Anachronisms Aplenty In The Bom

[charity]

For those who are e-mailing someone, saying that you are summarizing someone else's arguments and asking for a response to what you said he said, shaky ground, my friends. If I were Lee Levine, I would refuse to respond to such a request. If Levine does respond, I wouldn't take it very seriously, because of the second hand nature of the material given him to reply to.

[Abulafia]

For those who are e-mailing someone, saying that you are summarizing someone else's arguments and asking for a response to what you said he said, shaky ground, my friends. If I were Lee Levine, I would refuse to respond to such a request. If Levine does respond, I wouldn't take it very seriously, because of the second hand nature of the material given him to reply to.

Oh come now Charity. Leave it alone. Are you implying dishonesty or misrepresentation here. I have no interest in such things. All I wanted to know from the horses mouth so to speak was what Lee Levine thought of the possibility of there being synagogues in pre-exilic Israel. I also quoted him (Lee Levine) as Bill quoted him. He graciously responded concisely and clearly his position on the matter which I quoted here on the site. For him and 'most' scholars there is not an acceptance that synagogues (as he defined them see above) were around in the period that Lehi left for the New World. He also stated (I linked to the LDS scriptures quoting synagogues) that the Book of Mormon references to synagogues seemed to him to be heavily influenced by NT scripture. You can't get his opinion (and it is after all an opinion based on the state of the 'current' evidence) any clearer than that.

You might not agree with it, but there it is.

Abulafia

[Lachoneus]

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.

I am convinced that you cannot prove this anachronism in a translation. Please explain how you propose to show that the English translation "synogogue" is an anachronism.

A brief note on the apparent linguistic anachronism of Greek-derived â??synagogueâ? (Gr., sunogoge) appearing in BoM: I write â??apparent anachronismâ? because, of course, Israelites were not referring to religious gatherings or religious structures with Greek terms in 597 BCE, the last year of Lehiâ??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 = â??seventy,â? 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 (=â?to gatherâ?). Some of these instances refer to gatherings that were apparently religious in nature, many instances do not. Thus, itâ??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, itâ??s to be expected.

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.

Here is the major flaw in your argument. If "Israelites were not referring to religious gatherings or religious structures with Greek terms in 597 BCE," why do you suppose that Book of Mormon writers were referring to religious gatherings or religious structures using Greek terms? For example, you say, "Whatâ??s not expected is to find the Greek-derived â??synagogueâ? referred to by BoM writers in the New World." Now, just where do you see Book of Mormon writers using the Greek word "synagogue"? Do you have a copy of the Gold Plates? If not, then your entire argument falls apart. Just as the Septuagint is a Greek translation, so the Book of Mormon is an English translation, both of which were translated long after the original text was written. As Bill points out, this is just the specious "adieu" argument using a different word.

[cksalmon]

Do you have a copy of the Gold Plates? If not, then your entire argument falls apart. Just as the Septuagint is a Greek translation, so the Book of Mormon is an English translation, both of which were translated long after the original text was written. As Bill points out, this is just the specious "adieu" argument using a different word.

Hey Lachoneus--

I don't think the linguistic aspect of the argument is really that important or compelling. That's why I referred to it as an "apparent anochronism" and tried to bracket it off from my main response, a-like so:

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

...

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

I was just hoping to explain clearly why there was even talk of a linguistic anachronism in the first place. If one assumes the traditional LDS position that JS was divinely inspired to translate the BoM, then "synagogue" may be a perfectly good translation of whatever it is that "synagogue" refers to in the narrative context of BoM.

The antecedent question is the more interesting one, I think: namely, what does "synagogue" refer to in BoM, especially at different periods of development in BoM narrative history. That's what I'm attempting to fumble my way through.

My best to you.

CKS

[Benjamin McGuire]

Not having been around much the last few days, and this being such an interesting topic, how do I jump in?

I want to start with this comment by CK:

A brief note on the apparent linguistic anachronism of Greek-derived â??synagogueâ? (Gr., sunogoge) appearing in BoM: I write â??apparent anachronismâ? because, of course, Israelites were not referring to religious gatherings or religious structures with Greek terms in 597 BCE, the last year of Lehiâ??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).

I want to start here because it is so wrong.

