I must admit that this year I really over-booked myself-- I had an ETS seminar on commentaries to do on my Matthew commentary Friday afternoon, a lecture at the apologetics seminar at New Orleans Baptist on Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol Friday night, a lecture on Oral and Rhetorical Texts at the BAR Biblefest Saturday morning at 9 a.m. and then a Matthew seminar session Sunday morning (see the previous blog post). But somehow on the rest of Saturday and Sunday and Monday I managed to hear some good jazz in the French Quarter, sing some do wop with three soul brothers on Royale St. (Platters, Drifters, and Temptations) snarf up some beignettes and crawfish and jambalaya and moufaletas, keep my publishers happy, see some friends, and learn something.. especially at the sessions on Recent Excavations and Discoveries in Galilee.
The lectures that were more most helpful were Mordecai Aviam's on Synagogues of Galilee, Dan Showalter's lecture, C.T. McCullough on Khirbet Qana and Andy Overman's superb discussion on various locales in the Galilee including the discovery of the first century A.D. synagogue at Migdal.
This post will focus on Migdal, but first some general considerations that came out of these sessions: 1) its time to stop talking about some sort of strong Roman presence, particularly a strong military presence in the villages and towns in Galilee, and equally it is time to stop talking about taxation so severe that the locales couldn't survive and to stop talking about large estates in Galilee swallowing up all the land of the small land holders in Galilee, and to stop minimizing the profoundly religious character of these villagers in Galilee. 2) its also time to stop talking as if Jesus was a peasant, by any definition; 3) its time to stop talking about a 'Temple domination system run from Jerusalem (see the critique in A.J. Levine's A Misunderstood Jew of this sort of talk), when in fact it appears that most Jews gladly celebrated the feasts in Jerusalem and support the Temple; 4) it is also time to stop talking about Jesus largely alluding to the Imperial cult or the empire of Caesar as a counterfoil to his discussions about God's eschatological Dominion breaking in through his ministry (see e.g.the critique in Chris Bryan's Render unto Caesar). In other words, its time to say that the archaeological and historical evidence do not really support the exaggerated claims of Dick Horsley and Dom Crossan and others on these matters. Far better to listen to those doing the archaeology in the field like Overman and Showalter who are much more guarded in painting the picture of Jesus' context and social world. Let's take a couple of examples from the actual archaeology of the region that illustrate my point.
Migdal was a little fishing village on the northwest corner of the Sea of Galilee, between Capernaum and Bethsaida. It's most famous resident, Biblically speaking was named Miryam of Migdal (aka Mary Magdalene). Our first picture is of the aerial view of the synagogue which has been recently unearthed there---
This is a quite substantial building (10 by 10 meters) and indeed a purpose built building (not a home used as a synagogue). Both the in situ coins and the pottery found date this to the first century A.D. This is the kind of place Jesus will have visited in his travels along the sea of Galilee, as the Synoptics inform us. Below you will see the elaborate artistic work done for this synagogue that has been unearthed.
Even more spectacular is the following find...
The best guess as to what this is a stone base for a table on which Scripture scrolls might be rolled out (Aviram's suggestion). Notice not only the nice menorah on the end of the base as well as the amphorae and the floral patterns and the trees, presumably palm trees. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make this for a synagogue in a tiny, tiny town like Migdal. And this brings me to a crucial point. It is always a critical mistake to downplay the piety of early Jews and their dedication to their religion, even in the small villages and towns in Galilee. In McCullough's lecture on Khirbet Qana (probably the site of Biblical Cana) he pointed out the remarkable number of mikvas, ritual bathing pools, found in this tiny town as well as amphorae with Aramaic inscriptions on them. This comports with the finding of numerous Jewish nationalistic coins (e.g. Maccabean ones) in various of the digs in Galilee.
The attempt to reduce the discussion to matters of pure economics or politics will not work in analyzing Galilee or Galileans in general in the first century or the historical Jesus, but at the same time one must not ignore the importance of economic and political factors in the analysis of the region. There must be some balance, and for my money Andrew Overman's work shows the right sort of balance about such matters. As Overman reminds us, changes in Galilee came slowly before the Jewish wars, and gradually. Roman intrusion was not drastic or pervasive, and is largely in evidence on the perimeter of the Holy Land at places like Omrit and Caesarea Philippi, places where there was a Romanization of a site that was already a Hellenistic Greek area or town. In the purely Jewish traditional villages within the Holy Land region known as the Galilee one can in fact not really find much evidence of Romanization. Instead what one finds in Aramaic inscriptions and mikvas and the like.
The archaeological evidence as we have it needs to be carefully sifted and then compared with the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves. In my view there is really no basis for seeing the Jesus movement as a resistance movement launching out against an ever more intrusive Roman presence in Galillee. Indeed the teaching of Jesus is about nonresistance!
Jesus was not a Zealot, nor an encourager of those who lived by the sword. Nor was he happy when his own disciples took them up (see the episode in the Garden of Gethsemane with Peter and the high priest's slave). Jesus was indeed the prince of peace who road into Jerusalem not on a war charger, but on a donkey (see the prophecy of Zechariah). Neither Jesus nor his disciples objected to paying their taxes or the tribute money, indeed there are repeated stories of Jesus' dining with tax collectors and recruiting them to be disciples.
If anything, Jesus saw Caesar and other such rulers as an irrelevance, which could not stop or aid the coming of the eschatological Dominion of God on earth. Indeed, Jesus is reported to have said that Pilate would have had no authority over Jesus if God had not granted it to him. Human rulers and human kingdoms were not Jesus' main concern. Bringing salvation to one and all, was, a salvation which certainly had social and political dimensions and implications, but one of them was not setting up a pattern of opposition to Romanization in Galilee. We will say more in our next post.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
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
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.