When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, British mountaineer George Mallory famously replied, “Because it’s there.” I like to think that something of that same spirit led me to spend 23 years studying the mystery of the Shroud. I certainly lack Mallory’s intrepidity — I only mean the part about the mountain being there. Now, after 4,100 blog posts, several conferences, and endless discussions, I find myself back where I started 23 years ago: skeptical but mystified — with a dash of hope the Shroud might be real. When I started learning about the Shroud, I had quickly become convinced that it was authentic. And I was enthusiastic. But then, little by little, I became discouraged with the quality of the scientific evidence. I now realize there is no good evidence that the Shroud is authentic. Then again, there is nothing indisputable that says it’s not. And that is why I am where I am today: mystified.
I would like to comment briefly on a few key topics, particularly hyperbole and reality. First . . .
Carbon-14 Testing
Conducted in 1988, C14 test results strongly suggest that the Shroud is medieval. Controversies about sampling protocols, proper statistical analysis, suggestions that the cloth was mended, and even suggestions that the resurrection of Jesus released radiation that produced more carbon-14 isotopes, may never be settled. But nothing so far suggested has appealed to serious scientists who are not themselves Shroud enthusiasts. On that basis alone, I could easily accept the results were it not for a few historical clues that challenge the C14 test results. See Is Proof Possible?
Pollen
At one time, I believed that there were sufficient identifiable pollen grains to argue that the Shroud had at one time been in the Jerusalem area. It turns out that there aren’t. Recent DNA analyses have revealed that the pollen found on the Shroud is not consistent with a Middle Eastern origin. The study’s authors concluded that the pollen is most likely from Europe, and that the Shroud may have been contaminated beyond usefulness with pollen from the Americas and China. You would be hard-pressed to find a more respected open-access, peer-reviewed journal than Scientific Reports, a sister publication to Nature, in which to read about the study. See Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud.
Three Dimensional Image
The summary of STURP’s 1981 conclusions was wrong the day it was written. It reads, in part: “The computer image enhancement and analysis conducted by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer reveal that the image contains unique, three-dimensional information encoded within it.” What is true is this; the image’s own relative brightness, but not anything encoded within it, can be plotted into a three-dimensional image that appears to have depth and volume. The VP-8 as well as many off-the-shelf graphics software programs are capable of doing this. That is interesting but not unique or particularly important. It is possible the image’s brightness represents real three-dimensional information, but there is no way to know for sure. The oft-stated assertion that the “image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism” is simply not true. See The Evidence.
Image Formation
We don’t know how the image was formed. We don’t even know the chemical nature of the image. Among very competent scientists, some believe the various shades of brown color of the image is within the cloth, meaning the chemistry of the fiber was altered. Others think it is on the outside of the fibers. Scorched fibers versus painted fibers are examples of this — though scorching and painting have been pretty much ruled out. Pretty much? Or completely? Experts differ. Much work needs to be done. See The Evidence.
In recent years, certain researchers have put forth the idea that the images were potentially created through radiation. However, notions such as this, alongside explanations for the inaccuracy of carbon-14 dating, have not gained substantial traction among reputable scientists outside of the close-knit community of Shroud enthusiasts. See Images Still a Mystery, Radiation Is Not the Answer.
Hyperbole
Exaggerations and hyperbole have plagued Shroud research since 1963 when John Walsh famously wrote this highly quotable summation to his 1963 book, “The Shroud”:
The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground.
Walsh, John. The Shroud. c. 1963 (republished 2012)
We loved it, and those of us who wanted the Shroud to be authentic, repeated it over and over. It is an overstatement. And, of course, there is a middle ground if you just stop to consider the loaded adjectives.
Others, without any basis for doing so, have since proclaimed the Shroud of Turin to be 1) the most studied artifact in history, 2) a fifth gospel, 3) a witness to the Resurrection or even 4) the Holy Grail. Now one group, with an admirable evangelical zeal, has gone so far as to lay claim to what may be the epitome of hyperbolic false dichotomies:
The Shroud of Turin is either the greatest hoax ever perpetrated or it is a deliberate and purposeful sign from God.
Sign from God (Accessed August 5, 2023)
That’s also a non sequitur, comparable to the illogical connections employed by Screwtape to bewilder Wormwood in C. S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters.” Perceptive readers won’t be swayed. Discerning debaters steer clear of such pitfalls, just as skilled trial lawyers understand the perils of leaving juries to contemplate non sequiturs and misleading either-or scenarios. This approach conveys two distinct messages: 1) The evidence lacks strength, and 2) alternative theories undoubtedly warrant consideration.
That “Sign from God” ponderance opens a Pandora’s Box of possibilities. None of them are hoaxes.
- In his book “The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Birth of Christianity,” Thomas de Wesselow proposes the notion that the disciples of Jesus inferred the Resurrection and subsequently initiated the origins of Christianity from an unintentionally created, naturally occurring image.
- In 2001, Shroud scholar Father Kim Dreisbach, in his work “Thomas and the Cenacle Reconsidered,” presented a perspective akin to this amid the ongoing discussions regarding the interplay between the physical and spiritual aspects of the post-resurrection appearances, without dismissing the Resurrection itself.
- In 2016, Michael Tite, who played a pivotal role in overseeing the 1988 carbon-14 dating process on behalf of the British Museum, put forth the idea that the Shroud’s image could have naturally emerged as a result of the medieval killing and public disgrace of a Christian crusader.
- In a November 2014 article featured in History Today, British art historian Charles Freeman advanced the idea that the Shroud might have functioned as a prop employed in an Easter ritual known as the ‘Quem Quaeritis?’
- Another suggestion put forth is that the Turin Shroud could have served as a covering for Jesus while he lay at the base of the cross or was transported to his tomb, and that an image naturally formed due to the intense sunlight. This cloth might not have been interred with Jesus.
The list of non-hoax possibilities goes on and on. And that’s healthy so long as we are trying to find a solution to a mystery and we are not inventing conspiracy theories.
Could the Shroud be a medieval hoax and also a sign from God? Why not? Could it be neither? That, too.
What is a sign from God? How do we come to think so. Mount Everest, known as “Sagarmatha” in Nepali and “Chomolungma” in Tibetan, is considered a sacred sign from the divine in some Hindu and Buddhist cultures. Constantine saw a cross in the sky with the words “In hoc signo vinces,” which he interpreted this as a sign from God that he should convert to Christianity. Joan of Arc heard voices telling her to save France. In today’s culture, those words have almost become a trivial idiom for the consequence of good luck like finding your car keys. For me the Shroud of Turin is a sign from God to pay attention to what Jesus said:
Jesus answered, ‘I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me.'”
John 10:25 (NRSV)
. . . not the Shroud as proof.
George Mallory and his climbing partner Andrew Irvine disappeared on the mountain in 1924, and it is not known if they ever reached Everest’s summit. In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary of New Zealand and Tenzing Norgay, a Sherpa from Nepal, were the first climbers to make it to the top and prove it. Mallory’s body was finally discovered in 1999, but his camera was not found. If it is ever found intact, frozen, and thus possibly preserved, the film might provide the evidence needed to support what many claim: that Mallory was the first person to make it to the top. Otherwise, it may remain a mystery forever.
Without good evidence, the Shroud of Turin may also remain a mystery forever.
Reality
I’d like to know the truth about the Shroud. Actually, I hope it turns out to be Christ’s burial shroud. But if it’s not real, it doesn’t matter. My belief in Christ and in his resurrection is based on faith, not proof. It has been that way for most Christians everywhere for 2000 years.
Some say we can use the Shroud to prove the Resurrection. At best, we might be able to prove that a man with wounds that are consistent with the scriptural narrative was wrapped in the Shroud and that same man, later, came to be not wrapped in it. That does not rule out a gruesome medieval creation (not necessarily a hoax) such as the one proposed by Michael Tite or John Dominic Crossan, an Irish-American scholar, famous for his engaging New Testament lectures at DePaul University (Catholic), who upon reviewing the evidence wrote:
My best understanding is that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval relic forgery. I wonder whether it was done from a crucified dead body or from a crucified living body. That is the rather horrible question once you accept it as a forgery.
If we could prove that the cloth was placed in the tomb, we might deduce that the tomb was opened enabling it to be retrieved. We cannot really prove that the body of Jesus was not still there. We think it was not there because we are conditioned to think so by the Easter story of the Resurrection. There is nothing wrong with that, but it’s not proof.
And we must remember that the Resurrection is much more than the disappearance of Jesus’ body. It is about victory over death. “He is risen,” we proclaim. The Christ shows himself to us in startling ways, according to the Gospel accounts. None of that can be proven by the Shroud.
At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that though I am not Catholic I put great stock in the Catechism of the Catholic Church when it says of the Resurrection, “No one can say how it came about physically. Still less was its innermost essence, his passing over to another life, perceptible to the senses.”
For the time being, until more substantial scientific and historical evidence emerges, it would be wiser to call it a mystery. And we should refrain from attempting to substitute faith with proof.
As for me, after 23 years of study, I am very, very skeptical but mystified — with a dash of hope that it’s real.
Regarding the C-14 issue, I will be presenting in a few weeks to the Mexican Center of Sindonology a revised and updated version of (Sue) and my invisible reweave theory, which we started working on in 2000. A day or two after that I will be posting on academia.edu an expanded version of that presentation. It has 30 pics, 61 pages and over 90 references. I believe it has compelling evidence to show that the C-14 sample had been repaired. That doesn’t prove it wrapped Jesus, but I feel it is strong evidence that the Shroud is not medieval.
Thanks, Joe. I look forward to reading it and considering it carefully.
Dan appears very set in his position as a skeptic.
Dan has 23 years studying the Shroud. I double him at 46 (with countless thousands of hours). Not sure that counts for too much, but I can tell you that having read practically everything out there, I am convinced it’s authentic not only by the science (including the concomitant opinions of numerous men and women and the sheer number of disciplines involved), but by indications in history, art history, archaeology, religious writings and several personal mystical experiences. The mystical experiences are like icing on the cake, even though they won’t count for anything to a skeptic. I told a Facebook friend that I am as convinced that the Shroud is authentic as I’m convinced of anything in life. But if any skeptic wants to try to convince me or anyone else it’s a fake, go for it.
Who wrote this short essay ? If it’s Dan , then it’s another descent. First the Shroud story headline was ” Is the Shroud real ? Probably ” , then it changed ( without notice ) to ” Is the Shroud real ? Possibly ” , a subtle yet compelling swap, now we have this straightforward, downbeat conclusion ” As for me, after 23 years of study, I am very, very skeptical but mystified — with a dash of hope that it’s real. ”
As an unabashed shroud of Turin Skeptic I can only appreciate. As I wrote several years ago on this website , ” Scientists have better things to do than to test an old piece of textile whole medieval origin was written on the walls well before the Carbon-14 dating test. “
I have removed a comment since it does not relate to the topic at hand. The comments from this user have very little to do with the Shroud. I will moderate this user in the future. .
[C-14 dating]: But nothing so far suggested has appealed to serious scientists who are not themselves Shroud enthusiasts
Pardon, to whom? Who are those “serious scientists” not being Shroud enthusiasts? Please read: https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/physical-analyses-of-the-shroud/determination-of-the-age-of-the-shroud/ This is a “serious” (which means “professional”, which means academic, which means it is firmed by several universities https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/involved-institutions/ and funded by public money, which actually means it is no better than my own amateur writing https://www.apologetyka.info/ateizm/jak-obalono-datowanie-c-14-caunu-turynskiego-z-1988-r,1291.htm funded by no one, and I actually know the authors, and even gave themseveral references they used).
I wouldn’t bother too much about those so called “serious scientists”. Are they any authority on the Shroud? Who is? Is there currently any serious discussion about the age of the Shroud between “serious scientists”, or the problem is limited to a few enthusiasts, whether professional scientists or not, like Joe Marino, Giulio Fanti and his collaborators, and perhaps a few others.
The problem is not with data or evidence, not with the science itself. The real problem is that the Shroud topic is too politically incorrect. Accepting as an encyclopedic “fact” it being genuine, real burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth who rose from the dead 2000 years ago would not make a certain groups happy. And that’s the trouble, not scientific evidence. It is quite clear, that the 1988 C-14 datings were faulty. And if some “serious scientist” still claim it was valid, Joe can throw 90 references in his face.
What science says and what media say, are two different matters. And currently, with Twitter and YouTube, the power of traditional media is diminishing.
The same with any other research on the Shroud. Which was almost always performed by enthusiasts and volunteers, which does not diminish their professional approach.
Simply, science is unable to give ALL the answers we would like.
O.K. is correct — many “serious” scientists shy away from the Shroud, not because it’s not worth studying, because there is a stigma surrounding the Shroud that makes some scientists refrain from studying out of concern for their reputations. If it’s so obvious that the Shroud is a forgery, why is the artist and methodology still unknown? And it’s interesting that people who have studied the Shroud for 4-5 decades, except for professional skeptic Joe Nickell and perhaps 1 or 2 others, all believe it to be authentic. Is it not noteworthy that Doctors Bucklin and Zugibe, who probably performed 50,000 autopsies between them, both believed the Shroud was authentic? Sure, you can say they were both enthusiasts, but do you think they would have been totally fooled by a clever medieval artist? Bottom line is that the Shroud remains one of the intensely-studied artifacts in history and how it was done remains unknown. Those facts do not mean the Shroud is authentic, but the possibility that it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus is the best solution for countless professional and non-professional researchers.
And this will always be so. If proof as defined by the scientific method, which can only use the laws of nature as currently understood, is the defining criteria for acknowledging the validity of possible causes for the Image’s formation, then skepticism is a reasonable conclusion. But science is called to do more than exercise the scientific method. Science also uses reason and experience to offer possible explanations for phenomena we don’t currently understand.
I see no reason why the Creator could not use an element of creation, such as radiation, in a way previously unknown to us, to bring about the most awesome event in recorded history (the Resurrection), and at the same time leave behind an Image on the cloth that recorded that event. This is actually how scientific progress is made: we take what is already known and accepted and apply those principles and actions to something we don’t understand. I actually think its pretty arrogant for us humans to speculate on what God would or would not choose to do.
Pam, agree 100% it’s arrogant for us to speculate on what God would or would not choose to do.
Thank you Joe!
And one perhaps even more important thing.
If you want a “serious” research on the Shroud performed by “serious” scientists, please provide money. 100 mln $ would be a good start. Just enough to hire several highly trained experts in their fields, prepare a research program and pay for the use of specialist facilities. And quite persuasive argument for Vatican and Turin to start negotiations about the terms of Shroud’s reexamination.
The 1978 STURP examination, as Barrie Schwortz told in one interview, costed about 2 mln $ (mostly coming from volunteer donations), that is equivalent of about 10 mln today, adjusting for inflation. For comparison, contemporary Martian Viking probes program costed about 1 bln $ then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program . Today’s JWST space telescope costs about 10 bln $ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope (providing data for at least one recent widely media-reported Nature paper which is just as surprising -and moronic -as 1989 Nature paper about C-14 Shroud dating).
Dan, if you have rich family and/or friends, you can spend several bilions of $$$ on “professional” Shroud research by “serious” scientists. Lasers, accelerators, simulations, computer models, live reconstructions, DNA testings, statistical analyses, scientific conferences, professional academic institutes etc. But would it matter? I highly doubt you would know significantly more about the Shroud than you know already. There would likely be just even more unanswered questions. And with enough $$$ for scientific grants to fund “research”, you can make the Intelligent Desing a scientific mainstream instead of Darwin’s evolution.
So, is Dan pro-authenticity or anti-authenticity in the way many shroudies use the terms?
Pro-truth!!!
“Pro-truth”?
Nope Dan. Fine adjustment of terminology required methinks …
With no disrespect, let’s call it:
Exploratory proto-truth…
:-)
Joe, I deeply respect your work, and the work/study/analyses of many others. But you stated that after 23 years of research, “As for me, after 23 years of study, I am very, very skeptical but mystified — with a dash of hope that it’s real.” Only a mere “dash of hope”? Really? For 50 years the Shroud has been studied (a realistic time-frame). And, within that time, myriad “explanations” for the images continue to fail even to this day! THAT, in and of itself, is significant! It’s like waiting 50 years for a jury to return a verdict. We are not talking about a standard of evidence beyond all “possible” doubt, but rather, beyond all “reasonable” doubt, which is an extremely high legal standard. Why can’t you and the “others” just come out and say it: “THE SHROUD IS REAL!” What is the fear? 50 years isn’t enough time? The “experts” cannot reproduce ALL of the micro and macro characteristics of the image EVEN AS OF TODAY, August 12, 2023. How much more time do you and the others need? Why such timidity? It’s perplexing to me. We can launch satellites into orbit, and we have mapped human DNA, but we can’t make a simple image “alleged” to have been forged centuries ago, yet you still doubt! Again, think about that: Are you and others actually saying that an unknown forger made an image, that cannot be reproduced by whole of modern science, and THAT is not enough for you? What are you waiting for? And yet, YOU and the “others,” as I say, are still reluctant to say definitively that the Shroud is authentic. Respectfully, all of you should have a modicum of shame, or at least embarrassment within your innermost being. Consider that “fence sitting” is frowned upon in the Scripture. AND, “signs and wonders” are provided to assist us in our faith, that is to say, providing many “proofs” whereby we are justified to defend our faith (Refer to the book of Acts; Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:4; 2 Corinthians 12:12, Romans 15:18-19, 1 Corinthians 14:22, Philippians 1:28, and others). Respectfully, and indeed in all sincerity, Tommy Marcinek
“Only fifty years? In your message you have employed the ‘You have had enough time to figure it out’ or ‘Appeal to Time’ fallacy. This fallacy involves asserting that a conclusion or solution should be accepted or rejected solely based on the amount of time that has passed, rather than considering the relevant evidence, reasoning, or context. It attempts to persuade through the passage of time rather than addressing the substantive aspects of the argument or situation. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher who lived around 490-430 BCE, suggested a rudimentary form of evolutionary thought, proposing that various combinations of living beings were tested by nature until those that were well-suited for survival persisted over time. This idea, while not a comprehensive theory of evolution like Darwin’s, laid the groundwork for later thinkers to explore the concept of species change over time. It took about 2300 years to work out the theory of evolution.
“The Shroud’s authenticity remains a topic of interest and debate, with various viewpoints from scientists, historians, and religious individuals.”
I had asked ChatGPT to answer your comment. The foregoing is its reply. I agree.
Dan (not Joe)
Dan, sorry about the name error. Your use of a computer generated AI response is quite insulting. Your AI successfully generated non-sequitur droning, disjointed illogic, the same as what I’ve heard a million times by atheists in many forums. Sad. I didn’t know that you were an atheist. Your AI conspicuously left out any meaningful response to any point I made in my post. If it was your intent to circumvent an honest debate by hiding behind AI, you have succeeded. If you care to actually address any salient point I broached, please try again, but kindly respond with your own words which I would appreciate. Thank you. Tom
Tom, I apologize for insulting you. For an old man AI is a helpful tool, the same as my walking cane. At least I did not pretend those were my words. But they do reflect my thoughts. I considered your thoughts carefully but found them unpersuasive. Perhaps others will find you positions helpful, so thank you for posting them.
No, I am not an Atheist. I came to my Christian faith before I discovered the Shroud. I have often wondered what if I had come to my faith because I believed the Shroud was real and I later learned it wasn’t.
Thanks again for your comments.
It isn’t Joe who the skeptic, it’s Dan. But I don’t understand why Dan says he thinks it might be a medieval forgery.
Hi, Dan and Everybody,
I would be very interested in seeing any evidence that can establish REASONABLE DOUBT against the body of evidence that supports the Shroud’s authenticity as Christ’s burial cloth with His supernaturally created image on it.
Of course, such evidence is not good enough if it just captures (in part or in full) one or two characteristics of the cloth. For example, when trying to find out who the perpetrator of a crime is, one must account for more than a person’s being human and alive and having DNA and having fingerprints (in general.) No, no, no. We need DETAILS. The Devil is in them –but so is GOD.
As a board member of Sign From God –which you reference in your blog post– I fully endorse the thought that the Shroud in Turin is a sign from God. It’s for the open-minded skeptics. It is providing as much evidence as is reasonably needed to bring those who are open to coming to God to do so. But, of course, God will never provide evidence to the degree that it can overwhelm the free will of people. Moreover, for humans, NO EVIDENCE –and, yes, I mean NO EVIDENCE is “incontrovertible.” Why? Because one can always fall back on the excuse that the evidence is not real because one must be hallucinating or having some sort of psychotic break. Humans are exquisitely capable of demonstrating invincible ignorance –and, strangely enough, it can often increase with the amount of evidence that one is presented with! It’s just old-fashioned “doubling-down” on an issue. We see it all the time. It’s part of the human condition.
People who want the Shroud to be false will always find a way to convince themselves that it is. One could say that this can happen with authenticists, as well. Sure, that’s true. But, the difference is that the authenticists have the evidentiary goods to back up our claims. We have evidence from numerous academic disciplines which support our claim. You know this. But, our “ace in the hole” derives from the chemical and physics-based testing and examinations that have been performed on the Shroud. To fully be aware of –and understand the complexities of this– is to KNOW –beyond a reasonable doubt– that the Shroud in Turin is the Shroud of Christ.
Some call the Shroud of Christ the 5th Gospel. For me, it’s the 1st.
Best regards,
Teddi
Correction: No evidence —other than one’s own consciousness— is incontrovertible.
Well said, Teddi! Thank you for putting into clear words what my less than learned mind thinks and I believe to be the truth.
ruth.
Thank you, Pam, for your kind words.
All the best,
Teddi
Dan,
Thanks for establishing and maintaining this blog for all these years. I have enjoyed the comments–even those from Colin Berry–and learned a lot along the way. But I have also wasted a ton of time considering various arguments about how the Shroud image could have been created through natural, man-devised, or just the laws of physics as understood in our universe. Here is where I come down at the end of it all (for me):
Going back to your essay, “Slouching Towards Emmaus and Some Nonsense Along the Way,” as I recall you thought the Exodus story of the Israelites miraculously crossing the Red Sea had been diminished by scientists demonstrating that a strong wind (which Exodus also mentions in 14:21) could have removed the water enough to let the Israelites pass. The problem with that conclusion is that such a natural effect could only drive all the water back in a particular direction. But Exodus says the Israelites passed through the sea “with the water like a wall to their right and to their left.” (14:22 and 29). Nothing in nature can create this effect within a large body of water.
Similarly, a lot of the Shroud analysis and argument has focused on one aspect or another while ignoring facts that cannot be harmonized with the conclusions or that require assumptions not established by known facts.
My final conclusion is that the Shroud is obviously a miraculous artifact dating to Jesus’ crucifixion. Here’s my reasoning:
The image is a perfect photographic negative created at a time when photography was unknown. Even if it had been known, it would have made no sense to create a negative when the actual image was so much more powerful. It is beyond credulous to suggest that this one time is the only time in history when such an image was accidentally created by natural means.
After decades of testing, analysis, contention and claims, no one has been able to re-create the image even with all of our vastly expanded scientific knowledge. None of Colin Berry’s alleged “reproductions” nor his techno- babble has come close to a significant challenge to the Shroud’s authenticity.
If the Shroud was miraculously created, trying to explain it by the laws of physics or chemistry is folly. Frankly, the Tilma of Guadalupe image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, created on a flimsy cactus fiber cloak in 1531 in color, is an even greater mystery. That artifact, which should have collapsed into dust centuries ago, is still as vibrant as ever on display in Mexico.
The Shroud does not prove the Resurrection. What proves the Resurrection is the testimony of Christ’s witnesses as reported in the New Testament. The intent of the Shroud’s creation was to show us the suffering that God’s Son endured to achieve our salvation. In this light, it should reduce every Christian to tears or at least to a stunned silence.
Ian Wilson’s book, “The Shroud” (2010), is a convincing history of the Image of Edessa as being the Shroud of Turin. The book you recommended, Guy Powell’s “The Only Witness, The History of the Shroud of Turin” (2023), is a historical fiction novel telling the same story.
The value of STURP and subsequent analyses is to disprove claims that the Shroud was manmade. They do a pretty good job of that. That’s where their value ends, though.
There is plenty of convincing reason to doubt the validity of the 1988 carbon-14 dating results. But even if those results pointed to a first century origin of the Shroud, it would just shift the argument to an earlier time with claims that the “technology” used to create it was known to ancient geniuses but lost over the centuries (that darned Alexandria fire). It would hardly make a ripple in the back-and-forth about the Shroud’s miraculous authenticity as depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
Leaving us a picture of Christ’s suffering is exactly the kind of thing a loving God would do to help our wayward natures achieve and maintain faith in the teachings of Christ regarding our relationship with God both here and hereafter.
So, Dan. I think the difference between us is that I look at what I have described above and apply “Occam’s razor” to conclude that the Shroud is certainly real. I think your heart takes you there but that excellent mind of yours is still mired in the weeds of all the analysis and debate.
Jim Carney
Hello, Jim,
You mention that “the Shroud does not prove the Resurrection.” I think it is important that we establish what the standard of proof is that is being used. As I think most of us here would agree, the only thing that can be proven to a 100% certainty is consciousness –per Rene Descartes’ brilliant declaration. So, let’s look at some lower standards of proof –the highest being “beyond a reasonable doubt” to be followed by “clear and convincing evidence,” [that something is highly probable and reasonably certain], and then a “preponderance of the evidence” [anything over 50%], then “probable cause,” “reasonable and articulable suspicion,” a “scintilla of evidence,” and then suspicion based upon no (or no reasonable) evidence. When Occam’s razor is applied, great minds have struggled in vain to reproduce the Shroud through would would have appeared to be the obvious means: paint, pigment, stain, dye, a photochemical mechanism, etc. and none of these methods meet all of the necessary criteria that is needed to create an image with all of the particular qualities that the Shroud in Turin has. So, what is there left? I’d say THE OBVIOUS. Because, of course, the Shroud does not exist in a vacuum. It is preceded by Jesus’ repeated falsifiable claims, as is referenced in the Gospels, that He would be killed, and that on the 3rd day He would rise again. The Shroud is God’s providing us with the evidence that Jesus was neither a lunatic nor a liar but, indeed, Lord. When a body is dead, the energy that once gave it life is depleted. And, for a body to be resurrected, that energy needs to be restored in the body. These are, actually, striaight-forward concepts. I believe that it only makes total sense that God would use a supernatural type of energy to resurrect Himself –why, after all, would the Creator of the Universe dabble in using energy that we inferior humans could harness? To me, it is quite obvious –given the context that surrounds the Shroud– that it does, indeed, give breathtaking and compelling evidence that Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead, and that the energy used to resurrect Him is what, simultaneously, gives us His image. The perfection of it all speaks, of course, to God’s Intelligent Design. It takes my breath away just thinking about it.
All the best,
Teddi
Hello, again, Everyone,
I’d like to post this interview that I did at the beginning of the year with Mike Creavey. The discussion was a rather unusual one for a Shroud interview. It revolved around points that I think should be considered when people think about and assess Shroud evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekSsRywNSQ
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi!
I just completed watching this video and enjoyed learning more about your lawyerly approach to the data about the Shroud and how you evaluate this information to form your position on authenticity.
Hello, Pam,
Thank you so much for taking your valuable time to watch it, and I’m so happy to learn that you enjoyed listening to my thoughts on how to think about and assess Shroud evidence. I encounter even many authenticists who try to play within the faulty constructs that the skeptics lay out –and this causes (as I see many times) many authenticists to not argue the evidence as fully as it really can be argued. This is really a terrible shame, and this is why I was really excited to do this interview and on this topic.
Some people (both skeptics and authenticists), for example, like to say that science cannot prove something in the affirmative –that it can only exclude things. Then, this bleeds into the claim that science cannot prove that something is supernatural.
Well, again, as I have mentioned before, nothing (other than one’s own consciousness) can be proven to a 100% certainty. So, all other proof is less than this (as I have described in earlier comments here.) So, science can, indeed, “prove” things to various degrees of certainty –given what the evidence looks like. And, in terms of proving the supernatural, if all the conceivable reasonable and rational explanations within the natural realm have been excluded, then, what’s left? AND, we must remember CONTEXT. The Shroud (and the evidence for its authenticity) does NOT exist in a vacuum. It is PHYSICAL evidence that we still possess, and it contains an inexplicably created image (other than through a supernaturally caused mechanism), and it emphasizes its “intelligent design” as physical evidence to Jesus’ falsifiable claim that He would be killed and that He would rise on the third day. We see His face and His wounds and on His forehead –in blood– is a bloodstain shaped in the number “3” –which is how it would have appeared if seeing the blood on Jesus. Is this not God’s imprimatur on the Holy Face announcing His identity as that of the Man of the Shroud’s? Is it a coincidence that Galatians 3:1 (which I think there is tremendous evidence that this references the Holy Shroud –please read Larry Stalley’s brilliant work on this) echoes the 3:1 herringbone weave on the linen cloth that hold’s Jesus’ sacred image?
It takes discernment to determine which things are coincidences and which things are Signs From God.
Kindest regards,
Teddi
And, of course, the bloodstain in the shape of a “3” on the Holy Face is a poignant nod to the Holy Trinity.
Mostly I say “Amen” to your comment, Teddi. And while the Shroud image of a dead, crucified man says nothing about a subsequent resurrection, the miraculous nature of that image is a powerful endorsement for all the claims of Jesus Christ and his disciples’ reports of his resurrection.
Hello, Jim,
Please consider this: God had a choice of either depicting Christ’s body image on the Shroud dead or alive.
Yes, the image that God gives us is of a dead man who continues to be in a state of rigor mortis. But, God, in His infinite wisdom, performs a “preemptive attack” on the claim that He knew that skeptics would make if the body image on the Shroud depicted a living man. Then, the skeptics would say, “Aha! We told you that Jesus never really died on the Cross —and, as such, there can be no even hypothetical possibility of a resurrection.” This would, for certain, be what practically all Muslims, atheists, angnostics and even many Christians would argue.
No, no, no. God us too wise for that. Instead, He evidences both Life AND Death for us on the Shroud. As aforementioned, Death is depicted from the evidence of rigor mortis in the body image, but, also, in tge seemingly closed eyes.
But, Life is depicted through the miraculous process which gives us the stunning body image, itself: EVIDENCE OF AN UNREPLICATABLE, SUPERNATURAL ENERGY that is logically necessary to infuse a lifeless, body which is devoid of life-sustaining energy with energy that can sustain the life energy that the many witnesses saw Jesus exhibit on the third day and after.
God knew EXACTLY what He was doing. His purpose with the Miracle of the Shroud was, and is —I am most confident of— to give witness to the world that Jesus told the Truth about Who He Was and Is and what He would do on the third day of His death.
All the best,
Teddi
” Tom, I apologize for insulting you. ”
Dearest Dan ,
We all know that you are a kind , honest , open-minded , liberal person who never insulted anyone and let everybody post decent comments on your website whatever was their position regarding the Turin shroud.
Thank you, Dan, for your latest ‘sit rep’ on the Shroud. It epitomises St Benedict’s call for “moderation in all things,” which, given the gamut of opinion expressed regarding authenticity, seems an entirely proper attitude. It contrasts rather well with the extreme views often presented (on both sides of the discussion, to be fair, but here mostly by authenticists), which are perhaps the most powerful reasons why “serious scientists” do not tend to engage. It is not “quite clear” that the measurement of the radiocarbon proportion of the Shroud was faulty, let alone deliberately falsified, and the discussion about what these measurements can tell us is both nuanced and statistically technical. None of the peer-reviewed papers reviewing the results concluded that a medieval origin should be discarded on that basis. Accusations of crass incompetence or malicious fraud are not only not justified, they are a serious deterrent to the involvement of “serious scientists.”
Joe asks, “If it’s so obvious that the Shroud is a forgery, why is the artist and methodology still unknown?” and the answer is in the hyperbole. It is not obvious. It is not obvious what the purpose of the Shroud was, nor is it obvious how it was made. As Dan points out, there are numerous possibilities.
Tommy asks, “Are you and others actually saying that an unknown forger made an image, that cannot be reproduced by whole of modern science, and THAT is not enough for you?” and the answer is that ‘you and the others’ are not saying that. The image probably can be made, quite easily and quite cheaply (apart from the cloth itself, which is relatively more expensive now than it was then!) and without the involvement of “the whole of modern science.” As you point out, all the more extraordinary characteristics claimed for the Shroud can be, and have been, replicated. Some details, such as whether the deteriorated cellulose is part of the flax or a coating over it, are not agreed upon by authenticists and others, such as the part, if any, played by pigment, were insufficiently clarified, even to STuRP, by the 1978 investigation, and due to be more clearly established by the 1984 proposals. It is, of course, unreasonable to expect anybody to make an exact copy of something without providing exact details.
And Jim tells us that after years of his own research, he has finally concluded that the Shroud is “obviously a miraculous artifact.” Is that not a contradiction? To my mind, if something isn’t “obvious” until you’ve studied it for years, it probably isn’t “obvious” at all. Obviously.
Hello, Hugh,
You declared the following:
“The image probably can be made, quite easily and quite cheaply (apart from the cloth itself, which is relatively more expensive now than it was then!) and without the involvement of ‘the whole of modern science.’”
This is, quite obviously, neither a scientific statement nor an argument —it is just your conclusion. More than a prima facie case has been established that the Shroud has an abundance of qualities to it that have, thus far, been incapable of being reproduced by humans —via an “unnatural” way through human creativity or via some naturally occurring process that did not involve any human intention to create.
While “god of the gaps” arguments are fallacious, so are “science of the gaps” arguments.” Authenticists have not just argued that “we don’t know how the image was created, ergo, God created it.
No, no, no. Many very goal-motivated scientists (which I have absolutely no problem with that) and other types of professionals and even amateurs have attempted to replicate the body image on the Shroud —with its many distinct criteria— yet nobody can successfully do so.
And, the Shroud does not exist in a vacuum. The historical evidence via secular and non secular sources gives us compelling context which tells us Who created it, and WHY.
Moreover, science has, thus far, excluded all rationally conceived methods for creating this image with the methods available to created beings within the natural world.
So, the proverbial “ball is in the court” for the skeptics to replicate the Shroud with all of its special qualities. For as long as they cannot, the massive weight of the evidence rationally points to the body image on the Shroud as having not been naturally created.
Cheers,
Teddi
Abundance of qualities, Teddi? Can you provide three or four, or maybe just one or two examples? Thanks.
Hello, Dan,
Sure, I’m happy to oblige!
There is the issue of the (1) superficiality of the image –going only 1-2 fibrils deep within a linen thread that is estimated to be composed of 100+ microfibrils. This is emphasized by the body image’s not appearing under the crossing threads of the weave –because the image producing mechanism does not penetrate through the thread (beyond the top 1-2 fibril) so it has no ability to penetrate the thread crossing underneath it.)
This body image must, also, (2) not exhibit any capillary flow within the fibers (as would happen when a liquid is placed on an absorbed fiber such as linen.)
Also, there can be no (3) cementation of the pure body image [the blood images are, of course, an exception to this since authenticists have shown that they are made from something completely different than the body image. What? They are made of (as Adler famously spelled out: “B-L-U-D.”)
Moreover, a frontal and dorsal body image of a life-sized human male must be made so that it exhibits (4) a uniform straw yellowish body image. The densitometric study of the photo of the image showed a less than 2% variation in the absorbance of the individual colored body image fibers. There is no shading being exhibited on the Shroud –only the appearance of shading via a variation in the uniformly colored fibers within a specific area (the body image on the Shroud has been referred to as an areal density image.) So, with the hot-statue hypothesis, let’s see someone create such an image (also without the likely distortion of the body image on the cloth that would occur by using a statue) without creating any color variation beyond what we see on the Shroud. How would such a large statue be kept uniformly heated so that it would not create “hot spots” on the cloth?
And, especially with regard to the hot-statue hypothesis (but perhaps other hypotheses to be thought of in the future) there cannot be any fluorescence of the body image –as would typically happen with a scorch mark. (Whether an extra-light scorch mark might not fluoresce –this is an interesting question, and I suspect (but do not know for certain) that, perhaps, it might not yield a detectable fluorescence. But, where’s the evidence that a human can create such a scorch mark that can uniformly create both a frontal and dorsal body image of an adult human on a linen cloth?
And, of course, this areal density image needs to yield (6) 3-D qualities.
And, of course, there is the (7) (almost total) photo-negative quality of the image, as well –and this, of course, needs to be done for a full-sized frontal and dorsal image of an adult human male.
And, there can be (8) no brush strokes on the image and (9) no “snow-fencing” of a pigment that would be caused by someone using dry pigments to create the image by way of “finger-painting” it.
But, I think that the most important consideration is (10) that for there to be an image on something, that image must have been made by adding or taking away something from whatever it is that the image is on. With the Shroud, the evidence points to the body image having been made through the oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose itself –and without causing any fluorescence of the body image in the process. The world-famous microscopist Walter McCrone, however, argued (after investigating particles from the Shroud on sticky-tapes for over a year) to his dying breath that the Shroud was a painting made from iron-oxide and cinnabar (and, well, he flip-flopped on this quite a bit, but that’s another story.) But, he never explained how the invisible-to-the-naked-eye amounts of iron-oxide and cinnabar that he found on the sticky-tapes could account for an image made from those substances that (a) would be detectable to the naked eye (as the Shroud’s blood and body images are) and that (b) would have been detected by the X-ray fluorescence and X-radiography scans that were performed on the entire Shroud in Turin. It’s all about the Beer-Lambert law as Adler and Heller were constantly emphasizing. For there to be a painting, yes, it is necessary to find paint. But, there must ALSO be a SUFFICIENT amount of paint that is present to create and account for the visible image that is seen. McCrone could never answer that –and for obvious reasons– because the Shroud is not a painting.
That’s not everything, but it’s a lot more than you requested. I am confident that you, Dan, know all of these points, but I present them because you asked for them and for the benefit of those who read this blog who might not be aware of some of these points. These details are all contained within the writings of Heller and Adler (as well as others) which are available to be read for free on shroud.com.
All the best,
Teddi
This is an extraordinary reply to Dan, Teddi. I’m going to copy this for future reference.
Jim
Thank you very much, Jim, for your very kind comment. I really appreciate it.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi, thank you for your response. I have to admit that I was once very much persuaded by these image characteristics. I became discouraged as I learned more about them. Some, such as the claims of superficiality seem questionable. Some seem unimportant. Some are possibly flat-out wrong.
When you say, “With the Shroud, the evidence points to the body image having been made through the oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose itself” I want to ask what evidence POINTS to this? What about the evidence that points away from this claim which I think is an important challenge to the to the nature of the image? Have you read Rogers? Have you read Colin Berry on the structure of the flax fiber?
Your comment mainly focuses on why the images may not have been created through conventional methods like scorching or painting. I understand that these points might have some validity. However, it’s essential to consider that there could be unconventional methods that haven’t been considered yet. As of now, I don’t see any compelling reasons from the attributes you present to rule out manmade images.
Years ago, our family suffered a house fire. An old oil painting was slightly damaged and in place the paint flaked away. Where that happened we could see light brown “stains” on the canvas with distinct shapes by which the restorer was able to reconstruct parts of the painting.
When you say, “But, where’s the evidence that a human can create such a scorch mark that can uniformly create both a frontal and dorsal body image of an adult human on a linen cloth?” I want to reply, where is the evidence that a human can NOT do so?
None of us should be claiming too much about the image chromophore until we learn more, particularly if we are going to speculate about “energy” or something like that causing the image.
STURP’s analysis on image characteristics should now be understood as insufficient.
Hugh, you are an exception to rule that non-authenticists generally assert it’s obvious that the Shroud is a forgery. Just look at all the 5-10 minute videos on YouTube that chastise anyone who would consider that the Shroud could be authentic and that state that the Bible clearly disproves the Shroud. I’ve even seen writings claim that not only is the Shroud a forgery, it’s a rather bad one. One obvious possibility to what the Shroud was is that it was a burial cloth that happened to be preserved because it wrapped one Jesus of Nazareth.
There is no doubt that the Shroud is a unique artistic creation, but its uniqueness does not lie in the strangeness of its characteristics, most of which are widespread throughout the art world, rather than their combination in a single work. Of Teddi’s 9 characteristics (number 5 seems to be missing), superficiality – even the extreme superficiality which astonishes authenticists, monochromacity, and lack of brush strokes, snow-fencing, cementation or capillary flow – all these are commonplace and easily duplicated by anybody dabbing a cloth with a sponge. The pseudo-negative and 3D characteristics are indeed unusual, but have also been easily duplicated in several ways, and are readily explicable in terms of an imprint. That leaves the chromophore itself, which I think is probably an acidic chemical effect from a medium, possibly enhanced by residual pigment or reaction with a dye such as iron acetate. The contradictions in McCrone’s papers, which Teddi is quite correct to point out, coupled to the inconclusive methods of Heller and Adler (carefully washing each fibre clean of adherent material before observing that there wasn’t any), the significant but neglected photomicrographs of Nitowski and Kohlbeck, and even the saponaria experiments of Ray Rogers, do not sufficiently permit exact characterisation of this aspect.
20% of Teddi’s comment above is devoted to discrediting the “hot-statue” hypothesis, which is a bit of a straw horse, as medievalists do not, by and large, consider it a likely method of manufacture themselves. Various photographic possibilities have also been suggested, but they haven’t gained much traction either.
I have to confess that the Beer-Lambert Law, which “Adler and Heller were constantly emphasizing” was news to me. I’m not sure that my definitions of “constant” and “emphasise” are the same as Teddi’s. Now that I’ve looked it up, I don’t think it is relevant to the presence or absence of pigment on the
Shroud, but I look forward to being corrected on this point.
Hello, Hugh,
I would really be interested in seeing an example of how, as you assert, anybody can easily duplicate the previously described (partial list of) characteristics of the Shroud by dabbing a cloth with a sponge. First of all, is the sponge wet or dry? Is the image creating substance a dry pigment, liquid paint, stain, dye or –as you have previously suggested—an acid?
If the substance is dry, then there is the problem (that even Dr. Walter McCrone acknowledged — after his flip-flopping on the issue) of “snow-fencing” –where there is an accumulation of the particles on the lee/sheltered side of the fibers. However, if the substance is wet, there is the problem of capillarity and cementation of the substance within the interstices of the cross-threads. We would, also, expect to see from a liquid that there are visible menisci at the perimeter of that aforementioned cementation (as we see with the dried blood that comprises the bloodstains on the Shroud.) And, again, if you want to revert to the scorch mark possibility that others have mentioned, there is the problem of how scorch marks typically fluoresce under ultraviolet light, yet the body image on the Shroud does NOT fluoresce.
I disagree with the characterization of the body image of the Shroud as a “pseudo negative.” It’s not really a false negative –it’s just not a 100% negative. From memory, I recall reading that there are very few aspects of the Shroud body image which are not an actual negative (as in the reversal of light and dark.) Unfortunately, I don’t remember what those are –that would be great if someone who does mentions them. But, for example, if 99% of an image is, actually, a negative, then I don’t think that this becomes a “fake negative” just because a small percentage of the image does not reverse light and dark. And, regardless of whether we call it a negative or not, someone would have to figure out a way as to how to perfectly reverse light and dark on a life-size frontal and dorsal body image that spans almost 14 feet! Where do we have something on this large of a scale in history or the art world? Nowhere –that’s where. The technical aspects of achieving such a feat with just a face would be challenging –but a frontal and dorsal body image that correspond with each other. That is, indeed, AMAZING! And, especially to be done during medieval times –without the aid of computers.
Now, with your acid hypothesis concerning the removal of something from the linen in order to create the image. In the past, you have always gone with your red wine hypothesis –but, I can certainly understand your wanting to distance yourself from that, because we would need to have some sort of evidence of the actual existence of red wine (or its byproducts) on the Shroud fibers. Yet, I am not aware of such a thing. Wines contain several minerals such as iron, calcium (which have been found uniformly distributed on the Shroud), but also magnesium, potassium, zinc, phosphorous and manganese. Phosphorous would cause the body image to fluoresce, correct? But, we have no fluorescence of the body image. Manganese was specifically investigated by Heller and Adler (with regard to the particles of the Shroud on the sticky-tapes), because it is a common contaminant of the iron-oxide earth pigment red ochre. But, no –no manganese, either. (This [manganese, as well as nickel, cobalt and aluminum] were tested by Heller and Adler via wet chemistry as well as an electron microprobe test.) But, no manganese above the 1% level in a submicron particle.) (From Heller’s book “Report on the Shroud of Turin,” pp. 194-195.)
Also, with your acid hypothesis, exactly how does wine get so perfectly situated on a cloth to create the image without causing evidence of capillarity in the yellowed aspects that yield the body image? How would the application of the wine be so uniformly dispersed? Moreover, with regard to the capillarity problem, how would you account for the fact that many Shroud fibers from the sticky-tape have part of the miniscule fiber being a yellow color and part of the miniscule fiber being the BACKGROUND COLOR? How would capillary flow not cause a total a widespread total saturation of at least a miniscule fiber?
You state that Heller and Adler carefully washed each fiber clean of adherent material before observing that there wasn’t any. What are you talking about here? They both first examined via microscopy the particles while they were still stuck to the sticky-tape. But, the difference between Heller and Adler’s viewing of the only 4 tapes that McCrone sent them was that Heller and Adler did a SUPERIOR job in examining the tapes compared to the “world renowned microscopists.” Because the big microscopy expert –McCrone—totally failed to find what Heller did –7 red particles on a non-image tape which were later confirmed to be blood.
But, I digress. Back to the adhesive. Of course, Heller and Adler were acutely aware of the adhesive on the sticky-tape –because it was, of course, “sticky” tape. And, the issue was never really whether anybody could see the adhesive on the tape –the issue was whether anybody could see a gelatin/collagen BINDER on the tape. Well, McCrone had Ray Rogers’ sticky-tapes for over a year until he finally has his “Aha!” moment with discovering binder . . . Isn’t that most interesting? I suspect that any “binder” that McCrone saw was either serum albumin or plasma from blood.
I addressed the “hot statue” issue because that has been proffered by skeptics as a possible explanation for the formation of the Shroud’s body image. But, again, that theory doesn’t pass muster on many fronts.
With regard to the Beer-Lambert law, the amount of light that is absorbed into something is directly proportional to the amount of molecules that it interacts with. So, with regard to the Shroud, we know that there is an invisible, relatively uniform layer of iron, calcium and strontium throughout the entire cloth. This is a result of the retting and manufacturing process of linen, and it is even verifiable with modern craft linen (provided that it was retted in a natural body of water –not a tank.) So, if the body image on the Shroud is a painting made of iron-oxide, then the iron level (as was detected by X-ray fluorescence and X-radiography investigation of the entire length of the Shroud in Turin in 1978) should increase as one leaves the non-image “background” area and goes into the allegedly painted body image area. Yet, THIS DOES NOT OCCUR. Ergo, the body image cannot be a some painting made from iron-oxide. The Beer-Lambert Law comes into play in the sense that if you are going to say that the body image is created with a visible amount of iron-oxide pigment, then one needs to demonstrate that there are the requisite amount of molecules present in order to account for what is being seen.
And, while I did list off 10 characteristics, I forgot to specify a number for the characteristic of a lack of fluorescence for what someone could mistake as a scorch mark. (That’s the elusive fifth characteristic.)
That’s all for now.
Cheers,
Teddi
“The pseudo-negative and 3D characteristics are indeed unusual, but have also been easily duplicated in several ways, and are readily explicable in terms of an imprint.”
Yes, Hugh. Well said. The key words where the TS is concerned, hugely sidelined or ignored for the most part by pro-authenticists, are imprint, specifically CONTACT IMPRINT.
Forget “photograph”. Think imprint (also, one might remind folk, a tone-reversed negative
Hugh wrote in one comment:
“Joe asks, ‘If it’s so obvious that the Shroud is a forgery, why is the artist and methodology still unknown?’ and the answer is in the hyperbole. It is not obvious. It is not obvious what the purpose of the Shroud was, nor is it obvious how it was made. As Dan points out, there are numerous possibilities.”
And then in a subsequent comment:
“There is no doubt that the Shroud is a unique artistic creation, but its uniqueness does not lie in the strangeness of its characteristics, most of which are widespread throughout the art world, rather than their combination in a single work.”
So it’s not obvious that it’s a forgery, nor is its purpose or how it was made, but at the same time there is no doubt that the Shroud is a unique artistic creation?
As Hugh stated about one of Jim’s comments:
“Is that not a contradiction?”
Ah! Touché; I admit it!
Perhaps I should be more explicative. Many of us are indeed quite sure of our beliefs, but we are sensible enough to realise that what seems well established to us is certainly not so to others. To me, there is no doubt that the Shroud its medieval, but I happily concede that that is far from universally “obvious,” which I think is a more objective word. If something isn’t obvious to everybody, then it’s not obvious.
But chalk up one to Joe, I think!
(This be by way of postscript to my “final” internet-directed comments, my having announced previously, here and elsewhere, that I had departed for all time!)
The half-dozen or so clerics that were employed privately by Geoffroi de Charny at his oh-so-secluded Lirey chapel were there, we’re told, being employed to pray for the life and souls of the clerics’ spasmodically battle-occupied Lord and Master PLUS his close pal, namely his Monarch no less (King John 2nd).
We are all (pro- v anti-authenticists) left to guess as to how the clerics’ days and weeks were spent, whilst not praying to On High for the life and souls of their hob-nobbing Masters!
Might they maybe have found a constantly (nay intermittently) sideline project, one with which to occupy their otherwise abundant spare time?
If so, what?????
Let me speculate, correction, guess totally off the top of my head!
How come (please tell me) it is that so little time and attention has been given by pro-authenticity advocates thus far to that INITIAL IMMEDIATELY PRE- EXHIBITION PHASE OF THE TS by pro-authenticity advocates of the “initial” Lirey phase ?
Why the initial exhibition of the TS at approximately the same time as Lord Geoffroi de Charny was killed at that historical battle at Poitiers? That left his close and confiding partner, his King no less, deprived of a hitherto dedicated close but commoner partner.
The major component of the publicity-grabbing pro-authenticicity focus would appear, if one might be allowed to say, anything and everything that is totally UNFOUNDED and UNFOCUSED – crucial despite that oh-so historical and introductory Geoffroi de Charny phase of its initial reported existence.
There is – to put it mildly- a MAJOR DEFICIENCY/OMISSION in that so-called pro-authenticity argument!
Come on, you pro-authenticists. We’re still waiting for a fill-in essential argument/explanation/background etc etc ‘ – one that spells out the COMPLETE (FROM KNOWN SQUARE 1) ENTIRETY of the TS crucial history, leaving no huge yawning gaps (as exist at present) like that early Lirey phase!
Hello, Colin,
Now, now, it’s not really necessary to provide a COMPLETE crucial history of the Shroud with “no huge yawning gaps.” NOPE, NOT NECESSARY. Not necessary, at all. Sometimes, a really great piece of evidence can do all of the “heavy lifting.”
My “ace in the hole” is Gregory Referendarius’ sermon in 944 AD! I’d invite you and others to see what I have to say about it on the Real Seekers Ministries podcast that I appeared on several months ago with Pam Moon. The relevant portion to Gregory’s speech is around the 1:39:00 mark.
And, Pam did a wonderful presentation during that show that is definitely worth watching. I’ll send a link to this show in a separate reply.
All the best,
Teddi
The link to my comments pertaining to Gregory Referendarius. This gives us compelling evidence that the Image of Edessa –which the Byzantines had in 944 in Constantinople (until the sacking of Constantinople)– is the same cloth as the burial cloth that is tucked away in Turin. This, of course, also has the effect of DEBUNK THE 1988 RADIOCARBON DATING RESULTS!
Hello, Dan,
You asked me what evidence points to the body image’s being formed from the oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose itself. Well, here are chemistry professor Dr. Alan Adler’s own words from page 122 of his book “The Orphaned Manuscript” (which is, to those who might know, a collection of his writings on the Shroud of Turin):
Ultraviolet and visible reflectance studies were carried out on the Shroud and also some fluorescence spectroscopy. (Pellicori, Appl. Opt., 19 (1980): 1913, and Gilbert and Gilbert, Appl. Opt., 19 (1980): 1930.) In general, these results complemented the observations seen in the fluorescence photography study. The visible reflectance spectra, and the red-green-blue characteristics of the body images were a closer match to the lightly scorched areas (an oxidized cellulose area) than to controls of linen with an iron oxide coating. The near UV spectra showed a broad band assignable to those observed for conjugated carbonyl absorption. This is in agreement with the body image chromophore being a dehydrated oxidized form of cellulose and not being an artist’s applied iron oxide painting.
An infrared reflectance examination of the Shroud accompanied the thermographic study. Although the spectra taken were of low resolution, the peak ratios of the carbonyl region to that of the hydroxyl region showed clear evidence of an increasing state of oxidation in going from the background cloth to body image to scorch to the burned areas. The typical amide absorptions associated with proteins could be evidenced in the blood mark spectra, but not in those of the body images. These results were confirmed and extended in a more recent high resolution microspectrophotometric FTIR investigation of fibers and particles extracted from the STURP sticky tape samples. (Adler, ACS Symp. Series, 625 (1996):223; Adler, Selzer, and DeBlase, in ref. 17 and 18.) Each type of fiber now showed a distinctive absorption pattern. A conjugated carbonyl absorption pattern was clearly seen in the body image samples, but no evidence for protein amide bands which, however, were clearly seen in the serum coated fibers and blood particles. These results are again in accordance with the previous conclusion drawn above and do not support the contention that the body images on the Shroud of Turin are simply paintings.
If someone wants to challenge this, let them go ahead, and I’ll then respond. You say that it is “essential” that we consider other unconventional methods that might not have been considered yet. Well, given that it’s a good idea that we don’t go through life never believing in anything because there could always be “something” out there that disproves our belief, I’d say that, given the evidence that we already have, that looks really great –especially since ardent attempts have been made to try and debunk it. The type of questions that you bring up are the types of things that I discuss in that interview of mine that I linked to on the Gracious Guest podcast with Mike Creavey. Again, I discuss the issue of how to think about Shroud evidence.
You mention the scorch mark on the old oil painting of yours –I’ll bet that this scorch mark fluoresces under UV light. Of course, the body image on the Shroud famously DOES NOT. So, I think it’s a “horse (or scorch mark) or a different color.” Well, maybe it’s got the same color-ish, but it’s not the same –due to the fluorescence issue. BUT, as I have mentioned before, I have not arrived at a conclusion yet as to whether it’s possible for there to be a super-light form of scorch mark that doesn’t fluoresce. Perhaps. And, this wouldn’t surprise me –and it fits in with what I think created the body image –a burst of (I strongly believe) supernatural energy (to supernaturally resurrect a [truly] dead body –no “Lazarus syndrome” stuff here.) It would seem natural to me that such a burst of energy would leave some type of nonreproducible (by humans) scorch mark.
You said:
“When you say, “But, where’s the evidence that a human can create such a scorch mark that can uniformly create both a frontal and dorsal body image of an adult human on a linen cloth?” I want to reply, where is the evidence that a human can NOT do so?”
-Well, for this, we can use our minds and information that we know of to examine the real problems that we know of would exist with this –especially in trying to create such artwork on this large of a scale and with such exactitude. The necessity of the near 100% reversal of light on dark on two life-sized body images –WOW that’s unimaginable without the aid of high technology that did not exist in medieval times (e.g. the camera and computers and printing massive mural-size photographs.) There’s the aspect of getting both sides of the body to be “bookends” for one-another. There’s the lack of any outlines present –to guide the artist. There’s the lack of any type of brushstrokes or shading and the need for that near-perfect uniformity in color throughout the body image as well as no “hot spots” or fluorescing from scorch marks.
We just don’t have to keep wondering and “spinning our wheels” about what is and what is not. We have more than enough evidence to allow very rational and critical minds to rest easily that this body image on the Shroud was not created by human hands.
All the best,
Teddi
Please note: where I was quoting Adler’s words, I had indented the long quotation, but this indention is not showing up when posted. But, I think it is obvious where Adler’s words begin and end and where mine start up again.
Teddi, you said, “I’ll bet that this scorch mark fluoresces under UV light.” I believe I said stain. Some pigments may be reactive when heated. I don’t know if that is true. The point is we are far from knowing much about the image chromophore.
Hi, Dan,
Mea culpa. Yes, indeed, you did say stain. I read your comment too quickly and focused on the house fire part –and not the paint flaking off part –and the stain below.
So, let’s deal with what you were actually driving at. Paint binder (especially back in medieval times) would have been typically made with things like collagen/gelatin or egg (and there are a few other options that I don’t remember off the tip of my head.) But, the biggies are collagen/gelatin or egg. But, these have protein in them. Yet, the yellowed fibers from the body image were tested for protein –with much more specific tests than what McCrone used– and NO PROTEIN was discovered on these yellowed fibers –to the nanogram level.
Now, does collagen/gelatin binder (like what McCrone claims was suspending the red ochre pigment to form watercolor paint) cause yellowing of something like cellulose (such as linen) with simple age (no need to even add heat from a fire.) The answer is YES, it can. BUT, there will be PROTEIN found in that yellowness. And, it stands to reason that what has yellowed can only be what has had contact with the collagen/gelatin paint binder. As such, there would be (at least microscopic) evidence of capillary flow with regard to the yellow color.
And, again, it is important to remember that McCrone claimed that the body image that we see is due to red ochre paint –not flaked off red ochre paint.
Best,
Teddi
Hi, again, Dan,
I forgot to mention that the gelatin/collagen that McCrone claims is the paint binder for the red ochre paint used on the Shroud would also fluoresce under ultraviolet light –like the scorch marks do.
Best,
Teddi
I could be wrong, but from Dan’s later posts, I think he was not so much comparing “degraded cellulose” with “iron oxide,” which in its simplest terms refers to the yellowness of the Shroud versus the redness of ochre, but “degraded cellulose of the flax fibres” with “degraded carbohydrates of a different material,” such as the coating proposed by Ray Rogers. Alan Adler’s observations do not distinguish between them.
Hi, Hugh,
Yes, I do think you “could be wrong here” as you suggest. I have no idea where you are getting the notion that Dan was comparing degraded cellulose with iron oxide.
Here is what Dan asked me:
“When you say, “With the Shroud, the evidence points to the body image having been made through the oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose itself” I want to ask what evidence POINTS to this?”
Well, I answered this specific question of the evidence pointing to the body image having been made from dehydrated and oxidized cellulose.
By the way, I am ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED (!!!) to see your wonderful affirmation that the body image is yellow AND THAT RED OCHRE IS NOT! (Of course, an obvious tip-off is the “red” part of “red ochre.” A rather obvious detail that The “world famous microscopist” Dr. Walter McCrone conveniently overlooked when he kept insisting that the body image was made from RED OCHRE paint (the anhydrous form of iron oxide.)
The chromosphere if the body image (if compared to a paint color) is consistent with YELLOW OCHRE paint (which is a hydrated form of iron oxide.) But, ASSUMING ARGUENDO, that the body image had been originally painted with yellow ochre paint, we would see evidence in a shift in color (from yellow ochre to red ochre) along the scorch and burn marks —due to heat’s dehydrating the yellow ochre paint and transforming it (in the areas of the heat gradient by the scorch and burn marks) into red ochre. But, since there is no such evidence, this just “gilds the lily” in terms of demonstrating that the body image has not been formed from any form of iron oxide paint.
As I mentioned to Dan, if someone wants to argue the case for Rogers’ hypothesis, go ahead and do it, and I’ll respond to it.
Best regards,
Teddi
I don’t want to argue for Rogers’ hypothesis. Nor do I want to argue for the consensus position of the Shroud Science Group. Nor for Colin Berry’s. I’m saying that we don’t know enough to come to a conclusion. Anyone can write an essay in favor of one or the other and the most articulate, passioned argument will sway many. Anyone can also try to prove the Shroud is real or fake by picking one hypothesis or the other and elevating it and calling it evidence.
Teddi, I recognize my thinking in yours. I once shared your convictions until I learned that the chemistry of the chromophore is essentially one big crapshoot. I’m not a skeptic of the Shroud. I am skeptical of the quality of the evidence. I want the Shroud to be real but not on the basis of questionable facts.
Hi, Dan,
What is it that causes you to think that “the chemistry of the chromophore” of the Shroud is “one big crapshoot?”
Are you aware that Dr. Bruce Cameron –who has or had (not sure if he’s still alive) a double doctorate that was dedicated to hemoglobin in its many forms– confirmed what Heller and Adler said (about the red particles on the Shroud) that they were hemoglobin in their acid methemoglobin form?
