Anachronisms Aplenty In The Bom

[Abulafia]

At present the presence of synagogues in the Book of Mormon text are anachronistic.

No, it is not. Such a statement merely demonstrates a misunderstanding of what an anachronism is. An anachronism is "something located at a time when it could not have existed or occurred." Remember that we are talking about "synogogues" in the Book of Mormon, not in the Bible. As Ben points out, "Why should the "synagogue" in a text closely reflect an institution which operated a millenium earlier on the other side of the globe?" No one seems to be understanding, let alone addressing, this little problem. What is the connection between the "synagogue" in the Old World in 600-700 BC with the "synagogue" in the New World nearly a 1000 years later? Just what makes "synagogue" in the Book of Mormon "something located at a time when it could not have existed or occurred"?

I'm not talking about the term 'synagogue' Lachoneus, I'm talking about a structure that can in any meaningful way be termed as a meeting place in the sense that Joseph Smith (I presume) would have understood it, and distinct from 'sanctuary' or 'temple'. At present the presence of synagogues in the book or mormon are anachronistic in my opinion, because at present they do not fit the evidence for actually what was out there in pre-exilic Isreal. Maybe at some point that will change. I'm no expert on this, but I'll go with Levine on this one.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm not talking about the term 'synagogue' Lachoneus, I'm talking about a structure that can in any meaningful way be termed as a meeting place in the sense that Joseph Smith (I presume) would have understood it, and distinct from 'sanctuary' or 'temple'. At present the presence of synagogues in the book or mormon are anachronistic in my opinion, because at present they do not fit the evidence for actually what was out there in pre-exilic Isreal. Maybe at some point that will change. I'm no expert on this, but I'll go with Levine on this one.

I think you should actually read Levine's work before adopting his position. As I noted several times, he presents the evidence and scholars which support pre-exilic synagogues. That he does not accept this position himself does not demonstrate that there is no evidence for it. There simply is not proof, and his interpretation of the evidence leads him to the Hellenistic era theory. But, as Levine himself states:

The reasons for this variety of opinions [on the origin of the synagogue] are many. First and foremost, of course, is the sheer absence of data. With no clear-cut references at hand, the only recourse has been to speculate on the time, place and seasons for the synagogue's emergence. ... Secondly, it is not always clear what is meant by the term 'synagogue' and, consequently, what characteristics and developments ought to determine its time and place of origin. ... Thirdly, how does one define the essential nature of this institution at its beginning? ... Fourthly, how does one define the emergence of the synagogue ...? Is this to be determined by the first appearance of any of the aforementioned activities? (Levine, Ancient Synagogue 20-21)

Levine clearly recognizes all of the issues that we are raising in relationship to the BOM. The critics not only don't engage these issues. They don't even seem to understand them.

Finally, it should be noted that modern scholars are attempting to understand the synagogue as an institution that emerged in the Near East and Mediterranean world. All of their definitions are scholarly constructs are related to the nature of the later Near Eastern institution. Whatever JS meant by using the term synagogue in the BOM, he clearly did not mean the scholarly definition of synagogues used by modern scholars, because that definition didn't even exist in the time of JS. It is a twentieth century conceptualization of the nature of an ancient institution. To expect that JS's use of the term should conform to twentieth century scholarly use of the term is itself anachronistic. JS used the term in its KJV and popular early nineteenth century English meaning.

Never raised in this discussion is the Rabbinic self-definition and explanation for the synagogue. The Rabbis claim that "the miqdash me'at of Ezek. 11:16 and the ma'on ("dwelling place") of Ps. 90:1 are indeed evidence for the synagogue's existence." (Levine 21, citing Babylonian Talmud Megillah 29a). The targums likewise use the term synagogue to translate concepts in Ex 18:12, Judg 5:9, 1 Chr 16:31 and Is 1:13. Indeed Moses is said to have founded the institution of the synagogue. (Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 4, 1, 75a). These interpretations are viewed as anachronistic by scholars (Levine 21-22), but no one doubts the antiquity of the Rabbis themselves simply because their conceptualization of the idea and early history of the synagogue differs from that of modern scholars.

Another problem is, of course, that the critics have consistently failed to present a definition of a synagogue, or to explain what archaeological evidence would allow us to recognize a synagogue.

