Posted on 03/14/2008 1:52:40 PM PDT by NYer
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif. — The Shroud of Turin is undoubtedly the most famous relic in Christendom — and the best loved.
During those rare times when it is displayed, millions of pilgrims travel from all over the world to see the purported burial cloth of Jesus Christ, a piece of linen 3 feet 7 inches-by-14 feet 3 inches that bears the detailed front and back images of a man who was crucified in a manner identical to that of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Scriptures.
In 1978, more than 3.5 million people stood in line for up to 16 hours for a brief glimpse. Twenty years later, another 3 million filed past when it was displayed as part of the celebration of Turin cathedral’s 500th anniversary.
So why do so many people care so much about a relic that according to available records was first displayed in the French village of Lirey in 1357 and was supposedly “proven” by Carbon-14 dating done in 1988 to have been created somewhere between 1260 and 1390?
Beyond the compelling attraction of the image itself, the answer lies in part with the dozens of men and women around the world, experts and amateurs working in a wide range of unrelated disciplines who spend their free time studying the Shroud.
They have uncovered enough anomalies and unexplained phenomena to be certain of one thing: Whatever the Shroud may be, it clearly is no run-of-the-mill medieval forgery.
One such researcher is Dr. August Accetta, an obstetrician-gynecologist from southern California, husband and father of three daughters and founder of the Shroud Center of Southern California (Shroudcentersocal.com).
First opened in 1996, the center is dedicated to discovering the truths within the Shroud.
While appreciating the importance of the work done by researchers seeking to confirm the date of the artifact — for instance, three years ago Dr. Ray Rogers showed that the 1988 Carbon-14 dating was not done on the original burial cloth, but rather on a Shroud patch that in the Middle Ages had been cleverly re-woven into the border area — Accetta focuses on uncovering the mysteries that lie within the Shroud itself.
Image of Suffering
Accetta is particularly interested in the image’s photographic aspects, including its three-dimensional qualities and its human anatomical features. He has published four peer-reviewed papers on the Shroud in the area of nuclear imaging.
The doctor’s work with nuclear imaging demonstrates that in terms of the Shroud’s inverse color intensity (often described as being like a photographic negative, but actually a mere reversal of light and dark), the image encodes only about the top 1.5 inches of the face and body in three dimensions.
“It’s like a relief sculpture,” he said, “sort of like when Han Solo was frozen in carbon in" Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Of equal interest to Accetta is the X-ray-like imaging upon the Shroud; the image reveals the roots of several upper teeth, the metacarpal bones in the left wrist and the femur under the left hand.
Furthermore, the image reveals bruising on the cheek just below the left eye. Bruising, according to Accetta, is completely part of the body image, not at all like the bleeding wounds that left blood residue on the surface of the Shroud.
It is a natural mistake to assume the image on the Shroud resulted from visible light emitting from the body, Accetta said. But even if light had streamed from the body’s surface any resultant image would have been as flat as a photograph, possessing no 3-D information.
Instead, Accetta has shown by injecting nuclear isotopes into his own bloodstream that he can produce a similar image, complete with 3-D information, in photos taken by the gamma camera doctors use to make images of internal organs.
“The amount of radiation in the skin and bones,” Accetta said, “correlates to the number of pixels on the Shroud.”
Nevertheless, exactly how the image was imprinted on cloth remains a mystery that, so far as anyone knows, has never been repeated.
Studies by other scientists have shown that the actual image — which lies on the very surface of the linen fibers at a depth less than 100 times as thick as a human hair — is the result, not of paint or any sort of pigment, but of rapid dehydration of the natural cellulose present in the fibers accomplished without heat.
Shroud investigators stress that while relics like the Shroud are not central to belief in the divinity and salvific mission of Christ, they can serve as powerful aids to developing a working faith.
“It’s silly to suggest that evidence like the Shroud should play no role in undergirding our faith,” said Gary Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., and co-author of two books on the Shroud. “Jesus himself said if people could not simply believe what he said, then ‘at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves’” (John 14:11).
As an evangelical Christian, Habermas is careful to separate his own appreciation for the Shroud — “There’s a good chance it is authentic,” he says — from his worship of the living Christ. Still, for him the Shroud is nothing less than a pictorial Gospel.
“It’s all there: deity, death and resurrection,” he said. “The Shroud shows that he’s dead, but that there’s something happening to bring him to life.”
He also suggested the evidence of Jesus’ awful suffering imprinted on the Shroud should cause every Christian to re-examine his commitment to the faith.
“A university student once said to me that it removes the flippant approach,” he recalled. “You know how some people talk, ‘Yeah, Christ died for my sins. Hey, you wanna get a burger?’”
For his part, Accetta grew up Catholic but left the Church as an agnostic in his youth, convinced that belief in God was “pretty much just a way to deal with mortality.”
In spite of his skepticism, he was intrigued by a radio talk on the Shroud in 1992 by Dr. Alan Whanger, professor emeritus at Duke University and chief researcher for the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin (duke.edu/~adw2/shroud). He met with Whanger and began to collect information, enthralled by the “clarity” of the materials available.
Nevertheless, it was not the Shroud itself but his study of it that made Accetta a believer, he stressed. To know more about the Shroud, he had to study Scripture and Tradition.
To learn about the cloth’s early history, Accetta had to research the Church Fathers. “Somewhere in 1997,” he said, “I realized my data had changed and that I was now a believer.” But not, at that point, a convinced Catholic. That quickly changed and Accetta came back to the Church of his childhood as he read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and understood their emphasis on sacramental theology.
“The Shroud became the fulcrum that turned my life in a new direction,” said Accetta. “The Christian faith had been a puzzle, but as I studied the faith in order to understand the Shroud the pieces fell into place.”
I have been interested in the shroud since I was a kid.
Ping!
********************
I don't recall hearing this before. It's very interesting.
Hi.
why was test not on original cloth ?
What amazes me is how often Christians focus on everything but the teachings of Jesus. And recently, I’m watching the clips of Obama’s pastor, and I’m not hearing him say anything about Jesus or his teachings, just hateful politics.
P T Barnum gave a great explanation to answer that question. "There's a sucker born every minute".
What leads you to believe interest in the shroud and focus on Jesus teachings are mutually exclusive?
It was. The test was done on a small piece near the edge that was both representative to the whole but considered expendable compared to taking a piece out of the center. The BS about that tiny piece being interwoven later was the outrageous excuse the hoaxers made up later when the scientific test results (done independently in 3 different labs) proved they were holding a forged relic.
It was. The test was done on a small piece near the edge that was both representative to the whole but considered expendable compared to taking a piece out of the center. The BS about that tiny piece being interwoven later was the outrageous excuse the hoaxers made up later when the scientific test results (done independently in 3 different labs) proved they were holding a forged relic.
"The presence of a patch on the shroud doesn't come as a surprise. The linen cloth has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in 1357, including a church fire in 1532. Badly damaged, it was then restored by nuns who patched burn holes and stitched the shroud to a reinforcing cloth now known as the Holland cloth.
"In his study, Rogers analysed and compared the radiocarbon sample with other samples from the controversial cloth.
"As part of the STURP research project, I took 32 adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud in 1978, including some patches and the Holland cloth. I also obtained the authentic samples used in the radiocarbon dating," Rogers says.
"It emerged that the radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud, Rogers says.
"The radiocarbon sample had been dyed, most likely to match the colour of the older, sepia-coloured cloth. The sample was dyed using a technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in 1291.
"The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about 1290, agreeing with the age determined by carbon-14 dating in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older," says Rogers. "
Papertyger has always said "if you have an easy answer for a tough question, you probably don't understand the question.
At the time of the testing (the 1980s) a considerably large piece was needed to test, which in the testing is destroyed. The curators of the shroud were reluctant to allow any of the cloth be snipped out, but finally allowed one place, off to the side of the image to be tested. Subsequent imaging and other non-invasive testing has shown where they tested was a very carefully woven in patch...evidently from the medieval times.
Serious testing would demand several pieces from all over the cloth—which at this time I think would only need a thread or so....yielding no holes in the cloth.
The Vatican should allow it to be retested except, there’s really only a practical downside. If a better uniform test proves its medieval, well, then it’s value as a relic becomes useless. If it’s shown to be 1st Century, the skeptics won’t care, and still won’t believe. As it is now, believers believe, and skeptics don’t, and who wants to rock the boat?
If it is indeed the Shroud of our Lord, waiting a few years or so seems judicious.
I always preferred to paraphrase Newman with “To practice eisegesis with history and Scripture is to be deeply rooted in the Catholic faith” myself. (Thanks for the spelling and usage correction, Mrs. Don-o and Campion!)
When the Early Church Fathers are allowed to speak with their own voice, they tend to all be making differing music, all tend to have their own take on the Scriptures, and do not sing with one catholic (original meaning) voice.
If you cherry pick their writings you can get from them Roman Catholic sounding notes, but you must cherry pick them, and cannot look beyond to the contexts, lest you lose the Roman Catholic meanings, much like a Roman Catholic has to treat the Scriptures.
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.