Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mythra · 11-26-2007, 06:08 PM

Since the discussion is about Robert Price and whether or not we can trust what he says - there is a claim in "Deconstructing Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)" that I've always wondered about:

Then there are broader historical anachronisms that seem to vitiate the gospel controversy stories: Generally, the whole depiction of Jesus preaching in "their" synagogues is anachronistic, as there were virtually no synagogue buildings in Galilee till late in the first centrury C.E., after the flight of Pharisees and other refugees into Galilee (which "hated the Torah"). Luke even has a Gentile (a clone of his Cornelius character, Acts 10:1-4ff.) praised for bankrolling the construction of one synagogue (Luke 7:5). 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?

So, hopefully someone here can comment on this. What is the evidence that there were no synagogues in Galilee until late in the first century?

Or is this claim made by Price unsound?

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Since the discussion is about Robert Price and whether or not we can trust what he says - there is a claim in "Deconstructing Jesus" that I've always wondered about:

Then there are broader historical anachronisms that seem to vitiate the gospel controversy stories: Generally, the whole depiction of Jesus preaching in "their" synagogues is anachronistic, as there were virtually no synagogue buildings in Galilee till late in the first centrury C.E., after the flight of Pharisees and other refugees into Galilee (which "hated the Torah"). Luke even has a Gentile (a clone of his Cornelius character, Acts 10:1-4ff.) praised for bankrolling the construction of one synagogue (Luke 7:5). 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?

So, hopefully someone here can comment on this. What is the evidence that there were no synagogues in Galilee until late in the first century?

Or is this claim made by Price unsound?

Even more, what is the evidence that Kee is an "apologist"? Geeze, talk about skewing things!

Jeffrey

Toto · 11-26-2007, 06:43 PM

Kee wrote What can we know about Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is sited by Christian apolgist Mike McFall as saying:

Quote:

Howard Clark Kee,
professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions
from the sources outside of the New Testament: "The result of the examination of the sources outside the New Testament that bear directly or indirectly on our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm his historical existence, his unusual powers, the devotion of his followers, the continued existence of the movement after his death at the hands of the Roman governor in Jerusalem, and the penetration of Christianity into the upper strata of society in Rome itself by the later first century." ("What Can We Know about Jesus? Kee. Pg.19) Kee continues"In spite of this range of ways in which the tradition about Jesus has been transmitted, we have available a clear and remarkably consistent array of evidence about this figure whose life, teachings, and death have continued to have such a profound inpact on the subsequent history of the human race." (Ibid Pg. 114)

Kee might have also done some good scholarship, but this puts him clearly in the apologetic camp. Can you defend any of this as sound history?

Mythra · 11-26-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Even more, what is the evidence that Kee is an "apologist"? Geeze, talk about skewing things!

You see - there we are talking about scholars and who is reliable. From my perspective this last exchange and Toto's post makes me think that Jeffrey Gibson is the one I can't trust to tell the truth.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Kee wrote What can we know about Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is sited by Christian apolgist Mike McFall as saying:

Quote:

Howard Clark Kee,
professor emeritus at Boston University, makes the following conclusions
from the sources outside of the New Testament: "The result of the examination of the sources outside the New Testament that bear directly or indirectly on our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm his historical existence, his unusual powers, the devotion of his followers, the continued existence of the movement after his death at the hands of the Roman governor in Jerusalem, and the penetration of Christianity into the upper strata of society in Rome itself by the later first century." ("What Can We Know about Jesus? Kee. Pg.19) Kee continues"In spite of this range of ways in which the tradition about Jesus has been transmitted, we have available a clear and remarkably consistent array of evidence about this figure whose life, teachings, and death have continued to have such a profound inpact on the subsequent history of the human race." (Ibid Pg. 114)

Kee might have also done some good scholarship, but this puts him clearly in the apologetic camp. Can you defend any of this as sound history?

What do you think is unsound?

Jeffrey

Toto · 11-26-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Kee wrote What can we know about Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is sited by Christian apolgist Mike McFall as saying:

Kee might have also done some good scholarship, but this puts him clearly in the apologetic camp. Can you defend any of this as sound history?

