Margaret Barker and Temple Theology

[Jim]

Hey guys

A friend of mine who comes from a Liberal Protestant background has been hounding me to read this essay by Methodist theologian Margaret Barker: margaretbarker.com/Papers/TempleandLiturgy.pdf
He wants me to comment on this from a traditional Catholic point of view. Can anybody offer any insights for me? Thanks!

 

[Mintaka]

Well, I haven’t gotten very far into it, but it sounds like the lady is talking about a lot of the same aspects of worship in the Temple as a forerunner of Mass, and a foreshadowing of Jesus’ acts, that Scott Hahn gets into in some of his books.

And the Book of Hebrews also gets into it, of course.

There’s a very good series of talks on the Epistle to the Hebrews over at the Our Lady of the Atonement parish website. (That’s the Anglican Use, Latin Rite Catholic parish down in San Antonio.) Lots on the comparison between Temple worship and what Jesus did, and what we do in the Sacraments. Here’s their podcast page:

atonementonline.com/podcasts/index.php

I don’t know whether this specific author’s take on the subject is good or bad, because I’m way too tired to read intelligently at the moment; I gave up after a couple pages. Sorry!

 

[DOShea]

I didn’t read it all either because by the end of page two I was convinced the author has a very unique or different interpretation on many issues. She claims “certain facts must go,” but gives no sound reasoning why on each. She says, for example, “the Western Church has the wrong testament” and bases all of this claim on texts from Qumran. Well that’s nice, but where is the fundamental difference in text she claims is there, and by what means has she substantiated this text as more/less valid than any other?

She claims fire was not present in the second temple. Perhaps she could offer an explanation of how turtle doves were sacrificed, or lambs, were it not for the fire? Maybe she could explain with some “new” understanding why Jerusalem had so many restrictions on individual fires (personal fires) used in the city, and these at the time of Chirst? Personal fires could only be burned using certain types of wood; meat cooked on those fires could only be cooked a certain way; certain spices used on the meat were absolutely prohibited. All of these so there would be no personal cooking going on that could possibly be blown by the wind into the Temple area and stink up the place or profane the sweet smoke of the animal sacrifices.

All in all, for two pages it seems like she is totally ignoring sources such as Alfred Edersheim, a 19th century historian who wrote prolifically about the details of the Temple, its sacrifices, rituals, and their meanings. That doesn’t square with her idea that no information is available. It leads me to believe she hasn’t searched well enough to support the claims.

 

[Micael]

Jim, heard your piece regarding this same subject on Open Line Wednesday.

I agree with Father Mitch the matterial is in essence all over the place and not much of an academic work.

It almost seems at times she is going to to discover orthodox Christianity in the Catholic Church, but then she just takes these swings away from othodoxy providing unauthoritative books more credit than they are due.

Regarding her comment on the Scriptures and Western Canon …she needs to realize that it is not so to much that Quimran had the correct cannon, a silly concept as mentioned by Fr. Mitch, but that NO hebrew sect had the exact canon(the Hebrew Canon was never closed for all Jews, ie, Essenes- Quimran, Pharisees, Saducees, and the Beta Israel of Jewish Ethiopia all had various canons with varying inclusions and exclusions of certain books .

That the authority to “bind and loosen” (Mt 16) WAS given to Christ and his Christian/Catholic Church when it bound bible canon late in the 4th century - unofficially and eventually did officially in a two step process: Declared the same canon of scripture “inspired Word of God” durring the Ecumenical Council of Florence in the mid 1400’s the declared those same books “canonical” durring the Council of Trent when they were questioned as scripture by the Protestants.

It is not so much that the Western Church got it wrong, but the Protestants and their decendants. Someone ought to provide Ms. Barker a bit more information regarding the early Church. It seem she is familiar with Justing Martyr…she needs to read a bit more about Ireneus, Athanasius, and Pope Damasus, and the Council of Hippo/Carthage…How we received the New Testament—> we received them simultaneously as NT AND OT which is never reported by those Christians outsided the Church.(for its obvious problematic implication that Christ does not divide his WORD between those unorthorized and those authorized through Him.

We ultimately receive the Word, from the Hebrew Messiah, which fulfilled all and provideds the authority to the fulfilled “Israel” via the Church He established on earth not mere Hebrew sects that rejected him. But that same Hebrew-Christian body he established upon Peter and the Apostles (Mt 16 & 18) and every other sect that abides separate from Christ would be eradicated as Christ said in Mt 15 : "He replied, “Every plant that My heavenly Father didn’t plant will be uprooted.” —not a coincidence he says this a chapter before he declares the authority of His Church in Mt 16.

 

[2wonderY]

Last year I read Jesuit priest, Micheal McGukian’s book, “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” I stumbled upon it in a used bookstore, and have been buying up copies online to pass on to friends. I think it is a most important work in understanding the Mass; opening the gift further and understanding more fully what salvation and the church are about. I read it once myself, and then again with a study partner,

I had also chanced upon one of Margaret Barker’s books on temple theology, “On Earth As It Is In Heaven,” and read the two together. I knew nothing about Ms. Barker’s reputation in orthodox circles, but became slightly uneasy when I read that the Morman church has taken up her writings.

I thought that the two works were marvelously meshed, and that her research amplified Fr. McGukian’s conclusions. We’ve gone on to read Pope Benedict’s “God is Near Us.” All three works seem to work well together.

I would very much like to hear a Catholic theologian’s take on Ms. Barker’s writings. I plan on reading some of the valuable references already posted. This territory is too important to get wrong. Glad to have found y’all.