FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => History and Archeology => Topic started by: gavignano on June 29, 2009, 08:49:59 pm
-
Just using the AP source, Pope Benedict said "seem to conclude."
Wonderfully imprecise.
As far as the Shroud, I'm going to put myself out on a limb, and admit I've never been convinced its a forgery of the 13th, 14th century or whatever. Of course no one could ever "prove" it was Jesus, but I've never seen conclusive evidence that it isn't an image of a 1st-2nd century man who was crucified. And I love the evidence of the eyes - or should I say what looks like a nice Pilate lepton on one. My atheist/skeptic friend believes it to be nothing more than creative Photoshopping of an image which looks like a bug to him.......
-
As far as the Shroud, I'm going to put myself out on a limb, and admit I've never been convinced its a forgery of the 13th, 14th century or whatever.
Have a good look at the images of Christ on the anonymous Byzantine folles of of the 10th-12th centuries or on icons of the period and then have a fresh look at the image on the shroud. If that doesn't do it, there are the radiocarbon dates taken on samples of the shroud itself... oh that's right, we threw out radiocarbon dating earlier in this thread because it yields impossible dates like 10,000 BC and we all know the earth is younger than that. D'oh! :)
-
As far as the Shroud, I'm going to put myself out on a limb, and admit I've never been convinced its a forgery of the 13th, 14th century or whatever.
Have a good look at the images of Christ on the anonymous Byzantine folles of of the 10th-12th centuries or on icons of the period and then have a fresh look at the image on the shroud. If that doesn't do it, there are the radiocarbon dates taken on samples of the shroud itself... oh that's right, we threw out radiocarbon dating earlier in this thread because it yields impossible dates like 10,000 BC and we all know the earth is younger than that. D'oh! :)
That's not called for. There are real problems with carbon dating in that it can not distinguish between where the carbon was from...In this case, the shroud itself was exposed to smoke which has deposited additional carbon...
-
In this case, the shroud itself was exposed to smoke which has deposited additional carbon...
Here is the actual report on the shroud dating as published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm)
If you have concerns regarding methodology which the review panel missed, you may wish to submit your own paper for consideration.
And we wonder why archaeologists show so little respect for numismatists ...
-
And we wonder why archaeologists show so little respect for numismatists ...
Who's 'we' and who is the numismatist here (that gets so little respect from archeologists)?
-
In this case, the shroud itself was exposed to smoke which has deposited additional carbon...
Here is the actual report on the shroud dating as published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm (http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm)
If you have concerns regarding methodology which the review panel missed, you may wish to submit your own paper for consideration.
And we wonder why archaeologists show so little respect for numismatists ...
Thanks for the link to the report! I never for a moment thought the shroud was Jesus'. I used to entertain the idea that there was a slim possibility it may have dated back to a burial from the first century, but this report pretty much nixes that idea too.
-
The trouble with the image on the shroud, as the dating attests, is that it doesn't depict what we would expect of a man of Jesus ethnic background and time, but rather depicts what we expect him to look like - somewhat emanciapated and long-haired - by the artistic tradition of the "man of sorrows" that later developed.
However, if we look at the earliest images intended as Jesus in the Christian catacombs, depicted as the Good Shepard, then we see a healthy clean shaven young man with short hair. Whether this was specifically meant to be Jesus or was simply a continuation of repurposed pagan imagery is another question, but at least it attests to the lack of any other tradition at that time. Even if we believe these early depictions to have been deliberately ambiguous as to their Christian vs Pagan nature, it would seem to highlight that there was no alternate depiction of Jesus that was transmitted to later times. His image was therefore really a blank slate upon which an iconographic depiction was created based on theology rather than actual appearance.
New Scientist a number of years back published an attempt at reconstructing what a typical man of that ethnicity/age may have looked like based on modern forensics, depicting him with short hair based on scholarship as to that being the norm, and the result was a more of a rounder faced stocky build, obviously of middle eastern appearance rather than white skinned.
Ben
-
Well, the likelihood that the shroud was that of Jesus was miniscule anyway (even if it did date to the time of Christ) considering that tens of thousands were crucified in the first century alone! It should not matter to Christians anyway whether it was legit or not since it would not make one iota of difference in Christian belief of salvation. It is just an object...period.
As for archaeologists not respecting numismatists...what is that supposed to mean? There are amateur numismatists AND archaelogists who make assumptions without scientific or empirical data. Just the same, there are innumerable numismatists who know their craft well and can unequivocally contribute to the placement of artifacts and coins in historical perspective that many archeologists probably have no a clue about (Some of these specialists being members of Forvm). Numismatists are specialists as many archaeologists are. So, I can see why the statement was made, but I respectfully disagree.
Best, Noah
-
And we wonder why archaeologists show so little respect for numismatists ...
Also not called for ;)
1) Testing of the shroud has nothing to do with coins...so any comments from this board are just interesting discussions.
2) Speaking for myself, I am an engineer with an interest in coins; if you generalize numismatists because of one of my opinions, then I think you have insulted a lot of people, in general, people with little blue and brown stars underneath their names.
3) You don't even really know my opinion...all I did was point out a possiblity of inaccuracy; does that warrant such a generalization? For your information; the reason I said your first comment was not called for was because old earth/young earth discussion is not allowed here; by making a snide comment on a topic you know people who disagree can not answer is not, in terms of this board, nice.
-
As far as the shroud...
Turin Shroud Carbon-Dating Flawed
Published on April 11, 2009
LONDON, ENGLAND
A prominent U.S. chemist who pronounced the Turin Shroud a fake came to believe it could have been the burial cloth of Jesus, a television documentary says.
Ray Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1988.
Radio carbon-dating conducted in 1988 on threads of the shroud dated the making of the cloth to hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.