What do you think is unsound?

Jeffrey

Why? Are you kidding?

Quote:

The result of the examination of the sources outside the New Testament that bear directly or indirectly on our knowledge of Jesus is to confirm his historical existence,

This overstates the quality of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

Quote:

his unusual powers,

Only a true believing Christian with blinders on would say this. Anyone else would wonder why the lord of lords made such a faint impression on the rest of the world. Most reasonable scholars seem to assume that Jesus was a marginal, small town rabbi in an obscure area of the Roman Empire.

Quote:

the devotion of his followers,

None of whom wrote anything about him.

Quote:

the continued existence of the movement after his death at the hands of the Roman governor in Jerusalem,

Again, a movement that left no footprint for most of the first century.

Quote:

and the penetration of Christianity into the upper strata of society in Rome itself by the later first century."

He's grasping at straws.

Quote:

In spite of this range of ways in which the tradition about Jesus has been transmitted, we have available a clear and remarkably consistent array of evidence about this figure whose life, teachings, and death have continued to have such a profound inpact on the subsequent history of the human race

Anyone who uses the words clear and consistent in regard to the evidence of Jesus can only be an evanglist talking to the choir. If the evidence were so clear and convincing, why have Christians been fighting about it for the last 1800 years or so? Why do the various quests come up with such uncertainty?

Who is he kidding?

Mythra · 11-26-2007, 07:17 PM

Jeffrey: I hate to break your stride, but other than the side-track about apologists - can you contribute anything to my inquiry about Price's assertion that there were no synagogues in Galilee prior to the latter part of the first century?

I get the feeling you must concur, else you would have already picked it apart.

I really am looking for answers. And it's frustrating when an educated person such as yourself is so reticent to share any information.

Michael Dravis

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Whoa! All Kee is speaking of here is Jesus as an exorcist -- which even Jewish sources testify to.

Now it's my turn to say whoa. What "Jewish sources" are you speaking of?

Try Sanhedrin 43a.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That can't be - exorcists and faith healers were a dime a dozen in the Roman Empire. Kee thinks that Jesus had "unusual powers."

Really? that many, huh? And even if they were a "dime a dozen", this makes their powers "usual" how? Is that what was thought of them, that they had "usual" powers?

As your claim that Kee is saying more than that Jesus was a healer, write him to find out. He may be reached at

ckee at ostinato.com

I take it that the amount of Key you've actually read is what you found presented in your source?

Jeffrey

Mythra · 11-26-2007, 08:20 PM

Maybe I need to ask R.G. Price if Robert Price is correct about the SYNAGOGUES IN GALILEE. Since Jeffrey isn't telling.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2007, 06:08 PM	#1
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Since the discussion is about Robert Price and whether or not we can trust what he says - there is a claim in "Deconstructing Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)" that I've always wondered about: Then there are broader historical anachronisms that seem to vitiate the gospel controversy stories: Generally, the whole depiction of Jesus preaching in "their" synagogues is anachronistic, as there were virtually no synagogue buildings in Galilee till late in the first centrury C.E., after the flight of Pharisees and other refugees into Galilee (which "hated the Torah"). Luke even has a Gentile (a clone of his Cornelius character, Acts 10:1-4ff.) praised for bankrolling the construction of one synagogue (Luke 7:5). 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? So, hopefully someone here can comment on this. What is the evidence that there were no synagogues in Galilee until late in the first century? Or is this claim made by Price unsound?

11-26-2007, 07:17 PM	#7
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Jeffrey: I hate to break your stride, but other than the side-track about apologists - can you contribute anything to my inquiry about Price's assertion that there were no synagogues in Galilee prior to the latter part of the first century? I get the feeling you must concur, else you would have already picked it apart. I really am looking for answers. And it's frustrating when an educated person such as yourself is so reticent to share any information. Michael Dravis

11-26-2007, 08:20 PM	#10
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Maybe I need to ask R.G. Price if Robert Price is correct about the SYNAGOGUES IN GALILEE. Since Jeffrey isn't telling.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.