BEMUSED, BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED

by Justin Cargill (BA Hons)

It was about 2 o'clock on a Monday morning (1st April this year) when I first heard that Jesus' bones had been discovered and it was not meant to be an April Fool's Day prank.

Dr Barbara Thiering had been interviewed the night before by Felix Donnelly on Radio Pacific. She made interesting listening. Three limes she said that God did not perform miracles because He was not a magician. But magicians, of course, use sleight of hand in order to create an illusion, so it is hard to see why she should define a miracle in such terms. Undaunted by logic, however, Thiering felt the miraculous elements in the New Testament had to be explained in other ways - they were in fact a code. The turning of water into wine, she informed us, really referred to the fact that Jesus was enabling those who had not been permitted to participate in communion - the 'water' people - to be able to do so. They had become the 'wine' people.

Twice she insisted that miracles do not have any place in the modern mind. We now know such things cannot happen. But not all ancients were as gullible as Thiering suggests. In antiquity some people believed in miracles and some did not. Resurrection was just as implausible to the contemporaries of Jesus as it is to us. People knew that the dead did not rise long before science formulated biological laws. Even if they believed it could happen they did not believe it could happen every day. They were surrounded by cemeteries which proved precisely this point. And if miracles and resurrections were held to be so common, why was the resurrection of Jesus thought to be so significant? Luke records the fact that when the Athenians "heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked." Others, we are told, were prepared to hear more (Acts 17:32). This is exactly the same response that greets miraculous claims today.

It is simply not true that the ancients were prepared to believe anything without question. Many may have possessed a world view that permitted them to be open to the 'supernatural' (so with many of today's 'moderns') but they knew that the kinds of miracles described in the Gospels were highly extraordinary , which is precisely why some believed that God was working through Jesus (cf. John 9:32-33). And if there is a God at all then we must permit the possibility of miracles. Since we cannot prove that God does not exist, the possibility of miracles can never be entirely ruled out.

It is always astonishing to hear the dogmatism of people like Thiering who, whilst having no training in the sciences, pontificate about what science has and has not proved. Whatever else science has done it has not ruled out the possibility of the miraculous. The late Sir Peter Medawar acknowledged that science has not disproved the supernatural[1] and since he was an atheist his observation should at least be taken seriously.

A Case of Polemics 

Perhaps, however, the most irksome comments made by Thiering involved her insistence that there are really only two groups concerned in this whole discussion - "the fundamentalists who take the Bible literally" and "the scholars who have always had a problem with the miracles" [of Jesus]. Surely she cannot really mean this and yet she expressed herself in this way at least three times. What about all those scholars who filled up 1,800 years of history? It is, after all, only in the past 150 years or so that the anti-miraculous has caught on in any significant way in the world of scholarship. And what about all those scholars today who still accept the possibility of miracles? If Thiering knows of none, she must live a very sheltered life. I suspect that Thiering performs the neat semantic trick of defining all those who reject miracles as scholars whilst all those who accept their possibility are not. This, of course, begs the question but Thiering begs so many questions that this criticism probably carries little weight with her.

A Case of Equivocation 

Thiering also insisted that there are two basic positions insofar as the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is concerned. There are those who are convinced that the Scrolls have no significance for the New Testament and there are those who are convinced that they do. She suggested that she was one of the first to recognise the significance. She seemed to give the impression that those who see some connection with the New Testament would go some way along the lines that she does but they stop short.

The fact is, of course, that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide a wealth of information about a breakaway Jewish sect and they have given considerable insight into the social and religious climate in Palestine in the period prior to the emergence of Christianity. Scholars have been discussing the extent to which they provide background for certain aspects of the Gospels. They have been discussing the similarities and differences between Christianity and the Qumran community which produced the Scrolls.

Geza Vermes says that "Fringe writers have again and again tried to foist a Christian identity on the Dead Sea sect," which produced the Scrolls. He points out that in the early 1950s Jacob Teicher had identified one of the figures in the Scrolls, the Teacher of Righteousness, as Jesus, and the other, the Wicked Priest, as Paul. He also refers to Thiering's "outlandish idea" that Jesus should be identified as the Wicked Priest and John the Baptist as the Teacher of Righteousness.[2] It is hardly necessary to highlight the mutually exclusive nature of these attempts at  'identification.'

Vermes elsewhere observes that some scholars have thought of Christianity as the daughter or off-shoot of Essenism but that "no direct derivation...is conceivable." He argues that the most reasonable explanation of the relationship between Qumran and the New Testament is that the Qumran community and primitive Christianity were "parallel dissident movements from inter-Testamental mainstream Judaism." There were some "structural resemblances" but "the two groups followed patently different paths in belief and practice."[3] He dismisses an identification of Judaeo-Christianity with the Qumran community as "preposterous." He acknowledges some correspondence but "it appears on a superficial level, in the employment of religious language, ideas and biblical proof-texts shared among them and all the other branches of first-century Judaism." He also thinks it probable that in some organisational and administrative respects, the early Christian church modelled itself on the Qumran sect. He argues that these views "represent common knowledge among scholars investigating the relationship between the Qumran community and Christianity."[4] James VanderKam also surveys the similarities and differences between the Scrolls and the New Testament. He points out that they possess remarkably similar theological vocabulary, some major doctrinal tenets and several organisational and ritual practices.[5]

This is where the discussion currently lies. This is one thing but it is another thing altogether to maintain, as Thiering does, that the canonical gospels were written as coded commentaries describing the history and politics of the community which produced the Scrolls and that the code can be cracked with the aid of the Scrolls.

It is very difficult to compartmentalise error, and error in one area usually entails error elsewhere. It is hardly surprising, then, that Thiering's argument should require an idiosyncratic dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact, her whole argument demands that the Scrolls originate from the middle of the first Christian century. Vermes responds that such dating "flatly contradicts the common opinion of Qumran scholars, including those from Israel who are unlikely to be motivated by Christian apologetical considerations. For all of them, most of the writings belong to the second or first century BC. Their argument relies on the combined evidence of archaeology, palaeography, literary analysis and radio-carbon dating."[6]

The Lack of Corroborating Testimony 

It would appear, then, that Thiering should have a hard time finding any scholars who support her position. In fact, her work has been universally panned. "Forget about the theology," Dr Chris Forbes, a lecturer at Macquarie University says, "the question is: is she right about history? And the answer from the ancient historical profession is a resounding no."[7] Tom Wright comments that a considerable amount of scholarly work has been carried out on the Scrolls since her first book was published[8] but no one who works in the area has been convinced by her arguments.[9] He observes that "The only scholar who takes Thiering's theory with any seriousness is Thiering herself."[10] 

The fact that Thiering must have had a hard time scratching together any support was apparent in the radio interview itself. It is commonplace amongst scholars to bolster their claims by appealing to the support of colleagues. They do so whether they are presenting their particular viewpoint in an interview or in print. It is a natural habit of mind. Thiering failed to name a single scholar who agreed with her. Why was she so reticent? The only scholar she cited in the whole interview (she mentioned Millar Burrows to a phone caller only to say he was out of date)[11] was Robert Eisenman, who disagrees with her over the identity of the 'Wicked Priest' and  'the Teacher of Righteousness.'[12] She believes these figures correspond to Jesus and John the Baptist, whilst he believes they refer to Paul and James. In other words, the only scholar she cited was as far off-base as she is.

An Apparent Diversion 

Just how off-base, then, is the only scholar Thiering cited? Contrary to the impression given by the subtitle to Eisenman's book, the book does not reveal fifty unpublished texts. New York University's Scrolls scholar, Lawrence Schiffman, points out that only about one-fourth of the material is new.[13] Moreover, at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco in December 1992, 19 prominent Scrolls scholars signed a statement accusing Eisenman and Wise of having appropriated the work of other scholars in their reconstruction of the texts.[14] There is nothing wrong in using the work of others. The problem is that Eisenman and Wise nowhere acknowledged that they had done so. In fact, they have repeatedly asserted the independence of their work, claiming that all the material was deciphered from the photographic plates of the Scrolls.[15] Moreover, many of the book's own readings and translations are incorrect with typographical and other errors.[16] Vermes attributes many of the errors to "carelessness" and believes that some of them may have "severe consequences."[17] 

VanderKam refers to Eisenman's "thoroughly implausible conclusions."[18] Schiffman rejects Eisenman's theory as "impossible" and adds, "One hopes that future attempts to mine the unpublished texts will base themselves on true originality, appropriate credit of the work of others, acceptable philological research, and methodological objectivity."[19] This is how scholars express themselves when they really want to say that something is rubbish. And in case anyone is still missing the point, he adds, "I can only warn the public to beware of the interpretations found in this volume."[20]

Robert Alter asks whether the texts discussed by Eisenman really are "key" and whether they have really been "withheld," which, if true, would suggest the notion of a scholarly conspiracy. He believes those texts not yet published were really "left languishing through scholarly indolence."[21] Vermes also disputes the claims made by Eisenman that the texts he discusses are explosive. He thinks they are "about as explosive as a wet mop."[22]

It should not be supposed, however, that Eisenman has won acceptance from no one at all. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have provided a popularisation of Eisenman's views.[23] The title of their book alone is instructive. They argue that the delay in publishing some of the Scroll fragments came about because a conspiracy by the original team of editors had kept the texts from the public since they were damaging to Christianity. VanderKam shows that the loss of momentum in publishing the texts is to be attributed to far more mundane matters, including the fact that Rockefeller funding ceased, the fact that too few scholars were engaged in preparing the material for publication, and the fact that the scholars were no longer interested in simply preparing the transcriptions and brief discussions of the texts. They wished to present "exhaustive commentaries."[24] VanderKam actually refers to aspects of Baigent and Leigh's book as "disgraceful" and a "tortured and remarkable bit of nonsense." Their conspiracy thesis, he descibes as "baseless."[25]

Baigent and Leigh, of course, came to public attention with their other book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail,[26] which maintained that Jesus married Mary Magdalene for dynastic reasons, had off-spring, and that the legends of the Holy Grail, which are found in the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, are really cryptic messages about the bloodline of Jesus himself hidden in the legends and myths of the Middle Ages. It should be a source of chagrin to Eisenman that he should be attracting support not from the scholarly community but from writers who demonstrate such unbelievable credulity; and yet Balgent and Leigh contribute a blurb to his book.

Is all this discussion regarding Eisenman really necessary? Actually, yes. It highlights yet again something which we already knew. Thiering is not the only one to have been sufficiently fascinated by the Scrolls to develop a theory which is itself fascinating in its sheer breathtaking absurdity. But there is something more telling than merely this. Her repudiation of Eisemann's work at one point in the interview was really an unfortunate attempt to score a coup. This is also why she was adamant in the interview that there had been no sinister plot to prevent access to the Scrolls. Thiering wants respectability. But it is rather like someone who believes the earth is flat thinking she has convinced her audience of her scholarly acumen by condemning someone who thinks the earth is actually square.

So the corroboration of scholars which Thiering so desperately needs is missing. Rather than being in the happy position of finding herself able to appeal to the support of scholars, Thiering has to find her satisfaction by citing and then criticising another scholar with views just as silly. In fact, she accused him of adjusting the data to suit his interpretation. This was a classic case of  "the pot calling the kettle black," given that her own use of what she calls pesher enables her to slide evidence to and fro at will.[27] After all, anyone who concludes that, because Luke says "the word of God increased" (Acts 6:7) and because Jesus is the Word (John 1: 1-14), this means that Jesus had offspring, is just not 'playing with a full deck.'

Adventures with Aloes

During the radio interview, Thiering asserted that Jesus did not die on the cross but was drugged and placed in a cave along with the two others who were crucified with him. Although they had their legs broken, they did not die either - a point which rather ignores the fact that breaking the legs very quickly brought death from asphyxiation. She said that after they had been placed together in the tomb, one of them administered an antidote to Jesus for the poison he had allegedly taken on the cross. This, she said, was proved by the fact that according to John's gospel Jesus was buried with aloes (spices) and these provided an antidote. They served as a purgative.

Historians talk in terms of plausibility. Granted that there were exceptional cases in which people survived their crucifixion, what is the historical probability of all three surviving a Roman execution squad? Had Thiering not repudiated miracles she might be permitted to get away with the idea that three men together survived their crucifixion. But it is difficult to see how the Roman army could have conquered so much of the world if its soldiers had been as competent as Laurel and Hardy.

Confusion Compounded

The interview went from bad to worse as callers compounded the confusion. A couple of Christians rang and were clearly bemused by what Thiering was saying. "Are you saying the Bible isn't true?" one caller asked. Thiering must have found such questions bothersome because they indicated that she was not getting her message across; which in some ways is not so bad given that it is not a message worth communicating.

One woman clearly had a significant number of wires crossed when she asked Thiering whether she had heard of the 'Ezekiel stones.' Thiering said she had not, which is hardly surprising since it is unlikely that anyone else has heard of them either. But apparently they were evidence for the truth of Christianity. Felix Donnelly thanked the woman for her contribution and moved hurriedly on to the next caller.

One Christian pointed to a number of texts which indicated that Jesus had clearly died. Thiering thanked him for his citation of texts but said that we now possess "new information" (i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls) which shows that the texts which indicate that Jesus died do not indicate this at all. In situations of this kind there is no point bandying texts around. Thiering has to be dealt with on her own grounds. She needs to be shown that her own methodology is inconsistent and her decoding of the Gospels totally arbitrary.

Some of the non-Christian callers, however, fared worse. One asked if Thiering had heard of a gospel written by a woman who had been bedridden for 23 (or was it 26?) years. He wished to show her a copy the following night in Christchurch and made the interesting point that if she is going to open herself to "new information" she should also consider other texts. Somebody else launched into a discussion of the raising of Lazarus and the background which can be brought to bear upon the story by a reading of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark. He did not mention Morton Smith's views on the subject but he had clearly been influenced by them.28 Thiering gave an audible sigh and in some ways I felt sorry for her. But she needs to realise that if she will insist on peddling silly theories, she can hardly object when other people start crawling out of the woodwork with theories which are equally silly.

Two or three callers rang to say they agreed with everything she said. I found this quite remarkable. The only way they could possibly agree with everything she said was if they had done the same work on the Scrolls that she claims to have done. Since they had not, how could they be in a position to agree with everything she said? They were not but Thiering was saying what they wanted to hear. Christianity has never sat comfortably with most people, so any and all theories, no matter how bizarre or irresponsible, are happily embraced if they are thought to discredit the Christian faith.

Those who knew little or nothing about Christianity would certainly have been bewildered by all this. About the only conclusion they could reasonably draw was that when it came to Christianity everything was up for grabs. Things were not helped either by Felix Donnelly, a controversial Roman Catholic priest, who refused to challenge anything she said, and only showed any animation over the fact that the Christian Heritage Party is anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality - something which he found appalling.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

Where on earth then do Jesus' bones come in? Listening to the radio during the early hours of the morning in an effort to hear what others thought of Thiering's views, I heard the talk-back host close the 2 o'clock news by reading a newly-released news item.

He reported that "experts said they might have uncovered the tomb in which Christ and his family were laid to rest." Nine caskets of bones (known as ossuaries) had been discovered in an Israeli museum warehouse owned by the Israel Antiquities Authority by the makers of the BBC's Heart of the Matter programme. Six of the caskets bore the names Jesus, son of Joseph, Mary, Joseph, Yehuda son of Jesus, Matthew and Mary. They had all been found in the same tomb but contained no bones because of vandalism. We were told that Dr Tom Wright, "an eminent church scholar" had dismissed the findings. "'This is no more than an interesting coincidence. Any suggestion that the other names refer to Jesus' mistress and illegitimate son are utterly laughable.'"[29] The talk-back host concluded the story by pointing out that it was interesting that Professor Geering (do New Zealanders not know the names of any other theologians?) had commented 20 years ago that Jesus' bones were lying somewhere in Palestine and that a professor (i.e. Thiering) the night before had concluded on the basis of her research that Jesus was married. 

The whole thing was left up in the air but listeners were given the distinct impression that, yet again, Christianity had been discredited. 

Over a period of seven hours Christianity took quite a hammering. First there was Thiering telling us that the New Testament is an elaborate code and that what had been understood as historical events were really codes for something else entirely. Then we had a news item which suggested that Jesus' bones might have been found. 

The Case of the Omitted Conclusion 

Since I have access to the NZPA and Reuters databases at work, I eagerly checked the item later that morning. What I discovered was that the radio host had read almost all of the item - almost all, that is, except the few concluding paragraphs.

There I was informed that Amos Kloner of the Israel Antiquities Authority had said, "'I can't say a possibility that it is the tomb of the Holy Family does not exist at all (sic), but I think such a possibility is very close to zero.'" Why did the talk-back host omit the concluding paragraphs?

The next morning I found a follow-up story. The boxes had been removed from an East Jerusalem plot in 1980. But the inscription on one of the boxes which appears to read 'Yeshua Bar Yohesef' or 'Jesus son of Joseph' was so barely legible that the Israel Antiquities Authority was not sure whose body it had when it removed the box from the first century tomb. In keeping with Israeli law, the bones themselves were handed over to rabbis who gave them a Jewish burial and no one now seems to know precisely where they were buried. The boxes had been discovered by a BBC reporter in the museum warehouse. One archaeologist said, "'We can't find any parallels to this combination of names, but there is still not enough to show that this is the family.'" Motti Neiger, also a spokesman for the Israel Antiquities Authority, commented that "'the archaeological evidence shows that chances of this being the actual burials of the holy family are almost nil.'"[30]

A further report confirmed the illegitimacy of the initial enthusiasm. Vermes commented "'I thought it was an April Fool one day too early.... lt is easy to miss their significance simply because they have none. These are among the most common names in the Palestine of that period. A Jewish archaeologist, seeing those names, would simply think, 'Oh, more of them'"[31] No, Vermes is not an orthodox Christian with a vested interest in making such comments. He is a Jew with a perfectly good reason for not making them but he makes them anyway because he wishes to be honest with the evidence. And he is quite correct about the frequency of the names, since apparently one in every four women in first century Palestine was named Mary.[32]  Some indication of this should have been apparent from the fact that the names of two Marys appear with the bones of Jesus, son of Joseph; and consider the six Marys in the New Testament. In fact, Tal Ham, one of Israel's foremost authorities on Jewish and early Christian history, has collected all the names that appear on ossuaries, inscriptions on papyri and other written sources from about the second century BC to about the second century, AD. She observes that "'Mary is the most common name for women. Joseph is the second most common name for men, after Simon. Jesus is also one of those very typical names. So I would say the chance that this is the cave tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family is not very likely.'"[33]

This conclusion is confirmed in another report which appeared a few days later. Here we are informed that L.Y. Rahmani, an archaeologist and former curator of the Israel Antiquities Authority, has dismissed the BBC's conclusions as "absurd." He also makes the point that the names Joseph, Mary and Jesus were common in antiquity and he should know, since he has catalogued almost all the 1,000 ossuaries found in Israel. He adds, "'the fact that in this case you have the combination of names in the same tomb is simply a matter of statistics.'"[34]

A Study in Common Sense