Mythra

I was wondering if that's what you were referring to. Yeshu who had five disciples, was stoned then hanged and was about 100 years too early. And was written 300 years later.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe this Talmudic passage to be about Jesus of Nazareth?

Toto

He wrote what he wrote, and the words he used were the words that evangelicals use when they try to reconcile history with their faith - that there was something extraordinary about Jesus. (They don't like to be pinned down as to whether it was supernatural miracles, or healing, or just the extreme charisma of his personality that inspired his followers. They believe in the miracles, but they don't want to put off modern people who might have trouble accepting the supernatural.) That's why those words were quoted by McFall.

The only question here is whether Robert M. Price was out of line in referring to Kee as an apologist. Robert Price is a former evangelical, and knows apologetics when he sees it.

As I said, Kee might also be a good scholar in many ways.

Your point being?

Jeffrey Gibson

Do you know the knock knock joke about "Impatient Cow"?


Price's assertion conceals the facts -- noted in Eric Meyer's ABD article "Synagogue" that I've reproduced below -- that we have ample literary evidence of Synagogues in Galilee and, more importantly, that before the end of the Jewish war it wasn't the practice in the Galilee to bulid a structure that had no other purpose except to be a place of prayer and worship. In other words, his claims are grounded in a skewed understanding of what a building had temporally to function as be architecturally in order for it to qualify as a synagogue. It's like saying that there were no churches in the fourth century because we have no evidence then of Cathedrals.

So the real question that Price seems to skate over is: Why should we expect to find a Synagoge qua Synagogue in Galilee before the second century? And if we shouldn't expect it, how trenchant (or informed) is Price's criticism and the conclusion he builds upon it?

But your best bet to see how sound Price's claim -- and the conclusion he builds on it -- is regarded to be by people who have excavated the Galilee is to write to those who have done so. Eric Meyers is a good start. He does reply to such questions.

He may be reached at: emc at duke.edu

Jeffrey

mod note: snipped for copyright. This entry is taken from the Anchor Bible Dictionary (or via: amazon.co.uk)

****

SYNAGOGUE. The meeting place and prayer hall of the Jewish people since antiquity. During Second Temple times the term “synagogue” referred both to a group of people and/or a building or institution. Although these notions are not mutually exclusive, it is quite probable that at its inception the synagogue did not refer to an actual building but to a group or community of individuals who met together for worship and religious purposes. This entry will explore the nature of the synagogue, first providing a broad introductory overview, and then surveying the evidence pertaining to early synagogues in the Diaspora.

INTRODUCTORY SURVEY
By the 1st century c.e. the synagogue had become so important and central an institution to Jewish life in Palestine that the Talmud of Palestine refers to 480 of them existing in Jerusalem in the time of Vespasian (Kloner 1981:12). One scholar has recently proposed that in Jerusalem alone there were 365 synagogues in the late Second Temple period (Wilkinson 1976:76–77). A Greek inscription from Jerusalem dating to the 1st century c.e., found in the excavations of 1913–14, describes the varied function of the synagogue at that time (quoted in Levine 1987:17):

Theodotus, son of Vettenos, the priest and archisynagogos, son of a archisynagogos and grandson of a archisynagogos, who built the synagogue for purposes of reciting the Law and studying the commandments, and as a hotel with chambers and water installations to provide for the needs of itinerants from abroad, which his fathers, the elders and Simonides founded.

Josephus also emphasizes the centrality of the reading of Scripture and the importance of study found in the Second Temple synagogue (AgAp 2.175). The NT corroborates such a picture in reporting Jesus’ and Paul’s frequent visitations to synagogues. During those times they would invariably read or expound Scripture, either the Pentateuch or Prophets (e.g., Luke 4:16–22; Acts 13:13–16).
———

<snip>

Toto

Jeffrey - do you have the right permissions to post that article from the Anchor Bible Dictionary?

Mythra

Wow. Thank you very much Jeffrey. I will read that with great interest.
And I may even start taking your advice on a change in reading material.

Thanks.

Michael Dravis

Malachi151

While I don't disagree with the general thrust of the article cited, I found this amusing:

This is just another good example of how horrible and biased New Testament scholarship is.

The idea that Acts or Luke accurately portray history is laughable. There is nothing in the letters of Paul that talks about Paul going to synagogues, yet Acts is then used to confirm the deeds of Paul? This is like people who talk about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, even though nothing in the letters of Paul talk about a conversion on the road to Damascus, indeed they contradict such a claim.

New Testament "scholarship" is really horribly unreliable.

Ted Hoffman

In my view, Kee is not an apologist but is a scholar hamstrung by Christian beliefs - either because of pressure from his collegiates or because he is incapable of thinking outside the box - or he has religious (read Christian) beliefs. Note that at the bottom of this house of cards we find Bagatti who applied "Christian archaeology" - not archaology as is practiced professionally today - to study the relevant archaological remains. He (Kee) can only be regarded an apologist in the same sense E.P. Sanders can be regarded an apologist: Sanders is equally informed and is aware of vast amounts of data but produces garbage conclusions after examining and sifting through volumes of data while holding the hand of the readers of his books.
Nobody is arguing against that. What is in contention is whether synagogues existed as architectural edifices in first century Galilee.
And you dont use "literary evidence" for claims that require architectural evidence. Eric Myers seems to be aware of this fact when he notes forlornly in the article you have unwittingly cited:
Several NT scholars indeed believe otherwise. So Price is right and you are wrong. If you want a list, please feel free to ask for one. But before you do that, this post has three of them. Spot them for sport (no pun intended).
Wrong. You are arguing about what the word "synagogue" meant. To be sure, it has evolved in meaning and the English word synagogue can refer to two different Greek words - sunagoge meaning assembly or house of assembly and proseuche (house of prayer) but that interesting discussion is irrelevant to Price's point.
Because some NT scholars (several actually) claim there was. Levine, who is cited by Meyers certainly does. What do you think are the implications of the following statement by Meyers:
The alleged inscription is dated to the first century Jeffrey, do you need us to point out to you what that implies?
Your question is ill-conceived and your atgument ill-formulated.
It is interesting that you cite Meyers referring to the Theodotus inscription and Levine's interpretation of it and I would like to note a few things that are instructive to those approaching this controversial subject like Magdalyn.

Kee actually notes that the Theodotus inscription has been used to erect a "highly dubious scholarly construct: the supposed architectural and institutional synagogue of the first century C.E." Howard Clark Kee, Defining the First Century Synagogue, (in Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress), 1999, p.9.

Levin, who is cited by Myers above, relied on Adolf Deissman (Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan, 1927, Appendix V, 439-41.) who made questionable assumptions in his assesment of the inscription.

Using Josephus, Acts and Ezra, Levine described the features of ancient synagogues as including regular prayers, study, sacred meals, safekeeping of communal funds, hostel, general assembly hall and serving as residence for synagogue officials.

But dining rooms, lodgings and other facilities for visitors are not mentioned in the Theodotus inscription. Deissman asserted that because the inscription was in Greek and in characters of the early Roman period, it must have been written before 70 A.D. He was relying on Emil Schurer’s hypothesis that no Jew could settle in Jerusalem, or build any structure there (Schurer E., The History of The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175B.C.-A.D. 135), eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black, 1979,p425).

Deissman also asserted that the inscription pointed to an “undisturbed stream of pilgrims and an unbroken continuity of the congregation’s office-bearers” and such pilgrimages likely took place in the pre-70 period. A later edition of Schurer dropped these bland assumptions regarding the inscription but still retained the first century dating of the artifact. In Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, Lester Grabbe relies on Deissman’ shaky hypothesis to conclude that synagogues existed in Palestine pre-70 A.D.

Thus, a number of New Testament scholars have proceeded to make incorrect assumptions regarding the Theodotus inscription. Kee (op. cit., p.9) notes:
Remarkably, previous scholars dated the inscription without meeting the essential criteria for dating an artifact like that. Kee notes that essentials like a “location in a closed locus with datable contemporary evidence”, like coins and pottery were unavailable for the Theodotus inscription and that the other material found in the cistern were not dated. This renders the pre-70 date commonly assigned to the Theodotus inscription, pure conjecture.

Gibson is relying on Meyers who is relying on Levin who is relying on Deissman who is relying on Schurer who is making bland assumptions. Where is spin to remind us about giving provincial status to epigraphic and archaeological evidence?

andrewcriddle

'The Myths of Fiction' by EP Cueva, argues from themes found in Plutarch's 'Life of Theseus' and Chaereas and Callirhoe that Chaereas and Callirhoe is later than Plutarch's work ; ie 2nd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

If one assumes that Acts is a historical novel, it still might be possible to extract some history. I think this is an indication that there were synagoges about the time that Acts was written, and that traveling preachers would stop by and read scripture or argue theology.

But I suspect that this happened later than 70 CE.

Eric Meyers does not rely on the NT except as confirmation of what he finds in Josephus

gstafleu

Thanks for posting that article Jeffrey. Let me quote a few places of interest:
So indeed, synagogues as dedicated buildings were sparse in the period under discussion. Hence:
So far so good, do notice though the argument that Price makes that passages in the NT do seem to refer to such a dedicated building. I'm not saying he is right here, just that building an argument on this assumption does not necessarily indicate sloppy scholarship--at most it indicates a disagreement on interpretation.

The article continues:
So, an assumption is needed to make the contradiction disappear. Fine, that is valid, but is an assumption nevertheless. Again, not making that assumption does not of necessity invalidate one's scholarship, I'd think.

Gerard Stafleu