Amos 9 and "the booth of David"

Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:

On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name, says the LORD who does this. (NRSV)

I have discussed the use of this text in Acts 15 and its implications for ecclesiology and other issues (e.g., Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura under the section, "The Authority of the Church"). Here, I wish to focus on the term "booth of David."

The underlying Hebrew reads סֻכַּת דָּוִיד   which means a booth or tabernacle of David. Why is this interesting? Some critics have argued that the use of the phrase "Temple of Solomon" instead of "Temple of YHWH" in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism, as ancient Israelites would not have named cultic sites like temples and tabernacles after those who built them or were associated with their erection; instead, they would be named "temple of <deity>." However, this verse soundly refutes this claim. Indeed, according to Jewish sources (e.g., Sukkah 91; Yevamot 6b), the tabernacle of David is none other than the Jerusalem Temple (the "Temple of David," if you will). 

Update:

(1) A recent article provides further substantiation that Amos has a cultic (specifically, the Temple) site in view: “David’s Tent as Temple in Amos 9:11-15: Understanding the Epilogue of Amos & Considering Implications for the Unity of the Book,” Westminster Theological Journal 73.2 (Fall 2011): 363-374. One can find the summary of the article here; one can find the article on Academia.edu here. The author provides the following five reasons why one should interpret the "booth/tabernacle" as the temple and not the Davidic dynasty:

1) Etymology.  The word for ‘tent’ in Amos 9.11 is סכה (sukah), which is derived from the Akkadian word for ‘sanctuary,’ sukku.  Parallels can be found elsewhere in the OT where ‘tent’ is used to refer to the dwelling place of God in Ps 27.4-5; Ps 31.21; 42.5; Lam 2.6. This is potentially the weakest argument (since the meaning of words are dependent on context), but in light of the other arguments of the study this point is worth considering.

2) The Feast of Tabernacles Context.  The word for ‘tent’ (סכה ; sukah) is actually taken from the celebration of the Feasts of Tabernacles.  For this celebration one would construct a temporary dwelling place to occupy for the duration of the festival in order to commemorate the wilderness wanderings of Israel.  Over time this festival began to take on symbolism in association with the temple and was known as a celebration of the harvest.  Interestingly, temples in the ancient world were often viewed as places that bring fertility to the land.  Thus, when the vision of Amos 9.11-15 speaks of the rebuilding of the ‘tent of David’ alongside the images of the abundance of wine and agricultural success (Amos 9.13-14) it appears to be drawing upon the temple imagery associated with the Feast of Tabernacles.

3) The Nature of the Davidic Covenant.  Most interpreters assume that since the tent is David’s it cannot be a reference to the Temple since he didn’t build it, but rather Solomon did.  Furthermore, David is known as a famous king of Israel.  In response to this objection, it is quite clear that the Davidic Covenant itself not only promised that God would build a ‘house’ for David (his kingly Dynasty), but also that David would build a ‘house’ for God (a temple).  Similarly, Zech 6.12-14 anticipates that the coming Messiah would build the ‘temple of the Lord.’  Thus, the reference to David points to the messianic era of fulfillment and need not indicate that the ‘tent’ refers to the Kingdom.

4) The Failed Temple Cult in Amos.  The next two arguments are the most important for my understanding of the rebuilding of David’s tent.  In fact, it is because of these arguments that I suggest that the book can be read as a unity more easily than otherwise (since some critical scholars find the final verses of Amos to be too bright and cheery for his oracle of gloom).  From a close reading of Amos it is clear that he is centrally concerned with the failed cult of Israel (Am 2.6-8; 3.9-10, 14; 4.1, 4-5; 5.4-5, 21-24; 6.1; 7.9; 8.3, 4-6, 10; 9.1).  The people of Israel were living wicked lives yet were continuing to participate in the Temple rituals.  This is Amos’ most consistent critique.  In this regard it is worth reconsidering the function and purpose of Amos’ personal and autobiographical re-telling of his encounter with the Northern High Priest in Amos 7.  I contend that it is related to his central concern with the cult of Israel (rather than to merely affirm his divine calling), and the fact that Amos narrates this interaction is rather telling.  Thus, the vision of rebuilding ‘David’s tent’ in Amos 9 anticipates a re-establishment of the Temple system that has become corrupt. 

5) The Final Oracles of Judgment.  The final 3 chapters of Amos contain a sequence of 5 judgment oracles which culminate in the final scene of Amos 9.1-10. There the object of God’s judgment is the ‘altar’ (Amos 9.1).  Thus, the climax of God’s judgment concerns the faulty cultic system (likely a reference to the northern cultic site of Bethel), which strengthens my 4th point above regarding Amos’ concern with the temple cult.  Intriguingly, there is a clear corollary between the destruction of the ‘altar’ in 9.1, which leads to death in 9.2-10, and the rebuilding of ‘David’s tent’ in 9.11 which leads to life and abundance in 9.12-15.

 

(2) Rob Bowman tried to respond to Christopher Davis, a fellow LDS apologist, on Amos 9 and ancient Jewish interpretations thereof. On an LDS/Evangelical group, Bowman wrote:

Fascinating case study in cherry-picking evidence while missing the point.

First, let's assume for the sake of argument that the "sukkah of David" includes the allusions or symbolic connections to the temple discussed in the rabbi's article. This doesn't mean that "temple of Solomon" becomes a credible ancient Hebraic expression. Your argument assumes that the rabbi's argument means that "sukkah" is just a synonym here for "temple," in a one-to-one correspondence. That is not his claim and the evidence doesn't support that idea.

Second, the fact that a modern rabbi can elucidate some associations or symbolic connections between the "sukkah of David" and the temple tells us absolutely nothing about the lexical, semantic, grammatical, or idiomatic aspects of the ancient text in Amos.

Third, I have no doubt that the temple has some association with David, since both are part of the story of the Jewish people, the covenant with David and his descendants, and both are typologically related to the coming of the Messiah (as the rabbis himself noted). But these associations have nothing to do with the question of the Hebraic way of using the specific term "temple."

Fourth, the fact remains that "temple of Solomon" is chronologically anachronistic because at the time Nephi would have been writing there would have been only one Jewish or Israelite temple, as I explained in my article. Thus no one would have had any reason to refer to the temple in Jerusalem as "the temple of Solomon" since that wording would have as its clear purpose to distinguish that temple from other temples (usually, in Jewish and Christian discourse, to distinguish it from the second temple built after the Exile).

You will need to do much more to make a serious dent in the arguments I presented in my article.

Needless to say, it is Bowman who is guilty of “missing the point”; this is how Christopher responded:

//Fascinating case study in cherry-picking evidence while missing the point.//

Here Rob opens with a general dismissive accusation of cherry-picking which is unwarranted. I’ve made a rational response based on a Jewish perspective, and in my study on this point Rob makes, I’ve found no Rabbinical literature that takes his position that the temple would never be called by the name of its builder. How he claims I’ve missed this, when I have said this explicitly is just not accurate.

//First, let's assume for the sake of argument that the "sukkah of David" includes the allusions or symbolic connections to the temple discussed in the rabbi's article.//

Let’s do more than that. The Sukkah is absolutely intrinsically connected to the temple.

“Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Levites bring up.” - 1 Kings 8:2

Has Rob forgotten that this dedication of the temple is purposefully done during Sukkot, the feast of Tabernacles?

“And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem. Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. And they set the altar upon his bases; for fear was upon them because of the people of those countries: and they offered burnt offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt offerings morning and evening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required.” - Ezra 3:4

Has Rob also forgotten that the rebuilding of the altar is completed on, you guessed it, the Sukkot? But hey, let’s not get hasty and make an irresponsible connection of Sukkah to the Temple. In the Apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees, at 1 Mac 10:17-20 we have the new priest Jonathon putting on the priestly garments on Sukkah. And elsewhere in Rabbinical texts (Midrash Levitical Rabbah), Rabbi Berakiah quotes Rabbi Levi saying that the observance of Sukkah will be rewarded by God with the rebuilding of the temple and the coming of the Messiah (Lev. Rabbah 30:15). Again, let’s not get hasty making the connection of Sukkah and the temple.

//This doesn't mean that "temple of Solomon" becomes a credible ancient Hebraic expression.//

It does mean that Rabbis have not disqualified this term as a reference to the temple on the grounds that it is an anachronism. If you are going to speak for the early Israelites, you should at the very least find an echo of this argument you’ve made in Judaism. Where is this?

//Your argument assumes that the rabbi's argument means that "sukkah" is just a synonym here for "temple," in a one-to-one correspondence.//

What I’ve said is that the term “Sukkah David” is a perfectly plausible reference to the temple of Solomon by an Old Testament prophet. Thus we have a figure of speech that implements builder of the tabernacle in its title. You are exaggerating my claim that Sukkah is a synonym for “temple”, and I’m rather surprised that you would make such a clumsy attempt at a strawman like that. If a Rabbi is content with Amos referring to the temple building as the “Sukkah David”, then I am perfectly comfortable with Nephi referring to the temple in Jerusalem as “Temple Solomon”

//Second, the fact that a modern rabbi can elucidate some associations or symbolic connections between the "sukkah of David" and the temple tells us absolutely nothing about the lexical, semantic, grammatical, or idiomatic aspects of the ancient text in Amos.//

Neither did your initial article, yet you want to qualify my response at a level that your article doesn’t articulate either. This second point is really quite meaningless and irrelevant, about what articles don’t say. I don’t see why this point is valid at all.

//Third, I have no doubt that the temple has some association with David, since both are part of the story of the Jewish people, the covenant with David and his descendants, and both are typologically related to the coming of the Messiah (as the rabbis himself noted). But these associations have nothing to do with the question of the Hebraic way of using the specific term "temple."//

And this is blatant question begging. According to whom, Rob? You? That’s the point here, I’m refuting your argument, that you are now using to defend itself.

//Fourth, the fact remains that "temple of Solomon" is chronologically anachronistic because at the time Nephi would have been writing there would have been only one Jewish or Israelite temple, as I explained in my article.//

The term is used in one verse by Nephi, it is in 2 Nephi 5 and it is after he has completed his temple.

“And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.” - 2 Nephi 5.

Robert Boylan was correct. Your argument dies the death of a thousand qualifications. You didn’t even represent our own scripture accurately, claiming that at the time there would have been only one temple. This is false, as I have shown. When Nephi, according to your own words “would have been writing” there would have also been the temple that he has just built.

 One thing is clear; Bowman's novel "Temple of Solomon" argument has been shown to be complete and utter nonsense.