Textual Criticism - The Bible and the Book of Mormon

[_Roger]

Hi mak:

You're mistakenly attributing my statements to grindael in your last post. For clarity, could you go back and fix that? Thanks.

Also,

I think the preponderance of evidence leaves no doubt that it was produced around the fourteenth century.

I really think you're wrong about that. The original dating to the 14th century was flawed and that's pretty well been established. I would encourage you to look into it.

In the meantime, let's entertain the notion that the Shroud is from the correct time frame. What would your opinion of it be in that case?

All the best.

[_maklelan]

Hi mak:

You're mistakenly attributing my statements to grindael in your last post. For clarity, could you go back and fix that? Thanks.

My apologies. It's fixed.

Also,

I really think you're wrong about that. The original dating to the 14th century was flawed and that's pretty well been established. I would encourage you to look into it.

I've looked into at length. The original dating has been challenged by those who believe in the authenticity of the shroud, but I haven't seen any scientific analysis that gives me reason to doubt the dating provided by multiple independent tests. I certainly don't think the claim that a patch was tested has any merit to it.

In the meantime, let's entertain the notion that the Shroud is from the correct time frame. What would your opinion of it be in that case?

That it is a weird first century CE relic that happens to align with conceptualizations of Jesus' appearance that don't appear until much later.

[_Gunnar]

Hi Gunnar:

Thanks for your post. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll take a stab at some of the comments you made.

If Jesus' resurrected body was indeed the very same body he had when he died, this would undoubtedly be the only case in human history when that could have occurred!

Which is exactly what the gospels are claiming. As I said earlier, it's certainly an incredible claim, but that's the claim they make nonetheless. Consider the Shroud of Turin. What I find fascinating is that experts are baffled by it and several have stated there is nothing like it in the world. Interesting choice of words in light of your comment above.

I am somewhat familiar with the controversy surrounding that famous shroud and the intriguing points you brought up about it that seem to lend some credence to claims that it dates from the right period, and that it is an authentic burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. However, I don't want to get too much into that right now before doing some more research on it. Suffice it for now to say that even at best, there is no way of confirming that Christ, himself, was buried in it, or even, if he was, that it is proof of his resurrection.

In the light of all the above, the fact that the body of Christ was missing when Jesus' disciples entered the tomb actually detracts from rather than lends to the credibility of the story of his resurrection, as the non-disappearance of his original body from the tomb would have no impact whatsoever on whether he could have been or was miraculously resurrected with an immortal body. Why, then, was it necessary for God to open the tomb in the first place?

Seems a reasonable answer to that one would be so people could enter and see an empty tomb.

Fine, but that would prove only that the corpse was missing, not that it was resurrected.

Here then, as I see it, are the possibilities in the order of least likely to most likely.

1. One (and only one) of the mutually contradictory versions of Christ's resurrection and the empty tomb is actually literally true and accurate.

Not really. Ask four witnesses to an accident what happened and you'll get different accounts of the same actual event, with sometimes wildly differing elements. It doesn't mean the event never occurred, rather, it means humans don't have perfect recall, especially surrounding unexpected, dramatic or traumatic events. So it may actually be that none of the accounts we have in the gospels is perfectly accurate, but we still have a decent picture of what actually happened within the elements that do agree.

Point well taken, but I still think that is the least probable of the available alternatives.

2. Christ actually did not die on the cross but went into a (perhaps drug induced) coma, very hard to distinguish from actual death, and was revived by disciples or co-conspirators who managed to break into the tomb for that purpose so he could claim to have been resurrected. The fact that he still had the wounds received while on the cross makes this scenario seem slightly more likely to me than scenario 1 because there is really no compelling reason why Christ's resurrected body should be any less perfectly restored than any one else's resurrected body. The retention of the wounds makes his resurrection seem at least a little less miraculous, and raises legitimate doubts about its reality.

While this is a possibility I think it's a very unlikely one. First, the Romans were experts at killing people and making sure they were dead. Second, if you understand what a Roman scourging was all about, you realize it's amazing Jesus was still alive at all by the time he got to the cross. Third, the gospels describe water mixed with blood coming out the hole poked in his side. My understanding is that that is a sign of death.

