gstafleu

What, according to Michael's quote, Price said is "Nor does the pious Pharisee movement seem to have existed there until after 70 C.E." I have bolded an important word here so you won't miss it in the dark. So he is not asserting anything. He may not have given a source, but given that we have Josephus agreeing with him I don't think that is an issue. IOW, Price was quite withing reasonable limits when making this statement, while statements that he was obviously babbling unsubstantiated nonsense are well outside such limits.

Gerard Stafleu

No Robots

The absence of archaeological remains does not demonstrate that there were no first-century synagogues in Galilee.

The absence of records of Pharisees active in the Galilee does not demonstrate that there was no such activity. Some scholars even assert that Christ himself was a Pharisee. What is more, there is no necessity for Pharisees themselves to be the heads of Galilean synagogues.

Pre-Christian usage of the term "rabbi" is discussed at length here.

Sheshonq

Which I rebutted here. Note that your third point, about the usage of the term 'rabbi', seems to be contradicted by your own source:

Sherira's statement shows clearly that at the time of Jesus there were no titles; and Grätz ("Gesch." iv. 431), therefore, regards as anachronisms the title "Rabbi" as given in the gospels to John the Baptist and Jesus, Jesus' disapprobation of the ambition of the Jewish doctors who love to be called by this title, and his admonition to his disciples not to suffer themselves to be so styled (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8).

It still does not allow you to characterizes Price's argument as being solely about synagogues.

And this is just more poisoning the well. Price did nothing of the sort, and your attempt at summarization is really slander in disguise.

No Robots

Here is something more definitive:

While S. Zeitlin maintained that the term "Rabbi" is anachronistic in the Gospels and came into use only after the destruction of the Temple, almost all scholars nowadays agree with Ferdinand Hahn that that the term is applied to Jesus "in an old stratum of the traditions behind the gospels of Mark and John" and may well reflect actual practice [Hahn, Ferdinand, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk). London, 1969 (= German ed. Gottingen, 1963)].--The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine By Catherine Hezser.

No Robots

Price dismisses the argument that "synagogue" indicates an assembly:

Apologist Howard Clark Kee admits this one is a problem but maintains that, otherwise, in gospel usage "synagogue" need mean no more than "assembly" or "meeting." But is this really likely? Mark has Jesus stop preaching "in" synagogues beause the crowds are too large, presumably, for buildings to accomodate. Hence he assembles the Jews at the seaside or in the open. Would there be "rulers of the synagogue," like Jairus, if the synagogue in view were merely someone's porch? How about "the seat of Moses" and the "chief seats in the synagogues" in Matt. 23:2, 6? Just someone's Naugahyde couch?

Horsley argues in the references I provided above that the first century saw the transition of the meaning of the word "synagogue" from "assembly" to "the place of assembly." Likewise, this was the time during which the word "rabbi" went from a meaning "my teacher" to becoming a religious title:

It is certain that in His own lifetime Jesus was addressed as “Rabbi”, and in His outward appearance He was not essentially distinguished from the scribes of the day. The address “Rabbi” was in general use at the time, and was especially preferred in respect of the scholars and teachers of the Law, but was not yet limited to the highly accomplished and ordained scholars.--The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity By Ferdinand Hahn

No Robots

I would have to read Horsely and Hahn to answer your questions. The point is that neither Price nor spin seem to be aware of these authors.

No Robots

Btw, there is analysis of the epigraphic evidence for pre-Christian use of "rabbi" in Die urchristlichen Lehrer By Alfred F. Zimmermann. Additional discussion is found in the following:

• "Is the Title "Rabbi" Anachronistic in the Gospels?" / Hershel Shanks. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 53, No. 4 (Apr., 1963), pp. 337-345.
• "[Is the Title "Rabbi" Anachronistic in the Gospels?]: A Reply" / S. Z. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 53, No. 4 (Apr., 1963), pp. 345-349.
• "The Title Rabbi in the Gospels: Some Reflections on the Evidence of the Synoptics" / James Donaldson. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 63, No. 4 (Apr., 1973), pp. 287-291.
• "Epigraphical Rabbis" / Shaye J. D. Cohen. In The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jul., 1981), pp. 1-17.

Jeffrey Gibson

Each of which I have on my hard drive and can make available in PDF to anyone who asks to see them.

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

Excuse me? You haven't read them???

Then you should refrain from offering them as counter-examples to Price's point, if you don't even know what they have to say on the topic.

Name-dropping authors or books that you googled into the discussion -- but have no knowledge of -- serves no purpose at all. And in fact, that was how you got caught earlier when you offered up a source that actually contradicted you.


And how do you know that? They may be aware of the authors, but find their arguments unconvincing. Or they may have counter-arguments that you are not aware of.

You're taking a big leap of assumption that merely because someone doesn't discuss an author, that somehow means they are unaware of the author or his/her arguments.

Sheshonq

Jeffrey, this isn't hard. YOU said it, here:

Price's assertion conceals the facts -- noted in Eric Meyer's ABD article "Synagogue" that I've reproduced below -

Did you forget your own words?

I'm seeing a pattern here:

1.Earlier you tried to create a false binary choice, and say that Price insisted on either (a) synagogues or (b) porches. When it was pointed out to you that Price was merely listing a specific example of a general idea (meeting places outside a building) you grew pedantic and tried to insinuate that nobody could know that was Price's intent, without being a mind-reader. Of course, Price had already mentioned other places in the passage, which you conveniently excerpted in your version.

2. Now you want a specific citation for a charge against Price - a charge that you yourself made in this selfsame thread, but in your haste and urgency to slander Price, somehow you overlooked. Maybe you should leave the venom and agenda out of your posting. It is causing you to make obvious mistakes like these.

The rest of the rebuttals to your pedantic, schoolyard "by whom?" questions can be found in this post. The fact that you have not addressed the post indicates that you realize that your original mudslinging was groundless.

And this "suspicion" was voiced after you were shown that not even the basis for the unfounded suspicions would hold up. Yet you repeated it anyhow.

He is not discussing Price, per se.
He is discussing Jeffrey Gibson's deliberate hatchet job of Price.