Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 08-12-2010, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Plenty of evidence.

There was a synagogue in the late Hasmonean palace at Jericho (pre-50 BCE) according to the archaeological evidence, there was one at Masada (pre-70 CE), another at Dura Europos (pre-250 CE). Another is argued for Qiryat Sefer (pre-135 CE). At Magdala a building was converted into a Synagogue in the 1st c. Etc. (The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. (or via: amazon.co.uk), Runesson, Binder and Olsson, Brill: 2008.) Josephus also talks about them, eg BJ 2.285.

As far as I have read, there have been no certifiable synagogues prior to about the fourth century. Furthermore the complete absence of their mention in the OT is suspicious.

To you maybe, but then if synagogues are the product of a post hellenistic crisis world, the Hebrew bible would be irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

And a book by "Christian" scholars is very suspect as far as I am concerned.

And a book about Mars written by earthling scholars you can dismiss as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Neither author is an archaeologist. I think what we have in the book is the equivalent of John the Baptist's bones and the one single cuneiform fragment validating a large commercial Jerusalem we saw recently in the news. We are talking about True Believers here that are trying to validate their faith and nothing more.

What do you know about the authors of the particular book? Nothing. The editorial board contains at least Jews and christians. Your reaction seems to be more auto-ironic than we need.

spin

spin · 08-12-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To quote from the Brill Synagogue book:

What in English is translated “synagogue” went under several different names in antiquity (in Greek, Latin and Hebrew): synagoge, proseuche, ekklesia, oikos, topos, hagios topos, hieros peribolos, hieron, synagogion, sabbateion, semneion, didaskaleion, amphitheatron, eucheion, proseukterion, thiasos, templum, proseucha, bet mo'ed, bet ha-Torah, bet ha-kneset.

At least half of those do not mean synagogue as in a Jewish church.

This is about as meaningful as complaining that temple, chapel, church, prayer house, house of the lord, gospel hall and religious madhouse don't mean the same thing, while each referring to the place of worship for christians. The modern use of "synagogue" the text would argue is covered by each of the words listed. There is no implication that they mean the same thing, but that they have the same reference in the appropriate context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Among them can be found feast, feast day, temple, mansion, house, palace, etc. What is translated as synagogue for the most part is equivalent to finding the word writing and automatically assuming it means scripture. I think it is very wrong to give special meanings to words found in biblical texts when the simpler common definition will suffice.

This would be your error, not that of the authors. You are projecting onto them your own biases. Do you know how their sources came to the conclusions they did? Obviously not: you haven't read the appropriate literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

For instance it is very misleading to call the OT iesous Joshua and the NT iesous Jesus. They are the same name. It is also misleading to call elohim god in some places and messengers, judges or angels in others. elohim means sons of El or council of El and should be designated as such each and every time. But that would not serve a hidden theological bias.

Same here with synagogues. Christians and Jews see church buildings everywhere even if they have to use a bigger hammer to make it fit.

This reaction seems totally unwarranted for the information it purports to respond to. Why not read the literature and write a critique rather than producing this sort of poo-pooing?

spin

spin · 08-12-2010, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another complicating factor is terminology. Synagogues weren't called 'synagogues' outside Judea in the early period especially in Egypt and Alexandria. The preferred terminology was proseuche but this confirmed in every respect to what we would call a 'synagogue.'

They weren't called synagogues anywhere in or outside of Judea until the second century. That is an anachronism. And proseuche means prayer or an open field gathering. It has nothing to do with any building built for Jews. That is just another faith justifying definition for a prayer or prayer gathering. Buildings are not a legitimate use of the term.

I've already cited Josephus, BJ 2.285, for synagogue. And try Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber, 81. Then there is Contra Apion 2.10 for proseuche.

Why do you insist on trying to make such references anachronistic?

spin

spin · 08-12-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Why do people insist on calling the one and only Temple the Second Temple? As far as any archaeologist not a theist is concerned, there was only one.

"Second Temple Judaism" is a term in common usage in biblical studies. One doesn't need to accept the existence of a "first temple" to use the term.

spin

stephan huller · 08-12-2010, 05:33 PM

Russelonius,

Quote:

They weren't called synagogues anywhere in or outside of Judea until the second century. That is an anachronism. And proseuche means prayer or an open field gathering. It has nothing to do with any building built for Jews. That is just another faith justifying definition for a prayer or prayer gathering. Buildings are not a legitimate use of the term.

Il est ridicule de prétendre à une date du deuxième siècle de la synagogue en dehors de la Judée. Vous devriez lire Philon mieux. Philon presque toujours utilise le terme "proseuche" pour ce que nous appellerions synagogues - un bâtiment où les Juifs se rassemblent. "Synagoge" a été utilisé pour décrire la communauté elle-même.

spin · 08-12-2010, 05:59 PM

I guess there is no point citing references. They won't be checked.

Philo, Prob. 81:

For that day [the seventh] has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred places which they call synagogues

(Italics obviously mine.)

(And that last should have been to Darstec, Russellonius.)

spin

stephan huller · 08-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Exactement c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai décidé d'écrire en français. Ce n'est pas que des références qui ne sont pas vérifiées. Je ne pense pas que les gens, même les soins à écouter à tout point de vue qu'ils sont en désaccord avec. Alors, quel est le point de prétendre que les gens sont effectivement absorber les informations que vous leur donnez. Je le fais pour pratiquer le français.

Russellonius · 08-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Stephan, that was not me you quoted. I do not insist that it had to be a building. I claim it was a 'gathering' of a demographic sub-group. (Same with early use of 'ecclesia'.)

It's absolutely ridiculous to postulate discontinuity between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity. 'Poof, there it is', ain't gonna fly.

I don't even know what darstec is responding to so negatively. It was not anything posted prior to his digression. It seems popular here to completely ignore people's arguments because of some (incorrectly perceived in this case) slight alleged error. Maybe darstec doesn't understand maryhelena's argument? Can we return to topic?

spin · 08-12-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Exactement c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai décidé d'écrire en français. Ce n'est pas que des références qui ne sont pas vérifiées. Je ne pense pas que les gens, même les soins à écouter à tout point de vue qu'ils sont en désaccord avec. Alors, quel est le point de prétendre que les gens sont effectivement absorber les informations que vous leur donnez. Je le fais pour pratiquer le français.

Puoi fare una scena in questo modo se vuoi, macchi' se ne frega? Nel contesto e' solo una perdita di tempo e non serve a niente. Sei contento? Ovviamente no. Possiamo tornare ora a discutere nella lingua franca di questo posto e cosi' lasciar seguire nostre chiacchierate chiunque che vuole leggere?

So now I'll wipe my hands and ask you to do the same.

Do you wish to respond to anything substantively?

spin

stephan huller · 08-12-2010, 07:32 PM

I thought we were on the same side on this one.

08-12-2010, 05:59 PM	#66
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I guess there is no point citing references. They won't be checked. Philo, Prob. 81: For that day [the seventh] has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred places which they call synagogues (Italics obviously mine.) (And that last should have been to Darstec, Russellonius.) spin

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

08-12-2010, 06:06 PM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Exactement c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai décidé d'écrire en français. Ce n'est pas que des références qui ne sont pas vérifiées. Je ne pense pas que les gens, même les soins à écouter à tout point de vue qu'ils sont en désaccord avec. Alors, quel est le point de prétendre que les gens sont effectivement absorber les informations que vous leur donnez. Je le fais pour pratiquer le français.

08-12-2010, 06:06 PM	#68
Russellonius Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 60	Stephan, that was not me you quoted. I do not insist that it had to be a building. I claim it was a 'gathering' of a demographic sub-group. (Same with early use of 'ecclesia'.) It's absolutely ridiculous to postulate discontinuity between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity. 'Poof, there it is', ain't gonna fly. I don't even know what darstec is responding to so negatively. It was not anything posted prior to his digression. It seems popular here to completely ignore people's arguments because of some (incorrectly perceived in this case) slight alleged error. Maybe darstec doesn't understand maryhelena's argument? Can we return to topic?

08-12-2010, 07:32 PM	#70
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I thought we were on the same side on this one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.