I agree that it is very unlikely, but not as unlikely, IMHO, as scenario #1. There is still the matter of the still visible wounds on his body. Does this really add credence to the resurrection narrative? Why? Resurrection is supposed to result in a perfectly restored body, with all missing body parts replaced, and all scars and blemishes incurred during mortality removed. Why should this be any less true of the resurrection of the only perfect man who ever lived? Does Christ still have his resurrected body with all the scars resulting from the ordeal of his trial and crucifixion? I'm sure you would agree that God or Christ could miraculously either remove or reproduce those scars at will, whether he was actually crucified or not, so how does their presence really prove the reality of the resurrection? To me, it would be more reasonable to take them as evidence that Christ had not yet actually died. While it is true that the Romans were experts at killing people and making sure they were dead, it is my understanding that they were also good at prolonging and maximizing the agony, and that crucifixion victims typically lasted longer before dying on the cross than Christ supposedly did.

3. Christ actually did die while on the cross, and his disciples broke into the tomb to steal and hide the body, so they could later claim he was resurrected, and continue the ministry he started.

I find this unlikely as well. Sure, I could see them wanting to carry on what Jesus started, but if they knew the whole thing about his resurrection was a lie, why would they be willing to die for a lie? Peter, for example, was willing to be crucified upside down... for something he knew was a lie? Doesn't seem likely to me.

How likely is it that Peter was actually crucified in that manner? Do we have any impartial sources that show uncontroversially that this was anything more than pious, Christian folklore? Still, though, I agree that scenario #3 is unlikely--just not as unlikely as #1 or #2. Besides, as maklelan has also pointed out, there are numerous examples in history of people dying for causes that are irrational and/or untrue. Whether they were themselves deluded is, of course, another question.

4. The story of the empty tomb and Christ's subsequent appearances to various disciples is entirely fictional, and long after his death, to take advantage of gullible and eager believers

Again, the very real persecution and martyrdom of Christians at that time seems to make this an unlikely scenario.

Perhaps, but I still find it the least unlikely of the available alternatives. Again, we know of documented examples of persecution and/or martyrdom for advocacy of irrational and/or untrue causes.

As a matter of fact, in the light of what we now know about biology, physiology and metabolism, if Christ's disciples had found his original remains still lying in the tomb when they entered it, that would actually have added to rather than detracted from the credence of the resurrection narrative--at least from a modern, scientifically informed perspective--especially if the subsequent appearances of the living, corporeal Christ were still true.

I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion. The Bible is actually purporting a miracle here. It is indeed telling an unparalleled story. The very definition of God is a being who is capable of performing miraculous acts. I don't think it's a very good criticism to say God is forbidden to do something he's capable of doing because biologists can't figure out how he did it. So far, scientists can't figure out how to duplicate the image on the Shroud of Turin, much less try to figure out how some first century hoaxter managed to pull it off.

All the best.

My incredulity is not based on the inability of biologists to figure out how God did it. As I tried to point out, even if resurrection is a real thing, it is obviously absolutely unnecessary for any resurrected body (including Christ's) to incorporate any material that was originally a part of one's body during life, including the recently deceased corpse. From a modern, scientifically informed perspective, the continuing presence of Christ's recently deceased and wounded corpse, given the subsequent appearance to disciples in his "resurrected", corporeal form, would actually be stronger evidence that he had actually died and was resurrected than the absence of his body from the tomb would be.

At any rate, I have to thank you for your civil, fair minded and provocative inputs to the discussion. You are a shining example to all of us on this forum as to how we ought to behave toward each other.

All the best to you, as well.

Gunnar

[_Gunnar]

Servant, whatever your intentions when starting this thread, it has, so far, resulted in some very interesting and stimulating discussion. Thanks for that.

[_Roger]

Hi Gunnar:

I am somewhat familiar with the controversy surrounding that famous shroud and the intriguing points you brought up about it that seem to lend some credence to claims that it dates from the right period, and that it is an authentic burial shroud of a crucifixion victim. However, I don't want to get too much into that right now before doing some more research on it. Suffice it for now to say that even at best, there is no way of confirming that Christ, himself, was buried in it, or even, if he was, that it is proof of his resurrection.

Agreed. I doubt there will ever be a definite way to positively identify it with Christ, however, it has been associated with Christ since it showed up in the 14th century and scientists still don't know how to reproduce the image. If the fabric is actually from the correct time frame (as it now seems to be) then it seems very unlikely some 14th century forger in France found a 1300 year old cloth from the right time and place and then somehow produced an image on it that even modern scientists can't duplicate.

Fine, but that would prove only that the corpse was missing, not that it was resurrected.

Sure, but you asked why it would be necessary for God to open the tomb.

Point well taken, but I still think that is the least probable of the available alternatives.

Why? The fact that we have variance in the accounts actually makes them seem more authentic to me. If these guys were actually "enhancing" facts and using the same source material in order to make it appear like Jesus rose from the dead when he really didn't, don't you think they'd make every effort to make sure they got their stories straight? I mean if these weren't independent accounts, then didn't they make some pretty basic mistakes by not comparing their accounts and looking for basic discrepancies? That's what makes them actually seem authentic to me. We do see some basic discrepancies and that would be what we would expect to find from different witnesses giving an account - to the best of their fallible ability - of an actual event.

I agree that it is very unlikely, but not as unlikely, IMHO, as scenario #1. There is still the matter of the still visible wounds on his body. Does this really add credence to the resurrection narrative? Why? Resurrection is supposed to result in a perfectly restored body, with all missing body parts replaced, and all scars and blemishes incurred during mortality removed. Why should this be any less true of the resurrection of the only perfect man who ever lived? Does Christ still have his resurrected body with all the scars resulting from the ordeal of his trial and crucifixion? I'm sure you would agree that God or Christ could miraculously either remove or reproduce those scars at will, whether he was actually crucified or not, so how does their presence really prove the reality of the resurrection?

I don't think either a scarred body or a pristine body makes a difference. I don't think either would add or detract from the credence of the resurrection narrative. I think the point of the scars was simply to say, look, see the signs of what I endured. See that I did take the punishment for sins on me in a very literal sense. Of course God could remove those signs any time he wants.

To me, it would be more reasonable to take them as evidence that Christ had not yet actually died. While it is true that the Romans were experts at killing people and making sure they were dead, it is my understanding that they were also good at prolonging and maximizing the agony, and that crucifixion victims typically lasted longer before dying on the cross than Christ supposedly did.

But if Jesus didn't actually die, then he had to go on living a mortal existence. He must have just decided to get out of town and live a quiet life somewhere. Seems contrary to the way he had been living up to that point. And, wow, what an opportunity he missed to show up again in a year or two after his health came back and announce to the world he'd conquered the Romans at their own game. Think of the stir that would have caused!

How likely is it that Peter was actually crucified in that manner? Do we have any impartial sources that show uncontroversially that this was anything more than pious, Christian folklore? Still, though, I agree that scenario #3 is unlikely--just not as unlikely as #1 or #2. Besides, as maklelan has also pointed out, there are numerous examples in history of people dying for causes that are irrational and/or untrue. Whether they were themselves deluded is, of course, another question.

I can't recall any credible critic suggesting the disciples weren't actually persecuted or martyred. I've been to Rome and have seen the place where Peter was held in prison. I've never heard any other account of his death other than the one suggesting he was crucified upside down. I think it's also pretty well agreed that Paul was killed in Rome too, although I don't think the method of his execution is known. I suppose it's possible that all those traditions have been made up, Gunnar, but there seems to be little reason to doubt them since we know plenty of other Christians were martyred. In any event, I don't think you can demonstrate that they weren't martyred.

My incredulity is not based on the inability of biologists to figure out how God did it. As I tried to point out, even if resurrection is a real thing, it is obviously absolutely unnecessary for any resurrected body (including Christ's) to incorporate any material that was originally a part of one's body during life, including the recently deceased corpse.

Well that's pretty much the point. I don't think Christ's body was reanimated rather than reconstituted because it was biologically necessary to do it that way as opposed to the other.

From a modern, scientifically informed perspective, the continuing presence of Christ's recently deceased and wounded corpse, given the subsequent appearance to disciples in his "resurrected", corporeal form, would actually be stronger evidence that he had actually died and was resurrected than the absence of his body from the tomb would be.

And the Bible suggests both.

All the best.

[_Roger]

mak:

I've looked into at length. The original dating has been challenged by those who believe in the authenticity of the shroud, but I haven't seen any scientific analysis that gives me reason to doubt the dating provided by multiple independent tests. I certainly don't think the claim that a patch was tested has any merit to it.

I think you're wrong. Just check this out when you get a chance. It's short and a good place to start:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sc ... z36Bl5W5yV

In the meantime, let's entertain the notion that the Shroud is from the correct time frame. What would your opinion of it be in that case?

That it is a weird first century CE relic that happens to align with conceptualizations of Jesus' appearance that don't appear until much later.

Exactly. So then a disputed date is the only thing that would hold you back from seeing it as a really "weird" artifact. As Gunnar points out, the shroud itself does not prove resurrection, even if it is Christ's burial cloth. But it certainly does suggest something weird - or perhaps we should be more dignified and say "unique" - took place. I really think the date objection is finished. The debate will move to: it still doesn't prove resurrection and there's no way to know if it really is an image of Christ.

But consider these statements from a Jewish (not Christian) skeptic who's been studying this for decades:

Most convincing, Schwortz said, is the image’s unique character. “People try to make things that look like the shroud,” he said, “but no one has come close. Nor has anyone been able to suggest a mechanism that could create an image with this specific set of physical and chemical properties.”

The spatial information embodied in the image means that it had to be created “by some sort of interaction” between the cloth and a body. “Good luck trying to duplicate that,” he said.

*snip*

“Think about it,” he said. “Only one guy in history had these specific tortures applied, and it was done in a time when we know it was a Jewish custom to mop up the blood and place it with the body. All of this is on the shroud. Again, according to the evidence, there was no paint, no brush marks, no scorching used to make this image. The only way that image and those blood stains could get there was by some sort of interaction between cloth and body.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sc ... urins-age/

All the best.

[_Bret Ripley]

Exactly. So then a disputed date is the only thing that would hold you back from seeing it as a really "weird" artifact. As Gunnar points out, the shroud itself does not prove resurrection, even if it is Christ's burial cloth. But it certainly does suggest something weird - or perhaps we should be more dignified and say "unique" - took place. I really think the date objection is finished. The debate will move to: it still doesn't prove resurrection and there's no way to know if it really is an image of Christ.

Have you considered that the image is all wrong to have been made by a cloth draped over a person? If the image had been created in this fashion, the image on the cloth should be distorted from side-to-side (widened). To illustrate: if you were to lie down and drape a towel over your face, grasp the towel where each ear is, and then stretch the towel flat you would find that the distance between the points at which you are grasping the towel is almost twice the distance that actually separates your ears. (Extra credit if you cover your face with food coloring first and make a Shroud of Roger.) The image on the Turin shroud shows a straight-on (photograph-like) perspective rather than the widening distortion we should expect had it been made by making contact with a body over which it had been draped.

[_Roger]

Hi Bret:

Have you considered that the image is all wrong to have been made by a cloth draped over a person?

Seems like a reasonable observation. I'm not sure. There was a comment similar to this from the article I posted earlier. This is from a skeptic:

Asked to list the reasons he believes the shroud is a fake, Nickell argues that its shape is wrong, according to both Gospel accounts and ancient Jewish burial practices. “Simply draping the cloth under and over the body is from the Middle Ages,” he said.

He notes other problems with the shroud image, including the hair lying close to the head, “when it should be splayed out,” and the unnaturally elongated shape of the body “more like French Gothic art than real life.”

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sc ... z36Cj6WCHL

So I don't know. Sounds like there was some distortion but maybe not in the direction we would expect? In any event the experts who examined it are convinced it's an actual burial cloth:

“We can conclude for now that the shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery, and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”

All the best.

[_maklelan]

mak:

I think you're wrong. Just check this out when you get a chance. It's short and a good place to start:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sc ... z36Bl5W5yV

This doesn't strike me as very convincing, particularly in light of the fact that the promised article has yet to be published.

Exactly. So then a disputed date

It qualifies as a disputed date the way evolution is a disputed scientific model, or the moon landing is a disputed event, or Elvis' death is disputed. Just because a collection of people refuses to accept the scientific analysis does not really make it disputed.

is the only thing that would hold you back from seeing it as a really "weird" artifact.

That happens to coincide with much later concepts of Jesus and much later practices. It still doesn't fit Jesus' time period.

As Gunnar points out, the shroud itself does not prove resurrection, even if it is Christ's burial cloth. But it certainly does suggest something weird - or perhaps we should be more dignified and say "unique" - took place.

Which is one of the reasons just accepting the unilateral scientific evidence for a medieval date makes much more sense. We're left with far, far fewer anomalies to try to figure out.

I really think the date objection is finished.

I disagree.

The debate will move to: it still doesn't prove resurrection and there's no way to know if it really is an image of Christ.

But consider these statements from a Jewish (not Christian) skeptic who's been studying this for decades:

The article states that he began as a skeptic, but is now convinced it is authentic. It also doesn't state it, but he's a photographer, not a scientist.

[_Roger]

Just because a collection of people refuses to accept the scientific analysis does not really make it disputed.

You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch. Guess I'll just have to wait until it's published and peer reviewed. At that point I will need your address so I can mail you a spoon and you can eat your words. : )

All the best.