The Shroud and Historicity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Soul Producers

Post by JoeWallack »

It Ain't No Mistries
Whether it's politics. religion or histries.
The thing you gotta know iz
Everything is Show Biz.

pavurcn wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:19 am Fundamentalist-apologists for the inauthenticity of the Shroud might consider some recent science:
But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members of the STURP team, conclusively demonstrated that the samples used for the original radiocarbon tests were taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud, and therefore did not represent the original fabric.29 The 1988 Shroud dating tests and results have thus been completely discredited. (page 12)
McCrone’s claims have been convincingly refuted in several STURP technical reports (Pellicori and Evans 1980:42; Pellicori 1980:1918; Heller and Adler 1981:91-94; Schwalbe and Rogers 1982:11-24). (page 17)
Taken from http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf . Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin By Richard B. Sorensen ©2007 All Rights Reserved

No debunking in sight. Only folks desperately clinging to mythicism. Wikipedia's article is biased toward the discredited debunking. It doesn't give all the reasons so many (including some scientists) favor authenticity.
JW:
The Scientific evidence indicates The Shroud is a 14th century forgery. If it is 14th century then it is not 1st century. There is no scientific evidence that the Shroud is 1st century. Assertians that "it can not be reproduced" and "an unknown process", while sounding funny in an ironic way, are not evidence that The Shroud is first century. The Scientific evidence for 14th century forgery, in order of strength is:
  • 1) Credible, multiple, independent carbon dating to 14th century.

    2) Epic failure for every standard forensic test for blood.

    3) Determination that the entire image consists of paint materials.
John Heller's Catechism-22

Supporters of Shroud authenticity, like Rogers, initially denied McCrone's conclusion that the image contained paint materials but subsequently confessed that it does. After his testing McCrone had an artist recreate Shrouds which were identical to The Shroud. McCrone offered his Shrouds to STURP, or anyone else, to see if they could tell the difference, under a microscope! They declined. So The Shroud had already been replicated in the 80s. McCrone's forensic science indicated that the technique used to create the Shroud, as well as the related materials, were popular in the 14th century.

Apologists here want to posture that their faith in The Shroud is based on Science but their problem here is that the Scientific evidence, qualitatively and quantitatively, supports a 14th century forgery. The standard, straight-forward forensic results from accredited forensic scientists supports a 14th century forgery and this conclusion is generally accepted by Scientists as a whole. Supporters of authenticity have to rely on a few quasi, fringe scientists with questionable credentials whose conclusions are constantly changing. McCrone was the leading forensic scientist of his time and one of the greatest forensic scientists of all time. Rogers' main qualification is he was a Captain in the US Air Force.

By The Way, most Skeptics here, including me, think that that guy from The Christian Bible whose name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "Y" or "J" did exist. Even Neil Godfree, who Apologists seem to think is the leading Internet "Mythicist" seems to think Jesus was more likely to exist than Yassir Arafat as Godfree mentions Jesus about once every two sentences but has not mentioned the infamous Palestinian Terrorist and Godfather of all modern Terrorism, Arafat, since 2011.



Joseph

The New Porphyry
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

JW says "The Scientific evidence indicates The Shroud is a 14th century forgery. If it is 14th century then it is not 1st century."

All too simplistic, misleading, and wrong. Science is not monolithic, and you left out Fanti's research.

I accept the later radiocarbon dating for the later repaired area of the Shroud. (Who wouldn't agree that late repairs are dated later?) What is not proven is that the oldest part of the Shroud was subject to the same radiocarbon dating techniques. (There may be a scientific question as to the contamination of that part by the fires that have affected the material and therefore the testability may itself be in doubt, but as far as I know it hasn't been tested yet.)
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by iskander »

pavurcn wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:27 am JW says "The Scientific evidence indicates The Shroud is a 14th century forgery. If it is 14th century then it is not 1st century."

All too simplistic, misleading, and wrong. Science is not monolithic, and you left out Fanti's research.

I accept the later radiocarbon dating for the later repaired area of the Shroud. (Who wouldn't agree that late repairs are dated later?) What is not proven is that the oldest part of the Shroud was subject to the same radiocarbon dating techniques. (There may be a scientific question as to the contamination of that part by the fires that have affected the material and therefore the testability may itself be in doubt, but as far as I know it hasn't been tested yet.)
Relics are unhelpful as a way of supporting the existence of a Jewish reformer .
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ulan »

pavurcn wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:43 am Kapyong was premature in his appreciation of Nicholas Allen's achievement. Here's what a real expert on the Shroud concludes:
The proto-photography theory proposed by Prof. Nicholas Allen was able to create an image on linen cloth, but not one that duplicated the image properties of the Shroud of Turin. When attempting to provide a viable image formation mechanism for the Shroud, one has to account for all of the image properties, not just a few of them. Allen failed to understand certain important facets of the image on the Shroud of Turin. Much as it truly takes a professional artist to properly evaluate a painting, so too must photography be evaluated by the professional photographer. In the case of the proto-photography theory, other professional evaluations of Allen's theory have reached similar conclusions.
From "Is The Shroud of Turin a Medieval Photograph? A Critical Examination of the Theory" by Barrie M. Schwortz © 2000 All Rights Reserved https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf accessed 9/Nov/2017
You know that the stuff you just quoted says exactly nothing? It's just hollow words without meaning.

Of course, that's the only answer that can come. Expecting an exact replica by any method is inane.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

JW also talks about McCrone and paint. Here's further information about that:

McCrone has publicly stated that he stakes his professional reputation on the Shroud being a fake. This position scarcely encourages objective research. His conclusions are largely based on his examination of material obtained from the Shroud on Mylar sticky tapes by the STURP group in 1978. There are, indeed, linen fibers with paint pigments on them on these tapes, but it has apparently eluded McCrone that these are fibers which translocated to the Shroud from the some fifty-five medieval painted “true copies” which were laid by the artist directly on top of the Shroud as a “brandum.” These pigmented fibers have nothing to do with the images on the Shroud other than their proximity to some of the body images, which one would expect considering their origin.43
43 Daniel Scavone, Deconstructing the “Debunking of the Shroud”, https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#scavone , cited in "Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Richard B. Sorensen, www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf .
The paragraph by Scavone goes on:
In addition, our studies have shown that there are images over most of the Shroud, not just those of the body. McCrone states that he used standard forensic tests to check for blood, and he found none. The standard tests he used are not adequate for testing this material. Later extensive chemical and other tests by blood experts on the same material show conclusively that it is human blood from a severely traumatized individual. McCrone, and those who would believe him, choose to ignore a veritable mountain of scientific evidence and data published in peer-reviewed major journals. These are listed, and often printed out, on the excellent Internet website: www.shroud.com .
So the problem is not Science vs. Religion, but Science vs. Science. I'm not betting on McCrone...
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ulan »

pavurcn wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:01 am So the problem is not Science vs. Religion, but Science vs. Science. I'm not betting on McCrone...
Well, your beliefs are your beliefs. And of course it's a question of religion. Nothing connects this shroud with Jesus of Nazareth. Science won't help you with that point.

There's a reason that the Church has never endorsed the authenticity of this relic. They know it's fake.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

But demonstrably the science seems to offer competing accounts, so there is a conflict within science at some level. One has to go further than the superficial. I know you want to follow the skeptical bishops of the middle ages, but there may still be more to say.

"Nothing connects this shroud with Jesus of Nazareth." Oh, right...why would the carefully preserved and venerated fine linen shroud imprint of a Jewish male scourged with a Roman whip and crucified and pierced in the side around the year 30 near Jerusalem have any connection at all with Jesus of Nazareth? The many parallels with the gospel accounts must be a fluke. It could be just anybody, right? These shrouds...they're a dime a dozen... (Not.)
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by pavurcn »

Ulan wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:58 am You know that the stuff you just quoted says exactly nothing? It's just hollow words without meaning.

Of course, that's the only answer that can come. Expecting an exact replica by any method is inane.
And where was "an exact replica" stipulated? The words are not hollow: they mean that the attempted photographic parallel doesn't work because it fails to reproduce important features of the Shroud image.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ulan »

pavurcn wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:28 am But demonstrably the science seems to offer competing accounts, so there is a conflict within science at some level. One has to go further than the superficial. I know you want to follow the skeptical bishops of the middle ages, but there may still be more to say.

"Nothing connects this shroud with Jesus of Nazareth." Oh, right...why would the carefully preserved and venerated fine linen shroud imprint of a Jewish male scourged with a Roman whip and crucified and pierced in the side around the year 30 near Jerusalem have any connection at all with Jesus of Nazareth? The many parallels with the gospel accounts must be a fluke. It could be just anybody, right? These shrouds...they're a dime a dozen... (Not.)
Leaving aside for a moment that we are most probably looking at a medieval prop that was used to defraud people, you are aware that tens of thousands of Jews were crucified in Judea of the first century?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: The Shroud and Historicity

Post by Ulan »

pavurcn wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:40 pm
Ulan wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:58 am You know that the stuff you just quoted says exactly nothing? It's just hollow words without meaning.

Of course, that's the only answer that can come. Expecting an exact replica by any method is inane.
And where was "an exact replica" stipulated? The words are not hollow: they mean that the attempted photographic parallel doesn't work because it fails to reproduce important features of the Shroud image.
It was my most charitable interpretation of that vacuous statement in your quote.
Post Reply