tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post64815997833177185..comments2023-06-15T09:41:19.355-05:00Comments on NT/History Blog: Did Galilean Anti-Imperialism really exist?Bill Heromanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-24585447472015693202013-01-03T13:23:05.013-06:002013-01-03T13:23:05.013-06:00Hi, Rick. The short answer is that a lot can happe...Hi, Rick. The short answer is that a lot can happen in 170 years. FWIW, my post has nothing to do with whether Jesus' contemporaries in Galilee were ethnic Judeans. Compare Texans with Bostonians, the vast majority of both being Anglo-Saxon in terms of ethnic origins, having developed differing prevalences in their political currents.<br /><br />As to the particular group of "Galileans" being referenced in Josephus' autobiography, I'm not as familiar with the debate about their identity but I can't see at the moment how anything about that *subset* of Galileans in the 60's could possibly provide much definition to the greater population of *all* Galileans in the 20's/30's.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-68123761701690538512013-01-02T17:38:01.672-06:002013-01-02T17:38:01.672-06:00S. Zeitlin, in “Who Were the Galileans? New Light ...S. Zeitlin, in “Who Were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus' Activities in Galilee,” Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Jan., 1974), pp. 189-203, had a different take, which I interpret as meaning that of the revolutionary “Galileans” were not necessarily ethnically Galileans. I see that you are not convinced the Galileans were Judean. What of the general consensus that Aristobulus had re-Judaized and somewhat Judean-ized Galilee ca 100 BCE?<br /><br />== ==<br /> ... Undoubtedly the term "Galileans" in this passage [Jewish War IV, 9,10. 558] does not have a geographical connotation but it has the sense of a contingent, on a par with the Zealots, and the followers of Simon son of Gioras. <br /> It seems that the term "Galilean" which is given by Luke has no geographical connotation but refers to a particular contingent of a group of men who bore the appellation, "Galileans". <br /><i>It was just about this time that some people arrived and told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. At this he said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans who suffer like that were greater sinners than any other Galileans because they suffered such things? I tell you, no. But unless you repent, you will perish as they did." [Luke 13, 1-3.]</i><br />== ==<br /><br />== ==<br /> ... In another passage in Antiquities, Josephus relates that Judas was a Galilean [Ant. 18, 1, 6 (23)]. However, in Antiquities 18,1,4, Josephus writes, "A certain Judas, a Gaulanite from a city named Gamala who had enlisted the aid of Zaddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of rebellion." In this passage Josephus says that Judas came from the city of Gamala which is on the east side of the Jordan (in Transjordania). Judas who was called a "Galilean" did not come from the province of Galilee. This is supported in another passage where Josephus writes, "At this period a certain Menahem, son of Judas, surnamed the Galilean [Jewish War 2.17.8 (433)].” This passage corroborates the former statement that Judas did not come from Galilee but was surnamed the Galilean i.e. he belonged to the group who were called Galileans because they were a contingent among the revolutionary groups.<br />== ==<br /><br />== ==<br /> As was noted before, the Galileans, whose organizer was Judas, reproached the Judaeans for recognizing temporal rulers besides God; Judas admonished the Judaeans calling them cowards for recognizing mortal rulers after having God for a ruler [All editions of the Mishneh now extant have _ _ _ ~ "the ruler with Moses", but there were copies which read _ _ _, "the ruler with God" which is borne out by the Tosafists, (B.B. 162a), who state _ _ _. The reading in the manuscript is correct. If we read, "the ruler with Moses", then the answer of the Pharisees to the Galilean becomes illogical. He asked why did the Pharisees write in their documents "the ruler with Moses", and the answer was given by them that in the Torah is written the name of the ruler with Yahaweh, moreover, the name of the ruler precedes the divine Name. The original reading, "the ruler with the divine Name". The word, _ _ was assumed to mean "a writ of divorce". However, the word, get, has also the connotation of a general document. Cf. S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit: As a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman Period, 1922, pp. 99-100, note 269.]. That is also the contention of the Galileans against the Pharisees because the Pharisees recognized their rulers as well as the rulers of Rome; while to the Galileans, this foreign, temporal rule was utterly repugnant, particularly since it was Roman.<br /> In sum, within this short essay, I trust that I have given a solid demonstration that the term "Galilean" used in Vita refered to a revolutionary group who propagated war against the Romans and revenged themselves on those Judaeans who gave their allegiance to the Romans.<br />== ==<br /><br />Rick C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-3111826143764501412012-11-19T00:06:14.582-06:002012-11-19T00:06:14.582-06:00*When I say, "He was speaking" I mean as...*When I say, "He was speaking" I mean as the narrative writers purport him to have been speaking. <br /><br />The idea that this guy said these exact words is far less important. What matters is that, by attributing these words to him, both Matthew and Luke are claiming directly that such details applied to this guy's situation. IMHO, that is enough.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-90379494015656443352012-11-19T00:01:48.147-06:002012-11-19T00:01:48.147-06:00Good question, Mike. "Set under authority&quo...Good question, Mike. "Set under authority" can refer to local and regional Galilean powers, but "with soldiers under me" is definitely a sticking point. Who were these men?<br /><br />This is probably why Bock and others prefer to claim the "centurion" was a military officer under Herod Antipas. The term "centurion" being clearly Latin, however, I find this unlikely.<br /><br />Thus, my answer is it all depends. If we take this to mean the centurion has active soldiers in current service together with him, then we'd have to suppose he's not retired and they were all in transit together, somehow stopping often in Capernaum - the frequent visiting being of course wildly implausible. Worse, in that case, it's hard to see how the synagogue could be paid for (without the retirement gifts which an active centurion would not yet have received). <br /><br />OTOH, if we take the Lukan detail to imply that he's got wealth, then he's almost certainly got to be retired. On top of that, having servants as well as "soldiers" strongly implies a locally settled household.<br /><br />As I said, it depends. However, if we're committed to these Lukan details (which I am) *and* if that indeed makes this centurion retired (which I maintain that it must), then the only possible explanations for the phrase you quote would seem to be as follows: (1) he was speaking of his past experience, in which case the grammar is off, or (2) he brought soldiers with him as part of his household, now essentially servants but they maintain the habits and familiarity of their old army relationship.<br /><br />Aside from one of those two options (for I don't see a third), we'd have to conclude that this Centurion was somehow wealthy *and* on leave from active duty *and* temporarily displaced from the Syrian Legions (or Judean Cohorts). The least likely, of course, is the wealth. Why would someone of means continue serving as Legionary?<br /><br />Bock's solution almost seems better, until we realize that this also comes against all those same questions as above, plus the Latin objection to boot.<br /><br />On the balance, my best suggestion is that some lower ranked soldiers came with this centurion when he settled in Galilee. There could be any number of other solutions, of course. Most importantly, as I say, it all depends on which data we chose as our starting point.<br /><br />As imperfect as all this may seem, it's much more economical than trying to explain the synagogue relationship if the centurion were still active in his service.Bill Heromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283809456471966882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12543231.post-63806757609267349292012-11-18T21:42:46.354-06:002012-11-18T21:42:46.354-06:00A very interesting note on the centurion. How do y...A very interesting note on the centurion. How do you explain these words, "For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me..."?MikeSnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12462825086786614647noreply@blogger.com