This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“Scholars note that synagogues did not exist in their modern form before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity. The oldest known synagogue is located in Delos, Greece, and has been dated to 150 BC.”
Wikipedia
The Book of Mormon mentions synagogues eixisting among the Nephites, “built after the manner of the Jews.” But skeptics argue that no synagogues existed until after the Babylonian captivity, years after Nephi had left Jerusalem. Is this an anachronism?
No. The synagogue as a function of space existed since the days of Moses, and as we investigate spaces for worship in ancient America we see signs of Jewish style synagogues among the native Americans.
Definition Of Synagogue
The reason this question trips some people up is Antimormons cleverly poison the well by appealing to the modern definition of “synagogue.” We all have the same idea of what a synagogue is, but it is based on a modern understanding. “The synagogue on Delos is the earliest known to date, either in the Diaspora or in Palestine,” reports Wikipedia’s source. Indeed, archaeologists have not uncovered any ruins of synagogues in Palestine dating to before 150 BC. But young Joseph Smith knew little of synagogues, living in early 19th century New England. He had never seen one and didn’t know what they were for. All he would have known was what the New Testament indicated about synagogues, which was that they were a place of religious learning where Jesus and his disciples went to preach the gospel. Maybe Joseph Smith looked it up in the 1928 dictionary: “A congregation or assembly of Jews, met for the purpose of worship or the performance of religious rites.” (Webster’s Dictionary 1828)
What religious rites? The bible doesn’t really say. This dictionary definition doesn’t say anything about the building itself or even specify that it was a building at all. So, while the skeptics are working off one definition of synagogue as a building for offering Jewish rites, Joseph Smith likely considered the synagogue simply a place for general community worship. The Book of Mormon does not use the word “church” to refer to any kind of structure, and “synagogue” appears to be throughout the book what refers to any place of community worship other than the temple of Zarahemla. The Book of Mormon’s 25 mentions of ‘synagogue’ indicate it was a place for worship, preaching, and prayer. The question is, were there any such structures for worship in ancient Israel in Nephi’s time?
Synagogue: Assembly Together – Old Testament text prior to Nephi’s time indicates the people gathered as a community to perform worship. Isaiah 4:5 prophesies that one day there will be “upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night.” This means there must have been assembly dwellings in Isaiah’s time. The Hebrew word miqra translates as “assemblies” here, but it refers frequently in the Old Testament to the the weekly worship meetings–“convocations”–as proscribed in the law of Moses. Leviticus 23:4 commands the people to meet on the Sabbath day: “These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.”
The word “synagogue” in its original Greek indicates a community gathering. “It is the term used in the Septuagint to translate several Hebrew words, including camp, assembly, community, and congregation… the English word synagogue is made from two parts: the Greek prefix syn which means together, and the verb ago, which means to gather or bring together.” (John Welch, Book of Mormon Central) The word ‘synagogue therefore perfectly dscribes what we read about synagogues among the Nephites, “the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week.” (Alma 31:12) “Together” + “gather” is the very definition of synagogue.
Synagogue Dates Back To Moses
Ancient Writer Josephus Said Originated With Moses – Both the great ancient historian Josephus (30-100 A.D.) and the philosopher Philo (20 B.C. – 50 A.D.) said the synagogue structure first started with Moses (see Yer. Targ., Ex. xviii. 20 and I Chron. xvi. 39; Pesi?. 129b; Philo, “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 27; Josephus, “Contra Ap.” ii., § 17; Acts xv. 21). “By the time it had become the central institution of Judaism (no period of the history of Israel is conceivable without it), it was already regarded as of ancient origin, dating back to the time of Moses.” (Jewish Encyclopia) It is interesting that the Book of Mormon specifies a synagogue “built after the manner of the Jews.” Elsewhere, there are derivative synagogues built after the manner of Nehor and others. But the “Jewish” version was apparently what Nephi (or maybe the Mulekites) brought over from the Old World. This falls in line with how Josephus describes an institution developed by the Jews.
Started With Josiah? – Scholars cite Josiah’s edict in the 7th century B.C. as the beginnings of the synagogue. Well guess what? Josiah lived in Nephi’s time, and the “Deuteronomic Reformation of 621 B.C.” was several decades before the events in 1 Nephi. But the theory is that the first formal building was not actually built until well after this time, as rites became more formal and local with less sacrifices on altars and more scripture reading. Scholars push the actual building of synagogues to the 6th century instead of 7th B.C. But the formal synagogue building very well likely did start with the Jews as Josiah consolidated the two kingdoms under one religious practice. The question would then be how quickly. As with most alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, it is a simple case of archaeologists not finding what by all means could have been there. They have not uncovered remains of any buildings from the 7th century B.C. but that doesn’t mean nothing was there.
Archaeologists found some 6th century pottery that reads: “house of assembly at Jerusalem,” a known reference to synagogues. (see Nelson Glueck, “Ostraca from Elath,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 82 (April 1941): 7–11. Dated by William F. Albright, “Ostracon No. 6043 from Ezion-Geber,” ibid., 11. Also see Charles C. Torrey, “A Synagogue at Elath?” BASOR 84 (December 1941): 4–5) You won’t find any reference to that in Wikipedia, though. Wikipedia insists that the earliest evidence is 150 BC, contrary to this archaeological evidence.
Well, 150 B.C. was only a century before Philo’s time, and it wouldn’t be very hard for Philo to have found out from his grandparents whether there were any synagogues existing before 150 B.C. or not. A century isn’t enough time for information like that to get lost, is it? Why don’t they trust what Philo said? Once again, modern scholars scrambling for clues in the dirt millennia later know so much more than the experts who lived at the time these things were taking place! Modern archaeologists always know better, don’t they? Why do scholars so brashly dismiss the claims of ancient historians? Maybe Josephus and Philo actually knew what they were talking about!
New Form Of Synagogue After Babylon Invasion – Carrie Duncan of the University of North Carolina theorizes that the Jews would not have needed formal synagogue buildings until after the Babylonian invasion (from which Lehi fled): “Some scholars advocate a date in the 6 th century BCE, reasoning that the development of non-sacrificial religious observations by the displaced Judahite population during the Babylonian Exile would have required a new type of facility. [see Salo Wittmayer Baron, The Jewish Community: Its History and Structure to the American Revolution, v.1-3 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1942), I.59-63; Samuel Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer (Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1922), 52-66; George Foot Moore, Judaism in the first centuries of the Christian era, v.1-3 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958-1959), I.283]” (The Rhetoric of Participation: Gender and Representation in Ancient Synagogues)
Well, that’s true. The form of the synagogue would have transformed drastically to fit these new circumstances, certainly. They probably would have adapted Babylonian building methods and worship functions as well. But does that mean there were no structures for religious observation before then? They may not have even been structures, but simply places. Maybe public plazas. Forest clearings. Heck, maybe a tent? The scriptures indicate the people assembled somewhere, and the Book of Mormon does not say much about the form of the synagogue. All we know is that they were “built” and that Alma preached in them. That’s the only necessary criteria.
Sabbath Convocations & Assembly Study – Josephus said the reason for synagogues was to obey the commandment to assemble weekly for worship: “Every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it, a practice which all other legislators seem to have neglected.” A Mount Ophel synagogue inscription indicates this very purpose: “Theodotus Vettenus, priest and archisynagogos, son of the archisynagogos and grandson of the archisynagogos constructed the synagogue for the reading of the Law and the study of the commandments.”
It is interesting that the Book of Mormon indicates these same two purposes. Most references to synagogue are made in the context of preaching and studying the commandments, and we also see indication in the Book of Mormon of the weekly assembly mentioned by Josephus: “The Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship.” How would Joseph Smith have known these specific functions?
This combination of Sabbath worship and solemn feasts/assembly (mo’ed) is mentioned several times together in the Old Testament: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” (Hosea 2:11) “And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.” (Lamentations 2:6) “And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.” (Ezekiel 44:24)
Synagogue Derived From City Gate
Maybe the reason they haven’t found remains of synagogues before the Babylonian invasion is because the structure was mostly used for some other purpose. It was only used once a week, after all. It’s economical to use the building for something else the other days of the week. Maybe worship was only a small function of the early synagogue? Kind of like how our chapel building is used for various activities during week days. But keep in mind we are talking about a theocracy, so the mingling of activities could have been boundless. Carrie Elaine Duncan of Chapel Hill College reports that “a primarily civic or social purpose for synagogues seems also to fit the earliest extant evidence, both archaeological and textual, of synagogue activity.” In the first chapters of 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, Zoram supposed Laban was traveling from a meeting with “elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them.” Did this meeting of the elders of Jerusalem take place in synagogue? Was it a “feast” and that’s why Laban got drunk? Was this a civic leadership meeting?
Solomon’s Gates – Archaeologists discovered ancient gates at Megidda, Hazor, and Gezer and noticed that they followed the same floorplan. The Old Testament talks about Solomon’s campaign to build the temple and “the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer.” These are the same three cities where the similar gates were found. Considering these cities are spread throughout Israel and any similarity would have to be during a time of national unification, scholars point to remarkable consistency in construction as evidence for Solomon being the builder behind each of them.
Each gate has six chambers. In Ezekiel 40:20-21, the north gate of New Jerusalem are described as having six chambers, three on each side, exactly as archaeologists found in those cities. Verse 6 and 10 describe the east gate the same way: “And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side.” The measurement of each room is precisely given and nearly match what archaeologists found. Two 3-chambered halves with towers above, before they were eventually destroyed by Shishaq of Egypt.
