Galilee and restoration of Israel
- Rikk says:
>>Just checked my Schurer (rev) and it appears that they wereThat is true if only the section on Ituraeans in I.561-570 is involved. As
>>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
to whether Ituraeans were living in the area called Galilee, and whether
they would consider themselves "Galileans," other sections of Schurer would
"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."
"... 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."]
"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
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
Sorry about the length.
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]
- At 10:36 AM 1/16/2005, David Hindley wrote:
First, thanks for your lengthy quotes, all valuable for the issue at hand.
>That is true if only the section on Ituraeans in I.561-570 is involved. AsGaulanites? Ian Hutchesson wrote on 12 Nov 1998 on CrossTalk:
>to whether Ituraeans were living in the area called Galilee, and whether
>they would consider themselves "Galileans," other sections of Schurer would
>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 whoThe late Phil Lewis, who used to contribute frequently to CrossTalk, wrote
>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
on 11 Nov 1998:
>Now, it's OK with me if you want to discard I Enoch as a contributer to ourAccording to the ABD (Galilee: Hellenistic/Roman), "the Jewishness of
>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
>These references justify IMO the assertion that Original Enoch "had a
>Galilean orientation." They are the only physical allusions in the book.
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,The Babylonian conquest seems to have caused a major disruption in the
>History and Society in Galilee". I found it very inspiring and
>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.
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 centuryA lot of the debate on these points on XTalk has been fueled by Stevan
>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
> (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.
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.
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
Northern Arizona University
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In email@example.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
> A lot of the debate on these points on XTalk has been fueled byStevan > 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
>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:
or search for
The construction of Galilee as a place for the historical
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
- Stevan Davies wrote:
> (I would not be one bit surprised to find Mormon archaeologicalI'm curious as to how you explain the stone vessels that have been
> 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.)
discovered in several places throughout the Galilee.
> Since Jesus' Galileanness is one of the very few universally agreedI apologize for not having read your books, but could you explain to us your
> 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.
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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John C. Poirier" <poirier@s...>
> I'm curious as to how you explain the stone vessels that have beenIf those are markers for Judaism I would expect them to be discovered
> discovered in several places throughout the Galilee.
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
> I apologize for not having read your books, but could you explainto 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 religiousconnection 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
> 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]
>Those Galileans are fictional audiences presupposed by Mark who may haveknown 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.
Apartment 4, Level 12, Samaa El Maadi Tower No 2B,
28 Corniche El Nil, Cairo, Egypt
Tel: (20-2) 526 6383
From: sdavies0 [mailto:sdavies@...]
Sent: 17 January 2005 21:05
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:
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: email@example.com
List managers may be contacted directly at:
Yahoo! Groups Links
- A. John Poirier asked Steve Savies (on Jan 17):
> Could you explain to us your understandingTo which Steve responded:
> of who the Galileans were,
[Maybe Judaized pagans, maybe Samaritan equivalents,
>I don't know what they were. And I'll betB. Bob Schacht asked Steve Davies (on Jan 3):
>you don't know either.
> Aren't you forgetting the Maccabees? For a whileTo which Steve responded:
> 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?
>Yes, I think that that military conquestC. John Poirier asked Steve Davies (on Jan 4):
>with its forced circumcisions and new temple
>based taxation and so forth was indeed fresh
>in their minds.
> Where on earth do you get the idea that[To which Steve didn't respond until resurfacing
> Torah observance did not apply to Galilee?
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
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
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
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
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
Can anyone point to reviews/critiques of Horsley's
Loren Rosson III
"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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...> wrote:
> I like Horsley's analysis. The evidence is murky, butI see your point, but I don't know how we are going to measure their
> 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
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'sYeah. It turns out that
> Galilee book?
There's an interesting-appearing article here:
for part one
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.