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

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

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:46 PM Subject: [XTalk] The shroud -- some
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- 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.