Belief in God as one and in God's un-image-ableness was certainly fundamental to the first-century Jew. The was probably said by most Jews on a regular basis (Deut. 6.4, 7); Jesus was surely striking a familiar chord in the tradition attributed to him in Mark 12.28-31. And the twin commandment to acknowledge God alone and to make no images of God (Ex. 20.3-6; Deut. 5.7-10) was no doubt burnt into the heart and mind of the typical first-century Jew.

Little of this actually appears upon the surface of late Second Temple Juda unity of Judaism. I do not know of any other ancient god who had a sanctuary as exclusive as the Temple of Jerusalem. . . . Jerusalem was a place for pilgrims unmatched by Athens or Rome, with all their attractions' (14).

144. Sanders, Judaism chs. 5-8 (47-145); Hengel and Deines congratulate Sanders on producing what 'may well be the best presentation of the temple, its cult, and the priesthood which has appeared for a long while' ('Sanders' Judaism' 55).

145. This is one of the points at which Sanders criticises Neusner, but the weight of opinion, as represented by Vermes, Cohen, Saldarini, Segal, Stemberger, and Grabbe continues to be more supportive of Neusner; see, e.g., Dunn, Partings 41-42, and above §9.3a.

ism, for the simple reason that it was non-controversial and so could be taken for granted — an important reminder that the fundamental character of an item of belief and practice is not to be measured by the amount of verbiage it engenders, and that what belongs to the foundation may often be hidden from sight. But those who explained Judaism to the outsider found it necessary, as did Josephus, to point out that the acknowledgment of 'God as one is common to all the Hebrews' {Ant. 5.112).146 And the abhorrence of idolatry was a common feature in all Judaism.147 Within first-century Israel itself we need only recall Josephus' reports of the violent reaction from the people at large to misguided attempts by Pilate to bring standards perceived as idolatrous into Jerusalem (Ant. 18.55-59) and to the attempt of Caligula to have his own statue set up within the Temple (Ant. 18.261-72).148

Here again the issue of how Jesus, and subsequently the early Christians, regarded this fundamental affirmation of Jewish faith will inevitably be important for our own understanding of the emergence of Christianity from within its Jewish matrix (§§14.1-2).

c. Election

Equally fundamental was Israel's self-understanding of itself as the people of God specially chosen from among all the nations of the world to be his own. This conviction was already there in the period in such passages as Deut.

7.6-8 and 32.8-9. But it became a central category of self-definition in the post-exilic period from Ezra onwards (Ezra 9-10); it was the undergirding motivation behind the resistance to Hellenistic syncretism in the Maccabean crisis, and it constantly came to expression in the compulsive desire to maintain distinct and separate identity from the other nations (Gentiles).149 The attitude is expressed in extreme form in Jub. 15.30-32 and 22.16. But it lies behind the everyday preoccupation with purity, which was so prominent in most of the Judaisms reviewed above and is attested also by the large numbers of ritual baths now uncovered by archaeology. And it is closely related to the maintenance of

146. Similarly Ep. Arist. 132; Philo, Decal. 65.

147. Isa. 44.9-20; Wisd. Sol. ll-15;Ep. Jer.; Sib. Or. 3.8-45; 1 Corinthans 8-10; 1 John 5.21; m. 'Abodah Zarah. The theological rationale is nicely expressed by Josephus, Ap. 2.167, 190-91.

148. Further discussion in Sanders, Judaism 242-47; see also below §9.6a.

149. The prophecy of Balaam in Num. 23.9 was particularly significant for Jewish self-understanding — 'a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations'. 'Exclusivism was part and parcel of Judaism' (Sanders, Judaism 266).

150. See Sanders, Jewish Law 214-27; R. Reich, 'Ritual Baths', OEANE4.430-1. More than three hundred ritual baths from the Roman period have been uncovered in Judea, Galilee, strict laws of clean and unclean at the meal table, as both Lev. 20.24-26 and Acts 10.10-16, 28 remind us. The 'separation' of the Pharisees ('separated ones') and the Essenes within Second Temple Judaism was only an exaggerated expression of a conviction close to the heart of Israel's concept of election (to be separate from the [other] nations). This foundation pillar was thus closely linked to the others, since it expressed itself in fear of contamination by Gentile idolatry, and in the conviction that the holiness of Israel (land and people) was dependent on the holiness of the Temple (hence the prohibition which prevented Gentiles from passing beyond the court of the Gentiles in the Temple area).151

As already noted earlier, 'Judaism' was itself coined as an expression of ethnic and religious identity defined by opposition to the corruptive influences of the wider world. Thus the very term expresses, we may say, an understanding of Israel's election which in itself encouraged suspicion and exclusiveness. This is the attitude which came to the surface in the sectarian tendency of so many of the Judaisms reviewed above; the more thoroughgoing the definition and practice of the 'righteousness' by which Israel should be distinguished, the more 'the righteous' are required to distance themselves from and condemn others, not least other Jews, who fail to honour and observe that righteousness.152 Ironically, however, it is the insider term 'Israel' itself which proves to be the more comprehensive, since, unlike 'Judaism', it does not begin as a term of opposition, is defined precisely not by race or status but only by electing grace (Deut. 7.6-8), and includes the task of bringing salvation to the end of the earth (Isa. 49.6). As we shall see later, this was a point on which Paul attempted to maintain his own understanding of himself as an 'Israelite' and of his mission as continuous with Israel's (Romans 9-11), though without much success.

and the Golan (see, e.g., Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus 168-70). There is some dispute as to whether all the stepped pools should be identified as miqwaoth (H. Eshel, 'A Note on "Miqvaot" at Sepphoris', in D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee [University of South Florida; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997] 131-33; B. G. Wright, Jewish Ritual Baths — Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism', in N. A. Silberman and D. Small, eds., The Archaeology oflsrael: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present [JSOTS 237; Sheffield: JSOT, 1997] 190-214 [lam grateful to Kathleen Corley for the latter reference]). But the objections would be valid only if mishnaic practice was already standard, something which cannot be assumed; and it is likely that the practice of tebul yom (immersion before sunset to reduce impurity) was already being enacted by this time, as is implied by the allusions in 4QMMT B15 and 4Q514, which would also suggest greater need for and use of miqwaoth (Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah 76-81). That there were miqwaoth in Galilee, which testify to a concern to maintain purity even when attendance at the Temple was not immediately in view, is hardly to be disputed; see also my 'Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate', NTS 48 (2002) 449-67 (§lc).

152. But see again the second half of §9.4.

d. Torah

Finally we must speak of the Torah (the books of Moses, the Pentateuch), which is as fundamental to Israel's self-understanding as God, Temple, and election. It was the Torah which justified and explained the importance of the Temple and its cult, and which proved the more foundational and durable when rabbinic Judaism was able to transform itself from a religion of Temple and priest to one of Torah and rabbi in the centuries following the disasters of the two Jewish revolts. It was the Torah which had been given to Israel as a mark of the one God's favour to and choice of Israel, an integral part of his covenant with Israel, to show Israel how to live as the people of God (Deuteronomy), its significance classically expressed in the claim that universal divine Wisdom is now embodied therein.153 And it was the Torah which served as boundary and bulwark separating Israel from the other nations by its insistence on their maintenance of the purity code. Since the Torah was both school textbook and law of the land we may assume a substantial level of respect and observance of its principal regulations within common Judaism. At any rate, it is important not to think of the Torah as exclusively religious documents and to recognize here not least the interlocking nature of Israel as a religio-national entity. The Torah, of course, was part of a larger concept of 'the Scriptures', consisting of 'the Law and the Prophets', or 'the Law, the Prophets and the Writings' Josephus speaks of twenty-two books of sacred Scripture (Ap. 1.37-43). But the Torah was undoubtedly regarded as the definitive element, on which the rest was commentary.

