"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. IntroductionBoth 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, 2008), 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 KinshipFishing 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; Malina 1986; 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. Horsley 1995; Hanson & Oakman, 2008). 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:
III. Galilean Fishing as a Social Sub-SystemDiagram 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:
b) Tribute was exacted by Julius Caesar from Palestine during the Hasmonean era (Ant. 14.202-6). c) 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:
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 (Heichelheim 1959:228-31; 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):
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).
Royal taxes and duties paid to Archelaus are discussed
further in Josephus, War 2.4; Ant. 17.204-5.
b. crown tax c. grain tax: one-third of the produce d. tax on fruit and nut trees: one-half the produce e. poll tax f. tithe g. tribute h. imposts/duties
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; Matthews 1984:174-80). 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:
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. Horsley 1989:105). 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:
Concerning the Yonah—Zebedee cooperative, G. H. R. Horsley concludes 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 (Mark 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. Wilson 1969:433-43; 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 (Wuellner 1967:17-19; Nun 1989, 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) (Raban 1988; Wachsman 1988; 1995; Wachsman, 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 roasted (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:
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). 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-Kilcher 1990), 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 (Heltzer and 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 (Wuellner 1967:32-33). 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 FishingMy 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.A. Synoptic Tradition
V. Conclusions1. 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. |
