TurretinFan, who describes himself as a fan of Francis Turretin (pictured) and a reformed apologist, writes in his blog:
Jason Engwer is great guy and has produced lots of useful and helpful material. I really appreciate his on-line work, and I hope that no one will be so foolish as to think that the criticism I’m about to offer is supposed to reflect badly on him personally. My problem is with his statement, not him.
In particular, his comment asserting:
The large majority of the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin predates the medieval era. The 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud is an exception that’s often cited. However, there are a lot of problems with that carbon testing. Dan Porter has gathered together some of the relevant evidence here.
is misleading at best and more generally speaking, out and out false.
The statement is misleading because "evidence" isn’t like people. It’s not like there are five personified evidences, named James, Bob, and Sparky, and only Sparky says X, while James and Bob say Y.
What did he just say? Evidence isn’t like people? Sparky? I find reformed apologetics confusing.
Moreover, even within categories of evidence, how we pick our categories ends up determining the majority. There are three main categories of evidence: Scriptural, historical inquiry, and scientific examination.
Oh, oh! That’s a clue.
On Scriptural inquiry, there is virtually nothing to support the shroud. The Scriptures specifically relate that Jesus’ body was wrapped in multiple linen sheets (not a single shroud), that his body was covered with about 75 pounds (American weight) of spices, and that his head was separately wrapped. Moreover, the long-haired person depicted in the shroud does not correspond well with Paul’s comment about nature teaching that is a shame for men to have long hair, though it accords well with medieval European iconography. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture suggesting that Jesus ever left a miraculous image of himself on anything.
Furthermore, the burial wrappings of Jesus are specifically described in Scripture, and there is no mention of a shroud. At best, one could hope to find a way to work a shroud into and around the Scriptural evidence, but the Scriptural evidence is uniformly against the Shroud’s authenticity.
I think this is precisely why biblical scholar extraordinaire, The Rt. Rev. John A.T. Robinson once noted:
The corpse of Jesus enfolded in a simple linen cloth passing lengthwise over the head and covering the whole body back and front is not, I submit, what any forger with medieval or modern presuppositions would have thought of; but it makes complete sense of the texts and conforms with the other ancient evidence.
Exactly. No medieval forger would have created what we see in the shroud.
Oh my gosh, look at that hair on Turretin.
A few comments: Only the gospel of John mentions “strips” of linen, the other gospels only refer to a linen cloth. The strips were likely strips of linen used to bind the wrists, ankles and head and perhaps strips around the outside of the cloth. The use of a single linen cloth is mandated in the event of violent death with significant loss of blood. The other cloth referred to as a “napkin” in John’s gospel is not the usual talit (prayer cloth) but was a cloth used to cover his face from the cross to the tomb. It was folded up and placed next to the body and was not on the face in final burial. The spices and oil were brought to the tomb but probably not applied due to the impending Passover sabbath. The women were on their way to the tomb Sunday morning to finish anointing the body when they encountered the empty tomb.
“Strips’ is only one interpretation of a specific ancient koine greek word and most likely incorrectly interpretted. The more plausable interpratation if one studies more indepth, would be simply “cloths” nothing more.
Turretinfan is also another one of the illogical band of morons that believe radiocarbon dating is somehow ‘flawless’ and it’s results not questionable. Which is “out and out false”. He should ask people in the field who do or use RCD for a living, and find out for himself how error prone it truly is and that the basic RCD method used, even today, relies on several unprovable assumptions to get to it’s results.
– The following is something I posted at
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226761&page=26 on the James Randi forum for skeptics of everything.
1. In regard to doubting Rogers’ honesty (as was suggested in this thread), we have little or no reason to do that. Perhaps he was wrong in his conclusions, but we have no significant reason to doubt his honesty regarding them. It’s clearly possible that he was being dishonest, but the available evidence supports his honesty much more than it undermines his honesty.
2. The scientific processes surrounding the carbon dating were not especially rigorous.
3. Rogers found 3 major differences between the carbon dating (and Raes) samples and the rest of the cloth.
4. In 2005, John L. Brown of the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings.
5. In 2008, a group from the Los Alamos National Naboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
6. Other scientific evidence supports a much earlier date than that concluded by the carbon dating.
7. Historical evidence does also.
8. Carbon dating is not foolproof, and is only part of the evidence.
– I’m sure that there are more reasons for doubting the carbon dating results (some of which I probably, vaguely know about). Perhaps, you and the followers of this blog could point me to them.
Richard. You still trying to convince those degenerates on that forum to see your side? …It’s useless, they have not the ability to see beyond their ignorance. They actually accept the words and writings of amateur Joe Nickell and such as fact over the many scientific peer-reviewed papers and many other evidences written by ‘experts’ in their field…What does that tell you? Instead of posting to their rediculous demands, why not spend your time researching C14 dating in more depth and there you’ll get your answers and a proper rebuttal
– At this point, I figure that the probability of getting ANYWHERE at all on the Randi forum is about 5%. But, I do think that I’m still learning a lot about human debate over there.
I am certainly in favor of free speech, particularly when the speaker is myself. I do lose patience with yada yada yada. Until one of the medieval fake claimants comes up with a truly convincing argument for a medieval fake, maybe we only encourage them by engaging in endless debate with them. The one thing de Wesselow did do is demonstrate the absurdity of the medieval claims from an art historian’s point of view. It’s just too bad that for whatever reason he went off the deep end with the Shroud as Resurrection argument. His claim wasn’t new as the Corvagio painting demonstrates.
I was never very taken with suggestions about divine providence. I was brought up to believe the “lord helps those who helps themselves.” I have also felt, however, that a conversion of science and the Shroud which began at the turn of the last century might indicate that something was at work that might be more than coincidence and that, perhaps, the Shroud has been waiting for science to release its revelation about the reality of Christ.
But what strikes me now, is that the Pia’s historical photo shoot came at the same time that the science of quantum mechanics was taking form and that the Newtonian, determinsitic universe was beginning to collapse. Something really important is brewing. We may be privileged to participate in it.
But the yada yada yada of the doubters who do not have a scientific leg to stand on any more may be just a distraction. We may have important work to do.
– I just now read your April 14 post, and tried to reply — but didn’t seem able to. Your comment above gives me another chance. Mostly, I’d like to get in touch, and ask for your help… You and I seem to be ‘writing the same book’ — only you’re much further along.
– I have two unpopular websites: http://messiahornot.com/ and http://shrouddebates.com/.
– My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
– If you have the time, please take a look at my sites and get in touch.
– On the first site, I have an old section on the Shroud that I will now try to rush over and update.
– Whatever, thanks.
The problem is I think de Wesselow’s view as an Art Historian ( His only true calling) on the Shroud may be lost due to the total incompetence of the rest of his book, unfortunately.
John your tying in of the discovery of the Shroud negative image and the birth of quantum physics is a very enticing point. I have come to believe also we may be in an important or interesting era as the Shroud with it’s ‘hidden’ evidence was surely created with our technological abilities in mind.
Comments are closed.