Book of Mormon Synagogues: Anachronisms or Historical Verities?

I am sort of blending my research with that of a source by Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 4-5. I am throwing in a few other sources as well and indicating them as well.  

The term ἐκκλησία is a fascinating one. This word for “church” has been criticized in the Book of Mormon as being far too early and not in use yet, hence is an anachronism. This word, did not, like some other words, pass immediately and at a single step from the heathen world to the Christian Church: but here, as so often, the Septuagint supplies the link of connexion, the point of transition, the word being there prepared for its highest meaning of all. When the Alexandrian translators undertook the rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures, they found in them two constantly recurring words, namely, עדָה and קָהָל. For these they employed generally, and as their most adequate Greek equivalents, συναγωγή (synagogue) and ἐκκλησία (church). The rule which they seem to have prescribed to

themselves is as follows—to render עדה for the most part by συναγωγή (synagogue) (Exod. 12:3; Lev. 4:13; Num. 1:2, and altogether more than a hundred times), and, whatever other renderings of the word they may adopt, in no single case to render it by ἐκκλησία (church). It were to be wished that they had shown the same consistency in respect of קהל; but they have not; for while ἐκκλησία is their more frequent rendering (Deut. 18:16; Judg. 20:2; 1 Kin. 8:14, and in all some seventy times), they too often render this also by συναγωγή (Lev. 4:13; Num. 10:3; Deut. 5:22, and in all some five and twenty times), thus breaking down for the Greek reader the distinction which undoubtedly exists between the words. Our English Version has the same lack of a consistent rendering. Its two words are ‘congregation’ and ‘assembly;’ but instead of constantly assigning one to one, and one to the other, it renders עדה now by ‘congregation’ (Lev. 10:17; Num. 1:16; Josh. 9:27), and now by ‘assembly’ (Lev. 4:13); and on the other hand, קהל sometimes by ‘assembly’ (Judg. 21:8; 2 Chron. 30:23), but much oftener by ‘congregation’ (Judg. 21:5; Josh. 8:35).

There is an interesting discussion by Vitringa (De Synag. Vet. pp. 77–89) on the distinction between these two Hebrew synonyms; the result of which is summed up in the following statements: ‘Notat proprie קהל universam alicujus populi multitudinem, vinculis societatis unitam et rempublicam sive civitatem quandam constituentem, cum vocabulum עדה ex indole et vi significationis suæ tantum dicat quemcunque hominum cœtum et conventum, sive minorem sive majorem’ (p. 80). And again: ‘Συναγωγή, ut et עדה, semper significat cœtum conjunctum et congregatum, etiamsi nullo forte vinculo ligatum, sed ἡ ἐκκλησία [=קהל] designat multitudinem aliquam, quæ populum constituit, per leges et vincula inter se junctam, etsi sæpe fiat non sit coacta vel cogi possit’ (p. 88). Accepting this as a true distinction, we shall see that it was not without due reason that our Lord (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) and his Apostles claimed this, as the nobler word, to designate the new society of which He was the Founder, being as it was a society knit together by the closest spiritual bonds, and altogether independent of space.

Yet for all this we do not find the title ἐκκλησία (church) wholly withdrawn from the Jewish congregation; that too was “the Church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38); for Christian and Jewish differed only in degree, and not in kind. Nor yet do we find συναγωγή (synagogue) wholly renounced by the Church; the latest honorable use of it in the N. T., indeed the only Christian use of it there, is by that Apostle to whom it was especially given to maintain unbroken to the latest possible moment the outward bonds connecting the Synagogue and the Church, namely, by St. James (ii. 2); ἐπισυναγωγή, I may add, on two occasions is honorably used, but in a more general sense (2 Thess. 2:1; Heb. 10:25). Occasionally also in the early Fathers, in Ignatius for instance (Ep. ad Polyc. 4; for other examples see Suicer, s. v.), we find συναγωγή (synagogue) still employed as an honorable designation of the Church, or of her places of assembly. Still there were causes at work, which led the faithful to have less and less pleasure in the appropriation of this name to themselves; and in the end to leave it altogether to those, whom in the latest book of the canon the Lord had characterized for their fierce opposition to the truth even as “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 3:9; cf. John 8:4). Thus the greater fitness and dignity of the title ἐκκλησία (congregation, church) has been already noted. Add to this that the Church was ever rooting itself more predominantly in the soil of the heathen world, breaking off more entirely from its Jewish stock and stem. This of itself would have led the faithful to the letting fall of συναγωγή, a word with no such honorable history to look back on, and permanently associated with Jewish worship, and to the ever more exclusive appropriation to themselves of ἐκκλησία, so familiar already, and of so honorable a significance, in Greek ears. It is worthy of note that the Ebionites, in reality a Jewish sect, though they had found their way for a while into the Christian Church, should have acknowledged the rightfulness of this distribution of terms.

 

The Lowe, Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains at 7.20 say this - συναγωγή^c, ῆς  a building of assembly, associated with religious activity (normally a building in which Jewish worship took place and in which the Law was taught, but in Jas 2.2 a Christian assembly place)—‘synagogue’ or ‘Christian assembly place.’ τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν ‘he himself built our synagogue for us’ Luke 7.5; ἐὰν γὰρ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ translating as ‘if a man comes into your Christian assembly place beautifully dressed and with a gold ring on’ James 2.2. It is also possible to interpret συναγωγή in James 2.2 as a reference to an assembly of believers rather than to a building.

It is important to distinguish clearly between συναγωγή^c and ναός^a  or ἱερόν. There were many synagogues, but only one Temple in Jerusalem, and it is not enough to speak of synagogues merely as ‘small temples.’ It is better either to borrow a term for synagogue or employ a descriptive equivalent such as ‘places where Jewish people worshiped God’ or ‘buildings for worshiping God.’

It is also important to distinguish in translating between a term for ‘synagogue’ and for ‘church,’ whether as a reference to the congregation or to the building.

 

At 11.45 they note that a congregation of Jews—‘synagogue, congregation.’ ᾐτήσατο παῤ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρὸς τὰς συναγωγάς translating as ‘he asked for letters of introduction to the synagogues at Damascus’ Acts 9.2.

Since the borrowed term ‘synagogue’ in receptor languages so frequently refers only to a building rather than to a congregation, it may be necessary in Acts 9.2 to say ‘he asked for letters of introduction to leaders of the synagogues’ or ‘ … leaders of the congregations of Jews.’

 

Wuest’s Word Studies of the Greek New Testament simply notes that this word, synagogue, comes from agō (ἀγω) “to go” and sun “with.” Thus it refers to the act of a group of people “going with one another,” thus congregating in one place. Finally, it came to refer to the place where they congregated. The word was used to designate the buildings other than the central Jewish temple where the Jews congregated for worship.

All of this is interesting in light of what Dr. John Sorenson (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, p. 235)  has written about synagogues mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They are mentioned among both Nephites and the Lamanites under dissident Nephite influence (Alma 21: 4-5; Alma 32: 1-12; Helaman 3:9; Moroni 7:1) Would they have left ruins that might have been discovered? At first glance the very idea seems to pose a problem for the Book of Mormon. Many historians have maintained that synagogues were not known among the Jews until well after Lehi had left Palestine. Another group of experts, however, now argue that the synagogue predated Lehi's departure. They propose that when King Josiah carried out his sweeping reforms of Jewish worship in order to clean out pagan intrusions, he closed the old sanctuaries (2 Kings 23) . "The centralization of worship in Jerusalem from 621 B.C. onwards, with many Jews thereby denied a share in temple worship, must inevitably have led to the establishment of non-sacrificial places of assembly (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1971):CLIII; I. Levy, The Synagogue: Its History and Function (London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1964), pp. 7-14.) —in effect, synagogues. So at least the concept of the synagogue could well have been around for a generation by the time First Nephi begins. Later synagogues served as community centers open to any who wished to worship or speak(compare Alma 26:29)  According to the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish synagogue was normally oriented to face Jerusalem and was also located on the highest place in town and near water.( Megilla 4, 23; Berakot 11; Shabbat 1, 11.)

A synagogue was not necessarily a building; it might be only an enclosure.

Structures for seemingly sacred purposes that meet most of the Talmudic criteria existed in early Mesoamerican sites. It remains for some ambitious student to make detailed comparisons. That study should look carefully at names as well as ruins. The term synagogue is difficult to distinguish in concept from related terms used in the Book of Mormon. The "churches" set up by Alma in Zarahemla, and also the "assembly" of the Lamanites (Alma 21:16)"Alma 21 were apparently functional parallels to synagogues. Several Old Testament terms signify "congregation" or "assembly" or the meeting place for such a group, the terms overlapping in translation. One of those words has come to be translated "synagogue," but anciently words like synagogue, ekklesia, kenishta, and 'eda were translated quite freely as though they were equivalent (Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956), pp. 289-91; John A. Tvedtnes, The Church of the Old Testament (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), pp. 24-25.)

Thus, we may find that whatever distinguished a synagogue from a local church by Nephite standards was so subtle that we will be unable to tell them apart on the basis of their remains.

 

Once again, with a little historical research, we find historical verification and authenticity in the Book of Mormon and its terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Robert Boylan]

Kerry,

You might want to track down a copy of Lee Levine's *The Ancient Synagogue: the First thousand years* (2d ed.; 2005) published by Yale University Press. In the opening chapters, he discusses chambers in city gates that served as pre-exilic synagogues.

FWIW,

Robert Boylan

[Allen (Volgadon)]

There is a good amount of research written on ancient synagogues.
I would assume that synagogues, at least in some form, existed before Josiah closed down other cultic sites,because they existed hand-in-hand with the temple, even in settlements within a day's walk of Jerusalem.
Synagogues were not a purely religious institution, but were really a community centre. Beith kneset (בית כנסת) means the house of gathering. The root for gather is k-n-s (כ-נ-ס).
Church (כנסיה) shares the same root. The differences seem small, as both terms (as well as the Aramaic kenishta) are used almost interchangeably in rabbinic literature. Indeed, the proper plural form for synagogue is batei knesiyot.
Perhaps the difference lies in beith kneset meaning the place of gathering, whereas knesiyah is the gathering (or congregation) itself, though even then kneset Israel means the congregation of Israel. No less plausible an explanation is that these developed from regional variances.
Synagogues were never refered to as temples before the Reform movement, but some scholars suspect that the term beit qudsha (house of holiness) meant the synagogue.