OTOH, it might seem like hurts can never be truly healed; like we're to worship *suffering*; and like God is *always* going to rub the price that was paid in our faces.
His hurts aren’t healed but at the same time He wipes away everyone else’s tears. It’s not going to be an option for anyone to hold on to their own pain. If God is the only one who chooses to keep the scars of the Cross as the only memento of His first creation, that’s up to Him.
But I’m not sure how anyone can read thankfulness for their own healing as some sort of worship of suffering.
It is true that sudden change is always difficult to deal with, whether that’s sudden change for the worse or, in the case of miracles, sudden change for the better.
If people want to label these events as evidence of “divine humble-bragging” they are entirely free to do so. We all see “through a glass darkly” and sometimes, as I know from personal experience, that glass can get very dark.
Does anyone know how the Shroud of Turin was supposed to have been wrapped around the body? .
The theory is that the body was laid on its back on one end of a very long piece of cloth and and the cloth was folded over his head and covered his front.
And then what? You can’t just lay a body down on a cloth, fold it over flat, and call it good, can you? You certainly can’t carry it that way. Even if they were rushed, they’d need to wrap it tighter than that, causing plenty of wrinkles and folds - and then any transferred image isn’t going to look so tidy.
And there was no it.
No cloth.
Singular.
No shroud.
Not one of these: 'a length of cloth or an enveloping garment in which a dead person is wrapped for burial.'
Maybe... Biblically it is typically shrouded in ambiguity and divergence.
Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Mark 15:45 And when he [Pilate] knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Luke 23:52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
sindona/i, fine linen, a linen cloth
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. [so, nothing was added to Jesus' sweated, bloodied, flayed, facially unrecognizable marred body]
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
John 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
The linen cloths are the only artifact of the crucifixion to be mentioned after that event.
When St. Helena retrieved artifacts from Jerusalem, she did not find these linen cloths.
The legends are that image-bearing Sindon was taken to Edessa by the disciple Thaddeaus and that St. Peter used the Sudarium when he wanted to perform a healing miracle.
Constantine's mother was in the Roman city built on the scorched earth of Jerusalem's rubble forty years after the crucifixion, 300 years after the crucifixion.
Peter used more than one, so which was the true one? Or did he take that with him to Rome...
I'm afraid I'm another person who is rather sceptical about St Helena and her wonderful findings of sacred objects...they tie in so well with Constantine's desire to nationalise Christianity...
As to the Shroud, fascinating enigma though it is, I take @Martin54's point about there being two pieces of cloth mentioned in Luke's Gospel. The Shroud appears to be just one piece, and therefore its use in Jesus' grave is surely suspect. That's not to say it didn't belong to some other person.
I've always thought Luke to be pretty reliable - didn't he get a lot of his information from the lady who *pondered all these things in her heart*?
He may well have some ideas, but I'm not prepared to fork out $28.95 (whatever that is in £sterling) to find out what they are - that link takes one to an advertisement.
I'm afraid I'm another person who is rather sceptical about St Helena and her wonderful findings of sacred objects...they tie in so well with Constantine's desire to nationalise Christianity...
Can I get some documentation that Constantine desired to nationalize Christianity? Christianity was nationalized by Licinius.
I'm afraid I'm another person who is rather sceptical about St Helena and her wonderful findings of sacred objects...they tie in so well with Constantine's desire to nationalise Christianity...
Can I get some documentation that Constantine desired to nationalize Christianity? Christianity was nationalized by Licinius.
I'm afraid I'm another person who is rather sceptical about St Helena and her wonderful findings of sacred objects...they tie in so well with Constantine's desire to nationalise Christianity...
Can I get some documentation that Constantine desired to nationalize Christianity? Christianity was nationalized by Licinius.
I'm afraid I'm another person who is rather sceptical about St Helena and her wonderful findings of sacred objects...they tie in so well with Constantine's desire to nationalise Christianity...
Can I get some documentation that Constantine desired to nationalize Christianity? Christianity was nationalized by Licinius.
Not by Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II?
