-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 1 of 45
Name:
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen
Student number:
61350079
Module:
HRECH86
Assignment num-ber:
3
Topic:
Historical Jesus Research
DECLARATION I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this is my
own and personal work, except where the word(s) or publications of
others have been acknowledged by means of accepted reference
techniques. Name: Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen Signature:
……………………………………………………… Date: 06/01/2018
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 2 of 45
Table of Contents Jesus: Prophet, Messiah, Rebel, Reformer?
.......................................................................
3
1. Introduction
................................................................................................................
3
2. Historical Jesus Research
............................................................................................
5
2.1 Reimarus (to Schweitzer)
......................................................................................
5
2.2 Spotlight on Galilee
...............................................................................................
6
2.3 Socio-Economic Readings
.....................................................................................
8
2.4 Socio-Religious Readings
......................................................................................
9
2.5 Scholars Included
................................................................................................
10
3. The Socio-Economic Approach
.................................................................................
11
3.1 Richard Horsley
...................................................................................................
11
3.2 Douglas E. Oakman
.............................................................................................
14
3.3 John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed: Excavating Jesus
............................ 17
4 The Socio-Religious Approach
...................................................................................
22
4.1 Morten Jensen: Galilee Under Herod Antipas
.................................................... 23
4.2 The Case for Religious Motivation
......................................................................
28
5 Critique and Discussion
..............................................................................................
32
5.1 Critique of Horsley, Oakman, and Crossan/Reed
............................................... 32
5.2 General Critique of Socio-Scientific Approaches
................................................ 35
5.3 Critique of Jensen
...............................................................................................
37
6 Conclusion
..................................................................................................................
39
References:
...................................................................................................................
42
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 3 of 45
Jesus: Prophet, Messiah, Rebel, Reformer?
1. Introduction
“Why did Jesus happen when and where he happened? Why then? Why
there?”1
This is the opening question of John Dominic Crossan and
Jonathan L. Reed
(Crossan/Reed) in Excavating Jesus: beneath the stones, behind
the text, and as
such it could also be suitable as the opening question for this
research report.
This question, however, is too extensive to treat inside the
constraints of a single
research report. Therefore, I intend to limit the scope to two
understandings of
the circumstances around the emergence of Jesus and the Jesus
movement,
which will be presented below.
The answer as to why “Jesus happened” when and where he did is
primarily
sought in the external circumstances of first century Near East
in general and
Galilee in particular. The task of the historical Jesus scholar
is thus to establish an
archaeologically and historically plausible context of Jesus.
Thus, Jonathan L.
Reed:
“Since descriptions of first-century Galilee to a large extent
de-
termine the interpretation of Jesus' teachings and his life, it
is not
surprising that the renewed quest has witnessed variously
shaded
Galilees to make the competing descriptions of the historical
Jesus
more credible”2.
With this in mind, the answer as to the emergence of Jesus and
the move-
ment depends largely on the understanding of Galilee and the
features distinct
to this area around the time of Jesus.
1 John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus:
Beneath the Stones, behind the
Texts, revised ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001),
xvii. 2 Jonathan L. Reed as quoted by Jensen (Morten Hørning
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The
Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod
Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 215 (Tübingen: Mohr Sie-beck,
2006), 5.)
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 4 of 45
In the latest decades, four main understandings of Galilee have
been pro-
posed: Galilee as an especially rebellious area3, Galilee as
culturally characterised
by Roman-Hellenistic influences4, Galilee as an area oppressed
by the Herodian
rulers,5 and Galilee as characterised by an upsurge in religious
concerns.6
I intend to briefly present the historical Jesus research of
Reimarus and
Schweitzer, Galilee Research, and two old understandings of
Galilee now virtually
abandoned.7
Hereafter I intend to present the understanding of
socio-economic factors as
the main reason for the emergence of Jesus. This view is held by
scholars such as
Richard Horsley8, Crossan/Reed9, and Douglas E. Oakman.10
Having presented the socio-economic view, I will move on to
present a socio-
religious view represented primarily by Morten H. Jensen11 but
substantiated by
e.g. Sharon Lea Mattila12 and Agnes Choi.13
3 Ibid., 6.
4 Ibid., 7.
5 Richard A. Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of
Israel: Moving beyond a Diversionary
Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2012), 81;
Douglas E. Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2012), 53, 63; Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus,
91, 100. 6 Morten Hørning Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod
Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” J. Study Hist. Jesus 11.1 (2013): 3–34. 7 A hotbed
for rebels or a Hellenistic area. Cf. Ibid., 5–6.
8 Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel.
9 Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus., though Crossan seems to
have been in favour of an under-
standing of Galilee as heavily Hellenised resulting in Jesus
pictured as a Jewish Cynic (John Domi-nic Crossan, The Historical
Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York:
Harper-Collins, 1998).) 10
Douglas E. Oakman, “Debate: Was the Galilean Economy Oppressive
or Prosperous? A. Late Second Temple Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and
Dimensions of Exploitation in First Century Pales-tine,” in Galilee
in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, Volume 1: Life,
Culture, and Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 346–56; Oakman, The Political
Aims of Jesus. 11
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee; Jensen, “Purity and Politics
in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation.”
12
Sharon Lea Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Diverse
and Complex Phenomenon,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and
Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1: Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David
A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2014), 312–45; Sharon Lea Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle
Peasants’?: Problematizing a Social-Scientific Concept,” Cathol.
Biblic. Q. 72.2 (2010): 291–313. 13
Agnes Choi, “Never the Two Shall Meet? Urban-Rural Interaction
in Lower Galilee,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and
Mishnaic Periods, Volume 1: Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David
A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2014), 297–311.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 5 of 45
The two presented views will be criticised and evaluated based
on the critique
and assessment of other scholars as well as my own insights.
Finally, I intend to conclude which position I find the most
promising as to es-
tablish a credible and probable picture of first century Galilee
accounting for
both the emergence of Jesus and the movement he initiated and
fitting the evi-
dence from first century Palestine.
2. Historical Jesus Research
2.1 Reimarus (to Schweitzer)
The search for the historical Jesus, also known as the Quests
for Jesus, is ordi-
narily14 said to have been inaugurated by German professor of
oriental lan-
guages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768)15 who in writings
published
posthumously presented an understanding of Jesus radically
different from the
traditional understanding. Reimarus’ claim was that Jesus was
not a religious
messiah, but a political rebel. N.T. Wright summarises: "Jesus
was a Jewish re-
former who became increasingly fanatical and politicized, and he
failed. His cry
of dereliction on the cross signaled the end of his expectation
that his god would
act to support him."16 After his death on the cross, his
disciples reinterpreted
Jesus’ messiahship along the lines of a universalistic saviour
figure.17
The dichotomy between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the
gospels that
arose from Reimarus’ and his successors’ presentation was
challenged by Albert
Schweitzer (1875-1965) who did not accept Reimarus’ picture of a
politically mo-
tivated Christ but argued that Jesus should be interpreted
historically from a Jew-
ish eschatology and apocalyptic point of wiev, thus presenting a
Jesus with a firm
belief in the near end of the world – a Jesus of greater
continuity with the Jesus
14
Although his indebtedness to English Deism is underscored by
multiple scholars (Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of
God, Christian origins and the question of God 2 (London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996), 16; James H.
Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide, Essential
Guides (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), 2.) 15
Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed,
T & T Clark’s guides for the per-plexed (London: New York : T
& T Clark, 2012), 8. 16
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 16. 17
Ibid., 17; Bond, The Historical Jesus, 8.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 6 of 45
of the gospels, but nonetheless a mistaken Jesus.18 Thus,
Schweitzer downgraded
the importance of the historical Jesus19 but upgraded “the
Christ of faith”20 while
also criticising former presentations of the historical Jesus:
“each individual cre-
ated [Jesus] in accordance with his own character. There is no
historical task
which so reveals a man’s true self as the writing of a Life of
Jesus”21 which is fur-
ther supported by the brief analysis by Douglas E. Oakman who
finds that the
picture of the historical Jesus has been distorted by both the
earliest Jesus fol-
lowers and by anachronistic projections of modern
scholarship.22
What has been termed “the new quest” will not be treated in this
report as it
was only short-lived and rapidly declined after a few
decades.23
The third Quest24 is characterised by a less theological outset
than the former
and therefore, at least at the outset, marked by theological
disinterest.25 Not that
scholars are ignorant of theological implications, but “[w]hat
all modern Jesus
scholars share is a commitment to historical reconstruction and
the view that
Jesus is to be studied like any other great figure from the
past.”26
2.2 Spotlight on Galilee
These traits of The Third Quest also mean that Galilee has
received a lot more
attention than in earlier quests. Galilee is pivotal in the
attempt to understand
the historical Jesus27.
