“the religious role of the synagogue prior to the destruction of the Second Temple was perhaps more significant in religious life than previously thought.”
I’d amend that to “more significant in religious life than previous thought by atheist scholars with an axe to grind.”
From the descriptions given in the New Testament of Jesus in synagogues, I would never have thought that previously synagogues weren’t that significant in religious life.
Scholars grind their axes; it's what they do; whether secular or sacred leaning.
What descriptions in the New Testament are you referring to, and how does that elevate them with respect to the existing Temple and keeping the laws thereof, especially for the men to appear three times a year in Jerusalem ?
The line of inquiry explored by the article makes me consider what customs allowed some to worship in the synagogues as an alternative to making the journey to Jerusalem (the sick or elderly perhaps). The Mishnah says, "All are under obligation, to appear, except minors, women, the blind, the lame, the aged, and one who is ill physically or mentally." A minor in this case is defined as one who is too young to be taken by his father to Jerusalem. Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:) And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field. Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.
Exodus, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses fourteen to seventeen,
as authorized, but not authorized by King James.
Lost in all the linguistics discussion is that this is a very interesting article. Thanks for posting.