From Antipas To Agrippa II Galilee in The First-Century CE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
From Antipas to Agrippa II:

Galilee in the First-Century CE
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy
in
History
by
Bradley Walter Root
Committee in charge:
Professor David Goodblatt, Chair

Professor Dayna S. Kalleres
Professor Thomas E. Levy
Professor Alden Mosshammer
Professor William H.C. Propp
Professor Jonathan L. Reed
2009
UMI Number: 3350686
Copyright 2009 by
Root, Bradley Walter
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3350686
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright
Bradley Walter Root, 2009
All rights reserved.

The Dissertation of Bradley Walter Root is approved, and it is acceptable
in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically:
University of California, San Diego
2009
iii
To my wife, Shannon, who has demonstrated
amazing patience and given me loving support
throughout my graduate career
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page iii
Dedication iv
Table of Contents v
List of Abbreviations vi
Vita viii
Abstract ix
A Brief Note on Terminology 1
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
Chapter 2: My Approach to the New Testament Evidence 28
Chapter 3: Galilee According to Q 33
Chapter 4: Galilee According to Mark 63
Chapter 5: Galilee According to M and L 77
Chapter 6: Galilee According to John And Thomas 106
Chapter 7: Galilee According to Josephus 123
Chapter 8: The Archaeology of First-Century CE Galilee 176
Chapter 9: Conclusions 222
Bibliography 248
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AncSoc Ancient Society
ANRW Augstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt
Bib Biblica
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
CQ Classical Quarterly
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JQR Jewish Quarterly Reivew
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Periods
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly
LXX Septuagint
vi
MT Masoretic Text
NEA Near Eastern Archaeology
NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
vii
VITA
2002 Bachelor of Arts, University of California, San Diego
2006 Master of Arts, University of California, San Diego
2009 Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego
PUBLICATIONS
"Scribal Error and the Transmission of 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-39." in Shawna
Dolansky, ed., Sacred History, Sacred Literature: Essays on Ancient Israel, the Bible,
and Religion in Honor of R. E. Friedman on His 60th Birthday. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns (2008).
"Coinage, War, and Peace in Fourth-Century Yehud." Near Eastern Archaeology. 68.3
(September 2005), 131-134.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Ancient Jewish Studies
Studies in Greco-Roman History

Professor Alden Mosshammer
Studies in Early Christian Religion

Professor Jonathan L. Reed
Studies in the History of Ancient Israel

Professor William H.C. Propp
viii
ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION
From Antipas to Agrippa II:

Galilee in the First-Century C.E.
by
Bradley Walter Root
Doctor of Philosophy in History
University of California, San Diego, 2009
Professor David Goodblatt, Chair
This dissertation argues against the widespread belief among current scholars
that Galilee experienced extensive Hellenization, rapid urbanization, and a socio-
economic crisis in the first-century C.E. as a result of major socio-economic changes
initiated by Herod the Great and his successors. My research indicates that earlier
studies allowed the textual evidence to have an undue influence on the way that
scholars interpret the archaeological evidence, and vice-versa.
ix
Unlike previous studies on Early Roman Galilee, the dissertation begins by
attempting to interpret each source for the region individually and without recourse to
other sources. After establishing what each source says on its own about Galilee, the
dissertation analyzes the data as a whole and offers a reconstruction of Galilean
society in the first-century C.E. that better reflects the available evidence. The major
findings are that the region was politically stable until the Great Revolt of 66 C.E., that
the region was much less Hellenized than some prominent scholars claim, that the
urbanization process initiated by Herod Antipas had less of a negative immediate
impact on Galilean society than modern scholars usually assume, and that Galilee was
not experiencing any unusual or severe socio-economic problems prior to the revolt.
x
A BRIEF NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
JUDEA AND IUDAEA
There is quite a bit of controversy over what modern scholars should call the
territory ruled by Herod the Great, especially in the first-century C.E., when this
territory was divided into separate political entities. The term "Judea" can refer to
either the territory that had formerly comprised Herod's kingdom (i.e.: as a collective
reference to Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Idumaea, Perea, and Gualanitis), the province of
Judea, or the region of Judea in a stricter sense—excluding Galilee, Samaria, Idumaea,
etc.
Most scholars have decided to solve this problem by using the term "Judea" to
refer to both the province and the region of Judea and then using a more general
term—such as "Palestine" or "the Land of Israel"—to refer to the territory that Herod
had ruled. Such a solution, however, has two major problems. First, the term Judea is
still used ambiguously. Second, the terms "Palestine" and "the Land of Israel" are
both anachronistic and poltically loaded. In the first century, the territory in question
was not called Palestine, but Judea. The province of Palestine was the name the
Roman government gave the province after the Bar Kokhba War in the second-century
C.E. Given the political connotations associated with the word "Palestine" in modern
times, many people, especially Israelis, are offended by its anachronistic use by those
who study the Second Temple Period. Unfortunately, the term "the Land of Israel" is
1
2
also somewhat anachronistic, since no political entity called Israel existed in the first
century. Moreover, some find the use of this latter term offensive as well.
In order to avoid anachronism, offense, and ambiguity, I have decided to use
three different forms of the word Judea to refer to each of the three possible meanings
of this term. For the Roman province, I will always use the Latinized "Iudaea." I will
refer to the territory that had been part of Herod the Great's kingdom as "Judea (broad
sense)." I refer to the region of Judea (the term's strictest sense) as "Judea (strict
sense)." Hopefully, this convention will clear up ambiguities without confusing the
reader.
GREEK AND SEMITIC PLACE NAMES
Whenever referring to the archaeological remains of an ancient city in Galilee
or Judea, I will always use the Semitic name for either the ancient city or for the
archaeological site itself1 Whenever referring to a city that is mentioned in a Greek
text (i.e.: in the Gospels or in Josephus), I will use the Greek name for that city. Thus,
I will call the same city "Jotapata" when discussing Josephus' narratives and
"Yodefat" when talking about the archaeological excavations at that site.
1
For Sepphoris and Tiberias, which are generally referred to by their Greek-derived names in
archaeological reports, I will use the Greek-derived names in all cases.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
3
4
The considerable interest in the social history of early Roman Galilee is a
relatively recent development. Although Galilee served as the birthplace for both
Christianity in the first-century C.E. and rabbinic Judaism in the second-century C.E.,
the particular cultural milieu from which these two religions grew was not a major
concern for Christians and Jews until the twentieth century. Even in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when New Testament scholarship was
engaged in the so-called "first quest" and "second quest" for the historical Jesus,
Galilee's social history was not a major concern.2
The current scholarly fascination with the social history of first-century Galilee
is largely an outgrowth of the "third quest" for the historical Jesus. Unlike the first
two quests, which focused almost exclusively on the textual evidence for Jesus'
ministry, the third quest expanded its methods to include insights from archaeology,
anthropology, and other social sciences. One of the third quest's basic goals was to
understand how Jesus functioned as part of his specific social, cultural, political, and
economic environment. As a result, Galilee's social history has become an integral
part of historical Jesus research. This development has led in recent decades to a
flourishing of excavations, publications, and research—all of which has greatly
2
For a detailed discussion of the relationship between the various quests for the historical Jesus and
Galilean studies, see: J. L. Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the
Evidence (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 4-22.
3
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: William Collins Sons & Co., 1973). E. P. Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991). M. J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again
for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). J. P. Meier, "The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus:
Loss and Gain," Bib 80 (1999).
5
expanded our knowledge of the region's history and culture in the early Roman
period.
BEFORE THE DIGS
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, most scholars adhered to
one of two major views about first-century Galilee: 1) that Galilee's population
consisted mostly of Gentiles, 2) that the Galileans were Jews who practiced a simpler
form of Judaism than first-century Judeans (strict sense).
The first theory was based largely on the region's appellation "Galilee of the
Gentiles." Most of the scholars who subscribed to this view believed that Jesus' ideas
were too "enlightened" to be Jewish. These scholars suggested that a gentile Galilee
would have provided a more appropriate cultural milieu for Jesus and his message of
salvation for all peoples.5
Proponents of the second view maintained that, although the residents of first-
century Galilee were Jewish, they practiced a form of Judaism that was simpler and
less legalistic than the Judaism practiced by Judean (strict sense) Jews.6 These
scholars—many of them Jewish—argued that the poorer and less educated Galilean
This appellation is found in the Septuagint version (the wording of the MT could be understood in this
sense as well, but it is somewhat ambiguous) of Isaiah 9:1 (MT 8:23); Septuagint Joel 4:4 (MT 3:4); 1
Maccabees 5:15; Matthew 4:15.
Major advocates of this view included: W. Grundmann, Jesus der Galilder und das Judentum
(Leipzig: Verlag Georg Wigand, 1941). J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teachings
(New York: Macmillan, 1929). E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973).
6
S. Zeitlin, "The Am haarez," JQR 23 (1932). G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the
Christian Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-30).
6
Jews either could not afford to adhere to ritual purity laws or were simply ignorant of
them. An important proponent of this second view was A. Buchler, who argued that
the rabbinic literature portrayed Galileans as being particularly ignorant of the Torah
and that the Judaism practiced by Galileans was more lax than that practiced by the
rabbis in Judea (strict sense).7
Other proponents of the second view relied more heavily on evidence from the
New Testament to inform their ideas about Galilean Judaism. In fact, many of these
scholars equated Galilean Judaism with early Christianity. Perhaps the most
influential scholar to connect early Christianity with the rest of Galilean Judaism was
Geza Vermes. In his 1973 book, Jesus the Jew, Vermes attempted to construct a
model of Jesus' religious environment based on the information provided in rabbinic
literature, Josephus' works, and the New Testament. He argued that Galilean Jews
practiced a popular form of Judaism that Vermes called "Charismatic Judaism."8 For
Vermes, Jesus was the most important representative and proponent of Charismatic
Judaism, and Jesus' conflicts with the Jerusalem Jewish authorities highlight the major
disputes between Galilean and Judean (strict sense) Judaism.
The first major challenge to Vermes and Biichler's view came in 1977 from
Aharon Oppenheimer.9 Oppenheimer disagreed with the theories about first-century
Galileans practicing a distinct form of Judaism. He re-examined the rabbinic literature
and found that, "life in the Galilee bore the halakhic-Pharisaic stamp exactly as in
A. Buchler,Der galilaische Am-ha' Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Vienna: Lehranstalt, 1906).
8
Vermes, Jesus the Jew.
A. Oppenheimer, The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman
Period, trans. I. H. Levine (Leiden: Brill, 1977).
7
Judea, and no distinction can be made between the Galilean and the Judean Jew."
After Oppenheimer's work seriously undermined both of the views which had
dominated the scholarship of the early and mid twentieth century, researchers needed
additional information to develop new ideas about first-century Galilee. This new
information came from the archaeological excavations that had recently begun in
Galilee.
THE RISE OF GALILEAN ARCHAEOLOGY
In the mid 1970's and early 1980's, archaeologists such as Eric M. Meyers and
James F. Strange began major excavation projects in Galilee. Among the first sites to
be excavated were Gush Halav, Capernaum, Meiron, and Sepphoris.10 The data
retrieved from these excavations contributed significantly to scholarly understanding
of Galilee in the Early Roman Period. Interestingly, the archaeological evidence,
especially the evidence from Sepphoris, appeared to contradict the accepted view that
Galilee was a cultural backwater. Instead, the archaeological record suggested that
Galilee was significantly urbanized in the Early Roman Period. At Sepphoris,
excavators found considerable evidence of Roman style architecture such as a Roman-
G. Forester, "Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum," IEJ21 (1971). E. M. Meyers, J. F.

Strange, and C. L. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971-1972, 1974-
1975, 1977 (Cambridge, Mass.: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1981). E. M. Meyers, C.
L. Meyers, and J. F. Strange, Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Halav: Meiron Excavation
Project Reports, vol. 5, ed. E. M. Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990). J. F. Strange, "Six
Campaigns At Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983-1989," in The Galilee in
Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992).
8
style theater, and even some evidence for international trade—all of which some
archaeologists initially dated to the early first-century C.E.
In the late seventies, Eric M. Meyers attempted the first major synthesis of this
new archaeological data. During his excavations, Meyers noted the unusual
topography of Galilee. He realized that the series of hills and valleys which cuts
through Galilee creates a natural boundary around the Beit Kerem Valley that
separates the northern and southern regions of Galilee. This division of Galilee was
nothing new; Josephus had already divided Galilee into Upper and Lower Galilee in
the first-century.12 What was new about Meyers's observations were the conclusions
he drew from the topography about how such natural boundaries would have effected
cultural development. Upper Galilee, Meyers argued, would have been isolated from
the cultural developments taking place in Lower Galilee, and vice-versa.13
Based on the material culture found in Upper and Lower Galilee, Meyers
offered a tentative reconstruction of the socio-economic environment of each region.
He suggested that the Upper Galilee was poor, conservative, Jewish, and had an
essentially agricultural economy. Lower Galilee, he maintained, was urbanized,
Hellenized, and heavily involved in international trade.14 Meyers's model, called the
"regionalism model," fundamentally altered the way scholars viewed ancient Galilee.
11
As will become apparent later in the chapter, the dating of some of this material to the early first-
century C.E. has since been challenged by a number of archaeologists.
12
Josephus' division of Galilee into "upper" and "lower" appears to refer to the respective regions'
altitudes and not their latitudes (BJ3.35-40).
13
E. M. Meyers, "The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism," in
ANRW 19.2.1, ed. W. Haase (New York: de Gruyter, 1979). Meyers's regionalism model is actually an
adaptation of Yochanan Aharoni's regional approach to historical archaeology. Y. Aharoni," Survey in
Galilee: Israelite Settlements and Their Pottery," Eretz Israel (1956).
14
Meyers, "The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism," 694-695.
9
Although his model has been modified over the decades, Meyers's division of Galilee
into Upper and Lower Galilee, and his contention that these two regions were
culturally distinct are still accepted by almost every scholar studying Early Roman
Galilee.
SEAN FREYNE SETS THE STAGE
In 1980, Sean Freyne published the first comprehensive reconstruction of
Galilee's political and cultural history in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods.15
He portrayed first-century Galilee as an isolated region with an essentially rural ethos.
He concluded that both Sepphoris and Tiberias would have been perceived by
Galilean peasants as supporting foreign occupation of Galilee. Because of this, he
reasoned that Galilean peasants would have resisted the Hellenization that took place
in these cities. Moreover, this urban-rural tension would have led Galilean peasants to
develop loyalties to the Judean (broad sense) religious and cultural center: Jerusalem.
Freyne concluded that this tension explains why the rural Galileans appear to have
supported the great revolt while the people of Sepphoris and the leaders of Tiberias
actively opposed the revolt.
M E Y E R S REVISES HIS REGIONALISM M O D E L
15
S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame,
1980).
10
In the mid-1980s, after considering the new archaeological data and after
reading the recent publications by his colleagues, Meyers concluded that, in the first-
century C.E., Upper Galilee had not been as culturally and economically isolated as he
had once thought and that Lower Galilee was not as Hellenized.16 Meyers
acknowledged that archaeological evidence of substantial trade between Upper Galilee
and Tyre suggests that Upper Galilee was much more involved in the Eastern
Mediterranean world than he had initially suggested. Similarly, Meyers believed that
the archaeological evidence did not suggest the thoroughly urban, Hellenized Lower
Galilee that he had imagined existed in the first-century.17
Meyers, however, did not abandon his regionalism model completely. Meyers
still maintained that geographic boundaries must have created significant regional
differences between Upper and Lower Galilee.18 In his view, the new archaeological
evidence suggested a model in which the geographic separation of Upper and Lower
Galilee played a smaller yet vital role in shaping the socio-economic environment of
each region. At this point, however, Meyers maintained that both Upper and Lower
Galilee were thoroughly Jewish in culture and in religious practice.
JAMES F. STRANGE
16
E. M. Meyers, Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal, ed. W. S. Green, vol. 32: Approaches to
Ancient Judaism, Studies in Judaism audits Greco-Roman Context (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 115,124-
115. E. M. Meyers, "Jesus and His Galilean Context," in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and
Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism,
ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 58.
17
Meyers, "Jesus and His Galilean Context."
Meyers, Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal, 126.
19
Meyers, "Jesus and His Galilean Context," 64. E. M. Meyers and M. A. Chancey, "How Jewish Was
Sepphoris in Jesus' Time?" BAR 26, no. 4 (2000).
11
In the 1980s and 1990s, Strange argued that his excavations at Sepphoris
provided substantial evidence for "Romanization" in first-century Galilee.20
Specifically, Strange identified several Roman architectural features in Lower
Galilean cities, such as the Roman theater at Sepphoris, which he dated to the first-
century C.E. Based on the archaeological evidence, he concluded that the construction
of Sepphoris and Tiberias was a deliberate attempt by Antipas to inject Greco-Roman
culture into Galilee.21
Strange also argues that the building of Sepphoris and Tiberias helped bring
international trade through Galilee. He believes that there were major trade routes
running throughout Galilee, and that these trade routes helped spread Roman culture
and ideas to the region.22 As a result of Antipas' urbanization efforts and the new
international trade that ran through Galilee, Strange argues that Greco-Roman culture
would have been a major influence on both city dwellers and peasants in Galilee.
Strange's work had a major influence on contemporary scholars studying first-
century Galilee. His publications raised important questions about how Galilee's
involvement in trade with the rest of the Mediterranean world would have affected the
inhabitants of Galilee. Moreover, some have argued that Jesus acquired many of his
Strange, "Six Campaigns At Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983-1989." J.
F. Strange, "First Century Galilee From Archaeology and From the Texts," in Archaeology and the
Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T.
McCollough, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997).
21
Strange, "First Century Galilee From Archaeology and From the Texts."
22
Ibid., 39.
12
ideas through his exposure to Greco-Roman culture in Galilee. Richard A. Batey,
for example, argues that, since Jesus grew up only four miles from Sepphoris, he must
have traveled to this city on a regular basis. Batey assumes, therefore, that the
Hellenistic culture that pervaded first-century Sepphoris must have had a significant
influence on the development of Jesus' ideas.24
FREYNE'S REASSESSMENT
Partly in response to Strange's recent work, Freyne revisited his portrayal of
Galilee and sought to determine how urbanization and the local adoption of features of
Greco-Roman culture would have impacted Galilean society.25 Although he softened
his position with respect to the cultural isolation of the region, Freyne defended the
essence of his earlier arguments about the tensions between city and countryside. He
concluded that, in the first-century C.E., the urban rural dynamic was essentially
hostile. He maintained that the newly founded urban centers would have exploited the
hinterland economically and would have posed a challenge to the values of "'country'
F. G. Downing, "The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Reconstruction," NTS33
(1987). F. G. Downing, Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century
Tradition, vol. 4, JSOTManuals (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). F. G. Downing, Cynics and Christian
Origins (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992).
24
R. A. Batey, "Jesus and the Theatre," NTS 30 (1984). R. A. Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City: New
Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991). R. A.
Batey, "Is Not This the Carpenter?" NTS 30 (1984).
25
S. Freyne, "Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary
Sources," in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1992). S. Freyne, "Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee," in Archaeology and
the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. D. R. Edwards and C.
T. McCollough, South Florida Studies in the History ofJudaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997).
13
Jews" in Galilee.26 Freyne saw in the Gospels evidence of peasant resistance to the
new urban values that had been introduced in the region, and he continued to maintain
that Galilean participation in the revolt against Rome indicates "the failure of imperial
propaganda as far as some of the inhabitants were concerned."
ENTER THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
In the early 1990s, a number of prominent New Testament scholars attempted
reconstructions of Galilee's socio-economic environment in light of the new
archaeological evidence as well as insights from cultural anthropology. John
Dominic Crossan offered the most influential of these reconstructions in his 1991
book, The Historical Jesus29
Freyne, "Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee," 55.
27
Ibid.
Other important studies that incorporated anthropological models (most also employ Lenski's model
to some extent) include: D. A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The
Land is Mine, SBEC 20 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991). P. F. Esler, The First Christians in Their
Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (New York: Routledge,
1994). R. A. Horsley, "Bandits, Messiahs, and Longshoremen: Popular Unrest in Galilee Around the
Time of Jesus," in SBLSP 1988, ed. D. J. Lull (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988). R. A.
Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989). R. A. Horsley, Galilee:
History, Politics, People (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995). R. A. Horsley, Archaeology,
History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis (Valley Forge: Trinity Press
International, 1996). B. Malina, "Early Christian Groups: Using Small Group Formation Theory to
Explain Christian Organizations," vaModelling Early Christianity, ed. P. F. Esler (1995). B. Malina,
The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Atlanta: Westminster John
Knox, 2001). D. E. Oakman, "The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of
the Historical Jesus," in SBLSP 1994, ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
1994).
29
Crossan. See also: J. D. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). J. D. Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in
the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus (San Fransisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).
14
Crossan adopted Gerhard Lenski's model of social stratification in agrarian
societies as his interpretive framework for reconstructing Galilean society. As
applied by Crossan, Lenski's model emphasizes that socio-economic inequality and
exploitation are essential and prominent features of agrarian societies.31 The model
also states that peasants in these societies are inevitably subject to exploitation by the
urban centers with which their settlements interact.32 In light of Lenski's model,
Crossan presents Jesus as a peasant whose message incorporated a critique of the
socio-economic injustices described in Lenski's model.
Scholars who employ a social-scientific approach to the New Testament
frequently use the Lenski model. Perhaps as a result of this model's popularity,
Crossan's book failed to defend adequately both the author's choice of the model and
the suitability of the model for the study of early Roman Galilee.33
In addition to his use of the Lenski model, Crossan's book also contextualized
its reconstructed Jesus within the broad cultural milieu of the first-century
Mediterranean. In light of cross-cultural comparisons with other Mediterranean
societies, Crossan concluded that Jesus and his followers developed a philosophy
analogous to Greek Cynicism.34 It is important to note that Crossan's argument for a
For a full description of the model, see: G. E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social
Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
Crossan, The HistoricalJesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 45.
32
Ibid., 124-136.
33
Ibid., 44-45.
34
Crossan does not argue that there was a genealogical relationship between the Jesus Movement and
the Cynics; rather, he uses Greek Cynicism as an analogy for how the Jesus Movement functioned in
Galilean society. Burton L. Mack also offers a reconstruction of Jesus as a "Cynic-like" figure. B. L.
Mack, "The Kingdom that Didn't Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents," in SBLSP 1988, ed. D. J.
Lull (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988). B. L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins
15
Cynic-like Jesus rests on his assertion that Jesus'—and therefore Galilee's—
participation in the common Mediterranean culture of the time was substantial.
Several scholars joined Crossan in his use of the Lenski model to understand
the socio-economic situation in first-century Galilee.35 These scholars tended to treat
the evidence in the Gospels—and the Q document in particular—as strong evidence
for increasing socio-economic problems in Galilee. For these scholars, the Gospels
provide evidence that rapid urbanization and monetization had created high
unemployment and forced the Galilean peasantry deep into debt. As a result, small
landholders were losing their farms to wealthy creditors and were forced into
becoming tenants in their former homes and farms. They also tend to interpret both
the Gospels and Josephus as providing evidence for growing urban-rural tensions in
this period.36
While it is often valid to employ comparative models to better contextualize
the data we have for a given society, a number of scholars have criticized the ways in
which New Testament scholars have used sociological models—and Lenski's model
(Shaftesbury: Doret, 1993). B. L. Mack, "Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus," in Whose Historical Jesus? ed. W.
E. Arnal and M. Desjardins (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997). B. L. Mack, "The Case
for a Cynic-Like Jesus," in The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy, ed. W. E. Arnal (New
York: Continuum, 2001). For a thorough overview of the comparisons between Jesus and the Cynics,
see: D. E. Aune, "Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical Considerations," in Hillel
and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and L. L.
Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).
35
K. C. Hanson, "The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition," BTB 27 (1997). W.
Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century, trans. O. C. Dean (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1999). E. A. Johnson, Truly Our Sister: A Theology ofMary in the Communion of Saints (New
York: Continuum, 2003), 145-149.
36
R. A. Horsley, "Power Vaccuum and Power Struggle in 66-7 C.E.," in The First Jewish Revolt:
Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (New York: Routledge, 2002),
96-98. Hanson, "The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition."
16
in particular—to reconstruct Galilee's socio-economic environment. Sean Freyne
criticizes the way Crossan uses the Lenski-Kautsky model:
One must ask...whether the model or the data is now

determining the conclusions.... Crossan... does not really
engage independently with the archaeological evidence but is
content to criticize the way archaeologists such as Meyers,
Strange, Longstaff and Adan-Bayewitz, interpret their data in
the light of the Lenski-Kautsky model that dictates the way
things ought to be, in his view. The reality is that the data
coming from the village contexts...give rather mixed messages
in relation to what the model dictates.
Marianne Sawicki offers a more succinct and biting criticism: "Jesus historians have
been reading sociology too reverently and texts too suspiciously."38
Freyne also offered a sound criticism of Crossan's attempt to situate Jesus
within such a broadly defined Mediterranean culture. Such an approach, he argued,
de-emphasized any cultural phenomena particular to Galilee. This problem, combined
with Crossan's rigorous application of a method that disregards most of the Gospel
evidence, makes it, "difficult to locate Jesus anywhere in particular, certainly not in
Galilee."39 In essence, Freyne concluded that Crossan's approach ensured a
minimalist result from the outset.
Another criticism of Crossan's approach came from Meyers, who objected to
the theory that Jesus was practicing an Eastern Mediterranean form of Cynicism.
Meyers contended that there is simply no evidence that either cynicism or Greco-
S. Freyne, "Archaeology and the Historical Jesus," in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. H. Charlesworth
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 70-71.
M. Sawicki, Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus (Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 2000), 68.
S. Freyne, "Galilean Questions to Crossan's Mediterranean Jesus," in Whose Historical Jesus? ed. W.
E. Arnal and M. Desjardins (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 64.
17
Roman culture in general had penetrated Galilean society sufficiently for Galilee to
produce itinerant Cynic preachers.40 Instead, he urged scholars to begin their
reconstructions of Galilee by acknowledging the fundamentally Jewish character of
the region.
ARCHAEOLOGISTS WEIGH IN ON URBAN-RURAL TENSIONS
At this point, a number of archaeologists raised serious objections to the use of
models that emphasize urban-rural tensions. Meyers argued that any model which
suggests that Sepphoris and Tiberias exploited the surrounding rural areas is simply
inconsistent with the archaeological evidence.41 In fact, most archaeologists claimed
that the material culture suggests the first-century was a time of economic expansion
in the region.42
Therefore, most archaeologists argued in favor of using models that emphasize
a mutually beneficial relationship between urban and rural settlements. James F.
Strange, for example, contended that urbanization would have created mutually
beneficial trade relations between city and countryside. A number of other
Meyers, "Jesus and His Galilean Context," 64.

41
Ibid., 61.
42
D. R. Edwards, "First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological
and Literary Evidence," in SBLSP 1988, ed. D. J. Lull (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988). D.
R. Edwards, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First Century:
Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement," in Studies on the Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I.
Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992). M. Aviam, "Socio-economical Hierarchy and
its Economical Foundations in First century Galilee. The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla," in
Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. J. Pastor, M. Mor, and P. Stern (Leiden: Brill,
Forthcoming).
18
archaeologists have argued that, at the very least, urbanization should be interpreted as
an indication that Galilee's economy was expanding at this time.
Douglas Edwards and Peter Richardson argued for a less urban but
economically vibrant Galilee. They claimed that the lack of fortifications in Galilee
undermines claims by some scholars that banditry was a major problem in the
region.44 Edwards also made a strong case that the archaeological evidence indicates
that the economic conditions in rural Galilee improved in the first-century C.E. In
addition, he maintained, based on Adan-Bayewitz's influential study of Galilean
pottery trade that the region developed a trade network that benefited both city and
countryside.45
At this point a major division developed between textual critics, who generally
interpreted the literary evidence for what Halvor Moxnes calls the "picture of
conflict," and archaeologists, who generally believe that the archaeological evidence
supports the "picture of harmony."46
HORSLEY'S THEORY OF GALILEAN ORIGINS
M. Moreland, "The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-Cultural Study of the

Subsistence Ethic," in Religion and society in Roman Palestine: old questions, new approaches, ed. D.
R. Edwards (New York: Routledge, 2004), 43. Edwards, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of
Lower Galilee in the First Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement."
44
P. Richardson and D. R. Edwards, "Jesus and Palestinian Social Protest: Archaeological and Literary
Perspectives," in Handbook ojEarly Christianity: Social Science Approaches, ed. A. J. Blasi, J.
Duhaime, and P. Turcotte (Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2002).
45
Edwards, "First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and
Literary Evidence." Edwards, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First
Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement." See also: M. Moreland, "Q and the
Economics of Early Roman Galilee," in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A.
Lindemann (Sterling: Peeters, 2001).
46
H. Moxnes," The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus - Part 11," BTB, no. 31
(2001).
19
Although the arguments that the majority of first-century Galileans were
Gentiles or the descendants of converted Gentiles has been thoroughly refuted,
Horsley's contributions to the field in the 1990s resurrected the debate over Galilee's
ethnic composition. In his two books on Galilee, Horsley attempted what was
probably the most ambitious reconstruction of first-century Galilee in a generation.47
Horsley began his reconstruction by investigating those aspects of Galilean history
that seemed peculiar to him: the Hasmonean conquest and forced conversion of the
Galileans at the end of the second-century B.C.E. He noted that in the other regions
that the Hasmoneans conquered and converted to Judaism, namely Samaria and
Idumaea, vestigial elements of the native religions were still present in the first-
century C.E. However, no such traces of an indigenous religion seem to have existed
in first-century Galilee.48
In order to explain this situation, Horsley revived a theory first proposed by
Albrecht Alt, which stated that the pre-conquest inhabitants of Galilee were actually
the descendants of "Northern Israelite villagers" who were not deported after the
Assyrian Conquest of Israel.49 These Northern Israelite villagers, then, would have
Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee:
The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis.
48
Specifically, Horsley notes that the Samaritans maintained their loyally to mount Gerizim, and some
Idumaeans continued to worship the native God Qos. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 42-45.
Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, 25-
28.
49
Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 289. To support this claim, Horsley argued that eighth
century B.C.E. Galilee would have been too sparsely populated for the Assyrians to have bothered
deporting all of the region's inhabitants. Instead, he argued that the Assyrians would have only
deported the rich and powerful individuals in the Galilee, leaving the rural villagers behind.
20
preserved their traditional religious and economic way of life until the Hasmonean
conquest.50 The reason, according to Horsley's theory, that the Galileans assimilated
to the Judean (strict sense) religion so easily is that these pre-conquest Galileans were
already Israelites and that Galilee was too rural for the Hasmonean policies to have
had a significant effect on these villagers' daily lives and local traditions. He
maintained that Antipas' major building projects, which turned Sepphoris and Tiberias
into major urban centers, fundamentally disrupted the traditional socio-economic life
in Galilee. This urbanization and the resulting social and economic changes would
have created major social unrest in first-century C.E. Galilee. Horsley maintained that
this social upheaval created new religious movements which criticized urbanization,
Roman rule, and the Herodian authorities.52
Ibid., 33. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the
Rabbis, 24. R. A. Horsley and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in
the Time of Jesus (New York: Winston, 1985). R. A. Horsley, "Renewal movements and resistance to
Empire in Ancient Judea," in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Maiden:
Blackwell, 2006).
Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis,
28. Horsley argues that the literary evidence from the Synoptic Gospels also provides important
evidence for his reconstruction. Since Horsley believed that two first-century Galilean documents are
available to modern scholars—The Gospel of Mark and the theoretical Q document—these two
documents provide most of the literary evidence upon which Horsley bases his reconstruction. For
Horsley, the Jesus movement is the best representative of Galilean Judaism available to modern
scholars. He contended that Jesus and his followers considered themselves to be heirs to the pre-exilic
northern prophetic traditions. It is for this reason, he maintained, that Jesus selected one disciple to
judge each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28), and it is also for this reason that the Q source
always uses the more inclusive term "Israel" instead of the more restrictive "Jew." Horsley also sees
Jesus' conflict with the Jerusalem authorities as a consequence of Jesus' Northern Israelite heritage. He
argues that Jesus' polemics against the Temple and the Jerusalem authorities were part of a larger
critique that Jesus leveled against the powerful Judeans (strict sense) who had managed to exclude the
Northern Israelites from the religious hierarchy. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 38-39, 70-
71, 280-281. Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and
the Rabbis, 178-185.
Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 256-275.
21
Horsley's work has had a major influence on scholars of first-century Galilee,
especially among New Testament scholars. Some prominent scholars have begun to
incorporate his model into their reconstructions of Jesus' social environment.
However, Horsley's work has also drawn some major criticisms.
JONATHAN REED'S THEORY OF GALILEAN ORIGINS
In the late nineties, Jonathan L. Reed offered a devastating criticism of
Horsley's reconstruction of first-century Galilee. Reed argued that Horsley had been
too quick to dismiss the archaeological record and the Assyrian documentary evidence
which suggest a significant depopulation of Galilee after the Assyrian conquest. He
contended that the archaeological data implies that the Assyrians deported people of
all socio-economic statuses. Reed noted that Galilee appears to have remained almost
entirely depopulated until the Persian Period, and even in this period, Galilee appears
to have been settled quite slowly. Only after the Hasmonean conquest did the number
R. Pregeant, Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2007), 75-77. M. Myllykoski, "Mark's Oral Practice and the Written Gospel of Mark," in Testimony and
Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu; Studies in Honor ofPetr Pokorny, ed.
J. Roskovec, J. Mrazek, and P. Pokorny (New York: Continuum, 2004). W. E. Arnal, The Symbolic
Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction oj Contemporary Identity (Oakville:
Equinox, 2005). A. Porterfield, Healing in the History of Christianity (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 34-35. A number of scholars who believe that the Q document was composed in Galilee
have also used Horsley's arguments to provide a context for the community for which Q was composed.
One Q scholar who has made extensive use of Horsley's theory is William Arnal, who argues that the Q
community consisted of traditional Galilean village scribes who had been displaced in the Galilean
social hierarchy as a result of Antipas' urbanization efforts. W. E. Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 30-34. Horsley
dismisses this archaeological evidence as unreliable. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 25-33.
Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis, 21-
24.
22
of Galilean settlements begins to increase rapidly. This suggested to Reed that Galilee
was sparsely populated when the Hasmoneans conquered it. After reviewing these
data, Reed argued that it is implausible that the first-century Galileans were the
descendants of pre-exilic, northern Israelite villagers, rather it seemed likely to him
that the first-century Galileans were descended from Judeans (strict sense) who left
Judea (strict sense) because of population pressure and colonized Galilee.56 He
therefore concluded that it is appropriate to call the inhabitants of Galilee "Jewish"
since their religious and ancestral roots stemmed from Judea (strict sense).57
In fact, Reed argued that the evidence from the material culture and from
rabbinic literature indicates that Galilean and Judean (strict sense) Jews had
remarkably similar religious practices. Specifically, Reed isolated four indicators of
Jewish religious identity that are visible in the archaeological record: 1) stone vessels,
2) miqvaot, 3) secondary burial, and 4) bone profiles that lack pork. It is only in first-
century Judea (strict sense) and Galilee that all four of these indicators can be found in
the archaeological record. This fact, maintained Reed, suggests that the first-century
Galileans were just as "Jewish" as their Judean (strict sense) counterparts.
Reed's arguments about the Jewish identity of first-century Galileans have
been buttressed by the results of recent archaeological excavations and surveys.
Currently, there appears to be a general consensus among archaeologist (if not among
New Testament scholars) in the field that Galilee's inhabitants were predominantly
55
J. L. Reed, "Galileans, 'Israelite Village Communities,' and the Sayings Gospel Q," in Galilee
Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. E. M. Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999).
56
Ibid., 103-104.
57
Ibid., 104.
23
Jewish and that they were no less religiously observant than their Judean (strict sense)
contemporaries. 5 8
DISMISSING THE GENTILE GALILEE
Between 2000 and 2002, Mark Chancey attempted to synthesize the
archaeological and literary evidence for Hellenization in first-century Galilee.
Chancey's stated goal was "to bridge the gap between textual studies and archaeology,
combining both to provide a more detailed and accurate picture of first-century C.E.
Galilee." As a result, his work focused on trying to find common ground between
the current scholarly views. Chancey's publications made almost no attempt to define
Galilean Judaism in the first-century C.E.61 Instead, his work simply argued that most
of Galilee's inhabitants were relatively observant Jews who spoke Aramaic or
M. Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," in Religion and Society in
Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D. R. Edwards (New York: Routledge, 2004).
M. Aviam, "Epilogue," in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2004). Meyers and Chancey, "How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus'
Time?" M. A. Chancey, "The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris," NTS, no. 47:2 (2001). M.
Moreland, "The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the
Archaeological and Literary Evidence," in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A
Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge, and D. B. Martin, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007). D. Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia
on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods" (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Hebrew
University, 2004). U. Leibner, "The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light
of New Archaeological Data" (paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Conference,
San Diego, November 2007). A. M. Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological
Evidence" (paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Conference, San Antonio,
November 2004).
59
M. A. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
60
Ibid., 3-4.
Chancey assumes that Galilean Judaism falls within the bounds of "common Judaism" as defined by
E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.-66 C.E. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1992).
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 5.
24
Hebrew—not Greek—as their first language. Although he agreed that Galilee became
significantly more urbanized in the first-century C.E., Chancey argued that most
scholars have been too quick to equate urbanization with Hellenization and that much
of the evidence for Greco-Roman influence in first-century Galilee "has been greatly
exaggerated."62 Rapid Hellenization of Galilee, according to Chancey, did not occur
until about 120 C.E. when a Roman legion, Legio VI Ferrata, was stationed at Kefar
'Otnay, just south of Nazareth.
Recently, Eric Meyers began working with Mark Chancey in an attempt to
build a scholarly consensus about the ethnicity and native language of most
Galileans. Their efforts have been largely successful, and very few scholars would
now dispute Chancey's thesis.
JENSEN REEVALUATES HEROD ANTIPAS
In his 2006 book, Herod Antipas in Galilee, Morten Jensen argued that
Antipas' Galilee was politically, economically, and socially stable and that Antipas
himself was an unremarkable—but adequate—ruler. He maintained that Antipas'
impact on the region was much less substantial than most scholars suppose. He also
Chancey, "The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris."

Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 58-60.
Meyers and Chancey, "How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus' Time?"
25
contended that the picture of urban-rural conflict so widely accepted among N e w
Testament scholars does not fit the evidence for Antipas' reign.
CURRENT DEBATES IN THE FIELD
As the preceding survey of scholarship has shown, recent research on first-
century Galilee is has largely been shaped by five prominent debates. They are: 1) the
extent and effect of urbanization that Galilee experienced in the first-century C.E., 2)
the state of Galilee's economy during the period in question, 3) the extent to which
Galilee's culture was influenced by Hellenization and Romanization, 4) the ethnicity
of Galilee's first-century inhabitants, and 5) first-century C.E. Galilee's religious
climate.
THE PRESENT STUDY'S APPROACH TO FIRST-CENTURY GALILEE
The current work aims to offer a thorough re-evaluation of Galilee's religious,
social, political, and economic character between Herod the Great's death in 4 B.C.E.
and the death of Herod's great-grandson, Agrippa II, towards the end of the first-
century C.E. Although this study intends to be a comprehensive treatment, it focuses
especially on addressing the five major debates detailed in the previous paragraph
M. H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of
Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, WUNT2.215 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2006).
(urbanization, the economy, Hellenization and Romanization, the region's ethnic
makeup, and the religious culture).
In order to avoid allowing my interpretation of one set of evidence to be
unduly influenced by my understanding of another set of evidence (e.g.: allowing my
understanding of the Gospels to color my interpretation of the archaeological
evidence), this study analyzes each data set individually and without recourse to the
other sources.
Chapter 2 gives a brief description of my approach to the Gospels as sources
for Galilee's social history. Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 examine the presentations of
Galilee in the Q document, the Gospel of Mark, the special Matthean and Lukan
materials, and the Gospels of John and Thomas, respectively. Chapter 7 details
Josephus' portrayal of Galilee, and Chapter 8 evaluates what the archaeological
evidence contributes to our knowledge of the region. Finally, Chapter 9 concludes by
synthesizing the various depictions of Galilee into one overarching reconstruction of
the regions social, political, economic and cultural history.66
I have decided not to use the evidence from the later rabbinic materials because those materials are
simply too far removed from the first-century to provide reliable information about the socio-economic
conditions and religious practices in the first-century C.E. There are two major reasons that the
rabbinic material is considered too unreliable to be a source for the first-century C.E.: 1) The earliest
written rabbinic materials (the Mishnah and Tosefta) are universally regarded as products of the third
century. 2) The traditions attributed to figures from the first and second centuries were subject to
considerable redaction, literary changes, and ideological coloring. For more detailed discussions on the
unreliability of the rabbinic material as a source for the first-century, see: A. A. Halevy, Ha'aggadah
hahistorit-biyographit le'or meqorot yevaniyim velatiniyim (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1965). D.
Ben-Amos, Narrative Forms in the Haggadah: Structural Analysis, vol. 1967 (Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms, 1967). H. A. Fischel, "Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation
of a Chria," in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory ofErwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J.
Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1968). H. A. Fischel, "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman
Rhetoric and Pharisaism," in American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-Centennial
Volume, ed. D. Sinor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969). J. Neusner, Development of a
27
legend; studies on the traditions concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1970). S. Safrai, "Tales
of the Sages in Palestinian Tradition and the Babylonian Talmud," ScrHier 22 (1971). Y. Fraenkel,
"Ma'aseh BeR. Shila," Tarbiz 40 (5731 [70-71]). Y. Fraenkel, "Hermeneutic Problems in the Study of
Aggadic Narrative," Tarbiz 47 (5738 [77-78]). P. SchaTer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des
rabbinischen Judentumes (Leiden: Brill, 1978). W. S. Green, "What's in a Name The Problematic of
Rabbinic 'Biography'," va. Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Pactice, ed. W. S. Green
(Missoula: Scholars, 1978). W. S. Green, "Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic
Tradition," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase (New
York: de Gruyer, 1979). D. Goodblatt, "Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History," in History of
Judaism: The Next Ten Years, ed. B. M. Bokser, Brown Judaic Studies, No. 21 (Chico: Scholars, 1980).
S. Freyne, "The Charismatic," in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E.
Nicklesburg, SBLSCS(Chico: Scholars, 1980). B. M. Bokser, "Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic
Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic
and Roman Period 16, no. 1 (1985). Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant.
CHAPTER 2: MY APPROACH TO THE GOSPEL EVIDENCE
28
29
Perhaps one of the most important advances in the study of the Gospels is the
recognition of the implications that redaction criticism has for the study of the
historical Jesus.67 By examining the relationships between the Gospels, scholars have
come to a general consensus that each Gospel's presentation of Jesus is colored by its
author's own biases.68 For example, most scholars now recognize that there are
significant differences between Matthew's Jesus and John's Jesus, and they rightly
conclude that neither presentation of Jesus is completely historically accurate.
This realization has allowed Biblicists to examine the gospel evidence
critically in order to reconstruct a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus.
Scholars generally apply four basic criteria to the gospel evidence to determine its
historical reliability:70
Three of the pioneering books in redaction criticism of the Gospels are: G. Bomkamm, G. Barth, and
H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, trans. P. Scott (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1963). H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Buswell (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: studies on the redaction history of the Gospel, trans. J. Boyce
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969).
68
The current work assumes Markan priority among the Synoptic Gospels, since Markan priority is
commonly accepted among new testament scholars. For arguments in favor of Markan priority, see: H.
J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung undgeschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig:
Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863). B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924).
69
E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969). E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993).
Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. D. J. Harrington, The
Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991). J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A
Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel of
Matthew, trans. R. R. Barr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew:
Introduction, Translation, and notes, ed. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman, vol. 26, The Anchor Bible
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1971). R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes, ed. D. N. Freedman, vol. 29, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday,
1966). C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text, 2 ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978). F. J. Moloney and D. J.
Harrington, The Gospel ofJohn (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998).
70
For more detailed discussions of these criteria, see: B. D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the
New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 89-101. Crossan, The Historical Jesus:
The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, xxvii-xxxiv. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
30
1. The Criterion of Independent Attestation—information
attested independently by more than one source is considered
to be more reliable.
2. The Criterion of Embarrassment—Whenever an author
relays information that would embarrass that author or at
least go against that author's interests, that information is
treated as more reliable.
3. The Criterion of Contextual Credibility—characteristics
attributed to Jesus that fit well with what we know about his
cultural environment are generally treated as more
historically reliable.
4. The Criterion of Continuity—Those religious ideas that are
characteristic of both Jesus' predecessors and his successors
were probably also characteristic of Jesus himself.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF GALILEE
Just as each Gospel author's biases would have influenced his presentation of
Jesus, these same biases would have also colored each Gospel's presentation of Jesus'
environment. For example, if an author were particularly concerned with portraying
Historical Jesus, ed. D. N. Freedman, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, The Anchor
Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 168-177. S. E. Porter, The Criteria for
Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2000).
31
Jesus as a revolutionary, he would probably feel compelled to emphasize the
oppressive nature of the existing regime against which Jesus stood. Likewise, if an
author wanted to portray Jesus as someone primarily concerned with social justice, it
would be in that author's interest to portray Jesus' environment as economically
oppressive or depressed so that Jesus would have several occasions to expound his
social message.
Scholars who study first-century C.E. Galilee, however, have not properly
accounted for how these biases might have colored the gospel evidence for Galilean
society. I would argue that, in order to use the gospel evidence as a source for
Galilee's social history, modern scholars need to treat this textual evidence more
critically. Therefore my approach to the gospel evidence will employ the same criteria
used by New Testament scholars to evaluate the evidence for the historical Jesus.
Since both the criterion of contextual credibility and the criterion of continuity rely on
both the gospel evidence and data found outside of the Gospels, these criteria will be
dealt with in a later section. The following four chapters will evaluate the gospel
evidence with respect to the criterion of independent attestation and the criterion of
embarrassment.
Scholars generally agree that there are six groups of gospel material that may
contain information about Galilee: Q, Mark, M, L, John, and Thomas. The following
four chapters will outline the presentations of Galilee in the various gospel sources.
Chapters three and four will examine the two earliest Gospels: Q and Mark,
respectively. Chapter five will survey the evidence from M and L, which were
32
probably both written at least a decade after Q and Mark. Chapter six will consider
the evidence from the Gospels of John and Thomas, both of which are significantly
later than the Synoptic Materials and both of which contain significant Gnostic or
proto-Gnostic tendencies.
CHAPTER 3; GALILEE ACCORDING TO O
33
34
Q.
ABOUT THE GOSPEL
Although some scholars have tried to argue that certain passages found only in
Luke or only in Matthew were originally part of Q, I am uncomfortable with such
claims. Because Q is a theoretical document without any overarching narrative
structure or plot and because the individual sayings in question are too short to
demonstrate that they fit Q's style, it is very difficult to determine whether or not a
given saying was part of the document.71 In fact, if we were missing either Matthew
or Luke, it is doubtful that we would have ever detected the existence of a distinct
body of Q material.
Because I am not treating M or L material as independent from Mark and Q, I
think it is safest to employ a narrow definition of Q and a broad definition of M and L.
Therefore, I consider Q material to be only whatever non-Markan material is common
to Matthew and Luke. By this definition, Q material is:
Luke 3:7-9 (Matt 3:7-10); Luke 3:16-17 (Matt 3:11-12); Luke

