"Temple of Solomon" and the Book of Mormon

The Institute for Religious “Research” has launched a Web Page, “Book of Mormon Study Center.” This is a (pathetic) mirror of sorts to Book of Mormon Central. Unlike Book of Mormon Central, the IRR’s pages are, well, not informed to put it nicely. As a good friend said wrote about this Web Page, “The Institute for Religious Research: groundbreaking scholarship from the 1980s for a digital age!”

One such article is this one on the phrase, “Temple of Solomon” in the Book of Mormon. When read carefully, the author’s “arguments” dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Among other things is the claim that the Book of Mormon should have used “Temple of Yahweh” or a similar locution. However, this is an easy “argument” to respond to. On the use of “Temple of Solomon” vs. Temple of YHWH/Temple of <<cult deity>> would be due to the fact that there were, among the Nephites, other temples of YHWH. Temple of Solomon would be a valid locution to distinguish the Old World temple from that of the New World temples (which were distinguished from one another from their location such as the temple at Zarehemla [Mosiah 1:18] and temple at Bountiful [3 Nephi 11:1]). If the temples were simply designated as “temple of the Lord” or a similar locution, how could Nephi distinguish the Old World temple from those in the New World? So, not only does the article often die the death of a thousand qualifications, it shows the author lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty.

Bowman is also wrong when it comes to pre-exilic naming conventions of sanctuaries when one examines ancient textual discoveries-from a passage in letter 290 from el Amarna, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, some scholars have concluded that Bet-NIN.IB was also known by the name "Temple of Šulmán." Letter 74 of the el-Amara letters, the king of Damascus gives an order to assemble in the Temple of Šulmán (Beth-Ninurt/Beth-Shulman (House [Temple] of Shulman) While scholars debate this meaning, there is reference to Uru-salem (Jerusalem) in this text, and Roger Henry in Synchronized Chronology: Rethinking Middle East Antiquity pp.72-5 makes a good argument that the letters may have been 9th Century during the reign of Jehosaphat. If this is the case, Bowman's argument on shaky grounFurther, Letter 74 of the el-Amara letters, the king of Damascus gives an order to assemble in the Temple of Šulmán (Beth-Ninurt/Beth-Shulman (House [Temple] of Shulman). Bowman's response to this was a juvenile "LOL" when a friend, Andrew Sargent brought up this issue. But remember, it is me who is disrespectful (more Bowmanian projection, I know).

This is just another example of Bowman pretending to be informed about an issue and failing miserably. For those who have read his books and articles for any length of time will realise this is just par for the course.

If the author thinks the presence of the phrase “Temple of Solomon” is a meaningful argument against the Book of Mormon, then Heleman 9:6 is definitive proof that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text.

As I wrote in my review of Ross Anderson's Understanding the Book of Mormon, "On Not Understanding the Book of Mormon":

In Helaman 9:6 we read that the Nephite judge had been “stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy.” In Hebrew beged means “garment” or “garb” (compare Genesis 39:12–13) and “treachery.” Further, the preposition b- in Hebrew can mean “by means of.” Thus the odd wording of Helaman 9:6 may actually reflect a genuine Hebrew pun underlying the text of the Book of Mormon. Such literary evidence supporting the Book of Mormon is extensive and should not be summarily dismissed

Interestingly, Helaman 9:6 was critiqued by anti-Mormon authors, including Martin Thomas Lamb who, in his 1887 book, The Golden Bible, or, the Book of Mormon: Is it from God?, wrote the following sarcastic comment about this passage on p. 57:

A garb of secrecy is surely a formidable instrument with which to stab a man!

So, this locution is a “hit” in favour of the Book of Mormon. And unlike the “Temple of Solomon” “argument,” engages in critical thinking.

Of course, such is part-and-parcel of the majority of Evangelical Protestant approaches to the Book of Mormon.

As Carl Mosser and Paul Owen wrote in their critique of Evangelical attacks on the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon, “Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?” (which still applies today):

The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."(2) Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormon, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.(3) In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.(4) Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.


Update:

Rob Bowman has "responded" to this article. One can find it here. Here are some comments (I may responded in full). Before I begin, I am glad that Bowman did not claim this time I made up a quotation by David Bokovoy or some other source. At least that is some improvement.

This show of disrespect reflects Boylan’s general disdain for evangelicals, especially evangelicals critical of Mormonism (and is plainly expressed in the rest of his article).

Oh, I have no problem with Evangelical Protestants (some are good personal friends of mine). What I have an issue with is Evangelical Protestant theology. Admittedly, I have a low view of Robert Bowman and some of his ilk (just as I am sure he has a low view of me), but there is a difference between disliking Evangelicals and disliking Evangelical theology.

To give a parallel—both Bowman and I are former Roman Catholics. I am sure Bowman will agree with me that, for instance, Rome’s Mariology is simply false (e.g., Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption; the movement to make the fifth Marian doctrine as a dogma, etc). I hardly would accuse Bowman of disliking Catholics however.

Trying to paint me as a bigot against Protestants notwithstanding . . .

Boylan concludes his remarks on this issue as follows:

So, not only does the article often die the death of a thousand qualifications, it shows the author lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty.

This is another example of Boylan’s unfortunate penchant for engaging in character assassination. In this instance the full extent of his attempted justification for this accusation is his claim to have identified a difficulty or objection to my argument (or “argument,” with scare quotes). Let us assume for the sake of discussion just for a moment that his objection was a good one. In that case, would he have established that his opponent lacked critical thinking or intellectual honesty? Hardly. Boylan’s comment here not only presupposes that he is correct, it also presupposes a false dichotomy: One is either correct in one’s opinion or one is intellectually dishonest. These are not the only options. Intellectually honest people with good critical thinking skills nevertheless can and do make mistakes.

Readers should pursue James McGrath’s post Trinitarians Without Colons to see just one example of how Bowman has abused/misrepresented theological opponents (this time, James McGrath via Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist Bowman debated in 2010 on the Trinity). It is not a character assassination if the charges are true.

On the issue of qualifications, I would actually ask readers to read Bowman’s original piece. When it comes to possible exceptions (e.g., the temple at Arad and other issues), Bowman has to qualify his arguments (and it is more than once). My point stands.

I did not “claim that the Book of Mormon should have used ‘Temple of Yahweh’ or a similar locution.” The Book of Mormon need not have used that specific expression at 2 Nephi 5:16. What I claimed is that an ancient Israelite text would not have used an expression such as temple of Solomon. Boylan’s criticism here proceeds from a basic misrepresentation of my argument.

Bowman is being disingenuous again. Here is a quote from the article:

In ancient speech, Israelites would not have referred to their first temple in Jerusalem as “the temple of Solomon” because a temple was named for its deity, not for its mortal builder. The point can be easily confirmed in regards to the biblical practice even from the KJV. The temple in Jerusalem is called the temple of the Lord (23 times in the OT and once in the NT) and the temple of God (10 times in the NT), but never thetemple of Solomon. Similarly, a Canaanite temple was called “the temple of Dagon” (1 Chron. 10:10), because it was dedicated to the worship of Dagon. A temple in first-century Ephesus was likewise called “the temple of the great goddess Diana” (Acts 19:27). Paul refers to the human body of a Christian as “the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:19 KJV).⁶ No personal name or title is ever used in this construction in the Bible, in any ancient language.

So, apart from making an accusation that I dislike Evangelicals (an accusation of bigotry), Bowman’s response is just as pathetic as the original article.