Queries & Comments

022

The Shroud of Turin

To the Editor:

Though I found the article by Robert A. Wild, S.J., (“The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th Century Forger,” BAR 10:02) interesting, his argument against the Shroud’s authenticity was unconvincing.

Wild believes the Shroud to be the handicraft of an artist or forger of the 14th century and proceeds to discuss what he considers anomalies in the Shroud and its story. I believe Father Wild misses much in addressing the whats instead of the whys.

Why, for instance, would a forger/artist bother to use human blood (as confirmed by Dr. John H. Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin [Houghton Mifflin, 1983])? Surely medieval witnesses of the Shroud would be unable to discern human from animal blood.

Why make the wounds in the wrists, instead of the hands as traditionally depicted?

And why, if the intent behind the Shroud was for display, would the forger make the image so difficult to see? Was any art form of the Middle Ages subtle?

Why would he make it a photographic negative capable of a three-dimensional image?

Wild considers the positioning of the hands over the genitals an awkward attempt at preserving modesty, but if the Shroud is manmade, why not simply adorn the man with a loin cloth or similar apparel? And if the arms appear elongated, might not this be caused by dislocation due to several hours of crucifixion? If the Shroud depicts anatomical abnormalities (i.e. the long fingers of the right hand), why would the forger attend more subtle details such as omission of the thumbs? (Driving a nail through the wrist severs a nerve which causes the thumb to bend toward the palm.)

As for the “shadowy” images of coins on the eyes, the evidence brought forth by Professor Francis Filas, S.J., appears solid to me. Filas has even identified the letters “UCAI” of the Pilate coin on the right eye of the Man on the Shroud (The Dating of the Shroud of Turin from Coins of Pontius Pilate, Francis L. Filas, S.J., 1980).

Wild is unconvincing at best in his effort to discredit the Shroud. He even admits that his “scorch” theory does not fill all the blanks, but this he attributes to modern science not yet having mastered the art of the medieval forger. Father Wild is willing to extend much credit to a 14th- (or earlier?) century forger, but little to the Shroud itself or to 20th-century science.

Admittedly, if not obviously, I believe in the authenticity of the Shroud—independent of my faith as a Christian and regardless of its less than historical distant past.

I remain a grateful subscriber.

To the Editor:

BAR’s shroud article is unscholarly in that it fails to deal honestly with a well-known objection to the forgery hypothesis, which focuses on the placement of the nail wounds in the wrists. As Fr. Wild points out, a “forger or devotional artist would naturally tend to copy a conventional likeness.” Why then are the nail wounds shown through the wrists in complete defiance of pre-20th century conventional likenesses? Prior to the 20th century, the nail wounds are universally depicted as being through the palms. It was only because of studies stimulated by the shroud that a French surgeon, Dr. Pierre Barbet, discovered during the 1930s that nails driven through the palms would not support body weight.

To the Editor:

As one who participated in the STURP 1978 testing of the Shroud in Turin and is referred to in Fr. Robert A. Wild’s article, I would like the opportunity to comment.

Without intending to be personally critical of Fr. Wild, I believe that this paper suffers from a lack of scientific rigor. I don’t object to the author’s formulating the hypothesis that the image is the work of an artist or forger; indeed, this is an essential part of valid and unbiased scientific inquiry into the nature of the Shroud image. I do, however, object to the author’s apparent testing of his artist hypothesis via his imagination. At almost every major conclusion, I tried in vain to find hard evidence of, or credible reference to, some supporting experimentation, but instead I was provided only with rationalizations of how the author “imagines” nature to operate. Several examples should suffice. (1) The author concludes that certain bloodflows are inconsistent with what would occur via gravity from a crucifixion victim lying horizontal; however, no experimental support is provided concerning post-mortem bloodflows, or alternatively, if the bloodflows in question might have flowed from a body in a vertical position (like on a cross), clotted, and been subsequently transferred to the cloth by clot moistening, as Barbet describes. (2) The author concludes, again without citing empirical data, that the body on the Shroud is “relaxed” with the elbows extending “out beyond the body as though resting on the surface of the tomb.” That this is simply not true can be shown by anyone who, as we have, envelops a cloth model of the Shroud containing a full-scale image about a human subject in such a way that appropriate anatomical and image features correspond. Not only do the arms not contact the supporting floor, but the unrelaxed subject generally has a difficult time maintaining the arms in the indicated position for more than several minutes. (3) The author hypothesizes that a hot statue or bas-relief generated the Shroud image but again fails to provide necessary experimental demonstration.

Another problem I have with this paper is that it does not always address the possible validity of alternative explanations. For example, in one of his major arguments for inauthenticity, the author concludes that the elongation of fingers and arms, which I agree are in the Shroud image, are the result of an artist intentionally contorting his “composition” for reasons of modesty. This assertion has, however, alternative explanations which are not addressed. A simple and natural explanation (see “Examination of the Turin Shroud for Image Distortions,” 1982 Proceedings on Cybernetics and Society, IEEE paper 0360–891318210000-0576) is that these elongations, along with wide hips and lateral hair displacement from the side of the face, are image distortions arising from the cloth being draped over a body surface at the time of image formation but appear distorted and elongated because we view the image relative to a straightened cloth.

Finally, it is not true that “deep divisions within the group (Shroud of Turin Research Project, STURP) now make it unlikely that it [final report] will ever appear.” There are no deep divisions of which I, as vice-president of STURP, am aware, and the final report, which should be published in about one year by Wiley & Sons, is intended to be a 023compilation of some 20 published STURP papers (only one of which [Pellicori’s] appears in the author’s bibliography). These papers have been in the public domain for nearly three to four years in most cases.

To the Editor:

What can be said about the Shroud of Turin is that there is no scientific evidence against its being the Shroud of Jesus. What can be said about Fr. Wild’s hypothesis is that there is no scientific evidence for it.

If Fr. Wild will take a sharp scalpel and make a slight flesh wound in his hand, hold it aloft until it flows down his arm and let it dry for an hour, he will find that the blood stains are not easily removed and will take some scrubbing. Carrying the body to the tomb would perhaps have disturbed some of the encrusted blood but surely not the stains. Besides, the distance was not very great if the present places where Calvary and the Tomb are venerated are authentic. Moreover, if myrrh and spices, I assume in some body of oil, anointed the body, they would have taken some time to soften the blood stains. Hence, there would not have been a smearing if we accept the Gospel account of haste, nor, given the abundance of anointing material, would the shroud have adhered to the wounds.

To the Editor:

You do your readers a great favor in publishing Robert A. Wild’s article on the Shroud of Turin.

When the Shroud first surfaced in the 14th century, “pious frauds” were all too commonplace. As church after church competed for pilgrims’ coins, relics were manufactured by the dozens. St. Mary Magdalene, for example, would have had to have two heads, six arms and four legs to account for all the 14th-century relics of her body, a forest would have been necessary to supply all the relics of the “True Cross” carried about Europe, and a regiment of Jews would have been necessary to supply all the foreskins of Jesus then extant.

Since the Reformation, much more critical criteria have been applied before authenticating dubious relics, to the betterment of Christianity. However, there is a crisis of faith as we enter the 1980s, and in that crisis of faith too many people are returning to a 14th-century mentality to escape that crisis.

To the Editor:

In anticipation of the criticism this article is certain to receive, let me say that regardless of the shroud’s being authentic or a fake, it has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible in any case. It neither adds to, nor can it detract from, the actual history of the Biblical event. Furthermore, if it is some sort of hoax, it just might be possible to prove it a hoax. But in no case can it be proven to be the actual shroud of Jesus. Even if it is the shroud of Jesus, the most we could expect from the physical evidence is to leave an open question. The only possible proof would be for Jesus to tell us personally in the Second Coming.

Fetishism is a form of idolatry. Personally, I don’t think God wants us to think of any physical object as sacred. As archaeological objects, they have a real value for historical information, but to place them higher is a misdirection of worship. Fr. Wild deserves our thanks for reducing chances of people worshipping a piece of cloth.

To the Editor:

I have every copy of your magazine from the first issue and have admired your objectivity until now. But the cover title of your March/April issue dismays me (“The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th Century Forger,” BAR 10:02). Is it not presumptuous 024to categorically and misleadingly state “not the Shroud of Jesus,” especially in light of the word “probably” which you use in the title, “Probably the work of a 14th-century artist or forger”? Moreover, the title is inconsistent with the article, “At this point we can conclude only that the Shroud remains a fascinating unfinished puzzle—not all the pieces are yet in place.”

To the Editor:

Wild’s essay, with the exception of a few sentences, is generally fair in its treatment of the subject. He mentions several good points, such as the possible problems with carbon dating, that the shroud is not an organic painting, and he allows for the possibility of miracle and certainly of mystery in the shroud. On a more critical note, he mentions that our book, Wilson’s, and Tribbe’s are too enthusiastic in our endorsements of the shroud. I believe that this may be a fair comment concerning us. We did offer several cautions (Verdict on the Shroud, pp. 6–7, 179–186) but perhaps needed more. In addition, somewhat less enthusiasm may have been appropriate.

However, Wild also blames these three books for giving incorrect information, and it is this charge to which I wish to direct myself, especially since he fails to mention many specifics. A general observation concerning his article is that it attacks few major points, with the exception of his theory of fraud, but settles for questioning numerous rather minor points. I would greatly enjoy being able to discuss each separate issue, but I must be content in this brief space to respond only to a few more important points.

Many of his questions concern the burial of the man wrapped in the shroud. As to whether the body was washed, Wild largely ignores the evidence we presented for the body being unwashed, especially from the Code of Jewish Law and the testimony of the gospels themselves (Verdict, Chapter 4).

Another very compelling option was espoused in a recent book which was untreated by Wild—The Cross and the Shroud by Columbia University Adjunct Professor of Pathology Frederick Zugibe (1981). He raises the same questions as does Wild with regard to the bloodstains but postulates that the body was washed. Contrary to popular opinion, dead bodies do bleed, and Zugibe cites cases of this happening even during the next day (pp. 150–152). This even applies to small “superficial” wounds (pp. 157, 161–162). Wild’s second question concerning the blood flowing in the direction observed on the shroud is also answered, with specific cases serving to reveal how the blood still travels after death just as it is observed on the shroud (pp. 160–163). Wild likewise ignores the work of Zugibe and other pathologists on the length of the man’s arms and fingers, as well as the presence of rigor mortis. The arms are not relaxed.

With regard to the burial clothes, the singular-plural issue is sufficiently addressed in our book Verdict (pp. 48–9, 202). Contrary to Wild’s hasty generalization, there is evidence for the facecloth in the 1978 photographs. This is apparent not from the space along the face but from the hair on the left side which appears to hang out over the face and from the beard which is divided below the chin by an invisible object (Verdict, pp. 50, 64).

Probably the most crucial point concerns Wild’s contention that the shroud is best considered as a forgery, with his view being that the artist used a heated statue or bas-reliefs. He also gives some credence to Nickell’s artistic theories. Forgery is a possible thesis but has numerous problems.

In spite of his hypothesis, Wild admits both that there are no viable mechanisms at present to explain the image and that his theory has several problems. But he still prefers a naturalistic theory for the 025shroud, since it is possible that we have not yet mastered what was a medieval art.

The problems with this thesis are at least twofold. First, the various forms of these theories have been tested and rejected by not fewer than seven different scientific researchers, one of which was also reviewed in Wild’s article (Heller, pp. 203, 208–211; cf. Verdict, pp. 191–193; 195–197). To my knowledge, such theories are not accepted by any of the 1978 scientific team, although I cannot speak for them.

Second, it is crucial to realize that one does not have to know how to duplicate the claimed artistry in the image but only how to detect it. The latter is not only easier to do but is a specialty of modern science. And as yet, no mechanism of fakery can be determined by the scientists, as Wild realizes.

Many other points could be raised with regard to Wild’s article. These points will have to suffice in our effort to show that, while enlightening at many points, Wild’s thesis appears to fail in its endeavor to support a theory of forgery for the shroud.

Dr. Habermas and Kenneth E. Stevenson wrote Verdict on the Shroud, published in 1981.—Ed.

To the Editor:

It seems to me that Fr. Wild missed a rather obvious point which will further substantiate the shroud’s spurious nature.

Note the view of the head. It is a two-dimensional portrayal, as if made by a camera held over the figure’s head. If the shroud had fallen naturally over the body, conforming to the shape of the body, the cloth then would have covered the cheeks, ears and the hair (which would have fallen behind the ears). Remove the shroud from the body, lay it out flat, and impressions of the ears would have been made, and the impressions of the hair would be 12–14 inches apart, not the seven or so inches as in the picture. The artist who painted the shroud assumed the cloth lay flat over the face, which of course could not have been the case.

To the Editor:

I greatly enjoyed the article on the Shroud of Turin.

The most interesting feature to me was the alignment of the front and back images. We find a front image touching a back image. However, this alignment is IMPOSSIBLE on a single sheet of cloth, as there must be an image of the TOP OF THE HEAD, or at least a place for it, between the two. This observation supports the author’s contention.

To the Editor:

I was highly gratified that my book, Portrait of Jesus?—The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin, was one of four that served as the basis for the beautifully illustrated article in your March/April issue (“The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th Century Forger,” BAR 10:02).

Since I wrote about a controversial subject, I can hardly be surprised or complain that my book creates further controversy. Moreover, with one exception I cannot take personal umbrage from the comments of the writer, Robert A. Wild. (I do consider it a “low blow” in his last paragraph, where Wild states, without specifics, that I [as well as Stevenson/Habermas] am guilty of giving “incorrect factual information”—since my text was meticulously checked by four technical experts on sindonology.) He makes negligible direct reference to any of our books and actually is complimentary of my work in two sentences of his article. Rather, I am bothered, on behalf of BAR readers, by Wild’s persistent bias against the Shroud as a validated religious relic.

Wild would have the reader believe there are only two intelligent choices respecting the Shroud: (1) to believe it is Jesus’ shroud, or (2) to believe it to be a man-made fake (as he does). This is just not true. The bulk of the scientists and researchers fall rather into two different groups: (3) to believe it is an authentic archaeological artifact relating to an unknown person, and with images made by an as yet unknown technique, and (4) to believe it is an authentic archaeological artifact relating to an unknown person, and with images made by some supernatural force and control.

Wild deprecatingly says that I was “forced to resort to an appeal to a ‘paranormal spiritual event.’” My conclusion in that regard was compelled by the impact of a series of logical inferences that result from these inexplicable enigmas regarding the Shroud of Turin:

1. The Shroud body image is a photographic negative, made centuries before photography was invented.

2. Although the cloth had to be in contact with a real corpse, the body image was made through space and not by contact.

3. Because the density (darkness) of the body image varies inversely with the cloth-to-body distance, that factor can be measured and projected by computer, permitting the creation of a full three-dimensional “statue” from a Shroud photograph (artists’ shadings are based on perspective); to date, this feature is unique.

4. The Shroud body image is superficial, having a depth of no more than two or three fibrils into the appropriate “selected” portions of specific threads.

5. The Shroud body image has no color, and the varying degrees of darkening of the threads is the simple dehydration of the cellulose in the flax from which the cloth was made—which can be caused by heat, age or light.

6. The Shroud body image was not caused by heat because it is superficial; it was not caused 076by age since the adjacent threads are of the same age.

7. The blood image, photographically positive, has soaked through the cloth in some areas and is the color of dried and aged blood, and does indeed contain real primate (probably human) blood, Type AB, but was only partially caused by contact.

