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

Galilee and restoration of Israel

Expand Messages
  • David Hindley
    ... That is true if only the section on Ituraeans in I.561-570 is involved. As to whether Ituraeans were living in the area called Galilee, and whether they
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Rikk says:

      >>Just checked my Schurer (rev) and it appears that they were
      >>descendents of Ishmael, regarded by Eupolemus as enemies of David, and
      >>are "quite often" grouped with Arabs. I don't know if they willingly
      >>joined the Jewish state <S. speaks of Aristobulus I attacking them.
      >>According to S they settled only in Lebanon. In terms of this
      >>discussion it seems that they would not have regarded themselves as
      >>Galileans.<<

      That is true if only the section on Ituraeans in I.561-570 is involved. As
      to whether Ituraeans were living in the area called Galilee, and whether
      they would consider themselves "Galileans," other sections of Schurer would
      be relevant:

      "The boundaries of the Jewish population did not coincide with those of
      Judaea in the political sense. [...] But in Galilee too, as well as in
      Gilead - east of the Jordan therefore - there must, at the beginning of the
      second century B.C., have been a considerable number of Jews living in
      religious communion with Jerusalem; one of the first acts of the Maccabees
      after the restoration of the cult [ca. 164-162 BCE] was to bring help to
      their fellow-Jews in Galilee and Gilead who were oppressed by the heathens
      [...] (I Mac. 5:9-54) ["Jos. Ant xii.8.2 (334) speaks of Jews held captive
      by the Gentiles. But I Mac. 5:23 probably refers to all who wished to
      emigrate to Judaea"]. Yet the way in which they [Simon & Judas] brought aid
      demonstrates that there were not yet any compact masses of Jewish population
      there, for neither Simon nor Judas brought these regions as such under
      Jewish protection. Simon, after defeating the Gentiles in Galilee, led all
      the Jews, with their wives, children and belongings, out of Galilee and
      Arbatta to Judaea, to shelter them in safety there (I Mac. 5:23). [...] It
      is thus clearly evident that the Jews in Galilee [...] former a Diaspora
      among the Gentiles; and the early Maccabees by no means set out to Judaise
      those regions, but on the contrary, withdrew their Jewish population."
      [I.141-142]

      "... Aristobulus [I] remained fundamentally Jewish, as is shown by the most
      important event of his short reign [ca. 104-103 BCE]; namely, the conquest
      and Judaizing of the northern districts of Palestine. He undertook a
      campaign against the Ituraeans, conquered a *large part* of their land,
      united it with Judaea, and forced its inhabitants to be circumcised and to
      live according to Jewish Law [Ant xiii.11.3 (318), and Strabo as quoted by
      Josephus (319)]. The Ituraeans resided in the Lebanon ["Appendix I, I.562"].
      Since Josephus does not say that Aristobulus subdued 'the Ituraeans', but
      only that he conquered and Judaized part of their country; since
      furthermore, Galilee had not hitherto belonged to the territory of the
      Jewish High Priest (see above p. 141); the conquest of John Hyrcanus I in
      the north [ca. 129-124 BCE] had only extended as far as Samaria and
      Scythopolis; and since also, the population of Galilee was until this time
      more Gentile than Jewish (see above p. 142), it is justifiable to presume
      that the region conquered by Aristobulus was mainly Galilee, and that it was
      through him that Galilee was first Judaized ["[An] objection may be raised
      against [this] thesis ... viz. that John Hyrcanus caused his son, Alexander
      Jannaeus, to be brought up there, Ant. xiii 12,1 (322). But the implocation
      of this may be precicely that Hyrcanus, not wishing his son to succeed to
      the throne, had him educated outside the country. It is also possible that
      Hyrcanus was already in possession of the southern parts of Galilee. The
      above remarks would then only refer to the northern parts. The statement
      regarding Alexander's upbringing in Galilee is, moreover, open to
      considerable suspicion because of the context in which it appears."]
      [I.217-218]

