Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FRESH CLUE SHOWS TURIN SHROUD MAY BE GENUINE BURIAL CLOTH OF CHRIST
The Mirror ^ | April 2, 2004 | David Edwards

Posted on 04/05/2004 7:13:37 AM PDT by NYer

IT'S been called the longest-running hoax in history - an 800-year-old religious riddle that's taken in popes, scientists and believers from all faiths.

The Turin Shroud has been either worshipped as divine proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave or dismissed as a fraud created by medieval forgers.

But new evidence suggests the shroud might be genuine after all.

HAUNTING: The face on the shroud

As Mel Gibson's film The Passion Of The Christ rekindles interest in Jesus, stitching on the shroud which could have been created only during the messiah's lifetime has been uncovered.

At the same time, tests from 1988 that dated the shroud to between 1260 and 1390 have been thrown into doubt.

Swedish textiles expert Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who discovered the seam at the back of the cloth during a restoration project, says: "There have been attempts to date the shroud from looking at the age of the material, but the style of sewing is the biggest clue.

"It belongs firmly to a style seen in the first century AD or before."

Her findings are being hailed as the most significant since 1988, when scientists controversially carbon-dated the 14ft-long cloth to medieval times, more than 1,000 years after Jesus died.

Yet experts now say the team unwittingly used cloth that had been added during a 16th-century restoration and it could have been contaminated from handling.

Mark Guscin, of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, says: "The discovery of the stitching along with doubt about the carbon-dating all add to the mountain of evidence suggesting this was probably the shroud Jesus was buried in.

"Scientists have been happy to dismiss it as a fake, but they have never been able to answer the central question of how the image of that man got on to the cloth."

Barrie Schwortz, who in 1978 took part in the first scientific examination of the shroud, says: "I was a cynic before I saw it, but I am now convinced this is the cloth that wrapped Jesus of Nazareth after he was crucified."

THE history of the cloth - which bears the ghostly image of a bearded man - is steeped in mystery.

The first documented reference was in 1357, when it was displayed in a church in Lirey, France. The cloth astonished Christians as it showed a man wearing a crown of thorns and bearing wounds on his front, back and right-hand side.

He also had a wrist wound, which confused some pilgrims who thought Jesus was nailed to the cross through his hands. Scientists have since discovered the wrists were used as the hands could not support the body's weight.

Before it arrived in France, it is thought the shroud was known as the Edessa burial sheet, given to King Abgar V by one of Jesus's disciples.

For the next 1,200 years it was kept hidden in the Iraqi city, brought out only for religious festivals. In 944 it is thought to have turned up in Constantinople, Turkey, before being stolen by the French knight Geoffrey de Charny during the Fourth Crusades.

It soon became Europe's most-revered religious artefact, although it was scorched in a fire in 1532. In 1578 it was moved to Turin in northern Italy and was frequently paraded through the streets to huge crowds.

Yet while the shroud attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims when it goes on display, it was not photographed until 1898. The photographer, Secondo Pia, was amazed at the incredible depth and detail revealed on the negative.

There were even rumours that the shroud had healing qualities after the British philanthropist Leonard Cheshire took a disabled girl to see it in 1955. After being given permission to touch it, 10-year-old Josephine Woollam made a full recovery.

But it wasn't until 1978 that scientists were allowed to examine the shroud for the first time.

The Shroud of Turin Research Project spent 120 hours examining the cloth in minute detail but was unable to explain how the image had got there. Barrie Schwortz, the project's photographer, says: "We did absolutely every test there was to try to find out how that image had got there.

"We used X-rays, ultra-violet light, spectral imaging and photographed every inch of it in the most minute detail, but we still couldn't come up with any answers.

"We weren't a bunch of amateurs. We had scientists who had worked on the first atomic bomb and the space programme, yet we still couldn't say how the image got there. The only things we could say was what it isn't: that it isn't a photograph and it wasn't a painting.

"It's clear that there has been a direct contact between the shroud and a body, which explains certain features such as the blood, but science just doesn't have an answer of how the image of that body got on to it."

A SECOND study was carried out in 1988, when scientists cut a sliver from the edge of the shroud and subjected it to carbon-dating.

Carbon has a fixed rate of decay, which means that it is possible to accurately measure when the plant materials that formed the basis of the cloth were harvested.

The announcement that the shroud was a fake was made on October 13, 1988, at the British Museum. Scientists compared those who still thought the shroud was authentic to flat-earthers.

It led to the humiliating spectacle of the then Cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, admitting the garment was a hoax.

The Catholic Church also accepted the scientists' findings - an embarrassing admission given that Pope John Paul II had kissed the shroud eight years earlier.

But experts now say the carbon-dating results are wrong. Ian Wilson, co-author of The Turin Shroud: Unshrouding The Mystery, says they were flawed from the moment the sample was taken.

He says: "What I found quite incredible was that when they had all the scientists there and ready to go, an argument started about where the sample would come from.

"This went on for some considerable time before a very bad decision was made that the cutting would come from a corner that we know was used for holding up the shroud and which would have been more contaminated than anywhere else."

Marc Guscin, author of Burial Cloths Of Christ, believes the most compelling evidence for the shroud's authenticity comes from a small, blood-soaked cloth kept in a cathedral in Oviedo, northern Spain.

The Sudarium is believed to have been used to cover Jesus's head after he died and, unlike the shroud, its history has been traced back to the first century. It contains blood from the rare AB group found on the shroud.

Mark says: "Laboratory tests have shown that these two cloths were used on the same body.

"The fact that the Sudarium has been revered for so long suggests it must have held special significance for people. Everything points towards this cloth being used on the body of Jesus of Nazareth."

Yet despite the latest discoveries, there are still many sceptics.

Professor Stephen Mattingly, from the University of Texas, says the image could have been created by bacteria which flourish on the skin after death. "This is not a miracle," he says. "It's a physical object, so there has to be a scientific explanation. With the right conditions, it could happen to anyone. We could all make our own Turin Shroud."

Another theory, put forward by South African professor Nicholas Allen, is that the image was an early form of photography.

However fierce the controversy, the shroud is still a crowd-puller. When it last went on display in 2000, more than three million people saw it. Many more visitors are expected when it next goes on show in 2025.

Mark believes the argument will rage on. He says: "The debate will go on and on because nobody can prove one way or another if this was the shroud that covered the body of Jesus. There simply isn't a scientific test of 'Christness'.

"But there are lots of pointers to suggest it was."



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britishtabloid; medievalhoax; shroud; shroudofturin; sudariumofoviedo; turin; veronicaveil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 401-406 next last
To: shroudie
"Different scientists (Adler, Heller, Pellicori, etc.) working independently conducted immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens that prove it beyond any doubt."

... and not a single one has done a DNA test yet ?
201 posted on 04/05/2004 11:38:05 AM PDT by RS (Just because they're out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: shroudie
My argument against it being a hoax--- If it's an artistic recreation of a phenomenon, there ought to be some evidence of artistry, of artifice. Particularly in medieval times, there should be brush strokes, dye, saturation, anatomical impossibilities---something! The thing is too realistic, for that time or any time.

Reasonable people go with the simplest explanation, and right now, given the data we have, the simplest explanation is that it's the burial shroud of a real, really crucified man, scourged as men were scourged in Roman times, etc. Some of the details, eg the crown of thorns, suggest it was Jesus. Likelier than not, at this point.

The real sticking point for most people is not the carbon dating, which is questionable, but the notion that the relic is too good to be true.

202 posted on 04/05/2004 11:38:58 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: RS
DNA against what?
203 posted on 04/05/2004 11:40:49 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common Sense is an Uncommon Virtue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Netizen; shroudie
When they prepared the body, would they have cleaned the body at one of these two events, (either Nicodemus or the women)?

Actually, Matthew records ...

57
34 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who was himself a disciple of Jesus.
58
He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be handed over.
59
Taking the body, Joseph wrapped it (in) clean linen
60
and laid it in his new tomb that he had hewn in the rock. Then he rolled a huge stone across the entrance to the tomb and departed.

* * * * *

Mary Magdalene intended to return with the other women after the Sabath, to properly prepare the body but it was gone.


204 posted on 04/05/2004 11:41:18 AM PDT by NYer (The Maronite, works, builds, and plants as if he is celebrating the liturgy. - Father Michel HAYEK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Until something uncontrovertable comes along, I will remain firmly on the side of those that say its the longest running hoax in history.

Just curious, what kind of proof would convince you that the shroud is not a hoax? Not that it's the burial cloth of Jesus, but that it's not a hoax?

I mean, questions remain like, who did this, when did they do this, what was their purpose? Was it a conspiracy? Why did it have to be a hoax? Why not a natural process of some kind from some body?

Like I said, just curious.

205 posted on 04/05/2004 11:41:19 AM PDT by Protagoras (When they asked me what I thought of freedom in America,,, I said I thought it would be a good idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
b
206 posted on 04/05/2004 11:48:39 AM PDT by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
An x-ray is a frequency level of light, a type of energy. A negative is simply a reverse image, apples to oranges talking of energy types. Perhaps the person made a mistake (since it sort of looks like our typical x-ray image formats)."

You're correct of course, I find a lot of mixing of apples and oranges in the "explanations" of the shroud experts here - a lot of them begin to sound like the UFO nuts after a while
207 posted on 04/05/2004 11:48:47 AM PDT by RS (Just because they're out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
"DNA against what?"

... against a human ?

Since He was not a clone of Mary, it would be interesting to see the attributes added by the masculine Holy Spirit.

The DNA of a physically "perfect" human would be quite interesting for comparison purposes, would it not ?
208 posted on 04/05/2004 11:54:40 AM PDT by RS (Just because they're out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: All
One of the Supermarket rags has the Shroud on the cover this week. It says that some cleaning woman noticed a glow coming from the Shroud and during closer examination found the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic!

Just a little levity for the thread.
BTW, I'm a believer. I think that this cannot be proven to be the burial cloth of Jesus unless the Wayback Machine gets perfected. Until then, I go on faith. I don't think God will mind at all if it puts me in the mind of Him.
209 posted on 04/05/2004 11:54:51 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Busybody of Free Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: RS
I agree. Many do sound like UFO nuts after awhile. And I am accused of that often. There are five basic reason, I think, that many people have when it comes to considering that the Shroud is genuine.

1) History: It is hard to imagine that a relic of Jesus survived for nearly can 2000 years. Furthermore, we are conditioned by the lessons of history to believe that a relic with a footprint in medieval Europe must be fake.

2) Carbon 14: Tests conducted in 1988, on samples cut from the Shroud, suggest that the linen fibers of the cloth were produced between the middle of the 13th century and the end of the 14th. Our trust in such science is implicit, and rightly so.

3) Incredulity: We assume, dichotomously, if the Shroud is not fake then the images we see on the cloth must have been miraculously produced as a byproduct of a resurrection event. This overwhelms modern sensibilities. Sensational theories in polemic writings—theories such as dematerialization or radiation coming from the body of Jesus—only magnifies our incredulity.

4) Alternatives: We may be persuaded by alternate presentations: a) Walter McCrone attempted to show that it was a painting. b) Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted an inquest in the 14th century and discovered that an artist had confessed to painting the Shroud? c) Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image (in his own image) despite the fact that he was born a century after its documented appearance in Lirey, France in 1356.

5) Convictions: Firm religious beliefs or our view of history persuades us that the Shroud cannot be real. Biblical literalism, which does not fully account for the Shroud, is an example. John Dominic Crossan's argument that Jesus was not buried and that his body likely left on the cross to be devoured by crows and dogs or thrown into a charnel pit is also an example.

There are reasons, as well, why some people accept its authenticity without qualification. That is too bad, also.

In the end we must make reasonable judgments based on the best science and history available. I doubt its authenticity will ever be proved. But there is enough here for me to be reasonably certain that it is a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim and to infer that the image is likely that of Jesus. I am more specific in the right margin of any of the tough question pages at http://shroudstory.com

Shroudie
210 posted on 04/05/2004 11:59:39 AM PDT by shroudie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"The Shroud may actually be fake, but it certainly is not a "proven fake." As someone else pointed out on this thread, the Shroud cannot possibly be "proven" to be a fake until someone can figure out how the image got there. Even those scientists who insist that it was a forgery are at a loss to explain how someone in the 12th century could possibly have created something that human beings cannot even create today."

I haven't yet read all the posts so, possibly, someone else may have mentioned this, but I seem to remember that it is possible to create a three-dimensional picture from the picture of the image on the shroud?

211 posted on 04/05/2004 12:07:42 PM PDT by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
Well, that's quite a stretch. I'd like to believe that, but isn't it possible, nay likely, that a given shroud from a given time period was used to bury someone other than Jesus?

Of course. But a crucifixion victim whose image wasn't painted on but was scorched into the cloth in proportion to the cloth's distance from the body's surface?

212 posted on 04/05/2004 12:11:28 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
I don't recall the half-life of U237/9 (whatever it is) specifically, but I thought it was around 1500 years. In any case, since I went to college I've wondered how this carbon-dating could figure anything *older* than that? W/the Shroud, I've always thought that if it's around 2000 years, how could this method ever possibly prove it to be so?

Well for starters carbon 14 dating has to do with ratios of carbon isotopes not uranium. That said, the 1500 year half life doesn't preclude measurements far longer than that. After 1500 years half is gone, after 3000 years 3/4 is gone etc. etc. I don't recall what the upper limit in age is for the carbon 14 process, but it is several factors longer than the half-life, I think 50,000 years is still reasonable with a large enough sample. The only real limiting factors would be the precision of the measuring instruments and the quantity of material being analyzed.

213 posted on 04/05/2004 12:15:42 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tiamat
if a DNA sample could be gotten from the Shroud, and if a living decendant could be found to compare it to.....Maybe we could find out for sure?

The blood type on the

Shroud of Turin
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Sudarium of Oviedo

is AB.

Type AB blood occurs in 2% of the population.

214 posted on 04/05/2004 12:18:11 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The notion that someone would develop a primitive form of technology 700 or 800 years earlier than this -- without leaving any other evidence of it for this period of time -- seems so highly improbable that I would consider it an "article of faith" that can't possibly be substantiated.

Exactly. The Shroud's authenticity is highly probable, given the scientific evidence. If one rejects miracles a priori, then no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, will suffice.

215 posted on 04/05/2004 12:20:56 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
sorry bud,

the Resurrection I can believe. the majical image, no. its akin to idol worship. You must be a Catholic.
216 posted on 04/05/2004 12:27:00 PM PDT by Hammerhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
"As far as anyone knows..." Ah, but there's the rub.

The image indicates that the "man of the cloth" was buried with coins on his eyes. The coins are Roman "leptons," struck, coincidentally, during the reign of Pontius Pilate.

217 posted on 04/05/2004 12:27:13 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
I guess you mean Joseph of Arimethea. ;-)

John 19
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

I suppose Joseph of Arimethea may have assisted Nicodemus. Verse 40 does say they and verse 39 does say Nicodemus. ;)

218 posted on 04/05/2004 12:27:34 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"The blood type on the

Shroud of Turin"

In your link it does not say that this researcher actually did any blood testing ( Botanist Avinoam Danin ) - do you have any link to someone who actually did this ?

219 posted on 04/05/2004 12:30:02 PM PDT by RS (Just because they're out to get him doesn't mean he's not guilty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: NYer
So much for the clean linen. It looks like after Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body in the clean linen that later that night Nicodemus and someone (Joseph of Arimathea?) re-wrapped the body, and this time in the same, but dirty linen.

John 19
39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Anointing?

220 posted on 04/05/2004 12:36:50 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 401-406 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson