Toto

There is a review here

Minimalist

A search on Eric Meyer only seems to turn up on Fundie web sites....which doesn't surprise me at all.

Fortunately, there was a recent find in Galilee which addresses the question of synagogues by archaeologists.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-roa112107.php

No Robots

Information on archaeological remains of pre-Christian synagogues available here.

Jeffrey Gibson

No. But it does need to be pointed out to you that Jerusalem is not in the Galilee and the issue is what can be made of Price's claim that there were Synagogue buldings in first century Galilee.

What is his criteria for determining whether or not a building was used as place of prayer? Must a Galilean building be used only as a place of prayer for it to have functioned as/been a synagogue?

Jeffrey

Mythra

I think you lost me here, Jeffrey. Isn't Price's argument that the gospels clearly point to (and insinuate) that there were buildings called synagogues in early first century Galilee. In looking at passages in GMk, it certainly looks like he has a valid point. (at least to me) The following passages just don't seem to make sense if read as someone's house or gathering of people:

They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach Mark 1:21

News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee. As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. Mark 1:28-29

Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there Mark 3:1

Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. Matt 10:17

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there Matt 12:9

they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues Matt 23:6

It looks to me like the whole discussion about "synagogues" being something other than buildings erected for the purpose of worship would not be taking place unless there actually was no evidence whatsoever of "synagogue" buildings existing in first-century Galilee. In which case, Price's point remains valid, and the gospels have a problem.

Jeffrey Gibson

You've bifurcated the alternatives. There are more than two. In any case, nothing in the passages you cite (and note how you've brought in Matthew whose Jesus speaks of his dieciples being brought at some future time into non Galilean "synagogues"!) implies that the "synagogues" Jesus is said to have entered into must be a building (cf. Polyb. 2, 39 where it is used of a room within a house), let alone a building that is used exclusively for prayer. In fact, nothing in them indicates that the term means anything more than what Philo and Josephus mean when they use it (Philo, Omn. Prob. Lib. 81; Jos., Bell. 2, 285;289; 7, 44, Ant. 19, 300; 305), namely, a place for assembly, or a place where people gathered for prayer.

Then there's the archaeological adage, absence of evidence (especially in war ravaged Galilee) is not (especially given the Jewish literary attestation to the multiplicity of synagogues in Palestine) evidence of absence.

Jeffrey

Mythra

Oh my god am I in over my head. I had to look up what "bifurcated" meant. To split in two, to separate.

Using Matthew 23 was probably a mistake. Here Jesus is in Jerusalem speaking the 7 woes to the Pharisees. On the other hand, why should the word "synagogue" in Jerusalem take on a different meaning than a "synagogue" in Galilee?

douglas

I've got a copy of Kee and Young's 'Understanding the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)' in front of me (1957). Throughout, it assumes a historical jesus and that the words written in the gospels are verbatim what Jesus actually said. So, given this book alone, I would agree that he would fall into the apologist camp. However, I do have a soft spot for Kee's work. For me, he's a great teacher and is more about fitting the story Jesus into a historical context than muddling about with the innerrancy of the book itself. From the book's preface:

I am not familiar with his more recent work (in fact I assumed he was dead) so he may have changed his views. He may very well be a Christian, but I also believe him to be a "sound historian." Is it not possible to be both?

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey, we need to be clear about a few things:

1. You alleged that "Price's assertion conceals the facts." It does not.

2. You faulted Price for challenging the existence of "a Synagoge qua Synagogue in Galilee before the second century." In doing so, you incorrectly assumed that Price did so because he not understand what synagogues were in the first century. He had grounds for doing so as I have shown so you were wrong to fault him. In fact, Price specifically referred to Kee.

3. You asserted that there is "ample literary evidence of Synagogues in Galilee." It is this alleged "literary evidence" that is being contended against using archaeology, other literary evidence and epigraphic evidence. So you were asserting what is at issue.

Why? Price mentions Mark and the scene in question is in Galilee. Not Jerusalem. Clarify why you are making this assertion please.

This is shifting the burden of proof. The onus is upon scholars who claim that buildings were used as synagogues to prove that. It is up to them to demonstrate that, not Price. So far, they just make dubious assumptions.

To answer your question though, you need proof of piety to identify a synagogue from an ordinary building.

What scholars like Finegan (Archaeology of the New Testament, Archaoelogy and the Galilean Jesus etc) do, in the absence of distinct architectural features, is what Hachlili calls local "extemporization" (Rachel Hachlili, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, 447-54) Finegan assumes, or would like to assume, rather incorrectly, that a structure was a synagogue because of "similarity to each other in architectural plan and, therefore, in function, even though no actual proof has been discovered" . Put simply, the fact that a building was built on a synagogue is not proof that that building was a synagogue. The fact that a building has thick walls is not proof that that building was a synagogue. In fact, there is no distinct architectural pattern amongst synagogues in Palestine.

Regarding Finegan’s reasoning indicated above, Meyers notes that "in the first centuries [C.E.] large private houses were used as places of worship and other matters requiring public assembly. In Palestine, it was about a hundred years after the destruction of the temple that synagogue as a building began to emerge as a central feature of Jewish communal life" (Erick Meyers and James F. Strange, Archaeology, The Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 1981, p.141). Meyers emphasizes the importance of distinguishing a synagogue as a social institution and as an architectural entity that subsequently emerged.

What this means is that a thicker wall was not peculiar to a synagogue. There were large private houses that were used for public assembly that weren’t synagogues.

For a building to qualify as synagogue Joseph Gutman (who was the excavator in The synagogue at Gamla and authored The Synagogue at Gamla and the Typology of Second Century Synagogues in Ancient Synagogues Revealed - Jerusalem Israel Exploration Society - 1981) indicates that it should have "proof of piety or of a definite place of worship other than the wishful thinking of the excavators" The most important feature of the later synagogues is the presence of a Torah shrine.

Proof of piety Jeffrey. Proof of piety. Without it, how would you distinguish sunagoge (meaning assembly or house of assembly) from a proseuche (house of prayer)?
No proof of piety, no synagogue (with the meaning as is used today). Plain and simple.

Mythra, are we clear as far as synagogues and the claims Price makes, are concerned?

Price is right as far as stating that the Pharisees were scarce in mid first century. A number of scholars concur from Jeremias to Neusner. I dont have enough to comment about the ananchronicity of rabbis but spin is as good as any commentary or book you can get in these matters, if not better.

gstafleu

Why does he need one? You are assuming that the assumption made by Meyer is true ("This apparent contradiction disappears if we assume that..."). Given that this is the issue at hand, you are begging the question here.

Gerard Stafleu