This thread of comments is interesting (Anonymous, I can tell you, is Joe Marino, the man pictured here is Douglas V. Gibbs, the blogger of Political Pistachio).
In only about 800 words, you have confidently dismissed the Shroud. I, on the other hand, am not so confident. You refer to the biblical passages, in English, that mention the Shroud. I’m guessing you have not studied the original Greek words or consulted any biblical or Jewish experts to see if they think the Shroud is compatible with the texts. I’m guessing you have read little or none of the thousands of books and articles on the Shroud, which is one of the most intensely studied objects in human history. I’m guessing you don’t find it significant that some of the best minds in the American space and nuclear programs have studied the Shroud and have more questions than answers.
I’ve never understood the logic that because the Gospels mention more than one cloth and the Shroud is only one cloth, the Shroud has to be a fake. If I lost a pair of shoes and later only found one of them, is it logical to say that the one shoe couldn’t have been one of the original two? If the Shroud is authentic, I would have expected the various cloths to end up in different places.
I’m guessing you won’t take any advice since you seem to believe that your interpretation of the biblical passages trumps every other piece of data, but I would advise that you do a little more homework before making such an absolute pronouncement.
Douglas V. Gibbs said…
I have studied Greek translations, and I have not just jumped to some conclusion. My argument is significant, but there is more to it than all that I wrote. If you want a 50 page summation, however, it is not going to happen. Interesting how, because you disagree with me, in your mind I must automatically be speaking from an ignorant point of view, or you assume my studies are limited. Let me ask you this: If God does not want us to worship icons instead of Him, why would He leave behind such a relic? I think that many of these items man has searched for are missing on purpose. God knew people would worship the artifact, and it would pull their eyes from Him. And I assure you, I have done my homework on this, and more, and my absolute pronouncement stands. Perhaps you should study the Word of God a little more before jumping onto something that draws our eyes to an object, rather than Him.
Worship icons? Man made icons, Yes, but this may not be ‘manmade’, what about the ‘tablets’ of the Ten commandments? Did people worship the tablets or the one who made them? Furthermore, who is worshipping the Shroud? No one, people are venerating the one whom it depicts. I must agree with anonymous. There may have been several cloths in the tomb that morning!. It makes perfect sense that there would be, as his blood would have been collected. Some articles may have been lost in time or destroyed.But to suggest scripture disproves the Shroud was one of them is ludicrous. Have you heard of the Sudarium of Oviedo? It is purported to be the napkin "that was about his head, found in a place by itself"! The Shroud has a 4 inch strip resewn along it’s side, suggested to have been used to bind the Shroud to the body.
Yes I think more research is warranted on your part before making comments such as you did.
The thing that I don’t understand his why Ramsey said what he said in the David Rolfe documentary (that the C14 result of 88 was really questionnable) and now, he seem to have completely changed his mind. Is it due to the possible failure of the hypothesis of John Jackson regarding a possible increase of the level of C14 in the Shroud fibers due to Carbon monoxide ? I know he worked with Jackson and, reading Ramsey’s last comment, it seem that Jackson hypothesis has been discard by him. Maybe that’s why he seem to have changed his mind about the possibility that the C14 result of 88 can be wrong ? If it is so, then I think he made a mistake because there’s others viable hypothesis out there, like the french invisible reweaving.
It is also significant to look at the Oxford University News Releases. From a March 25, 2008, release entitled, “International radiocarbon dating experts confirm the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake:”
Professor Christopher Ramsey said: ‘ Further research on the Turin Shroud is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to investigate anything that might have affected the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests. It is equally important that other experts critically assess and reinterpret all the evidence, which may point to an earlier date. Only by doing this will we be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud, which takes into account and explains all the available information.’
Joe’s new book is out. You can order it at Amazon ($21.95) or Barnes and Noble ($14.70). I do not find any publisher description at this time. That often follows release by several days. However, until then . . .
Joseph Marino, a former Benedictine monk, has been studying the Shroud of Turin since 1977. As the Catholic Church’s most revered relic, the Shroud is believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus. While at the monastery, Marino lectured extensively on the subject in the St. Louis, Missouri area, produced a newsletter read in 23 countries, wrote articles, appeared on local, national and international radio and TV programs, and attended an exhibition of the Shroud in Turin in 1998. He was once referred to by a parishioner at the monastery church as the monk “who’s wrapped up in the Shroud.”
Currently Marino is a library associate at Ohio State University. He has amassed one of the largest personal collections of Shroud materials in the world. He and his late wife, M. Sue Benford, (shown in accompanying photo) presented a paper at the Sindone 2000 World Congress in Orvieto, Italy, hypothesizing that the reason the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud resulted in a date range of AD 1260-1390 for the cloth was because of a sixteenth-century repair in the sample area. The combined sixteenth-century repair with first-century cloth definitely could have produced the medieval dates. Raymond Rogers, one of the scientists from the Shroud of Turin Research Project who studied the Shroud in 1978, thought the hypothesis was nonsense. Rogers had in his possession samples of the Shroud and said he would prove the hypothesis wrong in five minutes. However, less than an hour after he began to examine the samples, he concluded that Benford and Marino were probably correct. Other scientists have independently verified Rogers’ findings, which were published in 2005 in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, Thermochimica Acta. Benford and Marino wrote several follow up articles about their theory, which now has significant support in the Shroud community and beyond. Previously unpublished notes from a key scientist, as well as correspondence with other key scientists involved with the Shroud, provide important new historical data. Marino continues to stay active in Shroud research.
WRAPPED UP IN THE SHROUD is a real-life chronicle of one long-time researcher, who has devoted nearly thirty-five years to studying this enigmatic cloth. Breezy and entertaining, yet powerful in its scope, the book recounts strange, humorous and at times mystical events surrounding Marino’s involvement, and even includes a tragic but touching love story. This book is unlike any other on the Shroud you have ever read.
Since Joe Nickell brought up Bishop d’Arcis in the Cosmic Log blog, it seems appropriate to point to this wonderful paper by Dan Scavone: “BESANÇON AND OTHER HYPOTHESES FOR THEMISSING YEARS: THE SHROUD FROM 1200 TO 1400”
But even without thinking about Nickell, it is a paper that should be read if you haven’t done so and reread if it has been awhile since you read it. Great paper.
Stephen E. Jones reports by way of a comment that:
It is worth noting that the ” C.R. Bronk” among the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper declaring that the radiocarbon dating of a three postage stamp size samples of the 4 x 2 metre Shroud was “conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval”:
Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin by P. E. Damon,1 D. J. Donahue,2 B. H. Gore,1 A. L. Hatheway,2 A. J. T. Jull,1 T. W. Linick,2 P. J. Sercel,2 L. J. Toolin,1 C.R. Bronk,3 E. T. Hall,3 R. E. M. Hedges, 3 R. Housley,3 I. A. Law,3 C. Perry,3 G. Bonani,4 S. Trumbore,5 W. Woelfli,4 J. C. Ambers,6 S. G. E. Bowman,6 M. N. Leese6 & M. S. Tite6 Reprinted from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989
is none other than Professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey! (pictured above)
So Prof. Ramsay is far from being a disinterested party in the defence of that now increasingly discredited radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to 1260-1390 AD.
If Prof. Ramsey was quoted correctly that, the “radiocarbon dating results which put the Shroud at around 800 years old, which Prof Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit tells me we have no reason to doubt” then his continued unscientific dogmatism is itself highly significant.
Indeed, the very fact the scientists involved did not then, and still do not now, preface their conclusions with something like:
“If the tiny 1.2cm x 8cm = 0.00096 sq m. sample of the Shroud we were given, cut from the one bottom corner of the 4.4 x 1.1m = 4.84 sq. m. cloth, and therefore being only 0.02% of the whole cloth, is representative of the whole cloth, then, and only then, can we extrapolate our 1260-1390 AD date of that sample, to the Shroud as a whole”
tells me that they were, and still are, trying too hard to discredit the Shroud.”
I can’t tell exactly when this material was added. But we all know that the paragraphs are from no earlier than the week before Christmas. This is new material in the “Recent developments” section of the full article. Too bad Nickell gets mentioned.
In December 2011 scientists at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development ENEA announced that their series of tests demonstrated the image on the shroud could, in their opinion, only have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy" such as a flash of light at short wavelength. Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, the lead researcher, indicated in an e-mail interview that ‘….it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier’, but their study does not mean the Shroud image could only have been created by the flash of a miraculous resurrection, contrary to how the story was presented in the media, especially on the Web. Prominent skeptic Joe Nickell, however, is not impressed with the news. He indicates the latest findings is nothing new despite ‘dressed up in high-tech tests’ and don’t prove much of anything.
In December 2011 physicist Giulio Fanti published a critical compendium of the major hypotheses regarding the formation of the body image on the shroud. Fanti stated that "none of them can completely explain the mysterious image". Fanti then considered corona discharge as the most probable hypothesis regarding the formation of the body image.
Here is a list of the citations for the above paragraphs:
163. Squires, Nick (December 19, 2011). "The Turin Shroud could not have been faked, say scientists". montrealgazette.com. Montreal Gazette. http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Turin+Shroud+could+have+been+faked+scientists/5883796/story.html. Retrieved December 23, 2011.
164. ^ http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdf (in italian)
165. ^ a b Boyle, Alan (December 23, 2011). "Was Holy Shroud created in a flash? Italian researchers resurrect claim". msnbc.com. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim. Retrieved December 23, 2011.