Because of the Torah's centrality in determining what it meant to be the people of God in daily living, devotion to Torah was bound to be a feature in the divisions within Judaism. Again, not because the different groups disputed its importance, but for precisely the opposite reason. It was desire to meet the

154. E.g., Lev. 20.24-26; Dan. 1.8-16; Ep. Arist. 139, 142. See also n. 97 above, and further Dunn, Partings 23-31.

155. Following his treatment of the Temple and associated features Sanders devotes two chapters to the theme of 'observing the law of God'(Judaism 190-240).

156. The term is attributed to Jesus — Mark 12.10 pars.; 12.24 par.; 14.49 par.; Matt. 26.54; Luke 4.21.

157. Matt. 11.13/Luke 16.16; Matt. 5.17-18; 7.12; 22.40; John 1.45.

158. Luke 24.44. The threefold collection making up the Scriptures was already well established by the time of Jesus, as we see from the prologue of ben Sira and 4QMMT C 10, and fiom references to David as an inspired and authoritative writer (as in Mark 2.25 pars, and 12.36 pars.), though the third element (the writings) was not yet delimited. For discussion see, e.g., R. T. Beckwith, 'Formation of the Hebrew Bible', in M. J. Mulder, ed., Mikra (CRINT II. 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988) 39-86; and on the text(s) of Scripture current at the time of Jesus see M. J. Mulder, 'The Transmission of the Biblical Text', Mikra 88-104.

gations specified by the Torah for Israel as fully as possible which resulted in what was in effect a competitive dispute as to what that meant in practice (cf. not least Gal. 1.14). All would have agreed that they ought to live according to the principles of 'covenantal but each group's claim that it (alone) was so living carried with it the effective denial that others were doing so. In these disputes circumcision played no role, since they were all disputes within Judaism; circumcision came into play as a boundary marker between Jew and Gentile, as the early Christian mission to Gentiles reminds us. But it is clear that other issues of calculating feast days and the right maintenance of purity (including Temple purity), food laws, and Sabbath were usually the flash points and make-or-break issues on which differences and divisions turned.160 Here again we should recall the seriousness of these disputes as indicated by frequent use of the abusive epithet 'sinners' (§9.4), for a sinner was defined precisely as one who broke or disregarded the regulations of Torah. In such polemic the need for a group to find in the Torah its own self-affirmation had the inevitable corollary of making the Torah an instrument by means of which one group condemned another.

On this point too it may be important to reflect further on the distinction between Judaism and Israel. For it could be argued that it was an overemphasis on the Torah, and on such distinctives as circumcision and food laws, which gave the term 'Judaism' its national and anti-Gentile character. It was the Torah seen and emphasized in its function of separating Israel from the other nations which, we might even say, transformed Israel into Judaism. Not the Torah as such, but the Torah understood to define the Jew by his difference from the Gentile. Whether this was a factor within Jesus' mission is quite unclear, but it certainly became a factor in Paul's reconfiguration of his faith in the light of his conversion and sense of call to apostolic mission. Here again, a proper setting of the historical context, both for Jesus and for embryonic Christianity, will surely help us to a better grasp of how and why Jesus was remembered as he was and how and why Christianity developed as it did.

159. The term coined by Sanders and used by him to denote the obedience to the law which was generally understood to be the appropriate (and necessary) response to the grace of God given in the covenant (Judaism 262-78). 'Covenantal nomism' is Sanders's alternative to (rejection of) the older view of Jewish 'legalism' prevalent up to the 1970s in NT scholarship, and although some important qualification is required (see particularly F. Avemarie, Torah und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischer Literatur [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996]), the basic balance which the phrase achieves between covenant-grace and is still sound. See further below, vol. 2.

160. E.g., 1 En. 82.4-7; 1QS 10.1-8; 4QpHos 2.14-17; Pss. Sol 8.12, 22; TMos. 7.10; IMacc. 1.62-63; Gal. 2.11-14; Jub. 50.6-13; CD 10-11; Mark 2.23-3.5.

