Customer Reviews

Jesus the Man: New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

This book, Jesus the Man, is the exact same book as Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both by Barbara Thiering. One is published in Sydney and London under the title, Jesus the Man, and the other is published in the U.S. by HarperCollins. This may help other readers avoid buying both books, as I did, thinking that they are 2 different books.

I first became aware of Barbara Thiering's thesis when the ABC here in Australia screened a well-produced documentary called 'The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls' in 1990. Many Christians at the time, including some of my acquaintance, were outraged at the documentary, which sparked a national debate -largely because the public broadcaster screened it at Easter.

While the broad thesis presented in the TV documentary sounded unlikely at best to me I knew that popularisations of complex academic theories can often come across that way in summary, so when a local book review magazine asked me to review Thiering's book 'Jesus the Man' I was keen to get a more detailed understanding of her position.

I should note that I am NOT a Christian - in fact I am an atheist - and that the historical background to Christianity, Intertestamental Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all topics I have studied for many years from a purely secular perspective. I was expecting Thiering's book to be a closely argued private theory, and though I already knew her thesis had been rejected by all other scholars (Christian, Jewish or secular), she seemed in interviews to be an intelligent and learned person. So I sat down with the review copy of her book and a notepad to take notes for my review as I read, expecting an challenging and well argued work.

After three chapters I put my notepad away. Far from being a scholarly and closely argued work, this book is little more than a bizarre collection of unsubstantiated assertions, all 'revelations' uncovered by Thiering's so-called 'pesher technique'. While her highly confident style and interesting (fantasy) narrative might be convincing to non-specialists, anyone who has studied the Scrolls or the Gospels from a historical perspective will find themselves wondering whether to laugh or cry at this fairly ridiculous book.

Firstly, Thiering argues that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be dated to the first century AD, despite virtually every other scholar of the Scrolls material disagreeing with her. More recently, radiocarbon dating of the Scrolls has also cast extreme doubt on this position. Ignoring this - indeed, she never acknowledges that absolutely *no-one* agrees with her theory at all, she simply ignores this fact - Thiering pushes on to argue that the 'Teacher of Righteousness' and the 'Wicked Priest' of the Scrolls are Jesus and John the Baptist respectively.

For this, and for all of the rest of the fantasy story she goes on to tell in the remainder of her book, she relies on her belief that the Gospels were written on two levels - a 'surface' level and an 'encoded' *pesher* level. Thiering honestly believes that she is the first person in 2000 years to have uncovered the 'true' meaning of the gospels and maintains that her 'technique' which 'decodes' the gospels is internally consistent and can be used by anyone.

While Thiering may be uncritical enough of her own thesis to believe this, no other scholars agree with her. Thiering is described as a 'leading authority' on the Scrolls in her marketing material - in fact she is regarded as an embarrassing crackpot and ludicrous ... by the academic community. Far from being 'internally consistent', he *pesher* technique has been repeatedly shown to be rubbery, subjective and able to 'demonstrate' virtually anything, however unlikely.

Despite this, Thiering uses it to construct a Jesus who is non-divine, non-miraculous and highly accessible to many liberal-thinking modern readers - which is possibly why her books have sold well despite being regarded as a little more than a joke by the academic community. Non-divine, non-miraculous pictures of Jesus are common in many areas of research into early Christianity these days, but Thiering's 'technique' doesn't simply veer wildly from any reading of the gospels, it also diverges sharply from any historical understanding of the period. When her *pesher* technique contradicts historical evidence from Josephus or Tacitus, Thiering simply ignores that fact or argues that it's the ancient sources which are wrong!

For a historian's view of Thiering's many flaws ....At one point in a TV debate about Thiering's views the interviewer turned from Thiering, who had just made a series of bizarre statements about Intertestamental Judaism based on her *pesher* fantasies, and asked a Jewish rabbi on the panel "What do you make of that." The rabbi was literally speechless for a moment and then said "I hardly know where to begin."

This is exactly how most people who have studied this subject feel when confronted by Thiering's blithe, unsubstantiated, arrogant and downright fantastic assertions. There seems to be an audience for this kind of junk pop-scholarship, largely made up of curious but poorly read sensation seekers who like the idea of iconoclasts overturning the ideas of the academic establishment. More cautious and wisely sceptical readers might like to ponder why Thiering is completely isolated by the academic community. It may, of course, be because she is shaking their beliefs to their very foundations.

Or she may be a ridiculous .... Take your pick.

If you buy this book, I'd say read it with caution and then do some reading on what the rest of academia believes on this subject. And keep in mind the that enthusiasm of some of the reviewers below may be genuine, but it may also be genuinely misguided.

Not recommended.

I can understand why there is a market for silly books like this, since there are many people who love the idea that they are privy to the "real" story which has been ignored or covered up by "the establishment". It's the same mentality which fuels weird conspiracy theories and gnostic obsurantism.

What is more puzzling is the seeming complete lack of objective scepticism on the part of many of those who have posted positive reviews here. Even if you found this odd book exciting (I found it amusing myself) and even if you found her reasoning persuasive (though there is actually little *reasoning* and a lot of bald asserting in the book), surely the fact that NO-ONE else in the academic world agrees with Thiering would ring just the teeniest-tinest of alarm bells.

I would like to think that anyone with half a brain would ask themselves "Can it really be that she is the only person in 2000 years who has noticed this 'pesher code' in the gospels? Maybe there is a reason no-one else takes her theory seriously? Could it be that she is seeing things in the gospels that just aren't there? Maybe she is building an alternative story and then 'finding' the validation for it as she goes?" Surely the fact that her book is a string of assertions, piled on suppositions stacked on hypotheses, all backed up by nothing more than her entirely SUBJECTIVE interpretation of what this pesher-technique of hers "reveals" would make a few more people question her objectivity.

You would think people would be more discerning, intelligently sceptical and analytical, but no - it seems there are rather more people who "WANT to believe".

Despite what the book's blurb and marketing material tries to claim, Thiering has absolutely no standing in the academic world and her theory has been described by leading authorities in the field - secular, Jewish and Christian - as "a fairy tale". ...

To the True Believers, all I can say is when someone like Theiring is completely rejected by every other scholar in their field, it's usually because they have got things wildly and spectacularly wrong. One of Theiring's amateur supporters once tried to compare her to Galileo, but as the philosopher Paul Kurtz once observed wryly, "To be a Galileo it's not enough to be disagreed with, you also have to be RIGHT." There is no evidence that Theiring's subjective fantasy story is anything remotely close to being right in any way.

If you want to learn about the Dead Sea Scrolls the intertestamental period, buy something by Geza Vermes. Avoid this silly book.

This book purports to give a totally new interpretation of both the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Well, if you're into leaps of faith far larger than anything in the Bible requires, you might like it, as you'd have to be a most credulous person to buy any of its statements. Basically the author's Method consists of interpreting any word as whatever currently suits her (e.g. loaves means levites, wine means the inner circle of the Essenes, Jerusalem means Qumran, Galilee means a place where some Galilean lives near Qumran...), which can make any text say anything whatsoever desired. The next strategy is identifying the most various people inside and outside the New Testament as one and the same person (e.g. John Mark and Bartholomew, Simon Magus as the Apostle Simon, as Lazarus, and also as some Jewish High Priest of that Time, Nathanael as the high priest Jonathan, the Virgin Mary as the woman bound by Satan, Mary Magdalene as the daughter of Jairus, and she is not 12 but 27 years old, etc.), and generally stating all her supposed "scientific" strangenesses as absolute fact without giving any hints on just how she arrived at them, except for guesswork. Some times there are about 20 of the most quirky assertions per page, liberally mixed with true but totally irrelevant historical statements and appeals to the enlightedness and spiritual far-sight and of the reader and his superiority to those who "still need to believe in miracles". Basically it is the old Gnostic method of totally twisting the text beyond anything probable while inflating the reader with "superior knowledge", combined with much dwelling on numbers, which, as is well known, can be made to mean anything. That's exactly the approach that was debunked as baseless by the first systematic books on Chrisitian faith, written by Irenaeus of Lyons in about 180 AD. It's really hard to believe that this isn't a deliberate construction to fool people into spending money for the book. Well maybe she really does believe it, but then that's it for her as a scientist.

I conclude that there are still only two ways of approach to the Historicity of the New Testament that make any sense: Accept it as it is or admit that we don't know enough to support any grandiose theories. Otherwise you're building not so much on sand, but rather on clouds. Welcome back to reality! Buy a good book on Jewish history instead, or the stuff by Irenaeus, the latter is rather entertaining in his display of the quirks of the 1001 sects of his day.

Dr. Thiering is a highly respected scholar that has direct experience with the Dead Sea Scrolls. What she has read there can be read by others and will give the same answer: the historical events at Qumran are identical to the events of the Gospels. If you want to understand what happened and how to read the encoded text of the Gospel, start with this book. It is a little difficult to read and deals with very complex constructions but you are rewarded mightily. If you skim it and have strong religious biases then you will think it is sacreligious. It's not; it's simply good science based on hard fact. The Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic and so is this book. Then go read "Jesus of the Apocalypse" and "The Book Jesus Wrote" for more detail and understanding. This is very impressive scholarship and anyone with an objective mind (and the time to carefully examine the text) will be stunned. If your faith is delicate, turn away. A thousand years from now this book will be considered a cornerstone of Western culture.

I grew up during the 60s and 70s aware of the war, protests, racial riots, and the assassination of a President and asked then where was God. As a young man searching for the truth, I found it harder and harder to accept the beliefs of those preaching and that of an institution full of hypocrisy. I am, before and now, an atheist who has always seemed to see things a little differently than what was and is preached in the pulpit. Dr. Thiering's book has provided me with a better understanding of the early church's and Jesus' struggle to bring God to all people and not those self-professed to be the "chosen" ones. `Jesus the Man' adds to my understanding of Christians and more clearly defines Jesus' as a man and the "head of the church." Dr. Thiering has opened a narrow doorway that may someday allow me to come to God.

This is the most absurd book I have ever read. I have been on the hunt for anything outside of the Christian faith that may be of some sense for a long time. This book has nothing to offer but ill gotten research, and lack of education in every area, especially the translation of languages. Take a look at this: She pulls people's leg when she mentions the rules for those who want to apply her "pesher" technique. Among that deception you find the following rule: "[. . .] all words must be accounted for; nothing may be omitted. One effect of this is a double negative is a positive. When Jesus said at the Last Supper "I will not not eat" (ou me phago, Lk 22,16), he meant "I will eat not fast" (p. 524). "ou" in Greek means no and "me" is a prohibitive element. Thiering makes the reader think that, like in mathematics and logic, a double negative equals a positive. But in the REAL Greek language, "ou me" is a way to enforce the negative. So when Jesus said: "ou me phago" what he is stating is "*Be sure* that I will *NOT* eat..." This rule is evidence that, if she knows Greek, she is being dishonest with the reader. Do not be deceived by this woman, who has been deceived herself. "it is better that a millstone be hung around your neck and thrown to the sea than to deceive one of these little ones" -Jesus the Christ

Dr Thiering, of Sydney University, uses her lifelong study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Gospels in offering a new perspective of what is contained in the New Testament. Firmly setting Jesus in his historical context she presents a picture of a remarkable man - but only a man.

This is of course assuming Jesus actually existed and there is very good evidence to suggest that he never did (see The Jesus Mysteries by Freke). Rather it is much more likely that this is yet another incarnation of the dying-and-reviving god-man worshipped all around the Mediterranean as Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus etc. If however Jesus did exist then Thiering's theory is a more probable description of him than the classic interpretation of the Christian church which takes what suits their position as literal truth and anything that frankly doesn't as something to be understood as metaphor. What are their reasons for their choices of which passage is which ? There aren't any, other than what is expedient at that particular moment, which is why of course Genesis is a "metaphor" now (yeah now that we know better it is).

Thiering's theory though does not depend on such arbitrary convention. It depends upon long and thought out scholarship and historical knowledge of the period. Thiering gaves dates and motives for the events and characters in the Gospels, pointing out that some previously humble characters were enormously influential and powerful in a politico-religious movement intent on expelling Roman occupiers from their land.

Thiering's work is not revolutionary, this ground has been covered before by scholars and notably conspiracy theorists (see The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail as probably the most famous). However it is well researched and along with it's counterpart "Jesus of the Apocalypse" presents a persuasive case for a re-evaluation of the New Testament in light of historical discoveries. Thiering presents her source material, her research, her methodology and her conclusions and says basically "see for yourself if I'm wrong or not". I'm not aware of anyone taking her to task as yet, at least with anything more than pro-Christian polemic which should give you an idea of how well she has done these two books. See for yourself if she's wrong or not, you may learn something whatever you decide.

I brought this book at an exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Melbourne. I have always thought something was not quite right with the biblical texts as they stand, and felt that what was generally taught to the massess is not really quite the truth. I know the author has received a lot of criticism of her technique and her assertation regarding the age of the Dead Sea scrolls. Nevertheless, I found the book did help to get me thinking about Christ and what really happened. The "BUT" bit in the title was to do with that I felt that Barbara was probably going in the right direction but some things did not quite wash, especially when she starts ascertaining that Christ lived to a ripe old age and married again. But, for the most, her ascertations appear to be based on good reasoning and seem to me to make sense (most of them). Good arguments are put forth and the reader is given in the second half of the book (it is really two books in one - first, what she feels to uncovered and second, the technical stuff), the tools for researching for themselves (this I did not do)...but theologians out there would find this a valuable resource, whether to debunk or support the author's cliams. So anyway, a good read, take from it what you will, and if you want to investigate further,, then do so. Worth a read and a great discussion point with friends. A must for the book cabinet.

The vast majority of this book is following a questionable technique called the "Pesher Technique". "Pesher" is an interpretation written by an Essene priest to explain certain passages of the Old Testament. Thiering states that the Gospels were written this way and that under the stories of miracles and words, there are hidden messages which she proposes to disclose using the Pesher Technique. I'm going to concentrate my review in chapter 4 "The Pesher Technique" and Appendix IV, rules of the Pesharist, since the rest of this book is just a consequence of it.

She, for example, mentions the miracle at Cana (John 2,1-12) states that after the changing of water into wine, inexplicably the steward didn't comment on Jesus' miracle, but went to him to complain that Jesus saved the good wine for last (p. 33). If the reader is not careful of this obvious distortion of the real story of the Gospel, it will take Thiering's statement for granted, and not find out that in the real story,... the steward *didn't know anything about a miracle having taken place*... then, how can he comment of the miracle if he didn't know about it in the first place? Secondly, the steward never went to Jesus to complain about the wine. The Gospel is clear stating that the steward went to the bridegroom to complain, because he believed that the bridegroom, not Jesus, was the one who prepared (non-miracolously I might add) the best wine for last. Obviously Thiering either didn't read the story carefully, or purposely distorted this story so that it fits her "pesher technique". I want to add also that this is not an isolated case, the same thing she does with the stories of the birth of Jesus, his parables, his miracles, his death and resurrection.

Also she pulls people's leg when she mentions the rules for those who want to apply her "pesher" technique. Among that deception you find the following rule: "[. . .] all words must be accounted for; nothing may be omitted. One effect of this is a double negative is a positive. When Jesus said at the Last Supper "I will not not eat" (ou me phago, Lk 22,16), he meant "I will eat not fast" (p. 524). "ou" in Greek means no and "me" is a prohibitive element. Thiering makes the reader think that, like in mathematics and logic, a double negative equals a positive. But in the REAL Greek language, "ou me" is a way to enforce the negative. So when Jesus said: "ou me phago" what he is stating is "*Be sure* that I will *NOT* eat..." This rule is evidence that, if she knows Greek, she is being dishonest with the reader.

Another rule that she declares almost infallibly: "all events in narrative are consecutive. There are no "flashbacks", going back to a previous event" (p. 524). Let's take for instance Jesus' incident in the Temple. According to the Synoptic Gospels this incident happened at the very end of his ministry, after the multiplication of the food and that this incident was the reason for the priests hatred against Jesus to kill him (Matt. 21,12-13; Mark 12,15-19; Luke 19,45-47). However, the Gospel of John puts this incident at the beginning of his ministry (John 2,13-22), and this happened before the multiplication of the food (John 6,1-15), and appears completely unrelated to his death.

Also she heavily relies on questionable facts concerning Josephus and ignores some of her own sources. For example, she relies on the fact that Josephus stated that Essenes were mostly celibates and peaceful. Baigent and Lincoln, in their book "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception", and is quoted in Thiering's book (p. 602), have presented evidence that in Qumran there were military fashion fortifications everywhere, and that the Dead Sea Scrolls include rules for MARRIED couples.

I would write a book about all the foulups and deceptions, but because of space I can't write further.

Recommendation: Don't buy it, it is a waste of time, misleading and deceiving.