Behold The Man -Turin Shroud Studies Confirm Image’s Unique Nature

NCR ^ | March 14, 2008 | SHAFER PARKER JR.

[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.”

[Swordmaker]

why was test not on original cloth ?

Most people thought it was... but the agreed protocols were violated and the sample was cut from a corner that had been patched by a very skillful technique that essentially made it almost invisible unless you know what to look for. See detailed explanation in post #40 above.

[Swordmaker]

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.

I see. Peer reviewed science done by world class scientists, who put their reputations on the line, that has not been refuted, showing that the sample WAS NOT HOMOGENOUS with the main body of the shroud is a "hoax."

Shuckmaster, even Harry Gove, the inventor of the C-14 process that was used by all three labs has agreed that the results are invalid. Invalid sample garbage in, accurately dated garbage out!

[Swordmaker]

P T Barnum gave a great explanation to answer that question. "There's a sucker born every minute".

If the shroud is not authentic, then it was created by one of the greatest artistic geniuses in history... an unsung genius who was a polymath in so many fields that he is still confounding experts 700 years later. That makes the shroud a miracle that still needs explanation. It has not been duplicated with any technology of our day... despite numerous efforts.

[Swordmaker]

good site:

Actually, a very outdated site.

"FACT: The shroud of Turin is contaminated with the C14 containing bioplastic varnish of microorganisms still multiplying and present on the artifact.

FACT: The bioplastic varnish undoubtedly present on the shroud's fibrils, and incorporating significant amounts of younger and recent C14, is not effected by the cleaning procedure utilized by the three radiocarbon labs."

Unfortunately, neither of these facts are true. There is no bioplastic varnish on the fibers of the Shroud. If, as the theory proposed, the Shroud was polluted with this varnish, the varnish would have had to have composed better than 75% of the sample by weight to skew the date from 1st Century to 14th because the dates associated with the bacteria would have been an average of the ages of all the bacteria that had lived, excreted, and died on the Shroud for almost 1945 years. It would stand out like a sore thumb... and it simply is not there.

And there is another problem. The bacteria that live on linen do not breathe the atmosphere... they get their carbon-dioxide from the object on which they live and eat... and would share the same C-14 ratio of that object... i.e., they would date exactly the same. Had there been, the micro-organisms that might have left such a varnish of dead bacteria and bacteria poop would have ha

[Young Werther]

I remember that the shroud was vacuumed and the dust was tested. Seed granuals were carbon dated and were of a plant that grew in the Holy Land around the time of christ. Organic mutations are such that these seeds would be proof of the age of the shroud.

Additionaly the Veil with which Christ's face was wiped by St Veronica has been graphically compared using present day computer graphics technology. the results suggest that the two visages are very similar!

[Swordmaker]

The Shroud survived two separate fires, which could have affected the amount of carbon isotopes in the cloth.

The soot theory has also been shot down conclusively.

First of all, there is no known mechanism for carbon-14 to be added to an existing carbon isotope matrix of carbon-14, Carbon-13, and Carbon-12 by chemical means, which is what a fire is.

Since very little of the shroud was actually carbonized by either of the fires, that point is actually moot, anyway.

Exposure to radiation might be able to convert the far more plentiful Carbon 12 into 13 or 14... but there is no evidence that exposure to a fire, even one hot enough to melt silver, would provide any radioactivity.

Assuming that soot from a newly made (from wood grown in the few years before the 1532AD fire), burning casket or church surrounding the Shroud permeated the shroud, the amount of carbon soot required to skew the C-14 date from the 1st century to 14th would be approximately 50% by weight of the tested sample. Again, the soot simply is not there.

(The amount to skew the date is less than the bioplastic residue theory because the wood would have been grown and harvested in a much shorter time period [say 50 to 100 years] than the 1945 years that the bacterial theory would require.)

[Swordmaker]

Shroud of Turin Accidentally Washed With Red Shirt

Hilarious... I particularly liked the "true cross coasters" that got water damaged...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[roamer_1]

Your consistency in sticking to the facts, whether they illuminate your position, or not, lends great credence to your argument. It is an admirable trait.

[A CA Guy]

I don’t care what it is, it should have nothing to do with the practive of Christianity.

[grey_whiskers]

With the Shroud, we are dealing with a situation, which by definition is unprecedented in history and in which the normal laws of science were suspended; namely the physical resurrection of a dead human being.

Not necessarily true.

That statement assumes that

a) the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus
b) Jesus was resurrected
c) The image on the Shroud is related to the resurrection

I agree with b), I think a) is "probably" true, and c) is not necessary at all.

[Swordmaker]

Additionaly the Veil with which Christ's face was wiped by St Veronica has been graphically compared using present day computer graphics technology. the results suggest that the two visages are very similar!

Which Veil of Veronica? ;^)>

If you are referring to the Veil of Veronica kept in Manoppello, Italy, I have to disagree. There are many problems with the Manoppello veil including the fact that it has paint on the threads of Byssus (a cloth made from the fibrils of a Mediterranean sea urchin - the rarest cloth on Earth - which has been reserved for Royalty since the early Roman period) or Cambric (a fine, French cotton used to make veils developed in the 15th Century), on which the image appears.

Paint on the threads of the Manoppello Veil

When actually compared with a computer, the image on the Shroud is not that close to the Veil's image... with one of the most glaring being the pronounced mustache on the Shroud compared a very wispy mustache on the Manoppello veil.

Self Portrait of Raphael... Manoppello Veil... Shroud of Turin

The image on the Manoppello is most likely a self portrait of Raphael (1483 - 1520)... as there are contemporaneous accounts of such a painting being done by Raphael about 150 years before the Manoppello church acquired their Veil of Veronica in 1660, which, according to local tradition, was supposedly stolen from the Vatican in 1508 - even though the Vatican still HAS their veil. Raphael had been sent a "miraculous" self portrait of Albrecht Dürer painted on transparent Cambric that could be seen from both sides... and had sent one of himself back to Dürer... also painted on Cambric. The Dürer self-portrait still exists... but the Raphael self-portrait is lost. Or is it?

The Veronica's veil in the Vatican is a piece of one-over-one homespun linen, a veil much more likely to have been carried by a woman of Jerusalem who Jesus may have encountered on his way to Golgotha than the very fine Byssus cloth that was so expensive and rare it was reserved totally for Royalty. No one has done any comparisons of that Veil with the Shroud because the Church has not allowed it to be removed from its frame for centuries.

The Veronica Veil in the Vatican

Now, if you are referring to the Sudarium of Oviedo, then we are in agreement. Computer comparisons of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin find over 110 points of similarity... indicating that it probably covered the same head as the image on the Shroud of Turin. Although there is no facial image on the Sudarium, (there is a bloody hand print holding the area where the face would be)... there are blood patterns of some facial parts which exhibit including similar points and angles of facial blood flows on the Shroud. Some claim the blood stains on both cloths are Type AB Negative... a type more common among semitic people... although other scientists dispute that the blood on either cloth is capable of being typed.

The Sudarium (sweat cloth) of Oviedo,
which has been in Oviedo Spain since 761AD

[OriginalChristian]

My response would have been ‘where do I begin?’ But realized I don’t have time to begin right now. I like your short pithy answer. Protestant motto: Pick a passage, build a church, they will come. We live roughly 5 miles from our suburban parish church. I drive past 3 protestant churches to get there, 2 of them are Baptist. Talk about ‘man-made’ religion. Its impossible for them all to be preaching the objectve truth.

[A.A. Cunningham]

P. T. Barnum gave a great explanation to answer that question. "There's a sucker born every minute".

Barnum didn't offer that explanation which makes you a sucker for perpetuating the urban legend that he did.

P. T. Barnum Never Did Say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

[A.A. Cunningham]

You, as usual, are full of feces.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Bible Archeology Review had an interesting article on the shroud years ago. I wish I had kept it.

***Nevertheless, exactly how the image was imprinted on cloth remains a mystery that, so far as anyone knows, has never been repeated.***

It was made by placing a cloth on a statue and patting it down with an ochre filled “powder puff”.

***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? ***

It was known at the time who made the cloth and image.

A priest demanded the local bishop destroy it as many people were worshiping it.

***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.***

And like TV shows on UFOs and Ghost hunters you never prove them fraudulent or you will lose your audience. You always leave the impression that there is something unknown left to be found and it is possibly real.

[Ottofire]

>Nothing much has changed, really. The Church Augustine and Ambrose knew is the same Church that exists today. We know more, we communicate better and faster ... and that’s about it.

I agree. But the definition of what that same Church is, we would disagree with.

[Ottofire]

>Not so. Here’s the difference: when heresies arose, councils were called to identify, define and combat them. That’s the beauty of a magisterium, isn’t it? The Church was NOT fractured in its government - not until the eleventh century, long after the period about which you refer. So, no - as much as you might like to READ a denominational reality into the early Church, it simply won’t work.

So which council was called to heal the great schism? Did the magesterium ever fix that? Why was there tension PRIOR to the schism if the head of their own church told them when they were to celebrate Pasha, or whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father AND the Son? How could the Orthodox even THINK to break away from the Papal authority IF THEY THOUGHT HE WAS THE TRUE AND REVELATORY HEAD OF THE CHURCH? They would be denying their own Christianity if that was so.

No, sorry, the unity never was there. The Orthodox can NEVER return to the Catholic church as long as the Catholic CHurch continues to make and stand by Dogmatic statements that they cannot stomach. All this vaunted unity is all shadowplays and rhetoric. The authority grew as the power of the Pope grew. Those that did not accept that authority were either killed, or they left.

>>To suggest unity is to read your own faith into what the Early Church Fathers said.

>Otto, do you realize the irony of what you just said? IT IS my own Faith! It IS Catholicism.

Wow! Reading it INTO, as opposed to finding it in context. But I guess you were practicing eisegesis with my words. Have you ever read a whole work of Origen? Irenaeus? Or are you just reading a Catholic Answers ECF quote-book?