Posted on 09/29/2002 12:41:25 AM PDT by Swordmaker
On Monday, September 23, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. at “Centro Russia Ecumenica” (Ecumenical Russia Center) at Vicolo del Farinone, 30 in Rome a press conference took place in order to comment on the interventions carried out on the Shroud in June and July 2002. There were: Prof. Eng. Giulio Fanti, Professor of Mechanical and Thermal Measurements at the University of Padua and coordinator of “ATLAS” project of Shroud study; Prof. William Meacham, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Hong Kong; Prof. Heinrich Pfeiffer S.J., Professor of Christian Art History at Gregoriana University of Rome and member of the Papal Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church; Dr. Orazio Petrosillo, journalist and Vatican expert of “Il Messaggero” of Rome; Prof. Emanuela Marinelli, teacher of Natural Sciences and Chemistry, author of books on the Shroud. Moderator: Dr. Alberto Di Giglio, director de “Il Telo”, a Magazine of Sindonology.
Fr. Heinrich Pfeiffer admitted that the delicacy and the professional skill of the operators, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg and Dr. Irene Tomedi, are undisputed, but this does not mean that a lot of possible information on the object has not probably been lost. A faultless cleaning has been achieved, but one has to wonder whether that was the priority aim.
On the timeliness of the intervention for fear of the carbonized parts gaining ground, Fr. Pfeiffer said: “I have never heard that carbonized part could eat into the whole parts of a cloth after the fire has been put out for centuries...”
Press conference of 23-09-200 As to the seams tensions, Prof. Giulio Fanti underlined that such tensions had first to be measured “sewing” optical fibers with a particular reticule (reticule of Bragg) in the cloth.
The worry for the further weakening of the ancient singed Cloth, deprived of the Holland cloth and the patches, which supported it avoiding the possibility of whichever laceration, is proper. The variation of measures of the sheet is also worrisome: one of the long sides has grown of approximately four centimeters and the other of approximately eight. In order to stretch the folds lead weights have been applied and among the instruments used a ultrasound vaporizer is listed. The stress of the manipulation, and besides done with bare hands, has been aggravated by more than a month of exposure to light. In the film that documents the operations, one can also see an incandescent lamp on directing light on the cloth without anybody at work. Whoever has seen the Shroud on other occasions finds it darker now.
Prof. William Meacham underlined that the removal of the carbonized material and dusts has involved the loss of the opportunity to study them in situ; moreover, the mixture of the carbonized material with other particles has made the possibility of a separate study be lost. From the historical point of view, also the loss of the folds, which could testify the way the Shroud was kept in more ancient ages, is feared. The 16th century restoration itself, which has been destroyed, was a historical testimony, now irretrievably gone.
Prof. Emanuela Marinelli has reminded that the intervention has raised remarkable perplexities among many Shroud scholars: in fact, such a drastic intervention did not appear necessary or urgent. The decision to carry out such an operation has been taken by a very narrow group of people, without a wider consultation among the scientists and the historians, who have been interested in this Relic for many years. In fact, nobody had proposed any participation of the sort in the eight international conferences kept in last four years (Turin 1998, Richmond 1999, Rio de Janeiro 1999, Turin 2000, Orvieto 2000, Dallas 2001, Paris 2002, Rio de Janeiro 2002), not even in those convened by the Turin International Center of Sindonology (Turin 1998) and by the Archbishop of Turin (Turin 2000). Nine scientists who have participated in this last conference have written a protest letter to the Shroud Custodian, that is the Archbishop of Turin, Card. Severino Poletto, just with respect to the lack of this necessary previous consultation. Many other sindonologists have expressed their perplexities writing directly to the Pope.
In no scientific review an article that motivated the necessity of such participation has appeared. That the opportunity to complete it has been “strongly underlined by the lamented Prof. Alan Adler, member of the Commission for the Conservation”, as it has been communicated officially, contrasts with the fact that this distinguished scientist has never written it in his scientific works.
The operation, led in secret and by few people, has prevented many other students from carrying out the researches officially proposed by them after the conference of Turin 2000 and Orvieto 2000.
For interventions of such a significance a wider preventive consultation and an increased debate among experts would be necessary, in order to avoid possible further irretrievable damages to the object, that it is the most important Relic of Christianity. It would be convenient, therefore, that the commission for the conservation of the Holy Shroud could be widened. Also the diocesan commission for the Shroud should have to be widened and transformed into an international scientific commission for the Shroud, under the protection of the Papal Academy of Sciences. It is obvious that, for practical reasons, the Shroud Custodian appointed some scholars living in Turin as his close collaborators, but everyone of them should have been the coordinator of a sub-commission, in which all the experts of the same discipline (there are some thirty involved in the study of the Shroud) all over the world should join. The Shroud cannot be considered a diocesan property of Turin! Obviously, the information concerning the Holy Shroud must be made public officially in a timely and transparent way.
Also Dr. Orazio Petrosillo has reminded that the Shroud is a universal object; he complained the inexplicable lack of information about this operation. He has also had words of appreciation for the gift made to the journalists by Card. Poletto, who granted them a private exhibition of the venerated Linen.
Shroud before Restoration
Shroud after Restoration
The critics are right... too much information was removed and collected together into little glass jars. The folds perhaps could have told us which faces may have been exposed at different stages of the Shroud's history and travels. Statistical analysis of the types and amounts of dirt, pollen, and other contaminents associated with certain faces of the folded Shroud could tell us locations the shroud may have visited during its history. This information has been irretrievably lost because only certain scientists skilled in cloth preservation had input on protocols.
The worst decision was to "scrape away" the carbonized edges of the burn holes... actually removing Shroud material under the pretext that these carbonized areas were "growing" and "encroaching" on non-burned areas. There is absolutely NO BASIS IN FACT for this. I have a theory that the charred edges were removed more for "esthetics" than any serious preservation concern.
Similarly, the "stretching" of the cloth to "remove" wrinkles was ill considered. Such stretching may have distorted the measurements of the image. One glaring wrinkle that has been "restored out" of the cloth is the large one across the throat of the image. This wrinkle is extremely important in Paleographic Shroud studies as it has been identified as one of the distinguishing marks that appears on the earliest Christ Icons such as the Christ Pantocrater image from Constantinople of the 6th century. This is unforgivable.
Finally, they apparently used an "ultrasound vaporizor" to clean and/or remove wrinkles... perhaps like a steam iron. Not good.
If we are to believe the bible, John, an eye witness, said that there was a second cloth that covered Christs's head.
Sorry, folks, you can all go home now. Show's over.
God wants us to believe from our hearts, not from material evidence. Because, guess what? That's where He wants to live.
The second cloth also exists. It is kept in a church in Oviedo Spain. It has been in Spain shortly after 616AD and has been there and DOCUMENTED ever since.
Called the Sudarium of Oviedo, the cloth is blood stained with type AB, the same type as the blood stains on the Shroud. Several studies have shown that the positions of several of the Sudarium's blood stains coincide exactly with matching blood stains on the Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo
Studies indicate the Sudarium was placed over the head while the body was still on the cross, then remained on the body while the body laid supine, and that it probably remained on the head for approximately 45 minutes before the body was moved and the Sudarium removed.
How the Sudarium apparently
was wrapped around the head
and bound in place
The theory is that the Sudarium provided a convenient cloth to bind the jaw closed (under the beard and over the top of the head) when the body was laid in the tomb on the Shroud. It is speculated that the resurrected Jesus pulled the top of the Shroud off uncovering himself, got up from the shelf where his body lay on the bottom of the Shroud, moved a small distance away, and pulled the jaw binding off, leaving it seperate from the other grave cloth. The fact that the Sudarium was apart from the other cloths gave an indication that the body was not stolen or moved by others, but moved on its own volition, and made it remarkable enough to be recorded in one of the Gospels.
The Catholic Church reports that in addition to the Shroud, several other relics of Jesus may be preserved. These include:
the head cloth reported in the tomb (The Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain),
His seamless tunic (the Holy Tunic of Argenteuil outside of Paris or, alternately, the Holy Coat called ‘Heilige Rock’ in Germany),
the spear that pierced his side (the Holy Lance of Longinus),
the cup of the last supper (the Great Chalice of Antioch),
the three nails,
one-third of the wooden board with the inscription nailed over Chirst's head (the Titulus),
and enough pieces of the true cross to make up about 2/3rds of the Patibulum (the cross piece).
All of these have varied provenance. The ones most likely to be authentic are the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Titulus, followed by the Holy Tunic of Argenteuil, which has blood stains of type AB that seem to match the pre-crucifixition scourging wounds of the Shroud.
--------------------
The Titulus
by Michael Hesemann
The titulus is 25x14 cm in size, 2.6 cm thick and has a weight of 687 g. It is inscribed on one side with three lines, of which the first one is mostly destroyed. The second line is written in Greek letters and reversed script, the third in Latin letters, also with reversed script. We can read the words:
z´nh (Hebrew)
BSUNERAZA(H)N.SI (Greek in reverse as the Hebrew is written)
RSUNIRAZAN .I (Latin in reverse as the Hebrew is written)
Read from right to left, obviously in imitation of the Jewish way of writing, we can read:
I. NAZARINUS RE,
obviously a part of the inscription of the cross, as quoted in the Latin translation of the Gospel according to St. John (19,19) as "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum". Interestingly enough, the Greek line is a mere Greek transcription of the Latin line rather than a translation, in contrast to the original Greek quote of the Gospel according to St. John as "Ihsous Nazoraios Basileus ton Ioudaion". The variations from the version of St. John are:
1. The order of the lines (St. John: Hebrew, Latin, Greek; titulus: Hebrew, Greek, Latin)
2. The reverse writing, not mentioned by St. John
3. The Initials "JS" and "I." instead of the full name "Iesous/Iesus".
4. The use of the Latin "Nazarinus/Nazarenous" instead of the Greek "Nazoraios", even in the Greek line.
Two experts, Prof. Thiede and Prof. Roll, consider this a major indication of the authenticity of the titulus. First of all, a variation of Joh. 19,19 is a freedom no forger would ever risk. But it makes sense, since Pontius Pilatus, who, according to the gospels, dictated the inscription, was a Roman magistrate and used, especially for official documents, the official language Latin. It was up to the writer to create a version in the other two languages, and therefore it was rather unlikely that he transferred the term "Nazarinus" in the correct Greek form. The abbreviation of the name "Iesous/Iesus" as "I." is typical for Roman Latin inscriptions. Since "Yeshu/Yehoshua" was a common name during the 1st century -Flavius Josephus mentions 16 persons with this name-, the unique "Nazarinus" rather pointed to the Savior from a small village in Galilee, at least for a Roman magistrate, although such an abbreviation in contrast to John 19,19 would be unthinkable for a Christian forger. It is furthermore significant that the writer used the Latin NazarInus instead of the later Christian NazarEnus. Indeed, NazarInus is closer to the Hebrew NozerY/NazarY and seems to be the original form. Both indicates an early, even contemporary origin.
The remains of the first line can be identified as Jewish script. Readable are only the letters Heh, Nun and Tzadi, which very well might have been parts of the Hebrew text of the inscription
(YSU´) HN´Z(RY MLK HYHUDIM) (Yeshu H´Nozery Melek H´Yehudim)
The edges of the titulus show a strong withering. The right edge is severely decayed, a part of the upper edge is broken off, on the lower edge the letters I and ARIN are difficult to see. Only the left edge is undamaged.. Obviously here the wood was cut at a later date and from this moment on preserved safely. This condition of the title seems to confirm the tradition according to which the title was hidden for 295 years in an old cistern close to the Calvary, bevor it was discovered and obviously cut into two pieces by St. Helena who brought one half to Rome. The division is indicated by the clean cut on the left side and the missing part of the inscription. If this indeed was, as John (19,19) and the Church historians (with the exemption of Sokrates Scholasticus who obviously got his information from Jerusalem, referring to the relic preserved there),
IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM,
we can reconstruct the inscription of the other half, remaining in Jerusalem, as
miduhyh kl(m) (Hebrew)
NOIADUI NOT SOELISA(B) MUROEADVI XE(R) (Latin)
Especially in the middle of the title chalky-greyish remains of color are still visible, furthermore traces of black color in some of the letters. This is characteristical for the Roman way to write the "titulus damnationis", as the archaeologists and historians Maria Siliato and Werner Eck stressed: First of all the wood was painted with white chalk, than the exactor painted the reason for the punishment on it with black or red letters. That the letters were also carved was rather an exemption. Although Eck states that there indeed were wood tablets with carved inscriptions, painted over with chalk, the letters painted out, these were rather common for public buildings or as tituli sepulcrales. A titulus damnationis, he thinks, would rather be reused. On the other hand it is rather questionable if tituli were in common use for provincial executions at all. Furthermore we have to ask if Pilate, who arrived with his Kohort in Jerusalem to guarantee a quiet Pesach, indeed took a whole staff of provincial officials wih him. The titulus rather was a form of "special treatment", of mocking of the "King of the Jews", ordered by Pilate and probably written by an officer who was able to write, maybe a Centurio. The relic rather allows the conclusion that it was written by an untrained writer, maybe a Levantine, inexperienced in other languages, writing by dictate. A reuse can be excluded since there were no regular trials in Jerusalem - they took place in the provincial capital of Caesarea Maritima. Only for the major Tempel Holidays the prafectus iudaeae came to Jerusalem to guarantee the public order. Only during this time he sat in judgement over imminent cases. Since everything which came in contact with the deceased was considered "unclean" by the Jewish Law (4 Mos 19,13-16), victims of executions had to be buried on the very same day (5 Mos 21, 22-23) and actually Jews removed the traces of the execution, it can be excluded that the titulus Crucis or any other remain of a public execution was eher brought back in the city to be reused.
Interestingly we find this detail -the chalk painting- mentioned in the Church History of Sozomenos, who, born in Gaza about 370-80, still met eye witnesses of the finding of the cross in his youth and added further details to the description given by his forerunner Sokrates Scholasticus. He described the titulus as a "separate piece of wood, on which were inscribed, on white, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin letters, the following words: 'Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews'." The fact that Sozomenos, in variation from St. John, gave the order of the lines exactly as it is on our relic, indicates that his report indeed represents the earliest description of it. The Church History of Sozomenos was written about 444, not even 120 years after the inventio crucis.
But the most interesting testimony is that of the pilgrom Antoninus of Piacenza who visited the Holy land in 570 AD. He described "the title which was placed above the head of Our Lord" quite carefully since he was able to examine it closely. He stressed that he "saw, hold in my hands and kissed" (vidi et in manu mea tenui et osculatus sum) the relic and stated: "This wood of the cross was of a nut tree" (Quod lignum crucis de nuce est). This is remarkable, since according to an expertise by the botanist Prof. Dr. Elio Corona, the relic of the titulus Crucis in S.Croce is of wood of a nut tree of the species "Juglans regia" which is common in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. If indeed the left half of the tablet can be proved to be in Jerusalem for 570 (Antoninus) and even for 383 (Egeria), it must have appeared at some time in the 4th century. The fact that the other half of the relic is in Rome, of all places in the former Palace chapel of Helena, makes it more than probable that she was the one who found and divided it.
The Jerusalem Relic of the title is lost since the 7th century, the looting of the city by King Chosros of Persia, although there is a possibility that Emperor Heraklius brought it to Constantinople after he re-conquered the True Cross and other relics from the Persians. We do not find it on the official relic catalogues of the imperial city, but there is the possibility that it was mentioned in a letter by Emperor Constantine VII. Porphyrogennetos to his army in Tarsus from the year 958. With this letter he sent his soldiers holy water which was benedicted by his most sacred relics including "the precious wood, the immaculate lance, the precious inscription... the linen that bore God and other symbols of His immaculate passion." It is furthermore possible that it was among the relics bought by king Louis IX., the Saint, from Balduin II., the "Latin Emperor" of Constantinople in 1241. At least P. Guillaume Durand, an author of the 15th century, lists "the tablet on which Pilate wrote: Jesus Nazarenus rex Judaeorum, which I saw in Paris in the Chapel of the illustrous king of the French, together with the crown of thorns" as one of the treasures of the Sainte Chapelle. Unfortunately this is the only evidence we have that the relic ever was in France, and if indeed it was it got lost during the French Revolution.
As we have shown above, we can trace the history of the relic of the titulus Crucis back to the 4th century. Is there any possibility that it indeed is from the time of Jesus?
Considering the titulus and the other relics of S. Croce consistent with all we know about the history of capital punishments in Roman times, I looked for a way to determine its age. As a working hypothesis, I developed three possible scenarios of its origin:
1. It is indeed the title of the True Cross of Our Savior, and therefore dated 30 AD.
2. It is a 4th century forgery, created to deceive the Empress Helena
3. It is a mediaeval forgery, created in memory of the tradition of the "Helena legend" and the Inventio Crucis.
From the possible methods to date the relic, dendrochronology (tree ring dating) could be ruled out, since the wooden fragment is too small and since Israel does not have sufficient dendrochronological data for the time in question. For a Radiocarbon-analysis a sample would be needed, and of course there is the danger that -as in the case of the Holy Shroud- a contamination could alter the results. Therefore I decided for the most precise and least problematic method of dating, the palaeographic method. The kind permission for this study was granted by the Sostituto per gli Affari Generali of the Segreteria di Stato of the Holy See, His Excellency Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, via the Rev. Father Abbot of S. Croce, Don Luigi Rottini, whom I owe my deepest gratitude for it.
In April 1998 I received detailed photos from Mr. Paladini, the official photographer of the Basilica di Santa Croce, thanks to the help of the Rev. Father Abbot Don Luigi Rottini. In the following week I asked my co-worker and colleague Barry Chamish from Israel to look for the most competent experts of his country in palaeography and dendrochronology of the time periods in question. Israel is maybe today the country with the strongest interest in archaeology and the most active archaeological research, with 120 smaller and 30 bigger excavations on different sites in just the last summer. Because of the huge amount of data uncovered by Israeli archaeologists, I considered them as quite competent in determing the age of an object allegedly created and found in the country they investigate so carefully. Furthermore I could expect a certain degree of objectivity and "advocatus diaboli"-attitude, given that they, as Jews, have no religious veneration for what the titulus stands for. This was to protect the title from any future criticism and polemics from the sceptical scientific community, which would refuse any expertise from a Roman Catholic scholar, including myself, as "biased".
From August 12-20, 1998 I flew to the Holy Land to present my collection of high quality photos of the titulus to the experts. Further experts were consulted in the following months. In four cases I asked them to make a verbal statement, which I recorded on video, in four cases I received written statements.
Win one for the Gipper! God Bless You Reagan, We Will Never Forget Your Great Service and Leadership - We here on FR will carry on your great work with diligence. Thanks for the Memories and Inspiration!
Photo Index: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_gallery.htm
Hi-Res Full Length:http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/sindone_recto.jpg
Hi-Res Face: http://www.sindone.org/restauro/hires/il_volto.jpg
Video footage: http://www.sindone.org/it/scient/restauro_filmati.htm
News: http://www.shroud.com/index.htm
Overview of recent changes: Photo Overview
Research Overview: http://www.shroudstory.com/index.htm
Perhaps the most interesting item on the ShroudStory site:
ESSAY: The Resurrection Problem and the Shroud of Turin
which has research details, especially:
The most intriguing characteristic
A picture of a million words
How were the images formed?
http://www.crc-internet.org/shroud.htm
(Note: the site is schismatic, but the article is interesting).
One of the most noteworthy papers presented at the "Sindone 2000" Orvieto Worldwide Conference in August 2000, was
"Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs"
by Joseph Marino and M. Sue Benford. It presented evidence that the corner of the Shroud where the C-14 samples were taken from in 1988 contained spurious fibers from a medieval reweaving, resulting in an inaccurate date.
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.
