Anachronisms Aplenty In The Bom

[cksalmon]

what anti-Mormons think the BOM is describing as a synagogue does not match what they think the BOM should be describing as a synagogue.

I think you're on to something here, Bill. Though I'd suggest this is precisely the issue at hand, rather than mere quibbling over a non-issue.

An increasing number of scholars over the past several decades have focused on the later First Temple period [i.e. the time of Lehi] as the context for synagogue origins. ... Of greater attraction has been the prsumed impact of Joseiah's reforms in 621 BCE, which prohibited worship in shrines and altars outside Jerusalem. This is considered by many to have been the crucial factor which led to the creation of a new relgious framework based on non-sacrificial worship. (Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, (Yale, 2000), 22)

I believe you're arguing that Josiah's reforms in 621 laid the religious framework for synagogue worship, and that 34-5 years later, prior to the destruction of the Temple, when Lehi left Jerusalem, it was already an established and common practice for the Israelites to build synagogues for worship away from the Temple.

It's certainly logically possible...?

Best to you.

CKS

[cdowis]

duplicate post

[Bill Hamblin]

I believe you're arguing that Josiah's reforms in 621 laid the religious framework for synagogue worship, and that 34-5 years later, prior to the destruction of the Temple, when Lehi left Jerusalem, it was already an established and common practice for the Israelites to build synagogues for worship away from the Temple.

I'm not arguing this. A dozen of the leading scholars of this history of the synagogue and early Judaism are arguing this. I am providing you a source containing bibliographic references to these studies. If you are serious in desiring to understand these issues (as opposed to merely having "trial runs" for anti-Mormon arguments you plan to insert in the Evangel) then you will get these works and study them.

Simply ask yourself these three questions:

Did late seventh century BC Jews pray outside the Temple?

Did late seventh century BC Jews study the Torah outside the Temple?

Did late seventh century BC Jews ever pray and study communally in buildings?

If the answer to all three of these questions is yes (and it most certainly is), then the appearance of "synagogues" in the BOM is not anachronistic. Rather, it is anti-Mormon attempts to insist that BOM synagogues must be related only to post-Second Temple Rabbinic synagogues that is anachronistic. (Anti-Mormons should always remember that the sword of anachronism cuts both ways.)

By the way, CK, any plans to follow up on your earlier Pesach argument?

[cksalmon]

If the answer to all three of these questions is yes (and it most certainly is), then the appearance of "synagogues" in the BOM is not anachronistic.

Bill, perhaps you could divulge exactly what you understand BoM synagogues to have been. Adams argues that Lehi knew of synagogues via a proposed link with city gate chambers. Both his biblical examples are seriously flawed.

By the way, CK, any plans to follow up on your earlier Pesach argument?

Thanks for asking, Bill. But I made my final comment on the other thread, if you'll remember, stating that I believed the LDS provided answers were adequate. Or, perhaps you haven't read it? Here's the link.

Best to you.

CKS

[maklelan]

So, are you saying that the Jews didn't build any structures to meet in for religious purposes prior to the exodus of Lehi & Co.?

Hey SolarPowered--

No, I'm not saying that. We know that they built at least one building for religious purposes prior to that time: the Temple.

Best.

CKS

I was wondering how you could wave that one off. Clearly, the Nephites are supposed to have modeled their synagogues after buildings that didn't exist. That's the problem with anachronisms; they're not supposed to be there, and yet here this one is.

So y'all are saying that they built no places of worship prior to the Temple. Please produce the archaeological evidence to back this up.

The context clearly indicates that whatever sort of worship was going on at the "high places of the gates" was illicit and needed to stopped.

But if you are introducing this as evidence then you are leaning on the assumption that the only form of worship that ever went on was illicit. I don't think you have enough evidence for that.

[Nevo]

Simply ask yourself these three questions:

Did late seventh century BC Jews pray outside the Temple?

Did late seventh century BC Jews study the Torah outside the Temple?

Did late seventh century BC Jews ever pray and study communally in buildings?

If the answer to all three of these questions is yes (and it most certainly is), then the appearance of "synagogues" in the BOM is not anachronistic.

If the answer to the third question is "most certainly" yes, I'm curious to know what it's based on.

[Abulafia]

Bill, I have been busy googling as I find this subject (the origin of the synagogue) interesting. I can't find one single online reference to anyone/site/scholar who believes that the 'synagogue' (whether administrative center, place of worship, place for reading of scripture/law, or provision of meals) pre-dated the Babylonian Captivity.

Most are suggesting that the Temple was the place of worship until it was destroyed, and that what we can in any way construe as a synagogue arose 'after' Lehi left for the New World, so presumably he and his would have no knowledge of it or the term.

So, either the (some) scholars have got it wrong and synagogues did pre-date the captivity, in which case the use of the noun 'synagogue' in the BOM is not anachronistic, and/or Joseph Smith when translating the BOM used an unfortunate Greek influenced term when he could/should have been using 'school' or the ancient equivalent of it (which might be technically more correct) as per Uncle Dale's line of reasoning???

Or...it really is an anachronism???

[SolarPowered]

Abulafia, it is really annoying when you jump in in the middle of a thread and spout off with a bunch of questions that have already been addressed. Go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted. If you then have issues with with answers that have already been posted, specifically address what is still unaddressed.

Thank you.

[Nevo]

Abulafia, it is really annoying when you jump in in the middle of a thread and spout off with a bunch of questions that have already been addressed. Go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted. If you then have issues with with answers that have already been posted, specifically address what is still unaddressed.

Thank you.

Maybe you should go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted since you evidently haven't grasped the relevance of Abulafia's points.

[Abulafia]

Abulafia, it is really annoying when you jump in in the middle of a thread and spout off with a bunch of questions that have already been addressed. Go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted. If you then have issues with with answers that have already been posted, specifically address what is still unaddressed.

Thank you.

Maybe you should go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted since you evidently haven't grasped the relevance of Abulafia's points.

Thanks for that Nevo. I just spent ages going through this thread, which I found really interesting, and 'thought' I had caught up on all the major points mentioned. (can't please everybody!)

Abulafia

[Nevo]

I just spent ages going through this thread, which I found really interesting . . .

Same here. I couldn't find any scholars either who posited the existence of Book of Mormon-style (which is to say, New Testament-style) synagogues in ancient Israel.

One reference I consulted stated: "The exact origin of the synagogue is unknown, and scholars continue to debate whether it emerged during the Babylonian Exile or in the Hellenistic period" (Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible [2000], 1260).

Another stated: "One Jewish tradition carries the institution of the synagogue back to the Babylonian exile, but the earliest clear evidence for the existence of a synagogue dates from Egypt, from the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221 BCE)" (Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide [2004], 317).

The chapter on "Religious Institutions" in Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager's Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), contains no mention of synagogues.

The only scholar mentioned in this thread who traces the roots of the synagogue to preexilic times acknowledges that discrete synagogue structures (such as we find in the Book of Mormon) probably didn't exist until Hellenistic times:

On the basis of the data present above, it is quite evident that most of the activities that found expression in the synagogue at the end of the Second Temple period are already documented for the city-gate area in biblical times. When these functions were moved from the city gate or adjacent square to a building known as a synagogue is unknown. Presumably, it transpired sometime in the Hellenistic era, when many activities heretofore conducted at the city gate were moved into specific buildings.

-- Lee I. Levine, "The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered," Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 3 (1996): 436.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I have been busy googling as I find this subject (the origin of the synagogue) interesting. I can't find one single online reference to anyone/site/scholar who believes that the 'synagogue' (whether administrative center, place of worship, place for reading of scripture/law, or provision of meals) pre-dated the Babylonian Captivity.

Same here. I couldn't find any scholars either who posited the existence of Book of Mormon-style (which is to say, New Testament-style) synagogues in ancient Israel.

Which goes to show the inadequacies of using the web as a tool for serious scholarship. As I noted, Levine, Ancient Synagogue 22-23, notes 7-10, lists about a dozen different books and articles which make arguments for pre-exilic synagogues.

Of course no one claims that Rabbinic of New Testament-style synagogues existed in the seventh century BC. But no one argues that cathedrals existed among second century Christians either. That does not cause anyone to doubt that Christians had places of communal meeting for study, prayer and worship.

I should note that no LDS scholar of whom I'm aware claims that BOM synagogues were "New Testament-style." This is a misapprehension. BOM synagogues were BOM-style. It was a completely independent trajectory. It is simply nonsensical to insist that BOM synagogues must be similar to New Testament or Rabbinic-style synagogues. Nothing in the text of the BOM either demands or implies that.

Quite the contrary, while BOM synagogues are described as places of worship/prayer, teaching/study, and assembly, there are several unique features. Some were built "after the order of the Nehors" (Alma 21:4), implying they were somehow different from ordinary synagogues. Another used "a manner [of worship] which Alma and his brethren had never beheld," including a "Rameumptom" in the center of the synagogue (Alma 31:12, 21). Quite clearly the BOM term synagogue covers a broad range of building styles and unique practices.

[SolarPowered]

Abulafia, it is really annoying when you jump in in the middle of a thread and spout off with a bunch of questions that have already been addressed. Go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted. If you then have issues with with answers that have already been posted, specifically address what is still unaddressed.

Thank you.

Maybe you should go back and read (carefully!) what's already been posted since you evidently haven't grasped the relevance of Abulafia's points.

Thanks for that Nevo. I just spent ages going through this thread, which I found really interesting, and 'thought' I had caught up on all the major points mentioned. (can't please everybody!)

Abulafia

OK, I'll give both of you the benefit of the doubt , and suppose that I was too subtle in my previous posts.

The English dictionary definition of "synagogue" is:

syn.a.gogue also syn.a.gog (s

[Nevo]

I should note that no LDS scholar of whom I'm aware claims that BOM synagogues were "New Testament-style." This is a misapprehension. BOM synagogues were BOM-style. It was a completely independent trajectory. It is simply nonsensical to insist that BOM synagogues must be similar to New Testament or Rabbinic-style synagogues. Nothing in the text of the BOM either demands or implies that.

I don't insist that BOM synagogues must be similar to New Testament-style synagogues, but the resemblance, in my view, is striking--especially in that both are sites of missionary preaching and persecution.

[Hammer]

SYNAGOGIES where did they come from and what are they?

[Nevo]

If the Nephites built buildings for the pupose of worship or religious instruction, of whatever design and tradition or lack of tradition, a reasonable English word for a translator to use to refer to such a building is "synagogue." To require that they be the same as synagogues in the post-exilic tradition is absurd. Which makes your whole posts on the subject of when the "synagogue" tradition developed pointless.

Again you miss the point. No one is requiring that BOM synagogues "be the same as synagogues in the post-exilic tradition." One would naturally expect BOM places of worship and/or religious instruction to resemble preexilic institutions. The problem is, they don't. Preexilic Jews didn't meet in buildings constructed specifically for the purpose of religious instruction and prayer. The Book of Mormon's synagogues, which are said to be "built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13), are therefore anachronistic.

[Hammer]

If the Nephites built buildings for the pupose of worship or religious instruction, of whatever design and tradition or lack of tradition, a reasonable English word for a translator to use to refer to such a building is "synagogue." To require that they be the same as synagogues in the post-exilic tradition is absurd. Which makes your whole posts on the subject of when the "synagogue" tradition developed pointless.

Again you miss the point. No one is requiring that BOM synagogues "be the same as synagogues in the post-exilic tradition." One would naturally expect BOM places of worship and/or religious instruction to resemble preexilic institutions. The problem is, they don't. Preexilic Jews didn't meet in buildings constructed specifically for the purpose of religious instruction and prayer. The Book of Mormon's synagogues, which are said to be "built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13), are therefore anachronistic.