I enjoyed this article a while back - for other reasons. But in it, Yadin makes the statement: "1 Samuel xvii also figures prominently in the growing scholarly literature on the pre-Alexander contact between Israelite and Greek cultures, particularly with a view to Homer." and follows it up with the statement: "pre-Alexander cultural contact between Israelite and Greek culture is uncontroversial". Yadin's article also has bibliographic notes.

This is of course besides the point of your argument, however, which is also irrelevant. The Book of Mormon isn't an Israelite text. The Book of Mormon, of course, doesn't use the Greek word in its text. Rather it uses an English word (which can be found in Webster's 1828 volume). I also note that the word 'syngagoue' was not used (within early 19th century literature) as being exclusively used of Jewish places of worship, being used byt Christians to refer to their own meeting houses, and so on. So, the rather narrow definition placed on the term may well be unfounded. This isn't to say that Joseph Smith ever referred to a Christian church as a synagogue, but rather that such a narrow definition as argued by CK is rather meaningless within the context of the Book of Mormon's production.

So now we talk about translation. CK asserts that this is an "apparent linguistic anachronism" - but he never actually attempts to answer this issue that he himself raises. Is it merely an apparent anachronism? Or is it a real anachronism? His statement is so interesting because he makes a claim regarding an urtext to the Book of Mormon. So he writes:

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.

See, what is so fascinating about this is that he speaks as if he is looking at the Gold Plates (and not the translation of the Gold Plates). The translation of the Gold Plates contains the word synagogue (reflecting perhaps English usage common in the early 19th century). But the Gold Plates certainly did not. They weren't (allegedly) written in Greek, so his reading Greek on them comes as a surprise to us also (although not nearly as great a surprise as his apparent priviledged access to the Gold Plates).

The real issue I have with these kinds of complaints is the inability on CK's part (the part of the critic) to offer up any kind of coherent discussion on how to determine when a word in the English translation reflects a specific word in the original text, and when it does not. That such arguments can be made, I will readily concede, as I myself have made such arguements. The question is whether or not this alleged anachronism represents an anachronism in the original text or is created by translation. (I also note, of course, that the same kinds of issues apply elswhere to various biblical translations, so we don't need to go very far identifiable examples of such translation created anachronisms with known historical texts). I think that this kind of method isn't an easy thing to get from a critic, because you are challenging the point of translation, and really, the whole notion of a translation and an original text serve as nothing more than theoretical props on which to hang your argument. But for those of us who accept a historical text, and a translation, these issues are not whimsical (as they may be in your case).

In many ways the whole issue of dealing with these kinds of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon text in this fashion is like putting the cart before the horse. Normally, you would first determine what kinds of "apparent anachronisms" are typical of source material issues or translation text issues long before you would start to talk about the anachronisms. There isn't much point in dissecting the question of what the synagogue means in these terms if you cannot first determine where it gets introduced. After all, if it isn't a real anachronism, but only an apparent one caused by the English translation, the relationship of the Greek origins of the word to the original text of the Gold Plates is a completely futile endeavor (from everybody's standpoint, not just yours), and cannot have any kind of impact on the question of whether or not the text is in fact a real translation or a 19th century creation. We might just as easily claim that the urtext had the equivalent of kal mo'edey el which was then translated as "synagogue" just as the King James translators did.

Which brings us to Dr. Hamblin's next point. We keep arguing about whether or not syngagogues existed in pre-exilic times, (and it is a rather long standing debate in the scholarly community reflecting many of the same issues that come up here - changes in form and function, narrowness of definition, a lack of good historical data on communal worship and education, and so on). But the critics rarely provide us with a model of what we would expect a pre-exilic synagogue to look like (if they had really existed). Nevo goes so far as to suggest:

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?

Nevo, I think, completely misunderstands some of what it going on in Israel. Most of the High Places in Israel were not maintained by the Levites, but by the non-levitical priests. Part of the uproar over the elimination of these cultic centers was in the disenfranchisement of the non-Levitical priests. CK notes:

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.

