Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 02-24-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
No epigraphic or archaeological evidence shows the existence of Synagogues in the 1st Century palestine. So Says McKay - I cited him fully in my earlier post and link. Proto-christians operated in "communities" and synagogues were a 2nd century phenomena. We find the Gospels talking of synagogues and "saints" - both 2nd C ideas hence the dating.

The answer is that you have not and really cannot prove that there were no synagouges in first century palestine. Vinnie has you on that issue.

Quote:

Oh, you give us too much credit. But you know flattering people doesnt make for argumentation. You cant use our presumed knowledge as a crutch for your inadequate arguments.

Nevertheless, a certain basic level of the status of modern scholarship would help you and those whom you purport to discuss things with.

Quote:

If it was so basic, you wouldnt have trouble providing it.
You are assuming things Layman. Thats tragic.

Actually, no I am not. I've reviewd the modern literature from many perspectives and arrived at an informed conclusion. You've read one side of the debate. You apparently don't even know what the contrary arguments are.

Quote:

I did not bring it up. I did not think it was relevant.
I was just flabbergasted at your dating of Matthew. I "brought up" my incredulity, not Matthew.

Perhaps Nogo brought it up. My apologies.

Your incredulity is feigned and contrived. A strong majority of diverse scholarship shares my opinion.

Quote:

Great, so Jesus will emerge from a Virgins womb a second time or what?

Who said he would appear in such a fashion? Not me.

Quote:

You can't "wish" things here Layman, the incongruence is stark and clear.

I'm relying on the author's intent here. Whatever merit you place in his analogy is irrelevant. The fact is that he is so analogizing.

Quote:

But the High Priest does not "appear" before the people to die - he enters the H of H to do that. Hence more incongruence.

What are you talking about? The High Priest does not die at all. The author explains this point. Jesus is a superior high priest because he is both HP and sacrifice.

Quote:

You chose to ignore my question concerning the difference between a sacrifice and an offering. It speaks volumes.

Since Jesus performs both functions, please explain what relevance you think this "point" has?

Quote:

The HP appeared from "the land" to enter the H of H. Jesus appeared from heaven (equivalent to H of H) allegedly via a virgins womb, came to earth(appeared before the people), died and resurrected back to heaven (entered the H of H from whence he came).
Can you see the incongruence now?

The author does not care whence the first appearance came from. It serves no part of his analogy. This purported "incongruence" is irrelavnt to the author's point.

Please. Read Hebrews before commenting again?

Ted Hoffman · 02-25-2003, 08:14 AM

Well, I cant really say that Doherty and Ellegard are wrong. Doherty quoted MacKay who said there is no single "epigraphic or archaeological evidence" that points unequivovally to the existence of synagogues in 1st century Palestine. I don't think that has changed yet.
But there are other proofs - eg literary proofs as I indicate below, that could challenge epigraphic and archaeological evidence, though Doherty does mention something about Philo in his review.

I have indicated below that mainstream scholars have not found ANY evidence indicating existence of synagogues in 1st Century Palestine. Vinnie states that "three pre-70 synagogues that have been definately identified...". This would conflict with what I quoted MacKay to have said. Vinnie - care to elaborate on eg names of these three synagogues etc? Where they were found Gamla ,Capernaum, Masada, Herodium, Qumran, Jerusalem?

Secondly, he states that there has been paucity of archaeological evidence because "Archaeologists are not free to dig up cities that are now inhabited". I dont find this convincing at all. Unless part of the argument is that cities (or city buildings) were mostly built upon synagogues . In any case after the war, most of them are likely to have been abandoned as ruins as the people resettled in other areas.
Vinnie also states:

Quote:

(2) In many places archaeologists have found large synagogues from the third and fourth centuries, which was a period when synagogue-building flourished. Many of these were probobly built on the sites of earlier synagogues, which were destroyed.

This is speculation and does not merit further attention. Unless Vinnie is willing to provide evidence to give a basis to his speculation. Something in the lines of "proof of concept" would be very compelling.
Vinnie adds:

Quote:

(3) In small towns and villages, synagogues were probably only converted houses, which would make them harder to identify now...

A house is not a synagogue as we know them post second-temple period. The word synagogue would be totally meaningless (due to ambiguity) in an archaeological analysis if a synagogue can well, be a house.

Quote:

The slight physical evidence can be supplemented by references to synagogues in ancient literature. Josephus, for example, mentions synagogues in Tiberias and Caesarea on the Sea.

Literary study indicates that Philo for example, used synagogue to refer to "communities", "gatherings" etc. Josephus does not unequivocally use synagogue to refer to a building - does he?

I have dug futher and found evidence that shakes the "synagogue" argument somewhat...but only for a second or two.

Philo wrote that when the Roman emperor Caligula was "assaulting" the Jews, he targeted both the Jerusalem temple and synagogues that were scattered all over the empire.

Quote:

For it was perfectly clear that the rumour of the overthrowing of the synagogues beginning at Alexandria would spread at once to the nomes of Egypt and speed from Egypt to the East and the nations of the East and from the Hypotaenia and Marea, which are the outskirts of Libya, to the West and the nations of the West...And it was to be feared that people everywhere might take their cue from Alexandria, and outrage their Jewish fellow-citizens by rioting against their synagogues and ancestral customs

Philo, In Flaccum. 45-47

And in Philo, Spec. 2.61�62:

Quote:

...So each seventh day there stand wide open in every city thousands of schools of good sense, temperance, courage, justice and other virtues in which the scholars sit in order quietly with ears alert and with full attention...

Donald D Binder In this page notes :

Quote:

Philo frequently referred to synagogues as "schools" (didaskaleia), perhaps because of his own scholarly leanings. While the mention of "thousands" of synagogues is hyperbole, the passage nevertheless reiterates Philo's view that synagogues existed throughout the empire in the first century CE.

BUT
Donald D. Binder, in Introduction," in Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), hypertext edition. <http://faculty.smu.edu/dbinder/Intrononotes.html>
says:

Quote:

In characterizing the most recent studies, it is fair to state that a good portion of them have challenged many ideas traditionally held about synagogues in the pre-70 era. To begin with, a number of scholars have taken issue with the notion that there were synagogue buildings in pre-70 Palestine. One of these, Howard Clark Kee, has argued that the synagogue existed as a formal institution (with a building) only outside of Palestine in the earlier era and, that when the canonical Gospels use the word synag�g� they are speaking of an informal religious gathering held probably inside a private house. The only exception he allows is Luke 7:5, a verse from the account of the healing of the centurion�s slave in Capernaum. In this passage, Jewish elders appeal to Jesus to heed the centurion�s plea, stating, �he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us [avgapa/| ga.r to. e;qnoj h`mw/n kai. th.n sunagwgh.n auvto.j wv|kodo,mhsen h`mi/n].�(27) Kee attributes the singularity of this usage to the Hellenistic provenance of Luke-Acts:

The very fact that �synagogue� here alone in the gospel tradition points unequivocally to a building, rather than to a gathering, serves to confirm the impression that Luke-Acts is a document from a Hellenistic centre, where . . . Jews in the Diaspora had begun to modify houses or public structures in order to serve more effectively the needs of the local Jewish community.
And what of the several structures in Palestine that archaeologists have identified as synagogues of the Second Temple period? Regarding these, Kee writes,

There is no evidence that [the structures at Masada and Herodium] were structures designed for religious purposes, much less that the routines attested for second-century and later synagogues were practiced there. Other sites that were at first identified as synagogues�at Magdala and Gamala�turn out to be nothing more than private homes in which the pious gathered for prayer . . . Thus there is simply no evidence to speak of synagogues in Palestine as architecturally distinguishable edifices prior to 200 C.E.(29)
In holding the view that Palestinian synagogues did not exist until after the Jewish War, Kee is by no means alone. Richard Horsley, in his recent book on first-century Galilee (1995), following a brief examination of some passages from Josephus and the Gospels, reaches almost identical conclusions:

It is thus clear from the synoptic Gospel tradition as our principal evidence that the synag�gai in Galilee were not buildings, but assemblies or congregations of people . . . In a few passages in Luke-Acts and in Josephus�s reports we are evidently seeing a transition usage in which, at least in Hellenistic situations, buildings in which the assemblies met are beginning to be referred to as synag�gai by association. But synag�g� and knesset both referred to the local village or town assembly in first- and second-century Galilee.(30)
With regard to the proposed pre-70 synagogue structures, after devoting a single paragraph to an analysis of the evidence, Horsley rejects all of the identifications and concludes that there is �no archaeological or literary evidence for synagogue buildings in Judean or Galilean towns and villages until the third century or later.�

Other scholars, while not altogether discounting the archaeological remains of synagogues in Palestine, nevertheless argue that synagogues were not as prominent there in the pre-70 period as was once believed. Thus Paul Flesher posits an antithetical relationship between the Temple and the early diaspora synagogues. In his view, when synagogues first appeared in Galilee in the late first-century B.C.E., their introduction was met with stiff resistence from the priestly leaders of the Temple cult, who perceived them as unwelcome competitors. These leaders, who exercised more power in Judea than in Galilee, prohibited the local population in Judea from constructing and worshiping in them. After an examination of relevant literary and archaeological sources, Flesher concludes that, with the exception of two synagogues in Jerusalem built for diaspora Jews (known from an excavated inscription and from Acts 6:9), �there were no synagogues in Judea prior to the Temple�s destruction.�

Another intermediate position is that of Eric Meyers, who, upon pondering the discrepancy between the large number of literary references to Second Temple synagogues and the present dearth of excavated remains in Palestine, proposes that private homes frequently served as centers for congregational worship:

In the first centuries, large private houses were used as places of worship alongside other buildings that came to be utilized for worship and other matters requiring public assembly. In Palestine, it would seem, it was about a hundred years after the destruction of the Temple that the synagogue as a building began to emerge as a central feature of Jewish communal life.
Meyers� ambivalence about the early evidence helps us understand why he chose to focus his Anchor Bible Dictionary article on the third-century structures, as we observed above: in his view, pre-70 synagogue buildings in Palestine were still in an embryonic stage of development and could not yet be categorized according to a coherent architectural form. Ironically, his extended treatment of the later synagogue structures in his article fosters an impression opposite the one contained in the above quotation.

[Emphais Mine]

Vinnie added:

Quote:

So much for dating the gospels 2d on the basis of synagogues!

Think Again. We have lots of grounds to cover and I have written to Doherty on this so its hardly over till I hear from him. This is hardly the time to start gloating.
I am swamped by work now but will definitely get more free time as we approach the weekend.

(To be continued...)

Ted Hoffman · 02-25-2003, 08:47 AM

About Philo's use of the word Synagogue, Donald D. Binder, says here

Quote:

Philo frequently referred to synagogues as "schools" (didaskaleia), perhaps because of his own scholarly leanings. While the mention of "thousands" of synagogues is hyperbole, the passage nevertheless reiterates Philo's view that synagogues existed throughout the empire in the first century CE.

Doherty OTOH says In his review here :

Quote:

While a writer like Philo may use the word (and another like it) in the sense of "community" or "gathering," in the different sense of "building" where services are performed Ellegard has pinpointed a distribution of usage which "can be tentatively employed as at least a rough dating criterion for Christian texts" (p.32). As it turns out, the word in the sense of "building" is rare or entirely absent from all the texts identified as first century writings, but appears frequently in the Gospels and other texts which can generally be dated to the second century. He notes that MacKay (Sabbath and Synagogue, p.250) says: "There is no archeological or epigraphic evidence that points unequivocally to the existence of synagogue buildings in first-century Palestine."

I think that does it for PHILO - his writings do not unequivocally point us to the fact that synagogues in the sense of buildings existed in pre-70 period in Palestine. Are you okay with that Vinnie?

About in Josephus, BJ 7.139�152, Donald Binder says:

Quote:

This is Josephus' description of the Roman triumph (essentially a victory parade with public spectacles) following the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 CE. Most synagogue scholars understand the allusion to the demolished "temples" (hiera) depicted in the parade as a reference to Jewish synagogues ravaged during the course of the war.

This interpretation however, is challenged by archaeological data and could be an artifact of literary anachronicity.

(To be continued...)

Ted Hoffman · 02-25-2003, 10:04 PM

Earl Doherty says:

Quote:

Please note that in my review of "Jesus..." although I quoted Ellegard's argument in regard to synagogues not appearing in the evidence until
the 2nd century, I didn't specifically endorse that statement. At the time, I didn't research the point, but a scholar friend of mine in Australia who knows Josephus inside-out, pointed out the references to synagogues that you quote below, and in my discussion with him I agreed that Ellegard needed to be faulted for not at least putting a finer point on his argument.

As you probably know, I'm not particularly enamored with dating all the gospels into the second century, and am quite happy with a Matthew somewhere around 100 to 110.

As far as Hebrews goes (my favorite epistle), I wish I could take the time to get involved in such discussions, especially as I note that when one doesn't read Greek one is at a decided disadvantage in passages like 9:26-7 and surrounding. One point generally overlooked is the meaning of "appearing" in verse 26, which casts the whole "once"/"next/second" debate in a new light. I can't do any better than to strip in two passages
from my site:

First, from the Suppl. Article No. 9, which you may have read:

A Sacrifice "Once For All"

In 9:24f, the writer speaks again of Christ's entry into the
heavenly sanctuary, and here he uses a favorite word, "once" (hapax, ephapax), a concept which he applies to Christ's sacrifice (as also in 9:12). But what is it that has happened "once"? We need to look at the extended passage, a very revealing one (here slightly altered from the NEB):

(24) For Christ has entered . . . heaven itself to appear [the verb
emphainizo] now before God on our behalf. (25) Nor is he there to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the sanctuary year by year with blood not his own. (26a) If this were so, he would have needed to suffer many times since the foundation of the world. (26b) But as it is, he
has appeared [the verb phaneroo] once for all [hapax] at the completion of the ages to abolish sin by his sacrifice.

The most important thing to realize is that the act of "appearing" throughout these verses relates to one thing: Jesus' sacrifice, which is synonymous with his entry into the heavenly sanctuary to make his offering to God. The "appearing" in verse 26b is not some sudden shift to a general reference to Christ's birth or life on earth, something which is never even
touched on when discussing the sacrifice. The "appearing to abolish sin" of this latter verse is in the same category as the "appearing before God" of the earlier verse 24. All of it takes place in heaven.
It is true that those two "appearings" do not use the same verb, but Ellingworth points out (p.480) that "there is no sharp distinction or contrast in Hebrews between emphainizo (verse 24) and phaneroo (verse 26b)." Some scholars (e.g., J. Swetnam, Hebrews, p.233) recognize that the idea of "appearing" in verse 26b is focused specifically on the sacrifice, and this, as we have seen, the author nowhere makes a point of locating on earth.
.....
But we can go further. That the writer does not have any earthly event in mind in this entire passage is indicated by a verse coming shortly after the 9:24-26 quoted above. 28a is a virtual restatement of 26b: "So Christ was offered once to remove men's sins. . ."
This removal or abolition of sin, spotlighted in both 26b and 28a, is tied in the former to the act of sacrifice and in the latter to the act of offering. But these are synonymous, for the act of offering is the act of sacrifice. And this act, as we have seen, is always presented as the entry of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary carrying his sacrificial blood.
Thus the reference to "appearing" at the completion of the ages (in 26b) is a reference to the heavenly event. Nowhere is anything earthly in view.

I make the same point in the Sound of Silence feature, put a little
differently:
.... Verse 24 above speaks solely of Jesus' appearance (the verb
emphainizo) before God, meaning in heaven. When we go on to verse 26, it too speaks of an "appearance" (the verb phaneroo), in this case at the end of the ages. The natural flow of meaning is to take the latter appearance as synonymous with the former one, in other words, it is the appearance in heaven. Since that latter appearance (in verse 26) is defined as the abolishing of sin by his sacrifice, and since such a sacrifice is always and exclusively spoken of as the entry of Jesus into the heavenly
tabernacle, we must assume that in verse 26, too, the writer has in mind the heavenly event. The "appearing" at the climax of history and the abolishing of sin by his sacrifice, is a reference to a spiritual event in heaven, not an earthly one on Calvary in incarnated form.
But this creates a devastating silence on any "appearance" on
earth. If Jesus' sacrifice in heaven is defined as the appearance which took place at the completion of the ages, where is the incarnation, which also should have been seen as taking place at such a time? There is no sign in this entire passage that the writer is making a switch, between verse 24 and verse 26, from the heavenly appearance to the earthly one. In verse 26,
in fact, the verb used is phaneroo, one I have often pointed out would be an odd one to use to signify incarnation. It means to "reveal" or "be manifested." It can also mean to 'put in an appearance,' but here it can be aligned with all the other usages of this word, and related ones, in the epistles (eg, 1 Peter 1:20, Romans 3:21 and 24, Romans 16:26, etc.) where the meaning is clearly the revelation of Christ or the bringing of him to the light of knowledge, usually by God. This enriched meaning of "appearance" in Hebrews 9:26 reinforces the concept that Jesus, for this writer, is a spiritual entity, revealed in this last period of the world as having undergone a heavenly sacrifice, the most important element of which is the entry into the higher world sanctuary. Neither room nor importance is given in any degree for a presence on earth or a sacrifice in those lower physical precincts....
[ The following verses, 27-28, contain a reference to Jesus'
subsequent appearance when the End-time actually arrives. This is claimed to be the one clear place in the epistles where a reference is made to a second coming. If it were so, it could be placed in opposition to a first coming which constituted the one into the heavenly sanctuary. But there is an alternate understanding for the key phrase which renders the idea
"next" rather than "second." This question will be examined in the Appendix, but
is also covered in the Epilogue to Article No. 9. ]

You'll note that, as I say in the last paragraph above, with this
understanding of the significance of the "appearing" verbs in verses 24 and 26, an allowance *could* be made for 27-28's "ek deuterou" to entail the meaning of "second," since the "first" putting in an appearance is meant as the appearance in the heavenly sanctuary for the sacrificial offering.
The "second" appearance would still be the "first" to earth. (I would still favor the "next" meaning, but the whole argument is really moot, since the mythicist bases are covered from either direction.)

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2003, 02:26 AM

Vinnie,

Quote:

I did say that your question serves to show that you have not been reading the relevant literature.

We are not here to discuss what I have been reading. Please lets desist from ad-hominems.

Quote:

They might actually take something that you argue as factual. Gotta make sure I kill those first impressions because once they are set....

Its called poisoning the well. A shoddy debating practice. Lets stick to the matter at hand please.

Quote:

So Matthews redactional line of Mark baptismal account is actually a quotation of Ignatius who made it all up? Now did Ignatius make up all these characters before Mark wrote or after? What evidence do you have that Ignatius made all this up. In what sense does he cite these names? Authoritatively without "defending" them? Or as if they were unknown? How about you go and look for us and then let us whether it looks like wholesale creation on his part or passing along

Ellegard is not here to address your questions. Sorry. As I said, I am also discomfited by the suggestion.
The questions you raise concerning the idea of Ignatius manufacturing the story are valid. But I dont think I am obligated to answer them since I did not make the argument and I also think that is a non-essential item that has arisen during of this whole discussion.

Quote:

Given that Matthew copied Mark and that one instance of the specific line is a redaction of Marks account by Matthew and the other concerns JBap as well suffices for me in saying that Ignatius "redactional line" is indirectly based off of Matthew's redaction of Mark's baptismal account.

Sounds logical. But we have to take care of the synagogues (in the sense of building) part of the argument too.
Do we assume that synagogues existed because of Josephus' vague allusion to them and Philo's use of the word synagogue which can be interpreted to mean something other than building EVEN THOUGH (1) There is no archaeological or epigraphic evidence that proves that synagogue buildings existed in Palestine pre-70 era? (ie no evidence of synagogues as architecturally distinguishable edifices prior to 200 C.E)
(2) Other first century texts do not mention the existence of synagogue buildings in early Palestine pre-70 (3) It is consistent (considering the history of Palestine in 1st century) with Palestine history to consider the term synagogue to have been used to refer to assemblies and not architectural edifices.
Do we ignore all this and assume synagogues existed pre-70 CE?

Richard Horsley sums it up:

Quote:

It is thus clear from the synoptic Gospel tradition as our principal evidence that the synag�gai in Galilee were not buildings, but assemblies or congregations of people . . . In a few passages in Luke-Acts and in Josephus�s reports we are evidently seeing a transition usage in which, at least in Hellenistic situations, buildings in which the assemblies met are beginning to be referred to as synag�gai by association. But synag�g� and knesset both referred to the local village or town assembly in first- and second-century Galilee.(30)

I dont think we can validly assume(given the literary and archaeological references we have) that synagogues existed in pre-70- era in Palestine in the face of all this.
That forces us to date Matthew post c90 (if we set resettling time after the war to 15 years or so). Doherty has said he is comfortable with 100-110.

The Ignatius reference could be based on Matthew and Ignatius using the same source - thats a possibility I think, but I have to investigate further and give it more thought.

I got your meaning of internal and external.

Layman

Quote:

And what manuscript or secondary evidence do you have to support this argument?

I dont need any. I am using the harmony that any author drawing a parallel would like to maintain.

Quote:

"So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." 9:27-28.

Hence the parallel is shattered. I can see you do seem to grasp the difference between redemption and salvation. The salvation aspect would be lost on the readers since it was absent in the high priests' framework. What they understood was the need for "annual" and continuous redemption. NOT Salvation - a new concept.

Quote:

These are loaded terms. Why not explain what significance you ascribe to these terms in this discussion?

I did in page 2.

Quote:

Depends. Do you think Hebrews 10:37 be affected by how we interpret 9:27-28?

Hostile poster. Not willing to engage in a meanigful discussion.

Quote:

It obviously fails miserably and leaves his own disciples scrambling for nonexistent interpolation arguments.

I understand how you feel.
But lets stick to the topic. Doherty has given you something to chew on in my recent post.

Quote:

Nevertheless, a certain basic level of the status of modern scholarship would help you and those whom you purport to discuss things with.

Provide proof. That is all. Making a claim to having up-to-date knowledge concerning the latest developments and the status of the majority view concerning matters doesnt add any credibility to your argument. Its pretentious and smacks of empty posturing on your part.
If you cant prove something, or support it, dont mention it. Pure and simple.

Quote:

Actually, no I am not. I've reviewd the modern literature from many perspectives and arrived at an informed conclusion. You've read one side of the debate. You apparently don't even know what the contrary arguments are.

More ad hominems...

Quote:

Your incredulity is feigned and contrived. A strong majority of diverse scholarship shares my opinion.

Argumentum ad nauseum. I am getting tired of hearing this.

Quote:

Who said he would appear in such a fashion? Not me.

Apparently not. You need to examine the implications of your assertions.

Quote:

I'm relying on the author's intent here. Whatever merit you place in his analogy is irrelevant. The fact is that he is so analogizing

He is so analogizing?

Quote:

What are you talking about? The High Priest does not die at all. The author explains this point. Jesus is a superior high priest because he is both HP and sacrifice.

Yes, and the parallel is shattered.

Quote:

Since Jesus performs both functions, please explain what relevance you think this "point" has?

It brings out the incongruence.

Quote:

The author does not care whence the first appearance came from. It serves no part of his analogy. This purported "incongruence" is irrelavnt to the author's point.

He cares. "Second" must be in relation to first. The analogy is not complete if the first is arbitrarily skipped. Your pick-and-choose approach to interpretation exposes your intention to pick only that which is convenient.

On a basic level, one can only compare two things or use an analogy if there is something in common between the analogy and the actual thing being addressed.

We can cut the chase by having you list what is common between Jesus' second coming and the High Priest going to the holy of holies.
That should be the angle to approach this issue.

02-26-2003, 03:06 AM

Greetings all,

Regarding Philo's use of the word "synagogue", I used my trusty text search program (in English) and came up with the following examples of the word, which refer to physical buildings in the first century :

Quote:

Every Good man is Free (81)
...for the seventh day is accounted sacred, on which they abstain from all other employments, and frequent the sacred places which are called synagogues...

Quote:

Flaccus (41)
the mob ... all cried out, as if at a signal given, to erect images in the synagogues

Quote:

Flaccus (47)
And there was reason to fear lest all the populace in every country, ... might insult those Jews who were their fellow citizens, by introducing new regulations with respect to their synagogues and their national customs; (48) but the Jews ... also because they alone of all the people under the sun, if they were deprived of their houses of prayer , would at the same time be deprived of all means of showing their piety towards their benefactors, which they would have looked upon as worse than ten thousand deaths, inasmuch as if their synagogues were destroyed they would no longer have any sacred places in which they could declare their gratitude

Quote:

On Dreams, That They are God Sent, (2.127)
And would you still sit down in your synagogues, collecting your ordinary assemblies, and reading your sacred volumes in security,

Quote:

On the Embassy to Gaius (132)
the populace being excited still more ... cut down some of the synagogues (and there are a great many in every section of the city), and some they razed to the very foundations ... (133) I omit to mention the ornaments in honour of the emperor, which were destroyed and burnt with these synagogues ... (134) ... All the synagogues that they were unable to destroy by burning and razing them to the ground, because a great number of Jews lived in a dense mass in the neighbourhood, they injured and defaced in another manner,

Not only are these clear references to synagogue buildings, but he explicitly says there were a "great many".

Quote:

On the Embassy to Gaius (137)
But these men expected to be most extravagantly praised, and to receive greater and more conspicuous advantages as rewards for their conduct, in thus dedicating the synagogues to Gaius as new pieces of consecrated ground

Quote:

On the Embassy to Gaius (138)
...ten kings or more who reigned in order, one after another, for three hundred years, and who never once had any images or statues of themselves erected in our synagogues

This work contains more such references to synagogues as places of worship.

I note also the following uses in Josephus, which indicate a building -

Quote:

Antiquities 16, Ch.6.2
But if any one be caught stealing their holy books, or their sacred money, whether it be out the synagogue or public school, he shall be deemed a sacrilegious person

Quote:

Antiquities 19, Ch.6.3
But after a very little while the young men of Doris, preferring a rash attempt before piety, and being naturally bold and insolent, carried a statue of Caesar into a synagogue of the Jews, and erected it there. ... Since some of you have had the boldness, or madness rather, ... as forbidding the Jews to assemble together in the synagogue, by removing Caesar's statue, and setting it up therein,

Quote:

Wars 2, Ch.14.4
For the Jews that dwelt at Cesarea had a synagogue near the place, whose owner was a certain Cesarean Greek: the Jews had endeavored frequently to have purchased the possession of the place, and had offered many times its value for its price; but as the owner overlooked their offers, so did he raise other buildings upon the place, in way of affront to them, and made working-shops of them, and left them but a narrow passage, and such as was very troublesome for them to go along to their synagogue.

Quote:

Wars 2, Ch.14.5
Now on the next day, which was the seventh day of the week, when the Jews were crowding apace to their synagogue, a certain man of Cesarea, of a seditious temper, got an earthen vessel, and set it with the bottom upward, at the entrance of that synagogue, and sacrificed birds.

Also, Psalm 74 has this for comarison :

Quote:

{74:7} They have set thy sanctuary on fire;
They have profaned the dwelling-place of thy name [by casting it] to the ground.
{74:8} They said in their heart, Let us make havoc of them altogether: They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.

Quentin

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2003, 05:36 AM

Quentin,
The references to synagogue, in Philo's writings and Josephus', are the use of the word "synagogue" as it BEGAN to have a different meaning.
Its a word whose meaning changed with the times, historical events and culture that surrounded it over the first six centuries.
Its important to bear the proper chronological order in mind when examining literal proofs.
First, synagogues were communities, gatherings etc then people started to meet in houses and the houses were then referred to as synagogues and then later (ca 70 and beyond), architectural edifices that were called synagogues started coming up.

Its important not to conflate synagogues pre Jewish war (a.k.a. second temple synagogues) and synagoguies post Jewish war. In all likelihood, it took at least 10 years after the war before the Jewish religion to be established enough to get expression via huge buildings called synagogues.

Ler me repeat Richard Horsley's word:

Quote:

It is thus clear from the synoptic Gospel tradition as our principal evidence that the synag�gai in Galilee were not buildings, but assemblies or congregations of people . . . In a few passages in Luke-Acts and in Josephus�s reports we are evidently seeing a transition usage in which, at least in Hellenistic situations, buildings in which the assemblies met are beginning to be referred to as synag�gai by association. But synag�g� and knesset both referred to the local village or town assembly in first- and second-century Galilee.(30)

The meaning me and the scholars I reference use is consistent with epigraphic and archaeological data and that is what lends it support. We must place the literary proofs in the right cultural and historical context. Otherwise, we are game to literary anachronism and all other forms of incorrect interpretation.

The quotations I provided in the previous page (3) were from scholars who argue for the existence of synagogues in the first century (and yes, there were synagogues in the sense of building in the first century - ONLY, post the Jewish War), but after looking at both sides of the argument, I do not beleive there were any synagogues in Palestine pre-Jewish War.

[NOTE: Richard A. Horsley is Professor of Classics and Religion at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and author of Galilee: History, Politics, and People published by Trinity Press]

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 06:49 AM

You talk about Ad homs? I have to point this stuff out. When faced with clear evidence to the contrary you will not abandon your arguemnts. Obvious example: dating gospels 2d on the basis of the evangelists mentioning synagogues.

This is boring. I'm not pursuing the synagoge argument any more. Rabbi Doherty didn't even "endorse" the argument. Drop it!

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 02-26-2003, 08:02 AM

Quote:

When faced with clear evidence to the contrary you will not abandon your arguemnts. Obvious example: dating gospels 2d on the basis of the evangelists mentioning synagogues.

Whether I abandon my arguments or not is irrelevant. And you have no power over that. Your role is refute them clearly and conclusively so that any interested party can see that my arguments are invalid.
That task is evidently too taxing for you.

Quote:

This is boring.

A very insightful observation on your part. But it sounds sudden and newfound. That raises questions.

Quote:

I'm not pursuing the synagoge argument any more. Rabbi Doherty didn't even "endorse" the argument. Drop it!

Doherty said he endorses a dating of 100-110. That is well within the 2nd century.
Ellegard uses it (not just endorses it) - why does Doherty have to endorse it for it to be worthy of discussion?
Looking for escape routes - are we?

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 08:49 AM

There is probably at least five-fold independent attesation here: Mark, GJohn a passage in Luke which I do not think is in Mark, Philo and Josephus. I am also told that Synagogues, though rare, have been found in Pre-70 ad Palestine. There are very valid reasons why their discovery has been rare as well.

My understanding is that the "epigraphic and archaeological data" suggest the exact opposite of what you imply. Sanders hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

That task is evidently too taxing for you.

Yes, I do have trouble staying in lengthy discussions with fundamentalism of all sorts when the evidence that is so plain is side-swiped or swept under the carpet. It is somewhat ironic in how you go to great lengths to "harmonize" Philo and Josephus' writings with your view just as conservative Christians go to great lengths to harmonize clear errors in the Bible.

The gospels cannot be dated 2d on the basis of mentioning synagogues.

My apologises if you've felt that at any point I have attacked your character. I have not attempted to do so. But I hold to my comments about not continuing this discussion unless of course, new information is brought up.

Maybe Iasion or Layman will be happy to discuss this issue with you?

blessings and peace,
Vinnie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2003, 06:49 AM	#78
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	You talk about Ad homs? I have to point this stuff out. When faced with clear evidence to the contrary you will not abandon your arguemnts. Obvious example: dating gospels 2d on the basis of the evangelists mentioning synagogues. This is boring. I'm not pursuing the synagoge argument any more. Rabbi Doherty didn't even "endorse" the argument. Drop it! Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.