Those threads, however, proved to be part of a repair made to the shroud in the 16th century, Rogers said in a video made shortly before his death of cancer in March 2005.
"The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken," Rogers said. "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."
Rogers said he continued investigating the shroud and began to believe it was genuine, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday.
"I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus," Rogers said in the video.
http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm (http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm)
and a little nice debate
oh noes... ;)
-
ecoli, excellent digging!
I have always held science and experiment to be a lively, dynamic debate, rather than 'I told you so' unchallengeable conclusions, made by a group of "peer reviewed" Ivy leaguers patting themselves on the back! ;)
-
Nice bit of detective work to support yourself ecoli,
Robert, thanks for your detailed explanation on persecution. It is clear that at first it was basically sporadic reactions to what was seen as a group of religious fanatics who were a nuisance in the empire rather than an all out threat worthy of imperial intervention and military action to eradicate. That was for another time...
Best, Noah
-
Ray Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1988.
Funny, I don't see the surname Rogers among the 21 primary authors of the study or anywhere acknowledged in the body of the report. I did however find Roger's webpage, which is apology disguised as science. When we allow for the supernatural or fall into the trap of apology where the conclusion wags the data, we have left "science" behind.
My over-arching point here has been to emphasize the role that critical thought needs to play in our discussions. If I have been overly abrupt, I apologize, but such abruptness is often effective. The response to any assertion ("The earth is only 6000 years old", "The shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Christ", "The inscriptions on ancient Iberian coins are actually Hebrew", "Radiate minimi are Britain's dark ages currncy") must be "prove it!" Failing extraordinary proof equal to extraordinary claims, we must rely on Occam's razor and take the simplest explanation based on available data ("The earth is of great age as it appears", "The shroud is a medieval creation", "The inscriptions on Iberian coins are Iberian", "Radiate minimi are contemporary imitations") as our working hypothesis until real, reproducible evidence proves the contrary. Or so it seems to me.
-
And we wonder why archaeologists show so little respect for numismatists ...
Who's 'we' and who is the numismatist here (that gets so little respect from archeologists)?
I take it you've missed the whole AIA vs ACCG thing?
-
Ray Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1988.
Funny, I don't see the surname Rogers among the 21 primary authors of the study or anywhere acknowledged in the body of the report. I did however find Roger's webpage, which is apology disguised as science. When we allow for the supernatural or fall into the trap of apology where the conclusion wags the data, we have left "science" behind.
My over-arching point here has been to emphasize the role that critical thought needs to play in our discussions. If I have been overly abrupt, I apologize, but such abruptness is often effective. The response to any assertion ("The earth is only 6000 years old", "The shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Christ", "The inscriptions on ancient Iberian coins are actually Hebrew", "Radiate minimi are Britain's dark ages currncy") must be "prove it!" Failing extraordinary proof equal to extraordinary claims, we must rely on Occam's razor and take the simplest explanation based on available data ("The earth is of great age as it appears", "The shroud is a medieval creation", "The inscriptions on Iberian coins are Iberian", "Radiate minimi are contemporary imitations") as our working hypothesis until real, reproducible evidence proves the contrary. Or so it seems to me.
->take the simplest explanation
That is subject to human opinion.
I'm not commenting on other statements on your answer but as far as "The shroud is a medieval creation", did you click on the link I gave you? That was from your site. That statement seems to be a statement born of hubris on the part of scientists on the 1988 panel.
I apologize for misreading some responses and edited the above accordingly.
-
Sri - you should read my original post. I said no one has convinced me its not an image of a 1st or 2nd century crucified man. What you offered in response is not convincing to me:
1) the carbon dating. A strong argument has been made that the area tested on the cloth was corrupt. Perhaps the next piece tested, if there is one, will show it to be a 13th century forgery. Data not in yet.
2) the imagery piece is a piece of "circumstantial" evidence at best. I wouldn't consider the "opposite" as particularly strong evidence it is a very early image (i.e., if it was a shorter, clean shaven man, that is hardly great evidence it could be Jesus).
As for peer review, Sri - I am in academia, and have actually done peer reviews. Really. I have learned a long time ago that no author, even the skeptic, is unbiased. That is why it really pays to hear all sides of a story.
-
"I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus," Rogers said in the video.
The Sun has amped it up a notch, and has no doubt!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2370937/Turin-Shroud-WAS-used-to-bury-Jesus-says-expert.html
Got to wonder the headlines if they get ahold of this paper by Rogers...
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers7.pdf
Maybe it's not such a bad thing that the image looks more like Apollonius, a contemporary of Jesus (and who's miracles caused some consternation to early apologists), who's appearance we do at least know, not least from a contorniate in the Paris collection!
Ben
-
Question: if Apollonius looked like this, why couldn't Jesus? Is there a Jewish custom to be short shaven?
-
I don't remember the details of what the New Scientist article said about it other than some negative connotations of long hair (not a beard) - I can't recall if it was specifically religious, or maybe just cultural. Apollonius wasn't from so far away - Tyana in what is now Asian Turkey, although he seems to have spent much of his time travelling in India and elsewhere.
Ben
-
As mentioned above, the earliest depictions of him show him clean shaven. Picture attached, I've lost the date for this one but I believe it is third-fourth century.
LordBest. 8)
Question: if Apollonius looked like this, why couldn't Jesus? Is there a Jewish custom to be short shaven?
-
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm (http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery.htm)
Thank you Ben and LordBest.
I found this website which, if you disregard the first (?) images, others starting at 3rd centry have both clean shaven images and some bearded ones.
I wonder if early Christians really know what Jesus looked like.
Also, the apparent lack of images for the first 200 years or so, was it due to doctrine that one can not have an image of God?
thanks again!
-
For those in the UK, there is a programme on Channel 5, tonight 1st July at 8 pm, about the Turin Shroud entitled "The Da Vinci Shroud - revealed". Supposedly it discusses the idea that Leonardo created the image using primitive photography.
-
As mentioned above, the earliest depictions of him show him clean shaven. Picture attached, I've lost the date for this one but I believe it is third-fourth century.
LordBest. 8)
Question: if Apollonius looked like this, why couldn't Jesus? Is there a Jewish custom to be short shaven?
How do we know that beardless depictions of the Christ arent depictions of him in his youth? ;)
-
Even if the Turin Shroud or the Sudarium of Oviedo etc. gave RCD tests of first century date there would still be believers and sceptics as there are today. Although I am also curious as regards their age of manufacture, at the end of the day it's a matter of faith. :angel:
-
Failing extraordinary proof equal to extraordinary claims, we must rely on Occam's razor and take the simplest explanation based on available data
Totally agree.
-
How do we know that beardless depictions of the Christ arent depictions of him in his youth? ;)
They could be, but more likely they represent the imagination of the artist! What would be interesting would be to compare bearded vs unbearded portraits with the social convention in the artist's context. There's a very long tradition of portraying Jesus as a member of the artist's culture, so that would be my first guess.
-
Also, the apparent lack of images for the first 200 years or so, was it due to doctrine that one can not have an image of God?
Please take into account the most early Christians (we can probably say "all Christians" up to the time when preaching to the Gentiles started to make a difference, but also significantly longer) did not consider themselves starters of a new religion. There is no evidence in the Bible, in my opinion (not only mine, by the way), that Jesus considered himself anything different than a Jew fully abiding to the Hebraic law. There is no reporting of the word "Christian" until ca. yr.150, if I remember correctly. Christians were almost unanimously considered a Jewish sect for the first two centuries of their existence as a community. In the community itself there was a strong argument between those who wanted to follow closely the Hebraic law and precepts, and those who thought it more fit to relax strict discipline in order to gain more appeal outside Jewish communities. So I think it is very likely that the absence of any representation of Christ's features in early Christianity is linked to the Hebraic ban on human images, but I think it is also difficult to prove it without a direct source of information. Take also into account that since the IV century and afterwards, when the Christian religion became state religion, extreme care was taken to remove any link between Christianity and Hebraism and to conceal the Hebraic origins of Christianity.
Regards, P. :)
-
I don't remember the details of what the New Scientist article said about it other than some negative connotations of long hair (not a beard) - I can't recall if it was specifically religious, or maybe just cultural. Apollonius wasn't from so far away - Tyana in what is now Asian Turkey, although he seems to have spent much of his time travelling in India and elsewhere.
Ben
I'm not sure you're correct about negative connotations related to long hair. Nazirites, who were dedicated to God for life never cut their hair. Samson and (I think) John the Baptist are examples.
Hope this last part isn't off-topic and out of bounds, but I'm always a little amused by discussion trying to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science. I don't think it can be done. That's why it comes down to faith. People can look at all sorts of "evidence" both scientific and not and reach their own conclusion which they believe or hope to be true, but I think that's as far as you can go until you die. Then you'll know... or not... depending on the answer.
-
How do we know that beardless depictions of the Christ arent depictions of him in his youth? ;)
Well, for what it's worth, he was also depicted that way with the apostles (who are also depicted clean shaven):
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/350_christ_and_apostles_catacomb_domitilla.htm
Ben
-
How do we know that beardless depictions of the Christ arent depictions of him in his youth? ;)
Well, for what it's worth, he was also depicted that way with the apostles (who are also depicted clean shaven):
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/350_christ_and_apostles_catacomb_domitilla.htm
Ben
Exactly! Perhaps growing a beard was a cultural tradition or a sort of "right of passage" for males. Most males can' t grow beards at a young age anyway (at least not long and thick beards as we would imagine older males to possess).
Best, Noah
-
Well, the likelihood that the shroud was that of Jesus was miniscule anyway (even if it did date to the time of Christ) considering that tens of thousands were crucified in the first century alone! It should not matter to Christians anyway whether it was legit or not since it would not make one iota of difference in Christian belief of salvation. It is just an object...period.
Best, Noah
Ben, I actually posted earlier a similar observation to yours (above).
Best, Noah
-
True, but I fail to see how the age of the shroud, or even who it belonged to, has any bearing on the existence of God!
Ben
I fail to see how the age of the shroud, or even who it belonged to, has any bearing on the Roman persecution of Christians! :laugh:
Or for that matter, the discovery of headless bodies in London!
Ben
-
Okay, I tried to split the Shroud of Turin discussion from the Persecution of the Early Christians to make it a bit easier to follow. If anyone feels I butchered the topic, my apologies.
-
Thank you David.
I recommend an extremely well researched book titled "The Resurrection of the Shroud, New Scientific, Medical, and Archelogical Evidence", by Mark Antonacci, 2000. Skeptics will be horrified by his conclusions in the final chapter, but the earlier chapters have extremely detailed and helpful sources, photos and digital analyses as to the Shroud. Joe
-
Wow, my shroud of Turin comment that got all of this started was only meant as an example to another comment. Oh well, I don't mind since this is an interesting topic as well.
Best, Noah
-
Skeptics will be horrified by his conclusions in the final chapter
I wouldn't label people who might be horrified at it somehow being proved authentic as skeptics unless that's some coded usage of the word as opposed to it's normal usage.
I myself am skeptical because common sense says that it's very unlikely to be real. There used to be wholesale fabrication of relics... someone once said that if you assembled all existing fragments of the true cross you'd have enough wood to build an ark!
More importantly there is no known chain of ownership to tie it back to Jesus or anyone of that era, nor any early references indicating that anyone was ever aware of the existence of such a preeminant grail-like artifact! Even if a 1st century date could be established it'd not be any indication of identity (it would just discount theories of it being a more recent fake).
Finally, it is rather suspicious that the face on the shroud looks like the artistic tradition that later developed following those early short-haired clean-shaven depictions. It would better speak to authenticity if the shroud image matched early depictions rather than later ones!
However, this all said, I'd certainly not be horrified if it could somehow be proved authentic. It'd be fascinating that such an artifact had been kept secret for so long!
Ben
-
Also, the apparent lack of images for the first 200 years or so, was it due to doctrine that one can not have an image of God?
Please take into account the most early Christians (we can probably say "all Christians" up to the time when preaching to the Gentiles started to make a difference, but also significantly longer) did not consider themselves starters of a new religion. There is no evidence in the Bible, in my opinion (not only mine, by the way), that Jesus considered himself anything different than a Jew fully abiding to the Hebraic law. There is no reporting of the word "Christian" until ca. yr.150, if I remember correctly. Christians were almost unanimously considered a Jewish sect for the first two centuries of their existence as a community. In the community itself there was a strong argument between those who wanted to follow closely the Hebraic law and precepts, and those who thought it more fit to relax strict discipline in order to gain more appeal outside Jewish communities. So I think it is very likely that the absence of any representation of Christ's features in early Christianity is linked to the Hebraic ban on human images, but I think it is also difficult to prove it without a direct source of information. Take also into account that since the IV century and afterwards, when the Christian religion became state religion, extreme care was taken to remove any link between Christianity and Hebraism and to conceal the Hebraic origins of Christianity.
Regards, P. :)
It may be that we don't have early images of Jesus because the church at the time was so small that it didn't leave any that survived. It grew slowly, but it's only in the 3rd Century that it became important.
You're absolutely right that not one of the New Testament writers ever suggests that they're starting a new religion, rather, they're reforming an old one. It's only as the two drift apart that the Christians start to see themselves as a distinct faith.
the earliest mention of the word 'Christian' is in the Book of Acts; the believers in Antoioch 'were first called Christians' (XRISTIANOUS). We can't, of course, be sure that whether this really happened at the time Luke is writing about, or whether he's being anachronistic.
If Acts was a standalone document, I'd have no problem with it as a mid-2nd Century work, but it's closely linked with Luke's Gospel, and I can't see that as later than the end of the 1st Century, or at the latest the beginning of the 2nd. Michael Goulder, my New Testament tutor, was happy with the commonly accepted date for the Gospel around 90 AD, and there were no flies on him!
-
Not archaeology. Not art. Not numismatics. How, then, not off limits for this Discussion Board? Pat L.
-
I thought it is archeology and history.
-
Not archaeology. Not art. Not numismatics. How, then, not off limits for this Discussion Board? Pat L.
This is unfortunately one of those sensitive subjects that could attract trolling buzzards to your messageboard community and set about using it to divide its members. :(
I have seen something similar happen on another message board a few years ago, on this very same topic, which is why I was a bit anti when I saw it emege in the discussion on the Roman Persecution of Christians.
-
I don't see anything wrong as long as we can have a sensible discussion without letting dogmatism creep in. So far we have.
-
Here is another link, to a quite readable and balanced description via a color PDF file of where "Shroud" research is about now:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/index1.html
Joe
P.S. I remain most convinced it is at least 1400 years old, and is an image of an actual, crucified man, complete with real blood, wounds etc. No matter who it is, it is quite astounding. I'd love to see it. I believe I have to wait until 2025, the next public viewing. Anyone on Forvm want to go? :)
-
How do we know that beardless depictions of the Christ arent depictions of him in his youth? ;)
Well, for what it's worth, he was also depicted that way with the apostles (who are also depicted clean shaven):
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/350_christ_and_apostles_catacomb_domitilla.htm
Ben
Exactly! Perhaps growing a beard was a cultural tradition or a sort of "right of passage" for males. Most males can' t grow beards at a young age anyway (at least not long and thick beards as we would imagine older males to possess).
Best, Noah
This clean shaven portrait may have something to do with Roman tradition (or fashion !) of the 4th century ? Romans would have expected their new idol to look like a Roman ?
Until Constantine, a bearded portrait on coins was very common. Early coins of Constantine depict him with a beard. The later coins of the Constantinian era are without beard. Then came Julian.. But there are at least 60-80 years of non-bearded emperor portraits on coins !
:)
Lx
-
"Death certificate" imprinted on the shroud:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925371.ece
-
"Death certificate" imprinted on the shroud:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925371.ece
I bought Frale's book last Friday when it first appeared in the stores and am currently reading it. I was attracted by it (even though I've always been extremely sceptical about the authenticity of the Shroud) because I'm familiar with her works on the Templars which are very competent and serious - unlike 99% of the stuff published on the Templars which is unmitigated garbage.
-
Best link I've seen on this perpetual publicity stunt: http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm
The subject has just had its annual beating to death on Classics-L, too.
I wrote my usual note on the radically bad theology of attention to relics.
Pat L.
-
Paul of Tarsus
1 Corinthians 11:14 (53 to 57 AD)
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him
-
That letter relates to Corinth. Without suggesting for a moment that the shroud is anything but medieval, do we know what length hair was common for men in 1st Century Galilee?
-
That letter relates to Corinth. Without suggesting for a moment that the shroud is anything but medieval, do we know what length hair was common for men in 1st Century Galilee?
