Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Pharisees and Galilee

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    ... This is rather interesting. As I have previously said, Josephus, an eye-witness, indicates that the Pharisees were only found in Jerusalem in his
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 26, 1998
      >"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that
      >Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a
      >conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD
      >66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such
      >groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile
      >inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea
      >Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. "

      This is rather interesting. As I have previously said, Josephus, an
      eye-witness, indicates that the Pharisees were only found in Jerusalem in
      his autobiography and the Jewish War. This is naturally before the war. At
      the same time we have the information from the synoptic gospels which show
      the Pharisees as operating predominantly in Galilee (10 Marcan appearances
      in Galilee to one in Jerusalem), though GMatt does attempt to redress the
      imbalance, changing Marcan scribes to Pharisees and adding the Matthean
      version of the woes of the Pharisees in a Jerusalem context.

      Mt Mk Lk
      ------------------------------------------------
      3:7 P/S
      5:20 scr/P
      5:17 P/teachers
      9:3 scr 2:6 scr 5:21 scr/P
      9:11 P 2:16 scr+P 5:30 P
      9:14 P 2:18 P 5:33 P
      9:34 P 11:15 (some of them)
      12:2 P 2:24 P 6:2 P
      6:7 scr/P
      12:14 P 3:6 P/H 6:11 (they)
      7:30 P/lawyers
      7:36 P (++)
      7:37 P (++)
      7:39 P (++)
      12:24 P 3:22 scr 11:15 (some of them)
      12:38 scr/P [8:11 P]
      7:1 P
      7:3 P
      15:1 scr/P 7:5 scr/P [11:38 P]
      15:12 P
      16:1 P/S 8:11 P
      16:6 P/S 8:15 P/H* 12:1 P
      16:11 P/S
      16:12 P/S
      13:31 P (++)
      14:1 P
      14:2 P/lawyers
      15:2 P/scr (=5:30)
      16:14 P
      17:20 P
      19:3 P 10:2 P
      ------------------------------------------------
      Entry into Jerusalem
      ------------------------------------------------
      21:15 cp/scr 19:39 P
      21:45 cp/P 12:12 (they)
      22:15 P 12:13 P/H 11:53 scr/P (- Jerusalem)
      22:16 H
      22:34 P(/S) 12:28 scr 20:39 scr
      22:41 P 12:35 (scr) 20:41 (they)
      23:2 scr/P 12:38 scr
      23:6-7 (-) 11:43 P (- Jerusalem)
      23:13 scr/P 11:52 (lawyers)
      23:14 scr/P
      23:15 scr/P
      23:23 scr/P 11:42 P | Lucan
      11:37 P | setting
      11:38 P | earlier than
      23:25 scr/P 11:39 P | Jerusalem
      23:27 scr/P
      23:29 scr/P
      27:62 cp/P

      ------------------------------------------------
      P = Pharisee(s)
      S = Sadducees
      H = Herodians
      scr = scribes
      cp = chief priests


      Q only mentions the Pharisees in the woes to the Pharisees passage which is
      of course geographically unplaced.

      The evidence *suggests* the following to me: the Pharisee disputes set in
      Galilee in GMark were written after the move of religious leaders to that
      area and that GMatt and GLuke, both dependent on GMark, worked on that
      material even later. I would appreciate any other viable possibility from
      the data.


      Ian
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Ian, Thanks for tabulating the references to ... in the synoptic gospels. ... Your hypothesis is certainly a reasonable one. Here are some alternatives as
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 26, 1998
        At 04:08 AM 11/27/98 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
        >
        >
        >...As I have previously said, Josephus, an
        >eye-witness, indicates that the Pharisees were only found in Jerusalem in
        >his autobiography and the Jewish War. This is naturally before the war. At
        >the same time we have the information from the synoptic gospels which show
        >the Pharisees as operating predominantly in Galilee (10 Marcan appearances
        >in Galilee to one in Jerusalem), though GMatt does attempt to redress the
        >imbalance, changing Marcan scribes to Pharisees and adding the Matthean
        >version of the woes of the Pharisees in a Jerusalem context.
        >

        Ian,
        Thanks for tabulating the references to
        >P = Pharisee(s)
        >S = Sadducees
        >H = Herodians
        >scr = scribes
        >cp = chief priests

        in the synoptic gospels.