As noted earlier, Zevit presents ample archaeological evidence that there were numerous places of Israelite worship outside the Temple. (No critic has actually examined or engaged this evidence.) Furthermore, Ps 74:8 speaks of "place of meeting/assembly of God" (mo'edey el). These are obviously buildings of some sort, since they can be burned, and they are pre-exilic because they are destroyed at the same time the Temple is destroyed by the Babylonians. The term mo'ed is in the plural: there are more than one. This term is translated as synagogue by the KJV. Joseph clearly uses KJV language in his translation of the BOM. Whatever JS meant by synagogue, his use of Jacobean language indicates that he meant mo'ed. Furthermore, the term 'edah (assembly) in Hebrew is translated some 130 times as synagogue in Greek. Both moâ??ed and â??edah derive from the Hebrew root y'd, meaning â??to assemble or meetâ? (Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon, 1:557, 789.) The point of all of this is to note that Israelites clearly had religious meeting places outside the Temple in the time of Lehi. The only question is: can these be called synagogues. Using twenty-first century scholarly definitions of synagogue related to the institution found in the classical Near East, this is disputed--a minority say yes, the majority (including Levine) say no. But you cannot impose a definition on the meaning of synagogue invented after JS wrote on JS's use of the term. Stripping the concept of synagogue of all the rabbinic accretions of later times, it is clear that Israelites had religious places of meeting in the time of Lehi, and those places--whatever they were, and whether or not they conform to modern scholarly definitions--are the antecedents of the synagogue of the BOM.

I note that Nevo won't answer my questions about the illustrations I presented.

I note that CK has not engaged the issue of the Water Gate.

Bad form.

[Bill Hamblin]

You have suggested that BOM synagogues derived from Israelite cultic sites. I am saying that the descriptions of synagogues in the Book of Mormon don't fit what we know about preexilic sanctuaries: BOM synagogues are buildings where people gather to have the word of God preached to them; Israelite sanctuaries are regional cult centers where people perform ritual acts (such as those mentioned above), often with the aid of a priest. Quite different things really.

I said there were buildings outside of the Temple where Israelites met to worship. Whatever cultic activities went on in those sites were apparently ended with the reforms of Josiah around 627. However, as Ps 74:8 indicates, there continued to be Israelite mo'ed el ("religious meeting places") until the destruction of the Temple. The cultic sites were apparently purged of what the reformers believed were inappropriate cultic activities (as was the Temple itself), but this does not demonstrate they were closed, since mo'ed el other than the Temple continued to exist. Thus, the mo'ed el Nephi would have known during his entire life before exodus would be the antecedent for the term synagogue in the BOM.

Can a priest perform liturgical acts in a synagogue?

[cksalmon]

Another problem is, of course, that the critics have consistently failed to present a definition of a synagogue, or to explain what archaeological evidence would allow us to recognize a synagogue.

Hi Bill,

I really don't believe we'll ever need to worry about recognizing a synagogue in New World archaeology, but of course, you're presumably referring to Old Word synagogues here--as, in that case, we actually do have archaeological materials with which to work. It's certainly an interesting issue. I've just begun researching it.

I note that CK has not engaged the issue of the Water Gate. Bad form.

Well, Bill, since you accused me of having my facts wrong, I feel compelled to get them straight in such a way that I can (1) graciously retract what I've written or (2) modify what I've written. That requires additional research. (And my real job as a low-level state bureaucrat, during a training week, precludes that at the moment.)

Feel free to goad ("bad form," and all that), but realize it's not going to speed up my reply any, which will come when it comes.

My best to you.

CKS

Edited: Because I don't know how to spell bureaucrat.

[Abulafia]

Bill, thanks for your thoughtful responses.

I just wish that someone like Levine, an obvious expert in the field, would take a look at the Book of Mormon references to synagogues, sanctuaries and temples, and then give his opinion as to whether there is anything of note there other than they seem heavily influenced by NT scripture.

Is there any non-mormon scholar out there willing to take the Book of Mormon seriously as a historical document???

