Zacharias in what Temple?

[MichaelH]

I was reading in the gospel of Luke and it talks about Zacharias being in the temple at the time the angel Gabriel appeared to him and announced that he would have a son named John. I was curious as to what temple and is there a picture of the temple?

Thanks to anyone who can help.

[livy111us]

That is Herods Temple, or the Temple built by Herod, some of which still stands today.

Herod's Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BenRaines]

The temple used by the Children of Israel to worship. Solomon's temple would be the best example of what it was like

Ben Raines

[KTMxer_250f]

what did they do in temples back in those days? Was it like what goes on in ours today?

[livy111us]

yes and no. On the surface, it doesn't seem so butf you read, or listen to Mathew Browns work, he makes some AMAZING comparisons between the two.

I would recommend reading the book of Leviticus to get a base, and then begin to move onto some scholarly works on the subject. There are MANY of them. When you get to that point, I'll direct you if you'd like.

[Yekcidmij]

I was reading in the gospel of Luke and it talks about Zacharias being in the temple at the time the angel Gabriel appeared to him and announced that he would have a son named John. I was curious as to what temple and is there a picture of the temple?

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Josephus gives a really good description of what Herods Temple was like. Ben Raines is right too, it very closely resembles Solomons.

[Yekcidmij]

what did they do in temples back in those days?

Sacrifices (oversimplifying). In your example with Zachariah, he was going to go in and burn incense (see Exodus 30).

[Traveler]

There were two groups of Jews performing ordinances at the temple at the time of Jesus. One were the Pharisees who were an organization of Jewish priests created by Jonathan Maccabees that opposed Jesus and the Levite priests that performed sacrifices and other ordinances at the Temple. The other were Levite priests that were in opposition to the Pharisees that were directly connected to the society that left us the Dead Sea Scrolls that modern religious scholars tell us were Esceens. We learn from the historical documents recovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls that among the rotating duties of Levite Priests connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls were to daily burn incense in the inter sanctions of the Temple.

If modern religious scholars are correct then John the Baptist along with both his father and mother were Esceens. If Zacharias was an Esceen then according to the Gospel of Mary (the only historical document to provide detailed information on Mary the Mother of Jesus) that Mary was an Esceen Priestess (or virgin). This would mean that Jesus was an Esceen and the most likely candidate for a priest (teacher of righteousness) mentioned in some of the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This would mean that the Bible does not even come close to represent the scriptures used by Jesus, his apostles or the first Christians.

My point in posting this is to introduce the reason why many Christian religious scholars have strong incentive to ignore historical documents that reference Temple worship and those mentioned in the Bible involved in that worship during the era of Jesus. It also explains why the Christian scholars directly associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls hid and denied the existence of 50 specific Dead Sea Scroll documents for nearly 50 years and to this day down play the importance of these documents. One of these documents is titled “The Son of G-d” and has a uncanny resemblance to the witness of the Christ in the Book of Mormon given by Abinadi before King Noah.

The Traveler

[a-train]

what did they do in temples back in those days? Was it like what goes on in ours today?

Have you been to the temple? Your questions are the kind that lead to an enormous study and line of questioning. I'll try to put them into perspective:

What do they do in algebra? Is it like math?

The answers to those questions could get very lengthy.

-a-train

[Yekcidmij]

There were two groups of Jews performing ordinances at the temple at the time of Jesus. One were the Pharisees who were an organization of Jewish priests created by Jonathan Maccabees that opposed Jesus and the Levite priests that performed sacrifices and other ordinances at the Temple. The other were Levite priests that were in opposition to the Pharisees that were directly connected to the society that left us the Dead Sea Scrolls that modern religious scholars tell us were Esceens. We learn from the historical documents recovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls that among the rotating duties of Levite Priests connected to the Dead Sea Scrolls were to daily burn incense in the inter sanctions of the Temple.

Pharisees were not a priestly class. Pharisees were more like a political party than anything else that tried to exert influence where they could and were popular among the people in the streets. Sadducees were the majority of the Sanhedrin and were the priestly class, supposedly from the Zadok line. The high priest himself was a Sadducee. Essenes are the 3rd faction that Josephus mentions and are completely opposed to Herod's Temple. Many, if not most, believe the desert community at Qumran, responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, were Essenes. Essenes had little to nothing to do with the temple at the time. There was a 4th faction too called Zealots that were probably comparable in many ways to modern day jihadists. (My source is Josephus. I can post quotes from his works later when I get home to my bookshelf).

John the B. may have been an Essene. I'm inclined to think he wasn't due to his lifestyle. Living as what is pictured as a desert nomad doesn't match the purity concerns of the Essenes. The picture the gospels seem to paint is that John is just a prophet like Elijah. I don't see how simply being in the desert automatically connects him to the Essenes. Then again, his baptism practices are somewhat comparable to the Qumran group. And of interesting note, locust eating was permissible and locusts were "clean" according to Leviticus. So could John have been an Essene? Sure. If he was, I think it was likely that he seperated from them in some fashion whenever he was called to be a prophet.

If Zacharias was an Esceen then according to the Gospel of Mary (the only historical document to provide detailed information on Mary the Mother of Jesus) that Mary was an Esceen Priestess (or virgin).

I don't think the gospel of Mary can be conisdered to be a historically accurate document. With a christian or more likely a gnostic-christian author and a date of origin in the middle of the 2nd century, it comes well after the destruction of the temple and well after the final stand at Masada and after Bar Kokhba. It has gnostic overtones to it and the text itself is just about a few supposed teachings of Jesus, none of which deal with temple worship, and an obvious bias against Peter. There is no mention of worship, Zacharias, Essenes, Temple, or John the Baptist in the gospel of Mary either. And it's debatle as to which Mary is even in view in the gospel.

I can post the entire text if you like.

And if you were going to connect Jesus to one of the factions at the time, the most likely candidates would be the Pharisees, not Essenes. Jesus tells stories (the good Samaritan) and does things (touches dead bodies and lepers) that are extremely contrary to Essene views (and Pharisee and Sadducee views to boot). Jesus wasn't a dualist like the Essenes either. Essenes beleived in 2 Messiahs. Jesus did not, neither did the other NT writers. I don't think Jesus actually fits any of the major factions at the time. Sometimes he agrees with them on some things, other times he disagrees with all of them. Jesus seems to have been running his own faction centered on another temple - Himself.

One of these documents is titled “The Son of G-d”

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I will have to look at 4Q246 again when I get home. My thinking is that "Son of God" is a title for the king and doesn't necessarily mean "God" (2 Sam 7:14, Ex 4:22, Hos 6:1, Psalm 89, Psalm 2). But, I will have to look at that one.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Yekcidmij
spelling/grammar

[Yekcidmij]

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I will have to look at 4Q246 again when I get home. My thinking is that "Son of God" is a title for the king and doesn't necessarily mean "God" (2 Sam 7:14, Ex 4:22, Hos 6:1, Psalm 89, Psalm 2). But, I will have to look at that one.

After reading 4Q246, I think the fragment is refering to an "antichrist" type of figure. A likely candidate would be Antiochus IV.

(Wise, Abegg, and Cook translation of 4Q246):

Col 1 - [... a spirit from God] rested upon him, he fell before the throne. [... O ki]ng, wrath is coming to the world, and your years [shall be shortened...such] is your vision, and all of it is about to come unto the world. [...Amid] great [signs], tribulation is coming upon the land. [...After much killing] and slaughter, a prince of nations [will arise...] the king of Assyria and Egypt [...] he will be ruler over the land [...] will be subject to him and all will obey [him.] [Also his son] will be called the Great, and be designated by his name.

