| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Yuri Kuchinsky" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM |
| Object: |
translated from the Greek? |
"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
25 Nov 2003 11:19:20 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FC2892E.2EC9AC0C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
...
===>Many good and valid points.
The problem arises when you bring in Thieringian fictions
about Jesus being a Herodian, etc.
If such a person existed, he was part of the ZEALOT
movement you refer to above, and was executed by the
Romans for subversion and for claiming to be the
only legitimate Davidic heir to the throne.
The work of Eisenman is infinitely better fitting the
historical, cultural and literary (NT & DSS) evidence.
Libertarius
============
The Thiering camp is at some pains not to criticize Eisenman publicly
because we regard him as an ally for Christian Connections of CD and
18 pesharim.
I propose postponing discussing our differences about
Thiering/Eisenman for now
except to say that the Teacher of Righteousness came 26 AD as argued
further...
I would like to reduce the cognitive dissonance between us by
focussing
on some narrow, technical criteria ---
Re: the pivotal "for his giving" CD 1: 5-10 Trotter960 proposes some
25 different meanings for 'le' (lamed) including 'until'/'after' while
Dr. Thiering says it is normally 'to' or 'for' in ancient Hebrew ---
Support beyond Rabinowitz for the pivotal "for his giving" CD 1: 5-10?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2816
Moving on, there is clearly some difference between Vermes and
Thiering
on the type of exegesis at Qumran known as pesher but what exactly is
it?
It beats me; I can't tell ---
The Pesher "Technique"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2230
Yet, moving from "pesher" in Commentary on Habakkuk to "code" in CD 1:
5-10,
almost all the DSS/NT scholars "took the reference to Babylon
literally as 587 BC, inconsistently with the Scrolls' usage everywhere
else, and with NT usage."
Please note Dr. Thiering's BRILLIANT OBSERVATION of the word Wrath
(charon)
as having a specific meaning, not simply a state of anger, in both DSS
and NT -
Judas the Galilean and the Wrath
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/533
"As CD 1: 5-10 would show, nationalists with Judas had persuaded
themselves that this date was the Wrath because it was the beginning
of 390 years of Roman occupation, sent by God as a punishment for the
sins of Israel. They 'knew' this figure because they read Ezek 4:5 as
a prophecy referring to their time, consistently with their treatment
of the OT prophets in the pesharim. For the same reason, they referred
in code to the Romans as 'Babylon', because they believed that the OT
Babylonians were equivalent to the Romans. They needed to use codes
because of their underground activities. The same device is used in
the NT, in 1 Peter 5:13 and Rev 18."
Subject: Dating of the Teacher and Wicked Priest. Part 1.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/990
"5. On the 390 years – a pivotal point in the argument. CD 1: 5-10
says that at the Period of Wrath, described (in literal translation)
as " the 390 years for his (God's) giving them into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon", the 'Plant-root' was formed, and then
20 years later the Teacher came. It does not say "after he gave them".
The preposition le meaning 'to' or 'for' never means 'after' (note 4).
But the meaning 'after' was thought to be necessitated by the
reference to Nebuchadnezzar, and it was therefore thought that it
meant the sect was founded in 197 BC. The Teacher according to this
would have appeared in 177 BC."
"As soon as this date was calculated it was seen by almost all that it
was impossible. Many evidences put the Teacher later. It was agreed
that the figure of 390 years had come from Ezekiel 4:5, taken as a
prophecy of current events. The consensus case therefore assumed that
the writers were vague about actual dates, and that it just meant
somewhere in the 2nd century BC, the time of the occupation of
Qumran."
"Understood in their terms, the Period (qes, in the sense of 'time')
of Wrath was AD 6, the year of the Roman occupation. The word 'wrath'
(charon) is used of the Kittim in 1QpHab 3:12 . The 390 years of Ezek
4:5 is taken as a prediction of the length of the punishment of
Israel, that is, of the occupation."
"Twenty years after AD 6 came AD 26, the date of the appearance of the
Teacher. This date is in accord with the facts about the Teacher given
above. Therefore, the Teacher and his rival lived at the same time as
Jesus."
NOTES
(4) As pointed out by I. Rabinowitz , "A Reconsideration of
'Damascus' and '390 Years' in the 'Damascus' ('Zadokite') Fragments",
JBL 73 (1954), 1-35, note 8b, p.14.
Regards,
David Christainsen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
26 Nov 2003 08:09:00 AM |
|
|
(David Christainsen) wrote in message news:<15910715.0311250919.5852ad93@posting.google.com>...
Please note Dr. Thiering's BRILLIANT OBSERVATION of the word Wrath
(charon)
as having a specific meaning, not simply a state of anger, in both DSS
and NT -
Judas the Galilean and the Wrath
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/533
"As CD 1: 5-10 would show, nationalists with Judas had persuaded
themselves that this date was the Wrath because it was the beginning
of 390 years of Roman occupation, sent by God as a punishment for the
sins of Israel. They 'knew' this figure because they read Ezek 4:5 as
a prophecy referring to their time, consistently with their treatment
of the OT prophets in the pesharim. >
Subject: Dating of the Teacher and Wicked Priest. Part 1.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/990
"5. On the 390 years ? a pivotal point in the argument. CD 1: 5-10
says that at the Period of Wrath, described (in literal translation)
as " the 390 years for his (God's) giving them into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon", the 'Plant-root' was formed, and then
20 years later the Teacher came. It does not say "after he gave them".
The preposition le meaning 'to' or 'for' never means 'after' (note 4).
