Just finished Between the Testaments: From Malachi to Matthew (Deseret, 2002), by S. Kent Brown and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel. I put the book on the front panel at the DMI Bookstore (which you really ought to visit if you haven't). This isn't what you'd call a heavy doctrinal or historical book, but it's quite useful for bridging the disconnect between the end of the Old Testament and the dawn of the New Testament some 500 years later. In an earlier post I noted a couple of interesting items from Section I of the book, which reviewed the history of Judea during this period. Here I'll pick a theme from each of the other three sections, which cover sacred writings; parties or sects that emerged among the Jews in Judea; and doctrinal developments that arose during the period.
The Apocrypha date from this period. They were generally written in Greek and reflected, in places, Greek influence, which seems to be the primary reason they did not get incorporated into the Hebrew Bible. But that canonization process did not occur until the first century AD. Many such writings were included in the earlier Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament that was widely used by early Christians (another reason such writings were disfavored by Jewish canonizers). The Apocrypha are not generally familiar to Protestants anymore, although they were once routinely included in Protestant bibles. Catholic bibles include several of these books, which are termed "deutero-canonical" in the Catholic tradition. Mormons probably ought to be more familiar with the Apocrypha, given the direction of D&C 91 that "There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly." And a Mormon wading through the Apocrphya does, in fact, come across some rather interesting items. But that's for another post.
In the next section, the background material on the Pharisees was helpful. They were one of Josephus' four Jewish sects, the other three being the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots. The Pharisees emerged in the second century BC under the Hasmoneans. The Pharisees
believed in a life after death, complete with judgment and resurrection. Further, in their view, angels and spirits inhabit the heavens. They also believed in a divinely guided fate that steered the world toward God's planned destiny and thereby limited a person's free will. Further, they held that Moses received two laws on Mount Sinai, one that he wrote down and one that he passed on orally.
(p. 179-80.) In other words, the Pharisees might be considered proto-Christians, although I've never heard them described that way. Christians are never very comfortable with their Jewish roots. Just for comparison, the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch (rejecting the historical and prophetic books); taught that the soul was extinguished at death and therefore rejected heaven, hell, and the resurrection as well; rejected angels and spirits; and embraced free will (p. 182). It's amazing such divergent sets of views could both be thought of as falling under the general umbrella of Judaism. And it is also noteworthy that there seemed to be principled disagreement over free will versus determinism among Jewish intellectuals, the sort of discussion one normally associates, during this period, with Greek philosophy, not Jewish theology.
In the last section, the messiah material is useful stuff. When the Jews returned to Judea in the early 6th century, royalist hopes ran high and Zerubbabel was the focus of hopes for restoring the Davidic monarchy. But nothing came of that and Judea remained a Persian dependent, governed by a Persian appointee and answering to a Persian satrap (essentially a regional governor). Theorizing about a Davidic messiah and a priestly messiah arose as Jews tried to make sense of their religious aspirations in light of this new political reality.
Let me conclude with a paragraph from the book that nicely brings together a few themes.
No chapter in this book better highlights the absence of the prophetic voice during this period of Jewish history than this one dealing with various messianic hopes that surfaced in the intertestamental period. Most Jews and Christians accept what the author of the book of First Maccabees implied in his own narrative — that prophecy had ceased after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. And while some Jews believed that prophecy would return shortly before God's ultimate victory over evil, there is no evidence that a prophet raised his voice again among the Jews until the coming of John the Baptist.
(p. 218-19.) Thus prophecy appears to be strangely linked to monarchy. When the kingship withered, prophecy ceased. Just another interesting point that emerges from this helpful and instructive book.
Great review, thanks.
Posted by: john f. | Sep 29, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Prophecy is often closely associated with patriarchy, fathers having the natural right to prophesy regarding their own posterity and patriarchs being invested with the right to prophesy on behalf of fathers now in heaven, by virtue of the Melchizedek, or high priesthood.
And kingship (properly, also a Melchizedek priesthood office) is the fulfilment of patriarchal authority:
Notice the word "prince" with regard to Michael, father of all. Strictly speaking a righteous king is more like a prince than a king. There is only one Eternal Father, infinite and eternal, and hence only one true King, though many princes may bear His name by appointment, the Most High first among many brethren.
Now, as God is the true King of Israel, I am not sure we need an earthly king (which is a bit of an imposition) to be blessed with the gift of prophecy.
Note the following:
i.e. not kings to rule in our own right as absolute monarchs, but kings and priests unto the true and living God.
Posted by: Mark Butler | Sep 30, 2006 at 02:10 AM
Mark, FYI, Rev. 1:6 is translated poorly in the KJV. It ought to read "and has made us a kingdom and priests." "Kings" is not in the Greek. This might change your theology somewhat (if you allow linguistics to do that for you).
Dave, I also read this book, which I was reluctant to do given its publication with Deseretarded Book and its Mormon authorship. Rare are the times when I am actually impressed with Mormon Biblical scholarship, and this was one of them. Mormonized interjetions aside (I felt they were pining for Mormon similarities too much), it's a good college-level introductory work.
I recommend deSilva's Introducing the Apocrypha for more on that, and Ferguson's Backgrounds of Early Christianity for more on the Judaism(s) of the same period (cf. also N.T. Wright The New Testament and the People of God and Köester's History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age). For a great guide with small bibliographies and short summaries of the apocryphal books, see Craig Evans Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Most of these are graduate level. Just my two Lincolns.
Posted by: David J | Sep 30, 2006 at 02:13 PM
David J, I'm pleased you give the book a thumbs-up. It seems to fill a gap in the LDS book pantheon. I notice that Bruce's New Testament History, which the authors cited as further reading following almost every chapter, wasn't on your list. Is it now too dated to be a reliable reference?
Mark, from the first writing prophet (Amos) to the last (Malachi), these were men moved by the spirit of God (Heb. ruach or wind) to go deliver a message to the king and the people. And the court prophets (like Nathan) or the prophet guilds that we find reference to in Kings and Samuel, prior to the writing prophets, were also directed to king and people. I don't see anything particularly patriarchal (in the family sense you are using) about biblical prophecy.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 30, 2006 at 04:20 PM
Dave, I suppose Bruce's book is good, since most of his stuff is widely known. Sadly, I wasn't trained using any Bruce materials, so I'm not familiar with them at all. I would bet that it's a fair crop, however.
Mark, I back what Dave is saying here. What's the connection?
Posted by: David J | Sep 30, 2006 at 06:22 PM
David J,
I am glad to hear that - "kingdom" seems correct to me. A "prince" (re Michael in D&C 107) is a much more accurate title than "king" anyway. There can be only one true King, and one true kingdom.
Dave,
I do not disagree with what you are saying - I understand that patriarchal government essentially faded out by the time of Moses. After that the prophets are the only Melchizedek priesthood holders remaining, right? There are several good examples of patriarchal blessings in the Old Testament though, given by fathers to their sons. Strictly speaking, I don't think they needed the Melchizedek priesthood for that.
One other thing - I understand that secular government is generally the responsibility of the patriarchal authority (hence the necessity for Adam to commit keys, etc.)
So as the Melchizedek (with appropriate keys) outranks the patriarchal, it makes sense to send Melchizedek priesthood holders to prophesy unto kings who rule by grant of patriarchal authority. I do not believe that any of the Israelite kings held the Melchizedek priesthood. The last such functioning king was Melchizedek himself. Jesus Christ's kingly role on earth has not been fulfilled yet.
Posted by: Mark Butler | Sep 30, 2006 at 11:18 PM
I helped research and source-check for this book... but embarrasingly have never read it. Perhaps I should finally blow the dust off it and read it :)
Posted by: Marc | Oct 01, 2006 at 07:29 AM
Re: patriarchal prophecy, I can't see it much in the classical prophets.
But it's certainly present "in the beginning"- Genesis 49 is kind of the prototypical "patriarchal blessing." Israel says to his 12 sons, "Gather around, that I may tell you what will happen to you in days to come." Patriarchal prophecy. Also, IIRC, the Targums greatly expand on Gen. 49, and include a lot more "prophetic" material in Israel's mouth.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 01, 2006 at 03:02 PM