Podcast 5.8: Jesus, the Galilean and Judean

Here I discuss Jesus as a Galilean and a Judean.  I do so by looking at cultural life associated with the Jerusalem temple in the first century and the relations between cultures in Judea and Galilee. This is part of series 5 (The Historical Jesus in Context) of the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast.

Podcast 5.8: Jesus, the Galilean and Judean (mp3; archive.org page with various downloading options here).

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

You may also subscribe to this and subsequent episodes through iTunes or another podcatcher. View credits for my introductory music.

2 thoughts on “Podcast 5.8: Jesus, the Galilean and Judean

  1. will

    I love these podcasts. Thank you. In terms of the current set, about the conditions in Galilee, I remember a lecture I heard about the fishing industry as it might pertain to the case of Peter (then Simon), his brother Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. What do we know about the fishing industry around the Sea of Galilee at the time? I suppose their fish were to end up in Tiberias? Anyway, thank you again for these great lectures. I have heard them all, except for the new one.

  2. Greg S

    These are an incredibly helpful set of Podcasts, as are your others. I listen to them while I drive so it’s hard to write down the references you mention. Is it possible to have these different books listed in a bibliography. Thanks

    Another Question: Some people state there is no clear evidence that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime and that calling him Jesus of Nazareth is actually an incorrect interpretation of what would more appropriately be “Jesus the Nazarene.” The point being that Jesus was a member of the Nazarine (Nizarine?) sect and spent time among the Essenes where he formed the basis of his teachings as well as his opposition to the activities of the Second Temple. How would a historian respond to these type of statements?

Comments are closed.