View Full Version : The Shroud of Turin - Authentic Again!!!
I've just been watching a documentary which explained that even after the carbon dating tests that seemed to show the Shroud of Turin dated from 1260 at the earliest scientists and historians are once more claiming it could not only be authentic, but that it proves that Christ was not dead when he was removed from the cross.
It never ceases to amaze me how with all our current scientific techniques we can't manage to prove a simple historical fact. Mind you I am fansinated by some of the information which is being revealed, for example I never knew that in fact Christ was only on the cross for 3 hours, whereas the normal period was over 5 days and that some victoms were found to still be alive even after that prolonged period.
Innocentius
07-13-2007, 17:55
If I am not mistaken there is no real proof that Jesus died on the cross at all. Apart from the Bible of course~:rolleyes:
Of course, it's difficult to prove anything when the Holy See will not allow samples of the shroud to be taken.
Of course, it's difficult to prove anything when the Holy See will not allow samples of the shroud to be taken.
That's only part of the problem. The reality of it is many of these so-called 'tests' that have been performed on religious relics are farces in of themselves, because they are lead/run by people who have a specific goal or aim in mind, as opposed to trying to impartially obtain data through the scientific method. I was reading some time ago on this very same subject, the shroud, and the accounts of some of the scientists that were on a team preparing to research the relic itself some decades ago. Some of them, including the person giving the narrative, were drummed out in short order because they were calling the leaders and other members on the team out for not being impartial, attempting to 'fix' the testing, and generally attempt to force certain findings or outcomes. The project never succeeded anyway because the relic's keepers decided to disallow the testing some time into the process, and there were no results or any data ever obtained or published.
In short, politics politics politics. Don't be surprised the custodians of many relics won't allow them to be tested for whatever shammy reasons they can come up with, after all what do they have to gain by finding out what they have isn't real, or as old as they claim it to be? How many "Splinters of the True Cross" that exist now are probably just some wood shivers that someone plucked out of their domicile and tried to pass them off as such?
Also Didz don't forget, supposedly Hay-zeus was pretty worse for the wear to begin with when they stuck him on the cross. Barring that, a nice deep spear wound to the side would probably have finished him off in relatively short order, or at least mortally wounded him to the point where even though he might not have been 100% dead when they took him down, he probably was about 99.999% there.
Cheers all.
:balloon2:
If I am not mistaken there is no real proof that Jesus died on the cross at all. Apart from the Bible of course~:rolleyes:
I thought there was evidence that he had been cruxified, but doubts are now being voiced as to whether he actually died on the cross.
Of course, it's difficult to prove anything when the Holy See will not allow samples of the shroud to be taken.
They did. Several years ago they allowed three samples to be cut from the shroud under controlled conditions and sent to three seperate laboratories for carbon dating. These three tests proved that the samples were dated from between 1260-1390, effectively proving that the shroud was a fake.
However, it seems that something odd happened during the process of taking the samples. The entire process was recorded on video to prove that the samples were genuine. However, the tape has since been studied and apparently there is a 30 minute blank spot in the recording which occurs after the samples were cut from the shroud until the presentation of the sealed samples for dispatch to the laboratories. In other words there is no proof that the samples sent to the labs were the ones cut from the shroud.
The Holy See claim that this was necessary to prevent the labs who were sent control samples being made aware that they a fake one. However, as was pointed out the control samples were completely different to real ones and no attempt was made to disquise them and so the labs would have known as soon as the opened the cannisters that they were in the control group.
Furthermore the Oxford lab which was sent one of the supposedly real samples, managed to preserve most of it and it yet it has been impossible to match the sample they were sent with the section of the shroud from which it was supposedly cut. Apparently the weave of the cloth is completely different.
The current conspiracy theory is that the Holy See deliberately swopped the samples before dispatch to the labs, their motive being that if the shroud proved geniune it would undermine the story of the resurrection of christ by proving that he was not actually dead when removed from the cross.
Also Didz don't forget, supposedly Hay-zeus was pretty worse for the wear to begin with when they stuck him on the cross. Barring that, a nice deep spear wound to the side would probably have finished him off in relatively short order, or at least mortally wounded him to the point where even though he might not have been 100% dead when they took him down, he probably was about 99.999% there.
Apparently, the Roman soldier who thrust his spear into the side of Christ, might have been a christain. It appears that when his group were sent to break the legs and finish off the three men on the cross they carried out their orders in respect of the two thieves, but this soldier stopped them doing so to Jesus pointing out that he was already dead and jabbed his spear into him just to prove it. Contempory accounts claim that the spear pierced Jesus' heart and resulted in a gush of blood and water. The fact that the wound resulted in any gush of blood or water merely proves that Jesus was not dead, as dead bloodies do not gush blood. However, the action appears to have convinced the other Romans who left without breaking his legs. Interestingly the the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus became a Christian bishop soon afterwards.
Furthermore, if the shroud of Turin was proven to be geniune, it too shows evidence that when Jesus was wrapped in it the wound in his side along with his other wounds were still bleeding profusely and medical evidence suggests that this would not have been the case if he was dead and his heart had been pierced by a spear.
Clever or what?
Oh! the other interesting thing about the shroud is that the wounds in the image on the cloth are 100% historically accurate, both for the cruxifiction and for the scorging which occurred prior to it, and yet every medieival image of the cruxifiction is historically inaccurate. Suggesting that if the shroud was a medieval fake, the artist responsible would have needed extremely specialised knowledge of the intricate detail not only of the process through which a body would have been put, but also about the medical reaction of a body subjected to that process. I found that really fascinating as it means that whoever did it would have had to have been pretty damned special.
Interesting discussion. The one key thing I'd like to throw out here in advance Didz is that in all fairness, there are a large number of assumptions being made here on this subject, so we should keep that in mind.
