Talk:Pesher

message: I'm looking at the current version, but it's writen such that there is no way of telling head from tail. The only clear sentence was the first sentence. Maybe too technical for me? 203.118.184.104 14:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryptic writing?

message: Dear Wetman,
I have read that book myself some years ago but I can't remember whether there was anything in it specifically on "pesher" (meaning the orginal Qumran literature). You probably know better. But the subclause about Eisenman in Thiering section is superfluous, as Eisenman is irrelefant to the Thiering situation unless he has commented on her theories. Has he, or has he not? The Thiering section is solely about Thiering. And Eisenman has already been mentioned in the first (general) section. I was wrong to delete the link, as it is reference to Eisenman in the first section. I only saw the Thiering section, where he is irrelevant. Str1977 19:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned to the article— in the normal way— the reference to Robert Eisenman's book, which supports the description of pesher and pesharim of this article and is quoted and referred to in the text. To suppress it as "not relevant" suggests, I hope, unfamiliarity with the book. If Barbara Thiering's usage of the pesher technique is mooted, Geza Vermes' review provides a first name among dissenting viewers, It is self-evident that Eisenman's explication of that technique, as originally used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is essential. --Wetman 19:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eisenman

message: To the group:
It appears that we are reaching consensus on the adjective to the word scholar!!! Ann uses the phrase” no mainstream scholar”;  KHM03 uses “unaccepted by mainstream scholars” and  “mainstream academic community”; Wetman cites Vermes. This is my contention, for clearly it is impossible to reach a verdict on how many scholars in the world actually accept her work or who might be intrigued by it (I can assure you that there are quite a few) and you have no way to count how many scholars it takes to create the word “little” in the favorite phrase of this group:
 "found little support from scholars" 
I propose the final sentence to be:
"Her method and findings have found little support from mainstream scholars." 
Given STR1977's objection on the phrase “not yet”, I have left it out.  Also the  word “However” is biased. My suggested final sentence is the correct NPV statement of fact to replace my added paragraph and the one below it, which was added by Wetman. I think it is fair on my part to insist on the reverting to paragraph above the final paragraph, because the wording of this final paragraph it is damaging to Dr. Thiering’s reputation as a scholar, until this situation is resolved. (Incidentally there is no real objection to the addition of Wetman except that it might be considered too wordy. It is definately too old, in this rapid world of Deaad Sea Scrolls and Vermes does not own the them as Eisenman  would attest.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Dylanstephens 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Thiering's methodology had produced results that supported pious and official beliefs, does anyone doubt that her book would have been wholeheartedly and unreservedly embraced? Would these nit-pickers then have been so assiduously employed? Wetman --07:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please, Wetman, remember AGF. Her method and her finding have been accepted neither by Christian nor by non-Christian scholars, so there's no bias involved here, except for the bias which gives "new" views contrary to Christianity way too much publicity - in other words: claim that the story of Jesus was completely different and that Christianity is all wrong, and you won't have trouble finding a publisher and your book will be a best-seller. However, try to publish a scholarly work without any such extravagant claims and you will find it much more difficult. But that has no bearing on the wording of this article. I think we were close to compromise, so what do those think who seriously discussed the wording of the Thiering section. Str1977 10:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dylan's last edit. "Method" is IMHO a better term and the "especially" is clearly wrong. The focus of objection is against her "method", which then also leads to objection of the results of that method. Str1977 10:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From the back cover of Thiering's book, evidently the editors' words: "A renegade scholar's revelation...".  So there should be no doubt that "renegade scholar" is appropriate, and a blurb above that quotes a review in "The Guardian" as calling the book "a scholarly work".  The allegation (also in "The Guardian"?) that Thiering's ideas inspired themes in Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" makes them of passing interest, at least, to the many millions of his book's readers and the movie's viewers.Unfree (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing final statement that started all this

message: Its hard to write an article when the subject is not really defined, and understood. Pesher is a short form or Peh Shaar - "open gate", and is a stylistic term for the opening explanation the reader used to give to the weekly Parashah reading which in later and modern times has been replaced by the Drosha delivered after the reading (usually). Its Aramaic use is best seen in the naming of the Bava Kamma. In modern usage the term survives in naming of Jewish educational institutions with Shaarei Torah. The pre-reading delivery was extant in some of the remote Jewish communities until relatively recent times such as those in Yemen. (need to find a source of reference)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No wonder 

message: The talents of people familiar with entering Hebrew and Greek words into Wikipedia are needed for this article.Unfree (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew and Greek