Genesis of a Gnostic Quest
By David Ross Goben
This is a critical look at a revolutionary book on New Testament history by Dr. Barbara Thiering, called Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which opened the door to my own search for Gnosis. This book is available hardbound from Harper Collins (1992). It is available both in hardbound and in paperback as, Jesus the Man, from Doubleday (1992), and in paperback from Bantam (1993).
Do not fear to seek Truth. What you find may not be what you expected, but what could you have expected before finding it?
Introduction
If you burrow into the backyards of history, you will find that real history has little resemblance to the history that is proffered to the general public, this latter version of history being a distortion molded by political and/or religious forces to suit an agenda or an imagined concept of correctness. Indeed, I have come to the cynical conclusion that just about everything that I have been academically taught about history is simply wrong. To demonstrate, what follows are four easy examples of controversial issues that anyone can find the truth behind: 1) The Jews, long after Moses, worshipped a pantheon of gods. 2) King Solomon (most-likely Pharaoh Amenhotep III) worshipped Ashtoreth (Venus/Asherah/Astarte/Ishtar/Easter); the Mother God. 3) The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount is built on top of a Temple to Ashtoreth). 4) According to tradition, when Rome destroyed the Temple, the Mother God (now referred to as the Holy Spirit) then roamed the Earth, leaving the Father God to rule in Heaven alone.
In my seeking, I am very passionate about looking into the meaning of everything. In the course of this, I have repeatedly heard people complain that topics can be robbed of their spiritual or scientific Truth by looking too closely at them. Stop and really think about that. Lose spiritual or scientific Truth? If we rob them of anything, then we may be robbing them of a phony mask of pretended Truth. What is left is more to the bone of what it truly is; which is sometimes more enlightening than the twisted manufactured facade that had been draped over it. My feeling is that they either reveal Truth, or they do not. Truth is not like the proverbial gift horse; its light will not diminish when you look at it with scrutiny. Jesus said, “When a blind man and a man who sees are together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.” He was also pointed in noting that, "If the blind lead the blind, they will both end up in the ditch." Blind men will claim to crave the light, but truly they hate the light and love the darkness. For in darkness the ones who see will say "I am blind." But the ones who are blind will say "I see." Light exposes their shame.
Rest assured that I do not see myself as any sort of wise guru who knows the way. We are unique spirits, and as such we each have to tread our own individual paths back to the Source of All Being. Thus, not one person or religious or pseudo-religious body can say that this or that disciplinary path is the guaranteed definitive road to the spiritual redemption of any one person. Trust your gut feelings when considering the views of others, and walk down the path that feels comfortable for just you. Do not worry if it will please others, or draw ridicule from them (their chosen path might look just as ridiculous to you). The Light that is your inner spirit, that still small voice that speaks through your intuition will guide you, whether you want to call it God, your guardian angel, your inner perception, your gut instinct, or just plain common sense. At the end of this long journey through life, we will come to understand that we always knew our path; it was just that our insecurities and our physical brains got in the way for a while.
The Genesis of My Quest
Since I was young I had been perplexed by the seeming inconsistencies that glared between New Testament Gospel accounts, I had been troubled by what appeared to be errors in wording, I had long wondered why so many geographical references seemed so out of place with reality, and I had sought a more meaningful understanding of the stories they told. After many frustrating years of running into dead ends, or finding only soft and fuzzy hypotheses about history that often had little to do with the hard cold realities of the world, I finally got my quest off and running by reading a single book by Dr. Barbara Thiering. My crossing paths with that book, like so many deeply profound events in our lives, seemed almost accidental.
In the early 1990's, two decades into my own then-fumbling search for understanding, by what I thought then was pure chance, I came across a documentary describing the research of Australian theologian Dr. Barbara Thiering, entitled Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This program documented the people who wrote those ancient parchments, and described the connection that Jesus, Christianity, and the New Testament had with them. It was one of those pivotal moments when a gestalt "Ah-ha!" bolted through my spine. Beneath my skin I knew that I had finally found the first rung of the ladder that would lead me out of my straight jacket of confusion.
When her book was released which expanding enormously on the documentary material, I immediately bought it and dug in. As a result, massive tomes of serious research material, much of which had been available for centuries, were suddenly washed in a more relevant light. Straight away, I dove into them, broadening my appreciation of a period of time that has been the hub of Christianity. To show my gratitude for this catalyst, which had given substance to the whispered suspicions and rumors that I had considered throughout my life, I want to share with you a rather broad overview and critical analysis of the book that had truly inspired me on my personal journey, and as importantly, to also share with you personal insights that I hope will help make the meaning of its amazing material clearer to my fellow seekers.
Though Dr. Thiering sadly ignores the deep Gnostic thought that was characteristic of the subjects of her research, her work focuses instead on unscrambling the chronology of New Testament history, along the way providing some sense behind many of the peculiar events they describe, and why they often contain concise, though seemingly unrelated peripheral details.
Dr. Thiering's book reveals powerful clues that indicated what many of those of royal lineage still know, and what had been generally known by Europeans until the Middle Ages – that Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, that they had children, and that the described miracles were reports of important events veiled behind the slang and jargon common to those times. Of the hundreds of intriguing discoveries that Dr. Thiering exposes in her book, I found that I disagreed with her on a few key issues, some of which I will cover here in due course; for I feel they are of major importance. Indeed, it is this controversy that her book stirs up that is perhaps its most valuable contribution to the truth seeker, because it makes us stop and really think about why we actually believe in what we think that we believe in.
Some critics have condemned Dr. Thiering’s work out of hand, many even doing so without having ever read it. It is interesting that the less someone may know about a thing, the broader the statement we often hear them make about it. As the author Laurence Gardner has said, “Intuitive skepticism is the best route to learning absolutely nothing”. In consideration to that profound observation, we must be eager to find the truth, even if it proves that our own opinions are wrong.
This essay is written as a number of blocks. One block is as a broad overview of the book that got my quest rolling. Another block is auxiliary information, external to the book's material that helped me to gain a better understanding of its contents. A further block is background information for both. The final block is my critical analysis of important issues within the book that I disagree with. It is not a sacrilege to oppose concepts that had motivated us to seek. A catalyst is a catalyst, even if it is an opposing view that inspires us to investigate exactly why we think that it is wrong. The most important point in this equation is that we were motivated to shake loose the shackles of dogma-ensconced history, and that we sought to climb out of this abyss of flat and lifeless rote and ritual, so that we might, in the end, touch the very face of God.
I would like to begin by first providing a rather long auxiliary introduction regarding Qumrân (the abode of the Dead Sea Scroll writers), its inhabitants, their politics, and most especially of royal lineage; things that would have really helped me on my first time through it. In doing so, much of the information I will provide, such as the numerous references to mitochondrial DNA, to Genesis, and to Exodus, which are not mentioned in Dr. Thiering’s book at all, would have answered many of the questions that I had had after reading her book, and hopefully will aide her new readers in gaining a deeper understanding of its findings.
Essential Background Information on the Qumrân Ascetics
Qumrân was once a Hasmonean fortress nestled high above a cliff-side along the seasonal floodplain Wadi Qumrân, by the Dead Sea, near the ancient sites of Sodom and Gomorrah. Its name is said to be derived from “two pillars with an arched top”. There are those who feel that this property was still held by Hasmonean heirs, others feeling that they had abandoned it and that the ascetics simply occupied it, and others who feel that it may have been donated to them. If continued Hasmonean ownership was indeed the case, then it may have been the property of the family of Mary Magdalene, a Royal Hasmonean Princess. Please for the moment forget anything you currently think that you know about her, including all of the contrived Church “tradition”, for I believe that Mary Magdalene is the most important woman to come out of this Gospel period; far more important than Jesus’ own mother.
The harshly exclusive ascetic occupants of this desolate desert fortress were generally referred to as the Hasidim; the Pious Ones. They were also called Zealots for the Law, Doers of the Law, Keepers of the Covenant, the Community of the New Covenant, Nazrim, Nazorean, Nazarene, the Poor, the Way, Sons of Light, Galileans, the Sons of Zadok, and many others, to include Sicarii (for their curved daggers) and léstés (outlaws) by the Romans. (Note: Covenant is the same word as Testament.)
Though the people of Qumrân never actually referred to themselves as such, it is generally agreed by Dead Sea Scroll Scholars that they were called Essene; one of the four branches of Judaism. The origin of this title is as mysterious as the Qumrân ascetics, themselves. Essene is generally said to be derived from the Greek word essenoi, which is in turn drawn from the Aramaic (the original ‘Yiddish’) word assayya, meaning healer. Others theorize that it came from the Greek word Osseotes for Holy Ones. Still others claim the collective form of the Hebrew Osei ha-Torah (Doers of the Law), which is Osim (pronounced “Oseem”). However, the literal translation, which has been overlooked by most scholars, is Followers of Essa. Though many may claim that this refers to Jesus the Nazarite, the Essenes were called this long before his advent. Essa is equally a name for Joshua and for Esias (Isaiah); all synonymous, meaning Yahweh-saves. Indeed, the book of Isaiah was their most sacred text.
In contrast to the modern soft and gentle classical view of the Essenes, the occupants of Qumrân drank wine during a daily 4-hour sacred evening meal called the Agape, or Love Feast (the Last Supper was such a meal), ate meat, had rules for blood sacrifice, had marriage rules, and were willing to fight and die, even to commit suicide for the Law of Moses. Indeed, to be called a Galilean was a death sentence from the Romans, as this epitaph was synonymous to the more ominous-sounding Zealot. These are not qualities which modern New Age Essenes claim – choosing abstention from alcohol, pacifism, chastity, vegetarianism, and no animal sacrifices. These are of course admirable qualities. Indeed, some of the members at Qumrân also chose from among these practices (e.g., members did not drink wine while in an ascetic state). Though the ascetics of Qumrân are said not to promote animal sacrifice, in 21 BCE they wrote the Temple Scroll, purporting it to be a revelation directly form God given long ago on Mount Sinai (modern Mt. Horeb), and did in fact issue precise instructions for the practice of such, and even how the remains were to be disposed of in buried clay pots. There is plenty of evidence that animal sacrifices were performed by the presence of clay pots containing animal remains found buried near the site, contemporary to these occupants. However, some scholars with plenty of alphabet crumbs following their names claim these were from ‘ritual’ meals (I’d love to know the sense behind that).
The only thing the Qumrân community
of Jesus' adult years may in fact hold in common with the modern Essene concept
is that of being extremely spiritual. Indeed, they were more different
from those who call themselves Essene than they are alike – though modern
Essenes may not agree with this assessment, if for no other reason than so
they can place Jesus in their “camp”. Though this issue may never be fully
resolved, it is known that in 6 CE Simeon the Essene, who had been leader
of the community, took his more peace-loving followers and left Qumrân and
its history behind, because it had become too political and nationalistic.
Therefore, if we still want to view the people of Qumrân who remained as wholly
Essene, then we must also radically revise our view of the ancient
Essenes, as the majority of the remaining members of this community were fiery,
devout and pious zealots, obsessed with cleanliness and the Law, very much
unlike the touchy-feely, warm and cuddly folk of the modern view. This
modern gentle concept was developed as recently as the 19th century during
the first New Age revolution, affected most everyone's thinking, including
that of Levi H. Dowling, who was influenced by such documents as the 1870
discovery of the Aramaic manuscript, The Gospel of the Holy Twelve,
in a Tibetan monastery (read it online at www.thenazareneway.com/main_menu.htm).
Dowling, a student of world religions, wrote The Aquarian Gospel of
Jesus, the Christ of the Piscean Age (read it online at http://reluctant-messenger.com/aquarian_gospel.htm).
He also, as a writer of Sunday school missals, may have influenced the Sunday
school teacher Edgar Cayce, who later became known as "
Favius Josephus, the famed 1st century Jewish historian who lived in Palestine, did not regard the people of Qumrân as Essene, but rather as a separate group, such as the Nazarites who did occupy that place (This title comes from Nazara ha-Brit, 'Keepers of the Covenant', not from the village Nazareth, est. CE 60s to 70s). However, I have no doubt that they had originated much of modern Essene philosophy, though the philosophies of many other religions that the returning Diaspora members co-habited with also greatly influenced the community, such as Buddhism and Zoroasterism, as well as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Canaanite religions. In the final analysis, these ascetics actually did not have a single definitive name for themselves, though outsiders referred to them by an excess of titles.
Regarding Qumrân Political Parties
The organizational division of their political parties must be perfectly understood in order to make sense of these people and their motivation. Qumrân was initially divided into two branches: the more liberal Hellenists who held their services in Greek, and the ultra-conservative Hebrews under the immensely popular John the Baptist, the Teacher of Righteousness, holding services in Hebrew. The Hellenists were further divided into the Peace Hellenists, referred to as the Vineyard, led by Jonathan Annas (AKA the Disciple Nathaniel) and wanting peace with Rome, and the War Hellenists, called the Fig Tree, led by Simon Magus (AKA the Disciple Simon Zealot), who wanted open war with Rome. These two Hellenist branches encompassed what became the Government of Jesus’ Twelve Disciples; a rival government vying for religious – hence political – dominance in the community, in opposition to the currently wavering Hebrew Branch government led by the Teacher of Righteousness, whose prophecies regarding immanent apocalypse were not coming true. The Peace Hellenists later divided into the Nazorites (Lay Christians) under Jesus (as the Joshua (Jesus) of Exodus returned), who did not require a priestly lineage, and the Priest Branch under Jonathan Annas, who required priests of the line of Aaron (half-brother of Moses). This later separation also earned Jonathan, as leader of the rival branch and who also considered himself to be the representative of God, the title of the Against Christ, or Antichrist. Finally, the Lay Christians even later divided into a conservative Eastern Branch under Jesus and his brother James Justus (The Just), which remained true to Judaic Law and became the Celtic Church, and the Gentile Western Branch under Paul, who rejected its Judaic roots and became the Catholic Church.
Why Is Royal Lineage So Important?
Though this subject is not covered in Dr. Thiering's book at all, before going further and getting to the real meat of the book itself, I feel that it is of paramount importance that the reader also fully comprehend the weight of royal lineage; for it will most decidedly affect the findings of her book, and why I have contentions with assumptions that Dr. Thiering makes. It is in fact so critically important an issue for people to understand that I will be covering this subject here in exhaustive detail.
Most people are not aware that royalty is very much unlike Lordly titles. The Lordly titles of Britain are granted as rewards and thereafter inherited, passing patriarchally from parent to child, and that such titles can even be married into, and, interestingly, even rented for a lifetime. Royal status, in stark contrast, is strictly through blood. In other words, a commoner really did not have a snowball’s chance in Hell of marrying a royal princess (if they did or do, then the blood is considered tainted). The bearers of European regal blood can trace their lineage directly back to the Davidic Messianic Bloodline (David was also most-likely Pharaoh Thutmose III; also, the name David is from Hebrew DVD; from Egyptian TWT; from Thut (Thoth)), from there directly back to the Messeh Pharaohs of Egypt, from there directly back to the ancient Sumerian Royalty, from there directly back to the Scythian (AKA Akkadian) Royalty, and from there directly back to Q’ayin (the Cain of Genesis) and his wife, Luluwa. (Note: Some other strains, such as for example Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Norwegian begin with the Sumerian or Scythian root.)