Now, you will say that you were talking about the BODY IMAGE –which, as Hugh concedes is YELLOW in color. BUT, we must remember that Walter McCrone said that the body image was comprised of RED ochre –and all of those red particles that he was seeing in the body image were RED. He said, also, that there are yellow fibers on the body image, also.
But, McCrone (as he was known to do) spoke from both sides of his mouth. Is the body image red or yellow? How do red particles simultaneously yield a yellow body image if, as McCrone asserted, the body image is painted with a dilute red ochre watercolor paint?
The “great particle expert” McCrone kept asserting that “THERE IS NO BLOOD ON THE SHROUD.” So, how does one explain the blood that has been confirmed to be on the Shroud through various forms of testing?
You were once an authenticist, then you listened to the skeptics supposedly “debunking” what the authenticists were claiming. But, don’t the assertions of skeptics need to undergo the same type of scrutiny? OF COURSE THEY DO! Lots of times, we need to debunk the debunkers.
Best,
Teddi
You are aware, of course, that red ochre particles scatter light in such a way that they appear yellow when viewed under a microscope with several lighting conditions.
And, Dan, I will agree with your sentence here:
“I want the Shroud to be real but not on the basis of questionable facts.”
And, because the evidence supporting the Shroud’s authenticity is so convincing, this is why I have such incredible confidence in its authenticity.
If someone could show compelling evidence that Heller, Adler, Rogers and the many STURP team members involved in investigating the Shroud’s authenticity were all liars and frauds, then I’d join you in being skeptical about the Shroud. But, let’s remember, there is, also, additional evidence supporting authenticity from even the Italians. Were they in on some massive conspiracy with the Americans? That seems to be taking things too far. What about Barbet and Vignon’s evaluations? And, Vignon had a good amount of time being up-close and personal with the Shroud during his investigation of it.
Do conspiracies exist? Sure they do. But, we don’t have any rational and reasonable evidence for a conspiracy in this situation.
The sentences immediately following Dan’s ” I want to ask what evidence POINTS to this?” are “What about the evidence that points away from this claim which I think is an important challenge to the to the nature of the image? Have you read Rogers? Have you read Colin Berry on the structure of the flax fiber?” This suggests to me that he was thinking about alternative versions of the “degraded cellulose” hypothesis, not the “iron oxide” hypothesis, which neither Rogers nor Berry were talking about.
As I write this I see Dan has replied himself. The essence I think is that for many people, the words “beyond reasonable doubt,” even when written in capital letters, do not apply to the Shroud. I think it beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud is medieval, you think think it beyond reasonable doubt that it is authentic, but it sensible to accept that our personal convictions are not universally accepted, and that it is not absurd for people to think the opposite.
A major news story in Britain recently concerns Andrew Malkinson, who was convicted of rape “beyond reasonable doubt” in 2004, but has recently been released from prison as it is now “beyond reasonable doubt” that he was asleep in bed at the time of the assault. My good friend Bard tells me that “According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been a total of 2,674 exonerations in the United States since 1989. Of these, 254 people were released from prison in the last 10 years (2013-2023).” Some estimates suggest that about 6% of the people serving time in US prisons, no doubt all having been found guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” are innocent.
Hi, Hugh,
The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a jury trial concerning things like rape tend to hinge almost completely on eyewitness testimony –which has been shown in many cases to be notoriously bad when someone is identifying a stranger under stressful and less-than-optimal circumstances. And, yes, thankfully, DNA evidence has been able to save many people from wrongful convictions made by the typically honest misidentification of a victim. But, this is a totally different type of evidence. An eyewitness identification is not a mountain of scientific evidence that corroborates other forms of credible evidence from other, complementary, disciplines. So, let’s talk apples-to-apples. But, of course, even with science, what is thought of as “fact” –which gravitates towards that “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard can change with new or better evidence. But, until new or better evidence surfaces, reasonable and rational minds go where the weight of the evidence points.
Best,
Teddi
Joe’s comment above: “if any skeptic wants to try to convince me or anyone else it’s a fake, go for it,” reminds me of Barrie’s own often repeated anecdote about his reply to a man who said “You’ll never convince me the Shroud is genuine.” Barrie’s reply was “What makes you think I want to convince you the Shroud is genuine? I’ll just tell you the facts, and you can make up your own mind.”
I get the impression from reading through these comments that they are a microcosm of what is happening here in America’s politics: depending on one’s belief about the Shroud (skeptic or believer) we each embrace a set of facts to refusing to acknowledge the validity of others’ facts.
FIVE STAR COMMENT OF THE YEAR
I have to point out that one U.S. political group when confronted with some facts, said they had “alternative facts.” There are no such things. The line between facts and opinions have been blurred. Believers’ stance on the Shroud, I think, is bolstered by the fact (real and not alternative) that much of the basis of their belief is derived by the direct analyses of dozens of highly-qualified scientists in STURP in 1978, only one of whom believed the Shroud was probably a forgery. Most of the skeptics take on the Shroud comes from people who never have even seen the Shroud. What are the odds that STURP had men and women who were smart enough to build bombs and put people into space, but not smart enough to be able to uncover the work of a clever medieval forgery?
And THAT is an excellent point, Joe. I was actually thinking about Kelly Anne Conway’s famous “alternative facts” comment when I wrote this! That’s why I see similarities here with America’s current discourse.
For me, the preponderance of the scientifically-based evidence, bolstered by agreed-on historical information, is more than enough to convince me of the authenticity of the Shroud.
I can’t for the life of me understand why some folks discount the voluminous information that has been accumulated, especially in the last 50 years, and instead continue to bring up so many vaguely-related speculative objections.
I would LOVE to see a comprehensive, scientifically-based investigation
using all the new technologies that have been developed in the past half-century. While there can never be “proof” of authenticity, nevertheless we can gain new insights which may have relevance to our current understanding of the universe. You know… that thing God created. =)
Reply to Joe and Pamela. Yes, I agree, too. ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’ — Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Here is part of the problem however. Take the 1981 Summary with its claim that the image was produced by “oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the linen’s microfibrils.”
That was 1981. Twenty plus years later, Rogers, after considerable reexamination of image fibers concluded, “The evidence is strong that the image is not a result of dehydration of the cellulose . . . The cellulose of the image has not changed as a result of image formation.” (Rogers, R. N. (2008). A Chemist’s Perspective On The Shroud of Turin. pp. 33.)
In 2010 a paper, List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud, from the Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, held in Frascati, Italy, reports: “Body image color resides only on the thin layer that is probably the primary cell wall (pcw) of outer surfaces of the fibers . . . ” (Giulio Fanti, Jose A. Botella, Fabio Crosilla, Francesco Lattarulo, Niels Svensson, Raymond Schneider, and Alan Whanger with aassistance and encouragement by Ray Rogers, M. Alonso, Paulo Di Lazzaro, Diana Fulbright, and Barrie Schwortz.
Without any basis that I can see, John Jackson in 2017 wrote, “The colored linen fibers are only colored due to a chemical reaction involving the fibers themselves. There is no evidence of a coating or extraneous material added to the fibers to cause the image color. The image-bearing fibers have a yellow-brown color. (Jackson et al. (2017). The Shroud of Turin: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses, Version 4.)
There is one fact here: WE REALLY DON’T KNOW THE NATURE OF THE CHROMOPHORE and it is unwise to claim otherwise. Pamela is right; we need a comprehensive, scientifically-based investigation.
pamb70 and Dan,
I don’t get that impression at all. Each of the comments has focused on certain characteristics of the Shroud with replies, especially from Teddi, illustrating why those characteristics have been misinterpreted or are inapplicable. This is pretty much the essence of solid scientific analysis.
American politics now are very much fact-and-analysis adverse in both the areas of Presidential elections and abortion with Republicans claiming the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats with zero evidence to support that contention. They have also committed numerous crimes in an effort to make their unsupported contention produce results, crimes which are described by them as “just politics” and indictments as the “weaponization of politics.” Convictions prove crimes and we have seen many of those already. On abortion, Democrats refuse to acknowledge what is being aborted, calling the procedure strictly health care for women and condemning restrictions as infringing upon women’s reproductive rights with zero acknowledgment that a human life (not a person yet so not “murder”) is being taken. Exaggeration and lying is a way of life in American politics today on both sides, I’m afraid, but it has always been so except that in previous years all the participants understood that it was the way election victory was to be achieved (if successfully unchallenged) but actual governing required honesty and compromise. No longer.
I regret to admit that the only comment I have seen in this thread that bears resemblance to the political nuttiness prevailing in America is my own characterization of Colin Berry’s comments as “techno-babble.” I regret the comment and send my apologies to him.
Jim
I regret to admit that the only comment I have seen in this thread that bears resemblance to the political nuttiness prevailing in America is my own characterization of Colin Berry’s comments as “techno-babble.” I regret the comment and send my apologies to him.
No need to apologise Jim.
Why not? Because on reading your comment I merely assumed there had been a tiny punctuation error on your part, that what you had intended to say was that my contributions to Dan’s posts over the years could be summed up simply as “Tech – no babble”.
;-)
(=:
Thank you, Jim, for your thoughtful reply. After reading it and then rereading my post, I realized I had been thinking about the “wider universe” of Shroud studies, where I have encountered some really commentary. But that’s certainly not what happens here, b/c most participants are respectful of each other’s perspectives.
I have learned so much from this blog and am grateful to have found you all.
B/C I live in Northern Virginia, I am inundated daily with political discourse, which is another reason why I appreciate this site.
I won’t comment on the stances of the 2 parties, but suffice it to say I am deeply worried for the society (and world) my children and grandchildren will inherit.
In thinking more about Pam’s comments, there is one factor that does indeed make Shroud authenticity arguments and political bad sportsmanship similar. In both subjects, advocates are sometimes married to a position immutable to analysis or modification. Atheists are committed to the notion that there is no supernatural power in the universe. Hence, no matter what the scientific findings about the Shroud, there can be no supernatural cause and, therefore, the real scientific explanation is just yet to be discovered or at least fully understood. Given that the existence of God is not demonstrable to a mathematical certainty and that many eminent and brilliant people have been atheists, we have to respect the sincerity of this position. But it is ultimately not reconcilable with the science of Shroud research. Even if the carbon-14 dating, historical research and scientific analysis all put the Shroud in the first century with an image that cannot be explained by any known science, atheists would have to insist that it was still a forgery. No supernatural power, no supernatural causation. Period.
Political obstinacy has no such dignity but the reality of it cannot be denied as millions attest with behavior and opinions not only destructive of their professed patriotic values but also flatly controverted by all available facts.
I used to live in northern VA myself (Lake Ridge) so I understand what you say about feeling immersed in politics. But, if anything, the anxiety is even worse out here in the hinterlands of Wisconsin.
Jim
Hi, Dan,
You mention the following from Ray Rogers:
“The cellulose of the image has not changed as a result of image formation.” (Rogers, R. N. (2008).
Heller and Adler discovered (pre-1981) that the cellulose in the image area had, indeed, changed. Other than the yellow color (which they were able to chemically reverse), there is this —which was NOT chemically reversible: the brittleness (damage) to the fiber from the image-making process.
An inexact (but perhaps helpful) analogy would be the effect of the sun on skin. The sun can darken skin to create a tan or burn. Through chemical-biological processes, the tan will go away (unless there is continuous sun exposure), but the damage to the skin remains. That’s why they say skin cancer can result in a much older person from a bad sunburn they received as a child.
Best,
Teddi
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: the most compelling Truth about the Holy Shroud comes from the gloriously obsessive-compulsive work of two brilliant men: Dr. Alan Adler and Dr. John Heller. They routinely went overboard in proving their contentions, because they understood from the beginning how much scrutiny their highly controversial work would receive.
To understand their work and their conclusions is to understand what the Holy Dhroud is, and what it isn’t.
For Pam and Jim, I don’t believe either one of you are on my weekly email list for the latest Shroud news, articles, videos, podcasts, etc. Everyone on the list is blind-copied and one can request to be removed from the list at any time. If you would like to join send me an email at JMarino240@aol.com .
Is it considered unethical to not include other potential chemical characteristics of the shroud image when presenting arguments either in favor of or against the cloth’s authenticity?
