[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Golb's theory
Jack Kilmon wrote:
> 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
> seem to leave something to be desired, i.e., I can't find a single
> to Nature 337: 1989 although the article is discussed at length. It
> 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
> My opinion is that the conspiracy/survival "punchline" is less
> scholarship and more bookselling.
Talk about getting two messages confused! I inadvertently
pasted a "shroud" hypothesis reply (a la Kersten and Gruber) to
Jim's comment about Golb's dustcover.
No, fellow listers, I am not nuts....just a bit computer
inept today. My apologies for the puzzled and befuddled looks
on your faces. :)