Q & A
Questions & Answers with Chris Burton
The following questions were submitted by Chris Burton.
Simeon as High Priest
Qumran as “Damascus” and Its Hermeneutical Implications
Replacement Theology, Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism
Thank you for your questions, Chris. It’s a pleasure to encounter another armchair biblical archeologist like myself, especially one from the Bible belt. I think most people who don’t come from our background would be amazed at how deeply engrained Bible study is in Southern culture. I recall attending the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Mobile, Alabama, and nearly everyone I ran into had his or her own theory about the Scrolls.
On 6-1-08, Chris Burton asked,
Q: You claim that Essenes were the dominant culture and that their leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness," was also the high priest of the Temple. How do you counter the current perception that the Essenes were a disenfranchised priesthood from the Maccabean period, and thus unlikely to have been tied in with the Temple priesthood in the first century?
A: My identification of Simeon (from Luke 2) as the Teacher of Righteousness was based in part on the common assumption that Simeon was high priest of the Temple, at a time when there was a high probability that the high priest would’ve been an Essene. I haven’t found any conclusive historical sources yet—which is why I didn’t cover this in JTWP—but here is my thinking:
Luke 2 never specifically refers to Simeon as “high priest,” but the extracanonical Gospel of James (the Protevangelion) does, agreeing with Church tradition. Luke sets the story of Jesus’s circumcision, which Simeon reportedly performed, in the Temple. By law, circumcision had to be performed on the eighth day after birth (Lk 2:21) and most scholars place the birth of Jesus at 6 or 7 BCE; 2 BCE at the latest. It follows that if Simeon were serving as high priest of the Temple at that time, his appointment must have been prior to the Roman occupation in 6 CE.
By the end of the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE), the priesthood had become a temporary office held at the king’s pleasure. Thus, even if the high priest were chosen by lot, as the Gospel of James reports (16:26-28), his appointment wouldn’t have been official until ratified by the king. Josephus records that the Herodian dynasty had great affinity for the Essenes (Ant 15.368, 371-79). All this circumstantial evidence implies that Simeon was an Essene, and that he was appointed by Herod the Great or by his son Archelaus, who reigned over Judea from 4 BCE-6 CE.
Also, to clarify: I don’t necessarily claim that the Essenes were the dominant Jewish culture of the first century. I believe my Essenes/scribes exegesis validates the view of nineteenth-century historians Emil Schürer and Heinrich Gräetz who claimed the Essenes were the original Jewish sect from which all other sects formed. By the time of the Herodian period, Essene cultural dominance probably started to subside. But in my view the Essenes were still the “keepers of the Torah” giving them jurisdiction over Jesus and his crucifixion.
Incidentally, Herod the Great would’ve been perceived by pious first-century Jews as no better than Alexander Janneus or any other despised king during the Maccabean period, which could explain why Simeon went into exile.
Qumran as “Damascus” and Its Hermeneutical Implications
On 6-1-08, Chris Burton asked,
Q:You place the Essene headquarters in Capernaum, not Qumran. Do you make the corollary argument that "Damascus,"as referenced by Paul, was actually Capernaum, or do you think that Qumran still held this significant position among Essene settlements?
A: No, I don’t argue that Capernaum was the “Damascus” referenced by Paul, but I see how some readers could easily draw that conclusion. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify this point.
The confusion probably stems from the fact that I comment in JTWP how some scholars believe that the road to “Damascus”—the locus of Paul’s conversion experience in Acts 9—was really the road to Qumran. The pesher rationale is that the Essenes named Qumran “Damascus” in imitation of Damascus in Syria because the Essenes still saw themselves as living in exile.
What’s problematic about the Damascus/Qumran theory is that it suggests Luke and the other Gospel writers may have used pesher-like pseudonyms in telling the story of Jesus, and scholars who believe the Scrolls and Gospels correlate can be tempted to push this hermeneutic method too far.
This is the main reason Barbara Thiering’s views have been so unpopular among consensus scholars. Not only did Thiering propose the Jesus as Wicked Priest theory, which is controversial enough; she is among the more liberal textual critics out there. Her pesher method of reinterpreting the literal meaning of Gospel events to fit the Scrolls has never sat well with conservative textual critics (she has Jesus crucified at Qumran instead of Jerusalem, for example). Unfortunately for Thiering and unfortunately for the Jesus as Wicked Priest theory, most Scrolls scholars to date have been rather conservative textual critics.
I think Scrolls scholars may find my version of the Jesus as Wicked Priest theory more convincing. I made a point in JTWP of interpreting references in the Gospels and the Scrolls as literally as I could absent a compelling reason otherwise. I think the Capernaum of Mark 3:1-6 was really the Capernaum near the Sea of Galilee, for example, and not a symbolic reference to Qumran. And when I read the Thanksgiving Hymns where the author said of his surroundings, “Thou hast caused me to dwell with the many fishers who spread a net among the face of the waters” (1QHa XIII, 8), I read that verse literally, too. I think this verse describes the Sea of Galilee; it is not a figurative reference to the Dead Sea by a mystic-poet, as many consensus scholars have argued.
Though Thiering’s pesher method has been criticized for its lack of objectivity, my experience is that mainstream Scrolls scholars have been just as guilty of transmuting the plain meaning of the texts to support their theories. Surely the true historical restoration of the Scrolls will arise naturally from the texts.
One last comment: My locating the Righteous Teacher at Capernaum instead of Qumran doesn’t necessarily establish either one as Essene headquarters; it merely establishes that some of the manuscripts recovered at Qumran were written elsewhere. I think the Essenes were a far more widespread and diverse group than has yet been realized.
Replacement Theology, Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism
On 6-1-08, Chris Burton asked,
Q: Connecting the sacrifice of Isaac to that of the Christ via reincarnation was inspired, but later I was more disturbed by the implication. Can you clarify how the crucifixion was not then representative of God's abjurement of the promise made to Abraham?
A: Fiction writers often speak of their wonder at discovering how the characters they’ve created make choices they never expected. I was likewise stunned speechless when my nonfiction research suggested the Teacher of Righteousness was Abraham incarnate, and his attempted sacrifice of Isaac was in karmic preparation of the role he would later play in the Passion of Christ. I feel this is the central dramatic point of JTWP, so much so that I suggested to my publisher we use Marc Chagall’s Sacrifice of Isaac for our cover. They thought it was too obscure for the average potential reader to understand, and they were probably right. But notice the rich symbolism in Chagall’s painting. Chagall depicts blood from Jesus’s crucifixion flowing down upon Abraham and Isaac, evidently because he felt the two events were deeply related.
I think your question goes to what is called “replacement theology,” which is interesting; I hadn’t yet made that connection.
I’m not particularly fond of replacement theology due its exclusivist overtones. I don’t believe Christianity has abrogated Judaism; rather it has fulfilled and simplified it. Which is to say, I don't believe there are two paths to salvation, only one; however I believe that path is inclusive enough and simple enough that Jews or followers of any other religion may find it without a formal conversion to Christianity, as such.
In Jesus’s dialogue with the Levite, for example, Jesus summarized all the Torah in the simple commandments that we should love God with all of our being and love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus said, "Do this, and you will live” (Lk 10:25-28). In his teachings on love and forgiveness, Jesus taught, “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back” (Lk 6:37-38). The principles of Christian salvation are, in theory at least, realizable apart from the direct teachings of the historical Jesus; one may come upon them in Judaism or any other religion, even accidentally. The “Holy Sprit,” to use traditional Christian terminology, is not bound by the institutional Christian churches.
I'm no big fan of dispensationalism, either. First of all, I don’t believe it is scriptural. Secondly, it is often used to support Christian Zionism, and I’m highly critical of that movement for I believe it goes against the nonviolent heart and spirit of the gospel. Among the more noteworthy Christian Zionists of our time are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee: all of whom have advocated war in order to bring about the apocalypse. Perhaps this is because they were trying to establish solidarity with messianic Jews who sometimes cite prophecies that are very militant in tone, prophecies that predict the Messiah will usher in an age of peace and harmony, but only after first establishing the state of Israel as a world power through military means. In my view, these are precisely the type of messianic expectations the Essenes tried to impose upon Jesus, and precisely why he distanced himself from them. I argue repeatedly in JTWP that Jesus rejected the militant interpretation of the messianic prophecies as a temptation of Satan (Mt 4:8-11), opting to bring about the Kingdom of God by the nonviolent path of the Suffering Servant instead.
In anticipation of critics who might see my messianic beliefs as anti-Semitic, I submit that nonviolence is the only realistic solution to the prophetical restoration and preservation of the Jewish homeland: nonviolence by the Palestinians, by the Israelis—by everyone. Everyone deserves a place to live in peace.
Return to Reader Interaction Page