Apparently, the Roman soldier who thrust his spear into the side of Christ, might have been a christain. It appears that when his group were sent to break the legs and finish off the three men on the cross they carried out their orders in respect of the two thieves, but this soldier stopped them doing so to Jesus pointing out that he was already dead and jabbed his spear into him just to prove it. Contempory accounts claim that the spear pierced Jesus' heart and resulted in a gush of blood and water. The fact that the wound resulted in any gush of blood or water merely proves that Jesus was not dead, as dead bloodies do not gush blood. However, the action appears to have convinced the other Romans who left without breaking his legs. Interestingly the the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus became a Christian bishop soon afterwards.
That's not exactly what I've read, but close. The way I read it was that the soldier who did it eventually became a christian, but that was some time after the fact. Also, re: the blood and 'water', the 'water' could have been any number of bodily fluids, or depending on the wound, perhaps something from his stomach. The key thing is that we really can't take any accounts of the actual crucifixtion as truly accurate, because:
A. The actual wording used has been translated and retranslated dozens of times, and we know what happens as a result of that.
B. The original authors of the commentary were human and thus subject to human error. Have you tried remembering some of the really important things that have happened in your life, even recently? Some people have better memory than others, but most folks will often forget parts and bits of events, and even remember things incorrectly. This is one of the major reasons that eyewitness accounts at criminal trials are largely discounted.
C. The people witnessing the events at the time would not have had access to the same medical knowledge we have these days, therefore he really might not have been medically dead yet when they took him off the cross, but would have appeared as such.
D. We're assuming this is all true and really happened anyway. It's entirely feasible that, as you pointed out, this Jesus individual may not really have died on the cross, but lived and was in a state of coma for several days until he came out of it, and then recovered after the fact, hence the 'sightings' later on. Not so far fetched really.
Furthermore, if the shroud of Turin was proven to be geniune, it too shows evidence that when Jesus was wrapped in it the wound in his side along with his other wounds were still bleeding profusely and medical evidence suggests that this would not have been the case if he was dead and his heart had been pierced by a spear.
Well this is possible, but it depends. Bodies with horrific wounds can still bleed after the heart stops beating, depending on the individual situation and circumstances.
Something interesting that we can perhaps base our dialogue on. Did you see Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ movie? What happened when the soldier stuck his spear in Jesus's side is not medically feasible. They depicted the blood and ... 'goo' spraying all over the place, much like Windex coming out of it's spray bottle. If he was still alive, there would have been some pretty profuse bleeding, but not "gushing" or "squirting" like the movie suggested. Even if they would have pierced his heart and there was a significant entry wound leading up to it, you wouldn't have "fountaining" or blood spraying or nonsense like you see in the movies.
Oh! the other interesting thing about the shroud is that the wounds in the image on the cloth are 100% historically accurate, both for the cruxifiction and for the scorging which occurred prior to it, and yet every medieival image of the cruxifiction is historically inaccurate. Suggesting that if the shroud was a medieval fake, the artist responsible would have needed extremely specialised knowledge of the intricate detail not only of the process through which a body would have been put, but also about the medical reaction of a body subjected to that process. I found that really fascinating as it means that whoever did it would have had to have been pretty damned special.
Could you elaborate a bit on this more? I think I follow but would like to be sure.
:balloon2:
Strike For The South
07-13-2007, 23:08
Why this is such abug deal I'll never understand. I dont need a peice of cloth to confrim or deny my belifs as a christian. And I think if you do need this "evidence" than you should probaly re examine your relationship with God
Not talking to anyone in this thread just in genral.
Why this is such abug deal I'll never understand. I dont need a piece of cloth to confirm or deny my beliefs as a christian. And I think if you do need this "evidence" than you should probably re examine your relationship with God.
Oh! I don't think any of this has any relevance at all to ones religious belief's or lack of them. The reason I found it interesting and worthy of posting are two-fold. a) I think its interesting that at a time when science is claiming to be able to reveal the truth about so much of our history, the shroud of Turins authenticity still eludes confirmation and actually has these same experts at each other throats. It shows how fragile these so called experts are when they are not all towing the same party line. b) The arguements being used by these experts to try and support their own theories are actually revealing a lot of detailed historical and medical information which I was previously not aware of. For instance, I had no idea that Jesus was only on the cross for three hours, nor had I any idea of the detailed process of cruxification.
As one expert pointed out, even if the shroud was proven to be authentic, and it was determined that Christ was still alive when removed from the cross, God may still have had a major hand in ensuring his recovery. Therefore, nothing has changed in terms of Christian belief.
Could you elaborate a bit on this more? I think I follow but would like to be sure.
Sure....It was pointed out that historians have only quite recently pieced together the detailed process used by Rome for the scourging and cruxificion of victims.
Medieval imagery of the scourging and cruxification is completed wrong. It depicts Christ being scourged with whips, or bunches of barbed sticks, and shows Christ nailed to the cross with nails through the palms of his hands. Indeed the whole stigmata concept assumes that the wounds are on the victims palms.
Historically, this is wrong....scourging was not undertaken with a whip or an bunch of brambles but with a special Roman tool (A Flagrum) designed for that sole purpose which whilst similar to a whip terminated in a specific number of bell shaped metal weights and was specifically designed for use as a torture tool and should not be confused with the Flagrums used by Flagelants in medieval europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrum.
These tools left very distinctive wound patterns due to their strange construction, there are some reproductions shown on this site. http://naturesdesignsonline.com/Cat-of-nine-tails.htm.
The study of the shroud shows clear evidnece that the wounds inflicted in the body were actually inflicted by this tool, not by a whip or brambles. Not only that but the wounds are inflicted in a regular pattern suggesting that two men (Lictors) were involved standing on either side of the suspended victim, and the number of wounds equates the regulation number of lashes (39 I think from two 9 taloned Flagrums) which would have been the amoount ordered by Pontius Pilate.
Furthermore, the Romans did not nail victims to the cross by the palms of their hands. The nails were driven through the victims wrists, as to do otherwise would allow the victim to tear the nail free. The shroud clearly shows that the wounds inflicted are through the victims wrist even though all Christian imagery of the time showed them through the victims palms.
Even more interesting is the fact that the Shroud seems to depict that the victim is missing his thumbs. His hands whilst drawn across his body only seem to have four fingers, and no thumb is visible. A medical expert then explained that this is perfectly correct in relation to the wound depicted in the victims wrists, as piercing a mans wrist in the locations shown would have severed a tendon which would have resulted in the victims thumbs being involuntarily and permanently withdrawn into his palm, effectively hiding them from view underneath the mans hands.
So, if the shroud is fake the artist would have needed not only to have known that all the images around him at that time (1260 -1390) were wrong, but that the Romans used a scourging tool of a specific design to inflict the wounds to the victims body, and that the wounds to the victims wrist would have caused a specific clinical reaction which less knowledgable people might consider a flaw in his depiction of the victim.
Furthermore, the Romans did not nail victims to the cross by the palms of their hands. The nails were driven through the victims wrists, as to do otherwise would allow the victim to tear the nail free. The shroud clearly shows that the wounds inflicted are through the victims wrist even though all Christian imagery of the time showed them through the victims palms.
Interesting but the major problem is that it is not the reality: In 1534, following a fire, the nuns doing the repair (Sisters Clarisse from Chambery) noted on their dairies: “The holes from the injuries are in the middle of the hands large and beautiful, from where start a river of blood from the ribs to the shoulders”…:beam:
Even more interesting is the fact that the Shroud seems to depict that the victim is missing his thumbs. His hands whilst drawn across his body only seem to have four fingers, and no thumb is visible. A medical expert then explained that this is perfectly correct in relation to the wound depicted in the victims wrists, as piercing a mans wrist in the locations shown would have severed a tendon which would have resulted in the victims thumbs being involuntarily and permanently withdrawn into his palm, effectively hiding them from view underneath the mans hands.
That should be a great finding if as a surgeon specialised in Hand Surgery wrote : “When there is rupture of the Median Nerve, there is impossibility to move the thumb, index and medium” which ruins this interesting story..:sweatdrop:
So, if the shroud is fake the artist would have needed not only to have known that all the images around him at that time (1260 -1390) were wrong, but that the Romans used a scourging tool of a specific design to inflict the wounds to the victims body, and that the wounds to the victims wrist would have caused a specific clinical reaction which less knowledgable people might consider a flaw in his depiction of the victim.
Well, what is really annoying for this is the representation includes so many obvious anatomic mistakes as fingers too long, the right arm too long, even to the point that if you put it strait it touches the knee…:yes:
Anyway, from the beginning we know it was a fake. :yes:
In 1353, a church was founded in Champagne by le sire Geoffroy Ier de Charny, seigneur de Lirey, Savoisy et Monfort.
Few time after the shroud of Christ did show up and was shown to the crowd.
However, the archibishop of Troyes Henri de Poitiers, learning that money was taken from the “miracles”, conducted a inquiries and it was not good for the relic. According to his successor, Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop discovered the fraud and how the shroud has been painted. It was proved that it was a man hand work, and not a miracle…
After few decennies, the shroud reapeared and Pierre d’Arcis (Archibishop) forbade the shroud to be show under punishment of excommunication…
This was confirmed by the Pope Clement VII who, by the way, spoke only of “figure or representation of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
Clément VII wrote 3 edicts (bulles), dated of the 6th of January 1390 stating openly it was not the real shroud of Christ but just a painting, a fake, and couldn’t pretend to be a relic.:shame:
Interesting but the major problem is that it is not the reality: In 1534, following a fire, the nuns doing the repair (Sisters Clarisse from Chambery) noted on their dairies: “The holes from the injuries are in the middle of the hands large and beautiful, from where start a river of blood from the ribs to the shoulders”…:beam:
Well the shroud shown in the program clearly shows the wounds in the wrist, and assuming that this was the real shroud I'm more inclined to beleive my own eyes than the love sick ramblings of some medieval nuns.
That should be a great finding if as a surgeon specialised in Hand Surgery wrote : “When there is rupture of the Median Nerve, there is impossibility to move the thumb, index and medium” which ruins this interesting story..:sweatdrop:
Obviously the surgeon explained that which was why the thumbs had been drawn into the palm in involuntary spasm.
Well, what is really annoying for this is the representation includes so many obvious anatomic mistakes as fingers too long, the right arm too long, even to the point that if you put it strait it touches the knee…:yes:
Really...I must admit the fingers did look long, but I never noticed any obvious deformity of the arms, they seemed to be placed normally over his abdomen.
According to his successor, Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop discovered the fraud and how the shroud has been painted. It was proved that it was a man hand work, and not a miracle…
And how exactly was this proven?
Don't get me wrong....I have not real axe to grind either way but having been pretty convinced by the carbon dating that that the shroud was fake, its now claimed that this is far less certain.
There is certainly no current scientific evidence to suggest that the shroud was painted, in fact the current fraud theory suggests that the image may have been produced using a real dead body coated in an as yet unidentified substance (some scientists think it might have been some sort of herbal oitment based on Myrrh). Experts on both sides seem to be satisfied that the image could not have been hand painted mainly becuase of the results of a 3D spectral analysis which shows that the image must have been produced on a contoured surface which matches exactly the shape of a human body. This seems to confirm that the image was pressed onto the cloth rather than being painted, the disagreement is currently focussed on how this was acheived. Some experts suggesting that the fraudster may have gone to the extreme lengths of actually reconstructing the entire cruxifiction using a real victim as a model.
The Spear of Destiny is almost certainly fake
Similar tests on the Spear of Destiny show that the oldest component part of this relic dates from the 7th Century and so it is almost certainly fake. Even though Napoleon and Hilter seemed convinved of its powers.
The only slight mystery is that there seem to be slithers of another object embedded into the nail in its centre which might be older than the nail itself, but without being allowed to conduct invasive tests its impossible to date the slithers of metal.
The Spear is supposed to be the very weapon used by Longinus to peirce the side of Christ on the cross.
[Interesting side note: Apparently some accounts claim that Longinus was blind, and instantly regained his sight when drenched in the blood of Christ. I find that idea quite hard to swallow, if only because the Roman Army didn't usually recruit the visually impaired, and somehow I doubt Christs body came with a braille skin guide saying 'Poke Here'. But thats beside the point.]
The best guess is that the relic began life as a Frankish spear head and later had the blades of a medieval dagger added to form the distinctive wings. The nail seems to have been inserted later, and may be one for a number of fake nail's bought back from the Holy Land, the spear head was fractured during the process.
However, this spear which is stored in Vienna is only one of at least four in existence, so they couldn't all be real anyway.
Why do I find these things interesting?
I think that what fascinates me about these documentaries/investigations is that they purport to be seeking the truth, and in doing so (and frequently failing) they merely confirm how elusive and difficult truth is to pin down.
Logic suggests that there can only be one truth, even though it may be extremely complex to document but it seems we have a long way to go before we perfect the necessary means to find it.
I actually find this kind of re-assuring as my work as a freelance Business Analyst also involves 'seeking the truth' frequently in a fog of deliberate misinformation and emotional chaos and so I take some solice from the fact that all these 'so called' experts are flapping around in equal chaos unable to determine the truth about a simple object.
What fascinates me most about their efforts is the obvious lack of data interchange between them. They each seem to formulate their own opinion in isolation based upon a very limited understanding of the knowledge available about the subject which they have as a group.
Thus you get the expert who announces that the Shroud of Turin was obviously painted because he found a few molecules of paint residue embedded in the cloth, and yet he failed to consider, or was unaware, that medieval painters frequently paid to use the shroud as a template for their own paintings and would validate and bless them by pressing them up against the shroud. Obviously, this has an impact on his findings and could have been taken into account had he been aware of the practice at the time he did the tests, but because of the way these experts work in professional silo's this information only came to his attention when it was used by another expert to discredit his results.
I'm not saying that things like that don't happen in my projects, but when they do heads usually roll.
I must say, I really like threads like these. I too am greatly interested in the mysteries of religion [too bad I have no time left on my schedule to immerse myself in the literature.]
What I fail to see is the reality of such relic power. Let’s say that you in-fact had the actual nails from the very cross/tree that the man Jesus were crucified on. What power would they possible possess?
And then you have the shroud … yeah.
If I am not mistaken this Jesus, the one that the believers worship is alive, came back from the dead and apparently stayed with his disciples for 40 days before ascending to heaven.
Having read the New Testament and some of the texts from the events following these events, I can’t find references to the saints mentioning these relics. Nowhere does it say that they gathered together to worship; and on the altar lay the nails, the shroud and the spear that pierced the heart of our living God. Touching them will heal and give you power.
It doesn’t say: And Peter came forth, and pressed upon the head of the leper the nail that pierced the hand of our Lord, and the leper was healed.
It does not say: And Jacob took the spear that pierced the heart of our Lord on the cross, and dipped it in the barrel of water, and at that moment it became the choicest wine.
It does not say that James pressed the shroud of Him that lives to the face of the blind beggar and the beggar arose exclaiming: Praise Him who lives and his servants who wield these magical relics that hold the power of the Lord.
I am more inclined to think this relic idea came at a dark time in the early church. A time when those that led the church were all gone and the power they apparently wielded had gone with them.
Who shall take their place?, was asked.
The bishop of Rome Clement, declined as he believed the power and authority was taken from the earth.
Oh… where did I put that piece of the cross? … Did you grab hold of the nails? Someone must have kept the shroud? What about that spear, did any of you keep that? :sweatdrop:
More interesting to me is the fact that the oldest text of the bible was not written until 200+ years after the event. Which would be a bit like someone sitting down this afternoon to write a personal account of the battle of Waterloo.
Furthermore it was heavily edited when first compiled and large sections of the original text was ommited or rewritten.
And finally, the Gospel according to Judas which is actually the oldest of the texts so far recovered was completely excluded.
As far as relic's are concerned the whole issue of authenticity is undermined by the fact that these items were major revenue and power earning objects in the Middle Ages. The vast majority are almost certainly fake, but as with the Shroud of Turin and the Spear of Destiny modern science seems incapabable of determining which are, and which aren't, even when presented with the physical object for testing.
Other amazing and totally unecessary mysteries include the fact that experts beleive they know where the Holy Grail is buried in France, but have contrived to excavate just deep enough to locate a buried object and then decided to stop and fill the hole in again, and the claim that the Ark of the Covenant is stored in a small chapel in Ethopia guarded by an old monk, but that he is the only person who can gaze upon it and live and so nobody can look through the door to prove that its there. I mean has nobody thought of sending a robot camera in there, if the damned thing implodes or something then at least we know that something powerful is in there.
I sometimes wonder if this whole business is just one big super-con trick to keep people in the dark and persuade them to keep paying for more research grants and buying more books on the latest theories. To me the solution is so damned simple, dig the damned thing up, open the damned doors and have a look, do the carbon dating or whatever and find out the truth.
If I behaved like some of these so-called experts when I was running one of my projects, I'd be frog-marched off site and never get any work again.
macsen rufus
07-20-2007, 16:32
I sometimes wonder if this whole business is just one big super-con trick to keep people in the dark and persuade them to keep paying for more research grants and buying more books on the latest theories.
:yes:
In the course of various bits of historical research I've been doing, I find over and over again that the array of revisionist agenda-driven theories far outweighs the mass of rational investigation. Wherever there is an accepted historical fact (or orthodoxy) there are ten other groups claiming it's not so, just to prove a point that their religion/country/race is somehow more important than everyone else.
The whole Christian relics field is manifestly bunkum and balderdash dished up to serve various agendas across the centuries, from the Shroud to the Spear of Destiny. I mean, what pure utter luck that the spear was buried right where the Crusaders were under siege and discovered at a time they REALLY badly needed a morale boost! (Although I'm sure the faithful will proclaim - "Well, that PROVES its miraculous nature".) I think the whole area is best summed up in the phrase "The skull of John the Baptist at age 12".
That "relics" gave prestige and power to various rulers and religious centres lends a great incentive to their "discovery" or fabrication. I can't recall the source, but I once read a claim that the number of 'fragments of the true cross', if gathered together, would weigh over five tons, so unless they had properties akin to the five fishes and couple of loaves, they can't all have come from the one cross.
Many of the items of course only have attestation from legend, anyway, such as the Holy Grail. The Ark of the Covenant is an item I can believe did really exist as described, but even in scripture it was known to have been copied, and reputedly there are FOUR claimants, not the one, in Ethiopia to this day. Again it is surrounded by various myths and traditions outside scripture and varying accounts are to be had of the sacking of the Temple of Solomon when it was supposedly whipped away (by Assyrians?). The sackers themselves made great lists of what they took away from the temple, yet nothing matches the Ark which the losers' account claimed disappeared at that time.
However, more recent relics, such as the body of St Clare of Assissi, are far more likely to be genuine due to a continuity of custody, but they hardly match in significance to a "piece of bread Christ dined on at the Last Supper."
The Stranger
07-20-2007, 18:19
about the splinters of the cross :P there are enough of m to make about 3 crosses... not sure wether 3 is the exact number but it was more than 2 crosses im sure of that... and a lot of bones from holymen are just some cowbones or chickenbones...
@macsen rufus
All perfectly true, but that still does not excuse the fact that these supposed experts seem unable or unwilling to prove anything fake, or authentic. We just get this cyclic debate which goes nowhere apart from adding to the tax bill that pays their wages.
As for the splinters of the true cross, I mean come on how difficult can it be to carbon date a bit of wood for Christs sake.
King Jan III Sobieski
07-21-2007, 03:22
I saw a Naked Archaeologist episode a while back where he was given permission to view the wrist bone of a crucifixtion victim. Very interesting episode. :egypt:
But, at the end of the day, one must ask, "Can we really know anything?" :wall:
I saw a Naked Archaeologist episode a while back where he was given permission to view the wrist bone of a crucifixtion victim. Very interesting episode. :egypt:
I've never seen the Naked Archaeologist and so I did some web investigation and quite honestly was not too impressed. Jacobovici (The Naked Archaeologist) seems to be more of an entertainer than a professional archaeologist and his work seems to be targetted at promoting his own cult following and the sale of his DVD's rather than a search for truth.
That might be my British attitudes clouding my judgement over programmes which are clearly targetted at American audience tastes and preferences. However, what really made my jaw drop was the sample footage I found on YouTube which actually shows Jacobovici and Dr Arensburg a supposed museum expert handling 'the one and only' example of a cruxifixion nail transfixed through a wrist bone with their naked hands, it was actually being stored in a cardboard box with no packing in Tel Aviv Museum. Now...call me pendantic but I've never seen real experts handle historical artifacts with their bare hands and I've worked with local museum staff handling quite modern artifacts, (in fact in many cases face masks are worn to prevent accidental contamination from spittle etc.) Human skin is coated in acidic compounds which damage everything it comes into contact with and every archaeologist knows that, at the very least you are adding traces of your own dirt to the surface of the object. So, my conclusion is either the object was fake and therefore didn't matter, or Jacobovici and Arensburg were fakes and they just corrupted a priceless artifact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZrDECugeyY&NR=1
I loved the bit where Arensburg, holding an original cruxifixion nail in his bare hand passes it over to Jacobovici's naked hand and says 'take care' as though he really considers the item valuable.
In another, clip one is asked to believe that an original 2000 year old scroll is being stored in what looks like an office map cabinet. Now I might be a bit old-fashioned but you owned a 2000 year old scroll would you stick it between two layers of lint and stuff it in on an open ended shelf in a map cabinet. Again 'Naked' appears to mean that everything gets handled with the naked hands, and I'm thinking 'my god' this is supposedly 2,000 year old parchment or paper and its being stored on an open shelf exposed to constant contamination.
If these artifacts really were what Jacobovici claims they are then it might explain why when tests are made on them they come up with odd results.
Even if they would have pierced his heart and there was a significant entry wound leading up to it, you wouldn't have "fountaining" or blood spraying or nonsense like you see in the movies.
Actually you could. But it wouldn't last long, and you'd obviously have to kncik an artery. Look up arterial spray. :wink: The only thing a movie does is exagerate the legnth of the spray.
I loved the bit where Arensburg, holding an original cruxifixion nail in his bare hand passes it over to Jacobovici's naked hand and says 'take care' as though he really considers the item valuable.
Well it might hold up better in a hot dry climate like Israel has than in a wet temperate one like I live in.
In another, clip one is asked to believe that an original 2000 year old scroll is being stored in what looks like an office map cabinet. Now I might be a bit old-fashioned but you owned a 2000 year old scroll would you stick it between two layers of lint and stuff it in on an open ended shelf in a map cabinet. Again 'Naked' appears to mean that everything gets handled with the naked hands, and I'm thinking 'my god' this is supposedly 2,000 year old parchment or paper and its being stored on an open shelf exposed to constant contamination.
And I bet you that room is temperature and pressure controlled. On my Kingdom of Heaven DVD set there is an episode of "History and Hollywood" about the movie. The host is shown into a room with examples of medieval weapons. And they are stored the same way. Just tossed in a drawer and be done with it.
Well I've never seen a real archaeologist handle a real artifact with their bare hands or store them loose in carboard boxes. So someone is conning someone here.
The thing that struck me about the way Jacobovici took the cruxfixion nail from Arensburg was that he grasped it by the head. Now, call me cynical if you like, but if you were looking at the only real example of a cruxifixion nail actually piercing the wrist bones of its victim would you grasp it just by its head. I'd be really concerned that if I didn't support it properly there was a good chance the bones would fall off the nail and I'd be left there holding nothing but the nail with a small pile of fossilised bones at my feet. Which would effectively destroy the value of the artifact.
The way that artifact is handled in the video clip suggests to me that what they are handlng is nothing more than a resin recreation of an artifact used perhaps as a studio prop. As such it is a single solid object and so Jacobovici has no concerns about it falling apart as he takes it.
And I bet you that room is temperature and pressure controlled. On my Kingdom of Heaven DVD set there is an episode of "History and Hollywood" about the movie. The host is shown into a room with examples of medieval weapons. And they are stored the same way. Just tossed in a drawer and be done with it.
Yes, I have that DVD too and I agree that for weapons temperature is the main importance to prevent rust. However, this was paper or parchment with text which degrades rapidly if not stored in a totally controlled environment, which includes light, humidity and exposure to air. At the very least the document was being exposed to corruption and damage from the breath of the TV crew and actors.
This was supposed to be an almost intact scroll of paper which predated the time of Herod and Christ covered in orginal script. Paper and ink are far more susceptable to degradation and corruption than metal mainly because it absorbs both the moisture and chemical content of the air around it, and it is also susceptable to damage from light exposure. One only needs to open a relatively old book to see how paper is affected by exposue to the environment.
I've seen Victorian knickers stored with more care than that scroll.
More interesting to me is the fact that the oldest text of the bible was not written until 200+ years after the event. Which would be a bit like someone sitting down this afternoon to write a personal account of the battle of Waterloo.
.
i dont know where you are getting this from but that really is not the consensus view. they were most likely written with in the lifetime of the disciples and completed by ~ 70AD.
of course the earliest gospel which is still around today is another matter, though i believe there are some dating from around ~120AD at the very least.
I am not a christian, so this is not a religiously held belief for me, what i am stating is the consensus opinion.
perhaps you were confused by the fact that the stndard four gospel new testament bible was only settled upon ~300AD?
Flavius Clemens
07-22-2007, 15:18
As I understand it, the earliest existant fragment of a gospel is a small scrap containing part of two late chapters of John, dated to around 125 AD found in Egypt and now in the Chester Beattie Library in Dublin. The dating is based at least in part on the style of writing.
Also I'm not sure about the suggestion that the cruxifiction only lasted 3 hours. Mark's gospel talks about it being from the third hour to the ninth hour, but there is a reference to the final three hours being a period of darkness (eclipse?). John also makes a reference to the trial happening at the sixth hour, but may be using Roman reckoning (Jewish reckoning counted from dawn, Roman from midnight.)
i dont know where you are getting this from but that really is not the consensus view. they were most likely written with in the lifetime of the disciples and completed by ~ 70AD.
Not sure where you came up with 70AD
The oldest manuscripts preserving the entire text of the New Testament are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both dated at about A.D. 350.
However there are various fragments the oldest of which I am aware of is Papyrus 52 stored in Manchester and known as the Rylands fragment. This contains text from John 18:31-33, 37-38 and dates from 110 AD at the earliest.
As I understand it, the earliest existant fragment of a gospel is a small scrap containing part of two late chapters of John, dated to around 125 AD found in Egypt and now in the Chester Beattie Library in Dublin. The dating is based at least in part on the style of writing.
I thought the Chester Beattie fragment contained Paul's letters to the churches and is dated from 200 AD.
I also thought that the Codex Tchacos containing the gospel of Judas was dated earlier but according to the web it is now dated 180 AD at the earliest, and may even by 4th Century based upon the language of the text.
Well I've never seen a real archaeologist handle a real artifact with their bare hands or store them loose in carboard boxes. So someone is conning someone here.
The thing that struck me about the way Jacobovici took the cruxfixion nail from Arensburg was that he grasped it by the head. Now, call me cynical if you like, but if you were looking at the only real example of a cruxifixion nail actually piercing the wrist bones of its victim would you grasp it just by its head. I'd be really concerned that if I didn't support it properly there was a good chance the bones would fall off the nail and I'd be left there holding nothing but the nail with a small pile of fossilised bones at my feet. Which would effectively destroy the value of the artifact.
The way that artifact is handled in the video clip suggests to me that what they are handlng is nothing more than a resin recreation of an artifact used perhaps as a studio prop. As such it is a single solid object and so Jacobovici has no concerns about it falling apart as he takes it.
Well it could very well have been another reproduction. But consider the following. The bones of a decomposed body can be held toegether some what by what's lef to our tendons. Also the nail could have become permanently affixed to the bone as it started to regrow around it.
Yes, I have that DVD too and I agree that for weapons temperature is the main importance to prevent rust. However, this was paper or parchment with text which degrades rapidly if not stored in a totally controlled environment, which includes light, humidity and exposure to air. At the very least the document was being exposed to corruption and damage from the breath of the TV crew and actors.
This was supposed to be an almost intact scroll of paper which predated the time of Herod and Christ covered in orginal script. Paper and ink are far more susceptable to degradation and corruption than metal mainly because it absorbs both the moisture and chemical content of the air around it, and it is also susceptable to damage from light exposure. One only needs to open a relatively old book to see how paper is affected by exposue to the environment.
