Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Sideroxylon]

Whilst the carbon dating, around which there is a lot of controversy, could show the shroud to be a fake, OTOH it is possible it is not.

I read The Sign by Thomas de Wesselow, a self-affirmed agnostic, with raising incredulity. He left open the option that maybe what was seen in the empty tomb was actually this shroud, which was how Mary, Peter and John were able to go around the Levant proclaiming Christ had risen, a symbolic interpretation, if you like, rather than the Christian literal one.

Is there controversy about the carbon dating? From what I have read here there is nothing controversial about it at all.

 

[Vixen]

Is there controversy about the carbon dating? From what I have read here there is nothing controversial about it at all.

Yes, there was some issue over how accurate it was. Let me look it up and I'll come back to you.

 

[John Jones]

Whilst the carbon dating, around which there is a lot of controversy, could show the shroud to be a fake, OTOH it is possible it is not.

I read The Sign by Thomas de Wesselow, a self-affirmed agnostic, with raising incredulity. He left open the option that maybe what was seen in the empty tomb was actually this shroud, which was how Mary, Peter and John were able to go around the Levant proclaiming Christ had risen, a symbolic interpretation, if you like, rather than the Christian literal one.

The ¹⁴C date is not controversial to those most familiar with it. There is no decent evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

 

[Vixen]

The ¹⁴C date is not controversial to those most familiar with it. There is no decent evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

Hypothetically, how far back can carbon dating go?

The question following on from that is, is there any scientific proof carbon testing is accurate for linen for dates previous to C16?

The breakdown of organic matter on the linen must surely disintegrate over time to render a precise dating impossible.

 

[Susheel]

As I have said before, there is a mention of a burial shroud in the Bible. It distinctly mentions a separate cloth around the head--one that was apart from the rest of the shroud when the tomb was discovered.

I will say it again: If Jabba succeeds in proving the shroud authentic, he will definitively disprove the gospels. His choices are to accept his holy book, or his holy relic. To accept one is to reject the other.

What I should have said is that there is no reference to this particular cloth. I mean in writings replete with miracles attributed to the "Son of God", there is no mention to the tune of "and lo, they found in His place the vestment in which he was dressed; And there were those who saw upon it an image of the lord; whereupon they took it...", well, you get the idea.

 

[pgwenthold]

Hypothetically, how far back can carbon dating go?

Once you get back more than say, 30000 years, the amount of C14 gets pretty small. I've seen claims there are techniques that can detect C14 back to 50K years, but that's not typical. 30K is a more common limit.

Of course, this means nothing for the shroud, which is no where near.

And that you would bring it up would suggest that, perhaps, you don't really know enough about C14 dating to be commenting on it. There are folks here that know a lot more about it, to various degrees. If you have questions, you might want to ask, but I caution, making claims out of ignorance is not going to go well.

The question following on from that is, is there any scientific proof carbon testing is accurate for linen for dates previous to C16?

Shoot, the dates of the shroud aren't even to the level where you have to worry about calibration and corrections. It's not even a single half-life, for pete's sake.

The breakdown of organic matter on the linen must surely disintegrate over time to render a precise dating impossible.

How so? Radiometric dating measures the C14 content in the existing organic matter. Molecular breakdown is irrelevant. In fact, the first thing that you do in C14 dating (at least in the AMS approach) is to completely destroy all the organic molecules to get to the atomic level.

 

[John Jones]

Hypothetically, how far back can carbon dating go?

The question following on from that is, is there any scientific proof carbon testing is accurate for linen for dates previous to C16?

The breakdown of organic matter on the linen must surely disintegrate over time to render a precise dating impossible.

50,000 years or so, and yes. The organic matter does indeed break down, but the level of carbon 14 decreases at a predictable level. Controls of known age were included with the shroud samples submitted to the 3 labs.

 

[John Jones]

Once you get back more than say, 30000 years, the amount of C14 gets pretty small. I've seen claims there are techniques that can detect C14 back to 50K years, but that's not typical. 30K is a more common limit.

[...]

I've even seen 70K years claimed, but with huge sample sizes

 

[pgwenthold]

Re: the implications if the C14 dating is "wrong."

It depends why it is discounted. For example, if the C14 were known to be wrong because it was known that the samples in question included some indeterminate amount of more modern content, then we could conclude that the actual date of the shroud is older than the measured date. The extent to which it is older, we can't say, unless we know the extent of the contamination. But unless we have that, all we can say is that it is older than what was measured, and that's about it. It could be 2000 years old, but it could also be 1500 years old. Or 1000. Or 3000.

Of course, we don't actually have that knowledge. Instead, Jabba's concerns about the dating are things like, there was not an archeologist involved, or that it was only done by three labs and not 5. Even if these were grounds to discount the C14 dating, they mean nothing in terms of what the age is. It's absolutely possible to get the right date with three labs, or without having an archeologist involved. So even if we accept those objections, we can't say anything about the implications of it. All we could say is that we can't use the C14 dating, and therefore have to look to something else.

In order to come to the conclusion that it is 2000 years old, there would need to be evidence to that extent. Is there, Jabba?

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, there was some issue over how accurate it was. Let me look it up and I'll come back to you.

Or you could read through this thread and its predecessor, where the accuracy of the carbon dating has been discussed at great length.

There is no controversy, it is one of the most tightly controlled carbon datings that has been done.

 

[Rincewind]

You're here all week?

Yup!

But it's beginning to feel like 2000 years...

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?

Yes, there was some issue over how accurate it was. Let me look it up and I'll come back to you.

Vixen,
- Thanks for the open mind.
- Here's something I posted a while back.

Hugh and Ward,

- Everyone else will be asking me for citations and links. Please let me know if and when you need them.
- Here’s my situation.

1. (I’ve been busy on another project.)

2. I think that everyone here -- besides me -- believes that
a. While we can never be totally sure about essentially any conclusion, there is not enough doubt about the carbon dating results to warrant serious weighing of any other evidence. (IOW, this case was effectively closed by the carbon dating.)
b. And besides, the other evidence supports inauthenticity anyway…

3. Since I do want the shroud to be authentic, I can’t fully trust my own current conclusions about this — but so far, I do disagree on both counts.
4. I’ll try to tackle the latter count, but first, I need to shed its blocker — if I can. (I used to play American football.)
5. Mostly, I’m really surprised that you two are so confident about the carbon dating (the “blocker”) – so, that’s what I will try to focus on for now.
6. Unfortunately, it will take me awhile to dig up the real evidence for my claims in that regard.
7. Consequently, I’ll present a lot of my claims before I can (even in my own opinion) adequately support them – figuring that you guys can fill in most of the blanks yourself, and then confront me about the rest.

8. I’ve previously listed my different areas of concern re the dating, but here’s an updated list:
9. The emotionality in the 10 years of negotiation leading up to the test.
10. Significant protocols determined, but not followed.
11. The size and location of the sample.
12. Potential of repair, contamination and “new" linen.
13. Church (rather than scientists) selects sample.
14. Sample selected at the last moment, after two hours of “ecumenical” debate.
15. Final step in procedure seen by only 2 people, and not videotaped.
16. No test for chemical composition.
17. No archeologist involved.
18. STURP deliberately excluded.
19. Gove eventually excluded.
20. A clear age gradient within the sample.

21. Here’s a quote from “The Coming of the Quantum Christ” by John Klotz.
[Professor Emanuela] Marinelli related to the Valencia Conference [in 2000] how competent scientists attacked the execution of the process and charged the labs with concealing the data necessary to determine adequately what they had done in their experiments. She cited a fifteen point critique of Philippe Bourcier de Carbon delivered at an international symposium in Rome in 1993: 14 (1) Absence of a formal report of the sampling; (2) Absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging; (3) In the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by people in charge of the sampling (4) Breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating; (5) Rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test; (6) Refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for radiocarbon dating; (7) Exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who participated in previous works of STURP; (8) Communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior to testing; (9) Intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job; (10) Disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings; (11) Refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989); (12) Non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories; (13) Unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud; (14) Rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed; (15) Rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).
- Klotz, John (2014-09-30). The Coming of the Quantum Christ: The Shroud of Turin and the Apocalypse of Selfishness (Kindle Locations 5350-5365). John C. Klotz. Kindle Edition.

- I'll be back.

 

[Pacal]

Hypothetically, how far back can carbon dating go?

The question following on from that is, is there any scientific proof carbon testing is accurate for linen for dates previous to C16?

The breakdown of organic matter on the linen must surely disintegrate over time to render a precise dating impossible.

Carbon 14 dating is routinely used to date items in the past 5 thousand years and the procedures by which it is done have all sorts of protocols etc., to minimize the chances of error. It was because of this that the test was done at three separate labs along with control samples of known age to double check the accuracy of the labs. The labs correctly dated the control samples of known age and produced the same results for the samples from the shroud, ie., the shroud dates, with most likely from the 14th century C.E. And that it is extremely unlikely to date, from the 1st century C.E.

Shroud enthusiasts have argued that the date was "wrong" because of "contamination". The fact that no one noticed the "contamination" before hand is ignored or the fact that in order for the shroud to have its date shifted c. 1300 years by said "contamination" the "contamination" would have to weigh more than the shroud. How could they all miss that if it is true? Of course there is in fact no evidence of said contamination and it can be dismissed has a post hoc rationalization to explain away the carbon 14 results.

The second attempt to explain away the carbon 14 results is the fantasy that what was actually tested was a "repair" done in the 14th century of the much older shroud. Aside from the question of how did they miss that? There is the question that this "repair" is absolutely invisible and has left not a trace. It is in other words another post hoc rationalization for which there is no evidence.

The controversy over the carbon 14 results is largely in the heads of shroud enthusiasts.

 

[John Jones]

Vixen,
- Thanks for the open mind.
- Here's something I posted a while back.

Jabba, all of these objections have been dealt with repeatedly.

Vixen, there are people on this very forum who have actually done ¹⁴C dating. Jabba is not one of them.

The people who understand ¹⁴C dating the best disagree with Jabba's emotion-based objections.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks for the open mind.

That's a bit rich coming from someone whose mind is so firmly closed to the Shroud being exactly what every single piece of evidence says it is - a medieval artefact.

 

[John Jones]

[...]

Shroud enthusiasts have argued that the date was "wrong" because of "contamination". The fact that no one noticed the "contamination" before hand is ignored or the fact that in order for the shroud to have its date shifted c. 1300 years by said "contamination" the "contamination" would have to weigh more than the shroud. How could they all miss that if it is true? Of course there is in fact no evidence of said contamination and it can be dismissed has a post hoc rationalization to explain away the carbon 14 results.

And the three labs cleaned their samples to remove any contamination using chemically sound methods.

Jabba knows this - or at least it has been pointed-out to him often enough.

 

[Vixen]

Re: the implications if the C14 dating is "wrong."

It depends why it is discounted. For example, if the C14 were known to be wrong because it was known that the samples in question included some indeterminate amount of more modern content, then we could conclude that the actual date of the shroud is older than the measured date. The extent to which it is older, we can't say, unless we know the extent of the contamination. But unless we have that, all we can say is that it is older than what was measured, and that's about it. It could be 2000 years old, but it could also be 1500 years old. Or 1000. Or 3000.

Of course, we don't actually have that knowledge. Instead, Jabba's concerns about the dating are things like, there was not an archeologist involved, or that it was only done by three labs and not 5. Even if these were grounds to discount the C14 dating, they mean nothing in terms of what the age is. It's absolutely possible to get the right date with three labs, or without having an archeologist involved. So even if we accept those objections, we can't say anything about the implications of it. All we could say is that we can't use the C14 dating, and therefore have to look to something else.

In order to come to the conclusion that it is 2000 years old, there would need to be evidence to that extent. Is there, Jabba?

To play devil's advocate (no pun intended!) the row over the Turin shroud is complicated by the following issues:

1. Mixing "genres": Theology versus Science
2. Historical issues: there is a belief Jesus never existed hence ipso facto it's a fake
3. Faith: those who argue from the stance it is a religious miracle

1. We know such a person existed. He is mentioned by the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, who can be seen to have been accurate in other respects. He confirms this person was crucified.

More recent history confirms the existence of a Roman governor general named Pontius Pilate, in that part of the world as of that time.

2. Notwithstanding the above, even if Jesus existed historically, that is not to say he had miraculous powers. Hence, runs the argument, the idea of his image preserved on a cloth, out of the many thousands crucified throughout the ages is absurd. OTOH even if the cloth only dates back to between 900AD and 1200AD, it could be argued to be an astonishing feat for that age to design a cloth that shows a reverse negative of a crucified man when X-Rayed. Why would the hospitalier knights of the crusade have bothered preserving it as a relic.

3. Anyone who has visited the British Museum will know 2,000 is a mere five minutes in history when compared to Egyptology artefacts which date back over five thousand years, and even Roman mummies, the Romans consistent in their copying other cultures, including the ancient Greeks and Judeo-Christianity.

There was an Ice Age exhibition with artistic sculptures estimated to be up to 48K years old.

So, the resistance to the idea of the Turin Shroud being "the Face of Jesus" comes from those resistant to religious belief, those who scorn the idea of "miracles" anyway. However, it does not rule out the Turin Shroud could be genuine, especially the paucity of carbon dating tests run on it.

Which camp are you, and why?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Vixen,
- Thanks for the open mind.
- Here's something I posted a while back.

Oh, look, your memory is working just fine again. Funny how selective your amnesia seems to be.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
So, the resistance to the idea of the Turin Shroud being "the Face of Jesus" comes from those resistant to religious belief, those who scorn the idea of "miracles" anyway. However, it does not rule out the Turin Shroud could be genuine, especially the paucity of carbon dating tests run on it.

Which camp are you, and why?

My position is this: There is no reliable evidence which points to the shroud being 2000 years old, and plenty that points to it being medieval. That alone rules out authenticity.

It would do you well to go back and read this and the previous threads to see what people's objections actually are, rather than try to force-fit them into camps.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- There is all sorts of evidence. Just look at http://shroud.com/, or http://shroudstory.com/, or even at all the links that I've posted right here over the last three years -- beginning at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226761.

I have been a regular reader of this thread and its predecessors. So there's no point just linking to a thread of several hundred posts or a website. I simply asked for evidence that points toward a 2000 year old date.

It's not necessary to list everything supporting your assertion that the shroud is authentic. Let's just take it one step at a time. I won't ask you to do anything I am not willing to do. Personally, after reading these threads for the past few years and some independent reading, I believe the shroud dates to the 14th century.

So let's each post only one piece of evidence. Others can join as well. We can all then collectively comment, or each add another piece of evidence. The only caveat is that the evidence should point toward a date. Since you have "all sorts of evidence", it should be easy.

I'll go first.

Evidence toward a 14th century date:
The linen of the shroud was radiocarbon dated, and determined to have been made around 1260-1390 AD.

Evidence toward a 1st century date:
<Jabba, or anyone else, to add evidence here.>