But I point out that this is a perception of the elite groups attempting to assert religious authority. Most of the High Places that were destroyed were used to worship YHWH. Befor Josiah's reform was Hezekiah's reform. And following, when the Assyrian king Sennacherib attempted to annex Israel, he first attempted to do so by delegitimizing the Israelite monarchy. What does he say (from 2 Kings 18):

Assyrian Envoy: Moreover, is it without the LORD that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. [here the envoy claims to have the blessing of YHWH]

Israelite: Then Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, and Shebnah, and Jo'ah, said to the Rab'shakeh, "Pray, speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall." [see, the Israelite does not want the common Israelites to hear the claims made by the Assyrian.]

2 Chronicles 32 records the response of the envoy as follows:

Thus says Sennach'erib king of Assyria, 'On what are you relying, that you stand siege in Jerusalem? Is not Hezeki'ah misleading you, that he may give you over to die by famine and by thirst, when he tells you, "The LORD our God will deliver us from the hand of the king of Assyria"? Has not this same Hezeki'ah taken away his high places and his altars and commanded Judah and Jerusalem, "Before one altar you shall worship, and upon it you shall burn your sacrifices"?

One of the charges that he hurls against Hezekiah is that Hezekiah has destroyed the high places of YHWH. Of course, it is a different question altogether to ascertain whether or not Lehi was of the Deuteronomist tradition, and I suggest that he (along with Jeremiah) was not a Deuteronomist or in the Deuteronomist camp. Whether or not the Deuteronomist approved of whatever proto-synagogues existed is largely, in this case, irrelevant. Which brings us back to Nevo. What does Nevo think went on in the paved courtyards or rooms attached to the central cult shrine in Hazor when it was in use by the Israelites in the 11th century?

Uncle Dale contributes on the issue of definition:

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.

Clearly, the early 19th century Christian writer that I was reading this morning, in his memoirs of his mission to China, who called his church a synagogue, had definition problems, didn't he. The problem is much like the issue of chiasmus. We can talk about chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. But the reality is that the word 'chiasmus' doesn't come along until long after the Book of Mromon is published. Does this mean that we shouldn't speak of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon (or in the Bible for that matter)? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way we can identify an ancient synagogue is by the Torah, by the Rabbi, and by the lox and bagels after Shabbat service? Who is changing the definition of the term?

And Nevo writes:

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.

And is this all that significant? We can find the same kinds of narratives in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in early Jewish literature, in late Jewish literature, even all over in early Mormon literature. We can find these themes in the chaos of the protestant and catholic struggles in Europe. So, this seems to be less a narrative feature and perhaps a more universal subtext.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

CK writes:

The antecedent question is the more interesting one, I think: namely, what does "synagogue" refer to in BoM, especially at different periods of development in BoM narrative history. That's what I'm attempting to fumble my way through.

And of course, the answer to that isn't really knowable in the sense that this thread is looking at it. If the notion of synagogue underwent consistent changes over time (as scholarship tells us that it did), why do we suggest that the Book of Mormon sense of synagogue stayed consistent for the lengthy period that it covers?

The best that we can do is to draw an idea of its functionality from the text. And suggest that at the beginning, it may have had some kind of relationship to the proto-synagogue found in Israel and Judah at the time of Lehi.

Ben

[cksalmon]

I want to start here [with my quick overview of "synagogue" as an "apparent anachronism"] because it is so wrong.

Hey Ben--

I appreciate your insight and comments. As I wrote to Lachoneus:

I don't think the linguistic aspect of the argument is really that important or compelling. That's why I referred to it as an "apparent anochronism" and tried to bracket it off from my main response.

I gratefully add your detailed thoughts to my own conviction that the linguistic argument is not that compelling.

Best to you.

CKS

[cksalmon]

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.

Hi Bill--

I was trying to be judicious in my wording, not underhanded. I've modified the misconstruable wording.

Best to you.

CKS

[Bill Hamblin]

Ben, as always, has it exactly right.

[cdowis]

>The real issue I have with these kinds of complaints is the inability on CK's part (the part of the critic) to offer up any kind of coherent discussion on how to determine when a word in the English translation reflects a specific word in the original text, and when it does not.

I have considered an example of "elephant" with "mammoth", based on the evidence that mammoth remains have been found in Mexico.

[Lachoneus]

The antecedent question is the more interesting one, I think: namely, what does "synagogue" refer to in BoM, especially at different periods of development in BoM narrative history. That's what I'm attempting to fumble my way through.

Of course, you realize that this has nothing to do with anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, which is the topic of this thread.

