The next major work that I will be looking at here is Princeton professor of religion, Martha Himmelfarb’s book entitled Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). This work is significantly influential in the study of the heavenly ascent phenomenon. In her study, Himmelfarb attempts to trace the history, development and nature of this type of visionary ascent to heaven as found in both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic writings.

Martha Himmelfarb

Her study covers eight Jewish and Christian ascent apocalypses written (as far as scholars can tell) between 200 BC and 200 AD: the Book of the Watchers (found in 1 Enoch 1-36), the Testament of Levi, 2 Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, and 3 Baruch.  Himmelfarb does not consider similar texts written after the second century nor the hekhalot texts as she sees them as separate and distinct genres with different concerns, focus, and modes of visionary experience.

Himmelfarb opens her book quoting from one of the most detailed and exciting ascent accounts, that of 2 Enoch. Enoch is taken up to the highest heaven and stands before the throne of God, where he undergoes an amazing transformation:

And the Lord said to Michael, Take Enoch and take off his earthly garments, and anoint him with good oil, and clothe him in glorious garments.  And Michael took off from me my garments and anointed me with good oil. And the appearance of the oil was more resplendent than a great light, and its ricness like sweet dew and its fragrance like myrrh, shining like a ray of the sun. And I looked at myself, and I was like one of the glorious ones, and there was no apparent difference (9:17-19).

The claim presented here, which Himmelfarb sees as the central point of these texts, is that human beings can become equal to the angels (Note: the text actually shows Enoch being set above the angels with his own throne). Before getting into the valuable substance of what she finds in these accounts, I must respectfully disagree with a number of her assumptions that she presents in her history of the heavenly ascent.

Himmelfarb starts Chapter 1 of her book by pointing out how 1 Enoch 14 (the earliest known account of a visionary ascending into heaven) departs from our traditional picture of ancient Jewish literature. She notes the stories’ similarity to biblical prophetic call visions, like that in Isaiah 6, where Isaiah sees God on his throne surrounded by angels. Even more similar is Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot throne, in which Himmelfarb sees many parallels with 1 Enoch. The major difference she sees, however, is that both Isaiah and Ezekiel remain on Earth, while Enoch actually ascends to Heaven, which, to her, is an innovation.

In Isaiah, the vision of God’s throne apparently takes place on Earth (see also Micaiah ben Imlah’s vision in 1 Kgs 22:19-21). From the description given in Isaiah 6 (or lack thereof)–with Isaiah’s reference to the “temple” and no mention of ascent, Himmelfarb assumes that this vision is taking place in the earthly Temple of Jerusalem.  In the First Temple period, the Israelites believed that God was, or could be, truly present on His cherubim throne in the temple. Himmelfarb notes that this coincides with the belief current among Israel’s neighbors that the god actually dwelt in the temple human beings built for him (p. 11). Another similar belief is that the gods dwelt at the top of a cosmic mountain that was the intersection of Earth and Heaven. Mount Sinai and, especially, Mount Zion were seen as cosmic/holy mountains where God dwelt and where man could meet God. The temple was built to represent the primordial holy mount.

For Himmelfarb, the story of Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot throne marks “the beginning of a trend to dissociate God’s heavenly abode from the temple in Jerusalem” (p. 11). This is most likely due to the defilement of the temple and destruction by the Babylonians. So the popular reasoning is that because there was no more temple, the Jews necessarily had to imagine God and His throne as being able to exist and travel on their own outside of the earthly temple, which is what Ezekiel sees in his “merkavah” (chariot throne) vision (Ezek 1). But Himmelfarb notes that what Ezekiel sees in vision corresponds to the contents of the temple (for more detail, see my post “Understanding Ezekiel’s Remarkable Merkabah Vision“). In addition, Ezekiel later identifies the “living creatures” of his first vision as cherubim (Ezek 10:20). Himmelfarb comments:

The text suggests that Ezekiel is able to recognize the creatures as cherubim because of his proximity to the sculpted cherubim of the temple. Clearly the heavenly originals are more awesome and wonderful than their earthly representations (p. 11).

