The first-century Palestinian Jewish economy during the time of Jesus of Nazareth (c. 6–4 BCE—c. 30 CE)  was agriculturally based and must therefore be understood as one of scarcity (Hatina 2008, 978). 

Although it has been argued that beyond the village sphere, the economy of Roman Palestine was market-driven (Safrai 1994), to date there is no supporting archaeological evidence (Goodman 1983; Hatina 2008, 971). Although some ancient historical sources refer to “marketplaces” (agorai), these likely refer to local “squares” (Hatina 2008, 979).

Because of the high cost of transporting goods, trade was restricted to valuable commodities such as wine and oil, although transportation by sea was cheaper and allowed for the trade of high-volume goods such as grain. This method of trade had its challenges for being limited to regions with seaports.

The majority of the land was agriculturally usable (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.12), and the majority of the people were peasants, referring to small farm owners and day laborers (Hatina 2008, 979). Such people are not to be equated with the absolutely destitute, but with workers of the land whose livelihoods were sustained by immediate consumption and allowed for very little, if any, surplus or disposable income. According to first-century historian Josephus (37/38–100 CE), Galilee was particularly fertile and ripe for agricultural-based production.

“For the land is everywhere so rich in soil and pasturage and produces such variety of trees, that even the most indolent are tempted by these facilities to devote themselves to agriculture. In fact every inch of the soil has been cultivated by the inhabitants; there is not a parcel of waste land. The towns, too, are thickly distributed, and even the villages, thanks to the fertility of the soil, are all so densely populated that the smallest of them contains about fifteen thousand inhabitants” (J. W. 3.42–43).

For peasant families, their plots of inherited land were their most important asset, which provided for them sustenance and some basic dignity in a society where the educated and more wealthy considered the peasant farmer a simpleton who had no influence on the cultural and political landscape (Sir. 38:24–34; Hatina 2008, 980). Very often, production could not sustain the family, therefore forcing it into debt that could not be repaid. Consequently, the family’s land was taken over by creditors, some of whom were wealthy Sadducees, who then exploited the former landowners as tenant farmers. 

Basics such as food and clothing were met within the family household and through a reciprocal exchange of goods (Hatina 2008, 980). Harvests involved an exchange of workers. The fears over potential drought were so common that days of fasting and religious rituals were performed to ensure rain.

Families who rented land were contracted to pay rent or a percentage of the crop yield to the landowner (Stegemann and Stegemann 1999, 44–45), whereas the elite class of society, constituting about 5% of the population, were often distinguished by their accumulated real estate holdings (Cicero Off. 1.150–51). Members of this elite class endorsed an economy based on redistribution where goods generated by working peasants were administered and distributed by institutional structure (temples, taxation, large lease/landowners) (Hatina 2008, 980). Redistribution established and stabilized great power and wealth among the upper class in urban centers (Stegemann and Stegemann 1999, 35–37).

Some Jewish families had businesses that produced specialized products (pottery, bricks, tiles) or services (woodworkers, masons, smiths) (Hatina 2008, 981). Many of these businesses (especially wool weavers, barbers, doctors) consisted of shops attached to their homes, contributing to the village economy beyond simply a local central marketplace (Horsley 1995, 203).

Excessive taxation was a major issue for rural families, for which failure to pay resulted in indebted slavery, cruel punishments, and shame (Plutarch, Luc. 20) and even led some to commit suicide (Philo, Legat. 3.159ff.). Although King Herod the Great’s (c. 72 BCE–c. 4 BCE) building programs provide evidence of prosperity after several decades of war in the region, his projects produced considerable burdens via taxation and land erosion, making it incredibly difficult for many small farmers to sustain themselves (Hatina 2008, 981). It was not unusual during this time for former farmers to transition to leaseholders, then to day laborers, and even to beggars.

In terms of Jesus’ ministry, his various parables, analogies, and even temple action were at home in this agriculturally driven economy, which incorporated the tensions between reciprocal and redistributive systems of exchange (Hatina 2008, 981–982). Possibly a woodworker or worker of hard materials, Jesus and his brothers probably had a shop attached to their house. During prosperous times under Tiberius, however, they may have found work at Sepphoris, 4 miles (6 kilometers) away (or about an hour’s walk) from Nazareth. 

References

Goodman, Martin. 1983. State and Society in Roman Galilee, AD 132–212. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Hatina, Thomas A. 2008. “Households, Jewish.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, 971–986. Routledge (Apple Books).

Horsley, Richard A. 1995. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

Safrai, Ze’ev. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge.

Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Stegemann, Wolfgang. 1999. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.