The Historical Context 9.6. Galilean Judaism

In a treatment aimed at illuminating the character and impact of mission, an analysis of 'Judaism' at that time may be insufficient to clarify the most immediate historical context of that mission. For, as already noted, 'Judaism' first appears as the national religion of those who lived in Judea; the 'Jews' were first 'Judeans'. But Jesus is remembered as a Galilean,161 and no one disputes that most of his mission was centred in the Galilee.162 But Galilee is not Judea. Does that mean that the Galileans were also not part of Judaism, that it is actually improper to call Jesus a 'Jew'? The issue has potentially far-reaching implications and cannot be avoided. There are two aspects to the issue: Was Galilee 'Jewish' ? Was Galilee 'Hellenized'?

a. Was Galilee Jewish?

The first issue can be posed quite sharply in terms of early Judaism's own historical records. As part of the northern kingdom (Israel), Galilee had been separated from Judea since the division of the Davidic kingdom following Solomon's death (about 922 BCE). When finally overrun by the Assyrians (722 or 721) 'the Israelites' had been transported to Assyria (2 Kgs 17.6), 'exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day' (17.23), and replaced 'in the cities of Samaria' by settlers from Mesopotamia (17.24). According to 1 Maccabees, it was only in the course of the internecine warfare which marked the decline of the Syrian Empire that Samaria and Galilee were added/(offered?) to Judea (1 Macc. 10.30) in about 152 BCE.163 But it was nearly another fifty years before the Hasmoneans, under Aristobulus I (104-103 BCE), regained full control of the area. Josephus' description of the forcible accession is noteworthy: Aristobulus 'compelled the inhabitants, if they wished to remain in the territory, to be circumcised and to live in accordance with the laws of the Jews/Judeans' (Ant. 13.318).164 Then, after less than one hundred years of rule from Jerusalem, at the death of Herod the Great, Herod's kingdom was divided up and Galilee with Perea given to Herod Antipas (4 BCE-39 CE), while Judea was soon taken under direct imperial rule (6-41 CE). SO the obvious question arises: Was Jesus brought up in an only superficially 'judaized' Galilee?

161. Mark 1.9; Matt. 2.22; 21.11; 26.69; 27.55; Luke 2.39; 23.6; John 7.41, 52.

162. E.g., Mark 1.14, 16, 28, 39; 3.7; Luke 4.14, 31; 23.5, 49, 55; Acts 10.37.

163. Schurer, History 1.141 and n. 9. In an earlier campaign, Simon, brother of Judas Maccabee, had rescued 'the Jews/Judeans of Galilee' and brought them back to Judea (1 5.23); 'the early Maccabees by no means set out to Judaise those regions, but on the contrary, withdrew their Jewish population' (Schurer, History 1.142).

164. Schurer, History 1.217-18.

In the first thorough English language study of Galilee, Sean Freyne argued strongly that, despite the above data, Galileans retained a firmly Jewish identity.165 Under the Ptolemies (Egypt) and Seleucids (Syria) the administrative region ('eparchy') of Samaria included both Galilee and Judea.166 Josephus reports a decree of the Seleucid king Antiochus III that 'all the members of the nation (of the shall be governed in accordance with their ancestral laws' {Ant. 12.142), which Freyne thinks would have included Galilee.167 Consequently, there was no need for a 'judaisation' of Galilee under the Has-moneans.168 Rather, 'Galilean Judaism was now politically reunited with what had always been its cultural and religious center'; 'the Jerusalem temple continued to exercise a powerful attraction for them'.169 Richard Horsley, however, has protested that Galilee was not integrated into a culturally unified 'common Judaism'.170 Rather we should recognize a cultural divide between Galilean peasants and imported aristocrats, initially 'Judeans' and subse quently the Hellenized appointees of the Herods.171 The continuity was more at the level of ancient Israelite traditions stemming from the period of the northern kingdom.172

165.S. Freyne, GalileefromAlexandertheGreattoHadrian, 323bce to 135CE:AStudy of Second Temple Judaism (Wilmington: Glazier, 1980). Freyne has consistently updated his views in the light particularly of fuller archaeological evidence; see his collected essays Galilee and Gospel (WUNT 125; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), especially 'Archaeology and the Historical Jesus' (160-82) and 'Jesus and the Urban Culture of Galilee' (183-207); also The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus', in Chilton and Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus 75-121; also 'The Geography of Restoration: Galilee-Jerusalem In Early Jewish and Christian Experience', NTS47 (2001) 289-311.

166. Freyne, Galilee 33-35.

167. Freyne, Galilee 35-36.

168. The area taken over by Aristobulus is described as Iturea, and Freyne questions Schtirer's conclusion that Iturea included any of lower Galilee {Galilee 43-44).

169. Freyne, Galilee 392-93 (quoting from his conclusions).

170. Horsley, Galilee. In light ofthe above (§§9.1-2), we should also note that'Judaism' was not yet such an inclusive term as Freyne seemed to think. Like Freyne, Horsley has updated his views in the light of increasing archaeological data — particularly Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee — though Horsley's basic thesis has remained largely unchanged throughout.

171. Horsley argues that the requirement to live 'according to the laws of the Judeans' 'meant subordination to the Hasmonean high priesthood in Jerusalem'; similarly (re-)circumcision was 'a sign of being joined to the "body-politic"'; but Galileans were not thereby 'integrated into the Judean ethnos' {Galilee 46-52). The disagreement between Freyne and Horsley is highlighted by the unresolved question of whether Ioudaioi in Josephus should be translated 'Jews' (Freyne) or 'Judeans' (Horsley).

172. Horsley here develops the earlier arguments of A. Alt, 'Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Judäa und Samaria' and 'Galiläische Probleme', in Kleine Schriften zurGeschichtedes

Recent archaeological findings, however, have transformed the debate, and when correlated with the literary data seem to settle the issue fairly conclusively.173 Study of the settlement patterns of Galilean sites reveals two striking features. First, the data indicate an almost complete abandonment of the region, painting 'a picture of a totally devastated and depopulated Galilee in the wake of the Assyrian campaigns of 733/732 Second, the sudden burgeoning of data around the end of the second century BCE (architecture, pottery, and coins) indi cates that there was a rapid rise in new settlements in the wake of the Hasmonean conquest, attesting also economic and political ties between Galilee and lem.175 All these data refute Horsley's idea of a Hasmonean aristocracy imposing themselves over a continuing Israelite population and point clearly to a wave of Judean settlements spreading over a depopulated territory.

To this has to be added what Jonathan Reed calls four indicators of Jewish religious identity: stone vessels (chalk or soft limestone), attesting a concern for ritual purity;176 plastered stepped pools, that is, Jewish ritual baths (miqwaoth); burial practices, reflecting Jewish views of the afterlife;177 and bone profiles without pork, indicating conformity to Jewish dietary laws. Such finds have been made across Galilee, whereas they are lacking at sites outside the Galilee and the Golan.178 In the light of such finds we can hardly do other than speak of the characteristically Jewish population of Galilee in the late Second Temple period.

Volkes Israel II (Munich: Beck, 1959) 346-62, 363-435. Horsley has further developed his case in finding 'Israelite traditions in Q' as reflecting popular tradition in Galilee (Whoever da. 5).

173. I draw particularly on Reed, 'The Identity of the Galileans: Ethnic and Religious Considerations', in Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus 23-61. The discussion by M. Goodman, 'Galilean Judaism and Judaean Judaism', in Horbury, et al., eds., Judaism 3.596-617, is already somewhat dated.

174. Reed, Archaeology 28-35 (here 29); 'in the Galilean heartland . . . every single excavated site . . . was destroyed or abandoned at the end of the eighth century' (31); 'there is no archaeological evidence for an indigenous population in the centuries after 733/2 BCE' (33). Reed concludes: 'The position of Alt and its revival by Horsley must be abandoned' (34). Similarly Freyne, 'Archaeology' who has also abandoned his earlier support of Alt ('Town and Country Once More: The Case of Roman Galilee', Galilee and Gospel 59-72 [here 67-68]; also 'Galilee', OEANE 2.371-72).

