226 REVIEW OF BOOKS

KLEIN'S publication); 288-294 Y. SHILOH, South Arabian Inscriptions of the Iron Age II from . Jerusalem: 295-298 D. BAHAT, Sanuto Map and the Walls of Jerusalem in the Thirteenth Century; 299-302 M. BROSHI, Al-Malek Al-Muazzam Isa- Evidence in a New Inscription; 303-309 P. BErrocT, Le prétoire de Pilate à l'epoque byzantine (For the author's views see Revue Biblique 91 (1984), 161-177); 310-313 M. HAR-EL, Water for Purification. Hygiene and Cult at the (Explains the immense needs of water for Jerusalem in the 2nd Temple period due to the need for purification of the sacrifices, the public hygiene especially during the feasts and the great amount of pilgrims par- taking, and due to the cultivation of the incense gardens); 314-325 M. HERSCHKOVITZ,The Pottery of the First and Second Centuries CE from Giv'at Ram (Mostly pottery of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE from the Giv'at Ram excavations of 1949 [sic!]. Noteworthy are some imported pieces, which may have been brought by the Roman legionnaires); 326-329 Z. U. MAcoz, More on the Town-Plan of Jerusalem in the Hasmonean Period (Con- tinuation of the author's article in Eretz 18, pp. 46-57. In the literary sources of the 2nd century BCE the Seleucid "Acra" is never mentioned within the boundaries of Jerusalem but always outside, in the north of the , renamed by Simon as Ha-Bira [ = " Baris" ] . Therefore it should be considered as the basis of the later Herodian "Antonia". The bridge mentioned by in connection with the Pompeian conquest of the town must have been larger than Hellenistic architecture was capable to build. In general Josephus' descriptions seem sometimes to be influenced directly by his knowledge of the Herodian town and not by any historical information about the Hasmonean situation); 330-333 R. REICH, "... From Gad Yawan to Shiloah "-On the History of the Gihon Spring in the Period (The location of the Gihon-spring seems to have been known during the 2nd Temple period, as Mishna Zavim I 5 with slight corrections indicates. Several archaeological findings point in that direction, though it seems that the name "Gihon" was forgotten and the whole of Gihon and Shiloah are called "Shiloah" in later times). Michael MACH

S. FREYNE, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels. Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations, Gill & McMillan, Dublin 1988, viii and 311 pp., paper, £ 10.95.

The author provides his readers with a concise review of trends in the academic study of the Gospels, dealing in depth with the work of those who find themselves concerned with study of the question of the historical Jesus. From this beginning, the author establishes the two struts which hold together the framework of this study. These are first, the building of 227 a descriptive social model cognizant of textual redaction history and forms development in the Gospels, and second a review of the varieties of social description which purport to reconstruct the historical environment within which the literary tradition took form. From this theoretical beginning, FREYNEturns to the specific subject of Galilee and Jesus in the Gospel records. The author's approach to the Gospels is primarily literary, by which he means to "play the game of the text" from a literary critical stance. FREYNEconcludes, from Mark, that Galilee is a zone existing on the periphery of Judean social action and at the same time, paradoxically, it represents the nucleus of apocalyptic in- spiration for the narrative. While Judeans seek to maintain boundaries, Mark's Galileans act to break down bonds of kinship and attachment to temple. Matthew and Luke are more complex in their thematic treatment of regional loci. FREYNEfinds in the former an anti-Galilean polemic existing between the Jerusalem temple and the Galilean Jesus. In Luke this op- position is made emphatic by the Samarian buffer between Galilee and Jerusalem. The pervasive social connection to the Jerusalem temple is maintained by the institution of pilgrimage which existed as an umbilical cord tying Galileans to the holy city. In John, FxEYrrE explores the element of place, as symbol, examining the reception of Jesus during his several journeyings in and out of Galilee. He explores both the implicit and explicit epitaphs which became associated, in the narrative, with Galilee and Galileans and outlines the Jewish messianic hope which defined the reception of Jesus. In the second part of his study, FREYrrs turns to the historical investiga- tions by which we place the texts in their cultural context. Galilean society is portrayed as a patchwork quilt of struggling family farms, tenancies suf- fering under absentee landlords and sprawling estate holdings kept in working order by slaves, day labourers and an extensive servant class. " The author finds little convincing evidence for a "revolutionary ethos," instead advocating that Galileans, on the whole, were much too busy merely trying to survive and were, therefore, "entirely unprepared for revolt" . The cultural ethos wich FREYNEconstructs out of the Gospel record is a "multi-cultural" network of voluntary associations. Its "ethnic strands" included in particular the Jew and the Gentile, a distinction which he maintains, throughout this study, as a primary divisor in Galilean culture. Foundational to his model is his characterization of the cities as Greek and hellenized while the villages were Jewish strongholds, a sharp contrast that some may find troubling. He further argues that an underlying hostility felt in the village ethos was fed by an unfeeling elitist, urban aristocracy. Then, working primarily from the biography and histories of Josephus,