I seem to have deleted my Introduction for this. Short version: I came back to this book because I was interested in it and saw there was no way that I would finish before the due date (August 30--no more renewals). So I've got to keep up a good pace. 371 pages to go, 16 days to do it. I think I can, I think I can....
Day 1 (DDRD 2,844), August 14, 2025
Read to page 80...
"Mary, Joseph and Jesus were real people, members of a religious movement with high ideals and strict practices. They lived out a real human life in interaction with it and with its historical development. If they have become images of religion, unreal people owing more to human imagination than to reality, it is not an unknown process in human affairs. For some, the images meet a need, and it would be hurtful to question them; for others, it is a stage of growth to go beyond images to the actuality." (48 - 49)
This is mind blowing:
According to Thiering, the Gospels are essentially written in code, so that those who need a facile legend can read about Jesus being immaculately conceived and born in a manger in Bethlehem...while those with knowledge understand that Jesus was sired by Joseph and that the family was part of the Essene group...etc. I find it interesting that there are inconsistencies in the Gospels which are resolved by this bifurcated view. For instance, what sense does it make to have the genealogy from David through Joseph (Matthew 1: 1-16; Luke 3:23-38) if Joseph is not Jesus's actual father? (The answer, by the way, is none.) It seems to me that this is a path which people frustrated with the "unbelievable" aspects of the story of Jesus could take.
I took a brief pause in my reading to Google around, and happened upon Barbara Thiering: A short critique by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (https://creation.com/barbara-thiering-a-short-critique). It was short...and scathing. "Outlandish" and with "no support" were two of the nicer things he had to say about her. I must confess that I felt my heart sink. Then I checked in Dr. Safir's Curriculum Vitae. He's a fervent Creationist who (obviously) denies the "theory" of evolution. My heart bobbed up to the surface again. Fuck this guy.
Which doesn't mean that I've accepted Thiering's hypothesis. I find it interesting, though, and want to hear more about it. I'm also thinking about how two things that I accept as irrefutably true--that Edward de Vere write the works known to us as Shakespeare's and that 9/11 was an inside job--are regularly ridiculed and largely regarded as Outlandish and With No Support.
Digression: off the top of my head, here are elements of the New Testament story of Jesus that I find problematic.
The genealogy which appears in Matthew and Luke, both of which purport to show Jesus as a descendent of David...through Joseph.
The story about the family going to Bethlehem for a census, which (1) there is no record of in history and (2) makes no sense, as a census would not be of any use if everyone went back to the father's place of birth.
The huge gaps in Jesus's biography...from shortly after his birth until age 12, and from age 12 until age 30.
Jesus sending Region's demons into the pigs, who then drown themselves. (1) Why are theirs in Jewish lands? (2) Why dud the pigs Crown themselves? (3) Why did Jesus let them drown themselves? (4) Why put the innocent pig owners out of business?
Some other parables are problematic, too...like the servant who buried his master's money to keep it safe and was punished for it.
The pivot from applauding Jesus to demanding that He be crucified.
The freeing of Barrabas, which was not a "tradition" at all.
The description of Pontius Pilate as a reasonable Roman, when in fact he was a rabid son if a bitch.
The arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane--as if the Romans didn't know where Jesus was without Judas's kiss to guide them.
There's probably more, but those are the first ones that occur to me.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Day 2 (DDRD 2,845), August 15, 2025
Read to page 84 when it hit me: this is just bullshit, man. It's interesting bullshit, for sure, but Thiering continues to state things as true with no evidence whatsoever. It reminds me of when AI was reading Aquinas and Augustine: it was all built on a structure of self-referential axiom. So I hate to say it, but I'm out. I have limited reading time left to me in this life, and I'm not going to waste any of it if I can help it.
No comments:
Post a Comment