"Secrets of the Dead" looks a Shroud

[Flaherty]

Good PBS show on the shroud tonight.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_shroudchrist/index.html

Carbon dating in the 80s seemed to settle the shroud's date ( ~ 1300 AD), but further analysis since then has called it into question. It seems that some chemical & bacterial processes can skew the dating with this sort of cloth.

Overall, the evidence present that the shroud dated from the 1st century AD was

1. The shroud's stitching is consistent with that time and the Middle East, but not with cloth typically made in the middle ages.

2. Stains on the shround are consistent with water stains resulting in a folding and storage method commonly used in that time and place.

3. Wounds reflected in the shroud's image are consistent with those common to a crucified body.

4. The image itself could have been produced through bacterial growth that typically thrives on human sweat and blood, not unlike sweat stains on your shirts.

5. Blood stains on the shroud are of the same type as stains on an otherwise ordinary yet still reveared piece of cloth used to wrap a head.

The evidence against the shroud dating to Jesus' time:

1. Carbon dating places its age ~ 1300 AD. While its accuracy can be skewed by the processes described above, an approximately 1300 year error would be highly unusual.

2. The shroud's provenence (its ownership history) can be documented only to about 1355. This is consistent with the carbon dating.

3. Bishop of Troyes called the shroud a forgery in 1355.

4. Manufacturing holy relics was big business in the Middle Ages, so there was a clear financial incentive to produce it.

5. The image of Jesus in the shroud is very similar to the standard Jesus image prominent in medevial art. That stylized portrait of Jesus did not appear until the 6th century. Prior to that, Jesus was typically portrayed in classical form with short hair and no beard.

The most interesting thing was the art historian who demonstrated that a kind of photography could have produced the shroud image. Using materials and techniques available only in the 14th century, he produced a shroud-like image.

[diddidit]

I watched it too - good show. The bit about the matching blood types between the shroud and the head-cloth is particularly noteworthy, especially since the blood type was AB, which is present in only 4% of the population (I'd have figured Jesus would have been univeral-donor Type O, but hey, that's just me...)

I did note that many of those questioning the carbon-dating evidence professed belief in the authenticity of the shroud and of Christianity in general. There was, however, only one outright woowoo on the show - the guy who thought the shroud presented evidence of resurrection, and had "recorded" it's image at is passed through the body. Wacky!

Seems to me that carbon dating should be re-done, from a section of cloth with bloodstains.

did

[Ed]

I have been interested in the Shroud of Turin ever since I was a little heathen.

I think, if memory serves, that the key argument against the c14 date is that contamination skewed the results. My understanding is that a c14 date is sort of a weighted average of the various materials, of various dates, present in a sample.

So, if a date is found to correspond to 1000 ce, theoretically equal amounts of material from 0 ce and 2000 ce could produce that date. As Kelly Bundy might say, the mind wobbles at the contention that recent (post 1300) contaminants could be present in such proportions to shift the date from a "true" date of 0 ce to 1300 ce. It is possible, but how? The good old, and usually reliable sniff test (tm) suggests that we are looking at wishful thinking here.

[Flaherty]

It's an unusual case because there is very good evidence for both sides. What sort of explanation could square so many seemingly conflicting facts?

[Tanja]

Couldn't they (as some sort of control sample) carbon-date some other pieces of cloth from around 0 AD and see to what extent these are contaminated, or how varied their dating would be?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Flaherty
It's an unusual case because there is very good evidence for both sides. What sort of explanation could square so many seemingly conflicting facts?

"Good evidence" don't see it. Could you be more specific?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tanja
Couldn't they (as some sort of control sample) carbon-date some other pieces of cloth from around 0 AD and see to what extent these are contaminated, or how varied their dating would be?

Don't think so. It depends on storage, which is idosyncratic.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Ed


"Good evidence" don't see it. Could you be more specific?

See web site above.

[Hellbound]

There is the explanation that it is part forgery and part history. An image could have been produced in or around 1300 on a cloth that dated to an earlier time. Just a few thoughts, but mainly pointing out that it's not an either-or problem, it could be a mix of some artifacts from earlier times and more modern additions.

Also, the fact that, for example, stitching and manufacture are similar to an earlier time is really not very convincing. I can take a 30 mile drive from my house and buy a truckload of craft items that were created using materials and techniques that are entirely consitent with the year 1800.

Basically, all the for evidence seems circumstancial, and more suggestive than evidential. The only hard evidence, the carbon dating, speaks against it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I have been interested in the Shroud of Turin ever since I was a little heathen.

It must have been nice to see things when they happened, yes... :)

Originally posted by Huntsman
An image could have been produced in or around 1300 on a cloth that dated to an earlier time.

Know what? Before the 1300s, there was mention of the cloth, only it didn't have an image on it....

[Marc]

Originally posted by Flaherty
Overall, the evidence present that the shroud dated from the 1st century AD was

1. The shroud's stitching is consistent with that time and the Middle East, but not with cloth typically made in the middle ages.
Not remarkable. A competent artifact forger does research on the manner in which cloth is produced and stitched in the time period in question and reproduce it. That is all he needs to do.

2. Stains on the shround are consistent with water stains resulting in a folding and storage method commonly used in that time and place.
another 'so what?' How unusual is the folding and storage method?


3. Wounds reflected in the shroud's image are consistent with those common to a crucified body.
Yup, again can be put down to good research. I think there was something about the wounds being on the wrists rather than the hands, which would be more accurate for crucifiction. Now if someone can give good answer as to the distortions of the body, and lack of distortions of the face, that would be something.



4. The image itself could have been produced through bacterial growth that typically thrives on human sweat and blood, not unlike sweat stains on your shirts.
except the stains were tested and shown to be paint.


5. Blood stains on the shroud are of the same type as stains on an otherwise ordinary yet still reveared piece of cloth used to wrap a head.
which would raise the question why the cloth does not appear on the shroud image.

[Tanja]

Originally posted by diddidit
I watched it too - good show. The bit about the matching blood types between the shroud and the head-cloth is particularly noteworthy, especially since the blood type was AB, which is present in only 4% of the population (I'd have figured Jesus would have been univeral-donor Type O, but hey, that's just me...)

did

Is the actual imprint suposed to be blood, or is there some blood on the cloth and the imprint is paint?

Can you really measure the blood group on a sample at least 700 years old?

I am sorry I did not see this show, it sounds quite interesting. Especially as the leading Croatian daily (Croatia is a very Catholic country) ran a story the other day, mentioning that is has been PROVEN that the shroud is really 2000 years old???)

[Undodog]

Does the show mention that, even if it was proved to be dated around that time and place, it still might not be Jesus?

[CurtC]

Another piece of evidence against it: if a shroud were wrapped around a face, picking up blood/sweat/oils/whatever, then the cloth is pulled away and laid flat, the image of the face will be greatly distorted, making it much much wider than what looks "normal" to us.

Given the fact that the image on the shroud looks like a painting, that means it probably is faked.

[RichardR]

I thought the "bloodstains" were known to be red ochre and vermillion paint?

Three labs independently dated the shroud to the 14th century. From memory I think they did this double blind, with many controls including pieces of cloth from the 14th century, some 2000 years old and one piece of cloth from a 3000 year old mummy. Pretty unlikely all the factors would point to a 14th century forgery if it was genuine.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RichardR
I thought the "bloodstains" were known to be red ochre and vermillion paint?

Three labs independently dated the shroud to the 14th century. From memory I think they did this double blind, with many controls including pieces of cloth from the 14th century, some 2000 years old and one piece of cloth from a 3000 year old mummy. Pretty unlikely all the factors would point to a 14th century forgery if it was genuine.

I remember a discussion at one point of how much contamination would be required to make a 2000 year old sample appear 700 years old. I seem to recall the answer was that more than half of the sample needed to be modern material. OTOH, I haven't done the calculation myself, so don't be surprised if I am wrong.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I remember a discussion at one point of how much contamination would be required to make a 2000 year old sample appear 700 years old. I seem to recall the answer was that more than half of the sample needed to be modern material. OTOH, I haven't done the calculation myself, so don't be surprised if I am wrong.

OK, I just did the calculation. In order for a 2000 year old sample to appear 700 years old by 14C dating, it would require 1.7 grams of modern contaminant for every 1 gram of old material.

IOW, almost 2/3 of the sample has to be impurities. Sorry, you aren't going to get there by microscopic contamination.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Undodog
Does the show mention that, even if it was proved to be dated around that time and place, it still might not be Jesus?
Or, that if it was Jesus it still does not prove he was divine.

[headscratcher4]

Does the show mention that, even if it was proved to be dated around that time and place, it still might not be Jesus?

Indeed, as crucifiction was the execution method of choice in the Roman world...lots and lots of people crucified...it could be anyone...if it were real, wouldn't you think it would be mentioned in Acts of the Apostles? I mean, itwould be a pretty heady proof that the apostles were on to something.....

[Giz]

2. Stains on the shround are consistent with water stains resulting in a folding and storage method commonly used in that time and place.
- I have trouble accepting that folding technology has changed that much. What's the most they could do, fold right to left instead of left to right?

3. Wounds reflected in the shroud's image are consistent with those common to a crucified body.
- If they'd been consistent with some other method of execution (beheading?) then it obvioulsy wouldn't have been a good forgery. Obviously whoever made was tolerably good at their "job"!

I think that these spurious for and against points are a reflection of the programmes desire to appear "balanced" (i.e. equal wieghting between the woo woo and the true) and not offend the Xian mob.

[EdipisReks]

CurtC has presented the number one piece of evidence, even if the cloth is 2k years old and there is really blood on it, that the cloth was not a shroud.

[phildonnia]

I really liked the show. Among the non-woo interviewees, I thought the "photograph" thing seemed a little far-fetched.

Nothing was mentioned about pollen supposedly found on the shroud. I think I saw this presented on a TBN show. Does pollen last for thousands of years? If so, it would at least speak to where the shroud had been prior to italy.

[Nigel]

I missed the show, unfortunately, sounds like it was worth watching.

originally posted by headscratcher4
Indeed, as crucifiction was the execution method of choice in the Roman world...lots and lots of people crucified...it could be anyone

Exactly. Is there solid evidence Jesus really existed? It seems that belief in the shroud as the burial cloth of Christ is built on the idea that Jesus Christ really existed as depicted in the Bible. What if he didn't? Then the whole argument that the shroud is legit falls apart like a house of cards.

Nigel

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


OK, I just did the calculation. In order for a 2000 year old sample to appear 700 years old by 14C dating, it would require 1.7 grams of modern contaminant for every 1 gram of old material.

IOW, almost 2/3 of the sample has to be impurities. Sorry, you aren't going to get there by microscopic contamination.

That's what I get too. That's gotta be one dirty cloth; and I assume they rinsed it good before dating it.

A 2000 year-old cloth would have about 78% of its original 14C, and a 700 year-old cloth would have about 92%

Unless.. (can't believe I'm going here) somehow everlasting life was imparted to the 62% of the linen fibers that believed in Christ, and respiration continued to the present.

If you'd like to start your own cult based on this idea, don't send me any literature, and don't say you heard it here first.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by phildonnia
I really liked the show. Among the non-woo interviewees, I thought the "photograph" thing seemed a little far-fetched.

Nothing was mentioned about pollen supposedly found on the shroud. I think I saw this presented on a TBN show. Does pollen last for thousands of years? If so, it would at least speak to where the shroud had been prior to italy. Pollen can last that long, yes. Fossil pollen is how we know what plants were around with the dinosaurs for example. What kinds of plant pollen are present might give some geographical information. But I don't know if Italy and the middle East's plants are all that different.

[Marc]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Nothing was mentioned about pollen supposedly found on the shroud. I think I saw this presented on a TBN show. Does pollen last for thousands of years? If so, it would at least speak to where the shroud had been prior to italy.

IIRC, the 'pollen' was pulled off of the shroud using strips of tape. Funny thing, the pollen from the middle east was found mostly on the part of the tape that did not touch the shroud.

Gee, wouldn't that counteract the 'contamination' theory trying to explain away the carbon dating? If there is so much pollen from around that time then wouldn't that be contamination towards a 2000 year old dating?

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't the xtian bible describe the the cloths that jesus was buried in as 2 pieces? Xtians would have to admit that their bible is fallible to accept the shroud as evidence.

[tamiO]

I don't have much time, else I would look this up, but I saw a show recently that convinced me that the Shroud of Turin was a forgery by Leonardo DaVinci. It wasn't just a couple of circumstantial things about it; they had maybe over an hour of content supporting the idea.

I will be happy to google about later when I can sit down; it was a great show. I love Leonardo DaVinci.

[phildonnia]

If anyone, DaVinci could have pulled off the "photograph" thing.

[Nigel]

originally posted by tamiO
I saw a show recently that convinced me that the Shroud of Turin was a forgery by Leonardo DaVinci.
This is the first I've heard about da Vinci being involved. Certainly he lived long after the first appearance of the shroud.
I look forward to your Google results. :)

Nigel

[phildonnia]

Uhh, Yeah. What I meant was

"If anyone, DaVinci could have pulled off the time travel thing."

[Archangel]

Originally posted by Nigel

This is the first I've heard about da Vinci being involved. Certainly he lived long after the first appearance of the shroud.
I look forward to your Google results. :)

Nigel

I saw a similar show (might even have been the same one) about 12-18 months ago.

What they said was that the original shroud was actually a painting (sorry going from memory, so that might be incorrect), Da Vinci got a hold of this from his patron and was told to make a decent relic.

He then allegedly made the shroud we know today by imprinting it (with the photographic procedure), which given his knowledge of human anatomy is why its got a realistic portrayal of the crucifixion wounds, instead of the stylised wounds through the palms.

Supposedly this explains a couple of the problems with the shroud, ie why the image on the back is longer than on the front, and why there is a line through the neck (a reference to John the Baptist?).
Also the face is meant to be that of Da Vinci (the same as the Mona Lisa is now meant to be Da Vincis face).

[Beanbag]

Didn't see the show, but I've loosely followed the shroud for many years.

One point made by one researcher is that the hands are placed for modesty. About the only way one could get a pair of dead arms to stay in that position would be to tie them in place, and there are no signs of any bindings in the image.

Forgeries using materials extant from earlier periods are fairly easy to do. Old tabletops are used for fake paintings on wood. I personally have a large sheet of paper from 1672, a flyleaf from an old book I rebound for a friend. It wouldn't be too hard for me to concoct some period ink ( I've got friends that do that sort of thing for fun, who would be glad to share the recipe) and produce some astounding document (how about E=MC^2) that, by all the physical and chemical evidence, is entirely authentic.

Regards;
Beanbag

[davefoc]

This is a short article by the McCrone Research Institute on the shroud:
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

McCrone did microscopic observation of the shroud in 1979. He determined that the image was paint.

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

Some of McCrone's work has been challenged by Shroud believers based on controversies with his view that the Vinland map is a forgery. For what it matters with regard to this recent more sophisticated testing of the Vinland map seems to confirm McCrone's opinions with regard to that artifact

[phildonnia]

So then what's all this about the "blood type" on the shroud?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by phildonnia
So then what's all this about the "blood type" on the shroud? That puzzled me too.

[thaiboxerken]

I think some shady "scientists" reported a blood-type. When other scientists came back and tried to use the exact same methods as the original team, they couldn't find blood. After it was determined that the "blood" was paint, the owners of the shroud refuse to let any more scientific research be done on it.

At least, that's what I remember reading.

[Bottle or the Gun]

It has been mentioned that many of the Is-It-Real-Or Not Turin programs also seem to overlook that details of the lower body get 'sketchy', and not in a way that would mean that the shroud was wrapped loosely, etc. The details actually get amateurish, and appear in a 'first-draft' manner as if an artist focused attention on head, hands and feet and only gave secondary attention to the torso.

There was a Discovery channel or A&E show that mentioned that a year or so ago.