Posted on 02/28/2015 3:41:21 PM PST by NYer
All four gospels mention the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The Shroud of Turin is believed by many to be that burial cloth. It is etched with the image of a man that was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, and lanced in the side. If it is real, it provides archeological evidence of the most consequential event in human history—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Pope Francis plans to venerate the Shroud this summer, just as his predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict did. The Pope has called for it to be displayed in Turin from April 19 to June 24 and he will view it personally on June 21. My husband Mark and I, and 6 of our 10 kids will make the trip there this spring. Thus, it was with particular interest that I previewed Examining the Shroud of Turin, the first segment of CNN’s 6-part series titled Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery which will air this Sunday at 9 PM EST.
The documentary examines artifacts from the life of Jesus through worldwide experts in science, archeology, history and theology. The first episode asks: Is the Shroud of Turin the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ or is it a fake?
If it is the burial cloth of Jesus, then it was Pontius Pilot who unwittingly began the journey of the Shroud as the most revered and controversial relic in history. It was he who gave Joseph of Arimathea permission to take down the body of Christ from the cross. Joseph donated his own burial cloth and tomb. He, together with Nicodemus–both prominent members of the Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin–took Jesus from the cross, wrapped him in linen and laid him in the tomb.
The historical records concerning the Shroud prior to the 14th century are not definite, opening its authenticity to question and leading some to call it a forgery. And so we must rely on scientific, historical, and archeological study to tell the story.
Candida Moss, Ph.D., a theology professor in New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame was one of the consultants and commentators for the documentary. She has degrees from both Oxford and Yale and specializes in the study of relics, martyrdom, and the early Christian Church. Moss noted that evidence for the Shroud as truly the burial cloth of Jesus is very strong, but the Catholic Church has never definitively declared it so.
“When you look at Ecclesiastical statements made by the popes, they have never said the Shroud is authentic, but only that it’s worthy of veneration,” she said. “That is one of the things that the Catholic Church does well—to hold back and do their due diligence.”
The documentary explains that many who have dismissed the Shroud as a fake, point to the carbon dating in 1988. The testing dated the Shroud as coming into existence between 1260 and 1390. Scientists present those results in the film but other experts challenge that conclusion citing possible bacterial contamination of the cloth as has happened with burial shrouds from Egyptian Pharaohs. Carbon dating found them to be centuries younger than their actual known dates.
Another very powerful piece of evidence is presented: the Cloth of Oviedo. It is believed to be the cloth that was placed over the head of Jesus mentioned in the Bible. “Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloth lying on the ground, and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself” (John 20:6-7).
The history of this head covering, called the Sudarium, is well documented. It was taken from Palestine in 614 AD to Alexandria, through northern Africa and arrived in Spain in 616 AD where it remains today.
Both burial cloths have the same AB blood type. When compared to one another, the bloodstains match perfectly, showing that it came from the same man. It is noteworthy that the carbon dating on the Sudarium does not agree with that of the Shroud; showing the former as being many centuries older.
Another point against it being a forgery is the discovery that the image of the Shroud is actually a negative. The first photograph of it was taken by Secondo Pia in 1898. While looking at the negative image on the reverse photographic plate, all of a sudden he saw the positive image — he was staring at the face of Jesus! So if it was a fraud, someone would have had to think of creating the image in the negative.
“In looking at the material, I felt there was a lot more on scientific evidence that it could not be a forgery,” Moss said. “For instance, pollens were found on the cloth that came from Palestine and the placement of the nails were in the wrist.” She explained that in medieval times the crucified Christ was portrayed with nail marks in his palms, but historical and scientific research has shown that people were crucified in the wrist—the only possible way it could have held up the body. “If someone was going to make a forgery during that time, it would not have made sense to show the nail marks in the wrist.”
The most compelling evidence, according to Moss, is that despite attempts, no one has been able to recreate it. “When NASA scientists cannot make it, then who can?” she asked.
After the documentary airs, people will have the opportunity write in their questions on the CNN website and scholars will respond online. It premiers Sunday, March 1 at 9 PM EST.
The Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial indicated that the burial party was severely time pressed to get Jesus' body in the grave before the onset of the Jewish Sabbath and Passover at sundown. Handling a corpse during the sabbath would make the burial party, if they were Jewish, ritually unclean and unable to partake of the religious events. If McDowell's account of the burial ritual is correct, then an argument could be made that the burial party in great haste could have just folded the shroud in half to cover Jesus' corpse which would correlate to the image on the Shroud of Turin.
McDowell's commentary went on to explain that despite all of the historical evidence he had gathered and presented, belief in Jesus as the Son of God was still a matter of faith.
The Shroud picture looks closer to church art than it does to what we would expect of a realistic human. Perhaps it never was God’s idea to leave behind a realistic picture, only a piece of obvious artwork.
Faith is also largely a matter of experience. God is not presented by the gospels as some blind speculative gamble. Such an entity would be incapable of showing love.
And one’s basic belief in Christianity and Jesus’ message to us and his give of our salvation should NOT rest on whether or not the Shroud of Turin is true or fake.
Thanks!
Or whether it is a “divinely commissioned artwork.” It does not need to be of human hand to be artwork.
I believe gift is intended
Isn’t That Special!
Ain’t You Precious!
Thanks!
That is simply not a possible explanation. To skew the age of the Shroud from first century to 14th Century as the carbon dating reported, the amount of contaminating material by weight would have to be over 60% of the weight of the tested sample. That means the contaminate has to OUTWEIGH the Shroud material. The Shroud materials have been examined under powerful electron Microscopes and no such bacteriological contamination has been found, and certainly not in such massive quantities.
However there is peer reviewed science that DOES account for the discrepancy. Three different scientists, approaching the problem from three different disciplines all came to the same conclusion, proving that the tested samples were not homogenous with the main body of the shroud, and were not consistently homogenous throughout the samples themselves, varying from a 40% original/60% non-original to 60% original/40% non-original mixture, with the non-original material being a cotton patch that was applied in the 16th Century by a very skillful technique known as French invisible Reweaving in which the patch threads are actually re-twisted into the threads of the original material. The tested sample was taken contrary to agreed protocols from a site called the RAES corner which all scientists involved had agreed should not be tested because it fluoresced differently than all the rest of the Shroud. That was confirmed by the chemical testing of threads taken from the control sample left over from the C-14 testing, when it was discovered that the cotton portion of the patch had been dyed to match the color of the Shroud. . . with a dye that fluoresces. Another researcher used statistical means, and a third photo-microscopic examinations of the photos of the burned samples and all three came to the same conclusions that the tested samples were non-homogeneous.
One basic tenet of C-14 testing is that the sample to be tested MUST be homogenous with the thing being tested. That tenet was FAILED to be observed in the Shroud of Turin testing, resulting in an accurate test of a mixture of 16th Century threads combined with 1st Century threads which, depending on the C-14 testing lab because the bifurcation of the patch was diagonal down the original singular patch that was cut from the Shroud and then five smaller patches were cut from it. . . and the farther from the edge of the Shroud toward the center, the more original material is included in the sample, resulting in an greater percentage and therefor an earlier tested date.
Harry Gove, the inventor of the C-14 test that was used to test the Shroud, when asked what date must the original material have been if a 60% contamination of 16th Century material is mixed in by weight before the test. He did some calculations and came up with 1st Century, give or take 100 years.
All three findings were submitted to scientific journals, were peer-reviewed, and published. in other words, their findings were validated, proved, by other scientists. These findings account for the discrepancies account in the C-14 testing because the weight of the contaminate is correct. . . It has been found.
“And one’s basic belief in Christianity and Jesus’ message to us and his give of our salvation should NOT rest on whether or not the Shroud of Turin is true or fake.”
No, but the Shroud of Turin has moved many hearts and minds toward faith. Leave it at that then.
One of the Gospels says that Joseph of Arimethea bought spices and a fine linen. . .
More than "slightly different" . . . try 1500 years different. They think the patch was applied sometime in the late 1500s.
Seeing the name Candida Moss set off an alarm in my brain, so I searched:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3234535/posts
One thing I note already is that if their data on the Carbon dating is an example of the rest, it makes me think they may be setting things up for failure. They reported the C-14 data, then presented the already completely falsified bacteriological theory as the only counter to the C-14 test in the article, when the C-14 has been itself been falsified by peer-reviewed science that demonstrated the original sampling was flawed by using a sample that is demonstrably NOT homogenous with the main body of the object to be tested.
If the rest of their "balance" is of a similar bias nature, I will be very disappointed in the program. I am hoping for the best.
Wow, thanks for the ping!
Sorry, but the Shroud, being something that has been perhaps around since the Resurrection is not a modern "sign" or "wonder" but something Jesus Himself left behind. St. Thomas, the doubter, had to put his hands in Jesus' side and in his hand wounds, to assure himself that it was really Jesus. . . and Jesus did not condemn him, he merely blessed those who did not need to do that.
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.