The Briefing tracked down the interview that David Peterson mentions in his article, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls again’, in which three Qumran scholars—Barbara Thiering, Geza Vermes and Max Wilcox—speak with ABC Sunday Night Talk host, John Cleary, about Thiering’s new book, Jesus the Man. Geza Vermes is Emeritus Professor in Jewish Studies at Oxford University and is an acknowledged authority on the Dead Sea scrolls, and Max Wilcox is a senior lecturer in history at Macquarie University in Sydney. Many of you will have already heard of Thiering’s pesher technique of interpreting Scripture and her conclusion that Jesus did not die on the cross and that the new Testament actually describes in code his life with the Essene community. Her ‘new’ approach has been writ large in the popular media. But the following turbulent, sprawling academic argument gives us some idea of how the book has been critically received. For those who missed the broadcast, here is a highly condensed version of what was said.
Cleary: Barbara, could you describe the pesher technique and why hasn’t it been found before?
Thiering: Only too pleased. First of all, it appeared in the form of a hypothesis. I’d got to the point in my early Qumran studies in 1979 where I had seen that what I consider to be a far more careful treatment of the text of the scrolls indicates that we are dealing with a history that is in the Christian period and not, as the consensus view held, before 100BC. Once a particular passage was treated consistently and a mistranslation was corrected, I had established that there is a prima facie case to believe that the character in the scrolls who is the Teacher of Righteousness is John the Baptist and the rival teacher, the Wicked Priest, is Jesus and there is a date for this in the scrolls of 26AD.
We have now learnt from the scrolls, for the first time, a new definition of Scripture. According to the writers [of the scrolls], Scripture was written in a way that looked like one thing to ordinary people but had a special meaning in it for someone with special insight or skill. This person would find the pesher and see in the Old Testament another history … and then could write a new Scripture [New Testament] in the same way.
Cleary: Professor Vermes, to get things started, is it reasonable to suppose that the Dead Sea scrolls (DSS) dates line up the New Testament?
Vermes: Firstly, there are three points in Barbara’s book where we are in agreement. One is that the DSS cover a period of roughly 200BC to 70AD. Secondly, Jesus’ activity happened under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, that is 26-36AD, and I am also in agreement with all the translations in the book which have been borrowed from my own. But beyond this, I think we are in fundamental disagreement practically on every single point.
For instance, the chronological question. Clearly, the DSS and the story of the New Testament partly coincide. Now the enormous problem that faces Dr Thiering is to argue that all the DSS with New Testament relevance belong to the latter part of the first century and not before. I submit that this is absolutely impossible to prove, statistically unlikely and that it is nearly certain that a number of these scrolls are dated far enough from the period of Jesus to have no relevance.
Wilcox: Yes, and not only are the dates scattered, but there is no guarantee that they form one whole either. I can’t see any good reason [why they should belong to the one Essene community].
Thiering: Well this is a misunderstanding that I am glad has been raised. Yes, the scrolls do go over a large period. But I am talking about the dating of these figures, these people I am describing, not the scrolls.
(Extended period of contentious discussion, which leads to the question of the pesher technique.)
Cleary: Barbara, how do we understand the application of the pesher technique to the New Testament? Where is the ‘rosetta stone’? Where is the code-book?
Thiering: In the scrolls. There are two or three techniques with which you start, and they take you far enough to go on with other techniques. For instance, their favourite thing is to take what appears to be a universal and make it into a particular. In Psalm 37, it says that the righteous will prosper and the wicked will be punished and you and I think that this means that all righteous people will prosper and all the wicked will be punished. But, for the ‘pesherist’, they give it a particular meaning. They say that ‘the righteous’ means ‘the Righteous Teacher’ and the wicked is ‘the Wicked Priest’ and on that device they then find in Psalm 37 a whole series of statements about these two characters. One then tries this on the gospels. For instance, one of the possibilities is that in the New Testament—this is not straightforward—a ‘saint’ is a celibate and a ‘sinner’ is a married man …
Wilcox: Can I get straight in on this one. This is utterly contradictory to Judaism, this celibacy as a way of life. One of the big weaknesses in this whole thing is that it just about totally ignores the rest of Judaism in which Jesus grew up. This would be a complete caricature of all we knew about Judaism. And that is a big question and there are a lot of questions like that which need to be asked.
Cleary: Max, can I ask how you respond to Barbara’s application of this technique to the New Testament? Is there sufficient justification for applying it?
Wilcox: Let’s be perfectly straight about it. The pesher technique has been bandied around as if there were something very special to it. Those of us who are in the business know that this isn’t the situation. It appears in one [Qumran] manuscript that the interpretations that come from the pesher technique are preceded by Scripture study, not just taken out of the back of people’s heads.
Vermes: The New Testament contains genuine pesher but it does not contain the pesher on which Dr Thiering’s book is based. There are a number of genuine pesher technique exegeses in the New Testament, because in one sense the pesher is a ‘fulfilment interpretation’.
Thiering: But this is not pesher, this is just fulfilment of prophecy, it does not correspond with this quite new thing we find in the scrolls.
Vermes: But of course it is. I am afraid I am in total disagreement with you and, quite frankly, this is one area I consider myself reasonably well established—ancient Jewish Bible interpretation.
Thiering: But pesher is new. It’s something we’ve never had before.
Cleary: It’s new, Barbara, in your head.
Thiering: Well, where in Jewish exegesis do you get something like this? [Quotes a passage and interpretation from Habakkuk.] Quite a new method which has no parallels in Rabbinic exegesis.
Vermes: I’m so sorry, this is not true. [Quotes back a Midrash story and pesher interpretation.]
Cleary: Let’s pursue this in more concrete terms because we haven’t opened up for people the dimension and details which you go into in your book. For instance, you suggest perhaps that after Jesus’ ‘resurrection’, he lived in a room at Qumran and then as a monk with the Essenes. You go on to say the gospel writer Matthew became high priest as did the supposed martyr Stephen. Where do these extraordinary extrapolations come from?
Thiering: They are not extrapolations. You are putting wrong information in the questions. We are dealing with public history that is there in Josephus.
Cleary: A public history that got lost for a very long time …
Thiering: Josephus is the primary source. A pro-Roman family from whom the two brothers Matthew and Stephen—prominent figures already—became high priests.
Cleary: And this is the gospel writer Matthew? How can you assume that?
Thiering: This is directly in Josephus. This was the period during which Christianity began to flourish. When the chronology is studied, Matthew is the last of the gospels written and it has great Jewish content. It’s a matter of inference, but it all fits together.
Wilcox: Matthew is not exactly an uncommon name. It really is asking us to believe anything you like. You have to undo every bit of real fact we have to put in place something you have put together in your mind. You are placing a theory in place of the facts about it.
Vermes: I see exactly the method Barbara follows, and that is that you work out a hypothesis which you think is reasonably well-grounded. Then you work out another hypothesis and assert it according to your first hypothesis and it is all interconnected. And you think that by interconnecting them you are confirming one by another when in fact you are weakening them. This is how logic works. Statistically, the more hypotheses you heap one on top of the other, the weaker the foundation. All you need is to kick the bottom and the whole thing comes down.
Thiering: I am aware that multiplying hypotheses is wrong and I was not doing it …
(After two hours of discussion, each speaker attempted to quickly summarize.)
Vermes: I come back to my opening statement that there is still no evidence that would convince me that the New Testament can be used for the interpretation of the Qumran texts or vice versa. There is still no rock solid evidence upon which we are authorized to build such far-reaching hypotheses. And finally, let me come to the point where I think the game is given away. On page 111 of the book, it is stated that Pilate and Herod rushed to Qumran in the Passover period to examine three zealots Simon, Judas and Jesus. Now anyone who can believe this can believe anything.
Wilcox: It’s very difficult to see how anyone could convince themselves in the face of so many questions. We are used to looking at questions of historical and linguistic probability and we need an awful lot of convincing to take anything even to the ‘it may be’ case. This sweeps in and just rewrites the whole thing in the most extraordinary terms, terms that belong well out of its century. Justifying things by the pesher technique is begging the question—it is saying ‘if I am right I am right’ which is not a very wise statement. There is not an atom of tangible evidence anywhere in this. It is extrapolation, building hypothesis on hypothesis and at a certain point isn’t a hypothesis at all—it trails out into the realms of fantasy.
Thiering: In answer to Geza, it was Pilate’s job to put down jealousy.
Cleary: Not personally.
Vermes: Why didn’t he send someone?
(More argument erupts before Barbara Thiering is asked to round off.)
Thiering: Please everybody read the book and don’t judge superficially on preconceived ideas. Read and test it.
Cleary: Thank you everyone. Next week, a little bit more fantasy, perhaps … we’re looking at theosophy …
Article reproduced with the kind permission of the ABC Religious Department.
