My nomination for the 2023 Bloggie Award in Science goes to Hugh Farey for his post today, “The evil that men do lives after them…” You might not like it, or you might disagree with it. However, I urge you to read it fully and carefully with an open mind before deciding.
Last paragraph spoiler alert:
Fortunately for science, McCrone’s reputation for diligence, persistence, and accurate observation has remained unsullied by the peevish attacks of the sindonological resistance. The last of Dale Glover’s comments was, “despite his death in 2002, you’ll still hear Shroud skeptics on the internet quoting his findings as proof that the Shroud is a painting.” Despite his death? Does dying disqualify a scientist’s discoveries? In fact it seems that Mark Anthony’s observations fell far short of the truth. In McCrone’s case, I’m happy to say, the good that he did has lived after him, the erroneous is interred with his bones. The final word goes to a former pupil, now a Professor of Forensic Science himself, John Reffner, who described him as “Walter C. McCrone, scientist, mentor, leader, and friend – a very special person.”
I didn’t like what Hugh had to say because it reminded me of how many negative narratives I naively bought into in the years when I was becoming acquainted with the Shroud.
Hi Dan and Hugh and Everyone,
I just posted a comment on Hugh’s blog that you refer to. It is not showing up at the moment, but perhaps it has to first go through Hugh’s prior approval. Anyhow, it pertains to the alleged “hero” said to be McCrone in the Lloyd Miller case –where a child murderer who was on death row got freed because of the blood/paint issue.
Oh man, I just posted a long but funny and informative reply and it just got deleted too.
As soon as I saw Teddi’s comments had been posted I “approved” them, and indeed I thoroughly approve of what she says. She pointed out a significant error, for which I am grateful, and which I have corrected in the post.
Well, well, well, looky what we have here, you know you’ve finally made it Big time as a Pro-Shroud proponent when you get your very own Blog post dedicated to ya by Dan Porter :)
Will just say thanks to both of you for posting your disagreements with me and my presentation on Walter McCrone, I will make sure to provide links to both your (Dan) and Hugh’s Blog on my own Blogsite for the McCrone episodes I did.
I will just say that I find Hugh’s critique presented here in this Blog to be humorous; here it is;
“The last of Dale Glover’s comments was, “despite his death in 2002, you’ll still hear Shroud skeptics on the internet quoting his findings as proof that the Shroud is a painting.” Despite his death? Does dying disqualify a scientist’s discoveries? In fact it seems that Mark Anthony’s observations fell far short of the truth.”
Well, I think my point was rather obvious, STURP and Pro-Shroud scientists have utterly discredited Walter McCrone’s traditional Painting hypothesis and yet despite his death and lack of anyone (Pro-Shroud or Shroud skeptic) today advancing his notion about the Shroud being painted with a brush, some Shroud skeptics online continue to cite his work as absolute proof the Shroud was painted in the way McCrone advanced.
I’ll finish with this (too busy to do more right now, sorry), but despite Hugh’s valiant effort to try and redeem McCrone based on the composition of the images based on his own experiments, he neglects to inform you that he fully agrees with me on McCrone being utterly wrong and scientifically falsified in terms of his Traditional Painting hypothesis as Hugh himself doesn’t believe it and he goes for another artistic image-forming mechanism; don’t believe me Shroud skeptics, hear Hugh say it for yourself in my Panel Show with him entitled “Shroud Wars: Panel Review (Part 8)- “MRF’s” & the Painting Hypothesis” here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb44PEH6qaY
As to the specifics that Hugh defends Walter on in his Blog- will just say, wait for the epic showdown of Teddi Pappas vs. Hugh Farey Round 2 once she finalizes and publishes Vol. 1 of her massive book on Walter McCrone and the Shroud– I’m told Hugh will be in for an intellectual pummeling on that front haha (just kidding)
Anyways, gotta a smile out of this, I finally made it, I’m final good enough as a Pro-Shroud guy to merit a mention on the blog of Shroud skeptic Dan Porter- thanks for that :)
Dale is absolutely correct that I disagree with McCrone on a number of points. I do think there is blood on the Shroud, and I don’t think the Shroud image is a ‘painting’ in the sense of being daubed on with a brush, for example. I disagree with lots of other people too, both authenticist and medievalist, and have explained why, both to them and on my blog. However, I don’t think any of them are bumbling incompetents. Being neither bishop, doctor or professor myself, I have great respect for people who have achieved these positions by the quality of their education, experience and character, and, by virtue of my own sunny disposition, do not assume that anybody who disagrees with me must by lying. As I pointed out to Teddi in my response to her comment on my site, my main point was not to adulate McCrone, but to try to rescue the entire authenticist case from the brink of unconsidered dismissal by ‘scholarly consensus’ simply on the basis of naive disrespect. By all means point out errors – see my response to Joe below – but trumpeting incompetence and shoddiness is unlikely to win attention from anybody but one’s own adherents – and that’s just preaching to the converted.
Thank you for saying so Hugh as I think this is important context for people to know when assessing your defense of McCrone.
In terms of your main complaint of uncharitability, I’m usually the one who tends to side with you about being uncharitable about someone who disagrees with you and indeed I have defended your honour at times against Pro-Shroud proponents who tend to think you’ve been purposefully dishonest. Likewise, I sheepishingly had to own up to being uncharitable towards Prince and Picknett and their notion of Leonardo Davinci having made the Shroud; a views both of us find to be extremely improbable to be true, but yet I was not totally fair to them in dismissing them as ridiculous and “absurd” (which I kept in my video description as a lesson given I call myself out for it in the video itself).
But as to Walter McCrone, I truly do believe he was amoung the worst examples of a biased scientist with their own agendas being more important than the truth. I think my comments were true and fair about him being a bumble and incompetent on the question of the Mylar backing tape, and other matters. His bias was off the charts and it often clouded his judgement. He went through something like 4 revisions of his hypothesis, starting with finger paintings of all things. He missed things that others found, not just the blood, but even his own team showed him up by finding vermillion when he did not.
That said, McCrone in general was a qualified scientist and I admit in my Solo show that he did make valid scientific findings on the Shroud that can’t be dismissed. But yeah, nothing you presented in your blog, while important to know the substantive facts and your take on them as to where you disagree with me or STURP, etc., nothing diminishes my view of McCrone being in this negative light.
You, to my mind, seem to be a good faith actor in your Shroud skepticism, I honestly don’t think the same is true of McCrone given what I’ve read of his work- including form his own book which I did read cover to cover, even if it was 6-7 years ago or so now.