At the gates of Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo, each of the city gates have been found to have “at least one chamber” of rectangular shape. The chamber is lined with stone benches (Lachish has two rows of benches). Each chamber has a single doorway and a niche for storage. The location of these chambers at the main thoroughfare for the city would have made them convenient places for economic trade, civil, and social activities. What went on there? Why so many chambers? Solomon went to a lot of effort to build them. Scholars suggest the gates were a place of commerce, trade, civil meetings, and worship.
Rameumptom – In the time period between Nephi’s departure and when synagogues were supposedly finally formalized into their own separate structure, we find Nehemiah preaching and teaching scripture to the people from the city gate: “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.” (Nehemiah 8:4)
The gate indeed was a place for the reading of commandments and preaching the gospel, which was later formalized into the synagogue structure. We read that Ezra later switches to a “pulpit of wood.” We also discover that in the preceding period of apostasy there were false priests preaching from their “high places of the gates.” “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 Beer-sheba, 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.” (Nehemiah 8:4)
Apostate priests praying from a high place to crowds of people below? What does that remind you of? “For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person. Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice… Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.” (Alma 31:13-14, 21)
Was the Zoramite synagogue of Antionum likewise a city gate? It would certainly stand to reason. Why make the effort to build a tall tower when there is already a wall you can place your stand on? And what better place to preach and pray than at the city gate where hoards of people are passing through?
Samuel The Lamanite – Who else preached and prayed from a city gate? Samuel the Lamanite climbed up on the wall and preached righteousness. “And it came to pass that they would not suffer that he should enter into the city; therefore he went and got upon the wall thereof, and stretched forth his hand and cried with a loud voice, and prophesied unto the people whatsoever things the Lord put into his heart.” (Heleman 13:4)
It always seemed weird to me that the prophet Samuel didn’t enter the city because he was not allowed to, yet he could stand on top the wall. What was there to prevent him from entering a city that he could scale the wall of? Well, he didn’t need to go any further than the wall if that was the standard place for community worship and preaching.
Nephi’s Garden – In a detailed description of Nephi’s residence at Zarahemla, we read that his personal tower for praying and preaching lay at the gate of the highway to Zarahemla’s trade market: “And behold, now it came to pass that it was upon a tower, which was in the garden of Nephi, which was by the highway which led to the chief market, which was in the city of Zarahemla; therefore, Nephi had bowed himself upon the tower which was in his garden, which tower was also near unto the garden gate by which led the highway.” (Heleman 7:10)
Multitudes gathered as Nephi loudly prayed from this tower–which sounds strange to us, but is not so strange if worship and preaching at the gate was a common practice. Here we have a direct description of a tower used for praying and worshiping next to the thoroughfare gates.
Leading scholar Donald D. Binder has pursued in depth the theory that the synagogue derived from worship services at city gates. “D. Binder (1999), argues for the beginnings of the synagogue in the city gate and traces the development via the Jerusalem temple to a form which was heavily influenced by Hellenistic architecture. He has concluded that early synagogues were extensions of the Jerusalem temple cult, and functioned as satellite temples of sorts.” (Invention of the First-Century Synagogue, Lidia D. Matassa) The people needed somewhere to perform their rites, after all, and the temple could not facilitate everyone all the time. Influences from Greece and Babylon led to a separate structure similar to the temple.
Archaeologist Lee I. Levine of Hebrew Univ. tracked this transformation and agrees that originally trade markets and religious worship shared locations at city gates [see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 28-42]. “Levine has suggested that the synagogue institution resulted not from a religious crisis, but from a change in city wall construction. Bronze and Iron Age city walls contained monumental gate complexes in which civic business was conducted. Hellenistic period walls had no such accommodation. Separate structures were therefore required to replace the city gate as the location for social and civic business.
(The Rhetoric of Participation: Gender and Representation in Ancient Synagogues, Carrie Duncan)
We see this transformation in the post-exilic book of Ruth 4:1-12, where Boaz conducted a business transaction with his next-of-kin at the city gate, with the elders assembled. Hellenistic period walls had no such accommodation. Separate structures were therefore required to replace the city gate as the location for social and civic business.
Levine has also found a continuance of architectural form in later synagogues from these early city gates [see “The nature and origin of the Palestinian synagogue Reconsidered”, Levine pp. 425-48]. As the Hebrews adopted a Hellenistic style city wall with no chambers at the gates, they simply moved the religious, civil, and economic functions to their own separate buildings. “As Levine has argued, the public synagogues functionally resemble the ancient city-gates from the Iron Age. When such gates were replaced with Hellenistic city-gates that lacked the necessary chambers to gather the council and community, Hellenistic public architecture would have made a feasible alternative. Whether the transition was this simple or not, this reconstruction adequately allows for a gradual transition to the synagogue’s public aspects.” (Synagogues in the Works of Flavius Josephus: Rhetoric, Spatiality, and First …, Andrew R. Krause) But the displacement of Lehi’s family provides a time capsule of sorts, as the ancient Americans were not introduced to Hellenistic architecture. They were introduced to other styles of architecture, and experienced their own unique circumstances which affected how their worship facilities changed over time. But we can still see traces from these gate-wall roots, as evidenced from the Book of Mormon text.
Synagogues Vs. Mayan Gates
The Etz Hayyim synagogue has been remodeled plenty of times over the years, but we can still see characteristics of a gate. The rectangular room has broad arches spanning each wall with windows filling in, as if they were originally arched walkways intersecting. A main walkway axis pierces the entire room, leading to doors on opposite ends of the room and windowed arches intersecting. A lot of these old synagogues have this kind of layout. It’s like the pathway of the city entrance proceeding through a gatehouse.
Now, look at the Mayan main gatehouse at Ek Balam in Mexico, located at the city’s entrance (the walls are now missing):
We have the same arches on each of the four walls. A quite square shape like the shape of ancient synagogues and gate chambers. The pathway into the city pierces through much like at Etz Hayyim, and leads into the city market and temple. It mimics the temple in form, but it is uniquely square shaped with four portals.
Compare the Mayan gatehouse at Labna, Mexico with the Ishtar gate in Babylon. The Ishtar gate is similar to what scholars believe Solomon’s gates looked like:
There is the main arched portal and the two towers, but notice the openings below these towers at Labna. There is a door on each side of the gateway leading to rooms. What’s in those rooms? What were they for? Looking inside the rooms, they are rectangular and even have a niche in the wall like at the gates of Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo. They very well could have served the same purpose as the six chambers in Solomon’s gates.
At Uxmal in Mexico we see the same chambers on either side of the gate arch:
by Daniel Mennerichon flickr (creative commons license)
We see the same thing at Xlapac on the Ruta Puuc route. A chamber on either side of a central arched passage through.
Importance Of Gates In Mayan Culture – The gatehouse for Mayan cities was obviously very important, and they put a lot into it–not just for defense but to facilitate commerce and for religious worship. Scholars have noticed how Mayan gatehouses visually reflect the final temple endpoint of the entrance route into a city. That’s because the entrance was to indicate the important destination point for the traveler, and that destination was the temple. But it is interesting that the gates take on a form of a mini-temple, as if they are satellite temples like synagogues.
Center Of Mayan Worship – Entrances were sacred to the Maya because they spoke to a person’s entrance into heaven, much like how we speak of “gates of heaven” today. Sacred cenotes were considered entrances to the underworld, and entrances to caves were revered for the same reason: “Stone masonry constructions are commonly found in Mayan caves, usually in the entrance.” Entrances to villages took on symbolism of heavenly gates and became centers of ceremonial worship. Their religious importance always gets overlooked due to the prevalence of temples, but to local villages they were points of worship. Consider this report from Atitlan in Guatamala (believed by many to be the Waters of Mormon): “Atitlan signifies ‘Place of Many Waters’ or ‘Hill surrounded by Water.’ The Maya Tsutuhil dominated the Lake Atitlan area and nearby towns of San Lucs Toliman and Patulul. Their ceremonial worship center was ‘Chutinamit’ (Mouth/entrance of the village) located on the north side of the entrance to Santiago Bay…” (Maya Pilgrimage: Xibalba, Maximon, and Our Galaxy, Paul John Wigowsky)
So, towns near what is believed to be the Land of Mormon happen to center their local town worship at the entrances to their villages–the gates.
Paul Wigowsky goes on to describe a Catholic church “constructed in the 1570’s by the Franciscan friars and the Tzutuhil people,” as having “near the entrance of the church… six pillars–three on each side.” Maybe that’s coincidence. He says they symbolize the “six confraternities” of Christian saints. But it’s quite a coincidence that the church built by locals who live in what some consider the Land of Mormon reflects the architecture of Solomon’s gate. Later synagogues in Palestine placed pillars in each corner of the rectangular room–pillars that have always been understood to be symbolically important because they are free-standing. It’s believed this reflects the two pillars at the entrance to Solomon’s temple. The synagogue itself is considered a kind of entrance to the temple, and the pillars are multiplied from two to four for each corner of the room. But maybe in ancient America the pillar retained the number six, for the six chambers of the gatehouse? I don’t know; that might be a stretch. But clearly, the synagogue–and Hebrew architecture’s influence on Native American architecture in general–needs to be explored in depth, because there is a lot there and I have not seen anyone even touch the subject.