sc2d+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott Timothy Cramer) (06/17/89)
I am new to this bboard and just read the post about the Shroud of Turin. I did a research paper on the Shroud about two months ago, so I can provide some technical details on the Shroud. 1. It is definitely the burial shroud of someone - blood stains and computer analysis of the image show that it is *not* a painting, but an actual burial shroud. 2. The image on the Shroud is medically accurate - scourge marks on the back, nail holes in the wrists (*not* the hands), nail holes in the ankles, etc. It is a virtual match to the scripture's description of the Cruxifiction. 3. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud has put it in the 1100's or so (+/- 100 years.) I don't think it is the burial shroud of Christ. But who would have been crucified in the 1100's in *exactly* the same manner as the description in the New Testament? A hoax? If so, someone died for it. Scott Cramer
bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) (06/18/89)
In article <Jun.17.00.52.49.1989.21194@athos.rutgers.edu>, sc2d+@andrew.cmu.edu (Scott Timothy Cramer) writes: #I am new to this bboard and just read the post about the Shroud of Turin. I #did a research paper on the Shroud about two months ago, so I can provide some #technical details on the Shroud. # #1. It is definitely the burial shroud of someone - blood stains and computer #analysis of the image show that it is *not* a painting, but an actual burial #shroud. The tests for blood conducted by STURP (the Shroud of Turin Project) were seriously flawed. The STURP team did not include anyone with expertise in forensic analysis of bloodstains, and the tests that they used are not considered definitive tests for blood by forensic analysts (who have criticized STURP's tests on this ground). Another researcher, some years earlier, used a test that _is_ considered definitive, with negative results. The alleged "bloodstains" are red, whereas actual bloodstains of that age would be black. Various artist's pigments were detected in the "blood" areas of the shroud, a fact that even STURP admits (but attempts to explain away); IMHO there is adequate evidence that the "blood" is actually the result of painting. The computer analysis was also seriously flawed. It actually assumed the 3-dimensional result it was trying to prove, and hence the whole calculation was circular. This is an example, I am afraid, of "Garbage- in, Garbage-out." #2. The image on the Shroud is medically accurate - scourge marks on the back, #nail holes in the wrists (*not* the hands), nail holes in the ankles, etc. It #is a virtual match to the scripture's description of the Cruxifiction. Please, it's "Crucifixion," not "Cruxifiction." As for the argument that the shroud shows the nail going through the wrists, that is actually a highly subjective judgement. Dr. Anthony Sava, a long-term member of the Exectutive Council of the Holy Shroud Guild, says that "the Shroud Image does not pinpoint the very spot through which the nail passed" [1]. Some think the shroud shows the nails going through the wrist; some say it goes through the "space of Destot," and some (for example, the nuns of Poor Clare, who repaired the Shroud after the fire in 1532) mention the marks of the nails in the _middle_ of the palm! Also, even if it were true that the wound goes through the wrist, there are medieval artists' depictions of the crucifixion that show the nails through the wrist, so this would not prove that the Shroud was not the work of an artist. Finally, Scripture is pretty clear that the wounds were in Christ's _hands_, not his wrists (Jn 20:25-27). #3. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud has put it in the 1100's or so (+/- 100 #years.) The actual date is 1260-1390 with a 95% confidence [2]. #I don't think it is the burial shroud of Christ. But who would have been #crucified in the 1100's in *exactly* the same manner as the description in the #New Testament? A hoax? If so, someone died for it. I am certainly glad you agree that it is not the burial shroud of Christ. To my knowledge, they were not doing crucifixions in Europe during the 13th and 14th centuries. I see no credible evidence that the Shroud is anything but a pious forgery, made by a clever artist. For a discussion of exactly _how_ it might have been made, read Nickell's book [3]. Bill Jefferys [1] A. Sava, `The Holy Shroud on Trial,' _Proc. 1977 United States Conference of Research on the Shroud of Turin_. [2] P.E. Damon _et. al._, `Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin,' _Nature_ v. 337, p. 611 (1989). [3] Joe Nickell, _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_, Prometheus 1983 (Second Edition 1988).
kd0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Karen Yvonne Daly) (06/24/89)
_Finally, Scripture is pretty clear that the wounds were in Christ's_ __hands_, not his wrists (Jn 20:25-27)._ Actually, the word translated "hands" in the Greek meant the part of the body from the fingertips to the elbow. It's impossible to nail someone up by the hands as the flesh there is not strong enough to hold the nail. The weight of one's arm is sufficient to tear the flesh off the nail. (sorry for the gory image) [There is an article in the most recent Bible Review that supports the traditional idea of nails through the hands. It includes detailed physiological examination of the hands, and the results of some experiments. I don't recall exactly how they verified that a nail through the hands could support a body, but I recall that they did. One of the experiments involved suspending volunteers from a cross, using an glove arrangement that attached the hands in the same position as nails would (obviously they didn't want to nail the volunteers to the cross). This experiment exploded the common claim that people would be unable to breathe when suspended from the cross. (The original claims apparently were based on observations of punishments that were not quite equivalent to crucifixion.) --clh]
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (06/26/89)
[This is in response to comments on where exactly the nails were placed when Jesus was nailed to the cross. It refers to the article, athos.Jun.24.01.34.22.1989.23909, by kd0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Karen Yvonne Daly) --clh] #Actually, the word translated "hands" in the Greek meant the part of the body #from the fingertips to the elbow. Not knowing Greek, I was unaware of this. I have made a notation of this excellent point. #It's impossible to nail someone up by the hands as the flesh there is not #strong enough to hold the nail. The weight of one's arm is sufficient to #tear the flesh off the nail. (sorry for the gory image) Our fearless moderator mentioned an article in the most recent Bible Review that supports the "nails through the hands" tradition. I don't know if this article is referring to the same thing, but in his book (First Edition, p. 63), Nickell mentions the work of a Dr. Zugibe, who established experimentally--using cadaver hands--that a nail through the proper place in the palm will not tear free. Bill Jefferys
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.17.22.31.03.1989.2842@geneva.rutgers.edu> bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes: > >Also, even if it were true that the wound goes through the wrist, there >are medieval artists' depictions of the crucifixion that show the nails >through the wrist, so this would not prove that the Shroud was not the >work of an artist. > >Finally, Scripture is pretty clear that the wounds were in Christ's >_hands_, not his wrists (Jn 20:25-27). However, the wrist was included as part of the hand. Realizing that and that the Romans were masters of torture and looking at archeological finds concerning crucifixion, the spikes were driven through the wrists. In that the Shroud may show this, so what? It does not prove anything one way or the other. The existing evidence is overwhelmingly against the Shroud. Further, a Christian's walk should be by Faith and not artifacts. Remember the scene with Thomas and the Risen Christ. Thomas believed because he saw and touched the Risen Christ, but Jesus indicated that it was better for those who would believe without seeing or touching. Gene