Mark A. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 304 pages, ISBN 9780521091442.

Mark Chancey, Assistant Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University, challenges the consensus of the cultural influence of the Hellenistic Romans on the Galilee during the lifetime of Jesus. This monograph is a composition of seven major chapters with an introduction and conclusion. To support the discussion, the author provides several study-helps such as a map in the prescript, an appendix listing Galilean names of the first century CE, as well as several indices.

With a strong criticism of Martin Hengel’s claim regarding Hellenistic influence on first century Palestine, Chancey opens his pages with the call to rethink the impact of Greco-Roman culture of the Galilee of Jesus’ time. Depending heavily on recent archeological findings and others’ published works, Chancey challenges the traditional understanding of Palestine and Galilee as being completely Hellenized.

Chancey, in chapter one, argues that “the absence of evidence is probably not solely due to accidents of survival and discovery, but rather to the slow pace of Hellenization” in the area (p. 42). Moreover, in chapter two, he is confident that even the arrival of Roman general Pompey in Palestine in 63 BC did not affect the Galilean region significantly. Therefore, according to his observation, the centurion in the story of Jesus is not necessarily a Roman officer but probably a Herodian guard.

However, Chancey acknowledges the gradual introduction of Greco-Roman culture since from the time of Herod the great as certain Hellenistic styled constructions were carried out during his period. In fact, in chapter three, he points to Herodian client kings along with Pompey as those who brought Hellenism into Palestine that slowly spread into upper Galilee in later decades. According to chapter four, the remarkable growth of Hellenization in the area should be dated as late as the second and third centuries CE.

Further, with the support of very less Hellenized literary production dated from first century CE (e.g., Mark, Hebraic Mishnah) and lack of a standard compendium of Galilee’s inscriptions to support Hengel, Chancey in chapter five boldly asserts no common use of Greek in Galilee during the lifetime of Jesus. Tracing the story of minted coins in Palestine in chapter six, Chancey again argues the full bloom of Hellenization in the region only after second or third centuries CE since pure Roman coinage were first available only by the mid third century.

Chancey draws his primary argument from the use of arts in the Galilee of the time, which he covers in chapter seven. He reads the relatively limited adoption of Greco-Roman arts during the first century as a culture “that reflected the traditional Jewish abhorrence of ‘graven images’.” With the support of all these evidences, Chancey, in his concluding remark, criticizes current scholarship, saying “the extent of that Greco-Roman culture in Galilee during the lifetime of Jesus has often been greatly exaggerated.”

Indeed, this scholarly research is a reflection of current debates between the “purists” and the “Hebraists”. With his probable preference of the “Hebraist” camp, Chancey offers convincing evidence against the traditional overstatement of Hellenistic influence on the Galilee of Jesus’ time. Especially, his references taken from numismatic, epigraphic, and architectural evidences are compelling. All these references may become valuable sources for further study on this subject.

Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 305 pages, ISBN 9780802841827. This book is a recent release of Eerdmans (2000), as the second volume of the series called “First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World” for the Institute of Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge. As a historical search, the book gives a fascinating socio-historical background of the New Testament which will be helpful to students of Biblical studies. However, the content will also benefit students of practical studies as its major concern is about leadership practice in the early Christian community.

The focus of the book is to discuss “the nature of leadership in the early Christian community … taught by Paul and practiced in the congregations of the first century” (preface, ix). The book is divided into two major sections. The first of these sections mainly deals with different leadership practices of first century Graeco-Roman world, in which Christians had to locate themselves as a distinct social community. The second section is about how early Christians practiced their leadership within the church (and in front of the surrounding culture) as an application of their faith, while living in such diverse social contexts.

After first warning readers about “the hermeneutical gap” between distant Graeco-Roman world and modern society—in language, culture and philosophy—Clarke opens with a confession of the historical ambiguity related to his current topic. He promises that better answers will eventually come from the “significant wealth of archaeological finds” of recent decades (p. 5).

In part one, to overlay his background studies, Clarke categorizes five socio-political parties of Graeco-Roman world and gives detail discussion on each while indicating that how each party could undoubtedly influence the emerging Christian community. These are: wider Graeco-Roman cities and their political leadership tradition, growing Roman colonies (and cities) and their leadership system, less influential Graeco-Roman voluntary associations and their leadership practice, wide use of Roman household structure and patria potestas (absolute authority with the head) concept, and Jewish synagogue structure as the nearest leadership model for emerging Judeo-Christianity.

A guest article by Thang San Mung

Is Revival Soft or Strong?

A Pastoral Response to Current Revival Movements and Spiritualities

Introduction*

With a posting of its position paper by the General Presbyters of the Assemblies of God of America in 2000,[1] it became clear to sight about the growing tension, having long been existing even among the Pentecostals/Charismatics, in relation to the said current revival movements.[2] No doubt that one of the major concerns underlies with one’s uneasy feeling with certain phenomena that the said revivals brought.[3] While as no one is in the position to approve or disapprove it to others in practice, it is but one’s right to accept or reject it in terms of one’s own preference. However, to resist what God provided for our benefits at His own sovereign will just for the sake of personal inclination would be a big mistake and is even worth to call a blasphemy. At the same time, to entertain oneself just with the sounding but not having genuine spirituality inside also would be a void and meaningless spiritual quest. When ‘the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness so must genuine revival be’ is the statement of some to marginalize, frankly speaking, what seemed barbaric to their judgment, the metaphorical expressions such as “revival fire” or “rushing wind of God” or “spiritual tidal wave” and the likes are the explanation of some to validate those spiritual wild fires (cf., Acts 2:1-4). Therefore, this is our question, “Is revival soft or strong?”

1. The Rule for Us not for Them: The Fruit of the Spirit is Gentleness

As theological undergraduate student, we’re first introduced to the Systematic Theology,[4] in which basic Christian doctrines are analyzed and systematized for fresher. The impression that I had when came across through the study of the Holy Spirit is about the fruit of the Spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5. I thought that I got a rule, by which I would be able to measure out what in the church were happening around under the cover of the term “revival”. The statement, “the fruit of the Spirit is gentleness,” became my measuring rod to rebuke those who seemed little bit rough and wild in my sight, as a young pastor.[5] However, not soon after, I became noticed of that something was missing as I tried to press on my big words against those likely wild and rough. The more I pressed on, it seemed that the more I missed out!

Am I wrong at claiming the gentleness of the Spirit? No. I don’t think so. If then so what is wrong? Nothing is wrong with that biblical statement. However, still something is wrong. Later, I found out that me myself is wrong. While claiming the gentleness of the Spirit as my measuring rod, I myself had missed to be gentle and humble enough in dealing with those spiritual stuffs. After many years of my pastoral service with many failures, I came to learn at last that the measuring rod of Spirit’s gentleness is not for to rule out my parishioners, who are of course genuine seekers of God, but is the rule to myself and my actions, even my attitude, to check out my dealings with those who seemed rough and wild in their spiritual hungriness, instead.[6]