Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[hugh farey]

No idea. YOU brought the notion up.

I brought up the notion of further investigation; I certainly didn't say it was necessary. Why does an investigation have to be necessary?

 

[abaddon]

I brought up the notion of further investigation; I certainly didn't say it was necessary. Why does an investigation have to be necessary?

You don't believe any further investigation is needed?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why is such an "independent re-assessment" in any way necessary?

Because cleaning and dating the actual linen resulted in the "wrong" date.

 

[hugh farey]

If Jabba thinks that the bloodstains could be good evidence that the Shroud is 1st century, then radiocarbon dating of the bloodstains to the 1st century would achieve his purpose. If they proved not to be 1st century, then committed authenticists would probably have to fall back on an original image being enhanced in the 13th century, but would have to admit that a huge amount of authenticist 'received wisdom' would become hideously suspect. I think many of them would change their minds altogether. If organic deposits from across the cloth proved to be medieval, or, more definitively, made of rabbit-skin glue (a common gesso medium), then all investigation of the Shroud would focus on where, how and why it was made, which might give quicker results than just two people trying to find out, as at present.

 

[abaddon]

More equivocation.

Is the said tablecloth of Turin, in your view, a medieval fake or not?

Simple question, simple answer, "Yes, it is" or "No, it is not". Do not attempt to pass off a wall of equivocating text in lieu of an actual answer.

 

[Craig4]

If Jabba thinks that the bloodstains could be good evidence that the Shroud is 1st century, then radiocarbon dating of the bloodstains to the 1st century would achieve his purpose. If they proved not to be 1st century, then committed authenticists would probably have to fall back on an original image being enhanced in the 13th century, but would have to admit that a huge amount of authenticist 'received wisdom' would become hideously suspect. I think many of them would change their minds altogether. If organic deposits from across the cloth proved to be medieval, or, more definitively, made of rabbit-skin glue (a common gesso medium), then all investigation of the Shroud would focus on where, how and why it was made, which might give quicker results than just two people trying to find out, as at present.

Why bother? The cloth was carbon dated. How could the image be older than the cloth on which it is imprinted?

 

[hugh farey]

There was a time when I found internationalskeptics worthwhile, and indeed, followed chiefly mathematical arguments from an authenticist to a non-authenticist viewpoint. Since then, I have scrupulously examined every authenticist argument for discrediting the radiocarbon date, and found nearly all of them spurious, although there are still one or two grey areas.

I would love the Shroud to be authentic, same as I would love the Loch Ness Monster to be authentic (Why not? What fun weird and unlikely things are!), and like Houdini's search for authentic communication with the dead, I have searched the existing evidence (particularly that which had persuaded me of the authenticity of the shroud before I changed my mind), and carried out some research myself, to try to persuade myself that it is. Sadly, I have not, so far, succeeded, although I think there are a few historical grey areas which are so far inaccessible.

There seems to be a consensus among internationalskeptics commenters that authenticists are all stupid, and blind to the most obvious objections to their view. This is naive. Many of them, like myself, have spent years considering all the possible factors involved, and differ only in that, unlike myself, they consider that the preponderance of evidence points to authenticity rather than non-authenticity.

In my last few posts I have clearly said that I think the Shroud is medieval

Abaddon is quite wrong to think I am a 'sindonist' (if that means one who believes in authenticity), but it is not failure of intellect if someone on one side of an argument wants to understand the reasoning behind those on the other.

Do I think any of these counter-arguments convincing? No, I don't.

People in favour of authenticity think their views supported by their ability to dismiss the evidence to the contrary. They may be wrong; I think they usually are wrong, but that's what they feel.

I don't know how often I have to say that I'm not convinced by authenticist arguments before it sinks in.

Do I present sindonist claims without disclaimer or rejoinder? Try reading my posts.

I personally think that the arms were painted or rubbed or imprinted in that position for artistic decorum.

I personally think that the cloth was made long and thin for convenient display purposes above or in front of an altar.

You have confused my statement of the authenticist position (that a man in rigor mortis had his hands brought together for burial, whereupon an image was created by contact, vapours, radiation or a miracle) with my disclaimer (I think there was no body at all and the shape of the image depended entirely on the whim of the craftsman who painted, rubbed or imprinted it).

As numerous commenters here have pointed out, whether it is blood or not does not affect the date.

It is an authenticist point of view that dislocation of the shoulders, or the nasal cartilage for that matter, does not deny the prophesy saying that no bone should be broken. Apart from that I agree with your comments that too many complications have to be brought in to account for the different kinds of blood-flow, pre- or post-mortem, liquid or remoistened, whole or haemolysed, and so on. To me they all look dribbled on with a pipette.

I joined in April 2013, as an authenticist interested in non-authenticist views, and was persuaded of the non-authenticist position.

But I do think the Lavoie experiment was clever - all that cutting holes in the Shroud and painting the blood through them on to the volunteer; I loved it. But I didn't agree with the conclusion any more than you do.

More equivocation.

Abaddon's comments are beginning to sound a lot like Jabba's, don't you think? Regardless of any evidence to the contrary, he believes irrevocably in a pre-determined position.

...the said tablecloth of Turin...

The Shroud of Turin is not, nor ever was, in my view, a tablecloth, although it may perhaps have been used as an altar covering.

 

[Mojo]

If Jabba thinks that the bloodstains could be good evidence that the Shroud is 1st century, then radiocarbon dating of the bloodstains to the 1st century would achieve his purpose.

Yes, carbon dating to the first century would be good evidence of a first century origin.

But Jabba is claiming that blood would be evidence for a first century origin.

 

[hugh farey]

Why bother? The cloth was carbon dated. How could the image be older than the cloth on which it is imprinted?

Why bother with what? If you mean why bother to persuade people interested in the Shroud that it is medieval, then as I have explained I would like their not inconsiderable experience in historical investigation to be added to mine in attempting to discover why, when and how the Shroud was made.

 

[hugh farey]

Jabba is claiming that blood would be evidence for a first century origin. It would only "serve his purpose" if it had been dated to the first century. Has it?

No, it hasn't; nor do I think it would be if the tests were repeated. There are some who think the opposite. A bet would be fun, like the one Harry Gove had with Shirley Brignall in 1988.

 

[abaddon]

Abaddon's comments are beginning to sound a lot like Jabba's, don't you think? Regardless of any evidence to the contrary, he believes irrevocably in a pre-determined position.

The Shroud of Turin is not, nor ever was, in my view, a tablecloth, although it may perhaps have been used as an altar covering.

Nope. I asked a simple question

More equivocation.

Is the said tablecloth of Turin, in your view, a medieval fake or not?

Simple question, simple answer, "Yes, it is" or "No, it is not". Do not attempt to pass off a wall of equivocating text in lieu of an actual answer.

And you declined to answer, going for a wall of text.

Try again. Answer the question asked, not the question you wish was asked.

 

[Mojo]

The Shroud of Turin is not, nor ever was, in my view, a tablecloth, although it may perhaps have been used as an altar covering.

It's a cloth that may have been used to cover a table, but it's never been used as a tablecloth?

 

[Mojo]

No, it hasn't; nor do I think it would be if the tests were repeated. There are some who think the opposite. A bet would be fun, like the one Harry Gove had with Shirley Brignall in 1988.

Would the presence of blood on the shroud be good evidence of a first century origin?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Abaddon's comments are beginning to sound a lot like Jabba's, don't you think? Regardless of any evidence to the contrary, he believes irrevocably in a pre-determined position.

Not particularly. Have you been reading the thread(s)?

It seems to me that the Dread One is attempting to elicit a direct response to a particular question. Consider simply answering it, if you would like to move on...

The Shroud of Turin is not, nor ever was, in my view, a tablecloth, although it may perhaps have been used as an altar covering.

On the one hand, since the "altar" in a Roman Catholic setting is, in fact, a "table", it is arguable that the CIQ, had it been intended as an altar cloth, may have been a cloth-that-covered-a-table. On the other, no cloth so extensively decorated would have been used as an altar cloth in a proper mass, at any time in the history of the missa.

I am of the opinion, however, that the "tablecloth" reference is intended to point out that the CIQ does not match, in any way, the "strips" of cloth described in scripture.

At any rate, there is no evidence that the CIQ is, nor has ever been, a "shroud" used to "wrap" a body; therefore "Shroud of Turin" is even less defensible a reference than "Tablecloth of Turin". This is the reason I coined the term, "CIQ".

 

[John Jones]

[..]

At any rate, there is no evidence that the CIQ is, nor has ever been, a "shroud" used to "wrap" a body; therefore "Shroud of Turin" is even less defensible a reference than "Tablecloth of Turin". This is the reason I coined the term, "CIQ".

Cloth In Question: Unequivocal and accurate.

 

[hugh farey]

It's a cloth that may have been used to cover a table, but it's never been used as a tablecloth?

No. A misreading, if I may say so. A curtain, a shroud, or a bedsheet may be 'used to cover a table' but that does not make them 'tablecloths'. An altarcloth is indeed a tablecloth of sorts, and some non-authenticists think that the Shroud [see below] was indeed created as an altarcloth, but I am not one of them.

Cloth In Question: Unequivocal and accurate.

Cloth in question? But there are literally hundreds of postings on this thread declaring that there is no question about the cloth at all! Or is the abbreviation pandering to Jabba's authenticist suspicions, or my to inquiries into how, when and where it was made in the 13th or 14th century? If so, many thanks.

Incidentally, for the same reason as the term CIQ, I try invariably to capitalise the term Shroud, to mean the cloth kept in Turin Cathedral, which even the most hardened non-authenticists call either the Shroud of Turin or the Turin Shroud, but which may only be a 'representatio' (back to Pope Clement) of the shroud used in Jesus' burial, and not the actual one, which I would refer to as his shroud.

 

[hugh farey]

Would the presence of blood on the shroud be good evidence of a first century origin?

No, of course not.

 

[John Jones]

Cloth in question? But there are literally hundreds of postings on this thread declaring that there is no question about the cloth at all! Or is the abbreviation pandering to Jabba's authenticist suspicions, or my to inquiries into how, when and where it was made in the 13th or 14th century? If so, many thanks.

Lighten up, Francis.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Since TH Loy's suggestions in the 1990s, the literature seems to have gone quiet about how easy it is to radiocarbon date blood, but if the shroud is stained with any, then it could provide an independent re-assessment of the medieval age of the Shroud.

Of course it is possible to C14 date blood, but not only do we not know if there is blood on the shroud, but even if indentified as blood, the stains contain very little material, and it would seem impossible to obtain sufficuent samples without very visible damage to the artefact.

Unfortunately, as with the 1988 dating, any ancient artefact could be contaminated with medieval material (hence the controversy about the cinnabar), while it would be difficult to explain any 1st century material as contamination of a medieval product.

Obviously, for the shroud to be authentic (or even of the right age), both the fabric and the blood-stains must be 2000 years old.

If Charles Freeman is correct, and the entire cloth was covered with some sort of size, probably in an organic medium, then a medieval dating of a number of particles of that could be diagnostic, although extracting them would present, I think, currently insuperable difficulties.

Also, as you hint yourself, a dating would not convince believers, who could just claim that the material was added later. Hence, the only certain dating of the object must be the dating of the fabric, as no other parts can be older. And we already have a dating of the fabric.....

Hans

 

[Slowvehicle]

No. A misreading, if I may say so. A curtain, a shroud, or a bedsheet may be 'used to cover a table' but that does not make them 'tablecloths'. An altarcloth is indeed a tablecloth of sorts, and some non-authenticists think that the Shroud [see below] was indeed created as an altarcloth, but I am not one of them.

See my post, above; "tablecloth" is certainly more applicable than "shroud".

Cloth in question? But there are literally hundreds of postings on this thread declaring that there is no question about the cloth at all! Or is the abbreviation pandering to Jabba's authenticist suspicions, or my to inquiries into how, when and where it was made in the 13th or 14th century? If so, many thanks.

How very odd for you to be resorting to equivocation about a term of art. One might even find such disingenuous., even egoistically so.

To be perfectly clear: "...in question..." means "...the subject of...", or "...under discussion...", as the the bit of manifestly medieval linen which is the subject of this set of threads. As I stated, I coined the term specifically to avoid the misnomer, "shroud".

Incidentally, for the same reason as the term CIQ, I try invariably to capitalise the term Shroud, to mean the cloth kept in Turin Cathedral, which even the most hardened non-authenticists call either the Shroud of Turin or the Turin Shroud , but which may only be a 'representatio' (back to Pope Clement) of the shroud used in Jesus' burial, and not the actual one, which I would refer to as his shroud.

I wonder, in your opinion, where this leaves those of us who are generally careful to adopt usage that emphasizes that a sized and gessoed length of linen is not, nor would have been, something in which a body would have been wrapped for burial (think about the mutually exclusive purposes of a "shroud" and, of, for instance, gesso). To exhibit the precision to which you pretend, consider the term "the cloth kept in the Cathedral of Turin" or some similar construction.