Indeed, that was rhetorical of course.
February 27th 380 wasn't it?
The Edict of Thessalonica Martin? Yes it was Martin.
'The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), issued on 27 February AD 380 by three reigning Roman Emperors, made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. It condemned other Christian creeds such as Arianism as heresies of madmen, and authorized their persecution.'
As to the Shroud, fascinating enigma though it is, I take @Martin54's point about there being two pieces of cloth mentioned in Luke's Gospel. The Shroud appears to be just one piece, and therefore its use in Jesus' grave is surely suspect. That's not to say it didn't belong to some other person.
I've always thought Luke to be pretty reliable - didn't he get a lot of his information from the lady who *pondered all these things in her heart*?
A few points:
a) As a rule of thumb, I would normally look to Mark's Gospel as the earliest (and therefore possibly the most reliable) historical source. Where the other gospels diverge from Mark, we would need to consider all possibilities as to WHY they do so. If Mark's gospel indicates a single cloth, I would give that serious consideration and only overturn it if there were compelling reasons to do so.
b) One explanation for Luke's seeming divergence in this matter could be that he was writing from an urban Greek perspective and that he altered things to make sense to his urban Greek/Roman readers. He does that on a number of occasions.
c) Does anyone have any sources that might indicate what contemporary burial practices were in that area? In particular, how uniform/varied were they? It's no use saying "there must have been two cloths" if we don't actually know that there always were.
d) We also need to give proper weight to the fact that the burial was done in haste, in order to be completed before the Sabbath. Is it possible that the initial burial could have been a simple matter of covering the body with a shroud, in anticipation of the "proper" burial being completed AFTER the Sabbath? After all, we know that Mary and the other women were going to the tomb to anoint the body, according to the religious practices of the time. It would have been harder to do this if the body had already been properly wrapped (if that is indeed what normally happened).
In conclusion, I don't think the argument that "there must have been two cloths, so the Shroud must be a fake" really holds up. It MAY be a fake - but you need to look for evidence elsewhere.
Two cloths are extant. One is the Holy Shroud. The other is the Sudarium of Oviedo which is purported to be the cloth that was placed over Jesus' face immediately after He died.
It bears blood stains which some researchers find congruent to the facial blood stains on the Shroud.
As to the Shroud, fascinating enigma though it is, I take @Martin54's point about there being two pieces of cloth mentioned in Luke's Gospel. The Shroud appears to be just one piece, and therefore its use in Jesus' grave is surely suspect. That's not to say it didn't belong to some other person.
I've always thought Luke to be pretty reliable - didn't he get a lot of his information from the lady who *pondered all these things in her heart*?
A few points:
a) As a rule of thumb, I would normally look to Mark's Gospel as the earliest (and therefore possibly the most reliable) historical source. Where the other gospels diverge from Mark, we would need to consider all possibilities as to WHY they do so. If Mark's gospel indicates a single cloth, I would give that serious consideration and only overturn it if there were compelling reasons to do so.
b) One explanation for Luke's seeming divergence in this matter could be that he was writing from an urban Greek perspective and that he altered things to make sense to his urban Greek/Roman readers. He does that on a number of occasions.
c) Does anyone have any sources that might indicate what contemporary burial practices were in that area? In particular, how uniform/varied were they? It's no use saying "there must have been two cloths" if we don't actually know that there always were.
d) We also need to give proper weight to the fact that the burial was done in haste, in order to be completed before the Sabbath. Is it possible that the initial burial could have been a simple matter of covering the body with a shroud, in anticipation of the "proper" burial being completed AFTER the Sabbath? After all, we know that Mary and the other women were going to the tomb to anoint the body, according to the religious practices of the time. It would have been harder to do this if the body had already been properly wrapped (if that is indeed what normally happened).
In conclusion, I don't think the argument that "there must have been two cloths, so the Shroud must be a fake" really holds up. It MAY be a fake - but you need to look for evidence elsewhere.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
As to the Shroud, fascinating enigma though it is, I take @Martin54's point about there being two pieces of cloth mentioned in Luke's Gospel. The Shroud appears to be just one piece, and therefore its use in Jesus' grave is surely suspect. That's not to say it didn't belong to some other person.
I've always thought Luke to be pretty reliable - didn't he get a lot of his information from the lady who *pondered all these things in her heart*?
A few points:
a) As a rule of thumb, I would normally look to Mark's Gospel as the earliest (and therefore possibly the most reliable) historical source. Where the other gospels diverge from Mark, we would need to consider all possibilities as to WHY they do so. If Mark's gospel indicates a single cloth, I would give that serious consideration and only overturn it if there were compelling reasons to do so.
b) One explanation for Luke's seeming divergence in this matter could be that he was writing from an urban Greek perspective and that he altered things to make sense to his urban Greek/Roman readers. He does that on a number of occasions.
c) Does anyone have any sources that might indicate what contemporary burial practices were in that area? In particular, how uniform/varied were they? It's no use saying "there must have been two cloths" if we don't actually know that there always were.
d) We also need to give proper weight to the fact that the burial was done in haste, in order to be completed before the Sabbath. Is it possible that the initial burial could have been a simple matter of covering the body with a shroud, in anticipation of the "proper" burial being completed AFTER the Sabbath? After all, we know that Mary and the other women were going to the tomb to anoint the body, according to the religious practices of the time. It would have been harder to do this if the body had already been properly wrapped (if that is indeed what normally happened).
In conclusion, I don't think the argument that "there must have been two cloths, so the Shroud must be a fake" really holds up. It MAY be a fake - but you need to look for evidence elsewhere.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Couldn't agree more as with all Bible texts apart from the consensus first seven letters of Paul.
Intrigued by the changed details. Which cleansing of the temple?
<snip>
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
This view certainly has had some popularity in scholarly circles. However, much of the idea of community authorship is founded on a supposition in form critical theory which was based on hypotheses about how folk tales were transmitted over centuries.
John reached its final form around AD 90–110*, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. This is a much shorter time frame than the folk tales model allows, and puts the final form of the gospel within 60 to 80 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Both Martin Hengel and Richard Bauckham (among others) make the case for the shaping of the tradition being substantially curated by those who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus life and ministry - eyewitnesses. They and others make the case that John should not be seen as derivative from (and in places, therefore, altering) the synoptic tradition, but as an authentic tradition in its own right - a point made nearly 40 years ago by J.A.T. Robinson in The Priority of John.
Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) makes a well-argued case for the author being John the Elder (not John bar Zebedee) and argues from literary evidence within the Gospel that it makes a specific claim to be the authentic testimony of one who had witnessed the ministry of Jesus.
(*To put this in some sort of context this is the time-equivalent of us now looking back to a period no earlier than 1910 nor later than 1930. I have eyewitness evidence of aspects of the working conditions of Dundee dockworkers in the early 1920s just on a person to person basis. Bauckham makes a strong argument for substantial oversight of the Jesus stories by The Twelve, and against the fluidity and ahistoricality proposed by the form critical approach.)
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Well, that may be so, but I was simply acknowledging Martin's reminder that it is John's Gospel which specifically mentions two cloths...
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Couldn't agree more as with all Bible texts apart from the consensus first seven letters of Paul.
Intrigued by the changed details. Which cleansing of the temple?
John puts the Cleansing at the start of Jesus' ministry, as opposed to the beginning of Holy Week. It is highly unlikely that there were two such events. The Cleansing makes most sense as part of Jesus' challenge to the Temple authorities at the start of Holy Week.
Yes, but you said One is the Holy Shroud, by which I take you to mean (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is Jesus' shroud.
That assertion is not proven, and perhaps never will be.
Many share your opinion.
Mine is that the Shroud was proven authentic by Pia's photography in 1898 and that both the medical analysis of Barbet and the 1978 STuRP investigative confirmed that proof.
