Marshall Price has left the building




The following is the final nail in the coffin. We started with
"Marshall Price is back" (to advocate Barbara Thiering's theories)
and now we are ending with Marshall Price silently going away
again rather than answer the following,rather reasonable
objections to BT's theory. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I will post the F.U.Q. one more time and then will read this thread
for a few more days in case someone replies to this, and then I am
going to move on -- there is nothing to learn here and it is clear
that no evidence will be forthcoming no matter how many times I ask.

Yowie wrote:

Marshall Price wrote:

Yowie wrote:

Marshall Price" wrote:

You misunderstood me. What I meant was that Engineer's
closed-minded attitude proves to me that he isn't "the type" to
approach the study of Thiering with an open mind.

I would argue that Engineer did indeed approach Thiering with
an open mind when he first approached the theory as I did.
He investigated, and found it wanting, as I did.

That is correct. I had a completely open mind when I first examined
the theory, and indeed made my self more open to it because I did
not ant to risk rejecting a good theory simply because of David's
bad behavior while promoting it.

However, even if he did approach with a closed mind, I think
I know Engineer well enough to know that had the scientific
evidence been overwhelming, Engineer would have changed his mind.

I have been *begging* Marshal to please PLEASE give me a shred of
actual evidence that I can evaluate, as I begged David before him.
That's why I wrote the F.U.Q. (Frequently Unanswered Questions): I
very much want to replicate Thiering's work. I really want to get
an explanation of her methodology, apply that methodology to "Mary
stayed with her about three months", and independently come to the
conclusion that there is a hidden meaning of "Jesus was born on
March 1st of the year 7 BCE" there, as Barbara Thiering claims to
have done. If I could do that, I would write it up and invite
others to also replicate the work, thus revolutionizing our ability
to understand certain ancient texts. It' the opposite of what
Marshall says; I *want* to believe. Alas, I cannot believe
without evidence.

That's how scientific theory works. It needs to be repeatable and
the results reproducible by anyone regardless of their belief or
lack thereof.

It seems you're accepting without question Engineer's accusation
that Thiering's methods are not repeatable. I don't ask that you
believe my claim to the contrary; I ask that you find one single
example (one that isn't utterly misbegotten, as his always are!) of
error.

There is no 'error' as such, there is a flaw. Two in fact. The first flaw is
that no-where does Thiering demonstrate how she came about her special
meanings. If she did, other people would be able to apply her methodology to
pieces of the New Testament that she has not yet studied and get new
information. That hasn't happened.

The second is that that if Thiering's new revelations were correct, then
mysterious archeology should suddenly make sense, passages in other
historical documents that never made sense suddenly should. If Dr Thiering's
amazing claims were true, the academic would would have been turned upside
down as things that made no sense previously suddenly fitted into place.
This hasn't happened

Academics - some even more learned in the Dead Sea Scrolls than Dr
Thiering - have read her work and found it wanting. Would you accuse
them of 'not being the type' because they have now made up their
minds about Thiering's Pesher theory?

Learned shmerned! I've already accused them of prejudice,
ignorance, and worse, deception. I accuse you of substituting ad
hominem considerations for simple homework. Go look for that *one*
example of Thiering's method failing, and then I'll listen.

See, that is the problem - if you can accuse other academics with prejudice
ignorance and deception,t he same can be said of *any* academic, including
Dr Thiering.

Again, this is the flaw in *your* argument. You are assuming the fault lies
with anyone who doesn't accept Thiering's theories, I hadn't studied
sufficiently, Engineer's mind was closed, other academics are liars, are
biased, are purposefully being deceptive.

Are you accusing everyone who doesn't accept Thiering's theories as
being closed minded before they started out investigating?

That's it; you've got it.

*sigh*. So I need to believe before Thiering makes sense?
She is incapable of convincing a skeptic?


Are you, Yowie, so unwilling to *look* for an example of
error or unrepeatability in Thiering?

Again, there is no *error* or *mistake*, there's a *flaw*. Tell me *how* she
gets her special meanings and I'll go and apply it to some other part of the
New Testament. Show me how she figured that there was a pesher present in
the New Testament when that's not how pesher texts of the old testament
worked.

Otherwise all I see is an interesting lexicon, and fascinating conclusions
but no methodology.

