|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 11, 2015 11:38:22 GMT
We have discussed this matter before (e.g here) but the discussion didn't get very far. And anyway, I have come across an internet discussion by a Catholic who has studied the matter extensively and presented a strong case, but who is also a barrister so he knows how to present a strong case. I am not a Catholic, and tend to be uninterested, unimpressed and sceptical about relics, so I am not predisposed to accept his argument, but I am interested to at least examine what he has said. I am interested in serious discussion please. I know it is easy to belittle something like this, but if you are tempted, please take such comments elsewhere. Like the 1950s detective, I just want to get the facts. His case is, very briefly summarised, like this: 1. The only evidence peer reviewed scientific evidence against the possible authenticity of the shroud is old and easily criticised. 2. In contrast there is significant peer reviewed scientific evidence that establishes" - Significant problems with the carbon dating and the finding that the shroud was painted, mentioned in 1.
- Pollen and soil linking the shroud to first or second century Jerusalem.
- A face cloth with type AB blood, known to be dated before 7th century, and exactly matching the image on th shroud, showing that it too must date earlier than the carbon dating indicates.
- Forensic evidence that the linen is pre 7th century.
- A Pontius Pilate coin on the man's eyelid.
- The matching of so many details of the image of the man with the records of Jesus' execution & burial
- The impossibility of producing the image even today.
3. Thus the whole thing is impossible except if the miracle of the resurrection actually took place, he says. Now I am aware of many popular internet sites which purport to show the Shroud is a fake, or at least not what it is claimed to be, as well, no doubt, many which argue for its genuineness. But I don't want to read gleeful put-downs or pious belief, I want to read genuine evidence, to at least get a feeling for the issues myself. Has anyone got any such websites that you think I should check out please? (I will of course be googling, but its always helpful to get suggestions and comments.) Or any reasonable assessment of the different claimed evidences? James, I'm particularly interested to know if you have any perspective on where things are at with this please. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 11, 2015 14:50:11 GMT
I'll respond to your summary, but I first want to say why I don't believe the shroud is authentic and why I probably never will. My view on this must be qualified by my lack of interest in and knowledge of ancient and medieval weaving techniques and the specific way shrouds were used in both contexts. But my understanding is that the shroud uses a medieval weave, called the herringbone weave. The earliest possible example of one is apparently a Celtic piece of fabric from the 7th century. This is a smoking gun, as even the earliest reasonable date it far too late for the shroud to be authentic. Another issue is with the type of image on the shroud. One thing that is noticed with just a single superficial glance is that the shroud image looks as if it is an approximate projection onto a planar surface, comparable to most 2D images with which we are familiar. That is not how shrouds work, at least not any type I know. Just try to wrap a towel around your head, drop some water over your eyelids, your ears and your neck, then unwrap the towel and compare it to the shroud. It will not resemble those proportions on the shroud at all. As I said, I am not well-informed about the ways the ancient Judeans and Galileans shrouded their dead. But I refuse to believe that they simply stretched it over a dead body, as I do know a thing or two about actual burial practices. Whatever the exact method was, there is no way it will ever look like a projection on a plane. One can appeal to a miracle, but this makes the whole business of arguing the thing's authenticity a pointless exercise. Then there are issues of style and proportion. To my inexpert eye it looks thoroughly medieval in both ways and not quite realistic at all. As for supposed signs of realism, I know many shroud believers tend to 'see' things in the shroud that others can't, but let's agree that the image is not sharp and that it sometimes is more like a Rorschach blot. Now for the issues you mention: I have more questions than answers, but I think they show that all these points combined fail to make a persuasive evidence-based case. 1. The only evidence peer reviewed scientific evidence against the possible authenticity of the shroud is old and easily criticised. Does the author actually criticise the old evidence? Could you verify that this has been stated correctly? And do their arguments stand on their merits? 2. In contrast there is significant peer reviewed scientific evidence that establishes" - Significant problems with the carbon dating and the finding that the shroud was painted, mentioned in 1.
- Pollen and soil linking the shroud to first or second century Jerusalem.
- A face cloth with type AB blood, known to be dated before 7th century, and exactly matching the image on th shroud, showing that it too must date earlier than the carbon dating indicates.
- Forensic evidence that the linen is pre 7th century.
- A Pontius Pilate coin on the man's eyelid.
- The matching of so many details of the image of the man with the records of Jesus' execution & burial
- The impossibility of producing the image even today.
1. What are those problems? How have opponents responded to this point: what has been conceded and what has not? 2. Is the pollen and soil dating based on an accepted dating method? Could it be plausibly explained by pollution? 3. So the point is that the image resembles actual ancient blood. How does it follow from this it indeed ancient? Couldn't it be adequately explained by using another chemical compound or even medieval blood? 4. What methods are used for? Does he engage at all with historical evidence like the type of weave and the art style? 5. The existence of these images of coins is highly contested. If it is stated as a matter of fact, that's rather partisan. Problems with such a view are described here: www.amuseum.org/book/page27.html6. Do these details include the alleged Pilate coin? Does this include anything that could not be explained by knowledge of the gospel accounts? 7. Is it explained what's exactly meant by the impossibility of reproducing the image or is it simply ventured as rhetoric? Do not get me wrong, it is in theory possible that a forensic test is based on a biased sample. But this should be weighed to the totality of the evidence. It should also be remembered that it's potentially a rhetorical trick to ignore any evidence regardless of merit. 3. Thus the whole thing is impossible except if the miracle of the resurrection actually took place, he says. Maybe, but I think he and I would disagree on the way it would be 'impossible' and that prevents the appreciation of it as a miracle on one side. Anyway, I hope this post helps you with making up your mind yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 11, 2015 15:18:20 GMT
Why would devout Jews place coins on the eyes of their dead in the first place? That was a gentile custom, IIRC.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 11, 2015 23:34:59 GMT
Hi IN, thanks for your thoughts. I especially appreciate the link, for that's what I'm really after - good information plus an assessment of the latest state of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 12, 2015 15:49:18 GMT
UnkleE, do you have any need for a source that is for the most part more factual than polemical, but occasionally has extremely ignorant moments?
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 13, 2015 4:29:19 GMT
THat would be good thanks. I will be doing my own Googling,but if anyone has some good information, that would help. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 13, 2015 8:08:36 GMT
It would be the page on the Silly Beliefs website. It has howlers like doubting that Pilate judged Jesus, claiming the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus are fake, invoking parallels between Jesus and dying and rising gods (whom are called "historical figures"), citing Zindler and stating that the Abgar legend dates from the day of Jesus. Apart from that, it's not too bad. www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.htmlMy hunch is that the authors have a science background and can reliably replicate the arguments of historical scholars, but aren't very skilled in the humanities themselves (for fate's sake, there's the book by Freke and Gandy in the footnotes). |
|
|
|
Post by parapicchus on Apr 13, 2015 11:04:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 13, 2015 12:59:43 GMT
Hi Clerk, thanks for that. It certainly looks like it would be a great read, but the price may be a little more than I want to pay. But there are ways of getting access to some of the information in the book and I will try, Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 13, 2015 13:01:49 GMT
Hi IN, that's a pretty damning set of "howlers" which would make it hard to think they have good judgment. But I'll certainly look at it. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Apr 13, 2015 15:00:27 GMT
Apart from that, it's not too bad. I hope you will excuse me for asking, how do you know? When I read someone who seems to care more about what is true than what side they are on, and the things they say that I know how to check are good - then I have some reasonable confidence in those things I have not checked. When I read someone who seems to care more about what side they are on than what is true, and I catch them being careless about anything, then I cannot trust anything until I check it with a more reliable source. Even if they seem to be on my side, they are worthless if I can not trust anything I can not check. Peter. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 14, 2015 15:52:54 GMT
Well oh my, guys, I never had any idea you cared so much about the Abgar legend!  Apart from that, it's not too bad. I hope you will excuse me for asking, how do you know? When I read someone who seems to care more about what is true than what side they are on, and the things they say that I know how to check are good - then I have some reasonable confidence in those things I have not checked. When I read someone who seems to care more about what side they are on than what is true, and I catch them being careless about anything, then I cannot trust anything until I check it with a more reliable source. Even if they seem to be on my side, they are worthless if I can not trust anything I can not check. Peter. You are excused! No, it's seriously a good question. Some of it depends on a sense of intuition (does it seem like the person is bluffing with all those specific numbers?), but I think it can be narrowed to some reasonable beliefs as well. Some of their handling of NT evidence is rather competent. For instance, even though to othónion can mean "linen(s)" in a wider sense in Greek (and sometimes it's translated like that in the NT), Bauer's dictionary does support "linen bandage" or "linen strip" as the primary meaning in NT Greek - and that's exactly what the translation that the site authors use says. And I'd say displaying knowledge of the Abgar legend despite giving it the wrong dating also counts for something. There were also other controls where they obviously got things right, as in making some sensible arguments, correctly stating things that reliable mainstream media supported and reliably replicating information from the Nature article. I'd also mention their description of the herringbone pattern in relation to this. And I'd add that their account is remarkably specific in some places for it to be bluff. I mean, it's possible, but given the other stuff I've seen, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt. Crackpots, when pressed, tend to obscure the debate or at least they try. So with that in mind, you simply try to think of an explanation that can account for getting some things so wrong while being much better with some other stuff. I think the best explanation is that they don't have much experience in the humanities, but did get some of their information from the work of actual scholars. My experience is that to a less dramatic degree, something like that is de rigueur in the humanities. Whenever people write about something that isn't within their specialisation, they're just going to make errors that are glaring to people who know better. It's just something you need to live with. |
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 19, 2015 16:33:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 19, 2015 22:09:59 GMT
May I ask if you have seen the shroud? No, and never likely to, being an Antipodean. I guess if it was proven to be genuine I'd be interested, but until then, probably not. (I'm also a Philistine!) |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 22, 2015 17:03:09 GMT
Dear UnkleE, In the OP you rather flatteringly asked what I thought of the shroud. Sorry it has taken so long to reply. This isn't because I have much to say. I think it more than likely that the shroud is a medieval artefact. I'm not sure it is necessarily a fake as it may not have been created with the intention to deceive. But it was, I think, intended to be venerated either as a relic or as some kind of icon. I am comfortable with the carbon dating as this matches the rest of the unequivocal evidence nicely. As for the impossibility or accuracy of the image, I am probably the last person who'd say medieval people would not be able to create something very clever! FWIW, I thought this article by someone we know and that's I've posted here before is sensible and has so interesting observations. www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/origins-shroud-turinBest wishes James |
|
