In the last 10-20 years, many long-held ideas about the nature and origin of the synagogue, such as the claim that the synagogue originated in the Babylonian exile as a replacement for the lost temple cult, have been rejected by synagogue scholars, not least due to new archaeological discoveries and the reinterpretation of known sources using new methods and perspectives. We are now in the middle of a process of consensus formation in which a multitude of diverse theories compete to attract the approval of the majority of researchers. More scholars than ever before are taking part in this enterprise, which means that more approaches, perspectives, and ideas share the scene and have to be taken into account before historical judgments are made.

While this is very encouraging, it is extremely important in a situation like the present that the object of inquiry is carefully defined: too much ink has already been spilled over heated debates where scholars disagree without noticing that, defining the question differently, they are, in fact, talking past each other. One of the obvious, but often-ignored, questions that has to be addressed before beginning the search for the origins of the synagogue is simply: what was a "synagogue" by the time when we find the earliest mention of the institution in the source material? Even more important is to ask whether it is accurate to date the origins of the synagogue coterminously with the first occurrence of the name of the institution in the source material or if we should rather attempt to trace the activities of the synagogue beyond the point in time when they are associated with the name "synagogue." As it happens, the first century turns out to be of vital importance to these questions and to the origins quest generally.

Many scholars, especially those who tend to date synagogue origins late, do not distinguish between the 1^st or 4^th century, or even modern, synagogue when approaching the problem. This is problematic since the synagogue went through significant development over the years and the features of the later synagogue, including such aspects as most parts of the liturgy and the architecture of the buildings, are not possible to trace as far back in time as we have evidence of institutions designated by synagogue terms.

This is so because the institution we call "synagogue" in English and which is designated by several different (Greek) terms in the ancient sources, sunagoge (which is usually translated either as "assembly" or "house of assembly") and proseuche (usually translated as "House of Prayer") being the most common,¹ was, at the turn of the era, in fact not one but two different types of institution. It is not until these two types of institution, both designated with the same terms in the sources, have been analyzed that we are able to determine which one the modern synagogue originated from. Indeed, the discovery that institutions designated by synagogue terms were of two types helps to explain some of the perceived contradictions in the source material that has led scholars to claim radically different origins for the synagogue. In terms of archaeological findings and the interpretation of buildings as synagogues, the distinction between institutional types may solve some of the problems discussed with regard to, e.g., the recently unearthed edifice in Jericho, claimed by the excavator to be a synagogue (see the contributions on this web site by Stacey and Netzer).

Furthermore, it is quite common that scholars isolate certain aspects of the synagogue and claim to have found the origins of the institution when the beginnings of that particular aspect have been explained. This problem is connected with the former. For example, if the search for synagogue origins is limited to the search for its liturgical origins, we are not only in danger of overlooking certain aspects that were central to the 1^st-century institutions but also of erroneously dating the synagogue too late, since many features of modern synagogue liturgy did not evolve until the late rabbinic period.

The search for the origins of the synagogue should thus take into account several main aspects of the institution, which should be treated separately before being brought together for a conclusion. I have suggested four such research areas:²

* The liturgy of the synagogue, such as the ritual reading of Torah

* The non-liturgical, or social, aspects of the synagogue, such as local administration, court proceedings, etc.

* The institutional aspect, which refers to questions relating to hierarchies, leadership, and other signs of developed institutional forms

* The spatial aspect, i.e., the space where people gathered for meetings and assemblies

The question about synagogue origins can and should be asked in relation to each of these research areas before adding the pieces together for a synthesized answer regarding the institution as a whole.

With these distinctions and definitions in mind, a certain procedure for how to proceed reveals itself.

We are wise to begin out search with the period when our sources first mention synagogue terms. This happens to be the 1^st century bce and ce. Second, analyzing the literary, inscriptional, and archaeological material, we must determine what type(s) of institution is referred to by these terms in the sources and what activities were associated with these institutions. Each type of institution should be investigated separately.

Third, since many of the activities connected with the 1^st-century synagogue were common to similar non-Jewish institutions, the search for the origins of the unique Jewish institution as we find it in the 1^st-century need to focus on the most characteristic feature of the synagogue: the feature that made it stand out among other institutions.

Fourth, the origins of the synagogue are exposed when this characteristic feature is traced to its beginnings in a setting in which we also find the other activities associated with the later, 1^st synagogue. Fifth and finally, an attempt must be made to explain why, where, and how this all came to be at the specific point in time when we found the beginnings of the distinctive feature of the 1^st-century synagogue.

Let us now turn to the first century and summarize what can be said about the synagogue at that time before addressing the question of the origins of the institution(s).

As noted above, the synagogue went under many names in the 1^st century; sunagoge and proseuche were two of the more common. The institution(s) designated by these names could function as council halls (CJZC no. 70), archives (where, e.g., records of manumissions were kept: CIRB no. 70), treasuries (Josephus, AJ 16.164; cf. Mt 6:2), and hostels (CIJ 1404). Activities could also include judicial proceedings (e.g., Mk 13:9) and political meetings could be held in buildings designated by synagogue terms (Josephus Vit. 277ff). The liturgical activity emphasized most in the sources is without competition, the reading and teaching of Torah (e.g., Philo, Opif. 128; Contempl., 30-31; Prob. 80-83; Lk 4:16-30; Acts 9:20; CIJ 1404; Josephus BJ 2.289-92), even if there are a few occasions where prayer is mentioned briefly (e.g., Jospehus, Vit. 295). Finally, communal meals (Jospehus, AJ 14.216) and public fasts (Josephus, Vit. 290) took place in spatial settings designated by synagogue terms.

These activities are very well suited to the design of the excavated buildings that have been identified as synagogues. For example, the first-century Ostia synagogue (Italy) displays a triclinium (a dining hall) among its features and so does the Jericho edifice excavated by Netzer. Most important, however, is the layout of the main hall, which in all cases is equipped with benches lining three or four of the walls, having its architectural focus in the empty space in the center of the room. This design is adapted to readings, teaching, and discussion, exactly what the literary sources claim are the most characteristic features of the synagogue.

In terms of evidence of a developed institution, the existence of official titles indicates a well-established, hierarchical model of leadership in the institution by the 1^st century. Literary texts as well as inscriptions and papyri mention several different titles, e.g., archon (Josephus, Vit. 278, 294), archisunagogos (Mk 5:22; CIJ no. 1404), prostates (JIGRE no. 24), presbuteros (Jdt 6:16; Lk 7:3-5), geron (Philo, Hypoth. 7:13), grammateus (Mk 1:22; CPJ no. 138), nakoros (CPJ no. 129), huperetes (Lk 4:20) or archiuperetes (CPJ no. 138).

From the above it is quite clear that, by the 1^st century, the synagogue was a well-established institution both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Some of the activities and functions also indicate that we are dealing with a public institution. But if we take a closer look at the literary texts, while the public nature of the institution is confirmed in many cases, in other cases we are undoubtedly dealing with non-, or semi-public institutions maintained by certain groups united by special interests or ideas.

For example, in the New Testament we have evidence of institutions called "synagogues" that were public village assemblies where local administration and judicial functions were carried out and the Torah was read and discussed on the Sabbath (general references to judicial activities, e.g., Mk 13:9; readings and teaching of Torah in Nazareth, Lk 4:16-30; in Capernaum, Mk 1:21-28. See also the above references to, e.g., Josephus for this type of public institution). However, we also have references to synagogues that were semi-public institutions belonging to certain groups, such as the Synagogue of the Freedmen in Acts 6:9.³ This kind of synagogue is also evidenced in Philo, who describes the synagogue of the Essenes in his Prob. 81.

We are thus able to demonstrate the existence of two types of institution named "synagogue" in the first century: the public village/town assembly and the semi-public voluntary association. The term "synagogue" was not yet fixed to describe only one type of institution: this is a later development that should not be read back to the 1^st century.

While the association synagogue would obviously not maintain many of the official functions of the public synagogue, both institutions emphasized the reading, teaching and discussion of Torah as the characteristic feature of the assemblies. This activity, the ritual reading of holy texts in settings such as those described, was also unique to the Jews in antiquity. In order to trace synagogue origins, we thus need to search for the origin of public readings of Torah. We begin with the village/town assembly and continue with the association synagogue.

| Page 2 |

Footnotes

(back) ¹For a list of synagogue terms with references to sources where they are found, see Runesson, 2001b: 171-173.

(back) ²For a full discussion, see Runesson, 2001b: 29-37.

(back) ³The Greek here is not clear. Either we are dealing with a synagogue of the Freedmen, which included members from Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia, or the text refers to multiple synagogues: apart from the synagogue of the Freedmen, we would then find in Jerusalem four more synagogues, serving the needs of Jews coming from the places mentioned.

| Page 2 |

| Page 2 |

Look for academic tools and books for biblical studies at Dove Books.

---