Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Recently in this journal H. C. Kee has exposed and refuted perceived anachronistic notions concerning the existence of the pre-70 CE synagogue.1 According to Kee's thesis, the pre-70 CE synagogue was not a distinctive architectural edifice, but a voluntary gathering place for worship. Kee writes:
The earliest distinct buildings date from the third century, and vary widely in style and interior arrangements. There is simply no evidence to speak of synagogues in Palestine as architecturally distinguishable edifices prior to 200 CE. Evidence of meeting places: ‘Yes’, both in private homes and in public buildings. Evidence of distinctive architectural features of a place of worship or for study of Torah: ‘No’.2
As a result, Kee attempts to redate the Theodotus inscription, our major epigraphical source for the pre-70 CE Palestinian synagogue, to the ‘mid–second to late third century CE’.3 This late dating is necessary in Kee's theory, since this inscription documents a succession of synagogue rulers, extending back to Theodotus’ grandfather, which would place the Palestinian synagogue and its institutions well into the first century BCE.
1 Kee, H. C. has presented his conclusions in the following series of articles: ‘The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE: Its Import for Early Christianity’, NTS 36 (1990) 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster’, NTS 40 (1994) 281–3Google Scholar; and ‘Defining the First–Century CE Synagogue: Problems and Proposals’, NTS 41 (1995) 481–500.Google Scholar
2 Kee, , ‘Transformation’, 9.Google Scholar
3 Kee reports that this dating was derived ‘by a number of distinguished epigraphers whom I consulted’ (‘Defining’, 482). Since Kee fails to discuss the epigraphical characteristics of the Theodotus inscription, or to compare it with other contemporary inscriptions, the identity of these unnamed epigraphers and an examination of their supporting evidence is a sine qua non for any redating of this artifact.
4 ‘Defining’, 497; see also ‘Transformation’, 18.
5 That Acts represents what may be termed ‘a historical novel’ bearing numerous similarities to the surviving Greek and Latin novels has been convincingly demonstrated by Pervo, R. I., Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google Scholar Although the author of Luke–Acts undoubtedly fabricated stories for entertainment value, he did accurately reflect both local colour and religious institutions from the pre-70 CE era. Consequently, the debate over the accuracy of Luke–Acts’ depiction of synagogue buildings must be verified with both archaeological and epigraphic evidence. Unfortunately, Richard Oster, while presenting many positive insights in his rebuttal of Kee's original thesis, reflects an extreme conservatism concerning the historical reliability of Luke–Acts. See Oster, R. E., ‘Supposed Anachronism in Luke–Acts’ Use of συναλωλῇ: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee’;, NTS 39 (1993) 178–208, esp. 178–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 For the debate over the existence of Diaspora synagogues, see Kraabel, A. T., ‘The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik’, ANRW 11.19.1:477–510.Google Scholar
7 Gutman, S., Gamla–A City in Rebellion (Israel: Ministry of Defence, 1994; in Hebrew, ) 99–126;Google ScholarGutman, S., Gamla: The First Eight Seasons of Excavations (Israel: Hakibbutz Hameu–chad, 1981; in Hebrew, ) 57–60Google Scholar; Gutman, S., ‘The Synagogue at Gamla’, Ancient Synagogues Revealed (ed. Levine, L. I.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981) 30–4Google Scholar; Syon, D., ‘Gamla– Portrait of a Rebellion’, BARev 18/1 (1992) 20–37Google Scholar; Z. Ma
z, ‘The Synagogue of Gamla and the Typology of Second–Temple Synagogues’, Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 35–41.Google Scholar (The author's discussion of the archaeological site of Gamla benefits from his two seasons as a member of the Gamla excavation staff.)
8 Yadin, Y., ‘The Excavation of Masada — 1963/64 Preliminary Report’, IEJ 15 (1965) 76–9Google Scholar; Yadin, Y., Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zelots’ Last Stand (Jerusalem: Steimatzky, 1966) 181–91Google Scholar; Yadin, Y., ‘The Synagogue at Masada’, Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 19–23.Google Scholar For the final report of Yadin's excavation of the synagogue building see Netzer, Ehud, Masada HI The Buildings: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1991) 402–13.Google Scholar
9 Chen, D., ‘The Design of the Ancient Synagogues in Judea: Masada and Herodium’, BASOR 239 (1980) 37–40Google Scholar; Foerster, G., ‘The Synagogues at Masada and Herodium’, Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 24–9.Google Scholar
10 Kee's quotation (‘Transformation’, 10) of a sentence from Gutmann, J. (The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, Archaeology and Architecture [ed. Gutmann, J.; New York: KTAV, 1975] xiiGoogle Scholar) is erroneously attributed to Gutmann, when it is actually a text from Hoenig quoted by Gutmann. Such errors in the citation of primary sources are unfortunately prevalent throughout Kee's articles. Cf. Oster, 190 n. 46,195 n. 60.
11 Meyers, Eric, ‘Synagogue’, ABD, 6.255.Google Scholar
12 Meyers, , ‘Synagogue’, 255.Google Scholar
13 Meyers, , ‘Synagogue’, 255.Google Scholar
14 For an architectural attempt at defining the synagogue, see Chiat, M. J. S., Handbook of Synagogue Architecture (BJS 29; Chico: Scholars, 1982) 2–3.Google Scholar Although Oster believes that he can prove the existence of pre-70 CE synagogues, he also exhibits a tension similar to Meyers when he writes: ‘…there is at present little hope for a consensus whether any such structures existed’ (181).
15 Kee devotes only four out of 24 pages in his original article (‘Transformation’) to the archaeological evidence. His most recent study (‘Defining’) devotes approximately four out of 19 pages to the archaeological remains. In both articles, Kee examines not only the Palestinian evidence, but also includes Diaspora synagogues. In his rebuttal of Oster's critique (‘Changing’, 8), Kee simply omits any treatment of the material culture. Throughout his articles Kee unfortunately misinterprets and misquotes the primary sources concerning pre-70 CE synagogues. For example, Kee's original presentation (‘Transformation’, 8) misquotes Meyers, E. M. and Strange, J. F.(Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity [Nashville: Abingdon, 1981] 141Google Scholar), who actually present conclusions opposing the central thrust of his essay. Cf. Oster, 194–5, esp. p. 195 n. 60.
16 Yadin, , ‘Excavation’, 77Google Scholar; Yadin, , Masada, 185–7Google Scholar; Netzer, , Masada III, 409.Google Scholar Netzer (412–13) believes this dung layer indicates that the Herodian hall originally functioned as a stable. In his discussion, however, Netzer (409) writes: ‘This dung should undoubtedly be associated with the function of the building between the time of its construction and its conversion into a synagogue by the Zealots (or during part of that period).’ Netzer (412) also observes that the delicate plaster floor of the original Herodian structure is problematic if the building was originally constructed for use as a stable. The archaeological evidence supports Yadin's original thesis for the following three successive and distinct uses of this structure: meeting hall, stable, and synagogue. Additionally, it is reasonable to suggest that the two adjacent elongated rooms (loci 1045 and 1046; see Netzer, 395–8) functioned as storage facilities for this structure during all three phases. For a dissenting view of the Masada synagogue, see Flesher, P. V. M., ‘Palestinian Synagogues Before 70 C.E.: A Review of the Evidence’, Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (ed. Urman, D. and Flesher, P. V. M.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995) 36–7, esp. p. 36 n. 32.Google Scholar
17 Kee, , ‘Transformation’, 8–9Google Scholar; ‘Defining’, 494.
18 Kee, , ‘Defining’, 496Google Scholar; Z. U. Maoz, ‘Ancient Synagogues of the Golan’, BA 51 (1988) 116–28.Google Scholar
19 This list is adapted from Maz, ‘Ancient Synagogues’, 119.Google Scholar
20 Except for an Early Bronze Age (c.a. 3200–2500 BCE) settlement, Gamla was founded in approximately 150 BCE and destroyed in October 67 CE during the Jewish revolt (Josephus De bello Judaico 4.83). The ceramic remains beneath the synagogue demonstrate conclusively that it was constructed between the latter part of the first century BCE and the early first century CE. Gutman, , Gamla: The First Eight Seasons, 57–60Google Scholar, unnumbered photographic plates inserted between p. 96 and p. 97. The first century BCE–first century CE dating of Gamla remains undisputed.
21 For photographs and architectural plan see Gutman, , Gamla – A City, 103–6.Google Scholar
22 The main hall of the Gamla synagogue is reported by Chiat (283) as 20 x 16 meters with a floor space of 10 x 12 meters. These proportions are unmatched by any other building excavated at Gamla. The dimensions of the synagogue are even greater than the largest of the three Gamla olive–oil press installations (11.0 x 5.5 m) discovered. Gutman, S., ‘Gamla 1984/1985/1986’, Excavations and Surveys in Israel 1986 (Jerusalem: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, 1986) 5.38–9.Google Scholar
23 A second identical intact lintel, believed by the excavator to originate from a second undiscovered synagogue, is situated in the wealthy western residential area of the site. For photographs see Syon, , ‘Gamla–Portrait’, 34Google Scholar; Gutman, , Gamla: The First Eight Seasons, unnumbered photographic places inserted between p. 96 and p. 97Google Scholar; Gutman, , ‘The Synagogue at Gamla’, 34.Google Scholar
24 Maz, ‘Ancient Synagogues’, 118–19.Google Scholar
25 Maz, ‘The Synagogue of Gamla’, 38.Google Scholar
26 Foerster, , ‘Synagogues’, 24.Google Scholar
27 Foerster, , ‘Synagogues’, 26Google Scholar; Gutman, , Gamla -A City, 103–6.Google Scholar
28 Foerster, , ‘Synagogues’, 24–6.Google Scholar
29 Gutman, , Gamla -A City, 101.Google Scholar
30 Maz, ‘Synagogue of Gamla’, 41.Google Scholar
31 See the following articles in Ancient Synagogues Revealed: Foerster, G., ‘Architectural Models of the Greco–Roman Period and the Origin of the “Galilean” Synagogue’, 45–8Google Scholar; Z. Maz, ‘The Synagogue of Gamla’, 35–41Google Scholar; Netzer, E., ‘The Herodian Tricilinia – a Prototype for the “Galilean–Type” Synagogue’, 49–51.Google Scholar
32 Sanders, E. P., Judaism: Practice & Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992) 200.Google Scholar Sanders additionally estimates that the four tiers of seats on all four sides of the Gamla synagogue held approximatly 300 people. Kee states erroneously that the Gamla synagogue is believed to be a private house in which the pious gathered for prayer (‘Transformation’, 8). This conclusion is to my knowledge unattested in the archaeological literature. Most recently, Kee now simply abandons any attempt to interpret the function of the Gamla building (‘Defining’, 494–5).
33 Mark 6.1–5; Luke 4.16–23; Acts 13.15.
34 Much textual information exists for synagogue buildings used for Jewish worship. According to Josephus, the Jewish revolt began partly as a result of a conflict between local Greeks and Jews in Caesarea over access to a synagogue building (Josephus De bello Judaico 2.285–91). An early inscription (56 CE) records repairs to a north African synagogue building in Berenice (= Benghazi), during the reign of Nero (55 CE), in which Jews gathered. Lloyd, J. A., Reece, R., Reynolds, J. M. and Sear, F. B., Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) (Tripoli: The Department of Antiquities, 1977) 1.242.Google Scholar
35 Hengel, M., ‘Proseuche und Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina’, The Synagogue: Studies in Origins, 27’54.Google Scholar The earliest synagogue inscription records the construction of a synagogue building by the Jews during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes in Egypt. Lifshitz, B., Donateurs et Fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967) No. 92.Google Scholar This example clearly refers to a synagogue building, not a house–synagogue. Griffiths, J. Gwyn (‘Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue’, Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis, 3–16Google Scholar) suggests that this epigraphical evidence demonstrates that the synagogue arose in Ptolemaic Egypt. For additional pre-70 CE inscriptions and texts, with accompanying discussions, see Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (ed. Vermes, G., Millar, F. and Black, M.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 2.423–63.Google Scholar See also the chart of lexical vocabulary used for pre-70 CE synagogues in Oster, 186.
36 Luke 4.16–30; 7.5; Acts 9.1–2, 20; 13.5,14; 14.1; 17.1,17; 18.4,19, 26; 19.8; 22.19; 24.12. A badly preserved first century BCE papyrus from Egypt apparently refers to a meeting of a συνoδoς in a πρoσευχ⋯, most likely a Jewish association. Tcherikover, V. A. and Fuks, A., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1957) 1.138.Google Scholar
37 Kee comments (‘Defining’, 493): ‘Thus one must conclude that, with the single exception of Luke 7.5, the synagogue is depicted in the New Testament and in pre-70 Jewish writings as a gathering rather than as a distinctive type of religious structure.’
38 Sanders, , Judaism, 198–9.Google ScholarGrabbe, L. L. (‘Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re- Assessment’, Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis, 23Google Scholar) writes: ‘…literary evidence indicates that the synagogue as an institution had reached Galilee and even Jerusalem by the first century CE’.
39 For the identification of this room as a ‘rudimentary synagogue’ see Golb, N., Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search for the Secret of Qumran (New York: Scribner, 1995) 24–5.Google Scholar For the plan of this room see Vaux, R. de, L'archéologie et les manuscrits de la mer Morte (London: Oxford University, 1961) plate 39, locus no. 4.Google Scholar
40 For a translation see Kee, , ‘Defining’, 484.Google Scholar For a photograph of this inscription see Kloner, A., ‘Ancient Synagogues in Israel: An Archaeological Survey’, in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 11.Google Scholar For a discussion of the similarities between this inscription and the synagogue mentioned in Acts 6.9 see Flesher, , ‘Palestinian Synagogues’, Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis, 32–4.Google Scholar
41 The communal organization and reading of the law may be found in both 1QS and CD. For a discussion of the Qumran 
as a synagogue community see Klinghardt, M., ‘The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations’, Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Wise, M. et al. ; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 251–67.Google Scholar
42 For a detailed plan of this room (locus 1089) and photographs see Gutman, , Gamla -A City, 106–8.Google Scholar
43 See Nitzan, B., Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994) 47–116.Google Scholar
44 Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 3.32; 4.36; 8.67; 10.81.Google Scholar
45 Philo, De Vita Contemplativa 10.75, 80–1.Google Scholar
46 Roland De Vaux observed that the dining hall contained a paved circular area situated at its western end that he believed was used for public speaking. Vaux, De, L'archéologie, 8–9Google Scholar, plate 39, locus no. 77. For a photograph of de Vaux standing on this platform see Cross, F. M., The Ancient Library ofQumran (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995)Google Scholar Figure 7. The dimensions of this room are 22 x 4.5 meters.
47 lQSa 2.11–22.
48 Griffiths, , ‘Egypt’, 1–7Google Scholar; Flesher, , ‘Palestinian Synagogues’, 27–39Google Scholar; Kant, L. H., ‘Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin’, ANRW 2.20.2: 671–713Google Scholar; Krauss, S., ‘Sklavenbefreiung in den jüdisch–griechischen Inschriften aus Sudrussland’, Festschrift zu Ehren des Dr A. Harkavy (ed. Günzburg, D. V. and Markon, I.; St Petersburg: H. Itzkowski, 1908) 52–67.Google Scholar
