Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?

THE NEW YORK TIMES ^ | January 27, 2005 | NA

[neverdem]

The Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes.

Since 1988, most scientists have confidently concluded that it was the work of a medieval artist, because carbon dating had placed the production of the fabric between 1260 and 1390.

In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said the carbon dating test was valid but that the piece tested was about the size of a postage stamp and came from a portion that had been patched.

"We're darned sure that part of the cloth was not original Shroud of Turin cloth," he said, adding that threads from the main part of the shroud were pure linen, which is spun from flax.

The threads in the patched portion contained cotton as well and had been dyed to match.

From other tests, he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

[Matchett-PI]

"....there lived not a single person who had even the slightest interest in faking the burial shroud of Jesus? How likely is that?..."

As likely as "there lived not a single person who had even the slightest interest in faking the slivers of wood they sold to the superstitious claiming they were pieces of the cross."

Follow the money. Hahahaha

[Aquinasfan]

But I am angry, because there are people out there whose faith in Jesus and God makes them want to believe in something and see further proof of God's love for them.

You may not have noticed, but those of us here arguing for the Shroud's authenticity are basing our arguments on the evidence. If your argument is based on something other than dogmatic belief, please present the evidence.

[Aquinasfan]

Itis tantamount to idle worship. That is why I care.

Ah, the old idol-worshipping Catholics thing. That's what I suspected was the root of the resentment. It upsets you that the Catholic Church has possession of the Shroud, and has had possession of the Shroud for centuries.

[Aquinasfan]

John 20:1-9

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!” So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Re-read this carefully noting the highlighted sections.

First, remember that Jesus' disciples at this time were not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead.

Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb and, seeing that the tomb is empty, reasonably concludes that "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Next, Peter and John run to the tomb. John stops at the entrance and notices the "strips of linen" at the entrance to the tomb: "He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in." No reaction of John's is noted.

Next, Peter goes into the tomb and notices another cloth: "Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

We see that only the burial cloth was in the tomb.

Finally, John enters the tomb. "Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."

He saw and believed. What did he see? And why did it cause him to believe? The only thing in the tomb, according to Scripture, was the burial cloth. Would the existence of the burial cloth cause John "to believe"? If so, why didn't John "believe" before entering the cave, when he saw the strips of linen? Perhaps there was something distinctive and miraculous about the burial cloth that was in the tomb.

The burial cloth was most likely a size comparable to the Shroud. Jesus was a Jew, and the Jewish burial custom of the time was to lay the corpse onto a piece of cloth which was then folded over the body.

Now, consider this passage again:

"the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

Why would the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' body be described as "the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head"? The clue is in the following line. "The cloth was folded up by itself." Perhaps only Jesus' facial image was visible on the folded burial cloth.

[shroudie]

Here is a story today from the Los Alamos Monitor:

A Los Alamos scientist has refuted modern scientific claims that date the Shroud of Turin to medieval times.

Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory, said a 1988 radiocarbon study of the purported burial shroud of Jesus was flawed.

While the early conclusions from laboratories in Arizona, Cambridge and Zurich narrowed the time period for the shroud from 1260-1390 AD, well after the time of the historical Jesus, Rogers' review of sample threads from the
shroud has widened the window to a period at least 1,300 years ago and going back as far as 3,000 years.

The problem with the earlier story, which was meant to end decades of controversy marked by a great deal of junk science, said Rogers in an interview Thursday, was that the sample that had been analyzed using carbon 14 dating techniques had a peculiar coating that set it apart from the main piece of cloth.

In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta, Jan. 20, Rogers concluded that a new radiocarbon analysis would be needed for a more accurate determination of the age of the shroud.

Rogers' interest in the dispute is only one aspect of his broader interest in using chemical analysis for archaelogical purposes. He assisted in dating a skull found at Murray Springs in Midland to the Folsom period and has published many papers on the shroud.

In 1978 Rogers led a major scientific delegation to Turin that included a number of LANL scientists. The project, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) involved a 30-member team, carrying some 22,000 pounds of
equipment, Rogers said.

The investigators were granted 24 hours of access to the shroud, but ended up having a week to study the object.

Rogers had a special kind of tape made by the 3M Corp. to take samples from all parts of the shroud, including the image areas, blood spots and scorched places, subjecting them later to an array of tests, including x-ray fluorescence, transmission spectroscopy and spectrometry and thermal emission.

The results were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1979 and 1982, Rogers said. His wife, Jean Rogers, also a chemist, has worked closely with him on these projects.

"People in Turin made me sign a legal document agreeing that none of the samples, or anything of substance, would be used for dating the cloth," he said.

"I would have bet 10 to one," he said, based on those results, "that that piece of cloth was from Roman times," using a technique described by the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder who was born in 23 AD.

But the radiocarbon dating that came along a few years later seemed to settle the matter differently.

Then, a few years ago, another group came along and said the medieval origin was all wrong because the sample came from a patch, recalled Rogers.

They also made a number of other claims that Rogers considered typical of "the lunatic fringe," - that an intense beam of particles had created the image at the time the body dematerialized.

"This one was the last straw," Rogers said, who was confident he could disprove their claim.

So he got his archived thread samples out and began looking at them again, only to conclude that the idea of the patch that threw the carbon dating off might be correct.

"By god, these people might be right," he said about the moment of realization. "That's very hard for a scientist to agree with the lunatic fringe."

He decided to do an in-depth study, which led to the recent paper and many new insights on the nature of the shroud.

"I don't believe there's anything magic about it," he said. "I'm just trying to find out as much as possible about the technology that was used and what can be said about this object."

Dan

[Sacajaweau]

So we know Jesus had Type AB blood, right?

[shroudie]

I'm not sure that we know that. Blood typing may not be valid for blood older than about 1000 years. It may test out as AB but is that valid.

Rogers writes: "Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don't want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud."

Dan

[dangus]

>> I can't deny I'm repressed because if I'm repressed I'd never know it.<<

I didn't say it was unknowable; I said you aren't feeling it. I said to review the hatred and rage you're spewing all over the place, and let that point it out to you.

>> I'll admit I do hate... people like you<<

See? That wasn't so hard, as it? (OK, that was just plain snarky of me.) But since you hate "people who simply cannot understand that science and Christianity can coexist," you really should probably check out my involvement in other threads, such as arguing against creationist pseudo-science. Iactually agree with you on that argument, but find the whole issue of the shroud nonetheless compelling. As I've said, my faith doesn't rest on this or any other artifact.

>> which, if you haven't noticed, is an AD HOMINEM. <<

Actually, what I wrote was the oposite. I pointed out that your rage had no bearing on the merits of your argument; I actually wanted to know what the basis for argument was. I was kinda hoping once I called you on your rage, you might calm down and point out if there's something in the article that validates your skepticism. I see instead I've stoked it, but I still learned what I was trying to learn.

>> The scientists who tested the shroud knew what they were doing. They didn't pick out some fake threads to hide the fact that this hanky was holy from you. <<

I never questionned their motives, expertise, or correctness. They were given threads; they tested the threads, and reported the results. What we have now is some additional data that hadn't been available to those scientists. You're the only one who has accused anyone of being a liar, or inexpert.

>> it's that I can't help but recognize you're so holier-than-thou; that snotty attitude seeps right into your posts. <<

Well, I did have to choose one way to addrss your extreme discourtesy and vulgarity. If objecting to it, without replying in kind makes me seem holier-than-thou and snotty, so be it. Whether you think abstaining from such lovely colloquialisms as "nucking futz" is somehow giving in, you simply are incapable of expressing yourself otherwise, or that's simply what you feel is appropriate comportment in this istuation, so be it.

So why didn't I just ignore you? Because I wanted you to write what your issues with the Shroud really are. I think you've made clear that you have rejected it not on science, but on the _a_priori_ assumption that such evidence does not exist:

"There is no way this is Christ's image in any way other than some historical con man's imagination, and your own deep-seated wish that there was some way you could prove God walked the planet. There ain't any tangible proof, Leroy. We won't find Christ's driver's license. You must take Jesus on faith."

...unless you want to amend, revise or add to those statements.

[shroudie]

Ray Rogers FAQs are worth examination. The are found at Shroud of Turin Story - Guide to the Facts 2005.

Thanks

Dan

[grey_whiskers]

Ah, but with the AMS technique, they can bombard the sample with an electron beam to do a depth profile, sputtering off successive layers. They can then compensate for exactly that problem.

(Post 3:00 AM posting time noted...)
Geez, up late last night, Wonder? Or time-zone differences?

My apologies. I *assumed* that samples FOR THE PREVIOUS TESTS had been extracted from the Shroud, then dissolved, shredded, bent, folded, stapled and mutilated to prepare for testing, then tested.

If there are tests which can be performed in situ as it were, and which do not require mechanical sampling / mixing of the sample, I'm all for it in principle--if they are nondestructive.

Other disclaimers are possible, including the possibility that portions of the cloth were re-weaves or of different ages for whatever reason. The cloth, whatever its origin, has had quite some history. Disregarding the possible effects of its travails through time on the experiment would not be sound science. And if the effects of fire, travel, water damage, whatever, cannot yet be quantified, it would be more honest on the part of all parties to affix a big "We're just not frigging sure" to all pronouncements.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

considering that type AB blood occurs in 3% of the population, and that a medieval forger did not know of the existence of blood types.

Just to be intellectually fair to the other side, Aquinas, the blood samples could all have come from the same forger. But then that leaves open the necessity for further explanations as in my earlier posts, such as how the forgeries were planned and logistically effectuated.

And I have not studied any of these matters enough to even guess at the difficulties involved.

But it would be nice to find scientific skeptics being as critical of bad logic and/or bad science while advancing the notion of forgery, as they are while attacking defenders of the relics.

[Full Disclosure: What I'm trying to say is, slam ALL practitioners of bad science and logic equally.]

Cheers!

[dangus]

>> I'm sure she's more persuasive to you, especially when you've a predetermined position on the issue. Rogers has been pushing the Shroud for years, and all it takes to prove his scientific predisposition here is a quick googling. The prominent use of 'peer reviewed' in so many rebuttals here should have tipped me off I'm in the midst of a pack of those who want it to be so, and want it so bad they are willing to overlook the experts that did the original work for a single one whose work is more than a little suspect. <<

Can you find any evidence that I have a predetermined position, other than that the fact that find her arguments persuasive? I haven't heard any rebuttals, other than you as-hominem assertion that her findings are consistent with her previous findings.

Since that is your only rebuttal is to attack Dr. Rogers' integrity, rather than her conclusions, it is worthy of note that her article was peer-reviewed. It does not prove that her conclusions are correct, and I never meant to imply that it does. But it does make it unlikely that her findings can be attributed *only* to lack of objectivity. The sources of the 1989 story made strong arguments against the authenticity of the shroud. She has made a strong rebuttal. Someone else may come along and succesfully rebut her. But before you call her a liar, you need to present to a case. Until, then, you are simply a slanderer.

[Aquinasfan]

such as how the forgeries were planned and logistically effectuated.

Exactly. And "forging" the miracle of Lanciano would have been absolutely impossible.

[Aquinasfan]

So we know Jesus had Type AB blood, right?

Actually, we do know, because of the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, another miracle that is impossible to explain.

[MEGoody]

The Shroud of Turin is really meaningless.

Those who have placed their faith in Christ don't need the shroud to confirm the One in whom they have placed their faith.

Those who have chosen not to place their faith in Christ will reject that the shroud was Jesus' no matter what evidences may be presented.

[shroudie]

What about a doubting Thomas? I know of specific examples that refute your third point, though in large measure you are right.

The Shroud is not meaningless.

Dan

[Swordmaker]

. . . attack Dr. Rogers' integrity, rather than her conclusions, it is worthy of note that her article was peer-reviewed. . .

In the interests of accuracy, while there ARE two doctors Rogers in the house, the one who wrote the article is Ray Rogers... the masculine member of the famly.

[dangus]

Yeah, I thought it had been a "he." I was responding to a comment referring to Rogers a s a "she." I should've looked it up. Who's the other Dr. Rogers?

[Swordmaker]

Yeah, I thought it had been a "he." I was responding to a comment referring to Rogers a s a "she." I should've looked it up. Who's the other Dr. Rogers?

IIRC, Rogers' wife also holds a doctorate...

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

Never heard of the Miracle of Lanciano until you posted that link. Amazing stuff. Did a google search and found some sites that have more info on the scientific analysis and present condition of the Eucharist elements. WOW!