      "Josephus recounts these events [of Aristobulus' northern conquests
      described by Strabo in a lost work that itself followed an account by
      Timagenes, probably following Strabo with perhaps other sources available to
      him] ... saying that he took much Ituraean territory by force and compelled
      the inhabitants, *if they wished to remain there,* to be circumcised and
      live in accordance with Jewish law. The kingdon of the Ituraeans comprised
      at this time the whole of the region of Mt Lebanon (see Vol. I, App. I). In
      the south it extended to the borders of the Jewish territory. It must
      therefore have included Galilee (or most of it). For according to the
      information available, John Hyrcanus [I] did not push his conquests much
      beyond Samaria. Since the reports cited above do not say that the whole
      kingdom of the Ituraeans submitted to Aristobulus, but only that he seized
      part of it, this can only refer to Galilee ["Josephus' failure to use the
      name 'Galilee', otherwise familiar to him, can be explained by his
      dependence on his Greek sources (Strabo and possibly Nicholas of
      Damascus)"]. But it was this very part [of the Ituraean territory = Galilee]
      that was Judaized at the same time by Aristobulus [I]. [...] How thoroughly
      such forced conversions were effected is demonstrated by the example of the
      Idumaeans [i.e., quite effectively]." [II.9-10, emphasis mine]

      If Schurer and his later editors were correct, then

      164-162 BCE: Simon Maccabee "rescued" the Jewish residents of Galilee from
      the Gentiles who sought to destroy them (probably as potential threats on
      account of the success of the Maccabees in controlling Judaea), removing all
      or at least most of them to Judaea.
      *These are called "Jews" and not Israelites or whatever. As such, they
      probably did not consist of remnants of the northern tribes, although I
      suppose this is possible.
      *Whatever the case, there couldn't have been too many Judaeans or Israelites
      left there after 162 BCE.

      104-103 BCE: Aristobulus I subjected and Judaized Galilee and that this area
      was controlled and largely populated by Ituraeans. That Aristobulus
      considered Galilee to be legitimate Jewish territory is suggested by forcing
      circumcision upon the Ituraean peoples who *wished to remain there*.
      *This would not suggest that the Ituraeans who lived there were still nomads
      (in spite of their probable origins as such), but rather settled peoples.
      *If these Ituraean Galileans were indeed remnants of the northern Israelite
      kingdom, Aristobolus did not consider them to be brothers, but uncircumcised
      outsiders.

      FWIW, I believe that I've read recent scholars (off-hand I do not recall who
      or what I read) that the traditions in I Enoch 1-36 originated in the
      Lebanon, and might not originally have been strictly Jewish. Would this then
      imply Ituraean?

      Sorry about the length.

      Sincerely,

      David Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio USA

      Jewishness of Galilee circa 164-162 BCE:

      Ant 12:334 Accordingly, Simon went into Galilee, and fought the enemy, and
      put them to flight, and pursued them to the very gates of Ptolemais, and
      slew about three thousand of them, and took the spoils of those who were
      slain, and those Jews whom they had made captives, with their baggage, and
      then returned home. [Brenton]

      1 Maccabees 5:14 While they were reading this letter, suddenly other
      messengers, in torn clothes, arrived from Galilee to deliver a similar
      message: 15 that the inhabitants of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon, and the
      whole of Gentile Galilee had joined forces to destroy them. 16 When Judas
      and the people heard this, a great assembly convened to consider what they
      should do for their unfortunate kinsmen who were being attacked by enemies.
      [...] 21 Simon went into Galilee and fought many battles with the Gentiles.
      They were crushed before him, 22 and he pursued them to the very gate of
      Ptolemais. About three thousand men of the Gentiles fell, and he gathered
      their spoils. 3 He took with him the Jews who were in Galilee and in
      Arbatta, with their wives and children and all that they had, and brought
      them to Judea with great rejoicing" [New American Bible]

