Miracle of the Shroud IV - The Phantom Image

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

- Somehow, I need to force myself to focus on one 'branching' at a time. So far, I haven't been able to resist addressing 2 or more branchings at a time. But, that's too hard to explain right now...

Hugh,

- I am arguing that consistency is evidence -- though, it may or may not, be very strong/weighty evidence...

There is a sense in which you are perfectly correct, Jabba. However, whether it applies in this case depends very much on the exclusivity of the link. For example, the Shroud reportedly carries numerous particles of limestone, and Jerusalem is built on limestone. But then, so are many other places, and many other cloths from different places also carry limestone particles. Ah! but the Shroud limestone is a particular type of limestone - aragonite - which is the kind of limestone that Jerusalem is built on. But again, so are many other places, including the French countryside just east of Troyes. So far, so uninspiring. However, some Shroud investigators would like to think that the limestone on the Shroud was of a particular isotopic composition entirely exclusive to Jerusalem. There is currently no evidence that this is true, but if it were, it would certainly support the Middle Eastern Origin hypothesis (although not, directly, the First Century AD hypothesis)...

Hugh,
- If I understand your reservation, my answer is that the overall effect of finding that the shroud carries numerous particles of aragonite would be to strengthen the authenticity claim. I say that because the likelihood of such a finding, given authenticity, should be significantly greater than its likelihood, given inauthenticity.
- And, I say that because the presence of limestone characteristic of Jerusalem grave sites on an artistic forgery of Jesus' burial cloth would seem to require a major coincidence or major genius.
- Hopefully, that communicates...

- Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.
- I think that answers your question about "exclusivity"...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Matthew 27:59 - καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι καθαρᾷ
Mark 15:46 - καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.
Luke 23:52 - καὶ καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος.
Luke 24:12 - Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἀναστὰς ἔδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ παρακύψας βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια μόνα· καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὑτὸν θαυμάζων τὸ γεγονός.

Well, well. "Smack goeth before a fall, and them cometh my comeuppance": I did, in fact, overlook σινδόνι; in the same way you are overlooking ἐνετύλιξεν ("wrapped, twisted, wound"). I was careless, and hasty, and for that I apologize.

I also blew the declensions, making the schoolboy error of mistaking the root for the word used. I was, and am, in error, and I have no excuse.

"John" uses "strips", and "Luke" uses both terms; all of the 'god'spiels speak of "whinding", or "twisting", or "wrapping".

I'm so sorry you find me boorish, but I shall continue to describe myself as a non-authenticist. I do not find your alternative adequate, as I have explained. Where I need a term to describe other people who do not think the Shroud is authentic, I shall refer to them similarly. I do not refer to them, or myself, as anti-authenticists, as it suggests a hostility towards those of the opposite opinion which I do not wish to imply.

What an interesting combination of hybris, personalization, and strawmanry.

I suggest you read again, lest you be guilty of my error--it is your use of an epithet, the inadequacy and inappositive nature of which has been explained to you, to refer to others who have reasonable objected to being so lableled, that is boorish, and uncivil. You are welcome to call yourself whatever you choose--you ought to rise above continuing to use the epithet to refer to, or subsume, for instance, me, and my position.

I'm not sure that you are doing your own research into the Gospels. As you can see from my quotations above, Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to the Shroud as a sindon (inflected as σινδόνι). However, I do apologise; you are perfectly correct that Luke also refers to othonia. (ὀθόνια, notice). You seem a little confused about the derivation of the word from ὀθόν. Both ὀθόνια and ὀθόνιον are diminutives, but one is plural, one is singular.

You are correct, as I admitted above. I was trying to compare three different lexica (ironically enough, to avoid making careless errors), and got off on the roots rather than the text.

Again, I make no excuse; I blew it.

With the greatest of respect, you are, no doubt unintentionally, misreading my use of the word 'choose'. Of the words used by the four evangelists to describe the cloth or cloths associated with the burial of Jesus, you decided to describe early Christian attitudes to these cloths by using only the gospel of John, and ignoring the synoptics. Now you claim that the synoptics do not refer to the shroud at all. The Septuagint is readily available on the internet, and can be checked if you need. You have also selected to ignore such archaeological and literary sources as we have, suggesting that strips of cloth were not used in 1st century Jewish burials. Some authenticists have suggested that Luke's, and possibly John's, reference to othonia was to describe strips of cloth used to tie the shroud more closely around the body. This is not very satisfactory.
I do not judge their merit. Please respond or not as you feel appropriate.

If I wanted to play the game your way, I would point out that the only mentions of what was said to be said to be supposed to be in the "tomb" "choose" the word "strip"; and none of the 'god'spiels mention any image on any of the cloths. And no First Century, C.E. sources mention the crucifiction of an HJ, and its magical transformation into the MJ, that are not derivates of the 'god'spiels.

Nor do the bits about John of Armithea mention having to mutilate a paroxysamal corpse to "wrap" in in the clean linen.

I may, however, have made enough embarrassing errors to last me for a bit.

It is the very nature of the CIQ, that, dayenu, the sheet/strips/twisted issue is only one of the myriad indications that the cartoon on the CIQ is a medieval artifact (I have explained elsewhere why I, personally, do not like the term, "forgery").


I remain,

Somewhat bloodied-yet-unbowedly yours, &ct.

 

[Agatha]

- Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.
- I think that answers your question about "exclusivity"...

No. The presence of 'real blood' on the CIQ would strengthen the non-authentic claim, because the burial practices which would have been used on the body of Christ* involved washing the body. Blood does not flow after death, and any blood on the body has been washed off. Further, blood certainly does not flow in the way depicted on the CIQ.

*Even if he ever existed.

 

[turingtest]

No. The presence of 'real blood' on the CIQ would strengthen the non-authentic claim, because the burial practices which would have been used on the body of Christ* involved washing the body. Blood does not flow after death, and any blood on the body has been washed off. Further, blood certainly does not flow in the way depicted on the CIQ.

*Even if he ever existed.

Pixel42 made this point a few pages ago, and I think it's an important one that needs stressing; the "blood" is not an artifact of actual suffering, but a representation of it- exactly what you would expect from a medieval artist (who either wasn't aware of or didn't care about the details of those burial practices), and circumstantial evidence of art rather than reality.

 

[hugh farey]

Edited by jsfisher: 

Snip to remove moderated content quoted from another post and response to same.

Hugh says he's investigated all these and found them to be without substance. So asking him for evidence in the KGB case is likely to result in his agreeing with you and me that there isn't any.

Quite so, but as with all the other challenges to the radiocarbon date, I didn't just assume it was monstrous; I pursued it until I was sure I could refute it. Similarly with all the others. The case can be found, somewhat repetitiously, by Googling "KGB" at theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk or shroudstory.com.

The waffling walls o' text and the predilection with the same hypotheticals as the sindonists don't convince me there's much he has to offer the debate.

If anybody here could define what exactly the 'debate' consists of, I would do my best.

I'm not sure that works of fiction count as evidence of anything.

The Septuagint? How is that even vaguely relevant.

They can suggest that unicorns dunnit for all I care. Does not make it true.

See my first paragraph.

You addressed this post to anyone for response, not to any individual. Now that you have a response, you will decline to respond on the basis that you intended it for some other member despite the fact that you declined to direct it to any member at all. Please don't do that.

What are you talking about? Although I may respond to a particular post by a particular person, I'm aware that this is a public forum and anyone may join in. Your confidence in my declining to respond is misplaced, as you can see. If you read this far.

No. The presence of 'real blood' on the CIQ would strengthen the non-authentic claim, because the burial practices which would have been used on the body of Christ* involved washing the body. Blood does not flow after death, and any blood on the body has been washed off. Further, blood certainly does not flow in the way depicted on the CIQ.

This is a good point. Authenticists have tied themselves in some fairly intractable knots trying to decide the extent to which the body was washed, and whether the blood is pre-mortem, dried, and remoistened, or post-mortem, or a mixture of the two. The Ahmadiyya Muslims who also believe in the authenticity of the Shroud think that the amount of blood demonstrates that a living body was wrapped in it.

Pixel42 made this point a few pages ago, and I think it's an important one that needs stressing; the "blood" is not an artifact of actual suffering, but a representation of it- exactly what you would expect from a medieval artist (who either wasn't aware of or didn't care about the details of those burial practices), and circumstantial evidence of art rather than reality.

This is also very pertinent. Early paintings of Jesus, even when on the cross or being buried, are noticeably lacking in blood, a feature which only gradually became common from the 10th century onwards. People who think the Shroud is medieval consider this supportive evidence.

If I understand your reservation, my answer is that the overall effect of finding that the shroud carries numerous particles of aragonite would be to strengthen the authenticity claim. I say that because the likelihood of such a finding, given authenticity, should be significantly greater than its likelihood, given inauthenticity.

Not quite. I gave three, increasingly narrow, examples of limestone on the Shroud, in order to show that you need to be quite specific for the 'consistent with' evidence to carry more weight for one side than the other.
a) The Shroud has limestone on it. This does not support a Middle Eastern origin more than hundreds of other places. It is equally consistent with authenticity and forgery.
b) The Shroud has aragonite limestone on it. This narrows the field considerably, but since the area around Troyes, where the Shroud first emerged into the light of history, is also aragonite, it still cannot be said to support authenticity over forgery.
c) The Shroud contains a mineral assemblage unique to Jerusalem. This would be stronger evidence for a Middle Eastern than a Northern European origin. (Not proof, of course; it could have arrived adventitiously). However, no sufficiently detailed study of the mineral assemblage of the limestone on the Shroud has been carried out, so no such conclusion can be derived.

Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.

I don't think so. There was a very extensive 'blood cult' in the Middle Ages (see Caroline Walker Bynum's 'Wonderful Blood'), and as I said earlier, I don't think finding blood on a forged relic is any more unlikely than finding it on an authentic relic. Nor, I think, does the fact that the blood is human. Blood-letting was so common as a therapeutic technique that I think human blood was probably easier to obtain in a studio than animal blood. If, of course, it could be dated to the 1st century, or its DNA found to be exclusive to Galileans, then the authenticist case would be strengthened thereby, but these have not yet been achieved.

Well, well. [...] Somewhat bloodied-yet-unbowedly yours, &ct.

Your honest and good-humoured approach even though you disagree so strongly is refreshing and made me chuckle. Academic cut and thrust can be fierce without being boorish, so I shall keep the term non-authenticist for myself alone in future. Maybe I'll stay a bit longer! (Oh, bad luck!)

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>

Your honest and good-humoured approach even though you disagree so strongly is refreshing and made me chuckle. Academic cut and thrust can be fierce without being boorish, so I shall keep the term non-authenticist for myself alone in future. Maybe I'll stay a bit longer! (Oh, bad luck!)

 

[JayUtah]

Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic

No, for the reasons amply described. Address them.

 

[Craig4]

- Somehow, I need to force myself to focus on one 'branching' at a time. So far, I haven't been able to resist addressing 2 or more branchings at a time. But, that's too hard to explain right now...

Hugh,
- If I understand your reservation, my answer is that the overall effect of finding that the shroud carries numerous particles of aragonite would be to strengthen the authenticity claim. I say that because the likelihood of such a finding, given authenticity, should be significantly greater than its likelihood, given inauthenticity.
- And, I say that because the presence of limestone characteristic of Jerusalem grave sites on an artistic forgery of Jesus' burial cloth would seem to require a major coincidence or major genius.
- Hopefully, that communicates...

- Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.
- I think that answers your question about "exclusivity"...

None of this is true. You must first date the cloth to put it in a correct context. Lucky for us, this has already been done. The blood and limestone, should either exist can only have been deposited on the cloth after it was made. This is non-negotiable.

 

[jsfisher]

It could not be necessary to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is the Shroud of Turin, its authenticity, etc., etc. Please focus on that. Deviations from the thread topic, particularly those with callous disregard for the Membership Agreement, are not appropriate.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

 

[Jabba]

Blood/What difference does it make?

Hugh,
- If I understand your reservation, my answer is that the overall effect of finding that the shroud carries numerous particles of aragonite would be to strengthen the authenticity claim. I say that because the likelihood of such a finding, given authenticity, should be significantly greater than its likelihood, given inauthenticity.
- And, I say that because the presence of limestone characteristic of Jerusalem grave sites on an artistic forgery of Jesus' burial cloth would seem to require a major coincidence or major genius.
- Hopefully, that communicates...

- Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.
- I think that answers your question about "exclusivity"...

Edited by jsfisher: 

Snip to remove moderated content quoted from another post and response to same.

Not quite. I gave three, increasingly narrow, examples of limestone on the Shroud, in order to show that you need to be quite specific for the 'consistent with' evidence to carry more weight for one side than the other.
a) The Shroud has limestone on it. This does not support a Middle Eastern origin more than hundreds of other places. It is equally consistent with authenticity and forgery...

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[abaddon]

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

Why? Was limestone more common 2000 ya? How about 4000 ya? Just how old is limestone?

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

What kind of pretzel logic leads you to that conclusion?

 

[abaddon]

What kind of pretzel logic leads you to that conclusion?

The very pretzel logic we are all heartily sick of. The very same pretzel logic Hugh is about to learn as the newly appointed sole and preferred respondent.

 

[JayUtah]

I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

Same mistake as with the blood. You confuse the concepts of necessity and sufficiency.

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you can say that, Jabba; you have to give more context. If a cloth has been used to wrap a block of limestone, for example, it's more likely to have limestone on it, but if it has been kept in a plastic bag since being woven, then it is less likely to have limestone on it. In this case, we can't give the alternative scenario precisely, but the Shroud is longer than most tables. If it had been laid on the floor of a medieval artist's studio, then I would think the limestone equally likely to have come from there as from a burial cloth. One idea is that it was made for the Quem Quaeritis ritual in religious ceremonies, where a 'shroud' was laid in a 'tomb' a little distance from the high altar, so that a cleric dressed as an angel could show it to some other clerics dressed as apostles or holy women as evidence of the resurrection. As many of these sepulchres were carved from limestone, the cloth would be likely to pick up some. So, as with the blood, I think the limestone fits both scenarios equally well.

 

[Craig4]

Hugh,
- I would say that the shroud is more likely to show limestone if it is the burial cloth of Jesus than if it isn't. Wouldn't you agree?

Clearly not since the limestone particles have to have been deposited on the cloth after 1290. How can you ignore this? Your problem here is insurmountable.

 

[hugh farey]

Clearly not since the limestone particles have to have been deposited on the cloth after 1290. How can you ignore this? Your problem here is insurmountable.

It is easy to ignore a statement one thinks is incorrect. For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing. Many people, including Jabba, are of this opinion. If it can be shown that the evidence tending to discredit the radiocarbon dating is unreliable, the more likely they are to decide that the radiocarbon date is irrefutable.

 

[Stuart]

It is easy to ignore a statement one thinks is incorrect. For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty, then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing. Many people, including Jabba, are of this opinion. If it can be shown that the evidence tending to discredit the radiocarbon dating is unreliable, the more likely they are to decide that the radiocarbon date is irrefutable.

This is where quite a big sticking point seems to be. Many, many times Jabba has been told that in order to change the minds of people here he must come up with a date of the fabric (around 2000 years old) that has been ascertained though a reliable, accurate and repeatable method.
To date, despite many promises of the evidence "coming soon" he has not been able to do this.

 

[abaddon]

It is easy to ignore a statement one thinks is incorrect.

indeed, as you so amply demonstrate.

For anyone of the opinion that the radiocarbon data is not an irrefutable certainty,

And who might those be? Clearly Jabba and clearly your good self.

then evidence which could discredit it is worth discussing.

No, that would be flat out lying.

Many people, including Jabba, are of this opinion.

Opinions are useless in the face of actual evidence.

If it can be shown that the evidence tending to discredit the radiocarbon dating is unreliable, the more likely they are to decide that the radiocarbon date is irrefutable.

And once again you seek refuge in ambiguity.

 

[Mojo]

- Whatever, the stains on the shroud being real blood is more likely if the shroud is authentic than if the shroud is not authentic -- and consequently, the overall effect of finding the stains to be real blood is to strengthen the case for authenticity.

Do I get bonus points for pointing out Jabba's fallacies before he has posted them?

He has a step before that:

An authentic shroud would have blood on it → a shroud with blood on it is authentic

Also not valid reasoning, but a device he used consistently in the immortality threads.

Also, what Agatha said:

No. The presence of 'real blood' on the CIQ would strengthen the non-authentic claim, because the burial practices which would have been used on the body of Christ* involved washing the body. Blood does not flow after death, and any blood on the body has been washed off. Further, blood certainly does not flow in the way depicted on the CIQ.

*Even if he ever existed.