Jesus the Galilean

Introduction

There is not an entirely consistent picture of Jesus’ life and ministry across each of the four Gospels. However, general ideas about Jesus and his likely situation in the social and political context of his time can be discerned from recent “historical Jesus” research. Interestingly, despite the disparity of Gospel portrayals, some researchers have concluded that the Gospel accounts are consistent with the available historical evidence about Galilee.

The research into Galilean life at around the time of Jesus can be categorised into a number of areas, namely:
• Cultural and religious life;
• Political and economic systems which impacted in the region;
• The land in both its geographical and agricultural aspects; and
• Sociological considerations.

It is within this contextual framework that the Gospels have drawn a picture of Jesus who practiced his ministry on the margins of the community, who travelled extensively, including on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but for the most part avoided larger regional centres. He did not seek political or religious favour, but generally preached against the existing religious and cultural ethos, using metaphors that reflected the culture’s agricultural and social frameworks.

The Gospel accounts of Jesus as a marginalised and transient figure were designed to invoke the understanding that religious obedience to God might not always be found within the central structures of religion, politics and culture.

Gospel representations

The accuracy of Gospel representations of Galilean life have been subject to critique on the basis that they were written for broader purposes than to record history. Firstly, as Reed notes, the gospels were written down some time after the life and death of Jesus, in a context that was not Galilean, and by “authors who perhaps lacked any first hand knowledge of Galilee.” It appears that the Gospels, as written texts, arose as part of the community’s reaction to the Jewish war of 66-74CE. It is also argued that while the Gospels derived their material from a “sayings source (which was) close to the culture of the itinerant charismatics … in the Gospels we detect (the author’s) orientation to a different way of life.”

Secondly, the inconsistency in detail between the Gospels creates difficulty in attempting to portray an accurate historical picture of Jesus’ life. For instance, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus mainly ministers in Galilee, and travels to Jerusalem in the last week of his life, whereas the Gospel of John depicts Jesus making pilgrimage to Jerusalem at an early stage of his ministry.

Despite these reservations however, some writers still conclude that the portrayal of Galilee, gives a fair representation of the context in which Jesus ministered. Freyne has argued that despite the apparent “propagandist and kerygmatic interests” displayed within the texts, the gospels were intentional in their use of a Galilean setting to establish Jesus’ career and ministry.

Horsley, although arguing that he avoids “using the Gospels as sources for life in Galilee” acknowledges that “the scholarly pendulum seems to be swinging back to the sense that the Gospels, particularly Mark and the Synoptic Source Sayings, Q used by Matthew and Luke, provide some reliable reflections of social life in Galilee.”

It is likely therefore, that the Gospels use the Galilean culture of Jesus, to provide a context for his ministry consistent with their theological aims.

Cultural/religious life

The nature of the cultural and religious influences on Jesus and his disciples has particular relevance to Jesus’ social location in Galilean culture. The historical research appears to have spent much time assessing the impact of the Jewish, Roman and Hellenistic cultures on Galilee. The general conclusion is that “Galilean Judaism” was the predominant social force at the time.

This conclusion rejects the approach which pits Judaism against Hellenism as though neither could influence the other. Instead an approach that assesses all the likely influences will most probably provide greater accuracy in representation. Horsley makes the point that assessing the situation would have to take account “of the particular (and shifting) ways or forms through which the people of Palestine were exploited by the overlapping ruling strata… (such as ) Temple/high priesthood in Jerusalem…Herodian regimes…(and) the situation in Galilee…”

That the culture was predominantly Jewish appears to be evidenced by a number of factors, not the least of which is the archaeological excavations of major regional centres in the area, such as Sepphoris and Tiberias reveal distinct evidence of Judaic practice.

Sanders lists the following points as further evidence:
• Rome, Herod and Antipas treated Galileans as Jews;
• There is evidence they went on pilgrimage;
• There are the remains of synagogues and immersion pools throughout Galilee;
• There is evidence they accepted the tithing law; and
• During the great Jewish revolt, Galilee revolted along with Judea.

Indeed, that Jesus engaged in pilgrimage to Jerusalem is considered to be a given by some authors. An example is found in the writings of Murphy-O’Connor, who surmises that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan as he travelled to Jerusalem on pilgrimage.

The localising of the descriptor to “Galilean” Jews however indicates evidence of other cultural influences. Freyne notes in particular that “All the gospels presume gentile contacts and associations for Galilee, and these have been exploited in the telling of the story of Jesus.”

