|
We once quoted James Charlesworth as referring to scholars
of the Dead Sea Scrolls who are confused or perhaps insane. I thought he only meant
John Allegro of sacred mushroom fame, until I read Thierings Jesus
and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, at least, I know theres
two people in that subset.
Words cannot describe the breadth of astonishment I feel at the bald historical
revisionism, the outright goofiness, of this books thesis; moreover, I am
astonished that a respectable publisher like HarperCollins would print this nonsense,
but I suppose the Almighty Dollar is a most persuasive god to serve.
Whats the bottom line here? Thiering relies on certain basic assumptions that no
respectable scholar would accept:
- That certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be dated
much later than they are presently, into NT times;
- That Christianity and the Qumranites were pretty much one movement, prior to the
advent of the church, which distorted the message; and,
- That the NT (notably the Gospels and Acts) were written using
an esoteric method of exposition that, once we know the key, reveals
a history of Christianity and Jesus totally unlike that we know.
Needless to say, almost no support is offered for the first two suppositions; one would
hope for an entire books worth of arguments in order to overturn the present
monolithic consensus in the matter. As for the third, Thiering relies upon a backwards
form of a eisegetical interpretation method used by the Scrolls people called the
pesher method. Basically, the interpreter read an OT passage and
interpreted it in light of current events - so that Habakkuks pronouncements,
for example, actually referred to the Roman occupation. Similar methods are often used
today by people who interpret the Book of Revelation.
Thiering, appropriately enough, rejects such interpretation, but then goes on to suggest
- based on the highly questionable Christianity = Qumranites equation, that the NT was
written as a reverse pesher that reveals a true history of Christianity.
I need not go into many details here; the absurdities suggested by the new
history include, for example, the idea that Jesus was actually crucified at
Qumran, along with Simon Magus (who is described as Pope) and Judas Iscariot.
From there, it's all downhill and not an enjoyable ride. Thiering whisks her way through
her new history, never stopping to offer sufficient documentation; what little
documentation is offered mostly comes from displaced NT quotes, her own works, and from
the works of similarly questionable sources like Carmignac.
Of greatest concern to the Christian reader is how to deal with people who believe that
Thierings material actually has some substance to it. My answer is the same as for
those who adhere to the Christ myth: Present the Gospel clearly, then leave. Then, find
someone else to talk to whose mind has not been warped by this and similar nonsense.
There are far too many souls out there starving for the Good News to waste much time on
those who swallow the Goofy News.