Col 2 - He will be called the Son of God, they will call him son of the Most High. But like the meteors that you saw in your vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign for only a few years over the land, while people tramples people and nation tramples nation. Until the people of God arise; then all will have rest from warfare. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all their paths will be righteous. They will judge the land justly, and all nations will make peace. Warfare will cease from the land, and all nations shall do obeisance to them. The great God will be their help, He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, overthrowing them all before them. God's rule will be an eternal rule and all the depths of [the earth are His].

It looks to me like the author was expecting war and tribulation and a prince of nations to arise and rule over everyone. After him his son will arise and rule, but together their rule would be short because the people of God would rise up with God fighting on their side and would win and bring in the eternal kingdom of God. As far as I can tell the "son of god" in this passage is not talking about THE "Son of GOD", but is talking about an antichrist type of figure who is using the title "son of god" inappropriately. A likely candidate the author might have in mind would be Antiochus, or maybe someone else like Philip and Alexander.

Here is one of the translator's comments (Edward Cook's comments): http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_1995/BBR_1995_03_Cook_4Q246.pdf

Edited October 8, 2008 by Yekcidmij

[Traveler]

Pharisees were not a priestly class. Pharisees were more like a political party than anything else that tried to exert influence where they could and were popular among the people in the streets. Sadducees were the majority of the Sanhedrin and were the priestly class, supposedly from the Zadok line. The high priest himself was a Sadducee. Essenes are the 3rd faction that Josephus mentions and are completely opposed to Herod's Temple. Many, if not most, believe the desert community at Qumran, responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, were Essenes. Essenes had little to nothing to do with the temple at the time. There was a 4th faction too called Zealots that were probably comparable in many ways to modern day jihadists. (My source is Josephus. I can post quotes from his works later when I get home to my bookshelf).

John the B. may have been an Essene. I'm inclined to think he wasn't due to his lifestyle. Living as what is pictured as a desert nomad doesn't match the purity concerns of the Essenes. The picture the gospels seem to paint is that John is just a prophet like Elijah. I don't see how simply being in the desert automatically connects him to the Essenes. Then again, his baptism practices are somewhat comparable to the Qumran group. And of interesting note, locust eating was permissible and locusts were "clean" according to Leviticus. So could John have been an Essene? Sure. If he was, I think it was likely that he seperated from them in some fashion whenever he was called to be a prophet.

I don't think the gospel of Mary can be conisdered to be a historically accurate document. With a christian or more likely a gnostic-christian author and a date of origin in the middle of the 2nd century, it comes well after the destruction of the temple and well after the final stand at Masada and after Bar Kokhba. It has gnostic overtones to it and the text itself is just about a few supposed teachings of Jesus, none of which deal with temple worship, and an obvious bias against Peter. There is no mention of worship, Zacharias, Essenes, Temple, or John the Baptist in the gospel of Mary either. And it's debatle as to which Mary is even in view in the gospel.

I can post the entire text if you like.

And if you were going to connect Jesus to one of the factions at the time, the most likely candidates would be the Pharisees, not Essenes. Jesus tells stories (the good Samaritan) and does things (touches dead bodies and lepers) that are extremely contrary to Essene views (and Pharisee and Sadducee views to boot). Jesus wasn't a dualist like the Essenes either. Essenes beleived in 2 Messiahs. Jesus did not, neither did the other NT writers. I don't think Jesus actually fits any of the major factions at the time. Sometimes he agrees with them on some things, other times he disagrees with all of them. Jesus seems to have been running his own faction centered on another temple - Himself.

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I will have to look at 4Q246 again when I get home. My thinking is that "Son of God" is a title for the king and doesn't necessarily mean "God" (2 Sam 7:14, Ex 4:22, Hos 6:1, Psalm 89, Psalm 2). But, I will have to look at that one.

First let us go to the Gospel of Mary – Perhaps there is some confusion because I was not referring to the document of the Birth of Mary but the document that is often called “The Protevangelion”. This was believed to be written by James the lesser and without question is not a Gnostic document. James the Lesser being the first Christian Bishop in Jerusalem and a contemporary blood relative of Jesus. It is from this document that we learn of Joseph’s bringing Mary to Jerusalem on a donkey, that Jesus was born in a cave and that Mary was a child priestess within the same order that Zacharias belonged to. It is also from this historical document that we learn that Zacharias was murdered in the temple near the alter (chapter 16:16.

There are several documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls that indicate the duties of Levite Priests of the order of Jews that performed their duties at the Temple of that era (including a rotating among priests to burn incense in the inner chambers of the temple. These duties are highlighted in a number documents as follows (4Q321, 4Q320, 4Q323-324A-B and 4Q319A).

As to the order of Esceen. You are correct to quote from Josephus since he is the only historian to make any reference to the Esceens. Personally I do not believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from the order of Esceen – my reasons are as follows:

1. Some of the Scribes at the Dead Sea settlement were also at Masada – this is the conclusion of graphologist experts that have studied manuscripts. From Josephus we know that the Esceens objected to all forms of military conflict.

2. The name of the settlement at the Dead Sea was Damascus – according to the DSS documents called the Damascus Documents and Rule of the Community. Paul was associated with Christians involved in a Jewish religious order at a place called Damascus. There is no indication that the Esceens had anything to do with Christians. It is also doubtful that Paul would attempt to cross more than one Roman province with Roman subjects for a death penalty with papers signed only by Jewish authorities without any Roman documents or indication of compliance – this leaves the Dead Sea Damascus as the only possibility of the order that Paul studied under to become a Christian Apostle.

3. Again the Esceens were not respectful of military conflict yet the Dead Sea Scrolls highlight in several places a conflict (including military conflict) between the sons of Light (one of the names that the order at Damascus called themselves, sons of Zadok being another) and the sons of Darkness.

4. The order at Damascus was involved with the temple in Jerusalem. Those of the order that maintained the Dead Sea settlement were only part of the order that was established in the “wilderness” as the vanguard of the order to meet the coming Messiah.

5. There is no reference in any Dead Sea Scroll document that references the order of Esceen nor was there any document or artifact that references anything known to be Esceen.

The assumption and effort by many Christian scholars that the order that gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls was Esceen is based (in my mind) on deceitful efforts to keep any possible connection of early Christians to the Dead Sea Scrolls from being realized. All the document discoveries in the last 150 years are attributed to either the Esceens or Gnostics. Leaving us to think that the Esceens and Gnostics far outnumbered any other Christian or Jewish order of that era and were far more concerned in preserving their sacred scriptures.

As to the Pharisees it was again Josephus that tells us of Jonathan and their his apointments (Ant 13.5.9 {171-173})

The Traveler

Edited October 8, 2008 by Traveler

[Yekcidmij]

First let us go to the Gospel of Mary – Perhaps there is some confusion because I was not referring to the document of the Birth of Mary but the document that is often called “The Protevangelion”. This was believed to be written by James the lesser and without question is not a Gnostic document. James the Lesser being the first Christian Bishop in Jerusalem and a contemporary blood relative of Jesus. It is from this document that we learn of Joseph’s bringing Mary to Jerusalem on a donkey, that Jesus was born in a cave and that Mary was a child priestess within the same order that Zacharias belonged to. It is also from this historical document that we learn that Zacharias was murdered in the temple near the alter (chapter 16:16.

Oh, I was thinking of neither of those. There is a "gospel of Mary" that I was thinking of that Dan Brown and company like to call on. I'll have to read the one you're talking about later.

There are several documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls that indicate the duties of Levite Priests of the order of Jews that performed their duties at the Temple of that era (including a rotating among priests to burn incense in the inner chambers of the temple. These duties are highlighted in a number documents as follows (4Q321, 4Q320, 4Q323-324A-B and 4Q319A).

I don't think I disputed priests rotating. Luke 1 makes it clear that Zacharias was of the division of Abijah who I think was of the line of Zadok. Sadducees were still the majority of the Sanhedrin and priests at the time of Jesus. If I said that no Pharisee was a priest, I was incorrect.

As to the order of Esceen. You are correct to quote from Josephus since he is the only historian to make any reference to the Esceens. Personally I do not believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls came from the order of Esceen – my reasons are as follows:

They may not have been. But Josephus says they also went to great pains in studying ancient documents and choose which are best for body and soul and inquire of roots and medical stones ( war 2.8.6) . The neglect pleasures and wedlock (war 2.8.2). They are not rich and must come together as a community (ant 18.1.5; war 2.8.3). And they do carry knives for self defense (2.8.4), but they are ministers peace (2.8.6). That doesn't mean they didn't expect a great messianic battle in which all the faithful would take part in. They were also hard determinists (Ant 13.6.9) wich goes rather well with expecting a messianic battle. We are also told by Josephus that they didn't practice sacrifices in the temple (ant 18.1.5). Josephus also seems to imply that some of them lived as monks (ant 18.1.5) and others of them grouped together in cities. So, it's certainly plausible, I think highly plausible that the Dead Sea Community was a group of Essenes. There is no need to go positing fictional sects to fit the data.

1. Some of the Scribes at the Dead Sea settlement were also at Masada – this is the conclusion of graphologist experts that have studied manuscripts. From Josephus we know that the Esceens objected to all forms of military conflict.

Supposedly some Christians were there too, but Jesus' call to love your neighbor didn't (and still doesn't) stop Christians from believing in a final messianic battle. Finding some from Qumran at Masada shouldn't be surprising. Things probably seemed to be happening, to some at least, as the Qumran group had predicted. The temple had falled by the Romans and they were gathering out in the desert getting ready for the final battle with the messiah. There is nothing to rule out Essenes with that.

2. The name of the settlement at the Dead Sea was Damascus – according to the DSS documents called the Damascus Documents and Rule of the Community.

Paul was associated with Christians involved in a Jewish religious order at a place called Damascus.

Paul's association was to go persecute them: Acts 26:12 “While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests." He's not going to help Christians involved in a Jewish religious order. Acts 9 says Paul was preaching in the "synagogues" (plural) in Damasucs that Jesus was the son of God, which goes against your earlier belief that Qumran was expecting a divine son of God or that Christians were somehow welcome at Qumran. This was not received well at all by the Jews there and they plotted to kill him due to that. He also escaped the city by being lowered down from the "walls" because the "gates" were being watched. Qumran is a settlement or small community, not a city. Acts 8 also says Saul persecuted christians throughout Judea and Samaria. The setting of Acts 8-9 is Damascus, in modern day Syria. 1 Cor 11 settles the deal. Paul says he was ordered to be arrested by "King Aretas", but he escapes by being lowered from the walls in a basket. King Aretas was an Arabian king according to Josephus, and Josephus locates him in several battles in modern Jordan. Aretas III's kingdom included Damascus and he even held off a seige of the Romans and Petra and was allowed to retain control of Damascus in 62 BC alothough he became a client of Rome. The Damasucs Paul is in is definitely Syria, not a desert settlement community.

It's debatable as to whether or not they actually called this place Damascus or not. Damascus may be symbolic language, particularly from Amos 5:27. Then again, they may have called themselves Damascus, but I think when other Jews refered to Damascus they were refering to the actual Damascus in Syria. When I say "Jerusalem" to my family, they think Israel, but there is a Jerusalem, Alabama (I'm from alabama). When refering to the lesser known place I specify the difference, as I had to do in this sentence. The same with Paul, and other Jews, when refering to Damascus. Unless there is something to differentiate, the natural reading is the more populus and better known Damascus in Syria.

There is no indication that the Esceens had anything to do with Christians.

Unless Qumran is an Essene group and Christians were involved with them. There is no evidence that Christians were involved at Qumran though.

It is also doubtful that Paul would attempt to cross more than one Roman province with Roman subjects for a death penalty with papers signed only by Jewish authorities without any Roman documents or indication of compliance – this leaves the Dead Sea Damascus as the only possibility of the order that Paul studied under to become a Christian Apostle.

Why is Paul taking them back to Jerusalem in the first place? Because he can't try them in Syria. When Stephen is arrested there is little concern for Roman jurisdiction, he is simply stoned. It's also unlikely that had he been operating in Judea, he would need Synagogue approval. He would have just had the approval of the chief priests or Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. But in this case, he has letters from synagogues, the most probable explination is simply that the chief priests and Sanhedrin have no jurisdiction in Syrian Damascus.

4. The order at Damascus was involved with the temple in Jerusalem. Those of the order that maintained the Dead Sea settlement were only part of the order that was established in the “wilderness” as the vanguard of the order to meet the coming Messiah.

Which scroll says they were involved in the Jerusalem Temple? There is no evidence to ever connect them to Herod's temple in Jerusalem. The only documents mentioned so far about rotating priests are derived from the OT and probably refer to their own practice there at Qumran or planned temple practices when the first messiah came along and reestablished the true temple. The Qumran community was simply preparing for the building of the true temple when the messiah returned and the true temple worship he would establish. Their temple plans are in the Temple Scroll and a vision for "new Jerusalem" is in another scroll. They clearly didn't like the temple and were planning for the first messiah to come to them, the true righteous sons, and march to Jerusalem, and restablish the true temple. 4Q183 even speaks of the temple in Jerusalem as "defiled" and refered to other Jews as "violators of the covenant" in the War Scroll. In 1QSa and 4Q249 they say that the "Sons of Zadok, the priests, and the men of their covenant, they who ceased to walk in the way of the people". There is no like for the other Jewish sects or the temple in Jerusalem. Their choice was to remove themselves from Judaism and wait for a messiah in the desert (which goes to further explain why some may have participated in Massada).

I think Rabbinic evidence also points towards Essenes being excluded from Temple duties. The Pharisees prophibited even reading the Torah in public to anyone who would not appear in colored dress but only white dress (Megill 24b). Pharisees may have gone as far as to exclude Essenes from eternal life due to their adherence to external writings (Sanh 10.1) as well as those who "whispered over open wounds" (practiced magic healing) (Sanh 101a; Jer. Sanh 24b). Note, a couple of those references would also include Jesus and christians - who were run out of the temple and synagogues. Sadducees, who had no love for any writings outside Torah, wouldn't have like them either.

Evidence is that Qumran was an Essene group. Essenes didn't think the current temple and system were valid and so didn't practice there. The other major sects would have happily let them stay out and tried to keep them out.

As to the Pharisees it was again Josephus that tells us of Jonathan and their his apointments (Ant 13.5.9 {171-173})

Again, I didn't mean to say that no priest was a Pharisee, just that the Pharisees were more like a political party and not strictly a priestly class.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Yekcidmij

[Yekcidmij]

In addition to my last post, Pliny locates an Essene colony by the shores of the Dead Sea north of Engedi (Pliny Hist. Nat. v. 16, 17) and Josephus mentions them protecting the names of the Angels (war 2.8.7). Qumrman is just north of Engedi and the group was a little fascinated by angels and their names.

(17.) Lying on the west of Asphaltites, and sufficiently distant to escape its noxious exhalations, are the Esseni, a [p. 1431] people that live apart from the world, and marvellous beyond all others throughout the whole earth, for they have no women among them; to sexual desire they are strangers; money they have none; the palm-trees are their only companions. Day after day, however, their numbers are fully recruited by multitudes of strangers that resort to them, driven thither to adopt their usages by the tempests of fortune, and wearied with the miseries of life. Thus it is, that through thousands of ages, incredible to relate, this people eternally prolongs its existence, without a single birth taking place there; so fruitful a source of population to it is that weariness of life which is felt by others. Below this people was formerly the town of Engadda , second only to Hierosolyma in the fertility of its soil and its groves of palm-trees; now, like it, it is another heap of ashes. Next to it we come to Masada , a fortress on a rock, not far from Lake Asphaltites. Thus much concerning Judæa.

I think it's most plausible that the Qumran group was a group of Essenes.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Yekcidmij