You need to read this link:Synagogues what are they used for

[SolarPowered]

The problem is, they don't. Preexilic Jews didn't meet in buildings constructed specifically for the purpose of religious instruction and prayer. The Book of Mormon's synagogues, which are said to be "built after the manner of the Jews" (Alma 16:13), are therefore anachronistic.

And what evidence do you offer that preexilic Jews never built any buildings to meet in? You've posted quotes from people who explain that they haven't actually seen evidence of "synagogues" in that period of time, but "I've never seen such a thing" is in no way proof of absence.

Consider:

1. The tribe of Levi was dispersed throughout Israel to perform some sort of priestly functions. They clearly were doing something of a religious nature.

2. If you are going to have a religion, those who know more about it have to teach those who know less about it.

3. Somebody has to teach the religion to the next generation.

Now, I supose that it is possible that to do these things they went out into the middle of a field of barley and sat cross-legged in a circle in the middle of the field. Generally speaking, though, people find it more convenient to meet inside of some sort of a structure. It stretches credibility past the breaking point to propose that no buildings to meet in were ever built in preexilic Israel.

[Marvelous]

Early Christians met in the homes of members. Perhaps Hebrews did the same.

There is evidence for the lack of preexilic synagogues and that is the exclusivity of the temple.

[SolarPowered]

There is evidence for the lack of preexilic synagogues and that is the exclusivity of the temple.

Call for references. Where exactly is it written in a contemporaneous record that the "exclusivity of the Temple" precluded having buildings in the remote parts of Israel in which to study the Law?

[Nevo]

And what evidence do you offer that preexilic Jews never built any buildings to meet in?

Just to clarify, I am suggesting that preexilic Jews didn't meet in "buildings constructed specifically for the purpose of religious instruction and prayer" (whether you want to call them "synagogues" or something else)--not that they "never built any buildings to meet in," which is absurd.

Obviously I can't prove a negative. However, I know of no evidence, textual or archeological, that would indicate that preexilic Jews ever met weekly to pray and study Torah in buildings constructed specifically for that purpose. Lee Levine has plausibly suggested that the city-gate area was a site of communal religious instruction in the later biblical period.

Patrick Miller notes that during the Israelite monarchy "high places" "served as geographical or regional cult centers comprised of altars for sacrifice and incense offerings and probably a room for eating a sacrificial meal. The extent to which they were open-air shrines or buildings of some sort is a matter of debate. They also would have included, in at least some instances if not regularly, stone pillars and sacred poles" (Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000], 76-77). But these preexilic places of worship are quite distinct from Book of Mormon "synagogues."

(By the way, did you know that there were no LDS meetinghouses in Kirtland or Nauvoo? Joseph Smith never built one in his lifetime, even when the number of Saints in Nauvoo swelled to more than ten thousand.)

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't insist that BOM synagogues must be similar to New Testament-style synagogues, but the resemblance, in my view, is striking--especially in that both are sites of missionary preaching and persecution.

LDS Temples are also places of preaching and persecution. Does that make them synagogues? Preaching an persecution is incidental, not intrinsic, to the nature of a synagogue.

However, I know of no evidence, textual or archeological, that would indicate that preexilic Jews ever met weekly to pray and study Torah in buildings constructed specifically for that purpose.

The antecedent question is: how would you identify a pre-exilic â??synagogueâ? from archaeology?

Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, (Continuum 2001) summarizes the archaeological data of religious buildings in pre-exilic Israel. Among the sites he mentions are:

Ai: â??cult roomâ? (Zevit 153-6)

Arad: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 156-171)

Beer Sheva: cult rooms (Zevit 171-6)

Dan: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 180-91)

Ein Gev: cult room (Zevit 201-2)

Hazor: temple (Zevit 202-5)

Jerusalem: cult room (Zevit 206)

Lachish: Temple and cult rooms (Zevit 213-28)

Makish (Zevit 218)

Tel Michal (Zevit 219)

Megiddo: cult rooms and complexes (Zevit 220-5, 226-31)

Based on archaeological evidence, there is every reason to believe that communal Israelite worship and prayer occurred in these sites. There is no reason any of these could not be related to BOM conceptions of synagogues.

