The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[Hugh_Farey]

Based on private correspondence with two scientists at Oxford and one at Arizona, chemist Remi Van Haelst states that the British Museum solved this problem [the 250 year variance] by asking Arizona to combine or essentially average the two radiocarbon sample ages from each of the four above dates … . The British Museum and the Arizona laboratory thus combined eight measurements into only four . … This combination was not mentioned in the official “NATURE” report containing the Shroud’s radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 with 95% certainty.

Did you read my explanation of this? Did you understand it? The eight Arizona measurements were not of eight different pieces of Shroud. They were measurements of four different pieces, each piece given two measurements. Why they submitted their measurements like this I can’t distinctly recall. I think it was because the little disc containing carbon samples from each piece was run through their apparatus twice, and all the measurements taken on each run combined into one measurement for each piece. The other two laboratories only ran each little disc though their machine once, so they could only produce one averaged result for each piece. For consistency, each of the twelve samples was represented in the Nature paper as a single measurement. There is nothing underhand about it; it would be entirely normal practice.

[Dr. Brian] Walsh states that his statistical analysis indicates leads to the conclusion that Shroud subsamples each contained differing levels of C-14. Furthermore, his analysis indicates that a relationship exists between the C-14 content within each sample and thier location on the cloth.

A much more thorough analysis was carried out by Riani, Atkinson et al., who, although they were forced to make some assumptions, also determined a radiocarbon concentration gradient along the sample.

If Arizona’s two youngest ages of 540 and 574 weren’t completely eliminated from the [NATURE] report, this correlation would have been more obvious to everyone who read the report.

Oh, pur-lease. You didn’t read my explanation, and you haven’t read the Nature paper. That’s quite naughty of you.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Furthermore, they [the coordinators at the British Musem] should have revealed the raw data from all three laboratories, explaining that the outliers were too great for a sufficient degree fo certainty.

The article could have been a lot longer, and carried more data. However, it was quite long enough for clarity. The fact that the three laboratories’ results were unusually widely scattered was noted, and how the anomaly was dealt with was explained.

I stand corrected. The C-14 dating scientists did consider the idea that the disappearance of the corpse would have affected the C-14 content of the Shroud’s linen, and they rejected that idea as “beggaring scientific credulity.”

As I said, “They were not asked to consider a miraculous explanation for why their results disagreed with an authenticist point of view, so they didn’t refuse.” But oh dear, again, why don’t you read the primary sources, rather than the avowedly biased reporting of a prosecution attorney? According to Hedges they did in fact consider a radiation surge, but dismissed it on the following grounds:

1. There seemed no known physical mechanism to supply such a radiation surge.
2. There are sufficient neutrons in a body to irradiate the Shroud in such a way as to produce any date from 33AD until thousands of years into the future. The probability of such a mechanism happening to produce a date exactly coincident with the Shroud’s first known appearance is extremely small.
3. Phillips’s proposed dose is much too high, by a factor of 1000. C14 can not only be generated by adding a neutron to C13, but also (as it is in nature), by the decay of N14, which would also be initiated by a neutron flux. The decay of N14 would have had chemical consequences which were not, in fact, observed.
4. Assuming a localised source for the neutron flux, the cloth might be supposed to have widely varying levels of C14 at different places, when in fact there was a less than 1% difference between the eight samples tested.

Hedges also said that the possibility of a miracle crossed their mind, but that they could not entertain it as, being wholly unscientific, there would be no point in making any measurements at all.

 

[undead_rat]

Oh, pur-lease. You didn’t read my explanation, and you haven’t read the Nature paper. That’s quite naughty of you.

I have to admit that you are right about these things and also about the “primary data” issue.

I suppose that I should consider some of the other possibilities. Noted Christian theologian and researcher, Jame Tabor, has the idea that Jesus’ corpse did not vanish into thin air, but was moved from a temporary grave to a more permanent one by his disciples. The Bahai’ religion also thinks the same. If you agree with this thought, please inform me, as that would help my understanding. TY

 

[benjamin1973]

There’s a passage in the Bible that confuses me.

Jesus comes back after the resurrection, but is not recognized. Why is that? Could it be that he was not resurrected in the original flesh, but took on the form of someone else, a disciple perhaps?

 

[vz71]

Jesus comes back after the resurrection, but is not recognized. Why is that?

The disciples on the road to Emmaus likewise did not recognize him.

Our own belief, or disbelief, will very often color what we will perceive.

Surely you have had occasions when you had to pause and do a double take because you simply could not believe what you had just witnessed.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Theology of the Resurrection is extremely complex, and the Physics of the Resurrection even more so. What I think is undeniable (although a few scholars do deny it) is that Jesus was killed by the Romans in about 30AD, and that by 100AD there was a huge and growing religious movement across Eastern Europe and the Middle East, often involving considerable personal sacrifice, built on the premise that Jesus had ‘defeated’ death. To me, this is too short a time for a mythology of Resurrection to have developed. Something actually happened. Beyond that, I don’t think either theologians nor scientists can safely go. Interestingly, an Anglican Bishop and a Catholic Pope were both a little scornful of the idea that the Resurrection was “a conjuring trick with bones” or “the mere resuscitation of a corpse”, while emphasising the overwhelming importance of the Resurrection.

What I find a little surprising, if I may say so, is that a doubt about the authenticity of the Shroud should translate into a doubt about the Resurrection. The two, to me, are completely unconnected. For all I know Jesus did explode in a burst of neutron radiation - I just don’t think* the Shroud was there when he did it.

*omitted word, edited in to make more sense!

 

[undead_rat]

For all I know Jesus did explode in a burst of neutron radiation - I just don’t the Shroud was there when he did it.

TY, but does not directly answer my question about the theory that someone moved Jesus’ body from a “temporary” tomb thus negating the idea that His corpse vanished out of this world from that first tomb.

 

[Aulef]

The probability of it being the one that wrapped Our Lord’s body is nearly 100%.

There is one guy, not Catholic, who did a great job researching about it. Ian Wilson is his name.

 

[benjamin1973]

Sure. But looking someone I knew very well, and not recognizing him, is not an experience which I would consider normal.

I’m not really trying to make a point with this, I just always wondered how that was possible.

 

[Dan_Defender]

One thing the Shroud image shows is that the hand wounds are near the wrist in the space of Destot, which is where you would expect to see them in the case of a crucifixion victim, not in the palms as has been depicted through the centuries.

 

[undead_rat]

The probability of it being the one that wrapped Our Lord’s body is nearly 100%.

There is one guy, not Catholic, who did a great job researching about it. Ian Wilson is his name.

At the end of chapter one (2010) Wilson writes this: “Every sympathy must lie with the sceptic who regards it as too good to be true, because by all normal expectations it undoubtedly ought to be a fake.”

Chapter two begins with this quotation: “I’ve been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image.”–Leo Vala, photographer, 1967

 

[Hugh_Farey]

There have been dozens of possible explanations for the success of the phenomenon known as the Resurrection, from Jesus being alive and secreted away by his followers, to Jesus being dead and secreted away by his followers, to Jesus being swapped for somebody else at the last minute, or Jesus recovering his mobility himself (either from death - the Resurrection as we know it - or from traumatic injury. If irrational, did he merely reverse the injury process, get better, and roll the stone away from the inside (maybe a miracle in itself), or did he vanish from inside the tomb and reappear outside it. Did he rise incorporeally and walk through the stone, only to achieve solidarity in the fresh morning air. Some think the Romans were complicit in the Resurrection, others that it was arranged by the Essenes, and Thomas de Wesselow thinks the image of the Shroud is what the earliest Christians meant by the resurrected Christ.

Many theologians have pointed out the awkwardness of the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, and many have noticed that St Paul did not discriminate between his own meeting with the risen Christ and his appearances to the Apostles.

Whatever happened, the point is that a few years later people were prepared to die in defence of it, so it must have been pretty convincing!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The probability of it being the one that wrapped Our Lord’s body is nearly 100%.
There is one guy, not Catholic, who did a great job researching about it. Ian Wilson is his name.

Probability is a tricky concept. I think the probability of the Shroud being medieval is about 85% myself.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

One thing the Shroud image shows is that the hand wounds are near the wrist in the space of Destot, which is where you would expect to see them in the case of a crucifixion victim, not in the palms as has been depicted through the centuries.

People often say that. The blood marks on the Shroud are not in the palms because the palms are not shown on the Shroud. You have to extrapolate backwards, from the exit wound to the entry wound. Even some authenticists think that doing so gives an entry wound in the palm.

