Posted on 03/19/2005 6:18:41 AM PST by NYer
Science photographer Barrie Schwortz considers it ironic that he, an Orthodox Jew, is spending much of his time trying to convince Christians that the Turin Shroud may well be an artifact of Jesus. As Christendom is entering the holiest season in the church year, Schwortz joined a group of international scholars Friday appealing to Cardinal Severino Poletto, archbishop of Turin, to permit a new carbon dating of the 14-foot cloth bearing the features of a crucified man.
At the last test of this kind in 1988, a majority of scientists concluded that the Shroud was woven between 1260 and 1390 A.D.-- and that the images on it were the work of a medieval artist.
But earlier this year chemist Raymond N.Rogers, a retired fellow of Los Alamos National Laboratory, stated in a scientific paper that the 1988 test was "not valid for determining the age of the Shroud."
Rogers who died of cancer March 9 at the age of 80 was a close friend of Schwortz who runs an elaborate Web site called shroud.com.In a scholarly article in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Rogers explained that in 1988 only a sample the size of a postage stamp was tested.
This sample, he added, turned out to have been taken from a medieval patch that had "completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic."
The patch contained cotton and had been dyed to match the rest of the Shroud whose threads were pure linen spun from flax.Rogers, a Protestant who had been involved with the Shroud project for decades, suggested that this cloth is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
Rogers was the leader of the chemistry group for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, a team of scientists who performed the first in-depth examination of the cloth in 1978.
Schwortz was STURP's "documenting photographer" then."I am still Jewish," he said, "yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth the man Jesus was wrapped in after he was crucified."
"That is not meant as a religious statement," Schwortz cautioned, "but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a thorough knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype."
In an interview with United Press International, Schwortz quipped it was "proof of God's sense of humor" that he as a Jew should have been given this task."But I have no underlying bias.I am simply obligated to the truth."
But then, Schwortz went on, "God always chooses a Jew to be a messenger."
There was no word from Cardinal Poletto's office Friday about the scholars' request to reconsider proposal submitted by Rogers and William Meacham, a Hong Kong-based archaeologist for a new carbon dating of the Shroud.
"After the publication of Rogers' article this year, there has been a great renewal of interest in the Shroud, especially the possibility that it is older than the carbon dating indicates," the scientists' appeal states.
"All the world now wants to know whether the 1988 carbon dating result is in fact erroneous.We urge you, therefore, to grant the very small (amount) of material requested in the Rogers-Meacham proposal, consisting of 60 milligrams (about a spoonful) of carbon dust and fiber bits already removed from the Shroud."
In separate interviews with UPI, both Schwortz and Meacham complained about what Schwortz termed as "Italian stonewalling" of all outside attempts to reopen the case.
"Is it Italian pride?" Schwortz wondered, adding that there has been considerable resentment about the American involvement since 1978. "Americans dominated Shroud science," he said.
Cardinal Poletto could not be reached for comment Friday.
But Rogers and his colleagues were not spared the wrath of fellow Americans.Earlier this week, scientific consultant Steven D.Shafersman accused STRP of "shoddy science."
In a paper issued on The Skeptic World Site, a largely atheist Web publication, Shafersman blasts STURP for its "hopelessly incompetent and unscientific" analyses.
In the meantime though, other astonishing news is coming in about the Shroud.University of Padua researchers have detected a second facial image, though faint, on the back of the cloth.
According to researcher Daniel Porter, the nature of this second face is such that it virtually eliminates artistic methods, while giving credence to the hypothesis that a natural amino/carbonyl chemical reaction formed the Shroud's images.
Italian police experts have, meanwhile, used a computer to create a phantom picture of the young Jesus based on the facial images found on the Shroud.The result was the face of a 12-year-old boy exuding serene cheerfulness.
The face looked much like the portrayal of the young Jesus by the German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer (1471-1528), observed the Milan newspaper, Corriere della Sera.On the other hand, the paper mused, "it would probably also have pleased Tizian (Titian)."
I agree.Too many questions that imo will never be resolved.
BUMP
One reason might be that the core vein of discussion seems to orbit around this notion of finding scientific evidence of Jesus' life.
If this Shroud is an image of Jesus, it would be a fascinating thing, and I think it is.
But for the record, I believe the Churches record on many miracles like Fatima and Lourdes. I just dont see how it is applicable to this discussion.
What did you have in mind that would?
There are two types of faith - one is logical and rational (to the extent that the belief is formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties). That sort of "faith" is based upon perfectly valid / warranted presuppositions. The other type of "faith" is illogical and irrational because it's based upon feelings / emotions / superstition.
For instance, you will find that the sort of "faith" it takes for a rational mind to believe that others besides himself have a mind --(and aren't just pre-programmed robots)-- is never militant, rabid or hostile about that "faith".
Then there's the other sort of faith.
Wow -I never considered that -thanks for wetting yourself.
Forgive the pun but this topic will forever be "shrouded" in mystery and that's only if it is "that shroud." There is no proof positive of what Christ looked like or any witnesses upon whom to call concerning his appearance. Just another iconic symbol to "worship" rather than the real thing.
You have much faith in your rational theory of and by man.
You didn't get the point. I'm confident that you aren't able to get it, either.
Most definitely.
LOL -yes my inferior intellect could not decipher your profound rationale.
It doesn't matter.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."
While The Shroud may be interesting as a religious icon, it has no worth or purpose to those who believe that Jesus is Lord and have given over control of their lives to Him.
Is it fascinating? Yes. Do we need to find provenance of it's autheticity? Not so much.
I know where you're coming from, and I believe we're of one mind. But I wouldn't waste too much time trying to explain it to someone for whom "faith" means "believing in something preposterous simply because it makes me feel better."
If you ever see me riding in the boats of one-armed boat-rowers for more than two laps, you will know that I have lost my rationality and succumbed to preposterous beliefs myself. :)
I am just saying that these scientists are trying to change the rules of proof in a way that has little interest to the church. Surely, you realize that there is no way that carbon dating can, in fact, prove that the image is Jesus. The problem is that the "chain of custody" was broken. So, science is a dead end, here. It can only debunk. I suggest you look at what the church says. Its standards are very rigorous.
I understand that any dating, even to the 1st century would not necarily prove it is Jesus' Shroud. But I think the circumstantial evidence narrows it down pretty tight.
I respect the churches authority and competence, but I still feel like scientific standards of evidence are a bit different in that it looks solely at natural evidence that can be replicated, unlike, say Fatima.
So it is a tougher arena, and it intrigues me that the evidence thus far seems to point at something unnatural occuring - ie the tomb was emptied within a few days of JEsus' burial or the Shroud would have decayed.
JFK_Lib - That would have to be one big tile, wouldnt it?
Mr Ramsbotham - Most definitely.
JFK_Lib - So are there examples of similarly large tiles in that time and culture?
The second form of faith is irrational, but no less valid for a means to discern truth and ascertain information about the world around us in practical terms.
Intuition, experience, emotional reactions have a validity to them independent of reason or revelation. One might think of some of it as a personal inductive-deductive process, but it would not be statistically valid.
Nonetheless were I to need a guide through the deep woods relying on a guid alone (no GPS, etc) I would much rather have an experienced guide than a scientist without the experience of living in those particular woods.
Were I to guage the prevalence of certain activities or opinions in a parish, I would trust the confessional priest more than some survey of that parish.
And I will trust my own instinct when seeking a partner (in fact I have and we are still married after 18 years) rather than rely on some scientific matching process, lol!
In our day-to-day lives we far more rely on experience, intuition and emotional 'gut reaction' to guide us than on reason or science.
Given that Christianity has outlived the Atomists fromt he ancient world and number int he billions, it would seem that a Darwinistic analysis would suggest that nonrational methods can work quite well, in fact.
And please dont pretend that anyone, especially scientists, are unaffected by nonrational factors like love, money or the desire to be popular among their peers.
I hate to break it to you, but Christianity is a RATIONAL faith
Plenty of life-size stone images, yes; and many larger-than-life.
Not that precisely. The late Dr. Raymond N. Rogers postulates that the shroud is from 1300 to as much as 3000 years old, depending on the ambient temperatures in may have encountered during its existence. He bases this on the fact that the shroud shows no traces of Vanillin in the linen which degrades and disappears over time. The only area of the Shroud that DOES show Vanillin is the medieval patch invisibly rewoven into the shroud... at the area tested by the C14 labs in 1988.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.