Blood and the Shroud of Turin
david ford
contents:
Against Authenticity
Nickell
McCrone
Schafersman
Mueller
sundry against
Peer-Reviewed Articles
Books
Not-Science-Journal Articles
_SSI_
Sundry Blood
Archeology
Carbon Dating
Pollen
Coin Images
Vinland Map
AGAINST AUTHENTICITY
Nickell
Nickell, Joe. "The Shroud of Turin--Solved!" _The Humanist_ (Nov/Dec
1978), 30-2.
Nickell, Joe. "The Shroud Of Turin -- Unmasked" _The Humanist_ (Jan/Feb
1978), 20-2.
Nickell, Joe. "The Case of the Shroud" _Free Inquiry_ (spring 1998),
48-9.
Nickell, Joe. "The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?" _Popular
Photography_ (Nov 1979), 97-9, 146-7.
Nickell, Joe. "Update on the Shroud of Turin" _Free Inquiry_ (spring
1985), 10-11.
Nickell, Joe. "Unshrouding a Mystery: Science, Pseudoscience, and the
Cloth of Turin" _The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1989), 296-9.
Nickell, Joe. "Science vs. 'Shroud Science'" _The Skeptical Inquirer_
(July/Aug 1998), 20-2.
Nickell, Joe. "New Evidence: The Shroud of Turin is a Forgery" _Free
Inquiry_ (Summer 1981), 28-30.
Nickell, Joe. _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1983, 1987), 178pp., 186pp.
Nickell, Joe. "New Shroud Developments, Intriguing to Bizarre" _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (summer 1994), 343-4.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
McCrone
McCrone, Walter C. "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin 'Shroud';
III" _The Microscope_ 29(?): 19-38 (1981).
McCrone, Walter C. "Chemical Microscopy" _American Laboratory_ (Dec
1986), 19-25.
McCrone, Walter C. "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist's Pigment?"
_Accounts of Chemical Research_ 23: 77-83 (1990).
McCrone, Walter C. "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin 'Shroud' II"
_The Microscope_ 28(4): 115-28 (1980).
McCrone, Walter C. and Christine Skirius, "Light Microscopical Study of
the Turin 'Shroud' I" _The Microscope_ 28(3): 105-13 (1980).
McCrone, Walter C. "Authentication of the Turin Shroud" in _Proceedings
of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin_
(NY: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 124-30.
McCrone, Walter C. "The Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Supplemented
by the Polarized Light Microscope (PLM), and Vice Versa" _Scanning
Microscopy_ 7: 1-4 (1993).
McCrone, Walter C. "Shroud Image Is the Work of an Artist" _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 35-6.
McCrone, Walter C. _Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud_ (Chicago:
Microscope Publications, 1996), 341pp.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Schafersman
Schafersman, Steven. Reply to a letter _The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring
1983), 91-2. Maloney, Paul C. Letter _The Skeptical Inquirer_
(spring 1983), 90-1.
Schafersman, Steve. Letter to _The Microscope_ 30(4): 345-352 (1982).
GET rest of. Schafersman, Steven. "Are the STURP Scientists
Pseudoscientists?" _The Microscope_ 30(3): 232-4 (1982).
Schafersman, Steven D. "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin"
_The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 37-55.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mueller
Mueller, Marvin M. Letter _Industrial Research and Development_ (May
1980).
Mueller, Marvin M. "The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Appraisal" _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 15-34.
Mueller, Marvin M. and Joe Nickell. Chapter "Resurrection Radiance?" in
Nickell, _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1987), 85-94.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sundry Against
Dutton, Denis. "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin" _Michigan Quarterly
Review_, [date?] 422-433.
Fischer, John F., with the assistance of Nickell and Mueller. Appendix
"A Summary Critique of Analyses of the 'Blood' on the Turin 'Shroud'" in
Nickell, _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1987), 157-60.
Fischer, John F. and Joe Nickell. Chapter "Is the 'Blood' Blood?" in
Nickell, _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1987), 127-32.
GET Sox, H. D. "Authenticity of the Turin Shroud" _Clergy Review_ 43:
250-6. Cited in _Biblical Archeologist_ (spring 1980), 117.
GET Rhein, Reginald W., Jr. "The Shroud of Turin: Medical Examiners
Disagree," _Medical World News_ (22 Dec 1980), around 40. Cited in
Nickell, _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (1987), 168.
GET for and against authenticity papers and books from
http://www.shroud.com
Stein, Gordon. "Last Gasp of the Shroud Defenders" _The Skeptical
Inquirer_ (summer 1991), 417-8.
Wild, Robert A. "The Shroud of Turin: Probably the Work of a 14th
Century Artist or Forger" _Biblical Archeological Review_ (March/April
1984), 30-46. Letters in reply to: _BAR_ (July/Aug 1984), 22-25, 76-8.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES
Accetta, J.S. and J. Stephen Baumgart. "Infrared reflectance
spectroscopy and thermographic investigations of the Shroud of Turin"
_Applied Optics_ 19: 1921-9 (1980).
Avis, C., D. Lynn, J. Lorre, S. Lavoie, J. Clark, E. Armstrong, and J.
Addington. "Image Processing of the Shroud of Turin" _IEEE 1982
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society_,
554-8 (Oct 1982).
Carter, Giles F. "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by
x-Rays: a New Hypothesis" _Archeological Chemistry III_, Joseph B.
Lambert, ed. (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1984), 425-46.
Based on a symposium sponsored by the Division of the History of
Chemistry at the 184th meeting of the American Chemical Society, 12-17
Sept 1982.
Devan, Don and Vernon Miller. "Quantitative Photography of the Shroud of
Turin" _IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on
Cybernetics and Society_, 548-53 (Oct 1982).
Dinegar, Robert H. and Larry A. Schwalbe. "Isotope Measurements and
Provenance Studies of the Shroud of Turin" in _Archaeological Chemistry
IV_, ed. Ralph O. Allen. (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society,
1989), 409-17. Developed from a symposium sponsored by the Division of
the History of Chemistry at the 193rd meeting of the American Chemical
Society, Denver, Colorado, 5-10 April 1987.
Edwards, William D., et al. "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ"
_Journal of the AMA_ 255: 1455-63 (1986).
Ercoline, William R., Robert C. Downs, Jr., and John P. Jackson.
"Examination of the Turin Shroud for Image Distortions" _IEEE 1982
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society_,
576-9 (Oct 1982).
Gilbert, R., Jr. and M.M. Gilbert. "Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and
fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin" _Applied Optics_ 19: 1930-6
(1980).
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" _Applied
Optics_ 19: 2742-4 (1980).
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin" _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14: 81-103
(1981).
Jackson, J.P., E. Arthurs, L.A. Schwalbe, R.M. Sega, D.E. Windisch, W.H.
Long, and E.A. Stappaerts. "A New Tool for Cellulose Degradation
Studies" Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology: Symposium held 6-8
April 1988, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., ed. Edward V. Sayre et al., _Materials
Research Society_ 123: 311-16 (1988).
Jackson, John P., Eugene Arthurs, Larry A. Schwalbe, Ronald M. Sega,
David E. Windisch, William H. Long, and Eddy A. Stappaerts. "Infrared
laser heating for studies of cellulose degradation" _Applied Optics_ 27:
3937-43 (1988).
Jackson, John P., Eric J. Jumper, and William R. Ercoline. "Correlation
of image intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D structure of a human
body shape" _Applied Optics_ 23: 2244-70 (1984).
Jackson, John P., Eric J. Jumper and William R. Ercoline. "Three
Dimensional Characteristic of the Shroud Image" _IEEE 1982 Proceedings
of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society_, 559-75 (Oct
1982).
Jumper, Eric J. and Robert W. Mottern. "Scientific investigation of the
Shroud of Turin" _Applied Optics_ 19: 1909-12 (1980).
Jumper, E.J., A.D. Adler, J.P. Jackson, S.F. Pellicori, J.H. Heller and
J.R. Druzik. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and
Images on the Shroud of Turin" _Archaeological Chemistry III_, Joseph B.
Lambert, ed. (Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 1984), 447-476.
Based on a symposium sponsored by the Division of the History of
Chemistry at the 184th meeting of the American Chemical Society, 12-17
Sept 1982.
Jumper, Eric J. "An Overview of the Testing Performed by the Shroud of
Turin Research Project with a Summary of Results" _IEEE 1982 Proceedings
of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society_, 535-7 (Oct
1982).
Meacham, William. "The authentication of the Turin Shroud: an issue in
archaeological epistemology" _Current Anthropology_ 24: 283-95 (1983).
Replies to: _Current Anthropology_ 24: 296-311 (1983); letters by
Francis L. Filas and William Meacham, _Current Anthropology_ 25: 248-9
(1984); letter by John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler, and a reply by
William Meacham, _Current Anthropology_ 24: 537-8 (1983).
Miller, V.D. and S.F. Pellicori. "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography
of the Shroud of Turin" _Journal of Biological Photography_ 49: 71-85
(1981).
Mills, Allan A. "Image formation on the Shroud of Turin: The reactive
oxygen intermediates hypothesis" _Interdisciplinary Science Reviews_ 20:
319-27 (1995).
Morris, R.A., L.A. Schwalbe, and J.R. London. "X-Ray Fluorescence
Investigation of the Shroud of Turin" _X-Ray Spectrometry_ 9: 40-7
(1980).
Mottern, R.W., R.J. London, and R.A. Morris. "Radiographic Examination
of the Shroud of Turin--A Preliminary Report" _Materials Evaluation_ 38:
39-44 (Dec 1980).
Mouraviev, Serge N. "Image formation mechanism on the Shroud of Turin:
a solar reflex radiation model (the optical aspect)" _Applied Optics_
36: 8976-81 (1997).
Pellicori, S.F. and R.A. Chandos. "Portable Unit Permits UV/vis Study
of 'Shroud'" _Industrial Research and Development_ 186-189 (Feb 1981).
Pellicori, S. and M.S. Evans. "The Shroud of Turin Through the
Microscope" _Archaeology_ Jan/Feb 1981, 34-43.
Pellicori, S.F. "Spectral properties of the Shroud of Turin" _Applied
Optics_ 19: 1913-20 (1980).
Schwalbe, L.A. and R.N. Rogers. "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of
Turin: A Summary of the 1978 Investigation" _Analytica Chimica Acta_
135: 3-49 (1982).
Schwortz, Barrie M. "Mapping of Research Test-Point Areas on the Shroud
of Turin" _IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on
Cybernetics and Society_, 538-47 (Oct 1982).
Tamburelli, Giovanni. "Some Results in the Processing of the Holy
Shroud of Turin" _IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence_ vol. pami-3, no. 6, 670-6 (Nov 1981).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BOOKS
Barbet, Peirre, M.D. _A Doctor at Cavalry: the Passion of Our Floor
Jesus Christ As Described by a Surgeon_ (1950) translated by the Earl of
Wicklow (1953) (Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books), 178pp.
Heller, John H. _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983), 225pp.
Hoare, Rodney. _The Shroud is Genuine: The Irrefutable Evidence_ (Great
Britain: Souvenir Press, 1994), 188pp.
Humber, Thomas. _The Sacred Shroud_ (NY: Pocket Books, 1977), 222pp.
Kersten, Holger and Elmar R. Gruber. _The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin
Shroud and the Truth about the Resurrection_ (MA: Element, 1994), 373pp.
Picknett, Lynn and Clive Prince. _Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? The
Truth behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence_ (USA:
HarperCollins, 1994), 212pp.
Stephenson, Kenneth E. and Gary R. Habermas. _Verdict on the Shroud:
Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ_ (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Servant Books, 1981), 224pp.
The Bible, King James Version.
Wilson, Ian. _The Shroud Of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Juice Christ?_
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1978), 272pp.
Wilson, Ian. _The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence That the World's
Most Sacred Relic Is Real_ (NY: The Free Press, 1998), 333pp.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
NOT-SCIENCE-JOURNAL ARTICLES
Bortin, Virginia. "Science and the Shroud of Turin" _Biblical
Archeologist_ (spring 1980), 109-17.
Bucklin, Robert. "The Shroud of Turin: a Pathologist's Viewpoint"
_Legal Medicine Annual_ 1981 or 1982, 33-9.
Bucklin, Robert. "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death
of Christ" _Medicine, Science, and the Law_ 10(1): 14-26 (Jan 1970).
Culliton, Barbara J. News and comment "The Mystery of the Shroud of
Turin Challenges 20th-century Science" _Science_ 201: 235-9 (1978).
Dinegar, Robert Hudson. "The Shroud of Turin - A Look at the Overall
Picture" _The Living Church_ (17 May 1981), 9-11.
GET Lewis, R. "Pathologist at Calvary: Examination of Turin Shroud
Provides Crucifixion Details" _American Medical News_ (13 April 1979),
21. Cited in _Biblical Archeologist_ (spring 1980), 117.
Goldblatt, Jerome S. "The Shroud" _National Review_ (16 April 1982),
415-19.
Green, Maurus. "Enshrouded in Silence: In Search of the First
Millennium of the Holy Shroud" _Ampleforth Journal_ 74: 319-45 (1969).
Johnson, Robert I. "The Shroud of Turin" _Industrial Research and
Development_ (Dec 1979), 74-8.
Johnson, Robert I. "Scientists Examine the Shroud of Turin" _Industrial
Research and Development_ (Feb 1980), 145-50.
Murphy, Cullen. "Shreds of Evidence" _Harper's_ (November 1981), 42-65.
Pellicori, Samuel F. Letter _Industrial Research and Development_ (July
1980).
Schoen, Edward L. "David Hume and the Mysterious Shroud of Turin"
_Religious Studies_ 27: 209-222 (get date; peer?)
Special report "Archeological chemists grapple with the Shroud of Turin"
_Chemical and Engineering News_ (21 February 1983), 34-5.
Thurston, H. "The Holy Shroud as a Scientific Problem" _The Month_ 101:
162-79 (1903).
Vignon, Paul, Sc.D. "The Problem of the Holy Shroud" _Scientific
American_ (March 1937), 162-4. Translated from the French by Edward A.
Wuenschel.
Weaver, Kenneth F. "The Mystery of the Shroud" _National Geographic_
(June 1980), 730-53.
Wuenschel, Edward A. "The Shroud of Turin and the Burial of Christ II--
John's Account of the Burial" _Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ vol. 8, year
1946,pp. 135-78.
Wuenschel, Edward A. "The Shroud of Turin and the Burial of Christ"
_Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ vol. 7, year 1945,pp. 405-437.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
_SSI_
Adler, Alan D. "Conservation and Preservation of the Shroud of Turin"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec 1991), 2-6.
Adler, Alan D. and Larry A. Schwalbe. "Conservation of the Shroud of
Turin" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec 1993), 7-15.
Battaglini, Angiolo. "Considerations on the Feet of the Man of the
Shroud" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec 1983), 3-6.
Bollone, Pierluigi Baima and Agostino Gaglio. "Demonstration of Blood,
Aloes and Myrrh on the Holy Shroud with Immunofluorescence Techniques"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec 1984), 3-8.
Bollone, Pierluigi Baima and Anna Lucia Massaro. "Research on Extremely
Minute and Ancient Traces of Blood" _Shroud Spectrum International_
(June 1984), 2-5.
Bollone, Pierluigi Baima, Maria Jorio, and Anna Lucia Massaro.
"Identification of the Group of the Traces of Human Blood on the Shroud"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (March 1983), 3-6.
Bucklin, Robert. "Postmortem Changes and the Shroud of Turin" _Shroud
Spectrum International_ (March 1985), 3-6.
Bucklin, Robert. "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic
Pathologist" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec 1982), 3-10.
Crispino, Dorothy. "A Chronological Survey of Observations on the
Shroud Textile" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Mar./June 1991), 21-6.
D'Muhala, Thomas, John Jackson, William Ercoline, Alan Adler, Rudy
Dichtl, Robert Dinegar, and Eric Jumper. "A Scientific Proposal for
Studying the Shroud of Turin" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Dec
1984), 9-22.
Dinegar, Robert H. "The 1978 Scientific Study of the Shroud of Turin"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (Sept 1982), 3-12.
Feuillet, Andre. "The Identification & Disposition of the Funerary
Linens of Jesus' Burial According to the Fourth Gospel" _Shroud Spectrum
International_ (Sept 1982), 13-23.
Jackson, John P. "Blood and Possible Images of Blood on the Shroud"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (Sept 1987), 3-11.
Lavoie, Gilbert R., Bonnie B. Lavoie, Rev. Vincent J. Donovan, John S.
Ballas. "Blood on the Shroud of Turin: Part I" _Shroud Spectrum
International_ (June 1983), 15-19.
Lavoie, Bonnie B., Gilbert R. Lavoie, Rev. Daniel Klutstein, and John
Regan. "In Accordance With Jewish Burial Custom, the Body of Jesus Was
Not Washed" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (June 1982), 8-17.
Lavoie, Gilbert R., Bonnie B. Lavoie and Alan D. Adler. "Blood on the
Shroud of Turin: Part III" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Sept 1986),
3-6.
Lavoie, Gilbert R., Bonnie B. Lavoie, Rev. Vincent J. Donovan, John S.
Ballas. "Blood on the Shroud of Turin: Part II" _Shroud Spectrum
International_ (Sept 1983), 2-10.
Rodante, Sebastiano. "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the
Shroud" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (issue #1, Dec 1981), 5-24.
Rodante, Sebastiano. "The Words of Christ on the Cross and the Shroud"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (June 1989), 3-7.
Schwalbe, L. A. "Scientific Issues and Shroud Research in the 1990s"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (June/Sept 1990), 3-12.
Tamburelli, Giovanni. "Reading the Holy Shroud, called the Fifth
Gospel, with the Aid of the Computer" _Shroud Spectrum International_
(March 1982), 3-11.
Tamburelli, Giovanni. "An Image Resurrection of the Man of the Shroud"
_Shroud Spectrum International_ (June 1985), 3-6.
Go to http://www.shroud.com/spectrum.htm if you would like to purchase a
_SSI_ copy; though the covers are in color, the copies are small in
size, only about 40 pages long, and contain black & white photographs.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SUNDRY BLOOD
Belcher, Anne E. _Blood Disorders_ (USA: Mosby, 1993), 262pp.
Brown, Barbara A. _Hematology: Principles and Procedures_ (Philadelphia:
Lea & Febiger, 1984), 405pp.
Case, Thomas W. _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A
Scientific Detective Story_ (Cincinnati: White Horse Press, 1996),
103pp.
Epstein, Herman T. _Elementary Biophysics: Selected Topics_ (MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1963), 122pp.
Fairbanks, G., Theodore L. Steck, and D.F. Wallach. "Electrophoretic
Analysis of the Major Polypeptides of the Human Erythrocyte Membrane"
_Biochemistry_ 10: 2606-17 (1971).
Fiori, Angelo. "Detection and Identification of Bloodstains" in _The
Methods of Forensic Science Volume 1_, Frank Lundquist, ed. (NY: John
Wiley & Sons, 1962), 243-90.
GET Frache, G., E. Mari Rizzatti, and E. Mari. "A Definitive Report on
the Haematological Investigations" in _Report of the Turin Commission on
the Holy Shroud_ (London: Screenpro Films, 1976), 49-54. Cited in
Stevenson & Habermas, 211.
GET part of: McDonaugh, Antony F. "Bile Pigments: Bilatrienes and
5,15-Biladienes" _The Porphyrins Volume VI Biochemistry, Part A_, David
Dolphin, ed. (NY: Academic Press, 1979), 294-472+.
Heller, John H. _Of Mice, Men and Molecules_ (NY: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1960), 176pp.
Inbau, Fred E., Andre A. Moenssens, and Louis R. Vitullo. _Scientific
Police Investigation_ (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1972),
chapters "Biological Evidence" and "Neutron Activation Analysis."
Kabat, Elvin A. _Structural Concepts in Immunology and Immunochemistry_
(NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), 310pp.
Kirk, Paul L. _Crime Investigation_ (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1974).
Patterson, D. "Use of Reflectance Measurements in assessing the Colour
Changes of Ageing Bloodstains" _Nature_ 187: 688-9 (1960).
Routh, Joseph I. "Liver Function Tests" in Norbert W. Tietz, ed.,
_Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry_ (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
Company, 1970), 743-91.
Shaler, Robert C. "Forensic Science: A Walk through History" in _More
Chemistry and Crime: From Marsh Arsenic Test to DNA Profile_, Samuel M.
Gerber and Richard Saferstein, eds. (Washington, DC: American Chemical
Society, 1997), 13-31.
Surgenor, Douglas MacN, ed. _The Red Blood Cell_, Vol. 2. (NY:
Academic Press, 1975), 1372pp.
Willard, Hobart H., Lynne L. Merritt, Jr., and John A. Dean.
_Instrumental Methods of Analysis_ (New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company,
Inc., 1965), 784pp.
Wilson, Curtis M. "Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis of Proteins:
Impurities in Amido Black Used for Staining" _Analytical Biochemistry_
53: 538-44 (1973).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ARCHEOLOGY
Bender, A.P. "Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with
Death, Burial, and Mourning (as illustrated by the Bible and later
Jewish literature) V." _The Jewish Quarterly Review_ vol. 7, year 1895,
pp. 259-69.
Bender, A.P. "Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with
Death, Burial, and Mourning (as illustrated by the Bible and later
Jewish literature) IV." _The Jewish Quarterly Review_ vol. 7, year 1894,
pp. 101-18.
Haas, N. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from
G'at ha-Mivtar" _Israel Exploration Journal_ vol. 20, year 1970, pp.
38-59.
Hachlili, Rachel. "Ancient Burial Customs Preserved in Jericho Hills"
_Biblical Archeology Review_ (July/Aug 1979), 28-35.
Lamm, Maurice. _The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning_ (NY: Jonathan
David Publishers, 1969, revised edition Jan 1972), 265pp.
Naveh, J. "The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv'at ha-Mivtar" _Israel
Exploration Journal_ vol. 20, year 1970, pp. 33-37.
Ricci, Monsignor Giulio. "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the
Holy Shroud" in _Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of
Research on the Shroud of Turin_ (NY: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 58-73.
Robinson, John A.T. "The Shroud of Turin and the Grave-Clothes of the
Gospels" in _Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of
Research on the Shroud of Turin_ (NY: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977), 23-30.
Tzaferis, V. "Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem"
_Israel Exploration Journal_ vol. 20, year 1970, pp. 18-32.
Wilson, Edmund. _The Scrolls From the Dead Sea_ (NY: Oxford University
Press, 1955), 121pp.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
CARBON DATING
Damon, P.E., et al. "Radiocarbon dating of The Shroud of Turin" _Nature_
337: 611-15 (1989).
Gove, Harry E. _Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud_
(Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1996),
336pp.
Hall, E. T. "The Turin Shroud: An Editorial Postscript" _Archeometry_
31(1): 92-5 (1989).
Harbottle, Garman and Walden Heino. "Carbon Dating the Shroud of Turin:
A Test of Recent Improvements in the Technique" in _Archeological
Chemistry_ IV, ed. Ralph O. Allen. (Washington, DC: American Chemical
Society, 1989), 313-20. Developed from a symposium sponsored by the
Division of the History of Chemistry at the 193rd meeting of the
American Chemical Society, Denver, Colorado, 5-10 April 1987.
Nickell, Joe. "The 'Shroud' of Turin Found to Be Medieval" _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (winter 1989), 117.
Phillips, Thomas J. Letter "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?" _Nature_
337: 594 (1989).
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. "The Shroud of Turin: An Answer Is at Hand"
_Science_ 241: 1750-1 (1988).
Wilson, Ian. Chapter "The Shroud: Can Carbon Dating Lie?" in his _Holy
Faces, Secret Places: An Amazing Quest for the Face of Jesus_ (NY:
Doubleday, 1991), 170-79.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
POLLEN
Eyde, Richard H. Letter in _National Geographic_ (Feb 1985).
Nickell, Joe. "Pollens on the 'Shroud': A Study in Deception" _The
Skeptical Inquirer_ (summer 1994), 379-85.
Wilson's 1998 book.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
COIN IMAGES
Filas, Francis L. Letter _Industrial Research and Development_ (April
1980), 92.
Jumper, Eric, Kenneth Stevenson, Jr., and John Jackson. "Images of
Coins on a Burial Cloth?" _The Numismatist_ (July 1978), 1349-57.
Whanger, Alan D. and Mary Whanger. "Polarized image overlay technique:
a new image comparison method and its applications" _Applied Optics_ 24:
766-72 (1985).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
VINLAND MAP
Cahill, T.A., et al. "The Vinland Map, Revisited: New Compositional
Evidence on Its Inks and Parchment" _Analytical Chemistry_ 59: 829-33
(1987).
McCrone, Walter C. "The Vinland Map" _Analytical Chemistry_ 60:
1009-1018 (1988).
david ford
Jesus' Resurrection?" on 28 Nov 1998:
KF Since McCrone's data is easy to understand, unambiguous, undisputable
KF and confirmed by other tests, it's no wonder you try so hard to dismiss
KF it. It proves beyond any doubt that the shroud is a painting. Read
KF below and judge for yourself.
KF Following is a transcript of a Usenet post from April.