Abulafia

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm a bit puzzled, cksalmon, by your signature:

Informal Logical Fallacies - Poisoning the Well - "However, CK, who raised the issue, is an anti-Mormon, new editor of a rather infamous anti-Mormon magazine, The Evangel"â??example provided by Bill Hamblin

I've now looked up the context of Professor Hamblin's comment, which, it turns out, was made on the first page of this very thread. Professor Hamblin was responding to a post from UDale. Professor Hamblin had said that anti-Mormons were retrojecting Hellenistic and rabbinic conceptions of the synagogue into the Book of Mormon. (He seems, to me, to be correct in saying that.)

Would that fact -- if it is a fact -- then automatically make any reader who did not accept the historicity

of such mentions in the BoM an anti-Mormon?

No. I can't think of any reason why it would. However, CK, who raised the issue, is an anti-Mormon, new editor of a rather infamous anti-Mormon magazine, The Evangel.

I can't see anything in Professor Hamblin's comment that constitutes "poisoning the well."

You may or may not be aware of the origin of that term in a debate between John Henry Newman and Charles Kingsley.

The final fallacy of this sort that we will consider is known as poisoning the well. In such arguments an attempt is made to place the opponent in a position from which he or she is unable to reply. This form of the fallacy received its name from John Henry Cardinal Newman, a nineteenth-century British churchman, in one of his frequent controversies with the clergyman and novelist Charles Kingsley. During the course of their dispute, Kingsley suggested that Newman, as a Roman Catholic priest, did not place the highest value on truth. Newman protested that such an accusation made it impossible for him, or for any other Catholic, to state his case. For how could he prove to Kingsley that he had more regard for truth than for anything else if Kingsley presupposed that he did not? Kingsley had automatically ruled out anything that Newman might offer in defense. Kingsley, in other words, had poisoned the well of discourse, making it impossible for anyone to partake of it. . . . Anyone attempting to rebut these arguments would be hard pressed to do so, for anything he or she said would only seem to strengthen the accusation against the person saying it. The very attempt to reply succeeds only in placing someone in an even more impossible position. It is as if, being accused of talking too much, one cannot argue against the accusation without condemning one self; the more one talks the more one helps establish the truth of the accusation. And that is perhaps what such unfair tactics are ultimately designed to do: by discrediting in advance the only source from which evidence either for or against a particular position can arise, they seek to avoid opposition by precluding discussion. (S. M. Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 4th ed. [New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990], 195-196)

If Professor Hamblin had said that you are an anti-Mormon and that, accordingly, nothing you say can be trusted and nothing you say should receive any attention, that would have been a clear act of fallaciously poisoning the well. But Professor Hamblin, to the best of my knowledge, did no such thing. And, as a matter of fact, he has continued to participate in this discussion at a very high level, with a great deal of scholarly material that, from my perspective, has not been fully engaged.

All Professor Hamblin did was to note that you, as the editor of the notorious Evangel, are an anti-Mormon. In response, you have not denied your involvement with the notorious Evangel (which leaves me to conclude that you are, in fact, so involved), and have, in fact, cheerfully accepted the label of "anti-Mormon."

I might add that a false accusation of "poisoning the well" can itself sometimes be an act of "poisoning the well" of discourse.

[Chris Smith]

Dan,

It looks like poisoning the well to me. Especially since Bill has brought it up a half dozen times since he heard the news. But maybe he was just sharing a juicy piece of gossip about one of his friends? Either way, it's hardly commendable, and I'm surprised that a world-renowned scholar such as yourself would go out of his way to defend it.

-CK

[Daniel Peterson]

It looks like poisoning the well to me. Especially since Bill has brought it up a half dozen times since he heard the news.

Don't tell me that it just "looks like" the logically fallacy of "poisoning the well" to you. Show how it is.

A logical fallacy, by definition, is a defective argument. The specific fallacy of "poisoning the well" runs as follows:

A is an X.

X's can't be trusted.

Therefore, A can't be trusted.

Merely saying that A is an X is not an argument. It is a statement or proposition. Any statement or proposition can be used as a premise for an argument (or can be the conclusion of some argument), but it is not, in itself, an argument. And, as such, it cannot be a logical fallacy. Logic refers to the use of propositions in structured reasoning, not, except insofar as it is necessary to pursue its real task, to individual propositions.

If you can point me to a place where Professor Hamblin concludes from the fact that cksalmon is the anti-Mormon editor of the notorious Evangel that cksalmon cannot be trusted and that everything he says is therefore to be ignored or discounted, I'll be more inclined to accept your claim. (I'm not likely, by the way, to grant much weight to a subjective intuition that that's what Professor Hamblin was trying to communicate without saying it.)

[Bill Hamblin]

It looks like poisoning the well to me. Especially since Bill has brought it up a half dozen times since he heard the news. But maybe he was just sharing a juicy piece of gossip about one of his friends? Either way, it's hardly commendable, and I'm surprised that a world-renowned scholar such as yourself would go out of his way to defend it.

Dan is precisely right in his understanding of the situation. Uncle Dale and C K Salmon have both accpeted that they are anti-Mormons--that is, they are against Mormonism. This is in distinction to others, like me for example, who are pro-Mormon. The term merely designates which side of the issue one is on. Nothing more.

I'm sorry, but when the discussion degenerates, as it frequently does on FAIR, into arguing over motives, sincerity, hidden agendas, secret meanings, etc. it is time to leave. Why do I waste my time with people like this? I'm done. Bye.

[Irondukesteve]

I personally see many anachronisms in the BoM...but i LOVE it!!! hahaha...it provides some humour to the spiritual message of the Book of Mormon.

[SolarPowered]

Bill, I for one, have greated enjoyed and benefited from your participation in this discussion. I thank you for all the effort you've gone to to find references and write up what you have written up.

[Chris Smith]

Don't tell me that it just "looks like" the logically fallacy of "poisoning the well" to you. Show how it is.

No, I really don't care enough to argue about it. I was just surprised to find you taking sides in other people's personal disputes. Peace,

CK

[cksalmon]

and have, in fact, cheerfully accepted the label of "anti-Mormon."

Hi Daniel--

No, I haven't "cheerfully accepted the label." I've resignedly accepted it--per your definition in a previous thread.

Best to you.

CKS

[William Schryver]

and have, in fact, cheerfully accepted the label of "anti-Mormon."

Hi Daniel--

No, I haven't "cheerfully accepted the label." I've resignedly accepted it--per your definition in a previous thread.

Best to you.

CKS

No need to be resigned to it, CK!

Anyone can see that you're actually a Contra-Mormon.

Although I must admit that, if there is a distinction to be discerned between "anti-Mormon" and "contra-Mormon", it is lost on me.

We love you all the same.

[cksalmon]

and have, in fact, cheerfully accepted the label of "anti-Mormon."

Hi Daniel--

No, I haven't "cheerfully accepted the label." I've resignedly accepted it--per your definition in a previous thread.

Best to you.

CKS

No need to be resigned to it, CK!

Anyone can see that you're actually a Contra-Mormon.

Although I must admit that, if there is a distinction to be discerned between "anti-Mormon" and "contra-Mormon", it is lost on me.

We love you all the same.

Anti-mormons typically just stick with the pea-shooter.

Best to you.

CKS

[cksalmon]

[post deleted]

CKS

[AKS]

It looks like poisoning the well to me. Especially since Bill has brought it up a half dozen times since he heard the news.

Don't tell me that it just "looks like" the logically fallacy of "poisoning the well" to you. Show how it is.

A logical fallacy, by definition, is a defective argument. The specific fallacy of "poisoning the well" runs as follows:

A is an X.

X's can't be trusted.

Therefore, A can't be trusted.

Merely saying that A is an X is not an argument. It is a statement or proposition. Any statement or proposition can be used as a premise for an argument (or can be the conclusion of some argument), but it is not, in itself, an argument. And, as such, it cannot be a logical fallacy. Logic refers to the use of propositions in structured reasoning, not, except insofar as it is necessary to pursue its real task, to individual propositions.

If you can point me to a place where Professor Hamblin concludes from the fact that cksalmon is the anti-Mormon editor of the notorious Evangel that cksalmon cannot be trusted and that everything he says is therefore to be ignored or discounted, I'll be more inclined to accept your claim. (I'm not likely, by the way, to grant much weight to a subjective intuition that that's what Professor Hamblin was trying to communicate without saying it.)

I think its clear that bill was attempting to employ the classic implicit poisoning of the well. Certainly there was no reason to bring up ck's personal publishing activities in this case accept to devalue cksalmons arguments.