Peter Kirby

In the book written by his disciple Arrian, who studied with him in A.D. 107-109, Epictetus said, "If, then, another should feel in the same way about his property or wife or children as the other does about his body, and, in short, from some madness or desperation, should be of such a disposition as no to care whether he has them or not; but, as children playing with potsherds contend with another in the game, but are not concerned about the potsherds as such, this man likewise has come to count material things as othing, but enjoys the game that is played with them and moving them back and forth, what tyrant, what guards, and what swords are still capable of inspiring fear in such a man? Then is it possible that a person can arrive at such an attitude towards these things through madness, or, as in the case the Galileans, through mere habit, and yet that nobody should be capable of learning, through reason and demonstration, that god has made all things in the universe, and the whole universe itself, to be free from hindrance and perfect in itself, and all its parts to serve the needs of the whole?" (Discourses 4.7.6)

Like Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus attributes to the 'Galileans' a fearlessness in the face of death; like Lucian of Samosata, an indifference to material possessions (these two being the 'attitude' suggested); and like Galen, a lack of reason in them is suggested. I thought all that rather interesting, as well as the fact that they are called 'Galileans'. Julian the Apostate famously styled the Christians as 'Galileans', which Christian writers (probably correctly) interpreted as a slight against them as being from hick country.

At least one scholar has suggested that the words "through mere habit" have been corrupted from "through desperation," on the analogy of the phrase "madness or desperation" in the previous sentence.

At least one person has claimed that this is a description of those who rebelled under Judas the Galilean, but it is not clear why. Josephus doesn't term the group 'Galileans', and the group did not have a perduring existence. The reference to the Galileans here accords perfectly with what we know of references to Christians in literate second century pagan society from Celsus, Galen, Lucian of Samosata, and Marcus Aurelius.

What is interesting to me, besides the depiction itself, is the term 'Galilean', being used in the first decade of the second century to refer to Christians, by a man who flourished in the second half of the first. Someone at this time was making the claim that these people came from Galilee.

This correlates with Tacitus' aside that the Christians originated in Judea. Either identification of the birthplace of Christianity, Galilee or Judea, makes sense from what is read in the Gospels and Acts.

I wonder what the readers make of these indications that Christianity originated in Galilee or Judea.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Roger Pearse

Is this the time to raise the old question: whither atrophy?



All the best,

Roger Pearse

Peter Kirby

Advolution to an impinguated pilgarlic or venustless clapperclaw, kirsome gremial!

Agre woulding,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

One interesting questions concerns a letter by Bar-Kochba c 133 CE discovered in the early 1960's during excavations by Yadin.

The relevant section reads It is unclear who these Galileans were but there is later Christian tradition that Bar-Kokhba was hostile to Jewish-Christians.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey

Is it just as reasonable to ask if the reputation of Galilee suggests why it could have been selected as the (fictional) setting of the first gospel narrative??

Peter Kirby

Consider it asked.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby