Home > News & Views > Alan Whanger vs Hugh Farey on Premier Christian Radio

Alan Whanger vs Hugh Farey on Premier Christian Radio

April 2, 2015

Hugh Farey writes:

On  Monday Dr Alan Whanger and I recorded a discussion programme with Justin Brierley of Premier Christian Radio (London based) to be transmitted at 2:30 (UK Time) on Holy Saturday, after a documentary, also featuring Alan but not me this time, at 2:00. The documentary is called Turin Shroud: A Relic of the Resurrection, and the discussion after it is called "Unbelievable: Was the Turin Shroud the Burial Cloth of Christ?" Both programmes are also available, already, as podcasts on http://www.premierchristianradio.com.

imageCLICK HERE and then click on the Play Button on the purple bar to listen now to the program with Alan and Hugh.

Unbelievable? Is the Turin Shroud the burial cloth of Christ? Alan Whanger vs Hugh Farey

Saturday 4th April 2015 – 02:30 pm

Two guests with different views on the authenticity of the Turin Shroud join Justin to debate following his feature documentary on the Shroud.

Alan Whanger has spent decades researching the shroud and believes he has seen images on it that link it to 1st Century Israel. Hugh Farey Iliad spent decades surveying shroud literature and has done to the conclusion it is medieval in origin.

Get the MP3

Categories: News & Views Tags: ,
  1. Louis
    April 3, 2015 at 9:09 am

    Hugh, why no talk about the pollen? As editor of the BSTS newsletter you could also play the role of journalist, and since you appear on shroudstory with a microscope in front of you a further role could be played, this time as Sherlock Holmes, examining those grains….

  2. Hugh Farey
    April 3, 2015 at 10:37 am

    I was happy to follow the interviewer’s lead. Although 90 minutes is long enough for a quickfire recitation of all sorts of Shroud elements, you can’t get through very much in a discussion format.

    • Angel
      April 20, 2015 at 4:51 pm

      Hugh, I enjoyed your counter-argument, although (like Whanger), I believe in the Shroud’s authenticity.

      You did succeed in trumpeting a few salient points, against the authenticity of the Shroud, giving believers something to contemplate.

      Yes, with such an analytical mind, you should definitely be working for Scotland Yard. :)

      Best,

  3. April 3, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Hugh Farey is on the wrong side of the authenticity debate, but he handled his side of the program better than Alan Whanger handled his. Whanger tried to cover too much ground, brought up a lot of dubious arguments (e.g., the appeal to alleged images of coins, crowns of thorns, etc.), and often wasn’t responsive enough to the questions he was being asked. I was glad, though, that Whanger brought up the dating tests done by Giulio Fanti and his colleagues. But he brought it up too late for it get much discussion. Any mention of the 1988 test should be accompanied by mention of things like the 1982 and Fanti tests and Ray Rogers’ vanillin argument. And Hugh should have mentioned how closely the 1988 test coincides with the Shroud’s first explicit appearance in the historical record, which I don’t think he did. I wish all of that had been laid out, followed by a discussion of how to best make sense of the totality of those dating methods. The 1988 test gets too much isolated attention. It’s superior to the other dating efforts in some important ways, but the other ones have some significance, especially cumulatively.

    One of the problems with programs like this one is that they tend to spend too much time reinventing the wheel. Instead of giving so much attention to introductory issues and matters of such common knowledge, most of the time should be spent breaking new ground or discussing issues that tend to receive much less attention than others. There was some of that during the program (mostly because of Hugh’s efforts), but not enough. More of the program should have been spent discussing Fanti’s tests, Charles Freeman’s arguments, and other issues of a newer and less common nature.

  4. Hugh Farey
    April 3, 2015 at 10:58 am

    I understand your position, Jason, but that was not really the point of the program, which was more of an introduction to the controversies surrounding the Shroud than a detailed analysis of them. Perhaps it will inspire listeners to inquire further.

  5. piero
    April 3, 2015 at 11:22 am

    From your discussion I assume that there were not present the interesting analyses
    with the use of advanced microscopies (AFM, CFM, SNOM) as I had already
    underlined back in 1998 …

    I do not think that our civilization is so advanced
    as (sometimes) instead we want to show…

    But here I am not referring only to the serious damage caused by terrorism,
    there is a disregard about the Shroud and (perhaps) the recent book
    by Andrea Nicolotti seems to be in this wrong line …
    And this does not mean I approve (in a blind manner) outlandish
    theories that sometimes crop up!

    After 17 years I’m a bit ‘pessimistic about the possibility to work in a good manner
    with AFM techniques on linen fibrils.

    I’m getting older and I do not see that I can really do something
    to improve the situation for real analyses on linen fibrils unless
    I have some concrete help…
    Perhaps I have to write something for BSTS newsletter
    Hugh, do you agree?
    What I can do in this regard?

  6. Hugh Farey
    April 3, 2015 at 11:39 am

    Various people on this blog and elsewhere have put forward ideas for the future investigation of the Shroud, but there is a slight feeling of fantasy about them, as until the Pope authorises it, they are only pipedreams. I know you are a keen advocate of your various microscopies, but I have never been clear as to what exactly they could tell us. If you could write a proposal as to how exactly you think AFM or other microscopes could add to the knowledge about the Shroud, I would be very happy to consider it.

  7. Louis
    April 3, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    The Pope will have a lot more to authorise, Hugh. Stay tuned, there will be something more online from this end this week.
    I have the feeling that Pope Francis is not one to bother about relics, he may refer to suffering and the human condition when he goes to Turin.

  8. piero
    April 4, 2015 at 5:09 am

    Hugh wrote:
    I know you are a keen advocate of your various microscopies, but I have never been clear as to what exactly they could tell us. If you could write a proposal as to how exactly you think AFM or other microscopes could add to the knowledge about the Shroud, I would be very happy to consider it.

    Thank you
    I hope to write something.
    Happy Easter !
    — — —
    Now I only have a few lines to bring to your attention:

    In the article-investigation “Il viaggio della Sindone” (= “The journey of the Shroud”) by Dante Matelli, appeared on “National Geographic” (number of Aprile 2015, which I bought a few days ago …), I have read that Prof. Barberis says that there are many definitions dates to the Shroud, but he likes the one that defines an image inexplicable, at least until now … since it emphasizes something that is really surprising: all the theories proposed to date to explain how the image on the Shroud are deficient. All the experiments that have attempted to reproduce the Shroud image copies produced by chemical-physical characteristics very different from those of the original… and Prof. Barberis concluded:
    “In short, the process that caused the formation of the image remains unknown”
    This is what we have always heard…

    Although there are systems of investigation which have become refined [For example: I have pointed out the possibility of using the CFM (= Chemical Force Microscopy) and AFM-Raman techniques…], I certainly don’t pretend to reveal exactly how it was formed the Shroud (ie: what was the exact process of the formation of the Imprint), what interested me in 1998, and the main point for which I am still very interested, is the problem of the dating of the Shroud.
    We can see ourselves the strange fact: after the intervention of Freeman (and its stress on the stories “Quem Queritis” …) and after the publication of this interesting book by Andrea Nicolotti, the assumptions on the date of origin of the Shroud now are made to converge to the Middle Ages because of a dating occurred on one corner of the Ancient Sheet …
    One angle can deny everything else we know?
    But is it a serious approach to the relic behave this way? I do not think so.

    The claim to date the Shroud talking about
    the transition from the Quem Queritis ceremony
    to the first claims by the de Charny family …
    I think it is a bit too.
    But Freeman does not seem to have these claims (if I am not mistaken),
    he merely states the historical problems, the same approach is taken by Nicolotti.
    So my proposal (ie: the use of advanced microscopies,
    in order to determine a credible historical range
    about the textile material) wants to be an answer
    also to these new claims (which I can not believe).

