The information about the first-century synagogue provided by Flavius Josephus must be handled with care when used in historical reconstructions. Josephus was a skilled rhetorician who was ideologically invested in the presentation of this institution. Due care must therefore be placed on understanding the context of his various mentions of synagogues within the overall rhetorical context of his works if we are interested in historical reconstruction of this Jewish institution. However, the tendentious nature of Josephus’ writings does not preclude historical study, not least because the assumptions and ideologies inherent in this tendenz are themselves historical. Especially in his later works (Antiquitates judaicae, Vita, and Contra Apionem), we find a deliberate presentation of the synagogue as a viable, supra-local rallying point for the Jews throughout the known world, as this institution represents an assembly in which the customs and Law of Judaism may be practiced and disseminated following the loss of the Temple and the Land. Even in the earliest work of Josephus, Bellum judaicum, we find a tendentious presentation of the synagogue as a ‘holy place’ whose precincts were breached due to the impiety of the Jewish insurgents and certain non-Jewish troublemakers. Due to the rhetorical nature of Josephus’ writings and the many hermeneutical issues that arise when we deal with space, the language of Edward Soja’s spatial theory is utilized, where heuristically profitable, in order to distinguish between the ‘spaces themselves’ (firstspace), the ideals held by the author regarding the institution (secondspace), and the combination of the two in the experience represented in the passages (thirdspace). It is precisely the rhetoric with which Josephus presents the synagogue that will lead us to a better understanding of the ideological importance that synagogues had in the lives of the communities and individuals inhabiting these spaces during the period in question. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)