Skip to comments.Shroud of Turin again on display in 2010
Posted on 02/16/2009 10:55:31 PM PST by Coleus
Benedict XVIs announcement will allow millions of people to see the linen cloth that according to tradition was wrapped around the body of Jesus after his death, showing that mysterious Face, which silently speaks to the hearts of men, inviting them to see in it the face of God.
Vatican City (AsiaNews) For 40 days in the spring of 2010 it will be possible to see the Shroud of Turin which, according to tradition, is the cloth in which the body of Jesus was wrapped after his death and which shows the marks of the Passion and Crucifixion as told by the Gospels.
Benedict XVI, who owns the Shroud, made the announcement yesterday when he met the participants to the pilgrimage organised by the Archdiocese of Turin led by the local archbishop, Card Severino Poletto, who is the custodian of the Shroud. The Pope spoke about to the display in relation to the dioceses pastoral journey, which in 2010 will be devoted to a closer contemplation of the mystery of the Passion of Christ.
In such a context I am happy to fulfill your great expectations and accept your bishops wish, allowing the Shroud to be solemnly put on display in the spring of 2010, said the Pope. It will be a most propitious occasion, I am certain, to contemplate that mysterious Face, which silently speaks to the hearts of men, inviting them to see in it the face of God. For the Church the Shroud is not a relic since it has never actually said whether it is the linen cloth in which the body of the dead Christ was wrapped or not.
At the time of the last display in 2000 (previous ones took place in 1973 and 1998) John Paul II referred to it as icon. At the same time though, the Church has never denied that the linen cloth might be the one the Evangelists talk about in the Gospels. On several occasions the Church has allowed the Shroud to undergo scientific tests, with contradictory results that are still source of great debate among scholars around the world.
If this doesn't qualify as idolatry, I am not sure what else does.
“In 1988, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson carried out radiocarbon tests on the cloth and declared it a brilliant, medieval fake produced between 1260 and 1390.”
Reverence and Idolatry are two different things. The failure to recognize the distinction led to the MUSLIM directed Iconoclastic Heresy in the Byzantine Empire.
Those test results have long since been discredited and you know it.
Dp you happen to have any scientific evidence that proves the Shroud to be authentic?
But the carbon 14 tests WERE flawed and the mechanism by which the image was transferred to the Shroud has never been adequately explained.
It's funny; I have a theory as to how the image might have been formed naturally through long proximity to a prototype that was originally made from rock bearing sizable amounts of naturally-occurring radioactive materials. Both sides of the authentic/inauthentic crowd have given me grief over it. Both want it to be one thing or the other, and both seem to have a great deal of emotion invested in their respective beliefs.
What bothers me is that the carbon-dating, “medieval fake” crowd can do pretty good until you ask them to explain how it was made if it’s a fake. I have yet to see anyone explain that. I did see one bozo come up with a pretty good theory one time on “educational” TV. He took a bronze bust into a Domino’s Pizza place, put a cloth over the bust and baked it in a pizza oven at 350 degrees for 15 minutes. It was pretty hilarious. I can’t say it was a perfect replica of the shroud as he was claiming but the cameraman said it sure did smell good.
I am Catholic and have faith. However, when an artifact is presented, the best science must be used to prove the artifact to indeed be authentic.
Thus far, I have seen no scientific evidence that would prove or even indicate that that Shroud is authentic.
This is by no means a doubt in my faith or the Church but rather my defense of my faith as to not have that Faith corrupted by a hoax.
1) History of the Shroud
3) Weave of cloth
The evidence indicating it is NOT a forgery is the above, plus
1) The degree of anatomical accuracy - beyond what anyone other than a modern could have known
2) The failure to explain the method of production of the image
3) The uncanny close correlation between the wounds on the dead man and the story of Christ's Crucifixion.
I'm NOT a Catholic, but I believe the circumstantial evidence is such that explaining it is NOT what it is purported to be would have to be even more convoluted and unbelievable than simply believing the obvious.
The three C14 labs were accurate on what they tested... a medieval repair. Essentially, because of sampling error and the breaking of the agreed protocols for taking the sample from the Shroud, the 1988 C14 test has been invalidated. This has now been conclusively proved, chemically, physically, and photographically, in peer-reviewed work published by the late Raymond N. Rogers in Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194 in 2005. Independent researchers under Dr. John .L Brown, using different techniques from Rogers chemical analysis approach, including electron microscopy, confirmed Rogers findings in 2005, Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads From the Shroud of Turin. In mid 2008, Dr. Robert Villarreal, et al, using entirely different approaches, confirmed the finding that the C14 sample used in 2008 was a melange of mixed original material and skillfully re-woven material probably from the 16th Century "Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong".
Rogers work, attempting to FALSIFY the repair theory, instead confirmed it. Rogers now confirmed findings showed that the 1988 test sample was approximately 40-60% dyed COTTON, which contains approximately 2% aluminum from an alum mordant used to adhere the dye to the cotton, intermixed with between 60-40% original Shroud material (depending on location on the sample)... the main body of the Shroud is Linen, which is made of Flax, is not dyed, contains no aluminum, and contains no cotton.
The test proposed by Dr. John Jackson in your linked article is not related to the proof that the 1988 C14 sample has been proved, with independent confirmation, to have been falsified because of sampling error. The Jackson theory, that Ramsey is going to test on NON-Shroud material, has to do with an atom substitution theory. This theory is moot because of the prior work proving that what was tested was not exemplar of the Shroud.
Authentic what? A cloth that shows the inexplicable image of a crucified man that bearing wounds that indicate the man the cloth covered experienced beating and execution in a manner that matches the supposed unique manner that the person Jeshua Bar Josef experienced approximately 2000 years ago? Yes.
Authentic in that scientific evidence shows that this Shroud is the shroud of one Jeshua Bar Josef and no other? No.
The carbon 14 test were discredited based on the sampling methods and the issue of bioplastic. Since the Shroud was damaged in a fire and subjected to recent carbon 14 contamination in the Middle Ages from that fire, a false recent date would be expected anyway.
And of course, they didn't have Pizza ovens in the 1300’s.
The Shroud, when folded for storage, presents the face of the image forwards. The individual who originally brought the Shroud to the attention of the Medieval World was Geoffrey De Charney. He was related to an officer of the Knights Templar who was martyred under Philip the Fair. One of the charges against the Templars by Philip was they worshipped the image of a face. And the Templars of course were involved in the Holy Land going back to the 1100’s as well as in the capture of Constantinople. The Byzantine Emperors were pretty active collectors of religious relics - fraudulent and genuine.
ALL of this creates very compelling circumstantial evidence regarding the authenticity of the Shroud.
But the circumstantial evidence is simply overwhelming.
Even the FACE on the Shroud is very similar to the face presented as Christ's in Byzantine Icons and paintings going back to early Byzantine times. The likelihood that such a shroud would be carefully retained by Christ's early followers is not an unreasonable one.
Thanks for the links. However, at best the research you link dates the Shroud to be somewhere between 1300 and 3000 years old.
Perhaps more research is needed to better date the Shroud to determine if it is authentic or a hoax.
We now know exactly what the image is composed of. It is a caramel like substance that is the result of a melanoidin reaction. The Shroud fibers are coated with a very fine coating (less than 1/100 the thickness of a human hair) of starch fractions (sugars) deposited on the fibers by the washing of the flax in Soapwort before it was woven into a cloth. This coating exists on both image and non-image areas. However, where there is image, the starch fractions have been chemically changed to a caramel like substance: a melanoidin.
Melanoidins are brown, high molecular weight heterogeneous polymers that are formed when sugars and amino acids combine through a Maillard reaction. Normally melanoidins are created in Maillard reactions with high temperatures in a low-water condition, such as cooking. It is what turns baked goods brown.
High heat cannot be the modality on the Shroud because the temperature required would have converted some of the starches existing INSIDE the Flax itself. The Shroud melanoidins had to have been created with a low-temperature reaction.
One possible, and observed, method of creating low temperature melanoidins, such as are seen on the Shroud although it does not result in such high-resolution images, is the interaction of the starch fractions and certain gases, Putrecine and Cadaverine, that exude from a recently dead body. There are still real problems with the outgassing theory... the images on the Shroud are vertically collimated, both upwards and downwards... something gases just do not do.
Your theory of low level radioactivity, although not seen to produce melanoidins, may be a possible other modality of changing the Starch fractions to the caramel like substance of the image.
The experimenter was succeeding in converting the natural starches and sugars in the material of his cloth to a melanoidin... caramel. It smells sweet.
Sorry, Zulu, but these hypothesis have been disproved. There is no "Bioplastic coating" on the fibers... and the chemical process of fire cannot change the atomic molecular composition of the Carbon. IF either of these were true, to distort the date from the first century to the 14th, would require that the polluting factor whether bioplastic or Carbon soot, would have to outweigh the original material by 60%. It's simply not there.
There was sampling error... but the reason for the dating error is that the C14 labs tested a sample that was a mixture of older and newer material that was deliberately added to the Shroud sometime in the 16th Century.
Statistical analysis of the C14 test results of the sampleswhich were all taken from the same pieceshows that sub-sample from one end of the sample are NOT statistically the same as the sub-sample from the other end, a distance less than 1 inch apart, and that the two sub-samples could not have come from the same piece of cloth!!! Yet it is obvious that they were from the same sample. This should have been a red-flag for the testers. They ignored it... and in fact fudged their results to obscure the data.
The reason for this inexplicable statistical aberration is that the damaged original FLAXEN cloth was very skillfully, invisibly interwoven with a COTTON reweaving to repair the damaged corner where the C14 test sample was taken. The percentage of new to old material varied with distance from the center of the Shroud toward the bottom edge. The more new material found in a sub-sample the younger it tested... the more old material, the older it tested.
False. It dated a flawed SAMPLE, composed of original Shroud Material and a medieval patch from approximatelly 1500-1600 AD woven into the Shroud. This flawed sample invalidates any scientific conclusion about the age of the main body of the Shroud. All it shows is what the mixture dates to. This is a common problem with C14 testing. One MUST be sure your sample is exemplar of the thing to be tested. In this case, they did not. The question of the age of the Shroud is back in the area of undetermined.
That being said, there was an unauthorized C14 test done on a thread taken from an image area... it tested to First Century +/-50 years. The inventor of the C14 test technique used on the Shroud samples, Harry Gove, agrees the tests results are now invalid. When asked how old the original material would have to be IF it were mixed with a 50% pollutant from 1532ADthe most likely date for the patch work to have been doneto return a test date of 1350AD, Gove did some calculations and said "First Century."
Perhaps more research is needed to better date the Shroud to determine if it is authentic or a hoax.
Most of it is based on the Byzantine account of the origin of the Mandylion, which was supposedly discovered bricked-up in a wall of the city of Edessa, along with a "tile" bearing an exact duplicate of the image on the cloth. (A second history gives us both the tile and cloth, but depicts a much more fanciful account of their discovery.) The belief has always been that in the first century, the survivors of Abgar V sealed the image in the city's walls to protect it from his pagan successors, and that it stood there, undisturbed, for 500 years or so, until its discovery. So far as the tile was concerned, the belief was that the cloth image had miraculously transferred itself to the tile.
I'm not prepared to think that a soft image on cloth could produce an image on a piece of stone, but it's easier to think that the reverse might have been the case, particularly if the stone prototype contained significant amounts of radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium. Given 400 or 500 years of undisturbed proximity, the relief image on the stone might well have "cooked" itself onto the cloth.
The most likely scenario is that Abgar V or someone else commissioned the statuary in remembrance of Jesus. The legend claims that Abgar had the cloth image placed above the city gates to be venerated by those entering the city. But a cloth image, exposed to the elements would quickly have deteriorated. It's more likely that the actual image was in stone, and this was the image that Abgar's successors bricked up into the walls to keep it from the sight of Abgar's pagan successors. This wouldn't have been necessary with a cloth image, which could simply have been folded up and removed.
The cloth itself, which ended up bearing a copy of the prototype, was probably intended as a drapery or covering for the statuary.
At least that's how I perceive it, and I'm not at all trying to push the notion that this is exactly how it would have happened. But I think there needs to be more of an attempt to explain the Shroud of Turin image as something other than either a miracle or a forgery.
The formation of the image, except for the vertical collimation, is explicable through natural processes of chemistry. Radiation, unless it is constrained by complicated technology, expands in a globular wave front from its sources. It has the same problem as a vertical collimated gas. What could have collimated the radiation so that the image is sufficiently resolved and not blurred out by radiation coming from other vectors???
“The formation of the image, except for the vertical collimation . . .”
But doesn’t the nagging vertical collimation issue, in fact, render Rogers’ “natural” scenario DOA?
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself
Here comes the anti-Catholic crapola.....
The Bible tells you it’s REAL....the Shroud covered Jesus’s head also, not just the napkin....so of course the Shroud would have His image on it.
The skeptics love to masturbate over the emotional investment "believers" have in the Shroud; neglecting to note that some of the members of STURP were initially skeptics and/or non-Christians; and completely running away from the emotional investment many skeptics and atheists have in needing to discredit the Shroud.
If the image were of a Roman Centurion picking his nose, the skeptics wouldn't be all over it with attempts to prove how it was faked; they'd be in the forefront of investigating the mechanics of how the image was formed. But the fact that the image happens to be of a dead man, and appears to corroborate the historicity of the gospels, and (possibly?) the Resurrection, sends them into paroxysms.
There is such a thing as just saying "we don't know for sure"; there is such a thing as saying "the image is there, but that need not indicate it is there by 'miraculous' means"--and if one does that, the 'need' to 'debunk' the Shroud goes away. Prompt, soothing, relief.
bttt for later
The comments about the Shroud of Turin are varied, interesting, and informative about the writers. I, for one, have been in awe about the image, its history, its scientific studies, and the range of conclusions about its authenticity. What one makes of all the studies depends upon his or her preconceived beliefs on its relevance and on their ability to take in and digest all the studies and scientific theories about the Shroud. And whether your faith depends upon its authenticity. I find it all absolutely fascinating, with due reverence to the possibility that it is really a window for us to see the past and the future, and get a glimpse of our very own soul.
The issue of proof here misses the point in my opinion.
If it is not the burial cloth of Christ, then it is a master work of religious art. Something on the order of “The Last Supper”.
If it is in fact the Shroud of Christ... words escape me.
It seems to me however, that the team of artisans that would have been needed to create this in the middle centuries would have been so big that there would remain some historical record of the effort. And the patron would have wanted some credit. Also, I am not convinced that this image can be created with today's technology, let alone those of the middle centuries.
Behold : This day which has been put before you.
Children often cannot understand that which is placed before their very face from time to time.
Do you seek Fact or Faith....
I show you things which Mankind only dreams of:
A. You cannot modulate the frequency of the human voice and make it sound as a “Babbling Brook”.
B. You can not harness the Suns power.
C. You can not create a light which does not burn.
D. you can not cause a woman to go into a deep sleep.
E. You can not create an artificial star that can maintain a geostationary orbit above a little town.
F. You can not impregnate a Virgin.
G. You can not defy gravity.
H. You can not find hidden water in a desert.
I. You can not create a device which changes the molecular structure of a human.
J. You can not pass a Camels DNA through the eye of a needle.
K. You can not store all know life forms aboard a small vessel in their present form.
L. You can not separate the female genes from a mans rib.
M. You can not go to church on Sunday and witness the “Alteration of Mass” etc,etc,etc.
There are in fact many things upon your world that can not be proven false...as there is truly nothing hidden before your eyes,the clarity therefor rests within your heart,mind and faith...do not be afraid of that which cannot be understood but rather understand that you are Gods most precious of all things created , and know that His Work has never stopped but is continued by His Son Jesus,that is likened unto a farmer gone on a far away journey spreading His Seed amongst the stars.
I am not allowed to call any man a fool...indeed...why should I. Peace and love too ALL of you...
You must have gone to public school.
Sounds like you’ve already decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shroud is a hoax.
You've obviously never heard of the Sudarium.
Thanks for the ping!
Actually, Catholic school. Nevertheless...
I'd guess that it's a function of distance and extremely low-level radiation over a very long period of time, as opposed to the high-energy short-burst theories that have been bandied about over the years. If I recall correctly, the entire cloth has been affected to one degree or another, the image areas having a greater number of affected fibrils than the non-image areas.
No, but it does show that some other unknown (or perhaps unknowable) factor was involved in the image formation.
That's a good point... however, First Century Jewish burial practices included tying the jaw closed (to keep the mouth closed) with a rolled cloth, a napkin if you will, wrapped under the jaw and over the top of the head where it was tied. Certainly that meets the criteria of being "about his head."
In modern mortuary and embalming practices, the morticians actually suture (sew) the lips together to prevent the gaping of the mouth in death. This is a more invisible method of achieving the same result of keeping the mouth closed.
There is a cloth called the Sudarium of Oviedo, that meets this definition and in fact shows evidence of having been rolled to make a binding. The blood stains on the Sudarium match those on the Shroud with 78 points of congruity. The blood appears to be the same typing: AB.
The 1st C. Jews also used smaller strips to bind the wrists and ankles to prevent the body from flopping.
I would interpret that Bible passage to mean that after Jesus stood up and was no longer covered by the Shroud, the sudarium was still wrapped over his head and under his Jaw... he pulled it off and placed it apart from the rest of the grave cloths.
It is irrelevant whether a radiation source is low-level or high-energy. The physics of it is that it radiates in all directions at a rate that averages the same regardless of the vector. Why, if radiation is the modality, does the radiation work at 180º to change the coating, but not at 175º, 170º, or 185º?
If I recall correctly, the entire cloth has been affected to one degree or another, the image areas having a greater number of affected fibrils than the non-image areas.
No, the non-image area fibrils' coatings have not been changed to caramel. That happens only in the image areas.
The Jews wrapped the body the same way Egyptians wrapped a mummy, so the cloth would have been wound about the body, not one solid piece. The people who believe in the shroud are looking for a sign and there is none given, save the resurrection, and they are equivalent to those pilgrims to the Holy Land who buy and bought, all sorts of things thinking they have a true relic.
You’ve obviously never read the Greek bible. The New testament uses entulisso and eneileo mean to roll in, wind up, to twist, to entwine, to enwrap, to wrap by winding tightly. Linen strips were used, as per the custom of the Jews, not the Romans
Re: Jews wrapping a body the same way Egyptians did.
No, they did not. The Egyptian mummy wrapping was a prolonged procedure that took months of preparation. The Jews were required to put the body in it’s tomb before sundown on the day of death. Many 1st century Jewish burials have been excavated and not one was ever found mummy wrapped. The belief that Jews buried their dead like Egyptions is a confabulation built out of people learning about Egyptian mummies in the late eighteenth Century and assuming something that never happened and mistranslation of certain Greek words referring to grave clothes.
The Greek bible says differently