Notes to Chapter 12
Notes to Chapter 12
1 In these and subsequent introductory quotations from Gospels, I have paraphrased where I believed this would help communicate the sense in English. Because of variant forms between Matthew and Luke, I have cited one or the other even though preferring those presumed to be from “Q.”
2 For the value of his using his Galilean Jewish context, see e.g., Osiek, “Jesus and Galilee”; Freyne, Galilean; idem, “Jesus and Archaeology”; Sawicki, Crossing Galilee; Race, “Influence”; Schuler, “Archaeology.” On Galilee, see further discussions in Freyne, Galilee; Freyne, Galilee and Gospel; Horsley, Galilee.
3 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 101.
4 Flusser, Sage, 2.
5 For the deep urban/rural divide in Mediterranean antiquity, cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 15, 32; Lee, “Unrest,” 128; Longus 2.22; Alciph. Farm. 11 (Sitalces to Oenopion, his son), 3.14 (cf. 38 [Euthydicus to Philiscus], 3.40, ¶3); Fish. 4 (Cymothoüs to Tritonis), 1.4, ¶4; Philost. Hrk. 4.6-10. Roman law treated country dwellers as less educated (Robinson, Criminal Law, 17), and the urban elite expressed surprise at educated rural persons (Pliny Ep. 7.25.4-6).
6 E.g., m. Ned. 2:4. In later sources, see also p. Hag. 3:4, §1; for Judean sources with antipathy toward Galilee, see discussion in Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 46-57; Freyne, Galilee, 1-2.
7 Again, partly reflecting the urban/rural divide. Pharisees seem to have been primarily an urban movement (cf. also perhaps Jos. Ant. 18.15), whereas the Jesus movement began as a primarily rural movement (becoming urbanized shortly after the resurrection and only later penetrating into the rural areas outside Palestine; cf. Judge, Pattern, 60-61; Schmeller, “Weg”).
8
Tos. Demai 1:10. It may be true that particular customs did predominate in some regions: most cities and regions in the Empire had some idiosyncratic traditions (e.g., Paus. 2.1.1).
9 This is not to deny abundant evidence that Jesus’ movement also continued to flourish in Galilee; see Saunders, “Synagogues”; Meyers, “Judaism and Christianity,” 69, 71. Much earlier, Julian repeatedly calls Christians “Galileans” (see in Stern, Authors, 502-72, passim); cf. Epict. Diatr. 4.7.6. But while some construct a Galilean “community” for “Q,” its Galilean features likely simply represent authentic Jesus tradition (Dunn, New Perspective, 27), whether composed in Galilee or not.
10 With e.g., Dunn, “Synagogue,” 207-12.
11 Freyne, Galilee, 2 (citing Grundmann, Jesus der Galiläer, from 1941). Schürer’s construct is now recognized as fallacious (Reed, Archaeology, 53-54). Most readers will not need to be reminded of the dominant ideology in the time and place in which Grundmann was writing. Larger worldviews have long shaped constructs of Galilee (see Moxnes, “Construction”).
12 Freyne, Galilee, 169.
13 Freyne, Galilee, 170; idem, “Jesus and Archaeology”; Reed, Archaeology, 52.
14 See Reed, Archaeology, 100-38. For the contrast between Sepphoris’ elite and the countryside, see Reed, Archaeology, 134-35.
15 Freyne, Galilee, 143-44. For an earlier period, see especially 1 Macc 5:15; cf. also Syon, “Evidence.” Gentile sites cluster on Galilee’s perimeter (Reed, Archaeology, 51-52).
16 Goodman, State, 41-53; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 93; cf. Overman, “Archaeology.”
17 Vale, “Sources.”
18 See Chancey, Myth; idem, “How Jewish?”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 116-19 and the sources they cite (esp. Jonathan Reed; Mark Chancey; Sean Freyne; and Eric Meyers).
19 See Levine, Hellenism, 94-95; Strange, “Galilee,” 395-96; Chancey, Galilee; Gregory, “Galilee.”
20 Goodman, State, 31-32.
21 Meyers, “Regionalism”; cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus, 19.
22 Goodman, State, 88-89. Hellenization was limited before Antipas (see Chancey, “Milieu”; idem, Galilee; the approval of Chancey in Gregory, “Galilee”). I would probably allow for more hellenization (and certainly Greek language) than Chancey does, but his research remains invaluable and challenges wrong-headed assumptions of radical hellenization.
23 Horsley, Galilee, 250-51, also commenting on the lack of public baths in the villages. Public baths were a necessity for urban hellenists (e.g., Diog. Laert. 6.2.40; Mart. Epig. 12.82; Paus. 2.3.5; Apul. Metam. 2.2; Yegül, “Complex”; among Palestinian Jews, cf. tos. Ber. 2:20; B.K. 9:12).
24 A portrayal that would probably be necessary to sustain the Cynic thesis.
25 Cf. already Jeremias, Promise, 35. Those who wish to place Jesus in a hellenistic context have inappropriately exaggerated the cultural influence of these two cities on the surrounding countryside; see more correctly Horsley, Galilee, 174-81, who rightly cites Jos. Life 374-75, 384 and other evidence.
26 Freyne, Galilee, 216-17; cf. e.g., b. Erub. 53b.
27 Although most of the texts cited by Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 54, do not support his case, m. Ned. 2:4 does. The Palestinian Amoraic account of Johanan ben Zakkai’s rejection in Galilee might also be instructive (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56-57).
28 Cf. e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.43; Malinowski, “Tendencies”; Horsley, Galilee, 152-55; cf. Mayer, “Anfang”; Manns, “Galilée”; Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 37-38, 45; Dunn, “Synagogue,” 207-12. Indeed, they may have been more strict with respect to some traditional customs than Judea was (m. Pes. 4:5; cf. especially in upper Galilee, Meyers, “Regionalism”).
29 E.g., Akiba (p. R.H. 4:6, §1). That halakhic customs varied is clear (e.g., p. Ket. 4:14, §1, following m. Ket. 4:14; p. Ned. 2:4, §3).
30 Freyne, “Relations”; Freyne, Galilee, 178-90 (the exception being Sepphoris, Jos. Life 348-49).
31 Freyne, Galilee, 150-52.
32 See e.g., Reed, Archaeology, 44-51; Dunn, “Synagogue,” 207-12.
33 Cf. Reed, Archaeology, 44-45; Reich, “Jars”; Safrai, “Home,” 741; Avigad, “Flourishing,” 59; idem, Jerusalem, 183; cf. Schwank, “Wasserkrüge”; Magen, “Yrwslym”; Gal, “T’syyt.”
34 Reed, Archaeology, 49-51 (esp. 49 on Sepphoris). Cf. Jn 2:6.
35 Reed, Archaeology, 49; on 45-47, he deals with the usefulness of these in identifying Jewish sites; on 47-49, Jewish burial practices. See also Eric Meyers in Eshel and Meyers, “Pools” (with Eshel being more skeptical); Reich, “Baths.” Roman secondary burial (of ashes in urns or boxes) may have influenced the custom (Levine, Hellenism, 67; McCane, “Burial Practices,” 174), but Jewish bone burial remains distinctive and limited especially to this period.
36 Reed, “Contributions,” 53.
37 Berlin, “Life.”
38 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 5, 153 n. 8; Davies, Setting, 450; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 144.
39 See Freyne, “Religion.” For Galilean loyalty to Jerusalem, see especially Jos. Life 198.
40 Goodman, State, 93-118; cf. Freyne, “Religion.” The Pharisees on the whole were probably centered in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee (Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56-57; Neusner, Crisis, 38; but cf. perhaps Jos. Ant. 20.43), and their immediate successors settled in Jamnia, which was also in Judea.
41 Goodman, State, 107. (The rabbis’ idealism concerning tithes probably also did not commend itself to more agrarian peasants; see Goodman, State, 178.)
42 Technically he was from Gamala across the Jordan (Jos. Ant. 18.4; Witherington, Christology, 88-89).
43 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 46-48; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 4-5 (especially on Upper Galilee). Zeitlin and some others even argued that Josephus used “Galilean” as a revolutionary rather than geographical title; Zeitlin, “Galileans”; Loftus, “Note”; cf. idem, “Revolts” (though he could be correct about continuing Hasmonean sympathies).
44 Armenti, “Galileans”; Freyne, “Galileans”; Bilde, “Galilaea.”
45 E.g., his military praise in Jos. War 3.41.
46 Freyne, Galilee, 162.
47 Freyne, Galilee, 195; Witherington, Christology, 88-90.
48 Although Josephus claims three million residents in Galilee in 67 CE (Life 235; War 3.43), Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 109, suggests that his 60,000 recruits from there may suggest a likelier population of perhaps 750,000 (War 2.583).
49 Some others offer still lower estimates; Hoehner, Antipas, 291-95, suspects roughly 200,000 (about 266 persons per square mile). Multiplying the number of known settlements (from literary or archaeological sources) by Galilee’s population density in the late nineteenth century, Goodman, State, 32, suggests 300,000. But these lower estimates may depend too much on extant information, underestimating how much evidence has been lost. Galilee seems to have been densely populated with villages (Freyne, Galilee, 144, citing the 204 villages in Jos. Life 235).
50 Freyne, Galilee, 171.
51 Reed, Archaeology, 215-16.
52 Freyne, Galilee, 144-45, citing Jos. Life 58; cf. Freyne, “Galileans.”
53 Goodman, State, 120; Horsley, Galilee, 251. Freyne, “Ethos,” argues for some limited trade connections but notes that this does not indicate a cultural or religious continuum.
54 Freyne, Galilee, 146-47.
55 Reed, Archaeology, 97-99.
56 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56 (suggesting 1600-2000 inhabitants); more recent estimates are even lower (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193), though these match other Galilean villages (Horsley, Galilee, 193).
57 Indeed, its insignificance invited attempts at biblical justification (such as Matt 2:23; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:274).
58 Though Jn 1:46 might reflect local civic rivalry (Barnett, Reliable, 64), a common issue in antiquity (MacMullen, Social Relations, 58-59). Even Jesus’ invitation to a wedding in Cana in John 2 fits the sites’ relative proximity (on which see e.g., Charlesworth, “Research and Archaeology,” 39; Richardson, “Khirbet Qana”), despite John’s failure to emphasize this point; for further discussion, see Keener, John, 495-96.
59 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 164-65. See e.g., Mk 1:9, 24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Matt 2:23; Lk 2:4; Jn 1:45-46; 18:5-7; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 10:38; and a possibly derogatory title for the movement in Acts 24:5.
60 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 115.
61 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:378, following Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 58.
62 Sanders, Figure, 103; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 115; Horsley, Galilee, 194. The more current, lower estimates appear to be more likely (this village is no more well known to Josephus’ readers in Life 403 than any other in the vicinity), but more information may force us to revise the estimates.
63 Some believed that coming from a famous city was necessary for happiness (Plut. Demosth. 1.1); Plutarch thinks that life in a famous city is necessary only if one needs exposure (Demosth. 2.1; cf. Jn 7:3-4).
64 See Farmer, “Peter and Paul,” 46-50. Those located near there may have also been interested (cf. Jn 1:44).
65 See m. B.B. 1:5; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:378.
66 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 50; note especially the miracle-working Jacob of Capernaum. On the application of some rabbinic uses of minim to Christians, see e.g., the sources cited in Keener, John, 197-203, 211-12.
67 Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 109, 111-12; Loffreda, “Scoperte”; Strange and Shanks, “House,” 26-37; Hengel, Property, 27; Blue, “House Church,” 138. Some other scholars, however, find the tradition and supporting archaeological evidence to be relatively late (Taylor, “Capernaum”).
68 In 1910, Burkitt, Sources, 14, expressed skepticism that anyone would invent Galilean towns missing in the OT, like Capernaum and nearby Chorazin. One might argue the same for Cana (Jn 2:1- 2; Keener, John, 495-96), though (with a few exceptions) I have deliberately excluded John from this work’s consideration.
69 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 49.
70 Mk 8:22, 26; Jos. Life 399; War 2.168; Ant. 18.28; Pliny N.H. 5.71; Ptolemy Geography 5.16.4.
71 Euseb. Onom. 333; perhaps b. Men. 85a, but cf. tos. Men. 9:2. In a much later period, see Yeivin, “Ark,” 75; Goodenough, Symbols, 193-99; Turnheim, “Decoration.”
72 Adinolfi, “Lago.”
73 Arav and Rousseau, “Bethsaïde.”
74 Charlesworth, “Sketch,” 97. The presence of Greek culture in Bethsaida may also help explain Jn 12:21 (Charlesworth, “Sketch,” 97-98); that the town remained in another tetrarchy officially outside Antipas’ “Galilee” until 34 CE might also allow for Decapolis Greeks to know Philip (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 50).
75 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 51 n. 73. Rejection after a miracle may be a form of negative acclamation, but otherwise is virtually unparalleled outside early Christian texts (Theissen, Miracle Stories, 72).
76 Witherington, Christology, 166.
77 Acts 21:3-6; 27:3; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 52.
78 Witherington, Christology, 166.
79 So Bultmann, Tradition, 112. Also pace Bultmann, the prophecy looks back on only the Galilean ministry as completed, and that only in Matthew’s redaction (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 51 n. 73).
80 Greek sources suggest that they may not always have been of the highest reputation (Horsley, Documents 5:100), although around the Lake of Galilee the demands of local economy probably would outweigh any influence from imported perspectives.
81 Freyne, Galilee, 241. Cf. ILS 7486; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 29-30; Hengel, Property, 27.
82 Horsley, Galilee, 194.
83 Safrai, “Home,” 747. Cf. fishing implements found in Bethsaida (Arav, “Bethsaida”). Cf. also the abundance of small boats available for crossing the sea from one town to another (Jos. Life 163-64); on the recovered Galilean fishing boat (26.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet), see Riesner, “Neues”; Wachsmann, “Galilee Boat”; Stone, “Galilee Boat”; Andiñach, “Barca”; Peachey, “Kinneret Boat.”
84 Neusner, Beginning, 23. A custom of eating fish on the Sabbath (Safrai, “Home,” 747) may have obtained this early, though Galileans near the lake surely ate fish much more regularly.
85 Horsley, Documents 5:99. Among the poor elsewhere, smoked fish could rank “the most popular item” in a general market’s sales for a day (P. Oxy. 520; Lewis, Life, 136).
86 Some aspects of this “M” parable, of course, reflect Matthew’s stylistic adjustments, probably including weeping and gnashing of teeth, which appears in “Q” (Matt 8:12//Lk 13:28), but which Matthew apparently transfers to various other sayings as well (Matt 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30).
87 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:393-94.
88 Cf. also Lachs, Commentary, 58. Wilkins, Discipleship, 43-91, finds characteristics of master-disciple relationships in some OT relationships, most convincingly the prophetic groups (Samuel’s and Elisha’s mentorship) and, less demonstrably, the scribal tradition (cf. perhaps CD 8.20-21).
89 Witherington, Christology, 129-30.