painting by Rafael

Himmelfarb herself makes the observation that “[s]ometimes the earthly temple was understood to be modeled on the god’s house in heaven…” In light of this possibility, it is interesting to note that she persists in arguing that the belief in a God whose true home is in Heaven (and not in the earthly temple or holy mountain) is only a later development. She reasons that it was the Deuteronomic school who rejected the idea that God could dwell on Earth (or even come to Earth). I, personally, would suggest that the original belief was likely that God could be seen in His temple, but that there was an understanding that God truly lived in His heavenly temple. Like the Garden of Eden, the temple was a holy place where God could visit when he chose.  As Himmelfarb noted, the temple was only a model of God’s true house in heaven.

She goes on to argue that after the time of Ezekiel, the temple never regained its status as the house of God on Earth. She explains:

The Second Temple is never able to emerge from the shadow of the disengagement of the glory of God. The ark and the cherubim are gone. In the period of the Second Temple, under the influence of Ezekiel, those who are unhappy with the behavior of the people and especially its priests come to see the temple not as God’s proper dwelling, the place where heaven and earth meet, but rather as a mere copy of the true temple located in heaven. It is this desacralization of the earthly temple in favor of the heavenly that opens the way for Enoch’s ascent in the Book of the Watchers. The first ascent in Jewish literature is thus a journey to the true temple.

While I agree that the writers of the apocalypses did not see the Second Temple in the same light as the First (see, for example, my posts here and here), I believe that the worshippers in the First Temple would have known that it, too, was but a copy of the true heavenly temple. The reason why God was no longer seen in the Second Temple was because it was corrupt. The beliefs, rituals, and theology had been changed so that the Second Temple was a much different sanctuary of a markedly different religion. To me, this is why certain parties went off on their own (to Qumran, for example) and wrote stories about ancient seers ascending to the true Temple in Heaven–because they no longer could worship in a holy house that worthily and truthfully represented Heaven on Earth. The First Temple, in my opinion (and I think Margaret Barker and other scholars would agree with me), had ritualistically represented this ascent to Heaven, and prophets had visions there of God on His throne in Heaven. Alternatively, God could have appeared in the Holy of Holies, which was a sacred representation of His true throne in Heaven. Later visionaries (including Joseph Smith) would have similar experiences of seeing Heaven–but while they were in Heaven mentally or spiritually their feet were usually well-planted on the Earth (although maybe on a high mountain). Because of the wonder of the experience, sometimes they just couldn’t tell (“whether in the body or out”, 2 Cor 12:3; D&C 137:1).

In sum, although I really enjoy her subject matter in this book, I don’t really agree with Martha Himmelfarb’s initial history of the heavenly ascent genre of Jewish and Christian literature. Unlike her, I tend to believe that the heavenly ascent was not a postexilic innovation, but that it has ancient roots. While such is not well represented in the Old Testament, I believe that heavenly ascents were a very important part of the belief system of the First Temple. The basis for my opinion stems from my own LDS religious tradition, but also finds support in the writings of religious scholars such as Margaret Barker. I believe that this perspective will be become more and more popular–and it is one of my main goals to contribute to this trend.  Although I disagree with her on a number of points, I am excited to analyze more of Himmelfarb’s research, and will dedicate future posts to more of the positive insights she provides.

After a rather long tangent looking at the suppression of ancient doctrines and ordinances, I now return to my commentary on Margaret Barker’s work on the themes of the First Temple that show up in later Christian beliefs. This post will focus on Chapter 6 of Temple Themes, entitled Transformation and Transfiguration. Interestingly, the chapter focuses not so much on these two ideas, but on the First Temple belief that God could be seen, especially in the temple. Transformation and transfiguration were the effect caused on the persons who had the privilege of seeing God. This First Temple expectation (that worshippers could see God therein) was also one of the principle hopes of the early Christians, as expressed in Revelation 22:4: “And they shall see his face.”

Barker gives us some great insights into the nature of this expectation in ancient times. For the early Christians:

“Seeing the face of the Lord” must have been the most important part of Christian worship, but what did it mean? (p. 135)

The setting for the Book of Revelation is in the (heavenly) temple, and Barker reasons that this type of vision was likely central to the worship in the Temple of Solomon.  While it is difficult to ascertain due to lack of sufficient evidence, the belief that Yahweh would appear in his temple is expressed in many Old Testament texts. Barker also points out that many of the Hebrew texts appear to have undergone minor changes that alter the meaning of certain passages related to the temple that obscure the idea that God could be seen there. She says:

The changes as the texts were transmitted show that they were controversial, and so ”seeing the face of the Lord” may have been one of the differences between the first and second temples, one of the elements of the older cult that were restore in Christianity (p. 135).

As discussed in previous posts, there is evidence that the Deuteronomist reform was emphatic about declaring that God could not be seen, and that all contact with Deity involved hearing God’s voice alone (see Deut 4:12, a very clear example of this).  While the Deuteronomistic theology would not have Moses see God’s form, other passages declare that he did:

With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude (Heb. t’munah, “form”) of the Lord shall he behold. 

In what is possibly a more ancient version of the Sinai account, Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s sons, and the elders of Israel

saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink (Exod 24:10).

Barker reasons that because they saw His feet, God must have had a human form (p. 136). In similar manner, Ezekiel sees God on his chariot-throne in the likeness of the appearance of a human (Ezek 1:26).

From the Old Testament, Barker explains, we receive a mixed message. Can God be seen or not? Exodus 33 is a good example. In verse 12, God speaks with Moses face to face, but then in verse 20, we are presented with God saying to Moses: “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” There seem to be two contradicting traditions at play here. Barker comments on the existence of these opposing traditions:

In the Old Testament the issue is confused.  There are two positions: the Lord could be seen — the temple tradition — or could not be seen, the later Deuteronomists’ position. The New Testament is emphatic that the Lord was seen…John opens his Gospel with the words: “We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14), thus rooting Christian tradition firmly in one particular strand of the Old Testament. “Man shall not see me and live” (Exod 33:20) is exactly opposite to John’s teaching that seeing the Lord brings eternal life…(pp. 136-137).

Barker tells of the pilgrimage that the men of Israel were required to make three times a year–at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks and at the Feast of Booths–”to appear before the Lord” (Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16). “To appear before the Lord” is the usual translation, but, according to Barker, the Hebrew actually says: three times a year shall all your men see the face of the LORD (p. 146). She explains:

Under the influence of the Duteronomists and their spiritual heirs, it became the custom to read the letter differently, even though the Psalms show clearly what the original meaning must have been.

She then goes through and points out a large number of scriptures which she believes the Deuteronomists modified, not by changing the original Hebrew consonants, but just in the way the words were pronounced. Because the consonants were not pointed (the words had only consonants and no vowels), the meaning could easily be changed by altering the tradition of how the words were prounounced (just changing the vowel sounds). For those who are familiar with the Hebrew verb system, Barker is suggesting that the Deuteronomists began reading these select words in Niph’al, when the were originally Qal. What this means is that instead of reading a phrase actively (Qal)–”see the face”–they were reading passively (Niph’al)–”be seen/appear before the face.” By switching them back to Qal, we get different meanings for the following passages:

• In Exodus 23:15 and 34:20, the text should read “none shall see my face” instead of “none shall appear before me.”
• The same reading applies for Exod 23:17; 34:23, 24; and Deut 16:16 – all should be “see the face of the LORD” instead of “appear before the LORD.”
• Deut 31:11 should be “When all Israel comes to see the face of the LORD your God” instead of “When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God.”
• In 1 Sam 1:22, Hannah planned to take her son “to see the face of the LORD.” 
• In Isaiah 1:12, the meaning of what the Lord says should be “When you come to see my face.”
• Psalm 42:2 should say: “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and see the face of God?”

For each of these examples, Barker says, the Hebrew Lexicon indicates that the Qal (active) form should be read. Citing Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: “The verbs in all these passage were originally Qal, afterwards pointed Niph’al, to avoid the expression ‘see the face of Yahweh’ (1962 Edition, pp. 816, 908).  Barker goes on to muse about what this could possibly mean or how this appearance occurred.

How the Lord was seen or how the glory shone forth we do not know. The king or high priest in golden vestments perhaps? What was literal? What was poetic? How did they organize and choreograph temple ceremonial? What heavenly reality were they expressing in their liturgy? Were the four living creatures around the throne — the lion, the ox, the eagle and the man –in fact masked priests, like those of Egypt and Assyria? We can only read what is there or, given the sensitive nature of this subject, try to recover what was once there.

Egyptian High Priest

  These are interesting questions for Latter-day Saints, in light of our own temple ceremonies. It would not be hard for us to picture, for example, a mortal priesthood officiator representing the Lord in the temple. We know that this happened in many ancient temples, including in Egypt–that a high priest would dress in costume, representing the god. Although these scriptures may be referring to the literal appearance of Yahweh in his temple, which could certainly be possible, they are more likely referring to temple rituals involving humans. Either way, the real point here is that the belief that those who went to the temple expected to see Yahweh was deliberately obscured by later editors who did not want to pass on this ancient belief.  Notwithstanding these changes, many passages still portray the older view.  Many of the clearest examples are found in the Psalms.

“The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy” (p. 137). Although we can’t get a complete picture from them, and they don’t include dates and authors, we see many recurring themes. One of these, as Barker points out, is: “the Lord was seen, his glory shone forth from the temple” (p. 138).

In my next post, I will comment further on this chapter of Temple Themes, beginning with the vision of Yahweh as expressed in the Psalms.

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.

The Reforms of King Josiah, or the Deuteronomic Reforms

The Reforms of King Josiah

So what did King Josiah reform? To begin this discussion I would like to quote from a talk given at BYU in 2003 by Margaret Barker succinctly entitled, “What did King Josiah Reform?” This talk can be found posted here on Kevin Christensen’s site (revision: it is actually Howard Hopkins’ site, with some of Kevin’s material posted), www.thinlyveiled.com. She begins by relating what the Bible informs us that Josiah did:

King Josiah Hears the Book of the Law

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.

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. Thus, Josiah was not taking Judah back to a more ancient tradition, but was essentially creating a new religious belief system.

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. What it did, however (and this will become more apparent here), was banish many of Israel’s most ancient practices.  Josiah changed the Israelite religion, and many were not happy about it. Barker explains:

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.

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.

Because of the lack of pertinent texts from the period, we must be cautious in our conclusions. To back up Barker’s conclusions, let us look at the work of a few other scholars. Please forgive the briefness of the following quick notes.

Moshe Weinfeld. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

In the seventh century B.C. we can see a turning-point in the history of Israelite literary composition. In the latter half of this century a new and unique literary style emerged which was to dominate most of the Israelite literature composed during a period of approximately 150 years (650-500 B.C.). This new way of thinking is apparent in our Bible in the books of Deuteronomy (composed latter half of seventh century B.C.), the deuteronomic history of Joshua-Kings (received fixed form in sixth century), and the deuteronomic prose sermons in Jeremiah (second half of sixth century) (Intro, pp. 1, 7).

Deuteronomic writers had a much different view of the nature of God than did more ancient writers. Earlier writings represented God in anthropomorphic terms (p. 191). God had a human form and had need of a House or Tabernacle. God sat on a physical throne between two cherubim with the Ark of the Covenant as his footstool. The Deity was enveloped by a screen of fire. Those who approached unauthorized/unworthily were consumed by fire. The idea of God sitting enthroned on cherubim is very ancient.

Ahiram of Byblos on Cherub Throne

In the earlier theology, God actually dwells in the Temple. It is his abode on Earth. In Deuteronomic theology, God resides in Heaven only. The Temple becomes not a house for God but for his Name (p. 198).

The Deuteronomic school initiated a polemic against anthropomorphic and corporeal conceptions of Deity. In pre-deuteronomic sources, God is seen by elders, prophets, etc. Man is created in God’s image. In deuteronomic materials, God is not seen–only heard from Heaven. In older sources, the heavenly hosts serve as God’s council. The Deuteronomic writings do not mention the heavenly hosts (p. 200).

Tryggve N.D. Mettinger. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (trans. Frederick H. Cryer, Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982)

The Deuteronomistic theology is programmatically abstract. It presents God with an auditive, non-visual theme. God is in Heaven and does not appear to man–He does not dwell in Temple on Earth (p. 46). Instead of descending from Heaven, Yahweh speaks from Heaven only (p. 48). Only God’s Name dwells in Temple. God’s actual presence in Temple becomes obsolete in Name theology.

Deuteronomy does not speak of the cherubim throne (p. 46).  Cherubim throne was not acceptable in the Deuteronomistic work (p. 51). Deut 10:1–5 does not mention cherubim in construction of Temple. There seems to be a conscious suppression of God sitting on his throne. This theology is not seen again until Ezekiel. Ezekiel sees anthropomorphic figure seated on throne (p. 97).

Josiah’s Reform–Reform culminates in celebration of Passover ceremony. Passover promoted to most important of three yearly festivals. Passover achieved status previously held by Autumn Festival. Main subject of the Autumn Festival was the kingship of the Lord. During monarchical period, Autumn Festival was most important. 1 Sam 1:3 is probably referring to Autumn Festival. Temple dedicated at time of Autumn Festival (see Psalms 24,29,47,93-99; Zech. 14:16–19). Autumn Festival celebrated God’s victory over Chaos (see Ps 29:10). Autumn/New Year Festival associated with creation of the world. During week of festival, they read part of Creation account each day. The Festival celebrated Kingship of YHWH, victory over chaos, and subsequent creation. Josiah favored Passover over New Year festival because it was more uniquely Israelite (p. 73). Cultic rites no longer centered on “sacramental experience” of the theophanic coming and victory of the LORD-rites became acts of “remembrance.”

Further Information

This is just a very minimal and sketchy look at some of the research that has been done on this topic. Those interested should also look at the formative works of Martin Noth on the subject, and also authors such as William Doorly, Richard Elliott Friedman, and R.D. Nelson, to name a few.

For a great overview of Margaret Barker’s research on the Deuteronomists’ suppression of more ancient truths and the effects of King Josiah’s reform from and LDS perspective, see Kevin Christensen’s Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its significance for Mormon Studies published as one of FARMS Occasional Papers. It is a wonderful read, and among other things, shows how Josiah’s Reform affected Lehi and the Book of Mormon (as Lehi was contemporary to these reforms). Have a look at his site www.thinlyveiled.com, and also his articles posted here by www.meridianmagazine.com. On the topic of Josiah’s reform, Christensen gives this summary:

[Josiah's] reform has been closely identified with an editorial school that scholarship calls the Deuteronomists. [1] This group apparently produced an edition of the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, 1& 2 Samuel, and 1&2 Kings during the reign of King Josiah. The Deuteronomists are known as innovators and are known to have edited scriptures in their care. This is important. They worked with texts and traditions that had an established status, including Deuteronomy, but they imposed their own perspectives on those texts.

Their edition of Deuteronomy is notable for claiming that God had not been seen (Deut. 4:12) and for the claim that possession of their Torah meant that there was no need for anyone to go to heaven to bring the word of God (Deut. 30:11–12). This is despite accounts of visions elsewhere in scripture, notably in Exodus 24:9–10, Isaiah 6:1–5, Jeremiah 23:18, 22; 33:3, and Ezekiel 1. These declarations in Deuteromony challenge the claims of the anointed temple priests such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jacob to provide visions. The passages in Deuteronomy deny the possibility of vision, which becomes very suggestive in considering the claims 1st Enoch and elsewhere that just before the destruction of the first Temple, that Israel became blinded. (Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and Josiah’s Reform).

Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Francesco Hayez

Much more could be said on this topic. What I’ve hoped to present is an example and brief outline of a major reform to the religion of Israel, a suppression of older truths, and an attempt to obscure what was formerly believed. Our current Bible text reflects the views of these reformers. “Plain and precious truths” of more ancient origin, especially those that concern the nature of God and the Temple, have been purposefully altered, removed, or otherwise suppressed. Although this likely happened over time in a number of stages, the Deuteronomistic reforms took place prior to the Babylonian exile. There were yet further reforms made during the exile and afterwards. Those who were taken into exile were the higher officials, royalty, and priests–many of whom likely shared the views of the earlier reforms.  These are the people who again took power after the exile, imposing their views on the population who had remained behind in Judah. In my next post, I will look at the further reforms that were made after the exile, in the period of the Second Temple, and how many of those upon whom these reforms were imposed rejected them, favoring the beliefs of the old religion.  My goal is to show how, once again, the religion of ancient Israel was modified, suppressing the ancient beliefs.

]]> http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2008/07/12/the-suppression-of-ancient-truths/feed/ 7 http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2008/07/09/exciting-news-from-the-temple-institute/ http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2008/07/09/exciting-news-from-the-temple-institute/#comments Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:08:05 +0000 David Larsen http://davidjlarsen.wordpress.com/?p=97

In the interval while I am writing some follow-up thoughts to my last post, I thought I would share some exciting news with you from the Temple Institute, a Jerusalem organization which has as its goal the building of a temple in Jerusalem. In case you haven’t heard of them, please have a look at www.templeinstitute.com. I first came in contact with them while on a tour of the Holy Land in 1993. From their website, here is a brief description of their goals and purpose:

The Temple Institute (in Hebrew, Machon HaMikdash), founded in 1987, is a non-profit educational and religious organization located in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. The Institute is dedicated to every aspect of the Biblical commandment to build the Holy Temple of G-d on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. Our short-term goal is to rekindle the flame of the Holy Temple in the hearts of mankind through education. Our long-term goal is to do all in our limited power to bring about the building of the Holy Temple in our time. Thus, the Institute’s efforts include raising public awareness about the Holy Temple, and the central role that it occupies in the spiritual life of mankind. The many areas of activities conducted by the Institute combine research, seminars, publications, and conferences, as well as the production of educational materials.

Further explaining the methods behind their goals:

Bronze Sea at Solomon’s Temple

The Temple Institute was founded on the principle of action. Its goal is to provide a basis in research, planning and infrastructure for the Third Temple. 

 The basis of the Institute’s work is the commandment given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, “And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell amongst them” (Ex. 25:8). The Institute’s efforts towards preparing for the Temple in our time can be compared to the preparations that were done in the days of the tabernacle and later, by King David.

Concerning their research department: 

A team of rabbis, scholars, scientists and other experts in various fields are presently occupied with the study of various Temple-related subjects. The results of these studies are published periodically by the Temple Institute.

The conclusions of this research form the basis for the creation of the sacred vessels and priestly garments that are fashioned by the Institute’s Restoration Department, comprised of experts representing a wide range of fields and professions: gold and silversmiths, weavers, gemologists, musicologists, carpenters, painters, graphic artists, architects and more.

Although I was only 16 years old when I visited the Temple Institute museum, I can still remember seeing all the beautiful gold/brass vessels, lavers, horns, and other temple instruments that they had already made for use in the Third Temple. I was amazed that they were actually working toward this goal and that they actually had things ready for it-just waiting to be used whenever the Temple would be allowed to be built. Today, they have many more items ready.

Just recently, they announced that they are making the sacred temple robes for the temple priests (cohanim)! Check out this video of “The Inauguration Ceremony of The New Workshop for Priestly Garments.”

See photos of the event here.

Also, I encourage you to sign their online petition “calling for the government of Israel to allow Jews freedom of worship on the Temple Mount.”

The Temple Institute is doing some great work in Israel and among the Jews in promoting interest in the building of a new Temple in Jerusalem. Although they may have a different outlook from some of us on how a temple should be (to me, they have what I would call a “Second Temple” perspective), it is still very exciting to see their determination to rebuild the House of the Lord.