[snip]
Summary:
McCrone's painting allegation is refuted by
* for claim of finding a painting medium, failure of body image to
fluoresce under ultraviolet light
* for iron oxide claim, absence of iron earth contaminants
* for vermillion claim, absence of mercury
1532 fire
* lack of image discoloration even though exposed to heat during
1532 fire
* lack of evidence of a scorched painting mechanism
* the body image's reflectance spectrum doesn't resemble iron
oxide's reflectance spectrum
===================================
McCrone: "....the final conclusion: the Shroud is painted with a very
dilute watercolor paint consisting of an iron-earth pigment, enhanced in
blood-image areas with vermilion, another red pigment, both in a
collagen tempera medium."[McCrone (1986), 25]
P1: if a collagen tempera medium was used in creating the body image,
then that collagen medium would fluoresce under ultraviolet light.
Supporting evidence:
A quite frequent hypothesis is that the body image was painted.
The binders used in paints as early as the 14th century would be
made of proteinaceous materials, animal collagen being a favorite
material; egg white and gelatin are other examples. But these
collagens would inherently be contaminated by fluorescing amino
acids.^13 Random sampling of book bindings and illustrations from
the 14th and 15th centuries were observed to emit bright
fluorescence when excited by long-wave mercury vapor lamp
excitation.[Miller & Pellicori, 84. 13: Jumper et al.]
P2: the body image does not fluoresce under ultraviolet light.
Supporting evidence: There is an "absence of body image fluorescence,"
and "Hypotheses such as... paint are contradicted by the fluorescence
photography results."[Miller & Pellicori, 83, 84]
C: the Shroud body image does not consist of, using McCrone's words,
pigment "in a collagen tempera medium." Summary of the argument, which
is a modus tollens syllogism: if collagen tempera medium was used for
making the body image, then medium would fluoresce under UV light; body
image does not fluoresce under UV light; thus, a collagen tempera medium
was not involved in the appearance of the body image.
===================================
McCrone: "The artist evidently used a mixture of the two most popular
red pigments of the 14th Century--a red iron earth and...."[McCroneIII,
20]
P1: if McCrone's claim that the Shroud's body and blood images partly
consist of a red iron earth pigment is correct, then the contaminants
manganese, nickel, and cobalt should very likely be present. Supporting
evidence:
.... earth pigments (_13-15_) such as Venetian red or ocher from
medieval or older European, North African, or Middle Eastern
sources are always contaminated with elements such as manganese,
nickel, or cobalt above the level of 1% (unless pure hematite
crystals were employed by the artist, which, although possible, is
highly unlikely). Examination of medieval Venetian red and ocher
demonstrates that these contaminants are omnipresent above the 1%
level. Indeed, electron microprobe of late medieval ferric
oxide-derived paints or even modern ones shows such
contaminants.[Jumper et al., 465. 13-15: McCrone's first 3 Shroud
papers as published in his magazine _The Microscope_.]
P2: the contaminants manganese, nickel, and cobalt are not present in
the Shroud body and blood images. Supporting evidence:
Iron oxide particles found on the Shroud are chemically pure to the
level of 99 + %, as would be expected if they were formed by a
'khaki-like' process from the iron taken up by the original retting
[retting is a process done when turning flax into linen]. The only
other source of iron on the Shroud is from blood, which is also
pure as of biological origin.[Jumper et al., 465]
.... electron microprobe analysis of Shroud samples shows
uncontaminated iron--with no detectable manganese, nickel, or
cobalt. Microchemical analysis of large numbers of ferric oxide
particles from the waterstain margins also shows contaminating
impurity elements not to be present.[Jumper et al., 465]
.... the X-ray(15) and spectroscopic(11) studies... have shown that
'iron-oxide' does not correlate with the visually observed image
and cannot account for it.[Heller & Adler, 99. 15: Morris et al.,
who state on 46, "There appears to be no evidence of heavy element
concentration differences between image (non-blood) and off-image
points which would suggest an obvious forgery." 11: Pellicori, who
states on 1920, "To an optical detection limit of <5
[micro]g[ram]/cm^2, Fe_2O_3 [iron oxide] is not a contributor to
the color (density) of the image areas."]
C: McCrone's claim that the Shroud's body and blood images partly
consist of red iron oxide pigment is very likely not correct. Summary:
if iron oxide pigment, then contaminants; no contaminants; thus, not
iron oxide pigment.
===================================
McCrone: "The artist evidently used... vermilion, a mercuric
sulfide."[McCroneIII, 20]
McCrone in 1981: ".... the presence of significant amounts of a second
red pigment, vermilion, in an image area has no explanation other
than an artist's effort."[McCroneIII, 36]
McCrone in 1986: the Shroud was "enhanced in blood-image areas with
vermilion."[McCrone86, 25]
Let's see. First McCrone says the vermilion appears in an _image_ area,
and then approximately six years later he says the vermilion appears in
_blood_ areas. The following argument is directed at his 1981 claim,
but could easily be rephrased to defeat his 1986 claim.
P1: if McCrone's claim that the Shroud's body image partly consists of
the red pigment "vermilion, a mercuric sulfide" is correct, then the
contaminant mercury should be present. Supporting evidence:
This cinnabar particle was detected in a blood area and more than
sufficient evidence has now been presented to establish that these
[blood] images were formed by real blood and are therefore not
composed of 'vermillion'. Our microchemical tests do not reveal Hg
[mercury] to be present in these [blood] areas generally at levels
that could be evident to the eye.[Heller & Adler, 97]
P2: the contaminant mercury is not present to a significant degree in
the Shroud body image. Supporting evidence:
On the basis of the optical appearance and the chemical behavior,
this [object] can be identified as 'cinnabar' (HgS). Fragments of
this particle were found in the same area along a definite
track.... This is clearly an 'accidental' artifact as we have seen
nothing like it on any other slides, nor have any other red
particulates even from this same tape [sample 6BF] away from this
track given a positive test for Hg.[Heller & Adler, 94]
C: McCrone's claim that the Shroud's body image partly consists of
"vermilion, a mercuric sulfide" is incorrect. Summary: if vermilion,
then mercury; no mercury; thus, no vermilion.
===================================
P1: if the Shroud was a painting, then when the molten silver burned
through the Shroud during the 1532 fire, the paint near the molten
silver would have changed color. Supporting evidence:
Pure silver melts at 960 [degrees] C, but because of suspected
alloy contaminants, the silver casket in which the Shroud was
stored in 1532 would probably have melted at 820-850 [degrees] C.
.... Few organic dyes or stains could survive the scorching
conditions, and most of the inorganic pigments available during the
14th century would have suffered some change. Hydrated iron oxide,
the orchers and siennas for instance, change color on heating to
become their 'burnt' equivalents, and even Fe_2O_3 tends to be
reduced to black Fe_3O_4. Sulfide pigments (orpiment, realgar,
etc.) would be converted to salts, many of which would be
water-soluble and all of which would be a different color.[Schwalbe
& Rogers, 23-4]
P2: no such color change is observed. Supporting evidence: The body
image "is unchanged in color or density, even where the image approaches
scorched areas."[Pellicori & Chandos, 188]
C: the Shroud is not a painting. Summary: if painting, then discolored
paint near burns; image is not discolored near burns; thus, Shroud is
not a painting.
===================================
P1: "If the image had been painted with a proteinaceous, plant-gum-, or
starch-based vehicle, [then] the medium would have scorch more rapidly
than the cellulose of the linen."[Schwalbe & Rogers, 24]
P2: "No evidence for a scorched medium can be seen."[Schwalbe & Rogers,
24]
C: McCrone's painting medium is absent. Summary: if a painting medium
was present, then, in the areas where the molten silver burns and body
image intersect, the painting medium would have noticeably scorched to a
greater degree than the linen's cellulose; no scorched medium is
observed; thus, no painting medium is present.
===================================
P1: if iron oxide was responsible for the body image, then iron oxide's
reflectance spectrum would be the same as the body image's reflectance
spectrum.
P2: the body image's reflectance spectrum does not resemble iron oxide's
reflectance spectrum. Supporting evidence for P1 and P2:
.... the reflectance spectrum of Fe_2O_3 is so different from that
of the body image that we cannot support Dr. McCrone's conclusions.
The body image spectrum, being a monotonically decreasing function
with decreasing wavelength, has no resemblance to inorganic
pigments or to organic pigments capable of surviving the fire of
1532 without change.[Pellicori & Chandos, 188]
C: iron oxide is not responsible for the body image. Summary: if iron
oxide was responsible for the image, then its reflectance spectrum would
match the image's reflectance spectrum; there is no such match; thus,
iron oxide is not responsible for the image.
===================================
Works Cited
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin" _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14: 81-103
(1981).
Jumper, Eric, Alan Adler, John Jackson, Samuel Pellicori, John Heller,
and James Druzik. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various
Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin" _Archaeological Chemistry
III_, Joseph B. Lambert, ed. (Washington DC: American Chemical
Society, 1984), 447-476. Based on a symposium sponsored by the
Division of the History of Chemistry at the 184th meeting of the
American Chemical Society, 12-17 Sept 1982. Accepted for
publication 11 April 1983.
McCrone, Walter C. "Chemical microscopy" _American Laboratory_ (Dec
1986), 19-25.
McCrone, Walter C. "Microscopical Study of the Turin 'Shroud'; III"
_The Microscope_ (yr 1981, vol 29), 19-38.
Miller, V. D. and S. F. Pellicori. "Ultraviolet fluorescence
photography of the Shroud of Turin" _Journal of Biological
Photography_ 49: 71-85 (1981).
Morris, R. A., L. A. Schwalbe, and J. R. London. "X-ray Fluorescence
Investigation of the Shroud of Turin" _X-ray Spectrometry_ 9(2):
40-7 (1980).
Pellicori, S. "Spectral properties of the Shroud of Turin" _Applied
Optics_ 19: 1913-20 (1980).
Pellicori, S.F. and R.A. Chandos. "Portable unit permits UV/vis study
of 'Shroud'" _Industrial Research and Development_ pp. 186-9 (Feb
1981).
Schwalbe, L. A. and R. N. Rogers. "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud
Dr. Monkeyspank
wrote: [a bunch of crap about the supposed "blood" on the shroud]
Look, Dave, it's really easy. You don't even have to go the bother of
lab testing to figure it out. Is the blood still "blood red" after
supposedly 2000 years? Yes?
Then it cannot be real blood -- wishful, ad-hoc, Occam's Razor
defying, pulled out of your ass fantasy explanations not withstanding.
Simple as that. Now move on.
--------------- Dr. Monkeyspank ---------------
Director, Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
* * *
Sam Lopez: This is a Christian? -->
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/1414/
-----------------------------------------------
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 23:14:04 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
>wrote: [a bunch of crap about the supposed "blood" on the shroud]
>
>Look, Dave, it's really easy. You don't even have to go the bother of
>lab testing to figure it out. Is the blood still "blood red" after
>supposedly 2000 years? Yes?
>
>Then it cannot be real blood -- wishful, ad-hoc, Occam's Razor
>defying, pulled out of your ass fantasy explanations not withstanding.
>
>Simple as that. Now move on.
Let's not forget the most damning refutal--Carbon dating...
Unless you think the shroud is 3/4 fungus --or--
Unless you think that Jesus emitted enough neutron radiation to pretty
much kill every living creature within 6 miles of ground zero and NOT
incinerate the shroud.
So, let's move on.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
wa...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
Omri Schwarz
content in the Shroud of Turn, please
keep it off SCJ.
Thank you.
--
Omri Schwarz
"As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual
certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life
- so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so
you can meet girls." -- M. Cartmill
Jeff/addesign
<snip>
> Pure silver melts at 960 [degrees] C, but because of suspected
> alloy contaminants, the silver casket in which the Shroud was
> stored in 1532 would probably have melted at 820-850 [degrees] C.
> .... Few organic dyes or stains could survive the scorching
I haaven't paid much attention to the shroud debate, and you provide a
seemingly impressive list of cites, but I'm just wondering (as a
complete novice to such detection), why the emphasis on earth
pigments, and what the proerties of soem of organic red pigments are,
that made them excudable. For example, Carmne is extracted from
insects, and I beleive is soluble in alcool, can be precipitated on
white clay for use as an opaque pigment, or can be a transparent
lake. Madder red or Madder lake is an very old fabric dye, extracted
from the root ofthe Madder plant, or from coal tar. Or dragon's blood,
which is an extract of a palm fruit. These are among the more common
reds that are non-mercuric, non-earth colors known for centuries, and
could paitn a fabric without a protein-based binder. Shall I assume
ancient red fabric dyes such as these were reasonably excluded?
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
Shane D. Killian
>
> Summary:
> McCrone's painting allegation is refuted by
> * for claim of finding a painting medium, failure of body image to
> fluoresce under ultraviolet light
>
behaves *exactly* as other paintings from the time do.
McCrone knows all about this. He has worked with the dating &
authenticity of many paintings, from the middle ages through the
renaissance. He knows a painting when he sees one. In every test run on
paintings, the shroud behaves exactly like a painting.
How many paintings have you examined?
Oh, and by the way:
1) Why did the "blood" stay red, unlike what read blood does, and
2) Why did the "blood" clump up, unlike what real blood does?
Both of these, above any others, are indicative of paint, and firmly
rule out the presence of blood on the shroud.
--
Shane D. Killian -- sha...@vnet.net -- http://users.vnet.net/shanek
"uuunnn k mmmmmmk hhhhhhhh khbbbbbbbbbbbh
gnhjjjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrrrrddddfc gvb uyyyyyyyhubbbbbbb"
--Sinclair Mitchell Killian, born 1/29/98
david ford
J I haven't paid much attention to the shroud debate, and you provide a
J seemingly impressive list of cites, but I'm just wondering (as a
J complete novice to such detection), why the emphasis on earth
J pigments, and what the properties of some of the organic red pigments are,
J that made them excludable. For example, Carmine is extracted from
J insects, and I believe is soluble in alcohol, can be precipitated on
J white clay for use as an opaque pigment, or can be a transparent
J lake. Madder red or Madder lake is an very old fabric dye, extracted
J from the root of the Madder plant, or from coal tar. Or dragon's blood,
J which is an extract of a palm fruit. These are among the more common
J reds that are non-mercuric, non-earth colors known for centuries, and
J could paint a fabric without a protein-based binder. Shall I assume
J ancient red fabric dyes such as these were reasonably excluded?
Heller and Adler performed tests for blood, and the test results
indicated the presence of blood on the 'bloody' Shroud fibrils. So it
wasn't a case of "this is a list of all red substances known to exist;
everything but blood is eliminated by observation and tests; hence, by
the process of elimination, the 'blood' on the Shroud is in fact blood."
While waiting to receive the sticky tapes that had been placed on the
Shroud and removed, Heller did investigate ancient and modern sources of
red, and did some elimination, but he didn't offer that research as
evidence that the 'blood' is blood.
david ford
WH Let's not forget the most damning refutal--Carbon dating...
WH
WH Unless you think the shroud is 3/4 fungus --or--
WH
WH Unless you think that Jesus emitted enough neutron radiation to pretty
WH much kill every living creature within 6 miles of ground zero and NOT
WH incinerate the shroud.
WH
WH So, let's move on.
Carbon Dating
outline:
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
2) C-14 tests are undependable
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
faulty methodology in sample collection
4) bioplastic layer
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
The Shroud was carbon dated in 1988 "with at least 95% confidence...
[to] AD 1260-1390 (rounded down_up to nearest 10 yr.)"[_Nature_ 337:614
(1989).] However, a single carbon date does not mean everything. One
must look at the whole package of information before making a decision
on the question of authenticity. As Biblical archaeologist Dr. Eugenia
Nitowski stated in a private communication,
In any form of enquiry or scientific discipline, it is the weight
of evidence which must be considered conclusive. In archaeology,
if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of
them, and it conflicts with the other nine, there is little
hesitation to throw out the carbon date as inaccurate....[appears
in Ian Wilson, _Holy Faces, Secret Places_ (1991), 178-9.]
Archeologist William Meacham's "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of
the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties" can be found around
http://www.shroud.com. This essay, published before the 1988 carbon
dating, is required reading for anyone interested in the question of
carbon dating and the Shroud. Writes he,
However, I doubt that anyone with significant experience in the
dating of excavated samples would dismiss for one moment the
potential danger of contamination and other sources of error. No
responsible field archaeologist would trust a single date, or a
series of dates on a single feature, to settle a major historical
issue, establish a site or cultural chronology, etc.
Meacham also says, "As Barnard... observes: 'No historian would, for
instance, point to a radiocarbon date (or even a whole series of C-14
dates) and assert that this type of data... provides ultimate proof of
the reliability of a certain point of contention.'"
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
2) C-14 tests are undependable
Carbon dating has been wrong in giving wildly differing dates for the
same thing. In the case of an eruption that is thought, using history,
to have happened around 1500 BC, dates of 1100 plus minus 190 years BC
were obtained. It just so happens that also obtained were dates ranging
back to 2590 plus minus 80 years BC.[Wilson (1991), 172-3.]
Writing in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed. Laurie R.
Godfrey, 155-6, paleontologist David M. Raup observes,
Of all the [absolute (which contrasts with relative) dating]
methods, probably carbon 14 is the least dependable, and yet it is
the most interesting to many people because it is applied to the
most recent part of geologic history.
In his _The Encyclopedia of Evolution_ (1990), under the entry
"Radiocarbon Dating, the C-14 clock," Richard Milner remarks "Since no
single date can be considered really definitive, archaeologists take a
series of 50 or so samples from a site to establish consistency and
reliability." Contrast that with the Shroud dating, where not 50, but
_one_ sample from _one_ area was taken and subdivided for testing. This
fact alone is sufficient grounds for throwing out the C-14 dating
results.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
faulty methodology in sample collection
The 1988 testers were physicists, not archaeologists. Archaeologists
have learned from practical experience that C-14 dating is not the sure
thing it was originally hoped to be. Wilson comments on 172,
Listen to most physicists talking about the accuracy of carbon
dating, and you may be led to believe that it is about as
inviolable as the high-society world of 1912 thought the _Titanic_
unsinkable, and that therefore the shroud dating result should be
accepted without question. But listen to many an archaeologist,
the actual users of carbon dating, and it is a different story.
Adler relates that Meacham "pointed out all the things that you could
screw up if you didn't have an archeologist" and "a chemist" be
"involved in the sampling, to advise you what to do and what not to do."
This "was all in the original protocol," which appeared in
_Archeological Chemistry IV_. Amazingly, the testers "_didn't follow
it_." They then "wrote a different protocol. _They didn't even follow
that_. When asked why they took the sample where they took it, the
answer was: 'Well, it was cut there before.'"
Adler calls this response "the stupidest argument in the world,"
explaining, "they know that area is an area that's been repaired," is
"by a water stain," and is "by a scorch." As a consequence, "we have a
date that all sorts of people don't believe."["The Interview with Heller
and Adler," part II of T. W. Case, _The Shroud Of Turin and the C-14
Dating Fiasco_ (1996), 76.]
The 3 labs used the exact _same_ technique, and tested the exact _same_
piece of cloth, i.e., samples from different areas of the Shroud were
not used. Archaeologist William Meacham sensibly recommended in his
1986 "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud:
Possibilities and Uncertainties" that 5 samples be taken, and 2 methods
used, IIRC.
While it is true that the labs used different cleaning techniques, the
statement that the results were arrived at "independently" is weakened,
to repeat, by the fact that the labs all used the exact _same_
radiocarbon dating technique and tested the exact _same_ area of the
cloth. In the words of Ian Wilson, "Effectively they [the labs] were
almost bound to achieve the same result...."[Wilson (1991), 178.]
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
4) bioplastic layer
From http://www.shroud.com/comments.htm, STURP photographer Barrie
Schwortz:
I expect that your first response may be skepticism regarding my
answer, so I will tell you that even Dr. Harry Gove, inventor of
the AMS radiocarbon dating process used to date the Shroud in 1988,
said in his recent book "Relic, Icon or Hoax? - Carbon Dating the
Turin Shroud", the microbe discovery is a "development that should
be taken seriously" and "merits further detailed investigation".
[p.308] (Ed. Note: See the "Website Bookstore" page for more
information about this book).
Harry E. Gove, _Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud_
(Bristol and Philadelphia: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1996), 308:
On 2 and 3 September 1994 a _Round Table on the Microbiology of
Ancient Artifacts_ was held.... It was organized by... and...
Garza-Valdez of the Department of Microbiology of the University of
Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA). Garza-Valdez
is also a medical doctor with a pediatric practice.... The main
subject of the round table was a discussion of bio-plastic coatings
produced by bacteria and fungi and found on the surface of ancient
artifacts, desert rocks (where it is referred to as desert varnish)
and around the fibres of some ancient textiles including the Turin
Shroud. These bacteria take their nourishment from the air and
hence can be adding carbon with a component of carbon-14
contemporaneous with the time of bacterial growth--and thus younger
than the cellulose of the ancient textile. ....Garza-Valdez
obtained a small sample of cloth from the shroud taken from the
same area as those used in the AMS measurements. Microscopic
examination showed a definite halo or bio-plastic coating of
varying thickness around the fibres. The UTHSCSA researchers
established that the acid-base-acid cleaning method employed on
shroud samples by the three AMS carbon dating laboratories left the
bio-plastic coating intact. They conclude that this coating added
carbon-14 to the shroud cellulose thus causing the AMS carbon date
to be too young. How much too young has not yet been established
and, indeed, will not be easy to establish. Research on the
question is continuing.
Shroud enthusiast Dorothy Crispino promotes Gove's work with
This extraordinary book recounts the drama and intrigues involved
in carbon dating the Shroud of Turin with a frankness usually found
only in the pages of a diary. Required reading.
Timothy Jones
>
> > On 23 Dec 1998 22:39:30 GMT, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
> >>lab testing to figure it out. Is the blood still "blood red" after
> >>supposedly 2000 years? Yes?
> >>
> >>Then it cannot be real blood -- wishful, ad-hoc, Occam's Razor
> >>defying, pulled out of your ass fantasy explanations not withstanding.
> >>
> >>Simple as that. Now move on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >So, let's move on.
>
> cloth.
Primarially because it isn't, especially seeing as JC probably never
lived to begin with, and the entire thing is a hoax.
Timothy Jones
You raise interesting points. But unfortunately, each has the taint of
speculation. For example,
> 1) must look at preponderance of evidence
Why here do you presume the "other nine" points of inquiry are more
conclusive? Why can't it be argued legitimately that the lot of them put
together are not as telling as carbon dating? Just what are they anyway?
> 2) C-14 tests are undependable
This is misleading on your part. Any good scientist, yes even a
physicist, will tell you it has a margin of error. But that margin is
known to be no more than about 20%. This does not allow for the shroud's
authenticity. And just because someone studying a totally different
subject, e.g. a volcano, got two different results does *not* mean that
kind of thinkg will always happen or even happen very often. *That*
person may have made a mistake. It does not mean the shroud's
researchers did.
> 3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
> faulty methodology in sample collection
I think a physicist is qualified to look into a microscope. And again,
you can say certain mehtods and protocols should be followed, but even
if that's true, can you prove *either* that the shroud's researchers did
not follow them *or* that they make a mistake if they didn't?
> 4) bioplastic layer
On this point, you've yet to respond to the argument from the previous
poster, to whome you were replying, that you'd have to be believing that
3/4 of the shroud is fungus. And once more, I'm seeing a lot of "maybes"
and "could bes" from you on this. Maybe carbon is being added. Maybe
it'd affect the reading. We don't know by how much, but the research
continues. All pure conjecture and near-groundless speculation. It's not
enough.
And BTW, what about the data from the painting expert that ran test that
all showed unamiously that the "blood" is paint? *That's* not related to
the C-14 dating, and the man was a qualified expert of the relevant
field (ergo, not subject to your 3rd objection re "needed chemists and
archeologists"), so why doesn't that count as additional corroborating
evidence?
And if it's blood, why isn't it behaving like blood?
And isn't it suspicious that the C-14 dating places the age of the
shroud at right about the time it was "discovered?"
And given the utter lack of any gfood historical evidence that jesus
christ ever lived at all, isn't it a better explanation on general
principal (i.e. Occam's Razor) that it's a hoax too?
And BTW, certainly I for one am all for the idea of doing additional
dating tests, using a variety of methods, on a variety of samples from a
variety of areas of the shroud, performed by a variety of different
groups throughout the world. After all, C-14 is *not* the only method of
decay dating that exists. {It's just that a lot of the others are mainly
for dating very old things.}
TJ
THETA SIGMA BAAWA
kybern...@my-dejanews.com
What was the test for blood? Was it the presence of hemoglobin?
I would be most disappointed if it was merely testing for the presence of iron
oxide.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tom Scalf
wrote:
>Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. <postm...@hoxnet.com> on 23 Dec 1998:
>
>WH Let's not forget the most damning refutal--Carbon dating...
>WH
>WH Unless you think the shroud is 3/4 fungus --or--
>WH
>WH Unless you think that Jesus emitted enough neutron radiation to pretty
>WH much kill every living creature within 6 miles of ground zero and NOT
>WH incinerate the shroud.
>WH
>WH So, let's move on.
>
>Carbon Dating
>outline:
>1) must look at preponderance of evidence
>2) C-14 tests are undependable
>3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
> faulty methodology in sample collection
>4) bioplastic layer
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>1) must look at preponderance of evidence
>The Shroud was carbon dated in 1988 "with at least 95% confidence...
>[to] AD 1260-1390 (rounded down_up to nearest 10 yr.)"[_Nature_ 337:614
>(1989).] However, a single carbon date does not mean everything.
Too bad for you that there were not one, but three totally independent
laboratories came up with the same dates (within the 95% range of
confidence) not only for the "shroud" but also for the control samples
which were of known origin and age. These samples included specimens
from Cleopatra's mummy wrappings.
<snipped the rest of a boringly long recitation of totally
inappropriate quotes which were evidently thrown in in the hope we
would be bored into submission. Besides the above just blew his
argument out of the water>
Tom
Timothy Jones
>
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 10:42:04 -0800, Timothy Jones
> > <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Speedbyrd wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 23 Dec 1998 22:39:30 GMT, postm...@hoxnet.com (Wayne D. Hoxsie
> >> >Jr.) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>In article <3680f541...@news.iconnect.net>, Dr. Monkeyspank
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Look, Dave, it's really easy. You don't even have to go the bother of
> >> >>lab testing to figure it out. Is the blood still "blood red" after
> >> >>supposedly 2000 years? Yes?
> >> >>
> >> >>Then it cannot be real blood -- wishful, ad-hoc, Occam's Razor
> >> >>defying, pulled out of your ass fantasy explanations not withstanding.
> >> >>
> >> >>Simple as that. Now move on.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >So, let's move on.
> >>
> >> cloth.
> >
> >Primarially because it isn't, especially seeing as JC probably never
> >lived to begin with, and the entire thing is a hoax.
>
It is *your* job to prove that claim, not mine to disprove it. There's
nothing outside the new testament that does so, and of course, the nt is
a religious patchwork written by obviously biased sources (i.e.
believers that want others to believe) long after the fact.
I will post the message I've saved containing the arguments for jc and
their refutation, which demonstrates the lack of historical evidence for
jc, presently.
TJ
mign...@bellatlantic.net
kybern...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What was the test for blood? Was it the presence of hemoglobin?
> I would be most disappointed if it was merely testing for the presence of iron
> oxide.
>
I read Heller's book some time ago, and I believe the test was for porphyrins,
which he described as organic molecules centered around a metallic atom; iron
in the case of erythrocytes, magnesium (if I recall my college biology lessons
correctly) for chlorophyll. The samples he had to work with were quite small,
but eventually they came up positive for blood. Whether this was human blood
could not be determined.
One thing I'd like to point out, getting off the subject of blood for a
moment, is that the nature of the image is not really in doubt. By universal
consensus among those who have actually performed analysis on the shroud the
image is the result of dehydration and conjugation of the outermost fibrils
of the linen strands, the degree of lightness or darkness depending on the
number of fibrils thus discolored in any particular area. This was initially
described by some as a *scorch.* This is misleading, because a scorch implies
burning, and the image areas aren't considered to be burns.
The real problem for people interested in the shroud isn't whether or not it
was fabricated in the 14th century or (as I believe) might have been a freak,
natural phenomenon, but the process, man-made or otherwise, by which an image
might be formed in such an unusual way.
---------
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mignarda
Timothy Jones
Here is the information I said I would presently forward,
detailing and then refuting the principal arguments for JC's
historicity. The relevance to this thread, for those who missed my prior
post, was that the Shroud is a fake and a hoax, for the obvious reason
that JC never lived.
> : Speedbyrd wrote:
> :
> : You can't prove that, either
We'll just see about that, won't we. Read on...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 00:28:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: michael howard <hu...@phantom.com>
To: Justin Shipp <jsh...@clover.cleaf.com>,
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu>
Subject: chap5.html (fwd)
> Jeff Lowder wrote:
>
> I'm forwarding you guys some stuff I got about this discussion.
> Glad to see the debate hasn't died yet. Myself, I've decided there
> was no jesus. Hope this helps.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 23:55:42 -0800
From: Jeff Lowder <jlo...@paul.spu.edu>
To: hu...@phantom.com
Subject: chap5.html
1A. JESUS IS A MAN OF HISTORY
1B. Christian Sources for the Historicity of Jesus
1C. TWENTY-SEVEN DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
2C. CHURCH FATHERS
2B. Non-biblical sources for Historicity of Jesus
1C. CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A.D. 52-54)
2C. LUCIAN OF SAMOSOTA
3C. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born A.D. 37)
4C. SUETONIUS (A.D. 120)
5C. PLINIUS SECUNDUS, PLINY THE YOUNGER
6C. TERTULLIAN
7C. THALLUS, THE SAMARITAN-BORN HISTORIAN
8C. PHLEGON, A FIRST CENTURY HISTORIAN
9C. LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION
10C. JUSTIN MARTYR
11C. THE JEWISH TALMUDS
12C. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Jeff Lowder last modified this file on 21 Sep 94 at 11:12. He
encourages you to email your comments.
_________________________________________________________________
1A. JESUS IS A MAN OF HISTORY
Reflecting on a debate with a Marxist who didn't believe Jesus
existed, McDowell writes, "It is certainly not the historians (maybe
the economists) who propagate a Christ-myth theory of Jesus" (81). He
then quotes F.F. Bruce as saying, "... The historicity of Christ is as
axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius
Caesar."
1B. CHRISTIAN SOURCES FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS
1C. TWENTY-SEVEN DIFFERENT NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
Assuming that the New Testament documents are historically reliable,
their assertion of a historical Jesus can be trusted.
2C. CHURCH FATHERS
McDowell mentions that all of the church fathers attest to the
existence of Jesus, inclduing Polycarp, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Ignatius,
Justin, Origen, etc.
2B. NON-BIBLICAL SOURCES FOR HISTORICITY OF JESUS
1C. CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A.D. 52-54)
McDowell quotes from Tactitus' Annals XV. 44:
"... Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius
Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius..."
2C. LUCIAN OF SAMOSOTA
McDowell quotes The Passing Peregrinus: where Lucian supposedly
alluded to Christ as:
"... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced
this new cult into the world ..."
3C. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born A.D. 37)
The following hotly-contested quotation appears in Josephus'
Antiquities. xviii.33 :
"Now there was about this time Jesus... He was the Christ, and ...
[Pilate] had him condemned to the cross ... [Jesus] appeared to them
alive again the third day..."
4C. SUETONIUS (A.D. 120)
Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25.4:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
5C. PLINIUS SECUNDUS, PLINY THE YOUNGER
Was writing the Emperor Trajan seeking counsel as to how to treat the
Christians.
Click here to find out why Pliny is not reliable evidence for Jesus.
6C. TERTULLIAN
Mentions the exchange between Tiberius and Pontius Pilate. McDowell
later adds, "Some historians doubt the historicity of this passage."
Click here to find out why Tertullian is not evidence for Jesus.
7C. THALLUS, THE SAMARITAN-BORN HISTORIAN
Julius Africanus criticizes Thallus for saying that the darkness that
occurred after the Christ's crucifixion was caused by a solar eclipse.
8C. PHLEGON, A FIRST CENTURY HISTORIAN
Julius Africanus quotes Phlegon as mentioning an eclipse which took
place during the crucifixion of Christ.
9C. LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION
The Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion mentions the death of Christ.
10C. JUSTIN MARTYR
Tells Emperor Antonius Pius of Jesus' crucifixion, recorded in the
imperial archives, the acts of Pontius Pilate.
Click here to find out why Justin Martyr cannot be used as evidence
for Jesus.
11C. THE JEWISH TALMUDS
McDowell cites the following from the Jewish Talmuds as evidence for
Jesus:
1. Abodah Zarah 17a
2. The Amoa 'Ulla'
3. Sanhedrin 43a
4. Tol'doth Yeshu
5. Yeb. IV 3; 49a
12C. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Uses 20,000 words to describe Jesus, which is more words than it used
to descirbe Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha,
confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon Bonaparte. Opponents of Christianity
never doubted the historicity of Jesus until the 18th century.
Click here to find out why the Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be used
as evidence for Jesus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Click here for a comment on Josh's bibliography.
_________________________________________________________________
CHURCH FATHERS
Hmmm.. I am not quite sure why Mcdowell considers these guys evidence
for the historical Jesus. Their bias is obvious and they didn't even
live within a century of the proposed time.
_________________________________________________________________
CORNELIUS TACITUS
[The following section is taken from the Historicity of Jesus FAQ
written by Scott Oser.]
In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians
"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of
Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator
Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)
Two questions arise concerning this passage:
1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian
interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is
Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation
into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike
Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual
tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may
just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so,
then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in
Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during
the reign of Tiberius. This would NOT be independent confirmation of
Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this
information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then
that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons
to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For
one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not
a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title
"Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a
Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is
excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what
Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about
Jesus's historicity.
[End of Historicity FAQ excerpt]
James J. Lippard writes:
"In Tacitus' Annals (XV, 44), he mentions Christians and states that
'Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus' (Tacitus 1942, vol. 1, pp. 380-381).
Several facts call this into question as independent testimony to
Jesus' history. The first is that the late date of its writing (120
C.E.) indicates that Tacitus was most likely merely repeating what
Christians themselves said. Second, the earliest existing manuscript
containing this passage is from the Middle Ages. Third, it was not
Tacitus' practice to consult original documents and in fact Roman
crucifixion records would not be accessible to the ordinary Roman
citizen (Wells 1971, pp. 186-188). Fourth, the passage's inaccuracy
is indicated by its misuse of the title 'Christ' as a proper name
and its reference to Pilate as 'procurator' rather than his correct
title, 'prefect' (Wells 82, p. 16)."
_________________________________________________________________
LUCIAN OF SAMOSOTA
The Greek satirist, Lucian, wrote the following hostile account of
the early Christians and their "lawgiver" circa 170 C.E.:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the
distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was
crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures
start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all
time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary
self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was
impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods
of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise
all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
However, it is unclear why this excerpt should constitute independent
confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. Lucian doesn't even identify
Jesus by name. He only refers to an anonymous "lawgiver" in such a
vague manner as to be unconvincing as evidence for Jesus. But even if
we assume this "lawgiver" refers to Jesus, it is unconvincing as
independent confirmation of Jesus. Given the fact that it was written
170 C.E. (nearly 140 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus),
and the fact that it was written by a Greek satirist indicates that it
was probably a second-century reaction to Christian claims. There is
no textual evidence suggesting this reference was based upon some
historical source that was independent of the early Christians.
Jim Merritt wrote:
"This is a second-century satirist. Excuse me for not accepting the
unverified statement of a comedian two centuries after the fact as
an authoritative source."
_________________________________________________________________
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
[The following section was taken from the Historicity of Jesus FAQ
written by Scott Oser]
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half
of the first century CE, produced two major works: "History of the
Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews". Two apparent references to
Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous
passage, occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities" and reads as follows
(taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64
by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought
to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and
was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over
many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate,
upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us,
had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place
come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the
third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of
God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about
him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still
to this day not disappeared.
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes
cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence
and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that
this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was
either inserted or amended by later Christians:
1. The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT
recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the
above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we
may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later
insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome
and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however,
renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the
Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite
this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to
do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered
with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
2. The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that
Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage
about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage
seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was
certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a
later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work
originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later
expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars
cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being
atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first
century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian
wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating
his style.
Philip Burns (p...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the
following material on the following alternate versions or
reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by
James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian
interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to
call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works,
(and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He
stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the
Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was
accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving
(him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he
appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the
prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous
things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named
from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection,
Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a
man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from
a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original
text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this
version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One
possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the
term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why
"Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had
previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to
delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the
suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by
having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:
"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one
Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men
who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also
many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate,
acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first
did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which
has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today."
Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a
"wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as
someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the
reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A
Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in
fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile
ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus
is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early
Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from
Agapius's "Book of the Title," a history of the world from its
beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab
and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S.
Pines:
"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that
he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: 'At this time
there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and
he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and
the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be
crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not
abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them
three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly
he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have
recounted wonders.'"
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original,
one should note especially that this version is from a much later
text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was
the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version
suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the
conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather
than being a genuine reflection of the original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:
1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not
the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later
Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later
insertion.
2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the
Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms
that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the
"Antiquities", where we find this passage:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the
sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus,
who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or
some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against
them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)
Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is
a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be,
but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage
may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists
at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note
that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and
various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus.
However, while there is some reason to believe that this second
passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely
conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some
references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the
Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and
clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be
the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.
More detailed information and references to other discussions on
Josephus may be found in:
Bruce, F. F. "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament."
Eerdmans, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H. "Jesus within Judaism." Doubleday (Anchor
Books) 1988.
France, Richard T. "The Evidence for Jesus." Intervarsity Press, 1986.
_________________________________________________________________
SUETONIUS
[The following section is taken from the Historicity of Jesus FAQ,
written by Scott Oser.]
In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE,
states:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome."
(Claudius 5.25.4)
Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's
historicity. However, there are serious problems with this
interpretation:
1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and
is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named
Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only
confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus.
There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the
first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus
actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
[End of historicity FAQ except]
James J. Lippard writes:
"Suetonius wrote in the second century of a Jewish revolt in Rome
during the reign of Claudius which was instigated by 'Chrestus'
(Tranquillus 1957, p. 197). Claudius reigned from 41-54 C.E.; it is
unlikely that Christians were instigating revolt at such an early
date, and certainly not under the leadership of Jesus himself. It is
also unlikely that this is really a reference to
Christians--'Chrestus' was a common name among slaves and freemen at
the time, and appears more than eighty times in surviving Latin
inscriptions of Rome (Wells 1971, pp. 185-186)."
Karl Kluge wrote:
"The only references to Christ in Roman historians (as opposed to
references to Christians, such as Pliny's report) are an unclear
reference in Suetonius, who mentions an expulsion of Jews from Rome
due to the agitation of 'Chrestus', and Tacitus who mentions
Christ's crucifixion by Pilate in describing Nero's persecution."
_________________________________________________________________
PLINIUS SECUNDUS, PLINY THE YOUNGER
In the Historicity of Jesus FAQ, Scott Oser writes:
"Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with
the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions
and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor,
and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if
any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation
of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were
indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.
Charles Hedrick writes:
"Pliny the Younger wrote a letter in 112 describing Christians and
asking the Emperor what to do about them. However references to
Christ are clearly in the context of their belief about him, so this
does not constitute any independent confirmation."
James J. Lippard writes:
"Among the letters (X, 96-97) of Pliny is one to the Emperor Trajan
(in 112 C.E.) asking for advice in dealing with Christians. His only
mention of Jesus is to say that those who denied Christ were not
punished (Pliny 1963, pp. 293-295). This testimony cannot be
considered confirmation of Jesus' historicity as it is not
independent of Christian tradition."
In response to the above criticism (originally made by historian G.A.
Wells), McDowell wrote in 1988 that this criticism overlooks that
"Pliny's and Trajan's bearing witness to the fact that within the
first eighty years of Christianity a large number of men and women
were so convinced of the actual historical life, death, burial and
resurrection of Jesus that they voiced those convictions in the face
of certain execution." (He Walked Among Us, p. 48)
This statement sort of reminds me of the all-too familiar "But who
would die for a lie?" argument. Jim Lippard responds:
"By Christians' own lights, lights of people have and continue to
'die for a lie'--namely, all those martyred in the following of
non-Christian religions, many of whom have died in the service of
mythical figures."
Scott Oser also responds:
"Although the argument is not explicitly made, McDowell seems to be
repeating the old 'who would die for a lie?' argument. There are a
couple of problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, the
number of Christians that Trajan, through his agent Pliny,
encountered cannot reasonably be considered large. At this time,
Christianity was a very minor cult throughout the Roman world.
McDowell also seems to imply that eighty years is too short a time
period for a completely mythical Christ tale to have been
fabricated. However, some scholars who deny the historical existence
of Jesus maintain that the 'Jesus myth' is actually quite old,
dating from the first century BC. They argue that the details which
fix the myth into the framework of first century Palestine are later
additions (see Chapter 2 of Michael Martin's The Case Against
Christianity for more details). If Jesus was not a historical
person, then it is possible that the legends surrounding him existed
for many decades before they were written down in the form we have
them today, possibly for much longer than the eighty years which
McDowell cites.
Did the early Christian martyrs which McDowell cites here really
have good reason to believe that Jesus had lived? These people lived
eighty years after the supposed events. They would have met no one
who had known Jesus, or even his apostles. Furthermore, the
Christians that Pliny dealt with lived in Asia Minor, far away from
Jesus' supposed activity in Palestine. The only evidence that these
Christians could have had for their beliefs is information they
received from missionaries. There are people living today who would
willingly die for Christianity, and yet we would not say that their
actions confirm the existence of Jesus. Yet, the people Pliny writes
about had no better evidence for Jesus' existence than we have
today, namely, the reports of missionaries who had not known Jesus,
and the testimony of scriptures written down many, many years after
the fact."
_________________________________________________________________
TERTULLIAN
James J. Lippard writes:
"In attempt to counteract this silence, early Christians both forged
documents and alleged that pagan documents attesting to Jesus'
existence did exist. The best known forgery is a correspondence
between Seneca and Paul, written in Rome in the late fourth century
(Johnson 1976, p. 99; Wells 1971, pp. 189-190). Another such forgery
is a third-century letter from Pilate to 'his emperor Claudius'
which insists that the disciples did not steal Jesus' body from the
tomb. This letter's author overlooked the fact that Pilate was
governor of Judea only until 36 C.E. while Claudius did not
becomeemperor until 41 C.E. (Hoffman 1984, pp. 65-66). The second
method was used by Justin Martyr, who states in his first Apology
(Chapter 35) that Roman records of the crucifixion exist; and by
Tertullian, who claimed (in 197 C.E.) that Pilate wrote a report to
Tiberius about the crucifixion and resurrection resulting in the
senate convening to place Christ among the gods. These claims are
rejected by historians (Wells 1971, pp. 189-190). [McDowell cites
both of these claims, one of them without any disclaimer, the other
with a too mild disclaimer.]"
_________________________________________________________________
THALLUS, THE SAMARITAN-BORN HISTORIAN
Apparently there was a first-century historian named Thallus who wrote
between circa A.D. 52 and the early second century. Julius Africanus,
writing circa A.D. 221, makes a reference to Thallus' now lost
writings:
"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this
darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to
me."
McDowell claims this is evidence for the historicity of Jesus because,
"Thallus presented the crucifixion as a definite historical event,
though one which needed a naturalistic explanation for the darkness
which covered the earth at the time of the event" (He Walked Among Us,
p. 35). However, as McDowell himself admits (Ibid), "some scholars
believe that Thallus wrote as late as the second century and
consequently could have obtained his ideas from Christian opinion of
his time" (Michael Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 51)."
In the Historicity of Jesus FAQ, Scott Oser writes:
"In a lost work referred to by Julius Africanus in the third
century, the pagan writer Thallus reportedly claimed that Jesus's
death was accompanied by an earthquake and darkness. However, the
original text is in fact lost, and we can confirm neither the
contents of the text or its date. It is possible that Thallus was
merely repeating what was told to him by Christians, or that the
passage which Africanus cites is a later interpolation. Outside of
the New Testament, no other references to earthquakes or unusual
darkness occur in the contemporary literature. This is very
surprising, given the effect these sorts of events would presumably
have had on the populace."
Even McDowell admits that his writings have "Disappeared". Charles
Hedrick writes:
"Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian. McDowell says that he
mentioned Christ in 52 AD. However his works are no longer extant,
so we have only citations of it by others. I haven't seen any
quotations of his mentions of Christ."
_________________________________________________________________
PHLEGON, A FIRST CENTURY HISTORIAN
Like Thallus, Phlegon was a first-century historian. Like Thallus,
Phlegon composed a major work (his Chronicles) which supposedly
contained references to Jesus, but are now lost. And like Thallus,
Phlegon's work was written in the second century (circa 140 A.D.),
therefore it is likely that Phlegon did not have independent evidence
of the historicity of Jesus but was basing his comments on what
Christians were saying at the time.
_________________________________________________________________
LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION
Who complained about how little "The jews gained from executing their
wise king". Doesn't say it was Jesus at all.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTIN MARTYR
Who was writing at about AD 150 about nonexistent records. The quote
given is unattributed, but appears to be from the psalms.
_________________________________________________________________
THE JEWISH TALMUDS
James Still:
"All modern Judaism (Rabbinic Judaism) evolved after the fall of
Jerusalem in 70 CE from the Pharasaic 'tannaitic' sect led by Rabbi
Aqiba in Jabneh (east of Jerusalem in a self-governing city provided
by Rome to the Pharisees who had welcomed their presence before the
war). There are no thoughts concerning a historical Messiah named
Jesus by the tannaitic school, and even when the Mishna was codified
(circa 200 CE) under Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, there are few references
to any Messiah, past or present, at all. (To be fair, this is
because the Mishna was an exposition of Law and not an
eschatological, or Last Days, commentary. However the strange
silence where Jesus is concerned in Jewish mainstream commentary is
still a large factor in all of the post-Temple Jewish writings.)
The Mishna is not very specific concerning when a Messiah (Son of
man, or bar 'enas) would come and there are only two eschatological
passages concerning any coming Messiahs. The Mishna does say that
'children will be disobedient to their parents' in the Last Days.
Not very helpful, to be sure, but useful if you don't want your
eschatological prophecies being too specific.
In the fourth century, the Jerusalem Talmud was finally codified
(and in the fifth century the more authoritative Babylonian Talmud
which is in use today was written.) By this time, the passion
narrative and the supernatural events related to Jesus were well
known to the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Any reference to Jesus in
the Talmud is of little value for this reason; they are merely
repeating hearsay the stories that were told to them. Nevertheless
the Jesus as depicted in the Talmud is so different from the
miracle-working, savior-god as that believed by Josh McDowell, that
the two are irreconciliable and therefore of little use to any proof
for the historicity of the Christian version of Jesus.
Kee states in his 'History of Jesus' that '...for a figure who
assumes for Christians an overwhelmingly significant place in
history of the first century, surprisingly little attention is paid
to Jesus by Jewish writers in general, and most references are of a
polemical or at least derogatory nature.' The Jerusalem Talmud
merely refers to Jesus as 'Balaam' which was used in the OT to
describe non-Israelite prophets who were paid on a fee basis to
teach in the Temple when the rabbis were short-staffed. In other
earlier Talmudic writings and most specifically the _Toldoth Jesu_
text that McDowell mentions, Jesus is called 'Ben Pandera' which
means 'son of Panther.' Jesus is depicted as the illegitimate son of
a Roman soldier name Panther who 'casts his eyes upon' Miriam (Mary)
and then leaves her after having sex.
References to Jesus in the Talmudic literature should be treated
with caution however; one must keep in mind that just as Christian
writings were codified much later from their earlier oral
traditions, the Talmudic literature is also hearsay, and more
importantly, reactionary with respect to the rising cultus of Christ
around them. During the centuries after Constantine converted and on
into the so-called 'Dark Ages,' the Church was obsessed with finding
and burning as many copies of the Talmud as it could due to the
Talmud's unfavorable depiction of Jesus.
McDowell must be very familiar with this unfavorable depiction of
Jesus (as any casual research will attest to) and deceptively
ignores the context of Talmudic references to Jesus while relying on
the ignorance of his reader's, hoping that they will not seek out
these references to discover the Talmudic context of Jesus for
themselves. This common tactic of 'arguing from silence' is a common
one among apologists like McDowell. The Christian reader already has
a very narrow image of Jesus (European, with long hair and beard,
carrying a stave and/or a lamb...) and by capitalizing on this
stereotype, McDowell can get away with using the Talmud as a proof
of Jesus' existence, without having to explain the depiction of
Jesus therein. The truth is that most Christians would be horrified
to discover the Jesus promulgated in the Talmudic writings, and that
this depiction would outweigh any desire to use the Talmud as
historical evidence for the Christian depiction of Jesus. "
Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity, p. 49-50:
"Most biblical scholars argue that the earliest references to Jesus
in rabbinical literature occur no earlier than the second century.
Consequently, they say, that the Talmud tells us 'what the Sages of
Israel thought of his origin and teaching some seventy years after
he was crucified.' Moreover it has seemed clear to such scholars
that the rabbis of the second century had no independent knowledge
of the historical assumptions of Christianity but were simply
reacting to the then current Christian accounts. However, if the
Gospel accounts of Jesus are historically accurate, why is there no
mention of him in earlier rabbinical traditions?
Let us suppose that historical scholarship that suggests that
earliest references to Jesus are found in the second-century
rabbinical literature are mistaken and that this literature
represents in part an independent historical source of information
that is either contemporary with or earlier than the life of Jesus
of the Gospels. However, on this assumption the Talmud contradicts
the Gospel accounts. For example, the Talmud contains several
references to Yeshu ben Pantera (also called Pandera and Panthera),
a magician whose mother's name was Mary Magdala and who was
crucified in B.C. 126, over a century before the Jesus of the
Gospels. Other passages in the Talmud refer to Yeshu the Nazarene
who practiced magic and committed heresy in the reign of Alexander
Jannaeus, the ruler of Palestine from 104 to 78 B.C. But again this
was long before the Jesus of the Gospels.
Thus, the evidence of the Talmud presents the following problem. On
the one hand, if the references to Jesus are earlier than the second
century and provide independent evidence, they tend to contradict
the Gospel account. On the other hand, if the references are no
earlier than the second century, they provide no independent
evidence. The lack of earlier Talmudic evidence can be used as
indirect evidence against the historicity of Jesus only if this lack
can be plausibly explained in other terms."
Abodah Zarah 17a
Abodah Zarah 17a reads:
"I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came
across one [of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene] Jacob of Kefar-
Sekaniah by name who said to me... To which I made no reply. Said he
to me: Thus was I taught [by Jesus the Nazarene]. 'For the hire of a
harlot shall they return.' They came from a place of filth, let them
go to a place of filth."
Dennis McKinsey, editor of Biblical Errancy, writes:
"Again, the power of imagination appears to have been overwhelming.
(a) How does the mere mention of a disciple of Jesus prove that
Jesus lived? (b) The reference to Jesus only occurs in the Munich
manuscript. (c) And nowhere in the Gospels can one find the quote
that was attributed to Jesus."
The Amoa 'Ulla'
The Amoa 'Ulla' adds:
"And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth) there was any right
of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: 'Thou
shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him,' It is otherwise
with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority."
Dennis McKinsey responds:
"Besides the fact that this passage is so vague that hundreds of
people could be under consideration, allegations are included that
should exclude Jesus according to apologetic propaganda and the
Gospels. For McDowell to cite as a source a passage which refers to
Jesus as a beguiller is rather interesting to say the least. I'm
surprised he would admit it. Secondly, if Jesus was near to the
civil authority, then McDowell is obligated to cite chapter and
verse for corroboration."
Sanhedrin 43a
Sanehdrin 43a of the Talmud states:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [the Munich manuscript adds the
Nasarean] was hanged. For forty days before the execution took
place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be
stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to
apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come
forward to speak on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought
forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover... Do you
suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not
a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt
thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu
however it was different, for he was connected with the government
(or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five
disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah."
Dennis McKinsey, in Issue 141 of Biblical Errancy, gives the following
inadequacies of Sanhedrin 43a:
1. It says Yeshu, not Jesus.
2. Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words, it was not an
unusual name. On the contrary, it appears rather frequently in
ancient Jewish literature. Josephus records the following out of
28 high priests in the 107 years from Herod to the destruction of
Jerusalem: Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son
of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus.
3. Jesus was crucified, not hanged.
4. Jesus was not stoned, at least according to the biblical record.
5. The New Testament says nothing about a herald going forth for
forty days before the execution occurred.
6. Jesus had no connection with the government. At least nothing
within the Gospels would lead one to believe that he lived among
royalty or the influential class.
7. Nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus charged with sorcery or
leading Israel astray. The New Testament record tells of three
accusations against Jesus: (a) blasphemy, (b) claiming to be the
Son of God, and (c) assuming the role of King of the Jews. But he
was never charged with practicing sorcery nor of leading Israel
astray.
Concludes McKinsey, " Any attempt to apply this part of the Talmud to
Jesus is doomed to failure."
Tol'doth Yeshu
Michael Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 50:
"In the Tol'doth Jeshu, early and late Talmudic stories about Jesus
are brought together. They date mostly from the fifth century, but
some date from the second century or earlier. The account they give
of Jesus is rather different from that of the Gospels because these
stories assume that Jesus was not born of a virgin and that he was
not resurrected. Nevertheless, some scholars speculate that the
stories were based on the Gospels; whethere they were is not known.
In any case, these stories cannot be used as support for the
historicity of Jesus because it is unclear that they are an
independent source of information."
Yeb. IV 3; 49a
Yeb. IV 3; 49a reads:
"R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a
genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is
a bastard of an adulteress'"
Dennis McKinsey, editor of Biblical Errancy, writes:
"He [McDowell] is uncomfortable with the word 'bastard.' So, he
quotes Klausner who redefines bastard by saying, ...'What is a
bastard? Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth
Din.' Now McDowell feels that he can comfortably quote Klausner's
final conclusion, 'That Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond
doubt.' After disassociating Jesus from the word bastard McDowell
feels he can now claim that 'beyond doubt' his passage is referring
to Jesus. He neglects to mention the fact that the reason they are
punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din is because they are
participating in a forbidden union. To be specific, the passage
says, 'so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from [a forbidden
union with] a married woman...' A footnote to this passage says,
'Such a union is punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din.' The
essence of McDowell's deception lies in the fact that he made it
look as if a bastard was anyone who was liable to death by Beth Din,
as if Beth Din were some kind of uncontrollable murderer, when they
are to be killed by Beth Din because they engaged in an illicit
relationship that gave rise to a bastard. So, if it were referring
to Jesus, then Jesus would be a bastard, and for McDowell to say it
'seems to be beyond doubt' that Jesus is being referred to speaks
for itself. McDowell is calling his savior a derogatory name."
Mark Haefner writes:
"The Mishnah and Gemara together, are usually known as the Talmud.
The Gemara (commentaries) is where you would find several references
to christianity, although, as one might expect, not very favorable.
This is also where the alleged Roman father of Jesus is mentioned
(Ben-Pantera), which, as some have suggested, this could also be a
corruption of the greek Parthenos (virgin)."
_________________________________________________________________
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
The fact that it uses 20,000 words on Jesus hardly constitutes
evidence that He existed, especially since the Encyclopedia is a
contemporary document. I think McDowell is justified in pointing out
that opponents of Christianity never doubted Christ's existence until
the 18th century (assuming McDowell is correct). That said, Robert
Sheaffer has offered the following explanation:
"The long story on Jesus exists because of the impact the followers
of Jesus have had on Western society, which is more significant than
that of Caesar or Plato."
"It was not until the 18th century that *any* credible, scholarly
critical analysis was applied to Bible texts. Therefore it is not
surprising that such questions first surfaced at that time."
_________________________________________________________________
WELL'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS
No discussion of the historicity of Jesus would be complete without a
discussion about G.A. Well's case against the historicity of Jesus.
The principal arguments against the historicity of Jesus are as
follows:
1. There is no real evidence outside the New Testament that a man
named Jesus ever lived.
2. None of Jesus' teachings, as given in the New Testament, is
original, for many can be found in earlier sources. This assumes
that we have an accurate record in the New Testament of the
sayings attributed to Jesus.
3. The story of Jesus' trial and death do not correspond with the
legal possibilities open at that time. The Romans did not have a
capital offense of blasphemy, and the Jews had death by stoning as
punishment for that offense.
4. We do not have eyewitness accounts, even in the New Testament, of
the life of Jesus; furthermore, the accounts in the New Testament
were written many years later, by unknown followers. Thus we have
no contemporary biographical record of Jesus in any source.
5. There is no necessity for a religion to have an actual historical
founder, even if it claims to have had one. Hinduism, for example,
has no historical founder.
6. The entire basic outline of Jesus' life-- i.e., born of a virgin,
sent by God, rejected by men, killed by his countrymen, and then
resurrected-- is found in nearly identical forms in the myths of
many countries much older than Christianity. This suggests some
"mythologizing" of the facts, if there are facts.
Concludes Dr. Gordon Stein, "These facts, plus the idea that
Christianity can be explained without a historical Jesus, have made
the historicity issue one that just will not go away."
_________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Christian literature often gives the false impression that the
historicity of Jesus is a none-issue. This is both misleading and
false. The historicity of Jesus is at least debatable. Even Josh
McDowell, in his 1988 book He Walked Among Us, acknowledged that some
scholars deny Jesus' historicity:
"The fact that almost all we know about Him comes from Christian
documents has led some scholars to deny that He ever existed at all.
Bruno Bauer, Paul Couchoud, G. Gurev, R. Augsten, and most recently,
G.A. Wells have argued against the existence of Jesus."
Such an admission does not appear in McDowell's Evidence.
Timothy Jones
>
> >
> >nothing outside the new testament that does so, and of course, the nt is
> >a religious patchwork written by obviously biased sources (i.e.
> >believers that want others to believe) long after the fact.
> >
> >I will post the message I've saved containing the arguments for jc and
> >their refutation, which demonstrates the lack of historical evidence for
> >jc, presently.
>
> what we believe and it doesn't matter if you don't believe.
It is your obligation to prove what you assert...at least, if you intend
to compell anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
If, OTOH, you are saying that you're just stagin what you think and
believe, all I can say is fine and dandy, but I don't believe or agree
with you.
LesserRorqual
I should think it obvious by any objective standard that Jesus was a
historical figure. Not much beyond this, of course, can be asserted.
However, as Morton Smith so pithily put it, the search for the
historical Jesus is like the search in physics for the invisible,
subatomic particle. The particle's nature and momentum are derived from
the effects it has created in the other, larger, visible particles which
it has set in motion. Very close to the times described in the NT, a
variety of human "particles" - socioreligious movements - appear which
claimed and were claimed by observers to have derived from the human
"subatomic particle" of Jesus of Palestine. This does not constitute
historical proof, but it is evidential toward the existence of a
paradoxical human figure who, in a relatively very short span of time,
spawned various and sometimes conflicting social groups claiming
derivation from him. The existence of such conflicts has the ring of
history rather than of myth.
Paul certainly regarded Jesus as historical, "born of a woman under
the Law", of David's lineage, who was crucified under conditions which
were a "stumbling-block" to Jews and an outright absurdity to Gentiles.
Although Paul could have been proposing a renewal of a hanging-god myth,
his letters to communities which he himself did not found cast doubt on
this, because they presuppose an already-known biographical structure
for Jesus's actual existence which is equivalent to that presupposed by
the Gospels.
Scholarly consensus is that Jesus's parables are unprecedented.
They have no exact antecedents in Jewish or Gentile aphoristic texts.
Their closest parallels are in Buddhist paradoxes. However, the
parables, along with being unique to Jesus, are also embedded in the
earliest NT literary strata. Thus they are unique _and_ early.
Borrowing from Buddhism or absorption by some other form of cultural
diffusion is therefore of almost nil probability.
Skeptics who deny JC's historicity must first abolish the parables as
sayings derived from, or reflecting, his own speech. In so doing,
critics must justify bucking the current exegetical trends, and, more
importantly, they must offer an equivalently unique and early source to
that offered in Jesus. They must also furnish aphoristic speech in
parabolic form which equals the strangeness, irony, and depth of Jesus's
_logia_. Finally, they must locate _at least one_ parallel parabolic
teacher, teachers, or school of teachers, contemporaneous with Jesus or
at least with the earliest NT strata. It is not enough for
christiconoclasts to draw tiresome, vague parallels between the NT
figure of Jesus and "pagan christs", sun myths, demigods and heroes.
This methodology was adequate for the author of The Golden Bough and
other reductionists of the early days of this century; but it is simply
unfit for the purpose in today's exegetical world. If skeptics wish to
erase the impertinent and not easily eradicated figure of the NT Christ
from historical consideration, they must first explain and devalue the
parables (as well as the "primitive Palestinian" bedrock of the
tradition), and then submit their findings to rigorous peer review of
linguists, historians, archeologists, and textual- and form-critical
experts. As long as the critics continue to wallow in HG Wells's and
other turn of the century critiques of Jesus' historicity, they are not
living in the modern world, and their notions do not approach current
scholarly "state-of-the-art" findings and methodology.
One final observation: should Jesus be ruled out of consideration as
a historical figure, his myth remains. Should his historicity be lost,
his myth alone is sufficient. Sufficient for what? Sufficient for the
universal needs of the human soul, of course. Until that time, however,
it is fascinating to watch how history and myth illumine each other.
david ford
in a week.
Dr. Monkeyspank <drmonk...@my-dejanews.com> on 23 Dec 1998:
david ford on 22 Dec 1998:
DM [a bunch of crap about the supposed "blood" on the shroud]
DM
DM Look, Dave, it's really easy. You don't even have to go the bother of
DM lab testing to figure it out. Is the blood still "blood red" after
DM supposedly 2000 years? Yes?
DM
DM Then it cannot be real blood -- wishful, ad-hoc, Occam's Razor
DM defying, pulled out of your ass fantasy explanations not withstanding.
DM
DM Simple as that. Now move on.
Summary: "And so the fact that the blood is red, and still red, is proof
of the fact that this is blood from a man who died a very traumatic
death."
In _Inquest_, Nickell makes the following argument about the color of
the Shroud's blood: P1) if the "blood" was blood, then it would have
turned almost black. P2) the "blood" has not turned almost black. C)
therefore, the "blood" is not blood. To summarize this modus tollens
syllogism: if blood, then black; not black; thus, not blood.
In support of P1, Nickell states that blood "turns red-brown, then
brown, and eventually almost black,"[n, 128] citing Paul L. Kirk, _Crime
Investigation_ (1974), 194-5. He further remarks, "To such an extent
are these color transitions characteristic of the aging of blood that
forensic scientists have employed spectrophotometric data to assist them
in estimating the age of bloodstains," this time referring readers to
articles in _Forensic Science_ 1:27-54 (1972) and _Nature_ 187:688-9
(1960).[check these]
Regarding P1, Adler makes the clarification that "a lot of people
thought the blood we see in mummies is black, but they don't realize
that's because you've got a thick amount of blood. If you look at a
thin section of it, you'd see it was brown."[This and what follows are
from the interview in T. W. Case, _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14
Dating Fiasco_ (1996), 57-8.] In connection with P2, Adler points out
that not all of the Shroud's blood is red, as "there are some places
where the blood in fact is darker. For example, from the scourge
marks."
Adler's additional remarks defeat P1, which I'll rephrase as "if the
'blood' was blood, then it would have turned brown." P1 does not always
hold true, because blood sometimes does not turn brown:
A blood "clot contracts because of the fibrin in it," in the process
"squeez[ing] out the serum." This serum "has excess albumin in it" and
"a small amount of hemoglobin." Now the "albumin carries all the
bilirubin that's there." As a consequence, the serum contains a "ratio
of bilirubin to hemoglobin" higher than what is "see[n] in normal
blood."
Now, "when blood dries out, the protein [i.e. hemoglobin] changes its
structure," and the "spectrum of the hemoglobin changes to give you a
sort of reddish-brown... brown color." However, "bilirubin is
yellow-orange," particularly "when it's bound on the protein [i.e., on
hemoglobin]." Should one mix bilirubin and hemoglobin, "you get red."
Adler is unclear about whether the bilirubin and hemoglobin have to be
physically mixed to get the color red, or whether a mixing of the colors
yellow-orange and brown/reddish-brown give you red.
That "the blood is... still red" Adler terms "proof of the fact that
this is blood from a man who died a very traumatic death." He is
referring to the information that the presence of bilirubin is a result
of bodily trauma; explains Adler, "when you break red blood cells, like
when you beat somebody, or when you subject him to severe traumatic
shock, the hemoglobin goes through the liver," whereupon the liver takes
from "the broken blood cells, the hemoglobin," and "converts [some of?]
it to what are called bile pigments: biliverdin and eventually bilirubin
for excretion." In fact, "bilirubin is frequently tested" for when
seeking "evidence of broken blood cells." Adler recalls that "one of
the surprising things about the chemical evidence" he and Heller
"collected on the blood is that there is a very high amount of"
bilirubin. And, to reiterate, when bilirubin and hemoglobin are mixed,
"you get red."
In conclusion, using Adler's words, "the fact that the blood is red, is
an independent piece of evidence that this is, in fact, a severely
beaten man whose image is on" the Shroud, evidence that is "in agreement
with the pathological image evidence."
david ford
david ford:
df That "the blood is... still red" Adler terms "proof of the fact that
df this is blood from a man who died a very traumatic death."
SK Near where I live is a plantation house where a locally-famous murder
SK took place. The plantation is now an historical site, and tours are
SK occasionally given of the plantation house, including the murder site.
SK It was a very bloody murder, and the victim struggled until the very
SK end, leaving blood stains all over one room of the top floor.
SK
SK These blood stains are a *very* dark blue--almost black.
Have you seen the bloodstains and judged that they [SK]"are a *very*
dark blue--almost black"? Does this information derive from legend?
From newspaper accounts of the time? IOW, what's the source for this?
SK So, since this man died a
SK traumatic death, how come his blood didn't even stay red for 100
SK years, yet the one on the shroud apparently stayed red for 2000?
How exactly did the victim die? If it was a stabbing, what organs, e.g.
the liver, were punctured during the stabbing? What wounds were present
on the dead body? If only a vein was cut and the victim struggled to
get out of the grasp of the murderer, the death could be [SK]"very
bloody" with the [SK]"victim struggl[ing] until the very end," even as
very few red blood cells were broken up.
Wilson, Ian. _The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence That the World's
Most Sacred Relic Is Real_ (1998), 91, 92:
....American-born specialist in ancient DNA, Dr. Thomas Loy... at
Queensland University's Centre for Molecular and Cellular
Biology... is sufficiently famous in his field that he is mentioned
in its connection in the book _Jurassic Park_ [see chapter "The
Tour"]. .... Loy was also supportive of the credibility of Alan
Adler's explanation for the 'too red' blood. He himself had come
across 300,000-year-old blood of a similarly vivid colour, it
always being the circumstances of the deceased's death, rather than
anything to do with the sample's age, that is responsible for this.
SK (And why does it clump *exactly* like red ocher paint and nothing at
SK all like blood?)
What is the source for your claim that the blood on the Shroud
[SK]"clump[s] *exactly* like red ocher paint and nothing at all like
blood"? Could you provide a quotation from your source to that effect?
Shane D. Killian
>
> Carbon Dating
> outline:
> 1) must look at preponderance of evidence
>
century painting.
> 2) C-14 tests are undependable
>
Source? I'm sure a lot of archaeologists would be interested to hear
this.
> 3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
> faulty methodology in sample collection
>
Details? Source?
> 4) bioplastic layer
>
Not anywhere *NEAR* enough to throw off the dating by 1300 years. The
bioplastic layer would need to be TWICE as massive as the shroud itself!
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 1) must look at preponderance of evidence
> The Shroud was carbon dated in 1988 "with at least 95% confidence...
> [to] AD 1260-1390 (rounded down_up to nearest 10 yr.)"[_Nature_
> 337:614
> (1989).] However, a single carbon date does not mean everything. One
> must look at the whole package of information before making a decision
> on the question of authenticity.
>
OK: The "blood" sayed red and clumped up, exactly unlike blood but
exaqctly like red ocher paint. The bodily proportions are grossly
inaccurate for a human being, but fit perfectly with the art of the
time. The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
consistent with a clost woven in the 12th century.
On and on and on...
> Meacham also says, "As Barnard... observes: 'No historian would, for
> instance, point to a radiocarbon date (or even a whole series of C-14
> dates) and assert that this type of data... provides ultimate proof of
> the reliability of a certain point of contention.'"
>
Maybe not, but that along with scores of others would pretty much settle
it. And this is what we have with the shroud.
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 2) C-14 tests are undependable
> Carbon dating has been wrong in giving wildly differing dates for the
> same thing. In the case of an eruption that is thought, using history,
> to have happened around 1500 BC, dates of 1100 plus minus 190 years BC
> were obtained. It just so happens that also obtained were dates ranging
> back to 2590 plus minus 80 years BC.[Wilson (1991), 172-3.]
>
Ummm...carbon dating is used to date *previously living* things. *Not*
rocks. Try again.
> Writing in _Scientists Confront Creationism_ (1983), ed. Laurie R.
> Godfrey, 155-6, paleontologist David M. Raup observes,
> Of all the [absolute (which contrasts with relative) dating]
> methods, probably carbon 14 is the least dependable, and yet it is
> the most interesting to many people because it is applied to the
> most recent part of geologic history.
>
There is absolutely nothing inaccurate about carbon dating unless you go
back over 30,000 years. Other dating methods can be applied, and when
they all agree, you figure that's it.
> In his _The Encyclopedia of Evolution_ (1990), under the entry
> "Radiocarbon Dating, the C-14 clock," Richard Milner remarks "Since no
> single date can be considered really definitive, archaeologists take a
> series of 50 or so samples from a site to establish consistency and
> reliability." Contrast that with the Shroud dating, where not 50, but
> _one_ sample from _one_ area was taken and subdivided for testing.
> This fact alone is sufficient grounds for throwing out the C-14 dating
> results.
>
Why? Because you don't like the results? The results fit with all the
other evidence. In fact, even if it weren't for the carbon dating, there
would still be plenty of evidence to show that it's a 12th-13th century
painting.
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
> faulty methodology in sample collection
>
> The 1988 testers were physicists, not archaeologists.
>
A gross generalization. And inaccurate. Walter McCrone, for example,
works with the dating and authenitcity of medieval paintings.
> Archaeologists have learned from practical experience that C-14 dating
> is not the sure thing it was originally hoped to be.
>
Name these archaeologists, please.
(And by the way, who don't you show any cites to peer-reviewed material?
These "sources" of yours are biased to say the least.)
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 4) bioplastic layer
>
Again, microscopic photography has shown that very little if any
bioplastic buildup exists, and if it didn. it would need to be TWICE as
massive as the shroud itself.
These arguments are specious, to say the least, and only chip away at
the smallest amount of the numerous pieces of evidence showing that the
shroud is a 12th-13th century painting.
Shane D. Killian
>
> For those that have seen this before: I hope to break new ground
> in a week.
>
> In conclusion, using Adler's words, "the fact that the blood is red,
> is an independent piece of evidence that this is, in fact, a severely
> beaten man whose image is on" the Shroud, evidence that is "in
> agreement with the pathological image evidence."
>
Except, of course, for the fact that he had been dead several hours. How
can the blood of a dead man flow out of his wounds? If the shroud were
placed on his body at the time of crucifixion, you might have a point.
But he was long since dead when wrapped and placed in the tomb. Unless,
of course, you want to re-write the Bible, which shroud enthusiasts do
anyway, sicne the Bible clearly states that Jesus was buried in strips
of linen, with a cloth over his face..
Shane D. Killian
>
> Shane D. Killian <sha...@vnet.net> on 18 Jul 1998:
> david ford:
>
> df That "the blood is... still red" Adler terms "proof of the fact
>
> SK Near where I live is a plantation house where a locally-famous
> SK tours are occasionally given of the plantation house, including the
> SK murder site.
> SK It was a very bloody murder, and the victim struggled until the
> SK
> SK These blood stains are a *very* dark blue--almost black.
>
> Have you seen the bloodstains and judged that they [SK]"are a *very*
> dark blue--almost black"?
>
It's amazing the selective reading of many people here...
> Does this information derive from legend?
>
Does "legend" leave bloodstains on a floor?
> From newspaper accounts of the time? IOW, what's the source for this?
>
The details of the murder are available from news sources, and as for
the bloodstains, I've seen them myself.
[more wishful thinking deleted]
> SK (And why does it clump *exactly* like red ocher paint and nothing
> SK at all like blood?)
>
> What is the source for your claim that the blood on the Shroud
> [SK]"clump[s] *exactly* like red ocher paint and nothing at all like
> blood"?
>
If you've seen microscopic images from the "blood" ont he shroud, and I
have--on a Discovery Channel special, you'll see that it clumps up. Any
source covering McCrone's examination of the shroud will confirm this.
g&g
a "normal" human body and the posture is practically impossible.
mign...@bellatlantic.net wrote in article
<75vb9e$pc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
mign...@bellatlantic.net
"g&g " <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
> The body image itself is not at all proportional to
> a "normal" human body and the posture is practically impossible.
>
Precisely. The position of the body, especially in reference to the arms and
the entire dorsal image defies reality. However, that doesn't make the shroud
a fake, nor does it make it a miracle. It really amazes me that people
continue to insist on one or the other.
I'm convinced it was the result of an entirely natural and unlooked-for
accident of nature. The prototype was a first-century Parthian bas-relief.
The carbon-14 dating results are good and consistent with the material that
was tested.
Shane D. Killian
>
> The shroud is a fake. The body image itself is not at all
> proportional to a "normal" human body and the posture is practically
> impossible.
>
their arms crossed at the point where they are in the shroud.
Shane D. Killian
>
> In article <763307$6id$6...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
> "g&g " <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
> > a "normal" human body and the posture is practically impossible.
> >
>
> arms and the entire dorsal image defies reality. However, that doesn't
> make the shroud a fake,
>
more than enough proof that the image does not come from a live subject.
mign...@bellatlantic.net
"Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> mign...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <763307$6id$6...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
> > "g&g " <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > The body image itself is not at all proportional to
> > > a "normal" human body and the posture is practically impossible.
> > >
> >
> > Precisely. The position of the body, especially in reference to the
> > arms and the entire dorsal image defies reality. However, that doesn't
> > make the shroud a fake,
> >
> How does that not make the shroud a fake? It seems to me that this is
> more than enough proof that the image does not come from a live subject.
>
You're quite right. But the shroud is not a fake. *Fake* implies that
something was fabricated for the purpose of deceiving others. I don't think
that's the case. I believe it's a freak of nature. I believe the prototype
was a first century Parthian bas-relief, probably meant to represent the
historical Jesus. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the cloth we
know as the Shroud of Turin began its existence as a plain piece of linen
meant to cover and protect that bas relief. Quite by accident it sat in
contact with the Parthian bas-relief, undisturbed, for a period of five
hundred years. Somehow the image on the bas-relief got transferred to the
cloth. I'm not precisely sure just how, but I'll wager it has to do with the
fact that sedimentary rock, such as that used in statuary (granite and
limestone) contains appreciable quantities of naturally-occurring radioactive
substances such as uranium. Not enough to pose a present danger to humans,
but probably sufficient to dehydrate linen over a period of half a millenium.
All this, however, is beyond the scope of a single posting here. For more
detail, reference the Byzantine history of the Image of Edessa (a good
translation is included with Wilson's *The Shroud of Turin*), Gibbon's
statements concerning acheropoieta in *Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,*
Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History, the apocrypha concerning the
apostle Thaddeus and Ian Wilson's Shroud/Mandylion theory (*The Shroud of
Turin.*)
Petteri Sulonen
<Pine.A41.4.05.981224...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > The Shroud will never be proven to be really that of Jesus' burial
> > cloth.
>
> Primarially because it isn't, especially seeing as JC probably never
> lived to begin with, and the entire thing is a hoax.
While there's little historical evidence regarding JC's existence, I
personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
so, I'd like to hear it.
Cheers,
-- Petteri
Ed. Pearlstein
>While there's little historical evidence regarding JC's existence, I
>personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
>It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
>you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
>that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
>you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
>so, I'd like to hear it.
Will Durant devotes several pages to this question in his book
Caesar and Christ (pages 553-557). Written doubts go back to 1768, and
extend to this century, in a number of works discussed by Durant.
In particular, Durant doesn't think the mention by Josephus,
frequently referred to, means much.
After discussion of various sources, he says "In summary, it is
clear that there are many contradictions between one gospel and
another, many dubious statements of history, many suspicious resem-
blances to the legends told of pagan gods, many incidents apparently
designed to prove the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, many
passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later
doctrine or ritual of the Church."
Nevertheless, he says, "the contradictions are of minutiae, not
substance..." He points out that the evidence for the historicity of
Jesus is as good as that for many other important points of ancient
history. "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented
.....would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the
Gospels."
My own, non-expert and unsupported, thoughts on the matter are these: As I
understand it, there were lots of putative messiahs running around in those
days. Perhaps one of them fit the description of Jesus. But the legends
surrounding Jesus might be composite of several of these people, having
been embelished a lot during the decades between Jesus' death and the
writing of the gospels.
e.oupt
I thought that the PBS "Frontline" special on early Christians, this last week, was
interesting.
On that program it was stated that; The gospel of Mark, was the first gospel written (30
to 40 years after Jesus's crucifixion).
The early versions of 'Mark' did not speak of the 'risen' Jesus visiting His followers; it
ended with Mary Magdalene and 'Mary mother of James' fleeing from Jesus's tomb, when it
was discovered empty. A mysterious 'young man' (at the tomb) wearing white, told the
women that Jesus had 'risen'.
The gospel states that these women told no one of this story because they were afraid.
(I wonder if this means that; this story of the empty tomb and the 'man in white', was not
well known by early Christians, until the writing of Mark's gospel?)
The PBS program went on to say that: later gospel writers, having read 'Mark' and finding
it inadequate, added to the story; Jesus's interactions with 'believers' after His
resurrection.
e.oupt
LesserRorqual
that originally Mark's ending stopped with the women's visit to the
empty tomb. However, this visit presupposes JC's resurrection. "The
young man" at the tomb explicitly tells them that Jesus, though having
been executed by crucifixion, is "risen" (Mark 16:6b), and has, as
promised, "gone ahead of the disciples to Galilee. The notion that
other NT writers found Mark's narrative incomplete and therefore added
their own resurrection narratives is unsupportable, since each Gospel
author presents a different Resurrection scene corresponding to the
different needs of his respective ongregation. The other Gospel writers
thus had their own Resurrection viewpoints and agendas for presenting
such, independently of how they may have regarded Mark's Resurrection
narrative. A good case can be made that Mark's original ending was
actually a liturgical formula praising the Resurrection, with the
worshippers reciting the text portion and the ritual leader reciting
"the young man/angel" portion. Moreover, the rest of Mark's Gospel
presupposes a risen Christ: the Son of God of whom Mark writes is not a
martyred hero of the past, but a living personal force manifesting "from
heaven" - just as He is in the other Gospels. It is therefore not
plausible to imply that Mark's lack of a Resurrection narrative is
indicative that Mark and his congregation were unfamiliar with the
Resurrection story. NOr is it plausible to think that the other Gospel
writers created or inserted Resurrection narratives into their Gospels
because they found Mark "incomplete". But even more to the point:
If we are to give "Q" a separate existence, it is obvious that the Q
Community was operating _without_ a Resurrection narrative. In Q _as Q_
(taken in isolation from the texts in which it is imbedded), JC appears
as a Wisdom Teacher or "transformative sage". Q's Jesus resembles the
Hinayana Buddha, as a teacher of subversive wisdom who proposed a "Way"
for individual enlightenment. How interesting that there may have been
an early or earliest Xian community which either had no awareness of, or
no use for, the Resurrection, which for subsequent Xian movements was,
of course, _the_ central affirmation ("If Christ is not risen, your
faith is in vain" said Paul, and this slogan was taken up early and
forcefully and continues today).
Peter Walker
: My own, non-expert and unsupported, thoughts on the matter are these: As I
: understand it, there were lots of putative messiahs running around in those
: days. Perhaps one of them fit the description of Jesus. But the legends
: surrounding Jesus might be composite of several of these people, having
: been embelished a lot during the decades between Jesus' death and the
: writing of the gospels.
More time, if the Jewish writing known as the Tosfeta and the Baraitas carry
any weight - since they make the Jesus of the Christians (Yeshu ha-Notzri)
to be a contemporary of Yehoshua ben Perachyah, which places any historical
proto-Jesus as operating at about 100 BCE.
Presumably over the next 170 years, he was composited with other figures,
Iranian Mithraic myth, and the like before the gospels were composed.
______________________________________________________________________________
|
Peter Wykoff Walker II Alt.Atheist #3 | "He who wishes to succeed
Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University | in life must learn not to
| heed the Bird of Prophecy."
Comments, questions, and discussions |
welcome. | -Esigie, Oba of the African
Preaching, conversion attempts, and flames | Kingdom of Benin, c.1505-c.1550
will be deleted unread. +---------------------------------
e-mail: p...@spacsun.rice.edu Voice Mail: (281) 933-2446
david ford
from _Applied Optics_ and _CSFSJ_ papers.
In the spring 1998 issue of _Free Inquiry_, in a paragraph with the
heading "_Fake blood,_"[n98, 48-9] Nickell writes about tests following
a 24 November 1973 examination,[W78, 58] "An official commission
conducted extensive tests of the 'blood' on the shroud," with "one of
the results [being] noteworthy: the 'blood' failed all tests, not only
the preliminary ones but also such additional analyses as those for
speciation and blood groups. The tests included chemical, microscopic,
microchemical, and microspectroscopic analyses, as well as thin-layer
chromatography and neutron activation analysis.[these tests really done?
who exactly did what? how do the tests work?] ....those conducting the
tests on the blood were... internationally known forensic serologists, a
fact that underscored the credibility of the results."
The truth of the matter is that the individuals conducting the tests did
not know what they were doing, and thus, their failure to obtain a
positive test result for the presence of blood means nothing. Their
failure most assuredly does not support Nickell's claim that "the
commission's tests of several fibers... indicated that _no blood was
present_."[n n/d78, 31. As elsewhere, emphasis in original.]
Ian Wilson reports that Professors Mari and Rizzati failed to detect the
presence of blood using a test in which red blood cells' peroxidase is
introduced to a benzidine mixture, and causes the benzidine, which is
normally colorless, to turn blue. No blue appeared. Wilson adds that
"the more specific tests then carried out produced similarly negative
results. Attempts to dissolve the granules during chemical treatment
with acidic acid, oxygenated water, and glycerin of potassium were all
unsuccessful."[W78, 58-9] Nickell concurs that dissolving was not
achieved, stating in 1981, "Reddish granules were found in the 'blood'
images on the threads, but these would not even dissolve...."[n81, 29]
After reading Wilson's 1978 book, John H. Heller recalls having the
following conversation with the U.S. Air Force Academy's John P.
Jackson. Observed Heller, "The two Italian forensic people did
simpleminded tests.... It's no wonder they didn't get any answers."
Jackson replied, "Are you sure?" "Dead sure. If you don't do the right
tests in the right way, you can never get old blood into solution. If
it's not in solution, you can't obtain a positive test." "But,...
they're both university professors, and..." "I don't care if they were
the pope and the president of Italy. I read what they did and what they
saw on the fiber. If that gunk on it is blood, they should have gotten
so positive a test, you could have seen it across the room. If they
didn't solubilize it, they didn't have a prayer. Of course, they could
have made physical measurements and gotten an answer." "Physics?"
"Sure. Microspectrophotometry."[h,13-14]
Using samples collected during the 1978 STURP examination of the Shroud,
individuals that knew how to test for the presence of blood performed
additional tests, and their results were peer-reviewed and published.
In "Blood on the Shroud of Turin" _Applied Optics_ 19:2742-4 (1980),
Heller and Alan D. Adler (both with the New England Institute,
Ridgefield, Connecticut) summarized their conclusions by saying in part,
"The following tests were performed:
(a) visual examination;
(b) positive association with iron by x-ray fluorescence;
(c) positive Soret absorption and reasonable correspondence to
expected met-hemoglobin visible spectral shapes by both transmission and
reflection spectroscopy; and
(d) positive chemical conversion to a fluorimetrically
characteristic prophyrin [sic] species does confirm and give positive
presumptive evidence for identification of the alleged blood areas on
the Shroud of Turin as, in fact, containing blood."
Also, in the _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14:81-103
(1981), Heller (of the New England Institute) and Adler (of the Dept of
Chemistry, Western Connecticut State College, Danbury, CT) present the
following "Table 5" under the heading "Tests Confirming the Presence of
Whole Blood on the Shroud":
"1) High Fe in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
2) Indicative reflection spectra
3) Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
4) Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
5) Positive hemochromagen [sic?] tests
6) Positive cyanmethemoglobin tests
7) Positive detectionn [sic] of bile pigments
8) Positive demonstration of protein
9) Positive indication of albumin specifically
10) Protease tests, leaving no residues
11) Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
12) Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wound and blood
marks."
Nickell grossly misleads spring 1998 _Free Inquiry_ readers by citing as
authoritative amateurs' circa 1973 failure to obtain positive test
results for blood, while neglecting to mention the peer-reviewed journal
articles demonstrating that the blood is indeed blood.
John H. Heller, _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983).
John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin,"
_Applied Optics_ 19:2742-4 (1980).
J.H. Heller and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin," _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14:81-103
(1981).
Joe Nickell, "The Shroud of Turin--Solved!" _The Humanist_ (Nov/Dec
1978), 30-2.
Joe Nickell, "New Evidence: The Shroud of Turin is a Forgery" _Free
Inquiry_ (Summer 1981), 28-30.
Joe Nickell, "The Case of the Shroud" _Free Inquiry_ (Spring 1998),
48-9.
Ian Wilson, _The Shroud Of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Juice Christ?_
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1978).
david ford
working out of alt.turin-shroud.
Summary: Ultraviolet fluorescence photography reveals the presence of
serum halos that accompany some of the blood regions.
H&A "noted as might be expected if the wounds truly represent clotted
images" the presence of "'serum', apparently due to clot
retraction."[h&a81, 90] Ultraviolet fluorescence photography confirms
their observation.
Miller and Pellicori call UV fluorescence photography a "technique...
able to detect organic and inorganic compounds by their integrated
emission spectra and... the complement of the more common technique of
reflectance photography."[m&p, 71]
Concerning the dorsal feet images, Miller & Pellicori observed a
"fluorescing border in the blood flow off the [left foot] body image
areas," while for the right foot, "a more distinct light border area is
seen."[M&p, 76] For the "dorsal midsection area," there exist "some
lighter border areas associated with the blood flow" that is "across the
small of the back," while "many scourges have fluorescing bordering
areas."[m&p, 79] Blood stains present "on the dorsal head area are
bounded by brighter areas."[m&p, 80]
Moving now to the ventral image, the "blood streaks in the hair are
denser on the right side and have fluorescing boundaries," even as the
"lower left arm blood stains... have light border areas." Also, the
"lower lip appears to have a fluorescent boundary."[M&p, 81] [Sure not
upper lip? Cf with Tamburilli]
[Get article in color and interpret what "these" refers to in "On the
right shoulder, the blood stains are in very sharp detail, with the
lower stain broken into dots. Compare this area with some of the
scourges on the right side. Circles of yellow-green fluorescence are
associated with these wounds."-m&p, 81]
There are "clear fluorescing borders around the hand wound blood
stains,"[82] and the right foot's larger blood stain area "has a
fluorescing border area."[m&p, 83]
[m&p didn't mention the lance wound. Look at the photos in color and
say what you see. Perhaps can tie in with H&A's "Positive Bromcresol
Green tests indicating albumin could be obtained for the larger, deeper
yellow orange globs and also for the golden yellow ('serum') coated
fibrils. Thus, this indicates that blood constituents other than
hemeproteins are present in the blood areas. Similar albumin positive
tests were also found in areas adjacent to the blood, e.g., the lance
wound area. Elsewhere, expressed 'serum', apparently due to clot
retraction, is noted as might be expected if the wounds truly represent
clotted images...."-h&a81, 90]
About the "lighter bordering area seen with many bloodstained areas," a
"feature requiring explanation," Miller & Pellicori comment, "the
interpretation is that blood serum is present,"[m&p, 85] possibly citing
Heller & Adler, 1981 (it is unclear). Miller & Pellicori concur with
Heller & Adler that blood serum is present in conjunction with bloody
areas. Or perhaps it should be said that Heller & Adler concur with
Miller & Pellicori, for Heller & Adler maintain, as confirmation of
Heller & Adler's work, maintain that "the UV photographic studies...
show 'serum' halo effects about the scourge marks and at the margins of
blood clots,"[h&a81, 96] citing Miller & Pellicori's article.
Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler. "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of
Turin" _Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal_ 14: 81-103
(1981).
Miller, V.D. and S.F. Pellicori. "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography
of the Shroud of Turin" _Journal of Biological Photography_ 49:
71-85 (1981).
david ford
Publishing Co., Inc., 1971), 178pp. A paragraph on 18:
One who makes a close study of almost any branch of science soon
discovers the great illusion of the monolith. When he stood
outside as an uninformed layman, he got a vague impression of
unanimity among the professionals. He tended to think of science
as supporting an Establishment with fixed and approved views. All
this dissolves as he works his way into the living concerns of
practicing scientists. He finds lively personalities who indulge
in disagreement, disorder, and disrespect. He must sort out
conflicting opinions and make up his own mind as to what is correct
and who is sound.
maff91
wrote:
>Macbeth, Norman. _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason_ (NY: Dell
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun96.html
http://x9.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426145741
Timothy Jones
>
> Timothy Jones invites us to consider the non-existence of Jesus Christ.
I'm not the only one, or in fact the original one. The original poster,
Jeff Lowder, has been a student of and former believer in this issue. I
would think he knows what he's talking about.
> I should think it obvious by any objective standard that Jesus was a
> historical figure.
That is easy to claim. But as my submission shows, difficult to prove.
> Not much beyond this, of course, can be asserted.
> However, as Morton Smith so pithily put it, the search for the
> historical Jesus is like the search in physics for the invisible,
> subatomic particle. The particle's nature and momentum are derived from
> the effects it has created in the other, larger, visible particles which
> it has set in motion.
The same can be said for legends. This is why we require more than
"particle" evidence when it comes to people.
> Very close to the times described in the NT, a
> variety of human "particles" - socioreligious movements - appear which
> claimed and were claimed by observers to have derived from the human
> "subatomic particle" of Jesus of Palestine.
More to the point, JC himself is a carbon coopy of dozens of other
savior saints. Even the name Jesus was commonplace back then. And
certainly there's nothing in the least original about the christian
religion itself.
> This does not constitute historical proof, but it is evidential
> toward the existence of a paradoxical human figure who, in a
> relatively very short span of time, spawned various and sometimes
> conflicting social groups claiming derivation from him.
No. It is proof only of the belief systems.
> The existence of such conflicts has the ring of history rather than
> of myth.
False. It has a ring of plagiarism. Nothing more.
> Paul certainly regarded Jesus as historical, "born of a woman under
> the Law", of David's lineage, who was crucified under conditions which
> were a "stumbling-block" to Jews and an outright absurdity to Gentiles.
Paul was a believer who wanted others to believe. Not a historian. And
he was working well after the alledged events, and/or from second hand
or third hand stories. This is all covered in my submission.
> Although Paul could have been proposing a renewal of a hanging-god myth,
> his letters to communities which he himself did not found cast doubt on
> this, because they presuppose an already-known biographical structure
> for Jesus's actual existence which is equivalent to that presupposed by
> the Gospels.
And I suppose if they contained a "biographical structure" for santa
clause, we'd be expected to credit Paul's proposal of that belief as
well? Sorry, but no dice. Again, the bible, including the gospels, is
not a history book, and its various authors were not historians. They
were believers who wanted others to believe.
> Scholarly consensus is that Jesus's parables are unprecedented.
> They have no exact antecedents in Jewish or Gentile aphoristic texts.
> Their closest parallels are in Buddhist paradoxes. However, the
> parables, along with being unique to Jesus,
Rubbish. The jesus myth is a regurgitation of Horus and about a dozen
other "savior saint" myths.
> are also embedded in the earliest NT literary strata.
This of course proves nothing.
> Thus they are unique _and_ early.
They are anything *but* unique, and are nowhere near "early" *enough*.
> Borrowing from Buddhism or absorption by some other form of cultural
> diffusion is therefore of almost nil probability.
Nonsense. Again, there is nothing original about christianity or the
jesus myth.
> Skeptics who deny JC's historicity must first abolish the parables as
> sayings derived from, or reflecting, his own speech.
Simply put, there's no reason to think they're at all original or to be
taken as evidence of anything, including the jesus myth.
> It is not enough for christiconoclasts to draw tiresome, vague
> parallels between the NT figure of Jesus and "pagan christs", sun
> myths, demigods and heroes.
Oh no? Watch us.
> This methodology was adequate for the author of The Golden Bough and
> other reductionists of the early days of this century; but it is
> simply unfit for the purpose in today's exegetical world.
Says you. The fact is, both JC and xtianity are rip-offs of about a
dozen to a hundred other things. There's no kind of "strangeness" about
them that proves anything. {That kind of reasoning is like saying Yoda
from The Empire Strikes Back must be historical because he talks
backwards! So?}
[redundancy snipped]
> One final observation: should Jesus be ruled out of consideration as
> a historical figure, his myth remains.
Certainly. Just like Jack Frost and the easter bunny. So?
> Should his historicity be lost, his myth alone is sufficient.
> Sufficient for what? Sufficient for the universal needs of the
> human soul, of course.
Which also does not exist. And I would remind you of the context of this
matter. If JC is just a myth, the shroud of turin may as well be a
Holiday Inn bath towel.
> Until that time, however, it is fascinating
> to watch how history and myth illumine each other.
And contradict each other.
Timothy Jones
>
> >It is your obligation to prove what you assert...at least, if you intend
> >to compell anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
> >
> >believe, all I can say is fine and dandy, but I don't believe or agree
> >with you.
>
> matter to me. I compel no one. You have me mixed up with someone
> else.
You assert that your beliefs are true. That is an assertion. Failure to
support it entitles us to proclaim its failure.
Timothy Jones
>
> > Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > The Shroud will never be proven to be really that of Jesus' burial
> > > cloth.
> >
> > Primarially because it isn't, especially seeing as JC probably never
> > lived to begin with, and the entire thing is a hoax.
>
> personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
> It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
> you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
> that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
> you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
> so, I'd like to hear it.
Same as santa clause, someone made it up. Why is this so hard for folks
to wrap their head around?
TJ
murray matt
Unless you think the shroud is 3/4 fungus --or--
Unless you think that Jesus emitted enough neutron radiation to pretty
much kill every living creature within 6 miles of ground zero and NOT
incinerate the shroud."
How do you know it was neutron radiation or radiation at all. We are
talking about the RESURRECTION of Christ (not something you can simply
recreate in a lab).
Matthew 28-1
murray matt
exaqctly like red ocher paint. The bodily proportions are grossly
inaccurate for a human being, but fit perfectly with the art of the
time. The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
consistent with a clost woven in the 12th century."
Where do I start?
1) It has been proven to be human blood (type AB in fact).
2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud). As far as fiting
perfectly with the art of the time, name me one painter who ever painted
in negative, please!
3) Interestingly the size of the Turin cloth matches precisely the unit
of measurement which was used in Palestine at the time of Jesus, the
philetaric cubit. This means the cloth which Joseph ordered was of a
standard size. The philetaric cubit was about 53 cm. If one starts with
the assumption that the cloth has stretched a little in the course of
the centuries, the size is exactly 2 cubits wide by 8 cubits long.
Additional Facts From STURP and other Researchers:
Textile Analysis:
No similar material found from Medieval times.
Threads hand woven - pre 12th Century
Egyptian cotton particles indicata a Middle East Origin
Particle Analysis:
Travertine Aragonite limestone particles indigenous to caves
surrounding Jerusalem.
Outside pollen are mineral coated whereas inside pollen are
uncoated Suggests placement in damp tomb or cave.
- Matt
david ford
m A very piquant observation, to be sure, and it represents a methodology
m employed by both sides of the shroud argument.
m
m I should point out, however, that the eminent people who investigated
m the shroud for the STURP project--people of all religious faiths and
m non-faiths with scientific credentials in many respects equal or
m superior to those of McCrone--concluded, based on an extensive, up-close
m examination of the shroud, that the image was a direct result of
m *dehydration and conjugation* (their terminology) of the outermost
m fibrils of the outermost threads of the cloth.
There is a very small amount of paint on the Shroud. However, the paint
does not occur in the image areas and does not account for the image.
Its presence is easily accounted for, and in fact is to be expected,
since artists have painted over 60 copies of the Shroud in the past 600+
years, thereby providing plenty of opportunities for accidentally
spattering paint on the Shroud.[Heller, _Report_]
For the record, the Shroud image is composed of degraded linen. (We see
the image because the image's degraded linen is more degraded than the
non-image linen. As the Shroud ages, the non-image linen will become
progressively degraded, and eventually the contrast between image and
non-image will disappear and we won't be able to see the image).
More technically, the Shroud image was caused by "something which
resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide
structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself."[STURP's final
report's conclusion, presented at the website http://www.shroud.com] In
Heller's words, the image is composed of "dehydrative acid oxidation of
the linen with the formation of a yellow carbonyl chromophore."[_Report
on the Shroud of Turin_ (1983), 217.]
Using _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_, some definitions.
oxidize-1 a: to combine with oxygen 2: to dehydrogenate esp. by the
action of oxygen 3:... remove one or more electrons from (an atom,
ion, or molecule)
dehydrogenation-the removal of hydrogen from a chemical compound
conjugate-1 a: joined together esp. in pairs: COUPLED b: acting or
operating as if joined 3 _of an acid or base_: related by the
difference of a proton <the acid NH_4 and the base NH_3 are ~ to
each other>
polysaccharide-a carbohydrate that can be decomposed by hydrolysis into
two or more molecules of monosaccharides; _esp_: any of the more
complex carbohydrates (as cellulose, starch, or glycogen)
hydrolysis-a chemical process of decomposition involving the splitting
of a bond and the addition of the hydrogen cation and the hydroxide
anion of water
microfibril-a fine fibril; _esp_: one of the submicroscopic elongated
bundles of cellulose of a plant cell wall
fibril-a small filament or fiber
carbonyl-an organic functional group --CO--....
chromophore-a chemical group... that absorbs light at a specific
frequency and so imparts color to a molecule; _also_: a colored
chemical compound
m McCrone, for his part, got hold of some incredibly tiny thread samples
m from a corner of the cloth,
No. McCrone had 32 tapes to start, and sent some tapes to Heller. On the
tapes McCrone sent Heller, there was little in the way of material that
might turn out to be blood. Heller eventually found 7 fibrils having what
looked like might be blood, plus something he called "biltong." Heller
later got a large number of the 32 tapes.
m examined them under a microscope, found tiny
m particles of what he identified as iron oxide and concluded--(no doubt
m predicated on his belief that the shroud could not possibly be *real*)
Upon what basis do you say McCrone had a [m]"belief that the shroud
could not possibly be *real*" at the time he was conducting his
microscope examinations?
m that the particles were pigmentation and that one could extrapolate the
m extent of that pigmentation to account for the image on the cloth.
m
m What McCrone has been saying is basically something on the order of,
m "look, folks, let's be real; we're all rational adults, not given to
m flights of fancy; we know the damned thing is a painting, and here's the
m evidence." That's not very good *science,* although McCrone may take
m comfort in knowing that not many of the scientists researching the
m shroud have done much better.
LesserRorqual
several days ago, the search for the historical Jesus is like the search
in atomic physics for the invisible subatomic particle. The subatomic
particle's nature and velocity are determined by the behavior of the
larger particles it has set in motion.
Same with JC. His life was the human "subatomic particle" which set
in motion other, larger human particles - religiosocial movements all
claiming - within a very short time - derivation from Jesus.
As I pointed out earlier - and a point to which Timothy Jones has not
responded: the earliest and most distinctive forms of Jesus's _logia_
(sayings) are the Parables of the Kingdom. They are too early to have
been borrowed or to have been absorbed via cultural diffusion.
