Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[hugh farey]

Scavone's testimony is only the latest reiteration of the doubts of a long line of people who would all like to prove d'Arcis wrong. This began as soon as Ulysse Chevalier, a Catholic priest and Professor of History, published the recent findings in about 1900, and gathered momentum as Herbert Thurston, whose Catholic pedigree and scholarship was vastly respected, contributed his article to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, unequivocally declaring the Shroud to be a fraud. Doubts, in the minds of many people, abound - but are they reasonable doubts?

Quite apart from d'Arcis' accusations, we know that the Shroud came to light in about 1355, and then almost immediately disappeared, only to reappear 30 years later. I wonder why. D'Arcis says it was because Bishop Henri ordered its removal. Is there any reason to doubt him? It remained undisplayed through two more bishoprics and most of d'Arcis, before popping up again. Why then? Had a miracle occurred to make it worth trying again? After d'Arcis' complaint, real or not, the Shroud was only displayed as a representation, not the real thing.

The point is that even if the d'Arcis memorandum had never been written at all, the behaviour of the Shroud's custodians was exactly as if it had. Or, even if it was written but was a pack of lies, the behaviour of the Shroud's custodians was exactly as if it had told the truth. So why not suppose it to be true?

 

[Belz...]

If it was an US court of law, the *science based* carbon dating would have trumped everything else.

No, you see, there's good reason to doubt the carbon dating results, because Jabba disagrees with it. And the courts would agree with him because there's good reason to doubt the carbon dating results, which Jabba disagrees with.

 

[abaddon]

Hugh,
- That does seem to be the case.
- Maybe, I should try different wording.
- I don't think that we can reasonably accept d'Arci's testimony simply as the truth. There are reasons to be suspicious of it. And personally, so far, I find Scavone's reasons significant.
- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

Wow. Internet shouting trumps all other evidence. Mange tout, my man mange tout.

 

[Giordano]

On that site, Jabba says that debate should be "between acknowledged experts."

So why is he (or I) even here on this thread?

Fortunately the debate between the real experts has already occurred, and the conclusion multiple times was a resounding "No, the Shroud is not the authentic burial cloth of Christ."

But (as alluded to in the part I snipped)- who does Jabba acknowledge as experts? Oh, of course, anyone (however questionable their training and knowledge) who supports the authenticity of the Shroud. Anyone else's conclusions are riddled by reasonable doubts in Jabba's opinion. QED.

 

[Belz...]

So why is he (or I) even here on this thread?

Because if he took it to experts he would lose.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Or rather, every time he has taken his crackpot theories to experts, he has lost

 

[David Mo]

Sorry, David, things move on. I had intended to reply to your last inquiry, but it disappeared under later stuff!

This is the Nature paper problem.

Two people go and count cows in a field. (...)

I hope that helps!

Very didactic! Thank you, Hugh.

In my own words: Oxford’s interval is not congruent with the measurements of the other labs in the Turin sample. (Only one matches Zurich: O1.2 and Z1.1, in the table 1 of Nature). Oxford’s measurements are congruent with the other labs in the Thebes, Nubia and Provence samples. So, there is something different in the measurements of Turin sample that cannot likely to be attributed to chance. This dissimilarity can be attributed to some unknown property of the Turin sample of Oxford or some unknown flaw in the method applied only on this sample. I call the former an “objective” cause and the latter a “methodological” cause.

I am avoiding the word “homogeneity” because sindonists do an unjustified verbal game in matching homogeneity of the results to homogeneity of the fabric that are different concepts, thought they could be related by an ulterior analysis (or not).

Sindonists (now including you), select only or preferably an objective cause: the not homogeneity of the fabric.

But the sindonist point of view is incongruent with the global results. In effect, Tucson and Zurich’s results being mutually congruent any objective cause would only affect to the Oxford sample. This is incompatible with any “Absolutely Invisible Mending” (AIM) because it would involve all the samples together. A slight variation in the fabric of Oxford’s sample never would produce a high deviation in the global dating.

In my opinion, all we can say is that an unknown anomaly was produced in the test of Oxford. More knowledge about other radiocarbon tests and anomalies in the epoch would be needed to make any substantive hypothesis about it. But the AIM theory is discarded both by the empirical evidence we have and by the analysis of the 1988 radiocarbon dating.

I hope that my peculiar terminology doesn’t disturb what I mean.

 

[Jabba]

carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

Scavone's testimony is only the latest reiteration of the doubts of a long line of people who would all like to prove d'Arcis wrong. This began as soon as Ulysse Chevalier, a Catholic priest and Professor of History, published the recent findings in about 1900, and gathered momentum as Herbert Thurston, whose Catholic pedigree and scholarship was vastly respected, contributed his article to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, unequivocally declaring the Shroud to be a fraud. Doubts, in the minds of many people, abound - but are they reasonable doubts?

Quite apart from d'Arcis' accusations, we know that the Shroud came to light in about 1355, and then almost immediately disappeared, only to reappear 30 years later. I wonder why. D'Arcis says it was because Bishop Henri ordered its removal. Is there any reason to doubt him? It remained undisplayed through two more bishoprics and most of d'Arcis, before popping up again. Why then? Had a miracle occurred to make it worth trying again? After d'Arcis' complaint, real or not, the Shroud was only displayed as a representation, not the real thing.

The point is that even if the d'Arcis memorandum had never been written at all, the behaviour of the Shroud's custodians was exactly as if it had. Or, even if it was written but was a pack of lies, the behaviour of the Shroud's custodians was exactly as if it had told the truth. So why not suppose it to be true?

Hugh,
- Trying to be honest with myself, I have to respect your knowledge, and relative objectivity (I don't think that we humans can be fully objective), but still (accepting my own "subjectivity"), I don't think that we should just suppose d'Arci's testimony to be true when we add up the evidence... We have reason to be suspicious of it.
- I really should review Scavone's paper, and what you have added, and see if I would have to change my opinion. But taking on this particular sub-issue was a mistake on my part -- I should be trying to add up the direct evidence regarding the credibility of the carbon dating.

 

[Garrette]

No, Jabba. You should be adding up the evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old. Completely different thing. In all your years researching, in all your years on other blogs, in all your years on your own website, and in all your years here, you have presented not even one scintilla of evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old.

The first factual reason you have not done so is that you cannot; no such evidence exists.

The second reason is that you refuse to understand that refuting evidence for a medieval date does not advance your claim at all.

 

[hugh farey]

I should be trying to add up the direct evidence regarding the credibility of the carbon dating.

This has been discussed in some detail recently at shroudstory.com, where a large proportion, probably a majority, of the correspondents are authenticists. You would do well to find a bit of evidence you think is credible and appropriately supported from there, identify the source, and then post it here if you want it challenged to test its strength.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, Jabba. You should be adding up the evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old. Completely different thing. In all your years researching, in all your years on other blogs, in all your years on your own website, and in all your years here, you have presented not even one scintilla of evidence that the shroud is 2,000 years old.

This.

Hi Jabba. The evidence for the shroud being a medieval forge has been presented. There is nearly no such thing as completely incontrovertible evidence, at least not in history, but the evidence given is strong and consistent.

If this was a court-room OR a scientific institution, YOUR task would be to present evidence that it is the 2000 year old genuine burial schroud of Jesus Christ.

Because even if you could find ways to weaken the evidence for the forgery (and you have so far failed to do so), it would not prove YOUR version; there are a zillion other possible explanations for the origin of the shroud.

Even if it could be shown to be a 2000 year old burial shroud, you would still have to show that it was that of Jesus and not somebody else.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

This.

Hi Jabba. The evidence for the shroud being a medieval forge has been presented. There is nearly no such thing as completely incontrovertible evidence, at least not in history, but the evidence given is strong and consistent.

If this was a court-room OR a scientific institution, YOUR task would be to present evidence that it is the 2000 year old genuine burial schroud of Jesus Christ.

Because even if you could find ways to weaken the evidence for the forgery (and you have so far failed to do so), it would not prove YOUR version; there are a zillion other possible explanations for the origin of the shroud.

Even if it could be shown to be a 2000 year old burial shroud, you would still have to show that it was that of Jesus and not somebody else.

Hans

Hans,

- All I'm really saying now is that there is some reason to doubt d'Arcis' claim -- and, that needs to be taken into account when we're adding up the evidence.
- I would like to go on and try to figure out just how much doubt his claim warrants -- but, since everyone here thinks that there is no reasonable doubt as to the carbon dating, and has generally agreed that such being the case, we didn't need to look any further at reasons to think that the shroud might be authentic, I had vowed to gather up whatever "direct" evidence I could that the dating was flawed.

- Perhaps someday, I'll get back to the other sub-issues. I'd like to.

--- Jabba

 

[Giordano]

- Trying to be honest with myself... [snip]

This, taken together with your complaint that another posters did not answer your question, exhibits an amazing lack of self-awareness in your posts!

Again, I don't know you at all, and I am only addressing your posts, not your "actual" personality, whatever that might be.

 

[Giordano]

Hans,

- All I'm really saying now is that there is some reason to doubt d'Arcis' claim -- and, that needs to be taken into account when we're adding up the evidence.
- I would like to go on and try to figure out just how much doubt his claim warrants -- but, since everyone here thinks that there is no reasonable doubt as to the carbon dating, and has generally agreed that such being the case, we didn't need to look any further at reasons to think that the shroud might be authentic, I had vowed to gather up whatever "direct" evidence I could that the dating was flawed.

- Perhaps someday, I'll get back to the other sub-issues. I'd like to.

--- Jabba

So you've decided to dispense with presenting any evidence at all, because you have no evidence against the Medieval date? The far more logical conclusion would be for you to dispense with your authentic Shroud theory. Interesting choice. I was already intending to note that you have now simply resorted to statements such as "I believe that there is some reasonable doubt..." instead of providing any justification at all for your belief. I am glad that you are already aware of this.

[edit] In re-reading your post, I don't understand what you mean that you have "vowed to gather up whatever "direct" evidence [you] could that the dating was flawed." Does this mean that you intend to present this novel evidence as to this question, even though you haven't until now? Do you now have any of this alleged novel evidence and you are hoarding it for yourself right now, and are waiting to spring it on us in the near future? Or are you just intending to find some evidence at some point in the future, if you can? I suggest that if somehow you now have acquired some evidence, you might just wish to present it as you discover it. It would help advance this silly thread considerably. But please don't simply reiterate the invalid "evidence" that you have already presented and which has been discredited.

I believe that the Shroud is a Medieval forgery. You claim to believe it is authentic. So are we done with this thread? Is there any point to going on beyond this? I can provide evidence in favor of my belief, but you have not and can not present evidence in favor of your belief (because there is none).

Okay- believe whatever you wish. But why come here? You must wish to convince others. Simply saying that you believe, over and over again, is not going to help do this. Presenting highly bogus evidence, or working to simply undermine one at a time the vase bulk of evidence that the Shroud is a forgery will not work either. Probably the opposite- when I first saw this thread I thought the Shroud was probably a fake based on what I knew at that point, but I didn't have enough information to strongly conclude this. Now, after reading the thread, I am absolutely convinced it is a fake. I guess I own that education to you inspiring others to present the actual facts.

 

[Belz...]

Hans,

- All I'm really saying now is that there is some reason to doubt d'Arcis' claim

"Now" ?

 

[Charles Freeman]

'A medieval forgery.' Please don't leave out the hypothesis that this was a painted image originally made for some other liturgical purpose and then adopted as a relic. This happened so often in the medieval period, usually when some miracle became associated with an object. A forger would hardly have hoped to achieve success by adding images to a burial shroud when none are mentioned in the gospel sources and the de Charny family conspicuously failed to convince anyone official that their painted image was authentic. However, somewhere along the line, someone must have persuaded the Avignon pope, Clement VII, that the Shroud was worthy of exposition so long as it was publicly announced that it was not the real thing.
The images on the Shroud, larger than life size for their time, doubled up and, according to early observers, with the blood vividly red, are just what one might expect in a ceremony such as the Quem Queritis when the focus was on making the point (in an age when images were a powerful means of spreading the gospel) that a suffering Christ had risen.
This remains a hypothesis but it helps explain a lot about the Shroud, especially if one considers that the impact of the images, not their artistic quality or relationship to a real dead body, was the aim of the originator.

 

[David Mo]

A forger would hardly have hoped to achieve success by adding images to a burial shroud when none are mentioned in the gospel sources and the de Charny family conspicuously failed to convince anyone official that their painted image was authentic.

I’m afraid you are thinking in an anachronistic way, Charles. There are many medieval images different or sometimes conflictive with the canonical gospels. Medieval forgers often were more responsive to popular beliefs or their imagination than to illustrated theologians. (Do you think that de Charny and his monks had (were able to) read the gospels? ) For example: Scenes from the Life of Christ: Angel (sic) at the Sepulchre, Spain. Metropolitan Museum, Date: 13th Century. http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/cl/web-large/cdi1977.94.jpg
(The "angel" is actually a monk bearing the palm of martyrdom. This seems scarcely “evangelical”).

Although your Quem quaeritis hypothesis is a suggestive one, it is only a hypothesis. A direct fake is an alternative, even if some points of d’Arcis’ claims may be questionable.

 

[Charles Freeman]

David, I agree that some relics were hard to believe- the original wine from the marriage feast at Cana to be found at ORleans, for instance, but I can hardly believe that the gospels were not known about by those who knew their Vulgate and in the western iconographic tradition Christ was always shown being laid out on a single cloth with no sign of images. So why would anyone be taken in by a cloth with images- why not leave them out and try some other approach-e.g. Creating a legend that explained the origin of the Shroud in Lirey?
But, as you say, mine is only a hypothesis. I only ask that it is put beside others for future discussion. There does seem good evidence that some of these linens were painted.

 

[Mojo]

- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

Only if the judge had misdirected the jury on what "reasonable doubt" means.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm sorry, Jabba, but I think I must be using the words 'reasonable doubt' in a different way from yourself...

Hugh, LCP

FTFY

- That does seem to be the case.

A reasonable expectation​

Alas!

- Maybe, I should try different wording.

That which we call a tablecloth, by any other name, would still not be 2,000 years old.

- I don't think that we can reasonably accept d'Arci's testimony simply as the truth. There are reasons to be suspicious of it. And personally , so far, I find Scavone's reasons significant.

XOR

- If this was in a court of American law (I know even less about British law), Scavone's testimony should raise significant doubt amongst the jury as to the veracity of d'Arci's testimony.

The desperate implausibility of the theory which the petitioner has put before the jury must be kept firmly in mind. To assert that unhesitant and categorical identification by four witnesses who viewed the killer, close-up and with the sun high in the sky, would not eliminate reasonable doubt if it were based only on facial characteristics, and not on height and build, is quite simply absurd. Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking 'You admit that you saw only the killer's face?' will be laughed out of the courtroom.

- U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell​

Your case, Jabba, is (to say the very least) far weaker than the one on which this judgement was handed down.