Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[tsig]

Terribly sorry, but it won't be a quick answer. I am one of the very rare people who still goes to church on Sunday with Holy Communion most weeks. I am secretary of the local Lutheran Women of GB (part of the US ELCE Synod in Missouri). I was atheist for a large part of my life, but went back to the religion of my youth, actually having been baptised in the Finnish Lutheran Church and educated in Church of England schools. Why? I have always had a religious bent, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan being my favourite book at school aged 11.

Spent my youth flirting with all sorts, Sufism, Bagavad Gita, Zen, Hermann Hesse, etc. I was even advanced in astrology.

Always loved singing, so get to do a lot of that, although some of Martin Luther's hymns are quite complex. Love Isaac Watts, Flyte, Bach, Melita, Rockingham, etc, etc.

Like everywhere else, most Finns these days are "agnostic" so the Finnish Church in London runs an agnostic service for those allergic to any mention of Christ. I am not sure I like the blandness. I cannot see the point of it.

When my father died 2013 I guess I began to ponder the religious issue and went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which was historically fascinating and the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem, mindblowing.

So when you ask, "Are you a Christian?", it is not as simple a question as you might think. History, anthropology and the psychology of religion, as well as theology, are part of the interest. I wouldn't say I was dogmatic. I understand most views. I do have an aversion to Dawkins and Christopher Hitchin's views, though. Anyone can mock and be scathing & sarcastic. People jeering about the "Magic Jew" is so boring.

My mother is from an austere protestant background. What's good for her, is good for me.

Faith is all I have.

What else is there, really?
Jesu, bleibet meine freude ~ Bach Cantata 147

Knowledge.

 

[tsig]

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

Here's a first approximation ^.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, the carbon dating is just one chapter of the book. The story of the provenance and its description is of more interest to De Wesselow.

In all cases, it points to a medieval origin.

 

[Belz...]

Knowledge.

It's amazing that, in the 21st century, some people still think they can put faith on the same pedestal as science and knowledge, as if faith put people on the moon, across the atlantic, or allowed people to speak to others on the other side of the planet at the touch of a button.

 

[Dinwar]

It was more to do with a lack of argument. 1988 was a long time ago. The Vatican should have enabled further state of the art testing. That is suspicious.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is NO reason to run further tests. No one has presented any evidence that newer testing would alter the results substantively, and NO ONE EVER re-runs destructive tests on artifacts. Sorry, but without a major reason to suspect substantive alterations to the date no sane person would agree to further testing.

 

[John Jones]

Time is a factor. Why would I want to read a dull turgid paper 1986 when I can catch up on topics that interest me?

[...]

What are you even doing here, then? You won't read this thread, or any evidence presented herein. What is your point?

 

[Dinwar]

I wouldn't say cannot, as IMV it has not been tested extensively enough.

So the fact that this sample was more thofroughly duplicated than any pretty much ever isn't relevant.

By this logic ALL carbon dating must be discarded. Speaking as someone who has done it (charcoal in anthroposols), I can assure you that 99% or more of samples are not tested 10% as well as this one.

You have presented no criticisms of the method. You have presented no substantive criticisms of the sample choice (ie, nothing that would affect the outcome). You have presented no reason to doubt the C14 dating. And if that date is true, nothing else matters.

You have also not presented any evidence that this mystical chin strap existed, much less that it would result in the image on the shroud. Plus....well, everything else.

 

[Craig4]

How many bites? We've only had two so far in the last 2K years.

What do you mean 2k years? Why would you think that?

 

[John Jones]

How many bites? We've only had two so far in the last 2K years.

Where did that kook nonsense come from?

 

[jimbob]

Here's a first approximation ^.

Good "point"

I think that although the date of the shroud shows it can't be 2000-years old, having a head like that renders the discussion rather moot.

 

[Susheel]

Vixen:

The point being made is Susheel claimed people weren't prepared to do the "hard work" of looking at the threads. But I have made an effort to acquaint myself with the facts. Heck, I even downloaded some e-books at the time. If I had known the Shroud was recently on show, I would have been tempted to go see for myself.

Au contraire...I think I claimed that one needs to take the "trouble" to familiarise themselves with the discussion until now. Readintg the thread from the begining is in fact the easy part...since the "hard work" was already done by the people who made the original posts.

And no, the only reading you have done on the subject is de Wesselow's book and the fact that it contains a bibliography at the end does not automatically translate to "I have read the other books too." Oh...and a bibliography at the end of a book means very little re: the quality of the scholarship in the book.

 

[Loss Leader]

What are you even doing here, then? You won't read this thread, or any evidence presented herein. What is your point?

It's like fighting Ali, isn't it? Every time you throw a punch, he's not there.

Now it's like fighting two of him.

 

[erwinl]

Just a hunch. Say the Turin Shroud belonged to you. You would be curious to test its authenticity. You might want to do it privately to satisfy yourself. It's yours to do what you like.

If authentic you would be inviting world scientists to see for themselves.

For all it's faults (which are many), I'm glad that the Catholic church doesn't think this way, but also thinks of the art and history that has to be preserved for the future (aside from the function the CIQ has in veneration). It's not theirs to do whatever they like with it and they know it and act like it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mixing "genres": Theology versus Science

Purely a debate problem (but very much shown in this thread). For science it is no problem, and it really should't be for theology, since theology does not concern itself with facts. The problem arises when people like Jabba get the idea into their heads that they want science to confirm thology.

Historical issues: there is a belief Jesus never existed hence ipso facto it's a fake

Incorrect. There is no (scientific) belief that Jesus did not exist, and it is not an argument in this discussion, of only because we have not even got to the stage of discussing if it is the shroud of Jesus or of someone else. And this is because the scientific evidence points at the shroud being only 700 years old.

Faith: those who argue from the stance it is a religious miracle

No that is not a problem. If Jabba had proclaimed it a miracle and admitted that his trust in it was simply belief-based, this thread would have been less than 10 posts long.

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.

No, the historical sources are unclear. They do not rule out a historical Jesus, bot they also do not confirm it.

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.

We haven't even got there in the discussion,

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.

No, there is nothing astonishing about it. It is a feirly crude picture of a male person, more or less corresponding to the known idea of how Jesus was supposed to look.

Why would the hospitalier knights of the crusade have bothered preserving it as a relic.

Relics were an important part of worship at the time. Thousands of relics were exhibited in those centuries, by far the most of them fakes.

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.

Irrelevant.

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

Irrelevant.

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.

With solid evidence to back that scorn, however.

However, it does not rule out the Turin Shroud could be genuine, especially the paucity of carbon dating tests run on it.

The scorn does not rule it out, but the C14 tests do. They are not pauvre, they are consistent and powerful evidence.

Which camp are you, and why?

I'm in the fact-based camp.

Hans

 

[Craig4]

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.

Excuse, Mr. Jabba, there's an elephant in the room whose been waiting to see you.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/Sudarium

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.

No, this is just not logical thinking. Even if I accepted everything you said (which I don't), we're still left with a piece of linen that was manufactured 600 years after Christ's death. We then both agree that the SoT is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ, and we are just arguing about the age.*

I think Loss Leaders analogy above is worth thinking about.



* A man asks a woman, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt if he paid you one million dollars?"
"You bet I would!", she exclaims.
"How about sleeping with me for twenty bucks?"
"Ew", she sneers. "Of course not. What do you think I am?"
The guy smiles, "Well, we've already established that. Now we are just haggling about the price."

Monza,

- Still trying to nail down our exact divergence.
- This is where it gets tedious. I just claim that some tedium is necessary in order to actually get somewhere in debate. Too often, we don't really understand what our opponent is saying.
- I'll try again to show my logic.

- In order to accept that the sudarium strengthens the case for the shroud being 2000 years old (and that the carbon dating of the shroud is significantly off the mark), we also have to accept that the carbon dating of the sudarium is significantly off the mark. And, this need to add such a caveat reduces the probability that the shroud is 2000.
- In other words, by accepting the alleged match, we do, in fact, add weight to the not 2000 yrs old side. Agreed.
- I just claim that by accepting a match -- and thereby negating the carbon dating of the shroud -- we subtract more weight from that side than we add to that side.
- If I am correct that there is some weight on the 2000 yr side, the tilt of our scales is affected towards the 2000 yr side.

 

[catsmate]

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

Actually he doesn't. He focuses on the radiocarbon dating and his nonsensical theory regarding carbohydrate deposition (and displays gross ignorance of the Maillard reaction).
De Wesselow ignores the multitude of problems with the body image and blood mark features that his claimed "method" fails on. Nor does he cover in any reasonable detail the vastly more likely alternate methods for the deposition of the shroud (i.e. painting).

When you say "fake", it could still be C14 and authentic (but not Jesus).

Unlikely. The shroud fails to conform with usual Jewish practices and is woven in a style completely unknown in that period.

They are the mainstream ones.

No. The mainstream ones are the examinations by McCrone and the peer-reviewed Nature paper. Not Ray Rogers garbage.

What area of history, Catsmate, if you don't mind my asking?

Early/mid nineteenth century United States, specifically the fall and rise of Federalism in relation to John Marshall.

De Wesselow is a History of Art specialist. His book wasn't designed to just make money, as it has a reference for all his sources. It's his own original research. In history and the arts, a lot of the the skill involves interpretation, so it is inevitable conclusions will be open to dispute. That is not to say one is right and the other wrong.

Yet De Wesselow didn't publish in any of the usual journals and demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of radiocarbon dating and basic organic chemistry.

 

[catsmate]

A man with a PhD in art history, just the expert I'd look for to critique a carbon dating test procedure.

What I fins really annoying (I originally studied the hard sciences) is the completely nonsensical chemistry he fabricates to allow his to invoke the magic carbohydrate "contamination" to avoid dealing with the radiocarbon dating.
It's first year college stuff.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Yeah he managed to annoy everyone. Bad science, wish fulfillment and no resurrection.

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.

Absolutely. My field was pretty recent and there's a lot of documentation.
Go back a few centuries and there isn't agreement on anything.

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

An interesting question.

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?

The piece (you can see it here) is basically a report on a conference presentation warning about the need for proper controls and an awareness of the danger of contamination. AMS was still new, but spreading, and a few labs weren't as careful as they should have been.
BTW Oxford (the only SERC relevant lab that tested the shroud samples) came off very well in the conference.

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.

We've discussed this in exhaustive detail. Including why the number of samples was reduced.

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.
The test area had been agreed by two textile experts, one of whom was present, and was verified by subsequent examination with newer techniques as showing no sign of patching. Likewise the backing cloth.
Your objections are, frankly, rubbish.

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

AMS was chosen because it allowed testing using tens of milligrammes rather than grammes of material. This has been covered before.

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

Too busy to present direct evidence for a 2000 year age for the Shroud ?

 

[Jabba]

Hugh,
- Are you still around?