8. The bloodstains reflect injuries and bleeding covering a span of 10 to 15 hours (possibly 5 a.m. to 8 p.m., if it was Jesus), but the Shroud was never removed from the body since that would have resulted in either smearing (if wet) or breaking (if crusted) of the bloodstains—the stains are pristine and perfect.

9. The bloodstains reflect anatomically perfect references to venous flow and arterial flow, as appropriate, but circulation of the blood was not discovered until 1593.

10. The body image cannot be seen closer than about six feet or farther than about ten feet.

11. Of the thousands of burial cloths in the world’s museums, many have stains of putrefaction (the Shroud of Turin does not), and none have a body or face image or any other enigmatic stain.

12. Pollen in the surface debris on the Shroud prove it was significantly exposed to the air in the area of Jerusalem, of southern Turkey, and of Constantinople.

13. There are no additives (paint etc.) on the Shroud to make the body image.

14. The Z-twist thread, the 3-to-1 herringbone twill cloth, with cotton fibers from a prior use of the loom, preclude European manufacture, even in the 14th century.

15. Both body image and bloodstains were made through space, by an image-making process, as a result of a “flash photolysis.”

16. The coins used to hold the eyelids closed for the Man of the Shroud were minted only in Palestine and available only during the years 29 to 36 A.D.

17. Every aspect of the body image is anatomically correct, and every bloodstain is pathologically proper, according to the knowledge of the last quarter of the 20th century.

To the Editor:

I am an unashamed fundamentalist, and as such I hold to the literal and inerrant views of Scripture interpretation. I do not find myself needing “icons,” whatever their form: gold, silver, wood, ceramic—or linen! So to me, the host of gladiators willing to produce books and articles about the authentic or fraudulent composition of the shroud provide the Bible-believing world with little more than a literary “Colosseum”—and a capacity crowd—some with thumbs up and some with thumbs down.

The Word of God states, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29b). So, while I join in Father Wild’s shroudic negativism, I do so with a call to faith, not by replacing positive speculation with his negative speculation.

While I may not agree with every article you include in your first-rate magazine, I do look forward to each issue and read a far greater percentage of its contents than of most other Christian periodicals. Thank you very much.

To the Editor:

Thank you and thank Robert A. Wild for the interesting article on the Shroud of Turin. The text and photos were most enlightening.

One breach of logic did bother me. How is it Fr. Wild could cast such doubt on the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the Lord’s Passion and then use that very same Gospel account for evidence to support his thesis that the Shroud is not authentic? This particular problem seems to plague many Biblical historians and archaeologists today.

Nevertheless, I found the article superb and must agree with Robert Wild that my faith in Christ is not affected one way or another by an ancient relic of suspect origin.

Congratulations to BAR on ten years of publishing a fine magazine.

To the Editor:

I warmly welcome Father Wild’s judicious article on the so-called Shroud of Turin.

It does not appear to me that this cloth with the crucified Christ’s body depicted on it is, or was intended to be, the actual cloth which covered the body in the tomb. There was no design to pass off or forge. It was created as an illustration, front and back view, of the effects of the sufferings Christ had undergone according to the Bible and tradition, to evoke in the Christian faith and compassion in witnessing what he had undergone for Man’s sake. Deliberately the cloth is shown as a strip from the feet to the head and down the back to the feet again. It is open at the sides.

Strictly, then, it is not a shroud at all. Have Jewish burials been found with a length of cloth used in this way? In the story about Lazarus, his body is described as bound hand and foot with graveclothes (plural: keirivai~), literally “bandages,” more like a mummy. Exactly the same thing is conveyed as regards the interment of Jesus (John 19:40). With such a burial there could be no possible image, since it would be distributed over many bits of bandage. I conclude, therefore, that the cloth was never meant to imitate, since clearly it did not correspond to the kind of wrappings stated in the Bible to have been employed.

