Sheshonq

In between insinuations that Price is mispresenting Mack.

I don't see Gerard changing the subject as a response to your question. He met your challenge to Price's scholarship head-on:

Nevertheless, we seem to have a situation here where, when it comes to the synagogues, the most that can be said against Price is that he doesn't follow a certain assumption made by Myers. That may be a quite valid assumption, but is, as Myers states himself, still an assumption. Not following that doesn't disqualify one's scholarship, which is what this is all about.


No. Calling out a name isn't the same as saying that Price relies on Mack. He may have simply name-dropped Mack because Mack is popular or has wide recognition. Scholars will often quote a dissenting authority on a point that share in common, in order to demonstrate that some principle truly is beyond question.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that there are no 1st century synagogues isn't controversial, and Mack isn't the first or only person to make that statement. So whether Price relied upon Mack entirely, partially, or not at all is beside the point - the general statement is still valid.

Also incorrect. Price's argument is built on more than just the lack of evidence for synagogues; it is a three-pronged argument. In the same paragraph that you are selectively remembering, Price also mentions historical issues with the Pharisees and the use of the term 'rabbi'.

We also begin to take a second look at all those scenes set in Galilean synagogues where Jesus is shown disputing with the Pharisees and tying them in knots. Our archaeological evidence, as Mack notes, gives no hint of there having been synagogues in Galilee in the first century. Nor does the pious Pharisee movement seem to have existed there until after 70 C.E., when Jews were forced out of Jerusalem and headed north. Before that, the scribes had only taunts for Galilee, calling it "Galilee of the Gentiles,", denying that any prophet could appear there, calling a biblical ignoramus a Galilean ("Are you from Galilee, too? Search the scriptures and you will see that no prophet is to rise in Galilee." John 7:52), calling it "Galilee, who hatest the Torah." One rabbi, having lived there for a year or so, bemoaned, upon his return, that in all the time he had sojourned there, only once did anyone so much as ask him a single question about the Torah. Not exactly Pharisee turf, then - till decades after Jesus. Likewise, the use of the term "rabbi" for scribes and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century C.E. And yet already in Mark, Jesus is called "Rabbi", and is debating with Pharisees in Galilean synagogues! What we seem to have here is an anachronistic reading back of the circumstances of religious debate in late first-century Galilee into the time of Jesus.

Price may or may not be correct on those items. But regardless of what one thinks of his accuracy, Price certainly didn't project his conclusion solely upon the single point about anachronistic synagogues -- contrary to your assertion above.

Sheshonq

1. Incorrect. Price is saying that this could not have happened in Galilee, since no synagogues existed in Galilee.

2. It is not untenable. It is the point of discussion on the table. Just because you disagree with it does not make it untenable. And it certainly isn't an example of poisoning the well / guilt by association, which were the complaints I posted. Thus your attempts to equate Price and Gibson do not stand up.

Do you you believe that anyone disagreeing with a conservative reading of the gospels is automatically poisoning the well?

You might also do yourself a favor and look up the term 'anachronistic'. In this context, it merely means "out of place, chronologically speaking". Finding a plastic wrapper buried in a Civil War grave would be anachronistic, since plastic wrapping wasn't invented until long after the Civil War.

Then present such evidence. But Price calling a particular gospel claim anachronistic does not suffice. The bible is full of anachronisms. Just because Price pointed out one particular thing he believes is an anachronism, that does not equate to peevishness, unless you're of the opinion that the bible must be judged as true from the outset.

Toto

Price relies on Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk) as well as The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Who Wrote the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). On p. 158-9 of the last book, Mack refers to the lack of synagoges in Galilee, and gives this as evidence for gMark having been written in some other time and location.

His conclusions there are in line with Price's.

Will Jeffrey Gibson admit to error?

No Robots

The problem is that Price makes this assertion without acknowledging that this is an area of contention, that there is no more archaeological proof of first-century synagogues in Judea than there is in Galilee, and that the earliest positive proof of any synagogue dates from A.D. 244 and is located in Syria. Nope, Price just steps over all this to zero in on Galilee. Why doesn't he deal with the problematic of the archaeology of synagogues in a broader, fairer way? It seems clear that the intent is to poison the well with regard to the historical reliability of the Gospel.

Sheshonq

What contention? Contention means 'debate, dispute, disagreement.'

Your description doesn't sound like it is an area of contention at all. On the contrary, it sounds like exactly what Price said: there is no archaeological support for synagogues in 1st century Galilee.

The fact that there isn't any evidence synagogues in an area wider than Galilee is irrelevant. Price's statement is still true.

1. He zeroed in on Galilee because that is where the gospels focus.

2. I'm not sure I would trust Wikipedia as a source anyhow; it's a group blog, not an actual encyclopedia.

Still wrong. The historical reliability of the gospel is what is being tested and evaluated here. The act of challenging the claim of reliability -- especially when accompanied by a three-pronged argument -- is not "poisoning the well".

It seems clear that you don't understand what "poisoning the well" means. Even if Price had ignored data - which you haven't shown - that would still not be the same as poisoning the well. Maybe you should look that up as well.

No Robots

What if Price had written that it is anachronistic to talk about anybody preaching in any synagogue in the first-century?

Are you talking about Dura-Europos? There is plenty of information on this from other sources.

Sheshonq

[QUOTE=No Robots;4993892]I don't see how that would have changed his argument. It might have strengthened it, actually. Then he could have pointed out gospel anachronisms about Jerusalem as well.

Oh, I don't doubt that there is. Wikipedia offers no original content; only re-worked content from other sites. The problem is that it gets filtered through amateur editors, and agenda runs rampant through the site.

You ought to quote the primary sources when you post, instead of the group blog.

Mythra

If anything, doesn't this make Price look even more careful? Because he didn't just rely on the absence of archaeological evidence. He looked at other criteria. And, since there were Pharisees in Jerusalem and Judaea, there at least existed the possibility that there were also synagogues there. Since it appears that there wasn't any real presence of Pharisees in Galilee, this pretty much eliminates even the possibility of synagogues there.

Jeffrey Gibson

Not to doubt you, but may we have Price's footnote to his statement about what Mack notes, please? And could we also have we have the exact quote from The Lost Gospel, too?

And while your at it, perhaps you'd reproduce foot note 11 on pp. 44-45 of Mack's A Myth of Innocence?

Jeffrey

Toto

To clarify, Price discusses Mack's theories extensively. In the particular case of synagogues in Galilee, Price makes a glancing reference to Mack.

Sorry, no. Price does not seem footnote that particular point, perhaps because it was too generally obvious. I guessed that his source was Who Wrote the New Testament.

I don't have that book in front of me. Perhaps you would like to reproduce it, or stop playing games?