Jeffrey Gibson

A better question is: how much weight can we put on, and how trutworthy are, conclusions that are built upon, and derived from, suppositional premises.

That depends. Just what is it that Mack actually "notes"? Is it really what Price says it is? And assuming that it is, does Mack himself go on from his note about a lack of archaeological evidence for synagogues to conclude that there were no synagogues/places of assembly in Galilee before the late 1st century?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

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.

Similarly, when it comes to the Pharisees, the best argument you can provide ("I can do no better than to quote Anthony Saldarin") states, in its strongest moment, that the presence of the pharisees in Galilee at Jesus time is "intrinsically probable." That may be so, but not going with that estimate of probability does not disqualify one's scholarship, it just indicates a scholarly disagreement.

So when it comes to the original question, I would say that so far Price's scholarship holds up quite well. There may be other opinions, sure, but he is not a fringe scholar, as some would have it. So far, going by the arguments-counter adduced, his position seems quite reasonable. Maybe you don't agree with him, fine, but that does not legitimize impugning his scholarship.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

No, I wanted to know what criterion was being used to label him so.

Ah, the engagement in equivocation and petitio principii.

What I wanted to know is why Kee's comments were deemed unsound, let alone why anyone who thinks that there is evidence that indicates that Jesus was an exorcist and healer is regarded as an apologist. Would they be labeled as such if they took seriously Josephus reports of Jewish exorcists or the mishnaic references to the healing powers of Haniah ben Dosa?

And BTW, take note, that I won't respond to you subsequently unless you sign your posts with your real name.

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

Same thing.

Ah the evasion to a direct question. You are having trouble in this thread supporting your claims against Price. It's hardly necessary to try and take out your frustration on me over that.

No, that was your second question.

Your first question was why he was considered an apologist. You seem to have moved off that question now.

OK, now I'm really at a loss. Why would this be the case?

Mythra

May I interject a further question into this discussion? And, if the idea gets shot down in flames, that's quite alright. I have no academic pride to protect here.

But-

In light of this statement - if it's true - wouldn't that perhaps even make the early dating of Mark (70 C.E., or so) anachronistic also? I mean, surely the writer of Mark's gospel would not have been placing Galilean synagogues and Pharisees into his narrative during a time when they were not actually there.

What is the latest possible dating that could be reasonably established for the authorship of the gospel of Mark?

Mythra

Oh. I just thought of a possible explanation. Perhaps Mark (or should I say whoever authored Mark) didn't know. Because he had never been to Galilee.

Michael Dravis

Jeffrey Gibson

Nope. That's not the most that can be said, especially if Price has not accurately represented the claims made by Mack vis a vis synagogues, if he has misrepresented Mack implying that that when Mack speaks of synagogues, he, like Price, thinks that "synagogue" means "house of prayer", if he presents Mack as thinking that the absence of archaeological evidence entails an absolute conclusion that there were no synagogues in Galilee before the end of the 1st century CE, and. most importantly, if Price has ignored other things that Mack has said about synagogues that would vitiate the conclusion that Price is asking us to accept on the basis of Mack's authority.

What could then be said is that Price's conclusions are suspect and skewed.

So I ask again, has Price accurately represented Mack? Has he adduced Mack as one who supports a conclusion that Mack does not agree with?

Do you know?

Wow. Speaking of apologetics ...

Jeffrey

No Robots

This seems to be saying merely that archaeological evidence for Galilean synagogues does not predate the 2nd century. However, this is true of archaeological evidence for synagogues in general. The oldest authenticated archaeological site of a synagogue is the Dura-Europos_synagogue, dated to A.D. 244.

Sheshonq

But your entire list above is built upon assumptions about Price misreading or misrepresenting Mack. Can you demonstrate that?

It also assumes that Price relied solely upon Mack (or largely upon Mack) when arriving at his conclusions about a lack of 1st century synagogues in Galilee. Can you demonstrate that?

You don't like Price; that much is obvious. But your attempt to slander his professional credentials reeks of agenda.

Not yet it couldn't. You'd have to work through the above list and demonstrate that any of these hypotheticals were true.

Are you asking rhetorically?

I hope so; otherwise, if you don't know the answer to this question, then you are out of line in poisoning the well above. Your post amounts to "I have no evidence that he was ever a member of the Communist party."

Mythra

I know Jeffrey doesn't need me to come to his defense. But Price did say this:

Our archaeological evidence, as Mack notes, gives no hint of there having been synagogues in Galilee in the first century.

So, if that's not really Mack's opinion, (or if Mack qualifies it with other considerations that Price doesn't mention) then there's a problem.