by Mendel Nun (BAR 25:04, Jul/Aug 1999)
Source: CojsWiki

clik to download 4MB pdf

Modern drought reveals harbors from Jesus’ time Early 19th-century explorers, searching for places where Jesus had walked, attempted to locate the ancient harbors of the Sea of Galilee but failed. Now, after 25 years of searching and researching, we have found them. We have recovered the piers, promenades and breakwaters of the ports. We have also uncovered the ships’ anchors, the mooring stones the sailors tied their ships to, and even the weights fishermen once fastened to their nets. We always knew the harbors must be there, but we had no idea we would find so many remains.

The Sea of Galilee’s shoreline has changed dramatically in recent decades as camping sites, man-made beaches and luxury hotels have taken over what were for millennia natural shores. Today only four small ports serve the motorboats that speed across the water, the ferries for vacationers and pilgrims, a few large modern fishing vessels and several small fishing boats. In ancient times, however, at least 16 bustling ports provided the basic means of communication and transport for travelers, fishermen, traders and thousands of residents living beside the small sea (about 14 miles from north to south and 8 miles across).

Ancient literary sources—the New Testament, the writings of the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, and rabbinic literature such as the Talmud—suggest that two thousand years ago hundreds of vessels plied the waters of Israel’s only freshwater lake (and the world’s lowest, at 700 feet below sea level). But even though all these sources refer to fishing and boating, not one mentions the harbors that were on the lake during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods (332 B.C.E.–630 C.E.). Perhaps ancient historians did not mention them because they took them for granted.

Today the remains of the harbors are merely layers of stone foundations, easily recognized by the practiced eye. Most are made of black basalt, the volcanic rock that abounds in this area. From these unimpressive remains, we can picture the Sea of Galilee in Jesus’ time in a way that would have been impossible just a few years ago.

Structure on the coast of Kursi

The first ancient harbor we discovered was the eastern Galilee site of Kursi (Biblical Gergesa), where, according to the Gospels, Jesus landed after stilling a storm on the sea. As Jesus stepped out on land, he was met by a man possessed by demons. Jesus ordered the demons to leave the man, and they entered a herd of swine, which rushed down the steep slope into the lake and drowned (Luke 8:22–39//Mark 5:1–20//Matthew 8:28–32). According to early Christian tradition, all this occurred at Kursi. (a)

During the 1970 excavation of the ancient church and monastery that commemorate the miracle of the swine, the surrounding area was surveyed. Since the water level of the sea was high that year, an underwater research team headed by Avner Raban investigated the shoreline, where the breakwater of the ancient harbor was discovered.

An essential element of any Galilee port is the stone wall of the breakwater, which extends into the sea from the shore and curves around the harbor to protect the boats from the sudden, ferocious storms common on the Sea of Galilee, such as the windstorm of Luke 8:23 that “swept down on the lake,” filling the disciples’ boat with water.

Covered by a thick layer of silt today, the Kursi harbor was once the commercial center of a typical fishing village from the Roman and Byzantine periods. Built of rows of lightly chiseled basalt boulders, the 500-foot breakwater turns slightly away from the shore, enclosing a narrow area of about half an acre (330 feet long by 80 feet wide). To the north is a shallow pool, built 3 feet above the ground and measuring about 10 feet by 11 feet, where fishermen stored large live fish caught with dragnets. (b) The pool’s plastered interior allowed it to retain water, which came not from the lake but through a small aqueduct leading from a nearby stream. The pool stood directly on the market pier, where fishermen sold their daily catch. Today only the rectangular oundation of this 25- by 16-foot pier can be seen during the dry season. North of the pool are the foundations of a public building—apparently associated with harbor administration—with the remains of a mosaic floor. Nearby I discovered more than a hundred lead net sinkers.

Waves have eroded the shore further to the north, exposing one room of yet another building. Here I found sections of columns, marble fragments and bits of colored mosaics that led me to think this was probably Kursi’s synagogue, dating from about 400 to 700 C.E. At Kursi, I also found traces of a Roman road branching off the main road (which ran from the south to the Golan Heights) and leading down to the harbor. Ruins of houses surrounded the shore.

Ironically, the harbor at Kursi is generally visible most months of the year—more often than any other harbor on the lake. It could easily have been discovered without underwater efforts. Earlier explorers must have seen these ruins often without recognizing them as the remains of a fishing village and its harbor.

During the winter, however, the fish pool, synagogue and administration building of Kursi are underwater, indicating that the lake was lower during the first millennium C.E.

Most of the ancient harbors of the Sea of Galilee were not identified until more recently because they are underwater for much of the year. The foundations of the breakwaters were built when the water level was at its lowest (about 695 feet below sea level). Although the breakwaters were originally about 10 feet tall, over the years the waves have demolished them, leaving behind only the foundations, visible when the water level is lowest, after a dry summer. Further, as we shall see, the maximum level of the lake in the Roman period was about 4 feet lower than it is today, and the shallow shoreline was up to 150 feet further out. Consequently, the foundations of the promenade are further from shore than they were in ancient times.

A natural change in the outflow of the lake about 1,000 years ago led to this rise in the water level. The old outlet of the Jordan River was originally located near today’s village of Kinneret. Over the centuries, however, the pounding waves created a weak point in the soft alluvial shoreline to the south of the old outlet, near Kibbutz Degania. Eventually, this developed into a second, deeper but narrower outlet for the Jordan River. This second outlet must have existed by 1106, when it is mentioned in the writings of a Russian pilgrim to the Holy Land. From later literary sources, we know that the Jordan River continued to have two outlets on the southern Galilee shore for hundreds of years thereafter. The newer outlet had a smaller capacity, however, and over the centuries, as silt blocked the older outlet, the maximum level of the lake gradually rose about 3 feet. (c)

With the discovery of Kursi in 1970, I became attuned to what an ancient harbor looked like. Touring the shore on my near-ancient bicycle, I began to search for more. I soon discovered the harbor of Capernaum—much to the surprise of the Franciscan monks at the monastery of Capernaum, who were in the habit of dumping rubble from their own excavations into the harbor.

Capharnaum: aereal view of the Archaeological area of the Custody of the Holy Land looking North-West.

According to the Gospels, Capernaum was the center of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. (d) Here Jesus preached at the local synagogue (Mark 1:21) and healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3–12). The Gospel of Matthew indicates that Jesus stayed at Peter’s house, where “he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons” (Mark 1:32). The Franciscans have been excavating at Capernaum for a century. Nearly 50 years ago, they began work on the building known as St. Peter’s house. One spring, the Franciscan archaeologists were forced to stop their work because the sea, having reached its maximum seasonal level, flooded the area around St. Peter’s house—further proof that the sea is higher today than in ancient times.

Sketch of the Capharnaum Port according to Leen Ritmeyer

Occupied for more than a thousand years, from the second century B.C.E. until the tenth century C.E., Capernaum at its height extended about half a mile along the shore. Although I knew the city must have had a harbor, the unusually rocky topography made it difficult to locate. Instead of looking for rocks, as I usually did, here I searched for (and found) a clearing where rocks had been removed to make a safe port.

Along the shore ran a 2,500-foot-long promenade, or paved avenue, supported by an 8-foot-wide seawall. The portion of the promenade on the Franciscan property had been covered by rubble and was partially destroyed by modern building. But impressive sections to the north, on land owned by the adjacent Greek Orthodox church, and further to the east, were hardly damaged.

To protect the shore from storms, a promenade must be at least 2 feet above the maximum sea level. A modern promenade at Tiberias, built in 1932 on the western shore, is about 2 feet higher (684 feet below sea level) than the sea’s maximum level (686 feet below sea level). The ancient Capernaum promenade is about 3 feet lower (687 feet below sea level). This provides solid evidence that the sea was about 3 feet lower in ancient times. Further proof of this is seen in the drainage channel (at about 687 feet below sea level) of the Roman baths at Capernaum. If the baths were in operation today, they would be flooded whenever the lake reached its maximum level.

Vessels at Capernaum could load and unload cargo and passengers on several piers that extended about 100 feet from the promenade into the lake. Some of the piers are paired and curve toward each other, forming protected pools. Others are triangular in shape. According to the New Testament, under the rule of Herod Antipas a marine toll station was located at Capernaum, with the apostle Matthew in charge (Matthew 10:3). The port apparently served not only the local population but also travelers who preferred the swift, comfortable transportation available on the lake.

Tabgha: The Church of the Primacy of St. Peter on the Sea of Galilee.

In the winter, fishermen from Capernaum worked at Tabgha, where several warm mineral springs attracted musht, popularly called St. Peter’s Fish. (The name Tabgha is a corruption of the Greek for “Seven Springs.”) Today the remains of this small harbor’s breakwater can be seen when the water level is low. Christian tradition ascribes the meeting place of Jesus with his disciples to a prominent rock at the warm springs. From a fisherman’s viewpoint, this is the correct choice. This is the area where musht schools formerly concentrated in the winter and spring. Here Jesus met his disciples for the first—and also the last—time (Luke 5:1–7; John 21:1–8). On this rock, now known as the rock of the primacy of Peter, stands a small modern Franciscan chapel, the Church of the Primacy of Peter. It was built on the foundations of earlier churches, the oldest of which dates from the first half of the fourth century. The altar is built around a stone outcropping known to pilgrims as the Lord’s Table (Mensa Domini), on which Jesus served the disciples after the miraculous draught of fishes (John 21:13). (e)

The Harbour of Magdala Tarichaeae according to M. Nun (1977).

The various names by which Magdala was known bear witness to this town’s maritime character: Migdal Nunieh (in Hebrew, Fish Tower) and Tarichea (in Greek, The Place Where Fish Are Salted). According to Josephus, Magdala had many boats, shipyard workers and supplies of wood. In the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), Magdala served as the base of the Zealots, one of the Jewish factions involved in the revolt.

Magdala: Remanins of the Harbour as were visible in 1977.

The remains of the Magdala harbor were discovered near an excavation site where Franciscan monks had already uncovered the central square, streets and buildings of the first-century C.E. town that Mary Magdalene called home. In one house, they found a mosaic of a sailing boat. As at Capernaum, the earlier excavators failed to detect the ancient harbor, which they used as a dump.

The port of Magdala was constructed in two parts—a promenade and a sheltered basin. The promenade, which runs parallel to the shore, starts below the ruins of the Arab village of Migdal and continues to the north for about 300 feet. In the early 1970s, the outlines were clear and complete, but rapid silting and development have since altered the topography.

Magdala: Remains of the Harbour as they were in 1970s.

Not far from Magdala, a two thousand-year-old boat similar to ones Jesus must have used was found perfectly preserved by the mud. (f)

The first communities to build “modern” harbors on the Sea of Galilee were the Hellenistic cities of Hippos (in Aramaic, Sussita) and Gadara, located east of the Sea of Galilee. Founded in the third century B.C.E., Sussita was a natural fortress, located securely on a 1,000-foot hill overlooking the sea. (g) A reference in the midrashim (h) led me to believe that Sussita had a suburb, or lower city, on the shore and a harbor. As the midrash (Bereshit Raba 32.9) puts it, Noah’s Ark, though very heavy, nevertheless sailed as easily “as from Tiberias to Sussita.” Agricultural produce was shipped from Sussita to Tiberias, the mid-first-century C.E. capital of Galilee, on the western shore. For those traveling from the west, the harbor served as the gateway to the Golan.

Magdala: Remains of the paved road of the Harbour, bordered by limestones (1970s) .

