Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayrok · 02-18-2010, 05:32 AM

It seems silly that even Christians may believe the Shroud of Turin might be authentic. I don't understand why the issue even gets attention.

All we have to do is see what the Bible says. John 20:3-7 -- So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

The Bible tells us Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head and there were "strips" of linen to wrap his body.

The shroud of Turin is 14 feet by 3 feet in size. It's one whole piece of cloth. This contradicts what the gospel of John states. Why is this an issue for debate?

rob117 · 02-18-2010, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

It seems silly that even Christians may believe the Shroud of Turin might be authentic. I don't understand why the issue even gets attention.

All we have to do is see what the Bible says. John 20:3-7 -- So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

The Bible tells us Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head and there were "strips" of linen to wrap his body.

The shroud of Turin is 14 feet by 3 feet in size. It's one whole piece of cloth. This contradicts what the gospel of John states. Why is this an issue for debate?

Believing in the resurrection does not necessarily equal biblical literalism.

PhilosopherJay · 02-18-2010, 06:41 AM

Hi rob117,

Scientists are simply people who have learned a great deal about a particular field of knowledge. Other then that, they are subject to the same ideological and social pressures that everyone else is. While their ability to manipulate data and objects in their special field makes them highly skilled in that field, they may be utterly clueless about another field. In fact, their specialized knowledge may affect them adversely in other "real life" situations. Thus we get the stereotype of the scientific "nerd" who is brilliant in her/his field but clumsy and childish outside of it. This is not always the case, and in fact, I would suggest that generally scientists do as well or better than other groups in "real life" social interactions. Still, it seems reasonable to conclude that those scientists who would be interested in a Christian relic and devote time to studying it, would be more likely to be Christians or at least religious people hoping to find evidence of a miracle. This could skew their results and skew the results of published and peer-reviewed data.

The evidence so far points decisively to a 13th or 14th century medieval fraud. The first announcement of the existence of the shroud points that way. The carbon dating points that way. The 3:1 twine pattern of the linen points that way. The image on the shroud looks like a medieval man rather than the images one sees of men from ancient judea. Given the value of such religious objects at this period of time, we have a clear motive for its manufacture and a clear reason why the manufacturers would seek to hide their manufacturing method and their own identifies. Despite much research, there is no scientific evidence that points to it being from any earlier time.

Besides the lack of evidence for this shroud coming from the First century, one also has to ponder the number of miracles involved in it being the actual shroud of Jesus. One has to wonder how it could have been hidden, kept secret and preserved for thirteen centuries, a fantastically unlikely occurrence. If the people who had it knew what it was, they would have told people and become venerated for it or rich from selling it, If they did not know, they would have thrown it away. One also has to imagine the fortunate miracle of it being the shroud of Jesus, rather than the burial shroud of several hundred thousand other Jewish men from that period of time. Also that a picture of the deceased should appear on it, unparalleled with any other known burial shroud from any time makes for a third separate miracle.

The reason this relic seems to be of more interest than thousands of other medieval relics, such as splinters from the cross of Christ, that have been declared fakes, can easily be discerned. This is a unique artistic object. Like all unique artistic objects, there is pleasure in seeing it and upon reflection, it causes us to wonder about the circumstances of its production.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Garlaschelli received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics but said it had no effect on his results.

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).

Quote:

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," he said. The accuracy of the 1988 tests was challenged by some hard-core believers who said restorations of the Shroud in past centuries had contaminated the results.

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.

Jayrok · 02-18-2010, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

It seems silly that even Christians may believe the Shroud of Turin might be authentic. I don't understand why the issue even gets attention.

All we have to do is see what the Bible says. John 20:3-7 -- So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

The Bible tells us Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head and there were "strips" of linen to wrap his body.

The shroud of Turin is 14 feet by 3 feet in size. It's one whole piece of cloth. This contradicts what the gospel of John states. Why is this an issue for debate?

Believing in the resurrection does not necessarily equal biblical literalism.

Does it equal biblical authority?

mountainman · 02-18-2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

The radiocarbon dates corroborate its status as a forgery, but the tests have been questioned.

....

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

In our Scientific Age and C14 analysis the prominence of the Shroud of Turin is itself a shroud over the far more serious issues relating to the entire field of "New Testament Archaeology". With more forgeries every century the invention of computers is timely to keep up with the stats.

Zero first rate "churches", zero second rate "church-houses" and one tenditious early 20th century "house-church" represents the sum of the large scale monumental evidence.

The C14 analysis dates on gThomas and gJudas both suggesting the 4th century (when read with the further reports) are being waived away on the basis of people with Crystal Balls conjecturing that they were first authored in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd centuries. High technology of the 4th century purposefully buried to ascape the fire of the Canonical State Christians. The NHC are a high technololy time capsule.

When people create all sorts of time capsules do they generally seal the products of their own epoch, or do they dreamily package the material from centuries past? Are time capsules curio capsules? The NHC should be examined as if it were a product of the 4th century. It all fits with Constantine taking control of the literature (and probably the Greek scribal centers) as the rightful "Pontifex Maximus".

Roger Pearse · 02-18-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Scientists are simply people who have learned a great deal about a particular field of knowledge.

This is not science, tho; any of the humanities would pass this test.

We need to remember that the shroud was a very useful earner for certain publishers. After it was shown to be a fake, there was much thrashing around to find some excuse to ignore the data. It seems that something has been hoked up, and books can duly be sold once more. "Read and decide for yourself!" they cry. But we need hardly spend much time on it. If we read an article in favour of the authenticity of the shroud, written before the fake was unmasked, it was reasonably apparent that the story didn't hold together very well, and involved an awful lot of speculation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James Brown · 02-18-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

The shroud of Turin is 14 feet by 3 feet in size. It's one whole piece of cloth. This contradicts what the gospel of John states. Why is this an issue for debate?

Like I said earlier, it's the only physical evidence for the resurrection apologists have, and they're not going to give it up lightly. In my previously linked thread, arnoldo complained that swatches of the Shroud used for carbon dating were taken from a piece of the Shroud that was attached to the main piece during the 14th century, but that the rest of the Shroud was authentically 1st century (no explanation how that last part is known). I responded to arnoldo with several questions regarding the Shroud which he didn't answer.

Now he shoots down the "cheap vs. expensive weave" argument by asserting that Jesus was buried in expensive linen. again, no evidence how this can be known is offered. Just because Joseph of A was rich doesn't necessarily mean he used an expensive weave--sometimes wealthy people drive Hondas to save money so that they can continue to be rich.

But I hope that arnoldo won't abandon this thread as well--either to defend his assertion or to answer my questions.

James Brown · 02-18-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

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.

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.

I see what you're saying, but I doubt you'll find many sources. It feels as though you're asking for a professional to spend time and resources on a non-scientific artifact--so that would mean the bar for scientific relevancy would be that much higher. What would they gain from their work? It would be like NASA launching a multi-million dollar probe in order to--I'm not going to say 'debunk' because that would be biased . . . let's call it 'to investigate'--the claims of the Heaven's Gate cultists that there is a UFO hiding in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp.

I will say that some of the skeptical treatments of the Shroud have attempted to take an unbiased view and concluded that it was a hoax. It wouldn't be fair of you to decide that if someone concludes the Shroud is fake then they must have been biased to begin with. There's a difference between someone saying, "The Shroud is a fake and I'm going to prove it" and "I've investigated the Shroud and I've concluded it's a fake."

Then again, there have been peer-reviewed scientific papers espousing the efficacy of astrology, so who knows what's out there.

PhilosopherJay · 02-18-2010, 10:15 AM

Hi Roger,

Agreed.

When a group of scientists determine there is something new, unique and significant that we should know about the shroud, we should re-examine the issue. However, when some assistant researcher announces that there is a hidden dvd in the shroud with actual footage of Jesus and the disciples, we can pretty well ignore it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Scientists are simply people who have learned a great deal about a particular field of knowledge.

This is not science, tho; any of the humanities would pass this test.

We need to remember that the shroud was a very useful earner for certain publishers. After it was shown to be a fake, there was much thrashing around to find some excuse to ignore the data. It seems that something has been hoked up, and books can duly be sold once more. "Read and decide for yourself!" they cry. But we need hardly spend much time on it. If we read an article in favour of the authenticity of the shroud, written before the fake was unmasked, it was reasonably apparent that the story didn't hold together very well, and involved an awful lot of speculation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

rob117 · 02-18-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi rob117,
Still, it seems reasonable to conclude that those scientists who would be interested in a Christian relic and devote time to studying it, would be more likely to be Christians or at least religious people hoping to find evidence of a miracle. This could skew their results and skew the results of published and peer-reviewed data.

The evidence so far points decisively to a 13th or 14th century medieval fraud. The first announcement of the existence of the shroud points that way. The carbon dating points that way. The 3:1 twine pattern of the linen points that way. The image on the shroud looks like a medieval man rather than the images one sees of men from ancient judea. Given the value of such religious objects at this period of time, we have a clear motive for its manufacture and a clear reason why the manufacturers would seek to hide their manufacturing method and their own identifies. Despite much research, there is no scientific evidence that points to it being from any earlier time.

Regarding scientists who are subject to the same social pressures as everyone else, you are right, especially since most of the scientists involved, including those who believe it is a fraud, are practicing Catholics. However, I don't know how to explain the pro-authenticity position of Ray Rogers, who explicitly says he "doesn't believe in miracles" and that the shroud was produced "naturally." Additionally, there's the case of Barrie Schworz, the official documenting photographer STURP, who believes the shroud is genuine and yet somehow, paradoxically, has remained an Orthodox Jew, in addition to the Hebrew University botanists who allegedly found evidence of Palestinian pollen on the shroud and yet are presumably not Christian.

Additionally, as has been said before, it has been claimed (in peer-reviewed publications) that the C14 dates were in fact from a "repaired" area of the shroud, that there is documentary evidence for the shroud's existence before the 14th century under other names (e.g. a picture in a 12th-century Hungarian manuscript that allegedly shows some of the "damaged areas" on the shroud, an image in Constantinople that was venerated there, etc.), and that the proof of forgery in the 14th-century manuscripts could have been propaganda from neighboring dioceses whose economies were fueled by pilgrimages for their own relics that competed with the shroud. Additionally, two textile experts (Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium) claim that the 3:1 weave of the shroud is in fact found at the fortress of Masada in the first century and is "consistent with Syrian design." Joe Nickell, who claims that the 3:1 herringbone weave is not known from Palestine at the time of Jesus, is not a textile expert. He's an English professor. Ordinarily, I would be more inclined to believe statements about a certain field of knowledge by someone trained in that field of knowledge than by someone not trained in that field.

The reason I am disturbed (as a skeptic) is because this seems a lot more difficult for me to just dismiss than creationism. Creationism doesn't get into peer-reviewed biology journals. "Shroud science" apparently does get into peer-reviewed chemistry and optics journals. In fact, it seems like the vast majority of the peer-reviewed research I can find is pro-authenticity.

While I understand that peer-review can be faulty and that scientists can make mistakes, I have been conditioned, as a skeptic, to believe that one of the main things that distinguishes science from pseudoscience is absence of the latter in reputable peer-reviewed journals. In the case of the shroud of Turin, almost all of the detailed skeptical refutations of the authenticity claims (including the ones you brought up) appear outside of peer-reviewed journals. It seems, at least at first glance, intellectually dishonest to me to reject information that appears in peer-reviewed journals in favor of information that does not, especially when some of the statements (e.g. the differing interpretations of the 3:1 herringbone pattern) blatantly contradict.

Of course even if the shroud was in Palestine before the 14th century does not make it authentic. It could have been painted in the 4th, 5th, or 6th centuries, as the relic trade was just as booming then (in the newly-Christianized Roman Empire) as it was in 14th-century Europe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2010, 05:32 AM	#11
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	It seems silly that even Christians may believe the Shroud of Turin might be authentic. I don't understand why the issue even gets attention. All we have to do is see what the Bible says. John 20:3-7 -- So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. The Bible tells us Jesus had a separate cloth wrapped around his head and there were "strips" of linen to wrap his body. The shroud of Turin is 14 feet by 3 feet in size. It's one whole piece of cloth. This contradicts what the gospel of John states. Why is this an issue for debate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.