Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Dinwar]

- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

Let's say I do (I don't, but let's play Make Believe for a bit). The Middle Ages were a time when dead bodies were on public display. It would have been trivial to find one--the local gallows would have been a good source. Or the local morgue. Or grave yard. The early natural philosophers utilized all three sources. Put something on the dead body, put the body on the shroud face-down and whack it (transferring hte stuff in a straight line to the cloth). Then put the body on the shroud face-up and whack it (again, transferring the stuff in a straight line). Nothing that folks in the Middle Ages couldn't have done. And remember, the Crucifixion was the most popular story in that time period--one that literally EVERYONE knew. Some folks even took to temporarily crucifying themselves as a form of pennance. So matching the wounds with the story was trivial. Even finding someone with the wounds already wouldn't have been terribly hard; just go to the nearest monastery, and if they didn't have someone on-hand they'd point you in the right direction.

 

[Monza]

- No, it doesn't.
- Though, I might need to further explain my logic.
- This might help: If you believed that the image was not painted, wouldn't you suspect that it was an imprint of an actual dead body?

No, not at all. The distance between the front image and the rear image is too close together. How can the shroud have been wrapped around a real body? This says nothing about the lack of distortion, errors in proportionality, etc.

Though I do think you need to define what you mean by painting. If you are referring to an artist applying paint with a brush, then I think most everyone will agree that the image was not created in this way. However, there are numerous other ways to place pigment onto a substrate. People have made similar images to the shroud without painting, via bas-relief and even a camera obscura. It is entirely possible to make detailed, photo-realistic images without painting a single brush stroke. Below are a couple of examples using an air-brush and pencil, respectively...

 

[Dinwar]

OT: I think it says only good things about our society that the Middle Ages makes pictures of tortured dead guys, while our society makes pictures of beautiful women. Makes you wonder about folks who are obsessed with the images of tortued dead guys--there are FAR better things to focus your attention on!

 

[Slowvehicle]

OT: I think it says only good things about our society that the Middle Ages makes pictures of tortured dead guys, while our society makes pictures of beautiful women. Makes you wonder about folks who are obsessed with the images of tortued dead guys--there are FAR better things to focus your attention on!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Slowvehicle,
- My ultimate conclusion -- that the shroud is 2000 years old -- is based upon intermediate conclusions.

That is rarely a valid way to reach a conclusion. You are using a chain of conclusion, and a chain is never stronger than the weakest link.

- That the shroud was not painted is one of those intermediate conclusions.

Not a solid conclusion. At best it has been shown that one specific method of painting was not used. However, even if it was not painted this does not indicate greater age than the C14 result.

- I

f the shroud was not painted, I conclude that a real, dead, body produced the image via some kind of imprint.

And a real dead body would not be available in the 14th Century?

- From other evidence, I also believe that the wounds and the posture are, in fact, appropriate for the biblical Jesus, and also amazingly well-defined.

The shroud is apparently a deliberate fake, so of course the fakers would try to make it fit the biblical account. Whici information is available to you that were not available to the fakers in the 14th Century?

- If all of the above is true, the body that produced the imprint must have been Jesus, and the shroud must be about 2000 years old...

False. The body, if such is the case, could be anybody made to resemble Jesus.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

Hi Jabba!
Just popping by...
You are correct that if you can demonstrate that the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body, then there's a fair inference that the dead body was Jesus. Sadly, the radiocarbon evidence is not thereby discredited, so it would appear that the fair inference would be incorrect, and a better conclusion would be that body producing the natural formation was as medieval as the image. It may be that the wounds and posture are sufficiently commensurate with the biblical description of Christ's suffering and death to enable us to conclude that the image was either made by Christ himself, or by somebody else who either suffered, or was made to look as if he had suffered, similar distress. Since the radiocarbon evidence is not discredited by this observation, if seems that the second option would be more likely. Neither of these first two points ("a dead body made the image", and "the image looks like Jesus") are sufficient to discredit the radiocarbon date, so I would not have too much faith in your "best guess" if that is all that supports it. Finally, even if a dead body made the image, and the image looks like Jesus, and the radiocarbon dating is wrong, there are still a number of options available other than that the shroud is authentic. I think the inference that it was would be fair, but to claim that it was proved ("it must be Jesus" and "it must be 2000 years old") is unjustified on these grounds alone.

