Last weekend I got a chance to interview Jordan J. Ryan about his new book, The Role of the Synagogue in the Aims of Jesus. The book is available to order via the Fortress webpage or wherever books about ancient synagogues and the aims of Jesus are sold. It is my great pleasure to showcase this book and introduce Jesus Blog readers to a rising star in Jesus studies.
-Anthony Le Donne
ALD: So who the hell do you think you are?
JJR: Sorry, did I say or do something wrong?
ALD: No. That is just my ugly American way of asking you to
introduce yourself. But thank you for the stereotypical "sorry".
JJR: Haha, that is the most American-Canadian interaction
ever.
ALD: My thoughts exactly. So, then, who the hell do you
think you are?
JJR: I'm a scholar of the New Testament and early Judaism,
hailing from Toronto, Ontario, a Filipino-Canadian, who recently received a PhD
from McMaster University in 2016. Currently, I am Assistant Professor of New
Testament at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. Prior to that, I
was Visiting Assistant Professor of New Testament and Archaeology at Wheaton
College.
ALD: In that case, sir, a Shibboleth is warranted. Do you
enunciate the second T in Toronto?
JJR: Absolutely not. It's pronounced "Chur-on-oh."
ALD: Okay, then. Let's proceed. Much of your work focuses on
Jesus and synagogue culture(s). Would you talk a bit about this?
JJR: I've been interested in understanding Jesus in light of
his Jewish context from the beginning of my studies as an undergraduate. Not
only did it open up my eyes to the myriad of issues pertaining to
Jewish-Christian relations, but it also opened up new avenues for
interpretation and understanding of who Jesus was, and of what he taught and
did. When I read through the canonical Gospels, I couldn't help but notice how
prominent synagogues were in their narrative of Jesus' life and ministry. I was
particularly struck by the fact that both the synoptic Gospels and John
identify the synagogue as the primary locus Jesus' activities during his
ministry. When I started looking into research on synagogues, I was shocked to
find that synagogue studies had played next to no role in the historical study
of Jesus, despite the emphasis of recent scholarship on Jesus' Jewish context
and heritage. It seemed like a major lacuna that needed to be filled,
especially in light of the exciting new archaeological discoveries and publications
that were available at the time. So, I applied to do a PhD at McMaster
University under the supervision of Anders Runesson, who specializes in the
study of early synagogues. Within my first week at McMaster, Anders called me
into his office to tell me that a synagogue from the early first century CE had
been discovered in Galilee, and that he had connections with the excavation,
and that he thought it would be an excellent opportunity for me to participate
in the excavation and learn everything that I possibly could about synagogues.
That's how my first major research project was born.
ALD: So would you see your work as an extension of
Runesson's? If so, how? And if not, where is your departure point?
JJR: That's a great question. There was a bit of an explosion
of synagogue studies being published in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The
reality is that, prior to that, there was a lot of confusion and
misunderstanding about what a synagogue actually was. I see the work that
scholars like Runesson, Brooten, Levine, Binder, McKay, and others did in that
period as laying down the foundations, determining what a "synagogue"
really was in the early Roman period. They really weren't dealing with
historical questions about Jesus. The work that they did helped to establish
the evidence and control that data that I put to use in my work. So, I wouldn't
exactly call my work an extension of Runesson's work, though he has been a
major influence. I see it as another logical step in both synagogue studies and
historical Jesus research. Where others like Runesson, were dealing with
questions about how to define synagogues, I take their definitions as a
starting point for historical investigation into how that understanding of
"synagogue" impacts the historical study of Jesus - something that
Runesson and others have not taken up. Runesson was (and is) primarily asking
questions like “what was the origin of the ‘synagogue?’” and “how should we
define ‘synagogue?’” I take the answers that he and others gave to those sorts
of questions as a starting point, and ask questions like, “given what we know
about synagogues, how does the institutional setting of the synagogue impact
our reading of Gospel narratives set in synagogues?” or “given what we now know
about synagogues, why did Jesus use them as the primary platform and locus for
his ministry?”
ALD: How should we think differently about Jesus and Galilean synagogues in light of the discovery of the Magdala synagogue?
