We hope you are enjoying the Fall Update to Shroud.com! It was a large one and also launched our once-a-year fundraising effort. Naturally, we hope many of you will make a tax deductible contribution to STERA, Inc. since we must rely in part on our viewers for financial support. We have made it easy to safely contribute online using PayPal or a credit or debit card via our Secure Contribution Form. You can also contribute by mail or by telephone. We thank you in advance for your consideration and generosity.
DO CONTRIBUTE GENEROULSLY
I COUNT HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS OF PAPERS ARCHIVED ON THIS SITE
AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS
The Paranormal Report blog, just yesterday, posted a short report, The Sudarium of Oviedo – Better than the Shroud of Turin?
on the Sudarium of Oviedo:
Lying in the Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain in relative obscurity compared to its more famous cousin, the Sudarium presents a better provenance and history than the Shroud and may be the sole surviving relic of the crucifixion that has made it to modern times. Measuring 34″ by 21″, the Sudarium is a bloodstained cloth purported to have covered the head of Jesus of Nazareth after his burial. The cloth is mentioned to have been in the tomb in John 20:6-7 described as a cloth seperate from the shroud. It isn’t mentioned again until 570 A.D. when it was being kept by monks in a cave near Jerusalem. In 614, just before the Sasanian King of Persia Khusru II conquered Jerusalem, the cloth was taken to Alexandria, and within just a few years made its way to Spain through North Africa. Its been there ever since.
AND: here is a 1997 paper with pictures, The Sudarium of Oviedo: Its History and Relationship to the Shroud of Turin by Mark Guscin
Here are some postings on the Sudarium in this blog in just the past year:
Newly published on Nov 16, 2015 by National Geographic, this video is only three minutes long and very well done. includes short comments by Steven Schaffersman, Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz:
The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino) is a length of linen cloth bearing the image of a man that is believed by some Christians to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Radiocarbon dating has dated it to the Medieval period. The shroud is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy.
I have a question that is more directed to Thibault Heimburger who did analyses on actual fibers from the Raes region of the Shroud. Thibault found cotton in fibers 1, 7, and 14. Additionally there was a dye like substance on fiber number 5. Was there any cotton/dye resin found on fibers 2- 4 and 8-13? Thanks.
My friend … has given me your email address.
I have tried to find the origin of the attached picture. I found it on an Internet site and I have asked the owner of the site about it, Anthony Layne, but he does not remember where he found the picture. Here is the link: http://goo.gl/FctU5r *
Do you have any knowledge about it, ie. is this from the picture formation on the Shroud?
I can of course not use it in my lessons about the Shroud without such confirmation.
A quick Google image search (with Chrome browser, right click on the image and then click on Search Google for this image) reveals four web pages that display the image. One of them is this blog in a posting earlier this year: Seeking Help To Identify an Image Called Superficiality. Readers of this blog have provided some helpful information; for instance Kelly Kearse writes:
Picture is from Baima Ballone’s book Sindone O No, 1990, Figure 34. The above photo is reversed relative to that shown in the book.
I hope this helps. Do read the comments to learn some additional information about the picture. Click on the picture to see a larger version.
* Note: The full link before shortening is http://tonylayne.blogspot.no/2013/03/resurrecting-authenticity-of-shroud-of.html#.VjnE-EOPTLv
and Michael Tite has some thoughts about the image, as well
Yesterday, in a comment to Three Questions About The Reweaving Hypothesis, Charles Freeman mentioned that Michael Tite was still lecturing about the shroud. That prompted this response from Hugh Farey:
He is indeed. His most recent lecture was on Monday (yesterday), at the University of Durham Institute of Advanced Studies, in their ‘Evidence on Trial’ series, entitled ‘ Fakes, Forgeries and the Turin Shroud: the scientific evidence.’ It can be heard (audio only although it was clearly an illustrated lecture) at https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ias/audio/Tite.mp3.
It tells us little about the dating of the Shroud that we didn’t know before, but contains this little snippet which may be of interest:
I put that exclamation mark because the date had been leaked in the press certainly as medieval for some time, so it was really saying ‘there you are; you’ve known it all along.’ Various other interpretations were put on it – rather more sinister ones – so it wasn’t a very helpful thing for me to do, but that was the reason. That was my response.
Later Tite suggests that the image may have been associated with a real crucifixion, perhaps of a crusader. He is particularly taken with the wrist rather than hand bloodstains.
Do listen. The audio runs 45 minutes. (The introduction is barely audible but the lecture is fine.) Here is an abstract of the talk from Durham University’s website:
The primary underlying theme of the lecture will be the role of scientific examination in providing evidence for the authenticity of antiquities that supplements the evidence provided by their stylistic attributes. The methods of scientific examination will include the investigation of the raw materials and fabrication methods used in the production of stone, metal and glass antiquities together with thermoluminescence dating of ceramics and radiocarbon dating of organic materials. Examples of the application of these methods will include the Getty kouros, the British Museum crystal skull, Etruscan bronze figurines, Neolithic pottery from Anatolia, the Turin Shroud and the Vinland Map. The damage caused to our understanding of the past by the illegal excavation of antiquities together with the consequent ethics of collecting and authenticating antiquities will also be considered.
I also agree with Daveb. He summarises the evidence that counters a medieval date for the shroud admirably, and uses, entirely reasonably, words like “ambiguous” and “unproven”, and explains that he is persuaded of authenticity. I, on the other hand, am not persuaded of authenticity. I think that’s fine. The Shroud will not become authentic, or medieval, on the basis of what Daveb or I am persuaded, and it is good that together we can work towards removing some of the ambiguity of the evidence, whichever way it leads.
The “also agree” is agreeing with John Klotz who packed it into six words:
As usual, Daveb says it all.
And what Daveb said:
Until proper representative sampling is carried out in accordance with a valid sampling protocol, the validity of the results from the single grab sample in 1988 must remain ambiguous and debated, whatever the cause might be of the mismatch from an earlier date, in view of other indications that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. These indications may include: 1) Fanti’s mechanical testing suggesting the possibility of a 1st century date; 2) Historic arguments that the Shroud was in Constantinople in 1204; 3) Indications from the Hungarian Pray manuscript that distinctive features of the Shroud were known in 1195, prior to the alleged C14 dating; 4) Forensic arguments that the image is that of a real crucified person who suffered the punishments reported in the gospels including a crown of thorns and percussio wound to the chest; 5) the otherwise inexplicable cause of the image; 6) the unsmeared blood stains; 7) Presence of Jerusalem limestone; Etc, etc!
The assertion of homogeneity of the cloth remains unproven, in light of reputable assertions of occasional mending, and in that case a single grab sample is insufficient, even though it might be a routine practice for testing of other cloths (e.g. mummy wrappings) for which there would be no cause to presume mending. Rogers, whatever shortcomings there might be in his chemistry knowledge, and also reputed to be an agnostic, was the chemist with the greatest familiarity with Shroud chemistry. His investigations persuaded him that there were anomalies indicative of highly skilled mending.
Should perchance representative sampling demonstrate that the single grab sample was in fact adequately representative of the whole, then some other explanation for this peculiar result might then have to be considered. The forensic arguments, together with the enigmatic cause of the image, seem to me to be particularly persuasive of authenticity.
I’m not sold on numbers 1 and 6, but I am sold overall. And I think that the historic argument is much more than Constantinople in 1204. I find the Hymn of Pearl very persuasive, for instance.
That Rogers might have been agnostic doesn’t weigh on me. And if it did, it might impress on me a measure of objectivity. However, Joan Rogers, Ray’s wife, has publically stated in the past that they were both Protestants.