What do we know about Galilee circa 30 C.E.?

[Ricky Spanish]

For instance, did the "Jesus Movement" start there or elsewhere?

But what about the region itself?

At the time of Jesus, it formed a little inland district of its own, bounded by mountains to the north, west, and south, and the Lake of Genneseret to the east.

Galileans lived among rocky hills and gentle valleys, dotted with small villages and abundantly watered by springs and rains. They were self-sufficient, producing a healthy economy of fish, wine, grains, olives, and fruits, as well as crafts. There were mineral hot springs at Tiberias and Gadara. These and the tropical climate around the "Sea of Galilee" made the area attractive as a health resort.

So with major roadways open to the main north-south highways, one along the seacoast and another across the highlands of the Transjordan to the east, Galilee had constant contact with the rest of the world.

During the Hellenistic period, Galilee was introduced to Greek language, philosophy, art, and culture through the founding of cities on the Greek model in strategic locations up and down the Jordan river valley (Caesarea Philippi, Philoteria, Scythopolis), on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (Bethsaida, Hippos, Gadara), along the seacoast to the west (Ptolemais, Dora, Caesarea), and eventually within Galilee itself (Sepphoris, Tiberius, Agrippina). With them came Greek learning, Greek schools with their gymnasia, theaters, forums, and political institutions.

During the time of Jesus, there were twelve Greek cities within a twenty-five-mile radius of his hometown, Nazareth. https://www.enterthebible.org/media/maps/source/NT2_1cGalilee.jpg

Interestingly they had survived the foreign rule, at one time or another, of all the powers in the ancient Near East without, apparently, taking sides.
There is no record of Galileans fighting under their own banner, trying to rid their land of unwanted foreign kings.
They had no capital city to defend and no king to rule them.
They granted token allegiance to each new foreign king and then looked for ways to protect themselves from any "kings" long arm, neither were they open to, or easily annexed by, either the kingdoms to the north or to the south.

The people who lived in Galilee were Galileans, not Syrians, not Samaritans, not even Jews. It was, as later rabbis' would claim, the “district of the gentiles.”

Interesting place for the young Jesus to grow up in dontcha think?

[Hope]

The people who lived in Galilee were Galileans, not Syrians, not Samaritans, not even Jews. It was, as later rabbis' would claim, the “district of the gentiles.”

If this latter is the case, why did most of the people from Galilee travel to Jerusalerm every year to attend the Jewish temple?  After all, it was within the borders of Judea, and within the area associated with the Naphtali tribe of Israel.  Might not be quite as central as Bethlehem and Jerusalem, but still definitely Jewish.

Interesting place for the young Jesus to grow up in dontcha think?

No more interesting than many other areas of Ancient Israel.

For instance, did the "Jesus Movement" start there or elsewhere?

Could you explain what you mean by your phrase the "Jesus Movement", something that I understood to have started in 1960s/1970s California.   

[jeremyp]

If this latter is the case, why did most of the people from Galilee travel to Jerusalerm every year to attend the Jewish temple?

Did they? Or is that just what it says in the Bible?

After all, it was within the borders of Judea, and within the area associated with the Naphtali tribe of Israel.

Wrong.

Judea and Galilee were separate areas. In 4BCE they were both ruled by Herod as part of his Kingdom. After his death they were inherited by different sons. Judea became subject to direct Roman rule in 6CE.

The name Judea derives from Judah, the more southerly of the "two kingdoms", Israel being the Northern one. Galilee was not in Judah.

[Hope]

Did they? Or is that just what it says in the Bible?

It is, from what I have read, what  most Jewish historians understood the situation to be.

Wrong.

Judea and Galilee were separate areas. In 4BCE they were both ruled by Herod as part of his Kingdom. After his death they were inherited by different sons. Judea became subject to direct Roman rule in 6CE.

The name Judea derives from Judah, the more southerly of the "two kingdoms", Israel being the Northern one. Galilee was not in Judah.

You are correct, jeremy.  I wrote my original post sort of 'on the hoof' and have to admit to having always struggled to remember which kingdom was which.  However, Galilee was and still is within the borders of the area that was known as Israel, and within the region that was given to Naphtali and his family/clan. 

Ricky's suggestion that it was 'the district of the gentiles' according to later rabbis might be true - I have never heard a Jewish person describe it as such, but that was later if at all.  Not at the time of Christ.

[jeremyp]

It is, from what I have read, what  most Jewish historians understood the situation to be.

Do you mean most historians of this period in Jewish history or most historians who are Jews?

[Hope]

Do you mean most historians of this period in Jewish history or most historians who are Jews?

My original point referred to the former, as Ricky's OP seemed to be referring to 'Galilee circa 30 CE', but I believe that the latter also applies. 

[2Corrie]

1Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
2The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.

from Isaiah 9

[Hope]

1Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
2The people who walked in darkness
Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined.

from Isaiah 9

I'm aware of that reference (though have to admit that I'd forgotten that it comes in Isaiah), 2C.  As far as I can understand from reading a variety of commentaries and listening to sermons, the point isn't that the people were regarded as being Gentile, but that the area was the first part of the land of Israel to be annexed by Gentiles - the Assyrians - and that it was effectively the first place to be given the good news of the Gospel - a symbolic reclamation, as it were.

[Anchorman]

That there were non Jewish settlements in the area is hardly new - after all, the first Greek towns appeared in Egypt around the 7th century BC, in what is now Turkey around the fourth, and after the Alexandrian conquest of the area, towns sprung up all over the place staffed with Greek and Roman Greek speakers from the third century BC onward.

[Ricky Spanish]

Yeah but, it is also important to remember that Galilee was ruled by the kings of Jerusalem only twice in the preceding one thousand years and then for only brief periods of time.

David did add Dan settling there. However, these stories also say that the tribes of Israel were not able to drive out the indigenous inhabitants. And as for belonging to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, an arrangement that lasted less than eighty years (1000 to 922 B.C.E .), Solomon gave twenty Galilean cities back to Hiram, king of Tyre, in exchange for building materials.

Then, what was left of Galilee was part of the old northern kingdom of Israel centered at Shechem (Samaria), not Jerusalem.
After that kingdom came to an end in 722 B.C.E ., Galilee was ruled by Damascus, Assyria, Neo-Babylonia, Persia, the Ptolemies, and the Seleucids before it was again overrun by kings in Jerusalem (the Hasmoneans) in 104 B.C.E.

I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?

But if Galilee was a substantially Hellenised area at that time, does that mean the young Jesus was under its influence?

[Anchorman]

Doesn't that depend on just how cosmopolitan the Jewish inhabitants were? The population in Alexandria, whilst entertaining Hellenistic Egyptian ideas, seems to have maintained independence when it came to religion - after all, they had a fully functioning temple to YHWH in the Delta (as well as the earlier one at Aswan)

[jeremyp]

David did add Dan settling there. However, these stories also say that the tribes of Israel were not able to drive out the indigenous inhabitants. And as for belonging to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, an arrangement that lasted less than eighty years (1000 to 922 B.C.E .), Solomon gave twenty Galilean cities back to Hiram, king of Tyre, in exchange for building materials.

I don't think anybody called David ever ruled over Galilee. Do you have any evidence that the Northern Kingdom and Judah were ever one political entity prior to the Exile?

I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?

The only evidence of this is the gospels and they are somewhat dubious, historically.

[Anchorman]

OK.....there's mention of Judah on a victory inscription on the walls of the temple of Karnak, from the dyn XXII king Sheshonq I, on his campaign in Palestine, when he returned many citiies and towns there to paying tribute to Egypt, rather than Hatti or Mittani. The incident is also recorded in Scripture, dating it to the fifth year of Rehoboham, son of Solomon, kinjg of Judah.

[Anchorman]

Geeky bit. Here's a basic article from Wiki on the Sheshonq I inscription. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubastite_Portal

[Hope]

But if Galilee was a substantially Hellenised area at that time, does that mean the young Jesus was under its influence?

So, are you suggesting that, because Rome was Hellenized, it wasn't really a Roman city?

[Hope]

Quote

    I mean we can all agree that Jesus grew up in Galilee in the 1st C.E. and apparently had some education. Right?

The only evidence of this is the gospels and they are somewhat dubious, historically.

But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy. 

[floo]

But they are also remarkably reliable, historically, jeremy.

The gospels reliable historically? There is no evidence to support that statement.

[Anchorman]

The gospels reliable historically? There is no evidence to support that statement.

Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/

[ippy]

Actually, there is.

No doubt there was a bloke called Ali too but that does't make Jesus or Ali anything special, I would have to agree there proberbly was a Jesus that was a bit of a rebble giving the Romans directly or indirectly some bother, other than that the rest is all most likely made up esspecially the magical, mystical and superstition based fantacy parts supposedly involved.

But there you'll always get some that fall for a good story.

Ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

Actually, there is. Have a shuftie at http://www.strangenotions.com/how-do-we-know-the-gospels-are-historical/

Anchorman

Blimey! That seems to me a very confused argument. The author talks of 'early Christian beliefs embedded in the writings of Paul', and then goes on to cite the epistles 1John and 1Timothy - both of which are very late documents, according to many scholars, certainly dating much later than the historical Paul himself. The quote from 1John has been well argued to have been written specifically to refute the increasing influence of Gnostic Christianity, (which asserted that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but was simply an 'appearance'). These teachings did not become a serious rival to what we now see as the emerging Christian Church till the 2nd century: so how do these quotes throw any light on the authenticity of the gospels?

From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.
I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.

[Hope]

No doubt there was a bloke called Ali too but that does't make Jesus or Ali anything special, I would have to agree there proberbly was a Jesus that was a bit of a rebble giving the Romans directly or indirectly some bother, other than that the rest is all most likely made up esspecially the magical, mystical and superstition based fantacy parts supposedly involved.

Do you have any firm evidence for this supposition, ippy, or is it yet another of your opinions masquarading as fact?

[floo]

Do you have any firm evidence for this supposition, ippy, or is it yet another of your opinions masquarading as fact?

Hope you accuse others of things of which you are guilty!

[Hope]

Anchorman

Blimey! That seems to me a very confused argument. The author talks of 'early Christian beliefs embedded in the writings of Paul', and then goes on to cite the epistles 1John and 1Timothy - both of which are very late documents, according to many scholars, certainly dating much later than the historical Paul himself. The quote from 1John has been well argued to have been written specifically to refute the increasing influence of Gnostic Christianity, (which asserted that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but was simply an 'appearance'). These teachings did not become a serious rival to what we now see as the emerging Christian Church till the 2nd century: so how do these quotes throw any light on the authenticity of the gospels?

There is a difference between 'did not become a serious rival to ...' and 'didn't exist', DU.  If you look at John's Gospel, it deals with this same issue, along with several others, even though it was written at the very end of the 1st century/very beginning of the 2nd century.

From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.[/quote]D, I'd be intere3sted to see your metaphorical workings that brought you to these conclusions.  After all, they've been around for centiries and been refuted often enough - by a gospel writer!!

I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.

Again, I'd be interested to see why you believe these ideas, since John and others refuted them back in the day, and they've been refuted several time since.

[Hope]

Hope you accuse others of things of which you are guilty!

Whilst you and others do what you accuse others of doing.  Over the years, a number of the belioevers here have posted evidence that they feel is appropriate to the challenges you have referred to.  The only evidence I've seen for your position is that none of it follows the laws of nature - stated as if said laws are the sole arbiter of reality [a claim usually supported by itself alone(!!)] for which, again, there is no evidence.

[Rosindubh]

From my reading, I've come to believe that only the parts of the gospels which speak of a completely Jewish Jesus have any spark of historical truth to them (and that only a not-too-clear reflection of anything Jesus may have said or did). All the claims about divine Sonship or divine Incarnation are simply theological speculations which the gospel authors and Paul laced their writings with, because that is what they believed about Jesus, not because he made any such claims himself.
I would qualify the above by saying that he may well have believed he was 'The Messiah', the anointed one, but I see no reason to believe that he thought he was 'divine'. And he may well have thought that the 'Son of Man' figure - prophesied to come in judgment - was some personage different from himself too.

Hi Dicky Underpants,

If Jesus did not claim equality with the Name (ie divinity itself), then what was the blasphemy of which he was found guilty by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64)?

If Jesus did not misuse the Name, then what caused the Chief Priests to be so poisonous in front of Pilate (John 19:6-7)?

God bless