For those who are interested in considering other viewpoints of McCrone’s putative sterling reputation, please read Barrie Schwortz’s “Into the Lion’s Den” (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/lionsden.pdf) and my own “Dr. Walter McCrone’s Research on the Shroud of Turin Under a Microscope” (https://www.academia.edu/88373112/Dr_Walter_McCrones_Research_on_the_
Shroud_of_Turin_Under_a_Microscope). (I can also report that Teddi Pappas’ upcoming Shroud book will present material that differs from the viewpoint of Hugh.)
On a related note, I recently came across a 2022 paper by Dr. Noah Charney, an American art historian. I sent the following message to Dr. Charney on November 17 and have yet to get a reply. (Hugh was a able to see similar information on a post to an Internet group to which we both belong but there has been no comment about this on Hugh’s blog):
***********************************************************************************
“Hello Dr. Charney,
I have just come across your paper “For Fame or Fortune: Forgery of Archaeological and Palaeontological Artefacts,” on which I have several comments.
You wrote,
Among the famous Catholic relics, there are but a few more renowned than the Shroud of Turin. A linen cloth thought to have been used to wrap the body of Christ for his burial, the Shroud is still a major tourist attraction, both secular and religious. And yet, as early as the fourteenth century, Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, wrote to the pope demanding that the Vatican declared the Shroud a fake. In the twentieth century, the Shroud underwent scientific analysis (Oxley 2010), a hugely rare event for a religious relic, and the bishop’s suspicions were confirmed. It appeared to have been created – painted – circa 1300 to look like an ancient relic. But the discovery has not stopped tourists, pilgrims, and conspiracy theory novelists from stoking the flames of intrigue surrounding one of the most famous objects in the world.
*You didn’t even mention the 1978 study of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which in 1981 concluded (https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm):
No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.
The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.
You also wrote:
“Pierre d’Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, wrote to Pope Urban VI in Avignon in 1389, requesting that the Shroud be declared a false relic. The bishop’s explanation – Martin Kemp writes in Christ to Coke – was that his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, “eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination” had concluded that “said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not
miraculously wrought or bestowed” (Kemp 2011).”
*Pope Urban VI was the pope in Rome. The Avignon pope in 1389 was Clement VII.
*You concluded:
“In the case of the Shroud of Turin and the Piltdown Man Skull, a significant number of people refused to accept that their initial faith in the object
was misplaced. The numerous, published, objective scientific tests showing the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval painting have not slowed down the outpouring of tourists visiting it over the centuries – despite a bishop stating that it is fake. We humans do not like to be shown that our beliefs are false, and our own stubbornness will override patent, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary – to the benefit of forgers.”
*There are no “numerous, published, objective scientific tests showing the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval painting,” and it’s absurd just to take a medieval bishop’s pronouncement of forgery at face value, especially in light of all the scientific evidence that does point toward authenticity.”
************************************************************************************
An open mind will not be criticized for concluding there are still issues with McCrone’s conclusions.
My own blog posts are usually lengthy and carefully considered, and researched, and not a simple diary about my daily activities, which is why nothing about David Falk or Noah Charney has appeared there. However, I disagree with both of them, and have let them know. I was the first sindonologist to comment on Falk’s YouTube video, and wrote an email to the editor of the newly created ‘Authenticity Studies.’ Here it is:
=====
I congratulate you on the first edition of your new journal, and look forward to further issues. My particular interest in Issue 1 lies in Dr Charney’s paper on the forgery of archaeological artefacts for “Fame or Fortune,” and specifically the Shroud of Turin, which although I think not originally intended to deceive, seems to have been repurposed as an authentic relic in the fifteenth century.
Two of the artefacts discussed in Dr Charney’s paper, the Piltdown Skull and the Archaeoraptor Fossil are uncontentious, and the stories of their initial acceptance and subsequent unmasking are interesting from the social perspectives of the day. However, the other two are still the subjects of serious dispute, and must be considered conscientiously and above all accurately for a serious discussion in a scholarly journal. I know very little of the Ossuary, but have studied the Shroud in some depth, and am disappointed by Dr Charney’s apparently rather cursory research.
I was surprised, for example, that the reference for the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was to a popular book whose conclusion is that the test was unreliable, rather than the paper in the journal Nature by the team that actually carried it out. Similarly, Walter McCrone’s research was published in the Accounts of Chemical Research in 1990, not 1999. Another error is Dr Charney’s statement that Bishop Pierre d’Arcis corresponded with “Pope Urban VI in Avignon.” Urban was the Pope in Rome; d’Arcis corresponded with antipope Clement VII at Avignon, not, as Dr Charney implies, “the Vatican.”
Dr Charney also seems confused about the history of the Shroud: if it was manufactured in about 1300, as he seems to believe, then it cannot have been looted from Constantinople in 1204, as he specifically states. Again, Geoffrey de Charney, who established the chapel in Lirey in which the Shroud was first exhibited, was not ‘Lord of Savoy.’ The relic did not come into the Savoy family’s possession until a hundred years later. Having done so, it remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, not “until the sixteenth century.” Surely these are simple errors that any competent peer-review would have noticed and pointed out.
Dr Charney is perfectly correct that a “debate rages” about the authenticity of the Shroud, but I’m afraid that his contribution is too riddled with errors to be a serious addition to the discussion.
=====
I received a reply from the editor the following day:
“Thank you for your report and your attention to this article.
We will send your notes to the author and the reviewers who have previously reviewed the text.”
I note that Noah Charney is on the Editorial Board of Authenticity Studies, so no doubt some lively discussion will ensue, even if we never get to hear about it!
Thanks, Hugh for sharing your exchange with the editor. You brought out a few points I had missed. It will be interesting to see if Charney writes something further down the road. BTW, he never did respond to my personal email to him.
For ease, I am reposting the comment below that I just posted on Hugh’s website.
Hi, Hugh,
A did a quick read of your comments, and I have some things that I’d like to comment on. Due to time constraints, I am unable to comment on every single point that I disagree with you about. So, it should not be inferred that just because I have not responded to something that I agree with it. But, there are some “bigger fish that I need to fry” with your comments, so I’m taking time to highlight some of the bigger ones.
You are correct that Heller and Adler (and I might add Kohlbeck and Nitowski) did not all see the exact same array of sticky-tapes. Rogers took 36 tape samples, McCrone received 32 and Heller and Adler received 22. HOWEVER, Heller and Adler had access to ALL of the blood tapes that Rogers sampled. And, we must remember that McCrone has (repeatedly) proclaimed that “there is no blood on the Shroud.” So, the fact that H&A had access to all of the blood tapes is quite important.
You mention that it seems as if Heller did not know that McCrone had cut all 32 tapes in half almost immediately after first working with them. Yet, Heller received those first 4 tapes directly from McCrone in early 1979, and he later received the 22 tapes once Ray Rogers, Eric Jumper and John Jackson dispossessed McCrone of them (although McCrone “somehow” forgot to give them one of the very most important blood tapes —3-CB. In my line of work (criminal defense) we have a term for that: embezzlement! McCrone had been loaned these tapes, the true owner (Rogers) came to get them back (after H&A were unable to after repeated attempts to do so) and McCrone, “somehow,” forgot to give them back one of the two most important tapes on the Shroud. McCrone doesn’t even attempt to make an excuse for it —as to how 3-CB got “left behind” with him as he gave the other 31 tapes back to Rogers (with Jackson and Jumper as witnesses.) McCrone even admits in his book that it took threats against him of legal action in order for him to finally turn over 3-CB —and, even then, McCrone admits in his book that he held on to some strings, etc. (See page 124 of McCrone’s book, “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin.). This is embezzlement which is, of course, a specific type of theft. This does, indeed, speak to McCrone’s character, and a character trait like that tends to manifest itself in more than one way. This is a well-understood aspect of human behavior.
You point to the Mark Evans microphotographs as an example of showing the varying degrees of color of the body image. But, these microphotographs were only magnified at 32x —which is, of course, not very much. That’s not enough to see the fine details of how the straw-yellow color from the dehydration, corrosion and oxidation of the cellulose microfibrils are uniformly colored within a less than 2% difference.
You say that, per the X-ray fluorescence paper by Morris, Schwalbe and London, that the density of the iron is related to the darkness of the image. That’s the exact opposite of what they concluded. Yes, they did find some non-uniformity in the background around the foot area, but please note footnote #8 on the last page of their paper which states: “Although data spectrum 2 is shown as a background point in Fig. 4, its proximity to the stain [bloodstain] suggests that a substantial portion of the ‘blood’ was sampled. Any interpretation of the relatively high iron concentration observed in this particular measurement is subject to some ambiguity.”
It is, also, important to note that in the conclusion of this same paper, it states: “There appears to be no evidence of heavy element concentration differences between image (non-blood) and off-image points which would suggest an obvious forgery. The data indicate generally uniform distribution of calcium and strontium over the investigated area of the cloth. . . . Substantially non-uniform concentrations of iron were observed, particularly at the dorsal foot and side-wound ‘blood’ stain regions. However, we can say no more than that either blood or some iron-based pigment was used to produce the stains.”
It should be noted here that iron-oxide was found, also, in the water stain margins on the Shroud —and this had been detected by the STURP team, also —and was a minor area of exemption in terms of the uniformity of the presence of covalently bound iron on the cloth from the retting process.
Fortunately, Heller and Adler were able to get more specific information to determine what was in these blood images via microchemical and physics-based testing. Of course, since blood contains iron, it is no surprise that the bloodstained areas contained a higher quantity of iron. So, there is that important consistency there. And, since it is obvious from the bloodstains that there has been a mechanical abrasion of these bloodstains —from the known rolling of the Shroud on a long dowel and flaking off of the bloodstains from both the rolling of the cloth and the prior, repeated, folding and unfolding of the cloth, we know that there is, also, translocation of blood particles from the bloodstains to other areas of the Shroud —not least areas near bloodstains.
We know from H&A’s careful work that the blood on the sticky-tapes took various forms, shapes and colors. And, we know from H&A’s work that there were 3 forms of iron on the Shroud: (1) heme-derived iron, (2) iron that was covalently bound to the cellulose as part of the retting process and (3) iron-oxide.
You mention McCrone’s statement that blood in any form, or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices less than 1.60. Well, this is not so. Burnt blood (which is present on the Shroud —in the areas where scorch/burn marks intersect with bloodstains) yields a reddish pigment that is iron-oxide. And, since iron oxide (per McCrone and others) has a practically doubled refractive index than typical blood, McCrone’s statement is false.
You mentioned that the entire Shroud is fluorescent under UV light —but, of course, this is not the case. The body image does not fluoresce under UV light. Moreover, you ask how did H&A know that they had washed away all of the toluene unless the washed away whatever made the cloth (other than the image areas) fluoresce? Well, there are different degrees of fluorescence, so that could have been one way they distinguished things.
You mention that McCrone found cinnabar on one slide while H&A found cinnabar on 3-CB. I’ll add that Gerard Lucite found some cinnabar on the tiny triangle he had analyzed from the face, and it seems like someone else found a tiny amount of cinnabar (perhaps Kohlbeck, but I do not remember for certain.) But, so what? We know that at least one PAINTED COPY of the Shroud had cinnabar on it —the painted copy that Giulio Fanti was studying —the Palma di Montechiaro in Sicily. This copy was one that had been sanctified by being touched to the genuine Shroud. So, per Locard’s principle of contact transfer, this is not a surprise that there will be some small amounts of cinnabar on the Shroud. However, if there had been enough to formulate an image (which would need to be at least 2 micrograms per square centimeter, (see Schwalbe and London’s paper on this at Shroud.com), the X-ray fluorescence scan would have detected it. Mottern, London and Morris tell us in their paper “Materials Evaluation” that hematite can be detected radiographically if it is at least 0.1 micrometer thick or .7×10^-4 gm/cm^2. So, if the body and blood images on the Shroud were painted with the type of watercolor paint that McCrone said it was, it would have been detected.
Regarding McCrone’s knowledge about how Mylar tape is optically active, I think that it is fair to say that just because he references his awareness in his paper that was published in October of 1980 does not mean that he actually remembered to take this into account when he was measuring the refractive indices back in the very early months of 1979 (prior to STURP’s Santa Barbara conference.) I think that it is quite likely that McCrone forgot about this aspect of the Mylar tape —much like a surgeon might forget to remove a surgical tool from a patient’s body during surgery before stitching the patient back up. Negligence is, unfortunately, not something that smart people are immune from committing.