JJR: There are a few ways in which our knowledge of ancient
synagogues has grown following the discovery of the Magdala synagogue. The most
obvious point is that the synagogue at Magdala was in use during the first half
of the first century CE. Magdala is in Galilee, in the lake region, which is
where the Gospels claim that Jesus was active in his teaching, healing, and
proclamation ministry. It used to be a matter of debate, especially in the
1990s, as to whether or not any synagogue buildings existed in Galilee or the
Land in general prior to 70 CE, but the discovery of the Magdala synagogue
probably puts that to rest. That said, I think that there's much, much more to
what we can learn from Magdala about synagogues and early Judaism beyond the
existence of synagogue buildings. We're still analyzing its architecture, and
learning more about the communal, religio-political function of synagogues from
it. Moreover, the discovery of the "Magdala stone," which features
temple imagery, very clearly shows us that Galilean Jews maintained a strong
connection to Jerusalem, and that the synagogue may have played a role in that
connection. A further insight comes from the discovery of a carved limestone
block located in the middle of a smaller benched room. It had two grooves on
either side of its top face, and the current hypothesis is that it was used for
reading scrolls.
The Magdala synagogue also features a mosaic pavement - the
earliest synagogue mosaic pavement ever discovered. It was previously thought
that mosaic decoration was a later development, but this discovery indicates a
much closer connection between early Roman period synagogues and late antique
synagogues which feature similar decor. One other issue that I am currently
working on with Marcela Zapata-Meza, one of the excavation directors, has to do
with the fact that we've identified an area of Magdala, right across the street
from the synagogue that contains baths and vessels that we think were used for
purity purposes. We're trying to understand the relationship between synagogues
and purity, and this discovery may give us some more evidence to better grasp
that relationship. It's also worth saying that the dig at Magdala is groundbreaking
(pun intended) for another reason - Marcela Zapata-Meza, my dear friend and
colleague, is the first Mexican woman to direct a dig outside of Mexico, which
is worth highlighting. The two of us will be presenting jointly at the ASOR
annual meeting this year in Boston on some of this material.
ALD: Your title "The Role of the Synagogue in the Aims
of Jesus" echoes the work of Ben F. Meyer. How important has his work been
for you?
JJR: The title of my upcoming book is an intentional allusion
to Ben Meyer’s work. Like me, Ben Meyer also saw value in Collingwood’s
philosophy of history, especially the concept of what Collingwood called “the
inside of the event,” which is anything that be described in terms of thought.
For Collingwood, events in the past involving human beings have an “inside” and
an “outside,” wherein the inside was thought, and the outside was physical
action. This led Meyer to the idea that, in order to understand the historical
Jesus, we need to understand his intentions – the “inside of the event” of
Jesus’ ministry. For Meyer, the aims of Jesus were tied to the restoration of
Israel. Meyer’s work, though it has its flaws, was foundational and
inspirational for me, as I sought to understand why Jesus used synagogues as
the primary platform for his public ministry. In order to understand why Jesus
did something, we need to understand his aims – the “inside of the event.” So,
what I ended up doing in The Role of the Synagogue in the Aims of Jesus is
exploring how synagogues played into Jesus’ aims, and why he made them the
primary locus of his activities.
ALD: In your book, you write: "Luke 4:16–30 is
undoubtedly Lukan, and its testimony has been shaped by Luke and by the processes
of collective remembering. That is the nature of history, and there does not
exist any account of something that happened in the past that is not similarly
shaped by the process of remembering. None of this means that it does not
recall or evince an event that actually happened. Again, we must remember that
history is inferential, and that the evidence is not the past itself, but bears
witness to it. A shift in language may help to illustrate this. Rather than
saying that this passage 'goes back to Jesus,' it is better to say that it
tells us about him."
Would you talk a bit more about the principle of inference?
JJR: The principle of inference has been a key one for me. I
started working on my dissertation in 2011, following the release of a certain
book titled "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity," edited
by a couple of guys who write posts about Jesus on the internet. That book
encouraged me to start thinking about how to write history, and how to go about
historical investigation. That led me to start reading deeply in the philosophy
of history. Inference is a principle outlined by R.G. Collingwood and others
who followed him. The basic premise is that history is an inferential science.
What this means is that the historian is not interested in the data itself, but
in knowledge of the past that can be inferred from it.
According to Collingwood, the business of history is “to
study events not accessible to our observation, and to study these events
inferentially, arguing to them from something else which is accessible to our
observation, and which the historian calls ‘evidence’ for the events in which
he is interested.” The ramifications of this are substantial. First of all, it
shows us that it is not enough to establish the “reliability” or “authenticity”
or any given testimony. There are more questions to ask, and much more to
discover, because we are not enslaved as historians to what the sources say.
So, when we are presented with testimony about Jesus, we need to ask not whether
it is true or false, but what we might infer from it about the past. That means
switching over from thinking about the Gospels as “testimony” to be verified
towards “evidence” about the past to be interpreted. I actually think that this
coheres in some respects with the results of recent studies applying the
insights of collective memory.
Many thanks to Jordan for his time. I look forward to seeing more from his mighty keyboard.
-anthony