[cksalmon]

The antecedent question is the more interesting one, I think: namely, what does "synagogue" refer to in BoM, especially at different periods of development in BoM narrative history. That's what I'm attempting to fumble my way through.

Of course, you realize that this has nothing to do with anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, which is the topic of this thread.

Lachoneus--

No, I didn't (and don't) realize that.

Best.

CKS

[charity]

abulafia, I am not saying lying or misrepresentation. I am saying misunderstanding. I really don't like it when someone makes an effort to speak for anyone else. How many times have we seen here on the board that even in "face to face" exchanges people don't understand each other. And then we get to say, "No, that wasn't what I said, or what I meant." But when someone tells someone else what another person said, the opportunity for misunderstanding increases enormously.

[Lachoneus]

Lachoneus--

No, I didn't (and don't) realize that.

I didn't think so.

[Nevo]

Nevo goes so far as to suggest:

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?

Nevo, I think, completely misunderstands some of what it going on in Israel. Most of the High Places in Israel were not maintained by the Levites, but by the non-levitical priests. Part of the uproar over the elimination of these cultic centers was in the disenfranchisement of the non-Levitical priests.

Good grief, Ben, talk about being an offender for a word! Why don't you engage my argument instead of serving up pedantic non sequiturs?

Do you think the Book of Mormon's description of "synagogues" matches what we know about preexilic "high places"?

Which brings us back to Nevo. What does Nevo think went on in the paved courtyards or rooms attached to the central cult shrine in Hazor when it was in use by the Israelites in the 11th century?

Whatever went on there--cultic activities of some sort, I would imagine--I doubt very much that it involved a congregation sitting in a room listening to the word of God being preached to them.

[Bill Hamblin]

Whatever went on there--cultic activities of some sort, I would imagine--I doubt very much that it involved a congregation sitting in a room listening to the word of God being preached to them.

You mean cultic activities such as prayer and worship? Are you saying these never occurred in synagogues?

By the way, what cultic activity would you deduce is related to the image on the left, and that on the right of the following image?

http://pronaos.byu.edu/ATS/Image/helios.jpg

No cheating!

[Bill Hamblin]

For supplemental evidence that the "Water Gate" of CK is from Herod's Temple, see this image:

http://pronaos.byu.edu/ATS/Image/2Templeplan.jpg

(from A. Roitman, Envisioning the Temple, (Jerusalem, 2003), 74)

The Water Gate is clearly marked on center of the south (left) wall. It had nothing to do with Nehemiah's Water Gate, which was 500 years earlier, and is clearly described being on the "east" (not the south) (Neh 12:37), and is associated with processions passing numerous other gates of the city wall which is being dedicated in this passage (Neh 12:27, 27-39).

[Nevo]

Whatever went on there--cultic activities of some sort, I would imagine--I doubt very much that it involved a congregation sitting in a room listening to the word of God being preached to them.

You mean cultic activities such as prayer and worship?

Sure -- praying, sacrificing animals (or children), pouring libations, presenting votive offerings, burning incense, eating sacrificial meals, etc.

Are you saying these never occurred in synagogues?

Prayer, yes. The rest, no.

[Bill Hamblin]

Sure -- praying, sacrificing animals (or children), pouring libations, presenting votive offerings, burning incense, eating sacrificial meals, etc.

In all of this you are simply imposing Rabbinic practices on pre-Exilic practices. You seem congenitally unable to avoid doing this. At any rate, you are wrong on a number of accounts.

Communal meals were eaten the in synagogue. â??Evidence regarding meals in synagogues has accumulated over the years, and they can now be regarded as a fairly ubiquitous feature of synagogue life in late antiquity.â? (Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 369; 129-31)

Jews of Sardis were given official permission by the Greeks to offer â??prayers and sacrifices to Godâ? (Josephus, Antiquities, 14.259-261), implying they may have sacrificed at their synagogue, perhaps the Passover lamb.

Libations were symbolically enacted in the Tefillat Geshem, the prayer for rain in imitation of the Second Temple water libations. Water was also poured out in the courtyard for purifying hands and feet (Levine, 223).

Temple sacrifice was symbolically enacted through synagogue prayer (Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 222-3. Many synagogues had mosaics of temple implements and sacrifices (Levine, 207, 211, 213-9, 577). Cairo Genizah: â??Nowadays, the synagogues of Israel replace the Temple, and as long as Israel prays in them, they, in effect, replace the daily offerings and sacrificesâ? (Levine 223).

Also, you failed to explain the cultic meaning of the two mosaics. While you're at it, let us know what this mosaic means:

http://www.arssacra.org/images/apollomosaic_w260.jpg

[Nevo]

Sure -- praying, sacrificing animals (or children), pouring libations, presenting votive offerings, burning incense, eating sacrificial meals, etc.

In all of this you are simply imposing Rabbinic practices on pre-Exilic practices. You seem congenitally unable to avoid doing this. At any rate, you are wrong on a number of accounts.

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about Rabbinic practices.

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 ritual acts are performed. Quite different things really.

[Nevo]

Sure -- praying, sacrificing animals (or children), pouring libations, presenting votive offerings, burning incense, eating sacrificial meals, etc.

In all of this you are simply imposing Rabbinic practices on pre-Exilic practices. You seem congenitally unable to avoid doing this. At any rate, you are wrong on a number of accounts.

I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't said anything about Rabbinic practices.

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.

[Abulafia]

Okay, I'm imagining myself as Joseph Smith. I'm no scholar, but here I am during the 'translation' process and I'm seeing three distinct and different types of buildings for religious use. Temples, Sancturaries and Synagogues. (Helaman 3:9,14; Alma 16:13 for instance)

It seems that in Joseph's mind at least the purpose was different enough in each of those edifices that he ascertained that they should be called by three different names. Temples, Sanctuaries and synagogues.

What Lee Levine seems to be saying is that at present there is no....no evidence that synagogues as the term is understood, (and distinct from Temples and Sanctuaries) existed in the old world prior to and during the period of Lehi's departure.

That's the current state of scholarly research. At present the presence of synagogues in the Book of Mormon text are anachronistic.

That's not to say it will always stay that way. Perhaps at some time, some edifice will be found that could be construed as a synagogue, (Masada comes to my mind) but at present the evidence just isn't there.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nevo writes:

Good grief, Ben, talk about being an offender for a word! Why don't you engage my argument instead of serving up pedantic non sequiturs?

I think it is relevant and important. The moment you start talking about historical issues, it becomes important to get them right, even if it doesn't relate directly to your argument.

Nevo writes:

Do you think the Book of Mormon's description of "synagogues" matches what we know about preexilic "high places"?

I don't think it has to. The word "synagogue" occurs once in the writings of what we call the Small Plates (1 Nephi through Omni) - which presumably were written contemporary with the events that they describe. All of the rest of the material is written by the redactors Mormon and Moroni, nearly a millenium after Lehi leaves Jerusalem. Why should the "synagogue" in a text closely reflect an institution which operated a millenium earlier on the other side of the globe? If the difference in the "syngagogue" between the time of Lehi and the time of Jesus is any indicator, we would expect them to be quite different, wouldn't we?

Nevo writes:

Whatever went on there--cultic activities of some sort, I would imagine--I doubt very much that it involved a congregation sitting in a room listening to the word of God being preached to them.

The one early mention (from 2 Nephi) reads:

"Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay."

English, being what it is, introduces an ambiguity here. Is "the houses of worship" a repitition of "synagogue" or something distinctly different? Is there a congregation mentioned? Preaching? Instruction of any sort? What is actually going on here? Or are you relying on Mormon's writings in Alma and Helaman for your image of what is happening? And if so, are the hundreds of intervening years allowed to account for changes in form and function?

Ben

[Lachoneus]

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"?

[cdowis]

>English, being what it is, introduces an ambiguity here. Is "the houses of worship" a repitition of "synagogue" or something distinctly different? Is there a congregation mentioned? Preaching? Instruction of any sort? What is actually going on here? Or are you relying on Mormon's writings in Alma and Helaman for your image of what is happening? And if so, are the hundreds of intervening years allowed to account for changes in form and function?

I see several possibilities.

Mormon is quoting Alma's record and interjecting his commentary, or this is JS taking a rather interesting word in the BOM text and giving two translations, one is close to the literal word, and the other is an explanatory comment.

Finally it may be a poetic device, repetition of a central idea.