The eighth article of faith proclaims, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This statement by itself suggests that the Bible as we have it may or may not be … Continued
In the past two decades, Margaret Barker has managed a miracle: in a prodigious output of a dozen scholarly books and book chapters, as well as numerous articles and conference addresses, Barker, a Cambridge-educated independent scholar, Methodist lay preacher, and former president of the Society for Old Testament Study, has successfully shaken the very foundations of Old Testament and early Christian scholarship. Is it not obvious that the Christianity of Jesus’ day and shortly thereafter was heavily influenced by Greek culture? Is it not clear that Jesus’ teachings were a product of the Jewish culture, especially the synagogue culture, of his day? “No,” says Barker to these claims; it is neither obvious nor clear that Christianity had its origin in these influences. A careful reading of noncanonical sources such as the Enoch literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that Jesus was influenced by something much more ancient than Hellenistic or synagogue culture. He seemed to have in mind the theology and ordinances of the first Jewish temple, the temple as it had existed before the accretions of paganism and the “reforms” of King Josiah in the seventh century BCE. Indeed, if Barker’s thesis holds up to scholarly scrutiny, everyone will be forced to redefine Jesus as a restorer of a religion that had been lost rather than as an inventor of something new.
Such a reworking of centuries of scholarship will not be easy. Think of the scores of German Protestant scholars whose work constituted the academic foundation of intertestamental scholarship throughout the twentieth century and whose labors are now being called into question. Think of the millions of Christians of all stripes who have been taught to believe in a strict trinitarian monotheism—a belief Barker claims is inconsistent with both ancient Jewish religion and the religion Jesus restored. Despite these formidable obstacles, the Germans are diligently reading Barker and are finding much of value, as are the Catholics, the Russian Orthodox, and many others. At least sixty reviews of Barker’s works have already been published (including the lead review in the Times Literary Supplement of 2003), and Barker has been asked to speak at conferences and symposia in Europe, Turkey, and the United States, including at a Brigham Young University devotional in 2003 and at the Joseph Smith Conference in Washington, D.C., in 2005.
Terryl Givens has set Joseph Smith in the religious and cultural context of his time and raised many important issues. I should like to take a few of these issues and set them in another context, that of preexilic Jerusalem. I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions. I am a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament, and until some Mormon scholars made contact with me a few years ago, I would never have considered using Mormon texts and traditions as part of my work. Since that initial contact I have had many good and fruitful exchanges and have begun to look at these texts very closely. I am still, however, very much an amateur in this area. What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar: are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem in about 600 BCE? Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context, the reign of King Zedekiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi, which begins in the “first year of the reign of Zedekiah” (1 Nephi 1:4)? Zedekiah was installed as king of Jerusalem in 597 BCE.
The ancient Israelite high priest is at the center of Christian theology because Jesus is described as “the great high priest.” The Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the high priest, the Melchizedek or King of Righteousness, was the expected Messiah who would save his people and make the great atonement.
This article was presented as a public lecture at Brigham Young University on May 9, 2003. Footnotes have been added that refer to places in the writings of Margaret Barker where the topics of this lecture are discussed in greater depth and with extensive documentation. This lecture develops the themes of several of her prior works and presents the essence of her most recent book, The Great High Priest (London: T&T Clark, 2003). Further information about specific topics can be located by consulting the index of persons, places, and subjects or the index of biblical and ancient texts found at the end of that book. The English translations of the ancient texts discussed in this lecture are by the author.
In this lecture delivered at BYU on November 9, 2016, Margaret Barker weaves together several ideas to show the connection between holiness, unity, the temple, and theosis. She begins by identifying Jesus Christ as the great high priest and showing that the divine presence was located in the holy of holies within the temple or tabernacle. But objects, as well as people, could be holy. Barker also argues that since the whole temple represented creation, the divine presence beyond the veil represented the state beyond time and matter from which the visible world was formed.
Barker also discusses the angelic hosts, intentional changes to the biblical texts that affect our understanding of ancient doctrines, and the concept of unity among Jesus’s disciples signifying their participation in the divine. Finally, she addresses the idea of theosis, that humans can not only enter the divine presence, but become divine.
In his response to Margaret Barker’s November 9, 2016, lecture at BYU, Andrew C. Skinner points to the association between Jesus’s high priestly prayer in John 17 and the doctrine of theosis. Jesus’s desire that his disciples be one is ultimately a desire for them to share in divine glory. This idea was prevalent among early Greek Church Fathers and theologians. Skinner also points to the idea that John 17 is a springboard back to the temple, suggesting that “the connection between ancient temple ritual and theosis is unmistakable.” He addresses the title ‘elohim, which is a Hebrew plural form meaning gods or divine beings, citing Barker’s questions: “Was ‘elohim a plural of majesty used to indicate a singular reality, or was there a memory of plurality within the Divine, such that a male and a female were necessary to be the image of God?” Skinner also comments favorably on Barker’s claim that the Deuteronomistic editors denied “the ancient belief that the Lord was seen in human form.”
In his response to Margaret Barker’s November 9, 2016, lecture at BYU, David J. Larsen examines apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts to find evidence of prophets ascending to heaven and becoming one with the Lord. A tradition found in several ancient Jewish texts expresses the notion that humans somehow have a heavenly double or a counterpart in heaven, and when they ascend to heaven, they find themselves, or are shown themselves in vision, sitting upon the throne of God. Examples involve Enoch, Jacob, and Moses. Other accounts involve individuals who ascend to heaven and are unclear whether they are speaking with the Lord or one of his messengers. This may have a connection to the LDS idea of “divine investiture of authority.”
Stating that the temple is often regarded as a place of ascent, Daniel C. Peterson is reminded of a story from the Islamic tradition called, in Arabic, the mi’raj or isra’—the night vision or ascension of Muhammad. In this story, Muhammed is taken from some physical location by three angels, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. There, he climbs or ascends through the seven heavens into the presence of God, who is enthroned in the highest heaven. There he receives his commission as a prophet and is told things he’s commanded to teach the people.
Peterson refers to Margaret Barker’s idea of the temple officiator, the high priest as a representative of the Lord. He ties this notion to LDS temple practice, but also to “our ordinary mode of speaking in the Church when, in prayers, performatory utterances, ordinances, and talks in church,” when “we conclude in the name of Jesus Christ, as if Jesus Christ himself were there speaking or acting.” He concludes by referring to Barker’s theme of theosis, suggesting that this is something that humans can possibly attain.
The thesis of Margaret Barker’s book Temple Themes in Christian Worship is simple and straightforward: “Christian worship was modelled on temple worship.”
Three prior theses, amply developed by Barker in her earlier books, underlie this thesis. First, the second temple, begun about 535 bce by the Jews returning from Babylon, was in many ways a false temple. In Temple Theology, Barker explains that despite the reforms of Josiah—or perhaps because of “Josiah’s purge”—the “impure” second temple lacked the essential artifacts and corresponding worship patterns of Moses’ Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple. The theology of Solomon’s Temple was preempted by those whom Barker calls “Deuteronomists,” whose temple worship and theology were based on the Deuteronomic law and not on the original temple. That is why a number of Jewish groups, questioning the temple worship of the time, fled from Jerusalem.