What is ethical is to say what –to the best of your knowledge– is true/factual. One person doesn’t have any type of moral/ethical obligation to advance every hypothesis or claimed observations that others have found. The people who want to support those theories need to do it themselves –because there is a lot of work that is involved in mentioning a theory and then defending it. If the theory cannot be well-defended by those in favor of it, and if those in favor of a hypothesis can’t be bothered to spend the time defending it, then why should others advancing different hypotheses be burdened with this responsibility?
Now, it is often wise (if one has time to do so) to bring up contradictory hypotheses and show why they are wrong. But, this can take up a ridiculous amount of time. So, again, for those who support these other hypotheses, let them do the “heavy lifting” of arguing for them, and we’ll see if those other hypotheses stand up to scrutiny. And, then, we can compare them with the evidence that Heller and Adler present.
Heller, Adler and Rogers were all fine scientists with many papers and accolades to their names. To accuse them of being “liars and frauds” would be serious calumny, and reflect more badly on the character of the accuser than the accused. However, they published papers coming to incompatible conclusions. Heller and Adler thought the Shroud image was due to degradation of the primary cell wall of the flax of the linen cloth, and denied that there was other extraneous material present. Rogers thought the image was due to the degradation of a carbohydrate layer. Heller and Adler claimed they had shown the absence of starch by using an iodine stain; Rogers claimed he had observed the presence of starch using the same test. Blithely clumping them together as evidence of the authenticity of the Shroud is quite usual, but papers over a serious dichotomy that suggests that the conclusions drawn by these worthy scientists were not as definitive as is sometimes supposed.
On another subject, it is a popular pastime among authenticists to deride atheists for not accepting the possibility of supernatural events, without which, they claim, they obviously wouldn’t accept the authenticity of the Shroud. Although this is not necessarily true, and there are plenty of non-Christians who believe in the Shroud, it is probably true that few atheists are authenticists. However, they are a very small minority of the huge number of commenters to podcasts and videos, and even their creators, who deny the authenticity of the Shroud. They are mostly sincere Christians with a firm belief in the Resurrection and the supernatural, but who object to the Shroud on Biblical grounds. Scientific evidence is unlikely to make much headway there.
Hello, Hugh
In my comment regarding atheists’ necessarily rejecting the possibility of Shroud authenticity, I did not intend any derision nor did I convey that impression since I referred to many of them as being “eminent and brilliant.” But I stand by my assertion that atheism, which is a conviction that there is no supernatural power in the universe, also means that the Shroud cannot be of supernatural origin. Pretty straightforward logic and if there is any atheist who says that the Shroud could be regarded as of supernatural origin if the science were convincing enough, I would say “Welcome to agnosticism!”
There may, indeed, be “plenty of non-Christians who believe in the Shroud” but it is hard to understand how they reconcile belief in the supernatural origins of the Shroud with a rejection of Christian beliefs in the divinity of Christ. Or, maybe they believe that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus but not of supernatural origin. For them, science and history just haven’t found the correct answer yet as to how the Shroud image was created. In any event, as Barrie Schwortz suggested, the conclusions and responses of people are ultimately their own business and my purpose here is simply to note that personal bias is relevant in assessing the conclusions about authenticity. It is not, however, disqualifying.
As for Christians who reject authenticity based on the Bible, I assume these arguments must rest entirely on Gospel narratives describing the burial cloths left in the tomb after Christ’s resurrection. That’s a pretty slim reed to support a conclusion that the Shroud could not be authentic and while I do not think those folks should be criticized I also do not think that those arguments carry any weight.
Hi, Hugh,
With regard to Rogers’ hypothesis with a Maillard reaction causing the body image, he was relying upon the needed amine reactants (for the Maillard reaction) to come from the putrefaction of the body –as in the point that the body is breaking down enough so as to produce amines (and ammonia) via various gases like cadaverine, putrescine. But, that aspect of decomposition does not fit within the approximate 36 hour mark that Jesus resurrected (NOT resuscitated –as you like to assert.) And, since you have asserted in your debate about Jesus’ resurrection that you do not think that He actually died (that He was just “resuscitated” (a.k.a. the “Lazarus syndrome” –which does not involve actual death (only the appearance of it), then how do you think that a Maillard reaction have occurred?
It seems to me (corrections are always quite welcome if I am wrong) that Rogers’ basis for thinking that a change in the cellulose could not have been involved in the image formation process, because the medullas of the colored body image are not colored.
Okay, so let’s think about it. Heller and Adler said that the color from the body image was due to oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose. Now, as an authenticist, I am not asserting that this oxidation and dehydration of the cellulose occurred in a normal way –with just, for example, the passage of time. No, no. I am asserting that it came about from the supernatural energy that God used to resurrect Jesus.
Now, with this supernatural form of energy, the dehydration and oxidation was extremely superficial –so, why could it not have been so superficial as to not penetrate into the medulla/lumen. (Both terms, by the way, are used –despite your having mentioned before that some STURP members were not very knowledgeable about the internal structure of plants because they used the term that you were not accustomed to using.)
Anyhow, with regard to the dehydration of cellulose –now, I am just positing this as a possibility (I have not researched it yet, but it just popped into my mind.) Why couldn’t the level of dehydration and oxidation of the primary cell wall have been shallow enough to not cause any coloration of the medulla/lumen?
An analogy for what I am thinking is this: let us think in terms of a ultraviolet damage to the skin that does not cause the skin to discolor vs. a suntan vs. a light sunburn vs. third degree burns. These all cause different levels of damage to the skin that penetrate to different layers of the skin, correct? So, why can’t the same have occurred with the supernatural energy that created the body image? The simple answer seems to me that the dehydration and oxidation of the skin was just so superficial that it did not have an effect upon the medulla/lumen.
Also, I seem to recall that Rogers found a gummy substance in the area of the Shroud where the fabric was cut in order to do the radiocarbon dating. And, this would fit in with the invisible reweave hypothesis –since, chemically, this portion of the cloth (according to Rogers) was chemically different from the rest of the cloth. But, did Rogers ever detect a thin carbohydrate layer on the rest of the cloth?
But, I do not necessarily dispute the real possibility that there could have been a very thin layer of starch on the linen cloth as part of the manufacturing process –and that there could have been a very thin layer of yellow madder dye on it, as well (which could be responsible for the continued red color of the blood –per the hypothesis that Adrie van der Hoeven has presented. But, I (at least so far) am not convinced that Heller and Adler’s dehydration and oxidation hypothesis for the body image formation is wrong –especially since the chromophore that it yields conforms to their hypothesis and what is seen with the chromophore of the body image.
Best regards,
Teddi
P.S.: The (possible) inclusion of a uniform, thin layer of yellow madder dye as part of the manufacturing process would cause both a preservative effect (from the properties of madder root –which could have [possibly] effected the radiocarbon dating– and it could have served as an optical brightener for the fabric.
Hi Jim,
I wholly concur with paragraph one.
You’re certainly correct that “it is hard to understand how [non-Christians] reconcile belief in the supernatural origins of the Shroud with a rejection of Christian beliefs in the divinity of Christ,” but, as you go on to mention, most of these people, who include Hindus, Jews (such as Barrie himself) and especially Ahmadiyya Muslims, demand a non-supernatural origin.
And you’re also correct that most Christian non-authenticists rely on the bible; the gospel narratives, the letters of St Paul, and some Old Testament prophesies in particular. Like yourself, I don’t think these arguments carry weight. However, I wanted to flag them up as a corollary to my earlier comment. Defence of a supernatural origin for the Shroud must, I think, revolve around the event of the Resurrection, knowledge of which also relies on the bible. Thus the religious argument between authenticity and non-authenticity boils down to whose biblical interpretation is correct, and the gates of science are unlikely to prevail against either.
Thanks, Teddi, for your latest analysis. You think Rogers was wrong. Specifically he was wrong about the possibility that a dead body could emit amines within the few hours available to Jesus between the time of death and the time of Resurrection. His statement “In fact decomposing bodies start producing ammonia and amines, e.g., cadaverine (1,5-diaminopentane) and putrescine (1,4-diaminobutane), fairly quickly, depending on the temperature and humidity. The ammonia and many of the amines are volatile, and they rapidly undergo Maillard reactions with any reducing saccharides they contact” was wrong.
As it happens, I agree with you that the Shroud was not the result of a Maillard reaction. However, it forces us to review your statement, “If someone could show compelling evidence that Heller, Adler, Rogers and the many STURP team members involved in investigating the Shroud’s authenticity were all liars and frauds, then I’d join you in being skeptical about the Shroud.” As I said above, “liars and frauds” would be unwarranted slander, but now that you yourself find that Rogers was at least wrong, I wonder how secure the other two scientists are. Is it just a question of personal preference?
It’s not obvious that you’re wholly familiar with the structure of a flax fibre, and not just because you don’t distinguish the meanings of medulla and lumen. Your question, “Why couldn’t the level of dehydration and oxidation of the primary cell wall have been shallow enough to not cause any coloration of the medulla/lumen?” is confusing. I don’t know of any one who thinks any discolouration mechanism penetrates the main bulk of the cell to reach the lumen. Everybody, authenticist and non-authenticist alike, agrees with your simple answer, “that the dehydration and oxidation of the skin was just so superficial that it did not have an effect upon the medulla/lumen,” and always have.
The primary cell wall is an extremely thin coating over the main bulk of the flax cell, which is made of almost pure cellulose. The primary cell wall is more susceptible to degradation as it includes hemicellulose and pectin, and it is quite likely that a degradation mechanism such as radiation, oxidation or acid reaction could be energetic enough to affect the primary cell wall but not the rest of the cell, let alone penetrate to the lumen. This is why it is generally thought that the image is only a few nanometres thick – it is the thickness of the primary cell wall.
The lumen is a hole; it cannot be coloured, unless particulate matter penetrates it from the broken ends of a fibre.
Hello, Hugh,
With the issue of the Maillard reaction, I am not going to say that I am totally excluding it as a possibility. But, what I am saying it that I think that the compelling weight of the evidence points to what Heller and Adler say –that the image formation is due to dehydration and oxidation of the linen.
I have not thought through this idea yet (much less researched it) –it just popped up in my mind– but I don’t think that there needs to be mutual exclusivity with the explanation by Heller and Adler and a Maillard reaction-based hypothesis. It makes sense to me (as I just think about this issue in an impromptu way right now) that BOTH things could be at play.
The energy blast to create the image could have dehydrated, oxidized and somewhat “caramelized” the cellulose. I am wondering, however, whether this caramelization process would cause some sort of (perhaps) microscopic cementation (probably incomplete) –but that it might add a type of “coated, sugary bulk” to the fiber? It would seem so. But, I am just thinking aloud here.
So, while I think that Rogers’ hypothesis is wrong regarding the Maillard reaction in conjunction with the vapors of a decomposing corpse, that by no means is to imply that everything that he says must be wrong. That would be totally fallacious and absolutely nonsensical. It would imply that an expert can only be trusted if they have never made any mistakes. I’d like to find the person that can meet that impossible standard.
Regarding the lumen/medulla issue, you had said (something to the effect –this is not a direct quote from you that follows) during that debate that you and I had about 3 years ago that medullas are what are found in the cells of woolen fibers –not flax. But, I’ve seen in multiple definitions of medulla that it can be applied to botany and can be used rather interchangeably with “lumen.” As such, the STURP members cannot be said to be clueless about this sort of thing just because some would use the term “medulla” and some would use the term “lumen.”
You mention that the lumen is a hole and that it cannot be colored. But, I give you Rogers’ words from page 78 of his book “A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin:” “The medullas of colored images fibers are not colored: The cellulose was not involved in color production.” So, this was a factor that Rogers used to try and explain why Heller and Adler’s hypothesis (of dehydration and oxidation) regarding the coloration of the body image fibers was inaccurate.
As for my personal preference among scientists, I absolutely do have a personal preference for the work of Adler and Heller. Why? Because in Heller’s book, he goes on in such great detail as to the scrupulous, obsessive-compulsive process that their scientific investigations pertaining to the Shroud took. These two great men would frequently have excellent evidence, yet that would still not be good enough, and they’d push and push and push to get the absolute best evidence that they could. The were zealously trying to determine what was True about the evidence that they were examining. These guys were not rushed and haphazard. They’d spend weeks researching various pigments and art history and consulting experts, etc. I don’t have that kind of information on Rogers. That’s not to say that he did not proceed in such a matter –but, I just don’t know. But, I do know this about Heller and Adler’s work. But, that does not mean that I can’t disagree with some part of their work if the best evidence that I find necessitates that. Again, we are all human, and science demands that we change our opinion with the evidence –Heller, Adler and Rogers would totally agree with that!
Best regards,
Teddi
Very interesting blog but when the author states: ” But nothing so far suggested has appealed to serious scientists who are not themselves Shroud enthusiasts. ”
It disheartens me. “Serious scientists” do not have a strangle hold on the “truth”.
I worked in a research center for about 25 years. Scientists suffer human frailties just as often as “non serious scientists”. Unfortunately, arrogance is rife among PHDs (aka serious scientists).
My favorite lecture (at the research center) was given by Dr. Fujita the discoverer of microbursts. Dr. Fujita explained that when he first proposed “downdraft” phenomena – serious scientists mocked him publicly and he couldn’t get funding for his work. As part of his briefing, he showed copies of the publications where the “serious scientists” trashed his ideas and he listed their names. (He was still angry 20 years after this event)
Eventually, Dr. Fujita prevailed using “the truth” and microbursts are known to be a danger for aircraft. I worked on some of the early requirements for Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) currently installed at many airports. They use Dr. Fujita’s for identifying downdrafts.
In addition, he’s been memorialized by his work on tornados – (See the Fujita Scale).
“Serious Scientists are not the only ones who have access to “truth”. Proof/truth is not obtained through a consensus of serious scientists.
“Serious Scientists are not the only ones who have access to “truth”. Proof/truth is not obtained through a consensus of serious scientists.
True on both counts Tom.
But in our defence I would say this of “serious scientists”. They often recognise GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of the truth when they see it…. ;-)
It can also be said that who the “serious scientists” are is in the eye of the beholder.
Here’s a link to the Dr. Fujita’s story. Worth reading for both serious and lay scientists:
https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2020-05-15-they-didnt-believe-him-how-ted-fujita-revolutionized-tornado-science
Colin,
Having worked in engineering research areas, I learned the best way to strengthen your paper/ assertion was to seek out both those who agree and your biggest critics.
Both groups will help in making a strong argument.
Here’s a link to my final posting in March last year, dear Tom.
It’s a particular reference written on my behalf back in 1978 by one Professor Geoffrey Dutton from Dundee University (he examined my PhD thesis).
https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2022/03/14/reference-to-colin-berry-originator-of-the-medieval-flour-imprinted-model-for-turin-shroud/
I think it establishes my credentials as a “serious scientist”.
(If nothing else, It secured for me my job as Head of Biochemistry, then Nutrition and Food Safety for 12 years at the UK Flour Milling and Baking Research Association).
I shall say no more as regards my research credentials as a “serious scientist”! ;-)
Apols. My comment above was intended to be for Joe Marino, as distinct from Tom Kennedy!
But please consider that even scientists who are eminently qualified to speak/write on a topic are not free of their own bias, fears, and the psychological impact of their lived experiences, all of which can subtly influence their fact-finding.
Yes! Being widely as well as deeply read on a topic can not only bolster our impression of which position is more likely to be accurate but can, if approached thoughfully and not emotionally, cause us to change our opinion.
My comment was not meant to be limited to any single individual.
Thus the secret of online sindonology.
It ain’t what you say.
It’s what you carefully AVOID SAYING !! ;-)
There’s usually a solution to almost every conundrum, is there not?
There’s usually a solution to almost every conundrum, is there not?
Maybe. But that’s only true for (small-c) conundrums.
It fails abysmally if the topic concerns one huge CONundrum of historic proportions ….
But it’s interesting that no one has been able to PROve the obvious object in question to be an unmitigated forgery, at least to the degree that there is no major CONcensus.
But it’s interesting that no one has been able to PROve the obvious object in question to be an unmitigated forgery …
But they have – given the radiocarbon dating, given the correspondence between the date of that first known display of the TS – some 13 centuries post Crucifixion- given the circumstances surrounding the Monarch-supported Lirey chapel and its private band of privileged clerics etc ….
One should be willing to consider and weigh up the BALANCE of EVIDENCE ….
The latter favours the creation of the TS as a mid-14th century medieval “forgery” – or at any rate (then) “modern-day” semi- realistic-looking replica….
Hi, Colin! Your statement that we “should be willing to consider and weigh up the balance of evidence” is interesting.
The veracity of the C-14 Dating has been called into question by numerous Shroud researchers, including Whanger, Donaghy, Dreisbach, Jones, Casabianca, Marino, to name a few. Have you carefully considered what their research has shown?
As for your statement about the Shroud’s time in the Lirey Chapel, have you looked at the wider picture of how religious relics were dealt with during this time in history? There have always been wealthy folks looking for ways to get richer, and the nobility in 14th century France was no exception.
Have you considered how it would have been possible for this “private band of privledged clerics” to have produced such an item with at least most of the characteristics of the Shroud that are known today?
Being a skeptic is fine, but I do think it’s important to be able to look at the much-wider picture.
Thanks, Pam
c
It’s your opinion that the Shroud has been disproven and that the balance of evidence shows that. There are probably millions of people that disagree with you. If you think your opinion is the correct one, then give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done.
So, according to you (and millions of others Joe) the TS was created in the 1st century AD, then hidden completely out of sight for some – wait for it – 13.5 centuries – for reasons that can only be guessed at.
Then, all of a sudden in 1356, it was placed on public display, while late, much later (20th century) yielding its 14th century radiocarbon date.
Does that strike you as a realistic scenario, a version of oh-so-self-evident events that would and indeed should instantly win the accord of “millions” of onlookers?
Medieval simulation of a 1st century item would and indeed should surely strike a far more realistic note….
Come on Colin, you should know that events in history are not tied to what is “far more realistic.” Odds are against lightning striking the same person twice or winning the lottery more than once but there are apparent documented cases of both. We don’t say, that can’t happen, so it’s impossible for either of them to actually have happened. Plenty has been written on why the Shroud remained hidden before the 1350s. Plenty has been written on the Shroud period. It is one of the most-intensely studied artifacts (if not the most) because all of its mysteries have not been solved.
Colin, the Shroud was not completely hidden for 13.5 centuries. Ian Wilson’s 2010 book, “The Shroud,” traces the history of the Image of Edesa and makes a very compelling case that that relic was the same one as the Shroud of Turin. There is a ton of other evidence supporting its authenticity as well.
Message to each of the two J’s.
One can start off in Sindonology as an impressive intellectual Juggernaut.
But one can then so easily transform by degrees into a Jugglenought! ;-)
One can be a serious scientist but get things wrong.
Exactly! Which is what I pointed out in an earlier comment. =)
Yes indeed .
The “Yes indeed ” comment was a reply to Joe Marino’s “One can be a serious scientist but get things wrong.”
When it comes to the Shroud, there are caveats. Like many topics, there are serious scientists on both sides of the authenticity question. Only 1 member of the STURP team, which studied the Shroud directly, believed the Shroud was definitely a forgery. All of the other believed it was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus or could be. Generally, with maybe 2 exceptions, researchers/scientists who have studied the Shroud for 40 years or more believe the Shroud to be authentic. I saw a few years ago a presentation by one of those exceptions and he was literally using slides from 40 years earlier! A few years ago I compiled a database of scientists and researchers who have studied the Shroud. It was about 37 pages and only 4 pages were researchers (none beside the 1 lone STURP member) who believed the Shroud was a forgery. No one should be illogical enough to say that because some serious scientists believe the Shroud is a forgery that there is no case to be made that the Shroud is authentic.
Excellent comment, Joe! My own conviction that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ is based, first, on the logic that no one in the Middle Ages or earlier knew anything about negative/positive images created by photography or any other known process. And if they had known about it, no one would create the vastly less impressive “negative” image instead of the stunning “positive” image for audiences at a time when science was still in its infancy. (I think my meaning here is clear even though the actual photographic result from a picture of the Shroud produces the full image from a negative of the photograph.) And the notion that the Shroud’s photographic negative image was produced unintentionally by some mysterious natural process involving a single burial shroud from human history that just happens to coincide perfectly with Biblical descriptions of Christ’s wounds is laughably preposterous.
Second, the evidence and analysis of the Shroud from 40 years of study greatly favors the authenticity claim. The strongest evidence adduced against authenticity has been the carbon-14 dating. There are convincing arguments based on the science involved that the dating was invalid. But the Hungarian Prayer Codex date of 1192-95 absolutely demonstrates that the 1260-1390 dating is not accurate.
Frankly, if science were somehow to prove that the Shroud cannot be the burial cloth of Jesus, it will be more astonishing than if it is authentic because while it is no marvel for God to do such things, it is way beyond human capacity as anyone
has known it from ancient times to today.
BTW, you are right, Colin, that at least my share of the two J’s is in the “Juggle Nought” category where Shroud debate is concerned.
OK, fair enough Jim Carney. You deny the “jugglenought” charge.
But you have to accept that the names given us by our parents may play a hugely potent role in determining our lifetime conduct, whether that’s appreciated by the name-bearer or not.
Dan Porter ? Think: “Dan P. Oughta” (Oughta do what in his life? Answer. Create a powerful blog site addressing a huge unsolved problem for decade after decade…
Hugh Farey? Read: Hugh Far Eye, devoted to massively intricate immersion in detail on the same subject!
Jim Carney ? Think: Gym Khana (gentle horseplay plus occasional head-on charges in the same subject area).
Once again, Teddi’s “preponderance of the evidence” comes into play.
I see that I was, conveniently, left out of the “name game.”
Theodora:
“Theo” = Greek for God
“doro” = Greek for “gift”
“Pappas” = condensed and Americanized form of the original Greek surname “Papadopoulos” = child of a priest.
(While I’m not the child of a priest, there’s one somewhere in the woodpile of my paternal family.)
The meaning: a gift from God (well, what can I say???😋🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣) to spread the word to people about God great gift of the Holy Shroud and Its meaning!
Teddies,
Recall that “…the last shall be first”!!!
No offence was intended by excluding you from my preliminary list, Theodora Pappas.
Your interpretation of your name is almost certainly correct.
I held off while carefully checking out a dubious alternative.
Which you may ask?
Answer: that Theodora Pappas equates roughly with “The Odour Pappus” , the latter being listed in my Oxford English Dictionary as “a group of hairs on the fruit of THISTLES etc.. .”.
I needed to be absolutely certain that you weren’t in the TS field merely as a bristly itch-generating thorny element to those who, like myself, have been misguided in their preaching of anti-authenticity.
;-)
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Well, Colin (as is typical), you’re close to being right (but, as we say on the other side of the pond: “Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.”)
Here’s the BETTER definition and interpretation of “Pappus:”. Pappuses are characteristic of plants in the sunflower family.. A well-known example is the dandelion whose pappuses act as parachutes to carry the seeds on the wind. The sunflower has the word “sun” is “iconic” as being a source of light —which is a nod to God —the ultimate source of Light. The “odour” of the sunflower attracts attention to it. With the dandelion’s pappus, we have here a dandy (looking great!) Lion (KING of the beasts) that has pappuses that act like a PARACHUTE (which would be a large cloth —dare I say SHROUD (!)—that Carrie’s the “seeds” of knowledge of God in the wind (Teddi’s known for being very “long-winded” (and some would even say full of LOTS of hot air!🤣🤣🤣))
😉
;-)
(Wow!)
P.S.: I see that the name “Colin” is Gaelic for “cub.” Bristly, itch-generating thorny element (pappuses”) could pose quite a problem (not to mention a MASSIVE ANNOYANCE!) to a cub once stuck in its paw . . .)😉🤣
The problem for we sceptical science-based cubs Theodoura is less to do with single things getting stuck occasionally in a paw.
It’s more to do with the pro-authenticity debris that keeps returning as the same old muck, capable of sticking in claws as well as paws….
It’s muck that repeatedly gets stuck, not just in one but in all four claws (year on year, decade on decade), constantly reappearing, never going away ….
Ah, Colin. Some frustration I perceive. Truth persists. So, of course, does error so long as the conditions for it remain but, ultimately, truth prevails. In the meantime, frustration with opposing viewpoints that will not yield to one’s own perceived “superior reasoning” can produce intemperate language such as “muck.” I understand the issue having been occasionally susceptible to it myself.
Oops. Have been told to stop mucking about (my apols for the intemperate language). Will do so – well, for a short time at least …