arnoldo

Jospehus, in War of the Jews Book II, chpt 5., gives an account of a disturbance in Cesarea at a local jewish synagogue.

In light of Joesphus's account of a jewish synagogue existing in first century Israel (before the destruction of the temple) can gospel references to synagogues be anachronistic?

Diogenes the Cynic

That depends on how one defines "synagogue." The buildings themselves seem to have been scarce to non-existent in 20's era Galilee, but that word doesn't really designate a physical building so much as a congregation or "gathering," which can refer to the group itself or to any ad hoc meeting place.

So synagogues could have meetings in private homes, any available public building or even outside in the park if the weather was nice.

JoeWallack

JW:
As the Lord Marshal said in the classic Chronicles of Riddick "Been a long time since I saw my own blood." I confess that the offending word does have Tiger Woods type range:

http://biblos.com/mark/1-21.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	Kai	Καὶ	And	Conj
1531 [e]	eisporeuontai	εἰσπορεύονται	they go	V-PIM/P-3P
1519 [e]	eis	εἰς	into	Prep
2584 [e]	Kapharnaoum	Καφαρναούμ	Capernaum;	N
2532 [e]	Kai	Καὶ	and	Conj
2112 [e]	euthys	εὐθὺς	immediately	Adv
3588 [e]	tois	τοῖς	on the	Art-DNP
4521 [e]	sabbasin	σάββασιν	Sabbath,	N-DNP
1525 [e]	eiselthōn	εἰσελθὼν	having entered	V-APA-NMS
1519 [e]	eis	εἰς	into	Prep
3588 [e]	tēn	τὴν	the	Art-AFS
4864 [e]	synagōgēn	συναγωγὴν	synagogue,	N-AFS
1321 [e]	edidasken	ἐδίδασκεν	he taught.	V-IIA-3S

Let's get this party started:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...gwgh/-contents

JW:
At this point, by simply consulting a lexicon, we are already above the standards of scholarship of this Forum and way above the standards of scholarship of Bible Scholarship.

Note that the related context is a location of Jewish ritual teaching. The following excerpt is most applicable:

Let's go through your defense, like Yoda rummaging through "Luke's" cooler, to see if there is anything useful:

The potential defense is the extent to which the offending word can refer to other than a dedicated structure. Best to look at "Mark's" usage first since I am almost certain that "Mark's" usage is contemporary to "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:21

1) My first point is that "Mark's" usage of the offending word here is editorial as opposed to dialogue. Therefore, the meaning is as of "Mark's" time rather than the time of the supposed setting. I have faith that we would all agree that the offending word gradually acquired a stronger meaning of dedicated structure.

2) My second point is that the text indicates this is a structure:

1525 [e] eiselthōn εἰσελθὼν having entered V-APA-NMS

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1525&t=KJV

1) to go out or come in: to enter

a) of men or animals, as into a house or a city

b) of Satan taking possession of the body of a person

c) of things: as food, that enters into the eater's mouth

Also supporting a structure is the singular form:

4864 [e] synagōgēn συναγωγὴν synagogue, N-AFS

3) My third point is that the text uses the definite article:

3588 [e] tēn τὴν the Art-AFS

which is some support for a dedicated structure.

4) My fourth point is, as the Brits say, the cruncher:

I think we can safely say he is referring to a dedicated structure.

5) Fifth point is that the author actually obliges us by having his Jesus make a related anachronistic prediction:

6) Last and least, I'm not aware of any commentator who thinks "Mark" is not referring to a dedicated structure.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Diogenes the Cynic

Well, yeah, Mark's Gospel (and all the Gospels) reflect a post-destruction understanding of synagogues, but I wasn't defending Mark, I was saying synagogues didn't have to be dedicated buildings (regardless of what Mark thought).

In point of fact, though, we do have some evidence of dedicated public buildings for synagogues in 1st century Palestine, and there's a 1st century basalt pit underneath the Byzantine synagogue in Capernaum which is credibly argued to have been a 2nd Temple era synagogue.

tanya

(sic)

n.b. :
1. the text read chrestianos, not christianos, in the sole extant copy of this text, from a Catholic monastery in Italy, dated 11th century, the second Medicean manuscript. The difference in meaning between "chrestianos" and "christianos" is well documented.

2. Nowhere in this medieval, Latin text does the name "jesus", or "joshua" appear; Did Tacitus compose his Annals in Latin? In the best circumstance, Diogenes could have/should have written:

"Historical Christus doesn't have to be Gospel Christus. He could just be Tacitus' Christus." Except of course, for the fact, that Tacitus doesn't refer to the head of the "chrestianos", as "chrestus".

3. Several threads have already drawn attention to this error of calling Pontius Pilate a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, as he would have been in 30's CE.

4. If, at the end of the day, one concludes that this sole, extant copy, in Latin, of Tacitus, is pristine, pure, and unadulterated, one still has an attestation dated 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Would we consider reliable an historical account of a figure despised by the regime supporting the author, when that author lived three quarters of a century after the villain had been ingloriously dispatched?
Writing about Benedict Arnold,
:huh:

la70119

Well just to play Devil's Advocate...

"consequently, to scotch the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their outrages, called chrestians by the masses. Christus, the author of the name, suffered the penalty during the reign of Tiberius under the procurator Pontius Pilate... (my translation)

What we read in Suetonius, Lives of the 12 Caesars, refers to one Chrestus, who, dead or alive, was the apparent instigator of Jews causing disturbances:

Now we don't know if the Chrestus of Suetonius Divus Claudius 25:4 is the same as the Christus of Tacitus Annals 15:44. But, assuming Tacitus wrote the latter, then it is very possible that Christus was originally Chrestus. And he said Chrestus / Christus was executed for some political crime back in Judea under the procurator (correction: prefect) Pontius Pilate, because that's what the penalty Tacitus is referring to was used for. It seems to me if he wrote this, he was talking of Chrestus / Christus the way 19th-Century American writers would talk about Benedict Arnold.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, "Chrestus," was a common name for slaves used by Romans.

Tacitus still uses the name "Christus," not "Chrestus," though it is known that Chrestianos was used almost interchangeable with Christianos, but tacitus gets the name right.

aa5874

Again, Tacitus Annals with Christus was NOT ever quoted by any Apologetic source up to 300 years after it was supposedly written. Not even Eusebius mentioned Christus in Tacitus.

Annals with Christus is a very LATE Forgery. Annals with Christus was most likely manipulated AFTER the TF [Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3]

Plus, the name Christian does NOT mean only people who believed the Jesus story. People who did NOT believe the Jesus story were ALSO called Christians in antiquity.

And further, we know that Annals with Christus is a forgery because in the earliest Jesus story of gMark Jesus did NOT start any religion under the name of Christus.

In gMark, there were NO Christians, NO Jesus cult of Christians, NO Christian movement under the name of Jesus Christ when Jesus was supposedly alive.

In gMark, Jesus was known as John the Baptist or one of the Prophets NOT as Christus.

Mark 8 Tacitus Annals with Christus is a very LATE forgery and was completely UNKNOWN in antiquity for hundreds of years and is NOT even compatible with the earliest Jesus stories.

tanya

WHAT UTTER RUBBISH.

WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE, bubba?
"Rome's Deadliest Enemy",
Was the foremost enemy of Rome, a Greek speaking "Asian", Chrestus, unknown to Tacitus, the Greek speaking, Roman governor of Asia? Not likely.

If Tacitus wrote about "Chrestus", he was more likely than not, referring to Chrestus, arch enemy of Rome, not Christus, an imaginary figure from the quill of Mark. Our only extant document, ostensibly written by Tacitus, the Annals XV,44 survives in a single, 11th century duplicate, created in an Italian monastery, containing an obvious forgery.

Where is your source, from ancient times, justifying this absurd nonsense about "chrestus" meaning "ex-slave"?

What drivel. What poppycock.

Toto

tanya - you are taking this much too seriously.

It is common knowledge that Chrestus was a well known name for slaves in Rome - it means the good or the useful. It was not a Jewish name.

You ideas about Mithridates the Good are intriguing - but

Was Mithridates referred to a simply Chrestus? Why would Mithridates have been a source of conflict among Jews in Rome in the first century?