Joe wasn’t impressed. My own take, which raises several of the same points that Joe does, is here.
While not having a TV, due to reports such as the CNN Jesus Shroud report,, I viewed it on line. I had hoped for something different as there were three names I recognized as having some credibility, however whereas they have credibility as biblical scholars, what appeared in the 59 minutes had to fall into one of the most misinformed Shroud of Turin reports I have seen in decades. I will leave theological matters to theologians, but from a historical Jesus, archaeological/anthropological perspective, which they try to achieve, even claiming that it is an archaeological relic, it shows how misinformed the report is. I had expected more from Wolf Blitzer, one of the executives of CNN who interviewed me on the topic of crucifixion in the 70’s when he was posted in Jerusalem, working for Reuters.
Evidently he was not involved. To keep things brief:
1. The question of forgery appears in the CNN title however not until the 43 minute is the topic briefly addressed.
2. Long haired Jesus as seen here, Jewish males in antiquity, unless they were Nazerites and Jesus wasn’t, would not have long hair. It would have been viewed as effeminate. Have a look at the Jewish captives on the Arch of Titus in Rome.
3. Victims of crucifixion, a form of state terror practiced for 800 years throughout the Old World, probably ran into the hundreds of thousands and one thing we know is, THAT THE VICTIM, did not carry the cross as shown in the film, they carried the cross bar.
4. Victims subjected to crucifixion were crucified in public places, cross roads, markets, unlike the CNN scene which seems to have been borrowed from a Mel Gibson film, i.e isolated, far from the maddening crowds.
5. The narrator speaks of asphyxiation regarded by most scholars as being the cause of death , which begs the question, is anyone reading the anthropological/archaeological literature on the topic? An American physician, (Zugibe) who was pro-shroud, for years affixed volunteers to a cross and monitored their physiological response which showed that A. no one had trouble breathing and B. that probable cause of death was hypovolemic shock.
6. What was missing from the report was any mention of the work of an Italian Professor Antonio Lombatti, who founded in the 1990’s an academic journal (Approfondimento Sindone) dealing with all the alleged claims, some bordering on the absurd, for the authenticity of the Shroud. E.g at one time there were upwards of 40 ‘Jesus Shrouds’ circulating around Europe, along with 4 churches holding (sic) the fore skin from Jesus circumcision.
7. After viewing the entire 59 minutes, including advertisements for everything from medicine for fungal toenails to a Christian organization, the only thing which I could acknowledge as having academic value, was mention that in 1988 the Vatican went on record that the dating of the Shroud, done in three independent labs, showed that it was a medieval relic, something that I have no problem with. Secondly, the segment in which the art historian showed that the image could have been placed on the cloth using what is called camera obscura, is, in my opinion, important.
8. Viewing the credits, I saw no name from anyone in the field of biblical studies, inc. archaeology/anthropology who could address the question of the relic being a medieval forgery.
9. I could go on and on, that so called’ experts, who may not have had any say in the final cut, show a total ignorance of Jewish burial customs, along with the anatomical/forensic issues surrounding the shroud, but I will leave the reader here.
In short what one views here is basically a cross between a Mel Gibson rerun (The Passion of the Christ 2004) and a JAMA (J. of American Medical Association) article (1986) on The Physical Death of Jesus Christ, which the journal editors later reported that, never in the history of the medical association, had readers been so outraged. One physician probably best described the entire article as ‘forensic mythology’ in that the NT mentions simply that Jesus was crucified, not how.
Like Christian art, which is a-historical in the sense that one is viewing theology inspired at best by history, the CNN report was another second rate attempt at theology under the guise of science or in other words, in relation to the historical Jesus, it is what Scientific Creationism is to Science.
Despite, the sincerity of many of those studying the Shroud of Turin, I would argue, that there is no convincing evidence which should lead anyone along the proverbial ‘road to Damascus’ that the object is but one of many relics manufactured in the middle ages, to assist the pious in their beliefs. For that, we in the field of science have no issue, but to misuse science to claim that it is authentic, we have issues.
In the summer of 2013, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) digitized the Greek biblical papyri housed at the Chester Beatty Library (CBL) in Dublin, Ireland. The Chester Beatty collection includes some of the earliest and most important Greek biblical manuscripts in the world. In addition to these biblical manuscripts, CSNTM also digitized several extra-biblical Greek papyri that are part of the CBL collection.
For the first time, images of two of these extra-biblical Chester Beatty manuscripts have now been made available:
1) The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians
Jannes and Jambres is an apocryphal work. Its text is fragmentary and dated from the 3rd-4th century.
2) Enoch and Melito
Enoch is an extra-biblical work. Melito is an early Christian homily. The text is from the 4th century.
These texts are uniquely significant, as they contain an early witness to rare works for which only a handful of copies have survived, and in the case of Jannes and Jambres, this is the only Greek manuscript known to exist.
Visit the manuscript page to view these new images from Dublin.
Originally posted on EerdWord:
Anthony C. Thiselton
The rules of our Five Questions interview series are simple: we send authors a long list of questions. Some are serious, some are . . . not so serious. They choose their five favorites and respond.
Our guest today is Anthony C. Thiselton, professor emeritus of Christian theology at the University of Nottingham, England, and a world-renowned scholar of biblical interpretation. Thiselton has published numerous works with Eerdmans over the last three decades. His latest book, The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology, draws from the author’s encyclopedic knowledge to give an account of a wide sweep of topics and thinkers in Christian theology — everything from “Abba” to “Zwingli.”
* * *
What led you to write the Companion?
Several factors led me to write it. First, I shall soon be seventy-eight and have already suffered a major stroke. The general advice about writing in old age seems…
View original 1,008 more words
Money blinds us to the perversity and the misdeeds of the rich. I saw this on the fb and it reminded me of that simple truth.
Rich people literally get away with murder and all sorts of criminal behavior. Just ask the NFL or your local University jock. The poor, not so much. [With the exception of the poor with a high profile theologian and school on their side.] At least for a while.
“Controversia et Confessio – Quellenedition zur Bekenntnisbildung und Konfessionalisierung (1548-1580)”
Oh boy this is fantastic!
Seit dem 20. Februar präsentiert sich das vom Leibniz-Institut für Europäische Geschichte initiierte Projekt „Forschungs- und Editionsprojekt “Controversia et Confessio – Quellenedition zur Bekenntnisbildung und Konfessionalisierung (1548-1580)” auf der projekteigenen Website in neuer Gestalt.
Hierbei ermöglicht die Anwendung von responsivem Webdesign einen verbesserten Zugriff der Seite für mobile Endgräten. Die neue Gestaltung basiert auf Elementen des Corporate Design des Leibniz-Instituts für Europäische Geschichte und der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Darüber hinaus sind auf der neuen Seite die beiden bisher getrennten Datenbanken zu Personen und Quellen des Forschungsgegenstands zusammengeführt worden, was eine Verknüpfung der beiden Datenbestände ermöglicht.
Die Quellenedition dokumentiert die theologischen Streitigkeiten, die nach dem Augsburger Interim von 1548 und dem als Alternative dazu konzipierten Leipziger Landtagsentwurf (“Leipziger Interim”) aufbrachen. Sie orientiert sich dabei an den verhandelten theologiegeschichtlich relevanten Themen, deren Aushandlung auch in gesellschaftliche und politische Bereiche hineinwirkten. Das Akademieprojekt ist eingebunden in die Forschungen des Leibniz-Instituts für Europäische Geschichte und steht in Kooperation mit der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz und der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel.
Für der projekteigenen Website klicken Sie hier.