Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Markk »

Philo Sofee wrote:I suspect it is entirely unintentional on her part, but Margaret Barker seems to me to be a singular powerful source of giving Mormonism a stab in the heart with a saber. It didn't dawn on me until reading her truly intelligent analysis in her text "Temple Theology in the Gospel of John" (2014) why Mormons have more or less faded in their enthusiasm for her.

It was a good symbiotic relationship for a decade or so, with Mormons touting her books and helping sell many more tens of thousands of them to an audience she perhaps at first had no idea even existed. So, of course, she participated with them in several conferences, and symposia, writing articles which worked on themes related to Mormonism and enjoying the ride around the world of scholarship. This is not to say she is scheming, not at all. I see her as truly genuine in her endeavors to elucidate the Biblical World, and her scholarship is Mercea Eliade style only the focus for her is the First Temple as background to everything in the ancient Jewish, Early Christian world. She makes the Bible come alive again with her inclusion of extra canonical materials that are enjoyable to re-read, and compare.

But the cooling off has had to come about since she has no shied away from her most interesting theme of First Temple background for Jewish restoration religious spirituality. She has not wavered, and has demonstrated through historical exegesis and intriguing interpretation that the mission of Jesus Christ was for one thing. The restoration of First Temple Jewish truth and religion. And what was the actual temple restoration involved?

The bringing back of the Menorah, the budding rod of Aaron, the Holy Spirit, and the Worship of the Mother who gave birth to the universe. And this occurred in the Holy of Holies! The Heavenly Mother was the CORE of the Holy of Holies. What was her role? Giving birth to the universe in time and material which leads also to the birth of her Divine Son.

This demonstrates that, to the consternation of Mormonism, the temple ceremony of Mormonism is nothing like the actual original work/ritual in the ancient Jewish Temple. The Mormon temple materials are fobbing from Freemasonry, a rather modern (nothing more ancient of it than 1700) tissue of rituals literally having nothing in common with anything near ancient Jewish concern, ritual, religion, or history, except in name only. It is as much a guess concerning Hyrum Abiff as it is concerning Solomon's temple. Barker's materials are solidly in the line and arena of ancient Judaism, as we know of it with what sources we possess. The entire philosophy of the ancient Jewish mystical temple is not concerned with baptizing for the dead, or even marrying for eternity. The concept of marriage concerning a man and woman is concerned with the reconciliation and joining of opposites, not the solidifying of a man and woman in their own form for eternity as eternal male and eternal female. It is about the many becoming the one, such as Jesus prayed for mystically in John 17, a chapter Mormons continually misunderstand its true meaning concerning reality as Jesus was asking God for Him and the others. The eternal family, with parents and children is not Judaism's conceptualization, it is the actual mystical joining of all into the One. That is what is eternal. And it is the MOTHER who is central to that joining with power and love. This you will not find in Mormonism nor its temples. But that is the core of Jesus' religious work, the rejoining of the many into the One. Barker shows this from very many fascinating angles and use of ancient documents and comments from ancients' understanding.

Jewish First Temple Hopes and meaning and philosophy and religion is simply by no possible stretch of even a light year's imagination is anything similar to what Mormonism does, says, or claims about its own temple work. Barker demonstrates this consistently and rather powerfully. The power of her material is, she doesn't have Mormonism in her sights at all. It doesn't even concern her, even though dozens of Mormon scholars have used her work to further their own biased agenda, who now see "temple" in absolutely everything in any scripture they can possibly discuss! They have so overblown the parallels and theme that it is all lost in a hazy overall glaze of everything ever said, thought or written has to do with the temple anciently, a simply ridiculous line of thinking.

Barker has never joined Mormonism regardless of what the Mormon scholars wooing her have said to her or praised her work, because for her, it isn't about which religion is true (another huge difference with her work and Mormon scholars!). It is about what was the ancient Jewish world about? Can we learn about it using the ancient writings of Jews (whether canonical or not), Greeks, or whoever has talked religious philosophy, and realize what Jesus actually was about? That is the theme, and has she ever stuck to her guns on it.

There is a lesson in this. The agenda of Barker is truth. Interpretation takes her in paths no one else dares go, because she has no goal to reach no matter what... except... what is the truth, not worrying about who can I please, or which group shall I join and get along with. And her ideas are argued, properly so, as she herself has said.

Her ideas that Jesus and all who follow him, when he was baptized was at that moment also resurrected, as all are who are baptized is nothing close to the Mormon doctrine, temple or otherwise. This too is another way in which she is so different and non-usable for any Christian group to latch onto and say here is confirmation of our own views! One does not die first in order to be resurrected. One is resurrected immediately during their own baptism. The only view Barker wants to verify is God's. This shows in her materials, much to the consternation of pretty much every organized religion out there.



I had a e-mail conversation with her years ago...I can't remember all the subject matter. I will go back through my old G-mail accounts and see if there is anything she wrote that might be interesting to this thread.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _grindael »

I did a drive by the other day and I thought I had gone back in time. I saw Don Bradley's name on four posts on the main Terrestrial page (at the same time!). Now that, (sadly) is something you don't see much anymore these days. I didn't comment, as I didn't have time, but I must say that it's always good to see his name there. Carry on...
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Nevo »

Physics Guy wrote:I'd like to hear what other scholars say about Margaret Barker. She sounds flaky to me.

Here's a sampling:
"In sum, while Barker's exposition may sometimes give the thoughtful reader pause, on the whole, it strikes this reviewer as a tissue of speculation that self-destructs for want of demonstration and even, in many cases, lack of argumentation" (G.W.E. Nickelsburg, review of Margaret Barker,The Older Testament: The Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in Sectarian Judaism and Early Christianity, in Journal of Biblical Literature 109 [1990]: 337).

"B. writes in an apodeictic manner, eschewing footnotes, and seldom, if ever, attempts to demonstrate the plausibility--or sometimes even the exact meaning--of her contentions. . . . There are no surprises here, then, for those already familiar with the work of this imaginative and idiosyncratic scholar. Others must be prepared for some startling obiter dicta. 'The ancient (Israelite) belief in God Most High and the second God with male and female aspects became the Christian Trinity' (p. 40). 'Those who wore the Name [of God on their headdress as priests] became the LORD' (p. 36). 'Wherever a Strong/Mighty Angel is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, it is the LORD' (p. 144)" (C. J. A. Hickling, review of Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to his Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 94 [2001]: 143).

"The main drawback of B.'s exposition of Revelation is the lack of grounding of her fundamental position in direct evidence. Although B. draws numerous conclusions based on parallels--some unclear or tenuous--between various ancient texts and Revelation, she herself admits that there is insufficient evidence for her assertions" (Susan F. Mathews, review of Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Which God Gave to Him to Show to his Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1), in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 [2002]: 368).

"B. explores the idea of human beings--in this case the Jewish priests--as angels, and makes some bold claims. First, based almost solely on evidence from the book of Revelation, she states, 'we must conclude that from the first generation, bishops were regarded as angels' (p. 105), but she offers little other support for such a claim. Second, regarding evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, she asserts, 'the Qumran texts confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that priests were regarded as angels' (p. 144). In dealing with material from Qumran, however, one cannot synthesize all the material to make a case for what the Qumran group believed without first making a case for why we should assume that all these texts are from the same community at the same point in their history; and that case is not made here. I find Barker's claims about the angelic nature of the priesthood unconvincing. The work of scholars such as C. A. Rowland, J. E. Fossum, L. Hurtado, and especially C. A. Gieschen, who have done important research in this area of study, is not mentioned" (Kevin P. Sullivan, review of Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 [2004]: 314).

"In a more recent essay, Barker proposes that the worship of Jesus is to be explained by alleged traditions of the real apotheosis of divine kings and priests in ancient Israel, who were worshiped by Israelites as human embodiments of the God of Israel. It is not entirely clear how her various explanations fit together. . . . Moreover, examination of the evidence she proffers often makes it difficult to accept her claims. One example: Barker cites one line from Somn. 2.189 as showing that Philo knew and accepted the divinity of the high priest, whereas the context makes it clear that Philo specifically demurs from any such idea ('Is he then a god? I will not say so...')" (Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003]: 33n16).
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Kishkumen »

Yeah, that is not encouraging!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Not to worry Kish, It's to be expected when she steps on so many toes of those who want the world to imagine they are the only ones in the know, and their paradigm is the correct one. None of them have ever had the final say so and convincing evidence that their view is the most correct one either. It's academic tit for tat, a mere snippet of taking a small paragraph out of literally thousands of pages of analysis, investigation and incredibly fascinating information with background in over a dozen books that none of her critics have ever even thought of, let alone investigated. No wonder they rumble! I find Barker to be a breath of fresh air, and getting me back interested in looking further into the Bible. For that alone, not least, I thank her for her amazing and fascinating investigations. There is never going to be anything that is not questionable in biblical studies. There has never been finality, so it is nigh unto amusing to see some squirm in discomfort and attempt to elevate their own views through denigrating another's serious and sincere rather exhaustive investigation into a new view based on actual background (First Temple Judaism) that has never been thought through. No wonder they are miffed! It is exactly as it should be.

They complain there is no direct evidence for her main thesis. LOL! As if their views have such... oh for misdirection! I rather do wish Larry Hurtado had been more clear. Exactly where was Barker misquoting Philo and how so? His vague "a recent essay" just doesn't cut the mustard... remember these appear more to be Evangelicals disagreeing with her, since she is discussing the theosis and deification of men, mere humans, something Evangelicals squirm like crazy about. It may not be so much that Barker is incorrect as the scholars are uncomfortable about the information she has gathered and demonstrated. It is not merely Philo she uses, but a host of ancient texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi codices in these lines of inquiry.

D. T. Runia, for instance, "God and Man in Philo of Alexandria," in Journal of Theological Studies, (39.1, April, 1988) shows Philo certainly knew that men can be deified, especially pp. 70f of his very fine analysis.

Another area that Barker has certainly been influential with is in the temple studies group online which has compiled a biography of over 8,000 entries throughout the scholarly literature of the interest, importance, and historical significance of temples in dozens of ancient cultures, but especially in ancient Near Eastern areas. Here is the link to just the biographies in the scholarly literature of A-F, click the button on the full listing of biographies for all of them from A-Z. It is, to be sure, utterly staggering HOW MUCH there is to learn. http://www.templestudies.org/bibliography-a-f/

I mean, Nevo simply noted a few negative comments of a few commentators. Why no positive? Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury said her work is "original," and "challenging" and her book Temple Mysticism is "a welcome study, enlarging the mind and the imagination." There are many others I could cite. John McDade, Principle of Heythrop College, University of London said Her "interpretation of temple theology should not be ignored by anyone interested in Judaism and the origins of Christian faith." To cite another one. Every scholar has positive and negative reviews, and they ALL must be taken into account. But to judge her on what others have said instead of reading her for ourselves? That's truly not the scholarly way.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Nevo »

Philo Sofee wrote:I rather do wish Larry Hurtado had been more clear. Exactly where was Barker misquoting Philo and how so? His vague "a recent essay" just doesn't cut the mustard...

Hurtado did mention the article. I just cut it out of the quote (note the ellipsis). Anyway, here it is if you're interested: "See Barker, 'The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus,' in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila, and G.S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 93-111."

Philo Sofee wrote:I mean, Nevo simply noted a few negative comments of a few commentators. Why no positive? Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury said her work is "original," and "challenging" and her book Temple Mysticism is "a welcome study, enlarging the mind and the imagination." There are many others I could cite. John McDade, Principle of Heythrop College, University of London said Her "interpretation of temple theology should not be ignored by anyone interested in Judaism and the origins of Christian faith."

I think everyone agrees that Barker's work is "original" and "challenging"--for better or for worse. Barker has her admirers, to be sure, but I've noticed that they tend to be theologians, not historians. Few historical-critical scholars seem to take her very seriously.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Dec 23, 2019 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Nevo wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:I rather do wish Larry Hurtado had been more clear. Exactly where was Barker misquoting Philo and how so? His vague "a recent essay" just doesn't cut the mustard...

Hurtado did mention the article. I just cut it out of the quote (note the ellipsis). Anyway, here it is if you're interested: "See Barker, 'The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus,' in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila, and G.S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 93-111."


Ah! Thanks so much amigo! I just re-read her article "Temple Imagery in Philo: An Indication of the Origin of the Logos?" originally in W. Horbury, ed., Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel and couldn't find what Hurtado was discussing, so I was and still am curious.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Nevo
think everyone agrees that Barker's work is "original" and "challenging"--for better or for worse. Barker has her admirers, to be sure, but I've noticed that they tend to be theologians, not historians. Few historical-critical scholars seem to take her very seriously.


Yes, I figured that. They all love to cling to their own pet theories about what is "historical" and what is not, again, with the idea that we all know history is reconstruction based on limited sources, and hence interpretation ends up becoming "history" which is tenaciously defended, and which usually, sooner or later, turns out to be either wrong or incomplete, with reassessment occurring all the time. It is inevitable, so I wouldn't put too much stress on historical-critical conclusions. After all, they all knew all about Judaism and early Christianity until the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi codices showed them that what they know just ain't so.... nothing is as notoriously difficult, nor incomplete as ancient historical "knowledge" of what is real.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Gray Ghost
_Emeritus
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Margaret Barker Decimates Mormonism at its Core

Post by _Gray Ghost »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Yes, I figured that. They all love to cling to their own pet theories about what is "historical" and what is not, again, with the idea that we all know history is reconstruction based on limited sources, and hence interpretation ends up becoming "history" which is tenaciously defended, and which usually, sooner or later, turns out to be either wrong or incomplete, with reassessment occurring all the time. It is inevitable, so I wouldn't put too much stress on historical-critical conclusions. After all, they all knew all about Judaism and early Christianity until the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi codices showed them that what they know just ain't so.... nothing is as notoriously difficult, nor incomplete as ancient historical "knowledge" of what is real.


What alternative are you suggesting in lieu of historical criticism?
Post Reply