175. Reed, Archaeology 39-43. Reed also notes the (Hasmonean) destruction of Gentile sites between Judea and Galilee and on Galilee's periphery (42-43). The evidence also confirms Freyne's rejection of hypothesis ('Archaeology' 177-79) that the Galileans were converted Itureans (Reed 34-39; n. 168 above). See again Freyne, 'Galilee', OEANE 2.372-73.

176. According to the Mishnah stone vessels are impervious to ritual impurity (m. Kelim 10.1; Ohol. 5.5; Para. 5.5).

177. 'Placing ossuaries inside so-called kokhim or loculi, horizontally shafted underground family tombs, was a distinctly Jewish phenomenon at the end of the Second Temple period' (Reed, Archaeology 47).

178. Reed, Archaeology 43-52.

The archaeological picture is confirmed by the literary data. Galilean regard for the Jerusalem Temple is fairly well attested. During the reign of Herod Antipas (which covers the adult life of Jesus), there are indications that Galileans were expected to pay tithes and other dues for the priests and Temple, even if in the event they were notably slack in doing so;179 according to Mark 1.44 pars. there were priests in Galilee, who could expect to benefit from the tithes due to priests. Galilean participation is also attested in the great pilgrim festivals (in Je-rusalem):180 following the death of Herod the Great, Josephus speaks of 'a countless multitude' from Galilee and elsewhere who flocked into Jerusalem at Pentecost (War 2.43; Ant. 17.254); later on he notes 'the custom of the Galileans at the time of a festival to pass through the Samaritan territory on their way to the holy city' (Ant. 20.118; War 2.232); and the tradition of some Galilean participation in the pilgrim festivals echoed in Luke 2.41-43 and John 7.10 is no doubt soundly based. In addition, the reference to Pilate mingling the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke suggests that at least some Galileans did participate in the Temple cult; and according to Mark and Matt. 5.23-24, Jesus assumed similar participation for his hearers.

As for Galilean loyalty to the Torah, we need simply note here that Jesus' own knowledge and use of the Torah presumably imply that schooling in Torah was practised in Galilee. Some of the issues confronting Jesus were matters of Torah and Torah interpretation (including sabbath, laws, Temple offerings, and fasting)181 and imply a similar breadth of concern regarding the law. As attested by Mark 1.44 pars., the local priests would be responsible for administering the law. Beyond the Gospel accounts, and over against later rabbinic disdain for 'the people of the land', we should note Josephus' account of Eleazar, 'who came from Galilee and who had a reputation for being extemely strict (akribes) with regard to the ancestral laws' (Ant. 20.43-44). And we should certainly recall the striking episode occasioned by Caligula's order for a statue of himself to be erected in the Jerusalem Temple (39-40 CE). It evidently triggered just as vehement a response among the Galilean peasantry in Tiberias as would have been the case in Judea, the mass protest before the Roman legate Petronius declaring, 'We will die sooner than violate our laws' (Ant. 18.271-72) ,182 The pillars of Temple, monotheism, and Torah (the second of the ten commandments) were evidently as deeply embedded in Galilean as in Judean soil.

Does all this mean that the Galileans can be described straightforwardly as

179. Freyne, Galilee 281-87, 294; Horsley, Galilee 142-44.

180. Freyne, Galilee 287-93; Horsley, Galilee 144-47.

181. See further below §14.4.

182. Josephus explicitly notes that the protesters 'neglected their fields, and that, too, though it was time to sow the seed'. Horsley agrees that this probably indicates a 'peasant strike' in Galilee (Galilee 71).

'Jews'? The implication that first-century CE Galileans were descendants of the Judean settlers a century earlier suggests a clear Yes answer. At the same time we need to recall the degree of ambivalence in the term (§9.2). Shaye Cohen's suggestion, that the shift in meaning of from (ethnic-geographical) 'Judean' to (religious) 'Jew' took place in the Hasmonean period (n. 28 above), correlates with the archaeological evidence regarding Galilee's Jewish character. But he also notes Josephus' readiness to regard 'Judea' as the name for the entire land of Israel, including Galilee,183 and various occasions on which Josephus calls Galileans Ioudaioi,while in other passages Galilaioi seem to be distinct from the Ioudaioi. And if the earlier reflections were on target, and 'Jew/ Judean' was more of an outsider's designation, the actual use of the term itself would depend more on how others viewed them and be less a matter of self-identity. Probably, then, the designation of Galilee as part of Judea was a matter of perspective, the dominant element in the state standing for the whole.186 Ironically, in somewhat like manner, 'Israel', though applicable primarily to the northern kingdom in the period of the divided kingdoms, was too precious an expression of Jewish self-identity not to be used by all who claimed to stand in the line of inheritance from the

The upshot is that we should have no qualms about calling Galileans in general 'Jews', including Jesus of Nazareth. And even if the propriety and overtones of the epithet are less clear-cut, the implication of the term itself, that the Galileans in general were practitioners of 'common Judaism', should be allowed to stand, whatever qualifications might be called for in particular instances.

183. Similarly Luke uses 'Judea' when he was probably thinking of Galilee (Luke 4.44), and he certainly seems to think of Judea as including Galilee (Luke 23.5; Acts 10.37). In Luke's Gospel Jesus does not leave Galilee till 17.11 and does not enter Judea proper till 18.35-19.10.

184. Particularly War 2.232; 3.229; Ant. 13.154; 20.43; Life 113. Cohen also observes that diaspora Ioudaioi continued to be regarded as citizens of Judea (Beginnings ofjewishness 72-76).

186. We may compare the use of 'Holland' for the Netherlands, of 'Russia' for a wider territory, including, e.g., the Ukraine, and of 'England' for the whole of the United Kingdom. Cohen speaks of Ioudaioi as either 'broadly defined' (including Galileans) or 'narrowly defined' (living in Judea) (Beginnings ofJewishness 73).

'Israel implies the religious claim to be God's chosen people even when it is used in secular contexts, with no religious emphasis, as the accepted designation' (Kuhn, 'Israel' 362, with examples). Zeitlin, Jews 10, notes that the prophets of Judah (the southern kingdom) always delivered their messages in the name of the God of Israel, never of the God of Judah.

b. How Hellenized Was Galilee?

This is obviously the other side of the same coin. The question arises from the same data noted in posing the first question, summed up now in the ancient description of Galilee as 'Galilee of the nations/Gentiles'.188 In the light of this description and the corollary of Galilean syncretism, Walter Grundmann could even and infamously argue: 'Galilee was Gentile' and 'Jesus was no Jew'.189 The issue with regard to Jesus is reinforced by the presence of two cities in lower Galilee, Sepphoris and Tiberias, (re)established by Herod Antipas within Jesus' lifetime as administrative centres. From the model of the Hellenistic cities of the Decapolis and the Mediterranean coast it becomes possible to argue that the Galilean cities were themselves 'Hellenistic' in character and culture.190 A further inference readily drawn is that Sepphoris would have attracted villagers from the locality for trade and social outings191 and that the youthful Jesus would have (regularly?) visited Sepphoris, only two hours distant (5 km) from Nazareth by foot, perhaps even as a young carpenter assisting in the construction of its thea-tre.192 Sepphoris was also a natural stopping place on the trade route from Tiberias to Ptolemais on the coast; so the potential for still wider influence on a young Galilean can readily be imagined.193 A final layer of presupposition frequently added in the last decade or so is that the attitudes and principles of Cynic philosophy must have been familiar in such an urbanized culture,194 no doubt in-

189. W. Grundmann, Jesus der Galilaer und das Judentum (Leipzig: Wigand, 1941)

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment