The origin of the synagogue

[beowulf]

Thank you , semiopen . Excellent work ,thanks again.

It is difficult for me to believe that a large association of people , such as the Israelite Commonwealth, could have had its religious needs fully met by a single building [ temple] . The Vatican was too remote from the lives of most Italians and churches were needed.

The temple [ or Vatican] propaganda magnified its power to please the people and the few extant documents hide any non-temple activity by the common people.

All what I am looking for is evidence for the belief by Jewish historians that spontaneous non-temple house prayer activity did take place before 70 common era . The Babylonian period is a good place where to find some evidence for an synagogue-like activity.

Rashi believes the little sanctuaries should be considered as the type of activity from which the synagogue eventually developed, I understand Rashi because it answers my personal guess of what it might have been to live in exile.

My interest in the Aramaic translation in Jonathan is that if I could confirm that the Targum shares the same belief with Rashi this would show that Rashi was one of many and that Rashi belonged to a well established tradition.

Proseuche , prayer house., in the 3rd century BCE in Egypt is another finding . What do you think?

From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, by Shaye Cohen

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H5hL ... pt&f=false

[steve43]

Look no farther than the Acts of the Apostles.......if you believe it was written prior to the War.

[MrMacSon]

Findings

The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

• 1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
  2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
  5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
  6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
  7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
  8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
  9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... -apostles/
.

[steve43]

Have you ever been to one of those Westar Seminars?

They're goofy as hell.

[MrMacSon]

Care to address the issues & points, rather than make vague generalizations??

[brando_slc]

I've had Lee I. Levine's tome on the subject, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years sitting unread on my shelf for over a year. However, I understand it outlines the major considerations for the emergence of the synagogue in antiquity. It's a field of particular expertise for Levine.

[Mental flatliner]

Could the exilic synagogue have performed the same function for the exiled Israelites as the Pauline church is alleged to have done for the earliest People of the Way (Christians)?

I take the early church and the concept of synagogue to be one and the same, but I don't blame Paul.

The early Christians were all Jewish and usually had to be forced to admit Gentiles into the fold. I would expect them to maintain all Jewish customs as if they had no idea that they had started a new religion, and when they were put out of the synagogues where other Jews congregated, they formed their own.

In Galilee, there were synagogues in most major cities, but elsewhere the synagogues were private homes. This tradition also would have been continued by Christians until in some cases it probably became the rule.