Earlier today, CBS ran a story about a new book arguing that the Shroud of Turin is one of the burial cloths of Jesus, but not evidence of Jesus' resurrection. The book was written by an agnostic and former skeptic of the Shroud, Thomas de Wesselow. He's an art historian, and part of his argument for the Shroud's authenticity is derived from art history. (The history of art is relevant to the Shroud in many contexts. For example, if the Shroud is a medieval forgery, what would we expect a medieval forger to produce?) De Wesselow's theory against Jesus' resurrection is absurd, but it's significant that he acknowledges much of the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity. And it's good to see CBS running a story that gives airtime to so much of the evidence for the Shroud.
Near the end of the segment, the scholar commenting on the theory, Harold Attridge, claims that Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection. That claim is highly dubious and has been refuted in depth in Michael Licona's The Resurrection Of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010), for example. And we've written on the topic at this blog many times. See, for example, here. And here's an article by Chris Price on the subject. It should be noted that the earliest associates of Paul (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Clement of Rome, etc.) and the earliest extra-Biblical documents representing churches that were in contact with Paul (First Clement, the letters of Ignatius, etc.) affirm belief in a physical resurrection. Did Paul teach a non-physical resurrection, only to have so many associates and churches he was in contact with affirming the opposite? It's far more likely that Paul held the same view they did. The evidence from Paul's letters alone is enough to demonstrate that he believed in a physical resurrection. But even if that evidence were ambiguous, the information we have from Paul's associates and the early Pauline churches would make it more likely that Paul held the physical view.
By the way, de Wesselow's view of how the image on the Shroud formed apparently is some variation of the theory involving a Maillard reaction. My understanding is that some aspects of the Shroud aren't explained well by that theory. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Maillard reaction view is correct. More broadly speaking, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Shroud image was formed by natural means (a Maillard reaction or something else). Still, the Shroud would be significant in many ways. It would tell us a lot about what Jesus looked like, the state of His body at death (whether he was whipped, whether he was thrust with a spear, etc.), and how He was buried, for example. It would have implications for issues like the historicity of the gospels and some of the arguments over the use and veneration of images. In other words, the Shroud is highly significant even if the image on it wasn't produced by Jesus' resurrection. The resurrection is just one significant issue involved among others. When an agnostic art historian acknowledges that the Shroud was Jesus' burial cloth, but denies that it's evidence of the resurrection, his admission is significant as corroboration of Christianity even if we were to grant his theory about how the image formed on the shroud.
ReplyDeleteAlso keep in mind that proposing a theory about how the image might have formed naturalistically isn't enough. The issue is what's probable, not what's possible. And if some naturalistic theory can explain all of the data, we still would have to ask why this naturalistic process would happen to occur with the corpse of Jesus while rarely or never happening with other corpses (assuming that the naturalistic theory in question involves something that rarely or never happened with other individuals). Was it just a remarkable coincidence that so unusual a natural occurrence happened with Jesus' body? How many other unusual naturalistic theories (e.g., that the resurrection witnesses were hallucinating) do we have to string together to dismiss everything surrounding Jesus' life that seems to be supernatural? Even if the process of the formation of the Shroud image was naturalistic, its occurrence with Jesus' body - while being rare or unprecedented with other individuals - could have supernatural implications. Think of the analogy of answered prayer. If something natural occurs, but the timing of it seems to align with somebody's prayer in a particular way, we often conclude that something supernatural has occurred. The event itself could be natural, yet the timing of it has a supernatural implication.
Kind of hard for one to set aside the belief in the resurrection with a Biblical record so strongly established as this that these verses of Scripture found in the Book of Acts attest? The thing most interesting to me is these two verses, which, really, when you consider it, is the very heart and soul of our "same" belief by Faith alone, as the Apostle Paul's:
ReplyDeleteAct 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.
Act 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.
Here we see the Apostle Paul delivering to others for observance the Jerusalem decision after much debate about how one is being saved by Faith alone and not by circumcision as some protested against when considering the message Paul preached.
Also, going down the pathway of the book of Acts, we also see strong conviction for the resurrection:
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
Act 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
Act 5:33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.
Act 6:7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.
Act 23:6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial."
Act 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
Act 24:15 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.
Act 24:16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.
Act 24:21 other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.'"
Act 25:19 Rather they had certain points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive.
Act 26:22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:
Act 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."
Charles Freeman's review of de Wesselow's book is well worth weighing.
ReplyDeleteIt seems lacking in measure to fault de Wesselow (rightly) for his imaginative, contrarian interpretation of contemporary witnesses to the resurrection, but then to praise de Wesselow by proposing without critical assessment that his opinion (called an "acknowledgment" in Jason's comment) somehow manages to be "significant as corroboration of Christianity".
dcbyron wrote:
ReplyDelete"It seems lacking in measure to fault de Wesselow (rightly) for his imaginative, contrarian interpretation of contemporary witnesses to the resurrection, but then to praise de Wesselow by proposing without critical assessment that his opinion (called an 'acknowledgment' in Jason's comment) somehow manages to be 'significant as corroboration of Christianity'."
Why? De Wesselow is better qualified to address the issue of whether the Shroud is a medieval forgery than he is to address the historicity of the resurrection, and his comments on the former during the CBS program are more credible than his comments on the latter. Explain why it's inappropriate for me to make such distinctions.
You've approvingly cited Charles Freeman's review of de Wesselow. Do you agree with everything Freeman says on that page you linked? He seems to accept the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud, and he suggests that a medieval forger copied an earlier source to produce the Shroud by means of a method we aren't yet aware of. That scenario is problematic. In addition to the problems with the carbon dating, are we to believe that a medieval forger had access to such an accurate rendering of Jesus that's since been lost, was discerning enough to know that he should base his forgery on such an accurate source rather than going by the inaccurate standards of his day, and was discerning enough to use a method to produce his forgery that modern science hasn't been able to figure out after putting so much effort into it? If you don't agree with Freeman's theory, yet you can cite him because you agree with him on other points, then why can't I do the same with de Wesselow?
I asserted, "It seems lacking in measure to fault de Wesselow ...but then to praise de Wesselow...."
ReplyDeleteJason asks, "Why? De Wesselow is better qualified to address the issue of whether the Shroud is a medieval forgery than he is to address the historicity of the resurrection...."
Art history is (among other things) a species of history. If TdeW self-disqualifies in his discussion of the resurrection by neglecting or mishandling the early documents establishing paleochristian belief in a physical resurrection, then why should his handling of later documents that differentiate the cloths of Edessa, Pharos, and Turin be given a pass?
TdeW's training in the history of late medieval Italian mural and panel painting is relevant. But his apparent carelessness with evidence should color our assessment of that training.
Jason asserts of TdeW that "his comments on the former... are more credible than his comments on the latter."
Why suppose so? Is mere credentialing sufficient, or does the quality of scholarship also matter?
Jason notes: "You've approvingly cited ...Freeman's review of de Wesselow. Do you agree with everything Freeman says on that page...?"
He's well informed about the history of medieval relics, and I approve of his citing Hans Belting. If I found reason to suspect that Freeman had skewed or mishandled evidence in one domain of historical inquiry, I'd approach his other historical assertions with caution.
You, Jason, disapprove of TdeW regarding paleochristian history but swallow uncritically his remarks about Byzantine and western high/late medieval history.
That's the difference, and it's the reason I questioned your uncritical approach.
Jason says: "He seems to accept the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud,"
As far as I know, Freeman has no particular competence in radiometrics. But then, I didn't cite him in that vein.
Jason says: "...and he suggests that a medieval forger copied an earlier source to produce the Shroud by means of a method we aren't yet aware of. That scenario is problematic."
Not terribly. The diversity of material manufacture in the late medieval era is impressive, and experimentation with plastic forms, rubbings, and especially the re-instantiation of ancient artifacts is an established and much studied feature of that culture.
Jason asks: "...are we to believe that a medieval forger had access to such an accurate rendering of Jesus"
I don't grant that "forgery" is the right category for classifying the artifact. It might've had an innocent origin.