Further, Meier suggests that the term implies a Judaism which was less concerned with the ritual niceties of temple practice, and was therefore in some tension with the urban Judaism of Jerusalem. As a result he suggests:
“That the adult Galilean Jew named Jesus should wind up opposing various views of the Pharisees and the Sadducees…and that he should have shown a less than punctilious concern about the rules of purity and Sabbath observance are hardly surprising.”

Politics and economics

The political and economic situation in Galilee, allows for the further unravelling of the idea of Galilean Judaism.

Prior to the time of Jesus, Galilee was ruled by Hellenistic empires, in particular the Ptolemaic and Seleucid regimes. About one hundred years before Jesus, the region had come under the high-priestly control, both political and religious, of the Hasmoneans, located in Jerusalem. It was just before and during the time of Jesus, that Herod and then his son Antipas were agents of the Roman Empire in the area, and most probably during that time that Greek became the official language of the region.

Thus, at the time of Jesus’ ministry, Galilee was subject to Roman rule, with its administration devolved to local agents. Sanders explains,
“Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in the province of Judea, which included Samaria, Judea and Idumea…With the prefect in Caesarea, the government of Jerusalem and the rest of Judea lay in local hands, especially the hands of Caiaphas, the high priest.”

Both Freyne and Horsley comment that political life was most likely experienced in Galilee as a distant reality. Horsley notes that,
“Jerusalem institutions and traditions to Galileans meant distant rule, and were evaluated ambivalently, perhaps even negatively. Basic in Israelite traditions was the independence of the village communities living under the direct kingship/rule of God, as Moses had taught.”

However, according to the Gospel of Matthew, the political situation did have some influence on the life of Jesus. Freyne writes,
“both the paranoid personality of Herod the Great and the contrasting rules of his sons, Archelaus in Judea and Antipas in Galilee, (which) determined the fact that Jesus came to grow up in the latter province. What is significant about this information is the contrast it presumes between Galilean and Judean social life, which is seen as the direct result of the prevailing political power.”

It appears therefore that the political situation in Galilee was relatively benign at the time of Jesus. This was the place where he was safe. Meier emphasises this point, when he counters the portrayal of Jesus as a revolutionary political figure. He writes,
“All in all, then Jesus grew up in a Jewish Galilee ruled by an ostensibly observant Jewish Monarch. The tensions created by direct Roman rule did not exist…I emphasize this point of relative peace and stability in Galilee because all too often Jesus is portrayed as an angry social rebel emerging from a seething cauldron of intolerable social and economic injustice.”

Despite the fact the region was not likely to have engaged in serious political disturbance it may have been wise to avoid political trouble. It has been argued that Jesus was conscious of these realities and may have deliberately avoided contact with the political regime in the region. It has been surmised, through archaeological evidence, that the towns of Sepphoris and Tiberius were the main Herodian centres in Galilee. But while mention is made of Jesus’ activity in areas close to these centres, no narrative exists of his activity in them. Freyne suggests that,
“It is quite unlikely that Jesus’ avoidance of either place was due to religious attitudes, in view of his apparent disregard for the purity laws and his openness to gentiles…His avoidance of the main Herodian centres of Galilee is best explained…in the light of a conscious decision not to become directly embroiled in a confrontation with Herodian power.”

Reed follows this line, arguing that while such theories must acknowledge their tentative nature, the impression in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus avoided the “poleis proper in favour of their chorai,” can be associated with Gospel passages in Luke that hint at the notion that Jesus was avoiding Antipas.

The Land

Geographical, trade and agricultural aspects would also shape Galilean life. The community would have been obliged to participate in the economic system of its rulers, whether through taxation, tithing and trade. In addition, the religious act of pilgrimage would have meant that the inhabitants were exposed to other regional influences as they left Galilee in order to travel to Jerusalem.

It appears that Galilee was a fertile area, with an ideal climate for agriculture. Freyne describes the possible scenario,
“..Jewish peasants continued to own small holdings of land in Galilee, live their lives in villages along fairly traditional lines, and be moderately productive in terms of local markets for the most part…Along the lake-front one finds greater signs of more intense production…For the rest, the clearest indications we have are for the grain industry.”

A reliance on primary production would most likely have meant a life at subsistence level farming. The domination of work and the spectre of poverty would have had significant impact on the way the community operated. The tax regime of the regional administrators would have also added a burden to such a life.

Opportunities for other forms of cultural interaction would have been governed by the harvest. There may have been minor trade with other non Jewish communities, particularly considering Galilee bordered Syro-Phoenicia and Samaria. However, Reed has commented that
“…Galilee was not as well integrated into the international economy and its major trade networks. Describing Galilee as isolated is too strong, but characterising it as provincial and with a limited regional economy is apt.”

The other contact with non Galilean communities would have occurred during the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Galilee would have been four to five days journey to Jerusalem, and would have required interaction with other communities along the way. Freyne suggests that,
“Though fraught with danger, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem must have had a very definite social function for Galilean Jewish peasants, lifting them temporarily out of the narrow confines of village life and bestowing as sense of belonging to something greater.”

Sociological

A survey of the above factors has given some commentators enough material to explore the sociological factors that were most likely evident in Galilee. The commentary usually portray a stratified society, where wandering philosophers might survive as long as they did not engage in political interest groups, or seek to undermine the political or religious authorities.

Most people in the Galilean region are assumed to have been peasant producers. Those that were not would have been somehow associated with the governing class or ruling group who were located in Jerusalem. Therefore the pressure brought to bear by the Herodian rule and the priestly ascendancy of Jerusalem, would have been translated through bureaucratic agents in the region.

It is unlikely that peasant producers would have transgressed such class barriers except in exceptional circumstances. Horsley writes,
“Peasants enter the narrative only when they make sufficient trouble so that the rulers are compelled to send out the military to restore proper social order. The Gospels portray Jesus and the disciples as moving among the villages, but avoiding the cities – until the face off in Jerusalem, of course.”

The question must be, that why, in this regional rural area, would such a community pay heed to the wandering philosopher Jesus? Malina tackles this question when he examines the general attitude of suspicion and scepticism that was likely to surround such a character. He argues that Jesus may have represented “…the great reputational, legitimate leader… (affirming) the traditional values and structures of his society by repudiating personal power.” In addition Horsley adds,
“The renewed Mosaic covenantal teachings in Luke/Q 6:20-49 and Mark 10 suggest that Jesus was not teaching some sort of lifestyle to individuals, but addressing local communities about their disintegrating social-economic relations. He addresses people who are suffering poverty, hunger, and despair, but are still part of village community relations, however contentious.”

Conclusion

Thus we have a Gospel picture of Jesus which sees him operating on the fringes, rather than the heart of social/political and cultural life. He is a figure who is illustrative of his class and original community. The geography of his community meant that he was influenced by the “Greeks and other Gentiles living in the Decapolis, as well as by Syro Phonecians in the Huleh Valley and toward Caesarea Philippi.”

His pilgrimages to the heartland of religious life also brought him to the heartland of cultural and political rule. Hence, the journey becomes a metaphor, which the Gospel writers use to powerful effect. Reed writes, “…with Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem, he and his Galilean followers crossed a different kind of barrier, from the geographical margins of Judaism in Galilee to its centre, the Temple in Jerusalem.” Freyne draws out the pint that Galilee, unlike Jerusalem, becomes the place in which the hope of God’s saving action is fulfilled. God’s presence is de-centred.

Horsley makes the interesting point that Galilee, with its ancient Israelite traditions and associated academies provided a fertile ground for both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. His argument reinforces the early Christian notion of relationship with God away from temple based religious activity. Malina makes the associated point that Jesus’ life and death “supplied this faction with a focal point for its aspirations for a renewed Israel. After his death-resurrection, he becomes the group’s central symbol of this renewal, actually effected by the God of Israel.”

Thus, the Galilean context can not be read as a hotbed of radical and revolutionary activity. It appears to have been a community which relied on hard work to sustain itself, sufficiently on the margins of the territory to operate relatively independently, and open enough to allow for the emergence of a new prophet and his followers. This was the place the provided the fertile ground for religious renewal. It is in this environment in which the Gospel writers firmly locate Jesus, the new growth.
Bibliography

Freyne, S. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations, Fortress: Philadelphia, 1988.

Horsley, R. Sociology and the Jesus Movement, Crossroad: New York, 1989.

Horsley, R. Galilee: History, Politics, People, Trinity Press International: Pennsylvania, 1995.

Malina, B The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels, Routledge: London, 1996.

Meier, J. A Marginal Jew Vol 111, ABRL: New York, 2001.

Murphy-O’Connor, J. John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses, NTS 36, 1990, 359-374.

Page, C. Jesus and the Land, Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1995.

Reed, J. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus-A Re-examination of the Evidence, Trinity Press: Harrisburg, 2002, 8-12, 62-66, 131-138, 212-220.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus, Allen Lane: London, 1993.

Sanders, E. “Jesus in Galilee” in Jesus-A Colloquium in the Holy Land, Donelly, D. (ed) Continuum: New York, 2001, 8-26.

Theissen, G. The Gospels in Context, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1991.