The Shroud and Historicity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by perseusomega9 »

Glad you make the distinction, I've seen other Shroud proponents incorrectly use the concept of scientific replicataion/reproducibility.
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
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by neilgodfrey »

pavurcn wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:12 am. . . 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. . .
The analogy here begs the question. Yes, if the common source is a historical event, like a genuinely historical car accident that was literally witnessed by the sources of the stories...... of course.

But what if.... ?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Kapyong »

Gday,
pavurcn wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered.
Many ancient books tell the tale of the creation of Adam and Eve - do you think that is historical ?

Many ancient writers tell us about the magical exploits of Dionysus - does that make them historical ?

All stories about Luke Skywalker says his father was Darth Vader - do you think that stories' veracity is so bolstered ?


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

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

Kapyong wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:18 pm Gday,
pavurcn wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am If two independent witnesses tell the same story, the veracity of the story is bolstered.
Many ancient books tell the tale of the creation of Adam and Eve - do you think that is historical ?

Many ancient writers tell us about the magical exploits of Dionysus - does that make them historical ?

All stories about Luke Skywalker says his father was Darth Vader - do you think that stories' veracity is so bolstered ?

Kapyong
Ah, Kapyong, good judgment is always needed, as is an understanding of types of discourse. If something is claimed to happen in historical time, sub Pontio Pilato, for example, it is likely in a very different genre from that of mythical discourse. False analogies will lead you astray every time. And if you have witnesses who claim to be testifying to the truth, that again is a clue you should take into account. Hermeneutics is key. To apply the wrong genre will lead you to the wrong analysis will lead you to the wrong results. And this thread is raising the likelihood of supportive physical evidence that needs to be evaluated seriously, not simply dismissed because some people can't handle one of the outcomes.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by MrMacSon »

pavurcn wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am
The Shroud of Turin seems to tell the same story as gospel accounts.
How?
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:23 pm
pavurcn wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:12 am. . . 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. . .
The analogy here begs the question. Yes, if the common source is a historical event, like a genuinely historical car accident that was literally witnessed by the sources of the stories...... of course.

But what if.... ?
Well how do we determine the historicity of an event? Look to the witnesses. Look to the accounts / claims. Look to the physical evidence. Look to the results one would expect if the event had taken place. What is the coherence of the data? What are the counter-indications? What is the most sensible reading of what we can best suppose to have happened?

With the Shroud, we have either a very telling piece of corroborative physical evidence at least of a crucifixion and death (and possibly of a "singular energy event") or a stupendously amazing counterfeit from the middle ages. (The fact that the blood was first and the image imprinted second is just one of the impossibly difficult things to explain if this is a forgery.)

Believers do not depend on the Shroud for their belief, only for helpful corroboration in the face of deniers. Mythicists desperately need the Shroud not to be true if they are first and foremost committed to a belief in the mythical character of the origins of Christianity.
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Kapyong »

Gday,
pavurcn wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:42 pm And if you have witnesses who claim to be testifying to the truth, that again is a clue you should take into account.
But - there are no witnesses testifying to the truth.

All you have is claims from unknown sources in anonymous stories -

Your prior example claimed "... and we know his testimony is true " in a chapter added to the end of a gospel.

Do you really believe that is a first-hand witness claim ? With 'we' and 'his' added ?

Hmmm -
maybe you would like to buy the Sydney Harbour Hyperpotamus ?


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

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:53 pm
pavurcn wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:32 am
The Shroud of Turin seems to tell the same story as gospel accounts.
How?
See the 23 parallels mentioned above.

Semitic male -- scourging (with Roman flagellum) -- marks possibly from a crown of thorns (very rare, perhaps unique in crucifixion accounts) -- nail wounds -- crucifixion -- lance -- death -- (and possibly a singular energy event / Resurrection). Chemical proportions in travertine aragonite dirt suggest Jerusalem. Furthermore: Some people see spring flowers imaged on the Shroud or the find the pollen remains of Palestinian flora. Others confirm coins on the eyes with marks (e.g., of a lituus) like those marks on certian coins minted under Pontius Pilate dating to around the year 29. It is support for a narrative that you might be able to recognize. The passion account is considered one of the oldest sections of gMark's narrative.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

Kapyong wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:03 pm
But - there are no witnesses testifying to the truth.

All you have is claims from unknown sources in anonymous stories -

Kapyong
Lots of names point to the original dramatis personae, and there were likely many people who lived on, maybe even to the years 80 or 85 or 90. And there are known people like Papias and Polycarp and Ignatius and Paul who knew some of the original generation and those who heard them. It is estimated that there were 40 different Christian communities by the year 100. That's an awful lot of result to be arising ex nihilo...or else they believed the witnesses they heard, witnesses who were apparently willing to die for their belief (James, Peter, Paul). Furthermore, the texts that the early generation passed on have the native hallmarks of a religious Jewish genius who gave us the evidence of distinctive and powerful parables and ethical / religious teachings not paralleled by others of the day. What's a reasonable person to think...?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by neilgodfrey »

pavurcn wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:01 pm
Well how do we determine the historicity of an event? Look to the witnesses. Look to the accounts / claims. Look to the physical evidence. Look to the results one would expect if the event had taken place. What is the coherence of the data? What are the counter-indications? What is the most sensible reading of what we can best suppose to have happened?
If you are a biblical scholar you might think any of those methods validly determines the historicity of an event. But if you adhere to the principles of mainstream historians you will always start with one thing: primary evidence. Material evidence and documentation from the time in question.

That's what we don't have with the shroud. All efforts to turn the shroud into primary evidence are circular or at least question-begging.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply