by Justin Cargill (BA Hons)
I
am annoyed. Why? I have just finished listening to a
radio interview between Dr Jim Veitch, senior lecturer
in religious studies at Victoria University, and Dr
Barbara Thiering, who is well-known for her cranky views
on the Dead Sea Scrolls.[2] It was more of an interview
than an interaction. Jim Veitch did not appear to be
interested in disputing her claims. He was more
interested in eliciting her views. Not that she needed
much prompting. She speaks rapidly and it is difficult
to absorb what she says which is ultimately to her
advantage. She admitted to speaking fast. In fact, she
speaks so fast that if you did not know better you might
think she was being charged for her air-time. The faster
she speaks the less it costs her. Actually, in a way,
the interview did cost her.
Thiering
insisted throughout the interview that she was
absolutely convinced of her position. There was no doubt
in her mind. She could not be more certain. There is
something peculiar happening here. Scholars rarely talk
in such dogmatic terms. This is one of the reasons why
they so often come under attack from everyone else. They
rarely 'nail their colours to the mast,' preferring to talk in terms of "likelihood"
and "probability."
They
will talk about the burden of evidence. Not so, Barbara
E. Why does she insist so much upon the certainty of her
position? Methinks she doth protest too much.
As
always, she said a number of interesting things. One day
she will say something that is accurate. She repeated
her common theme that the miracles in the Gospels were
unbelievable. She said the miracles in John's Gospel
were increasingly miraculous. But how do you rate
miracles? And even if Thiering could demonstrate that
the writer of John arranged his miracles so that each is
more 'miraculous' than the one before, what does this
prove? Only that the writer has arranged his miracles so
that each is more 'miraculous' than the one before.
Thiering's point is certainly intelligible but it is
hardly intelligent for it says nothing about the
historical worth of the miracle narratives which, in the
context, is presumably why she was making the point.
In
fact, Thiering said that she became convinced by the age
of 19 that the miraculous elements in the Gospels could
not be true. This reminds me of a fellow student who
stood up one day in my third form class and told the
rest of us that God did not exist and that she could
prove it. Oh, really? Out of the mouths of babes and
third-formers! I wonder if Prometheus Press ever got to
hear of her? They have been trying to prove this for
years.
Thiering's
intellectual gaffs continued. She made the claim that
Protestants have not believed in the virgin birth since
the Reformation. At this point, it really becomes
difficult to know whether Thiering is simply a knave or
a fool. In fact, she contradicted herself. She said
shortly afterwards that only evangelicals believed in
the virgin birth. But are evangelicals not Protestants?
And since the term 'evangelical' used in this context
has only emerged in the last few hundred years, what
does she do with all those Christians who subscribed to
belief in the virgin birth in the period before then?
Thiering's
comment reminds me of something else I once heard her
say. She once insisted that the belief in Jesus'
resurrection was only something which fundamentalist
Christians had emphasised in the last few hundred years.
Well, I suppose Apostle Paul was a Christian, and he
said at one point that if Jesus is not risen, then his
preaching is in vain, the Corinthians, faith is futile
and "we are of all men
most to be pitied" (1
Cor. 15:14,17,19). If this is not emphasis, nothing is.
And is Thiering totally unacquainted with the historic
Christian creeds? And does she know nothing of the last
2000 years of Christian scholarship? We might expect to
find bizarre observations of this kind being made in
happy tablet academies, but they are not expected from
someone who has occupied a position of responsibility in
a university academy. It is time, I think, for Thiering
to give up her writing and speaking engagements. She has
earned enough from the sale of her books. She should
depart gracefully for Happyvale.
Thiering
is, of course, well known for her belief that Jesus
survived his crucifixion and she returned to this theme.
She pointed out that a person could remain alive on a
cross for days or even weeks. It is certainly true that
they could survive days. It is less certain that they
could survive weeks. But Thiering showed surprise that
Jesus is supposed to have died within six hours. She
need not be surprised. It is exceedingly unlikely
that Jesus would have survived the combined effect of
the beatings during his trial before the Sanhedrin, the
beating of the guards, the savage scourging by the
praetorium guard and the excruciating torture of
crucifixion. The scourging itself was horrendous. Tenney
makes the point that the scourge was a "deadly weapon" and
because death often followed immediately the
victim did not survive for crucifixion.[3] Moreover, the victims of crucifixion itself rarely
recovered even under the most favourable circumstances. The scourging and crucifixion together
effected the most horrifying suffering.
Thiering,
however, insisted that Jesus took poison whilst on the
cross, appeared dead and was revived by aloes. Aloes may
have purged the poison but unless they were in some way
unique, they would not otherwise have acted as a
physical restorative. If Thiering does know of such
things she should market them promptly.
But
even if, by some remarkable chance, all this was true,
Strauss, in an oft-cited piece of prose, discounted the
possibility that even granting his survival, Jesus could
have convinced his followers that something special had
happened when they saw his bleeding and disfigured body.
Resuscitation would only have served to weaken the
impression Jesus had made upon his followers in life and
death.[4] Yes, it is time for Thiering to retire. She is a
grandmother and would be more useful as a source of
bedtime stories. She has the
imagination.
Nevertheless,
convinced as she is that Jesus both survived and
recovered, Thiering believes also that he helped in the
composition of John's Gospel. She made it clear that
Jesus was not able to do any writing himself because his
hands were so severely damaged by the nail wounds. He
needed help. At this point (if it is not apparent
already) it becomes clear that it is not Jesus who needs
help.
Thiering
insisted that John's Gospel was written in AD 34. This
came as a surprise to Jim Veitch. He pointed out that
this is a total reversal of current opinion. He is, or
course, correct. Even much conservative scholarship
happily concedes that the canonical gospels were written
anywhere between AD65 and AD96. This demonstrates that
the dating of the Gospels is not so important as the
question of authorship and, more specifically, that of
their sources. Jim Veitch pointed out that no one he
knew would date John's Gospel this early but Thiering
knows no shame. In fact, she pulled a fast one. She
readily agreed with Veitch but then reminded him that
Albright had insisted that the canonical gospels should
be dated earlier. The Albright she referred to is, of
course, William Foxwell Albright.
For
those who came in late, William Foxwell Albright was one
of the first scholars to pronounce publicly upon the
significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He took the view
that because the language in John's Gospel was similar
to that in the Dead Sea Scrolls there was no need to
think of it having been unduly influenced by Hellenistic
thinking. It was therefore possible to date John's
Gospel (and the other canonical gospels) earlier.[5] But
Albright would turn in his grave if he knew his opinions
were appearing in the context of an attempt to date
John's Gospel as early as AD34.
This
appeal to Albright is, nevertheless, an interesting one.
As I observed in an earlier article, which more fully
addressed Thiering's views on the relationship between
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels (see Apologia
5, no. 1, (1996): 11-19), Thiering fails to cite scholars in
her support. In fact, Jim Veitch specifically asked her
what sort of response she had been getting from the
scholarly community. This will be good, I thought.
Thiering responded "Fifty-fifty."
What did she mean? Did she mean that the scholarly
community was evenly divided in its response to her
work? She then proceeded to explain that she had had a
number of letters and phone calls over the last few
years. Some correspondents had consigned her to hell.
She said she felt very disturbed at this. She always
felt upset when people said this. She was a Christian.
Now, there is no doubt where Thiering's destiny lies
if she continues to pursue this course but it is hoped
that Christians take no relish in highlighting this to
her. The other fifty percent of correspondents told
Thiering that they had found her work "liberating."
They no longer had any need to believe in miracles. One
wonders why they do not just leave the church
altogether!
There
is, however, something very interesting about Thiering's
response to Jim Veitch's question. Did you notice what
it was? Thiering was asked how scholars had responded to
her work. Now, scholars talk at the level of methodology
and evidence. They are not likely to become involved in
threatening colleagues with hell nor are they so likely to
talk about the liberating consequences of someone's
efforts. These are the sort of responses which ordinary men and
women make. Thiering was asked what sort of support she
received from scholars and because she has no scholarly
support she immediately responds by telling us what
ordinary people think of her work. It was not what she
was asked but if Thiering had answered the question she
would have blown it all. And Thiering does not want to
do that. She has too much to lose. But so also do
Christians when they permit Thiering to run around
promoting the most ridiculous nonsense whilst claiming,
at the same time, to be a Christian. Barbara E.
Thiering, will you please go now!
Return to Top
References
-
With apologies to Dr Seuss. Return
to text
-
"Connexions."
National Radio. Sunday 18th October 1996. 11 am. Return to text
-
Merrill C. Tenney. "The
Gospel of John." In The
Expositor's Bible commentary: With the New
International Version of the Holy Bible, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein. vol. 9. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981),
pp.176-7. Return to text
-
David Fredrich Strauss. The life of Jesus for the
people. 2d ed. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879),
1:412. Cited in Josh McDowell. Evidence that demands a
verdict: Historical evidences for the Christian faith,
rev. ed. (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1979),
p.235. Return to text
-
William Foxwell Albright. Recent discoveries in Bible
lands. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955), p.136; "Toward
a more conservative view."
Christianity Today 7 (Jan 18, 1963): 3. Return
to text
2003 Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.) All Rights Reserved.
Previously published in
Apologia (The Journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society)
vol. 5 no.2 (1996): 21-23
Return to Top
|
