Shroud from the time of Jesus

[KBertsche]

"More Discussion:
Among the various mistakes reported in Nature paper the most important is described in the following sketch: the Arizona result is NOT statistically acceptable (G. Fanti)."

http://shroud.wikispaces.com/CARBON.14.DATING

Note that your link also states: "there is no serious reason to doubt the result produced by the Carbon 14 testing laboratories."

Fanti's claim that "the Arizona result is NOT statistically acceptable" seems to be based on his re-analysis of their four measurements, assuming that their errors are purely random. I don't believe this is a correct analysis. It is possible that some of the differences between the samples are systematic, due to different sample pretreatments. (The Arizona "a" samples used dilute acid-base-acid pretreatment, while their "b" samples used detergent pretreatment.) And if "contamination" has affected the results, as some claim, these results definitely should NOT be combined as Fanti does. Arizona knows radiocarbon dating; I would trust their reported error of 31 years over revisionist dates by an outsider.

The chi-squared value for the three labs is 6.4, which is slightly high (as the Nature paper noted). (And I've double-checked the 6.4 calculation; it is correct.) But with three results this slightly-high value is far from definitive. It could be that the labs under-estimated their errors (as the Nature paper suggested), it could be a statistical fluke, or it could be that the samples given to the three labs were all slightly different (as the "repair" theories allege).

[KBertsche]

KB et al

I was noodling around and found this full text online. I cut and pasted the URL to another browser page and it opened Adobe Reader just fine. Of particular curiousity is the discussion on lignin/vanillin. Apparently, linin loses its vanillin at a steady rate if the temperature is steady.

See pages 190 column one fourth full para
See pages 192 column two, para five.

http://campus.usal.es/~licesio/T_I_Farmacia/shroud.pdf

This is the same paper that you referred us to earlier. I read it, and already commented on earlier in this thread.

[Rapalyea]

FOUR LAST PARTING CONTRIBUTIONS ....

1) The Suderium of Oviedo, often associated with the Shroud, has apparently been C14 dated to the 600's CE. I have not found much discussion on the issue. However, if the Sudeium and the Shroud covered the same individual, it becomes a central issue. http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

2) Two additional un-authorized shroud samples were dated in 1982 from the Raes threads. "...Adler [observed] one end of the thread [seemed starch contaminated]. Thus Rossman cut the thread in half...[the contaminated end dated 1,200 CE, the uncontaminated end 200 CE] http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf

3) Benford and Marino postulate the C14 samples contained both 1500 CE cotton and first century linnen in apx 60/40 percent mix. The resultant mix results in apx1210 CE result. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf

4) Last but not least "...[the c14 labs] conducted no chemical analysis of what exactly it was the were dating] ... microbiologist Professor Steven Mattingly of the University of Texas [said]: 'Lack of a chemical analysis of the Shroud linen violated the first basic principle in biochemistry - account for the chemical components on a dry weight basis. A total glucose analysis of the linen would have spared us this controversy.'"
http://www.shroud.com/wilson.htm

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Is it really going to kill some of you skeptics - and rogue06 - that the dating tests were wrong? Will it demolish your (lack of) faith if the shroud really is 2000 years old and came from Palestine? Does it follow that the shroud must then belong to Jesus and the Biblical account is true?

Honestly, you're like a bunch of scared and desperate old women who, if taken back in time and shown the shroud actually being made, would still spout a lot of jargonistic guff about how the evidence has not proved that you're wrong, etc, etc.

[Adrift]

The skeptical here are primarily Christians. What reason, Moose, do you think the Christians here would prefer a later date on physical evidence that could prove the resurrection of Jesus unless they didn't think the evidence backed an early date?

[rogue06]

Is it really going to kill some of you skeptics - and rogue06 - that the dating tests were wrong? Will it demolish your (lack of) faith if the shroud really is 2000 years old and came from Palestine? Does it follow that the shroud must then belong to Jesus and the Biblical account is true?

Honestly, you're like a bunch of scared and desperate old women who, if taken back in time and shown the shroud actually being made, would still spout a lot of jargonistic guff about how the evidence has not proved that you're wrong, etc, etc.

My primary objection to the Shroud being an authentic relic are Scriptural rather than scientific. What we see in Turin doesn't match the description of what we read in John 19-20

[Rapalyea]

rogue06 - You wrote: "...Turin doesn't match the description of what we read in John 19-20..."

I don't see why not. From your own post: "...Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

In what way is this not congruent with Turin? Incidentally, I do not accept the New Testament As Divinely Inspired. Paul, of course, claims his conversion and knowledge is divinely inspired. I am uncertain, however, whether he ever claimed his own writings were infalible. Perhaps you are able to correct me.

Please point out to me where either Acts or Luke Claim personal infalibility due to divine inspiration. To my untrained ear, in both cases he states clearly he is making a report on investigation.

For instance: Acts "...To these he also showed himself alive after he suffered, by many proofs..." Please provide citations were the author of Acts Claims he needs no proofs, but is infalible in his own word by divine inspiration or intervention. I don't study these things and so have no detailed knowledge.

Indeed, I am perplexed that Pilate is reported to have personally chastized and scourged Jesus. That just does not seem likely in his job description or his pay grade.....

[rogue06]

rogue06 - You wrote: "...Turin doesn't match the description of what we read in John 19-20..."

I don't see why not. From your own post: "...Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

There is a description of more than one burial cloth, one for the body to be wrapped in and a separate "napkin" for the head. This is pretty obviously not what we have with the Shroud of Turin.

As for your comments concerning Acts and Luke, I don't see how they're pertinent.

[Rapalyea]

Moose and Adrift - Theologians and scientists get into what I believe is a specious arguement of 'reconciliation'. I believe scripture is historical narrative and, as such, is much more dangerous to retrograde science then "Infalible Word Of God'.

'Scientific' athiests and others get possitively appoplectic over the shroud because it is a modern day existing artifact that seems congruent with scripture when viewed as historical narrative. Accordingly, I have in these very forums been told to continue on with my superstitious belief system even though I have never expressed any belief system other then the mandatory moniker in which I state "agnostic". An agnostic - correctly if I am technically mistaken - is someone who simply says they don't know. That does not exclude hypotheses!

For instance, science is by nature reaactionary. For my entire adult life astrophysics had been certain expansion of the universe was slowing down. The only question being whether it was slowing down enough to reverse into a Big-Crunch. A proper agnostic would have simply added the qualifier: "As best as we can tell so far, expansion of the universe is slowing down..."

The same thing exists today. Astrophisicists seem to universally accept a scalar field 'inflation' of the early universe, I hear nothing today that current expansion might also be subject to a similar limitation. But never mind.......

[KBertsche]

Is it really going to kill some of you skeptics - and rogue06 - that the dating tests were wrong? Will it demolish your (lack of) faith if the shroud really is 2000 years old and came from Palestine? Does it follow that the shroud must then belong to Jesus and the Biblical account is true?

Honestly, you're like a bunch of scared and desperate old women who, if taken back in time and shown the shroud actually being made, would still spout a lot of jargonistic guff about how the evidence has not proved that you're wrong, etc, etc.

The dating of the Shroud of Turin is a scientific question. It should be answered by doing good science. I have no objection at all to doing good science on the Shroud. I am willing to consider any good, peer-reviewed science done on it.

BUT I have a very low opinion of the "Shroud advocates" such as the STURP project. They do not provide a neutral, objective perspective. They come at the question with very strong preconceptions that it must be first century. They dream up conspiracy-type theories to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions (e.g. radiocarbon). Their research is on a par with YEC "flood geology." I have similar opinions of both.

[Adrift]

Moose and Adrift - Theologians and scientists get into what I believe is a specious arguement of 'reconciliation'. I believe scripture is historical narrative and, as such, is much more dangerous to retrograde science then "Infalible Word Of God'.

'Scientific' athiests and others get possitively appoplectic over the shroud because it is a modern day existing artifact that seems congruent with scripture when viewed as historical narrative. Accordingly, I have in these very forums been told to continue on with my superstitious belief system even though I have never expressed any belief system other then the mandatory moniker in which I state "agnostic". An agnostic - correctly if I am technically mistaken - is someone who simply says they don't know. That does not exclude hypotheses!

For instance, science is by nature reaactionary. For my entire adult life astrophysics had been certain expansion of the universe was slowing down. The only question being whether it was slowing down enough to reverse into a Big-Crunch. A proper agnostic would have simply added the qualifier: "As best as we can tell so far, expansion of the universe is slowing down..."

The same thing exists today. Astrophisicists seem to universally accept a scalar field 'inflation' of the early universe, I hear nothing today that current expansion might also be subject to a similar limitation. But never mind.......

Rapalyea, you seem to have a sort of stream of conscious way of writing here and so its hard to follow some of your posts. It probably doesn't help that you're not using the quote button when you quote folks. You'll notice this button below and to the right of the person you'd like to quote. Simply click that button and then type your text below the quoted text if that helps.

I also think you're assuming a bit about the posters in this forum that you don't know for fact. For instance, you state: Theologians and scientists get into what I believe is a specious arguement of 'reconciliation', and by that I'm assuming you mean theologians are looking to reconcile through faith and scientists are looking to reconcile through fact, yet seems to me that this thread is filled with posters who obviously cross these lines. The fact that the person debating you most on this subject is both a scientist and a Christian should make it clear that the two sides can blend.

Maybe you're arguing that theologians and scientists should not be looking for reconciliation at all though, and that we should all simply hold out for... well... nothing? everything? I don't think, at the end of the day, any of us are afraid to say "I don't know", but I think its only human nature to want to tie up loose ends as best we can.

And, I don't think anyone is questioning your agnosticism here. I could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone in this thread calling you superstitious. Still, I don't see how it's impossible to say there are no superstitious agnostics, and I have to admit that it's a bit unusual to read an agnostic vehemently defending the shroud of Turin, but I've seen stranger things on these forums.

[Rapalyea]

Rogue06 - Regarding Napkin

Almost all tranlations suck. That is why the Roman Catholic Church does not claim its English translations are "The Inspired Word of God". It is also the reason Rabinical Judaism did not use the Septuagent for its own bible, even though recent studies show it is marginally more congruent with The Dead Sea Scrolls then the Masoretic text. [Google Septuagent]

I, my very own self, have discoverred a number of unfortunate bad translations. One of which is referenced here, concerning 'Wild Ass of a Man' http://bible.cc/genesis/16-12.htm The New English Translation Septuagent referrenced [agricos] which refers not to an animal, but to way of life. Specifically, and simply, agricultural. Rutstic, man of the land, etc. But the Septuagent is AGRICOS! Google NETS. I had personal correspondence with both, and if my mememory is mistaken, I stand corrected.

Now on to shrouds and napkins. The Greek [or perhaps Aramaic] word used for the shroud is convincingly, to me, 'high qualilty' linnen, not just linnen. This is congruent with the high quality linnen of Turin. Similarly, the word for napkin is way way bad. The word is better translated into English as 'large hand towel'.

In biblical times it generally referred to a cloth carried to wipe sweat from a workers brow, and also used to cover the head of a recently deceased individual at which time it would be called a Sudarium. Such would have been the case on Calvary. Such a 'towel' would have been used to cover the dead face on the cross itself prior to the body later being coverred with the burial linnen.

Conveniently, we actually have such a cloth that tradition holds performed that exact purpose. It is known as The Sudarium of Oviedo. Google it.

[Rapalyea]

Adrift - You wrote: "I don't remember anyone in this thread calling you superstitious..." You are correct. KB wrote to me: "You are free to believe whatever myths or urban legends you wish."

[Rapalyea]

KB You wrote: "They [STURP] dream up conspiracy-type theories to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions (e.g. radiocarbon)..." The C14 fiasco began in 1988 when, I believe, the sample was cut from the cloth. STRUP, I believe, issued its final report in 1981 and was disbanded. Please provide evidence the official STURP team ever addressed the C14 controversy.

I think you are confusing STURP with one of its members, Ray Rogers. After the 1988 C14 a Columbus Ohio housewife and her husband developed a theory the sample was cut from a place on the shroud that was anomolous in at least two ways. First, the fabric weave itself was incongruent. In addition, previous STURP photo analysis showed the likelyhood of paint pigments in the area.

According to Rogers own testimony, the housewife team got him angry and, since he had appropriated samples in his own posession, decided to debunk them. Again, according to video testimony, he confirmed cotton in the patch area within a few hours. The rest is history.

[Rapalyea]

Adrift - You wrote: "I have to admit that it's a bit unusual to read an agnostic vehemently defending the shroud of Turin, but I've seen stranger things on these forums."

First, I must confess I do not use the quote buttons for a couple of reasons. First, they seem, on first appearance, to quote the whole thing. Second, I have my own ancient habbit of quoting only those items I wish to addess.

As for an agnostic defending the shroud, I see perfect congruence. Specifically, I was a congressional investigator for just about my entire carreer, and my approach to any investigation is determed indifference. Further, I have a personal interest in ancient history of whatever origin. For instance, while stationed in Frankfurt I read all of Bresteads(sp) work on ancient Egypt.

So, back in the old 1980's, after working on research in Mozambique and Madagascar, I went WAY out of my way to stop over in Cairo on the way back. That is another story. Let it be said the State Department recommeded we not fly on the low maintenance 737's that would get me to Cairo. Forget the fact I was the only passenger making that particular transfer in the dead of night at Dar Es Alam, past Tansania, flying, I believe, an Ilusian jet of some sort. Forget the sleepy submachine totting concourse employerr. And lets forget the fact I got home with exactly five marks in my pocket.

I brag about this stuff first, because I DID it. And second to emphasize I am serious about my history. So I got really really miffed when it suddenly became apparent the C14 on one of the most important anthrapological and archaological artifacts in history was bungled. Some say sabatauged. ["The church did a switcheroo because the shroud showed the individual was NOT DEAD at the time"]

However, I now have enough information to develop an actual Audit Plan, such as I would have developed back in the old days. First, I would have one staff member track down each and every surface sample ever taken. Catalog its provenance, gather all the written and photographic evidence.

Me. Personally? I would take on the three labs. Specifically, show me the chain of custody. Second, did your protocols leave any specimens as backup [I know G_d D_amed well they did]. Third, how did you clean the samples. GEE. Did you notice anything once you cleaned them? Fourth, did you document the process in any way, microscopic photos, tape recordings, chemical analysis, WHO witnessed the proceedings. Where do they now live. I would put the principals under oath if I had authority.

My very first GAO investigation was to determine whether or not a report out of The National Science Foundation was plagerized. We took the report and ran a red pencil above and below each individual statement, even if it was one sentence long. THEN we went to the library to document it. It looked like popcorn...

Eventually we just wore them down. After about six weeks one of the guys just opened up his bottom drawer, literally, and handed us the source. One Singel MF doncument. Plagarized is not the word. Xerox was the appropriate word. We left the rest to the Justice Department.