Ben,
As an interested evangelical layperson, I have read Horsley, Meier, and Crossan. Along with what you have said in points 1) through 4) in your blog, I still think that Horsley (and NT Wright, who has referred to him) still have something important to say about the Gospel confrontation and it’s subsuming of Roman Imperialism. Here is a reply to a letter from Paulus Fabius Maximus, Roman Governer of Asia, to the cities of Asia, 9 BC regarding the celebration of Augustus’ birthday, “Since the providence that has divinely ordered our existence has applied her energy and zeal and has brought to life the most perfect good in Augustus, whom she filled with virtues for the benefit of mankind, bestowing him upon us and our descendants as a savior – he who put an end to war and will order peace, Caesar, who by his epiphany exceeded the hopes of those who prophesied good tidings (euaggelion), not only outdoing benefactors of the past, but also allowing no hope of greater benefactions in the future; and since the birthday of the god first brought to the world the good tidings (euaggelion) residing in him. … For that reason, with good fortune and safety, the Greeks of Asia have decided that New Year in all he cities should begin on 23rd September, the birthday of Augustus. … and that the letter of the proconsul and the decree of Asia should be inscribed on a pillar white marble, which is to be placed in the sacred precinct of Rome and Augustus.”
Priene is just South of Ephesus there is an engraving, “The people to Athena of the city, and to the imperator (or the world conqueror) Caesar the son of god, the god Augustus”
I am sure that you are aware of both these quotes. Anyone living in the Mediterranean east would have a very good idea what the word Gospel meant, the first idea would about the good news of Caesar rather than the good news of Jesus and his saving the world from sin. Would you go so far as to reduce the influence of Horsley without eliminating it the way you say in point 4)?
Happy Thanksgiving
Jerry

Hi Jerry:
I am well aware of this, and it is not entirely relevant. This is material from the province of Asia, the most Roman of all provinces in the east. Galilee is not part of a Roman province, has no Roman governors nor are there any Roman troops stationed in lower Galilee. Just the odd centurion here and there, and they were often not Romans at all- they were auxiliaries, recruited in Syria and elsewhere- i.e. Syrians. I think the sort of material you are siting is of course relevant to the study of Pauline letters written to places like Thessalonike, Philippi, Ephesus. Such inscriptions have not been found in Galilee, nor have any imperial cult temples. The imperial presence is found outside the boundaries of Galilee in places like Omrit and where there were already Greek cities (.e.g, Banyas). The imperial cult did not in fact become all that pervasive in the Empire before the time of Nero, and was certainly not to be found in any significant way in the far east in Israel or Nabatea during the time of Jesus.
BW3

I disagree with Mr. Worthington. There is so much history regarding Rome’s conquering and destroying culture after culture, and not just in the Middle East. Look at Poncius Pilate, who was recalled to Rome for killing too many Jews thereby cutting the taxes Rome received. I tend to lean to the theories of Dom Crossan because they make sense to me. Jesus was angry. Look at his behavior with the money changers in the temple. I hope more evidence is discovered to add to this discussion.

Dr. Witherington,
I just was reading Mark 8:27 and recall that some of the commentaries mentioned that there was findings of the imperial cult in Caesarea Philippi dating back to the first century C.E. This of course you are well aware of but I would still like to hear your comments about this fact.
Thank you for your time,
Chris

A few comments. Caesarea Philippi is not in the Holy Land! It is the Greek city of Banyas which I referred to. Pontius Pilate was recalled precisely because of his brutal behavior towards Jews. The Romans you will remember allowed the Jews not to worship pagan gods or the Emperor, but rather to worship their own God. Furthermore, the Romans allowed the Jews an exemption from funding Roman temples, and instead they paid a Temple tax to their own temple. Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Judean province. He had no control over Galilee. There is no evidence of the Imperial cult at Caesarea Philippi, but there is a shrine of Augustus at Omrit, which also is outside the Holy Land. My point is simply this– Crossan and Horsley have greatly exaggerated the reality of the Roman presence and influence in the north, in Galilee. They have also misread what ordinary Jews thought about the Temple. Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple can be read in several ways– if it is a prophetic sign act, cleansing the temple, then the problem is not with the temple but with the economic activities the priests and Levites were allowing in the court of the Gentiles. If the problem is the Temple itself, this has to do with God’s judgment on Jewish corruption, not on Rome.
Blessings
BW3

The “Jewishness” of Galilee within the archeological record can be attributed to the fact that Antipas who took great pains to garner approval from his Jewish subjects. This can be seen in his coinage and buildings (with their respect for Jewish disapproval of image). I don’t think this fact necessarily shows lack of concern with oppression under Roman rule.
In 4 BCE when Herod the Great dies, uprisings happen in the Galilee. His death is seen as a window of opportunity to strike out against the occupying forces. Sepphoris, in the heart of Galilee, is taken over by Jewish rebels, as are other cities. These acts, combined with pervasive banditry in the hill country, don’t seem to point to a people disinterested in the oppression of Empire.
Cross-cultural analysis would seem to show that empire, oppression and lack of independence on any level is regarded in a negative manner by oppressed people in every land and in every age. Occupation of one’s homeland, or governance by the empire’s puppet regime, is never seen positively. People who are part of Empire never understand this. They see their tyranny in a benevolent manner!
I agree that Jesus preached non-resistance but if we fine-focus that term a bit more, it would be more accurate to say that he preached against resistance that entailed violence. He chose social and spiritual resistance. But make no mistake, social resistance is always a threat to empire. Look at what happened the summer that Cindy Sheehan chose non-violent resistance to the war. One person’s stance sparked a time of nation-wide protest. Look at what happened when African-Americans in the south sat at “white” lunch counters or refused to give up seats to whites. Look at the reaction from Republicans when anyone tries to bring up the notion of class-struggle.
Very often, evangelical scholars worry that a salvation based here on earth, will detract from what they perceive as the greater salvation in heaven that belief in Jesus brings. But I take very seriously the premise of the Lord’s Prayer that we are to pray for the kingdom of God – on earth. That we hope for daily bread and debt cancellation. These are, without question, economic concerns and I would submit that if all we ever do is end world hunger and poverty then the kingdom of God will be realized – on earth, just as Jesus prayed for.

Hi Linda: Thanks for this. I would agree with a good deal of what you say about what I would call the social Gospel. Any time there is regime change rebels and bandits see a window of opportunity. That doesn’t mean the mainstream of Jews did for the most part. My point is that Galilee is not part of a Roman province, and as you say Antipas tries to some degree to respect Jewish sensibilities about things religious. I also agree that Jesus is concerned about the kingdom coming on earth— which is what is being prayed for and requires direct divine intervention.
BW3

It seems to me that the very presence of a hundred square meter synagogue in a mini village in the midst of Jesus’s habitual hangouts militates against the notions that the his hearers were on the edge of poverty, that they were taxed beyond endurance, that the Romans interfered with their religious practice, and that they lived on the edge of revolution.
I have one query: yes, it seems to go against the grain of all the evidence to think that Jesus was any sort of peasant. But how could archaeological evidence (except perhaps from Nazareth) serve to support this conclusion? And was there any new evidence reported at the SBL that does so serve?
Also, I’d inquire of Linda Hodges: Granted, the Romans had conquered Palestine and imposed their government upon it–maintained order and extracted taxes. And yes, of course, they were brutal and acted without moral scruple whenever necessary. But (as I understand the situation) they economized on the use of force and limited the extent of their interference in everyday life. My understanding (from Sanders) is that there was no Roman presence at all in Capernaum and Jesus’ other hangouts. And that even in Jerusalem, far from there being a Roman soldier on every street corner, there was a smallish guard force for the procurator (except maybe during Passover or other festivals) with a larger number of troops on call from Syria. This is not Boston 1771 or Baghdad 2004, let alone Algiers 1957. Or is it?

