Say Hello to my Little Friend
The Beretta Blog and Podcast

the blog and podcast of Glenn Peoples on philosophy, theology, politics, social issues


As you may have heard, after ten years behind closed doors, the Shroud of Turin is about to go on display.

The book I’m reading at the moment, The Jesus Legend by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd has had me thinking a lot about discussions over the historicity of Jesus and his death and resurrection, so although I’ve known about the shroud for years (I first watched a video about it when I was eleven or twelve), seeing it in the news piqued my interest.

The news story notes, “But experts stand by carbon-dating of scraps of the cloth that determine the linen was made in the 13th or 14th century in a kind of medieval forgery.” Reality is never, of course, that simple, and the facts are more accurately stated by saying that there are some experts who think that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, and there are some who do not believe that it is.

The case for the medieval origin of the Shroud of Turin was published as “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature 337:6208 (1989), 611-615. The late Ray Rogers, in 2005, published a critique of that re-dating of the shroud, arguing that the method used was flawed. Discussions of his evidence and other material can be perused over at the Shroud of Turin Story website. Another significant peer reviewed work is M. S. Benford and J. G. Marino, “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin Shroud,” Chemistry Today 26:4 (2008).

But, sceptics aren’t convinced. For example: “A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turinby Raymond N. Rogers, Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189-194,” by Steven D. Schafersman, Science Consultant and Administrator, The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website.

I’m not a chemist and I have absolutely no expertise in analysing fabric samples. Explore those arguments for yourself and see what you make of them. As best I can tell, they indicate that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as an artefact from the first century that appears to depict wounds like those we would expect on the body of Jesus of Nazareth remains, from a scientific point of view, an open question.
Read the rest of the entry »

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: ,

If you’re familiar with biblical criticism (i.e. the study of manuscript traditions and copies, textual variations, questions of dating and authorship of various books), you’ll be aware of two distinct tendencies. Whether it’s helpful (or accurate) or not, these two tendencies are often deemed “liberal” and “conservative.” Conservative biblical criticism generally regards the books of the Bible to have an earlier date of writing, closer to the time of the events that they depict. Conservative criticism is more likely to attribute the actual authorship of books to the author named in them, and is resistant to suggestions that any book containing a prophetic prediction was written after the fact predicted so that the original prediction can be doctored to fit the fulfilment. As liberal biblical criticism is sometimes associated with scholars who have an interest in denying the possibility of miracles (including prophetic prediction), any appearance of a successful prediction (for example when Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem within the lifetime of his audience) is explained by a very late authorship of the book in question where the prediction was inserted after the alleged fulfillment had already occurred.

The Old Testament history of Israel is frequently a target of liberal criticism. Large-scale migration from Egypt, the events of the conquest, even the very existence of key historical figures is called into question, and it is often said that the books themselves were written numerous centuries after the time that conservative scholarship would have us think. In other words, the Old Testament history of Israel is regarded by some liberal biblical critics as a re-written history that was not composed until centuries after the supposed fact. Positing a significant gap in time – the larger the better – between the events and the recording of them lends plausibility to the suspicion that there is little (if any) correlation between the actual history and the composed record of it.

Recently more extreme liberal biblical criticism took a hit, with the discovery and more recently the deciphering of the most ancient Hebrew inscription on earth.

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: “It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research.”

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

Prof. Galil also notes that the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea. He explains that if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. “It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.” He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

Read more about this here, and read the University’s press release here.

Hat tip to Christian News New Zealand for bringing the link to my attention and to Johnny King for bringing the CNNZ article to my attention (he did so on Facebook).

Glenn Peoples

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: , ,

I found Ben Witherington’s comments here on a recent find interesting.

The find is an incantation bowl, used in cultic practices. It bears the inscription: “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS.” The find may date as early as the mid-first century, and appears to atest to the fame of Christ spreading to magicians who sought to draw on this new power for their own ends. This actually occurs in the New Testament, for example, in the famous case of “Simon the sorcerer” in Acts chapter 8.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Every Easter there’s something. A skeptical sideshow of some sort to excite the excitable. This year it’s “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” Discovery Channel is putting on a production by James Cameron (producer of Titanic) claiming that the Tomb of Jesus has been found, along with his remains, and the remains of His family, which includes his wife Mary Magdalene and their son.

OK, it’s a familiar type of claim, but this time it’s on Discovery Channel. Not that Discovery Channel is the place where finds like this, if they are defensible, are first aired, but the point is, for some people the fact that it’s on TV will validate it. But in case anyone is interested in an informed response to what has been released thus far, check out Ben Witherington, a scholar on the historical Jesus. He has offered some revealing replies here.

For example, the movie makers made much of the fact that the tomb contained an ossuary of “Jesus, son of Jospeph.” For those who don’t know, “Jesus” is the same as “Joshuah” in Hebrew or Aramaic. But notice the frequency of these names, according to Richard Bauckham:

Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinioan Jews. the first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraies.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

Check out more interesting replies at Witherington’s blog.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: ,

OK, call me slow, but until today I had never heard of the ossuary of James. The what? It’s an ornate box that contains pieces of bone from deceased love ones. This one dates to around AD sixty something, and features the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

It’s fairly obvious why this ruffles some Catholic feathers. Mary, Joseph’s wife, is said to have been a virgin her whole life by the Catholic Church, and James, one of Jesus’ “brothers,” is said to have been a cousin. Some Catholics, unsurprisingly, have chimed in with anyone who says that it is a forgery, but the evidence doesn’t look good for them here, and here the claim of a forgery is debunked. I guess Mary’s first name isn’t “The Virgin” after all. But then, a lot of people have been saying that for a while. They’re called Protestants.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project. Buy me a beer!




1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: ,


Powered by Wordpress
The theme was modified from bluemod.