From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Jesus was married (was: Re: did christ play with himself?)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:24:52 GMT

In article <graham.712039893@galois>, graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews) writes:
> 
> (Achim Stoesser) writes:
> >Jesus was married, says Theologist Dr. Barbara Thiering (Sydney 
> >University)
> >in her book "Jesus the Man" (Doubleday, London, to be published soon).
> >She studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and found:
> >  - His first wife was Mary Magdalene. They had a daughter before 
> >	crucifixion
> >    and two sons after. Then she left him.
> >  - At crucifixion Jesus was doped (to simulate death).
> >  - After that he lived for 30 years.
> >  - His second wife was a Greek woman named Lydia.
> >(source: dpa [German press agency]).
> >I'd like to hear more, especially on what are Dr. Thiering's 
> >conclusions based. 
> 
> Gregg Skinner:
> >Aren't the Dead Sea Scrolls dated B.C.?
> 
> Gregg you hit the nail on the head here in bringing up the issue
> of dating. Barbara Thiering's conclusions are based on two things :-
> 
> a) a different method of reading the scriptures and the scrolls in
> particular in terms of allegorical and *political* meanings.
> 
> b) a dating of the scrolls that places them after the birth of
> christ.
> 
> a) is just plain interesting.

Perhaps Graham, but unconvincing.

> b) however is even more interesting. That carbon dating of the scolls
> puts them at 70 B.C (I think from memory), but dating like this is
> only accurate to within 150 years either way. This means that the
> scrolls could have been written any time between 220 BC and 80 AD,
> which means that they *could* have been written after Jesus's
> birth.

Not really. The accelorator mass spectrometry method of dating
used on the Scrolls can now give a date +/- 50 years. I was
under the impression that the date given was in the early first 
century BC. 

>	Barbara Theiring justifies her post B.C dating using hand
> writing analysis comparing the styles of writing around 70 B.C
> (the date the tradition theory uses), and in the scrolls themselves.

Thiering argues that the palaeographical analysis of the scrolls which
mention the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness is very
uncertain in its conclusions (which is true). The use of certain
archaic forms are usually held to be an indication of an early date,
but Thiering points to several Palmyrene inscriptions from the 1st
Century AD which also use these forms. The weakness with this is
that memorial inscriptions are conservative in their use of letter
forms, and therefore it is unwise to extrapolate from such inscriptions
to manuscript practices.

The scrolls don't give much interal evidence as to their date, but
several historical figures are mentioned. *All* of them are from
the second century BC or the early first century BC. No-one from
Jesus' century is mentioned at all. 

> The really funny thing about this whole thing is that when Barbara
> Thiering released her theories in Australia the Church's official
> line was that her theories were rubbish because they were based
> on a guess as to the dating of the scrolls! I happened at a college
> with a religious dean and he was rubbishing Thiering's work saying
> that her theory was all guesswork because of this dating problem.
> I turned to him and said "well the current theory is also based on
> a guess at the dating". Needless to say the dinner was not a great
> success! :-)

The dean doesn't sound as though he knows what he was talking about,
but Thiering's hypothesis has been universally rejected by Scrolls
scholars, both religious and non-religious.

Before I read 'Jesus the Man', I thought the christians were getting
all hysterical over nothing. I didn't agree with what I knew of
Thiering's dating arguments, but I thought it might be an interesting
read. Now that I've finished it I must say that it is the most
preposterous load of unmitigated crap I have ever read and I wouldn't
rule out the possibility that Thiering is quite mad.
She not only reveals that Herod the Great was plotting to overthrow
the entire Roman Empire with the help of Jesus' father and grandfather,
but also that Pontius Pilate, Caiaphus and Annas were all Essenes and that
all the events in the gospels took place at Qumran.
Thiering's wonderous 'pesher technique' is amazing indeed. She can reveal 
to the world that the Last Supper was acomplex negotiation between two
factions of Essenes & it was held at Qumran at precisely 6 pm on
Wednesday March 18th 33 AD. Jesus reclined on a couch next to Judas, with
Peter opposite him and the High Priest Annas next to Peter. ( it's a pity
Leonardo didn't have the 'pesher technique', then he would have got the
seating right in his painting!)

Jesus' trial was held 1 and 2am the next morning and the astounding Dr
Thiering tells us where he stood, how far away from him Peter stood, 
how far from the fireplace Peter was, which direction Peter was facing
and the looks on Jesus' face. This is not simply dramatised writing:
the woman honestly believes that her 'pesher' interpretation can
reveal all this detail, and that she doesn't need to substantiate it
in any way.

I've just finished writing a talk on 'Jesus the Man' for the Tasmanian
branch of the Australian Skeptics, so if anyone wants me to post a 
fuller critique of her work I'll certainly do so. For the time being
I'll simply say that the lady is a crank, and you should only bother
with her book if you want to roar laughing.
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.arabic