There is a new paper published in Meccanica February 11, 2014. Open access links to the paper are below.
But first, there is this slapdash account from The Telegraph: An earthquake in Jerusalem in AD 33 may have caused an atomic reaction which created the Turin Shroud and skewed radiocarbon dating results, scientists believe
The Turin Shroud may not be a medieval forgery after all, after scientists discovered it could date from the time of Christ.
The shroud, which is purported to be the burial cloth of Jesus – showing his face and body after the crucifixion – has intrigued scholars and Christians alike.
But radiocarbon dating carried out by Oxford University in 1988 found it was only 728 years old.
However a new study claims than an earthquake in Jerusalem in 33AD may have not only created the image but may also have skewed the dating results.
The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.
This flood of neutrons may have imprinted an X-ray-like image onto the linen burial cloth, say the researches.
In addition, the radiation emissions would have increased the level of carbon-14 isotopes in the Shroud, which would make it appear younger.
Are there no editors at The Telegraph? Or do I not understand what BC means?
Last year scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy dated it to between 300BC and AD400 – still hundreds of years after Christ, who is believed to have died between 30-36AD.
Somehow this got inserted into the story:
Mark Antonacci, a leading expert on the Shroud and president of the Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation, is currently petitioning Pope Francis to allow molecular analysis of the cloth using the latest technology. It is hoped that such an investigation will be able to confirm or rule out the radiation theory.
Again, are there no editors at The Telegraph? What was hotly debated? What does this have to do with the story?
The first, hotly debated, documented reference to the Shroud of Turin dates back to the 14th century when a French knight was said to have had possession of the cloth in the city of Lirey.
Records suggest the Shroud changed hands many times until 1578, when it ended up in its current home, the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
Wait, a minute. The Daily Mail is carrying the same story. Whole paragraphs are identical even though the journalist-author byline names are different. Notice what mainstream papers have not picked up the story.
GETTING BEYOND THE TELEGRAPH:
Megan Gannon, News Editor for LiveScience has sought out reactions from others:
Even if it is theoretically possible for earthquake-generated neutrons to have caused this kind of reaction, the study doesn’t address why this effect hasn’t been seen elsewhere in the archaeological record, Gordon Cook, a professor of environmental geochemistry at the University of Glasgow, explained.
"It would have to be a really local effect not to be measurable elsewhere," Cook told Live Science. "People have been measuring materials of that age for decades now and nobody has ever encountered this."
Christopher Ramsey, director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, had a similar issue with the findings.
"One question that would need to be addressed is why the material here is affected, but other archaeological and geological material in the ground is not," Ramsey wrote in an email. "There are huge numbers of radiocarbon dates from the region for much older archaeological material, which certainly don’t show this type of intense in-situ radiocarbon production (and they would be much more sensitive to any such effects)."
Ramsey added that using radiocarbon dating to study objects from seismically active regions, such as regions like Japan, generally has not been problematic.
It seems unlikely that the new study, published in the journal Meccanica, will settle any of the long-standing disputes about how and when the cloth was made, which depend largely on faith.
"If you want to believe in the Shroud of Turin, you believe in it," Cook said.
Paper published in Meccanica February 11, 2014: Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake? by A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna and O. Borla appearing in Meccanica: An International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
Interesting they speak of the earthquake that’s mentioned in the bible when Christ was resurrected but they failed to mention the link in the story
Professor Giulio Fanti mentioned the earthquake in his hypothesis about how the image had been formed in an interview granted years ago:
So the Daily Telegraph hacks get a story and write it up with all the usual cliches, journalese, and inaccuracies that paparazzi the world over are renown for. But it’s worthwhile checking out the PDF paper in Meccanica. The paper itself contains a fair amount of speculation and reliance on dubious records of earthquakes around 33AD. Difficult to guess how they assessed the crucifixion/resurrection earthquakes to within one decimal place of 8.2!
The one interesting fact(?) to come out of the paper is that large earthquakes may apparently generate neutron emission from crushed rock, and they cite some experimental evidence for this. It is possible that this may have been a factor in creating the image, if indeed the neutron emission actually occurred. However as for it skewing the C-14 dating of 1988, Christopher Ramsey’s comment is most relevant. To paraphrase, “Why in this case only, and in no other?”
It would seem that the Torino School of Engineering is still adhering to the myth of the validity of the 1988 dating. I would suggest that they might consult with their colleagues in the Statistical Maths department there, and get a handle on how representative the sampling regime for these specimens may or, more likely, may not have been!
I note that at the very end of the paper, Giovanna De Liso’s paper happens to be cited. Her work represents some 12 years of experimental field study in the seismically active area of Piedmont. She mentions there the stringent conditions required for the production of Shroud-like images during earthquakes. They required aloe inhibition, concurrent variations in the geo-magnetic and electric fields, presence of iron-bearing geology, and the release of radon gas (common during earthquakes). One problem would seem to be that the decay of Radon releases not so many neutrons, as it does gamma radiation, an entirely different matter.
While one may applaud the various attempts to discover the secret of the imaging process, it seems to me that an unduly large amount of research effort is being expended at this institute in pursuit of an agenda-driven presumption, that the image was the result of some kind of radiation emanation, while other possible, even more probable causes seem not to be pursued at all.
This is one more example of why the words “peer reviewed” mean nothing anymore when discussing shroud science. Too bad.
Re “Scholar peer-reviewing” (e.g. Wilson’s, Guscin’s, Blick’s, Nicoletti’s) as far as the Machy mould is concerned,
On February 11, 2014 at 2:22 pm | #76, I wrote:
“I just read the link “alain hourseau Holy Shroud livret internet English”. Here is the passage about the “unmistakable” difference [with my own comments inserted]
“There are some important differences.
First of all, in the middle, the face of the stylised Christ-figure is shown with his eyes
open. The mould bears the inscription under the face: «SUAIRE:IHV» to designate the
For Ian Wilson [Wilson or Guscin?] the three letters are clearly [sic!] Greek: I (iota) H(eta) and S (sigma) [false they are Latin and/or French!] an abbreviation for the phrase ‘the shroud of Christ’, [false, it shall read SUAIRE JHESU, Shroud of Jesus!] genitive case.
Two other letters, half-visible, appear on either side of the coats of arms, under the pillars.
Sarah Blick has suggested that they could well be an E [false it is a U in Gothic script with E embedded within] and a C which could mean ‘Ecce Crucio’, ie ‘Behold, the crucified’ [false when read in conjunction with the sets of coats of arms!]
An Italian specialist, Andrea Nicolotti, has proposed that the locution “ Ecce suaire Jesu
Christi” ou “Here is the shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Nicoletti totally missed both the U in Gothic script with E embedded within and the “h” in Gothic script in JHV!]
The coats of arms are inversed. It is quite possible that the arms on the right belong to the most important person. On the Lirey mould, Geoffroy de Charny’s is on the right and
he would still have been alive. On the Cluny badge he is presumably dead because the coat of arms of Jeanne de Vergy is on the right….But this theory does not necessarily apply” [Actually this is the reverse as Hourseau totally missed the heraldic dextre and senestre!].”
I do not see any “U in Gothic script with E embedded within”. The first letter COULD be an E because it is very similar with the E of SUAIRE.
As for the H that you say I missed, obviously I have not missed it (I am not blind), but when you do a transcription you must undo the abbreviations; so “IhV” must be transcribed “Iesu” (or Jesu, like French people like).
P.S. An e-mail sent to Mr. Hourseau by me is not a “Scholar peer-reviewing”, and internet is not a review.
There are “official” and “non official” ways to peer reviewing” (e.g. via email as Hourseau asked your opinion as “an Italian specialist” not as a plumber).
You cannot see a U letter in Gothic script just because you’re not familaier with carved inscription in Gothic script. The letter is there.
To correctly undo the abbreviation “IhV” is to fully write “IhESV” not “Iesu”… A full transcription is not a translation.