      Aristobulus' actions circa 104-103 BCE:

      Ant 13:322 When Hyrcanus chiefly loved the two oldest of his sons, Antigonus
      and Aristobulus, God appeared to him in his sleep, of whom he inquired which
      of his sons should be his successor. Upon God's showing him the countenance
      of Alexander, he was grieved that he was to be the heir of all his goods,
      and allowed him [Jannaeus] to be brought up in Galilee. [Brenton]

      Ant 13:318 He [Aristobulus I] was called a lover of the Greeks; and had
      conferred many benefits on his own country, and made war against Iturea, and
      added a great part of it to Judea, and compelled the inhabitants, *if they
      would continue in that country*, to be circumcised, and to live according to
      the Jewish laws. 319 He was naturally a man of candour, and of great
      modesty, as Strabo bears witness, in the name of Timagenes; who says
      thus:--"This man was a person of candour, and very serviceable to the Jews;
      for he added a country to them, and obtained a part of the nation of the
      Itureans for them, and bound them to them by the bond of their
      circumcision." [Brenton, emphasis mine]
    • Bob Schacht
      At 10:36 AM 1/16/2005, David Hindley wrote: First, thanks for your lengthy quotes, all valuable for the issue at hand. ... Ian was often, though not always
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:36 AM 1/16/2005, David Hindley wrote:

        First, thanks for your lengthy quotes, all valuable for the issue at hand.
        You wrote:

        >That is true if only the section on Ituraeans in I.561-570 is involved. As
        >to whether Ituraeans were living in the area called Galilee, and whether
        >they would consider themselves "Galileans," other sections of Schurer would
        >be relevant...

        Gaulanites? Ian Hutchesson wrote on 12 Nov 1998 on CrossTalk:
        >Caesarea Philippi which is close to the head waters of Dan are in Gaulanitis.

        Ian was often, though not always <g> informative (I believe Goranson has
        some opinions about that).

        Apparently both Gaulan/Golan and Galilee are etymologically related?

        Hutchesson's opinion was that the geographical markers here are "north" of
        Galilee, but I suppose it all depends on how far north Galilee was supposed
        to go. According to Josephus, Galilee was bordered on the north by the
        territory of Tyre, but how far East did that go? Josephus reported that the
        King of Tyre invaded and captured 3 places in Galilee, but then the
        Hasmoneans counter-attacked and took the three places back. Those places
        would help identify the boundary. The ABD says both Josephus and the
        Mishnah agree on distinguishing between upper and lower Galilee. It looks
        to me like upper Galilee = Iturea?

        >FWIW, I believe that I've read recent scholars (off-hand I do not recall who
        >or what I read) that the traditions in I Enoch 1-36 originated in the
        >Lebanon, and might not originally have been strictly Jewish. Would this then
        >imply Ituraean?

        The late Phil Lewis, who used to contribute frequently to CrossTalk, wrote
        on 11 Nov 1998:

        >Now, it's OK with me if you want to discard I Enoch as a contributer to our
        >understanding of Galilee, but before you do consider this: the ONLY - and I
        >repeat, ONLY - geographical landmarks in "Original Enoch" refer to Galilee!
        >
        >In I En.6, the "angels, the children of heaven...descended into Ardos, which
        >is the summit of Hermon."
        >
        >In 13.7, Enoch has been sent to deliver imprecations against the fallen
        >angels and offer their prayers for forgiveness. "And I went and sat down
        >upon the waters of Dan - in Dan which is on the southwest of Hermon - and I
        >read their memorial prayers until I fell asleep." (Peter's Confession in
        >Mk.8.27-30 is delivered in the environs of Caesarea Philippi, on the
        >southwest approach to Hermon.)
        >
        >In 13.8-9 Enoch's story continues, "I came unto them while they were
        >conferring together in Leya'el, which is between Lebanon and Sanzer..."
        >Though "Sanzer" is uncertain, apparently "Leya'el" represented the Valley of
        >Jezreel in Galilee.
        >
        >(While not directly on this Galilean topic, one should note in passing that
        >En.14.20 describes God, "the Great Glory" as wearing a "gown which was
        >shining more brightly than the sun, it was whiter than any snow." The
        >picture reminds us of descriptions of Ben-Hadad, of Agrippa, so impressive
        >that Josephus says people began to venerate him as a god, and of the
        >transfigured Jesus.)
        >
        >These references justify IMO the assertion that Original Enoch "had a
        >Galilean orientation." They are the only physical allusions in the book.


