On Richard A. Horsley’s Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine, Part 2
Whatever else Jesus was, he was also a leader of a peasant movement for the renewal of Israel in opposition to both Roman occupation and the Temple cooperation with the conquerors. First-century Palestine was ripe for some such leader. This is the second post on Richard A. Horsley’s Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine. It looks at the political and economic conditions facing the little people of first-century Palestine. We see villages in turmoil, communities ready for some kind of leader. A future post will consider, with Horsley, to what extent Jesus fits that expectation.
What’s different about Horsley’s research?
Horsley’s research stands apart from much of his contemporaries in New Testament scholarship. He finds the Bible to be more reliable for understanding the Palestinian environment than many. He objects to the common focus on Jesus’ individual sayings, whose authenticity is hard to verify anyway. And he joins what is, perhaps, the majority of scholars, but not most translators, in distinguishing “Judeans” (Judaioi) from the people of Israel in general.
The two translations that I use most, NABR and NRSV, unfortunately render Judaioi as “Jews.” In so doing they imply it was Jews in general who try to stone Jesus (John 10:31). And it’s “the Jews” who hand him over to Pilate (John 18:36). But John’s text says “Judeans,” people from Jerusalem and surrounding area. That mistranslation, Horsley thinks, is partly responsible for the millennia of persecution Jews have undergone. All the Gospels imply that it was not even exactly the Judeans but the leaders and elite from Jerusalem who most opposed Jesus.
Trusting the Bible, not trusting individual sayings of Jesus, and getting the right translation of Judaioi — here’s a quick look at these decisions behind Horsley’s work:
Trusting the Bible
Horsley’s story depends on understanding the life of the common people of Palestine and the “little traditions” of the villages. For that there are few surviving literary records outside the Bible. So for Horsley the Bible is a necessary source. He recognizes that one can’t depend on the Bible’s telling a story the way it actually happened. Still he sees in the stories a “verisimilitude,” a good fit for what modern research does show about life in first-century Palestine. In effect, Horsley is adding historical verisimilitude to other established criteria of historical authenticity.
Whole story instead of individual sayings
Horsley thinks many modern scholars get Jesus wrong by focusing too much on the individual sayings in the Bible record. (P. 6-7) It makes Jesus out to be a wandering sage handing out pearls of wisdom without much context. Scholars have constructed a hypothetical lost document of such sayings, which they call Q, Horsley supports the value of this document. However, he finds in Q not isolated sayings but groups of sayings that fit well with the context that the Bible stories give them. It’s a historically realistic context, and these are historically very possible stories, in essence, though not in detail. Far from a wandering sage, Jesus is very much involved in village communities. The “Q” document aligns well with the Gospels. Horsley looks at the whole story that they tell to discern the historical figure of Jesus. That figure turns out to be a leader of a Galilean peasant movement for the renewal of Israel in opposition to Roman-style politics and Jerusalem’s religious and economic elite.
Separating Galileans from Judeans
“Judaism” as a concept that applies to Jews in general in Jesus’ time is an anachronism, Horsley says. (p. 4) There are too many ways this people, who regarded themselves as God’s people, divided themselves. Galilee in the North of the land of Israel and Judea with its powerful center, Jerusalem, make up one especially important division. Galilee was a land of peasant villages, with their own ways of living and governing themselves far from the center of power.
That culture, those little traditions, experienced violence and disruption by the conquering Romans most acutely. Roman armies, invading from Syria, from North to South, hit Galilee first and hardest. (Pp 59-61) The “massacre of the Innocents” in Matthew, Horsley says, though legend, is true enough in its depiction of Rome’s brutal rule.
Galilee is where Jesus spent most of his public career.
The politics of first-century Palestine under Rome
Rome’s conquest of Palestine was relatively recent with respect to Jesus’ lifetime (p. 31). Palestine was the last area of Eastern Mediterranean lands to be conquered. Even then resistance in Galilee and Judea led to many and savage re-conquests. Villages were destroyed, people slaughtered or enslaved, resisters crucified. Galilee bore the brunt of all this mayhem.
In Galilee hatred of the Roman occupation mixed with ambivalence, if not hatred, toward Temple authorities. These leaders, put in place by Rome, did Rome’s work of collecting taxes and other fees in addition to Temple tithes. Villagers often with less than enough harvest remaining had to borrow money at high rates of interest (p. 28).Iindebtedness could lead to loss of land.
Passover season illustrated and intensified the conflict. Originally a household celebration throughout Judea and Galilee, it lately centered on the Temple. It was a tourist bonanza for Jerusalem. In Jerusalem Passover challenged the ever-present Roman soldiers tasked with keeping order. The Passover celebration itself could not fail to remind the throngs of pilgrims of the mighty acts of God to free them from another oppressor (p. 29). Some took more seriously than others God’s intention that they remain free.
Village politics and resistance movements
Villagers had been used to a kind of freedom and semi-independent government. The village synagogue was not just a place for common prayer. There court proceedings dealt with local spats. Appointments for special tasks were hammered out. In times of distress and discontent villagers could decide to pursue collective action (p. 37). Broader issues concerning peasantry as a whole could bring scattered villages together around a common purpose.
Prime among these broader concerns was the harshness of life under Roman conquest and control. In response messianic movements sprang up proclaiming a “king.” Some achieved independence from Rome for limited areas and lasting up to two or three years. Prophetic movements saw people gathering around charismatic leaders like the prophets of old. They promised, for example, that Jerusalem’s walls would fall down or pieces of the Tabernacle would appear, enticing followers – until the promises failed to materialize (p. 39). Galilean peasants organized a successful agricultural strike about a decade after Jesus’ mission in that region (p. 38). If Jesus was going to be leader of a movement, he had patterns to follow.
Jesus, a movement leader
Was Jesus a leader of a resistance movement in first-century Palestine? Horsley shows that the time and the place were ready for such a leader. The next task is to see in Jesus’ words and actions such a figure come to life? Another post will explore how Horsley identifies the political import of Jesus’ words and actions.
Jesus cared about the local politics and economics of first-century Palestine. But Christians see Jesus in a more universal light as Savior of the world. We like to imagine that Jesus had each of us in mind as he hung on the cross. How do the local and the universal fit together in Jesus? As human, he was incarnate not only in a human body but also in one particular social, political, economic, and religious environment. That was long ago and, for many, far way. What meaning does Jesus’ life have for us today? I have addressed this issue in other posts on the political Jesus (for example, here). I’ll attempt it again in wrapping up these posts on Horsley’s book.
If you found this post useful, you might enjoy the whole series on William Herzog’s work that ends with the post mentioned just above.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In