I assume that Paul was not talking about a local costume or hairstyle for Greek corinthian people,But he was emphasizing a general "masculine" common sense from his own perspective, about how "appropriate" the first century male figure should be.
it's highly unlikely that 1st century Galileans-Includind Jesus- had ((long hair)),otherwise this letter would have sent a hidden insult to the living disciples (Peter,James and maybe others).
Ofcourse Jesus was not bald ,and he did have hair:
Mark 14:4 ((She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.))
But it's highly probable that it was short,unlike early medieval art depictions.
_________________
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Christ_with_beard.jpg)
Mural painting from the catacomb of Commodilla.
One of the first Long hair- bearded images of Jesus, late 4th century
Jesus is depicted here with a Roman Toga and a senatorial Tunica !
-
Popular Mechanics had an interesting article about what Christ might have looked like as a first century Jew from Galilee. It was the cover story in the December 2002 edition of the magazine. Using modern forensics, the reconstructed a face of what a common Galilean may have looked like: dark skin, short, curly hair, etc. I found the article on line at:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html
Here's the picture:
-
An Interesting Article:
In North America he is most often depicted as being taller than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair skin and light-colored eyes.
And I can also assume that the historical Jesus was well built ,like most of the ancient "Tekton" - or builders- who depended on their physical strength in their labour.
and I can fairly assume that his height was similar to other galilean peasants of his time
with an average height shorter than (1.78m) or 4 cubits.
this biblical number (4 cubits)was almost a "sacred" reference for ancient biblical architecture
the height of a wall,the height of a window...etc
it was used as an ancient module to insure privacy above the average eye level.
the historical Jesus would look much different than his stereotyped popular figure.
_____________
Modern fictional depiction-Zafereli's Jesus:
(http://carpefactum.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/17/jesus_nazareth.jpg)
a slightly credible depiction-Mel Gibson's Jesus:
(http://www.empireonline.com/images/features/movie-resurrections/1.jpg)
-
I assume that Paul was not talking about a local costume or hairstyle for Greek corinthian people,But he was emphasizing a general "masculine" common sense from his own perspective, about how "appropriate" the first century male figure should be.
it's highly unlikely that 1st century Galileans-Includind Jesus- had ((long hair)),otherwise this letter would have sent a hidden insult to the living disciples (Peter,James and maybe others).
Ofcourse Jesus was not bald ,and he did have hair:
Mark 14:4 ((She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.))
But it's highly probable that it was short,unlike early medieval art depictions.
_________________
The Mark quote doesn't say whether he had a full head of hair or not! No mention of hair at all, in fact.
Why would Paul have worried about insulting people? He did it when he was in the mood, wishing, for instance, that his opponents in Galacia would castrate themselves (Gal 5:12), and implicitly comparing them with the local priests of the Magna Mater, who did exactly that. He had a pretty rocky relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter, who he calls a hypocrite on one occasion (Gal 2:11-14). 1 Corinthians 11:5 relates to Roman or Greek custom, it isn't universal. Every culture, for instance, does not regard short hair as normative for men!
-
That's my logo.
Jochen
-
The Mark quote doesn't say whether he had a full head of hair or not! No mention of hair at all, in fact.
Well I assume that an average man in his mid-thirties should not be completely bald,and
that the woman -in Mark 14:3- broke the jar and poured the perfume on his hear.
Why would Paul have worried about insulting people?
I guess because Jesus was an average Galilean man like his disciples ,So Paul can not pass an insult purely on physical appearance .
Actually according to Gospels,Jesus physical appearance was that of an average galilean
for a total stranger ,it was not easy to distinguish him sitting within a group of other galileans
thus the Jewish priests needed a sign in the garden of Gethsemani,or the notorious Judas kiss.
In my humble opinion having long hair was not the trend in 1st century for an average Jewish galilean man.
only a "Nazir" was eligible to leave his hair to grow and restrain himself from drinking wine.
this clearly didn't fit Jesus profile.
Numbers 6 (King James Version)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
5All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
_____________
And in Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir
Folio 40a
Likewise has it been taught: A nazirite who pulls out [his hair], or plucks it, or trims it but a little [incurs a penalty, but he]10 does not render void [the previous period] unless [he shaves] the greater part of his head with a razor.11 R. Simeon b. Judah in the name of R. Simeon said: Just as two hairs [if they are left] hold up [the termination of the naziriteship], so also [the removal of] two hairs renders void [the previous period].12
_______
Frankly speaking,I suspect that only John the baptist would have fit the profile of a 1st century Nazirite...
Mark 1:6
Mark 2:18
Matthew 11:18-19
-
All of which adds up to nothing at all. If you have no information on ancient Galilean hairstyles, why not say so?
-
I still think it's a medieval artifact and just about the only really interesting thing about it is how the heck it was made.
It's worth bearing in mind that the earliest certain historical reference to it is that of the Bishop of Troyes banning its exposition on the ground that he claimed to know who had made it.
-
All of which adds up to nothing at all. If you have no information on ancient Galilean hairstyles, why not say so?
I have at least three from The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
Folio 22a
Our Rabbis taught: The king has his hair trimmed every day; the High Priest, every eve of the Sabbath, and a common Priest, once in thirty days.
and you can add the two previous proofs
1-only Nazirite was eligible to grow his hair wildly:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir
Folio 42a
MISHNAH: A NAZIRITE MAY SHAMPOO [HIS HAIR] AND PART IT [WITH HIS FINGERS] BUT MAY NOT COMB IT.
2-Paul of Tarsus
1 Corinthians 11:14 (53 to 57 AD)
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, ((it is a disgrace to him))...
conclusion :
4 proofs against the assumption of long haired devoted Jewish person.
1 exceptional proof in case of a "Nazir".
So Robert ,what Information you have to back the assumption of a long haired Jesus?
-
I never said that Jesus had long hair! I'm challenging your assumption that everyone in that era had short hair. You have produced no contemporary evidence whatever, apart from a text relating to customs in Corinth. We cannot assume that they were identical everywhere. So Nazirites were not allowed to cut their hair. That is well known, and says nothing about how often other people cut theirs. The Talmud is late, and not always accurate, but if it is making a point of how often priests cut their hair, not only do we not know whether this can be retrojected to the Second Temple period, but we have to ask why they bothered about making a rule if everyone routinely cut theirs anyway. It's rare, to say the least of it, for anyone to make a law about anything which is not happening.
Do you have any 1st Century Palestinian evidence about hair length to support your assumption? If not, what's the use of arguing? Why does it mean so much to you? If we have no evidence, we have no evidence.
-
The lack of evidence to the contrary can only lead us to surmise that the historical Jesus would have looked very much like a first century Jew, whatever that may have been. It can not be assumed that he was of the Caucasian persuasion, despite medieval depictions, including the shroud, with its dubious trail of authenticity. Barbigerous depictions of Christ are probably accurate, but even this cannot be certain. I have heard claims of a hirsutorufous Jesus, but there is nothing to back the historicity of this theory. (Although I do not dispute the fact of there being red-headed Jews, even listed in Biblical accounts.) The truth of the matter is that we can by no means extract any historical evidence to reveal the coiffure of Christ.
Regards,
Danny
-
Danny,it's highly improbable that the historical Jesus was redhaired.
Redhaired people were considered negatively "marked"people around Telmudic era.
and this would automatically "stigmatized" Jesus in the eyes of his adversaries historically speaking.
Actually the Tosefta put the Redhaired person next to the black person next to the Albino,next to the hunch back,mentally retarded...etc
Tractate Berachot, Chapter 6
Tosefta 61
[A person] that sees a black [person],2 a
Borek,3 a redhead [person],4 an albino
[person],5 a hunchback [person],6 a midget,7 a
deaf [person],8 a mentally retarded [person],9
and a drunk [person]10 says [the following
Beracha (bleassing):] Baruch [Ata Hashem
Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Meshane Habriyot.11
[A person that sees] a cripple [person],12 a
lame [person],13 a blind [person], and a
[person] afflicted with boils,14 says [the
following Beracha:] Baruch [Ata Hashem
Eloheinu Melech Haolam] Dayan Haemet.15
the Historical Jesus -hair style-would have looked very common and neutral in his time
I would assume an average or an ordinary-looking galilean man to a degree Judas Iscariot had to actually point Him out from the rest of Galilean men.
maybe what is known by the Josephus bust ,and the famous Fayum portraits
will give us an approximate or general idea of what a middle eastern man from approximately the same period would have looked like.
__________
Josephus Bust (a Galilean jewish priest and historian)
(http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/josephus.jpg)
_________
Fayoum men portraits:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Fayum-22.jpg/289px-Fayum-22.jpg)
___________
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Fayum-01.jpg/466px-Fayum-01.jpg)
_________
Mummy Portrait of a Man - Egypt 130-150 AD
(http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-593746170-original.jpg)
_______________
Mummy portrait of a thin-faced bearded man Egypt 160-180 AD
(http://images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-593515391-original.jpg)
-
The Fayum portraits just posted are of the 2nd or 3rd century CE, not the 1st. Pat L.
-
it's highly improbable that the historical Jesus was redhaired.
So as not to be misunderstood, I discount the hirsutorufous (red-headed) theory of Jesus as mere fantasy with no historical evidence. As you mentioned, He most probably would have been an average Galilean Jew: dark hair, olive completion, beard. Focusing on the image of Christ, just like the focus on relics such as the Turin shroud (as Pat mentioned earlier) seems to draw our attention away from the main historical and religious studies of Christ. However, you are right in pointing out that Christ was a Jew - not Caucasian, not Negroid, not Mongoloid - but a Jew, and as such looked like one.
Danny
-
the Jews of the time probably looked like Palestinian Arabs do today. People don't, except under unusual circumstances, move about en masse. What happens is that a region is conquered by a relatively small number of invaders, and the ordinary people, over a period, re-invent themselves. It's been shown, for instance, that quite a small number of Saxons and others actually invaded England, but in time, the entire population came to adopt Saxon culture and language, and regard themselves as Saxon. Something similar has probably happened in Palestine. Many of the Arabs there are probably the descendants of ancient Israelites.
-
As far as the shroud...
Turin Shroud Carbon-Dating Flawed
Published on April 11, 2009
LONDON, ENGLAND
A prominent U.S. chemist who pronounced the Turin Shroud a fake came to believe it could have been the burial cloth of Jesus, a television documentary says.
Ray Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1988.
Radio carbon-dating conducted in 1988 on threads of the shroud dated the making of the cloth to hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.
Those threads, however, proved to be part of a repair made to the shroud in the 16th century, Rogers said in a video made shortly before his death of cancer in March 2005.
"The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken," Rogers said. "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."
Rogers said he continued investigating the shroud and began to believe it was genuine, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday.
"I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus," Rogers said in the video.
http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm (http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm)
and a little nice debate
oh noes... ;)
I was working at Brookhaven National Lab near the time when these samples were run and was acquainted with Gar Harbottle, a radiochemist, who actually did lead C14 tests on the shroud. I am sure they would have been eager to report a first century date if in fact that was what the data had shown. The tests confirmed the medieval date from the earlier study.
Some time prior to the radiocarbon tests, a Chemist whose name I forget, gave a very well-attended lecture at BNL in which he described his own microscopic and spectroscopic studies of the cloth. On the one hand, the coloring material looked like man-made pigments, such as ochre. On the other, it contained pollen samples which could only have come from middle-eastern plants.
Finally at the end of the lecture he stopped and said "I feel like I have to read this to you" It was a letter from the 15th century bishop of the diocese in France where the shroud originally surfaced, in response to inquiries from Rome. They wanted to know what the hubbub was about. The Bishop responded (I quote from memory). "There is no mystery here because I know where the shroud was made , who made it and how he made it"
In a nutshell. The shroud has never been a mystery except to those people who love mysteries!
-
...it was not easy to distinguish him sitting within a group of other galileans...
Wrong....he was the one in the bright, clean, white robe, while everyone else wore a dark one, covered with dust, etc.....(at least in all the movies I've seen) ;D
-
Did the bishop say anything about how it was made? He probably didn't, or you'd have quoted it already. It sounds like something made in the Middle East, maybe as a fake relic.
-
I have a cross that contains the pinky toe of Saint Theophan the Recluse. There is no doubt to its authenticity, the guy who sold it to me on E-bay gave me a certificate which said, without doubt, its authentic. :)
-
Did you get a certificate of authenticity for that certificate?
-
I'm amazed by the fuss people still make over relics. Not so long ago they dug up Cardinal Newman's grave (officially) for relics, and I was glad when they found the bones had completely dissolved. They got various metal bits from the coffin, but he's still there, where he wanted to be, with his friend. He was probably gay (not that the RC's are admitting it!) and they were buried together.
-
Did the bishop say anything about how it was made? He probably didn't, or you'd have quoted it already. It sounds like something made in the Middle East, maybe as a fake relic.
No. he didn't say how it was made. But presumably this was done by laying or pressing the cloth over a statue (or a reclining person) who had been "dirtied up" with some greasy pigments. The highest projecting points (eyebrows kneecaps, etc) would then have transferred the stain to the cloth, giving the shroud its eerie skeletal look. Kind of obvious and fairly realistic as to both method and effect.
I think that the reason he quoted the letter was because it was beginning to appear that scientists were chasing after tabloid sensation when in fact there should have been no real issue. Savvy people of the time were not taken in. So far as I know the Church never labeled it as a fake - but why should they? I don't doubt that there were plenty of skeptics then, as now, who were quick to express that opinion.
PS - I never scoff at people who do believe in the miraculous.
-
They have just found a rare shroud from the time of Jesus. This shroud has a much simpler weave than the Shroud of Turin. This new shroud raise serious questions about the authenticity of the one in Turin.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html
-
Some pics of Jesus unbearded:
(1) As Good Shepherd, Priscilla catacomb/Rome, 4th cent.
(2) As philosopher and teacher, wall painting of a catacomb, Rome
(3) Apsis of San Vitale, Ravenna
The first bearded pics originated under the influence of Byzantinan art, I think.
Best regards
-
And here an article fresh out of the press:
The Shroud of Turin Duplicated
By Massimo Polidoro in 'Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2010, p. 18'
...
Many still believe it is the real burial cloth of Jesus. Part of this controversy arises from the fact that, until now, it has proven difficult to understand the mechanisms of its formation and to obtain by simple means an acceptable replica of the shroud and its features. That's why many call it "an impossible image."
The Lab Experiment
"The most likely explanation, in my opinion," said Garlaschelli, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, "is that the images, as it can be seen nowadays, is a chemical etching of the cellulose of the linen fibers. This degradation can be accounted for by non-neural impurities contained in the ochre that a mediaeval artist used to generate the image by a simple frottage technique. The original pigment came off during the many years of the shroud's history, leaving the well-known weak ghostly image. This hypothesis, originally put forward by Joe Nickell, had never been experimentally tested before."
As he did fifteen years ago with the "miracle" blood of St. Januarius, Garlaschelli set out to reproduce the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the Middle Ages.
Garlaschelli placed a linen sheet, hand woven for the occasion, flat over a volunteer and then rubbed the linen with a pigment containing traces of acids. The face was obtained from a bas-relief in order to avoid the inescapable wrap-around distortion. Garlaschelli then retouched the image by hand after laying the cloth flat on a tabletop. He artificially aged the pigment by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, removing the pigment from the surface but leaving the fuzzy, half-toned image similar to that on the shroud. Garlaschelli then added blood stains, burnt holes, scorches, and water stains to achieve the final effects.
The result is impressive. The Shroud of Turin and Garlaschelli's replica look remarkable alike.
"Our goal was not to show that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, but rather that it is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics of the shroud," said Garlaschelli. "We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (by heating the cloth in an oven) in such a way that, when the pigment is removed, an image is obtained having all the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin. In particular, the image is a pseudo-negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the topmost fibers of the cloth, has some 3-D embedded properties, and does not fluoresce.
Garlaschelli does not expet to convince the believers, which was never his goal. "If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories, they certainly won't believe me. However, we think that our attempts represent an interesting addition to the ongoing debate on this maybe-not-so-impossible image"
Best regards
-
They have just found a rare shroud from the time of Jesus. This shroud has a much simpler weave than the Shroud of Turin. This new shroud raise serious questions about the authenticity of the one in Turin.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html
On coast to coast am (www.coasttocoastam.com) the guest talked about the shroud and this in paticular. He said, do we all berry our dead today in the same coffins, same cloths as eveyrone else? Theres compelling evidence on both sides of the authenticity.
-
There is also this 4th-century mosaic from the villa at Hinton St. Mary, Dorset, England which some authorities have supposed to be a beardless Christ superimposed on a Chi-Rho. Others, however, have suggested that the figure might be a representation of the fourth century emperor Magnentius who rebelled against Constantius II in A.D.350.
Alex.
-
Magnentius was the one who issued a coin with a big chi-rho. He was orthodox, while Constantius was Arian. So it could be a way of presenting Magnentius as the 'proper' Christian emperor. It depends on whether anything in the context of the mosaic suggests a religious or a political meaning.
