Amaleq13

De nada

Ted Hoffman

What experts? Carrier is not an archaeologist and neither is Bagatti.
Agreed.
Carrier was equally insulting and the mods had to delete insults from his post so insults are not the issue here because the debate had degenerated to that. Anyone who wants to know where matters stand - in terms of archaeological evidence and Carrier's claims and not in terms of moral quality or social issues, can read the post for themselves. Carrier's blunders regarding the claim of quarrying amongst other glaring mistakes, clearly expose his deficient understanding of the relevant matters in that thread. I think he was mistaken and I regret that the discussion degenerated like it did. But I am equally glad that he never took it personal and we are friends.

In any event, I got a copy of Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress, Edited by Howard Clark Kee and Lynn H. Cochick (1999) (which is a key resource for arguments against[and pro] and Richard Oster's article which is an important for arguments for 1st cent CE Synagogues) and and the arguments transcend some silly calcite columns -that Amos Kloner mentions - there are linguistic and cultural issues regarding the nature of first century synagogues and the manner in which word synagogue evolved in meaning over time.

In starting the debate, first, one must distinguish between the 1st, 4th century, and even modern synagogue see Anders Runesson's The Nature and Origins of the 1st-Century Synagogue (this should be online at Bible Interp - its been quite a while since I stopped looking at this matter). And in doing so, one must not, without evidence, treat "synagogue" as an architectural edifice in the first century as Runesson does. Doing so, for example leads him to conclude that excavated buildings, like the Jericho edifice excavated by Netzer with a triclinium (a dining hall), was a synagogue.

The English word synagogue can refer to two different Greek words. One is sunagoge, which means assembly or house of assembly and the other is proseuche which means house of prayer and Runesson notes this. A careful study of the documentary record indicates that there were several terms used in antiquity to refer to gatherings places of pious Jews. These terms included “proseuche, proseuterion, eucheion, sabbataiou, hagios topos, hieron, ho oikos, didaskaleion” (A good resource for the relationship between synagogue and proseuche is Martin Hengel’s “Proseuche and Synagoggue” in Tradition und Glaube: Das fruhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, Fetschrift fur K.G. Kuhn, ed. G Jeremias, H Kuhn and H Stegemann (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, & Ruprecht, 1971), 157-83; repr. in The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture, ed. J Gutmann, 1975, P.25-74). Kee (op. cit) concludes that an analysis of Jewish writings of the post Maccabean period indicates that the dominant meaning of the word synagogue is “assembly” or “community” (Prov 21:16 refers to a gathering of monsters. Gen 1:9, Lev 11:36 gathering of waters. Job 8:17 gathering of stones. It also refers to a group of people such as Chasidim (1 Macc 2:42) and the scribes (1 Macc 7:12)). Josephus’ usages of the word synagogue include his encounter with various groups in Tiberias where “everyone came together” (synagontai hapantes) in a large oikema able to accommodate a large crowd (Life 277). The term oikema in Greek literature can mean “storehouse”, “dwelling”, “animal cage”, “brothel”, or “dwelling”. This demonstrates that he used the word synagogue to mean the gathering itself, and not the facility where the gathering took place Even in Antiquities (19. 299-307) he narrates about how a Roman Legate, Petronius wrote in a letter of protest about the defilement of the Jewish place of gathering (synagogue). By placing a statue of Caesar, the leading men of Dora prevented Jews from being a synagogue. He refers to a place, not a building.

Knowing that, what were synagogues used for? (search in the thread earlier mentioned and find Carrier's rather limited answer to this question). Runesson writes that synagogues were associated with liturgical practices, like reading and teaching of the Torah (Carrier's answer), use as council halls , storage , taking communal meals , holding court proceedings , meetings and assemblies .

Where does the problem emerge from? In From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (1973), Jacob Neusner illustrated the unwarranted tendency of scholars to read later developments in the rabbinic movement to earlier times and it is from this that Kee critically reviews how several scholars have interpreted archaeological digs and incorrectly presumed them to be synagogues without adequate reasons.

In Defining the First Century Synagogue, Kee (op. cit. p.9) examines the process through which the Theodotus inscription, which was found by Raimond Weill in southern Jerusalem in 1914, has been used by several Biblical scholars to erect a "highly dubious scholarly construct: the supposed architectural and institutional synagogue of the first century C.E." This dubious construction proceeded from Levine’s work and from the work of Adolf Deissman who attempted to date the Theodotus inscription based on questionable assumptions.

Using Josephus, Acts and Ezra, Levine (Lee J. Levine, Ancient Synagogues Revealed (1981)) described the features of ancient synagogues as including regular prayers, study, sacred meals, safekeeping of communal funds, hostel, general assembly hall and serving as residence for synagogue officials.

But dining rooms, lodgings and other facilities for visitors are not mentioned in the Theodotus inscription. Deissman asserted that because the inscription was in Greek and in characters of the early Roman period, it must have been written before 70 A.D. He was relying on Emil Schurer’s hypothesis that no Jew could settle in Jerusalem, or build any structure there . Deissman also asserted that the inscription pointed to an “undisturbed stream of pilgrims and an unbroken continuity of the congregation’s office-bearers” and such pilgrimages likely took place in the pre-70 period. A later edition of Schurer dropped these bland assumptions regarding the inscription but still retained the first century dating of the artifact. In Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Lester Grabbe relies on Deissman’ shaky hypothesis to conclude that synagogues existed in Palestine pre-70 A.D.

Regarding the Calcile columns Carrier talks about, I would refer you to Joseph Gutmann's , The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture (1975) who argues that for a structure to qualify as a synagogue, it should have "proof of piety or of a definite place of worship other than the wishful thinking of the excavators." What we see being done by people like Reed and Finegan with regard to archaeological evidence of 1st cent CE in the absence of distinct architectural features, is what Hachlili (Rachel Hachlili, in Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992), 447-54) calls local "extemporization" - they base their conclusions to "similarity to each other in architectural plan and, therefore, in function, even though no actual proof has been discovered."

The last paper I lacked and which I needed to read in order to be in a position to write a balanced article on this subject was Oster, Richard E. Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts’ Use of SUNAGWGH: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee. New Testament Studies 39 (1993) 178-208 which I asked for here. I did get it and perhaps I should sit the fuck down already and write an essay on this matter.

Am sure you can handle the disappointment so I am not too worried. In any case, my respect for him aside, I think Carrier is wrong on this one. This does not necessarily mean that there were no synagogues as architectural edifices in the first century Nazareth (which can be argued), but Carrier's arguments are incorrect.

Ted Hoffman

For Peter's benefit - and those that dont like links being offered as responses.
This doesnt mean squat. See Hachlili's comments in my previous post regarding local extemporization.
Carrier waffles when asked to define what a "permanent structure" is. If its not an architectural edifice, it is irrelevant. It it is a cave, naturally occuring or otherwise, it is still not relevant.
Bagatti is not an expert and has only been elevated to that expert status by NT scholars who are eager to confirm their own beliefs. He is a sociologist and if you read my previous post, you will see that there are several archaologists who have equally been interested in the subject and they do not rely on Bagatti as Carrier does.
Consider the following response:
If the evidence is erased, then ipso facto, there is no evidence. No evidence, no positive claims - remember that the burden of proof is on him.
This is not an argument. He has to prove that what was "erased" supports his claims. Again, I refer you to Hachlili.
This is wrong first of all because it uses post 2nd century architectural forms of synagogue to identify first century synagogues - As Hachlili notes, they base their conclusions to "similarity to each other in architectural plan and, therefore, in function, even though no actual proof has been discovered."
Secondly, there is no proof of piety demonstrated.
Thirdly, we have to consider the following:
The response to this is as follows:
Judge for yourselves.

spin

You are wrong to say that Bagatti is not an expert. In fact Bagatti had a doctorate in archaeology and taught "christian" archaeology in Jerusalem. For his time he was as much of an expert as anyone.


spin

Ted Hoffman

This is interesting. Which university issued him with that doctorate? Which year?

Ted Hoffman

Never mind. In 1934 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Christian Archaeology from Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology in Rome.
He taught at the "Studium Theologicum Hierosolymitanum" of the Custody of the Holy Land. My "friend" asserts:

Ted Hoffman

Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology in Rome. Hmmmm...Isnt that like a Historian who has a Doctorate from Fascist Institute of Nazi History in Germany?

Steven Avery

Hi spamandham,

And I hope you might have actually read my posts, where I made that specific point. In fact you even quoted me !

"One can make a reasonable assertion that we are not sure of the location of 1st-century Nazareth. (Even whether it was in the Nazareth basin of today or not.)"

This whole thread does exactly what I shared (and it is the modus operandi of Rene Salm as well). Major in the minors. Two quite different questions are mixed up, apparently deliberately.

a) Find and demonstrate the 1st-century location of Nazareth.
b) Did a town of Nazareth exist in the first century.

To deny (b) is what can be called a parody of the skeptic position.
(Except that some folks actually take that position.)

However asking for views on (a) and having a wide diversity of
discussion as to location is totally sound.

Personally I find the view that Nazareth was closer to the Sea
of Galilee to be very interesting. In that case the 4th-century
actions of Constantine's mother Helena wife may have a lot to do
with the identification today since she had a habit of misdirecting
Biblical identifications.

However at this time we really do not know for sure the location
of Nazareth. Nor of Cana and many other NT sites. Which leads
to your other question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham Doesn't it seem odd to you that even the early church didn't know where Nazareth was?

Not particularly. There was an incredible amount of turmoil and destruction in between the time of the life of Jesus and when the efforts to make permanent identifications of NT Biblical sites took hold. And that turmoil included the razing of many towns in Galilee.

Shalom,
Steven

spamandham

Skepticism regarding the very existence of Nazareth in the first century follows from the following points:

- The misconstrued prophecy of Matthew 2:23, where the author clearly associates the word 'nazarene' with residency in a city called Nazareth, which has nothing to do with any known prophecies in ancient Jewish scripture. It appears to be a transliteration error.

- The early church didn't even know where Nazareth was

- Nazareth is missing from Josephus' listing of Jewish towns.

- The first record of Nazareth anywhere appears in a legendary story.

- 1st century Nazareth is still AWOL

Given these, why is it unreasonable to be skeptical?

Amedeo

There are various archeological reasons to believe that a Galilean town of Nazareth existed long before the Gospel references to it. The question that I would be concerned with is whether the Gospel Jesus, who is said to have lived in Nazareth, etc., was a person who ever lived in Nazareth. For instance, he is said to have been born in Bethlehem -- IN ORDER THAT A PROPHESY MAY BE FULFILLED -- but was he really born there or was a myth built around the name of a real town and a prophesy?

Matthew:2-19ff. says that Joseph, the father of Jesus, was told by an angel to return to the land of Israel now that King Herod had died [4 B.C.] and the danger [for Jesus, the newborn king] was over. So, Joseph and his family were heading back to Judea, but they were warned again, and Joseph stopped in Galilee, in the town called Nazareth -- AND SO WAS FULFILLED THE PROPHESY THAT JESUS WOULD BE CALLED NAZARENE. (Indeed, in the Gospels Jesus is called the Nazarene, whether "nazarene" means "of Nazareth" or "of the sect of the Nazarenes.")

In other posts, I pointed out that the biography of Jesus the Messiah is built out of the prophesies or pre-figurations made in the Old Scriptures. But now I find also that various episodes of the life of Jesus the King were also built on prophesies or were newly contrived, as in the case of the Magi coming from the East to bring gifts to a new-born king (Jesus, in the bloodline of David). Is Matthew's genealogy of Jesus a contrived one? Luke genealogy is partly different and, most importantly, Luke says that Jesus was thought to be the (natural) son of Joseph, while Luke himself wants to expound on the idea that Jesus the Messiah was the son of God and Mary.

What is realistic in the biography of Jesus the king is that he was born under Herod and that he was tried and crucified (by popular request) under Pilate. What is realistic in the biography of Jesus the Messiah is that he preached the imminent end of the world and told parables about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God. Everything else is wrapped in myths.