But the meaning 'after' was thought to be necessitated by the
reference to Nebuchadnezzar, and it was therefore thought that it
meant the sect was founded in 197 BC. The Teacher according to this
would have appeared in 177 BC."
"As soon as this date was calculated it was seen by almost all that it
was impossible. Many evidences put the Teacher later. It was agreed
that the figure of 390 years had come from Ezekiel 4:5, taken as a
prophecy of current events. The consensus case therefore assumed that
the writers were vague about actual dates, and that it just meant
somewhere in the 2nd century BC, the time of the occupation of
Qumran."
"Understood in their terms, the Period (qes, in the sense of 'time')
of Wrath was AD 6, the year of the Roman occupation. The word 'wrath'
(charon) is used of the Kittim in 1QpHab 3:12 . The 390 years of Ezek
4:5 is taken as a prediction of the length of the punishment of
Israel, that is, of the occupation."
"Twenty years after AD 6 came AD 26, the date of the appearance of the
Teacher. This date is in accord with the facts about the Teacher given
above. Therefore, the Teacher and his rival lived at the same time as
Jesus."
David,
Have you read in Josephus what happened under Herod in his latter
years, and then under Archelaus did during his ethnarchy? I could be
said that an age of wrath had been going for about 20 years before AD
6.
Then came the question who was going to buy back Archelaus's estate
from Rome, and what money would be used to pay for it? It wouldn't
have been the temple treasure by any chance, would it? You see, I
don't believe there ever was a census of the people for the purposes
of taxation. What Cyrenius came to do was assess the value of
Archelaus's estate and to collect the payment for it, no doubt
arranging backhanders for himself and Joazar the son of Boethus. This
could well have been the time when the temple treasure was hidden and
the copper scroll produced. The protest was not about taxation, but
about the improper use of temple money to buy the effects of a
polluted despot who certainly had been "caught in adultery twice".
Geoff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
26 Nov 2003 09:18:08 AM |
|
|
I should have said "caught in fornication twice". (CD4:20). Archelaus
divorced Mariamne to marry the ex-wife Glaphyra of his supposedly
deceased brother Alexander by whom Glaphyra had three children
(Ant.17:13).
Geoff
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
26 Nov 2003 03:49:05 PM |
|
|
(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0311260718.15b6c2ec@posting.google.com>...
I should have said "caught in fornication twice". (CD4:20). Archelaus
divorced Mariamne to marry the ex-wife Glaphyra of his supposedly
deceased brother Alexander by whom Glaphyra had three children
(Ant.17:13).
Geoff
Who are "the builders of the wall"?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/256
"Charles asks also about CD 4:19-20, which accuses the heretics of
polygamy.
I have suggested that this passage was written by Jesus' opponents in
Damascus at the time of Jesus' divorce and remarriage. The passage
following
it in CD 5 is a tortuous attempt to get out of the argument that King
David,
Jesus' ancestor, was a polygamist, by saying that David had not read
the
book of the law in which the practice was forbidden, because the book
of the
law was sealed to him."
King Solomon the celibate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1834
"The Damascus Document from Qumran offers an argument intended to deal
with the embarrassing fact that King David was a polygamist. The law
against polygamy was not known to David, it says, because it was in a
sealed book that had been hidden in the ark of the Covenant since the
time of the entry into Canaan, and was not opened until the coming of
Zadok (CD 5:1-5). (This is, incidentally, a point of interest to
biblical critics. The book of the law that is quoted, Deuteronomy, is
known to have been composed in 621 BC in the service of Josiah's
reform, long after both David and Solomon.It is not clear which Zadok
is meant, but it could possibly refer to Ezek 44:15 and be
historically correct)"
The full history (7). A royal divorce helps a new religion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2000
"It was in this same unfortunate year, AD 50, that Bernice, as the
'pythoness' in Philippi, admitted that her brother Agrippa II had
committed incest with her (Ant. 20,145, Acts 16: 16-21). The Christian
party was thus involved in two scandals at the same time. It was just
what Damascus wanted. In the Damascus Document 4:15-5:21 they attacked
Jesus - called 'Saw' – a play on the initial of Saddiq the Righteous
One - for succumbing to the three nets of Belial, one of them
fornication. For Jesus, this included what they saw as polygamy. While
his first wife was still alive, he had married another."
"The document added a further point, necessary because it had been
pointed out to them that King David, Jesus' ancestor, had been a
polygamist. Their reply was that King David had been ignorant of the
law in Deut 17:17 forbidding polygamy. The book of Deuteronomy had
been sealed in the ark since the time of Joshua, and not opened in
Israel until the time of Zadok, presumably the high priest under
Solomon (CD 5:2-6). (There was actually some substance in their
argument, since the book of Deuteronomy was not composed until 621 BC,
long after King David.)"
---
"4Q266 is a copy of the work called the Damascus Document, which is
not a pesher, but names the Teacher."
Carbondating
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2674
Tucson laboratory:
4Q266 (1 sigma 4-82 CE, 2 sigma 44BCE -129 CE)
See this section: "4Q266. Evidence of a particular paleographical
error."
Best,
David Christainsen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
21 Nov 2003 11:50:52 AM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr. Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
21 Nov 2003 02:45:48 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr. Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into the
Maccabean line, didn't they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
21 Nov 2003 07:08:12 PM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr. Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into the
Maccabean line, didn't they?
===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
Matthew. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 04:51:03 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBEB6FC.2C335F28@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr.
Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into the
Maccabean line, didn't they?
===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
Matthew. -- L.
Yes, Robert Eisenman's book, "James, the Brother of Jesus" deals with this
at some length, as I recall. So does Crossan, but to a lesser extent, if I
remember correctly.
Frankly, I found Eisenman's book most appealing, but then I have a deep
seated prejudice against Paul. so I must be most careful when I find exactly
what I want to discover. I find Thiering's various theories suspect to some
extent because I can discern no direct evidence in the manuscript record. I
invite refutation.
Quite honestly, and I address this question to any and all: is there any
direct evidence that either Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, or any other man
mentioned by name in the New Testament, Josephus, or Philo were referred to
in any manuscript or fragment in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
22 Nov 2003 08:29:58 PM |
|
|
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBEB6FC.2C335F28@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr.
Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into the
Maccabean line, didn't they?
===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
Matthew. -- L.
Yes, Robert Eisenman's book, "James, the Brother of Jesus" deals with this
at some length, as I recall. So does Crossan, but to a lesser extent, if I
remember correctly.
Frankly, I found Eisenman's book most appealing, but then I have a deep
seated prejudice against Paul. so I must be most careful when I find exactly
what I want to discover. I find Thiering's various theories suspect to some
extent because I can discern no direct evidence in the manuscript record. I
invite refutation.
===>The difference is, Eisenman's work is LOADED with evidence
(which makes it heavy reading).
Thiering has a THEORY, which cannot be tested.
Quite honestly, and I address this question to any and all: is there any
direct evidence that either Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, or any other man
mentioned by name in the New Testament, Josephus, or Philo were referred to
in any manuscript or fragment in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
===>Not that anyone has been able to show, to my knowledge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
23 Nov 2003 01:26:29 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC01BA6.EA9C0028@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FBEB6FC.2C335F28@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Didymoss wrote:
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
[SNIPALOT]
First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized
meaning
of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as
always
in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr.
Thiering
says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become
Jews by
conversion, being originally Idumeans.
Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
interpretation?
===>What a twisted "logic"!
They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
Jews!
I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into
the
Maccabean line, didn't they?
===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
Matthew. -- L.
Yes, Robert Eisenman's book, "James, the Brother of Jesus" deals with
this
at some length, as I recall. So does Crossan, but to a lesser extent,
if I
remember correctly.
Frankly, I found Eisenman's book most appealing, but then I have a deep
seated prejudice against Paul. so I must be most careful when I find
exactly
what I want to discover. I find Thiering's various theories suspect to
some
extent because I can discern no direct evidence in the manuscript
record. I
invite refutation.
===>The difference is, Eisenman's work is LOADED with evidence
(which makes it heavy reading).
Thiering has a THEORY, which cannot be tested.
I need to reread Eisenman, and I suppose I should track down a book or two
by Thiering.
Quite honestly, and I address this question to any and all: is there
any
direct evidence that either Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, or any other
man
mentioned by name in the New Testament, Josephus, or Philo were referred
to
in any manuscript or fragment in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
===>Not that anyone has been able to show, to my knowledge.
Nor to mine. . . .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
28 Nov 2003 12:25:12 AM |
|
|
In article <3FBEB6FC.2C335F28@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Didymoss wrote:
:
:> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
:> news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
:> >
:> >
:> > Didymoss wrote:
:> >
:> > > "David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> > > news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
:> > >
:> >
:> > [SNIPALOT]
:> >
If I may join what looks like a happy two-way discussion without causing
too much of a disruption...
The Idumeans are a part of Jewish history that both fascinates and apalls
me, so my ears tend to ***** up every time someone's talking about them.
:> > > > First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
:> > > > of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
:> > > > in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr. Thiering
:> > > > says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews by
:> > > > conversion, being originally Idumeans.
I have no idea what this person is talking about. Who, precisely the
"Jews" in the gospels are is unknown, as far as I know, unless they were
identified by name.
But Herod and his kin were called Jews because they WERE Jews, although
the legitimacy of their conversion may be questioned. But if we ever
needed a lesson about why we should never convert people by force, the
Idumeans provided it.
:> > > >
:> > > Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
:> > > interpretation?
:> >
:> > ===>What a twisted "logic"!
:> > They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
:> > Jews!
:> >
:> I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into the
:> Maccabean line, didn't they?
The Hasmonean (Maccabean) king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea, a small
country south of Jerusalem in (I believe, but don't have a reference
handy) about 125 BCE. He compelled the Idumeans to convert, the first
and thankfully last instance of forced conversion in the history of
Judaism.
Through almost Shakespearian sycophancy, Machiavellian manipulation, and
(crap, I can't come up with an appropriate alliteration!) intrigue,
Herod, whose grandparents were among the forcibly converted Idumeans,
managed to have the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea, and yes,
married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess.
:===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
Yes, he murdered 45 members of the Sanhedrin, Mariamne, and their two
sons.
Then, he killed Antipater, his son from a different marriage (prompting
Augustus to observe that one was safer being Herod's pig than his son)
his mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and just for kicks and giggles, the
High Priest.
When a rumor that he had died caused a popular uprising, he had forty-
some of its leaders killed.
A real mensch, he was. Well, we all learned our lesson about forced
conversions.
However, he did make the Temple awfully pretty when he took a break from
murdering people to concentrate on building projects. Ironically, for a
Roman puppet, he was the one who rebuilt Masada!
When he died, Augustus divided his kingdom among his three sons. The one
who got Judea was so incompetent that Rome took over, and didn't let go
until they'd destroyed the Temple and ruined the country. Herod Antipas
(of Salome fame) got the Galilee, was another of the sons, and from the
story, seems to have been almost as much of a sweetie as dear old dad.
:This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
:Matthew. -- L.
Hmm. This I did not know. I had always assumed that the only precedent
was Exodus, to position Jesus as another Moses. The idea that it may
have had actual, contemporary historical origins never occurred to me.