Scholarly consensus on this is nearly unanimous. They have no
antecedents in Greek or Palestinian aphoristic speech. If Timothy Jones
and other "skeptics" wish to take the ridiculous position that JC never
existed, then they must explain (1) the "larger social particles" that
were set in motion by _something or someone_ very close to the time JC
is supposed to have lived; and (2) they must explain JC's Parables of
the Kingdom, which are distinctive, early, and unique. Moreover:
Timothy Jones puts forth the extraordinary claim that "somebody just
made up" the Jesus story. This is highly unlikely, since virtually no
one would invent a new religious figure, and a new ethical and spiritual
system, which would bring upon the inventor social ostracism and
governmental persecution. The Jesus movement was persecuted in its land
of birth, with the "Jesus Jews" being banished from the synagogue _ca_
80 - 90 CE. And Gentile Christianity was a despised and oppressed
religion for its first two hundred years in the Roman Empire. The idea
that "somebody just made it up" simply does not withstand the cliched,
stereotypical, but nonetheless true fact of Christian martyrdom. Note:
dying for a cause does not make that cause "true". But what is being
argued here is not the truth of Christianity, but that the idea is
laughable that "somebody just made it up". People can transform their
lives and suffer persecution over false beliefs - but to say that they
were doing so merely for beliefs that "somebody just made up" is so
ludicrous that it can only be seriously entertained by morons.
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
Note: I added the proper quotation and article ID.
The assertion has been made that the energy emitted by Jesus during his
resurrection could have caused the C-14 dating mismatch by transmuting
nitrogen atoms in the cloth to carbon atoms (as is the case in the upper
atmosphere where C-14 is formed by cosmic neutron flux. See:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html); however, for
enough C-14 to be transmuted in this manner (enough to throw off the
supposed date by over a millennium) Jesus would have had to emit more
neutrons than many tactical nuclear weapons yet some how not incinerate
the cloth in the process (let alone the neutron activation of the
surrounding limestone of the area).
Granted, this was asserted by John Boatwright who is known for his
absurd assertions (see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god/).
At any rate, the whole resurrection was made up from the testimony of a
mad-woman (Mary Magdalene--"possesed by devils"),then tacked onto the
gospel of Mark and then spun even more dramatically by the later
gospels.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
postm...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
BJ
The shroud depicts a man pierced through a bone in the wrist. This is
exactly the way it was done in the first century. In the 14th century, they
had the mistaken notion that it was done through the hands.
The thumbs are not seen. It was not till several centuries after the 14th,
that Doctors discovered that when a particular bone in the wrist is pierced,
the thumbs "fold under" the palm and would be unseen from the back of the
hand.
The impressions left by the instrument used in the beating depicted on the
shroud also match exactly artifacts unearthed this century that were used in
such scourging.
The "blood" on the shroud also reacts under ultra-violet light and other
high-frequency radiation exactly the way real blood reacts and NOT the way
paint does.
murray matt wrote in message ...
Timothy Jones
> lose.
If you say so. Personally, I'll wait on that verdict.
> I never asserted my beliefs were true. I said I believe and don't
> care if anyone else does or not. I don't OWE you anything else.
> What anyone believes, does not, in itself, make something true. I
> stated a simple fact.... I BELIEVE.
If you say so. Stating what you believe is the same as asserting it to
be true. It would not make sense to embrace the alternative, i.e., that
"I believe...but I don't necessarially think what I believe is true."
That would be nonsense. An open statement is always an assertion of
truth. This invites and legitimates rebuttal. If you can't take the
heat, you're posting to the wrong NG.
Timothy Jones
>
> "Let's not forget the most damning refutal--Carbon dating...
>
> Unless you think the shroud is 3/4 fungus --or--
>
> Unless you think that Jesus emitted enough neutron radiation to pretty
> much kill every living creature within 6 miles of ground zero and NOT
> incinerate the shroud."
>
> How do you know it was neutron radiation or radiation at all. We are
> talking about the RESURRECTION of Christ (not something you can simply
> recreate in a lab).
We are also talking about obvious markings that have been claimed to
have been produced by means that would cause the above conflict of
science. That *can* be shown in a lab. It would also be a matter of
common sense.
Darryl L. Pierce
;I thought that the PBS "Frontline" special on early Christians, this last week, was
;interesting.
;On that program it was stated that; The gospel of Mark, was the first gospel written (30
;to 40 years after Jesus's crucifixion).
;
;The early versions of 'Mark' did not speak of the 'risen' Jesus visiting His followers; it
;ended with Mary Magdalene and 'Mary mother of James' fleeing from Jesus's tomb, when it
;was discovered empty. A mysterious 'young man' (at the tomb) wearing white, told the
;women that Jesus had 'risen'.
;
;The gospel states that these women told no one of this story because they were afraid.
;(I wonder if this means that; this story of the empty tomb and the 'man in white', was not
;well known by early Christians, until the writing of Mark's gospel?)
;
;The PBS program went on to say that: later gospel writers, having read 'Mark' and finding
;it inadequate, added to the story; Jesus's interactions with 'believers' after His
;resurrection.
Was that the one called "From Jesus to Christ: The Early Christians"?
I saw it as well. I'm surprised they left out the fact of the addition
of the final chapter to the gospel of John. Otherwise, it was a great
show.
Mise le meas,
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce Alt.Atheism Member #1142, Death 'Piper of the BAAWA |
| Visit me @ http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/1335/ |
| "...ag seinm ceoil do phocaí falamh" - Antoine Raftéirí |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Unsolicited email to this address is acceptance of a $500 per day |
| storage expense to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the email. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
jer...@hvi.net
the carbon dating was established it looks like maybe the
artist was a little bit familiar with anatomy than we'd expect. The missing
thumbs might just be an artist conceiving them folded under the palms of the
hands. Or, he might think they were to far away to be 'imprinted' in the
image itself. Basically just a blank space similar to the eyesockets on the
face.
BJ wrote in message <76bbjp$106$1...@news.socomm.net>...
>Additionally -
>
>The shroud depicts a man pierced through a bone in the wrist. This is
>exactly the way it was done in the first century. In the 14th century,
they
>had the mistaken notion that it was done through the hands.
>
>
>
Shane D. Killian
>
> "OK: The "blood" sayed red and clumped up, exactly unlike blood but
> exaqctly like red ocher paint. The bodily proportions are grossly
> inaccurate for a human being, but fit perfectly with the art of the
> time. The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
> consistent with a clost woven in the 12th century."
>
> Where do I start?
>
> 1) It has been proven to be human blood (type AB in fact).
>
> 2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
> projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud).
> As far as fiting perfectly with the art of the time, name me one
> painter who ever painted in negative, please!
>
Painting an image of the kind shown on the shroud is nothing. If you
have something light, like linen, and paint it with something dark, like
ocher, then the image is going to be darker than the background.
I'm *still* trying to figure out how this makes the image a negative.
I also notice you ignored the bit about the body proportions.
> 3) Interestingly the size of the Turin cloth matches precisely the
> unit of measurement which was used in Palestine at the time of Jesus,
> the philetaric cubit.
>
Whoopee doo. Why did it use a weave that was not going to be around for
1200+ years?
Rocco Paladino
could as a relic, It is very possible this could be real.
The carban 14 testing has been know to be flawed. However, may be
another explaination for the age distoration and the chemical makeup
concern.
It is very, very, very likely christ did not die on the cross.
Early ( fairly advanced for the day) drugs where known and used to
produce death like symptoms. The prophecy was that christ would die and
be ressurected (revieved, saved, resued, whatever word you could use to
discribe the process).
Morever, the trauma procedures would have involved heavy uses of
linaments, solvents and herbs. He could have been ultra sedated before
the crucifixation. He would have certainly been wrapped in a shroud
probably laced with massive "life" saving compounds.
Now remember, there are many drugs, I know of several compounds, which
in the "right" dose could produce the desired outcome. Many of the
early followers of christ were people of means. Politicians, wealthy
land owner of the day, all the way down to the very poor. The more
money the more state of the art treatments. The lower classes would
have been very ept in herbal healing. Especially the women concerned
with child birth.
I believe christ was the most successful sales man this world has ever
known.
It reminds me of the practice of scienctology in many ways.
The relic practice is the key. It most likely was the shroud used.
Whether he resurrected is a matter of faith. I believe
he was. Even if the image was not christs but a elaborate piece of
art . The structure, is definitly human. Also his stature was fairly
big for a pennyless prophet leading what was called a life of denial.
The fact is he was so popular there would have been no way his followers
would have left him be sickly skinny. The Hebrew/jewish culture calls
for high maintnance of their idols or prophets. He would have been a
heavy weight for sure.
david ford
how reliable is Heller's _Report_?
did Heller have a bias toward finding the Shroud to be authentic?
can scientific testing prove that the Shroud is Jesus' shroud, or that
the Shroud image appeared via supernatural means?
Since this paper heavily relies upon Heller's _Report_, it would be well
to assess its reliability. John Jackson comments that
the historically inclined reader should not look to this book as an
accurately detailed, STURP-endorsed chronology of the project.
Facts are sometimes convoluted, out of sequence, in error; and
dates of many significant events are absent from the text.
However, if the reader can be forgiving with respect to fine
detail, the historical presentation is reasonably accurate.
Jackson then takes issue with Heller's dismissive remarks about Wilson's
1978 book, and with Heller's remarks involving the Turin Centro and Dr.
Baima.[see jh, 90-1]
Dorothy Crispino calls "scandalous" Heller's account of Baima's actions
at a 7 & 8 October 1978 Shroud congress, adding, "If Dr. Heller had been
present at the Congress, he might not have written what he did." Her
criticism is encapsulated in the remark that Heller wrote "a story in
the classic American cowboy tradition with good guys (Americans) and bad
guys (most of the Italians)." Crispino opines that by "mauling the
Turinese," Heller "forfeits credibility in other areas of his book," a
most assuredly overblown statement. Heller's recounting of a trip he
was never on is more likely to contain inaccuracies than his recounting
of what he was personally involved in, which, put another way, means he
was _more_ likely to be correct about what he was personally involved
with. Also, the perceived slights and inaccuracies are not of a nature
as to cast doubt upon the credibility of the book's truly first-hand
accounts. Or as Jackson put it, "if the reader can be forgiving with
respect to fine detail, the historical presentation is reasonably
accurate."
We turn now to an assessment of whether Heller had biases toward finding
the Shroud to be authentic (a word that can signify 'the burial shroud
of Jesus of Nazareth,' or signify 'the burial shroud of Jesus of
Nazareth and produced via supernatural means'). The first chapter's
opening lines of his 1983 book read,
BY FAITH, I am a Christian; specifically, a Southern Baptist. By
profession, I am a scientist; specifically, a biophysicist. By
genesis, I am a New Englander, with all the skepticism and
conservativism of the breed. All this being the case, I have
always felt that relics are nothing but flummery from the Dark
Ages. In 1978, I never heard of the Shroud of Turin, let alone
seen a picture of it.
After reading Barbara J. Culliton, "The Mystery of the Shroud Of Turin
Challenges 20th-Century Science" _Science_ 201: 235-9 (21 July 1978),
Heller commented to Maria, his wife, "You know how I feel about relics.
I'll bet if you took all the pieces of the True Cross and put them in
one place, you'd have a lumberyard."[jh, 5] [get more]
Judging by his remarks, Heller fully expected that the 1978 testing
would demonstrate that the Shroud is a fake, and did not possess any
biases toward finding the Shroud to be the burial shroud of Jesus.
Nor was Heller ever under the impression that scientific testing could
conceivably demonstrate the Shroud was Jesus' shroud. Heller wrote that
while interviewing for the book, he "discussed with most of the team...
how they felt about the Shroud," and excepting Jackson, Bucklin, and
Schwortz, "the rest of us have to say that we do not know" whether the
Shroud is "the authentic, burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth."[jh, 219]
Echoing the 1983 remarks, in a 18 July 1994 interview,[Case, 11] Adler
and Heller told their interviewer, Thomas W. Case, the following:
_Dr. Adler_:.... In fact there's something you'd better understand
from the start. All the science in the world is never, ever going
to prove the Shroud is authentic.
_Dr. Heller_: Right.
_Dr. Adler_: It's only capable of proving it's disauthentic.
_Dr. Heller_: Even if you had a signature on the lower right hand
side, "This is my Shroud, signed J. Christ. Attested to by the
mayor of Jerusalem." That's not scientific evidence. That's
historical evidence.[Case, 92]
One small problem with Heller's insistence that science can never
demonstrate the Shroud to be Jesus' shroud is that by concluding
1) the image, whether man-made or not, is that of Jesus-- as most
everybody agrees is the case,
2) the image is _not_ the product of an artist, and
3) the image is _not_ a naturally-formed image (it's much too good to be
naturally-formed),
that only leaves the possibility of
4) the image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural
means.
Geologist Steven D. Schafersman noted the existence of this problem when
he wrote,
The point is that there are really only two possibilities for the
origin of the shroud: either it was made by an artist or it is a
miraculous reproduction of the image of Jesus Christ. To
contemplate a third possibility for _this_ shroud (e.g., a natural
image transfer of a crucified man who was not Jesus of Nazareth) is
absurd. Therefore, by concluding that the shroud is not the work
of an artist, the STURP members are concluding that it is authentic
(i.e., Jesus and supernatural). At the same time, they constantly
claim that science can never reach this conclusion.
Heller can claim [JH]"All the science in the world is never, ever going
to prove the Shroud is authentic" until the cows come home, but the
obvious implication of the STURP team's conclusions is option 4), the
image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural means.
Whether such a demonstration-by-elimination-of-alternatives actually is
"science" I leave to philosophers of science, but before doing so, note
that by Heller's own admission, science utilizes the technique of ruling
things out:
That was the end of that. Another exercise in futility.
Scientific research is filled with such dead ends, and it is in
this way that the scientific enterprise proceeds. We investigate
possibilities and rule them in or out. At the end, what is left is
probably the truth.[jh, 124]
Case, Thomas W. _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A
Scientific Detective Story_ (Cincinnati: White Horse Press, 1996),
103pp.
Crispino, Dorothy. "The Heller Report" _Shroud Spectrum International_
(Dec 1983), 30-32.
Heller, John H. _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983), 225pp.
Jackson, John. Letter _Shroud Spectrum International_ (Sept 1984),
28-29.
Schafersman, Steven D. "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin"
_The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 37-56, 43.
Norman Weaver
Yadda, yadda, yad 8<snip>8
I simply cannot believe the amount of bandwidth devoted to this topic,
so I've decided to offer final, definitive, irrefutable, scientific
proof that this rag is a fake.
Now, don't come looking for peer-reviewed 'citations and quotations'
type proof. And, I don't give a fuck about 'Shroud Science'<spit>
No, no. Real science. Participatory science.
The most basic kind, namely the observation of evidence, and conclusions
drawn on those observations. Wanna play?
I'm sure that non-believers need not continue, but are welcome to if
interested. (the methodology is ridiculously simple)
STEP 1:
Find a photo of the shroud. Any one will do. Actually, you'll need a
full-length shot, showing also the back of the ...er... "saviour".
Go on, spark up your web browser and search up some pictures - there's
tons of them - or use photos from books or magazines. (If you're lucky
enough to have the 'actual' shroud at your disposal, hey, you've hit the
jackpot) I'll not post references or URL's for you, preferring to let
you choose your own - ones of which you're comfortable with the
accuracy. Choose several, if you wish.
STEP 2:
Place your non-dominant hand palm-up on the table or desk in front of
you. (this choice is made simply to keep your dominant hand free for
page flipping, mousing, masturbating, whatever.)
STEP 3:
LOOK AT THE PICTURES!!!
No, stop looking here, look at the pictures!
Go ahead, I'll wait
<taps foot, hums softly to self>
Back already? Convinced? No? Then, go back and look at them some more.
(Here's a hint - pay particular attention to the top of the head. Look
at the top of the front image, then look at the top of the rear image.)
<Humming, again. hmmm, hmmm ...Is that Mozart?>
Step 4:
Look now at the palm of your upturned hand on your desk or table top.
Raise this hand violently until it makes contact with your forehead with
a loud smacking sound, while uttering the sacred syllable, "D'oh!"
CONCLUSION:
==========
Actually, there are at two possible conclusions to this 'experiment', so
Ockham's Razor will have to be applied to our findings. (thanx BTW for
the earlier spelling lesson)
Possible Conclusion 1:
The Shroud of Turin is a fake. Whether this means that it's in fact a
hoax perpetrated by a dishonest church to bilk an unsuspecting
following, I can't say. I can, however, imply the hell out of it.
Possible Conclusion 2:
The Shroud of Turin is the real M<censored>y, the actual, honest to
no-shit, burial cloth of the actual son'o'god no-shit
jesusholyfuckingchrist, who was sent to earth by the giant magic pixie
in the sky (he knows if you've been good or bad, so... hey, it's
seasonal) to die and be raised from the dead in the aforementioned
bedsheet =>BUT<= this jesus, this god-in-the-flesh was 2 DIMENSIONAL!!
You decide.
Thank you all for coming, or, however you responded.
Norm #1360
Swordsmith of BAAWA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
John Ritson
<eas...@proaxis.com> writes
>Of course, "it" (JC) happened. As I replied to Timothy Jones' post
>several days ago, the search for the historical Jesus is like the search
>in atomic physics for the invisible subatomic particle. The subatomic
>particle's nature and velocity are determined by the behavior of the
>larger particles it has set in motion.
>
> Same with JC. His life was the human "subatomic particle" which set
>in motion other, larger human particles - religiosocial movements all
>claiming - within a very short time - derivation from Jesus.
>
> As I pointed out earlier - and a point to which Timothy Jones has not
>responded: the earliest and most distinctive forms of Jesus's _logia_
>(sayings) are the Parables of the Kingdom. They are too early to have
>been borrowed or to have been absorbed via cultural diffusion.
>Scholarly consensus on this is nearly unanimous. They have no
>antecedents in Greek or Palestinian aphoristic speech. If Timothy Jones
>and other "skeptics" wish to take the ridiculous position that JC never
>existed, then they must explain (1) the "larger social particles" that
>were set in motion by _something or someone_ very close to the time JC
>is supposed to have lived; and (2) they must explain JC's Parables of
>the Kingdom, which are distinctive, early, and unique. Moreover:
>
> Timothy Jones puts forth the extraordinary claim that "somebody just
>made up" the Jesus story. This is highly unlikely, since virtually no
>one would invent a new religious figure, and a new ethical and spiritual
>system, which would bring upon the inventor social ostracism and
>governmental persecution.
Well, in the UKoGBaNI we currently have a character called Benjamin
Creme, who claims that Maitreya, the Redeemer is living undercover in
the East End of London. He keeps promising people that the Maitreya will
reveal himself Real Soon Now. I am not sure if being generally regarded
as a harmless nutter counts as social ostracism.
Paul Twitchell, the founder of Eckankar, appears to have invented a
completely unknown 'Spirit Master', Rebazar Tarz, as a way of
disclaiming any dependence on the person he had originally claimed as
his teacher.
> The Jesus movement was persecuted in its land
>of birth, with the "Jesus Jews" being banished from the synagogue _ca_
>80 - 90 CE. And Gentile Christianity was a despised and oppressed
>religion for its first two hundred years in the Roman Empire. The idea
>that "somebody just made it up" simply does not withstand the cliched,
>stereotypical, but nonetheless true fact of Christian martyrdom. Note:
>dying for a cause does not make that cause "true". But what is being
>argued here is not the truth of Christianity, but that the idea is
>laughable that "somebody just made it up". People can transform their
>lives and suffer persecution over false beliefs - but to say that they
>were doing so merely for beliefs that "somebody just made up" is so
>ludicrous that it can only be seriously entertained by morons.
There are beliefs that are not "true" but were not "made up"?
So where did they come from?
The Heaven's Gate and Solar Temple people were prepared to commit
suicide for beliefs that "somebody just made up".
John
Tom Scalf
wrote:
<snip>
>
>There is a very small amount of paint on the Shroud. However, the paint
>does not occur in the image areas and does not account for the image.
>Its presence is easily accounted for, and in fact is to be expected,
>since artists have painted over 60 copies of the Shroud in the past 600+
>years, thereby providing plenty of opportunities for accidentally
>spattering paint on the Shroud.[Heller, _Report_]
>
Tsk!Tsk! Please read McCrone's latest report and those supporting it
from the 1988/89 testing of the shroud. In point. the ONLY parts of
the shroud where pigment and binder particles were found were on the
image area.
>For the record, the Shroud image is composed of degraded linen. (We see
>the image because the image's degraded linen is more degraded than the
>non-image linen. As the Shroud ages, the non-image linen will become
>progressively degraded, and eventually the contrast between image and
>non-image will disappear and we won't be able to see the image).
>
The whole shroud is composed of degraded linen. Specifically, 650 -
700 year old linen.... in a weave pattern that was unknown in the
first century CE, but was common in Europe in the 13th and 14th
century. Any accelerated degradation of the image area is due to the
effects of the paints used to create the image.
>More technically, the Shroud image was caused by "something which
>resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide
>structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself."[STURP's final
>report's conclusion, presented at the website http://www.shroud.com] In
>Heller's words, the image is composed of "dehydrative acid oxidation of
>the linen with the formation of a yellow carbonyl chromophore."[_Report
>on the Shroud of Turin_ (1983), 217.]
>
This is of course the report from the 1978 "examination" of the
shroud. conducted by a team of believers who were conducting tests
from fields outside their own areas of expertise. The same team which
either kicked out or refused to publish the findings of the
dissenting team members. Why don't you report the findings (in this
area) of the much more comprehensive testing that was done in the late
'80s when the scientists were actually allowed to collect samples of
the shroud and test them under controlled laboratory conditions.
<snip>
Tom
Tom Scalf
wrote:
>"OK: The "blood" sayed red and clumped up, exactly unlike blood but
>exaqctly like red ocher paint. The bodily proportions are grossly
>inaccurate for a human being, but fit perfectly with the art of the
>time. The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
>consistent with a clost woven in the 12th century."
>
>
>Where do I start?
>
>1) It has been proven to be human blood (type AB in fact).
Proof or cites please!!
>
>2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
>projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud). As far as fiting
>perfectly with the art of the time, name me one painter who ever painted
>in negative, please!
>
Not necessary, since the shroud was not painted "in negative". rather
it was lightly painted in a dilute pigment.
>3) Interestingly the size of the Turin cloth matches precisely the unit
>of measurement which was used in Palestine at the time of Jesus, the
>philetaric cubit. This means the cloth which Joseph ordered was of a
>standard size. The philetaric cubit was about 53 cm. If one starts with
>the assumption that the cloth has stretched a little in the course of
>the centuries, the size is exactly 2 cubits wide by 8 cubits long.
>
Why should one have to assume that the shroud has stretched, when the
normal behavior of linen would be to shrink over time.
Interestingly, the shape of the shroud and the placement of the image
is totally at odds with the Jewish burial practices of the time.
Tom
Jeff/addesign
>On 28 Dec 1998 21:31:24 PST, murray matt <hugh...@concentric.net>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
>>projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud). As far as fiting
>>perfectly with the art of the time, name me one painter who ever painted
>>in negative, please!
>Not necessary, since the shroud was not painted "in negative". rather
>it was lightly painted in a dilute pigment.
Painting in negative is no big deal. Various printmaking methods
involve drawing "in negative." When I was about 12, I painted a
picture of a clown. Just for fun, I then did a pastel drawing, using
the inverse of the colors in the clown painting. Actually, if you
watch people draw, you'll see some who don't know what they are doing,
who are actually drawing where there should be highlights, or the
absense of pigment. Someone who knows how to paint, draws with light
the way an amateur draws with dark.
This whole question of someone not being able to "paint in negative"
is absurd.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
mign...@bellatlantic.net
addd...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
> tsca...@dc.net (Tom Scalf) wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 1998 21:31:24 PST, murray matt <hugh...@concentric.net>
> >wrote:
> <snip>
> >>2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
> >>projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud). As far as fiting
> >>perfectly with the art of the time, name me one painter who ever painted
> >>in negative, please!
>
> >Not necessary, since the shroud was not painted "in negative". rather
> >it was lightly painted in a dilute pigment.
>
> Painting in negative is no big deal. Various printmaking methods
> involve drawing "in negative." When I was about 12, I painted a
> picture of a clown. Just for fun, I then did a pastel drawing, using
> the inverse of the colors in the clown painting. Actually, if you
> watch people draw, you'll see some who don't know what they are doing,
> who are actually drawing where there should be highlights, or the
> absense of pigment. Someone who knows how to paint, draws with light
> the way an amateur draws with dark.
>
> This whole question of someone not being able to "paint in negative"
> is absurd.
>
this. However, there are some, better qualified than myself, who might be
inclined to disagree. Isabel Piczek is a world-renowned artist who has written
on the subject of the shroud image vis-a-vis the arts. Some of her reflections
can be seen at the following three URLs:
http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm
http://www.shroud.com/piczek2.htm
http://www.shroud.com/piczek3.htm
Why not write to Dr. Piczek and present her with your opinions? Then get back
to us with her response. The contrast should prove interesting.
---------
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mignarda
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LesserRorqual
Jim Jones and Solar Temple promoted delusional beliefs. Of course
people can and have killed and died for false beliefs. People can and
have killed and died for true beliefs. The point of this thread is the
historicity of JC. Jim Jones and Solar Temple are historical entities
regardless of their respective belief systems. The beliefs their
adherants lived out were direct communications from the historical Jim
Jones and Solar Temple leader. Of course, _all_ belief is "made up" in
the sense that it originates in the subjective mentality of its
promoter(s). But the argument here is that the promoter (in this case,
JC) is unhistorical. If you are trying to draw a parallel between
Benjamin Creme's (possibly nonexistent) Maitreya and (for example)
Paul's presentation of Jesus, I don't think the analogy works. Paul's
letters are strong indicators of Paul's historicity. Paul regarded JC
as (very recently to Paul's time) historical. Paul's letters to
communities which he did not found show that the biographical structure
of JC's life was the same in those communities as in the Gospels. Thus
Paul presupposes the Gospel Jesus, and this includes the parabolic
Jesus. Once again, the question becomes: if the Parables of the
Kingdom, which are the most original, unique, and distinctive features
attributed to Jesus, did _not_ originate with him, then where did they
come from? If they were not "made up" by Jesus, then who "made them
up"? Certainly not Qumran or any other current Jewish or Hellenistic
community of which we are aware. They are too early to have been
assimilated by cultural diffusion, say from Buddhism. "The Book of Q"
reveals Jesus to have been a teacher of subversive wisdom who spoke the
Parables as an invitation for the hearer to see differently, to see with
"Kingdom-eyes". If Jesus did not originate the Parables of the Kingdom,
then critics will need to supply another teacher who _did_ "make them
up", or discover a new school of thought hitherto unknown, to explain
Jesus and his relationship to - including the parabolic _logia_ by which
he described - the Kingdom of Heaven. That's what the issue boils down
to.
Sterling Crowe
LesserRorqual wrote in message <368A3DB1...@proaxis.com>...
>John Ritson,
<snip>
> Once again, the question becomes: if the Parables of the
>Kingdom, which are the most original, unique, and distinctive features
>attributed to Jesus, did _not_ originate with him, then where did they
>come from? If they were not "made up" by Jesus, then who "made them
>up"? Certainly not Qumran or any other current Jewish or Hellenistic
>community of which we are aware.
You may want to check your facts a little more closely. The Essene Jews have
writings dating to before Jesus's supposed time which contain most of what
Jesus supposedly preached. In addition, the Essene writings (Dead Sea
Scrolls, et all) which have survived to this date point to an Essene belief
that the Messiah had already come even before Jesus.
This is hardly a case of Jesus supposedly having originated vast amounts of
amazing theological ideas and no clues as to where he got them. It is
entirely too clear that Jesus, if he existed, was merely preaching what he
had been taught with, perhaps, some original stories to illustrate the
ideas.
Paul certainly latched onto the Essene beliefs in celibacy and a Godly
destruction of the world in the near (to them) future.
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur,
Sterling Crowe
#1168, Knight of BAAWA
"Gotta go; the damned weiner kids are listening."
--Homer Simpson.
John Savard
part:
>In article
><Pine.A41.4.05.981224...@dante29.u.washington.edu>,
>Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
quoting someone else:
>> > The Shroud will never be proven to be really that of Jesus' burial
>> > cloth.
>> Primarially because it isn't, especially seeing as JC probably never
>> lived to begin with, and the entire thing is a hoax.
>While there's little historical evidence regarding JC's existence, I
>personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
>It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
>you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
>that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
>you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
>so, I'd like to hear it.
This certainly is an interesting question.
Given that mediaeval Christianity, culminating in the Inquisition, had
brought about a totalitarian society, it is not surprising that many
people would be driven to doubt absolutely everything that the Church
expected people to believe.
The first reaction, therefore, might be to believe that early
Christianity didn't exist; the whole idea was cobbled together by some
cabal seeking power over people's minds. However, there is ample
evidence that Nero and other Roman emperors did persecute the early
Christians, so, while such a theory is emotionally attractive, the
facts don't support it.
The next step is to have a historical Jesus, but to have the Gospels
based on generations-old rumors. The early Church accepted as
canonical those writings which had a certain degree of dignity that
set them apart from those regarded as apocryphal, but everything is so
far removed from the historical Jesus as to be useless to tell us
anything about him.
This is more plausible, but it too is supercilious, and emotionally
driven.
Is there an historical Jesus - other than One Who is in fact the
Christ of the Christian faith - who could have left traces in the
Gospels? Someone who had religious and philosophical insights, and
spoke of them to others - and around whom fantastic tales of miracles
and of rising from the dead were spun after his death, as happened to
Buddha and others?
There is a plausible non-supernatural Jesus that could explain the
Gospels. Like some of the Old Testament prophets, he said that helping
the poor was more important than observing the rituals. He might have
talked about how God would soon send his angels to sweep away Roman
might from Judaea, and all other forms of corruption from the earth.
And he said something - perhaps just emphasizing the importance of the
individual conscience, perhaps something more, something heretical and
New Age-y - that sounded like a statement that everyone was God...or
at least he was.
And he was martyred. Killed under Roman auspices.
Currently, among those who think that Jesus existed, and it is
important - for reasons other than historical interest - what he did
and said, but who do not take the entire New Testament literally;
specifically, among liberal and progressive theologians, it is
fashionable to dismiss one portion of the Gospel account that does not
involve the supernatural.
Historical evidence, they say, proves that the Romans had Jesus killed
because he was a political radical.
The long record of cruelty towards the Jews in Christendom, caused
partly by the fact they were the only foreigners that were common
within most European nations, and partly, after other discriminatory
measures had their results , for the same sort of economic reasons
that led to the attacks on East Indians in Uganda, or on the Chinese
in Indonesia, but also due to the belief that that group of people was
cursed with the responsibility for the Crucifixion, certainly explains
why some people would desire to modify Christianity into something
that would no longer threaten to feed anti-Semitism.
But if Jesus is no longer God made man, but simply a lofty visionary,
who attracted a following with ideas that were in some respects
contrary to orthodox Judaism, in a time when the Jewish community was
suffering under Roman occupation, and uneasily divided between those
who engaged in armed struggle against the Romans and those who sought
the best chance for survival for their people through accomodation,
is it any wonder that someone who seemed to be undermining the basis
for the community's cohesion in the face of the Roman threat, its
religious beliefs; someone who palliated their discontent with the
occupation with escapist fantasies;
might be seen as a threat, or, at the least, expendable compared to
someone who was involved in the resistance - such as bar-Abbas?
We don't feel too comfortable looking at ourselves in the face, in
seeing that the distorted accounts of acts for which we have demonized
others actually refer to expedients we ourselves have taken in times
of war and occupation...so it is not surprising to me that such
attempts as I have heard of to reconstruct a "Historical Jesus" have
been limited or unserious.
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
> Timothy Jones puts forth the extraordinary claim that "somebody just
>made up" the Jesus story. This is highly unlikely, since virtually no
>one would invent a new religious figure, and a new ethical and spiritual
>system, which would bring upon the inventor social ostracism and
>governmental persecution. The Jesus movement was persecuted in its land
>of birth, with the "Jesus Jews" being banished from the synagogue _ca_
>80 - 90 CE. And Gentile Christianity was a despised and oppressed
>religion for its first two hundred years in the Roman Empire. The idea
>that "somebody just made it up" simply does not withstand the cliched,
>stereotypical, but nonetheless true fact of Christian martyrdom.
No, but it's an understandable response to the fact of the
Inquisition. If a belief system is used as the tool of a totalitarian
system of opression, the simplest response to it is to deny that it
has any validity whatever.
Perhaps, say, the Emperor Constantine "just made up" the Jesus story,
and then gradually details were added like persecution of the early
church over the following centuries.
But that is implausible - a real individual, whose teachings were
inspiring and attracted a following, but which were distorted after
his death is indeed far more likely to be the truth. But that doesn't
salvage Christianity as a faith.
John Savard
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Pioneer
> part:
> >While there's little historical evidence regarding JC's existence, I
> >personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
> >It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
> >you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
> >that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
> >you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
> >so, I'd like to hear it.
What makes Jesus' existence any more likely than Hercules' or Odysseus'?
Could it not be that there was no single Jesus, but perhaps he became a
character to which were ascribed the stories of many itinerant preachers?
--
Austin Cline: http://atheism.miningco.com
Mining Co. Guide, Agnosticism/Atheism
Secular Humanism, Eastern Ohio & Western PA:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6763/
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
kybern...@my-dejanews.com
"Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> murray matt wrote:
> >
> > "OK: The "blood" sayed red and clumped up, exactly unlike blood but
> > exaqctly like red ocher paint. The bodily proportions are grossly
> > inaccurate for a human being, but fit perfectly with the art of the
> > time. The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
> > consistent with a clost woven in the 12th century."
> >
> > Where do I start?
> >
> > 1) It has been proven to be human blood (type AB in fact).
> >
>
> > 2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
> > projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud).
>
> > As far as fiting perfectly with the art of the time, name me one
> > painter who ever painted in negative, please!
> >
> have something light, like linen, and paint it with something dark, like
> ocher, then the image is going to be darker than the background.
>
> I'm *still* trying to figure out how this makes the image a negative.
>
> I also notice you ignored the bit about the body proportions.
>
> > unit of measurement which was used in Palestine at the time of Jesus,
> > the philetaric cubit.
> >
> 1200+ years?
Sorry for butting in without following the thread, but I was under the
impression that the cubit was an inaccurate non-standardized unit of
measurement based on the variable human forearm? (much like the foot and the
hand [horses only I think] units used in england) Doesn't that offer
considerable leeway in measuring the shroud? And might it be possible that
others would use a similar way of measuring off cloth?
LesserRorqual
nothing in Essene teaching remotely paralleling the Kingdom Parables. As
for your contention that the rest of JC's teaching was a bland mixture
of "what he had been taught" by standard Judaism, this is also
incorrect. No other prophet we know of claimed to have a special
relationship to the Spirit. Jesus' relationship to his spirit gave him
the authority to invert Judaic law, and this is not "Jesus repeating
what he had learned."
LesserRorqual
Christianity may need "salvaging as a faith", since Xty is an organized
religion and shares with its confreres all the stereotypical flaws.
However, the religion _of_ Jesus appears from Q and other early NT
strata not to have been a _faith_, but a _gnosis_. There is not a
single NT statement of JC which appeals to _belief in God's existence_
as a requirement of entering the Kingdom. Instead, Jesus's experience
of divine union mysticism - the gnosis of God and Spirit as immediate
personal encounter - is the source of his sense of mission. Jesus
preached a Kingdom to which entry "here and now" no longer required the
trappings of Temple and priesthood. The "boat" of the Law can be
discarded once the "shore" of the Kingdom is reached. Jesus' message
that the Kingdom is "within" eliminates formal Christianity as a vehicle
for the transmission of his truth, since his truth is to be found
"within".
LesserRorqual
comparison to Greek gods and heroes does not work due to the extremely
short timespan alloted to Jesus. He was not a myth generated thousands
of years prior to his time, nor was he a figure developed over hundreds
of years. The Gospels were written prior to the end of the century in
which Jesus lived, and there is evidence that there was a strong Jesus
movement in Jerusalem long before the Gospels or Paul's letters were
being written. The burden of proof is not on those who posit Jesus as a
historical figure, since the early movements set in motion around him
are such a strong indicator of his existential reality. Counter
arguments, such as that he was an amalgam of grecoroman myth, crash and
burn when closely examined. Occam's Razor mandates that entities not be
multiplied beyond the necessary. The simplest and best explanation of
the NT and early Christianity is that they are derived from a real
person.
LesserRorqual
Of course it is not an issue of Jesus initiating masses of new
theological ideas that we can't trace. It's an issue of Jesus
initiating a new proclamation which he termed, The Kingdom of Heaven.
There is nothing in Essene scripture which describes the Kingdom
equivalently to the way Jesus described it. Hence the Parables.
Scholarly consensus is that there are no parallels in Jewish or pagan
aphoristic speech for Jesus's Parables of the Kingdom. The Essenes
traced their tradition to a Teacher of Righteousness. Jesus traced his
teaching to only one source: the spirit he received from his Father.
For Jesus, the spirit was the sole arbiter of the Kingdom. Jesus did
not depend on Mosaic Law or prophets for his authority. His source of
unmediated authority in the spirit make him absolutely unique in his
time and place. Ultimately, they are what killed him, since the Jewish
ruling elite could not abide a religious "gnosis" which circumvented the
temple/priesthood/Mosaic Law systems; and since the Roman ruling elite
could not abide a prophet who initiated masses into a new "kingdom"
which denied the mainstays of Empire. "Consensus reality" killed Jesus,
and his core Kingdom teaching defied consensus reality at every turn:
this is why he was remembered as completely different from Essenes and
other contemporary groups and teachers. Jesus's uniqueness is his role
as agent for the Kingdom - as defined by Jesus, not by Essenes or the
ruling Jewish elite or rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law.
Pioneer
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> Pioneer, there is no reason to posit that Jesus was not historical.
And you've done...how much reading on the arguments? Which books/arguments
have you read and rejected - and on what basis?
Your
> comparison to Greek gods and heroes does not work due to the extremely
> short timespan alloted to Jesus. He was not a myth generated thousands
> of years prior to his time, nor was he a figure developed over hundreds
> of years.
How much time occurred during the development of the characters of
Hercules and Odysseus?
Are you suggesting that myths *cannot* develop in a short time frame? If
so, you're wrong.
> The Gospels were written prior to the end of the century in
> which Jesus lived,
Except for John, which may have been written after the turning of the century.
> and there is evidence that there was a strong Jesus
> movement in Jerusalem long before the Gospels or Paul's letters were
> being written.
1. Sources, please.
2. And this "Jesus movement" was of the same nature as later Christianity?
Sources, please?
> The burden of proof is not on those who posit Jesus as a
> historical figure, since the early movements set in motion around him
> are such a strong indicator of his existential reality.
Why?
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>Pioneer, there is no reason to posit that Jesus was not historical. Your
>comparison to Greek gods and heroes does not work due to the extremely
>short timespan alloted to Jesus. He was not a myth generated thousands
>of years prior to his time, nor was he a figure developed over hundreds
>of years. The Gospels were written prior to the end of the century in
wrong again. They were written up to 200 years later, not by the authors
ascribed to them and some were copied from others.
..
Alan Barclay
LesserRorqual <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>Pioneer, there is no reason to posit that Jesus was not historical. Your
>comparison to Greek gods and heroes does not work due to the extremely
>short timespan alloted to Jesus. He was not a myth generated thousands
>of years prior to his time, nor was he a figure developed over hundreds
Mohandas Gandhi is a man who was undoubtably real. Photographs and other
evidence prove that he existed. Yet, even though it's only 50 years since
he died, many myths about his life have sprung into existance.
For example, he was not a lifelong pacifist, he served with the rank of
Sergent Major in the Zulu war.
Bill Felton
says...
(BTW, according to an author I'm fond of, most Chinese
deities were originally characters in stories, not vice versa)
Bill
President, BAAWA
Head, Individual Liberties Division, EAC
some atheist number or other
EAC ID# 666^666
"The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head", Terry Pratchett
if you can't figure out my email address you don't need to write me
Sterling Crowe
LesserRorqual wrote in message <368A91FB...@proaxis.com>...
>Sterling Crowe,
>
>Of course it is not an issue of Jesus initiating masses of new
>theological ideas that we can't trace. It's an issue of Jesus
>initiating a new proclamation which he termed, The Kingdom of Heaven.
Chapters and verses, please.
>There is nothing in Essene scripture which describes the Kingdom
>equivalently to the way Jesus described it. Hence the Parables.
I have no problem admiting when I am wrong. However, your simple assertion
will not convince me that I am wrong.
>Scholarly consensus is that there are no parallels in Jewish or pagan
>aphoristic speech for Jesus's Parables of the Kingdom.
Which scholars?
>The Essenes
>traced their tradition to a Teacher of Righteousness. Jesus traced his
>teaching to only one source: the spirit he received from his Father.
And Jesus wrote this down where?
>For Jesus, the spirit was the sole arbiter of the Kingdom. Jesus did
>not depend on Mosaic Law or prophets for his authority. His source of
>unmediated authority in the spirit make him absolutely unique in his
>time and place.
> Ultimately, they are what killed him, since the Jewish
>ruling elite could not abide a religious "gnosis" which circumvented the
>temple/priesthood/Mosaic Law systems;
Load of bullshit, plain and simple. Can't you recognize anti-Jewish
propoganda written by people who want to pander to Gentiles when you read
it?
For one, the Jewish tribunal body never would have met during Passover week.
Or at night. Nor would the Romans have any problems killing an unknown
dissident and they sure as hell wouldn't have been quaking in their boots to
do it because the Jewish "elite" demanded it.
>and since the Roman ruling elite
>could not abide a prophet who initiated masses into a new "kingdom"
>which denied the mainstays of Empire.
They couldn't abide someone who started brawls during the week of Passover
when the city walls are brimming with foreigners.
> "Consensus reality" killed Jesus,
If Jesus existed, being an asshole on the steps of the Temple killed him.
>and his core Kingdom teaching defied consensus reality at every turn:
>this is why he was remembered as completely different from Essenes and
>other contemporary groups and teachers. Jesus's uniqueness is his role
>as agent for the Kingdom - as defined by Jesus, not by Essenes or the
>ruling Jewish elite or rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law.
He is remembered as different because he supposedly rose from the dead. And
because Paul began allowing people to worship the God of Isreal through
Jesus without all that rigamarole of entering the pesky ol' Mosaic Covenant.
Shane D. Killian
>
> Painting in negative is no big deal. Various printmaking methods
> involve drawing "in negative." When I was about 12, I painted a
> picture of a clown. Just for fun, I then did a pastel drawing, using
> the inverse of the colors in the clown painting. Actually, if you
> watch people draw, you'll see some who don't know what they are doing,
> who are actually drawing where there should be highlights, or the
> absense of pigment. Someone who knows how to paint, draws with light
> the way an amateur draws with dark.
>
words, if you wanted to draw a chair, you started off by drawing where
the chair wasn't.
> This whole question of someone not being able to "paint in negative"
> is absurd.
>
Shane D. Killian
that he had to allow for the shoud *expanding*--not shrinking--over the
years to make it fit even then!)
Shane D. Killian
>
> In article <76cf0e$i42$1...@remarQ.com>,
> addd...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
> >
> > is absurd.
> >
> word on this.
>
> However, there are some, better qualified than myself, who might be
> inclined to disagree. Isabel Piczek is a world-renowned artist
>
Who, for some reason, is not known for anything other than commenting on
the shroud.
> who has written on the subject of the shroud image vis-a-vis the arts.
> Some of her reflections can be seen at the following three URLs:
>
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek2.htm
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek3.htm
>
Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt. Guy, it's not only *possible*,
I learned it in college!
Why don't you check a more reputable source? It is perfectly possible to
do art in the negative--the Chinese have done it for thousands of years!
(And besides, no one can demonstrate how the shroud is a negative in the
first place, so this discussion is rather moot anyway.)
Shane D. Killian
>
> Possible Conclusion 2:
> The Shroud of Turin is the real M<censored>y, the actual, honest to
> no-shit, burial cloth of the actual son'o'god no-shit
> jesusholyfuckingchrist, who was sent to earth by the giant magic pixie
> in the sky (he knows if you've been good or bad, so... hey, it's
> seasonal) to die and be raised from the dead in the aforementioned
> bedsheet =>BUT<= this jesus, this god-in-the-flesh was 2 DIMENSIONAL!!
>
cut-out!
LesserRorqual
The _canon_ was being compiled, which is a different matter entirely.
John's Gospel existed before the turn of the first century, and it being
the latest gospel, the other three were written even earlier.
LesserRorqual
of "Jewish Jesus = nationalist rebel Jesus". Funny how you want me to
cite sources for my assertions yet give not one single citation for such
antiquated notions. Your accusation of antisemitism speaks volumes for
the shallowness of your education: what got Jesus killed was that he
claimed a direct line into spirit which obviated the old Law. This is
not antisemitism, any more than the Buddha's inversion of Hinduism was
antiHinduism. After the Jewish reconstruction, the Jewish leaders
remembered him not as a nationalist rebel, but as a sorcerer and a
seducer of the people. Your idea that because Jesus was a Jew he had to
reflect reactionary conservative legalist Judaism is itself antisemitic,
since it implies that no Jew can become enlightened, but has to parrot
the Mosaic Law second-hand. It denies to Jesus the Jew the
enlightenment attained by Buddha the Hindu.
You dismiss Jesus as divine union mystic as a load of rubbish, yet you
show no awareness that his Jewish critics leveled the charge of
necromancy at Jesus, that is, they accused him of "having" (possessing
or being possessed by) a spirit. Jesus and his friends acknowledged as
much, calling the spirit a, or the, holy spirit, and his enemies
contented themselves in calling it Beelzebul. Regardless of
interpretation, Jesus was seen by friends and enemies as having the very
direct line to spirit which you dismiss as a load of rubbish. The least
you could do is read Mark's Gospel, and there you will find Jesus as the
possessed possessor and emissary of the spirit. You want chapter and
verses, try it, it's the shortest and probably the earliest Gospel.
LesserRorqual
as later Xty, quite the contrary. The original movement was a gnosis
which involved direct access to and experience of spirit and Kingdom.
The later Church traded the radicalism of this vision for the spurious
authority of the monarchical episcopate and the "holy books".
You hold opinions on this subject and post them without source
reference, yet you demand unfairly that for me to post my opinions I
must post source references. Okay, I'll be a gentleman, here are some:
Jesus the Magician Morton Smith
Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark Morton Smith
The Secret Gospel Morton Smith
Jesus' Attitude Toward the Law Morton Smith
Jesus a New Vision / The God We Never Knew / Jesus in Contemporary
Scholarship Marcus Borg
The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom /
Jesus the Healer Stevan Davies
The Gospel of John Anchor Bible Commentary / The Community of the
Beloved Disciple RE Brown
The Passover Plot / Those Incredible Christians / The Jesus Party /
After the Cross Hugh J Schonfield
John Dominic Crossan -- the major works
The Nag Hammadi Library
The Priority of John JAT Robinson
Earliest Christianity Johannes Weiss
The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity R Longenecker
The Lost Gospel the Book of Q Burton Mack
The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus Stephen Patterson
Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity Gerd Theissen
Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background AD Knock
The Origins of Christianity Archibald Robertson
Well, Pioneer, this only scratches the surface of what I have read
and am continuing to read. Now let's see you put your money where your
mouth is - post your documentation for your theological opinions.
LesserRorqual
carrier for friends and enemies, just as Jesus was real and acted as a
projection carrier for friends and enemies. No disagreement so far. I
never said that Jesus was free of mythologizing. I said he was real.
LesserRorqual
pantheon. However, it does not always require posthumous deification
for this to happen. Quite plausibly, the Christ of faith began in the
mind of the Jesus of history. If Jesus attained what is generally
called enlightenment, then, like Buddha, his self-proclamations would
already have the ring of "myth" without our needing to posit a short or
a long process of mythologization after the crucifixion.
LesserRorqual
before Jesus, and the Jesus myth. First, the Jewish messiah myth was
not strictly speaking a myth. It was a hope which in the
intertestamental period was fleshed out with prophecy. Many messianic
claimants came and went before JC came along. They claimed, or their
followers claimed, messiahship for them. But these were not figures of
myth. Likewise, Jesus does not appear to have been a creature of myth,
and it is doubtful even that he claimed messiahship in any cogent
sense. The pre-existence of the messianic hope and of particular
messianic individuals does not effect the Jesus myth as it has come down
to us. Apples and oranges.
Timothy Jones
[all snipped]
Just because pithy language was used doesn't prove a thing. Writers do
that all the time. I suppose I'm supposed to believe in Klingons and
Yoda just because Roddenbaeery gave the former their "own parabolic
language," and George Lucas gave the latter "a unique parabolic speech?"
I think not. I have indeed answered this already. They were made up,
just like jesus.
And I've already answered the Paul bit as well. He was a believer who
wanted others to believe. Hardly what I'd consider objective. And just
you saying he's "nearly contemporary with" or "soon after" jc, or
anything else like that, does not substitute for being able to say the
two ever met. And even if such a claim were made, it would still need to
be substantiated. The gospels, like the rest of the bible, are not a
history text. It's a patchwork of claimis and religious teachings, often
conflicting, and basically written well after the events they portray
are supposed to have taken place, based on 2nd or 3rd hand reports,
mostly carried through by biased indivuduals. Go outside of it for a
single second, and you're left immediately in the cold, so to speak.
That's because there simply *is* *NO* historical mention of jc outside
of the new testament. No record in the Roman archives, whereas they were
quite meticulous about such things. No scientifically historical
mention in a non-religious text. Nothing. Just a lot of suspiciously
commonplace characteristics being attributed to yet *another*
savior-saint, given an all-too-common name, which just happened to have
an aesthetic appeal and preached ferver to catch on with the deeply
superstitious populace of the time (i.e., relative to 20th century
western culture). There's nothing more to it than that. It's a myth.
TJ
Timothy Jones
>
> > Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi (Petteri Sulonen) wrote, in
> > part:
> >
> > >personally find Christianity rather hard to explain without a founder.
> > >It's not like Jesus was a unique phenomenon -- people do found religions,
> > >you know; Zoroaster, Mohammed, Gautama, and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few
> > >that have more or less supporting evidence regarding their existence. Can
> > >you present a history of early Christianity without a historical Jesus? If
> > >so, I'd like to hear it.
>
>
>
> Could it not be that there was no single Jesus, but perhaps he became a
> character to which were ascribed the stories of many itinerant preachers?
Exactly. If all it takes to call a character "historical" are some
people that think s/he's so and attribute a lot of gosh-wow deeds to
said character, we've got Robin Hood, Perseus, Circe the sorceress, and
all the greek and roman heros, titans, and gods to deal with. If you
want "a history" without "a historical" character, it's really very
simple. Someone made it up. Others took it to be real, esp if they lived
*after* the time frame of the character, and were prone to superstition.
A myth is born and perpetuated. Some are even willing to die for it, and
many more are willing to kill for it. This sounds like a lot of things,
and it *definitely* sounds like christianity.
TJ
Sterling Crowe
LesserRorqual wrote in message <368A8A7D...@proaxis.com>...
>No, Sterling, you want to check _your_ sources more carefully.
Boy, I put a bug up *someone's* butt.
> There is
>nothing in Essene teaching remotely paralleling the Kingdom Parables.
Perhaps I was mistaken. Which are those?
What reason do you have to believe that Jesus originated them, rather than
Paul?
> As
>for your contention that the rest of JC's teaching was a bland mixture
>of "what he had been taught" by standard Judaism, this is also
>incorrect.
Essene Judaism is hardly bland or standard.
> No other prophet we know of claimed to have a special
>relationship to the Spirit.
????
Moses didn't have a special relationship?
Huh.
Or is this one of those trinity things? You know, Moses and Abraham and the
others just knew the Father, and you claim that Jesus pointed out the spook.
Is that it?
> Jesus' relationship to his spirit gave him
>the authority to invert Judaic law, and this is not "Jesus repeating
>what he had learned."
Well, at least you admit that Jesus didn't just come along to "fulfill" the
law like all the other Christians in here do.
Regardless, what does any of this stuff have to do with anything? If the
mythology is new, that doesn't make it right. If you cannot show that Jesus
wrote the "new" stuff and not Paul, then you can't even use that to show how
*Jesus* was different.
Still, feel free to explain further what you mean by Kingdom Parables and
I'll check your assertions.
david ford
Tom Scalf <tsca...@dc.net> on 30 Dec 1998:
TS Proof or cites please!!
mm Pierluigi Baima Bollone, Professor of Forensic Medicine at Turin
mm University [The Shroud: The Proof (Sindone: La Prova), has reported that
mm the stains were human blood from blood group AB.
mm
mm If this is bogus let me know. I'm not out to pass along bad or
mm questionable information.
Baima Bollone, Pierluigi, Maria Jorio, and Anna Lucia Massaro.
"Identification of the Group of the Traces of Human Blood on the
Shroud" _Shroud Spectrum International_ (March 1983), 3-6.
"Pierluigi Baima Bollone" is the "Dr. Baima" I mentioned earlier, and
headed/heads up the Centro Internazionale di Sindonologia (the
International Center of Sindonology, in Turin). Citing the big
possibility of bacterial contamination, Adler rejects the results; see
Case, _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco_ (1996), 55.
TS Not necessary, since the shroud was not painted "in negative".
TS rather it was lightly painted in a dilute pigment.
mm It WAS painted in negative
Assuming it was painted at all. (Which it wasn't.)
mm because it's only when the image is reversed
mm (photographically) that the image comes to life. Why paint a picture
mm with a technique that would never be fully appreciated by your audience
mm (Christians of the 1200's).
Photography had to be developed before the Shroud's negativity could
be appreciated.
TS Why should one have to assume that the shroud has stretched,
TS when the normal behavior of linen would be to shrink over time.
Being hung up for public displays through the years might make it stretch.
TS Interestingly, the shape of the shroud and the placement of the
TS image is totally at odds with the Jewish burial practices of the time.
Hand Placement
In an interview for the magazine _New Realities_, David Sox (who Nickell
describes as "the knowledgeable former secretary of the British Society
for the Turin Shroud"[n, 35]) claims the placement of the hands on the
Shroud
looks suspiciously like a concession to medieval prudery. In
Jewish burial practices, the hands are always crossed on the chest,
leaving the genitals exposed.[Sox, quoted in David F. Brown,
"Interview with H. David Sox" _New Realities_ 4, no. 1, (1981), 34.
Cited in n, 55]
Sox could just as well have said the pose looks suspiciously like a
concession to ancient Egyptian and ancient British prudery, since those
cultures present examples of the same pose.[iw98, 56]
About Sox's "the hands are always crossed on the chest": Regarding
ancient Jewish burial practices, Edmund Wilson relates that the French
archeologist [iw98, 56] Pere Roland de Vaux opened 19 graves in an
at-oldest-circa 136 BC and existing to 68 AD Essene monastery cemetery and
discovered that
The skeletons lie on their backs, with their heads in the direction
of the south, and their hands crossed on the pelvis or stretched
along the sides.
Somebody ought to tell the skeletons to reposition their arms, seeing as
how Sox knows that "In Jewish burial practices, the hands are always
crossed on the chest...."
But perhaps Sox was speaking, not of ancient Jewish burial practices (as
seems implied by his comments), but of _modern_ ones. In _The Jewish
Quarterly Review_, as part of an at-least six part article with the
general title of "Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected
with Death, Burial, and Mourning (as illustrated by the Bible and later
Jewish literature)," A.P. Bender writes that modern Jews place their
dead in coffins with "the hands and feet being stretched out to their
fullest length."[b95, 267] If death occurs on the Sabbath, the rite of
"stretching out of the hands and feet" may not be performed "until the
termination of the Day of Rest."[b94, 118, 117] I interpret stretching
out of feet "to their fullest length" to mean the legs are straightened,
and not mean the toes are separated as much as possible from each other.
Similarly, I interpret stretching out of hands "to their fullest length"
to mean the arms are straightened, and not mean the fingers are
separated as much as possible from each other. Since the "hands...
[are] stretched out to their fullest length," i.e., since the arms are
stretched out to their fullest length, i.e., since the arms are
straightened, Sox's claim that "in Jewish burial practices, the hands
are always crossed on the chest" isn't correct if applied to modern
Jewish burial practices.
Bender, A.P. "Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with
Death, Burial, and Mourning (as illustrated by the Bible and later
Jewish literature) V." _The Jewish Quarterly Review_ vol. 7, year
1895, pp. 259-69.
Bender, A.P. "Beliefs, Rites, and Customs of the Jews, Connected with
Death, Burial, and Mourning (as illustrated by the Bible and later
Jewish literature) IV." _The Jewish Quarterly Review_ vol. 7, year
1894, pp. 101-18.
Nickell, Joe. _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_ (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1987), 186pp.
Wilson, Edmund. _The Scrolls From the Dead Sea_ (NY: Oxford University
Press, 1955), 121pp., 44, 51.
Wilson, Ian. _The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence That the World's
Most Sacred Relic Is Real_ (NY: The Free Press, 1998), 333pp.
mm Stretched, shrank or stayed the same is not the point. My point was in
mm response to
> "The weave of the cloth is not one used in 30CE, but entirely
> consistent with a cloth woven in the 12th century.
mm My point (as stated above) is that the shroud is "precisely the unit of
mm measurement which was used in Palestine at the time of Jesus".
In _Holy Faces, Secret Places: An Amazing Quest for the Face of Jesus_
(NY: Doubleday, 1991), 181, Ian Wilson writes that there
has been a study of the shroud's dimensions... recently... by an
expert in early Syriac, Ian Dickinson.... Curious at the shroud's,
by British units of measurement, anomalous 14 foot 3 inches by 3
foot 7 inches overall size, Dickinson wondered if these dimensions
might make more sense if converted to the cubic measure as
prevailing in Jesus's [sic] time. Establishing that the
first-century Jewish cubit was most likely to the [sic] Assyrian
standard, reliably calculated at between 21.4 and 21.6 inches,
Dickinson found that if he chose the lower of these measures there
was an astonishing correlation, accurate to the nearest half-inch:
Length of Turin shroud 14 feet 3 inches
8 cubits at 21.4 inches 14 feet 3 inches
Width of Turin shroud 3 feet 7 inches
2 cubits at 21.4 inches 3 feet 7 inches
Adds Wilson, "Such conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits is yet
another piece of knowledge difficult to imagine of any medieval forger."
mm Additional Facts From STURP and other Researchers:
mm Egyptian cotton particles indicates a Middle East Origin
Wilson, Ian. _The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence That the World's
Most Sacred Relic Is Real_ (1998), 71:
Since the particular variety of cotton that [Gilbert] Raes found
was _Gossypium herbaceum_, a characteristic Middle-Eastern variety,
this initially led him, and as a result myself and others, to
regard this as rather good evidence for the Shroud having
originated in the Middle East. In the event, such an
interpretation was seriously misplaced. ....
david ford
g&g The shroud is a fake. The body image itself is not at all
g&g proportional to a "normal" human body and the posture is
g&g practically impossible.
IMO, all of the following arguments' Premise 1s don't make any sense.
If anyone sees a P1 they like, by all means, please present a case for
why one P1 (or more) has any merit.
I) Anatomical Abnormalities Argument Against Authenticity (AAAAA)
Nickell states, "We have earlier discussed the anatomical problem
concerning the feet and legs. There are other anomalies, such as the
fact that the head is disembodied--seeming 'detached from the rest the
body because of the apparent absence of shoulders.' The locks of hair
at the sides of the face appear unnatural. .... 'The modelling of the
face calls for detailed study. Nothing here is symmetrical.'"[n, 70.
Subquotes are from Wilson and Vignon, respectively.]
Formulation # 1
P1: if the fingers are too long (or whatever "anatomical anomaly" you
wish to put here), then the Turin Shroud couldn't have been Jesus'
burial cloth.
P2: the fingers are too long.
Conclusion: the Turin Shroud is not Jesus' burial cloth.
Summary of this modus pones syllogism: if has an anatomical abnormality,
then not Jesus' cloth; has an anatomical abnormality; thus, not
Jesus' cloth.
Formulation # 2
P1: if a cloth bearing Jesus' image really was Jesus' burial cloth, then
the cloth's body image would be perfectly proportioned.
P2: the Turin Shroud body image isn't perfectly proportioned.
C: thus, the Turin Shroud is not Jesus' burial cloth.
Summary of this modus tollens syllogism: if Jesus' burial cloth, then
perfectly proportioned image; not perfectly proportioned image;
thus, not Jesus' burial cloth.
II) Little Distortion Overall Argument Against Authenticity (LDOAAA,
abbreviated DOA)
Nickell: "there are anatomical flaws..., but the _relative_ lack of
distortion argues against authenticity."[n, 143]
Reconstruction No. 1
P1: if the image contains little distortion overall, then Jesus' body
played no role in the formation of the image.
P2: the image contains little distortion overall.
C: Jesus' body played no role in the formation of the image.
Summary: if little distortion overall, then Jesus' body played no role;
little distortion overall; thus, Jesus' body played no role.
Reconstruction No. 2
P1: if a cloth bearing Jesus' image really was Jesus' burial cloth, then
the cloth's body image would have much distortion.
P2: the Turin Shroud image does not have much distortion.
C: thus, the Turin Shroud is not Jesus' burial cloth.
Summary: if really was Jesus' image, then much distortion; not much
distortion; thus, not really Jesus' image.
g&g
mign...@bellatlantic.net wrote in article
<76d4e4$hu5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <76cf0e$i42$1...@remarQ.com>,
> addd...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
> > tsca...@dc.net (Tom Scalf) wrote:
> >
> > >On 28 Dec 1998 21:31:24 PST, murray matt <hugh...@concentric.net>
> > >wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >>2) the bodily proportions are completely accurate for an image being
> > >>projected onto an unevenly draped surface (the shroud). As far as
fiting
> > >>perfectly with the art of the time, name me one painter who ever
painted
> > >>in negative, please!
> >
> > >Not necessary, since the shroud was not painted "in negative". rather
> > >it was lightly painted in a dilute pigment.
> >
> > Painting in negative is no big deal. Various printmaking methods
> > involve drawing "in negative." When I was about 12, I painted a
> > picture of a clown. Just for fun, I then did a pastel drawing, using
> > the inverse of the colors in the clown painting. Actually, if you
> > watch people draw, you'll see some who don't know what they are doing,
> > who are actually drawing where there should be highlights, or the
> > absense of pigment. Someone who knows how to paint, draws with light
> > the way an amateur draws with dark.
> >
> > This whole question of someone not being able to "paint in negative"
> > is absurd.
> >
> I suppose, not being an artist myself, I'm obliged to take you at your
word on
> this. However, there are some, better qualified than myself, who might be
> inclined to disagree. Isabel Piczek is a world-renowned artist who has
written
> on the subject of the shroud image vis-a-vis the arts. Some of her
reflections
> can be seen at the following three URLs:
>
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek2.htm
> http://www.shroud.com/piczek3.htm
>
> Why not write to Dr. Piczek and present her with your opinions? Then get
back
> to us with her response. The contrast should prove interesting.
>
>
Glenn R. wrote:
I checked out these websites. Piczek admits that the shroud is covered with
various pigments and other artistic media but insists it is not a painting.
The logic seems to be that the presence of pigments is due to some
"copying" or "painting over" the original image to enhance it. In all
fairness, Piczek does refer the reader to the McCrone website but does not
mention that McCrone's highly detailed microscopic and scientific study of
the shroud produces not one iota of human tissue including blood. In every
"blood" area McCrone and at least three other independent labs found
nothing but red ochre and vermilion.
g&g
Rocco Paladino <Paladin...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<15698-368...@newsd-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> Knowing the that the early christians literally saved everything they
> could as a relic, It is very possible this could be real.
>
> The carban 14 testing has been know to be flawed. However, may be
> another explaination for the age distoration and the chemical makeup
> concern.
You are absolutely and completely and totally wrong. The dating of the
shroud is not the least bit flawed. Several samples have been
independently tested by no less than three labs and all the test confirm a
14th century piece of cloth. The samples were not contaminated, as some
believers have breathlessly claimed. The fire through which the shroud
survived did not alter the tests, either.
>
> It is very, very, very likely christ did not die on the cross.
>
> Early ( fairly advanced for the day) drugs where known and used to
> produce death like symptoms. The prophecy was that christ would die and
> be ressurected (revieved, saved, resued, whatever word you could use to
> discribe the process).
>
> Morever, the trauma procedures would have involved heavy uses of
> linaments, solvents and herbs. He could have been ultra sedated before
> the crucifixation. He would have certainly been wrapped in a shroud
> probably laced with massive "life" saving compounds.
>
> Now remember, there are many drugs, I know of several compounds, which
> in the "right" dose could produce the desired outcome. Many of the
> early followers of christ were people of means. Politicians, wealthy
> land owner of the day, all the way down to the very poor. The more
> money the more state of the art treatments. The lower classes would
> have been very ept in herbal healing. Especially the women concerned
> with child birth.
>
> I believe christ was the most successful sales man this world has ever
> known.
> It reminds me of the practice of scienctology in many ways.
>
> The relic practice is the key. It most likely was the shroud used.
> Whether he resurrected is a matter of faith. I believe
> he was. Even if the image was not christs but a elaborate piece of
> art . The structure, is definitly human. Also his stature was fairly
> big for a pennyless prophet leading what was called a life of denial.
> The fact is he was so popular there would have been no way his followers
> would have left him be sickly skinny. The Hebrew/jewish culture calls
> for high maintnance of their idols or prophets. He would have been a
> heavy weight for sure.
>
>
Heavyweight? Your arguments and assertions certainly are not.
CelebornTx
Paladin...@webtv.net (Rocco Paladino) wrote:
>Knowing the that the early christians literally saved everything they
>could as a relic, It is very possible this could be real.
They also had a bad habit of simply making their own-something that was more
popular than ever around 1390.
>The carban 14 testing has been know to be flawed.
Odd that it agrees with the earliest confirmed reference to the Shroud, then.
<snip>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first
thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all, irrevocably."
mign...@bellatlantic.net
"Shane D. Killian" <sha...@vnet.net> wrote:
> Been there, done that, worn the t-shirt. Guy, it's not only *possible*,
> I learned it in college!
>
I would be interested in seeing something that you, or some other
artistically trained person, has done in negative; something along the lines
of what's seen on the shroud. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
genuinely interested. Post it on your server space or send it to me as an
attachment; something I can open in Photoshop.
---------
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mignarda
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
wrote:
>In article <368A8F7B...@proaxis.com>,
>LesserRorqual <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>>Pioneer, there is no reason to posit that Jesus was not historical. Your
>>comparison to Greek gods and heroes does not work due to the extremely
>>short timespan alloted to Jesus. He was not a myth generated thousands
>>of years prior to his time, nor was he a figure developed over hundreds
>>of years. The Gospels were written prior to the end of the century in
>
>Mohandas Gandhi is a man who was undoubtably real. Photographs and other
>evidence prove that he existed. Yet, even though it's only 50 years since
>he died, many myths about his life have sprung into existance.
>
>For example, he was not a lifelong pacifist, he served with the rank of
>Sergent Major in the Zulu war.
Jeff/addesign
Never heard of her.
I'd rather not waste my time, or hers. I can tell you that I've been
in the graphic arts profesionally for over 25 years, and as a student
going back at least 35 years. I've worked with any number of
professional artists who would have no trouble in "painting in the
negative," as it is merely a fundamental understanding of the
interplay of light and dark. Cavemen probably had some grasp of it
when painting on their cave walls. Bas relief carvers understood the
interplay of light and shadow. Carving is a matter of taking away what
is not wanted. It is a negative process. Woodcut is a negative
process, and woodcuts are known from 770 a.d. If the shroud were faked
in the 13th c., woodcut was commonly known, and so artists who think
in the neagative were extant.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
Jeff/addesign
>No, Sterling, you want to check _your_ sources more carefully. There is
>nothing in Essene teaching remotely paralleling the Kingdom Parables. As
Give me quick rundown of the unique features of the parables.
>for your contention that the rest of JC's teaching was a bland mixture
>of "what he had been taught" by standard Judaism, this is also
>incorrect. No other prophet we know of claimed to have a special
>relationship to the Spirit. Jesus' relationship to his spirit gave him
Nor does Jesus appear to have done so, based upon words attributed to
him. Please cite the origin of these claims.
Is it your contention that Jesus claimed to be the one and only son of
god from the beginning of time? That he claimed to be god incarnate?
If so, exactly what support would you find in the words of Jesus?
>the authority to invert Judaic law, and this is not "Jesus repeating
>what he had learned."
Odd. When asked to sum up the important points of his teaching, all he
could offer was verbatim Deut: 6.5 and Lev19:18, (Matt22:27-39).
Lev. 19:18 is also what Hillel is supposed to have said about 100
years earlier, when asked to sum up the teaching of Judaism.
Jeff/addesign
>Sterling Crowe,
>Of course it is not an issue of Jesus initiating masses of new
>theological ideas that we can't trace. It's an issue of Jesus
>initiating a new proclamation which he termed, The Kingdom of Heaven.
Straight out of Zorastrianism, exported from Babylonia, and brought to
Palestine by Jews returning from exile in the intertestamental period.
Also the probable origin of the messianic hope in Judaism.
>There is nothing in Essene scripture which describes the Kingdom
>equivalently to the way Jesus described it. Hence the Parables.
>Scholarly consensus is that there are no parallels in Jewish or pagan
>aphoristic speech for Jesus's Parables of the Kingdom. The Essenes
>traced their tradition to a Teacher of Righteousness. Jesus traced his
While some DSS describe a Teacher of Righteousness, it is a leap of
faith to assume that the Essenes were responsible for creation of all
the scrolls, or that they trace their tradition to one teacher. There
is no evidence to support that claim. Zealots, Zadokites, Nasoreans,
Essenes, brigands, and outlaws are all terms that may be applied to
one group, depending upon the point in time and the point of view. The
Zealots are known to have been founded by Judas of Gamala, who
launched his first revolt at the death of Herod in 4bc.
>teaching to only one source: the spirit he received from his Father.
>For Jesus, the spirit was the sole arbiter of the Kingdom. Jesus did
>not depend on Mosaic Law or prophets for his authority. His source of
Then why is it important for the Gospels to trace his lineage to the
House of David? The Davidic Messiah of Qumran scrolls is also said to
be the Son of God.
If he did not depend upon Mosaic Law, explain Matt 5:17-19.
>unmediated authority in the spirit make him absolutely unique in his
>time and place. Ultimately, they are what killed him, since the Jewish
>ruling elite could not abide a religious "gnosis" which circumvented the
>temple/priesthood/Mosaic Law systems; and since the Roman ruling elite
You would seem to be mixing the gnosticism that came after Paul, not
from Jesus. Also, it is far more historically probable that Jesus was
zealot leader, put to death by the Romans for sedition. Zealots would
be at odds with those who sought appeasement of Rome.
>could not abide a prophet who initiated masses into a new "kingdom"
>which denied the mainstays of Empire. "Consensus reality" killed Jesus,
The Romans would be apathetic about a minor prophet in Palestine. It
was only after the crucifixion that his followers became an annoyance
to Rome.
>and his core Kingdom teaching defied consensus reality at every turn:
>this is why he was remembered as completely different from Essenes and
>other contemporary groups and teachers. Jesus's uniqueness is his role
>as agent for the Kingdom - as defined by Jesus, not by Essenes or the
>ruling Jewish elite or rabbinical interpretation of Mosaic Law.
The Christology of Paul is in conflict with rabbinic Judaism, the
teachings of Jesus are not. The kingdom, according to Barbara
Theiring, was code for the inner circle of the Essene priesthood.
Before you further protest the association of Jesus with the Essenes,
consider that "The Way" -- as in " I am the Way, the Truth, and the
Light" or "Followers of the Way" (Acts9:2)-- was a convention of
Essene literature. The also referred to themselves as "Keepers of the
Covenent," which in Hebrew is _Nozrei ha-Brit,_ from which the word
_Nozrim_ derives, one of the earliest Hebrew words for the sect later
called Christians, the Nazoreans who followed James, the brother of
Jesus. The modern _Arabic_ word for Christians, _Nasrani,_ is from the
same etymology. Since there does not appear to have been a town of
Nazareth in the time of Jesus, it is far more probable that Jesus the
Nazarene is Jesus the Nozrim, or Jesus the Essene.
The similarites are baptism; all things held in common, as in the Acts
of the Apostles; leadership by a council of 12; and messiaic
orientation. Psalm 37:11 "Blessed are the meek . . ." (Matt.5:5) was a
highpoint of the sermon on the mount, and Psalm 37 had specxial
interest to the Qumran sect. Matt5:3 is echoed in the War Scroll, and
al of Matthew is replete with metaphors and terms interchangeable wih
those in the Community Rule.
It should also be noted that the early consensus of scholars regarding
the Dead Sea Scrolls has largely been debunked by more recent works.
The original team worked under the mandate of an office of the
Vatican, and rejected or suppressed any scholarship that would cast
doubts on church doctrine.
Timothy Jones
>
> No, Sterling, you want to check _your_ sources more carefully. There is
> nothing in Essene teaching remotely paralleling the Kingdom Parables.
I'm sure you feel the need to say that so you can still have a case. But
obviously the matter is not so obvious. Try saying what you *do* think
is in there, and *then* contrasting it to jc's stuff. Or do their
similarities put you off of that prospect?
> As for your contention that the rest of JC's teaching was a bland
> mixture of "what he had been taught" by standard Judaism, this is
> also incorrect. No other prophet we know of claimed to have a
> special relationship to the Spirit.
First, big deal. It sounds like a trivial detail to me. And second,
you're wrong. I'm reminded of how Socrates claimed to have a "personal
god" which was apart from the pantheon of greek gods, with which he
communicated. It's a part of what got him in trouble (though by no means
the biggest part). Hmm...sounds familiar.
TJ
THETA SIGMA BAAWA
Tourniquet
after put under a microscope turns out to be a simple pigment made from
certain types of fauna . . .
Tourniquet
jer...@hvi.net wrote in article <76bo4g$6ps$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>...
Yeah, that was a pretty good blow to the skeptics about ten years ago. Once
the carbon dating was established it looks like maybe the
artist was a little bit familiar with anatomy than we'd expect. The missing
thumbs might just be an artist conceiving them folded under the palms of
the
hands. Or, he might think they were to far away to be 'imprinted' in the
image itself. Basically just a blank space similar to the eyesockets on the
face.
BJ wrote in message <76bbjp$106$1...@news.socomm.net>...
>Additionally -
>
>The shroud depicts a man pierced through a bone in the wrist. This is
>exactly the way it was done in the first century. In the 14th century,
they
>had the mistaken notion that it was done through the hands.
>
>The thumbs are not seen. {snipped}>>- Matt
>
>
mign...@bellatlantic.net
"g&g " <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> I checked out these websites. Piczek admits that the shroud is covered with
> various pigments and other artistic media but insists it is not a painting.
> The logic seems to be that the presence of pigments is due to some
> "copying" or "painting over" the original image to enhance it. In all
> fairness, Piczek does refer the reader to the McCrone website but does not
> mention that McCrone's highly detailed microscopic and scientific study of
> the shroud produces not one iota of human tissue including blood. In every
> "blood" area McCrone and at least three other independent labs found
> nothing but red ochre and vermilion.
>
Funny, but McCrone makes his assertion that there is no blood on the basis of
a simple visual survey. McCrone, to my knowledge is not a biochemist, nor is
he a specialist in the chemistry of blood, yet he can with confidence assert
that there is no blood on the samples. Contrast this with the work of Heller
and Adler, both biochemists, who were convinced at the outset (based on
simple visual surveys of the same samples McCrone used) that blood existed on
the samples, yet refrained from pronouncing on their opinion until
sophisticated chemical tests had indicated that what they had merely opined
was blood was, indeed, blood.
For the sake of argument (and decency) let's rule out the ridiculous notion
that one party or the other is fabricating results. Obviously, someone is
mistaken. Which party is it more likely to be? The non-biochemist with his
off- the-cuff assertion, or the team of biochemists with their time-tested
analytical techniques?