I suppose for good measure I should add my feelings about Nazareth as Jesus hometown.  Here too, many scholars including Ehrman, feel very comfortable accepting this as historic. I suppose this is because it is so odd as to make it likely true (admittedly often the odd bits of data that don’t conform to expected ideological needs but still survive are indications of authenticity.)  They are very fast to dismiss the Bethlehem birth for this very reason – it is merely messianic proof texting that Jesus is of David’s lineage. 

But so, arguably, is the Nazareth connection – as the roots for several relevant words connect in some way with the word Nazareth.  First, the very messianic word for “Branch” (that is also Davidic) Netzer, second the word for “Keeping” as in oaths (as in Nazirite) that seems to have become an early word for Christian (Nazorean) and finally Nezer or “crown” a word literally writing on the High Priests mitre. Any of these associations could be reason to want to place Jesus literally in a “Nzr” location either to embody or to downplay these associations. 

One of the issues that folks talk about is how odd it is for a poor family in Nazareth to have such a strong and regular connection to the Temple in Jerusalem. This is where I admit I make my own random choices about what to believe – which of course could be wrong. The pieces of the birth narrative that i think actually matter and therefore are probably historically true is that Jesus is at least believed to be a descendant of David, and comes from a priestly family on his mother’s side (this is stated and I think often overlooked).  These are things that Jews were actively looking for in their messiah. In which case, the family lives closer to Jerusalem and has a connection to it. Certainly by the time of the crucification, this seems to be the case, even in the gospels themselves. 

I think only your second point holds – if he is located in Galilee and is active there, he would be named “the Galiliean” or “of Galilee” by those outside of that place who were aware of his activity. And if a philosophy starts there that then spreads (as this one did), it would certainly be possible for it to be named for it place of/person of origin.  There seem to be indications both in the Gospel and apparently in the writings of Eusebius that this was the case. But of course, as with everything, nothing is definitive. Josephus seems to imply particular zeal to the Galilean fighters, which suggests a Galilee as particularly taken with that ideology.  But again, its tea leaves we read. 

And i agree, zeal and rebellion were certainly present in Judea. Although I suspect that Jerusalem – and both a religious and administrative center – had a high level of “accommodationists” in it, and that the countryside itself was more solidly Zealot than they city. 

godspell said
The fact remains, there’s no evidence, in Josephus or anywhere else, that Galileans were more inclined to violent rebellion, and Judas reputedly being from there proves nothing whatsoever about Jesus. 

And regardless of what one thinks about the Testimonium Flavianum, there’s no indication at all that Josephus considered Jesus, James, or Christians as a group to be part of the Fourth Philosophy.  It’s debatable whether he even considered them Jews, by that point in time.  Most of them probably weren’t, by ancestry.   

Well, no, i would say that placing the origins of the messianic/zealot movement with a person identified with Galilee is actually a form of evidence that Galilee is a center – especially combined with the role of Galileans in the Uprising, and the possible use of the word “Galilean” as documented by Eusebius (and possibly also in Luke 13 as discussed) to refer to the movement.  But you are correct – this is alone and on its own not proof. But then, categorical proof is not really what we have to work with in these discussions. 

It is very clear that Josephus considers James to be Jewish by the way, as he does John, and – depending on what he wrote about Jesus, no doubt him as well. However, – incredibly detailed and essential as his work is,  his treatment of the Jewish “sects” in general and of Essenes and Fourth Movement/Siccariis should be read skeptically.  Josephus clearly had contact with these groups and is in a personally precarious position when he writes – questions regarding his loyalty to Rome, his betrayal of the Jews etc. clearly following him and potentially limiting what he tells us about these groups. 

No, he doesn’t connect James and his church to the Zealots – not directly. Nonetheless, James is clearly a leader of opposition in his telling to the Roman appointed Temple leadership, which is why he is executed, and apparently Josephus in text no longer in our current version (but referred to by church fathers) connects James death to the destruction of the city. But this is a much bigger topic. 

True, but often they start out somewhere “off-broadway” to work out the kinks before heading for opening in the Big City. Arguably that is precisely the approach of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels!

And arguably it is also the situation with Judas – although, I understand, we are working with limited information.  Still, there is a second Judas operating in Galilee at precisely the same time, who leads military action in Sepphoris, seizes the armory and arms his followers just a few hours walk away from Nazareth, who then go off and create trouble for an unspecified period – one assumes in the local area.  Many scholars believe these two Judas’ to be the same – remember for this time period, Josephus is working from sources so he could have had two different sources leading back to the same person. Judas 1 appears only about 10 years before Judas 2 is identified as leading the people astray, seemingly with similar motives. Even if they are separate, it establishes Galilee as a place of unrest at the time of a) Judas of Galilee and b) the birth of Jesus.

Which brings us back to the meaning of Galiliee and Galilean and its significance in the Gospels.  Naturally, we simply don’t know. However, the Gospels present all kinds of material in ways that reference specific ideas with no regard to historical reality – stars that appear that make messianic proof texts real, along with geographical locations like Bethlehem that again make messianic, in this case Davidic, claims physically clear. Magi that appear to emphasize the coming Gentile mission. That Galilee and Galilean should have associations to people at that time (it had just been literally crushed by the Romans when the Mark was written) shouldn’t be a great surprise. 

The more i think about this, the more the parallel of the trajectory of Jesus vs. Judas resonates as a literary devise. Local messiahs, hanging in Galiliee, picking up there first supporters there, who are referred to in both cases as “Galilieans”, head down into Judea where things go wrong with the Romans. We know that at least Luke is very aware of Judas the G. as he mentions him. The Gospels invert the story, making Jesus the peaceful version – although, among Jesus’ followers are two apostles known as the Zealots (one Simon so named, and one Judas (Thomas), named that in non-canonical Syriac sources). 

godspell said
Not a bad counter, and I appreciate your sticking with my musical theater theme. 

But there’s still no evidence Galilee was any more inclined to zealot movements than Judea–probably less.  Which is why he didn’t stay there–and Jesus really did, you know.  He didn’t go to Jerusalem until the very end–most of his ministry was in Galilee.  Pretty much all of John the Baptist’s, and he was killed just for badmouthing the Herodians. 

See, it’s a very bad assumption to think that you had to commit or even advocate for violence in order for the authorities to take a dangerous interest in you.  Nonviolent public dissent was probably more dangerous than covertly organizing for a future rebellion.  They didn’t have good intelligence networks, so they didn’t know who the zealots were until they got serious.  But if you were openly speaking out, causing a fuss, even if you weren’t calling on people to rise up and fight–you were putting yourself in the cross-hairs.  Because then they could see you.  Then they knew your name.   

 I love me a good musical. 

There is evidence that the word Galilee is associated with messianic rebels, and we know that there were plenty of Galilean Zealots because they show up in Jerusalem in time for the Siege. Were there more than in Judea? I can’t prove that. But the word itself is directly associated with the founder of the movement and possibly his followers – according to at least one ancient source, possibly in one understanding of Luke 13. That much is a fact, to the degree we have such.

After that you just make your own assumptions that also that don’t honestly make sense or fit what we do know. I assume the Romans had significant intelligence networks – why wouldn’t they?. They were an occupying power constantly dealing with sedition, and also had plenty of Jewish collaborators. Of course they knew what was going on! The Romans are brutal, but they are not stupid.

Which is why they also understood quite clearly the import of Jewish messianic movements – which is that God was about to come and clear them out and replace them with the Messiah. Whether you were patiently waiting for the Holy Ones with the Messiah to arrive or were ready to get things going yourself with a Messiah candidate on the assumption that Holy Ones had your back, these expectation fed political unrest for literally 70 years – this is what Josephus documents. One after another.  Knock one down up springs the next. 

What WE don’t know is to what degree these messiahs are related to each other. But in the case of Judas, his sons get “rolled up” and executed rather like Jesus and only maybe a decade or so later. Also without having led a rebellion, though we don’t have the details.  But, sounds like another operation to keep a lid on these messianic leaders types BEFORE things go crazy.