Plain and Precious Things Restored: Why Margaret Barker Matters

Plain and Precious Things Restored: Spiritual Blindness

Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and Josiah’s Reform

Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and Wisdom

Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and the Queen of Heaven

Plain and Precious Things Restored: Jesus and the Temple Tradition

Margaret Barker’s Understanding of Jesus Christ

Margaret Barker on Christmas: The Original Story

The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi’s World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker

Nephi, Wisdom, and the Deuteronomist Reform

Jacob’s Connections to First Temple Traditions

The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament

A Response to Paul Owen’s Comments on Margaret Barker

The complete text of Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies

—————-

For a complete set of links to Kevin Christensen’s articles on Margaret Barker as well as related papers from other LDS authors, plus links to .PDF files, please see http://www.thinlyveiled.com/kchristensen.htm.

The Sunday School curriculum calls this lesson “Come to the House of the Lord.” This is an appropriate title for this block of scripture, as the narrative here relates how kings Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah cleansed the Temple of Jerusalem of all the alleged idolatrous paraphernalia and doctrines that were introduced to it during the reigns of previous kings.  As a result, these are celebrated (while most kings are routinely condemned) in the biblical histories as two of the great and “godly” kings, being compared to King David in righteousness (2 Kgs. 22:2; 2 Chr. 29:2; note that 2 Chr. 28:1 has a more negative opinion of David, comparing him to the wicked King Ahaz).

As these stories are presented, there is much of value that can be gleaned from them. These are tales of rulers who had the strength, courage, and faith to reject the errors of their fathers and foreign influences in order to return to the correct worship of the God of Israel. Most importantly, they recognized the importance of temple worship and the Law and turned the tide against generations of idolatry and false indoctrination.  It is no wonder, in light of how they are presented, that these kings are held up as heroes of the history of pre-exilic Judaism.

We are told that Hezekiah and his great-grandson Josiah carried out reforms that changed the religious practices of the people of Judah, especially in regards to the temple(s). The sweeping “cleansing” done by Hezekiah was repeated and apparently greatly magnified by Josiah.  Hezekiah left his mark when he “removed the high places, and brake the images (Heb. “pillars”), and cut down the groves (Heb. “asherah”), and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made” (2 Kings 18:4).  The religion of Judah was centralized — apparently all places of worship were destroyed, or at least condemned, outside of the Temple of Jerusalem.

If we take a look at what Hezekiah allegedly destroyed, we see that it was some important stuff!  The “high places” (bamot) were sanctuaries, or places of worship, where altars could be found for sacrifice.  They were generally set in high places, such as hilltops or were artificial mounds meant to represent the same idea.  There were many traditional “high places” that apparently were originally very legitimate places of worship (e.g. Bethel, Dan, Gilgal, etc.) but were, with the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, condemned as idolatrous, pagan centers.  It is likely that each village had its own high place where the residents conducted their routine worship.  However, the reformers attempted to enforce the idea that the only place worthy of the performance of holy rites was Jerusalem.  In this centralization of worship to Jerusalem, Hezekiah and Josiah are understood to be following the instructions given in Deut. 12 which prohibits the offering of sacrifice anywhere but in the holy city of Jerusalem.  We should question the reliability of this scripture, however, as we read that sacrifices were legitimately offered outside of Jerusalem both before and after the time of Moses.  We read in the Book of Mormon in several places that Lehi and his family, who lived in Jerusalem during and just after the reign of Josiah, have no qualms about offering sacrifice at many points along their great journey (obviously outside of Jerusalem).

Ruins of the "High Place" of Dan

Apparently, Hezekiah was not terribly thorough in his enforcement of this ideal, as a number of sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem, including at Lachish, Arad, and Beersheva, were built or continued to function during his reign. In fact, some scholars argue that there is no archaeological evidence of any mass destruction of high places in the area in the 7th and 8th centuries BC (see here for a related article). William Dever, renowned biblical archaelogist, for example, believes that all of this talk of destroying the high places was made up by the authors/editors of these histories to fit their own theological/political agendas.  Whether or not Hezekiah did try to implement this facet of the reformation, we know that the high places are back up and running by the time of Josiah!

