Shroud of Turin

[otseng]

The Shroud of Turin to me is the most compelling evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

But first, a little background on the Shroud:

- It is a cloth that measures 14' 3" by 3' 7".
- There is full frontal and rear image of a crucified man.
- The first known public display of the shroud was in 1357 by Geoffrey II de Charny first in Lirey, France.
- It was damaged by a fire in 1532, but the central image was not greatly affected.
- Here is an image of the shroud.

The question to debate: is the Shroud of Turin the actual burial cloth of Jesus or is it a hoax?

[otseng]

One thing remarkable about the image on the cloth is that it's actually a negative image. If you take a picture of it, the negative looks like a positive.

It was not untl the 19th century that photography was invented and people knew about negatives.

So, if it was a forgery, the forger would've had to somehow had known about negatives (centuries prior to the discovery of photography). And the forger would've known how to create a negative on cloth (without the help of photography).

[otseng]

While the Shroud of Turin is indeed an interesting artifact of some kind, questions abound since chemical dating tests placed its origin in approximately the 14th century.

Chemical dating (and C14) has been inconclusive on the dating of it. The fire incident has most likely skewed those data.

But, even assuming the dating techniques are correct, then there's still a lot left to be explained by an artist from the 14th century that was able to create it. The first one being how was he able to create an image in a negative and why would he create a negative image when it wouldn't even be known about until centuries later?

The inability of researchers to adequately examine and study the cloth due to Catholic protection certainly hasn't helped in seeking conclusive answers.

Though scientists have been limited to what they can do with the shroud, they have been given some access. Based on what these scientists have found, we have enough interesting findings to make judgements on the shroud.

In short, it offers no testimony of a resurrection.

The testimony of a resurrection is "how did the image get there?"

First off, if a person is buried in a cloth and dies, it's not going to leave any image.

Some interesting things to note on the image. The image is only on the surface of the cloth. It does not penetrate more than 3 microfibrils deep. There are no pigments on the cloth. There are no brush strokes on it. There are no substances between the threads.

In effect, the image seems like it was "burned" on. The only valid explanation was that Jesus was resurrected. As Jesus was resurrected, he must've emitted some sort of energy to imprint his image on the cloth.

[Abs like J']

Contrary to how honest science works, you're assuming a conclusion and then trying to work backwards to find support for that conclusion, otseng. Even so, do you know of anything that states a fire is capable of altering the Carbon-14 levels enough to presumably throw three blind testings off by approximately 1,300 years?

The testimony of a resurrection is "how did the image get there?"

As it is still questionable as to how the image got there, it is not in itself evidence of a resurrection of any kind by anybody.

Regarding the image itself, there are already differences of opinion as to whether there is blood on the shroud or whether it is red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Whichever it is, the interesting thing is that on the shroud it does not appear to be matted by either the hair or cloth (as it should be) but is in the form of rivulets (even in the hair).

Similar to the scalpal blood shown in rivulets, the hair is also indicative of a person standing rather than lying down. As the prevailing view of believers is that Jesus did not rise until three days after his death, the hair should be matted, and any blood from anywhere on the body should have either been dry or soaked into the the sheet.

If tests revealing the presence of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint are accurate, than assuming the image was "burned on" is certainly not the only valid explanation. Even assuming it was "burned on" in some ambiguous burst of energy, are we to then make yet another assumption that none of this energy eminated from the top of the head?

As to the fun with photography and the shroud, the photographic results need not have been intended by either an artist or the supposed magical burst of any actual person entombed with the shroud. To claim that an artist would have to have known about the future photography when making the shroud is no different than to assume that Jesus was in the shroud and left an image in such a way that we could photographic later with such results. The quasi-negative image is most likely an unintended result.

Additional questions also remain: How did the Shroud wrap a body without any distortion of the impression by folds and wrinkles? Why did a vivid 14th-century image fade radically over the next five or six centuries when it had supposedly remained bright and clear until its 14th-century "discovery"?

As the Shroud of Turin defies logic and supposedly historical accounts (Gospels) in its depiction of a body -- in addition to science and other history also suggesting otherwise (Pope Clement VII) -- it most certainly appears to be a hoax. The apparent fear the Catholic Church holds for opening the issue up to honest scientific investigation certainly doesn't help.

[otseng]

Contrary to how honest science works, you're assuming a conclusion and then trying to work backwards to find support for that conclusion, otseng.

There are other things that point to it originating in the first century.

"Mechthild Flury Lemberg, a former curator of the Abegg Foundation textile museum in Switzerland and a leading authority on historic textiles, has found a strong similarity between the Shroud's fabric and fragments of cloth produced in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago."

Even so, do you know of anything that states a fire is capable of altering the Carbon-14 levels enough to presumably throw three blind testings off by approximately 1,300 years?

"The carbon 14 tests, conducted by three of the most reputable radiocarbon dating laboratories in the world, have now been credibly challenged, sufficiently so that they can no longer be deemed definitive. The laboratories did the tests properly, but there is now serious evidence that the samples cut from the Shroud and provided to the laboratories were contaminated."

Futhermore...

"Enough newer thread has been identified by numerous textile experts to allow Beta Analytic, the world’s largest and probably most prestigious radiocarbon dating firm, to estimate that the true date of the cloth’s origin is much older – within a statistically acceptable margin of error to make the first century possible. "

Source: http://www.shroudstory.com/c14.htm

If tests revealing the presence of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint are accurate, than assuming the image was "burned on" is certainly not the only valid explanation.

But how was the paint applied? There are no brush marks. Also, there was no capillary action in the cloth, which would definitely would happen if it was painted.

Furthermore, the image is anatomically correct. All proportions are to perfect human likeness.
Also, the darkness of the image is inversely proportional to the distance between the cloth and the body. The painter would've had to know how to paint based on a 3D image projected on a surface. The sheer genius that is required to paint such an image would surpass DaVinci and Michaelangelo or even any modern day painter.

Even assuming it was "burned on" in some ambiguous burst of energy, are we to then make yet another assumption that none of this energy eminated from the top of the head?

The Bible mentions that a napkin was about the head. So it absorbed the energy.

John 20:7 "And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

It's theorized that the sudarium is the napkin that covered the head.

The quasi-negative image is most likely an unintended result.

Unintentionally paint a negative image? He would've probably been the only painter in the history of the world, past and future, to do that.

Additional questions also remain: How did the Shroud wrap a body without any distortion of the impression by folds and wrinkles?

He was wraped probably more like the following:

Why did a vivid 14th-century image fade radically over the next five or six centuries when it had supposedly remained bright and clear until its 14th-century "discovery"?

You'll have to show me the evidence where it was bright and clear in the 14th century.

The apparent fear the Catholic Church holds for opening the issue up to honest scientific investigation certainly doesn't help.

It has been opened up to scientists. What do you expect them to do? Donate it to the Smithsonian?

[Abs like J']

In order for the previous three samples to have been contaminated to such a point that they would be wrong by 1,300 years, they would have had to possess twice their weight in contamination (which they didn't). While the story you linked to doesn't mention this detail, in addition to "mentioning" the original three samples may have been contaminated they also offer up another "maybe scenario" in suggesting that medieval nuns or an ambiguous "master weaver" might have woven additional cloth into the shroud during repairs.

From what I'm reading it also doesn't appear that Beta Analytic actually had any piece of the cloth to examine, but has simply stated that were the shroud to be 60% medieval material and 40% first century material then that could explain why the three blind tests from 1988 concluded a medieval origin. Your link doesn't say that Beta Analytic ever conducted any tests (much less blind tests) on any shroud fabric and other sites I've located suggest they merely offered an opinion regarding previous datings. Catholic News had a similar article about what Beta Analytic had to say, suggesting only that their opinion was given, not scientific results dating back to the first century.

According to another site I came across, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies, separate shroud samples supposedly challenging the 1988 results have been refuted by none other than The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini, and the Vatican (who possess the shroud). Apparently in their zeal to see the shroud conclusively declared the mystical shroud of Jesus some people have forgotten to actually acquire authentic samples for testing. Others appear willing to pass off speculation as science (as appears the case in referencing Beta Analytic).