-
Magnentius was a pagan, even if he did try to curry favour with the Catholic Christians who were predominant in his part of the Empire.
-
I may be wrong, then. What's the evidence?
-
Doug Smith's website states that Magnentius was a pagan, but the statement is unsourced.
http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac26.html
-
I could be wrong, Zosimus has a lot to say about him but not regarding his religious affiliation.
-
Practically all the secondary literature claims that Magnentius was pagan. I've been curious myself about a primary source for this, but have not been able to find an explicit statement (not even in Zosimus who gives a lengthy account of him). I suspect that historians have simply inferred Magnentius' paganism from his tolerance of pagan rites.
-
That implies that he sat on the fence, perhaps to keep the people behind him. It says nothing about his personal views.
-
They have just found a rare shroud from the time of Jesus. This shroud has a much simpler weave than the Shroud of Turin. This new shroud raise serious questions about the authenticity of the one in Turin.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html
On coast to coast am (www.coasttocoastam.com) the guest talked about the shroud and this in paticular. He said, do we all berry our dead today in the same coffins, same cloths as eveyrone else? Theres compelling evidence on both sides of the authenticity.
The burial with the shroud was from an upper class person. Most likely he would have been buried with the best. Jesus was most likely not buried with the best since he was considered a criminal by the authorities at the time. So if someone is buried with the best and it is a simple weave burial cloth, most likely Jesus was not buried with something better.
The Turin Shroud has a complex herring bone weave, most likely not used for burial shrouds because of the time and effort that goes into making that weave. If you are selling a fake holy relic you would use the best because you can increase the selling value and make it more special.
Howard
-
Latest news report on the BBC tonight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8615029.stm
regards
Mark
-
When I observed that recent "proofs" concerning the Capitoline Wolf were among the weakest, I only had in mind that the very worst journalism and "science" has been reserved for the Turin Shroud. It is an object of worship for persons, to be pitied rather than despised, of course, who actually prefer fantasy coins of the most egregious sort to the best of ancient coins. The folks who prefer the fantasy of St. Christopher to a real saint. P.L.
-
"Shroud Science" is unlike any other science I know of - you start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it instead of going wherever the evidence may lead.
Joe Nickell has written a wonderful book about the shroud (Inquest on the Shroud of Turin) which has a more skeptical view of this relic. You may also learn how science is supposed to work along the way.
-
David - I'd like to offer an alternative view. I find Nickell's work (e.g., his piece i n the Skeptical Inquirer) guilty of the very same "Shroud Science" that he criticizes. Here is a view much more elegantly written than I can do;
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/schneider.htm
One of course can look for a bias in Schneider's views. Personally, I find the suggestion of a completely unbiased scientist in matters such as the Shroud as naive and laughable. But some arguments are way more objective than others, and we all need to examine the arguments closely. the best scientists (and commentators) are conscious of their biases and temper their conclusions accordingly.
-
David - I'd like to offer an alternative view. I find Nickell's work (e.g., his piece i n the Skeptical Inquirer) guilty of the very same "Shroud Science" that he criticizes. Here is a view much more elegantly written than I can do;
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/Joe-Nickell/schneider.htm
One of course can look for a bias in Schneider's views. Personally, I find the suggestion of a completely unbiased scientist in matters such as the Shroud as naive and laughable. But some arguments are way more objective than others, and we all need to examine the arguments closely. the best scientists (and commentators) are conscious of their biases and temper their conclusions accordingly.
I really don't think it "naive or laughable" to suggest there are scientists who are unbiased in matters of faith oriented material. The same can be said of historians - there are many who put aside their faiths and search for facts. Yes, there are a few who have agendas to push, but then again they are the ones not advocating the true scientific method.
Joe Nickell is a professional paranormal investigator who has investigated everything from weeping statues to New England ghosts. A highly engaging interview with him can be heard here: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=118 An interesting podcast in its own right.
-
The historical Jesus was most likely in appearance, similar to others of his time.
Christians may lament, but he would have probably not met the requirements of "If Jesus Came To your House". He was of small stature, a bit dirty by modern standards-not dipped in poop-but smelling a lot of perspiration , and stale cloth.
"Gloria, come"ere.
There's some bum outside that claims he's a Jehova's Witness or something".
"Looks like Carlos Santana's brother. Give him some change or some'tin".
Bruce
Basemetal
-
The Jews used ritual baths, so he probably wasn't as smelly as an Ancient Briton!
-
Not to get into a religious debate or anything, but I feel like those (relics) are things that people have adopted over the centuries; while it makes for a nice story, I can't see any of them as being genuine.
-
Back in the News,
The story of the Shroud of Turin is fascinating. It began, for me, ironically when I thought the "story" had finally been laid to rest. Carbon 14 dating conducted in 1988 (quite near my graduation from college) had just proved that the Shroud was medieval. Along with most, I accepted these results--the fact that two of my former Alma Maters (The University of Arizona and Oxford University—although I spent most of my Oxford days dodging back and forth between Lincoln and Exeter colleges, oblivous about anything I was not studying) were involved in the testing lent to me a comfortable sense of closure (to give them their due, scientists from the Institut für Mittelenergiephysik in Zurich, Columbia University, and the British Museum were also involved in the tests).
I was re-engaged by the Shroud story in 2005 when an article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal Thermochimica Acta by an equally eminent scientist, Raymond N. Rogers, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory; subverted the 1988 tests. Very briefly, the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was shown not to be valid. In fact, the article noted, the Shroud was much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.
Curiouser and curiouser. . . and I'll leave the story at this juncture. If you are interested, see the following site:
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm
Jim