Josphus: Jesus and John the Baptist

[outhouse]

"Sepphoris and the area surrounding it was inhabited by Jews whose Jewish practices show points of continuity with the Judaism practiced in Judea.

.

I agree, Judea was heavily Hellenized.

There were many groups of Hellenized Proselytes and different degrees that practiced Judaism.

These non Jews practicing Judaism and had been for centuries but would not convert were not considered pagan because they worshipped the same deity as Judaism, the monotheistic god. And that is all that Reed is stating.

Are you claiming all of Judaism before the temple fell was similar?

Was Herod Antipas Jewish? or just sympathetic for monetary reasons?

His people had occupied Sepphoris, and these were not the same people who occupied Nazareth and Capernaum.

I will propose Sepphoris was very much like Tiberias.

Can you really state there was no divide between Israelite Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I agree, Judea was heavily Hellenized.

That's the opposite of what the quote means. The way that Strange and Meyers and others determined how "Hellenized" places like Sepphoris were is
1) The lack of indicators of traditional Jewish practices, traditions, etc.
2) The influx of non-Jewish elements replacing the above (e.g., the type of coins, the nature of the roofings, etc.)

This is how one determines the degree to which "gentile/hellenistic" influences have made their way into a predominantly Jewish population and/or region. The reason that it was argued Sepphoris and so forth were all very hellenized was because
1) The excavations were ongoing and so were the analyses of them and
2) It was assumed to begin with.

The fact that we don't find the evidence of hellenistic practices, traditions, cultural elements, etc., in 1st Sepphoris removes the only reason we had for thinking Sepphoris was a hellenized city. If it were, then we'd find evidence for non-Jewish elements, rather than evidence that Sepphoris "was inhabited by Jews whose Jewish practices show points of continuity with the Judaism practiced in Judea". All the evidence you neatly removed when you quoted what you did above demonstrated traditional Jewish practices, not influence of Hellenism.

There were many groups of Hellenized Proselytes and different degrees that practiced Judaism.

I already quoted Chancey saying much the same:

"All Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism, but not all Judaism was affected by Hellenism in the same ways or to the same extent. In making this point, I am not trying to turn back the clock to the pre-Hengel period. As Hengel rightly demonstrated, the idea that we can dichotomize Judaism into Diaspora/Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian/non-Hellenistic Judaism is clearly wrong." from Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus

The problem is how much there was in the places you assert the influence of hellenism was high.

These non Jews practicing Judaism and had been for centuries but would not convert were not considered pagan because they worshipped the same deity as Judaism, the monotheistic god. And that is all that Reed is stating.

How might we have an idea if some region in the ancient world was at a particular interval of time quite influenced by hellenistic culture? Take Rome: we fine Roman authors not only copying the Greeks, but also often writing in Greek. They hired Greek teachers. They copied and built upon Greek philosophy.

What about for Jews in the diaspora? Well, if there were a region (such as Rome or Alexandria) in which many Jews lived, but they knew little if any Hebrew and/or Aramaic, lived in Greco-Roman houses, used Greco-Roman currency, wrote what Erich Gruen called "Diaspora humor" (and wrote it in Greek), then we'd say they were highly influenced by hellenism.

What about places in Galilee? Here, those like Strange argued early on (before the excavations, let alone the analysis of what had been recovered, were complete) that the presence of certain features (and also just based on an assumption) indicated a 1) highly gentile population living in places like Sepphoris
2) An increasing adoption in cities of Greco-Roman lifestyle (imitating Greco-Roman architecture, etc.)

As it turns out, a lot of the evidence for this Greco-Roman influx dates to after the temple was destroyed. It also turns out that the original model which form the basis for thinking their was a massive influx of gentiles into the region was without support. And finally, instead of evidence for Greco-Roman lifestyles (as I have quoted from study after study, including monographs, dissertations, papers from volumes, etc.) we find that even in urban centers there is little effect of hellenization.

Are you claiming all of Judaism before the temple fell was similar?

NO.

Was Herod Antipas Jewish? or just sympathetic for monetary reasons?

Read Dunn's "Who did Paul think he was? A study of Jewish-Christian identity". That will at least give us a framework within which to addresss a question of identity and what being "Jewish" meant.

His people had occupied Sepphoris, and these were not the same people who occupied Nazareth and Capernaum.

Do you know what our evidence for this is? Contradictory accounts that Josephus wrote which, to say the least, are neither supported by the actual archaelogical evidence nor anything else: "All this evidence shows that the socio-economical hierarchy in 1st century Galilee was not as simple as “poor peasants” and “wealthy townsmen” as is usually discussed. There was social hierarchy in cities, towns and villages. From the beginning of their settlement in the Galilee during the Hasmonaean reign, the Galileans developed their economy cleverly and wisely, adopting every chance that the land and environment could offer. Under the Hasmoneans, the economic foundations were built. Under Antipas, the Galilee grew rapidly after years of neglect in the reign of Herod the Great." from "Socio-economic Hierarchy and its economic foundations in first century Galilee: The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla" in the edited volume Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History.

What ever transition or influx there was, we have little evidence for it, but we have enough to know it wasn't very big.

I will propose Sepphoris was very much like Tiberias.

Same findings their. Not the hellenistic city it was assumed to be.

Can you really state there was no divide between Israelite Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism??

More than that. I'll state that such a division flies in the face of anything and everything we know about the nature of social systems (including religious) in general, and first century Galilee in particular. More than that, as I said earlier, it has become increasingly clear that the term "hellenism' is a bad one, as every time one trials to nail down a definition, it inevitably fails or is so broad it is useless. Bowerstock's work was rather important here, but so Bremmer even more so (at least for religion). Recently, it's sort of lost much meaning other than to refer to a time period after Alexander the Great but before the fall of Rome. Local dialects were still spoken throughout the empire, while the language of classic Greek diminished. Local religious cults did adopt Greek influences, but also shared them. The main effect of "hellenism" was linguistic and the influence of Greek thought on the Roman elite.

As for some nice dichotomy of "Jewish Jews" vs. "hellenized Jews", well...if only it were that simple. We have Jews who spoke only Greek yet were strict observers of Mosiac law, we have zealots and various "extremist" accusing the high priesthood of being "non-Jewish" in a sense, and a great deal of history which only survives to us after the destruction of the people (sometimes right after), erasing a great deal of Jewish literature not written in Greek (the qumran finds, apart from anything else, demonstrated this quite well).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry I will still take Reed and Crossan over him.

Yes, but it seems fairly clear that you haven't actually read any scholarly publications by Reed, who is quite clearly against you here. Nor do you agree with Strange:

First, here's Reed in 2010: "the Galilean debate has moved toward a consensus on Antipas's urbanization only with regard to religion and culture: Galilee was largely Jewish; Antipas added only a Greco-Roman urban veneer to the cities; and extensive Roman-style urbanization did not occur until after the Bar Kokhba Revolt".
Reed, J. L. (2010). Instability in Jesus' Galilee: A Demographic Perspective. Journal of Biblical Literature, 129(2), 343-365.

Just to make this clear, "veneer" means "a thin surface" (i.e., almost no Greco-Roman culture), and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (when Reed states that we do find evidence for a gentile Galilee) was long after Jesus.

But Reed goes on to say that while that debate is over, the economic debate is not. He lists two extreme views, one of poverty from Oakman, and the including Strange: "On the other end of the spectrum, Douglas R. Edwards and James F. Strange characterize Galilee's urbanization as part of a vibrant economy that fostered reciprocal relationships between urban and rural areas from which villagers also benefited."

Yet despite relying on Strange, you fundamentally disagree with his view of the village economy here:

A village like Nazareth with no wood really would not support a full time carpenter, where a handworker doing odd jobs fits to a T.

Again Tekton translates to handworker and displaced renters.

Yes, but apart from articles designed to be interesting (and therefore somewhat tinged with sensationalism), you've yet to point to any detailed examination of the distinctions between even the word tekton and the other words for "worker" or why, despite the fact that we've known for well over a century the word need not refer only to carpenter, but is absolutely not equivalent with "handworker" (farmers work with their hands), you insist on conflating the category of "skilled handworker" with the other terms specifically used in our sources to differentiate different types of workers.

I never said it translates to day labors but that is how tektons would have been employed, hired for odd jobs if not on a barter system which would make sense in Jesus context .

Nazareth was a poor hovel, where walls were built low because they were so rough made from fieldstones, high walls night have collapsed and killed families.

This is akin to when you asserted their diet was indicative of poverty, when it reality it was the staple of the entire mediterranean (and in many places remains so).

Of course not a single wall from Nazareth has been found that can be dated properly before the fall of the temple. Which tends me to believe the village had not been in use for that long.

That's simply a misunderstanding of archaeology and of history.

you might be making a boo boo with Safrai

Because not everyone agrees with him? Neither do I, in some cases. But when one wishes to make sweeping generalizations about the nature of an entire region, composed of various villages and cities over at least a few generations, one should do more than search the internet after the fact to support ones views. I already quoted from that volume in this very thread. I own it. As Reed states in the article quoted above, although there is a consensus that the hellenized Sepphoris and so forth you've been clinging to is fantasy (supported at one time, but no more), economy is a much more difficult issue. The primary reason is the same as with orality. It involves applying a model from some economic system or systems we know quite a bit more about to 1st century galilee. Because archaeology alone isn't going to tell us if workers were paid the equivalent of billions or if they were so starved they ate one another.

Safrai points out that he is following in the methodological path

Also note that I am hardly depending on Safrai here:

However, as Root's study shows, "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".

once again we find in Root's study that the evidence suggests the opposite: "the archaeological evidence undermines the arguments that there would have been a sharp economic divide between urban rich and rural poor".

One of the reasons is the "new markets for peasant artisans and farmers" which suggest a possible "net positive" for the Galilean economy (at least in Jesus' day). Choi's 2010 study Urban-rural interaction and the economy of Lower Galilee finds much the same. The economy, contra Crossan, of Lower Galilee "existed in a stable state." In particular, "both Sepphoris and Tiberias were evidently dependent on the villages for agricultural products."

(emphasis added):
"At the bottom, one can find, as was suggested by Freyne, who did not base his view on any archaeological remains, the day-workers, shepherds and beggars. Other groups in the lower classes were potters, spinners, weavers and probably simple farmers who worked for others or had only small plots of land, if any land at all. From different studies we do know that pottery production was not considered a source of great wealth (Arnold 1985). Above them there were the owners of the small industries or workshops: olive oil and flour producers, blacksmiths, carpenters and others."

Aviam, M. (2011). Socio-economic hierarchy and its economic foundations in first century Galilee: The evidence from Yodefat and Gamla. in J. Pastor, P. Stern, & M. Mor (eds.) Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 146, 29.

In fact, during the 1st century we find Galilee to be one of the good places to live: "first, allowing for his typical hyperbole, Josephus’s picture of Galilee as abundantly fruitful is not entirely unfounded. At least, Galilee was among the most fertile areas of Palestine...In consequence, though this survey constitutes only part of the socioeconomic picture, it points in the direction of relatively good conditions for rural agricultural life in first-century Galilee"
Jensen, M. H. (2012). Climate, Droughts, Wars, and Famines in Galilee as a Background for Understanding the Historical Jesus. Journal of Biblical Literature, 131(2), 307-324.

There is a difference (well-known, actually) between a skilled laborer/craftsman, and an unskilled: "But when they became landless—a dreadful plight in an agrarian society unless one knew a craft..." from "Ancient economy and the New Testament" in the volume Understanding the Social World of the New Testament

Ill take Reed any day over Safrai when I read this statement below

But you don't agree with Reed. I've listed yet another source, even more recent, in which Reed once again states that the whole "gentile galilee" and "hellenistic sepphoris" is myth.

Safrai believes that the Jerusalem Talmud, written some time in the 4th century, contains historically accurate information (which can be separated from other less useful material) regarding the actual economy in an earlier period.

That's why? Crossan and others rely on modern day villages and social theorists. In fact, everybody relies on modern day social theorists, but some take into account the data we have from antiquity as much as possible.

Really we are dealing with a unique time in Galilee with the vast diversity of Judaism before the temple fell.

A diversity which exists against scholarly consensus (as Reed points out) and without any empirical support.

One note this article plays in Reeds favor is that is places Archeology first and foremost in solving the socioeconomics in Galilee. [as noted below

Jonathan Reed states that chief contribution of archaeology to the study of the historical Jesus is the reconstruction of his social world

When you actually start paying attention to what Reed things about your "hellenistic sepphoris" then you can tell me what he does and does not state.

 

[outhouse]

You can argue all you like, but you can never get past the social divide between those in Sepphoris and those in Nazareth

The Bible and Interpretation

One is that Sepphoris and Tiberias provide a point of comparison for the sites that are mentioned in the gospels, places like Nazareth and Capernaum. These Jewish villages didn’t have architecture that imposed itself on topography of society. They didn’t have facades of plaster, marble, fresco, or mosaic in the first century. And they didn’t have buildings that announced a social hierarchy or reinforced the ruling elites’ or Rome’s position at the top.

Does the Romanization of Lower Galilee begun by Antipas with the reconstruction of Sepphoris in 4 BCE and climaxed with its replacement as his capital by Tiberias in 19 CE have anything to do with his popular movement in the following decade? Is it significant, for example, that Jesus and the Kingdom of God are associated not with either Sepphoris or Tiberias but with Capernaum and Nazareth? I think it is crucial.

Key words

the Romanization of Lower Galilee begun by Antipas


buildings that announced a social hierarchy

 

[outhouse]

When you actually start paying attention to what Reed things about your "hellenistic sepphoris" then you can tell me what he does and does not state.

.

I have read him and Chancey, and understand their view showing a very small amount of Hellenistic Pagan practices.

I agree.

Where im finding trouble is in the view of Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, and their view of Judaism as a general label that blankets all members of Judaism.


There is absolutely no reason or evidence pointing to those inhabiting Sepphoris as not being Jewish, I agree.

But under the label of Hellenistic Judaism.

There is no evidence pointing towards traditional Judaism. No Synagogues have ever been found, Yet Reed can tell you what the ate for a hundred years.


For me its much like the temple in Jerusalem, it was ran by Hellenistic Jews and corrupt and much of the real Jewish population had a problem with it.

 

[outhouse]

Heres a recent article from 2006 from Cambridge
​

Mark A. Chancey

Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus - Cambridge University Press​

In light of these findings, few New Testament scholars would seriously dispute that Galilean culture indeed reflected Greek and Roman influences. Yet, if consensus exists on that basic point, confusion abounds about how extensive those influences were at different times and about the specific ways in which they were manifested. As impressive and influential as Hengel's work has been, some of his specific claims were oversimplified. Furthermore, much subsequent scholarship has gone well beyond Hengel in its characterizations of Greco-Roman culture in the world of Jesus. A review of statements often made about Jesus, his earliest followers, and their Galilean setting highlights issues that merit further examination.[SIZE=-1]8[/SIZE]
Scholars have frequently suggested, on the basis of numismatic and other inscriptions, that Greek was frequently spoken in the region, though it did not displace Aramaic as the dominant tongue.[SIZE=-1]9[/SIZE] The use of Greek was not limited to the cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias; it might be heard in other Galilean communities as well, such as Capernaum, Magdala/Taricheae,[SIZE=-1]10[/SIZE] and Chorazin.[SIZE=-1]11[/SIZE] Overall, it was proposed, the language was as common in Galilee as it was in Egypt and Asia Minor.[SIZE=-1]12[/SIZE] The fact that at least two of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew and Philip, had Greek names showed that the language had gained usage even among the lower socio-economic classes.[SIZE=-1]13[/SIZE] It was thus quite likely that Jesus himself spoke at least a little Greek, raising the possibility that the gospels preserved some of his sayings verbatim. It was also now more easily imaginable that one or more of the gospels, perhaps Matthew or Mark, had been written in the region.[SIZE=-1]14[/SIZE] An even earlier document, Q, believed by many to have been composed in Greek, might also have originated there.[SIZE=-1]15[/SIZE]
The proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth made it likely that Jesus was exposed to the full range of Greco-Roman culture. He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles. Antipas's construction projects could have created employment opportunities for a tekton like him, and the city, like others in the area, included many buildings characteristic of Greco-Roman urbanization – temples, bathhouses, a theater, and other monumental architecture. Jesus might have sat in the theater, watching classical plays. He might also have heard popular philosophers preaching on the city's corners.[SIZE=-1]16[/SIZE]
Sepphoris was not alone in its mixed population. Tiberias, too, was home to a considerable number of gentiles, and the region as a whole could be characterized as “semipagan.”[SIZE=-1]17[/SIZE] Jesus need not leave Galilee to encounter non-Jews; he would have had frequent interaction with them throughout his life. Some of these pagans were indigenous Galileans, while others were Phoenicians, Arabs, or descendents of Greek settlers.[SIZE=-1]18[/SIZE] The region's roads were major trade routes that bustled with merchant convoys and other travelers.
Galilee, like the rest of Palestine, was occupied by the Roman army, perhaps even settled by Roman colonists, according to some scholars.[SIZE=-1]19[/SIZE] Two gospels preserve a memory of Jesus' encounter with a Roman centurion (Matt. 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10). Roads built and paved by the Roman army and marked by Roman milestones crossed the region.[SIZE=-1]20[/SIZE] Sepphoris itself was a Roman administrative and military center.[SIZE=-1]21[/SIZE] After finishing their lengthy terms of service, some Roman soldiers chose to stay in Antipas's Galilee, retiring there.[SIZE=-1]22[/SIZE] The region's Romanization was thus no less thoroughgoing than its Hellenization.​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Heres a recent article from 2006 from Cambridge​

Mark A. Chancey

Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus - Cambridge University Press​

That's not an article. It's from the introduction of his monograph Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. I've already cited it in this thread

Chancey's first monograph on the subect The Myth of a Gentilte Galilee came out shortly earlier, but he followed it up with his later 2005 (and even wider) study on Greco-Roman cultural influences on Galilee during Jesus day.

You were provided with the introduction, which is designed to give an idea of what the author is going to try to show and why.

Here, however, is his conclusion: "the penetration of Greek culture does not seem to have been especially deep."

This is similar to Reed's description of "veneer" Hellenism, so it is worth taking a look at some of the points Chancey makes concerning the lack of hellenistic influence:

1) A central piece of evidence in all Hellenized places is the remains of Greek inscriptions, which are found all throughout the Roman empire (and beyond), yet such inscriptions anywhere in Galilee were (to use Chancey's term) "uncommon".
2) Another major indicator of Hellenistic influence, "Hellenistic architecture and Hellenistic art" are at least equally rare.
3) In fact, probably the most import influence of Hellenism (Greek culture), and something found even outside of any Hellenized region, was the adoption of the language. Even in places where Greek (Hellenistic or Greco-Roman) influence barely touched, we find Greek speakers, yet in Galilee: "Though Greek had made inroads as a language of government and probably (to some extent) of the civic and cultural elites, it is difficult to demonstrate that it was widely spoken."
4) As for Greco-Roman religion or mythology, "few if any statues or other portrayals of deities and heroes, no temples except those on the region’s fringes, no pagan festivals or pageants, and no evidence for widespread Greek education, there is little reason to assume thorough familiarity with it, either."
5) If Hellenistic centers in Galilee and a large non-Jewish population accurately described places like Sepphoris, we'd expect to find (as we do in Jewish regions in the diaspora) the mark of the Gentile population, especially the signature elements of Hellenistic mythical iconography (e.g., images of deities, pagan festivals, temples/cultic centers the gentile poluation used, etc.). Instead, the "main sources of exposure to images of Greek and local deities and demigods" were consisted of coins "minted outside the region".
6) Along the same lines, but important enough to note seperately, is what this exposure meant. Because despite the Hellenistic figures on the coins, the "beliefs, images, stories, and rituals in which those figures played a role would have been associated with pagan cities, not Galilee’s own." In other words, it's like someone from a country far outside the US and who is totally unfamiliar with US history, but acquires as US penny. Sure, he's seen the image, but it has no meaning. It's just a depiction of a man whom he knows nothing about
7) Also extremely important (in terms of indicators of Hellenism) is the "universal symbolic language in the Roman Empire, a language comprised of statues of the emperor, coins with imperial portraits and other Roman symbols, Roman milestones, Roman military standards and the soldiers who carried them, and Roman architecture, all combining to propagate imperial ideology. Yet it is notable that these symbols are mostly absent from the Galilee of Jesus, not appearing for decades." Again, the exception to the rule is pretty much just coins which depicted e.g., the emperor. However, even here we have a problem such coins were "less common there in the early first century than in most of the Empire".


But what about places like Sepphoris? Here at least we'd expect to find all of the above which were absent or almost absent from Galilee. Well, it's true that being urban makes a difference, because we do find more coins and inscriptions. Yet once again, we don't find much evidence for Hellenistic influence or a gentile population. In fact, if we compare how much Hellenistic influence we find in Sepphoris and Tiberius with the influence in cities elsewhere in Judea and beyond, we find that these two would-be exemplars of Hellenism (according to outdated scholarship) "were not as Hellenized and Romanized as the larger cities in Judea, Arabia, and Syria." There were Jewish villages outside of Galilee more Hellenistic than Sepphoris.

So why do we find so many scholars (until recently) arguing that the evidence supported a "gentile Galilee"? Because they already had assumptions on what they would find so as soon as archaeology started revealing things they misread the evidence: "Many of the characteristics that are routinely ascribed to early first-century Galilee more properly apply to Galilee in the second and third centuries."

You cited an intro to a monograph by the same author who wrote The Myth of the Gentile Galilee and who has, in two major monographs and several papers, been one of the central figures in demonstrating the lack of Hellenistic influence in Galilee.​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can argue all you like, but you can never get past the social divide between those in Sepphoris and those in Nazareth

There were social divisions within Nazareth. But (as I'm sure you know)

1) Social divisions come in many shapes and sizes. A beggar in Sepphoris has a lower socio-economic status (SES) than an unskilled laborer in Nazareth.
2) Social divisions don't imply greater Hellenstic influence.
3) As several have argued (some I've quoted here), urban growth and urban economic dynamics meant more "money" for those in the villlage (not necessarily coins, but goods of various types, as the economic system across the Roman empire always involved a great deal of trade/barter rather than monetary exchange). This included skilled and unskilled laborers.
4) Most importanty, we're not dealing with a typical case here. All of those roles which different scholars have asserted is central to the "real" Jesus (often excluding at least one role another claimed was central) are key. The prophet described by Davies, the magician described by Morton Smith, the political revolutionary of Horsley, The cynic philosopher of Crossan, etc., are not all roles of the historical Jesus, but many are. For example, one uncontested feature of Jesus' activity was a "service" that required particular "skill" and, as described in Jesus, a jewish galilean exorcist- A socio-political and anthropological investigation. It doesn't really matter if Jesus was a land-owner, a peasant farm worker, a displaced tenant, etc., because that is not what he was when he gained attention and followers (and opposers). It certainly influenced what he believed, but if Jesus came from the kind of poverty-stricken upbringing you describe, all that means is that his ability to move around attracting attention, gaining a reputation as a teacher, prophet, magical healer, exorcist, etc., much easier. He'd be used to little food. And having gained a reputation, it also meant that like so many before him (including bandits in and around his time and place) he'd have support from others.

