The Shroud and Historicity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am

If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered. The Shroud of Turin seems to tell the same story as gospel accounts. Thus, if the Shroud is judged authentic, we have external historical corroboration from outside the gospel accounts, original material evidence in fact, and this cuts against the fabrication-template that some want to lay over all the texts of the gospels.

The radio-carbon dating of a repair-flap from the edge of the cloth does not disauthenticate the Shroud. But even if you apply the 1290 date to the whole shroud, you then have to explain the amazing amount of technical and historical knowledge and material (such as travertine aragonite) that the 13th-century forger would have had to have (and go out of his way to include though no one of the time would notice it).

National Geographic says "Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed."

Someone claims twenty-three matches between the Shroud and the gospel accounts.

The case pro and con on the Shroud's authenticity is neatly put here.

perseusomega9
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by perseusomega9 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:45 pm

We can't replicate the construction of the great pyramid either


Image
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:41 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:45 pm
We can't replicate the construction of the great pyramid either
Actually we probably can.

But even if we couldn't, we might at least have the humility and honesty to admit it is a wonder.

User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Kapyong » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:28 pm

Gday pavurcn,
pavurcn wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:41 pm
But even if we couldn't, we might at least have the humility and honesty to admit {the great pyramid} is a wonder.
I do -
I honestly admit it's a wonder :)

Kapyong

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by neilgodfrey » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:07 am

pavurcn wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am
If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered.
What is bolstered if two independent witnesses tell the same story is the likelihood that the independently told stories had a common source.

Whether that common source was historical truth is another question entirely.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:12 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:07 am
pavurcn wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am
If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered.
What is bolstered if two independent witnesses tell the same story is the likelihood that the independently told stories had a common source.

Whether that common source was historical truth is another question entirely.
An interesting point to raise.

The first proposition is plausible but not entirely: If two people see the same car accident from two separate buildings, the coincidences of their accounts do not drive us to posit a greater likelihood of a common source other than the reality itself. The reality of the event is the common source. The historical truth is not "another question entirely." It is what has been witnessed and what lies most directly behind the two accounts.

With the Shroud, we might have not only a source but actual material evidence of the original witnessed reality, with the marks of what happened written in the physical data.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:59 am

There's nothing about the picture of the guy that suggests he rose from the dead, but quite a bit that suggests that he is dead. Further, the guy looks awfully European for a supposed Palestinian native.

I am prepared to concede that the shroud is independent in the required sense from the Talmudic and other accounts that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier. Given that nobody would lie that this was Jesus' burial cloth, and its provenance is so nearly bullet-proof, I conclude that while this textile is irrelevant to what happened to the corpse it once contained, it corroborates the Roman soldier story which was so widely known in ancient times.

After all, if two independent witnesses tell the same story, etc.

pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:33 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:59 am
There's nothing about the picture of the guy that suggests he rose from the dead, but quite a bit that suggests that he is dead...Further, the guy looks awfully European for a supposed Palestinian native.
1. From the BBC:
According to an international team of scientists and other interested folk called the Yahoo Shroud Science Group, hypotheses about the genesis of the shroud "involving the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be rejected". Among them, the group members write, "are hypotheses correlated to an energy source coming from the enveloped or wrapped Man, [and] others correlated to surface electrostatic discharges caused by an electric field".
There is often the suggestion that a radiant burst of energy made the image...hmmm...does seem to be something that could suggest a resurrection event (one which was not mere resuscitation, but a new kind of life). In that case it would be a veritable hyper-photographic imprint of the Man of the Shroud's passion, death, and resurrection. That would definitely sync with the core of the historical part of Paul's gospel in 1 Cor 15:3ff: "3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures..."

2. And as for "the guy looks awfully European," consider this:
Leading anthropologist, the late Carleton S. Coon, (1904-1981), whose speciality was human racial groups, confirmed that the image on the Shroud was that of "he is of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews which as far as I am aware, has never been disputed:

"Stewart suggested that I put the question to Carlton S. Coon, one of the world's most distinguished ethnologists. ... Coon had written books on the racial classifications of people all over the world. ... Coon wrote back .... `Whoever the individual represented may have been, he is of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." (Wilcox, 1977, p.136).

"ethnologist Carleton S. Coon has associated the man with the very pure Semitic type found today among noble Arabs and Sephardic Jews, and certainly there are at least broad hints of Jewishness in the ... unbound rope of hair at the back of the head ... one of the commonest fashions for Jewish men in antiquity." (Wilson, 1986, pp.15-16).
Taken from here. There is also this:
Coon's description, noted above, of the Shroud face as Semitic in appearance is supported by Stewart (cited in Stevenson and Habermas 1081:35), who points out other features of the image which suggest a Middle Eastern origin. The beard, hair parted in the middle and falling to the shoulders, and pigtail indicate that the man was not Greek or Roman. The unbound pigtail has been described as ''perhaps the most strikingly Jewish feature" of the Shroud (Wilson 1978:54) and has been shown to have been a very common hairstyle for Jewish men in antiquity. The estimated height of the Shroud man at around 175-180 cm corresponds with the average height (178 cm) of adult male skeletons excavated in the 1st-century cemetery near Jerusalem (Haas 1970) and with the ideal male height of 4 ells (176 cm) according to an interpretation of the Talmud (Kraus 1910-11).

perseusomega9
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:11 am

pavurcn wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:41 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:45 pm
We can't replicate the construction of the great pyramid either
Actually we probably can.

But even if we couldn't, we might at least have the humility and honesty to admit it is a wonder.
The point being, the concept of scientific replication is incorrectly used in your claim.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:40 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:11 am
The point being, the concept of scientific replication is incorrectly used in your claim.
My claim was that 'National Geographic says "Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed.' "

We might go on to deduce from that--not "Therefore aliens!"--but rather "Therefore debunking is much more greatly challenged than it otherwise might be."

Post Reply