Jewish believer in the Shroud

Science photographer Barrie Schwortz considers it ironic that he, an Orthodox Jew, is spending much of his time trying to convince Christians that the Turin Shroud may well be an artifact of Jesus. As Christendom is entering the holiest season in the church year, Schwortz joined a group of international scholars Friday appealing to Cardinal Severino Poletto, archbishop of Turin, to permit a new carbon dating of the 14-foot cloth bearing the features of a crucified man.

At the last test of this kind in 1988, a majority of scientists concluded that the Shroud was woven between 1260 and 1390 A.D.-- and that the images on it were the work of a medieval artist.

But earlier this year chemist Raymond N.Rogers, a retired fellow of Los Alamos National Laboratory, stated in a scientific paper that the 1988 test was "not valid for determining the age of the Shroud."

Rogers who died of cancer March 9 at the age of 80 was a close friend of Schwortz who runs an elaborate Web site called shroud.com.In a scholarly article in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Rogers explained that in 1988 only a sample the size of a postage stamp was tested.

This sample, he added, turned out to have been taken from a medieval patch that had "completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic."

The patch contained cotton and had been dyed to match the rest of the Shroud whose threads were pure linen spun from flax.Rogers, a Protestant who had been involved with the Shroud project for decades, suggested that this cloth is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.

Rogers was the leader of the chemistry group for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, a team of scientists who performed the first in-depth examination of the cloth in 1978.

Schwortz was STURP's "documenting photographer" then."I am still Jewish," he said, "yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth the man Jesus was wrapped in after he was crucified."

"That is not meant as a religious statement," Schwortz cautioned, "but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a thorough knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype."

In an interview with United Press International, Schwortz quipped it was "proof of God's sense of humor" that he as a Jew should have been given this task."But I have no underlying bias.I am simply obligated to the truth."

But then, Schwortz went on, "God always chooses a Jew to be a messenger."

There was no word from Cardinal Poletto's office Friday about the scholars' request to reconsider proposal submitted by Rogers and William Meacham, a Hong Kong-based archaeologist for a new carbon dating of the Shroud.

"After the publication of Rogers' article this year, there has been a great renewal of interest in the Shroud, especially the possibility that it is older than the carbon dating indicates," the scientists' appeal states.

"All the world now wants to know whether the 1988 carbon dating result is in fact erroneous.We urge you, therefore, to grant the very small (amount) of material requested in the Rogers-Meacham proposal, consisting of 60 milligrams (about a spoonful) of carbon dust and fiber bits already removed from the Shroud."

In separate interviews with UPI, both Schwortz and Meacham complained about what Schwortz termed as "Italian stonewalling" of all outside attempts to reopen the case.

"Is it Italian pride?" Schwortz wondered, adding that there has been considerable resentment about the American involvement since 1978. "Americans dominated Shroud science," he said.

Cardinal Poletto could not be reached for comment Friday.

But Rogers and his colleagues were not spared the wrath of fellow Americans.Earlier this week, scientific consultant Steven D.Shafersman accused STRP of "shoddy science."

In a paper issued on The Skeptic World Site, a largely atheist Web publication, Shafersman blasts STURP for its "hopelessly incompetent and unscientific" analyses.

In the meantime though, other astonishing news is coming in about the Shroud.University of Padua researchers have detected a second facial image, though faint, on the back of the cloth.

According to researcher Daniel Porter, the nature of this second face is such that it virtually eliminates artistic methods, while giving credence to the hypothesis that a natural amino/carbonyl chemical reaction formed the Shroud's images.

Italian police experts have, meanwhile, used a computer to create a phantom picture of the young Jesus based on the facial images found on the Shroud.The result was the face of a 12-year-old boy exuding serene cheerfulness.

The face looked much like the portrayal of the young Jesus by the German Renaissance painter Albrecht Duerer (1471-1528), observed the Milan newspaper, Corriere della Sera.On the other hand, the paper mused, "it would probably also have pleased Tizian (Titian)."

What about some kind of opaque material painted on a fine translucent cloth such as silk, used as the mask? It would not have to be glass. Just a hypothetical.

While a large mask painting might be created on silk, the problem with N.D. Wilsons hypothesis is that is just doesn't match the image. Wilson's image is composed of UNBLEACHED linen while the non-image area is sun bleached. That is NOT the case on the Shroud. The color of the linen does not change from non-image to image area. The image exists on a very thin (160-400 nanometer) coating of strach fractions that exist on all of the Shroud fibers. This coating is left over from the fullering technique used on the hanks of linen yarn used to weave the Shroud. The only difference is that on the image area, some of those starch fractions have become carmelized through a chemical change called a Maillard Reaction. This coating can be removed by chemical means or by mere scraping. Under this thin coat, the linen in image areas is essentially identical to linen in non-image areas. Wlson's linen shows a distinct color change THROUGHOUT... from front to back.

The second problem with Wilson's hypothesis is that sun bleaching merely accelerates bleaching that will occur naturally as the material is exposed to light. Eventually, Wilson's sun bleach shroud image copies will fade into the background as exposure equalizes the bleaching. The Shroud has been on display over the centuries... sometimes outside in bright sunlight for days at a time... and no such image bleaching has occurred.

The third problem with Wilson's technique is that he has reported that he DID see a secondary face on the back of the cloth... but only after the front was exposed for a long period of time. If this is the case, he will find that the bleaching reaches all the way THROUGH the cloth... and through the fibers... and alter the colors inside the fibers as well. The Shroud has this secondary face image... but the color as I have previously mentioned exists ONLY on the surface coating of starch fractions.

Simply speaking, the image on the shroud is not related to bleaching of any kind.

The idea that the "blood" preceded the image is a product of the casual observation of a single fibril by one of the researchers in the case (I can't recall who, but the entire scenario is outlined by Heller in his book on the shroud). It was an offhand observation, that has become perpetuated over the years by people who should know better--the same people who are the first to crow over the "scientific" backing for the shroud as a relic, but who revert to theories based on faith and casual observation when the science doesn't support their beliefs.

Sorry, that is misinformation put out by skeptic organizations. The FACT that the image does not exist under the blood stains has been confirmed in other research, most recently during the 2002 "restoration" of the shroud... and it has been peer reviewed and the work duplicated. Heller reported on the first observation in his book published in 1983. Do you think that no other research has been done on the blood on the shroud since then? Other researchers set out to either prove or disprove the observation. It has been proved to be true.

Sculpture in stone does not "fly in the face" of any artistic tradition or style.

It does if the STYLE does not match the work done in that time and period. Extreme realism in sculpture, especially showing a naked form in an area where sculptures were very stylized, would "fly in the face" of what would be expected... especially mounted over a city gate.

Logic would have dictated that the best form of rebuttal to those findings would have been the provenance of the specimens, but that's not how it was done.

Actually, it was. Some, when presented with the results of the C14 tests, immediately began claiming fraud... and blaming various people for "substituting" bogus linen for the Shroud linen. One published article accused a curator from the British Museum because he was seeking "herringbone Twill linen of medieval provenance" from other museums. The author did not know about the need for a "control" sample... which they never found... and misconstrued the legitimate search for that control as a "conspiracy" to fake the C14 test by substituting 13th Century linen for the Shroud samples,

Others started looking for scientific reasons why, among a flood of evidence that the Shroud's provenance is much older than 1260 -1390AD, this ONE test claims that date. Challenges were immediately made about the last minute changes in protocols about the sampling location, the number of samples, and several of the STURP team even stated that the results would be questioned because the sample was taken from the ONE location that every member of the STURP team was in agreement should be avoided. The major problem was that they had been left out of the loop on the C14 tests... and their recommendations were ignored.

Some of those hypotheses why the C14 date was so out of step with all the other evidence were outlandish...or crackpot... or not based in science... and it was THESE researchers who negated everyone of those and finally found the key... a medieval patch that has now been conclusively proved to be the answer.

Read the papers... they are available at Shroud.com. You will find that the scientists set out to disprove most of these "theories" and succeeded. The "bio-plastic coating of microbe poop" theory was put forward by a pediatrician... it was shot down almost immediately in the SCIENCE... but the popular press you have been reading kept it alive far beyond the disproving. The altering of the C14/C12 ratios because of fire was ALSO shot down in Science... and again, the popular press kept that hypothesis alive.

The one hypothesis that was proposed was that of the patch... which survived the science.... was not disproved... and has now been proved to be true. The C14 labs did an excellent job of dating the sample they were given... a sample that WAS taken from the Shroud but that was contaminated with 16th Century linen and cotton.

I have just returned from a Shroud conference in which Barrie Schworz showed the micro-photographs of Rogers' findings. Rogers had in his possession the middle sample of the five cut from the Shroud for C14 (four were destroyed in testing) and the Raes sample taken in 1973 from the area just below the 1988 C14 sample. The photomicrographs of these samples CLEARLY show the change over from old material to new material... and the very skillful splices where 16th Century Linen/Cotton fiber was spliced into the original Shroud linen. In addition, it can be clearly seen that the "patch" was surface dyed in place to match the darker original shroud material. This can be seen where the dye did not color threads passing under others. This was GOOD science.

The protocols for the C14 test REQUIRED the chemical testing of the samples, All three labs ignored that protocol and later, when asked why, one spokesman replied "Why should we? We knew it was from the shroud!" That's BAD science.

You may be right, but one can still hope that at least those supposedly committed to discovering Truth would be objective.

But we have to look at what are the limits of science?

If an event occurs that is 'unnatural', in the sense that it occurs outside of natural law, then science cannot prove it happened. It can get close to it, but at most can only say that no *known* natural process can account for this event.

But if science does somehow prove that the event occured, then it cannot be a nonnatural or supra-natural event.

For instance the claim that the Universe burst into existance in a fraction of a second, each and every atomic particle of it, would have been said to be a miraculous claim prior to 1910.

But with the establishment of the Big Bang theory as scientific fact, we no longer consider it to be miraculous and only a very impressive, but entirely natural event.

I think we need to revise what we mean by 'miraculous' to include such impressive natural events. To me, the Big Bang is still miraculous, though natural as it points, IMO, to Gods action in the Universe, which is what I think 'miraculous' should be considered to mean

The Shroud's image is explicable now, but still is a unique and very strong circumstantial peice of evidence that Jesus did in fact live, was executed and His Shroud was retrieved from His tomb for some reason within 3 days.

I think that is about as close to proving the Resurrection of Christ through science as we will ever get.

Challenges were immediately made about the last minute changes in protocols about the sampling location, the number of samples, and several of the STURP team even stated that the results would be questioned because the sample was taken from the ONE location that every member of the STURP team was in agreement should be avoided. The major problem was that they had been left out of the loop on the C14 tests... and their recommendations were ignored.

Was any explanation ever given for why they ignored STURP's recommendations on how to take the Shroud samples?

Is there any assurance that they will follow such advice if another series of samples is taken or that some other kind of mistake wont also be made?

If another inexplicable mistake is made and the C14 test comes out with a 7th century date, for example, would this not just about destroy any further exploration into the Shrouds origin?

I am just curious about how those in charge of any C14 dating will be able to know that they have a reliable sample.

Also, if the dating does come back as 1st century AD, will that settle the argument? I am doubtful on that score.

Was any explanation ever given for why they ignored STURP's recommendations on how to take the Shroud samples?

No explanation was offered... but one can be assumed: politics. The Italian authorities and the Church's science committee on the shroud had their noses put out of joint by the expertise demonstrated by STURP. It is noteworthy that after the 1988 C14 fiasco, that almost all Shroud decisions are being made unilaterally by the Church's Science Committee... composed almost entirely of Italians.

Is there any assurance that they will follow such advice if another series of samples is taken or that some other kind of mistake wont also be made?

But three prestigious C14 labs have a lot of egg on their faces right now for not following the post sampling protocols that might have discovered the problem before testing. In addition, the Church would be much more alert to any finagling that might take place with the protocols as happened at literally the last moment in 1988. At the time the sample was cut, the scientists and the custodian of the Shroud argued for over two hours before the bad sample was chosen... that is not what should have happened.

The STURP photographs, both visible light and ultraviolet, SHOWED that there were problems with the sampled area. The patch is distinctly darker in visible light photos and distinctly lighter in UV-photos (which Barrie showed in his presentation Saturday). Had they bothered to do the chemical tests required in the original protocols, the problem would have become obvious.

There now exists plenty of removed Shroud material from the cut away portions of the charred areas that were either scraped or scissored out in the 2002 "restoration." These could be tested without impacting the Shroud in any way since their removal has already been done.

There is another problem. The Church's Science Committee not only selected the wrong sample of the Shroud, but they also turned their attention to the casket that stores the Shroud when it is not on display. Without asking anyone about the potential adverse chemical effects, the committee decided to sanitize and preserve the wood in the casket by treating it with Thymol [(CH3)2CHC6H3(CH3)OH]. It is an spicy smelling aromatic crystalline substance that evaporates and suffuses into wood and cloth. It is used by some museums to protect items. However, it is made with Eucalyptus oils derived from modern Eucalyptus trees...grown in today's CO₂... and because it suffuses through an object carrying its own chemical makeup into the object, it has a Carbon 14 impact. The museum grade Thymol contents label provided this information:(50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16)! C14 test technicians state that Thymol is a distinct problem when dating Thymol suffused objects.

It may be that an accurate C14 test is no longer possible because of this ill-advised treatment of the casket with Thymol... which has the unfortunate side effect of also suffusing the Shroud.

There are even more problems with Thymol as related to the Shroud:

The problems associated with surface analyses are now compounded by the fact that thymol was used to sterilize the reliquary after the 1988 sampling operation. Thymol is a phenolic compound that will react with many functional groups on the Shroud. This will confuse image analyses, and it may result in damage to the cloth. As one example, we found a significant amount of iron in the Shroud's cloth. Iron reacts with phenolic compounds to form complexes, and some of them are intensely colored. I would urge the custodians of the Shroud to consult with chemists before taking other irreversible actions. - www.shroudstory.com's FAQ

Another example of irreversibly bad science was Max Frei's sampling with sticky tape. He literally used an off-brand cellophane tape he purchased in an Italian "dime store" on the way to the Cathedral. The STURP team had brought with them a sticky tape specially designed by 3M to not leave residue and built an expensive applicator that applied the tape with a known amount of force. Frei used his thumb. In later years, wherever Frei stuck his tape, a dark rectangular pattern of dirt could be seen. Frei and Don Devan (IIRC) almost came to blows when Devan stopped Frei from applying his dime store tape to the image of the face. He was successful, but Frei was angry... but time has proved Devan correct.

Also, if the dating does come back as 1st century AD, will that settle the argument? I am doubtful on that score.

Nope... Science can prove what it is not. It can provide information about what it is... but not who it is. That will probably always remain a matter of personal opinion and faith.

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.