|
Post by unkleE on Apr 23, 2015 2:23:04 GMT
Thanks James. I wasn't sure if you might have some extra information, nor was I sure if Freeman was an unbiased source.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 23, 2015 13:05:40 GMT
James, Everyone here knows I hold Freeman in low regard. But that article of his is a good summary of why this artefact is almost certainly medieval. How anyone can continue to claim it is anything else, given the overwhelming weight of evidence that it dates to the fourteenth century, is the only real mystery here. And a warning to many about the warping power of faith and to us all about confirmation bias. It's medieval - end of story.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 24, 2015 10:41:26 GMT
Thanks James. I wasn't sure if you might have some extra information, nor was I sure if Freeman was an unbiased source. Freeman is definitely no unbiased source as demonstrated again by this article. He is good at providing arguments for his own conclusions, while omitting arguments that show his conclusions to be wrong. According to a Norwegian expert Atle Ottesen Søvik, the image is between two and sixth thousandth of a millimeter thick. It is found just on the surface of the fibers (the core is blank). You don't make this with a knife. Chemists have tested for gesso, collagen and protein. You need the strongest acids we know to remove the image. Freeman's hypothesis is tested and falsified. One could also mention the challenge that the stuff that seems like blood has been put there before the image was made, according to peer-reviewed journals. Freeman has several interesting points, however is rather clueless when he writes about what STURP researchers haven't considered, as they in fact have tested and falsified a lot of what he says. I'm not writing this to start a debate, just again to remind those who need it not to take Freeman as an especially balanced, well informed or fair presenter of positions and arguments. For those fortunate enough to read Norwegian there are two long articles (one book length and one with additional analysis) by a non catholic at www.academia.edu/4476369/Likkledet_i_Torino._En_kritisk_vurdering and www.academia.edu/4473455/Ekskurser_til_artikkelen_Likkledet_i_Torino._En_kritisk_vurdering._At least the peer reviewed articles refered to are mainly in English:)
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 24, 2015 21:14:24 GMT
Thanks for that Bjorn, I wish I was fortunate enough to read Norwegian. But surely there must be an equivalent article in English. I will search for it.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 24, 2015 22:52:08 GMT
According to a Norwegian expert Atle Ottesen Søvik, the image is between two and sixth thousandth of a millimeter thick. It is found just on the surface of the fibers (the core is blank). You don't make this with a knife. Says who? What medieval art experts have established this? As critics of the Shroud believers have often pointed out, the teams that have investigated the Shroud have been made up of people who are very good at many things, but never seem to have anyone on them with any expertise in medieval art or faked relics. Strange, no? What chemists did this? In 1979 Walter McCrone detected collagen all over the image areas. He detected protein in the same areas. And calcium carbonate, the primary ingredient of gesso, is all over the thing. It is? How and by who? The True Believers' arguments seem to boil down to two weak nubs - (i) "we don't know exactly how the Shroud could have been 'cunningly painted' therefore JESUS!" and (ii) various crap about how the carbon dating is wrong, all of which is demonstrable garbage. Against this we have the fact that the linen is the wrong weave, the image is anatomically impossible, the "blood stains" are the wrong colour, it's covered in pigment, the iconography is medieval and we have medieval letters from one medieval bishop and a frigging medieval Pope TELLING US IT'S A MEDIEVAL FAKE. Oh, and the results from the three best carbon dating labs in the world. Seriously people - would it take a personal visit from the Blessed Lord assuring you that it's a fake to get you to see the obvious? It's a fake.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 25, 2015 5:49:56 GMT
It seems pretty clear to me that the Shroud is a fake.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 25, 2015 6:59:17 GMT
It seems pretty clear to me that the Shroud is a fake. Very clear. I like to use the Shroud to make a point about the supposedly "superstitious" medieval world versus our wonderfully "rational" and "scientific" age. Here we have supposed scientists falling over themselves to find reasons an obviously fake relic is the real thing. Whereas in the fourteenth century as soon as the local bishop got wind of this thing he did what a good sceptic should do, investigated it rationally and debunked it. Not exactly what the modern clichés about the two periods would have us expect.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 25, 2015 18:13:24 GMT
It seems pretty clear to me that the Shroud is a fake. Very clear. I like to use the Shroud to make a point about the supposedly "superstitious" medieval world versus our wonderfully "rational" and "scientific" age. Here we have supposed scientists falling over themselves to find reasons an obviously fake relic is the real thing. Whereas in the fourteenth century as soon as the local bishop got wind of this thing he did what a good sceptic should do, investigated it rationally and debunked it. Not exactly what the modern clichés about the two periods would have us expect. Brilliant. I shall shamelessly commandeer this argument! J
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 25, 2015 19:01:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 25, 2015 22:25:52 GMT
Hi Bjorn, thanks, I'll check them out. I appreciate the opportunity to read something thoughtful from that side of things.
First glance suggests it is very balanced and contains lots of good references for both sides of the question - just what I wanted. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 26, 2015 2:34:04 GMT
Bjorn, I have had a look at those two documents thanks. They certainly are interesting, and an useful summary of the evidence to compare with Freeman's (albeit Freeman was writing for a more pop audience while this paper was more academic).
I notice you are listed in there among the advisers as "sceptic", which isn't how I would have described you. Were you sceptical of the shroud, and are you still?
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 26, 2015 17:40:46 GMT
Bjorn, I have had a look at those two documents thanks. They certainly are interesting, and an useful summary of the evidence to compare with Freeman's (albeit Freeman was writing for a more pop audience while this paper was more academic). I notice you are listed in there among the advisers as "sceptic", which isn't how I would have described you. Were you sceptical of the shroud, and are you still? Well, as a member of the Norwegian Skeptical Society since the 90s, I am in fact a (Christian) skeptic... Regarding the shroud I am also a bit skeptical, as long as the C14 issue stands as it does, however a lot more open for it after having worked with Atle's articles. I provided even more skeptical input, and as I suspected, he dealt with it well.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on May 2, 2015 23:06:21 GMT
Regarding the shroud I am also a bit skeptical, as long as the C14 issue stands as it does, however a lot more open for it after having worked with Atle's articles. I provided even more skeptical input, and as I suspected, he dealt with it well. Are you kidding me? His "arguments" against the C-14 dating were so bad I actually laughed out loud. The frigging "Pray Manuscript"? Seriously? The guy is utterly clueless about medieval art. And he cited Adler and Heller to back up his bombastic assertion that "there is blood on the Shroud ... (t)his is very certain", despite the fact their arguments for the "blood" are ludicrously contrived. And don't account for most of the things this so-called "blood" lacks as well as the more logical conclusion that it's iron oxide in a tempera suspension - i.e. medieval paint. Which explains why this "blood" is still red rather than black and why it was vivid in the sixteenth century and faded now. Guys, give it up. It's a nice piece of medieval art, nothing more. I love it as an amazing piece of medieval art. But it's not the burial cloth of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 3, 2015 3:28:18 GMT
It may have been his beach towel.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 29, 2015 22:48:26 GMT
I have followed up on the paper Bjorn recommend, which led me to some other helpful reading, and I think the situation regarding the shroud has changed over the last decade or two. The sceptical side has pretty much rested since the radiocarbon dating (decades ago now), and done very little more work. Presumably they are not highly interested, and feel the dating makes things final. The sceptical case therefore rests on very few quality peer-reviewed papers, and they are somewhat out of date and even problematic. In contrast, the "authentic" side has been very active - there are conventions and groups and websites all keeping things humming - and continues to produce some good quality papers, including some that are peer-reviewed. The emphasis is on dating, and composition. I think some aspects of the sceptical case have been severely dented: - The work by McCrone on blood vs paint, so much relied upon by sceptics, seems to not to have been as good as first thought. The case for there being blood on the shroud looks pretty good, with some experts claiming to distinguish venal and arterial blood and identify blood type.
- The argument that the radiocarbon testing was done on a well-concealed patch seems bizarre - how could anyone be so incompetent? But it ought to be able to be settled very easily, yet apparently it hasn't. As long as this isn't verified or falsified publicly, the question will remain.
- A plausible case for doubts about the carbon dating therefore remains - based on vanillin tests (admittedly done in a problematic way and therefore questionable), infra red spectroscopy and pollen samples.
- The literature by the 'believers' seems much better written than much of the reports by sceptics, who often sound arrogant and biased (not saying they are, just saying how they read).
These doubts, and the papers that research them, should be seen by both sides as addressing merely the dating of this artefact. I think a lot of the sceptic's emotional response is because of the possible next step of arguing (1) this was Jesus, and (2) the image was caused by the resurrection (fuelled by the uncertainty of how the image was formed). But this is a second, and not certain, step, and shouldn't muddy the waters of the dating. My conclusion is similar to Bjorn's, I think, that is, Søvik has done a good job of summarising the evidence and reviewing it impartially, but I am a little more sceptical than he is (he leans a little towards first century). I think there is a reasonable case for an earlier date than that given by the radiocarbon dating, but the radiocarbon dating remains a strong piece of evidence. Both sides still have work to do to make their case convincing. I think if it was first century then the possibility that it was from Jesus must be considered (why else would anyone have kept it?) but I don't see there is much of a case that the resurrection explains the image - no-one has yet explained the formation of the image satisfactorily, whether it was painted or a Maillard reaction (natural explanations) or formed supernaturally. As a non-Catholic christian, I feel free to adopt any of the range of views, but my natural caution (or maybe scepticism) remains. I'm not sure if the shroud was worth my looking into, let alone all the effort of the 'shroudies', but I have enjoyed doing this little bit of "research".
|
|