Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] The shroud -- some links and a warning

Expand Messages
  • Jim Jordan
    Thank you, Jeffery, for your words of wisdom. Over the last few months, I have been quite dissapointed with the lack of professionalism I ve see on this
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 1 5:24 PM
      Thank you, Jeffery, for your words of wisdom. Over the last few months, I
      have been quite dissapointed with the lack of professionalism I've see on
      this board. Unanimity has never been the goal of intellectual engagement.
      We, too often, expect life's realities to conform to our own philosophy
      rathar than conforming our philosophy to life's realities.

      Another recent trend has a the tendancy of some contributors to justify
      their opinions by that of others. What an intellectual draw-down!
      Referencing the work of others in arriving at one's own opinion is healthy;
      trying to aggressively justify your opinion by the work or opinions of
      others is a sure sign of immature attainment in critical thought.

      I offer this post only to recognize Mr. Gibson's prudence in providing
      guidance on this thread and to offer a short pause for a little
      introspective assessment.

      Regards,
      Jim Jordan

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:46 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] The shroud -- some links and a warning


      > John Lupia wrote:
      >
      > >
      > > > LA:
      > > > Excuse me John. For some reason I get a little skeptical when
      > > people
      > > > start citing scientists speaking out on fields outside of those of
      > > their
      > > > own expertese, and are said to have reached "scientific
      > > conclusions"
      > > > that are "apodictic," and now, to have excluded other possibilities
      > > as
      > > > not just impossible, but "overwhemingly impossible."
      > >
      > >
      > > You somehow must have misunderstood what I wrote. Drs. Danin and
      > > Baruch
      > > happen to be the world's leading experts on Israeli botany. So, when
      > > they
      > > find conclusive evidence I for one do not presume I know more they do
      > > but
      > > instead I listen.
      > >
      > >
      > > >Speaking in terms
      > > > of such absolute certainty does not strike me as exactly
      > > scientific,
      > > > especially with reference to this topic.
      > > >
      > > > No, I have not read their reports on seed harvest and yields in
      > > > Palestine 2000 years ago. I'm sure that they are fascinating, and I
      > > can
      > > > hardly wait for the movie version. But, I fail to see how their
      > > > expertese in this area translates into an expertese that allows
      > > them to
      > > > pontificate on the "overwhelming impossibility" of contamination,
      > > either
      > > > primary or secondary, of the shroud by pilgrims who had been to the
      > > Holy
      > > > land. We don't even know where the shroud was for major periods of
      > > its
      > > > existence, let alone how isolated it was from such potential
      > > > contamination. How do we even *know* that someone didn't carry it
      > > to
      > > > Palestine itself at some time?
      > > > Leon
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Well, Leon, the problem is you have not read their reports. Danin did
      > > not
      > > rely on Max Frei's tapes but took new fresh samples with palynological
      > >
      > > evidence of G.T. spores. First, this plant is very rare. It only
      > > grows in
      > > a small isolated area outside of Jersualem as it has for thousands of
      > > years.
      > > When I say it only grows there I mean it is the only place on earth
      > > where it
      > > grows. It is a rather unique signature to a small field that is
      > > isolated
      > > and where people do not go. Second, the image on the Shroud
      > > discernible and
      > > more easily observable in negatives clearly shows the G.T. stems and
      > > leaves
      > > like a photograph of the sternum area. Danin, says the image of the
      > > photo-like image of this plant on the Shroud cannot be explained as
      > > one
      > > might argue about the pollen by contamination at some period. Besides
      > > the
      > > statistical probability of contamination is virtually zero due to the
      > > rarity
      > > of the plant and its isolation even among the flora of Israel. How a
      > > medieval forger could have known all of this as well as produced this
      > > photo-like image of the plant on the chest's sternum area is something
      > > that
      > > precludes forgery.
      >
      > I hesitate to enter this fray largely not only because -- as we've seen
      > before on XTalk and the old Crosstalk -- the subject of the shroud soon
      > spins off from rational discourse into name calling and factionalism and
      > I don't want to stir the pot more than it already has been stirred. But
      > also because of the fact that even if it could be shown conclusively
      > that the shroud is 1st century and Palestinian in provenance, let alone
      > the burial shroud of Jesus, it is of **dubious value for reconstructing
      > the life and teaching of Jesus**.
      >
      > But having said that, I feel it is important to note that it is not
      > necessarily the case, as John seems to think, that if one reads the
      > reports that John mentions, one **must** come to the conclusions he
      > advocates, let alone that the only reason that one could take a stand
      > against the reputedly positive evidentiary value of the pollen
      > "evidence" is that one hadn't read the reports in question (note the
      > implication of his conclusion that the only way Leon could hold the
      > views he does is because he [presumably] hasn't read what John has
      > read). For there are many who **have** read them and have not come away
      > persuaded by their conclusions, since it is felt that the methodologies
      > employed were flawed and/or the conclusions drawn were **not** warranted
      > by the "evidence" produced.
      >
      > I point to one such review by Steven D. Schafersman of the Department
      > of Geology of Miami University at Oxford, Ohio that was published in
      > _Approfondimento Sindone_ Year II, vol. 2, 1998 that may be found at:
      > http://www.humanist.net/appro-sindone/schafersman.html
      >
      > I also would point people to the review of the evidence, as well as the
      > many links on the shroud both pro and con as regards the issue of its
      > "authenticity", that may be found at: http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
      >
      > With that said, and at the risk of seeming hypocritical on this, let me
      > note that if I detect the current thread on the shroud devolving into a
      > less than collegial exchange, I will shut it down immediately.
      >
      > Yours,
      >
      > Jeffrey Gibson
      > --
      > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
      > 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      > Chicago, Illinois 60626
      > e-mail jgibson000@...
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://www.xtalk.org
      >
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > List managers may be contacted directly at:
      crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:46 PM Subject: [XTalk] The shroud -- some
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 2 10:03 AM
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:46 PM
        Subject: [XTalk] The shroud -- some links and a warning


        > But having said that, I feel it is important to note that it is not
        > necessarily the case, as John seems to think, that if one reads the
        > reports that John mentions, one **must** come to the conclusions he
        > advocates, let alone that the only reason that one could take a stand
        > against the reputedly positive evidentiary value of the pollen
        > "evidence" is that one hadn't read the reports in question (note the
        > implication of his conclusion that the only way Leon could hold the
        > views he does is because he [presumably] hasn't read what John has
        > read). For there are many who **have** read them and have not come away
        > persuaded by their conclusions, since it is felt that the methodologies
        > employed were flawed and/or the conclusions drawn were **not** warranted
        > by the "evidence" produced.

        I agree with Jeff. I have published on the shroud and argue for its
        authenticity
        as an artifact of a 1st century crucifixion but I want to re-emphasize that
        the
        palynological evidence is *one* tool. The AMS dating is *one* tool. Any
        conclusion for or against this relic as an authentic artifact must be based
        on the
        totality of many and various analytical tools that have been brought to bear
        on its study. Like Jeffrey, I have found that scientific objectivity in the
        interpretation of evidence oftimes takes a back seat to an investigator's
        "druthers." "Druthers" are often based on emotion of religious concerns or,
        even more commonly, the investigators' previous "investment" in an issue.
        McCrone will never admit that his iron oxide particles are not "paint." He
        has
        too much of an "investment" in continuing to claim the image was painted
        when
        sophisticated technology has clearly proven it was not. There is a
        face-saving
        factor. A Byzantine prioritist of some 40 years is *never* going to change
        his/her mind towatd an Alexandrian or Western text..no matter the evidence.
        All of us may bounce around in the Synoptic "problem" and the authenticity
        of "Q" and even change our minds...but Farmer, Farrar, Griesbach, etc
        would never have changed *their* minds, once set. Something Jeffrey said
        intrigues
        me though:

        >even if it could be shown conclusively
        >that the shroud is 1st century and Palestinian in provenance, let alone
        >the burial shroud of Jesus, it is of **dubious value for reconstructing
        >the life and teaching of Jesus**.

        IF the shroud is a 14th century forgery, what does it say about the forger?

        IF the shroud is authentic (which I contend) and IF the shroud is an
        artifact of
        the crucifixion and burial of Jesus of Nazareth (an entirely separate and
        unprovable
        issue)...what does it tell us about Jesus that is useful?

        Is there something that discussion on issues like this, the "Hebrew Matthew"
        debate,
        the "Jesus is a myth" debate, and the "Jesus was a Samaritan" debate, and
        others,
        can teach us all?

        Jack

        -----
        ______________________________________________

        Dakma dabadton l'chad min haleyn achi zoreh li hav abadton

        Jack Kilmon
        San Marcos, Tx
        jkilmon@...

        http://www.historian.net

        sharing a meal for free.
        http://www.thehungersite.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.