Besides the high places, we are told that Hezekiah destroyed the “idols” (in the KJV), which were actually “standing stones” or “pillars” (massebot).  Earlier in Israel’s history, there had been no problems with setting up massebot, and they were frequently set up by the Patriarchs and others as monuments to memorialize important sacred events, especially appearances of Deity (e.g. when Jacob sets up a pillar to mark the place where he had encountered God, Gen. 28:18; Gen. 32:20; etc.).  Moses himself sets up pillars (Ex. 24:4). They were associated with altars of sacrifice and delineated holy space.  We can probably compare these with the obelisks of Egypt and the stone circles of places like Stonehenge.  Hezekiah, however, decides that they are representative of idol worship and allegedly broke them all down.

The other items that the text claims that Hezekiah ordered destroyed were the “groves” or the “sacred poles” — the asherot. These objects were wooden poles of some sort that were meant to represent sacred trees. Asherah is known to have been a mother goddess venerated throughout the region.  In some way, these stylized “trees” were meant to represent her.  In the biblical narrative, these asherot are associated with the pagan worship of Baal.  They were placed standing near the altars of sacrifice in the high places.  More will be said shortly regarding these objects, but it is claimed that these too were condemned and cut down by Hezekiah. Also, we are told that Hezekiah destroyed the Nehushtan, the bronze serpent that Moses made!  This act is justified by the explanation that the people had been offering sacrifices to it for some time.  I can’t help but see this as tragic!  How do you go and destroy the bronze serpent which was made by Moses to be a savior to the people of Israel, healing them during their travels in the desert? We often take the bronze serpent to be a symbol of Jesus Christ  –  and it apparently had been given some role in the temple — until Hezekiah smashed it to smithereens.

After Hezekiah’s death, we are told that his reforms were reversed by the wickedness of kings Manasseh and Amon. It is not until the young Josiah comes to power that the standard is once against raised against the encroachment of idol worship back into Judah. Josiah reportedly conducts a much more thorough reform, but with roughly the same ideals as the earlier one.  In 2 Chronicles 34 we get the account of the massive campaign carried out to purge the kingdom of idol worship, which including destroying the same basic elements that Hezekiah had previously condemned.  Furthermore, it appears that he killed all the priests that served in these locations, burning their bones upon their various altars (2 Chron. 34:5).  In 2 Kings 23, there is an even more detailed account of the specific items he destroyed, which includes:

• burned the vessels/instruments in the temple that were made for Baal, Asherah, and the host of heaven (sons of God/angels)
• removed the priests that burned incense in the high places to Baal, the sun, moon, planets, and host of heaven (sons of God/angels)
• took the asherah pole/tree out of its place in the temple and burned it, stamped it into powder, and scattered it on the graves near Jerusalem
• broke down the houses of the “sodomites” (Heb. q’deshim, probably “male temple prostitutes”) that were near the temple, where the women wove hangings (perhaps tents/veils/garments) for Asherah
• stopped the sacrifice of children by fire to Molech
• burned the sun chariot and horses that apparently stood at the entrance to the temple (compare to the chariot and horses that took Elijah to heaven from my last post)
• apparently desecrated a number of graves, removing the bones therefrom and burning them on the altar (I am really not sure what the significance of this was, but the text says that it had been prophesied earlier)
• did all the other things mentioned above and more…

This is a very detailed list — there were specific things going on that Josiah, or perhaps his advisors, were very much against.  Although Chronicles seems to put this event as following the great purge, 2 Kings 22-23 indicates that the massive reform movement was at least partly a result of Josiah’s high priest, Hilkiah, finding “the book of the law” in the temple while they were cleansing it (2 Kgs. 22:8).  Scholars generally agree that this book was the Book of Deuteronomy.  Margaret Barker gave a great summary of Josiah’s reform and its association with the finding of this book.

King Josiah changed the religion of Israel in 623 BC. According to the Old Testament account in 2 Kings 23 he removed all manner of idolatrous items from the temple and purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices. Temple vessels made for Baal, Asherah and the host of heaven were removed, idolatrous priests were deposed, the Asherah itself was taken from the temple and burned, and much more besides. An old law book had been discovered in the temple, and this had prompted the king to bring the religion of his kingdom into line with the requirements of that book. There could be only one temple, it stated, and so all other places of sacrificial worship had to be destroyed. The law book is easily recognizable as Deuteronomy, and so King Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple.¹

As Barker notes, Josiah’s reforms are often referred to in modern scholarship as the “Deuteronomic” reforms.  Many scholars believe that this Book of the Law, identified as the Book of Deuteronomy, was either heavily revised, or even written at the time of King Josiah. I don’t think we need to dismiss the tradition that it was originally written by Moses, but I do agree that it was at least heavily edited by later parties, beginning before or during the reign of Josiah that had a strong religious agenda. The book may have been further revised subsequently during and/or after the Babylonian exile.  Thus, it appears that Josiah, in his reforms, was likely not taking Judah back to a more ancient tradition, the religion of Moses, but was essentially creating a new religious belief system, following the ideals of this “Deuteronomist” movement. It is this Deuteronomist theology that influences not only the book of Deuteronomy itself, but the whole so-called Deuteronomist history, from the book of Deuteronomy to the book of 2 Kings. Their theology influenced later writers such as the priestly author(s) of the Chronicles.

It is here that I would like to explain that I do not mean to throw out entirely the history we are given in the books of Kings and Chronicles. As the Sunday School curriculum rightly delineates, there are many great and important lessons to be learned from these histories. Whether or not they were written with a certain religious or political agenda in mind, they provide us with precious principles regarding obedience, purity, and standing up for what is right and holy. They teach about the supreme value of the temple and correct worship and doctrine. Taken as such and applied to our own lives, these are very valuable lessons indeed.  On the other hand, we can also learn, if we follow the theories of some biblical scholars, that there was likely more to ancient Israelite history and religion than what is provided to us through the filter of the Deuteronomistic and later redactors.  Through a study of the themes of this reform we can begin to understand why the Old Testament seems to contain such a different theology than the New Testament, and why it appears to differ, as well, from the picture of ancient religious beliefs as understood by the prophet Joseph Smith.

King Josiah’s reform largely involved the temple and items that were in the temple. Also, it involved a consolidation of Israelite worship to Jerusalem and its temple–other Israelite temples/sanctuaries were torn down. The historical narrative we read in the Old Testament presents this as a good and necessary reform. It was aimed at “idolatrous” practices. However, as I have alluded to, many of the features/items condemned were considered perfectly legitimate in earlier times, especially from what we know of the Patriarchal period. While the picture painted is of Josiah bringing Judah back to the most ancient and correct beliefs, what it seemed to accomplish, in reality, was banish many of Israel’s most ancient practices.  Josiah changed the Israelite religion and the practices of the First Temple.  Some Jews would later claim that it was Josiah’s reform that, instead of delaying disaster, brought the wrath of God upon them. As Barker notes:

Twenty five years after the work of Josiah, Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar, and eleven years after the first attack, they returned to destroy the city and the temple. Refugees fled south to Egypt, and we read in the book of Jeremiah how they would not accept the prophet’s interpretation of the disaster. He insisted that Jerusalem had fallen because of the sins of her people, but the refugees said it had fallen because of Josiah. The king is not mentioned by name, but there can be no doubt what the refugees had in mind. Until very recently, they said, they and their ancestors in Judah and Jerusalem had worshipped differently and had prospered, but when they changed their manner of worship, disaster had followed.

The refugees who fled to Egypt were not the only ones who thought that Josiah’s purge had been a disaster. By surveying the texts that still survive, we can begin to piece together what Josiah destroyed. Many of those texts imply that Josiah’s purge was a disaster.