Thank you.
Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about? I
am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in the
way he uses it.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
30 Nov 2003 02:14:23 PM |
|
|
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a30a5cbe27c344598968e@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <3FBEB6FC.2C335F28@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>,
Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net says...
:
:
:Didymoss wrote:
:
:> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
:> news:3FBE507C.A32F65DA@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
:> >
:> >
:> > Didymoss wrote:
:> >
:> > > "David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
:> > > news:15910715.0311180959.1500c9bd@posting.google.com...
:> > >
:> >
:> > [SNIPALOT]
:> >
If I may join what looks like a happy two-way discussion without causing
too much of a disruption...
Sure, why not?
The Idumeans are a part of Jewish history that both fascinates and apalls
me, so my ears tend to ***** up every time someone's talking about them.
:> > > > First, let's work backwards by taking up the specialized meaning
:> > > > of the given term "Jews". When the gospels say "Jews", as always
:> > > > in the pesher, it means Herod Antipas and his following. Dr.
Thiering
:> > > > says they were called "Jews" because the Herods had become Jews
by
:> > > > conversion, being originally Idumeans.
I have no idea what this person is talking about. Who, precisely the
"Jews" in the gospels are is unknown, as far as I know, unless they were
identified by name.
Nor did I . . .nor do I now. I agree with your conclusion.
But Herod and his kin were called Jews because they WERE Jews, although
the legitimacy of their conversion may be questioned. But if we ever
needed a lesson about why we should never convert people by force, the
Idumeans provided it.
I think you have a couple more legitimate points here.
:> > > >
:> > > Can you cite ancient, contemporaneous works that support this
:> > > interpretation?
:> >
:> > ===>What a twisted "logic"!
:> > They were called "Jews" because they were really Idumeans, not
:> > Jews!
:> >
:> I know the Herodians were of Idumean origin, but they did marry into
the
:> Maccabean line, didn't they?
The Hasmonean (Maccabean) king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea, a small
country south of Jerusalem in (I believe, but don't have a reference
handy) about 125 BCE. He compelled the Idumeans to convert, the first
and thankfully last instance of forced conversion in the history of
Judaism.
Through almost Shakespearian sycophancy, Machiavellian manipulation, and
(crap, I can't come up with an appropriate alliteration!) intrigue,
Herod, whose grandparents were among the forcibly converted Idumeans,
managed to have the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea, and yes,
married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess.
Sounds right to me. Is there a direct source for this outside of Josephus?
:===>Yes. And Herod "the Great" murdered them all!
Yes, he murdered 45 members of the Sanhedrin, Mariamne, and their two
sons.
Then, he killed Antipater, his son from a different marriage (prompting
Augustus to observe that one was safer being Herod's pig than his son)
his mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and just for kicks and giggles, the
High Priest.
When a rumor that he had died caused a popular uprising, he had forty-
some of its leaders killed.
A real mensch, he was. Well, we all learned our lesson about forced
conversions.
However, he did make the Temple awfully pretty when he took a break from
murdering people to concentrate on building projects. Ironically, for a
Roman puppet, he was the one who rebuilt Masada!
When he died, Augustus divided his kingdom among his three sons. The one
who got Judea was so incompetent that Rome took over, and didn't let go
until they'd destroyed the Temple and ruined the country. Herod Antipas
(of Salome fame) got the Galilee, was another of the sons, and from the
story, seems to have been almost as much of a sweetie as dear old dad.
:This (and Exodus) may have been the origin of the babykilling story in
:Matthew. -- L.
Hmm. This I did not know. I had always assumed that the only precedent
was Exodus, to position Jesus as another Moses. The idea that it may
have had actual, contemporary historical origins never occurred to me.
Thank you.
Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about? I
am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in the
way he uses it.
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
01 Dec 2003 09:40:53 AM |
|
|
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
I already gave Abby Holtz the following primer on Thiering Pesher earlier...
PESHER - where angels fear to tread:
Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
On Methodology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
What I did and didn't say about pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/483
The scientific method
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2191
It was there all the time
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1853
First steps in pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1057
I never promised anybody who reads me on the Internet a rose garden;
Thiering pesher takes time and patience to master - for starters, it
requires knowledge of ancient Greek.
---
Ideally, the reader would diligently read it all in close detail, then
ask me some pooled, key questions, then go on to come on my yahoo forum
on Qumran/Christian Origins to ask direct questions of Dr. Thiering herself...
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
01 Dec 2003 07:25:55 PM |
|
|
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0312010740.41941f06@posting.google.com...
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I
can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you
will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable
objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
I already gave Abby Holtz the following primer on Thiering Pesher
earlier...
PESHER - where angels fear to tread:
Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
On Methodology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
What I did and didn't say about pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/483
The scientific method
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2191
It was there all the time
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1853
First steps in pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1057
I never promised anybody who reads me on the Internet a rose garden;
Thiering pesher takes time and patience to master - for starters, it
requires knowledge of ancient Greek.
---
Ideally, the reader would diligently read it all in close detail, then
ask me some pooled, key questions, then go on to come on my yahoo forum
on Qumran/Christian Origins to ask direct questions of Dr. Thiering
herself...
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
I am not quite certain you understand my several points, which were probably
expressed badly. In any case, I will try to restate them briefly.
The purpose of devoting some years to the study of historical method,
historiography, and classical languages and literature, is to learn the
skills needed to examine the evidence first hand and interpret it within
certain parameters to partially and accurately recreate certain past events.
The idea, for me anyway, is to cut out the middlemen, or woman in this case,
if I choose to do so, and examine the evidence myself. Along the way, one
is also taught to recognize nonsense, chicanery, and historical fraud.
History is chock full of pitfalls and traps for the unwary, and outside the
peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses (and even inside some of the
time) an awful lot of pure, unadultered ***** passes for history. In the
USA, for example, the elementary and secondary social studies and history
texts are full of nonsense dictated by damned fools with religious and
social agendae on boards of education, especially in Texas and California.
If a tenured professor in a field of endeavor, such as Early Christianity,
develops a theory, publishes that theory, and the only reactions are snorts
and giggles and snores over a period of years from this historian's peers,
there is sometimes good reason to conclude that the theory is so far
separated from what is known and can be recreated that this theory is
probably does not contribute to an accurate recreation of certain past
events.
One need not read 5 or 10 or 12 books by this historian and spend 20 years
tracing this historian's research tracks. Especially in my case, as I am on
the downhill slope and my time is limited. Virtually all major historical
statements can be quite adequately summmarized and demonstrated as probably
accurate in a lengthy article or short book. For example, Bernard Bailyn's
theories on the American Revolution, Marc Bloch's on Medieval culture,
Fernand Braudel's on the Mediterranean during the 16th cntury, Max Weber's
on Protestantism and Industrialization, or John K. Fairbank's on China were
all developed and proofs offered in a single volume. They all point
directly to their sources, note where these sources can be examined by the
reader, and assemble a sensible theory based upon real manuscripts that
truly exist.
I have read all of the pages you have identified, Mr. Christiansen. I
leafed through some of Dr Thiering's books, reading pages and chapters that
I felt important, and also went to some of the sources she indicates are
important, and read criticism by some of her peers. My conclusion is that Dr
Thiering should either produce some substantial manuscript evidence that
supports her conclusions, or come in from the cold. As just one example,
the notion that the redating of certain manuscripts from Qumram to a time
window that includes the first century A.D. means only that the papyrus or
parchment could possibly have been manufactured in the first century A.D..
This new dating of the material cannot and indeed does not confirm any
detail about the words written on the newly dated medium, and no conlcusion
based on mass spectrometry can tell us when the words were written on the
medium. No physical or chemical assay can tell us whether the surviving
document is an original or copy. Dr. Thiering knows that. So do you. (If
you do not, may I recommend www.asms.org? There is a simple tutorial there
on what mass spectrometry cann and cannot tell us.) I was reasonably well
trained some years ago in these diciplines, although assuredly not to an
expert level. But most of those who are expert seem to have drawn the same
conclusion I did. Why do you think that is? And if Dr. Thiering is
correct, everyone else must be incorrect. Just on the basis of statistical
probability that is a rather outlandish proposition.
I will not spend my life, or even a large part of it, reading and studying
Dr Thiering's works. She failed, in my opinion, to succinctly state her
theory and support it with manuscript sources and other evidence. After
examining her theory and sources and the conclusions she draws from those, I
cannot follow her evidence to recreate the events she claims. I can follow
Bailyn. I can comprehend Bloch and Braudel. I can examine their evidence
and state unequivocally that their theories and conclusions are justified by
the evidence and I can recreate their work. The same applies to John K.
Fairbank and Max Weber. And J. D. Crossan, and E. P. Sanders, and Burton
Mack, and Geza Vermes and even some of Robert Eisenman's work, and most
historians I have ever read and studied. I do not always agree completely
with their intrepretation of the data, but I can understand it.
I cannot do that with Dr Thiering's theories. I did try. I have a working
knowledge of ancient Greek. The area interests me, and I like radical
theories as a rule. The evidence does not add up as she claims, at least to
me. There is no clear and cogent connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls
she cites, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder's "Natural History," and
early Christian writings, either in or out of the Canon. I realize we do not
know very much about the first century, so no theory is finally right nor
finally wrong. The historical and archaeological records of first century
Judea and Galilee are woefully incomplete and flimsy at best. If there were
solid historical and archaeological records we would not be having this
debate, now would we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
03 Dec 2003 11:21:32 AM |
|
|
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<DSRyb.24002$sb4.21104@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"David Christainsen" <david_christainsen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15910715.0312010740.41941f06@posting.google.com...
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I
can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you
will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable
objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
I already gave Abby Holtz the following primer on Thiering Pesher
earlier...
PESHER - where angels fear to tread:
Meaning of pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/193
On Methodology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2694
What I did and didn't say about pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/483
The scientific method
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2191
It was there all the time
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1853
First steps in pesher
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1057
I never promised anybody who reads me on the Internet a rose garden;
Thiering pesher takes time and patience to master - for starters, it
requires knowledge of ancient Greek.
---
Ideally, the reader would diligently read it all in close detail, then
ask me some pooled, key questions, then go on to come on my yahoo forum
on Qumran/Christian Origins to ask direct questions of Dr. Thiering
herself...
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
I am not quite certain you understand my several points, which were probably
expressed badly. In any case, I will try to restate them briefly.
The purpose of devoting some years to the study of historical method,
historiography, and classical languages and literature, is to learn the
skills needed to examine the evidence first hand and interpret it within
certain parameters to partially and accurately recreate certain past events.
The idea, for me anyway, is to cut out the middlemen, or woman in this case,
if I choose to do so, and examine the evidence myself. Along the way, one
is also taught to recognize nonsense, chicanery, and historical fraud.
History is chock full of pitfalls and traps for the unwary, and outside the
peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses (and even inside some of the
time) an awful lot of pure, unadultered ***** passes for history. In the
USA, for example, the elementary and secondary social studies and history
texts are full of nonsense dictated by damned fools with religious and
social agendae on boards of education, especially in Texas and California.
