Nomad,

I have "Barbara Thiering" on my bookshelf. She writes with an
extended bibliography. She is too scholarly for my taste, she
does Hebrew and Greek so I have to take what she writes at
face-value. I do tend to agree with her more often than not.
When she gives a bibliography I investigate it and I have
came up with a different conclusion now and then. Now,
I do not recall her using the "Gospel of Philip" regarding
whether or not Jesus died on the cross. I went to
www.yahoo.com and searched for apocrypha and found two
different "Philip's", one was the gospel and the other
was the acts, and I could not find Simon Magus in either.
If you use the "Clementine Homilies" in conjunction with
the gospels it becomes evident that Jesus was crucified
with Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot. Please do not use
Thiering loosely if you have not read her opinions, and, if I
am missing a Philip, I would be very grateful to be led to the
right one. Of course, I will search anyway. I love puzzles!

thanks,
offa

Hello offa,

I have to admit, Thiering and "scholarly" are not two things I tend to link together. Let's just say that few have found her arguments to be convincing.

On the other hand, if you want the actual "Gospel of Philip", check out http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

And yes, I do know that Simon Magus and Judas were supposed to have been crucified with Jesus, and that it was Simon that revives Jesus and Judas. The idea that anyone could survive the cross like this is at the very least ludicrous.

And as for the belief that Jesus managed to survive the cross, I was relying upon Raymond Brown:

” It is an embarrassing insight into human nature that the more fantastic the scenario, the more sensational is the promotion it receives and the more intense the faddish interest it attracts. People who would never bother reading a responsible analysis of the traditions about how Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead are fascinated by the report of some "new insight" to the effect that he was not crucified or did not die, especially if his subsequent career involved running off with Mary Magdalene to India. Whether sparked by a rationalism that seeks to debunk the miraculous or by the allure of the novel, often such modern imaginings reproduce ancient explanations that dismissed the death of Jesus on the cross, explaining it away through confusion or by a plot.”
(Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah, Volume 2, New York, pg. 1092-3)

And as for what Brown thought of Thiering (and I will take Brown over almost any other scholar on questions like this):

”The most implausible thesis is that of Barbara Thiering: Golgotha was the southern esplanade of the Qumran settlement down by the Dead Sea, over twenty miles from Jerusalem by road…”
(Ibid. pg. 939)

N.T. Wright is even less charitable in his assessment of her work.

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright notes that "the only scholar who takes Thiering's theory with any seriousness is Thiering herself…

"First, Thiering's entire argument depends on an idiosyncratic dating of the scrolls themselves. We have argued that there is no good reason to date the scrolls as late as she does in order to allow them to refer to Jesus. If this is true, then the scrolls could not be speaking of Jesus and John the Baptist at all, since they were not yet born. Wright comments that "this of itself would be enough, in fact, to bring the whole structure toppling down."'

"Second, although Thiering correctly observes that the Qumran community used the pesher method to find itself referred to in certain Hebrew scriptures, this method was never used in writing the history of the community itself. As Wright notes, the pesher method "was a way of hooking in to the past, not of writing quite new works for the future."" This style of interpretation was "a way of saying 'we are the people spoken of by the prophets,' not 'we are the people who can set new crossword puzzles for others to solve."" If this code was employed to interpret the Gospels and Acts, we would expect to discover some ancient writings to back up this point. Thiering provides no such evidence. She simply asserts her pesher interpretations. Neither does she attempt to explain why this pesher understanding of the Gospels and Acts was supposedly lost.' Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the Gospels and Acts are written in some secret code language.

"Third, Thiering's claim that Jesus had children rests on material from late and unreliable Gnostic documents and tortuous misinterpretations of New Testament passages. For instance, she interprets Acts 6:7, which says "The Word of God increased," to mean that Jesus' family grew larger.' Of course, the book of Acts is the history of the early church after the resurrection and ascension of Christ into heaven (Acts 1:1-11). Jesus' "family" increases as people accept him as Lord, not as he physically fathers children. When Luke writes that "the Word of God increased," he means that God's truth was received by more and more people, as is clear from the rest of the verse: "The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith." The idea of Jesus divorcing and remarrying is similarly unhistorical and illogical.'

"Fourth, Thiering is not even consistent in applying her far-flung innovations. She abandons the pesher method in her account of Jesus' crucifixion and subsequent appearances. As Wright notes, "Granted her own method, this ought to have been 'code' for Jesus' demotion within the community and then his promotion to high office once more. Instead, she resorts to a laughably incredible retelling of the story."'
(Doug Grootius, Jesus in an Age of Controversy, 1996, pg. 167)

I can honestly say that I do not know a single NT scholar that takes her work, translations, or conclusions seriously, and the question remains… Why should we trust a 3rd Century document over the 1st Century witnesses?

Nomad

As to Nomad's comments about Ms. Thiering's views being very implausible, I think that that's a case of choking on the gnat of a girlfriend while swalling the camel of resurrection.

If one had to choose as to which was more improbable, I'd quickly choose "resurrection"; people often have SO's, but they don't often rise from the dead.

I will concede that the canonical Gospels really don't tell us anything about whether JC had had a girlfriend; the closest to a SO that he had in them was the male "beloved disciple" in John. Though it's been suggested that an earlier version of John might have had a female one, perhaps MM herself.

As to the Gnostic Gospels, I don't see how they are intrinsically much less reliable than the canonical ones.

So while JC seems to have been single all his life, he may have had an SO, and that SO may have been MM herself.

Offa, I really don't know why I'm wasting the time with this post except that you seem to confuse people a lot.

The fact that you term yourself a "pesherist" is curious to me. I'm not sure you completely understand what a "pesher" is.

Here is a great explanation that I found:

"This kind of commentary [a pesher] is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community."

The above speaks exactly to what you are attempting to do to the New Testament text, offa.

Another good quote:
"If we were to write a commentary in this way today we might quote a bible verse and then say, "and the meaning of the verse is..." and go on to show the significance of the verse for our own church, synagogue, or society."

Though this is somewhat common information found in books on the DSS, the source I quote is on the internet so you may look at it yourself:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/edu...erIsaiah.shtml

By the way, the site that you mention, offa, says this same thing in different words...

"Pesher" means "interpretation" or "commentary", so I guess if you really want to debate it, I will grant that the ideas you are espousing are *your* "interpretation"...

By the way, this (among other things):

"When she died she was a Virgin (a Hebrew title for a Hebrew's wife). A Hebrew was above a man so Mary never Knew a man."

...shows a lack of knowledge. I have to admit that you seem to know a lot of names and documents, but I'm not sure you are really understanding them...

Sorry,
Ish

Nomad,

I can not find a reference by Thiering connecting Jesus
surviving the crucifixion in regards to Simon Magus using
the "Gospel of Philip". I already
had the gospel you referred me to, but I thought there must be
another, because the "Gospel of Philip" does not mention Simon
Magus nor does it say much about the crucifixion.

I am wary of your resources because you have not given
a satisfactory answer to my post which you responded to.
I remarked, "Now, I do not recall her using the "Gospel
of Philip" regarding whether or not Jesus died on the cross."


Now, as far as the crucifixion, Jesus spent about six hours
on the cross, his legs were not broken and his feet were
not pierced. When Longinus stabbed him in the side he bled
profusely allowing one to believe he was still alive.
The "Gospel of Peter" tells about him leaving the tomb
on his own.

As far as Jesus and Mary Magdalene being wedded, they were
betrothed long before the crucifixion. Jesus was the bride-
groom at the marriage at Cana.

thanks, offa

Ish,

I gave a source for historical pesher to Spider. I remarked

I have borrowed the word "pesher". If you want
some authenticity, go to www.yahoo.com and search for"
habakkuk". About eight choices down the word appears.
I am a different type of pesher, ...

I know that pesharim is the "interpretation of dreams".
I use pesher to interpret the KJV.

I also write my own stuff.

I am curious, maybe you can find me a virgin in the bible
that is not a Hebrew. Maybe you can find, somewhere in the
bible where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced? This
particular board is visited by infidels and whenever
someone writes something I contend, I give an honest
with evaluation of my personal opinion.

