Koyaanisqatsi

CAVEAT: Even if demonstrated to be "authentic" (i.e., the image is that of an actual human crucifixion victim from the 1st century and not over a thousand years later or even a hundred years later, as well as not a painting or otherwise manufactured hoax) the reconciliation with the GJohn account (pierced side not over the chest and strips/napkin/body/head cunundrum) must also then be dealt with prior to even considering a connection with Jesus.

You say as much, Sci, but I just wanted to be crystal clear that it's shroud first, then an analysis of the story found in the GJohn before any connections to Jesus are made.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Principia

Koy,

Let's wait for leonard(e) to tell us where he wants to go with 'authenticity.' We need a common reference with which to discuss this matter.

SC

Typhon

It is all well and good to point out the many problems of the mythological depiction of the Jesus figure of Christian legends as compared with the actual depiction of the shroud, as noted by some of the posters to this thread, but, I have yet to see anything posted by "leonarde" or anyone else, which even comes close to reversing the accepted position that the Shroud of Turin is a fake from the 14th century.

In view of the tremendous evidence against the object being from anywhere NEAR the 1st century (which comes as no surprise to me, as I'm of the camp that believes there is real and great doubt that a historical Jesus ever lived, let alone in the first century C.E.), this is a hurdle you'd need to get over first, before arguing that it is or isn't consistent with the accounts of the mythic crucifixion.

Oh BTW leonarde, Typhon, with the big "T" is a figure from Greek mythology (as well as sometimes Egyptian, where he is a variant/form for Set, or by one of my favorite definitions from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, "the evil genius of Egyptian mythology"), who yet lies under Mount Aetna. You are, off-course, in your assumption, and must be thinking of the Chinese t'ai-fun, typhon, or typhoon, "the whirling wind."

.T.

“Beneath the radiant line that girts the globe,
The circling Ty’phon, whirled from point to point,
Exhausting all the rage of all the sky,
And dire Ecneph’ia, reign.”

- Thomson: Summer.

leonarde

Since the subject of authenticity has come up again I give a partial repost by me of something
from page 10: The only recasting of the above I would do now is
to insert another question right after 2): Are there data which indicate that the Shroud has been
in the Near East and if so, can it be narrowed down further?

So the new authenticity list would be:

authenticity.
That has at least 4 elements:

1)does it have a image of a true victim of crucifixion on it?

2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image)go back
to ancient or merely medieval times?

3)are there data which indicate that the Shroud has been in the Near East and, if so, can it be narrowed down further?

4)is the Man of the Shroud Jesus?

A negative answer to question 1) and 2) eliminates
ANY possible affirmative answer for 4) which is why such a big deal was made of the C-14 tests back in 1988. The ABSCENCE of evidence for number
3 would not NECESSARILY mean inauthenticity (the
abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence)
but the PRESENCE of such geographic provenance information would certainly be HIGHLY probative.
Number 4, as I mentioned before, has a (potential)
religious dimension to it, so it should be left up
to the individual to decide for himself.

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

1)does it have a image of a true victim of crucifixion on it?

2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image)go back
to ancient or merely medieval times?

3)are there data which indicate that the Shroud has been in the Near East and, if so, can it be narrowed down further?

4)is the Man of the Shroud Jesus?

You left out one: is there positive evidence that the Shroud is a medieval forgery? And the answer is "yes."

As for your list, (1) is currently unknowable, (2) all data indicates the Shroud is medieval in origin (3) is irrelevant, and (4) is a reference events whose only known version survives in legendary tales.

Michael

leonarde

I think you are mixing elements there. To
our general confusion....

leonarde

"Medieval forgery": "medieval" refers to question
number 2: does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the Image)
go back to ancient or merely medieval times?

"Forgery": there is NO such thing as a "generic
forgery": there has to be a method (painting, rubbing etc.) to achieve the wanted effect. That is ONE of the ways that the forgery scenario always comes up short. We went through this pages
ago (pages 8 to 10 were very much to this point).

Cheers!

leonarde

In one of his more recent posts, Koy again brought
up the Greek-language words (or, more precisely in
Koy's treatment, their translation)and suggested
that it was wrong to try to correct the translators as such people know what they are doing. Since I spent about 3 years of my life as
a translator, I knew that there were limits to this: words in one language might not be precisely
translatable into another, sometimes even the BEST
of translators make mistakes of a non-noticeable
sort etc. I had ideas about going back to the Greek and seeing whether there was any ambiguity to the Greek word(s). But before I did,
I decided to check the double translation Bible I
used before to look up the meaning of "the nineth
hour" (many, many pages back). That Bible is called "The NIV/Living Parallel Bible" and has the
NIV translation on the left and the Living Bible
one on the right. The results?

20 John 5
strips of linen (NIV)
linen cloth (Living Bible)

20 John 6
strips of linen(NIV)
cloth (Living Bible)

(See page 1382 of "The NIV/Living Bible")

Again these two alternate translations are in the
same bound volume and one uses the singular
(cloth)and the other uses the plural (strips of
linen).

As I said many, many pages ago to someone (Spin perhaps?): the question of authenticity will not be resolved by looking at the Greek.

Cheers!

Principia

leonarde has (re-)qualified the components necessary for authenticity. However, I would suggest modifying the list to include just item 4, since 4) requires 1, 2 and 3.

In other words, leonard(e) is in fact saying that authenticity is a positive answer to the question (set A):

1) is the Man of the Shroud of Jesus after the Crucifixion?

However, he also gives a possibility of relaxing the religious implications of the Shroud by claiming that positive answers to just the following list are sufficient (set B):

1)does it have an image of a true victim of crucifixion on it?

2)does the Shroud (and PERHAPS the image) go back
to ancient or merely medieval times?

3)are there data which indicate that the Shroud has been in the Near East and, if so, can it be narrowed down further?

The question from set A likely opens the discussion for a variety of attacks not related to the Shroud (e.g. by attacking the assumption that the relevant Biblical figure exists or by attacking the accuracy of the Bible). Furthermore, set A would simply invite more irrelevant controversy when the goal is to discuss the Shroud on its own merits.

I suggest that set B may be more productive. However, the diffculty would be having the participants avoid making any Biblical inferences during the discussion. As a reminder, the goal is to discuss either the merits of current evidence or alternative experimental design which may lead to more conclusive evidence. Actual implications of the evidence are postponed until the discussion is complete.

If there are no other objections to set B, then perhaps we can proceed with the current discussion which addresses item 1 of set B?

SC

leonarde

Koy,
I should have mentioned that Delage's theories
about the mechanisms of Image formation are considered passe (Vaporography and/or Direct Contact) and have been for at least 20 years.
See my remarks on page 4 of this thread. It is
his evaluation of the anatomical trueness of the
body features and wounds which has stood the test
of time....

Cheers!