The construction of Galilee as a place for the historical Jesus—Part I

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2001 by Halvor Moxnes

Abstract

How have scholars understood and constructed Galilee as a place for the historical Jesus? This study traces the development of the image of Galilee from the early nineteenth century until the Third Quest. The picture of Galilee in the nineteenth century was influenced by the major cultural ideas of Europe at the time: colonialism, and the emergence of nationality, ethnicity, and race as categories of identity. Central figures in this period were F. Schleiermacher, D. F. Strauss and E. Renan. Drawing on nineteenth century studies of ethnicity and race in Nazi Germany in the first part of the twentieth century, some scholars portrayed Galilee as a non-Jewish region and the home of a non-Jewish Jesus. This question of race was discredited after World War II, and in the Second Quest there was little interest in Galilee. Jesus was seen over against Judaism merely as a religious system.

**********

Why is it that the quest for historical Jesus has become a quest for the historical Galilee? There seems to be a conviction that is not discussed, but taken for granted, that the more we can know about Galilee, the more we know about Jesus. Hans Dieter Betz points out that by some scholars "Jesus uniqueness was attributed to his origin in Galilean Judaism. Jesus appeared to be unique because his Judaism was non-normative or regionally conditioned by Galilee" (100). That added an almost existential dimension to information about ancient Galilee that went beyond a general interest in the ancient history of various regions of the Mediterranean.

It is this relationship between Galilee and Jesus research that I would like to look into. How have scholars understood and constructed Galilee in discussions of the historical Jesus? What are the presuppositions behind the attempts to describe Galilee as the home or background for Jesus? And what aspects of Galilee are considered to be important? Moreover, what do we mean by Galilee? Place is not something that can be taken for granted, as something which has an existence independant of viewers; it is always something which is posited. We do not have an immediate, unmediated access to Galilee but approach it only through maps, films, photos, books that are produced by somebody. To say that Galilee is socially constructed is, therefore, to question that it is "natural," that the categories used to understand it can be taken for granted, as self evident. What are the presuppositions that color an interpretation, and what are the powers implied in the creation of an image of Galilee? Moreover, they create, not only Galilee, but also "the other," i.e., what is outside and in contrast to Galilee (Duncan & Ley: 330-31).

To follow some of the traditions of interpretations of Galilee, I will start with the construction of Galilee as part of "the Holy Land" in the nineteenth century. The idea of "the Holy Land" is of course much older; it goes back at least to the fourth century, with the establishing of Christian churches and monasteries, and the start of pilgrimages (Wilken 1992: 101-25). But the nineteenth century represented a new beginning. It started with European political and military engagement, followed by scientific explorations and archaeological investigations, as well by individual adventurers and eventually "mass" tourism and pilgrimages (Shepherd). Finally, towards the end of the century the Zionist movement focused its attention upon Palestine. As a result of these activities "the Holy Land" became part and parcel of the imagination of Western Christians (Obenzinger). And the development of historical-critical Bible studies as well as Jesus research created a market for histories, geographies and atlases of the Holy Land.

What was the cultural context for these studies and their underlying presuppositions? First, they originated in the context of the Western colonising influence in the Middle East and therefore represented a form of Orientalism. Moreover, since geography and history were an integral part of the scientific development of the nineteenth century, they shared many presuppositions about culture and race with disciplines like anthropology and biology. One such presupposition was the idea of a close relationship between physical geography and the character of the inhabitants of the area. Finally, ideas of nationality, ethnicity and race were all of major concern in nineteenth-century Europe and North America. I will use these presuppositions to establish the main issues in the images of Galilee from the nineteenth century: Holy Land as colony; geography shapes personality, nationality and race and ethnicity. Since the nineteenth century was so influential in establishing biblical scholarship, these paradigms of understanding continued to exert their influence upon studies in the twentieth century. Consequently, it is relevant to ask how these questions developed, which ones declined in interest, and which continued to play a role. It is also pertinent to ask whether new perspectives were brought into the attempt to construct "the Holy Land" and Galilee in the twentieth century.