Scientific study of the Shroud of Turin

[Ninshub]

The author is a lawyer, not a physicist, if I understand correctly.

I see one of his close collaborators, and supporters and sometimes co-author, though, is physicist Arthur C. Lind (see Test The Shroud website):

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stllindpaper.pdf

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/199013/

EDIT: The pdf paper above elaborates on some of the same points made in the podcast interview about the carbon dating.

We  also  saw  that  if  particle  radiation  irradiated  the  Shroud,  the  neutron  flux  within  it  would create new C-14 isotopes  from  the  nitrogen  indigenous  to  the  linen. These  C-14  isotopes  would not be removed by the standard pretreatment cleanings administered to the Shroud in 1988, or by the heat incurred from the fire of 1532, nor by natural aging, nor by combinations thereof.  (Lind et  al.,  2010)    This  event  could  easily  account  for  the  Shroud’s  aberrant  medieval  radiocarbon dating  (Lind  et  al.,  2010;  Damon  et  al.,  1988).   As  asserted  in  the  earlier  references,  the Historically  Consistent Hypothesis is the only method to explain the Shroud’s body images, its medieval  radiocarbon  dating,  the  still-red  color  of  its  centuries-old  blood, its  outer  side  imaging, its  possible  coin  or  flower  images,  and  its  excellent  condition.   Other  forms of  radiation cannot account for all of these features.

It seems to be agreed that in principle neutron radiation could generate extra Carbon 14, and therefore produce a later carbon date. But the problem is that the amount of naturally occurring Carbon 14 is so tiny (12 orders of magnitude less than Carbon 12). In order to reduce the apparent age of the Shroud by two thirds, as suggested, Antonacci reckons the extra Carbon 14 would need to be about 18% of the naturally occurring amount. But there's no reason the amount of extra Carbon 14 should bear any relation to the amount of naturally occurring Carbon 14. What's the likelihood of one being 18% of the other by pure chance, rather than, say, 1.8%, or 0.18%, or on the other hand 180% or 1800%?

Indeed, Antonacci points to an experiment done on Egyptian linen from 3400 BC. As a result of neutron radiation, its apparent age based on carbon dating was indeed shifted - but it was shifted by 46,000 years!

And apart from the evidence on those particular points, I just find it unbelievable that the Shroud of Christ - bearing the visible image of Christ on it - would have been preserved intact for more than a millennium without there being so much as a clear written reference to such an incredible relic.

I was reminded of this post when reading about the Bayeux Tapestry.
http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/BayeuxInfo.htm

The first written record of the Bayeux Tapestry is in 1476

The Bayeux Tapestry was probably commissioned in the 1070s by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, half-brother of William the Conqueror.

That seems to represent a gap of some 400 years with no mention of this particular object.

It doesn't seem unrealistic for some other object to escape the written record for an extended period. If we assume the shroud was paraded through the streets and waved about regularly, then we might expect it to be mentioned. But what if it was stored quietly, and known only to a very few people, or maybe unknown to anyone at all?

I should add that overall I don't have any particular opinion of the shroud, it isn't something which I've dwelt upon.

I was reminded of this post when reading about the Bayeux Tapestry.
http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/BayeuxInfo.htm


That seems to represent a gap of some 400 years with no mention of this particular object.

It doesn't seem unrealistic for some other object to escape the written record for an extended period. If we assume the shroud was paraded through the streets and waved about regularly, then we might expect it to be mentioned. But what if it was stored quietly, and known only to a very few people, or maybe unknown to anyone at all?

I should add that overall I don't have any particular opinion of the shroud, it isn't something which I've dwelt upon.

It's a fair point, but personally I don't feel the Bayeux Tapestry is really comparable with the Turin Shroud in terms of its worthiness of mention. I'd have thought something like the (alleged) True Cross would have been better, and that was mentioned a lot, starting with a source probably about a century after its supposed discovery by the Empress Helena in the fourth century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

If the Shroud was a secret, I can see why that would be different, but I don't understand why it should have been a secret, certainly after Christianity was adopted by Constantine.

If the Shroud was a secret, I can see why that would be different, but I don't understand why it should have been a secret, certainly after Christianity was adopted by Constantine.

It could depend on so many things. Did Constantine immediately publish the Dead Sea Scrolls? Also I think we need to get away from the idea of Christianity and associated history as a single thing, like say a single tree with a big stout trunk. It always seems to me much more disparate, distributed, with many isolated groups. The existence of great political power is pretty much a certain way generating such pockets. But here I'm getting into views on religion which really is just a vast area of debate. It won't help to pin down any precise answers here, on the contrary, it only adds more uncertainty.

It's a fair point, but personally I don't feel the Bayeux Tapestry is really comparable with the Turin Shroud in terms of its worthiness of mention.

I wasn't intending to compare the artefacts. My point was really about the nature of written records. There are so many factors, such as (a) writing something down, (b) sharing that writing - or not, (c) preserving the writing long term. History is a very fragmented subject, even present-day events may only be seen from certain limited angles, we never have a complete picture. It seems like a fantasy to expect the distant past to be better-documented than the present.

I wasn't intending to compare the artefacts. My point was really about the nature of written records. There are so many factors, such as (a) writing something down, (b) sharing that writing - or not, (c) preserving the writing long term. History is a very fragmented subject, even present-day events may only be seen from certain limited angles, we never have a complete picture. It seems like a fantasy to expect the distant past to be better-documented than the present.

I don't think I am expecting the past to be better documented than the present. That's why I brought up the comparison with the amount of documentation about the True Cross, which seemed a reasonable indication of what might been expected if the Shroud had been publicly known at the time. 

As I said, if it had been a secret, things would have been different.

[Ninshub]

The Bloodstains On The Shroud Of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts

“This is just not what happens to a person on a cross,” said a forensic investigator

Posted on July 14, 2018, at 9:01 a.m.
 
Dan Vergano

The Shroud of Turin, long considered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus, has inconsistent bloodstain patterns that suggest it is a fake, a new forensic investigation has found. (...)

Borrini conducted the analysis with chemist Luigi Garlaschelli of the University of Pavia in Italy, using real and synthetic blood samples on cloth to test the orientation of stains on the better-defined left side of the cloth (they also compared the two liquids to see if they flowed the same way). They hoped to answer a debate over whether the crucifixion depicted on the cloth was T-shaped, Y-shaped, or some other manner of ancient Roman execution.

Instead, they found that the bloodstains are inconsistent with any one pose, suggesting that a standing model was used to imprint the patterns at different angles for the hands, chest, and back. If it were a death shroud of a bleeding, executed person, hung on a cross, or pulled down from one for burial, Borrini said, “the bloodstains shouldn’t be so inconsistent.”

The Bloodstains On The Shroud Of Turin Are Probably Fake, Say Forensic Experts

“This is just not what happens to a person on a cross,” said a forensic investigator

Posted on July 14, 2018, at 9:01 a.m.
 
Dan Vergano

This is what I expected to be the case.

Given that there is no corroboration of a historical Jesus Christ outside of the biased and questionably accurate Christian Bible, it is extremely unlikely to have been a relic truly related to the Christian deity.

For me, this is just another nail in the coffin for the historicity of a Jesus Christ.

Edited for clarity.

Just another nail in the coffin for the historicity of a Jesus Christ.

This is probably unjustified.

Personally I've no axe to grind here. I'm pretty much outside of the scope in terms of having a personal interest in whether or not Jesus existed.

However, let's take a different type of example. Let's say someone is accused of a crime. One of the pieces of evidence against the person is found to have been planted so as to incriminate the person. Do we now conclude that the person is therefore innocent? No. The proper course of action is to discard the 'red herring' and move on. The person may nevertheless still have done the crime, misleading evidence doesn't change that.

(I should add separately that I'm not convinced either way about the shroud).