Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural

techniques that affix the age of this shroud to about 1300 AD.

" In 1988, researchers at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud to a range of 1260–1390 CE, providing "conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval"

^ P.E. Damon et al., Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, Nature 337, 611-615 (1989)

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

So now we want to go back to MAGIC?

However, there are some interesting criticisms.

For one thing, this is not a pristine artifact either. It has been extensively handled and even repaired by interweaving new fibers from time to time. After its original appearance in France, it was acquired by the Savoy family and moved around quite a bit prior to its current home in Turin. During that time, it was exposed to several fires and other misadventures. The carbon dating samples were taken from an edge region which some critics claim shows evidence of repairs. Additionally, various backing fabrics have been sewn on to it over the course of time, and it has been stored in intimate contact with those backings and whatever contaminants may have been on them.

Aside from contamination by handling and repairs over the centuries, it is inhabited by micro-organisms, which have lived and died on it, leaving a crust of newer organic matter on the exterior surface of the fibers.

It's one thing to dig up an ancient fire pit and analyze the undisturbed remains thereof, but this is not something that has been preserved as an archaeological specimen in the course of its lifetime.

Of course it is significant that the date obtained by the prior round of radiocarbon dating corresponds fairly well to the first recorded evidence of its appearance.

Which brings us to the fact that no one has found an example of the kind of weave of the shroud in the Middle East in the 1st century.

When the carbon dating is also supported by other evidence.... well, you get it.

What bothers me about conversations about the shroud are the accidental reinforcements of the perception that some have that science is dogmatic.

There is a lot archaeology, psychology, history, physics, art and chemistry wrapped up in the various musings about it. It is a fascinating and fun artifact, and a lot of folks find it inspirational. What's really weird to me is that nobody goes into the Sistine Chapel, looks at Michelangelo's Creation and says, "I don't think God really looks like that".

There's also a question of how one defines "objective". Let's say that, for some reason, the radiocarbon date is invalidated for some reason. You are in charge of appointing a new team to examine it (actually the Catholic Church has ruled out any further testing). In order to be "objective", do you care about the religious beliefs of the persons you appoint to that team, or simply whether they have no opinion on the "authenticity" of the artifact? Does it matter?

Of course, the question of whether it is a first or 14th century artifact doesn't really address the popular question of "Is this the burial shroud of a resurrected human possessed of divine power?" let alone "Is this the burial shroud of Jesus Christ?" Given the uniform absence of documented bodily resurrected humans, the popular question is pretty readily disposed of to a greater degree of confidence than any radiocarbon date. For example, and I'm just going from dim memory here, I can't recall whether the confidence ranges of the outside radiocarbon dates overlap, but we have centuries of experience with dead people not coming back to life.

So, you get your "objective" team together and through some battery of tests, they find that the artifact is of first century middle eastern origin, and further determine that it is the burial shroud of a resurrected human. One of your team is so taken by this, that he becomes a Christian. Does that team member remain "objective"? Because if you define objectivity as ruling out that the artifact is what some purport it to be, then it seems that any conclusion that the shroud is "authentic" (whatever that means) is perforce not "objective".

The best fit, to a high degree of confidence, of the available data is that the artifact is of medieval origin. But something strikes me as weird about attempting to find objective results in dealing with an artifact that, by definition, is of supposed "miraculous" origin. If it is a miracle of some kind, it is by definition an intractable question in the first place.

Science has two answers to any question: 1. "Best fit to a high degree of confidence of available data", and 2. "Don't know". Asking science "Is this a miracle?" isn't really a sensible question in the first place. If science ever did "confirm a miracle", then all bets are off and we can dispense with the entire scientific exercise in "how do we know stuff".

One of the other things that gets missed in the shroud stuff is that the Catholic Church doesn't take an official position on it anyway. Pope John Paul II, for example, said that the church "has no specific competence" to pronounce it authentic or not.

The Met museum in NYC has yards and yards of fabric from ancient Egypt.

I've never been to that museum but always hear about wonderful things in it.

I've seen some medieval tapestries and, quite frankly, if someone wants to see something miraculous on an old piece of fabric, that would be it.

Have you ever seen this:

Thermochimica Acta
Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin

Raymond N. Rogers

Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA

Received 14 April 2004; revised 14 April 2004; Accepted 12 September 2004. Available online 16 November 2004.

Abstract

In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

been shown to be as reliable as radiocarbon dating? Where are the independent results from other labs that agree with his, and that also determined the correct ages of blind control samples (as was done, properly, with the radiocarbon dating)? And where is the independent proof that the area sampled for RCD was not original to the Shroud? if that were suspected, it would have been very easy to go back and look at the fabric physically, but there is not indication that that was ever done. Don't forget, the original testing and sampling was done by people who had been over every inch of the Shroud, and knew that it had been repaired. Does it seem likely that they would have made such a basic error? Nor was ever a radiocarbon dating of cloth from the area that the vanillin loss testing was performed on, to corroborate it. And what are the dye lakes that are present? And how does this alleged age conform with the fact that the image is produced by pigments?

Try reading Walter McCrone's book, Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud. The truth is that, as an artifact, the Shroud is not a particularly difficult problem, no more so than things that are analyzed in museum and university labs all the time. But there is a certain fringe out there that started with the unshakable notion that this IS the burial shroud of Jesus, and will go to ridiculous lengths to discount any evidence to the contrary, or just to get their 15 minutes of fame.

the woo sites. They've got Doctorates in Molecular Biology from Bob's Baptist Bible School or Uncle Johny's Massage College and University of Chiropractic Art.

At least that's my guess. I'm not going to waste much time reading something so ridiculous, so I'm not going to get to see these "scientist's" bona-fides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers

And this peer-reviewed paper:

Thermochimica Acta
Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin

Raymond N. Rogers

Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA

Received 14 April 2004; revised 14 April 2004; Accepted 12 September 2004. Available online 16 November 2004.
Abstract

In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

then the original must have been caused by a "supernatural event"?

Makes sense - in the same way that the only way we can show the world a talking snake is by using CGI, so either someone in the garden of Eden must have been a computer programmer (or a ventriloquist) or there really was a talking snake.

And: Pollen from plants that do not exist in Israel but in Italy were found on the fabric.

someone pointed out that any normally-proportioned body with the arms resting at the sides, and the hands placed over the centre of the torso, does not cover the genitals with the hands - our arms and hands aren't that long. But the shroud's artist thought that a picture of Jesus exposing himself wasn't the done thing, so he lengthened the arms and hands. It's far more likely it was drawn (or the elbows were propped up somehow).

which says this is not nearly the right age on this. But you are right, the timing of this "discovery" is suspicious. I suspect these "scientists" are funded by someone much like the "Discovery Institute", which sounds scientific but is a creationist operation.

You mean the

CATHOLIC CHURCH?
They got the cash.


The "scientists" are in Italy, y'know.

And just in time to get the faithful all puffed up for Christmas!

Why they didn't wait 'til Easter, I'll never know. Seems more appropriate.

Besides, the article comes with so many maybes and caveats, it basically says they still "don't know".... meh

Of course it's a fake.

A fake what?

Is it a real piece of cloth? Yep.

Is it old? Yep.

Does it have an image on it? Yep.

Is the Mona Lisa a "fake"?

was generated by a supernatural event which left an image of a dead supernatural being for whose existence there is absolutely no other historical proof whatsoever.

....but the falsity of that claim doesn't make the pyramids "fake".

Likewise, there are people who claim that Shakespeare didn't write his plays. That doesn't make the plays "fake".

So, the question, I guess, is who is specifically making what claim, and is the claim disproved. The Catholic Church does not make any claim as to the authenticity or origin of the shroud.

As an artwork of some kind, the shroud is a lot older than the Mona Lisa. There aren't a whole lot of 800 year old pieces of linen sitting around, so it is quite a remarkable artifact into which a lot of effort has gone into keeping it around. Regardless of its origin, it's an interesting artifact.

So, I agree with you that claims to the effect that it is the burial shroud of an executed Jewish zombie are false to a high degree of confidence. But the artifact itself is a very real thing, and a unique medieval artifact.

I suppose next you'll tell me that the Mayan ruins are "fake" because the deities to whom they were dedicated do not exist.

What makes the story funny, though is the notion of "scientific evidence of a supernatural event". Ummm.... there is no such animal.

but that the claims for its origins are suspect. As you know. So what are we arguing about, again?

It is an interesting medieval artifact that would go for major bucks on eBay. Nothing fake about that.

Claims about its origins, not so much.

The OP falls into the category of "we couldn't reproduce it, so it must be a miracle," and there are a lot of those.

Whomever made it put a lot of work into it, and had significant forensic insight, though. It's a very clever thing.

What the hell are you talking about?

If the Mayan ruins were generally thought to be built by aliens, then, yes, they are FAKE ALIEN ARCHITECTURE... Because they are really Mayan architecture built by Mayans, for Mayans...

The shroud as the actual shroud Jesus was wrapped in when he supposedly resurrected is a fake.... because it's really a piece of cloth from the 13th century made to fool the faithful.


Jesus H Christ!

It may have been intended as an artwork of some kind, but took on a life of its own.

But those Mayan temples have depictions of gods on them. So they are fake.

If not, then why the purposeful misunderstanding of the poster's point of view? No one is saying the shroud isn't real as if it doesn't exist, but that it isn't real as relates to the claims that it has some divine origin.

I believe it is most likely a medieval artwork of extremely clever origin.

I am further not an adherent of the Christian faith.

The origin of the artifact is, however, unknown and unexplained, and there is quite a bit of literature on the subject of its origins, which is inconclusive.

That is properly a subject of scientific inquiry and discussion, given that the artifact has substantial social significance.

Some people's attitude toward science is indistinguishable from theists' attitude toward religion however.

"It's a fake" is a really unsatisfying answer to what exactly it is and how it was made, and if questions like that do not intrigue you, then I hope you don't pursue a scientific career, because that is a marked lack of curiousity.

Whoever made it put a shitload of forensic knowledge into it, as it is quite unlike other contemporaneous artistic depictions. I find that interesting, and I find "it's a fake" to be dismissive of whatever it is.

Now, upthread, someone claims that the publication referenced in the OP was likely the result of funding by the Catholic Church which, itself, does not take an official position on the origin of this thing.

Saying "folklore is wrong" is pretty trivial, but the owner of the thing itself does not purport it to be of supernatural origin either.

but it was pretty clear that they didn't mean the shroud wasn't real in the sense of being a real object.

As for the Catholic Church, well they don't need to say it's a miracle thingy, plenty of people are doing it for them. They just have to sit back and bask in the money... er glory of their shroud.

you mean that we don't know with 100% certainty who painted it, how and in what year, no, we don't, but we don't know that about a lot of artifacts, so that would be a trivial dismissal. But there is good evidence for when and how it was probably painted, and for the fact that church officials at the time it first appeared were aware that it was not a true relic, and that they knew who painted it.

I love relics. When I was on a visit to my mother's hometown in Austria as a child, I was fascinated by the "catacomb saints" they had in the church.

These things are amazing, and all over Central Europe:



Traders in Rome would sell bodies they looted from the catacombs and sell them as "Christian martyrs" to folks building baroque churches. With no freaking clue who these folks were, they are all dressed up and on display. First dead person I ever saw.

But since then, I've always liked to see the collections, now kept in the "treasures" sections of cathedrals, of the odd bits of bones, teeth and other body parts of holy notables in the gaudiest display capsules. Now, you can buy trading cards with bits of game jerseys, wood from bats, and so on that seem to fill the same urge to have something tangibly connected to whatever it is one admires.

The problem with relics, from the point of view of the church organization, is that they can be politically disruptive. If you start drawing the pilgrim traffic away from someone else's church, then your relics are fake, and mine are real. Or, the relic can be advancing one bishop's status over another. Once the relics make their way into folklore, the early denunciations are papered over. A similar set of events happened with Our Lady of Guadeloupe, of which the story of its origin is quite the tale. They've got it hanging too high above the motorized observation walkway to really get a good close look at it now, though.

I've seen a bunch of pieces of the true cross, a drop of Christ's blood (in a very unassuming chapel in Bruges), an earbone of St. John the Beloved, and a list of others. I understand the true grail is in Valencia, Spain.

You can always tell the genuine ones, because they have the word "true" in front.

I was under the impression that the chemistry of the shroud image was a subject of some debate. Not having a well-developed curatorial sophistication, though, my understanding was that it was some kind of superficial scorch that had been touched up a number of times, instead of having been painted. But by its "origin", I meant the process by which it was made, and not the specifics.

The souvenir business in Constantinople must have been awesome during the Crusades.

only in the sense that evolution vs. creationism is. The shroud has red ochre pigment in the image areas and red ochre and vermillion pigments in the blood areas, and nowhere else on the shroud, both in a tempera base. That's abundantly clear from the physical analysis, though there is always a fringe of scientists who are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by trying to attribute the image to other causes. The image was most likely made by a process called grisaille, which was a well-known technique in the 14th century, used to create very faint, monochrome watercolor images on fabric.

And it's a shame they painted that onto the burial shroud of Jesus. Lol.

by those who have started from the conclusion that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus, and are determined to make all of the evidence conform to that preconceived notion. That contention is, it hardly needs be said, utterly without supporting evidence.

Miracles have an unexplained ability to transform themselves into mundane things when objectively scrutinized. But they can restore themselves to miraculous things when examined by a believer.

They are like hope amplifiers.

It's like James Randi's well known ability to exert a psi suppression field. He still has not won the $100,000 prize for disproving he has that ability. He did a rigged and uncontrolled demonstration one time, but it was later determined that his test subject wasn't actually psychic.

that miracles really have that property? They may just be fooling you into thinking that they do.

I would investigate that, but then there would be no more miracles.

that your approach to looking at and trying to understand "miracles" is utterly useless. I think even you see that, though it will be a miracle if you admit it.

I kinda thought the idea of offering Randi money to prove a negative would have given that away.

from someone who was crucified, allegedly (although for no particular reason other than need) Jesus.

Scientists declaring that something is supernatural.

This boggles my mind.

Who are these scientists?

The only actual physical remnant of Jesus's body, enclosed in cases of silver and only ever and that rarely handled by virgins.

These miraculous remnants are lovingly preserved in European churches. I say remnants because there are at least six entire copies of the holy prepuce. Quite the relics and naturally associated with many cures.

Just one example: original breast-milk of Maria.

And the Catholic Church punished those who wanted to expose the forgeries...

It's a strange, credulous world.

in the Vatican and tea baggers brag about Leonardo da Vinci looking like Jesus.

...

Why would Leonardo look like Jesus!?

One scientist used a lens. Remember burning ants?

It's the first photograph and the first negative. Deal with it!