We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Josephus' Life raises many important literary and historical questions that are not easily resolved. This may explain why, for the most part, it has been ignored by New Testament scholars, despite the fact that it is the only extant writing from the first century that bears directly on Galilean life and culture and was written by somebody with immediate experience of that location. Its tendentious character has been ably exposed by Shaye Cohen's study, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as an Historian, Leiden, Brill, 1979. Yet it can still yield invaluable information on social relations within the province, provided we approach it in the proper critical fashion, framing our questions carefully and being attentive to the presuppositions of the author.
[1] An interesting exception to this is Walter Bauer's 1927 article, ‘Jesus der Galiläer’, in Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher (Tübingen, 1927).Google Scholar
[2] For a more general discussion of Galilean social life cf. my ‘The Galileans in the light of Josephus' Vita’, NTS 26 (1980) 397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian. A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Wilmington, Delaware, Notre Dame University Press/Glazier, 1980)Google Scholar, especially section II with ample bibliography. Goodman, M., State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (Oxford Centre for Post-Graduate Hebrew Studies, New Jersey, 1983)Google Scholar, combining Rabbinic documentation (mainly Mishnah/Tosefta) with archaeological evidence agrees with the account of the earlier period which I have given. For the most complete archaeological account cf. Meyers, E., ‘The Cultural Setting of Galilee: The Case of Regionalism and Early Judaism’, in ANRW II 19, 1, ed. Haase, W. (Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1979) 686–702.Google Scholar
[3] Struthers-Malbon, E., ‘Galilee and Jerusalem: History and Literature in Markan Interpretation’, CBQ 44 (1982) 242–55;Google ScholarTheissen, G., ‘Die Tempelweissagung Jesu. Prophetie in Spannungs-feld zwischen Tempel und Land’, TZ 32 (1967) 144–58;Google ScholarLohmeyer, E., Galiläa und Jerusalem (Göttingen, 1936);Google ScholarKelber, W., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia, 1974);Google ScholarMeeks, W., ‘Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 85 (1966) 159–69.Google Scholar
[4] Differences in weights and measures: M. Keth 5:9; M. Hull 11:2; customs relating to Passover and the Day of Atonement: M. Pesh 4:5; M. Hull 5:3; funeral rites and customs y Moed Qatan 3:5; Sem 3:6; 10:16; marriage laws and divorce M. Keth 1:5; 4:2.
[5] In an unpublished dissertation at Duke University, Galilean Judaism in the Writings of Josephus (1975)Google Scholar, F. Malinowski argues for a consistently distinctive meaning for the terms συνέδριον, βουλή, κοινόν, as used by Josephus, (p. 199). However, the attempt is rather forced and does not pay sufficient attention to the context.Google Scholar
[6] As noted above the term στρατηγός also occurs in Life (175, 341), even though the military prowess is not so pronounced in that work. The two references listed do occur in the context of Josephus' military exploits, however.Google Scholar
[7] Cf. Roth, C., ‘The Constitution of the Jewish Republic, 66–70’, JSS 9 (1964) 295–319.Google Scholar
[8] Spencer-Kennard, J., ‘The Jewish Provincial Assembly’, ZNW 53 (1962) 25–51Google Scholar, claims that these had been dismantled by Caesar, (p. 28), but without giving any evidence for the assertion.Google Scholar
[9] Cohen, , Josephus in Galilee, 91, 197.Google Scholar
[10] Kennard, , ‘The Jewish Provincial Assembly’, p. 44 f.Google Scholar, points to Josephus' description (J. A. 20:251) of the Jewish government after the deposition of Archelaus as being aristocratic with the high priest entrusted with the dominion of the nation. As long as Antipas lived this arrangement did not apply to Galilee, but Josephus certainly assumes that it applied there afterward. However, there is no good evidence that this aristocratic council was replaced by a revolutionary council in 66 C.E. It seems better therefore to accept the internal logic of events after the defeat of Cestius and recognise with Cohen, , Josephus in Galilee, 195–9, the increasing pressure that came on the aristocracy from the revolutionaries.Google Scholar
[11] Cohen, , Josephus in Galilee, 61Google Scholar, argues that this phrase, which also occurs at J.A. 20:215, is a cover for revolutionary activity, since in this latter context it is associated with the appearance of robbers in the land. Thus, its use in Life would lend support to Cohen's overall thesis that Josephus was a revolutionary which he carefully attempts to conceal, especially in this work. In Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 241–5Google Scholar I argued against this view of Josephus' overall position. If he were a genuine revolutionary he could scarcely have concealed it from Felix, nor would he have been over-anxious to make representations on behalf of his fellow-aristocrats at Rome. Undoubtedly the aristocracy was divided on the issue of how far the challenge to Rome's authority should go, but all the indications are that Josephus was not in the van of those who sought a complete break.
[12] In this regard it is interesting to note with Cohen, , Josephus in Galilee, 190, the priestly pedigree of all the provincial generals and the absence of anybody of known Pharisaic background among those named by Josephus.Google Scholar
[13] Rappaport, U., ‘John of Gischala: From Galilee to Jerusalem’, JJS 33 (1982) 479–90, especially 488 f., treats suggestively of John's break with the moderates in Jerusalem.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Rappaport, U., ‘John of Gischala in Galilee’, Jerusalem Cathedra 3, ed. Levine, L. 1983, 46–57, argues this case convincingly.Google Scholar
[15] Schalit, A., ‘Josephus und Justus. Studien zur Vita des Josephus’, Klio 26 (1933) 67–95Google Scholar, especially 71–7, sees Josephus' description of his dealing with Tiberias as the direct result of Justus' attack on him, and hence apologetically motivated.
[16] Cohen, , Josephus in Galilee, 92, n. 26.Google Scholar
[17] Ashton, J., ‘The Identity and Function of the Ίουδαīοι in the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 27 (1985) 40–75, especially 53–6.Google Scholar
[18] Cf. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 234–6.Google ScholarIn a study to be published in 1988 entitled Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels, I hope to explore this position more thoroughly.Google Scholar
[19] Josephus in Galilee, 144–51.Google Scholar However, cf. Schwartz, D., ‘Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees’, JSJ 14 (1983) 157–71Google Scholar, who argues that Josephus', treatment of the Pharisees in both LifeGoogle Scholar and J.A. is more historical than that in J. W. written much closer to the revolt, and therefore extremely careful to avoid any suggestion of political involvement on the part of the Pharisees. In that view the references to Pharisees in Life and their role in the revolt may be quite factual.
[20] J.W. 2:268 makes no mention of the Pharisaism of the group.
[21] Josephus in Galilee, 226 f.
[22] Cf. especially 293–7.
[23] Cf. in particular the various theoretical discussions on the nature of peasantry in Shanin, T. ed., Peasants and Peasant Societies (Penguin Modern Sociology Readings, 1971).Google Scholar