Some may be quite surprised to learn that the line of Q’ayin is an important and prestigious bloodline. After all, our current version of the Bible has done such a great job in trashing the name (invented during the Babylonian captivity in an attempt to appease the feared temper of their Storm God; Yahweh). However, if you burrow deep enough, you will find a wholly different and less politicized historic tapestry. You will discover that Q’ayin is in fact the root name for the titles Queen and King. You will discover that Q’ayin was the son of Eve and the Lord, not Adam. (Note: The Lord and Yahweh were originally two separate deities, which helps explain the Jekyll/Hyde nature of the God that we now find in our present Bibles; the Lord, known to the Sumerians as EN.KI, created, helped, saved, and loved Man, and his brother Yahweh, known as EN.LIL, was wrathful toward Man, selfishly demanding absolute subservience.) You will discover that Q’ayin was not simply a tiller of the Earth as it is so often mistranslated (as is also the myth of him killing his half-brother), but rather that he had been given dominion over the Earth after Adam had lost earthly kingship due to his fall from Grace. (Note: Only Adam fell; Eve was not subject to the rules that were placed upon Adam. You have to very carefully pick your way through the text, depending also upon both the original Sumerian documents and the brilliant Jewish commentaries on the Bible, to understand that Eve was in fact an equal to Adam – never coming from his rib, and never subject to his rule; all misinterpretations.) You will find that all the great kings were of the line of Q'ayin, not of Adam. You will also find that the wife of Q’ayin, called Luluwa by the Sumerians, unlike all the other peoples of the Earth, was not fashioned using earthy material, but was created entirely from godly sources. Hence, her matrilineal strain did not come from the common root as the rest of the world population, which, contrary to popular myth, did not start with Adam; the advent of Adam and Eve historically marked the time when kingship came down from Heaven and was granted to Mankind. You will discover that the Mark of Q’ayin, which is the oldest recorded Grant of Arms in sovereign history, is an upright centered cross within a circle, and is represented to this day by the Celtic Cross, and by a monarch’s royal orb with a centered cross extending from it – this is not a Christian cross, as some would lead you to believe. You will also clearly see in it the symbol for Female, indicative of the matrilineal line of rulership. You will also discover how family lines as reported in the Old Testament have been grafted to conceal these connections. We must remind ourselves that these books, though valuable for their sometimes barbaric allegories (as well as paraphrased and heavily rearranged histories), were actually written from the 7th through 2nd century BCE with specific religious agendas in mind, where providing any form of accurate historical information was of little importance. (Note: You will have to go back to the Babylonian and Sumerian histories, the same histories that the Jews used to re-derive their own history while in captivity in Babylon to get much of this material.)
What is really important to understand
is that this unique bloodline is traced only through the female line,
going directly back to Luluwa, since this mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
is passed from mother to child only through the yoke of her ovum (egg). This
is why a man can receive it from his mother, but cannot himself pass it on.
This is the same reason why one must have a Jewish mother to be considered
born a Jew. A child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother is not considered
Jewish by Orthodox Judaism. (Note: Getting off the more pure royal
strains for a moment, even supposedly “pure” Judaic blood is nowhere
near as pure as many would be wont to believe, being an assimilation of many
diverse peoples from Sumeria,
Jesus was of the Davidic Line through his father, but more importantly he was of royal blood through his mother, whose mtDNA bestowed kingship. Though the more important blood came from his mother, it was just as important that his father have it as well, to keep as much of the original genetic material intact as possible. This explains why ancient monarchs often wed their half-sisters or first cousins (Egyptian and Mesopotamian histories come to mind, which include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses), where the half-sister or cousin came from the all-important matrilineal strain. Although this sounds kinky, there is no evidence for birth defects (we are not talking about full brothers and sisters here), just as genetic scientists have admitted that absolutely no such problems exist between first cousins, which was a Church invention anyway (they were dead-set against the continuance of Messianic monarchies which sometimes followed such practices, in preference to their own apostolic succession of power under Pauline thought). Additionally, he was also of Levitical descent through his mother, which made him and his brother James eligible to become priest-kings of the Order of Melchizedek (Michael-Zadok).
It is interesting that women are always critically important to such histories, but theologies always marginalize them. The Book of Jasher (named for Moses’ staff-bearer) is often cited as containing a more accurate account of the Exodus story, cited by both the book of Joshua and II Samuel, and it appears to be based upon much older traditions, and demonstrates the power and respect a woman commanded (Note: Read the Book of Jasher online at www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html). This woman was Moses’ half-sister/wife Miriam; the true spiritual leader of the Israelites. This Egyptian title, from Mery/Merit, means “beloved”, for she was beloved of the Israelites, far above even Moses. This term of endearment was the source for the Mary title used by the order of women at Qumrân, and was the epitaph of Queen Nefertiti, the half-sister/wife of deposed and exiled Pharaoh Akhenaten (Moses – as in rightful son and heir – who was the father of Tutankhamun; King “Tut”; most-likely the biblical Joshua, through his junior wife, Kiya). They were exiled to Sinai, which was then part of the Kingdom of Egypt. (Note: Moses was “slow” of speech because he spoke Egyptian and was not well versed in the Israelite tongue. His half-brother Aaron (likely from the Egyptian Semenkhkare), who had been raised by Israelites and spoke their language, had been co-reagent with Moses.)
For more information on this mtDNA issue, the Q’ayin line, and the Exodus material, I strongly recommend that you read the book Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner, a prestigious sovereign genealogist who is replete with strings of royal awards and offices. You can also read his online lecture regarding this and his other books on his website at www.graal.co.uk. I also suggest the book Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus by Ahmed Osman for more information (Do a web search for “Akhenaten Moses” for some really fascinating reading in the meantime).
Now on to the Book – Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls
One of the first important things I learned from Dr. Thiering’s book about these famous scrolls is that their dating by the scroll scholar Josef Milik, who announced that the scrolls were written almost a century before the advent of Jesus, is verifiably wrong. The general “proof” of the earlier dating has been commonly accepted without question by most scholars, though it seems apparent that these same scholars did not do the “scientific thing” and verify Milik’s findings. Further, Milik did not bother to report the kind of script that it was that he based his date upon when he published his research. Dating of hand-written text can often be ascertained by the way in which formally written characters were styled during different periods of time. This technique is called Paleography. This method can sometimes be accurate to within 50 to 75 years of when the “formal” form of script was actually written, because the formation of “alphabeticals” are almost continuously changing with each generation; some letters coming and going, the manner in which they are drafted, serif-ed, and stressed. However, the script that Milik examined to determine his 75-50 BCE date was text written not in a verifiable formal script, but rather in a “personal” script, which cannot be used for dating purposes (Note: For examples of how formal and scripted styles differ in just Hebrew – most of the Qumrân texts were in Hebrew and Aramaic – see the Judaism 101: Hebrew Alephbet web page at www.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm). We also get further proofs that make the mentioned Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest contemporary (some scholars argue that they existed in different periods), and not only that, but contemporary with Jesus himself. Late Pastor A. Powell Davies also covers this question of dating quite deeply in his book, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Originally published in 1956, and still in print, I feel it is still fresh and very powerfully presented. Indeed, in reading this elder book one will come to realize that many of the great and profound Dead Sea Scroll revelations shouted by many writers in more recent years often pale against the boldness and amazing clarity that Pastor Davies presented in his 1956 offering.
The Pesher Technique
The core thesis of Dr. Thiering’s book is that the gospels and other books of the New Testament canon were carefully written using a writing technique very common to the Qumrân scribes called “peshers” (from the Hebrew word for “interpretation”, as in dreams), which they generally used for their texts. Peshers were a coding system used to hide true or deeper meaning from those who did not understand this technique. It is a given that modern scholars did not understand it, but only in part (for example: the associations of Kittim or Babylon when referring to Romans and Rome are probably the most commonly understood code words), until the Dead Sea Scrolls were translated and the secrets of this coding method were finally revealed.
The pesher style referenced by Dr. Thiering, at least in its general sense, may not be as difficult a thing to understand as some might think. Certainly, the people of the time of the writing of the Gospels probably thought that many of these “special meanings” were obvious. You only have to consider the use of slang or jargon. Every culture has it, where a turn of a phrase can have a deeper meaning. As Laurence Gardner explained in his book Bloodline of the Holy Grail regarding this technique, today the title “angels” can refer to entertainment investors and “stars” can refer to entertainers. Hence, the phrase “the angels talked to the stars” has a surface meaning if taken literally, but a more practical underlying meaning if you think in terms of modern slang or jargon. Problems may surface millennia from now when someone reads this phrase; they are more apt to read it in literal terms using their current lexicon definitions, and not to consider that we “ancients” used slang, and further may have defined the words differently as well. We must also remember that the people of Palestine lived in a very dangerous time, and so the real meanings of many things were by necessity hidden to protect themselves from their enemies, who would have no knowledge of the common jargon of the indigenous people, akin to the Cockney rhyming slang developed to conceal meaning from Royal spies in England.
The Pesherist’s Rules
The first rule for the Pesherist is that no words are to be assumed. That is, exactitude. Everything has a surface sense, and also an exact Pesherist or p-sense. For example, in Acts 5:20, the phrase “Peter and the apostles answered…” The literal translation is: “Peter answered and the apostles said…” However, for the Pesherist, Peter answered with words that are not quoted, and then only the apostles said the words that are quoted. Also, as “the apostles” meant specifically John Mark (a plural tense stands for a single person representing a group), and as Peter and John Mark had different political opinions, the interpretation of the quoted words is affected. In Luke 24:40, Jesus after the crucifixion “showed them the hands and feet”. Note that here there are no words indicating they were injured. John 20:20 said that Jesus “showed them his hands and side…” John 20:25 shows that there were nail holes in the hands, but there is no mention of the feet. The rule that no words are to be assumed means that Jesus’ feet were not injured (being nailed to a cross usually involved nails through the wrists – considered part of the hands in those days – and the feet being bound to the vertical post with twining). We would also learn that the wound in his side was not an actual puncture, but the standard scratch or cut to test for bleeding; bleeding is a sign of life, as this proves pulmonary activity.
The second rule is that all words must be accounted for and nothing may be omitted. One effect of this is that a double-negative is a positive. For example, in Luke 22:16, When Jesus said at the last supper, “I will not not eat”, he meant that “I will eat and not fast.” In John 20:26, when Thomas said “I will not believe”, the p-sense is “I will believe”, as the Greek words used actually translate to “I will not not believe”. Thomas’ saying meant: “If I do not see the physical signs of suffering…I will believe”, which is a profoundly deep and very Gnostic viewpoint. It also seriously challenges the fumbling “Doubting Thomas” image that we have been taught from the pulpit regarding this great Disciple.
The third rule is that all events in narrative are consecutive. There are no “flashbacks,” going back to previous events. For example, in John 4:3 Jesus “left Judea and went…into Galilee”. The next verse says “he had to pass through Samaria”. This means, using the rule, that he came first to Galilee, then had to pass through Samaria. It does not make sense for the literal places, as Galilee is north of Samaria, but it does make sense when it is understood that both Galilee (plural tense) and Samaria (plural tense) were parts of the building at Ain Feshkha, near Qumrân (plural tenses will be covered in the next section).
The fourth rule is that if a term is clearly a symbol, then all terms in the same class are symbols. Allegories for animals, plants, harvesting and such would be classed thusly, which often actually refer to groups, or to specific people. An example is the Vineyard and the Fig Tree mentioned earlier to designate the Peace Hellenists and the War Hellenists, the latter of which bore no beneficial social fruit and were thus criticized (cursed) by Jesus.
The fifth rule is that the Pesherist cannot be selective; nothing can be overlooked or set aside. In other words, you cannot pick and choose items to best fit your idea of what thing were, thus forcing conclusions to “confirm” your personal hypotheses.
The sixth rule is that the Pesherist’s main task is to look for the special meaning of words, pseudonyms, nicknames, names of classes, common words with an institutional meaning, associations, titles derived from incarnational theory, universals with a particular meaning, slogans, loose terms made precise, Old Testament allusions, hierarchical terms, items in a chain of symbols. This may seem overwhelming, but here is where the understanding of slang and jargon often comes in handy.
What the Peshers Reveal
What one learns from interpreting this text using the pesher technique is that the history, chronology, and locations referenced in and between the Gospels are in fact not incongruent at all, but provide an exact and concise history of events, telling the reader who “has ears to hear” precise locations, of even the day of the month and the time of day when events took place. The special way tense-words are used indicate times and dates, and distances make sense once the reader understands that these distances reported within the gospels most-often denoted precise distances if taken in regard to Qumrân, their substitute Jerusalem. Names were seldom proper names, but rather pseudonyms in order to protect identities (Bethlehem of Judea, for example, refers to a building called the “Queen’s House” near Qumrân, not the literal Bethlehem), and they are easy to ascertain by a Pesherist. Qumrân was based upon their own model of Jerusalem. As such, they had locations that coincided with general locations in and around Jerusalem. The way they differentiated them was by applying a plural tense to place names (much different than simply placing an ‘s’ at the end of a word as we do in English). For example, when Luke said that Paul walked from Jerusalem to Jerusalem, it is written in Greek with first the plural tense, and then the singular; thus Paul walked from Qumrân to Jerusalem.
Another example is the apparent mistakes in reported distances. John’s Gospel is replete with distances reported in stadia (a stadion is 607 feet), which often do not have anything in common with actual distances or routes between actual reported locations. However, if you look at the singular/plural tenses of the original Greek text in regard to these places, you will see that most-often they actually referred to locations relative to the Qumran area. Indeed, all of these supposed mistakes in the Gospels can be explained by such tense transpositions. The book’s “Locations” appendix covers this in great detail.
We will also come to understand that the two birth accounts related in the Gospels actually refer to two separate events; one when Jesus was actually born in March of 7 BCE, and the other at his ceremonial rebirth into the Qumrân community, like a bar mitzvah, when the birth was re-enacted in 6 CE when he was twelve years old, at the time when the famous census took place by the new Governor of Syria, Quirinius. We also learn that when Jesus was in his twelfth year, such as when he was being examined by the scholars in the Temple, it refers to his twelfth year as an adult within the community – and within his doctrinal trailing – which means that he was 24 year old at the time; the age of full initiation. This makes more sense when you consider that his parents had simply up and left Jerusalem without giving first thought to the whereabouts of their beloved child, which would have been utterly irresponsible of them if he was indeed only 12 years old (though one of 12 might think differently).
The great thing about peshers is
that once a word or phrase is used to describe a thing, it is always used
to describe that same exact thing, and is used every time that exact
meaning is required. In this regard, one pesher I was very disappointed in
not seeing Dr. Thiering present, though Laurence Gardner touched on it in
his book Bloodline of the Holy Grail, was the pesher of the
Rock. Each time Rock is referenced, it always refers
to the Rock of Israel, which represents the Davidic Messianic Bloodline.
This is significant if you read Matthew 16:18. Consider Simon Peter. The
title Peter comes from the Greek word Petros, which means Stone, but
Rock is from Petra. Though to the modern mind the difference between
a stone and a rock in and of themselves may seem insignificant (as many might
want you also to believe), it is not so in regard to the pesher rules
set down for the Gospel writers regarding the use of concise pseudonyms.
From this we can see a most terrible mistranslation of Gospel text
(among many). A more accurate translation of this verse would be: “And
I tell you that you are a stone, but upon this Rock of
To property use the Pesher technique on the Gospel writings, the Pesherist must unfortunately use it on the Greek text, even though an English reader will be able to make a sufficient test of consistency. Dr. Thiering recommends the Codex Vaticanus, which is regarded by textual critics as a highly reliable copy.
The reader of Dr. Thiering’s work must also be aware that her book is very academic. What I mean by this is that things are cross-referenced minimally, so often no attempt has been made to meticulously glue diverse off-the-cuff references together ad nausium as would be required for a casual reader who did not have a wall full of theological degrees. Hence, two or more careful readings are needed to really begin grasping the variously-placed data. The book has wide margins, and this is perfect for penning clarifications and adding references to other portions of the book or external texts. My copy is marked to death.
I feel that Dr. Thiering was not entirely successful at approaching the material from the mind-set of the people who lived during the Gospel period; rather sometimes she overlaid a modern frame of mind on top of it, as we all most often unconsciously do. The hardest part in translation is trying to use the definitions for ancient words that differ from their modern use. This is a great handicap under normal circumstances when you consider that often words have been translated from the Aramaic to Greek (or from Greek), then to Victorian English, and then into ‘American’ or Modern British English. Using our modern terminology for a word that appeared in the original Greek text often meant something completely different in the first century, corrupting and changing our understanding of the text. Regardless, her meticulous work is quite mind-boggling. But again, because the writing is of an academic leaning, it is sometimes quite confusing to the layman, even though she has in fact done the really hard parts for us. It also sadly points out that often modern translations that replace the old King James English (where everyone seems to speaketh witheth a lispeth) with something more modern have often corrupted the translations even further. You may have notice that in older Bibles that many words and phrases (sometimes long ones) were in square brackets to indicate that these were not in the original translation, but were editorial insertions. The newer Bibles tend to blend this inserted text right into the flow of the narrative. Unfortunately sometimes inserted bracketed text had completely changed the original meaning of the unedited phrase, and so the reader of the more fluid text must be mindful that they may be reading a corrupted translation. Granted the inserted text was put there with the best intentions in mind, for the purpose of clarifying actual – or at worst theological – intent.
Dr. Thiering’s book devotes only 35% of its volume to the main text. The rest of the book is a treasure-trove of appendixes, outlining detailed chronologies, locations and distances, hierarchies, and special notes to Pesherists so that they can employ this technique to verify interpretations. I never found heavy reading in a bibliography so fascinating until I read this book.
Three Issues of Contention with the Book
Dr. Thiering is very thorough, though surely not infallible (as though any of us are), and her work will probably never escape controversy. Considering the monumental contribution she has made to an intensely deeper understanding of the Gospel works, placing them under a veritable theological electron microscope, any oversights can easily be forgiven. My criticisms are hardly an admonishment. Though through other sources I am in agreement with virtually all of her other findings (granted, there are many minor disagreements, but they are not worth pursuing here), what follows are three key issues upon which I strongly diverge from her hundreds of findings and speculations.
Issue 1 – Regarding Mary Magdalene
Dr. Thiering speculates that Mary Magdalene had been previously married, that she and Jesus were politically opposed, that she had left Palestine due to divorcing Jesus in around 44 CE because she was too old to bear more that three children, leaving him free to marry a younger woman (Wow, such a cool wife), and that Jesus may have later married a woman named Lydia.
Mary Magdalene did indeed have only three children: a daughter, Tamar, and two sons, Jesus Justus (the Just; a title he assumed from his uncle James, who had held that title in his place until Jesus II came of age) and Josephes.
Dr. Thiering speculates that Mary Magdalene may have been previously married because she was older than usual at the time of her wedding to Jesus. She first shows that Mary Magdalene and Jairus’ daughter (daughter of a Jarian Priest) were one and the same, and her rising from the dead (from the mundane spiritual death of ordinary life to the resurrection of one in a state of spiritual awareness) was at age 14 when young women went through their own version of bar mitzvah. This places her birth at 3 CE, making her 9 years Jesus’ junior. Though they wed when she was 27 and Jesus was 36 (so she was not the customary 16 – 20), I find this idea of her being formerly wed not very likely for the fact that one of the strictly enforced community rules was that the king must be betrothed to a pure woman. Also, one cannot always “time” births, and Jesus, as with all of the Davidic line, had to wait until he was 36 years old to marry (by law he could not have married her when he was 29, when she was indeed 20). I contend that a previous marriage might only be possible if the requisite mtDNA in the female line were not available from any other source. But of course it was, and plentifully within and without Palestine, so Jesus could actually have easily wed from a broad selection of candidates. However, I sense something far more important involved in this marriage, since Mary was the granddaughter of Menahem, a royal of the Davidic line from the Babylonian Diaspora and a close associate and kin of Jacob-Heli (Jesus' grandfather), and she was also a royal Hasmonean princess through her mother – she was probably the most senior candidate. The possibility of a previous marriage on Mary's part will therefore remain highly suspect in my opinion.
Dr. Thiering’s thinking them politically opposed is a point that I also strongly doubt. She contends, which I do agree to, that Jesus was of what eventually became the Eastern Branch of the Lay Christian movement (from Peace Hellenists), but she says that Mary was with the War Hellenists due to her very close association to Simon and Helena (Lazarus and Martha). In the first place, my eye keeps wandering back to the fact that Mary's grandfather was Menahem, who founded the Samaritan Magi (a form of Judaic Gnosticism), whose royal Davidic ancestors were taken in captivity to Babylon, and was closely associated with Jesus' family. Add to the mix the fact that Simon Magus was the greatest and most talented of these Magi, as well as the successor to Menahem, and was also closely associated to Jesus. The connection between Mary and Simon may not have been a simple matter of political disposition, as the stories seem to have hints of Family relations, which is often much stronger than any belief affiliations. In the second place, even if she were indeed with the War Hellenists, Peace and War Hellenists were more alike than different. By contrast of views, the War Hellenists believed in taking over Rome by force of arms, while the Peace Hellenists opted for the taking over of Rome through a peaceful assimilation, much as the Israelite take-over of the Canaanite lands (Note: The horrific battles as reported in the Bible regarding Joshua were most-likely the previous Egyptian conquests, as the Canaanites were much more sophisticated, more organized, and more powerful than the primitive Hibiru Israelites, as well as being more advanced technologically, philosophically, and religiously. They simply co-existed peaceably and cross-bred, until they eventually became one people). The Peace and War Hellenists' ultimate goals, though, were exactly the same. (Note: Joseph, Jesus' father, was a War Hellenist. James was one as well, until he came over to Jesus' view, being for some time a secret disciple of Jesus while at the same time serving in his hereditary princely position within the Sanhedrin, under the royal title Joseph ha rama theo; the ha rama theo designation means “divine/royal highness”, but later corrupted to Arimathea). Indeed, swapping "sides" was a rather easy thing to do between these two groups.
A study of external texts and traditions indicate that Mary Magdalene may not have simply chosen to leave Palestine due to some sort of marital split, but was rather forced to flee because Rome was at this time actively hunting down Davidic heirs, as well as attempting to destroy all of their genealogical records. The flight was to preserve her monarchial bloodline and that of her children in tow (she seems to have also been pregnant with Josephes at this time). Worse for her, she was also a known associate of Simon Magus (AKA Zealot/Lazarus/Zebedee) and his mistress Helena (AKA Martha), who were both wanted by Rome for Zealot activity (Zealotry was a capital offense, and Rome was not in the least squeamish about carrying its sentence). Simon was wanted specifically for having assassinated Herod Agrippa with poison for in turn having the Disciple James of Zebedee executed. Mary Magdalene, Helena (often referred to as another Mary in European histories. (Note: Remember that Mary was a title, not a name.)), and Simon Magus fled along with Philip (the actual scribe of the Gospel of John in 37 CE) and Mary Cleophas (wife of James; AKA Mary the Egyptian) to the Herod estates in Gaul with the aid of 17-year-old Herod Antipas II. (Note: Peter had also been imprisoned by the Romans in that year.
Dr. Thiering further entertains
the notion that if Jesus did divorce Mary, then he may have later married
a woman named
By way of demonstrating a much greater contrast than what Dr. Thiering argues, the Western Branch of the Lay Christians under Paul were even more divided from the Eastern Branch than the Eastern Branch was from the War Hellenists. The Western Branch of Lay Christians eventually rejected adherence to the Law of Moses (a horrific idea to Jesus, Mary, and Simon). Paul was also contrary to the teachings of Jesus, though I do think that Paul’s training at Qumrân and in the Sinai in Gnostic asceticism helped teach him how to exploit Jesus’ significance. This branch was supported by people such as Peter, Paul, John of Zebedee, Titus, and Luke. (Note: Paul very quickly gained absolute control of the Western Branch after Peter was imprisoned.)
The Eastern Branch, who honored the Law of Moses above life itself, was supported by the likes of Jesus, his brother James (a former War Hellenist), their mother (formerly of the Hebrew Branch), Philip, Thomas, Matthew, and John Mark. I emphasize John Mark because I will gladly go out on a limb here and say that I am thoroughly convinced that “he” was actually Mary Magdalene, which would definitely put her into Jesus’ fold. The deeper you study the very complex and intertwined relationships between this cast of characters, the more obvious this conclusion becomes. But before you gasp or roll your eyes in protest because of this or that Bible passage, I beg you to first read just one of many links to a thoroughly documented and very convincing argument by Raymond K. Justino at www.beloveddisciple.org. See other related links at the end of this document.
Finally, by most accounts, to include those found in the Nag Hammadi texts, Jesus and Mary were much closer than most married people, he even sharing with her his deepest secret knowledge; knowledge that he did not share with those of the Western Branch. May Magdalene was said to be the one “who knew the All,” and knew the secret name of God. On top of that, she (not Peter or Linus of Britain) was made head of the Christian movement by Jesus himself within the Celtic Church, which was established in 37 CE. We can thank Paul for hijacking this through his self-appointed authority in his later-founded Catholic Church. This simply does not add up to a sour relationship. It appears quite clear to me that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not at odds.
Issue 2 – Regarding the Martyr Stephen
Dr. Thiering makes the assumption that the true identity of the martyr Stephen was Jonathan Annas (the Disciple Nathanial), stating that he had been excommunicated in September of 37 CE (philosophically put to death). In Dr. Thiering’s account of Acts, Stephen had been excommunicated, though it seems that he was also badly injured, and possibly by Paul’s own hand if one reads between the lines via an understanding of Paul’s character, which is perhaps why the Acts’ references to this incident were daintily danced around by Paul's trusty apologist, Luke. Jonathan Annas is later killed that year by order of Governor Felix for his constant political meddling, which in turn got Felix in deep trouble with Rome. I find it extremely odd that Jonathan would be able to wield such power if he were indeed in a state of excommunication, which would have actually rendered him totally powerless in that region, as the excommunicated were treated as though they were physically dead, and hence horribly unclean. Identifying Jonathan Annas as Stephen might fit some of the facts, but the story of Stephen is not a small issue; not just a moment in time involving Annas falling out of favor and being replaced as Pope by his and the Disciple Matthew's brother Theophilus.
I counter this assumption with the argument that Stephen was in fact James, the brother of Jesus. Also assigning it the gravity it deserves, The Dead Sea Scroll Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, agree with my view and point to evidence in Book I of the Recognitions of Clement (you can read this Acts-period book that did not make it into the New Testament canon – it did not fit into the early Church’s political agenda – online at www.compassionatespirit.com/Recognitions-and-Homilies-home.htm). In reading the Clement account, there is no mention of a death, for real or by excommunication. It describes that the fiasco had actually started peacefully as an open-minded debate, which had lasted seven days, between James with his followers, the Temple priests, and the Rabbi Gamaliel (a descendant of Hillel the Great) with his followers. However, someone, who Clement identified as both Saul (a student of Gamaliel) and as the Enemy, instigated a bloody calamity against James:
“Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?’
“When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.” – ROC 1.70.
Saul is obviously not just standing by and guarding garments as he is described as doing in Acts. James was rescued by his fellows and retreated back to James’ house in Jerusalem, before taking flight to Jericho (only 7 miles from Qumrân) so James could recover from his injuries. The parallels between the Acts account and of the Recognitions of Clement are just too identical to believe that these are not reports of the very same incident. Also, Clement later said that Saul had received a commission from Caiaphas to arrest all believers in Jesus, and was told that he should go to Damascus with these letters, which Saul hastened to because he believed that Peter had fled thither. Gamaliel, it seeming that he was contrary to the actions of this dastardly person, had sent a messenger to James to warn him of this danger. This sounds too much Paul to ring of anyone else, and especially because Paul had himself confessed in Acts to these same qualifications, to include being a student of Gamaliel.
Second in my view of evidence for Stephen being James is the title Stephen itself, which means Crown or Crowned, and is an epitaph for the Davidic King. The more conservative Jews considered James, whose main title was Joseph ha rama theo, to be the legitimate heir to the royal crown from their Father, Joseph (Jesus was conceived after betrothal, but before the 1st wedding).
Regardless of such evidence, James remained leader of the Jerusalem Church at Qumrân. James, a Zealot for the Law, had later taken his Levitical birthright and wore the raiment’s and miter of High Priest, having the right to enter into the Holy of Holies to pray; he considering, and maybe rightly so, that the Pharisees and Sadducees had sold out their rights by stooping to and placating Rome. Finally things got too dicey in 62 CE, and he fled Palestine after being publicly stoned and excommunicated by High Priest Ananus, an act for which resulted in Ananus himself be deposed, to rejoin his wife, Mary Cleophas, as well as Philip and Mary Magdalene in Gaul. One year later, Mary Magdalene died. James (now commonly using his title Joseph) and Jesus Justus then traveled in that year to Glastonbury, Britain (Brit-Land; Covenant-Land) to dedicate the first-ever above-ground Christian Church in her honor. The original cornerstone upon which they inscribed the names of Jesus and Mary exists to this day. (Note: The Templars likewise dedicated their great cathedrals in France to their most revered Mother of the Church; Mary Magdalene. Even their many Madonna’s were of her and Josephes; the Grail Child, not of Jesus’ mother, as insist many within the Church.)
As a side note, the authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception also speculated that James might be the Teacher of Righteousness, and Paul might be the Wicked Priest mentioned in the scrolls. The authors give a fair argument for this, but I believe that Dr. Thiering squarely nailed these titles correctly to John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively, especially in light of the fifth Pesherist rule, which says that you cannot pick and choose items to fit your own ideas. Further, you have to take into account the contemporary Mandaeans of Iraq, who were part of the Hebrew Branch who migrated to the east after Jerusalem fell, and who still hold John the Baptist as their first and most revered leader, and Jesus as a subsequent leader who betrayed special secrets. I think you would also love their ancient legend of Merica; the land beyond the western ocean. That aside, their book is an exemplary work and a great source for Dead Sea Scroll speculation.
Issue 3 – Regarding Paul and Jesus’ Daughter
Dr. Thiering assumes that Paul married Jesus’ daughter, Tamar. If ever there was something for me to get into a heated disagreement over, then this is it. You might understand from the previous issue, and especially from the following paragraphs. But perhaps even more importantly, because Tamar had the all-important mtDNA so critical for kingship passed to her from her mother, and by all rights she could only marry other royalty, not waste it on a common trouble-maker like Paul, who was not of royal blood. More importantly, Tamar was the only one of Jesus’ and Mary’s children who could pass on this mtDNA (discounting Jesus’ sisters and his brothers’ daughters; his brothers, most especially James, would have also wed women of royal blood). This alone should definitively put a stop to any speculation that Paul had wed into royalty. To intentionally dilute royal blood to commonality in this way was, in those days, an unforgivable act.
I contend that the Pauline histories extracted from Acts and his letters, which Dr. Thiering describes in great detail, must therefore be viewed as suspect in regard to complete authenticity, and so her interpretations, though perhaps accurate from a Pesherist stand-point, should be taken with a grain of salt. This is meant by no means as a slight against her and her meticulous work. But Paul was a self-righteous megalomaniac, very insecure, greedy, hypocritical, vengeful, an out-right liar, quick to take credit for founding churches he did not establish, and taking credit for other’s hard work. In his insecurity he was always one-upping the work of others, and was quick to discard associates who began to gain popularity with any of the churches he associated with. In the end he was also “assuming” control over churches that he had nothing to do with or had not visited, such as the church in Rome. Much of his story-line is garbled, especially when it appears that he incited riots or was run out of places. They are described often with double-speak, as though Luke was a modern political PR-man, softening and covering up Paul’s missteps. Considering that Acts was written with Paul as the ‘hero’, this is understandable, but it must be read in that light, where anyone who would therefore opposed Paul no matter how rightly, such as James, would thus be characterized as a much darker or weaker character (James was most certainly not dark or weak).
Additionally, to drive another wedge between Paul and Jesus and the possibilities of an acceptable union, Paul seems to have adopted the cult of Mithraism as his model for Christianity, which corrosively went against the very grain of everything that Jesus, James, and Mary Magdalene stood for, and would most certainly mark him for death by the Zealots for the Law. The Persian Mithra (Contract), the Sun God and the protector God of society, was born in a stable on December 25 around 600 BCE of a virgin, was later executed to atone for the sins of Man, rose from the dead; his rising being celebrated during the pagan festival of Easter, and Sunday was the day set aside to worship him; a day that bears his stamp to this day. To Paul's advantage, the cult of Mithraism was very much alive and well in Roman society at the time of the advent of Jesus, and for a large portion of the Roman people, Mithra was their sole or main God. This would have also made Paul absolute pariah to the family of Jesus. Ahmed Osman takes this further by suggesting the resurrection cult of Osirus, and provides a sound foundation to this conclusion in his book Out of Egypt, the Roots of Christianity Revealed. I strongly suggest previewing this material at the web site www.destinyofman.com to properly prepare you for the depth and intensely academic minutae you will explore in his books.
Another simple example of Paul's counter-thinking that would alienate him from closer relations with the family of Jesus is the description of his initial vision of Jesus. This story changes character dramatically between all four times that he relates it. Add to that the fact that he later complains that he is still suffering from the effects of his near-blindness (which has all the earmarks of a case of sunstroke – just ask a physiologist about the symptoms he describes), whereas much earlier he said he had been completely cured of it. Indeed, I am absolutely convinced that he made the whole vision up to save his own hide: he was now at odds with both his Master, Gamaliel, and with the Nazorites; he was therefore stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. He had nowhere else to go, he had no other options left open to him, and he was suddenly handicapped to top it all off. It was “Come to Jesus” time. Simply from reading Acts and his letters, it is obvious that he is a political opportunist, not at all averse to using lies and deception to promote his ideas (he even openly admits to all of these tactics in his letters). A. Victor Garaffa wrote an excellent online document detailing Paul’s deceptions and the legion of proofs behind them entitled The Pauline Conspiracy, which can be found at www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy (or simply do an online search for something like “Paul apostle liar” and your will find a surprising number of other documents).
Luke, Paul’s close companion who was familiar with the pesher rules, used them to make it seem quite often that Jesus had traveled with Paul to various locations (the pesher sense of “we” is assumed to indicate the subject of the epistle with Jesus in tow). Considering that Paul did not preach the message of Jesus, and the only attribute Paul allowed Jesus to have was as a paschal lamb to redeem the sins of men (a concept that Jesus never supported), the “we” references most-likely indicated Paul's standard entourage; he being too fearful to travel alone. He surrounded himself with thugs to enforce his policy, and also to take the brunt in his stead at riots that he often instigated. This may be why many writers imagine him as a covert agent for Rome. I grant that he is a “natural” at marketing a theology. I also admit that he has preached some wonderful things, but he did not practice what he preached. This self-proclaimed apostle (a title that was never given to him, except by himself) is a real mystery.
So, in case you have not figured it out, I believe that the idea of Paul marrying Tamar is absolute hogwash. Even if Paul had been of royal blood, one who would be a coveted target of Zealot assassins was not one to add to your family tree; for the appearance of collaboration would have been too great, and would therefore mark them all for death (Zealots were, after all, zealots).
Who Is Who
One of the stumbling blocks in reading Dr. Thiering's book is trying to keep track of the various pseudonyms and titles used for individual personalities (most names until the 12th century were pseudonyms or titles anyway, which often changed through one’s lifetime). Personal names were seldom used in the New Testament and Qumrân texts, employing pseudonyms in their place, some people being known by several (Simon Zealot for example, who was replete with titles and descriptive pseudonyms, stemming from viewing them in relation to Old Testament prophecy, various positions of rank, and sometimes to the lack thereof; the name Simon Zealot is of course also a pseudonym). There is a section in the back of the books entitled “A Guide to People & Events”, which is a general Who’s Who. I have noticed that in describing certain personalities in this section, she does not provide all the pseudonyms she used in the main text for all people listed. With this in mind, I offer the following consolidated short list in order to clarify some of these sticking points for the main cast of characters, as well as to highlight my own editorial annexations:
DISCIPLES OF INTEREST:
James: Joseph (title), Joseph of Aramathea (corruption of Joseph ha rama theo; Joseph, His Royal Highness), “Elders” (representative title), Cleophas, Stephen (Dr. Thiering attributes this instead to Nathaniael).
James of Zebedee: Niceta (I see no evidence of this), James Boanerges.
John Mark: Bartholomew,Beloved Disciple, “Apostles”, the Companion of Jesus, Eutychus (I feel this may actually be a separate person). I will add to this list Mary Magdalene, which goes a step beyond Dr. Thiering’s work, but is gaining strong backing. See the links at the end of this document.
John of Zebedee: Aquila (I see no evidence of this; though I do see evidence that he was Luke).
Judas: Satan (Office of Devil’s Advocate), Demon 7 (title for scribes, 7 being highest), Chief Scribe, “Scribes”.
Luke: Cornelius (I see no evidence of this).
Mary Magdalene: Jairus’ daughter, Rhoda (Rose), Mary of Bethany. Add to this, by my own speculation, John Mark.
Matthew: Matthew Annas (Levite and brother to Jonathan Annas), Levi, Agabus, Kohath.
Nathaniael: Jonathan Annas, “Chief Priests”, Jacob of Alphaeus (of the Ascension), Dositheus, “Thunder” (as Pope), Sariel, “Good Samaritan”, Antichrist (Alternate Christ), Stephen (I argue this for being instead James).
Peter: Silas, Simon Peter, Simon Cephas (the Stone).
Simon Zealot: Simon Magus, Lazarus, Simon the Leper, Lazarus the Leper, Simon the Magician, Simon Cananaios (often inaccurately corrupted to Canaanite), Ananias (I see no evidence of this), Zebedee, “Lightening” (as Pope), Raphael, “The Voice”.
Thaddeus: Theudas, Alaxander, “Earthquake”, Nicodemus, Legion, Gershan, Barabbas (Bar = servant of (not son of), Abba = Father/Pope), head of the Egyptian Therapeutae. The Prodigal Son of the parable.
Thomas: (meaning Twin) , Didymus (also meaning Twin), Philip Herod I (former husband of Herodias, father of Salome, son of Mirriamne II, half-brother to Herod Antipas), Esau (due to lost heritance to Herod Antipas because his mother divorced Herod the Great, likened to the twins Esau and Jacob, sons of Isaac).
Other Names of Interest:
Martha: (Wife of Simon Zealot; Thiering claims mistress), Helena, Sarah, Sapphera, "the menstruous woman", "the Syrophoenician woman" (unfounded), "the woman dressed in purple and red" (claiming status of bishop and cardinal), Jezebel (unfounded; this is most likely Lydia), Joanna, Salome (representative title as teacher of Salome, the daughter of Thomas), "his mother's sister" (in the order of women at Qumrân; nuns).
Heli: Father of Joseph, Grandfather of Jesus, Jacob (title under Herod). He was he elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Herodias: Granddaughter of Herod the Great, Wife of Aggripa, and former wife of Philip Herod I (Thomas).
Jesus: Wicked Priest, Man of a Lie, The Scoffer, Anti-Priest (all titles given to him by non-Hellenist members).
John the Baptist: “Elijah”, Teacher of Righteousness. He was the victim in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Joseph: Father of Jesus. Name is likely a title, which could mean an elder “David” may have died or was childless, or that his father Heli was the David, and not having a sibling, making Joseph next in line as Crowned Prince (the Joseph). Some records indicate that his name was actually Jeusas. His wife seems to have had the name Jeudi, but then, a wife's name is often taken from the husband (Hence, Mary Magdalene may have taken the name Jesi or Yehesi).
Mary of Cleophas: Wife of James (Cleophas). Mary the Egyptian (she was probably of Royal Egyptian Therapeutae stock), Mary Cleophas.
Representative Titles:
Abraham: Hillel the Great (he was Pope before John the Baptist took the office).
All: King Herod as representative of all Jews.
Apostles: John Mark (above in Disciples).
Elijah: John the Baptist.
Chief Priests: Nathaniel (above in Disciples).
Cloud: Name for David Crown Prince (Jesus, but James after Jesus became priest following the crucifixion).
Crowds: Herod Antipas.
Earthquake: Thaddeus (above in Disciples).
Elders: James (above in Disciples).
Gabriel: Simeon the Essene (head of Qumrân community until 6 CE, when he took those who followed Classical Essene doctrine, and left the community). He was the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Isaac: Menahem (founder of the Magi, and grandfather of Mary Magdalene).
Jews: Name for head of circumcised gentiles: Herod Antipas.
Lightening: Simon Zealot (above in Disciples).
Moses: Title of Prophet, the Levite in the position immediately below Pope/Father.
Pharisees: Joseph Chiaphas, Head Priest.
Scribes: Judas (above in Disciples).
Thunder: Nathaniel (above in Disciples).
Further Reading
Dr. Thiering also wrote The Book that Jesus Wrote (Corgi, 1998), which offers even more depth and insight into the pesher construction of the Gospels. My contention that Jesus’ wife, Mary Magdalene, was John Mark is a trivial matter in light of the valuable information provided by this other book. Regardless, Dr. Thiering states that John Mark oversaw the writing of the Gospel of John, and it had been written in 37 CE, much, much earlier than generally thought, which probably explains why it was so Gnostic in content (the very reason why it almost did not make it into the New Testament canon, until the importance of women was sufficiently diminished). The best part of this book is that Dr. Thiering has provided concise examples of applying the pesher rules to the text in the appendixes, along with a lexicon reference that is alone more than worth the price of the book.
A truly excellent book to follow Dr. Thiering’s work with is Laurence Gardner’s Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Written on a parallel track of work, and giving note to Dr. Thiering’s research, along with exclusive and exhaustive access to detailed ancient and royal genealogies, Mr. Gardner really “goes to town”, tracing these genealogies to the present. You can also read his online lectures for this book and his others on his website at www.graal.co.uk. These lectures are rather long, and I like to refer to them as very condensed versions of his books. The books do of course contains all the real meat and potatoes, and include volumes of additional detail, the invaluable references, bibliographies, and absolutely fascinating peripheral minutiae.
My Search Goes Ever Onward…
Though my quest has since taken me far beyond the ideas presented in Dr. Thiering's book, and as stated earlier, I have since found myself in disagreement with a number of her conclusions, I will still hold that her original approach to investigation is based upon a sound foundation, and the results are enlightening and uplifting. I will always be grateful to it for opening my eyes that I might begin my search for a more spiritually realistic existence, not bound by superstitions, magic, and religious fancies.
My own personal quests are far from over. Take the latest question for which I am searching for answers: Was the Jesus the Christ who is claimed to be buried in Srinigar, Kashmir instead really Jesus II (Jesus Justus), whose name would have also been anglicized to Jesus the Christ, as he had inherited this regal title from his father? The Kashmiri legend claims that their Jesus the Christ died in about 113 CE, which would have made Jesus I about 120. I have figured that Jesus II would have been around 76 at this time, and I currently hold that it is he who is buried there. You should check out the Kashmiri view. A good place to start is the Tomb of Jesus web site at www.tombofjesus.com/index.htm. The tomb of his father, though…
Additional Suggested Reading of Bibliographic and Related Materials:
Additional material on Dr. Barbara Thiering and her amazing work is online at http://thiering.net.
“The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls” by A. Powell Davies, Mentor Books, 1956
“The Lost Years of Jesus Revealed” by Rev. Dr. Charles Francis Potter, Fawcett Books, 1958, 1962
“The Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books, 1979
“The Dead Sea Scroll Deception”, Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh, Touchstone, 1991
“Key to the Sacred
Pattern; the Untold Story of Resses-le-Chateâu”, Henry Lincoln, St Martin’s
Press, 1998
“The Second Messiah”, Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, Century
Books Limited, 1997
By Michael Baigent,
Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln –
“Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, Dell Publishing, 1982
“The Messianic Legacy”, Dell Publishing, 1986
By Ahmed Osman –
"Out of Egypt, The Roots of Christianity
Revealed", Random House, 1998
“Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt
at the Time of the Exodus”, Bear & Company, 2002
Detailed information on the work of Ahmed Osman can be found on the Domain of Man web site, www.domainofman.com. To prepare you for the extensive academic detail of his amazing books, you should first read "The Gospel According to Egypt" and other site material as a general overview, beginning at www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/contents.html.
By Laurence Gardner –
“Bloodline of the Holy Grail”,
Element Books Limited, 1996. Online lecture at www.graal.co.uk.
“Genesis of the Grail Kings”, Element Books Limited, 1999. Online lecture at www.graal.co.uk.
“Realm of the Ring Lords”, Element Books Limited, 2000. Online lecture at www.graal.co.uk.
“Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark”, Element Books Limited, 2003. Online information at www.graal.co.uk.
“The Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail”, Nexus Magazine. Online at www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/holygrail1.html.
“Mary Magdalene, Beloved of Jesus”, references in the works of Laurence Gardner,
online at www.geocities.com/elchasqui_2/Mary.html.
by Raymond K. Justino –
“Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel”, online at: www.beloveddisciple.org.
“Did Perugino (1445-1523) leave us a clue about the identity of Mary Magdalene as the Beloved Disciple?”,
online at http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/perugino.htm.
“Did Leonardo da Vinci Believe that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple?”,
online at http://ramon_k_jusino.tripod.com/leonardo.html.
Extreme close-up of John in Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper at the University of Chicago web site,
online at www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/504271_john.html.
By A. Victor Garaffa –
“The Pauline Conspiracy”, online at www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy.
“In Defense of the Apostles Faith”, online at www.comparative-religion.com/articles/apostles_faith.
“An Affair on Golgotha”, online at www.comparative-religion.com/articles/Golgotha.
“Book of Jasher”, available online at: www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html.
“Recognitions of Clement”, available online at www.compassionatespirit.com/Recognitions/Recognitions-TOC.htm.
“The Clementine Homilies”, available online at www.compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Homilies-TOC.htm.
Early Jewish writings: www.earlyjewishwritings.com.
Early Christian Writings: www.earlychristianwritings.com.
Magdalene.org website: www.magdalene.org/contents.htm.
About the Author
David Ross Goben has been a professional software engineer, a writer, and an obsessive researcher. He has extensively explored Biblical history, ancient cultural thinking, and ancient slang for over three decades. He has written numerous books, manuals, and magazine articles, many uncredited, or authored under pen names. His book, “A Gnostic Cycle: Exploring the Origin of Christianity”, was a directly developed from this essay, originally being an expansion upon it, expecting it to develop into a 40-page essay, not a book of over 600 pages. The book is his first major work written beneath his own name. E-mail the author to share with him your opinions, data, speculations, or arguments. All views, pro or con, are always welcomed. E-mail the author at davidgoben@yahoo.com.