Clete

I just watched an episode of the show "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS that was about the shroud of Turin. Has anyone else seen this episode? (Click here if you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about.)

I'm interested in hearing feedback from people who have seen this episode (or who have comments about the shroud in general). The show seemed to make a reasonably good case that it is actually a burial shroud from the right era. But beyond that, naturally, there doesn't appear to be a shred of evidence that the shroud was actually used to wrap Jesus, or for that matter, that Jesus even existed in the first place.

Thoughts? Theories? Information? Links?

breathilizer

I saw it. It didn't really prove anything either way. It just showed that at one point in time the shroud got wet. Other than that, it made outlandish assertions based on the presumption that #1, Jesus existed and #2, rose from the dead. It was the typical "Conclusion first, evidence second" bologna that theists use all the time.

Clete

I felt that way about a lot of it, especially the radiation guy (can his "theory" even be considered scientific?). But it did seem to make a pretty good case against the carbon-dating.

I don't know though, as you say, a lot of the time it seemed to just take for granted that Jesus existed in the first place. I've really enjoyed other episodes I've seen, but with that little snafu I'm wondering how accurate the information on the show is in general.

spamandham

The shroud of Turin is first mentioned in any historical account in the late 16th century (at least by that name), during a period where several competing 'shrouds' existed. It has been carbon dated to 1350 by independent teams. The amount of spurious residue that would be needed to cause a 1st century artifact to carbon date to this time would need to be twice as much in weight as the actual test article, which was cleaned prior to dating (many appologists falsely claim it was not).

All evidence points toward a 14th century impression painting.

From the link here:
There may have been some actual blood used in places on the shroud, but that is inconclusive.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

breathilizer

Of course, we haveto keep in mind that it's Easter time. The show wasn't meant for us (rational skeptics). It was meant for the sheep

mrmoderate

The shroud of Turin is an interesting item no matter what it's significance. The last thing I read on the shroud from Biblical Archeaoligy Review is that is not old enough to be from Jesus's time and that the coloration was "painted" on.

The most interesting thing is that the technology to imprint the cloth with an iron based paint was not known in the 12th century which is when this article says the Turin is dated.

I have not seen nor read anything that would make me feel the shroud has any connection to Jesus or even the time period that Jesus lived.

Clete

It really calls the credibility of the show in general into question. I saw an episode a while back about Bubonic Plague immunity and it's relationship to HIV immunity that I thought was fascinating. Now I wonder if the "facts" on that episode were as poorly grounded as some of the "facts" on the Shroud of Turin episode.

breathilizer

I wonder if Jebuz was immune to disease... ack. Off-topic...

Clete

According to this show (which admittedly seems to have some questionable info) there are some issues with the section of the shroud used in the carbon-dating. Apparently there's a high concentration of micro-organisms embedded in the fabric that can seriously throw off the dating. I don't know a thing about how carbon dating works, so I have no idea how relevant that is. But there was some other evidence that also appeared to give the shroud an earlier date, such as the weave of the shroud and the fact that the blood type on it appears to match this head covering that was transported from Jerusalem to Spain way back when.

Reynard

I saw the program tonight about the Shroud of Turin. I thought it was biased and, one-sided. Except for the work done by the photographer using light sensitive cloth (he used a solution of silver sulfate) to obtain a similar surface image as the shroud, where were the opposing scientific views to the textile "evidence' or the effect of skin bacteria? The so-called experts presented were never challenged.
Besides the carbon-14 dating, why wasn't previous evidence presented, such as the microscopic work of Prof. McCrone, that showed that the Shroud is a hoax?