Chapter 4: The Pesher Technique
This is perhaps the heart of the entire book, because in here she exposes the technique she applies to the New Testament in order to explain the entire Gospel accounts through this method. As we shall see, there are many things lacking in this method that can give anyone any kind of interpretation of the Gospel accounts, not necessarily as she claimed in the introduction, that this would lead everybody to the same conclusions.
In order to be fair with the author, and not get the impression of the reader that I'm distorting what she's saying, I'll show her method in her own words:
In a certain group of scrolls the Hebrew word 'pesher' (plural 'pesharim') is to be found, introducing a procedure that gives us a vital clue; the possibility of a new approach to works that were regarded in the first century as sacred scripture.
The system works like this. The scroll writer takes an Old Testament book such as the minor prophet Habakkuk, which deals with events in 600 BC, when the armies of the Babylonians were marching towards Judea, inspiring fear and terror. He goes through it verse by verse, and after quoting each passage adds 'Its pesher is ...", then explains that it is really about events in his own time. The Babylonians stand for the "Kittim", by which he means the Romans. Some Romans were currently marching across the land, inspiring fear and terror. Other verses, he says, refer to the Teacher of Righteousness and his troubles with the Wicked Priest/Man of a Lie.
They are fearsome and terrible; their justice and grandeur proceed from themselves (Hab 1:7).
The pesher concerns the Kittim (Romans) who inspire all the nations with fear [and dread]. All their evil plotting is done with intention and they deal with all the nations in cunning as guile.
Woe to him who causes his neighbors to drink; who pours out his venom to make them drunk that he may gaze on their feasts! (Hab 2:15)
Its pesher concerns the Wicked Priest who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile that he might confuse him with his venomous fury.
And at the time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement, he appeared before them to confuse them, and to cause them to stumble on the Day of Fasting, their Sabbath of repose.
The word "pesher" is used in the Old Testament to mean "interpretation of dreams". A specially gifted person, a Joseph or a Daniel, could discover the hidden meaning of a dream, that was not apparent to others. The meaning had been put into the dream by God; the interpreter only had to see it, drawing on his special knowledge.
In simpler terms, the pesher is like a solution to a puzzle. A rough analogy might be the solution to a cryptic crossword. The clues do not look as if they make sense, but anyone who knows the technique and has the necessary knowledge can solve the puzzle.
Some aspects of the technique rely on giving words special meaning. For example, where the scripture says "the righteous", or "the wicked" appearing to mean all righteous and wicked mean and making ethical statements, the persharist turns the universals into particulars, and find statements about historical events involving the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest. Thus he implies two levels of scripture: the surface containing general religious matter, suitable for ordinary readers, and beneath in specific historical matter, available only to those with special knowledge, knowledge of the events which "fitted" the text handled in this way. The surface remains valid; it is not negated by the other meaning, and it meets people's general religious needs. But it does set up a "mystery" capable of solution by skilled experts.
The meanings "found" in the Old Testament were quite obviously forced on to it. In was not set up for the kind of treatment but grew naturally over hundreds and possibly thousand years of tradition. but the Qumran pesharists nevertheless offer up something of the greatest importance: their definition of scripture. Scripture as a mystery, a puzzle, something that meets the needs of a whole range of readers, from the simple believer to the intellectually sophisticated.
It is well known that this kind of view was widely held in the Greek world. In the Diaspora, where the Jews away from their homeland were in contact with Greek thought and culture, they were finding allegorical meanings in the Old Testament. But the scrolls give us, for the first time, hidden historical meanings.
The gospels quote Jesus as saying "To you [his inner circle] is given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables". The insiders, those who "have ears to hear", will understand the mystery.
Parables are clearly in two levels: a simple story with something more complex underneath. The parable of the vineyard plainly contains a historical meaning under the story of disloyal workers in a vineyard.
All of this gives rise to a hypothesis. If a group holding such a view of scripture had set out to write a new scripture, they would have set it up as being capable of a pesher. It would be a "mystery", a kind of puzzle, capable of a solution by those with special knowledge. This time, there would be no need to force arbitrary meanings on it; it would yield the same result to all experts. It would have been designed for that purpose.
There would have been an extra incentive for writing in this way if an actual history needed to be concealed, for political or other reasons.
A hypothesis like this is capable of being tested. It is subject to a number of tests: for example, if special meanings are assigned to terms, there must be a reason for them; and then the same meanings must be found in every occurrence of the term. Each episode which is made up of a whole cluster of special meanings must make sense in itself, and be consistent with all other episodes. And the whole history found there must be generally consistent with the known character of the institution whose history is given (28-31).
Then, she rightfully points out the fact that in the Gospel accounts, the miraculous phenomena are the ones more difficult to explain (31-32). Then, reminding us about what Jesus told his Apostles, that there are mysterious things hidden behind parables (30), she suggests the "pesher" technique as a possible discovery of this mystery (32-33). She wants to apply this to the miracle accounts. She gives us two examples in this chapter of how this can be accomplished.
Good examples of the technique are the story of turning water in to wine, and the feeding of the five thousand.
According to a story in John's gospel, Jesus was at a wedding, and the wine gave out. His mother was there, and said to him: "They have no wine". He replied to her, rather irrelevantly, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come". She then said to the servants "Do whatever he tells you". Six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification and Jesus gave instructions to fill them with water. When, however, a drink was drawn from them and taken to the steward of the feast, it had miraculously turned into wine. The steward's reaction was strange: he did not comment on the miracle at all, but merely complained that Jesus had saved the good wine until last, whereas it was more usual to serve the good wine first and the poor wine later. The gospel notes carefully that this was the first of seven "signs" that Jesus performed, and the series continues through six more of similar nature.
At Qumran, the scrolls tell us, there were two steps of initiation into the community, marked by water and by wine. All members, of whatever class of life, could be given a form of preliminary membership, through a baptism by water. But only those who intended to enter the full monastic life went on two further years to receive the "Drink of the Community", that is the wine. Only celibates could receive communion. those who were left at the level of water, being given baptism only, were "unclean" persons: married men, Gentiles, women and the physically handicapped.
When Jesus "turned water into wine", it meant that he was breaking with tradition and allowing lower-grade persons to receive communion. From that time on, all the adult members of Jesus' following, whether married, Gentiles, women, physically handicapped, racially different, slaves or free, could come to the communion rails and receive the bread and wine. In allowing that to happen, a most important statement was being made: that all were equal in the sight of God. The God whom the Christians worshipped was not the God of the Temple Scroll, who would not allow into the holy precints of the temple anyone who had recently had sexual intercourse, any blinding man, any leper. A social revolution was implied in what Jesus did.
The story of the feeding of the five thousand, found in all four gospels, records a later step: the ordination of ordinary men to be ministers. Another revolution was taking place: whereas in Jewish practice priests had to be born into the tribe of Levi, Jesus was conferring, by ordination, the power to exercise ministry. The "loaves" stood for levites, who distributed the twelve loaves of the Presence from the holy table. Ordinary men, given levitical powers by "eating" the loaves, were now permitted to distribute the communion bread (33-35, sic.).
With this method, she pretends to have uncovered the most hidden secrets of the Gospels, but actually, what she is doing with these examples is announcing its failure.
Problems With the Pesher Technique
First of all, it is obvious that the "pesher" technique used by the Qumran sect was used to unravel certain mysteries on those Old Testament writings. However, were their conclusions correct? In principle, these prophecies they dealt with originally had nothing to do with the Romans, just with the Babylonians. Now, as she well showed in her sample of the Qumran text, the scribe interpreted as if it was a prophecy about the Romans, completely distorting the original intent of the author of the book of Habakkuk.
This would present us with a very intriguing question: Why then should Bible scholars use the pesher technique if in principle it distorts the intent of the authors of these writings? Apparently this is a fundamental aspect which Thiering doesn't deal with in the first place; she then has a fundamental problem in her book presenting this fact to other scholars. How an unreliable method can all of the sudden be reliable in every aspect and would lead anyone in the world to the conclusions she reaches in this book? Wouldn't such a thing become suspicious at the eyes of Biblical scholars? What she considers the most virtuous contribution to the subject of the interpretation of the Gospels is really its Achilles heel. The examples she exposes in her book are proof of this.
In the case of the miracle of the wedding at Cana, she states that Jesus performed the miracle and that the "steward's reaction was strange: he did not comment on the miracle at all, but merely complained that Jesus had saved the good wine until last, whereas it was more usual to serve the good wine first and the poor wine later" (33). Of course this is a mystery..... if you are not paying attention to the story. Let's look at what John's Gospel really says:
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. And they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the feast had all been used, and the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said, 'Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.' There were six stone water jars standing there, meant for the ablutions that are customary among Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said, 'fill the jars with water,' and they filled them to the brim. then he said to them, 'Draw some out now and take it to the president of the feast.' They did this; the president tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from -though the servants who had drawn the water knew- the president of the feast called the bridegroom and said, 'Everyone serves a good wine first and the worse wine when the guests are well wined; but you have kept the best wine till now' (John 2, 1-12).
We can see here some things that apparently were not noticed by Thiering. The first thing is that the reaction of the steward (president of the feast) is perfectly explainable in the story because he had "no idea where the wine came from," while it is perfectly comprehensible why the servants DID react because they "knew" where it came from.
Secondly, it is incredible that Thiering suggests that the steward complained to Jesus about this miracle. Since he didn't know where this wine came from, he went to the bridegroom to complain, who obviously is NOT Jesus. However, she will later state that that was actually Jesus' wedding (101), and one has the feeling that she is preparing the reader psychologically for that statement. Surprising enough that she takes this statement for granted without evaluating it in the light of what the Gospel of John really says.
There are two very important things that have to be looked at here. The sentence found in this story about the reply of Jesus to his mother: "Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet" is an interpolation into that story. Since this is apparently comes from an early tradition in the Joannine community, while the use for the word "hour" is used by the later writers of that Gospel. And also, this has a very important link to John 19,25-27, in which at his "hour", Jesus calls her mother "woman" again. This passage also seems to be an interpolation on an earlier text, because the Synoptics give no account of the presence of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the foot of the cross, this is apparently a late tradition (Brown 1983, 187-192; Brown, Donfried, Fitzmyer, Reumann 200-210; Vidal 1997, 562-563).
Another thing that we should notice is that this event of Cana, though coming from an earlier tradition, is nowhere to be found in the Synoptic Gospels, which were written earlier than the Gospel of John. This has led some scholars to believe that this is an "etiological legend" to explain the Joannine community's origins at Cana, where some members of Jesus' family lived (Vidal 1997, 202).
Let's go now to the multiplication of the loaves of bread. Any scholar who would find at first this miracle unbelievable has to pick one of two choices: it was really a miracle, or that it is just figurative and metaphorical. For the sake of the argument, let us take the most skeptic position of this story: that it is purely metaphorical. We then suppose a priori that the story is not in there for its own sake, but it has a purpose within all four Gospels (Mt. 14,13-21; 15,32-39; Mk. 6,30-44; 8,1-10; Lk. 9,10-17; Jn. 6,1-15). The original story came from Mark, and in this Gospel the original intent was to give a simple account to the Gentiles of what Jesus said and did. The Gentiles obviously knew nothing of the pesher way of interpreting writings. So, if Mark really wanted Gentiles to understand the pesher message beneath that story, he was directing the Gospel to the wrong public. As far as we know, if one chooses not to believe the Gospel accounts of this miracle as that it actually happened, then the question is: "What is the message being told to the Gentiles in this account?" In the case on Mark and Luke the answer is pretty clear: it symbolizes the communitarian meal in the kingdom of God in which Jesus himself is the host. In the case of Matthew, the dimension of including this miracle is inserted into "Matthew's" statement in the entire Gospel that this is the Messiah. If we include the fact, as we shall see later, that here Jesus is the Second Moses, then this story this miraculous event of the feeding the people with bread (manah) would be what Moses did (Ex. 16,2-35) all over again (Struik 137). In the case of John's Gospel, this account takes a more Eucharistic sense considering the fact that after this event, Jesus makes his famous Eucharistic speech (Jn. 6,26-71).
Compared to this analysis, Thiering provides little account to explain this story of the multiplication of the loaves of bread. Therefore, the pesher method results to be poor in two respects: (1) It is not a solid hermeneutical method for the New Testament in its essence and (2) fails in the way it is applied to. After looking at these two examples of how in Thiering's eyes this methods "succeeds" in explaining the miracles while not paying attention to the story being told (in the case of the miracle of Cana) or not looking for alternate available skeptic explanations (in the case of the miracle of the multiplication of bread), one wonders if Thiering is trying to explain what is given on the Gospels or if she is "forcing" the Gospels to adapt to her method.
One is filled with genuine sadness when one looks at how this method fails the first time, and watches her optimism when she says:
The results of the application of the pesher technique to the gospels and Acts, drawing upon a number of contemporary sources for the information needed, give a whole history of Jesus, and also of the community that preceded him and from which he and his followers broke away. The reason why it was necessary to conceal the history becomes apparent as the story proceeds.
It begins in the century before Jesus, in the reign of the powerful king of the Jews, Herod the Great (35).
And also is saddened to think that she elaborated other 560 pages using this poor and unreliable method.
Additional Notes: Comments on "Appendix IV: Rules for the Pesharist"
One might ask after this what is the methodology of the Pesher Technique. What rules can you follow so that you have a "correct" Pesher interpretation? Thiering answers this question in the Appendix IV of her book.
I'll expose here her rules in her own words, and then I'll criticize them to see if they are adequate or not with the Gospels.
A. First Rule:
1) One of the main principles is that no words are to be assumed.
Only the words that are in the text are to be relied on. This sometimes makes a considerable difference to the meaning. An example is in A 5:29, apokritheis de Petros hoi apostoloi eipan, usually translated "Peter and the apostles answered. . .". The literal translation is: "Peter having answered and the apostles said . . ." . For the pesharist, Peter answered (with words that are not quoted), then only the apostles said the words that are quoted. As "the apostles" mean John Mark (a plural stands for a single person representing a group), and as Peter and John Mark had different political opinions, the interpretation of the quoted words is affected (523).
One can find this statement intriguing, specially when John Mark is nowhere to be found in that chapter of the book of Acts nor earlier, nor in the Gospels. As we shall see, she has no basis in assuming all of this. However, I will draw attention to her interpretation of "Peter and the apostles answered . . ." as really translated as "Peter having answered and the apostles said . . .". Let's see this passage in the context of what is being said in the book of Acts:
[After the Apostles were arrested, sent to the public jail, and escaped miraculously (Acts 5,17-21)] when the high priest arrived, he and his supporters convened the Sanhedrin -this was the full Senate of Israel- and sent to the gaol for them to be brought. But when the officials arrived at the prison they found they were not inside, so they went back and reported, 'We found the gaol securely locked and the warders on duty at the gates, but when we unlocked the door we found no one inside.' When the captain of the Temple and the chief priests heard this news they wondered what could be happening. Then a man arrived with fresh news. 'Look!' he said, 'the men you imprisoned are in the Temple. They are standing there preaching to the people.' The captain went with his men and fetched them -though not by force, for they were afraid that the people might stone them.
When they had brought them in to face the Sanhedrin, the high priest demanded an explanation. 'We gave you a strong warning', he said, 'not to preach in this name, and what have you done? You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and seem determined to fix the guilt for this man's death on us.' In reply Peter and the apostles said, 'Obedience to God comes before obedience to men; it was the God of our ancestors who raised up Jesus, who you executed by hanging on a tree. By his own right hand God has now raised him up to be leader and Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins through him to Israel. We are witnesses to him, we and the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.' (Acts 5,21b-32; quoted passage by Thiering in italics and bold, sic.).
As we see, Thiering's interpretation of this passage is totally inconsistent with the given context. I mean, supposing they were really arrested and brought to the high priest after a warning, is it conceivable that Peter and the Apostles (i.e. John Mark) are going to fight in front of him? And the quoted passage is totally in agreement with both Peter and Mark, who were both Christians.
Thiering continues:
In Lk 24;40, Jesus after the crucifixion "showed them the hands and the feet" (cf. also v. 39). There are no words indicating that they were injured. John 20:25 shows that there were nail holes in the hands, but there is no mention of the feet. The rule that no words are to be assumed means that Jesus' feet were not injured, so that he was able to walk after the crucifixion (524).
Now, given the context of the resurrection it would make no sense that Jesus would show them the hands and the feet if they are not injured. First of all, it would then mean that Jesus didn't die on the cross, and in fact never crucified, and hence, no resurrection. The idea of showing the Apostles the hands and feet is precisely because he wants to show them the injuries so they can verify that it is indeed him who resurrected. Secondly, let's suppose for the sake of the argument that Thiering is right in supposing that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus never refers to any injury, and that in John's Gospel the hands were injured, but not his feet. How would Thiering reconcile this evident contradiction if the omission in the Synoptics of the mentioning of the injuries implies the lack of injuries and John's Gospel does mention injuries? There are some aspects to the use she makes of John's Gospel that are relevant to this last quote of Thiering's book, but this is also mixed with the second rule. So, I will comment on this in the second rule (so that I don't spoil the fun!).
She continues:
The same rule applies in many places where the surface meaning seems to indicate a question, but no Greek words for a question are used. The words themselves are in the form of a statement, the punctuation has to be added to show a question. The words must therefore be read as a statement, not a question. For example, Lk 24:18, ouk egnos ta genomena, apparently "Did you not know the things that have happened?" in its p-sense means: "You did not know (acknowledge) the things that have happened."
A direct question must have an indicating word, usually ei. It normally means "if" or an interrogative particle, but in its p-sense is an interrogative particle only. In Mk 15:44, ho de Pilatos ethaumasen ei ede tethneken, "Pilate wondered if he was already dead", in its p-sense is: Pilate asked: "Is he dead already?". The fact that Pilate's actual words are quoted means that he could use the verb "to die" in its ordinary sense, not in its p-sense, "to excommunicate". Pilate did not know the special language. (but the words do have a p-sense, unknown to Pilate, "did he become defiled at 3 p.m.?") (523-524).
Obviously these minute details about the absence of the interrogative article doesn't make any difference in the context they are made in. The question is how did she reach the conclusion that without the particle ei would decide if Pilate could mean "to die" or "to excommunicate" in the p-sense (pesher sense)? This is a question that we hope Thiering would clarify for us in the book.
B. Second Rule
2) Conversely, 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".
When Thomas said in Jn 20:26 ou me pisteuso, apparently "I will not believe", the p-sense is "I will believe", as the words mean "If I do not see the physical signs of suffering . . . I will not not believe", a gnostic viewpoint (524).
Here, Thiering is deceiving the reader. "Ou" is the word for "no" in Greek, and "me" serves as a kind of prohibitive component and also a denial. She states that a combination such as "ou me" would be a double denial, which would make the statement positive. Fact is that, in Greek, this is not so. When the words "ou me" are combined in this matter what it does is to emphasize the denial, not a change into a positive statement. Therefore the passage of Luke 22,16 should be translated, not "I will not not eat", but "Be sure (or, I assure you) that I will not eat..."; and passage of John 20:25 (and not Jn 20:26 which she misquoted) should be translated not as "If I do not see the physical signs of suffering . . . I will not not believe", but instead in: "If I do not see the physical signs of suffering . . . be sure (or, I assure you) that I will not believe".
It should be noted that for effects of the argument, that, with this p-statements, she is making the reader believe that the Apostles, particularly Thomas, wanted to see that Jesus did not have the injuries. However, as Thiering well recognizes, in John's Gospel the injuries of the hands are there and Thomas could see them and touch them (John 20,27). If Thomas rejected the idea of Jesus injuries, then why does he respond in this manner?: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20,28). The p-sense of this statement would then be obscure.
C. Third Rule
3) Another rule is that all events in narrative are consecutive. There are no "flashbacks", going back to a previous event (524).
Let's take this sole statement. From the mere formulation of this rule one can get into problems with the Gospels. 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.
Let's look at what Thiering has to say:
For example, in Jn 4:3 Jesus "left Judea and went . . . into Galilee". the next verse says "he had to pass through Samaria". This means, using the rule, that he came first to Galilee, then had to pass through Samaria. It does not make sense for the literal places, as Galilee is north of Samaria, but it makes sense when it is understood that both "Galilee" and "Samaria" were parts of the building at Ain Feshkha (524-525).
As we shall see in future criticisms, she has a new geography of Qumran in which this pesher interpretation fits "perfectly."
Mt 2:15 appears to speak of the death of Herod, then in a following verse, Mt 2:16, Herod acts again. This means that the word for "death" in v. 15 does not mean death, but has a metaphorical meaning (525).
Let's look at what Thiering views as inconsistent with Herod's death:
After they had left, suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away with him.' So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod was dead. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: I called my son out of Egypt. Herod was furious on realising that he had been fooled by the wise men [. . .] (Matt. 2,13-16; my italics, sic.).
Obviously this passage is far from being mysterious or incomprehensible. The reason why Matthew mentions Herod's death the first time is to indicate up to what point did Joseph and his family stayed in Egypt; and that while Herod was not dead yet, he was furious with the wisemen, etc. This is far from having a metaphorical meaning, since it does refer to Herod's death at 4 BC.
Let's continue with Thiering's third rule for pesharists:
In Mk 6,14-17 the order of events is: i) Herod heard about Jesus (v. 14a); ii) Some people said "John the Baptist is risen from the dead" (v. 14b); iii) Herod said that he had removed John from the headship (apekephalisa, v.16) and that he was risen iv) Herod seized John and bound him (followed by the account of the banquet at which the Baptist was condemned). This makes sense when it is understood that "to rise from the dead" means "to return to the celibate state after marriage." The events were: i) Herod heard about Jesus; ii) the Baptist's return to the celibate life was announced (at the equinox); iii) Herod said that the Baptist was no longer Pope, but he had returned to the celibate life, so was under authority; iv) Herod acted to punish John (and at the banquet agreed to give the papacy to Simon Magus, as Helena requested. John was subsequently executed) (525).
Of course, most of this will be discussed later, however, we can see how convenient it is for her that she has this sequence so that the Gospel fits her pesher technique. Still she doesn't confront the problem of her statement: "There are no 'flashbacks', going back to a previous event" (524), which is contradicted by my example of the cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. And, if one takes into account a future section on Herod and the Essenes that we are going to discuss, this interpretation is contradicted by history itself. Needless to say that Herod didn't give a papacy to Simon Magus, and there was no woman called Helena who requested it. This is all in Thiering's mind.
She adds some notes to this:
The rule of consecutive in narrative does not apply to speech, where there may be references to past or future events.
Narrative may contain a time phrase and related words referring back to the past, when it indicates the grade of status of a person. For example, the "daughter of Jairus" (Mary Magdalene) was "of year 12" (en eton dodeka, Mk 5,42), meaning that she had been given initiation in year 12, AD 17 [. . .]. This shows that was one of the female order encouraged by Eleazar Annas' Hellenist reforms in AD 17 (525).
We will discuss all these statements about Mary Magdalene being Jairus' daughter, female order, etc., but it will be no surprise to know that Thiering is completely wrong when she says this.
D. Fourth Rule
4) An assumption does have to be made, however, one not normally made in our own day. Because of the Pythagorean background of his thought (said to be characteristic of the Essenes in Ant. 15:371) the pesharist is intended to assume a system. If one or two items appear that would naturally form part of a larger system, then the larger system is to be assumed to be in operation (525-526).
Here is Thiering giving too much credit to Josephus on this matter (look at my comments on the relations between Herod and the Essenes). There is no reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls to Pythagoras or the use of any kind of Hellenistic knowledge. But let's see what she says about the systems:
If, for example, the numbers "the 7", "the 10", "the 12" appear, they must be part of an active system in which all numbers are used [. . .].
If the numbers 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 all appear, and some of them relate to people (4000 and 5000 in Mk 8, 9, 6:44), then there is a numerical system using all the numbers for people, and a reason for naming people in this way.
If a term is clearly a symbol, then all terms in the same class are also symbols. If people are "sheep" (Jn 10:2, 21:16), then all animals are symbols of people: pigs, oxen, asses, foxes, wolves, lions, wild beasts. All refer to classes of persons. So, the "2000 pigs" into whom Legion's unclean spirits went (Mk 5:12-13) were a class of men, and the story means a change of allegiance. Legion gave up a certain loyalty under the influence of Jesus, but other men took up that loyalty, and it destroyed them.
At this point one starts to have the feeling that she mentions a numeric system, that she gave an example of it, but the example fails to present the link between the number and the parables. One can clearly see the use of animals in the way that she exposes on pages 45-46, that in Herod's new system, each tribe of Israel in the Essene community was symbolized by an animal. She continues saying the following:
The parable of the Sower says that members of the Church are "seed" (Mk 4:1-20). Another verse gives a hierarchy for wheat seed: "first the blade (chortos), then the ear, then the full grain of the ear" (Mk 4:28). Lk 12:28 says that the blade (chortos) "today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven". This means that a cooked loaf is at status. When this point is associated with the practice of setting out the twelve loaves of the Presence (Lev 25:5-9, referred to in Mk 2:26), then the twelve loaves of the "feedings of the multitude" are seen as men representing the holy loaves, that is, levites (526, sic.).
This statement appears as being very odd. Mark 4,1-20 is the parable of the Sower alright, but Mark 4,28 belongs to another parable. Let's see in which context is this verse in:
He also said, 'This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the land. Night and day, while he sleeps, when he is awake, the seed is sprouting and growing; how, he does not know. Of its own accord the land produces first the shoot [or blade], then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. And when the crop is ready, at once he starts to reap because the harvest has come' (Mark 4,26-29).
But she then relates it to this passage:
Now if that is how God clothes a [blade] which is growing wild today and is thrown into the furnace tomorrow, how much more will he look after you, who have so little faith! (Luke 12,28)
The problem with relating these passages in this manner is that in the case of Mark, Jesus is talking here about what the Kingdom of God is like, in which it is not something that is already there and given, but something that grows up and develops. This has nothing to do with Luke's passage which is talking about God's providence. Though both are talking about blades, crop, harvest, oven, they tell two very different messages and not about people, but about the Kingdom of God and God's providence respectively.
She continues:
Other kinds of plants also act as symbols. A vineyard clearly stands for Israel in Mk 12:1-9, and a figtree was planted in the vineyard (Lk 13:6), so a "figtree" is also a group of people, and when the "figtree" was cursed by Jesus, (Mk 11:13-14) the meaning is that he expelled these people, not that he destroyed a tree. Nathanael, who had been seen by Jesus "under a figtree" (Jn 1:48) had belonged to this group (the following of the tetrarch Antipas); this tells more of his history (527, sic.).
It is quite interesting that Thiering this time is correct in comparing the vineyard to Israel and that the figtree represents a group of people. But she is wrong when she says that when Jesus cursed the figtree, the death of the tree symbolizes the fact that Jesus expelled these people. In this case, Jesus represents God, who looks at Israel and since it doesn't bear fruit, He curses it, since the people of God must bear fruit at all seasons.
There are other sequences of natural phenomena. "Thunder" was a man, as James and John were "sons of Thunder" (Mk 3:17), so "Lightning", "Earthquake", "Cloud", "Fire", "Wind", "Sun", "Moon" and "Star" are also men (527).
The fallacy of this argument is that because James and John were "sons of Thunder", then "Thunder" has to be a person. It is true that this phrase "sons of Thunder" refers to both of them is quite strange. Some people have suggested that Jesus called them the sons of Thunder because of their jealousy and too much love for Jesus (remember they are the ones who asked fire to consume the Samaritans because they were not well received by them (Luke 9,54-55), and also wanted to take a position in the Kingdom of God (Mark 10,35-40)). So "sons of Thunder" is more metaphorical than Thiering wants to accept, since "Thunder" doesn't refer to a person, neither does "Lightning," "Earthquake," "Cloud," etc.
Birds also stand for people: the Eagle, the Dove, the Raven (Lk 12,24), the Cock, the Hen, are all titles of levitical ministers (527).
From Luke 12,24 you can't deduce that these animals refer to people; and more astonishingly, she doesn't provide any historical document, Qumran Scroll or any Biblical passage, that would relate these animals to the title of levitical ministers.
The principle of sequences of symbols is familiar from elsewhere in the New Testament. In 1 Cor 3:12 Paul speaks of members of the church as "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw". "Silver" is second, so a man who receives "thirty pieces of silver" occupied the position of Second at the Last Supper [. . .]. "Alexander the coppersmith" of 2 Tim 4:14 must be part of such a system also. "Sapphira", or "sapphire" (A 5:1) is one of the "precious stones" (527).
Needless to say that she is relating passages and stones to people. These stones have nothing to do with people, nor positions.
E. Fifth Rule
5) The pesharist must not be selective; nothing can be overlooked or set aside. One of the most important indications that there is a puzzle to be solved is in Mk 8:14-21. Under the form of a riddle, Jesus sets out the figures for the two feedings of the multitude (5 loaves for 5000, with 12 baskets (kophinoi) of crumbs left over; 7 loaves for 4000, with 7 baskets (spyrides) left over. he then says that there is something to be understood, and the question is left open. As Austin Farrer said a generation ago, before the scrolls were known, the "riddle of the loaves" is not to be overlooked. It is pointing to something, and if the modern reader disregards it, he is losing something of value (527-528).
Of course, the reader will ask about what riddle is Thiering talking about. Let's see the passage:
The disciples had forgotten to take any bread and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. Then he gave them this warning, 'Keep your eyes open; look out for the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.' And they said to one another, 'It is because we have no bread.' And Jesus knew it and he said to them, 'Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not understand, still not realise? Are your minds closed? Have you eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear? Or do you not remember? when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of scraps did you collect?' they answered, 'Twelve.' 'And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many baskets full of scraps did you collect?' And they answered, 'Seven.' Then he said to them, 'Do you still not realise?' (Mark 8,14-21, sic.).
For any reader this is not too difficult to understand. For example, the Apostles didn't understand the phrase: "Keep your eyes open; look out for the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod." And when they started speculating about what it means, then Jesus said that the comment he made had nothing to do with the lack of bread. This would be better looked at with the explanation Matthew provides.
Then they understood that he was telling them to be on their guard, not against yeast for making bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16.12).
So, in the Gospel of Mark, what Jesus is saying is, be on guard against the Pharisees and Herod himself.
Of course, if people just look at this section of Thiering's book, they would have stayed with the question of the riddle, since she doesn't provide an answer. Besides, she does not put this into practice in her Pesher methodology: as we have seen she is quite selective about the wedding at Cana where she avoids certain passages that may clarify the steward's attitude, she avoids cases of chronological order in Synoptics and the Gospel of John (e.g. the cleansing of the Temple), she omits very important parts of history, she omits her own sources. Maybe it is possible that Thiering is the exception to this fifth rule.
F. Sixth Rule
6) The pesharist's main task is to look for the special meanings of words. Words in the gospels and Acts often seem generalised, vague, not giving as much information as the inquiring mind would like. The pesharist is to expect them to have precise meanings, with a great deal of important information to convey.
The special meanings come from many different sources: play on words, pseudonyms, nicknames, names of classes, common words with an institutional meaning, associations, titles derived from incarnational theory, universals with a particular meaning, slogans, loose terms made precise, Old Testament allusions, hierarchical terms, items in a chain of symbols. all of them come from special experience, that of a man who has been a member of the ascetic community for long enough to have learned its distinctive terminology and practices (528).
Of course, Thiering forgot the seventh rule, and most important rule, for the pesharists: "Avoid the best and simple explanation of events, doesn't matter how plausible might they be. It is better to assume that things are far more complicated than they are, so that the Pesher Technique works. The text must fit the Pesher Technique, doesn't matter what Make the Gospel say what you want them to say. Avoid any historical documents in your speculation."