Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[hugh farey]

Hugh,
- I don't think that your analogy is analogous.
- To make the sheep counting analogous, you'd need to get results of something like 10, 20 and 30 -- rendered by expert sheep counters. If that happened, you'd think that your expert counters must have gone to different fields!

You would indeed, and I wonder if this comment gets to the heart of your misunderstanding of the significance of the radiocarbon dates. As Dinwar says above, the dates are much closer together than you realise. 646 and 676 are as close as any two independent labs are likely to achieve, and Oxford's 750, although, as in my analogy, indeed anomalous, is not far off (All these numbers are the average years BP from the Nature paper). It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, from these numbers alone, that the Shroud is no older than the 13th century or younger than the 14th.

 

[hugh farey]

Sorry, double post again. Dodgy internet connection.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/One in 20

You would indeed, and I wonder if this comment gets to the heart of your misunderstanding of the significance of the radiocarbon dates. As Dinwar says above, the dates are much closer together than you realise. 646 and 676 are as close as any two independent labs are likely to achieve, and Oxford's 750, although, as in my analogy, indeed anomalous, is not far off (All these numbers are the average years BP from the Nature paper). It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, from these numbers alone, that the Shroud is no older than the 13th century or younger than the 14th.

Hugh & Dinwar,
- I think that I now see what you mean. The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave -- they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially. But then, the extent of that tampering/contamination is not sufficient to affect the dating significantly.
- How's that?

 

[Dinwar]

- I think that I now see what you mean. The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave

Please provide direct quotes supporting that assertion. There has literally been nothing--not one single datum--supporting this in this thread.

they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially.

Please provide specifics. HOW were they tampered with? HOW were they contaminated? How did this escape the notice of the experts--including those who owned the shroud--who were involved in sample selection? How did this contamination survive the various cleaning methods? SPECIFICS, Jabba--a proper response to these questions would allow us to fully reproduce the events. What you're doing is called "hand-waving"--making vague accusations without substantiating evidence in the hope that you can convince us to ignore the fact that there is in fact no man behind the curtain.

 

[Jabba]

I'm getting behind here...

Ray Schneider's paper attempts to discredit the radiocarbon dating in three ways; first by examining the irregularity in the Nature paper itself, then by looking at three images of the radiocarbon area, and finally by correlating various gradients in those images with the different radiocarbon ages. In some cases his primary observations are correct, and in others false or deceptive, and in no case are his conclusions justified.

1) The Nature paper very properly calls attention to the circumstance that as reported by the laboratories, there is only a 1 in 20 chance that the three dates refer to the same piece of cloth. However, that does not mean that they need be rejected out of hand. An analogy may help. If a farmer sends three men to count the sheep in a field, and they return with 70, 72 and 65 (allowing for a sheep or two either way for miscounting), these numbers do not apparently concur. So what to do? Abandon the information altogether, or suspect that maybe the precision (a sheep or two either way) was not as great as suggested. Could there in fact be 250 sheep in the field? Or 14? Probably not. Making the best of a messy job, the farmer assumes that the counters were not as precise as they claimed, and makes an appropriate adjustment - maybe between 60 and 75. Probably not more or fewer. This is exactly what the Nature authors did. It is wholly untrue that the results are meaningless.

2) The Quad Mosaic photo (false coloured) shows a largely yellow and orange shroud, with a green corner which Schneider attributes to a different material. This is somewhat disingenuous, as this is only one quarter of a much larger photo. There are four of these Quad Mosaics covering the full length of the Shroud, and every one has a green corner. More importantly, every one also has a bright blue band across the top half. If the bottom left hand corners are indeed of a different material from the rest of the Shroud, then so are the four bright blue bands which cross the whole width of the material. A reductio ad absurdam, I think.

3) The next photo pretends to be a UV photo taken by Vernon Miller in 1978. Miller's photography is well detailed in his paper in the Journal of Biological Photography, and this photo does not even remotely resemble any of his. It is not a UV photo, and has curiously had the 'missing corner' section cropped away. I do not know its provenance.

4) Finally, we have another false colour photo, also in yellow and green, which purports, as before, to demonstrate that the different colours represent different materials. Although in this case, the 'missing corner', in the form of the backing cloth, is present. Sadly for the hypothesis, the part of the backing cloth which had been covered with the Raes section is bright white, showing that the colours do not represent different material at all.

5) Be that as it may, the end of the paper shows a couple of graphs. The first one shows, correctly, that the sample furthest from the edge of the Shroud (Arizona) produced the youngest age, and the sample closest to the edge of the Shroud (Oxford) produced the oldest. This in itself is odd, as it suggests that the edge of the Shroud is less contaminated than the interior, but it is also in direct contradiction with the following graph, which instead of showing an inversely proportional relationship between the alleged contamination and the age (the more the contamination, the less the age) in fact shows exactly the opposite (the more the contamination, the more the age). If there is any truth in these images, they show that any contamination of the Shroud had the effect of making it appear older than it really is, not younger.

So, although a paper produced by a professor of Mathematics may at first sight appear reasonable, a detailed study of it shows that his conclusions are not only based on faulty evidence, but even if taken as true, that the evidence in fact shows exactly the opposite of what was hypothesised.

Hugh,
- If you haven't already submitted this paper to Dan Porter would you submit it now?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh & Dinwar,
- I think that I now see what you mean. The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave -- they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially. But then, the extent of that tampering/contamination is not sufficient to affect the dating significantly.
- How's that?

Good morning,Mr. Savage!

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.

Nature 337, 611 - 615 (16 February 1989)
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I fear we did not read the same article. Please be so kind as to quote the specific text in the Nature article that supports your assertions.

Seriously. I hope you are simply mistaken, or are fostering a misapprehension; the alternative would be to realize you were simply being dishonest. Be so kind as to clarify.

 

[catsmate]

Hugh & Dinwar,
- I think that I now see what you mean. The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave -- they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially. But then, the extent of that tampering/contamination is not sufficient to affect the dating significantly.
- How's that?

Justification for this?

And I'm still waiting for your explanation of the nature of the contamination that could survive the cleansing processes and distort the radiocarbon dating.

 

[Charles Freeman]

If we took out the radiocarbon dating altogether, we would still be left with all the other evidence that the Shroud was medieval, notably the overwhelming likelihood that it was woven on a medieval treadle loom ( the width and length give it away).

I am trying to get a more precise date from the iconography. The all-over scourge marks have no precedent in the gospel sources or in medieval iconography before 1300. According to Professor James Marrow, a Princeton expert on the iconography of the Passion, they appear then when artists integrated Isaiah 1.6 into their iconography. Marrow does not refer to the Shroud but there are numerous other examples of all-over scourging - see the illustrations from the Holkham Bible ( 1330) and the Roettgen Pieta ( probably 1325- 50) -after 1300 but not before. The blood on the arms on Christ is also likely to be post-1300. I tend, but need specialist support for this, towards the original painted surface (now disintegrated leaving only shadows) being put on the outer surface of the Shroud, on a gesso as the craft manuals suggested, c 1325-50.

This is completely independent of any radiocarbon evidence but, as it is right in the middle of the dates 1260-1390, it does fit. It suggests that the Shroud was originally created shortly before its first documented appearance c.1355.

It is inconceivable that any forger would have added images to a burial cloth when there was no mention of them in the gospels or in any painting to be seen in churches. No one would have been taken in and the de Charny family constantly failed in their attempts to proclaim authenticity. However, the Church accepted that there was some spiritual significance to the Shroud,making it worthy,as was proclaimed in 1390, of an indulgence.

Only the prestige of a ducal family choosing to expose the Shroud to enormous crowds at a time when the images were still vivid was able to effect a tradition of authenticity even though the Church was reluctant to accept it.

The Shroud was likely to have been originally created for some other liturgical function- I suggest the Easter ceremony of Quem Queritis when a grave cloth, sometimes a painted one, was held up before the congregation to symbolise the Resurrection. The images are, in medieval or ancient terms, greater than life size and the double image suggests that originally it was made for a large congregation. One only has to enter a large church of this date to understand why. The nave was often very long and the light early on Easter morning would have been poor. You needed a dramatic size for the images to make them seen, something exploited later by the Savoy family with their exposition of the Shroud before thousands.

So perhaps there is no need to bother about the radiocarbon date- although I think it is valid. Take it out and you are not a jot nearer to proving the authenticity of the Shroud.

 

[Jabba]

SlowVehicle & Classmate1,
- Somehow, we seem to be passing in the night...
- The following is what I'm trying to understand.

...1) The Nature paper very properly calls attention to the circumstance that as reported by the laboratories, there is only a 1 in 20 chance that the three dates refer to the same piece of cloth...

 

[Slowvehicle]

SlowVehicle & Classmate1,
- Somehow, we seem to be passing in the night...
- The following is what I'm trying to understand.

Mr. Savage:

Mr. farey did not write the Nature article.
Nature 337, 611 - 615 (16 February 1989)
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Have you ever actually read the entire article?

May I suggest that you do so?
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I encourage you to indicate what specific passage or passages in the actual article support your assertion that "The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave -- they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially. But then, the extent of that tampering/contamination is not sufficient to affect the dating significantly."

I eagerly await your response, after you have read the actual article.

 

[hugh farey]

You are quite correct, Jabba.

Table 2 of the Nature paper gives a series of percentages which it specifically says represent "The probability of obtaining, by chance, a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation." The figure for the shroud samples is 5%. This could validly be taken to mean that there was a good chance that the samples were not from the same cloth. However, even if all three samples were from completely different artifacts, one could not conclude that any of those artifacts was made before the 13th century, or after the 14th century, on the basis of the data supplied.

Catsmate would like to know more about the nature of the contamination. If there is any, then it is important to realise (see my point 5 above) that it had the effect of making the Shroud appear older than it really is, not younger as in the reweave hypothesis. This is amply demonstrated by Ray Schneider in the paper you quoted above. I'm told that mineral oil is difficult to remove from radiocarbon samples (Dinwar might be able to comment on how true this is), and being millions of years old, it contains no C14. It would have the effect of making the Shroud appear older.

In a recent BSTS Newsletter, I produced some evidence to suggest that the Shroud was made around 1280, which my gut-reaction thought was a bit early. If the Oxford sample really was contaminated to appear older, then an early 14th century date would be a better estimate. Maybe someone could calculate what amount of a zero-C14 hydrocarbon would be needed to shift a radiocarbon date from 1340 to 1280?

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/CD Not Essential Anyway

If we took out the radiocarbon dating altogether, we would still be left with all the other evidence that the Shroud was medieval, notably the overwhelming likelihood that it was woven on a medieval treadle loom ( the width and length give it away).

I am trying to get a more precise date from the iconography. The all-over scourge marks have no precedent in the gospel sources or in medieval iconography before 1300. According to Professor James Marrow, a Princeton expert on the iconography of the Passion, they appear then when artists integrated Isaiah 1.6 into their iconography. Marrow does not refer to the Shroud but there are numerous other examples of all-over scourging - see the illustrations from the Holkham Bible ( 1330) and the Roettgen Pieta ( probably 1325- 50) -after 1300 but not before. The blood on the arms on Christ is also likely to be post-1300. I tend, but need specialist support for this, towards the original painted surface (now disintegrated leaving only shadows) being put on the outer surface of the Shroud, on a gesso as the craft manuals suggested, c 1325-50.

This is completely independent of any radiocarbon evidence but, as it is right in the middle of the dates 1260-1390, it does fit. It suggests that the Shroud was originally created shortly before its first documented appearance c.1355.

It is inconceivable that any forger would have added images to a burial cloth when there was no mention of them in the gospels or in any painting to be seen in churches. No one would have been taken in and the de Charny family constantly failed in their attempts to proclaim authenticity. However, the Church accepted that there was some spiritual significance to the Shroud,making it worthy,as was proclaimed in 1390, of an indulgence.

Only the prestige of a ducal family choosing to expose the Shroud to enormous crowds at a time when the images were still vivid was able to effect a tradition of authenticity even though the Church was reluctant to accept it.

The Shroud was likely to have been originally created for some other liturgical function- I suggest the Easter ceremony of Quem Queritis when a grave cloth, sometimes a painted one, was held up before the congregation to symbolise the Resurrection. The images are, in medieval or ancient terms, greater than life size and the double image suggests that originally it was made for a large congregation. One only has to enter a large church of this date to understand why. The nave was often very long and the light early on Easter morning would have been poor. You needed a dramatic size for the images to make them seen, something exploited later by the Savoy family with their exposition of the Shroud before thousands.

So perhaps there is no need to bother about the radiocarbon date- although I think it is valid. Take it out and you are not a jot nearer to proving the authenticity of the Shroud.

Charles,
- I'm old and slow and must take on one, or two, sub-issues at a time.
- So anyway, by saying that you "think" the date is valid, you apparently maintain some reasonable doubt. If so, good.
- Re the blood on the arms being added later, the wounds supposedly show the synergies invisible to the naked eye, but inherent to real wounds. Have you encountered such claims?
- If you've already addressed this on the Porter blog, please let me know and I'll find it.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Nature Article

Mr. Savage:

Mr. farey did not write the Nature article.
Nature 337, 611 - 615 (16 February 1989)
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

Have you ever actually read the entire article?

May I suggest that you do so?
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I encourage you to indicate what specific passage or passages in the actual article support your assertion that "The Nature article accepts that there is a 95% probability that the three samples did not come from the same original weave -- they have, in fact, been "tampered" with, and/or contaminated, differentially. But then, the extent of that tampering/contamination is not sufficient to affect the dating significantly."

I eagerly await your response, after you have read the actual article.

Slowvehicle,
- I have read the article at least once -- just not recently. I'll read it again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You are quite correct, Jabba.

Table 2 of the Nature paper gives a series of percentages which it specifically says represent "The probability of obtaining, by chance, a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed, under the assumption that the quoted errors reflect all sources of random variation." The figure for the shroud samples is 5%. This could validly be taken to mean that there was a good chance that the samples were not from the same cloth. However, even if all three samples were from completely different artifacts, one could not conclude that any of those artifacts was made before the 13th century, or after the 14th century, on the basis of the data supplied.<snip for focus>

Actually, no.

The Nature article cannot be said, in any fair analysis, to have implied, or even raised the possibility, that the three tested samples being form different cloths.

Mr. Savage is, as is his wont, blaming the piddle puddle for the puppy; to him, a 5% probability that the combined errors might be caused by random chance becomes a 95% probability that the samples were fraudulently selected from different cloths.

This is why I have encouraged him to actually read the article; I am hoping he will read, and understand, the conclusion section.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Charles,
- I'm old and slow and must take on one, or two, sub-issues at a time.
- So anyway, by saying that you "think" the date is valid, you apparently maintain some reasonable doubt. If so, good.
- Re the blood on the arms being added later, the wounds supposedly show the synergies invisible to the naked eye, but inherent to real wounds. Have you encountered such claims?
- If you've already addressed this on the Porter blog, please let me know and I'll find it.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Are you forgetting, or just ignoring, the fact that the "blood" and the claimed "retractions rings" have been dealt with in this very thread (and its progenitor)?

Are you forgetting the the "blood" is depicted as "flowing" in gravitationally impossible directions?

Are you forgetting the that "blood" is not depicted as accurately flowing form a washed corpse?

Are you forgetting that the "blood" is not depicted as demonstrating the adsorption, and absorption, behaviors of actual fluids?

Are you forgetting to provide actual evidence of the CIQ being 200 years old?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I have read the article at least once -- just not recently. I'll read it again.

I will be interested for you to indicate what, in the article, supports your assertion that there is a 95% chance that the cloths sampled were form three different sources.

 

[hugh farey]

Actually, no.

The Nature article cannot be said, in any fair analysis, to have implied, or even raised the possibility, that the three tested samples being from different cloths.

I'm afraid I disagree. A 5% "probability of obtaining, by chance, a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed" raises a variety of possible scenarios, one of which is certainly the possibility that the samples came from different materials. Another is that the 1-in-20 chance just came up (as it could do again, were the Shroud tested in the same way another 40 times or so), and another is that the errors were greater than quoted, which is what the Nature editors actually went on to justify, as I said in my earlier comment.

The X-squared figure does not imply that the Shroud, or any other tested fragment, is 2000 years old, but we cannot deny that it is present, and clearly differentiates the Shroud samples from the results from the controls.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm afraid I disagree. A 5% "probability of obtaining, by chance, a scatter among the three dates as high as that observed" raises a variety of possible scenarios, one of which is certainly the possibility that the samples came from different materials. Another is that the 1-in-20 chance just came up (as it could do again, were the Shroud tested in the same way another 40 times or so), and another is that the errors were greater than quoted, which is what the Nature editors actually went on to justify, as I said in my earlier comment.

The X-squared figure does not imply that the Shroud, or any other tested fragment, is 2000 years old, but we cannot deny that it is present, and clearly differentiates the Shroud samples from the results from the controls.

The meaning of the 5% figure is, correctly stated, that a statistical analysis indicates that there is no more than a 5% probability that the results observed are due to random chance. However, your invention, that the results fairly imply that there is a 5% chance that the three cloth samples are from different cloths, is not supported by the article.

If you want to join Mr. Savage in claiming that collusion is a possibility; that is, that three different pieces of cloth were intentionally provided to the three different labs, you are free to danbrownit to your heart's content. You should not, however, claim that your plot is a reasonable interpretation of the Nature article's conclusion.

 

[Charles Freeman]

I do not use the Porter blog as a site for the full range of my views, only to offer responses when I think fit, especially as my long article I History today was extensively quoted or misquoted on that blog.
I would always welcome a rerun of the radiocarbon date but no, I do not have any reason to believe that it is not valid. Perhaps some evidence that has not yet been raised will become apparent in another context, but so far I have not seen any which undermines the existing dating.
I believe that originally the painting of the Shroud included both the bloodstains and the scourge marks although it is possible, as is known from other paintings on linen, that the original fourteenth century images were touched up at a later date.

 

[Dinwar]

Again, we're using a technique at the limits of its range. Those percentages are essentially meaningless; at these young dates, we should expect a large range of variability.

We have the documentation that these did come from the same cloth. If there's any evidence against that, please let me know. If the numbers are all you've got, you've got nothing--and are ignoring the nature of the methodology in question.