What progress have we made? Proposed scenarios for the resurrection from John Jackson, Teddi Pappas (in this blog), Mark Antonacci, Bob Rucker, and Frank Tipler all include some form of radiation . . .
It is like the itch in the middle of your back in the middle of the night; that itch that won’t go away. The Mad Hatter has asked Alice why a raven is like a writing desk:
- “Have you guessed the riddle yet?” the Hatter said, turning to Alice.
- “No, I give up,” Alice replied: “what’s the answer?”
- “I haven’t the slightest idea,” said the Hatter
Nor did STURP, it seems. It’s all in a couple of sentences from “A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions.”
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry.”
Then a few sentences down.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
That was then 1981. What progress have we made? Proposed scenarios for the resurrection from John Jackson, Teddi Pappas (in this blog), Mark Antonacci, Bob Rucker, and Frank Tipler all include some form of radiation or projection, as some called it in 1981, that makes the image on the cloth.
Now it is 2023, like in a politician’s nightmare, the tapes have surfaced. We have the tape recordings from the final meeting of STURP in 1981 at shroud.com. Better yet, they have been reviewed by Hugh Farey. And from the depths of Farey’s review, some fascinating details emerge:
The next question referred to a slide shown earlier, to the effect that the Vignon vaporograph and the Pellicori contact hypothesis were good candidates for the image formation mechanism, but that “projection” had not been included. The questioner wondered why not, even though it might imply a supernatural element, since we had been told that even Black Forest elves could be considered a valid hypothesis. Larry Schwalbe said it was his slide, and a reflection of his own personal summary of what he thought at the moment, and not necessarily definitive. Al Adler, “the little Jewish boy,” was more forthright. “We haven’t ruled out projection mechanisms. The problem is that we can’t make them consistent with the chemistry. Projection mechanisms usually involve ionising radiation type mechanisms. That would not give us the chemistry of this thing.” That was the essence of the problem. “We know some good ideas about the physics, we know some good ideas about the chemistry. We don’t know how to put the two together in a simple way.”
Ray Rogers said that Joan Janney had apparently done numerous trials involving “different kinds of radiant energy, falling on various kinds of cloth under all kinds of circumstances, and what you find out, with these projection-type things is, as Al said, the chemistry is entirely different. When you hit a cloth with a highly energetic radiant energy flow, UV light, for example, in an intense burst, it blows the surface of the cloth off. It’s almost like you’ve detonated an explosive on the surface of the cloth; it puts a shockwave through the cloth and sort of powders it. Infrared causes it to pop like popcorn. Nothing that she tried, made the cloth colour the way the image appears. All she did was make it disappear.”
He went on to say that he thought he had heard, in the question, an implication that the scientists were ignoring the supernatural. “We can’t observe the supernatural. If you can give us a matched litter of volunteers, who will volunteer to be resurrected and let us do experiments on them, then we’ve got something to go on. Otherwise we don’t.”
The temptation to imagine the supernatural as an observable process can be strong. In doing so, we risk venturing into the realm of speculative physics and chemistry, crafting bespoke mechanisms for divine intervention that defy natural laws. This can lead to imagining phenomena like perfectly vertical radiation (or projection, if you will), mechanically transparent bodies, or theoretical constructs like wormholes or higher dimensions– all made up to explain enigmatic events. While this search for explanations may seem inevitable, it’s crucial to acknowledge the inherent limitations of our scientific framework when grappling with concepts beyond its scope.
If God can resurrect Jesus, why does he need a complex process to enable Jesus to leave the tomb? And why does God need radiation to make an image on a burial cloth? Why not just do so miraculously?
Are we not looking for pots of gold; why else would there be rainbows?
Hi, Dan,
You ask: “If God can resurrect Jesus, why does he need a complex process to enable Jesus to leave the tomb?”
Well, the way you phrased your question presumes that the resurrection was not a “complex” process but that Jesus’ leaving His tomb was. I would suggest that we remove the word “complex” from the equation. Why? Because on a fundamental level, every single thing in the universe is a “complex process.” Everything.
To understand something on some level is not the same as being able to recreate it.
There are the complex things that we have never understood. There are the complex things that we have come to understand. There are the complex things that we will come to understand. And, there are the complex things that we are never going to understand.
You then ask: “[W]hy does God need radiation to make an image on a burial cloth? Why not just do so miraculously?”
This is a false dichotomy here. God could use radiation in a miraculous way. And, (as I am strongly inclined to believe) the radiation is not “of this world” but a supernatural form of radiation. The Bible tells us that God is Light. Well, I don’t know about you, but I am not aware of any natural forms of light that are capable of creating the entire universe and beyond and which are capable of creating life. So, this tells us that the type of “Light” that God is is a supernatural type of light. Light is energy. Energy is needed for Life. It is all connected. It all makes perfect sense to someone who recognizes and acknowledges that there is more to the natural realm that we know.
I have included, below, some relevant pearls of wisdom that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has Sherlock Holmes express which I find to be particularly relevant to analyzing Shroud evidence in the context of Old Testament prophecy, the historical reliability of the Gospels, Jesus’ pre-crucifixion claims and the behavior of Christians after Jesus’ crucifixion. Here they are:
“There’s nothing more elusive than an obvious fact.”
“The more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be.”
“You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.”
“The ideal reasoner would, when he has once been shown a single fact in all its bearings, deduce from it not only all the chain of events which led up to it, but also all the results which would follow it.”
“Intuitions are not to be ignored, John [Watson.]. They represent data processed too fast for the conscious mind to comprehend.”
“A man may be very dogmatic in his opposition to dogma.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Well, I am a very firm believer that God did, indeed, create the image on the burial cloth miraculously. And, I am rationally justified in this belief. Why? Because there are numerous criteria that the body image on the Shroud meets which the futile attempts by highly motivated people (who delight in the prospect of debunking peoples’ beliefs in supernatural matters) fail to reproduce in their very limited attempts to reproduce a FACET of the body image. But, to reproduce just a facet of the body image is not that stunning of an accomplishment. Reproduce ALL of the facets of the body image and then there will be something to talk about! Until then, well . . . so what??? Nothing has been “debunked.” So, back to the drawing board for a very useful “fool’s errand.” It’s a “fool’s errand” in the sense that it is a fool who thinks that they will reproduce something that has all of the indicia of a miracle —from numerous perspectives. It is a fool who thinks that Almighty God would set out to produce a miracle that simple mortals could replicate. It is the same foolishness of Adam and Eve which brought about the downfall of Man. The apple does not fall far from the tree.
But, why are these “fool’s errands” so important and useful to Shroud scholarship? Because, as various very intelligent and clever individuals put their skill and efforts into attempting to replicate the body image on the Shroud, when they fail, they end up excluding the (apparently) best, most viable hypothesis that they could think of! So, please, give us more and more of these attempts to replicate the body image! It just helps us more quickly scientifically confirm —through the process of eliminating natural explanations— that the body image’s derivation is from the Divine.
God will preserve our free-will while giving us enough information for the willing to be drawn to Him. God has no use for those who are repelled by Him or who wish to distance themselves from Him. God will show us enough so that we can rationally proclaim our justified belief and trust in Him and His many messages to us, but He leaves enough of a mystery in the hopes that we can more fully understand and appreciate His intelligence, His power and His greatness.
Truth should be recognizable from both a macroscopic level as well as a microscopic level. Information which might not be compelling in isolation can become powerful when aggregated with other corroborating/confirming information that weaves the web which captures Truth.
The Truth is there —whether you look for it, or not, and regardless of whether you see it or not. It is there.
Another delightful Conan Doyle quote is: “To a great mind, nothing is little.” The Devil lurks in the details. But, God is findable in the details. Another Sherlockian phrase that is apt here is that “it’s so overt it’s covert” —like Occam’s razor —but without the arbitrary limitation that it be confined to the natural realm.
Best regards,
Teddi
Regarding the “pots of gold” and “looking for rainbows,” I would say this, Dan: unlike with other religions, Christianity gives us the pot of gold AND the rainbow. The “pot of gold” is living in eternal paradise with God and all of the others who love God. And, we do have a rainbow ore treasure map that leads us there. That rainbow is comprised of information from first-hand and second-hand sources of for the information that we believe in. Then, there’s the oral and written Church history and corroborating historical data from secular sources. And, then there’s the evidence from the Shroud of Turin.
When I was around 5 years old, I remember seeing a spectacular sight while looking out of the rear window of the car as I was sitting in the back seat. It wasn’t my habit to look out the back window, but I did. I saw not just one rainbow but 3 intersecting rainbows. It was quite a glorious sight. A few years ago, I saw 2 intersecting rainbows, but I have never again seen 3. But, as your comment has caused me to now think of rainbows, God and the Shroud, I am seeing 3 rainbows intersect again –albeit figuratively, this time. The first rainbow is the God’s Word from the Gospels and Biblical prophecy. The second rainbow is the body image on the Shroud. The third rainbow consists of Christ’s blood on the Shroud. This “Trinity of Rainbows” will, indeed, take us to the pot of gold. We did not have to concoct these rainbows, they are there by design. The “pot of gold” awaits those who follow where they lead.
Best regards,
Teddi
Also, why are these newly acquired and released tapes that were given to Barrie Schwortz “a politician’s nightmare?” I’ve listened to Heller’s, Adler’s and Schwalbe’s talks and they were FANTASTIC! I have not had a chance to listen to all of the segments, but it’s hardly a secret that there were disagreements even among Shroud scientists with regard to various hypotheses concerning body image formation as well as other matters. So what? That’s just evidence that we have honest brokers that we’re dealing with. If there were some big conspiracy going on, wouldn’t Jewish STURP members like Barrie Schwortz and Alan Adler and I think there were 1 or 2 others –have blown the lid on this??? Of course they would have. Moreover, wouldn’t have members like Sam Pellicori and Larry Schwalbe (who have/had, respectively) hypotheses that the body image was produced naturally, have blown the lid on hinky practices/methods being used –if such bad methods were used for STURP’s scholarship? Of course they would have –but, of course, they haven’t. Why? Because honest differences of opinion can exist among those who “shoot straight” with their findings.
If there had been something damaging in those tapes, we can be certain of one thing: Hugh Farey would have found it and he would have paraded it across the internet already. A Shroud scholar friend of mine has read both of Hugh’s quick recaps and he wondered why Hugh even bothered to do this write-up since “there was no ‘there’ there.”
This is a big nothing-burger. So, pass me a French fry.
Best,
Teddi
Teddi, thanks for your thorough reply. Much to think about. But one little thing caught my eye; you wrote, ” It just helps us more quickly scientifically confirm —through the process of eliminating natural explanations— that the body image’s derivation is from the Divine.”
That logic seems flawed because it relies on the assumption that the lack of a natural explanation automatically suggests a divine one, which seems a lot like the Gotg fallacy. Scientifically, such a conclusion is not acceptable because it steps outside the bounds of the scientific method, which relies on empirical evidence, testability, and falsifiability.
Frankly, we may never find an explanation and all that means is it miraculous or not miraculous. Maybe if you dropped “scientifically confirm” we could go forward from there towards a statement we could both agree on.
Hi Dan,
The “God fallacy,” also known as the “God of the gaps” fallacy is not at all what I am arguing. The God of the Gaps fallacy is where when something (especially a phenomenon) is presently unexplainable, one just says that “God did it.”
But, that is not at all what I am arguing. There is a MASSIVE case to be made that the body image on the Shroud is supernatural. But, in order to properly evaluate the evidence, one cannot just look at one piece of evidence. No, as we all know (or should know), CONTEXT is everything.
It is important to evaluate the historical reliability of the Gospels –and this is done, in part, by examining what secular historians had to write about concerning various things that are mentioned in the Gospels. It is, also, important to examine the manuscript transmission process. It is, also, important to examine the Greek wording of particularly important information in the Gospels. Also, it is important to examine Old Testament prophecies, as well.
Then, it is critically important that we examine the repeated falsifiable claims that Jesus made while He was alive –that He would be put to death and that He would rise on the third day.
Then, we must look at the scientific, medical and forensic evidence on the Shroud –to tell us what the Shroud is, whether it truly covered a crucified man, and to see if the identity of this crucified man can be determined. Moreover, the historical evidence is important, too –in order to explain why an ancient burial shroud with an inexplicable body image on it has been preserved all of these years –and without a body wrapped in it.
All of this information fits together to make a really compelling argument that the body image was formed supernaturally –and that there was a purpose for this. What better evidence for the supernatural than to have evidence for it by way of a physical piece of evidence that contains so many peculiarities that it hurts the brain to conceive of how all of them can exist but-for a supernatural occurrence.
The scientific, medical and forensic evidence is critical in telling us what the situation is with regard to the physical aspects of the cloth and what can be known about it. That tells us what the many criteria are that someone would need to try and replicate in a cloth –if we are to have a reason to think that such a cloth was created within the natural realm.
Don’t forget –proof goes both ways.
Also, I think that it is vitally important that people do not commit the fallacy of “Science of the Gaps” –whereby it is presumed that, given enough time, man will come up with a scientific explanation for every thing/phenomenon. This, too, requires a tremendous amount of faith.
So, again, context is vital when analyzing Shroud evidence. And, there is the aspect of reasonableness in terms of what one thinks about it. Given the context of the Shroud evidence, it is powerfully reasonable to think that it is God’s gift of evidence for the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. As scientists and other experimenters keep attempting to replicate the body image and fail to (on a microscopical level), they help to scientifically evidence a miracle through the process of elimination. If the natural possibilities are excluded, then you tell me what is reasonable to believe about the Shroud evidence –at least until something better comes along.
We don’t live our lives with perfect evidence of anything other than our own consciousness. As such, we are forced to examine evidence and to determine if it is reliable or not, and to base our beliefs upon what we have determined.
So, for the naysayers, the current state of affairs is that until science can provide evidence of a natural image formation that meets the multiple pieces of very strange criteria that we see with regard to the images on the Shroud, then it is not evidenced-based to believe that the image was naturally produced. But, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to believe that the body image was supernaturally produced.
Best regards,
Teddi
CLARIFICATION: I very clumsily worded something (amidst my many typographical errors –apologies.) I wrote in my first post: “It all makes perfect sense to someone who recognizes and acknowledges that there is more to the natural realm that we know.”
What I meant to say was this: It all makes perfect sense to someone who recognizes and acknowledges that there is more than just the material and natural realm. A scientifically evidenced miracle like the body image on the Shroud gives us the very best reason to believe that the supernatural realm exists.
Ah, Arthur Conan-Doyle. I was not familiar with one of the quotations Teddi… er… quoted, so I had to Google it. It comes from letter to a friend, explaining what he thought of religion. Here’s a smidgin:
“I cannot be bigoted, my dear boy, when I say from the bottom of my heart that I respect every good Catholic and every good Protestant, and that I recognise that each of these forms of faith has been a powerful instrument in the hands of that inscrutable Providence which rules all things. Just as in the course of history one finds that the most far-reaching and admirable effects may proceed from a crime; so in religion, although a creed be founded upon an entirely inadequate conception of the Creator and His ways, it may none the less be the very best practical thing for the people and age which have adopted it. But if it is right for those to whom it is intellectually satisfying to adopt it, it is equally so for those to whom it is not, to protest against it, until by this process the whole mass of mankind gets gradually leavened, and pushed a little further upon their slow upward journey.
Catholicism is the more thorough. Protestantism is the more reasonable. Protestantism adapts itself to modern civilisation. Catholicism expects civilisation to adapt itself to it. Folk climb from the one big branch to the other big branch, and think they have made a prodigious change, when the main trunk is rotten beneath them, and both must in their present forms be involved sooner or later in a common ruin. The movement of human thought, though slow, is still in the direction of truth, and the various religions which man sheds as he advances (each admirable in its day) will serve, like buoys dropped down from a sailing vessel, to give the rate and direction of his progress.
But how do I know what is truth, you ask? I don’t. But I know particularly well what isn’t. And surely that is something to have gained. It isn’t true that the great central Mind that planned all things is capable of jealousy or of revenge, or of cruelty or of injustice. These are human attributes; and the book which ascribes them to the Infinite must be human also. It isn’t true that the laws of Nature have been capriciously disturbed, that snakes have talked, that women have been turned to salt, that rods have brought water out of rocks. You must in honesty confess that if these things were presented to us when we were, adults for the first time, we should smile at them. It isn’t true that the Fountain of all common sense should punish a race for a venial offence committed by a person long since dead, and then should add to the crass injustice by heaping the whole retribution upon a single innocent scapegoat. Can you not see all the want of justice and logic, to say nothing of the want of mercy, involved in such a conception? Can you not see it, Bertie? How can you blind yourself to it! Take your eyes away from the details for a moment, and look at this root idea of the predominant Faith. Is the general conception of it consistent with infinite wisdom and mercy? If not, what becomes of the dogmas, the sacraments, the whole scheme which is founded upon this sand-bank? Courage, my friend! At the right moment all will be laid aside, as the man whose strength increases lays down the crutch which has been a good friend to him in his weakness. But his changes won’t be over then. His hobble will become a walk, and his walk a run. There is no finality–CAN be none since the question concerns the infinite. All this, which appears too advanced to you to-day, will seem reactionary and conservative a thousand years hence.”
Hi, Hugh,
In the passage that you quoted for us, there is the word “dogma” –but, I’m guessing that you think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle only used this word in one writing ever –and, thus, assumed that I had, er, horribly misquoted him.😂
Here’s the wording used in the Conan Doyle passage that you provided for us that contained the word “dogma:”
“If not, what becomes of the dogmas, the sacraments, the whole scheme which is founded upon this sand-bank?”
You are correct that my Conan Doyle quote bears no resemblance to this. But, that is only because my quote is independent from the passage that you quoted.
Here, I did some quick digging and found where the Conan Doyle quote that I had found from the internet was actually taken from:
“It is notorious, as you say, that an unbeliever may be as bigoted as any of the orthodox, and that A MAN MAY BE VERY DOGMATIC IN HIS OPPOSITION TO DOGMA. Such men are the real enemies of free thought. If anything could persuade me to turn traitor to my reason, it would, for example, be the blasphemous and foolish pictures displayed in some of the agnostic journals.”
https://sirconandoyle.com/home-15th-october-1881/
Best regards,
Teddi
Another interesting thing about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle –as he was busy criticizing Christianity, he still very much so believed in the supernatural realm. After all, he was well known for being a “spiritualist” –with his belief that the living on earth could communicate with the “dead” through a medium. If the dead were really dead, how could they communicate? Well, that is a tacit acknowledgement by Conan Doyle that there is life after death. (Because how else could one interpret that?) So, while Conan Doyle had his issues with Christianity, it seems like he preserved the parts that he could not bring himself to deny, but he denied the parts that he could not bring himself to humbly submit to.
Very interesting.
Hi Teddi.
The Gospels were written several decades after the events they describe. Their primary purpose is to convey theological truths and narratives rather than to provide detailed, historically verifiable accounts as understood in modern historiography. This makes them less reliable as sources of scientific evidence.
Raymond E. Brown, was a Catholic priest and professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago, who is widely considered one of the most important New Testament scholars of the 20th century. He argued that the empty tomb story has been embellished and can be interpreted in different ways. Other significant recent scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan have argued that the empty tomb narratives are, in fact, later additions to scripture.
In a study that received significant attention, only two in three American adults say they believe the biblical accounts of the physical resurrection of Jesus are completely accurate, according to the 2020 State of Theology from Lifeway Research, an Evangelical research firm. One in 5 (20%) disagree, and 14% are not sure.
Science relies on empirical evidence, experimentation, and repeatable observations. Scriptural texts, while valuable for understanding cultural, historical, and religious contexts, do not offer this type of empirical data.
As for me, I believe in the Resurrection. It is something I take on faith. I also, on the same basis believe that the tomb was empty.
As for thinking that the Shroud covered a human body, I think that is possible. But I don’t think we have yet built a case for authenticity. We are failing everyone by arguing that the evidence is sufficient for being decisive. It is not.
Hi, Dan,
I think that it is important to recognize how science is useful with regard to Shroud studies and proving beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. Science cannot replicate events which are unique. And, technically, one could argue that even with conducting basic scientific experiments, there is always the possibility that some unknown element might be a factor that can prevent reproducibility.
This is, undoubtedly, why scientists often see that a particular experiment (such as giving medicine to a person) can be replicated countless times –and, most of the time things will be just fine (as expected.) But, then, there will be a situation at some point (which might occur less than 1% of the time) where there is a different result. Even under the best of circumstances, there is always a looming question of whether everything –100%– is the same when repeating an experiment.
With Shroud evidence, science can tell us what is seen on the cloth itself, and it can give us ideas as to how it could have come about. Scientific experiments can then attempt to reproduce the images on the cloth. But, again, reproducing one thing is not the same as reproducing the Shroud, itself. The big deal is for a human to succeed in creating a body image on a linen cloth that has ALL of the remarkable characteristics that the Shroud does. And, this needs to be accomplished if one is to credibly maintain that such peculiar features could have been created either naturally (no evidence so far of another such cloth in history that meets all of the necessary criteria) or by human hands.
Given the context the surrounds the Shroud, either the two aforementioned suggestions are the answer or the 3rd –that the body image on the Shroud was created supernaturally.
As for the late dating of the Gospels that you (and many liberal Bible scholars suggest), I (and others) disagree with such late dates.
The Family 35 Colophons are subscripts that exist on approximately 150 early manuscripts of the Gospels. What is important about these subscripts is that the contain the date of the writing in terms of how many years after the ascension of Christ. Between the information that is derived from these dates from the Family 35 Colophons and the information that is derived from Church Fathers, there is excellent evidence for the dating of the Gospels to be as follows: Matthew: 40-41 AD, Mark: 42-43 AD, Luke 48-49 AD, John 64-65 AD. All of these dates are earlier than the earliest range of dates given by liberal scholars.
You mention Bart Ehrman as a scholar. Sure, he’s a Bible scholars –but he’s also the much-adored Pied Piper for atheists and agnostics.
I totally disagree with you that the case for authenticity has not yet been built. And, nobody is being “failed” with being told that the evidence is decisive –because it is. The problem is that you and other skeptics want 100% absolute evidence –but such evidence does not exist for anything beyond our own consciousness. So, you are creating a standard that is impossible to reach.
People make huge life-decisions based upon very paltry evidence. For example, a doctor tells someone that they need to have open-heart surgery performed (where they could easily die on the table), and people just do this based upon what their doctor says. That is what I have said before –even with scientists, there is a certain amount of trust that is required, because people have been known to perpetrate frauds. The more people that are involved in a project, the less likely the fraud can occur which can remain hidden. People talk.
But, the fundamental evidence has been presented, and it is fantastic. But, again, the Devil is the details. And, God is in the details, too! So, as you and Hugh and others persist in performing post-mortems on every little piece of Shroud evidence, well, I’m gonna join in and present “the rest of the story.”
As I dig deeply into many issues concerning the Shroud, I am exploring new ideas and revisiting old ideas. I agree that some hypotheses need to be axed because they might not hold up to strict scrutiny. But, that being said, that does not mean that the case for the Shroud’s authenticity comes crumbling down. ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is just a matter of refining arguments and letting go of things that were never particularly necessary, anyway.
All is still very, very good, and we can still breathe with ease and confidence that the Shroud of Turin is authentic and that it is, in essence, like a Rosetta Stone for the supernatural realm in that it unlocks critical information that humanity, like Doubting Thomas, has been desperately wanting.
Best regards,
Teddi
36:17 and beyond is of interest in terms of the dating of the Gospels.
[Note: Moderation comment: This is pretty much a one hour long apologetic entitled “The Best and Worst Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus by John Tors”. Rather than allow a direct link because so much of the lecture is not related to the Shroud or this posting, I am not going to provide a direct link. But you will find it if you goto YouTube and enter the title I have provided or if you enter “HDox3tNmMKc”. Here are some details: It is three years old and has been viewed 186 times. It is respectful even to the Jesus Seminar and similar scholars it mentions. I find that it is interesting but not convincing. You may feel otherwise. If you have comments please direct them to the comment section in YouTube. Thanks, Teddi, for posting this. I may mention it in a future posting that I’m working on that deals with the nature of resurrection as a subject that applies to the Shroud of Turin
John Tors does comment on the Gospel dates at about 39 minutes if you want to jump to that spot. He makes the mistake of calling people who disagree with him on this subject liberals. — Dan ]
Hi Teddi.
What are you suggesting when mention that liberals may date the Gospels differently. Professor Gary Habermas (favorably inclined to support Shroud research) a department head at the very-conservative Liberty University puts the date of the Gospels at 1) Mark as the earliest Gospel, written around 65-70 AD. 2) Matthew: Dated to approximately 70-85 AD. 3) Luke he estimates to have been written around 80-90 AD. And 4) John thought to be the latest of the four Gospels, around 90-100 AD. I think Habermas will tell you that his estimates are pretty much in line with the vast majority of biblical scholars, both liberal and conservative.
NT Wright, another conservative scholar puts Mark at the same time, brackets Matthew and Luke at 70-90 and John at 90-110. Pretty close and very much in line with the vast majority of liberal and conservative biblical scholars.
The suggestion that the Family 35 Colophons point to much earlier dates for the Gospels is not widely accepted. It is a small sample from the Byzantine text families and the colophons are not well understood. Only a small group of scholars see these manuscripts as supporting earlier dating arguments,
As for throwing in the fact that a certain scholar is Atheist seems a tad bit ad hom. He agrees with Habermas and Wright, by-the-way.
Hi, Dan,
Just wondering if you are going post my previous comment that you held in abeyance pending your watching the YouTube video concerning the best and worst arguments for the Resurrection by engineer and current pastor John Tors.
I don’t think that it is at all an ad hominem attack to mention that a certain scholar is an atheist or an agnostic. After all, calling someone an atheist or an agnostic is not an insult, per se –especially when that is what they call themselves –and Ehrman proudly proclaims himself to be an agnostic –although he used to be an evangelical that graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary.
Knowing which way a person is biased is critically important. Why? So that one can be aware of which claims they make are self-serving –and then one can subject those claims to a higher degree of scrutiny since it’s not exactly a secret that people have been known to manipulate or even concoct information to further their own arguments.
To not know a person’s biases is to “hide the proverbial ball” –giving them the appearance of neutrality when they might be discussing a topic which they are far from being actually neutral about. Of course, one can be totally biased yet still tell the Truth about things. So, there is that, also. But, we need to know which way a person might be prone to skewing the evidence that they present.
The evidence that John Tors presented in that video that I linked to about the much earlier dating of the Gospels deserves to be debated on its merits –not by just bringing up famous people who disagree with him. And, the merits of an argument are independent of how many people agree with the merits. It’s not uncommon for the masses to be wrong about important matters. Galileo, anyone?
I don’t know if there are arguments or evidence that can defeat what Tors was saying about the Family 35 Colophons. But, how do you get around Gospel manuscripts that have dates on them –unless, perhaps, you show them to be forgeries? So, I am certainly open to listening to the merits –but, again, it’s not just one such manuscript that was found –it’s quite a few.
And, by the way, Ehrman and I and all (sane) Christians agree on something that is very important –that Jesus of Nazareth did, indeed, exist as during the time period that secular and nonsecular historical evidence tells us He existed. I was cheering Ehrman on in the debate that he had against Robert Price with regard to whether Jesus actually existed or not. Get out the popcorn for that one!
An interesting thing about Ehrman is that he has publicly admitted the reason why he abandoned Christianity. It was, quite oddly, not for any sophisticated reason or reasons as to why God does not exist. It was because he could not reconcile the Christian God with the Problem of Suffering. I do not consider that to be a very compelling or very solid reason to think that God does not exist. It might be a reason for some people to be upset or angry or disappointed with God. But, it seems to me to be a rather half-baked reason to go from being a Christian to an agnostic. And, in saying that, I do not want to downplay the very deeply felt question of how can a good God allow horrible suffering to exist in this world. But, just as it does not make sense for a child to not believe in their parent’s existence just because the parent is behaving horribly to the child (from the child’s perspective), abandoning the Christian God over the problem of Suffering makes no sense to me, either.
I have spoken to many atheists and agnostics and I have become friends with quite a few atheists over the past 4 years or so, and I get the feeling that the roots of their Christianity were rather shallow. Enthusiasm, without more, does not mean that one’s belief in God will be deeply rooted. I’ll say something that will, undoubtedly, be called “circular reasoning” –and, perhaps, it might be –but, perhaps it really isn’t. Perhaps there is a lot of Truth to this: the shallow roots of an atheist’s or agnostic’s prior Christian beliefs is evidenced by the fact that they are no longer Christians. While that seems circular, I don’t think that it exactly, necessarily is.
An example of circular reasoning is: the Bible is True because it says that it is True. In this scenario, there is no evidence outside the claim. But, with the “shallow roots” scenario, we know that people who are deeply rooted in their faith are not likely to leave their faith –why would they if they are deeply rooted in it? I will grant that it is possible that if one were to discover something bombshell evidence that shows one’s faith to be a fraud then, okay, that could be a reason to pull up even deep roots. But, to me, the Problem of Suffering has more to do with our not having a full comprehension for how God operates.
And, spoiler alert, Ehrman beat the pants of Price in that debate. If memory serves, Ehrman even wrote a book about the historical Jesus. He is married to a still-Christian woman.
Best regards,
Teddi
Hi, Dan and Hugh,
Dan, you refer in your post to Hugh’s mentioning Al Adler in a quote. In Hugh’s quote, Hugh states: “Al Adler, ‘the little Jewish boy,’ was more forthright.” There is an implication here that one or more STURP members may have harbored anti-Semitic attitudes and treated Adler in a disrespectful was –as “the little Jewish boy.”
I think that the record needs to be straightened out on what is meant by that. Seems like I have heard Adler jokingly refer to himself as a “good Jewish boy” being involved in this investigation –so, perhaps that is where this is derived from. But, the way that this was phrased by both Dan and Hugh, this can easily be perceived as one or more STURP members being anti-Semitic. And, from what I have read about and heard stories about (from some STURP members), two of the most beloved and treasured members of the STURP team are Barrie Schwortz and the late Al Adler –both Jews.
So, it would be good if we could please clarify this situation as the implication from what Hugh and you are leveling against, seemingly, one or more of the Christian STURP members is quite serious.
All the best,
Teddi
Teddi, I think you have your answer from Hugh In 25 years of Shroud of Turin research, I have never seen any signs of antisemitism, anti-Muslim feelings, expressions of prejudice towards any other world religion or Atheism (which I think should be capitalized, also out of respect, even if the The New York Times Style Manual says, “Nouns that end in “-ism” are generally not capitalized unless they are derived from proper nouns (for example, Buddhism but Darwinism).)
BTW: I’ve been called a liberal, anti-authenticist and a naysayer.
Absolutely. The whole tone of the Conference, apart from the initial alarm about the book ‘Verdict on the Shroud,’ is one of respect and good humour. Even when individuals have come to different scientific conclusions, they still seem to have gathered in great affection for each other, and the reference to Al Adler’s Jewishness was not at all malicious. In this context, Adler’s religion was seen as a kind of guarantee of scientific impartiality, as he was unlikely to be swayed by the possibility of anything ‘supernatural’ occurring to the Shroud. In fact, of course, none of the scientists were prepared to admit of anything supernatural in their presentations, and were at pains to make that clear, but as Christians, the audience of the Q&A detected, and tried to exploit, a conflict of interest. I included the exact quote, as I did several others, simply to show how times change. Even in affection, there’s no doubt that such an epithet is very unlikely to be used in similar circumstances today.
I’m a bit shocked that anyone might read my post as anything different, but since they clearly have, I’ll add a bit more explanation to it to try to make it clearer.
Thanks for pointing it out,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh and Dan,
I am looking forward to clarification as to who is supposed to have said what (and where that is located), as I am still left with the impression of anti-Semitism being expressed IF someone referred to Adler as a “little Jewish boy.” People don’t typically refer to grown men as “little boys” unless they want to be insulting. But, context is everything. And, if one throws in a person’s Jewishness into the mix with a demeaning phrase, then there is the implication that someone is being anti-Semitic.
So, it is still very unclear whether Adler jokingly referred to himself in this way (which, of course, would be just fine), or if someone referred to him with a demeaning slur.
I strongly suspect that Adler said this about himself or that someone very close to him said this as a joke, but, again, we do not have any context as to who said what, and how.
As such, one is still left with the IMPRESSION that some STURP member might have made an anti-Semitic slur against Adler. I seriously doubt that this is the case, but since there is continued ambiguity, it is important that we have clarification on who said what and how.
I look forward to reading the further clarification from Hugh.
Best regards, and may this new year bring happiness, good health and further insights to us all regarding the Holy Shroud,
Teddi
Hi, Everybody,
Hugh has provided me with the precise location of the comment in question and I have reviewed it. It is at the 3:59 mark of the last recorded lecture from that STURP conference.
Indeed, the context of “the little Jewish boy” comment was said with humorous affection that wholeheartedly was motivated from a feeling of great respect behind it. Context is everything.
Specifically, John Jackson, as the president of STURP, had been talking about the complexity of the image formation mechanism and how puzzling it is and that he did not think that they were anywhere near a satisfactory explanation. Someone then responded to Jackson saying (and it didn’t sound like Heller to me, because his voice was very deep and quite distinct, but it also did not sound quite like Schwalbe’s either –but I could be wrong) that “We probably should have the ‘little Jewish boy’ answer this question.”
Of course, since the person who said that was, quite clearly, expressing that the perplexing question that was being asked by Jackson was going to be brilliantly answered by Adler, the punctuation of Adler’s being Jewish was being humorously made to point out his lack of religious bias. Moreover, calling him a “little” Jewish “boy” was for comedic effect since its absurdity was so obvious since he was being called to be the hero to explain things to the group.
As such, I think that it is important that this context be mentioned to explain the incendiary statement that you mentioned in your blog –because that comment can easily be misinterpreted by others as being an insult –when, in fact, when taken in context, Adler was being viewed by the group with great respect and admiration.
Best regards,
Teddi
Absolutely, Teddi. Context is crucial. The quoted wording wasn’t just fitting for the issue, it beautifully captured the spirit of unwavering respect for each other within the group. Thank you. Let’s move on.
In case anybody wishes to listen for themselves, here is the link that Hugh had provided me.
https://www.shroud.com/videos/10B%20Sunday%20Afternoon%20Sturp%20symposium%2010%2011%201981.mp3
Has the site now closed? Or is it merely taking stock of what’s been said thus far?