I've seen Victorian knickers stored with more care than that scroll.
Well they never actually touched the scroll now did they. From what I've seen of old scrolls they keep the mositure low (which is really what kills them) in the room, and don't touch them with bare hands (You'll usually see them wearing white cloth gloves) and keep them between that palstic stuff. Any degredation is minimized that way. Yes UV is a problem but if you have low UV lights in the room. The double whammy of UV and moisture is what turn paper into dust.
Not sure where you came up with 70AD
The current working theory is that Mark, Paul, and John lived about a generation after Jesus. IE 60-70 AD. And their works were written then. Some feel that they were recording the story second hand (or among the more cynical third hand). Others feel that that IIRC Mark was writing first hand. The cynics also believe that St. Peter also censored all the texts to suit his vision for what the chruch should be.
Well it could very well have been another reproduction. But consider the following. The bones of a decomposed body can be held toegether some what by what's lef to our tendons. Also the nail could have become permanently affixed to the bone as it started to regrow around it.
I doubt that human bone would grow that much after death, and being honest how many people would actually trust that process to hold these bone fragments together. I mean this was supposedly a unique artifact, THE only example in the entire world and its being waved around like a lolly on a stick. I just don't buy it.
Well they never actually touched the scroll now did they. From what I've seen of old scrolls they keep the mositure low (which is really what kills them) in the room, and don't touch them with bare hands (You'll usually see them wearing white cloth gloves) and keep them between that palstic stuff. Any degredation is minimized that way. Yes UV is a problem but if you have low UV lights in the room. The double whammy of UV and moisture is what turn paper into dust.
They don't need to touch it, just standing in that room with it they are exuding contaminants into the atmosphere around it. I agree that the room may be a controlled environment, but once again the level of concern over conservation just doesn't seem to fit with the claims being made. The scroll being stored on that open shelf is supposedly older than the oldest fragments of the bible, and its almost perfectly preserved and yet its being stored in a map cabinet.:dizzy2:
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether the artifacts shown are real or not as long as they are based upon real artifacts. I was just surprised that more effort was not made to make them appear real to the US audience.
The current working theory is that Mark, Paul, and John lived about a generation after Jesus. IE 60-70 AD. And their works were written then. Some feel that they were recording the story second hand (or among the more cynical third hand). Others feel that that IIRC Mark was writing first hand. The cynics also believe that St. Peter also censored all the texts to suit his vision for what the chruch should be.
As a theory its as good as any other, but I think Flavius and I were referring to actual historical fact backed up with some form of evidence. The ealiest evidence of the gospels are the written references which all date from long after the actual events. As I said it would be like someone sitting down this afternoon to write an eyewitness account of Waterloo.
As a theory its as good as any other, but I think Flavius and I were referring to actual historical fact backed up with some form of evidence. The ealiest evidence of the gospels are the written references which all date from long after the actual events. As I said it would be like someone sitting down this afternoon to write an eyewitness account of Waterloo.
it would be if the gospels were written 200 years after the event, but nearlly nobody believes that to be true.
More interesting to me is the fact that the oldest text of the bible was not written until 200+ years after the event. Which would be a bit like someone sitting down this afternoon to write a personal account of the battle of Waterloo.
Furthermore it was heavily edited when first compiled and large sections of the original text was ommited or rewritten.
And finally, the Gospel according to Judas which is actually the oldest of the texts so far recovered was completely excluded.
I have used your arguments before but consider this:
We know the testaments, books and epistles of the New Testament are supposedly written by the authors that name them. We also know that some of them never experienced the 3 year mission of Jesus before his crucifixion.
The apostles, after the events discussed, were all leaders of an organisation starting with themselves and some 120 odd souls at the time of the crucifixion.
The testaments describe these men and women as immature, not really getting the message.
Then Luke begins the account of the Acts of the Apostles, Luke having not first hand witnessed the events that took place in the Testaments nor the first part of Acts.
It starts off by claiming that Jesus stayed with them for 40 days after his resurrection.
In that time span the Apostles grows and become leaders of an organisation that preaches the word of the anointed one; the Messiah. From the 120 souls they soon grow to 5000. Peter, James and John are imprisoned and taken before the Scribes and leaders of the Jews. Because of the great number of followers they don’t dare to kill them. One Pharisee makes an interesting point. If this is of God then the organisation will live. If not they will be destroyed as the others [names a few examples].
But as I was pointing out this was not written at the time of the events but much later, possibly at a time when the organisation were large enough that a need was created to write down the accounts to gather the threads and help the story of Christ from “bloating”.
Supposedly this was all done within the 1st century with John the beloved, the last of the living Apostles, writing Revelations on the island of Patmos in 98AD.
I don’t know if this new Jewish, and soon to expand to other groups of people, school of religion followed all of the Jewish traditions.
One particular comes to mind: the rule of not being allowed to destroy scripture.
This is the reason we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. By Jewish tradition scriptures that no longer were usable were sealed in jars and buried. This was not a tradition of preserving scripture for future generations but to get rid of mangled, and too tired to be further used, books and scrolls considered scripture.
The Dead Sea Scrolls do not seem to contain any New Testament content and therefore are probably not buried by Christians.
The Nag-Hammadi library was also found in a similar way to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
This library was considerable newer than that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only a fragment of what was discovered was able to survive. Those who found them used the parchments as firewood [damnable]. This library however, consisted of New Testament era writing. The question is; was these too buried in the Jewish tradition, to omit the destroying of scripture no longer suitable for using?
The Nag-hammadi library consists of copies of Testaments, books and epistles. This is interesting because it suggests that other books have existed previous to these copies; the originals so to speak.
