Joe Marino writes:
Just got the Kindle edition of the above book, by Craig A. Evans (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012).
Craig A. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. The author or editor of more than fifty books and hundreds of articles, Evans is a regular guest on many national media outlets, including Dateline NBC, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and BBC. He is an internationally distinguished authority and lecturer on the historical Jesus. For more information, visit craigaevans.com.
In Appendix 2: What did Jesus look like? he writes:
WHAT ABOUT THE FACE OF JESUS IN THE SHROUD OF TURIN OR ON SIXTH- AND SEVENTH-CENTURY CE BYZANTINE COINS? The image of the face in the Shroud of Turin and its resemblance to the face of Jesus stamped on the Byzantine Coins are interesting observations. But the science and authenticity of the Shroud are much disputed and the Byzantine coins are late. Reconstructing the face of Jesus on the basis of these items is not recommended.
Amazing how the Shroud is so perfunctorily dismissed in these books!
Dismissed with no discussion which I presume means the author has no idea of the scientific studies done on the Shroud.
Andy Weiss said the right thing, however it is only part of the story.
Not long ago Mr. Evans compared Catholicism with Mormonism, obviously implying that both were “sects” and could not be a part of Christianity. Of course, he did not say that the Bible he reads came from the Catholic Church, which decided what books could be included in the NT after the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. And, needless to say, the Mormons also got the Bible from the same source.
This is sufficient to dismiss Evans, stuffed with prejudice, which leads him to distort the truth, as a leading authority on the Bible. If he distorts the truth about how the Bible got to him, so will he distort Shroud studies.
There are heavyweight Bible scholars in the US, far superior to what Evans claims to be.
If Louis’ comment above is accurate, I would deduce that Mr Evans is a nonentity in the biblical world.
For a rational approach to the historical Jesus it would be hard to go past John P Meier, who I would say is very likely the topmost scholar on the topic. His Wikipedia entry is easily found and is to the point: John P. Meier From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier
His most notable work is perhaps A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, in 4 volumes, described in the entry. I have only read Volume 1, but it influenced me greatly in my thinking about the historical Jesus.
The work begins by invoking the methods of modern historical research to “recover, recapture, or reconstruct” the “historical Jesus.” Meier suggests that such research might admit agreement of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and agnostic scholars as to “who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended”
He is cited by Pope Benedict XVI in his own notable work “Jesus of Nazareth”.
I would tend to dismiss the work of such liberals and reductionists that emanate from the “Jesus Seminar” movement.
Here, I would just say one importan FACT : It is 100% sure that the Byzantine coins were NOT made directly from the image of the Shroud for the simple and good reason that they represent the PANTOCRATOR ICON !!!!!!!! So, forget the idea that some artists have made these coins while looking at the Shroud because IT’S COMPLETELY LUDICROUS !!!
BUT before you throw me some rocks (like the Jews for Jesus), I would add this : Because of many stricking similarities between the face on the Shroud and the Pantocrator icons, there are pretty good chances that the first Pantocrator icon was created directly (or indirectly) from the Shroud itself…
So, let’s never forget this great FACT : The Pantocrator icon was VERY POPULAR in Constantinople (unlike the Shroud it seem, because there is just on sure public showing of it and it came in 1203-1204). The great popularity of this icon can also be measured by the presence of an important monastry in Constantinople during the Byzantine era that was called “The Pantokrator Monastery”. It is most probably because of this great popularity of the Pantocrator icon that some Byzantine emperors decided to put the face of this particular Sacred icon on their coins. The Shroud of Turin had nothing to do with this (at least, not directly)… It’s important to understand this historical FACT.
I have done this in the past on this same blog, but I’ll do it again : I recommand you and anyone else here the reading of the great study of the Byzantine coins made by a well respected scholar named Grierson. You can find this article here : http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/byzcoins.pdf
In this paper, you’ll see that, for this scholar, the coins in question were made directly from the Pantocrator icon… Not from the Shroud ! This is a great confirmation of what I just said in this comment. In fact, I just wanted to set the record straight, because there’s too much erroneous things that are said concerning the Shroud’s ancient history.
And here’s one last (and punchy !) comment from me : If the face on the Shroud really had a direct influence on some Christian artworks, you should search in the direction of the Pantocrator icon and also in the direction of the face on the Mandylion…
Dave,
One problem with Meier hhe states in volume one that there is a problem because Jesus left no historical “artifact.” That’s a troubling statement because obviously he did: The Shroud of Turin. On the other hand, he may feel that to credit he Shroud for what it is would cause criticism that would detract from his prodigious work and scholarship. I hope in my lifetime, we convince scholars like Meier to take the Shroud seriously.
I reiterate what was said about Evans since he is on record with those comments, and whatever they imply, however that wouldn’t really justify classifying him as a non-entity in biblical studies, only remind interested readers that he is prejudiced.
Regarding Monsignor John P. Meier, Daveb chose the right scholar and that is the reason why in the article on the HSG website I begin by mentioning him. It must also be added that he is not without opposition, even from Catholic scholars such as Father Anthony Kelly (Australia) and Professor Luke Timothy Johnson (US), not to forget Jewish scholar Rabbi Jacob Neusner (US) who says that there is no difference between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith.”
In his book on Jesus of Nazareth Benedict XVI states that he begins where the German Catholic scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg finished. But most noteworthy is the fact that Schnackenburg felt that Jesus “hovers” in the gospels and one should employ the (often used) term “mysterium Christi” to describe this. If the Pope read more about what Meier wrote, he would find the scholar stating the following about Jesus:
“Not only does he speak riddles and parables, but he is making himself the ultimate riddle and parable of God by speaking in this strange, enigmatic way.”
So, as anyone can see, even Meier, with all his enormous erudition, bumped into the “mysterium Christi” noticed by Schnackenburg. To go a bit further, another great scholar,Adolf von Harnack, wrote in the last century that “Jesus’ relation to the Father was his secret and no psychology will fathom it.” He was not exaggerating, for even Jung, also with his enormous erudition, tried his best and gave up trying to find a gap between the “humanity” and the “divinity”. More about this topic in another article posted on the Collegamento pro-Sindone website, cited in this blog some months ago.
There is a correction to be made, and Dave was right. I was referring to William Lane Craig and not to Craig Evans. The first one’s surname ends with the first name of the second one.
Anyway, the rating of biblical scholars stands as it is