This revised Aberdeen doctoral dissertation does precisely what the subtitle leads the reader to expect. It does not offer a new theory of the origins of the Synagogue as an institution, or new interpretations of the archaeological or literary record, but presents a discussion of the scholarly debate, usually reaching a cautious conclusion, whether mediating or siding with one particular perspective. After a brief introduction subsequent chapters discuss the literary evidence, the archaeological evidence, and evidence from these of ‘worship practices’. The final chapter assesses the references in Luke-Acts to synagogues in the light of these findings, thus addressing charges of anachronism therein. Despite this interest there is no discussion of the much contested presence of God-fearers in the synagogue, and the absence of discussion of post first-century synagogues means that the question of the relevance of these for considering the earlier period is not addressed. With few exceptions the secondary literature is almost entirely English-language and ‘critical analysis’ does not seem to have extended to independent analysis of early excavation reports and plans or to a thorough personal assessment of the sites. The conclusions reached are all reasonable and the reports of other scholars' work seem fair but can be a little tedious, for example in the account of exchanges between Michael White and Anders Runesson on the synagogue at Ostia. However, as tends to be the case with such volumes, the effect is one of a ‘flattening’ of the issues and of the enthusiasm with which different positions are held. This has been an area of lively debate in recent years, with particular attention to questions of definition and method, and with reassessment of earlier sites along with claims for new ones. As an introduction to these debates the volume will serve a useful purpose, but readers should not use it as a substitute for engaging directly with the scholars discussed and with the primary sources or reports.