Return to main page or Index

Inductive Reasoning: SRLR: Dr. Thiering's Rules of the Pesher Technique Disputed.

© 2009,2012 by Dylan Stephens

Preface

Before continuing, I must make it clear that the failure of the Dr. Barbara Thiering's Rules of Pesher, which I will demonstrate below, in no way alters the amazing discoveries of Dr. Barbara Thiering or her detailed commentary contained in the webspace: Pesher Technique. There has never been anyone who has been able to decipher the New Testament in the way that she has done. Apparently, these truths were uncovered using a more flexible set of pesher rules corresponding to those in her early books. To name just a few, there is her concept of many names that refer to the same character or her application of the Essene rules and times of marriage to demonstrate the strange attitude of Joseph to have the son of Mary put away for adoption, the proof of Mary Magdalene's marriage, the birth of Jesus' four children, and the marriage of Paul. The list goes on and on. Therefore, I hope that it is clear that the failure of the strict "Rules of Pesher" should not negate any of her findings or the usefulness of her site above. My proof only negates the scientific proof, i.e the strict "Rules of Pesher" of her findings, however the rest of my site here is devoted to the successful proofs of her premises by "Inductive Reasoning".

It has been said that no one has tested Dr. Barbara Thiering's pesher technique (see Wikipedia:pesher, subsection pesher technique) and perhaps this is true until now. Many like Geza Vermes are ready to dismiss it out of hand, but, since I have had the opportunity to study it under Dr. Thiering's guidance for five years, I felt that I was in a position to validate its veracity or not. This discussion: "Inductive Reasoning: Rules of the Pesher Disputed" is not touching on any of the"pesher techniques" from Dr. Barbara Thiering's first book: "Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls/Jesus the Man" (reissued as "Jesus the Man: Decoding the Real Story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene" November, 2006, Simon and Schuster, New York) as they had not yet been completely formulated in her mind and contained premises only. Later on in her books: "The Book that Jesus Wrote", pp. 271-280 and "Jesus of the Apocalypse", pp. 305-310., she began to formulate the "Rules of the Pesher". These are spelled out online at Section 3: "Finding the pesher: Devices of the text" on my Infinite SOULutions webspace which I set up for her. (I need to note here that this webspace: Pesher Technique is wholly her work and approved by her.)

Now, it is my understanding that Dr. Thiering would say that the "Rules of the Pesher" are the proof of what she talks about in her books and on her webspace and that without these "Rules of the Pesher" as defined above , everything would be conjecture based on unproved assumptions. In this world of movies and books like the "Da Vinci Code", "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"; it would appear that the public is quite satisfied with the concept of fiction as fact. Perhaps religion and history are just fictions posing as fact, anyway!

However, since so much of what Dr. Thiering has discovered contains the ring of truth about it and as a consequence certain fiction writers, like those above, have felt free to adopt her findings; there must be a great deal of truth in her discoveries. Whether there will ever be a scholarly proof of her work remains to be seen. This site of mine "Pesher of Christ" has as its purpose to show by "Inductive Reasoning" that many of her findings are indeed true. However, as I intend to show here, it is not by means of her Rules of the Pesher. I have invited Dr. Thiering to refute what I have presented, but she has chosen to decline and this has inevitably led to hard feelings.

Analysis of Dr. Thiering Thiering's Rules of the Pesher Technique and in particular: Rule of the Last Referent (RLR) by examining "SRLR".

"SLRL (Significant "RLR")" are "some cases of "RLR (Rule of Last Referent)" that make a significant difference to the meaning, giving a different subject from the one that would be naturally assumed". These rules are the under-pinning of Dr. Barbara Thiering's pesher technique, which are used throughout the Pesher Technique webspace.

Since the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation have many pronouns and verbs and participles with no subject, biblical translators have used context to determine the subject or object of the sentence, as is common with most languages. Contrary to this, Dr. Thiering relies heavily on one of her surmised Rules of the Pesher Technique: the "Rule of the Last Referent (RLR)" to determine the subject or object. As a consequence of this rule, the subject or object of a verb or pronoun can be any number of verses back. Clearly the interpretation of the verse will change. Sometimes this change can be significant and this she has indicated as "SRLR (Significant Rule of Last Referent)".

Dr. Thiering explains her pesher technique in her first major book which was re-released as "Jesus the Man" in 2006, but in it she sets out six general rules that do not include "The Rules of the Pesher" (RLR). Apparently, she refined "The Rules of the Pesher" (RLR) when writing "Jesus of the Apocalypse" where she spells them out and also in her later paperback "The Book That Jesus Wrote". They are also available on her webspace above. Unfortunately, since "Jesus the Man" is the most likely book to be read, the reader may be confused about the "The Rules of Pesher" (RLR) that I am refuting here. If that is true please go to link: Rules of the Pesher Technique. Since the RLR rules are now the most important ones in the pesher technique, it would be incorrect to only use the rules in "Jesus the Man" in applying the pesher technique. However, using the looser definitions in "Jesus the Man", it was obviously possible to find out many hidden details from her amazing calendar dating, her understanding of the different sects and organizational structure together with her excellent logic of the overall situations that has allowed her to bring the characters to life. So here is the conundrum, if RLR fails, how much of her findings are negated? Unfortunately, it would appear to be most of the "Word for Word Pesher" material on the webspace.

Even though her Rules of the Pesher Technique are now spelled out in detail, there are still some rules that Dr. Thiering uses that can only be understood after the use of her lexicon. (The lexicon is so extensive that it is clearly an important part of the pesher technique.) The pronouns himself heautos, this one houtos, that one ekeinos and nominative he/she autos are treated as nouns and thus are subject to "RLR" as the last person named. However, these pronouns often do not derive from a previous "RLR" as would be expected, but rather become replaced with a name of a character that seems appropriate to the time, place, and rank (in other words out of thin air). Though this may be a correct replacement that can be checked for consistency with other sources, it is not the result of a "mechanical" application of her "Rules of Pesher" in her pesher technique. This fact tends to get lost in the complexity of her "Rules of Pesher, but it is an important distinction.

By their nature "SRLR's" are supposed to be places that reveal significant knowledge, but in my opinion they just add confusion and awkwardness. I have chosen to illustrate "SRLR" because they appear to show the greatest breakdown of the theory. Clearly, and unfortunately, with the concept of "RLR's", if even one fails then Dr. Thiering's theory of "RLR" falls apart. On Dr. Thiering's webspace on my Infinite SOULutions site, Dr. Thiering has set out her proof of "RLR" in the Word-for-Word sections. You will have to decide if her proofs are adequate.

I personally feel that Dr. Thiering often strains at the interpretation to make the "RLR" work, especially in the cases of "SRLR". As a safety net, she often resorts to a bland recitation of levels and who is superior to whom, which is completely out of touch with the action. (Perhaps, those monks, studying the pesher to relieve their boredom, had no interest in the excitement of the action and were just looking to receive a lesson in hierarchy, but I doubt it.)

If any major inconsistencies are found, Dr. Thiering has to "find" a rule exception like "Parts of the Body" and "Genitive Relationship" in (Rules of the pesher) to account for them. Then she would work back through all of the cases to make sure that this rule exception could be used consistently or, failing that, she could create an entry in the lexicon redefining the word or person.

It is my opinion that the pesher is looser than the mechanical application of Dr. Thiering's rules of pesher, which incidentally have never been found except maybe in future mystery rip-off books. However, it is probable that pronouns and word subjects would be cloaked because these people needed to be disguised to avoid signing their death sentences. All religions have an inner circle and, in this way, a person not already contemporaneous with the action, like Paul or Clement, could be initiated into the inner circle by being told of the real people involved and then they could feel special. This would explain why a key to the cloaked characters has never been found, just as the Rules of Pesher have never been found.

Without this key to the characters, the bible translators have failed to reproduce the correct and consistent story line. In addition to the cloaking of characters, many have suffered obscurity or achieved fame by manipulation of the text by different religious sects. (The blatant case is the elevation of Peter by adding chapter 21 to the end of John, but a more subtle case is the removing of Simon Magus' name from most of the action and the insertion of pseudonyms for his name such as Lazarus or Simon of Cyrene: Matthew 5:41 (he carried the cross i.e. ringleader of the bunch.)

This distinction between mechanical and loose pesher is at the heart of the premise that I make on this Pesher of Christ site. Although one might wish that there was a mechanically derived way of proving the pesher interpretation such as Dr. Thiering's "RLR", I believe that unfortunately there is not. However, a pesher does exist and it can be found using clues and common sense. "RLR" might be a means to shake up the usual interpretation, but its mechanical application results in some absurd results as shown in many "SRLR"'s in this document. What is important about the pesher is to realize that the words in the Gospels are not meant to be taken literally, but contain clues to a deeper meaning.

I have set this up so that you could actually have three windows up: this page, plus the Revised Standard Verse (RSV) in a second window and Dr. Thiering's webspace in a third. These windows can be sized to fit best on your screen. By clicking on the verse link on the left, a separate window comes up, just click select "Display Verse" to show the Revised Standard Version of the verse. By clicking on the link "pesher:xx:xx" will show that verse Dr. Thiering's webspace. (Please note that sometimes you must use the bottom slider to find the appropriate gospel column.) All excerpts from Dr. Thiering's webspace are her copyright.


Jesus' birth to Bar Mitzvah

  • Luke 2:7 (pesher:Luke 2:7)
    Pesher: "And she (Mary) brought forth of her the Son the First-born. And she dressed him in a short garment. And he (Joseph) laid him (Jesus) in a Manger. For to them (SRLR:Antipas) there was not a place in the guest room."

    Now to begin with Dr. Thiering has discovered what should have been so obvious: that this section is not Luke, the idiot, who is some 10-12 years off with the birth time of Jesus. Of course, this is Jesus' Bar Mitzvah! What is it with these scholars who criticize Dr. Thiering? They have had almost 2,000 years to figure it out and still they do not believe it when Dr. Thiering reveals the "secret"! This is just a metaphorical birth, taking place at the same place (Bethlehem, south of Qumran) where Mary gave birth to Jesus in 7 B.C. (not 6 B.C. or 6 BCE because there was no zero between B.C. and A.D. as Islam had not invented zero yet.)

    Antipas appears as "them" by "RLR" from Luke 2:3 all (pantes). Dr. Thiering says this word is used for one of the Herods. This is not a bad assumption, as that would be a good word for a king at the center of the world (Jerusalem), but using "RLR" to insert his name where it should be Joseph and Mary is not all that important a revelation. However, this does bring up an important point against RLR: if Jesus was writing an "RLR" pesher, would he not want to refer back to a real name, not just a vague "all"? It would have been easy to insert, at least, the word Herod. Now returning back to the "RLR" pesher, why would a king have no room in a guest room when he could have brought a palace with him! Obviously, it is "them" (Mary and Joseph) who have no room because they are outcasts, having conceived a child at a forbidden time. What new information is being shown by knowing that a person called "all", did not have room at the inn?

  • Luke 2:21 (pesher:Luke 2:21)
    Pesher: "And when there were fulfilled 8 days for to circumcise him (SRLR:God). And the name of him (God) was called Jesus"

    God (theon) appears in Luke 2:20 with the verse about the shepherds praising God. Dr. Thiering has the shepherds as Theudas-Barabbas since he was the leader of the Therapeuts who practiced retreats in the desert. God is one of the Sadducee priests, which she surmises from (Philo, On Dreams 2, 188-189) were referred to as God. (This is not hard to accept as the Jesuit order wants to be called Father.) So luckily God did not have to get circumcised! (Though God was Jewish at that time, it appears that after that Adam, in his likeness, is still showing his foreskin on the Sistine Chapel ceiling after God converted to Christianity.) So god is the priest Annas, but wait, Annas was circumcised a long time ago! Of course, this is an allegorical circumcision, but the allegory is supposed to be about Jesus.

    Then to compound the problem, "RLR" says that God-Annas ("him") is now named Jesus. (LOL. That must be why the Nicean Council decided that Jesus was God - by the RLR! ). Clearly, all the translators agree that Jesus was meant to be called Jesus! To avoid this embarrassing state of affairs, Dr. Thiering has Annas standing in for Jesus. What new information is being shown by having a man called "God" standing in for Jesus' Bar Mitzvah? (Too bad he did not stand in for Jesus at the real cutting of his foreskin when Jesus was a baby or more importantly at his crucifixion! Actually, later on in our study at Mark 14:65, Annas-God by "RLR" did stand in for Jesus to be spat upon and struck. Even in Alice's world of Through the Looking Glass, there is consistency!)

