The Holy Order all the way back to Adam, part 2

In this multi-post series, I'm fleshing out the following ideas:

1. The High Priest tradition is far older than Judaism, dating all the way back to Adam.
2. The Judaism we know today is a revised version of an older form of Judaism, formed in reaction to Christianity and also in reaction to the loss of the second temple.
3. Hebrew culture was fragmented even by the time of Lehi, with various groups condemning other groups as apostate from the true, ancient, covenant-and-temple-based religion.
4. The Old Testament as we know it was most likely written and edited by Jews who espoused a tradition which had long since rejected the original purpose of the Law of Moses. They intentionally left out much of the High Priestly tradition.
5. In order to have written the Book of Mormon (which clearly outlines this older, High Priestly tradition), Joseph Smith would have needed to have organized this complex and historically plausible theology by 1829, inserted in subtly into the text, and then stayed pretty quiet about it for a few years until he received revelations outlining the modern day restoration of these ancient practices, including the priesthood, the temple, eternal families, etc.

In this post, I'll focus on #2 through #4 of the points above.

Sects of Hebrew religion

It's too easy for us to assume that there was only one version of the ancient Hebrew religion, when the truth is probably closer to the wide array we see in Christianity today.

We know there were several prominent sects of the Hebrew religion by the time of Jesus. The Essenes, for example, were a prominent sect from the 2nd century before Christ until the 2nd century after Christ.  Here is how an early Christian scholar described one particular sub-sect of Essenes:

The Nasaraean—they were Jews by nationality—originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan... They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws—not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nasaraean and the others... (source)

I'm not claiming that this particular group were adherents to the High Priestly tradition, but it is interesting to note that they believed Moses had received a different law and that they refused to offer sacrifice. (Perhaps because they believed they temple authority had become corrupted?)

The point is that many groups existed, some of which did not recognize the second temple authority as valid.

The 'Long Exile' Tradition

In the introduction of her book, Barker asserts that some sects of Hebrews believed the temple had lost its true purpose and High Priestly authority. By end of the first temple period, when the exile began, the central purpose of the temple had been corrupted. Barker notes that for some of the Israelites, the spiritual exile from the temple's true meaning did not end even when the Jews were allowed to return to their homeland and allowed to rebuild and rededicate their temple. For the Israelites who did not recognize the authority of the temple as valid, the "exile" continued all the way to the time of Jesus.

It was this tradition (which Barker refers to as the "long exile" tradition) that awaited their Messiah, a great High Priest/prophet/king to come and restore what had been lost. Barker claims that adherents to this tradition were the prime target of early Christian missionary efforts, and that the incredibly rapid adoption of Christianity in the early days after Jesus came about in part when large groups of "long exile" Israelites living in the surrounding areas recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

Not everyone shared this worldview, though.  In fact, the political 'winners' of the day held firm to a tradition that revered the Law of Moses.

The Old Testament as a record of a different tradition

Barker says:

...the Old Testament, both text and canon, has a complex history...others who shared the Hebrew heritage did not always share the same beliefs or the same scriptures. Among these 'others' were the first Christians. The Hebrew Scriptures as we know them were preserved, edited and transmitted by the priests and scribes of the second temple, the very people whom the 'long exile' tradition had condemned as impure apostates who had altered the Scriptures. (Temple Theology, pp. 5-6)

I find this very interesting and compelling, seeing as how Lehi and his family were not Jews, but were of a different tribe (Manasseh), living as 2nd or 3rd generation refugees in Jerusalem among Jews.  It isn't hard to see that Lehi and Nephi did not consider the Jews to be righteous and on the right path.

Nephi says the following of the Jews in Jerusalem:

2 For I, Nephi, have not taught [my people] many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations. (2 Nephi 25)

He also made very specific prophecies about what would happen to the scriptures which fit right in to this picture:

26 ...for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13)

It seems very reasonable to conclude that the "Lehite" religion described in 1 and 2 Nephi is a close descendant of one of the versions of Hebrew religion of Lehi's day, possibly one that questioned the temple authority and looked to a future Messiah to make things right.  We shouldn't be surprised that this religion seems closer to Christianity than the version of Judaism we know.

The Judaism we know today (rabbinical Judaism) developed in part as a reaction to the development of Christianity.  Thus, as early Christians pointed to ancient Hebrew scripture to support their claim of Jesus as Messiah, Judaism adjusted its canon to create a clearer distinction from the Christian position.  This topic is discussed in detail in chapter 12 of The Great High Priest by Margaret Barker ("Text and Context). She gives examples of early Christian writers pointing out how the Jews of their day had altered their canon, changing some verses and removing entire books to exclude references to Christ.

To quote Barker:

Jesus was described and remembered as a great high priest (Hebrews 4:14), the Melchizedek raised up by the power of an indesctructible life (Hebrews 7:16) who had offered the final atonement sacrifice to fulfill and supercede the temple rites (Hebrews 9:1-14). ... Paul knew where the roots of Christianity lay; he argued that Christianity looked to the faith of Abraham (and by implication Melchizedek), and so was rooted earlier than the Law given to Moses. (Temple Theology, p. 4)

There is a fascinating document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls designated 11Q13, also known as the Melchizedek document, which references Melchizedek and speaks of an atonement for "the sons of light."  It is fragmentary, but includes passages like this:

Zion is ..., those who uphold the Covenant, who turn from walking [in] the way of the people. (link to wikipedia article)

Sounds very similar to Enoch from the Book of Moses. The Book of Enoch was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting it was a prominent part of that community's scriptural canon approaching the time of Christ. Both of these documents became lost to the Jews who practiced rabbinical Judaism.

Barker asserts that in order to understand the mindset of the early Christians, one must look to the ancient temple tradition:

Adam was remembered as the first high priest, and Jesus was described as the new Adam. The Christians remembered and hoped for the earlier Eden -- the true temple -- and saw themselves returning to the place and the priesthood from which they had been driven.  This was their worldview. (Temple Theology, p. 4)

This worldview was not shared by the Deuteronomists, who wrote and edited the Old Testament as we have it. It's not a stretch at all to conclude that the record we have today is not the same one had back then.

The final post in this series will look at what Joseph Smith would have needed to accomplish in order to include this complex theology into his new religion, as early as 1829.