Sheshonq

Yes, I saw that. But Price's comment about Mack is essentially correct, in how it summarizes the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof).

Now, Mack may have been arguing for reliance upon the literary claims for such synagogues, in spite of an absence of supporting archaeology. But if that is what Mack is arguing, it still wouldn't refute the fact that *even* Mack admits zero archaeological support. Price is still within bounds to quote Mack on that point. After all, the conclusion that zero supporting evidence for 1st century synagogues is not controversial, and Mack isn't the first (or only) scholar to put that statement into print.

What I don't think is very honorable, however, is the list of insinuations that Jeffrey has put out about Price. It's similar to the trick politicians play, where they mention negative things in the same paragraph as they mention their opponent - even though they never explicitly link the two. The mere fact that the audience hears them together at the same time creates an association. The offending politician achieves his objective -- to smear the other guy -- while maintaining plausible deniability.

Mythra

Well, it certainly looks like an incongruity to me, Gerard.

If it is "intrinsically probable" (and I have no idea whether or not this is true) that there were synagogues in Galilee in the first century, then Price's claim holds no water whatsoever and appears (to me, at least) as deceptive.

Michael Dravis

Mythra

I don't really know about all of this. But I know the game that apologists play. Telling only one side of the story, when they know full well that there is other data that they are suppressing that might dilute (or even negate) their argument.

And if this is what Price is doing here, I won't end up trusting him any more than I do Josh McDowell.

But, in light of this discussion, in my mind at least, we aren't yet there in this case.

Mythra

If I understand this correctly, the difficulty comes - not when there is solid factual data contradicting a claim, but when there are other scholarly opinions contradicting a claim.

This is rather complicated stuff, is it not?

No Robots

That's precisely my complaint about Price stating, "the whole depiction of Jesus preaching in "their" synagogues is anachronistic."

Toto

Why assume there might be a problem? Price is not relying on Mack's authority. He is citing Mack for a summary of the archeological evidence, which seems to be accurate on its own. He comments on various other aspects of Mack's scholarship in the book. (I don't have it in front of me and I can't locate the exact reference.)

Toto

What's wrong with this? How does it smear anyone? Is there any scholar other than committed Bible-believing Christians who thinks that Mark was written in Galilee by someone who was actually there?

Sheshonq

That may be your complaint, but it's not the same scenario as what I was describing. Price's statement is his evaluation of the statements in the gospels; it is a conclusion he is presenting. The gospel references to synagogues - according to Price - are not historically supportable. It slanders no one.

There is no parallel here between your complaint, and Jeffrey's behavior that I was calling out.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Toto;4993632]I haven't been assuming anything. I've been asking a question. And I notice that Gerard, who noted that Price cited mack as his authority for his statements and conclusion about synagogues in Galilee, has changed the subject when I did.


He isn't?


But then he not only opines that this is sufficient to conclude there were no synagogues in Galilee prior to the end of the 1st century, but uses this conclusion as the premise for stating that the Gospel portrait of Jesus as preaching in Galilean synagogues is not true.

In any case, can you or Gerard please answer the question: how accurate and complete is Price's citation of Mack vis a vis the the question of the existence of synagogues in Galilee? What work of Mack's does Price cite?

Jeffrey

No Robots

Price is planting the untenable notion that the Gospel portrait of Christ preaching in synagogues is anachronistic.

Mr. Gibson may well have bungled his part of this discussion with his unrelenting peevishness. It is my contention that this is part and parcel of the general misanthropy which afflicts our academic community. Price manifests the same condition, but with different symptoms.