To the Editor:

You call this scholarship? You have the stupidity to print such a specious opinion as part of the article’s title on your cover, the contents page, and the article itself. Shame on the lot of you, fools posing as “experts.” Take another look. Has the human hand ever produced such a majestic face in any example of 078Christian art? This truly is the visage of a king. Open your eyes and wake up.

To the Editor:

Robert A. Wild’s article on the Shroud of Turin and your editorial decision in headlining it were pompous, irresponsible and mean-spirited. You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. In this case you strain out Wild’s scriptural objections and swallow his treatise that the Shroud is too good to be true.

I think that our 20th-century, visually jaded men are not aware of the magnitude of the object that they are dismissing so casually. This Shroud is the greatest and most important archaeological object of human history. We are not casually examining a piece of broken pottery that makes no difference in history or truth. This is not a prehistoric toilet seat which teaches us about the sanitary habits of prehistoric man! This is sacred ground, holy ground; this is the man who claimed to be the very Son of God. Look at the thing! You should tremble to object so flightily. There is nothing else like it in the world! You would have to worship the forger who could create such a deception as you claim this is. There is no such forger. There is no motive and no method for achieving it. You make the man a chemist, an artist, a physicist, a physician, a sculptor, a Bible believer, and the greatest of secret keepers. Perhaps next someone will suggest that this person was from another planet. I can see the book now, Chariots of the Shroud. It ought to be a big seller.

One last thought for you, Fr. Wild. I hope that you realize that you have made your life’s statement, at least on this subject in this forum. If you should ever change your mind, the most you will get will probably be a little paragraph in the editorial or news section saying, “Author Changes View,” not a 17-page, color spread. You have taken your stand with the Bishop of Troyes and Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

To the Editor:

Robert Wild’s article was perhaps the most objective work I’ve read to date on the subject.

To the Editor:

We’ll probably have to wait and ask Jesus Himself, when we all see Him, about the truth concerning the Shroud of Turin.

Because of delays in overseas mail, we had not received Father Wild’s response at press time. We hope to print this response in the next issue.

Books for Seventh Grade—And Higher

To the Editor:

I am a seventh-grade junior high school student and subscribe to your magazine. I enjoy each issue but sometimes have trouble understanding the terminology. I would appreciate it if you would recommend some books on archaeology that would be for my age level.

Oded Borowski replies:

This is, unfortunately, a tough question—which means it’s difficult to find good books on archaeology for your age level.

One such book is Amihai Mazar’s Voices from the Past (Harvey House: Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1967), but it’s hard to come by now.

However, I will assume you are particularly bright for your age, as I’m sure you must be, and will therefore recommend the following list, which your elders also might find interesting.

Introducing the Holy Land by J. Maxwell Miller (Mercer University Press: Macon, Georgia, 1983), $13.95.

A book written for the first-time traveler in the Near East, containing information regarding the geography, history, main sites, chronology and much more.

The Bible and Recent Archaeology by Dame Kathleen M. Kenyon (John Knox Press: Atlanta, Georgia, 1978), $7.95.

This discussion highlights the Biblical periods of the Patriarchs, the Conquest and Settlement, the United and Divided Monarchies and the New Testament.

The Old Testament and the Archaeologist by H. Darrell Lance (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1981), $4.50.

A good introductory book describing the principles of modern archaeological methodology (stratigraphy, typology) and dealing with some specific problems in Biblical archaeology; good for learning terminology.

Archaeology of the Bible: Book by Book by Gaalya Cornfeld and David Noel Freedman (Harper & Row: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976), $12.45.

As the title implies, the book describes archaeological discoveries related to all the Biblical—Old and New Testament—books, illuminating each one with scores of photographs, maps and drawings.

Cities of the Biblical World Excavation in Palestine by Roger Moorey (Lutherworth Press: Guillford, Surrey, England, 1981), $6.95.

This paperback is part of a series containing several good books on Biblical sites. This particular volume deals with topics such as how to dig, development of methodology, how to identify, survey and select sites, actual excavations, and interpretation of the materials.

The Archaeology of the Land of Israel by Yohanan Aharoni (Westminster Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1978), $27.50 hardcover, $18.95 paperback.

A good description (with drawings, maps and photographs) of archaeological work conducted in Israel, covering the period from prehistoric times to the end of the First Temple period.

Digging for God and Country by Neil Asher Silberman (Knopf: New York, 1982), $16.95.

The fascinating story of archaeological research in the Near East from the time of Napoleon to World War I.

Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land edited by Michael Avi-Yonah (Vols. 1 & 2) and M. Avi-Yonah and Ephraim Stern (Vols. 3 & 4) (The Israel Exploration Society and Massada Press: Jerusalem, Israel, 1975–78), $25.00 per volume.

For a site-by-site description, this four volume set is the best.

Supernatural Biblical Events

In Queries & Comments, BAR 10:02, we printed a letter from Ken Vander Kooi asking whether archaeologists always explained events in natural rather than supernatural terms. Don’t they believe in miracles, he asked. We published several replies by eminent scholars, in both the March/April issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 10:02) and the May/June issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 10:03). In this issue, we publish the last in this series by Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University.—Ed.

To the Editor:

Mr. Vander Kooi has raised a serious issue which many of us tend to avoid. Among archaeologists and scholars of the Bible there are many, both Christian and Jewish, who are strictly observant of their religious traditions. Yet at the same time, we tend to pursue our research as if the very basis of our own personal commitments was not valid. We never discuss this issue because its discussion, we assume, would destroy the interconfessional (cutting across lines of religious affiliation) nature of our work and lead us to consider problems which we are probably unable to solve.

079

Nevertheless, let me share my own perspective, which is that of a traditional Jew.

I start with the assumption that actual facts, if they are really true, cannot contradict religious faith. Religion cannot ask you to believe the untrue, only the unproven. If I find that scholars have reached conclusions based on scientific research, be it archaeological, historical or literary, and that I agree with their methods and conclusions, I take these to be facts proven to the extent possible in the humanities. If these conclusions in some way seem to be in conflict with the literal interpretation of the Bible or the Talmud, I follow the lead of the great medieval Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) and interpret the religious texts in a non-literal fashion. Indeed, for Judaism, the literal meaning of the Bible and Talmud has never been insisted upon in the face of difficulty.

I will admit that harmonizing the results of scientific research with traditional religious faith sometimes may lead us to interpretations which are freer than those which our ancient and medieval forebears would have accepted. Nonetheless, I point to the work of such Biblical scholars as Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164) as examples of how in their day, medieval Jewish exegetes struggled with the new linguistic sciences and attempted to deal with the problems of Biblical exegesis. We, in light of the new knowledge which archaeology has given us, must do the same. Our results will be different from theirs, but we can still come to an understanding of the Bible which allows us to recognize the results of scientific and humanistic research, while appreciating the religious and spiritual (and in the Jewish case national) message of the Scriptures.

Everything I have written refers to my own personal views. But my work as a scholar and teacher requires something somewhat different. It is not my business to tell people what to believe. Rather, my job is to teach that which we know to be true or which we believe on scholarly grounds to be most probably true. I am supposed to analyze different points of view with students and to teach them how to come to scholarly conclusions. All this obligates me to put aside all the questions we have been addressing here and to limit myself to the known or almost known. This is the reason that we so often give the impression that matters of faith are of no importance to our scholarship. It is simply that we have no right to confuse them with proven facts. Beliefs are exactly that. Religious beliefs are edifying precisely because we believe them but cannot prove them. The business of research, however, is to deal with that which we can prove. That is why we write about what we have proven. We leave you to understand these facts and your religious tradition, and to solve the important questions raised by both.

Adding Pronunciations

To the Editor:

I love your magazine! I chuckle and shake my head at the narrow-minded people who cancel their subscriptions because of some article or some advertisement. I wonder if they subscribe to a newspaper!

I do have a small request. There are many names, terms and places mentioned in your magazine that, for a novice like me, are difficult (if not impossible) to pronounce. Could the pronunciations be added? I realize that you have many scholarly individuals reading your magazine. So as not to insult their intelligence, possibly you could place the pronunciations at the end of the article or at the end of the magazine. This would certainly help me in my personal studies in becoming an “armchair scholar.”

We will try to give pronunciations when it is not clear from the word itself.—Ed.

What Bothers Him About BAR, Including the Ads

To the Editor:

First I just want to say how much I enjoy your excellent magazine. It is very interesting and informative and has helped me greatly in my understanding of Biblical history.

There are only two things that bother me about BAR:

1. I wish it came out monthly instead of bimonthly. I read it in a day and then have to wait a whole two months before the next issue arrives! (Perhaps I am addicted.) Are there plans to increase the number of issues per year?

2. For a magazine of such excellent caliber, why does it contain such weird advertisements like “Madame Butterfly Poster $8.95,” or “Theo-History” or “Kronos” or “The Keys of the Kingdom by Carl Austin” or “Urim and Thummim by I. L. Cohen (it says every thinking person should read this book)”—there are others. Are you that hard up for advertisers? It is a paradox to me that a scholarly magazine like BAR would succumb to such unscholarly advertisements. I’m sure many others would agree with me. Can’t you be a bit more selective in what ads you put in your magazine?

I will continue reading and enjoying BAR even though these ads are included. At worst they make me sick, at best they make me laugh.

Many of our readers suffer withdrawal symptoms during the odd month when they do not receive an issue of BAR. We have only two suggested cures. Only one of these is now available. The second one soon will be.

The first is to order a “Backwards Subscription” to BAR. It starts just before you became a subscriber (whenever that was) and goes backward to Volume 1, No. 1, and it arrives in the odd month when you don’t receive BAR as part of your regular forward subscription. To order your copy of BAR’s popular Backward Subscription, call toll-free 1–800-221–4644 during business hours, Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

Second, we’ll soon have something else available for you. This fall you will be able to subscribe to an entirely new magazine. It’s called Bible Review. It will be on the same popular level as BAR. It will be written by the world’s greatest Biblical scholars. And it will focus on the 080non-archaeological aspects of Biblical studies. But please don’t mention this new magazine to anyone until we’re ready to announce it publicly.

The other thing that bothers you about BAR—the ads—is, I’m afraid, something we’re going to ask you to put up with. Many people like our ads. Almost everyone likes some, indeed most, of our ads and finds them useful and informative. But many people, like yourself, do find a few ads objectionable.

The problem is that the alternative to accepting an ad is rejecting it. And that, frankly, makes us very uncomfortable. Not because of the money—we’d exist without it—but because it means we have to say to the advertiser, “You can’t speak to BAR readers; you can’t tell them your message.” That’s not only distasteful to us, but it can also be unfair.

We’re very strong believers in the values inherent in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the value of free speech—especially in a magazine where you can simply flip over the ads you don’t like. We think that the usual antidote to speech you don’t like is more speech—that’s why we’re printing your letter, even though some of the advertisers you mentioned won’t like it.

We’re just not very good censors. We don’t like to argue with publishers about why a book isn’t good enough to tell our readers about. So, unless an ad offers something unlawful or patently offensive, we accept it. As to whether you respond favorably or unfavorably to the advertiser’s message, that’s up to you. Thanks for sharing your reactions with us.—Ed.

On Literally Devouring BAR

To the Editor:

Bernard R. Kogan’s feigned “alarm” over the phrase “literally devour” with regard to my enjoyable reading of BAR magazine is certainly cute (Queries & Comments, BAR 10:03) but nevertheless completely unfounded. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives the following definition of devour: “To take in greedily with the senses or mind: ‘devour a novel’.”

Yes, Mr. Kogan, even without inducing catharsis, BAR can be “literally” devoured! Thanks again to the writers and editors for an excellent publication.

The Shroud of Turin

To the Editor:

Though I found the article by Robert A. Wild, S.J., (“The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th Century Forger,” BAR 10:02) interesting, his argument against the Shroud’s authenticity was unconvincing.