The Botany of Bible Lands: An Interview with Prof. Avinoam Danin


7 Responses to “The Botany of Bible Lands: An Interview with Prof. Avinoam Danin”

  1. ebees says:

    It’s quite interesting…but misleading.

    There is an image on a piece of cloth. That we know.
    This botanist claims the cloth shows evidence of particular plants.
    These plants are from a particular area.
    These plants are claimed to indicate a particular time in that area during any given year.
    The area in questions is said to be where the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, was killed and said to have been crucified.
    There is no evidence that any of the above shows that the image is actually FROM a person.

    There is no evidence that any of the above is linked to Jesus – other than it’s claim to be from the same area in a time period of a year (any year) which is similar to the time period in which it is claimed Jesus died.

    That is to say, there is no information to show the SAME year and date/period during which Jesus is said to have died.

    It could quite easily have been years later or earlier. Where is the evidence to say that it is from the same collection of specific days?

    I haven’t read the book, but I’d imagine this would be necessary evidence to be of any use.


    “The Man of the Shroud was possibly tortured with thorns of Rhamnus lycioides, Ziziphus spina-christi and Gundelia tournefortii. A cane of Arundo donax was inserted to the Shroud covering the Man as well.”

    The ‘Man of the Shroud’ has yet to be proven to actually be the result of a person having been IN the shroud. 

    Similarly, Goya’s ‘The Third of May 1808′ is a great painting

    but Goya wasn’t there. 

    If we had poorer communication and a sufficient degree of political motivation and religious fervour, Goya’s painting could easily be presented as  evidence of the massacre.

    The Shroud of Turin is such a good story that it helps that the Catholic Church continues to refuse to permit a real scientific study to provide the evidence. That it’s held in such great regard and awe as belonging to Christ is really something which has come about without any real evidence of any form.

    Sorry to you Catholics etc, but belief is not evidence and while this guy may be a great botanist (?) his information is speculative and circumstantial at best. 

    It’s only of use to believers – who don’t really need evidence anyway.

    • muckdriver says:

      These are the sort of arguments I wish I could have, but then, how do you use reason to argue with someone living in a fantasy? A family member that I’m very close with loves this sort of shtick – scientists supposedly presenting evidence for Christ & God, but incompletely.  
      I let her be, but her increasing sensitivity to atheist stating their views (seriously takes it as a personal attack) makes it difficult to not want to retaliate in kind. But whatever, I’m not going to change her mind. I’d rather have a relationship than win an argument.
      All I can do is love her despite her weirdness. 

    • CH says:

      Oh, ye of little faith!
      … Um, no, wait! …

      Oh, us of little faith! Right, better!

    • zebbart says:

      “Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:[45] “Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet”” – Wikipedia.

  2. victorvictorian says:

    why would any adult ever mention the Shroud of Turin in a serious conversation? it’s a stylized medieval painting, or drawing, or rubbing. case closed. the only mystery is why anyone would ever give it consideration as anything other than a piece of religious art that has a creepy aura because of its hype.

  3. grammy97 says:

    The botanical information is fascinating.   But that does not prove that the man who was imaged on this sheet is/was Jesus of Nazareth.   In the gospel of John, chapter 19:31-36, we were told plainly that no bone of Jesus Christ was broken.   This image had a  broken nose.   So it can not be Jesus of Nazareth.

    The napkin that was about his head (John 20:7) is another indicator.   A separate cloth on the head would not allow for this image to be made:  Jesus of Nazareth was buried with a napkin about his head, therefore this is not his image.   It’s a fascinating puzzle.   But it is not the Lord Jesus Christ.

Leave a Reply