If a tenured professor in a field of endeavor, such as Early Christianity,
develops a theory, publishes that theory, and the only reactions are snorts
and giggles and snores over a period of years from this historian's peers,
there is sometimes good reason to conclude that the theory is so far
separated from what is known and can be recreated that this theory is
probably does not contribute to an accurate recreation of certain past
events.
One need not read 5 or 10 or 12 books by this historian and spend 20 years
tracing this historian's research tracks. Especially in my case, as I am on
the downhill slope and my time is limited. Virtually all major historical
statements can be quite adequately summmarized and demonstrated as probably
accurate in a lengthy article or short book. For example, Bernard Bailyn's
theories on the American Revolution, Marc Bloch's on Medieval culture,
Fernand Braudel's on the Mediterranean during the 16th cntury, Max Weber's
on Protestantism and Industrialization, or John K. Fairbank's on China were
all developed and proofs offered in a single volume. They all point
directly to their sources, note where these sources can be examined by the
reader, and assemble a sensible theory based upon real manuscripts that
truly exist.
I have read all of the pages you have identified, Mr. Christiansen. I
leafed through some of Dr Thiering's books, reading pages and chapters that
I felt important, and also went to some of the sources she indicates are
important, and read criticism by some of her peers. My conclusion is that Dr
Thiering should either produce some substantial manuscript evidence that
supports her conclusions, or come in from the cold. As just one example,
the notion that the redating of certain manuscripts from Qumram to a time
window that includes the first century A.D. means only that the papyrus or
parchment could possibly have been manufactured in the first century A.D..
This new dating of the material cannot and indeed does not confirm any
detail about the words written on the newly dated medium, and no conlcusion
based on mass spectrometry can tell us when the words were written on the
medium. No physical or chemical assay can tell us whether the surviving
document is an original or copy. Dr. Thiering knows that. So do you. (If
you do not, may I recommend www.asms.org? There is a simple tutorial there
on what mass spectrometry cann and cannot tell us.) I was reasonably well
trained some years ago in these diciplines, although assuredly not to an
expert level. But most of those who are expert seem to have drawn the same
conclusion I did. Why do you think that is? And if Dr. Thiering is
correct, everyone else must be incorrect. Just on the basis of statistical
probability that is a rather outlandish proposition.
I will not spend my life, or even a large part of it, reading and studying
Dr Thiering's works. She failed, in my opinion, to succinctly state her
theory and support it with manuscript sources and other evidence. After
examining her theory and sources and the conclusions she draws from those, I
cannot follow her evidence to recreate the events she claims. I can follow
Bailyn. I can comprehend Bloch and Braudel. I can examine their evidence
and state unequivocally that their theories and conclusions are justified by
the evidence and I can recreate their work. The same applies to John K.
Fairbank and Max Weber. And J. D. Crossan, and E. P. Sanders, and Burton
Mack, and Geza Vermes and even some of Robert Eisenman's work, and most
historians I have ever read and studied. I do not always agree completely
with their intrepretation of the data, but I can understand it.
I cannot do that with Dr Thiering's theories. I did try. I have a working
knowledge of ancient Greek. The area interests me, and I like radical
theories as a rule. The evidence does not add up as she claims, at least to
me. There is no clear and cogent connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls
she cites, Flavius Josephus, Philo, Pliny the Elder's "Natural History," and
early Christian writings, either in or out of the Canon. I realize we do not
know very much about the first century, so no theory is finally right nor
finally wrong. The historical and archaeological records of first century
Judea and Galilee are woefully incomplete and flimsy at best. If there were
solid historical and archaeological records we would not be having this
debate, now would we?
Didymoss, you are interesting to me because you have a working knowledge
of ancient Greek. This is a prerequisite for actually doing Thiering
pesher in the NT.
From the outset I concede that verifying Thiering pesher methodology
is OUTSIDE the historian's method. I say one needs to go beyond strictly
historian's method to verify it historically according to "evidence".
This evidence is "non-orthodox."
I've already suggested solar calendar evidence, for starters.
So, a bright person would check the Archives of my yahoo forum
on Qumran/Christian Origins under KEYWORD calendar, then follow-up
by asking me permission to come on my forum and ask Dr. Thiering
direct questions. Of course, you can ask me questions on the newsgroup.
I suggest the Essene solar calendar scheme and its variations because
this specialist topic is a gateway to Thiering pesher and easily doable
by one such as yourself whose time is limited.
So, here are just a 2 relevant links for starters: more could be given ---
David's questions on calendar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2734
About Jaubert and the date of Passover
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1986
Later, we can get deeper into Thiering pesher, if you like. With
your working knowledge of ancient Greek, it could be productive and fun.
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
P.S.
Think outside the box!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
01 Dec 2003 09:54:58 AM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
===>WOW! A new kind of fundamentalism!
So, anyone objecting to Thieringianism is simply
not "objective", has not given it an "exhaustive and fair
examination", not a "blue-ribbon team" member, is not a
"qualified academic", and/or not "properly funded"!
That allows for a lot of dodging of any criticism! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
03 Dec 2003 10:28:48 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCB6452.9D00C193@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
===>WOW! A new kind of fundamentalism!
So, anyone objecting to Thieringianism is simply
not "objective", has not given it an "exhaustive and fair
examination", not a "blue-ribbon team" member, is not a
"qualified academic", and/or not "properly funded"!
That allows for a lot of dodging of any criticism! -- L.
===>Go ahead and object, but first make sure of your facts. I personally
want "Thieringianism" to be fully and fairly tested by you or anyone else.
===>What you fail to appreciate is that Thiering's pesher methodology
has never been flatly disproved in ANY regard by ANY scholar in the
past quarter-century. Why do the critics fail to deliver a knock-out blow?
Best regards,
David Christainsen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
03 Dec 2003 12:52:34 PM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
===>Go ahead and object, but first make sure of your facts. I personally
want "Thieringianism" to be fully and fairly tested by you or anyone else.
===>That is the problem: there is nothing TO test.
You either take her word for it or you don't.
It is like the old "666", which has been "peshered" in
dozens of ways.
===>What you fail to appreciate is that Thiering's pesher methodology
has never been flatly disproved in ANY regard by ANY scholar in the
past quarter-century. Why do the critics fail to deliver a knock-out blow?
===>How do you prove the "666" was not referring to Napoleon?
Or Hitler? Or some fictional character about whom no one
knows anything? -- L.
Best regards,
David Christainsen
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
04 Dec 2003 09:01:46 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCE30F2.7A753E99@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
===>Go ahead and object, but first make sure of your facts. I personally
want "Thieringianism" to be fully and fairly tested by you or anyone else.
===>That is the problem: there is nothing TO test.
You either take her word for it or you don't.
It is like the old "666", which has been "peshered" in
dozens of ways.
===>What you fail to appreciate is that Thiering's pesher methodology
has never been flatly disproved in ANY regard by ANY scholar in the
past quarter-century. Why do the critics fail to deliver a knock-out blow?
===>How do you prove the "666" was not referring to Napoleon?
Or Hitler? Or some fictional character about whom no one
knows anything? -- L.
Best regards,
David Christainsen
===>Broadsides noted.
Since Essene solar calendar is the gateway to Thiering pesher in the
time dimension, I suggest you see her objections to Lefgren and Pratt
re: intercalation, technically. If this piques your interest, you would
proceed to MSG #1132 for her intercalation method on which ALL HER WORK
depends...
Alternative method of intercalation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2011
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Christainsen" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
02 Dec 2003 11:37:02 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCB6452.9D00C193@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
===>WOW! A new kind of fundamentalism!
So, anyone objecting to Thieringianism is simply
not "objective", has not given it an "exhaustive and fair
examination", not a "blue-ribbon team" member, is not a
"qualified academic", and/or not "properly funded"!
That allows for a lot of dodging of any criticism! -- L.
===>Huh? The word was "provable". As you probably already know,
decades have gone by without Thiering's pesher methodology being
disproved decisively in ANY regard. THAT'S the problem!
===>Go ahead and object, but you better be sure of your facts first.
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
02 Dec 2003 06:53:50 PM |
|
|
David Christainsen wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FCB6452.9D00C193@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...
David Christainsen wrote:
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
...
Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
have useful information.
--
Best regards,
Abby
We have a problem. I say Thiering pesher methodology is provable objectively,
given an exhaustive and fair examination by a blue-ribbon team of
qualified academics properly funded.
===>WOW! A new kind of fundamentalism!
So, anyone objecting to Thieringianism is simply
not "objective", has not given it an "exhaustive and fair
examination", not a "blue-ribbon team" member, is not a
"qualified academic", and/or not "properly funded"!
That allows for a lot of dodging of any criticism! -- L.
===>Huh? The word was "provable". As you probably already know,
decades have gone by without Thiering's pesher methodology being
disproved decisively in ANY regard. THAT'S the problem!
===>"Huh?"
What about the CENTURIES that "have gone by" without the theists'
"God" hypothesis "being disproved decisively". So, what?
Do pink unicorns exist? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abigail Holtz" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
07 Dec 2003 03:39:18 PM |
|
|
In article <zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
me@privacy.net says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a30a5cbe27c344598968e@news-server.wi.rr.com...
<snip>
:> The Hasmonean (Maccabean) king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea, a small
:> country south of Jerusalem in (I believe, but don't have a reference
:> handy) about 125 BCE. He compelled the Idumeans to convert, the first
:> and thankfully last instance of forced conversion in the history of
:> Judaism.
:>
:> Through almost Shakespearian sycophancy, Machiavellian manipulation, and
:> (crap, I can't come up with an appropriate alliteration!) intrigue,
:> Herod, whose grandparents were among the forcibly converted Idumeans,
:> managed to have the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea, and yes,
:> married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess.
:>
:Sounds right to me. Is there a direct source for this outside of Josephus?
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who are
quoting Josephus.
:> Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about? I
:> am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in the
:> way he uses it.
:>
:Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
:speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
:discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you will
:get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
:have useful information.
Thank you.
--
Best regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymoss" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
07 Dec 2003 04:10:24 PM |
|
|
"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a3d5a019c03f0939896c8@news-server.wi.rr.com...
In article <zcsyb.22594$sb4.11777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
me@privacy.net says...
:
:"Abigail Holtz" <phaedra_amara@excite.com> wrote in message
:news:MPG.1a30a5cbe27c344598968e@news-server.wi.rr.com...
<snip>
:> The Hasmonean (Maccabean) king John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea, a small
:> country south of Jerusalem in (I believe, but don't have a reference
:> handy) about 125 BCE. He compelled the Idumeans to convert, the first
:> and thankfully last instance of forced conversion in the history of
:> Judaism.
:>
:> Through almost Shakespearian sycophancy, Machiavellian manipulation,
and
:> (crap, I can't come up with an appropriate alliteration!) intrigue,
:> Herod, whose grandparents were among the forcibly converted Idumeans,
:> managed to have the Roman Senate appoint him king of Judea, and yes,
:> married Mariamne, a Hasmonean princess.
:>
:Sounds right to me. Is there a direct source for this outside of
Josephus?
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who are
quoting Josephus.
That is all I have been able to track down, and I have looked. The longer I
much about in the intertestamental period, the fewer primary sources I find.
That is maddening for someone who spent most of his time in the early modern
era where the sources are, if anything, too plentiful. Frustrating . . .
:> Now, who is this Barbara Thiering, and what is that guy talking about?
I
:> am familiar with pesher as it's used in Hebrew, but apparently not in
the
:> way he uses it.
:>
:Thiering's theories of the function of pesharim are on the fringe of
:speculation concerning an Essene-Christian synthesis, and as far as I can
:discern, unprovable. If you do a google search of Barbara Thiering you
will
:get lots and lots of links (somthing in the area of 2,000) and some even
:have useful information.
Thank you.
Welcome . . .
regards,
Abby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
08 Dec 2003 11:43:36 AM |
|
|
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<kzNAb.4777$rP6.4006@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who are
quoting Josephus.
That is all I have been able to track down, and I have looked. The longer I
much about in the intertestamental period, the fewer primary sources I find.
That is maddening for someone who spent most of his time in the early modern
era where the sources are, if anything, too plentiful. Frustrating . . .
Welcome to the ancient world...
You haven't done ancient history until you've dealt with the sort of
case where the entire data in the historical record for some important
figure consists of a bit of hearsay 3 centuries later and a piece of
2-by-4 timber with his name on it stolen from a dig in the Sudan.
<sigh>
Oh yes, and a popular book which proves he was really someone else. :)
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
11 Dec 2003 02:15:02 PM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312080943.7585a71a@posting.google.com...
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<kzNAb.4777$rP6.4006@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who are
quoting Josephus.
That is all I have been able to track down, and I have looked. The
longer I
much about in the intertestamental period, the fewer primary sources I
find.
That is maddening for someone who spent most of his time in the early
modern
era where the sources are, if anything, too plentiful. Frustrating . .
..
Welcome to the ancient world...
You haven't done ancient history until you've dealt with the sort of
case where the entire data in the historical record for some important
figure consists of a bit of hearsay 3 centuries later and a piece of
2-by-4 timber with his name on it stolen from a dig in the Sudan.
<sigh>
Oh yes, and a popular book which proves he was really someone else. :)
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Sorry it took so long to reply. Computer has been acting up and not
grabbing all the headers around here.
The difficulties of ancient history are myriad, and much less evidence is
available, or perhaps known to be extant is more accurate, than for any
other preiod of history. In my more lucid moments, I hesitate to draw any
final conclusions about the ancient world because I do hope and believe
there are finds of the scale of Oxyrhyncus in the future. Most of the
ancient world has not been excavated, although more is being done. Of
course, the end of the shooting wars would be a boon to further excavation.
I attended a lecture by Robert Ballard a few days ago, and he concentrated
not on the Titanic, the Bismarck, JFK's PT 109, but rather spoke at length
on his archaeological work in the Black Sea and on the trade routes between
Carthage and Rome. I found him sensible, knowledgable, and devoted to the
advancement of learning. I only wish work of the same scale was being done
on land.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
12 Dec 2003 05:11:42 AM |
|
|
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<af4Cb.7817$_r6.5261@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312080943.7585a71a@posting.google.com...
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<kzNAb.4777$rP6.4006@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who are
quoting Josephus.
That is all I have been able to track down, and I have looked. The
longer I
much about in the intertestamental period, the fewer primary sources I
find.
That is maddening for someone who spent most of his time in the early
modern
era where the sources are, if anything, too plentiful. Frustrating . .
.
Welcome to the ancient world...
You haven't done ancient history until you've dealt with the sort of
case where the entire data in the historical record for some important
figure consists of a bit of hearsay 3 centuries later and a piece of
2-by-4 timber with his name on it stolen from a dig in the Sudan.
<sigh>
Oh yes, and a popular book which proves he was really someone else. :)
Sorry it took so long to reply. Computer has been acting up and not
grabbing all the headers around here.
I daily expect the first Christmas virus...
The difficulties of ancient history are myriad, and much less evidence is
available, or perhaps known to be extant is more accurate, than for any
other preiod of history. In my more lucid moments, I hesitate to draw any
final conclusions about the ancient world because I do hope and believe
there are finds of the scale of Oxyrhyncus in the future. Most of the
ancient world has not been excavated, although more is being done. Of
course, the end of the shooting wars would be a boon to further excavation.
These are all valid points. Although no-one has actually gone looking
for books as at Oxyrhynchus in a century, as far as I can tell -- all
the finds like Medinet Madu, Toura, Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea
Scrolls, were made accidentally by peasants.
I attended a lecture by Robert Ballard a few days ago, and he concentrated
not on the Titanic, the Bismarck, JFK's PT 109, but rather spoke at length
on his archaeological work in the Black Sea and on the trade routes between
Carthage and Rome. I found him sensible, knowledgable, and devoted to the
advancement of learning. I only wish work of the same scale was being done
on land.
And, that more was available online so we could find out about it.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- BACKWARD THEORY |
12 Dec 2003 12:01:37 PM |
|
|
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312120311.3b93b0ae@posting.google.com...
"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<af4Cb.7817$_r6.5261@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312080943.7585a71a@posting.google.com...
"Didymoss" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<kzNAb.4777$rP6.4006@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
That I couldn't tell you. I read it laid out like that fairly
frequently, but it's likely that they're just quoting people who
are
quoting Josephus.
That is all I have been able to t | | | | | | | | | | | |
