Fact Check
- The Shroud of Turin was carbon dated in 1988. The conclusion of those tests was that the cloth originated between 1260 and 1390. True. However, tests recently conducted at the Los Alamos National Laboratory by a team of nine scientists under the direction of Robert Villarreal confirm what chemist Raymond Rogers found and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005): The tested sample was not representative of the shroud’s cloth. Rogers’ findings had also been confirmed by Georgia Tech’s materials forensic chemist John L. Brown.
- Paint was found on the Shroud of Turin. The correct statement should be that Walter McCrone visually identified, through microscopy, paint particles on some fibers removed from the surface of the shroud. However, Mark Anderson, who worked for McCrone, examined the fibers using laser microprobe Raman spectrometry and found that what McCrone thought was (inorganic) paint was in fact an organic substance. Previously, the shroud (and not just fibers) had been observed with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. No paint was found. Later, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry tests conducted at the Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska, on fibers examined by McCrone, were unable to detect any paint particles or painting medium.
- Scientist have failed to identify blood on the Shroud of Turin. This is one of those statements that has been repeated over and over by skeptics, so much so that many people believe it. However, immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are human blood. Many of the bloodstains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of a clot with a clear yellowish halo of serum. The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and the spectra examined. The bloodstains are blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas. Much of this work is published in peer reviewed scientific journals including Archeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis (American Chemical Society), Applied Optics and the Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal.
- There is no record of the Shroud of Turin before 1349. Meaningless! Many artifacts from antiquity lack records that go back to their original provenance. Moreover, as is often the case with written records, there are gaps in the records. However, it is part of the work of historians and archeologists to find other evidence and bridge gaps in documentation. There is a drawing of a shroud from 1192 (nearly a century earlier than the earliest carbon 14 date) that is clearly identifiable from particular features as the current Shroud of Turin. It is well known that a cloth with a purported image of Jesus existed in Edessa as documented by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th century. According to Eusebius (and this must be considered legend) the cloth was brought to Edessa by the apostle Thomas or the disciple Thadeus (of the 70). In 544 a cloth with an image thought to be of Jesus was found concealed above a gate in the city walls of Edessa. That cloth was transferred to Constantinople on August 14, 944. It was, at that time, described as a full-length burial cloth with an image of Jesus and bloodstains. Following the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, it became the property of Othon de la Roche, French Duke of Athens and Thebes. He sent it to his castle home in the town of Besançon, France in 1207. At Eastertide, it was removed from castle and displayed in the Besançon Cathedral until the cathedral was destroyed by fire in March of 1349. Any records that might have existed may have been burned in that fire as all church records were destroyed. In that same year, Geoffroy de Charny, a French knight married Jeanne de Vergy, a grand-niece of Othon de la Roche, and delivered the shroud to the canons of Lirey, thereby creating the earliest extant record in Western Europe.
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
The Blessed Mother was proficient at embroidery & weaving. The shroud was a physical gift to the Blessed Mother to comfort her & ease her pain.
The shroud is a fake – obviously – the image is flat (like a photograph). It is likely an early form of photography. That explains it more than any other explanation. People made money out of it that is why it is in the public domain. No thinking person would believe it is a religious artifact, not from what we know now or what you would read in the bible – period. It is so obvious that most human beings do not use their (God given – if you like) brain – apparently, surprisingly and unfortunately.
“The shroud is a fake – obviously – the image is flat (like a photograph). It is likely an early form of photography . . . . . . . . “It is so obvious that most human beings do not use their (God given – if you like) brain – apparently, surprisingly and unfortunately.”
I appears that you are making the same error that you accuse others of, i.e. not using your brain. Before making such claims as you do, I’d suggest that you might want to consider presenting some actual facts to support your arguments, and add some real logic to the mix.
well if you are accusing Christians of not taking in all the facts, you yourself are not considering that the Shroud has been proven to have 3d qualities (scientifically proven) but even more wonderfully the Lord has revealed his face from the Shroud of Turin in a much clearer picture…to see that picture go to
http://wm57.inbox.com/thumbs/222_197b6_34ce2e5e_oJ.jpg.thumb and if you want to see the video explaining how the Lord has revealed this picture then go to YouTube.com and type shroud of turin miracle photograph.
Try it your self. Lay a sheet over someone. Sketch over their eyebrows, nose, mouth. Take off and lie flat. You’ll see that the face will not be to scale and will look skewed. It is simple common sense. Also, the body dimensions of front and back images do not measure equally in length and scale. FACT. Wake up.
While I believe the Shroud of Turin is authentic, I have no reason to think that what you obtained from a scan of a holographic photographic is anything more than an accidental morph caused by the scanner. This is not science. It may be a miracle but I doubt it. Have you tried other hologram images? Have you asked any image specialists for a possible explanation?
You have much to learn Episcopali – first off, let’s deal with some necessary information: What is the Shroud of Turin? – http://youtu.be/UDWvTyb1yGg; How the 3D image was found – http://youtu.be/IoZ4D5D_lrI; You are saying this is not science when the VP8 image analyzer was built for the mariner space craft that visited mars, and when they wanted to analyze the returning photography and get elevation analysis of the terrain of Mars, this was the device that was used. When it was used on the negative of the Shroud of Turin, it retrieved the 3D information which doesn’t exist in standard photographs. For you to say this is not science, means you are totally unaware of the Shroud of Turin Research Project where 40 scientists had access to the Shroud for 5 days in 1978 – http://youtu.be/zdKGV4SMpKY; What caused the image? – http://youtu.be/msnuX7a89v4 – in case you need more science; the beginning of the scientific investigation began in 1898 – http://youtu.be/T0yU2Ut8ktc; and if this is not enough science, you mgiht want to preview – http://youtu.be/_voTiCTqv4Q – and then purchase the DVD – “The Fabric of Time” – http://youtu.be/11-VgO0NHfI to see the hour long scientific investigation.
It is truly a shame that perfect evidence for the shroud being of Medieval origin is dimissed. It is a great disservice to the huge efforts of those involved in the radiocarbon dating testing. The results are accurate and the samples came from the shroud. But this website isn’t about science, it is about faith in a relic. Why pretend otherwise?
How can you say this? Even the scientists who conducted the carbon 14 dating now admit that it was flawed. Without that, there is no evidence of Medieval origin. However, there is substantial evidence of 1st century origin.
where can i find Mark Anderson report???
The scientists involved have never said the dating was flawed, but keep repeating a mistruth and hope it eventually sticks.
Why must Eusebius be considered as reporting a legend?
I am unable to assist in the debate regarding the authenticity of the shroud, however, included in my family possessions is a 1600′s painting depicting the Shroud supported by St Peter, St Paul, and St James the Greater. Originally, attributed to the Flemish School, a more recent examination has attributed it to the Italian School. The painting predominantly shows Christs head and the shroud is around a metre wide, the length is unclear. Its original frame has long gone, and some folk think it may be the centre picture of an original set of 3. The painting is oil on wood, and in need of some cleaning. The artist is unknown, and I will be grateful if anyone can shed any light on its artist, origin or significance relating to the supporting Saints
Quote : “It is well known that a cloth with a purported image of Jesus existed in Edessa as documented by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th century. According to Eusebius (and this must be considered legend) the cloth was brought to Edessa by the apostle Thomas or the disciple Thadeus (of the 70).”
Comment from me : WRONG !!! Here, we have a great error. Eusebius of Caesarea did talk about the Abgar legend at the beginning of the 4th century, but guess what ? He NEVER mentionned any image or miraculous cloth in his account !!!! In fact, he only talked about an exchange of letters between the king Abgar and Jesus himself… And Eusebius mentionned also that he found his documentation directly in Edessa. So, at that time, and until at least the second half of the 6th century, there was no record of any miraculous image in Edessa !!!! TO ME, THIS SIMPLE FACT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE GREAT IMPROBABILITY OF THE HYPOTHESIS PROPOSED BY IAN WILSON…
Quote : “In 544 a cloth with an image thought to be of Jesus was found concealed above a gate in the city walls of Edessa.”
Comment from me : In fact, historically speaking, this is far from being considered as a proven fact !!! Some time before 550, an historian called Procopius of Caesarea, wrote an historic account of the Persian attack on Edessa in 544 and HE NEVER MAKE ANY MENTION OF A MIRACULOUS IMAGE AND, LIKE EUSEBIUS 150 BEFORE HIM, HE ONLY MENTIONNED THE LETTERS !!! So, we can conclude from this account that, around 550, there was still absolutely no record of any miraculous image in Edessa ! In fact, the very first mention of this miraculous image of Edessa, supposedly not made by human hands, come from a manuscript written around 600 by another historian called Evagrius Scholasticus (and it was in this book that we found a mention about the presence of the image and his miraculous role during the attack of the Persian army). But, in reality, some historians are not even sure if the mention we found about the image of Edessa is genuine or if this mention is not a later addition (possibly made during the Iconoclast period). Anyway, let’s think that this mention is really from the hand of Evagrius, the FACT that, around 550, Procopius relate the same story without mentioning the image is a proof that this image of Edessa appeared in the city between this date (550) and the time Procopius wrote his book (600). And the reality is this : There’s a very good probability that this mention from Procopius is not correct and that he made this up (or someone else made this up) in order to “proved” that the image of Edessa had a real divine power in the defense of the city of Edessa !!! If we want to stay logical here, we can conclude from all those facts, with a very good probability, that the image of Edessa appeared in this city during the second half of the 6th century and nobody know any relevant details about his real history and about how and when exactly this image came in the city of Edessa. In this particular context, the possibility that the image of Edessa was a false relic made by human hands (probably directly or indirectly based upon the image on the Shroud of Turin) is very good, since we don’t know nothing about his arrival in Edessa and his real history. When we based our judgment strickly on documentary facts (and not on speculations like Wilson do so well), it really gives the impression that this image suddenly appeared from nowhere in Edesse some time during the second half of the 6th century.
Quote : “That cloth was transferred to Constantinople on August 14, 944.”
Comment : WRONG ! In fact, it was August 15, 944.
Quote : “It was, at that time, described as a full-length burial cloth with an image of Jesus and bloodstains.”
Comment : THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG !!!! There is absolutely NO mention in ancient texts that said the Mandylion of Edessa was “a full-length burial cloth with an image of Jesus and bloodstains.” A statement like that is close to be completely bias in favor of Wilson’s hypothesis !!! In my mind, this is a classic case of “misinformation” and it’s sad to see this on a good blog like that. In fact, Wilson have found 2 ancient legendary texts (on a corpus of maybe over 100 hundred) that said the Mandylion was a full-length cloth, but that’s it ! In those 2 texts, there is absolutely no mention that the cloth was a burial cloth and that there was bloodstains on it !!! And, for the blood, Wilson have found a few legendary texts (again, it is really a low number in comparison with all the corpus that talk about the Mandylion) that seemed to make a link between the bloody sweat of Christ in Gethsemane and the making of the image. But, in those few texts, the action is still located when Jesus is ALIVE and the focus is made on the sweat, not on the supposed blood that could have been present on the sweat. And in all those texts, there is no clear mention that there was an image on the cloth of something else than Jesus face ! There’s absolutely NO mention of a full-length burial cloth in those texts ! Again, it is pure speculation and extrapolation to make a direct link between the descriptions of the Mandylion we found on those few texts and the Shroud of Turin !!!! What a shame…
Quote : “Following the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, it became the property of Othon de la Roche, French Duke of Athens and Thebes. He sent it to his castle home in the town of Besançon, France in 1207.”
Comment : First of all, what disappeared of Constantinople in 1204 was not the Mandylion, but it was a real burial Shroud that showed a full-length body image of Christ (this cloth was located at that time in the church of Our Lady of Blachernes). We know that because of the account of a french knight called Robert de Clari that took part in the sack of Constantinople and later wrote an account of that. What he described can really be linked with the Shroud of Turin but there is absolutely no way to link his account with the Mandylion, except if we used unwise speculations and extrapolations, like Wilson did. In fact, in the same account, de Clari said he had seen 2 reliquaries in another church (the Pharos chapel) that countained most probably the Mandylion of Edessa and the Keramion, which was a tile bearing the same image of the face only of Christ than we could find on the Mandylion. And many historians agreed on the fact that, contrary to the Church of Our Lady of Blachernes, the relics that were present in the Pharos chapel were not stolen by the crusaders. On this particular topic, I recommand you to read : Michael Angold, « The fourth crusade : Event and context », Longman (editor), 2003 – 281 pages. It is clear for this professor of Byzantine history that Boniface de Montferrat, a crusader, was able to saved the relics present in this chapel. And if we believe Robert de Clari, among them was most probably the Mandylion and the Keramion. Later, in 1241 or 1242 (depending on some authors), the Mandylion (maybe with the Keramion) was sold to Saint Louis, king of France and he housed it in the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris until the French revolution, when it disappeared (it was probably destroyed by the revolutionnaries).
That’s it for the most probable history of the Mandylion my friends… Dan, I hope you will make some correction in the page because, right now, it is packed up with historical errors and unwise speculations and extrapolations. I really expect to see more “rigor” from you, but at the same time, I understand because there so much bullsh** that was written in order to defend Wilson’s hypothesis that anyone can get fooled when it comes to the real Mandylion history…
Yannick, your arguments are all appeal to silence fallacies. Please actually read Ian Wilson’s book before you continue spewing these non-arguments. Wilson clearly shows how the evidence supports his position, enough that it doesn’t matter that historian x didn’t report it at the time (he also gives reasons that many historians would not have reported certain events relating to the issue at hand). He also clearly explains how the Image of Edessa could be and probably was a full body image – if you had read his book you would know that he explains that it is folded in such a way only the face is visible. And the folding is attested by at least one eyewitness source.
Maybe instead of feeding your ego by making arbitrary corrections and shouting “WRONG!!” before every point you make you should actually read Wilson’s case.
Am I reading discussions among rational people seeking truth, or just schooyard arguments like “My dad can beat up your dad”? If someone defends their position with total fallacies, don’t engage them. If someone’s faith is so tied up in this being real (which I think it is, BTW), no point in engaging them either. There’s a lot of good science that has been done on this by people who care more about finding the truth, than about their own agendas. Don’t muddy the waters.