Back in March, I introduced an article by John Long, ‘The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa,” which was posted at Associates for Biblical Research. I seem to have never followed up. I just noticed that there are now four parts, the last part having been posted just three days ago. These make for very interesting reading:
- The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa – If Biblical Archaeology is defined loosely as “the study of the ancient things related to the Bible,” then surely the sindon, linen used to wrap Jesus’ body in death, has to be of interest. Most informed Christians now know that there is a serious candidate, the Shroud of Turin.
- The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part Two: To the Great City – The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History is a four part review of the historical evidence for the Shroud of Turin from the 1st century to the beginning of the 15th. In Part 1 a mysterious picture slowly emerges from antiquity as a cloth on which Jesus supposedly imprints his face and sends to a king in the northern Mesopotamian city of Edessa. But during the 8th through 10th centuries additional evidence suggests that this is a large, folded cloth depicting Christ’s full, bloodied body.
- The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part Three: The Shroud of Constantinople – Part 1 of this survey began an admittedly sympathetic summary of Ian Wilson’s theory (updated) that Jesus’ NT burial shroud was quietly preserved from antiquity, but only gradually introduced into Christian traditions as The Holy Image of Edessa. This was a famous cloth on which Jesus supposedly imprinted his face and sent to 1st century King Abgar V in Edessa (modern Urfa in Turkey.
- The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part 4: To Little Lirey – This final part of the Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History addresses the means by which it left Constantinople in the east (in or not long after 1204) and reappeared about 150 years later in the little village of Lirey, France. The relic’s “good” history is acknowledged by almost all to begin about 1355 when a minor French nobleman with an outstanding reputation, Geoffrey de Charny, is believed to be the cloth’s first certain owner…
For the record, I cannot entertain the notion that the ABR is an objective historical or archaeological research organization given its endorsement of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which reads in part. “Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history . . .“ It is ABR’s mixing of archaeology with biblical literalism that leads to the strangest sort of thinking. That’s right that is a person standing next to that dinosaur.
This is not a criticism of John Long or his articles, just the publishing organization.
The fact that the Associates of Biblical Research believe that one Pontius Pilate was a Roman governor in first century Palestine, and that men also walked with dinosaurs, says absolutely nothing about the truth value of either proposition. But in a free society one is entitled to believe either if one so chooses, but the sensible person will weigh whatever evidence is available for each. Such freedom to believe what one chose or appeared reasonable or not, was not available in the Berlin of the 1930s, nor in the Eastern Europe of the 1950s. Nor was it even possible to debate certain topics under these successors of the heresy hunters.
Unfortunately for somewhat similar reasons I find it impossible to discuss on this site in any kind of meaningful way, or even to exchange or to tease out ideas, any aspects concerning the principal theme of this header posting, due to the self-appointed guardian of what does and does not constitute legitimate historical enquiry concerning our principal subject. Suppression of course is as much the enemy of truth as is idle speculation. But one should be free to speculate, as it can sometimes turn out to be productive, whereas suppression seldom can be!
Are you talking about me?
I don’t know what he’s talking about at all. Pontius Pilate wasn’t governor?
Certainly not referring to you in mine above, Dan. You provide a wonderful site where free discussion could occur if allowed to by all the participants. However, I find it somewhat tiresome to be endlessly lectured on the failings of a certain author and his particular theories on the history of burial cloths which may involve Edessa, when the lecturer is no better qualified to do so than other participants, and indulges in long rambling disjointed disoourses which tend to cramp what ought be open and free dicussion. It might have been a fascinating exercise to discuss John Long’s particular theories, but in that environment I think I may have come to the point where I find it too wearisome to do so.
said like a good Wellingtonian!
(From a fellow Wellingtonian now based in Australia)
Perhaps our problem is we are ‘poor colonials’ rather than European sophisticates!!!
To those interested in free, open-minded thought and speculation…
I’ve been trying hard to find info about the first known epitaphios from Venice around 1200AD, without luck.
This object is referred to in brief in Schiller’s authoritative art history text.
I think that for many of us who take their Biblical Christianity seriously it is amazing how far secular rationalism has claimed a copyright to proper, objective thinking. When I became a Christian in college (late 1960’s) I had to gradually work out the important questions of Biblical inerrancy, scientific origins, God’s role in human history, etc. I learned that there were plausible arguments to be made on each side. I eventually adopted many of the views Dan criticizes ABR for, but I did so because there were good, objective reasons for doing so (I could be wrong, but my quest was sincere). I suspect that most secularists have not carefully considered some of the better, serious work like found on the ABR website. I also realized how incongruent it was that God could make the universe and rise from the dead, but not keep his narrative accurate. But the final and most important step was to watch how my life changed for the better, and the many answers to prayer that the God who is There made happen. Could this God really have made so many mistakes in his historical narrative? I do respect other points of view, but there is still a good argument to be made for the traditional views ABR advocates.
ABR strongly endorses an objective (factual based) view of its interests (archaeology, science, history, Biblical interpretation, etc.). Although the Shroud is not one of their major interests, when one of their members (me) had a serious case to be made concerning its authenticity, they printed it. My four articles are an attempt to explain to the ABR fellowship that the Shroud has a history reaching to antiquity and deserves their consideration. I appreciate that Dan has seen fit to post a link.
Part 3 of the article introduced me to ivory carvings for the first time. I had not seen either the 11th century Lamentation from Schiller’s book (not naked, arms by sides, 5 fingers), or the 12th century Lamentation from the Victoria & Albert Museum (naked, arms crossed, 4 fingers). These spurred me on to find the 13th century Lamentation in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (not naked, arms by sides, 5 fingers). There is also a fascinating diptych on christusrex.org showing the tomb with quatrefoil holes in it.
I agree with daveb, I think, in that I don’t really mind what ideas a site promulgates, however fanatically anti- or pro-. It is the evidence it adduces, particularly if I haven’t seen it before that interests me.
There is really no such thing as Bible Innerancy and it is only accepted by fundamentalists who end up as unbelievers (and anti-Christian!) when they realise they are wrong. It is difficult to find archaeological material from the Patriarchal period and the best Biblical scholars generally use the JEDP theory proposed by Wellhausen to trace the thought processes of the authors of the Pentaeuch. The historical-critical method is useful and there are good and respected scholars like Professor Blenkinsopp and Father Fitzmyer, and one can begin with Father Roland de Vaux’s history of ancient Israel.
Louis is probably aware that most serious Christians, scholars and lay alike, have maintained a high opinion of the Biblical documents in the past and have not changed their minds or renounced their faith. True, there is more skepticism in recent generations (especially since the Enlightenment), but skepticism does not hold a monopoly on a careful consideration of the facts. Readers may want to review a sampling of conservative scholarship in Giving the Sense (2003; eds. Howard & Grisanti), a series of essays which addresses such issues as the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) and other OT questions. I notice that the volume can be had at a reasonable price on both e-bay and amazon.
John,you are right about what I would call a “direct line” to God (#8) which has nothing to do with what the biblical narratives say or do not say, in my view, and which can change people’s lives for the better. You may have noticed that there have been highly critical — and highly respected — scholars like D.N. Freedman, a convert to Christianity, who became a Presbyterian minister and did not lose his faith.