First Century Galilee

This dissertation argues against the widespread belief among current scholars that Galilee experienced extensive Hellenization, rapid urbanization, and a socio-economic crisis in the first-century C.E. as a result of major socio-economic changes initiated by Herod the Great and his successors. My research indicates that earlier studies allowed the textual evidence to have an undue influence on the way that scholars interpret the archaeological evidence, and vice-versa. Unlike previous studies on Early Roman Galilee, the dissertation begins by attempting to interpret each source for the region individually and without recourse to other sources. After establishing what each source says on its own about Galilee, the dissertation analyzes the data as a whole and offers a reconstruction of Galilean society in the first-century C.E. that better reflects the available evidence. The major findings are that the region was politically stable until the Great Revolt of 66 C.E., that the region was much less Hellenized than some prominent scholars claim, that the urbanization process initiated by Herod Antipas had less of a negative immediate impact on Galilean society than modern scholars usually assume, and that Galilee was not experiencing any unusual or severe socio-economic problems prior to the revolt.

Uses archaeological and textual evidence to clarify the nature of Galilean discontent and the advent of Jesus' eschatological ministry.

Drawing on his years of field experience in Galilee, the author illustrates how the archaeological record has been misused by New Testament scholars, and how synthesis of the material culture is foundational for understanding Christian origins in Galilee and the Jewish culture out of which they arose.

Combining New Testament study with the terseness of thriller writing, Theissen conveys the Gospel story in the imaginative prose of a novel. This is a story of our times, or how the gospels might have turned out if they were written by John Le Carre: racy, readable and full of incident.

Drawing on the expertise of archaeologists, historians, biblical scholars, and social-science interpreters who have devoted a significant amount of time and energy in the research of ancient Galilee, this accessible volume includes modern general studies of Galilee and of Galilean history, as well as specialized studies on taxation, ethnicity, religious practices, road systems, trade and markets, education, health, village life, houses, and the urban-rural divide. This resource includes a rich selection of images, figures, charts, and maps.

The Myth of a Gentile Galilee is the most thorough synthesis to date of archaeological and literary evidence relating to the population of Galilee in the first-century CE. The book demonstrates that, contrary to the perceptions of many New Testament scholars, the overwhelming majority of first-century Galileans were Jews. Utilizing the gospels, the writings of Josephus, and published archaeological excavation reports, Mark A. Chancey traces the historical development of the region's population and examines in detail specific cities and villages, finding ample indications of Jewish inhabitants and virtually none for gentiles. He argues that any New Testament scholarship that attempts to contextualize the Historical Jesus or the Jesus movement in Galilee must acknowledge and pay due attention to the region's predominantly Jewish milieu. This accessible book will be of interest to New Testament scholars as well as scholars of Judaica, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and the Roman Near East.

Did Jesus speak Greek? An affirmative answer to the question will no doubt challenge traditional presuppositions. The question relates directly to the historical preservation of Jesus's words and theology. Traditionally, the authenticity of Jesus's teaching has been linked to the recovery of the original Aramaic that presumably underlies the Gospels. The Aramaic Hypothesis infers that the Gospels represent theological expansions, religious propaganda, or blatant distortions of Jesus's teachings. Consequently, uncovering the original Aramaic of Jesus's teachings will separate the historical Jesus from the mythical personality. G. Scott Gleaves, in Did Jesus Speak Greek?, contends that the Aramaic Hypothesis is inadequate as an exclusive criterion of historical Jesus studies and does not aptly take into consideration the multilingual culture of first-century Palestine. Evidence from archaeological, literary, and biblical data demonstrates Greek linguistic dominance in Roman Palestine during the first century CE. Such preponderance of evidence leads not only to the conclusion that Jesus and his disciples spoke Greek but also to the recognition that the Greek New Testament generally and the Gospel of Matthew in particular were original compositions and not translations of underlying Aramaic sources.