Re: Some questions for Christainsen
- From: Larry Swain <giles@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:44:15 -0500
On Aug 31, 1:42 pm, Ian <ian.gro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 31 Aug, 18:11, David <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 31, 12:21 am, Larry Swain <gi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, not true. Ben Zion Wacholder, Erik W. Larson, Morton Smith, Moshe
Bernstein, Garcia Martinez, among others have all disproven the claims
on which Thiering bases her case. Those are just the ones off the top
of my head. So we need only solid evidence against, no hypothetical
What is truth? Let's prepare to get into the nitty-gritty Thiering
Could you perhaps explain how the "Thiering methodology" differs from
the methodologies used by other historians, or scientists. One of the
things I find hard to swallow about all of this is that it appears to
require a completely different approach, unconcerned with evidence,
confirmation or replication.
Please back up and empty your mind; Dr. Thiering is definitely a trip
on the wild side.
Which has nothing to say about its validity.
She does not basically use the method of historians;
Not high praise and certainly problematic. One of the problems, for
example, is that the pesherim actually TELL US THAT THEY ARE
INTERPRETING: i. e. the word and genre of pesher results from the fact
that in the DSS commentaries a phrase is given from a Biblical book and
is followed by a form of "pesher", signalling the interpretation. That
is never the case in the examples Thiering applies her "method" too.
I mean - although
has erudite knowledge of ancient documents,
Well, first, the state of her knowledge isn't in question, its what she
does with it that's the problem. Second, she isn't alone in having
erudite knowledge of the texts and languages, and those who disagree
with her are just as erudite, if not more so.
her pesher method
is a unique interpretation of NT text.
Unique is not a synonym for valid.
I happen to find her pesher
ROBOTIC in the extreme. She claims the NT writer deliberately put
alongside surface text.
A claim that has failed to convince.
AFAIK your experts have never spoken directly to Thiering pesher
and Essene calendar within NT text.
What's that supposed to mean?
They failed to address squarely and scholarly these 2 topics -
Thiering pesher and Essene calendar within NT text.
really get into it on a nitty-gritty level page after page with no
contradictions or inconsistencies appearing...
The inconsistency lies in the methodology.
AFAIK it would be the extremely
rare scholar that has even understood it over the decades, as time
And yet you claimed that a bright teenager could apply it. Which is it
- extremely rare scholar or bright teenager?
You are permitted to guess that when I was a teacher earlier in my
career, I was an extremely tough grader. It is clear I am damning
almost all of the world's scholars over 25 years because even a bright
could have cracked the code - IOW, extract genuine history from NT
unknown for 2000 years.
Indeed and providing no evidence to justify this condemnation. Please provide some or cease and desist.
Please consult -
Subject: The scientific method
"On the use of pesher. From the time the Scrolls were first
discovered, it was recognised by biblical scholars, for example the
conservative F.F. Bruce, that the NT was using pesher in the same way
that the Scrolls were. The gospel of Matthew has numerous examples of
OT texts being made to refer to actions of Jesus. The most striking
example is in Mt 2:15, where Hos 11:1, which in its context refers
back to the Exodus from Egypt, is made to refer forward to the child
Jesus being brought out of Egypt. Similarly in Mt 2:6, 18, 23, all of
which take the OT verses out of context and apply them to present
circumstances. Both sets of literature take Hab 2:4, 'the righteous
shall live by faith' out of its context concerning events in 600 BC
and apply it to their own leader - the Scrolls to the T of R, the NT
to Jesus. The procedure is directed at those people who believe that
they themselves and their associates are the centre of history - an
unhealthy solipsism that is still encouraged by fundamentalists."
Sure, no problem here, except in these examples the pesher is explicit, most of Thierings' claims rest on a method of pesher that is not explicit but depends on unstanted and undescribed "rules" that *SHE* derives from the texts and than applies that give results no one else confirms. And therein lies the difference between what you describe in that paragraph above and Thiering.
How, precisely, did Thiering arrive at her rules of pesher?
I am not asking what they are, or what they "reveal". All I want to
know is how she worked out what they were.
The Pesher of Christ - Introduction
I'm afraid this does not answer the question or address the issue.
Why "brilliant", esp. since below you say a merely "bright teenager"
could do it? No, in fact no one has reproduced her "pesher rules" and
it isn't because they aren't understood, its because they don't work for
anoyone except Thiering.
Were we in some seminar, I am afraid you would get ripped to shreds on
your point because it is flatly wrong. If interested, I will show you
in close detail.
I think you need to explain whether it takes a brilliant student or a
bright teenager to apply her method, since you have made both claims.
I decline; please accept the flow of explanation.
The flow of explanation is that those trained and on a par with Dr. Thiering are too stupid to see what Thiering sees, but a bright, intelligent teenager can, all claimed of course without substantiation that those who have criticized Thiering's theories are stupid, ill informed, or have missed the mark (claims are not proofs) or that a bright teenager without coaching could apply these rules and come out with the same result or even a meaningful result. Again, claims that it is so do not make it so.
- Prev by Date: Re: Agamemnjon- Antipater of Sidon's Poem on the Seven Wonders
- Next by Date: Re: Michael Wood documentary proves Oral Traditions are a lie
- Previous by thread: Re: Some questions for Christainsen
- Next by thread: Re: Some questions for Christainsen