Lawyerskeptic said

ask21771 said
do we know for sure it was darker back then?

Compare  the photograph with the medieval painting.  What do you think?

** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Of course a painting is, it would seem, more likely interpretive or idyllic.

BTW from what I understand, the last preservation effort manged to damage the relic

“The intervention that just occurred most likely lost valuable data as a result of the experimental design utilized. This data loss did not have to occur. Something as simple as taking the UV/VIS and Raman measurements before removing any of the patches or carbonized materials could have conserved at least some of the data measurements desired by researchers.”

Similarly,

“

Procedural issues:

1. Open access – the renovation work was performed in an area that was readily accessible to visiting dignitaries and other non-specialists who were not directly involved with the restoration work taking place. This access both compromised the secrecy that was required – though not with the Shroud research community – and introduced additional sources of inorganic and organic contamination. Any future research or conservation work should take place in a ‘clean room’ type of environment with access strictly controlled.

2. Lack of protective clothing – the two conservators most directly in contact with the Shroud did not use protective clothing while working. Their hands were directly in contact with the Shroud on numerous occasions thus adding to the contamination of the cloth. Future researchers should be required to wear protective gloves and other protective garments to minimize the possibility of additional contamination.

3. Consultation – while the Shroud Conservation Committee spent over ten years discussing the elements of the conservation effort that just took place and the Turin authorities had requested proposals for future scientific research on the Shroud two years ago, virtually no one outside the Committee was aware of the nature of what was being contemplated. The non-consultative approach to the restoration has badly damaged the sense of international research cooperation that had developed over the past few years. To avoid this problem in the future, a Commission should be established, perhaps under auspices of the Pontifical Academy of Science, to guide any future access to the Shroud to insure that all points of view are given a just and fair hearing before proceeding with any future research or any other conservation effort.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Liam Foley said
I am of the opinion that Jesus was never buried. The historical evidence points to the view that those executed via a Roman crucifixion were criminals and left on the cross even after death until they rotted away as a warning sign not to commit crime in the Empire. I believe Jesus received the same treatment and his body was left up to rot. No burial means no Shroud was used or found.

And what of the very early belief in burial as reflected in Corinthians 15:4? Further, Romans often through the remains in a common pit.

Yes, there is a belief that Jesus was buried and if he was it was unprecedented because there is no historical evidence of anyone crucified being buried. So, since without evidence anyone is free to believe what they like, I will error on the side of the historical evidence until there is more evidence that people were buried after crucified

I cited evidence in my first response. Was my response too long? Lets recap, shall we?

Letting the crucified receive proper burial is unprecented. The Romans disposed of the remains of the crucified in common pits.  Further, you oversimply. The belief was very early. This is to say, early testimony makes it more likely.

Finally, this isn’t a debate. I’m not challenging your opinion, but you need to explain those details and not simply dismiss them with some rhetorical flourish.

According to Archaeologist Jodi Magness

Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus’ body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law.

Liam Foley said

I apologize if I sound dismissive but for myself the text isn’t evidence and I look for contemporary evidence from the time period and from my research I haven’t found any evidence that any one who was crucified under Rome was allowed burial.

That’s pretty thin, Liam. Perhaps in your studies you, at least,  have kept the critical method in mind, since THAT more than anything else decides what the evidence is. Historians always consider textual evidence since in most cases, the subject of their inquiry is long dead and things like letters and books are all they are left with 

The problem here is a bit more than SOUNDING dismissive. Discarding evidence most scholars would accept- contemporary evidence from the time period- is dismissive and arbitrary. You come off looking like a person unwilling to give up a pet theory.

Bart Ehrman made a very similar argument to yours in HJBG. I happen to think he may be right, but there are details that need to be explained rather than dismissed out of hand. Perhaps you might start by explaining how the text  is NOT “contemporary evidence from the time period” 

There are two types of burial consistent with what you have stated about crucifixion.

Liam Foley said

spiker said

Liam Foley said
I apologize if I sound dismissive but for myself the text isn’t evidence and I look for contemporary evidence from the time period and from my research I haven’t found any evidence that any one who was crucified under Rome was allowed burial.

That’s pretty thin, Liam. Perhaps in your studies you, at least,  have kept the critical method in mind, since THAT more than anything else decides what the evidence is. Historians always consider textual evidence since in most cases, the subject of their inquiry is long dead and things like letters and books are all they are left with 

The problem here is a bit more than SOUNDING dismissive. Discarding evidence most scholars would accept- contemporary evidence from the time period- is dismissive and arbitrary. You come off looking like a person unwilling to give up a pet theory.

Bart Ehrman made a very similar argument to yours in HJBG. I happen to think he may be right, but there are details that need to be explained rather than dismissed out of hand. Perhaps you might start by explaining how the text  is NOT “contemporary evidence from the time period” 

There are two types of burial consistent with what you have stated about crucifixion.

I also first heard the theory in college decades ago that Jesus was not buried. On a Facebook post I mentioned this theory to Bart Erhman and he agrees with it. I also read about this from Marcus Borg, John Dommonic Crossan and others. This theory was also taught in secular history class about the Roman Empre. You say you agree that Bart Erhman may be right so I am failing to see where we disagree. So I am not sure what you’re looking for from me.

 Much of that makes very little difference. I’m not sure if you think padding is persuasion, but why would you try to persuade someone that you, at least, acknowledge, thinks there is substance to the belief that Jesus may not have been buried.

But it’s getting much harder to think you’re not dismissive when I have mentioned 3 different times what I’m “looking for” and you remain mystified non the less.

Bart is on records saying from an historians point of view their are discrepancies in the text that renders them not always reliable for historical accuracy. The majority of Scholars believe Jesus was not buried because that doesn’t line up with outside sources, sources outside of the Bible from that time period, which says that those crucified under Roman Law were left to rot. Plus, the text gives four accounts of the resurrection that are very different from one another making them historically unreliable.

But none of that amounts to very much: The gospels aren’t always reliable for historical accuracy; yet Ehrman, himself, uses these sources. So far the case for you being dismissive is looking pretty good. A little confirmation bias goes along way. I think your idea of what the majority of scholars think is a bit off. Pretty sure Ehrman’s position is in the minority. What outside sources from that “time period” ?

Does Josephus fit? How about Jehonan, you know the victim of crucifixion whose ossuary was found in 1968. Jehonan was, apparently…wait for it…. buried after crucifixion. Further, as I pointed out that Archaeologist Jodi Magness has claimed  “the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law….”

 

now if the bones of Jesus were tossed into a common grave and buried then I can accept that view for it lines up with the evidence.

Ahh, you peeked!

I think I already made that point. NONE of the dating has placed it’s existence even close to the time of Jesus burial. I think the earliest date given is about the year 300. That is, there are centuries between it and the burial of Jesus. I would refrain from calling it a fake, but would argue there’s no basis for concluding, it was used to bury Jesus. Considering the damage done to it, we may never be able to determine anything more.