4:1-13 (Matt 4:1-7, 9-1 la, 13); Luke 6:20-23 (Matt 5:3-4, 6,
11-12); Luke 6:27-36 (Matt 5:39-42, 44-48; 7:5, 12); Luke
6:37-38a (Matt 7:l-2a); Luke 6:39-40 (Matt 15:14; 10:24-25);
Luke 6:41-42 (Matt 7:3-5); Luke 6:43-45 (Matt 7:16-20; 12:33-
35); Luke 6:46-49 (Matt 7:21, 24-27); Luke 7:1-10 (Matt 8:5-
10, 13); Luke 7:18-20, 22-23 (Matt 11:2-6); Luke 7:24-28
(Matt 11:7-11); Luke 7:31-35 (Matt 11:16-19); Luke 9:57-60
(Matt 8:19-22); Luke 10:2-7, 9-10, 12 (Matt 9:37-38; 10:7-8,
71
Although there are reasons to believe that the original text of Q was structured in a coherent way, the
text rarely contains narrative elements and is best described as a sayings collection.
35
12-13, 15-16); Luke 10:13-15 (Matt 11:21-23); Luke 10:16
(Matt 10:40); Luke 10:21-22 (Matt 11:25-27); Luke 10:23-24
(Matt 7:7-11); Luke 11:14, 19-20, 23 (Matt 12:22, 27-28, 30);
Luke 11:24-26 (Matt 12:43-45); Luke 11:29-32 (Matt 12:39-
42); Luke 11:34-35 (Matt 6:22-23); Luke 11:39-41 (Matt
23:25-26); Luke 11:42 (Matt 23:23); Luke 11:44 (Matt 23:27);
Luke 11:46 (Matt 23:4); Luke 11:47-48 (Matt 23:29-32); Luke
11:49-51 (Matt 23:34-36); Luke 11:52 (Matt 23:13); Luke
12:2-3 (Matt 10:27); Luke 12:4-7 (Matt 10:28-31); Luke 12:8-9
(Matt 24:45-51); Luke 12:51-53 (Matt 10:34-36); Luke 12:54-
56 (Matt 16:2-3); Luke 12:57-59 (Matt 5:25-26); Luke 13:20-
21 (Matt 13:33); Luke 13:24, 26-27 (Matt 7:13-14, 22-23);
Luke 13:28-29 (Matt 8:11-12); Luke 13:34-35 (Matt 23:37-39);
Luke 14:11, 18:14 (Matt 23:12); Luke 14:16-24 (Matt 22:1-
10); Luke 14:26-27 (Matt 10:37-38); Luke 15:4-5, 7 (Matt
18:12-13); Luke 16:13 (Matt 6:24); Luke 16:16 (Matt 11:12-
13); Luke 16:17 (Matt 5:18); Luke 17:1 (Matt 18:7); Luke
17:3-4 (Matt 18:15, 21-22); Luke 17:6 (Matt 17:20); Luke
17:23-24, 26-27, 30, 34-35, 37 (Matt 24:26-28, 37, 39-41);
Luke 19:12-26 (Matt 25:14-30); Luke 22:28-30 (Matt 19:28).
Currently, a sizable majority of scholars studying Early Roman Galilee believe
that Q was written in Galilee and consider the document to be a firsthand account of
daily life in that region72 As a result, most contemporary New Testament scholars
regard Q as the most important source for first-century C.E. Galilee. This view has
become so influential that much of the recent Q scholarship simply assumes—without
argument—a Galilean provenance for Q.73 While it is true that a tentative case can be
Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. J. S. Kloppenborg
Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). M.
J. Borg, "The Palestinian Background for a Life of Jesus," in The Search for Jesus, ed. H. Shanks
(Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994).
73
A good example of this is D. C. J. Allison, The Jesus Tradition In Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1997).
36
made that Q was composed in Galilee, the evidence is not as conclusive as many New
Testament scholars now claim.
If Q were written in first-century C.E. Galilee, it would, of course, be an
invaluable source for understanding the region. If, however, Q were written
somewhere outside Galilee, then the document's evidence for Galilean life should be
considered no more reliable than the evidence found in the other gospel sources. It is
therefore necessary to assess the evidence that Q was written in Galilee before
deciding if it is legitimate to treat Q as the most reliable gospel source for Galilean
life.
ARGUMENTS THAT O IS OF GALILEAN ORIGIN
Researchers have offered a number of arguments for situating Q in Galilee, but
the following three arguments have gained widespread acceptance among Q scholars:
1. The geographic references in Q provide a "social map" that
reflects a Galilean geographic perspective.
2. Q's suspicion of urban institutions reflects the rapid
urbanization that took place in first-century C.E. Galilee.
3. Q's use of the term 'lapccr|A instead of 'louSaios reflects a
uniquely Galilean taxonomy.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 178-179.
37
4. Q does not mention some of the major problems Jews faced in
Gentile cities
The first and most powerful of these arguments was developed by Jonathan
Reed in his book Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus15 Reed's argument is that,
although Q rarely situates Jesus' actions and sayings in a specific location, the place
names mentioned in the sayings source create a "social map" that reflects a Galilean
geographic perspective. Reed believes that eight of the nine place names mentioned in
Q provide clues that Q's authors lived in northern Galilee along the northern coast of
the Sea of Galilee.76 According to Reed, these eight place names form a series of
three concentric circles around the Q community's own location in Galilee. The cities
that make up these three circles are as follows:
1. Chorazin (Luke 10:13), Bethsaida (Luke 10:13),
Capernaum (Luke 7:1; 10:13)
2. Tyre (Luke 10:13, 14), Sidon (Luke 10:13, 14), Jerusalem
(Luke 4:9; 13:34)
3. Sodom (Luke 10:12; 17:29), Nineveh (Luke 10:32)
Reed observes that the three cities in the first circle were all within two miles of one
another, and that all three cities were relatively unimportant in the first-century C.E.
Chorazin, for example, is not mentioned in any first-century documents, and
Ibid. Cf. Reed's doctoral dissertation: J. L. Reed, "Places in Early Christianity: Galilee, Archaeology,
Urbanisation, and Q" (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1994).
The one place name that Reed does not include in this social map is Nazareth.
38
Capernaum and Bethsaida are mentioned only rarely77 Reed finds it unlikely that a
person living outside of Galilee would have had the geographic knowledge to list three
obscure Galilean cities that were so close to one another.78 Instead, he argues that
these cities were probably part of the authors' immediate surroundings. Reed
supposes that the Q community had been in conflict with the inhabitants of these cities
and that Q's woes against these cities were designed to shame the authors' opponents.
Unlike the cities that make up the first circle, the cities in the second circles
were powerful cities in the region which exerted considerable economic and cultural
influence over Galilee. Reed believes Q's attitude toward these cities in the second
circle is one of disinterest. The sayings source only mentions Jerusalem twice: once
while Satan is tempting Jesus (Luke 4:9), and once during Jesus' lament that
Jerusalem will become desolate because it kills God's prophets (Luke 13:34-35).79
Moreover, Q mentions the other two cities, Tyre and Sidon, for the sole purpose of
juxtaposing them with the Galilean villages in the first circle, Bethsaida and Chorazin.
Although the first two circles sketch the geographic boundaries of Q's social
environment, Reed argues that the two cities in the third circle had no political or
economic importance to the members of the Q community. Instead, the references to
these two cities are historical and almost mythical. Sodom and Nineveh were two
distant cities that had suffered God's wrath because the inhabitants were disobedient.
Q invokes these cities as examples of the fate that the current generation will receive
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 183.
78
Ibid., 184.
79
Ibid., 187-189.
39
as punishment for its unbelief. In fact, Q maintains that both Sodom and Nineveh
fared better than will the cities which have rejected Jesus' message. Although Reed
believes that Sodom must have held an important place in the Q community's
imagination, he does not believe that Q's references to Sodom reveal anything about
Q's provenance. He does, however, believe that Q's reference to Nineveh is
significant. Reed argues that Q's allusion to Nineveh and Jonah would have been
more appropriate in Galilee where the locals venerated Jonah's tomb at Gath-
Hepher.80
Reed's argument that Q's geographic references sketch the Q community's
"social map" is not compelling because it does not demonstrate that the geographic
references in Q focus more on Galilee than do the references found in other Gospels
written in the Diaspora. Bethsaida and Capernaum are also mentioned throughout the
non-Q sections of the Gospels, and it seems likely that both cities were well known in
a variety of Christian communities. Although Chorazin is not mentioned in any other
first-century C.E. texts one obscure geographic reference does not mean that Q had to
have been written in Galilee. The Gospel of Mark, for example, contains an equally
obscure reference to the town of Dalmanutha which is supposed to be very close to the
city of Magdala, and most scholars would reject a Galilean provenance for Mark.81
Furthermore, Reed's contention that Q's geographic references imply a
Galilean provenance for the document ignores the fact that the main character in Q is a
80
Ibid.
J. Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. N. Freedman,
vol. 27, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 35-36. B. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark:
A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 20-31.
40
Galilean. It makes sense that the geographic references would be focused on the main
character's own environment.
Jonathan Reed also developed the second major argument for situating Q in
Galilee. This second argument claims that Q conveys a suspicion of urban institutions
that seems to reflect the cultural environment of first-century Galilee. He argues that
Q's authors convey their suspicions of two particular urban institutions: markets (Luke
7:31) and courts (Luke 6:27-36; 12:57-9). Q's attitude toward these institutions
suggests to Reed that Q's authors were city-dwellers who had become uncomfortable
with urban life. Since Galilee underwent such a rapid process of urbanization, Reed
argues that the most likely environment to produce Q's anti-urban sentiments was
Galilee.
Although Reed is correct in pointing out Q's unease with urban institutions,
this sentiment was not unique to Galilee. Anti-urban sentiment was a constant feature
of the ancient world. The classic tension between center and periphery often bred
dissatisfaction with urbanization. Paul for example expresses the same suspicion of
courts, but he does so while writing to a Greek audience (1 Corinthians 5). Therefore,
while Q's opinion of urban institutions may reveal something significant about the
text's authors, it does not suggest a specific location for the composition of Q.
The third argument that Q is of Galilean origin was first articulated by Richard
A. Horsley. According to Horsley, the fact that Q uses the term lapocr)A instead of
83
Freyne, "Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary
Sources," 76-78.
41
louSouos suggests that the authors distinguished themselves from the inhabitants of
Judea (strict sense).84 Horsley argues that the Q community was attempting to
reconstitute the pre-exilic Northern Kingdom of Israel.85 He believes that the
inhabitants of first-century Galilee were the literal descendents of pre-exilic Northern
Israelite Villagers. Horsley contends that the Galileans maintained the distinction
between Israel and Judah after the Jews conquered Galilee in the second-century
B.C.E.
A number of New Testament scholars, such as Jonathan Reed, have accepted a
modified version of Horsley's argument. This version of the argument maintains that,
although the Galileans were not the literal descendants of the pre-exilic Northern
Israelites, the members of the Q community imagined themselves as the spiritual heirs
of the inhabitants of the northern kingdom. For scholars who accept this modified
version of Horsley's argument, Q's use of the term "Israel" was part of a new
taxonomy that reflected the Q community's rejection of its ties with Judea (strict
sense).86
This argument that Q's use of the term lopar|A was something unique is
simply uninformed. In fact, Jews from this period usually referred to themselves as
'lapaqA and not as 'louScuoi. Although Gentiles generally referred to Jews as
84
"'louSccTos" only appears once in Q (Luke 7:3).
178-185.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 58-60.
42
louSoctot, Jews appear to have used this term only in their interaction with Gentiles.
It is interesting to note that the three Synoptic Gospels use these terms in precisely this
way. In fact, the one time that the word 'louScuoi appears in Q it is contained in a
message from Q's lone Gentile character: the faithful centurion (Luke 7:3).
The fourth argument—that Q's failure to mention important problems Jews
faced in Gentile cities suggests a Judean (broad sense) origin for the document—
ignores the fact that Q is set in Judea (broad sense).88 One should not expect a
narrative set in Judea (broad sense) to make overt references to the everyday problems
of Diaspora Jews.
A NEW APPROACH TO O
In short, the evidence for Q's Galilean origin appears to be inadequate.
Therefore, I would like to propose a new approach for determining Q's Sitz im Leben.
Specifically, I would like to propose five indicators of Q's cultural environment that
may help determine Q's provenance. These five indicators are as follows:
1. Q's Original language
2. Q's Attitude toward the Torah
3. Q's Attitude toward Gentiles
4. The Environments that produced Matthew and Luke
87
"'lopar]A," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley,
Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968).
8
43
5. Parallels between Q and other first-century Christian texts
Some of these indicators may provide more useful information about Q'sSitz im
Leben than others, but a thorough examination of each indicator does provide some
meaningful insight about Q's audience or authors.
The first indication of Q's provenance, Q's original language, has been the
subject of intense debate for over one hundred years. The theory that Q was originally
composed in Aramaic has had its proponents since the nineteenth century. In fact,
many nineteenth and a few twentieth century New Testament scholars have assumed
that, since Aramaic was the common language of Jesus and his early followers, most
of the gospel material must have been based on original Aramaic traditions.89 In the
case of Q, however, nineteenth century scholars found additional evidence that the
original Q document had been composed in Aramaic. The first piece of evidence
came from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius quotes a second-century
document written by Papias which states that, "Matthew wrote the oracles [of Jesus] in
the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able" (Hist. Eccl.
3.39.16). Many scholars argued that the oracles (lit: "logia") that Matthew recorded
compose what we now consider to be Q, and that Papias preserved a tradition that
these oracles were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. The second piece of
evidence these scholars found for an Aramaic Q is that Q's Greek has a highly Semitic
For a more detailed discussion of these theories about Aramaic gospel traditions, see H. O. Guenther,
"The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for Aramaic Sources: Rethinking Christian Origins," Semeia 55
(1992): 41-76.
44
feel. Several scholars have argued that such Semitized Greek strongly suggests that
Q's Greek is a translation of an original Aramaic text.
Although the Aramaic Q theory is tantalizing, modern scholars have reached a
near-consensus that Q's original language was Greek. This is because the agreement
in wording between Matthew and Luke's Q material is far too close for them to have
been relying upon a common Aramaic source.90 Frequently, the agreement between
Matthew and Luke is verbatim. This high level of agreement strongly suggests that
Matthew and Luke relied on a common Greek text of Q. Although some have tried to
argue that Matthew and Luke could have relied upon a common Greek translation of
an original Aramaic Q, there is little evidence to support such a claim.91
Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to assume that Q was written in
Aramaic. Q's Semitic style of Greek is not unique; most Greek literature written by
Jews in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods have this same Semitic style.92 In
fact, many of the books in the New Testament are written in this Highly Semitized
Greek. Much of this Semitic style may be attributed either to the heavy influence of
the LXX's style or to the fact that many Jewish and Christian communities at this time
Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel, 73-7'4. J. S.
Kloppenborg, The Formation ofQ: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1987), 51-65. Guenther, "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for Aramaic Sources: Rethinking
Christian Origins," 50. Contra: Allison, The Jesus Tradition In Q, 47-49.
Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, 51-65. Guenther,
"The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for Aramaic Sources: Rethinking Christian Origins," 52. Contra:
M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts; with an Appendix on the Son ofMan, 3rd ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967).
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes, ed. D. N.
Freedman, vol. 28A, The Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981), 109-125. L. T. Johnson, The
Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. N. Freedman, vol. 37A,
The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 7-10.
45
were bilingual. Since texts such as Luke-Acts and The Epistle of James, which most
scholars believe were written in Greek, are filled with Semitisms, modern scholars
have little reason to assume that the Greek text of Q is based on an Aramaic original.
The conclusion that Q's original language is Greek provides a significant piece
of evidence that Q is not of Galilean origin. In his recent survey of the archaeological
evidence for first-century Galilee, Mark Chancey notes that we have very little
epigraphic evidence for the use of Greek in first-century Galilee.94 The surviving
literary evidence suggests that Aramaic was the dominant language of first-century
Galilee,95 and that only the ruling class would have had a sufficient knowledge of
Greek to understand a document such as Q. Since it is almost certain that the majority
of Q's audience was from the lower class, it is unlikely that Q's intended audience
lived in Galilee. Rather, it is probable that Q was written for a largely Greek speaking
population.
A second important indicator of Q's Sitz im Leben is the document's attitude
toward the Torah. The Q document discusses the Jewish law on three separate
occasions. The first occasion is in Luke 16:16-17, where Q's Jesus explicitly affirms
the Torah's validity. Q's second discussion of Jewish law occurs during one of Jesus'
criticisms of the Pharisees (Luke 11:37-52). Unlike Mark's condemnations of the
Pharisees, which usually focus on the Pharisees' overly strict observance of the Torah,
Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees in Q focuses on their hypocrisy. The third and final
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. See also: Meyers and Chancey, "How Jewish Was
Sepphoris in Jesus' Time?"
J. A. Fitzmyer,^4 Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Esssays (Chico: Scholars, 1979), 32-34.
time that Q refers to the Torah is in Luke 14:1-6, where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of
violating the Sabbath. In the Markan Sabbath conflict, Jesus purposefully violates the
Sabbath and claims that he is "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). In Q's Sabbath
conflict, however, Jesus is healing on the Sabbath, and the Jewish officials in this
story appear to accept Jesus' halakhic argument.
In all of these stories, Jesus appears to accept the Torah as valid. This is
important because it positions the Q community on one side of a contentious issue,
first and second-century Christians were deeply divided over whether to recognize the
validity of the Torah. Even the Synoptic Gospels differ in their opinions about the
Jewish Law. For the most part, Jewish Christians had a positive attitude toward the
Torah while Gentile Christians had a negative one. It seems reasonable, therefore, to
assume that Q's positive opinion of the Jewish law suggests that Q was composed for
a community of Jewish Christians who were Torah observant.
Like early Christian attitudes toward the Torah, first-century Christian
opinions of the Gentile mission varied greatly. Acts and Galatians make it clear that
early Jewish Christians had strong feelings on both sides of this issue.96 Moreover,
Matthew and Luke have quite different takes on the Gentile mission. Luke, himself a
Gentile, wholeheartedly supports the Mission, and even goes so far as to claim in Acts
13:46-7 that God has rejected the Jews as "unworthy of eternal life." Matthew, on the
other hand, appears to be uncomfortable with the Gentile mission since he adds a
stipulation to the beginning of Q's mission charge forbidding the disciples from
96
Acts 15; Galatians 2.
47
entering Gentile and Samaritan towns. Since Matthew and Luke have such different
opinions of Gentiles, any statement about Gentiles that is preserved by both authors
would prove to be strong evidence for Q's own ethnic attitudes.
The subject of Gentiles (s'0vri) only appears twice in Q. The first mention of a
Gentile in Q occurs in Luke 7 where Jesus heals a centurion's son because the
centurion had so much faith. Although this centurion is probably not a Roman soldier,
but a member of Antipas' military, Q makes it clear that the centurion is a Gentile.98
After noting the soldier's faith, Jesus exclaims that, "not even in Israel have I found
such faith."99 The fact that Q portrays this Gentile as being more faithful than all of
Israel is a strong indication that Q supported the Gentile mission. Q's second
reference to Gentiles, however, portrays Gentiles in a somewhat negative light. In
Luke 12:30, after Jesus has finished commanding his followers not to worry about
their material needs, he says, "For it is the nations (e'8vr|) of the world that strive after
all these things, and your Father knows that you need them." Although some have
taken this saying as evidence that Q's authors had a negative opinion of Gentiles, the
Q community would probably have considered this to be a simple statement of fact—
the nations of the world were concerned with having sufficient food, clothing, and
drink. However, this characterization of Gentiles as being too focused on this world
97
Matthew 10:5-6. The reader should note that it is possible that Matthew 10:5-6 could have belonged
to Q and simply been omitted by Luke. In fact, Luke did remove certain anti-Gentile remarks from his
Markan material such as Jesus' comparison of Gentiles to unworthy dogs in Mark 7:24-30.
"Luke 7:9 reads, "As'yco u|iiv, OU5E sv TCO ' lapctf]A ToaauTnv TTIOTIV slipov." Matthew's wording
in 8:10 is almost identical: " 'Aufjv As'yco uufv, rrap' ou5sv\ ToaauTriv TTIOTIV EV TCO ' lapar|A
Eiipov."
48
should not be taken as evidence that Q's authors rejected the Gentile mission since Q
criticizes many other groups for being too worldly (Luke 11:39-52). Moreover, we
would expect any Jewish writer of this period—even a Jewish Christian who
supported the Gentile mission—to have a tendency to characterize "the nations" as
impious in some way. Even Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles," makes statements that
could be considered derogatory toward Gentiles.100 Therefore, Q's characterization of
"the nations" as being too worldly cannot be construed as a sign that Q's authors
rejected the Gentile mission.
The most natural conclusion to draw from the textual evidence is that, although
Q's authors were Jewish Christians, they supported the mission to the Gentiles. Such
a conclusion lessens the likelihood that Q's authors lived in Galilee since it appears
that first-century Galilee did not have a significant Gentile population.101 A more
likely Sitz im Leben for the Q community would be Syria since we know that first-
century Syrian cities, such as Antioch, had both large Jewish Christian and Gentile
Christian communities.102 In fact, it was in Antioch that Paul found himself in the
middle of a fierce debate with Peter over whether Jewish Christians should be allowed
to eat with their Gentile coreligionists (Galatians 2:11-21). Furthermore, the book of
Acts also treats the problem of Gentile Christians as a specifically Syrian problem.103
100
Take for example, Paul's statement in Galatians 2:15: "' H|JETS <t>uasi 'louSaToi Kai OUK si; E0VCOV
apapTcoAoi,"
101
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 174-5.
A. J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1994), 11. D. Sim, The Gospel ofMatthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the
Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 10-11.
See my discussion on Luke-Acts below.
49
Although there is nothing in the text of Q to indicate a specifically Antiochene
provenance, the cultural setting of Syrian cities like Antioch appear to provide the
most appropriate cultural environment for the formation of Q's ideas.
Aside from the textual evidence in Q that indicates a Syrian provenance for the
sayings source, there is external evidence which also suggests that the Q community
lived in Syria. Perhaps the strongest evidence for a Syrian origin comes from our
knowledge about Matthew and Luke's own cultural environments. Since Q has not
survived, and since most New Testament texts appear to be unfamiliar with Q and its
traditions, it is likely that Q had a limited circulation before it was lost. The fact that
both Matthew and Luke reproduce over 200 verses of Q material is significant because
the two Gospels have fundamentally different religious and cultural attitudes. Clearly,
however, the authors of these two Gospels must have had something substantial in
common for both of them to include so much material from both Mark and Q.
Whatever it is that Matthew and Luke's cultural environments have in common, this
common environmental factor may reveal something about Q's own provenance.
As I will argue in chapter four, Matthew was most likely composed somewhere
in Syria, probably in one of the Jewish-Christian communities of that region. I will
also argued that there is sufficient evidence in Luke-Acts to conclude that the author
of Luke either composed his Gospel in Antioch or at least spent a significant amount
of time conducting research in that city. The fact that both Gospels which use Q as a
source have a strong connection to the region of Syria suggests that Syria was the most
likely place for each author to have encountered the Q material. While this does not
50
necessarily mean that Q must have been written in Syria, it certainly makes a Syrian
provenance more likely. Had Q been composed and circulated in the vicinity of
Antioch, it is easy to see how Q material could have wound up in Matthew and Luke
without being incorporated into other Gospels such as Mark and John.
The fifth and final indicator of Q's provenance is the existence of parallels
between Q and other early Christian texts. Various scholars have argued that
significant parallels exist between Q and five other first-century Christian texts: The
Gospel of Mark, 1 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, The Didache of the Twelve, and The
Gospel of Thomas. Assuming that these parallels are valid, they may suggest that the
authors of these five texts either had a source in common with Q or relied upon Q
material. Either way, the existence of parallels between Q and any of these texts
might offer additional insight about Q's cultural setting.
Surprisingly, a number of New Testament scholars argue that significant
parallels exist between Mark and Q and that these parallels suggest that Mark and Q
relied upon a common tradition—or even that one relied upon the other. I would
argue that any attempt to determine a relationship between Mark and Q is doomed
from the outset. Q, by definition, is non-Markan material common to Matthew and
Luke. Since both Matthew and Luke—the only documents that have preserved Q—
M. Devisch, "La relation entre l'evangile de Marc et le document Q," in L'evangile selon Marc:
Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe (Gembloux: Duculot, 1974). P. Vasiliadis, "Prolegomena to a
Discussion on the Relationship Between Mark and Q," Deltion BiblikonMeleton 3 (1975). C. M.
Tuckett, "Mark and Q," in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed.
C. Focant (Leuven: Peeters, 1993). H. T. Fledderman, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, BETL
122 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1995). H. T. Fledderman, Q: A Reconstruction And
Commentary (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 180-183.
51
base their Gospels on the Markan narrative, the simplest assumption is that all
agreements between Mark and Matthew and Luke are due to the latter Gospels'
reliance upon Mark. Since both Matthew and Luke retain Mark's basic narrative
structure, and since they frequently insert identical Q material in the same general
points of the Markan narrative it is also possible that Matthew and Luke both
harmonized some of the Q material to fit into Mark's storyline. Therefore, I do not
believe that the alleged parallels between Mark and Q can provide modern researchers
with any new insights about Q's provenance.105
Other scholars, such as Dale C. Allison, Jr., have argued that 1 Corinthians and
1 Thessalonians share common source material with Q.106 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, for
example, echoes Q's prohibition of divorce (Luke 16:18), and in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-
6, Paul appears to be aware of Jesus' parable about the thief in the night Luke 12:39-
46. Although these parallels are intriguing, they are not as significant as Allison seems
to believe. The prohibition of divorce also occurs in the Gospel of Mark and it
appears that this tradition was widely known throughout the early Christian
communities. Furthermore, although 1 Thessalonians uses much of the same imagery
as Q's parable about the thief in the night, Paul's wording is thoroughly different from
Even if scholars could confidently assert that parallels exist between Mark and Q, modem
researchers know so little about Mark's Sitz im Leben that these parallels would not contribute much to
our understanding of Q's provenance. Most scholars, however, agree that Mark is not of Judean (broad
sense) origin.
106
Allison, The Jesus Tradition In Q, 54-60. Allison claims that even more parallels exist between
Paul's letters and the Q Document, but these parallels are even less convincing than the ones I discuss
in this paper.
52
Q's. It is therefore unlikely that Paul had access to the Q document or any of its
sources.
One first-century Christian text that does contain significant parallels to Q is
the Didache of the Twelve. Specifically, the Didache has strong parallels with three
sections of Q material. The beginning of the Didache (1.2-4) includes virtually all of
Jesus' sayings in Luke 6:27-32. These include Jesus' famous remarks about turning
the other cheek, loving your enemies, etc. In the second parallel between the two
texts, Didache 1.5 appears to be quoting Jesus' saying in Luke 12:59. The third and
most striking parallel between Q and the Didache occurs in Didache 8.2 which quotes
the Lord's prayer practically verbatim.
Unfortunately, the Didache's date of composition is unknown. Some scholars
date this text to the mid first-century while others date it to the early second-
century.107 Since scholars disagree about the dating of the Didache, it is not possible
to tell whether the text is quoting Q or Matthew.108 Whenever the Didache was
J. Quasten, Patrology, vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster: Newman, 1950).
J. P. Audet, La didache (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1958). B. Layton, "The Sources, Date, and Transmission of
Didache 1.3b-2.1,"/f77?61,no. 3 (1968). Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 123-
139. Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 55. H. W. M. Van de
Sandt, H. Van de Sandt, and D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early
Judaism and Christianity (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002), 48-52. A. Milavec, Didache: Text,
Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), ix-x.
108
J. A. Draper, "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache," in Gospel Perspectives V, ed. D. Wenham
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 269. Since the Didache's wording is closer to Matthew's wording than
Luke's, and since Matthew and the Didache both came from Jewish Christian communities, scholars
who date the Didache to the second-century tend to assume that it is quoting Matthew's gospel.
53
written, most scholars agree that the book was composed in Syria or Asia Minor since
the text's circulation seems to have been limited to these areas.
Finally, the most significant parallels that Q has with any text outside of the
Synoptic Gospels are its parallels with the Gospel of Thomas. A conservative
counting of the parallels between these two texts yields 56 similar sayings (Appendix
2).110 In other words, more than 25% of the Q sayings can also be found in the Gospel
of Thomas. The reader should note that the level of similarity between the Q and
Thomas sayings varies quite a bit from verse to verse. Some sayings have an almost
word-for-word correspondence, while others convey the same specific idea in
completely different words. The following three examples give a good idea of the
various levels of correspondence:
Luke 7:28 Gos. Thom. 46

I tell you, among those bom of women no Jesus said, "Among those bom of women, from
one is greater than John; yet the least in the Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so
kingdom of God is greater than he. superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should
no be lowered (before him). Yet I have said,
whichever one of you comes to be a child will
be acquainted with the kingdom and will be
superior to John."
Luke 9:58 Gos. Thom. 86

And Jesus said to him, 'Foxes have holes, Jesus said, ["The foxes have their holes] and
and birds of the air have nests; but the Son birds have their nests, but the son of man has no
of Man has nowhere to lay his head. place to lay his head and rest."
Luke 12:3 Gos. Thom. 33.1

Therefore whatever you have said in the Jesus said, "preach from the housetops that
R. D. Richardson, "Eastern and Western Liturgies: The Primitive Basis of Their Later Differences: A
Note for the Study of Eucharistic Origins," HTR 42, no. 2 (1949): 137-138. Van de Sandt, Van de
Sandt, and Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity,
48-52.
110
The international Q project provides a longer list of parallels in its edition of Q. See J. M. Robinson,
P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition ofQ, Hermenia Supplement (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2000), lxxviii-lxxviii.
54
dark will be heard in the light, and what which you have heard in your ear.
you have whispered (Greek has: "in the
ear") behind closed doors will be
proclaimed from the housetops.
Because Thomas' wording in these sayings is so different from Q's most scholars do
not believe that Thomas used Q or any other known Gospel as a source. Instead, it
seems likely that the Gospel of Thomas, which probably dates to the first-century,
drew from many of the same traditions as the Q community.111 The nature of the
parallels between these two texts leads some Thomas experts to conclude that Q and
the Gospel of Thomas are independent of each other but still closely related.
There is a general scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Thomas was
composed in Syria.113 The relationship between Thomas and the Q material suggests
that the two works might have come out of the same milieu. Thomas' Syrian
provenance, therefore suggests that Q may have been composed in Syria as well.
REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT O
111
H. Koester, "Introduction to "The Gospel of Thomas"," in The NagHammadi Library, ed. J. M.
Robinson (San Fransisco: Harper, 1990), 124-126. Some of the more conservative scholars date the
Gospel of Thomas to the mid second-century, but even these scholars admit that the gospel may date
back to the first-century in its earliest form. See B. Blatz, "The Coptic Gospel of Thomas," in New
Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 112-113.
Contra: Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 123-139.
112
Koester, "Introduction to "The Gospel of Thomas"," 124-126. Blatz, "The Coptic Gospel of
Thomas," 112-113.
S. L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983), 18. H.
Koester, "Introduction," in Nag Hammadi codex II, 2-7, ed. B. Layton (New York: Brill, 1989).
55
Despite the limited nature of our evidence for Q's cultural environment, the
above discussion does provide enough information to postulate five reasonably certain
"facts" about Q, its author(s), and its audience:
1. Q was composed some time between 40 and 70 C.E.
2. The author wrote in Greek for a Greek-speaking audience
3. The author was Jewish
4. The author was Torah observant
5. Q was being circulated in Syria by the end of the first-century
Although none of these conclusions demands that scholars reject Galilee as the Sitz im
Leben for Q, the second conclusion makes a Galilean provenance unlikely. Instead,
the evidence suggests that western Syria is the most likely place for Q to have been
composed.114
By arguing for a Syrian provenance, I do not mean to imply that Q does not
preserve any accurate information about life in first-century Galilee. I am simply
arguing that scholars should exercise considerable caution whenever they attempt to
use evidence from Q to reconstruct the social situation in first-century Galilee. In fact,
scholars should employ the same level of circumspection as they do when using
evidence from Q as they would when using evidence from other New Testament
114
Although Syria was relatively close to Galilee, western Syria (especially Antioch) is sufficiently far
away from Galilee for the two regions to have distinct cultural environments—especially since Jews
and Christians living in Syria were basically living in a pagan society. The reader should note that none
of the evidence presented here is strong enough to conclusively rule out a Galilean provenance for Q.
However, the fact that Syria appears to be a more likely place of origin than Galilee is enough to
conclude that it is inappropriate for scholars to assume a Galilean provenance for the document or to
use Q as first-hand evidence for life in Galilee.
56
sources. It is time to develop new theories about Galilean social life which are not so
reliant upon Q.
GALILLE ACCORDING TO O
O'S LITERARY SETTING
Like Thomas, Q lacks a general narrative framework and rarely locates its
pericopes geographically. However, since the few geographic references in Q seem to
imply that most of Jesus' ministry took place in Galilee, it makes sense to assume that,
unless the text says otherwise, the intended setting of Q material is Galilee.
ECONOMICS
Q contains three indications that its author assumed Galilee's economy to be
monetized. The first is in Jesus' famous saying about not worrying in which he
compares the worth of a bird to the worth of sparrows. In the Lukan version (Luke
12:6), Jesus asks, "oux'i TTSVTS axpouGia TTCDAOUVTOCI aaaapicov 5uo;" In the
Matthean version (Matthew 10:29), he says, "ouxi 5uo crrpou9ia aaaapiou
TrcoAsTxai;" In both cases, the "worth" of a sparrow is given in monetary terms, and
U5
Luke 7:1-10 (Matthew 8:5-13); Luke 10:13-15 (Matt 11:21-23). Reed, Archaeology and the
Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence.
57
this suggests that Jesus' audience was sufficiently immersed in a monetized economy
to know the going rate of sparrows.
The second indicator of monetization occurs in Jesus' warning about avoiding
lawsuits. In the Lukan version (Luke 12:59), Jesus says, "Asyco 001, ou pr) s£sA9r|s-
EKSISSV icos KCU TO soxaxov ASTTTOV CXTTOSCOS.'' In the Matthean version (Matthew
5:26), he says, "ayfiv Asyco aoi, ou [\T] s£sA0r]s- IKE'ISEV scos otv OCTTOSCOS TOV
saxaxov Ko5pavTT|V." The mention of Roman coin denominations in both version of
the saying implies that the author of Q thought Jesus lived in a monetized economy.
The third indication of a monetized economy in Q is in the Parable of the
Talents, which not only assumes a monetized economy, but also mentions banking and
lending money at interest.116
The author of Q portrays Jesus as someone who sees wealth as corrupting, but
it is not clear to what extent this view is supposed by the author to have been shared
by other first-century Galileans.117 The fact that Q's Jesus also implores people not to
be concerned about finding enough to eat, drink, or wear suggests that Jesus' criticism
of wealth in Q is part of a larger criticism of worldly things in general and probably
does not indicate an unusually intense resentment of the wealthy among poorer
Galileans.118
Luke 19:12-26 and Matthew 25:14-30. Each version uses a both word for the specific amount of
money—"|_ivcc" i n Luke 19:16, 18, 24, and 25; "TOCACCVTCC" in Matthew 25:15, 16, 20, 22, and 28—and
a general term for money—" apyupiov" is used in both versions (Luke 19:23 and Matthew 25:27).
H7
Luke 16:13 (Matthew6:24) and Luke 12:33-24 (Matthew 6:19-21). Jesus also mentions wealth
without condemning it two times in Q (Luke6:45 [Matthew 12:35] and Luke 19:12-26 [Matthew 25:14-
30]), but wealth is a metaphor for something else in both of these cases.
118
Luke 12:22-31 (Matthew 6:25-33)
58
Both the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Overseer appear to
reflect fear of the upper class on the part of average Galileans. Both parables
mention acts of violence by elite figures against their slaves, and the Parable of the
Talents specifically refers to the nobleman/master as a "harsh" man who reaps what he
does not sow.120 The fact that Jesus portrays these rich men as harsh figures who
represent God's wrath suggests that members of Jesus' probably considered members
of the upper class to be intimidating figures. This attitude, however, would have been
typical in any ancient community. The reader should note that the parable does not
imply popular resentment of the upper class and that both wealthy figures are
portrayed as just.
There is, however, one malicious powerful figure in the Parable of the
Overseer—the second hypothetical overseer who abuses the other slaves. Although
the parable ponders both just and unjust activities on the part of the overseer, the fact
that the overseer is probably meant as a metaphor for all who abuse earthly power
suggests that whoever composed the parable probably expected his audience to feel
uneasy about the power wielded by the overseer. Moreover, a negative portrayal of
members of the retainer class and the power they wield is found elsewhere in the Q
material.121 Q's Jesus also has negative things to say about judges and tax
119
Luke 19:12-26 (Matthew 25:14-30), Luke 12:42-46 (Matthew 24:45-51)
120
"Harsh" = "aucrrripos" in Luke 19:21; "axAripos" in Matthew 25:24
121
Lenski, 243. According to Lenski's classic definition, the retainer class includes the "small army of
officials, professional soldiers, household servants, and personal retainers" who served the governing
class and relied on the later for its social position.
59
collectors.122 Many sociologists argue that often the lower classes resent the retainers
more than the members of the governing class because the retainers are the ones who
actually carry out the oppression of the lower classes.123 The negative portrayal of
members of the retainer class in Q implies that the author viewed Jesus'
124
contemporaries in Galilee as harboring such a resentment against retainers.
Jesus occasionally talks about the poor in Q, but there is no indication that the
125
author considered poverty to be an unusually severe problem in Jesus' environment.
Jesus mentions the need to give to beggars and claims that reaching out to the poor is a
defining feature of his ministry.126 His prohibition against worrying about tomorrow's
bodily necessities may suggest that a substantial portion of his audience frequently had
to worry about such things, but it may also suggest that Jesus himself did not have to
worry about them.127
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
122
Luke 12:58-59 (Matthew 5:25-26), Luke 7:34 (Matthew 11:19)
123
Lenski, 243-244.
124
The only evidence, however, of someone other than Jesus resenting a member of the retainer class is
Jesus' quotation of other people condemning him: "Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax
collectors and sinners!" (Luke 7:34 [Matthew 11:19])
125
The Lukan version of Q's Beatitudes contains condemnations of the rich and predictions of reversals
of fortunes that may imply a more pronounced gap between the rich and poor (Luke 6:20-26).
However, since these condemnations are only found in the Lukan version, and since they fit so well
with the Lukan agenda, they should be considered secondary, Lukan redactions to the Q material. The
same is true for Jesus' focus on the poor in Luke's version of the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke
14:16-24;cf.: Matthew22:1-10)
126
Luke 6:30 (Matthew 5:42), Luke 7:22-23 (Matthew 11:4-6). Jesus lists preaching the good news to
the poor as one of the features of his ministry that he wants John the Baptist to know about.
127
After all, the attitude that people do not need to worry about their daily needs is an easier attitude for
a person to have if he or she hasn't had to worry about those things.
60
As I mentioned above in my discussion of Q's provenance, the author presents
Galilee's residents as both Jewish and religiously observant. Both Jesus and his
adversaries accept the validity of the Jewish Law and observe Jewish customs.
Moreover, the only Gentile mentioned in Q is the Centurion from Capernaum, and the
text makes it clear that most of the inhabitants of Capernaum are Jewish and that the
Centurion is viewed by them as somewhat of an outsider.128
The two mentions of Jerusalem in Q suggest that Jesus felt a deep antagonism
toward the city. Jerusalem serves as the location for part of Satan's temptation of
Jesus, and it is singled out in Q as the city that kills prophets.129 This may be an
indication of a more widespread hostility toward the Judean (strict sense) elite among
Galileans, or it may only reflect an attitude specific to the Jesus Movement.
Unlike most of the other gospel sources, which mention various religious
leaders in Galilee and Judea (strict sense), Q only mentions one group of religious
leaders: the Pharisees.130 The overall characterization of the Pharisees in Q is that they
are hypocritical, overly concerned with outside appearances, and greedy. The fact that
the Pharisees are the only group mentioned in Q and that they are criticized for
neglecting others and focusing on wealth suggests that the author of Q considered the
Pharisees to be relatively wealthy and powerful members of Galilean society.
128
Luke 7:1-10 (Matthew 8:5-13)
129
Luke 4:1-13 (Matt 4:1-7, 9-1 la, 13); Luke 13:34-35 (Matt 23:37-39)
130
There is no mention in Q of "teachers of the law," hypocrites, Herodians, the council, Sadducees,
elders, lawyers, priests, Levites, or scribes. There are, however, a few places where the Matthean
version of a Q passage mentions scribes, but the Lukan version does not (Matthew 8:19; 23:13, 23, 25,
27,29,34. Cf: Luke 9:57, 11:52, 11:42, 11:39, 11:44, 11:47, and 11:49, respectively)
61
Although as a "sayings source," Q focuses on Jesus' words and not his actions,
Jesus' activities as a healer still play a prominent role in the Q material. Jesus
repeatedly claims that healing the sick is an integral part of both his and his disciple's
mission.131 Moreover, others in seem to accept Jesus' healing powers as validating
Jesus' special status as a religious figure.
As in many of the other Gospels, Jesus' healing activities in Q sometimes
involve exorcizing the demon that caused the illness. These exorcisms, combined
with the accusations by others that Jesus is possessed by a demon, imply a widespread
belief in demons and possession among the residents of Galilee.132 They also imply
that Galileans associated at least some physical ailments with demonic possession.
The Q material also implies widespread apocalyptic expectations among
Galileans because Jesus has to warn his followers against getting carried away by false
apocalyptic prophets.133
MISCELLANEOUS
Like some of the other gospel sources, the Q material suggests the importance
of table fellowship in Jesus' ministry. The Parable of the Great Banquet rejects an
exclusive table fellowship in favor of an inclusive one.134 The emphasis on the
131
Luke 7:1-10 (Matt. 8:5-10, 13); Luke 7:22-23 (Matt. 11:4-6); Luke 10:9 (Matt. 10:8); Luke 11:14,
19-20 (Matt. 12:22,27-28)
132
Luke7:33 (Matt. 11:18);Luke 11:14, 19-20 (Matt. 12:22, 27-28);Luke 11:24-26 (Matt. 12:43-45)
133
Luke 17:23-24,26-27, 30, 34-35, 37 (Matthew 24:26-28, 37, 39-41)
134
Luke 14:16-24 (Matt. 22:1-10)
62
inclusive nature of Jesus' Galilean ministry suggests that there were (at least according
to Q) a number of Galileans who felt "left out" of the existing social order.
Another important focus in the Q material is the division that Jesus says his
ministry introduces into society. Jesus emphasizes that having people follow him will
tear families apart. Although some consider these passages to be reflections of a
breakdown in family values or order, such a conclusion seems unwarranted by the
evidence. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that Jesus is describing the sort of
family divisions that one would expect to arise frequently when family members begin
to follow the leader of any radical movement.
See my discussion in Chapter 4 of the significance of Jesus' inclusive message in L.

Luke 12:51-53 (Matt. 10:34-36); Luke 14:26-27 (Matt. 10:37-38)
CHAPTER 4: GALILEE ACCORDING TO MARK
63
64
ABOUT THE GOSPEL
Most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest extant Gospel,
written sometime between 65 and 75 C.E.137 Although there are still a few who reject
Markan priority, the theory that Mark is the earliest of the canonical Gospels and a
source for Matthew and Luke is accepted by the vast majority of New Testament
scholars.138 As a result, all of the material in Mark can be considered independent of
the other Gospels.
Though a number of scholars have attempted to identify the location in which
Mark was written, there does not seem to be enough evidence in the text of the Gospel
itself to determine its provenance.139 It is possible, however, to determine some
important things about the author and his environment. The author appears to know
Aramaic because, on a number of occasions, he quotes Jesus by transliterating Jesus'
Aramaic words in Greek letters and then translates the quotations into Greek for his
Crossan, The HistoricalJesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 429-430. Marcus, Mark
1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 37-39. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark:
A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 31. J. R. Donahue and D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005), 41-43.
Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Streeter,
The Four Gospels. Albright and Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and notes, xxxix-xlii.
D. N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate, ed. R. A.
Culpepper and R. Rendtorff, vol. 48, Biblical Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2000), 192-199. Ben
Witherington and Brian J. Incigneri make strong cases that Mark was written in Rome. See:
Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 20-21. B. J. Incigneri, The Gospel
to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel, ed. R. A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff, vol.
65, Biblical Interpretation Series (Boston: Brill, 2003). H. N. Roskam argues that it was composed in
Galilee. See: H. N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel ofMark in its Historical and Social Context,
ed. M. M. Mitchell and D. P. Moessner, vol. 114, NovTSup (Boston: Brill, 2004), 101. Joel Marcus
thinks that Mark was written in Syria. See: Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, 33-37.
65
audience.140 The author also seems to be familiar with Jewish customs and feels
compelled to explain those customs to his readers.141 These two features suggest that
the author was a Jew writing to an audience that included a substantial number of
Gentiles.142
We can also determine some important things about the author of Mark from
his writing style, which is very unpolished. The author frequently makes grammatical
errors, his sentence structure and word choice are very simple, and he makes
ineffective transitions between topics.143 These features of the Gospel suggest that the
author was not well educated and, therefore, from a lower social class than the other
Gospel authors.
As the earliest extant Gospel, Mark is considered by some to be the most
important New Testament source for understanding for first-century Galilee.
Although it is not clear how much, if any, first-hand knowledge the author of Mark
had of Galilee, his Gospel is likely based on earlier oral traditions and perhaps even
earlier written sources.144 Unfortunately, it is not possible to know which—if any—of
Mark's sources reflect first-hand knowledge of Galilee.
140
Mark 5:41; 7:34; 14:36; 15:22, 15:34
141
Mark 7:2-4; 15:42
Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 19-20.
143
Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 18-19. Marcus, Mark 1-8: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 60-61. H. C. Kee, Community of the New Age:
Studies in Mark's Gospel (London: SCM, 1977), 5-7. W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The
English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, Revised ed. (Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 1974), 25-
26.
144
Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 57-59. For a discussion
of Mark's geographic errors with respect to Judea (broad sense), see: Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 19, 21. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel ofMark in
66
GALILEE ACCORDTNG TO MARK
ECONOMICS
Although the socio-economic situation in Galilee is not a major focus of the
Gospel, it is possible to draw some basic conclusions about how the author conceived
of Galilee's socio-economic environment by examining some of the details mentioned
in the Gospel. For example, just before Jesus performs the miracle of the fish and
loaves in chapter six, he tells his disciples to feed the crowd, and the disciples ask if
they should go buy 200 denarii worth of bread (Mark 6:36-37). This passage takes for
granted that Galilee's economy is sufficiently monetized for the disciples to conceive
of a large quantity of bread in terms of the money that bread would cost. Therefore,
we can deduce that the author of Mark considered Galilee to have a monetized
economy.
Another detail that reveals something significant about the socio-economic
environment in Galilee is the Gospel's statement that Herod invites his great men
(usyiaxaaiv), the captains (xiAiccpxois), and the foremost of the Galileans
(TTpeoxois x?is TaAiAaias) to his birthday banquet (Mark 6:21). This claim suggests
that the author considered Galilee to have a distinct class of elites who were allied
with Antipas. This, however, is not a very telling statement, since every society has an
its Historical and Social Context, 97-100. Incigneri, 97-98. For an argument that Mark was written in
Galilee, see: Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context, 101.
67
elite class and since the ruler of that society usually forms alliances with members of
this class.
What is more noteworthy is the fact that there are no real indications in Mark
that the members of this class are considered oppressive by the other Galileans.
Perhaps surprisingly, Jesus almost never mentions poverty, wealth, economic
hardship, or oppression while he is in Galilee.145 Moreover, no one in Galilee is ever
depicted as particularly poor or needy. Even in Mark 6:35-42, where Jesus' miracle of
the fish and loaves might be interpreted as an act of charity, Jesus' disciples assume
that the people can afford food. Jesus feeds them because they are too far away from
46
any place to buy food.
This is not, however, because Mark's Jesus is unconcerned with economic
issues or the plight of the less fortunate. In fact, while he is in Judea (strict sense),
economic justice seems to be one of Jesus' favorite topics of discussion.147 It is in the
Jerusalem Temple that Jesus criticizes the moneychangers for their commercial
activities in the Temple (Mark 11:15-17) and scribes for seeking worldly honors and
devouring widows' homes (Mark 11:35-40).148 Likewise, the only time Jesus
encounters a beggar in Mark is in Jericho (Mark 10:46-52), and it is only in Bethany
The one mention of wealth is in Mark 4:19.

146
C/ Mark 8:1-4
147
Mark 10:17-27,46-52; 11:15-17,35-40; 12:41-44
148
Although the exact nature of Jesus' criticism is not stated, Jesus is quoting Jeremiah 7:11, which is
part of a criticism of commercial activities in the Temple. This implies that the nature of Jesus'
criticism is probably similar.
68
that the disciples talk about giving money to the poor (Mark 14:5-9). In addition, the
only person described as "rich" in Mark is a Judean (strict sense).
If economic justice becomes a major part of Jesus' message when he is in
Judea (strict sense), then Jesus' silence about economic issues during his Galilean
ministry seems significant.150 The fact that Jesus does not even encounter economic
problems until he goes to Judea (strict sense) suggests that the author of Mark
considered economic hardship and oppression to be characteristic of Judea (strict
sense), and not of Galilee.
URBANIZATION
By implication, Mark's Galilee is rural. Although it seems unlikely that Jesus
did not travel to the two major cities in Galilee, Sepphoris and Tiberias, during his
ministry, Mark never puts Jesus in these cities. However, even when he travels to
other regions, Mark's Jesus is careful to avoid the cities themselves and only visit the
villages surrounding those cities.151 In fact, the only city Jesus enters in Mark is
Jerusalem. Therefore, the absence of cities in Mark's Galilean narratives cannot tell
the reader much about how urbanized the author of Mark believed Galilee to be.
E.g.: The rich man in Mark 10:17-27. The woman in Mark 14:5-9 also appears to be wealthy.
150
The reader should note that it is not clear whether this distinction between Judea (strict sense) and
Galilee already existed in the sources used by the author of Mark or if it is a result of the author's
redaction of those sources.
151
E.g.: Mark 5:1 (TT\V xcopav xcov Tspaarivcov), Mark 7:24 (TCC Spice Tupou), Mark 8:27, (TCCS
Kcopccs Kccioccpeiccs TT\S OIAITTTTOU).
69
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
Mark's Gospel offers several indications that the population of Galilee was
both Jewish and religiously observant. For example, Mark mentions three Galilean
synagogues that appear to function as local religious centers: one in Capernaum, one
(presumably) in Nazareth, and one in some unspecified Galilean location.152 Mark
also indicates that Jesus wore fringes on his garment, which suggests that Jesus in
accordance with the Jewish Law (Mark 6:56).
Even the major religious disagreements in the Gospel attest to the religiosity of
the Galileans. The two Sabbath conflicts in Mark—in which both Jesus and the
Pharisees claim to be upholding the law—highlight the importance of the Jewish Law
in the society of Mark's Galilee.153 Moreover, John the Baptist's major criticism of
Antipas is that he violated Jewish Law by committing incest (6.18).
Although the Galileans are depicted as being religious, the religious
environment in Mark's Galilee is noticeably distinct from that of Mark's Judea (strict
sense). Perhaps the most striking difference between the two religious environments
concerns Jesus' activities as a healer and exorcist. Jesus' fame in Galilee is largely the
result of his reputation as a healer, and much of his and his disciples' activities in
Galilee involve healing people and casting out demons.154 This suggests a widespread
belief in miraculous healers, demons, and exorcism among the Galileans, and there are
152
Mark 1:21-27, 39; 3:1, 5:22-24, 35-43; 6:1
153
Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6
154
Mark 1:23-27,29-30, 32-34,40-42; 2:3-12; 3:10-11,15; 5:22-24,28-34, 35-43; 6:7,13,53; 8:22-26.
Mark also mentions a Galilean exorcist who was not part of Jesus' group (9:38-39).
70
some indications in Mark of similar beliefs among the people in neighboring Gentile
territories.155
The Judeans (strict sense), however, do not appear to share these beliefs. In
Judea (strict sense), nobody asks Jesus to perform an exorcism, nobody mentions
demons, and the one man who asks Jesus to heal him is ordered by the crowd to be
quiet (Mark 10:46-52). Although some might argue that this is because the Judeans
(strict sense) don't know about Jesus or his powers, the people's reaction to Jesus'
triumphal entry suggests that many in Jerusalem knew him at that time (Mark 11:8-
11). Moreover, the Gospel mentions Jesus' popularity in Judea (strict sense) several
times.156 It seems odd that the crowd greeting Jesus in Jerusalem would ignore the
very things that had gained Jesus notoriety in Galilee. Perhaps this is a reflection of
the different attitudes prevailing in Judea (strict sense) (at least according to Mark)
about faith healers and exorcists.157 Such a conclusion is reinforced by the fact that
Mark has scribes from Jerusalem accuse Jesus of using demonic powers to perform his
exorcisms (Mark 3:22-30).
Mark's portrayal of the Judean (strict sense) people as rejecting faith healers
and exorcists may or may not reflect the historical reality in Judea (strict sense), but it
does suggest that Mark inherited a tradition that Galileans and Judeans (strict sense)
had different attitudes toward these phenomena. At least in this respect, the Gospel of
Mark seems to portray Galilean Judaism as less sophisticated.
155
Mark 5:2-19; 7:25-27, 31-37; 9:17;
156
Mark 10:17; 11:12, 18; 14:1-2
157
Of course, Mark's presentation of Galilee may or may not correspond to the historical reality.
71
RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP
In Mark's Galilee, the major local religious authorities are the Pharisees. Here
the Pharisees are Jesus' major critics and opponents, and here the Pharisees at least act
as if they have substantial authority and respect from the people.158 Mark links the
Pharisees to the "Herodians" and implies that there exists a political alliance between
the two groups.159 The mention of such an alliance between the Pharisees and the
supporters of Antipas reinforces the idea that Mark believed the Pharisees have had
substantial power in Jesus' Galilee.
The other major group that appears in Mark's Galilee is the scribes. Mark has
the scribes appear in Galilee three times, but on two of those occasions, Mark stops to
mention that the scribes had come to Galilee from Judea (strict sense).160 This
suggests that, although they may have visited the region, "the scribes" are not
Galileans in Mark's mind. While these scribes appear to be Judeans (strict sense),
their presence in Galilee seems to be a relatively common occurrence, and the
teaching of the scribes appears to have enough authority in the region that it is invoked
as "normative" by some Galileans and as a reference point for others as they evaluate
Jesus' teachings.161
Mark 2:16-17, 23-28; 3:6; 7:1-5; 8:11, 15

Mark 3:6; 8:15
Mark 2;6-7; 3:22-27; 7:1-5
Mark 1:22; 9:11
72
Apart from Jesus and his associates, the Pharisees and scribes appear to be the
only religious authorities operating in Galilee. Sadducees, elders, and priests are not
mentioned in any of the Galilean narratives, though they are quite conspicuous in
Mark's Judean (strict sense) narratives.162 Interestingly, the authority and prestige that
the Pharisees seem to enjoy in Mark's Galilee disappears when they are in Judea (strict
sense). In Jerusalem, the priests and priests, scribes, Sadducees, and elders appear to
be the major authorities, and the Pharisees keep a relatively low profile. In fact, Mark
has the Pharisees and Herodians acting under the direction of the Priests, elders, and
scribes. This contrast between their authority in Galilee and the lack thereof in Judea
(strict sense) suggests that Mark viewed Galilee as a sort of Pharisaic stronghold.
JEWISH CULTURE AND HELLENISM
One of the most debated questions about Galilee is the degree to which Greek
was spoken among its residents.163 Although the Gospel of Mark was written in
Greek, the author implies that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic. The
Gospel's narratives include a number of Aramaic words and phrases (transliterated
162
Mark 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 12:10-12, 18-27; 14:1-2,10-11, 14:43,53-69; 15:1-3, 10-11,31. The
exception is Mark 7:3-5, which is set in Judea; the narrator states that the Pharisees follow the traditions
of the elders. Nevertheless, no priest, Sadducee, or elder appears in Mark's Galilean narratives.
163
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. S. Lieberman, "How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?" in
Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963). J. N.
Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known?
(Leiden: Brill, 1968). W. Argyle, "Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times," NTS
20 (1973). J. A. Fitzmyer, "Did Jesus Speak Greek," BAR 18, no. 5 (1992). P. W. Vander Horst, "Greek
in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy," in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. J. J. Collins
and G. E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001). Roskam, The Purpose of the
Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context, 110.
73
into Greek), and even give some of Jesus' words in transliterated Aramaic, which is
then translated into Greek for the reader.164
Other indications that Aramaic was the common language in Galilee are the
Aramaic nicknames for some of the disciples in the Gospel of Mark. One of the
disciples is named "Thomas" (Mark 3:17) which is not a proper name, but a
transliteration of the Aramaic word for "twin." Jesus also gives an Aramaic
(probably) nickname to a pair of his disciples, calling James and John "Boavripyes"
("thunder brothers").165
The only major indication of the use of Greek among Galileans in the Gospel
of Mark is that two of Jesus' disciples, Philip and Andrew, have Greek names. While
this may suggest that these two came from a Hellenized family or community, it is
unclear to what extent these two Greek names should imply the prevalence of Greek in
Galilee's linguistic milieu.166
ASSOCIATION WITH GENTILES
Another indication that Mark may have considered Galilee to be somewhat
Hellenized both culturally and linguistically is the amount of contact his Galilean
164
Mark 5:41; 15:40, 47; 16:1
165
Mark 3:17. Since the name is only found in transliteration, it is impossible to know for sure that it is
Aramaic. However, the scholarly consensus is that it appears to be an Aramaic word. Cf. Marcus,
Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 264.
166
Both Andrew and Philip's origins are unclear in Mark (Mark 1:16 states only that Jesus found Simon
and Andrew along the shore of the Sea of Galilee) and it is possible that they grew up outside of the
Galilee. Given the fact that Jesus spends a good deal of his ministry in the region east of the Sea of
Galilee and that John the Baptist was probably not a Galilean, it is not unreasonable to assume that
some of his followers might not be Judean (broad sense).
74
characters have with the neighboring Gentile regions and their inhabitants.
Galileans in Mark's Gospel have frequent and meaningful contact with the
neighboring regions, and Jesus appears to be popular with the locals whenever he
visits Gentile territory.168 Nevertheless, it is unclear how much this contact with
neighboring regions actually resulted in increased Hellenization in Galilee.
The reader should note, however, that, although Jesus visits what were
considered to be Gentile regions, each region that he visits had a significant Jewish
population.169 Moreover, Jesus' encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark
7:24-30 suggests that Jesus was preaching only to the Jews of those regions. Although
Jesus is willing to heal the woman, he does so only after comparing Gentiles to
unworthy dogs. If, then, Jesus is only preaching to the Jews of these Gentile areas, it
is unclear how much cultural Hellenization his contact with these regions imply.
However, the fact that Jesus had a conversation with the woman, whom the text
identifies as a Greek, is significant.170 Since the text identifies the woman as a "yuvf|
}\v 'EAArjvis, Zupo<j)oiviKiooa TOO yevei," the author of Mark may be suggesting
Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 19-21.
168
Mark 1:9; 3:7-9; 4:35; 5:1-20; 6:45; 7:31-37; 8:10, 13,27; 10:1. According to Mark, Jesus and his
message are quite popular in the regions of Galilee, Judea (strict sense), Idumaea, beyond the Jordan,
Tyre and Sidon, and the Decapolis (Mark 1:28, 32-34, 45; 2:1-2, 12-13; 3:7-9, 11; 4:1; 6: 14,53-56;
Mark 5:20; 7:24, 36; 8:34; 9:14-15; 10:17; 11:8, 12, 18; 14:1-2). However, Jesus' popularity may just
be a literary theme, and we have good reason to be skeptical of the Gospel's claims that Jesus was
popular. It is, after all, part of the Gospel's agenda to popularize him.
A. M. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew's Gospel (New
York: Continuum, 2005). Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 9-10.
170
In this period, the term Greek seems to apply to most people who spoke fluent Greek, without regard
to that person's ancestry. J. Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian,
trans. R. Cornman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 81. Therefore, the identification of
the woman as a "Greek" implies that she spoke Greek. Moreover, the fact that the author felt
compelled to call her a Greek may suggest that the conversation happens in Greek. Perhaps this is even
how Jesus identifies the woman as a Gentile.
75
that her exchange with Jesus took place in Greek. However, it is also quite possible
171
that this Phoenician woman was bilingual, speaking both Greek and Aramaic.
Despite the frequent contact Galileans have with the neighboring regions in
Mark, there is one nearby region that Jesus avoids and that Mark never mentions:
Samaria. In fact, Mark even has Jesus go out of his way to avoid Samaria as he travels
to Judea (strict sense).172 Given how frequently Mark has Jesus travel outside of
Galilee, the absence of any mention of Samaria or Samaritans seems both significant
and intentional. It suggests that Mark viewed Galileans as avoiding contact with
Samaritans and supports the idea that Jesus' ministry was restricted to Jews.
POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
Mark's Gospel has gives very little information about the political situation in
Galilee. The story of John the Baptist's execution portrays Antipas as a corrupt ruler
who did not tolerate dissent and feared popular leaders (Mark 6:14-28). The Gospel
also notes on multiple occasions that "the Herodians" had allied themselves with the
171
The Aramaic dialects in Judea (broad sense) and Syria were mutually intelligible. Cf. Albright and
Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and notes, clxxii. Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, 462.
172
Jesus' journey to Jerusalem goes through the Transjordan, not Samaria (Mark 10:1, 46).
173
While this could certainly reflect the reality in first-century Galilee, Mark's failure to mention
contact with Samaritans might also be the result of the author's own anti-Samaritan biases, which we
know most first-century Jews harbored. The reader should note, however, that the fact that this was a
common Jewish prejudice reinforces the idea that first-century Galileans would have avoided contact
with Samaritans. R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1975). A. D. Crown, ed., The Samaritans (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989).
76
Pharisees, and it portrays the two groups as conspiring to destroy Jesus. This
alliance suggests that the Pharisees were a very politically powerful group in Galilee
envisioned by the author of Mark.
Mark 3:6; 8:15

CHAPTER 5: GALILEE ACCORDING TO M AND L
77
78
ABOUTMANDL
It is generally accepted among New Testament scholars that the major sources
for both Matthew and Luke's Gospels are Mark and Q.175 However, both Matthew
and Luke contain material that is not paralleled in either of the other Synoptic Gospels.
The unique material in Matthew is generally called the "Special Matthean Material,"
or "M" for short.
Although some scholars include pericopes that can only be found in Matthew
or Luke in their definitions of Q, I find this practice methodologically unsound.
Instead I prefer the simplest definition of Q as non-Markan material common to
Matthew and Luke.176 As a corollary, I define M and L simply to be non-Markan,
non-Q material in Matthew and Luke respectively. The following verses comprise the
Special Matthean Material:
Matthew 1:1-2:23; 3:14-15; 4:14-16, 24; 5:1-2, 5, 7-10, 13b-

14, 16-17, 19-24, 27-28, 33-38, 43; 6:1-8, 15-18, 34; 7:6, 15;
8:1, 17; 9:28, 30-36; 10:5-6, 23, 41; 11:1, 14, 20, 28-30; 12:6-
7, 11-12, 17-21, 23, 36-37; 13:24-30, 35-52; 14:28-31, 33-36;
15:12-13, 23-24; 16:17-19; 17:6-7, 13, 20a, 24-27; 18:10, 14,
16-20, 23-35; 19:10-12; 20:1-15; 21:4-5, 10b-ll, 14-16, 28-32,
44; 22:11-14, 33, 46; 23:13-, 5, 7-11, 15-22, 24, 33; 24: 10, 12,
38; 25:1-12, 31-46; 26:1, 25, 52-53; 27:3-10, 19, 23-25, 52-53,
62-66; 28:2-4, 9-20
Streeter, The Four Gospels.

I will discuss my approach to the Q material in more detail in the following chapter.
79
In addition to the above verses, I also consider M to include any redactional changes
177
made by the author of Matthew to his major sources (Mark and Q).
The Special Lukan Material ("L"), which is significantly larger than the
Special Matthean material, consists of the following verses:

Luke 1:1-3:3; 3:5-6, 10-15, 18, 23-38; 4:14b-15, 17-22a, 23,
25-30, 37; 5:2, 4-9, 61-17, 39; 6:23-26; 7:11-17, 21, 29-30, 36-
50; 8:1; 9:31-32, 36b, 51-56, 61-62; 10:1, 8, 11, 17-20, 25-26,
29-42; 11:1, 5-8, 21-22, 27-28, 36-38, 45, 53-54; 12:13-21, 32,
35-36, 41, 47-50; 13:1-17, 22-23, 25, 31-33; 14:1-10, 12-15,
25, 28-33, 35; 15:1-3, 6, 8-32; 16:1-12, 14-15, 19-31; 17:5, 7-
22, 25, 28-29, 32; 18:l-14a, 34, 43b; 19:1-11, 27, 37, 39-44;
20:16b, 18; 21:18, 24, 34-35, 37-38; 22:15, 24-27, 31-32, 35-
38, 43-44, 51; 23:2, 4-16, 25, 27-32, 40-43, 47-48, 56; 24:11-
53
As with M, L also contains any redactional changes made by the author of Luke to his
1 •jo
source material from Mark and Q.
SPECIAL MATTHEAN MATERIAL
Unfortunately, we don't know the exact nature of the M material. Some
probably came from earlier written or oral sources, and some of the material was
probably composed by the author himself.179 We can, however, posit a Terminus ad
It is difficult to determine whether Matthew or Luke preserves the most original reading of a given
pericope from the Q. As a result, when the two versions of Q material differ in their portrayal of
Galilee, I shall evaluate discrepancies between the Lukan and Matthean versions on a case-by-case
basis to determine which is the more original reading.
178
There are about 5,000 differences between Mark and the Markan material as it appears in Luke. J.
Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Downers Grove:
Intervarsity, 1992), 19.
179
According to one estimate, Matthew makes over 8,000 changes to his Markan source, and that most
of these are minor changes in wording or word order. Ibid., 86.
80
Quern for the composition of the M material. Since Matthew is generally thought to
have been written soon after Mark, most scholars place the Matthew's composition
around 80 C.E. Certainly, the Gospel's early attestation suggests that Matthew had
gained wide circulation by the early second-century, and this strongly implies that the
text was composed by the end of the first-century.
As with Mark, although we do not know with any certainty where Matthew
was written, there are features in the text that may tell us something about the author,
his audience, and his environment. For example, the author's focus on the importance
of the Jewish Law, his frequent attempts to connect Jesus to various Israelite prophets
and prophecies, and his insistence that Jesus rejected the Gentile mission during his
lifetime, suggest that the author was a Jewish Christian who still observed the Jewish
Law. Most likely, these features also suggest that the Gospel's audience was Jewish
as well. In fact, the general consensus about Matthew is that he was writing to
persuade the Jews and Jewish Christians that Jesus was a thoroughly Jewish
Messiah.182
F. W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary

(Harper: San Francisco, 1982), 7-8. R. T. France, The Gospel ofMatthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2007), 18-19. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 14. C. S. Keener,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 44.
Albright and Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and notes, clxxxiii. Beare, The Gospel
according to Matthew, 9-10. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community. A. O. Ewherido,
Matthew's Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century C.E.: The Evidence from Matthew's Chapter
on Parables (Matthew 13:1-52), ed. H. Gossai, vol. 91, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Peter
Lang, 2006), 21.
182
L. M. White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of the Matthean
Community," in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, ed. D. L.
Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 1.
81
However, the author's command of the Greek language, the fact that
Matthew's scriptural quotations are usually from the LXX, and the fact that the
Gospel's two major sources (Mark and Q) are in Greek imply that the gospel was
composed by a significantly Hellenized author. Probably, this means that the Gospel
was written by a Greek speaking Jew.183
A few researchers have also suggested a Judean (broad sense) provenance for
Matthew; however, the theory that Matthew is of Judean (broad sense) origin has
fallen out of favor for three major reasons.184 First, there are reasons to believe that
the author was writing for a community that contained a large number of Gentiles.185
The second—and probably more compelling—reason that scholars usually
reject a Galilean origin for Matthew is that the book's focus on Jesus' activities in
Syria suggests that the author might have lived in that region.186 The major piece of
textual evidence for a Syrian provenance is a change that the author of Matthew makes
to his Markan source. In Mark 1:28, the narrator describes Jesus' fame by saying,
"KCU |£?]A8SV T\ OtKOTl CCUTOU EU0US TTCCVTOCXOU £1? '6\T)V TT]V TTEpiXCOpOV TT)S
Albright and Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and notes, clxxxiii. Beare, The Gospel
according to Matthew, 9-10. Saldarini, A/a#/?ew'5 Christian-Jewish Community.
For a recent argument that Matthew was composed in Galilee, see: A. J. Saldarini, "The Gospel of
Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee," in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 24-25. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-
Jewish Community.
85
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of the Matthean
Community."
186
Sim, The Gospel ofMatthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean
Community, 10-11. J. D. Kingsbury, "Conclusion: Analysis of a Conversation," in Social History of the
Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, ed. D. L. Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).
R. Stark, "Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew's Gospel," in Social History of the Matthean
Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, ed. D. L. Balch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). White,
"Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of the Matthean Community."
Even Saldarini, who has argued for a Galilean setting for Matthew, says that Syria is a likely location
for Matthew's composition. See: Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 198.
82
TaXiAaias." In Matthew, Jesus' reputation reaches beyond the boundaries of Galilee
and spreads "eis 'ohr\v xf]v lupiav" (Matthew 4:24). 187 Many scholars believe that
Mathew makes this change to appeal to his Syrian audience.
In addition to the textual evidence, Matthew's particular theology seems to fit
well with what we know about the Christian communities in Syria. Because
Matthew's Gospel is distinctly Jewish in its views most researchers agree that
Matthew was probably written among the more conservative Jewish Christians
residing in Syria during the late first-century C.E.188 Antioch is the most likely place
for the composition of Matthew since Antioch had one of the largest Jewish and
Jewish-Christian populations in the first-century. Moreover, Galatians and Acts tell us
that the Jewish Christian population living at Antioch was sharply divided between the
more liberal Jewish Christians who did not require Gentile converts to be circumcised
and their more conservative coreligionists who believed that all Christians should
observe the Torah.189 Matthew's insistence that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law
and that Jewish practices were an essential part of Jesus' religion may be a reaction to
the aforementioned division among Jewish Christians.190
The term "Syria," however, could have been meant in a more general sense, in which case it might
refer to all of the non-Jewish regions surrounding Galilee. Josephus appears to use "Syria" in this sense
in£J2.591 (Cf Vita 75-76)
188
Stark, "Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew's Gospel." Kingsbury, "Conclusion: Analysis of
a Conversation." Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of
the Matthean Community, 10-11.
189
Galatians 2:11-19; Acts 11:19-30; 15:22-41
J. A. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean
Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, 216-219. Sim, The Gospel ofMatthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social
Setting of the Matthean Community, 28.
83
MATTHEW'S TENDENCIES
Because Matthew uses both Mark and Q as sources, we can use redaction
criticism to help determine Matthew's tendencies and discover how the author
changed his sources to suit these tendencies.191 The major changes that Matthew
makes to his source material reflect his dedication to the Jewish Law. He generally
makes Jesus and the disciples more Torah observant and less tolerant of Gentiles than
his sources.192 Moreover, Matthew occasionally changes some event in Jesus' life to
make it correspond to an Israelite prophecy or alters the prophecy to fit what
Matthew's sources say Jesus did. Matthew also alters what to Jewish-Christians
were probably "embarrassing" stories about Jesus found in Mark, presumably because
these stories might undermine his claim that Jesus was the Messiah.194
It is this concern by the author to present Jesus as a Messiah that the Jews of
the Diaspora could accept that is most likely to color Matthew's depiction of Galilee.
Because Matthew tends to emphasize Jesus' dedication to the Jewish Law—even
when Matthew's source material suggests something different—evidence from the
191
Given that the only extant attestations of the Q material are in Matthew and Luke, redaction criticism
in the case of Q material is much more difficult than it is for Markan material. In the case of Q
material, it is frequently difficult to tell whether the Matthean or Lukan variant is more original.
Whenever I treat a variant of the Q material that is only found in either Matthew or Luke as more
original, I will explain my reasoning for doing so.
192
Matthew 9:17/Mark 2:22; Matthew 15:17/Mark7:19. See: Sim, The Gospel ofMatthew and
Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community, 251 -256.
193
Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community,
74.
194
e.g: Matthew 13:55/Mark 6:3; Matthew omits all of Mark 8:22-26.
84
Special Matthean material for the "Jewishness" of Galilee should be treated with
suspicion.
ECONOMICS
The Special Matthean Material does not offer a very clear picture of how the
author envisioned the socio-economic situation in first-century Galilee. However, it
does offer a few glimpses of the author's conception of Galilee's economy. For
instance, the frequent mention of money in Jesus' parables and the indication that
Galilean taxes were paid in coin suggest that the author of Matthew considered
Galilee's economy to be significantly monetized.195
Like Mark, the M Material suggests that Galilee's socio-economic
environment was not particularly oppressive for the average person. Although M
occasionally mentions debt and large estates, these features are not portrayed as major
disturbances or burdens in Galilee.196
The one mention of debt in M—found in the Parable of the Unmerciful servant
(Matthew 18:23-38)—has been seized upon by some scholars as an indication of a
debt crisis in Galilee.197 In my estimation, however, to interpret this parable as a
reflection of a major debt problem in Galilee is to miss the essential meaning of the
195
Matthew 13:44, 45; 17:27; 18:23-28
196
Matthew 13:24-43; 18:23-38
W. R. Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1994), 131-149. V. G. Shillington, Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the
Parables of Jesus Today (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 61, 63.
85
parable. The servant, after all, owes his master 1,000 talents, or 50 times the annual
tribute paid by Antipas to Rome.198 Instead of reflecting the social situation of
Matthew's Jesus, the debt in this parable is meant to be impossibly large so that the
master's forgiveness of the debt can convey God's amazing capacity for forgiveness.
Therefore, this particular passage should not be construed as suggesting that debt was
a major problem in first-century Galilee.
Likewise, though many point to the references to large estates in M as
evidence that these estates were disrupting the Galilean economy, such claims appear
weaker when the textual evidence is examined in context. Jesus twice tells parables
that assume the existence of large estates: the Parable of the Wheat and the Darnel,
which is told in Galilee, and the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, which is told in
Judea (strict sense).199 These parables are clearly set in large estates because of the
number of servants doing work. The parables, then, assume that members of Jesus'
audience are sufficiently familiar with the functioning of large estates to relate to the
parable. Therefore, it seems probable that the author of Matthew considered larger
estates to be a somewhat familiar feature of both Galilee and Judea (strict sense).200
The reader should note, however, that these large estates and their owners are not
portrayed as disruptive or oppressive. Rather, in both cases, the estate represents the
Keener, Commentary on the Gospel ofMatthew, 458. Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus
as Pedagogue of the Oppressed.
1
" Matthew 13:24-50; 20:1-13
0
Of course, as I stated in Chapter 2, Matthew may simply be using local conditions in his narratives
without realizing that the conditions might have been different in early first-century Galilee. In that
case, the parables in question would only suggest the existence of large estates in Antioch or wherever
Matthew was composed.
86
Kingdom of Heaven, and the owner represents either Jesus or God. Such a
comparison suggests that Matthew's Jesus expects his audience to have—at worst—a
neutral attitude toward the owners of large estates. Otherwise, a comparison between
God and an estate owner might have offended Jesus' audience.
There is, however, one feature of the Galilean economy that the Matthean
Material does portray as disruptive: the presence of tax collectors. Jesus criticizes tax
collectors twice in Galilee and once in Judea (strict sense).202 His attitude toward
publicans is quite clear: they are agents of oppression. Jesus juxtaposes freedom and
paying taxes, implying that the two ideas are completely at odds, because the ones
who receive taxes are taking property that is not theirs (Matthew 17:26-27). Jesus also
lumps tax collectors with prostitutes and Gentiles, suggesting that they are beyond the
pale. What is most surprising about M's sharp criticism of tax collectors is that they
are the only group singled out as oppressive in the M's Galilean material. M's focus
on tax collectors suggests that they are the chief representatives of political and
economic oppression in Galilee, and this view may reflect a wider resentment of
publicans among the Galilean people.
Jesus' criticism of tax collectors in M might imply a more widespread
resentment by Galileans of either over-taxation or the loss of freedom represented by
the collection of taxes, and this could be interpreted as a sign of political unrest in
Galilee. It is noteworthy that when tax collectors appear in Galilee, they are collecting
201
A. J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 33-45, 292-
302.
202
Matthew 17:24-27; 18:17; 21:31-32
203
Matthew 18:17; 21:31-32
87
the Temple tax and not taxes for Antipas. Perhaps the Matthean Material is suggesting
a Galilean resentment toward Judean (strict sense) or priestly power as well.
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
The population of Galilee in the Special Matthean Material appears to be both
largely Jewish and observant.205 The text claims that there are synagogues throughout
Galilee and that the influence of rival religious leaders (i.e.: Pharisees and scribes) is
significant enough for Jesus to warn the Galileans about them on several occasions.
Perhaps the most striking difference between M's portrayals of Jesus' religious
environment and the environment portrayed in Mark is the reason Jesus criticizes the
Pharisees. In Mark, Jesus suggests that the Pharisees are too strict; in M, Jesus
expects his disciples to be even more observant than the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).
M's Jesus offers several halakhic opinions that appear to be stricter than those of the
Pharisees and that resemble the stances of the Essenes.207 Perhaps this indicates that
Matthew considered the Jesus Movement to have some connection to the Essenes. If
so, it might imply the presence of Essenes in Galilee. More likely, however, is the
possibility that the author of the Matthean Material is relating his own Jewish-
204
Another possibility is that the author of Matthew was simply imposing on the narrative resentment
from his own (Antiochene?) community of Roman tax farmers or of Judean (broad sense) religious
authorities who demanded contributions from Diaspora Jews.
205
Matthew 5:21-22,27-28; 5:23-24, 33-37; 9:20, 35; 12:7, 36-37
206
Matthew 5:20; 9:34, 35; 15:12
207
Nolland, The Gospel ofMatthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 250-252.
88
Christian halakhic traditions.208 If the latter is the case, then it is unclear how well
these traditions reflect the halakhah of Jesus and his disciples, and it is, therefore,
unclear how well these traditions represent the religious environment of first-century
Galilee.
Another difference between M and Mark is that, while Mark makes a
distinction between Galilean and Judean (strict sense) attitudes about Jesus' healing
activities, M has Jesus healing people and performing exorcisms in both Galilee and
Judea (strict sense).209 Since the people in Judea (strict sense) flock to have Jesus heal
them in Matthew 21:14, it appears that Matthew does not distinguish between the
attitudes of the Galileans and Judeans (strict sense) towards charismatic healers. Even
the Chief Priests and scribes who see Jesus healing people in the Temple do not appear
to be offended by his miracles, but rather by the fact that the people Jesus heals are
making Messianic claims about him (Matthew 21:15-16).
Although M's Jesus has a decidedly negative attitude toward Gentiles and
rejects the Gentile mission during his lifetime, ordering his disciples to "Go nowhere
among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans," Jesus does go to the towns
2US
J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins," (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 17-
40.
209
Matthew 9:33-35; 21:14
89
of Syria and the Decapolis.210 Presumably, however, he is only preaching to the Jews
in these regions.211 As in Mark, Jesus avoids Samaria in M, and his prohibition of
preaching to non-Jews in 10:5 is his only mention of the Samaritans in the Special
Matthean Material.
LOCAL POLITICS
M's first mention of Galilee suggests the political stability of the region. Upon
hearing about Herod's death, Joseph is commanded to return to "yr|v ' \opar\X"
(Matthew 2:20). At first, Joseph intends to return to his hometown in Judea (strict
sense), but after a supernatural warning about Archelaus, Joseph moves his family to
Galilee (Matthew 2:22). This indicates that Matthew considered Antipas' Galilee to be
a more stable—or at least less oppressive—environment than Archelaus' Judea (strict
sense). Interestingly, the Special Matthean material never suggests, as does Mark, that
the Jesus Movement had any problems or conflicts with Antipas or "the Herodians."
Instead, Jesus' main opponents in Galilee are the Pharisees and the scribes.
The term "scribe" has a somewhat ambiguous meaning in the Special Matthean
Material. Usually, the scribes are portrayed as Jesus' adversaries, and they are
generally treated as a united religious group like the Pharisees. However, in Matthew
13:52, which is set in Galilee, Jesus praises "TOUTO TTSS ypauuccTeus' ua6r|TEU0eW
T?| (SaaiAsig raw oupavcov." It appears, then, that the scribes are not a political or
210
Matthew 4:24; 10:5 14:34
211
See my discussion on this matter with regard to Mark in Chapter 4.
90
religious group with common beliefs and interests, but rather members of a profession.
Nevertheless, the text implies, Galilean scribes are usually allied with the religious
elite who employ them. In Galilee, they are associated with the Pharisees, and in
Judea (strict sense), scribes appear to be connected with either the Pharisees or the
Chief Priests.212
M's Jesus also singles out a group of Galilean opponents he calls "the
hypocrites" (Matthew 6:2-6, 16-18). Most interpreters assume—and this assumption
appears to be correct—that the term "hypocrites" encompasses the religious
establishment in Galilee, which presumably included the Pharisees and scribes.213
The exact nature of Pharisaic and scribal influence in Galilee is never made
clear in M; the text merely suggests that both groups have solid reputations for piety
among the Galilean people 214 But aside from the reputation that these groups have for
piety among the Galileans, their role and impact in Galilean society is not made clear
in M. The fact that the Pharisees and scribes enjoy a good reputation in Galilean
society does not mean that they also had substantial influence. It is quite possible for
the people to respect the piety of a religious figure without adopting his doctrines and
practices. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the rabbis of the second-century
were in a similar position of being respected by the general population even though
212
Matthew 2:4; 5:20; 21:15; 23:2, 15
213
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 932. H. C. Kee and L. H.
Cohick, Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (New York: Continuum, 1999), 97.
214
Matthew 5:20; 9:34; 15:12. The Matthean material appears to treat the Pharisees as if they are the
normative religious authorities.
91
rabbinic rulings were probably ignored by most of the general population.
Moreover, Jesus' popularity among the Galileans may be a testament to their
dissatisfaction with the Pharisees and scribes. Nevertheless, Matthew's claim that
Jesus' message was popular in Galilee serves the author's aforementioned agenda, and
must, therefore, be treated with skepticism.
Ironically, the only descriptions in M of the political power enjoyed by the
Pharisees and scribes take place while Jesus is in Jerusalem. This is not unexpected,
however, since it is in Jerusalem that Jesus is arrested and executed, and it would
make sense for the Matthean Material to focus on the political circumstances that led
to Jesus' execution. Both the Pharisees and the scribes appear to be part of the
religious elite in Jerusalem, and Matthew implies that the Pharisees had some political
clout in Judea (strict sense).216
Despite the Pharisee's high standing in Judean (strict sense) society, the most
powerful groups in Jerusalem are the "Chief Priests" and "Elders," who have the
power to make arrests.217 Although the Pharisees appear happy about Jesus' arrest
and execution, they do not appear to have been directly involved in these actions.218
The exclusion of the Pharisees from these events suggests that, like the author of
L.I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1989). M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-
212 (Portland: Vallentine Mitchell, 2000). S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to
640 CE (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
216
Matthew 21:25; 23:2; 27:62
217
Matthew 21:15; 27:3-10, 62; 28:11-15. The Sadducees are never mentioned in M
218
Matthew 27:62
92
Mark, the author of M did not believe the Pharisees to have held official political
power in Judea (strict sense).
SPECIAL LUKAN MATERIAL
Like M, L is probably a hodge-podge of material from various minor sources
that has been grafted onto the Markan framework in much the same way as the author
added the Q material. L, however, would also include any pericopes composed by the
gospel author himself219 As with the Special Matthean Material, it is not possible to
determine which parts of L were composed by Luke's author and which were inherited
from earlier sources. However, the fact that the author included this material in his
gospel does suggest that the material, as it appears in Luke, agrees with the author's
tendencies. It is therefore important to discover what these tendencies are.
Of the gospel authors, it is about the author of Luke that we can deduce the
most. Judging from the high quality of his Greek and his "Atticizing" style, it appears
that the author received a good Greek education220 On several occasions, Luke and
Acts allude to or quote important pieces of Greco-Roman literature, and the author
appears to have been especially fond of Homer.221 The introductions to Luke and Acts
219
Cf: J. T. Sanders, "Tradition and Redaction in Luke XV. 11-32," NTS 15 (1968).
220
F. Bovon,Lwfe 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, trans. C. M. Thomas
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 3. L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, vol. 3, Sacra Pagina Series
(Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), 3.
221
D. R. MacDonald, "The Soporific Angel in Acts 12:1-17 and Hermes' Visit to Priam in Iliad24:
Luke's Emulation of the Epic," Forum 2, no. 2 (1999). D. R. MacDonald, "The Shipwrecks of
Odysseus and Paul," NTS 45 (1999). D. R. MacDonald, "The Ending of Luke and the Ending of the
Odyssey," in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and
93
especially conform to the conventions of Greco-Roman literature. The author's
comfort with Greek combined with his high level of education and his focus on the
importance of the Gentile mission suggest that the author of Luke was a Gentile.
It is generally agreed that Luke was written about the same time as Matthew,
between 70 and 90 C.E. Because Luke's author was a Gentile who wrote in
sophisticated Greek and because the author appears to have been well traveled, the
Gospel could have been written in any number of places. The only thing most
modern scholars agree on is that Luke was not written in Judea (broad sense).225
Many of the reasons that scholars reject an Judean (broad sense) origin for Luke are
the same as the reasons for rejecting an Judean (broad sense) provenance for
Matthew—Luke does not know Judea (broad sense)'s geography and it is difficult to
imagine Luke's Greek gospel finding an audience in Judea (broad sense).226 Yet the
evidence against a Judean (broad sense) origin is much stronger in Luke's case since
Early Christianity, ed. R. A. Argall (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000). D. R. MacDonald,
"Paul's Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector's Farewell to Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of
Homer's Iliad," in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, ed. T. Penner
and C. V. Stichele (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). D. R. MacDonald, "The Breasts of
Hecuba and those of the Daughters of Jerusalem: Luke's Transvaluation of a famous Iliadic Scene," in
Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, ed. J. A. Brant, C. W. Hedrick,
and C. Shea, SBL Symposium Series 32 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).
L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4
and Acts 1.1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the
Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, 18-25. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 5-9.
Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, 8. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 9-
10.
224
Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 2-3. Johnson argues that it is not possible to determine where Luke
was composed. Fitzmyer argues that Luke was written in Antioch: Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to
Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes, 58.
Bovon argues that Luke comes from Macedonia: Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke
1:1-9:50, 8-9.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes, 57.
226
Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 85-87, 115, 360.1. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary
on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 190.
94
Luke was almost certainly a Gentile. Virtually all scholars agree that both Luke's
author and its audience consisted of Gentiles since the author writes in such
sophisticated Greek and since he eliminates much of the material from his Markan
source that would have interested Jewish readers.227
While it may not be possible to determine Luke's exact place of origin, there
are good reasons to suspect that the author had a close connection with the city of
Antioch. Church tradition maintains that the author of Luke was a Syrian who wrote
the gospel in his hometown of Antioch. This tradition is reflected in a number of early
century prologues to the Gospel of Luke.228
Two further own observations suggest an Antiochene provenance for this text.
First, the fact that Antioch is the hub for Paul's missionary activities in Acts combined
with the fact that much of Acts' detailed narrative material is set in Antioch suggests
that Luke had quite a bit of information about Antiochene Christianity. Second, Luke-
Acts claims to reproduce the contents of a document sent to the Christian community
in Antioch.229 In Acts 15:23-9 Luke claims to reproduce a letter from the council at
Jerusalem " 'AVTIOXSIOCV KCU lupiotv KCU KiAiKiav aSeAôis TOTS e£ sGvoov" (Acts
15:23). After relating the contents of the Letter, Acts goes on to tell of its reception in
227
Luke's author's style varies greatly throughout his work. In his gospel, the author imitates the
Semitic style of the LXX, but throughout much of Acts, the author is imitating the style of Greek
Historians. Such a facile command of the Greek language suggests both that Luke's author was well
educated and that Greek was his native tongue. Luke omits most of the Markan material that deals with
ritual purity, piety, etc. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes,
58. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 6-12.
228
The Anti-Marcionite and Monarchian Prologues to Luke describe him as a Syrian from Antioch. In
his commentary on Luke, Fitzmyer makes a tenable, though not compelling, case that this tradition is
actually historical. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes, 58.
229
Acts 6:5; 11:19-27; 13:1, 14; 14:19-26; 15:22-35; 18:22
95
Antioch. While this account does not necessarily locate the composition of Luke-Acts
in Antioch, Acts 15 does provide evidence that the author of Luke-Acts had access to
written documents from Antioch.230
Although the evidence does not prove that Luke-Acts was written in Antioch,
it does suggest that written material and other traditions from Antioch made up a
substantial portion of the author's sources. It probably also suggests that the author
visited Antioch as part of his research if he did not in fact live there.
THE AUTHOR'S TENDENCIES
As with Matthew, redaction criticism plays important part in understanding the
tendencies of Luke's author, and, by extension, it plays a major role assessing the
historical value of the material found only in Luke. Luke's use of his material from
Mark and Q indicate that he is especially concerned with conveying the importance of
the Gentile mission, social justice and breaking down distinctions between people that
lead to discrimination and oppression231 Luke frequently criticizes the rich and
praises the poor, and he does more to emphasize the women in his narratives than the
other gospel writers.232 One major element of Mark that Luke tends to deemphasize is
Unless, of course, the story in Acts 15 is a piece of fiction. Cf: M. Dibelius and K. C. Hanson, The
Book ofActs: Form, Style, and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004).
231
Luke 1:52-53; 4:18; 6:23-26; 10:30-37; 12:16-21; 14:12-15; 16:19-31
232
Wealth and poverty—Luke 4:18; 6:23-26; 12:16-21; 14:13; 16:19-31. Women—Luke 1:42-60;
7:36-50; 8:1-3: 10:38-42; 23:27-31.
96
the importance of apocalyptic in Jesus' message. It stands to reason that any
material unique to Luke which focuses on Gentiles or social justice should be treated
with a healthy dose of skepticism. Moreover, modern scholars should be careful when
using the special Luke and material to make a claim that Galilee was thoroughly
Hellenized. As a Gentile who probably never set foot in Judea (strict sense) or
Galilee, Luke is likely to have unknowingly or unconsciously depicted Galilee with
Hellenistic features that may not have been present in the region.
ECONOMICS
L's Jesus assumes a monetized economy in three of his parables, all of which
are told in Galilee.235 As I argued in my discussions of Mark and M, the depiction of a
monetized economy in the parables suggests that Jesus' environment was significantly
monetized.
Unlike Mark and M, the Special Lukan Material contains several indications of
socio-economic problems in first-century Galilee. The major problems mentioned all
R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation: a
Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 129. J. J.
Collins, B. McGinn, and S. J. Stein, The Encyclopedia ofApocalypticism (New York: Continuum,
2000), 339-341.
234
The author of Luke makes a number of mistakes that suggest that he was not very familiar with
Judea (broad sense). For example, in Acts 21:26-40, the author seems not to understand the layout of
the Jerusalem Temple, and erroneously assumes the existence of a permanent Roman garrison in
Jerusalem at the time of Jesus. In Luke 4:29, the author erroneously states that Nazareth was built on a
hill. The author's knowledge of even the general geography of Judea (broad sense) is also questionable
(Cf Luke 17:11). G. Ltidemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. S. Jones
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 35 n.40. W. Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach
to Its Problems (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 160.
235
Luke 7:41-43; 10:30-37; 15:8-9
97
seem to stem from what the author implies is a severe and unjust economic inequality
among the Galileans.236 On several occasions, L's Jesus criticizes the rich and
suggests that being wealthy makes salvation impossible.237 Even when he is not
directly criticizing the rich, Jesus tends to portray rich people as irresponsible fools.
Not only does this attitude pervade the Special Lukan Material, it also colors
the redaction of the Markan and Q material within the Gospel of Luke. There are, for
instance, a number of Q sayings that emphasize economic justice in the Lukan version,
but make no similar mention in the corresponding Matthean version.239 Given Luke's
focus on these issues and Matthew's willingness to preserve material from Mark that
focuses on economic justice, it seems more likely that Luke added the economic
concerns to the Q material than that Matthew omitted it. Furthermore, although Luke
only embellishes one narrative from Mark to emphasize the Lukan social message,
Luke completely alters the only story in Mark that seems to contradict Luke's
economic message: the story about the woman anointing Jesus.240 In the Markan
version, the disciples criticize the woman for wasting the ointment instead of selling it
to give money to the poor (Mark 14:3-9). Jesus, however, corrects them by saying:
"A({)6T6 airrf|V xi auTfi KOTTOUS TTCCPEXSTE; KCCAOV spyov

fipyaaccro ev 6|_ioi. TTCCVTOTE yap TOUS TTTCOXOUS E'XETE pe0'
236
Poverty—Luke 4:18; 14:13; 16:20. Debt—Luke 7:41-43; 16:20. Robbery—Luke 10:30-37; 11:21-
22.
237
Luke 12:16-21; 14:33; 16:19-31. The Lukan version of the Beatitudes (Luke 6:20-26) also includes
condemnations of the wealthy and fortunate that are not included in the Matthean version (Matthew 5:3-
12).
238
Luke 12:16-20; 15:11-32
239
Luke 6:24-26, 34; 12:33,
240
Luke 5:27-32 adds to the Markan story of Levi's conversion that Levi "left everything" to follow
Jesus.
98
eauxcov, KCU 'bxav 0SAT]TE SuvaaSs auTois EU TToi?|aai, SUE
5s ou TTCCVTOXE E'XSTE. (Mark 14:6-7)
Luke completely omits this exchange and supplies an entirely different reason
for people to be upset about the woman's interaction with Jesus.241
Unlike Mark and M, which barely mention economic problems in Galilee, L
makes confronting economic injustice the major focus of Jesus' Galilean ministry.
The Special Lukan Material is constantly referring to economic inequality, debt,
robbery, the evils of wealth, and the importance of charity during Jesus' Galilean
949
ministry. Moreover, L's Jesus emphasizes that the world is about to experience a
major reversal of fortunes in which the rich and powerful with lose everything, and the
94^
poor and helpless will gain what they currently lack. Perhaps the clearest
illustration of Jesus' economic values in L is in the Parable of the Dishonest Manager:
"EAEyev 5e KCU rrpbs TOUS ua0r]xas, "AvSpcorros TIS r]v

TTAOUOIOS os EIX^V OIKOVOUOV, KCU ouxos SiE(3Af|0ri auxco
cos 5iaaKoprri£cov xa urrapxovTa OCUTOU." KCU (bcovf|aas
auTov EITTEV auxco, Ti TOUTO CCKOUCO rrspl aou; arroSos TOV
Abyov TT]S oiKovouias aou, ou yap 5uvr) ETI OIKOVOUEW
EITTEV 5E EV Eauxco b OIKOVOUOS, Ti rroif|oco, OTI b Kupios
uou achaipErrai xf|v otKovouiav arr' EUOU; OKCCTTTEIV OUK
iaxuco, srraiTETv aiaxuvouai." syvcov TI rroif]aco, iva bxav
UExaaxaSco EK TT)S oiKovouias 5E£COVTCU UE EIS TOUS
O'I'KOUS sauTcov/ Kai TTpoaKaAsaauEvos Eva EKaaxov xcov
XP£O<T)£IAETCOV TOU Kupi'ou Eauxou lAEysv xco rrpcoxco,
TTbaov O(J)EIAEIS TCO Kupico uou;*' b 5E EITTEV, 'EKOTOV
Paxous EAaiou. b 5E EITTEV auxco, Al£ai aou xa ypauuaxa
Kai KaSioas xaxscos ypavjvov TrsuxriKovxa. STTSiTa EXEpco
EITTEV, ZU 5E TTOOOV OÊIAEIS; b 5E EITTEV, 'EKOXOV Kopous
aixou. Alyeijauxco, Al£ai aou xa ypauuaTa Ka'i ypaôv
by5or|Kovxa. Kai ETTTIVEOEV b Kupios xbv OIKOVOUOV xfjs
aoiKias OTI (bpoviucos errofriaEV bxi oi uioi xou alcovos
In the Lukan version (Luke 7:36-50), the woman is a sinner, and the Pharisees criticize Jesus for
associating with her.
242
Luke 4:18; 6:23-26; 7:41-43; 10:30-37; 11:21-22; 12:13-14, 16-21; 14:12-15,33; 16:19-31
243
Luke 1:52-53; 4:18
99
TOUTOU <|>pOV!|JCOTepOI UTTSp TOUS UIOUS TOU <}>COTOS SIS TT)V
ysvsccv TT\V ECCUXCOV e'laiv.' Kai sycb uyiv Asyco, lauxo7s
TTOifiaare <t>iAous EK TOU uaucova x?is aSiKias, 'iva bxav
sKAirrri 5E£COVXCCI uuas sis xas aicovious OKTIVCCS. " b
TTioxbs iv sAaxioxco Kai SV TTOAACO TTIOXOS saxiv, KCCI 6 sv
lAaxiaxco 6:5IKOS KCCI EV TTOAACO CXSIKOS saxiv." E'I OUV SV
xcS aSiKco papcovg TTIOXOI OUK sysvsaSs, xb aAr|0ivbv xis
\j\f\v TTioxsuasi;" xal si EV XCO aAAoxpico TTIOXOI OUK
Eysvsans, xo upsxspov xis OCOOEI upiv;
This parable seems to assume that all wealth is dishonest wealth and, therefore, that all
wealthy people are dishonest. The manager has been dishonest, and his reaction to
being fired is to be dishonest again. The master's dishonesty is conveyed even more
strongly: although he has just lost quite a bit of money, the master is so impressed by
the manager's shrewdness that he commends his servant. The rich man is so corrupt
that he cannot help but delight in being swindled so successfully.
What is most striking about this parable, however, is its moral. The parable
presents the manager's dishonesty as an example of proper behavior. Although the
manager's motives are selfish—to win friends for himself—he acts as a sort of Robin
Hood, stealing from the rich to defend the poor. Jesus' explanation of the parable's
meaning in verses 8b-13 suggests that, since the economic system is fundamentally
dishonest, it is okay to be dishonest with wealth as long as the result is beneficial to
the underprivileged.
Aside from the dishonest manager, one other type of retainer is mentioned in
L: the tax collector. The frequent criticism both by Jesus and his opponents of tax
44
Luke 16:1-12. The presence of the semetic word, pcc|jcova|, in the special Lukan material can be
explained as a harmonization with the use of that term for wealth in Q. This explanation is strengthened
by the fact that the Qpericope in question is added to the end of this parable (Luke 16:13).
collectors suggests that the author of L considered men of this profession to be hated
in Galilee.245 In this, L agrees with M about the poor reputation of tax collectors in
Galilee, but Jesus' criticism of publicans in the L material does have one significant
difference from his criticism in the M material. In M, Jesus' criticism seems to be
focused on the injustice of the taxes themselves. In L, however, the author appears
to accept taxation—specifically, taxation by the Roman Government—as
legitimate.247 Jesus aims his criticism in L squarely at the tax collectors themselves,
who defraud people by collecting much more than they are required. In L, the tax
collectors are just one of several groups in Galilee who get rich by oppressing the
poor.
Since the Lukan material makes economic justice the focus of Jesus' Galilean
ministry, it is somewhat surprising that L barely mentions socio-economic problems
while Jesus is in Judea (strict sense). This might suggest that the author of the Special
Lukan Material considered Galilee to be in a worse socio-economic situation than
Judea (strict sense). However, since the Markan material contains numerous
criticisms of the economic conditions of Judea (strict sense), and virtually no such
criticisms of the conditions in Galilee, in may be that the author of Luke chose to
insert his non-Markan material that condemned wealth, oppression, and inequality in
the portions of the Markan narrative where such criticism was lacking: the Galilean
Z45
Luke 2:1-5; 7:29; 15:1-2
246
Matthew 17:24-27
247
In fact, the Lukan nativity story involves Jesus' parents willingly complying with a census that the
text explicitly links with Roman taxation (Luke 2:1).
ministry.24 Either way, it is clear that the author of the Special Lukan Material
considered Galilee's socio-economic system to be oppressive.
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
Like the other Gospel sources discussed in this chapter, the Special Lukan
Material clearly portrays Galilee's population as Jewish and religious. L states that
there are synagogues throughout the region and implies that Pharisaic rulings on
halakhic matters were considered normative in Galilee.249 Unlike Mark and M, L also
emphasizes the importance of Judean (strict sense) religious figures in Galilean
religious life by having Jesus and his family perform most of their important religious
rituals in Jerusalem.250
Nevertheless, the Pharisees appear to be the major religious leaders in Galilee,
and conflicts between Jesus and his religious opponents play a major role in the
Special Lukan Material. The major religious disagreements between Jesus and his
opponents in Galilee are about the propriety of healing on the Sabbath, the treatment
of sinners, matters of ritual purity, and the appropriate attitude toward Gentiles.
Jesus' attitude on all the matters in L parallels his attitude in Mark: Purity and ritual
laws are much less important than ethical matters. Therefore, the text implies,
248
See my discussion on this matter in Chapter 4.
249
Pharisees—Luke 5:17; 7:29-30, 36; 11:37-38,53-54; 13:31; 14:2-6; 15:1-2; 16:14-15.
Synagogues—Luke 4:14b-15, 37; 13:10-17
250
Luke 2:21-43; 22:15, 56
251
Luke 4:25-30; 7:36-49; 11:37-38; 13:11-17; 14:2-6
102
Pharisaic legalism should be rejected in favor of a more relaxed and tolerant stance on
these issues. Perhaps the most prominent way in which Luke illustrates this difference
between Jesus and the Pharisees is by illustrating their differing attitudes toward table
fellowship. The Pharisees only eat with righteous, ritually clean people, but Jesus eats
with both Pharisees and sinners.252 Although these contrasting attitudes toward table
fellowship are mentioned in the other Synoptic materials, they are only a major focus
in L. L emphasizes the importance of table fellowship within Galilean society, and
makes open table fellowship a central focus of Jesus' ministry.253
By implication, Jesus' focus on religious and social outcasts suggests that the
author of the Lukan Material considered elitism and ostracism to be characteristic of
Galilean religious life. Otherwise, Jesus would not have had much to criticize.
Although L and Mark tend to take similar stances on religious matters, L's
Jesus however, appears a bit more radical than Mark's. This is especially true of L's
opinion of the Gentile mission. While Mark accepts the Gentile mission, L makes it a
focus of Jesus' ministry.254 Moreover, in Acts, the author of Luke will portray the
Gentile mission as more important than the mission to the Jews since God eventually
rejects the Jewish people (Acts 13:44-52).
Given the importance of the Gentile mission to Jesus in L, it is surprising that
the Special Lukan Material does not describe any encounter between Jesus and a
Gentile. In fact, the only encounters between Jews and non-Jews in Luke occur
252
Luke 7:36; 11:37-38; 14:1-15
253
Luke7:36; 11:37-38; 14:1,7,12-15; 15:1-2
254
Luke 4:25-30; 17:12-29; 24:46-47
103
between Jews and Samaritans, and none of them suggest good relations between the
two groups 255 This strongly suggests that the author of L did not think that there were
many Gentiles in first-century Galilee and that, although the author supported the
Gentile mission, he does not consider this to have been a common view among
Galileans. In fact, the author portrays the Galileans as being enraged by the mere
mention of the Gentile mission (Luke 4:35-30).
Aside from Jesus' stance on religious issues, there is another similarity
between L and Mark's portrayal of Jesus' ministry: almost all of Jesus' healings and
exorcisms take place in Galilee.256 This may suggest that the author of L also
envisioned a distinction between Galilean and Judean (strict sense) attitudes about
charismatic healers and exorcists.
LOCAL LEADERSHIP
In the Special Lukan Material, the Pharisees appear almost exclusively in
Galilee, though the text does indicate that there were Pharisees living in both Judea
(strict sense) and Galilee.257 The Pharisees appear to have a high profile in Galilee,
but there is no indication that they have any sort of official power in that region.
Although the Pharisees are still frequently portrayed as Jesus' opponents, they seem to
255
Luke 9:52-53; 10:30-37
256
Luke 4:27; 5:17; 7:12-15,21, 25; 13:11-17; 17:12-19
257
Luke 5:17 mentions the Pharisees from both Judea (strict sense) and Galilee. However all of the
other Pharisees mentioned in L are Galileans (Luke 5:17; 7:29-30, 36; 11:37-38,53-54; 13:31; 14:2-61
15:1-2; 16:14-15).
104
have a better relationship with Jesus in L than they do in the other Gospels. For
example, they ask Jesus to dine with them on multiple occasions, and even warned
Jesus that Herod wants to kill him so that Jesus can flee.258 Unlike The Pharisees in
the other Gospels, L's Pharisees appear to be well-meaning individuals who have been
led astray by being too judgmental and by being "lovers of money."
But the Pharisees are not Jesus' only opponents in Galilee. The text also
mentions "teachers of the law," scribes, and Lawyers, as Galilean opponents of
Jesus.260 It is noteworthy that these groups are always mentioned in connection with
the Pharisees in L, and it is not clear what—if any—distinction the author made
between these groups and the Pharisees.261 Neither the Sadducees, the elders, "the
council," nor "the Herodians" appear in the special Lukan material, and the Priests
appear only in Judea (strict sense).262
POLITICAL INSTABILITY
There are two indications within the Special Lukan Material of political
instability in Galilee. The first is the fact that Herod is worried enough about Jesus
258
Luke 7:36; 11:37-38; 13:31
259
Luke 5:17; 7:29-30, 36; 11:37-38,53-54; 13:31; 14:2-6; 15:1-2; 16:14-15
250
Luke 5:17; 7:29-30; 10:25-26,29; 11:45,53-54; 14:2-6; 15:1-2
261
J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke: New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 300-307. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
212.
262
The priests appear in Judea (strict sense) in Luke 1:5; 23:10-21. Jesus does mention priests twice
during his Galilean ministry: once in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), and once in
his instructions to the healed lepers (Luke 17:14). However, neither of these passages suggest that there
are priests in Galilee.
105
want to kill him (Luke 13:31), which suggests that he fears the problems Jesus could
create. The second is that Luke mentions that one of Jesus' disciples is a Zealot.
A third possible indication of Galilean political instability in L is the material's
characterization of Antipas. While Antipas appears to be well-connected and allied
with other powerful groups in Judea (strict sense) and Galilee in the other Synoptic
material, in L, Antipas appears to be more isolated politically. The Pharisees, who are
Herod's allied in Mark and M, actually work against him in Luke, and are not seen
helping Herod. Moreover, the author interrupts his narrative of Jesus' arrest to note
that Herod and Pilate had been enemies before reconciling during Jesus' trial (Luke
23:12).
263
Luke 6:15 says that Simon was called a Zealot. The reader should note that although I do not list
6:15 as part of the Special Lukan Material, Luke's use of the term "Zealot" is an alteration of his
source, Mark. Mark 3:18 uses the term "Cananean" (KccvccvccTov), which is probably a Semitic term for
"Zealot." However, the exact meaning of the term is unclear, and it is noteworthy that the author of
Luke altered his Markan source by translating the term as "Zealot" for his Gentile audience. This term
would be especially significant to any of Luke's readers who had also read Josephus' BJ. Marcus,
Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 264. Lane, The Gospel According to
Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 136.
CHAPTER 6: GALILEE ACCORDING TO JOHN AND THOMAS
106
107
Scholars studying early Roman Galilee generally pay little attention to the
Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas because both texts were composed later
than the Synoptic Gospels and both contain strong theological tendencies that affect
their presentations of Jesus. However, these Gospels should not be completely
ignored because both have the potential to corroborate the evidence in the Synoptic
Gospels. Moreover, because both Gospels offer portrayals of Jesus that differ
radically from those found in the Synoptic Gospels, it seems likely that they might
contain unique information about the social environment in first-century Galilee as
well.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
ABOUT THE GOSPEL
Of the New Testament evidence for first-century Galilee, the material from the
Fourth Gospel is probably the most difficult to evaluate. Because of the differences
between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels and because of the strong
theological agenda and overt Christology that pervades John, the Fourth Gospel is
generally considered by historians to be the least reliable of the canonical Gospels.
The author or authors of John are generally regarded as more concerned with
theological truth than historical fact, and have even been shown to alter their
264
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Jewish Peasant.
description of an event to suit their theological biases. Of course, these theological
biases need to be taken into account whenever someone is evaluating the historical
reliability of the Johannine traditions about Galilee.
Despite its reputation for fabrication, John also preserves some of the most
believable descriptions of life in first-century Judea (broad sense). For example,
John's description of Jesus' trial before the Jewish authorities is generally regarded as
more plausible than that of the Synoptics, and the mention of Jews using stone vessels
(John 2:6) for purification—a custom unique to Judean (broad sense) Jews of this
period—reflects a familiarity with the customs particular to Jews living in and around
Judea (broad sense).266
What makes evaluating the evidence from this Gospel even more difficult is it
contains clear literary seams and layers that indicate that the gospel material
underwent multiple phases of editing and expansion.267 According to most scholars,
the earliest core of John is the so-called "Signs Gospel," which likely contained a
265
Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 285-286.
266
Y. Magen, "Ancient Israel's Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times," BAR 24, no. 5 (1998). J. L.
Reed, "Stone Vessels and Gospel Texts: Purity and Socio-Economics in John 2," in Zeichen aus Text
undStein: Studien aufden Wegzu einer Archaologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. J. Zangenberg and S.
Alkier (Tubingen: A. Francke Verlag, 2003). S. Gibson, "Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period
from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment," in One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies
in Honour ofStanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. G. C. Bottini, L. d. Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala (Jerusalem:
Franciscan Printing Press, 2003). Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. Cf. Brown, The Gospel
According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, xlii-xliii.
Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, xxxii-xxxix.
109
collection of stories about Jesus' miracles.268 On top of this Signs Gospel, multiple
literary layers with differing styles have apparently been added.
The redaction-history of the Fourth Gospel makes it difficult to determine the
date and place of origin of the various layers. The Gospel itself claims to be written
by a community of John's followers who are recording the traditions taught to them by
the beloved disciple.270 This actually fits well with the consensus view among
scholars that John was written and reworked by a community of John's followers
somewhere in Asia Minor (probably Ephesus).271 Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel and
the Johannine Epistles appear to have been written by members of the same
community, and the polemical and dogmatic nature of the Johannine Epistles lends
credence to the theory that the Gospel underwent multiple stages of redaction. The
fact that the community members who wrote the epistles felt it necessary to make
authoritative statements of orthodoxy and to shun those who disagreed with them
suggests that this zeal for orthodoxy and the need to clarify the community's
theological statements were integral features of the Johannine Community.27 It seems
likely, then, that the Fourth Gospel's redaction occurred as part of the community's
R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth
Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Moloney and Harrington, The Gospel of John.
2 9
Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, xxxii-xxxix.
270
R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Mahwah: Paulist, 1978), 101-102.
271
A. T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1991), 14-20. R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and
Commentary, ed. D. N. Freedman, vol. 30, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 101-103.
22
R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. D. N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible
Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 46, 58-62, 81-82, 165, 168, 211.
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 16, 24, 147-150. Brown, The Epistles of John:
Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, 55, 65, 67, 70-71, 105-106, 112-114, 289, 344,
374,495,656, 748.
110
efforts to formulate its doctrine. Moreover, the fact that 1 John was probably intended
to serve as a preface to the Gospel, suggests that the community continued to feel the
need to add to the Gospel even after it attained its present form274
Despite the difficulty in separating the redactional layers of John, there is a
general consensus that John reached its current form about 90 C.E., probably after the
Christian community that composed the Gospels was expelled from the local Jewish
community.275 The bitterness of the community is reflected in the allusions to their
expulsion and the text's frequent disparaging remarks about "the Jews."276 This hatred
of "the Jews" frequently colors the Fourth Gospel's depiction of important Jewish
figures, and the Gospel's tendency to smear "the Jews" needs to be accounted for by
anyone trying to evaluate John as an historical source.
The cultural background of the Gospel's authors seems to be a blend of Jewish
and Hellenistic cultures. It is generally accepted that the Johannine community was
largely composed of Jewish Christians, but it is also clear that the text reflects a very
Hellenized world-view.277 The text's use of Greek philosophical terms, such as
Aoyos, and the numerous Greek puns suggest that the text's authors were reasonably
well educated in Greek literature and thought.278 Despite the strongly Hellenized
features of the Gospel, there are also many parallels between the Gospel of John and
274
Brown, The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, 90-92.
275
F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994),
215-216. Moloney and Harrington, The Gospel ofJohn, 3, 12, 164, 190,258.
276
John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 7:1-3; 9:22; 11:7-8; 12:42
277
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1968). Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, 8, 28, 92-93, 322-325.
278
Aoyos—John 1:1, 14; 5:38; 8:37; 10:35; 14:23-24
Ill
the Jewish apocalyptic texts of the period.279 John's Gospel also has strong Gnostic
tendencies, and these tendencies lead many scholars to conclude that the Johannine
community represents an intermediate stage between a form of early Jewish

280
Christianity focused on Gnosis and the proper Gnosticism of later centuries.
ECONOMICS
Because of its theological focus, the Fourth Gospel tends to ignore the more
mundane aspects of life in its narratives. As a result, John's Gospel mentions few
details that would suggest the socio-economic conditions he envisioned in Jesus'
Galilee. Moreover, since most of the Gospel takes place in Judea (strict sense), there
are not many Galilean narratives that can be examined for such details.
There is some evidence of monetization in John 6:5-7, but that is about all that
can be gleaned about the Socio-economic environment of John's Jesus.
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
Since most of John's Gospel takes place in Judea (strict sense), the Gospel
gives us a much better idea of how its authors viewed Judea's (strict sense) religious
Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, 140.

280
E. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003), 30-73.
Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, 117-126. Moloney and Harrington, The Gospel of John,
7-13.
112
environment than Galilee. Nevertheless, the Fourth Gospel still contains important
information about how its authors viewed the religious milieu of first-century Galilee.
John never mentions several of the religious and political groups mentioned by
the other Gospels.281 What leaders are mentioned—the Pharisees, priests, and
Levites—appear only in Judea (strict sense), and the text therefore implies that these
leaders are not to be found in Galilee. For example, Jesus and his disciples seem to
consider Galilee to be outside the reach of these religious leaders, whom, the text
repeatedly states, are trying to kill Jesus.282 The frequent mention of these religious
groups in John's Judean (strict sense) narratives and their total absence in the Gospel's
Galilean material suggest that the authors believed that these groups were found only
in Judea (strict sense). Even a sympathetic religious leader, such as John the Baptist,
is not seen in Galilee.283 In fact, Jesus is the only religious leader present in any of
John's Galilean narratives.
Some might conclude from this evidence that the author of the Fourth Gospel
viewed Galilee as either non-Jewish, unreligious, or following solely the Judean (strict
sense) religious leadership. However, these features of John could also be the result of
John's theological agenda, which would only be concerned with other religious
leaders when they are in direct conflict with Jesus—as the Jerusalem authorities are
after Jesus' disruption in the temple in John 2:13-25. In my estimation, there is
sufficient evidence that the latter is the most reasonable conclusion. Although John
281
There is no mention of the teachers of the Law, the Herodians, the council, Sadducees, elders,
lawyers, or scribes in John
282
John 5:18; 7:1, 19-25; 8:37-40
283
John the Baptist's arrest is alluded to in John 3:24, but it is never stated who arrests him or where.
113
does not mention the religious leaders in Galilee, the Gospel does contain other
indications of Galilean "Jewishness" and religiosity.
The presence of a synagogue in Capernaum, for example, and Jesus'
identification as a Jew suggest that the inhabitants of John's Galilee are Jewish.284
The function of the synagogue in Capernaum as a religious center and the presence of
stone washing vessels at the Wedding in Cana also suggest that the inhabitants of
Jesus' village were somewhat religiously observant and that they probably had some
local religious leaders.285 The identity of these leaders is not clear, but the text implies
that Jesus may be one of them.286
Nevertheless, Jesus does not appear to assert whatever official religious
authority he may have in John. Instead, his major claims to authority are based rest on
his abilities to reveal cosmic truths to people and to perform miracles.287 Unlike
Mark, John does not distinguish between Galilean and Judean (strict sense) attitudes
about Jesus' activities as a healer. Jesus' powers as a healer make him popular among
both Galileans and Judeans (strict sense), even if the Jerusalem authorities seem
unhappy about them.
284
John 4:9; 6:56-59; 18:35. The reader should note, however, that the Capernaum Synagogue is the
only Galilean Synagogue mentioned in John. The other three synagogues in John appear to be in Judea
(strict sense) (John 9:18-22; 12:42-43; 16:1-3).
285
John 2:6. Stone vessels could not become impure according to the prevailing halakhic opinions of
the time. See my archaeology chapter for more details.
Jesus' teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum in 6:59 is related as if it were an unremarkable
occurrence. Of course, it is not clear whether teaching in the synagogue was a function restricted to a
certain group of leaders or whether anybody could teach there.
287
John 2:11,22; 4:39, 53; 11:41-45
288
John 4:46-53; 5:2-9; 9:1-7; 11:1-44
114
"THE JEWS" IN JOHN
One of the more striking features of the Gospel of John is the Gospel's
antipathy toward "the Jews." Since Jesus, his disciples, and even the authors of John
are all generally believed to have been Jewish, the frequent criticism of Jews seems a
bit odd. However, upon closer inspection it appears that the Gospel is almost always
using the term " ' louScuoi" to refer specifically to the residents of Judea (strict
sense). The three exceptions to this usage are: 1) when the author describes the six
water jars used for "Jewish purification,"290 2) when the Samaritan women calls Jesus
a Jew and the narrator explains the enmity between Jews and Samaritans (John 4:9),
and 3) when Jesus is called "6 PCCOIAEUS TCOV ' louSaicov" during his trial and
execution.291 In each of these cases, the author has no choice but to use the term
" ' louScuos" in a more general sense.
In every other case, however, the Gospel of John seems careful to use the term
" ' louScuoi" only in reference to Judeans (strict sense). The following are the only
two references to Jews (except for the aforementioned notice about Jewish purification
jars) in John's Galilean narratives:
Kcti UETCC Tcarm TrepieTTcrrei b 'Irpous ev T?| raAiXaioc ou

yap f|0eAev ev T?| ' louSaia TrepirraTetv, o n s^ryrouv auTov
oi 'louSaioi aTTOKxeivou." r\v 5e eyyus n eopTri TCOV
'louSaicov f] aKr|VOTTriyia." elrrov ouv rrpbs auxbv oi
Contra: Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on
the Greek Text, 172.
290
John2:6—"rpccv 5s EKST AI6IVCCI uSpi'ai s^ Kaxot TOV Ka6apia|j6v TCOV 'louSaicov KSI'IJEVCCI . . . "
291
John 18:39; 19:3,14, 19,21
115
oc5eA<|>oV| ocuxou, MeTa(3r|0i SVTEU8SV KCU urrays sis TT\V
'louSaiav, 'iva KCU oi uaBrrrcu aou escoprpouoWaou xa
epya a TTOISTS'
(John 7:1-3)
erreiTa M6Ta TOUTO Aeyei TOIS MctQ^1"^?, "Aycousv eis TT\V

'louSaiav rraAiv. Asyouaiv auxco oi na0rrrai, 'PaPî, vvv
hQiyTovv as AiSaaai oi 'lou5a7oi, Kai TtaAiv vmayeis SKST;
(John 11:7-8)
These two passages illustrate perfectly John's use of the term " ' louSouos;" it is quite
clear that the speakers are referring specifically to Judeans (strict sense). Some
scholars have argued that these passages are referring specifically to the Jewish
authorities, but Jesus also accuses the general population of Judea (strict sense) of
trying to kill him, and the Gospel frequently refers to ordinary Judeans (strict sense) as
"'louSmoi." 292
Unlike Synoptic Gospels, which sometimes contain transliterated Aramaic
words in the narration or dialogue, John only uses one Aramaic word in its Galilean
narratives: Rabbi293 This, of course is not a strong indication that the authors of John
considered Aramaic to be the language primarily spoken in Galilee. A stronger
indication may be the fact that John is the only New Testament Gospel to preserve the
292
John 2:18-21; 5:9-18; 8:31-33,48, 57-59; 10:19-21,24,31-33; 12:9-11. Because Jesus'main
opposition appears to be from Judeans (strict sense) in John, and because Jesus seems to have a safe-
haven in Galilee, the Gospel seems to imply that Galileans were substantially less hostile than Judeans
(strict sense) to Jesus and his movement.
293
John 1:49; 6:24-25; 11:18
116
Aramaic version of Simon Peter's nickname: Cephas. John is also the only New
Testament Gospel to translate the Aramaic nickname "Thomas" into Greek
(AiSupos).295
The major evidence in John for the use of Greek among Galileans, however, is
the same as the evidence in the Synoptic Gospels: the fact that both Andrew and Philip
have Greek names and are said to be from Bethsaida.296 On the other hand, Philip's
connection to both Bethsaida and the Greek language may actually serve as evidence
for an Aramaic speaking Galilee. John 12:20-22 relates the interaction between some
Greeks, Philip, and Andrew:
^Hacxv 5e "EAArn/ss xives SK TCOV avafkuvovxcov 'iva

TrpoaKuvfpcoaiv sv x?| eopXTy * ouxoi ouv rrpoa?|A0ov
OIAITTTTCO xco CCTTO Br|0aai5a T?IS TaAiAaias, KCU fipcoxcov
ccuxbv Aeyovxes, Kupis, GeAouev xbv ' Irpouv I5E7V. "
epxsxai O OIAITTTTOS KCU Aeysi xco 'AvSpecr spxexai
'AvSpsas Kai OIAITTTTOS KCU Aeyouaiv xco 'Irioou.
In this passage, the "Greeks" single out Philip as the person to approach, and it
appears that the author considers Philip's residence in Bethsaida to be connected to
this decision.297 While this may imply that the author considered residents of
Bethsaida to be proficient in Greek, it suggests by extension that the author considered
John 1:42. "Cephas" (Aramaic for "Rock") is translated by the author into its Greek equivalent,
"TTsTpoc." The Synoptic Gospels never use the Aramaic form of this nickname; Paul occasionally uses
the Aramaic form in his letters (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5; Gal 2:9)
295
John 11:16,20:24,21:2.
296
John 1:40-44. Simon Peter, who is the third disciple from Bethsaida also has a Greek name, but
most scholars assume that his name was actually Simeon ([117027). The Semitic version of Simon's
name, however, is only mentioned once in the New Testament (Acts 15:14). So, in truth, all three
disciples from Bethsaida have given names that are Greek.
297
It is not clear if this term is meant to refer to Gentiles or Greek speaking Jews in this context. Brown
interprets it as "Gentiles:" Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes,
466.
117
the other disciples and Jesus to be less comfortable with Greek. Since Bethsaida is on
the border of the Jewish and Gentile territories surrounding the Sea of Galilee, John
may be implying that residents of Bethsaida were significantly more Hellenized than
the other inhabitants of Galilee.
SAMARITANS
Unlike the Jesus in Matthew and Mark, John's Jesus does not avoid social
contact with Samaritans (John 4:3-30). Jesus' willingness to speak with the Samaritan
woman should not be taken as evidence that Galileans had less animosity toward
Samaritans because the woman is utterly shocked by Jesus' overture and the narrator
claims that Jews avoid contact with Samaritans as much as possible (John 4:9).
Although the Fourth Gospel does not offer much information about how the
authors viewed the political situation in Galilee, chapter six does suggest that they
considered the region's inhabitants to be somewhat prone to revolt. In 6:15, Jesus has
to retreat by himself to a mountain because '''Irpous ouv yvous OTI yeAAouaiv
epxEO"6cu KCU apiraÊiu airrbv iva Troif|acoaiv PaaiXsa." This suggests that there
were, according to John, a sizable number of people in Galilee looking for a
revolutionary leader.
118
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
ABOUT THE GOSPEL
There is quit a bit of debate among New Testament scholars about Thomas'
date and relation to the canonical Gospels. Proposed dates range from the mid first-
century to the late second-century (or even the early third-century).298 The main
argument for a late dating of Thomas is that the text is generally considered to be the
product of Gnostic Christianity that developed in the second-century, and that the
similarities between Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels may suggest that Thomas is
dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, and that the earliest manuscript fragments of
Thomas date to the late second-century.299
Over the last generation, however, most scholars have come to realize that the
theology found in Thomas is not thoroughly Gnostic, but that later Gnostic
communities may have interpreted it in such a way.300 Although Thomas was found
among the collection of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi, and although Thomas is the
298
Koester, "Introduction to "The Gospel of Thomas"," 124-126. Blatz, "The Coptic Gospel of
Thomas," 112-113. Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 123-139. Marcus, Mark 1-
8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 55.
299
Koester, "Introduction to "The Gospel of Thomas"."
300
K. L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2005). R. Uro, Thomas:
Seeking the Historical Context of The Gospel of Thomas (New York: T & T Clark, 2003), 31-53.
Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom.
119
central figure of Syrian Gnosticism, the Gospel itself lacks the following important
features of Gnosticism:
1. A belief that the body is evil (although it is clearly inferior
to the spirit)
2. Advocacy of asceticism or libertinism
3. A cosmological dualism302
4. A distinction between "true father" and "world creator"
Moreover, the similarities between Thomas and the Synoptics undermine the
theory that Thomas is Gnostic. Although some have argued that Thomas might be
dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels, most agree that the similarity between parallel
sayings in Thomas and the Canonical Gospels are far too superficial to suggest literary
dependence.303 Instead, it seems that Thomas and the Synoptics were part of a
common tradition in early Christianity and, therefore, that they drew from related
sources about Jesus.304
These objections to the later dating of Thomas suggest that, rather than being
part of a later Gnostic tradition, Thomas was part of a pre-Gnostic tradition within
Christianity that later developed into the Gnosticism of the mid to late second-century.
This would imply that Thomas was written sometime in the late first or early second-
King, What Is Gnosticism? 197. (but many scholars question the validity of using these features to
define Gnosticism)
302
For Thomas, the kingdom is already spread upon the earth
Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 1-17.
King, What Is Gnosticism?
century. In other words, Thomas was probably composed around the same time as the
Gospel of John.
Fortunately, modern scholars have a very good idea of where the Gospel of
Thomas was composed. Although the only extant texts of the Gospel of Thomas were
found in Egypt, the Gospel is generally considered to have been written in Syria.
This is because Thomas was an important figure in the Syrian Christian tradition and
because early Syrian Christianity produced a number of texts attributed to Thomas
such as the Acts of Thomas.306 In fact, the Syrian church revered Thomas as a
dedicated apostle and the twin brother of Jesus. Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas'
style of Greek is consistent with the highly Semitized style of the Greek documents
that come from the bilingual (Syriac and Greek) environment of first and second-
century Syria.307
TENDENCIES AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although the Gospel lacks some of the hallmarks of later Gnosticism, the text
does have some strong Gnostic tendencies. It emphasizes a rejection of the world and
of worldly things, a realized eschatology, and a complete rejection of the Jewish
The existing texts include a complete Coptic manuscript from the fourth Century found at Nag
Hammadi and Greek fragments of the Gospel which date to the end of the second-century have also
been found at Oxyrhynchus.
A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Revised ed. (Boston: Brill,
2003), 15.
Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 18-21. S. L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas:
Annotated & Explained, ed. A. Harvey (Woodstock: Skylight Paths, 2002), xxxii.
121
Law.308 These theological tendencies need to be accounted for in order to assess
properly the evidence for Galilee in the Gospel of Thomas.
Another important feature that affects the modern reader's ability to use
Thomas as a source for Galilee's social history is that it is not a narrative Gospel. This
means that the Gospel does not contain many of the ancillary details found in the
narrative Gospels that might shed light on how the author envisioned Galilean society.
Furthermore, since the locations of Jesus' sayings are not given, it is not clear if they
should legitimately be considered evidence for Galilee's environment. Therefore,
scholars should exercise extreme caution when using material from Thomas as
evidence for the socio-economic environment of first-century Galilee.
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
A number of Jesus' sayings in the Gospel of Thomas focus on economic
problems and the counter-productivity of attachment to material wealth. As a
result, the economic environment assumed in the Gospel's sayings is made relatively
clear. A number of the sayings assume a monetized economy and assume that
commercial activity, debt, and lending play a prominent role in that economy. The
Gospel also appears to assume the existence of tensions between members of different
King, What Is Gnosticism ?

Thomas 63, 64, 110
Thomas 63, 64, 76, 95,100,109
122
classes in its several parables about economic exploitation, theft, and violence or
resentment between members of different classes.
Like the version found in the Synoptic Gospels, the Thomasine version of the
Parable of the Wicked Tenants appears to imply the existence of large or medium-
sized estates in Galilee (Thomas 65). However, this is the only piece of evidence for
such estates in Thomas.
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
The only religious group mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas is the Pharisees.
They are portrayed as people who get in the way of other people's spiritual well being,
but there are no specific indications of what kind of role the author of Thomas
envisioned the Pharisees playing in Galilee.312
Since Thomas is a sayings Gospel, there is not a major focus on religious
activities, but rather philosophical teachings. Nevertheless, Thomas does mention the
importance of healing to Jesus' ministry (Thomas 14) and condemns the observance of
Jewish rituals (Thomas 53). The frequent condemnation of Jewish rituals suggests
that these rituals were widely observed in Galilee.
'Thomases, 98,21,35
2
Thomas 39, 102
CHAPTER 7: GALILEE ACCORDING TO .TOSEPHUS
123
124
The most detailed extant literary sources for first-century C.E. Galilean society
are the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Born Joseph, son of Matthias,
to a priestly family in Judea (strict sense), Josephus was a young Judean (strict sense)
aristocrat when the Jews revolted against Rome in 66 C.E.313 Josephus was appointed
commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee.314 During the course of the war, he
attempted to make a stand against Vespasian's army at Jotapata and was taken
prisoner when the Romans sacked the town.
While a Roman prisoner, Josephus provided considerable aid to his captors'
military efforts against the Jewish rebels, and he eventually gained the trust of the
Tie
Flavians, who freed him, gave him Roman citizenship, and became his patrons.
Josephus spent the following decades writing, and his four known works have
survived intact. They are:
• The Jewish War (ca. 75 C.E.)—A history of the Jewish revolt
against Rome and the events that precipitated the revolt. The
work was probably finished by the mid 70s.
313
For detailed biographies of Josephus, see: S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita
and Development As a Historian, vol. 8, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition (Leiden: Brill,
1979). T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian andHis Society (London: Duckworth, 1983). P. Bilde,
Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1988). For a discussion of Josephus' activities in Galilee, see: G. Jossa, "Josephus' Action
in Galilee During the Jewish War," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, ed. F.
Parente and J. Sievers (New York: Brill, 1994).
314
However, Josephus met with frequent opposition from rival Galilean leaders.
315
Upon receiving Roman citizenship, Josephus adopted the Roman name Titus Flavius Josephus in
honor of his patrons.
125
• The Jewish Antiquities (ca. 94 C.E.)—A comprehensive history
of the Jewish people. It was probably composed in the early to
mid 90s.
• Against Apion (ca. 97 C.E.)—An apologetic work defending
the Jewish religion and stressing its morality and antiquity.
• The Life of Josephus (ca. 99 C.E.)—An autobiographical
account focused on defending the author's actions while he
was the commander of the Jewish rebel forces in Galilee.
Since portions of the Jewish War (BJ) and the Jewish Antiquities (Ant.) and the vast
majority of the Life of Flavins Josephus (Vita) are set in Galilee, Josephus' works are
among the most important sources for the History of first-century C.E. Galilee.
The current chapter will offer a reconstruction of how Josephus portrays first-
century Galilee in his writings. The chapter will also attempt to evaluate the reliability
of certain key features of Josephus' depiction of the region. Like the preceding
chapters covering the Gospels, this chapter will avoid using evidence from other
sources for Galilee in its interpretation of Josephus' works.
JOSEPHUS' BIASES AND AGENDA
Any attempt to glean historical information from Josephus' works must begin
by acknowledging the problems associated with using Josephus as an historical

126
source. In addition to his notorious sloppiness, Josephus had several important
shortcomings as an historian.316
The most commonly recognized problem with Josephus' writings is that the
BJ, Vita, and Ant. frequently contradict one another. Some of these discrepancies are
insignificant and could easily have been the results of honest mistakes or the discovery
of new information by Josephus. Other differences, however, are so dramatic that
they can only have been the result of either deliberate dishonesty on the part of the
author.317
The cause of these discrepancies appears to be the fact that Josephus' writings
are works of propaganda as much as they are works of history.318 Most modern
scholars agree that the majority of the contradictions in Josephus' works can be
attributed to changes in his propagandistic agenda as the political climate changed in
the Roman Empire.319
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 31, 35, 37, 39, 47,
49, 51, 57,66-67,110, 113, 151, 233-234,270. U. Rappaport, "Josephus' Personality and the Credibility
of his Narrrative," in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Z. Rodgers, Supplements to
the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Boston: Brill, 2007).
317
For detailed discussions of the contraditictions in Josephus' works, see: H. S. J. Thackeray,
Josephus: The Man and the Historian (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2006), 10-22. Cohen, Josephus in
Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 3-23. U. Rappaport, "Where was
Josephus Lying—In his Life or in the War?" in Josephus and the history of the Greco-Roman period:
essays in memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers (New York: Brill, 1994). Rappaport,
"Josephus1 Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative." M. Broshi, "The Credibility of Josephus,"
in Essays in Honour ofYigael Yadin, ed. G. Vermes and J. Neusner (Totowa, 1983). For studies that
emphasize Josephus' reliability, see: Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Bilde, Flavius
Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance.
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 147-151, 154-159,
235-238.
S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, vol. 18, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
(New York: Brill, 1990). Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a
Historian, 151. Rappaport, "Where was Josephus Lying—In his Life or in the War?"
127
As a former revolutionary leader whose patrons were the very imperial family
he had once fought, Josephus would have been in a precarious position. Obviously, he
would have had to avoid offending or insulting Vespasian and Titus, and it is likely
that he altered his narration of certain events to that end.320
The Flavians, however, were probably not the only patrons Josephus had to
placate. Seth Schwartz has made a strong case that, as an ambitious political figure,
Josephus sought the favor of those in power, and that Josephus changed his historical
narrative to suit the political winds. The evidence suggests that Agrippa II patronized
Josephus and that Josephus probably relied on other prominent Jewish figures as
well.321
Josephus was also in a difficult position as a Jew in the post-70 Roman
Empire. As one of the leaders of the Jewish revolt, Josephus was probably viewed by
many Roman leaders with suspicion322 The current scholarly consensus is that
Josephus wrote BJ to exonerate the Jewish people as a whole of any culpability in the
revolt of 66, and that the Vita was written to defend Josephus against charges that he
was a tyrant and the primary instigator of the revolt in Galilee. He insists that the
majority of the Jews in Judea (broad sense)—and especially the aristocracy—opposed
the revolt, but that they were coerced into it by a militant minority.324
320
Rappaport, "Josephus' Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative," 68.
321
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 177-180.
322
In Vita 424-425, Josephus mentions that he faced frequent accusations throughout his life after the
war. Cf.BJ 7.437 -450
323
Vita 260, 302. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian,
125.
324
This claim is made strongly in BJ, but is tempered a bit in Ant. and Vita.
In order to excuse the majority of Jews and Jewish leaders, Josephus attempts
to distance them from both those who started the revolt and those rebels who were
captured and punished by Rome as traitors. For example, Josephus maintains that
many of the "leaders" of the revolt desired peace with Rome, but had to pretend to
support the revolt in order to maintain their power and lives (Vita 175-176). Many
people have noted that it is unlikely that neither the Jewish aristocracy, who would
form the initial revolutionary government, nor the Judean (strict sense) demos had
little to do with the outbreak of the revolt, yet this is precisely what Josephus claims
happened.325 Clearly, Josephus has altered the course, participants, and causes of the
beginning of the revolt in order to exonerate the Judean (strict sense) leadership.
Another way in which Josephus disassociates the revolutionary leaders from
the revolt itself is to use certain leaders as scapegoats. Simon bar Giora, Eleazar ben
Simon, and John of Gischala were the rebel leaders in control of Jerusalem when
Vespasian began his siege of the city. Although Josephus mysteriously omits
Eleazar's fate, we know that the Romans punished John and Simon as traitors. This
makes Eleazar, Simon, and John convenient scapegoats. Josephus disassociates these
three leaders from the "legitimate" leaders who were in control at the beginning of the
revolt. In particular, Josephus goes to great lengths to distance himself from John and
portray John as his archrival while the two figures vied for power in Galilee.327
Because Josephus is so interested in isolating these scapegoats and branding them as
325
&/2.301-304, 316, 321-324, 332, 338,405,411-419,422-437,525-529,556. Cf. Cohen, Josephus
in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 98-101.
326
&/6.433-434; 7:154, 265
327
BJ 2.585-632; Vita 82-95, 101, 122-125, 189-195,217-218,236-241,246,253-256,271-274
129
"Ar|aTai," his claims about the political leanings of rebel leaders, the popularity of
Jewish leaders, and the conduct of his political enemies are suspect.
Another well-known problem with using Josephus as an historical source is
that he uses his histories to satisfy his own vanity and defend his honor. This
tendency is particularly relevant in terms of Josephus' depiction of Galilee's
population and of the troops that he commanded. It is generally agreed that Josephus
often exaggerated the size of Galilee's population and the number of troops that he
commanded in order to embellish his description of his own military career.
After the revolt, several Jews accused Josephus of various crimes and
attacked his character (Vita 424-429). One of his Jewish rivals, Justus of Tiberias,
even wrote a rival history in which he accuses Josephus of all sorts of misdeeds during
the latter's time in Galilee (Vita 336). Josephus even notes that both Jews and
Romans regarded him as a traitor to the Jewish people.331
The combination of Josephus' vanity and the attacks from his rivals led him to
demonize rival figures in his history—most notably his Galilean rivals such as John of
Gischala and Justus of Tiberias—and whitewash his own actions.332 Shaye Cohen's
landmark study on Josephus' development as an historian argues that one of Josephus'
328
BJ 2.254-265,652-653
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita andDevelopment As a Historian, 91, 123, 139, 144,
200, 204, 212, 223,229-230, 239. Rappaport, "Josephus' Personality and the Credibility of his
Narrrative."
330
Rappaport, "Josephus'Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative." Cohen, Josephus in Galilee
and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 90-99.
331
BJ3.439; Vita 416
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 91 -100.
Rappaport, "Josephus' Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative."
130
main biases in BJ is his desire to present himself as an ideal general, a popular leader,
a dutiful servant of God, and a person of just character.
Given the numerous contradictions and biases present in Josephus' work, it is
difficult to know when to trust what he says. The modern scholar, however, should
not overstate the unreliability of Josephus' accounts. Most of the information
contained in his works that can be corroborated by other sources is reasonably
accurate. Generally speaking, it appears that Josephus usually was genuinely
interested in relating history as accurately as he was able—and when it would not
endanger his own reputation or career. It is only when Josephus had a personal
interest in changing or obscuring the facts that he does so. Unfortunately for scholars
studying first-century Galilee, it is about the events that took place in that region that
Josephus had the greatest incentive to lie.335
Even when Josephus did choose to alter history to suit his interests, there were
important restraints on his ability to misrepresent historical events. First, Josephus'
contemporary audience consisted of many people—including his Flavian patrons—
who had actually participated in the revolt. At the very least, he would have had to
construct a narrative that would withstand scrutiny from a number of influential
eyewitnesses. Second, Josephus was not the only person to write an account of the
Jewish revolt, and the existence of these other accounts probably would have limited
Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance.
Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society.
335
Rappaport, "Where was Josephus Lying—In his Life or in the War?" Rappaport, "Josephus'
Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative." Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and
Development As a Historian. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics.
131
his ability to fabricate a history that suited his own interests. Nevertheless, these
constraints would not have prevented Josephus from "spinning" events to suit his
needs and even fabricating accounts that could not be refuted by his contemporaries.
In sum, Josephus appears to be trustworthy except where he got sloppy or had
an interest in hiding the truth. For modern historians, therefore, the proper treatment
of Josephus as a historical source would be to trust Josephus' accounts whenever we
lack good reasons to doubt a specific account. This will be the procedure employed in
the current work.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
THE TAX BURDEN
The economic activity Josephus mentions most frequently in his Galilean
narratives is taxation.336 Unfortunately, he rarely discusses the methods of taxation
and focuses instead on the tax revenues gained by the rulers. Nevertheless, the tax
revenue figures can tell modern readers a few things about the Galilean economy.
Josephus states that Galilee and Peraea yielded a tax revenue of 200 talents during
iib
BJ 1.220-222,314-316; 2.93-100, 272-276; 4.333-336; Ant. 17.304-314, 317-320; 18.273-278;
19.351-352; 20.211-214
337
Of course, given Josephus' position as a priest and a client of the Flavians, perhaps Josephus' failure
to mention methods of taxation is to be expected.
132
Antipas' rule, and it seems reasonable to suppose that most of this money came from
Galilee.338
By comparing the tax revenues of other Herodian rulers, we can get an idea of
the relative wealth of Galilee. At this time, Archelaus collected 600 talents from
Judea (strict sense), Samaria, Idumaea, and a number of semi-independent cities in this
region; Philip collected 100 talents from Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and "pspri
TIVCC TOU Zrivcovos O'IKOU xa rrspi 'ivvavco;" and Salome collected 60 talents form
Jamnia, Ashdod, Phasaelis, and the palace at Ashkelon (BJ2.93-100). This means
that Galilee and Peraea yielded Antipas about one-fifth of the total tax revenue raised
in Herod the Great's former kingdom.
We also know that 100 of the 700 talents (or about 15%) paid as tribute to
Cassius by Antipater in 43 B.C.E. was raised in Galilee (BJ 1.220-222). If we assume
that these tax revenues would have corresponded roughly with the wealth of each
region, then it appears that Galilee made up approximately 15% of the Judean (broad
sense) economy.
Unfortunately, it is not clear if the 200-talent figure for Antipas' tax revenues
refers to the total taxes raised by Antipas or the total tax revenue he retained after
paying tribute to Rome. In fact, scholars are divided as to whether or not Antipas even
had to pay a regular tribute to Rome. Josephus tells us that Pompey "lepoooAuya
UTTOTsAfi 4>opou Pcouaiot? ETroiriaeu" (Ant. 14.74) in 63 B.C.E. and that Herod paid
Galilee was a significantly more populous region with much more natural resources than Peraea.
mandatory tributes to his Roman patrons in 43 and 39 B.C.E. Some scholars argue
that, since we know that the Judean (broad sense) client rulers paid tribute from 63 to
39 B.C.E., we have no reason to believe that Herod and his successors were ever
excused from paying tribute.340 Others, however, argue that, since Josephus does not
mention any tributes paid by Herodian rulers to Rome, and since Herod had become
an invaluable Roman ally, Augustus and the succeeding emperors may have lightened
or abolished the tribute requirement for Herod and his descendants. Jack Pastor
even makes the case that Herod may have been allowed to build imperial monuments
at home and fund them abroad as a substitute for paying tribute.342
We also know that Agrippa I derived about 240 talents more in tax revenues
than his predecessors did from the same territories, and this suggests that Galilee
would have paid more taxes to Agrippa than it did to Antipas.343 Of course, the
increased tax burden would have done some harm to the Galilean economy,
particularly for the members of the lower classes. Unfortunately, we cannot know
how significant the impact of Agrippa's tax hike was. Conversely, if we assume that
the tax rate per capita remained the same from Herod's death until Agrippa assumed
339
BJ\. 220-222; Ant. 15.106-107
340
H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1983),
298-300. S. Applebaum, "Judaea as a Roman Province: The Countryside as a Political and Economic.
Factor," mANRW 2.8 (New York: de Gruyer, 1977), 373. M. Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on
Jews and Judaism, vol. 2: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1980), 189-190.
E. Gabba, "The Finances of King Herod," in Greece and Rome in Ere tz Israel: CollectedEssays, ed.
A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990), 164-165.
342
J. Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (New York: Routledge, 1997), 110.
343
Josephus claims that Agrippa's total revenues amounted to 12,000,000 drachmae {Ant. 19.351-352).
Jack Pastor assumes that Josephus gives his tax revenue figures in Tyran drachmae (10,000 per talent),
which means that Agrippa received 12,000 talents in tax revenue. Ibid., 227-228. If we assume that
Josephus gives his tax figures in Attic drachmae (6,000 per talent), then Agrippa received 2,000 talents.
134
control of Herod's entire kingdom, then this would indicate rapid (by ancient
standards) growth in Judea (broad sense) during the half-century following Herod's
death.344
METHODS OF TAX COLLECTION
In general, Josephus' statements about tax collection under the Herodians and
the Roman governors appear consistent with the general practice of sending out tax
collectors to gather a certain amount of money without very specific instructions as to
how it should be collected.345 Most likely, the tax collectors squeezed as much as they
could from each person and pocketed the surplus for themselves.
Josephus says very little about the specific types and methods of taxation in
Judea (broad sense). However, he does mention one specific type of taxation: a sales
tax (TCOV TSXCOV a ETTI TTpaasaiv f| covcus) instituted by Herod the Great (Ant.
17.205). Following Herod's death, the Judean (strict sense) people ask for Archelaus
to abolish this sales tax because it was too heavy of a burden. Although this episode
takes place in Judea (strict sense), and not in Galilee, it seems likely that Herod would
have adopted a similar tax in Galilee, where he began his political career. Although
Sustained economic growth was very rare in pre-industrial societies. R. W. Goldsmith, "An
Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire," Review of
Income and Wealth 30 (1984). W. M. Jongman, "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption," in The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Sailer
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
A. H. M. Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 151-185. P. Garnsey and R. Sailer, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society
and Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 21.
Josephus does not mention it, it is likely that Antipas would have perpetuated such a
tax once he took over Galilee.
Of course there is a question of how well this tax could be enforced and under
what conditions. Certainly, it would have been far easier for Herod to tax the
transactions that occurred in the city of Jerusalem, where hundreds of merchants
operated in close proximity, but that would have been a more difficult task in a rural
setting. It seems reasonable to suppose that Herod would have imposed a sales tax on
public sales that took place in his newly rebuilt city of Sepphoris, but a sales tax in
more remote locations was probably impractical.
A possible consequence of the imposition of a sales tax would be the black
market created by such a tax. A high sales tax—according to Josephus, the Judeans
(strict sense) considered Herod's sales tax to be too much of a burden—may have
driven some transactions to the black market in order to avoid such taxation.346 It also
may have encouraged bartering with labor and other goods.
Another important way in which taxation would have affected the region's
economy is the increase in taxes that might have accompanied urbanization. There is
some evidence to suggest that the construction of new cities in Galilee or in the
Galilean ruler's other territories would have imposed a heavier tax burden upon the
residents elsewhere in Galilee. Josephus mentions that when both Antipas built
Tiberias and Agrippa II expanded Caesarea Philippi, they spent large sums of money
J. McLaren, "Black Markets and Optimal Evadable Taxation," The Economic Journal 108, no. 448
(1998).
subsidizing the new resident's expenses so that the cities would thrive. The money
for both the construction of the cities and the new government handouts would have
come from tax revenues collected in these rulers' territories. Therefore, urbanization
under the Herodians would probably have increased the tax burden upon Galilean
villagers. This assumption is supported by Josephus' claim that Agrippa's adornment
of his Gentile cities with wealth from his Jewish territories caused resentment among
some Jews (Ant. 20.211-214).
Unfortunately, we cannot determine how much the tax burden would have
increased. However, we do know that at least some of the Herodian rulers incurred
large amounts of debt as a result of their public spending. The debts of these rulers
would suggest that the taxpayers were spared some of the costs associated with
various Herodian urbanization projects. We also know that Herod and his successors
also made considerable amounts of money from their private land holdings, business
ventures, and lending money at interest. And it is almost certain that at least some of
the construction costs would have been funded by the rulers' personal wealth.348 It is
an open question, however, whether the increased economic activity stimulated by
Herodian urbanization would have resulted in a net benefit for the average Galilean
Ml
Ant. 18.36-38; 20.211-214
48
Gabba," The Finances of King Herod." Of course, all of the Herodian rulers held large swaths of
land, and the revenues derived from those lands were a major source of their personal wealth. Ant.
17.317-320
349
See my discussions on the economy in Chapters 8 and 9.
137
URBANIZATION
Aside from mentioning the construction of Sepphoris and Tiberias, Josephus
gives very little information about the magnitude of urbanization experienced in the
first-century C.E. and the effects urbanization had on Galilean society as a whole.
Many scholars have argued that the new Galilean cities would have exploited the
countryside and bred peasant resentment of the cities. Josephus does claim that
Galilean peasants hated Sepphoris and Tiberias.350 However, there are five good
reasons to doubt that these tensions were the direct result of exploitation of the
peasantry by the cities.
First, the major cities of Galilee usually opposed Josephus.351 Since Josephus
is always anxious to demonstrate to the reader his popularity among the Galilean
people, it would have been in his interest to portray the Galileans as disliking the
major cities.
Second, Josephus blames the Galileans' hatred of Sepphoris on that city's pro-
Roman stance during the revolt (Vita 39) and not on its economic impact on the
region. If this were the major reason that the Galileans hated Sepphoris, then the
resentment of Sepphoris would not be a direct result of urbanization, but would rather
iM
Vita 30-31,39, 97-100,373-389
351
BJ 2.595-607; Vita 62-69, 80-101, 104-111, 122-125, 134, 141-144, 155-175, 199-203,271-308
352
Josephus also notes in section 38 that Tiberians hated Sepphoris because it was made the capital of
Galilee and given "the royal bank and the archives" after Sepphoris demonstrated its loyalty to Rome at
the beginning of the revolt. Tiberians resented their city's loss of status and held it against Sepphoris.
138
be a result of the political climate at that time.353 Moreover, if the resentment of
Sepphoris was sparked by the city's stance during the revolt, Josephus' comments tell
modern readers very little about the relationship between Sepphoris and the
countryside before the revolt occurred.
Third, it is in Josephus' interest to portray the Galileans as hating Sepphoris.
Many scholars have noted that Josephus often makes up stories in his works that mask
his own failures. Frequently, Josephus explains his failures to sack a city or win a
battle by explaining that he purposely lost to prevent a civil war or to restrain the
anger of his followers.354 Not surprisingly, Josephus claims that he broke off his
attack on Sepphoris because he felt compelled to restrain the Galileans' anger against
the city (Vita 373-380). Thus Josephus needed to portray the Galileans as hating the
city in order to obscure his own failures. Therefore, it is possible that the Galilean
hatred of Sepphoris may be nothing more than a fiction created by Josephus to justify
his failure to take Sepphoris.
Fourth, a major goal of Josephus' Vita is to smear Justus of Tiberias and, by
extension, to smear the entire city of Tiberias, which Justus probably claimed was
forced by Josephus to participate in the revolt.355 Because of the Vita's bias against
Tiberias, any claims made by Josephus in the Vita that the Galileans hated the city
should automatically be suspect.
353
1 do not mean to imply that the evidence from Josephus indicates that there were not urban-rural
tensions in first-century Galilee. Instead, I am merely arguing that these tensions appear to have
resulted more from political disagreements with respect to the revolt than from economic exploitation
of the peasants by the residents of Sepphoris and Tiberias.
354
Vita 97-100, 262-265, 373, 385-389
139
Josephus also uses the Galileans' hatred of Tiberias to explain away his bizarre
capture, imprisonment, and immediate release of Crispus. Moreover, since
Josephus is almost certainly attempting to refute accusations by Justus that Josephus
had acted cruelly toward the inhabitants of Tiberias, the Galilean fury against Tiberias
provides the perfect occasion for Josephus to both demonstrate how he saved Tiberias
from an angry mob and to explain away any of Josephus' questionable actions as
necessary to placate the Galileans.
Fifth, most of Josephus' supporters came from Tarichaeae/Migdal, which was
the most prominent site on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee before Antipas
founded Tiberias.357 Because Tarichaeae suffered a loss of prominence after Tiberias'
founding, the people of Tarichaeae resented the new city. Since many of Josephus'
followers were from Tarichaeae, it is possible that their resentment of Tiberias colored
Josephus' impressions of how the rest of Galilee viewed Tiberias.
Given Josephus' strong motives for portraying Sepphoris and Tiberias as
unpopular with the rest of Galilee, his statements to this effect are suspect. While it is
likely that pro-revolt Galileans would have developed a hatred for Sepphoris for its
loyalty to Rome, the evidence in Josephus does not suggest that this antipathy existed
before the revolt. Similarly, while it is possible that Galileans were incensed at the
Tiberians' overtures to Agrippa, Josephus probably exaggerated the extent of their
rage. Josephus also notes that the Galileans hated Tiberias because of its disloyalty to
Vita 381-389. Shaye Cohen argues that Crispus escaped without Josephus' consent, but that he
fabricates this story to cover up his own incompetence. Ibid., 136.
357
Vita 94-96, 141-144,155-164,168,174,188, 276, 304,404-406
140
the revolt, and his statements, therefore, should not be used to infer the relationship
Tiberias had with the rest of Galilee before the revolt. Furthermore, Josephus never
claims that the Galileans' hatred of these two cities had anything to do with the impact
their construction had on the Galilean economy.
MONETIZATION358
Josephus's descriptions of economic transactions that took place in Galilee
suggest that the region's economy had already experienced a significant amount of
monetization, but that the monetization was incomplete. Josephus' narratives
occasionally imply that everyday purchases would have been made with money.
However, Josephus rarely mentions the type of coinage used by Galileans. Instead, he
usually gives monetary values in drachmae and ignores the type of currency being
used; this appears to have been done for the convenience of his readers.360 The one
specific type of coinage that Josephus does mention is Tyrian. He notes that, when
John of Gischala wanted to sell Galilean olive oil at marked up prices in Syria, John
358
1 will discuss the numismatic evidence for monetization in Chapter 8.
359
BJ 2.590-594; Vita 74-76, 141-144, 199-203, 216-227
360
For example, instead of calling a Tyrian shekel a "shekel," he says calls it "TOU Tupiou
vouiauctTos, 6 Tsaaapas ATTIKOS SUVCCTCCI" (BJ 2.592). Given that a quarter shekel was roughly
equivalent to an Attic drachma, it is possible that, when Josephus tells his readers the value of conage in
drachmas, he is merely converting whatever currency was used into the Attic standard for the benefit of
his readers.
141
both purchased the oil in Galilee and sold it in Syria with Tyrian currency. This
may suggest that Tyrian currency was commonly used in Upper Galilee.
Josephus also notes that some members of the ruling class in Galilee had large
stores of un-coined silver, some of which was plundered by the Galileans during the
revolt.363 This significance of the un-coined silver in palace at Tiberias is unclear.
Did Agrippa intend to spend the money without coining? Was the silver stored in
preparation for minting at Tiberias? What we do know about the silver is that
Josephus spent some of it (apparently without coining it) and was criticized by his
opponents for doing so (Vita 294-298). This suggests that, in first-century Galilee, un-
coined silver may have been used for money in addition to minted coins.
In sum, Josephus portrays region's economy as significantly monetized.
However, there are also slight indications in his accounts that Galilee may not have
been as thoroughly monetized as the surrounding regions.
RELATIVE PROSPERITY
On several occasions, Josephus indicates the vast natural resources available in
Galilee. The following passage offers a good summary of Josephus' evaluation of
Galilee's resources and offers a contrast to his estimation of Peraea:
361
BJ 2.590-594; Vita 14-16
362
1 will discuss both the corroborating archaeological evidence for the circulation of Tyrian currency
and the relevant secondary literature in Chapter 8.
363
Josephus confiscated a large amount of uncoined silver looted from Agrippa's palace in Tiberias
{Vita 68). It is not clear if the silver stolen from Ptolemy' s wife (Vita 126-131) was coined or not.
142
Tr|AiKocuTOU 5' ouaou TO usyeSos- Kai TOOOUTOIS eQvsaiv
dAAo(|)uAois KEKUKAcouEvai npos Trdaav asi TroAspou
TisTpav avxlaxov udxipoi xs yap 'SK vrirricov Kai TTOAAOI
TaAiAaToi TTCCVTOTE, Kai OUTS SeiAia TTOTE TOUS dvSpas
av
OUTS AiTravSpta Tr|v X " P KCCTSOXSV, STrsiSri nicov TE
Traaa Kai EU(3OTOS KO'I SsuSpEai rravToiois KaTaûTos, cos
UTTO TT\S EUTTETEtaS TTpOKaAEOaoSai Kai TOV f]KlOTa y %
(J)IAOTTOVOV. TTpoariaKn0r| youv UTTO TCOV o'iKriTopcov rrdaa,
Kai uEpos auTrjs dpyov OUSEV, ccAAd Ka'i TTOAEIS TruKvai
Kai TO TCOV KCOUCOV rrAfiBos rravTaxou TToAuavSpcoTTOv 5ia
xr\v EuGriviav, cos TT\V 'sAaxicnTiv urrep TTEVTaKiaxiAious
TTpOS ToTs UUplOtS EXS1V OlKrJTOpaS-
KaSoAou 5E, E'I KOA TCO [lsysQti TIS EAaTTcooEiE T %

TTspaias xr|v TaAiAaiav, TTPOEAOITO 5' dv TT\ SuvduEr r\
usv yap 'evspyos oAr] Kai OUVEYTIS SOTIV Kaprro(|)6pos, h
TTEpaia 5E TTOAU UEV (JEI^COV, £pr|uos 5E Kai Tpaxsia TO
TTAEOV Trpos TE KapTTcov fiyipcov au^rpiv aypicoTEpa, TO
yE ur|v uaASaKov auT% Kai Trdu<t>opov, Kai ra TTESIO
SlvSpEai TTOIKIAOIS KaTa4)UTa TO TTAETOTOV TE EAaiav^Tl
Kai duTTEAov Kai <})oiviKcovas fparrai, SiapSousvr]
Xsiudppois TE TOIS CXTTO TCOV opcov Kai Tiriya'is dswdois
dAis, E'I TTOT' EKETVOI OEipico cj>9ivotsv. (BJ3.41-45)
Although this statement is probably filled with typical Josephan hyperbole,
Josephus makes it clear that Galilee is considerably richer in resources than Peraea and
that Galileans in general were relatively well off. He presents Galilee as thickly
populated and intensively cultivated. Notably, Josephus also indicates that Galilee's
geographic location—being surrounded by Gentile territories—made the region and
the people resistant to invasion. This passage seems to imply that the frequent wars
and invasions Galilee experienced in the second and first centuries B.C.E. hardened
Galilean attitudes toward the neighboring regions. If this were the case, then one
would expect these wars to have made Galileans less receptive to certain elements of
143
Greco-Roman culture that they considered characteristic of the neighboring
Gentiles.364
What may be most striking about Josephus' portrayal of Galilee's relative
prosperity is that he is consistent: he repeatedly mentions the abundance of resources
in the area and never depicts Galilee as enduring economic hardship.365 Josephus'
propensity to exaggerate his hardships as general of Galilee makes his claims to have
had an easy time supplying the settlements with food and other resources seem more
credible. If there were problems getting these supplies, Josephus most likely would
have reported them.
Another argument in favor of Josephus' accuracy with respect to the economic
prosperity of Galilee is that, although Josephus tried to depict Antipas as a poor ruler,
he was unable to come up with any major problems that Galilee experienced while
Antipas was Tetrarch. Had Galilee suffered through an economic crisis or a famine
during the reign of Antipas, Josephus would probably have included the event in his
histories.366
Further evidence that Josephus considered Galilee to be economically stable is
that he rarely mentions poverty in Galilee. In fact his only two direct references to the
Of course, complete rejection of Hellenism would not have been possible. Numerous scholars have
argued convincingly that even the most anti-Roman or anti- Greek Jews of this period were Hellenized
in many Significant ways. M. Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea in the First Century After Christ,
trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989); M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism:
Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974). For a more detailed discussion of the effects that past warfare may have had on
Gailean culture, see my "Hellenization And Jewish Culture" section below.
365
The major exception is when Josephus mentions economic problems that affected all of Judea (broad
sense), such as the famine in the mid 40s (Ant. 20.51, 100-102).
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod
Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, 307-310.
Galilean poor take place in Tiberias. Josephus says that Antipas forcibly settled poor
people in Tiberias and built good homes for them so that they would stay there (Ant.
18.36-38) and he later mentions that Jesus the son of Sapphias led a faction of sailors
and poor people in Tiberias that plundered the royal palace (Vita 62-67).
Another indication of Galilean prosperity is the sharp contrast between
Josephus' portrayal of class conflicts in Judea (strict sense) and Galilee. In his Judean
(strict sense) narratives, the lower class resentment of the elites is often palpable.
The rebel leaders frequently have to take measures to placate the poor multitude at the
expense of the elites, and the frequency of class-related conflicts suggests a deep-
seated resentment of the elites by the Judean (strict sense) lower classes. In Galilee,
however, there are no major class conflicts, and the Galilean political leadership
appears not to need to placate the region's lower class as their Judean (strict sense)
counterparts did.368
Instead of turning on the upper classes, the Galilean masses support their local
elites fiercely. Moreover, although Josephus occasionally tries to accuse his
Galilean adversaries of seeking vscoTspcov rrpayuarcov, none of the Galilean leaders
make economic change part of their agenda.370 The solidarity between the various
classes in Galilean communities suggests that the economic situation in Galilee was
367
BJ 2.425-441; 4.183-241, 327, 335-6, 364-365; 5.440-441 ;Ant. 20.214
368
Jesus son of Sapphias leads a faction of poor people and sailors who plunder Agrippa II's Palace in
Tiberias {Vita 62-67), but his followers do not appear to be driven by resentment against any rich
person other than Agrippa since they do not seek reprisals against any other Tiberian elites. Instead
their massacre of "the Greeks" in Tiberias suggests that this faction was primarily motivated by their
hatred of either Gentiles or Hellenism.
369
BJ2.599; 3.450; Vita 33-45,66-67, 134-136,235,308,340
310
BJ 2.590-594; 4.133-134; Vita 70-71, 87, 391
145
probably less oppressive than that in Judea (strict sense) and that there was likely a
stronger culture of patronage in Galilee.
PATRONAGE
Josephus' actions in Galilee frequently highlight the importance of local elites
in the region's politics. His first act upon arriving in Galilee was to gain the trust of
the local strongmen and thereby gain the support of the masses. When necessary,
Josephus held important Galileans hostage to ensure the cooperation of the locals, and
it may be that many of the elites who "supported" Josephus did so under compulsion
(BJ 2.63 8-641). Yet, although Josephus claims that he was able to win over a
substantial number of Galilean elites, much of his time in Galilee seems to have been
spent fighting for power with the elites who would not support him. In fact,
Josephus' most loyal support came from Tarichaeae, which Josephus claimed was
overrun by foreigners (i.e.: Jews from neighboring regions) who had fled from their
own countries.374 Josephus even goes so far as to claim that the town's natives
371
Contra: S. Schwartz, "Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown," in Josephus and
the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Honor of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers
(Leiden: Brill, 1987).
372
BJ 2.569-571; Vita 77-79
373
Vita 62-69, 80-101, 104-111,122-125,134,141-144, 155-175,199-203,271-308
374
BJ 3.463, 492-502, 532-542; Vita 96-97,127,157-168, 174, 276, 304, 404. Cohen, Josephus in
Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 209.
146
opposed the revolt, and that most of the revolutionaries in the town during the revolt
were foreigners.375 The political situation in Tarichaeae, combined with Josephus'
need to ensure the Galileans' cooperation by holding their elites hostage, suggests that
he enjoyed much less support in the region than he would like his readers to imagine.
Josephus seems to have had little trouble with most of the prominent men from
the smaller villages in Galilee. This may simply have been because they lacked the
resources to oppose Josephus and so lent him their support in the interest of self-
preservation. However, in the larger settlements of Galilee—Sepphoris, Tiberias,
Gabara, and Gischala—Josephus ran into considerable opposition.376 Given that
Josephus' method of keeping the Galileans' loyalty was to bully the local elites into
submission, it is not surprising that the larger settlements—which would have had
more powerful and numerous upper classes—were the ones to oppose him.
Of the communities that opposed Josephus, Sepphoris and Gischala offered the
strongest resistance. Josephus notes that the people of Sepphoris and Gischala were
wealthy, and that the residents of these communities fortified their settlements with
their own funds (BJ 2.572-576). It is probably not a coincidence that these were the
two settlements to oppose Josephus' leadership most fiercely.377 Sepphoris'
opposition to Josephus was a result of the city's loyalty to Rome, but this was not the
case in Gischala. Gischala supported the revolt, but the residents refused to recognize
375
BJ 3.532-542. The reader should note that although I call Tarichaeae a town, Josephus calls it a
polis. BJ2.252
376
BJ2.6U, 626-631, 638-641. Gamala also revolted from Josephus (£72.626-631)
Although both cities opposed Josephus, they had very different political goals. Sepphoris desired
peace with Rome, and Gischala wanted John to the revolutionary commander in Galilee. Sepphoris,
however, did support John of Gischala against Josephus at one point.
147
Josephus as their leader. Instead, they followed a local leader, John of Gischala, who
was Josephus' main rival for power during the revolt (BJ2. 585-594).
John enjoyed the support of the people from his hometown and Gabara, and
sometimes had the support of Tiberias (at least of the faction in power at the time)
against Josephus. Although Josephus portrays John as someone of low social
standing who exploited his fellow Galileans for personal gain and did not have
widespread support in Galilee, Josephus' own work undermines this portrait of John.
First, John is able to rally the most prominent cities against Josephus mainly
because of his good relations with the leaders of those cities.379 This suggests that
John was of sufficient social standing to have developed good relations with other
Galilean elites. Moreover, John's close friendship with Simeon ben Gamaliel, an
influential leader in Jerusalem, (Vita 189-193) suggests both that John was a person of
high standing and that there was considerable contact between Galilean and Judean
(strict sense) elites in the first-century.
Second, the frequent revolts against Josephus by Galileans who supported John
and the fact that many Galileans followed John to Jerusalem after Gischala fell
suggests that John had much more support among the Galilean populace than Josephus
wants to admit. The opposition to Josephus does not seem to be anti-Judean (strict
sense) per se—after all, John's party seeks help from the Judean (strict sense)
commanders (Vita 189-194). Instead, the support appears to be the product of local
378
BJ 2.590-609; Vita 123-125; U. Rappaport, "John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem," JJS 33
(1982).
379
Vita 80-101, 123-125, 228-235
148
loyalties borne out of social networks and patronage. Moreover, the rumors that
Josephus wanted to betray the revolution probably went a long way toward
undermining Josephus' authority and driving the Galileans into John's camp (Vita
132-135).
Although Josephus faced the strongest opposition form Sepphoris and
Gischala, his rivals in Tiberias appear to have given him as much—if not more—
trouble. According to Josephus, Tiberias was divided politically both on the issue of
the revolt and on the matter of who should lead the city during the revolt.380 Josephus
enjoyed very little support in the city, but was often able to control it through violence
and by taking advantage of his adversaries' disunity.381 Nevertheless, it is clear that
the city was almost always willing to support someone other than Josephus.
In sum, the political picture of Galilee during the revolt suggests that the
political fault lines in the region were determined to a significant extent by patronage
loyalties. Local leaders such as John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias received
support from members of their city and from the cities of their friends. Josephus, on
the other hand, received most of his support from foreign refugees and from the clients
of the local elites whom he held hostage. The intensity of these patron-client loyalties
during the revolt suggests that patronage would have played an important role in
Galilean politics both before and after the revolt as well.
RELATIONSHIP WITH JUDEA (STRICT SENSE)

380
Vita 31-42, 87-107, 271-286, 381-392
381
Vita 82, 155-179,305-335
149
Most of the information about Galilean-Judean (strict sense) relations in
Josephus' works comes from his narratives about the power struggle between John of
Gischala and himself. Both men attempted to legitimize their authority by appealing
to the leaders of the revolt in Jerusalem, and both men at least paid lip service to the
idea that the Jerusalem authorities should have the final say over who governed
Galilee. However, the political dependence on Jerusalem by Galilean leaders
during the Great Revolt should not lead modern scholars to overestimate the impact
that Judean (strict sense) politics had on Galilee during the rest of the first-century
C.E.
The political situation was unique during the revolt. Because the revolt was
started by Judeans (strict sense) in Judea (strict sense), Galilean revolutionary leaders
could only legitimize their authority by associating themselves with the Judean (strict
sense) rebels. Moreover, since neither Josephus' nor John's attempts to legitimize
their authority with the backing of Judean (strict sense) elites appears to have been
very successful, the evidence suggests that the loyalty Galileans felt toward Judea
(strict sense) as a political entity was weaker than Josephus wanted to admit. To be
sure, some Galileans recognized the authority of the Judean (strict sense) leaders, but a
number of Galileans, including an overwhelming majority of Sepphorites, rejected it.
Similarly, while Galileans would have respected Josephus and other Judean (strict
382
Vita 189-194, 216-218, 304-316,340-341. Of course, Josephus and John only seem to recognize the
authority of Judean (strict sense) leaders when they receive support from those leaders. Both also
ignore orders from the Judean (strict sense) authorities to relinquish power (Vita 208-215,252-261,
313-316).
150
sense) priests as religious leaders, their religious clout did not necessarily result in
political influence over Galileans.
TIBERIAS
Josephus gives his readers specific details about the political functioning of
only one Galilean city: Tiberias.383 He notes that Antipas founded the city and that it
contained significant numbers of both Jews (many of whom were forced to settle
there) and Gentiles.384
Apparently, the city's organization was similar to that of a Greekpolis, but it
probably lacked the (very limited) political independence enjoyed by such cities.
On the eve of the revolt, the city's governing institutions included a (3ouAfi T\ of 600,
ten rrpcoxoi and an apxcov—all of which were typically found in Greek cities of this
period.386 Moreover, the (3ouAr| could call and dismiss an assembly of the citizens to
make certain decisions. However, we do not know how much, if any, power the
citizen assembly actually had. Tiberias' distinctive political features highlight the
city's Jewish character. For example, the assembly apparently met in the city's
For a more detailed discussion of Tiberias' political structure, see: T. Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias," CQ
23 (1973): 346-351. M. Sigmismund, "Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic,
Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Century C.E. Tiberias," in Religion, Ethnicity, and
Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge, and D. B. Martin,
WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 316.
384
Ant. 18.36-38; Vita 65-67
385
Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias."
386
BJ 2.639,641; Vita 64-66,69, 284, 296; Cf. Ibid.
151
TTpoasuxri, and a religious meeting there could quickly turn into a political one (Vita
295). The assembly also appears to have adjourned early on the Sabbath (Vita 279).
Upon its founding, Tiberias became the new capital of Galilee, and the city
would probably have housed many of Antipas' administrators. The presence of
Herodian subordinates in Tiberias is reflected in the names of some of the city's most
prominent leaders in 66 C.E.387 Tiberias remained the capital of Galilee for about a
generation, losing that distinction when it was added to Agrippa IF s territory. At that
point, Sepphoris re-assumed the role of Galilee's capital (Vita 37-39), and the
consequent loss of status—and probably money—experienced by Tiberias bred
Tiberian resentment toward Sepphoris (and perhaps toward Agrippa as well).
THE HERODIAN RULERS
Herod the Great
Galilee offered Herod his first taste of executive power when his father made
him governor of the region at the age of 25.388 Although Josephus tells us very little
about Herod's early activities in Galilee, he notes that the young man made quite an
impression by fighting the local brigands (BJ 1.204-207) and raising taxes with much
greater ease than his counterparts (BJ 1.220-222). Herod also developed a reputation
at this time for being ruthless and power-hungry (BJ 1.208-209).

381
Vita 32-42. Ibid.: 351-352.
388
Ant. 14.156. Cf.Ant. 487-481
152
Galilee also appears to have played an important role in Herod's consolidation
of power following his father's death. Josephus claims that almost all of Galilee
supported Herod during his war against Antigonus (Ant. 14.394-395); Sepphoris
appears to have been the major city that did not support Herod (BJ 1.304).
Unfortunately, there are good reasons to believe that Josephus is simply copying pro-
Herodian propaganda from Nicolaus of Damascus—a prolific historian and
philosopher who was a close friend of Herod the Great—instead of accurately
describing Herod's support in Galilee.389 Whether or not he enjoyed the support of
most Galileans, Herod still had to put down a few Galilean rebellions at this time (Ant.
14.413-417, 448-450). Josephus portrays Herod as pacifying Galilee at the beginning
of his reign by eradicating the region's bandits (Ant. 14.413-417, 433; BJ 1.304-308)
and by protecting it from an invasion by a Tyrian tyrant (Ant. 14.297-300). Despite
these actions, Herod probably did not enjoy much support in the region. The fact that
Herod—one of the great builders of the ancient world—built nothing in Galilee
implies a strained relationship with the region's inhabitants.
Antipas
Of the Herodian rulers, Josephus probably tells us the least about Antipas. He
briefly mentions Antipas' attempt to gain his father's throne, his reconstruction of
389
M. Toher, "Nicolaus and Herod in the "Antiquitates Judaicae"," HSCP 101 (2003). G. C. Richards,
"The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities," CQ 33, no. 1 (1939). B. Z. Wacholder, "Josephus and
Nicolaus of Damascus," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1989).
153
Sepphoris, his founding of Tiberias (and Julias in Peraea), the destruction of Antipas'
army by Aretas, a few of his dealings with Roman officials and Agrippa I, and how he
was banished.390
Both the paucity of information about him and the characterization of Antipas
in Josephus's works suggest that he was the least ambitious of the Herodian rulers.
Antipas' accomplishments are generally mentioned in passing and are treated as much
less important than those of the other Herodians (with the possible exception of
Philip).391 In his power struggles with Archelaus and Agrippa I, he is portrayed as
content with much less than his rivals. For example, when Agrippa I is made king,
Josephus says that Antipas did not want to vie for power because of his "ccyccTTcov xf|v
t / ,,392
rpuxiav."
Although some of his building activities—particularly his forced settlement of
Tiberias—would have burdened the Galilean people, Antipas appears to have been
much less active than the other Herodian rulers. The other rulers may have been more
celebrated for their ambitious activities, but it is likely that his subjects fared much
better under Antipas' "lazy" governance than their counterparts did under the other
Herodians. It is notable, then, that Josephus does not note any major political or
jyu
BJ 2.20-22, 94-95, \7S-lS3;Ant. 17.188, 224-227, 238, 318; 18.27, 36-38, 247-255
391
Ant. 17.188,318-321; 18.27,36-38,101-105,109-119, 120-124,148-150,240-256; BJ2.20-25, 93-
100,167-168, 181-183. Of course, Antipas and Philip stayed in power longer than Archelaus, and once
Antipas decided to take a more aggressive course of action, he was deposed. Perhaps this means that
Antipas was smart to lay low for most of his reign.
392
Ant. 18.245. Cf. £72.181-183 in which Antipas is called ambitious, but Josephus notes that the
ambition was only aroused after his wife kept calling him lazy.
154
economic disturbances during Antipas' rule. In addition to the stability implied in
Josephus' works, the fact that he had a surplus of wealth when he was banished—as
opposed to the severe debts Agrippa I had when he died—suggests that he probably
did a decent job of managing his finances.394 Overall, Josephus' portrait of Antipas'
tetrarchy is one of quiet stability. Many have called his reign unremarkable, but these
assessments fail to recognize that, in first-century Judea (broad sense), chronic
stability was quite remarkable.
Agrippa I
According to most interpreters, Josephus attempted to portray Agrippa I as the
ideal Jewish ruler and to demonstrate that his rise to power was the result of divine
providence.395 Josephus frequently refers to him as "Agrippa the Great" and claims
that he was highly esteemed by both Gentiles and Jews.396 He portrays Agrippa I as
defending Jewish interests and respecting Jewish sensibilities.397
393
It could be argued that the absence of information regarding Galilee may have been the result of
Josephus' Jerusalem-centered viewpoint. However, Morten Jensen has made a compelling case that,
even if we take Josephus' focus on Judea (strict sense) into account, his failure to mention political
turmoil during Antipas' reign is still very significant. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary
and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee,
307-310.
394
Cf: Ant. 18.252-255; 19.351-352
395
Ant. 18.197. D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990),
33-36. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of
Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, 84.
396
Ant. 17.28; 18.110; 19.328-342; 20.104
397
Ant. 17.28; 18.289-301; 19.279-288,300-311
155
Perhaps the only negative trait that Josephus attributes to Agrippa was his
constant borrowing and spending of money—both in private life and as king (Ant.
18.142-204). Although there are many reasons to think that the king's overspending
would have damaged the Judean (broad sense) economy, Josephus treats his spending
habits as a positive quality. For Josephus, Agrippa's expenditures were a sign of his
generosity (Ant. 19.328-337).
Unfortunately, we know very little about Agrippa's activities in Galilee
because Josephus is largely silent on the issue.398 This probably suggests that, once he
gained control of more high-profile territories, Agrippa focused more on them than he
did on Galilee.
Agrippa II
Josephus' portrayal of Agrippa II is significantly less flattering than his
portrayal of Agrippa I. It is important to note that Josephus' portrayal of Agrippa U in
BJ, which was written at a time in which Josephus apparently needed to avoid
offending Agrippa, is more positive than his portrayal in A J and the Vita, which were
probably written after Agrippa's death.399 Taking the political circumstances that
appear to have biased the depiction of Agrippa in BJ, Josephus' description of the king
is more negative than positive.
He does mention a gathering of rulers that Agrippa convened at Tiberias (Ant. 19.338), but this is the
only real activity in Galilee Josephus records for Agrippa's reign.
156
Josephus notes that Agrippa earned the resentment of his subjects by appearing
to favor nearby Gentile territories, especially Berytus (Ant. 20.211-214). He is seen as
a Roman puppet and as disloyal to the Jewish religion. His subjects resent his
meddling in priestly affairs, most notably by frequently deposing High Priests. At
the beginning of the revolt, Agrippa's failed attempts to pacify both Roman Iudaea
and his own territory demonstrate the lack of influence he had among the Jewish
people.401 Ironically, though the Jews saw Agrippa as too close to the Romans, some
Romans suspected that Agrippa was secretly involved in the revolt (Vita 407-408).
The fact that cities in Agrippa's own territory joined the Jewish Revolt is
significant because they were not subject to direct Roman rule. The rebellion of Jews
in Agrippa's territory would have had a different connotation than rebellion by those
under direct Roman rule. It would have signified his subjects' rejection of Agrippa as
much as their rejection of Rome.402 Even some of Agrippa's administrators and
military personnel joined the revolt.403 Although a few Jewish cities did remain loyal,
the most notable one was Batanea, a Herodian military colony (BJ 2.481-486). Even
in the Batanea, Josephus indicates that many of the region's Jews fled to Gamala to
join the revolt after Varus' treachery (Vita 46-61).
It seems likely that Tiberias' participation in the revolt was partially motivated
by the loss of status (and probably of political independence as well) the city suffered
400
Ant. 20.179,203,213-214
401
BJ 2.344-407,418-429, 483
402
Vespasian's reaction to the news that some of Agrippa's cities had revolted as well suggests that he
may not have expected these cities to join the revolt (BJ 3.443-452)
403
BJ 2.52, 57-59, 520; 3.11-19; Vita 220, 397
157
when it was annexed to Agrippa's territory (Vita 37-39). However, this does not
explain the revolutionary activities of the other cities in Agrippa's domain. Tiberias
and Tarichaeae's resentment of Agrippa may also imply that those two cities suffered
economically under Agrippa. Overall, Josephus does not portray Agrippa II as a
popular or able leader, and his subjects appear to have viewed him as a weak and
unjust ruler.
REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITY IN GALILEE
While Josephus describes a number of revolutionaries and messiah-figures
who appeared in Judea (strict sense) and even Samaria between Herod's death and the
revolt, he only describes one such revolutionary operating in Galilee: Judas ben
Hezekiah, who revolted after Herod died and before Antipas had been appointed
Tetrarch.404 In putting down the revolt, the Romans destroyed Sepphoris, and the
implication appears to be that the settlement was in some way complicit in Judas'
activities (Ant. 17.289).
The only other specific link that Josephus makes between Galilee and
revolutionary activities is his mention of Judas the Galilean's (also called Judas the
Gaulonite) co-founding of the Fourth Philosophy. However, Josephus does not say
that Judas had a following in Galilee, and there are good reasons to think that most of
his political activity occurred in Judea (strict sense). Although some scholars have
404
BJ 2.56; Ant. 17.271-272
158
attempted to connect the Zealots or the Sicarii to Galilee through Judas, it is not clear
that neither of these groups are synonymous with the Fourth Philosophy. Moreover,
Josephus never mentions the existence of either group in Galilee.
In fact, it is not until the revolt breaks out that Josephus mentions revolutionary
activities taking place in Galilee. Even then, however, Josephus claims that a
substantial portion of Galilee had not joined the revolt (Vita 28-29). Given that
Sepphoris stayed loyal to Rome and that Josephus appears to have bullied many of the
Galilean elites into supporting him, the evidence from Josephus suggests that the
Galileans were significantly less enthusiastic about the revolt than the Judeans (strict
sense).406 Of course, the support that Josephus and John were able to muster also
suggests that a substantial portion of Galileans—perhaps even the majority—
supported the revolt.
BANDITS AND REVOLUTIONARIES
One of the more difficult elements of Josephus' writings to interpret is his use
of the term "ArpTcu." Although Josephus clearly intends for his readers to view these
"bandits" as analogous to the bands of armed robbers who plagued the entire Roman
Empire, he often applies the term to people who do not engage in robbery. Instead,
4115
BJ 2.118,433; Ant. 18.4-10,23-25
406
U. Rappaport, "How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee?" in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I.
Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992).
Josephus often calls any group of armed men that he considers illegitimate ArpTcu.
While this group certainly includes armed robbers, in Josephus' works, it usually
refers to bands of rebels of whom Josephus disapproves. In fact, Josephus labels
almost every first-century C.E. revolutionary leader who acted before the revolt a
"ArpTTis," and he calls a number of prominent leaders of the Jewish revolt by this
term as well.408
Although Josephus generally condemns the brigands and denounces his
political opponents for employing bandits, he acknowledges that he also employed
them during his time in Galilee. Of course, Josephus maintains that he was merely
paying off the bandits to ensure public safety. Clearly, though, Josephus was funding
a mercenary force (composed of these so-called bandits) by having them demand
protection money from the locals (Vita 77-78).
Josephus only mentions significant levels of "brigandage" in Galilee during
distinct periods: early in Herod the Great's career before he had solidified his control
of the region, immediately after Herod's death, and during (or just before) the Revolt
of 66.409 Judea (strict sense), on the other hand, experienced more frequent eruptions
of brigandage in Josephus' narratives. This may be due to a Judea-centered (strict
sense) bias on the part of Josephus' sources. However, it does suggest that Josephus
did not consider brigandage to be a chronic problem in Galilee. Rather, Josephus
407
Vita 21, 28,46, 77-78,105-106,145-148,175,206. Cf. V. Nikiprowetzky, "Josephus and the
Revolutionary Parties," inJosephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Leiden:
Brill, 1989), 232.
408
T. Grunewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality, trans. J. Drinkwater (New York:
Routledge, 2004), 91-109.
409
Ant. 14.415-430; 17.269-272, 285; 20.252-258; BJ 1.204-207, 304-316; 2.55-56
portrays banditry to be the result of the political instability that existed at these three
points in Galilean history.
Josephus often implies the existence of powerful brigands in Judea (strict
sense) throughout the first-century, but there is no such implication with respect to
Galilee. He does, however, note that the "principal men of Galilee" hired one such
brigand—Eleazar, the son of Dineus, who made a living raiding Samaritan villages—
to join their attack on Samaritan settlements (Ant. 20.118-124). The text does not
explicitly state whether Eleazar was a Galilean or a Judean (strict sense), but the fact
that he is hired while the Galilean pilgrims are in Judea (strict sense) suggests that he
was a Judean (strict sense).
However, Josephus notes that the number of bandits increased dramatically all
over Judea (broad sense) just before and during the revolt.410 This makes sense for a
number of reasons. First, the war would have attracted refugees, mercenaries, and
fugitives who could hope to earn a living or start a new life in Judea (broad sense).411
The revolt also would have attracted Jewish nationalists from the Diaspora who hoped
to participate in the liberation of the Jewish homeland.
Josephus claims that many of the revolutionaries in Tarichaeae were refugees
from the surrounding territories (especially the Decapolis), and he notes that about
1,500 of John's followers were from the metropolis of Tyre (Vita 371).412 This influx
may provide an explanation for why Galilee—if Josephus can be trusted on this
410
BJ 2.271-279; Ant. 20.160-167, 185-188, 252-258; Vita 28
411
BJ 2.457-460,477-478; 3.532-542; Vita 77-78, 371
412
BJ 3.450-452, 492-502, 532-542; Vita 77-78, 371
161
matter—contained so many bandits during the revolt. Foreigners who came to the
region to join in the revolution would not have had a stable source of income or
sustenance. It is plausible that at least some of these newcomers would resort to
banditry and mercenary work in order to survive.
Second, uncertain conditions and the expectation that their farms would soon
be destroyed in the war might have made work as a bandit or mercenary seem more
appealing to a Galilean peasant. Third, those people whose homes or crops were
destroyed by banditry may have been forced to resort to banditry themselves.413
Overall, the evidence in Josephus suggests that, although brigandage occurred
in Galilee before the revolt and was occasionally a significant problem, the widespread
banditry described in BJ and the Vita was primarily the result of conditions created by
the revolt. It would be misguided to use the evidence of banditry in Josephus to
conclude that Galilee experienced unusually high levels of brigandage in the first-
century or that the presence of banditry suggests that Galilee was experiencing
economic problems before the revolt.
WEAPONS IN GALILEE
Some of the most revealing information Josephus gives about the Judean
(broad sense) bandits is how they managed to arm themselves. There are a few
indications that access to weapons was restricted or at least difficult in pre-revolt
413
Grunewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality, 29, 31, 33-34, 89, 92-96, 100-102.
Galilee. Josephus notes that soon after Herod the Great's death Galilean brigands, led
by Judas ben Hezekiah, broke into the palace at Sepphoris and stole the weapons, and
money to arm and fund his band (Ant. 17.211-212). This passage suggests that the
average Galilean probably did not own suitable weaponry for military combat.
Josephus also notes that one of his first acts as general of Galilee was to provide arms
for the rebels (Vita 11). His clam in BJ that he armed 100,000 men with old weapons
he had collected (BJ2.516) is surely an exaggeration. Nevertheless, it suggests that
even many of the people who intended to participate in the revolt could not secure
arms on their own. Josephus also notes that the Jews fighting at Jotapata had only
light armor (BJ 3.114). This suggests that these men were not trained soldiers.
Josephus also mentions an Idumaean group of bandits consisting 2,000 of
Herod's former soldiers who attacked Herod's troops (BJ. 2.55). Presumably, these
men already owned arms as a result of their service in Herod's army. At first brush, it
might seem surprising for retired members of the Jewish Royal Army to revolt.
However, the problem of disbanded soldiers resorting to banditry or revolution was a
common one in the ancient and medieval world.414 The Roman Empire mitigated this
problem by giving lands to retired soldiers and establishing colonies in which these
veterans could reside.
The Herodian rulers adopted this practice as well. Herod the Great settled
veterans in Hesebonitis (AJ 15.294), Gaba (AJ 15.294; BJ2.36), Trachonitis (AJ
4
B . D. Shaw, "Bandits in the Roman Empire," Past and Present 105 (1984).
163
16.271, 295), Bathyra (AJ 17.3), and at an unknown location in Idumaea (PJ2.55).415
Every indication in Josephus' works suggests that the populations of these colonies
were predominantly Jewish. Herod's successors appear to have maintained these
military colonies and may have established new ones as well.
Although there is good evidence to suggest that most of the inhabitants of the
Herodian military colonies remained loyal to Rome and Agrippa during the revolt, a
few notable revolutionaries were former soldiers in the Jewish Royal Army. Given
the martial skill Josephus attributes to some of the bandits, the modern historian needs
to consider the possibility that many of the bandits or bandit leaders were actually
veterans of Herodian armies.
COLLABORATION WITH ROME
Although modern scholars tend to focus on the Galileans who participated in
the Jewish revolt, Josephus' works also tell us about many Galilean Jews who sided
with Rome. In fact, Josephus portrays the Galileans as significantly less enthusiastic
about the revolt than their Judean (strict sense) and Idumaean counterparts. The city
of Sepphoris remained loyal to Rome throughout the revolt and assisted Rome in
415
Josephus claims in AJ 17.3 that the soldiers at Bathyra constituted roughly half of Agrippa II's army.
We know of no such veteran settlements in Galilee; however, Gaba was on the border of Galilee. S.
Rocca, Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World, Texts and Studies in Ancient
Judaism, 122 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 189.
416
J. Roth, "Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service" (paper presented at the Society of Biblical
Literature Annual Conference, San Antonio, November 2004). B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The
Roman Army in the East, Revised ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 327-330.
417
£72.52, 57-59, 520; 3.11-19; Vita 220, 397
164
subduing the revolutionaries, and there appears to have been a strong faction in
Tiberias that opposed the revolt as well.418 Most of the members of Agrippa's army
who assisted the Roman forces were almost certainly Jews, and there are reasons to
believe that some retired veterans of the Jewish Royal Army also joined the Roman
side.419 Likewise, given the Roman practice of absorbing a client-king's army into the
Roman army when a client-kingdom was converted into a Roman province, the
"Roman" garrison in Judea (broad sense) during the first-century would have
consisted mostly of Jews and Samaritans.420
The more moderate stance of the Galileans during the revolt could be
interpreted as an indication that the region was more Hellenized than Judea (strict
sense). However, the willingness of these Jews to collaborate with Rome should not
be construed to suggest that they were somehow more Hellenized or less "Jewish"
than their revolutionary contemporaries. In fact, as Jonathan Roth has pointed out,
service in Jewish cohorts of the Roman and Herodian armies would not have
conflicted with Jewish observance, and there were very rational reasons for observant
Jews to believe that Roman rule was in the best interests of the Jewish people. Even
John of Gischala and Justus of Tiberias—two men whom Josephus claims were
among the main revolutionary instigators of the in Galilee—initially opposed the
revolt422
ni
BJ 2.632; 3.29-34; Vita 32-42, 1.24, 155, 391
419
BJ AM, 36, 83; Vita 114-118, 399-406. Roth, "Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service".
420
Ibid.
421
Ibid.
422
Vita 36, 43-44
165
The Galileans may also have had more practical reasons to be cautious about
revolution. Because of the region's geographic location, Galilee had often suffered
more than Judea (strict sense) when Gentile vigilantes or the Roman Army attacked
Judea (broad sense). The Romans had attacked Sepphoris as a reprisal for the Jewish
uprisings in 4 B.C.E., and it is likely that this event was still fresh in the Galilean
collective memory (Ant. 17.286-294). The region's inhabitants must have known that
their lands would be the front lines in a war against Rome. Furthermore, given the
region's lack of adequate fortifications, Galilee was less equipped to resist a Roman
attack. These considerations probably go a long way in explaining the different levels
of revolutionary fervor that Josephus describes in Judea (strict sense) and Galilee.
GALILEE AT WAR
TROOPS IN GALILEE
A major discrepancy between BJ and the Vita concerns the number of troops
Josephus commanded in Galilee. According to BJ, Josephus' army consisted of
roughly 100,000 soldiers (BJ 2.583). According to the Vita, however, Josephus
commanded a total of about 10,000 troops (Vita 321, 331). Modern scholars generally
166
agree that the numbers were inflated in BJ as part of the author's attempt to portray
himself as an accomplished general. They therefore prefer the Vita's figures.
In fact, both Shaye Cohen and Jonathan Roth make compelling cases that the
total number of armed rebels in Galilee would have been about 10,000 or less (with
Josephus probably commanding roughly half of them according to Cohen). 10,000
soldiers would have been enough for the rebels to control most of Galilee and hold off
Agrippa's army (which was probably about the same size as the Galilean rebel
forces).425 However, 10,000 rebels of varying levels of martial skill would have been
no match for Vespasian's force of ca. 60,000 well-trained soldiers.
Of course, most of the rebels realized the hopelessness of their situation as
soon as Vespasian arrived, and they quickly abandoned Josephus (BJ 3.127.129). All
of this explains quite nicely the relative ease with which Vespasian conquered Galilee.
FORTIFICATIONS
Josephus portrays pre-revolt Galilee as largely unfortified and claims that
Sepphoris was the only city that already possessed defensive walls.426 Even
Sepphoris' walls, however, needed to be strengthened in order to resist the rebel forces
Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 201. Rappaport,
"Josephus' Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative," 72.
424
Roth, "Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service". Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His
Vita and Development As a Historian, 201-202.
426
Ant. 18.26-28; Vita 185-188,346-347
167
(BJ 2.511-516). As a result of this situation, a major part of Josephus' mission in
497
Galilee was to fortify the region in preparation for war.
Of course, Josephus uses his discussion of fortifications to praise his own
generalship skills and denigrate those of his main opponent, John. Josephus claims
that he personally oversaw and participated in the construction of each defensive wall
except those built in Sepphoris and Gischala (BJ 2.512-516). Moreover, he goes to
great lengths to describe how much trouble the defensive walls at Jotapata and Gamala
gave the Roman attackers and by claiming that the cities he fortified were the main
refuges of the rebels during the war.428 Then, after noting on several occasions that
John had built the walls at Gischala, Josephus claims that Titus could tell just by
looking at the walls that they would be easy to destroy (BJ 3.92-96).429 This claim is
all the more striking since the Romans destroyed the walls at Jotapata and Gamala, but
not the wall around Gischala430
Josephus even claims that those who constructed Sepphoris and Gischala's
walls got Josephus' permission to do so (BJ 2.572-576).431 It therefore seems likely
427
As I will mention in greater detail both in the following pages and in Chapter 8, Josephus'
descriptions of his fortification activities in Galilee are significantly embellished.
428
BJ 3.110-111,240-270, 316-339; 4.9-10. Another indication of the importance Josephus places on
his role in fortifying Galilee is that he feels the need to defend the poor construction of the walls at
Tarichaeae by claiming that he didn't have enough money to construct a very good wall there because
he had already spent too much constructing the wall around Tiberias (BJ 3.462-470). Of course, he
contradicts himself in Vita 155-156, where he maintains that Tarichaeae's fortifications were completed
before he began construction—before he had even made preparations for the construction—of Tiberias'
walls.
Josephus mentions John's construction of the wall in BJ 2.572
430
BJ 3.240-252; 4.17-29Josephus asserts that, after the surrender of Gischala, Titus had his troops tear
down a small section of the city's wall as a symbol of the city's defeat (BJ 4.112-120).
It is likely that this claim is a typical Josephan exaggeration. He almost certainly did not have the
power to permit or prevent the construction of these fortifications. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and
168
that, given Josephus' desire in BJ to demonstrate his great military leadership by
showing how he fortified Galilee, he probably exaggerated his role in the region's
fortification. Nevertheless, it is likely that the places around which Josephus claims to
have built walls were fortified by somebody before the Roman troops arrived432
CAPTIVES AND CASUALTIES
According to BJ, the Romans killed 73,700 and enslaved 38,530 of people at
of Japha, Jotapata, Tarichaeae, Gamala, on the Sea of Galilee, and near Gischala.433
Elsewhere, he notes that many Galileans were killed in other battles, but he does not
give us the casualty figures for these battles. He also tells us that the Romans
destroyed the town of Gadara and the surrounding villages {BJ 3.132-134), and the
villages near Sepphoris {BJ 3.59-63), killing or enslaving the inhabitants of all these
settlements. In all, BJ implies that roughly 75,000 to 100,000 Jews died in Galilee
during the 66 Revolt.
However, BJ also claims that Josephus commanded 100,000 troops, and I have
already discussed why the scholarly consensus is that this figure is almost certainly a
gross exaggeration. It seems reasonable, then, to consider the large casualty count in
Rome: His Vita and Development As a Historian, 247-248. Rappaport, "Josephus' Personality and the
Credibility of his Narrrative," 72.
432
See my discussion of the relevant archaeological evidence in Chapter 8.
433
Josephus gives the following casualty figures: Japha—15,000 killed and 2,130 enslaved (BJ 3. 289-
306); Jotapata—40,000 killed (BJ3.329-339); Tarichaeae—2,200 killed, 36,400 enslaved (BJ3.532-
542); the Battle on the Sea of Galilee—6,500 killed (BJ 3. 522-531); Gamla—4,000 killed by the
Romans and 5,000 "suicides," (BJ 4.70-83); Gischala—6,000 of the fleeing women and children killed
(BJ 4.112-120).
169
BJio be part of the work's agenda to portray Josephus as a great general.
Nevertheless, Josephus' claims that the Romans slaughtered almost everybody at
Jotapata, Japha, and Gamala and that they killed all of the rebels who fought them on
the Sea of Galilee seem credible.434 Clearly, Vespasian would have killed a large
number of Galileans during his campaign, but we cannot rely on Josephus to give us
an accurate estimate of the Galilean casualties. One factor that suggests that casualties
were relatively low (at least compared to those in Judea [strict sense]) is the fact that
Vespasian's conquest of Galilee was considerably easier than Titus' conquest of Judea
(strict sense).
ETHNIC TENSIONS IN AND AROUND GALILEE
Of course, the Romans were not the only people who battled Galilean Jews in
the first-century C.E. According to Josephus, hostile feelings between Jews and
Gentiles, both in Judea (broad sense) and the neighboring stewed for generations prior
to the revolt.435 In 66 C.E., these ethnic tensions erupted in Caesarea Maritima, and
the local Gentile population killed or expelled all of the city's Jews (BJ 2.457-460).
This, in turn, triggered widespread violence by both Jews and Gentiles against
™BJ 3.289-306, 329-339, 522-542; 4.70-83,112-120. Josephus generally feels the need to apologize
for the Romans' actions and shift the blame for Judean (broad sense) deaths to the Jews. This suggests
that he is uncomfortable portraying Vespasian's troops as killing unarmed people, and, therefore, makes
his accounts that describe Romans slaughtering Jews more credible.
435
Ant. 13.329; 14.313-315;£J4.105; CA 1.13
members of the other group throughout most of Peraea, the Decapolis, Gaulanitis,
Syria, and in the Gentile cities along the Mediterranean Coast (BJ 2.477-478).
Josephus specifically mentions ethnic violence by and against Galileans at the
outset of the revolt. He claims that Justus of Tiberias attacked the villages
surrounding Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis, and that Jesus ben Sapphias led a mob
that killed all of the Gentile inhabitants of Tiberias.436 Josephus also asserts that the
inhabitants of Gadara, Tyre, and Aganaia437 sacked Gischala and turned John of
Gischala into a supporter of the rebellion (Vita 43-45).
Another indication of the ethnic or religious tensions between Jews and
Gentiles in and around Galilee is the large number of Jews who were expelled from
the neighboring regions to Galilee438 A further sign of Jewish-Gentile conflict in the
region is Josephus' account of two Gentiles from Trachonitis who flee to Galilee and
want to help the revolt. Josephus claims that he had to restrain the Galileans from
forcibly circumcising them (Vita 112-113) and, later on, from harming them (Vita
149-154).
Josephus clearly portrays Galilean Jews as having a strong sense of Jewish
nationalism and the Gentiles in the surrounding areas—at least a significant portion of
the cities' populations—as having a severe dislike for Jews.439 The ethnic fighting
436
Vita 41-42, 62-67
437
The text, which appears to be corrupt, calls the inhabitants of this city "j3apayavcuor.
"Aganaians" is merely a best guess as to the indentity of the intended people. The city in question,
however, appears to be a town near Gischala. See S. Mason, Life of Josephus: Translation and
Commentary, ed. S. Mason, vol. 9, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commenary (Boston: Brill,
2001).
438
BJ 2.457-460,477-478
439
BJ 2.457-506; Vita 32-42
171
between Galilean and Syrian cities strongly suggests that Josephus considered
Galilee's population to be overwhelmingly Jewish. The ethnic fighting may also
suggest that there was less cultural exchange between Jewish and Gentile cities in this
region than modern scholars would suspect based on the cities' close proximity to one
another.440
RELIGIOUS CULTURE
JEWISH RELIGIOUS IDENTITY
Although Josephus does not offer much detail about how Galilean Jews
practiced their religion, he does occasionally mention the importance of religious
traditions in Galilee. He claims that the Galileans paid tithes to Jerusalem priests (Vita
63, 80-83), assembled and prayed in "prayer-houses" (rrpoasuxn) (Vita 276-282, 290-
293), observed the Sabbath (Vita 155-164, 271-275), and made pilgrimages to
Jerusalem on Festivals (BJ 2.232-233). He notes that most Galilean Jews were
unwilling to settle in Tiberias because of the ritual impurity conferred on the city's
inhabitants (Ant. 18.36-38). He also mentions occasions in which people appeal to the
440
Cf. the Massacre of the Jews at Scythopolis in BJ 3.447. The reader should also note that the major
discussion of Galilean-Samaritan relations by Josephus is in his narration of the murder of a Galilean
pilgrim by Samaritans (BJ 2.232-244). The fact that Judeans (strict sense) are angry enough about the
incident to raid Samaritan villages suggests the importance of the connection between Galileans and
Judeans (strict sense) as Jews.
172
religious (specifically Jewish) devotion of the Galileans. 441 This evidence suggests
that the majority of Galileans saw themselves as following the ancestral customs of the
Jewish people.
ANICONISM IN GALILEE?
Three events mentioned in Josephus' work highlight the strong aversion
Galilean Jews had toward the presence of images in their land.442 First, when Vitellius
was marching to attack Aretas, the Jewish leaders met him (apparently near Ptolemais)
and asked that he not march the army with its standards through their land. Vitellius
satisfied the Jews by offering to have the army march across the Great Plain, which
served as the border between Galilee and Samaria (Ant. 18.120-124). Clearly, the
Jews opposed having the images in Judea (strict sense) itself, and, apparently, they had
no problem having the images pass through Samaria. The major question here is
whether this episode also suggests that Jews would not have tolerated the presence of
images in Galilee. Since the Great Plain marks the border between Galilee and
Samaria, it is unclear whether the army passed through Galilean territory on its march
or whether the army limited itself to Samaritan territory.
Gaius' attempt to place his statue in the Temple also seems to have sparked the
Galileans' ire. However, this incident only suggests that Galileans were opposed to
441
BJ 3.355-360, 369-382; Vita 74-76,275, 290-298. John of Gischala also appeals to Titus to
postpone the surrender of Gishcala until after the Sabbath because of the sanctity of that day among the
city's people (£74.97-105)
442
For further discussion of aniconism in Galilee, see my discussion of the matter in Chapter 8.
the presence of images in the Jerusalem Temple, it does not tell us if the Galileans
considered their territory to be under the same aniconic regulations.
The other possible suggestion of Galilean aniconism is Josephus' claim that he
was sent by the Jerusalem authorities to destroy the palace built by Antipas in
Tiberias, which had pictures of animals in it (Vita 62-67). While this episode
demonstrates that the Judean (strict sense) rebels were not willing to tolerate the
existence of iconography in Galilee, it tells us less about Galilean attitudes toward
these images. Josephus claims that the Galilean leaders were persuaded with great
difficulty to approve of this action and that the Tiberians who destroyed the palace
before Josephus arrived were motivated by profit and not religious zeal.
Overall, the evidence for widespread opposition to images in Galilee is
inconclusive. A large number of Galileans clearly opposed the presence of Images in
the Jerusalem Temple, but Josephus does not tell his readers how Galileans would
have felt about the presence of Images in their own region.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, Josephus portrays Galilee's history between Herod's death and the
outbreak of the Jewish Revolt as one of relative political stability and economic
443
The reader should note, however, that Josephus frequently discredits his opponents by undermining
their religious convictions (BJ 2.391 -394,414,456, 517; 5.36-39, 562-566; 4.98-106; Vita 290-293).
Josephus' claims about Jesus ben Sapphias' motives in destroying the palace should not be trusted.
Nevertheless, it would be presumptuous to suggest that religious sensibilities motivated Jesus when the
textual evidence gives no indication of that whatsoever.
174
prosperity. The only destabilizing event between Herod's death and the 66 Revolt in
Galilee is the banditry that broke out immediately after Herod's death. There are,
however, some indications that the regions surrounding Tiberias and Tarichaeae may
have suffered economically after being annexed to Agrippa II's territory.
Galileans in Josephus' works appear to be overwhelmingly Jewish and appear
to have been reasonably observant. Although their religious devotion and sometime
inclusion in the province of Iudaea made Galileans respect Jerusalem as the seat of
authority among the Jewish people, local Galilean loyalties appear to have been strong
as well. Local patronage networks probably played an important role in Galilean
politics, and it is likely that the Herodian rulers would have recognized the importance
of securing the support of Galilean elites.
Despite the fact that Josephus wants to portray him as a bad ruler, Antipas'
reign looks better than the other members of the Herodian dynasty in many respects.
He maintained the peace and avoided offending his subject's religious sensibilities,
and the stability during his reign indicates that his subjects lacked the resentment that
Archelaus and Agrippa IPs subjects had for their rulers.
It is only in 66 C.E. that Galilee appears to have experienced political and
economic turmoil. The region was divided politically on the issue of the revolt and
had suffered in the ethnic tensions that led up to the outbreak of the revolt. The
concomitant uncertainty would almost certainly have hurt the region's agriculture and
trade. Soon after the revolt began, Galilee was being fought over by competing
warlords (Josephus, John, Justus, etc.) who demanded "protection money" from the
local peasantry and food from the region's farms. A decades' long tradition of
political and economic stability were quickly shattered by these revolutionaries.
Once the Romans arrived, the region suffered through a short, but devastating
conquest. Although Sepphoris and (to a lesser extent) Tiberias and Gischala were
spared, a few Galilean towns were destroyed and thousands of Galilean rebels were
killed or enslaved. Josephus does not tell his readers how Galilee fared after the
revolt, but it is likely that the immediate effects of the failed revolution were negative.
The reader is left to imagine how Galilee would have coped with the economic and
social problems created by the war and would have had to repair their damaged
relations with the neighboring Gentile regions.
BJ 3.289-306, 329-339, 522-542; 4.70-83, 112-120

CHAPTER 8: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF FIRST-CENTURY C.E. GALILEE
176
177
Given the paucity of literary evidence for first-century C.E. Galilean society,
recent scholarship has emphasized the important role that the archaeological evidence
should play in shaping modern reconstructions of the region's society.445 This chapter
will attempt to summarize the archaeological evidence for first-century C.E. Galilee
and to determine what the material record indicates about the region's population,
economy, and culture.
The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section, "Galilee's
Material Culture," will discuss the material culture that has been found at sites
throughout the region. The second section, "Settlement Patterns and Urbanization,"
will describe the region's settlement patterns and evaluate the evidence for
urbanization and population growth in the first-century C.E. The third section,
"Conclusions," will offer some tentative conclusions regarding what the
archaeological record indicates about first-century C.E. Galilean society.
GALILEE'S MATERIAL CULTURE
POTTERY
Oakman, "The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical
Jesus." D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, "Archaeology and the Galilee: An Introduction," in
Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. D.
R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997). Strange, "First Century Galilee From
Archaeology and From the Texts." Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the
Evidence. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. E. M. Meyers, "Sepphoris: City of Peace," in The
First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (London:
Routledge, 2002).
178
1. Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW)
The Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW) typically found at pagan sites throughout
Galilee in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods disappears from the archaeological
record near the end of the second-century B.C.E.446 Most of the small sites that
contained GCW were also abandoned about this time, and Archaeologist Mordechai
Aviam makes a strong case that both of these phenomena are related to the
Hasmonean conquest of the region.447 The fact that GCW disappears from the
archaeological record in the Early Roman period suggests strongly that this type of
pottery was produced and used by a pagan population and was rejected by the new,
Jewish inhabitants of Galilee.
2. Eastern Sigillata A (ESA)
In addition to the disappearance of GCW from the archaeological record at the
end of the second-century B.C.E., the pottery usage in Galilee continued to develop in
the last century B.C.E. and the first-century C.E. in ways that distinguished the
Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 7-8; R. Frankel, N. Getzov,
M. Aviam, and A. Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee:
Archaeological Survey, IAA Reports, No. 14 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001), 62. M.
Aviam, "Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones
Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation," in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient
Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge, and D. B. Martin, WUNT (Tubingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
447
Aviam, "Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones
Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation."; Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement
Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 132.
179
region's Jewish settlements from the surrounding Gentile ones. The use of ESA—a
type of red-slip tableware common throughout the Levant in this period—also
provides a sharp contrast between Jewish and Gentile sites in and around Galilee. In
the Hellenistic Period, ESA was common throughout the region. However, by the
beginning of the first-century C.E., ESA is only commonly found at mixed and
predominantly Gentile sites.448 However, at known Jewish sites—including Yodefat,
Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Gamla—there is a marked change in the pottery used in
the first-century C.E. At this time, the use of imported Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) ware
stops abruptly.449 These vessels are replaced by "plain, locally manufactured small
bowls and saucers [and] chalk vessels."450 This change in the pottery record occurs
not only in Galilee, but also at rural Judean (strict sense) sites and at the Jewish
settlements in the Golan—a fact that implies a strong cultural connection between the
three regions. Halakhic concerns are the most likely reason Galileans stopped using
these items in the first-century C.E. It appears that, around the beginning of the first-
century C.E., Jewish Galileans began to consider this imported ware to be ritually
impure.451
A. M. Berlin, "Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee," in The First Jewish

Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (New York:
Routledge, 2002), 58-59. The Gentile sites included in Berlin's study are Shiqmona, Tel Anafa, and
Pella.
Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper
Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 63, 113. Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological
Perspective," 18-19. ESA is also known as Eastern Terra Sigillata I (ETS I).
50
Berlin, "Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee," 59.
D. Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University Press, 1993), 237. D. Avshalom-Gorni and N. Getzov, "Phoenicians and Jews: a
ceramic case-study," in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin
and J. A. Overman (New York: Routledge, 2002), 81.
180
3. Herodian (Knife-Pared) Lamps
Along with their rejection of ESA pottery, Galilean Jews appear to have
discontinued the use of another common type of pottery. Mold-made lamps that
usually featured pagan, anthropomorphic, or zoomorphic images are common at
Jewish sites throughout Judea (broad sense) at the beginning of the last-century B.C.E.
In the first-century C.E., however, Jews in Galilee, rural Judea (strict sense), and the
Golan began preferred to use the an-iconic Herodian lamps.452 The Herodian lamp is a
distinctively Judean (broad sense) lamp that was developed in the final decade of the
last century B.C.E., probably in Jerusalem.453 This imitates various features of two oil
lamps common in the Mediterranean in this period; however, they completely lack any
decoration. Since decorations would not have affected the cost or ease of production,
Andrea Berlin concludes that, "[p]otters must have made knife-pared lamps as plain as
possible, and purposefully so."454 The intentional plainness of these lamps is
generally interpreted in terms of Jewish rejection of images often found on mold-made
lamps or as a sign that Judean (broad sense) Jews began to adopt a "conspicuously
austere" lifestyle that connected austerity with religiosity.455 The sudden
452
Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and
the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 105,115,155. Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt:
The Archaeological Evidence", 17-20.
453
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 17. R. Bar-Nathan,
Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973-1987 Excavations, vol. Ill:
The Pottery (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002), 112-113, 189-190.
454
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 19.
455
Ibid.
181
predominance of these lamps in Judea (strict sense), Galilee, and the Golan at about
the same time suggests a strong connection between the religious cultures of these
three regions. This connection is reinforced by the fact that many of the Herodian
lamps that were found in Galilee and the Golan were made in Jerusalem.
4. Kefar Hananya Ware (KHW)
This distinctive cookware constitutes the majority of the cookware found
throughout Jewish Galilee and was the most common pottery type found at almost
every site within Jewish Galilee.457 Chemical analysis—including instrumental
neutron activation analysis (INAA) and high-precision X-ray fluorescence
(HPXRF)—along with thin-section (petrographic) analysis have confirmed that
virtually all of the KHW found in Galilee and in the surrounding regions was
produced at the site of Kefar Hananya.458
D. Adan-Bayewitz, F. Asaro, M. Wieder, and R. D. Giauque, "Preferential Distribution of Lamps

from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century B.C.E--70 C.E.),"
BASOR 350 (2008). Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 18-19.
Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper
Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 65. The fact that many of the knife-pared lamps found in these regions
were also made locally seems to reinforce this connection as well.
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 219; D. Adan-
Bayewitz, "On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine," in One
Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour ofStanislao Loffreda OFM, ed. G. C. Bottini,
L. d. Segni, and L. D. Chrupcala, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collection Maior (Jerusalem:
Francicsan Printing Press, 2003), 10. The major exception is Yodefat. Potters at Yodefat made pottery
that imitated Kefar Hananya ware. To my knowledge, pottery made at Yodefat has not yet been
discovered at other sites. Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 18.
458
The term "Kefar Hananya Ware" is somewhat objectionable because it refers specifically to pottery
made at the site of Kefar Hananya and not to a specific group of pottery forms. However, in the
Galilee, cookware of the same forms as KHW that were not made at Kefar Hananya were found at only
one site, Yodefat; Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 18.. For
182
KHW also makes up approximately 10-20% of the tableware found at Jewish
sites in the Golan459 Moreover, locally produced imitations of KHW constitute the
majority of the pottery finds in the central Golan during the early Roman period.460
The strong preference for KHW and for local imitations of KHW among Jews in
Galilee and the Golan suggests that the cookware was primarily marketed to Jews. The
generally accepted explanation for the sudden and marked preference for KHW by
Galileans is that a newfound concern with ritual purity prompted the region's Jewish
inhabitants to prefer pottery made by local Jews who would ensure the ritual purity of
their vessels.461
Jews, however, were not the only people in the area to buy KHW. In fact,
Kefar Hananya constitutes a significant minority of pottery finds at many of the
Gentile sites surrounding Galilee.462 The presence of KHW at these Gentile sites can
be explained either by the presence of Jewish minorities at those settlements or by the
more details on the chemical and petrographic analyses of KHW, see: Adan-Bayewitz, "On the
Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine," 9-10; D. Adan-Bayewitz, F.
Asaro, and R. D. Giauque, "Determining Pottery Provenance: Application of a New High-Precision X-
Ray Flourescence Method and Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,"
Archaeometry 41 (1999): 11-14; D. Adan-Bayewitz, F. Asaro, R. D. Giauque, M. Wieder, I. Shaked, D.
Avshalom-Gorni, and D. Gan, "Pottery Manufacture in Roman Galilee: Distinguishing Similar
Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation
Analysis," in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics: Papers Presented at the 5th
European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, ed. V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, and Y. Maniatis,
BAR International Series (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002); D. Adan-Bayewitz and W. Moshe, "Ceramics
From Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization," JFA 19
(1992); D. Adan-Bayewitz and I. Parlman, "Local Pottery Provenance Sudies: A Role for Clay
Analysis," Archaeometry 27, no. 2 (1985).
459
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 165, 211-213; Adan-
Bayewitz, "On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine," 7.
460
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 165-189; Adan-
Bayewitz, "On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine," 7. Syon,
"Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan
in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 154.
461
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade.
462
Ibid., 220.
demonstrably superior quality of the pottery produced at Kefar Hananya. Although
KHW is found at both Jewish and Gentile sites, the fact that it was found in much
higher concentrations at Jewish than at Gentile sites that are equidistant from Kefar
Hananya suggests that Jews were the primary consumers of KHW. Given that goods
were often traded in pottery vessels, the presence of KHW throughout Galilee
probably indicate the trade of more than just pottery.
Tellingly, the only neighboring region that did not import Kefar Hananya ware
is Samaria; this fact reinforces the connection between KHW and Jewish identity. It
also suggests that there may have been little or no commercial interaction between
Galilee and Samaria.464
5. Shikhin Ware (SW)
Although Kefar Hananya ware provided much of the pottery for Early Roman
Galilee, the site produced relatively few storage jars. Instead, the most common
storage jars at early Roman Galilean sites were made at the region's other major
Most archaeologists prefer the latter explanation since the clay at Kefar Hananya is extremely well
suited for pottery production. The chemical composition of the soil at Kefar Hananya produces pottery
that is more durable, more easily produced, and easier to fire than pottery produced at most sites.
Moreover, the composition of the soil eliminated the need for potters to add temper to their cookware;
Adan-Bayewitz and Moshe, "Ceramics From Roman Galilee: A Comparison of Several Techniques for
Fabric Characterization," 193, 198, 201. Adan-Bayewitz, "On the Chronology of the Common Pottery
of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine," 9-10.
464
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 213-220; Adan-
Bayewitz and Parlman, "Local Pottery Provenance Sudies: A Role for Clay Analysis."
184
pottery production site: Shikhin. 4 6 5 A s with KHW, all known samples of SW in
Galilee have been shown through chemical analysis (INAA and HPXRF) to come
from the same site 466 Production of the jars at Shikhin began in the late Hellenistic
Period and continued throughout the Early Roman period. As is the case with
KHW, the strong preference for SW over storage jars made in nearby Gentile
settlements was probably driven by a newly increased demand for ritually pure pottery
among Galilean Jews.
STONE VESSELS
Intimately connected with the changes in Galilee's pottery record during this
period is the sudden appearance and abundance of stone vessels throughout Jewish
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 211. Adan-Bayewitz,
Asaro, Giauque, Wieder, Shaked, Avshalom-Gorni, and Gan, "Pottery Manufacture in Roman Galilee:
Distinguishing Similar Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence and Instrumental
Neutron Activation Analysis," 363. Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, "Determining Pottery
Provenance: Application of a New High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence Method and Comparison with
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis," 17. The reader should note that Adan-Bayewitz' analysis is
based on pottery from the entire Roman period; however, he does note that these findings are valid for
the first-century C.E.
466
Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, Giauque, Wieder, Shaked, Avshalom-Gorni, and Gan, "Pottery Manufacture
in Roman Galilee: Distinguishing Similar Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray
Flourescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis," 363-364. The chemical analysis that
determined the provenance of Shikhin Ware is important because one of the most common storage jars
produced at Shikhin is indistinguishable both in form and by microscopic fabric analysis to the most
common storage j ar produced at the nearby Gentile site of Yavor. In fact, the two types of pottery are
even difficult to distinguish with INAA. It is only through the use of high-precision XRF that the two
types of storage jars can be distinguished.
467
Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, and Giauque, "Determining Pottery Provenance: Application of a New High-
Precision X-Ray Flourescence Method and Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation
Analysis," 17. Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on
Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 153.
468
These vessels, which are made of limestone, are also called "limestone vessels" and "chalk vessels"
by modem scholars.
185
Galilee and Judea (strict sense) 469 From about the second half of the last century
B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple, Jews in Galilee and Judea (strict sense)
frequently used stone vessels, apparently because they believed that stone could not
become ritually impure.470 Because they are chalky—and therefore not very good for
drinking or storing liquids—stone vessels were very uncommon at Gentile sites of this
period. Moreover, the larger stone vessels would have cost more to make than would
analogous pottery forms. For first-century Judeans (broad sense), however, the fact
that they were not subject to ritual impurity would have probably outweighed the
inconveniences associated with them and justified any additional costs.471 Once the
Romans destroyed the Temple, Judean (broad sense) Jews stopped using stone vessels;
though production of stone vessels resumed briefly during the Bar Kochba revolt.
Some of the stone vessels found in Galilee were probably imported from
Jerusalem; however, stone vessels were also produced in Galilee itself.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, AA. J. D. Crossan and
J. L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 66. Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective,"
20; Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 13. Syon, "Tyre and Gamla:
A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic
and Roman Periods", 155. D. R. Edwards, "Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages,"
in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E.
Attridge, and D. B. Martin, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 372; Gibson, "Stone Vessels of
the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment."; Magen, "Ancient Israel's
Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times." Y. Arbel, "The Historical Impact and Archaeological
Reflections of Intense Religious Movements" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego,
2005), 425-429. Stone vessels appear in Judea (strict sense), the Golan, and Galilee, but they are
virtually absent from first-century Samaria.
Gibson, "Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment,"
302-303. Y. Magen, "Jerusalem As a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple
Period," in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994),
252-255. Magen, "Ancient Israel's Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times," 50.
4
Arbel," The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements",
431.
472
Gibson, "Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A Reassessment."
Magen, "Jerusalem As a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple Period," 255.
186
Archaeologists have uncovered a stone vessel-manufacturing site in Galilee at Reina,
near Nazareth. Excavators have also uncovered evidence for small-scale manufacture
of the vessels at several Galilean villages, including Capernaum, Sepphoris, Nabratien
and Bethlehem.473
MIQVAOT
Another feature of Galilee's material culture that reflects the population's
attitudes toward ritual purity is the presence ofmiqvaot. Jewish ritual baths have been
found at many sites in Galilee, including Beit Yinam, Beth She'arim, Chorazin,
Gamla, Khirbet Shema, Mt. Arbel, Nazareth, Susa, and Yodefat.474 Although a few
scholars have questioned the identity of the baths at Sepphoris as miqvaot, their style
is strikingly similar to those found at sites from the same period in Judea (strict sense),
and they have no parallels in non-Jewish neighboring sites.475 The similarity between
the Judean (strict sense) and Galilean baths combined with the fact that the baths are
probably too small to serve any of the proposed alternative purposes makes the
Magen, "Jerusalem As a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second Temple Period,"
255. Gibson, "Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A
Reassessment," 289, 291.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 47-51. Aviam, "First
Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective." Meyers and Chancey, "How Jewish Was
Sepphoris in Jesus' Time?" E. M. Meyers, "Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special
Reference to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths," in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. J. R.
Bartlett (New York: Routledge, 2002).
475
H. Eshel, "A Note on 'Miqvaot' At Sepphoris," in Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts
in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, South Florida
Studies in the History of Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997). H. Eshel, "They're Not Ritual Baths," BAR
26, no. 4 (2000). H. Eshel, "We Need More Data," BAR 26, no. 4 (2000). E. M. Meyers, "Yes, They
Are," BAR 26, no. 4 (2000).
187
identification of the baths as miqvaot all but certain. The presence of several miqvaot
throughout Early Roman Galilee underscores the importance that ritual purity must
have held in Galilean society at this time 476
ANIMAL BONES
Another feature of first-century Galilee's material culture that reflects the
population's religious practices is the absence or near absence of pork bones at a given
site. Although pork bones are present in significant quantities at the Gentile sites along
Galilee's coast and in the Decapolis, they are very rarely found at Galilean sites that
Josephus treats as Jewish (those in the central and western part of Galilee). This
fact strongly supports the conclusion that Galilee's population was predominantly
Jewish in the first-century C.E.478
NUMISMATICS
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 45-46. R. Reich,
"Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer," IEJ 31 (1981): 49. Sanders,
Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.-66 C.E., 223. Although some scholars have seized on the
ubiquity of miqvaot as evidence that first-century Judean (broad sense) Jews generally accepted the
ritual purity regulations later recorded by the rabbis, Andrea Berlin makes a strong case that the
archaeological data actually suggests different usage at different sites. Therefore, she argues that the
miqvaot may actually be evidence for different purity observances at different sites. For a more
detailed discussion of this, see: Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence",
34-36.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 49. Crossan and
Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, 66.
Unfortunately, too few archaeologists publish these data from their sites. However, the available
data for early Roman Galilee is sufficient to make a general claim about the region's eating habits.
188
One of the most influential works on Galilean numismatics is Richard S.
Hanson's 1980 study of Tyrian currency in Upper Galilee. The study based its
claims that Tyrian currency dominated Upper Galilean numismatic finds from three
sites excavated by the Meiron Excavation Project in the 1970s: Khirbet Shema,
Meiron, and Gush Halav. According to Hanson, the numismatic data implies that
Tyre's sphere of economic influence included upper Galilee, and that the presence of
Tyrian coinage in the region suggests substantial commercial contact between the
Upper Galilee and Tyre during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Hanson's work has had a major influence on the way many New Testament
scholars understand Galilee. Unfortunately, his study no longer reflects the up-to-date
archaeological data. Danny Syon, a leading expert on Galilean numismatics, has
argued that Hanson's study is outdated and inaccurate and that it's major influence on
NT scholars has substantially warped their view of first-century Galilee.480 Syon's
dissertation on the coinage of Galilee and the Golan demonstrated that domination of
Tyrian currency in Galilee can only be demonstrated for silver coinage. This is
significant for three reasons: 1) Silver coinage was more likely to be universally
accepted because of its inherent value. 2) Tyrian silver shekels were the only coins
accepted by the Jerusalem Temple during the first half of the first-century, so Jews in
R. S. Hanson, Tyrian Influence in Upper Galilee, ed. E. M. Meyers, vol. 2, Meiron Excavation
Project (Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980). Prior to Hanson's book,
other scholars, such as Arie Kindler, noted the dominance of Tyrian silver currency throughout Judea
(broad sense). Cf. A. Kindler, "The Mint of Tyre, the Main Source of Silver Coins in Eretz-Israel in
Antiquity," Eretz-Israel 8 (1967).
480
Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and
the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 126.
189
this period would have had an incentive to acquire and use Tyrian silver coinage. 3)
The vast majority of silver coinage found in Early Roman Galilee was found in
hoards, which do not accurately reflect circulation.482
For these reasons, Syon's study of numismatic circulation considers coin
hoards separately and relies less upon them and more upon site finds.483 According to
his study, although Phoenician coinage dominates Galilee in the Ptolemaic (300-200
B.C.E.) and Seleucid (200-125 B.C.E.) Periods and again in the Middle Roman Period
(70-256 B.C.E.), there is a significant drop in the circulation of Phoenician coinage in
the region during the Hasmonean (125-63 B.C.E.) Early Roman (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.)
Periods. Phoenician coinage is rarest during the Early Roman period. At the same
time, "the impact of Roman imperial coinage is.. .negligible,"485 and coins from the
Decapolis are also remarkably rare at Jewish sites in this period. In short, it appears
that Galileans are using mostly locally minted Jewish (i.e.: Hasmonean and Herodian)
coins in this period.
Coins and Ethnicity
Syon argues that the circulation of Jewish coins during the Hasmonean and
Early Roman Periods reveals the ethnicity of the settlements in Galilee, the Golan, and
481
Ibid., 164.
482
Ibid., 158-159.
483
Ibid., 167.
484
Ibid., 18,225,237,251.
485
Ibid., 18,237,250-251.
190
southern Syria. Jews appear to have had a strong preference for Jewish coinage and
Gentiles avoided Jewish coins. The distribution of Jewish coins during these periods
illustrates a stable ethnic border that is essentially consistent with Josephus'
descriptions of the region.486
Monetization
A number of scholars have argued that the minting of local coinage in Jewish
Galilee for the first time represented an attempt by Antipas to monetize the region's
487
economy. Some scholars have even gone so far as to suggest that the monetization
of Galilee's economy under Antipas would have had a significant and negative impact
on the economic wellbeing of many Galilean peasants.488
The numismatic evidence, however, does not support the idea that Galilee's
economy became significantly more monetized in the first-century C.E. There are two
major indications that Antipas' minting would not have had a significant impact on the
region's monetary supply. First, Antipas did not mint a sufficient number of coins to
Ibid., 244-251. Syon also interprets the fact that there was a significant minority of Jewish coins at
certain Gentile cities in the surrounding regions to suggest that the presence of Jews in those cities.
487
W. E. Arnal, "The Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of the Peasantry," in Text and
Artifact: Religions in Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour ofPeter Richardson, ed. S. G. Wilson
and M. Desjardins, Studies in Christianity and Judaism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
2000), 138. S. Freyne, "Herodian economics in Galilee: Searching for a suitable model," in Modelling
Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its context, ed. P. F. Esler (New
York: Routledge, 1995), 46.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 83-89. Arnal," The
Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of the Peasantry," 140.
191
have appreciably increased the overall supply of money in Galilee. Second, the
irregularity and infrequency of Antipas' minting activities suggests that he struck
coins for political and propagandistic purposes rather than for economic reasons.
ARCHITECTURE & HOUSEHOLD DECORATION
The architectural remains from first-century Galilee present modern
archaeologists with some important clues about the region's socio-economic
hierarchy, its population's acceptance of Greco-Roman culture, and the religious
beliefs of the local inhabitants.
1. Public Architecture at Sepphoris
The dating of Sepphoris' theater is a matter of some controversy. Two teams
excavated the city simultaneously beginning in the 1980s.491 The University of
489
Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2 vols., vol. 2 (Dix Hills: Amphora Books, 1982), 41. Y.
Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to BarKokhba (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-
Zvi, 2001), 85. Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on
Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 247. M. H. Jensen, "Josephus and
Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus' Narratives on Herod Antipas," in Making History: Josephus and
Historical, Method, ed. Z. Rodgers (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 214; M. H. Jensen, "Message and Minting:
The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-
Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee," in Religion, Ethnicity, and
WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 309-313.
490
Jensen, "Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus' Narratives on Herod Antipas," 214-215.
Jensen, "Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a
Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century
Galilee," 309-313. Jensen also notes that, although some scholars have tried to link Antipas' minting
activities with increased tax collection, bronze coinage would not have been valuable enough to be used
for paying taxes.
192
Florida began excavating the site in 1983 under the direction of James F. Strange. In
1985, a joint American-Israeli expedition from The Hebrew University, Duke
University and the University of North Carolina began digging at the site as well. The
two teams disagreed about the date of the theater. The USF archaeologists argued that
Herod Antipas built the theater while Sepphoris was still his capital. The members
of the Joint Expedition, on the other hand, argued that the theater was more likely to
have been built after Sepphoris resumed the role of Galilee's capital under direct
Roman rule in 52 C.E. The members of the Joint expedition also argued that the
theater could have been built as late as the second-century C.E., but claimed that a late
first-century date seemed most likely.493
In the 1980s, the argument over the dating of Sepphoris' theater was heated
because scholars argued that the theater would have been a vessel for the spread of
Greco-Roman culture in Galilee494 However, more recent research into the role of
Antipas' building projects in promulgating Greco-Roman culture suggests that his
activities would have only had a cosmetic effect on the region. Most scholars now
491
The University of Michigan had previously spent one season excavating the site in 1931. L.
Waterman, Preliminary Report of the University ofMichigan Excavations At Sepphoris, Palestine in
1931 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1937).
492
J. F. Strange and T. R. W. Longstaff, "Sepphoris, 1985," IEJ35 (1986). The USF team's dating
agrees with the dating initially offered by the University of Michigan team Waterman, Preliminary
Report of the University ofMichigan Excavations At Sepphoris, Palestine in 1931, 29.
493
E. M. Meyers, "Identifying Religious and Ethnic Groups through Archaeology," in Biblical
Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Keterpress, 1993), 741-742; E. M. Meyers, N. Ehud, and L. M.
Carol," The Roman Theater At Sepphoris," BA 53 (1990).
494
Batey, "Jesus and the Theatre." Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and
the Urban World of Jesus.
193
view Antipas' Greco-Roman buildings as creating a Greco-Roman veneer that may
not have penetrated the local culture.
2. Public Architecture at Tiberias
Unfortunately, archaeologists have not been able to excavate Tiberias to
anywhere near the extent that they excavated Sepphoris because the remains of the
former lie beneath a major modern city. However, archaeologists have managed to
excavate a few important portions of Tiberias that reveal important information about
the construction of public buildings in the first-century city.
Two of the most important discoveries at Tiberias are the southern city gate
and cardo that ran through it—both of which have been datedto the first-century
C.E 496 Recently, Monika Bernett has objected to the first-century dating of the gate,
noting that Josephus claims that Vespasian had to tear down a portion of Tiberias'
wall to allow his army to enter the city. She argues that the presence of such a large
gate would have obviated the need to tear down the wall. 497 Based on this passage
495
Strange was the first to argue for a Roman urban architectural veneer in Galilee. J. F. Strange, "Some
Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies," in What Has Archaeology to Do With Faith?
ed. J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992).
496
Y. Hirschfeld, A Guide to Antiquity Sites in Tiberias (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 1992),
25-26. Archaeologists have also discovered the remains of a first-century palace or villa—possibly
Antipas' palace. I discuss this building later in this chapter.
497
BJ 3.460
and on comparisons between the Tiberias gate and similar ones found at Scythopolis
and Gerasa, Bernett dates the gate to the second-century C.E.
Of course, it is possible that Josephus misconstrued or misunderstood the
reason Vespasian destroyed part of Tiberias' wall. At Gischala, for example, Josephus
notes that Vespasian destroyed part of the wall as a symbol of his conquest (it also
served the pragmatic function of disabling the city's defenses). It is a possibility that
he tore down the portion of the wall at Tiberias for similar reasons.
Nevertheless, there is another reason to doubt that this structure is the remains
of a gate to the wall surrounding Tiberias. Since there is no evidence that the gate was
attached to a defensive wall until the Byzantine period, it appears that the "gate"
originally functioned as a "free-standing arch" rather than as part of the city's
defenses.499
Recently, Moshe Hartal's excavations in the vicinity of Tiberias have
uncovered what may be another important public building. In 2002 and 2005, his
team excavated portions of what they believe to be the city's first-century stadium.
Currently, the data is too limited and the interpretations are too preliminary for
scholars to draw any important conclusions from this find. However, future
excavations may help contextualize Josephus' narratives that take place in Tiberias'
stadium.
M. Bernett, Der Kaiserkult als teil der politischen Geschichte Iudeas unter den Herodianern und
Roemern (30 v.Chr.-66 n.Chr.) (Munchen: University of Munich, 2002).
499
M. A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005), 87.
500
Jensen, "Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus' Narratives on Herod Antipas," 144-145.
The presence of first-century pottery near the structure indicates that it was built around that time.
3. Marble and Building Decoration
One striking feature of both public and private buildings in first-century C.E.
Galilee is the near absence of marble and faux marble. Virtually no marble has been
found in the region.501 Furthermore, frescoes, which often functioned as imitation
marble, are also more rare in Galilee than in the neighboring regions, including Judea
(strict sense).502 The reader should also note that, in general, these frescoes are
significantly inferior and less expensive than contemporary ones found in Jerusalem.
In a forthcoming article, Jonathan Reed argues that the virtual absence of
marble and faux marble in Galilee indicates, "that under Herod Antipas Romanization
was in its absolute infancy."503 He also raises the possibility that the absence of
marble could reflect deliberate Galilean resistance to Romanization; however, there
might be insufficient evidence to support or reject such a claim.
The only marble found are the remains of an opus sectile floor at Tiberias and a loose marble
fragment from Sepphoris that is probably too thin to have been used in flooring. Y. Hirschfeld and K.
Galor, "New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias," in Religion, Ethnicity, and
WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 223-224; J. L. Reed, "Romanizing Galilee? Marble, Identity,
and Domestic Space under Herod Antipas," NEA (Forthcoming).
502
Reed, "Romanizing Galilee? Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space under Herod Antipas." Aviam,
"First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 17. Aviam," Socio-economical
Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First century Galilee. The Evidence from Yodefat and
Gamla." M. Aviam," Yodfat: A Test Case for the Development of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in the
Second Temple Period" (PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 240-242. Frescoes have been
found with some frequency at Sepphoris, but elsewhere in Galilee, they are very rare. The fact that all
frescoes and other building decoration in first-century Galilee were aniconic (consisting of either floral
or geometric patterns) provides further support for the argument that Jewish Galileans in this period
held a very strict interpretation of the biblical prohibition against images.
503
Reed, "Romanizing Galilee? Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space under Herod Antipas."
196
4. Domestic Architecture as an Indication of Socio-economic Status
There are noticeable differences in size, quality of construction, and decoration
among homes in Galilee's cities, towns, and villages. Overall, there is a correlation
between the size of the settlement and the degree of wealth attained by the richest
members of that city. However, even in the smaller settlements, such as Gamla and
Yodefat, there is a noticeable difference in the quality of domestic construction.
The disparity between Sepphoris and the villages in terms of luxury items,
household decoration and the frequency of miqvaot suggests that there was a
significant income gap between the elites of Sepphoris and Tiberias on the one hand,
and the wealthier inhabitants of rural Galilean settlements on the other. There is
also evidence for economic stratification in both rural and urban Galilean sites.
However, the gap between those at the high, middle, and low ends of the economic
spectrum—as well as the income gap between the rural and urban elites—was
significantly smaller in Galilee than in Judea (strict sense).
SYNAGOGUES
Aviam," Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First century Galilee. The
Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla." J. L. Reed, "Galilean Economics from a Demographic Perspective:
The Role of Mortality, Morbidity, and Migration," (Forthcoming).
505
Reed, "Galilean Economics from a Demographic Perspective: The Role of Mortality, Morbidity, and
Migration." Aviam, "Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First century
Galilee. The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla." K. Galor, "Domestic Architecture in Roman and
Byzantine Galilee and Golan," NEA 66, no. 1-2 (2003).
197
Although Galilean synagogues are mentioned in both the Gospels and
Josephus, archaeologists in Galilee have found no definite first-century C.E.
synagogue. This is probably due to both the difficulty in identifying the remains of
early synagogues and to the fact that even the more extensive excavations have not
exposed large portions of the excavated settlements. Gamla, however, does contain
a first-century synagogue, and the strong connections between the central Golan and
Galilee make it plausible that similar synagogues would have been built in first-
century Galilee as well.507
INSCRIPTIONS & OTHER WRITING
Inscriptions and other forms of epigraphic evidence from first-century Galilee
are extremely rare in comparison to the rest of the first-century Mediterranean. In
fact, almost all of the epigraphic evidence from this period is found on coins. Mark
Chancey, a leading expert on inscriptions from Early Roman Galilee, suggests that the
The foundations of a possible first-century synagogue at Capernaum have been found beneath the
remains of a late Roman period synagogue. Although some scholars date this building to the first-
century C.E., both the dating and the identification of the building as a synagogue are hotly disputed. A.
Runesson, "Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in Capernaum From the
First to Sixth Century," in Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition,
ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge, and D. B. Martin, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 239, 245-
246. H. Bloedhorn and G. Huttenmeister, "The Synagogue," in The Cambridge History of Judaism,
Volume Three: The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 271 -272. Cf. :L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First
Thousand Years, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 46-52.
507
Bloedhorn and Huttenmeister, "The Synagogue," 271-272; Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the
Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods", 21.
198
absence of inscriptions implies that Galileans rejected the Greco-Roman custom of
making frequent inscriptions to enhance a patron's status and power.
Among the few inscriptions that have been found in Galilee, the language of
choice is Greek.509 This is consistent with the epigraphic habit of the rest of the
eastern Empire at this time. Although it is tempting to interpret the presence of Greek
inscriptions in Galilee as evidence that Greek was commonly spoken in the region,
such an interpretation misconstrues the function of inscriptions in the ancient world. It
would be wrong to assume that inscriptions were meant to be read by the average
person. Instead, ancient elites generally used inscriptions as a way to display their
wealth and to emphasize their superiority over the masses. The rarity of writing
found in first-century Galilee's material culture prevents modern scholars from using
these data to draw conclusions about the prevalence of Greek in the region.
FORTIFICATIONS AND EVIDENCE OF SEIGES
M. A. Chancey, "The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee," in Religion, Ethnicity,
and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, ed. J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge, and D. B.
Martin, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 94. Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 11, 90.
509
Chancey, "The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee," 87.
510
M. A. Chancey, "Galilee and Greco-Roman Culture in the Time of Jesus: The Neglected
Significance of Chronology," in SBLSP 2003 (Atlanta: Scholars, 2003). Horsley, Archaeology, History,
and Society in Galilee: The Social Context ofJesus and the Rabbis, 168.
511
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 78. Although there is some epigraphic evidence for the use
of Aramaic among less wealthy Galileans, this evidence is far too limited for modern researchers to
draw substantial conclusions from it.
Archaeological excavations and surveys have discovered defensive walls at a
number of the smaller settlements that Josephus claims to have fortified. Two of
these sites—Gamla and Yodefat—have been extensively excavated. At both of these
sites the defensive walls appear to have been poorly and hastily constructed during the
CIO
First Revolt. For the most part, these defensive walls fill in the gaps between
homes and other buildings on edges of the towns.514 These buildings that abutted the
walls often had their outer rooms filled in (as reinforcement) and incorporated into the
defensive walls themselves.515
Archaeologists have also discovered significant evidence to support at least the
general outline of Josephus' stories about the Roman sieges of both Yodefat and
512
D. Syon, "Gamla: City of Refuge," in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology,
ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (New York: Routledge, 2002), 137. M. Aviam, "The Identification
and Function of Josephus Flavius' Fortifications in the Galilee," in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the
Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004). M. Aviam, "The Archaeology
of the Battle of Yodefat," in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2004). Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological
Perspective," 18. Archaeologists have found the remains of defensive walls at five sites mentioned in
Josephus' lists of fortified cities in Galilee: Gamla, Yodefat, Beer Sheba of Galilee, Mount Tabor, and
Arbel.
513
Syon, "Gamla: City of Refuge," 136-137. Although there is evidence of fortifications at Yodefat
from the Hellenistic period, they do not appear to have encompassed the first-century settlement, and
therefore could not provide sufficient defense for Yodefat's inhabitants. D. Adan-Bayewitz and A.
Mordechai, "Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992-1994 Seasons,"
JRA 10 (1997): 163. Aviam, the site's excavator, concluded that the final fortifications that enclosed
the settlement were constructed just before the site's destruction in 67 C.E. Aviam, "The Archaeology
of the Battle of Yodefat," 110-115,121.
514
Aviam, "The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat," 112-115. Syon, "Gamla: City of Refuge," 136-
137.
515
At Yodefat, archaeologists found a pottery kiln that was covered by a defensive wall. A new kiln
was built within the nearby confines of the wall, but it appears that the potter never had the opportunity
to use it. Aviam, "The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat," 113-115.
200
Gamla. Excavators have identified breaches in the defensive walls of both towns as
well as the assault ramps built by the Romans to attack the Jewish defenses.
A large number of arrowheads and ballista stones have been found along the
defensive walls of both Gamla and Yodefat.517 Moreover, the concentrations of
projectiles are consistent with Josephus' descriptions of the Romans bombarding
specific locations in the walls. Interestingly, the major breach at Gamla occurs at one
of the weakest points in the city's defensive wall. Danny Syon argues that this may
indicate that the Roman attackers had inside information about the city's defenses,
perhaps even from Josephus himself.518 In addition to finding the defensive walls
around established settlements, archaeological surveys have also discovered evidence
that the rebels fortified caves in the Galilean hills during the First Revolt.
Surprisingly, although Josephus claims to have built Tiberias and Tarichaeae's
walls and assisted in strengthening the wall around Sepphoris, archaeologists have not
discovered first-century defensive walls at either site.520 Excavators have also failed
Ibid., 115-117. Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai, "Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary
Report on the 1992-1994 Seasons," 162. Syon, "Gamla: City of Refuge," 136-137.
In fact, more ballista stones and arrowheads have been found at Gamla than at any other site in the
Roman empire. Syon, "Gamla: City of Refuge," 141. Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai, "Iotapata,
Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992-1994 Seasons," 162. Aviam, "The
Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat," 117.
The wall at the breach was only two meters thick, but it is about four meters thick on either side of
the house at which the wall was breached. Syon," Gamla: City of Refuge," 140-141.
519
Aviam, "The Identification and Function of Josephus Flavius' Fortifications in the Galilee."
520
Archaeologists have uncovered a large, early Roman period city gate at Tiberias; however, it appears
that there was no wall attached to the Gate in the early Roman period. Ibid., 98. Aviam, "First Century
Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 18. Although they have not found a defensive wall at
Sepphoris, archaeologists have found the remains of a castrum (garrison building), which stood at the
site from the late Hellenistic period to the middle of the first-century C.E. However, the building
appears to have been converted to non-military uses by the first-century. Interestingly, the castrum was
intentionally filled around the time of the revolt, and Eric Meyers argues that the filling of a building
that still looked like a military installation was intended to be an outward signal to the Romans that
201
to recover the wall that Josephus claims John of Gischala built around his
hometown.521
Overall, the archaeological evidence is consistent with Josephus' claim to have
fortified many settlements within Galilee during his generalship. Although the
material remains cannot tell modern scholars who built the fortifications, it does
appear that many of the sites were hastily fortified during the revolt. Furthermore, the
archaeological data are consistent with Josephus' descriptions of the sieges of Yodefat
and Gamla.
METAL
Brass is generally considered a good indicator of Romanization during this
period. Therefore, the lack of brass in First-century Galilee's archaeological record
(with the exception of items that are associated with the attacking Roman army)
suggests either isolation from or resistance to Romanization. Given the ubiquity of
brass objects in the first-century Mediterranean, Ponting argues that the virtual
absence of brass in Judea (broad sense) reflects a deliberate and, perhaps, costly effort
to avoid Roman brass.522
Sepphoris desired peace with Rome. E. M. Meyers, "Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67-68
CE): Archaeology and Josephus," in Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, ed. E. M.
Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999).
521
Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 18.
522
M. J. Ponting, "The Chemical Analysis of a Selection of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork from the Early
Roman Fortified Complex," in Ramat HaNadiv Excavations: Final Report of the 1984-1998 Seasons,
ed. Y. Hirschfeld (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000). M. J. Ponting, "Keeping up with the
Romans? Romanization and Copper Alloys in First Revolt Palestine," Journal of the Institute of
202
OLIVE AND WINE PRESSES
Because of the region's climate, scholars should expect olive oil and wine to
be important elements of Galilee's economy. In fact, the presence of early Roman
wine and olive presses at several Galilean settlements confirms the important role that
these goods played in Galilee's economy.523 Although a number of scholars have
suggested that these products might have been major Galilean exports, the importance
of wine and olive oil should not be overestimated. Mordechai Aviam has argued
based on archaeological surveys and excavations that the region probably did not
produce sufficient amounts of these products for Galileans to have engaged in
extensive exporting of olive oil and wine. Instead, it appears that Galileans produced
enough of these products to meet local demands and probably to export a small
amount to nearby Jewish communities as well.524
Another important feature of the olive presses from first-century Galilee is
their association with ritual baths. These presses usually—but not always—have a
Archaeometallurgical Studies 22, no. 3-6 (2002). M. J. Ponting, "Roman Military Copper-Alloy
Artifacts from Israel: Questions of Organization and Ethnicity," Archaeometry AA, no. 4 (2002). Arbel,
"The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements", 413.
523
M. Aviam, "Viticulture and Olive Growing in Ancient Upper Galilee," in Jews, Pagans and
Christians in the Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004). M. Aviam,
"An Early Roman Oil Press in a Cave at Yodefat," in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, ed.
M. Aviam (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004).
524
Aviam, "Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First century Galilee. The
Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla." The reader should note that this archaeological evidence does not
necessarily contradict Josephus' claims that John of Gischala got rich by exporting olive oil to Jews in
Caesarea Philippi (Vita 68-76). However, it is also possible that Josephus was simply exaggerating
John's profits off of the olive oil to tarnish John's reputation.
203
miqvah nearby.525 It appears that the people involved in making olive oil at most
Galilean sites immersed themselves in ritual baths before working to ensure the purity
of their product. However, the presence of presses that are not associated with
miqvaot suggests that ritual purity standards might have varied from community to
community in the first-century.
BURIAL PRACTICES
Jonathan Reed has argued that secondary burial is an indicator of Jewish
identity in the Early Roman period.527 However, we do not have any Galilean Jewish
tombs or ossuaries that can be reliably dated to the first-century C.E. The lack of
evidence for secondary burial in Galilee leads Mordechai Aviam to conclude that
Galilean Jews had not yet adopted this practice in the first-century C.E. Reed
argues that the presence of a few ossuary fragments in Galilee and of shaft tombs
containing first-century pottery is sufficient to establish that Galileans practiced
secondary burial at this time. Given the lack of evidence, however, it seems more
prudent to concede that we do not know enough about Galilean burial practices either
525
Aviam, "An Early Roman Oil Press in a Cave at Yodefat."
526
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 34-36.
527
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 47-49. Cf. J. D.
Anderson, "The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The Case of Palestina-Roman Period (63 B.C.E.--
324 C.E.)," in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy (New York: Facts on File,
1995).
528
Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 21; Berlin, "Jewish Life
before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 43.
529
Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective," 21.
204
to determine whether Galilean Jews practiced secondary burial or to determine the
ethnic and religious identity of a given site's inhabitants.
One significant claim that we can make about burial customs in Galilee is that,
before the revolt, the region lacked the ostentatious "display tombs" found in Judea
(strict sense) throughout the Early Roman period and in Galilee after the revolt.
Andrea M. Berlin interprets the lack of display tombs as evidence that the "Galilean
Jewish aristocracy did not share with their Jerusalem counterparts a belief that
funerals were an appropriate occasion to display family power..."
HUMAN REMAINS
Although we have not yet discovered a Galilean tomb from the first-century
C.E., Archaeologists have found human remains at Yodefat. Because all of the
inhabitants of Yodefat were slaughtered by the Romans during the Great Revolt, most
(if not all) of the bodily remains of Jewish men, women, and children who died during
the siege were buried in mass graves in "cisterns and caves" or were simply trapped
beneath the demolished houses.532 Given the large number of bones found at Yodefat,
Josephus' narrative of the city's siege, and the typical events that occurred when
ancient cities were sacked, the bones at Yodefat are likely to have belonged to both
530
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 45.
531
Ibid. Since these tombs were meant to be seen, it is unlikely that archaeologists have simply not yet
found them.
532
Aviam notes that some of the bones contain evidence that the people were slaughtered violently.
Aviam," The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat," 118-119.
205
residents of the village itself and of many surrounding, smaller settlements. In other
words, the human remains at Yodefat probably provide a representative cross-section
of the population of Lower Galilee.
Mordechai Aviam, who directed the excavation of Yodefat, conducted a field
examination of a sample of the human remains at Yodefat (representing about 25
individuals).533 According to his analysis, the osteo-archaeological remains show
neither signs of stress due to excessive malnutrition nor signs of severe anemia.534
Due to the cursory nature of the examination and the small sample size, the evidence
does not tell us much about the living standards in Galilee; it does, however, seem to
undermine arguments that the region experienced unusually severe economic
conditions in the first-century C.E.
THE ROADS
There is no evidence that the sort of Roman-style roads that were well
maintained and would have fostered interregional trade existed in pre-Revolt Galilee.
The earliest milestone found in Galilee is from the Legio-Scythopolis Road, is dated to
69C.E. JJJ This makes sense, since the army appears to have built roads primarily for
The vast majority of the human remains have yet to be examined by anyone.
534
Aviam actually goes much further, claiming that that all of the people who died at Yodefat were
healthy, well nourished, had never suffered from malnutrition, had lived in sanitary conditions, and "did
not suffer from any severe diseases before they died." However, I think it is prudent to be more
cautious in my evaluation of the evidence. Aviam," Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical
Foundations in First century Galilee. The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla."
B. Isaac, Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road (Oxford: BAR, 1982), 9.
206
its own use.536 Before the revolt, Galilee appears to have been connected by a number
of local roads that probably would have been poorly maintained, uneven, and not well
suited for transporting goods.537
After the revolt, the construction of the Legio-Scythopolis Road would have
drastically altered Galilee's cultural ties with its neighbors.538 It seems likely that the
construction of the road would have accelerated the economic development and
Hellenization that the region had begun to experience in the first-century.
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND URBANIZATION
THE GALILEAN POPULATION IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD
One of the more controversial theories in Galilean studies is Richard Horsley's
claim that first-century Galileans were neither the descendants of settlers from Judea
(strict sense) nor ethnically Jewish. Horsley contends that, when the Assyrians
conquered the (northern) kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C.E., they did not deport the
kingdom's entire population. Instead, he argues that the Assyrians would have only
Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East, 111.
537
Reed, "Romanizing Galilee? Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space under Herod Antipas." Isaac,
Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road, 7-9. According to Josephus, the road to
Jotapata was so poor that Josephus claims it was difficult for a person to travel by foot on it. Vespasian
had to send his engineers ahead to spend several days making the road fit for the Roman Army's
approach. £73.141-144
Isaac, Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road, 7-9.
207
deported the members of the upper classes.539 Although there is still much debate
over this matter, some scholars who specialize in Iron Age Israel agree with Horsley
on this point.540
There is far less support among scholars for Horsley's further claim that the
Israelites not deported by Assyria stayed in Galilee and preserved their unique,
northern Israelite culture throughout the Iron n, Persian, Hellenistic, and early Roman
periods.541 While several New Testament scholars accept Horsley's arguments, a
number of scholars—most of them archaeologists—who specialize in early Roman
Galilee have mounted a thorough refutation of Horsley's claim that early Roman
Galileans descended from the Iron Age Israelite inhabitants of the region. They
note, for example, that the archaeological record demonstrates a drastic depopulation
539
21-23. There was also a theory that gained currency in the mid-twentieth-century that the Galileans
were the descendants of Ituraeans, but this theory has been thoroughly discredited. Schilrer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C-A.D. 135), 1.142, 216-218, 561-573.
G. W. Ahlstrom, G. O. Rollefson, andD. Edelman, The History ofAncient Palestine: From the
Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 697. Contra: A. Zertal,
"The Heart of the Monarchy: Pattern of Settlement and New Historical Considerations of the Israelite
Kingdom of Samaria," in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 44. A. Mazar, "The Divided Monarchy. Comments on Some
Archaeological Issues," in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History
ofEarly Israel: Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of the International
Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October 2005, ed. B. B. Schmidt (Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2007), 171-172. B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and
Archaeological Study (New York: Brill, 1992), 56-94. ContraB. Oded, Mass deportations and
deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979). Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and
Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey.
24. Horsley's argument follows that of Alt. Cf A. Alt, "Galilaische Probleme," in Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israel II (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche, 1959). See my introductory chapter for a
more complete description of Horsley's arguments.
542
For criticism of Horsley' s argument, see: Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-
Examination of the Evidence, 28-34. Reed, "Galileans, 'Israelite Village Communities,' and the Sayings
Gospel Q." Leibner, "The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of New
Archaeological Data". Despite these criticisms, Horsley's arguments still find a significant number of
adherents, Cf. Pregeant, Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics, 15-11.
208
of Galilee during the Iron Age II that appears to correspond to the Assyrian conquest
of the region.543 Moreover, archaeological surveys demonstrate that the region's
people appear to have been ethnically distinct from Galilee's Iron I inhabitants and
that this new population settled in different parts of Galilee than the area's earlier
inhabitants.544 The new settlement pattern established in Iron II continues throughout
the Persian and through much of the Hellenistic periods, and the population in these
periods is clearly pagan, which suggests that "a cultural change...occurred" along with
the change in settlement patterns.545
Galilee appears to have maintained a relatively small population until the end
of the second-century B.C.E.546 After the Hasmonean conquest, however, the number
of Galilean settlements begins to increase rapidly. Moreover, there is a dramatic shift
in settlement patterns at the time of the Hasmonean conquest; some prominent sites
are abandoned and several new, rural settlements appear. The dramatic change in the
region's settlement pattern, combined with a population boom and major changes in
An archaeological survey of Galilee yields 71 Iron I sites, 36 Iron Age II sites, and 23 Iron Age sites
that cannot be assigned to a sub-period. The authors note that, although Iron II includes about a century
(according to their chronology) during which the kingdom of Israel still stood, the changes in settlement
patterns between Iron I and Iron II are probably the result of the Assyrian conquest in the late eighth-
century B.C.E. Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in
Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 106. See also: Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean
Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 30-39.
544
In Iron I, both the western and eastern hills had a substantial number of settlements, but the
archaeologists could only find two settlements on the coastal plain. In Iron II, the western hills were
quickly depopulated, the population of the coastal plain actually increased, and the region's eastern hills
retained a "substantial" population. Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics and
Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 106.
545
Ibid., 107.
546
Ibid. Reed, "Galileans, 'Israelite Village Communities,' and the Sayings Gospel Q." U. Leibner,
"History of Settlement in the Eastern Galilee During the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods in
Light of an Archaeological Survey" (Bar-Ilan University, 2004), 355-361. Leibner, "The Origins of the
Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data".
209
the region's material culture, suggest that an ethnic change coincided with the
conquest. Since the ethnic change coincides with the Hasmonean conquest, it is
reasonable to assume that the new inhabitants of Galilee were settlers from Judea
(strict sense).547 The fact that the new features of Galilee's material culture resemble
that of Judea (strict sense) reinforces this hypothesis.
In other words, the archaeological evidence does not support the theory that
early Roman Galileans descended from pre-exilic northern Israelites. Instead, it
appears that the Galileans were descendants of Judean (strict sense) settlers, and it
seems reasonable to assume that these Galileans would have brought many aspects of
their Judean (strict sense) culture with them.
THE EARLY ROMAN PERIOD
Jewish settlement in Galilee appears to have reached its zenith somewhere near
the end of the last-century B.C.E. or the beginning of the first-century C.E., probably
during the reign of Antipas.549 By the middle of the first-century C.E., the northern
547
Aviam, "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective." Aviam, "Epilogue."
548
Reed, "Galileans, 'Israelite Village Communities,' and the Sayings Gospel Q," 104. Uzi Leibner
argues that the settlers would have been among the hardcore supporters of the Hasmonean regime and
would probably have been military settlers. Leibner," The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early
Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data". While it is reasonable to assume that some of the
settlers would have been military personnel, it would be hard to believe that all of them were part of a
centralized colonization effort. I would argue that several factors—including population strains in
Judea (strict sense) and economic opportunity—would have motivated the Judean (strict sense)
settlement of Galilee. Therefore, I think it is unreasonable to assume that a vast majority of the
Galileans were "hardcore" supporters of the Hasmoneans.
549
Leibner, "History of Settlement in the Eastern Galilee During the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine
Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey", 362-368. M. Aviam, "Borders between Jews and
210
borders of Jewish settlement in Galilee had receded a little bit. It appears that a
gentile population—probably Phoenician—began to settle and drive out the local
Jewish residents along Galilee's northern border. Aviam associates the reduction of
Jewish settlement with the advent of direct Roman rule over Galilee. Since only a
few small settlements along Galilee's northern border were abandoned at this time, the
change would probably not have had a substantial impact on Galilee's overall
population density. However, it is probable that the expansion of Gentiles at the
expense of Jews strained tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the region. Such an
environment fits well with Josephus' depiction of Jewish-Gentile relations in upper
Galilee.
Although a few sites in Galilee were abandoned after the revolt, Leibner's
survey of Galilean sites suggests that the Roman defeat of the Jewish revolt did not
result in significant depopulation in Galilee. Instead, it appears that most Galilean
settlements survived the revolt relatively unscathed.553 This is consistent with
Gentiles in the Galilee," in Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, ed. M. Aviam (Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2004), 14. Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics
and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 110-111.
Arbel, "The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements",
230. Frankel, Getzov, Aviam, and Degani, Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient
Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, 111. Syon, "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary
Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods", 148-
149.
551
Aviam, "Borders between Jews and Gentiles in the Galilee," 14. Archaeological evidence suggests
that the Jewish population abandoned the settlements of H. Bet Zeneta and Qeren Naftali in the middle
of the first-century C.E. Qeren Naftali appears to have been resettled by a pagan population soon
thereafter.
552
Ibid. Arbel, "The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious
Movements", 230.
553
Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey", 362-368. Aviam, "Epilogue." Contra Arbel, who argues
that the revolt caused significant depopulation throughout Judea (broad sense). His evidence for
211
Josephus' accounts of the war, which depict the fighting and destruction as restricted
to a handful of settlements.
URBANIZATION
Second Temple Galilee experienced urbanization for the first time under Herod
Antipas, who founded two cities in the region: Sepphoris and Tiberias. Although it is
difficult to determine the population of these two cities with very much accuracy,
Jonathan Reed's estimates of 8,000-12,000 for Sepphoris and 6,000-12,000 for
Tiberias have been widely accepted by archaeologists.
Although both cities would have been quite small in comparison to the cities of
the Decapolis or the Phoenician coast, they still would have had a significant impact
on the rest of Galilee. First and foremost, the construction of these cities would have
provided work for a number of Galileans, and some modern scholars have speculated
that the completion of construction would have caused unemployment.555 The
problem with the idea that construction of the cities eventually resulted in
unemployment is that it assumes that the cities' construction would have ended in a
relatively short period of time. Sepphoris, for example, already existed as a large
depopulation in Galilee, however, is anecdotal (Yodefat was abandoned) and not very compelling.
Arbel, "The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious Movements", 365.
Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence, 79-81. Chancey, The
Myth of a Gentile Galilee, 75-76. Jensen, "Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus' Narratives
on Herod Antipas," 160.
555
Edwards, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First Century:
Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement," 62-65.
212
village before Antipas re-founded it as Galilee's capital. Antipas would have had to
construct various administrative and public buildings. It seems likely that Antipas
would have begun using Sepphoris as his administrative capital while construction
was still ongoing. In the meantime, Sepphoris' status as Galilee's capital would
probably have attracted a host of bureaucrats, tax collectors, merchants and other new
settlers to the city. If these assumptions are true, then the public buildings and private
homes would have grown side-by side, and it is not unreasonable to assume that
Sepphoris could have experienced relatively steady growth (and therefore, steady
construction) until Antipas founded Tiberias. In fact, it is even possible that the
construction of Tiberias was Antipas' reaction to the slowing growth of Sepphoris.
Tiberias' construction would probably have progressed differently than that of
Sepphoris both because Antipas had no urgent need to transfer his capital to Tiberias
and because he had to forcibly settle Jews in the city.556 Moreover, the pre-existing
settlement on the site of Tiberias was even smaller than that of Sepphoris, so Antipas
would have had to commission much more construction there. Nevertheless, Tiberias
would also have attracted a large number of new settlers once the city became
Galilee's capital, and it is probable that the construction of new homes and the new
business opportunities available in Tiberias would have alleviated much of the
unemployment problem created by a cessation in government-directed building.
Cf.Ant. 18.36-38
Both Sepphoris and Tiberias would probably have served as commercial
centers for local farmers and artisans to sell their wares, and both cities would have
attracted the impoverished who wished to be hired out as laborers.
CONCLUSIONS
RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL IDENTITY
There are ten important indicators in first-century Galilee's material culture
that both distinguish the Jewish territory from its Gentile neighbors and reflect a
strong cultural trend among Galilean Jews. These features are:
1) A sharp decrease of imported pottery in all Jewish and
mixed (Jewish and Gentile) settlements
2) The sudden and frequent appearance of stone vessels
throughout the region
3) A preference for pottery that is undecorated
4) The prevalence of plain (aniconic), knife-pared Herodian
lamps
5) A general absence of offensive (to Jews) images on coins
minted during Antipas' reign
6) The general absence of figurative art558

557
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 20. Berlin describes the
pottery as being "conspicuously" austere.
214
7) The prevalence ofmiqvaot in Jewish settlements that are not
close to the Sea of Galilee
8) The presence of miqvaot near most pottery workshops and
olive presses
9) The virtual absence of marble and faux marble
10) The rarity of brass objects
Considered collectively, these aspects of the region's material culture provide
strong evidence for a pronounced and widespread cultural trend in first-century
Galilee. The evidence suggests that Galilean Jews consciously avoided items and
practices associated with Greco-Roman culture and that they rejected aspects of life
that they associated with Greco-Roman culture and that they adopted new customs and
obtained new items that conspicuously displayed their Jewish identity.559 In fact, the
archaeological evidence suggests that the region's Jewish inhabitants began to
incorporate religious observance into their everyday lives on an unprecedented
level.560
Andrea Berlin has coined the term "household Judaism" to describe this very
phenomenon, which appears simultaneously in both Galilee and rural Judea (strict
Adan-Bayewitz and Mordechai, "Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the
1992-1994 Seasons," 165.
559
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence".
" Both the attention to ritual purity and the avoidance of iconography reflect a more intense form of
observance than that of most Judean (broad sense) Jews in the Hellenistic period. Moreover, it appears
that some of the elites in Judea (strict sense—mostly in Jerusalem) resisted these new Judaizing cultural
changes that occurred in Galilee and rural Judea (strict sense). Ibid., 2, 10,25-26. Magen, "Ancient
Israel's Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times," 50.
215
sense), but does not occur in the wealthy neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The
differences between the material culture of the Judean (strict sense) elite and that of
rural Judeans (strict sense) and Galileans probably reflects a cultural divide. It appears
that ordinary Jews were appropriating aspects of priestly life (i.e.: practices regarding
ritual purity) and adopting a stricter form of religious observance than the priestly
aristocracy advised.562
It seems unusual for laypeople to take on a stricter level of observance than the
one advocated by the official religious leaders. Could the widespread adoption of
"household Judaism" reflect a deterioration of priestly authority on religious matters?
Given that these new customs include rejecting certain Greco-Roman practices and
items that were apparently adopted by the Jerusalem elite, perhaps these changes to
the Galilean and rural Judean (strict sense) material culture suggest that Judean (broad
sense) peasants associated the Jerusalem priests with Romanization.563 If so, then the
sudden surge of "household Judaism" throughout Judea (broad sense) would support
Goodman's argument that the erosion of the Jerusalem elite's clout among average
Judeans (broad sense) was a major cause of the First Revolt.564
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 20,46. Arbel follows Berlin
in arguing that the changes and peculiarities in the pottery record of first-century Galilee reflect a
change in the population's ideological sentiments; Arbel, "The Historical Impact and Archaeological
Reflections of Intense Religious Movements", 403-411.
562
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 34-36.
563
Berlin, "Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee."
564
The Reader should note that David Goodblatt has argued convincingly that the Jerusalem elites—
especially the priests—were divided regarding the revolt. He also argues that priestly ideology played a
key role in the ideology of the Jewish revolt against Rome. Although Goodblatt's arguments might
seem to undermine Goodman's thesis, I do not think the two positions are mutually exclusive. In fact,
Goodman claims that the situation in which the Jerusalem elites found themselves in the first-century
C.E. would have made them more willing to support a revolt against Rome and more willing to espouse
216
TRADE
1. International And Interregional Trade
In general, the archaeological evidence suggests that Galilee engaged in
significantly less trade with the neighboring regions in the first-century C.E. than it did
in the preceding or following centuries.565 However, there are indications that
interregional still played an important role in Galilee's economy during this period.
The presence of KHW in the Decapolis and Phoenicia, for example, offers solid
evidence that at least some rural Galilean artisans found foreign markets for their
products. It is likely that, if Galilean pottery made its way to the neighboring Gentile
regions, that regular trade contacts between Galileans and their neighbors existed—
even if new religious sensibilities among Galileans would have limited the nature of
these contacts. As I mentioned earlier in this chapter, Galilee's roads were not
suitable for overland transport, and this makes the possibility that trade caravans from
Gentile territories frequently passed through Galilee unlikely. Instead, it seems more
a nationalist ideology. M. Goodman, The Ruling Class ofJudea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). M. Goodman, "The Origins of the Great Revolt: A
Conflict of Status Criteria," in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G.
Fuks (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990). D. Goodblatt, "Priestly Ideologies of the Judean
Resistance," JSQ 3, no. 3 (1996). D. Goodblatt, "Ancient Zionism? The Zion Coins of the First Revolt
and their Background," in International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 8 (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan
University, 2001). D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 87-107.
565
Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov, "Phoenicians and Jews: a ceramic case-study," 81.
217
likely that Galileans would have traveled to the larger cities of Phoenicia and the
Decapolis to conduct business and buy goods.
Trade with Judea (strict sense), however, appears to have become more
frequent during the first-century C.E. The frequent presence of Herodian lamps and
stone vessels that were made in Jerusalem attests to the strong trade contacts between
Judea (strict sense) and Galilee. Moreover, the fact that both stone vessels and
Herodian lamps were produced in Galilee suggests that the prevalence of Jerusalem-
made items in Galilee is associated with the religious sensibilities of Galileans. It
appears that they preferred Jerusalem-made products simply because they were
produced in the Jewish religious capital.566 In other words, the extensive trade
contacts between Galilee and Judea (strict sense) appear to be the result of the
common religious identity of the two regions' populations.
The one region with which Galileans appear to have spurned contact was
Samaria. There is no evidence of trade between the two regions, and this is probably
due to the mutual antagonism felt between Jews and Samaritans at this time.
2. Local Trade
Adan-Bayewitz, et. al. claim that neither quality considerations, nor administrative borders can
account for the prevalence of Jerusalem-made knife-pared lamps in Galilee. They argue that the most
likely explanation is that a Jerusalem-made lamp may have had special religious significance for
Galilean Jews. Adan-Bayewitz, Asaro, Wieder, and Giauque, "Preferential Distribution of Lamps from
the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century B.C.E-70 C.E.)," 72-77.
The predominance of KHW and SW throughout Jewish Galilee and its
significant presence in the cities surrounding Galilee raises questions about the
region's local trade. Given the poor road system in pre-revolt Galilee, the high cost of
overland transport would have made it difficult for local artisans to sell their wares by
traveling from settlement to settlement.567 How, then, did pottery from these sites
come to dominate the pottery market throughout Galilee?
David Adan-Bayewitz has proposed that Sepphoris and Tiberias served as
major markets/distribution centers where potters from Kefar Hananya and Shikhin
could sell to people from all over Galilee.568 This proposal explains how KHW and
SW could have been so well distributed throughout a region with such a poor road
system. The potters would only have had to ship their wares to the major cities, and
the consumers could then bring their purchased pottery back home without much
trouble because a few pieces of cookware would not have been very heavy.
If Adan-Bayewitz's proposal is correct, then the trade of KHW and SW in
Galilee not only demonstrates the economic ties between city and countryside in
Galilee, it also provides an example of how the urbanization of Galilee in the first-
century C.E. may have facilitated cultural trends in the region that emphasized the
distinctively Jewish character of Galilee's population.569 It also suggests that these
cities would have facilitated the local trade of other goods produced in small
settlements throughout the region. In short, the distribution of KHW and SW despite
Adan-Bayewitz, Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade, 234. See my
discussion on the road system below.
568
Ibid., 233-234.
569
Ibid., 228-238. Strange, "First Century Galilee From Archaeology and From the Texts," 41-42.
219
Galilee's poor road system suggests that the nascent urbanization Galilee experienced
in the first-century C.E. might have yielded significant economic benefits for rural
artisans and farmers.570
GALILEANS AND THE REVOLT
There is clear evidence for Galilean participation in the revolt against Rome.
The remnants of the sieges at Gamla and Yodefat suggest that the Galileans who
fought at these sites were extremely dedicated to the rebel cause. Moreover, the
presence of fortifications that were hastily constructed at several sites suggests that a
large number of Galilean communities supported the revolt—at least at the beginning.
However, the intentional filling of the garrison building at Sepphoris bears witness to
a significant loyalist (to Rome) presence in the region as well. Moreover, the lack of
widespread destruction in Galilee is consistent with the impression given by Josephus'
works that Galilean support for the revolt quickly dissipated once the Roman army
arrived. In other words, the archaeological evidence seems to imply that Galilean
support for the revolt varied considerably from community to community and over
time. Many Galileans might have been sympathetic to the rebel cause, but it appears
that most of them realized the futility of the revolt in time to save their lives.
Edwards, "Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages."

220
THE GALILEAN ECONOMY
Galilee's material culture clearly demonstrates that the Galilean economy grew
quickly between Herod's death and the Great Revolt. However, the archaeological
evidence also suggests that the region's population grew rapidly during this period as
well.571 In a forthcoming article, Jonathan Reed justly cautions scholars that "an
aggregate increase in material culture during the Early Roman period—which is clear
in the archaeological record—cannot be confused with &per capita increase."
Given the archaeological data available, the economic wellbeing of individuals
is more difficult to determine than the aggregate growth of the region's economy.
Overall, however, the material remains seem to indicate that the average Galilean did
as well or better than the average peasant in the Mediterranean world. Moreover, the
remains of private homes and household items as well as evidence for agriculture,
pastoralism, and related trades (olive pressing, the wool trade, etc.) suggest that
Galilean villagers had sufficient resources available to avoid the extreme poverty
envisioned by some modern scholars.
Moreover, the archaeological evidence undermines arguments that there would
have been a sharp economic divide between the urban rich and the rural poor.
571
Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey". Leibner, "The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early
Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data". Moreland, "The Inhabitants of Galilee in the
Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence." Aviam,
"Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First century Galilee. The Evidence
from Yodefat and Gamla." D. Adan-Bayewitz and I. Permian, "The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the
Roman Period," IEJ 40 (1990).
572
Migration."
221
Although the richest people of Sepphoris appear to have been better off than the
wealthiest people in the Galilean villages, the difference was significantly less than the
difference between urban and rural settlements in Judea (strict sense) or Phoenicia.
Moreover, the fact that Galilee's rural population grew rapidly in the first-century
without a noticeable decline in the per capita standard of living suggests that
urbanization did not have immediate negative effects on the lives of Galilean peasants.
Given that Galilee's nascent urbanization probably opened up new markets for peasant
artisans and farmers, these changes to the Galilean economy may even have been net
positives for peasants in the short term.573
573
Generally speaking, increases in population density have a negative effect on living standards
because they render resources scarcer and increase people's exposure to disease. However, the effects
of urbanization are often delayed by a generation or more. It is also quite possible that Galilee's
population was still too small for these changes to have had a major impact on the Galilean economy.
For a more detailed treatment of the relationship between urbanization, population increases, and living
standards, see my discussion in the following chapter.
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS
222
223
After analyzing each source for first-century C.E. Galilee separately, I will
now attempt to synthesize the data and offer a brief reconstruction of the region and its
cultural, political, and economic climate. First I will draw conclusions about
individual aspects of life in first-century Galilee: the political environment, settlement
patterns and population, the economy, and the cultural environment. After offering a
brief summary of my conclusions, the chapter will end with a discussion of the
implications of the current work for modern scholarship.
THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT
During the first half of the first-century C.E., the vast majority of the evidence
indicates that Galilee enjoyed a relatively stable political climate. Although a major
revolt erupted in Galilee immediately following Herod's death in 4 B.C.E. (Ant.
17.285-290; 5,72.55-56), Antipas and Agrippa I appear to have avoided further
significant uprisings and disturbances during their reigns. This period of stability
stands in stark contrast to both the situation under Herod the Great, who put down
multiple Galilean revolts, and that under the Roman Governors, on whose watch the
Great Revolt broke out.574
Antipas was far less active of a ruler than his father and Agrippa I. His
building projects were comparatively modest and it appears that his monetary policies
had little impact on the region's economy. Given the negative impacts that more
514
Ant. 17.269-272; 20.252-258; BJ1.204-207, 304-313; 2.55-56
224
active rulers in antiquity tended to have on their subjects' economic wellbeing,
Galileans probably benefited from Antipas' relative lack of ambition.
Moreover, Galilee and Peraea's constitution as a politically autonomous (at
least in terms of internal affairs) unit would also likely have benefited Galileans.
Herod the Great's neglect of Galilee suggests that his development of Judea (strict
sense) would have come at the expense of Galileans. If this deduction is correct, then
Antipas' rule would have marked a period of relief for Galilee.
Soon After Antipas was removed from office, Gentile settlements encroached
upon the northern borders of Jewish Galilee.576 Jewish Galilee's shrinking border—
combined with the growing ethnic tensions, which erupted violently just prior to the
revolt in 66 C.E.—probably reflect an increasingly instable political environment in
the region from the early 40s to the outbreak of the war.577
During the revolt itself, Galilee's political climate was characterized by stasis.
Multiple revolutionary leaders (Josephus, John of Gischala, Jesus ben Sapphia, etc.)
Expensive construction projects and lavish building that did not contribute to building up
infrastructure tend to have very negative effects on the economy. Antipas' construction of Sepphoris
and Tiberias probably did quite a bit to build up Galilee's infrastructure and create markets for local
goods (see my discussion on this matter in chapter 8). On the other hand, Herod the Great's more
lavish building projects—such as the renovation of the Jerusalem Temple and the construction of
several impressive public structures at Caesarea Maritima—combined with his large donations to
several cities and towns outside of his territory would have provided much less economic benefit for his
subjects at a much greater cost. C. D. J. DeLorme, S. Isom, and D. R. Kamerschen, "Rent Seeking and
Taxation in the Ancient Roman Empire," Applied Economics 37 (2005).
576
See my discussion of this matter in chapter 8.
577
BJ 2.457-460,477-480, 502-506; Vita 32-53, 59-67, 149-154,410-413
225
vied for control of the region, banditry increased, and it is all but certain that the
economy faltered at this point.
BANDITRY
Although some scholars have argued that banditry was endemic to first-century
C.E. Galilee, the available evidence implies that banditry was a rare phenomenon
between Herod the Great's death and the Revolt of 66. During Herod's reign,
Hezekias and his son, Judas, instigated a number of uprisings in Galilee.579 However,
disturbances of this sort appear to have disappeared in Galilee once Antipas secured
his rule over Galilee.580
Moreover, although Judas the Galilean and his descendants continued to cause
uprisings for much of the first-century, most of their activities seem to have been
confined to Judea (strict sense).581 In fact, Judas' usual geographic appellation, "the
Galilean," would make little sense if he were operating primarily in Galilee—
578
The banditry, combined with the instability caused by the war would have wreaked havoc on the
region's economy. Grunewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality.
519
Ant. 17.269-272; BJ1.204; 2.55-56
580
One could certainly object that Josephus, our main source for Judean (broad sense) brigandage, may
not have reported Galilean banditry during Antipas' reign because Antipas is not as politically relevant
as his father was. However, given Josephus' attempts to portray Antipas as a poor ruler (see: Jensen,
Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and
Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, 53-100. Jensen, "Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on
Josephus' Narratives on Herod Antipas.") and to highlight the persistency of the bandit problem in
Galilee, it is unlikely that Josephus would have omitted any important uprisings in Galilee. In fact,
Josephus' mention of John the Baptist's execution by Antipas {Ant. 18.116) is a good example of the
author's interest in highlighting Antipas' shortcomings as a ruler.
581
Ant. 18.4-10; fl/2.117-118,433
226
especially since Judas appears to have been from the Golan, rather than Galilee proper
(Ant. 18.4-10).
During the revolt, Josephus reports that banditry did become a problem in
Galilee.582 However, on several occasions, he suggests that much of the banditry was
caused by the sudden influx of Jewish refugees from neighboring regions. These
refugees would not have had any livelihood upon arrival in Galilee, and it makes sense
that circumstances probably forced many of them into banditry. Along these same
lines, it is notable that Josephus claims to have employed bandits as mercenaries and
that many of his "troops" appear to have been refugees from outside of Galilee.583
This portrayal of the bandits who roamed Galilee during the revolt undermines
Richard Horsley's influential argument that the Galilean brigands were social bandits
who reacted against an oppressive socio-economic order.584 Instead, it seems that the
outbreak of banditry had little if anything to do with the socio-economic conditions in
Galilee before the revolt. Rather, the banditry was probably an indirect result of the
revolt itself.585
THE REVOLT AND ITS AFTERMATH
582
BJ2.585-594; 3.443-452, 532-542; 4.84-91, 97-105,566-576; Vita 30-31,62-67,77-79,104-111,
126-131,204-207
583
See my discussion of the matter in chapter 8.
584
Grilnewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality, 93-96.
585
227
The archaeological and literary evidence for Galilean participation in the revolt
paint a consistent picture. While the majority of Galileans appear to have supported
the revolt to some extent, Galilee was significantly less revolutionary than Judea (strict
sense). Sepphoris opposed the revolt, and Tiberias' population appears to have been
easily split over whether to support it. Even the most prominent Galilean
revolutionary, John of Gischala, opposed the revolt at first, and it should be noted that
CO/-
John's town surrendered to the Romans without a fight.
Despite Josephus' attempts to portray the Galilean rebels as largely united
under his leadership, he was in a constant struggle with a handful of other leaders for
control of the region. Given that the best estimates have the total number of armed
rebels in Galilee at 10,000, it is likely that neither Josephus nor John had more than
5,000 troops at his disposal.587 Although none of the rebel leaders had sufficient
troops to maintain control of all of Galilee, the conflict between Josephus, John, and
the other leaders would have been large enough to wreak havoc on the region.
Even united, the Galilean rebels would have been dwarfed and would not have
lasted long against Vespasian's well-trained 60,000 troops. When the Romans
arrived, it appears that reality set in for many of the rebels, and Galilean support for
the revolt quickly melted away.588 Of course, a number of hard-liners did take their
final stands against the Romans at Gabara, Yodefat, Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee, and
586
£74.84-120
587
See my discussion of this matter in Chapter 7.
588
BJ3.127-131, 135-144, 193-206, 289-306, 316-322, 340-344, 350-368, 438-442, 453-461, 497-502;
4.1-8, 49-69, 84-85; 106-111. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a
Historian, 230-231.
228
Gamla (many of John's followers made their final stand in Jerusalem). However,
the Roman army appears to have had relatively little trouble subduing Galilee.
Because most of the region succumbed to the Roman army without a fight,
Galilee appears to have been able to recover from the revolt relatively quickly. With
the exception of the settlements attacked by the Romans, Galilee does not appear to
have experienced a significant drop in population or in its economic output
immediately following the uprising.
POPULATION GROWTH AND SETTLEMENT
POPULATION GROWTH
The archaeological evidence clearly suggests that Galilee's population grew
rapidly during the last-century B.C.E. and the first-century C.E. Rural settlements
multiplied, and the region's first two urban centers were founded in this period. As I
argued in chapter 8, it is unlikely that these two cities would have had much of a
negative economic impact on Galilee's rural economy; the cities were simply too new
and too small to have drained the countryside of its resources.
URBANIZATION
&/3.132-134, 323-339,462-470,497-505, 522-531; 4.70-83,106-111

229
The foundation of Sepphoris and Tiberias must have had a significant impact
on Galilean society in the first-century C.E. Although the cities appear to have been
very small in comparison to those of neighboring regions (i.e.: the Decapolis,
Phoenicia, and Judea [strict sense]), these cities would have provided important hubs
for the region's cultural and economic development.
The archaeological evidence suggests that the foundation of these two cities
stimulated local trade and helped disseminate cultural trends that emphasized stricter
and more conspicuous religious observance. These two developments, combined with
a sharp decline in imported pottery in the Early Roman Period, suggest that Galilee's
nascent urbanization may have afforded the region a new level of economic
independence that the locals used to strengthen their Jewish identity and distance
themselves from items and practices that they associated with foreign cultures.590
In a forthcoming article, Jonathan Reed makes two important arguments about
the negative effects that population growth and urbanization would have had on
Galilee's inhabitants. The first argument is that both the urbanization and the
foundation of new rural settlements would have exposed Galileans to significantly
more diseases, and thus increased the region's mortality and morbidity rates in the
first-century C.E.591 He argues that cities foster the spread of infectious disease and
that the new, rural settlements in Galilee were founded in malarial areas that would
have been significantly less healthy than the higher altitude sites inhabited in the
590
591
Migration."
230
Hellenistic period. These two factors would have combined to decrease the quality of
life throughout Galilee as the region's population grew.
This argument is both important and sound; however, we should be cautious
not to exaggerate these negative effects. The reader should also note that higher
mortality rates in pre-industrial societies tend to keep wages higher and act as effective
checks on excessive population growth.592
Reed's second main argument is that—since there is a strong, inverse
correlation between population density and per capita income—the growth of
Galilee's population would likely have depressed wages in the region. Although it is
true that higher population densities tend to bring down wages, Reed's argument fails
to consider the specific conditions that accompanied the population growth in first-
century Galilee.593
In general, increases in population density lead to a lower per capita income
because the population growth makes limited natural resources—such as land and
food—scarcer. However, there have been a number occasions in antiquity when a
region experienced rapid population growth over decades or even centuries without
having the local real per capita wages drop.594 These "sustainable" population booms
have generally involved either substantial technological advances or the settlement of
W. Scheidel, "Demography," in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed.
W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Sailer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 50-55. R. D. Lee,
"Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis," in The State ofPopulation Theory: Forward from
Malthus, ed. D. Coleman and R. Schofield (New York: Blackwell, 1986).
593
W. Scheidel, "Livitina's Bitter Gains: Seasonal Mortality and Endemic Disease in the Ancient
World," AncSoc 25 (1994): 56-60.
594
Ibid.: 42-60.
231
large swaths of previously deserted land. In these cases, the increased productivity
that resulted from technological innovations or the newly available land allowed the
supply of scarce resources to keep up with increasing demand. In fact, when
populations are insufficiently dense to exploit the region's resources efficiently,
population growth can actually increase real wages.595
The change in settlement patterns discovered by Leibner suggest that Galilee
may have been another exception to the general rule that population growth depresses
income.596 In the Hellenistic period, Galilean community were restricted to small,
fortified settlements located on easily defensible (i.e.: usually high and rocky) sites.
The more fertile farmland was generally left uncultivated. Because defense appears to
have been the major consideration in the selection of where to found a community, it
appears that political instability and the constant threat of invasion prevented Galileans
in the Hellenistic period from exploiting one of the region's richest natural resources:
its fertile farmland.597
In the early Roman period, however, the relative political stability and
protection from invasion provided by the Roman army, the Herodian client-rulers, and
the Roman governors allowed Galilee's population to begin settling at unfortified sites
in the most fertile locations. The population increase, therefore, would not have
595
Lee, "Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis." Scheidel, "Demography," 50-55. The reader
should note, however, that real wages would have fluctuated and that we cannot tell from the limited
available data in which decades the highs and lows would have occurred.
596
Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data".
597
Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological Data".
232
created a proportional increase in the scarcity of natural resources. Instead, Galilee's
population growth occurred at a time when new and abundant natural resources had
suddenly become available. The region could, then, sustain a much larger population
than it could have in the Hellenistic period.
In short, it appears that while Galilee experienced rapid population growth and
a moderate degree of urbanization during the first-century C.E., it is unlikely that these
changes would have had a significant effect on the average Galilean peasant's quality
of life. Because Galilee's population was so small at the beginning of this period, it is
unlikely that the region's population density would have reached sufficient levels for
the negative effects of overpopulation to become significant problems.598
This argument is supported by modern economic historians' findings about the
general conditions throughout the Mediterranean during the first-century C.E.
According to Willem M. Jongman, the first-century Mediterranean in general appears
to have defied the correlation between population density and lower standards of
living:
The late Republic and early empire were a period of increasing

population, but as we have seen, there are strong indications
that the standard of living of the mass of the population was
nevertheless improving at the same time. The only one
explanation for this is that per capita incomes were increasing
(since it is unlikely that popular standard of living improved
because the rich became poorer). Moreover, this implies that
This is consistent with Josephus' description of the region in BJ3.41-44, even if Josephus
exaggerates the abundance of resources.
233
the mass of the population succeeded in securing its share of
that increased prosperity.599
Two important factors probably contributed to the infrequent coincidence of both
population density and the average person's wealth rising simultaneously. First, the
relatively unsettled areas of the empire (which would almost certainly have included
Galilee) would have been able to sustain rapid population growth for a few
generations.600 The second major reason is that the negative effects of population
growth are often delayed by generations.601 In the case of the early Empire, the
population growth finally ran into major problems in the late second-century, and the
Mediterranean experienced a major population decline at that time.602 It seems likely
that Galilee would also have participated in the confluence of population growth and
higher standards of living known as the Pax Romana.
THE ECONOMY
Since Galilee's economy was probably affected by the general economic
climate of the Mediterranean in the first-century, it is important to establish exactly
what the conditions were in the Greco-Roman world in the first-century C.E. It is also
Jongman, "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption," 616. See also: Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman
Empire, 51-52. For a dissenting opinion that wonders whether GDP growth could actually have
outpaced population growth in this period (and if we really have enough data to make such an
assertion), see: E. L. Cascio, "The Early Roman Empire: The State and the Economy," in The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. Sailer
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 619-620.
600
Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 51.
601
Lee, "Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis." Scheidel, "Demography," 50-55.
602
Jongman, "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption." Scheidel, "Demography," 48-49. Garnsey and
Sailer, The Roman Empire, 51.
234
important to note that there are a few features that virtually all ancient economies had
in common.
GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT ANCIENT ECONOMIES
Because the data are so scarce, economic historians studying ancient societies
are forced to fill in the gaps in the evidence by employing models and making
generalizations about pre-industrial economies. The real difficulty is in determining
which models and generalizations are most suitable for use in a given study.
Luckily, there are several important features that virtually all pre-industrial
economies share. These features may be safely assumed to have characterized first-
century C.E. Galilee. Peter Garnsey and Richard Sailer, two of the foremost experts on
the Roman economy, summarize the basic conditions in the Roman Mediterranean as
follows:
The Roman economy was underdeveloped. This means

essentially that the mass of the population lived at or near
subsistence level. In a typical, underdeveloped, pre-industrial
economy, a large proportion of the labour force is employed in
agriculture, which is the main avenue for investment and
source of wealth. The level of investment in manufacturing
industries is low. Resources that might in theory be devoted to
growth-inducing investment are diverted into consumption or
into unproductive speculation and usury.... Finally, there is no
class of entrepreneurs who are both capable of perceiving
opportunities for profit in large-scale organization of
manufacture and prepared to undergo the risks entailed in
making the necessary investment.603

235
In other words, the economy was agricultural, slow-growing, and resistant to
commercial activity. The vast majority of people in antiquity would have been
peasant farmers, and even the majority of residents in smaller cities (such as Sepphoris
and Tiberias) would have been peasants who owned or worked on nearby farmland.
Nevertheless, most societies did not produce sufficient agricultural surpluses to have
exported food on a large scale.605
Economic historians also note that, in general, commercial activity was
severely limited due to its risky nature, the difficulty of overland transport, and the
dominance of the landed aristocracy's value system.606 Moreover, commerce and
industry played an even smaller role in the more rural economies, such as that of
Galilee.607
In short, ancient economies were much less sophisticated and standards of
living were much poorer than modern historians generally imagine. Living in an
industrialized economy has so skewed our perception of prosperity from that of the
ancients that it is hard to fathom the abject poverty in which people lived throughout
all of human history.
In the 1960s, Gerhard Lenski attempted to give his readers a sense of how
different the modern economy is from pre-industrial economies. He notes that real
Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, 31.
605
606
In fact, it appears that fortunes made through commercial activity were quickly invested in land in
order to avoid further risk. Jones, The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and
Administrative History, 30, 83. K. Greene, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1986), 14. Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 44-45.
607
A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1971), 83.
236
(i.e.: adjusted for inflation) per capita income rose over 600 percent between 1849 and
1961, and that half of that increase had occurred in the final two decades. Lenski
argues convincingly that per capita income in the United States during the 1960s was
more than 20 times that of the "typical agrarian economy in the past." Given that real
per capita income has more than doubled since 1966, an update to Lenski's estimate
would indicate that the average American currently earns more than 40 times more
than a typical person in the ancient world.609 Even the conditions in the modern Third
World (as terrible as they are) are out of line with those prevalent in antiquity, since
even these developing countries have experienced economic growth rates that were
inconceivable just a few hundred years ago.610 Therefore, the reader should keep in
mind that any characterization of the economic situation in Galilee must be tempered
by the understanding that even the best conditions in antiquity would seem like
crushing poverty when compared to modern living standards.
THEPAXROMANA
However, ancient economies did experience periods of relative prosperity and
hardship, and the peace and stability that characterized the Roman Empire during the
608
Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification, 299-300.
609
"Table P-l. CPS Population and Per Capita Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2006," (U.S. Census
Bureau).
610
Although most of the Third World is very poor, Third World economies have generally vastly
outpaced First World economies in terms of GDP growth rates in recent decades. As a general rule,
pre-industrial economic growth was so small as to be practically negligible. Goldsmith, "An Estimate
of the Size and Structure of the National Product of the Early Roman Empire." Jongman, "The Early
Roman Empire: Consumption," 594. "The World Factbook - Rank Order - GDP - real growth rate,"
(The Central Intelligence Agency, 2008).
237
Pax Romana appears to have fostered a few generations of sustained economic growth
(albeit meager growth by modern standards).611 There are several indications that the
Mediterranean during the Principate was more prosperous than it was at any other time
prior to the industrial revolution.612
In general, the ancient Mediterranean economy was at its strongest in the first-
century C.E. The economic benefits of the Pax Romana resulted in increased per-
capita income and life expectancy throughout the Mediterranean for the first few
generations of the Empire.613 Eventually, however, disease and other consequences of
population growth, combined with an increasingly oppressive tax system destroyed the
economic gains enjoyed under the Principate.614
FIRST-CENTURY C.E. GALILEE'S ECONOMY
Overall, the evidence undermines popular theories that Galilee's economic
problems in the first-century were worse than those in most other contemporary
reasons. In fact, the evidence for the presence of pronounced economic problems in
Galilee is both anecdotal and weak. A number of Jesus' sayings in Q, Luke, and
61
' Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 51 -52. Greene, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy,
14-15. K. Hopkins, "Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity," in Towns in Societies:
Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology, ed. P. Abrams and E. A. Wrigley (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1978).
612
Jongman, "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption," 596.
613
Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire, 51-52. Hopkins, "Economic Growth and Towns in Classical
Antiquity." Greene, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy.
614
DeLorme, Isom, and Kamerschen, "Rent Seeking and Taxation in the Ancient Roman Empire."
Jongman, "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption." Scheidel, "Demography," 48-49. Garnsey and
Sailer, The Roman Empire, 51.
238
Thomas suggest the presence of poverty and economic exploitation in Galilee; they
also suggest that some Galileans were upset with these economic problems. The same
can be said about Josephus' descriptions of Tiberias' poor.615 Poverty and
exploitation, however, were endemic problems in antiquity, and we would expect even
the most prosperous ancient society to have sufficient economic problems that the
lower classes could justifiably complain about their plight. However, there is no
evidence in either the relevant literature or the archaeological record to suggest that
Galilee's economic problems were worse than those of the rest of the ancient world.
On the other hand, the evidence for an economically stable Galilee is much
stronger. The depiction of Galilee's economy in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew is
idyllic.616 To be sure, these Gospels' portrayals of the region are probably influenced
by their literary opposition of Galilee to the oppressive region of Judea (strict sense).
Nevertheless, they suggest that there was a tradition among the earliest Christians that
Galilee's economic situation was better for the lower classes than that of Judea (strict
sense).
Of course, the gospel evidence for a relatively favorable economic
environment would carry little weight without corroboration from Josephus and the
archaeological evidence. Both Josephus' works and Galilee's material culture suggest
that—before the revolt—the region's economy grew substantially in the first-century
and that the lower classes were better off in Galilee than in Judea (strict sense) or in
5
See the relevant discussions in chapters 3, 5,6, and 7.
6
See my treatment of this matter in chapters 4 and 5.
239
the average contemporary Mediterranean community.617 As already noted, the region
had plenty of arable land and other natural resources to accommodate the growing
population. Moreover, it appears that the gap between rich and poor was smaller in
Galilee than it would have been in most parts of the Roman Empire. Overall, there are
good reasons to believe that socio-economic conditions would have been slightly
better for the lower classes in Galilee than in other regions.
It is also important to consider how the political environment would have
affected the population's economic wellbeing. The political stability that Galilee
enjoyed in the first half of the first-century would have provided the basic and most
important condition for economic growth.618 However, the political instability
surrounding the buildup to the revolt and during the revolt itself would doubtless have
had a negative effect on Galilee's economy—especially if these problems did cause a
significant wave of banditry in the area. Given that the region's economy was
basically an agricultural one and that Galilee did not have much infrastructure that
could have been destroyed in the war, it is unlikely that the negative economic effects
of the revolt were long-lived. The archaeological evidence appears to confirm this
deduction, since the material culture does not suggest that an economic downturn
occurred at the end of the first-century C.E.
617
See my treatment of this matter in chapters 7 and 8.
618
Garnsey and Sailer, The Roman Empire. Leibner notes the rapid increase of unfortified settlements
in Galilee during the early Roman period. The shift from fortified settlements to unfortified settlements
implies that the region was probably more peaceful in this period than it was in the preceding periods.
Leibner, "The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of New Archaeological
Data".
240
THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
ETHNICITY AND CULTURE
Both the literary and archaeological evidence suggest that the region was both
ethnically Jewish and religiously observant. Moreover, the region's inhabitants appear
to have developed conspicuous ways of emphasizing both their Jewish identity and
their resistance to Greco-Roman culture.619
LANGUAGE
While the evidence for the common language used in Galilee is scarce, it
suggests that Aramaic was the common, native language of the vast majority of
Galileans.620 The use of Greek on the coins of Galilee's Herodian leaders, combined
with what we know about the local and regional governments in the eastern empire
suggests that the region's administrative language was probably Greek throughout the
Early Roman period. Knowledge of Greek was almost certainly more common in the
cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris than in the rural parts of Galilee, and modern
interpreters can deduce from the literary evidence and from comparisons to other
regions in the empire that members of the upper classes would have known
See my treatment of these phenomena in chapter 8.

!0
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee.
241
significantly more Greek than those on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder.
Although it is likely that trade relations would have brought many Galilean merchants
and artisans in contact with Greek-speakers and that a significant portion of the
population would have known at least a little "merchant Greek," there is no reason to
suppose that Greek was commonly used in the everyday lives of first-century
Galileans.
As was the case throughout the empire, the vast majority of Galileans would
have been illiterate. Catherine Hezser's 2001 study argues that the literacy rate in
Judea (broad sense) would have been below the 10 to 15 percent literacy rate
estimated for the entire Roman Empire.622 She argues that such a rural region would
have been somewhat less educated than the rest of the Empire. She also argues that
religious sentiments and the lack of an elaborate bureaucracy (as opposed to Egypt, for
example) would have depressed literacy rates in Judea (broad sense) as well.623
Hezser also argues that Judeans (broad sense) mainly wrote for "temporary and
pragmatic purposes: for occasional letters and documents, accounts, and notes."
Mark Chancey's research supports Hezser's findings and indicates that first-century
Galileans produced very few inscriptions or other forms of writing.625
621
Ibid.
622
C. Hezser, Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 496-504. Cf.\ W. V.
Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989).
623
Hezser discusses a number of other factors that may have contributed to the region's low literacy
rate as well.
Hezser, Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine, 445.
625
Chancey, The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Chancey," The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman
Galilee."
242
Hezser makes a strong case that although Greek was the administrative
language of the region, Aramaic was probably the written language for most military,
business, religious, and personal communications.626 Assuming her arguments are
correct, it would appear that Aramaic literacy was more common in Judea (broad
sense) than Greek literacy and that Greek literacy would have been most common in
the urban centers among the very wealthiest Galileans. Since Galilee appears to have
been less economically stratified and less urbanized in the first-century C.E., it is
likely that Greek literacy was significantly less common in Galilee than it was in
Judea.
RELIGIOUS ETHOS
The evidence is essentially unanimous in suggesting that Galilee's population
was largely Jewish and that the level of religious observance was on par with that of
the Judean (strict sense) countryside. As I noted in the previous chapter, the
apparently strong cultural connection between Galilee and rural Judea (strict sense) in
the first-century, combined with the contrast between those areas and Jerusalem,
suggest that religious attitudes in rural Judea (strict sense) and Galilee may have
differed from those of the priestly class.
A variety of textual and archaeological evidence implies that the Pharisees and
their views may have had a great deal of influence on Galilee's religious climate. I
626
Hezser, Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine, AA6-AA9. She also notes that writing in Hebrew would
have been even more rare than writing in Greek or Aramaic.
243
have already noted that the Gospels portray the Pharisees as the most prominent
religious leaders in the region.627 The corroborating evidence from Josephus' work,
and Galilee's material culture reinforce the Gospel's depiction of the Pharisee's
position in Galilean society. The fact that Pharisees were prominent in both of the
major delegations sent to Galilee by the rebel Judean (strict sense) leaders, combined
with the close ties between John of Gischala and Simeon ben Gamaliel (Vita 189-192),
may also indicate that Pharisees had significant influence in Galilee.
However, the importance of the Pharisees should not be overestimated. In
addition to the Pharisees (and probably a few closely related religious groups as well),
Galilee appears to have contained several other Jewish sects. We know that the Jesus
Movement gained a notable following in the area, and the Gospels suggest that a
number of Galileans followed John the Baptist as well. Moreover, the archaeological
evidence seems to indicate important differences in religious practices throughout
Galilee. Andrea Berlin has argued convincingly that the variations in the placement
and frequency of miqvaot from settlement to settlement imply significant divergence
in ritual purity traditions in different localities.628
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY
See my discussions of this matter in chapters 4 and 5.

628
Berlin, "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence", 34-36. Cf.\ A. Oppenheimer,
"Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period," in Between Rome and Babylon:
Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society, ed. N. Oppenheimer (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
244
The present work's findings have a few important implications both for
Galilean studies and for related fields. Since it would be both impractical and
redundant to summarize all of them in this space, I would like to conclude by pointing
out what I consider to be four of the most important implications of this study's
argument.
GALILEAN AND JTJDEAN (STRICT SENSED CULTURE
Both the literary and archaeological evidence highlight important and
distinctive cultural characteristics that Galilee and Judea (strict sense) had in common
in the first-century C.E. These cultural features suggest that the two regions shared a
vibrant religious and cultural tradition. In other words, the evidence suggests that
first-century C.E. Galilee was just as Jewish (in every sense of the word) as first-
century Judea (strict sense). Therefore, the present study's findings seriously
undermine scholarly arguments that Galilee's religious culture or ethnic heritage
differed substantially from that of Judea (strict sense).629
THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
The major implication for the study of the historical Jesus is that scholars need
to be more cautious with their interpretations of Galilee as Jesus' historical context.

629
i.e.: Vermes, Jesus the Jew. Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People. Horsley, Archaeology,
History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis.
245
Several New Testament scholars have argued that Jesus' message is a reaction to a
socio-economic crisis in first-century Galilee.630 While it is valid to argue that the
inequality and poverty that Jesus witnessed in his homeland probably influenced his
message, I contend that too many New Testament scholars exaggerate the socio-
economic problems in Galilee. Although it appears that life was difficult in the region
at that time, the situation was probably no worse than it was in most other regions in
antiquity. In fact, there are some indications that Galilee's socio-economic climate
may have been more favorable than that of its neighboring regions.
The argument for a more tempered portrayal of Galilee's economy is even
stronger with respect to the impact of Herod Antipas' policies on the region. Although
several scholars have argued that Antipas' urbanization projects and monetary policies
would have had a significant negative impact on Galilee's rural population, there is no
evidence to support such a claim. Instead, it appears that Antipas' reign had very little
effect on Galilee's socio-economic climate.
JEWISH OPPOSITION TO THE REVOLT
Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People. R. A. Horsley, "Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings
Source Q;" in Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q,
ed. J. S. Kloppenborg (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995). R. A. Horsley, "Jesus and
Galilee: The Contingencies of a Renewal Movement," in Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of
Cultures, ed. E. M. Meyers (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999). Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life
of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. Hanson, "The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition."
Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed. J. S. Kloppenborg
Verbin, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine,
vol. 195, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Shillington, Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the
Parables of Jesus Today. P. Trudinger, "Exposing the Depths of Oppression (Luke 16:lb-8a): The
Parable of the Unjust Steward," in Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today,
ed. V. G. Shillington (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997).
246
Another important implication of the present study is that it sheds light on two
possible reasons why Galileans appears to have been less enthusiastic about the revolt
against Rome. First, it appears that Galilee had suffered under Roman rule less
severely and for a shorter duration than Judea (strict sense) had. As a result, Galileans
would probably have had fewer reasons to resent Roman rule. Second, it seems that
Galilee's political environment was less conducive to allowing the rebel government
to unify the region under its command. The strength of local patronage relationships
in Galilee would probably have made it difficult for the Galileans to unify once the
Roman-imposed political order broke down.631 Moreover, the Jewish rebels' choice of
a Judean (strict sense) to act as Galilee's general probably exacerbated this problem,
since it implicitly rejected the authority of the Galilean elites and subjugated Galilee to
Judea (strict sense).
THE "PICTURE OF HARMONY" VS. THE "PICTURE OF CONFLICT"
One final conclusion that can be drawn from my examination of the sources for first-
century C.E. Galilee is that the conflict perceived by many scholars between the
textual and archaeological evidence does not really exist. Instead, the texts generally
agree with the archaeological evidence that Galilee was Jewish, religiously observant,
Although it is true that the rebels in Judea (strict sense) also divided into factions and fought
amongst themselves, they appear to have been able to unite for a about a year and a half (or more than
one third of the duration of the revolt) under the leadership of the high priestly families.
247
politically stable, and not experiencing any unusual socio-economic problems before
the Great Revolt.

Bibliography
Adan-Bayewitz, D. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade.

Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993.
. "On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman

Judaea/Palestine." In One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in
Honour ofStanislao Loffreda OFM, edited by G. C. Bottini, L. d. Segni and L.
D. Chrupcala, 5-32. Jerusalem: Francicsan Printing Press, 2003.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, and R. D. Giauque. "Determining Pottery Provenance:

Application of a New High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence Method and
Comparison with Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis." Archaeometry 41
(1999): 1-24.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, R. D. Giauque, M. Wieder, I. Shaked, D. Avshalom-

Gorni, and D. Gan. "Pottery Manufacture in Roman Galilee: Distinguishing
Similar Provenance Groups Using High-Precision X-Ray Flourescence and
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis." In Modern Trends in Scientific
Studies on Ancient Ceramics: Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting
on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999, edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y.
Maniatis. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2002.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., F. Asaro, M. Wieder, and R. D. Giauque. "Preferential

Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple
Period (Late First Century B.C.E-70 C.E.)." BASOR 350 (2008): 37-85.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., and A. Mordechai. "Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67:
Preliminary Report on the 1992-1994 Seasons." JRA 10 (1997): 131-165.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., and W. Moshe. "Ceramics From Roman Galilee: A Comparison

of Several Techniques for Fabric Characterization." JFA 19 (1992): 189-205.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., and I. Parlman. "Local Pottery Provenance Sudies: A Role for
Clay Analysis." Archaeometry 27, no. 2 (1985): 203-217.
Adan-Bayewitz, D., and I. Perlman. "The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman
Period." IEJ40 (1990): 153-172.
Aharoni, Y. "Survey in Galilee: Israelite Settlements and Their Pottery." Eretz Israel
(1956): 56-64.
248
249
Ahlstrom, G. W., G. 0 . Rollefson, and D. Edelman. The History of Ancient Palestine:
From the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993.
Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and notes.

Edited by W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Vol. 26, The Anchor Bible.
Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.
Alexander, L. The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context
in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Allison, D. C. J. The Jesus Tradition In Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International,

1997.
Alt, A. "Galilaische Probleme." In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel
II, 384-398. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche, 1959.
Anderson, J. D. "The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The Case of Palestina--

Roman Period (63 B.C.E.--324 C.E.)." In The Archaeology of Society in the
Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, 447-468. New York: Facts on File, 1995.
Applebaum, S. "Judaea as a Roman Province: The Countryside as a Political and

Economic. Factor." In ANRW2.8, 355-396. New York: de Grayer, 1977.
Arbel, Y. "The Historical Impact and Archaeological Reflections of Intense Religious

Movements." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2005.
Argyle, W. "Greek among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times." NTS 20
(1973): 87-89.
Arnal, W. E. Jesus and the Village Scribes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
. "The Parable of the Tenants and the Class Consciousness of the Peasantry."
In Text and Artifact: Religions in Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour
of Peter Richardson, edited by S. G. Wilson andM. Desjardins, 135-157.
Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000.
—. The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction

of Contemporary Identity. Oakville: Equinox, 2005.
Audet, J. P. La didache. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1958.
Aune, D. E. "Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some Critical

Considerations." In Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major
250
Religious Leaders, edited by J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns, 176-192.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Aviam, M. "The Archaeology of the Battle of Yodefat." In Jews, Pagans and

Christians in the Galilee, edited by M. Aviam, 110-122. Rochester: University
of Rochester Press, 2004.
. "Borders between Jews and Gentiles in the Galilee." In Jews, Pagans and
Christians in the Galilee, edited by M. Aviam, 9-21. Rochester: University of
Rochester Press, 2004.
. "Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to

Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation." In Religion,
Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by J.
Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge and D. B. Martin, 115-132. Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007.
. "An Early Roman Oil Press in a Cave at Yodefat." In Jews, Pagans and
Christians in the Galilee, edited by M. Aviam, 89-91. Rochester: University of
Rochester Press, 2004.
. "Epilogue." In Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, edited by M.

Aviam, 314-318. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004.
. "First Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective." In Religion

and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, edited by D.
R. Edwards, 7-27. New York: Routledge, 2004.
. "The Identification and Function of Josephus Flavius' Fortifications in the

Galilee." In Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, edited by M. Aviam,
92-105. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004.
. "Socio-economical Hierarchy and its Economical Foundations in First

century Galilee. The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla." In Flavius Josephus:
Interpretation and History, edited by J. Pastor, M. Mor and P. Stern. Leiden:
Brill, Forthcoming.
. "Viticulture and Olive Growing in Ancient Upper Galilee." In Jews, Pagans

and Christians in the Galilee, edited by M. Aviam, 170-180. Rochester:
University of Rochester Press, 2004.
. "Yodfat: A Test Case for the Development of Jewish Settlement in Galilee in

the Second Temple Period." PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2005.
251
Avshalom-Gorai, D., and N. Getzov. "Phoenicians and Jews: a ceramic case-study." In
The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, edited by A. M.
Berlin and J. A. Overman, 74-83. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Bar-Nathan, R. Hasmonean andHerodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the

1973-1987Excavations. Vol. IE: The Pottery. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2002.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary

and Notes on the Greek Text. 2 ed. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1978.
Batey, R. A. "Is Not This the Carpenter?" NTS 30 (1984): 249-258.
. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World
of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.
. "Jesus and the Theatre." NTS 30 (1984): 563-574.
Beare, F. W. The Gospel according to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and

Commentary. Harper: San Francisco, 1982.
Becking, B. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study. New York:
Brill, 1992.
Ben-Amos, D. Narrative Forms in the Haggadah: Structural Analysis. Vol. 1967. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms, 1967.
Berlin, A. M. "Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence." Paper
presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Conference, San
Antonio, November 2004.
. "Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee." In The First

Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, edited by A. M. Berlin and
J. A. Overman, 57-73. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Bernett, M. Der Kaiserkult als teil der politischen Geschichte Iudeas unter den
Herodianern undRoemern (30 v.Chr.-66 n.Chr.). Miinchen: University of
Munich, 2002.
Bilde, P. Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and
Their Importance. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts; with an Appendix on the
Son of Man. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
252
Blatz, B. "The Coptic Gospel of Thomas." In New Testament Apocrypha, edited by W.
Schneemelcher, 110-114. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991.
Bloedhorn, H., and G. Hiittenmeister. "The Synagogue." In The Cambridge History of

Judaism, Volume Three: The Early Roman Period, edited by W. Horbury, W.
D. Davies and J. Sturdy, 267-297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999.
Bokser, B. M. "Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben
Dosa." Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman
Period 16, no. 1 (1985): 42-92.
Borg, M. J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus & the Heart
of Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.
. "The Palestinian Background for a Life of Jesus." In The Search for Jesus,
edited by H. Shanks, 37-58. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society,
1994.
Bornkamm, G, G Barth, andH. J. Held. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew.

Translated by P. Scott. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Bovon, F. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Translated by C.

M. Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.
Broshi, M. "The Credibility of Josephus." In Essays in Honour ofYigael Yadin, edited

by G. Vermes and J. Neusner: Totowa, 1983.
Brown, R. E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Mahwah: Paulist, 1978.
. The Epistles of John: Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary.

Edited by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 30, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday,
1982.
. The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Edited

by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 29, The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday,
1966.
. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by D. N. Freedman, The

Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1994.
253
Biichler, A. Der galildische 'Am-ha' Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vienna:
Lehranstalt, 1906.
Cascio, E. L. "The Early Roman Empire: The State and the Economy." In The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by W.
Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Sailer, 619-650. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Chancey, M. A. "The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Sepphoris." NTS, no. 47:2 (2001):
127-145.
. "The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee." In Religion,

Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge and D. B. Martin, 83-89. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2007.
. "Galilee and Greco-Roman Culture in the Time of Jesus: The Neglected

Significance of Chronology." In SBLSP 2003, 173-188. Atlanta: Scholars,
2003.
. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2005.
. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2002.
Coggins, R. J. Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered.

Atlanta: John Knox, 1975.
Cohen, S. J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development As a

Historian. Vol. 8, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition. Leiden. Brill,
1979.
Collins, J. J., B. McGinn, and S. J. Stein. The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. New

York: Continuum, 2000.
Conzelmann, H. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by G. Buswell. New York:

Harper & Row, 1960.
Crossan, J. D. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years

Immediately after the Execution of Jesus. San Fransisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1998.
. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San

Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991.
254
. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1994.
Crossan, J. D., and J. L. Reed. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the
Texts. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
Crown, A. D., ed. The Samaritans. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.
Davies, S. L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. New York: Seabury,
1983.
. The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained. Edited by A. Harvey.

Woodstock: Skylight Paths, 2002.
DeLorme, C. D. J., S. Isom, and D. R. Kamerschen. "Rent Seeking and Taxation in the
Ancient Roman Empire." Applied Economics 37 (2005): 705-711.
Devisch, M. "La relation entre l'evangile de Marc et le document Q." InL'evangile

selonMarc: Tradition et redaction, edited by M. Sabbe, 59-91. Gembloux:
Duculot, 1974.
Dibelius, M., and K. C. Hanson. The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge

Donahue, J. R., and D. J. Harrington. The Gospel ofMark. Collegeville: Liturgical

Press, 2005.
Downing, F. G. Christ and the Cynics: Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-
Century Tradition. Vol. 4, JSOTManuals. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.
. Cynics and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992.
. "The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Reconstruction."

NTS 33 (1987): 439-451.
Draper, J. A. "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." In Gospel Perspectives V, edited

by D. Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
Edwards, D. R. "First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the

Archaeological and Literary Evidence." In SBLSP 1988, edited by D. J. Lull,
169-182. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988.
255
. "Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages." In Religion,
Siebeck, 2007.
. "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos of Lower Galilee in the First

Century: Implications for the Nascent Jesus Movement." In Studies on the
Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L. I. Levine, 53-74. New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1992.
Edwards, D. R., and C. T. McCollough. "Archaeology and the Galilee: An

Introduction." In Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the
Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, edited by D. R. Edwards and C. T.
McCollough, 1-6. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
Ehrman, B. D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. New York: Oxford
Eshel, H. "A Note on 'Miqvaof At Sepphoris." In Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts
and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, edited by D. R.
Edwards and C. T. McCollough, 131-133. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
. "They're Not Ritual Baths." BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 42-45.
. "We Need More Data." BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 49.
Esler, P. F. The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches

to New Testament Interpretation. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Ewherido, A. O. Matthew's Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century C.E.: The
Evidence from Matthew's Chapter on Parables (Matthew 13:1-52). Edited by
H. Gossai. Vol. 91, Studies in Biblical Literature. New York: Peter Lang,
2006.
Fiensy, D. A. The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is
Mine, SBEC20. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1991.
Fischel, H. A. "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and

Pharisaism." In American Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-
centennial Volume, edited by D. Sinor, 59-88. Bloomington: Indiana
. "Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a

Chria." In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory ofErwin Ramsdell
Goodenough, edited by J. Neusner, 372-411. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
256
Fitzmyer, J. A. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins." Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000.
. "Did Jesus Speak Greek." BAR 18, no. 5 (1992): 58-77.
. The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and notes. Edited

by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 28A, The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday,
1981.
. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Esssays. Chico: Scholars, 1979.
Fledderman, H. T. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, BETL 122. Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1995.
. Q: A Reconstruction And Commentary. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Forester, G. "Notes on Recent Excavations at Capernaum." IEJ21 (1971): 207-211.
Fortna, R. T. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source

Underlying the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Fraenkel, Y. "Hermeneutic Problems in the Study of Aggadic Narrative." Tarbiz 47
(5738 [77-78]): 139-172.
. "Ma'aseh BeR. Shila." Tarbiz 40 (5731 [70-71]): 33-40.
France, R. T. The Gospel ofMatthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Frankel, R, N. Getzov, M. Aviam, and A. Degani. Settlement Dynamics and Regional

Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey, IAA Reports, No.
14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001.
Freyne, S. "Archaeology and the Historical Jesus." In Jesus and Archaeology, edited
by J. H. Charlesworth, 64-83. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
. "The Charismatic." In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, edited by J. J.

Collins and G. W. E. Nicklesburg, 223-258. Chico: Scholars, 1980.
. "Galilean Questions to Crossan's Mediterranean Jesus." In Whose Historical

Jesus? edited by W. E. Arnal and M. Desjardins, 63-91. Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 1997.
. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian. Notre Dame: University of

Notre Dame, 1980.
257
. "Herodian economics in Galilee: Searching for a suitable model." In
Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientific Studies of the New Testament in
its context, edited by P. F. Esler, 23-46. New York: Routledge, 1995.
. "Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee." In

Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and
Byzantine Periods, edited by D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, 49-56.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
. "Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the

Literary Sources." In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L. I. Levine, 75-
91. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992.
Gabba, E. "The Finances of King Herod." In Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel:
Collected Essays, edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuks, 160-168.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990.
Gale, A. M. Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew's

Gospel. New York: Continuum, 2005.
Gal or, K. "Domestic Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Galilee and Golan." NEA
66, no. 1-2 (2003): 44-57.
Garnsey, P., and R. Sailer. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
Gibson, S. "Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine: A
Reassessment." In One Land, Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in
Honour ofStanislao Loffreda OEM, edited by G. C. Bottini, L. d. Segni and L.
D. Chrupcala, 287-308. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003.
Goldsmith, R. W. "An Estimate of the Size and Structure of the National Product of
the Early Roman Empire." Review of Income and Wealth 30 (1984): 263-288.
Goodblatt, D. "Ancient Zionism? The Zion Coins of the First Revolt and their
Background." In International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 8, 1-36. Ramat-
Gan: Bar Han University, 2001.
. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2006.
. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-government in Antiquity.

Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
. "Priestly Ideologies of the Judean Resistance." JSQ 3, no. 3 (1996): 225-249.

258
. "Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History." In History of Judaism:
The Next Ten Years, edited by B. M. Bokser, 31-44. Chico: Scholars, 1980.
Goodman, M. "The Origins of the Great Revolt: A Conflict of Status Criteria." In

Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G.
Fuks, 39-53. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1990.
. The Ruling Class ofJudea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
. State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212. Portland: Vallentine

Mitchell, 2000.
Green, J. B. The Gospel of Luke: New International Commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Green, W. S. "Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic

Tradition." In AufstiegundNiedergangder Romischen Welt, edited by H.
Temporini and W. Haase, 619-647. New York: de Gruyer, 1979.
. "What's in a Name The Problematic of Rabbinic 'Biography'." In Approaches

to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Pactice, edited by W. S. Green, 77-96.
Missoula: Scholars, 1978.
Greene, K. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1986.
Grundmann, W. Jesus der Galilder und das Judentum. Leipzig: Verlag Georg
Wigand, 1941.
Griinewald, T. Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality. Translated by J.

Drinkwater. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Guenther, H. O. "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for Aramaic Sources:
Rethinking Christian Origins." Semeia 55 (1992): 41-76.
Halevy, A. A. Ha'aggadah hahistorit-biyographit le'or meqorotyevaniyim

velatiniyim. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1965.
Hanson, A. T. The Prophetic Gospel: A Study of John and the Old Testament.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.
Hanson, K. C. "The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition." BTB 27
(1997): 99-111.
259
Hanson, R. S. Tyrian Influence in Upper Galilee. Edited by E. M. Meyers. Vol. 2,
Meiron Excavation Project. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental
Research, 1980.
Harrington, D. J. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.
Harris, W. V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Hays, R. B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New
Creation: a Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San
Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996.
Hengel, M. The 'Hellenization' of Judaea in the First Century After Christ. Translated
by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.
. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the

Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
Herzog, W. R. Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed.

Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Hezser, C. Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Hirschfeld, Y. A Guide to Antiquity Sites in Tiberias. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities

Authority, 1992.
Hirschfeld, Y., and K. Galor. "New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early
Islamic Tiberias." In Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A
Region in Transition, edited by J. Zangenberg, H. E. Attridge and D. B.
Martin, 207-231. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Hoehner, H. W. Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids:

Academie, 1983.
Holtzmann, H. J. Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher

Charakter. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1863.
Hopkins, K. "Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity." In Towns in

Societies: Essays in Economic History and Historical Sociology, edited by P.
Abrams and E. A. Wrigley, 35-79. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1978.
Horsley, R. A. Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: The Social Context of

Jesus and the Rabbis. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996.
260
. "Bandits, Messiahs, and Longshoremen: Popular Unrest in Galilee Around
the Time of Jesus." In SBLSP1988, edited by D. J. Lull, 183-199. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1988.
. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,

1995.
. "Jesus and Galilee: The Contingencies of a Renewal Movement." In Galilee

Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E. M. Meyers, 57-
74. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
. "Power Vaccuum and Power Struggle in 66-7 C.E." In The First Jewish
Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, edited by A. M. Berlin and J. A.
Overman, 87-109. New York: Routledge, 2002.
. "Renewal movements and resistance to Empire in Ancient Judea." In The

Postcolonial Biblical Reader, edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah, 69-77. Maiden:
Blackwell, 2006.
. "Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings Source Q." In Conflict and

Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q,
edited by J. S. Kloppenborg, 37-52. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
1995.
. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Horsley, R. A., and J. S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular

Movements in the Time of Jesus. New York: Winston, 1985.
Hultgren, A. J. The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2000.
Incigneri, B. J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel.
Edited by R. A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff. Vol. 65, Biblical Interpretation
Series. Boston: Brill, 2003.
Isaac, B. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Revised ed. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1990.
. Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road. Oxford: BAR, 1982.
Jensen, M. H. Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on

the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee, WUNT
2.215. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
261
—. "Josephus and Antipas: A Case Study on Josephus' Narratives on Herod
Antipas." In Making History: Josephus and Historical, Method, edited by Z.
Rodgers. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
. "Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple
Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-
Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee." In Religion, Ethnicity,
and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by J.
Siebeck, 2007.
Johnson, E. A. Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints.

New York: Continuum, 2003.
Johnson, L. T. The Gospel of Luke. Vol. 3, Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville:

Liturgical, 1992.
. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Edited by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 37A, The Anchor Bible. New York:
Doubleday, 1995.
Jones, A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
. The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative

History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.
Jongman, W. M. "The Early Roman Empire: Consumption." In The Cambridge

Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris
and R. Sailer, 592-618. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Jossa, G. "Josephus1 Action in Galilee During the Jewish War." In Josephus and the
History of the Greco-Roman Period, edited by F. Parente and J. Sievers, 265-
275. New York: Brill, 1994.
Kee, H. C. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel. London: SCM,
1977.
Kee, H. C, and L. H. Cohick. Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress.

Keener, C. S. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Kindler, A. "The Mint of Tyre, the Main Source of Silver Coins in Eretz-Israel in
Antiquity." Eretz-Israel 8 (1967): 318-324.
262
King, K. L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2005.
Kingsbury, J. D. "Conclusion: Analysis of a Conversation." In Social History of the

Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D. L. Balch,
259-269. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991
Klausner, J. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teachings. New York:
Macmillan, 1929.
Klijn, A. F. J. The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Revised ed.
Boston: Brill, 2003.
Kloppenborg, J. S. The Formation ofQ: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings

Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
. The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in

Jewish Palestine. Vol. 195, WUNT. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Koester, H. "Introduction." In NagHammadi codex II, 2-7, edited by B. Layton, 38-

49. New York: Brill, 1989.
. "Introduction to "The Gospel of Thomas"." In The Nag Hammadi Library,

edited by J. M. Robinson, 124-126. San Fransisco: Harper, 1990.
Lane, W. L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition, and Notes. Revised ed. Grand Rapds: Eerdmans, 1974.
Layton, B. "The Sources, Date, and Transmission of Didache 1.3b-2.1." HTR 61, no. 3
(1968): 343-383.
Lee, R. D. "Malthus and Boserup: A Dynamic Synthesis." In The State of Population

Theory: Forward from Malthus, edited by D. Coleman and R. Schofield, 96-
130. New York: Blackwell, 1986.
Leibner, U. "History of Settlement in the Eastern Galilee During the Hellenistic,

Roman and Byzantine Periods in Light of an Archaeological Survey." Ph.D.
Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2004.
. "The Origins of the Jewish Galilee of the Early Roman Period in Light of
New Archaeological Data." Paper presented at the Society of Biblical
Literature Annual Conference, San Diego, November 2007.
263
Lenski, G. E. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Levine, L. I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2005.
. The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity. New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1989.
Levy, T. E., and A. F. C. Holl. "Social Change and the Archaeology in the Holy
Land." In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy,
1-8. London: Leicester University Press, 1998.
Lieberman, S. "How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?" In Biblical and Other Studies,
edited by A. Altmann, 123-141. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1963.
Ludemann, G. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F.

S. Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
MacDonald, D. R. "The Breasts of Hecuba and those of the Daughters of Jerusalem:

Luke's Transvaluation of a famous Iliadic Scene." In Ancient Fiction: The
Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative, edited by J. A. Brant, C. W.
Hedrick and C. Shea, 239-254. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
. "The Ending of Luke and the Ending of the Odyssey." In For a Later
Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and
Early Christianity, edited by R. A. Argall, 161-168. Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 2000.
. "Paul's Farewell to the Ephesian Elders and Hector's Farewell to

Andromache: A Strategic Imitation of Homer's Iliad." In Contextualizing Acts:
Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, edited by T. Penner and C. V.
Stichele, 189-203. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
. "The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul." NTS 45 (1999): 88-107.
. "The Soporific Angel in Acts 12:1-17 and Hermes' Visit to Priam in Iliad24:
Luke's Emulation of the Epic." Forum 2, no. 2 (1999): 179-187.
Mack, B. L. "The Case for a Cynic-Like Jesus." In The Christian Myth: Origins,
Logic, and Legacy, edited by W. E. Arnal, 41-58. New York: Continuum,
2001.
264
. "The Kingdom that Didn't Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents." In
SBLSP1988, edited by D. J. Lull, 59-73. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. Shaftesbury: Doret,
1993.
. "Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus." In Whose Historical Jesus? edited by W. E.

Arnal and M. Desjardins, 25-36. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
1997.
Magen, Y. "Ancient Israel's Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times." BAR 24, no.
5 (1998): 46-52.
. "Jerusalem As a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry During the Second

Temple Period." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, edited by H. Geva, 244-256.
Malina, B. "Early Christian Groups: Using Small Group Formation Theory to Explain
Christian Organizations." In Modelling Early Christianity, edited by P. F.
Esler, 96-113, 1995.
. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed.
Atlanta: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Marcus, J. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Edited
by D. N. Freedman. Vol. 27, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.
Marxsen, W. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
. Mark the Evangelist: studies on the redaction history of the Gospel.

Translated by J. Boyce. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969.
Mason, S. Life ofjosephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by S. Mason. Vol.

9, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commenary. Boston: Brill, 2001.
Mazar, A. "The Divided Monarchy: Comments on Some Archaeological Issues." In

The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of
Early Israel: Invited Lectures Delivered at the Sixth Biennial Colloquium of
the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism, Detroit, October
2005, edited by B. B. Schmidt, 159-180. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2007.
265
McLaren, J. "Black Markets and Optimal Evadable Taxation." The Economic Journal
108, no. 448 (1998): 665-679.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Edited by D. N.

Freedman. Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, The Anchor Bible
Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
. "The Present State of the 'Third Quest' for the Historical Jesus: Loss and
Gain." Bib 80 (1999): 459-486.
Meshorer, Y. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Dix Hills: Amphora Books,
1982.
. A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba.

Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001.
Meyers, E. M. "Aspects of Everyday Life in Roman Palestine with Special Reference

to Private Domiciles and Ritual Baths." In Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman
Cities, edited by J. R. Bartlett, 193-220. New York: Routledge, 2002.
. "The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early

Judaism." In ANRW 19.2.1, edited by W. Haase, 686-702. New York: de
Gruyter, 1979.
. Galilean Regionalism: A Reappraisal. Edited by W. S. Green. Vol. 32:

Approaches to Ancient Judaism, Studies in Judaism and Its Greco-Roman
Context. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985.
. "Identifying Religious and Ethnic Groups through Archaeology." In Biblical

Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress
on Biblical Archaeology, edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram, 738-745.
Jerusalem: Keterpress, 1993.
. "Jesus and His Galilean Context." In Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and
Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods, South Florida Studies
in the History of Judaism, edited by D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, 57-
66. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
. "Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (67-68 CE): Archaeology and
Josephus." In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by
E. M. Meyers, 109-122. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
. "Sepphoris: City of Peace." In The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History,

and Ideology, edited by A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman, 110-119. London:
Routledge, 2002.
266
. "Yes, They Are." BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 46-49.
Meyers, E. M., and M. A. Chancey. "How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus' Time?"
BAR 26, no. 4 (2000): 18-33.
Meyers, E. M., N. Ehud, and L. M. Carol. "The Roman Theater At Sepphoris." BA 53

(1990): 190-191.
Meyers, E. M., C. L. Meyers, and J. F. Strange. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue

of Gush Halav: Meiron Excavation Project Reports, vol. 5. Edited by E. M.
Meyers. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Meyers, E. M., J. F. Strange, and C. L. Meyers. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper

Galilee, Israel 1971-1972, 1974-1975, 1977. Cambridge, Mass.: The American
Schools of Oriental Research, 1981.
Milavec, A. Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville:

Liturgical Press, 2003.
Modrzejewski, J. The Jews of Egypt: from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Translated

by R. Cornman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.
Moloney, F. J., and D. J. Harrington. The Gospel of John. Collegeville: Liturgical

Press, 1998.
Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1927-30.
Moreland, M. "The Galilean Response to Earliest Christianity: A Cross-Cultural Study

of the Subsistence Ethic." In Religion and society in Roman Palestine: old
questions, new approaches, edited by D. R. Edwards, 37-48. New York:
Routledge, 2004.
. "The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods:

Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence." In Religion, Ethnicity,
and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by J.
Siebeck, 2007.
. "Q and the Economics of Early Roman Galilee." In The Sayings Source Q
and the Historical Jesus, edited by A. Lindemann, 561-576. Sterling: Peeters,
2001.
Moxnes, H. "The Construction of Galilee as a Place for the Historical Jesus - Part 11."
BTB, no. 31 (2001): 64-77.
267
Myllykoski, M. "Mark's Oral Practice and the Written Gospel of Mark." In Testimony
and Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu; Studies
in Honor ofPetrPokorny, edited by J. Roskovec, J. Mrazek and P. Pokorny.
Neusner, J. Development of a legend; studies on the traditions concerning Yohanan

ben Zakkai. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Nikiprowetzky, V. "Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties." In Josephus, the Bible,

and History, edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 216-236. Leiden: Brill,
1989.
Nolland, J. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005.
Oakman, D. E. "The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social

Interpretation of the Historical Jesus." In SBLSP 1994, edited by E. H.
Lovering, Jr., 220-251. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1994.
Oded, B. Mass deportations and deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden:

Reichert, 1979.
Oppenheimer, A. The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Social History of the Jewish People in the
Hellenistic-Roman Period. Translated by I. H. Levine. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
. "Havurot in Jerusalem at the End of the Second Temple Period." In Between

Rome and Babylon: Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society, edited by N.
Oppenheimer, 100-114. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Overman, J. A.Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the
Matthean Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Pagels, E. Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House,
2003.
Pastor, J. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Peterson, D. N. The Origins of Mark: TheMarkan Community in Current Debate.

Edited by R. A. Culpepper and R. Rendtorff. Vol. 48, Biblical Interpretation
Series. Boston: Brill, 2000.
Ponting, M. J. "The Chemical Analysis of a Selection of the Copper-Alloy Metalwork

from the Early Roman Fortified Complex." In Ramat HaNadivExcavations:
Final Report of the 1984-1998 Seasons, edited by Y. Hirschfeld, 504-510.
268
. "Keeping up with the Romans? Romanization and Copper Alloys in First
Revolt Palestine." Journal of the Institute ofArchaeometallurgical Studies 22,
no. 3-6 (2002).
. "Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artifacts from Israel: Questions of

Organization and Ethnicity." Archaeometry 44, no. 4 (2002): 555-571.
Porter, S. E. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous

Discussion and New Proposals. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Porterfield, A. Healing in the History of Christianity. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2005.
Pregeant, R. Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics.

Quasten, J. Patrology. Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. Westminster:

Newman, 1950.
Rajak, T. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 1983.
. "Justus of Tiberias." CQ 23 (1973): 345-368.
Rappaport, U. "How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee?" In The Galilee in Late Antiquity,
edited by L. I. Levine, 95-102. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1992.
. "John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem." JJS 33 (1982): 479-493.
. "Josephus' Personality and the Credibility of his Narrrative." In Making

History: Josephus and Historical Method, edited by Z. Rodgers, 68-81.
. "Where was Josephus Lying—In his Life or in the War?" In Josephus and the
history of the Greco-Roman period: essays in memory of Morton Smith, edited
by F. Parente and J. Sievers, 279-289. New York: Brill, 1994.
Reed, J. L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence.

Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.
. "Galilean Economics from a Demographic Perspective: The Role of

Mortality, Morbidity, and Migration." (Forthcoming).
269
. "Galileans, 'Israelite Village Communities,' and the Sayings Gospel Q." In
Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures, edited by E. M.
Meyers, 87-108. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
. "Places in Early Christianity: Galilee, Archaeology, Urbanisation, and Q."

Ph.D. Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1994.
. "Romanizing Galilee? Marble, Identity, and Domestic Space under Herod

Antipas." NEA (Forthcoming).
. "Stone Vessels and Gospel Texts: Purity and Socio-Economics in John 2." In
Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien aufden Weg zu einer Archaologie des
Neuen Testaments, edited by J. Zangenberg and S. Alkier, 381-401. Tubingen:
A. Francke Verlag, 2003.
Reich, R. "Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer."

IEJ 31 (1981): 48-52.
Richards, G. C. "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities." CQ 33, no. 1 (1939): 36-

40.
Richardson, P., and D. R. Edwards. "Jesus and Palestinian Social Protest:

Archaeological and Literary Perspectives." In Handbook of Early Christianity:
Social Science Approaches, edited by A. J. Blasi, J. Duhaime and P. Turcotte.
Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2002.
Richardson, R. D. "Eastern and Western Liturgies: The Primitive Basis of Their Later
Differences: A Note for the Study of Eucharistic Origins." HTR 42, no. 2
(1949): 125-148.
Robinson, J. M., P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg. The Critical Edition ofQ,

Hermenia Supplement, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
Rocca, S. Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World, Texts and
Studies in Ancient Judaism, 122. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Roskam, H. N. The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social
Context. Edited by M. M. Mitchell and D. P. Moessner. Vol. 114, NovTSup.
Roth, J. "Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service." Paper presented at the Society
of Biblical Literature Annual Conference, San Antonio, November 2004.
Runesson, A. "Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in

Capernaum From the First to Sixth Century." In Religion, Ethnicity, and
270
Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition, edited by J. Zangenberg,
H. E. Attridge and D. B. Martin, 231-258. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Safrai, S. "Tales of the Sages in Palestinian Tradition and the Babylonian Talmud."
ScrHier 22 (1971): 209-232.
Saldarini, A. J. "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee."

In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L. I. Levine, 23-38. New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.
. Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1994.
Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993.
. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.-66 C.E. Philadelphia: Trinity Press,
1992.
. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: Cambridge

Sanders, J. T. "Tradition and Redaction in Luke XV. 11-32." NTS 15 (1968): 433-438.
Sawicki, M. Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of

Jesus. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000.
Scheidel, W. "Demography." In The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-

Roman World, edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Sailer, 38-86. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
. "Livitina's Bitter Gains: Seasonal Mortality and Endemic Disease in the

Ancient World." AncSoc 25 (1994): 151-175.
Schnackenburg, R. The Gospel of Matthew. Translated by R. R. Barr. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2002.
Schwartz, D. R. Agrippal: The Last King of Judaea. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Schwartz, S. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2001.
. Josephus andJudaean Politics. Vol. 18, Columbia Studies in the Classical

Tradition. New York: Brill, 1990.
271
. "Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown." In Josephus
and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Honor of Morton
Smith, edited by F. Parente and J. Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1987.
Schafer, P. Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentumes.

Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Schurer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.
135). Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973.
Sevenster, J. N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish
Christians Have Known? Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Shaw, B. D. "Bandits in the Roman Empire." Past and Present 105 (1984): 3-52.
Shillington, V. G. Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of Jesus Today.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997.
Sigmismund, M. "Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious

and Political Identity in First and Second Century C.E. Tiberias." In Religion,
Siebeck, 2007.
Sim, D. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social
Setting of the Matthean Community. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998.
Stark, R. "Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew's Gospel." In Social History of
the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D. L.
Balch, 189-210. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Stegemann, W. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century. Translated
by O. C. Dean. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Stern, M., ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 2: From Tacitus to
Simplicius. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980.
Strange, J. F. "First Century Galilee From Archaeology and From the Texts." In
Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and
Byzantine Periods, edited by D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, 39-48.
Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.
. "Six Campaigns At Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations,

1983-1989." In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by L. I. Levine, 339-355.
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.
272
. "Some Implications of Archaeology for New Testament Studies." In What
Has Archaeology to Do With Faith? edited by J. H. Charlesworth and W. P.
Weaver, 23-59. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.
Strange, J. F., and T. R. W. Longstaff. "Sepphoris, 1985." IEJ35 (1986): 297- 299.
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1924.
Syon, D. "Gamla: City of Refuge." In The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History,
and Ideology, edited by A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman, 134-153. New York:
Routledge, 2002.
. "Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia

on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods." Ph.D.
Dissertation, The Hebrew University, 2004.
"Table P-l. CPS Population and Per Capita Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2006."
U.S. Census Bureau.
Thackeray, H. S. J. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger,
2006.
Toher, M. "Nicolaus and Herod in the "Antiquitates Judaicae"." HSCP 101 (2003):
427-447.
Trudinger, P. "Exposing the Depths of Oppression (Luke 16:lb-8a): The Parable of

the Unjust Steward." In Jesus and His Parables: Interpreting the Parables of
Jesus Today, edited by V. G. Shillington, 121-137. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1997.
Tuckett, C. M. "Mark and Q." In The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New
Literary Criticism, edited by C. Focant, 149-175. Leuven: Peeters, 1993.
Uro, R. Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of The Gospel of Thomas. New York:
T&TClark, 2003.
Van de Sandt, H. W. M., H. Van de Sandt, and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish
Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity. Assen: Royal Van
Gorcum, 2002.
Van der Horst, P. W. "Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy." In

Hellenism in the Land of Israel, edited by J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling, 154-
174. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001.
273
Vasiliadis, P. "Prolegomena to a Discussion on the Relationship Between Mark and
Q." DeltionBiblikonMeleton 3 (1975): 31-46.
Vermes, G. Jesus the Jew. London: William Collins Sons & Co., 1973.
Wacholder, B. Z. "Josephus andNicolaus of Damascus." In Josephus, the Bible, and

History, edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 147-172. Detroit: Wayne State
Waterman, L. Preliminary Report of the University ofMichigan Excavations At

Sepphoris, Palestine in 1931. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1937.
Wenham, J. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic
Problem. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992.
White, L. M. "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenence: The Social Location of

the Matthean Community." In Social History of the Matthean Community:
Cross-Disciplinary Approaches, edited by D. L. Balch, 211-247. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991.
Witherington, B. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
"The World Factbook - Rank Order - GDP - real growth rate." The Central
Intelligence Agency, 2008.
Zeitlin, S. "The Am haarez." JQR 23 (1932): 45-61.
Zertal, A. "The Heart of the Monarchy: Pattern of Settlement and New Historical
Considerations of the Israelite Kingdom of Samaria." In Studies in the
Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, edited by A. Mazar, 38-64.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001.

From Antipas To Agrippa II Galilee in The First-Century CE

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

From Antipas To Agrippa II Galilee in The First-Century CE

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

From Antipas to Agrippa II:

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

Bradley Walter Root

Professor David Goodblatt, Chair

All rights reserved.

Bradley Walter Root, 2009

All rights reserved.

in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically:

University of California, San Diego

Signature Page iii

A Brief Note on Terminology 1

Chapter 2: My Approach to the New Testament Evidence 28

Chapter 3: Galilee According to Q 33

Chapter 4: Galilee According to Mark 63

Chapter 5: Galilee According to M and L 77

Chapter 6: Galilee According to John And Thomas 106

Chapter 7: Galilee According to Josephus 123

Chapter 8: The Archaeology of First-Century CE Galilee 176

Chapter 9: Conclusions 222

AncSoc Ancient Society

ANRW Augstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

HTR Harvard Theological Review

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JQR Jewish Quarterly Reivew

JFA Journal of Field Archaeology

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly

NEA Near Eastern Archaeology

NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NTS New Testament Studies

ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

2002 Bachelor of Arts, University of California, San Diego

2006 Master of Arts, University of California, San Diego

2009 Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego

Major Field: Ancient Jewish Studies

Studies in Greco-Roman History

Studies in Early Christian Religion

Studies in the History of Ancient Israel

From Antipas to Agrippa II:

Bradley Walter Root

Doctor of Philosophy in History

University of California, San Diego, 2009

Professor David Goodblatt, Chair

that Galilee experienced extensive Hellenization, rapid urbanization, and a socio-

economic crisis in the first-century C.E. as a result of major socio-economic changes

scholars interpret the archaeological evidence, and vice-versa.

dissertation analyzes the data as a whole and offers a reconstruction of Galilean

urbanization process initiated by Herod Antipas had less of a negative immediate

JUDEA AND IUDAEA

Judea, or the region of Judea in a stricter sense—excluding Galilee, Samaria, Idumaea,

In order to avoid anachronism, offense, and ambiguity, I have decided to use

GREEK AND SEMITIC PLACE NAMES