Reminder for Nicoletti:
The E letter in Gothic script embedded within the U letter. triggers off not only the family name UE[RGY] (in conjunction with the coat of arms) but the following whole sentence too (in conjunction with the Shroud of Lirey):
E[CCE] SVAIRE:Ih[ES]V C[RISTI], “here is the Shroud of (our Lord) Jesus Christ” (and not “Ecce suaire Jesu Christ”)
Actually owing to the very presence of the UE “dual letter” in Gothic script, a triple entendre just cannot be totally ruled out here. The whole inscription then should be read:
At 1st reading level (in old French):
[armes de] UE[RGY-MIREBEAV] SVAIRE (NS) IH[ES]V [armes de] C[HARNY]
At 2nd reading level (in Latin and in conjunction with the French word SVAIRE):
E[CCE] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI]
At 3rd reading level (in Latin as a cryptic polemical inscription?):
UE[RGENSI] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI],
“The de Vergy Family’s Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
>>>>Reminder for Nicoletti:
My name is Nicolotti.
>>>>There are “official” and “non official” ways to peer reviewing” (e.g. via email as Hourseau asked your opinion as “an Italian specialist” not as a plumber).
Hourseau asked my opinion and I said what I consider right. I said also that I see many errors in his book and in Wilson’s interpretation of the object. Again, this is not peer review. It is a private email.
>>>>>You cannot see a U letter in Gothic script just because you’re not familaier with carved inscription in Gothic script.
I am familiar with it and I do not see the U.
>>>>>To correctly undo the abbreviation “IhV” is to fully write “IhESV” not “Iesu”… A full transcription is not a translation. …in Italian.
Iesu is not a translation, is a transcription. “Iesu” is not Italian. You are a bit confused.
“IhESV” is not wrong, like Iesu or Jesu.
>>>>E[CCE] SVAIRE:Ih[ES]V C[RISTI], “here is the Shroud of (our Lord) Jesus Christ” (and not “Ecce suaire Jesu Christ”)
I never wrote “Ecce suaire Jesu Christ”
>>>>>At 2nd reading level (in Latin and in conjunction with the French word SVAIRE):
E[CCE] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI]
ND? Why? Is not necessary. And here you missed the H in Christi
>>>>>>At 3rd reading level (in Latin as a cryptic polemical inscription?):
UE[RGENSI] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI],
“The de Vergy Family’s Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
UE[RGENSI]? You are a bit confused with the language.
Mr Nicoletti, do notice the Old French wordplay ‘MIREBEAV SVAIRE (NS) JhESV CRIST. (if you can read Old French).
1/Mr Nicoletti you wrote: “Iesu is not a translation, is a transcription. “Iesu” is not Italian. You are a bit confused.”
Methinks the whole irony of my phrase “translation… in Italian” was completly lost on you as you take it first degree! It was a short comment “tongue in cheek”!
Besides methinks YOU are totally confused as you seem to totally ignore the word “Iesu” is Old Italian for “Gesù”! (Just ask Michela de Iesu!)
2/You wrote: “[You are] familiar with [CARVED Gothic script] and [you] do not see the U.” If you just cannot see, you just cannot be familiar with it! Re French Gothic inscriptions carved out in stones, could you refer me to any paleographic studies/research papers of yours, please?
3/ Re my full transciption :
E[CCE] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI], you also wrote:
“ND? Why? Is not necessary. And here you missed the H in Christi ”
(ND) (between brackets) is here to render the sign “:” in SVAIRE:IhV. You totally missed it!
As for me I did not miss any “H” in CRISTI. Do you really know medieval Latin spelling! I very much doubt it as you are totally confused here! In medieval Latin IhESU CRISTI is current!
4/ And finally you totally missed the possible innuendo implied here in UE[RGENSI] SVAIRE (ND) IH[ES]V C[RISTI],
“The de Vergy Family’s Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ”!
What “an Italian specialist” we have here!
Mr Nicoletti have you ever heard of the colon (:) used in contractions in Gothic script? Here it occurs in SVAIRE:IhV and shall be read as the contraction for NOSTER DOMINVS (in Latin) and NOSTRE SEIGNEUR (in Old French). Could you do your homework before passing comments?
BTW Mr Nicolotti,
Re the Lirey-Machy mould inscription:
1/Had you known Old French, you should have started with Old French NOT Latin. The word SVAIRE here is in Old French not in Latin!
Hence you totally missed the most obvious here, namely an inscription in Old French to read in conjunction with a set of coats of arms.
[armes de] UE[RGY-MIREBEAV] SVAIRE (NS) IH[ES]V [armes de] C[HARNY]
2/Had you known French heraldics, you could have noticed the Old French wordplay in conjunction with the word SVAIRE:
MIREBEAV (Mirebeau) > MIRE BEAV (Mire beau) > Mire beau Suaire Jesu)
3/ Had you known Latin letter medieval symbolology, you could have known the Latin letter V for U can read as a cryptic reference here to:
a) Jesus as (semper) VICTOR or Sol Invictus
b) His five (V) Sacred Wounds.
Just want to remind one previous post on Dan’s blog:
Let me make a confession before I comment. I believe that in one of the singular events of human history, about 30CE (30AD) Jesus Christ rose from the dead. (this 33AD stuff makes Christ 36+ years old and we know that he wasn’t born in 0 AD) I call it a “singular” event as a double entendre relating to the physic’s concept of a singularity which has as many definitions as there are physicists. (Go for it Hugh)
We are dealing with an event without direct precedence in human experience and New Testament accounts that were written from earlier traditions, 70 or so years after the fact. I think we may be getting closer to the truth. I personally believe that Isabel Piczek’s description of the image as an “event horizon “may be closer to the money than those put forward in these postulations. As I have written: “death is the ultimate event horizon.” See http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html and http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2012/08/michael-redux-quantum-mechanics.htm
Please note that one of the URL’s in the second post no longer works. It’s about the work of Roger Pence and Stuart Hameroff. I’d welcome another link. Dan?
I am willing to accept the fact that for the time being, the process of both Resurrection and image formation is beyond our science.
What I do not accept is that either of those processes will be forever beyond our science. To the theorists, however, I offer not disdain but in all sincerity, a tired cliche. “Keep on, keeping on.” Someday we will get there. It’ll be something like, oh well, a second coming.
Would this be it, John? It is still in your blog. You seem to have dropped an l in html. That’s all.
Based on studies of the stars, it is believed Christ died in 29AD. This is a novel theory, but doesn’t work if there’s any chance he was crucified in another year. I find it too fantastic to be credible.
Concerning Fanti’s hypotheses and conclusions regarding the Shroud, the only thing I want to say is this : Here we go again!
“Based on studies of the stars, it is believed Christ died in 29AD.”
Hi Andy; it’s always good to know whose studies of the stars are being used, and who believes Christ died in 29AD. The impersonal “it is believed…” unintentionally I’ve no doubt conveys a general consensus it has no right to.
I find evidence of a 33 AD earthquake from studies of disturbed sediment layers on the shores of the Dead Sea, and some attempt, as yet unreported, to find out at what season, presumably by the examination of floral remains in the sediment. However I’m not happy about the connection between microexperiments in piezonuclear neutron emission from very brittle rock specimens, and the marine limestone geological environment of Jerusalem. The difference between igneous and sedimentary geology was also what put me off Giovanna De Liso’s radon ideas as well.
The mathematics of Carpinteri et al’s paper are far too speculative to carry any weight regarding C14 enrichment, and the vague description of protons enabling image creation even more so. Compared to these, De Liso’s photographs are models of exactitude.
All the earthquake hypotheses are worth exploring further, but they are not sufficiently well developed to provide evidence for a 1st century origin of the shroud just yet.
Quote: “All the earthquake hypotheses are worth exploring further, but they are not sufficiently well developed to provide evidence for a 1st century origin of the shroud just yet.”
Comment: Not at all in fact if we believe an expert in radiation like Rogers who was clear about the fact that the image on the Shroud cannot be the product of an electrostatic discharge simply because such a thing (as well as any other burst of high energy radiation such as UV light, protons, neutrons, etc.) is too “energetic” to produce the ultra-superficial color we see everywhere on the Shroud, no matter if it is a dark zone or a light one… And such an expert conclusion is even truer if the chromophore of the image is really a thin layer of impurities instead of the external part of the linen fiber.
No. The neutron radiation hypothesis has nothing to do with the image – it is a way of enriching the C14 content – and the radon hypothesis is not high energy radiation.
You may be right that an expert like Rogers would dismiss these ideas as being from the lunatic fringe, but then, the last time he did that he not only gave the lunatic ideas careful consideration anyway, but then completely changed his mind.
Keep working, guys!
After reading Sir Colin Humphreys’ wonderful book «The Mystery of the Last Supper I’ m really convinced by his studies of ancient calendars and documents backed by astronomy data that Jesus crucifixion and death happened on 33 A.D. and this date is the only one that fits all conditions as he explains.
Excellent work, everyone interested in christian religion should read it.
Antero de Frias Moreira
Centro Português de Sindonologia
Sounds as though (the hypothesis) is saying it does:
“The flood of neutrons may have imprinted an X-ray-like image onto the linen burial cloth by reacting with nitrogen nuclei, the researchers said. In addition, the radiation emissions would have increased the level of carbon-14 isotopes – atomic strains of carbon – in the Shroud.”
This is from a UK feed, but see also last line in Abstract of article
Rogers would say that this is science-fiction boosted by religious bias.
My mistake; they do consider image formation by neutrons. I was confused by their opening sentence, and further mention of protonic image formation in relation to Rinaudo’s ideas later on. They do discuss the possibility of an earthquake acting as a giant neutron imaging machine, which I find somewhat far fetched.
As far fetched Hugh as the idea of a manmade forgery done with some artistic technique…
By the way, in his book about the Shroud, Rogers analyze the hypothesis of Rinaudo and conclude that this cannot be the cause of the image.
I am presently unaware of Sir Colin Humphrey’s work, and so am unaware of what astronomical events he may refer to in his derivation of a death date of AD33. The only astronomy event I can recall in the gospels is the Star of Bethlehem in Matthew, which might have been any one of a number of such events, or it may only be a literary device.
John’s gospel records that the Friday of the crucifixion occurred on Preparation Day, the day before Passover. This could only have occurred in the years AD30 & AD33, and so would exclude AD29. John P Meier in his “A Marginal Jew” opts for AD30. He bases this on the sequence that: Jesus was born towards the closing years of Herod the Great, 7-4BC; John the Baptiser began his ministry AD27-28; Soon after Jesus began his ministry, “then aged about 30”; Jesus’ ministry lasted no more than about two years and a few months. Consequently Meier opts for the year AD30, as AD33 would have him closer to age 40.
“Pilate quickly condemned him to death by crucifixion. After being scourged and mocked, Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem on the same day. He was dead by the evening of Friday, April 7, 30. He was about thirty-six years old.”
The authors of the Meccanica paper refer to major Middle East earthquakes, said to have occurred in year AD33. They might have cast their net a little further, but are silent on any seismic events in year AD30. Possibly they are drawing on a hearsay tradition that he died at about age 33, and so derived the AD33 date. Perhaps they should have researched the death date a little more.
I take Hugh F’s point about the geological distinctions between sedimentary and igneous rocks, which may be relevant. De Liso’s Piedmont site refers to the presence of gneiss, a metamorphic rock, whereas the Jerusalem site is essentially sedimentary aragonite limestone. I am unaware of the possible presence of iron-bearing strata at the Jerusalem site, which seems to bear most significantly on her findings.
Despite correspondents’ reluctance to admit radiation as the primary cause of the TS image, the seismic events of the gospel narratives may yet prove to have been a significant factor. It is known that Ray Rogers was not entirely happy about Maillard reaction being the exclusive cause, and felt that there had to be something else as well. The release of radon commonly occurring during earthquakes may have been an essential factor and been that “something else”.
The crucifixion / resurrection earthquakes are mentioned in all four gospels, and cannot be easily dismissed as a literary add-on. However the idea that radiation was the primary cause of the image has yet to win any other support among those beyond the Torino School of Engineering.
Professor Giulio Fanti wrote about the earthquake in connection with his image-formation hypothesis, not as something to do with how the 1988 CD results were skewed. Hopefully there should be additional material this year.
A hypothetical question related to models of image formation involving an energetic radiation event (protonic, neutron, other): in such models, is it absolute that blood first on the cloth would preclude any semblance of image formation from occurring underneath a bloodstain? Is dried blood necessarily an impermeable barrier-in such scenarios, would coloration be totally attenuated, or does the possibility exist that some (muted/weakened) image formation could occur?
That is a very good question.
Or the blood may have come after the image assuming the resurrected body had a beating heart and open wounds for a small period of time.
Such good question has never been verify properly by those who proposed those kind of hypotheses and it’s a shame because they have the possibility to do so. Is it because they know that those high energetic radiation would affect the blood in a way we don’t see on the Shroud where the blood doesn’t seem to have been damaged or denatured in any way (and which strongly suggest a normal temperature phenomenon) and/or would cause some dehydration/oxydation of the underlying fibers (which would be truly different versus what was observed on the Shroud by STURP)? I wouldn’t be surprise if that would be the case…
Yesterday I have sent the following words :
>We have to use the AFM instrument in order to see what is the truth about the linen fibrils (= irradiated or not).
>We are able to work in the field of astromineralogy but we are not yet able to work on linen fibrils ! This seems to be a strange fact !
— — — —
But I have not seen my message !
Then, today I try again …
In this blog I wrote in November 20, 2012
( http://shroudstory.com/2012/11/02/an-image-formed-by-the-yellowing-of-lignon/ ) :
> … …we have to see what are the exact references.
I have read something of interest 12 years ago
(= SSNDT and the inherent AFM controls, etc.) and also
I have tried to write my opinion, but the paper (prepared
for … … the Dallas Conference) was rejected …
See for example the following reference :
Measurement of bulk etch rate of LR115 detector with atomic force microscopy
Ho, Yip, Koo, Nikezic, Yu
Journal Radiation Measurements, Vol 35 (6) – Dec 1, 2002
When I indicated the astromineralogy I referred to MIDAS (Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System) the instrument used to explore the Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko (officially designated 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko).
See also under :
>The principle of an AFM is something like that of a record player,
in which a sharp needle is moved over the surface
and its deflection recorded to reconstruct the three dimensional shape of the object.
>MIDAS can operate in such a mode, but the dust particles are expected to be rather fragile and could be broken or distorted by the tip.
>To avoid this, many AFMs including MIDAS have a dynamic mode,
in which the cantilever (the springboard-like structure on which the tip is mounted) is oscillated. When very close to the sample, the tip “feels” the sample even without touching it, due to various forces acting between the two (electrostatic, magnetic etc.). This changes the resonance frequency of the vibrating cantilever, which is detected by the electronics and used to detect the surface.
I hope you want to discuss the AFM detection of irradiation in a more exact manner …
Remember the meaning about the acronym :
SSNDT = solid state nuclear track detector !
Have you understood my idea about what kind of investigation
we have to do using the AFM ?
This is an old idea. Unfortunately my old paper (for Dallas Conference)
Here I want to add the beginning of a study (found surfing the Web) :
>The interactions between energetic ions and biological and/or
organic target materials have recently attracted theoretical
and experimental attention, due to their implications for detector
and device technologies …
I believe that Shroud Science have to improve
the serious investigations (… and see also : the need of preliminar
experiments on adequate linen materials) on linen fibrils (etc.) using the right tools …
What is your comment ?
In order to discuss in a serious manner the argument
I want to add other lines :
I have not yet found the color differences (= delta E) about
the blood clots submitted to nuclear radiations (… and
where are the inherent experiments with neutrons or the studies ?).
But this cannot be used as strong argument because I admit that a miracle
(perhaps) is few understandable with our feeble minds …
We can only work on linen fibrils trying to see where are the proofs
about the (claimed) ancient irradiations …
Working in this direction we have to take into account
the fungal and bacterial attacks that can create the confusion.
In other words : we have to choose the right areas to investigate !
Interesting perspective (being sincere here). Why no overt smearing, etc. as Jesus unwrapped himself-also-would the gravitational flow patterns be similar for a body lying prone: down the arms, epsilon/3, face/hair, side wound, etc.
What does this mean? Assuming the man is Jesus, does it mean that God was in a hurry to get the Resurrection going, that is, he couldn’t wait for clinical death? If yes, what was the purpose, since the appearances only began on Easter Sunday?
Such kind of speculation is exactly what the proponents of the Kashmir Tomb are waiting for.
I don’t think he’s omitting clinical death or the typical crucifixion, death, resurrection sequence-my take on it was that he was saying that when Christ’s dead body came back to life, the heart was restarted as part of the process, hence some bleeding occurred.
Kelly # 40:
“I don’t think he’s omitting clinical death or the typical crucifixion, death, resurrection sequence-my take on it was that he was saying that when Christ’s dead body came back to life, the heart was restarted as part of the process, hence some bleeding occurred.”
This doesn’t sound convincing. How did the bleeding stop? Did Jesus go to a doctor before he allowed doubting Thomas to feel his resurrected body?
I would agree, but it was a novel angle, one I hadn’t heard before.I suppose “small period of time” would be the key.
It is very likely that there is a good reason why there is no body image under the bloodstains, but this is being kept for an article meant to be published in a month or two. I am assuming that Drs. Adler and Heller examined the fibres with great care and came to the conclusion that any discolouration found after the blood had been dissolved was due to the serum. But since this is an area where there is also disagreement perhaps a second examination is in order, whenever that will be possible.
Looking forward to reading that when it comes out. Baima Ballone, in reference to an up close visual examination of the blood areas of the cloth, once commented, “We have to bear in mind that under these traces the threads of the cloth appear to be “clean”. This means they do not display the colouring that characterizes the image of the body, which proves that the imprint of the anatomical parts and of the lesions came about in a moment that was chronologically subsequent to when the traces in question were deposited.”
Image under blood (or not) is an interesting question. As Yanonymous (can I say that :) ?) pointed out in #34 in the energetic model, it would seem a natural offshoot for investigation in these types of experiments. Though maybe they’re not refraining because of the expected results, isn’t is possible they just haven’t gotten around to it, being more focused on the primary issue? I think it’s difficult to confidently assume someone else’s motives in the lab.
Actually there is a review and two articles,related to the shroud but on different aspects.
The second part of the first part is a bit mind-boggling, so can you kindly put it in a different way?
Yanonymous (that’s right!) could be highly mistaken about the energetic model, however that is for the article.
The second part of the first part is actually still part of the original quotation from BB. I believe he is saying that (in his opinion) the imaging happened after the bloodstains. Looking forward to reading your articles.
Kelly Kearse:”The second part of the first part is actually still part of the original quotation from BB. I believe he is saying that (in his opinion) the imaging happened after the bloodstains. Looking forward to reading your articles.”
Thanks. It seems that STURP II had to clarify this point, but this was not done and the why lies perhaps in Shroud realm history. You have been tackling highly complicated matters in the Shroud image and at this rate you will surely be invited by Turin for any fresh hands-on examination they may have in the future.
Yanonymous, I love it, I’m afraid he’s now stuck with a new appellation.
I think there is one and only one text which reflects early Christian belief of the time between Jesus death and resurrection: I Peter 3:18; “… In the body he was put to death, and in the spirit he was raised to life, and in the spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison.”
It is one of the texts that has sometimes been cited in support of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. The text refers to Jesus being raised in the spirit, but in the various post-resurection manifestations, he also appears to enjoy some corporeality: the appearance to Thomas, the meal at Ephesus, his being mistaken for the gardener, cooking breakfast at Lake Galilee. One might conclude that his spirit, beyond time and space, left his dead body behind to preach to the souls in prison, but then returned for a bodily resurrection, as the body was not then otherwise to be found.
I am not Yannick…
Great points (as usual)
Paulette, and some others; I don’t think this is a peer-reviewed ‘paper,’ in the proper sense of the term. At http://link.springer.com/journal/11012 it is distinguished from the ‘Original Papers,’ and it has no received/accepted dates. I hope that means there is a difference. It is too full of clumsy mistakes t have been reviewed by anybody with any knowledge of the Shroud, such as: “Further studies have focused on the Shroud dating, especially since 1986, when the Roman Catholic Church declared that pieces of the Shroud of Turin HAD BEEN SENT TO SEVEN LABORATORIES around the world, later reduced to only three, for radiocarbon dating.”
Finally (and although this ought to make no difference we have discussed it before in the case of writings by McCrone, Rogers and Jull), the Editor-in-Chief of Meccanica is also the principal author of the article.
What years were there earthquakes near when Christ might have been crucified?
From the front page of the article:
Received: 6 June 2013
Accepted: 15 December 2013
Published online: 11 February 2014
In the full Table of Contents page it is not distinguished from the other articles other than the rest appear to be behind a pay wall-perhaps that is why it is set apart on the preview page as well.
I’m not defending the above paper-I haven’t even read it thoroughly to be honest, only glanced it over. The statement regarding sent to seven laboratories, later reduced to three, is a clumsy mistake, I would agree.
A comment about peer-review from someone who’s been on both sides of the fence. The peer review system is not perfect, it never will be. There are meritorious papers that fail to be accepted in first or second tier journals for whatever reason; there are papers with what many would consider questionable results (particularly in hindsight as the years click by) that grab the attention of the moment. Professional scientists who regularly publish and review papers understand this. It’s part of the system-you just deal with it.
Realize though, that having a paper accepted/published is really only the beginning-what’s going to matter most is how well it stands up-what contribution does it make to the field-is it mainly a lateral or forward move? Both have their own importance. Like a group that lands a recording contract and “publishes” an album, time will tell if the record is considered a contemporary hit, a classic, or a who cares.
Just a hypothesis Louis, it doesn’t deny Christ’s death. Developing it a little further, I envisage the body was washed and placed in a clean Shroud. It assumes the resurrection consists firstly of the heart beginning to beat, and open wounds would cause blood to flow out of them onto the Shroud (Jesus would still be lying in situ). Then after a short while, the ‘Light of God’ if you will, caused the resurrection proper, fixing the image, blood and wounds.
Chris, in that sense it is really worthwhile pondering what you wrote. How God really did it only He knows.
Louis, Chris: At #47 I commented on the time between Jesus’ death and his Resurrection, referring to text I Peter 3:18. This is the only known text concerning this period of time. I interpret the text as meaning that Jesus left his dead body behind, and in the spirit visited the souls “in prison” (outside of time and space), and then returned to resurrect his body. Whether I Peter is pseudonymous or not, it evidently reflects early Christian belief, and is included in the scriptural canon. Thomas saw and touched the wounds of the Risen Lord, but in all the manifestations, there are no suggestions of bleeding or a bloodied appearance. We do not know or understand anything about the “physiology” or “anatonomy” of a resurrected body, whether resurrection is an instantaneous or time dependent process, or whether or not it requires the heart to start beating. The scriptures describe the resurrected Jesus as eating so there seems to be some normal physiology about it. A mystery! The Shroud image itself is of a very dead corpse!
Daveb, you raised some important points. I believe that the Incarnation means that the divine Jesus took human form and left our world in this form and how that was done is a mystery.
There are non-Christians who don’t bother about the mystery, either saying that he was just “pure spirit” like the Yezidis or judging that it is not essential that it has to be understood, as was the case with the Hindus Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi, for whom Jesus was “avatar”, incarnation of God.
Many Catholics opt to be cremated and the curious are told that it is allowed by the Church as long as belief in the after-life is not denied. Of course, they believe that the living will pray for them. How that after-life will be and what the judgment will be like troubled even a genius like Ludwig Wittgenstein:
If the Catholic Church allows cremation, surely it does not expect the faithful to believe that everyone will be resurrected like Jesus?
It wasn’t clear in my earlier post, but I envisage that the blood would be fixed on the Shroud, and that the risen Lord would no longer be bloodied.
Louis, Dave, thanks for your comments. Like you say, we have no idea really how the resurrection happened. Don’t know were it came from but I thought it was a given that the risen Jesus had a real physical heart
Chris, yes, we can speculate but,ultimately, Christians depart from this world with belief in the after-life, a belief strengthened by what the NT says about the Resurrection. Could it be that it is also fed by fear of judgment? Perhaps that is true sometimes. See the link to Wittgenstein in the response to daveb.
I’ll answer in a proper post. Here the argument is the funny argument of the earthquake, not the epigraphy
Comments are closed.