Anachronisms Aplenty In The Bom

[Bill Hamblin]

Every scholar of the synagogue understands that its form, function, personel, liturgy, meaning, etc. changed through time. Indeed, it continues to change as witnessed by differences between Reformed, Conservative and Orthodox synagogues. Only the critics here fail to grasp this simple, fundamental, and undeniable fact. Once it is recognized, it becomes clear that the last resort of the critics is merely to quibble.

You asked for archaeological and textual evidence. I provided it. The only response is to say: "well, that's not what I think of when I think of synagogues." Unfortunately, that is a problem with your misunderstanding the nature of the data; it is not a problem with the BOM.

[Abulafia]

With prior apologies to Solar Powered if this has already been mentioned

From Alma 16

13 And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.

I suppose the quibbling is in actually what is meant here in terms of after the manner of the Jews, which as someone else stated is anachronistic (the term Jews) in and of itself.

I was also interested in the categorisation of three different religious structures in the Book of Mormon

1. Synagogues

2. Sanctuaries

3. Temples.

I'm not sure what was meant by sanctuary and its function doesn't appear to have been explained within the text.

The function of the temple is also not explained other than it was built after the manner of Solomon but with different materials, since they weren't available in the New World, that the temple usually had a tower round about it, and people would pitch their tents in the vicinity to listen, and that there was sacred writing on the walls (sounds like Egypt) which someone was able to interpret.

What is the evidence that Temple usage in the new world (as per the Book of Mormon) ties in with pre-exilic Israel. The existence of multiple temples in and of itself also seems anachronistic?

Bill my reader for the Bodleian went out of date long ago, and I no longer have access to athens and etc, the web is the best I have got for now...thanks for your patience and candour.

[erichard]

>anachronisms a plenty in the book of Mormon

Here is a thread dedicated to your assertion, Noggin.

We are very interested.

Even though I believe in the Book of Mormon, and find it very inspiring, I have noticed this:

Ether 7:9

9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out

of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had

drawn away with him; ....

Ephraim, of course, was the son of Joseph while living in Egypt. Why would the Jaredites have this word? One possibility is that the name had been used earlier, before the Jaredites left for America. But is there any evidence for this?

Richard

[Not quite me]

>anachronisms a plenty in the book of Mormon

Here is a thread dedicated to your assertion, Noggin.

We are very interested.

Even though I believe in the Book of Mormon, and find it very inspiring, I have noticed this:

Ether 7:9

9 Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out

of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had

drawn away with him; ....

Ephraim, of course, was the son of Joseph while living in Egypt. Why would the Jaredites have this word? One possibility is that the name had been used earlier, before the Jaredites left for America. But is there any evidence for this?

Richard

One other explanation is that this is a Nephite translation/abridgment of the Jaredite record, so the redactor is using the Nephite name for the hill so as to place the Jaredites geographically for his Nephite readers.

That's what I'd argue if I were a believer, anyway.

[cksalmon]

I was preparing a response to Adams FARMS article about synagogues in BoM, with some occasional notes directed toward Bill Hamblin's adaptation and expansion of Adams's line of argument. Looks like the thread participants are ready to move on, but I'll still post it tonight sometime for whatever interest it may hold.

Bill Hamblin suggests:

There is no reason any of these could not be related to BOM conceptions of synagogues.

I think by "no reason" he probably mean something like, "there is no inherent logical contradiction." I quite agree. But I think--and I believe most will agree (perhaps even Bill himself)--that this is a fairly low bar to set. It boils down to:

"One cannot prove that any or some or all of these examples are not related to BoM conceptions of the synagogue."

Couple the logical impossibility of proving a negative proposition with the lack of any archaeological materials for BoM synagogues that might be pressed into the service of confirmation or disconfirmation, and I believe one can make any number of unfalsifiable assertions about the assumed historicity of BoM synagogues.

Of course, plausibility is a different animal. But more on that tonight.

Best to all.

CKS

[cdowis]

This discussion reminds me of the argument that the Jews would not build a temple outside of Jerusalem -- a definite anachronism in the BOM.... until one such a temple was found in Egypt. "No one writes on metal plates".... "The Jews would not write in Egyptian", etc.

"Not found, not exist" is a logical fallacy.

[Lachoneus]

Couple the logical impossibility of proving a negative proposition with the lack of any archaeological materials for BoM synagogues that might be pressed into the service of confirmation or disconfirmation, and I believe one can make any number of unfalsifiable assertions about the assumed historicity of BoM synagogues.

Are you saying that the existance of synagogues in the Book of Mormon is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore not an actual anachronism?

[cdowis]

>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).

When you read about horses in the BOM, do you think of men on horseback, riding into combat.

When you read chariots, do you think of Ben Hur.

When you read warriers with armor and swords, do you think of medaeval knights at the Round Table (Camelot.....)

I think you are intelligent enough to get my point. It is a difficult thing to visualize with TV and modern books affecting our vision. Indeed, it would be a strong point against the BOM if we did indeed find Ben Hur and medaeval knights in the BOM text. That would indeed be an anachronism.

[Not quite me]

When you read about horses in the BOM, do you think of men riding horses into combat.

When you read chariots, do you think of Ben Hur

No, I think of men carrying ceremonial animals on platforms.

[Jaybear]

>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).

When you read about horses in the BOM, do you think of men riding horses into combat.

When you read chariots, do you think of Ben Hur

When you read warriers with armor and swords, do you think of medaeval knights at the Round Table (Camelot.....)

I think you are intelligent enough to get my point.

I think I get it.

You are trying to point out the fact that the BOM was translated into english for the benefit of those living in America, 1830, which predated hollywood's depiction of Ben Hur, and knights of the round table.

You are suggesting that to better understand what was meant by the terms at issue, we have to ourselves in the mindset of an American circa 1830.

Is that right?

[cdowis]

>You are suggesting that to better understand what was meant by the terms at issue, we have to ourselves in the mindset of an American circa 1830.

I am suggesting that you use the mindset of the culture and the individuals who wrote the BOM text.

I can certain see where JS's translation was colored by his own culture, and we will see that in his translation.

[Not quite me]

>You are suggesting that to better understand what was meant by the terms at issue, we have to ourselves in the mindset of an American circa 1830.

I am suggesting that you use the mindset of the culture and the individuals who wrote the BOM text.

Which would involve putting ourselves in "the mindset of an American circa 1830."

[cdowis]

You are trying to be cute, and I won't bite.

[Not quite me]

You are trying to be cute, and I won't bite.

No, I am already cute.

Seriously, which mindset should we be looking at? A Mesoamerican Olmec/Maya group? Middle Eastern Semitic wanderers, or some mixture of all of these?

[cksalmon]

Couple the logical impossibility of proving a negative proposition with the lack of any archaeological materials for BoM synagogues that might be pressed into the service of confirmation or disconfirmation, and I believe one can make any number of unfalsifiable assertions about the assumed historicity of BoM synagogues.

Are you saying that the existance of synagogues in the Book of Mormon is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore not an actual anachronism?

Hey Lachoneus--

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can make an unfalsifiable assertion about nearly anything. All that's required is that proposition not be analytically false. Unfalsifiability doesn't make a given proposition true, or even plausible.

I'm convinced that synagogues in the BoM are anachronistic and can be shown to be so. What Bill, finally, seems to be arguing is that one cannot prove that BoM synagogues (which are not available for inspection) are not related to some proposed proto-synagogue-esque structures (which may or may not be the precursor to later, post-Exillic synagogues) in late seventh century Israel.

Or, as he put it:

There is no reason any of these could not be related to BOM conceptions of synagogues.

And, of course, he's right. You can't prove a negative.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

What word would you use to describe a place of worship and learning used by diaspora jews?

That's just the point... we are not talking about those people, but about their ancestors, the Israelites

of Judah. I gave a possible alternative word: "schools," though more in the sense of a "school of fish"

than of a structure called a "school."

UD

Supposing you translated the plates, and the word currently translated as synogoug, you translated to "school", fine. The anti's would still have a field day with it. School of what? Couldn't you also have translated it as clique? The anti's would say, "Joe Smith thought ancient people went to log cabins were a school marm youde teach them the ABC's." Besides, synouguage is a far more precise and descriptive word.

syn

[cdowis]

If I am reading about Ghengis Khan and the Huns, should I use Julius Caesar's Gaellic War and the Roman model to understand their method of warfare?

Ask your mommy. She will know the answer.

[Not quite me]

If I am reading about Ghengis Khan and the Huns, should I use Julius Caesar's Gaellic War and the Roman model to understand their method of warfare?

Ask your mommy. She will know the answer.

Well, it would be really nice if we knew who we were reading about, wouldn't it? What people seem to be attempting is to find parallels in the known world with a text that really has no setting in the known world once it leaves the Middle East. Can we even say what we expect to find in the Book of Mormon? Middle Eastern parallels? Mesoamerican parallels? Both?

[Abulafia]

Okay, since I don't have access to Lee Levine's work on the synagogue, I took the trouble to email him, and he very graciously responded to my queries.

Basically here is what he says

There is no evidence for the existence of synagogues in the First Temple

>period,

>if what we mean by synagogues is a communal building with non-sacrificial

>worship (which is the usual definition)................most scholars today have

>abandoned the once-accepted theories of the 7th-5th centuries (including

>myself) and date the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early

>Roman

>periods.

>As for the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure what the author had in mind, but it

>seems to me that the description is heavily influened by the New Testament

>Jesus stories.

Abulafia

[Bill Hamblin]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can make an unfalsifiable assertion about nearly anything. All that's required is that proposition not be analytically false. Unfalsifiability doesn't make a given proposition true, or even plausible.

I'm convinced that synagogues in the BoM are anachronistic and can be shown to be so. What Bill, finally, seems to be arguing is that one cannot prove that BoM synagogues (which are not available for inspection) are not related to some proposed proto-synagogue-esque structures (which may or may not be the precursor to later, post-Exillic synagogues) in late seventh century Israel.

You misunderstand and misrepresent my position.

1- I have provided reference to numerous non-Mormon scholars, acknowledged experts on the history of the synagogue, who believe pre-exilic synagogues existed. These are serious mainstream scholars, whose views, although not universally held, are taken seriously by all scholars of the synagogue. It is a perfectly justifiable scholarly position to maintain that pre-exilic synagogues existed.

2- I have provided reference to a number of Israeli archaeological sites which show there were pre-exilic Jewish buildings dedicated to religious observance.

3- I have provided Psalm 74:8, which clearly shows the Jews had pre-exilic "places of assembly of God" outside the Temple.

4- I have demonstrated that the synagogue as described in the BOM has unique features, representing an independent trajectory of form, purpose, etc.

5- I have noted that it is quite clear that the "form, function, personnel, liturgy, meaning, etc. changed through time." (See Levine, Ancient Synagogue (2000), and S. Fine, This Holy Place, (1997))

6- I have pointed out that it is anachronistic to insist that the BOM synagogue must be understood as having the same characteristics as Rabbinic synagogues. Critics have given no reason to make the connection beyond the fact that they think BOM synagogues seem similar in their preconceptions to New Testament synagogues.

7- I have noted that the essence of the argument of the anti-Mormons is quibbling over definition of what is a synagogue. That is to say, they argue about what word we should use rather than the characteristics of the thing described, no matter what word one uses to indicate that thing. Synagogue simply means "assembly." It can refer either to the place of assembly, or the people who assemble. The Hebrew term is beit ha-keneset ("house of meeting"). (Note the term in Israeli Hebrew is used for their parliament, the Keneset.) For the BOM to have synagogues all that is required is that they have buildings used for religious meetings.

8- It has been noted that, since the BOM is a translation into English, the early 19C American English word synagogue, describing a Jewish meeting house, is a reasonable term to translate the BOM concept of Jewish meeting houses, whatever their specific characteristics.

In response, none of the critics have actually disputed any of this data. Indeed, the critics have not provided a clear coherent definition of synagogue (which can't be done, since the nature and meaning of the term changed through time), nor have they provided a rationale for how one would identify a synagogue through archaeology alone.

[Bill Hamblin]

Okay, since I don't have access to Lee Levine's work on the synagogue, I took the trouble to email him, and he very graciously responded to my queries.

I should note that I didn't say Levine himself believed in pre-exilic synagogues; rather I noted his book provides references to those scholars who argue for pre-exilic synagogues.

[cksalmon]

Okay, since I don't have access to Lee Levine's work on the synagogue, I took the trouble to email him, and he very graciously responded to my queries.

Basically here is what he says

There is no evidence for the existence of synagogues in the First Temple

>period,

>if what we mean by synagogues is a communal building with non-sacrificial

>worship (which is the usual definition)................most scholars today have

>abandoned the once-accepted theories of the 7th-5th centuries (including

>myself) and date the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early

>Roman

>periods.

>As for the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure what the author had in mind, but it

>seems to me that the description is heavily influened by the New Testament

>Jesus stories.

