Sheshonq

Note to add: I think Jeffrey's criticism of Price is correct; i.e., there doesn't appear to be any place in Mark where Christ is spoken of as needing to leave the synagogue because it was too small to hold the crowds. I don't think there's any place in the rest of the gospels, either; although I didn't do a comprehensive search.

Jeffrey Gibson

How do you know this? Is this what Price actually says? Aren't you reading things into what he says. Where does anything which would give us a clue that he is saying more -- is a qualifying phrase like "for instance" or "for example" -- appear in what he wrote?

And if he says "more", then just what "more" does he "speak of". Would this "more" include a town square? If not, why not?

And where in any Gospel is Jesus presented as preaching "in", or after he had "entered/gone into" a "porch", let alone an area of which a "porch" is an example?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Thank you for acknowledging this.

Perhaps we should also note not only that the flocking of crowds to Jesus does does not prevent Marlk's Jesus from continuing to enter "synagogues (cp. Mk 1:39 [note the imperfect form of the verb]and 3:1 (note the "again") with Mk 1:32, but that Mark indicates that if there is any reason for Jesus to stop going into "synagogues" (as he does after 3:6) it is "the hardness of heart" of the authorities that he encounters there.

Jeffrey

Sheshonq

By simply reading the passage, Jeffrey. Price mentions multiple locations in the passage. For some strange (suspicious?) reason, you deleted references out when you posted your excerpt from Price.

Here is the original text. Pay attention to the red:

Apologist Howard Clark Kee admits this one is a problem but maintains that, otherwise, in gospel usage "synagogue" need mean no more than "assembly" or "meeting." But is this really likely? Mark has Jesus stop preaching "in" synagogues because the crowds are too large, presumably, for buildings to accomodate. Hence he assembles the Jews at the seaside or in the open. Would there be "rulers of the synagogue," like Jairus, if the synagogue in view were merely someone's porch? How about "the seat of Moses" and the "chief seats in the synagogues" in Matt. 23:2, 6? Just someone's Naugahyde couch?


Not at all. I'm merely reading *what* he says - which clearly you are not. That, and I'm not straining mightily at trying to find a mistake - which is how you got yourself twisted into knots here.

See above.

Now you're just being pedantic. Of course, if you hadn't snipped the original text, you would have seen the other venues that Price mentioned.

Toto

It appears that you are trying to read my mind and predict what I would do in some situations that have yet to arise.

Really, I am genuinely puzzled about your understanding of what seems to me to be clear English. Communication is always fraught with difficulties, but I don't understand how you reached your interpretation. Is this some technique you use as a teacher (assuming you are a professor) to force your students to defend their work?

The point seems fairly obvious to me, and to at least one other person. I don't think that you have enough of a case to bother Price.

And I have no need to prove you wrong.

One thing at a time.

I would just note that Price says "because the crowds are too large, presumably, for buildings to accomodate" - and I suspect that this is another of his ironic little jokes, not a serious attempt to analyze the text.

I haven't gone through the rest, regarding the rulers.

I think that your interpretation of the text is more than a personal proclivity. It is the heart of what this forum is about.

David

<edit>

Ted Hoffman

First, Price is accused of "concealing the facts". This is rebutted.
Then he is accused of not being aware of the arguments and scholarly positions. This is equally rebutted.
Then he is accused of misrepresenting Mack. This is rebutted.
Then now he is accused of misrepresenting a passage in Mark. Alrighty, lets examine this. NoRobots, please provide a reference to Price's passage that you hace quoted here.

Jeffrey Gibson

Where? Exact words, please.

If by "rebutted" you mean decisively and unquestionably shown to be wrong, may I ask where this occurred? And by whom?

Where? And by whom?

Where and by whom?


So far as I can see, there's been no such accusation. There has only been a question raised about whether or not he misrepresented Mack and/or drew conclusions from Mack that Mack himself did/does not support. But perhaps you'd be so kind as to document your charge that such an accusation was actually made.

It was? Where and by whom?

A passage? Which one?

And was it not stated by Julian that "The topic for this thread is 'Synagogues in Galilee' and it is hereby strongly suggested that the conversation returns to that arena. Any further discussion of Robert Price is not only pointless but will also cause me to lock this thread."

Why then are you continuing to discuss Price?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

No. Not at all. As Toto would say, "Price's assertion conceals the facts" and "Price conceals the facts" are not equivalent statements.

What's more, Price''s assertion does conceal the facts that I noted it conceals. There ain't no hint in the assertion that there is any scholarly point of view on the matter at hand other than what is found in the assertion.

Jeffrey

Toto

Since you are dragging me into this, this is very strange English usage. If I say that there is no archeological evidence of synagogues in Galilee, have I (or my assertion) "concealed" the fact that there is literary evidence of synagogues? I think that most people would simply say that I have "ignored" that evidence, perhaps even "brushed it under the carpet." But to use the word "conceal" is to imply some bad motive and some active suppresion of evidence - at least, I gather that is why Sheshonq reacted to that statement.

If you don't want to rile people up over non-issues, it might be better to avoid emotionally charged words such as "conceal" when you could use a more accurate and less offensive word such as "ignore." Do you agree? Or are you trying to provoke a reaction?