-nts-nts26_03-s0028688500022414a.pdf

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf

1/18

New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Galileans in the light of Josephus' Vita

Sean Freyne

New Testament Studies / Volume 26 / Issue 03 / April 1980, pp 397 - 413

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500022414, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500022414

How to cite this article:Sean Freyne (1980). The Galileans in the light of Josephus' Vita. New Testament Studies, 26, pp397-413 doi:10.1017/S0028688500022414

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 189.235.125.24 on 11 Sep 2014

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf

2/18http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 11 Sep 2014 IP address: 189.235.125.24

NewTest.Stud.26, pp. 397-413

SEAN FREYNE

THE GALILEANS

IN THE LIGHT OF JOSEPHUS

VITA

'With this limited area,

and

although surrounded

by

such powerful foreign

nations, the two Galilees have always resisted any hostile invasion, for the

inhabitants

are

from infancy inured

to war, and

have

at all

times been

numerous;never did the men lack courage or the country men' (War 3: 41 f.).

It is surprising how this general characterization of the Galileans by Josephus

has sooften found its way into modern writings about Galilee withoutany

detailed study of the

Vita,

the one work of his where the Galileans occur more

frequently than

in all

the others together.

1

This failure

to

differentiate

the

terminology of Jospehus

in his

various

works has tended to identify the Galileansas revolutionaries, closely associ-

ated with, if not positively another name for, Zealots.

2

Consequently,

it

is said,

Galilee was thehome ofmilitant nationalism in the first century A.D.,

3

a

conclusion that seems

to

be corroborated

by

the fact that the founder of the

fourth philosophical sect isdesignated as Judas theGalilean by Josephus.

4

1

01 foAiXccioi occurs 46 times inthe Vita, 20 timesin War,15inAntiquities and once in Contra

Apionemaccording toA. Schalit,Mamensworterbuch

zu

Flavius

Josephus,

Supplement 1to

A

Complete

Concordance toFlavius Josephus,

ed. K. H. Rengstorf (Leiden, 1968).S.Zeitlin,

art. cit.

p.398n. a

below, reckons only

34

occurrences

in

Vita

and

therefore does

not

take account

of

the following

important passages: Vita66, 84, 143, 190, 198, 302, 311, 350, 368, 383, 391, 398.

a

Thus A. Schlatter, Geschichte Israels vonAlexander dem GrofiembisHadrian (reprint Darmstadt,

1972),

pp. 261 and 434 n. 237; F.Jackson and K. Lake, The

BeginningsofChristianity,

Part 1,vol. 1,

Prolegomena,Appendix

A,

The Zealots, pp. 421-5, especially

p .

434;

R.

Eisler,

'ITICTOOS

(tainted;

oO

j3aaiAeuaas, (Heidelberg, 1929-30),2vols., 11, 476515;R. Bultmann, TheHistory ofthe Synoptic

Tradition(English trans. 1968), p. 55; S. G. F. Brandon,Jesusand theealots(Manchester, 1967), pp.

54 and65; G.Vermes,JesustheJew (London, 1973), 46-8;R. Meyer, DerProphet aus Galilaa

(reprint Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 70f.

3

M. Hengel,Die Zeloten(Leiden, 1961), especially pp. 57-60, where all the evidence for Galileans

as revolutionaries is discussed.

Cf.

p. 398

n. 2

below. S. Birnbaum, 'The Zealots: The Case for Re-

valuation

\J.R.S.

LXI(1971)1 '55~7) especiallyp.158, who stresses the links with previous national-

istic revolutionary activity

in

the province, especially

at

the time of Herod.

* Many scholars identify Judas the Galilean {War a: 118; 432;Ant.18:23,20:102;Ac.5:37) with

Judas the son of Ezechias (War 2:56).This latter wasaGalilean brigand chief who had been putto

death by Herod the Great War1:204^;Ant.14:159) 167). Thus e.g. E. Schurer, Geschichte des

jiidischen Volkes

im

Zeitaller Jesu Christi,

3rd ed.3 vols.1,486f.,J. S. Kennard, 'Judas of Galilee and

his Clan' ,

J.Q.R.

xxxvi (1945), 281-6; Hengel,op. cit.p. 337 n. 3; and more recently 'Zeloten und

Sikarier. ZurFrage nach der Einheit undVielfalt der jiidischen Befreiungsbewegung 6-74 nach

Christus' inJosephus-Sludien (Festschrift Otto Michel) (Gottingen, 1974), pp. 174-96; M.Black,

'Judas of Galilee and Josephus' Fourth Philosophy',ibid.pp. 45-54. However, the identification has

been challenged by, e.g., KirsoppLake,Beginnings, p. 424, taking Schurer to task;M.Smith, 'Zealots

and Sicarii. Their origins andrelation', H.Th.R. LXIV (1971), 119; D.Rhoads, 'Some Jewish

Revolutionaries

in

Palestine

4

B.c-73

A.D.,

Duke University Dissertation 1973

(to be

published

July 1976, Fortress Press, Philadelphia), pp. 32f. n. 2, followed by his

Doktorvater,

W. D. Davies,

TheGospel and theLand(Los Angeles, 1974), p. 93

n.

38. Smith writes: 'Neither Josephus' detailed

account of events in Galilee nor the Galilean material in the gospels show any trace of it (the party
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


39 8 SEAN FREY NE

Evidence from other Jewish sources as well as early Christian writers is also

taken to confirm this picture.

1

M ore recently an attem pt has been m ade by a Jewish scholar to examine

this picture of the Galileans, concentrating for the most part on the Vita.Yet

once aga in th e same conclusion is arrived a t: ' I ven ture to say tha t the term

' Ga lileans' in the Vita,does not hav e a geograph ical con notation, bu t is an

appellative name given to the revolutionaries against Rome and the rulers of

Ju da ea who were appointed by Ro me. '

2

The following article also concen-

trates on the Vitaand comes to a rath er different conclusion: the Galileans

of the

Vita

ar e not to be identified with revolutionaries, but rather emerge as

militan t suppo rters of Josep hus, whose mission it is to preserve p eace in

Galilee. That two such different conclusions should emerge from a study of

such a short, though complex, work like the Vitamay seem su rprising. It is

the contention of this article that it is only by sifting all the evidence and

not jus t a few texts which seem to supp ort a pa rticula r p oint of view, tha t a

balanced picture em erges. No attem pt is mad e throu ghou t the analysis to

pass final judgement on what the real situation in Galilee was, but by way of

conclusion certain suggestions are made, based on the presentation of the

Vita,

which I believe point the way to a prop er unde rstand ing of the Ga lileans'

social and religious situations.

G LILEE S GENER L GEOGR PHIC L TERM IN

T h e question of Jos ep hu s' au thority is the cen tral issue in the Vita, yet

surprisingly enough we do not find any detailed geographic description of

the territory en trusted to him , similar to tha t of War 3: 35 -9 . At the same t ime

the evidence does seem to suggest that he has in mind the same geographical

territory as that whose boundaries and dimensions are described in the

of Jud as sicarii) operating in Galilee), and the notion that it organised all the resistance to the

Rom ans is unsupported by the evidence and refuted by the lack of evidence' (art. cit. p. 18). How-

ever, S mith himself does not analyse the sources sufficiently either, while dismissing in rath er sum-

mary fashion Hengel's detailed handling of the evidence. G. Baumbach, 'Zeloten und Sikarier',

Th.Lz.

x c (1965), 727-40 , especially pp . 730 f., considers tha t the Sikarii (and not the Zealots)

have their origin in Galilee, but this seems to contradict Josephus, who specifically identifies them

with the Judaean countryside (Ant.ao :185 f.).

1

M. Tad4: 8: a Galilean heretic; Galileans are mentioned in lists of Jewish sects by Ju stin

Dialogue with Trypho 80: 2) and Hegesippus (in EusebiusH.E.4: 22, 7). They are also mentioned

by Epictetus (A rrian

Diss/f.:

7,6) though itisn ot clear whether this refers to Jewish Christians or not .

Galileans are also mentioned in Luke xiii. 1, and Jesus himself (Matt. xxvi. 6g; Luke xxii. 59, xxiii.

60) and his followers (A ctsi. 11, ii. 7;Markxiv. 70-Peter) areso called, but in these latter references

at least the appellation seems to be purely geographical as in Jo hn iv. 45,where Galilee and Galileans

are combined. They also appear in a letter of Bar Cochba from Waddi Murrabat, but there is no

agreement on the translation of the sentence in question and hence who exactly are intended. Cf.

J. T. Milik, 'Notes sur une lettre de Simeon Bar Kokheba', R.B.

LX

(1953), 276-94; J. J. Rabbino-

witz, 'Notesur lalettrede Bar Kokheba',/J.B.LXI(1954),191 f.; S.A. Birnbaum, 'Ba rK ok hb aan d

Akiba', P.E.Q. LXXXVI (1954),23-33.

8

S. Zeidin, 'Who were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus' Activities in Galilee',J.Q..R-

LXIV(1974), 189-203. Cf. especially pp. 193, 195, 202.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


JOSEPHUS V IT A AND THE GALILEANS 399

War.Th e revolutionary governm ent at Jerusalem hearing th at ' th e whole of

Ga lilee' had not yet revolted sent Josephu s and twoothers there in an

at tempt to stave off the war (Vita 28). Twice he speaks of his ha nd ling of

affairs in Galilee (Vita30 and 62) a nd of Vespasian's a rrival the re (Vita411).

W e hear also of the d istinction of up per and lower G alilee (Vita67, 71, i87 f.) .

More helpful than these general expressions

are his

references

to

various

places being on the borders of Galilee: Simonias (Vita 115, 118), Xaloth

(Vita 226) and Dabaritta (Vita318).I t isa three-day journey from the fron-

tiers of Galilee to Jerusalem (Vita 269). This frontier is appa rently well

defined, possibly even defended, as one gath ers from several references:

Jose ph us accom panies delegates from Jerusalem to the frontiers (Vita270), or

dispatches 600 men to guard the roads leading into Galilee (Vita240) or to

Jerusalem (Vita2 41 ); on the pretex t of gu ardin g the frontier tow n of Ch abo lo

he can move his troops around against Placidus who has been sent to ravage

the villages arou nd Ptolemais (Vita 2i3f.). People on the frontier with Sky-

thopolis and the Dekapolis are threatened and Josephus can be charged with

negligence if he does not go to their aid (Vita2 81, 285).

These details seem to suggest the same outlines for Galilee as those of the

War,whereit is said to be borde red by Skythopolis an d the D ekapolis, an d

Xaloth and Chabolo are mentioned as borde r towns also. In part icular

both the revolutionary government and Josephus seem to presume tha t his

mandate extends

to

Tiberias and Taricha eae even thoug h

we

know tha t

both these towns and their territories had been given to King Agrippa I I

by Neroin the year

A.D.

54(War2: 252f.;Ant 20: 159), and knowledge of

this transfer is presumed in th e Vitaalso (Vita 34, 38 f.). Yet we findthe

Jerusalem authorities ordering the dismantling of He rod's palace a t T iberias

(

Vita

65) and Josephus actually appointing Silas

as

orpcnTiyds

of

the city

(Vita89.Cf.272). And even though we he ar of him making his quartersat

Cana (Vita 86) or Asochis (Vita 207, 384), Tarichaeae figures very promi-

nentlyalsoas both being loyal to him and as his place of residence a nd refuge,

especially in his dealings with Tiberias (Vita 96, 127, 159, 276, 304, 404).

Both cities figure

in

the list of those fortified by Jos ephu s (Vita 188).

Sometimes, however, Galilee seems to be particularly associated with the

Galileans, so much so in fact that the genitive plural 'of the Galileans' can

be used interchangeably for the noun Galilee as e.g. at

Vita

190, 214, 398.

This coupled with other passages to be examined below, where the Galileans

and ' all Galile e' seem to go toge ther, suggests that Josep hus m ay also use

the term Galilee in a non -adm inistrative way to refer to tha t are a where his

own loyal supporters come from.

1

Th is possibility is further stre ng then ed b y

the fact that the Galileans are sharply distinguished from the inhabitants of

1

Typica l of this more restricted use of th e term Galilee isVita240, where Jose phus sendsa de -

tach me nt of troops to guard 'th e routes from Ga bara into G alilee ' (iAs *n-6 PapdptovEIS -rfiv rccMaiav

J

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


40 0 SEAN FREYNE

the towns especially those that are opposed to Josep hu s. Before discussing

the Galileans as revolutionaries it is therefore necessary to follow up this lead

suggested

by

the geog raphical terms in the Vitaand try to determine more

precisely who the Galileans are.

II.

THE

GALILEANS

As already mentioned Josephus can use the genitive plural TUVrccAiAccicov,

'of the Galileans', interchangeably with TaAiAaia as a general designation

of the area under his control (Vita 190, 214, 398), that is, with

a

primarily

geograph ic conno tation of a general nature . However, our attention is drawn

to other instances where th e term ' the G alilean s' seems to be used in

a

much

more specific sense. They are (a) opposed to the townspeople, and (b) from

the country regions. We must examine the evidence for this in detail.

(a) The Ga lileans and the

townspeople

Josephus distinguishes the Galileans from the inhabitants

of

the following

towns: Tiberias, Sepphoris and G ab ara -th e three chief cities of Galilee

according to Vita123- and Gischala, the town of his arch-enemy John.

(i) Tiberias

The distinction between Galileans and the people of Tiberias emerges

a t

th e

very start of the Vita in the passage already alluded to, wh ere Justu s calls on

his fellow townsmen for

a

gene ral revolt in the hope of restoring to his native

city its position of prom inen ce. ' Now is the time to take up arms and join

hands with the Galileans'

{Vita

39). However, this show of solidarity is more

apparent than real, for Justus really suggests utilizing the Galileans' resent-

ment of Sepphoris because of its pro-Roman stance for his own selfish intents.

This emerges clearly in the final reference where the distinction occu rs,

Vita

391f. Here Josephus repeats his assertions concerning Justus' real ambi-

tions- he was for war, not because he wasa Jewish revolutionary, bu t be-

cause he hoped that in the general upheaval he might obtain the command

of Galilee.

1

In this stance Justus was opposed to the majority opinion at

1

According to R. Laqueur,Der Jiidische Historiker Flavins Josephus (GieBen, 1929), pp.7 ff and

47 fF.,Vita38ff and 391

f.

are Jose phu s' later additions to theRechenschaftsbericht

which,

he believes,

underlies the

Vita.

As such they form part of

his

apologetic against

Justus,

and would not in them-

selves represent reliable information concerning the situation in Galilee. In using theVitafor histori-

cal purposes we must certainly take account of its special character, whether

or

not we accept

Laqueur's source-critical analysis. The position of A. Schalit, 'Josephus und Justus. Studien zur

Vita des Josephus', Klioxxvi (1933), 67-95 , especially p . 92, that there is an organic development

throughout the whole

Vita,

seems to agree better w ith the general argum ent of

this

paper. For him

the main Tendenzof the Vita is to present Josephus as

a

mild and considerate person in response to

Justus' attack on him. His 'patriarchal' relations with the Galileans should be seen as part of this

presentation. Consequently, this picture also stands

in

need of alternative verification, w hich can

best be done by taking account of any deviations from the overall picture of the

Vita

anda careful

comparison with the picture that emerges in

War.

See below p. 406 n. 2 and pp. 410f.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


JOSEPHUS VITA AND THE GALILEANS 401

Tiberias, which had decided

to

m ainta in their allegiance

to

the king and

not to revolt from Rome'. However, Josephus comments that there was no

possibility

of

these hopes being fulfilled, since ' the Ga lileans, rese nting the

miseries which he ha d inflicted on them before the war, were embittered

against the Tibe rians and wou ld not tolerate him as their ch ief (Vita390-2).

x

Clearly then the G alileans are to be distinguished from the T iberian s, a nd the

indications are that the differences are not simply

to

do with

a

war stance

but are related to much more deeply seated attitudes that were operative

a t

an earlier stage.

This general resentm ent of the G alileans for their city ne ighboursisreflected

in several other passages of the

Vita.

On two occasions they have to be re-

strained from sacking

th e

town, once

at the

instigation

of

the people

of

Tarichaeae because

of

the plots on Jose ph us' life

at

Tiberias (Vita 97-100,

123),and once because

of

the traitorous intentions

of

the city in sending for

help

to

king Agrippa (Vita 385-9). Elsewhere Josephus dissociates himself

and the Ga lileans from the revolt of Tiberias against Ro me (presumably

because he h ad been accused of being responsible by Jus tus

in

his a ccoun t)

and suggests that already under his instigation they had made a bid for

indep end ence by attacking the towns of the Syrian D ekapolis, before Joseph us

ever took over command in Galilee

(Vita

341). Only in two instances does

the distinction we have been suggesting appear

to

break down and we find

Galileans and Tiberians side by side.Some Galileans helped the leader of the

rabble of Tiberias, Jesus,

in

sacking He rod's palace (Vita 66), and Josephus

is aided by

a '

large b ody of Galileans und er arms with

some

from Tiberias'

in

putting down a revoltat Sepphoris (Vita 107). However, neither exampleis

telling against the overall position. One can readily understand minorities in

both groups adopting attitudes different to the dom inant t rends.T he

readiness

of

the more militant

of

the Galileans

to

sack H erod's palace

is

altogether und erstandab le an d does not indicate any great sympathy between

Galileans and Tib erians, whereas we do hea r elsewhere of Josep hus ha vin g

some (minority) support

at

Tiberias (Vita99).

(ii) Sepphoris

The at t i tude of the Galileans towards Seppho ris is presented in th e

Vita

as

being, ifany thing , m ore hostile than it was to Tiberias. This attitud e ha d

already emerged before Jose ph us' a rrival in Galilee Vita30),andisat tr ibuted

1

I tis difficult to reconstruct the exact circumstances of the G alilean hostility referred to inVita

177 f. when his brother's hand was cut off as a punishm ent for forging letters.

As

Schalit,

art. cit.

p. 78

points out,

i t

must have been

a

political affair of some kind . Josephus himself punishes one of his

soldiers in asimilar fashion fortreason (Vita171-3; War2: 642 f.). According to J. M . Derre tt,

'Law in the New Testament: Siscandalizaverit te manus tua absdde

ilium',

R.I.D.A. xx (1973), 11-41,

the right hand is used in various legal transactions (cf. Sir. 21 :9 ) and th e punishment in question

was for th e violation of these. W hat

is

of special interest for our purposes is the fact th at the Galileans

arrogated for themselves such legal autho rity as the imposing of penalties for violation of the contracts

in question.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


4 0 2 S E A N F R E Y N E

to the city's pro-Roman stance, something that is stated more than once

in the Vita(30, 104, 124, 34 5-8 , 373, 394 f.). O n tha t occasion the Galileans

ha d decided to sack the tow n, b ut Jose ph us uses his influence w ith the

crowds

(TO TTA^QTI)

and averts the danger (Vita 31). A large body of Gali-

leans 'under arms' accompany Josephus to Sepphoris as he uncovers their

plot against him with the arch-brigand Jesus, but we hear of no reprisals on

this occasion (Vita104-10). However, he was not so successful later and had

to resort to a ploy - stating tha t the R om ans h ad already arrived in the

city - in an attempt to put an end to the pillaging of the Galileans who had

seized on the opportunity granted them to 'vent their hatred on this city

which they detested' (Vita273-80).

(iii) Gischala

Th is town meets with the ire of the Galileans because of Jo h n , o ne of its

chief citizens, whose constant plotting against Josephus, as reported in the

Vita, has the purpose of unseating Josephus and gaining the control of

Galilee for himself (Vita 70, 122 f., 189).

1

On two occasions we hear of the

Galileans desiring to destroy the place. The first instance follows immedi-

ately on Joh n's intrigues against Josephus at T iberias; he w rites to Joseph us

proclaiming his innocence in the whole affair. 'The Galileans, many more

of whom h ad again come up in arms from the whole district' (they ha d ju st

previously been there to assist him against Tiberias) wanted Josephus to

lead them against him 'to exterminate both him and Gischala'. However,

Josephus dissuaded them (Vita103 f.). Again after the affair with the Jerusa-

lem officials the Galileans asked to be armed and declared their willingness

to ma rch aga inst Jo hn , the a utho r of all the trouble, but once more Joseph us

refused to use violence against his arch-enemy

(Vita

368; cf.

Vita

304,

Galilean animosity for John).

(iv) Gabara

The fourth town that is clearly distinguished is Gabara, according to Vita

123,

one of the three largest cities of Galilee, thoug h subsequently (Vita 229,

242 f.) as Gabaroth (apparently the same place) described as a village. The

animosity of the Galileans towards this place seems to stem from its associa-

tion w ith Jo h n and its consequent acceptance of the Jerusalem delegation.

We hear that John made overtures to Sepphoris, Tiberias and Gabara, but

that only the latter joined him, due to the instigation of one Simon, a leading

citizen, and a friend an d associate of Jo hn . How ever, ' the people of Ga ba ra,

it is true, did not openly admit their defection; their dread of the Galileans

1

While John 's greed and self-interest are emphasized in both Vitaand War, the characterization

in the latter work is much more hostile, as has been noted by Rho ads,Some Jewish Revolutionaries,pp.

f f i

p

199 f. n. a. Cf. War2: 585-7 where the term A-^trrris is applied to him, and War2: 599 where he is

involved in a plot against Josephus as a traitor at Tarichaeae, but is not mentioned in Vita in the

parallel account.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf



of whose devotion to me they had had frequent experience was too great a

deter rent ' {Vita 124f.).

When we look for a common denominator for this opposition of the Gali-

leans

to

the four towns

in

question the only o ne th at suggests itself is

the

loyalty of the Galileans to Jose ph us.

1

This point is further empha sizedby

contrasting these towns with the other one which figures largely in the Vita,

Tarichaeae. This town's support for Josephus is in striking contrast to Tiber-

ias, for even though on one occasiona plot was formed against him there , its

instigators were from Tiberias rather than Tarichaeae and Josephus was

able to dissuade the people (Vita 132-54). I t is his constant place of refuge

from the plots of Tiberias an d the Jeru salem embassy (Vita 158

f.,

174, 276,

304) or even after an accident (Vita404).Accordingly we find the inhab itants

of Tarich aeae spreading the word ab out the plots against Josephu s at Tiber-

ias ' throughout all Galilee', and the Galileans respon ding prom ptly by

coming together

in

large num bers und er arms (Vita 98 f.). Th us the people

of Tarichaeae

and the

Galileans

can

make common cause

in

defence

of

Josephus, and we find a similar combination later also when Josephus,

escaping from Tiberias, summons to his aid the leading Galileans at Tarich-

aeae and they urge him to hesitate no longer, but allow them to ex terminate

Jo hn and the Jerusalem delegate, Jo na tha n, who was at that time at Tiberias

(Vita304-6).

(b) The G alileans and the country

Since Tiberias, Sepphoris and Gabara are explicitly mentioned by Josephus

as the th ree lead ing cities of Galilee (T arich aea e also merits th at app ellative,

Vita188) our attention is naturally turned to the background of the Galileans

who are so opposed to them. While they can be closely identified in purpose

with the peop le of Ta rich aea e, yet they are carefully differentiated from the m ,

as we have seen. Where then do the Galileans come from? Or is the term

strictly non-geographical, as Zeitlin asserts?

2

In several instances a general description is used to indicate the back-

ground of the Galileans. Thus we hear that many Galileans come together

'from all quar ters ' (TTCCVTOCXO96V Vita99) or 'from the wholecount ry ' (IK

TTJS

x^POS ITAOTIS, Vita 102).

O r

again

the

Galileans send messengers

' throughout all Gali lee'

els

i ^v FocAiAalotv arr aaav), an d lar ge num be rs

assembled from

all

qu ar ter s (-rravTCtxiQev), with wives a nd ch ildren (Vita

206f.; cf. 384). Perhaps the most instructive passage to answer our question

is Vita242-4; Josephus sends directions to the Galileansto join him

at

Gaba-

I

This does not exclude individual reasons

for

the animosity, many

of

them

antedating Josephus'

arrival in the province. Yet in the account of the Vitai tisa common factor: the hostility against

Sepphoris is apparently for its pro-Ro man stance, bu t loyalty to Josephus plays

a

part there also

(Vita 104-10). This same factor operates

in

their m ore vehement call against Tiberias (Vita99),

Gischala (Vita103 f.) and Gabara (Vita124 f.).

II

Art.cit.

p. 398 n. 2, pp. 193, 195.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


4O4 SEAN FREYNE

roth w ith their arm s and three d ays' provisions. Next mo rning he findsthe

whole plain

in

front of the village full of arme d men who ha d ra llied

to

his

call from

Galilee. At

the same time 'ano the r large crowd was hurrying

in

from the villages', who greet Josephus as the saviour of their country (xcbpoc).

O n the basis of this passage the Galileans ma y be identified with the peop le

from the villages,

and

further,

it

would seem, ' Ga lilee'

can be

used

in a

restricted sense to exclude the towns already me ntioned and signify tha t area

from whe re Josep hus receives his supp ort. In other w ords Galilee and Ga li-

leans are co-relative expressions, and they refer to the village people who are

loyal to Joseph us.

Th e hailing of Josephus

as

saviour

of

the cou ntry raises the question

of

whether or not the Galileans may be identified with th e people of the lan d.

Certainly the word x ^ P is used in the Vitain

a

more juridic al sense of' p ro-

vince ' or ' terri tory ', referring to the area und er Josep hu s' jurisdiction . T hu s

we he ar of Jos ep hu s' position as governo r be ing ratified:

cbc.

Ki/pcoaeiCCV ipiot

Tfjs x^P

0

^

CCUTCOV

Tf]V irpooTaalav (Vita 312), or

of

his intention to quit the

territory (x P

a

) and return to his native place (elsTT)VTrcnrpiSa) (Vita205).

On this occasion the word of his imminent departure is spread throughout all

Galilee els TT)V rocAiAcciocv

OTTCCCTOCV)

by theGalileans, and great crowds

including women and children gather in the plains of Asochis where he was

then quartered, beseeching him not to leave (

Vita

20 7). O n a n earlier occasion

young men went

to

the villages declaring tha t Josep hus inte nde d

to

betray

the country (TTJV x

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


JOSEPH US VITA AND THE GALILEA NS 4O5

From these indicationsit seems that we can identify the Galileans withthe

country people

of

Galilee, livingin

the

many villages scattered throughout

the province.

I t

comes

as

no surprise

to

hear that they assemble from

the

whole country (xoopoc) at Tarichaeae, for they are truly the country people

of

this essentially rural

province.

It

is

thus that Josephus differentiates them from

the citypeople.We must attempt to filloutthis picture of their organization

and loyalties more fully.

III.

ARE THE

GALILEANS REVOLUTIONARIES?

Several times Josephus speaks of the crowd or multitude of Galileans

(TTAI'IQOS,pi.T&TTAriQri)an all-embracing term that on two occasionsa tleast

can include women

and

children Vita

84 and

210;

cf.

198, 262,

302

and

305 f.).

At the

same time this

is not an

amorphous group,

for

Josephus

repeatedly speaks

of

the leaders

or

authorities

of

the Galileans, even though

his terminology may vary slightly. Thuswe hear oftheoitv

TEAEI,

seventy

of whom are invited tojoin him as friends andcompanionsinhis travels and

as assessors

of

cases

to be

tried, andwhose approbation

is

sought

for

sen-

tences passed (Vita 79) -

1

Wefind Josephus dining with his friends and TCOV

Tfjs rocAiAociccs irpcoTcov Vita220) .

2

Thirty

of

the Galileans of highest repute

(SOKIUCOTCCTOI) aresent to meet theJerusalem delegation Vita 228), and

the same designation isused

of

Galileans who, like

the

people

of

Tiberias,

have betrayed thecountry's independence (Vita386). Perhaps thefact that

Josephus took theprecaution of sending a soldier with each of thethirty

sent to meet the Jerusalem delegation, to watch them andsee that no con-

versation took place betweenmy emissariesand the other party' Vita228),

is already indicative that forhim these Galilean notablesare notaltogether

trustworthy.Yet on the other hand he entrusts thepresentation ofhis case

to the authorities of Jerusalem

to

a hundred of their (the Galileans) leading

men (upco-Toi) well advanced

in

years' Vita 266),

and

after escaping

to

Tarichaeae from the Jerusalem delegation

a t

Tiberias and John he summons

the leading

(oi

TrparreuovTEs) Galileans

to

plan strategy. Vita305).

Gischala Vita235).AtVita1240heputs guardson theroads leading from Gabara toGalileeand

then orders the Galileans to meet himat Gabaroth, and the subsequent scene takes place in the plain

in front of the village, without Josephus entering the town or village, whereas the Jerusalem delega-

tion retiresto the mansion of Jesus which 'was as imposingas

a

citadel' (Vita240-6).

1

In

War 2: 570

f. the

account

of

this provision

is

more formal and legalist

in

tone: the seventy

elders

are

chosen from the nation (JKTOO 9VOUS) and appointed magistrates

for the

whole

of

Galilee, aswellasseven individuals

in

each city forpetty cases, 'with instructions

to

refer more

important cases

to

Josephus

and

the seventy'.

8

Foradiscussion of the terminology used here and in the other works ofJosephus see W. Buehler,

ThePre-Herodian Civil War andSocial Debate(Basel, 1974). ot irpcbroi is used almost exclusively for men

who held positions of authority as rulers of theJews,and on less than 10 occasions for the aristocracy

as

a

whole,

but

since the form

of

government was essentially aristocratic t isslight fluctuation

is

understandable (pp.a1-35). Likewise, olIvT&EIcan mean eminent personsonfour occasions,bu t

generally the term is used as

a

designation for those who occupy an office such as magistrate or ruler

(pp. 4&-52).

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


406

SEAN FREYN E

The picture emerging from these references is that the Galileans have some

organization, however loose, whereby it is possible for Josephus to select

certain leading men and delegate to them functions related to his office. It is

not clear whether those

of

highest repute

(SOKIUCOTCCTOI)

who later betray

their countrymen belong to this circle, nor does Josephus indicate what their

rank was or how they came to be chosen. Yet their presence in Galilee right

from the start shows that the area was not without its own internal organiza-

tion. It comes as no surprise then to find that Josephus convened an assembly

(ouvoSos) of the Galileansa tArbela and had their own delegates relateto

them how Josephus had been confirmed

in

his office as governor of Galilee

(Fito 310 f.).

1

A constant theme of the Vitais the loyalty of the Galileans to Josephus.

They are more concerned for his safety than for their own and their families'

fate Vita84, 125, 250, 252), and the Jerusalem embassy is asked to ascertain

the source of this loyalty (Vita198). The Galileans answer his call to arms (Vita

100,103,108,268) and their anger is not merely towards John of Gischala (Vita

368) but towards Jerusalem and the Jerusalem representatives as well Vita2i1,

230,260,262) ,

and Josephus can rely on them to testify in his favour (Vita228,

258). Nor is John able to sow seeds of dissension among them regarding

Josephus

Vita

237). Little wonder that the Galileans can describe him then

as 'the saviour of their country' Vita244). Whatever the background and

historical veracity of this description, one thing is certain, for the author of

Vita the Galileans are not irresponsible revolutionaries, butfaithfula nd

loyal supporters of him and his policies.

2

1

This 'assembly' isthe remnant of inner Galilean structures which may go back to Gabinius'

rearrangement of Jewish territory after Pompey's dismantling of the Hasmoneanstate.He established

the rule of the country as an aristocracy War

i:

169), dividing

it

into five oiivoSoi, four in Judaea

proper and one at Sepphoris in Galilee. InAnt.14:91 they are described asavvkSpm,'councils', but

without any significant difference of meaning (cf. Matt. x. 17; Mark xiii. 9). Naturally suchan

institution would have undergone changes in the Herodian period, but may well have functioned

throughout in a judicial capacity, and its leaders would have been part of Antipas' court (cf. Mark

vi.21oltrpebToiTfjs roftiAcriots). This would also explain Josephus' use of the seventy elders as assessors,

for he would scarcely have introduced such

a

new legal concept unless there had been some prece-

dent.SeeJ. F. Kennard, 'The Jewish Provincial Assembly',Z-N-W.m i(1962),

25-51.

1

While this overall picture showsasufficient inner consistency to suggest that it is one of the

apologetic motifs of the

Vita,

as Schalit,art.

cit.

p. 92 and H. Drexler, 'Untersuchung zu Josephus

und zur Geschichte des jiidischen Aufstandes, 66-70',Klioxix (1925), 277-312, esp. pp. 296

f.

maintain, nevertheless Josephus does not conceal certain attitudes of the Galileans which do not

particularly support this apologetic. Attention has already been drawn to those Galileans who joined

in the sacking of Agrippa's palace (Vita66) and accused Josephus of treachery at Tarichaeae Vita

143);

he has to send soldiers to accompany the Galilean leaders lest they double deal with the

Jerusalem embassy

Vita

228); the Galileans' real concern is their own safety

Vita

206 f.), 'influ-

enced

I

imagine as much by alarm for themselves as by affection for me' , a statement whichseemsto

contradict the rather grandiose opinions expressed in Vita84 of their selfless loyalty to him. Perhaps

these inconsistencies

in

the general picture of the Galileans as

a

willing, pliable mob in need of a

leader and saviour, are an indication of the real relationship between Josephus and the Galileans:

their loyalty was real but based on self-interest, and when called to defend himself Josephus could

point to it as indicative of their overall reactions to him and his governorship of Galilee,in striking

contrast to the exploitation of the other potential leaders,John or Justus.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


JOSEPHU S V IT A AND THE GALILEANS 407

Against this ba ck gro un d it seems an unlikely hypothesis to suggest,as

Zeitlin does, that 'the Galileans' in. the Vita 'is an appellative name given to

the revolutionaries against Rohie a nd the rulers in Ju da ea who were appoin-

ted by Rome' .

1

Nevertheless there

is

quite

an

amoun t

of

evidence

in the

Vitasuggesting th at the G alileans .are armed and ready for action. Only

careful, reading of the text can help

to

clarify the ex tent an d na ture of the

Galilean revolutionary stance and its significance. . .

it To begirt with,it is clear that th e Galileans are arme d, yet the circu m-

stances of

this

fact have to be carefully /noted . Justu s of Tiberia s seems

.to

pre-

suppose that the Galileans are already armed when he harangues his towns-

people: 'Now is the time to take up arms and join hands with the Galileans'

{Vita

39). Twice at least the Galileans arrive alread y,arm ed when Josephus

summons them (Vita 99, 102), and

on

two oth er occasions,-it.seems

to be

presupposed: Josephus brings Galileans under arms

to

Sepphoris (Vita 107)

and orders them to assembleat Gab aroth 'with their arms and three da ys '

provisions' (Vita 242). Yet this is no undisciplined and unruly mob, for we

hear that Josephus has to order them to take up their arms to defend them-

selves against

a

possible attack from Jo h n an d the Jeru salem amb assadors

(Vita 252). Earlier Josephus had yielded to the G alilean en treaties tha the

stay as their leader, and immediately 'gave orders that

5,000

of them were

to join him in arms, bring ing their own prov isions'

(Vita

212), and corres-

ponding to this situation we hear th at ' th e Galileans were unanimou slyof

the opinion tha t

I

should arm them all, ma rch against him (John) and punish

him as the author of all these disturbances' (Vita368).

Before passing final judgement on this question two o ther sets of facts

from the Vitashould be n oted. Firstly Josep hus clearly distinguishes betwee n

the Galileans and 'the robbers' who are described pejoratively in a number

of places throughout the Vita. They are described as 'evi l m en ' (irovripoi)

at Vita 29 an d 151, and th e term 'r ob b er s' (Adorns), so frequently employed

in the War, occurs in Vitaalso:

2

Jesus is an &pxiAr|crrr|s oper at ing onthe

borders between Ptolemais

and

Galilee (Vita 105); ATICTTOU appear

as

troublemakers

at

Tarichaeae, and

it

is they w ho a re inten t on ke eping the

disturbances alive after Josephus has appeased first the Tarichaeansand

Galileans, and later even the troublemakers from Tiberias (Vita 145-7).I*

is because of the Ar|

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


40 8 SEAN FREY NE

are no t to be identified with the G alileans app ears at Vita205 (10) where the

latter insist that should Josephus depart their country (xcopoc) they would

be an easy prey to the

XTJOTCCI

as

TTOAEUIOI.

Th is clear separation of Galileans

and robbers helps to explain an earlier passage

also.

Josephu s, in accordance

with his stated policy of providing arms in case of an eventual showdown,

yet restraining the more rebellious elements (Vita 28 f.), recognized that he

would not be able to disarm the brigands, and adopted the rather unusual

tactic of hav ing th e people pa y th em off as mercen aries, ' rem arking tha t it

was better to pay them a small sum voluntarily than to submit to raids on

their property'. He bound the robbers by oath 'not to enter the district '

(KOU Aoc|3cbv Trap' ccCrrcov opKouj uf| dq>{5ECT6ou TrpoTepov eis TT|V y pocv)

unless they were called for or their pay was in arrears. And he adds: 'my

chief concern was the preservation of peace in Galilee' (Vita 77-9) . One

recognizes the reasons for the fear of the Galileans in the later passage, and

the pow er of the briga nds, to whose presence even Josep hus m ust turn a

blind eye, attempting to contain them to the border areas.

1

A second set of facts arises in conjunction with this episode that helps

further to elucidate the Galileans. Ap pare ntly it was Jose phu s' instructions

from the revolutionary government to prepare for war in terms of arms and

fortifications, but not to provoke it (Vita 28 f.). We do not hear anything in

the Lifeof the strong military force which he seems to have recruited on his

arrival in Galilee according to War 2: 576-100,000 young men 'equipped

with old arms collected for the purpose'. However, he does mention in a

gen eral w a y ' the provision of arm s', with out specifying for who m, in the sam e

context as the reference in

War

jus t cited - th e erec tion of fortifications. In

the

Vita

this provisioning may have been of Galileans who we have seen

are un der arms. Alternatively it may refer to the perm anen t m ilitary organiz-

ation t ha t Joseph us appe ars to have with him in the Vita,in ad dition to the

Galileans who are only occasionally summoned. Thus we hear of his military

tactics against Agrippa's decurion, Aebutius, who had been entrusted with

charge of the Great Plain, and on that occasion his army is 2,000 infantry

(Vita 116 f.). Similarly he has only a small force when he decides to engage

the Rom ans who had come to help S epphoris, an d is eventually routed

(Vita 394-7). Yet for his attack on Tiberias his forces seem greater (at least

10,000 men), even though the Galileans are not mentioned as augmenting

his army (Vita 321, 327, 331). At Tarichaeae Josephus feels free to dismiss

his troops on the Sabbath, only retaining a bodyguard of seven (Vita159) .

2

1

Brigandage was one of the hazards of life in G alilee, as is indicated by the general acclaim for

Herod's action in exterminating brigands, Wari: 204 f. A good description of the tactics and harass-

ment involved is found at

Ant.

15: 346 f. Cf. Hengel,Die geloten,pp. 26-35 for a general account of

brigandage in the ancient world.

a

Th e fact that they are dispersed on the Sabbath day at Tarichaeae, not to trouble the populace,

may be an indication of their non-Jewish background (Vita 159). In the War account he had 4,500

mercenaries in whom he trusted the most, as well as the Galileans under arms.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


JOSEPH US V IT A AND THE GALILEANS 409

One suspects that the

5,000

armed Galileans who are allowed

to

join him for

an engagement with Placidus in the region of Ptolemais a re n ot his wh ole

army but rathera reinforcement (Vita213 f.). He sends Jam es with 200 m en

to guard the routes to Galilee from Gabara, and Jeremiah with 600 men to

watch the roads leading to Jerusalem (Vita 240 f.). He has an escort of 500

me n for his counter-embassy to Jerus alem

(Vita

268 f.) and he ca n p rovide

a

soldier for each of the 30 Galilean leaders whom he sends to discuss with the

Jerusalem embassy (Vita228).

Presumably this permanent, relatively small army which Josephus keeps

around himself was also recruited after his arrival in Galilee, but they are

never called Galileans and, as already pointed out, the Galileans are separat-

ed from them.

It is thus apparent that the Galileans are neither to be identified with the

Averred who are eager for trouble and who, at least in the War, are blamed

for embroiling the whole nation in war with Rome, nor with the permanent

arm y Josephus keeps. Ra the r they representa pe rm an en t reserve force whose

loyalty to Josephus

is

unquestioned. T he one exception

is

the incident

at

Tarich aeae when Josephus has been misrepresented to them as intending to

turn the country over to the Romans, but he succeeds in explaining himself

successfully and their anger is appeased (Vita 132-43). Certain militants may

come from their ranks like Jesus who seems to have a private army a t

Jerusalem (

Vita

200) and ma y or may no t be identified with the Jesus em -

ployed by the Sepphorites earlier from the region of Ptolemais (Vita105 ff.),

or the Galileans who join with the revolutionary element in Tiberias in burn-

ing Herod's palace (Vita66). Yet on the whole they a re disciplined an d re -

strained. Re ady to answer the call to arms against Josep hus ' enemies, wh ether

it be Tibe rias, Jo h n of Gischala or the ambassadors from Jeru salem (Vita306),

they do not wish to be identified with the Arjcrral who are a serious thre at to

them and their families. Yet they are genuinely pa triotic as the one exam ple of

their anno yance with Josephus shows.I t is not surprising to hea r th at ma ny

Galileans fell in battleasJotapata and the other fortresses were seized by the

Romans (Vita351), even thoug h some of their more outstanding coun tryme n

had behaved in traitorous fashion (Vita 386).

C O N C L U S I O N : G A L I L E E AN D T H E G A L I L E A N S

In the course of this article I have deliberately refrained from making any

hypothetical reconstructions of the situation in Galilee at the outbreak of the

first Jewish war. Ra the r I have at tempted to allow the text of the Vita to

speak foritself,since all are agreed that it does representa un iqu e source for

first-hand information of the situation there. Before drawing some tentative

conclusions from this evidence i tis necessary to m akea brief comparison of

Jos ep hu s' use of terminology in the pa rallel acco unt of the War(2: 569-654),

27-2

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


41 0 SEAN FREYNE

without passing any judgement on the literary relationships between the two

works.

1

The account of the period between Josephus' appointment as governor of

Galilee (late November

A.D.

66) and the arrival of Vespasian in the province

(May A.D.67) -the period covered by

Vita

- i s greatly curtailed in the

War.

In particular the episode dealing with his removal by the Jerusalem embassy

is treated

in a

very summary fashion {War2: 627-31), whereas

it

occupies

the whole centre of the Vitaand is most helpful in determining inner Galilean

tendencies and loyalties.

2

It is all the more significant therefore that the pic-

ture of the Galileans that can be captured from this abbreviated account is

very similar

to

that of the Vitawhich has been presented

in

this paper.

At

War2: 622 we hear of Galileans from one town after another (KOCT&-rriAeis)

'myriads of men in arms', flocking to Josephus and threatening vengeance

on John and his city as the common enemy, because of his plotting against

Josephus.

This passage should be taken in conjunction with two earlier ones

concerning the arming of the Galileans. At War2: 576 we hear that Josephus

levied 100,000 young men as part of his initial organization on his arrival

in the province. Yeta little later he breaks down this rather large generaliza-

tion to more acceptable proportions: he has an army of 60,000 infantry and

350 cavalry ready for action, as well as 4,500 mercenaries and a bodyguard of

600 picked men. The former are easily supported by the towns since only

half the number are sent out and the rest kept back to prepare provisions.

3

Despite the use of TT6AEIS 'cities'

in

this passage instead

of

the 'villages'

(KCOUCCI) and 'land' (x^pa) of the Vita,

it

seems clear that Josephus' main

army of reserves is made up ofGalilean country people from the many

settlements throughout the province, who had to bring their own provisions

when summoned

by

Josephus

{Vita

212, 242). During

the

incident

a t

Tarichaeae where Josephus is accused

of

treachery

the

Galileans

are not

explicitly mentioned as in the Vitaaccount. Yet we hear of young men going

through the villages by night, slandering Josephus as a traitor (War 2:598).

1

According to Laqueur Der

jiidische Historiker)

the official report underlying

Vila

is the earlier

account. However, Schalit, 'Josephus und Justus', disagrees with this analysis and regards theVita

as an organic response to the attack ofJustus, written after War,which itself was based on an earlier

version in Aramaic for

TOIS

va>fJocpp&pois Wari: 3). M. Gelzer, 'Die Vita des Josephos',HermesLXXX

(1952), 67-9 0,whilealsodisagreeing with Laqueur's suggestion, but for different reasons, sees theVita

account as earlier than that ofWarwhich is a 'straffe Zusammenfassung' (p. 87), written to present

himself in heroic manner. TheVitaon the other hand was written

as

a self-defence for the Romans dur-

ing histwo yearsof captivity at Caesarea (A.D.67-9, War 3: 409 f.). Recently, S. Zeitlin has discussed

the question in a series of articles: 'A survey ofJewish historiography: from the biblical books to the

Sefer ha-Kabbalah, with special emphasis

on

Josephus',J.Q..R.ux (1968), 171-214 and

LX

(1969),

37-68.

In this latter article he argues thatWarwas the official account corresponding to the revolu-

tionary government's position of being outwardly for the war, whereas Vitagives the real account,

showing Josephus as desirous of peace, and therefore correcting the earlier version.

8

Vita189-335 which contains 21 references to the Galileans.

3

Thackeray's translation (Loeb Classical Library) offpyaola as 'fatigue duty' can scarcely be

correct since

i t

is parallel to crupmopurpiv ITTITTISEICOVin the previous part

of

the sentence, just asEIS

6-iTAacorresponds

to

errt OTpcnrelav.

I t

should therefore be translated as 'procuring provisions'

or

'working the land'.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf



In the sequel there are country people present (ol cnr6 TT SX P

a

5)

w n o a r e

not as easily appeased as the people of Tarichaeae, and apparently it is

they who get into an altercation with the Tiberians at the end (

War

2:608).

This distinctive use

of

'the Galileans' continues throughout the subse-

quent narrative of the war in the province. Sepphoris had abandoned the

Galilean cause War3: 61 dTrocnTJvcu). Placidus is scouring Galilee, killing

helpless Galileans, weak civilians who were exhausted from flight (War3 :

n o ) . Josephus considers that should he escape from Jotapata he might be

able to gather the Galileans from the country and so divert the Romans from

the city (War 3: 198

f.: TOC/S K TTJS

x^P

01

? TaAiAafous).

In

the siege of this

latter city none acted more bravely than two Galilean brothers fromthe

village of Ruma

War

3: 233).

I n

the siege of Japha,

a

town near Jotapata,

some Galileans who had ventured out to attack the Romans are excluded

by their townspeople as they beata hasty retreat and are exterminated. The

defenders

of

the town

in

the ensuing attack are called Galileans, and

the

final capitulation is described as another calamity for the Galileans War

3 :

301, 306). Once Galilee had surrendered the name 'Galileans' is used of

the inhabitants of the provincein an essentially ' geographical' sense. Thus

at

War.

4 : 1 , 96, 127 'the Galileans' are all those who had been at war with

the Romans, Gischala included. The Tyrians and the Galileans have a

constant feud War4: 127), as have the Galileans and the Samaritans War

2 :

232). Likewise all the references to Judas the Galilean are geographical

War 2 :118, 433; Ant. 18: 23; 20: 102). In my opinion the referenceto

the Galileans in Jerusalem under John must be understood in this primarily

geographical sense also. The cruvTayncc TCOVFaAiAalcov War 4: 558) that

surpassed all others in daring and mischievous deeds cannot be used as an

argument that all Galileans were hot-headed revolutionaries. Rather they

are those who escaped with John, leaving the weaker citizens of Gischala to

their fate, and arrived in Jerusalem, there to become one of the factions within

the civil strife (War4 :106-11). In theAntiquitiesit is this purely geographical

sense of the term' Galilean' that dominatesalso,

1

so that the special meaning

we have been arguing for is confined to the Vitaand that section of theWar

that deals with Josephus' own term of office in the province.

From this survey itappears that the primary meaning of the term ' the

1

Ant.5: 63: Kedesh is

a

city of the Galileans; 13: 154: Galileans are the inhabitants of Galilee;

14:450: Galileans rebel against the nobles

of

their own country; 17:318, 18: 136: Antipas

is

tetrarch

of

the Galileans; 17: 254: Galileans are listed among people from other geographical

regions who were engaged in disturbances at Jerusalem after Herod's death; 17: 288: Varus attacks

Galileans, 'those who dwell in the neighbourhood of Ptolemais'; 18: 37: Galileans are compelled

by Antipas to dwell in Tiberias; 20: 118, 119, 120: Galileans and Samaritans. The only references in

this list that could be taken as proving that the Galileans were revolutionaries are 14: 450 and

17:

254, but neither is decisive against the position of this paper. The first refers to

a

spontaneous

reaction against those who had supported Herod, whose governorship

of

Galilee had weighed

heavily on the natives in terms of taxation, and in the second instance the hostility of the Galileans

is no more marked than that of people from several other regions of the country who have been

offended by Roman behaviour during the feast of Pentecost.

7 3

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf


412 SEAN FREY NE

Galilean s' is, as one might expect, geo graphical: it refers to the inh ab itan ts

of Galilee withou t any distinction of town or cou ntry an d giving no indica tion

of loyalties or attitudes. In the Vita,however,a rath er distinctive refineme nt

of this basic meaning emerges:

the

G alileans

are the

country people

as

distinct from the inhabitants of the major towns, and they are Josep hus '

loyal supporters, militantly nationalist, but not essentially revolutionary or

subversive. I t is surely no coincidence that the same outline can be detected

in the corresponding section of the War, the differences between the tw o

accounts, in sofar as they exist at all, being th e result of the mu ch shorter

version in the latter work, that is, they are omissions rather than a different

characterization.

The primary result of our investigation therefore has been to suggest that

the Galileans are not necessarily

to

be identified with revolutionaries,

no

matter how loyal they proved themselves to be or how much of the brunt of

the first Roman onslaught they had to endure. Aggressive, even militant yes,

but revolutionary no.

Secondly, the cause and extent of Galilean animosity towards the larger

towns, especially Sepphoris and Tiberias, and to a lesser extent G ab ara

and Gischala, cannot just be explained by the pro-R om an stance of these

towns alone, since with the exception of Sepphoris their pro-R om an atti-

tudes are never explicit or clear-cut. O the r, in ner Galilean factors mu st

have been

at

work to explain this situation.

Third ly, the attitude of the G alileans towards Jerusalem and its auth ority

needs to be explored in grea ter d ep th. O ne suspects that: the supp ort of the

Galileans for Josephus, so strongly emphasized throughout, may have had

its own apologetic pu rpose as pa rt of his response to Jus tus and his allega-

tions.

Yet it cannot simply be apologetic since in this regard at leastthe

accounts in the Wara nd Vitaareat one.

If these suggestions have any merit it would seem tha t th e situationof

Galilean Judaism is more complex than might ap pear at first sight.

1

T he

tensions which emerge

in

the full ligh t of day un de r the stress of crisis m ust

have been developing for some time. While Josephus is at pains to stress the

idea of

6iioq>vA{a,

the unity of the nation, thro ugh out the Vita(55, 100, 141 ,

1

I n a s tudy to be published soon, Galilee from Alexander toHadrian. StudiesinGalileanJudaismin

New

Testament

Times,

I

discuss these political, social and religious questions in detail.

In the prep aration of this article, which was completed in Ju ne 1976,1 would have liked very

much to have had access to Dr

S.

Cohen's 1975 Columbia doctoral dissertationJosephus in Galilee and

Rome:HisVitaand Development as aHistorian.Th ea uthor has since very graciously allowed me to use

his work before its appearance in book form. I ca nnot agree with his reconstruction of Josep hus'

role in Galilee and hence with his view of the Galileans (ch. 7), but

I

h ave found his analysis of

the concernsof

Vita

an d Warand the relationship between th e two works more illuminating tha n

an yofthe previous studies on Joseph us, Th e conclusion that in order to defend his own involve-

ment Josephus,

in

that p art

of

War that is parallel to

Vita,

creates

a

period of legitimacy for the

revolt, as distinct from its earlier and later phases, corresponds well with one ofthe suggestions

of this study, namely, that for the period of his own sojourn in Galilee, he hasa distinctive use

of the term Galilean. I have been able to discuss Dr Cohen's conclusions in detail in my larger

work, just mentioned.

7/25/2019 -NTS-NTS26_03-S0028688500022414a.pdf

18/18

JOSEPHUS VI TA AND THE GALILEANS 41 3

171,

265, 376 f.), it would ap pe ar from the evidence th at this is rath er wishful

thinking, as town and country, province and capital, rich and poor, struggle

to assert their own positions just at the moment when the common danger

was threatening all alike.

-nts-nts26_03-s0028688500022414a.pdf

Documents