Abulafia

Abulafia--

I haven't received an email back from Levine yet. No fair. Basically, I included my summarization of Bill's argument and Bill's response to me that, in fact, it was not he who was making the argument I summarized, but leading scholars in the field. I asked him to comment on this. If I receive an email back from Levine, I'll post my query as well as his response.

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

A brief review of "Synagogues in the Book of Mormon" by William J. Adams Jr., Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2000.

Adams suggests at the outset,

An important resource that may help us understand what the Book of Mormon means by the word synagogue is the body of research on biblical synagogues. This is especially true of research related to the years prior to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, which began in 586 BC, since this is the time period when Lehi left Jerusalem[.]

Note that Lehi apparently left Jerusalem in 597 BCE, so we’ll confine our discussion to that date and before.

He next lays out his working assumption:

[W]e would expect, therefore, that the nature of biblical synagogues before the captivity would have greatly influenced the concept of the synagogue that Lehi and his family took with them to the New World.

This seems like a reasonable, even inevitable, assumption. We’re primarily interested in the concept of synagogues known to Lehi and company in pre-Exilic Israel. Even more specifically, we’ll focus on what we can expect Lehi to have known about synagogues by the year 597 BCE, the first year of King Zedekiah’s reign (per Thiele, Albright, and Galil), and the year of Lehi’s exodus to the New World (1 Nephi 1:4).

----------------

A brief note on the apparent linguistic anachronism of Greek-derived “synagogue” (Gr., sunogoge) appearing in BoM: I write “apparent anachronism” because, of course, Israelites were not referring to religious gatherings or religious structures with Greek terms in 597 BCE, the last year of Lehi’s tenure in Israel. Israel had very little contact with Greek culture before Alexander marched through Palestine (≈332 BCE) virtually unopposed (with the notable exception of Gaza, which was razed to the ground). See here.

The Septuagint (or, just LXX = “seventy,” for the reported number of translators who worked on it) was a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew OT that was translated in stages between ≈300 and ≈200 BCE. LXX renders various Hebrew words with some form of (Gr.) sunogogein (=”to gather”). Some of these instances refer to gatherings that were apparently religious in nature, many instances do not. Thus, it’s not at all strange to find LXX translators, working between ≈300 and ≈200 BCE, rendering comparable Hebrew terms with some form of synagogein. Rather, it’s to be expected.

What’s not expected is to find the Greek-derived “synagogue” referred to by BoM writers in the New World, as Lehi left Jerusalem ≈265 years before Alexander happened on the scene and at least 297 years before work on LXX commenced.

-----------------

Adams breaks the history of the synagogue down into four time periods, but we’ll just concentrate on the earliest—the one germane to this discussion:

1. the centuries just before Lehi and the Babylonian captivity of the Jews from Jerusalem at about 586 BC

Again, we’ll need to tweak his figure just slightly and cap the relevant period at 597 BCE, when Lehi left Jerusalem.

Adams refers to the work of Lee I. Levine to support his contention that Lehi knew about synagogues.

Lee I. Levine, a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo.

Adams then describes the relevant features of the city gate proto-synagogues:

1. at least one chamber (which is nearly square) lined with stone benches around the interior walls (the benched chamber at Lachish has two tiers of benches),

2. a single doorway, and

3. where there is enough of the original wall left to determine it, a niche.

Adams's opinion: I suggest that these niches were used for storing special ritual items, perhaps even sacred scrolls.

He then presents a graphic of a floor plan for a late fourth or early fifth century AD (≈520 - ≈480 BCE?) synagogue at Meroth. This needn’t detain us overly long, as this example postdates Lehi’s exodus by ≈77 years and, much more importantly, the destruction of Jerusalem by ≈66 years.

Referring again to Levine:

Levine concludes that since later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers, these chambers may well have been the original synagogues. [Note that, per Adams’s presentation, we’re in the realm of possibilities here, not known actualities]

More importantly, Abulafia reports that he has been in communication with Dr. Levine. He quotes Dr. Levine as follows:

There is no evidence for the existence of synagogues in the First Temple

>period,

>if what we mean by synagogues is a communal building with non-sacrificial

>worship (which is the usual definition)................most scholars today have

>abandoned the once-accepted theories of the 7th-5th centuries (including

>myself) and date the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early

>Roman

>periods.

>As for the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure what the author had in mind, but it

>seems to me that the description is heavily influened by the New Testament

>Jesus stories.

