Epistle 1403.1– 2) 44

Above all, there was fear for the children. As we stated previously, Plutarch alluded to the common belief that children were especially vulnerable to the power of someone’s evil eye (Moralia 680d). 45 It could be a very frightening thing to have a person praise your son or daughter for being beautiful or intelligent. Someone with an envious evil eye might hear it and harm your child. Very often, it was the very person offering the praise that was the envious one. 46 It was a blessing to have girls first. That way, those mothers without sons would not give your children the evil eye and kill them (b. BB 141a). 47 Perhaps that is why the papyrus letters that pray for protection against the evil eye do so especially with respect to the children: “Your sisters and the children of Theonis—may they be protected from the evil eye—greet you” (POxy VI. 930 2nd to 3rd CE). 48 One way to gauge the fear of the evil eye in antiquity is to consider the measures taken to protect oneself from it. One way to protect yourself from the evil eye was to keep from making people envious of you. Envy and jealousy were almost always the motive behind such harmful spells. Thus one should not make a show of possessions (b. Taanith 8b) and certainly should not brag on one’s children (b. BB 141a). 49 Anyone who praised one’s chil44

Greek Text is in Dickie, “The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye,” 13. See also Testament of Solomon 18:39 (105) where a demon speaks of casting his evil eye on everyone. 45 See also Barton, Sorrows of the Roman, 93. 46 See Ellworthy, Evil Eye, 14; B. Spooner, “The Evil Eye in the Middle East” in C. Maloney, ed., The Evil Eye 76–84. 47 Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 273. 48 Greek text in Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 106. See also C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994) Vol. I, 275. 49 Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 273. Cf. Elworthy, Evil Eye, 33, who cites the case told in Heliodorus, Aethiopica of a young girl who fell ill after being viewed by a crowd of people. Evidently someone in the crowd, they concluded, had given her the evil eye.

18

JESUS THE GALILEAN

dren, prosperity, livestock, wife, or anything else, was suspected of being envious. Praise in this culture is not necessarily a desirable thing. It can lead to disaster. 50 Some preferred to undertake additional measures to protect themselves from the evil eye. Here is the advice found in the Talmud: If anyone is going up into a town and is afraid of the evil eye, let him take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand, and say: “I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, am of the offspring of Joseph and the evil eye has no power over us …” If he is afraid of his own evil eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril. (b. Beracot 55b) 51

Thus, in the first place, one could use the special hand grip, which evidently was seen as warding off the spell, as protection. A second, noteworthy feature in this text is the reference to a person’s doing himself damage with the evil eye (hence, the advice to look at the left nostril). The ancients believed that some people simply had the power of the evil eye whether they wanted to have it or intended to use it. If one had such a power, he might even harm himself without intending to! 52 Plutarch also indicated that it was believed possible for a person accidentally to give himself the evil eye (V.7,682). Plutarch also noted that some people, unintentionally and without envy, harm with their eyes so that in some extreme cases, mothers do not allow the fathers of their children to stare at the children lest the father un-

50

For ancient texts warning against public praise, see Ford, “Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye,” 224, 227, 228; and Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil,” 176, who reports that in the Byzantine era all people were wary of compliments since the one complimenting might be also envying. This wariness especially applied in the case of one’s children. For contemporary studies about the fear of praise, see Dionisopoulos-Mass, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village,” 44–45; Dickie, “The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye,” 13; Moss and Cappannari, “Mal’occhio, Ayin ha ra, Oculus fascinus, Judenblick: The Evil Eye Hovers Above,” in Maloney, Evil Eye, 7; Elliott, “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount,” 58, 73. 51 Translation is the author’s and is based on the texts of The Judaic Classics (Chicago: Davka, 1991–1995). The passage quoted from b. Beracothy 20a is also found in b. Baba Betzia 84a. 52 Cf. Elworthy, Evil Eye, 8–14, who recalls a Greek story of a man looking at his reflection in a pool of water and inadvertently thereby harming himself with the evil eye.

JESUS AND CULTURE

19

intentionally harm them (Moralia V.7,682). Such beliefs still prevail in traditional cultures of the Mediterranean. 53 Other protections included the following: One could utter a charm or magical incantation to ward off the evil eye (t. Shabbath 7:23). 54 One could wear a brightly colored piece of clothing, such as a scarlet cloth, to avert the eye of the evil enchanter (t. Shabbath 4:5). 55 One could spit three times to ward off the spell: “So I would not suffer from the evil eye, I spat three times” (Theocritus 6,39). 56 In addition to the above and other protections, 57 one could wear an amulet which was supposed to avert the eye of the evil doer. 58 Plutarch referred to the protective amulets that many people, especially children, wore around their necks in the hope of warding off the baneful stare. These amulets, said Plutarch, were intended to divert the eye of the evil doer and, thereby, protect the wearer. Plutarch wrote further that the unusual or weird look of the amulet attracted the gaze of the potential evil doer and so lessened his or her powers (V.7,681–682). Archaeological remains confirm that the evil eye was much feared in antiquity. Certain objects from the ancient world make it clear, for example, what the amulets probably were that Plutarch and others were referring to. 53

Cf. Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village” in Malony, Evil Eye, 42–62. This work is the author’s field report from a one year stay in a Greek village. She reports about a good man who had the evil eye and did not know it. But when he looked at an animal, it soon died. 54 Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 273. Cf. Dionisopoulos-Mass, “Evil Eye,” 42–62. For examples of incantations against the evil eye, see Ford, “Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye,” 239, 241. 55 Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, 273. Wearing red as a protection from the evil eye is still done in Italy. See L. W. Moss and S. C. Cappannari, “The Evil Eye Hovers Above” in Maloney, Evil Eye, 1–15. 56 Greek text in BAG, 171. See also Elworthy, Evil Eye, 14, 416–419 for other examples of spitting three times to avert the evil eye. In the Middle East, spitting is one of the cures for a curse, once afflicted. See Spooner, “The Evil Eye in the Middle East” in Maloney, Evil Eye, 81. 57 For a host of other protections against the evil eye, see: Elliott, “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount,” 57; Kern Ulmer, “The Power of the Evil Eye and the Good Eye in Midrashic Literature” Judaism 40 (1991) 344–353; Spooner, “The Evil Eye in the Middle East,” 81. 58 See Spicq, Theological Lexicon, 275; Barton, Sorrows of the Romans, 95–98; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 106; W. H. Stevens, The New Testament World in Pictures (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987) 232; Elworthy, Evil Eye, 125–225.

20

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The ancients were accustomed to use good luck charms, especially of male and female genitalia, to ward off the effects of the evil eye. The phallic symbol, as a good luck charm to defend against the evil eye, was especially common. Children often wore them on a chain around their necks. A large number of phallic depictions have been found in Pompeii and Herculaneum (in Italy) on frescoes, mosaics, furniture, statuary and other objects. A good example of this use in Pompeii was a relief sculpture of a phallus in a bakery to ward off the evil eye. 59 The customer (or potential evil doer), upon entering the shop, was supposed to have his attention diverted to the sculpture and away from the shop owner. The phalli were the most common protectors against the evil eye in the Greco-Roman world, but other kinds of amulets could also be found. The Egyptians used the mystic eye, carved on pendants of all sorts and on other items, and they especially favored the sculpture of scarabs. The Jewish people wore phylacteries (small scrolls with scripture texts inscribed and strapped to the forehead or left forearm) which may have been for protection against the evil eye. 60 We may summarize the ancient concept of the evil eye as follows: 61 1) The evil eye is transmitted by someone’s looking at a person or thing. The stare of some persons is baneful. 2) Envy breeds the evil eye. 3) Sudden sickness, death, or malady is caused by the evil eye. 4) Measures must be taken to ward off the spell, the most common being the wearing of amulets. We may place the evil eye casters into three groups: 1) Some persons had the power of the evil eye and neither knew they had it nor wanted to cause harm to anyone. They were not envious but could accidentally, nonetheless, harm their loved ones and even themselves. 2) Some persons did not consciously intend to harm others, but, by casting an envious look, did so. 3) Finally, there were some, also acting out of envy, who consciously placed a harmful spell on other persons, on animals, and on other possessions. 62 59 See W. H. Stevens, The New Testament World in Pictures, 232 for photographs. See also the amulets with phalli worn especially by children for protection, p. 231; and the drawings in J. Elliott, “The Fear of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Lil Abner” Forum 4 (1988) 42–71; and in Elworthy, Evil Eye, 149–154. 60 Elworthy, Evil Eye, 124–148. 61 This is adapted from Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil,” 176. 62 Cf. G. Delling, “EDVNDLQZ” TDNT I, 594. See also Dionisopoulos-Mass, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment” 42–62, who describes two concepts of evil eye bewitchment in the Greek village she studied. One type called by them matiazma

JESUS AND CULTURE

21

Cultural anthropologists report that the belief in the evil eye is very widespread even today. John Elliott, 63 who has published extensively on this topic, informs us that the “fear of the leer” is still an important cultural phenomenon in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. 64 Anyone who has traveled to Turkey, Jordan, or other Middle-eastern countries has seen evidence of its persistence in the culture. One can see the blue glass with eyes in Turkey or the hands with open palms in Jordan which people hang on the rearview mirrors of their cars or wear around their necks and which are supposed to avert the evil eye. Anthropologists opine that the evil eye concept grows out of the core Mediterranean values of honor and shame and the limited good. 65 Honor is was the spell that came simply because someone became envious and looked at a person or possession. The second type, vascania, (the same word as the ancient Greek term) occurs when someone maliciously intends to harm another person or thing and casts a magic spell. The first type of enchantment, explains Dionisopoulos-Mass, can be easily remedied by folk methods. But the second type requires a priest. 63 “The Fear of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li’l Abner” Forum 4 (1988) 42–71. See also by Elliott: “Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye” Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990) 262–73; “The Evil Eye in the First Testament: The Ecology and Culture of a Pervasive Belief” in N. K. Gottwald, ed., The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1991) 147–59; “Matthew 20:1– 15” BTB 22 (1992) 52–65; “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount” Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994) 51–84. Other useful articles include: J. D. M. Derrett, “The Evil Eye in the New Testament” in P. F. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 1995) 65–74; and J. H. Neyrey, S.J., “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology” CBQ 50 (1988) 72–80. 64 See G. P. Murdock, Theories of Illness (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 1980) 38–40 for the evil eye as a phenomenon in the circum-Mediterranean region. See also D. D. Gilmore, “Anthropology of the Mediterranean Area” Annual Review of Anthropology 11 (1982) 175–205 for the Mediterranean area; and J. PittRivers, The People of the Sierra (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971) 198 for Spain. Gilmore remarks: “(The evil eye) is probably one of the few true Mediterranean universals” (198). Elworthy, Evil Eye, ix, indicates that belief in the evil eye is found in the Mediterranean area, in the Middle East, in India, in the Far East, and even in Great Britain. C. Maloney, Evil Eye, xii–xiii, presents a map showing the distribution of belief in the evil eye. According to the map, the belief is found in South America (due to Spanish influence?) and in Southeast Asia, but is especially centered on northern Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and India. 65 For the concepts of honor and shame and limited good in Mediterranean society see, among others: B. Malina, New Testament World: Insights from Cultural An-

22

JESUS THE GALILEAN

practically everything in this society and the worst horror is shame. Likewise, in a peasant culture there is a sense of limited good. Food is limited, space is limited, and even honor is limited. Thus, if someone has too much wealth, too much food, or too much honor, then he is taking from you. This causes envy and envy leads to the evil eye, the putting of a curse or spell on the one who has too much or flaunts too much of what he has. Today, Mediterranean peoples do not want their children to be praised too much in public as beautiful or intelligent because that might provoke the evil eye from someone and cause a curse to be put on their children (exactly like the ancient fear). 66 Thus, Jesus’ saying now takes on a somewhat different meaning. It is not the light coming into the eye that is the issue, but what goes out from it. The haplous person, or sincere person, is a person who has no double motives. This person is single minded. There is no envy lurking in the shadows, but what appears to be, actually is. He does not offer the praise of envy, the praise that comes from an envious and destructive eye. She is a person whose gaze causes genuine good to others. But the one with the evil eye causes evil. He/she is envious of someone’s success, possessions, or family and either unintentionally or intentionally casts a destructive spell on another. The one with the evil eye is a dangerous person whose whole body is in darkness and evil. There is no true light coming from this eye because the whole body is darkened by moral evil. Thus Jesus’ comment was addressing a belief which was commonplace in ancient Mediterranean life, but which, to us, seems remote, even strange. We do not believe that someone can cast spells on others, let alone with a weird glance of the eye. One might even ask, “What value does this saying have since we all know that people cannot harm you by the envious stare?” Or can they?

thropology; H. Moxnes, “Honor and Shame” in Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 19–40; Elliott, “The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount,” 56; A. Dundes, “Wet and Dry, The Evil Eye; An Essay in Semitic and Indo-European Worldview” in V. J. Newell, ed. Folklore Studies in the Twentieth Century (Totowa, N.J.: D. S. Grewer, 1980) 41. 66 Derrett, “The Evil Eye,” 66, 70 n. 4; and Pitt-Rivers, People of the Sierra, 198. Cf. Limberis, “The Eyes Infected by Evil,” 176, who reports that in the Byzantine era, all people were wary of compliments since the one complimenting might also be envying. This wariness especially applied in the case of one’s children.

JESUS AND CULTURE

23

INTRODUCTION TO THE REST OF THE BOOK As the subtitle of this monograph indicates, we are taking soundings in Jesus’ life. We are not attempting, so to speak, to map the entire ocean floor of either Jesus’ biography or of the canonical gospels. This is not a systematic description of Jesus’ theology. Rather, we will measure at four points to check for depth and contour. We will, therefore, work primarily on four texts: Mark 6:1–4; 10:17–22; 7:1–23; and 11:15–17. But we are not just taking soundings. We are using each time a different device to measure. To keep with our metaphor, let us suggest that just as an oceanographer might use a weighted line at one point, sonar at another, and an underwater camera at yet another, thus, at each of the soundings, we will stress different resources: first archaeology, next the Dead Sea Scrolls, then the Mishnah and finally the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha. I hope that this monograph then can also serve as an introduction for students to these resources. The chapters that follow are the focal point of this work. These four texts were not chosen at random but represent some of the most controversial issues in the current scholarly discussion about the historical Jesus. My goal, obviously, is to convince the reader of my own conclusions on these issues. But even if that does not happen, I will be satisfied if the reader gains enthusiasm for the history, the literature, and the quest. Soundings do not give us a complete map of the ocean and should not be presented as such. But they can tell us a great deal. One can extrapolate from one to the other for a hypothetical map. At the end of this monograph, in the Postscript, I will attempt to do just that.

JESUS IN GALILEE: THE EVIDENCE FROM ARCHAEOLOGY

A. IMPORTANT COLLECTIONS OF ESSAYS D. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries

B. ENCYCLOPEDIC RESOURCES E. M. Meyers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (5 vols.) J. J. Rousseau and R. Arav, Jesus and His World E. Stern, ed., New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land (4 vols.) We must be careful walking about in Galilee. Great ones have tripped over its stones. Ernest Renan, the nineteenth century biographer of Jesus, thought that ancient Galilee must have been a paradise. He referred to the area around Nazareth as “This enchanted circle.” Galilee was “charming and idyllic” and was characterized by green, shade, beautiful flowers and small, gentle animals. “In no country in the world do the mountains spread themselves out with more harmony.” Galilee, he thought, “spiritualised itself in ethereal dreams—in a kind of poetic mysticism, blending heaven and earth.” He made unflattering comparisons between Galilee and Judea and their inhabitants. They were Athens and Sparta, poles apart in their lifestyles and thinking. Jerusalem was the home of “that obstinate Judaism …” while Galilee has given many great people to religion. 67 It was here in Renan’s dream-like never-never-land that he pictured Jesus’ youth.

67

E. Renan, The Life of Jesus (London: Truebner, 1867) 51, 74–76.

25

26

JESUS THE GALILEAN

As we noted in the previous chapter, the current quest for the historical Jesus is at the same time a quest for the historical Galilee. 68 The geographical and cultural location of Jesus’ youth may help us understand his later message and/or his pattern of ministry. Certainly scholars of the past have thought as much; the current group seems to have the same opinion. 69 The quest for Galilee is also a study in contrasts. If the Sermon on the Mount is known for its six Antitheses (Matt 5:21–48), scholars may look back on this period of study as the Antitheses of Galilee: 1) Some look at Galilee through the lenses of cultural anthropology and macro-sociology; others look at Galilee through the lenses of archaeology and reject the use of social theories. 2) Some maintain that the relations between rural villages and the cities were hostile; others propose that the relationship was one of economic reciprocity and good will. 3) Some suggest that Galilee was typical of other agrarian societies with poor peasants who lived in the rural areas and exploitative wealthy people who lived mostly in the cities; others respond that life was pretty good for everyone in Galilee and that it was an egalitarian society. 4) Some regard Galilee as so Hellenized (Greek-like) that there were Cynic philosophers running around; others retort that Galilee was thoroughly Jewish. 5) Some think Sepphoris, one of the cities of Lower Galilee, was rather large for an ancient city (up to 30,000 persons); others think it was a small “city” (around 7,500). 6) Some think the theater ruins in Sepphoris of Galilee (only five kilometers or four miles from Nazareth) indicate that Jesus could have attended theatrical performances; others maintain that the theater was not constructed until after Jesus’ time.

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE YOUTH OF JESUS And he went out from there and came to his home town and his disciples followed him. And when the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. And many heard and were amazed and said, “Where did he get this? What kind of learning has been given to him? What sort of miracles come through his hands? Isn’t he the tekton, the son of Mary 68

S. Freyne, “The Geography, Politics, and Economics in Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus” in B. Chilton and C. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 76; and H. Moxnes, “The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus—Part I” BTB 31 (2001) 26–37; “Part II” 64–77. 69 See the surveys in Moxnes, “The Construction of Galilee”; and M. Rapinchuk, “The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2004) 197–222.

JESUS IN GALILEE

27

and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they were offended by him. And Jesus was saying to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his kinsfolk, and in his own house.” (Mark 6:1–4)

What was Jesus’ youth like? What did it mean for him to grow up in Galilee practicing the trade of a tekton? This chapter seeks to place Jesus in his Galilean environment by appealing to archaeological remains in tandem with the historical documents. The recovery of material remains through the excellent efforts of excavators in Galilee in the last thirty years has revolutionized the study of the historical Jesus. Since so much information has come so quickly, we are left to pick our way through the disagreements in order to reach what seem to be the wisest conclusions. We want, in the end, to answer the question, “What was it like for Jesus, a carpenter, to grow up in Galilee?” Archaeology, simply put, is “the scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities.” 70 Therefore, it focuses on what is left over after wars, natural disasters, and time have had their effects. Obviously, only the most durable objects (stone, fired clay, metal, and bones) survive with any regularity although sometimes more perishable treasures are found— such as cloth, texts written on animal skins or papyri, or wooden objects. In the main, however, the material remains, which we will be discussing in this chapter, are the more durable objects listed above. J. H. Charlesworth 71 suggests three categories for using archaeology in the study of the life of Jesus. One category (which he names the “tertiary level”) is comprised of any artifact that pertains to the background of Jesus. That is, this category refers to any object dating from Jesus’ time that can help capture for us what it was like to live then. A second category (secondary level) includes material remains that describe the foreground of Jesus. These are remains that relate with some probability to the life of Jesus. Charlesworth lists, e.g., the town of Capernaum and its architectural and other material remains. We know from the gospels that Jesus was in Capernaum so learning more about this town may help us to understand Jesus a 70

W. G. Dever, “Archaeology, History and the Bible” in P. J. Achetemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985) 44. 71 Charlesworth, “Archaeology, Jesus and Christian Faith” in Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., What Has Archaeology to do with Faith? (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992) 8–9.

28

JESUS THE GALILEAN

little better, suggests Charlesworth. The final category (primary level) includes “data from some period of the life of Jesus” such as the place of his crucifixion. This level focuses on a known event in his life. Thus, we move from the general toward the more specific. If we might offer an analogy, we could compare the life of Jesus with the life of Abraham Lincoln. Thus, on the tertiary level, we could look at clothing, modes of transportation, and houses from his era. On the secondary level, we could look at any structures left from New Salem and Springfield, Illinois where he lived for a while. On the primary level, we could visit Ford’s Theater where he was assassinated. Our examination of the material remains of Galilee will focus on Charlesworth’s secondary level. James Strange 72 has also offered a helpful summary of how to use archaeology in the study of the biblical world. Archaeological remains can assist the historian to: 1) Illustrate an object (e.g., a cup). This is the “least useful theoretical” level for the study of archaeology. 2) Reconstruct a practice (e.g., covering the head or dining with an important person); and 3) Reconstruct the social world. The last item is the most sophisticated theoretical level of investigation. To keep with the time period of our illustration from above, we could compare these three levels to the situation in the old south of the United States during the life of Lincoln. Finding buried in the earth a plough from the ante-bellum era would teach us something about how farming was done. Examining an old auction block for the sale of slaves would begin to teach us about the practice of slavery. Looking at ante-bellum plantation mansions would tell us a great deal about the social world (namely, what it took to maintain that lifestyle). This chapter will focus on what archaeologists (and others) have written in attempting to reconstruct the social world. We will divide this chapter into two parts. First, we discuss Galilee as a whole; next, we will attempt to place Jesus within Galilee by giving special reference to his work as a carpenter.

72

James Strange, “The Sayings of Jesus and Archaeology” in J. H. Charlesworth and L.L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 291–305, esp. 296–297.

JESUS IN GALILEE

29

AN OVERVIEW OF GALILEAN SOCIETY AND CULTURE IN JESUS’ TIME The Region of Galilee The Jewish historian, Josephus (first century CE; War 1.22, 3.35–39) divided Galilee into two sections: Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee. The rabbinic collection called the Mishnah (collected in 200 CE; m. Shebiit 9:2) divided Galilee into three parts: Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, and the Great Plain. A steep slope separates the Upper and Lower Galilee. To determine where the one ended and the other began, the reader may draw an imaginary line from the northern end of the Sea of Galilee westward toward the Mediterranean Sea. 73 The mountains of Upper Galilee reach a height of 3,000 feet while those of Lower Galilee rise to just under 2,000 feet. Lower Galilee is intersected by four valleys running east to west and finally drops in the south from a height of 1,500 feet at Nazareth to the Great Plain which is 492 feet above sea level. Upper Galilee extended over 180 square miles; Lower Galilee 470 square miles. 74 Archaeologists have confirmed that there was also a bit of a cultural divide between Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee was more conservative and isolated, speaking mostly Hebrew and Aramaic (as evidenced by the inscriptions found so far). It had only villages and small towns and no major trade routes dissected its region. Lower Galilee has produced more Greek inscriptions and had two fair sized cities: Sepphoris and Tiberias. 75 It was more open to outside influences because important trade routes (such as the via maris) ran through it. The differences between the two Galilees have sometimes been exaggerated but that there were dif-

73 This is only an approximate division. For a more precise dividing of the two Galilees, see M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 133–135. 74 See Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 27– 28; E. M. Meyers, “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism” ANRW, II.19.1 (1979) 686–702; and J. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2000) 115. 75 See E. M. Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction” BASOR 221 (1976) 93–101; idem., “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 57–66; and Ruth Vale, “Literary Sources in Archaeological Description: The Case of Galilee, Galilee and Galileans” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18/2 (1987) 209–226.

30

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ferences few would deny today. Jesus’ home town, Nazareth, was located in Lower Galilee.

Figure 2 Map of Galilee

The People of Galilee To get the lay of the land socially, let us survey the people of the region of Lower Galilee. In making this survey, we are confronted immediately by one of the heated disagreements: Should we use the social science models to guide us and help us interpret the historical and archaeological data? Certainly, social science models can be used in an unhelpful way. One gets the impression from some works that the ancient data are irrelevant; if the social scientist says peasant society had certain features, they must have been there in ancient Galilee as well. But some archaeologists have over reacted to the use of social science models. Thus we have charges that certain scholars’ works are nothing but “myth and legend” and the claim that Galilee was an egalitarian society, quite remarkable for any first century region. 76 But as the sociological-New Testament crowd responds, “the material re-

76

J. A. Overman, “Jesus of Galilee and the Historical Peasant” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 67–73; and D. E. Groh, “The Clash Between Literary and Archaeological Models of Provincial Palestine” in Edwards and McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 29–37.

JESUS IN GALILEE

31

mains do not interpret themselves.” 77 The stones do not speak; interpreters must speak for them. Although one must be cautious in applying sociological theories to the study of ancient society, some interesting insights can nevertheless result from such attempts. If the sociological model has been informed by ancient sources and is judiciously eclectic in its selection of modern sociological theory, we can be reasonably assured that we are not guilty of merely molding the past to fit the present. On the other hand, to ignore macro-sociology or cultural anthropology is surely to invite ethnocentrism and a certain naïveté. The social sciences provide the “innocent” historian with a sort of street smarts. They tend to make him/her say to the sources, “Oh really! I’ll bet there is another side to that story.” They urge the historian to listen to the side largely muted by the texts: the side of the poor and oppressed. The works of G. Sjoberg and G. E. Lenski 78 are very helpful in providing these insights. The ideas especially of Lenski have been used widely by several New Testament scholars, 79 those of Sjoberg somewhat less. 80 77

See the analyses of R. A. Horsley, “The Historical Jesus and Archaeology of the Galilee: Questions from Historical Jesus Research to Archaeologists” SBL 1994 Seminar Papers, 91–135; D. A. Oakman, “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus” SBL 1994 Seminar Papers, 220– 251; and S. V. Freyne, “Archaeology and the Historical Jesus” in J. R. Bartlett, ed., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1997) 129. See also the critique of Horsley in E. M. Meyers, “An Archaeological Response to a New Testament Scholar” BASOR 297 (1995) 17–26. 78 G. Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City (New York: Free Press, 1960); and idem, “The Preindustrial City” in J. M. Potter, M. N. Diaz, and G. M. Foster, eds., Peasant Society: A Reader (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1967) 15–24; G. E. Lenski, Power and Privilege (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966) 189–296 and G. Lenski and J. Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982) 166–213. 79 Cf. J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991) 44f, who also has used Lenski’s work as a check against viewing Jesus’ world through uninformed, ethnocentric spectacles. Crossan writes: “One can obviously debate Lenski’s master-model in whole or in part, but I accept it as a basic discipline to eliminate the danger of imposing presuppositions from advanced industrial experience on the world of an ancient agrarian empire.” For other New Testament scholars who have used Lenski’s model see: D. A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991) 155–176; idem. “Jesus’ Socio-Economic Background” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Hillel and Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress,

32

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Sjoberg’s construct of the social levels in agrarian societies is somewhat simpler than Lenski’s but they agree on the basic points. Agrarian societies are divided into two groups: The elites and the peasants. Everyone else is oriented toward one of these. The two social analyses are as follows: Lenski 82 Sjoberg 81 Elites Ruler Lower Class Governing Class Outcast Groups Retainers Merchants Priests Peasant Class Artisan Class Unclean and Degraded Classes Expendables Table 1 Social Segmentation

I propose to survey the populace of ancient Galilee according to the following class divisions: I. Persons of Privilege (elites, priests, merchants, and retainers) II. Lower Classes (peasants, poor merchants, artisans, day laborers) III. Outcasts (unclean persons, persons in unapproved occupations, criminals, beggars).

1997); A. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del: Michael Glazier, 1988); D. C. Duling and N. Perrin, The New Testament, Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (Fort Worth: HarcourtBrace, 1994) 49–56; R. Rohrbaugh, “The Social Location of the Markan Audience” Interpretation 47 (1993) 380–395; J. M. Arlandson, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997) 14–119; J. H. Neyrey, “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts” online http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/location.html . 80 See D. A. Fiensy, “The Composition of the Jerusalem Church” in R. Bauckham, ed., Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 213–236; R. L. Rohrbaugh, “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations” in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 125–149. 81 Sjoberg, Preindustrial City, 100–144 82 Lenski, Power and Privilege, 189–296.

JESUS IN GALILEE

33

We will be informed also by the general conditions of the GrecoRoman world. The economic structure of Galilean society was essentially similar to the rest of the Mediterranean world. The agrarian economies of the ancient empires followed remarkably familiar patterns. If we are going to posit an idyllic picture for first century CE Galilee, we must explain how it got to be so different from the rest of the world. Therefore we can benefit from insights gained from studies of Greek and Roman societies. The works of eminent classical scholars can be especially valuable in putting the Galilee of Herod Antipas in its historical and economic setting. 83 There are today three hypotheses as to the origin of the citizens of Galilee. Some suggest that they were the remnants of the old Israelites, that is, those left over after the deportations in the eighth century BCE. Others offer that these folk were converted Iturians, that is, Gentiles, who became Jews when Alexander Jannaeus conquered the territory (first century BCE). Finally, others posit that the people were Jewish colonists who settled in Galilee after Alexander Jannaeus annexed the territory for Judea. Which view does archaeology support? Jonathan Reed has done an effective job of presenting the data. 84 The data are from archaeological surveys of Galilee. A survey involves having a team visit a site, randomly collect ceramics (potsherds) from the surface (no excavating), and then record the dates of the

83

E.g., M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957); G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell, 1981); A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940); idem., Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale, 1974); P. Brunt, Italian Man Power (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); J. M. Frayne, Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy (London: Centaur, 1979); P. Garnsey, ed., Non-slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1980); P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); K. D. White, Roman Farming (London: Thames & Hudson, 1970); M. Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome (New York: Scribner, 1992); G. Alföldy, Die römische Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1986). 84 Reed, “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities’ and the Sayings Gospel Q” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Though the Centuries (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 87–108. See also E. M. Meyers, J. F. Strange, and D. E. Groh, “The Meiron Excavation Project: Archeological Survey in Galilee and Golan, 1976” BASOR 230 (1978) 1–24; M. Aviam, “Galilee: The Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods” NEAEHL II, 453; and S. V. Freyne, “Archaeology and the Historical Jesus” in J. R. Bartlett, ed., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, 133–134.

34

JESUS THE GALILEAN

finds. 85 He points out that there was an absence of any Galilean settlements for over a century after the conquest of the Assyrians (thus hypothesis 1 seems improbable). Further, the rule of Alexander Jannaeus (103–77 BCE) coincides with an increase of population. This looks to Reed like Jewish colonization not forced conversion of Gentiles. Reed suggests that the Galilean Jews originated as colonists from Judea.

Persons of Privilege Ancient agrarian societies tended to be structured around two groups: the takers (i.e., the elites) and the givers (i.e., the large class of rural peasants). The total make-up of these societies was complex, consisting of several socio-economic classes and subgroups, but these other classes were oriented toward one of the two main groupings listed above. You either were in the service of the elites or you were or had been—as often was the case of the artisans—a peasant. The socioeconomic distance between these two classes was typically enormous. As Lenski notes, “One fact impresses itself on almost any observer of agrarian societies, especially on one who views them in a broadly comparative perspective. This is the fact of the marked social inequality.” 86 The extent to which Galilee fits or deviates from a typical agrarian society must now be demonstrated. The elites of Galilee consisted of Herod Antipas (the tetrarch or ruler from 4 BCE to 39 CE) and his family, as well as certain other wealthy families. They almost always lived in urban centers as absentee landlords and government officials. Their wealth derived from the surpluses of the peasants in the form of taxes or rents on land. Antipas, himself, evidently received an annual income of 200 talents (Ant 17.318) both from taxes and from his large estates in Perea and on the Great Plain. 87 His family exceeded all other members of the elite class not only in political power but 85

See L. G. Herr and G. L. Christopherson, Excavation Manual: Madaba Plains Project (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University, 1998) 51. 86 Lenski, Power and Privilege, p. 210. Emphasis is Lenski’s. 87 For Perea, see Life 33 where the estate at that time belonged to Crispus, one of Agrippa I’s former prefects. For the Great Plain, see Life 119 where there is reference to an estate there of Berenice, Agrippa II’s sister. These lands then were passed down to members of the Herod family. For Galilee, see Ant 18.252 and H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) 70. See additionally, Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 21–73; and J. H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988) 139–148.

JESUS IN GALILEE

35

probably also in wealth. Because these political overlords enriched their top government officers and other friends with large land grants, 88 commanded the army, and levied taxes, their power over even other aristocrats was intimidating. So far no ruins of lavish palaces from Antipas’ day have been discovered either at Sepphoris, the first capital of the region (from around 4 BCE until sometime around 20 CE), or at the later capital, Tiberias. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century CE, reports that Antipas had a “house” in Tiberias in which there were animal representations painted or carved, a breach of Exodus 20:4 (Life 65). But not enough of Tiberias has been excavated to locate this palace. One would expect that Antipas had several palaces and retreats if he imitated his father, Herod the Great. Archaeologists may have discovered a Herodian house 3 miles east of Caesarea Maritima in the Carmel mountain range. This complex covers 7.5 acres and features two large buildings (one had 150 rooms), a natural spring and a garden. The palaces are decorated in elaborate marble panels; the residents owned fine gold jewelry and imported expensive pottery from Italy. One of the buildings contained a ritual bath; therefore, it appears that the residents were Jewish. The complex controls perhaps 2,500 acres of farm land. This then was a country estate of a very wealthy person. 89 There is no proof that this was an Herodian estate that was inherited by Antipas but, since it is so near Caesarea Maritima, Herod’s magnificently constructed city, it is suggestive of that possibility. Another social group, within the elite class, was the group of nonnoble aristocrats. They were called elders (Mk. 15:1, Acts 4:5), leaders (Life 194), first men (Life 9, 185; Mk 6:21), notables (War 2.318, 410), powerful ones (War 2.316, 411), those first in rank and birth (Ant 20.123) and honored men (m. Yoma 6:4). These men and their families were the nonpriestly and non-royal members of the elite class who, because of their wealth, influence and achievements, were leaders of their communities. Some were local magistrates (War 2.237=Ant 20.123; Life 134; cf. Life 246,

88 As did Herod the Great to Ptolemy of Rhodes (War 1.473, 667, 2.14–16, 24, 64) and Agrippa I to Crispus (Life 33). 89 Y. Hirschfeld and M. Feinberg Vamosh, “A Country Gentleman’s Estate” BAR 31/2 (2005) 18–31.

36

JESUS THE GALILEAN

278) 90 and some apparently had to assist the tax farmers in collecting taxes (Ant 20.194; War 2.405). 91 We clearly find non-noble aristocrats in Tiberias. Josephus says (Life 32–39) there were three groups in Tiberias at the outbreak of the war: a group of the most insignificant persons, a group led by Justus, and the respectable citizens (class divisions very similar to those of Sjoberg). In the latter group were Julius Capellus; Herod, son of Miaria; Herod, son of Gamalus; and Compsus, the son of Compsus. T. Rajak 92 surmises that the first man listed by Josephus was a Roman citizen, judging by his name and that the next two are from the Herodian family. She also notes that Compsus’ brother Crispus was the former prefect of Agrippa I (Life 33). These men are clearly from the upper class of Tiberias. 93 Apparently this social group also existed at Sepphoris. We do not possess information about the leaders of Sepphoris from the Herodian period, but the later rabbinic sources which refer to Sepphoris indicate a class of aristocrats. A. Büchler 94 affirmed that these leading citizens were called “the great ones,” “the great of the generation,” and parnasim (i.e., leaders or managers). These great ones were large landowners. In a Talmudic passage quoted by Büchler, a sage from the third century CE distinguishes three social classes based on wealth: the landowners, the peasants ('am ha-aretz), and the “empty ones” (i.e., the poor). 95 Probably every town of good size

90 J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 224 91 Jeremias, Jerusalem, 228; S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University, 1952) I, 274; J. S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine (Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1991) 204–206 92 T. Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias” Classical Quarterly N.S. 23 (1973) 345–368. Cf. H. G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 129f. 93 M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allenheld, 1983) 33 seems correct that Mk 6:21 refers to the aristocrats of Galilee. This reference probably pertains more specifically to Tiberias. 94 A. Büchler, The Political and Social Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris in the Second and Third Centuries (London: Jews’ College, 1909) 7–10. 95 B. Hull 92a; Büchler, Political and Social Leaders, 35. The comments of S. S. Miller, Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris (New York University: Ph.D., 1980) 141–171 are also interesting in this connection.

JESUS IN GALILEE

37

had its wealthy and influential citizens, such as John of Gischala (Life 43– 45) 96 or Simon of Gabara (Life 123–25). Most of the priests of ancient Judaism lived in Judea near the temple in Jerusalem. Yet there was a group of aristocratic priests, the clan of Jedaiah, that was living in Sepphoris at least by the second half of the first century CE. 97 They may have already been in residence in the time of Jesus. There are references to priests from Sepphoris serving in the temple (t. Yoma 1:4; t. Sotah 13:7). We would expect that there were wealthy merchants in Lower Galilee, given the important trade routes that cut through its regions. Yet the literary references are few. Some of Jesus’ parables refer to wealthy merchants: one searched for pearls until he found one that was exceedingly costly (Matt 13:45–46) and was able to buy it. The houses of some of these elites may have been discovered in Sepphoris in the domestic quarter on the western slope of the acropolis. E. Meyers, one of the excavators of Sepphoris, believes that it was inhabited by “well-to-do aristocratic Jews.” 98 The houses in this quarter date from the early first century CE (therefore from the time of Jesus). These were multiroom dwellings with courtyards. Many of the houses were furnished with fresco paintings on the walls with floral scenes (no animals or human depictions) and a few had mosaic floors. Several of the houses were multi-storied and many of them had ritual bath installations (stepped pools). By the size 96 See U. Rappaport, “John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem” JJS 33 (1982) 479–493. 97 See E. M. Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992) 322, 326; idem, “Jesus and His World: Sepphoris and the Quest for the Historical Jesus” in C. G. den Hertog, U. Huebner, and S. Muenger, eds., Saxa Loquentur (Muenster: Ugarit, 2003) 185–197; and S. S. Miller, Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris, 62–64. The presence of many ceramic incense shovels in one of the houses at Sepphoris (labeled building 84.1 or Unit IV) might indicate that the inhabitants were priests. See Meyers, “The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-Palestinian Domestic Architecture: The Case of Roman-Period Galilee” in D. L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, eds., Early Christian Families in Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 44–69; and idem., “Roman-Period Houses from the Galilee: Domestic Architecture and Gendered Space” in W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 487–499. 98 Meyers, “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 322.

38

JESUS THE GALILEAN

of houses and by the furnishings, we know that these were houses of the well-off. 99

Figure 3 Excavations in the western domestic area, Sepphoris (Photo by the author)

They are the houses of the well-to-do, but not the extravagantly rich. They do not, for example, compare with the large and elaborately furnished mansions found in the Jewish Quarter of old Jerusalem 100 and dating to the same time period. By comparison of the houses alone, we would say that these are modestly rich persons. Further, the small items do not indicate great wealth. They used bone instead of ivory for cosmetic applications; 99 See E. Netzer and Z. Weiss, Zippori (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 21–23; Carol L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “Sepphoris” in E. M. Meyers, ed., OEANE IV, 531–532; J. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 126; and Z. Weiss and E. Netzer, “Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeological Evidence” in Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, Z. Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 29–37; K. G. Hoglund and E. M. Meyers, “The Residential Quarter on the Western Summit” in Sepphoris in Galilee, 40. 100 See N. Avigad, “How the Wealthy Lived in Herodian Jerusalem” BAR 2 (1976) 22–35. E. M. Meyers, “The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-Palestinian Domestic Architecture,” 51 and 67 indicates that the “Great Mansion” of Jerusalem had a living area of 600 square meters while a large house excavated at Sepphoris (building 84.1) had an area of 300 square meters.

JESUS IN GALILEE

39

they employed common pottery, not fine ware such as that found in the country palace described above; they imported no wines. 101 Thus, based on the evidence of the houses from first century Sepphoris discovered so far (Tiberias has not been excavated adequately for such an assessment), 102 we would have to say that the extreme distance between the elites and lower class, found elsewhere in the Roman Empire, was diminished in Galilee. While there certainly was an economic distance between these two groups, it was not as great as in other regions. How many rich persons were there in ancient Galilee? It is important to emphasize that ancient agrarian societies, with poor agricultural technology, could support only a small group of elites. The surplus was simply too meager. J. H. Kautsky’s statement accurately assesses what was typical: The Aristocracy can be initially defined simply as consisting of those in an agrarian economy who, without themselves engaging in agricultural labor, live off the land by controlling the peasants so as to be able to take from them a part of their product. Of course, only a small percentage of the population can be aristocrats, because each peasant produces only a relatively small surplus and the average aristocrat consumes far more than a peasant. 103

The elite groups, although highly significant in wealth and power, were only a very small percentage of the population. There was not enough “surplus” to keep very many absentee landowners. R. MacMullen, G. Alföldy, and R. Rillinger estimate that the upper classes of the Roman empire (the senators, knights, and decurions) comprised no more than one per cent of the total population. 104 One would expect this percentage roughly to hold true in Galilee, for the nature of agrarian societies, as Kautsky observed, prevented a large elite class. We obviously are not bound to this percentage, but we should be cautious about estimating too far over it. Thus, if we as-

101

Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 126. See Y. Hirschfeld, “Tiberias” in E. Stern, ed., NEAEHL IV, 1466–1467. 103 J. H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1982) 79f. 104 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 89; R. Rillinger, “Moderne un zeitgenössische Vorstellungen vor der Gesellschaftsordnung der römischen Kaiserzeit” Saeculum 36 (1985) 302; G. Alföldy, Römische Sozialgeschichte, 130. Cf. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 228, who gives a similar figure for other agrarian societies. 102

40

JESUS THE GALILEAN

sess the population of first century Galilee at 175,000 persons, 105 we would expect no more than, say, 1,500 to 2,000 elites living mostly in Sepphoris and Tiberias. G. Lenski suggests that just under the elites was a group of bureaucrats. This class is termed by Lenksi 106 “the retainers.” The ancient sources do not specifically notice such a class of persons but the idea seems reasonable. Lenski maintains that most agrarian societies have employed retainers to mediate between the common people and the ruling class. He suggests that retainers deflected some of the hostility of the lower classes toward the elite, since the peasants and small craftsmen could never be sure whether their trouble came mainly from the retainers or from higher up. The retainers administered the financial and political affairs of the upper class and enforced their goals. For this service, says Lenski, they “shared in the economic surplus.” That is to say, they were elevated economically above the ordinary mass of people but, of course, not as high as the elites. As with nearly all social distinctions, however, the line between the lower aristocrats and upper retainers was fuzzy, as was the line between the lower retainers and upper peasantry. Tax collectors were obvious examples of retainers, whether one speaks of the small tax farmers—who F. Herrenbrück 107 maintains were mainly responsible for collecting the revenue—or of toll collectors. John, the tax collector, who resided at Caesaria Maritima (War 2.287); Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector, who lived at Jericho (Luke. 19:1–10); and Levi of Galilee (Luke 5:29) belonged to this class. The first two examples indicate that the retainers could become quite wealthy. Estate overseers were also among the retainers. These persons managed the large landed estates on the Great Plain. The office of estate overseer was known all over the empire. 108 Jesus’ parables indicate a common 105

See E. M. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in Edwards and McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 59; and H. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 53. Hoehner prefers the figure 200,000 and Meyers prefers 150,000 to 175,000. 106 Lenski, Power, 243–248. Lenski estimates the average number of retainers for agrarian societies at 5% of the population (p. 245). 107 F. Herrenbrück, “Wer waren die ‘Zöllner?’” ZNW 72 (1981) 178–194. Cf. M. Stern, “The Province of Judea,” S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) I.1, 308–376. 108 For the Latin term vilicus, see A. H. M. Jones “Colonus” in OCD. For the Greek term RLNRQRPR9, see LSJM and O. Michel, “RLNRQRPR9,” TDNT V, 149– 151. For the Hebrew terms      and  , see Jastrow. For the wide dis-

JESUS IN GALILEE

41

knowledge of this retainer. These important officials are mentioned twice in Luke (23:42–48; 16:1–8). Since estate overseers could be either slaves or freedmen, 109 the slaves referred to in Mark 12:2 and Matt 24:45 are probably also overseers. 110 Other types of retainers include the judicial magistrate, whom S. Freyne finds in War 2.571 and Lk 12:58 (=Mt 5:25). 111 Lk 18:2 may also refer to this official. They evidently judged legal disputes. To these officials we should also add soldiers, both Roman and Herodian. 112 The lower officials and bureaucrats of the royal court of Antipas would also be retainers. 113 E. M. Meyers surmises that retainers lived in both Sepphoris and Tiberias. 114 The governing class and their retainers stood over the lower classes both in the urban centers and in the country. They extracted rents and taxes, the “surplus,” from the peasantry and others and they lived mostly in the cities.

Lower Classes Most of the population in ancient agrarian societies belonged, as M. Rostovtzeff affirmed, to the rural peasantry. 115 MacMullen suggests, for example, that 75% of the people of ancient Italy were peasants. 116 De Ste. Croix accepts the figure of L. White, the medievalist, who estimated that ten people were needed in the country to produce enough food to enable one

tribution of the Greek term, see E. Ziebarth, “Oikonomos” PW XVII, 2. Col. 2118f. For the terms in the rabbinic literature, see LevRab 12; PesRab10; b. Shab 153a; t. BM 9:14; t. Betsah 4:9; t. BB 3:5; m. BB 4:7 109 Jones, “Colonus.” 110 Michel, “RLNRQRPR9,” TDNT. 111 See Freyne, Galilee from Alexander to Hadrian, 198. These local judges appear also in the rabbinic literature. See b. Shab 139a and E. E. Urbach, “Class-Status and Leadership,” 67. 112 For Roman soldiers, see Mt 8:5–13. For Herodian soldiers, see Ant 18.113f. 113 See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 88–90, for a description of these officials. 114 E. M. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in Edwards and McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 61. 115 Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 346. 116 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 253.

42

JESUS THE GALILEAN

person to live away from the land. The latter figure agrees with sociologists of agrarian societies. 117 The agricultural workers included small freeholders, tenant farmers, day laborers, and slaves. The small freeholders (see t. Peah 2:2) were generally subsistence farmers, though some may have been somewhat more prosperous. A good definition of the small freeholder includes: 1) They were small producers. 2) They used simple equipment and the labor of their family. 3) They produced crops mainly for their own subsistence and for payment of taxes to those in political power. 4) They operated within a village community. 118 A survey of farm plots, for small freeholders from ancient Galilee, indicated that they ranged from 1 to 15 acres, with most of them being around 4 acres. 119 These farm sizes are in line with the survey of Samaria done by S. Dar. 120 As A. Ben-David has concluded, that size farm seems only large enough for a subsistence living 121 if the peasant had a large family of 6 to 9 people. Freyne concurs and is probably correct in that while the small freeholders of Galilee do not appear, in Josephus’s references to them, to have been starving, they did earn their living with little or no margin for error. 122 There is ample evidence—literary, 123 inscriptional, 124 and archaeologi125 cal —that many large estates existed in Herodian Palestine (from Idumea

117 De Ste. Croix, Class Struggle, 10; L. White, “Die Ausbreitung der Technik 500–1500,” in Europäische Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Mittelalter, ed. C. M. Cipolla and K. Borchardt, Bd. 1 (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1978) 92. See also G. Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City, 83. Sjoberg affirms that no more than 10% of agrarian populations usually lived in cities. Sometimes it was less than 5%. Lenski estimates between 3 and 10% (Power and Privilege, 199–200, 279). 118 Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 44. 119 B. Golomb and Y. Kedar, “Ancient Agriculture in the Galilee Mountains” IEJ 21 (1971) 136–140. 120 S. Dar, Landscape and Pattern (Oxford: BAR, 1986) 46, 60–76; cf. esp. p. 262. Cf. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply, 46, who notes that the farm sizes in classical Athens ranged from 2 to 4 hectares (=5 to 10 acres) and in Republican Italy they ranged from 1.25 to 2.5 hectares (=3 to 6 acres). 121 A. Ben-David, Talmudische Ökonomie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1974) 44. 122 Freyne, Galilee, 193f, 208. 123 See the collected evidence in Fiensy, Social History, 21–73. 124 Cf. The Hefzibah inscription. See Y. H. Landau, “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah” IEJ 16 (1966) 54–70.

JESUS IN GALILEE

43

to the Great Plain), just as they certainly existed in other parts of the Roman empire. 126 Large estates needed a pool of cheap labor. Hence, if you have a large estate, you must have some combination of tenant farmers, day laborers, and slaves. No evidence so far has come to light for large estates in Lower Galilee from Nazareth in the south to Kefar Hananya in the north. 127 But the literary, inscriptional and archaeological evidence supports the conclusion that most of the Great Plain was given over to large estate owners. 128 The Roman Senate issued a decree in 44 BCE which reaffirmed the right of the Jewish Hasmonean rulers to private ownership of the Plain (Ant 14.207). The decree indicates that the current Hasmonean prince has inherited the villages of the Plain and has every right to maintain possession of them. The only way one can possess or own villages is if the villagers live on his land and work as tenant farmers. A. Alt reasoned that the Hasmoneans had simply taken over an earlier Seleucid private estate. How else would they have gotten ownership of so large a tract of land? 129 In the eastern portion of the Great Plain was found the Hefzibah inscription (four miles northwest of Scythopolis). The inscription consists of eight documents (dating from 201–195 BCE) exchanging communication between a Seleucid king, Antiochus III, and his retainer, Ptolemy. The documents detail Ptolemy’s ownership of the villages around Scythopolis (Beth-Shean). 130 An archaeological survey has located 117 wine presses on the southern edge of the Great Plain scattered from the village of Jenin to the ruins of 125

See especially S. Dar, Landscape and Pattern, 230–245; and Hirschfeld and Vamosh, “A Gentleman’s Country Estate.” 126 See MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 6; P. A. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (New York: Norton, 1971) 34; M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy (London: Chatto & Windus, 1973) 99. 127 Somewhat more evidence exists for Upper Galilee. See Sharon C. Herbert and Andrea M. Berlin, “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh” BASOR 329 (2003) 13–59 for a large estate in the Hellenistic period (3rd to 2nd century BCE). 128 Ant 14.207; Life 119. See also A. Alt, Kleine Schriften (Muenchen: Beck, 1959) 384–395 129 A. Alt, Kleine Schriften, 384–395. 130 See Landau, “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah”; and J. E. Taylor, Seleucid Rule in Palestine (Duke University: Ph.D., 1979).

44

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Megiddo (about 15 kilometers in distance). Some of these were undoubtedly constructed (cut into bedrock) long before the time of Jesus but were apparently still in use. Others were perhaps added to the ancient presses before and during the time of Antipas and Jesus. 131 The presses may indicate a large scale wine producing area controlled by one agency. In other words, these may be the presses of a large estate devoted to production of wine. Thus, most if not all of the Great Plain—the most arable lands in Galilee—consisted of large estates. Herod the Great (Antipas’ father) evidently inherited the estates in the western part of the Plain from the Hasmoneans (the eastern part stayed in the hands of the elites of Scythopolis) since he could settle his cavalry veterans on small farms near a town called Gaba (Ant 15. 294; War 3.36). Later, Berenice, sister of Agrippa II and niece of Antipas, owned granaries on the Plain filled with the produce from the nearby villages (Life 119) which means that she had an estate there.

Figure 4 The Great Plain from Mt. Carmel (Photo by the author)

Taken together, this evidence probably means that most of the western part of the Great Plain (or Plain of Jezreel) belonged to Antipas as a private estate. This estate would have been worked by poor agricultural workers

131 See G. W. Ahlstroem, “Wine Presses and Cup-Marks of the Jenin-Megiddo Survey” BASOR 231 (1978) 19–49.

JESUS IN GALILEE

45

(tenants, day laborers, or slaves). If Jesus had walked a little south of his village, he could have looked out across the Plain which drops below Nazareth by 350 meters (1,100 feet). 132 Perhaps he had visited there and witnessed the lives of these poor workers many of whose ancestors had labored there since the days of the Seleucid kings. He certainly knew of these persons as his parables show. If Jesus’ parables are descriptions of ordinary life in Galilee, then Galileans certainly knew about large estates. As J. Herz, M. Hengel, and J. H. Charlesworth have demonstrated, 133 the parables of the Wicked Tenants (Mk 12:1–12), the Rich Fool (Lk 12:16–21), the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1–15), the Tares (Mt 13:24–30), the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:1–32), and others 134 describe conditions on large estates 135 with tenants, day laborers, and slaves. Furthermore, there were quite likely imperial estates in Galilee (Life 71–73), as well as Antipas’ own large holdings. 136 Again, these large farms would have been in the Great Plain or Plain of Jezreel, the most arable farm land in all of Galilee. What sort of workers worked on the estates? The tenant farmer 137 ( ) farmed a small section of the landlord’s estate and paid him a percentage of the harvest, anywhere from 25% to 50% (m. Peah 5:5, t. BM 9:11). Jesus describes the situation of tenant farmers in one of his parables (Mark 12:1–12). Day laborers and hirelings were very poor workers who found work especially at harvest time (t. Maas 2:13, 2:15; t. BM 7:5f; m. BM 7:4–7:7; m. Peah 5:5). They are also highlighted in one of Jesus’ parables 132

The elevation figures are from Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 115. Herz, “Grossgrundbesitz in Palästina im Zeitalter Jesu” Palästina Jahrbuch 24 (1928) 98–113; Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von der Weingärtnern Mc 12:1–12 im Licht der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse” ZNW 59 (1968) 1–39. 134 See also the large sums of money and produce mentioned. These indicate large estates (cf. Lk 16:1–12; Mt 25:14–30; Lk 7:41–43; Mt 18:21–31; and Mk 10:17–22). Freyne is correct, however, to caution against placing too much emphasis on the parables alone in determining socio-economic conditions. See Galilee, 165f. 135 One usually required at least 50 acres to live as an absentee landlord. See K. D. White, Roman Farming, 385–387. 136 See A. Alt, Kleine Schriften, 395; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 664, n. 32; and Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 70. 137 Other forms of tenancy were probably land entrepreneurs, according to Ben-David, Talmudische Ökonomie, 63. Cf. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966) 109f. 133

46

JESUS THE GALILEAN

(Matt 20:1–16). Agricultural slaves, though probably less numerous than in other parts of the empire, were known in Galilee (Matt 13:27; Lk 17:7). Although agriculture was clearly the most important form of rural livelihood, it was not the only form. There were also shepherds. Some of the shepherds undoubtedly owned their own flocks. Others were day laborers or slaves (Lk 17:7; Jn 10:11f) who tended the flocks of large estate owners or the collected village flocks. The socioeconomic standing of the rural people of Galilee probably ranged from the comfortable (those with more than sufficient land) to the subsistence level (those with little or no margin for error in the year’s crops) to the destitute (poor day laborers and beggars). The ruling class and the retainers of Galilee were not the only ones that lived in the city. There were also merchants, artisans, and urban day laborers. Wealthy merchants eventually entered the aristocratic class. The smaller merchants included what J. Jeremias called the “retail traders” and those who engaged in either foreign or local trade on a small scale. 138 Many of these smaller merchants may have traveled with the donkey caravans that circulated from village to village. These merchants were gone from home for a week at a time (m. Ketuvot 5:6) and stayed in a village a day or two (Gen R 8.2). 139 One of the major Galilean export items was fish. The Sea of Galilee contained many varieties of fish edible for both Jews and Gentiles (War 3.508, 520; m. AZ 2:6). These fish were pickled or salted (Strabo 15.2.45; m. AZ 2:6; m. Ned 6:4) and then sold all over Palestine. Many were involved in this trade, from the fishermen—who could be day laborers (Mk 1:19–20)— to the owners of the fishing boats and the merchants who marketed the fish. Josephus could allegedly round up 230 boats on the Sea of Galilee (War 2.635). The Gospels also attest to a thriving fishing trade (Mk 1:16–17; Mt 4:17–22; Lk 5:11). 140 138

Jeremias, Jerusalem, 35–51, 100; Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 131–

132. 139

See Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994) 234–237. 140 See Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 67; W. H. Wuellner, The Meaning of Fishers of Men (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 45–63; K. W. Clark, “Sea of Galilee” IDB, II, 349; and K. C. Hanson, “Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition” BTB 27 (1997) 99–111. For a glimpse of what archaeologists have found in one fishing town, Bethsaida-Julias, see Sandra Fortner, “The Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities of Bethsaida-Julias (et-Tell)” in R. Arav and R. Freund, eds.,

JESUS IN GALILEE

47

There were other industries in Galilee. Linen, grain, and olive oil were exported. 141 As we noted above, pottery and stoneware vessels were also important items of trade. The distribution required for such trade would have required an active mercantile class and/or traveling craftsmen. In some cases, the village craftsmen traveled to a nearby city to sell their wares and then returned in the evening. For those living farther away, the villages often owned courtyards where the craftsmen could camp for the night (t. Ahilot 18:18, t. Eruvin 9 (6):2). 142 The artisans or craftsmen might also live in the cities as well as the villages. These workers were able, because of their skills, to demand a higher wage than the ordinary unskilled day laborer, yet they were usually not as financially comfortable as the merchants. The crafts in the ancient world included making leather products, cloth products, stone products, and pottery. Carpentry, masonry, and metal working were also prominent. 143 All of these trades are attested in the sources for Palestine, as well. 144 We will say much more about craftsmen below in part two of this chapter. In addition to the craftsmen, who were associated both with the urban centers and small villages, there were also in most cities the unskilled day laborers. Some were burden bearers, others messengers, and others working assistants to artisans. Some were paid to be watchmen over children, over the sick, even over the dead. One can even find reference to manure gatherers and thorn gatherers in the sources. 145 Their lack of skills made these persons less capable of earning a living. 146 There are no specific references to urban day laborers in Sepphoris or Tiberias.

Bethsaida (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999) II, 269–280; and F. Strickert, Bethsaida (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998) 47–64. 141 See Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 68; and Edwards, “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee,” 175. 142 Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine, 237. 143 See. H. Michell, The Economics of Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1957) 170–209. 144 J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: MacMillan, 1925) 177. Lists over forty trades. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 279 estimates that craftsmen made up 3 to 7% of the population in agrarian societies. 145 See Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, II, 105ff, and the copious references cited there. 146 See D. Sperber, “Costs of Living in Roman Palestine” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8 (1965) 248–271. Sperber shows that skilled labor

48

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The Outcasts Below all the aforementioned classes there existed, according to Sjoberg and Lenski, the unclean and degraded classes. They were found both in the city and the countryside and consisted of people “inferior to that of the masses of common people” due to occupation, heredity, or disease. 147 The occupations which were scorned were, among others, prostitutes, dung collectors, ass drivers, gamblers, sailors, tanners, peddlers, herdsmen, and usurers. Tax collectors and prostitutes, of course, are featured in the stories in the gospels. 148 Those groups inferior to the common people due to heredity included mainly those born illegitimately (m. Kid 4:1). No one of questionable birth is alluded to in the sources for Galilee except perhaps for Jesus himself (John 8:41). Another category of those scorned are those included in the unclean and degraded class due to disease. We should think here especially of the lepers, who seem to have abounded in Palestine, including Galilee. 149 Such people were declared unclean by a priest (Lev 13:11, 25) and had to remain apart from everyone else, crying out from a distance, “Unclean!” (Lev 13:45f). Lepers lived a life of social ostracism. At the very bottom of the social structure, according to Lenski, were the “expendables.” This group consisted of “criminals, beggars, and underemployed itinerant workers.” Lenski remarks concerning this class: “Agrarian societies usually produced more people than the dominant classes found it profitable to employ.” Lenski estimates, based on statistics from Europe from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, that in most agrarian societies, about five to ten percent of the population were in this class. 150 We might incline toward the lower percentage in first century Galilee, given the somewhat better economic standing of the peasants. Nevertheless, there do seem to be references to these persons. These are the ones Josephus called usually received greater wages than unskilled (see pp. 250f). Cf. also Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work (London: Routledge, 1965) 359. 147 Lenski, Power and Privilege, 280f. 148 Lk 7:37–39, Mt 21:31. See the rabbinic lists of unacceptable occupations: m. Kid 4:14; m. Ket 7:10; m. Sanh 3:3; b. Kid 82a; b. Sanh 25b. See also Jeremias, Jerusalem, 303–312. 149 See Mk 1:40; 14:3; Lk 17:12; m. Meg 1:7; m. MK 3:1; m. Sot 1:5; m. Zeb 14:3; Pseudo-Philo 13:3 (OTP II, 321); Apocryphal Syriac Psalms 155 (OTP II, 629). The word seems to have been used for infectious skin diseases in general. See J. Zias, “Death and Disease in Ancient Israel” BA 54 (1991) 147–169. 150 Lenski, Power and Privilege, 281–283.

JESUS IN GALILEE

49

the “most insignificant persons” of Tiberias and those the Talmud terms the “empty ones” of Sepphoris (see above). First in the list of expendables were the bandits. M. Hengel was one of the first scholars to describe bandits in Palestine in sociological terms. Banditry was a problem throughout the Greco-Roman world in the time period we are considering. The ranks of bandits were swollen by runaway slaves, deserting soldiers, and impoverished peasants. 151 That banditry in the ancient world was rooted in social and economic factors is hardly deniable. 152 Two famous bandits from Galilee are described by Josephus: Hezekiah (first century BCE; Ant 14.168) and Eleazar bin Dinai (50’s of first century CE; Ant 20.118–136; War 2.228–231). Neither of these famous bandits was active during the youth and ministry of Jesus. Beggars also appear frequently in Palestine. They are lame (Acts 3:2; John 5:3; m. Shab 6:8; Luke 16:20) or blind (John 9:1; Mark 10:46) and sit along the roadside in the country (Mk 10:46) or along the streets and alleys in the city (Lk 14:21). Yet, none of these beggars is specifically placed in Galilee in any of the gospels, which may be significant. Surely there were blind and lame persons in Galilee, but the extended families may have been able to care for them, whereas in Jerusalem and Jericho, some families evidently could not.

151

Hengel, The Zealots, trans. D. Smith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989) 33f. See R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Harvard, 1966) 255–268; B. D. Shaw, “Bandits in the Roman Empire” Past and Present 102 (1984) 3–52; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits. 152

50

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 5 The Social Pyramid 153

Cities and Villages

Exploited Peasants? A major point of contention is the extent of the exploitation of the lower classes by the elites of Galilee. Here we must divide the discussion into two parts. Our first question is how poor/exploited were the peasants (freeholding farmers) as a whole? Here the sociologist-New Testament scholars differ sharply from the Galilean-archaeology scholars. The former tend to expect trouble. They see the problem in the agrarian economic system itself. The latter answer, “Your conceptions do not harmonize with the material remains.” The archaeologists advance two lines of evidence to maintain that the peasants were not exploited: The pottery distribution from Kefar Hananya and the excavation of two Galilean villages. Let us take these two collections of evidence in order.

153

Roughly based on G. Alfoeldy, Roemische Gesellschaft, 10.

JESUS IN GALILEE

51

The pottery of Kefar Hananya and Kefar Shikhin was already well known from the rabbinic sources (m. Kel 2:2; b. BM 74a; b. Shab 120b). Now, D. Adan-Bayewitz and I. Perlman have established that the tiny village of Kefar Hananya (located on the border between Lower Galilee and Upper Galilee) exported its common pottery up to 24 kilometers away into Galilee and the Golan. Further, it is clear that 75% of the first century common table wares excavated at Sepphoris so far (cooking bowls) were made in Kefar Hananya. Further, 15% of the storage jars or kraters discovered thus far in Sepphoris originated in the nearby village of Shikhin. The Shikhin storage jars account for the majority of pottery of that type in Galilee. 154 The process by which these conclusions were made is called neutron activation analysis. The scientific test allows the excavators to determine the chemical content of the clay used in making the pottery. The clay content of many of the wares found in the villages and cities of Galilee indicates that much of the pottery came from the area of Kefar Hananya and that many of the large jars came from the tiny village of Shikhin (1.5 kilometers from Sepphoris). The conclusions usually drawn from this are: 1) The cities with their rich people must not have exploited the peasants who lived in the villages but rather must have given them opportunities for marketing their goods and thus increased their economic situation. 2) The villages not only engaged in farming but had industries as well. 155 There does seem to have been more industry in Lower Galilee than elsewhere in Palestine. Y. Magen’s work on stoneware production has brought to light two quarry workshops in Lower Galilee—one in Bethlehem of Galilee (just southwest of Sepphoris) and the other in Kefar Reina 154

J. Strange, D. E. Groh, and T. R. Longstaff, “Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin” IEJ 44 (1994) 216–227. 155 See D. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993) 23–41, 216–236; idem.,”Kefar Hananya, 1986” IEJ 37 (1987) 178–179; D. Adan-Bayewitz and I. Perlman, “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period” IEJ 40 (1990) 153–172; Strange, “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 41; D. R. Edwards, “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence” SBL 1988 Seminar Papers, 169–182; idem., “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 53–91; Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 57–66.

52

JESUS THE GALILEAN

(just east of Sepphoris). These were major producers of stone cups and other vessels. Stoneware has been discovered throughout Galilee as well (in 12 villages and cities). 156 In addition, many villages excavated have large installations for olive oil pressing or some other industry. These are very interesting results from hard archaeological work. We must urge some caution in making too much of this study. The material remains certainly suggest that there could be a thriving industry in Galilee which the cities supported. Yet, even Lenski, who always stresses the exploitation of the peasantry by the elites of the cities, noted that there was a steady flow of goods from the peasant villages into the urban centers in most agrarian societies he studied. In return, the villagers received certain political, cultural, religious and financial services along with commodities, such as salt, that they could not produce themselves. Lenski calls the relationship between the villages and cities “symbiotic” but with “overtones of parasitism.” It is parasitic, explains Lenski, because the peasants are not in a position to bargain with the elites concerning the amount of the surplus they must deliver and concerning the compensation for their goods. But the relationship is not purely parasitic since they volunteer to come to the urban centers to market their goods. 157 The point is that merely citing the material remains does not answer the question. The remains agree with what the sociologists have already said about agrarian societies. But the sociologists have a different interpretation of the data.

156

Y. Magen, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002) 160. 157 Lenski, Power and Privilege, 206.

JESUS IN GALILEE

53

Figure 6 Sepphoris and Vicinity

The second line of archaeological evidence that would seem to challenge the sociological view is the excavation of two villages, Khirbet Qana (probably the Cana of the New Testament) and Yodefat (or Jotapata). These results have been nicely collected for us by P. Richardson. 158 What he found was that the villages did not seem to be struggling economically in the first century. They have small industry (dove raising and wool dying at Cana; pottery manufacture and olive oil production at Yodefat). They lived in modest but decent housing, some of which was more finely constructed than others. At Khirbet Qana there were three types of houses representing evidently three tiers of economic prosperity in the village. One large house in Yodefat had rather elaborate frescoes in a style similar to those in the Herodian palace at Masada and in the houses of the wealthy in Jerusalem. 159 There was little evidence that houses had been abandoned because of economic stresses. Thus, the residents of these two villages lived much more modestly than those of Sepphoris, but they were not destitute.

158

Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2004) 57–71. 159 M. Aviam, “Yodefat” Hadashot Arkhedogiyot 112 (2000) 18–19.

54

JESUS THE GALILEAN

We might also compare these two villages with three others: Nazareth, Capernaum, and Bethsaida. Nazareth was an agricultural village. So far, the excavations under the two churches in modern Nazareth have revealed granaries, pits, vaulted cells for storing wine and oil, and oil presses. 160 Only a slight trace of the houses has been left leading one archaeologist to suggest that the houses must have been made of fieldstones and mud. 161 These villagers do not seem to have been as prosperous as those at Yodefat and Khirbet Qana.

Figure 7 House and Courtyard, Capernaum (Photo by the author)

Capernaum was a medium sized fishing and agricultural village. The private houses were built of undressed basalt field stones with large courtyards surrounded by small house-rooms, the largest of which is 7.5 x 6 meters. 162 There are no houses such as those at Khirbet Qana, and certainly none discovered thus far with elaborate and expensive frescoes. Finally, Bethsaida was a small town, perhaps slightly larger than Capernaum, with fishing persons and farmers. The excavator describes the 160

B. Bagati, “Nazareth, Excavations” NEAEHL III, 1103–1105. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 132. 162 V. Corbo, The House of Saint Peter at Capharnaum (Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1972) 35–52; J. F. Strange and H. Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum been Found?” BAR 8/6 (1982) 26–37; S. Loffreda, “Capernaum” NEAEHL I, 291–295. 161

JESUS IN GALILEE

55

residential quarter from the time of Jesus as a: “humble community of country people who lived in poor dwellings and were occupied in fishing, viticulture, livestock raising . . .” 163 The houses were constructed similarly to those in Capernaum. Thus, a look at these three other sites presents us with ruins from less prosperous villages but also certainly not with the remains of starving or destitute persons. We conclude from these archaeological remains (tentatively) that the peasants were not on the verge of either starvation or bankruptcy. The results from the seven villages 164 agree essentially with Freyne’s assessment which we cited above with approval. The peasants of Galilee do not appear from Josephus’ descriptions or from the archaeological data to have been destitute. The free-holding peasants, then, were not starving. Some were doing rather well in Galilee. That conclusion, of course, does not mean that they were not exploited. The mere increase in population in the cities (Sepphoris and Tiberias each with 8,000 to 12,000 people) 165 required more food to be brought in from the countryside. In the ancient world there was only so much food to go around. Thus the increased urbanization put stress on the peasant. Only the relatively small sizes of the cities kept the urbanization from turning into a really serious danger for the Galilean farmers. The conclusion that the peasant freeholders in Lower Galilee were not destitute brings us to the second part of our question: Was there a landless, rural proletariat of destitute persons on the brink of disaster? In other words, were there significant numbers of rural persons who no longer lived on a farm, as peasant freeholders, who, therefore, existed in dire circumstances? Perhaps only about 1% of the population belonged to the elite 163 R. Arav, “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994–1996” in Arav and R. Freund, eds., Bethsaida (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999) II, 3–113. 164 Kefar Hananya, Shikhin, Khirbet Qana, Yodefat, Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida. 165 These are the figures of Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 117. Meyers suggests 18,000 for Sepphoris and 24,000 for Tiberias (“Jesus and his Galilean Context,” 59). Overman, “Who Were The First Urban Christians?” offered 30,000 to 40,000 for Tiberias and 30,000 for Sepphoris. Horsley, Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee, 45 maintained that both cities together had a population of 15,000. If we adhere to the general rule of 10% of the population in the ancient world lived in the cities (see below) then a population of 175,000 for Galilee, accepted above, needs around 10,000 or less in each of the two cities.

56

JESUS THE GALILEAN

class. What percentage of the population in Galilee lived in extreme poverty? Let us consider the usual figure for extreme poverty given for the empire in general. This figure is based on statistics from other societies. R. MacMullen notes that in Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, one-third of the population lived in “habitual want.” According to MacMullen, the person living in “habitual want” “devoted the vast bulk of each day’s earnings to his immediate needs and accumulated no property or possessions to speak of.” 166 Was Galilee in the time of Jesus and Antipas similar? R. Horsley argues that Galilee was under economic stress. To reach this conclusion, he adds up the tally. Antipas needed extra funds to build his two cities (first Sepphoris in 4 CE, then Tiberias in c. 20 CE). He needed to support his bureaucrats/retainers and of course keep him and his family in their accustomed lifestyles. The only way to increase income would be to raise taxes: “Peasants were under intense economic pressure of indebtedness. Families and even village communities were disintegrating under the pressure.” 167 Horsley does not maintain that there were large numbers of rootless people forced off their land yet but insists that the pressure was affecting families and villages. Thus, not even Horsley argues for a large population of destitute persons. On the other hand, D. Groh maintains that we have been too influenced by Marxist historians who invented the ancient tension between cities and villages, between elites and rural peasants. We do not find evidence, he insists, in Galilee of great distance between the rich and the poor. Galilee, he concludes was a: “largely egalitarian society (at least in external appearance).” 168 But even some of the archaeologists have pondered the price for building the cities of Galilee. Thus E. Meyers notes that the fertile lands in the valleys near Sepphoris, that had once been used for subsistence of the peasantry, had to be transformed into places where products were grown

166

MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 93. R. Horsley, “Jesus and Galilee: The Contingencies of a Renewal Movement” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries, 65. 168 Groh, “The Clash Between Literary and Archaeological Models of Provincial Palestina” in Edwards and McCollouh, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 29–37, quotation on p. 32. 167

JESUS IN GALILEE

57

on a larger scale. Cities became centers of consumption. 169 J. Reed admits that the shift from a traditional to a commercialized agrarian society placed economic strain on the Galilean peasants. 170 One archaeologist allowed that: “The Roman empire may have been born on the backs of its peasants,” but insisted that the peasants received in turn: laws, protection, peace, rituals, ceremonies, and medical advice. 171 Of course, even slaves received back the same things for their free services but I doubt, if given a choice, that they would think it a fair trade. The markers of stress on the peasantry could be of several kinds. We might find archaeological evidence if pathological examination of skeletal remains from a number of Galilean tombs showed a marked lack of nutrition. So far, this has not turned up. 172 We might find further archaeological evidence in poorly constructed houses throughout Lower Galilean villages. That could mean that the peasants simply had no time or resources to build anything better. But the meager evidence we have thus far, argues the other way. The evidence presented above concerning the villages of Khirbet Qana and Yodefat indicates no such conditions. Even the simple dwellings of Capernaum and Bethsaida were not houses of destitute persons. The historical evidence might be of two kinds: First, if we could show that there was increasing movement toward large estates, it would demonstrate at the same time that peasants were losing their land. Loss of land by a sizeable minority of peasants would create horrible stress. But no evidence exists to date (either archaeological or literary) for the growth of large estates in Galilee outside of the Great Plain. It appears that the large estates had been in existence on the Great Plain for centuries before the time of Jesus and Antipas. But the settlement of the rest of Galilee was too recent.

169 E. Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in Edwards and McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 62. 170 Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 96. 171 Edwards, “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century,” 62. 172 See P. Smith, E. Bornemann, and J. Zias, “The Skeletal Remains” in E. Meyers, J. F. Strange and C. L. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977 (Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1981) 118, who report that the remains of some children in a 4th century tomb suffered from an iron and protein deficiency that could be based on either socio-economic conditions or disease. Of course the problems are this is in Upper Galilee and three centuries after Jesus and Antipas.

58

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Since it had only taken place in the last century, most farmers were still small freeholders. Second, if we could cite incidents of peasant protest or social upheaval, it would demonstrate that there was stress on the peasantry. There was a full-scale military uprising in 4 BCE, at the death of Herod the Great, when Judas the son of the bandit Hezekiah (see above) raided the armory in Sepphoris and incurred the wrath of Rome (War 2. 56; Ant 17. 271–272). But this uprising was in protest of Herod the Great or perhaps simply opportunism on the part of Judas. A second incident was when another Judas began in 6 CE a resistance movement which Josephus calls the Fourth Philosophy. Although this Judas is said to be from Galilee in one of Josephus’ references (War 2. 118; and from the town of Gamla in the Golan in the other, Ant 18. 3–9), the resistance had nothing to do with Galilee but was focused on Judea and the coming Roman rule. After these incidents which are not clearly protests over economic stresses, there is no protest until the Great War of 66–73 CE. Then it does appear that the economic situation had deteriorated since the “Galileans” tried to burn down the city of Sepphoris “which they hated” (Josephus, Life 375). But this happened thirtyfive to forty years after Jesus’ death. The period of Antipas and Jesus does not exhibit markers of peasant stress but appears to have been peaceful. 173 Yet, there must have been a price to pay for the increased urbanization and building. Horsley allows that the peasants were not yet being thrown off their land. Meyers, Reed, and Edwards concede that the building of the cities put strain on the peasant way of life. Perhaps that is as far as we can go. During Jesus’ ministry, the peasants were feeling pressured in taxes but still able to keep up. Thus, MacMullen’s figure of one third of the population living in habitual want may be out of line for Antipas’ Galilee. We do not want to romanticize Galilee into a paradise (as Renan did), but neither the archaeological remains nor the literary texts support a huge, rural, and half-starving proletariat. That there were some destitute persons, however, is a reasonable assumption (see Luke 14:21–23). Even in modern prosperous economies these persons can be found. But it may be that the conditions in play elsewhere in the Roman empire in the first century CE—and even in Judea—were not duplicated in Galilee. Certainly the average Galilean peasant or artisan was poor compared to the elite classes, but was not destitute 173 See D. A. Fiensy, “Jesus and Debts: Did He Pray about Them?” Restoration Quarterly 44 (2002) 233–239.

JESUS IN GALILEE

59

and did not live in habitual want. I doubt if one third of the population was in that state.

Hellenistic or Jewish? Great stress has been placed on the Hellenistic nature of the cities of Lower Galilee in the time of Jesus and Antipas. J. Strange had spoken of Rome’s imposing “a distinctive urban overlay” over a Jewish base. 174 This measured statement may have been exaggerated in subsequent works by other authors. Thus one can call Sepphoris a “Greco-Roman-style city.” 175 Another can maintain that Galilee was “semi-pagan” 176 and another that Jesus might even have read the works of a Cynic philosopher alongside his reading of the Torah: “Galilee was in fact an epitome of Hellenistic culture on the eve of the Roman era.” 177 The response on the part of some archaeologists has been to cite the material remains as evidence that throughout Galilee, even in Sepphoris and Tiberias, the Jewish residents were Torah observant and were not assimilating as much Hellenism as one might think. The evidence is: 1) Numerous stoneware vessels have been found in many Galilean villages and in both cities (twelve sites in all). 2) Many villages have ritual baths.

174 Strange, “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies” in Charlesworth, ed., What Has Archaeology to do With Faith?, 31. 175 H. C. Kee, “Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels” in Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 3–22, esp. 15. 176 R. W. Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) 58. 177 B. Mack, A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 64, 66.

60

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 8 Plan of Sepphoris 178 Courtesy of Prof. Zeev Weiss, The Sepphoris Expedition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Photo: G. Laron

178 From R. Talgam and Z. Weiss, The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Qedem 44 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2004) 18

JESUS IN GALILEE

61

Even Sepphoris had around thirty stepped-pool installations that were probably used for ritual bathing. Both stone vessels and ritual baths have to do with maintaining ritual purity (see chapter 4 below). Jews meticulous about ritual purity have not given up their Jewishness in favor of Hellenism. 3) There is an absence of pig bones (Lev 11:7). In most sites, including Sepphoris, the occurrence of pig bones is so slight as to be statistically nonexistent. 4) Consistently from the first century BCE to the first CE, there are found in loculus tombs secondary burials in ossuaries (stone boxes for holding bones) just like those of Jerusalem. 5) None of the coins minted in the reign of Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee had images of humans, pagan gods, or animals. 179 These clear Jewish markers contrast sharply with what was not in Sepphoris: There were no hippodromes (for chariot racing), no amphitheaters (for gladiatorial combats), no pagan temples, and no gymnasia. 180 Most of these things, however, can be found in Scythopolis, Gerasa, and Caesarea Maritima. These were the truly Hellenized cities, not Sepphoris and evidently not Tiberias. 181 Local folk do not usually accept more than the outward forms of the occupying culture. They may dress like the dominant culture, build their buildings like the dominant culture, and even learn the language of the dominant culture, but they do not readily think like the dominant culture. Cultural anthropologists speak of deep culture and procedural culture. 182 179

See Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, 49–51; M. Chancey and E. M. Meyers, “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” BAR 26/4 (2000) 18–41, 61; Meyers, “Jesus and His World,” 191–195; Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 79–90. 180 Actually a gymnasium may have been found at Hamat Tiberias just south of ancient Tiberias and dating from the first century. See T. Dothan, Hamat Tiberias (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration society, 1983) 16. 181 I say “evidently” because not enough of Tiberias has been excavated to get a clear picture of what the city was like in the first century CE. The reader should be aware that most of the architectural items listed above as found in Scythopolis and Gerasa are from the second century CE or later. We presume that these are replacements of earlier structures but these are not the structures the first century traveler would have seen. See G. Foerster, “Beth-Shean at the Foot of the Mount” NEAEHL I, 223–235; M. L. Ulama, Jerash (Amman: Feras, 1996). Caesarea Maritima, however, does still have ruins of a theater and hippodrome from the first century. See Y. Porath, “Vegas on the Med” BAR 30/5 (2004) 24–35. 182 The terminology is taken from E. C. Stewart and M. J. Bennett, American Cultural Patterns A Cross Cultural Perspective (Yarmouty, Maine Intercultural Press, 1991) 149. See also L. A. Samover and R. E. Porter, Communication Between Cultures

62

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The former concerns a people’s core values; the latter the vehicle of expression of these values. In other words, one can be a very conservative Jew and still dress like a Greek, speak Greek and live in a Greek styled house. But at Sepphoris the core values seem to be clearly expressed by the above five items. As E. Meyers has maintained, Hellenism need not have competed with Judaism but could have been the vehicle to express one’s Jewishness. 183

Urban-Rural Relationships in First Century Galilee Society in the ancient empires was divided into urban and rural. G. Alföldy and many other historians have noted this condition. 184 The rural population in the eastern Roman empire generally maintained its native language and customs 185 whether Coptic in Egypt, 186 Lycaonian or Celtic in Asia Minor, 187 or Aramaic in Syria and Palestine. 188 On the other hand, in the cities, people spoke Greek. Many were literate and most were in touch with the great institutions and ideas of GrecoRoman society. This was especially true of the aristocrats, but to some ex(Stamford, Conn.: Thomson Learmomg, 2001) 90, who uses the term “deep structure.” 183 See Meyers, “Jesus and His Galilean Context,” 64; and idem., “The Emergence of Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Second Temple Diversity and Qumran Sectarianism” in D. R. Clark and V. H. Matthews, eds., One Hundred years of American Archaeology in the Middle East (Boston: American Schools, 2003) 97– 113. The wisdom of S. Freyne on this issue is, in my judgment, beyond question. See “Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee,” in Edwards and McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee, 49–56. 184 Alföldy, Die römische Gesellschaft, 10 185 De Ste. Croix, Class Struggle, 10, 13; Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 193, 343; R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 46. 186 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 46; A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, 293. 187 Jones, Greek City, 290; Acts 14:11 188 E. Schürer, G. Vermes, and F. Miller, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973) II, 26: “The prominence of Aramaic at every level as the main language of Palestinian Jewry is now solidly backed by evidence.” The same was true for the native languages of North Africa, Britain, Gaul, Spain, and others. See Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 193f; Jones, Greek City, 290f; P. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, 170–172. For Aramaic as the nearly exclusive language of Upper Galilee, see E. M. Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction” BASOR 221 (1976) 93–101.

JESUS IN GALILEE

63

tent even of the urban poor, according to De Ste. Croix, since the urban poor may have “mixed with the educated” in some way. 189 Such mixing could take place in Greco-Roman cities in theaters, amphitheaters, and hippodromes, as well as in the courts of justice. 190 Thus, even the urban poor, in many of the cities of the Roman Empire, could have somewhat different cultural experiences from those of the rural peasants. As L. White has observed, for medieval agrarian societies, “cities were atolls of civilization . . . on an ocean of primitivism.” 191 This description of ancient society, while typical for classical historians, is being challenged for Lower Galilee by archaeologists. In the first place, E. Meyers has shown that Greek made strong inroads into that region, even into the villages. 192 Thus, the linguistic differences between urban and rural areas, so marked in other parts of the empire, were less striking—though still existent—in Lower Galilee. We should consider it very possible, if not probable, that Jesus spoke Greek, at least enough to transact business, as well as his mother tongue of Aramaic. Second, as stated above, few of the Greco-Roman institutions (hippodromes, gymnasia, theaters, etc.) existed in Sepphoris and Tiberias in the time of Jesus and Antipas. The supposed Hellenization of these cities has been exaggerated. Therefore, the idea that the cities of Lower Galilee were Greek in culture while the villages were traditionally Jewish, is erroneous. Third, D. Edwards has argued for economic reciprocity and cultural continuity between urban and rural areas of Lower Galilee. 193 This argument is based on the pottery distribution from Kefar Hananya (see above). The village profited as much by Sepphoris as Sepphoris did by the village, goes the argument. Yet Edwards also indicates that even in this region there were cultural differences between urban and rural. 194 We do not need to 189

De Ste. Croix, Class Struggle, 13. On the benefits for the urban proletariat of living in the city, see Jones, Greek City, 285. 191 White quoted in de Ste. Croix, Class Struggle, 10. 192 Meyers, “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction,” 97. 193 Edwards, “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta, 1988) 169–182. 194 See Edwards, “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence,” 176: “While ideological tensions may have existed between rural and urban inhabitants”; and on p. 179 he allows 190

64

JESUS THE GALILEAN

posit a radical cultural gulf between city and country to appreciate that living in the one was not the same culturally as living in the other. As with the above issues, the extreme positions need to be modified. The harsh divisions between urban and rural that existed elsewhere in the empire may not have been in place in Galilee. Yet again we must not romanticize the nature of the reciprocity. Trading your wares in the city permits the rural merchant and craftsman to experience a bit of urban culture, but does it encourage the urban citizen to respect the rustic invader? Does it mean the villager will want to be like the urbanite? Further, how many from the villages were afforded the privilege of visiting the big city? Surely not all of them made the trip. The typical result of different cultural experiences was a sense of superiority on the part of the urbanite over the country peasant. Lenski shows that in agrarian societies in general, the urban elite viewed peasants as subhuman. 195 M. Rostovtzeff observed that city residents in the Roman empire regarded the farmer as an inferior, uncivilized being. 196 R. MacMullen writes that the urbanite regarded the peasant as an “unmannerly, ignorant being.” 197 Did this attitude prevail generally in Palestine (i.e., from Idumea to Judea to Galilee)? L. Finkelstein maintained that all the residents of Jerusalem, both wealthy and poor, agreed in their contempt for the provincials (country peasants). 198 One detects such contempt in Josephus, a Jerusalemite. He has the high priest (War 4.239, 241) refer to the Zealots—many of whom came from the rural districts of Palestine 199 —as “slaughtered victims” and “offscourings.” G. Cornfeld’s translation captures the tone of these words: “the dregs and scum of the whole country.” 200 Whether these that there were in Lower Galilee “rural areas that were largely conservative Aramaic speaking enclaves.” 195 Lenski, Power and Privilege, 271. 196 Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History, 192. 197 MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 32; see also Jones, Greek City, 295f. 198 Finkelstein, The Pharisees (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) 24. For Palestine, see also S. Applebaum, “Judea as a Roman Province: the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor,” ANRW, II.8, 370f; and G. Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 47– 58. 199 This conclusion is convincingly argued by Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 220–23. See, e.g., War 4.135, 419–439, 451. 200 Cornfeld, Josephus: The Jewish War (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 227.

JESUS IN GALILEE

65

words are the high priest’s or Josephus’s own words—placed in the mouth of the High Priest—they represent words of someone from the elite urban class describing the lower rural classes. Josephus himself called the Zealots “slaves, rabble, and bastards,” which Cornfeld renders, “slaves, the dregs of humanity and bastard scum.” 201 Although Josephus is somewhat later than the time of Jesus and Antipas, these same attitudes likely prevailed in the early first century CE. Such attitudes were common in antiquity and feelings of snobbery persist for decades if not centuries. Further, although Josephus likely had an apologetic purpose in blaming the Jewish war on rural riffraff, the way he discredited his scapegoats is instructive. He attacked them in these passages as much on socioeconomic grounds as on any other. We have no direct evidence that such an attitude prevailed specifically in Galilee itself. Perhaps the urban snobbery was less pronounced in Lower Galilee because of the diminished cultural gap and the greater economic reciprocity between city and village. But we should probably not conclude that it did not exist at all in that region. 202 It is unlikely that Lower Galilee completely escaped the kind of urban prejudice that was common in the Greco-Roman world.

201

War 5.433; Cornfeld, Josephus, 388. Second-century CE rabbinic statements about the Galilean ‘am ha’aretz (people of the land) should caution against such a conclusion. Disparaging comments about the may reflect not only religious, but also social differences. The  are called  in Hebrew, which means uncultured or mannerless (cf. Jastrow, I, 148). They are consistently represented as ignorant and unteachable. Their wives are “like reptiles.” See G. F. Moore, Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard, 1954) I, 60; II, 72f, 157; and G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) 54f. Cf. Also E. E. Urbach, “Class Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 71 where Rabbi would open his storehouses during the famine but not for the ; and J. H. Heinemann, “The Status of the Laborer in Jewish Law and Society in the Tannaitic Period” HUCA 25 (1954) 267. Although the  were a religious designation and not a social class, as A. Oppenheimer, (The Am Haaretz [Leiden: Brill, 1977]) 18–21 argued, most of them were rural residents. See Finkelstein, The Pharisees, 24f, 754–61; and S. Zeitlin, “The Am Haaretz: A Study in the Social and Economic Life of the Jews Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Jewish Quarterly Review, N.S. 23 (1932) 45–61. 202

66

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Results so Far Our survey thus far has produced some results that speak to the six antitheses posted at the beginning of this chapter. We decided that we would cautiously use the social sciences to guide us through our survey of the Galilean people. At times, however, we have found it necessary to disagree with the social science models. Second, we have cautioned against thinking that the relations between villagers and the cities were cordial and reciprocal. There was certainly trade that took place but we must not think that trade alone dictates against the kind of hostility that was widespread in the ancient Mediterranean world between rural folk and city persons. Third, we have been disinclined to conclude that the peasants felt economically in crisis during the time of Jesus and Antipas, although that does not mean that they thought themselves unexploited. The economy of Galilee—in the early 1st century CE—was too new, too fresh from the immigration of Judeans less than a century prior, for it to have sunk into the kind of grinding poverty that characterized most ancient regions. Fourth, we concluded that Sepphoris and Tiberias were Hellenized only in their architectural forms and perhaps their language. Their procedural culture appeared rather Hellenistic but their deep culture, their core values, remained Jewish. Fifth, we have opted for populations of Sepphoris and Tiberias of around 10,000 each. This figure is not only acceptable to all sides of the debate but fits better with the historians’ guideline of nine persons on the farm to one person in the city. The sixth issue (was the theater of Sepphoris built in Jesus’ day?) we will discuss below.

JESUS AS WHNWZQ Where did Jesus fit into the socioeconomic structure of Galilee? Many scholars in the past have pictured Jesus as coming from the poorest rung of Galilean society. 203 G. Lenski surmised that artisans were recruited from the 203 See A. Plummer, The Gospel According to Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922) 32, 65. But Plummer adds astutely: “Neither here (Lk 2:24) nor elsewhere in the New Testament have we any evidence that our Lord or His parents were among the abjectly poor.” See T. W. Manson, The Gospel of Luke (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930) 20f; H. Branscomb, The Teachings of Jesus (Nashville: Cokesbury, 1931) 213f; J. W. Bowman, Jesus’ Teaching in its Environment (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1963) 27; R. Batey, Jesus and the Poor (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) 5. P. H. Furfey, “Christ as 7(.7:1” CBQ 17 (1955) 324–335 also concludes that Jesus was poor, but like most people of his day.

JESUS IN GALILEE

67

ranks of dispossessed peasantry. He notes that one observer of nineteenth century China reported that artisans lived on the edge of destitution. 204 This description of artisans, perhaps too hastily composed, has led some New Testament scholars to conclude that Jesus’ family must have been practically destitute. Others have added to Jesus’ supposed poverty the dimension of social or political activism. 205 Still others maintain that Jesus came from a middle class background. 206 At least one scholar has claimed for Jesus membership in the wealthy class. 207 Thus, many scholars either assume that Jesus was poor or place too much emphasis on a few verses in the Lucan birth narrative which are capable of various interpretations. 208 Others uncritically accept what the social-science models have indicated about artisans. Still others unwisely use economic terms (“middle class”) that are appropriate only for industrial society. But, if we place Jesus in his archaeological context, what conclusions present themselves? To understand Jesus’ socio-economic origins, we must explore what it meant for Jesus to be an artisan in ancient Galilee. After that we should look for any hints in the Gospels themselves about Jesus’ socioeconomic background.

204

Lenski, Power and Privilege, 278. R. von Pöhlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt, Vol. II (München: Beck, 1925) 467–473; A. Mayer, Der zensierte Jesus (Olten: Walter, 1983) 21–45. There are other recent studies of Jesus from this perspective, but one cannot discern how the authors view Jesus’ socio-economic background. See, e.g., A. Trocmé, Jésus et la Révolution Non-violente (Geneva: Editions Labor et Fides, 1961); J. H. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); P. Hollenbach, “Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement” BTB 15 (1985) 151–157; D. E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day; R. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). 206 M. Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 27; and J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991) I, 282. 207 G. W. Buchanan, “Jesus and the Upper Class” NovT 7 (1964) 195–209. 208 Scholars point especially to the offering paid by Mary (Lk 2:24), which seems to be that of a poor person. But we must be cautious about the meaning of poor. What might seem poor (i.e., destitute or nearly so) to moderns could have been quite average to ancients. At most, this offering indicates only that Jesus’ family was not wealthy at that time. 205

68

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Historicity of Mark 6:3 We should consider it probable that Jesus was a WHNWZQ, a carpenter or builder. Although this assertion is found only in Mk 6:3, (while in the parallel passage in Mt 13:55, he is called “the son of the carpenter”) nevertheless, the historical probability that Jesus was a carpenter remains high. In the first place, all the major Greek manuscripts—except one 209 —and many of the early versions have the reading: “Is not this the carpenter?” 210 Second, the passage in Matthew (“Is not this the son of the carpenter?”)—even if one were to argue that it is more accurate or authentic—actually supports the meaning of Mark, since fathers usually taught their craft to their sons. 211 Third, these words are found in a text describing Jesus’ rejection at his home town, a narrative unlikely to have been invented by the early church (using the criterion of embarrassment). Fourth, in this narrative there is found a proverbial saying: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own hometown,” a saying attested in many sources as an authentic word from Jesus (Mk 6:4, Mt 13:57, Lk 4:24, Jn 4:44, GT 31). Fifth, it is not likely—especially if Mark’s gospel was written from Rome—that the author of Mark would un-historically attribute to Jesus the occupation of carpenter. The artisan occupations were not respected by the Greco-Roman upper classes (see below). Sixth, Jesus was remembered widely in the early church and beyond as a carpenter. Several apocryphal and patristic texts affirm or assume that Joseph or Jesus was a carpenter. The most important patristic text is that of Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 88) who maintained that Jesus was a carpenter who made yokes and ploughs. The pagan detractor of Christianity, Celsus (second century CE) knew that Jesus was a carpenter (Origen, Against Celsus 6.36). The Coptic Gospel of Thomas saying 77 (“Cleave the wood and I am there”) also may point to Jesus as carpenter. 212 209 Papyrus 45 from the third century CE has the text of Mk 6:3 read like that of Mt 13:55. 210 See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 88f; and C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963) 194f. But for an opposing view, see V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 299–301. 211 Burford, Craftsmen, 82; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 178; and Alison Burford Cooper, “Crafts, Trade” in H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill's New Pauly (Leiden: Brill, 2003) III, 902. 212 See D. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day (Lewiston/ Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986) 190.

JESUS IN GALILEE

69

The other apocryphal texts include: the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Arabic History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Acts of Thomas, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Arabic Infancy Gospel. Several of the apocryphal texts are quite late 213 and even rely on the earlier ones. These texts seem to be an amalgam of both written and oral sources. Nevertheless, they at least testify that the church generally thought that Jesus had been an artisan. Thus we should conclude that Jesus came from the artisan class. 214 As a carpenter, 215 Jesus would have been skilled in fashioning wood products such as furniture, tools, agricultural implements, and water wheels for irrigation and would probably have been skilled in building houses. 216 He would have known and used a wide assortment of tools, including axes, chisels, drills, saws, squares, hammers, and plumb lines. 217 It is also possible that he could work in stone. His skills would have been not unlike those of carpenters of one hundred years ago. How He Became a Carpenter It is common to assume, as Lenski states, that village artisans are former peasants who have lost their land. Perhaps that was often the case in agrarian societies. But in the case of Jesus and his family, that seems not to have 213 For the dates, see E. Hennecke, W. Schneemelcher, and R. McL. Wilson, The New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959; ET 1963) Vol. I; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975); and J. Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1950) Vol. I. The earlier texts are the Protevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Thomas which date from the second to early third century. 214 The Aramaic term for carpenter sometimes is used in the Talmud metaphorically of a scholar (see Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 21f) even as the Greek word for carpenter was occasionally used for any master of an art, such as a gymnast, poet, or physician (see LSJM). But the term in Mk 6:3 clearly is not used in that sense. Mark’s point is that because Jesus was only a carpenter, the residents of Nazareth refused to listen to him. Otherwise, the passage makes no sense. 215 Greek: WHNWZQ; Hebrew: ; Aramaic: ; Latin: faber. 216 See C. C. McCown, “27(.7:1,” in S. J. Case, ed. Studies in Early Christianity (New York: New Century, 1928) 173–189; Furfey, “Christ as7(.7:1”; H. Blümner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste (Leipzig: Teubner, 1879) II, 311–347; and Ethel H. Brewster, Roman Craftsmen and Tradesmen of the Early Empire (New York: Burt Franklin, 1917) 77–79. 217 See C. U. Wolf, “Carpenter” IDB, I, 539; and Burford, Craftsmen, 39f.

70

JESUS THE GALILEAN

been the process. His family would have immigrated to Galilee with the other Judeans in the Hasmonean period (early first century BCE) if Reed’s conclusions based on the archaeological remains are correct (see above). If we allow a date for Joseph’s birth between 34 and 24 BCE, then that means that either Joseph’s father or grandfather would have—if we follow Lenski’s explanation—immigrated to Galilee and almost immediately lost his land through indebtedness. That is possible, but not likely. It seems more likely that the family came to Galilee already as skilled carpenters. Would we also assume that the potters of Kefar Hananya and Shikhin or the stoneware vessel makers of Reina and Bethlehem were former farmers who had, after immigrating, quickly lost their land, taken up a craft and become so successful that their wares were marketed all over Galilee? It seems improbable. Thus we should think of the family as intentionally moving to Galilee to practice their craft. Economic Level of Artisans Historians agree that most artisans worked hard, but were able to earn enough to live simply. 218 They were not usually wealthy, but neither were they starving. Dio Chrysostom (late first–early second century CE, Discourse 7.112f) says that those who know a trade will never worry about a living and will lack nothing needful and useful. Lucian (second century CE, Dialogues of the Courtesans 6.293) has a mother say to her daughter that as long as her husband, Philenus the smith, was alive, his family had plenty of everything. The Talmud (b. Sanh 29a) says that as long as one knows a trade, he need have no fear of famine. Another rabbinic work (t. Kid 1:11) compares knowledge of a trade to a vineyard with a wall around it. The early second century CE Christian text, Didache 12:3f, assumes that a person without a craft may need financial assistance. In sum, craftsmen lived simply, but they lived without anxiety and without want. Nonetheless, craftsmen could attain a modest level of affluence if their skills were especially in demand or if they could afford slaves to massproduce their goods. There were, for example, three famous and affluent 218 A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society, 138–143; C. Mossé, The Ancient World at Work (London: Chatto & Windus, 1969) 79; R. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 35; Alison Burford Cooper, “Crafts, Trades” 906. Cf. also G. Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 359, who notes that craftsmen at Delos earned twice as much per day as unskilled laborers in the fourth and third centuries BCE.

JESUS IN GALILEE

71

tanners in classical Athens. 219 Also, one Tryphon, the weaver, earned enough to buy his own half of a three-storey house. 220 In Delos, in the fourth and third centuries BCE, craftsmen were paid twice as much per day as unskilled workers. 221 One baker could afford to have his monument erected at one of the Roman gates. 222 There were sculptors and painters that became enormously wealthy in the Hellenistic period (Pliny, Natural History 35. 62, 88). And, of course, we should remember Simon the Temple Builder. Archaeologists have discovered a family of well-to-do artisans in Palestine as well: the family of Simon the temple builder, buried in Tomb I on Givat haMivtar, north of Jerusalem. 223 Simon’s name and occupation had been chiseled on the end of his ossuary. This was a family of craftsmen which did hard manual labor—evidently constructing the temple—as can be seen from a pathological examination of the skeletal remains. They were builders like Jesus, yet they attained enough financial success to afford both a tomb in a rather high-priced area 224 and ossuaries. 225 Poor persons were not buried in tombs, certainly not tombs in this vicinity. Thus, the family, if not wealthy, was certainly comfortable. We might suggest that this family lived at the upper end of the artisan class. Social Standing of Craftsmen Artisans did not enjoy a high social standing among the Greeks or the Romans, whether they earned a comfortable living or not. Herodotus (fifth century BCE) wrote that the Egyptians and other foreigners regarded craftsmen as low on the social scale and that the Greeks also accepted this 219

Mossé, The Ancient World at Work, 90f. Burford, Craftsmen, 141; Hock, Social Context, 34 (P Oxy 2.264). 221 Glotz, Ancient Greece at Work, 359. 222 See Alison Burford Cooper, “Crafts, Trade,” 906. 223 This tomb and its contents are described by V. Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and near Givat ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem” IEJ 20 (1970) 18–22; N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givat ha-Mivtar” IEJ 20 (1970) 38–59; J. Naveh, “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Givat ha-Mivtar” IEJ 20 (1970) 33–37. 224 See P. Smith and J. Zias, “Skeletal Remains from the Late Hellenistic French Hill Tomb” IEJ 30 (1980) 115. They note that this was an expensive area to purchase a tomb. 225 Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs,” 30 indicates that only the well-to-do could afford ossuaries. 220

72

JESUS THE GALILEAN

attitude (2.167). Aristotle (fourth century BCE) allowed that some of the crafts are necessary for society (Politics 4.3.11–12; cf. Plato, Republic 2.396b– 371e). Nevertheless, he regarded the artisans as inferior beings. Artisans are much like slaves (Politics 1.5.10) and they, the day laborers, and the market people are clearly inferior to other classes, even farmers (Politics 7.2.7; 7.8.2). Xenophon (fourth century BCE), in his fictional dialogue, has Socrates denigrate the artisans. In some cities, especially the war-like ones, says Socrates, they cannot be citizens (Oeconomicus 4.1–4). The same attitude can be found in later Greek authors. Lucian (second century BCE), in one of his sarcastic dialogues, has the personified Philosophy put down the craftsmen (cobblers, carpenters, and fullers) as being engaged in “trivial work with much labor and scarcely able to furnish enough pay” (The Runaways 12–13). Dio Chrysostom (late first century BCE to second century BCE) allowed that the trades found in the city could be profitable if one defined profit only in terms of money, but since some of them harmed both body and soul, they should be avoided (Discourse 7. 109–110). Of course, this advice works for those who have a choice (i.e., those who do not need to work in the first place), but is irrelevant to the poor man just trying to eat. Roman authors also reflect this attitude. Cicero (first century BCE) states that it is low-classed to be in an occupation which is paid for mere labor and not for artistic production. He states: “All artisans are engaged in filthy professions” (de Officiis 1.42 [150] and cf. Brutus 73). If you have to labor, suggested Cicero, the best work is farming. Cicero, however, admits that artisans are useful to the city (de Republica 2.22). 226 Seneca (first century CE) lists four classes of professions. The lowest class is made up of those who work with their hands. Next up the social ladder is the profession that is involved in entertainment. The upper two professions have to do with education of boys and with the liberal arts (Epistle 88. 21–23). Thus, Seneca did not value ordinary craftsmen. This attitude stemmed from the effect some of these trades had on the body, disfiguring it or making it soft because of a sedentary life indoors or in front of a fire (Socrates in Xenophon, Oeconomicus 4.1–4; Dio Chrysostom, Dialogue 7.110). A soft body, it was believed, indicated also a soft mind. To a Greek, these two conditions were the worst possible states. In addition, an artisan was not considered an adequate defender of his city, in 226

See also especially Hock, Social Context, 35f; Burford, Craftsmen, 29, 34, 39f; and MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 115f. For another Roman author, see Celsus (second century CE; in Origen, Against Celsus 6:36).

JESUS IN GALILEE

73

contrast to a peasant farmer (Socrates in Xenophon, Oeconomicus 4.1–4). We must bear in mind, however, that this was the attitude of the elite toward artisans, not the attitude of the artisans themselves or of other classes. The same attitude seems not to have prevailed among Palestinian Jews. The rabbinic sources extol both manual labor (m. Aboth 1:10; ARN B XXI, 23a) and teaching one’s son a craft (m. Kid 4:14; t. Kid 1:11; b. Kid 29a). Artisans often receive special recognition (m. Bik 3:3; b. Kid 33a) and praise. Many of the sages were artisans: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananza was a smith; Rabbi Nehunya was a well digger; Rabbi Yehuda was a baker; Rabbi Yohanan was a shoemaker; and Rabbi Yehoshua was a miller (all third to fourth century CE). Josephus also seems to have regarded artisans highly. He praises their skills in building the Temples (Ant 3.200, 8.76), in constructing towers (War 5.175), and in fashioning sacred vessels (Ant 12.58–84). He never refers to artisans using the pejorative term “mechanical workers.” 227 One Jewish author, however, Jesus ben Sirach (180 BCE), had mixed feelings about artisans that are strikingly similar to Cicero’s. He allowed that cities could not operate without artisans and that they are skilled in their trades. But they are not busy in learning wisdom and thus cannot be greatly honored (Sirach 38:29–34). It is also interesting that Origen (third century CE), the Christian scholar of Alexandria, tried to deny that Jesus was a carpenter (Against Celsus 6.36). As a Greek, Origen may have found it offensive to claim for Jesus the profession of tekton. Celsus had disparaged Jesus because of his work and Origen, instead of defending the occupation, denied that Jesus had been a carpenter by claiming that he was only the son of a carpenter. Justin (second century CE), on the other hand, although he was also a Christian philosopher-apologist, was quite willing to admit that Jesus had been a carpenter and maintained that he had made yokes and ploughs (Dialogue with Trypho 88.8). Justin grew up in Samaria, the semi-Jewish region between Judea and Galilee, and evidently did not have the Greek elitist view regarding artisans.

227 For rabbinic sages as artisans, see A. Bücher, Economic Conditions of Judea after the Destruction of the Second Temple (London: Oxford University Press, 1912) 50; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 177; H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: Beck, 1924) II, 745f. For further citations on the rabbinic view of craftsmen, see Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, II, 249– 251. For the pejorative connotation of the term EDQDXVR9, see LSJM and MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 138, and the citations given by each.

74

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Galilean Opportunities What sort of business would a carpenter in Galilee in the first century CE have done? The traditional concept is of a simple village carpenter who made mostly yokes and ploughs for the local peasantry. 228 According to this view, he would seldom, if ever, have left the village. The Greek historian, Xenophon, describes the work of a village carpenter and then compares it to the life of an artisan in a large city (evidently in a shoe factory): For in the small cities the same people make chairs, doors, ploughs, and tables, and many times this same person even builds (houses) and he is contented if in such a way he can get enough employers to feed himself. It is impossible for a man skilled in many things to do all of them well. But in the big cities because many people need each trade, one skill can support a person. And many times (one needs) not even a complete skill, but one makes men’s shoes, another women’s (shoes). It is possible for someone to support himself by merely stitching shoes. One divides (the parts), another only cuts out shoe pieces, and another of these workers does nothing but putting the pieces together. (Xenophon, Cyropaedia. 8.2.5)

The differences between village artisans and city artisans could be great not only in terms of job description but also in terms of economic comfort. The traditional understanding of Jesus’ background has been that of the small village artisan described by Xenophon. But did Jesus’ skill as a carpenter ever take him out of the village and into the city, where he learned about and participated in urban life? If so, could his urban employment have elevated his economic status? Was Jesus a village woodworker or did he also work in the building trade?

Traveling Artisans Since S. J. Case, 229 an alternate view has existed regarding Jesus’ background. Although Nazareth was probably a small village, it stood only three or four miles from Sepphoris, one of the largest cities in Galilee. Case suggested that Jesus as a youth had worked in the reconstruction of Sepphoris This is, e.g., Furfey’s view (“Christ as 7(.7:1”) and Klausner’s (Jesus of Nazareth, 233). More recently, S. S. Miller, “Sepphoris, the Well Remembered City” BA 55 (1992) 74–83, argues for this view. 229 Jesus: A New Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927) 199– 212. 228

JESUS IN GALILEE

75

and later in the construction of Tiberias. Sepphoris had been destroyed by the Romans in 4 BCE and was then magnificently rebuilt by Antipas (Ant 18.27). Since it would take many years to reconstruct a city such as Sepphoris, Case reasoned that a carpenter’s family could have found important and lucrative work there for a sustained period of time. R. Batey has more recently taken up Case’s thesis and supported it from his own work on the excavation of Sepphoris. 230 That artisans in antiquity would travel from their home villages to work on large construction projects is well known. It is also quite plausible that Jesus and his family worked in other towns in Galilee, such as Tiberias, which began construction somewhere between 18 and 23 CE. 231 They may even have worked in Jerusalem or some of the Decapolis cities for short periods of time. 232 There are clear examples in the Mediterranean world of artisans traveling to distant building sites. Building temples and other public works almost always required importing craftsmen from surrounding cities. There was a general shortage of craftsmen in the building trades—carpenters, masons, sculptors—especially from the fourth century BCE on. This shortage necessitated that craftsmen travel from city to city. A. Burford cites, for example, the case of the city of Epidauros in Greece which, to build the temple of Asclepius (c. 370 BCE), imported masons, carpenters, and sculptors from Argos, Corinth, Athens, Paros, Arcadia, and Troizen. Argos itself had to hire Athenian masons to complete its long walls in 418 BCE. Athens also needed carpenters and masons from Megara and Thebes to rebuild its walls in the 390s BCE. Pliny the Younger (early second century CE, Bithynia) 230

See the following publications by Batey: “Is Not This the Carpenter?” NTS 30 (1984) 249–258; “Sepphoris: An Urban Portrait of Jesus” BAR 18 (1992) 50–62; Jesus and the Forgotten City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) esp. 65–82. For Sepphoris, see also E. M. Meyers, E. Netzer, and C. L. Meyers, “Sepphoris ‘Ornament of all Galilee’” BA 49 (1986) 4–19; E. M. Meyers, E. Netzer, and C. L. Meyers, Sepphoris (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992); and J. Strange, “Sepphoris” in ABD, V, 1090–1093. For the history of Sepphoris, see Miller, Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. 231 For the date in which construction began on Tiberias, see Overmann, “Who were the First Urban Christians?,” 163. 232 See S. Applebaum “Economic Life in Palestine” in S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 680; Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine, 215; and E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York: Knopf, 1960) 44 for traveling craftsmen in Palestine.

76

JESUS THE GALILEAN

lamented the shortage of master carpenters (architektones) 233 and the consequent poor buildings being built (Epistle 10.39–40). According to Burford, this shortage of craftsmen was especially acute in the Roman period. The cities of North Africa, Asia Minor, Persia, and Palmyra imported craftsmen for their building projects. The local artisans contributed what they could. Burford affirms, “For unusual projects such as public works, no city, not even Athens, had a sufficiently large skilled labor force to do the job by itself.” 234 Since this was the case throughout the Mediterranean world, we should expect that in Palestine, in the Herodian period, artisans from surrounding cities and villages were used for large building projects. This expectation is confirmed by a passage in Josephus. Josephus related that Herod the Great (ruled 37 to 4 BCE.) made the following preparations to build his Temple in 20 BCE: “He made ready 1000 wagons which would carry the stones. He gathered 10,000 of the most skillful workers . . . and he taught some to be masons and others to be carpenters” (Ant 15.390). Josephus’ description of Herod’s collection and training of carpenters and builders in preparation for building his Temple implies there was a shortage of artisans in Jerusalem for this massive construction project. Furthermore, according to Josephus (Ant 20.219f), the completion of the Temple, which did not occur until the procuratorship of Albinus (62–64 CE), put 18,000 artisans out of work. Although Josephus’ figure may be somewhat exaggerated, the construction of the Temple surely required a large force of artisans throughout most of the first century CE as a comparison with another building project makes clear. The Erechtheum in Athens (tiny compared with Herod’s temple) needed 100 craftsmen to complete its final stages in 408 BCE. These included 44 masons; 9 sculptors; 7 woodcarvers; 22 carpenters, sawyers, and joiners; 1 lathe worker; 3 painters; 1 gilder; and 9 laborers and other un-

For architektones DUFLWHNWZQH9 see Alison Burford Cooper, “Crafts, Trade,” 904. 234 Burford, Craftsmen, 62–67; quote on p. 63. See also Burford, “The Economics of Greek Temple Building” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 191 (1965) 21–34, in which he emphasizes the mobility of the ancient craftsmen: “Certainly, when there was a demand for them, skilled craftsmen were automatically at a premium . . . The mobility of skilled craftsmen in the ancient world thus offset the perennial shortage of skilled men in any given city” (p. 31). Cf. Alison Burford Cooper, “Crafts, Trade,” 900. 233

JESUS IN GALILEE

77

specified workers. 235 Thus, a colossal project such as Herod’s Temple would have required a very large force of craftsmen. The evidence from Josephus confirms that an extensive public works project, like building the Temple, required recruiting and importing—and even training—artisans from distant cities and employing them over long periods of time. The construction of Sepphoris and Tiberias must have required a similar contribution of skilled labor. What might Jesus and his family as carpenters/builders (we assume the brothers were also carpenters, Mark 6:30) have worked on? Perhaps, in Sepphoris, they could have helped build some of the houses described above—the multi-storied, frescoed houses of the modestly wealthy. In addition, the city of Antipas had a large public building built in basilica fashion (35 X 40 meters interior area). This building was probably where the bureaucrats (retainers) had offices and ran the government, the tax system, and the courts. 236 An aqueduct was also necessary in the early first century to provide adequately for the large populace. One was constructed to bring water from the Ein Genona and Amitai springs. 237 Finally, there may have been a theater built in the time of Antipas and Jesus, but the date of this structure is now debated. 238 In Tiberias, they could have worked on (after around 20 CE) the gate with its two large towers. 239 This is not to say, of course, that we know the family of Jesus did work at these sites. I only sug-

235

Burford, Craftsmen, 62. See on the basilica J. Strange, “The Eastern Basilical Building” in Rebecca M. Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee, 117–121. The building consisted of rows of offices or shops all with floor mosaics. One room had a stepped pool. 237 See Tsvika Tsuk, “The Aqueducts of Sepphoris” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries, 161–175; idem., “Bringing Water to Sepphoris” BAR 26/4 (2000) 34–41. 238 For a date in the early first century (thus the time of Antipas and Jesus), see J. Strange, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris” in Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 342; and Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City, 83–103. For a date of late first century or early second century for the theater see: Z. Weiss and E. Netzer, “Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeological Evidence” in Nagy, C. Meyers, E. Meyers, Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee, 32; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “Sepphoris” in E. Meyers, ed., OEANE, IV, 533; and E. M. Meyers, “Jesus and His World,” 198– 190. 239 G. Foerster, “Tiberias: Excavations South of the City” in Stern, ed., NEAEHL, IV, 1471. 236

78

JESUS THE GALILEAN

gest the kind of work available for carpenters in Galilee that would take Jesus and his brothers beyond their home village.

Figure 9 Theatre of Sepphoris, early 1st century or late 1st century? (Photo by the author)

Given the urbanization of Lower Galilee (Sepphoris and Tiberias), the Decapolis (Scythopolis), and also of the Tetrarchy of Philip (Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida Julius), one can well imagine that an artisan in the building trade would be in demand. 240 Since such was the case in the GrecoRoman world in general, causing artisans to move frequently from job to job, we should expect the same to have been true in Galilee. It is even possible that Jesus and his family worked on the Temple in Jerusalem from time to time. 241 The suggestion that craftsmen traveled about in Galilee finds some support from the archaeological remains. E. Edwards maintains that the wide distribution of the Kefar Hananya pottery: “suggests the existence of a complex marketing pattern that included traveling craftsmen, local mer240

Overman, “Who Were the First Urban Christians?” D. E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day, 186–93 argues that Jesus’ social contacts with people in Jerusalem indicate that he was there many times before his ministry began. Oakman points to Jesus’ friends in Bethany (near Jerusalem, Mk 14:3; Lk 10:38–42; Jn 11:1) and to the owner of the upper room (Mk 14:12–16). 241

JESUS IN GALILEE

79

chants and distribution areas in urban centers.” 242 J. Strange argues that the Kefar Hananya pottery distribution shows that there was a well developed road and path system even though very little remains of first century roads have thus far been discovered. Therefore, travel for an artisan like Jesus would have been relatively easy. 243 Batey asserts that carpenters were necessary for construction of public works. This construction included the erecting of scaffolding and forms for vaults, cranes, and ceiling beams. 244 Batey’s assertion is confirmed, not only by the examples from classical Greece listed above, but also by Josephus. He celebrates the importance of carpenters for building Solomon’s Temple (Ant 7.66; 7.340; 7.377), Zerubbabel’s Temple (Ant 11.78), and Herod’s Temple (Ant 15.390). They also figure prominently in building city walls (War 3.173). The literary evidence also argues for Jesus’ pre-ministry itinerancy. The itinerant nature of ancient artisans may be reflected in a passage from the midrashic text Numbers Rabbah (16.1). This text comments on Joshua 2:1 in which two men are sent to spy out the land of Canaan heresh (that is, “secretly”). But the commentator understands the Hebrew word “secretly” to mean harash (that is, “as an artisan,” one who works on metal, wood, or stone). The commentator assumes that, if Joshua sent out two men disguised as artisans, they would attract no attention as strangers since itinerant artisans were common. This understanding, of course, reflects the commentator’s time (2nd to 3rd century CE) more than Joshua’s. 245 D. Oakman also argues persuasively from the Gospels for Jesus’ itinerancy and broad social contacts before his ministry. He notes several foci of social contacts during Jesus’ ministry such as the Jerusalem-BethlehemBethany area and the cities and towns around the Sea of Galilee (Gerasa, Caesarea Philippi, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum) and gives evidence 242 Edwards, “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century,” 57–58. 243 Strange, “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts” in Edwards and McCollough, Archaeology and the Galilee, 41. Strange informs us that a traveler in the fourth or fifth century CE walked or rode a maximum of 18 Roman miles a day. He writes that if one halves that figure to allow for poorer roads in the first century, then: “the traveler from Sepphoris has access potentially to about 40 villages one short day’s journey away.” See “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from Texts” in SBL 1994 Seminar Papers, 84. 244 Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City, 68–82. 245 See Z. Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine, 230.

80

JESUS THE GALILEAN

that these were previously existing contacts. He also notes that Jesus is often depicted in the gospels as associating with the wealthy. Interestingly, in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 13, Joseph is reported to have made a bed for a rich patron. Thus, Oakman concludes: “Might not Jesus’ openness toward and knowledge of the social circumstances of the wealthy find a grounding in his previous experiences with them as a client?” 246 Thus, even before Jesus began his ministry, 247 his social circle, which served as the base of his movements during his ministry, was established. Therefore, we can say with certainty that there were several continuous and massive building projects during Jesus’ youth and early adulthood. Second, we can be reasonably confident that these projects necessitated the services of skilled carpenters from distant cities and villages. Jesus and his extended family could easily have worked in Sepphoris, Tiberias, in other Galilean cities, and even in Jerusalem. Opportunities were there for this family to have experienced urban culture and to have risen to the same level of economic comfort as the artisan family of Simon the temple builder.

Jesus’ Standard of Living But establishing that the possibility was there to have attained a modest level of economic comfort does not, of course, prove that Jesus’ family did so. Are there any indications in the Gospels that Jesus came from an upperlevel artisan family as opposed to a poor village artisan family? G. W. Buchanan has noted 248 that Jesus, during his ministry, is found among well-to-do people rather often. He called to be his disciples James and John, sons of Zebedee, a fishing merchant who was wealthy enough to employ day laborers (Mk 1:19f). Levi, the tax collector, hosted a banquet for

246 Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day, 175–204 (quote on p. 193). See also S. J. Case, Jesus, A New Biography, 199, 202, 206, and 208, who had made many of the same observations. 247 Jesus’ later detractors made much of his travels to Egypt where he allegedly acquired magical powers. Could this tradition testify to Jesus’ travels as a carpenter? E. Stauffer has suggested that it does. See Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 44 and Origen, Celsus I.28; b. Shabb 104b (referring to Ben Stada). 248 Buchanan, “Jesus and the Upper Class,” 205f. Buchanan argues on the basis of 2 Cor 8:9 that Jesus came from a wealthy family: “He became poor even though he was rich.” But Buchanan’s reasons for concluding that these words refer to the historical Jesus’ socioeconomic status are less than compelling.

JESUS IN GALILEE

81

Jesus—in which they reclined at table 249 —and became a disciple (Mt 9:9– 11). A certain man “of the rulers of the Pharisees” invited Jesus to dine with him (Lk 14:1–6). Jairus, ruler of the synagogue at Capernaum, and a certain unnamed Roman centurion approached him (Mk 5:22f; Mt 8:5). Zaccheus, the chief tax collector, also gave a meal for Jesus (Lk 19:1–10). Lazarus (or Simon the leper) hosted a banquet for Jesus in Bethany (Mk 14:3, Jn 12:2). Joanna, the wife of a court official of Antipas, was a disciple of Jesus (Lk 8:3). Nicodemus, said to be a member of the Sanhedrin, was a disciple of Jesus in secret (Jn 3:1f; 7:50; 19:39). Finally, Joseph of Arimathea, who buried Jesus’ body and was a disciple, is described as a member of the council and wealthy (Mk. 15:43; Mt 27:57). That Jesus could so easily move among these wealthier people suggests some experience in similar social situations and an earlier association with people of some economic means. Further, given the common urban snobbery toward the village peasants, one may reasonably wonder if a simple village carpenter would ever be the guest of such people as those listed above. It does not follow from these texts, however, that Jesus was himself wealthy or a member of the elite class. He was only in a position to have known such people. An itinerant artisan who had experience in urban environments working for wealthy patrons could easily have become familiar with such people. Some commentators have sought to find in Jesus’ teachings evidence of his urban and/or wealthy background. This evidence is, however, not convincing. Some argue that his neutral position toward Rome and his willingness to associate with all types of people prove Jesus’ association with Sepphoris and other cities. 250 Others find, in his use of the term hypocrite (a Greek theatrical term), a familiarity with the theater at Sepphoris, and in his parables about kings, firsthand observation of Antipas. 251 Still others believe that the banking and judicial system of Sepphoris informed Jesus’ par-

249

Reclining while eating was a Greek practice which the Romans and others adopted. It was usually a sign of status and wealth to eat a meal while reclining on a couch. Poor people usually ate sitting upright or on mats. See E. Badian, “Triclinium” OCD. See also Matt 22:10f; 26:7; Mk 6:26; Jn 12:2. 250 Cf., e.g., Case, Jesus, 206–210. 251 Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City, 83–104, 119–34. Cf. B. Schwank, “Das Theater von Sepphoris und die Jugenjahre Jesu” Erbe und Auftrag 52 (1976) 199– 206.

82

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ables. 252 Buchanan even believes that Jesus’ parables betray a wealthy background. Those parables which speak of enormous wealth (Mt 18:32–35), the investment of large sums (Mt 25:14–30), or the business practices of a large estate (Lk 16:1–9) indicate a familiarity with the affairs of the rich, maintains Buchanan. 253 Still others suggest that Jesus was immersed in Greek culture because of his experience in the cities of Lower Galilee and, therefore, that he was influenced by the Cynic philosophy. 254 These items are certainly suggestive, but S. S. Miller 255 is wise to caution against accepting them as evidence. One can get illustrations (parables) from many sources (travelers, folk tradition, etc.), so Jesus need not have observed, for example, Antipas, in speaking about kings. Nor does it follow that Jesus visited the theater because he used the word hypocrite (as we cautioned above, many archaeologists date the theater of Sepphoris after the time of Jesus). We further concluded that Lower Galilee was not as Hellenized as some have accepted so that picturing Jesus as a student of Greek philosophy seems unrealistic. A more reasonable assessment of the evidence is to surmise that Jesus in the course of his work as a carpenter visited the cities and towns of Lower Galilee (and perhaps even beyond Lower Galilee). These travels afforded him the chance to observe the wealthy and the poor, as well as those of the lower classes that were living comfortably. He probably heard many stories in his travels; perhaps some of them later became parables. He probably knew Greek as well as Aramaic (and Hebrew?). He may have done business with wealthy persons (built structures for them). Some of these may have become sympathizers after he began his ministry.

CONCLUSION We may say, in conclusion, that Jesus lived in an agrarian society that tended to be divided culturally into urban and rural, with the overwhelming majority of the population being rural. Jesus was an artisan who probably was often in urban environments and who probably traveled frequently to sell his services as a builder. These journeys to work sites may have been the 252

Schwank, “Das Theater von Sepphoris.” Buchanan, “Jesus and the Upper Class,” 204f. Buchanan states: “It is an impressive fact, however, that there are very few teachings of Jesus that reflect lower class associations” (204). 254 Mack, Myth of Innocence, 66–69. 255 Miller, “Sepphoris, the Well Remembered City.” 253

JESUS IN GALILEE

83

same routes he took later in his ministry. Thus, his ministerial itinerancy may have been paths to which he was already well accustomed. Jesus was probably not economically destitute before his ministry. We should expect that he and his brothers worked at hard manual labor, but did not want for the necessities of life. The massive building projects of Palestine—especially in Galilee—should have provided ample opportunity for work. It is even possible that his family was rather comfortable, like that of Simon the temple builder. Certain texts in the Gospels may incline us in that direction. But in the eyes of the elites of Sepphoris and Tiberias, Jesus would still have been poor. He came from the lower class. Compared to their spacious and well-decorated houses, his home in Nazareth must have looked very simple and humble. The socio-economic distance between Jesus and the elite classes—even if he did come from a comfortable artisan family—was still pretty significant. We close with four propositions: 1) Galilee was divided geographically and culturally into Upper Galilee and Lower Galilee. It consisted mostly of small villages except for Sepphoris and Tiberias, each with a population of around 10,000. 2) Neither city was Hellenized to the extent of surrounding cities such as Caesarea Maritima, Gerasa, and Scythopolis. 3) The growth of the two cities meant more surplus was siphoned off from the peasants. Yet they do not seem to have been in crisis until the Great War of 66 CE. 4) Jesus as an artisan probably traveled throughout Lower Galilee and perhaps beyond. He saw poverty and wealth but he partook of neither. In such a way Jesus prepared (consciously or unwittingly) for his later life. He traveled about to both cities and villages meeting people, making contacts which would serve him in his ministry. As an artisan, he was neither peasant nor elite/retainer. He could see both sides—both exploitation by the wealthy and the occasional meanness of spirit by the peasantry; both luxury and poverty, greed and want, generosity and stinginess.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY: THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND WEALTH A. BIBLIOGRAPHIC RESOURCES: J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools For Study

B. TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS: J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls (10 vols.) F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.) E. Tov, ed., Discoveries in the Judea Desert (39 vols.) G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls

THE DISCOVERY OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS The chance discovery in 1947 (or 1946?) of ancient documents, stashed in a cave just west of the Dead Sea in Israel, has revolutionized New Testament studies, especially our investigation of the ministry and teachings of Jesus. The details of the discovery are somewhat uncertain. They involve a Bedouin shepherd boy and his family, a shoe cobbler in Bethlehem, an archbishop of the Syrian orthodox church, and various Israeli archaeologists. When the scholarly community finally realized what had been found, more scientific excavations and searches were done. The result is that thousands of manuscript fragments and over eight hundred texts are now available for comparison with the New Testament, the Hebrew Bible, and other Jewish documents previously known. 256 The expression, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” covers any documents that have come to light from various locations west of the Dead Sea. These locations 256

See J. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) 3–19; E. M. Cook, Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 11–30; L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994) 3–19; G. Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 1–5.

85

86

JESUS THE GALILEAN

include strange sounding names such as Wadi Muraba’at, Nahal Hever, Masada, Nahal Se’elim, and of course, Qumran, the source of most of the documents. The Qumran documents may be placed into three categories: Biblical manuscripts (texts of the Hebrew Bible); non-biblical Jewish texts (such as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, see chapter 5); and sectarian texts (those texts written by the Qumran people). All three categories of texts are extremely valuable, but the most excitement has been reserved for the last category since these texts tell us about the organization and theology of the Qumran sect—usually today identified with the Essenes.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

Figure 10 Map of Dead Sea Region

87

88

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Although there is a consensus that the religious group behind the Qumran scrolls was the Jewish sect called the Essenes—by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny—not everyone has accepted this conclusion. One scholar has suggested that the Qumran sectarians were Sadducees, and another offers that no sect produced the scrolls but that they are documents brought from Jerusalem for safe keeping. Yet, since these latter two views are in a minority, 257 I will accept for the purposes of this study that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes. Thus, we will use, not only the Qumran documents, but also the classical sources named above to investigate the Essene teaching and practices regarding possessions and wealth.

JESUS, THE ESSENES, AND WEALTH And as he was traveling in the way, someone ran up to him and kneeled down asking him, “Good Teacher, what should I do that I may inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God. You know the commandments: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not rob, honor your father and mother.” And he said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these (commandments) from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give (the profits) to the destitute people and 257

Among those concluding that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes are: A. Dupont-Somer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (New York: Macmillan, 1956) 85–86; N. Avigad and E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1955) 29; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Doubleday, 1958) 37; R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press, 1973); D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origin of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988) 169; H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 140–142; Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 126; J. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 260; J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 92; F. G. Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1996) p. LIII; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 55; and C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 405. For the view that the Qumran scrolls were written by Sadducees, see Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 83–95. For the view that the scrolls represent Judaism in general and not a sect, see N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995) 117– 150; and Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004) 45– 48.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

89

you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.” And he was shocked at this saying and went away sad. For he had great wealth. (Mark 10:17–22)

Most scholars credit the story above as an authentic event in the ministry of the historical Jesus. 258 J. Meier 259 gives the standard argument for the story’s historicity: The story contains two embarrassing elements. First, Jesus seems to reject the rich man’s reference to Jesus as good. Surely, the church would not create that feature in the story. Second, the young man did not accept Jesus’ invitation to sell his possessions and follow him. Again, one might expect the church to write a story with a happier ending. We might add to these considerations that there is another version of the story found in the apocryphal Gospel of the Nazoraeans. 260 This text has enough differ258 Members of the Jesus Seminar voted 40% to give it a red (definitely Jesus’) or pink (probably Jesus’), 40% to give it a gray (Jesus may have said something like this) and 20% to give it a black (Jesus certainly never said this) designation. See R. W. Funk, The Gospel of Mark: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, Calif.: 1991), 160. In their more recent publication, R. W. Funk, R. W. Hoover, et al., The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993) 91, the conclusion was that, although “Jesus’ injunction to sell everything and follow him seemed to many Fellows to be consonant with his teaching about wealth” the promise of heavenly treasure was deemed a later modification and so the saying received a gray designation. Among those accepting the story as authentic are the following: V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 424–425; H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruechristlicher Radikalismus (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1957) II, 75–76; N. T. Wright, Victory, 301–303; C. S. Mann, Mark (New York: Doubleday, 1986) 401; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) I, 81–82; Percy, Botschaft Jesu (Lund: Gleerup, 1953) 92–93; J. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 520; and J. Meier, Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 2001) III, 516. 259 Meier, Marginal Jew, III, 516. 260 The pericope in the Gospel of the Nazoraeans is as follows: “Another of the rich men said to him, ‘Teacher, by doing what good thing will I live?’ He said to him, ‘Man, keep the Law and the prophets.’ He responded to him, ‘I have kept (them).’ He said to him, ‘Go, sell all which you possess and divide it with the poor, and come follow me.’ The rich man began, however, to scratch his head and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him, ‘How could you say, “I have kept the Law and the prophets” since there is written in the Law, “You will love your neighbor as yourself?” Behold, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, have been clothed in dung, dying from hunger, but your house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes from it to them.’” The Latin text is in Stroker, Extraconical sayings, 8. The translation is my own. On the sources for GNaz, see A. F. J. Klijn,

90

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ences of detail that it could have come from a tradition other than the synoptic Gospels. If so, it would be a confirming second source. The big issue with this story is what to make of it. How should one think about this text? Anthony of Egypt (late third–early fourth century CE) came from a Christian family that possessed 300 acres of land, quite a nice estate in antiquity. Shortly after his parents had died (near Anthony’s eighteenth birthday), he heard a sermon, on the story referred to above: the story of the Rich Young Man (Matthew’s version calls him a young man; 19:20) In the story, of course, Jesus commands the man to sell his possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow him. Anthony immediately sold his inherited lands, gave the proceeds to the poor, installed his sister in a convent, and betook himself to the desert for a life of contemplation (Athanasius, Life of Anthony 2). Apparently, Anthony concluded, Jesus was instructing everyone to do as he told the rich man to do. On the other hand, another Egyptian Christian, Clement of Alexandria (late second–early third century CE), balked at such a radical step. Jesus cannot have meant for all Christians to sell their possessions and live a life of poverty, reasoned Clement, else how would they give alms to the poor? Clement concluded that what Jesus really intended was to rid the soul of its passions and greed (Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 12). So there we have it. Some (though one would think not many) take the story in a straightforward manner and do as Anthony did or, at least, feel guilty for not doing it. Others (most I should think), like Clement, find a way to read the story on a higher theological plane and thus avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that one should either divest oneself or be disobedient to Jesus. But what did Jesus intend? What can this episode tell us about Jesus and his ministry? To answer these questions, we will first survey ancient attitudes toward wealth and poverty, with special emphasis on the Qumran scrolls and the Essenes. This survey will give us context into which to place the text quoted above. Then, we will look at other texts in the Gospels that cohere with this one. We will then consider various explanations for Jesus’ lifestyle. Finally, we return to our text for conclusions.

“The Question of the Rich Young Man in a Jewish-Christian Gospel” NovT 8 (1966) 149–155.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

91

Poverty and Wealth in the Greco-Roman World Poverty was a wretched condition and wealth was sweet as honey to most of the people in the Greco-Roman world. There is certainly nothing surprising in this assessment. Wealth was an essential component of the good life, the virtuous life. And not only must one have wealth, but one must flaunt it. That is to say, there must be conspicuous consumption stemming from lavish spending. Otherwise, the ancients reasoned, the rich did not have the status due them. 261 Not only must the rich flaunt their wealth, but they must remind others that they are not wealthy. Added to the physical burden of poverty was the emotional embarrassment of it. The rich, to be blunt, liked to rub it in. From the Roman satirist Juvenal (second century CE) one can read: “Unhappy poverty has nothing about it harder to bear than that it makes men the target of ridicule” (Satires 3. 153f). 262 The rich loved to scorn the clothing of the poor: “They are rabble,” wrote Pliny the Younger, “because of their cheaper tunics” (Epistle 9.6). Cicero (Pro Flacco 18) snobbishly referred to the ordinary persons of the eastern Mediterranean world as “filth.” The rich had very little sympathy for the poor. “I hate poor people!” reads the graffito on a wall in Pompeii. One well-to-do orator, Dio Chrysostom (first century CE), stated in no uncertain terms his refusal to give alms to the poor: “To certain people I shall not give, even though there is need, because there will still be need even if I give” (Orationes 7.125). Poverty, explains R. MacMullen, in itself was vile, dishonored, and ugly to the ancient folk of the Mediterranean world. 263 And yet, there was a certain kind of person that seemed to value poverty and scorn wealth—to turn the value system on its head. These were the philosophers, or, at least, some of the philosophers. To this austere bunch, the less one possessed, the better; the more one suffered the degrading wretchedness of poverty, then the more one lived a true life of philosophy.

261

See J. E. Stambaugh and D. L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986) 65. 262 The quotation is in R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 111. Cf. M. Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome (New York: Scribners, 1992) 61, who quotes Homer, Iliad 2.216–221. 263 See MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 114, 118f; and J. S. Jeffers, The GrecoRoman World of the New Testament Era (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1999) 193. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment, 66, who note that the poor man elicited not pity but disgust on the part of the rich.

92

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Selling one’s property and living in poverty, while engaging in the philosophical life, was not always done in antiquity. Plato and Aristotle did not do it nor did the great Stoics: Epictetus, Zeno, Chrysippus, and Seneca. One Cynic philosopher as a matter of fact, Menippus of Gadara, allegedly became very rich as a money lender (Diogenes Laertius, VI. 99–101). 264 But several, mostly Cynics, did value poverty. Socrates, the Athenian philosopher (late fifth century BCE), seems to have gotten the ball rolling in the philosophical love of poverty. 265 He maintained, in his Apology (XVIII B; IX B–C), that he did not teach for money and, as a matter of fact, that he had impoverished himself— neglecting his own household, so that he could care (philosophically) for others, in order to do the will of God. He is depicted as one who prided himself on plain living, spurning a large house and many possessions (although he was also said to have lived on his investments [Diogenes Laertius II.20, 25]). Clearly, Socrates did not actually leave his family and possessions (he had two wives and several children), but his careless attitude toward those concerns reflects that of the later more radical practice. 266 The earlier Cynics, who took their cue from Socrates, often carried his disdain of possessions to the extreme. 267 Antisthenes (late fifth–fourth century BCE), who was the alleged founder of the movement, 268 went about with only a staff, a wallet and one cloak, which he doubled around him in winter (instead of adding another cloak; Diogenes Laertius, VI. 6, 13). 264 But D. R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century (London: Methuen, 1937) 70 notes that many scholars have doubted that Menippus was really a wealthy money lender. Dudley suggests that the tradition is “apocryphal.” 265 There was at least one notable philosopher before him that gave his money away so he could devote his time to philosophy: Anaxagoras the Athenian who lived in the fifth century BCE (Diogenes Laertius II.7). 266 See H. Hommel, “Herrenworte im Lichte sokratischer Ueberlieferung” ZNW 57 (1966) 1–23. 267 For Cynics, see A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 164–186; A. Malherbe, Cynic Epistles (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); idem., “Cynics” in IDB Supplement; R. Hock, “Cynics” in ABD; M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, “Le cynisme `a l’epoque imperiale” ANRW, 2.36.4, 2720–2823; R. Hoistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in the Cynic Conception of Man (Uppsala: Bloms, 1948); F. Sayre, The Greek Cynics (Baltimore: Furst, 1948); G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T. And T. Clark, 1992); D. R. Dudley, History of Cynicism. 268 Dudley, History of Cynicism, 1, questions whether Antisthenes was the founder of Cynicism. Diogenes of Sinope may have been the founder.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

93

Diogenes of Sinope (fourth century BCE), through persistence, convinced Antisthenes to be his teacher. From then on, Diogenes lived a life of simplicity—sometimes sleeping any place he could find, sometimes living in a tub. He once observed a child drinking water from his hands and decided to cast away his own drinking cup, evidently because a cup was too extravagant a possession. He was allegedly completely lacking in money, and about him it could be said that he was “without city, without house, bereft of fatherland, a poor wanderer who lived only from day to day” (Diogenes Laertius, VI. 23, 37, 76, 38). Some of these details, of course, contain legendary elements, but, in general, we should probably conclude that Diogenes exemplified the poverty-stricken philosopher. He may not have left his fortune in order to study philosophy (since he had none to begin with), but he left his prospects of a relatively comfortable life. Crates of Thebes (fourth century BCE), on the other hand, was originally a wealthy man. According to one report, he decided to turn his landed property into money (200 talents) and then distributed it among his fellow citizens. Another version of the story is that Diogenes of Sinope persuaded Crates to throw his money into the sea. Still another story had Crates putting some of his money into a fund for his sons. If they should become philosophers like him, however, the money was then to be distributed to the people. At any rate, Crates was certain that philosophers did not need money (Diogenes Laertius, VI. 87, 88). The later Cynics seem to have continued this tradition of harsh simplicity. 269 One Cynic, by the name of Demetrius, is referred to quite often in the writings of Seneca and Philostratus. This Demetrius lived and taught mostly in Rome and Corinth in the first century CE. From what little is known about his life we may say that he was known for his adherence to the old Cynicism of Antisthenes and Diogenes. Seneca (De providentia 5.5; cf. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4.25, 6:31) called him “a most severe man” and indicated that he would not even beg for his needs (de vita beata 18.3). Thus he surpassed even Diogenes of Sinope in his distaste for money. Like his forebears, however, Demetrius wandered with only his cloak (Seneca termed him “half naked”; Epistle 63) and utterly rejected any desire for 269

They also continued to make insulting remarks to anyone they thought deserving of them. Thus Diogenes and Heras received flogging and beheading respectively for publicly (in a theatre no less!) castigating Titus for living with Bernice. (Dio Cassius 65.15). Isidorus was said to have taunted Nero on a public street for his terrible singing (Suetonius, Nero 39).

94

JESUS THE GALILEAN

riches. Allegedly, Emperor Caligula (38–41 CE) once offered to grant him 200,000 sesterces, but Demetrius laughingly refused (Seneca, De beneficiis 7. 11). 270 As was typical with the Cynics, Demetrius regarded riches as a burden and as something that interfered with self-sufficiency (DXWDUNHLDautarcheia). 271 His contemporary, Seneca, who was greatly influenced by Demetrius, expressed a similar feeling regarding wealth in his epistles: “Riches have prevented many from living as philosophers. Poverty is unencumbered and carefree” (Epistolae Morales XVII.3); “Only the person who has despised wealth is worthy of God” (Epistolae Morales XVIII.13). 272 Musonius Rufus (first century CE), the teacher of Epictetus, can also be discussed here. Though he was a Stoic, he exhibited harsh characteristics similar to the Cynics. Musonius also disdained money (although he accepted gifts and loans from others). Once, when he ordered 1000 sesterces given to a certain beggar, people advised him that the beggar was a bad person who deserved nothing good. Musonius replied that, therefore, he deserved money. 273 Demonax—who apparently did not clearly embrace Cynicism but is more Cynic than anything else—came from a wealthy and politically influential Cyprian family (second century CE). 274 Yet, Lucian writes that he was like Diogenes of Sinope in his plain living, and that because of his love of philosophy, “he was moved to disdain all human good things.” He seems to have slept wherever he could and accepted whatever charity was available, even into very advanced age without making use of his family’s considerable means (Lucian, Demonax 3,5,63).

270

Compare this incident with the more famous and similar one attributed to Diogenes of Sinope. Once Alexander the Great found him sunning himself, approached him, and, standing over him and casting a shadow on him, offered to grant him anything he wanted. Diogenes allegedly responded, “Then get out of my light” (Diogenes Laertius VI.38). 271 On Demetrius, see J. F. Kindstrand, “Demetrius the Cynic” Philologus 124 (1979) 83–98 and M. Billerbeck, Der Kyniker Demetrius (Leiden: Brill, 1979). 272 Translation in Downing, Christ and the Cynics, 20. 273 On Musonius, see C. Luz, “Musonius Rufus ‘The Roman Socrates’” Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947) 3–147. The text for this statement is from Luz, pp. 102, 104, Fragment XVI. Cf. H. Hommel, “Herrenworte im Lichte sokratischer Ueberlieferung” ZNW 57 (1966) 15. (Fragment XLIX; Luz, pp. 142–145). 274 See C. P. Jones, Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986) 90–98.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

95

The scoundrel, Peregrinus (second century CE), also inherited a considerable estate (fifteen talents). Yet, after he assumed the role of Cynic philosopher, he donated all of his lands and goods to the people of Parium since many were poor. The people are alleged to have said that Peregrinus was another Diogenes or another Crates. Thus, they knew the Cynic tradition. 275 A good summary of the Cynic way of life can be found in the writings of Epictetus (late first century CE), the Stoic philosopher. Epictetus writes that a Cynic has no home, city, property, wife, or bed (Dissertationes 3.22.45– 47). Thus, the understanding that Epictetus had was that Cynics usually were completely without means and family. Another summary of the common perception of Cynics is found in Lucian of Samosata’s Philosophies for Sale. 276 In this spoof of the popular philosophies, Diogenes is trying to sell his ideas to prospective disciples. Lucian says Diogenes will strip a follower of luxury and tie him to poverty, making him suffer by sleeping on the ground and eating the meanest of food. Then he writes: And as for your money, if you should have any, I would persuade you to take it to the sea and throw it in. And you will have no concern for marriage, children, or your homeland. Indeed, all of these things will be to you mere trash. And you will leave your father’s house and live in a tomb, an empty tower, or even a tub. (Philosophies for Sale 9) 277

275 See Jones, Culture and Society, 117–132. Of course Peregrinus only made such a gesture to head off charges of parricide from the townsfolk of Parium. Later he tried in vain to retrieve his fortune (Lucian, The Death of Peregrinus 9, 14–16). For the ancient practice of donating wealth to cities, offices, and other groups, see B. Laum, Stiftungen in der Griechischen und Roemischen Antike: Ein Beitrag zur Antiken Kulturgeschichte (Leipzig: Teubner, 1914). Individuals or families made such donations for the following reasons, according to Laum: To endow certain offices, for political gain, in response to an oracle, to meet special needs, out of religious piety, to secure immortality in a religious cult, as a memorial for someone, out of patriotism for a polis, and out of ambition (seeking a title or honor). See pp. 34–40. Of course, these donors did not give all of their wealth away, however. 276 J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991) 87 writes: “(This passage from Lucian) is, despite an edge of caricature, probably the fullest and fairest description of popular Cynicism that we have from antiquity.” 277 The text is from A. M. Harmon, Lucian (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1929) vol. II. The translation is mine.

96

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Thus, both Epictetus and Lucian have the perception that Cynics usually give up their money, family, and any other comforts. The action of Crates (throwing his money into the sea according to one account) has become now that which is expected, at least in this satire. Though, actually, not all Cynics were unmarried (e.g., Crates) and some owned considerable property (Menippus), still, it must have been the common impression that Cynics usually renounced everything that society considered of worth. The famous Apollonius of Tyana (late first to second century CE) was also a wealthy man before he began his life of itinerant teaching and healing. When Apollonius embraced the Pythagorean philosophy, he gave up eating meat, drinking wine, wearing shoes, wearing any animal fibers for clothing, and cutting his hair. He also was said to live in the temple at Aegae, having left his hometown of Tarsus. But when his father died—and he inherited part of the estate—he divided up the property with his brother and later he gave him half again of his own share, bestowing the rest of his property on other relatives. He, nevertheless, left a small sum for himself. Finally, he vowed never to take a wife (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius I. iv, viii, xiii). Thus, the actions of some of the Greek or Roman philosophers could range from economic carelessness (because one is so focused on the task at hand) to an almost complete repudiation of any of the comforts of life. The feeling was that material comforts and even family connections could interfere with the serious business of a life of philosophy. The time span for these individuals (fifth century BCE–second century CE) indicates a long and solid tradition of renunciation in the Greco-Roman world. Most of the folk living in the Greco-Roman culture desired and valued wealth. People naturally want comforts, pleasures, and social status. But some of those in the philosophical life (certainly not all) detested riches and even personal comfort. These persons thought it best to live a harsh life.

WEALTH AND POVERTY WITHIN PALESTINIAN JUDAISM The Hebrew Bible The theological heritage from the Hebrew Bible concerning riches and wealth stated that these things were good and from God: Blessed is the man who fears the Lord . . . Wealth (hon) and riches (‘osher) are in his house. (Psalm 112:3)

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

97

(David in his prayer states that:) Riches and honor are from (God). (1 Chron 29:12; cf. 1 Kings 10:23, 1 Chron 29:28, 2 Chron 17:5, 2 Chron 32:27, Ecclesiastes 6:2, 5:19)

The great men in Israelite history were men of wealth. God blessed their lives and endeavors, and they prospered. Quite the opposite of something to detest or to be ashamed of, riches were a badge of honor and a sign of God’s favor. What crazy person would not want riches? Riches and wealth are the result of cultivating the wisdom which comes from God: Riches and honor are with (Wisdom), Hereditary wealth and righteousness (Prov 8:18) By knowledge rooms are filled, with all wealth precious and pleasant (Prov 24:4) The rewards of humility (which is ) fear of the Lord, are riches, honor and life. (Prov 22:4; cf. Prov 3:13, 16)

The one who follows the way of Wisdom, which is based on the fear of Yahweh, will reap the reward of “precious and pleasant wealth.” Wealth is not bad or something to feel guilty about possessing. It is good and a reward for living a good life. It was, of course, one’s duty to honor God with one’s wealth (Prov 3:9). But the fact that the author can write this remarkable statement means that wealth was not conceived of as an evil thing, not as “unrighteous mammon.” Far from a negative, wealth was a sign of God’s blessing which could bring honor to him. On the other hand, poverty was not desirable or especially noble, but instead, brought with it disgrace and even mockery, much as it did among the Greeks and Romans (Prov 14:20, 18:23, 19:4). 278 Yet, the wise person must understand that riches are of no help on the “day of wrath” (Prov 11:4), that is, the day of one’s death; 279 only righteousness helps on that day. Thus, one should not trust in riches.

As J. D. G. Dunn opines, these verses from Proverbs about poverty probably “reflect the common wisdom of the time.” See Jesus Remembered, 518. 278

Cf. R. N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 63. 279 See A. Cohen, Proverbs (London: Soncino, 1946) 66.

98

JESUS THE GALILEAN

But the prophets of the eighth century BCE had another point of view on the subject. Their concern was to protect the poor from the avarice and violence of the unrighteous rich. Isaiah declared: The LORD will come into judgment Against the elders of his people and against his princes; You have consumed the vineyards, The plunder of the poor is in your houses. What is wrong with you that you crush my people, And that you grind down the faces of the poor! (Isaiah 3:14–15a; cf. Isa 5:8, 10:1–2, 58:7; Amos 2:6–7, 4:1, 5:11–12, 8:4–6)

Here wealth is not so honorable a thing but can be the marker of great evil. It can lead the unrighteous person to act sinfully toward those who are weak. Gone are the terms such as “precious wealth” and “honor God with your wealth.” Now, the problem is that far too often those with wealth do not honor God but rather oppress the poor whom Yahweh especially wants to protect. There is no mention of the wealthy as especially favored by God; rather, they come under judgment. The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Rabbinic Literature The evaluation of wealth in second temple Judaism was similar to that expressed in the Hebrew Bible. The wisdom teacher, Ben Sirach (180 BCE), thought that wealth was a good thing (It brings honor, 10:30–31) and poverty was a wretched plight (13:19b, 21b, 23). He advised his students on how to obtain and retain wealth (7:15, 25:3, 31:3). If you were rich, he urged you to enjoy your money while you could. You cannot take it with you: My child, if you should have (possessions), do well by yourself . . . Do not withhold from yourself a good day, and do not let a share of good desires pass by you . . . Give, take, and enjoy yourself, for it is not possible to seek enjoyment in Hades. (14:11, 14, 16)

But, like the wisdom books of the Hebrew Bible, Ben Sirach had no use for wealth dishonestly gained (“Do not strive for unrighteous possessions,” 5:8; cf. 13:24) or for persons who pursue it to excess (18:30–19:3). R. H. Pfeiffer explains: “Riches are presented as a good servant, able to accomplish much good, but as a bad master, crushing the noblest impulses of the human spirit.” 280 280 R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times With an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper, 1949) 391. On Ben Sirach’s views of wealth,

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

99

The rabbis’ view on poverty and wealth was very much like that of Ben Sirach. They had no admiration for poverty. Poverty was considered a grievous state: It is more burdensome than fifty plagues (b. BB 116); it is worse than chastisements (Exodus Rabbah 31.12); and, it is one of three things (along with Gentiles and evil spirits) that drive a person out of his mind (b. Eruvim 41b; cf. Qohelet Rabbah 7). On the other hand, wealth is one of three things most desirable in the world (along with strength and wisdom; Numbers Rabbah 22.7). The m. Avoth (2:17) urges: “Let the money (mamon) of your fellow be as precious to you as your own.” Thus, money or mamon was considered a precious (habib) thing. At least one Talmudic text makes a remarkable claim: “The Holy One, blessed be He, causes His divine Presence to rest only upon him who is strong, wealthy, wise and meek” (b. Nedarim 38a). 281 This text then proceeds to explain that all the prophets were wealthy. We are entitled to enjoy our financial successes, maintained the rabbis, but to indulge in excess would be wrong. Thus, they advise to pray that, if wealth would corrupt its possessor, God should not grant it, but if the possessor can handle it, may God give it (Exodus Rabbah 31.5). 282 One should share with the poor, but there are limits to giving alms. The rabbis of Usha (second century CE) decreed that one should not give away more than 20%, else the giver might be in need of alms himself (b. Ketuvoth 50a). Some rabbinic texts forbid one’s giving away all property: (m. Arakin 8:4; b. Ketuvoth 50a; and t. Peah 4:18). 283 In general, to give see also the excellent essay by A. Cronbach, “The Social Ideals of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” HUCA 18 (1944) 119–156. 281

Translation is from I. Epstein, ed., The Talmud (London: Soncino, 1936) 119. The note on this text suggests that perhaps this statement was intentionally opposing the New Testament which implies that poverty is a virtue. 282 See C. G. Montefiore and R. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Schocken, 1974) 445; A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1949) 68, 231; M. Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 20f; H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruehchristlicher Radikalismus (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1957) I, 10. 283 There are several late rabbinic stories about people divesting themselves of property in order to become a proselyte or simply to help the poor. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I, 52 for the following three narratives: a) One late story tells of a (complete?) divestiture in order to study Torah. Rabbi Yohanan (died 279 CE) is alleged to have sold a field, an olive orchard, and a vineyard in order to have the money to study Torah (Pisiqta

100

JESUS THE GALILEAN

away one’s land was a betrayal of family and heritage and was punished by village sanctions (Sifra, Behar 5; j. Ketuvot 2.10 ). 284 And yet, the prophetic tradition about wealth also finds its representatives in second temple Judaism. Section 5 of 1 Enoch, which dates from the second century BCE, offers several harsh criticisms of wealthy people who are virtually identical to “sinners” because, as in the eighth century BCE, they oppress the poor: Those who amass gold and silver; they shall quickly be destroyed. Woe unto you, O rich people! For you have put your trust in your wealth. You shall ooze out of your riches, for you do not remember the Most High. In the days of your affluence, you committed oppression, you have become ready for death, and for the day of darkness and the day of great judgment. (94:7b–9) Woe to you, you sinners! For your money makes you appear like the righteous, but your hearts do reprimand you like real sinners, this very matter shall be a witness against you, as a record of your evil deeds. Woe unto you who eat the best bread! And drink wine in large bowls, 178b; Leviticus Rabbah 30.1; Midrash Song of Songs 8:7; but Exodus Rabbah 47.5 mentions only the vineyard). b) One late rabbinic text tells about a man who had two sons. One of them gave to the poor and the other did not. The first one sold his house and all he had and gave it away as alms. The text then goes into a legendary tale of this man’s happy adventures during the feast of Succoth (LevR 37.2). c) Rabba ben Abuha (died 270 CE) once told those who came to him to become proselytes: “Go, sell all you have and then become proselytes” (b. AZ 64a). In this context, however, the potential proselytes were turning their idols into money before conversion so that after conversion the money could be used both by them and by other Jews. This is not a command to divest one of one’s property. Compare the similar injunction in 62b given to a Jew who earned payment in wheat for carrying heathen wine in his ship: “Go, burn and bury (the wheat) in the graveyard” (trans. in Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud). 284 G. Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) I, 154f; D. A. Fiensy, Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 7–8. For the rabbis’ valuation of wealth instead of poverty, see H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruechristlicher Radikalismus, I, 10; II, 77, n. 1.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

101

trampling upon the weak people with your might. (96:4–5; see also 97:8–10, 102:9) 285

Like the prophets Isaiah and Amos, the author of these words has nothing praiseworthy to say about rich people or riches. Rich people are sinners, oppressors and dishonest. Riches are ephemeral and unsubstantial. To enjoy wealth seems foolish, even evil. For the most part, then, second temple Judaism accepted the theological heritage from the Hebrew Bible that is present in the wisdom books, the former prophets and in the Chronicles. According to this view, wealth is a good thing; it is a sign of God’s blessing, and it is a reward for hard work and a good life. But, passages from the fifth section of 1 Enoch, quoted above, find their inspiration in the eighth century prophets, Isaiah and Amos, who railed at the rich because of their oppression of the poor. Yet, the most thorough critique of wealth in the second temple period comes from the Essenes. The Dead Sea Scrolls The so-called classical sources on the Essenes 286 include the two Jewish authors, Josephus and Philo, and the Roman author, Pliny the Elder—all first century CE writers. The Essenes, according to these sources, surrendered their possessions when they joined the community. Josephus and Philo say that the new members surrendered their property to the order for it to be shared by all the other members (Josephus, War 2.122; Philo, Quod omnis probus 85–87; Hypothetica 11.4,10,12). Philo wrote that the Essenes lived without (personal) wealth and property (Quod omnis probus 77). Pliny noted that the Essenes were “without money” (Natural History 5.73). No one owned a house, field, or animal of his own but considered the houses they lived in and the fields they farmed, in short, everything, the common 285

Translation is in E. Isaacs, “1 Enoch” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., OTP, I, 75,

77. 286

On the Essenes, see E. Schuerer, G. Vermes, and F. Millar, and M. Black, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II, 555–574; T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); J. J. Collins, “Essenes” in ABD; and M. Smith, “Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophoumena” HUCA 29 (1958) 273–313. For a convenient collection of the classical sources on the Essenes, see G. Vermes and M. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989).

102

JESUS THE GALILEAN

property of all sect members. Those who were craftsmen surrendered their wages to the community. Even their clothing was shared. Further, Philo wrote that the Essenes were “not lovers of money” (Philo, Quod omnis probus 84). Josephus represents them as “contemptuous of wealth” (War 2.122). Thus, according to Josephus, they not only had no personal wealth (albeit their community might have had a great deal of wealth!), but they regarded it with disdain. When reading Josephus and Philo, however, one must always ask to what extent have they Hellenized or popularized their description of Judaism (or a sect within Judaism) so that it seems more admirable to the Greco-Roman culture. Since there was a tradition of Greek and Roman philosophers who despised wealth, it is possible that these authors, who wrote for the Greek speaking world, have shaded the Essene ideology in that direction. 287 We thus must turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls for a more nuanced view of the Essene theology of wealth. Negative Statements about Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls The sectarian texts found at Qumran also present a negative view of wealth. These texts are the Community Rule, the Damascus Document, the Thanksgiving Scroll, and the Habakkuk Commentary (or Pesher); all of which have been known and analyzed for over fifty years. Some of the newly published texts, such as Sapiential Text A, also speak about poverty and wealth but are not clearly sectarian (i.e., texts regulating Essene community life). As T. S. Beall has observed, almost half of the occurrences of the Hebrew word  (wealth) in these documents are in negative contexts. 288 One must keep apart from wealth and give it up (1QS 5:2; 1:11–12). It is called the “wealth of violence,” and only sinners seek it (1QS 10:19; 11:2). Wealth is one of a trilogy of evils by which Belial ensnares Israel (CD 4:17). It is often referred to as “wicked wealth” (CD 6:15; 8:5). 289 It is coupled with words such as unjust gain and bribery as if it were almost a synonym: 287

See Murphy, Wealth, 409, 426; and D. Mendels, “Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes” HTR 72 (1979) 207–222. 288 Beall, Josephus’ Description, 140, n. 47. Beall’s data was based on the older concordance of K. G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) which did not survey the more recently published Qumran texts. But, since most of the occurrences of hon in sectarian texts were already known and listed in Kuhn, the data is still valid. 289 See H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruechristlicher Rakikalismus I, 35, 121.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

103

Wealth and unjust gain ( betsa’): “And you did not put my support on unjust gain and wealth . . . the soul of your servant detests wealth and unjust gain.” 290 “(The Instructor) will have eternal hatred for the men of the pit in a hidden spirit to leave (them) to wealth and unjust gain.”291 Wealth and bribery: “(The poet) does not lie or give false judgments to get wealth or a bribe.” 292 The wealth of unrighteousness: “(Those in the covenant are supposed) to separate from the sons of the pit and to sacredly separate from the wealth of unrighteousness.” 293

These are very negative evaluations of wealth. One could conclude that wealth is something for the degenerate persons, the “sons of the pit,” but not for the covenant keepers. Wealth is what those outside the covenant lust for and pursue, but what those in the covenant community avoid: (I will) teach those who stray from understanding, instruct the murmurers, return meekness to the arrogant and return a contrite spirit to the men of the staff who stick out their finger, speak evil and are zealous for wealth. 294 290 1QHa 18:22, 29–30 (Sukenik column 10). See also CD 8:7, 10:18, 11:15 (parallel texts: 4QDe 6.v.18–19 and 4QDf 5.i.10), 12:7, 19:19; 1QpHab 9:5 and 11QT 57:9. All translations from the Qumran scrolls are from the Hebrew text of F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997). For a convenient collection of parallel texts and translations, see C. M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community, 457–512. 291 4QSd 8:5–6. The parallel text from 1QS 9:22 has only “wealth” here with no reference to “unjust gain.” See P. S. Alexander and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 119, who note that perhaps 4QSb may also have read “wealth and unjust gain.” The authors add: “Its addition (i.e., unjust gain) underscores the text’s negative attitude towards wealth.” 292 1QHa 6:20 (Sukenik col. 14). 293 CD 6:15. See also CD 8:5 (partial parallel text 4QDd 6:1–2) and Luke 16:9, 11. Does the expression “wealth of unrighteousness” mean the wealth of men of unrighteousness (D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 158) or does it mean that riches may lead to iniquity (Beall, Josephus’ Description, 141, n. 48)? Cf. the expression “wealth of violence” in 1QS 10:19. 294 1QS 11:1–2. Cf. 1QS 10:19; CD 8:5,7, 4Q 183 col. 2. The word translated “staff” mth ( ) I have read as mateh. Murphy, Wealth, 512 translates “yoke”; Beall, Josephus’ Description, 43 translates “stick.” But G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997) 114 translates the word “injustice” evidently reading it as muteh “bending.” Martinez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls

104

JESUS THE GALILEAN

The “men of the staff” are evil oppressors who use the staff for violence. It is such persons who pursue wealth. But the teacher will both teach against this behavior and respond with meekness and gentleness to these oppressors. The pesher (commentary) on the prophet Habakkuk interprets Habakkuk 2:5 (“Wealth will act treacherously with the proud man.”) to refer to the Wicked Priest (the arch enemy of the Essenes) who betrayed the statutes of God to get wealth and acquired the wealth of the men of violence. Thus, the Wicked Priest, motivated by greed, left his commitments to the law of God behind him and engaged in amassing wealth. He is the archetypically evil ruler corrupted by money. 295 Furthermore, the pesher interpreted Habakkuk 2:17 (“The violence to Lebanon will cover you; destruction will take away the beasts; the blood of humankind and all the violence of the land on the town and all who live in it”) to refer to the Wicked Priest and his action. “Lebanon” is the council of the Qumran community, explains the pesher, and the “beasts” are the simple folk of Judah. The “town” is Jerusalem and the “violence of the land” refers to the towns of Judah where the Wicked Priest robbed the wealth of the poor ones. He has plotted to destroy the poor. Thus, again the Wicked Priest has attacked and nearly destroyed “the poor,” who are probably the Essenes, all for money. 296 Wealth is something evil people want and acquire by violence.

Study Edition, I, 97 translate “bending (of the law).” J. H. Charlesworth, The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1994) 47 translates the word “oppression.” Likewise I understand the word mqni to be from qana’ () “Be zealous” as do Martinez and Tigchelaar, I, 97; Vermes, 114; and M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) 142. But Murphy, 512; Bealle, 43; and E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran (Muenchen: Koesel, 1971) 41 understand the Hebrew root to be qanah () “acquire.” 295 1QpHab 8:3–11. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible reads at Hab 2:5 “wine” hay-yayin not “wealth” hon. W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 132 suggested that the original word of Hab 2:5 was hawwan or hayyan “presumptuous.” 296 1QpHab 12:1–10. Cf. 1QpHab 9:5 where Hab 2:8a is made to refer to the last priests of Jerusalem who will gather wealth by plundering the people.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

105

Figure 11 Qumran Cave 4 (Photo by the author)

In the Habakkuk commentary, not only is the Wicked Priest greedy and violent but wealth is also especially what the “Kittim,” that is, the Gentiles, pursue. The Kittim gather wealth from plunder (1QpHab 6:1). Further, all the wealth gathered by the priests by plundering and robbing the people will in the last days be given to the even greater band of thieves: the Kittim (9:5–6). Thus, if possessions are known by the company they keep, wealth is a grubby thing to own. It appeals to the baser instincts and is lusted after by very unsavory characters. Regulation of Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls But wealth (hon) is not always used in a negative way in the Qumran sectarian scrolls. Sometimes, it is only a neutral word for “possessions.” Yet, even in these cases there is a hyper-concern for the way wealth is handled. It must be regulated, separated, and carefully overseen. It should not be mixed with the wealth of the community too soon, but, at the right time, mixed completely. It attains a kind of purity status within the community while the wealth of outsiders is tainted. The opening lines of the Community Rule set the tone for the proper use of wealth: All the volunteers for his truth will bring all their knowledge and their strength and their wealth into the community of God to purify their knowledge by the truth of God’s statutes, to regulate their strength ac-

106

JESUS THE GALILEAN cording to his perfect ways and (to regulate) their wealth according to his righteous counsel. 297

These instructions stand at the beginning of the Rule as the basic and indispensable principles of conduct for those in the covenant. New members of the Essene community must re-orient their thinking and lifestyle so that their “knowledge,” that is their theological beliefs, are in line with the community’s. They must regulate their strength, that is, order their daily activities, so that their capacities are given to God. Finally, they must regulate their wealth, that is, handle it in a carefully controlled way. We will see below how the last requirement was met. It has become common to understand the passage from the Rule as an interpretation and application of Deuteronomy 6:4–5, the shema’: “Hear O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one. And you will love the LORD your God with all your heart (lev) with all your soul (or life; nephesh) and with all your strength (me ‘od).” 298

Thus, according to this interpretation, the “heart,” in Deuteronomy means “knowledge” in the text of the Community Rule quoted above. The “soul or life,” in Deuteronomy, means “strength” in the Community Rule; and the “strength,” in Deuteronomy (), means “wealth” in the Community Rule. Catherine Murphy cites several rabbinic texts that interpret the “strength” of Deuteronomy 6:5 to mean “wealth” (especially m. Berakot 9:6). 299 This identification does then seem possible although the rabbinic texts cited are several hundred years later than the Community Rule. If this was what the Qumran sectarians meant to say, then they were understanding the shema’, the creed of Judaism recited twice daily in the temple and by pious Jews, as including proper handling of wealth. One loves God only if one’s wealth is correctly administered and used. The “regulation” of wealth is one of the three principle duties of those loyal to the covenant of God. The Damascus Document has a somewhat parallel passage that lists the important items to be examined in an initiate’s life. The overseer (or 297 1QS 1:11–13. I understand the verb  (tkn) “regulate” with both “strength” and “wealth.” 298 See Z. Safrai and H. Eshel, “Economic Life” in L. Schiffman and J. VanderKam, eds., EDSS, I, 228–233; VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 348; and especially Murphy, Wealth, 120–123. 299 Murphy, Wealth, 122. She also cites the three targums of Onkelos, PseudoJonathan, and Neofiti on Deut 6:5. All translate the Hebrew word  (me ‘od) with an Aramaic term meaning money (mamon  ) or property (ncs ).

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

107

mevaqqer) of the community must examine these new members to insure that they have made the proper changes in lifestyle and thinking: “And everyone being added to (the overseer’s) congregation he will examine with respect to his works, his understanding, his capacity, his strength and his wealth.” 300 Thus, the Damascus Document has almost the same (though somewhat expanded) list of character requirements as the Community Rule and proper handling of wealth is on the list. How must the new Essene members regulate their wealth? First, they must give it up to the community: Let (the novice) not approach the drink of the many until the completion to him of two years in the midst of the men of the community. And upon the completion of his second year, they will examine him according to the many. If it is his lot to join the community, they will register him in the order of his rank in the midst of his brothers for Torah, for judgment, for purity and for mingling his wealth (with the rest of the community). 301

The new members were supposed to “mingle” their property with that of the community. This requirement is exactly what Josephus and Philo reported that the Essenes did. But before the novice had been fully accepted, his wealth could not be mingled. The Community Rule indicates that a member’s property was accepted into a communal system in stages. After the first probationary period of one year, the recruit’s property and income were recorded but not yet mixed with the rest of the community. After the second probationary period, if the novice became a full member, his property was now included with that of the other members. There was a purity to the community property that could be tainted by mixing with the wealth of outsiders, and, therefore, the community wealth had to be safeguarded. 302 Other passages in the Community Rule confirm the communal nature of property. 303 The Rule states elsewhere that the members have volun300

CD 13:11 with partial parallel in 4QDb 9 iv 6–9. 1QS 6:20–22 with partial parallel in 4QSb 11:12–13 302 See 1QS 1:11–13 and 1QpHab 12:9–10. Has an ostracon indicating a deed of property to the Qumran community been found? The interpretation is debated. See F. M. Cross and E. Eshel, “The Missing Link” BAR 24/2 (1998) 48–53, 69; and A. Yardeni, “Breaking the Missing Link” BAR 24/3 (1998) 44–47. 303 T. Beall, “Essenes” in Schiffman and Vanderkam, eds., EDSS, I, 262–269 (esp. 265) observes that hundreds of coins were found at Qumran in the admini301

108

JESUS THE GALILEAN

teered to separate from the men of evil and to become a “community in Torah and in wealth.” 304 They have then voluntarily promised to unite in their understanding of Torah (common interpretation) and in their use of wealth (common fund used by all). The Damascus Document presents a different picture. It indicates that the sectarians maintained private ownership of property. Mention of making donations, as well as references to business dealings among the members and references to taxing the income of the members, assume private ownership. 305 Thus the Damascus Document implies that the members kept their property, but had to make donations to the community; yet the Community Rule demands that members give up their property to the community. How do scholars reconcile the two different descriptions of Essene community life? Some maintain that there always existed, side by side, two forms of the Essene community. One was communal, and the other allowed for ownership of private property. One can even find, in modern Israel, these same two models in the qibbutz and the moshav, which are communal and non-communal settlements respectively. 306 Others suggest that the Community Rule is the older tradition and that later the Damascus Document loosened up the restrictions on property ownership. As time goes on, strict requirements tend to lessen. 307 Still others opine that the stration building but none in the “living quarters” (presumably he means the caves). This discrepancy, argues Beall, indicates communal economic living conditions. 304 1QS 5:2. The parallel text in 4QSd 1:2–3 repeats the requirement of unity in matters of Torah and wealth. First, in line 2, the document has the same statement as 1QS. Then, in line 3, it states that the members will agree with the “Many” or the consensus in matters of Torah and wealth. 305 See CD 16:14–15, 16; 12:8–11; 13:14–16; 14:12–16 and L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 106–110. Schiffman points out that even in the case of the Community Rule it is not clear that the sectarians practiced complete communalism since they seem to have been allowed to possess their own food (1QS 6:24– 25). C. Hempel, “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 74 suggests that the Rule incorporates remnants of legislation from various periods, a conclusion with which many would agree. 306 See J. G. Greehy, “Community of Goods: Qumran and Acts” Irish Theological Quarterly 32 (1965) 230–240. 307 D. L. Mealand, “Community of Goods at Qumran” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975) 129–139.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

109

produce of the property was that which was shared communally and never the immovable property itself. If one understands ownership in the ancient sense, then the apparent discrepancy disappears. 308 Whatever the correct explanation may be, the Community Rule regarded giving up one’s property as a requirement to live consistently with the commandment to love God with all one’s strength. The Damascus Document does not disagree that one must properly handle wealth but does not require giving up all personal property to the community. Second, wealth must be regulated by adhering to the community’s rules. There is a punishment for those who lie about wealth and also for those who use the community’s money fraudulently. 309 In addition, one should not conduct business on the Sabbath to obtain wealth; one should certainly not shed the blood of the Gentiles in order to acquire wealth; and one should make charitable donations (two days wages per month). 310 In matters of wealth, the community hierarchy decides. The “sons of Aaron” (or priests), according to the Community Rule, make the monetary decisions and the men of the community agree on it. 311 According to the Damascus Document, the mevaqqer and the judges handle the money. 312 Thus, money must be regulated. It is suspect. Even full members may act fraudulently, lie about it, and incur punishment. Third, the wealth of the community must be kept separate from the wealth of outsiders: “All who spurn his word he will annihilate from the world. All their deeds are like menstrual blood in his eyes and all their wealth is unclean.” 313 The wealth of the Essene community had a pure status and should not be tainted by contact with the wealth of outsiders. Members of the community should not unite with non-members with re308 For the suggestion that the surrender of wealth had to do only with giving up the produce of the land and not the land itself, see Murphy, Wealth, 157, 454. 309 1QS 6:25, 7:6–7 (cf. CD 14:20–21). 310 CD 10:18, 11:15 (parallel texts in 4QDe 6.v.19 and 4QDf 5.i.10), 12:7, 14:12–16 (parallel text in 4QDa 10.i.5–9). 311 1QS 9:8, 5:2. 312 CD 14:12–16 (parallel text in 4QDa 10.i.5–9). The mevaqqer () supervised the charity works. According to Schiffman (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 121) he may have inherited the leadership position from the founder of the sect, the Teacher of Righteousness. The word means “inquiring one” or “considering one.” The term “overseer” seems a good translation. See Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 73. 313 1QS 5:19–20 with partial parallels in 4QSd 1:9–12 and 4QSb 9:10–13.

110

JESUS THE GALILEAN

spect to their service and their wealth. They also should not give their wealth to non-members. Nor should they “mix” their wealth with apostates (those who were once community members but have left the community). 314 Community wealth must not be profaned by giving it to unclean persons or by mixing it with the wealth of unclean persons. These were the ways that the Essenes loved God by regulating their wealth: by giving it up, by adhering to the community’s rules and by not mixing the pure wealth of the community with the impure wealth of outsiders. But, we should be clear on the main point: One cannot love God as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:5 unless one “regulates” his wealth. Regulating wealth is an implicit commandment, embedded in the code language of the shema’. It is one of the three main principles that mark off a true person of the covenant. The Poor The Essene covenanters, that produced the sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, identified with the poor of the Bible. In the Hebrew scriptures, the poor ones are those who are so destitute that they have only God as their defender (Psalm 35:10, 40:17 [Heb. 18], 68:10, 72:13, 74:21, 109:16, 22). The poor (‘evyon) and needy (‘ani) 315 persons in these Psalms are groups (sometimes Israel as a whole) or individuals (often the psalmist himself) who have been afflicted but have received deliverance from the Lord. Sometimes, the poverty is literal, and, sometimes, it is only metaphorical— meaning a time of trouble. The Qumran sectarians saw themselves in the same way, especially in the beginning of their history. Their commentary on the Psalms explains Psalm 37:11 (“And the needy ones ‘anavim will possess the land and they will take delight in the abundance of peace.”):

314

1QS 3:2 (parallel text: 4QpapSc 3:3), 5:2–3 (parallel text: 4QSd 1:2), 5:13, 5:18–23 (partial parallel texts: 4QSd 1:9–12, 4QSb 9:10–13), 6:13–25, 7:25, 8:21–25, 9:8–10 (partial parallel text: 4QSd 7:6–9); and 4QDa frag. 11, line 5. 315 See Cronbach, “Social Ideals,” 128; and especially J. D. Pleins, “Poor, Poverty” in D. N. Freedman, ed., ABD, V, 402–414. Pleins translates ‘evyon ( ) “beggarly poor . . . destitute” and ‘ani ( ) “economically poor, oppressed, exploited.” D. P. Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament, 1982) 26–27 lists three uses of the words ‘evyon and ‘ani: socially deprived (literally poor), persecuted (metaphorically poor), and as referring to the nation of Israel.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

111

Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor ones (‘evyonim) who will receive the season of humiliation and will be delivered from all the traps of Belial and afterward the possessors of the land will take delight and become fat in every enjoyment of the flesh.316

The interpreter in this pesher, or commentary, found the meaning of the “needy” in Psalm 37:11 in his own Essene community, which he called “the congregation of the poor ones.” These poor ones have gone through difficult times but are now prospering. The psalm seems to the interpreter to reflect the history of the sect.

Figure 12 Qumran Ruins: The “Scriptorium” (Photo by the author)

The same history is reflected in the Habakkuk pesher. There, the Wicked Priest has tried to destroy the “poor” and has plundered the wealth of the “poor” (1QpHab 12:3, 6, 10). Evidently, in the beginning of its history, the sect—possibly because of persecution—was in serious economic jeopardy. This economic duress led the sectarians to view themselves as poor—both literally, but also in the spiritual sense: the oppressed ones helped only by God. This identification has eschatological or end-time results. In the War Scroll, it says that, at the final battle, God will deliver the enemies into the hands of the poor (1QM 11:13) and that God’s hand of strength is with the poor in battle (1QM 13:14). The War Scroll describes the end-time battle in which the sons of light (the Essenes) will destroy the 316

4Q171.

112

JESUS THE GALILEAN

sons of darkness by the miraculous power of God. The text casts the battle also as a struggle between the enemies and the “poor ones” who rely totally on God’s deliverance. Since the sect struggled at first both economically and under persecution, the poet(s) of the Thanksgiving Scroll often referred to himself (or themselves) as a “poor one” or a “needy one.” In one hymn from this text, the poet writes that God closed the lions’ mouths so that (his enemies) would not tear apart the soul of “a needy one” (i.e., the poet himself). A little later in the same hymn he writes: “God has delivered the soul of a poor person like . . . prey from the strength of lions.” 317 Thus, this hymn and others 318 indicate that the poet(s) saw himself (or themselves) as personally under attack, which could only be thwarted by God’s intervention. Not only the Essene community, but this poet (perhaps the leader of the community) was “poor.” Finally, the text, called barki naphshi (4Q434), begins with a very interesting statement: Bless the Lord my soul because of all his wonders forever. Blessed be his name because he has delivered the soul of a poor one and a needy one he did not despise. Nor did he forget about the affliction of the weak ones.

This text could be simply a general praise of God in imitation of the psalms. But, the later verses of the hymn again suggest the history of the sect since they tell a story similar to that found in both the Psalm and Habakkuk commentaries. If the text is about the community and its history, then the writer praises God, who has not forgotten his poor and needy Essenes in their troubled history. Thus, although we should not conclude that the term “poor” (‘evyon) was a technical self-designation of the Essenes, 319 they did identify with the poor and afflicted persons of the Hebrew Bible whose only recourse was God. They had been, at least initially, literally poor. 320 But they were also

317

1QHa 13:14, 18; Sukenik col. 5. 1QHa 10:32 (Sukenik col 2); 11:25 (Sukenik col. 3). 319 As L. Keck wisely advises. See “The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran” ZNW 57 (1966) 54–78. 320 But after a period of struggle, the community seems to have prospered. This is not only evident from the reference in the Psalms pesher quoted above but also in the archaeological remains. Z. Safrai and H. Eshel conclude that the stan318

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

113

persecuted and afflicted and, in that sense, poor and needy. Just as God is the defender of the weak and oppressed in Israelite history, the Essenes believed that God had defended and preserved their community and its leaders. 321 Such an experience can tend to make a community even more hostile toward the rich and the lust for wealth. They were the poor ones, and their enemies were the greedy rich. The Essene feeling toward wealth, at best, was one of suspicion and, at worst, was disgust. Wealth was, to them, something that evil people lusted after; it was, in their thinking, associated with unjust gain and sometimes called the “wealth of unrighteousness.” Even when they used the term in a neutral way to mean simply “possessions,” they wrote numerous regulations to control the handling of it. Clearly, the community has experienced a traumatic period in which the members and especially its leaders were attacked by wicked people who desired wealth. They are God’s poor ones who depended on his protection and received it. The poor ones are persons of faith and persons who keep the covenant.

RENUNCIATION IN JESUS’ TEACHING AND PRACTICE The above survey brings us to our main question: What was Jesus’ teaching about wealth? The following study will survey Jesus’ teachings, both explicit and implicit (i.e., through the behavior of his disciples), on possessions and the renunciation of possessions. We will then compare with the studies done above on Cynicism and the Essenes. We will not maintain that Jesus was directly influenced by either Greco-Roman Cynic philosophy 322 or by the Essenes. 323 We expressed dard of living at Qumran eventually became quite high. See “Economic Life” in Schiffman and VanderKam, eds., EDSS, I, 228–233 321 The Psalms of Solomon (a pseudepigraphical book from the first century BCE) also express this concept of the poor ones being helped by God. See Psalms of Solomon 5:2, 15:2, and 16:13–15; and Cronbach, “Social Ideals,” 128; Seccombe, Possessions, 28. 322 The suggestion that Jesus was influenced by Cynicism draws heavy fire today. We can list only a few of the titles here. Those supporting the thesis are: R. W. Funk, Honest to Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1996) 197–200; Crossan, Historical Jesus; B. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 69–74; G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins; idem., Christ and the Cynics (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988); L. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers According to Q (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1994); D. Seeley, “Jesus and the Cynics Revisited” JBL 116 (1997) 704–712. Those opposed to the thesis are: R. A.

114

JESUS THE GALILEAN

doubt, in the previous chapter, that Lower Galilee was so Hellenized that there were Cynic philosophers running around, though there were some rather famous ones in Gadara about 39 kilometers (24 miles) from Nazareth. 324 It is, of course, possible that there were Essenes settled in some of the villages of Galilee. But in the first place, it is very difficult to prove direct influence. One needs a sequence of close parallels to establish such a thing. To point to a Horsley, Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee, 59, 177–178; H. D. Betz, “Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis” Journal of Religion 74 (1994) 453–475; P. R. Eddy, “Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis” JBL 115 (1996) 449–469; G. A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridge Point, 1995); B. Witherington, III, The Jesus Quest (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1995) 58–92; and D. E. Aune, “Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 176–192. 323 Those affirming that Jesus was influenced by the Essenes at least regarding their views of wealth are: Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 153, 169, 196; J. H. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus” in Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 18, 38; idem., Jesus within Judaism, 59–61; M. Broshi, Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 253, 258; idem., “What Jesus Learned From the Essenes” BAR 30/1 (2004) 32; H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruechristlicher Rakikalismus, II, 73. But J. Murphy-O’Connor, who also notes a close comparison between the attitudes of Jesus and the Essenes on wealth, rejects direct dependence as do F. G. Martinez and J. T. Barrera. See for O’Connor, “Qumran and the New Testament” in E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, eds., The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) 58; for Martinez and Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1993) 207. 324 Gadara, one of the Decapolis cities only a few miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee (see Map 1.1), had two or three notable Cynics over the course of three hundred years. Menippus (third century BCE), Philodemus (first century BCE), and Oenomaus (second century CE) were philosophers while Meleager (first century BCE) was a poet with “Cynic sympathies.” See D. Aune, in Charlesworth, ed., Hillel and Jesus, 188; and B. Mack, The Lost Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanfrancisco, 1993) 58. Further, the rabbis of Palestine were well aware of the Gadarene Cynics and even apparently regarded one of them, Oenomaus, as a great thinker. See M. Luz, “A Description of the Greek Cynic in the Jerusalem Talmud” Journal for the Study of Judaism 20 (1989) 49–60; idem., “Oenomaus and Talmudic Anecdote” Journal for the Study of Judaism 23 (1992) 42–80; D. Sperber, “Oenomaus of Gadara” Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1996); H. A. Fischel, “Cynics and Cynicism” Encyclopedia Judaica. See also articles in OCD for each of these philosophers.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

115

similar lifestyle habit, such as wandering, and therefore conclude that Jesus was consciously imitating the Cynics will not do. More precisely, one could note that both the Cynics and Jesus merely imitated the life of beggars. Thus, there may have been no contact or influence at all. Likewise, pointing out that it was unusual in the ancient Jewish culture to denigrate wealth, except among the Essenes, and, thus, concluding that Jesus must have received the idea from them is inadequate. Similarity does not demonstrate influence. Where did the Essenes get the idea? Perhaps both Jesus and the Essenes found this idea in the Hebrew Bible. The fact is that people think of unusual ideas regularly. Second, ideas disseminate widely over time until it is impossible to say from where they have come. Therefore, indirect influence from the Cynics or Essenes is always possible and even likely in the case of Jesus, a first century Mediterranean person. Perhaps, at some point in the chain of ideas, the Cynics—or especially the Essenes—had a part in the concepts concerning wealth that Jesus later developed, but to affirm such a role is to affirm almost nothing significant. Rather, we will use the above survey as two fixed points from which to fix a third: Jesus’ view. Like a surveyor or an astronomer who uses triangulation to pinpoint a location, we will attempt to place Jesus’ views within a triangle of ideology. Often, the best way to understand someone’s views is to contrast them with someone else’s views. Call Stories The stories of Jesus calling disciples often end with the affirmation that they left everything to follow him: In Mark 1:16–18, Jesus encounters Peter and Andrew fishing by the sea of Galilee. He invites them to follow him, “and immediately they left their nets and followed him.” In the next scene in Mark (1:19–20), Jesus met James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and issued the same invitation: “And leaving their father, Zebedee, in the boat along with the hired men, they went after him.” Thus, both Peter and Andrew and James and John left their fishing business (and in the latter case even their father) and followed Jesus. 325 325

J. Meier (A Marginal Jew, III, 517) makes much of the fact that later in Mark (1:29–31) Peter still has a house and even a mother-in-law. Obviously, reasons Meier, Peter did not leave everything to follow Jesus. But we must be cautious in such conclusions. Meier assumes that Mark has placed the events in chronological

116

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Levi the tax collector was also called while he was sitting at his tax table and “rising up (from the table), he followed (Jesus)” (Mark 2:14). 326 Finally, we have, in Mark, the story of the rich man quoted earlier in this chapter (Mk 19:17–22). Jesus told the rich man to sell all that he had, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow him. Thus, in Mark’s Gospel, calling disciples is accompanied by their leaving everything behind. Further, in the double tradition commonly called Q, 327 we find much the same thing. In Luke 9:59–60 (=Matt 8:21–22), Jesus issues an invitation to discipleship and receives the reply: “Permit me to go first to bury my order. Such as assumption may not be warranted. Second, we should think it unlikely that Jesus could call total strangers to discipleship and that they would leave everything and follow him. There must have been an association for some time before the calling. Thus, the story of Peter’s mother-in-law seems more reasonably to belong to the pre-calling period. Third, the story is placed where it is in Mark’s Gospel because it is a miracle story and fits with other miracle stories narrated in this section. 326 Mark seems to place Jesus in the house of Levi, after he has been called, similar to the case of Peter above. The reference to “his house” in Mark 2:15 could conceivably refer to the house of either Jesus or Levi. Matt 9:20, the parallel, is equally ambiguous: “the house.” Luke (5:29) clearly understood the house to be Levi’s. V. Taylor (The Gospel According to St. Mark, 204) observed that most commentators “understand the meaning to be that Levi held a feast in his (own) house.” Among older commentators the conclusion is mixed. E. P. Gould (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark [Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1896] 41) argued on a grammatical basis that the two personal pronouns (DXWRQ . . . DXWRX) probably refer to the same person. Thus the house was Jesus’ house. On the other hand, A. B. Bruce, (“Synoptic Gospels” Expositors Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, 1897] 352) gave the following three arguments for the house belonging to Levi: First, there is no indication in the story that they have returned to Capernaum (where Jesus was staying initially). Second, if Mark had meant the house of Jesus by “his house,” he would have used the name of Jesus instead of the genitive of the pronoun (“his”). Third, the house would have to have been large enough to accommodate a large number of people. Levi a rich man would have had such a house but would Jesus have owned one that large? One might add to these arguments that, even if Mark intended to indicate that this was Jesus’ house, he probably meant Peter’s house since he places Jesus in Peter’s house in other passages. As we pointed out above (see previous note), one should not give too much weight to the literary order of these stories. They may not represent the actual chronological order of events. 327 “Q” is the designation given to the hypothetical source behind materials found only in Matthew and Luke.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

117

father.” Jesus’ response seems harsh for this culture: “Let the dead bury their own dead; you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Jesus seems, in this text in Luke, to be demanding not just abandonment of possessions, but also of family. Both among the pagans (Greeks and Romans) and among the Jews, burying the dead was a sacred duty. To fail to bury one’s own father was a great sacrilege, except in certain very specific situations. 328 Jesus was evidently affirming that following him was one of those situations. The same radical demand is found in the material found only in Luke. Luke, as well as Mark, understood Jesus’ calls to discipleship to be calls to abandon possessions and family. In Luke 9:61–62, a potential disciple (after having been invited?) offers: “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me take my leave of those in my house.” Jesus seems, in the story, uninterested in allowing such a thing: “No one having placed his hand on the plow and then looking behind him is suitable for the kingdom of God.” In other words, when Jesus calls to discipleship, one had better respond without delay or hesitation. The church would later have the impression that the disciples of Jesus had left everything in order to follow Jesus: “Peter began to say to him, ‘Behold, we have left everything and we have followed you’” (Mark 10:28). Whether this is based in the pre-Easter tradition or only the church’s late understanding of the way it was for Jesus’ close disciples, it is still correct to conclude that there was a strong tradition of renunciation that gave rise to this understanding. The church thought that leaving behind home and pos-

328 M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 14. The saying is harsh even if the potential disciple was talking about the secondary burial of his father in an ossuary. See B. R. McCane, “Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead: Secondary Burial and Matt 8:21–22” HTR 81 (1990) 31–43. For the exceptions to the obligation to bury one’s relatives, see C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God” JSNT 26 (2003) 39–68. See also Wright, Victory, 401–402, who also accepts the authenticity of this saying and Schuermann, Lukasevangelium, II, 40, who observes that most exegetes say that this is a genuine saying of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar awarded it a probable rating. See Funk and Hoover, Five Gospels, 160–161. The criterion of dissimilarity makes this saying highly probable. For the duty to bury the dead in the ancient world see: m. Beracot 3:1; Tobit 4:3–4, 6:15; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.13; Sophocles, Antigone; and Hengel, 8–15.

118

JESUS THE GALILEAN

sessions was what disciples of Jesus had done. 329 This (possibly) later understanding certainly finds a basis in Jesus authentic words: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26=Matt 10:37; GT 55; cf. GT 101). Thus, we can say that the idea of Jesus demanding renunciation—of not only possessions but also family—is found in Mark, Q and in Luke. This is multiple attestation that to follow Jesus meant making sacrifices. Selling Texts Further, clues as to Jesus’ views toward wealth and discipleship are found in texts that contain the word “sell” (either poleo or piprasko): Jesus told a parable (Matt 13:44; cf. GT 109) about a man who discovered a treasure hidden in a field. He therefore went “and sold everything he had and bought that field.” The treasure in the story represents the kingdom of God. A second parable in Matthew (13:45–46 and GT 76) is about a merchant who was looking for fine pearls: “When he found a very good one, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.” Again the pearl in the parable represents the kingdom of God. The point is that the kingdom is worth everything. Both of these parables hint at what may have been a practice among some of Jesus’ disciples. The action of selling all of one’s possessions in order to obtain the kingdom is certainly in line with what we saw above with reference to “following” Jesus as a disciple. In this group of texts also goes again the story of the rich man. In the story, Jesus asked him, “Go, sell all you have” (Mk 10:21, the words of the above two parables). Thus, the parables seem to reflect what was a common practice among Jesus’ disciples: selling their possessions before following him.

329 Meier, Marginal Jew, III, 109 seems to accept as authentic the gist of Mark 10:28–30 as does Hengel, Property and Riches, 26. The Jesus Seminar concluded that these verses are from the church, not from Jesus and his disciples (R. Funk, The Acts of Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998] 114). Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 597 writes: “The saying is regularly regarded as a reflection of the aspirations of the later communities . . . though it should be noted that Jesus himself provided the obvious template for the realisation of such aspirations.”

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

119

We also suggest that the disciples’ rebuke of the woman who anointed Jesus (Mark 14:5 and par; John 12:5: “This ointment could have been sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor!”) indicates a common practice among Jesus’ followers. They would sell their possessions or part of them and give the proceeds to the poor, exactly as Jesus asked the rich young man to do. 330 The example of Barnabas (Acts 4:36f) and others in Acts indicate that some disciples continued this tradition after the church began. Thus, the idea that Jesus’ disciples ought to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor continued into the early months or years of the church. The command to the rich man to sell his property may not have been an isolated incident. Other texts suggest that several did what Jesus asked the rich young man to do. But, did Jesus require all of his followers and sympathizers to sell their property or at least abandon their possessions? We must answer this question below. Some scholars hesitate to accept Jesus’ radical demands of renunciation as literally intended, preferring instead to read them as hyperbolic. 331 Certainly Jesus did speak in hyperbole on occasion. Yet, this conclusion is the less likely one. Our survey of Mediterranean philosophers, and especially the Essenes in Palestine, revealed an element within society that renounced possessions to enter a special religious life. Thus, if we find words of Jesus that are similar, our first inclination should be to take these words literally if at all possible. One should understand Jesus’ teachings the way one understands the similar teachings of others from that region and time. The evidence indicates that Jesus urged at least some of his disciples to 330

The members of the Jesus Seminar gave this text a gray designation meaning that, in their judgment, the report is possible but unreliable. See R. W. Funk, et al., The Acts of Jesus (New York: Harper Collins, 1998) 1, 135, 411. R. Brown, The Gospel According to John (New York: Doubleday, 1966) I, 450 followed the view that there were two actual anointings on which the Synoptic and Johannine anointing stories were based, although the traditions of these two events have sometimes influenced one another. At any rate, there is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of the anointing(s). The details—about the value of the ointment and the obligation to sell it and give the money to the poor—do not seem to have a theological purpose in the narrative. 331 See e.g., T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 51; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 261; W. D. Davies and D. Allison, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) I, 630.

120

JESUS THE GALILEAN

leave home and possessions behind, even to sell off their goods, and follow him. Such a demand, even if it was only for a few followers, was quite shocking in this culture, but certainly not unknown. 332 Texts That Show a Freewheeling Attitude Toward Possessions Some of Jesus’ statements demonstrate little regard for preserving possessions: “Give to everyone who asks of you and do not ask back from the one who took your possessions” (Luke 6:30=Matt 5:42; GT 95; Didache 1:4–5). Obviously, if one literally obeyed this admonition, one’s possessions would soon be gone. Perhaps, that was the idea. 333 At least, he was demanding free use of one’s resources to help others. On one occasion (Mark 12:44), Jesus witnessed a poor widow put into the temple treasury two small coins (lepta). Jesus praised her: “She gave out of her lack all she had (the words of the parables above); she gave her whole subsistence.” “So I tell you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat or drink or about your body as to what you will wear . . . Look at the birds of the sky. They don’t plant or harvest or store grain in barns and your heavenly father feeds them” (Matt 6:25–26=Luke 12:22–24; GT 36; POxy 655). Jesus approved of persons who showed little concern for the acquisition and preservation of property and money, even for the acquisition and preservation of subsistence.

332 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 244: “The demand to sell what one possesses, if taken literally, is the demand to part with what was the dearest of all possible possessions to a Mediterranean: the family home and land . . . Thus to follow Jesus means to leave or break away from the kinship unit . . . a sacrifice beyond measure.” 333 J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 276 suggests that Jesus’ purpose in such a lifestyle was to give away all one’s possessions. Hengel (Property and Riches, 26) calls this text: “(Jesus’) requirement of unconditional generosity.” Davies and Allison, on the other hand, note that Matt dropped theSDQWL (“to everyone”) of Luke 6:30 and Didache 1:5 because otherwise it would involve “indiscriminate giving, a mindless benevolence” (Matthew, I, 547). Of course, “mindless” benevolence is in the eye of the beholder. Manson, Sayings of Jesus, 51 argues that one should not take Jesus’ words literally here; otherwise the result would be “nudism.” I. H. Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 261 also counsels against taking Jesus’ teachings here “over-literally.” I do not know what “over-literally” means.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

121

Texts about Itinerancy Two texts indicate that Jesus and his disciples at least during some part of his ministry had no fixed home or even a shelter. The disciples are instructed to travel with only the barest of necessities. When someone offers to become a disciple of Jesus on one occasion he responds to him: “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests but the son of man does not have any place to lay his head” (Matt 8:20=Luke 9:58; GT 86). Although some want to read this as a popular proverb about humanity in general, most scholars view the statement as autobiographical. 334 Jesus was describing his own life at some point in his ministry, probably after a time of residence in Capernaum. He wandered and had no certainty of shelter. Anyone who followed him as a disciple would do the same. In both Mark and the double tradition (Q), there are accounts of Jesus’ sending of the Twelve on an itinerant ministry. In the course of his preparations he directs them: And he commanded them to Take nothing for your travel, take nothing for the travel neither staff nor bag nor except only a staff. They were bread nor silver money nor to take no bread, no bag and two tunics. And if you enter a no copper coin in their belt. house, stay there and from They should wear sandals but there depart (Luke 9:3– not two tunics. And he said 4=Matt 10:9–11) to them, Wherever you enter a house, there remain until you leave (the village [Mark 6:8–10]) What a harsh life that must have been. No frills or luxuries could be allowed. They could not even take the barest of comforts—neither a second tunic nor a cloak for the cold nor a small loaf of bread. They were not allowed any money. One tradition allows a staff to the itinerant (for protec334 See M. Casey, “The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt. 8:20//Luke 9:58)” JSNT 23 (1985) 3–22; M. H. Smith, “No Place for a Son of Man” Forum 4/4 (1988) 83–107; J. Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke, I, 834; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 72; H. Schuermann, Das Lukasevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1969, 1994) II, 38, Marshall, Luke, 410; Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 52; B. Mack, The Lost Gospel, 61. Smith observes (p. 104) that there is “a widespread willingness among scholars to admit (this saying) as a genuine autobiographical statement by Jesus.”

122

JESUS THE GALILEAN

tion), and the other does not. Perhaps, they would find shelter for the night, but perhaps not. A harsh life it was but also a life of faith. That was the life of ministry for Jesus and his disciples. Further, as with the categories of call stories and selling texts above, we can see the effect of Jesus’ wandering on the later church, since there were many itinerant missionaries in its early years. As G. Theissen has argued, “Jesus did not primarily found local communities, but called into being a movement of wandering charismatics.” Theissen observes that many of the disciples of Jesus are represented in the New Testament as wandering around Palestine and beyond as preachers: Peter and the Twelve, Stephen and his group, Agabus, and Paul and Barnabas. Further, the second century sources also indicate a group of wandering charismatics. The Didache refers to them and says that these homeless preachers were, in such a lifestyle, continuing the life of the Lord (11:8). Thus, their understanding of Jesus was that he wandered in poverty, staying in one place no more than two or three days. 335 Such activity was not the creation of the early church, maintains Theissen, but “they continued the activity of Jesus as a wandering charismatic.” 336 Thus, the wandering Christian charismatics of the first and second centuries point to the founder of the movement: Jesus, the homeless one. We would conclude that Jesus was homeless. He wandered around first century Palestine, dependent on the charity of others. That means he left his family, his ancestral village, and his occupation as an artisan. With that, he surrendered any security to be found in a steady income and from family reciprocity. He lived, as some have termed it, a “socially deviant lifestyle.” 337 335 See J. Ramsey Michaels, “The Itinerant Jesus and His Home Town” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (Boston: Brill, 2002) 177–193. 336 Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 8–11, quotations on pp. 8, 121. Theissen maintains that these charismatics surrendered four things: They gave up their homes, their families, their security, and their possessions. H. Schuermann, Das Lukasevangelium, II, 39 also concludes that the logion “Foxes have dens,” etc. reflects Jesus’ historical life of homeless wandering and that the later behavior of wandering Christian missionaries was the result of Jesus’ actions. Both Schuermann and K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952) 133 compare this text to Luke 13:33. 337 See B. Malina and R. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 78. But cf. S. C. Barton, “The Relativisation of

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

123

Texts about Family The discussion about itinerancy brings to mind also the topic of family. When one leaves home to wander, he/she also leaves family. Do the sayings of Jesus hint at such a thing? The following text is Jesus’ response to someone who informs him that his mother and brothers are waiting “outside” for him: And his mother and brothers standing outside (the house) sent word to him and summoned him. And there was a crowd seated around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and brothers outside are seeking you.” He answered and said to them, “Who is my mother and (who are) my brothers?” And he looked around at those sitting about him and said, “See, my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister and my mother.” (Mark 3:31–35 and par.; GT 99; Gospel of the Ebionites; 2 Clement 9:11)

To the passage above we should add the following statements: And it came to pass when he had said these things that a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb which bore you and the breasts which nursed you.” But he said, “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” (Luke 11:27–28; GT 79) If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 and par.; GT 55; cf. GT 101 and Mk 10:29–30) 338 “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his kinsfolk and in his own house.” (Mark 6:4 and par.; John 4:44; GT 31; POxy 1.30–35)

Family Ties” in H. Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian Families, 98, who maintains that there was so much renunciation of goods, home, and family in the Mediterranean world by various groups that Jesus’ demands would not have been considered antisocial but as the demands of an inspired leader. 338 See R. H. Stein, “Luke 14:26 and the Question of Authenticity” Forum 5/2 (1989) 187–192, who notes that this text also meets the criteria of dissimilarity and coherence (cf. Mark 10:29–30; 13:12–13). Wright (Jesus, 401f) adds to these texts about family Mark 10:29–30, Jesus’ promise of reward for those who have left houses and family.

124

JESUS THE GALILEAN

These statements point to family problems. Rather than accepting a compliment to his mother, Jesus deflected it by alluding to those who keep the word of God. Jesus further made a striking statement about hating family members. Finally, he hinted that, not only his home village had rejected him, but also his kinsfolk. The clear impression one gets from such statements is that Jesus has severed ties with his family. He has left them to pursue his prophetic calling. The radical significance of such a step cannot be exaggerated. Both in Judaism and non-Judaism in the ancient Mediterranean world, the duty to family was a priority. As B. Malina has shown, to leave one’s family in the ancient Mediterranean culture is even more extreme than in our western individualist culture. The ancient culture (as indeed 70% of contemporary peoples) was collectivist and dyadic. The life, integrity, honor, in-group security, and solidarity of the family were supreme. Thus, Jesus was negating “the core concern of (his) collectivist self.” 339 Such renunciation for Jesus, as for any ancient Mediterranean person, was the negation of who he essentially was. To speak in such a way about family, in a collectivistic society, is to speak of turning one’s back on everything people value: possessions (as inheritance), security (as reciprocity and family safety net), and honor (as family honor). 340 No wonder he was not received well in his home village of Nazareth. The local folk, perhaps many of them his extended family, had been offended by his abandonment of his family.

339 Malina, “Let Him Deny Himself (Mark 8:34 and par.): A Social Psychological Model of Self-Denial” BTB 24 (1994) 106–119. See also B. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, “First Century Personality: Dyadic, Not Individualistic” in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 67–96; J. H. Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family, and Loss of Honor” in P. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity (London: Routledge, 1995) 139–158 (who calls disobedience to one’s parents a “paramount vice”); J. W. Hewitt, “Gratitude to Parents in Greek and Roman Literature” American Journal of Philology 5 (1931) 30–48; and Deut 5:16; Prov 1:8; Sir 7:27–31; Ps. Phocylides 8; Sibylline Oracles III. 593–594; Josephus, Apion 2.206; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 705–709 and other citations given by J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 231. On the family in more general terms, see S. Guijarro, “The Family in First Century Galilee” in H. Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian Families (London: Routledge, 1997) 42– 65. 340 On loss of honor in such circumstances, see J. H. Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour,” 139–158.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

125

These statements sound somewhat like those of the Greco-Roman philosophers given above, except that they are even stronger. The philosopher had to realize that only the good was important. Even family loyalty should not interfere with this pursuit. But, the shocking language here, even if we know this is oriental hyperbole—when one considers the kind of cultural setting that Malina describes—shows how radical this demand is. Thus far, we have discovered that Jesus’ disciples (at least some of them) were asked to give up their comforts and livelihoods to follow him. We should probably take the words “follow him” literally. He wandered like the Cynics. When he wandered, he lived off the land, so to speak. He preferred to have no comforts and no assurances of shelter. He and his disciples were in the hands of God who would provide for their needs as God saw fit. There are texts, using the word “sell,” that suspiciously look like a pattern for discipleship. One might be called upon to sell his possessions first and then follow Jesus in his itinerant life, leaving family behind. Statements about Wealth Whenever Jesus spoke about wealth, he either advised against acquiring it or warned that it could become a substitute for God. The next passage, if followed conscientiously, could actually lead to total divestiture: Do not collect treasure on earth where moth and rust can corrupt it and where thieves can break in and steal it. But collect treasure in heaven . . . (Matt 6:19–20=Luke 12:33; GT 76) 341

If one takes seriously seeking only treasure in heaven, one might divest oneself of earthly possessions or at least refrain from trying to accumulate them. 342 The wealth of this life is temporary and insecure. The treasure of heaven lasts for eternity. Wealth can become an idol, a master that enslaves you: “No servant can serve two masters . . . you cannot serve God and mamona” (Luke 341 Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, 629 argue that Matt 6:19a was an original part of Q. For other (late) sources for this logion, see J. S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1988) 135. The expression, “treasure in heaven,” is commonly found among the rabbis and other Jewish sources. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, 429–431; F. Hauck, “TKVDXUR9” TDNT, III, 136–138; and E. Klostermann, Das Mattaeusevangelium (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1971) 60. 342 Davies and Allison maintain that this command only prohibits accumulation and does not encourage renunciation of all possessions (Matthew, I, 630). But it all depends on the context in which one reads this or hears this.

126

JESUS THE GALILEAN

16:13=Matt 6:24; GT 47). The multiple sources for this saying (Q and Thomas), plus the preservation of the Aramaic word, mamon, 343 for “money,” suggest that this is a genuine saying of Jesus. Wealth is dangerous; it robs one of loyalty to God, it deprives of liberty; it is personified as a harsh task master. In the above texts, then, Jesus expressed a negative appraisal of wealth. At best, it is temporary. Why spend a lifetime working for it? At worst, it is idolatry, a positive evil. This attitude is very similar to that found expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Statements about Rich Persons Jesus also had a markedly negative evaluation of wealthy people: “How difficult it is for one who has wealth to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23 and par.; GNaz; Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 9:20:1–4). Such words sound like Jesus at least preferred that his disciples give up their possessions. The statement sounds as if one should divest himself/herself of property, or at least of more than the most basic possessions. 344 Certainly, they indicate that Jesus had a visceral distrust of rich persons. Their possessions interfere with their devotion to the kingdom of God and even prevent them from interest in the kingdom. As long as they are rich, they find it extremely difficult to think in a “kingdom” way. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25 and par.). Although this saying is found only in Mark and his synoptic parallels, most scholars seem to accept that it is an authentic Jesus logion. In the first place, it is a humorous aphorism such as Jesus is noted for elsewhere. Further, later interpreters have tried to soften its harshness. 345 When later copyists and in343 On the Aramaic word, see F. Hauck, “PDPZQD9” TDNT IV, 388–390; and M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 139–140. The word is common in the Targums or translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. It was apparently used synonymously at Qumran for the Hebrew word hon. See Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 153; and Murphy, Wealth, 124. Not only in this text, but also in Luke 16:9 and 16:11, is the Aramaic word preserved for us in the Greek text of Luke. 344 See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 274f and J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 221. Kloppenborg writes, “The disdain for earthly acquisitions is somewhat peculiar.” 345 See B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971) 106 on the change of spelling in late manuscripts of

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

127

terpreters try to change the obvious meaning or the spelling of the words to soften the saying, it usually means that it is original. Rarely would the church create so harsh a statement. Jesus has nothing good to say about rich people. Their entry into the kingdom of God is harder than the ridiculous attempt to squeeze the largest land animal these people know through the tiny eye of a needle. One final evaluation of rich persons is found in Jesus’ parable of the Rich Farmer. In this parable, a farmer harvests a bumper crop of grain, so much, in fact, that his granaries cannot hold it all. Instead of considering the poor people who do not have enough to eat, he did a very wicked thing in this subsistence agrarian society: He hoarded his grain. 346 He built bigger granaries and planned to party for the rest of his days. But the parable concludes: “You fool! Tonight your life will be required of you” (Luke 12:16– 21; GT 63). All of his selfish plans had failed. But, that is how rich people behave in Jesus’ world. They are selfish and greedy. Statement about Poor (i.e., Destitute) Persons “Honored are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20=Matt 5:3; GT 54; Polycarp, Philippians 2:3). Placing this saying beside the three previous ones highlights the striking nature of Jesus’ disdain for wealth and wealthy persons. The “poor” here are not simply those with little means, but those who are destitute, those who are reduced to begging. 347 Yet, JeMark so that the word “camel” (kamelos) means “rope” (kamilos). Others have suggested a gate into Jerusalem, called “the needle’s eye,” was in Jesus’ mind. As Funk and Hoover note, “The Fact that this saying has been surrounded by attempts to soften it suggests that it was probably original with Jesus.” See The Five Gospels, 92. 346 See B. J. Malina and R. L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 359. The agrarian notion of limited good makes hoarding surplus very shameful. 347 The Greek word used here is SWZFR9 ptochos to be distinguished from SHQK9 penes. The former means one who is utterly destitute (corresponding roughly with the Hebrew ‘evyon) while the latter means a person of very modest station but with a means of making a living. We might say that those on our social pyramid in chapter two, that were ptochos, were at the very bottom (the Outcasts). Those that were penes were from the Lower Classes (in the middle of the pyramid). See F. Hauck, “SWZFR9” TDNT, VI, 886–887; H. Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruehchristlicher Radikalismus, II, 73–74; G. Hammel, Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1990) 168–170; J. H. Neyrey, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family, and Loss of Honor,” 139–158.

128

JESUS THE GALILEAN

sus, in this logion, says that they are/will be honored in the kingdom of God. The rich scarcely have any chance at entering the kingdom of God, but the poor are those especially honored in it. It is those who have lost everything, given up everything or never had anything to begin with that Jesus praised. The rich he hardly trusted, if at all, and riches he seemed to have despised. We indicated above that about one half of the references to wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls were negative, with the remainder being neutral. The references to wealth, attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, have an even higher ratio of negative to positive statements. 348 This is certainly a bitter pill for persons in our culture and

348

For the only neutral statements see: Matt 6:2–4: “When you give alms”; and Luke 16:1 the Parable of the Dishonest Steward where the rich owner is only scenery in the story. Also, in the same parable, we find the phrase “unrighteous mammon” (Luke 16:9, 11) with which Jesus’ disciples are supposed to make friends. Are these neutral statements or negative? For a positive use of the word “wealthy,” see the reference to Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus (Matt 27:57). For negative references to wealth, in addition to the texts given above, see: Luke 6:24, 12:16, 14:12, and 16:19–22. Zaccheus (Luke 19:2) was rich and only became approved after he gave away nearly everything he owned. I make no judgments as to the authenticity of these texts. But, even if we rule out these verses from consideration and only consider the scriptures cited in the text of this chapter, the ratio of negative to positive is very high. Some argue that either Q, Luke, Matthew, or Mark—or all four texts—have intensified and radicalized Jesus’ statements and attitude about wealth. For Q, see A. D. Jacobson, “Jesus Against the Family” in J. Ma. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. W. Meyers, eds., From Quest to Q (Leuven: University Press, 2000) 189–218. For Luke, see H. Braun, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. E. R. Kalin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 84; idem., Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruehchristlicher Radikalismus, II, 74; R. Baergen, “The Motif of the Renunciation of Possessions in the Gospel of Luke” Conrad Grebel Review 11 (1993) 233–247; and E. Mayer, “Sell Everything and Become ‘Rich’: Dealing with Possessions According to Luke” Lutheran Theological Journal 30 (1996) 58–65. But as R. Schnackenburg affirmed (The Moral Teaching of the New Testament [Freiburg: Herder, 1965] 125) it is not correct to make Luke responsible for the sayings opposing wealth and wealthy people. These are rooted in the sayings of Jesus himself. For Mark’s alleged radicalization of Jesus’ words, see Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 33. T. E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 101 maintains that all three synoptic gospels had a hostility toward wealth that is a “fundamental religious-ethical tenet consistently expressed.” One wonders why the hostility toward wealth, that seems to be ubiquitous in the gospels and their sources, cannot be assumed to have come from Jesus.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

129

one imagines that the medicine was equally distasteful to most persons in his as well. Wealthy Friends Clearly, several of Jesus’ disciples surrendered their possessions in order to follow him. They either abandoned their houses, fishing boats, tax tables and families, or they sold off their possessions in order to follow him. Jesus seems to have had no high regard for either rich persons or for their wealth. Yet, surprisingly (as we already indicated in chapter 2), the Gospels and Acts do refer to rich persons and persons who still owned property as among those who believed in him and helped him. These references are scattered across several sources, indicating that this theme is not the work of an editor. There are several named who still own their houses: Luke 10:31–42 (Mary and Martha; cf. John 11:20, 12:1–2); Luke 14:1 (a rich Pharisee); Mark 13:15 (some will possess houses when the tribulation comes); Mark 14:14–15 (the Upper Room of the Last Supper); Acts 9:36 (Tabitha); and 12:12 (Mary of Jerusalem). Further, references to giving alms implies that these persons did not sell all of their possessions and then follow Jesus. They still had something with which to help others: Matt 6:3–4 (=Luke 6:34–35); Acts 11:27–30. Jesus was the guest of rich persons. He seems to have accepted their food without reproaching them for being wealthy (Mark 2:15; Luke 7:36, 11:37, 19:5–7). Finally, there are some rich persons who come to Jesus’ aid: Luke 8:1–3 (the rich Galilean women; cf. Mark 15:40–41); and Mark 15:43 (Joseph of Arimathea). 349 In addition to associating with wealthy friends—which seems like an inconsistency for someone so disdainful of wealth and wealthy persons—Jesus is also found affirming care for parents, which also seems out of place in one who has abandoned his family (Mark 7:9–12; John 19:26–27). How should we explain these details? One could discount either sets of scripture texts as inauthentic Jesus traditions. That is, one could say that either the texts about selling possessions and abandoning houses/businesses are not genuine or the last group of texts about wealthy friends is not historical. But, both sets of texts are too numerous and spread

349

See H. van Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 95; L. T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 16– 22; D. L. Mealand, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980) 105– 106; and Hengel, Property and Riches, 27–28.

130

JESUS THE GALILEAN

over too many sources to reach that conclusion comfortably. The best solution is offered by E. P. Sanders. Sanders suggests that Jesus had three groups of followers: 1) Close disciples 2) Slightly more remote followers 3) Still more remote sympathizers or supporters. In group one was the Twelve. In group two were Levi, the tax collector; the women of Galilee (especially Mary Magdalene); and the 120 persons in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14). In group three were people such as Simon, the Pharisee; Zaccheus; Joseph of Arimathea; and Mary and Martha of Bethany. 350 This suggestion makes eminently good sense to me. Jesus’ closest disciples (category one) were called upon to abandon their homes and livelihoods and follow him. Those in category three were not urged to do that. Like the Essenes, there were two or three lifestyles possible in serving Jesus. As we noted above, some Essenes gave up all of their property to enter the community, while others merely gave alms and offerings to the community. The Jesus movement had at least the same two tiers of obedience. Those in the bottom tier would have been summoned to believe in and await the kingdom of God but not to follow him around: “He would have liked everyone to be a supporter, but apparently he intentionally called only a few to follow him in the strict sense of the word.” 351 Those in category three would have supported Jesus’ ministry with their resources but would not have given away all of their possessions. Presumably, they were never asked to do so. One can also presume, however, that they would often have been uncomfortable in the presence of Jesus, who was so suspicious of wealthy people. To this group of persons, Jesus could say, “Make friends with unrighteous mammon” (Luke 16:9, 11). That is to say, “Use your dirty money 350 Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993) 123–126. Cf. Wright, Victory, 300; R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) 118–124; and especially G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 217, 378, who suggest that concentric circles formed around Jesus: a staff of secondary charismatics (the Twelve) and a wider circle of sympathizers who did not leave their homes. Those who have accepted the view of Theissen and Merz include: D. Duling, “The Jesus Movement and Social Network Analysis” BTB 30/1 (2000) 3–14; and J. D. Crossan, “Itinerants and Householders in the Earliest Jesus Movement” in W. E. Arnal and M. Desjardins, Whose Historical Jesus? (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997) 5–24, who suggests two groups for the early (post-Easter) Jesus movement: itinerants and householders. 351 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 123.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

131

properly,” not exactly a ringing endorsement of their lifestyle, but at least a grudging acceptance that they can serve God in their money-making capacity. What about those in category two? One suspects that most, if not all, of those also sold their possessions at some point in order to follow him. The devotees in categories one and two were then, if you would, the forerunners of those in the monastic orders. Such a sacrificial lifestyle is not required to be devoted to Jesus and the kingdom of God, but some special persons are called to live that way. Jesus’ Teaching of Renunciation in Comparison Our survey, of both the Cynics and Essenes, has taught us that Jesus’ words about selling possessions and leaving family need not be taken figuratively. There were groups in his time that did exactly that. Thus we should be inclined to take Jesus’ words literally as well. He lived in ways remarkably similar to the Cynics and Essenes

The Cynic Philosophers The Cynics found wealth to be a bother and a hindrance in the pursuit of the philosophical life. They preferred to thumb their noses at the conventions of society in the pursuit of self-sufficiency, which was their definition of salvation. The characteristics of wandering, of homelessness, of disregard for wealth, and of severed ties with family members are found among most of the Cynics. Such actions bespeak a harsh critique of society and social values. Something is very wrong with society and its conventions, and the only way to make your point is to denounce those conventions and repudiate the values (and valuables) that people falsely hold dear. Drastic measures are needed to get peoples’ attention. This attitude and this behavior is similar to that of the Jesus movement. If we wish a mental picture of Jesus and his disciples, we can think of the wandering Cynics. But, we should also contrast what each group says about renunciation. Jesus’ meaning of renunciation, which may seem quite similar to the Cynics (i.e., wealth corrupts people), was filtered through the lens of Palestinian Jewish life. Thus, when Jesus says, “How difficult it is for one who has wealth to enter the kingdom of God,” he might sound a little like the Cynics who regarded riches as a burden that interfered with the philosophical life. But, the Cynics wanted self-sufficiency and freedom (DXWDUNHLDҗ). If

132

JESUS THE GALILEAN

you have nothing, then no one can take anything from you. That is the Cynic’s freedom: one in which no hardship can affect him. 352 If one is afraid of losing everything, one can simply give it up ahead of time. Thus, fear is gone. If you can be satisfied with the simplest diet and living conditions, then there is very little danger that you will ever lose those things. But Jesus’ statements, as surveyed above, show concern for the poor and the kingdom of God. Jesus, as a Jew, was the recipient of the traditions of the Hebrew Bible. One of the frequent themes of these writings is concern for the poor. This concern is found in priestly, Deuteronomic, wisdom, and prophetic sources. 353 In part, Jesus’ teaching about divestiture has to do with his radicalization of these traditions. The references to the selling of possessions, in order to help the poor, must be viewed as the logical, if extreme, end of the Hebrew scriptures’ teaching. Further, Jesus’ words about wealth and poverty are also associated with the kingdom of God. Jesus also spoke a blessing on the poor to whom the kingdom of God belongs (Luke 6:20=Matt 5:3; GT 54; Polycarp, Philippians 2:3) and warned that in the kingdom there would be a reversal: “But many who are first will be last and the last will be first” (Mark 10:31 and par.; POxy. 4:2–3; GT 4). Thus, Jesus’ meaning for divestiture was not only to help the poor but to prepare for the kingdom. To live consistently with the kingdom of God, one must affirm the poor and oppressed who are/will be elevated. Living as a homeless pauper was the way he chose to state symbolically that he was in solidarity with the oppressed and poor, who are favored by God in the kingdom. For the Cynics, then, the renunciation of property and family was an expression of hopelessness, of giving up on society; for Jesus, it was an expression of the hope of the kingdom. Finally, the Cynics rejected the conventions of society, especially family, with nothing with which to replace them. As B. Malina observes, 354 when one negates family in this culture, there are two options left: move 352

See A. Malherbe, “The Cynics” IDB Supplement. Consider the important statement attributed to Diogenes of Sinope: Once he was asked what philosophy had taught him. He replied, “If nothing else, to be prepared for every happening (WXFK)” (Diogenes Laertius VI.63). 353 Priestly traditions: Exod 22:25; 23:11; Lev 19:10; 23:22; 25:25, 35, 39, 47. Deuteronomic traditions: Deut 15:4, 7, 9, 11; 24:12, 14. Wisdom traditions: Prov 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; 22:9, 22; 28:3; 31:9, 20. Prophetic traditions: Isa 3:14, 15; 10:2; Amos 2:6, 7; 5:11; 8:6. 354 Malina, “Let Him Deny Himself (Mark 8:34 and par.): A Social Psychological Model of Self-Denial” BTB 24 (1994) 106–119.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

133

into some other actual or fictive kin group or “move out of society entirely.” The practitioners of the Socratic tradition chose to move out of society while still living within it. Jesus—and to some extent the Essenes— replaced actual family with fictive kinship, that is, he created a new family, the family of the new community (Mark 3:31–35; Luke 11:27–28). One’s brothers, sisters, and mother are now members of the new group. 355

The Essenes Jesus and his close disciples might have looked a bit like the wandering Cynics, but I think that he would have sounded more like the Essenes. His concerns were primarily three: First, the kingdom of God is of paramount importance and one must be prepared to make any sacrifice, even leaving home and family and selling off one’s goods. Loyalty to the kingdom, and thus to God, must come first. Second, rich persons are usually corrupted by their wealth and cannot be trusted to serve God first and foremost. Their wealth is an idol. Third, Jesus re-affirmed the theme of the Hebrew Bible that God cares about the poor. The Essenes, like Jesus, had a deep distrust of wealth and wealthy persons—based, in part, on the history of their sect. Wealth had to be regulated carefully and watched constantly. Wealth corrupts; therefore one must learn the community’s proper thinking about it. Jesus thought wealth to be a barrier to entrance into the kingdom. It tends to become an idol, an alternative to God, who should be our master. Jesus’ thinking in these ways is very similar to that of the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have examined above. Further, like the Essenes, Jesus had a multi-tiered discipleship. Not everyone was called upon to make the harshest of sacrifices. The Essenes had some who surrendered everything upon entering the community and others that lived in various villages and paid alms from their income. Jesus appears to have had a similar arrangement with his disciples and sympathizers. There are also some significant differences between Jesus and the Essenes, regarding wealth. First, Jesus required that some people give away their wealth to the poor rather than hand it over to the community (which would in turn continue to use the wealth in part for the donor’s benefit). 355

See S. C. Barton, “Relativisation of Family Ties,” 83–84, who notes that Philo regarded Jewish proselytes as leaving biological families and accepting new ones and that the Therapeutae also developed an alternate family.

134

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Thus, observes H. Braun, Jesus actually required a more radical uncertainty of some of his disciples—with respect to their basic human needs—than the Essenes did of their sect members. 356 Second, Jesus had no concerns about mixing pure wealth with impure wealth. All wealth for him seems to have been suspect. Third, Jesus required, of some of his disciples, itinerancy in addition to poverty. At least, the Essenes seem to have had a stable living situation. Fourth, as we indicated above, Jesus’ references to wealth are negative even more often than in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He has very few neutral references, no positive things to say about wealth, and is overwhelmingly negative. Fifth, the instructions for itinerancy exhibit more harshness than either the Essenes (see Josephus, War 2.125f) or the Cynics (see Diogenes Laertius 6.13) normally practiced. G. Theissen and A. Merz have constructed a convenient table to explain: Jesus Movement Essenes Cynics No shoes [Q] Shoes are worn until Frequently barefooted (conceded in threadbare Mark) No staff [Q] (con- Weapons for defense Carried staff as a ceded in Mark) against brigands weapon No bag for provi- No bag A bag for provisions sions Only one tunic Worn out clothes Cloak folded twice Table 2 Itinerancy in Three Mediterranean Groups 357

The itinerant disciples of Jesus must live more harshly in terms of their clothing. Wearing only one tunic is difficult in winter. They, like the Essenes and unlike the Cynics, can carry no provisions of food. If the double tradition (Q) is closer to the words of Jesus than Mark, the disciples could carry no staff for protection, unlike both the Essenes and the Cynics. Theissen adds further, that the adherents of the Jesus movement were not allowed to salute anyone in their wanderings (as a beggar would in asking for a handout; Luke 10:4) and that they were forbidden to move from house to house in order not to exploit the villagers (Luke 10:7; Mark 6:10). 358 Jesus’ itinerant followers lived more precariously than the other two groups. 356

Braun, Spaetjuedisch-haeretischer und fruehchristlicher Ralikalismus, II, 79–80. After G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus, 216. 358 Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 357

47.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

135

The following table compares Jesus’ view and practice, regarding wealth, with that of the Cynics and the Essenes: Jesus

Essenes

Cynics

Itinerant

x

x

Traveled/lived/ dressed very simply Often no house/shelter

x

(But see Josephus, War 2.125) x

x

Sold property

x

Gave property to poor

x

Distrust of riches/rich persons (idolatry) Communal ownership (for some) Wealth associated with injustice

x

x x

x

x

x x

x

Wealth must be regulated

x x

One loves God (kingdom of God) with wealth (i.e. by giving it up) Community’s wealth is pure

x

Called disciples to leave everything Wealth contrasted with Kingdom of God Free wheeling attitude toward wealth

x

x x

x x

x

Table 3 Comparison of Views on Possessions

Why Did Jesus Require Poverty? The question can be simply stated: Why would a nice Jewish boy, from first century Lower Galilee, conclude that he should live a socially deviant life? Jesus was critical of wealth and wealthy persons. But, one can criticize without totally divesting oneself. Why did Jesus live such a harsh lifestyle? Further, if Jesus distrusted wealthy persons and was suspicious of wealth so much, why did he require divestiture of only some of his disciples?

136

JESUS THE GALILEAN

At least five answers have been proposed for these questions? We may call these suggestions: The Monastic, The Heroic, The Egalitarian, The Ascetic, and The Charismatic. The Monastic explanation, offered by G. W. Buchanan, is that Jesus and his group of disciples formed a monastic community like the Essenes. This community was celibate, communistic, male, and dispossessed of family ties and personal possessions. Buchanan places the most emphasis on the celibacy of the community, as he sees it, by organizing and understanding all of the other features of his monastic construction around that feature. The celibacy was necessary, he opines, to avoid ritual defilement from women (from menstruation and from sexual relations). 359 Yet, Buchanan’s argument fails, it seems to me. There are references to women being a part of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 8:1–3; Mark 15:40–41). Thus, they must have been in the company of Jesus and the Twelve. Further, impurity from menstruation is contracted not only by sexual relations (see chapter 4) but also, for instance, by sitting where a menstruating woman has sat. Just being near women could lead to impurity from menstruation. Thus, it does not appear that Jesus organized his lifestyle around celibacy in order to avoid ritual impurity. The Heroic interpretation, of S. Barton, is that certain people must at times make great sacrifices in order to do the will of God. In other words, “the allegiance to the one true God transcends family ties and legitimates their subordination.” This is comparable to the sacrifice made by Abraham and other heroes of the past. Thus, Jesus’ own renunciation of family “is a summons from a lesser piety (e.g., family loyalty) to a greater piety, since what is at stake is Jesus’ eschatological mission to prepare the people for the coming of God.” 360 This view has much to commend it. But still, one can ask, What was there about the situation of Jesus that made such heroic behavior necessary? This explanation does not seem to explain the deviant lifestyle of Jesus and his disciples. 359

G. W. Buchanan, “Jesus and Other Monks of New Testament Times” Religion in Life 18 (1979) 136–142. 360 Barton, “Relativisation of Family Ties,” 98–99.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

137

Others understand Jesus’ words and actions as an egalitarian program. Some, in this category, want to hear Jesus’ words within the context of a Cynic-like kingdom of God. The explanation of R. W. Funk states that Jesus’ renunciation of family stems from the core ethical concern for love of all people, even one’s enemies. Thus, one must break down all barriers between people, even the barriers of biological families. “Blood relationships are devalued . . . [The] real family is the family of God.” 361 Some, in this group, want to stress an anti-patriarchal theme. J. D. Crossan explains the texts, concerning renunciation of family, as intending to break down patriarchal or hierarchical family structures and even to tear down gender barriers. Crossan sees admonitions concerning wealth within his broader rubric as a “kingdom of nobodies” in which one must become like a child and in which the destitute are honored, although he also seems to doubt that the more radical sayings about divestiture go back to Jesus himself. 362 According to this view, it seems to me that Jesus’ calling of itinerant disciples would be a program for everyone. One can only break down biological barriers if everyone participates. You cannot have some of Jesus’ followers living like tramps and the others sitting at home comfortably, if you hope to bring about the egalitarian society of your dreams. But, as we have seen above, that does not seem to have been the case. There were sympathizers, who remained in their houses and with their families, who kept their wealth. The egalitarian view does not explain all of the information. Second, this explanation might help us understand Jesus’ cutting of ties with family but does not satisfy to interpret the practice of voluntary poverty. Fourth, D. Allison 363 has proposed the view that Jesus’ behavior was based on millennarian asceticism. When groups become millennarian enthusiasts (swept up in fervor over the coming new age or millennium), they often quit their jobs, engage in fasting, and forgo marriage. Allison points to the life of poverty and the celibacy of the early Jesus movement as evidence that it was an ascetic movement motivated by the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. 361 R. W. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 197–200. Also arguing for a Cynic-like idea of the kingdom of God as opposed to an apocalyptic kingdom of God is B. L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence, 69–74. 362 Crossan, Historical Jesus, 300, 266–274. See also idem., “Itinerants and Householders in the Earliest Jesus Movement,” 5–24. See similarly R. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 233, 240. 363 D. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 172–215.

138

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Millennarian enthusiasm as the reason for the “asceticism,” however, is a problem. First, if eschatological enthusiasm was the cause of the asceticism, it seems that Jesus would have asked everyone to sell off the farm instead of just a select group (cf. with the comments above on the Cynic view). Second, Jesus seems to me to have had a visceral dislike of wealth and a strong suspicion of wealthy persons. His view of wealth is not simply that, since the end of the age is coming, wealth is of no value (though it was partly based on that reason). Finally, the persons we will refer to below— the charismatics—who may be helpful types by which to understand Jesus and his close group of disciples, were not necessarily millennially oriented. We do not need to explain their behavior by appealing to eschatological fervor. Like the Heroic explanation above, the Millennarian Ascetic explanation has some merits but does not fully explain the behavior of Jesus and some of his disciples. Let me clarify, however. I am not saying that Jesus did not preach the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. He certainly did. I am simply saying that I do not think that is the reason that he lived a lifestyle of renunciation (or, if you would, asceticism). We need an explanation that accounts for both Jesus’ renunciation of possessions and his breaking family ties for himself and his disciples. Further, we must explain why he required these harsh measures for some, but not for others (the sympathizers). I would like to suggest that the fifth view—that Jesus was a charismatic—is the most helpful model and the one that explains all of the information the best. Scholars, that have investigated this type in history, use somewhat differing terminology (Holy Man, Charismatic, Spirit Person), 364 but mean essentially the same thing. The classic statement, about this historical type, is by Max Weber. Weber used the term charismatic in a very broad sense of military leaders, leaders of the hunt, healers, shamans, “bezerks,” those with legal wisdom, and prophets. We will focus on the last manifestation of this type. Weber explained that there were essentially three types of authority: There are first the Rational Grounds of authority, which rest on the belief that those in power have been elevated to it by approved legal means. Sec364

See Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 16–18; M. J. Borg, Conflict , Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1998) 88, 240–241; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 58–77; G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 215; P. Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 80–100.

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

139

ond, there are Traditional Grounds of authority, which are based on an established belief in the sanctity of traditions. Finally, there is charismatic authority, which rests on “devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person.” 365 According to Weber, “charisma” is applied to persons: y Who were considered endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least exceptional powers y Whose power has a divine origin and results in miracles or magic y Whose miracles resulted in devotees who had absolute trust in the leader y Who called disciples based on the charismatic qualifications of those summoned y Who gathered around himself a charismatic community (those subject to charismatic authority) y Who, along with his disciples, took no salary and who tended to live communally by means of the voluntary gifts of sympathizers. 366 “Pure charisma is specifically foreign to economic considerations.” 367 According to Weber, the leader, by charisma, does not always practice renunciation of property and family (though he observed that many prophets do). Charismatic warriors, for example, may take plunder and actually enrich themselves. But, charismatic leaders do avoid involvement with the everyday routine of the world. Weber explained that they despise methodical, rational everyday “economizing,” the gaining of regular income by continuous economic activity. They are, instead, supported by gifts—on a large scale or a small scale, even from begging: For charisma is by nature not a continuous institution, but in its pure type the very opposite. In order to live up to their mission the master as well as his disciples and immediate following must be free of the ordinary worldly attachments and duties of occupational and family life. 365

Max Weber, Economy and Society (New York: Bedminster, 1968) I, 215. Max Weber, Economy and Society, I, 241–245. Weber defines charisma as follows: “The term ‘charisma’ will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” (p. 241). 367 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 244. 366

140

JESUS THE GALILEAN Those who have a share . . . in charisma must inevitably turn away from the world. 368

I would like to propose that Jesus’ renunciation of possessions and family be understood within this historical type. Jesus’ miracles and exorcisms; his renunciation of possessions, home, family, and occupation; and his calling of disciples to behave in the same way certainly suggest that Jesus fits this type. Jesus’ authority was charismatic in the sense that Weber explained. Charismatics live apart from the world. They cannot become bogged down in the normal ways of life. They do not hold down a regular job, receive a salary, or otherwise engage in ordinary life. They are exceptional persons, living by the grace of God and by the contributions of adherents. They do not necessarily renounce all possessions—except in certain situations—but they do always renounce entanglements in society. But, Jesus’ situation called for the lifestyle he lived. He wanted to critique wealthy persons and their greed, their exploitative actions, and their making wealth an idol. Persons cannot, however, deliver such a critique, as effectively, unless they have first given up their own possessions. 369 Jesus had no greed, no ambition, and no ulterior motives in his ministry. Since the economic safety net in antiquity was the family, it would be necessary to sever family ties as well and live as a destitute person, solely dependent on the care of God. Jesus had a message; more precisely, he was the message. Further, he sympathized with the destitute persons, and he wanted to live in solidarity with the promises of God, the coming kingdom. Jesus dramatized, symbolically, the kingdom of God in which the first will be last and the last first. 370 Like Jeremiah, who could not marry or mourn the dead because of the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 16:2, 5), and like Ezekiel, who was not allowed to mourn the death of his wife as a symbol of the coming profanation of the temple (Ezek 24:15–18), so Jesus, as prophet, could not have possessions and family because of the crisis of the kingdom. Thus, Jesus could not have done other than completely renounce his pos-

368 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 244–245. Quote in III, 1113–1114. Weber considered both Buddha and Francis of Assisi examples of charismatic leaders. They also renounced possessions and family to live a life of homelessness and poverty. 369 Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians, 40. 370 Matt 11:25=Luke 10:21; Mark 10:31=Matt 19:30; Matt 20:16; Luke 13:30; GT 4; POxy 654

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

141

sessions and family and live the life of an itinerant, charismatic teacher and demand that his closest disciples—at least temporarily 371 —do the same. 372 The Weberian type, then, best explains the texts: It explains why Jesus considered it necessary to renounce family, home, occupation, and possessions. His mission took precedence. He could not stay in the village and remain with the family. It makes sense of why Jesus asked some to imitate his itinerant poverty, but not others. These disciples were called on the basis of their own charismatic qualities, either as they existed or had the potential to exist. The Rich Man Now let us return to Mark 10:17–22, quoted at the beginning of this chapter. How, in light of our surveys above, should we understand the story of the rich young man? Was Anthony correct or did Clement have it right? Several interpretations of this story have been suggested: 373 1. Some view the story as a corrective of the rich young man’s insincere heart. In other words, the story is about a bad person. Either he was a) legalistic and hypocritical as the Pharisees supposedly were 374 or he b) secretly held his wealth to be an idol (like Clement’s view). 375 371

We assume that negation of family was viewed by disciples, such as Peter, as temporary, since years later he is said to have had a wife (1 Cor 9:5). 372 Wright, Victory, 400, who explains Jesus’ demand for renunciation of possessions as follows: “I am suggesting . . . that Jesus was an eschatological prophet, announcing the kingdom”; Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 57: “[P]rophets (such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel) transgress custom in order to proclaim through unusual actions the coming judgment of God”; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, I, 83; R. Schnackenburg, Moral Teachings, 142; Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 16–18; S. Guijarro, “The Family in the Jesus Movement” BTB 34/3 (2004) 114–121. 373 See Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, 118–123 for a study of views on this text including two views not presented here. For the history of interpretation of this text, see R. W. Haskin’s excellent survey from the patristic to the modern era: The Call to Sell All: The History of the Interpretation of Mark 10.17–23 and Parallels (Columbia University: Ph.D., 1967). Haskin finds eight interpretations/applications of the story of the Rich Man. 374 B. W. Bacon, “Why Callest Thou Me Good?” Biblical World 6 (1895) 334– 350; and cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, III, 517. 375 C. E. B. Cranfield, “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10.17–31” Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951) 302–313; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 521; R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 125.

142

JESUS THE GALILEAN

2. Others maintain that what the rich young man wanted to know was not the what of salvation, but the how. 376 That is what Jesus told him in his second answer. To keep the commandments the rich young man needed to rid himself of his wealth. 3. Still others conclude that Jesus required every follower to sell off his/her possessions. Jesus is merely informing the rich young man about how to inherit eternal life. Jesus required total divestiture of every disciple and sympathizer. One can only gain eternal life by poverty (like the view of Anthony). 377 4. Finally, others suggest that this is a call story. 378 Jesus was calling the rich young man to be an itinerant disciple. Not every believer in Jesus and the kingdom of God was asked to divest himself/herself of possessions, but everyone literally following him around Palestine was asked to sell off the farm. I would like to argue for the fourth interpretation based on the following three considerations: First, the text does not indicate that the rich man was a bad person. I do not think, if the rich young man had kept the commandments from his youth, that he was an idolater. Nor would Jesus have “loved him” if he had been insincere or a braggart. Therefore, view number one listed above does not seem appropriate. Second, the view that Jesus was really telling the rich man not what, but how, to keep the commandments is only a variant of view number one. It means that people are so apt to be idolatrous or insincere, if they are rich, that the only way to keep the commandments properly is to get rid of the temptation. But, the rich man said he had kept the commandments, and Jesus did not seem to disagree with him. Third, Jesus did not evidently tell everyone, who waited for the kingdom of God according to his teaching, to sell off the farm and live an itinerant life alongside him. We explained, above, that Jesus seems to have had other followers who lived ordinary peasant lives and even followers who were well-to-do. We called these people, after E. P. Sanders, sympathizers. Therefore, position three above does not seem tenable either.

376

Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor, 122. See E. Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu (Lund: Gleerup, 1953) 90. 378 Mealand, Poverty and Expectation, 72; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 193; Wright, Victory, 301; J. Magne, “La pauvrete’ dans Luc-Actes: theorie et pratique” (Paper presented at Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XLVII, 1998). 377

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

143

Rather, Jesus was calling the rich young man to be one of his elite disciples, to wander with him, living in poverty and in full dependence on God’s daily provision. Jesus did not call everyone to do the same, only his close group of fellow travelers, the Twelve and some others (categories one and two according to Sanders). This young man could have been among those if he had accepted the invitation. I conclude that this is the best understanding of the pericope because of two considerations: First, this pericope fits the pattern of the other call stories given above—someone is called, he leaves behind economic stability and family—he follows, literally, Jesus around Galilee. This is exactly what Jesus asked the rich man to do: “Go, sell all you have and give (the profits) to the destitute people and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.” Second, when we compare the extra-Torah demands of this pericope with three other similar texts, the evidence points toward a calling to perfection or to a higher level of obedience, rather than to the basic requirements of covenant loyalty. Consider the following three texts: b. Beracoth 28b

1QS 1:1–15

Rabbi Eliezer was ill (on his death bed?). His disciples came to him and asked him to teach them the paths of life so that they might through them win life in the age to come. He responded to them:

The opening lines of the sectarian document from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection of Qumran begin by requiring all who would become members of the sect to keep all of the commandments of Moses and the prophets and in addition:

Josephus, Ant 13.288–292(=b. Kid 66a) John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) the High Priest and ruler of the Jews hosted the Pharisees at a banquet. During the banquet he asked them to point out to him “. . . if they saw him sinning with respect to any little thing or straying from the way of righteousness” to correct him. Most Pharisees agreed that he was virtuous enough. But one irascible Pharisee responded:

144 1. Be concerned for the honor of your colleagues 2. Keep your children from philosophical speculations 3. Provide Torah teaching for your children from scholars 4. When you pray, pray with attention

JESUS THE GALILEAN To love all God loves and hate all God hates To keep away from evil and cling to good To do truth, righteousness, justice Not to walk in stubbornness of heart and fornication of eyes To bring all the volunteers to the statutes of God To be united with the council of God To bring knowledge, strength and wealth to the community to purify and regulate it To keep the calendar properly

“If you will be righteousness . . . give up the High Priesthood.” He said this because it was rumored that Hyrcanus’ mother had been a war captive (Lev 21:14)

Table 4 Extra-Torah Demands

The text from the Talmud (Eliezer on his deathbed) is a case of explaining the how instead of the what. Eliezer knew that covenant loyalty to the Torah would save his disciples in the age to come. Yet, he showed concern for providing for the children and for prevention of hypocrisy. When persons are very religious, they can outwardly perform their duties, but inwardly be negligent. His concerns reflect doing the commandments sincerely. The text from 1QS indicates that mere conformity to the Mosaic law will not save a person. They must also be a part of the Essene community and obey the precepts listed in its manual (1QS). In this case, the text is telling what and what else a person needs to inherit life in the age to come. The text from Josephus about Hyrcanus is not about life in the age to come, but about a more complete or perfect application of the priestly laws. He wants (at least ostensibly) to be finer in his understanding and practice of Torah. His salvation was not in jeopardy, but his understanding could be improved. It seems to me that the rich man pericope (or paragraph; Mark 10:17– 22) is most like the story of Hyrcanus. Jesus told him what he needed to do to inherit life in the age to come: Keep the commandments. The rich man, like Hyrcanus, said that he had kept them for quite some time. Was there any little thing further that he should do? Here Jesus responded much like

JESUS AND COMMUNITY

145

Eleazar, the irascible Pharisee (though not with the same tone). Just as Eleazar indicated that the one little thing was giving up the High Priesthood (actually a huge thing), so Jesus said that the “one thing” the rich man lacked was to sell off his large estates, give away the proceeds, then follow him around in a life of itinerant teaching. Again, this is not really “one thing,” but one huge thing. Matthew’s wording of this pericope may be his own interpretation (“If you would be perfect, go sell all that you have . . .” 19:21), but, in my opinion, it is the correct understanding of this story. The rich man did not have to sell the farm to inherit eternal life. But he did if he wanted to become one of Jesus’ intimate disciples. 379 Jesus was calling him to become exactly that. The Rich Man pericope is, then, a template of Jesus’ calling of disciples. This would have been the way he called the Twelve and others who followed him around in itinerancy. So, who was correct? Anthony or Clement of Alexandria? Anthony had it mostly right. Jesus literally wanted the young man to sell and follow. This was not just a test or a way of revealing his true feelings. He was really being asked to get rid of his wealth. Clement, however, also raised some good cautions. Not every command that Jesus gave to every person is applicable to the church. As Davies and Allison offer: One can no more generalize the story of the rich young man than the church can require everyone to “Let the dead bury the dead.” 380 It is probable that Jesus, at the beginning of his ministry, thought it necessary to leave his home in Nazareth and his extended family. When he did so, he incurred not only the disapproval of his family but the hostility of his home village as well. He put behind him his means of making a living and his family safety-net and moved to Capernaum, where he stayed with persons he had perhaps already met through his travels as a carpenter. There he taught for some months. Then, he began his itinerant ministry and called disciples—whom he had already been teaching for some time—to imitate him and leave occupation and family behind for a life of wandering poverty.

379 This view is like that developed by Ambrose (4th cent. CE) in which he distinguishes between precepts (the commandments) and councils (sell all). Only those who wish to be “perfect” need to sell all. See Haskin, The Call to Sell All, 99–102. Cf. J. Galot, “Le fondement évangélique du voeu religieux de pauvreté” Gregorianum 56 (1975) 441–467. 380 Davies and Allison, Matthew, II, 47.

JESUS AND PURITY: INSIGHTS FROM THE MISHNAH A. BIBLIOGRAPHIC RESOURCES: H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash

B. TEXTS: H. Albeck, Shisha Sidre Mishnah (6 vols.) P. Blackman, Mishnayoth (6 vols.) no author, Judaic Classics

C. TRANSLATIONS: H. Danby, The Mishnah I. Epstein, eds., The Babylonian Talmud (35 vols.) J. Neusner, The Mishnah, A New Translation _______. The Talmud of the Land of Israel (33 vols.) _______. The Tosefta (6 vols.)

A BRIEF DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MISHNAH The word Mishnah means repetition. This definition is a key to its method and its content. The rabbis of the Mishnah (and their Pharisaic forebears) conceived of it as being the distillation of centuries of oral law. The conception was that on Mt. Sinai Moses received both written law and oral law. This oral law was passed on by word of mouth by being taught to other tradents throughout the generations. Mishnah Avot chapters 1–4 contain sayings from this chain of tradition. Avot begins, “Moses received (the oral Torah) from Mt. Sinai. And he handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue.” This chain of tradition continues in the tractate Avot to the Pharisees of the pre-New Testament and New Testament periods and through the second century sages (called Tannaim) of the Mishnah. Although Avot does not go further with the tradition, the rabbis of later generations conceived of the oral tradition as continuing up to the successors of the Mishnaic sages (called the Amoraim). The Mishnaic tractate Hagigah 147

148

JESUS THE GALILEAN

2:2 (and also Tosephta Hagigah 2:8, another rabbinical text, see below) also gives a list of tradents. The Pharisees, the forerunners and associates of the scholars listed in the Mishnah, were well known for their adherence to oral law or “tradition” (Josephus, Ant 13.297; Mark 7:3). One should not brush aside the oral law concept as a pious legend to justify the Pharisaic viewpoint. There must have been procedures and interpretations that existed from the beginning side by side with the written canon. Thus the story of an ancient oral tradition is not too far fetched. That the Mishnah is only oral tradition, however, is certainly not accurate. THE ORAL TORAH The sages The Pharisees, until 70

Tannaim, 70–200 CE The Mishnah Amoraim, 200–500 CE

The Tosephta

The Gemara Of Babylonian Talmud

The Gemara Of Jerusalem Talmud

THE HALAKHIC MIDRASHIM: Mekilta, Sifra, Sifre THE AGGADIC MIDRASHIM: Midrash, Rabbah, Pesikta de Rav Dahana, etc.

Figure 13 The Oral Torah 381

To the outsider reading the Mishnah the total work appears somewhat differently. The work appears to be the organization and interpretation of the many laws from the written Torah together with the way these laws were applied over the years. The laws of the Hebrew Bible are scattered throughout the Pentateuch. These have been gathered and arranged topically in the Mishnah so as to study them more precisely. To these laws from the Old Testament others have been added to expand their application and make the Old Testament laws more relevant. 381 The table is based on R. M. Seltzer, Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History (New York: Macmillan, 1980) 271.

JESUS AND PURITY

149

E. E. Urbach 382 considers the sources of the Mishnah to be mainly three: 1) Many of the laws and regulations in the Mishnah have come from priestly circles. They tell how priests interpreted biblical laws concerning the Temple service. 2) Others have come from the houses of judgment, the courts. They are decisions about civil law. 3) Finally, still others are the result of expositions of the Bible. The Mishnah is then the systematic, topical organization of the oral laws and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. The number of main topics grew over the years until at last it was organized into six. These six topics or sedarim, “orders” (singular, seder ), will be summarized below. Each order was subdivided into smaller topics forming individual tractates (63 in all). Each tractate is divided into chapters and mishnayot (like verses). All of these laws were memorized by repetition and taught to others by the same method until the end of the second century CE. Then the Mishnah began to be written down. Its final form is attributed to Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi who compiled it in Sepphoris in Galilee. With the writing down of the Mishnah, it became the topic of interpretation itself. Thus, there grew up alongside it commentary, at first also oral, but later written down as well. The earliest commentary on the Mishnah was the Tosephta (“additions”)—written down sometime in the third century. The Jerusalem Talmud (also called the Palestinian Talmud), composed in Tiberias of Galilee in the fifth century, is a commentary on the first four orders of the Mishnah. Finally, the Babylonian Talmud, written in the sixth century, has the text of the entire 63 tractates of the Mishnah (plus some minor tractates which were not included in the Mishnah). The Babylonian Talmud does not have commentary (called gemara) on all of the tractates but only on 26 of them. When studying the Mishnah, the student should consult these early commentaries. The six orders of the Mishnah are as follows: 383 1. Zeraim (“seeds”): This order has 11 tractates. The first tractate concerns itself with the prayers and benedictions for meals and other occasions. The other ten tractates cover agricultural matters. The main point of this order is that the land of Israel is holy and belongs to God. Therefore, one must be concerned with paying tithes to the priests and Levites and provid382

Urbach, “The Mishnah” Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. XII, Cols. 93–109. The summary of the six orders of the Mishnah is based on Seltzer, Jewish People, 263 and J. Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 35, 104–109. 383

150

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ing for the poor. Also, one must be observant of the Sabbatical year in which the land lies fallow. 2. Moed (“set feasts”): This order has 12 tractates on holy days, the Sabbath, Passover, and other festivals. Also discussed are the Day of Atonement and other fasts, the shekel paid to the Temple, and the New Year. 3. Nashim (“women”): The 7 tractates of this order focus on matters of women and family. They discuss betrothal, marriage, divorce, and the ritual for a woman suspected of adultery. 4. Nezikin (“damages”): There are 10 tractates on basically two topics. The first topic is the rules for civil society, and the second topic is the institutions of society. Property rights, legal procedures, compensation for damages, ownership of found objects, sale and purchase of land, courts, and penalties and punishments for crimes are handled. Also attached to this order is the tractate, Avot, mentioned above—a collection of general ethical maxims. 5. Kodashim (“holy things”): The 11 tractates discuss rules about sacrificial offerings and other Temple concerns. 6. Tohorot (“purifications”): There are 12 tractates in this order on various aspects of maintaining ritual purity. (More will be said about this order below.)

JESUS, THE PHARISEES AND THE MISHNAH There is an interesting intersection of Pharisaic oral tradition and the New Testament at one point in the Gospel of Mark: And the Pharisees and some of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem, gathered near him. And when they had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with profane, 384 that is unwashed, hands…the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the traditions of the elders but eat bread with profane hands?” (Mark 7:1–2, 5)

This challenge from the Pharisees and scribes leads to a response from Jesus in which he comments on the practice of Korban (7:6–13) followed 384

The Greek koinos (NRLQR9)җ rendered “profane” here, is, according to M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1951) 32, the equivalent of the Talmudic expression stam yadaim (  ). Objects with the designation stam are those which are not definitely clean or unclean but which are uncertain.

JESUS AND PURITY

151

by Jesus’ speech to the crowd (and later to the disciples) in which he stresses what comes out of a person’s heart as opposed to what enters his stomach as being important to God (7:14–23). Most interpreters conclude that at least the gist of this story is an authentic and historical Jesus tradition. 385 The arguments for the historicity of at least the core of this text are as follows: 1) Mark 7:15 is paralleled by Gospel of Thomas 14 (“For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth—it is that which will defile you”). 386 2) Mark 7:15 can be easily translated back into the presumed original Aramaic. 3) The content of this text coheres with other emphases of Jesus (i.e., stress on what is within a person). 4) The form of Mark 7:15 coheres with other teachings of Jesus which are stated in antithetic parallelism (contrasting two ideas or statements). 5) Jesus’ teaching here may be echoed in Paul’s teaching in Romans 14:14. Paul sometimes quotes logia of Jesus in his epistles. 6) The controversy over handwashing is plausible since it can be shown that handwashing as Pharisaic teaching was in existence by the time of Jesus (see below). 387 Some scholars determine that only verses 1–8 are the original tradition, but most conclude that verse 15—which has a parallel in Gospel of Thomas 14—and perhaps verse 5 are the original core. 388 Either way, the usual 385

See J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: University Press, 2000) 147: “New Testament scholarship is almost unanimous in granting authenticity to the content . . . of what Jesus is recorded to have said in Mark 7:15.” R. W. Funk and R. W. Hoover, The Five Gospels, 69 give Mark 7:15 a pink color (Jesus probably said something like this). M. D. Hooker notes: “Few have questioned the authenticity of Mark 7:15” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991] 179). 386 Translation by T. O. Lambdin in J. M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977) 119. 387 For these arguments see: S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (Lund: Gleerup, 1978) 68–84; B. Chilton, “A Generative Exegesis of Mark 7:1–23” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (Leiden: Brill 1997) 297–317; and J. G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel (London: T. and T. Clark, 2004) 183–205. 388 On the complex tradition history of this text see: R. Bultman, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) 17–18, who believed that the original form of the dispute is found in verses 1–8 but that the church composed them (thus nothing is historical here); J. Lambrecht, “Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1–23” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 53 (1977) 24–83, who concludes (p. 66) that the tradition that Mark received included verses 1a, 2, 5c, 15, 18b–19ab,

152

JESUS THE GALILEAN

conclusion is that this text preserves a confrontation of the historical Jesus and the first century Pharisees over ritual purity. The main debate is over whether Jesus was repudiating ritual purity restrictions. Some analyses of this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees/scribes have stressed that the Pharisees were legalistic and too scrupulous about externals while ignoring the inner life or spiritual life. One nineteenth century commentator, for example, wrote : “The Pharisees had erred in confusing legal and spiritual defilement, and had added error to error by multiplying the causes of defilement in their tradition.” 389 This conclusion (though certainly not the tone) bears similarities with that of M. Borg’s otherwise magnificent monograph: The intra-Jewish battle between Jesus and the advocates of the purity system can be seen as a battle over two different ways to interpret Scripture . . . the elites of his day read Scripture in accordance with the paradigm of holiness as purity. Jesus read it in accordance with the paradigm of compassion. 390

Thus Borg maintains that Jesus opposed the ritual purity codes and substituted compassion for them. He lists five sayings (among them is our text quoted above) and four actions which in his view indicate that Jesus “indicted the purity system.” For example, Borg maintains that Jesus’ stress on purity in heart (Matt 5:8) shows that he did not value ritual purity. Jesus called the Pharisees unmarked graves indicating that Jesus thought they were a source of impurity (Luke 11:44). Jesus criticized the Pharisees for precision in tithing while neglecting justice (Luke 11:42=Matt 23:23). Further, Jesus touched lepers and hemorrhaging women, entered grave yards, and drove the money changers out of the Temple. All of these actions, as 20–22 and perhaps 23; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 334, 342–343, who maintained that 1–2 and 5–8 were the original parts of the controversy involving the historical Jesus; and Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 61–62, who gives the following analysis of Mark 7: Introduction (vv. 1, 2, and 5), Questions (v. 5), Isaiah Reply (vv. 6, 7), Korban Reply (vv. 9–12), Purity Reply (vv. 14, 15), Scene-change (v. 17), Medical Explanation (vv. 18–19), Ethical Explanation (vv. 20–22). Booth concludes that vv. 5b and 15 are the original dispute. H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (London: Oliphants, 1976) 181 states that most scholars take a position similar to that of Booth. 389 J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.) 398. 390 Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) 50–68, quote on p. 58.

JESUS AND PURITY

153

Borg sees them, show that Jesus repudiated the ritual purity system for a better way. This understanding of Jesus’ attitude toward the purity system can be found in several other publications on the New Testament. 391 Most of these scripture texts, however, only show that Jesus stressed spiritual transformation. They do not indicate one way or the other what Jesus thought about ritual purity. Borg’s explanation of one other saying of Jesus can well illustrate this point. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) Jesus has the priest and the Levite pass by the victim of the robbers while the Samaritan has compassion on him. This parable to Borg “is a critique of a way of life ordered around ritual purity.” The parable is further, a “pointed attack on the purity system and an advocacy of another way: compassion.” 392 But Borg’s analysis suffers from the fallacy of the polarization of preferences. If I say that compassion is the most important concern, I do not necessarily say at the same time that ritual purity is not important at all. The priest and Levite, as Borg correctly advises us, would have assumed that the victim was dead. Corpse impurity was the gravest form of uncleanness. The main sources of uncleanness in the Mishnah are called “fathers of uncleanness” but corpse impurity alone is termed “father of the fathers of uncleanness.” Ordinary people are permitted to contract 391

See, e.g., H. Braun, Jesus of Nazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 53; G. Aulen, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 49; J. Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel” Semeia 35 (1986) 91–128, esp. 107: “What would purity-minded people object to about Jesus in Mark’s gospel? Just about everything Jesus did!”; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 175 says the Pharisees had “petty legalistic piety”; N. T. Wright, Victory, 398: Jesus was claiming that “the traditions which attempted to bolster Israel’s national identity were out of date and out of line”; B. Chilton suggests that Jesus “resented the elaborate bathing required by the Judean priesthood as a condition of entering the Temple.” “Were the Galileans impure?” Chilton has Jesus asking himself. (Rabbi Jesus [New York: Doubleday, 2000] 45); but see also Chilton, “Generative Exegesis of Mark 7:1–23”: “Jesus and his circle appear to have been keenly concerned with purity as such, in a manner similar to the Pharisees” (p. 305); B. Malina and R. Rohrbaugh see the dispute as a battle over social boundaries, over who is in and who is out (Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992] 222); J. D. Crossan believes that Jesus’ opposition to Jewish purity codes is based on his sympathy with peasants’ opposing aristocrats who were more able to keep them (The Essential Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994] 151); R. W. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 204: “(Jesus) ignored, or transgressed, or violated purity regulations and taboos.” 392 Borg, Meeting Jesus, 54–55.

154

JESUS THE GALILEAN

corpse impurity in order to participate in the burial of a relative or friend. As a matter of fact it is one’s duty to help bury people. But priests could only participate in the burial of near relatives (Lev 21:1–3) and the High Priest could not participate at all (Lev 21:11). Thus we have a priest and Levite (who perhaps maintained the same level of purity) who are presented with a conflict. Should they make themselves impure when they judge that the man is already dead and there is nothing they can do for him anyway except bury him or should they examine the body in case he is still alive? This is a real ethical dilemma which is seldom appreciated. Jesus’ point is that love must surpass all other requirements. But surpassing is not the same as annulling. If the ritual purity laws are not important to Jesus, then the act of compassion is not that significant. If they are still important, then it means that one must even go to the point of defiling himself in the gravest way if it means doing an act of compassion. Did Jesus repudiate the ritual purity laws and specifically the Pharisaic interpretation of them? To answer this question I first summarize the ritual purity laws as they appear in the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah) and then the application and interpretation of them in the Mishnah. The Mishnah contains the most detailed presentation (of one group’s interpretation) of the ritual purity rules from antiquity and is the closest we have to the Pharisees’ own ideas about purity. It is, therefore, in this investigation, indispensable. Next, I will offer four general arguments that should incline one toward viewing Jesus as concerned about keeping ritual purity. Third, I will offer three specific arguments that Jesus kept ritual purity. Finally, I will suggest a better way of understanding Mark 7, using a text in the Mishnah for comparison.

RITUAL PURITY: WHAT IT WAS AND HOW IT WORKED Ritual Purity in the Torah The rules of clean and unclean are found mainly in Leviticus 11–17 and Numbers 19. A good way to summarize these various rules is to identify the three main causes of uncleanness: y Leprosy (of humans, clothes, and of buildings); y Discharge from the sexual organs (a menstruating woman, a man or woman with a diseased flux, a seminal emission, and a woman after childbirth);

JESUS AND PURITY

155

Dead bodies (of animals or humans). 393 To become unclean meant primarily that one was excluded from the temple until the process of purification could be completed. But there were consequences of uncleanness that went beyond temple participation. For example, in the case of leprosy, the “unclean” leper or one suspected of having leprosy was shut away from the community until a decision could be reached about the leprosy and, if it was concluded that he/she had leprosy, the victim was excluded from the community and had to live outside the village. A man was forbidden to have sexual relations with his wife during her days of menstruation. Food that became unclean, due to the corpse of a “creeping thing” (sherets , i.e., insects, mice, lizards, etc.), had to be discarded. Thus, even in the First Temple Period (or the period of the Hebrew Bible) uncleanness did not only affect one’s admissibility into the Temple but had broader implications for daily life. The book of Leviticus gives several different procedures for purification but they basically included bathing, sometimes washing one’s clothes, and waiting until sunset (or longer for some impurities). Corpse uncleanness (that uncleanness contracted through contact with a human corpse) required seven days’ wait, sprinkling twice with the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, and bathing. Uncleanness after childbirth required seven or fourteen days’ wait, depending on whether the child was a boy or girl. Purification from leprosy required bringing two birds to the priest— one of which was killed and the other released—waiting seven days, shaving all of the hair from the unclean person’s body, washing the clothes, bathing, and offering three lambs. Not only could people become unclean, but utensils, clothes, food, and drink as well. The book of Leviticus gives instructions for the cleansing of some of these objects, but not for the purification of food and drink. Presumably unclean food simply could not be used for temple worship, but that made unclean by the corpse of a creeping thing was probably thrown away (Lev. 11:20, 23, 29–30, 41–43). Even houses could be declared unclean from “leprosy.” In these cases, the houses were destroyed. The following table summarizes the sources of uncleanness and the means of removing the uncleanness: y

393 See Roth, Wigoder, et al., “Purity and Impurity” Encyclopedia Judaica XIII, Cols. 1405–1414, esp. 1405.

Impurity 1. corpse uncleanness 2. childbirth 3. menstruation 4. diseased discharge from the sexual organ (male) (female) 5. semen 6. contact with what one who has a discharge sits, lies, or leans on (midras uncleanness); also with the spittle of such a person or touching or being touched by such a person 7. contact with what a menstruating woman sits, lies, or leans on 8. vessels which become unclean

9. carcass of an unclean animal

10. leprosy in people, garments, and houses

Means of Purification 7 days, red heifer, sprinkling 7 to 14 days, then 33 to 66 days 7 days 7 days, bathing, wash his clothes, sacrifices 7 days, sacrifices bathing and sunset bathing, washing clothes, sunset

bathing, washing clothes, sunset Break, if fired clay; wash, if wooden (stone vessels, animal dung vessels, and unfired clay vessels cannot become unclean) for people—bathe, wash clothes, sunset; for vessels—break or wash; for food (only if also wet)—non use long and complicated procedure

Table 5 Torah’s Rule of Uncleanness (Adapted from Sanders) 394

Ritual Purity in the Mishnah The Mishnah collects, organizes, explains, and expands the biblical texts. Sometimes the expansions are logical developments and sometimes the expansions are merely new decrees (e.g., the decree on hand washing). After the reader has learned the basics concerning ritual purity from the texts of Leviticus and Numbers, it might be interesting to ask how he or she would organize all of these rules and then compare with how the Mishnah has 394

This table is adapted and simplified from that given in E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990) 151. A helpful series of tables of purification procedures and effects is given in J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 986–991.

156

JESUS AND PURITY

157

done it. The compilers of the Mishnah have collected and organized the purity rules in the sixth order, called Tohorot (cleannesses). The sixth order consists of twelve tractates: Kelim Oholot Negaim Parah Tohorot Miqvaot Niddah Makshirin Zavim Tebul-Yom

Yadaim Uqtsin

“vessels” “tents”; because being under the same “tent” as a corpse makes one unclean “lepers” “the red heifer”; used in purifying corpse uncleanness “cleannesses”; the name also of the entire order “ritual baths” “menstrual impurity” “liquids that predispose dry foods to impurity” “those with a diseased flux from the sexual organ” “those who have taken the ritual bath but must wait until sunset for total purification” “hands”; the tractate on washing the hands (“stalks” of plants that are susceptible to uncleanness)

Lev 11:33–35 Lev 19:14–18 Lev 13:47–59, 14:34–57 Num 19:1–22

Lev 15:19–24 Lev 11:34, 38 Lev 15:1–18, 25–30

Table 6 Tractates of the Order Tohorot

This order of the Mishnah is unique in that it does not occur at all in the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud (except for the tractate Niddah) and appears in the Babylonian Talmud without any Gemara or comment (again except for the tractate Niddah). Thus, we cannot turn to the Talmud for interpretation of the Mishnah, and are left only with the Tosephta as early commentary. J. Neusner observes that the Mishnah wants to show: 1. the sources of uncleanness (Oholot, Negaim, Niddah, Makshirin, Zavim, and Tebul-Yom) 2. the objects and substances susceptible to uncleanness (Kelim, Tohorot, and Uqtsin) and 3. the modes of purification (Parah, Miqvaot, and Yadaim). But, in the Mishnah, the main topics of concern are corpse uncleanness, menstrual

158

JESUS THE GALILEAN

blood, and the diseased fluxes from the sexual organs of males or females. 395 It might be helpful at this point to define what impurity was. Mary Douglas’ classic definition is that uncleanness is simply “matter out of place” and that it exhibits a lack of wholeness. Neusner similarly defines uncleanness as an imbalance in nature or what is disruptive of the economy of nature. F. Schmidt defines impurity as “mixture and disorder.” Sanders explains it as a change of status. 396 Thus, given this definition, we would think of uncleanness as something that interrupts the accepted order. But the above definition sounds more etic than emic. It sounds more like an outsider’s definition of uncleanness than the definition of one who believed in it and practiced it. Those societies for whom ritual purity was/is important conceive(d) of it as more than matter out of place. More primitive cultures, than that of the rabbis of the Mishnah, treat(ed) impurity as a demonic presence or demonic force. W. R. Smith, in his description of the Semitic peoples of Arabia, distinguished between Semites and “savages.” The Semites, he maintained, keep ritual purity taboos because uncleanness is hateful to God, but the savage avoids impurity taboos because dangerous spirits are associated with it. 397 The ancient Babylonians also associated ritual impurity with the presence of demons. To cleanse a house, for example, one had to drive out the demon. 398 Likewise, in the Zoroastrianism of Persia, uncleanness was considered demonic. 399 In archaic Greek culture, impurity was conceived of as an “infection, as a material substance which could be washed away with water.” Further, this infection was associated with an evil power that could cause death. 400

395 Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism: A Systemic Account (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 40, 66. 396 Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge, 1966) 41; Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism, 92, 129; Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 91; Sanders, Judaism, 220. 397 Smith, Religion of the Semites, 447. 398 See H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York: Mentor, 1962) 301–302. See also Milgrom, Leviticus, 1–16, 256 and 911. 399 G. F. Moore, History of Religions (New York: Scribner’s, 1947) I, 390. 400 See M. P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949) 85. Cf. W. Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985) 76, who notes that uncleanness belongs to daimones. They are concerned with unclean things and are themselves unclean.

JESUS AND PURITY

159

But in contemporary cultures, uncleanness is more like an impersonal force and less like the presence of demons. Anna S. Meigs’ study of the culture of New Guinea led to a definition of impurity which included decaying substances which threaten the body. 401 Likewise, in New Guinea, among the Hua people, the vital essence of another person (called nu), found in bodily fluids, pollutes (makes unclean) and can cause illnesses. 402 Among the Nuer folk of eastern Africa, uncleanness can jump from one person to another—entering the body through an open wound. 403 Thus, in ancient non-Jewish cultures and in contemporary “primitive” cultures, uncleanness is more than just matter out of place. Some scholars maintain that the ancient Israelite concept of impurity was anything associated with death or representing death. 404 Thus corpse uncleanness is the most severe impurity; the discharges from the genitals represent loss of vitality or life-substance, etc. This view is not unlike the uncleanness-as-disease view in the preceding paragraph. If true, the people of the Hebrew Bible also thought of impurity as a real entity: death or its representation. Even in the sophisticated teaching of the Mishnah it seems that uncleanness is conceived of as more than matter out of place. Neusner maintains that the Mishnah conceives of impurity as at times an invisible, “viscous liquid”; a “viscous gas”; a force something like what we would call radiation; a light; or a “nimbus.” 405 Uncleanness squishes out if pressed upon, seeks to escape a vessel if not properly stopped, and radiates out into a tent where there is a corpse. Though invisible, the ancients knew it was there. These similes of Neusner must not be taken too literally, but they do indicate that uncleanness was considered an unseen force, influence, or essence. 401 A. S. Meigs, “A Papuan Perspective on Pollution,” Man 13 (1978) 313. This definition is accepted by H. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 23. 402 Meigs, Food, Sex and Pollution, 100–101. 403 Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion, 185 wrote that the uncleanness of an adulterous man and woman may enter the body of the wronged husband through an open wound. 404 H. K. Harrington, “Purity” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, eds., EDSS, II, 724–728. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257: “Thus for both Israel and her neighbors impurity was a physical substance, an aerial miasma that possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred.” 405 Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism, 83, 87, 89.

160

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Both cleanness and uncleanness are not only changes of state and not only matter out of place or in place. They are, in some way, real entities because one can be more unclean than another or, conversely, more holy. That is, some impurities were more impure than others. The Mishnah has a graded list of “fathers of uncleannesses” (avot ha-tumah). The expression, father of uncleanness, indicates any of the sources of uncleanness given in the Hebrew Bible. These are distinguished from “offspring of uncleanness” (toledot ha-tumah) which is something made unclean by a father of uncleanness and which can, in turn, make something or someone else unclean to a lesser degree. Thus, a father of uncleanness imparts to a susceptible person or object first grade uncleanness and this person or object can impart second grade uncleanness. The Mishnah speaks of up to fifth grade uncleanness, which would be a very low grade of uncleanness. 406 Mishnah Kelim 1:4, however, also makes distinctions even among the fathers of uncleanness. The gradations given are as follows:

406 See H. K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, 149, 203, 240, 245, and 246. The author presents graphics to teach that the higher a person or object is on the purity scale, the more susceptible that person or object is to impurity. Thus, e.g., fourth grade impurity would not affect most objects but would render the sacrifices of the temple (the “holy things”) unfit for temple use. Cf. also the “trees” of impurity contamination in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 954–964. The trees are taken from the work of D. P. Wright.

JESUS AND PURITY

WORST UNCLEANNESS

LEAST UNCLEANNESS

161

1. Corpse uncleanness 2. Bones from humans 3. A leper 4. A woman who has a flux 5. A man with a flux 6. Whatever a man with a flux rides on 7. The discharge of a man with a flux, his spittle, semen, and urine, and the blood of a menstruant 8. One who has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman 9. Carrion & sin offering water sufficient in quantity to sprinkle, dead creeping thing, male semen, person who has contracted uncleanness from corpse, leper in the days of reckoning, sin offering too little water to sprinkle

Table 7 Gradations of the Fathers of Uncleanness

But just as some uncleannesses were more unclean than others, some holinesses were holier than others. Again the Mishnah, with its love of organizing and presenting lists, gives a hierarchy of holy places (m. Kelim 1:6– 9): HOLIEST

LEAST

HOLY

1. The Holy of Holies of the Temple 2. The Holy Place or Sanctuary of the Temple 3. Between the Porch and the Altar of the Temple 4. The Court of the Priests of the Temple 5. The Court of the Israelites of the Temple 6. The Court of Women of the Temple 7. The Rampart of the Temple 8. The Temple Mount 9. Jerusalem 10. Walled Cities in Israel 11. The Land of Israel

Table 8 Gradations of Holiness

In addition, people could be classified according to the level of their maintenance of ritual purity. The higher one’s level of purity maintenance, the more sensitive one was to lower grades of impurity and the more precautions one took to avoid impurity. One passage in the tractate m. Hagigah 2:7 (a tractate in the order Moed, outside the order we are primarily concerned with here) gives the following hierarchy of ritual purity maintenance:

STRICTEST LEVEL

LEAST STRICT

1. Those that occupy themselves with Sinoffering 2. Those that eat Hallowed Things in the Temple 3. Those priests that eat Heave Offering outside the Temple 4. Pharisees 5. Ordinary People (Am ha-Aretz)

Table 9 Levels of Strictness 407

It was not a sin to contract uncleanness. As a matter of fact many of the unclean states in Judaism were the result of good and necessary actions. 408 It is a good thing to bury your dead relatives, to bear a child, and to have sexual intercourse with your spouse. Menstruation is natural and expected. Many of the required sacrifices and other temple procedures rendered the priests unclean. Other sources of uncleanness were unfortunate, but not necessarily bad: leprosy, diseased discharges, and carcasses of creeping things (insects, mice, lizards, etc.) in your food. These are not evil or sinful, but they must be remedied and purified. There were uncleannesses such as idolatry, which were not permissible, but, in the main, it is failing to take purity seriously that is sinful. For someone to enter the temple or for a priest to attempt to undertake his duties in the temple in an unclean state would be a terrible sacrilege (m. Sanhedrin 9:6). Of course, there were many different ideas in first century Judaism about what it meant to take ritual purity seriously. Finally, some holy objects or holy actions could leave the participant in a state of uncleanness. Those who officiated and handled the ashes of the red heifer were made unclean by the process (Num 19:7–8) and the holy scriptures made the hands unclean (m. Yadaim 3:2). Such a—to us— peculiar phenomenon as a holy object making one unclean is known from other religions as well. W. R. Smith observed that, among the peoples of the

407

Based on Sanders, Jewish Law, 205–207. Cf. Sanders, Jewish Law, 142; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 149; H. K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, 32; and F. Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks, 91. 408

162

JESUS AND PURITY

163

Arabian Peninsula, there is sometimes doubtful ground between holy and unclean. 409 One thing is clear as the reader works through the sixth order of the Mishnah: the Pharisees and their intellectual and spiritual descendants, the rabbis, took ritual purity very seriously. Every biblical precept is parsed, debated, and logically extended where appropriate. For example, Num 19:14 states that anyone entering a tent, where a corpse is, will also become unclean through corpse uncleanness even without actually touching the corpse. The rabbis first broadened the word tent to mean any covering, thus including houses, lean-to’s, etc. Further, they explained that if a person overshadowed a corpse or were overshadowed by a corpse he would become unclean since he had for a time, or the corpse had for a time, served as a sort of tent. Finally, they explain that a “tent” may also serve as a container of corpse impurity. Thus, if a small portion of a corpse (a bone, e.g.,) were put under a pot or into a pot with a stopper in it, a house in which the pot might be standing would not be made unclean since the pot, serving as a tent, would contain the uncleanness. This protection against uncleanness works, decided the rabbis, unless there is a hole in the container-tent equal to a hand’s breadth square (see tractate Oholot). These are not unreasonable extensions of the biblical text, and they witness to scholarship that is zealous to do the will of God. Far from legalism, the Mishnah attests to people who lovingly and ardently seek to understand the principles behind the laws and to insure that they are obeyed. For the Pharisees (and rabbis), honoring God meant keeping his laws and the laws about ritual purity were just as important as any others. God has commanded them, and one simply cannot ignore them. If one truly loves and fears God, one must first understand and second obey God’s commandments.

WHY IT IS LIKELY THAT JESUS MAINTAINED RITUAL PURITY Four General Arguments Now that we have surveyed the basics of ritual purity, we can list and explain the reasons that I think argue that Jesus would have observed and valued ritual purity. Most of the scripture texts that we listed above to which scholars appeal to show that Jesus repudiated Jewish ritual purity only show 409 Smith, Religion of the Semites, 448–452. Cf. J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: Abridged Edition (New York: Macmillan, 1960) 548–549.

164

JESUS THE GALILEAN

that Jesus stressed spiritual transformation. They do not indicate one way or the other what Jesus thought about ritual purity. Only if we spin the billiard ball of interpretation a certain way first must we conclude that such texts, if they are reliable traditions about Jesus’ views, show that he repudiated the purity codes. But did Jesus repudiate the ritual purity laws and specifically the Pharisaic interpretation of them? How should we spin the ball? I want to suggest four general considerations that indicate that we should spin the ball the other way, against the inclination to interpret such texts as a repudiation of ritual purity concerns.

1. Commanded in the Bible First, let us state the obvious: Ritual purity was commanded in the Bible. As we saw above, the concept and most of the regulations concerning ritual purity are found in Lev 11–17 and Num 19. Ritual purity was not a Pharisaic invention or laws of the “Judean priesthood” (Chilton); it was not a perversion of the Hebrew scriptures into legalism. Rather—as they thought of it—ritual purity is commanded of Israel. 410 To ignore the demands of ritual purity one must deliberately disobey the Torah. One could not pick and choose which of the Torah one thought spiritual and which one did not. The point was to learn obedience to YHWH whether one understood the teaching of the Torah or not. Of course, the repudiation of the Torah is exactly what some maintain that Jesus did. 411 The usual response 412 to this claim (and I think it is a convincing response) is to cite the struggles which the early church had with 410

H. K. Harrington estimates that 25% of the laws of the Mishnah are devoted to the subject of ritual purity and relates that a detailed knowledge of this topic was necessary to be a member of the Sanhedrin (Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, 35). Jews considered the laws very important. 411 G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 96–100; E. Kaesemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus” in Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 39. J. Lambrecht goes so far as to affirm: “The historical Jesus was in reality both anti-Halachah and anti-Torah” (“Jesus and the Law,” 77). 412 See A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) 39; P. Fredricksen, Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (New York: Vintage Books, 1999) 106; R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 103; C. Carlston, “The Things that Defile (Mark vii.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark” NTS 15 (1968) 75–96; D. J. Rudolph, “Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b” Evangelical Quarterly 74 (2002) 291–311.

JESUS AND PURITY

165

these issues. The disagreements referred to in the book of Acts (e.g., chapters 10–11 and 15) and in Paul’s letters (especially to the Galatians) seem less likely if Jesus had taught against keeping the regulations of the Torah. Yet when disputes arise in these texts, the protagonists, Peter and Paul, appeal not to the words of the historical Jesus, but to the instruction from the risen Lord (Acts 10:13; Gal 1:16). But there is a larger issue at stake here as well. Those who make this claim in my opinion fail to appreciate what the Torah meant to first century Jews. All of Jewish life and activity was centered on the Law. 413 No one can read about the horrific martyrdoms in service of Torah that are recorded in 2 Maccabees and think that Jews could lightly regard Torah observance. Granted, there were Jews that completely assimilated and renounced their Jewishness. But it would not be easy to find a first century person who claimed to be a faithful Jew and at the same time decided that observance of the Torah was optional.

2. Ritual Purity Concerns Common in Antiquity Second, concern for ritual purity was common throughout the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean World. This concern was part of the cultural air that ancient persons breathed. Therefore, it would be quite anachronistic to attribute to the ancients a modern, western view about this topic. One did not just decide that one did not like purity concerns. They were assumed in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome. 414 I offer examples from two cultures: The Greeks bathed before offering sacrifices and sprinkled themselves with holy water upon entering a 413

As Harvey points out (Jesus and Constraints, 53) the Torah was the center piece of both the synagogue and the courts of law. One could not easily or cavalierly in Jewish culture decide to ignore it. 414 This is widely recognized by those studying Jewish purity. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 763–764; Roth, Wigoder, et al., Encyclopedia Judaica, XIII, Col. 1407; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM, 1992) 230; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 30, 134. For authors on the Ancient Near East see: S. H. Hooke, Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma, 1963) 52; E. A. Budge, Osiris (New York: University Books, 1961) II, 176, 217–219. T. Kazen’s statement about corpse impurity is appropriate here: “As defilement from corpses was a general idea in Antiquity, not only among Jews but in all neighboring cultures, there is no reason to imagine that Jesus operated without this concept, or ignored it totally” (Jesus and Purity Halakhah [Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 2002] 196).

166

JESUS THE GALILEAN

temple. They also kept a jar filled with water at the door of a dead person so that the mourners could purify themselves upon leaving the house. 415 An inscription from Pergamum (Asia Minor) dated to around 133 BCE gives directions for its citizens concerning ritual purity: Further, citizens and all others shall observe purity before going into the temple of the goddess (Athene Nikephoris). After cohabitation with his own wife a man may go in on the same day, and a woman after cohabitation with her own husband. After cohabitation, in the case of a man, with any other woman than his wife, in the case of a woman, with any other man than her husband, they shall not go in before the second day, and that after washing. Similarly, after contact with the dead or with a woman in childbirth, they shall not go in before the second day. After attending a burial or the carrying out of a corpse, if they sprinkle themselves and pass through the gate at which the vessels for purification are set, they shall be clean on the same day. 416

Diogenes Laertius has the Greek philosopher Pythagoras teach: “Purity is gained through washing, bathing, and sprinkling.” 417 Many of the same purity concerns we find in the Torah and Mishnah (corpse impurity, impurity after childbirth, after sex, during menstruation) were also concerns of the Greeks. 418 Likewise the Zoroastrian religion (from Persia) stressed ritual purity requiring washing with water and the sprinkling of cow’s urine. Corpses, menstruating women, women after childbirth and certain diseases (leprosy especially) were sources of uncleanness that had to be remedied. Corpses were so polluting that the devotees of Zoroastrianism did not bury them (since they would pollute the ground) but exposed them to the vultures. 419

415 See Euripides, Ion; Homer, Iliad i.313–314; Odyssey iv.759; Theophrastus, Superstitious Man. See also E. Guhl and W. Koner, The Greeks and Romans (London: Bracken, 1989) 282; Burkert, Greek Religion, 76–79; Nilsson, History of Greek Religion, pp. 83–84, 218; and C. H. Moore, The Religious Thought of the Greeks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 45. 416 Translation in E. Bevan, Later Greek Religion (Boston, Beacon Press, 1950) 96. 417 Diogenes Laertius VIII.33. Translation in D. G. Rice and J. E. Stambaugh, Sources for the Study of Greek Religion (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 164. 418 Burkert, Greek Religion, 77–79; Nilsson, History of the Greek Religion, 83. 419Moore, History of Religions, 389–393; J. B. Noss, Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan, 1969) 348.

JESUS AND PURITY

167

Further, as the cultural anthropologists inform us, many nondeveloped or traditional societies still have great concern for purity and pollution. These states are usually determined by matters related to corpses, menstruation, childbirth, the sexual organs and certain foods, much like those concerns in Leviticus and Numbers in the Hebrew Bible. 420 One of the best windows into the Hebrew Bible’s teachings on purity is the study of these cultures. In considering this topic, the modern person must overcome a natural cultural revulsion. We must not think that everyone thinks about ritual purity the way we do. All of the talk in the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah of bodily secretions may sound disgusting to those of us who grew up in the western hemisphere. 421 But what seems to us like a neurotic obsession with bodily dirt seems to them not only important but vital. It is their way of seeing the universe. As a first century man, Jesus surely saw the universe the same way. Unless the interpreter can appreciate the supreme importance of ritual purity to these cultures, he/she will not grasp what was going on in Judaism in the first century of our era.

3. Several Jewish Sects Stressed Purity Third, there were numerous Jewish sects that stressed ritual purity, not just the Pharisees. One of the questions we need to answer in considering the text quoted above from Mark 7 is to what extent did Pharisees and other Jews maintain ritual purity outside of the temple. Did most Jews not worry about ritual purity except for “legalists” like the Pharisees? There is a sharp disagreement between J. Neusner and E. P. Sanders on this. Neusner has maintained (although he would certainly not think of the Pharisees as legalists) that the Pharisees in general tried to live like priests in the temple creating a huge gulf between themselves and the ordinary people (called in the 420 See M. Douglas, Purity and Danger, 29–40; A. S. Meigs, Food, Sex and Pollution (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1984); E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956) 185; A. S. Buckser, “Purity and Pollution” in D. Levinson and M. Embers, eds., Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (New York: Henry Holt, 1996) III, 1045–1049; W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London: A. C. Black, 1927) 152–155, 446–454; E. D. Soper, The Religions of Mankind (New York: Abingdon, 1921) 74; and Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, 22. 421 Douglas, Purity and Danger, 73–93. Douglas calls this mind-set “primitive.” Smith, Religion of the Semites, 449 states: “From our standpoint the laws of uncleanness appear irrational.”

168

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Mishnah am ha-aretz, the people of the land). Sanders, on the other hand, wants to shrink the gulf between the Pharisees and the ordinary people. Although the Pharisees were very concerned with ritual purity both in the temple and outside it, they did not try to live like priests in the temple, maintains Sanders, nor were the ordinary people as lax about ritual purity in everyday life as has been supposed. 422 The evidence would seem to favor Sanders’ position. The text from Mishnah Hagigah, from which we constructed the table above (Table 4.6), does not indicate that the Pharisees were equal with the priests in purity but that they were certainly higher than the ordinary people. Further, as Sanders points out, nowhere in the Mishnah does it forbid a Pharisee to contract corpse uncleanness. If one was a priest, he was forbidden to contract corpse uncleanness except in the case of a close family member. The High Priest could not contract it at all, meaning that he could not participate in the funeral services of his family (Lev 21:1–3,11). But the Pharisees are not forbidden to do this. They could engage in the funeral rites of anyone but of course they would undergo purification afterward. Therefore, the Pharisees, although living in a higher level of ritual purity than the ordinary masses, did not think they should live like Temple priests. Further, there is strong evidence that ritual purity was a concern for many Jews in the first century, not just for Pharisees and priests. Thus, we should not only lower the Pharisaic level of purity; we should raise the level of purity of many of the sects and even of the ordinary people. In the first place, there were other sects with their own ideas about how ritual purity ought to be observed, and, in the second place, the peasants were more scrupulous than we had thought. These conclusions are clear from a survey of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Mishnah (and Tosephta), Josephus, the Apocrypha, and especially the material remains. The Essenes present us with another sect that was extremely meticulous about ritual purity. Both Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to their emphasis on the purity of the group. In the first place, only members 422

Neusner, From Politics to Piety (Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973) 83; idem., The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 65; Sanders, Jewish Law, 173 and Judaism, 440. Some of Neusner’s more recent publications seem to state the case in a modified form. See Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism, 70. For others who follow Sanders see: H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality (Cambridge: University Press, 1999) 209–213; J. D. G. Dunn, “Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate” NTS 48 (2002) 449–467; and J. C. Poirier, “Purity Beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era” JBL 122 (2003) 247–265.

JESUS AND PURITY

169

who had attained a high level of purity were allowed to share in the full meal of both solid food and liquids. L. Schiffman explains that there were three stages of purity at Qumran based on the three examinations done to novices (1QS 6:16–22). After the first examination and during the first year of probation, the novice was considered unclean and not permitted to share with the sect’s communal meal (called “the Purity,” tohorah). After the second examination and during the second year of probation, the novice could eat the solid food of the community having attained a mid-status between uncleanness and purity. Finally, after the third examination, the novice was considered ritually pure and could not only eat the solid food of the community, but consume the liquids as well (remember liquids predispose to impurity). 423 Not only were the novices kept from the communal meal of the members, but Josephus indicates that when a novice touched someone of a higher grade of purity the latter had to take a ritual bath (War 2.150). The Essenes were especially scrupulous about liquids and evidently adopted the Pharisaic interpretation of Leviticus. Leviticus 11:34, 38 speak only of “water” predisposing to uncleanness. But the Mishnah interprets water to mean any one of seven liquids: water, dew, blood, milk, bee’s honey, oil, or wine (m. Makhshirin 6:4). Thus, the Essenes were concerned to keep novices away from the liquids of the communal meal (e.g., wine). Further, although most people in that region would rub olive oil on their skin, as protection against the sun and wind, the Essenes refused to do so, evidently because they feared being more susceptible to uncleanness (Josephus, War 2.123; CD 12:15–17). Finally, the Dead Sea document, called the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT), lists as one of the disputes between the Essenes and others the pouring of liquids from a clean container to an unclean container. The Essenes maintained that the uncleanness traveled up the unbroken stream of water to defile the clean container. Perhaps the clearest evidence that the Essenes stressed ritual purity is the number of references to ritual baths and the actual baths found at Qumran. Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Essenes bathed in cold water before each meal (War 2. 129; 1QS 5:13–14), that new members took the ritual bath (War 2. 138), and that, after defecation, they washed themselves as though ritually defiled (War 2.149). One Dead Sea document, the Damascus Document (CD 10:11), gives instructions on the

423 L. H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) 162. See the Tohorot texts from Qumran cave 4 (4Q274–278).

170

JESUS THE GALILEAN

proper kind of ritual bath. At least two ritual baths have been found at Qumran. The number of texts demonstrating that ritual purity was of supreme importance to the Essenes could be multiplied. 424 But even the casual reader of both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the classical sources on the Essenes will be convinced that ritual purity was highly desired by this sect. If anything, they were even more scrupulous about ritual purity than the Pharisees. How many other sects were there—which are unknown or about whom little is known—that also lived intensely pure lives? The Samaritans, for example, although considered by the Pharisees perpetually unclean, were actually very concerned about ritual purity. Epiphanius (Haereseis 9.3) wrote that they took a ritual bath when they touched a stranger or a non-Samaritan and carefully avoided corpses if at all possible. 425 The rabbinic literature also makes reference to several pietist groups that were zealous to maintain ritual purity at all times. The so called “associates” (haverim) were supposed to refrain from giving their heave offerings and tithes to the am ha-aretz, to protect their purity from the am ha-aretz, and to eat their ordinary food in a state of purity (t. Demai 2:2). 426 The “morning bathers” (tovlei shaharin), who evidently took a daily ritual bath, regardless 424

See especially G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Cleveland: Collins-World, 1977) 53–54, 102, 143, 180; J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 81, 85–87; J. Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll” JBL 97 (1978) 501–523; M. Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 21–26; H. K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, 47–67; and Poirier, “Purity Beyond the Temple” 247–265. See also CD 12, 11QT 45–48, 4QMMT. 425 See A. Buechler, “The Levitical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine Before the Year 70” Jewish Quarterly Review 17 (1926–27) 1–81; idem., “The Law of Purification in Mark vii.1–23” ExT 20 (1909) 34–40. 426 Were the haverim( ) the same as the Pharisees, a subgroup within the Pharisees, or a totally different group with some similarities to the Pharisees? J. Neusner (From Politics to Piety, 84, 87) seems to equate the two. E. P. Sanders had previously suggested that the two were totally different religious sects (Jesus and Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 187) but later expressed uncertainty about this conclusion (Jewish Law From Jesus to the Mishnah, 250). E. Rivkin (A Hidden Revolution [Nashville; Abingdon, 1978] 175) declares: “The haberim are not Pharisees.” H. Maccoby (Ritual and Morality, 209) agrees. R. P. Booth believes the haverim were one of four sub-groups within Pharisaism: haverim, “extremist” Pharisees, ordinary Pharisees, and sages (Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 193).

JESUS AND PURITY

171

of any known defilement, were critical of the Pharisees because they did not (t. Yadaim 2:20). 427 The Sadducees also took ritual purity very seriously and criticized the Pharisees because of their laxity in handling liquids (m. Yadaim 4:7). Thus there were probably numerous sects the defining difference of which was the interpretation and the application of ritual purity. Concern—or hyper-concern—for ritual purity was not just a Pharisaic characteristic.

4. Ritual Purity Important to Common Jews Ritual purity was increasingly important even to Jews that did not belong to a sect. 428 Probably most Jews of Palestine in the first century did not belong to a religious sect. What sort of concerns would they have had about ritual purity apart from going to the temple? I offer eight cases from the literature: First, Josephus writes that, when Antipas founded the city of Tiberias in Galilee (1st century CE), he had trouble settling the city with Jews because there were so many graves in the area, and the Jews did not want to contract corpse impurity (Ant 18.36–38). Tiberias is a long distance from Jerusalem and surely most of those settling there were not intending to go to the temple right away. Yet, they did not want to live on or near a possible grave. Second, he narrates the story of the opportunistic John of Gischala (1st century CE) in which John sold cheap olive oil from Gischala for a high price to Jews in Caesarea Philippi because they did not want to buy oil from Gentiles, suspecting that their oil had contracted impurity from creeping things (Life 74–76=War 2.591; cf. Ant 12.120). Thus the ordinary Jews of Caesarea Philippi did not want oil that might have been pressed or stored in an unclean state. There was no concern for using the oil in the temple. Rather, the oil seems to have been entirely for everyday use. Third, the book of Judith (1st century BCE) tells that Judith bathed each evening before eating dinner and, after the bath, remained in her tent to maintain purity (Judith 12:7–9). Regular bathing before meals bespeaks a piety even beyond most of the Pharisees.

427

Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 202 argues that the “morning bathers” were a pre-70 CE group since the text follows a pericope about pre-70 Boethusians who complain against the Pharisees. 428 Dunn, “Jesus and Purity” 455.

