Jeffrey Gibson

But, leaving aside how it is you know what Kee's wishers are, Kee does nothing of the sort. Moreover, as is indicated in the LXX , the Cybele-inscriptions, [Bilderatlas z. Religionsgesch. 9-11, ’26 p. xix no. 154], CIG 11, BGU IV 1137 and P.Oxy IX 12050 and the fact that the Hebrew equivalent to συναγωγή is knesset and that it is synonymous (so MM and others) with ἐκκλησία, , and as other scholars from Horsely to Crossan to Reed to Cohen to Meyers to Hengel to Safrai and Stern to Krauss to Rivkin have noted, "assembly" "meeting" "gathering", not building, was what συναγωγή meant. You seem to keep ignoring this.

As a prelude for his ridiculing of Kee.

Umm -- Kee nowhere says he favours those venues as or indicates in any way that he thinks or believes that συναγωγή were held at sea sides or on porches or in open fields.

Can you provide a quote from Kee that shows him doing this?

But the disconnect is not obvious, and Price hardly proves his case, not only because if this is what Price says Kee says, then he's putting words in Kee's mouth, but, more importantly, because of (a) the linguistic fact (see BDAG and LSJ and MM and Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum VIII 170 and Deissmann, Licht vom Osten 378-80 [where further literature is cited]) that what ἀρχισυνάγωγος meant was "presider of (at) a meeting", and the historic fact that village societies in Galilee had (a) no court houses and yet had judges who were regarded as "officials of the court" and who still were able to carry out judicial functions and (b) no banquet halls and yet still had people who could be (and officially were) ἀρχιτρίκλινοι.

Actually, given the evidence of usage of the term in literature written before the second century, as well as the fact that, as Crossan, Reed, Horseley and Hengel have noted, its Hebrew equivalent is Knesset and that it is synonymous with ἐκκλησία, the burden of proof is on the claimant who asserts that before the second century συναγωγή meant "a building".

Why? What is in it that's worth responding to?

I am assuming -- and I think with good reason -- that you and Ted are one and the same person. Under this assumption, I have committed no error.

If you are not the same person (and I hope you'll excuse me if I don't take ypour word for it), then I'll happily say that you were not involved in the Sanders/GMark/crucifixion discussion.

Jeffrey

Toto

The moderators have already determined that Ted and Sheshonq are not posting from the same IP address. IIDB policy is to hide IP addressed from the general public.

Even without IP addresses, the writing styles of Ted and Sheshonq are as different as, say Jeffrey Gibson and Chris Weimer.

Let this be the end of any discussion of sock puppets.

Toto

The discussion centering around whether Rabbi is an anachronism has been split off here

Sheshonq

No need to guess - Kee recognized and admitted the archaeological problem, and juxtaposed the expanded definition as a way out of that dilemma.

Citing a list of authors and then telling me that they take a certain position does not work. Nothing I have seen so far indicates that you can be trusted to accurately summarize what someone else says. You are sloppy. You have been caught redacting the work of another scholar and then slandering him for the edited portions. You do not demonstrate the level of intellectual rigor and integrity you *ought* to demonstrate, given your position and situation in life.

So if you're going to cite the opinions of these people, you're going to need to do it by chapter and verse. Don't worry; if you are correct, then I will admit it. I have already admitted that I agree with you that Price bungled when he described Christ as needing to move crowds outside because synagogues were too small to hold them. So the evidence says that at least one of us (me) can admit when the other side has a point.

Can you demonstrate the same?

I have ignored nothing. I merely point out that Ted Hoffman already responded to this rebuttal, and you have studiously avoided addressing it like a vampire avoids garlic butter.

Oh, please. He does not "ridicule" Kee. What a load of hogwash.

You are beginning to manifest some very disturbing patterns. You slander other people (Price), and then project that behavior onto anyone you don't like (Price).

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

You're the one asserting that Price mispresented Kee on this point. The burden of proof to support that slander is on your back, not upon mine. As I mentioned: your sloppiness to date gives me no confidence in your word on this issue.

1. The disconnect is glaring and obvious, and nothing you have brought forth so far has mitigated that.

2. Putting words in Kee's mouth? I have seen no evidence of that. Feel free to present some. Before the audience gets flim-flammed by you again, Jeffrey: let's remember the last time you insinuated something similar, you had excised part of Price's text in order to do so. Don't try that trick again, hmm? Quote-mining belongs with creationists.

Which has already been addressed by Ted Hoffman's post. If you think otherwise, then state clearly why.

The entire thing. It addresses your linguistic argument, as well as undercutting several other claims you made. Your studious aversion to his post has the scent of a man trying to escape being checkmated.

<snip sockpuppet rejoinder - see above>

Ah. I have to prove the null case to your satisfaction, before you'll retract your bogus claim about me.

Excuse me if I don't jump at the opportunity.

Toto

Other off topic posts have been split here