Talk:Barbara Thiering

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Supernaturalistic"

To the person editing from 68.126.153.92 and 69.110.93.205, please keep in mind that encyclopedias (and perhaps encyclopedists) in general tend to be a little conservative in their vocabulary. Please allow me to suggest that you provide a citation of the article's subject's use of this word and it can be inserted into the article as "...what Thiering calls "supernaturalistic"[reference]", so that it is clear that this word is coined by Thiering and not by Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

REPLY:

Dear friend,

Simply look at M-W.com and you will see the term "supernaturalistic" listed as an adjective. I am the person who originally posted the Barbara Thiering article, based on information that I requested and received from Dr. Thiering herself, so please allow that word to stand. That particular sentence came straight from her.

The original (and correct) sentence is:

"Her academic books and journal articles have challenged Christian orthodoxy, offering a new answer to its supernaturalistic beliefs."

It would be an error to say "supernatural beliefs," because we are not talking about "beliefs that are supernatural." Instead, we use "supernaturalistic," which means we are talking about beliefs that (ostensibly) *refer* to supernatural phenomenon. That's a very important distinction.

So your earlier point about the term being supposedly coined by Dr. Thiering is incorrect. It is an established term, which is recognized by reputable dictionaries.

The word could be avoided by rewording the sentence, but I don't see any reason to do so. "Supernatural" obviously isn't appropriate, and "supernaturalistic" gets the idea across quite adequately. The meaning is evident to anyone who understands "supernatural". I agree with the person who wrote "Dear friend", but (even though he seems to contradict himself) Thiering probably used, but did not coin (originally) "supernaturalistic". If it were "supercalifragilistic", that would be a different story! Unfree (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gnostic connection

The article says:

"They wrote according to the theory of pesher that is illustrated in the Scrolls, in two levels. For the “babes in Christ” there were apparent miracles, but the knowledge of exact meanings held by the highly educated members of gnostic schools gave a real history, of what Jesus actually did."

But Thiering hardly mentions the gnostics. In response to the question, "Are any of the gnostic gospels written in Pesher?", she replied on her website: "They are in Coptic, translated from Greek, so since the complete pesher only works on Greek, it is difficult to be certain. But it does not appear that they give a word-for-word pesher. Rather, they are written for insiders, the 'knowing ones' or gnostics, and draw on the inside knowledge, in undisguised form. Much of it is symbolism, eg the marriage symbolism of the Gospel of Philip, which is the richest source of their thought."

The people Thiering says wrote the pesher documents (the gospels in the Bible, the books of Acts and Revelations, some New Testament epistles, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and some of the Nag Hammadi Library) were the monastic inhabitants of Qumran, that is, the historical Essenes mentioned by Josephus, not the gnostics. To be precise, they were the original Christians, and included Jesus himself. D021317c 05:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of biased Vermes review

It is time that this biased statement and the quote from Vermes be removed. It not appropriate to place inside a biography without a chance to refute it. It is now outdated and Dr. Thiering's book has been republished. This is a place for a biography not a forum for discrediting an individual.

For those who are willing to take the time to study the question and who are not just Vatican moles, Dr Thiering has supplied the following in relation to Geza Vermes’ statement, beginning with the first step in her case, the Christian date of the Teacher of Righteousness and his rival the Wicked Priest. Vermes has denied the validity of this step.

The Tucson carbondating tests of 1995, 1996, gave good evidence that the particular group of documents concerning the Teacher of Righteousness and his rival the Wicked Priest were composed for the first time in the 1st century AD. These persons appear only in one group. The evidence and argument are set out in an article in the professional journal Radiocarbon, vol 1, number 2, 1999, pp 169-182, by G.A. Rodley and B.E. Thiering, “Use of Radiocarbon Dating in Assessing Christian Connections to the Dead Sea Scrolls”. The essential points are, first, that a group of documents concerning the Teacher, of the genre of pesharim, are autographs, of which one copy only exists. Two in this group were tested. 4Q171 (4QpPs a, the pesher on Psalms) is carbondated 29-81 CE (AD), and 1QpHab(the pesher on Habakkuk) is carbondated 88-2 BCE (BC), permitting a subsequent date for use of its parchment. Attempts to explain these as anomalies are open to criticism. Further, a copy of CD (the Damascus Document, not a pesher), where the Teacher and his rival also appear, is carbondated 4-82 CE (AD). A certain fragment which was thought to make CD much earlier can be shown to have been mistakenly treated in terms of its semicursive script. It is an early source, which was incorporated in the main document CD.

Another criticism of the soundness of Vermes’ position comes from his use of the historical sources. He includes in his dating scheme the statement that a certain leader was a king, although it is made plain that there were no kings at that time. In The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin Books, 1998, p.331) Vermes is dealing with the fragment 4Q448, which includes the term “King Jonathan” in its column B and probably in column C. The editors of the fragment, Esther and Hanan Eshel, have taken the title to refer to Alexander Jannaeus (103- 76 BC), a Hasmonean ruler who was certainly called king in Jerusalem . Josephus in Jewish War 1, 70 makes it clear that Jannaeus (the Greek equivalent of Jonathan) was called king because his predecessor and brother Aristobulus (105-104 BC) had claimed that title for the first time. “Aristobulus …transformed the government into a monarchy, and was the first to assume the diadem”. The editors’ identification of Alexander Jannaeus is argued for in Israel Exploration Journal 42, 1992, 199-229. Vermes, however, holds that the name means Jonathan Maccabeus. Jonathan was one of the heroic Maccabean brothers , whose career is described in Josephus’ Jewish War 1, 48- 49 and 1 Maccabees 9:19- 12:53. Jonathan led the people 161-143 BC and claimed the high priesthood. But it is certain that the major change to a monarchy did not occur until 60 years later when the people were ready for it.

Vermes is primarily dealing with the next step in Dr Thiering’s case, the application of the pesher technique to the gospels, Acts and Revelation, giving new information about the history and political setting of Jesus. The results, presented fully in her extensive publications, are subject to testing by a strict criterion of consistency. The fullest detail is to be found in the Pesher of Christ website

http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanstephens (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Thiering disciple doesn't like the fact that Thiering is regarded as a kook. That Vermes quote sums up the low regard with which this crank writer is regarded in her field and it or something like it IS an appropriate piece of information to add to this entry. Calling Theiring's academically derided book "groundbreaking" on the other hand is not (NPOV? Hardly?) As it stands this entry now reads like something written by the Babs Thiering Fan Club.

And how the hell can C14 dating determine when a text was *composed*? It's that sort of batty claim by Thieiring and her muddled acolytes that puts her on the very edge of the nutty fringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.148.243 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Vermes summed up the academic reception of Thiering's work accurately and so I have replaced the removed quote as a way of indicating Thiering's reputation in academia. It is simply a fact that Thiering's work is not accepted by other scholars and that's all the Vermes quote is saying. The word "ground-breaking" has also been removed - that is not a NPOV description of Thiering's book. Thiudareiks 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While you do have a point that the "ground-breaking" is not NPOV, I suggest that you be satisfied with "controversial". one of you says "And how the hell can C14 dating determine when a text was *composed*?" You are missing the point: the date that the writing material was made determines the absolute earliest date that it was written on the writing material. You can go forward, but not back! If it was a copy of an original, where is that original? The burden of proof falls upon Vermes and all those who choose to close their eyes to the connection with Jesus. The carbon dating is a relevant issue as it negates many of Vermes’ key assumptions that require an earlier date. Thus this evidence together with other evidence serves to undermine Vermes’ stature as the "absolute authority" on the DSS. It is the case of science negating bad logic. Opinion is changing since 1994 as there are quite a few prominent scholars who have presented differing options than Vermes based on proper dating of the group of scrolls that appear to parallel events in the early Christian community. Wikipedia on Vermes currently states “a controversial but respected authority on the life and religion of Jesus”. It would not be appropriate to battle the issues by including their comments or the Vermes’ review in the bio of Barbara Thiering, just as it would not be appropriate to place a statement about Vermes work by Barbara Thiering in his bio. It is just a battle of controversial versus controversial and not worth cluttering these pages with. Please find other places to vent your disagreements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanstephens (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether Vermes himself is right in his personal academic opinion that Thiering's thesis is nonsense is irrelevant. The quote from Vermes is merely to illustrate that Thiering's thesis has not been accepted by her academic peers. You can argue about the dates of the DSS all you like (and your argument from carbon-dating of the writing material as evidence that those manuscripts are autographs or close to autographs is nonsensical), but the FACT remains that what Vermes says about the reception of Thiering's work is true: she has been rejected by the academic community.

The fact you think this is unfair or that you think she should be accepted or that the academic community is wrong is all totally irrelevant. The fact remains that Thiering is an isolated theorist of dubious reputation whose work has been rejected by her peers. This is something that needs to be mentioned in an article which is highly focused on her thesis. It is misleading to give the impression that Thiering and her thesis is highly regarded academically when it has been almost universally rejected and scorned. Please don't take this quote out again - this article is a NPOV encyclopaedia entry, not advertising for Thiering and her followers. Thiudareiks 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This section needs a serious note that the 3 people criticizing her work have a vested interest in denouncing her as it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Why don't we have any secular responses to her work? Is it because it doesn't fit with the pro religious agenda here? I guess NPOV means nothing here when religion is involved. Raphjd (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what WP:NPOV actually says. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The review represents a significant view and is I think represented fairly without bias (ie it doesn't call it a great or a horrible review, etc). It is your opinion that the review is written because of a conflict of religious belief, but that doesn't make your opinion fact or mean the review should not be included. I would expect the people interested in her work enough to write reviews to be religious scholars, that should not be surprising.

So, if you think this article needs secular scholars criticising her work to be NPOV, by all means provide them. Or scholars praising her work (from reliable sources for either of course). Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What theory isn't controversial, at least when it's first announced? Whether Vermes' "credentials", or those of others, are comparable to Thiering's isn't at issue. The fact is that if you want to know who Barbara Thiering is, you ought to know that she came up with her theory! Unfree (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is Geza Vermes to speak for anybody but himself? Did Vermes ever poll the "academic community"? By what means was the consensus of opinion from this purported academic community derived? More importantly, who and what makes up this academic community or it's representative statistical sample? In otherwords, what are the demographics? Are they theologians, historians, archeologists? Are they Christians, Moslems, Jews, Atheists, etc.? Is it the usual suspects, i.e. the Ivy League and Oxford? What is the composition of this alleged academic community that has annointed Geza Vermes their spokesman? Fact is, all this talk about THE academic community is pure hypothetical nonsense and the only person responsible for making the pretentious Geza Vermes the representative voice of the academic community is the very unscientific, propagandistic and biased author of this article on Barbara Theiring. Pvsalsedo (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why The Exhaustive Bibliography?

Including journal articles? Is this standard Wikipedia practice for a scholar? I don't think so. I mean, maybe list her books. The full list belongs either in her C.V. or an External link, not on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.132.128 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it belongs under a separate article on her theory. Unfree (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

About to do a big revert

A single editor made a whole bunch of changes which seriously damage the NPoV status of this article. As such I am reverting to an older version, several revisions earlier. Please understand that this is because, after reviewing the history, this was the last good version. Thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And done.Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, needed doing. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

If any additional criticisms can be included, a notable one would be to suggest that Thiering's writings might have served as an academic justification for fiction books like the Da Vinci Code. Most scholars have thoroughly refuted Dan Brown's suggestion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and yet this is exactly what Thiering is talking about in her book Jesus the Man. It could probably be mentioned as an example of neo-Gnostic doctrine that accidentally appears within certain marginal strands of post-modern scholarship. ADM (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any RSes make that connection? Because otherwise see WP:SYNTH.Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "RSes" are, and obviously "justification" is the wrong word (What justification does fiction need, and Who says he "suggested" anything at all about the real world?), but I've read that Thiering's books, among others, inspired Dan Brown. There were several things besides the identification of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife which he probably took from Thiering. The notion that "scholars have refuted" such "marginal strands" makes it even more plausible that Thiering came up with the ideas first, or some other source familiar to Dan Brown. He evidently was looking for arcane ideas that would make the fiction even more bizarre and fascinating, yet not entirely unheard-of.

On the off-chance that "RSes" stands for "religious scholars", note that this has nothing to do with religious scholarship, at least as religious scholars perceive it. That's like asking a physicist what color "puce" is. That's a question for interior decorators, not physicists. Unfree (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"RS" is Wikipedia jargon for WP:RS which is "reliable source". Some works (example, a YouTube video) are not "reliable sources", while other works (example, a book by a respected scholar in the field) are "reliable". The first message in this section is making a suggestion, and the "RS" comment is saying that the suggestion might go in the article if and only if there is a reliable source which makes the suggestion (the article would say "so-and-so claims such-and-such"). Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The theory

I'm very disappointed that this page, presumably being a "biography of living persons", or another page (such as "Thiering theory") doesn't go deeper into the theory, controversial or not. Unfree (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a small discussion at Pesher, and a mention in Jesus the Man (book). Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody's been vandalizing this page like crazy. I'm sure it once listed three or four of her books, and quite a few scholarly articles, and it had a link to an article (now removed?) on a related subject. Unfree (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it appears that the comment above suggests that a single editor had introduced material that violated WP:NPOV, and this edit reverted the article. I am happy to (slowly) help restore some of the material but a very quick look makes me think that some of the removed text was a problem with respect to WP:OR, and the extensive bibliography might have been overdoing it. Re NPOV, we definitely do not use descriptions like "scorned", and we just say "documentary" rather than "award-winning television documentary" because the latter appears to take a promotional stance (and the award might not have been for anything related to the content which is the only thing relevant to mentioning the documentary here). Re OR, a statement such as "An immense body of detailed hypothetical minutiae must be accumulated in order to make sense of Thiering's 'pesher' method." needs to be sourced, and the statement is overly flowery. The list of books definitely needs to be added, and a little more on the general pesher concept. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Johnuniq. I see what you mean about the WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. The Thiering books written for the general public certainly deserve mentioning, and I would like to see more than a little discussion about the general "pesher" concept, but I'm not sure this biographical article is the place for it. I'd very much appreciate your help deciding what should and should not be restored. Unfree (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnuniq wrote, "'An immense body of detailed hypothetical minutiae must be accumulated in order to make sense of Thiering's pesher method.' needs to be sourced, and the statement is overly flowery." I suspect I wrote that, and can't think of a less flowery way of putting it. I don't know how to "source" it, but it's true and evident in her books. For example, in the one that is available in America, half the book is made up of appendices full of such minutiae. It's all hypothetical in the sense that one must postulate the possibility that it's accurate before seeing how it fits together to give the full story. She says that Qumran was the center of a sort of theological seminary which sent out teachers all over the world, and had a complicated hierarchy. You have to understand the hierarchy and its grades in order to make sense of the vocabulary, which appears in a later book. By the way, the hypothetical minutiae are built upon a corpus of strictly historical minutiae, including Herod (the Great), Simon (Magus), Hillel (the Great), Qumran, the Essenes, and many sources widely regarded as illegitimate, but which Thiering says are accurate, such as the Nag Hammadi "library", the Dead Sea scrolls, the Apocrypha, the Clementine literature, many pseudepigrapha, etc. Unfree (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing

I find this article very disappointing, and apparently, it's going nowhere. Why is there only one book in the bibliography? Why is there no mention of anything Thiering says? Unfree (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, you are again telling us how disappointed you feel about the article. Its edit history suggests you know the button so feel free to add some things within the scope of Wikipedia! --Ari (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when are her books and journal articles "not within the scope"? Whenever anything the least bit informative gets added here, it's soon destroyed. I'm not good enough at working with the technology of Wikipedia to fix the messing-up. The number and motives of all the "Christians" who want Thiering's studies hidden from view are overwhelming. Thiering challenges their beliefs. One book is available in the US, but the others are apparently banned. In order to get "The Gospel that Jesus Wrote" and "Jesus of the Apocalypse" I had to order them from Australia, half-way around the world. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a believer. I'm utterly convinced she's right. But I wouldn't be surprised if, among the six or seven billion people in the world, there are no more than a few dozen who, like me, have looked into her work and been similarly convinced. On the other hand, many millions are threatened by what she's written, including the vast edifice of Christendom, in their faiths, their careers, their politics, their afterlives. To prove that Jesus didn't actually walk on water is more earth-shaking than an assassination attempt on the Pope. I don't need you, Ari, to tell me to "feel free", I'm freer than the vandals. But what I do need is a resource for advancing my studies, and Wikipedia isn't up to the task. Being so easily edited, it can't stand the onslaught of Thiering's detractors. I doubt this article will ever escape their efforts to ruin it. Unfree (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, shame on me for suggesting you do something other than complain over and over again. Good for you. And as far as I know (and I see no reason to doubt this) her books most definately aren't banned in the US. I live in Australia and never see her books around - not because they are banned, but because she is an obscure fringe writer who had her 15 mintues over a decade ago. If you want to further your study try books on the scrolls by scholars such as Timothy Lim or James H. Charlesworth (both have books on 'Pesher'). Go for your life, but please anything but claiming the world is against you. --Ari (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to do anything very constructive at Wikipedia for quite a while, however, I have read two of Thiering's books and could possibly assist in some small way if you want to formulate some new text. If you like, put it in your sandbox and reply with a link here. The real problem is that (I think — I am not in the habit of reading in this area) that there is very little serious response to Thiering, just a few dismissive critics who rarely engage with what she wrote. Accordingly, there is not much to verifiably say. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I've seen it is that, as is common with fringe writers, few academics feel it is worth their time to write about her Pesher work, which is apparently not easy or possible to reproduce - which means you have to take her word for it. All the article can do is reflect what reliable sources have to say, and that is basically negative. Her books are definitely not banned in the US, including the ones that the above editor for some reason ordered from Australia, they are sold on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, abe.books.com, etc. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is beyond disappointing. It's just irresponsible. All this talk about a consensus of opinion from THE "academic community" is pure, hypothetical nonsense. First of all, no such consensus has EVER been established by any objective means, whatsoever, and, second, any and all consensus is subject to change. More importantly, it's irrelevant simply because TRUTH is NOT a matter of consensus (I doubt if Isaac Newton or Einstein polled THE academic community to see if their theories had a majority of support). From the standpoint of science, this is simply the imposition of a FALSE morality that majority rules and determines truth in determining the validity of a theory which it does NOT.

That leaves only one very weak argument against Theiring which is to discredit the pesher technique; as if, this technique can only come to a single conclusion. Robert Eisenmann, one of the foremost experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the man most responsible for its carbon dating, has recently written a book "James, The Brother of Jesus" in which he exhaustively explains the pesher technique and it's use in the DSS only to arrive at an interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls that is different from Thiering as to who is the Wicked Priest, The Teacher of Righteousness, etc.; none of which is used in this article to counter Thiering's own conclusions.

Without a preponderance of evidence to support it, anybody who asserts that a consensus of academics dismisses the pesher technique as invalid is not only expressing their own ignorance but a bias AGAINST the scientific method in evaluating truth which has NOTHING to do with consensus. Furthermore, it's merely an ASSUMPTION that their own ignorance extends to everyone else; especially, some hypothetical majority of academics (whom, I would bet, if scientifically polled, would admit they could NOT tell you the first thing about the pesher technique, anyways). Pvsalsedo (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Pvsalsedo, for injecting a bit of sanity. Ever since John Milton wrote "Areopagitica" the world has known that censorship is no way to arrive at the truth. I just read a passage (at christian-thinktank.com/iceman.html) attacking Barbara Thiering by Glenn M. Miller, a self-proclaimed "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ", which is absolutely devoid of serious argument (actually, the whole thing is a quotation from somebody whose name is spelled two different ways). Aside from several outright lies, it is little more than abnegation. Can you imagine where the Protestant denominations would be if the Catholic Church had succeeded in silencing Martin Luther? The issues at stake are world-shattering, and all the opposition can do is to shout, "Shut up!" It's time for courageous people the world over to demand justice, to be able to learn the truth about Jesus Christ, and to prevail upon the doorkeepers of knowledge to throw open the doors. Recently, some ignoramus actually had the nerve to suggest on my talk page that the concept of "fringe" required Wikipedia to maintain its integrity and suppress Thiering theory. Can you imagine my outrage? Funfree (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have fallen into error in confusing Thiering's use of the word "pesher" (meaning "interpretation") with earlier uses. Thiering's pesher applies only to the New Testament, not to the Old Testament or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eisenman's "pesher technique" is a phenomenon utterly distinct from Thiering's, and has no bearing on it. Thiering doesn't disagree with most scholars' understandings of various writings which have been labelled pesharim (the plural form) explicitly, or considered so from internal evidence. But the kind of writing used in the New Testament to conceal secret history is what Thiering means when she uses the word in her own, novel way. Funfree (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OR moved out of tiny Jesus Justus (one-mention Christian in Colossians) article

Start:

The Australian scholar Barbara Thiering claims that the title Justus, Latin meaning “just” or “righteous” was that of the David crown prince. It was applied to James the next brother of Jesus, called James the Just by the contemporary historian Hegesippus (chronicler). James was the crown prince for Jesus before he had a son of his own. He appears as Joseph called Justus in Acts 1:23.

However, Theiering takes this a step further by saying that the name Jesus Justus is that of a son of Jesus, also called Jesus, with the added title of his crown prince. He received this title as Jesus Christ is said to be a prince so any offspring would be royalty as well.

By using her own pesher technique Thiering believes that he was born in June, 37 AD to Jesus (having survived the crucifixion)and Mary Magdalene. In Revelation he appears there as the "Name" in Revelation 15:2; Revelation 16:9;

Revelation 17:8. Revelation also describes his marriage and the marriage of his son Jesus III. Finish. If someone wants to include this here go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

References

The Field

It's absurd to say, "Her analysis has been rejected by many scholars in the field." There are no such people. She considers herself a scholar and a Christian, but her understanding of Jesus Christ is utterly different from that of others. It's only a matter of time before the whole world comes to realize that she's right and everybody else is wrong. Herod the Great was fabulously wealthy, and his wealth came from Jews all over the world who came to the shores of the Dead Sea to learn religion. He was the main sponsor of fabulous banquets in Rome, which went on for days, and required the best food and most impressive spectacles imaginable. Jesus was the messiah of his day, just as his father Joseph was in his day, and Joseph's father Heli was in his day, and Heli's father Hillel was in his day. Ever heard of Hillel? Jesus was the legitimate "Davidic" king of the Jews, descended from David on both his parents' sides. The academy at Qumran was of immense importance to the Jewish nation, because the true priests and leaders of the nation had been ejected by force from Jerusalem, and everybody knew it. They established a new center in Qumran and attempted to restore, not only the temple and its practices, but the divinely-established kingdom. This is not trivial business. But it isn't at all the phony story which has perverted the true history Jesus wrote about in "The Gospel According to John". He wrote clearly, though using words and syntax only initiates could decipher, all about his story up until the Crucifixion and beyond. Only Barbara Thiering has been able to penetrate the true meaning behind the gospels, Acts, Revelations, etc. The poor state of the present article distresses me very much, and the continued emphasis on whether people of other religions have come to agree on the validity of her theory is annoying. Should an article on Presbyterianism focus on the simple fact that most people aren't Presbyterians? Of course not. (I am the person formerly known as "Unfree".) 172.56.27.167 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether one side or the other is "correct" or not, and who exactly decrees where the boundary of "the field" should be drawn, that sentence is unbecoming to the dignity of wikipedia. It violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarise the article. And to meet WP:NPOV it somehow must say that she's been rejected by other scholars. The IP thinks she is the only person who knows the truth, and most of the IP's post is a forum style post. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP's post shows partiality, that's true. Wikipedia doesn't include statements on a page about a person in a dramatic profession such as "generally considered to be a bad actor", and I don't think that statement belongs here. "Dr Thiering has an enemy who publishes" would seem to be a fair summary of the situation, though I am not suggesting that that statement should be included. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's just insulting to the academics who have criticized her. The fact is that she is a fringe author who has not been accepted academically. Like Zecharia Sitchin, whose lead makes it clear his ideas are rejected, but in a different field. The lead is a summary of the article and must make it clear that she is not accepted by academics if it is not to violate WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And another critique. In Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions - The Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 Peter Flint[1] offers a critique of her work. He calls her reconstruction of Jesus's live bizarre, says that "Thierings theories on Jesus and Christian origins have little basis in the scrolls or in the New Testament. Her pesher technique misuses the concept of pesher, her datings of the scrolls are suspect, connections she draws between Qumran and other nearby communities in the Judean Desert are questionable, and the links she finds between the scrolls and the New Testament are almost always without foundation. We concur with the assessment made by N. T. Wright in 1993: “it is safe to say that no serious scholar has given this elaborate and fantastic theory any credence whatsoever. It is nearly ten years since it was published; the scholarly world has been able to have a good look at it; and the results arc totally negative.”"[2] Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd accept "her work has been criticized/rejected by X, Y, and Z" if those critics have pages in wikipedia, but not this blanket "many scholars in the field", where "field" is an indefinable thing in these days of interdisciplinary research. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Then just leave out "the field". Reliable sources do not have to have articles on Wikipedia. That's not how we work. 18:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Neutrality

"The lead is meant to summarise the article. And to meet WP:NPOV it somehow must say that she's been rejected by other scholars." This statement sent me on a wild goose chase. I studied WP:NPOV and a related article about leads, and found nothing to support such a wild contention. The "lead" of an article is not required to assert any such thing. Funfree (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please!

Will somebody please flesh out this article. I know you all are hostile to me, Marshall Price, but somebody ought to do it. She's written three dense long fact-filled books of information critical to understanding the New Testament, and nobody else has been able to penetrate its meaning as she has. Whether you like her message or not, it must be presented. 172.56.26.204 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Scholars

Don't you see that most of these "scholars in the field" are "Christians" who believe that Jesus was somebody supernatural, divine, magical, etc., while she's saying he was a human being with genes from Joseph and Mary, and had no supernatural powers or knowledge? The Gospel of Matthew says "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be known as sons [or children] of God." Jesus was such a person. He opposed and antagonized the zealots, with whom he otherwise sided, over the issue of whether they should go to war against the Romans. Most of the statements embodied in Christian creeds are utter mistakes. They arise out of a "theology" which utterly misinterprets the Bible. The "scholars" who reject her are as biased as biased can be. 172.56.26.246 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Acts 1:23

In response to the statement above about "Jesus Justus" being applied to different people, here's what Thiering says regarding her interpretation of Acts 1:23, pasted from her website (under "Word for Word Pesher"):

23. Antipas came to the podium to conduct the election, together with Theudas the deputy abbot. He gave a formal choice between the two brothers of Jesus, James and Joses, both capable of being his deputy. James, the first man in the second male row, had the surname Barsabbas like all the sons of Joseph. As the David crown prince he was a Joseph, under the David as Jacob, but Jesus had now given up the title of the patriarch Jacob to claim a more universal role. As the David in the Nazirite status was called the Righteous One, dikaios, the crown prince head of Nazirites used this title, which in Latin was Justus. (The son of Jesus as his crown prince was identified by the name Jesus Justus in Colossians 4:11). The other brother could use a name of the Kohath, Matthias. In the Clementines it is stated that the Matthias appointed to replace Judas was Barnabas. Acts 4:36 names a Joseph who was given the name Barnabas, a levite. Mt 13:55 calls the second brother Joseph.

Recall that Jesus (as well as Justus) was a Latinized name, which we've adopted into English. If he were born today, we'd call him "Joshua", the same name as the military general cum prophet after whom the sixth book of the Bible is titled. (Nobody calls it "The Book of Jesus"!) That's the name by which he was known to his contemporaries. "Justus" can be interpreted the "Righteous One", and was applied to James the brother of Jesus because he was "the David in the Nazirite status", but it's unclear whether that was true also of the son of Jesus in his time, or whether the reason for calling him "Jesus Justus" followed a different logic; that is, he may not have been a Nazirite at the time. He was certainly the David crown prince, of course. This whole discussion of naming is crucial to understanding the pesher.

Regarding the word, "pesher", Thiering states right up front that she is using the word as a term of cant, or jargon, and not in the way that others have used it before. However, it seemed appropriate to her, and does to me, because of its meaning. Those who object to it may substitute "hidden meaning" (vs. "surface meaning"), or "esoteric" (vs. "exoteric") reading. 172.56.26.95 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Thiering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206130639/http://www.westarinstitute.org:80/Fellows/thiering.html to http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/thiering.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)