Jesus' Birth and Galilean Setting
Roman Palestine was an agrarian, preindustrial society. Nearly all the wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. Most of this elite population — which included the high priestly families — lived in and around Jerusalem and Jericho. Roman Galilee was overwhelmingly rural, with a population consisting of farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, and artisans who had little disposable income and lived just above the subsistence level. The New Testament indicates that Jesus came from a lower-class Galilean family. As the New Testament scholar John Meier remarks, “He [Jesus] was in one sense poor, and a comfortable, middle-class urban American would find living conditions in ancient Nazareth appalling. But Jesus was probably no poorer or less respectable than almost anyone else in Nazareth, or for that matter in Galilee."
Lower-class Jews populate the Gospel accounts and seem to have been Jesus' target audience. Typically they were villagers who owned houses and had a few possessions but were not destitute like the leper who begs Jesus to heal him in Mark 1:40. The agrarian nature of rural Galilee is reflected in Jesus' parables and teachings, which mention picking and sowing grain, netting fish, herding sheep, and so on. References to patched clothing (Mark 2:21), hired laborers in vineyards (Matthew 20:1—16), and debtors sold into slavery (Matthew 18:23—35) must have resonated with Jesus' audience. This chapter reviews the archaeology of Bethlehem and Galilee — which the Gospels describe as the setting for Jesus' birth and ministry — in the time of Jesus.
Bethlehem
Of the four canonical Gospels, only Matthew and Luke begin with Jesus' birth. Matthew opens with a genealogy that traces Jesus' lineage from King David,
And then describes astrologers' arrival in Bethlehem to pay homage to the infant Jesus. Luke's birth narrative opens with parallel announcements of the conception and birth of Jesus and John the Baptist. In Luke, Jesus' birth is announced to Mary in Nazareth by the angel Gabriel. Because (according to Luke) Joseph was descended from the house of David, he had to go to Bethlehem to be counted in the census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria.
Many scholars have discussed the differences between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. For our purposes, it is important to note that both accounts go to great lengths to connect Jesus with Bethlehem and establish his relationship to King David. The reason is simple: according to Jewish tradition, the messiah will be descended from David. Therefore, if Jesus really was the Jewish messiah, he had to be related to David, who, according to the Hebrew Bible, was born in Bethlehem. As the author of the Fourth Gospel puts it: “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?" (John 7:41—42). It is interesting that Mark, which many scholars believe is the earliest of the canonical Gospels (ca. 60—70 C. E.), does not contain a birth narrative but instead opens with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. Collectively, the canonical Gospels provide very little information about Jesus before adulthood.
None of this is surprising when we consider that Jesus was a lower-class Galilean whose life and activities would have gone unnoticed before he began his ministry and attracted a following. The efforts of Matthew and Luke to establish Jesus' connection to Bethlehem and David are understandable in light of the messianic claims made about Jesus after his death. Jesus' Galilean origins would have posed a problem to followers who believed in his messianic status, as this precluded a connection to Judea, where Bethlehem is located. This accounts for the different birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, which present scenarios connecting Jesus to Bethlehem and David, bolstered by numerous biblical allusions and quotations.
Even if we accept the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke as fictitious attempts to establish Jesus' messianic status, is it possible that Jesus was of Judean descent? In my opinion, although we cannot rule out this possibility, it is unlikely. First, had Jesus' family been Judean, there would have been no need for Matthew and Luke to construct different narratives that go to great lengths to connect Jesus' birth and lineage with Bethlehem. We might also expect Mark to mention Jesus' Judean origins rather than omit this information altogether. Second, remember that the Hasmonean kings had “Judaized" the inhabitants of Galilee. Prior to this forced conversion, Galilee's population consisted of a mixture of native non-Jewish peoples, such as the Ituraeans, together with descendants of the biblical Israelites, many of whom had intermarried with Gentiles after 722 B. C.E. Although some Judean colonists settled in Galilee after the Hasmonean conquest, the Gospel writers do not associate Jesus' family with them and there is no other evidence supporting such a connection. In other words, Jesus likely was a native Galilean — that is, a person of mixed origins whose family had been Judaized by the Hasmoneans approximately a century before his time.
In the fourth century C. E., Constantine erected the Church of the Nativity over a grotto that had come to be venerated as Jesus' birthplace (see Chapter 16). However, few archaeological remains of the first century B. C.E. and first century C. E. survive in Bethlehem, which seems to have been a small village surrounded by scattered farms. The closest major site was Herod's fortified palace, administrative center, and final resting place at Herodium (see Chapter 8), located three miles southeast of Bethlehem. We shall therefore proceed to Galilee, which was the setting for most of Jesus' life and ministry.