Taken in that light, the Shroud's C-14 data seems to indicate that it was exposed to neutron radiation. In 1988 the Catholic Church offered samples from the Shroud's center for C-14 measurement, but all of the C-14 labs declined. If even one had accepted, we would not be having this conversation as that C-14 measurement would have been through the roof.
<snip>
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
This view certainly has had some popularity in scholarly circles. However, much of the idea of community authorship is founded on a supposition in form critical theory which was based on hypotheses about how folk tales were transmitted over centuries.
John reached its final form around AD 90–110*, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. This is a much shorter time frame than the folk tales model allows, and puts the final form of the gospel within 60 to 80 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Both Martin Hengel and Richard Bauckham (among others) make the case for the shaping of the tradition being substantially curated by those who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus life and ministry - eyewitnesses. They and others make the case that John should not be seen as derivative from (and in places, therefore, altering) the synoptic tradition, but as an authentic tradition in its own right - a point made nearly 40 years ago by J.A.T. Robinson in The Priority of John.
Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) makes a well-argued case for the author being John the Elder (not John bar Zebedee) and argues from literary evidence within the Gospel that it makes a specific claim to be the authentic testimony of one who had witnessed the ministry of Jesus.
(*To put this in some sort of context this is the time-equivalent of us now looking back to a period no earlier than 1910 nor later than 1930. I have eyewitness evidence of aspects of the working conditions of Dundee dockworkers in the early 1920s just on a person to person basis. Bauckham makes a strong argument for substantial oversight of the Jesus stories by The Twelve, and against the fluidity and ahistoricality proposed by the form critical approach.)
Thanks for this. I've not had the chance to read some of these books. So far, though, I'm not that convinced by the arguments for John being "authentic testimony" of an eyewitness. And I must admit that I found Robinson's book entertaining but hardly convincing.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Couldn't agree more as with all Bible texts apart from the consensus first seven letters of Paul.
Intrigued by the changed details. Which cleansing of the temple?
John puts the Cleansing at the start of Jesus' ministry, as opposed to the beginning of Holy Week. It is highly unlikely that there were two such events. The Cleansing makes most sense as part of Jesus' challenge to the Temple authorities at the start of Holy Week.
So John goes in to flashback? Or rather jumps from the beginning to the end and back again? They look like completely separate events to me, separated by over a thousand days, with completely different Jesuist discourse.
John puts the Cleansing at the start of Jesus' ministry, as opposed to the beginning of Holy Week. It is highly unlikely that there were two such events.
Is it highly unlikely?
I'll grant that it's unlikely that the authorities didn't arrest him the first time, let him do it again the second time if they had warning he was coming and knew it was the sort of thing he did, and then arrested him. But I don't think it's intrinsically unlikely that Jesus having enacted a parable would enact the same parable at the same place on a later occasion.
Life does not have the concision of realist novels.
I'll add that this is an argument that we know less about what we know or don't know than we think we do, not an argument that the gospels must be entirely factually accurate after all.
Yes, but you said One is the Holy Shroud, by which I take you to mean (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is Jesus' shroud.
That assertion is not proven, and perhaps never will be.
The Shroud is by far the most scientifically examined relic in the world.
In my opinion, Pia's 1898 photographic negative of the Shroud proved its authenticity.
In 1978 STuRP spent five days just gathering evidence from the Shroud using tons of equipment. After several years of analysis which included the help of many other scientists, STuRP concluded that they had found nothing that could preclude the hypothesis that the Shroud had wrapped the corpse of Jesus. They did say the the image was not the work of an artist and that a human corpse had been wrapped in the Shroud.
Many of those who object to the idea of the Shroud being authentic have accused the STuRP researchers of having a theistic bias, but that allegation is not true.
In 1988 the Catholic Church offered the C-14 labs samples from the center of the Shroud for C-14 measurement. All of the labs declined because they had an agenda to discredit the Shroud. The center is the part of the Shroud that would have been most affected by a neutron radiation event produced by a vanishing corpse. Its C-14 data would have indicated a 1000 year future date, something very hard to explain away.
