Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: The Shroud of Turin Message-ID: Date: 1 Apr 91 09:03:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 102 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu A while back I saw a brief posting on another group from OFM about a book. The book is _Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? The Resurrection Debate_, by Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, edited by Terry L. Miethe. If you haven't read this book, I strongly urge you to do so. Presents a lot of information to ponder upon. While reading it, I came across something interesting. Habermas brought up the shroud of Turin as part of his discussion. I have not really kept up on the research into the shroud so I found the following a bit surprising. I share it here to see if others have further information on the research -- and the conclusions drawn by both researchers and others. BTW, Habermas co-authored a book with Kenneth Stevenson, who served as the editor and spokesperson for the scientists who investigated the shroud in 1978, about the shroud. Here is part of what Habermas says during the debate with Flew: The shroud is a piece of linen that bears the image of a crucified man who has all of the wounds associated with Jesus' death, including a pierced scalp, a serious beating, contusions on the knees and shoulders, four nail wounds in the wrists and feet, as well as a postmortem blood flow from a chest wound. The man is in a state of rigor motis, another evidence of death. The man has been identified as a Semite, and evidence from coins over the eyes, pollen, and numerous historical references connect this shroud with a likely first-century origin. But not only do the wounds on the cloth parallel those of Jesus, but they do so in more than a half-dozen areas that are unusual for a crucifixion. Several scientific researchers have noted the high probability that the two men are the same person, based largely on these agreements in rare and abnormal aspects. As even an agnostic scientific critic of the shroud asserts concerning these probabilities in 'The Skeptical Inquirer': "I agree... on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus." In other words, this agnostic researcher asserts that if the shroud is not a fake, then it is Jesus' burial cloth. But perhaps the strongest major conclusion emerging from the investigation is that the shroud is authentic. [Did you notice this -- Habermas, a Protestant and not one given to imaginings says that the shroud is authentic based upon the evidence!] As one official scientific report states: "No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils." Equally intriguing, scientific discoveries concerning the shroud, such as its three-dimensionality, superficiality, and nondirectionality are virtually unexplainable in current scientific terms. Further, there is no bodily decomposition on the shroud, indicating the separation of the body from the cloth. Additionally, the scientific team's chief pathologist has testified that although the body existed, it was probably not unwrapped, as indicated by the condition of the blood stains. Kenneth Stevenson and I, as well as others, have argued that the evidence indicates the probable cause of the image on the cloth to be a light or heat scorch from a dead body. In fact, the shroud image appears to be a type of photographic negative, caused by heat or light, having the unique empirical and repeatable characteristics previously mentioned, all proceeding from a dead body and possibly even picturing the body leaving the cloth without being unwrapped. But more than an indescribable mystery, when combined with the probable identification of the shroud as Jesus' burial garment, the shroud becomes an additional set of arguments for Jesus' Resurrection. It should be noted that scientific data can change, and nothing in the Christian faith depends on the shroud (unlike the other three sets of arguments [which I didn't present in this email]). Yet the evidence at present provides some empirically repeatable evidence for the Resurrection. Comments? Thoughts? I'd even welcome OFM breaking the rules a bit and entering into the discussion on this one. En Agape, Gene [As I recall, since publication of the book fairly convincing evidence became available that the shroud was not authentic. But I don't recall any details. Perhaps someone else will remember it. I was also a bit surprised that Habermas used near death experiences as evidence for survival of the soul. While I find N.D.E.'s interesting, I'm dubious of the evidential value of visions experienced when the brain is suffering from lack of oxygen. One can easily imagine alternative explanations. Since my comments in talk.religion.misc I tracked down his reference to a supposed non-Christian corroboration of Matthew's account. A Roman historian Thallus, quoted by Julius Africanus, is said to have written a work around 52 AD that was a history of events in the Eastern Roman empire. In it he apparently referred to a darkness that Julius Africanus believed was the darkness at the crucifixion. The problem is that we don't have the actual text of Thallus. We have only Julius Africanus' response to it. He says that Thallus ascribed the darkness to an eclipse, but points out that this is impossible at Passover. (He says that the moon is in the wrong position to have an eclipse. I don't recall the details.) It's a tantalizing bit of information, but to make a fair assessement we'd need a bit more of what Thallus said. --clh]