Sepphoris
Roman Galilee was overwhelmingly agrarian and rural, with a landscape of rolling hills dotted by villages, hamlets, and farmsteads. Most locals supported themselves through agriculture (cultivating wheat, barley, olives, and grapes), fishing in the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a brackish water lake), and crafts production — including Jesus' family. There were only two large towns (sometimes inaccurately described as “cities") in Galilee in Jesus' time: Sepphoris and Tiberias. Tiberias was established on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee by Herod Antipas (ruled 4 B. C.E.—39 C. E.), the son of Herod the Great, as the capital of his tetrarchy, which consisted of Galilee and Peraea. Following his father's example, Antipas named the town in honor of his patron, the Roman emperor Tiberius.
In contrast, Sepphoris was founded long before Antipas' time. Under the Hasmoneans, it served as the administrative capital of Galilee. Josephus informs us that after Antipas inherited Sepphoris as part of his tetrarchy, he fortified it “to be the ornament of all Galilee" (Ant. 18:27). Antipas resided at Sepphoris until he founded Tiberias. During the First Jewish Revolt (66—70 C. E.), Sepphoris was pro-Roman and surrendered early to Vespasian. Although in the following centuries Sepphoris had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, it became a rabbinic center and was the seat of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish law court) under Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (ca. 200 C. E.).
Sepphoris is not mentioned in the Gospel accounts, suggesting that Jesus' ministry focused especially on the rural, agrarian, and largely lower-class population of Roman Galilee. Nevertheless, scholars who study the historical Jesus have devoted much attention to Sepphoris because it is only four miles from Nazareth. Many scholars believe that Jesus must have visited Sepphoris, where he would have been exposed to Greco-Roman urban culture. Perhaps, some
9.1 Map of Roman Galilee. Ancient World Mapping Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Www. unc. edu/awmc).
Scholars speculate, Jesus and his family even worked on the construction of some of the town's monuments. Scholars who identify Greco-Roman influence (such as the philosophy of the Cynics) on Jesus' teachings argue that Sepphoris is the most likely setting for such interaction.
We cannot know for sure whether Jesus ever visited Sepphoris. Even if he did, there are serious questions about the degree to which the town was Romanized in Jesus' time (under Herod Antipas). The town of Sepphoris included an upper city (acropolis) and a lower city. Despite extensive excavations by American and Israeli expeditions, nearly all the remains discovered so far postdate the time of Jesus (late first century and second century C. E. on). Most of the remains from the time of Jesus (early first century) are located on the acropolis, consisting of a residential quarter of houses, many of which are equipped with small miqva'ot. Scholarly interest in Jesus has been attracted especially to a theater built into the steep northern side of the acropolis. It is a Greek-style theater that could accommodate up to 4,500 spectators, with seats laid out on the natural slope of the hill. The theater has been dated differently by different teams of archaeologists. In the past, some argued that Antipas built the theater, which would have indicated that Sepphoris was Romanized in Jesus' time. However, scholarly consensus now dates the establishment of the theater to the early second century C. E., which means that it did not exist in Jesus' time — even assuming he did visit Sepphoris.
In other words, even if Jesus visited Sepphoris, there is little evidence of Romanization in his time, with the exception of fragments of Roman style (but non-figured) wall paintings found in one of the early Roman houses on the acropolis. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence of Roman-ization after Jesus' time, including the theater, a grid of streets, and monumental public buildings decorated with wall paintings, stucco, and mosaics, most of which date to the fourth to sixth centuries C. E. Around 200 C. E. a mansion was erected on the acropolis, just above the theater. The excavators dubbed the mansion “the Villa of Dionysos" because it has a Roman-style dining room (triclinium) decorated with an exquisite mosaic floor depicting the drinking contest between Dionysos (the god of wine) and the hero Heracles/ Hercules. Although some archaeologists argue that this villa may have belonged to a prominent Jewish family, perhaps even that of Judah ha-Nasi, I agree with those who believe it belonged to a Gentile family. Mosaic floors with Dionysiac scenes are common in rooms associated with the mystery cult of Dionysos, who was worshiped in connection with expectations of life after death (as grapevines and other vegetation die and are renewed annually). The villa's location suggests an association with the cult of Dionysos, who was also the god of theater performances (as theater performances blur the boundaries between reality and fantasy, which also happens after drinking too much wine).
9.2 Aerial view of Sepphoris' theater and acropolis. Courtesy of Zev Radovan/BibleLand Pictures. com.
Galilean Villages
World History
