Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Garrette]

Interesting evasion.

Suppose you explain how de Wesselow deals with the fact that the representation has a wedge-shaped head. Or how he explains the amateurishly inaccurate "blood flows". Or the historical and scriptural inaccuracies? Is he in the "floating corpse in a burst of resurrection energy" camp?

Not quite. de Wesselow basically says the resurrection did not happen; that the image formed and the image itself was what gave rise to the resurrection story and the meteoric rise of Christianity.

His biblical analysis is as flawed as his art and science analyses.

 

[zooterkin]

De Wesselow p 162 - 163 and he cites Burleigh et al p 574 as his source.

Please point out where this figure of 1000 years is from the raw results, about half-way down this page: https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm (Table 1)

 

[Vixen]

Interesting evasion.

Suppose you explain how de Wesselow deals with the fact that the representation has a wedge-shaped head. Or how he explains the amateurishly inaccurate "blood flows". Or the historical and scriptural inaccuracies? Is he in the "floating corpse in a burst of resurrection energy" camp?

It's to do with the customary use of a headband to bind up the chin which means the chin leans forward into the chest, which makes it appear it has no neck and the separation of the frontal and dorsal figures.

The way the cloth drapes over the toes and shin explains the absence of feet on the frontal figure.

There is also the Jospice imprint, a natural phenomenon which causes a dead body to form an imprint on a sheet, due to bodily fluids.

ETA The shroud is mentioned in the scriptures. See John 20:6 - 7.

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

 

[Dinwar]

True. Though studying history should teach you about analysis of evidence and sources.

Very true, and I by no means intended to disperage the field. I was merely commenting on the methodologies. Historical evidence would be documented evidence, far as I can tell (the boundaries get fuzzy)--for example, the fact that it didn't become known until around 700 years ago. Archaeological evidence would be evidence directly from the artifact that provides information about the artifact--such as the C14 dating.

Vixen, have you done ANY sampling? Ever? I ask because unless you have, you really can't critique sampling procedures. It may sound reasonable to you, but the vicisitudes of the process may render your objections moot. I experience that A LOT in my field, both in paleo/archaeo work and in environmental remediation. To properly critique a sampling procedure you need to be familiar with the lab methods, sample methods, and site conditions.

Also, what evidence would convince you that the shroud is not authentic?

 

[Dinwar]

It's to do with the customary use of a headband to bind up the chin which means the chin leans forward into the chest, which makes it appear it has no neck and the separation of the frontal and dorsal figures.

Not good enough. First, find evidence IN THE SHROUD'S PICTURE of such a divice. Second, please explain how such a divice can flatten the head to produce the lack of sufficient gap between the dorsal and ventral pictures. Third, provide evidence that such a divice was in fact used.

 

[Giordano]

This was their sample no. 1 at Woelfi's Zurich lab, 1,000 years too young, and sample 3, 1,000 years too old. [Burleigh et al p 574]. I feel sure they did not just take the mean of the the two to come to their final figure ;/





Only Zurich, Oxford and Arizona were given sampling. The archaeologists and the Vatican scientists were snubbed. What would they add? Balance. Archaeologists estimate dates with an extra dimension of historical context, as carbon dating is often inexact. The Vatican scientists can be reassured that the 14C carbon dating laboratories have produced reliable figures, if they get to test the same samples themselves, as the religious POV.

1. I can't find the Burleigh et al reference you give- I gather it is a book to which I do not have access. Perhaps you can quote the relevant portion? Did he in fact claim that his dating ruled out a 30 AD date?

But given Burleigh used a cruder analysis 3 years earlier than the Nature paper, that due to the range of his numbers his data was not considered informative leading to the Nature study, the fact that neither his name nor his data are on the nature paper, and the fact that the much better methods used by the 3 more modern laboratories all gave data with much tighter error bars (well within a hundred years) that independently generated much the same Medieval data (non-Jesus), I am not certain what you are attempting to say by bring up Burleigh. I would also note that the wider spread of Burleigh's data did not contract the more narrow and accurate Nature paper data- both papers agree in much the way that stating that I live in Chicago doesn't contract the statement that I live in Michigan. If I first stated that I live in Michigan this does not rule out that I live in either Chicago or Detroit, but if I later reveal that I live in Chicago, then you can rule out that I live in Detroit. The more definitive results from the later paper are why it appeared in Nature and the earlier, less definitive paper appeared in Radiocarbon, a far more narrow audience journal. D

2. The "Vatican" scientists (actually from the Turin Church, the official guardians of the shroud) haven't been snubbed at all. They own the cloth- they can test any portion of it at any time. They were involved in the sampling and preparation for the Nature test, supervised it, and helped choose the carbon dating labs. I may be wrong on this last point, but I believe that the Turin Church even kept a portion of the samples given to the labs- they could even test that portion anytime they want.

 

[Dinwar]

Archaeologists estimate dates with an extra dimension of historical context, as carbon dating is often inexact.

Defend this statement. How precisely is C14 dating inexact? (Please bring up calibration! Pretty please! I love it when people do my work for me!!!!)

The only thing that could possibly throw off the analysis is that archaeologists run standards around the dates they assume the artifact to be (given contextual data). If the C14 is wildly different we can dismiss the absolute results, but still use them to gauge more accurately what standards to run against next time--so basically, if you run a standard with a date of 500 years and you get a result of 17,000 years, obviously the 17,000 isn't going to be accurate (it has to do with how the results are collected inside the machine), but you know perfectly well that it's older than 500 years!

So the question for you is: What were the standards against which the shroud was tested? How accurate were the results from those standards? THAT is the accuracy of the C14 results from the shroud.

Once you have done all that, you need to establish precisely where in this process "ballance" is needed. How could anyone's opinion alter the results?

 

[Vixen]

Because people 2000 years ago (during a foreign occupation) were getting the same nutritious diets then as now?

What you are doing is confabulating a possible story based on a couple snippets from the Bible, wishful thinking, and a gross misunderstanding of human history. Jesus was supposed to be deformed so being really tall fits that?

What you're not doing is confronting any evidence you don't like including: the fact that no biblical source mentions Jesus as exceptionally tall; the fact that the image on the shroud is closer to the popular (and racist) European image of Jesus in the middle ages; the fact that there is no written record showing the existence of a shroud for the first 1200 years of catholicism; the fact that Jews almost never did and almost never do keep anything having to do with death (finding the whole business unclean); the fact that conterfeiting relics was profitable business in the middle ages; etc.

Making up stories based on small second and third-hand snippets is better left to the producers of the Hangover movies, than to christian appologists.

John 20 6-7 certainly does refer to the existence of a shroud. Don't forget, you are talking about Christian Jews (as early Christians were). Paul had a dream in which he was told it was OK to eat unclean foods when with guests. Lazarus came staggering forth out of his tomb, having been dead four days, and Jesus had no problem touching his linen cloths, nor diseased lepers, lunatics and sundry persons begging for healing. He advised his disciples to go out and do the same.

So yes, Jews observe the 617 laws of Leviticus, but Jesus and his disciples broke away from some of them, perferring to believe it is grace, not law that makes one holy.

Some Jewish scholars speculate that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. If so, he could have got his European looks from there.

 

[carlitos]

None of those stories ever happened. They are stories.

 

[wollery]

John 20 6-7 certainly does refer to the existence of a shroud.

That Jesus (assuming he actually existed) was wrapped in strips of linen cloth is most definitely mentioned in the bible, as is the fact that there was a separate headpiece. That these cloths (and the separate headpiece) are mentioned as being there after the resurrection is not surprising or significant.

Do you have a biblical quote about those strips of cloth being one humongous cloth that was fold over Jesus head and bore his image after the resurrection?

No?

Oh well.

 

[Vixen]

Defend this statement. How precisely is C14 dating inexact? (Please bring up calibration! Pretty please! I love it when people do my work for me!!!!)

The only thing that could possibly throw off the analysis is that archaeologists run standards around the dates they assume the artifact to be (given contextual data). If the C14 is wildly different we can dismiss the absolute results, but still use them to gauge more accurately what standards to run against next time--so basically, if you run a standard with a date of 500 years and you get a result of 17,000 years, obviously the 17,000 isn't going to be accurate (it has to do with how the results are collected inside the machine), but you know perfectly well that it's older than 500 years!

So the question for you is: What were the standards against which the shroud was tested? How accurate were the results from those standards? THAT is the accuracy of the C14 results from the shroud.

Once you have done all that, you need to establish precisely where in this process "ballance" is needed. How could anyone's opinion alter the results?

A workshop with Church authorities in Turin was held in 1986 and protocol was agreed. Prof Carlos Chagas was the chair. It was to be blind, but this was a sham - according to De Wesselow - as it was not possible to find a blind control (same weave pattern, etc). The number of samples agreed, seven, was inexplicably reduced to three.

Professors Riggi and Gonella argued for over an hour as to which bit to cut. They cut from an area next to the Raes sample whch members of the STURP team suspected was unrepresentative of the rest of the cloth.

AMS was chosen as inventor, Henry Gove, was keen to demonstrate it use.

And so on and so forth.

 

[Belz...]

ETA The shroud is mentioned in the scriptures. See John 20:6 - 7.

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

Did you miss the plural, there ?

 

[Vixen]

Not good enough. First, find evidence IN THE SHROUD'S PICTURE of such a divice. Second, please explain how such a divice can flatten the head to produce the lack of sufficient gap between the dorsal and ventral pictures. Third, provide evidence that such a divice was in fact used.

There is such a drawing in De Wesselow's book.

 

[Garrette]

John 20 6-7 certainly does refer to the existence of a shroud. Don't forget, you are talking about Christian Jews (as early Christians were). Paul had a dream in which he was told it was OK to eat unclean foods when with guests. Lazarus came staggering forth out of his tomb, having been dead four days, and Jesus had no problem touching his linen cloths, nor diseased lepers, lunatics and sundry persons begging for healing. He advised his disciples to go out and do the same.

So yes, Jews observe the 617 laws of Leviticus, but Jesus and his disciples broke away from some of them, perferring to believe it is grace, not law that makes one holy.

Some Jewish scholars speculate that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. If so, he could have got his European looks from there.

Truly an intriguing response to the questions regarding de Wesselow's error about the Zurich dating and about the head having no depth and about all the other things showing that the image cannot represent an actual body.

Are you, perchance, a scholar from the school of Truly Effective Debate?

 

[Dinwar]

So in other words: You have no data ABOUT THE ACTUAL TEST to justify the statement that C14 dating is imprecise.

If you disagree with the above statement, please provide that information. Here is a hint: If your argument does not include nuclear physics, it is irrelevant.

There is one exception: The selection of the sample point. Please provide evidence that the selected sample point is not representative of the shroud. If it is, selection of sample point is irrelevant (seriously, most of the time it's left entirely to the discression of the person taking the sample; to have an hour-long discussion of this demonstrates a completely insane level of attention being paid to it).

Please provide evidence that a blind control would have made a difference. It's not standard procedure; most of the time, the researchers know exactly what they're sampling, and no attempt at blinding is made. The physics speaks for itself (see the hint above).

There is such a drawing in De Wesselow's book.

Than you should have no problem reproducing that drawing (scanners are cheap). You should also be able to provide SPECIFIC places on the shroud to look for evidence for such a divice. And how such a divice can flatten the head, removing nearly all space from the dorsal and ventral side of a 3D form.

 

[Steve]

De Wesselow deals with all this, complete with colour photos and diagrams. I realise you will be familiar with all of this.

He just copied Arlo Guthrie:

"They took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was..."

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's to do with the customary use of a headband to bind up the chin which means the chin leans forward into the chest, which makes it appear it has no neck and the separation of the frontal and dorsal figures.

I see. Your studies, then, did not comprise human anatomy and physiology. The issue has nothing to do with any assertion of a "traditional" headband. The issue, as you would have seen had you read the thread (as it has been dealt with multiple times) is that the representation of the frontalis is but a few finger-widths separated from the representation of the occipitus, leaving insufficient room for a human clavarium.

Try this: put the thumb of one hand on your own mental process. Spread your had up across your face, and mark where the tip of your little finger reaches. Next, put the thumb of one hand on the back of your neck, even with your jawbone. Spread your hand up and mark where, on the back of your head, the tip of your little finger falls. Now put the thumb of one hand on the spot you marked on the forehead, and reach to the spot you marked on the back of your head. In a normal human skull, that distance will be nearly the same as the other two distances. Now repeat the process with your chin on your chest. If tucking in your chin changes the shape of your skull, I suggest you see a doctor.

The chin-on-chest-due-to-a-"traditional"-headband argument is nothing more than special pleading; it does not even address the actual problem of the absent calvarium.

The way the cloth drapes over the toes and shin explains the absence of feet on the frontal figure.

I see. You intend to answer questions no one asked, so that you might avoid the questions that were, in fact, asked. No "easy way out", there, at all...

There is also the Jospice imprint, a natural phenomenon which causes a dead body to form an imprint on a sheet, due to bodily fluids.

I cannot tell if this is carelessness, or equivocation. There is no "natural phenomenon" that "causes" a dead body to form a flat imprint on a "wound" sheet--there was one mattress cover on which it was claimed that this was "caused" to happen. Interesting that is appears to be so rare.

ETA The shroud is mentioned in the scriptures. See John 20:6 - 7.

"Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself."

The linen cloths (do note the plural) were ὀθόνιον, "strips" (S/G3608) that were said to have been δέω "wound" (S/G1210) around the body.

The CIQ fits neither of those descriptions.

 

[John Jones]

Here you go.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12316841.900-unexpected-errors-affect-dating-techniques.html



1. I do not "venerate" Josephus.

2. It is relevant as it directly relates to Ancient Jewish history as of the time of Christ.

3. Saying Josephus' reference to Jesus is similar to C.S. Forrester's Horatio
Hornblower is like comparing Dan Brown to the Torah. Disproportionate and contextually erroneous.

That article is behind a paywall, and Josephus is irrelevant to the shroud

 

[John Jones]

They are the mainstream ones.

Mainstream what, though?

Mainstream science holds that the shroud is medieval.

 

[Slowvehicle]

John 20 6-7 certainly does refer to the existence of a shroud. <snip for focus>

The 'god'spiel attributed to "John" describes linen cloths (do note the plural) that is, ὀθόνιον, "strips" (S/G3608) that were said to have been δέω "wound" (S/G1210) around the body.

The CIQ fits neither of those descriptions.