Fresh tests on Shroud of Turin

To: SpringheelJack

What facts? That the Shroud blood and image is something not made by artistry is completely void of acceptance by the scientific or historical community.

The actual fact is that most scientists have not bothered to even look at the evidence. For the "historical community" most are not involved and have not examined the extant evidence from the first millennia; they are willing to accept what they read from skeptics who, like you, continue to spout OLD information that has been superseded by newer research.

You continually trot out McCrone's optical microscopic claims... and totally unqualified Joe Nickell's assertions... as authoritative... but ignore the findings of scientists whose expertise in the specific areas they are testing (blood, blood fractions, ancient hemoglobin, porphyrins, pyrolosis, microspectrometry, etc.) FAR exceeds McCrone's limited expertise. McCrone is a microscopist, not a physicist, not a pyrolysis chemist, not a hemotology chemist, certainly not a blood specialist, and not even in the same ball park of expertise on blood fractions and hemoglobins as Dr. Bruce Cameron. McCrone based his entire claims on what he claims he saw (something NO OTHER SCIENTIST WHO HAS LOOKED HAS SEEN!) through an optical microscope with polarizing filters. Microscopists, equally skilled as McCrone, have looked at Shroud samples, both image and non-image, and have NOT seen what he claims.

McCrone did NOT perform microxrayspectrometry, which conclusively proved the Iron on the Shroud images and blood areas were NOT composed of Fe₂O₃ (red Ocher or Iron Oxide) or HgS (Mercuric Sulfide or Vermilion). He did NOT perform the much more sophisticated blood tests that Drs. Adler, Heller, Cameron, and Rogers performed that proved the the blood stains were composed of denatured meth-hemoglobin, a blood fraction that does indeed retain its red color. He did NOT perform the immunological assays that showed the blood stains were positive for PRIMATE blood... and not any other type of blood... and instead merely claimed, without proof, that the scientists got the positive test because of chicken egg Albumin was used (so he claimed) as a binder in tempera paint.

Your repeated claim that the image is made of Red Ochre is ludicrous in the light under the tests that dozens of qualified scientists have conducted on the Shroud and its fibers, even the most finely ground Iron Oxide would be completely obvious under a microscope... let alone the scanning electron microscopes, microspectrographs, and other much more sophisticated tools brought to bear on the investigation. Compared to the actual caramelized saccharide that DOES make up the image, even finely ground Jewelers Rouge (one of the Iron Oxide sources that McCrone has variously claimed to make up the image) would appear as large as boulders when compared to the coating of caramelized saccharides that is 1/100th the thickness of a human hair.

When only ONE scientists among dozens examining an object claims to see something so easily identified that ALL others cannot find, the conclusions of the ONE have to be discounted.

What part of "There is no Red Ochre on the shroud sufficient to rise to visibility" do you fail to understand?

Your sources are not authoritative on the current state of scholarship OR science on the Shroud. In 2004, Dr. Raymond Rogers conclusively proved... and had his work successfully peer-reviewed, found accurate, and published in prestigious scientific journals (which is something McCrone has NOT done)... that the sample used in the 1988 carbon dating was inconsistent with the main body of the shroud. Other scientists working from a different direction came to the same conclusion. The samples were NOT physically or chemically the same as the main body of the Shroud... ergo the 1988 C14 testing is proved invalid.

Dr. Rogers worked with photomicrographs and the remaining control sample retained from the five sub-samples cut from the original cutting from the Shroud.

I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.

Chemist and pyrologist Raymond N. Rogers, (Sandia National Laboratory, University of California) and, independently, Dr. John L. Brown, (former Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology), have done other research and tests and presented evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals that proved that:

The 1988 Carbon 14 Tests were accurate at the current state of the art - on what they tested.
The established, agreed sampling protocols were violated. This is well documented and is beyond contention. The sample cut from the Shroud came from only one area in contravention of the previously agreed protocols which required 8 samples from 8 areas. Instead a single sample from a single area was taken.
The sample that was taken was also taken from the one area all involved scientists had agreed should be avoided as it showed the most dirt and handling damage.
Another reason the area had been excluded as a sampling area was that it was the one area of the Shroud that generally fluoresced under ultra-violet light, indicating a non-similarity to the main body of the shroud which did not fluoresce.
The sample was cut from the corner of the Shroud where the "Raes sample" had been cut 14 years before.
The sample was approximately 1 cm by 7 cm in length and was cut parallel to the long side of the Shroud.
Approximately “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different colored threads that were not similar to the main body of the shroud.” (Where did these foreign threads, interwoven into the sample, come from? - Swordmaker)
Five sub-samples of approximately 1cm x 1cm were cut from the remains of the single original sample cut from the shroud. (For clarity and understanding, let's designate them A to E alphabetically, from the selvage toward the center of the shroud).
The primary sample and the sub-samples were micro-photographed before being packaged and sent for testing.
Sub-samples A and E were sent to the Arizona C14 Lab, B went to Oxford, D to Zurich, and C was retained as a control for future investigation and was untested.
The sub-samples, although chemically cleaned were not microscopically examined or chemically tested, nor were the fibers compared to fibers from other areas of the Shroud by any of the labs.
The C14 Tests were completed and returned results that suggested an origin date for the flax that was in the cloth of 1260 to 1390 AD, with a degree of accuracy of plus or minus ~25 years on each sample.
This spread of possible origin dates of 180 years (1260 minus 25 to 1390 plus 25) should have raised a red flag as the material was supposed to be homogenous and should have all tested within a plus or minus ~75 year spread. In fact, none of the samples' range of confidence overlapped the range of confidence of another in a manner that statistically would indicate the samples were homogenous. This strongly suggested that the samples were, in fact, not homogenous.
Sample A tested younger than sample B which tested younger than Sample D which tested younger than Sample E. The closer the sample was to the center of the Shroud, away from the selvage, the older it tested.
Sample A and Sample E, the samples with both the youngest and oldest reported ages were both tested by the Arizona Lab.
Post C-14 testing and examination of microphotographs of the Primary sample showed a faint demarcation area running somewhat diagonally from the right side of the selvage end (A) to the leftward side of the sample closest to the main body of the shroud (E).
Examination of threads from the retained sample (C) show that threads on the left side of the sample have an "S" twist.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Right side of the sample have a "Z" twist.
Examination of threads taken from main body of the Shroud all have a "Z" twist.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the left side of the sample are somewhat (3-5%) thinner in diameter, on average, than threads from the average thread thickness of sample's right half or from the body of the Shroud.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the left side of the sample have Cotton intertwined with the Flax.
Examination of threads from right half of the sample (C) and from the main body of the Shroud have no Cotton intertwined with the Flax.
Examination of threads from the retained sample (C) show that threads on the Left side of the sample are encrusted with a plant gum containing alizarin dye extracted from Madder Root, a technique developed in 16th Century France.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Right side of the sample and from the main body of the Shroud are not encrusted with the dyestuff.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Left side of the sample contains up to 2% Aluminum. Chemical testing shows this Aluminum is from Alum (hydrous aluminum oxide), used after the 16th Century as a mordant, a drying agent for retting of cloth.
Examination of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Right side of the sample and threads from the main body of the Shroud contain no Aluminum.
Chemical testing of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Left side of the sample Flax's Lignin shows significant levels of Vanillin (> 40%).
Chemical testing of threads from sample (C) show that threads on the Right side of the sample and threads from the main body of the Shroud contain no Vanillin... indicating an age greater than 1300 years.

From an article in Thermochimica Acta: "A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth [the shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave {positive results from] the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
Microscopic examination of the slightly diagonal demarcation area of the sample (C) shows spliced threads, clearly delineating the changes from Left to Right sides of the sample.
Skillful weavers in Europe in the 16th Century used a technique now called French Invisible Reweaving to repair tapestries and arras cloths. Contemporary reports state the method was close to "magical" in the ability to repair damaged cloth. This technique involved spinning and dying thread to closely match the original, splicing the new threads into old threads on the cloth, and reweaving the newly extended threads into the material to match the weaving of the original.
The diagonal demarcation line on the original sample is located so that sample (A)'s suspect (non-similar) threads compose approximately 60% of the sample material. Sample (B)'s suspect (non-similar) threads compose approximately 55% of the sample material. Sample (C)'s, 50% (non-similar) observed and tested. Sample (D)'s, 45%. And Sample (E)'s, (non-similar) 40%. Conversely, threads similar to the main body compose the following approximate percentages of the samples from A to E: 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, and 60%.
The Shroud underwent repairs after the severe damage from the fire in 1532. Perhaps the corner where the Raes and 1988 C14 test samples were taken was also repaired.
Harry Gove, the inventor of the nuclear accelerator technique that was used to carbon date the Shroud, when asked "How old would a the polluting material have to be to skew the C-14 date of material known to be 1530 AD to show an tested age of 1350 if the polluting material composed 50% of the sample by weight?" He did some calculations and stated, "First Century, give or take 100 years."

The conclusion of the peer reviewed article in Thermochimica Acta states:

"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."

Thus, the 1988 Carbon 14 Testing has been invalidated because the person who took the sample, literally, at the last hour, changed the agreed sampling protocols and took the sample from an area that had been patched, probably in 1532, with contemporary prepared linen thread that had been spun on a spinning wheel that had also spun cotton, then retted with alum, and dyed with alizarin dye from madder root, all done with 15th century technology. The tests were accurate for what they tested: a melange of old and newer material that gave. The reported a date that is inaccurate for both the old and the new. It is merely coincidence that the false date of the combined old and new happened to coincide with the first display of the Shroud in Lirey France. The repaired area is not the same as the main body of the shroud and tests are invalid.

New C14 testing should be allowed because there are now a lot of loose samples available since the ill advised "restoration" where they cut away the burned edges around the scorches from the 1532 fire.

I can tell you that there was an unauthorized C-14 test done on one of the threads taken during the 1978 STURP examination and the results were 1st Century, with a degree of confidence of 50 years because the sample was so small.

May I suggest you forget the website you keep repeatedly linking and do some reading of the peer reviewed scientific and scholarly articles on the Shroud? They are mostly available from Barrie Schwortz's website Shroud.com. Barrie was the official photographer of STURP... and he is Jewish. Daniel Porter has put together some of the best and current data in a good popularization of the Shroud information which is more accessible than the scientific papers. Daniel Porter is Freeper Shroudie, and his series of Websites, including Shroudforum.com, Shroud Facts Check, and Shroud Story are an excellent resource based on the latest science.. not on the 30 year old, non-peer-reviewed data from McCrone who ignored agreed protocols on handling Shroud samples which resulted in compromised samples, published his "findings" in a non-peer-reviewed journal (his own vanity publication, "The Microscopist," of which he was both publisher and editor), refused to submit his work for peer-review, and has actually attempted to sabotage other researchers by first, dragging his feet, and then sending them samples that were NOT exemplar of the bulk of samples he had in his possession.

261 posted on 02/26/2008 9:52:01 PM PST by Swordmaker (We can fix this, but you're gonna need a butter knife, a roll of duct tape, and a car battery.)

To: SpringheelJack

The Shroud of Turin has a clearly 14th century history, and was recognized as an item with only a recent history by the bishop who wrote a letter in 1389 denouncing it as a forgery. He said he had identified the man who made it, who had confessed.

And Tutankhenamen has a clearly 20th Century history... with very few mentions in history...

Yes, the Bishop did claim that. However, the letter only exists as a draft. No copy has been found in the Vatican archives (which for this period are very complete) and the evidence is that the Bishop Henri of Trois did not send it (it's possible someone removed it). Although the dispute did eventually come to the Pope's attention, the Pope allowed the continued exhibition (but not the claim that it was Christ's shroud) but also put Henri under a perpetual order of silence... he could never speak of the subject again.

It should also be noted that Henri may have had an ulterior economic motive... the close proximity of Lirey to Trois was resulting in a reduction in the donations to see his relics at his cathedral...

262 posted on 02/26/2008 10:09:31 PM PST by Swordmaker (We can fix this, but you're gonna need a butter knife, a roll of duct tape, and a car battery.)

To: SpringheelJack

You’re simply begging the question. There’s no evidence to connect those Edessa reports to the shroud, which was just of a face like the St. Veronica legend.

Other evidence from the literature of the first Millennia:

The Images on Jesus' Burial Shroud in Words from the Past
We might think, in our age of spectacular visual effects, that descriptions of Jesus' images, as if my magic, appearing on his burial shroud, are but the product of a fertile imagination. Such thinking is of course justified until we probe the literature.
Shortly after the image-bearing cloth was discovered in Edessa in 544 AD, shortly after the monk Leander's three-year visit to Constantinople in 579 AD, these words became part of an Eastertide rite of the church in Toledo, Spain.

Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens.
About 200 years later, Pope Stephen III, in Rome, stated that Christ had . . .

spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.

We can not be certain that those words referred to the Image of Edessa. But on August 15, 944 AD, the image-bearing cloth was moved from Edessa to Constantinople with great fanfare and ceremony. And on that occasion, Gregory, the archdeacon and referendarius of Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople described the cloth as a burial cloth with a full-length body image and bloodstains. We know this from a sermon given by Gregory which was only recently discovered in the Vatican archives and translated in 2002.
And other documents have been found that describe the image-bearing cloth of Edessa. Documents found in Vatican library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands (the Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican Library Codex 5696, p. 35.) add to our understanding:

You can see [not only] the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body.
But the Earliest Words Might Be 1st Century
In a poem, the Hymn of the Pearl, we find Jesus allegorically saying that in a garment, justifiably a burial garment, that he sees two entire images of himself, one facing outward and one facing inward -- in other words ventral and dorsal images.
TWO IMAGE - Within the Hymn of the Pearl
Suddenly, I saw my image on my [ burial a ] garment like in a mirror
Myself and myself through myself [ or myself facing outward and inward b ]
As though divided, yet one likeness
Two images but one likeness of the King [ of kings c]

[A] justifiably, burial garment from other prior references to burial garment. And this phrase is pregnant with meaning: "And when I had put it on, I was lifted up unto the place of peace (sahltation) and homage."

[B] possibly, myself facing out and facing in as in frontal and dorsal views.

[C] possibly, the "King of king" as in Hans Jonas translation.

Alternative independent translations:
Translation by Hans Jonas: (The Two Images Segment)
it seemed to me suddenly to become a mirror-image of myself:
myself entire I saw in it, and it entire I saw in myself,
that we were two in separateness, and yet again one in the sameness of our forms…
And the image of the King of kings was depicted all over it.
Translation by M. R. James: (The Two Images Segment)
but suddenly, [when] I saw the garment made like unto me as it had been in a mirror.
And I beheld upon it all myself (or saw it wholly in myself) and I knew and saw myself through it,
that we were divided asunder, being of one; and again were one in one shape.
Yea, the treasurers also which brought me the garment
I beheld, that they were two, yet one shape was upon both, one royal sign was set upon both of them.

263 posted on 02/26/2008 10:39:57 PM PST by Swordmaker (We can fix this, but you're gonna need a butter knife, a roll of duct tape, and a car battery.)

Knowledge was passed from master to apprentice in a slow orderly fashion & people moved around little, if at all. I'm not saying the Shroud is a forgery, btw. I'm just saying that it could have been 'manufactured' using long-lost techniques about which we can only speculate.

I would pose a question wrt this statement. While what you suggest is true, and to the point, one would expect an influx of similarly wrought articles springing from an industrialized process, such as those which come from the guilds, or even individual artists.

But the shroud is a very unique piece (with the arguable exception of Veronica's cloth). A piece with exquisite detail and amazing likeness, especially when considering extant works from the supposed time period. Once able to create such a piece, the monetary offerings to create similar works would be tremendous, and the fame of such a talent would be widespread.

I find it quite difficult to believe that the process would not have been repeated, and that an artist of such capability would remain unheralded.

264 posted on 02/27/2008 12:29:32 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

Where did you get that from , Jesus from a rich family ?

Mary most certainly came from the High House of Judah. She had to. It is Mary's bloodline that must prove Jesus as David's legitimate heir, as Joseph, Mary's husband, was of an accursed line of David (never again to sit the throne).

Joseph of Aramathea would have succeeded Heli, and was probably Mary's brother, with Jesus adopted into his line. He would predictably control the High seat (David's) in the Knesset, and would be deeply involved in governance, and very likely business as well, with the full weight and inheritances of David's House at his command.

265 posted on 02/27/2008 12:54:16 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

Oops. Knesset=Sanhedron

266 posted on 02/27/2008 1:08:52 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

The inventory of the Hagia Sophia included "The Shroud of our Lord" at the time of the sacking of Constantinople by French Knights during the 4th Crusade. One of the primary knights in the leadership of the 4th Crusade was one Geoffrey de Charny... 200 years later the Shroud turns up in the possession of one Geoffrey de Charney.

One might add that the pollen (or perhaps dirt?) analysis of the shroud confirmed it's presence in Constantinople for a protracted period...

267 posted on 02/27/2008 1:13:32 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

To: SpringheelJack; Just mythoughts

How do we know that, and even if true, how do you extract from that that Joseph was Christ's uncle, as opposed to cousin or grandfather?

I differ with my FRiend "just mythoughts", in that the only logical relation between JoA and Mary is that of brother, in that it goes to Jesus' pedigree- His eligibility as the rightful heir to the House of David.

It is fairly common knowledge that a man executed by the state would only be given into the hands of a family member. It is equally curious that Nicodemus was likewise involved...

268 posted on 02/27/2008 1:24:19 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

To: Just mythoughts; SpringheelJack

Imagine that, legends come from where the 'tin mines' were located.

There is more than passing evidence that the British mines were known and used by the Phoenicians, and their later incarnation as th Carthaginians. It is age old shipping lane. there is even some evidence of Greek colonies as far north as Holland.

It is quite easy to consider the ships of Dan plying those same waters, especially considering the long standing trade partnership between Israel and Phoenicia. There are longstanding legends of Israeli colonies in Spain, the Coast of France, and the Isle of Brittany.

269 posted on 02/27/2008 1:34:42 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

Haven’t you been watching the prosperity TV evangelists? Jesus wants you to be filthy-stinking rich!!!!

270 posted on 02/27/2008 1:47:11 AM PST by Diverdogz

To: maine-iac7; Swordmaker

I have/do so, enjoy all the subjects that have found their way into this thread, because they are all entwined in such a fascinating way. But I was afraid if I brought up Geoffrey - a Knights Templar who was burned at the stake with Jacques de Molay in 1314 - it would then lead to the House of Savoy - and on and on -

Me too! a fabulous thread.

The Knights Templar angle may not be too far off either. I have read somewhere (and perhaps someone could confirm) that the term "grail" in French is a word quite close to the word for "burial cloth"...

grail=grael
burial cloth=gra 'al (or something close to that)...

It would be truly grand if all the "Search for the Holy Grail" stuff, which undoubtedly arose from the Knights Templar fame, culminated in finding the cloth, which is what the quest was really all about... :D

271 posted on 02/27/2008 1:50:27 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

Part of the reason, other than greed, for the execution of all of the Knights Templar was the persistent rumor they were idolators who worshipped an Idol of a head... about 50 years ago, a representation of the "Idol" the KTs worshipped surfaced in Wales... it was a medieval depiction of the face on the Shroud.

272 posted on 02/27/2008 1:54:20 AM PST by Swordmaker (We can fix this, but you're gonna need a butter knife, a roll of duct tape, and a car battery.)

To: grey_whiskers

and inconsistent with the contemporary beliefs about crucifixion (not unique to Jesus, you know) and yet shown to be accurate later.

Quite true- the thumbs are drawn in because the nails pierced the wrists. All contemporary art shows the nails in the hand- A great (and telling) technological difference, to be sure.

273 posted on 02/27/2008 1:59:50 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

To: Just mythoughts; Swordmaker

So what is your take on Christ instructing His disciples to go but to the ‘lost sheep’ of the House of Israel.

Riddle me this, and it all becomes much clearer:

Who is the "Barren Woman" in Isaiah 54?

274 posted on 02/27/2008 2:35:42 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)

Those who insist that it MUST be a fake, on the other hand, and ignore all evidence to the contrary, are more superstitious than those who suspend judgment, IMHO.

I seem to recall that the medieval-dated sample did not come from the center panel with the image on it, but from an outer section that appeared to have been added on as a repair (perhaps in medieval times)—which is separated from the center panel by a seam.

If that's the case, the earlier tests were a miracle of scientific stupidity. Hence the do-over.

Many in modern times have trouble imagining that our Christian ancestors were anything but unlettered clods incapable of preserving anything. For instance, secularists sneer at the idea that we could have relics and reliably know about the lives of saints from 1,700 years ago. It's puzzling to them, since we know so much less about the individual pagan Romans. They forget that the pagans cremated their dead, while the Christians and Jews carefully laid theirs in a subterranean labyrinthe containing tombs and personal effects called the Catacombes—a fantastic "library" of ancient Roman life that is still open to study.

275 posted on 02/27/2008 6:16:14 AM PST by SamuraiScot

a representation of the "Idol" the KTs worshipped surfaced in Wales... it was a medieval depiction of the face on the Shroud.

Indeed, it looked like it - (I'm a portrait artist and avid researcher of all things Shroud/KT's )

I had an article with the photo in my archives - the one I lost when my PC crashed last year - and I cannot find the magic combination of words to bring it up on GOOGLE - (I have kept my old hard drive and when I get a few shekels together that some other unknown doesn't present itself to grab them, will take it to the shop to have my files retrieved...but I can still see the carving in my minds eye...)

276 posted on 02/27/2008 12:09:05 PM PST by maine-iac7 (",,,but you can't fool all of the people all the time" LINCOLN)

To: grey_whiskers

You are quoting texts in the face of multiple, independent, repeated, converging lines of physical evidence from different sources.

Oh baloney. The verdict of the scientific and historical community is clear, and the efforts of the fringe who gainsay it are riddled with flaws that those links illustrate.

277 posted on 02/28/2008 4:14:04 PM PST by SpringheelJack

Your sources are not authoritative on the current state of scholarship OR science on the Shroud.

The current state of scholarship is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, and attempts by true believers to refute that have been found singularly unimpressive, as those distillations of contemporary thinking about the matter in 252 illustrate. That's peer review. The historical record points to a 14th century date, as does the scientific record. If the Church ever allows a further Carbon-14 test on another piece of the cloth it'll just repeat the 1988 results, though I don't expect the excuse-mongering will ever stop.

278 posted on 02/28/2008 4:25:14 PM PST by SpringheelJack

And Tutankhenamen has a clearly 20th Century history... with very few mentions in history...

This is a really bad analogy, and it's not true anyway. There are inscriptions from his period, and the insinuation that the bishop was lying reflects a colossal will to believe in something with no history prior to that bishop's lifetime.

279 posted on 02/28/2008 4:39:29 PM PST by SpringheelJack

These quotes are a blind alley.
579- that refers to the gospel account, and it’s a stretch to see this as referring to anything other than the ancient equivalent of seeing a bed with the imprints of someone recently there still present.

The fallacious “Pope Stephen” quote. Quoting from an excerpt of a book published by Ian Wilson that’s searchable on the net: “For instance, interpolated sometime before 1130 into the text of a sermon attributed to the eighth-century Pope Stephen III was the following remark concerning the `holy face’ of Edessa: `For this same mediator between God and men, in order that in all things and in every way he might satisfy this king [i.e. Abgar] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvellous as it is to see or even hear such a thing, the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred ... [italics mine].’” That’s in reference to the Abgar legend, and according to “Stephen” it was done by the living Christ in answer to a request by Abgar for an image, and hence could not possibly refer to the Shroud of Turin with its dead Jesus.

I just read the Gregory sermon and the image it describes was clearly only of a face, supposedly created while he wept in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Of what very little I could find on this, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 is supposedly describing a cloth given by Christ to King Abgar, at least according to a citation of the original book in Wikipedia, in which case it obviously relates to the false “Pope Stephen” quote of a cloth the living Christ sent to Abgar. I do not understand why the pro-Shroud sites are so circumspect about this.

The Hymn of the Pearl is irrelevant, and while I’m on the subject, a positing of a 1st century date for it is very fringe.

We’re again left with the 14th century French bishop, who was clear that the Shroud of Turin had no past beyond a few decades — not to mention there being an identifiable maker who admitted doing the job.

280 posted on 02/28/2008 5:30:33 PM PST by SpringheelJack

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794


	Carbon dating tests carried out 20 years ago on the Shroud of Turin suggested that the relic was a forgery