© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
When I was a new convert, I was told by an acquaintance that my faith could not be real, because Jews were forbidden from sacrificing outside of Jerusalem, and because synagogues did not exist until after the exile. In over five years, I have not seen an answer to these claims. Thank you for addressing them here.
Pingback: Synagogue Worship and the Book of Mormon | Jews and Mormons
One would have thought the author would have considered the arguments of William J. Adams, Jr., “Synagogues in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9 (1, 2000):4-13.
Keith:
Those of us who live in our imaginations in Aotearoa are willing to admit that good things can and do come from what we like to think of as the West Island. Put another way, I am delighted to see that your fine essay is now available. Congratulations are in order.
I noticed that you cited something by Margaret Barker. One of the sea changes at the Maxwell Institute has been a growing reluctance among one or two to see value in her work. She must, I have heard, receive a full stamp of approval from hidebound scholars before we timid LDS scholars should tend to her work. One of those who has voiced this opinion is anxious to recommend N. T. (Tom) Wright’s to this point three volume (each seven hundred+ pages) series entitled Christian Origins and the Question of God (Fortress Press, 1992, 1996 and 2003). The fact is that Wright cites Barker’s work favorably at least a half a dozen times in each of these volumes.
Wright is candid about how tentative any reconstruction of the past necessarily ends up being. He operates with a remarkably sophisticated understanding of historical method. He is also willing to admit that he must be wrong on a number of important issues. He just does not know what they are. I have recently heard Barker describe her own work in similar terms. I feel that way about my own. This is one reason I am constantly making revisions or wishing I now could change something in print. In this regard I believe we are all in the same boat. Though the object of our inquiries is, in some instances, of ultimate importance, we should not take ourselves and our opinions at all seriously. And we should find it a blessing to have others demonstrate our mistakes. I suspect that those angels who are assigned to somehow silently take notes must be both annoyed and amused by our hubris. In my own case I hope (and pray) that they are even a little pleased with some of what I place on the altar.
I have heard N.T. Wright cite Margaret Barker in a classroom setting.