172

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Fourth, the men in the army of Judas Maccabeus (2nd century BCE) thought it necessary to undergo ritual purification before the Sabbath. But purification was not a Sabbath concern but originally only a temple concern. One purified himself/herself for participation in the temple cultus, not to celebrate the Sabbath. Thus they have by this time added further applications to ritual purity (See 2 Macc 12:38). Fifth, Tobit (Tobit 2:9; 2nd century BCE), because he had had contact with a corpse, would not enter his own house in the evening. But the story makes no reference to his intending soon to enter the temple. Sixth, two texts in the Jewish sections of the Sibylline Oracles 3.591– 593 (2nd to 1st century BCE) and 4.162–166 (80 CE) refer to bathing in the morning before prayer. 429 Seventh, both the Epistle of Aristeas (written sometime between 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE) and Josephus (1st century CE) claimed that the translators of the Septuagint version washed their hands in the sea each day before working on the translation of the Bible (Aristeas 305–306; Josephus, Ant 12. 106). This too is an additional requirement to the Torah’s regulations. Finally, the Mishnah considers the ordinary people to be scrupulous about purity, at least in some respects. They would keep the second tithe from defilement and would not subject vessels left in their keeping to corpse impurity (m. Tevul Yom 4:5; m. Tohorot 8:2). 430 All of these cases indicate that ordinary people—not priests, not sectarians—were concerned about ritual purity, not just as it pertained to going to the temple. They preferred not to contract impurity if it could be avoided. In addition to the above literary evidence, the material remains of Palestine, from the late Second Temple period, show that many people were concerned with ritual purity even when not going into the temple. Two kinds of material remains are important for this topic: the ritual baths and the stoneware vessels. One might have concluded that taking a ritual bath was mostly a Pharisaic or a priestly requirement, since one of the tractates of the Mishnah (Miqvaot) is wholly concerned with the regulations for it. But in recent years, 280 installations, identified as ritual baths (carved in bedrock, with steps, sometimes with a divider on the steps and a few with extra water tanks, with volume enough to immerse a person), have been 429

The dates are from J. J. Collins “Sibylline Oracles” in Charlesworth, OTP, I, 355, 383. 430 See Sanders, Judaism, 434.

JESUS AND PURITY

173

found in Israel. These installations are in Jerusalem (60 in the Upper City and 40 near the southern gates of the Temple) as well as in other locations: Jericho, Masada, Herodium, Cypros, Qumran, Gezer, Gamla (near the synagogue), Nazareth, Sepphoris (around 30 baths), and elsewhere in rural areas near oil and wine presses. Since similar installations are absent in Gentile areas, these are surely Jewish. Further, they begin appearing in the second century BCE and decline sharply in appearance after 70 CE. This window of time attests to the growing importance of ritual purity in the late Second Temple period. 431 The baths in the Upper City of Jerusalem would probably have been used by Sadducees or the aristocratic priesthood. Those at Qumran we have already discussed above. The baths at Jericho, Herodium, and Cypros are in Herodian or Hasmonean palaces. But the rest were evidently used by ordinary people, far away from the Temple, who wanted to be ritually pure for harvest, for meals, or for prayer in the synagogue.

431 See R. Reich, “They Are Ritual Baths” BAR 28/2 (2002) 50–55; idem., “Ritual Baths” in E. M. Meyers, ed., OEANE IV, 430–431; idem., “The Great Mikveh Debate” BAR 19/2 (1993) 52–53; idem., Miqwa’ot (Jewish ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Hebrew University: Ph.D., 1990); E. M. Meyers, E. Netzer and C. L. Meyers, Sepphoris, 28; R. Deines, Juedische Steingefaesse und Pharisaeische Froemmigkeit (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1993) 4–5; L. I. Levine, “Archaeology and the Religious Ethos of Pre-70 Palestine” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. John, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 110– 120; J. D. Crossan and J. Reed, Excavating Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2001) 36, 168; J. Reed, “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities,’ and the Sayings Gospel Q” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 78–198. See especially the maps in Reich, Miqwa’ot. The identification of some of these installations as ritual baths has been challenged in recent years. See B. W. Wright, “Jewish ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism” in N. A. Silberman and D. Small, eds., The Archaeology of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 190– 214 and especially the discussion in BAR: H. Eshel, “The Pools of Sepphoris: Ritual Baths or Bathtubs?” 26/4 (2000) 42–45 and E. M. Meyers, “Yes, they Are” 26/4 (2000) 46–49, 60–61. See also Meyers, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special Reference to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths” in J. R. Bartlett, ed., Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London: Routledge, 2002) esp. 211–215.

174

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 14 Ritual Bath, Jerusalem (Photo by the author)

Second, among the material remains are the stoneware objects. The reader will remember that vessels made of stone, animal dung, or unfired clay cannot become unclean according to the Mishnah (m. Kelim 4:4, 10:1, Oholot 5:5, Parah 5:5, Yadaim 1:2). While one would be required to break a fired clay pot if it became unclean (and this could be costly if one were really scrupulous about ritual purity), one would be exempt from that worry if the vessel were made of stone. Stone vessels—cups, pots, bowls, and jars—have been found at more than 60 sites in Palestine (including Nazareth), especially in and around Jerusalem, Galilee, and on the Golan, but also in Samaria and Perea. At Capernaum, each house from the first century contained stone vessel fragments. 432 They began to be popular in the first century BCE, and continued to be commonly used in the first century CE, until the year 70. Thus, their popularity coincides with the building of ritual baths in Palestine. They seem not to have been merely a fashion but to have been used for religious reasons. This conclusion is supported by the fact that stone vessels have rarely been found in non-Jewish settlements (among Gentiles). Thus, they were not a phenomenon of the Gentiles. Further, many of them have been found in houses with ritual baths in Jerusalem, in rural villages, and on farms. For example, a large number of stone vessels 432

Crossan and Reed, Excavating, 167.

JESUS AND PURITY

175

have been discovered in the territory of Benjamin just north of Jerusalem. In almost all of the settlements in the territory of Benjamin where stoneware was found, ritual baths were also discovered. Stone vessels have been discovered in twelve sites in Galilee, and two villages in Lower Galilee were stoneware manufacturing centers. 433 The widespread use of stoneware, evidently to avoid ritual impurity—both of the vessels and the contents of the vessels—testifies that the desire to maintain ritual purity, even in ordinary meals, was more widespread than simply among the Pharisees and the Essenes. The evidence given above from the Mishnah, Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and archaeology leads to the conclusion that ritual purity became increasingly important among most Jews in the first century CE until the destruction of the temple in 70. Some groups, such as the Essenes and Pharisees, maintained a higher level of purity than ordinary folks, but the ordinary people were themselves certainly observant of ritual purity, even when not necessarily going into the temple. Of course, in any society, there are nonconformist persons. Therefore, we should expect that some people had little or no regard for ritual purity.

433

See the excellent survey of stone vessel remains in R. Deines, Juedische Steingefaesse, 71–165 (map on p. 165). See also Y. Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple Period” in H. Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 244–256; idem., “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age” BAR 24.5 (1998) 46–52 (also with map); idem., The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002) map for Galilee on p. 161; and J. L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2000) 44.

176

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 15 Stoneware vessels, Jerusalem (Photo by the author)

Thus, we could (based on m. Hagigah 2:7) construct a scale of pure persons in first century Judaism as follows: HIGHEST LEVEL

LOWEST LEVEL

Priests Serving in the Temple Priests not Serving in the Temple Essenes, Other Pietists (e.g., Haverim) Pharisees Ordinary Persons Non-observant Persons

Table 10 Grades of Strictness in Purity in First Century Judaism 434

As J. G. Crossley observes, there are several statements in Jewish texts from this same period that, if taken out of context, could be understood as repudiating cultic laws of the Torah. But if read in context, this interpretation is not possible. 435 One must always remember who these people were 434

Cf. Sanders, Judaism, 440. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 192. Crossley cites Aristeas 234 which states that Jews honor God not with sacrifices but with pure hearts and Sirach 36:18 (RSV 36:23) which states: “The stomach will eat any food.” Crossley cites even rabbinical texts that can be read this way. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark 1–8 (New York: Doubleday, 2000) 453. 435

JESUS AND PURITY

177

and the core values which they embraced without hesitation. The interpreter must read and hear statements from Jesus and others in light of the obvious value that was being placed on ritual purity in first century CE Judaism. The four above arguments (that ritual purity is in the Bible, was pervasive in ancient culture, was emphasized by numerous Jewish sects, and was increasingly a concern among the common folk) should make us hesitant to reach the conclusion that Jesus had no concern for ritual purity. They should incline us toward spinning the ball in the other direction. We should read the above mentioned texts with the understanding that, although Jesus taught the primacy of compassion toward others, he also valued the purity code. The four considerations create the impression generally that Jesus would have been concerned with ritual purity. Thus, we should expect that Jesus would have been at least as observant as the ordinary people. The four arguments make a prima facie case that Jesus would have valued ritual purity concerns very highly. I agree with P. Fredricksen that we should assume that Jesus would have kept and valued ritual purity laws. 436 But can we find more definitive indications in the Gospels that Jesus observed ritual purity laws? General considerations should incline our conclusions in a certain direction. Yet, there are also texts in the Gospels and other literature that at least suggest that Jesus cared about the purity code.

JESUS’ VIEW OF RITUAL PURITY (THREE ARGUMENTS) We should observe, at the beginning of this section, that none of the Gospels report that Jesus took a ritual bath or that he taught that Jews should keep ritual purity. Nevertheless, we do have implicit support for the conclusion that Jesus kept ritual purity. 1. Jesus Frequented the Temple First, 437 according to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was frequently in the temple during the last days of his life (Mk 11:27, 12:41, 13:1). In the Gospel of John, Jesus is found attending several temple feasts (Jn 2:13, 5:1, 7:10, 10:22, 11:55). To enter the temple, one was required to purify himself or herself (Lev 15:31; Num 19:13, 20; Josephus, Apion 2.102–104 and Ant 436

P. Fredricksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York: Vintage, 1999)

203 437 See P. Fredricksen, “Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws?” Bible Review (June, 1995) 20–25, 43–47; and Dunn, “Jesus and Purity,” 449–467.

178

JESUS THE GALILEAN

15.418; Jubilees 21:16; m. Sanhedrin 9:6) and a gate keeper stood watch to make sure this was done (2 Chron 23:19; Philo, Special Laws 1.156). In the first century, this usually included taking a ritual bath, as the numerous ritual baths found in the vicinity of the temple attest (see above), and perhaps also washing the feet. 438 To desecrate the temple with uncleanness would have been not simply insensitive but an act of gravest impiety and dangerous to the defiler (Lev 15:31). Yet, not once in the Gospel of Mark (or in any of them for that matter), in the allegations made against Jesus and his disciples before or during his trial before the Sanhedrin or in the debates set in the temple, does anyone accuse them of entering the temple in an unclean state. 439 This fact leads to the conclusion that Jesus and his disciples took the ritual bath and probably performed other purity preparations in order to enter the temple. Thus, he did not repudiate ritual purity laws. 2. Jesus Ate with Pharisees Second, Jesus may have eaten meals with those in an elevated state of purity. The first argument concerns Jesus’ respect for the purity of the temple. But, did he maintain ritual purity even when not entering the temple? We may have evidence that he did. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is three times invited to dine with Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37–38, 14:1). The question is, of course, whether the settings for these three scenes in Luke (at Pharisaic dinner parties) are historical. Scholars are divided over the issue. 440 On the 438

Deines, Juedische Steingefaesse, 253, 258–259. See POxy 840, and m. Hagigah

2:6. 439

There is an extra-canonical text found in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840 in which a priest who is also a Pharisee makes this accusation. For text and translation, see W. D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 22–23. Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, 432 conclude, largely from this text, that Jesus repudiated ritual purity. But the original publishers/translators of this text have found several historical problems with it. See B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Oxford: Horace Hart, 1908) 8–10. It is doubtful that this papyrus fragment reflects an event in the life of the historical Jesus. Further, the text—which is confused at best—may actually imply that Jesus took a ritual bath since it states that he brought his disciples to the place of purification. 440 Among those arguing that the settings of the three pericopes come from Luke’s tradition are: D. L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994) 694 and idem., Luke 9:51–24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 1254; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 578; J. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (Dallas: Word, 1989) 353; idem., Luke 9:21–18:34 (Dallas: Word, 1993) 745. Among

JESUS AND PURITY

179

one hand, Luke does seem interested in the Gospel and in the Acts in representing an association with Pharisaism on the part of Jesus and Paul (Luke 13:31; Acts 23:6, 26:5). On the other hand, he can include strong criticism of the Pharisees (Luke 7:30, 11:39–44, 12:1, 16:14; Acts 15:5). Would Luke have had a theological motive in placing these three Gospel sections at dinner parties in houses of Pharisees? I do not see an obvious one. But the references in Acts to Paul’s being a Pharisee preserve a historical fact; Paul himself informs us that he was a Pharisee (Phil 3:5). Therefore, it looks like, in the case of Paul, Luke has highlighted what he knew to be true. He may then have done the same in the case of Jesus. I conclude, then, that it is at least plausible that Jesus attended banquets hosted by Pharisees, though we cannot be more certain. If the three settings in Luke have a basis in history, they are quite surprising. 441 The Pharisees preferred not to eat with the am ha-aretz or the ordinary people. Their clothes were considered always unclean from midras uncleanness (the uncleanness from sitting on a chair or saddle where an unclean person had sat), and they could defile the food (m. Hagigah 2:7; t. Shabbat 1:15). Yet, Jesus was invited to the home of evidently well-to-do Pharisees. To be sure, in one case, the host chides Jesus for not “immersing” (his hands or his body?) before eating (cf. t. Ahilot 18:21; t. Hagigah 3:3; m. Hagigah 2:5 and the practice of the Essenes given above). But there is no suggestion in these scenes from Luke that the Pharisee suspected Jesus of being midras unclean or that Jesus was expelled from the dinner party. If so, Jesus must have maintained some level of ritual purity outside the temple. 3. Jesus Seems Meticulous About “Legal Minutiae” Some scholars have taken note that Jesus said the shema’ confession (Mark 12:29–30) found in Deuteronomy 6:4; that he wore tassels as commanded in Numbers 15:38–39 and Deuteronomy 22:12 (see Matt 9:20//Luke 8:44; Mark 6:56//Matt 14:36); that he commanded a leper to follow the Torah those suggesting that the settings are a Lucan creation are: J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1950) 188; J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX) (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 688; idem., The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV) (New York: Doubleday, 1985) 943, 1044. 441 H. F. Weiss, “)DULVDLR9,” TDNT, IX, 41–42. Weiss states that the dinner invitation to the table of a Pharisee “presupposes that He was not regarded by the Pharisees as a member of the lawless ‘Am ha-‘Ares.”

180

JESUS THE GALILEAN

procedures regarding his cleansing (Mark 1:40–44 and par.); and that he approved of the Pharisees’ tithing practices (Matt 23:23//Luke 11:42). Surely, the argument goes, if Jesus was concerned with these details, he would also have kept ritual purity laws. 442 This argument is not by itself conclusive, but it certainly is suggestive that Jesus did not consider the items that we might term legal minutiae or rituals in the same way that a modern, western, Protestant Christian does. But how high on the grade of ritual purity was Jesus? We have no evidence that he and his disciples attempted to be as scrupulous as the Pharisees, Essenes, and other pietists. Thus, I would place Jesus on the same purity level as the ordinary observant Jews in Table 4.6. He was below the Pharisees in purity, but above the non-observant Jews and am ha-aretz. It is also possible, if he dined with Pharisees, that he maintained a somewhat higher level of purity than the ordinary peasant. Jesus would have taken a ritual bath before entering the temple and he would have purified himself from corpse uncleanness with the ashes of the red heifer. He probably would have taken a ritual bath after having contact with a leper or a woman with a flux. Possibly, he went through purification before prayer and before entering a synagogue. He also may have maintained ritual purity in general for its own sake, without reference to any special preparation. He did not accept Pharisaic teaching concerning the washing of the hands and concerning bathing before meals.

MARK 7 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MISHNAH The Pharisaic teaching on hand washing before eating did not come from a biblical command, although there are some passages that may have suggested this practice (e.g., Ex 30:18–21; Lev 15:11), and at least one rabbi attempted to connect the practice to a biblical command (b. Hullin 106a). According to rabbinic sources, however, this practice was decreed by Hillel and Shammai (late first century BCE, b. Shabbat 13b–14b; j. Shabbat 1.7, j. Ketubot 8.11) and was also confirmed with the famous decrees in the upper room of Hananiah—probably in the middle of the first century CE (b. Shabbat 13b). 443 But, ritual hand washing may have actually been in vogue 442

See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 317; H. Maccoby, Jesus The Pharisee (London: SCM Press, 2003) 26; Chilton, “Generative Exegesis of Mark 7:1–23,” 303–306. 443 Sanders, Jewish Law, 228–230; Idem., Judaism, 437–438; R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 167; S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority, 73; D. InstoneBrewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:

JESUS AND PURITY

181

one hundred fifty years before the time of Jesus (see Jubilees 21:16, Letter of Aristeas 305–306, both second century BCE texts). In the text from Jubilees, Abraham tells his son to wash his hands and feet before he goes to the altar to sacrifice (a practice required only of the priests); in Aristeas, some persons who are supposedly following common Jewish custom wash their hands before prayer. We should think of this practice as a natural development in the growing emphasis on ritual purity in the late second Temple period. A tractate of the Mishnah, Yadaim, is given entirely to the regulations regarding hand washing. Pharisees required one to wash the hands before handling harvested food that would be sent to the priests (m. Bikkurim 2:1), before Sabbath and festival meals (m. Berakot 8:2), and after handling the scriptures (m. Yadim 3:5). 444 But, in the earlier stages of rabbinic literature, there is some ambiguity about whether it was required of all Pharisees to wash the hands before ordinary meals. Some texts seem to assume it or demand it (m. Hagigah 2:5; m. Hullin 2:5; t. Hagigah 3:3; b. Hullin 33b; j. Hagigah 2.18). Roger Booth believes that only a sub-group within the Pharisees, the haverim or “associates,” washed their hands before eating ordinary food during the time of Jesus. 445 But, by the second century, many rabbis were devoted to ritual hand washing. Rabbi Aqiva (second century CE) used his ration of water in prison to wash his hands instead of drinking it (b. Eruvin 21b). Rabbi Meir (second century CE) was insistent on hand washing before ordinary meals (t. Tohorot 1:6; b. Hullin 33b; j. Hagigah 2.18). On the other hand, some texts in the Tosephta seem to doubt the necessity of washing the hands before ordinary meals (t. Berakot 5:13, 5:27; t. Tohorot 1:6). By the third and fourth centuries CE, there seems to have been general agreement. The rabbis, in that era, were emphatic about hand washing. Several rabbis associated different tragic outcomes with neglecting this practice (b. Sotah 4b; b. Shabbat 62b, b. Hullin 106a, 107b). We should probably conclude that there were varying ideas on hand washing throughout the first to third centuries. Eerdmans, 2004) 86; and J. G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 184. Crossley offers four arguments to establish that handwashing was an institution by Jesus’ time. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 153, dates the decrees of Hananiah to 66 CE. 444 Sanders, Jewish Law, 228–230; Judaism, 437–438. 445 Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 192–200. But Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 157 maintains that the Pharisees, or a group within the Pharisees, only washed hands for hygienic reasons. If Maccoby is correct, then, of course, Jesus, according to any interpretation of his words, was certainly not repudiating ritual purity.

182

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Some Pharisaic pietists insisted upon it before eating even ordinary food and some did not. Returning to the text from Mark quoted above, we now ask what was the problem and what did Jesus respond to the problem? The problem was quite simply that Jesus and his disciples did not keep the Pharisaic halakhah concerning ritual hand washing before meals. As we said above, probably at this time, not even all Pharisees observed it in the same way. 446 Some of the Pharisees and their scribes or scholars have approached Jesus with a complaint about his understanding of ritual purity. The complaint form or “dialogue” form 447 was a common feature in Judaism. M. Yadaim 4:6–7 records several of these: The Sadducees say, “We complain (qvl) against you, Pharisees, because you say the holy writings make the hands unclean but the books of Hamiram (or Homer) do not make the hands unclean . . .” The Sadducees say, “We complain against you Pharisees because you declare clean the uninterrupted flow (of a liquid poured from vessel to vessel).” The Pharisees say, “We complain against you, Sadducees, because you declare clean a water duct coming from a cemetery.” 448

This passage from the Mishnah then shows two rival Jewish sects or movements debating the interpretation of ritual purity. The Sadducees criticize the Pharisees because they maintain that handling the scriptures makes the hands unclean, but handling pagan texts does not and because the Pharisees do not worry about pouring a clean liquid into an unclean vessel. The Pharisees criticize the Sadducees because they allow water ducts to pass through cemeteries. We should not assume that either group took ritual purity lightly. Quite the contrary—the debate shows that each group took it very seriously and was convinced that its interpretation was correct. I submit that this is exactly the tone and form for the dispute over hand washing. Some Pharisees and scribes complain against Jesus and his disciples (a rival Jewish sect or movement with its own halakhah or rules). In turn, Jesus answers with his own criticism of the Pharisees and their scribes much like the Pharisees in the text from the Mishnah quoted above 446 See the response of G. Margoliouth, “The Traditions of the Elders” ExT 22 (1911) 261–263, to Buechler, “Law of Purification.” 447 Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution, 134 calls these texts “dialogue formula.” See his other citations using this form in the Tosephta. 448 The translation is the author’s. The text is from The Judaic Classics (Chicago: Davka, 1991–1995).

JESUS AND PURITY

183

who answer the Sadducees with the criticism about a duct of water coming from the cemetery. Thus, Jesus’ Korban complaint is a typical scribal answer to those who complain against him. Rather than answering the complaint, he attacks their halakhah. This tactic does not mean that he values ritual purity any less than the Pharisees. It only means that he does not accept the Pharisaic decree about hand washing which is not in the Torah. In other words, he is not a Pharisee. The first two sections of the text in Mark 7 then are fairly clear. In verses 1–5 the Pharisees complain against Jesus and his disciples for not washing their hands before eating. Jesus, in turn, complains against the Pharisees and their “traditions” (i.e., Pharisaic decrees and halakhah) based on the Korban example (verses 6–13). But what are we to make of the third section of this passage—the section on inner and outer purity, verses 14– 23? Whereas the narrative begins with a dispute over Pharisaic hand washing, it ends with a contrast of eating unclean foods and being ethically clean. This apparent shift of topic has led some scholars to suggest that two or more separate episodes have been fused together. 449 Such a conclusion, it seems to me, is probable and would facilitate the defense of my thesis that Jesus did not, on this occasion, repudiate the ritual purity code. But, to be fair, we need to make sense of what Jesus is doing in this section, as it stands in Mark, without omitting certain inconvenient parts from the original story. We begin with a translation of the pertinent verses: And summoning again the crowd, he began to say to them, “All of you listen and understand. There is nothing outside a person which when it enters him can make him unclean. Rather the things which come out of a person make him unclean . . . because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and passes into the latrine.” [HE IS DECLARING ALL FOODS CLEAN.] And he continued saying, “That which comes out of a person—that makes that person unclean. For there come from within the heart of people: evil thoughts, acts of fornication, thefts, murders, acts of adultery, covetousness, wicked acts, deceit, debauchery, the evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance, and lack of morality. All of these vices come from within and make a person unclean.” (Mark 7:14–15, 19–23; GT 14)

449 See Neusner, Idea 61; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 342–343; and Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 61–62, n. 8.

184

JESUS THE GALILEAN

One could get the impression that Jesus is discarding ritual purity altogether in this passage since he says that there is nothing outside a person that can make him unclean. But, we must make three observations: First, the statement, in all higher case letters, is being made by Mark and not by Jesus. This is Mark’s conclusion 450 as he interprets these words for his community years later. Jesus, himself, did not ever say that all food was clean or kosher. Second, as we indicated above, the early Palestinian Christian community did not understand these words in such a radical way. The Christian trauma over unkosher foods and general ritual purity (Acts 10:1–11:18; Gal 2:11–13) is inexplicable if this statement was understood in this manner by Jesus’ disciples and then made known to others. On the other hand, Mark and Paul later (Romans 14:14) did draw the inferences from Jesus words that all foods are kosher. Third, when Jesus says that “There is nothing outside a person which . . . can make him unclean,” he is using Semitic idiom. 451 H. Kruse has named this form of expression, “dialectical negation.” Dialectical negation is characterized by the denial of an obvious truth and then the affirmation of another truth. Placed side by side, this first denial serves to underline or emphasize the statement that is affirmed. Kruse finds this Semitic idiom throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1 Sam 8:7, Jer 7:22) and the New Testament (e.g., Mark 9:37, John 6:32, and Acts 5:4). He even lists numerous 450 Some have read these words as part of Jesus’ statement following late manuscripts which have a neuter participle here instead of a masculine one. Thus it would mean: “It (the passing into the latrine) makes all foods clean.” But such an understanding makes the statement a crude attempt to say all foods look the same anyway in waste form. Most commentators accept that these are Mark’s words and accept the mss that read here: NDTDUL]ZQ. See E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, 150; V. Taylor, Mark, 344–345; B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: UBS, 1991) 95. Crossley (The Date of Mark’s Gospel, 192) suggests that Mark’s comment means not that all foods are therefore clean but that he is declaring: “all foods that are permitted to eat in the Torah to be clean thereby denying the role of handwashing.” Thus, according to Crossley’s understanding, not even Mark thought that all foods were clean. 451 Some scholars maintain that the words of Jesus in the parallel text of Matthew are closer to the original than those in Mark. There Jesus says “It is not that which goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean but that which goes out of the mouth.” The words are a little less emphatic than Mark’s “there is nothing outside a person . . . which can make him unclean.” See Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 146; Dunn, “Jesus and Purity,” 464.

JESUS AND PURITY

185

examples from the Arabic language. In this idiom, we should translate the negative word (Heb. ) as “not so much.” 452 We should sense that Jesus’ words are idiomatic when we know how first century Palestinian Jews regarded ritual purity. There are certainly other cases of this hyperbolic idiom in Jesus’ teachings. A text from the prophet Hosea states, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). This verse is quoted by Jesus twice in Matthew and alluded to once in Mark (Matt 9:13, 12:1; Mark 12:33). Surely, Hosea was not suggesting that God did not want sacrifices from Israel. He was teaching, rather, that God preferred mercy even over the sacrifices. The point is “not so much A but more B.” Likewise here, the meaning is that Jesus thought moral purity was more important than ritual purity. But, while Jesus was stressing the one, he was not rejecting the other. 453 Stressing the importance of inner life, or spiritual life, by using ritual purity language in a metaphorical way was common in Judaism. 454 Further, the contrast of mere outward purity with inward immorality was also common. It occurs, for example, in a first century CE Palestinian text called the Testament of Moses (or Assumption of Moses) in which a Jewish pietist condemns such people: They, with hand and mind, will touch impure things, yet their mouths will speak enormous things, and they will even say, “Do not touch me,

452

H. Kruse, “Die ‘dialektische Negation’ als Semitisches Idiom” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954) 385–400. Cf. S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (Lund: Gleerup, 1978) 83, who maintains that Mark 7:15 is an example of this Semitic idiom. 453 See Rudolph, “Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b,” 298: “There is nothing outside a man which cultically defiles him as much as the things coming from a man ethically defile him” (emphasis in Rudolph) and Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, 71: “things outside a man do not defile him as much as things coming from him.” Cf. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah, 66; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 147: “Mark 7:15 does not necessarily suggest an abrogation of ritual practice any more than [Mark] 2:17 suggests an exclusion of righteous people from Jesus’ following.” 454 E.g., sexual uncleanness: Psalms of Solomon 2:13; Tobit 3:15; Testament of Levi 9:10; Testament of Issachar 4:4; Jubilees 7:20–21. General wickedness: Philo, de Cherubim 94–95; CD 5:11–12; b. Niddah 30b; b. Shabbat 152b; b. Berakot 17a. Sifre on Num 35:34; Sifra on Lev 19:51; 11QT 51:11–14; Mekhilta on Ex 20:18. See Neusner, Idea, 35–55; R. Meyer, “NDTDUR9” TDNT, III, 413–423.

186

JESUS THE GALILEAN lest you pollute me in the position I occupy.” 455 (Testament of Moses 7:9–10)

The author attacks a group of priests who have impure minds but want to maintain ritual purity. Yet, it would not be correct to conclude that the author thought ritual purity should be ignored. Rather, this author, like Jesus, stressed that ritual purity alone was not pleasing to God. What Jew would disagree with that? This perspective on Mark 7 does away with the simplistic legalisticversus-spiritual polarity that is found too often in modern commentaries. This view is more responsible culturally and historically. This way of reading the text in Mark sees Jesus as a reformer and restorer of Judaism, as a corrector of abuses, and as an advocate of a certain halakhic view. In this understanding, Jesus was not an abrogator of Judaism.

455 Translation in J. Priest, “Testament of Moses” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., OTP, I, 930. This text is usually dated in the first century CE, in Palestine, and considered written originally in Hebrew. See Priest, pp. 920–921. See also Philo, de Cherubim 95–96, Quod Deus Immutabilis sit 7–8, and Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Solet 20–21 where almost exactly the same point is made as Jesus makes in Mark 7. Philo, however, as a Jew in the diaspora, speaks in general about pagans as well as about Jews.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE: WHAT THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA CAN TELL US INTRODUCTION TO THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA BIBLIOGRAPHIC RESOURCES: J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research

TRANSLATIONS: R. H. Charles, ed., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.) J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.) E. J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha B. M. Metzger, ed., The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, The Revised Standard Version H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament There are extant many texts written by pious Jews from the third century BCE to the second century CE. These texts range from apocalyptic literature to testaments, wisdom literature, and old legends. The rabbis accepted none of these texts into the Hebrew canon. Some of them, however, made their way into various Christian canons by way of the manuscripts of the Septuagint Greek version. In general, one can say that those texts that are accepted by some Christian groups (Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Slavonic Church, Ethiopic Church or Coptic Church) but are not in the Hebrew Bible, are called apocrypha (literally, “hidden [books]”). Those not accepted in any canon are called pseudepigrapha (literally, “false writings”). The exact number of those considered apocrypha is calculated differently, 456 but, in general, the books may be organized as the New Revised 456 C. A. Evans states that there are fifteen texts in the apocrypha, but that some count only fourteen (Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation

187

188

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Standard Version has done it. There are four categories: 1. Those books that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek,, and Slavonic Bibles, 2. Those books that are in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles only, 3. One book only that is in the Slavonic Bible and in the appendix to the Latin Vulgate, 4. One book that is in the appendix to the Greek Bible. 457 The pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament are numerous, but the exact number is fluid for two reasons. First, new documents are still being discovered in manuscript collections in libraries and in archaeological sites. 458 Second, there are sometimes disagreements over which texts should be counted as pseudepigrapha. 459 Nonetheless, the collection made by J. H. Charlesworth is becoming standard. In this two-volume edition, there are fifty-two texts translated plus some fragments given in an appendix. 460 A few of these texts (4 Ezra, 3 Maccabees) overlap with apocrypha collections, but most of these are entirely different texts from anything we have in the apocrypha. Thus, we have, in these two bodies of literature, some sixty-five texts.

USING THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA TO UNDERSTAND THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS Mark 14:57–58 John 2:19 And some stood up and testi- And Jesus answered and said to fied falsely about him saying, them, “Destroy this sanctuary [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992] 9). D. J. Harrington, however, lists sixteen in his table of contents (Invitation to the Apocrypha [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999] v– vi). As J. Vanderkam and P. Flint indicate, The Greek Orthodox Bible has a few more “apocryphal” books than the Catholic Bible. The Slavonic Bible has an additional book and the Ethiopic Bible has an additional one. See Vanderkam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) 158– 160. 457 Harrington, Invitation, 4. 458 For example, see the Treatise of Shem discovered in the Rylands Library at the University of Manchester, England. For a text discovered at an archaeological site, see the Book of Jannes and Jambres, excavated in Egypt. Both of these texts are explained and translated in J. H. Charlesworth, OTP. 459 In the older collection of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha by R. H. Charles, he included both the Pirke Avot and the Damascus Document. See Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). Charlesworth’s more recent version of the pseudepigrapha leaves out both. 460 Charlesworth, OTP.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE “We heard him saying, ‘I will destroy this sanctuary made with hands and in three days build another one not made with hands.’” Mark 11:15–17 And he went into Jerusalem. And going into the temple, he began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those selling doves. And he would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple. And he was teaching and saying to them, “Has it not been written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?’ But you have made it a cave of brigands.”

189

and in three days I will raise it up.”

John 2:13–17 And immediately it was the Passover of the Jews and Jesus went up into Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves and the moneychangers sitting. And he made a flagellum from rope and drove out all from the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and he poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned the tables. And he said to those selling doves, “Get these out of here! Do not make the house of my father a house of business.” His disciples remembered that it had been written, “The zeal of your house will consume me.”

What did Jesus teach about the temple? Did he oppose it, predict its destruction, think the chief priests were corrupt, or want a new one? These two texts, the prediction of the temple’s destruction and the action in the temple, which is often termed the cleansing of the temple, have been the focus of rather intense debate in the last twenty years. In this chapter we will survey what the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha say about the temple alongside insights from the social sciences. Then we will attempt to answer the questions above.

SACRED SPACE ACCORDING TO MIRCEA ELIADE Mircea Eliade has written two monographs attempting to understand what sacred space means in traditional cultures. Like any social science theory, his

190

JESUS THE GALILEAN

can be critiqued as it relates to use in biblical studies. 461 Nevertheless, we should not ignore his insights especially in helping readers from western cultures appreciate what a temple meant to religious persons in ancient times. Eliade explained that sacred spaces (temples, holy cities, altars, and sacred mountains) are first of all fixed points which give order to existence. This fixed point is true reality. Only sacred space is “real and really existing”: Religious man’s desire to live in the sacred is in fact equivalent to his desire to take up his abode in objective reality … to live in a real and effective world, and not in an illusion. 462

All other space is “formless expanse.” Thus, all reality is organized around, and oriented toward, the sacred, the only real space. Beyond the sacred is chaos; inside the sacred is cosmos. 463 Further, sacred space in these cultures is, according to Eliade, an “opening” in which communication with the god or gods is made possible. It is a “door” to the world above through which the gods can descend and humans can ascend. Thus, a temple is an opening to heaven, the interface between human and divine. 464 The sacred space, the fixed point, the true reality, and door to heaven is also the center of the universe. It is, on the one hand, the “axis mundi,” or cosmic pillar, that connects the three levels of the universe: heaven, earth, and the underworld. On the other hand, the sacred space, or axis mundi, is the center of the world, or navel of the world, which was the beginning of the universe. God began there, at that point, to create all things. 465

461 S. D. Kunin, God’s Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism (London: Cassell, 1998) 1 criticizes Eliade’s stress in the cyclical understanding of myth and ritual. The Hebrew conception of time is not as cyclical as Eliade assumes for other cultures. Yet, in my judgment, this critique does not negate some useful insights from Eliade. 462 Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harper & Row, 1959; trans. W. R. Trask) 28 463 Sacred and Profane, 20–23 464 Sacred and Profane, 26 465 Sacred and Profane, 36–37; Cosmos and History (New York: Harper & Row, 1959; trans. W. R. Trask) 12, 16–17.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

191

As the center of the universe, the sacred space is often viewed as a “cosmic mountain,” a very high point in the cosmos where god can meet human beings. Thus many of the Mesopotamian temples were Ziggurats and in the Hebrew Bible the temple can be called the mountain of the Lord (Isa 2:2, Micah 4:2, Ezek 28:14, Dan 9:20, Psalm 48:1[2]). 466 Finally, most archaic societies and contemporary traditional societies believe their temples are copies of a heavenly original. The pattern for the temple was given in heaven by special revelation. It is not the work of human beings, but based on the “celestial prototype.” 467 Whether the Hebrew temple in the first century CE was viewed exactly in this way is not the importance of Eliade’s work. It helps create for us, rather, a thought world for sacred space in antiquity. Given this conceptual world, there could not be imagined a situation in which there were no temple or sacred mountain. Life without a sacred space is life without a center, life without a fixed point to orient one’s bearings, life without direct contact with god, and life which is not fully real. There is no place in this world of thought for doing away with temples or for thinking temples are for weak and unspiritual persons. One cannot, rather, conceive of meaningful life without a sacred space. 468

THE TEMPLE IN THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Two great traditions about the temple impress the reader of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: the belief in a celestial temple and the longing for an idealized temple. The former concept is part of most cultures that revere sacred space as Eliade has shown us. The belief that there is a temple in heaven, from which all other temples are patterned, is found in Jewish texts both before and after the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70 CE. 469 The 466

Sacred and Profane, 38–41; Cosmos and History, 14. Sacred and Profane, 58–61; Cosmos and History, 7–9. 468 Eliade told of an Australian tribe that believes that a sacred pole is their axis mundi. In their wandering, they carry the pole and fix it once again when they have settled. One time the pole was broken with the result that the people became very confused and lay down to die. Their world, concluded Eliade, reverted to chaos (Sacred and Profane, 35). Surely this story encapsulates the thought world of traditional societies. Life without a sacred space is not meaningful life. Cf. the story of the powwow sacred drum of the Sioux in North America told by B. Wilson in Magic and the Millennium (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 406. 469 Pre-70 CE Jewish texts include the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 9:8 (written in the first century BCE), the pseudepigraphical Testament of Levi 3:4–8 467

192

JESUS THE GALILEAN

text from 2 Baruch 4:3 (or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch), a pseudepigraphical text from the early second century CE, is representative of this belief. This book states that God created the heavenly temple before he created Adam in paradise. Other Jewish sources both before and after 70 CE attest to the same belief. 470 But, it was especially the idealized temple that was referred to in this literature. This ideal temple is sometimes expressly identified with an eschatological temple, but more often it surfaces in the form of an unhappy comparison of the current temple with Solomon’s temple or in the form of a lament over a polluted current temple. The sense, in some of this literature, 471 is that the current temple is at least inadequate and at most desecrated. Thus arose the longing for an earlier age, for an ideal temple like Solomon’s. and 18:6 (one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs composed second century BCE), and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (composed just before 70 CE) also one of the pseudepigrapha. Post 70 texts include Sibylline Oracles 4.8–11, 27, 30 (80 CE) and 2 Baruch 4:3 (or Syriac Baruch) composed early second century CE. On the date of Wisdom of Solomon see: D. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 55; B. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957) 67; L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (London: Duckworth, 1961) 70. For the date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see: H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in OTP, I, 778; R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, 289. For the date of the Sybilline Oracles book 4, see J. J. Collins in OTP, I, 382; and H. C. O. Lanchester in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 373. For the date of 2 Baruch, see A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch” in OTP, I, 617; and M. E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature” in Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 410. 470 See the Qumran document known as Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShabb). This text speaks in detail of a heavenly temple. The oldest manuscript of this text dates from the first century BCE. See C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 1. See also the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews 8:2 which speaks of a celestial temple. According to b. Pesahim 54a, the temple is one of seven things created before the world. 471 Certainly not all of the Jewish literature from 300 BCE to the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70 CE expresses dissatisfaction with the current temple. Some literature praises the wonder of the architecture of Zerubbabel’s or Herod’s building. See the writings of Josephus, the writings of Hecataeus, the Letter of Aristeas, and Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach. On these texts and others concerning the temple, see C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996).

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

193

This notion is reflected in the apocryphal book of Tobit 14:5 (second century BCE) 472 which refers to the temple of Zerubbabel, saying, “They will build a house but not as it was before …” This reflects perhaps the canonical statement which relates that when the old timers saw Zerubbabel’s temple (the replacement of Solomon’s destroyed temple), they wept (Ezra 3:12) because it was so unimpressive in comparison with Solomon’s temple. Likewise, the prophet Haggai lamented the fact that Zerubbabel’s temple seemed “like nothing in comparison” with Solomon’s (Haggai 2:3). The age of Solomon and his temple are idealized in various ways. 2 Baruch 61:2 describes the time in which Solomon’s temple was built as a time of rest, peace, wisdom, happiness, justice and a time of no sin. Thus, the temple was not only greater than all subsequent ones, but the era was idealized. The pseudepigraphical book called the Testament of Solomon (first to third centuries CE) idealized Solomon’s temple in another way. This postChristian text—but a collection of older traditions 473 —is devoted entirely to demonology. Repeatedly, the text relates episodes in which Solomon tricks demons into working for him to build the temple, using their miracu-

472

On the date of Tobit, see Harrington, Invitation, 12; Metzger, Introduction, 31; Brockington, Critical Introduction, 36 (who dates the text to the third century BCE); G. W. E. Nickelsburg “The Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times” in Stone, Jewish Writings, 45; and D. A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) 69. Another important text (post-70) that expresses disappointment over Zerubbabel’s temple is 2 Baruch 68:6. 473 For the date of Testament of Solomon, see D. Duling in OTP I, 940–941. Although Duling cautiously dates the text’s composition somewhere between the first to third centuries CE, he adds, “… there is general agreement that much of the testament reflects first-century Judaism in Palestine” (p. 942). This conclusion is similar to that of C. C. McCown as given in H. F. D. Sparks, Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) 735. The references to demonic assistance in building Solomon’s temple would seem to be from the Jewish traditions in the foundational text of the Testament of Solomon. In the first place, the same traditions are found in the Talmud. See, e.g., b. Gittin 68 a–b. In the second place, when this tradition surfaces in a Christian source, a Gnostic text from Nag Hammadi, it becomes a very negative characteristic of the temple. This text affirms that the temple’s being built by demons makes the temple evil and Satanic. See The Testimony of Truth 70:4–10. Thus, regarding demonic assistance in building the temple as a favorable feature of the temple seems to be from Jewish traditions.

194

JESUS THE GALILEAN

lous powers. 474 The demons are forced to carry colossal loads of stone to the building site to facilitate the construction. The implication seems to have been that no temple building could compare with Solomon’s, unless it had been similarly constructed by impressive feats of strength. The tradition that Solomon harnessed demonic power to build his temple is also found in rabbinic sources. The rabbis were especially amazed by 1 Kings 6:7 which indicates that no iron tools were used in quarrying the stone. This fact, to them, meant that Solomon must have used supernatural forces: demons. 475 Thus, the temple of Solomon was gloriously built by supernatural strength; no mere human construction could equal it. Another theme in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that points to a longing for a restored temple, or a new temple, is the theme of the hidden vessels. The earliest reference to this legend is in 2 Maccabees 2:4–6 (one of the apocrypha composed in the second century BCE). The story goes that Jeremiah, before the temple of Solomon was destroyed in 586 BCE, hid the ark of the covenant and the incense altar in a cave. Thus, the pagans did not touch the essence of the temple, the holy ark and the incense altar. No one will be able to find the ark and incense altar, the legend says, until God gathers his people together again and shows mercy: Then the Lord will show these things and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will be seen as it appeared in the time of Moses as also Solomon besought that the place might be greatly sanctified.476

This motif arises again and again in later Jewish texts. The GrecoJewish historian, Eupolemus (second century BCE), 477 refers to the tradition (in 39:5) as does the first century CE historian, Josephus (Ant 18.85– 87). More interesting, however, is the pseudepigraphical book, the Lives of the Prophets (first century CE). 478 In this text (2:15), it states that, in the general resurrection of the righteous, the ark will be the first to be raised and will emerge from a rock. Thus, restoring the ark to the temple has be474

Testament of Solomon 1:1–13, 5:11–13; 6:9, 7:8; 21:1–4; 22:8; 22:9–20; 23:1–4; 24:1–5. 475 See b. Gittin 68a–b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 52.4; and Midrash Numbers Rabbah 11.3. Compare, however, The Testimony of Truth 70:4–10. 476 Translation is based on the text from A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Wuerttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). For another view of the ark of the covenant in the messianic kingdom, see Jer 3:16. 477 F. Fallon in OTP II, 863. 478 D. R. A. Hare in OTP II, 381

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

195

come an eschatological hope. The pseudepigraphical text, 2 Baruch, alludes to this belief in two passages. At 6:6–9, it is not Jeremiah who hid the temple vessels, but an angel. Further, not just the ark and the altar of incense were hidden, but also the temple veil, the ephod, the tables, the priests’ vestments, forty-eight precious stones, and all the other holy vessels. In 80:3, the holy vessels were hidden from Nebuchadnezzar so that they would not be profaned. The same legend is briefly alluded to in another pseudepigraphon called 4 Baruch (first to second centuries CE). 479 The legend of the hidden vessels protects the essence of the temple from having been profaned. But it also reminds the religious person that the temples of Zerubbabel and Herod are lacking. Only in the resurrection will there be a temple like the original. We should bear in mind that 2 Baruch, and perhaps 4 Baruch, were written after the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70 CE. Nevertheless, they did not invent the story of the hidden vessels (since this theme is found in documents pre-dating 70), but they utilized them in a way most appropriate for their situation. The themes of building the temple by demons and hiding the temple vessels to prevent them from being profaned imply that something was lacking in both Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s temples. One must long for the old days, the idealized period of Solomon, when the temple was in its glory. A third theme, which goes along with the subject of the temple’s diminution, is found in the series of stories of the evil intruder. The temple must be polluted since so many times a willful and wicked pagan (or even occasionally a sinful Israelite!) has entered into places he/she should not, erected statues or altars that were sacrilegious, or appropriated temple money or vessels. 480 Thus, 3 Maccabees 1:9–29 (first century BCE) narrates the Jewish feeling of offense when Ptolemy IV tried to enter the Holy of Holies. The Testament of Moses (first century CE) refers to powerful Jewish kings that perform impious acts in the Holy of Holies (6:1). The Seleucid King’s emissary, Heliodorus, was struck down with paralysis when he tried to rob the temple (2 Maccabees 3:22–31; cf. 4 Maccabees 3:19–4:14). Worst of all, Antiochus IV caused a sacrilegious statue to be erected on the holy temple altar (1 Maccabees 1:54; second century BCE) and ordered all the offerings

479

S. E. Robinson in OTP II, 414. For a survey of these incidents, see: M. Hengel, The Zealots (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989) 206–224; and D. Bahat, “The Herodian Temple” in W. Horburg, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 38–58. 480

196

JESUS THE GALILEAN

to YHWH to cease (1 Maccabees 1:45). The polluted altar was later dismantled and buried (1 Maccabees 4:36–61). The evil Antiochus IV also dared to enter the temple himself, to handle the holy vessels, and to carry off valuables from the temple treasury (1 Maccabees 1:20–24). Later, the pseudepigraphical Psalms of Solomon (first century BCE) refer to the Roman general, Pompey, who entered the temple, thus desecrating it (2:2). Further, sinners stole from the temple and trod on the place of sacrifice, according to the Psalms of Solomon 8:11–12 (cf. Josephus, War 1.152). 481 The temple and its vessels were profaned and polluted so many times, from the third century BCE until 70 CE, that they may have seemed tainted, as less than worthy of the presence of God. The theme of the evil intruder, so pronounced in both history and in the more legendary works, also created a volatile zeal in the hearts of some Jews to protect the sanctity of the temple. In my judgment, this theme, too, indicates a longing for a new temple, or at least a restored temple like the glorious temple built by Solomon. Yet, the clearest indication that some looked for a new temple or an eschatological temple is in those explicit predictions that God would raise one up. The Hebrew prophet, Ezekiel, had anticipated this hope for an eschatological temple. He prophesied during the exile (sixth century BCE), in part, when there was still a temple, and then also after the temple had been destroyed. One section of his prophetic oracles, composed after Solomon’s temple had been destroyed, describes a new temple. But the temple, that he envisioned would be built, surpassed that which ordinary mortals can build, even that which Solomon built. After giving a rather detailed description of the gates, rooms, and courts of the expected new temple (chapters 40–42), Ezekiel pictured the glory of God returning to his temple and had God declare: This is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet. I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever and the house of Israel will not again pollute my holy name . . . (43:7)

481 For the date for 3 Maccabees, see H. Anderson in OTP II, 512; Harrington, Invitation, 174; and deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 309. For the date of 1 Maccabees, see Harrington, Invitation, 123; Brockington, Critical Introduction, 111; Metzger, Introduction, 130. DeSilva, Introducing, 248 suggests a date of between 104 and 63 BCE. For the date of the Psalms of Solomon, see R. B. Wright in OTP II, 641; G. B. Gray in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 630; and Sparks, Apocryphal Old Testament, 651.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

197

After more details about how the temple personnel will conduct themselves, about the divisions of the land, and the offerings (chapters 44–46), the prophet envisions a paradise with the temple at its center. From below the temple a stream will go forth and produce a river that will water the entire land. On both sides of the banks of the wadi will grow every kind of tree used for food. Their leaves will not droop and their fruit will not fail to produce. They will bear new fruit every month because their water comes out from the sanctuary. Their fruit is for food and their leaves are for healing. (47:12)

Clearly then, this temple would surpass even the great temple of Solomon since it would water the entire land and produce trees whose leaves heal diseases. The apocrypha and pseudepigrapha continue to express this hope. The end of the third century and the second century BCE witnessed the rise of the expectation that a new and more glorious temple would be built. Some of these expressions were Maccabean (167–140 BCE) when the temple was being occupied and desecrated by pagans. But, other texts are dated to the pre-Maccabean era and so testify to the hope for an eschatological temple quite apart from any contemporary sacrilege. The earliest reference to a new temple may be in the so-called Apocalypse of Weeks (prior to 167 BCE) 482 which is embedded in 1 Enoch 91:12–19 and 93:1–14. In this little apocalypse, the eras of salvation history are organized into ten weeks. The eighth week will be a “week of righteousness.” During this week, a “house will be built for the Great King in glory forevermore.” 483 In the ninth week, all the deeds of sinners will depart, and, in the tent week, the eternal judgment will be put into place by angels. Thus, the content of the last three weeks indicates eschatological events. Among these events is the building of a new temple.

482

For the date of the Apocalypse of Weeks, see Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 171; E. Isaacs in OTP I, 7; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 440–441; and J. J. Collins in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000) 315. J. C. VanderKam (Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition [Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984] 145) suggests a date of between 167 and 157 BCE. 483 Translation is from Issacs in OTP I, 73

198

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Another pre-Maccabean text, the apocryphal book of Tobit contains a prophecy of an eschatological temple. Israel will be attacked, taken captive, and dispersed, but God will show mercy and bring them back to their land and “rebuild the house though not like the first one” (14:5). This “house” will last only for an appointed time, and then: After these things all will return from their captivity and will rebuild Jerusalem honorably and the house of God in it will be built [for all generations forever], a glorious building even as the prophets of Israel said. 484

Thus, the author of Tobit also envisioned a new temple. The current temple was not as good as the first one, but the eschatological temple undoubtedly would be. This text, then, both witnesses to a dissatisfaction with the temple of Zerubbabel (in comparison with the temple of Solomon) and to an explicit hope for an eschatological house of God. During the Maccabean period (167–140 BCE), when the temple cultus was under stress from foreign elements, there was a striking prediction of a new temple. In a section of 1 Enoch, known as the Animal Apocalypse, 485 there is pictured the judgment scene, the vindication of the righteous, the restoration of Israel, and the coming of the Messiah (1 Enoch 90:17–38). Clearly, this is an eschatological vision. In the middle of these predicted events, the author describes the future, transformed temple: 486 Then I stood still, looking at that ancient house being transformed: All the pillars and all the columns were pulled out; and the ornaments of that house were packed and taken out together with them and abandoned in a certain place in the South of the land. I went on seeing until the Lord of the sheep brought about a new house, greater and loftier than the first one, and set it up in the first location which had been covered up—all its pillars were new, the columns new; and the ornaments

484

The translation is based on the Greek text in Rahlfs, Septuaginta, the Sinaiticus manuscript. The words in brackets appear in the Alexandrinus and Vaticanus manuscripts. 485 For the date of the Animal Apocalypse, see Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 171 (161 BCE); Isaacs in OTP I, 7 (165–161 BCE); G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 93 (164–160 BCE); and Collins in Evans and Porter, Dictionary, 315. 486 For the interpretation of the Animal Apocalypse, see M. A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 522; and Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature” in Stone, Jewish Writings, 404–405.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

199

new as well as greater than those of the first, (that is) the old (house) which was gone. (90:28–29) 487

Thus, the author expects the old temple to be dismantled and abandoned while a new house, 488 more glorious than the previous one, will be erected. Finally, one of the testaments, in the pseudepigraphical collection known as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, shows an expectation of an eschatological temple. This section of the Testaments is called Testament of Benjamin. In chapter nine of the Testament of Benjamin, there is predicted (based on the alleged words of Enoch) that many of the Israelites will engage in sexual sin and will perish because of it. The latter temple of God, however, will be present and will exceed the former temple in glory. The text also speaks of an eschatological prophet and the gathering of Israel and the Gentiles around the temple (a typical eschatological expectation). 489 All of these events are eschatological events, so the latter glorious temple is also surely an eschatological temple. These four texts, from the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, are explicit statements of expectation of a new house of God at the end of the age. No further explicit references like these are found among this group of texts until well after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. 490 But, as we attempted to demonstrate above, there are certainly texts that imply a longing for a new, glorified temple like Solomon’s. In addition, other documents exist to show us that the longing for a new temple was not limited to the few Jewish authors that wrote the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. The Qumran community, in spite of its notorious belief that they were as a community God’s temple, 491 believed, none487

The translation is from Isaacs in OTP I, 71. But G. W. E. Nickelsburg hesitates to conclude that the “house” in this text refers to a new temple. He suggests that it might refer to a new Jerusalem but allows that a new Jerusalem would also include a new temple. See 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 405. For the word “house” as the temple, see: 1 Kings 7:12, 40 (“house of the LORD”); 1 Chron 9:11, 13 (“house of God”); 1 Chron 29:3 (“house of holiness” or holy house). 489 See e.g., Sibylline Oracles 3.773–774 for belief that all peoples, Israel and Gentiles alike, will come to the temple in the age to come. For the eschatological prophet, see the note in H. C. Kee. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in OTP I, 827. 490 Sibylline Oracles 5.414–433; 2 Baruch 32:2–4 491 See 1QS 5:4–7; 8:4–10; 9:3–11 488

200

JESUS THE GALILEAN

theless, in building an eschatological temple. In a text known as 4QFlorilegium (4Q174; manuscripts written toward the end of the first century BCE) 492 three temples are alluded to: a temple of the Lord (an eschatological one), a temple of Israel, and a temple of man. The text states that the house of the Lord will be established in the last days and no unclean person will ever enter it. But scholars debate whether this temple is an actual structure or a metaphor for the Qumran community. 493 Thus, this text may allude to an eschatological temple building, but also could be referring to an eschatological community, using the word “temple” as a metaphor. In the Qumran text called New Jerusalem (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554, 555, 5Q15, 11Q18), there is described in detail (though only fragments are extant) the temple and its furnishings. Six copies of this work were found at Qumran in five different caves. Thus, the work was very popular among the folk that lived there. This text may be based on Ezekiel 40–48 (see above). Enough is remaining of the fragments to tell that the Qumran community, in the first century BCE, expected that the eschatological Jerusalem would worship fully in the rebuilt temple. 494 492 See. L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994) 230; H. Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998) 121; G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997) 493. G. J. Brooke, “Florilegium” in Evans and Porter, Dictionary, 1205 dates the penning of the document to the beginning of the first century BCE. 493 See, e.g., J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 51, who identifies the eschatological sanctuary with the house of men. That is to say there will be no literal building, but a community of persons. Also see P. R. Davies, G. J. Brooke, and P. R. Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002) 130. On the other hand, R. A. Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation (New York: Peter Lang, 1999) 151; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple (Missoula, Mont.:Scholars Press, 1977) 174; Y. Yadin, “The Temple Scroll” BA 30 (1967) 135–139; and D. Flusser, “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam VII” IEJ 9 (1959) 99–109 say the text refers to an eschatological temple building. 494 G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997) 568 reports that on palaeographical grounds the manuscript from cave 5 dates from the late first century BCE or early first century CE. Thus, the composition of the text itself must obviously be earlier. M. O. Wise “New Jerusalem Texts” (in Evans and Porter, Dictionary, 742) states that palaeography suggests that the earliest of the copies of this work date from around 25 BCE. Thus, the composition of this text is at the latest the middle of the first century BCE. For a descrip-

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

201

Finally, several scholars cite a section in the Temple Scroll found at Qumran (11QT; second century BCE). 495 In the twenty-ninth column of this text, God is made to declare: I will sanctify my [sa]nctuary by my glory when I will cause my glory to dwell upon it until the day of blessing 496 when I will create my sanctuary to establish it for myself forever. (29:8–10)

The text appears to be speaking of two temples. The first one God will bless with his glory, but the second one God will create. In this reading the “day of blessing” would be the arrival of the age to come or eschatological age. Thus the second sanctuary would be an eschatological temple. 497 These three texts (but several manuscripts and fragments) are usually dated from the mid-second century to mid-first century BCE. Thus, they help confirm that the hope for an eschatological temple continued on into the first century BCE. There can be no thought of existence for ancient Jews without a temple. This we would have expected from our brief summary of Eliade’s work. Our survey of the Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha confirm this conclusion. There must not only be a temple in the idealized future age, but an even more glorious one.

tion of the eschatological Jerusalem and its temple, see J. Vanderkam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 369–372. 495 See. L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 257 dates the text to 120 BCE. M. O. Wise reports that most scholars prefer a date for the Temple Scroll between 150 and 60 BCE (“Temple Scroll” in Evans and Porter, Dictionary, 1185). Vanderkam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 211 suggest 150–125 BCE as the latest possible date for the work. 496 The Hebrew text used for this translation is Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society, 1983) II, 129. Yadin reads the word “blessing” here (). On the other hand, E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll (Beersheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 1996) 44, followed by F. G. Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997) II, 1250, see the word “creation” ( ). 497 This is the understanding of Schiffman, Reclaiming, 260; Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery, 161; and M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) 469.

202

JESUS THE GALILEAN

JESUS’ PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE TEMPLE We are now ready to begin answering the questions asked above. Specifically, we want to answer in this part: Did Jesus predict the destruction of the Temple? Second, if so, what were his words? Third, did Jesus predict the rebuilding of the temple? The answer to the first question has been affirmative by most scholars. 498 In the first place, the prediction is widely attested in multiple sources. 499 We can conveniently divide these sources (following M. Borg) into two categories: 500 1. Those texts that explicitly refer to the destruction of the temple, and 2. Those that refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in general. In addition, category 1 can be subdivided into: a) those predictions about only the destruction of the temple and b) those predictions that also include a prediction about the rebuilding of a new temple: 1. a. The Destruction of the Temple Luke 13:35=Matthew 23:37–39 Mark 13:2=Matthew 24:2=Luke 21:6 Acts 6:14 Gospel of Thomas 71 b. The Destruction and Rebuilding of the Temple Mark 14:58=Matthew 26:61 Mark 15:29=Matthew 27:40 John 2:19 498 See L. Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 65: “Most scholars say Mark 13:2 is a genuine logion of Jesus”; M. D. Hooker, “Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70 (1988) 16: “The evidence that Jesus predicted the temple’s downfall … and that of Jerusalem, seems overwhelming …”; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark, 566; “Of the genuineness of the saying (Mark 14:58) there can be little doubt.” See also E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 498; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 346; W. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 534; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 73–75; M. Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1984) 192; R. W. Funk and R. W. Hoover, The Five Gospels, 513; N. T. Wright, Victory, 334; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) 359; D. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 98. 499 For a listing, see Hooker, “Traditions,” 7–19; Borg, Conflict, 189–190; and R. Brown, The Gospel of John (New York: Doubleday, 1966) I, 120. 500 Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics, 192.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

203

2. The Destruction of Jerusalem Luke 19:42–44, 21:20–24, 23:28–31 Further, many of the predictions are unlikely to have been invented by the church either before or after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Jesus’ enemies alleged that Jesus claimed that he himself would destroy the temple: “We heard him saying, ‘I will destroy this sanctuary made with hands …’” (Mark 14:58); “So! You, the destroyer of the sanctuary!” (Mark 15:29); “We have heard him (Stephen) saying that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place” (Acts 6:14); “Jesus said, ‘I will destroy [this] house’” (GT 71). 501 Admittedly, most of these sayings are placed on the lips of Jesus’ enemies. But why would the logion (or saying) occur so many times in the Gospels and Acts if it were only a false accusation or if it were fiction? Second, in light of the temple’s destruction in 70 CE by the Romans, the rather frequent repetition of this saying in which Jesus seems to claim that he will destroy the temple seems striking because anyone living after 70 CE knew, of course, that Jesus had not destroyed the temple. Further, as others have noted, the canonical gospel authors felt a little tension with this prophecy. Matthew has Jesus only say that he was able to destroy the temple. Luke leaves the saying out altogether. John has the saying refer to Jesus’ resurrection. 502 All of these considerations make it very unlikely that it would have been invented by the early church as a kind of prophecy after the fact. Thus, the best conclusion (even as a host of scholars have agreed) is that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple just as Jeremiah (7:12–14, 26:6; late seventh to early sixth century BCE) had done with respect to the first temple and as Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus, War 6. 300–309) did in the years 62–69 CE. Jesus of Nazareth was not the only person to foresee the temple’s destruction. 503

501

Translation in R. W. Funk and R. W. Hoover, The Five Gospels, 513. Compare E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin Press, 1993) 258 and D. C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 100. 503 In addition to Jesus ben Ananias, who thirty years after Jesus of Nazareth predicted the temple’s doom, see also the rabbinic traditions about Yohannan ben Zakkai, who is said to have begun a fast around 30 CE to ward off Jerusalem’s destruction (b. Gittin 56a; Midrash Rabbah on Lamentations 1.5). See R. Brown, The Gospel According to John, I, 230. 502

204

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 16 The Sanctuary (Jerusalem, The Model. Photo by the author)

We have already anticipated the answer to our second question: What were Jesus’ words of prediction? One could say that Jesus expressed it in the passive voice like Mark 13:2: “There will not be left one stone upon another that will not be destroyed.” 504 Others have suggested that Matthew’s version of the logion is the more primitive one. 505 Matthew (26:61) has Jesus say, “I am able to destroy the sanctuary,” but not that he necessarily will. John’s version contains an imperative statement (“Destroy this sanctuary”; 2:19) which probably should be understood as, “If you destroy this sanctuary” (concessive imperative) or “If your actions bring about the destruction of this sanctuary.” 506 But the most difficult form of this saying 504

Hill, Matthew, 346. Schweizer, Matthew, 498. But see R. Gundry, Matthew, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 542, who says GXQDPDLis a Mattheanism. 506 See C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 302, who notes that the imperative as a concessive is a wellknown Hebrew idiom and suggests that therefore this version of the saying may be more primitive than the others. See also F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 195 [387.2] for the same view of this imperative. But R. Bultmann, John, (Philadel505

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

205

(to explain and understand) is surely the Marcan: “I will destroy this sanctuary made with hands.” (Mark 14:58) especially if we bracket off “made with hands” (one word in Greek) as Mark’s interpretive addition to Jesus’ original words. 507 E. P. Sanders 508 is correct: one cannot explain how the church would compose this saying since it appears to predict that Jesus would destroy the temple when in fact the Romans did. The principle is, if the saying is an embarrassment to the early church, it probably was not created by it (but rather uttered by Jesus). Therefore, the technique, so common in Jewish apocalyptic literature, of “predicting” an event after the fact (called vaticinia ex eventu) cannot have been used in this case. Thus, it seems that the Marcan form of the prediction is the more primitive one and is an authentic saying of Jesus. But if Jesus said these words, or something similar, how did he mean them? M. Borg has suggested, with reference to another saying of Jesus, 509 that he sometimes spoke like the Hebrew prophets, that is, speaking for YHWH, but using “I.” This could be true in this case as well. Jesus spoke for YHWH when he said, “I will destroy this sanctuary.” Thus he meant that God would destroy it, not that he personally would do so. The prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the temple’s destruction had also been in the first person: “I will make this house like Shiloh” (Jer. 26:6). In light of our survey of passages in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha with reference to the temple and our summary of Eliade’s analysis of sacred space in traditional cultures, the prediction, that the sanctuary would be destroyed, must have been tremendously traumatic for Jesus. The same prediction thirty or so years later seems also to have been extraordinarily painful for Jesus ben Ananias. Josephus reports that he was in a kind of daze, oblivious to punishment, as if having to announce that the temple would be destroyed had sent him into a numbing shock. Some of Jesus of phia: Westminster, 1971) 88 (followed by G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999] 40) maintained that the imperative is an ironic imperative: “Go ahead and do this and see what happens.” Gaston, No Stone, 71 insists that the imperative has a future meaning: “You will kill me and then …” 507 The idea of a temple not made with hands is found in several Christian texts suggesting that these words are Mark’s interpretation of the difficult saying of Jesus. See Acts 7:48, 17:24; Hebrews 9:11, 9:24 and compare Ephesians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 5:1 and Colossians 2:11. For another example of Mark’s interpretive additions to Jesus’ words, see Mark 7:19 discussed in chapter 4. 508 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 73–74. 509 Borg, Conflict, 195. Borg applies this insight to Jesus’ words in Luke 13:35.

206

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Nazareth’s predictions of Jerusalem’s doom were also accompanied by emotional lamentation according to the Gospels (Luke 13:34=Matt 23:37; Luke 19:41–44). Thus, we should not conclude that Jesus longed for the temple’s destruction. 510 As a pious Jew, it would have been enormously discomfiting to try to imagine life without the temple. Our third question is, Did Jesus predict the rebuilding of the temple? Here scholars are divided. 511 The arguments against Jesus’ predicting that God (speaking through Jesus in the first person: “I will in three days build another [sanctuary]”) would build another sanctuary in the messianic age usually are based on: 1) the suspicious “three days” timetable which looks like a reference to Jesus’ resurrection (exactly how the Johannine community understood it: John 2:21–22); and 2) general theological observation of Jesus’ disregard for the temple cultus. 512 I find these two objections, however, unconvincing. In the first place, a reference to three days does not necessarily come from a post-Easter allusion to Jesus’ resurrection after three days in the tomb. The idiom was so common in the Hebrew language that it meant often no more than “a short time.” 513 Second, we must be cautious (see chapter 4) not to allow statements from the prophets (such as “I desire mercy not sacrifice”; Hosea 6:6) quoted by Jesus (Matt 9:13, 12:7) to be taken the wrong way. These statements no more make the temple “redundant” for Jesus than they did for Hosea. 514

510

Pace Gaster, No Stone, 72 Those answering the question in the negative include: Wright, Victory, 425; Borg, Conflict, 192; Gaston, No Stone, 147–150; and R. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 296. Those affirming that Jesus did predict the temple’s rebuilding include: Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 73–75; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, 329; Taylor, Mark, 567; Funk and Hoover, Five Gospels, 513; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 100. 512 So e.g., Wright, Victory, 335; Borg, Conflict, 192. 513 See Brown, John, Vol 1, 123; Schweizer, Mark, 325; H. J. Austel, “Shalosh” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) II, 933; F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) 1026; Taylor, Mark, 566; Beaseley-Murray, John, 40; and the following texts: Gen 30:36, 40:13, 19, 42:17; Exod 3:18, 5:3, 8:27, 10:22, 23, 14:22; Num 33:8; Josh 2:16, 22, 3:2, 9:16; Judges 14:14, 19:4; 1 Sam 9:20, 20:19, 21:5, 30:12; 2 Sam 20:4, 24:13; 1 Kings 12:5; 2 Kings 2:17; 1 Chron 12:39; 21:12; 2 Chron 10:5, 20:25; Ezra 4:16, 10:8,9; Neh 2:11, Esther 4:16; Jonah 1:17, 3:3. 514 Pace, Wright, Victory, 335. 511

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

207

On the other hand, the more difficult saying (i.e., the one more difficult to account for in light of early church theology) is the statement in Mark 14:58: “I will destroy this sanctuary [made with hands] and in three days I will build another one [made without hands].” Since the early church saw itself, as a community and even as individuals, as the new temple of God (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:4–8), reminiscent of the Qumran community (see above), Jesus’ statement about building a new temple probably could not have been invented by Christians. Further, the longing for an idealized or eschatological temple was pronounced in the documents of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that we surveyed. Even the Qumran community looked for a new temple. In addition, in the rabbinic literature, there is frequent mention of the “third temple” which will be built in the messianic age. 515 Of course, the rabbinic literature dates after the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70 CE, so one cannot maintain that it represents theological notions from before that year. But the point is, not even the rabbis who had grown accustomed to the temple’s being destroyed, who had never even seen the temple, and who had learned to substitute Torah for the temple cultus, could imagine a messianic age, an age of peace, righteousness, and the presence of God, without a temple. If they could not, it makes it even more unlikely that Jesus, a pious Jew from the first century, who saw the temple and frequented it, would imagine a messianic age without the house of God. Finally, our summary of Eliade’s observations of native cultures would lead us to doubt that Jesus would conceive of the messianic age without its sacred space, its axis mundi, by which the blessed of paradise would orient themselves and find cosmos instead of chaos. Just as a universe without sacred space is disorienting and confusing to the traditional cultures of our time, we must imagine that it would have been also to first century Palestinian folk as well. Here again, one must be cautious not to impose a modern, western Christian worldview on the ancients. I conclude, then, that Jesus did say (speaking prophetically for YHWH), “I will destroy this sanctuary and in short time I will build another one.” Why does Mark call these witnesses who report these words false? 516 515 See the references in H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1965) I, 1004–1005; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 181–196; and Gaster, No Stone, 149. See especially b. Pesahim 5a (baraita), GenR 98, and LevR 9. 516 Mark 14:57. Notice that Matthew does not say the witnesses were false (26:60) evidently accepting that the testimony was at least essentially correct.

208

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Because they interpret the words falsely as Jesus’ wish for the temple (to destroy it) or perhaps even as his own revolutionary plan. In putting that spin on the words, they report them falsely just as some wrongly took offense at Jeremiah’s words (26:8–9).

JESUS’ ACTION IN THE TEMPLE Now we are prepared to handle the second block of texts quoted at the beginning of this chapter (Mark 11:15–17 and John 2:13–17). With few exceptions, 517 commentators accept the essential historicity of this story, traditionally called the cleansing of the temple. The historicity is sometimes questioned because it is difficult to see how Jesus could have taken command of the temple even for a short time. The outer court is a huge area and was guarded by both temple police and by Roman soldiers. The usual explanations as to how Jesus did this act are either that he had help from sympathetic pilgrims (He incited a riot) 518 or the temple action was much smaller and much less noticeable than we have imagined. 519 In other words, it was a small gesture to state either disagreement or symbolic prophecy rather than to initiate a real change. The arguments offered in support of its being historical are: 1) The story is narrated in both the Synoptics (Matt., Mark, and Luke) and John, thus in two traditions or sources. The two traditions appear to be inde517 Among those arguing against the historicity of the account see: B. L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 291–292; D. Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act” CBQ 55 (1993) 263–283 and G. W. Buchanan, “Symbolic MoneyChangers in the Temple?” NTS 37 (1991) 280–290. For someone expressing hesitation about accepting the historicity of the pericope, see: R. J. Miller, “The (A) Historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology” SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (1991) 235–252. In addition to the argument from the difficulty of Jesus’ controlling the temple area by himself (see below), some make a case that an anti-temple demonstration fits the Marcan theological agenda too well. In other words, it seems to these scholars that Mark created the scene. 518 See: W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962) 230; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark, 463; E. Trocmé, “L’Expulsion des Marchands du Temple” NTS 15 (1968–1969) 1–22; and J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Solothurn: Benziger, 1994) 130. 519 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70; Borg, Conflict, 183–184; Jostein Adna, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17): The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by His Atoning Death” in B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer, eds., Gemeinde ohne Temple (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1999) 463.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

209

pendent of one another since they are located at different points in Jesus’ ministry and contain different words of interpretation. 2) The incident would be a strange one for the church to create. Elsewhere, the four Gospels do not represent Jesus using force; they insist that Jesus was not guilty of any kind of sedition. Further, the event can be seen as ironic, even comical (venders joining the stampede of animals out of the temple). Surely the church, if it were to fabricate a story, would have created a more serious tale. 3) The event can be plausibly explained by reference to contemporaneous texts (see below). 4) One can easily translate Mark’s text back into the presumed Aramaic original. 520 As stated above, there are two versions of the incident: One is shared by the Synoptics and a second in the Gospel of John. The former have the event taking place just before the Passion of Jesus; the latter places the event early in Jesus’ ministry. Few scholars would suggest that there were two temple incidents, 521 but scholars are divided as to which chronology of the happening—if either—is correct. 522 Each version also has a different 520

See Sanders (Jesus and Judaism, 61) “… it is overwhelmingly probable that Jesus did something in the temple …” R. J. Miller observes: “… there is a nearly unanimous consensus that Mark 11:15–17 preserves a kernel of historical remembrance” (“The (A) Historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology” SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, 235–253). See also I. Buse, “The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John” ExT 70 (1958–1959) 22–24; R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) 36; E. Trocmé, “L’Expulsion des Marchands du Temple,” 14; R. H. Hiers, “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God” JBL 90 (1971) 82–90; W. W. Watty, “Jesus and the Temple—Cleansing or Cursing?” ExT 93 (1981–1982) 235– 239; J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, II, 1264; B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress,1990) 109–110; Gnilka, Markus, 130; P. M. Casey, “Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple” CBQ 59 (1997) 306–332; and R. W. Funk, The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) 121. Funk writes that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar approved on three occasions over a ten-year period the essential historicity of the temple demonstration: “More than a hundred scholars participated in these affirmations” (121). 521 But see A. Plummer, Gospel According to Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922) 453, who argues for two temple demonstrations. For more recent works see: L. Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 166–169. He also argues for two incidents in the temple and gives a list of other scholars that have so argued. 522 Among those arguing that John’s chronology is the correct one are: V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark, 462; Fitzmyer, Luke, II, 1265. Those contending

210

JESUS THE GALILEAN

set of words attributed to Jesus at the time of the demonstration. We even have some differences among the Synoptics, with Matthew (21:12–13) and Luke (19:45–46) sometimes disagreeing against Mark. 523 Why did Jesus overturn the tables and drive out the animals from the outer court of the temple? We might conveniently organize the plethora of views on this text into four broad categories: I. The traditional view is that Jesus was zealous for the temple and something that was being done in it displeased him. Jesus was protesting against something that was going on in the temple and wanted to defend the temple’s holiness. Some maintain that the priesthood, especially the high priestly family, was corrupt and was profiting from the sale of animals and the exchange of money. 524 Others see the process itself (not necessarily the priests) as corrupt. 525 Jesus was opposing mainly the commercialism which had a monopoly on the sale of animals and placed a burden on poor people, according to this view. According to Etienne Trocmé, Jesus performed a Zealot act. He stood in the Zealot tradition (albeit non-military) and therefore, displayed zeal for the law in his temple that the Synoptic chronology is correct include: C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 195; and G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, 38. 523 For details see Buse, “The Cleansing of the Temple,” 23; Fitzmyer, Luke, II, 1263. Matthew and Luke do not have Mark 11:16; do not have the words “for all nations” for Mark 11:17; and place the demonstration on the same day as the entry (while Mark has it happen the day after the entry). 524 See the older work of A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 [1886]) Part I, 371. I. Abrahams corrected Edersheim’s view but in the end substantially agreed with him that there may have been abuses in the selling of animals and exchange of money. See Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (New York: KTAV, 1917) 82–89. For a more recent version of this view see: C. A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989) 237–270; idem., “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993) 93–110; Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (London: A and C Black, 1991) 264; and K. H. Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 185. 525 See R. Bauckham, “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple” in B. Lindars, eds., Law and Religion (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co., 1988) 72–89. The idea that the commercialism was corrupt (charging too much for the service) or had ruined the temple’s function of worship is a common explanation for the temple incident. See Grundmann, Markus, 231: Taylor, Mark, 463.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

211

demonstration. 526 H. D. Betz suggests that Jesus was rejecting the Herodian rule by rejecting the Herodian temple with its commercialism. 527 Others, in this broad category, argue that selling the animals for sacrifice and exchanging the currency into Tyrian sheqels in the court of the Gentiles was a late innovation. This business was formerly done on the Mt. of Olives, not in the temple precincts. Thus, Jesus objected to this innovation. 528 P. Richardson has suggested that Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers because he objected to the images on the Tyrian coins (which, of course, would contravene the ten commandments; Exod 20:4). 529 B. Chilton believes that Jesus wanted sacrifice done correctly and so objected to selling the animals in the temple precincts. 530 Still others suggest that Jesus was enforcing Zechariah’s (14:21) vision for the eschatological temple in which no “Canaanite” would be allowed in it. These scholars want to understand the word, Canaanite, as “trader” or merchant. Some holding this view also say the demonstration is a symbolic act of messianism. Thus, with this cleansing, Jesus was claiming to be messiah preparing for the kingdom of God. 531 C. K. Barrett has argued that Jesus was 526

Trocmé, “L’Expulsion,” 18. H. D. Betz, “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15–18): A Comparative Religion Approach” JBL 116 (1997) 455–472. 528 V. Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Cleansing of the Temple” ZNW 55 (1964) 42–58; B. Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City, NT: Doubleday, 1975) 126. 529 P. Richardson, “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts” SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, 507–523. 530 B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992) 103. 531 C. Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV 21” NovT 4 (1960) 174–181. The Hebrew Word  (kena’ani) can mean literally a Canaanite or a trader/merchant. It means the latter in Proverbs 31:24, Isaiah 23:8, and Hosea 12:8. The Greek Septuagint version of Zechariah simply transliterated the word FDQDQDLR9chananaios, evidently regarding the term as referring to the local pagans. But as Roth notes, the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan understood the word in Zechariah 14:21 to be “trader” (tagara’), as did Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation (mercator) and at least one passage in the Babylonian Talmud (Pesahim 50a, where the sage argues at length for this understanding). The Gospel of Thomas 64 may have an authentic memory of Jesus’ purpose in the temple demonstration: “Buyers and merchants will not enter the places of my father” (Funk and Hoover, 527

212

JESUS THE GALILEAN opposing the militarism and violent intentions of the Zealots (or “brigands”) who were, he surmises, operating in the temple precincts during Jesus’ day. 532 II. Although E. P. Sanders did not originate the idea, since his work in 1985, a growing number of scholars has accepted that Jesus was symbolically predicting, by his actions, the destruction of the temple. 533 Like the Hebrew prophets of old, Jesus communicated his prediction of doom by the use of drama. III. The third group of scholars believes rather the opposite from the first. In this view, Jesus was expressing his rejection of the temple cultus. Some opine that Jesus merely wanted the temple to be a place of prayer for all people without the nationalistic stress on one people and on sacrifice. 534 Marcus Borg argues that Jesus was rejecting the quest for holiness through the temple. 535 Others suggest

Five Gospels, 509). A host of other scholars have supported this conclusion. See: J. D. M. Derrett, “The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple” Downside Review 95 (1997) 79–94; N. Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank” JBL 83 (1964) 365–372; Hiers, “Purification of the Temple,” 86–87. The last three scholars compare the Zechariah text with Malachi 3:1–3. G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 159; R. Brown, John, I, 121; BeasleyMurray, John, 39. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 131 and E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Alfred Toepelmann, 1966) 388 maintained that the temple demonstration was a purging to prepare for the coming kingdom of God but did not connect it to Zech 14:21. 532 C. K. Barrett, “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves” in E. E. Ellis and E. Graesser, eds., Jesus und Paulus (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 13–20. Cf. Also D. Mendels, “The Temple in the Hellenistic Period and in Judaism” in B. A. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, eds., Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York University Press, 1998) 73–83. 533 See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70–71, 75; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 357; Wright, Victory, 417; P. Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ (New Haven:Yale University Press, 2000) 113; M. A. Matson, “The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel” SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, 489–503; J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 2001) III, 501; R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 299; G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 432–433; and F. Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks, 255–256. For a work prior to Sanders’ that advocated his later position, see: W. W. Watty, “Jesus and the Temple—Cleansing or Cursing?” ExT 93 (1981–1982) 235–239. 534 Gaston, No Stone, 85–87. 535 Borg, Conflict, 188.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

213

that Jesus objected to the idea that the daily offering (for which the one-half sheqel tax was paid) could atone for sin. 536 He was affirming that atonement was through him. IV. Finally, S. G. F. Brandon has surmised that the temple incident was actually Jesus’ attempt (along with his followers) to bring about violent revolution. This “attack” on the temple was a challenge to the “sacerdotal aristocracy” and the Roman Empire at the same time, and was coordinated with the nearly simultaneous insurrection of Barabbas (Mark 15:7) elsewhere in the city. This event was supposed to occasion “violence and pillage.” 537 This is quite an array of views (some of which are near opposites of each other!). Obviously, this event in the life of Jesus has not only sparked a great deal of interest and research; it has provoked strong disagreements as well. How can we make sense of an obviously puzzling text in the gospels? Let us lay down five methodological restrictions: First, we will not read the story of the temple incident alongside Jesus’ predictions of the temple’s destruction. To do so, in my opinion, prejudices the conclusions. 538 Second, we will, for the time being, disregard Jesus’ words with reference to the incident. Some maintain that the words of Mark 11:17 and John 2:16 are a later addition to the story of the temple demonstration. 539 Later, we can compare the words, attributed to him in Mark and John, with our interpretation. Third, we will disregard the contexts of both the Marcan and the Johannine accounts of the temple demonstration. There is no agreement on when the event took place and the contexts may be redactional anyway. 540 Fourth, the interpretation must harmonize with contemporaneous Jewish history and literature. Fifth, we must apply Ockham’s Razor to the task. Jesus might have meant many things by doing what he did, but we do not write useful history by being swept away in useless speculation, however 536 J. Neusner, “Money Changers in the Temple: the Mishnah’s Explanation” NTS 35 (1989) 287–290; Jostein Adna, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17): The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by His Atoning Death,” 461– 475. 537 S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1967) 9, 332–351. Cf. H. S. Reimarus, Fragments (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970 [1774–1778]) 146. 538 Contrast Sanders, Historical Figure, 258: “It is perfectly reasonable to put together Jesus’ action against the money-changers and his statement of the Temple.” 539 See Trocmé, “L’Expulsion” 14–15; Gnilka, Markus, 127. 540 See on context, Trocmé, “L’Expulsion,” 4–6.

214

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ingenious it might seem. What would such an event have meant readily and immediately to those pious Jews in the temple watching it? That is our question. Let us take the above categories in reverse order. Category IV: Any reading of this event as a coup attempt is mostly based on imagination, not evidence. Brandon has only speculation from which to spin his story. He does highlight a problem, however: How could Jesus have pulled off his designs on the temple without help? Most scholars answer that Jesus’ actions were limited in scope and thus did not really affect the entire temple area. Brandon has opted for another answer. Jesus really did halt the entire temple machinery and he did so by having a small army of helpers. Yet, Brandon’s answer to the question seems too far fetched. The claim (category III) that Jesus was in this action showing his rejection of the temple cultus fails for much the same reason as the position under category II (see below). That is, one cannot show that Jesus was rejecting the need for sacrifices and other rituals in this temple incident. Jesus did not do anything directly against sanctuary or altar. Driving out business persons does not mean that Jesus rejected the sacrificial system or the temple in general. The view of group II must also be rejected. Since this view has become so popular, we will spend more space handling it. There are usually three arguments in favor of this view. 541 First, Mark has sandwiched the event between the cursing of the fig tree (11:14) and the observation of the fig tree (11:20). Thus, Mark wants the reader to infer that Israel (or the priestly aristocracy?) is like the barren fig tree and, therefore, the temple will be destroyed. The question is always in these situations, How far back in the tradition does this application of the temple incident go? Is this Mark’s interpretation or was it Jesus’ interpretation? Matthew plays down the fig tree incident and Luke does not refer to it at all (nor does John for that matter). 542 Second, it is sometimes maintained that Jesus’ actions stopped the temple machinery cold. Therefore, it is argued Jesus did not simply want to cast out the vendors but to put a halt to any activity in the temple. It is assumed that over turning the tables of the money changers would have stopped the tamid or daily sacrifice since this tax paid for it. Further, without 541

See for these arguments, especially J. D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, Excavating Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) 221. 542 Hooker, “Traditions about the Temple,” 7–19; Trocmé, “L’Expulsion,” 6.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

215

sacrificial animals, no sacrifice was possible. The problem with this argument is that the temple tax was collected throughout Palestine, not just in Jerusalem (m. Sheqalim 1:3). Second, people could bring their own lambs and other animals with them to Jerusalem; they did not have to buy them in Jerusalem. Thus Jesus’ actions would not have brought the temple activities to a halt, even if he had actually taken over the entire outer court of the temple as Brandon thought.

216

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Figure 17 Plan of Temple Precincts in the Time of Jesus

It is sometimes suggested that Mark 11:16 (“And he would not allow anyone to carry a vessel through the temple”) indicates that Jesus effectively stopped the sacrificial system on that occasion since the vessels were undoubtedly sacred vessels and without these vessels, the processes in the

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

217

temple were impossible. 543 One scholar notes that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) one third of the references to vessels (skeuos VNHXR9) are clearly references to sacred vessels. 544 Of course, that means that two thirds of the references in the Greek Old Testament are to profane (i.e., ordinary) vessels. Further, the preposition “through” (GLD) would seem to imply that what Jesus halted was not the bringing in of sacred vessels but using the temple mount as a shortcut. That is, he prohibited people from carrying their ordinary vessels through the temple mount. The third argument for Sanders’ view is that the paraphrase of Jeremiah 7:11 (“You have made it a cave of brigands”; Mark 11:17), when understood in its context in Jeremiah, should lead us to infer that Jesus was predicting the destruction of the temple in his temple demonstration. In Jeremiah 7, this is a question: “Has this house in which my name is called become a cave of violent criminals 545 in your eyes?” The point of the question is that some were committing crimes (stealing, murder, adultery, false oaths, and idolatry) yet they still came into the temple and thought they were delivered. Because of this, Jeremiah predicts that God will do to the temple in Jerusalem what he did to Shiloh (7:14; i.e., make it desolate). Thus, some scholars argue, Jesus was implying by this paraphrase that God would make the temple in his day like Shiloh. There are two problems with this last argument. First, many scholars do not believe that the words attributed to Jesus in Mark 11:17 are original. They see them as a Marcan redaction. 546 Second, the reference to Jeremiah 7 comprises in Mark’s text only two Greek words placed in a different form. Is it pressing too much out of such a brief allusion to suppose that Jesus intended for the crowd to know the larger context of these words and therefore to understand Jeremiah 7:14 as being included in his interpretation? Since Jesus spoke clearly elsewhere about the temple’s destruction (see above), is it likely that to explain his action in the temple he would speak in such a veiled way? It is possible, of course, that Jesus would have intended such a thing and also possible that the words are only briefly given by Mark. Perhaps Jesus actually taught at length (Mark 11:17) about the temple’s de543

Watty, “Jesus and the Temple,” 239; Gnilka, Markus, 129. Gnilka, Markus, 129. 545 Hebrew  , “a violent person, murderer, robber.” See Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, 829. 546 E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Alfred Toepelmann, 1966) 385–386; Trocmé, “L’Expulsion,” 14. 544

218

JESUS THE GALILEAN

struction based on the verses from Jeremiah. But, as we said above, we are applying Ockam’s Razor to this task. Many things may be possible, but we only have the evidence from the texts. That evidence is slight at best in favor of Sanders’ view. For E. P. Sanders, however, none of the above arguments were necessary. He argues that the action itself indicates Jesus’ meaning. As Sanders states: “The turning over of even one table points toward destruction . . . I take it that the action at the very least symbolized an attack, and note that ‘attack’ is not far from ‘destruction.’” 547 That is, one can discern what Jesus meant by reflecting on what he did. It is a very creative suggestion in a monograph full of wonderful insights. But at the end of the day, one must conclude that this particular suggestion should be rejected. We must say that very few (if any) witnessing Jesus’ action would have thought he was symbolically predicting the temple’s destruction. One is hard pressed to see what there is in his action of driving out the sellers of animals and overturning the tables of money-changers that would make anyone think he was predicting the temple’s destruction. When we consider the action per se and not the action alongside Jesus’ words elsewhere about the temple’s destruction, we are not left with the impression that he was predicting something. That prophets in the Hebrew scriptures often acted out their messages is, of course, well attested. H. Wheeler Robinson calls these “symbolic acts.” They are usually very dramatic portrayals of something that is about to happen. But, advises Robinson, they are more than simply vivid illustrations. They help bring about the fulfillment by initiating “the divine action in miniature.” 548 The following table presents many of the symbolic prophetic acts in the Hebrew scriptures:

547

Jesus and Judaism, 70–71. H. Wheeler Robinson, “Prophetic Symbolism” in D. C. Simpson, ed., Old Testament Essays (London: Charles Griffin, 1927) 1–17; and idem., Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) 227. Robinson observes: “Genetically, (the symbolic acts) spring from the widespread practice of symbolic magic.” The principle of mimetic magic is “like produces like.” Thus the prophetic drama contains the result. 548

Text 1. 1 Kings 11:29–30

Description Ahijah tears up his garment 2. 1 Kings 22:11a False prophet makes horns of iron 3. Isaiah 7:3 Isaiah names his son Shearjashub 4. Isaiah 8:1,3 Isaiah names his other son Mahershalalhashbaz 5. Isaiah 20:2 Isaiah must go naked and barefoot 6. Hosea 1:2a,3 Hosea marries a wife of harlotry 7. Hosea 1:4a Hosea names his son Jezreel 8. Hosea 1:6a Hosea names his daughter Loruhamah 9. Hosea 1:9a Hosea names his second son Loammi 10. Hosea 3:1–3 Hosea takes an adulteress as a wife 11. Jeremiah 13:1–7 Jeremiah ties a filthy waste band around himself 12. Jeremiah 16:2 Jeremiah cannot take a wife 13. Jeremiah 19:1–2, Jeremiah breaks a 10 clay pot 14. Jeremiah 27:2–3 Jeremiah walks around with a yoke on his neck 15. Jeremiah 32:6– Jeremiah buys a field 12 16. Ezekiel 4:1–3a Ezekiel makes a clay model of Jerusalem 219

Interpretation 1 Kings 11:31–39 1 Kings 22:11b Isaiah 7:4–9 Isaiah 8:4

Isaiah 20:3–6 Hosea 1:2b 1:4b–5 Hosea 1:6b–7

Hosea 1:9b

Hosea 3:4–5 Jeremiah 13:8–14

Jeremiah 16:3–21 Jeremiah 19:11–15 Jeremiah 27:4–22

Jeremiah 32:13–15 Ezekiel 4:3b

220 Text 17. Ezekiel 4:4, 6–8

18. Ezekiel 4:9–15 19. Ezekiel 5:1–4

20. Ezekiel 12:3–7

21. Ezekiel 24:15–19 22. Acts 21:11a

JESUS THE GALILEAN Description Ezekiel must lie on his side for an extended time Ezekiel must eat sparingly Ezekiel cuts his hair and divides it into three parts Ezekiel digs a hole in his wall and moves his goods out Ezekiel may not mourn for his wife Agabus ties himself up

Interpretation Ezekiel 4:5

Ezekiel 4:16–17 Ezekiel 5:5–17

Ezekiel 12:10–16

Ezekiel 24:20–27 Acts 21:11b

Table 11 Symbolic Prophetic Acts in Hebrew Scripture

We may note the following observations based on the actions themselves: First, since the acts were the coming event in miniature, usually they pictured what would happen. Second, these acts were not aggressive. That is, they did not use force. Third, the actions were often, though not always, rather weird (going naked, setting one’s hair on fire, wearing a yoke). They were intended to get peoples’ attention. Fourth, the actions usually were focused on the prophets. These are things they did to themselves. The prophetic actions consisted of two parts: The act itself and the interpretation of the act. The interpretations of the actions usually followed the acts (or sometimes were given simultaneously). Almost all of the interpretations were in the form of predictions (the exception is number 6). The action of Jesus in the temple does not resemble the above listed actions. His action was aggressive, driving out and overturning. The action was directed not at himself but at others. He made no prediction. Instead his words were a rebuke for something that was happening in the temple. Jesus’ action is not easily seen as the destruction of the temple in miniature as we should expect from such prophetic symbolic dramatizations. I would expect that a symbolic prediction of the destruction of the temple would look more like what Ezekiel did (Ezekiel 4:1–3; #16 above). Ezekiel made a clay model of Jerusalem complete with bulwarks, trenches, and battering rams. Then he set up an iron plate or griddle beside the model to serve as a siege wall. “This will be a sign to the house of Israel” (v. 3),

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

221

writes Ezekiel. One can certainly conceive of the onlookers of Ezekiel’s symbolic, prophetic action having some notion that he was predicting the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The same was true of one of Jeremiah’s prophetic actions (#13 above). He broke a clay pot in public and then declared: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘In this way I will break this people and this city like the potter who breaks a vessel’”(19:11). But in the case of Jesus’ temple action, there is, in my opinion, no obvious clue of destruction being predicted. Perhaps it would be useful to recall what Jesus did not do. He did not make a demonstration in the court of women or the court of Israel. He did not interrupt any rituals in progress there or drive out the Levite choir. He did not, of course, enter the sanctuary (Holy Place and Holy of Holies). He did not interrupt the sacrifices or tread on the holy altar. He did not destroy any part of the sanctuary or temple precincts. Doing one of those things might have indicated to on-lookers that he was making a symbolic prophetic action. But his demonstration took place in the outer courts in the area where business was being transacted. This analysis leaves the traditional view (view number I, above) and this is, in my judgment, still the best. As many have pointed out, buying the sacrifices was necessary for pilgrims coming to Jerusalem as was the exchange of foreign coinage into the sheqel of Tyre (the coin of the sanctuary) in order to pay the one-half sheqel temple tax. 549 These sellers and money exchangers were doing an important service. So, what was the problem? We must place the temple incident in the context of other temple incidents. 550 When it comes to interpreting the temple demonstration, that with which the historian compares this text determines its meaning. We will, accordingly, limit our survey of incidents to those that meet three criteria: 1) The incidents must be aggressive. That is to say, the participants must have used force or threatened force. 2) The incident must be an action, not a teaching or legal dispute. 551 3) The incident must have taken place in the 549

See especially Chilton, Temple of Jesus, 110; and Richardson, “Why Turn the Tables,” 513. The Mishnaic tractate Sheqelim contains much of the relevant information about how the tax was collected. See also Josephus, War 7.218, Ant 18.312; Exod 30:11–16, Neh 10:33–34, 2 Chron 24:4–14. 550 For a list of these incidents, see Hengel, Zealots, 206–224; Chilton, Temple of Jesus, 101–103; J. D. M. Derrett, “The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple,” 79–94. 551 Thus, two of Chilton’s parallels (Temple of Jesus, 101–103) to Jesus’ action do not seem to me to be appropriate: Hillel’s teaching on animal sacrifice (b. Betsah

222

JESUS THE GALILEAN

vicinity of the temple: in the sanctuary itself, in the outer court, or at the temple gates. Using these three criteria, I find ten accounts that parallel the temple incident in the gospels: y While Nehemiah (late 5th cent. BCE) was away from Jerusalem, the high priest settled his friend, Tobiah, a Gentile, in a chamber of the temple that had been used to store the tithes and temple vessels. When Nehemiah returned, he was very distressed and threw out (hishlich  ) the household goods of Tobiah and ordered the chamber to be purified and the tithes and vessels moved back in (Neh 13:4–9). y Jewish observers, at the feast of tabernacles, pelted the High Priest, Alexander Jannaeus (104–78 BCE), with their citrons when they concluded that his handling of the ritual was less than satisfactory and complained that he was descended from captives of war (Josephus, Ant 13. 372–373; m. Sukkah 4:9; b. Sukkah 48b). y Students, incited by two teachers of the law (4 BCE), chopped down, from one of the gates of the temple, the golden image of an eagle (prohibited by Exodus 20:4; Josephus, War 1.648– 655; Ant 17.149–164). For this deed, they and the teachers were executed. y When Archelaus was ethnarch of Judea (4 BCE–6 CE), he sent Jewish soldiers into the outer court of the temple, during Passover, to halt lamentations for the above-mentioned executed teachers. The angry crowd stoned some of the soldiers to death, then continued their Passover ritual (Josephus, War 2.3–24; Ant 17.206–218). y Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE), with a culturally tone-deaf ear, appropriated funds (intended to pay for the daily sacrifices) from the temple to pay for an aqueduct. There was widespread rioting resulting in many deaths (Josephus, Ant 18.60– 61; War 2.175–177). y Emperor Caligula (40 CE) demanded that his statue be placed in the Holy of Holies of the temple. Josephus relates that huge crowds met the Roman legate at Tiberias to protest and 20a) and Simeon b. Gamaliel’s disapproval of the high price of doves (m. Keritot 1:7). These are rabbinic rulings, not actual temple actions or demonstrations.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

223

threaten war (Josephus, Ant 18.261–309; Philo, Embassy to Gaius 306). y A Roman soldier (sometime in 48–52 CE) stationed in the porticoes of the temple’s outer court made an obscene gesture. Again, this sparked rage and righteous protest on the part of the onlookers. The protest included hurling stones and even fighting with the Roman troops. In the ensuing tumult, many Jews were killed (Josephus, War 2.224; Ant 20.106–112). y Some temple visitors (around 58 CE) concluded that Paul, the Apostle, had brought Gentiles into the Court of Women and started a riot to protest (Acts 21:27–30). y Agrippa II built (between 60 and 62 CE) a chamber, onto his palace in Jerusalem, which afforded him a view into the temple. The leaders of Jerusalem became very upset at this intrusion into their temple worship and at having their sacrifices watched from afar. They, therefore, commissioned a wall to be erected to block Agrippa’s view. The problem was that it also blocked the view of the Roman guards. When told to tear down the wall, they responded that they would rather die. After sending to Nero for a decision, they were allowed to keep the wall (Ant 20.189–196). y Finally, the last procurator, Florus (66 CE), like Pilate, appropriated temple funds and caused an outburst that eventuated into a full scale revolution (Josephus, War 2.293–296). Jesus’ action in the temple looks, to me, like it also belongs in this group because it meets the same three criteria. Turning over tables of bankers and driving out animals is more like throwing out the household goods of a defiling Gentile, taking your ax to a sacrilegious golden eagle, or building a wall (even if death threatens) to protect the altar from view, than it is like Ezekiel’s fabricating a scale model of Jerusalem. Symbolic predictions usually give us some hint that they are predictions. Zealous demonstrations, on the other hand, intend not to predict, but to protest. They require some measure of force or threatened force. If Jesus’ action is parallel, then its meaning may be similar to that of these other temple demonstrations. All of these incidents happened because people were zealous for the temple and outraged over some affront to its holiness. Sacred space must be protected. It is what gives meaning and order to life. When it is threatened, it causes great discomfort and distress. Thus, both by a process of elimination of other views and by a comparison

224

JESUS THE GALILEAN

with other similar incidents, we are led to the conclusion that Jesus acted because he was zealous for the temple. In light of one of the themes from the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha that we discussed above, the evil intruder, this spiritual outrage is understandable. When your sacred space, the center of your universe, has been repeatedly abused by evil persons (mostly by pagans, but sometimes even by Israelites) and has been continually threatened and these threats have been narrated in the popular literature, you can develop a quick trigger to protest. M. Hengel has shown that protecting the sanctuary was of utmost importance to the Jewish revolutionaries in the great war of 66–73 CE. Some of the rebels quickly took control of the temple area and fought to defend it (both from the Romans and from fellow Jewish factions). They burned down the hated Tower of Antonia, the military garrison of the Romans (War 2.430). They executed the high priest (War 2.441) and selected their own by casting lots (War 4.153–154). They clearly intended to restore the temple to some pristine state. Hengel concludes: The theme of the threat to the Sanctuary appears both in pious legends of the period and in the apocalyptic literature. This is clear evidence of how deeply the feeling that the Sanctuary was permanently threatened had sunk into the minds of the people. 552

But why did Jesus think the temple was being profaned and needed defending? Again, we must stick with Ockham’s Razor. It could have been many things, but we want the simplest explanation. Thus, Chilton’s and Richard’s views, though ingenious, do not, in the end, satisfy. The one does not adequately account for Jesus’ overturning of the tables of the moneychangers (Chilton) and the other fails to explain why Jesus drove out the animal sellers (Richardson). Nor must we suggest that the priests were corrupt and were profiting from the high prices of the animals or the expensive fees for changing money. These things may have been happening, but there is nothing in the texts of the gospels to suggest that they were. Jesus did not address the priests, but the business persons in the outer court. We are also certainly not required to conclude that the sellers and money-changers were dishonest. Nothing in the texts of the gospels leads to that conclusion. 553

552

Hengel, Zealots, 209. The Greek word, OKVWK9, means not thief, as in someone overcharging or stealing in other ways, but a brigand, ie., a highway robber prone to violence. 553

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

225

The simplest conclusion is that Jesus objected to doing in the outer court what he overturned and drove out. He believed he was defending the sanctity of the temple in doing so. He was very zealous for the House of God, for sacred space. Jesus was like the friends of Philo (1st century CE) about whom he wrote: “All of them had extraordinary zeal for the temple” (Embassy to Gaius 212). I consider it likely that C. Roth and others were correct: Jesus was applying his interpretation of Zechariah 14:21 to the temple ritual. 554 Zechariah envisioned that in the eschatological temple there would be no “Canaanite,” i.e., merchant. It has been suggested that Jesus understood his ministry in terms of Zechariah’s vision for the eschatological age. 555 Certainly Jesus seems to have intentionally enacted Zechariah 9:9 when he entered Jerusalem (Mk 11:7–10 and par.). If this understanding is correct, then the entry and the temple incident, taken together, are Jesus’ inauguration of Zechariah’s eschatological vision. 556 This understanding of Jesus’ action is, I think, best for the following reasons: 1. Our suggestion is the simplest. Jesus drove out of the temple and overturned exactly what he disliked. We do not need to find in his actions something hidden to all but the cleverest of investigators. 2. Most observers would have thought that Jesus was upset with the sellers and money-changers. That would be the most obvious conclusion. 3. This understanding harmonizes with what other pious Jews did (roughly contemporaneous with Jesus) in the temple precincts when they were spiritually outraged.

554 Perhaps V. Eppstein’s suggestion is also correct: Perhaps selling the animals in the outer court was a recent development (see above). 555 Chilton, Temple of Jesus, 135; J. D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways (London: SCM Press, 1991) 48; and C. A. Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 373–388. 556 Thus, Jesus would have believed like the author of the Qumran Temple Scroll (11QT 29:8–10; see quoted above). This text speaks both of Yahweh sanctifying at the end of the age the current temple and of building later a new temple. As we have attempted to demonstrate, Jesus taught that the current temple needed to be purified of its merchants but also that God would destroy and rebuild the temple. On the Temple Scroll’s two temples see: Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, 182–186.

226

JESUS THE GALILEAN 4. This understanding harmonizes well with our survey of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha and the concern for the evil intruder in the temple. 5. This reading of the story is supported by Eliade’s observations of sacred space in native cultures. Sacred space is, for them, the center of the universe, their door to heaven, and must never be profaned. 6. This understanding harmonizes well with the Mishnaic respect for the temple—even the temple mount or temple precincts. The m. Berakot 9:5 557 forbade showing disrespect to the eastern gate (which the Talmud understood as a prohibition to using the latrine facing the temple), entering the temple mount carrying a staff or wallet, and walking in the temple precincts with shoes on or with dirt on one’s feet. One must also refrain from using the temple mount as a short cut 558 (cf. Mark 11:16) and from spitting on the temple mount. Jesus’ sensitivity toward the sacred space is similar. There was also a similar sensitivity exhibited when Judas Maccabeus (164 BCE) ordered a wall to be erected around the temple mount to keep Gentiles from walking on it (1 Macc 4:60–61). Thus, Judas was not only concerned with the holiness of the sanctuary proper but even that of the outer courts of the temple and of Mt. Zion. 7. This interpretation coheres remarkably well with most of the words attributed to Jesus and the scriptural texts quoted in reference to the event “Zeal for your house will consume me” (Ps 69:9, quoted in Jn 2:17). “Do not make my father’s house a house of business” (Jn 2:16) which has partial parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 64: “Buyers and merchants will not enter the places of my father.” 559 “My father’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”

557 D. Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis From the Era of the New Testament, 93–94 affirms that at least the core of this passage in the Mishnah is from before 70 CE. 558 Mishnah Berakot 9:5 (“One must not use the temple mount for a short-cut …”). See also b. Berakot 54a and b. Yebamot 6b. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.106: “Nor was any vessel permitted to be carried into the temple.” Cf. Also Zech 14:20, whose eschatological vision demanded that all vessels in the temple be used for a holy purpose. Later, the same kind of restrictions would be applied to synagogues. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, II, 27. 559 Funk and Hoover, Five Gospels, 509.

JESUS AND THE TEMPLE

227

(Mark 11:17 quoting Isaiah 56:7; i.e., a house of prayer, not a house of business). 560 The last statement attributed to Jesus (“You have made it a cave of brigands”; Mark 11:17 alluding to Jer 7:11) admittedly does not fit the traditional interpretation as well as the others. The verse paraphrased in Jeremiah is in the form of a question (see above). The point of the question is that some were committing crimes (stealing, murder, adultery, false oaths, and idolatry) yet they still came into the temple and thought they were delivered. In the interpretation I have suggested, Jesus’ point would be that some are defiling the temple by these business transactions just as criminals did in the days of Jeremiah. If it be objected that selling doves and exchanging currency does not rise to the level of the crimes listed in Jeremiah 7, then we must reply that Jesus’ words alluding to Jeremiah 7:11 are the words of one very zealous for the temple. To him diminishing the sanctity of the temple, however slight it might seems to us, was a grievous wrong. Trocmé was correct. Jesus’ temple action was that of a religious zealot. He was not a military zealot (pace Brandon), but was nevertheless zealous for God and Israel’s sacred space, the holy temple, even the outer courts. His views, if not Puritanical, 561 were at least Pharisaic. 562

560

Jesus no more meant to exclude sacrifices from the temple in this quotation than Isaiah did. That is, he is not stressing prayer as opposed to sacrifices. See Isaiah 56:7, the last part of the verse, in which sacrifices and burnt offerings are brought into the temple. 561 Mazar (Mountain of the Lord, 126): “Jesus like other puritanical Jews, might have taken the attitude that the spirit of worship and reverence was undermined by the intrusion of such (business) dealings.” 562 Cf. Chilton, Temple of Jesus, 111.

POSTSCRIPT: JESUS AND HIS JEWISH BACKGROUNDS

Now that we have taken our soundings, let us connect the dots on the map. We have not attempted a systematic analysis of Jesus’ life or theology, but perhaps our probes can by extrapolation lead to a more complete picture. We must say that, there was nothing unusual in Jesus’ background that would have caused us to predict for him greatness. He grew up in a nothing-of-a-village in Lower Galilee and learned the trade of a carpenter/builder which he undoubtedly pursued with his family. He did not, as far as anyone knows, attend rabbinic academies or study with philosophers. These undisputed facts have led some to mistakenly characterize Jesus’ pre-ministry experiences. He is depicted by some as poverty stricken, culturally deprived, a real “hayseed.” But we suggested that Jesus probably was often in urban environments and probably traveled frequently to sell his skills. As a matter of fact, these journeys to work sites may have been the same routes he took later in his ministry. The family also was probably not economically destitute. Jesus certainly had witnessed both poverty and wealth before his ministry, but he partook of neither. We should expect that he and his brothers worked at hard manual labor, but did not want for the necessities of life. His travels allowed him to form many impressions about justice, greed, and hypocrisy. His pre-ministerial life, on the one hand, did not promise that he would be a great religious figure, but, on the other hand, that same life prepared him for his itinerant ministry. To be sure, in the eyes of the elites of Sepphoris and Tiberias, Jesus would still have been poor (penes not ptochos). He came from the lower class. Compared to their spacious and well-decorated houses, his home in Nazareth must have looked very simple and humble. Given his occupation, he could have had no status, no political clout, such as the great landowners had. The socio-economic distance between Jesus and the elite classes— even if he did come from a comfortable artisan family—was still significant. At some point in his adult life (Luke says at age 30; Lk 3:23) the nice Jewish boy who worked so hard as a carpenter decided to leave home, fam229

230

JESUS THE GALILEAN

ily, and occupation. This decision must have caused a great deal of shock and animosity on the part of his family and his home village. He lived for a short while in Capernaum—probably one of his previous work sites—and then took to the road with his inner circle of followers. The life must have been harsh and uncomfortable. What happened to make Jesus live like a social deviant? Undoubtedly, he experienced a call like the calls of the prophets in the Hebrew scriptures. He believed that his ministerial calling was to be expressed in a life of itinerant poverty. He must abandon all forms of security including his family’s economic safety net, his occupation, and no doubt any possessions. Those that would be in his inner circle must do the same. They must sell all and follow him, leaving family, land, and houses. The Kingdom of God deserves every sacrifice. Jesus’ lifestyle was not unique in the ancient world. There were others such as the Cynics and the Essenes that did similar things. This kind of thing was known, but still considered pretty weird and abnormal. The striking thing is that Jesus’ actions were even harsher, even more demanding, than the other groups practicing renunciation of family and possessions. It could not have been easy to be a disciple of Jesus. Being in the outer circle of sympathizers—in which one could keep one’s possessions but give alms to support Jesus’ ministry—was easier. (These two ways of following Jesus have been in tension with each other since the beginning of the church.) But if Jesus decided to leave family and occupation, he did not also conclude that he was called to leave Judaism. We know this because of his practice of ritual purity. There are good reasons for assuming that he would have kept purity laws; there are also reasons for concluding that he did (his frequency in the temple, his association with Pharisees, his interest in what seem to us legal minutiae). If Jesus kept ritual purity, he certainly remained a loyal Jew; he was no abrogator of the Torah. If he kept not just the ideas or concepts of the Torah, but even the purity codes which required a great deal of effort, then he was a strict Jew. Like many other Jews of his day in both Judea and Galilee (as seen from the material remains), he was probably concerned for ritual purity even when not about to enter the Temple. His social deviancy (leaving family and home) did not include religious deviancy (abandonment of his Jewish heritage). Jesus’ Jewishness is also seen in his zeal for the Temple. He evidently grew up with the typical respect for sacred space that most ancient cultures had. Nothing in his ministerial call changed that. As a matter of fact, we found that if anything he became even more zealous for the Temple. He believed that the eschatological program of Zechariah should be inaugurated. There should be no merchants in the Temple (Zech 14:21). Zeal for

POSTSCRIPT: JESUS AND HIS JEWISH BACKGROUNDS

231

the house of God had consumed him. He had a sense of his own messiahship (Zech 9:9) in which he reformed/cleansed the existing Temple in preparation for the new Temple which YHWH would build. Thus, the prophet from Nazareth came to believe that he was the Messiah and that his messiahship was bound to the fate of the Temple. The great Albert Schweitzer wrote one hundred years ago concerning the historical Jesus: Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to our time . . . He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. 563

Schweitzer had hoped that the tamed, modern Jesus had been done away with in his treatment. This Jesus, as Schweitzer wrote, never existed. He was the fantasy of modern theologians who wished to make Jesus conform to their culture. Schweitzer wanted to introduce the real Jesus, the one so strange to the post-Enlightenment world. Of course, Schweitzer’s era was different from ours. Today there are many excellent studies of Jesus in his cultural background. Yet, Schweitzer’s almost prophetic rebuke of those of his day can be a helpful reminder to us. If the historical Jesus we perceive is too comfortable for us, we may have misunderstood him. It might be appropriate here, therefore, to give our results the Bruce Malina test. 564 Certainly the Jesus who had an interest in diseased discharges, corpses, and other unpleasant conditions of the human body is a stranger to our time. How can that person say anything to modern men and women about things spiritual and eternal? Further, in our secular world, in which we take great delight debunking sacred cows and sanctimonious persons, how can we take seriously someone who reverenced so intensely a sacred space? And it would have been so much nicer for us if Jesus had not come from the Lower Class. Why could he not have been a scholar or land baron? Perhaps most importantly to our society, why did he wander about Palestine appearing like something of a madman, preferring to be without comfort, without his biological family, and to give up everything he had ever worked for and acquired, in order to live solely for God? I would argue, therefore, 563 Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (New York: MacMillan, 1969 [1906]) 401, 403. 564 Malina, “Why Interpret the Bible with the Social Sciences?”: “[I]f some value or behavior emerges from interpretation and that value or behavior makes perfect U.S. sense . . . then it is undoubtedly wrong.” See chapter 1 above.

232

JESUS THE GALILEAN

that the Jesus of history, whom I have presented, is not a perfect U.S. fit; he does not fit comfortably in our society. This result argues for the historical plausibility of my construction. The Jesus of history, the truly human Jesus, seems so distant from our time and our culture. No wonder the church has often struggled with the humanity of Jesus! But, in the struggle, the church discovers the wonderful mystery of the incarnation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abegg, M., “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT” BAR 20/6 (1994) 52–55, 82 Abrahams, I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (New York: KTAV, 1917) Adan-Bayewitz, D., Common Pottery in Roman Galilee (Ramat-Gan, Israel: BarIlan University Press, 1993) ______, “Kefar Hananya, 1986” IEJ 37 (1987) 178–179 Adan-Bayewitz, D. and I. Perlman, “The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period” IEJ 40 (1990) 153–172 Adna, Jostein, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17): The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by His Atoning Death” in B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer, eds., Gemeinde ohne Temple (Tübingen: Mohr, 1999) Aharoni, Y., The Land of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 27–28 Ahlstroem, G. W., “Wine Presses and Cup-Marks of the Jenin-Megiddo Survey” BASOR 231 (1978) 19–49 Alexander, P. S. and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) Alföldy, G., Die römische Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1986) Allison, D. C., Jesus of Nazareth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) ______, “The Eye is the lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23=Luke 11.34– 36)” NTS 33 (1987) 61–83 Alon, G., The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) Alt, A., Kleine Schriften (München: Beck, 1959) Anderson, H., The Gospel of Mark (London: Oliphants, 1976) Applebaum, S., “Economic Life in Palestine” in S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) ______, “Judea as a Roman Province: the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor,” ANRW, II.8, 370f Arav, R., “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1994–1996” in Arav and R. Freund, eds., Bethsaida (Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 1999) Arlandson, J. M., Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997) 233

234

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Aulen, G., Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Aune, D. E., “Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) Austel, H. J., “Shalosh” in R. L. Harris, ed., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) Aviam, M., “Galilee: The Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods” NEAEHL, II, 453–458 ______, “Yodefat” Hadashot Arkhedogiyot 112 (2000) 18–19 Avigad. N., “How the Wealthy Lived in Herodian Jerusalem” BAR 2 (1976) 22–35 Avigad, N. and E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1955) Avi-Yonah, M., The Holy Land (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) Bacon, B. W., “Why Callest Thou Me Good? Biblical World 6 (1895) 334– 350 Badian, E., “Triclinium” OCD Baergen, R., “The Motif of the Renunciation of Possessions in the Gospel of Luke” Conrad Grebel Review 11 (1993) 233–247 Bagati, B., “Nazareth, Excavations” NEAEHL, III, 1103–1105 Bahat, D., “The Herodian Temple” in W. Horburg, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) Baron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York: Columbia University, 1952) Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) ______, “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves” in E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer, eds., Jesus und Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) Barton, Carlin A., The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) Barton, S. C., “The Relativisation of Family Ties” in H. Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian Familie (London: Routledge, 1997) Batey, R., “Is Not This the Carpenter?” NTS 30 (1984) 249–58 ______, Jesus and the Forgotten City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) ______, Jesus and the Poor (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) ______, “Sepphoris: An Urban Portrait of Jesus” BAR 18 (1992) 50–62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Bauckham, R., “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple” in B. Lindars, eds., Law and Religion (Cambridge: James Clarke and Co., 1988) Bauernfeind, O., “DSORX9” in TDNT, I, 386f Beall, T. S., “Essenes” in EDSS, I, 262–269 ______, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) Beasley-Murray, G. R., John (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) Ben-David, A., Talmudische Ökonomie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1974 Betz, H. D., “Antiquity and Christianity” JBL 117 (1998) 3–22 ______, “Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis” Journal of Religion 74 (1994) 453–475 ______, “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15–18): A Comparative Religion Approach” JBL 116 (1997) 455–472 Bevan, E., Later Greek Religion (Boston, Beacon Press, 1950) Billerbeck, M., Der Kyniker Demetrius (Leiden: Brill, 1979) Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) Blümner, H., Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1879) Bock, D. L., Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, 1996) 2 Volumes Booth, R. P., Jesus and the Laws of Purity (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) Borg, M. J., Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1998) ______, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) Bornkamm, G., Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) Boyd, G. A., Cynic Sage or Son of God? (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridge Point, 1995) Bowman, J. W., Jesus’ Teaching in its Environment (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1963) Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1967) Branscomb, H., The Teachings of Jesus (Nashville: Cokesbury, 1931) Braun, H., Jesus of Nazareth, translated by E. R. Kalin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) ______, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und früchristlicher Radikalismus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumranseckte (Tübingen: Mohr, 1957) Brewster, Ethel H., Roman Craftsmen and Tradesmen of the Early Empire (New York: Burt Franklin, 1917)

236

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Briggs, R. A., Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book of Revelation (New York: Peter Lang, 1999) Brockington, L. H., A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (London: Duckworth, 1961) Brooke, G. J., “Florilegium (4Q174)” in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000) Broshi, M., Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) ______, “What Jesus Learned From the Essenes” BAR 30/1 (2004) 32 Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) Brown, P., “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 80–100 Brown, R., The Gospel According to John (New York: Doubleday, 1966) Brownlee, W. H., The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) Bruce, A. B., “Synoptic Gospels” Expositors Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990 [1897]) Bruce, F. F., Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959) Brunt, P., Italian Man Power (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) ______, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (New York: Norton, 1971) Buchanan, G. W., “Jesus and Other Monks of New Testament Times” Religion in Life 18 (1979) 136–42 ______, “Jesus and the Upper Class” NovT 7 (1964) 195–209 ______, “Symbolic Money-Changers in the Temple?” NTS 37 (1991) 280– 290 Büchler, A., Economic Conditions of Judea after the Destruction of the Second Temple (London: Oxford University Press, 1912) ______, “The Law of Purification in Mark vii.1–23” ExT 20 (1909) 34–40 ______, “The Levitical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine Before the Year 70” Jewish Quarterly Review 17 (1926–27) 1–81 ______, The Political and Social Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris in the Second and Third Centuries (London: Jews’ College, 1909) Buckser, A. S., “Purity and Pollution” in D. Levinson and M. Embers, eds., Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (New York: Henry Holt, 1996) III, 1045–1049 Budge, E. A., Osiris (New York: University Books, 1961) Bultman, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

______, John, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) Burford, A., Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972) ______, “The Economics of Greek Temple Building” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 191 (1965) 21–34 Burkert, W., Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985) Buse, I., “The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John” ExT 70 (1958–1959) 22–24 van Campenhausen, H., Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) Carlston, C., “The Things that Defile (Mark vii.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark” NTS 15 (1968) 75–96 Case, S. J., Jesus: A New Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927) Casey, M., “The Jackals and the Son of Man (Matt. 8:20//Luke 9:58)” JSNT 23 (1985) 3–22 Casey, P. M., “Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple” CBQ 59 (1997) 306–332 Chancey, M. and E. M. Meyers, “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” BAR 26/4 (2000) 18–41 Chancey, M., The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). Charlesworth, J. H., “Archaeology, Jesus and Christian Faith” in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., What Has Archaeology to do with Faith? (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992) ______, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1992) ______, Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988) ______, The Pesharim and Qumran History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) ______, The Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994) Chilton, B., “A Generative Exegesis of Mark 7:1–23” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (Leiden: Brill 1997) ______, Rabbi Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2000)

238

JESUS THE GALILEAN

______, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992) Clark, K. W., “Sea of Galilee” IDB, II, 349 Cohen, A., Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Shocken, 1949) ______, Proverbs (London: Soncino, 1946) Collins, J. J., “Books of Enoch” in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000) ______, “Essenes” in ABD, II, 619–626 ______, “Sibylline Oracles” in OTP Cook, E. M., Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) Cooper, Alison Burford, “Crafts, Trade” in H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill’s New Pauly (Leiden: Brill, 2003) Corbo, V., The House of Saint Peter at Capharnaum (Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1972) Cornfeld, G., Josephus: The Jewish War (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963) ______, “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10.17–31” Scottish Joural of Theology 4 (1951) 302–313 Creed, J. M., The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1950) de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell, 1981) Cronbach, A., “The Social Ideals of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” HUCA 18 (1944) 119–156 Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (New York: Doubleday, 1958) Cross, F. M. and E. Eshel, “The Missing Link” BAR 24/2 (1998) 48–53, 69 Crossan, J. D., The Birth of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) ______, The Essential Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994) ______, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991) ______, “Itinerants and Householders in the Earliest Jesus Movement” in W. E. Arnal and M. Desjardins, Whose Historical Jesus? (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997) Crossan, J. D. and J. Reed, Excavating Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 2001) Crossley, J. G., The Date of Mark’s Gospel (London: T&T Clark, 2004) Davies, P. R., G. J. Brooke and P. R. Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Harper & Row, 1948) Davies, W. D. and D. Allison, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T. Clark, 1988–1997) 3 Volumes Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965) Dar, S., Landscape and Pattern (Oxford: BAR, 1986) Deines, R., Jüdische Steingefässe und Pharisäische Frömmigkeit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993) Delling, G., “EDVNDLQZ” TDNT, I, 594–595 Derrett, J. D. M, “The Evil Eye in the New Testament” in P. F. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 1995) ______, “The Zeal of the House and the Cleansing of the Temple” Downside Review 95 (1997) 79–94 Dever, W. G., “Archaeology, History and the Bible” in P. J. Achetemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985) Dickie, M. W., “The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye” in H. McGuire, ed., Byzantine Magic (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1995) Dionisopoulos-Mass, Regina, “The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a Peasant Village” in C. Malony, The Evil Eye (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) Douglas, M., Purity and Danger (London: Routledge, 1966) Downing, G., Christ and the Cynics (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) ______, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992) Dudley, D. R., A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century (London: Methuen, 1937) Duling, D., “The Jesus Movement and Social Network Analysis” BTB 30/1 (2000) 3–14 ______, “The Testament of Solomon” in OTP Duling, D. C. and N. Perrin, The New Testament, Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (Fort Worth: Harcourt-Brace, 1994) Dundes, A., “Wet and Dry, The Evil Eye; An Essay in Semitic and IndoEuropean Worldview” in V. J. Newell, ed. Folklore Studies in the Twentieth Century, (Totowa, N.J.: D. S. Grewer, 1980) Dunn, J. D. G., “Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate” NTS 48 (2002) 449–467 ______, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) ______, The Parting of the Ways (London: SCM Press, 1991)

240

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Dupont-Somer, A., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey (New York: Macmillan, 1956) Eddy, P. R., “Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis” JBL 115 (1996) 449–469 Edersheim, A., The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971[1886]) Edwards, D. R., “First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence” SBL 1988 Seminar Papers ______, “The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of the Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) Eliade, M., Cosmos and History (New York: Harper & Row, 1959) ______, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harper & Row, 1959) Elliott, J., “Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount,” Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994) 51–84 ______, “The Evil Eye in the First Testament: The Ecology and Culture of a Pervasive Belief” in N. K. Gottwald, ed., The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1991) ______, “The Fear of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li’l Abner” Forum 4 (1988) 42–71 ______, “Matthew 10:1/15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation” BTB 22 (1992) 52–65 ______, “Patronage and Clientage” in R. L. Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) ______, “Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye” Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990) 262–273 Elliott, M. A., The Survivors of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) Elworthy, F. T., The Evil Eye (London: Collier Books, 1958) Epstein, I., ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1936) Eppstein, V., “The Historicity of the Cleansing of the Temple” ZNW 55 (1964) 42–58 Eshel, H., “The Pools of Sepphoris: Ritual Baths or Bathtubs?” BAR 26/4 (2000) 42–45 Evans, C. A., “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” CBQ 51 (1989) 237–270 ______, “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action” Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993) 93–110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

______,“Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2002) ______, Noncanonical Writings and the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992) Evans-Pritchard, E. E., Nuer Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956) Fallon, F., “Eupolemus” in OTP Festugiere, A. J. and P. Fabre, Le mond gre’co-romain au temps de Notre Seigneur (Paris: Bloud & Gray, 1935) Fiensy, D. A., “The Composition of the Jerusalem Church” in R. Bauckham, ed., Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) ______, “Jesus and Debts: Did He Pray about Them?” Restoration Quarterly 44 (2002) 233–239 ______. “Jesus’ Socio-Economic Background” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Hillel and Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1997) ______, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1991) Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) Finley, M. I., The Ancient Economy (London: Chatto & Windus, 1973) Fischel, H. A., “Cynics and Cynicism” Encyclopedia Judaica, V, Cols. 1177– 1178 Fitzmyer, J., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) ______, The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1981–1985) 2 Volumes Fletcher-Louis, C. H. T., “Leave the Dead to Bury Their Own Dead: Q 9.60 and the Redefinition of the People of God” JSNT 26 (2003) 39– 68 Flusser, D., Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988) ______, “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam VII” IEJ 9 (1959) 99–109 Foerster, G., “Beth-Shean at the Foot of the Mound” in NEAEHL, I, 223–235 ______, “Tiberias: Excavations South of the City” in NEAEHL, IV, 1470–1473 Ford, J. N., “Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes” Ugarit Forschungen 30 (1998) 201–278 Fortner, Sandra, “The Fishing Implements and Maritime Activities of Bethsaida-Julias (et-Tell)” in R. Arav and R. Freund, eds., Bethsaida (Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 1999)

242

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Frayne, J. M., Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy (London: Centaur, 1979) Fredricksen, P., “Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws?” Bible Review (June, 1995) 20–25, 43–47 ______, From Jesus to Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) ______, Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (New York: Vintage Books, 1999) Frazer, J. G., The Golden Bough: Abridged Edition (New York: Macmillan, 1960) Freyne, S., “Archaeology and the Historical Jesus” in J. R. Bartlett, ed., Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1997) ______, Galilee from Alexander to Hadrian (Wilmington, Del: Michael Glazier, 1980) ______, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) ______, “The Geography, Politics, and Economics in Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus” in B. Chilton and C. Evans, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1994) ______, “Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) Funk, R. W., The Acts of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) ______, The Gospel of Mark: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma, Calif.: 1991) ______, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) Funk, R. W., R. W. Hoover, et al., The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993) Furfey, P. H., “Christ as 7(.7:1” CBQ 17 (1955) 324–335 Galot, J., “Le fondement évangélique du voeu religieux de pauvreté” Gregorianum 56 (1975) 441–467 Garnsey, P., Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) ______, Non-slave Labour in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 1980) Gaston, L., No Stone on Another (Leiden: Brill, 1970) Geertz, Clifford, “Religion as a Cultural System” in Donald Cutler, ed. The Religious Situation (Boxton: Beacon Press, 1968) Gilmore, D. D., “Anthropology of the Mediterranean Area” Annual Review of Anthropology 11 (1982) 175–205 Glotz, G., Ancient Greece at Work (London: Routledge, 1965) Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Solothurn: Benziger, 1994) Golb, N., Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (New York: Scribner, 1995)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Golomb, B. and Y. Kedar, “Ancient Agriculture in the Galilee Mountains” IEJ 21 (1971) 136–140 Goodman, M., State and Society in Roman Galilee (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allenheld, 1983) Goppelt, L., Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) Gould, E. P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896) Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., “Le cynisme `a l’epoque imperiale” ANRW, II.36.4, 2720–2823 Grant, M., A Social History of Greece and Rome (New York: Scribner, 1992) Gray, G. B., “Psalms of Solomon” in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) Greehy, J. G., “Community of Goods: Qumran and Acts” Irish Theological Quarterly 32 (1965) 230–240 Grenfell, B. P. and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Oxford: Horace Hart, 1908) Groh, D. E., “The Clash Between Literary and Archaeological Models of Provincial Palestine” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962) Guijarro, S., “The Family in First Century Galilee” in H. Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian Families (London: Routledge, 1997) ______, “The Family in the Jesus Movement” BTB 34/3 (2004) 114–121 Guhl, E. and W. Koner, The Greeks and Romans (London: Bracken, 1989) Gundry, R., Matthew, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) Haas, N., “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givat ha-Mivtar” IEJ 20 (1970) 38–59 Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1966) Hagner, D. A., Matthew 1–13 (Dallas: Word, 1993) Hamilton, N. Q., “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank” JBL 83 (1964) 365–372 Hammel, G., Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1990) Hanson, K. C., “Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition” BTB 27 (1997) 99–111 Hare, D. R. A., “Lives of the Prophets” in OTP Harmon, M., Lucian (London: Heinemann, 1929) von Harnak, A., What is Christianity? (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957 [1900])

244

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Harrington, D. J., Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) Harrington, H., The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) ______, “Purity” in EDSS, II, 724–728 Harvey, A. E., Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) Haskin, R. W., The Call to Sell All: The History of the Interpretation of Mark 10.17–23 and Parallels (Columbia University: Ph.D., 1967). Hauck, F., “TKVDXUR9” TDNT, III, 136–138 ______, “PDPZQD9” TDNT, IV, 388–390 ______, “SWZFR9” TDNT, VI, 886–887 Hayward, C. T. R., The Jewish Temple: A Non-biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996). Heinemann, J. H., “The Status of the Laborer in Jewish Law and Society in the Tannaitic Period” HUCA 25 (1954) 163–225 Hempel, C., “Community Structures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Admission, Organization, Disciplinary Procedures” in P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years (Leiden: Brill, 1999) Hengel, M., The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, translated by J. Grieg (New York: Crossroad, 1981) ______, “Das Gleichnis von der Weingärtnern Mc 12:1–12 im Licht der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse” ZNW 59 (1968) 1–39 ______, Property and Riches in the Early Church, translated by J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) ______, The Zealots, translated by D. Smith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989) Hennecke, E., W. Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson, The New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959; ET 1963) Herbert, Sharon C. and Andrea M. Berlin, “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh” BASOR 329 (2003) 13–59 Herr, L. G. and G. L. Christopherson, Excavation Manual: Madaba Plains Project (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University, 1998) Herrenbrück, F., “Wer waren die ‘Zöllner?’” ZNW 72 (1981) 178–94 Herz, J., “Grossgrundbesitz in Palästina im Zeitalter Jesu” Palästina Jahrbuch 24 (1928) 98–113 Hewitt, J. W., “Gratitude to Parents in Greek and Roman Literature” American Journal of Philology 5 (1931) 30–48 Hiers, R. H., “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God” JBL 90(1971) 82–90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

Hill, D., The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) ______, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: University Press, 1967) Hirschfeld, Y., Qumran in Context (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004) ______, “Tiberias” in E. Stern, ed., NEAEHL, IV, 1464–1470 Hirschfeld, Y. and M. Feinberg Vamosh, “A Country Gentleman’s Estate” BAR 31/2 (2005) 18–31 Hock, R., “Cynics” in ABD, I, 1221–1226 ______, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) Hoehner, H. W., Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) Hoffleit, H. B., Plutarch’s Moralia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969) Hoglund, K. G. and E. M. Meyers, “The Residential Quarter on the Western Summit” in Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, Z. Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) Hoistad, R., Cynic Hero and Cynic King: Studies in the Cynic Conception of Man (Uppsala: Bloms, 1948) Hollenbach, P., “Liberating Jesus for Social Involvement” BTB 15 (1985) 151–57 Hommel, H., “Herrenworte im Lichte sokratischer Überlieferung” ZNW 57 (1966) 1–23 Hooke, S. H., Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma, 1963) Hooker, M. D., The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) ______, “Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70 (1988) 7–19 Horsley, G. H. R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1987) Horsley, R., Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1996) ______, “The Historical Jesus and Archaeology of the Galilee: Questions from Historical Jesus Research to Archaeologists” SBL 1994 Seminar Papers ______, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) ______, “Jesus and Galilee: The Contingencies of a Renewal Movement” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1999)

246

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Horsley, R. and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985) van der Horst, P. W., “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti” in ABD, I, 1157–1161 Instone-Brewer, D., Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) Isaacs, E., “1 Enoch” in OTP Jacobson, A. D., “Jesus Against the Family” in J. Ma. Asgeirsson, K. de Troyer, and M. W. Meyers, eds., From Quest to Q (Leuven: University Press, 2000) Jeffers, J. S., The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter Varsity Press, 1999) Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, translated by F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) Johnson, L. T., Sharing Possessions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) ______, “Colonus” in OCD ______, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940) Jones, C. P., Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986) Judge, E. A., Rank and Status in the World of The Caesars and St. Paul (Canterbury: University of Canterbury, 1982) Juel, D., Messiah and Temple (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) Käsemann, E., “The Problem of the Historical Jesus” in Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) Kautsky, J. H., The Politics of Aristocratic Empires (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1982) Kazen, T., Jesus and Purity Halakhah (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 2002) Keck, L., “The Poor Among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran” ZNW 57 (1966) 54–78 Kee, H. C., “Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) ______, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in OTP Kern-Ulmer, Brigitte, “The Power of the Evil Eye and the Good Eye in Midrashic Literature” Judaism 40 (1991) 344–353 Kindstrand, J. F., “Demetrius the Cynic” Philologus 124 (1979) 83–98 Kippenberg, H. G., Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) Klausner, J., Jesus of Nazareth (New York: MacMillan, 1925)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Klawans, J., Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: University Press, 2000) Klijn, A. F. J., “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch” in OTP ______, “The Question of the Rich Young Man in a Jewish-Christian Gospel” NovT 8 (1966) 149–155 Kloppenborg, J. S., Q Parallels (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1988) ______, The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) Klostermann, E., Das Mattäusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) Krauss, S., Talmudische Archäologie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966) Kruse, H., “Die ‘dialektische Negation’ als Semitisches Idiom” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1954) 385–400 Kuhn, K. G., Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) Kunin, S. D., God’s Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism (London: Cassell, 1998) Lambrecht, J., “Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mk 7, 1–23” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 53 (1977) 24–83 Lanchester, H. C. O., “Sibylline Oracles” in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). Landau, Y. H., “A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah” IEJ 16 (1966) 54–70 Lane, W., The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) Laum, B., Stiftungen in der Griechischen und Römischen Antike: Ein Beitrag zur Antiken Kulturgeschichte (Leipzig: Teubner, 1914) Lenski, G. and J. Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982) Lenski, G. E., Power and Privilege (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966) Levine, L. I., “Archaeology and the Religious Ethos of Pre-70 Palestine” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. John, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) Limberis, V., “The Eyes Infected by Evil: Basil of Caesarea’s Homily, ‘On Envy’” HTR 84 (1991) 163–184 Loffreda, S., “Capernaum” NEAEHL, I, 291–295 Lohse, E., Die Texte aus Qumran (München: Kösel, 1971) Luz, C., “Musonius Rufus ‘The Roman Socrates’” Yale Classical Studies 10 (1947) 3–147 Luz, M., “A Description of the Greek Cynic in the Jerusalem Talmud” Journal for the Study of Judaism 20 (1989) 49–60 ______, “Oenomaus and Talmudic Anecdote” Journal for the Study of Judaism 23 (1992) 42–80

248

JESUS THE GALILEAN

McCane, B. R., “Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead: Secondary Burial and Matt 8:21–22” HTR 81 (1990) 31–43 Maccoby, H., Jesus The Pharisee (London: SCM Press, 2003) ____, Paul and Hellenism (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1991). ______, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1986) ______, Ritual and Morality (Cambridge: University Press, 1999) McCown, C. C., “27(.7:1” in S. J. Case, ed. Studies in Early Christianity (New York: New Century, 1928) McGarvey, J. W., The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, n.d.) Mack, B., The Lost Gospel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993) ______, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) McLaren, J. S., Power and Politics in Palestine (Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1991) MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Harvard, 1966) ______, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale, 1974) Magen, Y., “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age” BAR 24.5 (1998) 46–52 ______, “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period” in H. Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) ______, The Stone Vessel Industry in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002) Magne, J., “La pauvreté dans Luc-Actes: theorie et pratique” (Paper presented at Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense XLVII, 1998) Malherbe, A., Cynic Epistles (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977) ______, “Cynics” in IDB Supplement, 201–203 Malina, B., “Let Him Deny Himself (Mark 8:34 and par.): A Social Psychological Model of Self-Denial” BTB 24 (1994) 106–119 ______, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1993) ______, “Understanding New Testament Persons” in R. Rohrbaugh, ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) ______, “Why Interpret the Bible with the Social Sciences?” American Baptist Quarterly 2 (1983) 119–133 Malina, B. and J. H. Neyrey, “First Century Personality: Dyadic, Not Individualistic” in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Malina, B. and R. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) Mann, C. S., Mark (New York: Doubleday, 1986) Manson, T. W., The Gospel of Luke (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930) ______, The Sayings of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) Marcus, J., Mark 1–8 (New York: Doubleday, 2000) Margoliouth, G., “The Traditions of the Elders” ExT 22 (1911) 261–263 Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) Martinez, F. G., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1996) Martinez, F. G. and J. T. Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1993) Martinez, F. G. and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997) Matson, M. A., “The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel” SBL 1992 Seminar Papers Mayer, A., Der zensierte Jesus (Olten: Walter, 1983) Mayer, E., “Sell Everything and Become ‘Rich’: Dealing with Possessions According to Luke” Lutheran Theological Journal 30 (1996) 58–65 Mazar, B., The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975) Mealand, D. L., “Community of Goods at Qumran” Theologische Zeitschrift 31 (1975) 129–139 ______, Poverty and Expectation in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1980) Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001) 3 Volumes Meigs, Anna S., Food, Sex and Pollution (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1984) ______, “A Papuan Perspective on Pollution,” Man n.s. 13 (1978) 304–318 Mendels, D., “Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes” HTR 72 (1979) 207–222 ______, “The Temple in the Hellenistic Period and in Judaism” in B. A. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, eds., Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land (New York: New York Univeristy Press, 1998) Metzger, B. M., An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957) ______, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) Meye, R. P., Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968) Meyer, R., “NDTDUR9” TDNT, III, 413–423 Meyers, Carol L. and E. M. Meyers, “Sepphoris” in E. M. Meyers, ed., OEANE, IV, 527–536 Meyers, E. M., “An Archaeological Response to a New Testament Scholar” BASOR 297 (1995) 17–26

250

JESUS THE GALILEAN

______, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special Reference to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths” in J. R. Bartlett, ed., Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London: Routledge, 2002) ______, “The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism” ANRW, II.19.1 ______, “The Emergence of Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Second Temple Diversity and Qumran Sectarianism” in D. R. Clark and V. H. Matthews, eds., One Hundred years of American Archaeology in the Middle East (Boston: American Schools, 2003) ______, “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction” BASOR 221 (1976) 93–101 ______, “Jesus and His Galilean Context” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) ______, “Jesus and His World: Sepphoris and the Quest for the Historical Jesus” in C. G. den Hertog, U. Huebner, and S. Muenger, eds., Saxa Loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels (Münster: Ugarit, 2003) ______, “The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-Palestinian Domestic Architecture: The Case of Roman-Period Galilee” in D. L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek, eds., Early Christian Families in Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) ______, “Roman-Period Houses from the Galilee: Domestic Architecture and Gendered Space” in W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003) ______, “Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Recent Research” in L. I. Levine, ed., The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992) ______, “Yes, they Are” BAR 26/4 (2000) 46–49, 60–61 Meyers, E. M., E. Netzer, and C. L. Meyers, Sepphoris (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992) ______, “Sepphoris ‘Ornament of all Galilee’” BA 49 (1986) 4–19 Meyers, E. M., J. F. Strange, and D. E. Groh, “The Meiron Excavation Project: Archeological Survey in Galilee and Golan, 1976” BASOR 230 (1978) 1–24 Michaels, J. Ramsey, “The Itinerant Jesus and His Home Town” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (Boston: Brill, 2002) Michel, O., “RLNRQRPR9,” TDNT V, 149–151

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Michell, H., The Economics of Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1957) Milgrom, J., Leviticus 1–16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) ______, “Studies in the Temple Scroll” JBL 97 (1978) 501–523 Miller, R. J., “The (A) Historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology” SBL 1991 Seminar Papers Miller, S., “Sepphoris, the Well Remembered City” BA 55 (1992) 74–83 ______, Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris (New York University: Ph.D., 1980) Montefiore, C. G. and R. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Schocken, 1974) Moore, C. H., The Religious Thought of the Greeks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) Moore, G. F., History of Religions (New York: Scribner, 1947) ______, Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard, 1954) Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) Moss, L. W. and S. C. Cappannari, “Mal’occhio, Ayin ha ra, Oculus fascinus, Judenblick: The Evil Eye Hovers Above” in C. Maloney, Evil Eye (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) Mossé, C., The Ancient World at Work (London: Chatto & Windus, 1969) Moulton, J. H. and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1930) Moxnes, H., “The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus—Part I” BTB 31 (2001) 26–37 ______, “The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus— Part II” BTB 31 (2001) 64–77 ______, “Honor and Shame” in Rohrbaugh, ed., The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) Murdock, G. P., Theories of Illness (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 1980) Murphy, C. M., Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Leiden: Brill, 2002) Nanos, M., The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) Naveh, J., “The Ossuary Inscriptions from Givat ha-Mivtar” IEJ 20 (1970) 33–37 Netzer, E. and Z. Weiss, Zippori (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) Neusner, J., From Politics to Piety (Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973) ______, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973)

252

JESUS THE GALILEAN

______, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994) ______, “Money Changers in the Temple: the Mishnah’s Explanation” NTS 35 (1989) 287–290 ______, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism: A Systemic Account (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) Newsom, C., Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) Newton, M., The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) Neyrey, J. H., S.J., “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology” CBQ 50 (1988) 72–80 ______, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel” Semeia 35 (1986) 91–128 ______, “Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family, and Loss of Honor” in P. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity (London: Routledge, 1995) ______, “Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,” on-line http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/location.html Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) ______, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) ______, “The Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times” in M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) Nilsson, M. P., A History of Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949) Nock, A. D., Conversion (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1933) Nolland, J., Luke (Dallas: Word, 1989–1993) 2 Volumes Noss, J. B., Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan, 1969) Oakman, D. A., “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus,” SBL 1994 Seminar Papers ______, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986) O’Connor, J. M., “Qumran and the New Testament” in E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, eds., The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) Oppenheimer, A., The Am Ha-aretz (Leiden: Brill, 1977) Overman, J. A., “Jesus of Galilee and the Historical Peasant” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) ______, “Who Were the First Urban Christians?” SBL 1988 Seminar Papers Patte, D., Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Percy, E., Die Botschaft Jesu (Lund: Gleerup, 1953) Pfeiffer, R. H., History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper, 1949) Pitt-Rivers, J., The People of the Sierra (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971) Pleins, J. D., “Poor, Poverty” in ABD, V, 402–414 Plummer, A., The Gospel According to Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922) von Pöhlmann, R., Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt (München: Beck, 1925) Poirier, J. C., “Purity Beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era” JBL 122 (2003) 247–265 Porath, Y., “Vegas on the Med” BAR 30/5 (2004) 24–35 Priest, J., “Testament of Moses” in OTP Qimron, E., The Temple Scroll (Beersheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 1996) Quasten, J., Patrology (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1950) Rajak, T., “Justus of Tiberias,” Classical Quarterly N.S. 23 (1973) 345–368 Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). Rapinchuk, M., “The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2004) 197–222 Rappaport, U., “John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem,” JJS 33 (1982) 479–93 Reed, J., Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2000) ______, “Galileans, ‘Israelite Village Communities’ and the Sayings Gospel Q” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Though the Centuries (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) Reich, R., “The Great Mikveh Debate” BAR 19/2 (1993) 52–53 ______, Miqwa’ot (Jewish ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Hebrew University: Ph.D., 1990); ______, “Ritual Baths” in OEANE, IV, 430–431 ______, “They Are Ritual Baths” BAR 28/2 (2002) 50–55 Reimarus, H. S., Fragments (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970 [1774–1778]) Renan, E., The Life of Jesus (London: Truebner, 1867) Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952) Richardson, P., Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2004) ______, “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts” in SBL 1992 Seminar Papers

254

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Rillinger, R., “Moderne un zeitgenössische Vorstellungen vor der Gesellschaftsordnung der römischen Kaiserzeit” Saeculum 36 (1985) 299–325 Rivkin, E., A Hidden Revolution (Nashville; Abingdon, 1978) Robinson, H. Wheeler, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) ______, “Prophetic Symbolism” in D. C. Simpson, ed., Old Testament Essays (London: Charles Griffin, 1927) Robinson, J. M., ed., The Nag Hammadi Library (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977) Robinson, S. E., “4 Baruch” in OTP Rohrbaugh, R., “Introduction” in R. Rohrbaugh, ed. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996) ______, “The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban Social Relations” in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) ______. “The Social Location of the Markan Audience” Interpretation 47 (1993) 380–395 Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957) Roth, C., “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV 21” NovT 4 (1960) 174–181 Roth, C., G. Wigoder, et al., “Purity and Impurity” in Encyclopedia Judaica, XIII, cols. 1405–1414 Rudolph, D. J., “Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b” Evangelical Quarterly 74 (2002) 291–311 Safrai, Z., The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994) Safrai, Z. and H. Eshel, “Economic Life” in EDSS, I, 228–233 Saggs, H. W. F., The Greatness That Was Babylon (New York: Mentor, 1962) Saldarini, A., Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del: Michael Glazier, 1988) Samover, L. A. and R. E. Porter, Communication Between Cultures (Stamford, Conn.: Thomson Learmomg, 2001) Sanders, E. P., The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993) ______, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) ______, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990) ______, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (London: SCM, 1992) Sayre, F., The Greek Cynics (Baltimore: Furst, 1948) Schiffman, L. H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

______, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960) Schmidt, F., How the Temple Thinks (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) Schmidt, T. E., Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) Schnackenburg, R., The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1965) Schürer, E., G. Vermes, F. Miller, et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1986) 3 Volumes Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1969, 1994) 2 Volumes Schwank, B., “Das Theater von Sepphoris und die Jugenjahre Jesu” Erbe und Auftrag 52 (1976) 199–206 Schweitzer, A., The Quest of the Historical Jesus (New York: MacMillan, 1969 [1906]) Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970) ______, The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) Scott, J. J. “On the Value of Intertestamental Jewish Literature for New Testament Theology” JETS 23 (1980) 315–323 Seccombe, D. P., Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (Linz: Studien zum Neuen Testament, 1982) Seeley, D., “Jesus and the Cynics Revisited” JBL 116 (1997) 704–712 ______, “Jesus’ Temple Act” CBQ 55 (1993) 263–283 Seltzer, R. M., Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History (New York: Macmillan, 1980) Shaw, B. D., “Bandits in the Roman Empire” Past and Present 102 (1984) 3– 52 deSilva, D. A., Introducing the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002) Sjoberg, G., The Preindustrial City (New York: Free Press, 1960) ______, “The Preindustrial City” in J. M. Potter, M. N. Diaz, and G. M. Foster, eds., Peasant Society: A Reader (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1967) Smith, M., “Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophoumena” HUCA 29 (1958) 273–313 ______, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1951) Smith, M. H., “No Place for a Son of Man” Forum 4/4 (1988) 83–107

256

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Smith, P., E. Bornemann and J. Zias, “The Skeletal Remains” in E. M. Meyers, J. F. Strange, and C. L. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971–72, 1974–75, 1977 (Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1981) Smith, P. and J. Zias, “Skeletal Remains from the Late Hellenistic French Hill Tomb” IEJ 30 (1980) 109–115 Smith, W. R., Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (London: A. C. Black, 1927) Soper, E. D., The Religions of Mankind (New York: Abingdon, 1921) Sparks, H. F. D., Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) Sperber, D., “Costs of Living in Roman Palestine” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8 (1965) 248–271 ______, “Oenomaus of Gadara” Encyclopedia Judaica, XII, cols. 1331–1332 Spicq, C., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994) Spooner, B., “The Evil Eye in the Middle East” in C. Malony, The Evil Eye, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) Stauffer, E., Jesus and His Story (New York: Knopf, 1960) Stambaugh, J. E. and D. L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986) Stegemann, H., The Library of Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) Stein, R. H., “Luke 14:26 and the Question of Authenticity” Forum 5/2 (1989) 187–192 Stern, M., “The Province of Judea,” S. Safrai and M. Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Stevens, W. H., The New Testament World in Pictures (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987) Stewart, E. C. and M. J. Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross Cultural Perspective (Yarmouty, Maine Intercultural Press, 1991) Stone, M. E., “Apocalyptic Literature” in M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) Strack, H. and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: Beck, 1924) Strange, James, “The Eastern Basilical Building” in Rebecca M. Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) ______, “First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts” in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) ______, “The Sayings of Jesus and Archaeology” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

______, “Sepphoris” in ABD, V, 1090–1093 ______, “Six Campaigns at Sepphoris” in L. I. Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) ______, “Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., What Has Archaeology to do With Faith? (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992) Strange, J., D. E. Groh, and T. R. Longstaff, “Excavations at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin” IEJ 44 (1994) 216–227 Strange, J. F. and H. Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum been Found?” BAR 8/6 (1982) 26–37 Strickert, F., Bethsaida (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998) Stroker, W. D., Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) Talgam, R. and Z. Weiss, The Mosaics of the House of Dionysos at Sepphoris, Qedem 44 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2004) Tan, K. H., The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) Taylor, J. E., Seleucid Rule in Palestine (Duke University: Ph.D., 1979) Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) Theissen, G., Social Reality and the Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) ______, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) Theissen, G. and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) The Judaic Classics (Chicago: Davka, 1991–1995) Thompson, Marie-Louise, “The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 51 (1992) 19–32 Trocmé, André, Jésus et la Révolution Non-violente (Geneva: Editions Labor et Fides, 1961) Trocmé, Etienne “L’Expulsion des Marchands du Temple” NTS 15 (1968– 1969) 1–22 Tsuk, Tsvika, “The Aqueducts of Sepphoris” in E. M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999) ______, “Bringing Water to Sepphoris” BAR 26/4 (2000) 34–41 Tzaferis, V., “Jewish Tombs at and near Givat ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem” IEJ 20 (1970) 18–22 Ulama, M. L., Jerash (Amman: Feras, 1996) Urbach, E. E., “Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages” Proceedings of Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 38– 74 ______, “The Mishnah” Encyclopedia Judaica, XII, Cols. 93–109

258

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Vaage, L., Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers According to Q (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1994) Vale, Ruth, “Literary Sources in Archaeological Description: The Case of Galilee, Galilee and Galileans” Journal for the Study of Judaism 18/2 (1987) 209–226 VanderKam, J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) ______, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984) VanderKam, J. and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) de Vaux, R., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997) ______, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (Cleveland: Collins-World, 1977) ______, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) ______, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) Vermes, G. and M. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Vielhauer, P., Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975); Walcot, P., Envy and the Greeks: A Study of Human Behavior (Warminster: Aris & Phillips. 1978) Watty, W. W., “Jesus and the Temple—Cleansing or Cursing?” ExT 93 (1981–1982) 235–239 Weber, Max, Economy and Society (New York: Bedminster, 1968) Weiss, H. F., “)DULVDLR9” TDNT, IX, 41–42 Weiss, Z. and E. Netzer, “Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeological Evidence” in Rebecca Martin Nagy, Carol L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, Z. Weiss, eds., Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996) Westerholm, S., Jesus and Scribal Authority (Lund: Gleerup, 1978) White, K. D., Roman Farming (London: Thames & Hudson, 1970) White, L., “Die Ausbreitung der Technik 500–1500” in Europäische Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Mittelalter, ed. C. M. Cipolla and K. Borchardt, Bd. 1 (Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1978)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Whybray, R. N., Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) Wilson, B. in Magic and the Millennium (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) Wise, M. O., “New Jerusalem Texts” in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000) ______, “Temple Scroll (11QTemple)” in C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 2000) Wise, M., M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) Witherington, B., The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) ______, The Jesus Quest (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1995) Wolf, C. U., “Carpenter” IDB, I, 539 Wright, B. W., “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism” in N. A. Silberman and D. Small, eds., The Archaeology of Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) Wright, R. B., “Psalms of Solomon” in OTP Wuellner, W. H., The Meaning of Fishers of Men (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) Yadin, Y., “The Temple Scroll” BA 30 (1967) 135–139 ______, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society, 1983) Yamauchi, E. M., “Magic in the Biblical World” Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 169–200 Yardeni, A., “Breaking the Missing Link” BAR 24/3 (1998) 44–47 Yoder, J. H., The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) Young, B. H., Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995) Zeitlin, S., “The Am Haaretz: A Study in the Social and Economic Life of the Jews Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple” Jewish Quarterly Review, N.S. 23 (1932) 45–61 Zias, J., “Death and Disease in Ancient Israel” BA 54 (1991) 147–169 Ziebarth, E., “Oikonomos” PW, XVII, 2. Col. 2118f

GENERAL INDEX Abegg, M., 7, 201 Abrahams, I., 210 Adna, Jostein, 208, 213 Agabus, 122, 220 Agrippa II, 34, 44, 223 Alexander Jannaeus, 33, 222 Allison, D. C., 12, 203 am ha-aretz, 36, 168, 170, 179, 180 Amoraim, 147 amulets, 19, 20 Anderson, H., 196 Animal Apocalypse, 198 Anthony of Egypt, 90 anthropology, anthropologists, 8, 9, 21, 26, 31, 61, 167 Antiochus IV, 195 Antipas, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 75, 77, 81, 82, 171 Antisthenes, 92, 93 Apocalypse of Weeks, 197 apocrypha, apocryphal, 6, 68, 89, 92, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 201, 205, 207, 224, 226 Apollonius of Tyana, Apollonius, 96 Aramaic, 5, 6, 11, 29, 62, 63, 64, 69, 82, 106, 126, 151, 209, 211 archaeologist(s), archaeology, 8, 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 46, 50, 54, 56, 59, 63, 82, 85, 175 Archelaus, 222 artisan(s), 32, 34, 46, 47, 58, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 122, 229 ascetic(s), asceticism, 137, 138

Assyrians, 34 Athene Nikephoris, 166 axis mundi, 190, 191, 207 Bahat, D., 195 Barnabas, 119, 122 Barrett, C. K., 210, 211, 212 Barton, Carlin A., 14 basilica, 77 Bauckham, R., 210 Bauernfeind, O., 11 Beasley-Murray, G. R., 205, 210 Ben Sirach, 98, 99 Benjamin, 175, 199 Bethlehem, 51, 70, 79, 85 Bethsaida, xv, 9, 46, 54, 55, 57, 78, 79 Betz, H. D., 8, 211 Billerbeck, P., 207, 226 Black, M., 6 Blass, F., 204 Bock, D. S., 12 Boethusians, 171 Borg, Marcus, 202, 205 Brandon, S. G. F., 213 Briggs, R. A., 200 Brockington, L. H., 192 Brown, Driver, Briggs, 217 Bruce, F. F., 7 Bultmann, R., 204, 209 burial, 117, 154, 166 Buse, I., 209 Caesarea Maritima, 35, 61, 83 Caesarea Philippi, 78, 79, 171 Caligula, 94, 222 call stories, 122, 143

261

262

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Canaanite, 211, 225 canon, 148, 187 Capernaum, 27, 54, 55, 57, 79, 81, 116, 121, 145, 174, 230 Cappannari, S. C., 18, 19 carpenter, 27, 28, 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 145, 229 Casey, P. M., 209 celestial temple, 191, 192 charismatic(s), charisma, 122, 130, 138, 139, 140, 141 Charles, R. H., 187, 188, 192 Charlesworth, J. H., 187, 188 Chilton, B., 4, 26, 211 Chrysippus, 92 Cicero, 5, 72, 73, 91 civil law, 149 Clement of Alexandria, 90, 145 Clement, P. A., 15 Cohen, A., 13 Collins, J. J., 197 compassion, 152, 153 Cook, E., 201 Corinth, 75, 93 Crates of Thebes, 93 Crispus, 34, 35, 36 Crossan, John Dominic, 3 culture, cultural, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 21, 22, 26, 29, 31, 52, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 80, 82, 96, 102, 115, 117, 120, 124, 125, 128, 132, 158, 159, 165, 167, 177, 231, 232 Cynic(s), Cynical, Cynicism, 4, 26, 59, 82, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 113, 114, 115, 125, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 230 Cypros, 173 Danker, F. W., 11 Davies, P. R., G. J. Brooke and P. R. Callaway, 200 Davies, W. D., 4 day laborers, 32, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 72, 80

Day of Atonement, 150 day of blessing, 201 Dead Sea Scrolls, 6, 23, 85, 88, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 114, 126, 128, 133, 134, 143, 168, 169, 170, 175, 188, 200, 201 Debrunner, A., 204 decrees of Hananiah, 181 defilement, 136, 152, 165, 171, 172 Deissmann, A., 14 Delling, G., 20 Demetrius, 93, 94 Demonax, 94 Derrett, J. D. M., 21, 212, 221 dialectical negation, 184 Diogenes of Sinope, 92, 93, 94, 132 Dionisopoulos-Mass, Regina, 16 discipleship, 116, 117, 118, 125, 133 Dodd, C. H., 204 Dulling, D., 193 Dundes, A., 22 dyadic, 10, 124 economy, 9, 39, 66, 158 Edersheim, A., 210 egalitarian, 26, 30, 56, 137 Ego, B., 208 Ego, B., A. Lange and P. Pilhofer, 213 Eliade, Micea, 189 Elliott, John, 21 Ellis, E. E., 212 Elworthy, F. T., 15 envy, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22 Epictetus, 92, 94, 95, 96 Epiphanius, 170 Eppstein, V., 211, 225 eschatology, eschatological, 111, 136, 138, 141, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 207, 211, 225, 226, 230 Essenes, Essene, 86, 88, 90, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 130,

GENERAL INDEX 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 144, 168, 169, 170, 175, 176, 179, 180, 230 Evans, C. A., 6, 187, 197, 200 evil eye, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 183 evil intruder, 195, 196, 224, 226 Fallon, F., 194 family, 10, 16, 22, 34, 36, 42, 56, 67, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 85, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 100, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 150, 168, 210, 229, 230, 231 fasting, 137 fate, 12, 13, 231 fathers of uncleanness, 153, 160 feast of tabernacles, 222 Festugiere, A. J., 6 Fitzmyer, J., 12, 209 Flint, P., 188 Florus, 16, 223 Flusser, D., 200 Ford, J. N., 13 Freyne, Sean, 4 Funk, R. W., 202, 203, 204, 209 Funk, R. W. and R. W. Hoover, 203 G. Delling, 16 Galilee, Galilean, 4, 5, 8, 9, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 113, 114, 115, 124, 130, 135, 143, 149, 171, 173, 174, 175, 229, 230 Gamla, 58, 173 Gaston, L., 202, 205, 206, 212 Geertz, Clifford, 2 gemara, 149 Gentiles, 33, 46, 99, 105, 109, 171, 174, 199, 211, 223, 226 Gerasa, 61, 79, 83

263

Gezer, 173 Gilmore, D. D., 21 Gnilka, J., 208, 209, 212, 213 Gnosticism, 6, 193 Golan, 33, 51, 58, 174 Good Samaritan, 153 Goodspeed, E. J., 187 Graesser, E., 212 Gray, G. B., 196 Great Plain, 29, 34, 40, 43, 44, 45, 57 Greek, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 29, 33, 40, 42, 43, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 92, 96, 102, 114, 116, 124, 126, 127, 150, 158, 166, 184, 187, 188, 198, 204, 205, 211, 217, 224 Grundmann, W., 208 Gundry, R., 204 Haenchen, E., 212 Hagner, D. A., 12 halakhah, 182, 183 Hamilton, N. Q., 212 Hamiram, 182 hand washing, handwashing, 151, 156, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184 Harrington, D. J., 188, 192 haverim, 170, 181 Hayward, C. T. R., 192 heave offerings, 170 Hebrew, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 29, 40, 60, 65, 69, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 110, 112, 115, 126, 127, 132, 133, 148, 149, 154, 155, 159, 160, 164, 167, 173, 184, 186, 187, 190, 191, 196, 201, 204, 205, 206, 211, 212, 217, 218, 230 Hebrews 9 11, 205 Heliodorus, 15, 17, 195 Hellenized, Hellenistic, 4, 5, 26, 33, 38, 43, 59, 61, 66, 71, 77, 82, 83, 102, 114, 173, 212 Hengel, Martin, 2 Herod the Great, 35, 44, 58, 76

264

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Herodian, 9, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 53, 76, 100, 173, 195, 211 Herodium, 173 heroic, 136 hidden vessels, the, 194, 195 Hiers, R. H., 209 Hill, D., 6, 202 Hoffleit, H. B., 15 Holy Men , Holy Man, Charismatic, Spirit Person, 117, 128, 136, 138, 139, 141 Holy of Holies, 161, 195, 221, 222 honor, 9, 10, 21, 27, 68, 88, 95, 97, 98, 123, 124, 144, 176 Hooker, M. D., 202 Horburg, W., 195 Horsley, G. H. R., 12 Horsley, Richard, 4 Hyrcanus, 143, 144 idealized temple, 191, 192 impurity, 136, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169, 171, 172, 175 itinerant, itinerancy, 48, 79, 81, 83, 96, 121, 122, 123, 125, 134, 137, 141, 142, 145, 229, 230 Iturians, 33 J. D. M. Derrett, 212, 221 Jericho, 40, 49, 173 Jerome, 211 Jerusalem, 25, 32, 36, 37, 38, 41, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 60, 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 88, 100, 104, 114, 127, 140, 149, 150, 157, 161, 171, 173, 174, 175, 189, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225 Jewish Quarter, 38, 65, 170 John of Gischala, 37, 171 Joseph, 18, 68, 70, 80, 81, 128, 129, 130 Joseph of Arimathea, 81, 128, 129, 130

Josephus, 6, 29, 35, 36, 42, 46, 48, 49, 55, 58, 64, 65, 73, 76, 77, 79, 88, 101, 102, 103, 107, 124, 134, 135, 143, 144, 148, 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 178, 192, 194, 196, 203, 205, 221, 222, 223, 226 Judas Maccabeus, 172, 226 Judge, E. A., 14 Judith, 171 Juel, D., 200, 207 Justus, 36 Kedar, B. A. and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, 212 Kee, H. C., 192, 199 Kefar Hananya, 43, 50, 51, 55, 63, 70, 78 Kefar Reina, 51, 70 Kelim, 157, 160, 161, 174 Kern-Ulmer, Brigitte, 14 Kittim, 105 Klijn, A. F. J., 192 Kodashim, 150 Korban, 150, 152, 183 Kunin, S. D., 190 Lanchester, H. C. O., 192 Lange, A., 208 large estates, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 57, 145 Latin, 5, 6, 13, 40, 69, 89, 188, 211 Latin Vulgate, 188, 211 Law, 7, 65, 89, 151, 156, 162, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 180, 181, 182, 210 leprosy, 154, 155, 156, 162, 166 Levite(s), 149, 153, 221 Leviticus Rabbah 9, 207 Limberis, V., 16 limited good, 9, 21, 127 Lindars, B., 210 Maccabees, 195 Maccoby, H., 4 Mack, Burton, 4 Makshirin, 157 Malachi, 212

GENERAL INDEX Malina, Bruce, 9 Malony, C., 16 Manson, T. W., 11 Marshall, I. H., 12 Martinez, F. G., 201 Mary and Martha, 129, 130 Mary of Jerusalem, 129 Masada, 53, 86, 173 Mazar, B., 211 Meiron, 33, 57 Mendels, D., 212 Menippus of Gadara, 92, 96, 114 merchant(s), 32, 37, 46, 47, 64, 79, 80, 118, 211, 225, 226, 230 Metzger, B., 192 midras, 156, 179 midrash, midrashic, 7, 79 millenarian, millennium, 13, 137 Miller, R. J., 208, 209 Milligan, G., 14, 19 Miqvaot, 157, 172 Mishnah, Mishnaic, 12, 13, 23, 29, 147, 148, 149, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182, 183, 198, 213, 221, 226 mishnayot, 149 Moed, 150, 161 monastic, 131, 136 Morris, L., 209 Moses, 143, 147, 194, 195 moshav, 108 Moss, L. W., 18, 19 Moulton, J. H., 14, 19 Moxnes, H., 22 Mt. Sinai, 147 Murdock, G. P., 21 Musonius Rufus, 94 Nag Hammadi, 193 Nahal Hever, 86 Nahal Se’elim, 86 Nanos, Mark, 4

265

Nazareth, 25, 26, 29, 30, 43, 45, 47, 54, 55, 68, 69, 73, 74, 83, 114, 124, 128, 137, 145, 153, 164, 173, 174, 177, 202, 203, 206, 212, 229, 231 Neusner, J., 213 Newsom, C., 192 Neyrey, J. H., 21 Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 193, 198 oral law, 147, 148, 149 ossuaries, 61, 71 Pace Gaster, 206 parable, parables, 37, 40, 45, 81, 82, 118, 120, 127, 128, 153 Parah, 157, 174 Parium, 95 Passover, 150, 189, 222 patristic, 68, 141 Patte, D., 7 Paul, Pauline, 4, 7, 14, 21, 32, 70, 122, 151, 165, 170, 179, 184, 223 peasant(s), peasantry, 22, 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 81, 83, 142, 153, 168, 180 Perea, 34, 174 Peregrinus, 95 Pergamum, 166 pericope, 208 pesher, pesherim, 7, 104, 111, 112 pesher, pesherim, 7 Peter, 54, 115, 116, 117, 122, 141, 165, 200 Pharisee(s), Pharisaic, 32, 64, 65, 81, 129, 130, 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 162, 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 230 Philo, 6, 15, 48, 88, 101, 107, 133, 178, 185, 186, 223, 225 pietists, 180, 182 Pilhofer, P., 208

266

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Pitt-Rivers, J., 21 Plummer, A., 209 pollute, pollution, 166, 167, 186, 196 Pompey, 196 Pontius Pilate, 222 poor, poverty, 26, 31, 32, 36, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 55, 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 72, 76, 80, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 119, 120, 122, 127, 132, 133, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 150, 210, 229, 230 Porter, S. E., 197, 200 prayer, 97, 172, 173, 180, 181, 189, 212, 226, 227 priests, 32, 37, 104, 105, 109, 149, 154, 162, 167, 168, 172, 181, 186, 189, 195, 210, 224 pseudepigrapha, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 197, 199, 201, 205, 207, 224, 226 Ptolemy IV, 195 Ptolemy of Rhodes, 35 purification, 155, 156, 157, 166, 168, 172, 178, 180 Pythagoras, 166 Pythagorean, 96 Qana, 53, 54, 55, 57 qibbutz, 108 Qumran, 7, 62, 86, 88, 90, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 126, 143, 159, 160, 162, 164, 167, 169, 170, 173, 192, 199, 200, 201, 207, 225 R. W. Hoover, 202 Rabbi Aqiva, 181 Rabbi Meir, 181 Rabbinic literature and sources, 7, 8, 29, 36, 41, 48, 51, 65, 70, 73, 99, 106, 170, 180, 181, 194, 203, 207, 222, 229 Rahlfs, A., 194 Reed, Jonathan, 8

renunciation, 96, 113, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 230 retainers, 32, 40, 41, 46, 56, 77 rich Galilean women, the, 129 Richardson, P., 211 ritual bath, 35, 37, 59, 61, 157, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 180 ritual purity, 61, 105, 107, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 230 Rohrbaugh, R., 5 Roman, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 91, 94, 96, 101, 113, 124, 125, 127, 138, 173, 187, 188, 196, 208, 213, 222, 223 Rome, 33, 58, 59, 68, 81, 91, 93, 165 Sadducees, 32, 88, 171, 173, 182, 183 Samaritans, 170 Sanders, E. P., 202, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213 Schiffman, L. H., 201 Schlatter, A., 12 Schweizer, E., 12, 202, 206 Scott, J. J., 2 scribes, 150, 152, 182 Scythopolis, 43, 44, 61, 78, 83 sedarim, 149 selling texts, 122 Sepphoris, 8, 26, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 149, 173, 229, 255 shame, 9, 21 Shikhin, 51, 55, 70 Simeon b. Gamaliel, 222 Simon of Gabara, 37

GENERAL INDEX Sirach, 13 small freeholders, 42, 58 social science(s), 9, 30, 31, 66, 189 socio-economic, 34, 45, 46, 65, 66, 67, 80, 83, 229 sociology, sociological, sociologists, 26, 30, 31, 42, 49, 52, 53 Socrates, 72, 92, 94 sons of light, 111 Spicq, C., 17 Spooner, B., 17 Stephen, 122, 203 Stevens, W. H., 19 Stone, M. E., 192 stoneware vessels, stone ware, stone vessels, 47, 59, 61, 156, 172, 174 Strack, H. L., 207, 226 symbolic acts, 218 sympathizers, 82, 119, 130, 133, 137, 138, 139, 142, 230 Syrian orthodox church, 85 Tabitha, 129 Talmud, 6, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 49, 69, 70, 73, 99, 144, 147, 149, 157, 173, 193, 207, 211, 226 Tannaim, 147 Tarsus, 96 Taylor, V., 202, 206, 208, 209, 210 Tebul-Yom, 157 tekton, 26, 27, 73 temple, 37, 71, 75, 76, 80, 83, 96, 98, 100, 101, 106, 120, 140, 155, 160, 162, 166, 167, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230 tenant farmers, 42, 43, 45 the rich man, 89, 90, 116, 118, 119, 142, 143, 144 theater, 26, 61, 66, 77, 81, 82 Thompson, Marie-Louise, 13

267

Tiberias, 9, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 47, 49, 55, 56, 59, 61, 63, 66, 75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 149, 171, 222, 229 Tigchelaar, E. J. C., 201 tithes, 149, 170, 222 tohorah, 169 toledot ha-tumah, 160 Torah, 59, 99, 107, 108, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 164, 165, 166, 172, 176, 180, 183, 184, 207, 230 Tosephta, 148, 149, 157, 168, 181, 182 tovlei shaharin, 170 Tower of Antonia, 224 tractates, 149, 150, 157, 172 tribulation, 129 Trocmé, E., 208, 209 Twelve, the, 121, 122, 130, 136, 143, 145, 192, 199 unclean, uncleanness, 32, 48, 109, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 200 Upper Room of the Last Supper, 129 urbanization, 55, 58, 78 van der Horst, P. W., 8 Vanderkam, J., 188, 201 Vanderkam, J. and P. Flint, 201 Vermes, G., 200 vessels, 52, 73, 156, 157, 166, 172, 174, 194, 195, 196, 216, 222, 226 von Harnack, A., 4 Wadi Muraba’at, 86 Walcot, P., 14 War (Josephus), 222, 223 Watty, W. W., 209, 212 wealth, 13, 22, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135,

268

JESUS THE GALILEAN

137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 229 Wicked Priest, 104, 105, 111 Wise, M. O., 200, 201 Witherington, B., 209 Wright, N. T., 3, 202, 206, 212 Wright, R. B., 196 Yadin, Y., 200, 201

Yahweh, YHWH, 97, 98, 164, 196, 205, 207, 225, 231 Yamauchi, E. M., 12 Yodefat, 53, 54, 55, 57 Young, Brad, 4 Zaccheus, 81, 128, 130 Zealot, 210 Zeno, 92 Zoroastrianism, 158, 166

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXT REFERENCES Bible, Deuteronomy, 13 Joshua, 79, 147 1 Samuel, 15 1 Kings, 194 Nehemiah, 222 Ezra, 193 Psalms, 226 Proverbs, 13 Isaiah, 98, 101, 152, 211, 219, 227 Jeremiah, 205, 217, 227 Ezekiel, 140, 141, 196, 200, 219, 220, 223 Zechariah, 226 Matthew, 13, 202 Mark, 19, 29, 58, 189, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 217, 226, 227 Luke, 1, 202, 203, 205 John, 188, 202, 213, 226 Acts of the Apostles, 202, 203, 205, 223 2 Corinthians, 205 Galatians, 13 Ephesians, 205 Colossians, 205 Hebrews, 192

4 Baruch, 195 4 Maccabees, 195 Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 192 Assumption of Moses, 185 Gospel of Thomas, 11, 64, 68, 69, 71, 80, 151, 202, 203, 211, 226 Psalms of Solomon, 196 Sibylline Oracles, 192, 199 Testament of Benjamin, 199 Testament of Issachar, 13 Testament of Levi, 191 Testament of Moses, 185, 186, 195 Testament of Solomon, 17, 193, 194 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 192, 199 The Testimony of Truth, 193, 194 Tobit, 117, 172, 185, 193, 198 Wisdom of Solomon, 191 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS (=Community Rule), 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 199 11QT (=Temple Scroll), 201 4QMMT, 7 barki naphshi, 112 Damascus Document (=CD), 102, 106, 108, 109, 169, 188 Habakkuk Commentary (or Pesher=1QpHab), 102, 104 New Jerusalem, 200 Sapiential Text A, 102

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch, 197, 198 1 Maccabees, 195, 196 2 Baruch (or Syriac Baruch), 192, 193, 199 2 Maccabees, 194, 195

269

270

JESUS THE GALILEAN

Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShabb), 192 Thanksgiving Scroll (=1QH), 102, 112 War Scroll (=1QM), 111 Rabbinic Texts, Aboth, 12 Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, 211 b. Baba Bathra 141a, 17 b. Baba Metzia 84a, 18; 107b, 14 b. Beracoth 20a, 18; 55b, 18 b. Berakot 54a, 226 b. Bezah 20a, 222 b. Gittin 68a-b, 193, 194 b. Hagigah 5b, 16 b. Nedarim 7b, 13 b. Pesahim 5a (baraita), 207; 50a, 211; 54a, 192 b. Sanhedrin 93a, 13 b. Sukkah 48b, 222 b. Taanith 24b, 16, 8b, 17 b. Yebamot 6b, 226 Babylonian Talmud, 14, 16, 100, 147, 149, 157, 211 Genesis Rabbah 98, 207 Jerusalem Talmud, Palestinian Talmud, 114, 149, 157 m. Aboth 2:16, 1 m. Berakot, 226 m. Keritot, 222 m. Nashim, 150 m. Negaim, 157 m. Nezikin, 150 m. Niddah, 157, 185 m. Oholot, 157, 163, 174 m. Sukkah, 222 m. Tohorot, 150, 157, 169, 172, 181 m. Uqtsin, 157 m. Yadaim, 157, 162, 171, 174, 181, 182 m. Zavim, 157

m. Zeraim, 149 Midrash Exodus Rabbah 52.4, 194 Midrash Numbers Rabbah 11.3, 194 Tosephta Shabbath, 19 Classical Texts, de Abrahamo (Philo) 150–156, 15 Against Apion (Josephus) 2.106, 226 Antiquities (Josephus), 13.372–373, 222; 17.206–218, 222; 18.261–309, 223; 18.60– 61, 222; 18.85–87, 194; 20.106–112, 223; 20.189–196, 223 Dio Chrysostom, 70, 72, 91 Embassy to Gaius (Philo), 222 Heliodorus, Aethiopica 1.140, 15 Juvenal, 91 Libanius, Epistle 1403.1–2, 17 Lucian, 70, 72, 94, 95, 96 Moralia (Plutarch), V.7,680-682, 15, 16, 18, 19 P. Oxy. VI. 930, 17 P. Oxy. 3313, 14 Philostratus, 93, 96, 117 Pliny, 71, 75, 88, 91, 101 Seneca, 72, 92, 93 Theocritus 6.39, 19 Theophrastus, 166 Timaeus (Plato) 45B-46A, 15 War (Josephus) 1.152, 196; 6.300–309, 203