Furthermore, your claim that the BOM implies that the people "met weekly to pray and study Torah" in synagogues is not attested in the text. Mos 18:25 states that the Nephites "gathered themselves together" once a week to worship, but does not say they did so in synagogues. The only explicit reference to weekly gatherings in synagogues is Alma 31:12, which describes the Zoramites, who "worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld." This behavior is explicitly condemned by Alma, who notes that people do not have to be in synagogues to worship (Alma 32:10), nor that they can only worship once a week (Alma 32:11).

Finally, there is Ps 74:8. The text laments the destruction of the Temple in vs. 4-7, then reads (NRSV):

they [the enemies = Babylonians] burned all the meeting places of God [kal mo'edey el] in the land [of Israel].

The context of this Psalm is most likely a lament for the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Its reference to other "meeting places of God" after the reforms of Josiah and before the destruction of the Temple is a clear indication that Jews meet in buildings dedicated to God other than the Temple. (On mo'ed as "meeting place" see Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon [brill, 2001], 1:557-8.) (Note the KJV translated the term as "synagogue"; assuming a KJV linguistic context for the BOM, it is quite likely that whatever buildings this term referred to is the conceptual antecedent of the BOM synagogue.)

Thus, the claim that there are no archaeological or textual references to pre-exilic Israelite religious meeting places is manifestly untrue. There is no reason to think that such places are not the prototypes for BOM synagogues.

[Uncle Dale]

Ai: “cult room” (Zevit 153-6)

Arad: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 156-171)

Beer Sheva: cult rooms (Zevit 171-6)

Dan: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 180-91)

Ein Gev: cult room (Zevit 201-2)

Hazor: temple (Zevit 202-5)

Jerusalem: cult room (Zevit 206)

Lachish: Temple and cult rooms (Zevit 213-28)

Makish (Zevit 218)

Tel Michal (Zevit 219)

Megiddo: cult rooms and complexes (Zevit 220-5, 226-31)

Based on archaeological evidence, there is every reason to believe that communal Israelite worship and prayer occurred in these sites. There is no reason any of these could not be related to BOM conceptions of synagogues. ...

Well then, it appears to me that you have so changed the meaning of the word that we all might as well

just agree with you, and then take a black marking pen and cross out the word throughout our editions

of the Book of Mormon. A sort of "when is a synagogue not a synagogue" exercise.

When? When it has no congregation of Jews -- when it has no Torah -- when it has no rabbi -- and when

it has no lox and bagels after Shabbat service.

Fine and dandy -- we just all agree not to argue any more, and move on to other things, I suppose.

But one final word: Being a member of an extended Jewish family, I have had numerous occasions to

be in synagogues. In all but the special sectarian houses of worship of certain of the Orthodox, I found

the services, sermons, liturgy, discussions, etc. to be at once very predictable and traditional, but also

very much unregulated by any higher human authority than the rabbi and the elders.

I simply cannot believe that any such democratic, unregulated, non-rabbinical "synagogues" would have

existed under the Davidic monarchy -- or even in the North, after those people broke away. My view of

the historical picture is that religion was highly regulated by priests and levites, and that the public did

not then gather for religious discussions, sermons, liturgical worship, etc. apart from those priestly leaders.

In fact, I'd hazzard the guess that such attempted gatherings would have ended in executions.

Then again, you have so changed the definition of what a "synagogue" was to Lehi, that the Shiloh Shrine

or the Arad Temple qualify as "synagogues." Oy vey!

But enough of this sort of thing.

Let's move on to [edit] Alma's prophecy to Helaman[/edit], and the anachronism of Christianity among the BCE Nephites.

