Alan Whanger vs Hugh Farey on Premier Christian Radio

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…

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!

“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.

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.

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.