Regarding the separation of the Shroud fibers from the sticky-tapes into groups of “image” versus “non-image,” you mention that McCrone did this. But, I believe that this was done by McCrone’s assistant —Christine Skirius— a young girl in middle school (so she would have been around 12 or 13) who went through the brief little microscopy workshop that McCrone would have for young students. How careful was her microscopic analysis and judgment about things as a 12 or 13 year old? I don’t know. McCrone did, at least, do the right thing in including her name with his on the first Shroud paper he published.
Lastly, you say that the “red-orange dots” are different from the “meaty lumps” —by which I’m sure you’re referring to “Biltong.” Well, YES, they are! “Biltong” is a CRYSTAL of denatured hemoglobin, whereas the garnet red fibers were, apparently, not —or, at least not nearly as large. But, this does not mean that they are not all blood. You mention that 7 garnet-red fibers were not “particles” like “Biltong.” Well, everything ends up being made up from various quantities of particles —it just depends on how closely you look.
And, lastly (for real this time), there is this important point: Heller detected these 7 (S-E-V-E-N) garnet-red fibers + the relatively huge red “Biltong” particle on a NON-IMAGE tape that McCrone did not detect any of these particles on (despite obviously having examined them! So much for McCrone’s being a careful microscopist!
All the best,
Teddi
Uh Oh, Pappity T-Dawg in the house. You tell em Teddi haha lol.
Ok so on a serious note, when are you going to finish Vol. 1 so you can finally debate Hugh on this stuff on my show?
Splendid. Only, no, Heller and Adler did not get samples from the all the blood areas – nothing from the feet. And no, slide 3-CB is not an important tape, it is a particularly useless one for diagnosis, being a mixture of different types of characteristic. And no, Morris, Schwalbe and London’s data, as opposed to their conclusions, suggest that iron density is indeed associated with image density. And no, Heller and Adler’s observation that particulate iron oxide is only associated with the water stains and scorched blood is belied by a cursory observation of almost any of the micrographs taken by Nitowski and Kohlbeck. And no, iron oxide is not organic. And no, Christine Skirius did not divide the image from non-image slides by observation.
But never mind, perhaps these are simple errors and scholarly differences of interpretation. We can agree to differ. But what are we to make of this: “But, I believe that this was done by McCrone’s assistant – Christine Skirius – a young girl in middle school (so she would have been around 12 or 13) who went through the brief little microscopy workshop that McCrone would have for young students. How careful was her microscopic analysis and judgment about things as a 12 or 13 year old? I don’t know.” No, you don’t,* so why mention it? It is nothing but another attempt to sow suspicion on McCrone’s investigation, and a perfect justification of why I felt the need to write the post that started this discussion.
* I, on the other hand, do know, and it’s all wrong.
Hi, Hugh,
You say that “no,” that Christine Skirius did not divide the image from non-image slides from observation. Well, I agree —and I never said that she did (you said that I said that.) What I said was: “Regarding the separation of the Shroud fibers from the sticky-tapes into groups of ‘image’ versus ‘non-image’ . . .” Here, “sticky-tapes” is referring to where the Shroud fibers came from —to indicate that these were Shroud fibers that had not been sampled by Rogers with the sticky-tapes. (As you know, there have been fibers that have been plucked from the Shroud by non-STURP members.) So, I was merely being descriptive and precise here.
Also, as you know, these yellow colored fibers are often seen among non-yellowed fibers on the same tapes —regardless as to whether they come from image or non-image areas. How? Because, the repeated rolling and folding of the Shroud for centuries would cause even the dehydrated, oxidized fibers of the body image to break away and transfer to other areas of the cloth. Moreover, some fibers have yellowing as well as non-yellowing on the same fiber.
On page 101 of McCrone’s book, McCrone wrote the following about the work he delegated to a child:
“On May 27, 1979, I decided we needed to make a count of colored versus uncolored fibers in a representative sample of the 32 tapes. . . . Each year, I teach 15-20 junior high school students in a special Saturday course to induce them to become scientists and, preferably, microscopists. I was fortunate to convinced one very bright young student, Christine Skirius, who had more patience (and more time) than I had, to spend several days counting yellow versus colorless fibers, more than 8,000 in all, on 12 of the 32 tapes. As with my search for red ochre on the image versus the control tapes (Table IV, pp. 93-94), Christine did not know which were image tapes. By June 12, I could tabulate her results with their source on the “Shroud[.]. The first four tapes, all from non-image areas, show the lowest percentage of colored fibers (average 19.5%); the other eight image tapes average 45.5%. This is a substantial proof of the presence of a liquid paint medium in image areas.” Well, no, it really isn’t. It does not really speak to what is causing the fibers to be yellow.
Also, there is a problem with this. In March 1980, McCrone said that the alleged “proteinaceous medium” (for the supposed paint that formed the blood and body images on the Shroud) was very thin and very difficult to see microscopically (pg. 186 of McCrone’s book). So, since this “proteinaceous medium” is, presumably the uniformly colored yellow body image that McCrone said looks like dyed yellow fiber, exactly how did McCrone or Christine Skirius detect this practically invisible paint medium? How is this paint medium potentially more visible with the naked eye than microscopically? And, if it is so visible, why couldn’t McCrone detect it immediately (in the early days of his examining the sticky-tapes?). That’s a bit of a “sticky wicket.”
Anyhow, for vitally important matters, I am not in the habit of trusting the work of a child around 12 years old for their ability to discern things (the color on 8,000 tiny fibers!) —especially something that McCrone said really needs to be stained with a medium in order to be seen under the microscope. So, McCrone’s giving a child this sort of responsibility does raise an eyebrow —probably two.
If the body image is formed by the uniformly “dyed” looking area (that McCrone concedes), how does this coincide with red ochre PIGMENT (either dry or in a medium) forming the image? Pigment and dye are two very different things, and they appear very differently on cloth. Red pigment on top of yellow dye would create TWO colors —which is the opposite of something being uniformly colored, correct. The “uni” in the word “uniform” means ONE.
Regarding tape 3-CB —if it was such an unimportant tape, why was that the 1 tape of 32 that McCrone, decided to embezzle (with the definition of “embezzle” being the taking of property (such as sticky-tapes or Shroud fibers) that had been entrusted in their care. (See page 124 of McCrone’s book.) 3-CB was, of course, the tape that McCrone then sent to his optics team for all sorts of analysis —but, sure, you think it was an important tape. Obviously, McCrone disagreed.
Regarding what Morris, Schwalbe and London said, you just make statements —I provided quotes from their paper. If someone doubts me, they should read the entire paper —with, especially, the footnote on the last page.
Regarding your sweeping dismissal of the iron-oxide that Heller and Adler detected in the water stain margins and burnt blood areas, no, your claiming that “cursory” glances of almost any of the microphotographs taken by Kohlbeck/Nitowski does not disprove what I say. First of all, their many photographs are, often, duplicate views of one slide. And, many of the slides are from the areas where iron oxide would be in any appreciable amount.
And, no, Hugh —I NEVER said that iron oxide is organic —you said that. What I know is that when blood is combusted, a reddish powder is left behind which is, in fact, iron-oxide (along with some char), but it does not, obviously, derive from a mineral from the earth.) We have Vicenzo Menghini to thank for this discovery that showed that iron is in blood, and that is why blood has a metallic taste to it.
Regarding how many blood image tapes McCrone and Heller & Adler had —I’m seeing a disconnect somewhere. Page 78 of McCrone’s book says Rogers took 6 “blood-image” tapes (as opposed to “body image” tapes.) On page 49 of Adler’s “The Orphaned Manuscript,” it shows the tapes Heller and Adler received for their early papers —I count 6 blood tapes here, as well. (Of course, years later, Adler had access to examining all of the blood tapes.). So, since McCrone cannot get more “blood-image” tapes than what Rogers sampled, McCrone would have had 6 blood tapes.
BUT, when I look at a chart that I made back around June of this year, I do, indeed, see what you are saying —that McCrone had a blood tape from the foot (which would be 1AB), but Heller and Adler did not receive this one. So, I’m guessing that McCrone just miscounted the number of blood tapes that he mentions were taken in his own book? (So, I’ll blame McCrone on my memory getting that one wrong —because I remembered the “6” – “6” number —which always stuck in my mind as they both examined the same number of blood tapes. But, when I went back to look at the chart that I had made (with the tapes that Rogers, McCrone and Heller & Adler had) the chart, I do see where 1AB is a tape McCrone had but that H&A did not. So, you are right about that! (BUT, even a broken clock is right twice a day! 🤣🤣🤣)
So, McCrone must have mischaracterized at least one tape in his book, because on page 78 of said book, he wrote that Rogers took a superb set of 32 tape samples. (Perhaps he did not realize that Rogers did not give him 4 of his tapes?) But, with the tapes McCrone said he received, they are: 14 non-image tapes, 12 body image tapes, 6 blood image tapes which is 32 tapes.
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Teddi and Hugh. Permit me to jump in despite this topic being way over my head.
The “Sign from God” website tells us: “Dust and pollen found on the Shroud are native to where, according to the Bible, Jesus lived and walked.”
That may be so, though I don’t think we can be sure. What is surer is that dust and pollen found on the Shroud are native to where Davy Crockett lived and walked in Tennessee.
That is not an absurdity. In what may be the most interesting and most scientific study of pollen on the Shroud, Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud, Gianni Barcaccia, Giulio Galla, Alessandro Achilli, Anna Olivieri & Antonio Torroni state in Scientific Reports, an Open Access journal published by Nature (October 5, 2015): “With regard to the land plant species identified, some are native to Mediterranean countries and widespread throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East and are thus compatible with both a rather recent Medieval origin in Europe and a more ancient Near Eastern origin. However, others have a center of origin in Eastern Asia and the Americas and were introduced to Europe only after the Medieval period. Clearly, the latter species cannot help in discriminating between alternative scenarios.”
In other words, we can’t know if the pollen seemingly pointing to the Palestinian region is unique to just that area or a wider Near Eastern area. The question is how wide. Moreover, if East Asian and American pollen are certainly later contaminants, shouldn’t we also realize that what is presumably Palestinian pollen could also have been a medieval contaminant? Why not?
We can only imagine how the pollen from America, Asia, and elsewhere got there, perhaps carried in the cloth and fur of clothing of world travelers. Clothing was not kept very clean in those days. And can we not wonder if that might include loose fibers, paint pigments, soil products, and blood?
What do we have in mylar tapes designed to pick up only the loosest material? A mix of dust, spores, and bits of all matter of stuff on a cloth that, as Teddi reminds us, was often rolled and unrolled, folded and unfolded. Certainly, it was often smoothed out with the loving, dirty hands of people wearing clothing of cloth and fur from all over the world.
Let me pick out one tiny bit of something you, Teddi, wrote as an example: “which is, in fact, iron-oxide (along with some char), but it does not, obviously, derive from a mineral from the earth.”
Really? Could it be from Davy Crockett country, the Red and Yellow Clay region of Tennessee called the Highland Rim. There the soil is rich in iron oxides. There, too, grow the Black Locust Trees (Robinia pseudo acacia) whose pollen is found on the Shroud? Could someone have brought some pollen and iron oxide to the Shroud in the fur of a coonskin hat?
Where did the yellow come from? If you’ve ever gone hiking in the Appalachian Mountains in Tennessee, you know you can’t wash the yellow out of you socks. Seriously, it’s a good question. Rogers thought it was melanoidins or one of the other products of a Maillard reaction. Some think it is the consequence of radiation. Colin Berry thought it might have been the result of a complicated process involving heat and flour. I have no idea.
Are we not logically dealing with a contamination mess when it comes to fibers and other things as well as pollen.
Can someone sort this out for me?
Hi, Dan,
You ask, “where did the yellow come from?” By that, I am presuming that you mean the straw-yellow body image on the Shroud. I think that the explanation that H&A figured out was that it was just the linen, itself, in a dehydrated, oxidized form. We’ve all seen old books whose paper has turned yellow –same thing. There is no credible evidence of any paint, pigment, stain or dye that is present on the Shroud in a sufficient quantity to account for the image that is seen.
As to the iron-oxide on the Shroud coming from mineralogically-based iron-oxide/red ochre pigment from the earth, the evidence points to this not being the situation. Why? Because such iron-earth pigment is known to have, at minimum a 1% rate of contamination from manganese, cobalt, nickel and/or aluminum in it. Yet, testing via the electron microprobe showed that the iron-oxide on the Shroud was “pure” to the sensitivity level of an electron microprobe –which is sensitive to 0.0001%. So, this is not really a viable possibility in terms of what is reasonable to think.
All the best,
Teddi
Hi Teddi. Thanks for the information. The “yellow” question was rhetorical. I don’t think we can simply pick H&A explanation because we like it or because it was the consensus position by STURP at one time. I certainly appreciate what Rogers proposed. Colin Berry did some interesting work that may warrant further study. The Shroud Science Group debated the yellow problem for a long time and did not arrive at a decision (see List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud, is from the Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, held in Frascati, Italy in 2010).
Hugh Farey offered some advice on some other blog that seems applicable: “De-controversialisation, if such a word there be, is the goal of all scientific investigation. Only when there is no controversy about something does it become part of mainstream ‘science.’ Finding out, and demonstrating, the best representation of truth that he can come up with, in such a way that there is no longer any controversy about it, is every scientist’s dream. If I, or Joe Marino, or Bob Rucker, or Giulio Fanti or John Jackson, or even you, I dare say, could achieve a description of the Shroud that was truly uncontroversial, we’d all be happy men!”
I’m not rejecting H&A out of hand. I once thought it was the answer.
Teddi, as you know, in the practice of law, contradictory and controversial evidence is a matter for litigants, lawyers, judges and juries. They try to sort it out. But, with scientific claims it’s not that way. In science, contradictory and controversial evidence suggests experimental errors, limitations in methodologies, or even a lack of understanding. In science, contradictory evidence is resolved by more science. It has been 45 years since STURP. If after that time we are unable to explain the chemical nature of the image in certain terms, then we must do more science. There is an image on the Shroud that calls for an explanation. There is no getting around that fact. We can’t ignore this or gloss over it. The conflicting claims effectively cancel each other out and inject a strong measure of reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the best answer. It is a temporary answer but one that is probably so for the foreseeable future.
As for the iron oxide, if the Shroud was significantly contaminated during the Middle Ages, as the pollen evidence suggests, then I don’t think we can say with confidence that the nature of the iron oxide on the Shroud is this way or that from a few observations. Again, we are in the land of reasonable doubt.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Ah! I understand. I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. The tapes were all divided (blind) into image and non-image twice, firstly by McCrone himself, merely on particle density, which didn’t take much time, the results of which are tabulated in Table IV of his book. This was described by me as “According to McCrone, he examined all the slides, without knowing where each came from, and, in separating those with iron oxide from those with little or none, managed to divide them accurately into ‘image’ (including blood) and ‘non-image.”
The second time, 12 slides were examined by Christine Skirius, over “several days,” this time looking at the colour of the fibres. Her results are tabulated in Table V.
You misread my paper, and then I misread your response. Apologies.
I’m glad you understand that iron oxide is not organic: I was led astray by your paragraph “You mention McCrone’s statement that blood in any form, or any organic derivative of blood has refractive indices less than 1.60. Well, this is not so. Burnt blood (which is present on the Shroud —in the areas where scorch/burn marks intersect with bloodstains) yields a reddish pigment that is iron-oxide. And, since iron oxide (per McCrone and others) has a practically doubled refractive index than typical blood, McCrone’s statement is false.” Here you appeared to me to claim that iron oxide was an organic derivative of blood and had a high refractive index. If this was so, McCrone’s statement would indeed be false, but if it isn’t, as you now appear to say, then I’m sure you’ll agree that his statement is true.
I agree that it is difficult to characterise the tapes in terms of where they come from. McCrone specifies “blood” for 3EF, 3EB, and 3FB. He says “wound” for 3CB, 6AF and 6BF. However it is apparent that 1AB is also right on top of a blood mark. Heller and Adler use “blood” for 3EF, 3CB, 3EB, 3FB, 4CB and 6BF. However, 4CB seems to be a scorch off the side of a shoulder, and not the middle of the back. Presumably both parties were working from Barrie’s identification photos, and perhaps the diagrams in the original Test Plan, but they do not wholly coincide.
Best wishes, and congratulations on your persistent endeavours really to get to the bottom of things. If only more authenticists did the same!
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
Yes, I think we “got our signals crossed” on the McCrone-Skirius matter. My apologies as well for my role in that, as well. Glad we got that straightened out.
With McCrone and what he said about the refractive index of blood “in any form” has a refractive index of less than 1.6. My point was that burnt/combusted blood is a “form” of blood. When blood is combusted, iron-oxide is formed –and that will have a refractive index that is substantially higher than 1.6. It’s a technical point, but a valid one, nonetheless.
Around last June, I was involved in the nightmare of going through and cross-referencing the various descriptions of the sticky-tapes. It took a shockingly long time to go through all of that. I know that you have tangled with these as well. As such, you understand the headache of it all since we are dealing with Rogers’ descriptions, McCrone’s descriptions, Heller & Adler’s descriptions and Kohlbeck/Nitowski’s descriptions –and, of course, many of these descriptions vary a bit in how they are described. So, it takes a very careful examination and re-examination of things to get things right. When I was referencing that McCrone and Heller & Adler both had the same number of blood tapes to look at, I was going from memory based upon what I had remembered McCrone writing in his book and H&A writing in one of their papers. Had I gone through the effort of pulling my chart that I had prepared on this, I would have seen that there was, indeed, one blood tape that H&A did not, initially, analyze. (Although, again, Adler later got access to all of the blood tapes –and, quite likely, additional non-blood tapes, too.
Thank you for your kind words, they are quite appreciated!
Cheers,
Teddi
I noticed Dan Porter said something interesting in his response to Teddi, he said,
“De-controversialisation, if such a word there be, is the goal of all scientific investigation. Only when there is no controversy about something does it become part of mainstream ‘science”.
I do think a consensus is desired, if possible, but I don’t think any scientist in the world would agree with this as a criterion for being a part of “mainstream science” otherwise, OK great, throw out evolution and the round Earth or climate change as there is indeed still controversy on these issues. Being privy to the Intelligent design debate, I know that the way consensus works in mainstream science is often not truth-conducive but more like a cult forcing people to agree with them or else they ostracize any dissenters and arbitrarily “disqualify” them as scientists so as keep their so-called scholarly consensus.
Is consensus among experts epistemically valuable- you bet, it is one of the first indicators of truth we usually look for as laymen, but one must be wary of assigning to much confidence to such an appeal until they have looked to see whether a bias of some kind is at play as is provably the case in the creation/intelligent design vs. evolution debate (I’ve spoken personally with Michael Behe, Bill Dembski and Winston Ewert about their experiences). And I’m saying this as someone with no skin in the game at all in this debate, I take a nuanced Intelligent design position myself, but if natural evolution were to be proven true entirely (mechanistically)m it wouldn’t make a lick of difference to my faith at all; I’d happily accept Theistic evolution.
So I think consensus can be a helpful tool at times but is not the be all and end all of deciding truth and even with a consensus there will always be controversy. Better that one decide the matter based on listening to what all sides of an argument are claiming and why and then evaluating the evidence for themselves as best they can to decide the truth.
Dan was quoting me, as he acknowledged, so I’m not sure if Dale really read the comment or the comment on it. It was a general, if somewhat oblique remark on the goal of scientific endeavour, and a challenge to Colin Berry, who was rather more outspoken than I in his championing of a medieval origin for the Shroud. His point was that much scientific progress is made by investigating areas beyond what is generally considered established, and, if they think they have established something new, they present it, usually by lectures and publication, in defiance of “consensus.”
This is quite true, but my point was to look at what happens next. Some scientists will accept the new model, and others reject it. As such, it cannot be considered part of “mainstream science.” After further investigation, and especially after the discovery has been verified or not, by other, independent, scientists, it is incorporated, or not, into the corpus of the universal, coherent model of reality we call “science.”
In practice, even quite solid bases for our current understanding are challenged by a small minority, and possibly there is nothing at all that enjoys truly universal consensus, so it may be true that the apparently self-contradictory “even with a consensus there will always be controversy” is in practice correct. However in broader terms, I stand by my remark.
In his last paragraph Dale suggests something for which I have been taken to task elsewhere, to the effect that truth is not established by consensus, but then, I do not say that it is. Science is a working model of the universe, not necessarily a correct description. The progress of science is the continuous process of refining the model, and occasionally adopting a new model altogether if it seems to fit the universe better than the previous one. Major examples of such include the spherical earth, the heliocentric solar system, the evolution of life and the Big Bang, all of which were initially controversial, but have now achieved, barring a little somewhat trivial dissent, general scientific consensus, and been absorbed into the greater whole. At the fringes are various hypotheses regarding fundamental particles, the possibility of existence beyond event horizons, the role of epigenetics in evolution and so on. Whether any of these things actually exist is outside the field of true science, something which both scientists and non-scientists would do well to remember.
Thank you for explaining that this quote came from you and what you were intending here. I don’t have too much to add as I mostly agree with what you say given you are mostly agreeing with what I said originally lol.
I am curious just to ask and after you answer, I won’t go further as I realize this is Dan’s Blog related to Shroud only matters and so I don’t want to distract from the goal of this Blog here, but just interested to know what are your thoughts in the paradigm shifts in evolution and Big Bang studies. For example, the Standard Big Bang model has indeed been falsified and has thus been revised in the light of things like inflation theory and the accelerating expansion rate of the universe for example. Or with evolution, the majority of scientists are now admitting that Neo-Darwinism is a failure on a mechanistic level- it literally cannot explain the evolution of all the biodiversity in this world and now they are going for a much more expanded model in the Modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis that involves other mechanisms like evo-devo theory, Niche construction, epigenetic inheritance, etc.- stuff never mentioned in any of the high-school science textbooks that teach a overly simplified and ultimately false theory of evolution. But yeah, maybe check out my show with Dr. Michael Behe on the inherent limits on mechanisms like natural selection and genetic mutations alone to explain the biodiversity of life o nthis planet here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nkuw_CSbH0
I’d love to just hear your thoughts on it without my needing to respond. Anyways, back to the Shroud!
My question is that with this increasing list of needed naturalistic mechanisms, doesn’t it seem far more “simple” (as per Ockham’s Razor) to posit intelligent design instead. Hugh, you believe in God and so you shouldn’t have any a priori reasons to exclude the intelligent design explanatory option.
P.S.- With this ever growing list of natural mechanisms being needed to explain all the bio-diversity of life; isn’t positing intelligent design a far more simple explanation (as per Ockham’s Razor) for it given you already believe in the intelligent designer God’s existence.
Well, although biological diversity is not really a Shroud related subject, I think the way science works – and what science really is – is relevant to the Shroud, and quite often misunderstood by investigators whose primary expertise is in non-scientific fields.
Science creates a model open to refinement, it does not define absolute truth. Successive refinements do not usually “falsify” the model, they improve it so that it corresponds better to observation. Only on very few occasions is the model completely overthrown in favour of a better one, and even then, primary observations that supported a previous model must be incorporated into the new one.
The four revolutions in thought that I mentioned, the spherical earth, the heliocentric solar system, the Big Bang and evolution have certainly not been “falsified.” Quite the reverse, they have been strengthened by their subsequent modifications, based on new investigations and observations.
As for “high-school textbooks,” they are indeed simplified, but not, I think “over-simplified,” and certainly not “ultimately false.” Sometimes they are under-simplified. When I was very young I read somewhere that the earth was flattened at the poles and that there was more mass in the southern hemisphere than in the north – slightly pear-shaped, in fact. For some time I really thought the earth really was shaped like a pear, only to discover its almost perfect sphericity when I came across photos of it from space. Had the text-book told me that the earth was spherical, I would have had a much better idea of its shape than I got from the book’s greater accuracy.
Hi, Dan,
You mentioned the following:
“I don’t think we can simply pick H&A explanation because we like it or because it was the consensus position by STURP at one time.”
I agree with you 100%!
However, (and you knew that “however” was coming . . .) we CAN pick the H&A explanation for a very valid reasons: it’s the strongest, most contextually logical and most “bullet-proof” explanation for the chemical/physical nature of the straw-yellow body image.
I claim that it’s the “strongest” –well, by what measure? The measure that I use is that they gave reasoned explanations based upon their microscopical observations, their microchemical testing and chemical experiments.
Plus, to gild the lily, everybody who has ever looked at an old book knows from experience how the cellulose in the paper of old books turns yellow (unless printed on archival, acid-free paper) –just like the cellulose in linen on the Shroud did. Did it take the passage of time for the body image to become visible to the human eye –I don’t know. I really don’t have a firm position on this, and the position I do have is just speculation.
Also, it is imperative that when examining the issue of the image-formation process, one must keep in mind that whatever method one thinks is responsible for it, this method must comport with the specific special criteria that we see on the Shroud –and for both a frontal and dorsal body image of an adult human. This adds a whole other level of complexity in ACTUALLY trying to reproduce the FULL body image that is on the Shroud. Let’s see someone manage that –as opposed to a small, partial reproduction (that does not even prove to achieve all of the special criteria that is achieved with the Shroud’s body image.)
You also mention that with SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS, contradictory and controversial evidence suggests experimental errors, limitations in methodologies, or even a lack of understanding. And then you say that contradictory evidence is resolved by more science.
First, let me clarify –I am not interested in making merely “scientific claims.” I’m operating on a much bigger scale than just science –which is limited to the natural realm. No, no –I’m interested in TRUTH CLAIMS. Science is a very useful took that we can use to arrive at the Truth. But, logic and reason and history and placing information in its proper context and looking at corroborating evidence –this is the stuff that helps us to arrive at Truth. Science is only a part of that process –it’s not the alpha and the omega of it.
The Shroud cannot be separated from the historical evidence –and the 4 Gospels –written by 4 authors– does, indeed, count as historical evidence. As such, the numerous accounts that are given where Jesus stated that He would be killed and then rise from the dead on the 3rd day cannot be swept under the rug. What we see on the Shroud cannot be ignored. The image on the Shroud gives us the evidence of Jesus’ death (via the evidence of rigor mortis and the seemingly closed eyes where there really is evidence to believe that there is still a coin over them. [I realize that I’ve just opened up a can of worms.] People say that the Shroud should show Christ alive. Well, I think that God (with His omniscience) knows that the skeptics would then just say –see, Jesus was never really dead when He was placed in the Shroud.
There is the simple principle of “cause and effect.” The cause must FIRST happen, and THEN the effect. As Jesus was supernaturally resurrected from some sort of Light source –which makes perfect sense since the Bible says that God is Light– we see on the Shroud the nanosecond where the Light/energy resurrects Jesus, but BEFORE He comes to life and opens His eyes. This all makes perfect sense when examined in its proper context.
Science will never be able to solve all of the mysteries of the Shroud, because science is limited to the natural realm. But, science has no power to disprove that which goes beyond its capacity to prove. Science can only discredit natural explanations –so as to point to the supernatural.
Abraham Lincoln said: “Be sure to put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”
I am confident that my feet are in the right place, therefore, I am standing firm. Unless someone can show legitimate failings in H&A’s findings, my feet won’t be moving anywhere.
All the best,
Teddi
Teddi, I think you and I mostly define and envision the Resurrection differently. And I think many others have their own scenarios for what happened. Until we have a common definition of Resurrection, we can have no proof. For instance I can’t accept your statement: “we see on the Shroud the nanosecond where the Light/energy resurrects Jesus, but BEFORE He comes to life and opens His eyes.”
I don’t believe he opened his eyes unless you are being metaphorical, of course. Really!
I think the contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it well when it states, “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.”
To my way of thinking, “his passing over to another life” was an instantaneous disappearance of the corpse in ways that transcend anything that the laws of nature can entertain or tolerate. The post-resurrection appearances were, to my way of thinking, tangible apparitions. The best example, I believe, is Luke’s telling of the Emmaus story.
Ellen Painter Dollar, who writes frequently for Sojourners, Patheos, and Episcopal Cafe, has written a revealing article called “Why We Need the Resurrection.” It appears in the website of St. James’s Episcopal Church of West Hartford, Connecticut. It reads, in part:
“. . . But the resurrection is a hard sell. It looks an awful lot like wishful thinking. Dead bodies don’t just up and walk around, asking for breakfast and appearing in locked rooms. What really happened that Sunday morning?
“Some say that the disciples experienced some kind of prolonged shared vision—not a hallucination that existed only in their minds, but a vision tangible enough, real enough, for disparate people to agree on what they were seeing and hearing. They saw and interacted with something real that looked and walked and talked like Jesus, that was Jesus, but was something other than Jesus’s cells and organs and protoplasm resuscitated from the grave. The resurrected Jesus’s body didn’t behave the way bodies usually do—take the locked room appearance, for example, or that he appeared to different people in different places around the same time. Scholars point out that when Paul defends the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he links his own experience of seeing a powerful vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus with the first disciples’ post-resurrection sightings, implying that he thinks they had the same sort of vision that he had, rather than an interaction with an actual dead body that was no longer dead.
“Other theologians have said, no, it’s not that complicated. The resurrected Jesus was not some kind of vision. Jesus’s body was dead and lying in a grave, and then it was alive. Thomas put his hands into the wounds, after all. The resurrected Jesus ate, walked, and talked. Why would a vision need to eat? . . .”
If we return to the Catholic catechism, we find it most closely corresponds to Dollar’s last here-quoted paragraph. That is so until we read, “Yet at the same time, this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills…”
Glorious body or tangible apparitions? Our language is perhaps inadequate.
1) The catechisms of all traditions, 2) the notion that Jesus opened his eyes, and 3) the belief that the body disappeared instantly are all extensions of the biblical narrative and should be treated as such, not as gospel.
I cannot agree with your defense of H&A by “TRUTH CLAIMS” or science. We see such things differently, which is fine. Thanks for you comprehensive reply.
I think you’re both right. Or neither. What, I ask myself, actually is “the H&A position,” that Dan can’t, but Teddi can, select as fact? If we take the abstract of A Chemical Investigation, we can differentiate between observation and interpretation.
“The presence of whole blood was established by detection of heme derivatives, bile pigments and proteins.” On the whole I go along with this, although some biologists query whether the experiments carried out were exclusively diagnostic of blood rather than other sources of the derivatives observed.
“Although iron in several forms is found over the whole cloth, its distribution is shown to be accounted for by natural processes, rather than as an added pigment.” I disagree with this. Heller and Adler did not quantify the iron they observed, and the differences in the variation in iron, calcium and strontium measured by Morris, Schwalbe and London suggest that the sources of the iron, at least were different from the sources of the other two. The speculation about retting is no more than a guess.
“There is no chemical evidence for the application of any pigments, stains or dyes on the cloth to produce the image found thereon.” I agree that the current levels of pigment and probably degraded binder are insufficient to produce a recognisable image, but that doesn’t mean that such application cannot account for the development of the current chromophore.
“The chemical differences between image and non-image areas of the cloth indicate that the image was produced by some dehydrated oxidative process of the cellular structure of the linen, to yield a conjugated carbonyl group as the chromophore.” I think this is probably correct, but I explain the development of this chromophore as a result of some of chemically induced degradation reaction.
It is interesting that Heller and Adler mention: “It is remarkable how closely all these results were predicted by Rogers prior to the actual investigation of the Shroud.” In 1977, Rogers was doubtful of a chemical cause for the image, and thought that “rapid heating” was “the only hypothesis left.” Subsequently, of course, he changed his mind completely.