I am in no position to say that Jesus, Peter, James, John or the other followers are imaginations of the mind of Constantine and his priests and that it was all invented to establish the new religion of Christianity. I seriously doubt this is the case and therefore are inclined to believe in the early church that became a world religion in the hands of Constantine.
But I recognise that this school of Judaism would have been destroyed as pointed out by the Pharisee at the meeting, were they discussed what to do with Peter James and John preaching under the arch of Salomon at the temple, hadn’t it been for Constantine and his ilk.
I recognise the tumults in the said early church when the Leaders of this early church were all killed. Those with first hand experience were gone and the organisation were about to be dissolved as the other false sects of Judaism.
Clement of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, converted by Peter, would not take up the mantle when asked. He claimed that the authority to speak in behalf of God and him that were crucified were lost as prophesied by Jesus himself.
It was a dooms sect from the beginning and the miraculous revival of this religion in the 3rd century was apostate.
it would be if the gospels were written 200 years after the event, but nearlly nobody believes that to be true.
We have no evidence that the gospels were written down at all by the people they are named after. What we have are people writing what they claim was written by people writing about the people writing them.
Which would be like me writing today about something someone said that had read descibing something someone else had said about what happened at Waterloo.
Flavius Clemens
07-23-2007, 23:26
I thought the Chester Beattie fragment contained Paul's letters to the churches and is dated from 200 AD.
Oops, I think you're right and I was confusing the John fragment (which I have seen a facsimile of) with other small fragments that I saw in Dublin. I remember the Chester Beattie had a pretty early complete set of Paul's epistles but I forget when they had been dated to.
We have no evidence that the gospels were written down at all by the people they are named after. What we have are people writing what they claim was written by people writing about the people writing them.
I guess you should say scientific evidence here, as in the paper it was written on have been dated so and so.
There is other scholastic evidence to be found, in the texts itself. Events that transpired, people mentioned, the way things are written, handwriting, texts being copies etc...
I could mention the Didache or the writings of Clement who make frequent quotes from the Testaments. It is generally believed amongst scholars that these texts are 1st century texts. But again there is no scientific evidence for this. No copies exists that you can make a Carbon14 test of and prove that this organic paper was from a plant that was cut down in 50AD. You only have a full copy written in about 1050 AD and you have scholars from the 3rd century making references to it... oh and an orthodox excerpt (5th century) quoting from it and dates it in its header to 90AD.
Then you have the Christian scholars that want to date it prior to this. The closer to the events the better it is, right?
They analyse the texts and find a reference to the temple of Jerusalem, that sacraments are being administered at the temple in Jerusalem. They then claim that this text must be prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD and hence a copy from the original which must be from before 70AD.
But still, it is 40 years after the events of the crucifixion. 40 years of trouble and persecution from the other Jewish sects.
And of course if they establish these non-canonical texts as before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, they have then made evidence for new testament books being even earlier texts (the quotes from these testaments).
@Sigurd
I accept everything you say, but what you are decribing is the process by which scholars are attempting to determine the voracity of the texts they have. The fact remains that we have no primary evidence for the events described in the bible and probably never will have, indeed it is probably doubtful that most of disciples were able to read and write in the first place.
This is exactly the problem that occurs in later periods, even with the battle of Waterloo. The fact is that the vast majority of people who were actually there could not read or write, and of those that could very few actually wrote anything about their experinces.
The vast majority who did write about it, did so years after the event and usually with some alterior motive for doing so. Consequently, even where a primary record is available it is usually inaccurate or deliberately modified by the writer to support or undermine a particular point. The letters written by Vivien and Vandleur are a perfect example of this, where each does his best to cast the other in a bad light. The vast majority of our understanding of this battle is therefore based upon official records and a small number of primary written records that are at best doubtful.
However, in the case of the Bible we have a secondary or teriary record, which is probably based upon stories passed down through several generations by word of mouth and which have subsequently been subjected to translation and interpretation.
So, this would be like me writing a book based upon the stories passed down by word of mouth through my family about my German great great grandfathers expliots in 1815. Now, obviously one can go back and check in Belgium to discover whether Waterloo exists and perhaps even find out if the unit my ancestor claimed to have fought in existed and was present at the battle, but there would be little chance of proving that his claim to have shot a french general were true. Historical fact is never that certain, even in modern times.
I don't think we are that far off in our general views on Christianity.
I might be wrong but I get the impression that you will not accept any canonised or non-canonised texts describing the events around the origin of the Christian religion as factual or written by eye witnesses. I am not far off myself, but I have left room for doubts.
I am full aware of the many opportunities to, and most certainly practised tampering these texts have gone through. You can take the book of Isaiah as an example. There are about 3000 differences between the full copy found at Qumran and the one found in the Vulgate.
I think I remember this right… I am going by memory here.
We know that Jerome translated from the Septuagint, a very old Greek version of the Old Testament.
You are quite bombastic in you assertion that nothing was written concerning Christianity until the 3rd century. The only writings from that era are those scraps of papyri found in Egypt and more specifically those you mentioned (P46 [Chester Beatty Lib.] I believe).
I have only memory to go by here, but I distinctly remember that other fragments found that clearly have NT references were found and dated before the 2nd century.
If I am not totally off I would suggest the P52 and P64 fragments with 120AD and <70AD respectively. There are other fragments from the Qumran library that the scholars suggest are NT texts, but the last I heard they were questionable at the least.
A scientific dating says they are from around 70AD but that the writing is taken from Mark, Timothy or James is a stretch at best.
My view is somewhat akin to yours on the following points:
- Some events transpired in 33 AD
- There was an organisation led by Apostles a few years after the events.
- A new organisation took over and used these events to create Christianity.
- They kept some of the artefacts, books, manuscripts from that era.
- They changed them to suit their view.
- They hid or destroyed the originals (pre-200AD)
- There are some problems today regarding scriptural content and willingness to lend evidence to science.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.