Talk:Pesher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pesher has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Cryptic writing? 2 Problematic edit re Thiering 3 Eisenman 4 Discussing final statement that started all this

[edit] Cryptic writing?

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)

[edit] Problematic edit re Thiering

Dylan, first of all: don't accuse anyone of personal attacks who has done nothing of the sort. Literally nothing. Or were did I personally attack you or called you names. I'm only concerned with your edit, which is highly problematic. Let me explain in detail:

The term pesher technique refers to the interpretive technique of Barbara Thiering, which she discusses in her books and scholarly articles. She identifies the four Canonical Gospels, Acts and Revelation as being written using the pesher technique, wherein historical facts are embedded into the text which give crucial details of the early history of Christianity.

So far it is generally o.k. But then you wrote:

It is in the gospels themselves, when the new evidence of the pesher technique is taken into account

This POV language. Thiering finds evidence in there by using her method but it is not undisputed fact that there is evidence. Hence this sentence has to be de-POV'ed (as I call it).

that the many unbelievable stories in the gospels, such as the miracles, can be accounted for,

Again, "unbelievable" is in itself a POV term.

not as legends but as deliberately written in a double way, so as to give the actual history of Jesus to those who understood the institutional meanings of terms.

That's what BT claims, but this has to be made clear.

New information from the Dead Sea scrolls gives these special meanings.

That's factually incorrect. BT uses her method (which he has herself invented) in regard to NT writings.

Though there are many who contest her studies,

Is there any scholar who actually accepts either either her method or her findings. If so, please name one.

... it is, nonetheless, a consistent and scientific solution

That's disputed.

... to the apparent contradictions in the New Testament

The claim about contradictions is common, but real contradictions are few and minor. But anyway, BT does nothing to solve these by her method.

... and a vast source of new knowledge that ties Christianity with the community at Qumran that composed the Dead Sea scrolls.

That's her claim. But it's questionable whether this is knowledge at all.

So please consider this POV wording and also whether you can name one scholar accepting what she says.

Goodday, Str1977 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dylanstephens (talk • contribs) reverted without responding here. This is his list revert for today - the next one is WP:3RR. JFW | T@lk 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

STR1977: I have backed out most of the changes to prevent further problems. I have only added "connecting it with the community at Qumran that composed the Dead Sea scrolls." User:Dylanstephens

STR1977: I still find your addition:

"However, both her method and her findings have found little support from other scholars."

to be too slanted. Clearly there are many previous reviewers who felt that a statement link that did not need to be added. See if new addition is acceptable. User:Dylanstephens

Dylan, unfortunately I consider your version to be leaning too much towards an optimistic POV. And my version I think was already understatement. Still, I'm open for other alternatives, though I can't think of one right now. Str1977 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: I guess we are at an impasse then I stand by my replacement: "Her method and her findings have yet to find acceptance in mainstream scholarly circles." Dylanstephens

I changed the last sentence in the Thiering section back to: "However, both her method and her findings have found little support from other scholars." The "have yet" language in the other version implies that her theories will some day find acceptance among mainstream scholars, which is POV; her theories may never be accepted by mainstream academia. To state that her theories are disputed or have found little support is entirely accurate. The version by Str1977 is thus more accurate and NPOV, in my view. KHM03 12:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to formally request mediation as this is not productive. If you agree we can go ahead with the process.

Sincerly, Dylan Dylanstephens 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dylan, we may try an RfC (Request for Comments) before going to formal Mediation. Str1977 22:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with KMH03 regarding the implications contained in the phrase "have yet to find". A truly neutral language should not carry hints that something may happen in the future. The phrase "have found little support" doesn't carry any such implications. It simply makes a statement about the current situation. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dylan, I've just reverted to Str1977's version. I do know from my own experience as a newcomer at Wikipedia how frustrating it is to be in the minority at a particular page. It may seem that whatever you put, you'll be reverted. But really, your version is trying to hide the fact that Thiering's works have simply not been accepted by mainstream scholars.

It might be better to discuss possible compromises on the talk page rather than reverting again. I assure you, the Wikipedian Christians are quite a nice group, and have no wish to make a newcomer feel unwelcome. If you argue your case on the talk page, make suggestions, and listen to others, we might be able to come up with something we're all happy with. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann: I fail to see the importance of your word for word support of STR977. Clearly, you can come up with something else. I continue to try other versions. I do not believe that I am being unreasonable to reject the words: "However" and "little" and the implication that there are no scholars that support Dr. Thiering. This is not NPV. I want arbitration, let me know when that can happen. Dylanstephens 08:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the peer review is the first step toward arbitration (could be wrong). I reverted again in support of the Str1977 version; Thiering's views are not controversial...they are completely unaccepted and invalidated by the mainstream academic community (or sometimes altogether ignored as not being serious). This is not POV, it is reality. To mention her view is appropriate and gracious; to mischaracterize it as just another academic view is not truthful. We must be clear on that point, or we mislead those who read the article into thinking that Thiering's view is given more credibility than it is. KHM03 12:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Friends,

Would we all kindly read Dr. Thiering's response to Geza Vermes's original commentary in the New York Review of Books? Here is what Dr. Thiering wrote:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2065

Can any intelligent and honest person read what she wrote and come away with any respect for Vermes? For him to write what he wrote is an intellectual scandal. For the amateur editors of Wikipedia to include a reference to Vermes's commentary, as if it carried intellectual weight, shows great, great naivete on the part of these same amateur editors.

Secondly, any mention about how other scholars evaluate her work should be placed in a separate section. Including such information in the main body of discussing Thiering's work constitutes a breach of the neutral point of view rule. Her work should be evaluated on a point-by-point basis. Other people's *opinions* about her work, even the opinions of other scholars, are irrelevant to that point-by-point discussion. Such a discussion is *off* the point, i.e., does not address the points that Thiering makes.

We should stick to a discussion of the points, and forget about people's personal evaluations of those points. It's a very common tactic, when people cannot defend their view, to resort to meta-talk (talk about talk). The fact that meta-talk has surfaced so early in the history of this article on Wikipedia shows already that Theiring's case is stronger than people think. If her case is so weak, as some of the amateur editors believe, then they should have the courage to drop the meta-talk and stick to a point-by-point discussion. If we did this in relation to Vermes's comments, the intelligent reader would see right away that Vermes is either ignorant of what Thiering is claiming, or he is dishonest (when he characterizes her interpretation as involving allegory, which is complete nonsense.)

[edit] Eisenman

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)

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)

"Not relevant" was meant to refer only to RE's being mentioned in the Thiering section. He is not relevant there. Since was ignorant of RE's presence in the first section (I had only casually glanced over it, since I was drawn here solely by Dylan's Thiering agenda) I mistakenly deleted the footnote. Sorry about that.

RE would be relevant to Thiering, if he had come out in support of her or had criticized her. I have heard of neither action, so he's not a part in the Thiering debate (except that he, as if he remained silent, mootly was among the non-accepting scholars).

He is, as you say, relevant to the first section: "Robert Eisenman noted (1997 p 81), though the community he was referring to was the Essene community that produced the Scrolls as well as these commentaries—pesharim—in a rich apocalyptic literature of the last century BCE and the first century CE." I have read the book, but that was six years ago, if I'm not mistaken, and I wasn't that enthusiastic about it. Hence I can't remember these specifics, but since the one who included this info (your or someone else) gave a reference, I trust that it's right.

Satisfied? Str1977 19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look at the edit history again, it was Dylan that deleted the Eisenman clause in the Thiering section as "not relevant". I later removed the reference which I thought to be a left-over from that deleted sentence. Again, my mistake. Str1977 19:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing final statement that started all this

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)

Dear Dylan, this seems allright by me (what you posted here, not your revert on the article) and I have implemented it, adding only the "however" as a link to the previous text, making it more fluid. What do others think?

Str1977 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. You said you think "however" biased - I don't think so. Note, that your previous version started with "Although". The word is to link the sentence to the previous text which talked about her findings, If you have a better linking word, please speak up. Str1977 00:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed "However, her method and findings have found little support from mainstream scholars", because the next sentence had: "Though Thiering has stated 'It is the method, not the results, that must be discussed.' [1], her methodology and especially her findings have found little support from scholars and were criticized by Geza Vermes, in a review of Thiering's Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls in New York Review of Books [2]."

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the "little support" bit should come before or after the "though Thiering has stated" bit. But, in any case, not before and after.

I don't think "however" is any more (or less) biased than "although". They both imply a contradiction, but they don't imply that one is right and the other wrong. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)