18
Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 17–21; Bond, The
Historical Jesus, 11–12. 19
Jesus had in Schweitzer’s understanding been misguided and
mistaken (Bond, The Historical Jesus, 11–12.). 20
Ibid. 21
Albert Schweitzer as quoted by Bond (Ibid., 11.) 22
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 18. 23
Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus, 7–8; Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God, 23–25; Although Wright does not consider The New
Quest to be finished (ibid., 25). 24
Sometimes termed “Jesus Research”. I consider the terms
synonymous and use them inter-changeably (Charlesworth, The
Historical Jesus, 8.). 25
Ibid., 9. 26
Bond, The Historical Jesus, 20. 27
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 5; Roland Deines, “Galilee and
the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,” in Galilee in the Late
Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1: Life, Culture, and
Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2014), 12–13; Bond, The Historical Jesus, 21.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 7 of 45
Sean Freyne has remarked: “More than once have I been tempted to
make
the fairly obvious comment that the search for the historical
Galilee is about to
replace the quest for the historical Jesus,”28 indicating the
importance of Galilee
in recent Jesus Research.
While the importance of Galilee as the backdrop of the
historical Jesus is ob-
vious it is not obvious which picture of Galilee is the most
probable.29 Under-
standings of Galilee are used both to qualify Jesus as a Jew and
to distance him
from Jewishness.30 Thus, it should be no surprise that
scholarship has abandoned
at least two understandings of Galilee: Galilee as a hotbed of
revolutionaries and
Galilee as an area heavily Hellenised and Romanised.
In regards to the understanding of Galilee as populated with
revolutionaries,
this view was presented and argued by e.g. Horsley who found
that Galilee was
“potentially revolutionary”,31 but he also acknowledges that
Galilee was not
populated by proactive insurrectionists32 nor witnessed
long-lasting organised
Zealotic resistance groups.33 This view is largely abandoned,
although Horsley still
proposes an idea of social banditry.34 Jensen argues that
Galilee should not be
understood as particularly rebellious and that the Jewish War
“in essence was a
Jerusalemite affair.”35
The understanding of Galilee as influenced by the
Roman-Hellenistic culture
was presented by multiple scholars who found evidence of
Hellenism in Antipas’
28
Sean Freyne as quoted by Deines (Deines, “Galilee and the
Historical Jesus in Recent Research,” 12.). 29
James Riley Strange and David A. Fiensy, “Introduction to
Galilee: Volumes 1 and 2,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and
Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1: Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David
A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2014), 3. 30
Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,”
13. 31
Mark Rapinchuk, “The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research,”
Curr. Biblic. Res. 2/2004.2 (2004): 208–209. 32
Ibid. 33
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 6.; Earlier scholarship had
proposed an understanding of Jesus as ‘just another rebel leader
with a violent programme of resistance and liberation of Galilee
from foreign dominion and oppression whether in the form of direct
Roman rule or the Herodian vassal rulers (Ibid.) 34
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 6. 35
Morten Hørning Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from
the 1st Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” in
Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1:
Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley
Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 71.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 8 of 45
urbanisation of Sepphoris and founding of Tiberias as Greek
poleis influencing
the surrounding villages and region.36 Especially the debate on
how Hellenised
Sepphoris was around the time of Jesus has been an important
aspect. The city
has been presented by e.g. Richard Batey as thoroughly Greek.37
This under-
standing of Sepphoris as characterised by Hellenization also
prompted the
presentation of Jesus as an itinerant Jewish cynic by Crossan in
his famous The
Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant:
Jesus grew up in
Nazareth near the Greek Sepphoris and was influenced by the
Greek philosophi-
cal traditions.38 Though it is evident that Antipas brought some
degree of Hellen-
istic inspiration to Sepphoris and Tiberias, Deines concludes:
“[…] it is now no
longer possible to seriously dispute the predominantly Jewish
character of Sep-
phoris and Galilee in the first century.”39 Jensen is cautious
but finds that the
issue has been largely settled and that it requires new data if
the picture of a
Galilee as mainly Jewish40 and not particularly urbanised41
should be overthrown.
2.3 Socio-Economic Readings
To characterise some readings as socio-economic does seem to
imply that other
readings do not concern themselves with socio-economics. As will
be evident, no
scholar of first-century Galilee can ignore the socio-economic
conditions of Jesus’
context.42
The readings that I intend to present under the socio-economic
headline ad-
vocate “a picture of conflict”43 with socio-economic inequality
and oppression as
36
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 7. 37
Rapinchuk, “The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research,” 206–207.
38
Ibid., 215–216; Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in
Recent Research,” 21.; the picture of a Hellenised Galilee is
supported by e.g. Burton Mack (Ibid., 22; Jensen, “Purity and
Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” 5–6.). 39
Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,”
32. 40
Based on Jewish identity markers such as miqwaoth, stone
vessels, lack of pig bones and spe-cial burial customs, Hasmonean
coinage (Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 8.) 41
Ibid., 7–8. 42
Jensen e.g. suggests a new focus on the socio-religious dynamics
alongside research into socio-economic dynamics (Jensen, “Purity
and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” 8; cf 9.) 43
I borrow this term from Moxnes as presented by Jensen (Jensen,
Herod Antipas in Galilee, 16.)
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 9 of 45
the main reason for the emergence of Jesus.44 These readings
present Jesus as
engaged with social and economic concerns over against the
traditional ecclesi-
astical interpretation of Jesus. The proponents see Antipas’
extensive building
programme as conditioned by levying of taxes45 and general urban
exploitation
of the rural peasants.46
These readings will be expounded further below, but this is
sufficient to
acknowledge the differences and challenges of the dichotomy
between the so-
cio-economical readings and the socio-religious readings.
2.4 Socio-Religious Readings
The socio-religious readings may be understood as the classical
perception of
Jesus and the background and factors that prompted him to
establish the
movement historically resulting in the Christian church. This
conception is not
entirely satisfactory. The modern socio-religious readings are
not based solely on
readings and interpretations of the New Testament but emphasise
the im-
portance of historical and archaeological studies and their
impact on the under-
standing and interpretation of Jesus.47
Thus, on the basis of e.g. finds of particular Jewish stoneware,
miqwaoth, syn-
agogues from first century Galilee and on a reinterpretation of
textual evidence,
the proponents of socio-religious readings argue for religious
intensification in
the Hasmonean and Herodian period as the formative background
for Jesus.48
This emphasis on socio-religious aspects of society, however,
does not mean that
44
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 103–104; 114; Crossan and
Reed, Excavating Jesus, 118; Richard A. Horsley, “Jesus and the
Politics of Roman Palestine,” J. Study Hist. Jesus 8.2 (2010): 144;
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 5; 115–116;
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 252. 45
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 43; 53;62; Crossan and
Reed, Excavating Jesus, 100; 107; Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics
of Roman Palestine,” 110; 122; Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the
Renewal of Israel, 81. 46
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 24; Crossan and Reed,
Excavating Jesus, 91; 100; 151–152. 47
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 7–9. 48
Ibid., 32–34; Andrea M Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt:
The Archaeological Evidence,” J. Study Jud. Persian Hell. Roman
Period 36.4 (2005): 466; 467; 470; James S. McLaren, “Searching for
Rome and the Imperial Cult in Galilee: Reassessing Galilee-Rome
Relations (63 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.),” in Rome and Religion: A
Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, ed. Jeffrey Brodd
and Jonathan L. Reed, 5 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2011), 131.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 10 of 45
the socio-economic conditions are neglected or disregarded but
only that these
are not regarded as holding sufficient explanatory force to
provide the explana-
tion for Jesus.49 Therefore, the proponents of socio-religious
factors as the main
background for Jesus often constitute an opposition to the
socio-economic views
even though they may acknowledge some of the points. However,
the advocates
of a socio-religious view often challenge the assumption of a
picture of conflict
with a more harmonious view of first century Galilee.50
2.5 Scholars Included
In this research report, I intend to present the views of
Horsley51, Crossan/Reed52,
and Oakman53 as proponents of a socio-economic understanding of
Galilee as the
main factor behind Jesus. Horsley represents a non-apocalyptic
understanding of
Jesus and has been a significant scholar in the field of Jesus
scholarship.54 Cros-
san/Reed represent a collaboration between theology and
archaeology with rep-
resentatives from both fields,55 while Oakman represents the
latest contribu-
tion56 presented in this report.
As advocates for the socio-religious view of Galilee and the
main background
for Jesus, I intend to present Jensen who in the article Purity
and Politics in Herod
49
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 7. 50
Agnes Choi, “Choosing a Speciality: An Investigation of Regional
Specialization in Galilee” (Un-published, November 2008), 11;
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 258; Morten Hørning Jensen,
“Herod Antipas in Galilee: Friend or Foe of the Historical Jesus?,”
J. Study Hist. Jesus 5.1 (2007): 32; Morten Hørning Jensen, “Rural
Galilee and Rapid Changes: An Investigation of the Socio-Economic
Dynamics and Developments in Roman Galilee,” Biblica 93.1 (2012):
64; Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 6; David A. Fiensy, “The Galilean
Village in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods,” in Galilee
in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1: Life,
Culture, and Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 196. 51
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel; Horsley,
“Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine.” 52
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus. 53
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus; Oakman, “Debate: Was the
Galilean Economy Oppressive or Prosperous? A. Late Second Temple
Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and Dimensions of Exploitation in First
Century Palestine.” 54
Rapinchuk, “The Galilee and Jesus in Recent Research,” 198.
55
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, xvii–xviii. 56
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus; Oakman, “Debate: Was the
Galilean Economy Oppressive or Prosperous? A. Late Second Temple
Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and Dimensions of Exploitation in First
Century Palestine.”
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 11 of 45
Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation57 sums up
the case for a so-
cio-religious interpretation combining arguments from other
scholars. The cri-
tique of a solely socio-economic interpretation will also be
based on Jensen’s
Herod Antipas in Galilee.58 The presentation will be
supplemented with argu-
ments presented by scholars such as Mattila59, Choi60, and James
S. McLaren.61
Thus, I intend to present scholars from strands of both
socio-economic and
socio-religious understandings of first century Galilee under
the rule of Herod
Antipas and addressed by Jesus of Nazareth.
3. The Socio-Economic Approach
The socio-economic perspective has had strong proponents in
Horsley, Oakman,
and Crossan/Reed. I intend to present these authors’ viewpoints
with differences
and similarities.
3.1 Richard Horsley
Even though Horsley criticises Crossan in The Prophet Jesus and
the Renewal of
Israel62 I find that both can be presented among those
advocating socio-
economic factors as the main cause for the emergence of Jesus
and the Jesus
Movement.
57
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation.” 58
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee. 59
Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Diverse and Complex
Phenomenon”; Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle Peasants’?” 60
Choi, “Never the Two Shall Meet? Urban-Rural Interaction in
Lower Galilee”; Choi, “Choosing a Speciality: An Investigation of
Regional Specialization in Galilee”; Agnes Choi, “Sticks and
Stones: The Economy of Roman Galilee in Its Physical Environment”
(Unpublished, November 2008). 61
McLaren does not deal with pre-war Galilee in particular, but
argues for religious concerns as the primary motivation for the
Jewish War, thus indicating the far reaching consequences of
religious ideas (McLaren, “Searching for Rome and the Imperial Cult
in Galilee: Reassessing Gali-lee-Rome Relations (63 B.C.E. to 70
C.E.),” 131.). 62
We will return to this critique below. For now it is sufficient
to note that the proponents for socio-economic backgrounds for
Jesus are not entirely unanimous (Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and
the Renewal of Israel, 10–13, 25.).
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 12 of 45
Pivotal for Horsley is the break with the “deeply rooted
assumption that Jesus
was a religious figure.”63 Horsley underscores that religion and
politics were in-
separable in the antiquity.64 In spite of this point, Horsley
continues to under-
score how Jesus was seen as a primarily political-economical
actor and executed
by crucifixion which was the instrument for executing political
rebels threatening
the imperial order.65 Jesus is thus presented as a rebel leader
in the eyes of the
Roman overlords66 and a social prophet agitating for a renewal
of the Mosaic
covenant67 in the eyes of the Jewish Temple Authorities.68
According to Horsley, the Judean and Galilean areas in the time
of Jesus were
characterised by the reverberations of Roman and Herodian
(re-)conquests from
Pompey and onwards.69 Horsley believes that after the first
Roman conquest
Galilee and Judea were tributary to Rome, and he finds that “The
tribute was
clearly a focal point of a fundamental
political-economic-religious conflict be-
tween people of Israelite heritage and Roman imperial
rule.”70
With the Herodians as regional rulers, Rome was locally
represented in Judea
and Galilee and it became evident that this also stressed the
relationship be-
tween Rome and the Galileans and Judeans. Herod the Great
conquered the
country and deposed of the Hasmoneans, and as the new king of
the land, he
began cementing his position and legacy by vast building
projects and considera-
ble gifts to the Roman emperors. This subjugation is evident in
the placement of
the imperial eagle above the temple gates symbolizing the
temple’s place in the
imperial Roman order.71 The building projects and the lavish
gifts must have
placed “considerable burdens on [Herod’s] subjects who he taxed
heavily to pay
63
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 100.
64
Ibid., 107; Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of
Israel, 4. 65
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 100, 105;
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 149, 156.
66
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 156.
67
In particular: ”… Jesus insists that the people renew their
commitment to traditional covenan-tal principles of cooperation and
mutual support…” (Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman
Palestine,” 134.). 68
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 138–142.
69
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 108.
70
Ibid., 109–110. 71
Ibid., 117–118; Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of
Israel, 81.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 13 of 45
for them.”72 Antipas, Herod the Great’s son and successor in
Galilee, was shaped
by a Roman upbringing and known to be harsh when collecting
revenues.73 Anti-
pas placed considerable economic burdens on the Galileans to
fund the expan-
sion of Sepphoris and founding of Tiberias while also displacing
entire villages
impoverishing the Galilean peasants.74
Thus, Jesus emerges as the leader of a popular movement in a
Galilee marked
by resentment against the local Herodian ruler, the regional
‘religious’75 authori-
ties, and ultimately against the Romans. Horsley finds evidence
in Josephus that
peasant movements in early Roman Palestine were responses to the
external
circumstances imposed by the rulers76, and he contends that:
“Such conditions of
social distress and disintegration are the circumstances from
which popular
movements and, much more rarely, wider revolts may
emerge.”77
The Jesus movement, however, was not violently rebellious.
Jesus’ movement
and politics were those of covert resistance78 although he was,
at the same time,
publicly opposing the rulers.79 Jesus launched a movement of
covenantal renewal
of Israel. The eschatological utterances attributed to Jesus
should in Horsley’s
understanding be seen as statements of covert resistance
disguised as apocalyp-
tic eschatology80 with the eschatological judgement interpreted
as a prediction of
the future judgement of the foreign and domestic enemies of the
Jewish peo-
ple.81 Thus, the apocalyptic sayings of the gospels “are focused
on how imperial
72
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 81. 73
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 112.
74
Ibid., 122. 75
The temple authorities in Jerusalem had since the rebuilding of
the temple sponsored by the Persians functioned as a regional
centre of imperial administration (in Hasmonean times as a centre
of national administration) thus ambiguously representing both
imperial interests (Ibid., 113–114.) and Jewish religion. 76
Ibid., 119. 77
Ibid., 122. 78
Horsley finds evidence of this covert resistance in multiple
sources. The daily bread of the Lord’s Prayer (Ibid., 133.; Luk
6,21); hostile statements against Antipas (Ibid., 137–138.); the
pro-phetic demonstration in the temple (Ibid., 138.); the answer to
the question concerning tax to the emperor (Ibid., 143.) 79
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 144;
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 5. 80
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 30. 81
Ibid., 44.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 14 of 45
rule has become intolerably oppressive and increasingly violent
in suppression of
the traditional Judean way of life”82 and are aimed at the
rulers.83
Although it is evident that religion, culture, politics, and
economy are all im-
portant in this conflict, Horsley explicitly states that the
cultural-religious ele-
ments were only an aspect of “the more fundamental
political-economic-cultural
divide”.84 Horsley’s main points are, that Jesus catalysed a
movement85 of covert
resistance against the Romans and the temple authorities and
that he was cruci-
fied as a political rebel and became the martyr of resistance
against the occupa-
tion and for the covenantal renewal of Israel.86
3.2 Douglas E. Oakman
Douglas E. Oakman readily identifies himself as being in debt to
Reimarus:
“Reimarus, I argue, was correct in contending that Jesus’ aims
were materially
political and essentially different from those of his disciples
after his death,”87
but also finds Reimarus in need of revision. Oakman bases his
argument primarily
on social-scientific models88 and an attempt of distilling the
earliest version of
the Q document89, thus Oakman is very conscious of his
methodology.90
As Horsley91, Oakman breaks with the traditional understanding
of Jesus as
“merely religious” and finds that archaeological and social
scientific break-
throughs challenge this understanding.92 Jesus had
political-economic aims.93
82
Ibid., 58. 83
Ibid., 62. 84
Ibid. 85
Ibid., 116–117. 86
Ibid., 156. 87
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, xii. 88
Ibid., xii, 23, 36. 89
James L Bailey, “The Political Aims of Jesus,” Curr. Theol.
Mission 42.1 (2015): 62. 90
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 21. 91
Although Horsley and Oakman have a lot in common, I find a
decisive difference. While, for Horsley, Jesus is a religious
prophet of renewal standing in the Israelite prophetic tradition of
“speaking truth to the powers” (Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of
Roman Palestine,” 143–144; Morten Hørning Jensen, “The Prophet
Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving beyond a Diver-sionary
Debate,” J. Evang. Theol. Soc. 56.4 (2013): 857–858.). Oakman finds
the prophetic under-standing of Jesus to be a later interpretive
layer (Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 120–123.). 92
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 17. 93
Ibid., 27.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 15 of 45
Jesus aims were a result of the agrarian society he grew up in
which had been
altered by the Herods and the city-dwelling elite who exploited
the rural peas-
ants94 by imposing commerce and trade95 forcing the peasants to
quit subsist-
ence farming and self-sufficiency in favour of cash-cropping
resulting in heavily
mortgaged peasants96.
In regard to the Herods, Oakman finds that the lavish building
projects of both
Herod and Antipas extracted the labour from the villages97 and
made them in-
crease the tax burden and forcibly displace entire villages to
expropriate their
lands.98 These courses of action, along with other factors,
according to Oakman,
suggest a regime characterised by “oriental despotism”.99 Oakman
further ex-
pands his “picture of conflict”100 by terming the Jewish War
(66-70 CE) an agrari-
an revolt101 motivated by economic interests evident in the
burning of the city
archives containing the debt records.102 The economic pressure
on the peasants
furthermore impeded the technological progress of the area
leaving Galilee as a
technological backwater.103
Jesus’ interest was thus agrarian-economic and regarded the
commercial ex-
ploitation of the Galilean peasants by the rulers and the
elite.104 Oakman believes
that the average Galilean at the time of Jesus was heavily taxed
and pressured by
94
Ibid., 24. 95
Oakman argues that the lack of imported pottery in the Hasmonean
kingdom testifies to a Hasmonean kingdom largely unconnected to the
trade of the surrounding Mediterranean king-doms thus approximating
an isolated agrarian state. These conditions changed with the
arrival of the Romans and the Herods who implemented commerce and
trade. (Oakman, “Debate: Was the Galilean Economy Oppressive or
Prosperous? A. Late Second Temple Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and
Dimensions of Exploitation in First Century Palestine,” 47.). It
will be challenged below whether this interpretation of the lack of
imported pottery is sufficient. 96
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 38. 97
Oakman, “Debate: Was the Galilean Economy Oppressive or
Prosperous? A. Late Second Tem-ple Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and
Dimensions of Exploitation in First Century Palestine,” 34. 98
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 53. 99
Ibid., 56. 100
Ibid., 52; Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 16. 101
Oakman, “Debate: Was the Galilean Economy Oppressive or
Prosperous? A. Late Second Tem-ple Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and
Dimensions of Exploitation in First Century Palestine,” 49. 102
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 66. 103
Oakman, “Debate: Was the Galilean Economy Oppressive or
Prosperous? A. Late Second Tem-ple Galilee: Socio-Archaeology and
Dimensions of Exploitation in First Century Palestine,” 52. 104
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 43.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 16 of 45
monetization and commercialising with a strong bias towards the
elite105, and
Oakman concludes: “In the total-systemic view, then, “taxes,”
including state
taxes, tolls, rents, liens, tributes of various kinds, religious
dues, and labour lev-
ies, were obligations that amounted to perpetual indebtedness in
the villages.”106
Thus, Jesus should in Oakman’s view be understood not as an
itinerant preacher,
but as an itinerant craftsman.107
Oakman invokes Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as an argument that
Jesus’ mes-
sage cannot have been religious, as the bodily needs of health
and subsistence
should be met if religious concerns should have a place in
“peasant theology”.108
Because of the impoverishing tax burden, it is thus unlikely
that religious con-
cerns played a significant role in the peasant worldview.109
As a wandering craftsman and preacher Jesus’ message was one of
“clandes-
tine everyday resistance”110 challenging the politico-economic
conditions created
by the commercial interests of the Herods and the elite.111
Thus, the early Jesus-
words should be interpreted non-spiritually as covert resistance
aimed against
taxes and debt policy112 with the tool of among other “fictional
kinship” with Je-
sus brokering the relationship between the “sinners”113 and the
powerful people
in a position to remit their debt.114 That “Jesus had, in fact,
been a lēstēs in advo-
cating rearrangements of debts and tax resistance”115 is visible
in the gospels,
though the gospels were greatly depoliticised116: Jesus was
executed on a Roman
105
Oakman challenges the work of Fabian Udoh who finds that the tax
burden in Galilee under Herod the Great and Herod Antipas were not
as heavy as has been traditionally assumed by scholars. Oakman
finds that Udoh’s summary is insufficient as it does not reckon
with the basic pattern of tribute and taxes in antiquity which
always ensured the elite and the rulers an ad-vantage (Ibid.,
62–63.). 106
Ibid., 63. 107
Ibid., 83. 108
Ibid., 81. 109
Ibid., 89. 110
Which seems to be equivalent to “covert resistance” (Ibid., 81,
119.). 111
Ibid., 103–104. 112
Ibid., 104–105, 114. 113
A term best translated as ”debtors” according to Oakman (Ibid.,
98.). 114
Ibid., 98–103. 115
Ibid., 127. 116
Ibid., 125–127.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 17 of 45
cross which signalled that he was convicted as a rebel against
the local, regional,
and imperial authorities.117
3.3 John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed: Excavating Jesus
In 2001118 Crossan and Reed, the later a seasoned archaeologist
of Palestine,
published Excavating Jesus: beneath the stones, behind the
texts119 on the histor-
ical Jesus. Crossan/Reed state their question in the prologue:
“Why did Jesus
happen when and where he happened?”120 and subsequently briefly
presents the
answer they intend to present: Jesus lead a non-violent movement
of covert re-
sistance against the Herodian rulers and their Roman overlords
who had under-
mined the Jewish societal structure of a covenantal kingdom with
distributive
justice.121 Thus, the primary aim of Crossan/Reed is to
substantiate this claim
with literary and archaeological evidence.
To substantiate this, Crossan/Reed present a picture of a
Galilee characterised
by a substantial impact of the Herodian programme of
urbanisation and
commercialisation introducing a Romanisation of the urban
centres of Sepphoris
and Tiberias.122 While these urban centres of Antipas were thus
representatives
of the Greek-Roman culture, Jesus hometown Nazareth was, despite
the proxim-
ity to Sepphoris, a Jewish village in an agrarian society and
Jesus should thus be
understood as a Jewish peasant.123
Jesus childhood in Galilee in the time of Herod Antipas would,
according to
Crossan/Reed, have been impacted by the Herodian project of
building a minia-
ture edition of the Roman Empire characterised by urbanisation
and
commercialisation.124 This programme had already been initiated
by Herod the
117
Ibid., 127, 129. 118
Ten years after The Historical Jesus: The Life of a
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (Crossan, The Historical Jesus.)