I am open for criticism and, pardon my bluntness, but I
feel that religious people are quite naive. I am fond
of naive people and do not interfere with their customs,
however, this is an infidels board and if you are out
to evangelize ... good luck!

thanks,
offa

I'll have to through my support to Offa, everything he or she said was backed up by what I saw on an A&E show about the Dead sea scrolls, The stuff about the wedding at Cana was also on one of the "Mystery of the Bible" series (very good show too)

[This message has been edited by marduck (edited February 21, 2001).]

I must say that I find it totally preposterous that the wedding at Cana in John had been JC's wedding. This is because weddings are landmark events, and if JC was getting married, then it would have thought being worth mentioning. And whether he was or was not, it would be illogical not to mention who the bride and groom were.

Which suggests that that story is pure fiction.

And as to Rabbis supposedly having to be married, that might be something from later Judaism.

Bill

lpetrich:

I agree with you that the whole rabbi thing didn't come up until after the end of the First Jewish War, when one of the Pharisees switched over to the Roman side in return for their establishing him as the first Rabbi.

As for the "wedding in Cana" bit, I don't find that as preposterous as you do. It is obvious that these Gospel books have been edited, revised, and otherwise "worked over" during the first two or three centuries of their existence in order for them to reflect the then-current dogmas of the evolving Christian church. So, the fact that it was JC's wedding could very easily have been "accidently dropped" along the way when the fact of his marriage became dogmatically inconvenient.

And the idea of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene isn't new, either. Barbara Thiering wrote Jesus the Man : New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls way back in 1993. That is the source of the assertions quoted earlier in this thread about the marriage, divorce, and remarriage of Jesus.

Many people (far beyond just Dr. Thiering) believe that there is an identity between the Essene community in Jerusalem and elsewhere before the First Jewish War and the early Christian community in Jerusalem (and possibly elsewhere, such as Pella) before, during, and immediately after the First Jewish War. Robert Eisenman makes the same conclusion (without the dramatic leap to the marriage to Mary Magdalene, however) from reading those same Dead Sea Scrolls. His book James the Brother of Jesus expounds at length on just how James fits the bill as a leader of the Essenes (or even an "opposition high priest"). Virtually all of the New Testament writings come to us from Paul's faction, and are thus colored by the break between Paul and James (described in Chapter 2 of the Book of Galatians, among other places). We know absolutely nothing about the community led by James other than what Paul chooses to tell us from his own warped perspective.

Anyway, I would not jump to any conclusions for or against the idea that Jesus was or was not married; and/or did or did not survive (physically) the act of crucifixion (the Thiering story involves Jesus being drugged, another popular theory about just how such a survival could have been managed - by staging a "fake death").

We are gradually piecing together the picture of the first century. I remain convinced that a better picture of that period of time will eventually emerge.

== Bill

Offa:
"I am curious, maybe you can find me a virgin in the bible that is not a Hebrew."

Huh? Please stay focused, Offa. You said the following:

"...a Virgin (a Hebrew title for a Hebrew's wife)..."

This is the bone I want to pick. If you are talking about the Hebrew word for "virgin", bethulah, then you are mistaken:

Gen. 24:16 (KJV)
And the damsel was very fair to look upon, *a virgin*, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

The word for wife (no "title") was Isha, the same word also meaning woman (btw, Ish means "a man" in Hebrew, pronounced "eesh"). In greek, gyne can and is similarly used to mean either wife or woman.

Then, offa, you say:
"A Hebrew was above a man so Mary never Knew a man."

The exact biblical wording is:
Luke 1:34 (KJV)
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

The phrases, "know not a man" and "neither had any man known her", are Jewish idioms that apply both to "Hebrews" *and* otherwise.

Offa:
"I am open for criticism and, pardon my bluntness, but I feel that religious people are quite naive."

Why thank you. I imagine that I am probably the naivest of them all then...

Ish

Bill is probably right about the wedding in Cana -- that if it was JC's, then that fact was edited out by someone who found it ideologically inconvenient for JC to be married. It would be like editing out the identity of a certain "beloved disciple", also in John.