Jesus is called by a term, technos, which indicates he had a trade, and indeed a good and remunerative one whether he was actually a carpenter or a stone mason (either is possible). Furthermore, he is literate, which is by definition not the case with peasants, and indeed only 10-20% of the whole country was literate. Ergo, Jesus is no peasant at all. Furthermore, peasantry is a term normal used to refer to agricultural workers, like day laborers. Again, Jesus does not qualify. My concern is not to exaggerate the Roman presence or influence on daily Jewish life, particularly in Galilee. The influence does not appear to have been great. Romans as a policy tried not to interfere in a person’s religion, and as long as taxes were paid and treason was avoided, you didn’t see much of them unless there was trouble. Even in Pilate’s case, his troops were not stationed in Jerusalem but in Caesarea Maritima.
BW3

Dr. Witherington, Thank you for sharing this information. Please share more as time allows. It meshes nicely with a book I just finished reading, “The Challenge of Jesus,” by NT Wright. It does us absolutely no good to cling to perceptions of Jesus that are proven incorrect by archeology or history. It’s important to have an accurate representation of Jesus so that we can more accurately understand who He was, who He is, and what God expects of us based upon these understandings.
I have thought about your post for the last day or so; have wondered how this might change my applications of who Jesus was. I guess that I did always picture him as a peasant. I will have to ponder that some more.
In light of the concept that Galilee was not under the heavy hand of Roman force, what does this mean for our understanding that there were other “messiahs” pre-dating and post-luding Jesus? Why would the Jews have thought they needed a messiah? What were the zealots revolting against? What were the quietists withdrawing from? What does this do to the concept that “in the fulness of time” (which I have understood to mean a time of political, social, religious upheaval) the true Messiah came? I apologize for operating at a much lower academic level here – I’m sure this is basic comprehension 101 – but I really do want to understand. Even though I love Him immensely, I struggle to put the Big Picture of Jesus together sometimes, and I want to do that as accurately as possible.

Ben you write: I also agree that Jesus is concerned about the kingdom coming on earth— which is what is being prayed for and requires direct divine intervention.
With regard to divine intervention – it can be thought of in different ways – as is the case with Jesus and John the Baptist. There is evidence within the pages of the NT that John the Baptist and Jesus had a split. Jesus was initially part of the Baptist movement and therefore accepted his message. But something happens to split them apart. Jesus eventually becomes a leader on his own and does things differently than John. I think this difference had to do with a difference in message at some point. They may have come to disagree as to how divine intervention was to happen.
The divine intervention that John was waiting for involved wrath and fire and an avenging, God. Jesus, most likely, accepted that at first. But after John was executed by Herod we find Jesus, not at the waters of Jordan, but in the homes and synagogues of the villages of Galilee. He is offering hope – to the poor. He is telling whole villages that daily bread and debt forgiveness (economic realities) are their God-given right. He is calling for a return to covenantal ways when they all depended on each other to maintain their existence as a people of God; a return to loving your neighbor and forgiving their debts if they are indebted to you. And if one of your neighbors had become your enemy during this hard reality of oppression, you needed to forgive them and love them and work together again.
For Jesus the tools, if you will, for divine intervention were already known! God had already provided divine intervention within the pages of the Torah. They just had to remember the way of God and have faith that they were beloved of God – yes, even blessed (the beatitudes) by God. Something in Jesus’ message struck a chord and sparked hope in the hearts of the poor. Things began to change – on earth – right then! (Of course an inspired populace, demanding what is rightfully theirs, is not what Rome would want…)
When John the Baptist is still in Herod’s prison awaiting his fate, he sends his disciples to Jesus to ask if he is the one. I interpret that to mean – is your way of bringing about the kingdom the way that is really going to work this time? Is this in fact how God intervenes – through the Torah and covenantal ways; through restoring hope to a beleaguered people and lifting them up – not as poor people responsible for the plight they find themselves in – but as those who deserve food and drink and laughter and peace – in short the Kingdom of God? As answer Jesus tells John’s disciples to tell John of the healing and message of hope that the poor are receiving. Yes, John, this is the way. Divine intervention the Jesus way is something that is still open to us today.

This is an awesome post. Over and over again, there is archaeological evidence that Aramaic was the language that Galileans (such as Yeshua) spoke. There are numerous other examples of Aramaic in archaeology. Yet, almost every book on NT Greek grammar says that Yeshua spoke Greek. It is bizarre indeed. Archaeology points to Aramaic, rather than Greek, as being the usual spoken language in 1st century Israel.

“Also, I’d inquire of Linda Hodges: Granted, the Romans had conquered Palestine and imposed their government upon it–maintained order and extracted taxes. And yes, of course, they were brutal and acted without moral scruple whenever necessary. But (as I understand the situation) they economized on the use of force and limited the extent of their interference in everyday life.”
Roman Empire – their government laws, edicts, prisons and punishments – were well established and known throughout the provinces they occupied/owned. They maintained tight control through their puppet regimes and had tight control of the high priesthood and the Sadducean aristocracy.
Mind control was important and effective. Regular, public acts of crucifixion, whippings, and other forms of execution, maintained fear (and order) in the people. Fear of imprisonment, scourging, whippings and rape kept people in line. Enslaving people and taking over their lands created a population of day workers (as in the NT), tenant farmers, and women forced into prostitution as well as men who became part of brigands in order to survive. This caused dissention and friction among people and village communities – a divide and conquer tool that was exploited by the Empire.
These conditions, brought about by Roman occupation, caused the Jewish poor (upwards of 90% of the population) to believe that God had cursed them and that the situation was of their own doing. This depression or malaise served to keep them in line, too. Jesus brought hope. He made them believe that things could be different. He reminded them that they were God’s own and that Caesar was not God. It follows that good news of this kind (for the people) did not serve the interests of Empire.

For a sharply different picture of life in Palestine c. 30 AD, see theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm
On the view expounded there, by E.P. Sanders, there were no Roman troops in Antipas’s Galilee. The Romans’ designated ruler acted with restraint–for instance, issued no coins with his visage, or Augustus’s, or later Tiberias’s, and did not locate gymnasia where Jews resided. In Galilee there were no Roman troops, only those of Antipas’s own army, which was largely Jewish. His governors and magistrates were Jews. On the whole, the law, the courts, the education was Jewish, and Antipas took care not to offend Jewish sensibilities. .
There were few troops even in Jerusalem except for three times a year when festivals swelled the population to 300,000 and 3,000 troops were brought in. Day to day governance was in the hands of the priestly aristocracy, whose rule was preferred by most people to any monarch’s. The high priest, Joseph Caiphas, ruled for seventeen years. Roman troops seldom policed the city at all, “and did nothing to plant Greco-Roman laws and customs in the Jewish parts of the country.”
I believe that Joseph and the other rulers were selected in accord with Jewish tradition and law, and not imposed by Pilate or his cronies.
Even though the evidence is limited, and the time long ago, and Palestine a backwater, it’s fascinating that even after so much assiduous research, from the vantage of the early 21st century observers can reach vastly differing conclusions about the circumstances of the ministry of the founder of the world’s greatest religion, and hence the import of his gospel.

Hi Linda:
There was a difference in message between Jesus and John. John offered the message of OT prophets like Amos— judgment on God’s people would be followed by salvation, and indeed some would be spared the judgment if they repented. See Luke 3. Jesus on the other hand reversed this– Good News with healings and exorcisms now. Judgment later. Jesus warned the Temple in Jerusalem would go down within a generation. I don’t think there is any historical evidence Jesus was a confederate or disciple of John. The baptism of Jesus is not sufficient to draw this conclusion since many were baptized by John who were not his disciples. I do think however that Jesus endorsed John’s ministry highly as the forerunner, and you are quite right that John in the end was confused as to whether Jesus was the one who is to come. Note that Jesus’ response to John’s query refers to the miracles.
BW3

“I don’t think there is any historical evidence Jesus was a confederate or disciple of John.”
Not any evidence–none at all.
‘The baptism of Jesus is not sufficient to draw this conclusion since many were baptized by John who were not his disciples.”
Would it distort this statement to add the word “evidence” after the word “sufficient”?
I suppose John had few “disciples,” perhaps none. But surely those who sought his baptism accepted a good deal of what he proclaimed. Would it be mistaken, on the basis of the evidence available–chiefly Mark 1:1-11 and John 1:19-37, also Matthew 3:1-15 and Luke 3:1-22–to conclude that as Linda Hodges puts it, Jesus “was initially part of the Baptist movement and therefore accepted his message”?

Dear Ben and nonbelieverinasocialorevenliberalJesus,
I agree with the reversal notion as you put it and certainly that model has been used in modern times. South Africa is a prime example of a rising social tide of change and then judgment/reparations/forgiveness later. The same holds true for the Civil Rights movement in this country. They began to live the dream (e.g. sitting at “white” lunch counters, seats on buses, “white” water fountains and bathrooms) well before that dream was given legal standing (i.e. voter rights and integration).
If Jesus warned of the demise of the Temple at the hands of Empire then his analysis was correct. Most of the time Empire has its way. If Mark was written after 70 CE then it’s a redaction.
As for Jesus accepting John’s message, his baptism doesn’t make sense unless he did. When I accepted Christ at a Billy Graham crusade, at age 16, it follows that I accepted Billy Graham’s message – otherwise why bother? The fact that Jesus later diverged from John’s message shows a growth curve, a change of heart or a change in understanding.
John had disciples (Mark 2:18, Luke 5:33; John 3:25; Mt 9:14). At one point Jesus’ disciples ask him to teach them to pray because John taught his disciples to pray (Luke 11:1-3). It doesn’t sound as if John is a forerunner so much as an honored rival (John 3; Luke 5:33). History is told by the winners. The fact that John is later deemed a forerunner fit well into the prophetic mold of the Christian story as it unfolded. It is well-known that John’s movement continued on as a distinct, non-Christian movement and still has followers to this day. Jesus clearly chose another path.

There is an enormous difference between agreeing with someone and becoming their disciple, especially if Jesus was getting baptized for the sake of others, in this case the lost sheep of Israel. So I will repeat, Jesus was not a disciple of John though he was certainly supportive of him and his ministry.
BW3

Hey Ben, thanks for the post! Great information.

Others (Crossan for one) have said it better than I but the notion of Jesus being baptized solely for the sake of others is found in John which is our latest source. A progression in thought, and through time, can be found starting with Mark and ending with John. Jesus may not have been a disciple of John’s but he must have initially been supportive and in agreement with him and his ministry. Perhaps it was a situation like Josephus with Bannus. Jesus may have learned from the teachings of John and then went his own way with his own disciples. It seems that near John’s death, some of John’s disciples came to follow Jesus.

Dr Ben,
Thanks for an informative post. Yes, the Romans may have governed with a ‘light’ touch as long as you pay your taxes and don’t declare independence, rebel, etc. That, however, does not mean that the populace did not in general believe that they were under occupation by a foreign power.
Roman armies in general need not in physically present in a particular locale for the weight of Rome to be felt – they were renowned for marching far and fast to put down any local misdemeanors.
The fact that Rome is the overlord (through client rulers) is the premise upon which NT Wright presents his case that the Jews believed that they were still in exile in 1st Century AD. I understand that Craig Evans seems to have concurred. The Jews in Palestine believed that despite their religious freedom of worship they were in fact a people still exiled and subjugated in their own land.
Rome’s shadow is present through the Gospels if only in the background (Roman census, taxes, hatred towards tax collectors, Caesar’s coin) except the brief confused judgment by Pilate to give in to the crowd, but finally bursts through in AD.70 when the full imperial power of Rome was brought to bear on Jerusalem. Surely there must have been an undercurrent of nationalistic feeling in Jewish hearts against foreign occupiers or overlords from the Syrians to Rome.
It is of course possible to overstate the case that everything Jesus said and did was against Rome; however the backdrop of a foreign overlord set against Jewish hopes and expectations for the Messiah shouldn’t be down-played either.
Blessings,
Keith

Dr. Witherington, I was at Migdal (and Nazareth too) in January 2010. Fabulous site! I have great pictures of the frescoed walls (I can show you pictures if you haven’t seen them if you email me but these cannot be public until Dina Avshalom-Gorni publishes the site). There is some discussion of the parallel building being a Beit Midrash.
I am eager to read Part II of this November post.