    I see that I am another time a bit vague (about the measurements for
    cellulosic DP using the AFM techniques. For example: the question
    of “cellulosic DP” was indicated by Marinelli and Diana before
    my claims about the possibility of AFM measurements,
    but they indicated the use of a too destructive technique!…),
    but I believe to have depicted the situation…

    • piero
      April 4, 2015 at 10:20 am

      I am curious to understan what is your level of discussion
      around the question: “level of science for the Shroud”, because
      (in my opinion) I have not yet read the right answers about the AFM mechanical dating,
      the AFM three-point bending test, multi-point bending test,
      vibrations, etc. …
      — — —
      See for example the technical words under the address:

      http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/20453278/Winkler_boundary_conditions_for_three_point_bending_tests_on_1D_nanomaterials_

      This reference is the:
      Handbook of Nanophysics: Nanotubes and Nanowires,
      edited by by Klaus D. Sattler

      >Bending tests with atomic force microscopes (AFM) is a common method for
      elasticity measurements on 1D nanomaterials.
      >Interpretation of the force and deflection data is necessary
      to determine the Young’s modulus of the tested material and
      has been done assuming either of two classic boundary conditions
      that represent two extreme possibilities for the rigidity
      of the sample-anchor interface.
      >The elasticity results from the two boundary conditions differ by a
      factor of four. Furthermore, both boundary conditions ignore the effects of
      deflections in the anchors themselves.
      >The Winkler model for beams on elastic foundations is developed here
      for three-point bending tests to provide a more realistic representation.
      >Equations for computing sample elasticity are derived from two sets
      of boundary conditions for the Winkler model.
      >Application of this model to interpret the measurement of mechanical stiffness
      of a silica nanowire at multiple points in a three-point bending is discussed.
      With the correct choice of boundary conditions, the Winkler model gives a better fit for the observed stiffness profile than the classical beam models while providing a result that differs from both by a factor of two and is comparable to the bulk elasticity.

      — —

  9. wholt4@hotmail.com
    April 18, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    There should be no controversy about the shroud whatsoever. All one needs to do to understand that the shroud could not be the burial cloth of Jesus is read the Bible, specifically the Gospel of John, to see that the burial clothes of Jesus are recorded, quite clearly, by one of those that witnessed it personally, John.

    Jhn 19:39

    He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds

    Jhn 19:40

    Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

    STRIPS of linen were used, not one continuous cloth, and the strips were cemented with 75 pounds of spices, does any of that sound even remotely similar to the shroud?

    Jhn 20:6

    Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

    Jhn 20:7

    as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

    These verses describe the fact that Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head, again, not one complete sheet.

    Does not even the Pope read the Bible?

  10. Hugh Farey
    April 18, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    If only it were that obvious, wholt. The trouble is that those pesky gospel writers didn’t write in English, or it would all be so much clearer.

    Jhn 19:39
    venit autem et Nicodemus qui venerat ad Iesum nocte primum ferens mixturam murrae et aloes quasi libras centum

    ἦλθεν δὲ καὶ Νικόδημος, ὁ ἐλθὼν πρὸς [as]αὐτὸν νυκτὸς τὸ πρῶτον, φέρων [at]μίγμα σμύρνης καὶ ἀλόης ὡς λίτρας ἑκατόν

    Jhn 19:40
    acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu et ligaverunt eum linteis cum aromatibus sicut mos Iudaeis est sepelire

    ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν [au]αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν.

    Jhn 20:6
    venit ergo Simon Petrus sequens eum et introivit in monumentum et videt linteamina posita

    ἔρχεται οὖν [a]καὶ Σίμων Πέτρος ἀκολουθῶν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα

    Jhn 20:7
    et sudarium quod fuerat super caput eius non cum linteaminibus positum sed separatim involutum in unum locum

    καὶ τὸ σουδάριον, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον

    The key words are linteis / ὀθονίοις (John 19), linteamina / ὀθόνια and sudarium / σουδάριον. Curiously, in view of the eminence of the translation you used, none of these words commonly meant strips of cloth. Linteum, in particular, is used to mean the towel that Jesus dried the disciples’ feet with, and also the huge sheet that descends from the heavens in Revelation. It is true that ὀθόνια is used to mean bandages, which supports the idea of strips, but then it also means a sail, which doesn’t.

    When you have a moment, you might like to see what words the other evangelists used in the same context. Sindon is a particularly interesting one. Then when you have explored the subject a little more thoroughly, you will be able to avoid solecisms like: “There should be no controversy about the shroud whatsoever.”

    • William
      April 18, 2015 at 4:49 pm

      Well here is the literal translation. Let’s see what it says.

      2064-3767 ¢ hlqen†oun Then he came,
      2532 kai and
      142 ¢ hre took
      3588 to the
      4983 s¢wma body
      3588 tou
      * Ihso¢ u†† of Jesus.
      19:39
      2064-1161 ¢ hlqe de And came
      2532 kai also
      * Nik¢odhmoV Nicodemus
      3588 o (the one
      2064 elq¢wn coming
      4314 proV to
      3588 ton
      * Ihso¢un Jesus
      3571 nukt¢oV by night
      3588 to
      4412 pr¢wton at first)
      5342 f¢erwn bearing
      3395 m¢igma a mixture
      4666 sm¢urnhV of myrrh
      2532 kai and
      250 al¢ohV aloe,
      5613 wV about
      3046 l¢itraV [2liters
      ekat¢on 1a hundred].
      19:40
      2983-3767 ¢ elabon oun They then took
      3588 to the
      4983 s¢wma body
      3588 tou
      * Ihso¢ u of Jesus,
      2532 kai and
      1210 ¢ edhsan tied
      1473 aut¢ o it
      1722 en with
      3608 oqon¢ioiV small pieces of cloth ” Please note, small pieces of cloth. ”
      3326 met¢ a with
      3588 twn the
      759 arwm¢atwn aromatics,
      2531 kaq¢wV as
      1485-1510.2.3 ¢ eqoV est¢ i is custom
      3588 toiV with the
      * Iouda¢ioV Jews
      1779 entafi¢azein to embalm.
      20:5
      2532 kai And
      3879 parak¢uyaV leaning over,
      991 bl¢epei he sees
      2749 ke¢imena [3lying
      3588 ta 1the
      3608 oq¢onia 2linen bands];
      3756 ou [3not
      3305 m¢entoi 1however
      1525 eis¢hlqen 2he enters].
      20:6
      2064 ¢ ercetai Comes
      3767 o¢un then
      * S¢imwn Simon
      * P¢etroV Peter
      190 akolouq¢wn following
      1473 aut¢ w him,
      2532 kai and
      1525 eis¢hlqen he entered
      1519 eiV into
      3588 to the
      3419 mnhme¢ion sepulchre,
      2532 kai and
      2334 qewre¢ i views
      3588 ta the
      3608 oq¢onia linen bands “Linen bands”
      2749 ke¢imena lying.
      20:7
      2532 kai And
      3588 to the
      4676 soud¢arion scarf Scarf upon his head
      3739 o which
      1510.7.3 hn was
      1909 ep¢ i upon
      3588 thV
      2776-1473 kefal¢hV auto¢ u his head
      3756 ou is not
      3326 met¢ a [2with
      3588 twn 3the
      3608 oqon¢iwn 4linen bands
      2749 ke¢imenon 1lying],
      235 all¢ a but
      5565 cwr¢ iV separate from them, Separate from the linen bands.
      1794 entetuligm¢enon being swathed
      1519 eiV in
      1520 ¢ ena one
      5117 t¢opon place.

      Funny how the Word of God tells of separate cloths for His body and His head. Why would you not accept what the word of God says unless you do not believe what God says.

  11. Hugh Farey
    April 18, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Yes, fine, but not really any better. Try looking up all the references to othonia in Greek literature to try to find out what it really means. It does not exclude the cloth we know as the Shroud of Turin.

    • William
      April 18, 2015 at 6:15 pm

      Look, you are the one that claimed that an English translation was not reliable due to the fact that the apostles did not write in English. Then you start giving the verses in Latin which the apostles did not write in either.
      In refuting the verses I cited you pay attention only to those words referring to cloth while ignoring the 75 pounds of spices and the fact that there was clearly a head wrap that was separate from the other cloth.
      But I guess that I should believe you rather than the one who saw with his own eyes.