119
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus. 120
Ibid., xvii. 121
Ibid., xx–xxi. 122
Ibid., 51. 123
Ibid., 52.; thereby Crossan seems to leave the understanding of
Jesus as primarily influenced by the Hellenistic cynic philosophers
(Crossan, The Historical Jesus.). 124
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 92.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 18 of 45
Great, who launched great building projects as Masada, Herodion,
Jerusalem’s
Temple, and not least Caesarea Maritima built according to all
the standards of a
Roman metropolis.125 Caesarea Maritima was the pinnacle of Herod
the Great’s
new Roman-inspired Jewish kingdom and was named after the Roman
emperor.
The port of the new city became a centre of export from the Near
East and as
such contributed to the great wealth to Herod the Great.126
Herod’s lavish building programme was financed by this trade,
but only par-
tially.127 The base of wealth in the Roman Empire was,
Crossan/Reed argue,
agriculture and land, and thus Crossan/Reed find that the
societies were based
on the extraction of wealth from the agriculture produced by the
rural peas-
ants.128 Therefore, Herod’s establishment of a small scale Roman
kingdom
changed the societal patterns of Palestine around the time of
Jesus: “Polycrop-
ping and self-sufficiency on family farms gave way to
monocropping on estates
and royal lands and to an asymmetrical exchange of goods.”129
The agricultural
lands were concentrated with the elite owning most of the lands
and the peas-
ants were tenants instead of self-sufficient small-scale
landholders and thus a
flow of valuables was established, effectively “moving goods and
money from
the land to the city.”130 While Herod the Great dramatically
expanded the cities
and the economy of Palestine, it was done at the expense of the
rural agricultur-
al peasants. The increase of luxury and the improvement of the
elite’s economy
were based on an intensification of peasant labour and
agricultural produce re-
sulting in increasing peasant poverty.131
When Antipas took power in Galilee he initiated the same changes
as his fa-
ther had done in Judea, but as Antipas did not have access to
the income from a
Mediterranean port and trade routes as his father had had, he
had to finance the
building of his small-scale Roman kingdom in general and of
Sepphoris and Tibe-
125
Ibid., 92–100. 126
Ibid., 94. 127
Ibid., 99. 128
Ibid. 129
Ibid., 100. 130
Ibid. 131
Ibid., 100, cf. 91.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 19 of 45
rias in particular almost exclusively from the income generated
by the agricultur-
al lands under his control.132 This placed a lot of stress upon
the rural peasantry
and although it is not explicitly stated Crossan/Reed clearly
understand these
developments in Galilee under Antipas as a catalyst for the
Jesus Movement
characterised as a religio-political movement.133 Further, it is
explicitly stated that
“Herod the Great’s kingdom and Antipas’s tetrarchy imposed a
Roman veneer
onto Jewish Galilee and changed economic structures, ultimately
leading to two
Jewish wars against Rome.”134 This clearly indicates that
Crossan/Reed believe
economic concerns to be the main motivation behind the Jesus
Movement. In
the canonised gospels, Jesus is presented as religio-spiritual,
but Crossan/Reed in
fact find this to be a reinterpretation of an originally
religio-politically oriented
Jesus.135
Besides this, Crossan/Reed also emphasise that the first two
centuries with
Roman dominion over Palestine witnessed no less than four major
Jewish revolts
against the Roman occupation136 indicating a fundamental Jewish
dissatisfaction
with the Roman overlords. Crossan/Reed presume that overt
resistance presup-
poses an even larger extent of covert resistance137 and
thereafter they find mul-
tiple examples of covert and/or non-violent Jewish resistance
against Romans
and Herodians.
Josephus recounts two incidents of nonviolent resistance138 with
Jewish pro-
testers ready to martyr themselves but not to exercise
violence.139 These two
incidents indicate the presence of organised mass movements with
political
agendas in first-century Judaism which also implicates that they
must have been
under an organised leadership.140 More interesting, though, in
regard to Jesus,
132
Ibid., 107. 133
Ibid., 118. 134
Ibid., 125. 135
Ibid., 156. 136
Ibid., 179. 137
Ibid., 177. 138
One of them also mentioned by Philo. 139
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 184–186. 140
Ibid., 186–187.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 20 of 45
are the examples of covert resistance in the time of Jesus and
in the gospels.
Jesus was convicted as an opponent of the Roman law, order, and
authority.141
The politico-economic understanding is challenged by the
numerous examples
of stoneware and miqwaoth indicating the widespread purity
concerns in con-
temporary Judaism.142 But whereas Jensen sees these primarily as
indicators of
widespread religious motivations and expectations143 as we shall
see below,
Crossan/Reed interpret this as evidence for a covert
politico-economic re-
sistance.144 A common and characteristic find at Jewish sites
from Jesus’ time is
stone vessels connected to the purity codes in the rabbinic
literature because it
was impervious to religious defilement and thus practical for
the halakhic ob-
servant Jews.145 But according to Crossan/Reed, this was a
secondary reason for
the use of stoneware146, the primary being that by upholding
these purity codes
the Jews maintained their own ethnic and religious identity as
distinct from the
Greek-Roman worldview147 thus resisting the threatening cultural
imperialism of
Rome. The same can be said of the Jewish miqwaoth attested
throughout the
Jewish homeland of the first century.148 These two traits of
early Roman period
Judaism in Palestine indicate widespread concern for ritual
purity, but Cros-
san/Reed contend that they were “the remnant of in the material
culture of a
broader pattern of behaviour with which Jews defined themselves
over against
others; they were a form of covert defiance”149 and attest an
interest for how to
live in the land of God’s presence under the covenant of God
thus strengthening
the Jewish identity and the resistance to foreign dominion.150
Crossan/Reed
141
Ibid., 214. 142
Ibid., 69–70, 168, 205, 203. 143
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation.” 144
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 180. 145
Ibid., 207–209. 146
Ibid., 209. 147
Ibid., 213. 148
Ibid., 209. 149
Ibid., 211. 150
Ibid., 213.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 21 of 45
pointedly write: “In this case, Jewish self-definition was the
profoundest act of
nonviolent colonial resistance.”151
However, it was possible to maintain Jewish identity without
having an anti-
roman stance152 as is evident from the finds in the houses of
the rich quarter of
Jerusalem from the time of the first Jewish war (66-70 CE).153
The source of these
riches was, according to Crossan/Reed, the main reason that the
Zealots execut-
ed members of the priestly aristocracy who had enriched
themselves by collabo-
rating with the empire, thus indicating the socio-economic
motives of the peas-
ants.154
But not every aspect of Jesus ministry was covert resistance.
Jesus’ table fel-
lowship provisioning a free meal and the free healing were
countering the Ro-
man societal order from below155, while Jesus entry into
Jerusalem156 and his
temple action157 could both have led to his crucifixion.158 Thus
the covert and
overt resistance incorporated in Jesus life, actions and words
“placed him on a
deliberate collision course with the Kingdom of Rome”159, or in
other words: “Je-
sus opposed Antipas’s Romanization and urbanization in Lower
Galilee, chal-
lenged his building of a commercial kingdom there by both word
and deed, by
both vision and program..”160 This programme is evident in the
Lord’s Supper
which is a cross-social-stratifications share-community.161
151
Ibid. 152
Ibid., 206. 153
Both miqwaoth and stoneware have been unearthed alongside fine
imported pottery, thus indicating both purity concerns and a pro
Roman stance of the rich and powerful. Thus, the priesthood
probably obtained their riches through collaboration with the
imperial overlords, but maintained purity (Ibid., 246–247.).
154
Ibid., 253. That the 66-70 CE war was both a socio-economic and
political rebellion aimed against both the Roman occupation and the
aristocratic exploitation is also argued (Ibid., 230–231.). 155
E. P. Sanders, “Who Was Jesus?,” The New York Review of Books,
April 10, 2003,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/04/10/who-was-jesus/. 156
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 260–262. 157
Ibid., 262–264. 158
Ibid., 264. 159
Ibid. 160
Ibid., 259. 161
Ibid., 307.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 22 of 45
Thus, to sum up Crossan/Reed: Jesus was not an areligious Jewish
peasant.162
Jesus was concerned with both the religious and the
politico-economic spheres
of life163, but Crossan/Reed claim that Jesus’ main concern was
to oppose the
socio-economic inequalities of subdued first-century Palestine
and that the “im-
perial Christ” is a later invention of the church.164 Jesus’
main question to his ad-
herents was: "How would this world be run if our God sat on
Caesar's throne or if
our God lived in Antipas' palace?"165 and that the Jesus
Movement was “a pro-
grammatically nonviolent resistance […] [that] confronted
present economic,
social, and political realities.”166
4 The Socio-Religious Approach
In 2005 Morten Hørning Jensen received his PhD on The
Socio-Economic Impact
of the Reign of Herod Antipas on Galilee subsequently published
under the title
Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological
Sources on the Reign of
Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee.167
Evidently, this
dissertation is relevant to the question of whether Jesus was a
political rebel re-
acting to the socio-economic conditions under Herod Antipas.
However, Jensen
does not treat the subject of the historical Jesus thoroughly
and specifically in
this dissertation168 and it is therefore impossible to base a
presentation of the
socio-religious argumentation solely on Jensen’s dissertation.
In 2013 Jensen
published Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious
Motivation169 presenting the main arguments for the
socio-religious understand-
ing of the emergence of Jesus. Jensen’s article and dissertation
will provide the
162
Such a thing did not exist. 163
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 320. 164
Ibid., 311. 165
Ibid., 318. 166
Ibid. 167
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee. 168
As also noted by Reed (Jonathan L. Reed, “Herod Antipas in
Galilee: The Literary and Archaeo-logical Sources on the Reign of
Herod Antipas and Its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee,” J. Study
Jud. Persian Hell. Roman Period 38.3 (2007): 402.) 169
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation.”
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 23 of 45
foundation for my presentation of the socio-religious
standpoint, but other pro-
ponents will be included too.
To anticipate the conclusion of Jensen’s dissertation he sums
up: "[…] the pic-
ture of the historical Jesus as provoked by and opposed to the
reign of Antipas
cannot be substantiated by a contextual component."170 This
conclusion is the
main cause for Jensen’s further work on the Historical Jesus
that brought him to
argue religious motivation as a driving core for the emergence
of Jesus.171
4.1 Morten Jensen: Galilee Under Herod Antipas
I will not treat Jensen’s literary investigations thoroughly,
but I find it appropriate
to summarise the key features. Josephus is by far the most
comprehensive liter-
ary source on Antipas’ rule but Josephus has an agenda when
writing and Jensen
concludes that “Antipas was by no means remarkable either in
deeds or mis-
deeds”172 based on among other the lack of examples of real
tyranny or cruel-
ty.173 Other literary sources portray Antipas as preferable to
Archelaos, as capa-
ble of establishing a good relationship with the Jerusalem
leaders, and as able to
avoid popular uprisings during his rule.174
The material evidence in Galilee, on the other hand, cannot be
summarised as
concisely and Jensen bases the picture of a relatively quiet
period under Antipas
on these. Jensen rejects the picture of a destabilised and
economically declining
Galilee because of Antipas’ building projects in Tiberias and
Sepphoris. Tiberias
was founded on the lakeside as Antipas’ new capital and was
intended to be a
commercial centre built as a Greek-Roman polis.175 However,
Jensen points out
that Tiberias was probably not the large city depicted in
Excavating Jesus176 as
170
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 258; cf. Jensen, “Herod
Antipas in Galilee,” 32. 171
Jensen, “The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 33–34.
172
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 100. 173
Ibid. 174
Ibid., 124–125; 254; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 16;
Jensen, “The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 6. 175
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 136; 148. 176
Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, inserted plates; cf. Jensen,
Herod Antipas in Galilee, 149.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 24 of 45
only sparse material can be dated to the rule of Antipas with
certainty177 while
there is evidence of intensified urbanisation and construction
after the Jewish
War.178
Unlike Tiberias, Sepphoris was not founded by Antipas, but after
destructions
in the uprisings following Herod the Great’s death, Antipas made
it his capital
and rebuilt the city.179 It has been stated that the nature of
Antipas’ Sepphoris
would also depict “what kind of Galilee Antipas
constructed.”180
However, the size and degree of Romanization and urbanization in
Antipas’
Sepphoris is disputed. The larger of the two aqueducts derives
from second cen-
tury C.E. and thus testifies to a later expansion of the city
which corresponds well
with the fact that apart from the western summit, there is no
agreement as to
the age of the city districts. On the western summit no public
buildings have
been found from the time of Antipas and, according to Jensen,
Meyers concludes
that it was only after the First Jewish War Sepphoris expanded
dramatically.181
Findings on the eastern lower plateau, however, create further
disagreement.
Remains from two phases of a cardo, one upon the other, have
been found, and
excavators of the earlier phase claim probability that Antipas
built the first car-
do182, while others still maintain that this district derives
from a time later than
Antipas.183
Thus, while scholars agree on noticeable building activity in
Antipas’ time the
spread of Sepphoris is still disputed184 but there is agreement
that the major ex-
pansion, Romanization, and urbanization are post-war.185 Jensen
concludes186
177
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 148; Jensen, “The Prophet
Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 18. 178
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 148; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in
Galilee,” 23–24; 31. 179
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 150–151. 180
Ibid., 151. 181
Ibid., 153–154; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 21. 182
While also dating the earliest foundation of the basilical
building in the area to the same time. 183
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 158–160; Jensen, “Herod
Antipas in Galilee,” 21–22. 184
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 160. 185
Ibid., 161. 186
Based on Reed.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 25 of 45
that Sepphoris was in the “second tier of urban parlance”187 and
in its “urban
infancy.”188
This characterisation is further substantiated through an
inter-regional com-
parison of Tiberias and Sepphoris to neighbouring urban areas
such as Scythopo-
lis and Caesarea Maritima.189 Scythopolis, Josephus states, was
Decapolis’ largest
city and archaeological evidence from the first century and
earlier reveals a fully
developed Greek polis in the vicinity of Tiberias.190 Caesarea
Maritima is an obvi-
ous comparison as it was founded only decades prior to Antipas’
rebuilding of
Sepphoris and founding of Tiberias. The costly palace, the vast
area of the wall-
enclosed city and the theatre and hippodrome191 “provides a
vivid example of a
large, well-planned and well-equipped polis of full pagan nature
constructed al-
most from scratch by Herod the Great."192 Inter-regional
comparisons, therefore,
compel Jensen to argue that Sepphoris and Tiberias were small
cities that did not
introduce a degree of urbanism unknown to the larger regional
context of Gali-
lee.193
Determining for Jensen’s rejection of the socio-economic
circumstances of
first century Galilee as the main explanation for the emergence
of Jesus is his
survey of the material data from Galilean first century villages
such as Yodefat,
Khirbet Cana, and Capernaum. Jensen argues that if Antipas had
brought politi-
cal, social, and economic instability we should be able to
discern markers of de-
cline in the material remains of first-century villages
allegedly exploited by Anti-
pas and the urban elite of Galilee.194
At the site of Yodefat no indicators of such a decline have been
unearthed
from Antipas’ time whereas indicators of a thriving rural
Galilean town have
been found: Although most of the residential buildings in the
village were simple
187
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 160; 162; 186. 188
Ibid., 162. 189
Ibid., 179. 190
Ibid., 181; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 125–126. 191
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 182–183. 192
Ibid., 184. 193
Ibid., 184–185; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 26. 194
Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 24.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 26 of 45
dwellings195 excavators also found an elite area evidencing
differentiated neigh-
bourhoods196 testifying to local wealth197 and inter-village
social stratification,
which is also pointed out by Mattila.198 These finds along with
evidence of indus-
trial installations in Yodefat indicate a thriving Galilee until
the destruction in 66
C.E.199 This is substantiated by quotes of Mordechai Aviam and
Peter Richardson
and Douglas R. Edwards all arguing that Yodefat does not show
any signs of de-
cline but, in contrary, of growth.200
While Yodefat was not rebuilt after the 66-70 C.E. war, Khirbet
Cana was also
occupied hereafter.201 The evidence from Antipas’ time aligns
with that of Yo-
defat as three domestic quarters of the village show different
house types re-
vealing different socio-economic tiers.202 In addition to the
similarities to Yodefat,
excavators at Khirbet Cana have also found remains from what
they believe to be
an early-roman synagogue203 indicating a flourishing Jewish
village with economic
surplus from multiple specialised industries204 to fund a
synagogue. Thus, the
evidence from Khirbet Cana complicates the argument for a
decline in the rural
areas under Antipas: The remains indicate thriving rural
community with indus-
tries strong enough to support a local village elite.205
In contrast to both Yodefat and Khirbet Cana, we find no
evidence of a local
elite at Capernaum.206 However, rather large clan-dwellings
organized around
common inner courtyards are attested.207 The village was
unplanned208 but cen-
trally located with an anchorage and on the main thoroughfare
connecting Anti-
195
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 164. 196
Ibid.; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 62. 197
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 165. 198
Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle Peasants’?,” 310; Mattila,
“Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Di-verse and Complex Phenomenon,”
319. 199
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 166. 200
Ibid. 201
Ibid., 167. 202
Ibid., 168; Fiensy, “The Galilean Village in the Late Second
Temple and Mishnaic Periods,” 197. 203
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 168–169. 204
Ibid., 169; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 66.
205
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 169; Jensen, “Rural Galilee
and Rapid Changes,” 66. 206
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 172; 175. 207
Ibid., 170. 208
Ibid., 171.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 27 of 45
pas’ tetrarchy to Philip’s tetrarchy and it is likely that the
village benefitted from
through-going trade.209 The lack of city-elite, however, does
not necessarily point
to decline in Capernaum as a first-century dating of the oldest
stratum of the
local synagogue seems to be accepted by most210 thus indicating
wealth enough
to build a synagogue.
These archaeology-based presentations of Galilean villages paint
an unequiv-
ocal picture of a thriving rural Galilee in the reign of
Antipas: “In the first part of
the first century CE, the villages surveyed all appear to have
flourished.”211 And
there is no evidence of economic decline in the Galilean towns
and villages until
the 66-70 war212 whereafter decline can be discerned in parts of
Galilee.213
Thus, Jensen does not find any evidence for rapid change or
decline in Galilee
in the reign of Herod Antipas. Antipas was a minor Roman client
ruler214 who
adapted to the Jewish customs215, maintained a good relationship
with Jewish
authorities216 and kept his tetrarchy relatively calm for 43
years.217 Furthermore,
“excavations at Sepphoris and Tiberias concordantly attest that
Antipas' urbani-
zation programme was of a rather moderate scale”218 and that
“the rural villages
in Galilee were expanding and thriving right up until the war of
66 CE”219 while
“the most noticeable changes [in Galilee] took place in the
previous Hasmonean
period and succeeding Middle Roman period.”220
209
Ibid., 175. 210
Ibid., 170. 211
Ibid., 178; cf. Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 62.
212
Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 24; Jensen, “The Prophet
Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 7. 213
Ze ’ev Safrai, “Urbanization and Industry in Mishnaic Galilee,”
in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, Volume
1: Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley
Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 276. 214
Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 227–228. 215
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 235; 255; Jensen, “Purity and
Politics in Herod Antipas’s Gali-lee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” 21; 28; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 16.
216
Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 15–16. 217
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 225; 228. 218
Ibid., 251; cf. Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s
Galilee: The Case for Religious Motivation,” 6. 219
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 251; cf. 256; cf. Jensen,
“Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 66. 220
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 251.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 28 of 45
Jensen is not blind to the poverty experienced by some of the
rural Galile-
ans221 or that some may have perceived the tax burdens as
severe222 which is also
pointed out by Mattila.223 Mattila, referring to Scott,
emphasises that the villag-
ers tend to dwell on inner village inequality and not the larger
structural inequal-
ities.224
On this basis, Jensen assesses that Antipas’ impact on Galilee
was not sub-
stantial enough to categorize the society as being in rapid
change or commercial-
ised225 and on that background “the picture of the historical
Jesus as provoked by
and opposed to the reign of Antipas cannot be substantiated by a
contextual
component.”226
4.2 The Case for Religious Motivation
After rejecting socio-economic circumstances as the key factor
behind Jesus, Jen-
sen presents a socio-religious answer to the question of the key
factor for the
emergence of Jesus. Jensen proposes a renewed focus on the
socio-religious as-
pects of Galilee and the wider Jewish context in the time of
Jesus which may
have been overlooked by the focus on Galilean
peculiarities.227
From a socio-religious perspective, there seems to be a wide
agreement of
the relationship between Galilee and the Jerusalem Temple228
(also discernible in
221
Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 32. 222
Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 66. 223
Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Diverse and Complex
Phenomenon,” 321. 224
Ibid.; Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle Peasants’?,” 299. 225
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 257; Jensen, “Purity and
Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” 7. 226
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 258; cf. Jensen, “Herod
Antipas in Galilee,” 32.; Jensen does however acknowledge that it
is perfectly possible that one person (e.g. Jesus) could react
differ-ent than people in general, and thus it is not possible from
a contextual analysis to prove beyond doubt that Jesus did not
react to Antipas (Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 257; Jensen,
“Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 32.). 227
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 8. 228
Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in Recent Research,”
27; Roland Deines, “Religious Practices and Religious Movements in
Galilee: 100 BCE–200 CE,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and
Mishnaic Periods. Volume 1: Life, Culture, and Society, ed. David
A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2014), 90; 103; Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the
1st Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” 67; Jensen,
“Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for
Religious Motivation,” 24; Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee:
A Diverse and Complex Phenomenon,” 332; Berlin, “Jewish Life before
the Revolt,” 419;
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 29 of 45
the Magdala Stone229) which Andrea Berlin argues can be
discerned archaeologi-
cally from bronze coins minted in Gamla engraved with symbols
from the Jerusa-
lem temple cult.230
Jensen strengthens this case of connections between Galilee and
Judea by
pointing out how the areas have “archaeological peculiarities”
in common such
as stone vessels, miqwaoth and aniconic art, while still
acknowledging that these
peculiarities can be interpreted in other ways, such as fashion
and statements of
covert resistance.231
Turning his attention to the emergence of stone vessels Jensen
illustrates how
the use of stoneware emerged in Herodian time but is only
limited attested after
the Bar Kochba revolt232. The stoneware is specifically
prominent at Jewish sites
and lacking in Samaria, Decapolis, and at the Coastal plains
thus indicating a cor-
relation between Jewishness and the use of stoneware also
evident in the com-
mon explanation of the lower susceptibility to impurity of stone
compared to
other materials.233 The proposed explanation of stone vessels as
an ancillary of
the Herodian construction projects are rejected based on the
geographic distri-
bution, the social distribution and the supersession of imported
wares.234 Jensen
concludes: “[…] the distinct use of stonewares needs a distinct
explanation.”235
This is also the conclusion concerning miqwaoth.236 The
distribution and chro-
nology roughly correspond to that of the stone vessels237 while
finding spots may
Andrea M. Berlin, “Household Judaism,” in Galilee in the Late
Second Temple and Mishnaic Peri-ods. Volume 1: Life, Culture, and
Society, ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneap-olis:
Fortress Press, 2014), 208. 229
Jennifer Ristine, “The Magdala Stone: The Jerusalem Temple
Embodied,” Biblical Archaeology Society, October 27, 2016,
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-magdala-stone/;
Marcela Zapata-Meza and Rosaura Sanz-Rincón, “Excavating Mary
Magdalene’s Hometown,” Biblic. Archaeol. Rev. 3/43 (2017): 41.
230
Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 468. 231
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 11. 232
Ibid., 12. 233
Ibid., 13–14. 234
Ibid., 14–15. 235
Ibid., 15. 236
Ibid., 19. 237
Ibid., 16–18.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 30 of 45
attest to purity concerns as the cause for miqwaoth238 in a
clearer way than stone
vessels.
The third characteristic highlighted by Jensen is the aniconic
art which, as
miqwaoth and stone vessels, can be confined to this particular
epoch: “Both in
the preceding periods and in the following periods, we have a
plethora of finds
that indicate distinct levels of observance of the ban against
images.”239 The simi-
larities extend to the geographical spread: coins minted in
Jewish territory were
aniconic240, a distinct type of undecorated oil lamp produced in
Jerusalem was
preferred in both Judea and Galilee (“the Galilean importation
of lamps from
Jerusalem implies that ‘these lamps may have had some
socio-religious or ritual-
istic significance’”)241 and domestic decoration in Jewish areas
were markedly
different to the Greek-Roman norm of the time as frescoes were
mostly nonfigu-
rative and sculptures are rare.242
This overlap in both chronology and distribution of stoneware,
miqwaoth and
aniconic art suggests that these phenomena are interrelated and
“cannot be ex-
plained solely as shifts in fashion or surplus in
craftsmanship”243 and thus tie Gali-
lee to Jerusalem and Judea.244
Based on textual evidence Jensen argues that a purity wave with
a distinct so-
cio-religious awakening and concern broke out around this
time.245 The Qum-
ranite scrolls attest to a strict observance of halakhic purity
rites246 and Fiensy
states that the Sadducees had halakhic concerns247 while the
Pharisees’ “entire
enterprise was driven by what can be described as
socio-religious motivation.”248
This wave of purity concerns affected not only these particular
groups. Jensen
238
Ibid., 18–19. 239
Ibid., 20. 240
Ibid., 21. 241
Ibid., 21–22.; Jensen here quotes David Adan-Bayewitz (Ibid., 22
cf. footnote 75.) 242
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 23–24. 243
Ibid., 24. 244
Ibid. 245
Ibid., 25. 246
Ibid., 25–26. 247
Ibid., 27. 248
Ibid.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 31 of 45
lists seven examples of intentionally halakha-observant common
Jews including
apocryphal texts as well as New Testament references and
Josephus-quotes.249
Lastly, Jensen shows how Josephus’ descriptions of the motives
of the rebels
indicate how the rebellions were “fuelled by religious
motivation”250 and influ-
enced by a religious messianism251 and according to Jensen
“religious motiva-
tion/inspiration was a key factor—if not the key factor—behind
the war.”252
McLaren also considers religious motivation/ideology a pivotal
factor behind
the revolt253, while Berlin argues that the Judeans and
Galileans in Hasmonean-
Herodian times deliberately introduced halakhic practices and
elements in their
daily lives254 using stoneware255, aniconic oil lamps256,
household miqwaoth257,
and demand for products produced at sites with miqwaoth258
indicating concern
for the pureness of the goods. Thus, Berlin concludes: “Many
remains reveal a
desire to make religious behavior part of everyday life […]
Others, however, re-
flect a marked fissure between the Jerusalem elites […] and the
majority of Jews
[…]”259 as the Jerusalem elite had integrated Greek-Roman
practices260 thus indi-
cating that the Jewish uprising may be motivated by religious
purity concerns
with ancillary political and revolutionary implications.
Mattila argues that purity concerns were the main factor behind
the intro-
verted trade patterns that are evident in the archaeological
record thus attesting
how the purity concerns had nationalistic-political
implications.261
249
Ibid., 27–28. 250
Ibid., 29. 251
Ibid., 29–30. 252
Ibid., 30. 253
McLaren, “Searching for Rome and the Imperial Cult in Galilee:
Reassessing Galilee-Rome Relations (63 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.),” 131.
254
Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 419; 470; Berlin,
“Household Judaism,” 208–209. 255
Berlin, “Jewish Life before the Revolt,” 417. 256
Ibid. 257
Ibid., 437. 258
Ibid., 428. 259
Ibid., 470. 260
Ibid., 467. 261
Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Diverse and Complex
Phenomenon,” 328–332.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 32 of 45
Thus, while religion and politics were indeed intertwined262,
Jensen argues:
“Behind the developments in the vital period from the Hasmonean
uprising to
the wars against Rome, there was a driving core consisting of
various expressions
of what we from an etic perspective would label ‘ideology’ or
‘religious motiva-
tion’.”263
5 Critique and Discussion
In this section, I intend to present points of criticism aimed
at the presented
scholars. Each scholar will be treated individually while an
intermission after
Crossan/Reed will present points of criticism against the use of
social science
models in general.
5.1 Critique of Horsley, Oakman, and Crossan/Reed
When reading Horsley, I find him too critical regarding the
economic circum-
stances of the first-century peasants. Horsley relies on
Josephus but ignores how
Josephus mentions tax reliefs264 while arguing that Antipas’
heavy taxation
exploited and impoverished Galileans.265 This would result in
peasant protests266
like the burning of the archive in the Jewish War.267 These
claims are challenged
by Jensen’s assentation that Galilee was not the centre of the
war268 and maybe
262
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 33; Cf. Crossan and Reed,
Excavating Jesus, 320; Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 27;
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 107; Horsley,
The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 4. 263
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The
Case for Religious Motivation,” 34. 264
Fabian Udoh, “Taxation and Other Sources of Government Income in
the Galilee of Herod and Antipas,” in Galilee in the Late Second
Temple and Mishnaic Periods, Volume 1: Life, Culture, and Society,
ed. David A. Fiensy and James Riley Strange (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2014), 379–380. 265
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 110;
Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 81–83.;
Horsley further argues that multiple layers of rulers demanded
taxes and tribute, but this is opposed by Fabian Udoh (Horsley,
“Jesus and the Politics of Roman Pales-tine,” 122; Udoh, “Taxation
and Other Sources of Government Income in the Galilee of Herod and
Antipas,” 367; 372; 373.) 266
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 119.
267
Ibid., 122. 268
Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the 1st Century
BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” 74.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 HRECH86, Assignment 3:
Research report
Page 33 of 45
dragged into the war by allegiance to Jerusalem and the
temple269 while the
burning of the archive could be ancillary to the main cause of
war.
Furthermore, Horsley’s idea of a distinct difference between
Judeans and Gali-
leans270 is challenged by multiple scholars271 and his
presentation of the Galilean
peasant as a distinct type living in socioeconomically
homogenous villages is con-
tested by Mattila272 who presents a socioeconomically stratified
rural society in
Galilee.273 Jensen blames Horsley for not dealing with the
purity concern274 and
the archaeological research presenting a Galilee opposing
Horsley’s presenta-
tion.275
Oakman is, like Horsley, challenged when arguing that the 66-70
war was an
agrarian revolt276 as Jensen argues that the war likely spread
to Galilee from Ju-
dea and Jerusalem.277 Furthermore, Oakman’s application of
Berlin when arguing
a lack of inter-regional trade connections278 is debatable as
Berlin herself moves
to a socio-religious interpretation of the finds.279 The
critique of Udoh280 seems
lightweight and built upon a preconception of the function of
taxes in the Greco-
Roman time. Besides, Jensen criticises Oakman for not taking the
evidence of
269
Ibid., 71. 270
Horsley, “Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 117.
271
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 165; 168–169; Jensen, “The
Political History in Galilee from the 1st Century BCE to the End of
the Second Century CE,” 73; James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research
and Archaeology: A New Perspective,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed.
James H. Charles-worth (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006),
16–17; Strange and Fiensy, “Introduction to Galilee: Volumes 1 and
2,” 5; Freyne (cf. Deines, “Galilee and the Historical Jesus in
Recent Re-search,” 30); ibid., 32;34; Deines, “Religious Practices
and Religious Movements in Galilee: 100 BCE–200 CE,” 84; 92–93;
103. 272
Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle Peasants’?,” 295–296. 273
Ibid., 299; 301–302; 309–310; Mattila, “Inner Village Life in
Galilee: A Diverse and Complex Phenomenon,” 322; cf. Jensen, Herod
Antipas in Galilee, 164–165. 274
Jensen, “The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 859;
Jensen, “Purity and Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case
for Religious Motivation,” 33 footnote. 275
Jensen, “The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel,” 858.
276
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 49. 277
Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the 1st Century
BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” 71; 74. 278
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 47. 279
Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 239; Jensen, “Purity and
Politics in Herod Antipas’s Galilee: The Case for Religious
Motivation,” 15–16. 280
Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 62.
-
Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61