Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition 3161490444, 9783161490446

Table of contents :
Cover
Dedication
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
JÜRGEN ZANGENBERG: A Region in Transition: Introducing Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee
I.
II.
III.
IV.
I. The State of Affairs in Galilean Studies
SEAN FREYNE: Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions
1. Hellenization: Syncretism, Synthesis, or Selection?
2. Judaization in Galilee: Contact or Conquest?
2.1. The Early Hasmonean Period
2.2. The Developing Judaization of Galilee in the Roman Period
II. “What is a Galilean”? Modes of Defining Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Textual and Archaeological Sources
MARTIN KARRER: Licht über dem Galiläa der Völker: Die Fortschreibung von Jes 9:1–2 in der LXX
1. Einführung
2. Der Text
3. Die Interpretation Hanharts
4. Der Kontext und die Verwerfung Samarias
5. Syntax und Geographie in V. 1
6. Die óδòς θαλάσσης – theologische Vertiefung
7. Galiläa, Küstengebiet, Transjordanland und Judäa
8. Licht über dem Galiläa der Völker
9. Schluss
TIMOTHY LUCKRITZ MARQUIS: Re-Presenting Galilean Identity: Josephus’s Use of 1 Maccabees 10:25–45 and the Term Ioudaios
1. When and How Were Galileans Ioudaioi? Josephus’s Use of the Letter of Demetrius I
2. Re-Presenting Subaltern Classes
3. Josephus and xenia Relations Among Judaean Ruling Classes
4. Conclusion: Social Tension and Terminological Slippage
SILVIA CAPPELLETTI: Non-Jewish Authors on Galilee
MARK A. CHANCEY: The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee
List Of Non-Numismatic Galilean Inscriptions
MICHAEL PEPPARD: Personal Names and Ethnic Hybridity in Late Ancient Galilee: The Data From Beth She'arim
1. Personal Names and Ethnicity
2. Why Beth She'arim?
3. Onomastic Epigraphic Data of Those Interred at the Beth She'arim Necropolis
3.1. Phonetic Resemblance
3.2. Dual Names
3.3. Catacomb 1, Hall K
4. Conclusion
MORDECHAI AVIAM: Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to Establish Zones Indicative of Ethnicity and Religious Affiliation
1. The Archaeological Evidence
2. Comparing the Archaeological Evidence
3. Conclusion
MILTON MORELAND: The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence
1. Introduction
2. “Jewish Galilee”: Proposals for a Thick Description
3. Evidence from Western and Northern Galilee
4. Conclusion
III. Identity at Ground Level: New Evidence from Sites and Regions of Galilee
WOLFGANG ZWICKEL: The Huleh Valley from the Iron Age to the Muslim Period: A Study in Settlement History
1. The Size of Lake Huleh according to Flavius Josephus
2. The Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in Iron Age II
3. Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in the Persian Period
4. Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in the Hellenistic Period
5. Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in the Roman Period
6. Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in the Byzantine Period
7. Settlement History of the Huleh Valley in the Muslim Period
8. Conclusion
Appendix: Catalogue of Archaeologically Attested Sites in the Huleh Valley
CARL SAVAGE: Supporting Evidence for a First-Century Bethsaida
1. Coins
2. Rhodian Stamped Handles
3. Glass
4. Stone Vessels
5. Architecture
6. Oil Lamps
7. Ceramics
8. Faunal Evidence
9. Conclusions
YIZHAR HIRSCHFELD AND KATHARINA GALOR: New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias
1. Introduction
2. Historical Background
3. The Excavations
4. The Basilical Complex (Area F)
ANDERS RUNESSON: Architecture, Conflict, and Identity Formation: Jews and Christians in Capernaum From the First to the Sixth Century
1. Interpreting Local Jewish / Christian Relations in the Larger Context of the Roman Empire
2. Monuments by Related Strangers: The Synagogue(s) and the Church(es) in Capernaum
2.1. The Synagogue(s)
2.2. The Church(es)
3. Changing Religio-Political Conditions and the Formation of Jewish and Christian Identities
4. Conclusion
JODI MAGNESS: Did Galilee Decline in the Fifth Century? The Synagogue at Chorazin Reconsidered
1. Introduction
2. The Synagogue at Chorazin
3. The Numismatic Evidence
3.1. Soundings Inside the Main Hall Along the South Wall
3.2. Soundings Elsewhere Inside the Main Hall
4. The Ceramic Evidence
5. Conclusion
IV. “A Region of Many Identities”. Cultural Interaction and Social Relations in and with Ancient Galilee
MORTEN HØRNING JENSEN: Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee
1. Herod Antipas as a Factor of Explanation
2. The Importance of Coinage on a Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Level
3. The Context: Second Temple Coinage
3.1. Hasmonean Coinage
3.2. The Coins of Herod the Great
3.3. The Coins of Archelaos
3.4. The Coins of Philip
3.5. The Coins of Agrippa I
3.6. The Coins of the Roman Administration
4. The Coins of Herod Antipas
4.1. Images and Legends on the Coins of Antipas
4.2. The Circulation of the Coins of Antipas
5. Conclusions
MARCUS SIGISMUND: Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Century c.e. Tiberias
1. Introduction
1.1. The Problem
1.2. City Coinage
1.2.1. Circulation
1.2.2. Issue by Local Authorities
1.2.3. Inscriptions and Motifs
2. The City-Coins of Tiberias
2.1. Coinage under the Herodian Dynasty
2.1.1. Coins of Herod Antipas
2.1.2. Coins of Agrippa I
2.1.3. Coins of Agrippa II
2.2. Coinage of Roman Tiberias
2.3. Preliminary Conclusions
3. The Weights of Tiberias
4. Conclusions
MONIKA BERNETT: Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions, and Dynamics
1. Structure and Impact of the Imperial Cult since Augustus
2. The Jews and the Imperial Cult in the Julio-Claudian Period: Legal Exemption and a Case of Hellenization/Romanization?
3. Presence and Political Impact of the Imperial Cult in 1st c. C.E. Galilee
4. The Imperial Cult and the Outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt
5. Summary
DOUGLAS R. EDWARDS: Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages
1. Villages and their Fluidity
2. Market and Trade
3. The Means of Exchange
4. Cultural Markers
5. Conclusion
STUART S. MILLER: Priests, Purities, and the Jews of Galilee
1. Priests at Sepphoris
2. Priests at Tiberias
3. Priestly Memory, Identity, and Concerns in Galilee
4. The Priests, the People, and the Synagogue
5. Conclusion
JOSHUA EZRA BURNS: The Archaeology of Rabbinic Literature and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations in Late Antiquity: A Methodological Evaluation
1. The Use of Rabbinic Literature in the Study of Late Antiquity
2. Synoptic Evidence and Textual Archaeology
3. Case Study: Tosefta ‘Abod. Zar. 2:7.
3.1. A Death in the Arena
3.2. Textual Analysis
4. Conclusions: Rabbinic Literature and the Study of Ancient Jewish-Christian Relations
Postscript
MIRA WANER: Music Culture in Roman-Byzantine Sepphoris
1. Introduction
1.1. Archaeo-Ethnomusicology
1.2. The Inhabitants of Sepphoris
2. The Music Related Finds of Sepphoris
3. A Brief Description of the Music Artifacts Discovered in Sepphoris
4. Discussion
4.1. Bells
4.2. Cymbals
4.3. Double Aulos/Tibia
4.4. Syrinx
4.5. Horns/Hatsotsrot
4.6. Shofar/Ram's Horn
4.7. Tympanum/Frame Drum
4.8. Lyre
5. Conclusions
THOMAS M. WEBER: Gadara and the Galilee
1. Introduction: Gadara’s Frontier Position
2. Lines of Communication between the Galilee and the Hauran
3. Gadara and the Galilee: Cultural Differences and Interaction from Hellenistic Times to Late Antiquity
3.1. Interactions between Galilee and Gadara as Reflected in Historical Sources
3.2. Hellenistic Architecture at Gadara
3.3. Gadara's Role in the Early Phase of the First Jewish Revolt: The Early Imperial Rampart
3.4. The Flavian Gate at Gadara and Tiberias
3.5. The Western Hypogaeum at Gadara
3.6. The Hot Springs in the Land of the Gadarenes and Impact of Galilaean Judaism in Late Antiquity
4. Conclusions
List of Contributors
Bibliography of Relevant Literature
Place Names
Persons (ancient)
Texts and Authors (ancient)
Authors (modern)
Subjects

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (München) Mitherausgeber /Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

210

Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee A Region in Transition

edited by

Jürgen Zangenberg, Harold W. Attridge, and Dale B. Martin

Mohr Siebeck

Jürgen Zangenberg, born 1964, is Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Leiden. Harold W. Attridge, born 1946, is Professor of New Testament at Yale Divinity School. Dale B. Martin, born 1954, is Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151499-9 ISBN 978-3-16-149044-6 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2007 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproducWLRQVWUDQVODWLRQVPLFUR¿OPVDQGVWRUDJHDQGSURFHVVLQJLQHOHFWURQLFV\VWHPV The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Times-Antiqua typeface, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Dedicated to

Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers Pioneers and Leaders of Galilean Studies

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII Jürgen Zangenberg A Region in Transition: Introducing Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

I. The State of Affairs in Galilean Studies Sean Freyne Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

II. “What is a Galilean”? 0RGHVRI'H¿QLQJ5HOLJLRQ(WKQLFLW\DQG ,GHQWLW\LQ7H[WXDODQG$UFKDHRORJLFDO6RXUFHs Martin Karrer Licht über dem Galiläa der Völker: Die Fortschreibung von Jes 9:1–2 in der LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Timothy Luckritz Marquis Re-Presenting Galilean Identity: Josephus’s Use of 1 Maccabees 10:25–45 and the Term Ioudaios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Silvia Cappelletti Non-Jewish Authors on Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

Mark A. Chancey The Epigraphic Habit of Hellenistic and Roman Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Michael Peppard Personal Names and Ethnic Hybridity in Late Ancient Galilee: 7KH'DWD)URP%HWK6KHǥDULP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

Mordechai Aviam Distribution Maps of Archaeological Data from the Galilee: An Attempt to (VWDEOLVK=RQHV,QGLFDWLYHRI(WKQLFLW\DQG5HOLJLRXV$I¿OLDWLRQ . . . . . 115

VIII

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV

Milton Moreland The Inhabitants of Galilee in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods: Probes into the Archaeological and Literary Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

,,, ,GHQWLW\DW*URXQG/HYHO 1HZ(YLGHQFHIURP6LWHVDQG5HJLRQVRI*DOLOHe Wolfgang Zwickel The Huleh Valley from the Iron Age to the Muslim Period: A Study in Settlement History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Carl Savage Supporting Evidence for a First-Century Bethsaida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Yizhar Hirschfeld and Katharina Galor New Excavations in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Tiberias . . . . . 207 Anders Runesson $UFKLWHFWXUH&RQÀLFWDQG,GHQWLW\)RUPDWLRn: Jews and Christians in Capernaum From the First to the Sixth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Jodi Magness Did Galilee Decline in the Fifth Century? The Synagogue at Chorazin Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

,9³$5HJLRQRI0DQ\,GHQWLWLHV´&XOWXUDO,QWHUDFWLRQDQG 6RFLal 5HODWLRQVLQDQGZLWK$QFLHQW*DOLOHe Morten Hørning Jensen Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and SocioEconomic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Marcus Sigismund Small Change? Coins and Weights as a Mirror of Ethnic, Religious and Political Identity in First and Second Century c.e. Tiberias . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Monika Bernett Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions, and Dynamics 337 Douglas R. Edwards Identity and Social Location in Roman Galilean Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Stuart S. Miller Priests, Purities, and the Jews of Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV

IX

Joshua Ezra Burns The Archaeology of Rabbinic Literature and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations in Late Antiquity: A Methodological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Mira Waner Music Culture in Roman-Byzantine Sepphoris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 Thomas M. Weber Gadara and the Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography of Relevant Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persons (ancient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts and Authors (ancient) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authors (modern) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

479 481 499 499 502 504 505 507

Acknowledgements This book contains papers that originated in the context of the research Project “Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee”, jointly sponsored by the TransCoop Program of the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation, Germany with funds provided by the %XQGHVPLQLVWHULXPIU%LOGXQJXQG)RUVFKXQJ, and Yale University between 2002 and 2006. The editors gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Alexandervon-Humboldt Foundation, Germany, and Yale University, including that from the Edward J. and Dorothy Clarke Kempf Fund, that enabled scholars from the US and Germany, together with colleagues from Israel, Ireland, Denmark, Canada, Italy, Switzerland and many other countries to share the latest results of their research on one of the most controversial issues of the study of ancient Palestine. It was a truly rewarding experience to see scholars from various disFLSOLQHVDSSURDFKWKHWRSLFIURPGLIIHUHQWDQJOHVDQGVRGHPRQVWUDWHWKHEHQH¿WV of interdisciplinary research. Our sincere thanks go to all colleagues, young and seasoned alike, who through their contributions and generosity made the Project such a success, and to all who provided their insights to this volume. Most of the articles published here were originally read at the conference “Ancient Galilee in Interaction. Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity” held October 23–25, 2004 at Yale University under the auspices of Yale Divinity School and the Department of Religious Studies. Also included are a few papers originally presented at the panel “Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. Archaeology, Texts and Methodology” organized at the 2003 International Society of Biblical Literature Conference at Cambridge/UK followed by a subsequent workshop at the %LEOLVFK$UFKlRORJLVFKHV ,QVWLWXW of the University of Wuppertal, both in July 2003. We wish to thank the SBL program committee for accepting the panel, Dieter Vieweger for hosting the workshop at his Institut, Robert Bellin for helping to organize the Wuppertal workshop, Kurt Erlemann for granting his former Assistent all freedom to “go Galilee” and the University of Wuppertal for supporting the 2004 guest exchange. After a long period of collecting articles and editing, we are happy to present the results of the Project to the public. That would not have been possible without the hard work and keen eyes of our copy editors John Leinenweber, Chan Sok Park and Jorge Gómez Tejada (all Yale University) who have read the papers and prepared them with respect to language and style. Henning Ziebritzki and the excellent staff of Mohr Siebeck publishers have taken all HIIRUWVWRWUDQVIRUPDEXQGOHRIFRPSXWHU¿OHVDQGSULQWRXWVLQWRDGLOLJHQWO\

XII

$FNQRZOHGJHPHQWV

crafted volume that is a pleasure to read. Roelien Smit (Leiden) very skilfully set up the indexes. To dedicate this book to Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers, pioneers and leaders of Galilean studies, is a small token of gratitude for many decades of inspiration and friendship. During the 1993 season at Sepphoris Carol and Eric laid the foundations of many endeavors into the “world of pots and texts”, one of which is this volume. It is our sincere hope that the many contacts that were established between individual scholars and institutions during the Project will continue to bear fruit in the future, crossing boundaries, disciplines and languages. During proof reading of this volume the sad news reached us that Yizhar Hirschfeld had passed away while digging in Tiberias. We mourn a dedicated archaeologist, enthusiastic scholar and dear friend. May his memory be blessed. June 2006

Jürgen Zangenberg (Leiden and Tilburg, The Netherlands) Harold W. Attridge (New Haven, CT) Dale B. Martin (New Haven, CT)

Abbreviations AASOR AB ABD $'$- ADPV $( AGJU AIHV $-$ AJP $-65 ANRW ANYAS AOAT ASMA ASOR µ$WLTRW(6 %$ BAIAS %$5 BAR.I %$625 BDR

BHH %,(6 BJS %1 BRLJ BTAVO %7% BThSt CIJ ConBNT CPJ CRBS CRINT DamF

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary $QQXDORIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWLTXLWLHVRI-RUGDQ Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins $QQpHeSLJUDSKLTXH Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Association Internationale pour l’Historie du Verre $PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI$UFKDHRORJ\ $PHULFDQ-RXUQDORI3KLORORJ\ $VVRFLDWLRQIRU-HZLVK6WXGLHV5HYLHZ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Alter Orient und Altes Testament Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity American Schools of Oriental Research ǥ$WLTRW(QJOLVK6HULHV %LEOLFDO$UFKDHRORJLVW %XOOHWLQRIWKH$QJOR,VUDHO$UFKDHRORJ\6RFLHW\ %LEOLFDO$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HYLHZ British Archaeological Reports. International Series %XOOHWLQRIWKH$PHULFDQ6FKRROVRI2ULHQWDO5HVHDUFK Frederich Blass, Albert Debrunner, *UDPPDWLNGHVQHXWHVWDPHQWOLFKHQ *ULHFKLVFK (Bearbeitet von )5HKNRSI, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 182001) %LEOLVFKKLVWRULVFKHV+DQGZ|UWHUEXFK/DQGHVNXQGH*HVFKLFKWH 5HOLJLRQ.XOWXU %XOOHWLQRIWKH,VUDHO([SORUDWLRQ6RFLHW\ Brown Judaic Studies %LEOLVFKH1RWL]HQ Brill Reference Library of Judaism Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients %LEOLFDO7KHRORJ\%XOOHWLQ Biblisch-theologische Studien Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum Currents in Research. Biblical Studies Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Damaszener Forschungen

