Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > Baked-In Creases. Really?

Baked-In Creases. Really?

March 23, 2014

imageColin Berry has returned to his ScienceBuzz blog to report Modelling two distinct types of BAKED-IN crease in the still-enigmatic Shroud of Turin, ones that provide important clues to the image-imprinting mechanism.

This is the third in my series of postings on a feature (or rather, features) of the Shroud image which may tell us a lot about the way the image was created. The first was on this site, over two years ago:

He then asks,

why does the turin shroud appear to have scorched-in crease marks? tell-tale signature for medieval forging?

and answers:

I am more than ever convinced that the answer to the question in that title was a resounding YES! The creases or, rather, some of them, contain imprinted MEMORY of what was happening to the Shroud at the instant it received its ‘body image’ (Blood arguably came later as a part of an extensive re-invention exercise – see my other site).

The images that Colin provides are interesting. It is something to think about; that is for sure. It seems to be consistent with a scorching scenario, I’ll grant that. But why not with any number of other image forming hypotheses, assuming pre-imaging creases? And how certain are we that the creases are the same color at a chromophore level? Is this sort of eyeballing by Colin really scientific enough? I’m not a scientist so I can’t answer that question. It is good thinking but is it good concluding?


Echoing a previous posting from just over two years ago, to which he links, he thus reminds us of this thinking: 

Conclusion: I regard those two crease marks as evidence for the image having been formed by applying force, consistent with my thermo-printing model, especially with a backing bed of sand. The scorched-in creases would seem to me to be inconsistent with any model that has fabric loosely draped over a 3D subject – living, dead or inanimate. Now please refer again to the title of this post.  Are those creases not a signature for the Shroud having been produced as a forgery, using a replica, e.g. bronze statue, of the crucified Christ?

BUT the evidence is still very convincing that the images were not formed by scorching. Yes, I know Colin thinks otherwise but he has not made a convincing case.  This is as close as he gets in a comment of his own to After 2 years, and over 200 postings, I think I’ve finally cracked it – the enigma of the Shroud of Turin.

Folk have asked why I don’t simply get hold of a uv lamp and make a start in filling in the huge gaps in our knowledge of scorching and fluorescence (similar to Hugh Farey’s studies reported previously on this site, with a greater focus on  what’s happening at the molecular level).

[ . . . ]

But it would be more “kitchen lab” stuff, wouldn’t it, and easy target for the debunkers on Troll Central? There’s also an element of biohazard – my eyes have suffered enough in the past from previous exposure to lab-generated uv (a brief glance  at burning magnesium as a chemistry teacher was enough to induce instant headache and nausea).

Here’s a hint as to what I would do if I had proper lab facilities. I would produce scorches at different temperatures and aerobic/anaerobic conditions. Reaction products (low MWt) would be leached with various combinations of solvents (chloroform/methanol/water), the extracts concentrated and run on TLC. Individual bands, fluorescent ones especially, would be eluted and then injected in a mass spectrometer for identification. The stability of any fluorescent properties would be studied, with exposure to air and other oxidants for different times, different temperatures.

Glossing over what is inconvenient and drawing conclusions nonetheless is to my way of thinking a form of pseudoscience. A lot of ifs and maybes might atone for these glaring problems.

And could those creases have been there in the cloth when the image was formed by some supernaturally produced radiation, not that I think that is what happened? Or a Maillard reaction, not that I think that happened either?

As I see it, these creases are more like a statement of fact, well stated. We need to understand them better. Surely they are creases. Baked-in? That is a stretch.

Categories: Image Theory, Other Blogs
  1. March 23, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    We’re asked to believe that the image is the real thing, but the inconvenient bits (creases etc) are later additions, not part of the overall image at all, despite the appearance of homogeneity.

    That is a totally unscientific standpoint. Anyone who maintains that those sepia-toned imaged creases are not part of the original imprinting must provide the evidence. Claims they have been shown this or that in private are totally worthless, and, more importantly, totally UNSCIENTIFIC. Produce the evidence, or shut up.

    • March 23, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      Actually Dan has a point, the creases could have been caused by scorching – or by other image formations processes. What fits your hypothesis may also fit others. But once again your experiments have brought attention to bear on significant details and will spur on more thought and experimentation. I would never have thought a simple crease might reveal so much…keep advancing the conversation, Colin.

      • March 23, 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Thank you David, But for your responses (and one or two others), I’d have given up here a long time ago.

  2. Hugh Farey
    March 23, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Another good crease to ponder on extends vertically upwards from the wrist-wound. Two dark lines are separated by about 1mm of pale, unmarked cloth. Was this millimetre once hidden and the dark lines contiguous side-by-side? Are the dark lines bits of “image”? Surely not, as they drive right through one of the palest parts of it. Are they burn marks? Surely not, as they are some way from the nearest line of scorches and chars. Are they shadows? What of? Are they accumulated grime? Then what of the pale line between them? Are they marks from a forger’s hot template? Well, no, as they are prominently dark in an almost image free zone. So I’m baffled. Any ideas?

  3. daveb of wellington nz
    March 23, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    I don’t see any argument presented as to why the creases are “later additions” at all. They might equally have been the result of some flaw or hiccup in the weaving, cloth’s in-built ‘memory’ of the way it was once folded and stored, if the Shroud enclosed a body the buriers may have secured it in place by some kind of binding permanently stretching the fibres and leaving a crease. We need comment from someone who knows a great deal more about the behaviour of linen textiles and permanent creasing than any scientist with a particular axe to grind.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      March 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm

      If the burial was only partially carried out, and the cloth left loosely draped over the body as advocated by Mario Latendresse, there would have been no binding. However binding may have formed part of the original packaging for storage and transport. Or the creases may even have developed from some earlier usage as a garment. The quality of the cloth suggests it may well have been intended for some other use, but was pressed into service as a burial shroud perhaps because of urgency and the difficulty of obtaining another more suitable for burial purposes. Focusing on the image as the cause of the creases may be a subjective error.

  4. Louis
    March 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    The Shroud was stored and folded in different ways during its history and the creases seem to be a result. Since they are clues about this history one complaint against the Restoration was that Mme. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg removed them.

    • March 23, 2014 at 5:10 pm

      Let’s be clear about one thing. Certain creases, not the sort from folding along obvious vertical v horizontal axes for ease of storage, have a baked-in appearance that makes them indistinguishable from body image. They are the sort that look as if they were created by an exceptional event (like having something hot and solid thrust into them).

      Given that their appearance makes them easy to understand in terms of contact scorching/imprinting, then the onus must be on proponents of rival hypotheses to explain them. But they don’t, or even try to. Instead, they intone that the scorch hypothesis does not match with all the subtleties of the Shroud image. Go figure.

      Pseudoscience takes many forms. My battle is not with ‘sindonology’ specifically. It is with pseudoscience in all its manifestations,

  5. March 23, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    First post here from someone who has been fascinated for years by the shroud. I’ve been catching up on old posts here and on Colin’s blog. I am a physician (gastroenterologist) so no particular expertise regarding the shroud, but of course familiarity with science. I lean toward the shroud being authentic, but I applaud Colin’s probing endeavors and research and think it serves a valuable purpose.

    That being said, I don’t yet buy that the creases he points out are “cooked in.” I see lots of creases on the Enrie and Durante images on Shroud Scope. Many of these are far from image areas and should be very different from the neck and head creases Colin points out as they should not be “cooked in”. (It would be interesting to see the enhanced images in these areas.) Also, I find it interesting that the neck crease crosses the lower edge of the non-image area lateral to the face, which is,according to Colin, an area of non-contact with the bas-relief. I find it hard to believe a crease could be “cooked in” in this location under Colin’s scenario.

    Just some thoughts…

    • Mike M
      March 23, 2014 at 8:18 pm

      Welcome to the blog. You are not by any way related to Max Patrick Hammond?

      • March 23, 2014 at 8:33 pm

        Thanks for the welcome, Mike!

