Scholar sees change in biblical archaeology

Caution replaces rash claims to prove Bible

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • Thadd Nelson
    Dec. 13, 2007 2:46 p.m.

    So many issues with these comments:
    The shroud has not been scientifically proven authentic, samples taken from the shroud were selected based on being part of the original cloth, it is a fake. As for why it would be faked, remember that it was made during an era when top dollar was paid for relics.
    Wherever you are hearing it was an obvious patch, is wrong, it was selected specifically against such sampling, and arguments to the contrary are post hoc rationalization of a failed hypothesis.
    The bible may help in finding some sites, but it often fails as well, take for example Jericho or Ai, where information from the biblical text was completely inaccurate.
    While the verdict may still be out, in a way, on the James Ossuary, no one has yet proved it authentic, and it is nothing but irresponsible to publish it as authentic or utilize it in studies of specific sites without additional evidence and without any contextual information.
    And what can of worms? There is no scientific way to link it to the biblical Jesus even if the inscription were real, we are talking about common names here.

    T Nelson
    Near Eastern Archaeologist

  • My 2cents
    Nov. 27, 2007 12:27 p.m.

    RE: False Information. We are learning how and why there are false teachers and false prophets (as written in the Word of God for these times).. There are people who are just downright lazy.. they don't do their own homework.. they simply echo the words of others.. like parrots. They follow along with others. Ask St. Paul. Read his confession. He knows all about these bad habits. And there are those who are lousy judges. They make judgements without knowing all the facts, without seeking more facts, or ignoring known facts. "Don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind." The great sin of Sodom was "iniquity" (Eze 16:49).. "self-love".. self satisfaction and content with the status quo, arrogance, pride in their own knowledge, laziness.. no activity, no study etc. And thru all this, they failed to properly feed and nourish their followers who were AS.. like sheep with no shepherd.. (see all these habits (traditions) in those who mis-judged Jesus). Jesus was judged BEFORE that mockery of a trial.

  • G.M. Grena
    Nov. 25, 2007 10:08 a.m.

    My reaction to his Shroud comment is the same as others who have already posted. Barrie Schwortz lectured at a local church near me a couple of years ago & was very impressive. His site is the best. He was the official photographer for STURP in 1978, & knows what he's talking about. You know you're listening to the real deal when he frankly admits that he can't prove it was THE burial cloth of Jesus, but there's no proof that it wasn't. That's scientific objectivity at its finest. The fragment used for the carbon-dating influencing Dr. Maeir's belief is an obvious patch, & it's unfortunate that Dr. Maeir spoke in public about it (as a credible scientist in his own right) without first getting updated on the latest research. Also, his comments about the James Ossuary shocked me--the belief that the "Jesus" portion of the inscription was added recently has no credible supporters.

  • Elsie
    Nov. 25, 2007 7:46 a.m.

    Well, about the James Ossuary, that is still out with the Jury. The committee that has tagged the piece as a forgery is still working the chemical tests on the patina of the "A'chui Ieosua" part of the insciption. If this part is proven authentic, a can of worms is about to break open. As I said, the jury is still out debating it, they originally made a rash statement, but the owner of the box, while being tried for forgery, it's not even about this piece, they just added this possibility to the charges.

  • siculus
    Nov. 25, 2007 2:03 a.m.

    I can imagine that the shroud is a Middle Age fraud. Perhaps on an original linen imported from the Holy Land. But how did produce the master a negative image some 600 years before photography? And why? How could he or she get this curious idea? And why would do an Upper Might the same? To hide the image? Made in Gothic times in a High Renaissance style? The scientific answers generate more scientific questions than the belief...

  • Kattey
    Nov. 24, 2007 11:19 p.m.

    It remains a fact, however, that archaeology in Israel fits in with the Torah writings of ancient Jews. The Bible has been amazingly accurate in helping archaeologists find the sites it describes. Artifacts belonging to various eras confirm the existence of ancient Jews that we know from the Bible. Recently a scholar was translating some cuneiform tablets, and they confirmed that a man who was named in the Torah had been with the Babylonians who kidnapped the Jews in 586 BCE. The ancient civilizations like the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadiens all wrote about the Jews and ancient Israel. There is the proof that Israel belonged to the Jews thousands of years ago. It seems the Jews were frequently kidnapped (relatively speaking). The Assyrians, Babylonians and Greeks all took them prisoners at different times, and steles and engraved images tell this. Best of all, the discoveries just keep coming. I think the Minamalists have lost this battle.

  • m.c. burcke
    Nov. 24, 2007 10:40 p.m.

    Maeir's Turin Shroud information is at least twenty years out of date and totally incorrect. The Shroud is a genuine artifact, not a fake, which he would know if he had any knowledge of the legitimate research done on it in the last thirty years. DMN is publishing erroneous, easily checked (but apparently not...) information from an apparent publicity seeker. Shame on you.

  • steve
    Nov. 24, 2007 12:26 p.m.

    It is scientifically reprehensible that people like Aren Maeir lump the Shroud of Turin in with other REAL fakes. Maeir should get a clue that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud has been proven to be totally INCORRECT and is only used by those who want to debunk the most important and studied artifact in the world's history. It has been scientifically proven that the samples used in the 1988 carbon 14 test were NOT from the original linen cloth, but used to make repairs on it in, guess when, the Middle Ages! Indeed, Maeir should pay attention to his own colleagues, such as Dr. Avinoam Danin, Hebrew University, the world's foremost Palestinian floral expert, who has proven with his partner, Dr. Uri Baruch of the Israel Antiquities Authority, that Shroud contains pollens from plants that ONLY grow in Israel. This evidence points to the cloth originating in Israel, NOT Europe. In fact, one pollen comes from the Gundelia tournefortii thorn bush that grows within a 3-mile radius around the environs of Jerusalem. Maeir should get his facts straight before he pontificates on such an important archaeological treasure and the Desert Morning News should check their sources before publishing!