No lab has any agenda to disprove the shroud. Like all supernatural claims, starting with God, it doesn't have to. An 1898 photograph doesn't overcome the rational facts. A billion dollar experiment on shroud contamination is needed to show that an object with its claimed 'history' could have a faulty 14C reading out by 1300 years. Crowd source that why don't you?
Sorry @undead_rat - obviously the subject means a great deal to you.
I'm afraid that saying that the Shroud is the most scientifically-examined relic in the world may well be true, BUT, as I keep banging on (!), nothing proves that it was Jesus' shroud.
Mind you, if we had his DNA to match up with what's on the Shroud...has anybody mentioned that yet on this thread?
The idea of community authorship is just weird, and I can't imagine any actual practicing writer believing in it. How does that work, exactly--getting a community to somehow produce such a complex text which is all of a piece? Because we're not talking about a song collection gathered by somebody, or the same thing for a set of myths. Anything as complex as John was clearly written by an author, and given the tightness of its construction, ONE author.
The idea of community authorship is just weird, and I can't imagine any actual practicing writer believing in it. How does that work, exactly--getting a community to somehow produce such a complex text which is all of a piece? Because we're not talking about a song collection gathered by somebody, or the same thing for a set of myths. Anything as complex as John was clearly written by an author, and given the tightness of its construction, ONE author.
Many of those who object to the idea of the Shroud being authentic have accused the STuRP researchers of having a theistic bias, but that allegation is not true.
The idea of the STURP research project originated with a group of scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They were studying the nature of images, and some of the researchers decided they would like to study the nature of the shroud image. The study was not sponsored by the JPL. I don't know who financed it. I don't know how many of the researchers were Christians; I do know that most, if not all of them, considered it an intriguing scientific project.
The idea of community authorship is just weird, and I can't imagine any actual practicing writer believing in it. How does that work, exactly--getting a community to somehow produce such a complex text which is all of a piece? Because we're not talking about a song collection gathered by somebody, or the same thing for a set of myths. Anything as complex as John was clearly written by an author, and given the tightness of its construction, ONE author.
Scientists manage it all the time.
I have serious, serious doubts about that. Have you ever been involved with the writing of a group project?
The idea of community authorship is just weird, and I can't imagine any actual practicing writer believing in it. How does that work, exactly--getting a community to somehow produce such a complex text which is all of a piece? Because we're not talking about a song collection gathered by somebody, or the same thing for a set of myths. Anything as complex as John was clearly written by an author, and given the tightness of its construction, ONE author.
Scientists manage it all the time.
Yes, but we have the advantage of word processors and the ability to repeatedly edit the text. Not as easy when paper and ink are scarce resources and only a few scribes are available. Besides, it's usually obvious when reading a paper who wrote which part.
The idea of community authorship is just weird, and I can't imagine any actual practicing writer believing in it. How does that work, exactly--getting a community to somehow produce such a complex text which is all of a piece? Because we're not talking about a song collection gathered by somebody, or the same thing for a set of myths. Anything as complex as John was clearly written by an author, and given the tightness of its construction, ONE author.
Scientists manage it all the time.
I have serious, serious doubts about that. Have you ever been involved with the writing of a group project?
I have.
If it was written by a community my hypothesis is that they talked about it for ages, hemmed and hawed about what to put in, going round in circles until one of them got frustrated, went home and wrote it themselves. The writer then brought it to the community who approved it with barely concealed relief that someone had got it done. The writer, who thought they'd written a draft for discussion, then didn't dare point out the placeholders where they'd been unsure about the order of events, and kept quiet about nobody spotting that they'd managed to miss the institution of Holy Communion.
Stetson: If the scientific explanations are all wrong, then the image must've gotten there by miraculous means.
If that is the case it's more likely to point to the limitations of current scientific knowledge.
This.
But it won't be any science we don't know. No chemistry, no physics we don't know. Just the recipe.
Could be a whole branch of science we don't know.
(To borrow from Andrew Greeley's Fr. Blackie, that's said in "half fun and full earnest".)
Like what? What in the Shroud of Turin could possibly, uniquely be of a whole branch of the oxymoron science we don't know. Where, beyond the Gödelianly limitless bounds of known biology=chemistry=physics is there anything missing? How would nature only statistically invisibly manifest one of its prevenient or emergent properties in the Turin Shroud? It wouldn't, therefore it does it all the time elsewhere. Where? What's missing anywhere? And everywhere!? In fully self-explanatory nature, what's missing? What unknown unknown could there (im)possibly be?
Comments
His hurts aren’t healed but at the same time He wipes away everyone else’s tears. It’s not going to be an option for anyone to hold on to their own pain. If God is the only one who chooses to keep the scars of the Cross as the only memento of His first creation, that’s up to Him.
But I’m not sure how anyone can read thankfulness for their own healing as some sort of worship of suffering.
It is true that sudden change is always difficult to deal with, whether that’s sudden change for the worse or, in the case of miracles, sudden change for the better.
If people want to label these events as evidence of “divine humble-bragging” they are entirely free to do so. We all see “through a glass darkly” and sometimes, as I know from personal experience, that glass can get very dark.
And there was no it.
No cloth.
Singular.
No shroud.
Not one of these: 'a length of cloth or an enveloping garment in which a dead person is wrapped for burial.'
Matthew 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
Mark 15:45 And when he [Pilate] knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Luke 23:52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
sindona/i, fine linen, a linen cloth
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. [so, nothing was added to Jesus' sweated, bloodied, flayed, facially unrecognizable marred body]
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
John 20:5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
othonia, a linen bandage, a wrapping
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
soudarion, handkerchief, napkin
I allowed Alan to carry me away...
We're back to needing a billion dollars or ten.
When St. Helena retrieved artifacts from Jerusalem, she did not find these linen cloths.
The legends are that image-bearing Sindon was taken to Edessa by the disciple Thaddeaus and that St. Peter used the Sudarium when he wanted to perform a healing miracle.
Peter used more than one, so which was the true one? Or did he take that with him to Rome...
Edessa is a thousand miles from Smyrna.
As to the Shroud, fascinating enigma though it is, I take @Martin54's point about there being two pieces of cloth mentioned in Luke's Gospel. The Shroud appears to be just one piece, and therefore its use in Jesus' grave is surely suspect. That's not to say it didn't belong to some other person.
I've always thought Luke to be pretty reliable - didn't he get a lot of his information from the lady who *pondered all these things in her heart*?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/shroud-of-turin-jesus-burial/
Fixed broken link. BroJames, Purgatory Host
https://barnesandnoble.com/w/the-holy-shroud-gary-vikan/1134209354;jsessionid=697D23D1E5F94EA248EF5AE07B5BBEDD.prodny_store01-atgap11?ean=9781643134321&st=AFF&2sid=Simon%20&%20Schuster_7567305_NA&sourceId=AFFSimon%20&%20Schuster
Why bother? What do they say? In a nutshell.
If one doesn't believe it's authentic (whatever that may mean), why on earth bother to look elsewhere?
Oh it's an authentic fraud all right. Regardless of the Biblical confusion of cloth, a cloth, cloth strips and a holy handkerchief.
This.
But it won't be any science we don't know. No chemistry, no physics we don't know. Just the recipe.
Can I get some documentation that Constantine desired to nationalize Christianity? Christianity was nationalized by Licinius.
Not by Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II?
Indeed, that was rhetorical of course.
February 27th 380 wasn't it?
The Edict of Thessalonica Martin? Yes it was Martin.
'The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), issued on 27 February AD 380 by three reigning Roman Emperors, made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. It condemned other Christian creeds such as Arianism as heresies of madmen, and authorized their persecution.'