  12. Hugh Farey
    April 18, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    “But I guess that I should believe you rather than the one who saw with his own eyes.” You should believe us both, because I am simply translating what he said. I do not know what language John was originally written in, so I gave you the Latin and the Greek in case you wanted to explore these early versions for yourself. Othonia does not necessarily mean strips of cloth, and the author of John may have been referring to a sheet.
    Now for the spices. There was no time for elaborate burial preparations, as we know because as soon as they could the Holy Women came back to the tomb to do it properly. So the herbs and spices were simply packed around the body and the shroud folded over the top. Such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the gospels.
    And the head cloth (not a scarf, that’s just weird) is often identified with the sudarium of Oviedo. No problem there either.

    By all means convince yourself that belief in the authenticity of the Shroud is unbiblical; there are a great many others who think the same. But it won’t stand up to any serious scrutiny.

    • William
      April 18, 2015 at 7:15 pm

      The women came to the tomb because they were not aware that His body had already been prepared by Nicodemus and Joseph. 75 pounds of spices were very expensive and far more than Mary could afford. The translation I gave you was direct Greek to English, since John wrote it in Greek, and scarf is the word, referring to a cloth worn on the head.
      As for the, “shroud folded over the top”, that would ignore the direct translation being:

      19:40
      2983-3767 ¢ elabon oun They then took
      3588 to the
      4983 s¢wma body
      3588 tou
      * Ihso¢ u of Jesus,
      2532 kai and
      1210 ¢ edhsan tied
      1473 aut¢ o it
      1722 en with
      3608 oqon¢ioiV small pieces of cloth
      3326 met¢ a with
      3588 twn the
      759 arwm¢atwn aromatics,
      2531 kaq¢wV as
      1485-1510.2.3 ¢ eqoV est¢ i is custom
      3588 toiV with the
      * Iouda¢ioV Jews
      1779 entafi¢azein to embalm

      2532 kai And
      3588 to the
      4676 soud¢arion scarf
      3739 o which
      1510.7.3 hn was
      1909 ep¢ i upon
      3588 thV
      2776-1473 kefal¢hV auto¢ u his head

      Note that they, “tied the body of Jesus with small pieces of cloth.”
      It does not say that they folded a sheet over him.
      And they used the aromatics, or spices, as is the custom of the Jews to embalm.
      His body was prepared properly.

      If you do not believe what the word of God says, then on what basis do you make your claims?

      • John Green
        April 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        Scholars are still debating certain words translated from the Greek, but that’s just part of the problem. Most likely Jesus spoke the Aramaic language. We can see that in Mark’s translation in Mar 15:34

        “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

        So you have a translation of a translation.

        Here’s what can go wrong with transations.

        Some ad’s ran in other countries.
        http://www.baetzler.de/humor/ads_gone_wrong.html

        • wholt4@hotmail.com
          April 19, 2015 at 1:07 pm

          Which is why you must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God to understand the meaning. Without the mind of Christ, one can do no better that to lean on his own understanding.

          Isa 6:9

          He said, “Go and tell this people: “ ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

          Isa 11:2

          The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD—

          Pro 3:5

          Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

          Mat 13:14

          In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

          1Co 2:14

          The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

          1Co 3:19

          For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” [

          1Co 2:16

          for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

  13. Louis
    April 18, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    What was found in Akeldama was what was left of a burial shroud, not strips of linen.

    • William
      April 18, 2015 at 8:38 pm

      What does that have to do with anything?

  14. April 19, 2015 at 1:20 am

    It is interesting that in the Byzantine iconography of the laying out of Christ’s body, they almost always show him wrapped in linen strips and with a separate face cloth. In the western tradition, he is normally lying on a single sheet which often looks too small to wrap round the whole body. Nothing in medieval art that I have yet seen,but I am still working on it, suggests that any artist is copying a single sheet as large as as the Shroud. There is also no tradition in either iconography of showing any images on the cloth. Although there are two different iconographic traditions,both can draw on gospel sources.

    • April 19, 2015 at 4:14 am

      Because, actually, the Byzantines had other alleged burial cloths as well, actually there were three of them in Constantinople.

      https://shroudstory.com/2014/05/11/the-three-byzantine-burial-cloths-of-jesus/

      When they released in 944 that the Mandylion they brought from Edessa is another burial cloth (besides those they had by this time), and not the small kerchief the legend had claimed, they tried to cover up this fact.

  15. April 19, 2015 at 2:39 am

    The assignment of authorship to the gospels is belated (third century) and based on some very conjectural reasons. Gospels are written too late to have been written by some direct witness. Historical and geographical fails and inaccuracies suggest that the authors were not native of Palestine.
    “John” is the last of the four. Scholars date it about 100 a.C. It is usually considered the less historical of the gospels. But in some points it seems more exact that the other four gospels. As in the case of burial cloths, for example. The author of John speaks of othonia. This word is usually translated by “bandages” or “strips”. It is plural. This coincides with the archaeological data. The Jews buried the corpses wrapped with several pieces of cloth tied with strips, as in Akeldama example. This not means exactly bandages, as in the pictorial byzantine tradition, but is more accurate than a single sheet.

    • April 19, 2015 at 3:59 am

      The assignment of authorship to the gospels is belated (third century) and based on some very conjectural reasons. Gospels are written too late to have been written by some direct witness. Historical and geographical fails and inaccuracies suggest that the authors were not native of Palestine.

      Bull$%&*

      http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php

      • April 19, 2015 at 5:07 am

        Mainstream scholarship.e.g. Oxford Companion to the Bible accepts Mark, c. 70, possibly a bit earlier, Matthew and Luke c. 80 and John 90-100. That is just mainstream scholarship but it has been well defended by people who have spent their lives working on these texts.
        There have been a lot of problems over how far the gospel writers knew the geography of what they were writing about. Tradition says that Mark was writing as afar away as Rome, for instance, although the modern scholarship tends towards Syria, as there seems a mistaken link between the evangelist Mark and Peter.
        it is in fact John who usually scores most highly in that places he mentions had no alternative sources backing them but have since have been been confirmed by archaeology.
        If ,unlike myself, you think the Shroud is authentic, John is the only one to mention the lance wound so how far would you trust him on other issues?

        • April 19, 2015 at 6:32 am

          The primary reason why the mainstream scholarship claims that the gospels were written post-70, are the vague prophecies of Jesus regarding destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Mt 24:1-37, Mk 13:1-27, Lk 21:5-28). Based on that, and the ideological premise that Jesus couldn’t predict the fall of Jerusalem (because Jesus cannot be God himself) the scholars claimed that the Gospels were written post 70.

          But this is purely nonsensical argument. The prophecy of destruction of the Temple is clearly stated for example in the Old Testament Book of Daniel (Dn 9:26 NIV After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.), to which Jesus’ eschatological speech strongly refers.

          The claims that the Gospels were written post 70 have actually no basis. But for the obvious reason (if the Gospels were written before 70, in the Second Temple period, during lifetime of the direct witnesses, they would be hard to undermine), the academic pseudo-scholars promote this absurd view as a holy scientific truth.

        • Hugh Farey
          April 19, 2015 at 6:36 am

          I don’t know how original his ideas were, but the crux of The Fifth Gospel, by Ian Caldwell, which Dan advertised here a few weeks ago is…

          **SPOILER ALERT**

          … that since John, the last gospel writer, is the only evangelist to mention the lance wound, that therefore it was most likely entirely symbolic (a reference to Zechariah 12:10), and not an authentic wound of Christ at all. Ergo, the Shroud must be a fake.

          (Nay sayers, I doubt if it’s worth jumping up and down about; it’s only a novel…)

        • April 19, 2015 at 6:41 am

          As for geographical “errors” in Mark, they are not Mark’s errors, but invented by the sceptics (utilizing and manipulating brief relations in Mark 5:1 and 7:31) to discredit him. They see some problem, their present their only correct view (based usually on very uncertain premises -we don’t have a full knowledge of the 1st century Palestine geography), they make conclusions -Mark is unreliable -but they took no effort nor any goodwill to find satisfactory resolution of the problem. Which is certainly possible http://lewandowski.apologetyka.info/ateizm/czy-marek-popeni-bedy-geograficzne-i-kulturowe-w-swej-ewangelii,283.htm

        • Charles Freeman
          April 19, 2015 at 10:51 am

          Wow, O.K. You certainly have your work cut out when you say there is no basis for the gospels being post-70. You have some formidable scholarship to contend with. Good luck!
          You must realise, of course, that yours is a very small minority position within New Testament studies as a whole but perhaps that does not worry you.