        No relation to Max Patrick Hammond that I know of…(I’m genetically a “Hamilton”. Long story that I won’t bore you with.) ;)

  6. Mike M
    March 23, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    “Pseudoscience ” as Dan has indicated. Collin tries to give the impression that he is after the truth but then falls short in doing the proper experiments. Biohazard…yeah right. That’s a good one, why even look, setup the camera on a timer, close your eyes (or wear a UV shield), switch on the UV lamp, take the picture, switch it off and then open your eyes(or takeoff the Uv shield), that’s the lamest excuse ever for someone who claims to have “cracked the mystery of the shroud”. What about normal light, why can’t you photograph your linen in transmitted light?. What about a microscope, I would say access to such a tool would be something essential for someone trying to propose an image formation mechanism. Where are the microphotographs with no lumen discoloration, superficiality & halftone?
    Now for those apparent creases, well, they are not as apparent in shroud2.0, even worse they appear the same, in other place off image, even way off image. So how can that be a proof for a hot statue scorch in places where the hot statue didn’t even touch. Dan I will send you some images because I don’t know how to add them to a comment.

    • March 23, 2014 at 5:22 pm

      Methinks that Mike M is more than a Canadian pharmacist. When he’s prepared to reveal the real reasons for his stake in Shroud authenticity, I might be ready to swap email addresses.

      • Mike M
        March 23, 2014 at 5:26 pm

        “Pseudoscience rule 2.0” when you can’t counter an argument.. go personal.

      • Mike M
        March 23, 2014 at 5:32 pm

        If you are coming to St. Louis, we can meet there. We can swap emails then.

  7. March 23, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    Mike M :
    “Pseudoscience rule 2.0″ when you can’t counter an argument.. go personal.

    Nothing personal, except what you have declared previously about yourself. One likes to know something about a commenter’s background, especially if it’s scientific or technical. You clearly have a grasp of detail. I like a grasp of detail.

    • Mike M
      March 23, 2014 at 6:22 pm

      Thank you, Before becoming a pharmacist in Canada my background involved working as an industrial pharmacist for 11 years. the last 4 years of which were in biotechnology (producing human Erythropoietin hormone from Chinese hamster ovary cells, which involves tissue culture and HPLC. My interest in the shroud stems from my Christian faith ( I became a born again Christian in 2004, I started to study the shroud intensively in 2011 after watching the History channel documentary, so the shroud had nothing to do with my conversion) Nonetheless, the shroud has been a great source of joy in my life, just knowing that Jesus has left us an image of his passion, to me, is priceless. I try to share that joy by doing presentations to different age groups in our church (one coming up for the whole church in April 11th) that’s my background, hope you find that satisfactory.

      • March 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm

        Thank you Mike M. But folk in medieval times, clergy especially, had devotion and faith at least equal to yours,. They maybe thought of ways of spreading the word by putting on a bit of a show. Commercial considerations must have featured too. Saving souls did not come cheap. Relics were a sure-fired earner,

        Here in Europe we are reminded of our medieval and Tudor ancestry and its values, spiritual or commercial, each time we visit an ancient town or village, and step inside the local church (notably those that weren’t vandalised and pillaged by Henry VIII and his Dissolution)

      • Mike M
        March 23, 2014 at 7:27 pm

        The cause doesn’t justify the means. Real Christian faith would never attempt to deceive people to get them to believe. Even if people were that corrupt in medieval times that speculation doesn’t prove anything. The majesty of the image was largely unnoticed till the invention of photography. Why would they put dirt from Jerusalem, why would they salt it with pollen from Halophytes? Clear serum Haloes around real human blood? Forensically accurate information embedded in the image, information that we began to understand hundreds of years later. And if we ignore all that, why can’t we match the image on the microscopic level when we have the microscope and they didn’t?

  8. Hugh Farey
    March 23, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Surely the existence of creases in the Shroud is not in dispute. What I want to know is why they are still apparent even after being smoothed out. They are distinctively marked – what are the marks made of? Colin is correct that they resemble scorches, as does the rest of the image; that too is not, I think, in dispute. Whether they are really scorches is the problem. Being outside the image, or over the stomach in an area of minimal image density, is a sensible objection to their being produced as part of the image-formation-mechanism, but it does not go any way to explaining what they actually are.

    • Mike M
      March 23, 2014 at 5:58 pm

      I think the simplest hypothesis would be that these ridges (or raised lines) as they stick out of the cloth would be much more prone to contact with dirt & and grease from people handling the cloth (as compared to the lines in the middle which seem to be protected) please note a simple “wave fold” in that reference:


      For a cloth that has been displayed in churches and open air for hundreds of hours over the years and never been washed this should at least plausible. Off course to get a better understanding we would need samples and microphotography for those areas.

  9. ChrisB
    March 23, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    The last thing I would expect to see is a crease of this nature resulting from a hot template being applied to a piece of cloth. Or, as in Colin’s experiments, the linen being applied over a hot template. Creases like this are usually ironed in which is counter intuitive to the LOTTO method. I’m not convinced that they are creases in the first place. Do we have any data showing a continuous deformity in the weave which would be characteristic of a crease, or is it simply because it looks like a crease?

    • daveb of wellington nz
      March 23, 2014 at 7:43 pm

      You can definitely see creases in Barrie Schwortz’s PDF of photo record of the 1978 STURP investigation; some appear to be permanent creases, some are creases of the moment due to handling at the time. John Jackson had a video expanding on his theory of folds. One shot I recalled showed the cloth under raking light which highlighted what seemed a complex network of creases and folds. The STURP photos showing the cloth under raking light will be available somewhere on the web, probably on shroud.com

  10. March 23, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    I’m new here so my first post upthread was held up for moderation…
    Will repost this from above:
    “Also, I find it interesting that the neck crease crosses the lower edge of the non-image area lateral to the face, which is,according to Colin, an area of non-contact with the bas-relief. I find it hard to believe a crease could be “cooked in” in this location under Colin’s scenario.
    Just some thoughts…”

    • Mike M
      March 23, 2014 at 8:10 pm

      You are correct. This is one of the images I emailed to Dan because I couldn’t add to the comment section.

    • March 24, 2014 at 4:23 am

      One of the best, nay, THE best visualization of the chin crease was the one Dan Porter did with ImageJ, reported in December 2011;


      Seen in 3D, the chin crease does NOT appear to extend signific

      • March 24, 2014 at 4:30 am

        Apologies, that comment posted prematurely for some reason. I was wanting to end by saying that the crease mark does NOT appear to extend beyond the sides of face and hair in that exceptional 3D image. I could say more, a lot more, about the precise location relative to the angular chin and jaw line and draw some reasonable (to my way of thinking) conclusions as to how it came to be where it is. But my kind of thinking is not welcome on this site, so I shall say no more.

      • March 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm

        I agree, Colin, that is an excellent image. It actually supports my point which is not that the crease extends lateral to the hair, but extends across the “gap” between the face and hair–the “dark area” where there should be little to no contact with the linen in the scorching scenario.

  11. Louis
    March 23, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Daveb has provided the best sources of information. Now whether the creases have been smoothed out permanently after the controversial restoration is another question.

  12. March 23, 2014 at 9:31 pm

    All these “creases” are still visible on Shroud 2.0, which was produced many years after the restoration. And when the Shroud 2.0 scanning was done, the Shroud was laid very flat. Actually, they are unlikely to be creases (before or after the image formation) but weaving imperfections. For example, the “crease” coming up from the wrist wound appears as a weaving imperfection on Shroud 2.0. They are weaving imperfection in the sense that we can see a discontinuity in the spaces separating the threads. The Shroud 2.0 also appears to show a light bloodstain along that crease whereas on the Durante 2002 it appears as the same color as the image which then appears more as a crease due to that coloration. The Durante 2002 photograph is a bit misleading because its coloration is not always accurate. I also verify these type of weave imperfections, on Shroud 2.0, on many other “creases” mentioned on this thread. I wish I had the Shroud 2.0 photograph to upload it on the Shroud Scope.

    • March 24, 2014 at 3:31 am

      So it’s just weaving imperfections, despite being gentle arcs across a rectilinear weave. And while we are permitted to describe the body image as sepia-coloured, we must never be so rash as to apply that term to a crease quote unquote.

      What a weird and wonderful thing is this sindonology. Can anyone join? On second thoughts. I think I’ll stick with the science.

      • Dan
        March 24, 2014 at 7:06 am

        Colin, working with color photographs can be a problem. Film in the older photographs was sensitive to different colors in different ways and never captured all shades and saturation levels of color perfectly. Digitizing these photographs introduced new problems. Direct digital photography has many of the same problems. So does scanning, but less so. Moreover, needed contrast enhancement distorts colors. Displaying images on LCD displays introduces additional problems. Finally, our own eyes fool us. What appears to one person as two examples of the same color may appear to someone else as two different colors. You have implied that colors on the shroud are the same because they appear the same to your eyes, in second or third generations copies of photographs displayed on your computer screen.

        Writing, as you do, “What a weird and wonderful thing is this sindonology. Can anyone join? On second thoughts. I think I’ll stick with the science,” is snide, rude and arrogant in the extreme.

        You published in a public forum. We are criticizing your ideas in a public forum. That is how good science works. As Harry Truman put it, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

        Can anyone join? Yes! You are welcome, here. We really want your input. Most of us are open to any solution for the enigmatic image so long as it is truly scientific. Make your case, scientifically, not by insulting us.

      • latendre
        March 24, 2014 at 11:45 am

        Colin, do you have access to Shroud 2.0? Your comment above does not say that you have looked at the Shroud 2.0 images of the “creases”. If you do not have access to Shroud 2.0, I will try to upload sections of the Shroud 2.0 image on Shroud Scope containing some creases. You can then observe and conclude on your own. Uploading even parts of the Shroud 2.0 image is going to be some major work as I see it now but it will be tried and, I believe, the result will be in accordance with the copyright laws.

  13. Louis
    March 23, 2014 at 9:44 pm

    So it seems we are left with creases that are very controversial and then what happens to the folds, which would be very useful for Ian Wilson’s Image of Edessa – Turin Shroud connection if they can really be detected?

    • March 24, 2014 at 5:11 am
      • Louis
        March 24, 2014 at 9:04 am

        O.K. Thanks for the lead. Since the relic is not available for further scientific examination Ian Wilson suggests trying to get the maximum information using a computer in his last Shroud book.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      March 24, 2014 at 6:38 am

      Good one O.K., it seems to be a formal follow-up of Jackson’s video Dan posted here maybe a year or so ago. I’m aware that not all Shroudies buy into Jackson’s interpretation of the fold-marks as Mandylion indicators. But no wonder he was furious at the removal of fold marks in 2002. Probably no way the theory can be explored further now!

      • O.K.
        March 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm

        it seems to be a formal follow-up of Jackson’s video Dan posted here maybe a year or so ago

        The article dates back to the 1984.

  14. March 24, 2014 at 7:29 am

    How lucky I am to have all these scrupulously neutral observers to keep me on the scientific straight and narrow. to provide free tutorials on photography, to warn me against relying on the evidence of my own senses.

    Anyway, I shall now return to Shroud Scope and ImageJ to see sepia body image and chin crease side-by-side during inversion and/or 3D enhancement, making the terribly dangerous assumption that any visual artefact in one due to RGB balance or whatever will be internally compensated by corresponding changes in the other.

    Science works on a suck-it-and-see principle – not an “I don’t like what I see so I won’t suck it”.

    • March 24, 2014 at 10:20 am

      PS. I have just this minute completed the above task, and added the image to the top of my posting. Why anyone should attempt to maintain that the twin-track crease is different in character (colour, saturation etc) from the rest of the body image doth pass all understanding. I’m a scientist – I rely on the evidence of my own senses to decide what is worth studying, what is not. That twin-track crease should have been the subject of study years, nay decades ago (STURP????) to figure out how it came to be where it is, as a vital spy clue to the mechanism of image imprinting.

  15. Paulette
    March 24, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Colin, you can’t just pick the evidence you like.

    • March 24, 2014 at 8:42 am

      Would you say that to a forensic scientist, looking for fingerprints on a murder weapon, or powder traces on a suspect’s clothing?

      Do please credit me with exercising scientific judgement, even if you dislike my anti-authenticity stance. The sepia crease marks are every bit as important as the sepia body image in providing clues as to the mechanism of image imprinting. Yet the crease marks, the interesting twin-track ones especially that appear baked-in, have been largely ignored by sindonologists. John Jackson is an exception, but he made only a brief reference to the chin crease, suggesting it could be a post-1532 artefact associated with the combination of repeated rolling and repair patches.

      Call it picking the evidence if you like, but it is surely better to focus on a curious feature than to ignore it,

      The best advice I ever heard re the scientific MO was first to discover an effect, then to study it.

      It gets a little tedious, constantly being told on this site which things are worth studying, and which are not.

  16. March 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    latendre :
    Colin, do you have access to Shroud 2.0? Your comment above does not say that you have looked at the Shroud 2.0 images of the “creases”. If you do not have access to Shroud 2.0, I will try to upload sections of the Shroud 2.0 image on Shroud Scope containing some creases. You can then observe and conclude on your own. Uploading even parts of the Shroud 2.0 image is going to be some major work as I see it now but it will be tried and, I believe, the result will be in accordance with the copyright laws.

    . I can’t really see how a higher level of resolution without extra magnification is likely to help. It’s really Miller or Evans style photomicrographs that are needed to confirm or deny the presence of typical image coloration on the twin-track markings, especially those below the chin.

    But if you can arrange some downloads without falling foul of copyright, then please do so, The more information we have the merrier – whatever the final outcome. I’m only here for the science and/or to take a pop at pseudoscience.

  17. Larry
    March 24, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Colin, why are you so angry all of the time?

  18. Hugh Farey
    March 24, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Back in the UK, and Shroud 2.0.
    Three creases have been mentioned here, and this is a description of them.
    a) Across the chin. This one still looks like two lines of darker discolouration and a lighter area between them. It does not extend beyond the fringes of the hair, and although there are a few imperfections in the weave along its length, they appear to me to be the results of the creasing rather than the cause of it.
    b) Just above the brows. This has all but disappeared, although faint traces of double lines are just visible above the ‘3’ blood-stain.
    c) Upwards from the wrist. This appears to be a single dark line embedded in the weave, almost as if it had seeped through from the back.

    Another ‘double line’ is apparent in a vertical direction on the abdomen almost in the midline of image. Although in close up it looks like differential bleaching in the various warp threads, it is only a few centimetres long, when one might expect that kind of imperfection to run the whole length of the warp threads involved.

  19. March 25, 2014 at 2:15 am

    Steve Hammond :
    I agree, Colin, that is an excellent image. It actually supports my point which is not that the crease extends lateral to the hair, but extends across the “gap” between the face and hair–the “dark area” where there should be little to no contact with the linen in the scorching scenario.

    Apologies Steve (welcome btw). I missed your initial comment for some reason (relying mainly as I do on my email inbox now to be notified of new comments for reasons we don’t need to go into except to say that pre-moderation for whatever reason prevents transmission of email alerts, YC please be warned).

    The point you raise about the FOI (feature of interest) spanning the “gap” between jaw and lateral hairline, or as some might say, real or apparent image cut-off is a valid one needing a careful and considered response, but in view of the tiresome and unhelpful interventions here by the site’s host, on top of the spasmodic sniping from the Usual Suspects, I’ll now take my leave from this par-for-the-course poisoned well of a posting. Nuff said.

    Your point will be discussed in a day or two as a rider on my sciencebuzz posting, Steve, Oh, and it’s good to see some new blood here, a welcome change I might add from the constant recycling of the same tired old mantras, unquestioned and/or not-to-be-questioned assumptions to say nothing of agenda-driven dogma.

    • March 25, 2014 at 3:04 am

      PS: Change of mind. Given the arrival a minute ago of the Shroud 2.0 images, I’ll do a new posting that covers that and your point together.

      Warning re Mike’s gallery: that crease to one side of the dorsal foot was not chosen by me as an example of what I called a Type 2 crease, or even a Type 1 fold (nor the wrist one). The one at the foot looks for all the world like a convex ripple in the fabric, accentuated by shadow effects. It should not be there of course in scientific photography where the lighting should have been arranged to prevent artefactual shadows, especially at extremities where additional overhead lighting becomes important to counter oblique lighting from more centrally-placed lamps.

      My primary interest is the highly conspicuous FOI beneath the chin, that is indistinguishable in coloration or general character from the rest of the body image (or non-image background in the central pale area).and which, scientifically speaking, has to be considered as something that was formed at the same time as the original body image, though possibly modified later by ageing (natural or accelerated).

      Now signing off from this somewhat vexatious posting.