In any case, why do you reckon it notably "accurate"? To which late medieval scuptural artifacts have you compared it? Are you saying that the anatomical naturalism surprises you?
Jason says: "...that he should base his forgery on such an accurate source rather than going by the inaccurate standards of his day."
Which particular standards do you have in mind? Are you repeating generalizations you've read elsewhere, or have you actually looked into the qualities of western European sculpture in the 13th-15th centuries?
Jason asks: "If you don't agree with Freeman's theory, yet you can cite him because you agree with him on other points, then why can't I do the same with de Wesselow?"
If I endorse Freeman with respect to historical judgment while taking no stand on his radiometric judgment, that's because historical inquiry is different from radiometric dating. Freeman directly addresses relevant data that de Wesselow ignores or elides. Advantage Freeman.
In contrast, you reject de Wesselow's historical judgment on one hand and endorse his historical judgment on the other. The distinguishing factor seems to be whether you like his conclusion.
dcbyron wrote:
ReplyDeleteArt history is (among other things) a species of history.
Only in certain respects. Given the differences between evaluating ancient and medieval aesthetics and the skills necessary for other branches of history (such as the study of seventeenth century sub-Saharan oral tradition, the evaluation of Greco-Roman rhetoric or the invention, construction and development of the astrolabe and mariner's quadrant), your comment strikes as a composition fallacy. There's also the question of whether someone actually has evaluated the relevant documents, even if they have the requisite skills. In any case, you're not really explaining how they are sufficiently similar; it's difficult to discern your supporting argument here.
Since you later insinuate that Jason's position arises from an alleged uncritical bias due to preferences for certain conclusions, the same can be applied as an explanation for de Wesselow's behavior, in place of your explanation based on a failure of technical expertise. The Resurrection is highly disputed in academic circles due to the naturalistic bias of the university. Indeed, supernatural explanations carry heavy social and fiscal penalties in the academy, and so de Wesselow could very well be motivated by social acceptance, rather than a failure of training.
Whether or not that is the case is another story. But there's more than one possible explanation for de Wesselow's conclusions, not all of which are related to technical expertise.
Which particular standards do you have in mind? Are you repeating generalizations you've read elsewhere, or have you actually looked into the qualities of western European sculpture in the 13th-15th centuries?
Without citing relevant art historians, we are left taking your word that Jason is relying on "generalizations."
Of course, even if he has depended only on generalizations (which is not true in any case), there is nothing inherently wrong with this. If you think standard or generalized theories are wrong, you should present the relevant scholarship for analysis, rather than appealing to assertion.
Thanks for your reply, Matthew.
ReplyDeleteI wrote "Art history is (among other things) a species of history".
Matthew replies: "Only in certain respects.... ....your comment strikes as a composition fallacy."
@Matthew: see "among other things". BTW, were you aware that mistaken allegations of fallacy are fallacious? ;)
Matthew also writes: "you're not really explaining how they are sufficiently similar; it's difficult to discern your supporting argument here."
Jason would rebut TdeW's interpretation of the resurrection by pointing to NT docs and early Christian writings that seem (a) relevant and (b) mishandled by TdeW. Freeman would rebut TdeW's interpretation of artifactual continuity by pointing to later writings that seem (a) relevant and (b) mishandled by TdeW.
The appreciation and interpretation of documentary evidence are the common factors.
Matthew notes: "...the same can be applied as an explanation for de Wesselow's behavior, in place of your explanation...."
I'm sure all sorts of considerations could be brought to bear on de Wesselow's behavior in this instance. Art historical rigor seems not to be numbered among them.
Matthew parries: "Without citing relevant art historians, we are left taking your word that Jason is relying on 'generalizations.'"
Rum thing, that.
What's noteworthy with respect to standards of critical evaluation is that I'd only have to cite a single art historical opinion to the contrary in order to equal or trump Jason's evaluative process with regard to TdeW's claim. After all, Jason swallowed the latter wholesale, apparently on the strength of credentials and preference, and despite Jason's acknowledgment of TdeW's flocculent thinking on related matters.
Do you doubt that a contrary academic opinion would be easy to discover and adduce?
Matthew: "...even if he has depended only on generalizations (which is not true in any case)"
If he has dealt with no relevant paintings, sculptures, or cognate artifacts, then by definition he has offered only generalizations.
More generously, even if he bore no burden to deal with technical specifics, Jason's characterization of medieval craftsmanship cannot be taken as anything but crude and general.
That's fine as far as it goes, btw. It's just that he shouldn't then draw inferences from such premises and expect them to withstand scrutiny.
Matthew writes: "If you think standard or generalized theories are wrong, you should present the relevant scholarship for analysis, rather than appealing to assertion."
With respect, Jason didn't offer "standard or generalized theories" that require rebuttal or analysis. He offered vague assertions ranging over large bodies of knowledge. That's good enough for casual conversation and government work, perhaps, but it shouldn't be mistaken for informed opinion.
dcbyron wrote:
ReplyDelete"If TdeW self-disqualifies in his discussion of the resurrection by neglecting or mishandling the early documents establishing paleochristian belief in a physical resurrection, then why should his handling of later documents that differentiate the cloths of Edessa, Pharos, and Turin be given a pass?"
I didn't say that de Wesselow "self-disqualifies". I said that his argument is absurd. And I wasn't addressing "paleochristian belief in a physical resurrection" at that point. I went on to address the physical nature of Paul's view of the resurrection, in response to Harold Attridge, but that was a different issue than I was addressing in response to de Wesselow.
I didn't suggest that de Wesselow's comments you've mentioned should "be given a pass".
You write:
"Why suppose so?"
I explained why. I gave two reasons. De Wesselow's credentials are more relevant to judging medieval art than judging the historicity of the resurrection. And what he said about medieval art seems more credible than the comments he made about Jesus' resurrection.
You write:
"You, Jason, disapprove of TdeW regarding paleochristian history but swallow uncritically his remarks about Byzantine and western high/late medieval history."
You're in no position to discern that I "swallowed uncritically his remarks", and I deny that I did so. Just as I shouldn't assume that you uncritically accept everything Freeman said in the review you linked, you shouldn't assume that I uncritically accept everything de Wesselow said.
You write:
"As far as I know, Freeman has no particular competence in radiometrics. But then, I didn't cite him in that vein."
You didn't specify a portion of his comments you were agreeing with. You referred to his review in general. I didn't assume that you agree with Freeman about everything just because you gave a generally positive assessment of his review. Similarly, you shouldn't assume that I'm "swallowing uncritically" whatever de Wesselow says about medieval art.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Not terribly. The diversity of material manufacture in the late medieval era is impressive, and experimentation with plastic forms, rubbings, and especially the re-instantiation of ancient artifacts is an established and much studied feature of that culture."
Freeman's comments don't have to be "terribly" problematic in order to be problematic. And your comments about the diversity of medieval art in general don't address the relevant details of the Shroud. I was addressing the Shroud in particular.
You write:
"In any case, why do you reckon it notably 'accurate'? To which late medieval scuptural artifacts have you compared it?"
I've seen some medieval art, but I'm primarily relying on the assessments of others. The Shroud image is of the nature of a photographic negative, it has Jesus nude, with accurate crucifixion wounds and accuracy in the other wounding, and an appropriate hairstyle for Jesus' day, for example. My understanding is that the Shroud departs from typical medieval art in multiple ways. Its unusual nature is one of the reasons why it's been studied so much.
You write:
"In contrast, you reject de Wesselow's historical judgment on one hand and endorse his historical judgment on the other. The distinguishing factor seems to be whether you like his conclusion."
No, the distinguishing factors are what I mentioned earlier. De Wesselow's credentials are more relevant to some historical matters than others, and the nature of his claims about medieval art isn't identical to the nature of his claims about the historicity of the resurrection.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"What's noteworthy with respect to standards of critical evaluation is that I'd only have to cite a single art historical opinion to the contrary in order to equal or trump Jason's evaluative process with regard to TdeW's claim."
I wasn't claiming that my post was sufficient to settle all of the relevant issues by itself. And I didn't just cite "a single art historical opinion". The video I linked includes some of de Wesselow's arguments, not just his conclusions. And CBS presents some material of its own, concerning the evidence for some of the issues that have come up in this thread. They also comment on scholarly opinions more generally. They don't just present de Wesselow's views, but also mention other scholars' views in some contexts. Attridge, the other scholar interviewed, specifically comments on the Shroud's consistency with what's known about crucifixion at the time of Jesus. Both CBS and Attridge contrast the more mainstream nature of de Wasselow's view of the Shroud with his more unusual view of Jesus' resurrection. I've been making the same distinction. In other words, I've done more than just present de Wesselow's opinions. The news story I linked also addresses other scholars' opinions to some extent, and de Wesselow's opinions about the Shroud are accompanied by some of his arguments. He doesn't just make unsupported assertions about the Shroud and medieval art. In contrast, his comments on the resurrection aren't accompanied by nearly as much supporting argumentation.
This is a blog. People often summarize beliefs in a blog post that they've argued for elsewhere. Or they comment on something they intend to expand upon later. Or they just inform the reader of what position the author takes, a video the reader can watch, a book he might want to read, etc. Since de Wesselow's interview was aired yesterday, I posted about it yesterday and made some brief comments on some of the issues involved. I've also commented on the Shroud in other contexts and have cited other relevant sources on those occasions. But the post at the beginning of this thread focused on the CBS interview. Then you came along and tried to expand the discussion, and you've been reading false assumptions and false motives into my comments in the process.
You write:
"If he has dealt with no relevant paintings, sculptures, or cognate artifacts, then by definition he has offered only generalizations."
Did you watch the video I linked or read the accompanying text? It's a brief news story, but it does provide some details. You keep complaining about generalizations, but you've been making a lot of them yourself, and you've been ignoring some of the details I've already provided.
Thank you for your lengthy reply, Jason.
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear to me that we've reached, and perhaps passed, the point of diminishing returns in this format.
My sole concern is to emphasize that neither de Wesselow's methods nor his conclusions, as he demonstrates these in his recent book, should be taken as typical of mainstream, reputable art history.
"Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection"??
ReplyDeleteDid Edison believe in electricity? And if there is not resurrection then there is no Jesus as the Judge, which is something the revisionist (carnal) mind want to avoid.
So I suppose they think Paul was on the side of the Sadducees in Acts 23, and disallow that Paul declared Christ "to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead," (Romans 1:4) and "preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection," and who thus would be their judge, (Acts 17:18) a
And who wanted to know the power of His resurrection." (Phil. 3:10)
But the devil would like to deny it as well.
dcbyron wrote:
ReplyDelete"My sole concern is to emphasize that neither de Wesselow's methods nor his conclusions, as he demonstrates these in his recent book, should be taken as typical of mainstream, reputable art history."
I haven't been relying on the premise that "de Wesselow's methods [and/or] his conclusions, as he demonstrates these in his recent book, should be taken as typical of mainstream, reputable art history". Somebody could disagree with de Wesselow's view of how the Shroud was transmitted down through the centuries, yet agree with him about how the Shroud is different than medieval art in a particular way or agree with him that the Shroud probably isn't a production of the medieval era, for example. He can have a minority position on some issues and a majority position on others. The entirety of his book and the entirety of his opinions don't have to be correct or have majority status in order for some of them to have one of those qualities or both. I've cited de Wesselow in much the same way I've cited John Dominic Crossan on matters related to the New Testament, for example. Crossan is wrong about a lot of things, and on some issues he's far from the scholarly mainstream, but it's significant when he offers hostile corroboration of a traditional Christian position on an issue. As an agnostic, former skeptic of the Shroud, and medieval art historian, de Wesselow has some significance as an advocate of the Shroud that other advocates don't have. He doesn't have to be correct in all of the claims he makes in order to have that sort of significance.
Jason, it would help if he weren't ridiculous and polemical in his handling of the art historical material. But hey-- you're free to slice the pie as you will, and to regard as authoritative whatever seems worthy to you.
ReplyDelete