1. The shroud somehow represents a kind of "photograph" of the Lord's dead body.
2. The image depicts a body in the condition of rigor mortis -- neither pre- nor post.
Then there is a huge leap: the maker of the argument assumes that the photograph represents the last stage of the body; but why assume that?
I.e., the argument says, if the Lord had stayed dead, the body would have stopped being rigid, and the shroud would depict that unrigid state. That last part is assumed, not demonstrated; at least, if I understand the argument.
I.e., granted that the shroud somehow captured the image of rigor mortis at a particular stage; that says nothing, either way, about what became of the body after the "photograph" was "taken."
I agree that the author is making assumption in question and says nothing to justify it. However, in light of all the other facts about the Shroud, it seems to be a reasonable assumption to make.
The technology of photography did not exist until the 19th century, and the Shroud is certainly much earlier than that. So in order to dismiss the rigor-mortis posture as evidence of authenticity, we would have to infer that the image of a body in rigor mortis was produced from memory, with a much slower and more cumbersome technology, by somebody aiming to "prove" that Jesus rose from the dead before rigor mortis had ended. But since somebody that clever could easily have anticipated the simple objection you've raised, I find that scenario unlikely.
I've maintained since the carbon-dating story that a mediæval forger would not have known how to make this. Either the dating is wrong or at 'worst' it's a mediæval miracle, not the actual shroud.
Just for clarity, I'm not disputing the "photograph" aspect of the shroud -- that part is simply a mystery that, to my knowledge, no one can explain. I.e., what we know is we have an image; no one has a very good (natural) explanation for how it came to be.
So, in what I wrote above, I'm simply picking up from there -- we have a "photograph" of unexplained origin, of a dead man, in rigor mortis. What does this say about how long this shroud wrapped the body?
I guess I'd say this; as fascinating as these questions are, it all depends on how plausibly and convincingly one can say, this is Our Lord's burial shroud; these other issues are peripheral, either way.
Because, let us assume this is our Lord's shroud; even then, how can we say it demonstrates how long he was in the tomb? We have to assume something we don't know, and can't know: and that is, just when the "snapshot" was taken. Was the "photograph" taken when the shroud first touched our Lord's body? An hour later? Three? All we know is that Our Lord was dead for some period of time before his body was wrapped; and that the "photograph" was taken some time before rigor mortis ended.
If we infer from the data the purpose of this phenomenon -- to demonstrate that the body of Our Lord really died -- then, again, that tells us nothing about what happened after the "photograph" was taken.
It seems the person making the original argument is inferring a subtly different purpose -- to demonstrate the truth of the death-and-resurrection. Of course, he may be right; but that still is an assumption.
Forgive me if I'm flogging this excessively; just trying to reason carefully about this.
I agree that the argument is not demonstrative inasmuch as the premise in question is not well-established. It only makes sense to import it from the context of much else about the Shroud. So I see the argument as part of a cumulative case that would function probabilistically, not as decisive in itself.
This is one I haven't heard before. It seems powerful to me. Comments?
Michael:
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see . . .
It seems the argument is as follows:
1. The shroud somehow represents a kind of "photograph" of the Lord's dead body.
2. The image depicts a body in the condition of rigor mortis -- neither pre- nor post.
Then there is a huge leap: the maker of the argument assumes that the photograph represents the last stage of the body; but why assume that?
I.e., the argument says, if the Lord had stayed dead, the body would have stopped being rigid, and the shroud would depict that unrigid state. That last part is assumed, not demonstrated; at least, if I understand the argument.
I.e., granted that the shroud somehow captured the image of rigor mortis at a particular stage; that says nothing, either way, about what became of the body after the "photograph" was "taken."
Fr. Fox:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the author is making assumption in question and says nothing to justify it. However, in light of all the other facts about the Shroud, it seems to be a reasonable assumption to make.
The technology of photography did not exist until the 19th century, and the Shroud is certainly much earlier than that. So in order to dismiss the rigor-mortis posture as evidence of authenticity, we would have to infer that the image of a body in rigor mortis was produced from memory, with a much slower and more cumbersome technology, by somebody aiming to "prove" that Jesus rose from the dead before rigor mortis had ended. But since somebody that clever could easily have anticipated the simple objection you've raised, I find that scenario unlikely.
That's why I rather like the author's argument.
Best,
Mike
I've maintained since the carbon-dating story that a mediæval forger would not have known how to make this. Either the dating is wrong or at 'worst' it's a mediæval miracle, not the actual shroud.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteJust for clarity, I'm not disputing the "photograph" aspect of the shroud -- that part is simply a mystery that, to my knowledge, no one can explain. I.e., what we know is we have an image; no one has a very good (natural) explanation for how it came to be.
So, in what I wrote above, I'm simply picking up from there -- we have a "photograph" of unexplained origin, of a dead man, in rigor mortis. What does this say about how long this shroud wrapped the body?
I guess I'd say this; as fascinating as these questions are, it all depends on how plausibly and convincingly one can say, this is Our Lord's burial shroud; these other issues are peripheral, either way.
Because, let us assume this is our Lord's shroud; even then, how can we say it demonstrates how long he was in the tomb? We have to assume something we don't know, and can't know: and that is, just when the "snapshot" was taken. Was the "photograph" taken when the shroud first touched our Lord's body? An hour later? Three? All we know is that Our Lord was dead for some period of time before his body was wrapped; and that the "photograph" was taken some time before rigor mortis ended.
If we infer from the data the purpose of this phenomenon -- to demonstrate that the body of Our Lord really died -- then, again, that tells us nothing about what happened after the "photograph" was taken.
It seems the person making the original argument is inferring a subtly different purpose -- to demonstrate the truth of the death-and-resurrection. Of course, he may be right; but that still is an assumption.
Forgive me if I'm flogging this excessively; just trying to reason carefully about this.
Fr Fox:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the argument is not demonstrative inasmuch as the premise in question is not well-established. It only makes sense to import it from the context of much else about the Shroud. So I see the argument as part of a cumulative case that would function probabilistically, not as decisive in itself.
Best,
Mike