Posted on 10/10/2002 2:14:50 AM PDT by SteveH
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:57:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
GURAT, France, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Turin Shroud bearing the features of a crucified man may well be the cloth that enveloped the body of Christ, a renowned textile historian told United Press International Tuesday.
Disputing inconclusive carbon-dating tests suggesting the shroud hailed from medieval times, Swiss specialist Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said it could be almost 2,000 years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Which Iconography scholar are you citing on this pronouncement? Your assertion that Durer established the image of Christ based on his own visage is the "fact" that must be proven. Centuries of studies deny your assertion. You have made the extraordinary claim... I have cited the scholarship.
I don't see a "skinny guy". I see a robust man with broad shoulders.
No = original number of 14C particles.
If the date they found was 1275, then the number of 14C particles, Nfound, was:
Nfound = Noe-(767/5568)= 0.84No
If it was from 35AD, or so, they would have found:
N35AD = Noe-(1967/5568)= 0.7No
The difference is what might come from contaminants:
Ncontam = 0.84No - 0.7No = 0.14No
Since No and Ncontam are fixed at 10-10% of the total C particles @ t=0, the amount of C contamination adds ~14% to the original weight. (1.14x)
Christianity is not about a shroud. The shroud is irrelevent to Christianity. Destroying an old or new shround for that matter, wouldn't matter to Christianity at all. Christianity is ALL about following the teachings of Christ. Not about objects or images. Recall the Ten Commandments and see what matters to God on that issue.
Debate between "Rodger Sparks, a carbon dating expert from New Zealand, and William Meacham, archaeologist and Shroud researcher from Hong Kong" and
Evidence for the skewing of the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin due to repairs (PDF)
Portrait of Myself at Age 28
Albrecht Durer (1498)
The shroud was quite well known by the time of Durer's career and many painters were already using it as the source of the inspiration for the appearance of Christ. Durer shows some knowledge of the Shroud as a single piece of cloth in his painting the Lamentation for Christ. Joseph of Aramathea is portraid holding onto the foot of the Shroud and the top of the Shroud is draped across Jesus' loins for modesty. In addition, his knowledge of the Shroud is also shown by Mary placing her finger in the wound IN THE WRIST, which was contrary to contemporary iconography. Durer was, however, a stickler for detail and he noticed this. Note also the supine Christ has the wisp like structures on his forehead.
Lamentation for Christ
Albrecht Durer (1503)
I searched the Internet and Durer biographies and nowhere did I find an attribution to Durer of the modern appearance of Christ's image. In fact, Durer himself only admitted to ONE deliberate usage of his own face is in a portrait he cakked "Christ the Man of Sorrows".
Christ as the Man of Sorrows
Albrecht Durer
This painting is hardly our modern idea of the appearance of Jesus Christ.
I find it interesting that without exception, the doubters and their arguments have not read the scientific, forensic, historical and biological records. Read "The Shroud and the Blood" by Ian Wilson. He answers every argument with facts from all these disciplines. As for worshipping a relic, I know of no Christian who would worship the shroud. But could not God's hand be in the recent advances in science and the revived interest in the shroud? Maybe there are some Thomases who need to put their hand in the wounds.
I never said that Drurer's visage was the only representation of Christ in the history of the world.
Geesh.
Two quibbles: 5568 is not the lifetime, but the (Libby) half-life, so it would be a power of 2 and not of e. Second, the Cambridge half-life of 5730 years is a better number (a minor mistake that I made myself).
Ncontam = 0.84No - 0.7No = 0.14No
You're mixing two different No's.
No for the Shroud won't be the same as No for the contaminants. You have two unknowns and only one equation.
Consider this as a check: If the Shroud dates from 35 AD and the contaminants date from 1275 AD, by what factor must the contaminants outweigh the Shroud to get a date of 1275 AD for the combined sample? Answer: by a factor of infinity. Your method should blow up at 1275 AD.
"You're mixing two different No's. No for the Shroud won't be the same as No for the contaminants.
I was considering particles only and that, x amount of cloth with No particles was either ~767y/o, or ~1967y/o + B amount of contamination added at some time with Ncontam.
I wrote:
Ncontam = 0.84No - 0.7No = 0.14No,
after rearranging, it becomes
0.84No = 0.7No + Ncontam, as worded.
"You have two unknowns and only one equation."
That's why Ncontam is in terms of No by plugging in a time for the contamination to occcur, the No factor and Ncontam changes. So if the time of contamination is recent, with the real 1/2-life, the amount of 14C contamination is 0.165No and if from the time of the fire, (0.165/0.91)No.
"by what factor must the contaminants outweigh the Shroud to get a date of 1275 AD for the combined sample?"
Since the abundance at t=0 is fixed at 10-10 the factor, at t=0 is 1.17 and at tfire, it's 1.18. The total C contamination number of particles, or weight is only ~18% higher than the original cloth C.
That's the first time I've heard that. I guess I always thought that the image and markings were the same on both sides.
It just deepens my belief that the shroud is a photographic negative of some kind -- a beautiful elaborate hoax.
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.