        >...The evidence *suggests* the following to me: the Pharisee disputes set in
        >Galilee in GMark were written after the move of religious leaders to that
        >area and that GMatt and GLuke, both dependent on GMark, worked on that
        >material even later. I would appreciate any other viable possibility from
        >the data.

        Your hypothesis is certainly a reasonable one. Here are some alternatives
        as I see them (I'll use your term 'disputes', even though that does not
        adequately describe them all):

        1. The disputes were indeed with pharisees, but took place in Jerusalem;
        Mark, et al. transposed them to Galilee for other reasons.

        2. The disputes indeed took place in Galilee, but not with Pharisees. Mark,
        et al. decide to call them pharisees for some unexplained reason.

        3. The disputes indeed took place in Galilee, with Pharisees or some
        pharisee-like faction that Josephus for some reason didn't want to call
        pharisees, but that Mark et al. deemed appropriate for different reasons.

        Actually, your analysis invites us to ponder what Galilean factions are
        attested outside the gospels in late Second Temple times. Of course, there
        would be Antipas' followers (the Herodians?); zealots, perhaps? what others?

        Is there some reason you left GJohn out? e.g., you think its too late to be
        a valuable witness? There are about 19 references, by my count.

        Thanks for a provocative post.

        Bob
        Robert Schacht
        Northern Arizona University
        Robert.Schacht@...

        "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
        that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
        position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
        criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
        Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
      • Stevan Davies
        ... Viable possibility: Jesus was wandering around Galilee denigrating the Torah and pharisees objected. Once he got famous for his exorcisms etc. pharisees
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 28, 1998
          Ian wrote:
          > The evidence *suggests* the following to me: the Pharisee disputes set in
          > Galilee in GMark were written after the move of religious leaders to that
          > area and that GMatt and GLuke, both dependent on GMark, worked on that
          > material even later. I would appreciate any other viable possibility from
          > the data.

          Viable possibility: Jesus was wandering around Galilee denigrating
          the Torah and pharisees objected. Once he got famous for his
          exorcisms etc. pharisees even came from foreign Judea to accost
          him.

          Absence of mention of Galilean pharisees in Josephus shows
          A) Pharisees were not a dominant political force in Galilee.
          B) Josephus was not obsessed with Pharisees to the degree that
          he would mention any of them anywhere they existed.
          Otherwise it doesn't show much... probability remains that,
          as the nonjosephan sources repeatedly state, there were at
          least a few Pharisees in Galilee and they didn't approve of
          Jesus. One cannot argue that a source that is not inspired by
          God is inerrant to the degree that when X is not mentioned therein
          X therefore cannot have existed.

          Steve
        • Mahlon H. Smith
          ... Rather than suggest another possibility, Ian, I would question the historical viability of your own scenario, i.e.: *composition* of pericopes setting
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 29, 1998
            Ian wrote:

            > The evidence *suggests* the following to me: the Pharisee disputes set in
            > Galilee in GMark were written after the move of religious leaders to that
            > area and that GMatt and GLuke, both dependent on GMark, worked on that
            > material even later. I would appreciate any other viable possibility from
            > the data.
            >

            Rather than suggest another possibility, Ian, I would question the
            historical viability of your own scenario, i.e.: *composition* of
            pericopes setting controversies between J & Pharisees in Galilee only

            By "religious leaders," I take it you mean the rabbis known as the
            tannaim. These relocated from Judea to Galilee only after the Hadrianic
            war of 135 CE. Between 70 CE & 135 CE the rabbinical schools were still
            based in Judea (at Javneh, Lydda, etc.). Only after the Roman
            persecution resulting from R. Aqiva's support of Shim'on bar Koseba's
            messianic claims were Judean "religious leaders" persuaded that it was
            prudent to forsake Judea & settle among the *am ha-aretz* of the Galil
            of the Goyim. (This was true also of the priestly courses). The first
            rabbis recalled to have founded schools in Galilean towns were Jochanan
            b. Nuri (at Beit Shearim, about 25 km. west of Nazareth on the road from
            Carmel to the valley of Jezreel) & R. Meir's father-in-law, Hananiah b.
            Teradion (at Siknin). But it was the next generation of Aqiva's pupils
            (135-160) who were primarily responsible for making Galilee the center
            of rabbinic tradition: R. Meir (at Tiberias), Yose b. Halafta (at
            Sepphoris) & especially Rabban Shim'on II b. Gamaliel II, the father of
            Yehuda ha Nasi, who transferred the academy from Javneh to Usha (25 km
            NW of Nazareth & 15 km SE of Akko/Ptolemais on the Mediterranean).

            There is absolutely no evidence, literary or archaeological, of a
            measurable migration of Jews, leaders or otherwise, from Judea to
            Galilee between 70 & 135 CE. The expansion & demonstrable "Judaizing" of
            Galilean settlements is all 2nd-4th c. CE. That is the material basis of
            Dick Horsley's challenge to the naive assumption of the "Jewishness" of
            the world of Jesus that was debated on this list months ago & set Steve
            Davies' mental wheels spinning.

            Thus, your hypothesis would require either that:
            (a) Mark was composed only after 135 CE
            or that Mk 2:16-3:6, 7:1-23, & 8:11-21
            were (b) either latter interpolations
            or were (c) transposed from Mark's account of J's Judean sojourn (ch 10)
            or that (d) "Pharisee" was a later interpolation into controversies
            between J & other partisans (Herodians?).

            The last (d) is not likely, since the content of these controversies
            deals with issues of ritual purity (table fellowship, washing) or
            sabbath observance which were clearly of most concern to Pharisees (or
            Essenes?).

            Transposition (c) or interpolation (b) are likewise not plausible since
            (1) either would require a complete rewriting of Mark for which there is
            no textual evidence & (2) Matt knew these pericopes in their current
            Markan contexts. Luke's omission of Mark 6:45-8:26 (including the
            Pharisaic disputes of 7:1-23 & 8:11-21) *may* indicate that this
            material was lacking in his copy of Mark, but it is just as plausibly
            explained as a deliberate omission of material he did not care to
            rehearse. Luke, at any rate knew Mk 2:16-3:6 (Pharisees & all) in its
            current Markan context & includes pericopes about controversies with
            Galilean Pharisees that are not recorded in other gospels (Lk 5:17,
            7:36-50).

            The only reason for supposing that Mark was composed (a) or redacted (b)
            only "*after* the move of religious leaders" of the Pharisees to Galilee
            is the erroneous opinion that there were no Galilean Pharisees before
            Judean Pharisaic leaders moved there. Hillel's last disciple Yochanan b.
            Zakkai claimed to have spent years in Galilee before returning to
            Jerusalem long before the Jewish war, only after which did he become a
            "leader." The Galilean hasid, Haninah b. Dosa, whose legendary exploits
            bear a remarkable resemblance to the type of miracle stories told about
            Jesu, was his reputed disciple (1st generation of tannaim). In the
            second generation of tannaim (70-90 CE), Yose ha Gelili was a Galilean
            whose opinions on sacrifice & other temple rituals were respected enough
            to be cited often against such prominent Judean rabbis as Aqiva, Tarfon
            & El'azar b. Azariah in halakah from Javneh. So clearly there were some
            Pharisees in Galilee even during the period when the leadership of the
            party was based in Judea.

            Finally, if Mark were composed (or redacted) only *after* Pharisaic
            leaders moved to Galilee (135 CE), then Matt & Luke would have had to be
            composed years later. But these gospels were already being cited by
            apostolic fathers from Clement through Justin (who flourished soon after
            the Hadrianic war). And Papias was even recording his famous
            "traditions" re the apostolic origins of Matt & Mark about this time.
            Are you proposing a counter thesis to J.A.T. Robinson that all this
            literature was composed decades later than scholars have generally
            assumed?

            I think a far simpler solution is to recognize (a) that there were some
            Galilean Pharisees in Jesu's lifetime & (b) that there was friction
            between them & J's earliest followers over issues relating to Torah
            observance & (c) that, long before the composition of Mark, J's Galilean
            followers confidently composed chreia in which an aphorism of J was
            cited as magisterial authority for not being bound by rabbinic halakah.

            At least that's what the evidence suggests to me.

            Shalom!


            Mahlon



            *********************

            Mahlon H. Smith,
            Associate Professor
            Department of Religion
            Rutgers University
            New Brunswick NJ

            http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
          • Mahlon H. Smith
            Talk about dangling syntax. I missed the fact that my paste of Ian s words didn t stick. The complete first sentence of my post during the ... The rest remains
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 29, 1998
              Talk about dangling syntax. I missed the fact that my paste of Ian's
              words didn't stick. The complete first sentence of my post during the
              wee hours earlier today should have read:

              >
              > Rather than suggest another possibility, Ian, I would question the
              > historical viability of your own scenario, i.e.: *composition* of
              > pericopes setting controversies between J & Pharisees in Galilee only > "after the move of religious leaders to that area."
              >

              The rest remains unchanged.

              Shalom!


              Mahlon

              *********************

              Mahlon H. Smith,
              Associate Professor
              Department of Religion
              Rutgers University
              New Brunswick NJ

              http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
            • Ian Hutchesson
              A couple of days ago, Mahlon commented on a post of mine examining the connections between the Pharisees and Galilee. ... More detail from Meyer s and
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 1, 1998
                A couple of days ago, Mahlon commented on a post of mine examining the
                connections between the Pharisees and Galilee.

                >Ian wrote:
                >
                >> The evidence *suggests* the following to me: the Pharisee disputes set in
                >> Galilee in GMark were written after the move of religious leaders to that
                >> area and that GMatt and GLuke, both dependent on GMark, worked on that
                >> material even later. I would appreciate any other viable possibility from
                >> the data.
                >>
                >
                >Rather than suggest another possibility, Ian, I would question the
                >historical viability of your own scenario, i.e.: *composition* of
                >pericopes setting controversies between J & Pharisees in Galilee only
                >"after the move of religious leaders to that area."

                It might be useful to repeat the citation that headed my original post:
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                More detail from Meyer's and Strange's book "Archaeology, the Rabbis, and
                Early Christianity" is given by Paul Barnett, "Behind the Scenes of the New
                Testament", IVP:1990, p.42:
                "Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that
                Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a
                conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD
                66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such
                groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile
                inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea
                Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. "
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                I must admit the source was not included with the quote which I ripped off
                from an earlier post. The problem of course is the validity of the comment.

                >By "religious leaders," I take it you mean the rabbis known as the
                >tannaim.

                I didn't actually specify because I did not want to tie my comments to the
                rabbinic traditions whose values themselves have not been established. The
                rabbinic literature doesn't provide a clear representation of the events and
                may in fact be quite stylised in the information it provides (as, for
                example, in its sublimation of rabbinic origins).

                >These relocated from Judea to Galilee only after the Hadrianic
                >war of 135 CE. Between 70 CE & 135 CE the rabbinical schools were still
                >based in Judea (at Javneh, Lydda, etc.). Only after the Roman
                >persecution resulting from R. Aqiva's support of Shim'on bar Koseba's
                >messianic claims were Judean "religious leaders" persuaded that it was
                >prudent to forsake Judea & settle among the *am ha-aretz* of the Galil
                >of the Goyim.

                Yes, this is the tradition. I don't know why you are giving it as history.
                It does make the process simpler to understand.

                >(This was true also of the priestly courses). The first
                >rabbis recalled to have founded schools in Galilean towns were Jochanan
                >b. Nuri (at Beit Shearim, about 25 km. west of Nazareth on the road from
                >Carmel to the valley of Jezreel) & R. Meir's father-in-law, Hananiah b.
                >Teradion (at Siknin). But it was the next generation of Aqiva's pupils
                >(135-160) who were primarily responsible for making Galilee the center
                >of rabbinic tradition: R. Meir (at Tiberias), Yose b. Halafta (at
                >Sepphoris) & especially Rabban Shim'on II b. Gamaliel II, the father of
                >Yehuda ha Nasi, who transferred the academy from Javneh to Usha (25 km
                >NW of Nazareth & 15 km SE of Akko/Ptolemais on the Mediterranean).

                You may be cursory with Josephus's information but it is at least
                contemporary with the period we are interested in. Let me add another
                ingredient to the pie: Jn 4:1-3 tells us that when the Pharisees got wind of
                Jesus having success, Jesus left Judea for Galilee -- obviously to get away
                from Pharisaic influence.

                >There is absolutely no evidence, literary or archaeological, of a
                >measurable migration of Jews, leaders or otherwise, from Judea to
                >Galilee between 70 & 135 CE. The expansion & demonstrable "Judaizing" of
                >Galilean settlements is all 2nd-4th c. CE. That is the material basis of
                >Dick Horsley's challenge to the naive assumption of the "Jewishness" of
                >the world of Jesus that was debated on this list months ago & set Steve
                >Davies' mental wheels spinning.

                One must remember that the Galilean names found in Josephus are those
                recognizable as Jewish: in fact, beside some Greek names, no non-Jewish
                names are ever supplied.

                There is not a clear continuity between pre-70 Pharisaic doctrines and
                practices, and post-70 rabbinic doctrines and practices. Despite the
                predominance of the Gamaliel family in post war Judaism, this discontinuity
                suggests that the Pharisees did not have such an influence in the period as
                we would like to think.

                >Thus, your hypothesis would require either that:
                >(a) Mark was composed only after 135 CE
                >or that Mk 2:16-3:6, 7:1-23, & 8:11-21
                >were (b) either latter interpolations
                >or were (c) transposed from Mark's account of J's Judean sojourn (ch 10)
                >or that (d) "Pharisee" was a later interpolation into controversies
                >between J & other partisans (Herodians?).

                Or (e) that your assumptions about "only after 135 CE" are not correct.

                >The last (d) is not likely, since the content of these controversies
                >deals with issues of ritual purity (table fellowship, washing) or
                >sabbath observance which were clearly of most concern to Pharisees (or
                >Essenes?).
                >Transposition (c) or interpolation (b) are likewise not plausible since
                >(1) either would require a complete rewriting of Mark for which there is
                >no textual evidence & (2) Matt knew these pericopes in their current
                >Markan contexts. Luke's omission of Mark 6:45-8:26 (including the
                >Pharisaic disputes of 7:1-23 & 8:11-21) *may* indicate that this
                >material was lacking in his copy of Mark, but it is just as plausibly
                >explained as a deliberate omission of material he did not care to
                >rehearse. Luke, at any rate knew Mk 2:16-3:6 (Pharisees & all) in its
                >current Markan context & includes pericopes about controversies with
                >Galilean Pharisees that are not recorded in other gospels (Lk 5:17,
                >7:36-50).

                (b) is not as unlikely as you might think. GJohn which initially was written
                against the antagonistic "Jews" has later added a quite substantial layer
                against the Pharisees (note for example how the priests and Levites who were
                sent by "the Jews" to interrogate John [Jn1:19] suddenly were sent by the
                Pharisees [1:24]).

                >The only reason for supposing that Mark was composed (a) or redacted (b)
                >only "*after* the move of religious leaders" of the Pharisees to Galilee
                >is the erroneous opinion that there were no Galilean Pharisees before
                >Judean Pharisaic leaders moved there. Hillel's last disciple Yochanan b.

                (Any references to Hillel outside the rabbis?)

                >Zakkai claimed to have spent years in Galilee before returning to
                >Jerusalem long before the Jewish war, only after which did he become a
                >"leader." The Galilean hasid, Haninah b. Dosa, whose legendary exploits
                >bear a remarkable resemblance to the type of miracle stories told about
                >Jesu, was his reputed disciple (1st generation of tannaim).

                I would have thought that Hanina ben Dosa was gently eased into the tannaim
                yet shows no real connection. Lester Grabbe for example says of Hanina:
                "Probably a pre-70 figure, he too [like Honi] becomes rabbinized over a
                period of time." ("Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian", p 521) One gets the idea
                of building traditions rather than reflecting them, especially reaching back
                before the Pharisaic emergence for figures to populate the traditions,
                including the high priest, Simon the Just.

                >In the
                >second generation of tannaim (70-90 CE), Yose ha Gelili was a Galilean
                >whose opinions on sacrifice & other temple rituals were respected enough
                >to be cited often against such prominent Judean rabbis as Aqiva, Tarfon
                >& El'azar b. Azariah in halakah from Javneh. So clearly there were some
                >Pharisees in Galilee even during the period when the leadership of the
                >party was based in Judea.

                This Yose ha Gelili is perhaps better evidence against the simplistic move
                to Galilee after 135 than it is for Pharisees in Galilee prior to 70.

                >Finally, if Mark were composed (or redacted) only *after* Pharisaic
                >leaders moved to Galilee (135 CE),

                Would you like to cite tenable historical sources for this stereotyped en
                masse movement to Galilee? Would you not agree that there was a
                disappearance of Pharisaic elements in the writings of Josephus sometime
                before the painful end of the war and that at least after the war there is
                justifiable reason for leaving the devastated Jerusalem area?

                >then Matt & Luke would have had to be
                >composed years later. But these gospels were already being cited by
                >apostolic fathers from Clement through Justin (who flourished soon after
                >the Hadrianic war).

                This is based on faulty logic. It assumes that those phrases vaguely common
                to both Clement (etc) and GMatt, go from the latter to the former. This is
                merely an unfounded assumption.

                >And Papias was even recording his famous
                >"traditions" re the apostolic origins of Matt & Mark about this time.
                >Are you proposing a counter thesis to J.A.T. Robinson that all this
                >literature was composed decades later than scholars have generally
                >assumed?

                Let me simply say that it is unwise to pin your historical analysis
                regarding the move to Galilee on traditions that are not anchored in history.

                Can you cite any literal references to the gospel materials, ie that you can
                show originates in that gospel material, in early patristic writings? Do you
                not agree that it is unwise to assume that because a phrase is the same as
                one in a gospel that the phrase had to come from that gospel and not from
                earlier tradition, written or oral?

                >I think a far simpler solution is to recognize (a) that there were some
                >Galilean Pharisees in Jesu's lifetime &

                How can you recognize such a theory? You first have to assume a dating for
                the gospel material that suits your purposes, datings that I find based in
                the clouds, and use these unsupportable dates to support the theory. Can you
                show me any community in Palestine outside Jerusalem at any time prior to
                the war that had a Pharisaic influence?

                >(b) that there was friction
                >between them & J's earliest followers over issues relating to Torah
                >observance

                How many of the issues relating to Torah observance originated through
                conflicts with Jews throughout the diaspora?

                >& (c) that, long before the composition of Mark, J's Galilean
                >followers confidently composed chreia in which an aphorism of J was
                >cited as magisterial authority for not being bound by rabbinic halakah.

                Do you believe this "long before" notion or are you just guessing? What
                evidence do you have that the sayings came to the Marcan school from Jesus's
                Galilean followers? What makes you think that the conflict with rabbinic
                halakha was not in rabbinic times or in church conflicts with Judaism? There
                is far too much rhetoric in this last sentence and very little hard fact.

                Overall, Mahlon, it seems to me that your baggage is perhaps heavier than
                mine to carry, trying to support gospel stories with even later traditions.


                Ian
              • Bob Schacht
                ... Thanks, Mahlon, for your interesting response to Ian. And thanks to Ian for stating his case well enough to draw such an elaborate response! I was going to
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 2, 1998
                  At 05:48 AM 11/29/98 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
                  >...
                  >There is absolutely no evidence, literary or archaeological, of a
                  >measurable migration of Jews, leaders or otherwise, from Judea to
                  >Galilee between 70 & 135 CE. The expansion & demonstrable "Judaizing" of
                  >Galilean settlements is all 2nd-4th c. CE. That is the material basis of
                  >Dick Horsley's challenge to the naive assumption of the "Jewishness" of
                  >the world of Jesus that was debated on this list months ago & set Steve
                  >Davies' mental wheels spinning.
                  >

                  Thanks, Mahlon, for your interesting response to Ian. And thanks to Ian for
                  stating his case well enough to draw such an elaborate response!

                  I was going to try to rebut your claim, but instead I'll just use it as
                  fodder for some musings, and see where it leads me.

                  In NRS Luke 24:49, we read
                  And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so
                  stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

                  A variation on this is repeated in Luke 1:4,8
                  4 While staying with them, he ordered them not to leave Jerusalem, but to
                  wait there for the promise of the Father. ...
                  8 "...But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
                  and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to
                  the ends of the earth."

                  [Oddly, Galilee is left out of this itinerary]

                  So, according to some accounts, the disciples hang around Jerusalem waiting
                  for something to happen. And of course, according to Acts, what happens is
                  Pentecost (Acts 2.) But wait: although Luke presents this as the foretold
                  event, some disciples apparently either didn't experience it or didn't
                  appreciate its significance. Unfortunately, we don't have the attendance
                  list for this event, only Peter being identified by name, unless we take
                  those mentioned in Chapter One to identify those present at pentecost. We
                  can be fairly certain that one of those NOT in attendance was Saul/Paul,
                  who was also not on hand to hear the "wait in Jerusalem" message.

                  At any rate, James the Just and Peter appear to have hung around Jerusalem
                  for a while (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:17-18; Galatians 1:18-19). One suspects
                  that at first, pentecost was not appreciated, and it was assumed that Jesus
                  was refering to the parousia. So that some of them continued to wait in
                  Jerusalem. Of course, there is also the tradition that James the Just
                  became high priest for a while, and this no doubt helped to keep these
                  followers in Jerusalem. But after James was deposed (what year?), perhaps
                  then Peter went up to Galilee. I think there have been claims that Peter's
                  house has been discovered, and a tad of evidence suggests that it might
                  have served as a house church. But still, Jerusalem would seem to be the
                  logical place for the Parousia to unfold, so a remnant probably persisted
                  there until 70 CE.

                  But Paul seems to have hit the road early and often, following his trip to
                  Damascus. This would be fine with the folks in Jerusalem, who were probably
                  convinced that Paul was gonna miss the main event. But when Paul brought
                  back word that there were plenty other Friends of Jesus scattered all over
                  the place, and when Paul returns to Jerusalem to report,
                  Acts 15:12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and
                  Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through
                  them among the Gentiles.
                  Acts 21:18 The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the
                  elders were present.
                  19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done
                  among the Gentiles through his ministry.
                  20 When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, "You see,
                  brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and
                  they are all zealous for the law.

                  So were they thereby laying claim to the promise of Luke 24:49?

                  However, no such reports come to us of great successes in Galilee.
                  Is this the basis for Rene's elegant summary of Luke's case against Galilee?

                  A case for Nazoreans in Galilee has been made by Pritz (Nazorean Jewish
                  Christianity, Jerusalem/Leiden 1988, 120-121), but this evidence may be
                  confined to the time of Epiphanius and Jerome, and so somewhat later.
                  Baumgarten has added a little to this thesis in Levine's book on Galilee in
                  Late Antiquity, but his article mainly has other interests.

                  So I guess I wind up supporting you, Mahlon. The only real draw for Galilee
                  was that it was the home territory of the disciples. And if no prophet is
                  recognized in his home town applied to Jesus, how much more so to them?

                  Bob



                  Robert Schacht
                  Northern Arizona University
                  Robert.Schacht@...

                  "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
                  that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
                  position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
                  criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
                  Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.