Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeremy Pallant · 01-28-2005, 12:08 PM

National Geographic news is reporting that the piece of the Shroud carbon-tested back in 1988 was actually a patch added in Medieval times, and not a part of the shroud itself.

Anyone else heard this before, or is it old news?

Edited to add...

Apparently it's not exactly old, but not exactly new either. There's a related story here.

penumbra · 01-28-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Pallant

National Geographic news is reporting that the piece of the Shroud carbon-tested back in 1988 was actually a patch added in Medieval times, and not a part of the shroud itself.

Anyone else heard this before, or is it old news?

I think I read that theory in "The Jesus Conspiracy" a few years ago, that the samples were deliberately replaced. I'll have to go find my old copy, but here are some reviews of the book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-28-2005, 12:31 PM

Isn't Kersten the same guy who wrote Jesus Lived in India?

Yeah, a thoroughgoing scholar that guy is.

From what I read in the NG articles this is one chemist making a claim. Let him submit his findings for peer review. Even if he's right, it still doesn't mean anything but that the shroud was patched at some point in the 15th century. It doesn't mean that rest of the shroud must be 1st century or that it makes it's authenticity any more plausible.

The second article also cites some previous bogus research by Christian defenders including the debunked "Jerusalem pollen" spores so I can't give this new dude much credence yet.

IIRC, the physical proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically too incorrect for it too have been a real human being.

If someone can really prove that the previous sample cam from a patch, then fine, all it means that we have to slice off some more and burn another test. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it would still be 12th century.

Of course, the Church can always object that it's too valuable to cut off any more samples.

Meatros · 01-28-2005, 12:57 PM

Frankly I was never impressed with the shroud to begin with. I think the evidence that it was a forgery is obvious because the face isn't distorted as it would be if it were laid on top of someone.

I've never heard a reasonable explanation for why the picture of the face in the shroud isn't distorted.

Barring that, I don't think it matters at all how old the cloth is...

Ovazor · 01-28-2005, 01:08 PM

There's another thread about this going on in Science & Scepticism forum.

Toto · 01-28-2005, 01:20 PM

The S&S thread is here.

It's really a skepticism topic - Skepdic article, so we'll think about merging the threads somewhere.

I imagine that Joe Nichell is gearing up to write the refutation now and add a chapter to his Inquest on the Shroud of Turin

Sensei Meela · 01-28-2005, 02:03 PM

As noted by Mortal Wombat in the S&S thread:

Quote:

the original carbon-dating paper
Removal of samples from the shroud

The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop's scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d'Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.

The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.

Amaleq13 · 01-28-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If someone can really prove that the previous sample cam from a patch, then fine, all it means that we have to slice off some more and burn another test.

I believe the Church has previously stated that no further testing will be allowed.

Toto · 01-28-2005, 02:17 PM

To keep this on the topic for this forum, it's important to note that the Shroud is completely unBiblical.

The Joe Nickell Files

Quote:

sfd: How realistic is the image with respect to human physiology?

JN: Well, not very...let me back up a little bit. It's hard to get these things in order, but I'm realizing that I need to go back to the beginning and pick up on the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John mentions that Jesus was buried in the manner of the Jews, which meant tying and binding. John mentions multiple burial cloths; a separate cloth for the face. This is a discrepancy with the Shroud of Turin. And John's gospel mentions a huge amount - a hundred-pound weight of burial spices; and, of course, that is not found on the Shroud of Turin. So the Shroud is really incompatible; and there is no history of the Shroud for 1,300 years.

More here: Bogus: Shroud of Turin, the Bible Says

Toto · 01-28-2005, 03:54 PM

Some more links:

bibleorigins contains some interesting art history on the depictions of Jesus.

Quote:

The earliest Christian representations of Christ of the 4th-6th century AD, do NOT portray him with a moustache and beard, he is shown clean shaven in bas-reliefs (ivory minatures, and sarcophagai) and wall murals. Yet, he appears with a moustache and beard in the Turin shroud. Christian art began to show Christ moustached and bearded about the 6th-7th century AD.

. . .

Scavone, in his attempt to document the Turin Shroud, notes the Greek Orthodox Epitaphioi and their evolution and attempts to document the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.

Scavone:

"Small Eucharistic chalice or paten coverlits (called an aer or amnos, Greek for "lamb") had been used for centuries in the Byzantine or Greek Orthodox Mass. The amnos aer cloths, seen already at the start of Christian era originally (and sometimes) had an illustration of a lamb...At some indefinite time in the 11th-12th century large epitaphioi threnoi ("funeral lamentation cloths") began to be used during Holy Week in the Greek liturgy. These bore representations of the dead Christ, sometimes life-sized, upon his shroud."

(cf. Daniel Scavone. Greek Epitaphioi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204. University of Southern Indiana. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/scavone.pdf )

For reasons already given (above) I do NOT understand the Turin Shroud to be the "real" burial shroud of Christ. I understand it to be a painting, on a medieval weave, influenced by the large life-like embroidered representations of Christ which appeared in EARLIER 11th-12th century Greek Orthodox "aer Epitaphioi."

Joe Zias on ANE

Quote:

Dear Colleagues,

Just when you think that its gone away, the Shroud of Turin controversy arises. In 1997 an Italian Professor, Antonio Lombatti started a journal Approfondimento Sindone which is dedicated to showing to interested individuals why the Shroud is of medieval manufacture. I suggest that anyone interested in the scientific, historical, anthropological reasons why this is a manufactured relic do so. In the first issue I publ. an article dealing with all the anthropological issues inc. the fact that one thing that the pro-shroud people are guilty of is, total ignorance of Jewish burial customs, which is a dead give away, that it's not from the first century AD. Many of us have felt that if they wish to regard it as a relic from the middle ages, or anyother period, we have no problem with that however when they regard it as the 'true thing' and misuse science to 'prove it' then they are treading into our territory which must be defended. Seneca said that 'academics should be lawyers for the masses' as the masses have paid for our education. Thats the least that we can do.

. . .

In short, there is nothing there to lead anyone down the 'road to Damascus' that its but a relic mfg. during the Middle Ages. Unfort. the NY Times picked up the story, must have been a slow day in the newsroom. In my opinion they have been guilty recently of publishing these problematical discoveries, the James Ossuary, is a good example. HL Menecken warned all new journalists, 'if your mother says she loves you, check it out' apparently some have not listening to this good bit of advice. In todays world of post modern journalism, anything goes.

Joe

(Zias is connected with a recent discovery that was supposed to be a cave connected with John the Baptist.)

Walter Mattfield on ANE

01-28-2005, 12:08 PM	#1
Jeremy Pallant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 1,242	This'll get the Shroud of Turin believers going... National Geographic news is reporting that the piece of the Shroud carbon-tested back in 1988 was actually a patch added in Medieval times, and not a part of the shroud itself. Anyone else heard this before, or is it old news? Edited to add... Apparently it's not exactly old, but not exactly new either. There's a related story here.

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

01-28-2005, 12:31 PM	#3
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Isn't Kersten the same guy who wrote Jesus Lived in India? Yeah, a thoroughgoing scholar that guy is. From what I read in the NG articles this is one chemist making a claim. Let him submit his findings for peer review. Even if he's right, it still doesn't mean anything but that the shroud was patched at some point in the 15th century. It doesn't mean that rest of the shroud must be 1st century or that it makes it's authenticity any more plausible. The second article also cites some previous bogus research by Christian defenders including the debunked "Jerusalem pollen" spores so I can't give this new dude much credence yet. IIRC, the physical proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically too incorrect for it too have been a real human being. If someone can really prove that the previous sample cam from a patch, then fine, all it means that we have to slice off some more and burn another test. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it would still be 12th century. Of course, the Church can always object that it's too valuable to cut off any more samples.

01-28-2005, 12:57 PM	#4
Meatros Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 944	Frankly I was never impressed with the shroud to begin with. I think the evidence that it was a forgery is obvious because the face isn't distorted as it would be if it were laid on top of someone. I've never heard a reasonable explanation for why the picture of the face in the shroud isn't distorted. Barring that, I don't think it matters at all how old the cloth is...

01-28-2005, 01:08 PM	#5
Ovazor Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 884	There's another thread about this going on in Science & Scepticism forum.

01-28-2005, 01:20 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The S&S thread is here. It's really a skepticism topic - Skepdic article, so we'll think about merging the threads somewhere. I imagine that Joe Nichell is gearing up to write the refutation now and add a chapter to his Inquest on the Shroud of Turin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.