Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Monza]

Monza,

- Sorry. I've been busy...

- I think that the closest I can get to direct evidence of the age of the shroud has to do with the Sudarium of Oviedo. (I think that the rest of my evidence is indirect, or circumstantial -- but, there's plenty of it.)
- The Sudarium appears to be covering the same face as does the shroud -- and, it is clearly much older than 700 years.
- Try http://www.sitelevel.com/query?crid=5b7907994c2a69a2&query=sudarium&B1=Search. There you'll find numerous links discussing the Sudarium's apparent match with the shroud.
- If you want, I'll try to pick out my favorite.

- You probably know all about the Sudarium already, so I should probably just ask whether or not you think that the two match -- if not, why not, and if so, how do you explain the match?

- Thanks, again.

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your effort to maintain the discussion regarding age. To be honest, I was a little worried you would reply with comments about blood or something else that has no bearing on age. Your hypothesis is that if the SoO and the SoT can be tied together, then you can infer the same age between the two.

This is a very convoluted and indirect argument to date the shroud. However, without getting into details of how these two items can be tied to each other, the biggest problem is the age of the SoO. I read the first two articles in the links you provided and both state that there is no record of this artifact until the year 614. The second article then points out that the artifact was radiocarbon dated to the 7th century. This is a remarkable coincidence that the dating coincides with the provenance; a similar coincidence occurs with the SoT as it happens.

So even if you could connect the two items, and I believe any argument for connection is extremely tenuous, at best you can say the shroud is 1400 years old. Ultimately, your argument does not support a 2000 year old date. It only argues against a 700 year old date.

 

[Dinwar]

1. I read De Wesselow's paraphrasing of its content.

2. I doubt it.

So that's a "no", and a "no" (If I'm reading the second correctly). You have not read the paper, and you admit that the ancients did not mention this important artifact.

Both seem suspicious.

 

[Giordano]

1. I read De Wesselow's paraphrasing of its content.

I fully understand why, given that I am unusually lucky to work at a University with access to the original meeting report in New Scientist. This is one of the important reasons most scientists insist on reading the actual primary scientific articles with the actual data and information as to how it was obtained before forming their own conclusions, rather than read someone else's indirect summary of those articles. The news report in New Scientist is a reporter's interpretation of what was presented, mostly verbally, at a scientific conference, and you only had the opportunity to see an even briefer summary of the half-page news report and/or De Wesselow's own interpretation of that report (assuming that he (?) was in fact able to read the actual report itself). Summaries of summaries are like a game of "telephone" and can easily lead to very weak or incorrect conclusions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

1. I read De Wesselow's paraphrasing of its content.

Are you saying, then, that you did not read the primary source?

2. I doubt it.

Which bit do you doubt?

That Joesphus mentioned a "shroud"?

That a "miraculous shroud" is mentioned in the bible?

That no one noticed a "miraculous shroud"?

I would be interested in clarification.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't do sarcasm.

Interesting evasion of the actual question.

Do you understand that the representation on the CIQ cannot be the physical image of an actual human body?

 

[pgwenthold]

Really? REALLY?! THIS nonsense again!?

I can see no value added by having an archaeologist doing the sampling. None. It would not affect the C14 data AT ALL, nor would an archaeologist be more knowledgeable about where to sample than the curators and textile experts. To demand one be present is to demonstrate a complete and utter lack of anything resembling understanding of sampling procedures, and renders any criticisms offered irrelevant--they have no more chance of being correct than random chance.

Yeah, any level of seriousness I had went out the window when I saw that.

No one with any clue would think this would be an issue. It's a complete red herring.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your effort to maintain the discussion regarding age. To be honest, I was a little worried you would reply with comments about blood or something else that has no bearing on age. Your hypothesis is that if the SoO and the SoT can be tied together, then you can infer the same age between the two.

This is a very convoluted and indirect argument to date the shroud. However, without getting into details of how these two items can be tied to each other, the biggest problem is the age of the SoO. I read the first two articles in the links you provided and both state that there is no record of this artifact until the year 614. The second article then points out that the artifact was radiocarbon dated to the 7th century. This is a remarkable coincidence that the dating coincides with the provenance; a similar coincidence occurs with the SoT as it happens.

So even if you could connect the two items, and I believe any argument for connection is extremely tenuous, at best you can say the shroud is 1400 years old. Ultimately, your argument does not support a 2000 year old date. It only argues against a 700 year old date.

That first paragraph is splendid.

ETA: I am sure it is technically completely true, as you haven't said exactly *how* you appreciate these efforts.

 

[Vixen]

Which particular question in Giordano's number 2 was your answer number 2 addressing?

First two. Yes, to the latter, following on.

 

[Monza]

That first paragraph is splendid.

ETA: I am sure it is technically completely true, as you haven't said exactly *how* you appreciate these efforts.

I find my general appreciation level for all things futile is inversely proportional to the amount of wine left in my glass.

 

[Vixen]

Are you saying, then, that you did not read the primary source?

So, Slowvehicle, did you? Honestly? Hand on heart?

Which bit do you doubt?

That Joesphus mentioned a "shroud"?

That a "miraculous shroud" is mentioned in the bible?

That no one noticed a "miraculous shroud"?

I would be interested in clarification.

I doubt any of it.

OK. I give in.

 

[Slowvehicle]

First two. Yes, to the latter, following on.

Evidently, you do not do clarity, either.

 

[Vixen]

Interesting evasion of the actual question.

Do you understand that the representation on the CIQ cannot be the physical image of an actual human body?

I do not understand it, as De Wesselow convinced me of the reverse.

On the balance of probabilities, my view is there's a possibility the shroud shows an imprint of a body and is an authentic death shroud.

However, I doubt it goes back to AD28 (Jesus having actually been born BC5) or that the disciples preserved it. However, given who Jesus said he was, there is an offchance Paul, Peter, James, etc, kept it and took around to show "resurrection". As you say, it would have been mentioned before the Middle Ages.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So, Slowvehicle, did you? Honestly? Hand on heart?

I did not; nor did I say that I did, nor imply that I did, not pretend that I did. The again, I did not pretend to reference the source, either.

I will not refer others to a source I have not read. I will not claim support form a source I have not read.

I doubt any of it.

OK. I give in.

Do I understand you to say that the CIQ cannot be the True Shroud^TM? You should make that clear to Mr. Savage.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I do not understand it, as De Wesselow convinced me of the reverse.

On the balance of probabilities, my view is there's a possibility the shroud shows an imprint of a body and is an authentic death shroud.

What arguments convinced you of this?

 

[jimbob]

What we need is someone with skill in photoshop to show the shape of the head that would be needed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You say this:

I do not understand it, as De Wesselow convinced me of the reverse.

On the balance of probabilities, my view is there's a possibility the shroud shows an imprint of a body and is an authentic death shroud.

after having said this:

I had to pass a module physiology of the brain, but I admit defeat. I defer to your superior knowledge of a normal human body.

The representation on the CIQ is of a ridiculously anatomically impossible figure. You are either being disingenuous, dissembling, or are simply willing to ignore physical evidence in service of "higher truth".

However, I doubt it goes back to AD28 (Jesus having actually been born BC5) or that the disciples preserved it. However, given who Jesus said he was, there is an offchance Paul, Peter, James, etc, kept it and took around to show "resurrection". As you say, it would have been mentioned before the Middle Ages.

Actually, there is no record of what, or who, Jesus may have said he was. At best, we have anonymous third-hand accounts.

If the CIQ was the True Shroud^TM, it is passing odd that none of the 'god'spiels are said to be said to record that Jesus' head was shaped like a chisel...

 

[catsmate]

So that's a "no", and a "no" (If I'm reading the second correctly). You have not read the paper, and you admit that the ancients did not mention this important artifact.

Both seem suspicious.

I have read the New Scientist piece (and it's a non-peer reviewed summary report of a SERC conference presentation, also not subject to peer review; calling it a paper is, charitably, disingenuous).
The report, and the tests on which it was based commented on the sensitivity of AMS to contamination, both on samples and in the testing environment. Given the regime of cleansing of the sub-divided samples (which I've detailed previously) and the care taken in their handling, neither of these points is relevant to the shroud dating. Except as a red herring.

I agree that Vixen's willingness to cite material that s/he hasn't bothered to actually read is disturbing.

 

[John Jones]

Ah- luckily the full tex New Scientist "article" was available from by University.
1. It is not a research article at all- it is a report of a conference and it is approximately half a page in length. There are no experiments or data in it.

2. The author is a reporter and not a scientist. He has no experience in radioisotope dating even in that capacity.

3. The concerns mentioned from the conference are not detailed, apparently involve data from "some" laboratories participating in the conference, appear to be most severe for objects less than 200 years old, and the article and conference do not implicate any of the labs involved in the Shroud dating as having had this problem.

4. These undetailed potential errors must not have been a problem with the labs in the Nature paper because these errors would have caused much wider error bars and much more disagreement between the 3 independent labs in the Shroud study. The close match of the data indicates that these potential errors, which only apparently applied to certain labs and to very young material, were not a problem with the Shroud testing.

5. Finally, even if somehow these errors did apply to the Shroud dating, even the extra error bars would still create a range of dates that fall hundreds of years too early for an authentic Shroud of Christ.

BUSTED!

 

[Pacal]

Take the paywall up with New Scientist; it's not my fault.

Jospehus is relevant as he gives an independent, respected, historian's non-vested account of the existence of Jesus.

To repeat a comment I made earlier:

"Regarding the Testimonia of Josephus concerning Jesus. Well the general consensus is that at the very least Josephus' writings have been tampered with at this spot in his writings. The debate centers on whether or not the entire passage is a pious interpolation fraud or a partial one. In other words was the passage inserted in its entirety or whether a passage about Jesus was modified in order to make Josephus' description of Jesus fit Church dogma better. This debate has not by any means been settled. Making things difficult is that none of the early Church Fathers even they quote Josephus and refer to him quotes or even alludes to this passage. In fact the first mention of the testimonia is the Church Historian Eusibius in the early 4th century C.E., during the reign of Constantine the Great. And Eusbibius' quote of the testimonia is different from the one we have. All of that is suspicious so some writers think the entire passage was a interpolation.

Further making the whole thing more difficult is that we have a Syriac version of Josephus, which does indeed have the testimonia only it is quite different from both Eusibius' and the version we have today. To keep it simple the Syriac version does not have the features friendly to Church dogma about Jesus that exist in the version we have today. I could also go into the Slavonic version but that would be tedious.

The point is Josephus' Testimonia is a highly problematic piece of evidence. Rather interestingly Josephus does refer too in a another passage to James "the brother of Christ". That passage seems to be less problematic."

The Testimonia of Jo0sephus is highly problematic and has been treated with justified suspicion for centuries. The bottom line is that at the veryu lease the passage has been altered to fit better the Church consensus regarding Jesus and at worst the entire passage is spurious. The passage reads:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

(Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 3, 3.)

The above passage is problematic in so many ways. First there is no evidence that Josephus was a Christian and most commentators have accepted that at least the passage has been heavily corrupted. The early Christian thinker Origen for example expressly states that Josephus was not a Christian. The phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man", "He was the Christ" and are almost certain interpolations.

And of course the Slavonic and Syriac versions and there is an Arabic version based it appears on the Syriac which goes as follows:

At this time there was wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. (The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic, Alice Whealey, New Testament Studies, v 54, pp. 573-590, at 574.)

The Syriac version isn't much different.

A passage that is far more likely to be authentic is from later in Josephus which goes has follows:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:...

(Antiquities of the Jews, 20, 9, 1.)

This passage is considerably less problematic. Although there are those who regard the phrase " the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" as an interpolation.

The whole question of whether or not Josephus ever wrote the passage about Jesus, or any part of it is still subject to vigorous debate. However the consensus does seem to be that at least the earlier passage describing Christ's death is almost certainly corrupt if not a complete fake created by later writers to advance Christian interests.

 

[Jabba]

Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your effort to maintain the discussion regarding age. To be honest, I was a little worried you would reply with comments about blood or something else that has no bearing on age. Your hypothesis is that if the SoO and the SoT can be tied together, then you can infer the same age between the two.

This is a very convoluted and indirect argument to date the shroud. However, without getting into details of how these two items can be tied to each other, the biggest problem is the age of the SoO. I read the first two articles in the links you provided and both state that there is no record of this artifact until the year 614. The second article then points out that the artifact was radiocarbon dated to the 7th century. This is a remarkable coincidence that the dating coincides with the provenance; a similar coincidence occurs with the SoT as it happens.

So even if you could connect the two items, and I believe any argument for connection is extremely tenuous, at best you can say the shroud is 1400 years old. Ultimately, your argument does not support a 2000 year old date. It only argues against a 700 year old date.

Monza,

- I agree with most of what you said. I'm just more convinced of the match than are you.

- The 700 AD carbon dating of the SoO, in concert with the first reporting of its existence, is evidence against a first century date, and tilts the scale away from a first century conclusion. I would say, however, that -- as evidence against the carbon dating of the SoT -- it has a llarger effect on the scale, as the current carbon dating is currently the heaviest weight (by far) against a first century conclusion. So, the overall effect of matching the two linens would be to move the scale towards a first century conclusion.

- If you can accept that reasoning, I suggest that we scrutinize the argument for a match between the two linens.