Re: [asa] Resurrection of the Shroud?

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Apr 21 2008 - 20:02:53 EDT

Hi all,

I haven't read the book, but would also be interested
in hearing a review of it. From the superficial
internet reading I've done on the topic, I'm not
convinced either way...I understand that at the time
of testing, the evidence appeared conclusive that it
was a forgery and that the Vatican abruptly clamped
down on the testing after that, which raises red flags
of course, but I also understand that no one has yet
been able to figure out given the technology of the
time, how such a thing could have forged so well, and
that some features, such as the placement of the nails
in the wrists rather than hands, would seem to suggest
an earlier (possibly more authentic) origin, since
nearly all medieval depictions positioned the nails in
the hands (incorrectly). The wikipedia entry on it has
a decent discussion of the various hypotheses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)
--- steamdoc@aol.com wrote:

>
> Is anybody here familiar with the book "Resurrection
> of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and
> Archaeological Evidence" by Mark Antonacci (2000)??
> ? If I used the search facility correctly, it does
> not appear to have been reviewed in PSCF.
>
> This book has become popular among some in my church
> who are into evidentialist apologetics.? As I
> understand it, the author is a lawyer, not an expert
> in any of the fields of his subtitle, which is a red
> flag.?
>
> I remember reading the article in Nature in about
> 1989 where?an international team of experts?did a
> careful?radiocarbon dating study?and seemed to?show
> quite clearly?that this relic was manufactured
> around 1300-1400 and therefore was a medieval
> forgery (as the church originally said when it
> appeared).? I thought that was the final nail in the
> coffin.? But this guy seems to be claiming to have
> discredited the radiocarbon dating, along with
> making?a variety of other scientific (or
> pseudoscientific) arguments that make a case which
> seems convincing to my non-scientific friends who
> have read it.
> Of course I have to wonder if it rates with other
> books that make a "convincing" case to the
> non-scientist, like "Worlds in Collision" or
> "Chariots of the Gods" or various "creationist"
> books.
>
> So, I would be interested in any evaluation of this
> book by someone (preferably from a Christian
> perspective) with expertise in the relevant
> science.? Particularly in the radiocarbon aspect,
> where I find it hard to believe that a result that
> looked so conclusive in 1989 would have been
> discredited by 2000.
>
> Allan Harvey, ASA Member
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 21 20:04:13 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 21 2008 - 20:04:13 EDT