The Bible and Interpretation

I don't see how you are using this to support your view. Compare, for example, the following:

The problem is that in eyeshot was Sepphoris, the Jewel of Galilee, hellenistic gentiles and Hellenistic Proselytes

From Reed in your link:

"The excavations at Sepphoris and Tiberias have shown that in the earliest strata from the time of Antipas, all evidence points to an aniconic Jewish population, and a cautious Antipas who heeded the religious sensibilities of his Jewish subjects...Since the cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris, unlike Caesarea, were inhabited primarily by Jews and were in an almost exclusively Jewish Galilee, Herod Antipas built them without many of the trappings of the classical pagan city such as statues or pagan temples. Nevertheless, Antipas put up a Graeco-Roman architectural veneer over Sepphoris and Tiberias..."

You describe the "hellenistic gentiles" of Sepphoris. Reed describes Sepphoris as primarily Jewish in an almost completely Jewish Galilee. The extent of "Hellenistic" influence is basically a "veneer" of architectural features. And this is again an article for the general reader, and thus does not get into the nuances. Among other things, in publications intended for the specialist, Reed takes the time to address others' views, and in particular those who disagree with him and why he thinks he is correct. For example, in the latest paper of Reed's I cited he argued against views espoused by those like Strange that Galilee was culturally, socially, and economically stable. Reed argues that the economic growth, including new work for skilled and unskilled laborers, new markets, new service industries, more mutally beneficial economic interactions between rural and urban areas also came with disease, the breaking up of key social units (the extended kinship networks that supported so much of Galilee, especially the villages), and so on.

However, as one of Reed's former students noted, Reed is correct in his assessment of the problems associated with economic growth, with one important exception: the time frame. The problems Reed described would certainly have happened (although we don't know if things would re-stabilize or not), but not enough time passed for them to do so. The massive destruction and casualties culminating in the destruction of the temple prevented the kind of instability Reed describes from happening, as it prevented the shift in growth from positive to negative from happening. Instead, a third factor ensured the whole problem of growth and stability was moot.

the Romanization of Lower Galilee begun by Antipas


buildings that announced a social hierarchy

Key problems:

1) Reed states clearly that this romanization was a "veneer" and his entire description of conflict in that article rests mainly on some flimsy descriptions of ideological matters and other things which are important, but which are so simplified here they can't be correct. His more detailed works make his argument more supportable, but not correct.

2) There was always a social hierarchy. A central issue was not the Romans at all per se, but the Jewish priesthood. And that went back long before Antipas was born.

 

[outhouse]

I am following you on most of this and picking up some info, its why I like a good debate.

I think my method is flawed as your pointing out, its backwards in fact. But my view of the people in each place has remained.

I did mention gentiles, and there were most certainly gentiles in Sepphoris, but not as many as I had originally thought. I am not completely stubborn.


I have been trying to show the Hellenization of the people was greater in Sepphoris. When I should have been trying to show that the people in Nazareth were less Hellenized. The Monograph is quite clear the Greco-Roman culture was present despite their religion, placed by Antipas.

I think "veneer" also describes the Jewishness of the people in Sepphoris. The light that needs to be shown here in detail as that of Hellenistic Judaism ad how diverse Judaism was.



#1 do you really think the Jews in Sepphoris were the same as the Jews in Nazareth less income?



#2 Hellenistic Judaism was present, that is actually factual, its also factual there were different cultures within Judaism due to the fact Judaism was so wide and diverse. part of what made the movement that would be Christianity successful was the large population of Hellenistic Judaism and Proselytes of all different levels that found this new movement appealing. many claim the movement absorbed Hellenism out of Judaism it was so popular.

 

[outhouse]

The proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth made it likely that Jesus was exposed to the full range of Greco-Roman culture.

all evidence points to an aniconic Jewish population

.

Exactly, and the aniconic is a key phrase, is it not?

2) Social divisions don't imply greater Hellenstic influence

Nor have a stated it did.

There was however in Judaism Social divisions between the corrupt Jewish government and groups like the Saduceees, and the people of Galilee viewed as Zealots which also had their own cultural divisions with the Sicarii.

a jewish galilean exorcist

Agreed whole hearted. But he would not have been the only teacher/healer passing through these villages, and its obvious he never had the fame that JtB had, it was a embarrassment for the gospel authors who tried to cover this up.

he'd have support from others.

Once he hit the road, so to speak. he wasn't traveling into places that knew him. So I'm only stating he didn't have that much support as one might think.

I really will not trust the later authors who knew nothing of the movement in Galilee on this, who are more then likely representing a Hellenistic traveler who would have needed support in the diaspora in their description here.

I don't see how you are using this to support your view.

I am using it because its not ignoring Hellenistic Judaism

Tiberias and Sepphoris, unlike Caesarea, were inhabited primarily by Jews and were in an almost exclusively Jewish Galilee

Fair enough, I agree. But only in the context of the wide diversity of Judaism and Hellenized Judaism.

But then we have this below

He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles.

The extent of "Hellenistic" influence is basically a "veneer"

He is describing the city as having a veneer, more so then the people.

in the latest paper of Reed's I cited he argued against views espoused by those like Strange that Galilee was culturally, socially, and economically stable. Reed argues that the economic growth, including new work for skilled and unskilled laborers, new markets, new service industries, more mutally beneficial economic interactions between rural and urban areas also came with disease, the breaking up of key social units (the extended kinship networks that supported so much of Galilee, especially the villages), and so on.

Reed makes it quite clear the hardship the city placed on nearby villages. Due to a socioeconomic impact, he places the burden of feeding Sepphoris on these villagers who in bad years would face the wrath. he also states there were wagon trains coming into Sepphoris due to the agriculture in the area not keeping up. [another can of worms]

I have also read where Sepphoris had its own laborers and gardens and agriculture as the villagers could not keep up.

 

[gnostic]

Does anyone have a map of Galilee at the time of Herod and Jesus?

And post it up, please.

 

[oldbadger]

Does anyone have a map of Galilee at the time of Herod and Jesus?

And post it up, please.

Hi....

I am unable to create links. But if you do this, you will get a choice of about fifty maps for Galilee in Jesus' time:-
Google
jesus galilee maps ........enter
images ........ click on

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does anyone have a map of Galilee at the time of Herod and Jesus?

And post it up, please.

There are plenty of maps, but as recently as 2011 a dissertaion I cited some time earlier in this thread (I think) was devoted entirely to what a map of Galilee should look like approximately. Almost 300 pages just so someone we can have somewhat more accurate drawing on a single page of what the region might have looked like.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Exactly, and the aniconic is a key phrase, is it not?

Across the Roman empire, everywhere one found icons except in places characterized traditional Jewish practice and an almost no gentiles. Such a place would be aniconic, because it lacked the icons used all over the roman empire but forbidden according to Jewish religious practice.

The proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth made it likely that Jesus was exposed to the full range of Greco-Roman culture.

There is no way that's true, even if he lived in Sepphoris and travelled from Athens to Rome as frequently as possible. Religion in that time was defined almost entirely of practice and locally received myth. Which meant that their were differences routed in geography between "religions" even when it came to one of the much touted mystery religions. Not only did geographic setting make a significant difference, temporal setting did as well. As the Attic "mysteries" spread like the Greek language itself thanks to Alexander, they changed dramatically. But they did not change consistently. Isis cults in one locale were not the same in another. Even in classic Greece received myth itself had plenty of variations which people knew of and didn't mind, because cultic practice mattered.

This was not true of the Jewish religion. However, diversity in the first century was certaintly there.

The distinctions we make today between culture, politics, religion, philosophy, family, educations, etc. can easily mislead. Today, a person who thinks there should be no seperation of church and state implicitly distinguishes the two. But the words used by different individuals to identifiy themselves show how these categories we have didn't exist. To do something of great "religious" significance" was to do something of great "political" significance" and great "cultural" significance. To violate cultural norms regarding the social dyamics of familial units involved violations of religious customs.

Which is why talking about "hellenized" Judaism as opposed to some other kind is problematic both in the way it deals with hellenism and with the way it does Judaism.

It also wasn't a one way street. As Jewish synagogue became increasingly important in Jewish culture before the temple was rebuilt (and it remained after), it became a place in regions like Alexandria where the Jewish and Gentile populations could interact and the influence of Jewish religious concepts rub off. Some "mystery religions" changed first during the earlier period of the Roman empire, and then again due to the influence of Christianity.

There was however in Judaism Social divisions between the corrupt Jewish government and groups like the Saduceees, and the people of Galilee viewed as Zealots which also had their own cultural divisions with the Sicarii.

The Jewish government was the Sadducees. Nor is there any clear categorization into which the sicarii all fall. Some were likely just assassins. Again, culture meant religion, and therefore politics can't be seperated from either.

Agreed whole hearted. But he would not have been the only teacher/healer passing through these villages, and its obvious he never had the fame that JtB had

We have texts covering several thousand years of Jewish teachers, exorcists, healers, etc.. Same with other cultures. There is no record anywhere of someone who combined healing and exorcism with the kind of prophetic and moral instruction Jesus did until we get into copycats centuries later. I don't know why you wish to paint him as such a "just your average joe who happened to be killed for being average and then have people start flocking to worship a guy they'd never heard of". There is absolutely no evidence of many leaders of any type, from bandits to prophets, in and around Jesus day. There is clear evidence there were some. And that evidence is unanimous: the people who gained a following like that were known. Period. And the people who were successful were known even after they died.

it was a embarrassment for the gospel authors who tried to cover this up.

No. The theory is that the baptism and Jesus' initial relationship with John has been altered in the NT because they made Jesus seem as if he started out as one of John's followers. But there is no evidence that John the Baptist was more influential and well-known, and certainly no evidence to suggest that this theorized cover-up was to hide the fact that Jesus was less popular.

Once he hit the road, so to speak. he wasn't traveling into places that knew him. So I'm only stating he didn't have that much support as one might think.

About 8 centuries before Jesus there was a story of a cyclops who thought he was so close to the gods that he didn't need to offer hospitality to his guests. He was punished for it. The story is intended to show that everyone has to follow the guest-friendship model when it comes to hosting strangers. It was a cross-cultural practice around long, long before Jesus.

Additionally, bandits received random support from strangers because they were perceived as folk-heros of sorts. Jesus was a miracle worker and teacher. So in addition to the fact that the way strangers were treated in that time and place is radically different than today, Jesus attracted support through attracting attention from strangers.

I really will not trust the later authors who knew nothing of the movement in Galilee on this, who are more then likely representing a Hellenistic traveler who would have needed support in the diaspora in their description here.

1) That kind of support would be far less likely in the diaspora.
2) It's almost certain that the authors knew quite a bit about Galilee and the movement.
3) As I said before, a guy living at the end of the first and into the second was still actively asking the followers of Jesus' disciples for information. Luke not only knew Paul quite well, but the people who were around when Jesus was.

There are plenty of problems when it comes to seperating fact from fiction in the gospels. But these have far less to do with the authors' knowledge and much more to do with the nature of their genre, the deliberate focus on the miracles, a limited scope of interest, etc.

This strict divide you make between the hellenistic NT authors and Jesus is over half of a century old and whatever the many problems there are when it comes to trusting the gospels, it isn't this divide between the Jesus of Galilee and the Christ of hellenism.

I am using it because its not ignoring Hellenistic Judaism

Hengel showed a few decades ago how completely fictional that notion is. And that was without getting into detail about the fact that the idea of "hellenism" doesn't describe much. What you are doing is ignoring the decades of work that went into carefully trying to determine what "hellenism" can mean and how different elements of it can mean different things for different Jewish social groups, different Jewish regions, different time periods, etc. By not ignoring "Hellenistic Judaism" you are essentially undoing the extensive work done over the past 30 or 40 years and throwing that work (along with the evidence for it) out the window.

He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles.

You have continually cited Reed and a few others about this '"large numbers" and I have not only showed you that there have been quite thorough studies showing this isn't the case, but your prime source for it says there was no such thing. Reed is quite clear that even urban Galilee had few non-Jews.

He is describing the city as having a veneer

The indication of hellenistic influence are all about the nature of the city, which is a reflection of the people. If, for example, there are American flags and crosses everywhere, one doesn't say that the city has a "veneer" of Cristianity and patriotism.


To support you theory about a hellenized, gentile Sepphoris, you've not only quoted the guy who wrote The Myth of the Gentile Galilee as well as other works showing how wrong this was, but you rely on Reed who completely disagrees with you by interpreting what he says to make it fit what you want.

He says aniconic, and despite the fact that aniconic is a major problem for any theory of hellenistic Sepphoris, somewhow for you it isn't. He describes an almost completely Jewish population with a veneer of hellenistic artifacts, and you interpret that to mean that the city has the veneer, but the people were very hellenized, which can't be correct because the entire point of using archaeology is to see whether the finds of elements of the city show indications of hellenistic influence. If they show only a small amount, then it's because the influence wasn't there.

Reed makes it quite clear the hardship the city placed on nearby villages

Yes, he believes this.

I have also read where Sepphoris had its own laborers and gardens and agriculture as the villagers could not keep up.

Where? Specifically where you read "the villagers could not keep up" was the reason for "gardens"?

 

[outhouse]

To support you theory about a hellenized, gentile Sepphoris,

Your not reading what im posting, I clearly stated there were not as many gentiles as I had originally thought.

That statement was directly from Chancey. So that means your cherry picking his work to your own means.


your arguements are now directed at me, Reed and Chancey

The Jewish government was the Sadducees.

Understood, but your also missing the fact the Pharisees were also a part of the Sanhedrin. Its why I wrote my reply the way I did.

 

[outhouse]

Legion

Been thinking, any chance the Saducees could have been the ruling class in Sepphoris?

Or just Antipas chosen few?


You may be confusing my statements when I speak of Hellenism. I am speaking of Hellenistic Judaism, not the Hellenistic gentiles that were there in small numbers.

We know some were there because there were pig bones found, Reeds work just shows more pig bones in later generation in increasing proportions as the Hellenistic "gentile" population increased. As well the Hellenistic art that was found there.

Last note, why do most scholars claim Greek as a language spoken in Sepphoris if it wasn't Hellensitic?

Its my personal opinion Antipas played to the Jewish sensitivities for economic success.



What I'm learning from Martin right now, is the Hellenization overlay of these communities, or veneer as Reed calls it.

 

[oldbadger]

There are plenty of problems when it comes to seperating fact from fiction in the gospels. But these have far less to do with the authors' knowledge and much more to do with the nature of their genre, the deliberate focus on the miracles, a limited scope of interest, etc.

All this information........massively instructive....
Question about the above point:-
Jesus's reputation would have built an enormous (huge!) level of hope in many of the people who had heard about him or seen him. In the same way that a bad reputation auto-descends within a group, so a wonderful reputation auto-increases massively.
This could magnify a super-assertive and charismatic, confident and dominant character into .... well, almost diety.

Yesterday, the BBC reported that a recent survey of general practitioner doctors in Britain still prescribe high quantities of placebo drugs, many of which are successful. Hypnotherapy, psychotherapy and counselling have massive value, with a high % of patients benefiting from such procedures.

I don't know because nobody has researched this, but there is a possibility that male hysteria could have been as prominent in Eastern Mediterranean countries as in Latin ones today. The right person can achieve miraculous results that would fool and amaze doctors ..... even today. I am witness to such events.

I suspect that modern religious researchers, historians and archaeologists are very keen to run to the scientific 'camp', fearing loss of reputation if they do not, and so there is a 'What me? I'm a scientist you know! I do not demean myself with anything less than proper science!' mindset amongst most. Fashion affects, controls and drives all groups, regardless of intellect or sagacity.

But some day, some brave young mind is going to dive into all this, (probably a psychologist researcher) and there is a possibility that s/he will put the above facets together,along with others, and not only prove that Jesus could actually achieve many of the reported results (magnified by hyperbole) but also break into a whole new area of modern medicine.

The modern historians are just frightened of going there. Sad. And so they miss a fairly large chunk of the whole picture. Please don't tie this in with my suggestion that Jesus liked a good crawl out into the lake before breakfast! it's not the same! :no:

OK....... would you even give it a glance?, because they dare not.

 

[oldbadger]

Legion

Been thinking, any chance the Saducees could have been the ruling class in Sepphoris?

Or just Antipas chosen few?


You may be confusing my statements when I speak of Hellenism. I am speaking of Hellenistic Judaism, not the Hellenistic gentiles that were there in small numbers.

We know some were there because there were pig bones found, Reeds work just shows more pig bones in later generation in increasing proportions as the Hellenistic "gentile" population increased. As well the Hellenistic art that was found there.

Last note, why do most scholars claim Greek as a language spoken in Sepphoris if it wasn't Hellensitic?

Its my personal opinion Antipas played to the Jewish sensitivities for economic success.



What I'm learning from Martin right now, is the Hellenization overlay of these communities, or veneer as Reed calls it.

Hi..... All recent posts brilliantly interesting...

Questions:-
From something you mentioned earlier..... Are you sure that Pharisees had any seats on the Sanhedrin? Sanders wrote that only Sadducees held these posts, although some pharisees held priest and levite positions in the Temple. Have I got this right?

It looks as if Jesus avoided the high-society, and moved amongst the low-society, although helping higher-society individuals who approached him. Ergo, does it really make any difference (about historic Jesus) who lived in Sepphoris? It does not sound as if Jesus ever went there, or Tiberius.

By staying within the agricultural and fishing community he would not have rubbed shoulders with many 'officials'apart from taxmen and publicans, who he was reputed to make friends with from time to time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your not reading what im posting, I clearly stated there were not as many gentiles as I had originally thought.

But then we have this below

He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles.

To support you theory about a hellenized, gentile Sepphoris, you've not only quoted the guy who wrote The Myth of the Gentile Galilee as well as other works showing how wrong this was, but you rely on Reed who completely disagrees with you by interpreting what he says to make it fit what you want.

That statement was directly from Chancey. So that means your cherry picking his work to your own means.

Chancey wrote the Myth of the Gentile Galilee. By "myth", he means there was no gentile galilee as some thought a decade ago when he wrote that. When he wrote "He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population", he said so in context: "Scholars have frequently suggested, on the basis of numismatic and other inscriptions, that Greek was frequently spoken in the region..."

Notice, he keeps going on in the past tense:
"it might be heard"
"it was proposed"
"was as common in Galilee as it was in Egypt"
"made it likely that Jesus was exposed "

etc.

Again, that wasn't an article. That was the intro chapter to his monograph. The entire introduction sets up two things above all else: first, what the opinions of others that he believes are wrong are, and second what he intends to argue. It is not Chancey who believes

He would have needed Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population, one that included a large number of gentiles.

He starts off a bunch of claims with by saying what other scholars "have suggested", not what he thinks. His entire monograph is dedicated to showing that the views are wrong, incorrect, baseless, confused, inadequate, etc.

your arguements are now directed at me, Reed and Chancey

No, because you read an introduction to a work of Chancey's and thought it was an "a recent article", and then you state points he spends chapter after chapter refuting are his own. He does not think that there would have been any such need for "Greek to communicate with the city's diverse population" because that was a view his entire monograph was intended to prove incorrect. And as for Reed, you've somehow taken a saying which means "it's barely there" and interpreted to mean something different. Veneer means "superficial", as "beneath his veneer of civility" or "as if her veneer of charm could last" I mean there was no civility (in the first example) and there was no charm (in the second). Having a "veneer" of some quality means you don't actually have it. Adding "a Greco-Roman veneer to the cities" means "making the cities superficially Greco-Roman but not really Greco-Roman at all". It doesn't mean "he made the people Greco-Roman but didn't change the cities much."
Same with this by Reed in his "Archaeological Contributions to the Study of Jesus and the Gospels" (from The Historical Jesus in Context): "Sepphoris and Tiberias were not Pagan centers of Hellenization or Romanization".

When Reed says aniconic, it means "without hellenistic signs like icons". It's only "key" becuase aniconic is what charaterizes Judaism in opposition to hellenism.

Understood, but your also missing the fact the Pharisees were also a part of the Sanhedrin. Its why I wrote my reply the way I did.

It is possible that they were. Our sources certainly indicate it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Been thinking, any chance the Saducees could have been the ruling class in Sepphoris?

We have almost no information on the Sadducees. We know they were the elite. That is, we know that if one was a Sadducee, one was elite. However, that doesn't mean that if one was elite, one was a Sadducee. It may be that there were many elites who were not. Saldarini (in Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees: A Sociological Approach) argues that the Sadducees were elite, but most of the elite were not Sadducees. I think that's a little extreme, but it's a good point. Being a Sadducee meant being elite, but being elite didn't mean you were a Sadducee. So it could be that there were elites there who were Sadducees, probably some who at least were well-acquainted, but we don't know.

Or just Antipas chosen few?

Antipas didn't last long or do much to establish a base of political support,

You may be confusing my statements when I speak of Hellenism. I am speaking of Hellenistic Judaism, not the Hellenistic gentiles that were there in small numbers.

I'm not. I'm saying that Hellenism as a concept is vague and misleading, that it is a continuum, and that nowhere in galilee during the early first century or just before it were there many non-Jews. Nor were there "Hellenistic Jews". There were smaller palces than Sepphoris in Judea outside of Galilee which were more hellenized.

We know some were there because there were pig bones found, Reeds work just shows more pig bones in later generation in increasing proportions as the Hellenistic "gentile" population increased. As well the Hellenistic art that was found there.

From Reed's paper in The Historical Jesus in Context: "wherever Galilean bone profiles have been analyzed, they reveal a pork-free diet in the first century. Among many scraps of discarded bones or larger faunal remains from butchering, pig is absent in the time of Jesus in Galilee, unlike the rest of the Mediterranean world, where pork was consumed widely and was one of the frequent offerings at Pagan altars."

Last note, why do most scholars claim Greek as a language spoken in Sepphoris if it wasn't Hellensitic?

They don't claim that. It was something Chancey said that scholars who were wrong had claimed before.

Its my personal opinion Antipas played to the Jewish sensitivities for economic success.

For success of some sort, anyway.