        • April 20, 2015 at 1:10 am

          Only a few christians exegetes maintain today that the Gospels are internally, geographicaly and historicaly coherent. The same for the authorship. The same for the “first hand” testimonies. And there is a practical consensus in dating the Gospels between 70 and 120 A.C. (approximately). Only fundametalists and mythists disagree on this point.

          But Oskar call all the other exegetes and historians “pseudo-scholars”. Bravissimo!

  16. Hugh Farey
    April 19, 2015 at 3:18 am

    The word is indeed plural, and is usually translated as strips, presumably because some authors use it to mean bits of fabric to bind up wounds, which must surely be long and thin. However, my point is that it does not have to mean strips as thin as bandages. The word is frequently used to mean pieces of cloth for making sails with, and sometimes pieces of cloth for making tunics with, for which a 1m wide strip would seem more appropriate. Just now, Googling away, I came across this article, which covers the subject well: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi04part4.pdf

  17. Hugh Farey
    April 19, 2015 at 4:03 am

    William, I missed your last list of words; sorry. However you are slightly missing my point. Your “direct Greek to English” translation is only one of many, and rather an old one at that, which has been discussed in more detail since. It is not enough for some of us – and if you really want to understand what the evangelists said then it should not be enough for you – simply to find: “3608 oqon¢ioiV small pieces of cloth” and assume it must be the only possible translation. In this specific occurrence, the word is actually singular anyway.

    You repeat:” If you do not believe what the word of God says, then on what basis do you make your claims?” but you do not seem to want to know what the word of God is. To claim that the Shroud cannot be accommodated within the Gospel texts is to deny the word of God. Is that what you really want?

    • William
      April 19, 2015 at 9:49 am

      “To claim that the Shroud cannot be accommodated within the Gospel texts is to deny the word of God. ”
      How can you claim the shroud as being accommodated by the word of God? What scriptures do you cite? You are saying that Jesus was not wrapped with strips of cloth but simply covered with a sheet, Why I this so important to you? Is your belief in the shroud the only source of belief in Jesus you have? Are you concerned that if the shroud were not authentic then you would no longer believe in Jesus?

      Do you believe in Jesus?

      I am familiar with the Word of God and I know what it means.

      1Co 2:14

      The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit

      I understand that tradition is very hard to break, but sometimes it is necessary.

      Mar 7:13

      Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

      God tells us that we are saved through faith in him that cannot be seen.

      Heb 11:1

      Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

      Heb 11:6

      And without faith it is impossible to please God…

      God loves you and it is His will that you are saved but you must believe the Truth.

      Jhn 8:31

      …“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

      Jhn 8:32

      Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

      But I suppose you’ll say all of these verses are translated improperly.

      Rom 1:17

      For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

      It dos not say righteousness comes from believing in some kind of artifact.

      • Hugh Farey
        April 19, 2015 at 11:04 am

        Gently, William; this isn’t a theology class, nor even a conversion polemic. On the whole, I am inclined to believe that the Shroud is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus on various grounds, but biblical exegesis isn’t one of them. However, I don’t like flawed arguments wherever they occur, and although your convictions regarding the Shroud are no doubt sincere, they are based on shaky ground.

        “To claim that the Shroud cannot be accommodated within the Gospel texts is to deny the word of God.” Yes. The gospels describe the various cloths left in the tomb in various ways, and those ways do not exclude the Shroud. To claim that they do is to misread the gospels. This appears to be exactly what you are doing.

        “How can you claim the shroud as being accommodated by the word of God? What scriptures do you cite?” In my comments above I actually cited the gospel of John, which you yourself chose as an advocate against the Shroud, and demonstrated that it does not deny the possibility that Jesus was covered with a sheet.

        “You are saying that Jesus was not wrapped with strips of cloth but simply covered with a sheet,” Not at all. The gospel of John would support Jesus being wrapped either in strips of cloth or a sheet. Neither is precluded by the words of St John.

        “Why I this so important to you?” It is not important to me at all, It was a response to your airy denial of the Shroud solely on biblical grounds, which is unjustified.

        “Is your belief in the shroud the only source of belief in Jesus you have?” Not at all; quite the reverse. My belief in Jesus has nothing to do with this blog, but for what it’s worth, it does not rest on the authenticity or not of the Shroud.

        “Are you concerned that if the shroud were not authentic then you would no longer believe in Jesus?” Not at all. As a matter of fact I don’t think the Shroud is authentic. It does not affect my beliefs at all.

        “I am familiar with the Word of God and I know what it means.” Well no, you’re not, as we have seen. You are familiar with an English translation of the word of God, which is good enough in most cases, but if you want to demonstrate a specific and rather precise meaning, then you need to explore a little deeper. Your simplistic assertion: “These verses describe the fact that Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head, again, not one complete sheet.” and the question: “Does not even the Pope read the Bible?” were a little arrogant, if I may say so.

        • William
          April 19, 2015 at 2:30 pm

          My apologies, I thought you were a believer in Christ Jesus and were deceived regarding the shroud. I didn’t realize you were another educated atheist that clearly thinks much more highly about himself than e should.

          Mat 7:6

          “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

        • Dan
          April 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          William, you are out of line. in this blog we don’t use scripture as a whack a mole paddle.

        • Hugh Farey
          April 19, 2015 at 2:47 pm

          What an extraordinary deduction! I’m a born and bred Catholic, educated at a Benedictine monastery and a teacher in a very Catholic school. I couldn’t be more Catholic without working at the Vatican! (Mind you, there are sects which think Catholicism and Atheism are as evil as each other – perhaps you’re one of those?) Now why not go and learn a little more about this Word of God you think you know so well. You never know, you might learn more about Christ as well!

  18. April 19, 2015 at 4:16 am

    I will read that paper. In the meantime my source is Orit Shamir. For example:, Shamir, O., 2006. “Shrouds and Other Textiles From Ein Gedi”. In: Y. Hirschfeld. Ein Gedi. A Large Village of Jews. Haifa, p. 58. On line in academia.edu. She speaks here of shoruds (in plural) and “wrapping and binding”. In Akeldama the corpse was wrapped with several layers of cloths.

    PS:

    “This not means exactly bandages…”

    This doesn’t mean… Of course.

    My gods! My English get worse by moments!

    • April 19, 2015 at 4:18 am

      And what’s the problem? There were likely several other cloths as well, besides the Shroud of Turin, used during Jesus burial.

      • April 20, 2015 at 12:50 am

        Yes, There were aproximately 64 in the Middle Ages.

        • April 20, 2015 at 3:29 am

          Yes, There were aproximately 64 in the Middle Ages.

          Fine.

          Then list them all.

        • April 21, 2015 at 1:34 am

          Ulysse Chevalier (“Le Saint Suarie de Turin. Histoire d’une rélique”, Paris, 1902, p. 9-10) says he has found fourteen references to the Christ’s burial cloths. He redirects us to Ferdinand de Mély (Le Saint-Suaire de Turin est-il authentique? Paris,1902, p. 21 –quoted by Antonio Lombatti’s Blog, mercoledì 13 giugno 2012, “Le 40 sindoni medievale”). Gaetano Ciccone accounts 100 relics of the Shroud, but it is difficult to guess if they proceeded of diverse shrouds. A list of some complete shrouds (except evident copies) is provided by Lombatti.

          1 – Sindone di Torino
          2 – La Santa Sindone di Aquisgrana
          3 – Il Santo Sudario di Arles
          4 – Il Santo Sudario di Besançon
          5 – Il Santo Sudario di Cadouin
          6 – il Santo Sudario di Cahors (Sainte Coiffe)
          7 – Il Santo Sudario di Carcassonne (Saint Cabouin)
          8 – Il Santo Sudario di Compiègne (Saint Seigne)
          9 – Il Lino di Cristo di Iohanavank in Armenia
          10-Il Santo Sudario di Lisbona
          11-Il Santo Sudario di Magonza
          12-Il Sudario del Senor di Oviedo
          13-La Sindone di Parigi
          14-Il Santo Sudario di San Giovanni in Laterano in Roma (da non
          confondere con l’immagine acheropita del Laterano che è un dipinto su
          tavola).
          15-Il Sudarium Christi di Andechs in Baviera (che sarebbe una metà)
          16-La Sindone Mondissima di Limoges.

          I apologize but I have not time to translate. I hope you understand.

          PS: Nor do I know the complete list of presidents of the USA. But the presidents of USA existed. Sure.

  19. Hugh Farey
    April 19, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Are William and Wholt different people? I’ve treated all their posts as if they were from the same person. My apologies if they have different views…

    • William
      April 19, 2015 at 9:47 pm

      Oh, you’re Catholic! Why didn’t you say so in the first place? No wonder you have so little familiarity with the word of God, as well as no understanding. Good enough, I’ll leave you with you shroud and other idols.

      • Angel
        April 19, 2015 at 10:44 pm

        William, with the new scientific data provided by Professor Giulio Fanti, dating the Shroud to the time of Jesus, Christians are now beginning to believe in the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and many are of the opinion it not only proves the resurrection of Jesus, but that He left an historical record of the brutal beating He endured for the sins of mankind. This sacred cloth, although held by the Catholic church, was deliberately left behind for all mankind to see, regardless of their religious denomination.

        The Shroud is merely a record of truth that Jesus did exist and experienced all the brutality depicted in the Gospel accounts, despite what non-believers may say. No worshipping or idolizing is necessary.

        Below is a quote from a Christian site:

        “To state my own convictions and background, unless and until the weight of scientific evidence proves otherwise, I will remain convinced that the image on the shroud was left behind when the body of Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. And though I am a Baptist pastor and the son of a Baptist pastor, and though the shroud may presently rest in a Catholic cathedral, this relic – if genuine – is catholic in the larger sense of the word: of universal Christian significance.

        http://thechristians.com/?q=node/198

        Best,

        • Sampath Fernando
          April 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm

          Willian must be another decieved Christian out of more than 1000 denominations of protestants. These protestants has to be united and form a one denoimination if they are true followers of Jesus. Having more than 1000 denominations we can see what sort of LOVE, these protestants are showing. Once I was a protestant but now I am a free follower of Jesus because of the Shroud. From there I can see what word of God (Bible) is not telling.

        • William
          April 20, 2015 at 12:01 am

          I do not belong to any denomination nor do I practice any religion, because religion cannot save anyone. God demonstrated this by giving the Law. The Law reveals our sinful nature so that we turn away from self righteousness and turn to Jesus for salvation.

          Rom 3:28

          For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

          Rom 5:13

          To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

          Rom 3:20

          Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

          Gal 2:16

          know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

          Gal 3:11

          Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

          So you see, it is by grace we are saved through faith, in Jesus, not a cloth.

        • Sampath Fernando
          April 20, 2015 at 12:19 am

          For me Jesus is more than other preachers like Paul. Did Jesus tell us that we are saved through faith. James says faith is useless without works.

          Jesus never Judge who says Lord Lord. Read the parable of Goats and Sheep.No faith there.

          That Love we can see from the Shroud. William please go and do research on the Shroud rather than condeming the images

        • William
          April 20, 2015 at 9:18 am

          Sampath, all one needs to do is read the biblical account from the eyewitnesses. the description of the burial clothes of Jesus is nothing like the shroud. That is all the investigation I need.
          You ask if Jesus ever said we need faith?

          Jhn 3:18

          Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

          Note that Jesus says whoever believes, not whoever does good works. In fact, even if you have good works, if you do not believe, then you still are condemned.

          Jhn 3:36

          Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

          Again the only qualification is that you believe, if you do not believe then all the good works in the world cannot save you, according to Jesus.

          Jhn 5:24

          “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

          No where does Jesus say that works will save you. As for the parable of the goats and the sheep.

          Mat 7:21

          “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

          Note that he says only the one that has done the will of my Father. What is the will of God?

          Jhn 6:28

          Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

          Jhn 6:29

          Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

          It is clear, Jesus did tell us that we are to believe in Him, and that by believing we are saved.
          But Jesus also warned us of false prophets AND false messiahs:

          Mat 24:24

          For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

          There are many different Christs presented to the world, but only one can save you.
          Where does your faith come from, the testimony of God or a piece of cloth that has nothing to do with Jesus.

        • Sampath Fernando
          April 20, 2015 at 4:52 pm

          Dear William- Faith will never save you but faith can do marvelous things according to Jesus. Believe in Jesus and do what ever thing he ask you to do to recieve the Eternal Life. Remember new commandment and practice it to receive the Eternal Life rather than just thinking “only faith can save you”.. You guys have been fooled by Paul and Martin Luthur. Jesus never says faith will save you. Even Peter says sometimes he can’t understand the things written by Paul. (read Bible)

          Jesus is a doer rather than warming the seat what church goers are doing. (read the Bible) Today mahjority of Christians think faith can save them rather than helping their neighbours. What fools they are.

          As I told you previously do research on Shroud and see that how real is it. Find out for yourself why Jesus left that image on his burial cloth. Rather than studying the image on the Shroud you are just condemning it. Why? Are you brain washed.

          Shroud is not a false prophet, it a piece of cloth showing how Jesus suffered for you and me.

          God Bless You.

          Sampath

        • William
          April 20, 2015 at 7:57 pm

          Sampath, no one is saved by faith, they are saved by grace through faith.

          Eph 2:8

          For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

          I know you do not believe Paul but how can I go read the bible like you suggest and not read Paul. He wrote 2/3rds of the New Testament. If you do not believe Paul, then why believe anything? Paul is called the apostle to the Gentiles. Please note that unlike your assertion that I am unaware what the bible says, you never quote the bible. Why should anyone believe anything you say? You are not arguing with me, you are calling God a liar.

          You said that Jesus never said we are saved by faith, yet I gave you several verses quoting Jesus directly where He said that if we BELIEVE we are saved. If you disagree, then why don’t you quote the bible where Jesus says we are saved by works?

          By the way, I did not say the shroud was a false prophet, I merely pointed out that Jesus warned us about false prophets as well as false messiahs. Jesus is the true messiah and yet the image on the cloth looks nothing like the description of Jesus given through the prophet Isaiah.

          Isa 53:2

          He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          Notice that Isaiah says that Jesus has no beauty or majesty and that nothing in his appearance would cause us to desire him. The image on the shroud looks like a king straight out of Camelot.

          Why don’t you go read the bible?

        • Sampath Fernando
          April 21, 2015 at 1:35 am

          According to your Bible, when Jesus said we are saved by Grace?

  20. April 20, 2015 at 3:36 am

    David Mo:

    Only a few christians exegetes maintain today that the Gospels are internally, geographicaly and historicaly coherent. The same for the authorship. The same for the “first hand” testimonies. And there is a practical consensus in dating the Gospels between 70 and 120 A.C. (approximately). Only fundametalists and mythists disagree on this point.

    But Oskar call all the other exegetes and historians “pseudo-scholars”. Bravissimo!

    Yes, they are pseudo-scholars.

    So bud. Give us examples of those geographical and historical errors. And also give us the reasons why the Gospels are dated between 70 and 120 A.C. The mere “authoritative” opinion of academic scholars does not count -hard evidence for dating please.

    We will see how much easy this “practical” consensus is to rebutt.

  21. April 20, 2015 at 5:26 am

    I would think that as OK holds a position that is at odds with the consensus of academic opinion – and as David Mo says- it is a formidable consensus of experts- the onus is on him to prove his case. The early dating was tried out by people such as John Robinson in the 1960s but decades of scholarship later, no one is now convinced by him.
    Still OK is free to defend his position. I would be interested to hear it. I do worry ,however, that whenever an established academic disagrees with OK’.s position he or she is dismissed as a fraud. You must do better than that Ok!

    • April 20, 2015 at 5:43 am

      Charles, I presented my arguments and/or links to the apologetic site http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.php where you can find more of them.

      It is now up to you and Mo to prove the case of Gospels being dated after 70 AD. So far you have presented no arguments to back it up. Academic “consenus” is no argument at all -before Copernicus there was a “consensus” about geocentric system. It is up to you, and your academics, to show convincing arguments that the Gospels were written post 70 AD, based on hard data -and not the “authority” of some overhyped “scholars”.

      So: what concrete data show that the Gospels were written post-70?

  22. Hugh Farey
    April 20, 2015 at 11:36 am

    “All one needs to do is read the biblical account from the eyewitnesses. the description of the burial clothes of Jesus is nothing like the shroud. That is all the investigation I need.”

    Alas, it is all too clear that you have not read the biblical account from the eyewitnesses. You appear to have read one translation of one Gospel, and are clinging to that as a way of discrediting the authenticity of the Shroud. Go back to your bible and this time read what the evangelists (all of them) actually said. Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word sindon to describe the sheet which covered Jesus. Luke uses othonia as well, for the same thing. Luke uses the word keiriais to describe the swaddlng clothes of the infant Jesus. John also uses the word keiriais, to describe the burial wrappings of Lazarus, but not for the burial wrappings of Jesus, which he calls othonia.

    Keiria are thin bands of cloth – such as for swaddling clothes
    Othonia are wide bands of cloth – such as for stitching together to make sails
    A Sindon is a sheet

    In some circumstances – as used by Luke – othonion and sindon can be synonyms.

    Had you made any attempt to understand the Gospels as a group, you would understand that the Shroud is certainly not precluded, although it is also not positively confirmed. So I wonder why you wanted to use the Gospels to discredit the Shroud. If you think it is not authentic, there is much stronger ground than John’s othonia with which to do it.

    • William
      April 20, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      All you do is make statements, you never cite any scriptures. That makes your commentary hearsay, nothing more. I have cited numerous verses because unlike you, I do not claim to have any superior knowledge, I am only citing the word of God

      • Hugh Farey
        April 21, 2015 at 2:37 am

        No William, you have not cited the word of God. You have cited extracts from one translation of one Gospel. However I apologise for not giving the citations fully myself; I guess I thought you might know them. Here we go:

        Keiria, meaning thin bands:
        John 11:44 “He who was dead came out, his hands and feet wrapped with grave clothes, and his face wrapped with a cloth”
        (Earlier, I said that Luke also used this word, but I mistook keimen for keiriai; apologies)

        Othonia, meaning wide bands:
        John 19:40 “Then they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths”
        John 20:5-7 “Stooping down and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying. Yet he did not enter. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went inside the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the cloth that was around His head, not lying with the linen clothing”
        Luke 23:53 “Then he took Him down, and wrapped Him in linen”

        Sindon, meaning sheet:
        Matthew 27:59 “When Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth”
        Mark 15:46 “So he bought fine linen, and taking Him down, wrapped Him in the linen and laid Him in a tomb”
        Luke 24:12 “But Peter rose and ran to the tomb. Stooping down, he saw the linen clothes lying by themselves”

        Now let’s sort out this nonsense:
        “Unlike you, I do not claim to have any superior knowledge, I am only citing the word of God.” Unfortunately, simply picking up a bible and referring to it, which you call “citing the word of God” is not any such thing, and, since it must be the mainstay of anybody who rejects more orthodox Christianity in favour of their own personal interpretation (“I do not belong to any denomination nor do I practice any religion”), it behoves you to get better acquainted with it before you start belabouring others with it. By all means, as long as you lead a good life and love others as you love yourself, then use the bible however you will, but if you want your attempt to discredit the Shroud to have any credibility among those who know it better, then you need to find out rather more than you do.

    • April 21, 2015 at 4:43 am

      Sorry, Hugh, but othonia, thin or wide, is plural. Sindon is singular (σίνδϖν-όνος)

  23. April 20, 2015 at 11:38 am

    O.k. I may have missed it but can you provide your own preferred date for each of the gospels – and,of course, the concrete data that supports your dates.
    I am just repeating conventional scholarship asI have not spent thirty or forty years working on these texts as many have and am prepared to support such scholars when their varied approaches arrive at roughly similar conclusions as to dating. You need to convince me that I should not.

    • April 20, 2015 at 12:05 pm

      Dating of the Gospels is pretty straigthforward.

      You start with the Acts of Apostles, which end during Paul’s two years imprisonment in Rome, circa 62 AD -and at this point Paul is alive and well, no info about his martyrdom in 64-67 AD. Using standard way of dating text (which, strangely is not applied to the New Testament by the most “scholars” contrary to other classical texts) this firmly dates Acts to 62 AD (had they not been part of the Bible, no scholar would ever question this dating).

      Now to the Gospels. As we know that the Acts were written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, as a second volume, we know that Gospel of Luke must have been written before Acts, perhaps about 60 AD. As the Gospel of Luke seems dependent on Gospel of Mark, it must have been written earlier, perhaps in the 50s or even 40s. As to the Matthew, as it is also dependent on Mark, but not directly dependent on Luke, it must have been written parallelly to the latter, circa 60 AD. The aramaic prototype of Matthew, mentioned by several Church Fathers may be earlier, perhaps dating to the 40s.

      As for John, he must have written after the death of Peter (64-67 AD) -but there are no direct indications about destruction of the Jerusalem, so it is likely to be written in 67-70 AD. But later date, up to 100 AD is still possible, though there are no convincing arguments for it.

  24. Angel
    April 20, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    William’s reply to Sampath Fernando.
    April 20, 2015 at 9:18 am

    –Sampath, all one needs to do is read the biblical account from the eyewitnesses. the description of the burial clothes of Jesus is nothing like the shroud. That is all the investigation I need.

    ***Angel says: William, the biblical account to which you refer also mentions the head cloth (napkin) was placed in an area by itself.

    Considering the head napkin in the Gospel account, John 20: 5-7, is the Sudarium of Oviedo and the blood on both the Sudarium and the Shroud are type AB and the blood spots on the two cloths align exactly, if the Sudarium (head napkin) is true, then the Shroud is as well.

    The science performed on both the Sudarium and the Shroud verify both cloths covered the same man.

    Best,

  25. Louis
    April 20, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    The Bible:
    We must remember that there was an oral tradition before the NT narratives were put down in writing. The same can be said about the OT.

  26. daveb of wellington nz
    April 20, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    I cannot accept OK’s assertion that the gospels were set down as early as he says, nor in fact does mainstream New Testament scholarship. There are several arguments against it, but I shall attempt to confine my comments to a few brief remarks.

    It seems clear enough that Mark was the first of the gospels to be set down fairly close to its present form, although it seems the final original chapter may been lost and replaced by a later addition. Occasionally some have argued for a Matthean priority, but it seldom withstands scrutiny. Examining the common material in Matthew Mark & Luke, one finds a closer affinity between Matthew & Mark, and between Luke & Mark, than between Matthew and Luke, and this therefore argues for Marcan priority. There is additional common material found in Matthew and Luke, not found in Mark, and this has argued for an additional separate Q source. All four gospels closely follow the Marcan narrative of the passion death and resurrection, with only minor changes of some details, according to the specific author’s proclamation intent.

    Interestingly there is a concluding literary discrepancy between Matthew/Mark and Luke. Thus Matthew’s narrative begins at Bethlehem, (the Nazarene origins of Mary and Joseph seem unknown to him), and following Mark’s cue, the apostles are instructed to go to Galilee where Jesus will meet them there. Luke on the other hand knows of the Nazareth origins of the family, and has his own separate nativity narrative with a journey to Bethlehem. However Luke concludes his gospel by having the apostles remaining in Jerusalem. In Acts, Luke continues with his Jerusalem location, (literary continuity), the first half of the work being devoted to the Jerusalem church, and the second half on Paul’s mission to the gentiles. It concludes with Paul going to Rome, the centre of the empire, the centre of the world. Thus Luke’s mise-en-scene traverse is Nazareth – Jerusalem – Rome! The church is now “global”, has “arrived” and this makes for a satisfying conclusion. Luke is not interested in recording the death of either of his leading characters Paul or Peter, it is not part of his “proclamation” and its omission is a weak argument for assigning either Acts or Luke a prior date.

    Turning now to the Pauline epistles, it is evident that Paul devotes much focus to the tensions between the Jewish origin of the apostles and his own “subversively regarded” mission to the gentiles. The tensions between himself and Peter are recorded. Luke, companion of Paul, also devotes some attention to it in the Acts, such as at the Council in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. Luke has Peter seeing a large sheet descending from heaven with many “unclean” animals who he is instructed to eat, a partial resolution of this tension.

