Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 10:30 AM

Partial post by Koy:

Quote:

Explain to us all how a man who has died of blood loss[....]

Well, believe it or not, there is STILL a lot of
disagreement about what the exact cause of death was: the Crucifixion killed him but how exactly is
something that is NOT unanimous. A few of the
leading candidates:
1)(close to total)loss of blood.
2) asphixiation: the position of the crucified man
makes it more and more difficult to breath: the
victim must push painfully with his feet to raise
his head and torso. Eventually he runs out of strength. To speed up the process, the Romans
would break the legs of the victims so that they
couldn't push off with the legs and so a (quicker)
asphixiation death ensued. This is reported for the 2 criminals who were crucified with Jesus:
each had his legs broken to speed up the death
process (asphixiation)but when they came to Jesus
and saw that he was ALREADY dead they merely put
the lance/spear through him. The speedup was to
get the bodies disposed of before the Sabbath
sundown.
3)shock.
(there may be other speculation but these are the
most common ascribed immediate causes of death.)
A number of forensic pathologists have weighed in
on this question besides Bucklin.
Only scenario #1 would make the large amount
of blood on the Shroud and Sudarium questionable.
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 12:07 PM

Partial post by Koy:

Quote:

Shuttlebop informs us from your beloved NIV, that Joseph and Nicodemus
wrapped the body in strips and not a shroud!

As to my "beloved" NIV: I have no personal
preference in Bible translations. When the question before us was: what does "nineth hour"
mean? I consulted a "parallel" Bible which included the NIV. The term in question
was translated in two different ways: somewhat literally (ie like the Greek: nineth hour)and
non-literally (three o'clock......in the afternoon). I just checked today "The New English
Bible with Apocrypha" and it ALSO translates the
"nineth hour" as "three o'clock in the afternoon".

The same Bible in John 20 verses 5 to 10 refers
to a "napkin" (something like the Sudarium of Oviedo) and "wrappings" (which MIGHT be the Shroud
of Turin). I'm sure that with all the translations
available of the Bible that some will use different words for these things (including "strips").
Cheers!

Principia · 03-23-2002, 12:31 PM

<post deleted>

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 06:42 PM

In my post at the top of this page I referred to
the fact that even when a death is the result of
a crucifixion the IMMEDIATE mechanism of that death can vary: the blood loss itself, shock, and
most frequently perhaps, asphyxiation. Of course
all of these elements can be and frequently are
involved in the trauma of crucifixion. To give you
a little taste of Bucklin's portrayal of the
PROBABLE cause of death, I post the very end of
the URL that Koy already quoted from.

Quote:

As far as the mechanism of death is concerned, a detailed study of the Shroud imprint and the blood stains, coupled with a basic understanding of the physical and physiological changes in the body that take place during crucifixion, suggests strongly that the decedent had undergone postural asphyxia as the result of his position during the crucifixion episode. There is also evidence of severe blood loss from the skin wounds as well as fluid accumulation in the chest cavities related to terminal cardio-respiratory failure.

For the manner of death to be determined, a full investigation of the circumstances of death is necessary. In this case, it would be determined historically that the individual was sentenced to death, and that the execution was carried out by crucifixion. The manner of death would be classed as judicial homicide.

In summary, I have presented a scenario, based on reasonable medical probability, as to how a forensic pathologist medical examiner would conduct an examination of the Shroud of Turin image and the conclusions that he would reach as the result of such studies.

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 06:53 PM

Delete: double post.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 07:01 PM

For an interesting discussion via e-mail of the
controversy surrounding the 1988 C-14 testing of
the Shroud (a testing which rendered an age of
only late Medieval range), take a look at:
<a href="http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm</a>

The interlocutors are the previously mentioned
William Meacham, an archaeologist, and Rodger Sparks, a specialist in carbon dating.

Here is one of Meacham's responses in the exchange

Quote:

Subject: Re: C14 Dating of the Shroud [long]
From: William Meacham
Date: 1998/02/16
Message-ID: <6CA999$7JT$1@NNRP2.DEJANEWS.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.turin-shroud

On Feb. 4, 1998, Rodger Sparks wrote:

[snip]
...Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best, and in this case accepting the radiocarbon evidence seems the most reasonable thing to do.
In this last sentence lies the rub. Translating the C14 age into a "real age" for the Shroud is not the simplest explanation in terms of the totality of evidence. No one makes an argument for the Shroud being 3000 or 5000 years old because the evidence from all the various studies that have been done on the object indicate that it is a real burial cloth with the image and bloodstains of a crucifixion victim. If it is not Christ, it is another crucified male who underwent the same kinds of tortures as mentioned in the biblical account, ie Roman-style crucifixion prefaced by scourging.

As an archaeologist with 25 years of experience using C14 for the dating of excavated samples, I know what most archaeologists do when C14 produces a date which conflicts strongly with other evidence from a site : 1) run more dates on different samples from the same context, and then 2) put the aberrant dates down to some unidentified problem (usually in a footnote to the site report if mentioned at all). This happens often in archaeology, even on sites and samples which were thought to be ideal for C14 dating. Very rarely is the problem of these individual aberrant dates ever resolved or even addressed. But over the years a whole host of difficulties have come to light with C14, e.g. modern living samples which give ages of hundreds or thousands of years, or centuries-old samples which give dates in the future. The causes of these phenomena are known, but in many other cases anomalous dates have not been satisfactorily explained. Caution is certainly in order when C14 results conflict with the lines of interpretation indicated by other evidence.

When I attended the 1986 conference in Turin for planning the C14 dating of the Shroud, at the invitation of the Vatican Academy of Sciences, I argued strongly for an extensive testing program (including various staining and microscopic studies) that would have examined the Shroud samples in detail for contamination. This was met with arrogant dismissal by 5 of the 7 radiocarbon lab heads in attendance. They ridiculed the notion that contamination could account for more than 1 or 2% of the C14 after standard pretreatment. Their stance was decidedly haughty then, and now shown to be dead wrong. The truth is that there are many possible sources of error which are not fully understood, and it simply behooves us to at least look for all the possibilities that we can.

Yes, it would take a lot of extraneous carbonaceous material to throw the date off by 1400 years, if contamination ALONE is the problem. Isotope exchange with materials on or in prolonged contact with the cloth is another very strong possibility, and one which is very difficult or impossible to evaluate or test for. But it probably is the cause of many aberrant dates obtained on samples from secure archaeological contexts.

Where does that leave us with the C14 dating of the Shroud? Still at stage 1 -- more samples need to be dated, from various places on the cloth, along with samples from the backing cloth whose age is precisely known. And of course all samples should be subjected to exhaustive screening and laboratory examination first.

My original post that elicited the reply from Sparks does, however, remain correct -- "Anyone who still believes that C14 dating has proven the Shroud to be medieval should be quickly disabused of that notion." The operative word is PROVEN. Nothing has been proven, and until more samples are taken and analyzed with the best scientific tools we have, nothing can be said conclusively about the age of Shroud.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde · 03-23-2002, 07:21 PM

Another interesting Shroud link is at
<a href="http://www.shroud.it/STUDIES.HTM" target="_blank">http://www.shroud.it/STUDIES.HTM</a>

I provide here only the section dealing with
the (probable) age of the Shroud based on looking
at the preponderance of the evidence:

Quote:

4. Why the Shroud can not be medieval

The rough manufacture of the material, the Z throwing of the threads (clockwise), the diagonal weaving 3 to 1, the traces of very ancient Egyptian cotton, the absence of animal fibres traces, all give truth to the origin of the material from the Syriac/Palestinian area of the 1st century.
Other clues: a great abundance of pollens from the middle east and of aloe and myrrh; the presence of a kind of calcium carbonate (aragonite) similar to the one found in the caves of Jerusalem; traces of coins on the eyes minted in 29 A.D. under Pontius Pilate; a side seam identical to those existing on Jewish cloths of the first century found in Masada, a hill near the Dead Sea.
The Shroud (left) compared to Egyptian
materials of the 2nd c. A.D. (P. Savio)

During the Middle Ages, historical and archaeological knowledges about scourging and crucifixion in the 1st century was completely ignored and their memory was totally lost.

The hypothetical medieval forger could have not represented Christ with details in contrast with the medieval iconography: crown of thorns as a helmet, carrying on the shoulders of the sole patibulum (the horizontal beam of the cross), nails through the wrists and not through the hands, naked body and no footrest. Furthermore, he should have considered the burial rites used by the Hebrew during Christ’s period.

The same forger should have imagined the invention of microscope that happened at the end of the 16th century, adding elements invisible to the naked eye: pollens, mould, serum, burial fragrances, aragonite.

The forger should have known of photography, invented in 19th century, and of holography achieved during the 1940’s. He should have known how to distinguish between arterial and venous circulation, studied for the first time in 1593, and he should have been able to stain some parts of the sheet with living blood and other parts with post-mortem blood; in the end he should have respected the law of gravity, discovered in 1666, to achieve hematic dripping.

Naturally a figure could not be reproduced here.
Cheers!

lpetrich · 03-23-2002, 09:55 PM

For those not familiar with it, the Cloak of Kandahar is supposedly a cloak that the prophet Mohammed had worn, and that is kept in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

It supposedly can cure blindness and lameness, and it is only brought out in public on certain very special occasions. The most recent was Mullah Mohammed Omar's ascent to power as head of the Taliban, though the Cloak did not cure his bad eye. Before that, it was brought out during a cholera epidemic.

There was a New York Times article on the Cloak of Kandahar some weeks back; I'm sure it's still at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com</a>

I'm mentioning this cloak because investigating the question of its authenticity is the logical next step for Shroud of Turin believers.

leonarde · 03-24-2002, 08:46 AM

Thanks, Ipetrich! I'll have to look into it. Besides the cultural prejudice that makes Americans (like everyone else) more interested in
their own (ie American) most common religious tradition (Christianity), part of the difference in publicity about the Shroud vis-a-vis the Cloak of Kandahar probably has to do with the differences in attitudes towards the historical
existence of the two men (Jesus and Mohammed): I
have NEVER heard an American claim that there was
no such historical person as the Muhammed who
gave us the Koran but I have heard many times
non-theists express disbelief about Jesus' historicity.
Cheers!

leonarde · 03-24-2002, 06:14 PM

In response to some of Koy's queries I have so
far immersed myself in a few tomes about forensics
. I still have much to do in that regard but I
thought I would share now some small bit of information which was news to me and gives a starting point for thinking about the blood that
a human has and how it can be lost in a way that
MAY be consistent with what we find on the Shroud
of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Quote:

Bodies are leaky objects; once punctured they tend to ooze or spray blood indiscriminately. This is
hardly surprising since the average human being has about ten pints of blood gurgling through his
or her system at any given time.

This is
the opening of a chapter called "Serology" (mostly
about blood typing though) in the book, "The Casebook for Forensic Detection" by Colin Evans.
If I can find something more about the exact way
that a deceased body bleeds/doesn't bleed, I will
post it here.
Cheers!

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

03-23-2002, 12:31 PM	#153
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	<post deleted> [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

03-23-2002, 06:53 PM	#155
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Delete: double post. [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

03-23-2002, 09:55 PM	#158
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	For those not familiar with it, the Cloak of Kandahar is supposedly a cloak that the prophet Mohammed had worn, and that is kept in Kandahar, Afghanistan. It supposedly can cure blindness and lameness, and it is only brought out in public on certain very special occasions. The most recent was Mullah Mohammed Omar's ascent to power as head of the Taliban, though the Cloak did not cure his bad eye. Before that, it was brought out during a cholera epidemic. There was a New York Times article on the Cloak of Kandahar some weeks back; I'm sure it's still at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com</a> I'm mentioning this cloak because investigating the question of its authenticity is the logical next step for Shroud of Turin believers.

03-24-2002, 08:46 AM	#159
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Thanks, Ipetrich! I'll have to look into it. Besides the cultural prejudice that makes Americans (like everyone else) more interested in their own (ie American) most common religious tradition (Christianity), part of the difference in publicity about the Shroud vis-a-vis the Cloak of Kandahar probably has to do with the differences in attitudes towards the historical existence of the two men (Jesus and Mohammed): I have NEVER heard an American claim that there was no such historical person as the Muhammed who gave us the Koran but I have heard many times non-theists express disbelief about Jesus' historicity. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.