Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 -...

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


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


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.)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.)


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.


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.”


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.).


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


Ibid., 109–110. 71

Ibid., 117–118; Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel, 81.


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



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


Ibid., 44.


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


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


Ibid., 27.


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, “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


Ibid., 56. 100

Ibid., 52; Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 16. 101




Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus, 43.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.”


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


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.


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


Ibid., 161. 186

Based on Reed.


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


Ibid., 184. 193

Ibid., 184–185; Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 26. 194

Jensen, “Herod Antipas in Galilee,” 24.


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


Ibid.; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 62. 197


Mattila, “Jesus and the ‘Middle Peasants’?,” 310; Mattila, “Inner Village Life in Galilee: A Di-verse and Complex Phenomenon,” 319. 199


Ibid. 201

Ibid., 167. 202

Ibid., 168; Fiensy, “The Galilean Village in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods,” 197. 203


Ibid., 169; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 66. 205

Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee, 169; Jensen, “Rural Galilee and Rapid Changes,” 66. 206


Ibid., 170. 208

Ibid., 171.


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


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.


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


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;


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


Ibid., 12. 233

Ibid., 13–14. 234

Ibid., 14–15. 235

Ibid., 15. 236

Ibid., 19. 237

Ibid., 16–18.


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.


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.


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


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


Ibid., 122. 268

Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the 1st Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” 74.


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


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


Jensen, “The Political History in Galilee from the 1st Century BCE to the End of the Second Century CE,” 71; 74. 278


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

Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 -...

Documents

Transcript of Jesper Risbjerg Kristensen, 61350079 -...