    Obviously, this story is about Jesus' birth. OK, it is not his real birth, but his Bar Mitzvah, but all this is just an allegory for Jesus becoming a man and choosing to enter the path that will lead a position in the Church. It does not seem necessary to state that Annas is there as obviously there is a priest and it appears anyway that now Jesus has been accepted as legitimate due the liberal attitude of the Sadducees.

Last Supper

  • John 13:5 (pesher:John 13:5)
    Pesher: (SRLR: "Himself" (Simon Magus) rather than Jesus washes the feet of the disciples and dries them with a towel that was girded around him by Jesus.

    Dr. Thiering believes that every use of "Himself" (eauton or eautou) is either Simon Magus or his Magian replacement. This does seem plausible much as the Irish do to their leaders. By replacing Simon Magus "Himself" into John 13:4, Jesus instead of girding "himself " with a towel girds "Himself", Simon Magus, and then by "RLR" Simon washes the feet. (This is not really an "SRLR" as the significant change comes from this insertion for "Himself" and not the "RLR" as will be shown further down.) (feet=offering-jar.)

    Jesus' Arrest (The Four Gospels on who cut off hose ear.)

    • John 18:5 (pesher:John 18:5)
      Pesher: At the arrest, Jesus in the previous verse says to them (Thomas), "you seek "Certain One "(Agrippa)". They (Thomas) answered him (SRLR"Certain One") that Jesus is in the Nazarite state. Jesus replies to them (Thomas), "I am". Jesus stood." meaning that he is a priest now. The translators say that Jesus asks whom they are seeking and they reply Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus replies to them, "I am" (he) as Judas stood in the midst of them.

      There are two insertions of characters out of the void: Agrippa and Thomas. Dr. Thiering has "Jesus stood" and the translators give the "stood" to Judas. (A toss up.) To sum up, there is no real point to the "RLR" as it does not point to the presence of Agrippa or Thomas. Regardless of the "RLR" or the questioners or answer-ers, a point is being made that Jesus may be in the Nazarite state or a priest state depending on whose clock is used.

    • John 18:10 (pesher:John 18:10)
      Pesher: Peter draws a sword and strikes James (the slave of the Chief Priest) and James(SRLR) (Malchus-king) cuts Peter's ear off.
      Mark 14:47 (pesher:Mark 14:47)
      Pesher: Peter (number 1) draws the sword and strikes James (the slave of the Chief Priest) and James cuts Peter's ear off.
      Luke 22:50 (pesher:Luke 22:50)
      Pesher: Peter (number 1) draws the sword and hits James (the slave of the High Priest) and James strikes his ear.
      Matthew 26:51 (pesher:Matthew 26:51)
      Pesher: Peter (number 1) draws the sword, but this time Peter having struck James (the slave of the Chief Priest) cuts off his ear.

      There is not much significance to all this either way as clearly there was a squabble as to who gets to be the "ear", the one who stands with the priest, and listens to him ("the ear") and transmits the knowledge to the village. Since it is not a real sword but the sword at the Garden of Eden, no harm is done either way. The significant point is that the first three gospels have James cutting Peter's ear, but Matthew has Peter cutting James' ear! This appears to be a major flaw with the "RLR" as the first three using "RLR" are contrary to the translators who have Peter cutting off the ear of the slave, but Matthew using "RLR" agrees with the translators. It would be assumed that the four Gospels should be consistent on this point, unless, there is some major reason why they should be different. This does not appear to be true in this case.

    Jesus' Trial

    • Mark 14:55-59 (pesher:Mark 14:55-59)
      Pesher: 55: The Chief Priests. And the whole council (Agrippa), they (Annas) sought down from Jesus (genitive) testimony at putting to Death him (SRLR to Peter v. 54)
      Pesher 58: that "We (Thomas) heard him (Peter) saying that, "I will loosen this sanctuary made with a hand. And through 3 days ( day 3, Tuesday) I will make an other household not made with a hand.

      Suddenly Peter is on trial here? Peter said he will destroy the temple? This makes no sense as clearly Jesus is on trial and is the one who turned over the tables of the money-changers!

    • Mark 14:61 (pesher:Mark 14:61)
      Pesher: Again the Chief Priest questioned him (Jesus). And Jesus (SRLR) says to him (SRLR to Annas), "You are the Christ the Son of the Blessed One."

      The translators have the Chief Priest addressing Jesus and asking if he is the Christ.

      Since when is the Priest Annas the Christ? Oh, wait in Luke 2:21 by "RLR", he was called Jesus! (The Looking Glass again). Since this is the gospel that Peter wrote, Peter would think this strange since he already said Jesus was the Christ. Why did they not ask this of Peter in Mark 14:55 (the above verse) when he was on trial. This makes no sense! It is occurring to me why Peter asked to be crucified upside down!

    • Mark 14:65 (pesher:Mark 14:65)
      Pesher: And Certain Ones (Thomas) began to spit on him (SRLR to Annas vv 63, 64). And to hide of him (Annas) the face. And to strike him (Annas). And to say to him (Annas), "Prophecy", And the assistants (Thomas) received him (Annas) with blows.

      The priest Annas is getting beaten up? Isn't this supposed to be Jesus? It was my understanding that Jesus reported to Jonathan Annas. Thus he had asked God (Jonathan Annas) to take the cup of poison away from him when he was in Gethsemane hours earlier in a time-travel statement to his crucifixion. So perhaps, the master gets an allegorical slap on the wrist for the slave. No harm done. Although I am not sure if I would spit on a priest especially one who is called God.

    Peter's Denials

    • Luke 22:61 (pesher:Luke 22:61)
      Pesher: he Lord (Jesus grade 2 in west to Christ 1 in west) having turned saw (blepō) to Peter. And Peter remembered the statement of the Lord (genitive) how he (SRLR to Peter) said to him (RLR to Lord) that, " Previous to a cock to sound today you (sing. Lord) deny me thrice."

      Peter is remembering how he (Peter) said to Jesus that Jesus would deny him thrice? Peter is pretty confused! Perhaps he should get out of there before he gets put up on the cross.

    Pilate's Questioning (The Four Gospels on Who is King of the Jews)

    • Luke 23:2 (pesher:Luke 23:2)
      Pesher: They (RLR to Antipas v.1) began to charge of him (SRLR to Pilate), saying, " This One we have found turning-through the Gentile of us. And forbidding (accusative with This One) to give taxes to Caesar. And saying (accusative with This One) Himself a Christ a king to be.

      The one being charged is obviously not Pilate! Dr. Thiering has to redefine "charge" as merely a compliant as no one would charge Pilate! The definition of charge is normally "to speak against, to accuse."

    • Luke 23:3 (pesher:Luke 23:3)
      Pesher: Pilate questioned him (SRLR to Himself-Christ-King, Simon Magus) saying. "You (sing.) are the king of the Jews". He (addressed, Simon) uttered to him (Pilate), "You(sing.) say."

      Dr. Thiering in verse 23:2 has introduced two new definitions: the Greek "touton" (this one) is Jesus and the Greek "heauton" (itself absolutely) is Simon Magus who called himself the title of "Himself". In Luke 23:2 Jesus is claimed to have said that Simon Magus was King of the Jesus. When Pilate asks his famous question, "Are you King of the Jews" the Greek "autos" from "RLR" picks up Simon Magus ("heauton"), from Luke 23:2 as the one receiving this question, now as merely an "autos" (he). (For consistency, should this not be "heauton"?) It is true Simon Magus could be referred to King of the Jews, but he was more likely Chief Priest. The king would be Jesus, the David.

    • John 18:33 (pesher:John 18:33)
      Pesher: And he (SRLR to Jesus) said to him (SRLR to Pilate), "You (sing.) are the king of the Jews".
      Now Jesus is saying that Pilate is King of the Jews! He must have liked that. No wonder he washed his hands from crucifying Jesus and let the Jews decide for Barabbas or Jesus. Dr. Thiering says this is to indicate that Pilate is a graduate of the Church, but why would that make him King? Perhaps it is a tactic of Jesus to get Pilate up on the cross in his place. This seems like utter nonsense.
      Mark 15:2 (pesher:Mark 15:2)
      Pesher: Jesus stood before the governor (genitive). And the governor questioned him (Jesus) saying, "You are the king of the Jews (genitive) Jesus uttered, "You say."
      Mark gets the question correctly.
      Matthew 27:11 (pesher:Matthew 27:11)
      Pesher: And Pilate questioned him (RLR to Jesus v.1), "You (sing.) are the king of the Jews. He (Jesus, addressed) says to him (Pilate), "You (sing.) say."
      Mathew gets the question correctly.

      Major problem as Four Gospels have three different versions of the same event: Luke: Pilate asks Simon, John: Jesus states it to Pilate, and Mark and Matthew: Pilate asks Jesus (the accepted situation)! Thus we have three "King of the Jews": Simon Magus, Pilate, and Jesus. Well, perhaps it was important as there was a cross waiting with that written on it! Will the real King of the Jews stand up!

    On the Cross

    • Matthew 27:39 (pesher:Matthew 27:39)
      Pesher: The travelers-beside blasphemed him (SRLR to Simon, "one out of the left" in v.38), shaking the heads of them (RLR not to "travelers-beside" - owner rule - but to "thief 2", Judas, v. 38).

      This is significant in that it shows a rule exception: that of possession: the usual RLR: travelers-beside is passed and the search goes back to the next "RLR". Otherwise, the travelers-beside would be shaking their heads at themselves!

    • Luke 23:39,40 (pesher:Luke 23:39-40)

      Pesher: Luke 23:39 A number 1 of the hanged bad-workers blasphemed him (RLR to king, Jesus, v. 38) saying, " Not-X you (sing.) are the Christ. Save yourself. And us.

      Pesher: Luke 23:40: Another one having answered rebuking him (SRLR to Christ, v.39) uttered, " Neither you (sing.) fear God, that in the same judgment you are.

      The translators say is one thief ridiculing Jesus and the other thief answering him.

      The word "answered" seems critical to the sense of the two statements that it was between a talk between the thieves. Dr. Thiering has the second one being Thomas answering the thief by rebuking Jesus on the cross and talking to him about hierarchy!

    • Luke 23:43 (pesher:Luke 23:43)
      Pesher: And he (SRLR to Theudas, not to Jesus in the vocative) said to him (RLR to "God", Annas v. 40, last masculine singular that is not Theudas), " Amen I say to you (sing,"God"), Today you with me are in the Paradise."

      This is a wonderful example of exceptions. The subject of "and he said" is not Jesus in Luke 23:42 because Jesus is vocative. So we go back one and we have Theudas who is talking to Jesus on the cross. (The translators say that this is not Theudas but is a continuation of the discussion between the two thieves on the cross. ) But assuming that it is Theudas, we proceed to the "to him" after the "and he said" and using "RLR" we skip Jesus in the vocative and find ourselves at Theudas. This gives the absurd statement of Theudas talking to himself! So we go back to the next "RLR" and it turns out to be God. Then inserting Annas for God, we have the disappointing result of Theudas saying to Annas, "Amen I say to you (God-Annas), Today you with me are in the Paradise."
      The reason I say disappointing is that it has missed an important pesher, namely Simon Magus continuing to speak to Jesus in a coded signal that there was a rescue plan being worked on. Since Paradise was the caves, the message is saying hold out and we can still get out of this mess alive and be taken down to the caves.

    Being removed from the Cross

    • John 19:33 (pesher:John 19:33)
      Pesher: They (soldiers) coming{erchomai} upon Jesus, as they saw{eidon} him (Jesus) already having died, did not break of him(SRLR to Pilate, rule of possession for parts of body, chains of Pilate not Jesus) the legs.

      This is an absurd result from a possession rule that has the legs belonging to Pilate requiring a definition of legs being chains which Pilate owns rather that the obvious statement that they did not break Jesus' legs.

    • John 19:38 (pesher:John 19:38)
      Pesher: After these things there questioned Pilate Joseph from Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus(genitive) hidden on account of the fear of the Jews, in order that he(RLR to Joseph) might lift up the body of Jesus. And Pilate permitted. He(SRLR to Pilate) came{erchomai} therefore. And(SRLR to Pilate) lifted up the body of him(genitive, "SRLR" to Joseph).

      This is strange. Pilate would not be lifting Joseph's body! The translators say, "Pilate granted him permission. So he (Joseph) came and took the body away."Dr. Thiering saves this dilemma by defining "body" as the bag on both Jesus and James contains the Host, therefore "the body".

    • Mark 15:43 (pesher:Mark 15:43)
      Pesher: Coming{erchomai} Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent councilor, Who. And He (pronoun) was receiving-before the kingdom of God, being bold, came at{erchomai} towards Pilate. And he(SRLR to Pilate) asked for the body of Jesus.

      Again this is strange, Pilate would not asking for Jesus' body. Dr. Thiering saves this dilemma by defining "body" as the bag on Jesus that contained the Host. And Pilate wants its supposed magic power and status. Thus an interesting thought, but extremely strange.

    At the Tomb

    • John 20:14 (pesher:John 20:14)
      Pesher: "Mary Magdalene saying these things turned around and sees Jesus standing. And (SRLR:Jesus) did not know that Jesus to be(or exist)."

      Perhaps he was disoriented, but it is quite absurd. It tells us nothing of importance and is bad writing. So again Dr. Thiering strains at the interpretation saying that Jesus did not know that he was in the body (therefore not in a spiritual state), when clearly it says, "Mary having not known (pluperfect) that it was Jesus." Here is Mary at the tomb and Jesus is standing there. She cannot believe that Jesus is alive, let alone standing, and believes it is his younger brother James. But now the "SRLR" says rather that Jesus who is in pain and heavily drugged having cheated death is now worried about what square on which he is standing and that, oh my God, he is standing on "in the body" square when he is supposed to be celibate. Is that why he was so rude to Mary and says "do not touch me?"

      What is of importance here is not the issue Jesus' spiritual position in the church, but the fact that he had been "buried" in the latrine cave! Would you want your wife to touch you, especially when she was pregnant with child, before you had a bath, let alone a ritual bath? The community had stricter rules that that for the stupidest little crime like inadvertently exposing yourself to the other guys while going to the toilet. There is no reason to analyze this more. Perhaps, she did hug him anyway, but no one would confess to this huge Essene violation for fear of excommunication.

    To close this study, I do want to propose a different way of showing the problems of Dr. Thiering's pesher technique by looking at the section John 13:2-6 which was already covered earlier.

    If I were the "RLR" pesharist, I would have jumped on the opportunity of having Simon Magus whose name appears at the end of John 13:2. There it says Judas of Simon of Iscariot. If Iscariot is a word meaning Sicarii (those who carried a dagger to assassinate enemies. Sicarii could then be assumed as plural), then it would read Judas of the Sicarii of Simon Magus. ('of' means that Simon owns him, is under him). Then Simon 3rd person, singular, masculine could be brought into the action by "RLR" (not by Dr. Thiering's rules that excludes all genitives) to do the washing of the jars (symbol for feet). Actually it does not make it there because the next verse has a 3rd person, singular, masculine at the end: God (Jonathan Annas). It might be possible to make a rule that all verses extraneous to the action can be ignored, thus 13:3 would be skipped making Simon available in 13:4 to perform the rest of the washing directly. Dr. Thiering achieves the same result by inserting Simon into "Himself" at the end of verse John 13:4.

    It is hard to make up verses that contain the name that appears in a later verse by "SRLR". So here was the perfect chance to use Simon, but it is not there. To lose this opportunity is to me a further proof that "RLR" does not exist.

    Another possibility is for me to make up two rules to "RLR" that say that genitives can be used and that verses not in the action are ignored. Of course, this would not be Dr. Thiering's "RLR",

    Now without "RLR", it is still possible to interpret the scene correctly. By knowing the situation, namely, that Simon had been excommunicated as Lazarus and is working his way back up, he would be on row 14 and not at the table. Since the jar (feet) is located nearby and so is Jesus why not have Simon wash it. Thus I see the Pesher of Christ™ with its looser structure being the winner here.

Next:The true Gospel of Peter that precedes the Gospel of Mark or Index