rob117

Been looking up the shroud of Turin. The wikipedia article is hopelessly biased towards the pro-authenticity side, and it's impossible to find any "good" information on this thing on the internet. It seems like the only people who write about it are die-hard believers and die-hard skeptics. There are allegations of fraud on both sides. I suspect that most of what you find on the internet is of dubious reliability.

I obviously think the shroud is a forgery, but that's based on 1) my own previous experience with supernatural claims (i.e. they always turn out to be BS so I suspect this one is as well), 2) the damning historical evidence that it first appeared in the 14th century and was denounced by priests as a forgery almost immediately, and 3) the fact that if you just look at the damn thing it looks like a typical Gothic or Byzantine Jesus image rather than a realistically-proportioned human. The radiocarbon dates corroborate its status as a forgery, but the tests have been questioned.

I understand that a few pro-authenticity shroud articles from the Vatican-funded STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) and its supporters have passed peer review and appear on Google Scholar. The only skeptical chemist who appears to have regularly published on it is Walter McCrone, who is now dead. My expertise is in history and archaeology, not chemistry, so I have no way of evaluating the claims of either side for myself. The articles debunking authenticity claims on avowedly skeptical websites, while helpful, are not peer-reviewed and not written by actual chemists, so I hesitate to take everything they say at face value.

So does anyone know of any peer-reviewed articles, by chemists other than McCrone, that are skeptical of the shroud's authenticity? Do skeptical chemists simply not bother publishing on it because they do not have access to it or see it as not worth their time?

Also, are the 1988 radiocarbon tests (disputed by STURP and other shroud supporters) generally accepted by the scientific community at large?

Mageth

I typed in "shroud of turin" into Google Scholar and got several hits. This paper is one:

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin (Damon et al.)

(Nature, Volume 337, Issue 6208, pp. 611-615 (1989))

But that appears to refer to the '88 tests that are disputed.

James Brown

I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements of yours. How many "die-hard skeptics" have you consulted? What's the difference between the "die-hard" skeptics that your are presumably dismissing and ordinary skeptics that you are seeking out? And what did you find when you searched for Shroud of Turin skepticism?

Incidentally, a member of this forum feels the Shroud is physical proof of the resurrection. That thread may give you some more insight.

rob117

I googled it already. Again, websites with "skeptical" in their name are not what I'm looking for. I've seen them, and suspect that they are correct. But those sites are dedicated to promoting a skeptical worldview--a worldview that I happen to share. Skeptics can preach to the choir too.

My search is for recent, peer-reviewed research in reputable science journals, such a Nature, Thermochemica Acta, Accounts of Chemical Research . etc. I'm basically inquiring on the state of the research and the impression of the chemistry and other relevant physical science communities at large to he research on the shroud.

Mageth

If I'm correct, the RCC severly limits access to the Shroud, so I'm not sure any more recent research has been done to produce such papers. Correct me if I'm wrong...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rob117 and Mageth,

This is about the latest scientific find confirming the shroud as a fraud. It is about a real shroud found in Jerusalem from the first century and it is nothing like the shroud of Turin

Note:
Here's another article where an italian scientist was able to reproduce the image quite easily using pigments available from medieval times.


Add the fact that three labs carbon dated it to medieval times shortly before it became known and the conclusion is obvious, except for those who wish to believe in miracles in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...#ixzz0fq18kch6

arnoldo

The shroud acknowledged to be from the first century was rather common and inexpensive, while the contested shroud is much more costly and rare according to the following source.

Science, Archaeology, and the Shroud of Turin

The use of an expensive shroud,rather than a common/inexpensive shroud, would be in accordance with the gospel accounts of His burial.

rob117

This seems to corroborate my point. I'm not disputing his research (indeed the shroud has been re-created several times by several scientists using several different methods that were available in medieval times), however it seems like the only groups that are willing to fund research into this thing are the Catholic Church and skeptical organizations. No one else seems to care (with some exceptions below).

Although this seems to clear up the confusion over carbon dating results.

What confuses me is that here, Ray Rogers, one of the proponents of the shroud's authenticity, says he "doesn't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature" and he believes the image on the shroud, while genuinely that of Jesus, was produced "naturally." Additionally, one of the researchers who allegedly discovered pollen evidence that traced the shroud to Palestine was from the Hebrew University at Jerusalem, so I assume he was Jewish and had no religious reason to prove the shroud's authenticity. I believe his claims have been disputed since he was using Max Frei's tainted data (i.e. he was duped), but still... I do not believe I've read the claim of Frei's data being a fraud anywhere but avowedly skeptical websites such as this one (the accusation of fraud goes back to Stephen Schafersman, a professional skeptic).

A search through JSTOR indicates peer-reviewed articles both for and against the authenticity of the shroud. I was surprised to seethis article in the journal Current Anthropology from 1981. The article is by a pro-shroud advocate, but the article contained comments from those who both agreed and disagreed with him, and those who were "agnostic" on the matter. Correspondents from the Skeptical Enquirer were given comment, as was a representative from the Holy Shroud Guild. Again, the alleged pollen evidence of Frei was only denounced as outright fraudulent by Schaferson (a geologist) and Nickell (an English professor), both professional skeptics (although the relevance of Frei's data has been questioned regardless of whether or not it is fraudulent.

To me, the whole thing just seems iffy. I mean, they can't agree on whether the alleged blood stains are actual blood or red ochre. I would think that the difference between these two substances would be very easy to detect with modern technology.

Apparently, McCrone went in believing the shroud was genuine, and came out believing it was a forgery. Ray Rogers went back and forth several times and died believing it was authentic. But everyone else, it seems, was set in their conclusions from the beginning.

The fact seems to be that, while very few educated people believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, a lot of scientists still seem to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Everyone who has examined the shroud seems to be of Christian background (except the one Jew mentioned above), whether or not they are actually believers. The vast majority of them seem to be practicing Christians, including those who are "agnostic" about the shroud's authenticity. The fact of the matter is that, of course, in order to maintain a non-Christian worldview, the shroud cannot be authentic. Conversely, one can still maintain belief in the resurrection without believing in the authenticity of the shroud, and several of the shroud's detractors are practicing Catholics. By far this seems to be the only case I've ever heard of in which explicitly religious claims are being made in reputable scientific journals. And the lines seem to be drawn, with nobody crossing. People can't even a agree on what the data actually is, let alone the interpretation of it. It doesn't help that only a select few are allowed to examine the shroud, and most of these seem to be hand-picked by the Catholic Church. Yet they do manage to get past peer review.

Ultimately, I am not a chemist or a botanist, and I really don't understand the nature of the data being presented. From the data I do feel comfortable evaluating (art historical and archaeological) it seems to me that the shroud is a forgery. But from what I could find on JSTOR (all peer-reviewed) it seems advocates of authenticity have been much more active in publishing what they can, and the main skeptics (apart from McCrone) do seem to be far less qualified in the relevant fields than at least some of the believers are.

I will admit I find this disturbing and don't know how to interpret it.

rob117

Jesus was a poor Jew. His family would not have been able to afford such an expensive shroud. And crucifixion victims were generally not allowed to be given respectable burials, and were probably not even buried at all. That was part of the punishment. It is significant that of the thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans, only a single crucified skeleton has been discovered.

Against the authenticity of the shroud, IMO, is the unlikelihood that Jesus was even buried. If he was buried, it was probably in a common dump reserved for criminals.

Jayrok

arnoldo is going to tell you that Joseph of Arimathea is the one who buried Jesus and used the finest linen money can buy. Or perhaps that his disciples found the money for the expensive shroud in the mouth of a fish... anything is plausible when dealing with the gospels and all the miracles therein.