Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 06:24 AM

Back to the Sanhedrin. Ian Wilson wrote another book called "Jesus: the Evidence"
(1996)Harper, wherein he delves into the trial/
hearing by the Sanhedrin. On page 125 Wilson notes
that the Synoptic Gospels refer to a trial by "the
whole Sanhedrin" and goes into the problematic nature of such an eventuality: the time of night
and especially the occasion (at festival time)made
a full trial by the Sanhedrin very unlikely. He then notes the more likely depiction
in the Gospel of John:

Quote:

We may therefore find
the John gospel account more convincing, suggesting that there was no formal trial, but that Jesus was simply shuttled between two high
priestly houses, that of Caiaphas and that of Caiaphas' father-in-law, Annas, both these individuals having much to lose if Jesus' popularity went unchecked. If this were the case,
then we may perhaps picture Jesus' trial as little more than a hasty overnight interrogation by two
Sadducees whose motives were rather more those of
self-interest than a desire for justice.[....]

The above is from page 125.
But I will look for other sources.
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 06:46 AM

Since much of the OP was in a vein of "where the
heck did he get THAT?" regarding the chronology and certain details of the crucifixion, deposition, and entombment, and since a number of
them (the details) I gleaned or deduced from fairly recent studies of the Sudarium of Oviedo, I
thought I would post a link to a VERY thorough paper (17 pages) on that headcloth. Page 2 has a
nice summary. The format was not reproducible here.
<a href="http://shroud.com/pdfs/guscin.pdf" target="_blank">http://shroud.com/pdfs/guscin.pdf</a>
Cheers!

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 07:15 AM

A nice URL on Jewish law and the death penalty in
ancient times is:
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm</a>

Alas it doesn't have much about the actual administration of same (ie the trial procedures)>
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 07:22 AM

A good source for the Sanhedrin in general is:
<a href="http://www.jsource.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsource.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html</a>
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 07:28 AM

A quite pertinent passage from the previous source
is as follows:

Quote:

The Sanhedrin judged accused lawbreakers, but could not initiate arrests. It required a minimum of two witnesses to convict a suspect. There were no attorneys. Instead, the accusing witness stated the offense in the presence of the accused and the accused could call witnesses on his own behalf. The court questioned the accused, the accusers and the defense witnesses.
The Great Sanhedrin dealt with religious and ritualistic Temple matters, criminal matters
appertaining to the secular court, proceedings in connection with the discovery of a corpse, trials
of adulterous wives, tithes, preparation of Torah Scrolls for the king and the Temple, drawing up
the calendar and the solving of difficulties relating to ritual law.

In about 30 C.E., the Great Sanhedrin lost its authority to inflict capital punishment. After the
Temple was destroyed, so was the Great Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin in Yavneh took over many of its functions, under the authority of Rabban Gamliel. The rabbis in the Sanhedrin served as judges
and attracted students who came to learn their oral traditions and scriptural interpretations. From Yavneh, the Sanhedrin moved to different cities in the Galilee, eventually ending up in Tiberias.

So this source agrees that around 30 AD the Sanhedrin lost its authority to impose the death
penalty.
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 10:21 AM

Since this thread gives me the opportunity to talk
about certain disputes/ambiguities about the Shroud of Turin, I thought that I would do so by
focussing on the criticism of one or more Shroud
debunkers.
In the English-speaking world, the most prominent
Shroud nay-sayers are probably Walter McCrone, Joe
Nickell, Steven Schafersman, and Nicholas Allen.

I would like to begin with Schafersman's criticism. In the 18 page thread "Shroud of Turin"
britinusa gave a URL with Schafersman's more recent critique of the Shroud, called "Unravelling the Shroud of Turin". Alas it is no longer available. But since I printed it out and
have a good idea of the thrust of his arguments,
I shall present his thoughts here. I should emphasis that skeptics have played an important role in pushing shroud research further and further.
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 10:35 AM

Our story begins in the fall of 1973. Max Frei,
newly retired head of a police forensics lab in
Zurich Switzerland, is asked to authenticate certain photographs taken of the Shroud of Turin.
At some point Frei notices bits of trace evidence
on the Shroud. Receiving permission to use sticky
commercial tape to "pull up" some of this debris,
Frei begins what at one time was an obscure, back-
burner facet of Shroud investigation. For among the debris is pollen, something that can remain intact for thousands of years.
Frei was a sort of expert in palynology since police work can involve that field as well, yet
Frei's expertise was with the plants of central
Europe.
So as he continued in his long, laborious task, he
made trips to the Near East to collect pollen samples from native plants for comparitive purposes.
[to be continued]
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 10:55 AM

Frei came up with preliminary results in 2 or 3 years. By then the Shroud of Turin Research Project(STURP) was in full swing and its work overshadowed his. Yet in 1978 Frei took further
sticky tape samples from the Shroud. In that same
year (I believe) Frei published his preliminary
findings: about 2/3rds of the plant species were
indigeneous to Palestine and/or Turkey.
Again though, Frei's work was not much publicized/
emphasized in comparison with the of STURP. Frei
died in the early 1980s (1982?) without having
completed his final report on the pollen on the
Shroud.
Next: the reception of Frei's results.

Cheers!

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 11:11 AM

Even for someone like me who has been interested
in the Shroud of Turin since the late 1970s it is
difficult to reconstruct/recall how much weight we
gave to the pollen evidence in the late 70s/early
80s. Yet this was a skein of evidence which was
very probative of the Shroud's origins: no 14th
Century forger would know to put Near Eastern pollen in the Shroud: there were no microscopes at that time and palynology was centuries away. So either the Shroud sans image originally came from that region or the Shroud came thence WITH the image already on it. There were no other possibilities if you took the pollen
evidence at face value. Perhaps unsurprisingly
someone refused to take it at face value: Steven
Schafersman.
[to be continued]
Cheers!

leonarde · 05-04-2002, 11:25 AM

Schafersman's contribution to the Shroud authenticity debate was real: in the early 1980s
even pro-authenticity advocates must have been a
tad perplexed by Max Frei's findings: the Sturp
team found only small numbers of pollen and the
numerous specimens of Near Eastern origin reported
by Frei seemed too good to be true.
It was Schafersman who suggested that the results
WERE too good to be true: Frei or a confederate must have "seeded" the tape samples with Near Eastern pollen.
[to be continued]
Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2002, 06:46 AM	#52
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Since much of the OP was in a vein of "where the heck did he get THAT?" regarding the chronology and certain details of the crucifixion, deposition, and entombment, and since a number of them (the details) I gleaned or deduced from fairly recent studies of the Sudarium of Oviedo, I thought I would post a link to a VERY thorough paper (17 pages) on that headcloth. Page 2 has a nice summary. The format was not reproducible here. <a href="http://shroud.com/pdfs/guscin.pdf" target="_blank">http://shroud.com/pdfs/guscin.pdf</a> Cheers! [ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

05-04-2002, 07:15 AM	#53
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	A nice URL on Jewish law and the death penalty in ancient times is: <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm</a> Alas it doesn't have much about the actual administration of same (ie the trial procedures)> Cheers!

05-04-2002, 07:22 AM	#54
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	A good source for the Sanhedrin in general is: <a href="http://www.jsource.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html" target="_blank">http://www.jsource.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html</a> Cheers!

05-04-2002, 10:21 AM	#56
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Since this thread gives me the opportunity to talk about certain disputes/ambiguities about the Shroud of Turin, I thought that I would do so by focussing on the criticism of one or more Shroud debunkers. In the English-speaking world, the most prominent Shroud nay-sayers are probably Walter McCrone, Joe Nickell, Steven Schafersman, and Nicholas Allen. I would like to begin with Schafersman's criticism. In the 18 page thread "Shroud of Turin" britinusa gave a URL with Schafersman's more recent critique of the Shroud, called "Unravelling the Shroud of Turin". Alas it is no longer available. But since I printed it out and have a good idea of the thrust of his arguments, I shall present his thoughts here. I should emphasis that skeptics have played an important role in pushing shroud research further and further. Cheers!

05-04-2002, 10:35 AM	#57
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Our story begins in the fall of 1973. Max Frei, newly retired head of a police forensics lab in Zurich Switzerland, is asked to authenticate certain photographs taken of the Shroud of Turin. At some point Frei notices bits of trace evidence on the Shroud. Receiving permission to use sticky commercial tape to "pull up" some of this debris, Frei begins what at one time was an obscure, back- burner facet of Shroud investigation. For among the debris is pollen, something that can remain intact for thousands of years. Frei was a sort of expert in palynology since police work can involve that field as well, yet Frei's expertise was with the plants of central Europe. So as he continued in his long, laborious task, he made trips to the Near East to collect pollen samples from native plants for comparitive purposes. [to be continued] Cheers!

05-04-2002, 10:55 AM	#58
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Frei came up with preliminary results in 2 or 3 years. By then the Shroud of Turin Research Project(STURP) was in full swing and its work overshadowed his. Yet in 1978 Frei took further sticky tape samples from the Shroud. In that same year (I believe) Frei published his preliminary findings: about 2/3rds of the plant species were indigeneous to Palestine and/or Turkey. Again though, Frei's work was not much publicized/ emphasized in comparison with the of STURP. Frei died in the early 1980s (1982?) without having completed his final report on the pollen on the Shroud. Next: the reception of Frei's results. Cheers! [ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

05-04-2002, 11:11 AM	#59
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Even for someone like me who has been interested in the Shroud of Turin since the late 1970s it is difficult to reconstruct/recall how much weight we gave to the pollen evidence in the late 70s/early 80s. Yet this was a skein of evidence which was very probative of the Shroud's origins: no 14th Century forger would know to put Near Eastern pollen in the Shroud: there were no microscopes at that time and palynology was centuries away. So either the Shroud sans image originally came from that region or the Shroud came thence WITH the image already on it. There were no other possibilities if you took the pollen evidence at face value. Perhaps unsurprisingly someone refused to take it at face value: Steven Schafersman. [to be continued] Cheers!

05-04-2002, 11:25 AM	#60
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Schafersman's contribution to the Shroud authenticity debate was real: in the early 1980s even pro-authenticity advocates must have been a tad perplexed by Max Frei's findings: the Sturp team found only small numbers of pollen and the numerous specimens of Near Eastern origin reported by Frei seemed too good to be true. It was Schafersman who suggested that the results WERE too good to be true: Frei or a confederate must have "seeded" the tape samples with Near Eastern pollen. [to be continued] Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.