XIV DMOA EJ EPRO (U,VU (6, +$ +$(6, HAT HO +75 IA IAA ,$06 ,(- ,-1$8( ,1- -$& -+6 JJS -1(6 -45 JSJSup -5$ JRASup -56 JSJ JSJSup JSOTS -63 JSPSup -64 KAANT L /$ MGB MJSt NBL 1($ 1($(+/ NGD NTOA 176 OEANE 3%65

$EEUHYLDWLRQV

Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Encyclopaedia Judaica Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain (UHW],VUDHO ([FDYDWLRQVDQG6XUYH\VLQ,VUDHO +DGDVKRW$UNKHRORJL\RW +DGDVKRW$UNKHRORJL\RW±([FDYDWLRQVDQG6XUYH\VLQ,VUDHO Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik +DUYDUG7KHRORJLFDO5HYLHZ Internationale Archäologie Israel Antiquities Authority ,QVWLWXWHIRU$UFKDHR0HWDOOXUJLFDO6WXGLHV ,VUDHO([SORUDWLRQ-RXUQDO ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI1DXWLFDO$UFKDHRORJ\DQG8QGHUZDWHU ([SORUDWLRQ ,VUDHO1XPLVPDWLF-RXUQDO -DKUEXFKIU$QWLNHXQG&KULVWHQWXP -RXUQDORI+HOOHQLF6WXGLHV Journal of Jewish Studies -RXUQDORI1HDU(DVWHUQ6WXGLHV -HZLVK4XDUWHUO\5HYLHZ Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism -RXUQDORI5RPDQ$UFKDHRORJ\ Journal of Roman Archaeology. Supplement Series -RXUQDORI5RPDQ6WXGLHV -RXUQDOIRUWKH6WXG\RI-XGDLVPLQWKH3HUVLDQ+HOOHQLVWLFDQG5RPDQ Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods. Supplement Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement -RXUQDOIRUWKH6WXG\RIWKH3VHXGHSLJUDSKD Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series -HZLVK6WXGLHV4XDUWHUO\ Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament Locus /LEHU$QQXXV Musikgeschichte in Bildern Münsteraner Judaistische Studien Neues Bibellexikon 1HDU(DVWHUQ$UFKDHRORJ\ 7KH1HZ(QF\FORSHGLDRI$UFKDHRORJLFDO([FDYDWLRQVLQWKH+RO\/DQG New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 1HZ7HVWDPHQW6WXGLHV The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 3DSHUVRIWKH%ULWLVK6FKRRODW5RPH

$EEUHYLDWLRQV

PECS 3(4 3- PWSup 4DG 4'$3 RAC 5% 5HY4 5) RGRW RPC RPCSup SBAB SBLDS SBLSP 6&, SEG SHAJ SJCA SJLA SNTSMS SPB 7$ TANZ 7$3$ TIR TSAJ :8% WUNT ='0* ='39 =1: =3(

XV

The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (ed. Richard Stillwell; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976) 3DOHVWLQH([SORUDWLRQ4XDUWHUO\ 3DOlVWLQD-DKUEXFK Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplement 4DGPRQLRW 4XDUWHUO\RIWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI$QWLTXLWLHVLQ3DOHVWLQH Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 5HYXH%LEOLTXH 5HYXHGH4XPUDQ 5LYLVWDGL¿ORORJLDHGLLVWUX]LRQHFODVVLFD Religions in the Greco-Roman World Roman Provincial Coinage Roman Provincial Coinage. Supplement Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers 6FULSWD&ODVVLFD,VUDHOLFD Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Studies in Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series Studia Post-Biblica 7HO$YLY Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 7UDQVDFWLRQVRIWKH$PHULFDQ3KLORORJLFDO$VVRFLDWLRQ Tabula Imperii Romani (Ed. Yoram Tsafrir, Leah DiSegni, and Judith Green; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994). Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum / Texts and Studies on Ancient Judaism :HOWXQG8PZHOWGHU%LEHO Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament =HLWVFKULIWGHU'HXWVFKHQ0RUJHQOlQGLVFKHQ*HVHOOVFKDIW =HLWVFKULIWGHVGHXWVFKHQ3DOlVWLQD9HUHLQV =HLWVFKULIWIUGLHQHXWHVWDPHQWOLFKH:LVVHQVFKDIWXQGGLH.XQGHGHU lOWHUHQ.LUFKH =HLWVFKULIWIU3DS\URORJLHXQG(SLJUDSKLN

A Region in Transition: Introducing Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee Jürgen Zangenberg

In an article on “Language, Culture and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” Joseph Geiger comes to the following conclusion: “Multiple and complex identities may have been almost the rule, rather than the exception, in a part of the world where Hellenization, the Roman conquest, the return from the Babylonian exile, and the crystallization of Jewish and of Samaritan identity, the turning of Aramaic LQWRDOLQJXDIUDQFDQRWFRQ¿QHGWRSROLWLFDORUHWKQLFERXQGDULHVDQGWKHJHRgraphic instability of the Nabateans and Idumaeans, among other factors, call up the image of the kaleidoscope rather than that of the mosaic.”1 With these few sentences Geiger powerfully sketches all those historical, religious and social factors – external as well as internal – that profoundly transformed the Southern Levant in antiquity. Galilee was part of that region, conveniently located at its northern tip, with a Lake connecting to the east, stretches of extremely fertile land in plains and valleys traversing the country from west to east, and high mountains rising towards Lebanon. Although quite small even by ancient standards, Galilee was home to an astonishing array of different groups and cultures during the roughly nine centuries from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods that concern us here. &RQWLQXLQJ UHVHDUFK LQ WKH ¿HOG DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI ZULWWHQ VRXUFHV KDYH FRQVWDQWO\UH¿QHGRXUUHFRQVWUXFWLRQVRIDQFLHQW*DOLOHH&LWLHVDQGWRZQVKDYH been excavated, many areas surveyed, texts edited and scrutinized. Other aspects of Galilean culture, such as the dynamics of village life, and connections to and interaction with the neighbors, deserve more attention in the future. At the moment, there seems to be one dominant trend in research: As we gain an ever ¿QHU DSSUHFLDWLRQ RI WKH LQWHUQDO GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWKLQ *DOLOHH DQG WKH FRPSOH[ interactions between Galileans and their neighbors, “Galilee” changes from a PRQROLWKWRDG\QDPLF¿HOGRIYDULHW\,WEHFRPHVWRDGRSW*HLJHU¶VGLFWLRQD kaleidoscope rather than a mosaic. Indeed, piecing together all data and observations we have, will not produce a static picture, whose remaining blank spots 1 Joseph Geiger, “Language, Culture and Identity in Ancient Palestine,” in: *UHHN5RPDQV DQG5RPDQ*UHHNV (ASMA 3; ed. Erik Nis Ostenfeld; Aarhus: University Press, 2002), 233–46 (quotation 242).

2

-UJHQ=DQJHQEHUJ

RQO\QHHGWREH¿OOHGDVPRUHGDWDJUDGXDOO\EHFRPHDYDLODEOH1RWRQO\LVWKH SURFHVVRIUHFRQVWUXFWLQJ*DOLOHHWRGD\DVG\QDPLFDQGÀXLGDVLWVLPDJLQHG  history, it is also the sources themselves – archaeological as well as textual – that XQGHUPLQHPXFKRIRXUFRQ¿GHQFHVLQFHWKH\DUHVHOHFWLYHIUDJPHQWDU\GULYHQ by interests and subject to the vagaries of a centuries-old history of transmission. How many “Galilees” do our sources portray? Is, for instance, Josephus’s Galilee the same as the one represented through archaeology? And how do both relate to the “real” Galilee at a given point in time? None of our sources presents the Galilee as it was – and it is perhaps not the agreements, but the contradictions between them that will heuristically prove most productive for research. It does, then, come as no surprise that in a region as dynamic as Galilee, notions of “ethnicity” or “identity” cannot be understood as static or self-evident. +RZFDQZHVSHDNRI*DOLOHHDVDGLVWLQFWHQWLW\LIVRPXFKZDVLQÀX["+RZFDQ we describe the “identity” of the region or its inhabitants if we take seriously the notion of connectivity that Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell (and others) have applied so aptly to the Mediterranean?2 It is interesting to see that one and the same author can deal with notions of distance and closeness quite differently. Josephus, for instance, can in one context describe the Galilee by listing its borders and so implicitly distance it from its surroundings (J. W. 3.35–44), while in another passage (/LIH 403) he can emphasize the closeness of Tiberias even to cities outside the Galilee. “Closeness” and “distance,” “similarity” and “difference” more often than not turn out to be relative, rhetorical constructs that express the interests and concerns of particular ancient authors (and those modern followers who quote them) rather than the complexity of life. The same may be true if one looks at the archaeological record. There is hardly a single piece of PDWHULDOWKDWLVFKDUDFWHULVWLFRQO\RIWKH*DOLOHHDQGLIRQHLGHQWL¿HVDW\SHWKDW seems peculiar (as, e. g., the famous Kfar Hananiah pottery) it quickly becomes clear that it also had users outside of the region.3 Is it, then, not rather proof that “identity” always is relative and inextricably mixed with connectedness? Much has been written recently about “ethnicity” or “identity” in archaeology (often on the basis of material from other regions of the Roman Empire),4 and 2 Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell, 7KH&RUUXSWLQJ6HD$6WXG\RI0HGLWHUUDQHDQ +LVWRU\ (London: Blackwell, 2000), 123–72. 3 On Kfar Hananiah ware in Gadara see the article by Weber; no such data are published with respect to Phoenician cities like Tyre or Ptolemais, but see Andrea M. Berlin, “Romanization and Anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Galilee,” in: The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (ed. Andrea M. Berlin, J. Andrew Overman (eds.), London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 57–73 for ongoing regional trading patterns between Galilee and the Tyrians despite continuous strife at least until the end of Herod’s rule (esp. p. 67). 4 See, e. g., Martin Millett, 7KH5RPDQL]DWLRQRI%ULWDLQ$Q(VVD\LQ$UFKDHRORJLFDO,Qterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Siân Jones, 7KH$UFKDHRORJ\RI (WKQLFLW\&RQVWUXFWLQJ,GHQWLWLHVLQWKH3DVWDQG3UHVHQW (London and New York: Routledge, 1997); Greg Woolf, %HFRPLQJ5RPDQ7KH2ULJLQVRI3URYLQFLDO&LYLOL]DWLRQLQ*DXO (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); &XOWXUDO,GHQWLW\LQWKH5RPDQ(PSLUH (ed. Ray

$5HJLRQLQ7UDQVLWLRQ

3

much of that discussion will resurface in the following articles. Given the broad variety of concepts on the market, it did not seem viable to adopt one particular position. We deliberately refrained from any attempt – tempting as that may be ±WRSUHVHQWDFRPSUHKHQVLYH³FORVHWR¿QDO´ZRUGRQWKHVHPDWWHUV:HSUHIHUUHGWRGRFXPHQWGLIIHUHQWVRPHWLPHVFRQÀLFWLQJDSSURDFKHVWRWKHPDWHULDO and a variety of conclusions, because careful case studies better represent the current state of research than a premature synthesis. The third element of the subtitle, religion, has always played a crucial role in Galilean studies as the allegedly distinctive factor in the construction of identity, as the decisive promotor or inhibitor of cultural change, and the formative elePHQWLQGH¿QLQJ³HWKQLFLW\´7KHGDQJHUWRIDOOLQWRWKHWUDSRIHVVHQWLDOLVPLV gereat here, and any unhistorical approach to Galilean social history needs to be avoided, even more so since Galilean studies were often pursued by theologians and scholars of religion due to the region’s importance for the formation of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Religion certainly is an important factor, but it is as much subject to cultural change as it is causative factor in it and therefore needs to be integrated as one element among many rather than privileged in the discussion of “ethnicity” and “identity” in ancient Galilee. As some of the following papers will show, there is evidence of economic or social continuity even if religion profoundly changed and vice versa.

I. ,QWKH¿UVWVHFWLRQRIWKHERRNSean Freyne, one of the grand doyens of the GLFLSOLQHSUHSDUHVWKHJURXQG+LVVXUYH\RIWKHEURDG¿HOGRI*DOLOHDQVWXGLHV in many ways raises fundamental issues that will be discussed in more detail in subsequent articles. Freyne still sees the classic controversies in the center of the debate: the issue of how “Hellenized” the Galilee was and how that modern FRQFHSWKDVWREHXQGHUVWRRGDQG±SHUKDSV±EHPRGL¿HGLQWKHIDFHRIUHFHQW discoveries. Freyne rightly commends turning away from broad generalizations and concentrates on the individual picture gained from careful analysis of material from individual excavated sites. Breaking up the concept of “Hellenism” – often used in an all too static manner – according to groups involved in its spread and with regard to its development over time permits the appreciation of the processual character of transformation. That process not only introduced new, “foreign” cultural elements into an existing culture but also triggered internal processes of transformation and adaptation. “Hellenization,” like other Laurence and Joanne Berry; London and New York: Routledge, 1998); *UHHN 5RPDQV DQG 5RPDQ*UHHNV (ASMA 3; ed. Erik Nis Ostenfeld; Aarhus: University Press, 2002). This list, of course, is far from comprehensive, more literature see below, e. g., in the article by Milton Moreland.

4

-UJHQ=DQJHQEHUJ

examples of interacting cultures, is a multiform process that unfolds on different levels, proceeds with various speeds and affects multiple aspects of a given society (social, economic, religious). It was the Phoenicians who through their FLWLHV7\UH6LGRQDQG3WROHPDLV¿UVWWUDQVPLWWHGQRWRQO\³:HVWHUQ´*UHHN  cultural impulses but also Egyptian elements as well as their own Phoenician culture into inland Galilee, already transforming local indigenous culture. Though the following phase, initiated through the Hasmonean conquest around 100 b.c.e., marks a clear change of material culture, it certainly does not halt “Hellenization” but only changes the direction from whence it spread (now -HUXVDOHP  DQG WKXV DOVR LWV VSHFL¿F SUR¿OH QRZ -HZLVK  7KHUH FDQ EH QR doubt that the Hasmoneans themselves were in the process of developing their own, Torah-bound blend of their indigenous culture with western, Greek cultural impulses. The Herodians continued this process, fundamentally transforming Galilee by “importing” from the south material elements such as coins, elements of architecture, stone vessels, miqva’ot and ossuaries during the 1st c. b.c.e. and c.e. and also integrated the region into their social system. Freyne rightly asks, however, how far this transformation led to a uniformly “Jewish” Galilee. He still sees a greater variety “on the ground” than many often ideologically inspired texts might want to allow. Contacts with “outsiders” seem to have been maintained nevertheless (some readily embraced, others unavoidable), and there are enough indicators of contact and continuity in the material record to recommend DÀXLGDQGÀH[LEOHSLFWXUHRIWKH*DOLOHH$WWKDWWLPHWRRWKH/HYDQWLQFOXGLQJ the Galilee increasingly became an integral part of the Eastern Mediterranean network of trade and politics. Against this background, to postulate a “Jewish” LGHQWLW\RIWKH*DOLOHH¿UVWDQGIRUHPRVWVSRVHVWKHTXHVWLRQRIZKDWWKHODEHO “Jewish” actually means. The following essays address different aspects of that question.

II. The second section of the book is devoted to various pictures of “Galilee” or “Galileans” presented in our literary and non-literary sources. The series of case studies begins with Martin Karrer’s examination of a text that has – especially in its New Testament version and context (Mt 4:15) – triggered a lively debate about the conception of Galilee in pre-Hasmonean and Hasmonean times: Is 9:1–2 LXX. The LXX-passage presents a sophisticated actualization of Isaianic prophecy under 2nd c. b.c.e. circumstances. Under the impression of the liberation of Jerusalem and Juda through the Maccabees, Is 9:1–2 LXX looks for the further expansion of God’s “light” to the still unaffected numbers of God’s people living in the west, east, and north – including in a Galilee that is still mostly populated by non-Jews. The fact that Is 9:1–2 LXX does not propose

$5HJLRQLQ7UDQVLWLRQ

5

a violent Judaean invasion of the Galilee distinguishes the text from Maccabean ideology. It rather sees the Galilee as territory through which the returning Israelites will FRPH to Juda-Jerusalem and as a model for the “nations” coming in pilgrimage to the city of God (some textual variants even seem to allow the nations to continue inhabiting the Galilee). All this sympathetic imagery, however, should not disguise the fact that Is 9:1–2 LXX understands the Galilee from a distinctly southern, Jerusalem-centered perspective. On the one hand, Is 9:1–2 LXX provides a good example for (perhaps only gradually) prevailing differences in attitude towards the Galilee among southern elites. It also illustrates the fact that it was often outsiders (including, for instance, the southerner Josephus, VHHWKHQH[WDUWLFOH ZKROHIWWKHLUGH¿QLWLRQVRUGHVFULSWLRQVRI³*DOLOHH´WRXV A different, but equally instructive example of how much any notion of Galilean “identity” and “ethnicity” is dependent upon “interested outsiders,” is presented in Timothy Luckritz Marquis’s study of Josephus’s reworking of 1Macc 10:25–45 in Ant. 13.48–57. While in 1Macc 10:25–45 three regions are simply added under the jurisdiction of the Judaean high priest, Josephus alters the text to make Galilee and Samaria look more “Judaean” than they apparently ZHUH0DUTXLVVHHVWKH-RVHSKDQDOWHUDWLRQVDVDVWUDWHJ\ERWKWRUHGH¿QHWKH region and through that strategy to cast the author’s own role in a particular light. By emphasizing the “Jewishness” of Galilee, Josephus underlines the legitimacy of his claim to obedience on the part of his Galilean audience. The passage very nicely shows that “identity” always is a reciprocal process of construction. The complex, mutual relation between the “identity” of the describer (Josephus) and that of the “described” (Galilee) should caution one from taking literary labels of ethnicity and identity at face value without careful examination of the rhetoric of their context and the interests of their respective authors. As Freyne did earlier, Marquis concludes his study with the recommendation to not ask “how Jewish or Judaean Galilee was but in what ways it was Jewish or Judaean.” Silvia Cappelletti’s survey of Galilee in Greek and Latin literature from non-Jewish authors impressively demonstrates how little was known about the UHJLRQRXWVLGHRILW1RQHRIWKHDXWKRUVSUHVHQWVDFRPSUHKHQVLYHDQGVXI¿FLHQW picture about the geography of the Galilee, not to mention its ethnic, social, and economic character. Strabo’s statement about Galilee’s generally mixed population stands out quite unique. It is probably passed over too quickly in favor of the wealth of information contained, for instance, in Josephus. But what sources do we have that would allow us at least a glimpse of attempts DWVHOIGH¿QLWLRQE\*DOLOHDQVLQVWHDGRIRXWVLGHUV",QVSLUHGE\DSKUDVHFRLQHG by Ramsay MacMullen, Mark Chancey examines what “habit” inscriptions from Galilee reveal on the basis of the materials employed, and the events, facts, topics, and issues mentioned on them. The results are indeed telling. While no distinct “habit” can be discerned in the meager material from the Hellenistic period and the 1st c. c.e., the evidence grows in the Roman period especially

6

-UJHQ=DQJHQEHUJ

after the 2nd c. c.e. when the Romans established a legionary base in Legio just south of the Galilee. But inscriptions are not the voice of ordinary Galileans. The use of Greek on most inscriptions underlines their upper-class and urban origin, even if the majority is from Jewish contexts. While the evidence does not, of course, proves the QRQH[LVWHQFH of groups absent from the epigraphical record, it certainly documents a process of differentiation in expressing identity and self-consciousness. Chancey sees the numerical increase after ca. 120 c.e. as evidence that in this phase “Hellenism was inextricably interwoven with Romanization,” adding a new factor of change to the record. That the general sparseness of inscriptions in Galilee should be seen as a “form of indigenous reistance to the dominant imperial culture,” as Chancey puts it, is a far-reaching conclusion that should be checked against other evidence from Galilee and compared with data from neighboring regions. Some of the most copious and important epigraphic material relevant for the reconstruction of the ethnic and religious character of Galilee in the Roman period undoubtedly comes from the necropolis of Beth She’arim. Noting the FKDUDFWHURIQDPHVDVRQHVLJQL¿FDQWDQGSHUVRQDOPHDQVRIFUHDWLQJDQGUHSUHsenting ethnicity and identity, Michael Peppard asks us to rethink the concept of “identity” in the sense of sameness and stability –, and supplement it by the notion of “hybridity” that –, amid all alleged stability, – evokes mixture and change. “Identity,” it turns out, combines a quest to preserve “sameness” (by DSSHDOLQJWRH[LVWLQJWUDGLWLRQVDQGDOLJQLQJRQHVHOIWRLQÀXHQWLDOJURXSV ZLWK an attempt to adjust or relate to the unfamiliar and “other”. Mordechai Aviam’s and Milton Moreland’s contributions, both combining archaeological and literary data, document how different approaches to the evidence inevitably lead to different results. While Aviam describes the Galilee DVDUHJLRQZLWKGLVWLQFWERUGHUVDQGDFOHDUUHOLJLRXVO\DQGHWKQLFDOO\GH¿QHG group of inhabitants, Moreland is much more cautious. The distribution of speFL¿FW\SHVRISRWWHU\FRLQVLQVFULSWLRQVREMHFWVRUVWUXFWXUHVZLWKDSDUWLFXODU religious function – such as stone vessels and miqva’ot –, even in conjunction with certain texts, apparently is not enough to settle the question. All data need to be regionally and chronologically differentiated. Neither does the Jewish character of Galilee preclude the presence of other groups inside nor exclude contacts with groups outside the Galilee. Indeed, the archaeological evidence is rarely univocal. Political or ethnic statements are often very hard to extract.5 In this respect, the differences between Aviam and Moreland illustrate how the same set of evidence can be used in various ways and how little agreement exists on the method for determining ethnic identity through material culture.

5

lee.”

See e. g. Andrea M. Berlin, “Romanization and Anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Gali-

$5HJLRQLQ7UDQVLWLRQ

7

III. The third section of this book presents new evidence from excavations in Galilee. After all, generating new data is at least as important for a clearer understanding of ancient Galilee as is asking new questions. Wolfgang Zwickel presents a diachronic sketch of the settlement history of the Huleh Valley, one of the lesser explored regions of the Galilee. It turns RXWWKDWWKH+XOHK9DOOH\IXO¿OOHGDQLPSRUWDQWIXQFWLRQDVEULGJHEHWZHHQWKH Lake of Galilee (and the Jordan valley further south) and the regions north of it in today’s Lebanon. The fertile plain attracted settlers from the coastal cities LQZHVWDVZHOODVIURPWKHVRXWK7UDI¿FDQGWUDGHZHUHWKHPRVWVLJQL¿FDQW features of the valley, providing important evidence of the accessibility of the Galilee in general. In this respect, geographical realities prove to be essential factors that shaped communication and interaction. Similar systematic studies are desirable on the Lake of Galilee. Such studies should focus on the way in which the lake connected northern Lower Galilee with the Decapolis region, WKH*RODQDQGWKH%HW1HWRIDYDOOH\FKDQQHOLQJWUDI¿FIURPWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQ through the Galilee to Syria or the Jordan valley and linking the Galilee up with the regions to the south. Important material about everyday life in Galilee continues to come from etTell/%HWVDLGDDVLWHWKDWKDVEHHQWKHIRFXVRIPXFKGHEDWHDERXWLWVLGHQWL¿FDWLRQ with Julias and its alleged urban character. Regardless of these issues, the material from the site in many ways is unique and should be studied in its own right. In his presentation of 1st c. material Carl Savage adds valuable information about one of the most controversial and complex phases of habitation. The data indicate a beginning of settlement in the mid-3rd c. b.c.e. as a military outpost with close cultural contacts to the Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean, perhaps corresponding to Philoteria on the southern tip of the Lake. A new settlement was erected in the early 1st c. c.e., and although it seems to have incorporated many architectural elements of earlier periods, its material culture (ceramics, stone vessels, coins, architecture, faunal evidence) marks a notable change in population. In that respect, et-Tell/Betsaida resembles Tel Anafa. According to Savage, the apparent Jewish character of the settlement strengthens the hypothesis that et-Tell is indeed Bethsaida. With respect to the debate between Aviam and Moreland, however, Savage’s presentation of material criteria raises the question of how reliable and indicative these “ethnic markers” actually are. There can be no discussion about ancient Galilee without frequent reference to Tiberias. Despite its prominence in the literature and in recent research, ancient Tiberias remained largely unexplored until Yizhar Hirschfeld resumed excavations in this most important place. Hirschfeld and Katharina Galor recapitulate the results of previous archaeological activities and summarize the ¿UVWWKUHHVHDVRQVRIDQRQJRLQJWHQ\HDUH[FDYDWLRQSURMHFW,PSUHVVLYHUHPDLQV

8

-UJHQ=DQJHQEHUJ

from the 1st c. c.e. to the Middle Ages allow glimpses into the complex history RIWKHFLW\DQGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKIXWXUHH[SORUDWLRQVZLOOHYHQWXDOO\UH¿QHRXU SHUFHSWLRQRIWKHFLW\¶VFXOWXUDOSUR¿OHDQGLWVVRFLDOHFRQRPLFDQGUHOLJLRXV role within the Galilee as a whole. In his case study on Jews and Christians in 1st to 6th c. Capernaum Anders Runesson explores how social and political realities were expressed in public architecture. Instead of taking increased building activity, particular in the case of the synagoge, as a sign of growing prosperity, Runesson proposes a “defensive approach”. Growing pressure from a hostile Roman Empire and increasing FRPSHWLWLRQRQDORFDOOHYHOUHTXLUHGDUHDI¿UPDWLRQRISUHVHQFHDQGLGHQWLW\ Jodi Magness takes the synagogue of Chorazin as the starting point to assess Ze’ev Safrai’s recent hypothesis that Palestine witnessed a drastic decline in population during the mid 4th and 5th c. c.e., a decline that also affected the Galilee. Continuing her reassessment of the synagogues in Khirbret Shema‘, *XVK+DODY+DPPDWK7LEHULDVDQG&DSHUQDXP0DJQHVV¿UPO\HVWDEOLVKHVD late 5th c. date for the completion of the synagogue at Chorazin, thereby refuting Safrai’s argument. Both literary and archaeological observations suggest, however, that the original ambitious building plan had to be abandoned in favor of a more affordable structure.

IV. On the basis of the evidence discussed so far, it is indeed questionable if one should speak of Galilean “identity” in the singular. Different groups with varyLQJ VRFLDO DQG UHOLJLRXV DI¿OLDWLRQV DQG IURP YDULRXV ORFDWLRQV LQ WKH *DOLOHH developed their own means expressing how they saw themselves and wanted to be seen by others. Speaking of “identities” in the plural should not, however, FUHDWHWKHLPSUHVVLRQWKDWWKHVHJURXSVOLYHGDV¿[HGHQWLWLHV2QWKHFRQWUDU\ identity is always negotiated in contact with others, and it changes along with more profound transformations within society as a whole. The fourth section of the book deals with aspects of this issue. As Mark Chancey has already shown in his paper, coins provide an excellent opportunity to study processes of cultural transformation, ideology and varying concepts of identity from the perspective of political authorities. In their two case studies, Morten Hørning Jensen and Marcus Sigismund concentrate on the coins from Tiberias, which, due to their large variety of motives and LQVFULSWLRQVSURYLGHDQHVSHFLDOO\SUROL¿F¿HOG-HQVHQGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHLQWULFDWHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQ+HURG$QWLSDV¶VFRLQVDQGLQÀXHQWLDOSROLWLFDOHYHQWV PDNLQJKLVFRLQVPRUHDYHKLFOHRISROLWLFDOSURSDJDQGDWKDQDPHDQVWRIXO¿OO pressing economic needs. Refraining from provocative imagery and usually only minted in small numbers, Antipas’s coins do not support the notion that his rule

$5HJLRQLQ7UDQVLWLRQ

9

triggered much opposition. Sigismund, adding two Tiberian lead weights to his data base, is more interested in what coins may tell us about the cultural character of the Tiberian population. He concludes that while Jews initially determined WKHFXOWXUDOSUR¿OHRIWKHFLW\LQWKHVWFLQFRQWUDVWWR-RVHSKXV¶VVWDWHPHQWLQ Ant. 18.36–7 that Tiberias was populated by a “promiscuous rabble”), from the 2nd c. onwards non-Jewish authorities inside or outside the city determined its ³SXEOLFLPDJH´DQG³RI¿FLDOLGHQWLW\´ While the majority of preceding studies have so far taken their perspective from inside the Galilee, Monika Bernett addresses an important and highly HPRWLRQDO H[DPSOH RI KRZ RXWVLGH LQWHUHVWV LQÀXHQFHG OLIH LQ WKH *DOLOHH E\ examining the role and development of the Imperial cult. Bernett shows how collision with traditional Jewish concepts of purity and idolatry became inevitable RQO\DIWHUWKHÀH[LEOHQRQVDFUL¿FLDOYHUVLRQRIUXOHUYHQHUDWLRQXQGHU$QWLSDV made way to more restrictive forms. The result was a politization of the Jewish population and a recollection of traditional values in direct competition with and opposition to Rome. There is almost univocal consensus that villages formed a core of Galilean society, although concrete data are still not numerous. On the basis of excavations at Khirbet Kana and intensive surveys in the surrounding region, Douglas Edwards draws a refreshingly complex picture of Galilean village life. Villages were neither static nor particularly long-lived. It is thus hard to imagine that villages were isolated safe havens for a particular traditional way of life or conservative ideologies. As the divergent use of archaeological criteria of ethnicity and identity in Moreland and Aviam shows, much remains to be done to understand fully the range and diversity of rural processes of cultural transformation. The role of priests in post-70 Galilee has found renewed interest in recent years. Contrary to others, Stuart Miller emphasizes that the growing recognition of priests in late antiquity was not at the expense of the rabbis and that priestly interests and traditions were kept by a larger community of Jews, thus creating a more complex picture of what “ruling class” in late ancient Jewish Galilee might have meant. A particularly pressing problem for all who want to reconstruct the life and culture of ancient Galilee is the reliability of rabbinic literature as a historical source. Employing a “synoptic approach” to extract social realia from rabbinic sources, Joshua Burns examines traditions dealing with circus and theater, adding an important and independent, but often overlooked voice to balance traditional models based on Christian literature. In her study on music culture in Roman-Byzantine Sepphoris Mira Waner approaches another often overlooked aspect of late ancient Galilee. Her collection and discussion of all relevant material demonstrates how the blend of Jewish and Hellenistic impulses went together in daily urban life without blurring the identity of the groups that used them.

10

-UJHQ=DQJHQEHUJ

Thomas M. Weber’s article was deliberately placed at the end of the volume, because it opens the view from the Galilee into the wider region. Despite all the important work on ancient Galilee, it is somewhat surprising that no systematic study exists comparing Galilean material culture under a diachronic perspective with that of its Phoenician neighbors on the coast and that of the inhabitants of the Decapolis. Picking out one particularly important city for eastern Galilee, :HEHU¶VDUWLFOHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHUHZDVPRUHJRLQJRQWKDQPHUHFRQÀLFWDQG demarcation. To explore the character of interaction between Galilee and its neighbors certainly does not mean to fall back into the trap of a “Gentile Galilee,” but such exploration takes the geographical and economic circumstances seriously that linked the Galilee and Gadara together in a peaceful symbiosis regardless of ethnic diversity and occasional outbreaks of violence. Ancient Galilee, it seems, reveals its secrets the more one is prepared to see it as dynamic region in constant interaction and transition where ethnicities and identities are no static monoliths but gain their contours in continuous movement.

I. The State of Affairs in Galilean Studies

Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions Sean Freyne One cannot but be impressed by the industry that the study of ancient Galilee has generated. This is the third international conference on the topic in which I have participated, and the number of monographs, Ph.D. dissertations, and articles dealing with Galilee or Galilean-related topics is increasing annually.1 There can be no doubt that the return to the scholarly agenda of the “quest for WKHKLVWRULFDO-HVXV´KDVSOD\HGDKXJHO\LQÀXHQWLDOUROHLQWKLVGHYHORSPHQW after decades of Bultmannian scepticism. Inevitably, such a hotly debated, even emotionally charged topic brings its own dangers. More than once I have been tempted to make the fairly obvious comment that the search for the historical Galilee is about to replace the quest for the historical Jesus. In this respect at least the archaeologists of ancient Galilee have not been distracted so easily. That is not to suggest that archaeologists are not also prone to their own hermeneutical blind spots. An over-dependence on ideologically slanted textual evidence, as, for example, in the case of Josephus’s heroic descriptions of Jewish resistance at sites such as Jotapata, Gamla, or Masada, can OHDGWRDVLWXDWLRQLQZKLFKWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDOGLJEHFRPHVDYHUL¿FDWLRQRIWKH DFFRXQWUDWKHUWKDQDQLQGHSHQGHQWDQGVFLHQWL¿FDOO\FRQWUROOHGLQYHVWLJDWLRQRI the material evidence in its own right. That said, Galilean studies today are indeed well-served by the extensive work that has been done in the region by both Israeli and American archaeologists, each with their different perspectives. The recent publication of the survey of 8SSHU*DOLOHHLVDPRGHORIFRQWUROOHGDQGVFLHQWL¿FDOO\SUHVHQWHGHYLGHQFHWKDW certainly calls for close attention by any student of the settlement patterns and cultural relations of the region.2 Similarly, the studies of David Adan-Bayewitz for the Kfar Hananiah ware and those of Andrea M. Berlin on the pottery of Tel $QDID%DQHDVDQG*DPODDUHH[DPSOHVRIVFLHQWL¿FDQGGHWDLOHGH[DPLQDWLRQ 1 Lee I. Levine, ed., 7KH*DOLOHHLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\ (New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992); Eric M. Meyers, ed., *DOLOHHWKURXJKWKH&HQWXULHV &RQÀXHQFHRI&XOWXUHV (Winona Lake: Eisenbraun, 1999). Among recent monographs, see in particular Mark A. Chancey, 7KH0\WKRID*HQWLOH*DOLOHH(SNTSMS 118; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); idem, *UHFR5RPDQ&XOWXUHDQGWKH*DOLOHHRI-HVXV(SNTSMS 134; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 2 Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, and Avi Degani, 6HWWOHPHQW'\QDPLFV DQG 5HJLRQDO 'LYHUVLW\ LQ$QFLHQW 8SSHU *DOLOHH$UFKDHRORJLFDO 6XUYH\ RI 8SSHU *DOLOHH (IAA Reports 14; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2001).

14

6HDQ)UH\QH

that are both highly technical and at the same time accessible to the lay person like myself, the results of which can contribute greatly to our attempts at providing a more accurate depiction of the region and its ethos in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. 3 :KHQ,¿UVWEHJDQWRVWXG\*DOLOHHLQWKHHDUO\VWKHRQO\DUFKDHRORJLFDO studies available were those of Kohl and Watzinger on the synagogues of Galilee (1916) and Waterman on Sepphoris (1931).4 Eric and Carol Meyers, James F. Strange, Ehud Netzer, Ze’ev Weiss, and Zvi Gal5 introduced new rigor and methods to both regional surveys and local site explorations. More recently still the work of Douglas R. Edwards (Khirbet Kana), J. Andrew Overman (Omrit), Mordechai Aviam (Qeren Naftali), Rami Arav (Bethsaida), and Danny Syon (Gamla), for example, working at various sites in both Upper and Lower Galilee, continue to provide important insights into various aspects of the cultural, social, and religious world of Roman Galilee.6 I have entitled this paper “Old Issues and New Questions” because I see my role as that of starting the conversation rather than presenting a detailed study of some particular aspect. The old issues I have in mind are Hellenization and Judaization in Galilee, since I believe that the last word has not been said on either. Indeed a consideration of the one can lead to a better understanding of the other when we frame our questions differently, by seeing the relationship between these two abstract notions not as one of opposition but as an opportunity for human adaptation to changing political and social circumstances. In this 3 David Adan-Bayewitz&RPPRQ3RWWHU\LQ5RPDQ*DOLOHH$6WXG\RI/RFDO7UDGH(BarIlan Studies in Near Eastern Culture; Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993); Andrea M. Berlin, Tel Anafa II/L7KH+HOOHQLVWLFDQG5RPDQ3RWWHU\7KH3ODLQ:DUHV(JRASup 10.2/1; Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 1997), 1–36; idem, “From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine,” %$625306 (1997): 75–88; idem, “The Archaeology of Ritual: The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias/Caesarea Philippi,” %$625315 (1999): 27–46; idem, *DPOD)LQDO5HSRUWvol. 1:7KH3RWWHU\RIWKH6HFRQG7HPSOH3HULRG(Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, forthcoming). 4 Heinrich Kohl and Carl Watzinger, $QWLNH6\QDJRJHQLQ*DOLOHD(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915); Leroy Waterman, 3UHOLPLQDU\5HSRUWRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI0LFKLJDQ([FDYDWLRQDW6HSSKRULV 3DOHVWLQHLQ(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1931). 5 Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange, $UFKDHRORJ\WKH5DEELVDQG(DUO\&KULVWLDQLW\ (London: SCM Press, 1981); Ze’ev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, “Two Excavation Seasons at Sepphoris,” Qad 95–96 (1992): 115–6; Zvi Gal, 7KH/RZHU*DOLOHHGXULQJWKH,URQ$JH (ASOR Dissertation Series 8; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 6 Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCollough, eds., $UFKDHRORJ\DQGWKH*DOLOHH7H[WV DQG&RQWH[WVLQWKH*UHFR5RPDQDQG%\]DQWLQH3HULRGV(South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); J. Andrew Overman, “Recent Advances in the Archaeology of the Galilee in the Roman Period,” &XUUHQWVLQ5HVHDUFK%LEOLFDO6WXGLHV1 (1993): 35–58; Mordechai Aviam, -HZV3DJDQVDQG&KULVWLDQVLQWKH*DOLOHH(Land of Galilee 1: Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004); Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund, eds., %HWKVDLGD$&LW\E\WKH1RUWK6KRUHRIWKH6HDRI*DOLOHH(3 vols.; Kirksville: Truman Jefferson University Press, 1995–2004); Danny Syon, “The Coins of Gamla: An Interim Report,” INJ 12 (1992/3): 34–55.

Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions

15

regard Galilee offers an ideal test site for the student of the Hellenization process in general, since nowhere else in the Roman East is a combination of literary and archaeological evidence available in such abundance.

1. Hellenization: Syncretism, Synthesis, or Selection? A full discussion of how best to describe the process of Hellenization cannot be undertaken here. Various models have been suggested, and the variations seem to depend on the extent to which one agrees with Droysen’s notion of 9HUVFKPHO]XQJ, in the sense of a blending of cultures, as the most accurate description of the changes that can be recognized in both the literary and material remains in the wake of Alexander’s conquests. Lee I. Levine is surely correct when he perceptively comments, “The challenge is to formulate more subtle distinctions, determining how much, in which areas and at what pace these changes took place. Only when we abandon sweeping generalisations and begin addressing these distinctions will we have a better grasp of the process in its entirety.”7 Recent literary analysis of 1 Maccabees has shown how heavily the work as a whole is dependent on the biblical narratives of the conquest and settlement of the promised land, with the intention either to extol the success of the Hasmonean expansion or, alternatively, as Schwarz has argued, to appeal to an alienated segment of the Hasmonean supporters by dramatizing the hostility of the local ethnic groups in Palestine towards the Jewish community, prior to the expansion.8 The composition of chapter 5, and in particular the use of DOORSK\ORQ rather than ethnon (the LXX translation in the expression JDOLOKDJJR\LP, Isa 8:23) to LQGLFDWHWKHKRVWLOHHQYLURQPHQWIRU-HZVLQ*DOLOHHY ¿WVSHUIHFWO\LQWR WKLVOLWHUDU\DJHQGDDQGUHÀHFWVPRUHWKHUKHWRULFDODSSHDORIWKHDXWKRUWKDQDQ\ detailed information about the cultural ethos of Galilee. If, therefore, we cannot rely on this piece of literary evidence from 1 Maccabees WRGHVFULEHWKHVLWXDWLRQLQWKHPLGQGFWKHDXWKRU¶VUKHWRULFDOÀRXULVKGRHV raise the question of the actual conditions in Galilee in the pre-Maccabean period. Unfortunately, there is very little literary evidence to go on, other than the picture that emerges from the Zenon papyri dating from the mid-3rd c. b.c.e. Following the studies of Tcherikover, Hengel, and others, this evidence points WRDKLJKO\GHYHORSHGORFDOEXUHDXFUDF\FRQVLVWLQJRI3WROHPDLFRI¿FLDOVDQG local Semitic (if not actually Jewish) elites, that was overseen from Alexandria. In this regard the Phoenician cities, especially Ptolemais and Tyre, played pivotal roles in the transportation of goods from the region to Egypt. Yet the papyri, by 7 Lee I. Levine, -XGDLVPDQG+HOOHQLVPLQ$QWLTXLW\&RQÀLFWRU&RQÀXHQFH" (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 38. 8 Seth Schwartz, “Israel and the Nations Roundabout,” JJS 42 (1991): 16–38.

16

6HDQ)UH\QH

WKHLUYHU\QDWXUHJLYHXVIHZFOXHVDVWRWKHFXOWXUDORUUHOLJLRXVDI¿OLDWLRQVRI the inhabitants.9 $JDLQVWWKDWEDFNJURXQGLWLVZRUWKZKLOHH[DPLQLQJWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWZR recent important pieces of archaeological evidence with a view to abandoning broad generalizations for more subtle distinctions, following Levine’s advice. This material comes from two Upper Galilean sites: the cult center of Mispey Yamim in the Meiron massif and the administrative building with its cache of VHDOLQJVIURP.HGHVKVRPH¿IW\NLORPHWHUVIDUWKHUQRUWK7KLVEXLOGLQJKDVEHHQ described by Herbert and Berlin as being “undoubtedly the palatial residence and DGPLQLVWUDWLYHFHQWHURIDQLPSRUWDQWRI¿FLDO´,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRDFNQRZOHGJH one’s indebtedness to the archaeologists of both sites for their prompt and imSUHVVLYHSXEOLFDWLRQVRIWKHLU¿QGLQJV10 Building on their contributions, I would like to discuss the evidence of both sites and their possible relationship within the broader context of the impact of Hellenism in Galilee. There would seem to be good reason for seeking to correlate the evidence from these two sites. Both have a Persian phase of occupation, and both buildings ceased to function in the mid-2nd c. b.c.e., according to the archaeologists’ reports. Thus, they must have both been in operation simultaneously, and their cessation could plausibly be linked to the same circumstances, namely, the Hasmonean expansion in Galilee. It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that some of the inhabitants of Kedesh might even have visited the cult site with its highly symbolic location, as expressed in its name, “The Face of the Two Seas,” especially in view of the Phoenicians’ sea-faring reputation. In addition both VLWHV\LHOGXQPLVWDNDEOHHYLGHQFHRI3KRHQLFLDQFXOWLFLQÀXHQFH$GHGLFDWRU\ inscription to the goddess Astarte has been incised secondarily in Phoenician on the upper rim of a situla, or ritual offering bowl. This situla was probably of Egyptian provenance, with the main register depicting a devotee making an offering to a circle of Egyptian gods, all named in hieroglyphs. The Phoenician inscription is made in the name of “Aqbar, son of Bod-‘Eshmun for Astarte because she listens to my voice.”11 At Kedesh, on the other hand, a sealing was discovered with the sign of the goddess Tanit (a triangle topped by a horizontal line that supports a circle) with the inscription, also in Phoenician, reading “he who is over the land.” This seal9 Victor Tcherikover, 3DOHVWLQH XQGHU WKH 3WROHPLHV$ &RQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH 6WXG\ RI WKH =HQRQ3DS\UL0L]UDLP,,9 (New York, 1937); Martin Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Mc 12:1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse,” ZNW 59 (1968): 1–39. 10 Rafael Frankel and Raphael Ventura, “The Mispey Yamim Bronzes,” %$625311 (1998): 39–56; Sharon C. Herbert and Andrea M. Berlin, “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh,” %$625 329 (2003): 13–59. 11 Frankel and Ventura, “Bronzes,” 46–7; Manfred Weippert, “Eine phönizische Inschrift aus Galiläa,” ZDPV 115 (1999): 191–200.

Galilean Studies: Old Issues and New Questions

17

ing is one of a relatively small number of inscribed sealings (22 out of a cache of some 2,400) found in the administrative building, and judged by the publishers $ULHODQG1DYHKWRFRPSULVH³PRVWRIWKHQRQSULYDWHRI¿FLDOVHDOLQJVGLVFRYered.”127KLVZRXOGVHHPWRLQGLFDWHWKDWDQLPSRUWDQWRI¿FLDODW.HGHVKKDG the image of the Phoenician goddess on his seal, thereby supporting Herbert and Berlin’s claim of Phoenician involvement in the Seleucid administration of upper Galilee in the early 2nd c. b.c.e.13 Both Astarte and Tanit were part of the Phoenician pantheon since the 7th c. b.c.e. at least, and are closely related in inscriptional evidence.14 While Tanit was highly popular in Phoenician colonies in North Africa (Carthage) and in Spain (Ibiza) from an early stage,15$VWDUWHKDGDKLJKHUSUR¿OHLQWKH(DVWDSSHDULQJ sometimes as the consort of Baal Shamem at Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Kition in Cyprus. In the list of curses that would befall the Tyrians should the treaty of 677 b.c.e. between Esharhaddon, the king of Assyria, and Baal, the king of Tyre, be broken, she is appealed to as follows: “May Astarte break your bow in the thick of battle, and have you crouch at the feet of your enemy.”16 Much later in Apuleius’s Golden Ass she is addressed by Lucius as “Queen of Heaven, whether you prefer to be addressed as Ceres or whether as celestial Venus, or by whatever name,” and in reply the goddess acknowledges her universal character by claiming she is “worshipped in many aspects, known by countless names.”17 This characterization is of course much later, but it is interesting to note that Apuleius, the author of the romance, had settled in Carthage when he wrote the work in the mid-2nd c. c.e. In the East, Astarte certainly retained her own identity and is associated with both of the younger, city gods, Melqart/Herakles (Tyre), and Eshmun/Asklepius (Sidon), who seem to have taken over from the more ancient univeral Baal Shamem even before the Hellenistic age, and who ZHUHLGHQWL¿HGZLWKWKHUHVSHFWLYHFLWLHV7KXV-RVHSKXVFODLPVWRKDYHIRXQG evidence in the records of Tyre that Hiram, Solomon’s contemporary, had built a temple to Astarte and to Herakles in the city (Ant. 8.146). An inscription from the sarcophagus of king Eshmun’azar (465–451 b.c.e.) claims that the king and his mother, a priestess of the goddess, had built a temple to her in Sidon by the Sea, “causing Astarte of the Glorious Heaven to dwell there.” The inscription goes on to say that they also built a temple to Eshmun, the Holy Prince, and FDXVHGKLPWRGZHOOLQWKHTXDUWHURIWKH*ORULRXV+HDYHQWKXVFRQ¿UPLQJWKH 12 Donald T. Ariel and Joseph Naveh, “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in Upper Galilee,” %$625329 (2003): 61–80, esp. 61 and 62–4. 13 Herbert and Berlin, “A New Administrative Center,” 48–9. 14 Donald R. Vance, “Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria: The Phoenician Inscriptions, Part I,” BA 57 (1994): 2–19, esp. 14. 15 Javier Teixidor, 7KH3DJDQ*RG3RSXODU5HOLJLRQLQWKH*UHFR5RPDQ1HDU(DVW(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 36. 16 Ibid., 30. 17 Apuleius, 0HWDPRUSKRVHV 9.2. See also Lucian of Samosata, 'HGHD6\ULD 4.

18

6HDQ)UH\QH

close links between Astarte and Eshmun, a healing god, who was later Hellenized as Asklepius.18 This link is particularly interesting for the situla inscription from Mispey Yamim because the father of the dedicant is named as EGµVKPQ, a theophoric name relating to this Sidonian healing god, meaning literally, “In the hand (or care) of Eshmun.”19 What can be learned about the Hellenization process in Galilee on the basis of the evidence from these two sites? The fact that there are no overt traces of Greek LQÀXHQFHDW0LVSH\