No Robots

Your arguments seem to consist of not much more than the reiteration of the fact that there are no archaeological remains of first-century synagogues in Galilee. This point is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this provides positive proof that there were in fact no synagogues in first-century Galilee.

Mythra

Don't doubt my sincerity just because I don't automatically buy off on what you say. I don't know you, Ted. I have no way of knowing if what you say is trustworthy (any more than I do Price) I'm sincerely looking into this issue and trying to examine all sides and see if I can resolve the thing in my mind.

I'm not playing devil's advocate just to stir the pot. But when something doesn't look right to me, I'm going to bring it up, regardless of who it is I'm arguing against.

If I'm dead wrong on something, I'll be happy to receive correction and be set straight. But I'm not here to cause anyone trouble, Ted.

For the record, I've found your explanations and the limited posting that Spin has done here to be the most plausible and helpful on this issue.

Michael Dravis

Sheshonq

Well, it does, after a fashion. There is the old saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." However, that principle only holds to a certain point.

If you have multiple references to such buildings, such that a casual observer would think they were commonplace, but cannot find any such buildings, then you have to seriously consider the possibility that they simply don't exist. In other words, we have no evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, either. Is it because the evidence is just out there, and we haven't found it? Or is it because there just isn't any evidence to be found? At some point, you have to close the book and say, "It doesn't exist."

Besides, you are confused about what Price said (via Mack). To repeat:

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

Saying "no affirmative evidence exists" is not the same as saying "we proved there were none."

The same rebuttal principle applies to your Pharisee paragraph.

Sheshonq

At this point, you're verging on a deliberate lie.

I've already pointed out twice now that Price's argument idoes not rest on the synagogue point, but is in fact three pronged:

a. synagogues
b. pharisees
c. 'rabbi'

You may not *like* his argument, but you should stop incorrectly summarizing it.

Sheshonq

This seems to rely upon a point of view that focuses on the individual, instead of their argument. If the person has a good point, what does it matter if they are anonymous?

Until I see something different, I retain my suspicion that Gibson's request has more to do with posturing than with any desire for decorum -- especially given his screeds posted in this thread. After all, if decorum were his goal, he shouldn't be acting with such venom and petulance.

No Robots

I addressed all three of these points just above:

What we see with Price is the usual mythicist shtick of, "None of the shit we throw sticks, but we throw so much that we must be right."

Jeffrey Gibson

I have several -- all of which I've stated already. But since you apparently missed them, I'll state them again:

1. That there is a hidden assumption in the "no archaeological" evidence claim -- namely, that by "synagogues" we mean a specific type of building that possessed the specific architectural features (structure, layout, orientation) that second and third century "houses of prayer" possessed -- which not only begs the question about the meaning that the term "synagogue" has in Mark, but which renders the claim questionable and an argument for an irrelevant thesis.

2. That given (a) that it is not until until the second/third centuries CE that we find buldings that have no function other than to be places of prayer, and (b) that in the first century in Palestine, houses and other stuctures used during the week for purposes other than places of prayer were used as "synagogues" (= places of assembly), it is impossible to categorically deny, even on archaeological grounds, that there were "places of assembly" in Galilee;

3. That logically it is illegitimate to move, as Price seems to do, from the "fact" that there is no [1]archaelogical evidence[/i] for "synagogues" in Galilee prior to the end of the first century CE, to a categorical and absolute denial of the existence of places of assembly in Galilee prior to that century's end and/ or of any buldings in which "synogogical assemblies" took place. Not only are there explanations for the reputed absence of "evidence" other than "synagogues did not exist"; the claim ignores Josephus testimony contrary to the claim.

3. that even if Mack did say what Price says he says about archaeological evidence for "synagogues" (buildings used exclusively for prayer/worship) in Galilee, it is illegitimate to conclude, as Price seems to do, that Mack supports the conclusion that Price draws from Mack's "note" about archaeological evidence, i.e. that there were no places of assemby or no buildings in which "assemblies" took place in Galilee prior to the end of the first century.

4. that the only way of seeing whether Mack does indeed support Price's conclusion that "places of assembly" did not exist in Galilee prior to the end of the first century CE, as Price suggests Mack does, would be to produce what Mack says on this question, not what he says about archeaological evidence.

Jeffrey

Toto

Mark depicts Jesus dropping by synagogues, including one in Nazareth, not mere gatherings. And Price has added enough qualifiers to take into account the quality of the evidence.

What difference does it make if Mack supports Price's conclusion or not?

If I thought that was an important point, I quote exactly what Mack says. If you think it is important, I invite you to do so.

All I know is that Mack, in Who Wrote the New Testament, uses the lack of archeological evidence of synagogues in Galilee to argue that gMark was written in Syria after 70 CE, where there were such synagogues. This hardly seems controversial.

Have we spent enough time on this minor point?

Jeffrey Gibson

I thought the point was to set up some criteria by which the trustworthiness of Price's scholarship could be measured.

Seems to me then that raising the question of whether Price has misrepresented Mack, whom he cites, as supporting a conclusion about the existence of "synagogues" in Galilee that Mack doesn't support is not something minor.

Jeffrey

Toto

Surely the point is not to smear Price with imprecise, unsupported allegations? From my reading, admittedly brief, Price has not misrepresented anything that Mack has written. If you have any evidence to the contrary, the burden is now on YOU to post something substantive.