I still can't believe that anybody who looks into Thiering with an
open mind can remain unconvinced. If you think that you qualify as a
counter-example, please tell me what you found; please.

The first assumption she makes - without explanation - is that all numbers
in the Bible are meant to be absolute, mathematically accurate numbers rather
than *symbolic* numbers or 'about' numbers, or a combination of accurately
recorded numerical values, 'about' numbers and symbolic numbers ("About"
numbers are the sort of numbers people say when they mean a general amount
'Oh, there were thousands of ants in the house!" - was there exactly 1000?
No. But its not a 'symbolic' number either). If they anything other than
literal numbers, then playing mathematical games with them doesn't make
sense. This is what Thiering does in "Three and a half weeks of Elijah"
without first explaining why she was taking some time related numbers as
literal numbers and some as meaning "some time" (page 43)

And please tell my why you believed so-called "expert" contrarians,
and what convinced you they knew more than Thiering does about the
Dead Sea Scrolls, if you can. (Because I thing that's quite wrong, of
course.)

I believe their education and training. I believe they have equal abilities
to Thiering. the question is why you chose to believe Thiering - one voice
in the multitude - when the rest of academia (with equal knowledge) does
not. I would suggest - and this is not a bad thing in my view - that
something *other* than the scientific method was at work when you were
convinced of her conclusions. Something *clicked* or *resonated* with you
such that it started to sound appealing and started making sense in your
world. There is nothing wrong with that. That's exactly how I came Quakerism.
But I am not claiming that Quakerism is scientific fact.

Was it the fact that they were chosen (and found the time)
to edit an anthology or write a review? That's not very scientific,
now, is it?

its *extremely* scientific. A board of experts reviews articles coming into
a journal. If the paper submitted doesn't meet the required academic
standard, it doesn't' get published. If it does, it gets published - and then
can be reviewed, critiqued and slammed as the scientific community sees fit.
It is this process of reviewing, critiquing and attempting to find holes
that makes the scientific method robust - if ones colleagues and peers can't
find fault with your experiment and conclusions, the odds are good (but not
guaranteed) that your conclusions are correct. Otherwise, they publish papers
slamming the theory (note, the don't slam the author). And that's what
Thiering's peers have done. This of course doesn't mean she is not right,
just that her theories are not *scientifically* valid, and that's the point I
am trying to make.

Marshall, I am not overly concerned that you believe in Thiering's theories.
My point of contention is simply whether Thiering's theories are
scientifically valid. To be valid they need to be:

*repeatable (that is, other people can use her methodology such that they
get the same results)

*reproducible (that is, other people can apply her methodology independently
on other New Testament chapters and get sensible, meaningful, verifiable
results)

*have corroborating evidence from a different discipline - for example from
archeology or from other historical sources

*make falsifiable predictions

None of which describes the work of Barbara Thiering or the thinking of
her disciples. :(

"The difference between Salman Rushdie and Barbara Thiering
is that Salman Rushdie *knew* he was writing fiction."
-Rob Forsyth, ABC TV

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Marshall Price is back
    ... You shouldn't have to believe what Thiering says to then be able to ... approach the study of Thiering with an open mind. ... other people would be able to apply her methodology to ... pieces of the New Testament that she has not yet studied and get new ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Extracts from Psalm 35 of David that my SRQ enemies could ponder
    ... is whether her methodology is flawed. ... I have been sucked into this Thiering conversation yet again.. ... David has failed to convince me of Thiering's claims, ... simply will never grasp the place steam trains have in his life because they ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Marshall Price is back
    ... You shouldn't have to believe what Thiering says to then be able to believe what Thiering says. ... What I meant was that Engineer's closed-minded attitude proves to me that he isn't "the type" to approach the study of Thiering with an open mind. ... No, I'm sure none of these things will ever be refuted, but perhaps you can refute the sort of thing Engineer challenges, an example of a word being misunderstood or poorly interpreted. ... If you need to be a special 'type' before starting out then that's *faith*. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: "Thiering Pesher"
    ... Here Marshall Price states a 'belief' in the writings of Thiering, ... Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the ... David/pchristiansen that she, (Thiering), is mistaken, quite the reverse, ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Marshall Price is back
    ... I would argue that Engineer did indeed approach Thiering with an open mind ... Please study closely my links on Thiering pesher. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
Loading