Why not look at the bloodstain yourself. (Try Shroud Scope: it’s a really useful online resource)

1. P(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where you think the centre of the exit wound is. Not as easy as it looks, is it?
2. P(name removed by moderator)oint the knuckles of the first and fourth fingers. A little easier, maybe.
3. Connect the three points in a triangle, and measure Angle A (Knuckle - Wound - Knuckle).
4. Reconstruct that same angle on your own hand. (Or a photo of your hand, which is much easier).
5. Much to your surprise, the exit wound is much closer to your fingers than you think, and therefore much more likely to have been depicted as being the result of an entry wound through the palm, just where artists traditionally put it,

It is true that the 19th century physician Pierre Barbet calculated, with the assistance of some dead people, that the nail had passed through the space of Destot, damaging the median nerve. However, Fred Zugibe, a 20th century forensic pathologist, ridiculed Barbet’s ignorance, and declared that the nail had gone through a quite different space, and had not damaged the median nerve, and that the median nerve doesn’t go anywhere near the space of Destot anyway. In the 21st century Matteo Bevilacqua, an Italian pathologist, has discovered that the nail didn’t go anywhere near either of the earlier suggestions, but at the base of the armbones. Other pathologists, all highly qualified and experienced, have identified two further possible sites. That’s five in all.

Some people have claimed that the nails had to go through the wrists or they would have torn through the flesh. This assumes, of course, that the victim wasn’t standing on a platform. Some of the earliest depictions of a crucifixion show the victim standing on a platform.

 

[benjamin1973]

I wouldn’t use the term “probability” at all, because there are too many variables. In this case, 100% probability means that someone is absolutely certain that something is true. However, when that certainty comes from a desire to believe, rather than sufficient evidence to merit belief, then we’re not actually talking about probability-- we’re talking about confidence, which is a different issue.

A lot of double-talk and babble has, in my opinion, been used in support of the idea that the Shroud is real. However, here’s a general rule: if a simple idea takes walls and walls of text to explain, it’s very unlikely to be true. The reason for this is that linguistic complexity is used more often to cloud the truth than to clarify it.

Here’s the truth, and it’s extremely simple. There’s a shroud. There’s an image on it which looks human. It is not currently known how the human-looking image was formed.

That’s it. It’s simple. “We don’t know” is being taken as evidence that an unproven relationship is “probable.” This is not a good way to arrive at a probability.

 

[undead_rat]

Whatever happened, the point is that a few years later people were prepared to die in defence of it, so it must have been pretty convincing!

TY. Have de Wesselow’s book which has very nice color plates, but an invalid (in my opinion) premise.

I will still like to know what your personal opinion is on Prof. Tabor’s theory that Jesus’ corpse was removed to a more permanent tomb by His disciples, and that His corpse did not vanish into another dimension.

 

[undead_rat]

Here’s the truth, and it’s extremely simple. There’s a shroud. There’s an image on it which looks human. It is not currently known how the human-looking image was formed.
That’s it.

Don’t forget the dirt. There is dirt on the Shroud.

 

[undead_rat]

1. There are sufficient neutrons in a body to irradiate the Shroud in such a way as to produce any date from 33AD until thousands of years into the future. The probability of such a mechanism happening to produce a date exactly coincident with the Shroud’s first known appearance is extremely small.

Hedges also said that the possibility of a miracle crossed their mind, but that they could not entertain it as, being wholly unscientific, there would be no point in making any measurements at all.

Our Creator does not force us to believe in Him. We make that choice and then find ways to build our faith. The miraculous Image on the Shroud is a gift to us in that regard. But, as I said, this gift is not forced upon the world, but is presented in such a way as to be easily dismissed by those who have chosen not to accept YHWH.

First of all, the Shroud suddenly appeared to the public in a small church. Its exhibitors refused to say how they had acquired what obviously was the most holy relic in the Christian world or what its history was. The local bishop condemned it as a painting. These things were arranged by our Creator to allow men to have a choice. Those who are not so quick to dismiss find the hidden history of the Holy Linen without too much trouble.

Now we have a C-14 dating that, on a cursory inspection, indicates that the Shroud’s linen was grown in the middle ages. That too is arranged by YHWH as a final way of allowing His detractors to dismiss the shroud’s miraculous evidence of His presence. Joe Nickels throws up his hands in frustration that people continue to think that this obvious fraud is real. But, as a certain prosecution attorney has proven, the Shroud’s C-14 dates are not an indication of a 14th century origin, but, rather, proof of a miracle.

As for Hedges statement, the correct interpretation of the C-14 dates indicate that a miracle did take place here. His refusal to entertain that idea as being “wholly unscientific” is just plain silly.

 

[Rasoleil]

Serious question. Say the Shroud is indeed a medieval fake, then someone explain how the image was created?

 

[Rasoleil]

Wilson’s book is terrific. I have a copy in my home.