Hugh,
- Thanks.
- I'm not trying to prove anything. I still think that the scale tips in favor of authenticity, and here I've been trying to express my intermediate conclusions that lead me to what for now is my ultimate conclusion. I might be forced to change my mind about my intermediate conclusions, and therefore about my ultimate conclusion, but for now, that the image really is of Jesus is still my best guess.
- Obviously, I'm biased, and I could be giving more weight or credit to my various intermediate conclusions than I should... But, what'r'ya'gonna'do?
- I accept your much greater knowledge of the data, and your probable greater objectivity in general -- but so far, I do think that you're putting more 'faith' in the carbon dating than you should. And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- Thanks.
- I'm not trying to prove anything. I still think that the scale tips in favor of authenticity, and here I've been trying to express my intermediate conclusions that lead me to what for now is my ultimate conclusion. I might be forced to change my mind about my intermediate conclusions, and therefore about my ultimate conclusion, but for now, that the image really is of Jesus is still my best guess.
- Obviously, I'm biased, and I could be giving more weight or credit to my various intermediate conclusions than I should... But, what'r'ya'gonna'do?
- I accept your much greater knowledge of the data, and your probable greater objectivity in general -- but so far, I do think that you're putting more 'faith' in the carbon dating than you should. And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.

No you don't. You haven't presented any proof that the shroud is ~2000 years old and therefore old enough to be authentic. Start with that, and we'll show the holes in the rest of your swiss-cheese hypothesis.

 

[carlitos]

Hi Jabba!
Just popping by...
You are correct that if you can demonstrate that the Shroud is a natural formation from a dead body, then there's a fair inference that the dead body was Jesus.

What? Are you serious? How can you make such an absurd statement?

 

[ferd burfle]

To be fair, that's not true. NO ONE starts by gathering the facts in a vaccuum and drawing conclusions based solely on those facts. What actually happens is that we have a pretty good idea of what to expect going in. This helps us focus our research--otherwise, we'd waste time on things like how many threads the shroud has (after all, that's a fact, right?). (No, not a real example--but examples I've seen in stratigraphy, particularly among splitters, come close!)

An honest researcher looks for data for AND AGAINST what they think is true. They look for data to support their conclusions, for the obvious reasons; but they also look for data refuting them, and for refutations of those refutations. Darwin's book "On the Origin of the Species" is a fantastic example of someone doing this.

In contrast, a dishonest person will look only for the data supporting their pet hypothesis. They will ignore data that tends to refute it. THAT is where the problem really lies.

Bias can be dangerous, but the best scientists are able to harnes the power of their own biases and use them to enhance their research. We all have them; it's only a question of mitigating them, deliberately using them, or being swallowed whole by them. Jabba chose the latter path, it seems.

I've used this method for years to solve technical/ scientific problem in product development and manufacturing. The production manager needs you to solve the problem ASAP to get the line back up and running and they don't have time for you to make it a full-blown science project.. But I couldn't have expressed it half as clearly as you did, thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- Thanks.
- I'm not trying to prove anything. I still think that the scale tips in favor of authenticity, and here I've been trying to express my intermediate conclusions that lead me to what for now is my ultimate conclusion. I might be forced to change my mind about my intermediate conclusions, and therefore about my ultimate conclusion, but for now, that the image really is of Jesus is still my best guess.
- Obviously, I'm biased, and I could be giving more weight or credit to my various intermediate conclusions than I should... But, what'r'ya'gonna'do?
- I accept your much greater knowledge of the data, and your probable greater objectivity in general -- but so far, I do think that you're putting more 'faith' in the carbon dating than you should. And, I think that if the carbon dating is wrong, we've got a whole new ballgame.

No, not at all.

Even if the "most scrutinized bit of ¹⁴C dating ever" were demonstrated to be knowingly fraudulent, it would still be up to you and the other authenticists to offer evidence that the CIQ was, in fact 2000 years old.

And you have made no such demonstration; in fact, you have not begun to.

"NOT 780 years old" DOES NOT MEAN "2000 years old".

 

[Sideroxylon]

To be fair, that's not true. NO ONE starts by gathering the facts in a vaccuum and drawing conclusions based solely on those facts. What actually happens is that we have a pretty good idea of what to expect going in. This helps us focus our research--otherwise, we'd waste time on things like how many threads the shroud has (after all, that's a fact, right?). (No, not a real example--but examples I've seen in stratigraphy, particularly among splitters, come close!)

An honest researcher looks for data for AND AGAINST what they think is true. They look for data to support their conclusions, for the obvious reasons; but they also look for data refuting them, and for refutations of those refutations. Darwin's book "On the Origin of the Species" is a fantastic example of someone doing this.

In contrast, a dishonest person will look only for the data supporting their pet hypothesis. They will ignore data that tends to refute it. THAT is where the problem really lies.

Bias can be dangerous, but the best scientists are able to harnes the power of their own biases and use them to enhance their research. We all have them; it's only a question of mitigating them, deliberately using them, or being swallowed whole by them. Jabba chose the latter path, it seems.

If we are going to look at lower levels of epistemology, we approach no examination without theory. We couldn't make sense or perhaps notice phenomena without theories/hypotheses. On the other hand we here are observing someone begin with the myth that the cloth is the 2,000 year old burial shroud and cherry pick the evidence for it.

 

[Lucian]

OT: I think it says only good things about our society that the Middle Ages makes pictures of tortured dead guys, while our society makes pictures of beautiful women. Makes you wonder about folks who are obsessed with the images of tortued dead guys--there are FAR better things to focus your attention on!

This is a gross mischaracterization of medieval art. Don't make me come in this thread and post links to the Lindisfarne Gospels, Book of Kells, Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Urnes Stave Church, etc. I'll do it! Well, no I won't, but I remember about 3 million pages (and no evidence for authenticity) ago, someone in this thread averred that the Shroud was bad art. The reasons given would mean that just about all medieval art is bad art. I was very annoyed. I'll probably get over it eventually.

But, silly me, I shouldn't be talking about medieval art when we're just about to see the evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Rincewind]

Hi Jabba,

How does anybody know what Jesus looks like?

 

[Dinwar]

If we are going to look at lower levels of epistemology, we approach no examination without theory. We couldn't make sense or perhaps notice phenomena without theories/hypotheses. On the other hand we here are observing someone begin with the myth that the cloth is the 2,000 year old burial shroud and cherry pick the evidence for it.

Right--but as I said, the issue is the cherry picking, not the fact that he started with the belief that the shroud was 2,000 years old.

This is a gross mischaracterization of medieval art.

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to be funny. I actually have a lot of respect for Medieval art; my favorite architectural styles came from that era, and the artistry involved in Medieval heraldry is facinating and beautiful. There was a German style of tournament that was basically "Who has the best-looking helm?"

 

[Sideroxylon]

Right--but as I said, the issue is the cherry picking, not the fact that he started with the belief that the shroud was 2,000 years old.

In the first post I used the word conclusion because he not only starts with this belief but ends with it. Cherry picking is something that naturally follows from such an approach. Yes, the Francis quote was a distraction from that point.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?

...
First, your "intermediate conclusion" does not speak to the age of the CIQ at all. Even if (and ONLY if) the anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen were proven not to be a painting, IT WOULD STILL BE an anatomically ludicrous, posturally impossible, scripturally inaccurate, byzantine-styled projection of the image of a three-dimensional object, without distortion, upon the sized and gessoed two-dimensional surface of a section of 780-year-old linen. The genesis of the mark-making has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the age of the CIQ...

Slowvehicle,
- You apparently discount Piczek's explanation of the anomalies of the figure. If I'm correct in my assumption, why do you discount her explanation?,

 

[Craig4]

- Is this an issue of "topicality"?

No it's an issue of the fact that no other evidence matters if the cloth is not 2000 years old. This is insurmountable. The carbon dating and typology both put the cloth in the 13th century. There is no other conclusion to draw but that the image is older than the cloth.

 

[dudalb]

Agreed;the cloth being from the 13th Century pretty much kills off the Shroud of Turin being authantic.
Much like when it was proven that the paper in the Hitler Diaries was postwar in make that proved the diaries were fakes.
THere was quite a bit of other evidence that the diaries were forged,but the evidence of the paper alone was all that was really needed.

 

[Kid Eager]

Slowvehicle,
- You apparently discount Piczek's explanation of the anomalies of the figure. If I'm correct in my assumption, why do you discount her explanation?,

Back up, sir! I'm still shaking my head over your prior post about scales and evidence. The side with the C14 dating alone has the scales firmly smashed into the table top, with your side having several "but but but" statements on it.

Piczek's explanation (more accurately supposition) does nothing to move the dates. End of story.

Next, please.

 

[John Jones]

Slowvehicle,
- You apparently discount Piczek's explanation of the anomalies of the figure. If I'm correct in my assumption, why do you discount her explanation?,

Enough of this dodging the important question.

Where is your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old? If you can't establish that, nothing else matters,