A few points:
a) As a rule of thumb, I would normally look to Mark's Gospel as the earliest (and therefore possibly the most reliable) historical source. Where the other gospels diverge from Mark, we would need to consider all possibilities as to WHY they do so. If Mark's gospel indicates a single cloth, I would give that serious consideration and only overturn it if there were compelling reasons to do so.
b) One explanation for Luke's seeming divergence in this matter could be that he was writing from an urban Greek perspective and that he altered things to make sense to his urban Greek/Roman readers. He does that on a number of occasions.
c) Does anyone have any sources that might indicate what contemporary burial practices were in that area? In particular, how uniform/varied were they? It's no use saying "there must have been two cloths" if we don't actually know that there always were.
d) We also need to give proper weight to the fact that the burial was done in haste, in order to be completed before the Sabbath. Is it possible that the initial burial could have been a simple matter of covering the body with a shroud, in anticipation of the "proper" burial being completed AFTER the Sabbath? After all, we know that Mary and the other women were going to the tomb to anoint the body, according to the religious practices of the time. It would have been harder to do this if the body had already been properly wrapped (if that is indeed what normally happened).
In conclusion, I don't think the argument that "there must have been two cloths, so the Shroud must be a fake" really holds up. It MAY be a fake - but you need to look for evidence elsewhere.
It bears blood stains which some researchers find congruent to the facial blood stains on the Shroud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
That assertion is not proven, and perhaps never will be.
Chaps, it's not the good Greek Dr. Luke's gospel that unequivocally mentions two cloths. It's Jewish John's. The-other-disciple-John who was there when none of the other writers were. Luke's gospel talks of fine linen, [a] linen cloth and [a] linen bandage, [a] wrapping; John's the latter plus the holy hanky, there being no indefinite articles in (Koine) Greek leaving [a] open.
What on Earth can JWs bring to the party? In textual and forensic analysis?
Oops.
You're right. John is quite specific.
But John's gospel is even less historically "reliable" than Luke's. It is much later and can be shown in many places to have changed details for theological purposes (eg cleansing of the Temple and the nature of the Last Supper).
Not to mention that there are many biblical scholars who would say that it is unlikely that it was written by John himself and more likely comes from a "Johannine Community" based not in Israel but in Asia Minor.
Couldn't agree more as with all Bible texts apart from the consensus first seven letters of Paul.
Intrigued by the changed details. Which cleansing of the temple?
This view certainly has had some popularity in scholarly circles. However, much of the idea of community authorship is founded on a supposition in form critical theory which was based on hypotheses about how folk tales were transmitted over centuries.
John reached its final form around AD 90–110*, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. This is a much shorter time frame than the folk tales model allows, and puts the final form of the gospel within 60 to 80 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Both Martin Hengel and Richard Bauckham (among others) make the case for the shaping of the tradition being substantially curated by those who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus life and ministry - eyewitnesses. They and others make the case that John should not be seen as derivative from (and in places, therefore, altering) the synoptic tradition, but as an authentic tradition in its own right - a point made nearly 40 years ago by J.A.T. Robinson in The Priority of John.
Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) makes a well-argued case for the author being John the Elder (not John bar Zebedee) and argues from literary evidence within the Gospel that it makes a specific claim to be the authentic testimony of one who had witnessed the ministry of Jesus.
(*To put this in some sort of context this is the time-equivalent of us now looking back to a period no earlier than 1910 nor later than 1930. I have eyewitness evidence of aspects of the working conditions of Dundee dockworkers in the early 1920s just on a person to person basis. Bauckham makes a strong argument for substantial oversight of the Jesus stories by The Twelve, and against the fluidity and ahistoricality proposed by the form critical approach.)
Well, that may be so, but I was simply acknowledging Martin's reminder that it is John's Gospel which specifically mentions two cloths...
John puts the Cleansing at the start of Jesus' ministry, as opposed to the beginning of Holy Week. It is highly unlikely that there were two such events. The Cleansing makes most sense as part of Jesus' challenge to the Temple authorities at the start of Holy Week.
Many share your opinion.
Mine is that the Shroud was proven authentic by Pia's photography in 1898 and that both the medical analysis of Barbet and the 1978 STuRP investigative confirmed that proof.
Taken in that light, the Shroud's C-14 data seems to indicate that it was exposed to neutron radiation. In 1988 the Catholic Church offered samples from the Shroud's center for C-14 measurement, but all of the C-14 labs declined. If even one had accepted, we would not be having this conversation as that C-14 measurement would have been through the roof.
Thanks for this. I've not had the chance to read some of these books. So far, though, I'm not that convinced by the arguments for John being "authentic testimony" of an eyewitness. And I must admit that I found Robinson's book entertaining but hardly convincing.
So John goes in to flashback? Or rather jumps from the beginning to the end and back again? They look like completely separate events to me, separated by over a thousand days, with completely different Jesuist discourse.
And thanks @BroJames.
I'll grant that it's unlikely that the authorities didn't arrest him the first time, let him do it again the second time if they had warning he was coming and knew it was the sort of thing he did, and then arrested him. But I don't think it's intrinsically unlikely that Jesus having enacted a parable would enact the same parable at the same place on a later occasion.
Life does not have the concision of realist novels.
I'll add that this is an argument that we know less about what we know or don't know than we think we do, not an argument that the gospels must be entirely factually accurate after all.
The Shroud is by far the most scientifically examined relic in the world.
In my opinion, Pia's 1898 photographic negative of the Shroud proved its authenticity.
In 1978 STuRP spent five days just gathering evidence from the Shroud using tons of equipment. After several years of analysis which included the help of many other scientists, STuRP concluded that they had found nothing that could preclude the hypothesis that the Shroud had wrapped the corpse of Jesus. They did say the the image was not the work of an artist and that a human corpse had been wrapped in the Shroud.
Many of those who object to the idea of the Shroud being authentic have accused the STuRP researchers of having a theistic bias, but that allegation is not true.
In 1988 the Catholic Church offered the C-14 labs samples from the center of the Shroud for C-14 measurement. All of the labs declined because they had an agenda to discredit the Shroud. The center is the part of the Shroud that would have been most affected by a neutron radiation event produced by a vanishing corpse. Its C-14 data would have indicated a 1000 year future date, something very hard to explain away.
Sorry @undead_rat - obviously the subject means a great deal to you.
I'm afraid that saying that the Shroud is the most scientifically-examined relic in the world may well be true, BUT, as I keep banging on (!), nothing proves that it was Jesus' shroud.
Mind you, if we had his DNA to match up with what's on the Shroud...has anybody mentioned that yet on this thread?
Scientists manage it all the time.
The idea of the STURP research project originated with a group of scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. They were studying the nature of images, and some of the researchers decided they would like to study the nature of the shroud image. The study was not sponsored by the JPL. I don't know who financed it. I don't know how many of the researchers were Christians; I do know that most, if not all of them, considered it an intriguing scientific project.
I have serious, serious doubts about that. Have you ever been involved with the writing of a group project?
I have.
Could be a whole branch of science we don't know.
(To borrow from Andrew Greeley's Fr. Blackie, that's said in "half fun and full earnest".)
If it was written by a community my hypothesis is that they talked about it for ages, hemmed and hawed about what to put in, going round in circles until one of them got frustrated, went home and wrote it themselves. The writer then brought it to the community who approved it with barely concealed relief that someone had got it done. The writer, who thought they'd written a draft for discussion, then didn't dare point out the placeholders where they'd been unsure about the order of events, and kept quiet about nobody spotting that they'd managed to miss the institution of Holy Communion.
Like what? What in the Shroud of Turin could possibly, uniquely be of a whole branch of the oxymoron science we don't know. Where, beyond the Gödelianly limitless bounds of known biology=chemistry=physics is there anything missing? How would nature only statistically invisibly manifest one of its prevenient or emergent properties in the Turin Shroud? It wouldn't, therefore it does it all the time elsewhere. Where? What's missing anywhere? And everywhere!? In fully self-explanatory nature, what's missing? What unknown unknown could there (im)possibly be?
Aye, a late C1st, rapidly linguistically and therefore intellectually Hellenizing, formerly Second Temple Jewish Messianic, priestly caste.
But I'm naturally conservative, minimalist, parsimonious in forensic matters and go with it being John Zebedeeson.