Reconstructing First Century Galilee: Reflections on Ten Major Problems

Reconstructing First-Century Galilee:Reflections on Ten Major Problems

James H. Charlesworth and Mordechai Aviam

Introduction

To understand historical figures like Jesus and Josephus, we need a sense ofdaily life in the land in which they lived. Thus the following essay is an as-sessment of what seems methodologically necessary to obtain more scien-tific precision in reconstructing first-century Galilee, especially the LowerGalilee that Jesus and Josephus knew intimately before 67 ce. We will focuson ten major problem areas in recent publications.1

This essay is written by two scholars.2 One is primarily a text expertand historian; the other is an archaeologist and a specialist of Galilean to-pography. Such team cooperation is essential. Today it is impossible to de-vote one’s life to the study of over one thousand primary texts and still beimmersed in Galilean archaeology and topography. Almost always in thepast, scholars who attempted to re-create and understand life in pre-70Galilee either worked primarily from the Gospels and Josephus, glancingperiodically at the work of archaeologists, or labored only from discoveriesand insights obtained in archaeological excavations, peering intermittentlyinto texts. The essay thus indicates a way to bridge the chasm that nowseparates specialists in different scientific fields and their reconstructionsof the past.

Charlesworth’s thoughts have evolved and matured out of studying andediting early Jewish texts, reading the reports of archaeological discoveries

103

1. Because this essay is directed to those not familiar or experienced in the archaeologyof Galilee, it is not a detailed report of recent publications.

2. Charlesworth prepared the first draft and the ten questions. Aviam provided data inarchaeological and topographical details and perceptions. Charlesworth polished the finalpresentation. Such teamwork is a major way to improve research.

137

EERDMANS -- Jesus Research II (Charlesworth) final textThursday, November 07, 2013 10:41:20 AM

Color profile: DisabledComposite 140 lpi at 45 degrees

in Galilee, and excavating in numerous sites.3 They are also deeply shapedby years of living in Galilee, intermittently from 1968 to 2006, so as to expe-rience the Kinnereth (or Chinnereth; Sea of Galilee) and the inviting topog-raphy of Upper and Lower Galilee. Aviam lives in Galilee and is the excava-tor of Yodefat (Jotapata) and other major early Roman and Jewish sites.4 Heknows intimately Josephus and the Mishnah.

Fundamentally important for an improved re-creation of first-centurylife in Galilee are five interwoven methodological points. First, a scientific in-vestigation of Galilee in the first century ce must proceed only from induc-tion, not deduction. That is, scholars must immerse themselves in the topog-raphy and archaeology of Galilee and begin to obtain inferences andhypotheses from what is apparent, though not proved, through what is expe-rienced, perceived, and excavated.5 Second, science proceeds not only withinduction but also with inclusion of all data; at the outset scholars must notimpose upon phenomena a category of “relevant data.” Third, all relevantmethodologies must be employed, and that includes at least the following: to-pography, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, economics, numismatics,demography, geology, and a penetrating and perceptive analysis of all texts(esp. the Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha,Josephus, and the Mishnah). Fourth, interpretation of all data and an attemptto re-create the past must evolve with intuition that is anchored in an immer-sion in both archaeological research and textual analysis. Fifth, preliminary

104


3. Notably, see J. H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research and Near Eastern Archaeology: Re-flections on Recent Developments,” in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor ofPeder Borgen (ed. D. E. Aune et al.; NovTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 37-70; and threeessays in Jesus and Archaeology (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006):“The Historical Jesus and Biblical Archaeology: Questions,” pp. xxii-xxv; “Jesus Researchand Archaeology: A New Perspective,” pp. 11-63; and “The Historical Jesus and Biblical Ar-chaeology: Reflections on New Methodologies and Perspectives,” pp. 692-95.

4. See esp. M. Aviam, “Yodefat: The Excavation of a Galilean Jewish Town from theSecond Temple Period and the Second Revolt,” Qad 118 (2000): 92-101 [Hebrew]; idem, “TheGalilee: The Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods,” NEAEHL 2:453-58; idem and Peter Richard-son, “Appendix A: Josephus’ Galilee in Archaeological Perspective,” in Flavius Josephus:Translation and Commentary, vol. 9: Life of Josephus (ed. S. Mason; 10 vols.; Leiden: Brill,2001), pp. 177-209; Aviam, “First-Century Jewish Galilee: An Archaeological Perspective,” inReligion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches (ed. D. R. Edwards;New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 7-27; idem, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Galilee (LG1; Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 2004).

5. The method required is admirably demonstrated in U. Leibner, Settlement and His-tory in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the EasternGalilee (TSAJ 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). The book also contains a valuable bibli-ography, pp. 429-53.

138



insights and attempts at a synthesis must be refined through self-critical re-flection and discussion with informed colleagues, in order to display levels ofprobability and avoid positivistic historical reconstructions. Far from beingidiosyncratic, these five methodologies are acknowledged and frequentlyused by distinguished archaeologists working now in Galilee and Judea.6

In light of these five methodologies, we now proceed with ten questionsrelated to situating the historical Jesus in first-century Galilee. These ques-tions derive from studying publications, editing and reading early Jewishtexts (including the Gospels), experiencing Galilee, excavating sites, and liv-ing in the area.

1. How should scholars obtain a more reliable method for interpreting ar-chaeological data?

2. How does accurate dating help to inform our assessments?3. To what extent is topography important in re-creating first-century Gal-

ilean culture, especially in locales Jesus is reported to have frequented?4. Can one distinguish paradigmatically between the cultures and customs

in cities versus villages, suggesting a dichotomy between a culturewithin cities and a culture outside them? Why do the Evangelists not re-port that Jesus entered cities like Sepphoris and Tiberias, or a town likeGamla?

5. What constituted a synagogue in pre-67 Galilee?6. What proves that a villa or village is “Jewish”?7. Was Capernaum on a major trade route, and could a centurion have

lived, or been stationed, there?8. Is it appropriate to speak about “peasants” in Galilee?9. Were there tensions between Galileans and Judeans?

10. How Jewish was Galilee in the first century ce, and should one label Je-sus “a marginal Jew”?

Interpretation

Our first question is: How should scholars obtain a more reliable method forinterpreting archaeological data? Those not trained and experienced in ar-chaeology often assume that archaeologists have clear clues that help them sci-

105

Reconstructing First-Century Galilee

6. A recent example of methodologically sophisticated work in Galilee, based in histor-ical demography, is Jonathan L. Reed, “Instability in Jesus’ Galilee: A Demographic Perspec-tive,” JBL 129 (2010): 343-65, which appeared after this chapter was completed.

139



entifically and definitively to interpret the data. If a coin dating to 98 bce isfound in a layer of ash, then it seems that there is little interpretation needed.But who burned whom, and how do we know the burning was not an acci-dent? Our first point is the need to interpret contextually, historically, and pri-marily archaeologically what has been found. If the object is self-dated, like aRoman coin, and located in a stratum datable and recovered in situ, then wehave guides to an interpretation — but these circumstances are exceptional.

Once an archaeologist presents an interpretation, one can be sure thatother archaeologists will debate it. Why? An excavation raises questions butdoes not usually disclose lucid answers. We shall now provide two examplesof the need for interpretation, and in the process intimate the fluid relation-ship between archaeological finds and textual data. The first is Hazor fromthe Old Testament period; the second is Sepphoris (Zippori) from the NewTestament period.

Hazor. Far north of the Kinnereth in Upper Galilee, rising impressivelyabove the undulating terrain, are the ruins of the ancient city of Hazor. It wasonce the head of the Canaanite amphictyony. According to the Bible (Josh11:11), the large city was burned by Joshua. Many biblical specialists concludethat perhaps this conflagration occurred about 1250 bce. Archaeologists dis-covered that the massive portions of basalt inside the Canaanite palace werecracked by some horrendous and excessive heat. The date given is sometimein the mid-thirteenth century bce.

Questions abound: Did the palace burn because of some accident? Ordid someone burn it? If so, who?

Perhaps an idol found near the palace helps in interpretation. It seemsto have been smashed by humans. Does that insight provide an interpretivekey to the riddles or questions? If so, then the Philistines (who were almostalways further south) and the Canaanites should be eliminated. Only some-one who despised the Canaanite idol would have smashed it. Could that beHebrews under Joshua?

No proof can be provided to clinch the hypothesis. The evidence, how-ever, does tilt the scales in favor of Joshua — or, more scientifically, to thetime of the conquest by the Hebrew tribes (Early Iron Age). Thence there issome history in the Old Testament narratives, as suggested by many, espe-cially Yigael Yadin.

Sepphoris’s Theater. Sitting on the northern edge of Sepphoris (or Zippori)is an impressive Roman-style theater.7 What is the date of this theater? It is

106


7. See the image in Charlesworth, The Millennium Guide for Pilgrims to the Holy Land(North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL, 2000) p. 204.

140



clearly early Roman; but in which part of this period? Is it pre-70 or post-70?Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers are convinced that the theater dates fromthe early second century ce: “The theater . . . seems to date to a period laterthan Antipas.”8 James F. Strange judges that it is pre-70 and was built by HerodAntipas: “The works of Herod Antipas at Sepphoris included a theatre thatseated 3000.”9 Since Herod Antipas ruled from 4 bce to 39 ce,10 the Meyersesand Strange clearly disagree regarding the date of the Sepphoris theater. All arefirst-rate archaeologists, and all have focused on excavating at Sepphoris. Howcan we understand the different interpretations of the theater? Which inter-pretation is correct, and why do the premier archaeologists, working at thesame ancient city, present such different interpretations? In contemplating thisquestion, it is important to emphasize that no member of those who excavatedthe theater has published a final report of these excavations.

First of all, it is clear that the archaeologists are excavating different sitesat Sepphoris. Meyers and Meyers focus on the southern section of the the-ater. The date of this area seems to be late first century or early second cen-tury. Strange is focusing about thirty yards farther north, and he claims tosee evidence of much earlier construction, dating from the period prior to70. Who is correct, or are all correct in light of what they have excavated?

They are all conceivably correct. Perhaps the Sepphoris theater was ini-tially built by Antipas and subsequently expanded in the late first century orearly second century ce. The southern section is farther from the stage, andthe theater could have been expanded to the south. This scenario is plausiblesince Sepphoris grew in size after 70 ce, when many Judean Jews movednorthward. R. A. Batey added to the argument that Herod Antipas built theSepphoris theater.11 If so, then one should include Zippori and its theater aswe seek to discern the world that influenced Jesus; for about twenty years,Jesus lived in Nazareth, less than two-hours’ walk east of Zippori.

A similar phenomenon is apparent with the Roman theater at BethShean (Scythopolis). A previously unknown early section of the theater was

107


8. C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, “Sepphoris,” OEANE 4:527-36, here 530.9. J. F. Strange, “Sepphoris,” ABD 5:1090-93, here 1091. Also see Strange, “Six Cam-

paigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida Excavations, 1983-1989,” in The Galileein Late Antiquity (ed. L. I. Levine; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,1992), pp. 339-55.

10. See M. H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee (WUNT 2/215; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2006).

11. See Batey, “Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater?” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed.Charlesworth, pp. 111-19. Batey stressed this date in his popular Jesus and the Forgotten City(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), pp. 93-100.

141



discovered inside its later phase. This section dates to the second half of thefirst century bce.12 If Herod the Great established a theater in CaesareaMaritima,13 why should not his son have done the same in his own capitalsof Galilee, chronologically first Sepphoris and then Tiberias?

The uncovering of the Roman-style theater in Tiberias, although not yetdefinitively dated, supports the argument that Herod Antipas had a similartheater constructed at Sepphoris.14 The monumental theater at Tiberias maybe part of Antipas’s construction. In the field of archaeology, new discoveriesappear almost monthly and the science is constantly refined; most impor-tantly, the unearthing of a theater built by Antipas at Tiberias influencesevaluations of what has been found elsewhere, notably at Sepphoris.

These two examples help the nonspecialist grasp how archaeological in-terpretation develops. Interpretation of archaeological evidence evolvesslowly out of research, study, analysis of all evidence in various loci at a siteand related sites, in the laboratories, and while finalizing the writing of the fi-nal report. Then insights and interpretations are refined by discussions anddebates among scholars, not all of whom may be archaeologists (some are ge-ologists, numismatists, sociologists, and specialists in other hard sciences).Likewise, archaeologists float conceivable interpretations, and later some ofthese slowly become more probable. Eventually, only a few begin to approachvirtual certainty. Sometimes it is best to hold in tension competing interpre-tations to foster more informed imaginative reconstructions of the past.

Dating

Our second question is, how does dating help us inform our assessments?How important is dating (a whole world of research) in re-creating the cul-ture of first-century Galilee? Some early traditions in ancient sourceswrongly linked certain places with earlier events; some modern interpreta-tions blend, too easily, evidence from different archaeological strata and tra-ditions of varying historical reliability. It is necessary to emphasize that the

108


12. See G. Mazor and W. Atrash, Nisa Scythopolis: The Theater, Final Report (Bet SheanIII), forthcoming.

13. Herod the Great was not only a master builder but also a gifted architect who con-tributed to the massive building programs. See E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod, theGreat Builder (TSAJ 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-demic, 2008).

14. Jensen (Herod Antipas) examines the sociological and economic impact of HerodAntipas on Galilee, concluding that it was not as extensive as Jesus scholars have presupposed.

142



date of a place or item — often disclosed by pottery chronology, numismat-ics, or a stratum in an excavated area or bulk — is a fundamental key in in-terpreting its meaning. Also, Josephus must be studied critically; for exam-ple, he is sometimes astoundingly precise (as in the topographicaldescription of Gamla) and other times he is anachronistic (e.g., he calls theearly governors “procurators” when they were certainly prefects).

High in the Meiron Mountains one comes to Khirbet Shemma.15 Tofind the site, it may be necessary, as it was for us in the summer of 2006, tocut a way up a ridge with a jeep proving to be a veritable tree trimmer. Even-tually, one can discern a massive collection of carved stones for a mauso-leum. Traditions revere this place as the burial site of Shammai, one of theleading rabbis about the time of Jesus.

Shammai never entered Galilee. The place is later than the first centuryce, and the synagogue near the tomb dates, according to the excavators,from about the third or fourth century (or late fourth/early fifth century, ac-cording to Jodi Magness).16 The site now lies abandoned, with massive lin-tels and columns fallen from their intended places.

The ancient sarcophagus associated with Shammai seems to date fromthe tenth century, or even later. The name was derived, most likely, from thenearby Arab village called Kefar Samoi. One cannot assume tradition is thekey to interpretation. The burial sites of Shammai, Hillel, Honi the CircleMaker, and others like them in Upper and Lower Galilee do not take us backinto pre-70 Galilee, or even to the days of the codification of the Talmud,much less the Mishnah.

Even so, Khirbet Shemma was clearly occupied during the Second Tem-ple period. Coins found in situ date from only the Hasmonean period. Thereare no early Roman coins or pottery. For example, in the summer of 2006Charlesworth found on the ground a piece of Galilean Coarse Ware.17 Thislittle piece of pottery proves the site was occupied in Hellenistic times.

109


15. See esp. E. M. Meyers, A. T. Kraabel, and J. F. Strange, Ancient Synagogue Excava-tions at Khirbet Shema{, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-1972 (AASOR 42; Durham, N.C.: DukeUniversity Press, 1976).

16. J. Magness, “Synagogue Typology and Earthquake Chronology at Khirbet Shema{,Israel,” JFA 24.2 (1997): 211-20; idem, “The Question of the Synagogue: The Problem ofTypology,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, part 3: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in An-cient Judaism, vol. 4: The Special Problem of the Synagogue (ed. A. J. Avery-Peck and J. Neus-ner; HO 1/55.3.4; Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 1-48.

17. Galilean Coarse Ware (or GCW) is a type of pottery that represents Hellenistic, “pa-gan” occupation of Galilee before 63 bce, when Pompey and Rome began to change life inancient Palestine.

143



Many Jewish villages, towns, or cities seem to appear in Galilee onlyduring the Hasmonean period and before the Roman “conquest” in 63 bce.The foundations of Migdal (Magdala), Arbel, Nazareth, and Jotapata seemto appear for the first time in the Hasmonean period, and probably before100 bce.18 It is now recognized that the Jewish migration from Judea toLower Galilee began during the Hasmonean period or sometime before 100bce. The conclusion that Jews from Judea began to populate Lower Galileeis evident from the appearance of Jewish customs and the destruction oftemples at the end of the Hellenistic period (esp. at Mt. Mizpe ha-Yamim, el-{Aiteh, and Khirbet {Eika).19

The discovery of Roman pottery and construction often, however, frus-trates the attempt to re-create the culture in Galilee during the time of Hilleland Jesus. After Jesus’ time in Lower Galilee, the area changed. In 66 and 67the Romans razed Jotapata and Gamla and burned much of Migdal andTiberias.20 After 70 the influx of Jews from Galilee and the end of SecondTemple Judaism had profound ramifications on many communities, includ-ing those in Galilee that produced the books of Enoch over centuries, fromabout 300 bce to 40 ce. We need to be more attentive to this question: Doesa particular site or stratum date from pre-70, and the time of Hillel, Jesus,and Josephus; or from post-70, the time when many Judeans fled north andthe leading priests and Jewish authorities migrated from the south to Galileein the north?

This difficult task of discerning a date is felt most keenly when examin-ing the still unpublished Roman bath at Capernaum. Is the bath pre- or post-70, and how do we know? Such questions help guide this essay and will con-clude it.

At this point we must stress that it is exceedingly important to distin-guish between pre-70 and post-70 Roman remains. Obviously, what datesfrom Jesus’ time (c. 4 bce to 30 ce) must not be confused with post-70 alter-ations of Galilean culture.

One example helps illustrate the importance of precise dating of a ruinor stratum. Qedesh was a Hellenistic city and Tyrian administrative center,but it also preserves later Roman ruins. The monumental temple is Late Ro-

110


18. See Aviam, “The Hasmonean Dynasty’s Activities in the Galilee,” in Jews, Pagans,and Christians, pp. 41-50. Also see Leibner, Settlement and History, esp. p. 329.

19. See Leibner, Settlement and History, pp. 315-28.20. See the magnificent articles in The Great Revolt in the Galilee (ed. O. Guri-Rimon;

Haifa: Hecht Museum and the University of Haifa, 2008 [Hebrew]). Note, in particular, theaerial view of Jotapata on p. 38.

144



man, not Hellenistic, and probably dates from the third century ce.21 Theeagle, tripod, and lyre as well as the open ceiling indicate that this temple ismost likely a monument to Apollo (as Jodi Magness argued).22 Numerousmassive sarcophagi were found in situ. They are the most ornamented lime-stone sarcophagi in Israel; one rivals the illustrated sarcophagus now in thefamous tombs in Tyre. These observations prove the cultural connection ofGentile Upper Galilee with the Phoenician region to the northwest.

Jewish Upper Galilee is similar to Lower Galilee. Thus the culture ofUpper Galilee is diverse. There are mikvaot and stone vessels and “Jerusa-lem” oil lamps in Meron, Gush Halav, Navoraya, and elsewhere. So Jewishlife is clearly evident in Upper Galilee.

Topography Must Be Experienced and Felt

Our third question is: To what extent is topography important in re-creatingfirst-century Galilean culture? By “topography” we intend the first meaningsupplied in lexicons: the detailed mapping and charting of the varied fea-tures of a relatively circumscribed area or locale. Thus topography is notmerely the landscape or contours of the physical land; topography includesgeographical features, like rivers and lakes, as well as flora and fauna.

Division of Galilee. As early as the book of Judith, and later in Josephus’sJewish War (3.35-40) as well as in the Mishnah and Tosefta,23 Jews custom-arily referred to “Upper Galilee” and “Lower Galilee.” This is accurate termi-nology. When one drives from Rosh Pina to Acco one passes by Bersaba (touse Josephus’s term); it is located on a high, isolated hill at the eastern mar-gin of the Beth Kerem Valley. Both places, the site and the valley, mark thenorthern border of Lower Galilee. As one proceeds west, Mount Kamon ison the left, rising about 598 meters, and Mount Meiron is on the right, tomore than double the height, or 1208 meters.24 In contrast to both, MountTabor — often but incorrectly assumed to be the highest peak in Lower Gali-lee due to its theological significance25 — is approximately only 500 meters

111


21. M. Aviam, “Some Notes on the Roman Temple at Qedesh,” in Jews, Pagans, andChristians, pp. 139-46.

22. See J. Magness, “Some Observations on the Roman Temple at Qedesh,” IEJ 40(1990): 173-81.

23. T. Šeb. 4.11 and m. {Arak. 9:6.24. See map, fig. 1.3, in Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, p. 13.25. Christfried Boettrich is convinced that the History of Melchizedek may well be a

first-century Jewish pseudepigraphon. He shared this insight with Charlesworth viva voce

145



above sea level.26 Archaeologists have discovered that the realia in UpperGalilee, dating from the Iron Age to rabbinic times, connect the higher andnorthern Galilee with the cultures of Tyre and Sidon, namely Phoenicia. Therealia in Lower Galilee, however, show a close relationship with the Jewishculture in Judea, far to the south.27 Thus texts and archaeology indicate thatGalilean culture was bifurcated according to elevation and latitude. TheBeth Kerem Valley is not only a geographical barrier, therefore, but also acultural one. There is evidence that this cultural separation appeared as earlyas the Chalcolithic period in the fifth millennium bce.28

Cliffs also define Galilee. On the eastern side of the Huleh Valley and theKinnereth are the massive cliffs of the Golan and to the north the Hermonmassif in which the Itureans lived, according to Pliny, Strabo, andJosephus.29 On the western side of the Huleh Valley are the sloping cliffs ofthe Naphtali ridge and on the western side of the Kinnereth are the majesticcliffs of the Arbel and Mount Nittai. Along the northern margins of the BethKerem Valley are the long cliffs of Mitlol Zurim. In the west are the sheercliffs of Rosh Hanikra. This cliff rises 64 meters out of the Mediterraneanand marks the western shores of Galilee, demarcating today’s border be-tween Israel and Lebanon. For centuries this area has been called “The Lad-der of Tyre” (see Josephus, J.W. 2.188).

At Rosh Hanikra the sea pounds the cliffs. The power of the sea can befelt as one enters the subterranean caves and passages. While waves are usu-ally dispatched on a shore, at Rosh Hanikra they amass and then crash intothe cliffs, which are now pockmarked by centuries of the unending wear ofthe sea. The long tunnels, most natural, are a tribute to nature’s power.

Mountains (or “high hills,” depending on one’s own country and experi-ences) define Galilee. Josephus mentions Ptolemais, “a maritime city of Gali-lee,” as encompassed with “mountains” (J.W. 2.188). At Qeren Naphtali,

112


and is preparing his research for publication. In this pseudepigraphon, Melchizedek islinked with Mount Tabor. Also, in the Targumim Tabor is translated by tZr ram, “a highmountain” (cf. F. Manns, “Mount Tabor,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. Charlesworth, pp.167-77, here p. 172).

26. See M. Aviam, “Tabor, Mount,” OEANE 5:152.27. The recently discovered large stone in the synagogue at Migdal has images that link

with Judea and especially with the Temple.28. The full evidence has not yet been published.29. The cavalier treatment of the Itureans and the judgment that they were an Arab

tribal group known for their brigandage has been successfully challenged by E. A. Myers inThe Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources (SNTSMS 147; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2010).

146



“Horn of the Naphtali Mountains,” one looks down on the Huleh Valley andcan spy movements of caravans or troops below and far away to the northand south.30 This is an ideal site for a fort. Aviam excavated the site. Heproved it was indeed a fort dating from the Hellenistic period; in 38 bce itwas conquered by Herod the Great and Roman troops from Damascus. Acircumvallation wall was built by Herod’s legionnaires. He also had archerswho were “mountaineers” from Lebanon, which is just over the mountainsto the north. In the summer of 2006 we found the bottom of a beautiful terrasiglata bowl, an indication again of the cultural connection of Upper Galileewith the northwest.

Fertility and Swamps. Hecateus (apud Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.195) describesthe land of the Jews; it possesses a soil that is generally rich and fruitful. Inpassing, Josephus mentions that ancient Palestine was “very fruitful” (Ant.15.109). He opines that to the west of the Kinnereth is an astoundingly ver-dant land, “nature’s ambition,” more paradisiacal than any place on earth(J.W. 3.516-21). Such apparent exaggeration should be judged in light ofJosephus’s travels to Egypt and Italy. He was a Judean who well knew the richsoil near the Mediterranean. Looking down on the area west of theKinnereth from the Arbel reveals the accuracy of Josephus’s assessment.

Josephus, however, also reported swamps not far away from this fertile re-gion. The area from Mount Hermon to Bethsaida, the Huleh Valley (orSemichonitis), was defined by swamps or marshes (J.W. 3.515; 4.3). These werecharacterized by snakes and mosquitoes. The Jewish author of the Parables ofEnoch (1 En 37–71), who most likely composed this work during the time of theHerodian dynasty, may reveal his provenience when he curses those (probablyRomans and Herodians) who have taken the food-bearing dry land, leavingonly the threatening swamps to the Jews (cf. 1 En 48:8; 63:1-10).31

Roads. Josephus mentions a road from Galilee to Jerusalem. While onecould complete the journey in three days (Life 269), this “road” was actuallya path, not a constructed highway. Streets from the Roman period can befound in Lower Galilee, especially in Capernaum, Migdala (Magdal,Magdala, or Taricheae), and Sepphoris, but not one pre-70 Roman pavedroad has been discovered. Only two imperial roads cut Galilee from west toeast, and both are post-70, though one should have little doubt that theywere built upon earlier paths. One leads from Acco to Tiberias in Lower Gal-

113


30. See Aviam, “The Hellenistic and Hasmonaean Fortress and Herodian Siege Com-plex at Qeren Naftali,” in Jews, Pagans, and Christians, pp. 59-88.

31. See Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables ofEnoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed.G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450-68.

147



ilee, and the second from Tyre to Paneas in Upper Galilee; the first road isdemanded by cities linked with the Roman world: Acco, Sepphoris, andTiberias.32 Two other roads cross Galilee, extending from south to north.The first proceeds from Legio to Sepphoris, the second from Scythopolis(Beth Shean) to Tiberias (and even to Paneas).33 Clearly, Jews in the first andsecond centuries ce felt the effect these roads made on local culture, topog-raphy, and geography. The sociological study of these unpaved roads helpsus correct some misinterpretations of pre-70 Jewish Galilee; for example,Galilee was not a region cut off from Judea, as some nineteenth-centuryscholars claimed.

Kinnereth (the Sea of Galilee). In ancient Israel there were only twofreshwater lakes, and both were in Galilee. They are Kinnereth and Huleh(Semichonitis). The cultural significance of these lakes can be lost on themodern visitor to Israel, since today many reservoirs have been created tosupply water for agriculture and life. In antiquity, only these two lakes (alongwith springs and an occasional waterfall) provided water for life in Israel.The ministry of Jesus was limited only to the northwestern section of theKinnereth (and most likely including Migdal).

Flora and fauna. Topography, as mentioned previously, is defined byplants and animals. The area west of the Kinnereth blossoms again as in an-cient times. When we stood beneath a sycamore tree northwest of Migdal(in the Ginnosar area) in Lower Galilee, we observed how the fruit grewfrom the trunks. Then we remembered how the authors of the Mishnah re-ported that sycamore trees grew in Lower Galilee but not in Upper Galilee.West of the Kinnereth, one finds rich fields supporting the growth of manyfruits and vegetables, which recall Josephus’s words:

Skirting the lake of Gennesar, and also bearing that name, lies a regionwhose natural properties and beauty are very remarkable. There is not aplant which its fertile soil refuses to produce, and its cultivators in factgrow every species; the air is so well-tempered that it suits the most oppo-site varieties. The walnut, a tree which delights in the most wintry climate,here grows luxuriantly, beside palm-trees, which thrive on heat, and figsand olives, which require a milder atmosphere. One might say that naturehad taken pride in thus assembling, by a tour de force, the most discordantspecies in a single spot, and that, by a happy rivalry, each of the seasonswished to claim this region for her own. (J.W. 3.516-518; LCL)

114


32. See Aviam, “Two Roman Roads in the Galilee,” in Jews, Pagans, and Christians, pp.133-38.

33. See ibid.

148



In the late nineteenth century, European explorers reported findingdeer and bears in Lower Galilee near the Arbel, Mount Nittai, and theAmmud Stream. The last leopard was spotted, and unfortunately killed, in1956. Birds populate and define Galilean topography; in fact, there are morebirds in Galilee than almost any similar area in the world. In one year, theHuleh Valley is the intermittent home of approximately half a million birdsrepresenting 270 species. Most of the birds rest, briefly, on their way to andfrom Moscow or Amsterdam to Egypt and even Cape Town.

Such topographical features are surely not only a modern occurrence.When we move through Galilee or sit and compare our views of Gamla orYodefat with the descriptions provided by Josephus, we are surprised at hisaccuracy. It has become clear that, in many ways, Josephus provides a credi-ble witness to Galilean topography, as well as to other parts of the land. Jesus’parables are replete with such topographical and geographical features, andthey often come to life as one moves about Lower Galilee (and elsewhere inthe land of Israel).

Cities, Towns, and Villages

At the outset, we must not be misled by Josephus’s confusion of cities, towns,and villages. A city is a polis. In Galilee (defined largely), the term city is ap-propriate only for Acco, Caesarea Philippi, Hippos, Sepphoris, and Tiberias.Migdal is not a city; it is a big and important town. Gamla is also a town.Yodefat is a town or a large village. Capernaum is clearly a village. Nazarethis a very small village.

Our fourth question is: Can one distinguish paradigmatically betweenthe cultures and customs in cities versus villages, suggesting a dichotomybetween a culture within cities and a culture without them and only in vil-lages? Can one categorize cities versus towns and villages? Obviously, oneshould avoid a simple yes. It is certain that in cities, whether Jewish or Ro-man, there was a “city culture.” It is represented especially by public archi-tecture — streets, temples, theaters, aqueducts, and occasionally a forum.These are not found in villages. At the town called Yodefat all social strati-fications, however, are represented; there are poor houses with packed-earth floors, and a sumptuous frescoed house waits to be fully excavated.In some ways it is easy to distinguish between cities and villages; but oneshould not dogmatically assume a paradigmatic distinction between citiesand villages.

In the first century ce, Galilee and its contiguous territories were

115


149



shaped by small and large villages (Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, andChorazin), towns (Migdal, Gamla, Yodefat) and large cities (Acco[Ptolemais], Caesarea Philippi, Hippos [Sussita], Sepphoris, and Tiberias),and capitals of various sizes (Sepphoris, Tiberias, Bethsaida, and Paneas[Banias]).34

Four major cities (or large towns) shaped the landscape of Galilee:1. The Gentile city of Acco (Ptolemais) was the border on the sea to the

west. Here Vespasian and Titus headed with sixty thousand well-trainedsoldiers into Galilee in 67 ce. Today there is little evidence of RomanPtolemais.

2. Herod Antipas (4 bce–39 ce) made Sepphoris the capital of Galilee,and Josephus called the site “the strongest city of Galilee” (J.W. 2.511). It com-manded the west-east route through the Beth Netofa Valley. Its Roman-influenced culture is evident both through archaeological excavations(mainly in later periods) and the fact that it immediately capitulated to theRoman troops in 67.

3. The city of Tiberias was also built by Herod Antipas. The date of theconstruction, based on coins minted in Tiberias after the First Revolt, canbe set between 18 and 20 ce.35 Antipas moved the capital from Sepphoristo Tiberias. The new capital changed daily life around the Kinnereth (Seaof Galilee). Most likely the costs demanded by constructing the capital onthe lake demanded increased crippling taxation. This factor should be in-cluded when evaluating Jesus’ ministry, which began about eight years af-ter the founding of Tiberias.36 Some of Antipas’s constructions have beendiscovered recently, including the theater, the gates (without walls), andstone tile floors in two colors. Perhaps these are related to his palace,which according to Josephus had “the figures of living creatures in it” (Life65) and was opulently adorned with golden roofs (Life 66). DespiteJosephus’s description of a magnificent synagogue (Life 277), no trace hasbeen found of it so far.37

4. Migdala (Migdal, Magdala, Nunayah, Taricheae) was a large town

116


34. See esp. Aviam and Richardson, “Appendix A: Josephus’s Galilee.”35. Charlesworth, “Tiberias,” in Millennium Guide, pp. 218-21.36. One of the attractive features of J. D. Crossan and J. L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Be-

neath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), is the devel-opment of the hypothesis that taxation caused by the building of Tiberias helped shape thelife and ministry of Jesus.

37. We are indebted to Y. Hirschfeld for many discussions and visits to Tiberias. Manyof his hunches of discovering remains of Antipas’s Tiberias have proved true. See esp.Y. Hirschfeld, “Tiberias — Preview of Coming Attractions,” BAR 17.2 (1991): 44-51.

150



(some may judge it to be a city) on the western coast of the Kinnereth,38

approximately three miles north of Tiberias. It was the home of MaryMagdalene (Mt 27:56, 61). The received text of Mark states that Jesus vis-ited “Dalmanutha” (Mk 8:10), but some important ancient Greek versionsreplace this name with “Magdala.”39 Josephus reported that Migdala hadforty thousand inhabitants (J.W. 3.539-540); but this number is surely anexample of his use of exaggerated and typological figures.40 We imaginethat the population of Migdala was probably about five or six thousand. Inthe summer of 2006, thanks to a thorough cleaning of the area, we saw nu-merous city elements, including paved streets, columns, perhaps anymphaeum (a fountain), a forum, and a tower (migdal in Hebrew), thatmay be Late Roman.41

Is it significant that Jesus is never described as setting foot in any ofthese four cities? It may be mere coincidence that he never entered one ortwo of them; but all four? Is that due to the selectivity of our sources behindand within the Gospels? Are some Greek and Syriac texts correct to reportthat Jesus was in Migdal (or Dalmanutha)? Or should we ponder other re-constructions of Jesus’ life? Did Jesus avoid these cities because of his radicalteachings?42

117


38. See Leibner, “Migdal/el-Mejdel,” in Settlement and History, pp. 214-37.39. See esp. the following Greek mss.: the ninth-century J and the fifth-century D.

Note also that mgdn, “Magadan” (probably meaning Migdala), appears in the fourth-centurySyrus Sinaiticus (from images in my office [fol. 41B]), and it is the most important version ofthe Old Syriac Gospels (the Peshitta has “Dalmanutha”). Also see E. J. Wilson, The Old Syri-ac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations, vol. 1: Matthew andMark (2nd ed.; EasternChristian Studies 1; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2003), pp. 312-13.

40. See Aviam, “Magdala,” OEANE 3:399-400.41. We exclude Gamla because it is not in Galilee proper. Gamla is clearly a first-

century ce city. It is situated up on the Golan Heights and is shaped like a camel (whence itsname). The citizens of this Jewish city protected the border of Galilee to the east. Only thiscity may have been the home of Zealots; thus it alone of the four cities was destroyed byVespasian and Titus in 67. One can look at the remains of the eastern tower that collapsedduring the siege. As at Jotapata, the city walls were a challenge to the imperial might ofRome. Some Roman leaders considered the construction of walls, as at Jotapata, to challenge— even to resist — Roman control.

42. The Institute for Biblical Research (IBR) Jesus Group, for more than a decade, fo-cused on the key elements in Jesus’ life. They rightly conclude that he must be understoodwithin the context and thought world of Second Temple Judaism and the widespread expec-tation for the dawning of God’s rule. See D. L. Bock, “Key Events in the Life of the HistoricalJesus: A Summary,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Explora-tion of Context and Coherence (ed. D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb; WUNT 247; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2009), pp. 825-53.

151



Some answer yes, Jesus’ teachings caused him to avoid the cities. Jesuswas very Jewish. He did not couch his teachings with Greek and Romansymbolism or logic, and he sought to restore the insights of the great proph-ets, like Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Another answer is also possible in light of what we know about citiesand villages in Galilee. In contrast to the cities and villages mentioned byJosephus, how many are mentioned by the Evangelist? Very few, indeed, isthe answer. Moreover, how many are reported to have been visited by Jesus?The maximum number of the latter would include only Nazareth, Cana,Capernaum, Nim, Bethsaida, and Korazim (Chorazin). That is only 6 out of204 villages in first-century Galilee mentioned by Josephus, who names onlyabout forty of them. One should not assume Jesus did not enter Migdala andother cities or towns. Clearly, the Evangelists edited the Jesus traditions theyinherited for kerygmatic purposes, and these traditions were already se-lected and highly edited. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that Jesus isnever reported to have entered the cities.

Archaeological discoveries and research prove that Jewish cultureshould not be too neatly divided between villages and cities. All strata of so-ciety can be found in a city like Yodefat (Jotapata). Moreover, Jews andRomans moved rapidly and easily, without barriers, from village to city. Ablending of village and urban culture in first-century Lower Galilee shouldbe assessed in light of centuries of previous influences of Hellenistic cultureson Jewish thought in the land of Israel. While a common Jewish culture canbe discerned for about a century in Lower Galilee before 70 ce, each site inLower Galilee has its own character.

For centuries, many distinguished authors and professors portrayed Gal-ilee as only superficially Jewish prior to 70 ce. Some scholars today, who arenot archaeologists and many of whom have never worked in Galilee, con-clude that Galilee in the early first century ce — that is, during Jesus’ ministry— was hellenized like the cities of the Decapolis, for example, Gadara,Scythopolis, Pella, and Philadelphia. On the basis of this Jewish-Greek syn-thesis, Professor Burton L. Mack concludes that Jesus was a Cynic.43 Thisclaim fails to listen to the witnesses of the canonical Evangelists (and theirsources), the traditions preserved in many pseudepigrapha (esp. 1 Enoch),Josephus, and the evidence supplied by archaeologists digging in Lower Gali-lee. Clearly, the majority of those living in Lower Galilee were Jews; moreover,these were deeply linked with the festivals and customs of Judean Judaism.

118


43. B. L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: For-tress, 1988).

152



Obeying the injunction to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem, Jesus, likemany Galileans, went from Galilee to Judea and up to the Holy City. The re-cently recovered large stone found in the Migdala synagogue has imagesthat connect it clearly with Jerusalem’s Temple. On the lower base is the me-norah with the tripod base; it most likely mirrors the menorah in the Jeru-salem Temple. The large jars to its left and right most likely commemoratethe Water Ceremony in Jerusalem that culminated in the Temple. The chis-eled images on each end of the lower base probably represent the holy ofholies.

Consider too the Roman response to the Jewish rebellion in Galilee.Jotapata (Yodefat) is the town in which Josephus, the general in charge ofGalilee, surrendered to the future emperor Vespasian. It was once a majesticcity of maybe 2,500 people with a few massive elegant buildings. Today allthat remains are chiseled rocks on which houses once stood, and ruins ofhouses, walls, and mikvaot. Clearly the Romans wanted to establish a sym-bol in Galilee. What was the Roman message?

Galilee was the volcano from which many of the revolutionarieserupted. Vespasian and the Romans had a stern, unforgettable message: Ifyou mess with the Romans, your city or village will be utterly obliterated. Noone now lives at Yodefat. The area lies barren like the famous “lone and levelsands” of Ozymandius. Like public crucifixion, obliteration of a city wasRome’s way of publicly placarding the results of insurrection: If you messwith us, you lose. Clearly, Lower Galilee, especially at Jotapata and Gamla,today witnesses to Rome’s wrath.

Let us conclude by returning to our question: Why did Jesus not enterthe large cities? Actually, we should ask: Why did the Evangelists not re-cord that Jesus entered one of the cities? Is this report a mere coincidence?Did Jesus think that his message was better suited to those living in vil-lages on the northwestern shores of the Kinnereth? Did the historical Jesustell his followers to avoid the cities and not to enter the way of the Gentiles(Mt 10:5)? These are large questions. Archaeological excavations help usunderstand that though the people in the village named Capernaumshared the same culture with Tiberias and Sepphoris, they were not soclosely linked with Roman and Herodian influences. Unfortunately, ac-cording to the Evangelists, Jesus did not seem to be very successful even inthe small villages.

119


153



Galilean Synagogues

Our fifth major question is: What constituted a synagogue in first-centuryGalilee?44 Did a Jewish synagogue prior to 70 ce indicate a public or a reli-gious space?45

It is clear that first-century “synagogues” in Galilee were often not de-fined by glorious architecture, as was the case after the fourth and fifth cen-turies. One should expect every village in first-century Galilee to have a“synagogue” or gathering place for Jews. Were these synagogues “house syn-agogues”?46 On the one hand, speaking strictly from an archaeological pointof view, all buildings identified as a synagogue, as at Gamla, are structurallydistinct. On the other hand, we may have stood within a ruin without signi-fying details, and it may have served as a “synagogue” in the first century.

Possibly, perhaps probably, in some of these synagogues the Torah wasread on Shabbat, as reported by Luke or his source (Lk 4:16-22) and in theTheodotus inscription.47 It is certain that in synagogues Scripture (Torah)was read and studied. It is also conceivable that prayers and perhaps someforms of worship were observed in some Galilean synagogues long beforethe only place to sacrifice was burned in 70.

Were there first-century synagogues in Migdala or in Capernaum? Thealleged synagogue at Migdala is a very small but well-constructed building;the first excavators, who were Franciscans, called the place a “Mini-Synagogue.”48 What is this place? If one means a place where Jews might

120


44. For decades we have known about pre-67 synagogues in Judea and Galilee (defin-ing Galilee in light of Josephus), namely at Masada, the Herodium, and Gamla. SeeCharlesworth, Jesus within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries(ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1988), map III and pp. 103-30, esp. pp. 108-9. Now we havephysical evidence of pre-70 synagogues in Modiin, Qityat Sepher, and perhaps Jericho. For adetailed (but dated) study of ancient synagogues see L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue:The First Thousand Years (2nd ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005).

45. See, e.g., Aviam and W. S. Green, “The Ancient Synagogue: Public Space in Juda-ism,” in Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation (ed. J. Neusner, Green, andA. J. Avery-Peck; BRLJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 183-200.

46. See esp. C. Claussen, Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagogue (SUNT 27; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002). Also see B. Olsson and M. Zetterholm, eds., The AncientSynagogue from Its Origins until 200 c.e. (ConBNT 39; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Inter-national, 2003); and Levine, Ancient Synagogue.

47. See esp. J. S. Kloppenborg, “The Theodotus Synagogue Inscription and the Problemof First-Century Synagogue Buildings,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. Charlesworth, pp. 236-82.

48. We are convinced that what was hailed by the Franciscans as a synagogue might beconsidered a latrine; there are some similar elements with the latrines in Beth Shean.

154



gather together, then this little building might be a “synagogue,” but only in ageneric sense. There are many indications that one should avoid labeling thestone structure at Migdala a “synagogue.” It has only benches (or steps) onthe northern side, has no visible entrance, and is defined by running water.Perhaps it could be something like a spring house or even a nymphaeum.49

To the north of what the Franciscans called a synagogue something im-pressive has been recently discovered in Migdal under the mud that flowsfrom the Wadi Hammam to the west. It is a first-century synagogue. Itclearly dates from the time of Jesus. A coin from the year 40 ce was found insitu within the synagogue.50 The building boasts frescoed walls and a mosaicthat was never finished. This synagogue is the first one discovered that isclearly from the time of Jesus’ ministry. A stone was found in the synagogue;it has images that connect the site with the Temple and may have served asthe base table for Torah reading.51 Most likely Jesus taught in it; and conceiv-ably he met Mary Magdalene there.

The large and famous white building at Capernaum is clearly a syna-gogue, but it was built sometime in the late fifth or early sixth century.52How do we know that date? More than forty thousand bronze coins havebeen found under the synagogue; one coin found in situ dates to 470, so thesynagogue can be no earlier than that.53

The question is whether there is a synagogue underneath it. If so, does itdate from the first century? Is this the synagogue in which Jesus reputedlytaught?

The lower level is made of black basalt, but it does not clearly come from

121


49. The authors gratefully acknowledge the opportunity offered by Stefano De Luca,O.F.M., to study Migdala in the late summer of 2006, after it had been cleaned and the palmscut. See also Charlesworth, “Migdala,” in Millennium Guide, pp. 166-69.

50. Dina Avshalom-Gorni showed Charlesworth her excavation in Migdal. See the fol-lowing releases from “the Magdala Project” at http://www.magdalaproject.org/WP/: “Ar-chaeology and Historical Jesus,” “Ancient Ports of Galilee,” “Joseph Ben Matthias,” “Magdala:Discovered a Synagogue from the Time of Jesus,” “IAA-Meqorot 2006 Excavation at Migdal:Preliminary Report,” “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,” “MagdalaHome of Mary Magdalene,” “One of the Oldest Synagogues in the World Was Exposed in theIAA Excavation at Magdala,” “Urban Development of the City of Magdala/Tarichaeae in theLight of the New Excavations: Remains, Problems and Perspectives,” “Earliest Known De-piction of Second Temple Lamp Uncovered.”

51. Charlesworth is responsible for the iconography, Aviam for the concept of a Torahreading table.

52. See Charlesworth, “Capernaum,” in Millennium Guide, pp. 70-74.53. This and other coins recently found will be published by Stefano De Luca; and we

are grateful to him for allowing us to mention the date of the coin that definitively dates themarble synagogue.

155



an earlier period. It may well be the foundation of the white synagogue anddate from the same century. According to Stefano De Luca, near the centerof this basalt foundation of the synagogue is something that may well be theremains of a synagogue from the first century and the time of Jesus. If it isunlikely that synagogues were moved from one place in a city to another, soit is likely that an earlier synagogue may well underlie the visible synagoguein Capernaum.

Defining a Jewish Villa or Village

Our sixth major question is: What proves that a villa or village is “Jewish”?Six factors are important. The villa or village under examination is certainlyJewish if it has all or some of these elements:

1. Jewish coins (Hasmonean, Herodian, and other first-century Jewishcoins).

2. A mikveh (a Jewish bath for ritual lustration).54

3. Practices for burial that reflect Jewish customs (the only ossuaries weknow from this period are post-70, but perhaps this custom was prac-ticed in first-century Galilee).55

4. Stone vessels for Jewish purification rites (cf. Jn 2:6; three workshops formaking stone vessels have already been discovered in Galilee).

5. Additional evidence of Jewish laws of kashrut, especially the absence ofpig bones (but the discovery of pig bones does not prove that a site can-not be Jewish, since Jews were allowed to sell pigs to Romans).

6. Jewish inscriptions (in Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic especially).

It would be too positivistic to demand that each Jewish village have all theseelements. Yodefat and Gamla combined have only five of these six; but theburials have not yet been excavated, so potentially these two sites may provecollectively to have all these elements.

Elements never fully define the character of a thing or concept. It is howthey function together to produce a genre or characterize a place. One mustadd imagination, refer to experience, use discernment and insight, and applythe controls for interpretation indicated at the beginning of this essay.

122


54. All maps are by Aviam; see his “Yodefat: A Case Study in the Development of theJewish Settlement in Galilee during the Second Temple Period” [Hebrew] (Ph.D. diss., BarIlan University, 2005).

55. See Aviam, Jews, Pagans, and Christians, p. 277.

156



All of the six elements depend on a cumulative argument that leads topossibilities or perhaps probabilities. For example, Capernaum was clearly aJewish village, even though no mikvaot have been discovered. They were notneeded because the best mikveh is one that has spring water, and that wassupplied by the fresh water (mayim Fayyîm) from the Kinnereth. At Caper-naum archaeologists found stone vessels and Jewish coins; but animal boneswere not studied and almost no tombs have been excavated.

If we have the chance to excavate first-century cities and villages inlarge-scale excavations, in sites not altered by later periods, and with suffi-cient funding and interest to study animal bones and other realia scientifi-cally, we should be able to determine how the six elements help us defineand comprehend Jewish culture in Lower Galilee. The six elements mayprove to be present in every Jewish village.

The presence of pig bones at a site does not prove that a place is not Jew-ish. The site may not have been excavated properly. The bones may be froma later or earlier non-Jewish layer, or part of a dump. Archaeological excava-tions indicate that Jews did follow the kashrut laws. According to ancientJewish laws, it was not forbidden to breed pigs or to use their skins or bonesor even to sell them or their meat to Gentiles. It was forbidden only for Jewsto eat pork and all nonkosher animals (and obviously not all Jews were al-ways constrained by kashrut laws).

Coins are a major clue. Thousands of Hasmonean coins are found notonly in Judea but also in Galilee. Archaeologists have recovered thousands ofHasmonean coins (esp. of Jannaeus) both at Gamla and at Yodefat. How isthat fact to be explained? Were they circulating for over one hundred yearsin the Jewish region, or is it conceivable that someone was continuing tomint these coins in the first century ce? If so, that practice might indicate apreference for the Hasmoneans and a disdain for the Herodians (with theexception of Antipas), and such a political allegiance would not be surpris-ing for Galileans in light of what we know from our literary sources.

Too many scholars writing on Galilee assume that first-centuryGalileans eschewed the use of coins and preferred bartering. But this claim isnot supported by archaeological excavations.56

What characterizes a Jewish burial? Jewish burial practices in Judeavary. For example, it is not yet certain that only the Qumranites buried theirdead in shallow graves, facing north, and without any objects.

Around Jerusalem and Judea, the common Jewish burial of middle and

123


56. See esp. the comments by P. Richardson, “Khirbet Qana (and Other Villages) as aContext for Jesus,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. Charlesworth, pp. 120-44, here p. 128.

157



upper classes was based on rock-cut tombs with kokhim. These burial nichescut in the stone sometimes contained ossuaries (bone boxes), occasionallydecorated, for secondary burial. Gathering bones into ossuaries was auniquely Jewish custom. In Galilee we have not recovered one tomb withcontents dating only to the first century. We have many tombs, in Jewish vil-lages, that contain first-century artifacts, including ossuaries, but these alsocontain second- and third-century objects. Other than ossuaries and “knife-pared” oil lamps, we have no more evidence for distinctly Jewish burial cus-toms. We assume tombs are Jewish if they are found in sites evidencing Jew-ish life. At Gamla and Yodefat, both first-century Jewish towns, no Jewishtombs were excavated. Perhaps yet to be discovered are simple tombs dug inthe ground and covered with slabs of stone.

Capernaum and Trade Routes: Caravans and Centurions

We now come to our seventh major question: Was Capernaum on a majortrade route, and could a centurion have lived, or been stationed, there? As istoo well known to document, many scholars have dogmatically rejected thehistoricity of the Gospels and announced that it is impossible that a centu-rion could have been in Capernaum before 70 ce.

To answer our seventh question properly one must examine topogra-phy, the culture of Lower Galilee, the trade routes (esp. the so-called ViaMaris), and discern the pre- or post-70 date of what has been excavated atCapernaum (Kefar Nahum [Hebrew] and Talhum [Arabic]). Then, finallyand not initially, one should historically evaluate the traditions preserved bythe canonical Evangelists. There is no evidence that scholars who deny thepossibility of a caravan road near Capernaum and of a centurion inCapernaum have included these details in their assessment.

At the outset, let us admit that the question is one that should not betreated cavalierly. One should not seek to indicate some historical value inthe Gospels nor shy away from what might be a glimpse of first-century his-tory in them. A centurion can be at a place and not have one hundred sol-diers with him. Centurions in the field did not always have a hundred men;sometimes they had only ten soldiers under their command. One should in-clude in our reconstruction of pre-70 Capernaum the possibility that a cen-turion could have retired there, and to strengthen his social acceptance andelevation could well have helped cover the expenses of a local synagogue (Lk7:4-5). If Matthew’s report is to be taken literally, and not indicative of thecenturion’s authority (as seems evident in the Tendenzen), then the centu-

124


158



rion may have some soldiers presently under his command: “I am also a manof authority, with soldiers under me” (Mt 8:9). Yet one should admit that weare contemplating a rare phenomenon.

In pre-70 Galilee, Capernaum was the easternmost Jewish village inLower Galilee.57 Over the Jordan River, only a few kilometers to the east, be-gan Philip’s area with Bethsaida (Julia). Capernaum is situated on theKinnereth, and hills rise to its north, providing easy passage down near thelake. The so-called Via Maris clearly heads northward and is contiguouswith Migdala; it most likely also headed northeastward and passed nearCapernaum. If so, one would expect a centurion with some soldiers underhis command at the border crossing. The soldiers do not have to be Romans;they could well be Herodians. They do not have to live within Capernaum;they could reside in a small camp nearby.

The Roman bathhouse at Capernaum needs careful reflection and dis-cussion, and unfortunately it has still not been published. If it proves to bepre-70, one would then need to discern if it was frequented by only Romans.A Roman bathhouse is not evidence of non-Jewish inhabitants in the area.Although later, the Mishnah reports rabbis entering bathhouses, and thereare bathhouses in Tiberias and Sepphoris.

Does the bathhouse date from the time of Trajan and Hadrian, or is itpre-70? The unpublished bathhouse has been excavated only in the eastern,Greek Orthodox area. It also extends into the western portions ofCapernaum that are controlled by the Franciscans. Perhaps a carefully andscientifically controlled excavation of this bathhouse might help us answersome of the questions posed by the possibility of a centurion residing atCapernaum before 70 and during the time of Jesus.

Now, let us turn to the question of a road near Capernaum. In June 2006and many times subsequently, we visited Omrit, which is north ofCapernaum on the route northward to Paneas (Banias or Caesarea Philippi)and found the excavation team working in the field: J. Andrew Overman,Gabi Mazor, and Dan Schowalter. Omrit is the name of the site in which theremains of Roman-period temples are now visible. There are possibly threetemples at the site, one inside the other. The earliest is Late Hellenistic orfrom the Early Roman period. It is buried under a later one; that one isHerodian, massive, and elegantly constructed. Since Caesar Augustus was inGalilee in 20 bce, Herod may have built a temple in his honor; it could bethe famous Augusteum that was incorrectly placed in Caesarea Philippi. The

125


57. See Aviam, “Kapernaum: A Jewish or Christian Village?” in Book of the Kinnereth[Hebrew] (ed. M. Gophen and Y. Gal; Tel Aviv, 1992), pp. 278-86.

159



third temple may date from later Roman times; perhaps it is related to thevisits of Trajan or Hadrian.

Is the second layer the temple of Augustus? That is the interpretation ofthe excavators, and we concur. The new location of the Augusteum built byHerod the Great appears now to be not at the cave and spring at CaesareaPhilippi (Banias) but at Omrit.58

The excavators also identified a section of the Roman road that leadsnorthward, over the Mount Hermon range, to Damascus. This paved roadseems to date from the second or third century ce; but surely there was aroad near Omrit in the first century bce, when the temples were con-structed. The Augusteum most likely was placed at the bend in the road, asthe road continued northward and turned eastward toward Damascus.

These discoveries bring into focus a famous section of the Gospels.Where did Peter confess that Jesus was “the Christ”? It has been placed atBanias. Most likely, however, Jesus and his disciples would have walkednorthward along this road and seen the monumental “marble” Augusteum.The Greek text reports that they were on their way to Caesarea Philippi (Mk8:27).

What is important about this archaeological work at Omrit? It is impor-tant for Jesus Research. Here at Omrit and beside the Roman road a well-known story comes alive for the first time. Augustus was widely hailed as“the son of God.” This tradition helps us contextualize the tradition found inMk 8:27-30. The Evangelist Mark does not state that Jesus asked this ques-tion at Caesarea Philippi but “on the way” (en t3 hodZ) to the village ofCaesarea Philippi. That is precisely the location of Omrit. Now Jesus’ ques-tion (“Who do people say that I am?”) and Peter’s answer makes more sensethan they would before the shrines of Pan at Banias. Mark — and hiskerygmatic sources — sought to stress that the resurrected Jesus, and not thedeceased Caesar, is the Son of God.

Has the house of Peter and Andrew been found in Capernaum?59 First,we know of only one possible and traditional house of Peter at Capernaum.60

Second, a fifth-century octagonal church was built over an earlier house; thisindicates the site was considered sacred, and Peter’s house, in earlyByzantine times. Third, in the second or late first century ce the house re-ceived plaster on its walls and floors, an indication of special status, and the

126


58. See J. A. Overman, J. Olive, and M. Nelson, “Discovering Herod’s Shrine to Augus-tus,” BAR 29.2 (2003): 41-49, 67.

59. See Charlesworth, “Capernaum,” in Millennium Guide, pp. 70-74.60. For a photograph of “Peter’s House,” see Charlesworth, Millennium Guide, p. 75.

160



name “Petros” may be painted in the plaster.61 Fourth, the lack of householdutensils in this house increases the possibility that the place became a “housechurch.” Fifth, the house was used in the first century bce and the first cen-tury ce, and fishing hooks were found in situ. One may conclude, with someprobability, not only that this house was revered as Peter’s house but that it isthe house of Peter in which Jesus taught. The Evangelists reported that Jesusperformed many healing miracles in Capernaum (Mt 8:5; Mk 1:21-28; 2:1-12;Lk 7:1-10; Jn 4:46-54); some of them were in Peter’s house or nearby.

Peasants in Galilee?

A “peasant” is a person in a social class who is of inferior social rank, andusually engaged in agricultural labor. The English word peasant derivesfrom the French paysan, which means “rustic” and derives from feudal soci-eties — and such European cultures must not contaminate our perception ofpre-70 culture in Lower Galilee. A peasant is unsophisticated, uneducated,and cannot read texts. He has little or no financial means. He usually doesnot own land but is enslaved to a landowner and tills the land and cultivatesit for another’s profits. With this definition, we may raise our eighth majorquestion: Is it appropriate historically to speak about “peasants” in Galilee?

This excursion into what constitutes a “peasant” discloses problemswith the synthesis of Jesus provided by John Dominic Crossan. He rightlystresses the importance of anthropological study and claims “that any studyof the historical Jesus stands or falls on how one handles the literary level ofthe text itself.”62 One must salute Crossan for his clarity and focus, but whatabout archaeology? Can it be ignored? And should the work of GerhardLenski be substituted for the work of archaeologists and a study of Galileanculture?63

Has not Crossan been guilty of assuming there was a social constructthat he can call a Mediterranean peasant?64 We have never heard archaeolo-

127


61. Charlesworth is grateful to the Franciscans who gave him digital images of the in-scriptions to study and publish. Some are in Syriac.

62. J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (SanFrancisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), p. xxix.

63. Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966).

64. R. B. Hitchner draws attention to the high level of economic development that beganwith Augustus and continued for at least two centuries: “most, if not all, of the conditionswere in place for real economic growth to have occurred in the Roman Empire between the

161



gists working in Galilee use such terms.65 Is Crossan guilty of slipping in astudy of one region for an involvement with Galilee? Is he not guilty of shift-ing from induction, and the collection of archaeological data from the firstcentury, with deduction, moving from anthropological studies throughexegetical examinations of New Testament texts, to a synthesis that allowshim to portray Jesus as “a Mediterranean peasant”? How can one imagine aconstruct like “a Mediterranean peasant” when Mediterranean cultures wereso diverse from Spain to Carthage and from Carthage to Antioch (not men-tioning the complex cultures in Rome, Corinth, Patmos, Pergamum, andTyre)?

Having mentioned the mixture of Roman and Jewish cultures in citiesand villages in Galilee, which must be included in Mediterranean culture, weneed to recognize the almost total lack of first-century farms. What we haveare not farms but villages.66 These were, of course, inhabited by farmers whocultivated the land of the mountainous parts as well as the valleys of LowerGalilee. The evidence from Yodefat, the only excavated Galilean first-century city, tells us that farmers cultivated the land and grew wheat, barley,lentils, chickpeas, olives, figs, and other fruits and vegetables. They grazedsheep, goats, and cows. They dug water cisterns at the fields to water theirherds. They removed stones from their fields and built terraces (and thispractice is also visible now in Nazareth).67 Their houses in the city were sim-ple, but not poor. Many Galileans were farmers. Most of them owned someland, and some could read portions of the Torah. It is also clear now thatJews in Lower Galilee developed industries, such as weaving and oil produc-

128


later first century bc and the early third century ad” (“The Advantages of Wealth and Lux-ury,” in The Ancient Economy [ed. J. G. Manning and I. Morris; Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uni-versity Press, 2005], pp. 207-42, here p. 207).

65. J. D. Crossan is one of the few NT scholars who now admits that he “must read” thepublications of archaeologists. For his defense and definition of “peasant,” see Crossan, “TheRelationship Between Galilean Archaeology and Historical Jesus Research,” in The Archaeol-ogy of Difference: Gender, Ethnicity, Class and the “Other” in Antiquity: Studies in Honor ofEric M. Meyers (ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough; AASOR 60-61; Boston: ASOR,2007), pp. 151-61, esp. p. 154.

66. See Leibner, Settlement and History, p. 319.67. See the stone tower, part of an Early Roman vineyard and stone terraces excavated

at Nazareth, in Charlesworth, Millennium Guide, pp. 188-91. J. F. Strange speculates that be-neath the church in Nazareth is a pre-Byzantine “vat” that is not a wine vat but “a ritualbath,” because wine vats do not require steps and the mosaic could have been added later.See Strange, “Archaeological Evidence of Jewish Believers?” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: TheEarly Centuries (ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), pp.710-41, here p. 726.

162



tion, and the quantities produced exceeded the needs of a local village orcity.

One should thus cease talking about Galilean peasants. It would alsofollow that Jesus should not be portrayed as a Galilean peasant. He was a car-penter, according to Mark (6:3). He may never have lifted a plow to work afarm. He was certainly not uneducated or enslaved by laboring in the fields,as the definition of peasant demands or at least implies. The Evangelists in-deed report that the crowds were amazed at the high level of Jesus’ knowl-edge (wisdom) and skills with language and communication.

Galilean and Judean Regionalism:Bandits, John of Gischala, and Josephus of Judea

During the late nineteenth century, often under the influence of Romanti-cism, historians claimed that the life of Jesus should be divided between thespring of Galilee and the winter of Jerusalem. Jesus, however, died in thespring, and his life covered many years. It is unwise to contrast the topogra-phy of Lower Galilee and Judea, even though the former is more verdant andthe latter more semi-arid. There were clearly differences between the topog-raphy and culture of Lower Galilee and Judea, but these should be nuanced.One cannot use the attitudes of Jerusalemites to portray Galilee as uncul-tured. Some in the Holy City looked down with disgust at anyone who didnot live there (cf. Mk 14:66-71), but that insight does not permit one to ac-cept their assessment of Galileans.

We have come to our ninth major question: Were there tensions be-tween Galileans and Judeans? Certainly; a prime example is the tension evi-dent between John of Gischala and Josephus of Jerusalem (and also betweenJohn of Gischala [a Galilean] and Simon Bar Giora [a Judean]).

Gischala is one of the farthest northern Jewish villages in Palestine. Themost famous person from Gischala had the name “John.” He was militant,belligerent, and unsophisticated, according to Josephus. He was a banditwho fit the sociological category of “the big man.” He resisted the Hellenisticculture farther to the north, and was frustrated that Josephus, a Judean, waschosen to head the northern campaign. He attempted to kill Josephus butfailed. Later he made it to Jerusalem, where he and Simon Bar Giora, an-other Judean like Josephus, fought each other rather than the Romans. Theysucceeded in burning each other’s storehouses, thus causing the famine thatkilled so many Jews before the Romans conquered the city and burned theTemple in September 70.

129


163



The archaeological remains in first-century Galilee and especially inYodefat and Gamla show clearly that many of the religious components thatcan be identified in material culture culturally link Galilee and Judea. Mik-vaot and stone vessels, as well as the structure of synagogues, where identifi-able, connect Galilee culture with Judea (as already mentioned). Moreover,the images in the large stone found in the Migdal synagogue remind one ofthe Temple. Lower Galilean Jewish culture was tied with Jerusalem.

What is most interesting is the apparent use in Galilee of “Jerusalem oillamps.” Although at Yodefat we discovered four pottery kilns that producedmany types of clay vessels, and although we know that at least one type of oillamp was produced in Galilee, we have also observed that more than 80 per-cent of the oil lamps found at Yodefat and Gamla were produced in Jerusa-lem. Why do these appear in Lower Galilee? Presently we do not have an ad-equate answer.

The cultural relationship between Lower Galilee and Judea was closeand strong. The only significant difference between Lower Galilee and Judeaprior to 70 ce is the custom of secondary burial in ossuaries. This practiceseems representative only of Judea before 70 ce. The practice apparentlycame to Galilee only in the second century ce; and that development iscaused by the migration of Jews from Judea to Lower Galilee after 70 and132.68

Galilean Marginality?

Our tenth question is: How Jewish was Galilee in the first century ce, andshould one label Jesus “a marginal Jew”?

The answer becomes clear from the study of texts and archaeology.Lower Galilee was not defined by Gentile culture. It was Jewish and, as statedpreviously, culturally linked with Judean Judaism. At least ten sites in Galileereveal pre-67 mikvaot.

Hasmonean coins were discovered in more than one hundred sites inGalilee. Stone vessels, cut for the needs of Jewish purity, were recovered fromapproximately thirty first-century Galilean sites.

Jesus was not a marginal Jew. He was deeply Jewish, and did not couch

130


68. See esp. Leibner, Settlement and History, pp. 345-51. Also see A. Oppenheimer, “TheRehabilitation of the Jewish Settlement in Galilee,” in Eretz-Israel from the Destruction of theSecond Temple to the Muslim Conquest, vol. 1: Political, Social, and Cultural History [Hebrew](ed. Z. Baras et al.; Jerusalem: Ha-Merkaz, 1982), pp. 75-93.

164



his ideas in Greek and Roman terms and concepts. Indeed, he saw his mis-sion as focused only on the Jews, instructing his disciples not to go “into theway of the Gentiles” (Mt 10:5 KJV).

John Meier has written four massive volumes on the historical Jesus; un-fortunately, the title of his work is A Marginal Jew. By this description Meiermeans “Jesus was a marginal Jew leading a marginal movement in a mar-ginal province of a vast Roman Empire.”69 One can appreciate Meier’s de-scription, but lament that some readers conclude that Jesus was not reallyJewish, he was only marginally Jewish.

The Jewish culture of Lower Galilee indicates that Jesus was not “a mar-ginal Jew.” That claim assumes his teachings were not related to the Phari-sees and gives credence to a questionable construct: a normative and domi-nant form of Judaism known to us from rabbinic literature. Excavations ofJewish villages in Lower Galilee, where Jesus lived and taught, should exposethe perennial fallacy of ignoring that Jesus was fully Jewish. He was a devoutand observant Jew; the last week of his life he was in Jerusalem to observePassover as required by the Torah. Generations of scholars have developedwith the impression that Jesus was a marginal Jew. And some, ignorant of theJewish nature of Lower Galilee, have even stressed that Jesus should be re-moved from the origins of New Testament theology (viz., R. Bultmann).Near the end of the nineteenth century, other scholars (clearly anti-Jewish oranti-Semitic) even stressed that Jesus was certainly no Jew.

The Continuing Tasks and Selected Unsolved Problems

In conclusion, we focus on four significant problems that are being hotly de-bated by archaeologists.70 First, where is Bethsaida?71 Two places are calledBethsaida. The one celebrated as Bethsaida and excavated by a team of ar-chaeologists directed by R. Arav and R. A. Freund may well be anotherBethsaida but not Bethsaida (Julia). Arav and Freund’s Bethsaida has im-pressive Iron Age walls and some evidence of first-century life. It is possible

131


69. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1: Origins of theProblem and the Person (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 56.

70. Also see the questions for exploration listed by Charlesworth in Jesus and Archaeol-ogy, p. xxiv.

71. See Charlesworth, “Bethsaida,” in Millennium Guide, pp. 54-56; as well asCharlesworth, “Tzer, Bethsaida, and Julias,” in Bethsaida (ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund;Bethsaida Excavations Project 3; Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State University Press, 2004), pp.xi-xiii.

165



that this Bethsaida was once on an inlet north of the Kinnereth and that itsilted in after the time of Jesus.

Many archaeologists are not convinced that Arav and Freund’s Beth-saida is Bethsaida (Julia). There is no convincing evidence of a palace for thefamous tetrarch Philip. Where is the evidence that he enlarged the placefrom a “village” to a “city”? Josephus reported that Philip was buried here in33 or 34 ce (Ant. 18.4.6); where is his tomb? This may not be a viable objec-tion since it took decades to find Herod’s tomb at the Herodium.

The discovery of only two coins of Philip is surprising if this is Philip’scapital. Archaeologists are looking for a city on the Kinnereth, not north ofit. Clearly the discovery of Bethsaida (Julia) on the Kinnereth would dis-prove the claims of Arav and Freund, but that has failed to occur. Is it possi-ble that Arav and Freund’s Bethsaida is actually Bethsaida (Julia)?

We suggest a possible scenario. What has been uncovered up until noware some large domestic and simple units but no evidence of buildings orstructures that would define a polis or city. For the present there is no bettercandidate for Bethsaida than the one proposed by Arav and Fruend’s team.Perhaps they have found on the top of the tel the “old village” of Bethsaida.The site called Bethsaida (Julia) may be southward down the slope andPhilip’s palace may be there waiting to be exposed. This situation would mir-ror what has been discovered at Sepphoris. The early city may be on the hilland the expansion caused by Antipas’s city on the lower settlement to thesouth.

Second, where is the Cana mentioned by the Fourth Evangelist (Jn 2:1-12)? The two main options are Kefar Kanna and Khirbet Qana. The formerwas close to Nazareth and on the road pilgrims traveled when they wentfrom Sepphoris to Tiberias. Kefar Kanna thus received a church, andKhirbet Qana did not; it is easy to imagine why Byzantine pilgrims preferredKefar Kanna as the site where Jesus performed the miracle described in theGospel of John. They would have known it from walking from Nazareth toTiberias.

During excavations at Kefar Kanna, archaeologists directed by YardenaAlexandre uncovered the remains of houses, some of which date back to thefirst century ce.

One should not claim that Kefar Kanna was occupied from the Neo-lithic period up to the Byzantine period. The evidence from the Neolithicperiod is only at the spring of Kefar Kanna. The Iron Age is represented atKarem a-Ras, about 500 meters northwest of the center of Kefar Kanna; ac-cording to the excavators this site is the “real” Kefar Kanna or Cana of theFourth Gospel.

132


166



Excavating at Khirbet Qana since 1998, a team of archaeologists headedby Douglas Edwards (now deceased) amassed data convincing them thatthis place is the site of ancient Cana. Visitors to Khirbet Qana, both inByzantine and Crusader times, assumed it was ancient Cana. The archaeolo-gists have discerned, inter alia, more than ten mikvaot and many stone ves-sels, as well as two secret hideaways, one of which was precisely dated to thefirst century. Most likely these hiding places are mute witnesses to the threatof the Romans, who brutally murdered civilians.72

In the late nineteenth century, excavators identified a synagogue thatdates to the early Byzantine period (most likely the fourth to fifth century).We have recently been told that the plaster on the synagogue has been datedto 50-150 ce.73

Thus at Khirbet Qana some discoveries have been made that are impor-tant for Jesus Research. Among them are the following: stoneware that wasboth chiseled or lathed, at least one columbarium for pigeons, glass wasters,Hellenistic and Roman coins, a set of twelve or thirteen undecorated anduninscribed tombs (typical Jewish loculus type, with perhaps eighty loculi),a synagogue or beth midrash that postdates the first century ce (perhaps alittle earlier if we can trust the dating of plaster),74 and a major installationfor dyeing (but no evidence of pottery manufacturing, which was the majorindustry at Yodefat nearby). The excavators found no evidence of walls, ar-rowheads, or destruction from the First Jewish Revolt.

Khirbet Qana was occupied from the Iron Age to the Islamic period,and overlooked one of the most fertile plains in all of Galilee. Why should itnot be a major contender for Cana? Jesus could have walked to Kefar Kannain about one hour; he could have walked to Khirbet Qana in half a day. Ofcourse, we also know that Jesus could have ridden a donkey. The ancientswere not slaves to watches as many are today.

One cannot yet be certain of the identification of ancient Cana. BothKefar Kanna and Khirbet Qana were first-century Jewish villages, with stone

133


72. See the discussion of the “hiding complex” at Jotapata (Yodefat) by Aviam in Guri-Rimon, ed., Great Revolt in the Galilee, p. 45.

73. We eagerly await the publication and the evidence that suggests that the dating ofplaster is reliable.

74. Aviam was most likely the first to discern that the remains were once a synagogue.The cistern, which seems to date from the first century ce, was covered by the synagogue’sfloor. But that was two hundred years later. Although Edwards dated the synagogue by ex-amining the plaster, perhaps more important for dating the synagogue is the architectureand architectural fragments; these are later than the second century ce. Thus we are not us-ing the Khirbet Qana synagogue to re-create the world of Jesus and Josephus.

167



vessels and mikvaot. Further excavations at both sites might help tip the bal-ance in favor of Khirbet Qana.

Third, were there Pharisees in first-century Galilee? At this pointCharlesworth and Aviam might disagree, but only slightly.

Charlesworth is convinced that Pharisees and other Jewish groups couldwell have been present in Galilee, though not as dominant as they were inJudea. Saul was born a Pharisee outside Palestine. Philo mentions Essenesand similar groups or sects in Egypt. Evidence of Samaritans has appearedoutside the Holy Land. The Evangelists report that scribes and Phariseeswere sent from Jerusalem to Galilee to cross-examine Jesus. (This should notbe taken as proof that there were no local Pharisees in Galilee before 70.) Je-sus is portrayed as eating and socializing with Pharisees, and the Phariseeswarn him to beware of Antipas. All these should not be placed within Judea,and it is clear that in many ways Jesus’ message was close to the teaching ofthe Pharisees.75 Why should any historian want to limit the Jewish groups orsects to Judea and Jerusalem?

Archaeologists are not able, with all known methodologies, to identify astone vessel or mikveh that was clearly owned by a Pharisee, but they haveproved that stone vessels, mikvaot, and Jewish coins link Lower Galilee cul-turally with Judea and not with Upper Galilee. Thus Pharisees may be foundin Galilee, but they did not define Galilean culture until after 70 ce.

Josephus and Philo mention that there were four thousand Essenes inPalestine. Most of them were not at Qumran, which could accommodateonly about 150 people. Philo and Josephus note that Essenes lived near oroutside the borders of villages and cities throughout the land of Israel. Thatwould indicate that Essenes dwelled in Galilee. Most likely the Jews whoproduced over four centuries the books of Enoch (esp. 1 Enoch) were locatedin Galilee, and conceivably they conversed with Essenes.76

Having said this, one should reflect on another perspective, whichseems more attractive to Aviam. Sectarian Judaism originated and contin-ued to be defined by the power of the Temple. Thus the sects or groups ofJews, like the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even Essenes, appeared first in Jeru-salem and were centralized there.

Other groups were defined by their opposition to the Jerusalem Temple.The Samaritans resisted the Temple and worshiped on Mount Gerizim; they

134


75. See esp. the contributions in Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major ReligiousLeaders (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).

76. This conclusion is shared by most Enoch specialists who frequent the Enoch sym-posia.

168



were defeated, and their temple burned, by John Hyrcanus in the late secondcentury bce. Even the Enoch groups, which existed from circa 300 bce tothe first century ce, who may have been localized in Galilee, resisted the ele-vation of Moses and Torah and worship in Jerusalem (contrast Jubilees). TheZealots may not have appeared until 66 ce, and thus do not fit into the issueof culture and the sects during Jesus’ time. When one focuses on sectarianJudaism, almost always Jerusalem and the Temple slip into view. Charles-worth agrees with these insights, but prefers to imagine Jewish groups notonly in Judea but also in Lower Galilee.

Having sought to locate geographically the Pharisees brings to mind theissue of mikvaot and stone vessels. Hundreds of mikvaot have been un-earthed.77 E. Regev suggests that the division of the steps in mikvaot linksthem with the Pharisees.78 This does not seem to be persuasive since mikvaothave been found at Qumran with divisions on the steps. No clear architec-tural feature of the mikvaot can be discerned to link them with a particularsect. Since the Pharisees were diverse, it is possible that two types of mikvaotbelonged to the Pharisees. Also, a Pharisaic male would prefer to have amikveh for himself and one for his wife; these could be slightly different.

The stone vessels are common throughout Lower Galilee and Judea.The common features that define all mikvaot and stone vessels seem to be avaluable indication of a common type of Judaism shared by all Jewish sects,groups, and regions.

Fourth, what significant evidence for reconstructing first-century Gali-lee may still be hidden for archaeologists to uncover? Due to the limitationsof space, and the necessity of preserving archaeologists’ promises not to re-veal what has been recovered, we can make only a few comments to illustratethe point that some exciting, if challenging, discoveries have been made re-cently. We have already mentioned the ornate frescoed house at Yodefat thatwaits to be exposed and studied.

An important and serious target is to try to identify and excavate an-other clearly pre-70 Galilean synagogue that will help us better assess howand in what ways the Migdal synagogue may be representative of pre-70Galilean synagogues. Gamla is in Galilee according to Josephus, but it is cer-tainly in the Golan. It seems misleading to take the synagogue at Gamla astypical of Galilean synagogues. Perhaps a synagogue lies waiting for excava-

135


77. Also see Meier, “Palestine in the Time of Jesus,” the map in Marginal Jew, vol. 4: Lawand Love (ABRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 664.

78. E. Regev, “Ritual Baths of Jewish Groups and Sects in the Second Temple Period”[Hebrew], Cathedra 79 (1996): 3-21.

169



tion near the Arab village of Kabul, a place known from Josephus’s CestiusGallus campaign. Cestius Gallus burned this village a year before the inva-sion of 67. Josephus reports that this was a pity, since the houses there weresumptuous, as in Tyre and Berytus.

During a visit to the site, we studied the remains of an impressive build-ing and the base of a badly eroded column. What is this building? Can it bethe remains of a first-century synagogue? Hellenistic and early Roman pot-tery can be found on the surface.

The Roman bathhouse at Capernaum, especially the parts within theFranciscan area, needs to be carefully excavated, using the most precise sci-entific methods. The Roman road leading northward by Migdala and thenorthern section of Migdala await funding for scientific exploration.

Conclusion

Specialists in Jesus Research are now acknowledging the importance of ar-chaeology and topography in reconstructing the life and teachings of Jesusfrom Nazareth.79 While the New Testament Gospels were composed to con-vert many to “the good news,” it is fallacious to assume that proclamationscannot contain reliable historical insights.80 For example, the Gospel of Johnhas been customarily considered to be a highly developed Christology anddevoid of history and reliable historical information. Now, thanks to archae-ological discoveries, mostly by those who are not Christians, it is certain thatJohn is in many ways a reliable source for understanding and imaging pre-70Judaism and the architecture and topography of pre-70 Jerusalem.81

For many today the freshness of Jesus’ poetic language has been lost.The creative, too often repeated, becomes mundane. In the tranquil quiet of

136


79. Pre-70 foundations have been discovered in Nazareth. During his youth, Jesuswould have seen these walls and entered these buildings. He was there for over twenty years.See the 8 Feb 2010 news release by the Israel Antiquities Authority. We visited the site andwere impressed with the vast amount of Herodian pottery that had been excavated. Thebuildings were rather meager, and Jesus’ early life was among common Jewish folk in LowerGalilee. Yardena Alexandre is the director of the Nazareth excavations.

80. Likewise, the Gospels are branded as “unhistorical” and 1 Maccabees historical. YetD. Mendels rightly points out that 1 and 2 Maccabees are also “ideological works.” SeeMendels, “Memory and Memories: The Attitude of 1-2 Maccabees toward Hellenization andHellenism,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (ed. L. I.Levine and D. R. Schwartz; TSAJ 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 41-54.

81. See esp. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A ParadigmShift?” JSHJ 8 (2010): 3-26.

170



ancient ruins, left bare since Jesus’ time, one can imagine a Jew who loved towander the hills and cross the valleys, drawing inspiration from the land andthe culture of his own people. Many times we have sat in ruins in Lower Gal-ilee. We heard what Josephus or Jesus heard: the quiet hum of nature. Thosequiet settings invited us to reflect on the bewitching past and lost time. Weshared ancient insights that were shaped by the majesty and wonder of thecaptivating Galilean landscape. We imagined those who before us sought theright path. Galilee can preserve the old, but it also gives birth to the new.With the opportunity to study manuscripts that were held by the contempo-raries of Josephus and Jesus, and the evidence of daily life in Lower Galilee(and elsewhere in ancient Palestine), especially the realia and architecture,we now can improve the reconstruction of pre-70 Jewish life in Lower Gali-lee. This article is an invitation to “indwell the sphere of meaning” thatshaped Jews like Josephus and Jesus.

137


171



Reconstructing First Century Galilee: Reflections on Ten Major Problems

Documents

Transcript of Reconstructing First Century Galilee: Reflections on Ten Major Problems