[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Golb's theory
Jim West wrote:
>
> Someone mentioned the other day Golb's book; and this brought to mind a most
> curious fact-
> the cover of Golb's book prints the Qumran text it uses as its background
> upside down.
> How can one take seriously a book the editors of which are so completely
> incapable of even reading the script?
Looking at the dustcover of the hard copy, I only see an "artistic"
"watersplotch" type of rendition without being able to define a single
character. I don't believe it was an actual Qumran text.
My complaint for the "Golb Hypothesis" is that the information for
establishing the authenticity of the shroud as a 1st century artifact is
reasonable but also covered in other works. His bibliographic
references
seem to leave something to be desired, i.e., I can't find a single
reference
to Nature 337: 1989 although the article is discussed at length. It
seems
to me the largely unverifiable "conspiracy" tale and the "surviving the
crucifixion" scenario is unsupported by evidence. The forensics of the
"man in the shroud" supports the conclusion that "the man" was indeed
dead.
My opinion is that the conspiracy/survival "punchline" is less
scholarship and more bookselling.
Jack Kilmon
jpman@accesscomm.net