Expounding on the above scriptural list, some of the things that Barker believes were removed include:

• The Asherah, a stylized tree, that had been placed beside the temple altar (cf. Rev 22:1-3), had represented the Queen of Heaven, the Mother Goddess, and also the Tree of Life and Wisdom–Barker believes that the Asherah was the true Menorah, and it was removed by Josiah
• Many of the holiest items of the Temple, especially the Holy of Holies–The Babylonian Talmud records that Josiah had hidden away the ark, the holy anointing oil, the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod (b.Horayoth 12a).
• The vision of God–while earlier traditions present Yahweh as appearing to mortals, the Deuteronomic account denies that any vision of God was seen when the Law was given: ‘You saw no form; only a voice was heard’ (Deut 4:12)
• The Hosts of Heaven–Deuteronomy condemns regard for the host of heaven (Deut 4:19), the angels, even though an ancient title for the Lord was the Lord of Hosts. The heavenly host of angels must have been part of the older faith.
• The Spirit Creation–Barker notes that alternative accounts of the Creation (such as the one found in the Book of Jubilees) remember that the angels/sons of God were created before anything material was made–the Deuteronomic account never mentions angels
• The sacred knowledge of the Holy of Holies–The Deuteronomists didn’t deny that such knowledge existed, but warn against mortals having access to them: ‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God’ (Deut 29:29). They emphasized that all that was necessary for mortals was to obey the Law and keep the revealed commandments.

There were many other beliefs that Josiah supposedly purged that pertained the older religion of Israel. For Barker,these were the traditions of the First Temple. These traditions are so ancient that it is hard to know what exactly they entailed and what happened to them. We must go by scarce evidence and much inference. Barker explains:

We can never know for certain what it was that Josiah purged or why he did it. No actual texts or records survive from that period, but even the stories as they have come down to us in various sources show that this was a time of major upheaval which was not forgotten. A thousand years after the events themselves, even mainstream Jewish texts remembered that the temple had been drastically changed, that large numbers of people had left the land, and that the true temple would be only be restored in the time of the Messiah.

I could go on and on about this topic and not do it justice.  There is much more that could be said about this, and I have treated it in many previous posts. Again, my desire is not to dismiss these biblical histories out of hand, nor diminish your trust in the Scriptures as a whole, but to indicate that there is likely more to these stories than we can get from a superficial reading of the received text. If Hezekiah and Josiah did change the religion of Judah, I believe it is important for us to know what the religion was like previously, what it was changed to, and what that means for our understanding of ancient Judaism, Christianity, and religious beliefs today.

If you want to know more about the reforms of the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, kings of Judah, check out some of the following resources.

Some of my previous posts on the topic:

• The Suppression of Ancient Truths
• The Priestly Suppression of Ancient Truths — covers the priestly reforms that occurred after the exile which were allegedly similar to Josiah’s reforms
• The Tree of Life as Nurturing Mother — this post doesn’t focus specifically on the reforms, but emphasizes the important of the Tree of Life in ancient religion, which Barker believes was represented by the asherah tree that Josiah removed from the temple

Articles by Margaret Barker (who, FYI, is not LDS) on the topic (a very small sample of a topic that she treats in most of her writings):

• What Did King Josiah Reform? – forum address given at BYU on 6 May 2003
• Joseph Smith and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion – speech given at The Worlds of Joseph Smith conference held at the Library of Congress, 6 May 2005 — besides treating the topic of the Deuteronomic reforms, she relates what these meant for the religion of Jerusalem at the time of Lehi and for Joseph Smith’s contributions

A few additional helpful articles:

• Kevin Christensen’s writings on Margaret Barker — this is a link to a page that has several links to Kevin’s great studies, but the Meridian links unfortunately don’t appear to be working
• Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon’s Book — great article by Brant Gardner
• Antecedents of the Restoration in the Ancient Temple — great overview of Barker’s work by Frederick M. Huchel
• Lehi’s Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness — article by David R. Seely that specifically treats the topic of the Deuteronomic reform, centralization of the cult, and how that reflects on the practice of Lehi and family of offering sacrifice outside of Jerusalem.

1. Margaret Barker, “What Did King Josiah Reform?”, forum address given at Brigham Young University on 6 May 2003, accessed online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=36

Before moving on to more evidence of the suppression of ancient truths, this time at the hands of postexilic priestly editors, I want to mention a couple more good commentaries on the Deuteronomistic reforms, mentioned in my last post.

First, I remembered another great article–a book review–by Kevin Christensen, featured in the FARMS Review 16/2 (2004). The article is called “The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament” and can be found online here. It is one of the best LDS treatments of the topic that I am covering here that I know of. It gives many insights into why the Old Testament seems to be unclear, from our perspective, on topics such as Christ, the priesthood, and the temple. I highly encourage you to take a look at it.

Also, as I have been reviewing the next chapter in Barker’s Temple Themes (no, I have not abandoned my running commentary on the book), I have noticed that she continues to provide many more great insights on this topic. On page 144 of Temple Themes, Barker states the following under the subtitle “Veiling the Temple”:

The writings of the Deuteronomists have a distinct hostility towards temple, monarchy, and theophany, and many aspects of the temple were omitted or obscured in their writings. They denied that any form had been seen at Sinai (Deut. 4:12). In their history of the monarchy, Samual warned that a king would be a disaster (1 Sam 8:10–18), and most of the kings were shown to fall far short of the Deuteronomists’ ideal…The Deuteronomists also disapproved of the temple. It was designed by foreigners, and Solomon had to sell part of his kingdom to the king of Tyre to pay the debts (1 Kgs 9:10–11). Given that these texts–1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings [part of the Deuteronomistic History]–are the most frequently used source for reconstructing the history of the period, any attempt to describe the temple where the LORD appeared, and the royal high priest who probably represented the LORD, faces considerable difficulties.

Their description of the temple omitted certain details which are found elsewhere.  These are not random details, but significant for any attempt to recover the older temple. It is as though the Deuteronomists wantd to rewrite the past and remove whatever theophany had implied.

She then goes through and shows how so much of what the Holy of Holies contained and what the vision of God entailed was simply ignored/suppressed by the Deuteronomists.

History Repeats Itself: The Priestly Reforms

Not long after the King Josiah’s reforms, Judah was conquered by the Babylonians. Many of the royal and priestly classes were carried off into Babylon.  Scholars have noted that while in Babylon, the captives continued to reform the religion of the Jews. We learn from Barker that the Jews in exile had consolidated and developed the definition of the chosen people, and when they returned to Judah, those who had not been deported found themselves excluded from participation in the new religion established by them. Because of the changes made to the faith, those who had not been in exile in Babylon found themselves in exile in their own land. [1]

Gabriele Boccaccini gives us some additional background to this situation. It is apparent that many preexilic religious institutions continued in Jerusalem during the exile. 90-95 % of Judahites had not been deported. The Cult of YHWH continued during the exile, and sacrifices were offered to YHWH throughout the whole period (Jer 41:4–5). Religious institutions did not need to be rebuilt from scratch. There were still Levitical families that were loyal to the Davidic king. The Persians allowed Sheshbazzar, heir of the Davidic line, to return and govern in Jerusalem. The people were overjoyed at the king’s return. Although the Zadokites (the Aaronic priestly class) had begun to oppose the power of the king in exile, it appeared as if the king and levites would have their authority restored. Sheshbazzar began to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. However, the Zadokites had much influence among the exiles and Sheshbazzar’s building project was never completed. Mysteriously, Sheshbazzar disappears from history.  Darius I later sent Zerubbabel as Davidic king, who ruled jointly with Joshua, the Zadokite priest. This was a new political development giving the priestly class more power than ever before. The Zadokites had a new authority, set up a new priesthood structure, and built the new temple (Zech 6:9–14). The general Levitical priesthood lost the support of the king, their only source of legitimacy. New laws of purity disqualified them from serving as priests. The local population was excluded from participating in the building and administration of Temple. [2]

