WAS GALILEE REGARDED WITH CONTEMPT BY THE PEOPLE
OF JERUSALEM, AS IS SO OFTEN ALLEGED?

THERE is a very general impression that the Jews of Jerusalem regarded with contempt the people of Galilee, and even the province itself. And of this scorn Nazareth received perhaps the largest share. Supposing such a feeling to have existed, all that we have hitherto said is a protest against the justice of it. In its climate, its fertile soil, and its charming scenery; in the abundance of its waters, and the beauty of its lakes; in its numerous and often elegant cities and villages; in its hardy, industrious, and intelligent population; in the interest of its people in the law, in the Temple and its services, in the great national feasts and in the general welfare of the nation; in its wealth and material prosperity, its various thriving industries, and in the unexampled patriotism and bravery of its sons, — what ground is there why the people of Jerusalem should regard Galilee or the Galileans with contempt?

But, in order to show how universally it has been taken for granted that this feeling existed, it is necessary to quote a few statements both from scholars and from popular writers as well. We include such as refer to both Nazareth and Galilee: 'Peter was a Galilean fisherman, brought up in the rudest district of an obscure province¹.' In this despised region, His home [Nazareth] was the most' despised spot².' 'An obscure village of despised Galilee³,' when the very Greek text which this scholar was editing says, πόλις, not κώμη, i. e. city, not village. 'The roughness of its population⁴.' The very villagers themselves spoke with a rude and uncouth provincialism that marked them at once as Nazarenes⁵.' We have a right to ask on what ground the statement just quoted is based. Peter certainly was not from Nazareth, and the dialect of any person from that city is never alluded to. 'That obscure Galilean village⁶.' One who went from the Sea of Galilee to Judaea, 'war ein Stichblatt des Witzes der dortigen Stammgenossen⁷.' How does this writer know that such a person became a 'butt of ridicule'? 'A little country town of proverbial insignificance,' 'the darkest district of Palestine⁸.' 'The old scorn which rested upon the Galileans in Joshua's day⁹.'

These statements show the popular impression and teaching in regard to Galilee and Nazareth. And further, in regard to the 'poverty' and 'abject meanness' of Christ's earthly condition, the nearly ' destitute circumstances ' of Joseph and Mary, and the 'ignoranc' and even ' immorality ' of the people of Nazareth, we read a great deal in books, and hear much more in sermons from the pulpit. Numerous quotations to this effect could be given, if necessary. For instance, in Isaac Barrows' Sermon on Patience will be found a frightfully distressing picture of Christ's circumstances in His early years, and, indeed, during His whole earthly life, while Meyer ¹⁰ makes ἀγαθόν imply immorality.

But are these representations true? This is certainly a proper question to ask. These statements, appearing everywhere, and so sweeping and positive withal, ought to have some foundation, for which we propose to look.

First, as to the contempt for the Galileans on the ground of dialect, or more properly, difference of pronunciation— for we have not found any evidence showing that the 'dialect differences' so often mentioned extend beyond this slight matter. The passages in both Talmuds referring to this point are but few in number. Buxtorf, Lightfoot, and Neubauer refer to the same passages. We have noticed, and could give reasons to justify such a conclusion, that in all matters relating to Palestine the Jerusalem Talmud seems to be the more consistent and reliable. We should expect this, from the fact that it was compiled earlier than the other (A.D. 350-400), and written in the country itself. In this Talmud this whole matter of dialect is reduced to the simple statement that the doctors (of Judaea) did not distinguish between He and Cheth, nor between Aleph and Ayin — this simple statement, without comment. The Babylonian Talmud has the same. But the latter (completed about A.D. 500) has, in addition, several amusing stories illustrating the peculiar pronunciation of the Galileans. The late date of the compilation of this work would damage its evidence. Where the Jerusalem Talmud is silent, the later Babylonian Talmud cannot be brought forward to show that the Jews of Jerusalem treated with contempt or ridicule their brethren of Galilee on the ground of the pronunciation of the latter. It is a very significant fact that St. Jerome, A.D. 331-422, considered himself peculiarly fortunate in obtaining a Hebrew teacher from Tiberias, because Hebrew was there spoken with such purity. After thus collecting the facts, it appears as if the doctors in the schools of the East invented certain stories in regard to the pronunciation of the Galileans (and of the Judaeans as well), by 'which to amuse themselves or their pupils at the expense of their brethren in Palestine¹¹.

The dialect of Galilee is referred to but once in the New Testament, namely, in connection with Peter at the trial of Christ. Of this event there are four accounts¹². The ' speech,' or peculiar pronunciation, of Peter is mentioned by Matthew only¹³, for the words 'and thy speech agreeth' in Mark xiv. 70, are probably to be omitted. It is often alleged that Peter's 'speech 'was alluded to by way of contempt. This passage and the one in Mark are the only evidence which Hausrath

108 GALILEE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST.

produces to prove his assertion that ' a man from the Sea of Galilee became in Judaea,' on account of his pronunciation, 'a butt of ridicule¹⁴.' But no contempt was here either expressed or implied. Peter had denied a certain statement, and the bystanders, to justify themselves, without any thought of ridicule or contempt, said simply: ' Your speech reveals you to be a Galilean,' as we have alleged (παὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιιί σου δηλόν σε ποιεῖ)¹⁵. Sometimes Acts ii. 7 is referred to as supporting the view stated above. But there could hardly be a more unjust use of the passage. The point of surprise on the part of the audience was, that so few men, all coming from the same region, should speak all the languages of the world. The surprise would have been great if the speakers had all come from Greece, Italy, or Babylon. In this case they were from Galilee. But nothing can be inferred from this passage which is in any way derogatory to the character of the Galileans. Besides the above, there are no other passages in the New Testament which bear upon the matter of the dialect of Galilee. On this point Josephus is silent — a significant fact. Thus, neither in Josephus, the New Testament, nor the Talmud, is there any ground, as regards dialect, why the people of Jerusalem should regard with contempt the inhabitants of this northern province; nor is there the slightest evidence that on this ground the people of Jerusalem regarded the people of Galilee with any such feeling at all. Yet this matter of dialect is one of the strongest arguments held up before the popular mind to prove the existence of the alleged feeling of contempt. Further, and this fact ought to receive special emphasis, what a splendid instrument this matter of dialect would have been in the hands of the enemies of Christ, to be used against Him and His disciples! If this difference of dialect was the occasion of any feeling between the people of the two sections •, if on tJiis account the Galileans were really laughing-stocks in Jerusalem, then what stupidity on the part of Christ's enemies not to have used this most effective means for silencing Him and counteracting His influence. The silence of Christ's enemies is a strong argument against the supposition that on the ground of dialect there existed among the Jews of Jerusalem a feeling of contempt for the Galileans.

Another alleged ground is the 'religious looseness' which is supposed to have prevailed in Galilee. But we have seen that the Galileans were stricter in regard to morals than the people of Judaea, and that the former adhered more closely to the law than the latter, while the latter put tradition foremost. These facts speak for themselves. Another ground is, that the people of the north were a mixed race. We have shown that they are to be regarded as thoroughly Jewish. Another is that the Galileans would not be dictated to by the Doctors of Jerusalem. If this, in so far as it is fact at all, occasioned any feeling, it nowhere appears, or is even hinted at. Again, Keim makes the circumstance that John Hyrcanus sent his son Alexander Jannaeus, the subsequent king, to Galilee to be brought up, imply his contempt for Galilee. Whereas the only point in this fact is that Hyrcanus wanted his son out of his sight — in Galilee, or anywhere else, where he would not see him again. Keim presses still another fact altogether too far, when he says that 'Antipater regarded his younger son, the youngster Herod' [but he was then twenty-five!] 'as smart enough — für tüchtig genug — to govern Galilee,' implying the very opposite of what the facts indicate, as given by Josephus. Herod was sent to Galilee because, of the two sons of Antipater, he was the more shrewd, active, and capable.

Delitzsch states the popular view as if it were a firmly established fact, instead of being, as it really is, a supposition with hardly a shadow of proof: his words are, 'The Judaeans regarded the Galileans with proud contempt, just as the Greeks regarded the Bœotians, or the Parisians the people of Gascony¹⁶: ' which we are ready to admit as soon as any evidence can be adduced in support of it. The Christians are once called ' the sect of the Nazarenes,' and alluded to as such in one other instance¹⁷, as a sect obnoxious to the Jews; but in neither case is any contempt implied for Galilee or Nazareth. In John vii. 41 all that is meant is that the people universally expected Christ to come from Bethlehem, and not from Galilee. As to the statement in John vii. 52, it is possible that the speakers referred to the prophet alluded to in verse 40, and also in chap. vi. 14. But if they really meant that no prophet ever came from Galilee, they stated what they knew to be false, that is, supposing that they possessed even the commonest knowledge of their own history. There are besides the above no other passages in the New Testament which bear at all upon our subject, except John i. 46, Nathanael's words, which will be considered later.

The grounds mentioned above, on which it is claimed by some that a feeling of contempt for the Galileans was based, are all suppositions of later times. We can readily imagine that, on the part of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, there was a feeling of superiority to Galilee and the Galileans. But that such a feeling (of the existence of which at all we have no proof) ever amounted to contempt, or even to sectional jealousy or prejudice, there is not the slightest evidence in any of the great authorities, namely, the New Testament, Josephus, and the Talmud. Yet, if such a feeling really existed, it must have appeared somewhere. On this point, the following summary of facts will be significant: —

1. On a certain occasion of distress in the northern province, mentioned in 1 Mac. v. 14-23, the Maccabees, though belonging to the tribe of Judah, rallied nobly for the defence of the Galileans — their brethren of the north. There is no trace of sectional feeling here.

2. In A. D.51 the Galileans were attacked at Ginæa by the Samaritans, while the former were on their way to a feast at Jerusalem. 'When the assassination was reported at Jerusalem, the populace were thrown into a state of confusion, and, deserting the festival, hurried to Samaria,' to revenge the outrage committed against their brethren of the north. Here is the very opposite of sectional feeling between Judaea and Galilee.

3. Had such a feeling existed, it would have cropped out at the great feasts, the common occasions for the display of ill-feeling or mad passions, if any existed, towards any person or party. But a friendly feeling always appears; for,

4. At the outbreak at Pentecost (May 31, in B.C. 4) after the death of Herod, Galileans, Idumæans, men from Jericho and Persea, join with the Judaeans in an attack upon Sabinus and the Roman troops, and apparently there is the greatest harmony among the people of the different sections.

5. During the governorship of Herod, and afterwards during his reign (from the time he was twenty-five until he was seventy), and during the long reign of Antipas (forty-three years), and the short reign of Agrippa I., and the governorship of Josephus, in all the events which transpired during these years, there is no ' trace of sectional feeling or jealousy.

6. The opposite of such a feeling is indicated by the visiting back and forth of the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time.

7. In the Jewish war, the greatest harmony prevails, for the most part, between Galilee and Judaea.

8. The silence of the enemies of Christ.

9. The silence, on this subject, of the New Testament, of Josephus, and of the Talmud. If Galilee was 'a despised province,' if 'the Galileans were looked upon with contempt.' ought there not to be hints of such facts somewhere?

1) Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, I. p. 115.

2) Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, p. 1 3.

3) Dr. Wordsworth on Matt. ii. 23.

4) Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 358.

5) Lieut. Anderson in Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 354.

6) Plumptre, Christ and Christendom, p. 95.

7) Hausrath, I. p. 1 1.

8) Schaff, Person of Christ, p. 34.

9) Ritter, IV. p. 332.

10) Com. on John i. 47.

11) Lightfoot, I. pp. 170-172; Graetz, III., p. 395; Neubauer, pp. 184, 185; Buxtorf, Lexicon, pp. 224, 225, נָלִיל; Renan, Lang. Sémitiquts, p. 230.

12) Matt. xxvi. 69-75; Mark xiv. 66-72; Luke xxii. 54-62; John xviii. 25-27.

13) Matt. xxvi. 73.

14) I. p. ii.

15) Matt. xxvi. 73.

16) Jesus und Hillel, p. 13.

17) Acts xxiv. 5; xxviii. 22.