  20. Thomas
    March 25, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Would be great to find historical text that advertised or recorded the 1300s showings.
    Eg. Was it recorded as a display of Jesus’s Shroud or a display of His Shroud with his risen image on?
    Why would an artist create a shroud with the image on when there is no biblical reference to such an image? The conventional crude historic view (not mine) is that Jesus’s corpse resuscitated ie. crudely speaking got up and walked out. There is no reference to him rising from the grave in an illuminated form (which by implication may have left a scorch)… although there are allusions in the gospels to His risen body not being the usual physical body. Is there historic art showing him in a glowing risen form, from the middle ages or before, that might justify such a depiction?
    Of course it might have been a novel and creative creation that departed from the historic norms.
    Just some questions for you all! The art history context is important

    • Hugh Farey
      March 25, 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Not the first time this has been raised, Thomas, but the point is well made and crucial to any artistic comprehension of the shroud. I am persuaded that there was no medieval artistic heritage or tradition within which the shroud as a ‘forged relic’ could comfortably fit. Either a blank sheet or an obvious painting would have done just as well. However, I think it could fit into a North Balkan tradition of the epitaphios, which originated around about the 13th century, and is associated with large cloths and (originally) ‘realistic’ images of the dead Christ. Although early versions of the epitaphios are hard to come by, they seem to concentrate more on the cloth and the body than do the later ones, which tend to fill up with background figures of angels and apostles.

      As for Jesus ‘getting up and walking out,’ this is one of the few interpretations of the resurrection that requires that the stone be rolled away from the tomb. Otherwise, why bother?

  21. Thomas
    March 26, 2014 at 1:01 am

    Yes however the epitaphios, I believe, do not intend to portray a shroud with an image left behind on it, but rather merely depict Christ laid out on the shroud. The shroud, if artistic, implies a creation which seeks to “fool” that it was an image left behind on the shroud.

    “I am persuaded that there was no medieval artistic heritage or tradition within which the shroud as a ‘forged relic’ could comfortably fit.”

    Yes and that is a problem for the theory that the shroud was an artistic creation. It is not, of course, an insurmountable problem in principle. The artist may have been breaking with the mould, so to speak.

    With reference to the epithaphios, I suspect they were influenced by the shroud, rather than the other way round.

    As for rolled away stone, clearly literary licence from my perspective (being someone who believes in the resurrection in a non-corpse manner ie. a spiritual resurrection: apparition like, if you will)

  22. daveb of wellington nz
    March 26, 2014 at 3:52 am

    Check the “Epitaphios Stavronitska”; Magnify the image and you will clearly see a definite representation of the herring bone twill in the cloth; also the body is covered in scourge wounds. This adequately demonstrates that the Shroud and its image influenced the Lamentation scenes that developed around 1200AD.

    I personally believe that the stone was moved by earthquake, and was no literary licence. Matthew mentions two earthquakes, one upon the death of Jesus when the temple veil was rent; the second upon the visit of the holy women at the tomb. Mark and Luke only mention that the temple veil was rent, but an earthquake is a good naturalistic explanation for this occurrence; otherwise it is necessary to assert that all three synoptic sources attribute the veil tearing to direct divine intervention.

    I am personally acquainted with rocks being hurled some distance from their faces during earthquakes, and this can be confirmed by any other engineer or geophycist familiar with earthquakes. The sealing of the tomb would increase the likelihood of the ‘P’ wave accomplishing this. Matthew introduces an angel of the Lord at this point to signal divine intervention, but it is an earthquake nevertheless.

    The Resurrection was not an apparition or a ghost. The scriptural writers clearly saw it as a bodily resurrection; Jesus ate and drank; we have him walking with disciples on the road to Emmaus, but somehow disguised; Thomas was able to touch his wounds, We have Jesus preparing breakfast by Lake Galilee. Ghosts and apparitions don’t do those sorts of things.

    It was a different kind of body, a resurrected body with powers that human bodies do not normally have, but clearly the gospel writers saw it somehow as corporeal.

    II Peter has Jesus going to the “souls in spirit” immediately after his death, but somehow he later returns to earth in some kind of bodily form. And his previous earthly body was not to be found.

    • daveb of wellington nz
      March 26, 2014 at 3:55 am

      Correction: II Peter has Jesus going in spirit to the “souls in prison” immediately after his death, but somehow he later returns to earth in some kind of bodily form. …

  23. Thomas
    March 26, 2014 at 4:24 am

    “The Resurrection was not an apparition or a ghost.”
    I should have elaborated that it was (in my opinion) a different sort of apparition – actually something between an apparition and a solid body. The Bible clearly alludes to some physicality as you state but also alludes to ephemerality.
    Paul also alludes to this kind of “in between” state. It clearly was not something physical in the usual earthly sense.

  1. March 25, 2014 at 2:19 am
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: