Posted on 07/21/2019 6:56:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Important news about the Shroud of Turin, believed by millions to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, has been flagrantly under-reported.
Nevertheless, the lack of mainstream media interest does not diminish landmark new research contesting the results of the controversial 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud between the years 1260 and 1390.
Immediately after those dates were cited three decades ago, and to this day, the Shroud has been tainted, maligned, disparaged and denigrated while wedded to the descriptions “not authentic,” a “forgery” or “medieval hoax.”
Meanwhile, the medieval date range is still continuously questioned and debunked by scientists and experts. The chief complaint is that the three small Shroud test samples were cut from the same outer edge on a piece of the cloth long thought to have been added later in the Middle Ages. This would have been part of a repair or reweave on a corner that had become worn and frayed due to frequent handling when the Shroud was held up for public exhibition. In fact, this theory was proven correct in 2005 by American chemist Raymond N. Rogers.
Thankfully now there is a new chapter in the 1988 dating debate. Raw data and documents from the original test that were “unavailable” (many scientists and researchers would say deliberately “hidden”) were obtained in 2017 by Tristan Casabianca, a French researcher.
In March, after two years of tests and analysis, Casabianca and his team of scientists published their results in the scholarly journal Archaeometry.
This month, in an interview with the French publication L'Homme Nouveau (Google translates into English), Casabianca discusses how he obtained the documents, his team’s methodology, and conclusion. Here is an excerpt:
“In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”
Here is why Casabianca’s conclusions are important to someone like me.
Since the 1990s, I have been a proponent of the study of the Shroud of Turin — a 14.5- by-3.5-foot linen cloth, and indeed believe it is the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile, the Shroud continues to be the most studied and analyzed artifact in the world, with its numerous unexplained properties continuing to baffle modern science. Chief among the mysteries is what “caused” a linear, front to back, anatomically correct, blood-stained image of a tortured, crucified man — with bodily markings that perfectly align with all the Biblical accounts of Christ’s suffering and death — to appear on the cloth.
The Shroud also possesses photographic-negative properties first discovered in 1898, that on the “positive image” clearly show every gruesome, agonizing, torment endured by the “man.”
Additionally, the Shroud displays three-dimensional “distance information” resembling a topographical map but within the cloth’s two-dimensional image of the man.
Furthermore, the image depth measures only two micro-fibers with no variation (such consistency is a feat impossible with human hands). And more unusual, the image does not penetrate the cloth but sits on top.
I could go into vast detail about many more fascinating facts, but the big takeaway is that the more you learn about the Shroud’s mysteries, the more you believe in its authenticity.
Shroud scientists and other experts who have never accepted the 1290 – 1360 date range are applauding Casabianca as his team who are calling for rigorous new testing to end the absurd notion that the Shroud is a medieval hoax.
Not only did those dates defy logic because of circumstantial evidence such as art, artifacts, and coins that mirror the Shroud face as early as AD 692, but the 1988 tests diminished the conclusions of the equally famous 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project known as STURP. As the first and last comprehensive research project authorized by the Vatican, STURP employed 40 esteemed scientists using 1970s-state-of-the-art equipment and given access to the Shroud for 120 hours. Here is the concluding paragraph from STURP's final October 1981 report:
“Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”
Barrie Schwortz, a world-renowned Shroud expert who was a STURP photographer and later founded Shroud.com, the most visited Shroud site, told me what happened in 1988:
“As soon as the dating results were leaked to the press, the world of the Shroud came to a complete and sudden halt. Many researchers took this as the final word and disengaged completely. The years of hard work by the STURP team and the many papers they published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature was immediately disregarded and ultimately, forgotten. These were indeed the bleak years of Shroud research.”
But now the Shroud is experiencing a renaissance.
Besides Casabianca’s breakthrough research, there are two new Shroud museums, a site for Shroud evangelization, a famous collection of Shroud photography now available online, much Shroud activity, and generally a renewed interest in the cloth.
I am proud to be a part of this movement by helping lead a team of Shroud experts to raise the $2.5 million needed to showcase the cloth’s mysteries in a unique exhibition at the popular and prestigious Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
Of course, the Shroud will not be present at the museum because it does not travel. Since 1578, it has been housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy — except during the Second World War when it was hidden from Hitler — but the Shroud will be there in spirit!
After the funds are raised, our team will assist the museum in producing the world’s most high-tech, creative exhibit, utilizing state-of-the-art display technology. The Shroud’s unexplained properties will be brought to life, leaving visitors spellbound.
Targeted for early January 2021, the exhibition will be open in time for the presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol, only three blocks from the museum.
The Museum of the Bible’s planned exhibit is part of a great Shroud awakening. Why do I believe that this is happening? The answer is the same as I have.
Chief among their characteristics was an emphasis on humility; including obeying their superiors even when they felt it was wrong.
Over and over, they looked back long afterwards and saw that their superiors had been correct.
Without the Catholic Church, the faith would have died out in the West, or been overrun by Muslims.
You do know that it was a Catholic (John Sobieski of Poland) who kept the Muslims from overrunning *Vienna*, less than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence, don't you?
Isn’t the AB blood of the Shroud and Sudarium also both R neg?
I read the L’Homme Nouveau article she’s basing this slander on. It wasn’t the researchers who didn’t release the data, it was the laboratories that did the analysis. When a “legal” request was made to probably the only institution that could authorize the release it was done. No lawsuit.
When those data show the announced conclusion does not follow from those data, that constitutes the fraud.
But that isn’t what Casabianca’s analysis claimed. The conclusions follow from the data but his point was carbon 14 dating technology has advanced so the 1988 results may be flawed.
Faulty data isn’t fraud.
That’s scientific FRAUD.
You make a case that I can’t and have no interest in refuting - I don’t have a dog in this fight.
What I do know is Myrah Adams claims Casabianca’s analysis proves fraud when it doesn’t even allege it.
You should do a piece on this for Townhall. Unlike hers yours would be worth reading.
Yet you felt compelled to
respond with a libelous,
ignorant and uninformed
personal opinion completely debased
from all facts and reason.
That's okay, many hate
and rightly so what they only
have been misled to falsely believe
the Catholic Church to be
here is a link to the post
so that you can finish reading it
and respond intelligently.
Take your time His Church
has been around for over
two thousand years
it's not goung away
anytime soon.
7
Now you’re dancing. You do not know what you are talking about. What part of “excavated 1st Century Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem” do you fail to grasp? That was Jesus’ day. Have you read the burial practices as written in the Mishnah? Those would be the rules that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would have followed in burying Jesus. Obviously, you have not. Does the history you know mention anything about the phylactories? How about anything his blood touched having to be buried with him? “Life is in the blood.” I am TALKING about the history and the Jewish cultural customs that would have been hurriedly followed. Not the myth built up around it by non-cultural Jews. Actual researched history.
I have studied this topic for over fifty years. They used more than two pieces . . . When they could afford them. The Gospels report Jesus was buried according to the ways of the Jews, but it does not list everything that was done according the ways of the Jews. But you rely on the ENGLISH translation, which refers to a napkin, mistranslated from the Greek original which don’t use a term that means napkin. . . but the English CULTURAL understanding of how a smaller cloth MIGHT be used (hence calling it a “napkin” in translation which would be understood by people in cooler climes, is NOT the Jewish CULTURAL understanding of how it MUST be used, which was to bind the mouth closed, a required action, nor was it even the translator’s CULTURAL understanding. A single cloth would be used to both cover the head and the body if one of sufficient size were available.
For poor people, that may not have been possible, so they’d us what they had at hand, i.e. the common sweat cloth that almost everyone had. CLOTH of any kind up until the invention of the machine loom was expensive. . . especially large, long cloths, representing many hours or even weeks of work for several people. People who could afford one, often bought used worn out sails for shrouds. In fact, up until the industrial revolution, household linens made up a high-percentage of the value of many estates.
There were actually four to five pieces to the typical Jewish Grave Clothes when one could afford them. A syndon and three bindings, one for around the face to bind the jaw closed, one for the wrists to keep the arms across the body, and one for the ankles. A fifth could be used near the knees if necessary. These were there for when Rigor Mortis passed to prevent the body from flopping as the muscles relaxed after tetany passed and a tendency to flop occurred. Skulls with bindings around them have been discovered, but none with remnants of cloths over the faces, not one. The purpose is, as I said, to keep the jaw closed.
Jews don’t change their cultural patterns. They follow the Torah, and what is written in the Mishnah, including the burial rites and practices. They would not suddenly add to their burial practices over time. The Rabbi’s would have to find a really compelling reason to do so. . . and frankly, after the events in 70 AD and the destruction of the second Temple, I frankly doubt there’d be a movement to more expensive burials with larger single cloths in a later day as the Jews are dispersed into another exile.
The Greek words are clear. The original Greek meaning is “about” or “around” the face, not “over” the face. In other words, under the Jaw, behind the beard, then behind the hair, in front of the ears, then up and over the crown of the head, where it is tied snuggly, binding the mouth closed in death. Similarly, there are potsherds or coins placed on the eyelids. Skulls have been found with both in the sockets. Again, the purpose is to keep the eyes shut in death. Practicality rules.
However, the evidence on the Sudarium of Oviedo show that it did indeed cover the face of a crucified man for a period of time. It seems to have covered His head and face while He was hanging on the Cross and then while He was being taken down, then while He was laying face down on the ground, and then, again, while He was being carried, perhaps to the tomb, with a hand supporting HIs head as there is a bloody hand print on the face area, It then show signs of being twist-rolled corner-to-corner into a ~40” long kerchief like binding which would have been ideal length for the required jaw binding. After resurrecting, Jesus would have walked away from the stone shelf with the other grave cloths and then reached up and pulled it off from around his head, dropping it, still rolled up and tied, near the tomb entrance by itself.
At least you are not convinced that Jewish burials were like the Egyptian burials with the dead being swathed (wrapped) from head to foot in bandage like cloths. There are a lot of people who think that is the case. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing like that is written or ever been found.
Not true, Neidermeyer. The Egyptians were ecumenical in their slavery and free men. There were both Royalty and non-royal blacks in Egypt. However once you get into the Ptolemaic dynasties most of the Egyptian royalty was Greek. Prior to that, however, the lower kingdom sometimes had black pharaohs. They often had white slave, Semitic slaves, or even Egyptian slaves. They did not care about color. It was chattel slavery not racial slavery in the Middle East. They made slaves of conquered peoples.
You are probably correct about the interracial marriages and breeding resulting in the color of the people as well as the high melanin content. Might also have something to do with the need to resist the sun exposure.
The only correct answer to that question is “It may be.” All older blood of that vintage appears to test Rh neg. The older the blood, the more likely the test will report a negative Rh factor. Perhaps something in the Rh positive factor dissipates with time,
Yes. The mist insightful material I have heard in a long time on the radio. More than rivals hearing Rush for the first time in the 1990’s even!
The first time I heard Fr. Spitzer’s World was walking back from the grocery store, a 1 and 1/2 mile trek one way, on account of I could not drive and my run-down trail bicycle with a ty-wrapped-on bicycle basket had been stolen off the porch ... I made it a point to “tune in” that next week same time and frequency to hear him again.
I don’t need the shroud or anything else to believe.
Nobody ‘needs’ it to believe. I doubt that the faith of any Catholic is rooted in the Shroud.
That doesn’t change the fact that it represents a fascinating mystery; and whatever the truth is, it does inspire people.
That’s racist man
“Look Jewish”
/s
The book explains the early versions as well. Their theory is that the Church approached DaVinci to make a more realistic one than the obvious frauds floating around, which were an embarrassment.
As for their claim of “Shroudie” frauds, I’ll have to find the book and get back to you.
Thank you. That’s interesting. I wonder if anyone has studied that dissipation rate. I remember reading that the blood was Rh neg. I hadn’t heard before that that might be due to the age of the blood. Is there blood from the Medieval ages that doesn’t test Rh neg?
Any comment on why the scriptures do not mention the cloth over Jesus’s head/face while still on the cross? Not doubting it, just wondering. Was that a common thing to do? Obviously today that is one of the first things that happens (at least in the TV shows!) is that the face is covered. And if it was a common thing to do - then not really worth mentioning perhaps?
I know the Crucifixion story focus's around Jesus’ words, and the events that point back to O.T. prophecies (they didn't rip his garment, no bones broken, etc.)
I recall the analysis of some medical doctors that studied the image on the shroud. Pretty amazing detail of the muscles, how various things respond to the hanging, the suffocation, the build up of fluids (water and blood), etc.
“That thing gets replicated all the time.”
The image is something like a scorch mark on the surface of the fibers. It’s not paint. No one has figured out how the image was made. I’ve never heard of a single successful effort to duplicate the it.
Since you have, please tell us what museum or art gallery has one of these replications so that we can find out how they did it.
If that statement were wrong, what evidence would you accept as proving it were wrong?
I’ve long been fascinated by the shroud. I’d be interested in seeing another negative image picture that is older. I’m unaware of any that are extant. Perhaps someone here might know of some...
I’ve read it.
Picknett and Prince offer no evidence for any of their fantastic (in the fantasy meaning of the word) claims. There are extant copies of the Shroud made before Leonardo’s birth painted by quite competent artists and they show little to no difference between what we see today. Picknett and Prince just ignore any factual evidence which shows their theories to be absolute twaddle. They just want it to be true that Da Vinci was capable of creating something that would challenge scientists of the 20th and 21st Centuries using techniques those later day experts cannot discern method, medium, or technique nor match the results with any modern method, medium, or technique which meets all the required criteria.
You are making things up when you use phrases like “probably” and “the only institution that could authorize the release it was done" as if researchers who have been seeking these data for decades are idiots who don’t have a clue whom to ask for access to the data. You couldn’t be more wrong. That was well known who the administrators were and are and who was obstructing access. These researchers are NOT stupid, semimojo, like you seem to want people to think they are. They are scientists who expect other scientists to behave normally and sanely, and share raw data for the purposes of peer-review, not obfuscate, fudge, hem and haw for thirty years, making excuses, blocking access to legitimate researchers on the flimsiest reasons. Instead, they’ve claimed the matter was closed, settled science. They sounded like the Global Warming crowd, circling the wagons around their fudged and fraudulent data sets, unwilling to let "science deniers" get anywhere close to the raw data.
The Oxford University lab, and then the British Museum, have stonewalled ALL requests for access to the raw lab level data for almost thirty years. WHY? As I said because it’s because they knew the data could not support the conclusions they drew because it showed the data that simply would not pass the basic chi squared test, even within the subsamples.
What do you think a "legal" request is in the U.K.? It’s a request for data resulting from the British equivalent of a Freedom of Information lawsuit, forcing the custodian of the data in-suit to release the data they had no legal right to withhold from the public. Scientific data which is not protected by trade secret laws falls under such a category that is not excluded from release.
You demonstrate you do not grasp the thrust of the paper at all if you you think has ANYTHING to do at all with better technology available today. The dating done in 1988 has been agreed by all involved to have been accurate. THAT is not being questioned at all. It was the protocols that were compromised not the tests.
From the papers abstract:
"In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered."
Barrie Schwartz, the principle light photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), said: Needless to say, the arrival of this paper has been long awaited by Shroud scholars around the world since it provides the first real look at what is essentially, brand new data (the first in almost 30 years). Unfortunately, the paper itself is currently behind a pay wall which might make it difficult for many to read it so I am quoting the last few sentences here:
"The statistical analyses (of the newly released raw data from the three testing labs—Swordmaker), supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."
Schwartz also says: I think an excellent assessment of the paper's importance was clearly stated in a private correspondence from Prof. Bruno Barberis recently:
"The results shown in the article published in Archaeometry represent an important step forward since it was finally possible to examine the raw data obtained from the three laboratories and better understand the anomalies and errors made in the dating operation."
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.