The Shroud of Turin: A Mystery Across the Ages

Pravoslavie ^ | 08-29-2015 | Fr. Alexey Young

[Swordmaker]

Also often overlooked or not addressed by reviewers/analysts is that the fire itself would have deposited free carbons from the combusted materials wherever the smoke reached.

It would therefore be the Carbon-14 of burned materials (the wooden box, frames, tapestries, church timbers, pews, altars, etc.) that was being traced, not the original fabric.

Sorry, it has been considered, Lowell1775, and discounted. The problem is that to skew the date so far, the amount of contaminant (soot) from other sources than original Shroud material from the fire of 1532AD would have to be more than 60% by weight. The samples were washed and examined and no such contaminants were seen. Believe me, if that much carbon soot were there it would be quite visible. It would cake the Shroud linen quite thickly and change the color to gray or black. It doesn't.

The only viable theory is the one that proved finally to be true: That the tested samples had much of their original weave REPLACED by 16th century French cotton dyed to match the original first century linen Flax in a repair done by a method developed in the 15th century called French Invisible Reweaving, in which the actual threads of the original are twisted to unite with new dyed threads to replace the missing damaged area which is then rewoven in a matching pattern. This technique was developed to repair expensive art tapestries, arras, and other wall hangings that became worn or moth-eaten. Linen, made of flax, did not take dye well, but the French cotton did, and could be matched well to the aged appearance of the old linen of the Shroud. However there are differences. The Cotton threads are of a "Z" twist to facilitate twisting them into the opposite "S" twist of the main-body Linen threads of the Shroud. The cotton threads are fractionally smaller and a bit more even in size than the Linen threads, showing they were spun on a spinning wheel, rather than hand-spun. The Cotton threads are, most importantly, DYED, and fixed with a madder-root dye using alum . . . which is not present on the rest of the Shroud. In addition, the threads in the area where the cotton exists in the patch, vanillin is still present, but there is no vanillin present in the rest of the Shroud threads. Vanillin deteriorates in a linear fashion and the amount in any cloth changes overtime and finally reduces to zero only after the passage of 1300 years Turin shroud 'older than thought'—BBC, January 31, 2005, from a paper by Raymond Rogers in Thermochimica Acta, . . . proof positive that the cloth of the main Shroud is at least 1300 years old, or 700AD of older.

[EternalHope]

Outstanding!

Thanks for posting!

[Swordmaker]

The fact that the thing has been floating around for 1000+ years before its ever noted is very suspicious to my mind.

Oh, it was noticed. . . just as something else. The Mandilyon, the Image of Edessa, the Veronica. . . there were quite a few images of Christ made without hands. The one that is most interesting is that most of these are referred to as Tetradiplong. . . folded in four in two. . . showing the face of Christ, from which we get the image of Christ today and that face bears over 108 points of congruence in art with the Shroud of Turin and iconography since the 6th Century discovery of the Image of Edessa of Jesus Christ was re-discovered after being hidden in a wall to save it from Iconoclastic Arabs in the second Century. These include the wisps of hair (the blood stains), the forked beard and long hair (Christ was invariably shown shorthaired in the Greek style and beardless before that, looking more like Adonis), the square between the eyes, a slight swelling on the cheek, etc., all things seen on the Shroud and no where else. If you FOLD the Shroud in the four-fold in two, you get a flat fold with only the face showing. . . which mounted in a frame, matches exactly the description of the Image of Edessa. . . and the Mandilyon. . . as well as the Veronica. All three descriptions mention only the face of Christ displayed in a lattice framework. Remove the lattice work frame and unfold the cloth, a voilá, the Shroud is revealed. . .which apparently what was done in 944AD when the Image was carried from Edessa to Constantinople.

In fact, on August 15, 944AD, Gregory Referendarius, the Arch Deacon of the Hagia Sophia presented a Sermon on the arrival of the Image of Edessain Constantinople

. . . which is interesting because from then on, it was NEVER mentioned again, but the Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ was suddenly in the Inventory as one of the most revered relics of all Christendom in the Hagia Sophia! But the Image of Edessa was NOT.

In Gregory's Sermon, he speaks of the Image thus:

". . . A second light, immaterial and unique, came devotedly from you, an unexpected and material intertwining, natures distantly embracing heaven and earth, one living being made of two opposites: your human image, food from the clouds, a river flowing from a dry rock, and what is genuinely new under the sun, you were born a man in these last times from a virgin mother. You wiped clean the sweat of the nature you had taken on and what was wiped clean was transformed into an image of your unchanging form. . ."

Here Gregory is speaking of two opposites, front and back, both sides of His human image, then speaking of Christ's form, not face, or visage, a word denoting the entire body. And then later, Gregory shows he's seen the side wound on the Shroud as he speaks on seeing the source of the living waters and the blood of life and how they flowed from the same source, but were clearly separate, showing he could see what we know today to be the separate serum and the blood stains:

". . . falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side.Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side.

This was 320 years before the earliest 1988 C-14 dating of 1260AD and 400 years earlier than the averaged origin date of 1350AD. . . yet Gregory is describing the Shroud in accurate allegorical detail.

[Swordmaker]

So it is with the Shroud. It's the world's first photograph, 400 years before Daguerreotype. Some guy figured out how to fix an image, which was unknown then. Capturing an image on sensitive fabric was known since Roman times but it soon faded. After the Shroud, the technique was lost until the 1830's.

No, Sorry Oatka. It is not a light artifact. If you followed the current science, we now know as a matter of fact, the image was NOT created by light, because there is a faint image of the face on the back-side of the cloth, but NOT in the cloth between the front and back where light would have had to have penetrated. Light does not create, nor can it create, the data on the Shroud that encodes the quasi 3 dimensional terrain map of distance from the body to the cloth that fades with distance to nothing at about 5 to 7 centimeters. No known photograph quite replicates that kind of data or 3D appearance. There is no known modality that will do that to the accuracy the Shroud has.

In addition, there is radiological component to the image in that the fingers appear elongated because the image shows the carpal bones inside the hand. . . and the teeth in the mouth, as well as the orbits of the skull around the eyes. No known photographic means using light will do that.

There are no light shadow artifacting present in the Shroud image.

There is no chemical present on the shroud that acts as a fixative, nor a photo emulsion substrate. This has been tested down to Electro-microscopic levels. . . and using Micro-Xray-Spectrometry so sensitive it was able to tell the composition of the vinyl baggies the thread samples were placed in before being put in the test equipment, so sensitive, they could analyze WHO made the baggies by their composition.

Since there was no pigments, no photo-reactive chemicals, no-fixatives, and no photo-reactive residue which would be present if the image WERE a photograph, it CANNOT be a photographic artifact, nor can it be a painting, daubing, or any of those means of creation.

Your claim that "capturing an image on sensitive fabric was known since Roman times" is FALSE and there is no such proof of that claim. Camera Obscurae existed since then, but NO, they didn't. They had no evidence except what they made up to prove their frauds. Don't repeat it.

There's enough anomalies to make one question it's authenticity - a burial shroud would have left a gap or an image of the top of the head instead of the hinged effect. The head appears anatomically smaller than usual, plus it looks like it was added on separately (neck cut).

The claim that there is a no gap at the top of the head is a canard. . . caused by critics who mistake a WATER STAIN for image. The claim that the head is too small is amusing. . . because other critics claim the head is too large. . . or too detailed.

However detailed forensic examination has found no such anomalies, including any supposed difference in dorsal and frontal body lengths, when you account for the fact the body was in rigor mortis and not laying flat on a flat cloth, while the top had a sheet draped following contours down the length of the body, when adjusted for these differences, using a real cadaver, there was no differences. . . which was research done by forensics done by some of the top people in their fields of expertise and who publish their findings in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals, not AMATEURS working without expertise, such as you find on the skeptical sites who publish this twaddle.

Joe Nickel's degree, for example, is in English Literature, not any kind of science. One scientist you do have on the skeptic side is a GEOLOGIST. . . he deigns to challenge world class scientists working in their fields of expertise. . . where he has none.

I assure you that the Shroud of Turin is the single most scientifically researched object in the last 118 years. Your nit-picks have long been shot down with GOOD SCIENCE. . . in peer-reviewed journals, not the popular press.

[Swordmaker]

There's even a claim that the front and back differ in length (for example).

Your link is hilarious. . . measuring a THREE DIMENSIONAL PROJECTION IN TWO DIMENISIONS is self defeating, Oatka. . . Your link assumes that Jesus Christ of the Shroud lived in FLATLAND. ROTFLMAO!

Do you really think that measuring the distance from one side of this photo and the other side, which if you converted it to miles, is approximately 8000 miles, would ACTUALLY get you to the other side?

I maintain that if you started on the right side, you'd get wet when you stopped after your 8000 mile trek. . . and not be in South America. . . but somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

[Swordmaker]

I’ve just looked at the ARAMAIC and it says the same thing: John 20:7 “ and a grave cloth that bound had been about His head not with the linens but as it was wrapped and set on the side in one side”

And exactly how do you define the word "about" his head. . . Was that "about", covering his face for no reasonable purpose, since the Shroud was doing that, or did it encircle his face, around about it, keeping his jaw shut, as JEWISH burial practice dictated it must???

[21twelve]

Depends on what you require as a level of “proof”.

It is rather amazing to read other descriptions of the wounds on the body of the image. Just as in a criminal case - the evidence may or may not meet the level of proof requires. Obviously, to say something is the image of Jesus requires a high level of evidence.

But the wounds are very interesting. I may be off on some of these, but iirc; the whip marks are far too many for any normal beating. And a normal prisoner was sentence to a whipping OR a cruxifiction, not both. There are abrasions on the image’s shoulders (from carrying a cross). The sword wound in the side - Jesus died a rather quick death - so they did not need to break his legs to hasten death. (No broken bones on the image).

The crown of thorns for the “King” is an obvious clue - not sure how common that was.

The three-dimensional imprint on both the top and bottom indicates the body and fabric were suspended in air at the time the image was made. Some physicist compares it to a mini “Big Bang” event were gravity was suspended.

But yes - whether one believes the image is of Jesus or not ultimately depends on faith. BUT — did God allow the Shroud to survive this long, and for science to help provide some clues on what it is about. And is it being better understood (”proven”?) now for some reason only known to God?

And while it matters none to my faith, the Shroud has brought many scientists that have studied it to faith.

[Swordmaker]

But the wounds are very interesting. I may be off on some of these, but iirc; the whip marks are far too many for any normal beating. And a normal prisoner was sentence to a whipping OR a cruxifiction, not both. There are abrasions on the image’s shoulders (from carrying a cross). The sword wound in the side - Jesus died a rather quick death - so they did not need to break his legs to hasten death. (No broken bones on the image).

Couple of corrections. It was not a mere whip, but a much crueler device called a flagrum which had three leather thongs with either two dumbell shaped iron objects at the end of each thong or three lead balls tied in a row, about a half inch in diameter each. Each stroke with this monstrous device would tear skin and wound deeply, inflicting six to nine wounds each time. Some flagrum so had star shaped metal barbs instead of balls.

There were as many as one hundred and twenty-nine separate strikes on the man on the Shroud determined by counting the double and triple wounds that can still be seen. Divided by three and that means more than the forty strikes allowed in Jewish law, which by tradition was always limited to 39, to avoid an accidental miscount. The likelihood is there were fifty, administered by two different soldiers who were experts at administering scourging. We know this because they were from both sides and the ones administered on the left were at a lower angle than thos on the right, indicating a shorter man. They did both sides of the body, from knees to shoulders. He would have been covered with lacerations and bruises.

The beating would put even a strong man used to carrying large wooden beams, such as a carpenter, into shock. It is no wonder he fell on the way to Golgotha under the weight of the patibulum.

It is also no wonder he died quickly on the cross. he was already in shock.

The wound in the side was not administered by a sword but by a legionnaires lancia. The wound on the Man on the Shroud is just exactly the size and shape of the standard issue Roman Lancia. The sera (water) flowing from the side was the result of the severe beating, blood breakdown products pooling in the pericardium sac around the heart, making it harder and harder for the heart to beat, as well as pooling in the lungs. The lancia penetrated the lungs, then the pericardium, releasing the clear fluid, then penetrated the heart, releasing a low of blood. Water then blood. . .

The dorsal image does show some flattening of the buttocks and shoulders where they rested on the limestone shelf under the cloth, so whether or not there was any levitation is speculative.

I follow the science and scholarship.

[Flag_This]

"The corner was NOT damaged in any fire, but rather a corner that had been handled too much and probably used to tie the Shroud to ropes and frayed."

Thank you for clarifying this point for me. I was never clear on where the samples were taken from.

[Ann Archy]

MY BAD.

[Nabber]

The inaccuracy of C-14 tests, of any type, on textiles compared to the accompanying bodies, has been documented in a number of cases.

[Nabber]

Then you don’t really belong on this thread, IMHO....

[oh8eleven]

upyourz

[Nabber]

wow, a real intellectual, huh?

The thread is for people who are interested in discussing the Shroud, honestly pro- or con-.

That is not you. So be gone.

Or, say something intelligent.

[Oatka]

That link was just one of many and was posted as a starting point as to the claim.

You doth protest too much.

[Oatka]

I’d like to see some advanced class in photography try to recreate the image using some of the old techniques, quite a challenge I suspect, but it would put to rest the “early photograph”. Until that happens, it’s a “he said, she said.” thing.

Thanks for being a little more reasonable than the ROTFLMAO types who overreact, always a sign of weakness.

[Swordmaker]

I’d like to see some advanced class in photography try to recreate the image using some of the old techniques, quite a challenge I suspect, but it would put to rest the “early photograph”. Until that happens, it’s a “he said, she said.” thing.

It is NOT a "he said, she said" thing. What part of "there is no substrate or chemical fixative, residues from any of the photosensitive chemicals on the Shroud down to the x-ray micro-spectrographic level" do you fail to comprehend? The subject has been put to rest to a degree that there is no more question.

If the image were a chemically changed photosensitive material, the residue of that added material and it's other chemicals would still be there making up the image. They simply are not there. We are talking about tests that were able to discern the compounds that made up the material of the vinyl baggies the threads were carried to the test lab in. That is how accurate these tests are.

[Swordmaker]

That link was just one of many and was posted as a starting point as to the claim.
You doth protest too much.

I've read them all, Oatka, and a lot more. Most of them are hilariously wrong. . . or they are making claims that are impossible based on the physical and chemical evidence that has already been long known about the Shroud from studying in detail down to the Electron Microscopic level, which I assure you these skeptics ignore completely

I will still trump every one of your amateurs making claims published in their skeptical magazines with my world class scientists working in their fields of expertise, publishing their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, where their work is critiqued by other scientists, who know what they've done, how it was done, and can properly evaluate the conclusions of their work.

We are not just talking a few articles, but literally hundreds, compared to a few from a handful of non-scientists with no experience or hands-on testing, making claims that were easily shot down with science that had already been done by far more qualified scientists and falsified years before, but they being ignorant, like you, of the science and scholarship, did sloppy work, and, in their arrogance and sure they had proved the Shroud a FRAUD, made an announcement to the news media without concern for checking their work against the published and already known record.

As I said, their so-called "proofs" were absurdly easy to shoot down. Joe Nickell, with his daubing technique, was among the easiest to debunk. Your link about body length is literally laughable and shows the amateur thought that is at the heart of many of the skeptics' theories.

My protests are just the tip of the scientific and scholarly iceberg that sink the skeptical twaddle your link exposed. Frankly, there is nothing of value there. One finds amateurs throwing theory after desperate theory at the wall, hoping one will stick, only to see each one slide down leaving a slimy trail of bovine excremental waste in its wake, until it festers on the floor in a reeking puddle until another ignorant amateur, certain of his intellectual superiority over those Shroud yokels, picks it up, polishes it, and tosses it at the wall, all over again!

I've been studying the Shroud scholarship and the science attached to it for 44 years. I know one heck of a lot more about it on FreeRepublic than any other Freeper except for Shroudie, who maintains several websites on the subject and writes extensively, as I do, on the subject. I defer to his expertise, though.

[Swordmaker]

The inaccuracy of C-14 tests, of any type, on textiles compared to the accompanying bodies, has been documented in a number of cases.

That's been reported anecdotal,y, but no studies have been done to show it to be true. It may be, but I doubt it in this case. The reason given in the other cases has been the bacteri contamination, as the cloth they were testing was severely contaminated with mold and lichens and bacteri from years of exposure. The Shroud is remarkably clean of such contaminants. We DO know what happened in the 1988 C-14 test. . , three different, mutually exclusive approaches have prove that what was tested was a patch made of cotton, probably made in the sixteenth or seventeenth century to repair that frayed corner. We still have the fifth unburnt sub-sample that was retained from the 1988 test and one half of it is Cotton, one half Original linen. Documentary evidence has been found backing that.

[Nabber]

Carbon dating of textiles has had problems with accuracy: an Egyptian mummy-wrapping (Manchester mummy collection) showed an age 700 years younger than the body.