hughfarey wrote:Oh dearie me. Of course the marks on the Shroud are consistent with the gospels. They're an illustration of the gospels. In so far as the gospels are consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion, then the Shroud too is consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion.
I think you are missing my point...
The question is not whether or not the Gospels are consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
The Gospels are first century historical documents that contribute to what we know about Roman crucifixion.
The Gospels
are part of the first century historical data!
However, if it is medieval, nothing that it tells us can be considered archeological evidence about Roman crucifixion.
If the Shroud is medieval, that in no way shape or form negates the Gospels as an accurate source of information about Roman crucifixion.
It would just mean that a medieval image on the Shroud is consistent with what historical sources (including the 4 Gospels) tell us about Roman crucifixion.
If it is authentic, of course, then the blood marks are very revealing, but one must avoid the argument which goes: the blood marks look like a crucifixion, therefore the Shroud may be authentic, in which case the blood marks show exactly how a crucifixion took place, which proves the Shroud is authentic. Not that you would fall into such circular reasoning, but many people do.
My reasoning goes like this...
1. The Gospels are historical documents that contribute to our knowledge of first century Roman crucifixion.
2. If the Shroud is consistent with the Gospels, then it is also by definition consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
3. Being consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion from the Gospels is a minimum requirement for authenticity, but by itself is not proof of authenticity. It just means that the Shroud is consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
This is true, independent of whether the Shroud is of first century or medieval origin.
