Thanks, John, for your trademark thoughtful analysis of arguments.
Re the Shroud, I often think of this item as the apologetics gift that keeps on giving. You get some evidence for it, then you get some evidence against it. Then you get some evidence that both the last lots of evidence were flawed….
I’m not inclined to dismiss the SoT out of hand. I found the evidence of seeds in the fibres which were native to 1st C Israel quite significant, especially as the academic who wrote the paper was not a Christian (Jewish).
But OTOH, so many ways in which its authenticity isn’t consistent with other Christian claims. Why would the disciples have treasured the shroud if they had the actual physical Jesus alive again and walking amongst them? If they did attach some significance to his burial cloth, why don’t any of the gospels mention it? They mention Jesus’ burial cloths but nothing about finding an image on them or anyone thinking to take them away with them. How did that get left out of the stories if the stories are reliable?
“During the past four decades, whenever a specialist has attempted to use scientific or forensic techniques to examine the shroud, any affirmative results have been immediately accepted by many of the faithful, while any negative results have been met with immediate skepticism by those same faithful, who then question the accuracy and technical validity of the scientific methods used.”
I still bat on that Mark designed his witnesses to the resurrection to be unreliable. They told no one, which is as bad as it can get. This is a theme throughout Mark (ref the famous Messianic secret), 'tell no one', 'spirits be quiet', parables are to prevent people knowing, etc.
Thanks, John, for your trademark thoughtful analysis of arguments.
Re the Shroud, I often think of this item as the apologetics gift that keeps on giving. You get some evidence for it, then you get some evidence against it. Then you get some evidence that both the last lots of evidence were flawed….
I’m not inclined to dismiss the SoT out of hand. I found the evidence of seeds in the fibres which were native to 1st C Israel quite significant, especially as the academic who wrote the paper was not a Christian (Jewish).
But OTOH, so many ways in which its authenticity isn’t consistent with other Christian claims. Why would the disciples have treasured the shroud if they had the actual physical Jesus alive again and walking amongst them? If they did attach some significance to his burial cloth, why don’t any of the gospels mention it? They mention Jesus’ burial cloths but nothing about finding an image on them or anyone thinking to take them away with them. How did that get left out of the stories if the stories are reliable?
The apologetics gift that keeps on giving! Haha, thanks for these comments, Francis.
On the pollen, have you seen this article? https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/does-pollen-prove-the-shroud-authentic/ I think it demonstrates that the pollen argument is very much inconclusive.
Thanks John, very interesting article.
And this:
“During the past four decades, whenever a specialist has attempted to use scientific or forensic techniques to examine the shroud, any affirmative results have been immediately accepted by many of the faithful, while any negative results have been met with immediate skepticism by those same faithful, who then question the accuracy and technical validity of the scientific methods used.”
Exactly so!
I still bat on that Mark designed his witnesses to the resurrection to be unreliable. They told no one, which is as bad as it can get. This is a theme throughout Mark (ref the famous Messianic secret), 'tell no one', 'spirits be quiet', parables are to prevent people knowing, etc.