        According to the ABD (Galilee: Hellenistic/Roman), "the Jewishness of
        Galilee is recognized by both Pompey and Gabinius..."

        However, besides this literary evidence, it is also necessary to consider
        the archaeological evidence. On 19 Jan 2002, Daniel Grolin gave us a
        capsule summary of the archaeological evidence:

        >I have recently been reading through Richard Horsley's book "Archaeology,
        >History and Society in Galilee". I found it very inspiring and
        >thought-provoking.
        >
        >I think that his conclusions can be summarised as follows: Galilee
        >belonged to the Northern Kingdoms and by and large maintained the ideals
        >of pre-Davidian Israeli religion. They maintained a covenant with Yahweh
        >and had a common (popular) tradition regarding primarily Moses and the
        >Northern prophets Elijah and Elisha.

        The Babylonian conquest seems to have caused a major disruption in the
        culture of Galilee that is reflected in the literary as well as
        archeological data, but ethnic connections are not always easy to see in
        archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, Jonathan Reed's "Archaeology and the
        Galilean Jesus" offers the following markers (as summarized on XTalk by
        "Teresa Callahan, M.D. Ben Douglas, M.D." <douglahan@...>, 01 Jan 2001):

        >The dating of the material culture at Nazareth from the first century
        >B.C.E. to the
        >first century C.E. is based on four indicators of Jewish religious identity:
        >
        > (1) the chalk vessels (also called stone vessels),
        > (2) stepped plastered pools or ritual baths (also called miqwaoth),
        > (3) secondary burial with ossuaries in loculi tombs (also called
        > kokhim),and
        > (4) bone profiles that lack pork.
        >
        >Apparently all these indicators were common throughout Judea and
        >Galilee during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods but faded out of
        >use by the end of the first century C.E. or early second century C.E.
        >after the destruction of the Second Temple. These indicators are
        >tied to Jewish literary evidence in the Mishnah in its discussions of
        >ritual purity (e.g. Kelim 10:1). These indicators have been consistently
        >found throughout Judea, Golan and Galilee in archaeological strata up to
        >the first century C.E. Chapter 2 of Reed's book lists extensive citations
        >discussing the significance of the stone vessels, miqwaoth, kokhim tombs
        >and the absence of pork in the bone profiles, but as far as I can tell,
        >the finding of these associated indicators indicates the Late Hellenistic
        >and Early Roman eras in archaeology.

        A lot of the debate on these points on XTalk has been fueled by Stevan
        Davies, who doesn't think Galileans thought of themselves as kin to Judeans
        hardly at all. So one must consider the possibility that the archeological
        evidence cited above all(?) belonged to Judean implants in Galilee
        associated with the Hasmonean power elite.

        Bob



        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • sdavies0
        ... Stevan Davies, who doesn t think Galileans thought of themselves as kin to Judeans hardly at all. So one must consider the possibility that the
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 17, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
          > A lot of the debate on these points on XTalk has been fueled by
          Stevan > Davies, who doesn't think Galileans thought of themselves as
          kin to Judeans > hardly at all. So one must consider the possibility
          that the archeological > evidence cited above all(?) belonged to
          Judean implants in Galilee > associated with the Hasmonean power
          elite.
          >
          > Bob

          Absolutely so. And one must make use of the hermeneutics of suspicion
          in regard to the hegemonic archaeological claims of "America's ally,
          that the feisty little democracy" to incorporate the Galilee into the
          Jewish State. Archaeology is neutral only in its dreams. (I would not
          be one bit surprised to find Mormon archaeological interpretations of
          Mayan sites to include the discovery of Mikvahs. In fact I will bet
          you a whole American dollar that this is the case, although I don't
          have any instances in mind.)

          Thanks to David Hindley for that useful information. I'd not paid
          attention to the resettlement of Judeans from Galilee back into Judea
          under the Hasmoneans.

          Note that the presumption of a continuing galilean loyalty over 700
          some years to Israelitish religion. according to Horsley, is
          tempered, even by Horsley himself, by the fact that such religion,
          when described in the OT, is polytheistic wickedness. Horseley does
          not provide actual evidence for the perpetuation of Israelite
          religion, he assumes it.

          Since Jesus' Galileanness is one of the very few universally agreed
          facts about Him, Sunday School level understanding of the seamless
          connection between Judea and the loyal Judeans who are also known as
          Galileans really should end.

          There's an interesting-appearing article here:
          http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_2_31/ai_94332333
          or search for
          The construction of Galilee as a place for the historical
          Jesus—part
          I (and also there is a long continuation "part II"). I've not read
          it, and so may be embarrassed by having noted it here, but I soon
          will.

          Steve Davies
        • John C. Poirier
          ... I m curious as to how you explain the stone vessels that have been discovered in several places throughout the Galilee. ... I apologize for not having read
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 17, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Stevan Davies wrote:

            > (I would not be one bit surprised to find Mormon archaeological
            > interpretations of Mayan sites to include the discovery of Mikvahs.
            > In fact I will bet you a whole American dollar that this is the
            > case, although I don't have any instances in mind.)

            I'm curious as to how you explain the stone vessels that have been
            discovered in several places throughout the Galilee.

            > Since Jesus' Galileanness is one of the very few universally agreed
            > facts about Him, Sunday School level understanding of the seamless
            > connection between Judea and the loyal Judeans who are also known as
            > Galileans really should end.

            I apologize for not having read your books, but could you explain to us your
            understanding of who the Galileans were, particularly the ones who crowded
            around to listen to Jesus in the gospels. Do you think of them as Jews with
            no sense of religious connection to Judea? Or are they slightly judaized
            pagans? Are they sort of a Galilean equivalent of the Samaritans? Who are
            they, and why do you think so?


            John C. Poirier
            Middletown, Ohio
          • sdavies0
            ... If those are markers for Judaism I would expect them to be discovered virtually everywhere in the Galilee, if the G were as J as often assumed. If stone
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "John C. Poirier" <poirier@s...>
              wrote:
              > I'm curious as to how you explain the stone vessels that have been
              > discovered in several places throughout the Galilee.

              If those are markers for Judaism I would expect them to be discovered
              virtually everywhere in the Galilee, if the G were as J as often
              assumed. If stone vessels were very common in Judea one can imagine
              them being imported into the Galilee as useful items. I have, for
              example, a metal coffee pot, purchased a bit higher price after I
              busted yet another glass coffee pot.

              If there was a population of Judeans in the Galilee (escorted out by
              Hasmoneans?) and after 70? and certainly after 135 and Yavneh etc.
              there was a large population of Judeans in the Galilee, of the very
              sort of scrupulous men eager to have the stone pots, one has to be
              pretty sure of one's dating to claim evidence for Judean religion
              there during the early years of the Historical Jesus vis a vis
              stoneware.

              > I apologize for not having read your books, but could you explain
              to us your > understanding of who the Galileans were, particularly
              the ones who crowded > around to listen to Jesus in the gospels.

              Those Galileans are fictional audiences presupposed by Mark who may
              have known A. Jesus was from Galilee and B. Jesus said some things.
              Putting those two bits of knowledge together leads to Galilean crowds
              listening to Jesus.

              > Do you think of them as Jews with > no sense of religious
              connection to Judea?

              Jews and Judeans is the same exact word in Greek and our English
              differentiation leads to a huge number of conceptual problems. They
              are not "ioudaioi" they are Galileans. That's the point I'm trying to
              unsuccessfully to get across. Now, there were certainly some Judeans
              in Galilee as there were Judaeans in Egypt and in Rome etc. Many seem
              to have left during the Judean invasion and there's no particular
              reason to think they raced back after the Romans took over in 63 BC.

              And would anyone like to speculate as to why the Hasmoneans brought
              them out? It couldn't have been because they were imprisoned there.
              Were they forced out into Judea against their will? Why>

              Josephus reports a caravan of Judeans to the Temple that was attacked
              by native Galilean forces. As I read it that caravan was an annual
              anomaly, not part of some pattern of Galileans flocking to the Judean
              Temple (the way I learned it in sunday school).

              > Or are they slightly judaized > pagans?

              Maybe so. That's kinda how they are described during the ancient
              extinct Kingdom of Israel period and, as it happens, that's why God
              hated them and had them destroyed. Or so one gathers from the
              scriptures.

              > Are they sort of a Galilean equivalent of the Samaritans?

              Maybe, but more so. They are further away from Judea than the
              Samaritans were and therefore less influenced by it. And if they were
              going to flock to a "jewish" temple it would have been on Mt. Gezarim.

              > Who are > they, and why do you think so?

              I don't know. The fallacy of the streetlamp would lead us to conclude
              that since we know there were some Judeans in Galilee, and we know
              nothing about what else there was, it follows that we can study the
              religion of the Judeans to find out about the religion of the
              Galileans. This is not good reasoning. One is best off sitting sadly
              in ignorance than deciding one knows something based on no evidence.

              So I don't know what they were.
              And I'll bet you don't know either.

              Steve Davies
            • Ernest Pennells
              [Steve Davies] ... known A. Jesus was from Galilee and B. Jesus said some things.
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 17, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                [Steve Davies]
                >Those Galileans are fictional audiences presupposed by Mark who may have
                known A. Jesus was from Galilee and B. Jesus said some things.<

                The synoptics seem to agree that Galilee was dotted with communities
                preoccupied with sabbath observance. If this is a fiction built upon
                subsequent preoccupation with the Sabbath issue, why is there not a single
                whisper of this in Acts? Circumcision certainly looms large.

                Regards,

                Ernie Pennells
                Apartment 4, Level 12, Samaa El Maadi Tower No 2B,
                28 Corniche El Nil, Cairo, Egypt
                Tel: (20-2) 526 6383

                -----Original Message-----
                From: sdavies0 [mailto:sdavies@...]
                Sent: 17 January 2005 21:05
                To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [XTalk] Galilee and restoration of Israel











                The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                List managers may be contacted directly at:
                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com


                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Loren Rosson
                ... To which Steve responded: [Maybe Judaized pagans, maybe Samaritan equivalents, but ultimately...] ... [To which Steve didn t respond until resurfacing
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 18, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  A. John Poirier asked Steve Savies (on Jan 17):

                  > Could you explain to us your understanding
                  > of who the Galileans were,

                  To which Steve responded:

                  [Maybe Judaized pagans, maybe Samaritan equivalents,
                  but ultimately...]

                  >I don't know what they were. And I'll bet
                  >you don't know either.


                  B. Bob Schacht asked Steve Davies (on Jan 3):

                  > Aren't you forgetting the Maccabees? For a while
                  > they at least controlled the southern part of
                  > Galilee, that Jesus is said to be
                  > from. And isn't that something that would be
                  > fresh enough in people's minds?

                  To which Steve responded:

                  >Yes, I think that that military conquest
                  >with its forced circumcisions and new temple
                  >based taxation and so forth was indeed fresh
                  >in their minds.


                  C. John Poirier asked Steve Davies (on Jan 4):

                  > Where on earth do you get the idea that
                  > Torah observance did not apply to Galilee?

                  [To which Steve didn't respond until resurfacing
                  recently]


                  Bob, Steve, John, others --

                  It's nice to see this thread revived. I'm using the
                  above questions to Steve to highlight the interrelated
                  issues on which so much depends. Namely: (A) Who were
                  the Galileans (ethnos)? (B) How do we understand
                  Josephus' reports that Aristobulus compelled the
                  inhabitants of Galilee "to be circumcised and to live
                  in accordance with the laws of the Judeans" (Ant.
                  13:318-319)? (C) How Torah observant and Temple
                  observant were Galileans?

                  Last week, prodded by these recent discussions, I
                  reread Dick Horsley's "Galilee: History, Politics,
                  People" (hadn't read it since it was published some
                  eight or nine years ago) and would strongly recommend
                  this book to anyone (Bob, John) interested in pursuing
                  the Galilee question. (I assume Steve has read it.)
                  Chapters 1, 2, 6, and 11 will be of particular
                  interest for the concerns of this thread. I'll briefly
                  outline Horsley's findings, some of which Bob has
                  already gleaned from an essay by Horsley and to which
                  Steve responded yesterday.

                  A. Who were the Galileans?

                  Horsley argues that the Galileans were: (1) Mostly
                  descendents of Israelites left on the land in 722,
                  after the Assyrians deported primarily the rulers,
                  principal officers, royal servants, artisans, and
                  retainers (not unlike the Babylonian scenario in 586;
                  II Kings 24:13-17). That a significant portion of the
                  peasantry was left is presupposed by the Assyrians
                  creating a province with administrative officers to
                  collect revenue and keep order in the area. (2) Some
                  Judeans. Given the large number of Judeans living in
                  the near diaspora, coastal cities, Syrian cities, and
                  Alexandria, it would be surprising if there were none
                  in Galilee prior to the Maccabean revolt. And once the
                  Hasmonean regime brought Galilee under Jerusalem rule,
                  there must have been a significant amount of overflow
                  of Judeans into Galilee (Eric Eve made this suggestion
                  a few weeks ago). (3) Some Gentiles. Given all the
                  conquests and shits in rulers between c 700-100 BCE,
                  there must have been some pagans in Galilee.

                  So there was in all likelihood diversity in Galilee,
                  not a predominatly Gentile or pagan ethnos.

                  B. How do we understand Josephus' reports that
                  Aristobulus compelled the Galileans "to be circumcised
                  and to live in accordance with the laws of the
                  Judeans"?

                  Horsley contends that it should probably be understood
                  in the same way that Hyrcanus had supposedly imposed
                  this requirement on the Idumeans (Ant. 13:257-258).
                  The case of Costobar is illustrative, showing that a
                  high-ranking Herodian officer already assimilated into
                  the world of Hellenistic power politics still clinged
                  to Idumean traditions (Ant 15:253-255). Josephus'
                  matter-of-fact descriptons of the Idumeans as a
                  "people" or "nation" distinct from Judea imply a
                  separate ethnos, and it seems likely that they
                  maintained active resitance to Judean laws and
                  continued practicing indigenous customs.

                  Ditto for Galilee, says Horsley. Josephus more often
                  than not distinguishes between Judeans and Galileans
                  (though not always, to be fair). Most importantly,
                  common sense would dictate that integrating an entire
                  people (whether Galileans or Idumeans) into Judean
                  society would have impossible, requiring massive
                  social engineering after eight centuries of
                  independence from Judea. The idea of widespread
                  "forced conversions" by the Hasmoneans must be given
                  up.

                  In other words, "subjection to the laws of the
                  Judeans" simply meant that Galileans (like Idumeans)
                  became subordinate to the Hasmonean temple state in a
                  political-economic way inseprable from the religious
                  dimension. Galileans had already practiced
                  circumcision, and so the Hasmonean requirement to be
                  (re)circumcised (however effective) was intended to
                  signal membership in the **Judean** covenant
                  community. This leads to the next question.

                  C. How Torah observant and Temple observant were
                  Galileans?

                  Horsley's leading point throughout the book is that
                  Galilee had been for centuries with no indigenous
                  aristocracy -- had been without a native aristocracy
                  for about six centuries -- and unlike Judea and
                  Samaria, had no priesthood andscribal elite to compile
                  a Torah and other traditions used for legitimating a
                  temple-based community (whether at Jerusalem or
                  Gerizim). We know the Galileans paid tithes (Vita 63,
                  80), but the degree here is uncertain, and Galileans
                  had a reputation for being unfamiliar with various
                  priestly codes (m Ned 2:4).

                  With regards to the three major annual temple
                  festivals, it seems that Judeans flocked by the
                  thousands, Galileans by the hundreds. Many Judeans
                  probably attended only one festival a year; many
                  Galileans probably attended one every several years.

                  Various passages in Josephus indicate that Galileans
                  adhered to a basic "Torah" which preceded the Judean
                  Torah. Issues pertaining to circumcision (Vita
                  112-113,149) and sabbath observance (Vita 159) reflect
                  basic customs having roots in Galilee prior to
                  Hasmnonean takeover (as descendents of former
                  Israelites) -- not adherence to a highly codified
                  priestly Torah.

                  In other words, Galileans probably identified
                  initially with the Judeans as fellow Israelites, and
                  were somewhat receptive to their traditions as having
                  a common heritage with their own (more conservative
                  and popular) traditions. But they would have soon seen
                  the temple as oppressive and "the laws of the Judeans"
                  as odd versions of ancient Israelite traditions.

                  I like Horsley's analysis. The evidence is murky, but
                  these findings can do justice to what exists. I
                  certainly agree with Steve Davies that we must view
                  the people of Galilee in a different light than the
                  Judeans. But ideas about a thoroughly pagan (or
                  predominantly pagan) Galilee seem eccentric and
                  misguided.

                  Can anyone point to reviews/critiques of Horsley's
                  Galilee book?

                  =====
                  Loren Rosson III
                  Nashua NH
                  rossoiii@...

                  "In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the social sciences he is remembered for his worst."



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
                  http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                • sdavies0
                  ... I see your point, but I don t know how we are going to measure their placement along the continuum from Thoroughly Jewish to Thoroughly Pagan. I say they
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 18, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...> wrote:
                    > I like Horsley's analysis. The evidence is murky, but
                    > these findings can do justice to what exists. I
                    > certainly agree with Steve Davies that we must view
                    > the people of Galilee in a different light than the
                    > Judeans. But ideas about a thoroughly pagan (or
                    > predominantly pagan) Galilee seem eccentric and
                    > misguided.

                    I see your point, but I don't know how we are going to measure their
                    placement along the continuum from Thoroughly Jewish to Thoroughly
                    Pagan. I say they weren't the former and you say they weren't the
                    second. OK. But where do we go from there?

                    > Can anyone point to reviews/critiques of Horsley's
                    > Galilee book?

                    Yeah. It turns out that
                    There's an interesting-appearing article here:
                    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_1_31/ai_94331629
                    for part one

                    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_2_31/ai_94332333
                    for part two

                    Remember to use the "print" option to read them.

                    They are fine scholarly pieces examining the role of "Galilee" in
                    scholarship over the past century and a half or so bringing us up to
                    date in the twenty first century. It's sophisticated and post-
                    modernish and all sorts of good things including having
                    reviews/critiques of Horsley's book.

                    Steve
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.