Melchezidek Priesthood, Josiah Cleansing, and the Nature of the "Trinity"

[urroner]

I found a book by Margaret Barker, Temple Theology An Introduction" that I had bought a long time ago and it had fallen behind a piece of furniture in my house. It was a great find and as I'm reading it, I find some really interesting pieces of information, especially when it comes to the concept of the Melchezidek priesthood and what the typical mainstream Christian percieves it. While the typical mainstream Christian believes that the only person to hold the MP is Christ, according to Margaret Barker, the MP was an older priesthood that existed before the time of Moses and the start of the Aaronic priesthood. She said that the MP is the priesthood of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and many of the prophets in the OT.

In this excerpt from the book, she also talks about the great purge of King Josiah, how it altered the concept of the first temple and the scriptures, and also how the concept of God was vastly changed from before the purge to after the purge.

The part I'm quoting here is from pp 6 - 9

For Christians, these are very serious questions. Since the 'primary' sources for the history of the Jerusalem monarchy (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings) are hostile to most of the kings, any reconstruction of the origin of the Messianic ideal in Jerusalem is seriously hampered. This same source is also hostile to the first temple in Jerusalem, and so any search for the temple roots of Christian worship has to rely largely on material outside the Old Testament. The Old Testament does tell the story of Israel's religion, but not in the way that is often assumed. The key event was the great purge in the time of King Josiah at the end of the seventh century BCE, when everything that the Deuteronomists deemed impure was removed from the temple and destroyed (2 Kings 23). This is not an objective account, and it is easy to see that most of what King Josiah removed were the religious artefacts and preactices of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and almost all the kings in Jerusalem. They had survived in the land until the sixth century BCE - sacred trees, pillars, places outside Jerusalem to offer sacrifice - but King josiah removed evrything that did not conform to the Moses religion as set out in Deuteronomy. In other words, the 'Moses' religion with the ten commandments and the Aaronic priesthood did not finally the Abrahamic faith and the Melchizedek priesthood until just before the first temple was destoyed. (It is hard to find any indication in the early chapters of Isaiah written in the eighth century BCE, that the prophet knew about Moses and the ten commandments.)

The most importan result of Josiah's purge was the introduction of monotheism. The earlier religion had known of God Most High = the deity worshipped by Melchizedek (Gen 14:19 - El Shaddai, the deity of the patriarchs (Exod. 6:3), and Yahweh, who appeared in human form, for example to shut Noah safely into the ark (Gen. 7:16). There is no proof that these were one and the same deity. Only later were all these ancient forms said to be identical. It was the prophet of the exile who declared that Yahweh was El, and that there was no other God (Isa. 42:12-13, 45:22). In the more ancient names for the deities, however, we glimpse the Father (God Most High), the Son (Yahweh, the One who appeared in human form), and the Mother (El Shaddai, whose name means the God with breasts). The Qur'an implies that Christians were sorshipping the Mother and the Son, presumably as part of their Trinity, but emphasizes that Jesus did not teach them to worship in that way (4:171; 5:75-76, 116).

...

Recovering the world of the original temple is not a simple matter. There is no single text which reveals the lost world and proves beyond any doubt that what I am proposing was the case. What is beyond doubt is the unsatisfactory and even unreasonable account of "New Testament background" which has prevailed for so long. It has been assumed that rabbinic texts from a period long after the New Testament could be used to illustrate the New testamen situation, but that the writings of Philo, a Jewish comtemporary of Jesus in Egypt, were suspect because they were so differnt from the rabbinic texts. Giant figures whose influence shaped New testament scholarship throughout the twentieth centruy have now been accused of assuming 'the acute Hellenization...the syncretistic paganization of primitive Christianity' and repeating this argument without verifying it adequately in the ancient sources. Things are changing.

I find these paragraphs utterly fascinating and this is only at the very start of the book. To me, these pieces of ancient beliefs and practices blows holes in the Evanglical/Mainstream/Traditional/Biblical/Fundamentalist use of Hebrews in their attempt to discredit the Mormon Church's doctrine of the Melchizedek Priesthood, their stubborn adherence to their concept of an non-understandable Trinity and the infallibility/completeness of the Bible.

[Kevin Christensen]

I found a book by Margaret Barker, Temple Theology An Introduction" that I had bought a long time ago and it had fallen behind a piece of furniture in my house. It was a great find and as I'm reading it, I find some really interesting pieces of information, especially when it comes to the concept of the Melchezidek priesthood and what the typical mainstream Christian percieves it. While the typical mainstream Christian believes that the only person to hold the MP is Christ, according to Margaret Barker, the MP was an older priesthood that existed before the time of Moses and the start of the Aaronic priesthood. She said that the MP is the priesthood of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and many of the prophets in the OT.

In this excerpt from the book, she also talks about the great purge of King Josiah, how it altered the concept of the first temple and the scriptures, and also how the concept of God was vastly changed from before the purge to after the purge.

SNIP

It's a great little book. She was nominated for the 2007 Michael Ramsey Prize for the best The Theological Writing for the previous two years, the first woman to be so honored. That Prize is administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who later awared her an honorary doctrate for Temple Themes in Christian Worship. That is the book I recommend first to the unintiated. It's probably the easiest one for those have not come with the preparation that intense Nibleyophilia provides.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Vance]

I found a book by Margaret Barker, Temple Theology An Introduction" that I had bought a long time ago and it had fallen behind a piece of furniture in my house. It was a great find and as I'm reading it, I find some really interesting pieces of information, especially when it comes to the concept of the Melchezidek priesthood and what the typical mainstream Christian percieves it. While the typical mainstream Christian believes that the only person to hold the MP is Christ, according to Margaret Barker, the MP was an older priesthood that existed before the time of Moses and the start of the Aaronic priesthood. She said that the MP is the priesthood of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and many of the prophets in the OT.

In this excerpt from the book, she also talks about the great purge of King Josiah, how it altered the concept of the first temple and the scriptures, and also how the concept of God was vastly changed from before the purge to after the purge.

The part I'm quoting here is from pp 6 - 9

I find these paragraphs utterly fascinating and this is only at the very start of the book. To me, these pieces of ancient beliefs and practices blows holes in the Evanglical/Mainstream/Traditional/Biblical/Fundamentalist use of Hebrews in their attempt to discredit the Mormon Church's doctrine of the Melchizedek Priesthood, their stubborn adherence to their concept of an non-understandable Trinity and the infallibility/completeness of the Bible.

Shhhh!!!!

Don't tell Bowman, because it will destroy one of his arguments.

There are at least two fatal problems with this explanation for the term

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

Mormons can accept Margaret Barker's speculative reconstruction of pre-Old Testament Israelite religion and theology only at the cost of utterly undermining the Book of Mormon, which pervasively reflects the same despised "Deuteronomic," "Josianic" perspective and presupposes that Moses, the Ten Commandments, and all of the book of Isaiah originated before 600 BC. By the way, not that it matters to many Mormons, but the New Testament also presupposes the validity of the Old Testament in essentially the same form and doctrinal perspective that we have today.

[WalkerW]

urroner,

Mormons can accept Margaret Barker's speculative reconstruction of pre-Old Testament Israelite religion and theology only at the cost of utterly undermining the Book of Mormon, which pervasively reflects the same despised "Deuteronomic," "Josianic" perspective and presupposes that Moses, the Ten Commandments, and all of the book of Isaiah originated before 600 BC. By the way, not that it matters to many Mormons, but the New Testament also presupposes the validity of the Old Testament in essentially the same form and doctrinal perspective that we have today.

You might want to check out Kevin Christensen's work before you draw that conclusion.

Or Brant Gardner's "Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book."

[Bill Hamblin]

David Larsen just posted a new article on the topic on Millennial Star

My link

[kolipoki09]

Temple Theology was my first introduction to Barker, and I've read three of her books since then. Her work on Josiah's reform completely changed the way I read the Old Testament.

[urroner]

urroner,

Mormons can accept Margaret Barker's speculative reconstruction of pre-Old Testament Israelite religion and theology only at the cost of utterly undermining the Book of Mormon, which pervasively reflects the same despised "Deuteronomic," "Josianic" perspective and presupposes that Moses, the Ten Commandments, and all of the book of Isaiah originated before 600 BC. By the way, not that it matters to many Mormons, but the New Testament also presupposes the validity of the Old Testament in essentially the same form and doctrinal perspective that we have today.

Rob, could you please expound a little bit more upon why what Margaret Barker says undermines the BofM? Also, could you explain why what she also says isn't damaging to the belief system of modern day mainstream Christianity, especially the systems of those who demand the Bible to be infallible, totally God-breathed, complete, and inerrant? Their concept of what the Melchizedek Priesthood is is totally demolished by what she has said.

I was utterly amused by what you did in your post. I believe it's called deflection. Here is evidence that destroys some of the fundamentals of modern day Biblical/Evanglical/Fundamentalist beliefs systems and you just simply wave your hand and dismissed it without giving it a single thought. It disagrees with what you believe, therefore, in your heart, it is wrong and shouldn't even be considered, but you know in your heart of hearts that it's the truth and can damage what you believe, so what is better than the art of deflection? Deflect away buddy and, like what Carl Mosser and Paul Owen said, neglect the evidence and lose the battle without even knowing it.

[urroner]

David Larsen just posted a new article on the topic on Millennial Star

My link

Bill, great link. I especially liked this part here, found in his last paragraph of the article:

Much more could be said about all this. What I

[Rob Bowman]

WalkerW,

I'm familiar with some of Kevin's writing regarding Margaret Barker, but perhaps you can help me out by directing me to his article or articles (out of the large number of articles at the link you gave) in which Kevin refutes the following points I made:

• that the Book of Mormon presupposes that the Ten Commandments predated 600 BC
• that the Book of Mormon presupposes that Isaiah (including so-called Deutero-Isaiah) was written before 600 BC

In addition, please refer me to an article in which anyone refutes the following observation:

• that the Book of Mormon exhibits the same alleged "conflation" of Yahweh (the Lord) with Elohim (God) as supposedly was a principal theological contribution of the Deuteronomists

You might want to check out Kevin Christensen's work before you draw that conclusion.

Or Brant Gardner's "Monotheism, Messiah, and Mormon's Book."

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

I don't have the time to present a detailed response here to the many books of Margaret Barker and the Mormons who think she has vindicated key LDS claims. I gave a couple of clear examples of serious problems in this regard. The Book of Mormon presupposes that the Ten Commandments were part of the Jewish religious faith before 600 BC (since it quotes them in full, in the same version that appears in Exodus 20). The Book of Mormon also assumes that so-called Deutero-Isaiah predated 600 BC.

Barker's theories are inimical to historic orthodox Christian faith and to evangelical theology. That would be a problem for me if I thought Barker's theories were true. I don't. And the issue here is not inerrancy. Nor is it true that I am dismissing Barker without giving the matter any thought. I've spent a lot of time researching these issues and will continue to do so.

Sorry to be so brief, but I have other matters to which I must attend. I'm willing to discuss the above points if there's interest.

Rob, could you please expound a little bit more upon why what Margaret Barker says undermines the BofM? Also, could you explain why what she also says isn't damaging to the belief system of modern day mainstream Christianity, especially the systems of those who demand the Bible to be infallible, totally God-breathed, complete, and inerrant? Their concept of what the Melchizedek Priesthood is is totally demolished by what she has said.

I was utterly amused by what you did in your post. I believe it's called deflection. Here is evidence that destroys some of the fundamentals of modern day Biblical/Evanglical/Fundamentalist beliefs systems and you just simply wave your hand and dismissed it without giving it a single thought. It disagrees with what you believe, therefore, in your heart, it is wrong and shouldn't even be considered, but you know in your heart of hearts that it's the truth and can damage what you believe, so what is better than the art of deflection? Deflect away buddy and, like what Carl Mosser and Paul Owen said, neglect the evidence and lose the battle without even knowing it.

[LDS Guy 1986]

WalkerW,

I'm familiar with some of Kevin's writing regarding Margaret Barker, but perhaps you can help me out by directing me to his article or articles (out of the large number of articles at the link you gave) in which Kevin refutes the following points I made:

• that the Book of Mormon presupposes that the Ten Commandments predated 600 BC
• that the Book of Mormon presupposes that Isaiah (including so-called Deutero-Isaiah) was written before 600 BC

Well the Ten Commandments were recieved during the life of Moses which was at the latest 1391

[urroner]

urroner,

I don't have the time to present a detailed response here to the many books of Margaret Barker and the Mormons who think she has vindicated key LDS claims. I gave a couple of clear examples of serious problems in this regard. The Book of Mormon presupposes that the Ten Commandments were part of the Jewish religious faith before 600 BC (since it quotes them in full, in the same version that appears in Exodus 20). The Book of Mormon also assumes that so-called Deutero-Isaiah predated 600 BC.

Barker's theories are inimical to historic orthodox Christian faith and to evangelical theology. That would be a problem for me if I thought Barker's theories were true. I don't. And the issue here is not inerrancy. Nor is it true that I am dismissing Barker without giving the matter any thought. I've spent a lot of time researching these issues and will continue to do so.

Sorry to be so brief, but I have other matters to which I must attend. I'm willing to discuss the above points if there's interest.

I want to encourage you to be more specific on these problems with the BofM and Deutero-Isaiah and the Ten Commandments.

I would also encourage you to talk about the problems of current Evangelical/Biblical teaching of the Bible and how they differ from the comments that Margaret Barker talked about.

[David T]

Well the Ten Commandments were recieved during the life of Moses which was at the latest 1391

[LDS Guy 1986]

No, many devout and faithful individuals view the Pentateuch is being crafted late in the game, with many much later ideas retrojected onto the Moses figure for purposes of authority.

Most biblical scholars see strong evidence that the Book of Isaiah is made up of at least 2 - and sometimes 3 - distinct parts, not all written by the same individual, nor at the same time.

While what appears to be the majority of scholars understand the essential aspects of the first 39 chapters of Isaiah attributed to the historical Isaiah, the rest are attributed to at least one, if not more, significantly later figure(s).

So Exodus is a fraud?

As well as Issiah?

I disagree with this, if these books were fraudulently compiled then my Church must also be a fraud because Joseph Smith would of corrected these frauds in JST.

Interesting theories but I don't accept them and if it is true (and supported by compelling evidence) then it is solid evidence that Joseph Smith was at best a fallen Prophet when he wrote the JST and a worst never was a Prophet to begin with.

[WalkerW]

So Exodus is a fraud?

As well as Issiah?

I disagree with this, if these books were fraudulently compiled then my Church must also be a fraud because Joseph Smith would of corrected these frauds in JST.

Interesting theories but I don't accept them and if it is true (and supported by compelling evidence) then it is solid evidence that Joseph Smith was at best a fallen Prophet when he wrote the JST and a worst never was a Prophet to begin with.

I guess you'll either be leaving or plugging your ears and covering your eyes while yelling, "Nu uh!" at the top of your lungs.

[David T]

So Exodus is a fraud?

As well as Issiah?

I disagree with this, if these books were fraudulently compiled then my Church must also be a fraud because Joseph Smith would of corrected these frauds in JST.

Interesting theories but I don't accept them and if it is true (and supported by compelling evidence) then it is solid evidence that Joseph Smith was at best a fallen Prophet when he wrote the JST and a worst never was a Prophet to begin with.

These conclusions are the fruits of the fallacy of the Dichotomoy of "Either Scripture Is All Literal and Inerrant, or else it's all a Scam".

Personally, while you think this information is faith-demoting, I find that this knowledge places Joseph, and his work with the JST, absolutely and directly in the authentic prophetic tradition. See my post on my blog for a discussion of the JST and its content, "The Joseph Smith Translation As Inspired Targum and Pseudepigrapha for Latter-day Saints". You may also find useful some of my observations in this post: "Why All Church History Is Faith Promoting For Me"

[urroner]

One of the problems with most Christianity, and that includes some with the Mormon Church, is that they believe the scriptures of the OT that we have today are the same scriptures that those during and before Christ's day had and they think that once a book has been written, its contents don't change.

Well, they're wrong. I apologize now to those who deride Margaret Barker and think that she is a confused old lady and doesn't know what she is talking about, but I'm going to quote her again. I find her anything but a confused old lady and I feel that she does know what she is talking about and from the awards she has been receving, I'm not the only one.

From the same book, page 9

If Jesus taught people who were familiar with the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then this must have been part of the actual 'New Testament background.' These people even had different Hebrew Scriptures - different books and different versions of familiar tests such as Isaiah. Wha has happened to all those prophetic texts mentioned in the Books of Chronicles (e.g. the history of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the vision of Iddo the seer, 2 Chron. 9:29)? There was no fixed canon of Hebrew Scripture until after the advent of Christianity, and there is no good resaon to suspect that the familiar Hebrew canon was established in reaction to Christianity. Even the Hebrew text from which the English Bible is translated was fixed at the end of the first centruy CE and excluded the version(s) which the first Christians (and the Dead Sea community) had used. Other pre-Christian texts preservedthe voices of the long exile and of hostility to the second temple, yet these texts were only preserved by Christian scribes. Jew were forbidden to read them, and the scrolls of the 'minim' (heretics) had to be burned even if the contained the sacred Name. This explains what happened to much of the evidence. The 'long exile' treadition must have been one of the factors which distinguished Jews from Christians. In other words, the Christians were the heirs of those who rejected the second temple and its tradition, and longed for the restoration of the true temple. Given the tradition represented in the Old Testament as we have it in the Romand and Protestant Churches (that is, the Old Testament translated from the post Christian Hebrew Text), it is material outside the canon of scripture this is likely to prove a more useful source of information about the matrix of Christianity. {Italics in original.}

As time marches on, it appears, as least to me, that there is more and more evidence that the scripture being a fixed set of books is a rather recent event. Once again, the victors wrote the scriptures, so most of the scriptures in the OT come from the Southern Kingdom (Judah) and very little from the Nothern Kingdom (Israel) and also the scriptures that we have today often have a Deuteronomistic POV. Also, I feel that many of the books from the OT period that the early Christians used that the Jews of their day didn't used were left out because the early Church felt the need to be able to discuss scriptures with the Jews and this would be very difficult if the OT of the early Church contains different books or even different versions of books than those used by the Jews. I can't remember which ECF said this when he commented on why certain versus of certain books were left out of the Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

These conclusions are the fruits of the fallacy of the Dichotomoy of "Either Scripture Is All Literal and Inerrant, or else it's all a Scam".

Sigh. Is this some sort of theological twitch that Mormons have, throwing all alleged problems into the bin of "inerrancy of Scripture"?

If the Exodus didn't "literally" happen, is that okay? How about the resurrection of Christ?

The brand of Old Testament scholarship that you are endorsing maintains not merely that Isaiah is less than inerrant, but that the claim of Isaiah 40-54 that the conquest of the Babylonians by Cyrus and his restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem was foretold in advance as proof that the Lord is indeed God. This Old Testament scholarship you are touting maintains that the Exodus never happened, that Israelite religion was simply another form of Canaanite religion, that Abraham (he of the Book of Abraham) never existed, and that Moses (he of the Book of Moses) also never existed.

[urroner]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Sigh. Is this some sort of theological twitch that Mormons have, throwing all alleged problems into the bin of "inerrancy of Scripture"?

If the Exodus didn't "literally" happen, is that okay? How about the resurrection of Christ?

The brand of Old Testament scholarship that you are endorsing maintains not merely that Isaiah is less than inerrant, but that the claim of Isaiah 40-54 that the conquest of the Babylonians by Cyrus and his restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem was foretold in advance as proof that the Lord is indeed God. This Old Testament scholarship you are touting maintains that the Exodus never happened, that Israelite religion was simply another form of Canaanite religion, that Abraham (he of the Book of Abraham) never existed, and that Moses (he of the Book of Moses) also never existed.

And the brand of Christianity you choose has an inerrant Bible in spite of all the evidence against that. I guess that makes us even.

[Vance]

In this excerpt from the book, she also talks about the great purge of King Josiah, how it altered the concept of the first temple and the scriptures, and also how the concept of God was vastly changed from before the purge to after the purge.

Well, Jesus did say this,

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

[David T]

Sigh. Is this some sort of theological twitch that Mormons have, throwing all alleged problems into the bin of "inerrancy of Scripture"?

If the Exodus didn't "literally" happen, is that okay?

Sure. Does the removal of this as a historical fact change in any way the need of mankind for Salvation through the Atonement of Christ?

How about the resurrection of Christ?

The divine nature of Christ, and the reality of His Atonement actually is necessary for Christianity to have meaning, unlike a historical Israelite Exodus. The exodus story has fantastic and extremely vivid and useful symbols that can be applied to teach aspects of the principles of Salvation, but it is not Salvation in and of itself, nor is necessary for it to be actualized.

The brand of Old Testament scholarship that you are endorsing maintains not merely that Isaiah is less than inerrant, but that the claim of Isaiah 40-54 that the conquest of the Babylonians by Cyrus and his restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem was foretold in advance as proof that the Lord is indeed God.

Once again, I'm not sure how that practically effects principles of Salvation. There's a lot of great faith promoting stories out there that, when I find out aren't true, don't damage the reality of my own spiritual experiences and Salvation through Christ.

So a rhetorical literary device individuals use to prove that that YHWH is God ends up not being so great a proof, or having any verifiable basis in historical fact. So what? Does that negate the actual living proof that does exist as to God's power and majesty?

It's just like the KJV-Onlyists who insist that because modern scholastic translations relegate some verses that explicitly proclaim aspects of Christ's divine nature to footnotes that they are trying to actively and devilishly remove Christ's divinity itself from the scriptures - ignoring the fact that many more verses pertaining to this issue are retained in the text.

I'm quite fine with Isaiah not actually giving a divinely inspired Shout-out to Cyrus centuries before Cyrus' birth and rise to power. That has no effect on my personal experience and reliance on God.

This Old Testament scholarship you are touting maintains that the Exodus never happened, that Israelite religion was simply another form of Canaanite religion, that Abraham (he of the Book of Abraham) never existed, and that Moses (he of the Book of Moses) also never existed.

And if it ends up that those figures are literary composites, or that traditions and stories were latched onto them that didn't actually happen, but were composed for didactic purposes? I'm perfectly fine with that. My belief in, and faith in God - and in the divine mission and nature of Jesus Christ - and of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith - are not affected, nor are locked in or based in the historicity of those events or individuals.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

If you don't need Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah, may I infer that you don't need Joseph Smith, either?

[Vance]

nackhadlow,

If you don't need Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah, may I infer that you don't need Joseph Smith, either?

????????

What part of,

My belief in, and faith in God - and in the divine mission and nature of Jesus Christ - and of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith - are not affected, nor are locked in or based in the historicity of those events or individuals.

is so difficult for you to understand?

[LDS Guy 1986]

nackhadlow,

If you don't need Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah, may I infer that you don't need Joseph Smith, either?

I agree you don't need prophets, but it does help a lot to have them around to receive the will of the Lord for the world.

I don't NEED the prophet Thomas S. Monson around to help guide me in these day, but I sure WANT the prophet Thomas S. Monson around because I know 1) there is strength in numbers and 2) that I do not have all the answers myself.