Assuming still that the test results indicating the presence of paint are accurate, I can't answer for you how it was applied. Additional confirmation of the presence of paint would seriously undermine claims of authenticity though, however it may have been applied. Keeping the findings of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint in mind, it also helps to note that even the early church concluded the shroud was a forgery. From both skeptical sources and The Catholic Encyclopedia there is mentioned the documents between the Bishop of Troyes and Pope Clement VII in which an artist is said to have claimed responsibility and the Bishop ordered to denounce the shroud as a fraud.

Edited to add: Unraveling the Shroud
One way in which it may have been applied to the cloth is by a rubbing technique on a bas-relief model. The linked article also explains how the image is not a perfect negative and also addresses the aspect of three dimensional images.

From Otseng:

Why did a vivid 14th-century image fade radically over the next five or six centuries when it had supposedly remained bright and clear until its 14th-century "discovery"?

You'll have to show me the evidence where it was bright and clear in the 14th century.

The above referenced Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of the fifteenth and sixteenth century witnesses to the shroud describing the image "as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed." As skeptical sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia and simple observation will show, the shroud is now "darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention."

Regarding the sudarium, the sudarium was a cloth napkin used to cover the face of the deceased, not the top of the head.

From Otseng:

Unintentionally paint a negative image? He would've probably been the only painter in the history of the world, past and future, to do that.

That the image performs the way it does when shown as a photographic negative does not imply anymore intent on behalf of the artist than it would on behalf of a person alleged to have left the image in some enigmatic release of unknown energy. I may as well suggest that it is the burial cloth of the Biblical figure Jesus and Jesus left the image in such a way that we could photograph it millennia later.

The image you provide for how the shroud would have necessarily been used doesn't address the issue of folds and wrinkles.

And while I wouldn't suggest the Vatican donate the cloth to the Vatican, I would think if it were authentic they would have no qualms engaging in another scientific inquest led by blind testing of shroud samples by unbiased and qualified agencies. Locking it away and creating a new "science" of the shroud is hardly an honest attempt to conclude whether the shroud is authentic or a fraud.

Edited to add:

Furthermore, the image is anatomically correct. All proportions are to perfect human likeness.

That the shroud is indeed the work of a medieval artist would explain numerous image flaws. For example, the' physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art!). Also, the hair hangs as for a standing rather than recumbent figure, and the imprint of a bloody foot is incompatible with the outstretched leg to which it belongs. Everywhere the "blood" flows are unrealistically neat. Instead of matting the hair, for instance, they run in rivulets on the outside of the locks. And even the dried blood has implausibly transferred. In addition, real blood soaks into doth and spreads in all directions, rather than leaving picturelike images. As the noted pathologist Dr. Michael Baden observes of the overall shroud image, "Human beings don't produce this kind of pattern"
Skeptical Inquirer

The previous link, Unraveling the Shroud, also addresses how the body depicted is unnaturally thin and elongated. It mentions too how the left forearm is longer than the right.

[otseng]

According to another site I came across, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies, separate shroud samples supposedly challenging the 1988 results have been refuted by none other than The Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini, and the Vatican (who possess the shroud).

All they said was "that they cannot recognize the results of the claimed experiments." I don't think they were refuting anything.

Why did a vivid 14th-century image fade radically over the next five or six centuries when it had supposedly remained bright and clear until its 14th-century "discovery"?

You'll have to show me the evidence where it was bright and clear in the 14th century.

The above referenced Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of the fifteenth and sixteenth century witnesses to the shroud describing the image "as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed."

That I cannot explain. If it is true that the 14th century viewers saw "bright" blood, then I can't think of an explanation why it would be faint now.

The image you provide for how the shroud would have necessarily been used doesn't address the issue of folds and wrinkles.

It depends on how it was wrapped around the body. If it was draped, I don't see a problem. If it was tightly wrapped, then I agree that the image wouldn't produce what we see.

Locking it away and creating a new "science" of the shroud is hardly an honest attempt to conclude whether the shroud is authentic or a fraud.

Actually, I would like to see the cloth be under more scientific scrutiny. And not just take a small sample here and there, but a larger sample of study.

That the shroud is indeed the work of a medieval artist would explain numerous image flaws. For example, the' physique is unnaturally elongated (like figures in Gothic art!).

But unlike images in Gothic art, there are some things that are not conventional. Why would it show the nail through the wrist rather than the palm? Why is the body naked? Rather than the usual custom of showing Jesus with a loin cloth?

[otseng]

If tests revealing the presence of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint are accurate, than assuming the image was "burned on" is certainly not the only valid explanation.

However, the red ocher and vermilion was found uniformly distributed over the entire cloth, even on places where there was no image. So, it's highly doubtful that caused the image.

It also helps to note that even the early church concluded the shroud was a forgery.

However, the "confession" of forgery is unsigned and undated. Furthermore, there existed around 40 shrouds that claimed to have been the burial cloth of Jesus. How do we not know it was a confession for any of those other 40?

Source:
http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPaper ... gesOn.html

"We have identified by images and by pollen grains species on the shroud restricted to the vicinity of Jerusalem," botany professor Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said Monday during the International Botanical Congress here. "The sayings that the shroud is from European origin can't hold."

Analysis of the floral images, and a separate analysis of the pollen grains by another botanist, Uri Baruch, identified a combination of plant species that could be found only in March and April in the region of Jerusalem, Danin said.

Source:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_2.htm

One way in which it may have been applied to the cloth is by a rubbing technique on a bas-relief model.

There is no bas-relief work from the medieval period that comes even close to the level of realism of the shroud.

Furthermore, there is no medieval work that depicts in such realism the scourge marks, abrasion marks, crown of thorns, and blood stains.

[Corvus]

It also helps to note that even the early church concluded the shroud was a forgery.

However, the "confession" of forgery is unsigned and undated. Furthermore, there existed around 40 shrouds that claimed to have been the burial cloth of Jesus. How do we not know it was a confession for any of those other 40?

Source:
http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPaper ... gesOn.html

"We have identified by images and by pollen grains species on the shroud restricted to the vicinity of Jerusalem," botany professor Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said Monday during the International Botanical Congress here. "The sayings that the shroud is from European origin can't hold."

Analysis of the floral images, and a separate analysis of the pollen grains by another botanist, Uri Baruch, identified a combination of plant species that could be found only in March and April in the region of Jerusalem, Danin said.

Source:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_2.htm

Abs' link stated:

I noted that many of the endemic Palestinian and Turkish plants whose pollen Max Frei claimed to have discovered on the Shroud were insect-pollinated, and this makes it extremely unlikely that their pollen could have been transported to the Shroud by the wind. The pollen of such plants is retained by the plants in special organs and can be removed and transported only by the appropriate pollinating insect species; furthermore, such pollen is not adapted to travel by wind, and would not go anywhere even if somehow it came loose from the flowers.

If you read the link you'll find out the pollen attributed to the shroud is highly suspect. Previous investigators found so little pollen on the shroud that it was worthless.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng's link:

Marino:...Regarding the "suspiciously still-red" red blood, Dr. Adler says that this is what would actually happen to a man who had undergone torture and crucifixion (the actual scientific explanation is complicated and unnecessary here)

I'd be very curious to hear the complicated and conveniently unnecessary scientific explanation for this one... especially considering that blood isn't red when it dries (McCrone). I have never come across any articles suggesting that trauma to the body induces any molecular chance in blood for this to be different for a person tortured and crucified.

Regarding Otseng's claim of the red ocher and vermilion tempera paint being "uniformly distributed over the entire cloth," McCrone also states:

There is no blood in any image area, only red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers.

Shroud and sample points

Otseng's closing remarks from the last post:

Furthermore, there is no medieval work that depicts in such realism the scourge marks, abrasion marks, crown of thorns, and blood stains.

While these things may appear realistic at first glance, they are completely out of context with the shroud. As has been mentioned already the hair is as though the person depicted were standing rather than lying down, the rivulets of blood depicted in hair is in contrast to the matting of blood that actually occurs and the wounds themselves weren't realistic in that they are picture like -- shown as though blood were actively flowing. The alleged blood didn't "stain" because as any simple test will show, blood on fabric spreads in all directions as it is soaked into the cloth. It also turns brown.

And even though Otseng's site may like to think the "science" behind why supposed blood "stains" would remain suspiciously red over the cenutires is "complicated and unnecessary," all of us participating on this forum are capable of pricking a finger and watching the reaction of our blood with the fabric it comes in contact with.