I am looking for a discussion. I put this topic in GD because of the controversial nature of the book. The only person I have met that had heard of it was a Believer. He declined to talk about it. Rudely.
Dr. Thiering’s thesis is that the Gospels are constructed in such a way as to relate much more information than is readily apparent.
Through analysis of this odd construction, she terms it the pesher technique, Dr. Thiering “finds” all kinds of personal information about Jesus.
Obviously, this sounds suspicious.
So I am hoping to find people who can help me figure out how likely this is.
I am going to leave out details of the good doctor’s revelations about Jesus for now. I see no reason to be needlessly controversial.
So for now, has anyone read this book?
Has anyone even heard of this book?
I haven’t read the book (or heard of it, actually), so I’m hoping you could supply a little more information. Do you know if she’s going back to the original language, or using a translation? What kind of process is she using to “find” this stuff? This sounds a lot like the book “The Bible Code,” which struck me as complete hooey.
Not the Bible Code!
(How can you use a “universally accepted original” version of the Bible if no such thing exists?)
The book appears to use the original Greek. Although there is also much discussion of Aramaic.
(Almah does not mean Bethulah, e.g.)
The pesher technique is based on “code-words”. And ALL uses of these words(and phrases) MUST refer to the pesher meaning of the word(s). There is no picking and choosing of when to apply the technique. Passages which the writers wished to draw particular attention to are marked by the phrase “for those that have the ears to hear”.
Some pesher meanings:
The Word of God = Jesus
Kittim = Romans
loaves = levites
Egypt = Qumran
be eaten by worms = be given snake poison
blind = not to “see” the Way of Jesus
raised from the dead = be freed of excomunication
So every reference to “curing blindness” means converting people to the following of Jesus. The curing of Saul/Paul’s blindness is supposedly not exceptional. Although in this case, we allready understand that he was not trully blind. All referances to “curing blindness” refer to making converts.
It’s one of those books that seems to hang together pretty well viewed on its own terms. The biggest drawback that I can find is that there’s no independent evidence that the community she talks about every really did what she claims they did. Sure, if they had set out to write an account of that stuff, then it would surely have looked like what the Gospels look like. I’m just not aware that there’s any evidence they did.
I agree. The book seemed plausable. But, few people seem to have heard of it. I had to order a copy from Australia.
I don’t have the math to follow the proof. Or the Greek study the originals.
Did you think it was strange that she didn’t explain which texts and translations she was using?
I found a portion of the book on-line once. Even though I’m not a follower of the bible and thought her worldview seemed reasonably, I could tell that her biases were shaping the interpretations. It felt like she was trying to shape the bible to fit current-day (or at least in the few pages that I was able to read.) So I suspect that she has some shaky scholarship to back up her assertions.
First off, a friend recommended the book to me and directed me to one section in particular. My friend sometimes is just way too far to the left for even me. So looking back now, I realize that I had a serious bias when I was reading it. I was expecting it to be really out there. Plus, I have this mix of disbelief and belief. Christianity to me doesn’t fit in so many ways. the few Thiering interpretations I read worked much better. However, at the same time I feel weird about radically altering the interpretations. Right now, my intellect is struggling for dominance with my conservative upbringing.
One thing to remember, Martin Luther had some really “radical” thoughts. Look how widely accepted his reformation is now. Just because Thiering’s views are “ot there” in comparison to current views, doesn’t mean they lack merit. Personally, I think it’s good for religion to get shaken up every few centuries or so. Negative aspects of religions get codified over time, and it’s good to make people take a step back, look at it and ask, “where exactly are these beliefs coming from? God? Or years of never questioning?”
As for what all this makes you…
To me, you’re trying to think with your head and conscience and not follow tradition blindly. In my eyes, that’s admirable quality.
All the region was at war, Jews against occupying Romans. As in the Second War in Europe, many codes were invented and used. The authors wanted Romans to think that Jews were relatively good people. A few decades later, Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed and Jews were dispersed.
Posts reviving seventeen year old threads are generally not going to work very well.
rolberg, thank you for your contribution. If you would like to expand upon it, I would suggest that you gather a bit more information and begin a new thread with that information. (Such information should recognize that scholars generally hold that the Gospels were all written after the Jewish revolt from 66 - 70. Some will accept a date for Mark that preceded 70, but that is a minority view.)
