SHROUD OF TURIN - SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

The true skeptical inquirer knows no certainty: that is his misfortune; he is aware of it, and that is his gift.

Imagine slicing a human hair lengthwise, from end to end, into 100 long thin slices, each slice one-tenth the width of a single red blood cell. The images on the Shroud, at their thickest, are this thin. The faint images, golden-brownish, formed by a caramel-like substance, are wholly part of a super-thin film of starch fractions and sugars. Where this film is not brown, it is clear. Knowing the way certain ancient linen was made, the film covering just some of the cloth's fibers can be expected. And knowing that dead bodies produce gaseous cadaverine and putrescine that react with sugars to form caramel-like substances called melanoidins, the color is not only possible, it is expected. Spectral data, chemical tests and photomicrographs: all this is documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The honest skeptical inquirer must wonder, How can this be?

This is an excerpt - See the entire article below. Posted with the permission of the author.

As evidence, the chain of custody down through the centuries, makes the "shroud" inadmissible.

I wasn't aware that someone was attempting to use the authenticity (or not) of the Shroud in a criminal case . . . which is the only case in which your statement would apply.

A common occurrence since the death of Christ. Many "Christian Relics" were fabricated and many monasteries and aristocrats charged the faithful money to gaze or touch these fakes.

The existence of counterfeits does not therefore prove that all things are counterfeit.

Will it make all Christians, more Christian if it is, indeed, the shroud that Christ's body was wrapped after his crucifixion?

Nope. But it will be yet another proof that one can add to their apologetic, if indeed it proves to be true.

Faith is the belief in that which is unseen, unproven.

It annoys me enough when nonbelievers use that passe definition of faith, let alone a professing Christian who should know better. Peter and the other Apostles knew for a fact whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They saw Him, touched Him, and even ate with Him. Yet they still had to have faith. Why?

Because faith is not the intellectual belief in something contrary to the facts or despite a lack of facts. It is choosing to trust God and His provision for our sin, choosing to trust His promises even when their fulfillment seems a distant and unlikely thing, choosing to trust Him to know what He's doing when He tells us to do something and obey Him.

It has not shown to poses any supernatural power.

Historical artifacts are only of interest to you if they have some magical power that you can exploit?

The shroud may actually be the burial cloth of Christ, but its existence, like the Holy Grail and pieces of the True Cross or Peter's Bones is only memorabilia, not faith.

Which is all the interest I see anyone here taking in it, so who exactly are you trying to correct?

As I said, I am following the science and the scholarship as presented in peer-reviewed journals... you are following your predetermined opinions and cherry picking negative information from doubtful sources.

This is true. At this time my opinions are predetermined. The evidence, including your apologies for de Charny, is just not enough to cause me to change my mind regarding the origins, provenance and substance of the shroud. What is interesting is to watch the argument, back and forth. One side uses one source that it will repudiate later because the other side can site inconsistencies in the source. It's a dog chasing its tail and is just about as important.

As for the Geneva Convention, I have other opinions than yours about it being the modern day equivalent of "chivalry". It's not. Just as in the Hundred Years War, the "Noble Deed" does not a victory make in the 21st. Century.

One side uses one source that it will repudiate later because the other side can site inconsistencies in the source.

Please give an example of repudiated sources that were not invalidated by further compelling research.

History is filled with inconsistencies. Differing weights should be assigned to the evidence according to what is known of their sources... and that can change as other sources and evidence is found. For example, for years it was thought that Henri, Bishop of Trpois, letter was definitive... until it was learned it was never sent, that Henri had a competing relic (A piece of the "true cross"), and was competing with the little chapel in Lirey for the sous or pilgrims. Research on that "letter" showed that it apparently was never sent... and that the Pope disagreed with the Bishop to the point of pressing a perpetual silence on him.

Its contradictory nature is one of the things that makes the Shroud such an enigma.

I agree that some conclusions have been proven wrong... because they were replaced by later science. One prime example was the belief that the image was a light photograph... it is not, it is a terrain map that was formed irrelevant to light. Another is the 1988 C14 test conclusion that the Shroud is a 13-14th Century product. Now because of further research REQUIRED because that conclusion was false to other KNOWN facts, the C14 results have been shown to be invalid and the age of the shroud is again a question that has not been answered. That is what I mean by following the science and the scholarship. A good scholar or scientist is willing to discard his most cherished conclusions when compelling contrary evidence is presented.

I think that the biggest case for this not being some mere Medieval forgery is the detail that it contains. No Medieval forger would need to add the sorts of details needed to satisfy modern examiners for it to pass as authentic and it makes little sense for a Medieval forger to include details in the crucified body, such as the nails through the wrists and the crown of thorns being more of a cap, that are somewhat different from the popular interpretation of the Biblical accounts. I've also read that the shroud is consistent with Jewish burial customs of the time, which is also something I doubt many Medieval forgers would worry about. If this is a Medieval forgery, I suspect that either (A) it's a copy of the real thing or (B) they crucified a man, perhaps a Jewish man, contemporary with the forgery just as Jesus was crucified according to the Gospels, in order to get the details right. And given that the Medieval world wasn't filled with invetigators with the knowledge of Quincy, Ellis Peters' fictional Brother Cadfael and Umberto Eco's fictional Brother William of Baskerville notwithstanding, I find it difficult to understand why a Medieval forger would feel the need to go through the effort to be so accurate. It's not like there were CSI teams roaming the Medieval world. We're talking about people who thought that worms could spontaneously spring to life out of mud and who bled people with leeches when they were sick. There is a reason why calling a scientific investigation or medical procedure "Medievel" isn't a complement.

Christ suffered the same torment as any other person that was crucified.. his wounds were the same..

Not true. The spear wound and crown of thorns are unique. If they aren't 100% unique, then they certainly are uncommon and narrow the range of possibilities substantially.

His treatment was not unique, and therefore, the shroud could belong to any number of individuals that were crucified by the romans...

The Romans crucified plenty of people yet we have one shroud that depicts wounds that are, despite your assertion to the contrary, fairly specific, unique, and match the accounts in the Bible.

It may be proven as coming from the 1st century, but trying to prove that it was Christ's shroud and not someone else's will be a fruitless quest..

Oh, it will never be proven 100%. There will always be room for doubters even if all of the physical details of the shroud pan out as authentic. Of course you can never prove 100% that OJ killed two people, either, unless he confesses.

The fact that the shroud was found in the Middle Ages during the period of the Hundred Years War, tends to suggest that it is a manufactured artifact. A common occurrence since the death of Christ. Many "Christian Relics" were fabricated and many monasteries and aristocrats charged the faithful money to gaze or touch these fakes.

And the quality of many of those fake "Christian Relics" is so bad as to be laughable. If the shroud were just another fake Medieval forgery, the flaws should be so obvious that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We're talking about people who were willing to believe that animal bones were the bones of saints and so forth. Why make a shroud that looks better as a photographic negative, which has details that withstand modern medical scrutiny, and which don't exactly match the common interpretation of the Gospel accounts? Take a good look at Medieval paintings of Biblical scenes and in many, you'll notice the people dressed in Medieval garb. We're not talking about people with a modern sense of science, history, or investigation.

I agree that science probably cannot prove the cloth belonged to Christ. But there is much that can be inferred. Let's say it was a first century cloth of a Roman style crucifixion victim, how then do we account for its existence. Few crucifixion victims and few peasants were buried in tombs for subsequent reburial in ossuaries. There is only one archeological discovery of a crucifixion victim in an ossuary.

Within about three days fluidic decomposition products formed. There would quickly ravage any burial shroud touching a body. By the time family or aquintances returned for reburial of bones in an ossuary, about a year later, all that was left were bones; no flesh and no burial cloths. So how was it, if this was a genuine, bloodstained, somehow imaged, cloth did it surive unless it was separated from the body soon and removed from the tomb soon. That is part of the inference.

Then, too, why, would anyone save a bloody cloth unless it was particularly special?

The evidence is compelling that it is a genuine burial cloth or a first century crucifixion victim who was stabbed in the chest between the fifth and sixth rib.

Dan

I'm not sure of your drift about the Shroud, pro/con(?), from your post, but I'll take a stab at it from the position that you seem to belive it is the real burial Shroud of Christ.

If the shroud were just another fake Medieval forgery, the flaws should be so obvious that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I agree. I can accept the possibility that the shroud in question may be the actual burial wrap of some real human being of unknown, but ancient, origin. Note the word, "may". That it may be the actual burial shroud of Christ has not even been circumstantially hinted at by any form of "evidence", let alone proved. The "tests" performed upon the shroud only confirm the findings of that particular test and not in any way the validity of the shroud being that of the Christ. IMO.

However valid the shroud may be as the actual burial shroud of some unknown human, its approximate time of "discovery" in the Middle Ages and that it "begins to appear in the church records of the time", would more than likely subject any shroud to being fraudulently offered to; "people who were willing to believe that animal bones were the bones of saints and so forth".

In other words, a person or persons acquired the burial shroud of some anonymous human and proffered it to the gullible persons of the Middle Ages as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. From there, the fraud becomes a legend and now a "scientific-religious mystery" of great import (to some) The "Shroud" is, at best, an authentic fraud.

What I find to be an interesting paradox and commentary on human nature is that those who believe the shroud is from the supernatural turn to science for validation of their belief. It may be only a game of words, but I presume that science can only prove natural facts and would be incapable of proving the "supernatural". But then there are those who would counter that the Shroud is not, in itself "supernatural", but the "natural evidence" (there's that word again) of the existence of the supernatural. With that, one is right back where one started (sigh).

The best reply I have read in this whole Shroud thread is by "Drammach" at post # 67. Well said, Drammach.

Drammach's opinion is merely that, his opinion. I suspect it is not based on too much research into the latest findings and scholarship on the Shroud. I can agree with him that PROVING it is the shroud of Christ is impossilbe... we can only seek evidence that connects the Shroud to Christ or finally proves it to be a fraud. You like Drammach's reply because it feeds into your beliefs about the shroud even though it is rife with factual errors.

For example he asserts that all crucifiction victims suffered the same wounds... not true at all. Most were not scourged, as far as we know none were crowned with a crown of thorns, and few were likely to have been stabbed in the side with a Roman Lancium to insure death... if quicker death were desired, the Romans would break the lower legs (crucifragium) to hasten death. The Romans seldom allowed a crucifixion victim to be buried at all... they were left on their crosses as examples for others of what happens to those who oppose the Empire.

I agree that the tests only confirm the results of that particular test... but it is in the proper interpretation of the tests that give them meaning. Sheer numbers mean nothing without comparison to other exemplars. I agree with Drammach that even proving a First Century provenance would NOT PROVE the shroud is Christ's but it would be one more piece of evidence to be considered in the overall picture the circumstantial evidence is building.

You keep harping on the "fact" that the Church history of the Shroud starts after its appearance in Lirey France... again, untrue. We have earlier Icon's with known provenance that are obviously taken from the Shroud. We have the August 15th 944 sermon of Gregory Referendarius, Archdeacon of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, in which he describes the Shroud and links it to the newly arrived Image of Edessa. You choose to ignore anything that doesn't agree with your prejudged opinions... as you admitted. This is not good scholarship or science.

You would prefer to accept a host of improbable and historically impossible events in the medieval age rather than follow the evidence. You postulate conspiracies involving unnecessary steps, slander the memory of a knight whose contemporary record was considered above reproach, and impute motives to researchers they do not have... all so you can dismiss what is probably the most enigmatic artefact in human history. We continually provide evidence from peer-reviewed sources to you that refutes your assertions... and you continually return to the same refuted claims.

As to Shroud researchers trying to use science to prove the "supernatural" that is also not true. All science can prove is what it is NOT. Science cannot prove what it is. We have been using science to check the various theories of Shroud creation. So far none has been shown to be a complete answer. I think the latest findings of the Chemistry of the image is probably closest to the truth although we cannot find how it worked only vertically collimated. This finding does not require "miraculous" means, but it does completely invalidate any claims for it being a "painted" image.

The circumstantial evidence is growing... but I suspect that if Jesus Christ came back, draped the Shroud over his head and said "Perfect fit, although not in as good a shape as I left it." You would still not accept that evidence.

It is my understanding that computer enhanced images of the face show Roman coins were on his eyelids. Also as I recall, that there were spores of Mideastern plants on the Shroud.

The un-peer-reviewed claim is that there are Leptons minted by Pontius Pilate in 29 AD on the eyes. These leptons are unique... and until the research on the shroud, were unknown. They contain a misspelling of the word Ceasar. It was thought this was an error on the part of a Shroud hoaxer, but to date six Pontius Pilate Leptons have been found with the same error. This has been seen on the Shroud by some researchers under enhancement but not by others.

There are spores of plants native to the Jerusalem area that have been found on the Shroud... as well as spores from Edessa, Turkey, Constantinople, France, and Italy. These results have been peer-reviewed. The problem with using pollen evidence is that pilgrims came from all over Christendom to see and touch the Shroud... and it was not thought necessary in antiquity to wash and wear latex gloves when handling it. The Pollen may be transfers from such visits.

There is also a light dusting of a very rare form of Calcite, Travertine Aragonite. The microchemical analysis of the dust, found both on the back of the dorsal image portion of the Shroud and also in the area on the front where the feet rested, match this rare form of calcite that is currently known only to exist in one area of the world: Just outside the Damascus Gate of Jerusalem.

I'm not sure of your drift about the Shroud, pro/con(?), from your post, but I'll take a stab at it from the position that you seem to belive it is the real burial Shroud of Christ.

I believe it is either the real burial shroud of Jesus (whether he was divine or not is a seperate debate) or a copy of an authentic shroud.

Note the word, "may". That it may be the actual burial shroud of Christ has not even been circumstantially hinted at by any form of "evidence", let alone proved.

You are correct that it has not been proved (and probably never will be, in my opinion, in a purely scientific sense) but contrary to Drammach's assertions, which you seem to agree with, the wounds depicted on the shroud are fairly distinctive, unique, and consistent with the Bible while also adding some anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms). Could it be someone else? Sure. Could it have been any random crucifiction victim? No. It would have had to have been someone crucified in the same unusual manner in which Jesus was crucified in the Bible accounts.

It appears after the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, and there is some other information suggesting that it may very well have spent years there. Also bear in mind that the historical record is hardly continuous as one goes back in time. There are plenty of things missing from records that we know about because they are mentioned in other surviving works. There are also plenty of things missing that we'll probably never know anything about.

That just happened to have wounds consistent with the Biblical account?

Few things in life are certain. Read more philosophy if you don't believe that.

The best reply I have read in this whole Shroud thread is by "Drammach" at post # 67. Well said, Drammach.

I've already addressed that post. If that's the best argument againt the shroud being authentic, then I'm not impressed.

I believe it is either the real burial shroud of Jesus...

I seriously doubt that it is.

..(whether he was divine or not is a separate debate)..

A point in any debate that is irrelevant to me.

..or a copy of an authentic shroud.

If the "Shroud" is a copy of a presumed, "authentic" Shroud, it is, well, only a copy. If its a copy, it's a "fake" by definition.

Could it have been any random crucifixion victim? No. It would have had to have been someone crucified in the same unusual manner in which Jesus was crucified in the Bible accounts.

This implies that you believe that Christ was the only person crucified by the Romans in this manner. Given the Romans brutality, I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was the only person so crucified in the same manner during the over 1000 years of Roman history. As well, you note that there are some added; " anatomical details not found in the Biblical narrative (e.g., the nails through the wrists instead of the palms)". This would hint at Medieval embellishment indicating forgery rather than some esoteric detail incidental only to Christ's crucifixion. On one hand it is, on the other hand it's not and on both hands it could or couldn't be so.

Also bear in mind that the historical record is hardly continuous as one goes back in time. There are plenty of things missing from records that we know about because they are mentioned in other surviving works. There are also plenty of things missing that we'll probably never know anything about.

Yes, I know (sigh). These same reasons are used by both sides when arguing the merits of "Evolution" vs "Creationism".

That just happened to have wounds consistent with the Biblical account?

More than likely, especially for a fake. If I were to counterfeit $20 dollar bills, I would not put the Queen of England's portrait on them.

Read more philosophy if you don't believe that.

I beg your pardon?

If that's the best argument against the shroud being authentic, then I'm not impressed.

If that's your best argument in favor of the shroud being authentic, then I am not impressed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.