For more than 50 years, I have lived near ancient Sussita, at Kibbutz Ein Gev. But until the harbor of Kursi was discovered in 1970, I did not recognize the stone walls south of Ein Gev as the remains of the ancient harbor. A few years later, while preparing the ground for a date plantation south of the kibbutz, we uncovered the remains of the entire maritime suburb of Sussita, covering 15 acres near the harbor. I also found a section of the Roman road connecting the upper and lower cities. Based on ceramics found here, we know the settlement lasted from the Hellenistic to the Arab period (about the third century B.C.E. to the eighth century C.E.).

The harbor’s main breakwater was about 400 feet long and up to 20 feet wide at its base. This breakwater extended along the northern side of the harbor and then turned south, running parallel to the shore. A second, shorter breakwater extended from the shore to protect the southern side of the harbor. The harbor thus created is about an acre in size. A small pier extended into the sea from the breakwater, allowing passengers to embark and disembark without entering the crowded harbor. Today silt fills the harbor.

Gadara, the most magnificent of the Hellenistic towns that circled the Sea of Galilee, was located on the heights of Gilead above the Yarmuk River. The marine suburb and the city’s harbor were located on the southeastern shore of the lake, at Tel Samra (now Ha-on Holiday Village). In form, Gadara’s harbor resembles that of Sussita—a closed basin with an opening to the south—but it is much larger and more luxurious. The central breakwater is 800 feet long and its base 15 feet wide. The promenade was 650 feet long, built with finely chiseled stones, only one of which remains. The 150-foot-wide basin covered an area of 3 acres.

This harbor is superior to the one at Sussita not only because of its size but also because of its facilities. At the center of the promenade are the remains of a tower. Ruins of a large structure—probably the building of the harbor administration—are scattered on the ground near the harbor gate. Gadara’s maritime character is attested by its coins, which depicted ships of war for some 250 years. The city’s harbor at Tel Samra was almost certainly not only an anchorage for ships. Second-century coins from Gadara commemorate the Naumachia—naval battle games performed for the inhabitants of Gadara. Until recently, researchers assumed that these games took place on the Yarmuk River, which flows into the Jordan just south of the Sea of Galilee; but this does not seem likely, and no remains of a facility of this kind have been found at this site. The large harbor basin at Tel Samra, however, with its 1,600-foot-long combined promenade and breakwater, would surely have been more suitable to accommodate the throngs of spectators as they arrived. In addition, Gadara’s harbor must have been used by thousands of visitors to the famous baths at Hamat Gader, located 5 miles southeast of the sea. The ancient Roman road connecting Beth Shean and Sussita passed near Tel Samra, and the road to Hamat Gader branched off this road.

Columns in the area of the ancient Port of Tiberias (1920s).

A drought from 1989 to 1991 helped me discover even more of the ancient shoreline, including the full extent of the harbor of Tiberias, the most important city on the lake today. (i) The significance of the ancient city is reflected in the New Testament reference to the Sea of Galilee as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1, 21:1). John also refers to some boats from Tiberias (John 6:23). Coins minted at Tiberias feature anchors, vessels and other naval symbols, as well as the Greek deity Poseidon, who rules the seas and is the patron of sailors and fishermen.
Today only about 500 feet of what was once the Tiberias shoreline remain undisturbed. This area lies south of the fifth-century C.E. Byzantine defense wall.

Thought-provoking ruins have long been noted along this sector. They include impressive segments of a promenade running parallel to the modern road, with an opening leading to the shore. Further south along the shore, the ruins of six rows of columns extend for about 80 feet, with remnants of several of the basalt, limestone and marble columns toppled on the ground and others re-erected upside down. This structure was probably built during the Arab period (eighth and ninth centuries C.E.), reusing earlier materials. The Persian traveler Nasir Husro, who visited Tiberias in 1047 C.E., described the “pleasure houses” supported by “columns of marble rising up out of the water.” This evidence points to an elegant Tiberias promenade that once stood where today a road leads from the modern city to nearby hot springs.

I always doubted that this was part of the ancient harbor. But I was wrong. During the drought of 1989 to 1991, I spent countless hours scouring the newly exposed shoreline at Tiberias. As I searched, I began to find stone anchors, mooring stones and hundreds of stone net sinkers. I knew that the stones, which weighed between 20 ounces and 5 pounds, were connected with the fishing industry because of their form and because of the holes drilled in them (note the stone anchors lying on the piers in the reconstruction drawing). In all my years of searching, I had never found so many stones like this at one site. Although there is no fishing area adjacent to the findspot, I knew I had found the strongest possible evidence that many fishermen had moored here for centuries, preparing their nets and equipment before going out to sea. All that was missing to complete the picture of the Tiberias harbor was the breakwater. Finally, after years of searching, I found a few clues, remains of a breakwater that had run parallel to the promenade. But until an archaeological dig is made at this site, it will not be possible to draw a complete plan of the harbor.

When I began my investigations, I never dreamed that I would be blessed with the chance to work during a special period of unusual phenomena. The drought of 1989 to 1991 provided a unique opportunity to reveal more of the splendid history of this famous lake.

We discovered that all settlements on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, even the smallest, had harbors, each built to suit local conditions and requirements. (The above descriptions are only a part of our findings.) These harbors continued to flourish throughout the Byzantine period (324–638 C.E.). With the gradual economic decline that followed the Arab conquest in the seventh century, the harbors were neglected. Pounding waves destroyed the breakwaters, and valuable stone blocks were removed and reused elsewhere. Today’s scant remains bear witness to a high, at times magnificent, quality of building, especially on the promenades. These surviving stones provide us with a tangible connection to the thriving towns and ports of Jesus’ time, and to the villagers and fishermen who once walked and sailed here.

Notes:
(a). See Vassilios Tzaferis, “A Pilgrimage to the Site of the Swine Miracle,” BAR 15:02.
(b). See Mendel Nun, “Cast Your Net Upon the Waters—Fish and Fishermen in Jesus’ Time,” BAR 19:06.
(c). The old outlet can still be traced. Remnants of the Roman bridge that crossed this outlet have survived.
(d). See James F. Strange and Hershel Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 08:06.
(e). See Dodo Joseph Shenhav, “Loaves and Fishes Mosaic Near Sea of Galilee Restored,” BAR 10:03.
(f). See Shelley Wachsmann, “The Galilee Boat—2,000-Year-Old Hull Recovered Intact,” BAR 14:05.
(g). Vassilios Tzaferis, “Sussita Awaits the Spade,” BAR 16:05.
(h). Midrash (plural, midrashim) designates a genre of rabbinic literature that includes homilies and commentaries on specific books of the Bible. It dates roughly from the second to the fourteenth century C.E.
(i). See Yizhar Hirschfeld, “Tiberias—Preview of Coming Attractions,” BAR 17:02.

Sorry, but this post is not available in English

Source: Zenit.org
Synagogue From Jesus’ Time Discovered

Uncovered at Site of Future Christian Pilgrimage Center in Magdala

JERUSALEM, SEPT. 11, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The ruins of a synagogue from Jesus’ time were discovered during excavations of a site in Magdala where a pilgrimage center is being built on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The Israel Antiquities Authority, which has been overseeing the excavations, announced this unique archeological find in a press release today.
The Magdala Center excavation began shortly after Benedict XVI’s visit to the Holy Land in May, where he blessed the cornerstone of the future building that is being developed under the direction of the priestly congregation, the Legionaries of Christ.
The archeological excavation, directed by Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar of the antiquities authority, began July 27, and approximately one month later the first vestiges of an important find were uncovered. As the excavation continued and significant findings were added, the conclusion was reached that these ruins are of a synagogue from the first century, possibly destroyed in the years of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, between A.D. 66 and A.D. 70. In the center of the 1292-square-foot building, the team discovered a stone engraved with a seven-branched menorah [candelabrum].

Avshalom-Gorni explained: “We are dealing with an exciting and unique find. This is the first time that a menorah decoration has been discovered from the days when the Second Temple was still standing. […] “We can assume that the engraving that appears on the stone […] was done by an artist who saw the seven-branched menorah with his own eyes in the temple in Jerusalem.” Thus far, only six other synagogues have been discovered from the period of Jerusalem’s Second Temple.
Extraordinary
This finding is of great interest for the Jewish world, affirmed Shuka Dorfmann, director of the antiquities authority, who visited the site twice and spoke of the extraordinary nature of the discovery and the need to study it deeper.
The Israelite authorities have requested the continued excavation of the area, and that the findings be preserved in that site and be included in the Magdala Center project. Numerous Israelite and Christian archeologists have already made appointments to visit the ruins in the past days.

Magdala is located just over four miles from the ancient town of Capernaum, where Jesus spent much of his time during his public ministry. It is assumed that he came to this site, now being excavated, at least once to preach. Magdala is also thought to be the place frequented by many eyewitnesses to the life and works of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, who was native to this town. In Galilean towns such as Magdala, Christian communities were born, and until the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, these believers many times shared the synagogues with Jews.Only after the temple was destroyed in the year 70 was there a more clear separation between Jews and Christians, and at that time the latter created their own places of meeting and worship.
A special place
The initiative to build a center here began when the Legionaries of Christ arrived to Jerusalem in 2004 by the invitation of Pope John Paul II, to take care of the Pontifical Institute Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center. The Magdala Center, also in northern Israel like the Notre Dame Center, aims to complement the services offered to pilgrims who visit Jerusalem. The land where the building is being erected is on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, also known as the Sea of Galilee. The Magdala Center, aside from preserving and exhibiting the ruins of this holy place, will offer a hotel for pilgrims to the Holy Land, and a multimedia center that will display the message and life of Jesus and the history of the land. Another part of the project includes a center that will promote the vocation and dignity of women, inspired by the figure of Mary Magdalene.
Legionary Father Juan María Solana, director of the Notre Dame Center and initiator of the Magdala project, stated, “I knew that Magdala was a holy place and I always had a hunch that it would be a special place for pilgrims of various religions; but the finding that we have made certainly exceeds our expectations.” He continued: “In a moment of prayer at the site, I thought of the last time the faithful gathered here, around the year 70, and how most had been witnesses of the life of Our Lord. I dream of the day that this place will be opened to visiting pilgrims, and I hope it will serve to create bridges and bonds of true love and dialogue between believers of different religions that come together in the Holy Land.” The opening of the Magdala Center is planned for Dec. 12, 2011, though the schedule may have to be adjusted due to the recent discoveries.

Source: www.zenit.org

By Dina Avshalom Gorni
Source: Hadashot Arkheologiyot Excavations ans Surveys in Israel, 121 (2009)

During April 2006, a trial excavation was conducted along the northwestern fringes of Migdal, at the ‘Recital Beach’ on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Permit No. A-4726; map ref. NIG 248663–96/747629–64; OIG 198663–96/247629–64; ESI 13:28, ESI 16:34–35) in the wake of a project to replace the salt-water carrier. The excavation, undertaken on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and underwritten by the Meqorot Water Company, was directed by D. Avshalom-Gorni, with the assistance of A. Mokary and H. Bron (area supervision), Y. Ya‘aqoby (administration), A. Hajian (surveying), H. Smithline (field photography) and N. Getzov (guidance).The site is situated along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, c. 4 km north of Tiberias. The current excavation was carried out c. 500 m south of a previous excavation (‘Atiqot 42:9*–25* [Hebrew]) that exposed remains from the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods.
The excavation area (c. 120 sq m) revealed settlement remains from the Hellenistic, Early Roman and Late Roman periods.

Stratum I: The Hellenistic period
Finds from this period were exposed throughout the excavation area in a layer of small–medium sized pebbles, which is characteristic of the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The foundations of buildings that consisted of large unworked stones were discovered. The southwestern corner of a building (W234, W235; Fig. 1) was exposed at the northern end of the excavation area. The corner of another building was revealed in the southern part of the excavation area.
Fragments of imported pottery vessels, such as Eastern Terra Sigillata and Rhodian amphorae, as well as locally produced pottery, dating to the Hellenistic period, were attributed to this stratum.
Stratum II: The Early Roman period
Building foundations of natural unworked stones were exposed. These were preserved two to three courses high and building stone collapse was found near them.
The ceramic finds ascribed to this stratum included fragments of pottery vessels that dated to the Early Roman period, including storage, cooking and serving vessels, the overwhelming majority of which were produced in local workshops. Other artifacts included fragments of stone bowls and glass vessels, as well as coins.
Stratum III: The Late Roman period
Buildings, which were founded on top of wall foundations and the collapse layer from the Early Roman period (Stratum II) and maintained the same building alignment, were exposed. The walls were built of roughly hewn basalt stones and survived two courses high above the rooms’ floors. Two building complexes in the south and north, separated by an east–west oriented alley, were uncovered.
The northern end of an elongated building (W232, W240, W222; Fig. 2) was exposed in the southern complex. It consisted of a courtyard, paved with basalt flagstones and enclosed within W252 in the north, W222 in the west and W244 in the south; a passageway from the courtyard led to a room, enclosed within W223 in the north and W222 in the east, which was paved with plaster and tamped earth.
Three buildings, a storehouse; a building with installations; and another building, were exposed in the northern complex.
The storehouse was a square structure (W203, W206, W212), partitioned by Wall 204. A carefully tamped gray plaster floor (thickness c. 0.2 m) was well preserved in the southern room and six complete store jars were found in situ above it.
All that remained of the second building was its southwestern corner (W205, W227). Three steps built of roughly hewn stones, which led to the roof of the building or to a second story, were uncovered in the western side of the corner. A circular and a square installation, connected by an opening, were exposed next to W227. A poorly preserved floor of plaster and tamped soil was exposed in the space between W203 and W227. A number of roughly hewn basalt beams that were probably used to support the roof of the building were found in situ on top of this floor.
Another building (W229, W250), which included two rooms with tamped-plaster floors, was discovered at the northern end of the excavation area.
The artifacts attributed to this stratum comprised pottery vessels, including jars, cooking vessels and serving vessels that were all manufactured in local workshops, as well as fragments of glass vessels, coins, clay lamps, lead fishing weights, a large basalt basin and a basalt millstone.
A preliminary examination of the excavation findings shows that the settlement at the site had begun in the Hellenistic period (second–first centuries BCE), continued uninterrupted throughout the Early Roman period (mid-first century BCE–beginning of second century CE) and ended in the Late Roman period (third century CE).
The ceramic finds indicate that during the Hellenistic period, pottery vessels were locally produced, as well as imported. The pottery vessels in the Roman period included no imported vases and were similar to those produced in the workshops of Kefar Hananya, which is mentioned in Jewish sources. Fragments of limestone measuring cups were found together with these vessels. These finds seem to corroborate the historical sources that listed Migdal as a Jewish settlement.
The finds from this excavation and from previous excavations at the site underline the historical sources from the Second Temple period, regarding the existence of a large settlement named Migdal Taricheae. The collapse layer, which dated to the Second Temple period (Stratum II) further substantiated Josephus’ story about the destruction of the city in the Great Revolt. The results of the excavations indicate that during the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, the settlement was located further north and did reach the current excavation area.

Please visit the IAA web site:

The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition

by K. C. Hanson

Originally published in Biblical Theology Bulletin 27 (1997) 99-111

Source: K.C. Hanson Home Page

“And passing along beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, Simon’s brother, casting a net in the sea, for they were fishers.” (Mark 1:16)

“The man is like a wise fisher who, having cast his net into the sea, pulled the net up from the sea full of small fish. The wise fisher, upon finding among them a fine large fish, threw all the little fish back into the sea, choosing the big fish without difficulty.” (Gos. Thom. 8 )

Homer to fishers: “Ay, for of such fathers you are sprung as neither hold rich lands nor tend countless sheep.” (Epigram 17c; Evelyn-White 1914:477)

“And the most shameful occupations are those which cater to our sensual pleasures: ‘fish-sellers, butchers, cooks, poultry-raisers, and fishermen,’ as Terence says.” (Cicero, On Duties 1.42)

“On the subject of disciples Rabban Gamaliel the Elder spoke of four kinds: An unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the Jordan, a fish from the Great Sea.” (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan ;40 Goldin 1955:166)

Clearchus of Soli: “Stale salt-fish likes marjoram.” (quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 3.116)

I. Introduction

Both the physical and social geographies of Galilee are heavily impacted by an inland waterway known by various names in antiquity, but most commonly as the Sea of Galilee. This body of water is currently approximately 7 miles wide and 12.5 miles long, but the dimensions may have been slightly different in antiquity (Freyne 1992:900; Josephus, War 3.506). The importance of fish in Palestinian society is signaled by several geographical names (Wuellner 1967:28-33). Jerusalem had a “fish gate” (Neh 3:3). The capital of Gaulanitus was Bethsaida (”Fishing Village” or “Temple of the Fish-God”), located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:45). And the Greek name for the town of Magdala on the western shore of Galilee was Tarichaeae (”Processed-Fishville”).

Since the synoptic gospels are agreed that Jesus’ activity was centered in Herod Antipas’s tetrarchy of Galilee, and specifically in the harbor village of Capernaum, this lake could not fail to affect his words or deeds. The following analysis is an attempt to provide a window on part of the political-economic and domestic-economic context for the Jesus tradition, specifically as it pertains to the fishing enterprise on the Sea of Galilee. Significant data-gathering on ancient fishing was carried out by Wuellner(1967), who built on Rostovtzeff’s work (1941). What I am pursuing here is a more systemic approach to how the activity of fishing operated as a web of relations within the political and domestic environment of the early first century along the lines of the systemic analysis proposed by Elliott, who adapted earlier macrosociological models (Elliott 1986:13-17). The present study will include not only materials assembled by Wuellner and Rostovtzeff, but also recent Galilean archaeology and inscriptional material from around the Roman Empire on taxation and fishing associations.

Based upon the studies of my colleague

Douglas Oakman (1986, 1991; Hanson & Oakman, forthcoming), it is my observation that biblical scholars commonly tend to misconstrue the Galilean economy (and ancient economies in general) by assuming a market economy similar to a modern European or North American industrialized economy. This general observation connects to a second, more specific, observation: scholars of the Jesus traditions have seriously underplayed the role and significance of the physical and social geography of Galilean fishing on Jesus’ development of his network. This lack needs to be addressed. In fact, none of the contemporary treatments of the “historical Jesus” has a single significant thing to say about Galilean fishing beyond the fact that four of the Twelve are identified as fishermen in the tradition (e.g., Borg 1987; Mack 1988; Crossan 1991; R.A. Horsley 1993). Only Rousseau & Arav have even bothered to bring together some of the basic data (1995: 19-30, 93-97, 189-90). Further, even works focused on the history and society of Galilee have virtually nothing of importance to say about Galilean fishing in general or its relationship to Jesus (e.g., Freyne 1980, 1988, 1994; R.A. Horsley 1996). In his most recent work, however, Freyne does briefly acknowledge the economic role fishing played in Herodian Galilee (1995:35).

II. An Embedded Economy: Politics and Kinship

Fishing was an important part of the Galilean economy in the first century. But it was not the “free enterprise” which modern readers of the New Testament may imagine. Even fishers who may have owned their own boats were part of a state regulated, elite-profiting enterprise, and a complex web of economic relationships. These are symptoms of an “embedded economy.” That is to say, economies in the ancient Mediterranean were not independent systems with “free markets,” free trade, stock exchanges, monetization, and the like, as one finds in modern capitalist systems. Rather, only political and kinship systems were explicit social domains; economics and religion were conceptualized, controlled, and sustained either by the political hierarchy or kin-groups (Polanyi, et al. 1957; Dalton 1961; Polanyi 1968; Finley 1985; Malina1986; Garnsey & Saller 1987:43-63). For an overall assessment of the setting of Jesus’ activity, it is essential to understand the mechanisms of political economies in the ancient Mediterranean in terms of the flow of benefits upward to the urban elites, and especially the ruling families.

It will not be possible here to analyze the complexity of the first-century Galilean embedded economy as a whole (Oakman 1983:17-91; Hamel 1990; Freyne 1994, 1995; R.A. Horsley1995; Hanson & Oakman, forthcoming). Suffice it to say, the largest part of the population was composed of peasant farmers, and the family functioned as both a producing and consuming unit. This means that relatives normally worked together, and that kinship ties were fundamental for “guild” or trade relations. This local, domestic economy was often in tension with the larger political economy. Galilee of the first century was ruled by Herod Antipas, a Roman client, and was therefore a form of what Kautsky calls an “aristocratic empire.” Furthermore, it was an “advanced agrarian society” in terms of its form of production and technology. I mention here a few of the basic characteristics of political economies and infrastructures of such societies:

1. The primary functions exercised by aristocratic families are tax-collection and warfare: both of these functions serve the urban elites’ interests (Kautsky: 6, 79).
2. While the small number of elites compete for honor and the right to control and tax peasant families, peasant families remain at subsistence level, reinforced by a sense of “natural” hierarchy (Lenski: 210-20).
3. These empires are “exploitative” in that peasants have no say in their control or taxation (Kautsky: 6, 112; Lenski: 210-20); and while the peasants are cognizant of their place in the rather rigid social hierarchy, they develop strategies to evade control through a variety of means (e.g., lying, hiding, protest) (Scott 1977, 1985).
4. Since much of the peasant families’ produce (the so-called “surplus”) is extracted by the aristocratic families in the form of labor, produce, and money (through the instruments of tithes, taxes, tolls, rents, tribute, and confiscation), technological progress is impeded, minimizing change; the exception to this is the technology of warfare, since it is subsidized by the aristocratic families to protect their power, privilege, and possessions (Kautsky: 7, 103; Lenski : 210-20).
5. Improvements in the infrastructure (e.g., roads, aqueducts, harbors) are for the increased benefit of the aristocratic families, not for the benefit the peasant families in return for their taxes (Kautsky: 114).

III. Galilean Fishing as a Social Sub-System

Diagram 1: The Political Economy of Galilean Fishing

The various families in this political-economic and domestic-economic network of relationships —we must avoid imagining individuals who “go to work”—are not equally well documented for Galilee during the first century; some of the relationships are inferred. But I suggest this scenario as a beginning in order to imagine real people involved in real occupations which require a very real network of relationships and transactions. The evidence for the scenario depicted in Diagram #1 is as follows.

1. The Roman emperors became wealthy beyond imagination because of their patronage position with regard to client-kings such as the Herodians (e.g., Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, “Augustus” 60). These clients contributed to the imperial coffers first of all through annual tribute of two primary types: on land and on persons (e.g., Mark 12:13-17; Josephus, War 2.403, 405). Secondly, they profited from indirect taxes of various kinds, including customs fees at ports and roads (Pliny, Natural History 12.32, 63-65). And lastly, they were beneficiaries of their clients’ wills. This last source of revenue is often overlooked by modern scholars. Josephus reports that Herod the Great, for example, bequeathed Augustus 1000 talents (6 million denarii) and Julia, Augustus’s wife, 500 talents (3 million denarii; Ant. 17.146, 190). (Herod’s bequests are examined by Hoehner[1972:269-76], Braund [1984:129-64] and Hanson [1990:18].) Suetonius says that in the last twenty years of his reign, Augustus received 1.4 billion sesterces (= 350 million denarii) from his clients in wills (”Augustus” 101).

As Braund points out, the payment of tribute by client-kings has been a controversial issue among Roman historians (1984:64). While Hoehner(1972:298-300) and Freyne (1995:32) believe the Herodians did pay tribute, Schürer disagrees (1973:1:317, 416-17). Schürer’s conclusion is based on Josephus’s account of Herod the Great’s death. At that time, the people of Judea sought imperial relief, not from Roman tribute, but from the weight of Herodian taxes (Josephus, Ant. 17.304-11). He also points to Suetonius’s report that when Caligula restored kings to their realms he granted them “full employment of the revenues and also the produce of the interval” (”Caligula” 16). Braund contends that client-kings in most cases did not pay tribute, even if they paid annual indemnities (1984:66). This, however, seems to be a distinction without a difference. I would conclude that Herod Antipas did pay tribute—whether it was technically so specified or not—based upon the following:

1. “Tribute” can take many forms, including the grateful “gifts” of clients to honor their imperial patron—either directly (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 14.34-36; 16.16, 86) or indirectly, for example: building temples to the Augusti, or endowing a favorite city of the emperor (e.g., Ant. 16.146-49).

2. Tribute was exacted by Julius Caesar from Palestine during the Hasmonean era (Ant. 14.202-6).

3. Josephus explicitly states that Herod the Great paid Roman tribute to Octavian/ Augustus; and he also took responsibility for the tribute on lands he leased from Cleopatra and parts of Arabia (Ant. 15.96, 106-7, 132-33). Appian says:

   He [Octavian] set up kings here and there as he pleased on condition of their paying prescribed tributes: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates; in Idumea and Samaria, Herod; in Pisidia, Amyntas; in a part of Cilicia, Polemon, and others in other countries (Appian, Civil Wars 5.75).

Josephus indicates that for Judea, the collecting of Roman tribute was controlled by urban elites (War 2.405, 407). As for the people of Batanaea, Josephus says that they were ground down by the tribute collected by Agrippa I (late first century), and thereafter completely crushed by the direct collection of the tribute by the Romans (Ant. 17.28).

Another basic way the Romans benefitted from their provinces was through monopolies. Certain trades and industries were essentially “owned” by Rome and contracted to the workers. In Palestine after the First Judean Revolt (66-70 CE), Rome controlled the balsam trade (Pliny, Natural History 12.54, 111-13; Strabo, Geography 16.2.41). In Palmyra the Romans monopolized salt, in Tyre the purple, and in Lebanon lumber; in Egypt, Rome had monopolies over most major industries (Heichelheim1959:228-31; 1970:699). The net profits from these industries, consequently, went to the Imperial treasury.

2. Herod Antipas ruled Galilee and Perea from 4 BCE—39 CE with the status of tetrarch (Luke 3:1; Josephus, War 1.668; Ant. 17.188). The title of tetrarch was determined both by his father’s will and his status as a Roman client controlling a relatively small district. He was the son of Herod the Great and Malthake (a Samaritan); and his full brother and sister were Herod Archelaus (ethnarch of Judea) and Olympias (Josephus, War 1.562; Hanson 1989:78-79). When Herod Antipas founded the city of Tiberias, Josephus says that he rose to be one of the greatest friends of Tiberius (Ant. 18.36). Political life of Galilee under Herod Antipas is analyzed by Hoehner (1972:83-265), Sullivan (1977:306-8), Smallwood (1981:183-87) and Freyne (1988:135-43).

Josephus estimates the annual revenue of Herod Antipas from his tetrarchy at 200 talents = 1.2 million denarii (Ant. 17.318). Compare this to the annual revenues of his ruling relatives (Table 1; note that Salome is often overlooked because of her subordinate status to Archelaus):

TABLE 1: Herodian Revenues

RULERS	REGIONS	REVENUES	REFERNCES
Salome	Jamnia, Ashdod, and Phasaelis	60 talents	Ant. 17.321
Philip	northern territories	100 talents	Ant. 17.319
Herod Antipas	Galilee and Perea	200 talents	Ant. 17.318
Archelaus	Idumea, Judea, and Samaria	600 talents	Ant. 17.319-20
Agrippa I	all Palestine	2000 talents	Ant. 19.352

Extracting revenues from the land was consistent with earlier periods, for example under Pompey (Josephus, Ant. 14.74, 78) and Julius Caesar ( Ant. 14.202-3). And the people of Roman-era Palestine clearly considered them a heavy burden, as protests demonstrate (Josephus, War 2.4; Tacitus, Annals 2.42).

Josephus calls Herod Antipas a “lover of luxury” (Ant. 18.245). This luxurious lifestyle is only comprehensible in view of his extraction of Galilean resources. Since Josephus himself ranked among the urban elite, I take this as quite a cutting comment, intimating that Herod Antipas was “way over the top.”

How many administrative/tax districts (toparchoi) Herod employed is not clear from the sources. Were only Tarichaeae and Tiberias toparchies? Or did Sepphoris and Gabara function in this capacity as well? Strange seems to make contradictory statements in this regard (1992:464). If all four district divisions were used, they would have been responsible for roughly the areas listed in Table 2:

TABLE 2: Administrative/Tax Districts of Lower Galilee*

REGION	ADMINISTRATIVE TOWN
northeastern Lower Galilee	Tarichaeae
northwestern Lower Galilee	Gabara
southeastern Lower Galilee	Tiberias
southwestern Lower Galilee	Sepphoris

(*Corrected from published version)

Royal taxes and duties paid to Archelaus are discussed further in Josephus, War 2.4; Ant. 17.204-5.

The Herodians (either Herod Antipas or Herod the Great before him) also seem to be responsible for the construction of the harbors and breakwaters on the Sea of Galilee. The size of the stones and the required construction organization suggest state building projects. The known harbors correspond directly to the locations where Jesus lived or traveled in the gospels (beginning in the north and going counter-clockwise): Bethsaida, Capernaum, Gennesar, Magdala [Tarichaeae], Gadara, and Gergasa; the other known harbors are: Aish, Tabgha, Emmaus, Sennabris, Philoteria, Hippos [Susita], Ein Gofra, and Kefar Aqavya (Nun 1989:15; Gophen & Gal 1992:162; Rousseau & Arav1995:23). With regard to the regional ruler controlling the Sea of Galilee, Dunkel notes that during the rule of the Ottoman Empire leases and taxes were paid to the Pasha in Damascus (1924). The most recent analysis of Herod the Great and the Herodian family is Richardson 1997.

3. Tax collectors, toll collectors, and brokers (e.g., John of Caesarea, War 2.287) are not organizationally differentiated in the ancient sources (for the Roman evidence in general, Youtie[1967] and Badian [1972]; for Palestine, Donahue [1971] and Michel[1972]). But with regard to the model of Galilean fishing, such persons intrude in all transactions. That there were at least two “layers” to the bureaucracy is indicated by reference to chief-collectors, viz. “tax and toll administrators” (architelônai; e.g., Zacchaeus, Luke 19:2). We see the contracting of taxes to “the urban elites and rulers” during the Hellenistic period in Josephus, Ant. 12.169, 175, 184. And the term kômogrammatoi (Ant . 16.203) may refer to the village “accountants” who oversaw leases and other taxes.

Adapting Rostovtzeff’s model based on Egyptian and Syrian evidence, fishermen received capitalization along with fishing rights, and were therefore indebted to local brokers responsible for the harbors and for fishing leases. The location of Levi’s toll office in Capernaum—an important fishing locale—probably identifies him as just such a contractor of royal fishing rights (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:13-14; Wuellner 1967:43-44; contra Theissen, who imagines a frontier toll booth, 1991:119nn). This location of a fishing toll-office next to the harbor is paralleled in the first-century inscription from Ephesus (G.H.R. Horsley1989:18-19). Horsley also mentions an Imperial-era Latin document concerning a dedication to the goddess Hlundana made by fishing contractors (conductores piscatus; ILS 1 [1892; repr. 1962] 1462; 1989:106).

In a story about the bid by Demetrius (the Seleucid king) for the loyalty of Jonathan (the Hasmonean), both 1 Maccabees and Josephus quote a letter from Demetrius (c. 152 BCE) listing the following taxes he was willing to suspend (1 Macc 10:29-31; 11:34-36; Josephus, Ant. 13.49-51):

1. salt tax
2. crown tax
3. grain tax: one-third of the produce
4. tax on fruit and nut trees: one-half the produce
5. poll tax
6. tithe
7. tribute
8. imposts/duties

Presumably, the remission of these taxes and tribute previously paid to the Seleucids would subsequently be paid to the Hasmonean rulers and then the Herodians. An important anecdote in Josephus that illuminates imperial tribute (under the Ptolemies), bidding for collection rights, and the like is told about a Judean from Egypt named Joseph:

Now when the day came on which the collection rights of taxes on the cities were sold, and those that were the principal men of dignity in their several countries were to bid for them, the sum of the taxes together of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and Judea, with Samaria came to 8,000 talents. Hereupon Joseph [the Tobiad] accused the bidders of colluding to undervalue the taxes; and he promised that he would himself give twice as much for them. But for those who did not pay, he would send the king [Ptolemy] home their whole substance, for this right was sold together with the taxes. The king was pleased to hear that offer; and, because it augmented his revenues, he said he would confirm the sale of the taxes to him; but when he asked him this question whether he had any securities that would be bound for the payment of the money, he answered very pleasantly, “I will offer good and responsible persons, and ones which you shall have no reason to distrust.” And when he asked him to name them, he replied, “I give you no other persons, O king, than yourself and your wife; and you shall be security for both parties.” So Ptolemy laughed at the proposal, and granted him the collection of the taxes without any sureties (Ant. 12.175-78).

That taxes were often paid “in kind” rather than in money can be seen in several ancient documents. Referring to earlier days in Greece, Athenaeum quotes Philomnestus:

For the sycophant got his name from the fact that in those days the fines and taxes, from the proceeds of which they administered public expenditures, consisted of figs, wine, and oil, and they who exacted these tolls or made declaration of them were called, as it appears, “sycophants” (sykophantas), being selected as the most trustworthy among the citizens (Deipnosophists 3.74-75).

And the same was true of Hasmonean-era Palestine: “. . . in the second year they shall pay the tribute at Sidon, consisting of one-fourth the produce sown . . .” (Josephus, Ant. 14.203). This is consistent with an Egyptian papyrus from the same period (Papyrus Tebtunis no. 5; Huntand Edgar 1934:60-61; 118 BCE). Rabban Gamaliel (first century CE) is quoted as saying: “By four things does the empire exist: by its tolls, bathhouses, theatres, and crop taxes” (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 28; Goldin 1955:116).

And this brings us to those collectors who controlled the roads and bridges. The imperial customs duties were based on crossing from one Roman tax district into another; and during the reign of Tiberius, the Empire had ten districts. The duty-rates were 2%, 2.5%, or 5%, depending upon the goods (Lewis and Reinhold 1990:64-65); and this rate of 2% (more or less) is exemplified by one of the technical terms for customs collectors: pentêkostologos (”collector of the one-fiftieth”; Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 2.49; 11.481). The toll-fees for roads varied considerably; they also charged for animals (at different rates for camels and donkeys) and wagons. I have not yet found any documentation for Galilean road-tolls, but presumably Herod Antipas collected from the local traffic on roads and bridges within Galilee. In a toll-list from Coptus, Egypt (90 CE), toll-rates do appear, providing some idea of first-century rates of toll in a Roman province. They cover different classifications of people based on gender, status, and profession (e.g., 5 drachmas for a sailor, 20 drachmas for a sailor’s woman); and different animals and conveyances (e.g., 1 obol for a camel, 4 drachmas for a covered wagon; Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae no. 674; Lewis and Reinhold 1990:66-67). The import duty for bringing processed fish into Palmyra in 137 CE was 10 denarii per camel load (Corpus Inscriptionum Selectae II.3, 1 [1926] 3913; Matthews1984:174-80).

The abusiveness of tax collectors is a well-attested phenomenon from the Roman era, as suggested in the Zacchaeus story (Luke 19:2-8) and the Mishnah (m.B.K.; m.Ned. 3.4; m.Toh. 7.6; Jeremias 1969:303-12). Philo’s characterization of the common first-century attitude toward them is apt:

. . . for cities usually furnish them [taxes] under compulsion, and with great reluctance and lamentation, looking upon the collectors of the taxes as common enemies and destroyers, and making various excuses at different times, and neglecting all laws and regulations, and with all this obfuscation and evasion do they contribute the taxes and payments which are levied upon them (Special Laws1.143).

Philo also tells a harrowing story of a tribute collector who harassed those in arrears and their families. The mistreatment even extended to public torture in the marketplace (Special Laws3.159-63). From Arsinoe, Egypt (in 193 CE), we have an official complaint lodged with the local Roman centurion by a farmer and his brother against two collectors of the grain-tax and their scribe who physically assaulted the complainants’ mother. The attack was precipitated because they had only paid nine out of the ten arbate that were due (Berlin Griechische Urkunden no. 515; trans. Hunt and Edgar1934:277).

The records also indicate that there were (at least in some ancient locations) fishing police (epilimnês epistatês; or what we might call anachronistically “game wardens”), who made sure no one was fishing illegally (viz. without a fishing contract) or selling to unauthorized middlemen (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 2 [1925] 747; an epitaph from Lake Egridir in Pisidia; G.H.R. Horsley1989:105).

4. Fishermen could form “cooperatives” (koinônoi) in order to bid for fishing contracts or leases; this is the conclusion of Wuellner(1967:23-25), based on Rostovtzeff’s model for Egypt and Syria (1941:297, 1177-79). One of the most interesting observations the gospels make about the Yonah and Zebedee families is Luke’s comment that they were a small-scale collective/cooperative:

. . . they signaled to their partners [metachoi] in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats . . . . For he [Simon] was astonished, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken; and so too were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were cooperative-members [koinônoi] with Simon (Luke 5:7, 9-10a).

Since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke, this description may be due to the evangelist’s own experiences or interests rather than those of these fishermen. Yet evidence for fishing guilds in Palestine does exist for a slightly later period (j.Pes. 4.30d; j.M.K. 2.81b; b.M.K. 13b; cited in Heichelheim1959:230n). An ancient Egyptian fishing lease from the Roman era is analyzed by Parássoglou(1987 ). An Egyptian papyrus from 46 CE identifies a fishing collective of thirteen fishermen and their scribe who all took an oath by the Roman emperor (Tiberius) concerning not catching sacred fish (Pubblicazioni della Societa italiana 901.7-16; Huntand Edgar 1934:373-75). And a fishing cooperative in Asia Minor left an impressive stele dedicating the toll-house for which the cooperative paid in 54-59 CE (Die Inschriften von Ephesos Ia [1979] 20; 54-59 CE; G.H.R. Horsley 1989:18-19). This cooperative (or guild?) in Ephesus included both fishermen and fish-sellers, so that room must be made in the model for cooperation between Galilean fishing families and fish-sellers. The sureties for tax-collectors/brokers are mentioned in the Josephus quote above; but sureties given to these brokers are also mentioned in the Palmyrene “Edict on Sureties” (Matthews 1984).

Concerning the Yonah˜Zebedee cooperative, G.H.R. Horsleyconcludes that: “the families of Peter and Andrew, and of James and John, must have been of at least moderate means, since each owned a boat and other fishing equipment; furthermore, these families were able to release two sons for a three-year period (Mk. 1.16-20)” (1989:110-11). But the evidence does not require any of this reconstruction. First, given the evidence of the Hellenistic and Roman-era fishing industries, it is at least possible that the boats were actually owned by the brokers and used by the cooperative. Secondly, “moderate means” is a useless and misleading category in a peasant society without a mercantile “middle class.” Even if the families owned boats, this would say no more about them than it would about a peasant farmer who owned a yoke of oxen or a flock of sheep. Thirdly, how long the Twelve were “on the road” with Jesus is manifestly unclear in the gospels. The Synoptic story line encompasses a period of one year requiring no more than six months of activity, excluding the rainy season from October to March.

I also disagree with Wuellner ’s analysis and conclusions about the social status of Galilean fishers. He perceives two “classes” of fishermen: those who did the actual work, and those who owned the boats and made the deals with the brokers (1967:63). He refers to members of this latter group as the “professional middle class fish catcher and fish trader” (24), prosperous from their marketplace deals (45). While he rightly points out that there are “hired laborers,” I see no reason to conclude that they were in a different “social class” than the fishing families who owned boats. We see both working alongside each other in the gospels (e.g., Mark 1:20). I conclude that both of these groups were “peasants” in the broad sense, since they both live from their work in the boats. The hired laborers are in a more precarious position because their work was likely seasonal; but that does not make the members of the fishing cooperative “middle class” entrepreneurs (45-63)! Jeremias was also fond of the term “middle class” for anyone above a beggar, but the term is simply anachronistic. The ancient Egyptian observation that the fisher was “more miserable than any (other) profession” was based on the combination of physical hazards (in Egypt, storms and crocodiles) in combination with fulfilling the fishing lease (”The Satire on the Trades”; trans. Wilson1969:433-43; also Plautus, Rudens 290-305 for fishers as low status).

Fishing techniques in the Hellenistic era were of four basic types: a) angling—a rod with hooks on flaxen line; b) casting with flaxen nets; c) fish traps; and d) pronged tridents (Wuellner1967:17-19; Nun1989, 1993). While angling is mentioned in the gospels (Matt 17:27), the most common mode of fishing in Galilee seems to have been with nets. Besides the generic word for “nets” (dictua; Mark 1:18 19), two different types are mentioned in the New Testament: the casting net (amphiblêstron ), used either from a boat or along the shoreline (Matt 4:18); and the much larger dragnet (sagênê), used from a boat (Matt 13:47). Greek authors, such as Oppian and Aelian, mention as many as ten different types of nets, but we are no longer able to distinguish between all of them. Nets required a great deal of attention: fishers and their hired labor ers not only made the nets, but after each outing the nets had to be mended, washed, dried and folded (Mark 1:19).

5. If there were not a sufficient number of family members in the cooperative, the fishermen had to hire laborers to help with all the responsibilities: manning the oars and sails, mending nets, sorting fish, etc. These laborers represent the bottom of the social scale in the fishing sub-system. In Mark 1:19-20 we find Zebedee as a net fisher who not only has two working sons in the business, but hired laborers as well. This number corresponds to the crew needed for the larger boats. Both farming and fishing made use of these laborers, which might be day-laborers (e.g., Matt 20:1-16) or seasonal workers (e.g., John 4:36; Jas 5:4). That hired laborers were a necessary and important part of the Galilean economy seems inescapable if the gospels are any indication at all (e.g., Matt 9:37-38; 10:10; 20:1-16; John 4:36; 10:12-13).

6. For their work, the fishermen needed resources from farmers and artisans, including (but not limited to): flax for nets, cut stone for anchors, wood for boat building and repairs, and baskets for fish. Both the gospels and Josephus speak of boats on the Sea of Galilee for fishing and transportation. In 1986 an ancient fishing boat was discovered in the mud along the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, just north of Migdal (ancient Magdala/Tarichaeae) (Raban1988; Wachsman1988, 1995; WachsmanWachsman, et al. 1990). Its dimensions were: 26.5 feet long, 7.5 feet wide, and 4.5 feet deep; a variety of woods were used in its construction, but it is primarily constructed of cedar and oak. Archaeologists have concluded that the boat was built between 40 BCE and 70 CE, based upon the type of construction, carbon-14 test ing, and adjacent pottery. This means that it was the type possibly used by the Yonah–Zebedee cooperative (including their sons: Peter, Andrew, James, and John). This boat originally had a sail, and places for four oarsmen and a tillerman. Boats of this size could accommodate a load in excess of one ton, which means the five crew members and their catch or cargo, or the crew and about ten passengers (Mark 6:45).

7. The fishing trade also entailed the processing of fish. During the Hellenistic era processed fish had become a food staple throughout the Mediterranean, in city and village alike. The result was the development of trade distinctions between those who caught fish, those who processed fish, and those who marketed fish. But as the Ephesus stele demonstrates, fishers and fish-sellers might work cooperatively. The distribution of the catch was also controlled by government approved wholesalers. While fish processors are not explicitly referred to in the gospels, processed fish is mentioned (John 6:9 11; also Tob 2:2).

Fish were processed for preservation and transportation as cured and pickled or dried and salted (e.g., m.Ned. 6.4); and wine could be mixed in with fish brine (m. Ter. 11.1). The Bible and the Mishnah also speak of eating fish in a variety of ways: broiled or roast ed (Luke 24:42; John 21:9; Tob 6:5), minced (m. Abod. Zar. 2.6), cooked with leeks (m. M. Sh. 2.1), with an egg (m. Betz. 2.1), or in milk (m. Hull. 8.1). Fish oil could also be used as fuel for lamps (m. Shab. 2.2) and as a medicine. The writer Athenaeus (c. 200 CE) waxes eloquent on the variations and the uses of processed fish (Deipnosophists 3.116a-121d). He also mentions “processed-fish-dealers.” In the work Geoponica (a Byzantine compilation of earlier sources) we find the following recipes:

Garum, also called liquamen, is made in this way. The entrails of fish are placed in a vat and salted. Also used are whole small fish, especially smelts, or tiny mullets, or small sprats, or anchovies, or whatever small fish are available. Salt the whole mixture and place it in the sun. After it has aged in the heat, the garum is extracted in the following manner. A long, thickly woven basket is placed into the vat full of the above-mentioned fish. The garum enters the basket, and the so-called liquamen is thus strained through the basket and retrieved. The remaining sediment is allec.

The Bithynians make garum in the following manner. They use sprats, large or small, which are the best to use if available. If sprats are not available, they use anchovies, or lizard fish or mackerel, or even old allec, or a mixture of all of these. They put this in a trough which is usually used for kneading dough. They add two Italian sextarii of salt to each modius of fish and stir well so that the fish and salt are thoroughly mixed. They let the mixture sit for one night and then transfer it to a clay vat which is placed uncovered in the sun for two or three months, stirring it occasionally with sticks. Then they bottle, seal, and store it. Some people also pour two sextarii of old wine into each sextarius of fish (Geoponica 20.46.1-5; quoted in Shelton 1988:85-86).

Pliny the Elder identifies Judeans with a particular variety of processed fish: castimoniarum (Natural History 31.95; cited in Curtis 1991:145). The town of Tarichaeae (”Processed-Fishville”; also known as Magdala) was just a few miles south of Capernaum and was the site of a major fish-processing installation (as attested by Strabo, Geography 16.2.45). It is possible that the major Galilean ports (at least on the western shore?) may have quickly shipped or carted a portion of their daily catches to Tarichaeae for processing at this installation. Whle this processing installation has never been excavated, the harbor at Tarichaeae has been discovered, with a limestone and basalt quay 90m long, with a second breakwater 70m long (Raban1993:965).

During the Roman period, vendors sold numerous varieties of processed fish, which differed in terms of the type of fish, the parts of the fish, the process, and the recipe. The four basic types of fish-sauce were: garum, liquamen, muria, and allex; but Corcoran’s study has shown that, depending upon the region and period, these could be used as synonyms (1963). The terms salsamentum and salugo refer to the saline solution used for pickling. It is clear from literary references and amphorae that there were also multiple grades of these products, the best being the garum sociorum produced in Spain (Pliny, Natural History 31.94). Recipes and comments from the ancients on fishsauces appear in Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists. Analyses of fish-processing in the Roman world have been carried out by Cutting (1956), Corcoran (1957; 1963), Martin-Kilcher(1990), and Curtis (1991). Recently a Roman-era fish-processing installation has been excavated in France (Martin-Kilcher1990), and another in north Africa. This will presumably shed more light on the processing network involved in such a complex enterprise.

8. The materials for fish-processing had to be supplied by (possibly government agents), merchants, farmers, and artisans, including especially: salt, wine, and amphorae, and possibly olive oil (Heltzerand Eitam [1987]) . Very little has been published on salt in the Roman East, but for salt production in antiquity, consult Potts(1994 ) and the symposium papers in de Brisay & Evans (1975). The two major possibilities for industrial amounts of salt would come from the Dead Sea to the south or Palmyra to the northeast.

9. The preserved fish and fish sauces could be distributed among merchants throughout Galilee and the rest of Palestine, as well as around the Mediterranean. But it needed to be hauled by carters and shippers. The distributors’ route would most likely follow the Via Maris from Bethsaida in the north, to Tarichaeae on the western shore, through Cana, to Ptolemais/Akko, the port city on the Mediterranean (Wuellner1967:32-33). From the amphorae found in shipwrecks off the Mediterranean coast of Israel, examples of Zemer Form 39 (a specific size and shape) have been identified by archaeologists as belonging to the first century, and bear traces of fishsauces (Curtis 1991:144). Describing a ship built for Heiron of Syracuse, Athenaeus says: “On board were loaded ninety thousand bushels of grain, ten thousand jars (keramia) of Sicilian salt-fish (tarichôn ), six hundred tons of wool, and other freight amounting to six hundred tons” (Deipnosophists 5.209).

IV. The Jesus Tradition and Fishing

My thesis concerning how the Jesus tradition interfaced with Galilean fishing is this: without minimizing farming, herding, and other aspects of Galilean village life, the aphorisms, parables and metaphors, anecdotes, and social network of Jesus are all heavily influenced by the Sea of Galilee and its fish, fishing, fishermen, and fishing-villages. A catalog of the gospel traditions in this regard illustrates the point.

1. Synoptic Tradition
   1. Locations Where Jesus Lives or Visits (Fishing Villages and Towns)
      • Bethsaida (Mark 6:45; 8:22; Luke 9:10)
      • Capernaum (Mark 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; Matt 4:13; 8:5; 11:23; 17:24; Luke 4:23, 31; 7:1; 10:15)
      • Gennesaret (Mark 6:53, par.)
      • Magdala/Magadan/Tarichaeae (Matt 15:39)
      • Gerasa (Mark 5:1, par.)
      • Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7:24, 31, par.)
   2. Social Network Developed from Fishing Villages and Towns
      • Peter/Simon, a fisher from Capernaum (Mark 1:16-20, par.)
      • mother-in-law of Peter, from Capernaum (Mark 1:29-31, par.)
      • Andrew, a fisher at Capernaum (Mark 1:16-20, par.)
      • James, a fisher at Capernaum (Mark 1:16-20, par.)
      • John, a fisher at Capernaum (Mark 1:16-20, par.)
      • mother of James and John [from Capernaum] (Matt 20:20-23)
      • Levi, a tax-collector (broker?) at Capernaum (Mark 2:14, par.)
      • Mary, from Magdala/Tarichaeae (Luke 8:2, par.)
      • villagers of Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28, par.)
      • crowds from Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:8, par.)
      • Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:1-20, par.)
   3. Aphorisms and Metaphors
      • Good Gifts [bread & fish] (Matt 7:9-11//Luke 11:11-13)
      • Millstone and the Sea (Mark 9:42//Matt 18:6//Luke 17:2//1 Clem 46:8b)
      • Salted with Fire (?) (Mark 9:49-50)
   4. Parables
      • The Net (Matt 13:47-48)
   5. Narratives
      • Call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John (Mark 1:16-20//Matt 4:18-22//Luke 5:1-11)
      • Calming of the Storm (Mark 4:35-41//Matt 8:23-27//Luke 8:22-25
      • Feeding of the 5000+ [five loaves, two fish] (Mark 6:35-44//Matt//Luke 9:10-17)
      • Walking on the Sea (Mark 6:45-52//Matt 14:22-33)
      • Feeding of the 4000+ [five loaves, two fish] (Matt 15:32-39)
      • Appearance of Resurrected Jesus [eats broiled fish] (Luke 24:36-42
      • Jesus and boats [narrative transitions] (Mark 3:9; 4:1, 5:2, 18, 21; 6:32; 8:10, 13; and par.)
   6. Dialogues/Chreia
      • The Rich [Camel Through a Needle's Eye] (Mark 10:35//Matt 19:23-30//Luke 18:24-30)
      • Cursing the Fig-Tree [Mt. Cast into the Sea] (Mark 11:20-25//Matt 21:20-22)
      • Mustard Seed Faith [Tree Cast into the Sea] (Luke 17:5-6)
      • Request for Sign [Jonah & the Fish] (Matt 12:38-40)
      • Half-Shekel Tax [taken from fish's mouth] (Matt 17:24-27)
2. Johannine Tradition
   1. Locations Where Jesus Lives or Visits (Fishing Villages and Towns
      • Bethsaida (1:44; 12:21)
      • Capernaum (2:12; 4:46; 6:17, 24, 59)
      • Social Network Developed from Fishing Villages and Towns
      • Peter/Simon/Cephas, from Bethsaida (1:44)
      • Andrew, from Bethsaida (1:44)
      • Philip, from Bethsaida (1:44)
      • Mary, from the fishing village of Magdala/Tarichea (19:25)
   2. Narratives
      • Feeding the 5000 [five loaves, two fish] (6:1-14)
      • Walking on the Sea (6:16-21)
      • Wondrous Catch of Fish (21:1-14)
3. Extra-Canonical Tradition
   1. Locations Where Jesus Visits or Lives (Fishing Villages and Towns
      • Capernaum (Gos. Eb. 1)
   2. Social Network from Fishing Villages and Towns
      • Beside the Sea of Tiberias
        • Peter/Simon (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • Andrew (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • James (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • John (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • Thaddeus (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • Simon the Zealot (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • Judas Iscariot (Gos. Eb. 2)
        • Matthew (Gos. Eb. 2)
      • Magdala/Tarichea
        • Mary (Gos. Pet. 12 [50])
   3. Aphorisms and Metaphors
      • Millstone and the Sea (Clem 46:8b)
      • Knowing Oneself [sea/fish] (Gos. Thom. 3//POxy 654 3:2//Dial. Sav. 30)
   4. Parables
      • The Great Fish (Gos. Thom. 8 )

V. Conclusions

1. Literary sources, inscriptions and stelae, and archaeological evidence confirm that fishing was an important and organized part of the economy throughout the Roman Empire. Despite the fact that our evidence for Galilee is fragmentary, the model advanced here is at least a beginning for understanding the complex web of participants and arrangements involved in such a complex enterprise.

2. The fishers could hardly be classed as “entrepreneurs” in such a highly regulated, taxed, and hierarchical political-economy. While the boat owners/fishers may or may not have also been involved in fish processing, this would not have made them wealthy, and certainly not “middle class,” as many authors have contended, since the whole conceptualization of a middle-class is anachronistic relative to Roman Palestine. The “surplus” went to the brokers and the ruling elite. The importance of fish is further highlighted by the references in the gospels to people who eat fish and carry fish with them. That some of these references appear as metaphors or in non-historical stories does not diminish their importance as believable scenarios in a Galilean context.

3. The hostility of the general population in both Judean and early Christian sources against the telônai may have stemmed originally from the conflict in the economy: the ancient sources stereotype them as inequitable and liable to unjust treatment of the population.

4. With regard to the Jesus tradition, it seems to me that the role of Galilean fishing has been severely underrated for its impact on Jesus’ network, locations of operation, aphorisms, parables, and “acts of power.” It does not seem an overstatement to say that Jesus’ proclamation of God’s Reign had its primary audience in Galilean fishing-villages and towns. This at least partially accounts for his avoidance of Galilean cities (notably Tiberias and Sepphoris) and the snide view of his ministry by Jerusalemite elites. It may also account for the tradition of Jesus drawing crowds from the fishing regions of Tyre and Sidon. Because Jesus made his residence in the fishing village of Capernaum during his ministry and traveled up, down, and across the Sea of Galilee, the lives of these real fishing families became the fabric from which he wove many of his metaphors and told his stories. Moreover, it was his sitting in a boat, crossing the Sea, and healing and exorcising in fishing-villages which were the stories vividly told in the earliest Jesus-groups. This hardly seems tangential to our modern attempts at recapturing the dynamics of Jesus’ career in his own setting.

K. C. Hanson

Please refer to: http://www.kchanson.com/ARTICLES/pubs.html

Bibliography

Adan-Bayewitz, David

1993 Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univ. Press.⇧

Adan-Bayewitz, David, and I. Perlman

1990 The Local Trade of Sepphoris in the Roman Period. Israel Exploration Journal 19:153-72.⇧

Athenaeus

1927-41 The Deipnosophists. 7 vols. Translated by C. B. Gulick. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.⇧

Badian, E.

1972 Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.⇧

Borg, Marcus

1987 Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship. San Francisco: Harper & Row.⇧

Braund, David C.

1984 Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship. New York: St. Martin’s.⇧

Corcoran, Thomas H.

1957 “The Roman Fishing Industry of the Late Republic and Early Empire.” Ph.D. dissertation: Northwestern University.

1963 “Roman Fish Sauces.” Classical Journal 58:204-10.⇧

Cornfeld, Gaalya, general editor.

1982 Josephus, The Jewish War. Newly Translated with Extensive Commentary and Archaeological Background Illustrations. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.⇧

Crossan, John Dominic

1991 The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.⇧

Curtis, Robert L.

1991 Garum and Salsamenta. Production and Commerce in Materia Medica. Studies in Ancient Medicine 3. Leiden: Brill.⇧

Cutting, Charles L.

1956 Fish Saving. A History of Fish Processing From Ancient to Modern Times. New York: Philosophical Library.⇧

Dalman, Gustaf

1939 Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Vol. 6: Zeltleben, Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd, Fischfang. Hildesheim: Olms.⇧

Deatrick, E. P.

1962 “Salt, Soil, Savior.” Biblical Archaeologist 25:41-48.⇧

De Brisay, K. W., and K. A. Evans, editors.

1975 Salt. The Study of an Ancient Industry. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Group.⇧

Donahue, John R.

1971 “Tax Collectors and Sinners.”Catholic Biblical Quarterly33:39-61.⇧

Dunkel, F. F.

1924 “Die Fischerei am See Genesareth und das Neue Testament.” Biblica 5:377 - 90.⇧

Elliott, John H.

1986 “Social Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and its Social World: More on Methods and Models.” Semeia 35:1-33.⇧

Evelyn-White, Hugh G., translator

1914 Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Loeb Classical Library 57. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.⇧

Fiensy, David A.

1991 The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land Is Mine. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 20. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen.⇧

Finley, Moses I.

1985 The Ancient Economy. 2nd ed. London: Hogarth.⇧

Freyne, Seán

1980 Galilee from Alexander to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. A Study of Second Temple Judaism. University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity, 5. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier.

1988 Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

1992 “Urban-Rural Relations in First-Century Galilee: Some Suggestions from the Literary Sources.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, edited by Lee I. Levine, 75-91. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

1994 “The Geography, Politics, and Economics of Galilee and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” In Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, 75-121. New Testament Tools and Studies 19. Leiden: Brill.

1995 “Herodian Economics in Galilee: Searching for a Suitable Model.” In Modeling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, edited by Philip F. Esler, 23-46. London: Routledge.⇧

Garnsey, Peter and Richard Saller

1987 The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.⇧

Goldin, Judah, translator.

1955 The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Yale Judaic Series, 10. New Haven, CN: Yale Univ. Press.⇧

Gophen, Moshe, and Itzhaki Gal

1992 Lake Kinneret. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence-Israel [Hebrew].⇧

Hamel, Gildas

1990 Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine, First Three Centuries C.E. University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 23. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.⇧

Hanson, K. C.

1989a “The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship I: Genealogy and Descent.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19:75-84.

1989b “The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship II: Marriage and Divorce.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19:142-51.

1990 “The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship III: Economics.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 20:10-21.⇧

Heichelheim, Friedrich H.

1959 “Roman Syria.” In Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Vol. 4: Africa, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor, edited by T. Frank, 121-257. Paterson, NJ: Pagent.

1970 “Monopolies.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Heltzer, Michael, and D. Eitam, editors.

1987 Olive Oil in Antiquity: Israel and Neighbouring Countries from Neolith to Early Arab Period. Haifa: [no publisher].⇧

Hoehner, Harold W.

1972 Herod Antipas. SNTS Monographs 17. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)

Horsley, G. H. R.

1981 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 1. Macquarie: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre.

1983 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 3. Macquarie: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre.

1989 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 5. Macquarie: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)⇧(4)⇓(5)⇓(6)⇓(7)

Horsley, Richard A.

1990 Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress.

1994 “The Historical Jesus and Archaeology of the Galilee: Questions from Historical Jesus Research to Archaeologists.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1994, edited by E. H. Lovering Jr., 91-135. Atlanta: Scholars.

1995 Galilee: History, Politics, People. Philadelphia: Trinity.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)

Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson

1985 Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Winston.⇧

Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar

1934 Select Papyri. Volume II. Loeb Classical Library 282. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)⇓(4)

Jongman, Willem

1988 The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Dutch Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology. Amsterdam: Gieben.⇧

Klausner, J.

1975 “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple.” In The Herodian Period, edited by M. Avi-Yonah, 179-205. London: Allen⇧

Leach, Edmund

1987 “Fishing for Men on the Edge of the Wilderness.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, 579-99. Cambridge: Belnap.⇧

Lenski, Gerhard

1984 Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)

Lenski, Gerhard, Patrick Nolan, and Jean Lenski

1995 Human Society: A Introduction to Macrosociology. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.⇧

Lernau, Hanan, and Omri Lernau

1989 “Fish Bone Remains.” In Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem, edited by Eilat Mazar and Benjamin Mazar, 155-59. Qedem, 29. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press.⇧

Lewis, Naphtali, and Meyer Reinhold

1990 Roman Civilization: Selected Readings. Vol. 2: The Empire. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇓(3)

Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones

1968 A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. with supplement. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.⇧

Lintott, Andrew

1993 Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. New York: Routledge.⇧

Mack, Burton L.

1988 A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

1993 The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.⇧

Malina, Bruce J.

1986 “‘Religion’ in the World of Paul.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16:92-101.⇧

Martin-Kilcher, Stéphanie

1990 “Fischsaucen und Fischkonserven aus dem römischen Gallien.” Archäologie der Schweiz 13:37-44.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Masterman, E. W. G.

1908 “The Fisheries of Galilee.” Palestine Exploration Fund 40:40-51.⇧

Matthews, J. F.

1984 “The Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.” Journal of Roman Studies 74:157-80.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇓(3)

Meyers, Eric M.

1976 “Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 221:93-101.⇧

Michel, Otto

1972 “telonês.” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, 8:88-105. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.⇧

Millar, Fergus

1993 The Roman East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.⇧

Nun, Mendel

1989 The Sea of Galilee and Its Fishermen in the New Testament. Ein Gev: Kibbutz Ein Gev.

1993 “Cast Your Net Upon the Waters: Fish and Fishermen in Jesus’ Time.” Biblical Archaeology Review 19.6 (Nov/Dec):46-56, 70.

1999 “Ports of Galilee.” Biblical Archaeology Review 25.4 (July/Aug): 19-31 + 64.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Oakman, Douglas E.

1986 Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 8. Lewiston, NY: Mellen.

1991 “The Ancient Economy in the Bible.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 21:34-39.

1994 “The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1994, edited by E. H. Lovering Jr., 220-51. Atlanta: Scholars.⇧

Parássoglou, G. M.

1987 “A Lease of Fishing Rights.” Aegyptus 67:89-93.⇧

Philo

1993 The Works of Philo. New Updated Edition, Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson [orig. ed. 1854-55].⇧(1)⇧(2)

Polanyi, Karl

1977 The Livelihood of Man. Studies in Social Discontinuity. New York: Academic.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Polanyi, Karl, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson

1957 Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.⇧(3)

PolanyiPotts, D.

1994 “On Salt and Salt Gathering in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 37:225-71.⇧

Raban, Avner

1988 “The Boat from Migdal Nunia and the Anchorages of the Sea of Galilee from the Time of Jesus.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17:311-29.

1993 “Marine Archaeology.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by Ephraim Stern, 3:957-65. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Reed, Jonathan L.

1994 “Population Numbers, Urbanization, and Economics: Galilean Archaeology and the Historical Jesus.” In SBL Seminar Papers 1994, 203-19. Edited by E. H. Lovering Jr. Atlanta: Scholars.⇧

Rostovtzeff, M.

1941 The Social & Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Rousseau, John J., and Rami Arav

1995 Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Shelton, Jo-Ann

1988 As The Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.⇧

Sperber, Daniel

1968 “Some Observations on Fish and Fisheries in Roman Palestine.” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 118:265-69.

1976 “Objects of Trade Between Palestine and Egypt in Roman Times.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 19:113-47.⇧

Strange, James F.

1992 “Magdala.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, 4:463-64. New York: Doubleday.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Sullivan, Richard D.

1977 “The Dynasty of Judea in the First Century.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.8, 296-354. Berlin: de Gruyter.⇧

Theissen, Gerd

1991 The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.⇧

Wachsman, Shelley

1988 “The Galilee Boat.” Biblical Archaeology Review 14.5 (Sept/Oct):18-33.

1995 The Sea of Galilee Boat: An Extraordinary 2000 Year Old Discovery. New York: Plenum.⇧(1)⇧(2)

Wachsman, Shelley, et al.

1990 “Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee.” ‘Atiqot (Eng. series) vol. 19.⇧

Wilson, John A., translator.

1969 “Satire on the Trades.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James A. Pritchard, 432-34. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.⇧

Wuellner, Wilhelm

1967 The Meaning of “Fishers of Men” New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.⇧(1)⇧(2)⇧(3)⇧(4)⇧(5)⇧(6)⇧(7)

Youtie, H. C.

1967 “Publicans and Sinners.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 1:1-20.⇧

Please visit: K.C. Hanson Home Page.

Fig. 1. Magdala. Sarcophagus preserved in the city cemetery at the beginning of the hill west of the road.

Source: B. Bagatti, Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee (SBF Collectio Minor 13), Jerusalem 1999, pp. 68-71, figs. 33-34.

MAGDALA HOME OF MARY MAGDALENE
A woman called Mary and known because she became a fervent follower of Jesus made Magdala, her native village on the shore of Lake Tiberias, famous.
Much has been written about this woman. Too often the writer, sacred or profane, has allowed his imagination to run away with him and has produced fiction rather than fact. Hence we believe it opportune to stick to the bare bones of the gospel passages so as to have accurate documentation.
A passage from St. Luke (8,2) tells us that “Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,” followed Jesus together with other women “who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities “ This is the only certain passage which speaks of Mary before the Passion of Jesus.
Mary appears in Matthew (27,60-61) and in Mark (16,9) when she and the other women, after the burial of Jesus, “were sitting opposite the sepulchre.” She figures most prominently when she sees the risen Jesus (Mark 16,1-10) and has the mission of announcing the Resurrection to the apostles. (John 20,1-18).

The Town
In Talmudic sources Magdala appears as the home of Rabbi Isaac. It may possibly be identified with Migdal Seboya, which seems to have been a part of the city, and would have been destroyed on account of the immorality of its inhabitants (Lam.R. 2, 2; TJ Ta‘anith 4:8, 69a; one of the texts gives the name as Magdala, the other as Migdal Seboya). According to Neubauer (GTalm., p. 217) “this statement finds partial and most curious confirmation in the episode of the sinful woman of the gospels, Mary Magdalene. As her name indicates, she was from Magdala.” The author’s arguments in general are well documented but on this point he is inaccurate, because Magdala would have been destroyed not long before the 3rd century, and certainly Mary lived long before that. Secondly, there is no evidence that Mary was a sinner – if she had been, she had sincerely converted and followed the straight and narrow path. Finally, ancient sources present her far away from her mother town.
On the other hand, it is interesting to examine the story of the destruction of Magdala and its causes. Magdala is associated with Shihin which was destroyed because its inhabitants engaged in magic (Lam. R. 2, 2; TJ Ta‘anith 4:8, 69a; cf. Neubauer, GTalm., p. 202). Now both immorality and magic were two vices which the Jews used to ascribe to the Minim, that is, the Jewish Christians: one has only to think of Capernaum. It is possible that Magdala, or at least certain quarters of the town, were destroyed because they were inhabited by Minim, who were considered heretics and were fought as such. Kefer Sekhnaya too was destroyed because it did not keep the mourning over Jerusalem (Gittin 57a; G.F. Moore, Judaism, II, Cambridge, 1958, 67 n. 1). A propos of the destruction of Magdala the Talmud has a query by an inhabitant of the town who asked Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, who died in 275, whether it was permitted to use the stones of the destroyed synagogue in order to build another.

The Church
The Christian sources collected in the ELS (nos. 364-374) mention Magdala as the home of “domna Maria” in the 6th century, and as “vicum Magdalenae” in the 7th. The first to mention a church dedicated to the Magdalene is the monk Epiphanius in the 9th century, who writes: “Two miles (from the Heptapegon) there is a church where the house of the Magdalene is, in the place called Magdala, where the Savior healed her.”
According to a legendary Life of Helena and Constantine, the church would have been erected by the Empress; but the most we can learn from this piece of news is that in the 9th or 10th century, when the Life was written, the church appeared to be very old. The ecclesiastical composition once attributed to Peter of Sebaste, now restored to Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria in the 10th century, confirms that it was a memorial church: “The church of Magdala, near Tiberias, attests that Christ cast out seven devils from Mary Magdalene” (Liber Demonstrationis, CSCO 193, p. 136).
The church is not mentioned by Crusader pilgrims; but the Dominican Ricoldus de Monte Crucis, who visited the place in 1294, says that he found a “beautiful church, still intact, but boarded up, where we sang and preached the Gospel of Magdalene” (ELS, no.376).
The tower which gave rise to legends remained visible. Thus the Jesuit Fr. Nau, in 1668, heard that the place was called”burge flaaschem, that is, the tower of lovers” (Voyage nouveau, p. 593); and he was told that the remains of a church could still be discerned. However, he only got a fleeting glance of the tower.

The Ruins
On April 24-25, 1935, on instructions from the Custos, Fr. Nazzareno Iacopozzi, Fr. S. Saller and I visited the place to study the ruins, with the help of by Fr. Gregorio Ocio, warden of the Franciscan Hospice in Tiberias. The village muktar Mutlaq, with the many children and grandchildren from his nine wives, sufficient to form a village, showed us all the ruins, visible and invisible, since he expected to sell them to the Custody of the Holy Land. On this occasion we made a rough plan of the antiquities which still has documentary value since no further excavations and surveys have been carried out at the place.
A narrow road separates the Franciscan property from the Muktar’s estate. In the former there is a water reservoir called Sitti Mariam, in memory of Magdalene, a heart-shaped pillar base, like those found in Capernaum, cushion mouldings and, near the enclosure wall, the remains of a house with mosaic with three mosaic-paved rooms. The patterns of the mosaics are all geometrical, much like the various mosaics of the 4th-7th centuries. The motif of fish-scales appears in the fields and a step pattern in the border. The colours are three: white, red and black. The walls are razed almost to the ground.
According to archive documents, near the reservoir there had been the church, of which the German architect Leyden saw the remains of the apse. He mentions also a stone with a cross and the date 1389, and another stone with a Hebrew inscription.
On the property of the Muktar, there were ruins which he wanted to sell, and which, he said, were those of a church. There we saw vaults (marked A on our plan) and a semicircular wall to the east with smaller supporting walls (B-D). The walls are thick and were built with two outer faces filled with rubble. The vault seems to be too low for a church and too high for a crypt; so we thought it may be the remains of a tower. Guérin had the same impression many years ago (Galilee, I, p. 204). A wall that runs parallel to the shore and is connected with the ancient building shows that this structure was part of a large complex. The Muktar’s sons led us through the kitchen garden and pointed out the places of ancient conduits and mosaic pavements; but we could check very few of these. They await the pick.
Other visits to the place after 1948 showed that the Muktar’s houses had been destroyed and the place deserted. Some new finds came to light with the construction of a conduit which carries the salty water of Tabgha away from the lake: they could be profitably followed up since they revealed new aspects of the town. To the east of the road a great wall was uncovered, with rooms and many potsherds, among them a large quantity of Byzantine ware. To the west of the road, towards the south, tombs built in masonry and some stone sarcophagi with simple decoration were uncovered. We can infer that the cemetery was on this side at the foot of this mountain.
From 1971 to 1973 Fathers Corbo and Loffreda conducted excavations at Magdala; and besides discovering the remains of the Roman city built with beautiful dressed stones, they also brought to light the Byzantine remnants. These extend within and outside the boundaries of the Franciscan property, where the Arab village was once located. The excavation is not complete; nevertheless, it has brought to our knowledge many rooms and pavements decorated with geometric designs. Though remnants of ecclesiastical furniture have been discovered, the church has not yet been located. Father Corbo published a preliminary report (LA 24 [1974] pp. 5-18). For more sources and bibliography, see Tabula Imperii, s.v. Magdala, Tarichae.
(TS 1967, with additions)

Magdala. Sketch of the ruins made in 1935.” width=”540″ height=”378″ />

Fig. 2. Magdala. Sketch of the ruins made in 1935.

One of the Oldest Synagogues in the World was Exposed in the Israel Antiquities Authority Excavation

Source: IAA Press Office

A synagogue from the Second Temple period (50 BCE-100 CE) was exposed in archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is conducting at a site slated for the construction of a hotel on Migdal beach, in an area owned by the Ark New Gate Company. In the middle of the synagogue is a stone that is engraved with a seven-branched menorah (candelabrum), the likes of which have never been seen. The excavations were directed by archaeologists Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The main hall of synagogue is c. 120 square meters in area and its stone benches, which served as seats for the worshippers, were built up against the walls of the hall. Its floor was made of mosaic and its walls were treated with colored plaster (frescos). A square stone, the top and four sides of which are adorned with reliefs, was discovered in the hall. The stone is engraved with a seven-branched menorah set atop a pedestal with a triangular base, which is flanked on either side by an amphora (jars).
According to the excavation director, Dina Avshalom-Gorni of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “We are dealing with an exciting and unique find. This is the first time that a menorah decoration has been discovered from the days when the SecondTemple was still standing. This is the first menorah to be discovered in a Jewish context and that dates to the Second Temple period/beginning of the Early Roman period. We can assume that the engraving that appears on the stone, which the Israel Antiquities Authority uncovered, was done by an artist who saw the seven-branched menorah with his own eyes in the Temple in Jerusalem. The synagogue that was uncovered joins just six other synagogues in the world that are known to date to the SecondTemple period”.
According to the Minister of Culture and Sport, MK Limor Livnat, “This important find attests to the extensive Jewish settlement in the northern region at the time of the Temple. I am certain that the site will constitute an attraction for tourists from abroad and from Israel and will shed light on life in the Jewish settlement during the Second Temple period”.
Jose Miguel Abat, legal representative of “Ark New Gate” company, expressed his joy for the finding and said it reinforces the company’s intention to establish a center of dialogue and respect between the different religions and cultures. Abat said that “we are sure this finding and the planned center will attract tourists and visitors from Israel and from around the World”.
The synagogue is located in Migdal (‘Magdala’ in Aramaic), which is mentioned in Jewish sources. Migdal played an important role during the Great Revolt and was actually the main base of Yosef Ben Matityahu (Josephus Flavius), commander of the rebellion in the Galilee. Migdal also continued to resist the Romans after both the Galilee and Tiberias had surrendered. ‘Magdala’ is mentioned in Christian sources as the place whence Mary Magdalene came, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and the apostles and who Christian tradition has sanctified. After it was conquered by the Romans, the city was destroyed and many of its residents were killed. At the end of the Second Temple period Migdal was an administrative center of the western basin of the Sea of Galilee. Until the founding of Tiberias in the year 19 CE, Migdal was the only important settlement along the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
The site is currently closed to visitors and will be opened to the public in the future.

Source: Israel Antiquities Authority

Urban Development of the City of Magdala/Tarichaeae in the Light of the New Excavations: Remains, Problems and Perspectives

Stefano De Luca

SBF- Magdala Project

Abstract of the paper presented at the Symposium: Greco-Roman Galilee

The systematic archaeological excavations carried out since 2007 by the «Magdala Project» Team and directed by the writer in the site of the ancient Magdala/Tarichaeae, have extended our knowledge of the city by opening new fields (Area H) and reaching new strata in the areas excavated during the 1971-1976 campaigns by the SBF.

The earliest levels reached until now, allow us to fix the foundation of the city at least to the first Hasmonean age. To the II century B.C., in fact, lead some important habitative and monumental remains.

The urban layout is designed according to an easily identifiable Hippodamean plan. The original width of the southern portion of Cardo Maximus, covered in the late antiquity by pylons of the aqueduct, is now known and a new paved Decumanus have been brought on light in the area H. The original intricate water networks run beneath the slabs of the Viae Publicae, supplying fresh water to the fountains.

The main water with channels, systems for drainage, water collectors, plants for heating and pressurization and the deep covered channels to discharge the water into the Lake, reveal an unitary and coherent plan.

The water supply system serves primarily the large Thermal Complex which included, according to the new excavations, the all Areas East of Cardo Maximus, i.e. Areas C, D, E, as well as the large Quadriporticus (F).

The excavations of the six stepped pools of the Thermae, brought to light a large quantity of findings, including organic, exceptionally preserved in the water-saturated muddy strata.

Regarding the use of the thermal complex, two phases have been identified that seem to correspond to the major urban re-organisation of this quarter of Magdala: 1th century B.C – 1th century A.D and half of 3th century A.D. – half of 4th century A.D.. Between the I and II phase would be placed the dramatic events of the First Jewish Revolt (66-67 A.D.) described by Josephus, to which many stratigraphical evidences of destruction and abandonment can be related. The second phase apparently ends as result of the traumatic earthquake dated to 363 A.D. which is also documented by the archaeological evidences. To the 4th Century leads the common pottery, according to the currently used Galilean pottery typologies. However coins, oil lamps and small finds from the same contexts suggest an earlier chronology.

The large Quadriporticus F served as Palaestra for the visitors of the Thermae and, both in its Hasmonean and Herodian phase, had, in the Eastern branch, a built-in quay. The newly discovered harbour of Tarichaeae, includes in situ: massive foundations of a tower with casemate, an Hasmonean wall built of ashlar stones with dressed margins, ramps for recovering ships, a staircase, a large L shaped basin with breakwater and 6 mooring stones incorporated in the painted plastered wall. These structures, representing the most preserved ancient harbour discovered until now along the shores of the Lake Kinneret, force us to reconsider the function of this southern quarter and to protect the site from the ongoing building projects in the area.

(Translated by A. Lena, Magdala Project)

by Eli Ashkenazi (Haaretz 11/09/2009)

An artist who visited the Second Temple returned to his Galilee home some 2,000 years ago amazed by what he’d seen.
In a synagogue on Lake Kinneret’s shores, he carved the candelabra he’d seen into a rock.
The stone and other discoveries were recently uncovered by an Israel Antiquities Authority dig near Moshava Migdal. The dig uncovered the earliest known synagogue dated to the days of the Second Temple.
The dig is intended as a salvage operation ahead of the construction of a hotel on a site owned by the Legionaries of Christ.
The uncovered synagogue dates to 50 BC to 100 AD, and at its center the engraving of the seven-branched lamp, or menorah, “unlike any ever seen” according to workers at the site.
According the Antiquities Authority “starting with the beginning of the dig three weeks ago, we realized we had found something interesting. The findings at the site were also well preserved.”
The synagogue’s central hall measured 120 meters square and was surrounded by benches for attendees. On the floor was a mosaic and the walls were frescoed.
In the hall the square stone was uncovered, decorated with engravings on all four sides and tip.
One engraving includes the seven-branched lamp which stands on a single leg with a triangle base with vessels on either side.
“This is a very exciting and unique discovery, this is the first time a lamp engraving from the Second Temple age has been uncovered, the earliest lamp in a Jewish context, dated to the beginning of the Roman period,” site director Dina Avshalom-Gorni said.
A representative the Legionaries of Christ planning the 122-room hotel also expressed joy at the discovery and stated it strengthens the church’s resolve to establish an interdenominational dialogue center in the region.
The Antiquities Authority said the dig site is still closed to visitors.
(Editing by Magdala Project)

Source: HAARETZ.com http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113823.html