    However this tension is not reflected in the gospel accounts. The gentile church is fully established, Matthew’s gospel is clearly directed to a gentile community, probably Syrian, but perhaps not necessarily Antioch. His gospel is used in the Syrian church. We do not see the Jewish-Gentile contentions evident in the Pauline epistles, nor in Luke’s Acts. The contentions are now in the past, and the church is essentially gentile. As early has his nativity account Matthew even has gentile wise men visit the infant in the manger. Contrast this with Luke’s Jewish shepherd visitors. It is reflected even in Matthew’s concluding discourse where the apostles are instructed to preach the gospel “to all nations”. I think all these are strong arguments for a relatively late compilation of the gospels.

    The actions and sayings of Jesus would have given rise to many oral traditions, and typical of such societies would soon have acquired a set form to be learned by rote by those trained to proclaim them. They would have soon been committed to writing. The distinctive pericope form of nearly all of the gospel narratives, clearly indicate that this would have been the case. Most of them are terse, brief episodic accounts of individual separate incidents, and are not in the form of a fully integrated continuous narrative. The various authors of the gospels would have assembled their sources, giving them a form and using them to express their own individual particular proclamation intent. Their integrity can be deduced by the relative consistency of the four separate accounts, and reliance on a social tradition well used to critical appraisal of formal oral recitation by rote. This last cannot be over-emphasised, but is still evident in other present primal pre-literate societies. It is not necessary to assert an earlier compilation into their present final form.

    • April 20, 2015 at 4:54 pm

      Hello Dave.

      Mostly agree, but:

      Thus Luke’s mise-en-scene traverse is Nazareth – Jerusalem – Rome! The church is now “global”, has “arrived” and this makes for a satisfying conclusion. Luke is not interested in recording the death of either of his leading characters Paul or Peter, it is not part of his “proclamation” and its omission is a weak argument for assigning either Acts or Luke a prior date.

      That’s hypothesis (and rather proposed ad hoc to maintain the late dates for the Gospels), not the facts. The facts are that neiher Paul’s nor Peter’s death are recorded in Acts -and the simplest explanation is that it had not occured yet when Luke was finishing Acts. Otherwise such omission, contrary to what the readers knew, would be extremely strange.

      …I think all these are strong arguments for a relatively late compilation of the gospels.

      I don’t think so. The mission to gentiles started very early, with the baptism of Cornelius (if not earlier).

      The actions and sayings of Jesus would have given rise to many oral traditions, and typical of such societies would soon have acquired a set form to be learned by rote by those trained to proclaim them. They would have soon been committed to writing….It is not necessary to assert an earlier compilation into their present final form.

      Nor to deny it.
      There is nothing that would preclude the creation of the present Gospels before 70 AD. The only reason why they are dated after 70 AD is the anti-Christian sentiment for which a claim that the Gospels are late-written, falsified documents is a necessity. To defend this view, they utilize every weak (or even imaginary) argument, disregarding much stronger arguments for pre-70 authorship of the Gospels by traditional Four Evangelists. Breaking every rule of classical source analysis, just to obtain their goal (not to say about dirty tricks, if you support pre-70 dating you are mindless religious zealot).

  27. daveb of wellington nz
    April 20, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    I dare say you’re entitled to an opinion of an earlier compilation, I don’t happen to agree with it, and modern New Testament scholarship rejects it. One does not have to resort to anti-christian conspiracies to do so. I use several sources, one of them for instance is John Bowden former editor and managing director of the SCM Press, London, and he is hardly likely to be anti-christian in sentiment. An article by Bowden I have before me, gives a date of authorship of Acts as “probably between 85 and 95 AD”, likely towards the end of Luke’s life.

    There are several significant omissions in Acts, so that of the deaths of Peter & Paul is hardly noteworthy. Apart from chapters 1 & 2, we hear nothing of what happened to most of the original apostles, even though there are many other traditions concerning them. We hear nothing of the Alexandrian church although it was clearly very healthy and significant, and there are only occasional references to the church in Antioch, although it became a principal early centre of christian scholarship.

    Nevertheless the tensions between the Jewish and Gentile wings of the early church are sufficiently memorable for Luke to draw attention to them in Acts, and are frequently evident in Paul. A further example of this tension might be seen in Luke’s mentioning the neglect of Hellenistic widows and orphans, necessitating the appointment of gentile deacons, as it seems the Jewish members were still not prepared to minister to them. So this attitude held sway for quite some time.

    When we come to the gospels, all of this seems very much in the past. Thus it is the specifically Jewish rejection of Christ which is at fault, whereas there seems to be an attempt to attenuate the fault of the gentile Roman authorities. Thus ‘Pilate knows that it out of jealousy that the chief priests had delivered Jesus and he seeks to free him’, possibly to be seen as the author’s attempt to minimise the true responsibility of imperial authority in the final condemnation, and to excuse it by placing the blame on the Jewish authorities.

    Further evidence is suggested in the destruction of the temple, omitted in earlier Mark, but which seems to have already happened “as prophesied” in the other three gospels, although perhaps it might not have been so difficult to foresee.

    With the expectation of an early Parousia, little point in committing the account to writing would be seen, as everything was soon to come to an end. When this didn’t happen and as the first witnesses passed on, this perception would clearly change, and the need for leaving a written record proclaiming Jesus as the Christ then became more compelling.

    • April 20, 2015 at 6:36 pm

      When we come to the gospels, all of this seems very much in the past.

      The Gospels are stories about Jesus, not the problems (greater or smaller) of the early church.

      Further evidence is suggested in the destruction of the temple, omitted in earlier Mark, but which seems to have already happened “as prophesied” in the other three gospels, although perhaps it might not have been so difficult to foresee.

      There is nowhere a mention that the prophecy has already fulfilled -contrary to for example, prophecy of Peter’s death in John 21:18.

      With the expectation of an early Parousia, little point in committing the account to writing would be seen, as everything was soon to come to an end.

      Parousia. This modern pseudo-theory, and really absurd one. According to it, Jehovah’s Witnesses for example should not write anything.

      Can you (or anyone) give real (and not imaginative) reasons why the Gospels couldn’t have been written before 70 AD?

      Besides, I recommend reading this, for example: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php

      http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/markdef.php

      http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.php

      • April 21, 2015 at 1:27 am

        Sorry, I haven’t time to discuss an anonymous pamphlet. I advise you to go to more serious reads. John P. Meier (SJ), for example. I don’t agree with him in some things, but he is not a sceptic nor a “pseudo-scholar”.

  28. April 21, 2015 at 3:16 am

    Sorry, I haven’t time to discuss an anonymous pamphlet. I advise you to go to more serious reads. John P. Meier (SJ), for example. I don’t agree with him in some things, but he is not a sceptic nor a “pseudo-scholar”.

    That’s what I expected, Mo. You don’t put forward any arguments against mine, you just mention the name, and claim that Gospels are late because “he told that”. That’s all you can. Chicken.

    As for the Shrouds:

    A list of some complete shrouds (except evident copies) is provided by Lombatti.

    That’s 16 not 64. Some of them are smaller coifs and handkerchiefs, some of them are likely small fragments, some of them are extant, some of them are lost, some of them are likely to be authentic (Turin, Oviedo, Cahors), some of them perhaps may be fragments of authentic cloths (fragments from Paris, and perhaps from Rome, if coming from Constantinople), some of them are clearly non-authentic (Cadouin, a spoil of crusades), some of them are merely copies of the Shroud of Turin (Besançon and Lisbon) and so on. All of them have very interesting stories, yet I don’t see industrial production of fake shrouds.

  29. daveb of wellington nz
    April 21, 2015 at 4:39 am

    OK: The only argument you seem able to muster for a pre-70 AD compilation of the gospels is that the death of Peter and Paul are omitted in Luke’s book of the Acts. I have already given reasons why this is an inadequate argument.

    “The Gospels are stories about Jesus, not the problems (greater or smaller) of the early church.” Yes, but you’re not reading the sub-text, and you are not applying any principles of form-criticism. We could equally say that in Paul, his epistles are directed at admonishing his converts to follow the Christian way of life, yet the tensions between the Jewish and Hellenistic wings of the early church are very much to the forefront and are frequently mentioned, Luke recalling them in Acts. These tensions are clearly in the past when we come to the gospels, which are generally addressed to a fully Hellenised church.

    The consensus seems to be that Mark’s gospel was probably written between 64-70 AD. This is in agreement with a tradition that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter. In Mk ch 13, Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple, but it still seems to be standing at the time of writing, and this leads on to a discussion of the end-time when the Son of Man will come in glory. Matthew and Luke, depending as they do on Mark, were clearly written at a later time. Matthew’s “prophecy” of the destruction of the temple seems to already have occurred. The “abomination of desolation” is a phrase adopted from Daniel which refers to Antiochus Epiphanes erecting a statue of Zeus Olympus there, and is equated with a similar subsequent desecration of the temple by the Romans, which seems to have already occurred.

    I cannot see how you can call the Parousia a pseudo-theory. If everything was going to come to an early end, there would seem to be little point in leaving any kind of early record for any posterity. Clearly when the Parousia did not happen as expected, this perception changed.

    The consensus of all main-stream New Testament scholars is that the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were all written at some time after 70 AD. Your hypothesis that they were set down before this time is singular to yourself and finds no good support from elsewhere. I suggest that the literate character of your modern western experience blinds you to the strength of oral traditions in pre-literate societies, which traditions and pericopes formed the basis of the original gospel sources.

    • April 21, 2015 at 6:22 am

      Dave:

      OK: The only argument you seem able to muster for a pre-70 AD compilation of the gospels is that the death of Peter and Paul are omitted in Luke’s book of the Acts. I have already given reasons why this is an inadequate argument.

      You have given potential reasons why Paul’s death is omitted, a HYPOTHESIS (very weak) invented to defend a priori assumption that Gospels were written after 70 AD. But this is turning everything upside down.

      Meanwhile Acts end this way (28:30-31, NIV):

      For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!

      See? Those words would have been extremely bizarre, had they been written after Paul’s death, a fact well known to the readers of Acts. That’s why the so-called New Testament scholars produce impressively sophisticated “justifications” why author of Acts decided to put an end here (a sufficiently capable idiot may produce extremely complicated and advanced justifications for pure absurds to sound “wise”). I don’t claim that dating Acts to 62 AD is absolute -yet given this passage, it is a very solid evidence. It is a normal practice to date ancient text by looking for known facts which are mentioned there, and which are not mentioned there, giving chronological boundaries.

      And there are more arguments to support pre-70 dating of the Gospels (although not as strong). For example, only John, writing after Peter’s death mentions that he was the the disciple that cut High Priest servant’s ear -which suggest that the Synoptics omitted this to protect (still alive) Peter.

      cannot see how you can call the Parousia a pseudo-theory. If everything was going to come to an early end, there would seem to be little point in leaving any kind of early record for any posterity. Clearly when the Parousia did not happen as expected, this perception changed.

      Yes, this is pseudo-theory. Nonsense invented to justify claimed non-existence of Gospels before 70.

      First of all the Gospels were not written merely for posterity, but contrary, as a written record for contemporaries.

      Secondly: The apocalyptic believes of any group are no reason at all for this group to abstain from writing down (and propagating in a written form) their views. This is just pure nonsense invented by some wise guys, completely detached from the every day experience (see for example Jehovah’s Witnesses and their production of literature).

      Matthew’s “prophecy” of the destruction of the temple seems to already have occurred. The “abomination of desolation” is a phrase adopted from Daniel which refers to Antiochus Epiphanes erecting a statue of Zeus Olympus there, and is equated with a similar subsequent desecration of the temple by the Romans, which seems to have already occurred.

      There is nothing in the New Testament that this has already occured. The Jesus’ eschatological speach is strongly derived (almost copycat) from Daniel, who predicts destruction of the Temple:

      Dn 9:26 NIV After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

      Of course the Anointed One (and the Son of Man), according to Jesus is Himself. He will be put to death, and after that, the Temple will be razed down, as Daniel prophesized. And that’s all. As this eventually happened, modern so-called scholars claim that this was prophecy ex eventu. disregarding Daniel completely (because it is inconvenient for them). But this purely ideological stance.

      I suggest that the literate character of your modern western experience blinds you to the strength of oral traditions in pre-literate societies, which traditions and pericopes formed the basis of the original gospel sources.

      But this was not pre-literate society, contrary this was relatively highly literate society, and the message could have been put to write almost immediately. No obstacles there.

      The consensus of all main-stream New Testament scholars is that the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were all written at some time after 70 AD.

      The consensus… the worthless consensus, based not on the hard data, but on the authority of the scholarship “priests” and intimidation (if you support dating before 70 AD then you are not a scientisct but religious fanatic).

      I recommend you one thing: read some scholarly works on the New Testament, then read some apologetic works (without a priori prejudice for neither group), compare their arguments and decide which are more rational and make more common sense.

  30. daveb of wellington nz
    April 21, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    I am rather more informed on New Testament scholarship than you seem prepared to give me credit. But on the contrary, much of your argument seems to stem more from religious zeal than objective evidence. You are concerned that a later compilation of the gospels compromises the argument for their factual reliability, whereas their reliability easily rests on their mutual consistency and the strength and integrity of oral tradition in 1st century Middle Eastern cultures. It is not surprising that Matthew places the words of Daniel in the mouth of Jesus; Matthew’s detailed knowledge of the scriptures pervades his entire gospel. Your evaluation of the consensus of NT scholarship as worthless, is your own personal subjective judgement having no good standing, and as you say leaves you open to a charge of fanatacism rather than demonstrating objectivity.

    I have nothing more to say on the matter.

    • April 21, 2015 at 4:04 pm

      Your evaluation of the consensus of NT scholarship as worthless, is your own personal subjective judgement having no good standing, and as you say leaves you open to a charge of fanatacism rather than demonstrating objectivity

      Yes Dave -because it shows how this “consensus” looks like. They do not have any conclusive evidence for dating Gospels post 70, yet they claim it as a fact. You claim the Gospels were written before 70 AD -you are religious fanatic. You claim the Gosples were written after 70 AD -you are “objective”.

      Similar issue with the Shroud. You dispute 1988 C14 tests, and maintain it is authentic -you are mindless fanatic. You claim that 1988 C14 tests ultimately exposed the Shroud as a fake -you are “scientific”.

      This is a mafia way of handling things…

      You are concerned that a later compilation of the gospels compromises the argument for their factual reliability

      I didn’t claim that. My point is entirely different. It is about how easy they would have been to undermine, had they been written either before or after 70 AD.

      If they were written before 70 AD, when the Temple stood still, there were Jewish authorities, many witnesses alive -then claims that Gospel image of Jesus has been fabricated by the disciples would be virtually pointless case.

      But if the Gospels were written after 70 AD, after destruction of the Temple, wiping out the system, destruction of archives, and when there were few witnesses alive -then the critics have much easier job in claiming that the Gospels were late, fabricated documents, with no reference to historical Jesus. That’s what the critics need, and that’s why they insist on post 70 AD dating. For me, it is largely irrelevant, whether the Gospels were written before or after 70 AD they still may be true. But for them, it is crucial.

    • April 21, 2015 at 4:14 pm

      I am rather more informed on New Testament scholarship than you seem prepared to give me credit.

      Dave, I am sure you are more informed on NT scholarship -but, in my opinion, you still have not released how corrupt and intimidated by the faulty ideas this society is… No disrespect.

      I once also thought -dating the Gospels before 70 AD? Impossible! But the more I read, compared sceptical arguments with those of apologists -without a bias -I suddenly realised the latter are far stronger and more rational.

      But on the contrary, much of your argument seems to stem more from religious zeal than objective evidence.

      Can you point that?

      • Angel
        April 21, 2015 at 6:51 pm

        Elaine Pagels (Christian scholar from Princeton) in her book “Beyond Belief,” referencing the dates for the gospel accounts, wrote the following:

        “In 64 C.E a great fire devastated Rome. The Gospel of Mark, written around this time, makes it clear that Mark’s faith community may have suffered…”

        “Matthew written (about 75 C.E.), then roughly ten years later, Luke’s (about 85 C.E.).”

        “The Gospel of John, probably written between 90 and 120 C.E…”

        http://www.extremelysmart.com/yankee/03i-beyond%20belief.php

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: