Ted Hoffman

Split it. And why cant some people just get banned for derailing discussions and just being plain obnoxious?
How is it that it is acceptable for one to advance a series of charges then when one responds to those charges directly with clear arguments, he ignores them, clams up for a day or two (probably rolling his eyes and looking away), then repeats the same demolished arguments as if they have not been addressed. There should be a rule against this unscholarly, immature behaviour.
Mods, isn't this trolling? Or are some people exempt from the rules?
Those who believe in disputed things or questionable ideas (like the existence of ghosts and first century architectural synagogues) have the burden of proof. If you had a basic understanding of archaeology you would not have made such a statement. Things dont just vanish into thin air without leaving traces.
By the way, I am equally familiar with some of the bogus reasons (other than etymological) that have been erected for why we dont find architectural evidence supporting the existence of first century synagogues as architectural edifices.
Since you NoRobots dont care about evidence, it is unclear to me why you even bother to debate the matter. We might as well believe there were cement coffins in first century Galilee then erect dubious explanations regarding why we have no evidence for that belief, like argue illogically that "What is in dispute is whether that lack or evidence provides positive proof that there were in fact no cement coffins in first-century Galilee."
Do you see how silly that line of reasoning is? With it, anything goes.
Jeffrey has equally been sloppy about what he writes here in the past (something to do with the spelling of archons/arxontes). His use of his actual name did not save him from that blunder. He has also been sloppy in this thread. His name did not save him from that. And his tactical withdrawal and bizarre silence when he is stumped has not saved him either.
This is about arguments and issues, not names. One can choose to be petty as he has, and focus on trivialities like names and credentials, or one can grow up and focus on the arguments and address the issues.
Jeffrey should address the alleged sloppiness, if they trouble him; not the names. He is like someone who is attacked by two people who wore red shirts. Then he spends the rest of his life attacking or running away from people in red shirts.
People who are sloppy will be sloppy even if they are called Albert Einstein.
I have cited my sources. He has not mustered any respectable response. These are all excuses and I think we should treat him as an adult and tell him we will not have it. He has even complained in the past that I was calling him Gibson and not Jeffrey - yet he happily goes around calling himself Jeffrey Gibson. Perhaps he should provide a list of his likes and dislikes since he thinks they are so important that they should interrupt an exchange on actual issues.
Pampering and pacifying people for such petulance fosters the same pettiness.

No Robots

But, my dear fellow, I am arguing that there were probably no first century architectural synagogues, at least not in Galilee. Rather what are called synagogues are not buildings, but assemblies. See:

• "Synagogues in Galilee and the Gospels," by Richard A. Horsley. In Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress by Howard Clark Kee, Lynn H. Cohick.
• "Synagogues: The Village Assemblies." Chapter. 10 in Galilee: History, Politics, People by Richard A. Horsley.

Sheshonq

An argument that Ted Hoffman already addressed here.

Are you *reading* anyone's responses, NoRobots? I've had to repeat my responses 2 or 3 times back to you. And now I'm doing it with a post of Ted Hoffman's that rebutted this point. It sure seems like a lot of repetition is necessary to get you to focus on a particular point.

Amaleq13

Please cease the personal discussion about another member and make an effort to focus on the thread.

Thanks in advance,


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Jeffrey Gibson

edit

Suspicions of sock-puppetry should be reported to Mods. Accusations should not be made in-thread.

DtC, Mderator, BC&H

Jeffrey Gibson

I love this. Bifurcation at its best! The only place that a "synagogue" can be held, and the only thing that the term can mean, if not "building" is "someone's porch"!!

And there can be no one who was a "ruler" of a "synagogue" unless that which one was an ἀρχισυνάγωγος of was a building, just like, I suppose there could be no one who could be an ἀρχιτρίκλινος unless there were a banquet hall for him to preside over!!

Perhaps we'd better let the "author" of IGRom.1.782 -- who notes that an ἀρχισυνάγωγος was a "master of a guild or company" (see LSJ)-- (not to mention the authors of Mishnaic passages which indicate that before the 3rd centiry CE the town square, not a building, was the location of a city/village's general assembly and law courts -- see S.B. Hoening, JQR 48 [1957-58] 132-139; and his ANRW article "The Ancient City Square: Forerunner of the Synagogue; see too M. Hengel, "Proseuche und Synagoge" in Tradition und Glaube: Das fr he Christentum in seiner Umwelt; Festgabe f r Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Van Den Hoeck and Rupprecht, 1971), pp. 157-184) know this. Or Mark himself who alligns "synagogues" not with buildings but with public spaces and public occasions at 13:38-39 and with assemblies with political jurisdictions and authority to keep the peace and to discipline troublemakers at Mk. 13:9 .

And where does Mark say that there were crowds in any "synagogue" which he has Jesus "enter," let alone that Jesus stopped preaching in these "synagogues" because the crowds he was reputedly teaching "within" them grew too large? The only reference that I find in Mark to Jesus preaching "in" a "synagogue" is at Mk. 1:39, and there's no mention there of crowds, let alone of Jesus having to stop what he was doing because of the size of his audience.

Have I missed something?

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

OK, understood.

So how does Horsely explain the incongruities with that interpretation - the ones that Price identifies above?

How does Hahn deal with spin's analysis here?

Toto

It seems clear to me that Price is not presenting two alternatives, a synagogue building and a front porch. His alternatives are [1] a formal building, or [2] anything else, of which a front porch is an example, perhaps chosen for its humorous or down home value. If you have heard Price lecture, you know that excels at humorous asides and allusions to popular culture.

I bring this up because it seems to me that you, Jeffrey Gibson, often have a way of reading English that seems unnatural to me, and I am at a loss to understand this.

Jeffrey Gibson

And you certainly have a way of giving breaks to those whose write in support of what you want to believe that you wouldn't give to anyone whom you think is an apologist. In fact if I had suggested that, say, Tom Wright, means more at pint X than a plain reading of his words at point X warrant, you'd lose no time in noting that what I think Tom means is too subjective, shows bias, and that what I said is not an exact equivalent to what Tom actually wrote.

In other words, your criterion for what seems a "natura"l and "unnatural" reading seems to be grounded in a double standard.

But again, you can always prove me wrong. Write to price to see if he did mean someplace besides a porch -- and if so, what he might have had in mind for which a porch is an example. Would he allow it to be a town square?

And I note you haven't answered my question about his claim regarding "synagogue" "rulers" and the relationship between crowds in "synagoges" and Jesus' cessation of teaching in "synagogues".

Or have I misread what Price said on this point, too?

<edit>

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

I was just getting ready to respond with the same conclusion: a porch is merely an example of a larger class of areas where Christ preached that were not inside a building. It was not intended as one prong of an obligatory binary choice, i.e., either (a) a synagogue or (b) a porch.

Jeffrey is striving so hard to disprove Price, that Price's more subtle point flew over Jeffrey's head.

This is uncalled-for. There is no evidence that Toto has acted this way.

No, he just doesn't have the axe to grind that you seem to have, whenever you read Price.

You have the burden of proof reversed. It isn't anyone's job to prove you wrong. It is *your* job to prove yourself right. Are you reluctant to write to Price and pose your questions to him yourself?