Can we find such a marvelous set of come-true-predictions any where in the biblical scriptures?

No, we cannot -- and that is part of the reason that my ancestors joined the Mormons -- because the book

had so very many "plain and precious" proofs that the Israelites and Jews expected Jesus the son of Mary

to be their promised Messiah; whereas the Bible is so vague on the matter that Jews, Unitarians, Universalists,

and Elias Smith "New Lighters" were professing that the Hebrew scriptures had no such predictions.

So -- on to those pre-Mormon Mormons, the Nephite pre-Christian Christians.....

UD

[Nevo]

I don't insist that BOM synagogues must be similar to New Testament-style synagogues, but the resemblance, in my view, is striking--especially in that both are sites of missionary preaching and persecution.

LDS Temples are also places of preaching and persecution. Does that make them synagogues? Preaching and persecution is incidental, not intrinsic, to the nature of a synagogue.

But that is beside the point. What I am saying is that synagogues function in narratively similar ways in the Book of Mormon and New Testament: in both texts missionaries routinely preach in synagogues, and, in some cases, are beaten and cast out, synagogues are places of hypocrisy, etc.

However, I know of no evidence, textual or archeological, that would indicate that preexilic Jews ever met weekly to pray and study Torah in buildings constructed specifically for that purpose.

The antecedent question is: how would you identify a pre-exilic “synagogue” from archaeology?

Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel, (Continuum 2001) summarizes the archaeological data of religious buildings in pre-exilic Israel. Among the sites he mentions are:

Ai: “cult room” (Zevit 153-6)

Arad: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 156-171)

Beer Sheva: cult rooms (Zevit 171-6)

Dan: Temple and surrounding cult rooms (Zevit 180-91)

Ein Gev: cult room (Zevit 201-2)

Hazor: temple (Zevit 202-5)

Jerusalem: cult room (Zevit 206)

Lachish: Temple and cult rooms (Zevit 213-28)

Makish (Zevit 218)

Tel Michal (Zevit 219)

Megiddo: cult rooms and complexes (Zevit 220-5, 226-31)

Based on archaeological evidence, there is every reason to believe that communal Israelite worship and prayer occurred in these sites. There is no reason any of these could not be related to BOM conceptions of synagogues.

I suppose if we identify BOM "synagogues" with preexilic sanctuaries, served by a Levitical priest, where people sacrificed and burned incense and presented votive offerings, then they are no longer anachronistic. But is there anything in the text to justify such an association?

When I read about BOM synagogues I tend to think of rooms lined with benches, where people receive religious instruction (not unlike church meetinghouses, or indeed, ancient synagogues) rather than of rooms filled with altars and asherim and other cultic paraphernalia, where people offer up sacrifices to the deity. But I guess that's just me (and Uncle Dale, I see).

[Uncle Dale]

But I guess that's just me (and Uncle Dale, I see).

There is an old-fashioned LDS line of apologetics to answer all of this -- and that is the "we have not yet

looked under every rock" explanation. Maybe somewhere, at some time, under some

odd set of circumstances, a bunch of pre-exilic Judahites called themselves "Jews" and sat in synagogues

on the Sabbath and listened to the rabbi tell them about sending donations to assist the Israelis.

We have not yet looked under every rock -- so we cannot say for sure. But then again horses are really

deer and synagogues are really cultic shrines of the Davidic period. So all is well in Zion.

Now -- back to Alma's wonderful prophecy to Helaman -- which amounts to his telling his son that all that

the Nephites do (even under the explict direction of the risen Christ) will perish into nothingness.

In other words, Helaman knew his church was headed for total apostasy and extinction --------- but he

was pledged not to tell a living soul (except those who inherited his plates, I suppose).

Rather like the Messiah telling his disciples that the gates of Hell would prevail against his followers.

And Mormons really believe this to be an historical fact????

Uncle "Down the rabbit hole, again... once more into the breach, dear friends, once more...." Dale