Before long, the last Davidic king, Zerubbabel, also disappeared and the Zadokites took power. Only exiles were allowed to participate in the temple dedication. The religious functions associated with the Davidic kingship were absorbed by the priests; the Zadokites were left alone as the supreme and unchallenged religious authority in Jewish society. The diarchy with the house of David was gone, but its royal symbols, such as the hereditary succession and the anointing, which the house of Zadok had inherited by their brief association with the monarchy, remained and marked, also visually, the Zadokites’ supersession of kingship. “The old monarchical state had been transformed into a much-reduced theocracy with the high priest as the main native spokesman and leader.” The priestly historiography did its best to hide the role that the Davidic monarchy played during the Babylonian exile and the early Persian period. The Priestly writing transfers back to Sinai the royal status of the priesthood-that they were appointed by God, and not by kings. Ezra and Chronicles (which were histories likely authored by Zadokites) both declare that the Davidic monarchy ended with Zedekiah. [3]

The purpose of this brief history is to give the reader an idea of how the Aaronic Zadokite priests came to power, by suppressing the leadership of the Davidic line, and many important points of Jewish history as well. The Aaronic priesthood apparently did not originally have all the influence that they would later claim to have. While this deserves a separate post, and I have written an entire paper on it, there is significant evidence that the Aaronic priesthood was initially a subordinate priesthood governed by the royal high priesthood (Barker’s term) that the kings held.  This makes sense in view of this theory that they got rid of the kings and then rewrote the history books to make it appear that their priestly authority was never subordinate to them. As Boccaccini explains:

In Chronicles, Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are barely mentioned and deprived of any political role. In Ezra, where the do have a major political role, nothing is said about their royal ancestry. Without a critical analysis of ancient sources, one would never guess that the two illustrious “governors” were from the house of David…As soon as the Temple was built and fully put in order, the usefulness of the Davidic king expired, in the eyes of the postexilic priests. “The Davidic rule, having finished its cultic task, had given way to a new regime with God’s approval because of the dynasty’s unfaithfulness”…For the Zadokites, the divine mission of the Davidic kings-the only reason for their election-was to establish the Zadokite order. Any cultic function of the king was suppressed by priestly writing. Chronicles systematically omits the formula “for the sake of my servant David.” Equally lost is any reference that might suggest a special sacral relationship between God and the king. It erases any surviving reference to the priestly functions of the king, which would conflict with the exclusiveness of the Zadokite priesthood. The “sons of David” are “priests” in 2 Sam, but are transformed into “chief officials in the service of the king” in 1 Chr. In Chr, King Uzziah is criticized for offering sacrifice, which I Kgs allows. [4]

 

According to James VanderKam, it was Zerubbabel, the representative of the Davidic dynasty, who sets the first stone of rebuilt temple-he is the most eminent person of the restoration, not Joshua the High Priest. However, in the later writings of the period, Joshua alone is the protagonist and he does not share the stage with Zerubbabel. [5] It is the Zadokites who end up finishing the Second Temple and who govern its rites and doctrines.
Under the Zadokites, the rebuilt temple was not simply the restoration of the old sanctuary but a new one with new rules and a new priesthood. They created a distinction between “priests” and “levites,” a distinction unknown in preexilic Judaism (61). Further distinction was made between the sons of Zadok (now referred to as “high priests”), who were direct descendents of Aaron’s son Phinehas, and the other descendants of Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar (the “priests”), and between them and the rest of the descendants of Levi (the “levites”). Boccaccini even goes so far as to declare that “the creation of the Aaronite priesthood was a postexilic phenomenon” and that the Zadokites legitimized their power by tracing their priesthood back to Aaron in their own priestly version of Israel’s history (64-65). [6]

The Second Temple

It is evident from non-Zadokite literature of the Second Temple period that there were many parties who did not accept the new religion of the Zadokites, nor their new temple. They recognized that many rituals and beliefs had been changed and that the priests of the Second Temple were very different from those of the First. Many of the levites and priests who had not gone into exile knew that the Second Temple and its priesthood were corrupt and polluted.  Many of these critics were excluded from participating in the new exiles-only Temple. Some scholars believe that many of these were then exiled from the community or voluntarily removed themselves to escape the corruption. The community at Qumran, the compilers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, may fit this description.

Qumran Site

VanderKam informs us that the “inhabitants at Qumran may have been high-ranking priests that removed themselves from temple at Jerusalem” and that “the Teacher of Righteousness [at Qumran] wanted his group to return and attempt to restore an older order of the high priesthood.” [7]

According to Margaret Barker:

We are told that the Aaronic high priesthood line was uninterrupted and that the rituals between First and Second Temple were unchanged. Many voices (Enochians, 3rd Isaiah, Zechariah, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) condemn priesthood of Second Temple as corrupt and false. The Second Temple was an era of wrath, exemplified by wicked priests. They awaited the true temple. The second temple had had a significantly different “religion” from the first, and even though most of the source material has passed through “second temple” hands, it is clear that a return to the original temple was part of the religious and political agenda of, for example, the Qumran community. For them, the second temple was both the cause and the sign of divine wrath. [8] 

Boccaccini believes (as discussed in a previous post) that the community of Qumran were a part of the so-called Enochic Judaism movement.  According to this theory, the “Enochians” claimed to represent a competing (and more ancient) priestly line than that of the ruling Zadokite priesthood, and did not recognize the legitimacy of the second temple and maintained that Israel was still living in exile. [9] The Enochic literature testifies to the existence, during the Zadokite period, of a nonconformist priestly tradition.  Enochic Judaism directly challenged the legitimacy of the second Temple and its priesthood. Attribution to Enoch (and all Patriarchs from Adam) of priestly characteristics suggests the existence of a pure prediluvian, and pre-fall, priesthood and disrupts the foundations of the Zadokite priesthood, which claimed its origin in Aaron at the time of the exodus. However, because the Zadokites had changed the priestly genealogies and virtually extinguished the High Priesthood of the ancient order, some who could previously prove their right to the priesthood were now excluded and had to prove it through their own literature. [10] This literature would include the Enoch writings, the book of Jubilees, and the Aramaic Levi document–all found at Qumran.

Robert Kugler lends support to this conclusion, telling us that: The [Qumran] Community’s roots can be traced to priests dispossessed of their role in the temple by an apostate and usurping high priesthood. It is understandable that among them would be found literature exalting priesthood classes that had been dispossessed. [11]

While I have not gone into detail here regarding what, doctrinally, the Zadokites reformed, my purpose has been to present some brief evidence that they did make major reforms that some other parties saw as corrupt.  They elevated their position to a place of supreme religious/political authority, when they had previously been subordinate to the kings. The rebuilt temple was considerably different from the First Temple in terms of its rituals and beliefs. I have discussed this topic briefly before. Unfortunately, much of what we know of the Old Testament temple actually comes from memories of the Second Temple. I believe that this is one of the main reasons that the descriptions we have of what the ancient temple was like seem so different from what we know as the Temple today. While there is not space in this post to expound on this, I think the ancient Temple was not simply a place for the offering of sacrifices, but was a place for the performance of many other ceremonies–including reenactments of the creation, other ritual dramas (where the king or high priest represents Yahweh), washings and anointings, and even marriages. However, the Second Temple did not preserve these rites. The new high priests were the leaders of a radical reform movement that changed the face of “Judaism” and suppressed ancient truths.

Notes:

1] Margaret Barker. Temple Themes in Christian Worship. London: T&T Clark (2007), pp. 53-55.

2] Gabriele Boccaccini. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (2002), pp. 49-55.

3] Ibid., pp. 55-57.

4] Ibid., pp. 57-60

5] James C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Boston: Brill (2000), p. 171.

6] Boccaccini, Roots, 61-65.

7] VanderKam, pp. 205, 220.

8] Barker, Temple Themes, pp. 54-55, 111.

9] Boccaccini. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (1998), p. 185.

10] Ibid., pp. 72-74.

11] Robert Kugler. “The Priesthood at Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and the Levites,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich, eds. Boston: Brill (1999), pp. 478-479.