If this response accurately reflects Levine’s position (that is, if Abulafia is not presenting a bald-faced lie for our communal consumption—no offense, Abulafia), then Levine, “a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue” (as Adams rightly has it), no longer believes in the pre-Exilic synagogue (=”a communal building with non-sacrificial worship (which is the usual definition”).

In other words, the expert Adams adduces in support of his position may not be the best source to quote. Levine apparently dates “the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early Roman periods”—and not the period between Josiah’s reforms in ≈621 BCE and Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem in 597 BCE.

This misstep may have occurred simply because Adams pressed a bit too hard on Levine’s extant work. (I haven’t yet received a response back from Levine to my own queries anent the subject.) More on that if and when I hear back from Levine. (I’m also in communication with a former archaeology professor who studied under Dever at Arizona and has been on numerous digs in Israel. I’ll keep you posted.)

Adams adduces two biblical passages to lend support to his argument. Both of them, as evidence for his position, are seriously flawed. I detailed my objections to both of Adams biblical references in an earlier post here.

To expand on my critique above, Adams first reference, 2 Kings 23.8, details some of King Josiah’s reforms (≈621 BCE). Adams uses this as a biblical reference to religious activity centered at a city gate. The relevant passage reads:

And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man's left hand at the gate of the city[.]

Here we see Josiah reigning in illicit worship activities. The “high places” at the gate (though in a difficult passage) apparently refers to a place where sacrifices were made, and so it seems likely that it contained an altar ("The High Places of the Gates" in 2 Kings XXIII 8, J. A. Emerton, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 44, October, 1994), p. 455). Clearly, the Deuteronomists disapproved, along with Josiah, of the idea of offering sacrifices apart from the Temple and so this particular shrine was destroyed. While this is evidence of illicit non-Temple worship, it wouldn’t appear to count as evidence of non-sacrificial worship in a dedicated and approved structure (i.e., a synagogue, or proto-synagogue) as Adams seems to count it.

His second reference is to Nehemiah 8:1:

And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

The problem here is that the Water Gate was not a city gate in the time of Nehemiah. In fact, it was a south-facing Temple Mount gate.

See graphic below:

So, again, this passage does not entail what Adams seems to think it does: i.e., that non-sacrificial “synagogue”-like activities occurring at a city gate are depicted here. This was a Temple Mount gate (one of the most important, as above it was the mikvah (=”ritual bath,” employed by the High Priest on the day of Yom Kippur). This doesn’t support Adams contention that this biblical passage is evidence for “synagogue”-like activities at a city gate. This wasn’t a city gate.

Adams continues:

If Levine is correct, then, before the captivity, a town's or city's social activities centered around the city gate, and it seems reasonable that these social activities included Sabbath worship in a chamber of the gate that resembled later synagogues and functioned similarly.

There is a great likelihood that lots of city activities centered around city gates. But, one must wonder, “if Levine is correct” (and Levine dates "the emergence of the synagogue to the Hellenistic-early Roman periods”), why attempt to use Levine’s research to argue that these biblical examples are indicative of synagogue-like activity at city gates? The passages do not seem to indicate anything of the sort.

Bill Hamblin has adapted and expanded this basic FARMS argument further, and a more pointed review of his contributions will be forthcoming. He has "stated it quite unequivocally" (his words) that he, himself, never argued that Levine believes in pre-Exilic synagogues, but merely that Levine points to other scholars that do. That is a point that needs to be addressed. But the FARMS contribution by Adams clearly relies on Levine’s expertise and attributes to him the claim that synagogues developed in the late seventh century (which fits in with Bill’s claim that “A dozen of the leading scholars of this history of the synagogue and early Judaism are arguing this” [=”it was already an established and common practice for the Israelites to build synagogues for worship away from the Temple” in 597 BCE, when Lehi left Jerusalem]).

More to come.

Best to all.

CKS

Edited: links cleaned up.

[Uncle Dale]

Clearly, the Deuteronomists disapproved, along with Josiah, of the idea of offering sacrifices apart from the Temple and so this particular shrine was destroyed....

Here is an interesting companion piece, from the Deuteronomists' history:

1 And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside Ebenezer: and the Philistines pitched in Aphek.

2 And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel: and when they joined battle, Israel was smitten before the Philistines: and they slew of the army in the field about four thousand men.

3 And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the LORD smitten us to day before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies.

4 So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.

5 And when the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang again.

6 And when the Philistines heard the noise of the shout, they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the LORD was come into the camp.

7 And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.

8 Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.

9 Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you: quit yourselves like men, and fight.

10 And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man into his tent: and there was a very great slaughter; for there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen.

11 And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain.

12 And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head.

13 And when he came, lo, Eli sat upon a seat by the wayside watching: for his heart trembled for the ark of God. And when the man came into the city, and told it, all the city cried out.

14 And when Eli heard the noise of the crying, he said, What meaneth the noise of this tumult? And the man came in hastily, and told Eli.

15 Now Eli was ninety and eight years old; and his eyes were dim, that he could not see.

16 And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to day out of the army. And he said, What is there done, my son?

17 And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a great slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken.

18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.

19 And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was with child, near to be delivered: and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.

20 And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast born a son. But she answered not, neither did she regard it.

21 And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband.

22 And she said, The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.

If you look into biblical commentaries, for information re: "Eli sat upon a seat by the wayside," you will

run into the city-gate shrine traditions once again.

The loss of the Ark was a terrible tragedy, but the writers of Samuel handle the story in interesting

ways -- showing subtle, and sometimes not so subtle condemnation of Israelite culture, leadership and

certain ancient religious practices.

There may be a linkage here with the ultimate disappearance of the Ark (which Deuteronomists do not

seem to have much regretted) and the ultimate disappearance of city-gate shrines and priests.

None of which has much to do with the preaching inside of Nephite "synogogues" in ancient America.

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

Whatâ??s not expected is to find the Greek-derived â??synagogueâ? referred to by BoM writers in the New World, as Lehi left Jerusalem ≈265 years before Alexander happened on the scene and at least 297 years before work on LXX commenced

I hope this is not going to turn into an adieu-style argument. In the early 19th century synagogue is an English word.

Clearly, the Deuteronomists disapproved, along with Josiah, of the idea of offering sacrifices apart from the Temple and so this particular shrine was destroyed. While this is evidence of illicit non-Temple worship, it wouldnâ??t appear to count as evidence of non-sacrificial worship in a dedicated and approved structure (i.e., a synagogue, or proto-synagogue) as Adams seems to count it.

The fact that certain religious activities conducted in the gate shrines were considered illicit does not demonstrate that gate-shrines themselves were viewed as illicit. Remember that Josiah purged a wide array of cultic objects and practices from the Jerusalem Temple at precisely the same time (2 Kgs 23:4-7).

He [Hamblin] has suggested that he, himself, never argued that Levine believes in pre-Exilic synagogues, but merely that Levine points to other scholars that do.

I didnâ??t â??suggestâ? such a thing. I stated it quite unequivocally. Could you show me where I ever said Levine believes in pre-Exilic synagogues? I cited Levine only because his Ancient Synagogue provides an overview of all the different theories of the origin of the Synagogue. He summarizes the arguments of those who favor of the pre-Exilic synagogue, and provides full bibliographic references to their studies. It is a convenient and readily available source. It is not my fault if you didnâ??t bother to actually read Levine or the references he cites.

What Adams fails to realize (or fails to acknowledge) is that the Water Gate (Shaar Hamayim) was a south-facing Temple Mount Gate, above which was the ritual bathing area (mikvah) used by the High Priest once per year on Yom Kippur.

â?¦

So, again, this passage does not entail what Adams seems to think it does: i.e., that non-sacrificial â??synagogueâ?-like activities occurring at a city gate are depicted here. This was a Temple Mount gate (one of the most important, as above it was the mikvah (=â?ritual bath,â? employed by the High Priest on the day of Yom Kippur). This doesnâ??t support Adams contention that this biblical passage is evidence for â??synagogueâ?-like activities at a city gate. This wasnâ??t a city gate.

Call for reference.

I really shouldnâ??t do this. It would be much more amusing to wait until youâ??ve published this argument in the Evangel. But, despite the fact that you edit an anti-Mormon magazine, you seem like a nice guy, so Iâ??ll try to be helpful.

You really need to look a map of Nehemiahâ??s Jerusalem published AFTER 1950. See Bahatâ??s Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem (1990), p. 36, which shows the Water Gate south of the Temple Mount on the old walls of the City of David on modern Silwan village.

You are obviously confusing the Water Gate of Herodâ??s Temple, as described in the Mishnah (Shekalim 6.3, Sukkah 4.9, Middot 2.6), with the Water Gate of Jerusalem in Nehemiahâ??s time. The two are NOT the same.