Contradictions involving the Shroud of Turin?

[irenaeuslyons]

There has been much discussion about Raymond Rogers’s paper, and many confirmed authenticists, and myself, a non-authenticist, do not accept that his observations necessarily lead to the conclusions he drew. In particular the values he assigned to the pre-exponental factor and the rate constant of the Arrhenius equation are not explained at all

He was not just any scientist. He was an important member of STURP. He explains that the rate was dependent on the temperature that could not be ascertained with certainty, so he used values within reason. But using a reasonable upper or lower bound did not alter the data enough in either direction to change the conclusion. Hence the very large range. The precision suffered, but it did not matter because he did not need a greater level of percision to reach his conclusion.

His finding of a pigment embedded in a water-soluble gum is inconclusive, and his comments on cotton are inconsistent with the findings of other observers.

Which other qualified observers specifically searched for cotton in samples from the edge of the cloth? Do you have a link?

Irenaeuslyons is correct that Rogers was a real scientist, and that he thought he could easily demonstrate that any claim of ‘patching’ must be false, but he did not have a ‘sample of the original cloth’. He had some sticky tape slides with detached fibres on them, and a few threads from the Raes sample, and the ‘riserva’ portion of the radiocarbon sample.

Having fibers from the cloth adjacent to the C14 dated portion constitutes the “sample” I am talking about. I never said cloth square or matrix. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear.

It must also be emphasised that the nuns who repaired the Shroud after the 1532 fire had nothing to do with the radiocarbon corner. That is supposed to have been repaired a hundred years later or so, and with a great deal more skill.

I never mentioned the 1532 fire, but it was likely nuns would be the only ones qualified as well as allowed to repair the cloth. Also the reweaving technique was independently verified by three experts who viewed photographs of the clothes edge (See the discovery channel documentary). This technique was known to be practiced in France in late medieval period and into the Renaissance. So we may know about the obvious repairs to the burn holes of the 1532 fire, but the not so obvious repairs to the edge of the cloth were not revealed until after the STURP investigation and were likely completed around the same time period.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As I say, Rogers’s paper has created controversy. His use of the Arrhenius equation and the assumptions he made in using it is one of the factors discussed. Cotton was observed by various researchers all over the Shroud (e.g. McCrone, Heller & Adler, and Lucotte), but enumerating the amount has, as far as I know, only been achieved by two actual counters, and one general observation. Giulio Fanti looked at a thread from the radiocarbon sample area, and found that 4 of the 188 fibres of the thread were made of cotton (shroud.com/pdfs/fantir7appendix.pdf). Thibault Heimburger looked at a thread from the Raes sample by pulling fibres from it, and achieved various results - about 15% overall (shroud.com/pdfs/thibaultr7part1.pdf - also part2 and part3). Rogers gave Robert Villareal three threads from the Raes sample, one of which fell apart, but both ends of which were identified as cotton, not flax at all. As far as I know there has been no quantification of cotton in other parts of the Shroud.

However the concept of ‘invisible mending’ is probably the most divisive. The ‘three experts’ did not mention invisible mending, but made vague remarks about the difference in structure between the two sides of the herringbone ‘spine’, suggesting a ‘patch’. This concept was rapidly discarded when it became obvious that no such patch was credible. It was replaced by the concept of invisible mending, which was alleged to have been used by medieval repairers.

Here the controversy diversifies. The only technique we know about that was used by medieval repairers is still used today, and called French Invisible Mending. I have commissioned two such repairs from leading firms specialising in it, and it is not truly invisible. Those who still cling to the idea have to claim that there was another technique, now lost, which was truly invisible, but there is no historical evidence nor modern experimentation that demonstrates it, only wishful thinking. The idea that the presence of something invisible is validated solely by the fact that it cannot be seen is not scientific.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Cotton was observed by various researchers all over the Shroud (e.g. McCrone, Heller & Adler, and Lucotte), but enumerating the amount has, as far as I know, only been achieved by two actual counters, and one general observation. Giulio Fanti looked at a thread from the radiocarbon sample area, and found that 4 of the 188 fibres of the thread were made of cotton (shroud.com/pdfs/fantir7appendix.pdf). Thibault Heimburger looked at a thread from the Raes sample by pulling fibres from it, and achieved various results - about 15% overall (shroud.com/pdfs/thibaultr7part1.pdf - also part2 and part3). Rogers gave Robert Villareal three threads from the Raes sample, one of which fell apart, but both ends of which were identified as cotton, not flax at all. As far as I know there has been no quantification of cotton in other parts of the Shroud.

Does that not seem strange to you that cotton was blended with linen? Its proof positive that either it was repaired or the cloth was originally spun with a blend. What other option is there? If the whole cloth was a blend then it must be a forgery given that cotton did not make its way into Europe until around ~1200’s. I am sure it took some time for cotton to become wide spread after its intro. The main body of the cloth was already carefully examined and it was not found to be a blend. Finding cotton fibers on the surface of the cloth vs finding them spun into the thread where they are twisted together suggest two very different things. The only place where fibers of cotton and linen were twisted together was found on the edge that I know of. Random cotton fibers pulled off the surface could just be contamination by a wrapping cloth or accreted during the well know repair process for the burn holes. But the actual spun thread with both linen and cotton deserves an explanation. What is yours?

This concept was rapidly discarded when it became obvious that no such patch was credible.

How so? It is documented that cotton strands were twisted together with linen. Either the cloth was originally spun as a blend or it was repaired. We know the body was examined very carefully and there was no blend. It was determined to be linen, the edge must be a repair. The photos showing a different fluorescence on that part of the fabric also attest to its different nature.

Here the controversy diversifies. The only technique we know about that was used by medieval repairers is still used today, and called French Invisible Mending. I have commissioned two such repairs from leading firms specialising in it, and it is not truly invisible.

This kind of misses the point. How a repair was done is not nearly as important as the fact that we know that we have blended cotton and linen fibers twisted together on that edge. How we got there is interesting to speculate about, but it doesn’t change the reality we are faced with.
.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The presence of cotton does indeed suggest that the Shroud is medieval, although cotton was grown in Nubia in late biblical times. However the main body of the Shroud has never been studied in sufficient detail to determine whether the cotton in the Raes corner is atypical. As I say, cotton was found all over the Shroud by the sticky tape extraction method, but whether it is purely adventitious, or a contaminant during the spinning or weaving process has never been established, nor even, as far as I know, investigated. Medieval textile manufacturers used flax, cotton and deliberate blends of the two, so it is not at all surprising that some textiles nominally of one are “contaminated” by the other.

The idea that threads have been found showing cotton twisted together with linen is insufficiently well evidenced for credibility, I’m afraid. The only thread sufficiently carefully studied to determine its biology was one given to Robert Villareal. It wasn’t spliced or twisted, it simply had the two ends held together in a terpene ‘glue’, and both ends were determined by Villarreal to be cotton.

 

[Rasoleil]

Margaret of Savoy, whose family own the Shroud at the time, specified that she wanted pieces of the Shroud clipped from the edges as relics and placed in her families chapel, upon her death. The clippings likely came from the edge of the Shroud. She died was in 1508. So, pieces were removed before the 1532 fire. Just mentioned this as I don’t think many people know about this.

 

[undead_rat]

undead_rat:

The Shroud samples were valid samples.

That’s not true. One of the lead scientists of STURP is on camera confirming that the dates were accurate but the samples were bad because they contained medieval cotton. He still had a sample of the original cloth in his lab. He was very angry because he wanted to silence the “lunatic fringe” as he called them. I admire that he had the guts to admit they were right all along. The cotton likely came from the nuns who repaired it.

I subscribed to the medieval invisible repair theory until I read Antonacci’s 2015 book, TEST THE SHROUD, in which Rogers is conclusively debunked. As textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg stated: “Invisible reweaving is only invisible on one side. Evidence of the repair will always be visible on the other.”
In 2002 the Shroud was subject to a “restoration” process, and its backing was removed. Textile experts, being aware of the reweaving hypothesis, very carefully examined the backside of the Shroud and found no evidence of any repair. The actual Shroud samples that were sent to the C-14 labs were photographed on both sides, and no sign of any kind of repair is to be found on them.
I suggest that you get Antonacci’s book which disproves the medieval repair theory and explains how a neutron radiation event would have increased the C-14 content of the Shroud’s linen.

 

[tomo_pomo]

Thank you for putting the thoughts I had into words which I can use later on.

 

[undead_rat]

But the actual spun thread with both linen and cotton deserves an explanation. What is yours?

My theory is that the device used to spin the linen fibers into threads had previously been used to spin cotton. Some cotton remained on that device and then became part of the linen thread. Jewish law did not prohibit the mixing of these two materials, but one does not find any wool fibers in the Shroud.

 

[undead_rat]

post withdrawn

 

[undead_rat]

The idea that best explanation for the Shroud’s enhanced C-14 content is that the Shroud is made from linen grown in the 14th century is not correct. In fact, it is just plain silly and would require us to disregard all of the other scientific and historical evidence regarding the Shroud as well as studies indicating that the Shroud’s C-14 evidence does not pass the robust statistical analysis required for dating.
Fanti concludes that the Shroud’s C-14 evidence is “scientifically meaningless” (as far as indicating a date.)

In their 2015 work, THE SHROUD OF TURIN, FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST!, Fanti and Malfi prove that the Shroud is ancient, not medieval. They establish a date of 35 B.C.E. +/- 250 years with a 95% certainty. Really, folks, the controversy about the Shroud’s date of origin is over, or at least it should be.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Interestingly, many authenticist scholars of the Shroud are currently enjoying the ability to believe two contradictory hypotheses at the same time. The recent paper by Tristan Casabianca, detailing some of the raw data of the radiocarbon laboratories, has been taken as evidence that the medieval date was wholly unreliable and should be ignored altogether. At the same time both the ‘medieval repair’ hypothesis and the ‘neutron radiation’ hypothesis depend entirely on the correctness and exactness of the laboratory findings. If the radiocarbon dating is indeed “scientifically meaningless” and “does not pass the robust statistical analysis required”, then there is no need to try to explain it with theories of mending or radiocarbon enrichment.

Neither “silly” nor “prove” are words properly used in scientific arguments. Undead Rat is correct in claiming that there have been many attempts to put forward evidence for a first century evidence for the Shroud’s origin, including Giulio Fanti’s attempts to date cloth by physical degradation, but none of it is conclusive, and to my mind, none of it stands up to detailed scrutiny. It does not ‘prove’ anything, and it is not ‘silly’ to say so. I should be happy to explain any particular detail to anyone who asks.

 

[undead_rat]

This is double talk. Antonacci and Rucker attach a very important meaning to the Shroud’s C-14 evidence: it proves that the Corpse vanished into another dimension. The fact that the C-14 evidence is not indicative of a date in no way detracts from this theory. The one thing that the Bahia apologist fears the most is that the resurrection should be scientifically proved as Bahai recruitment theology depends on the idea that all of Jesus’ miracles (including His resurrection) are no more than spiritual allegories.

Bahai’ theology allows for the legitimacy of all of the world’s religions. Hence a Bahai’ theologian can say that they are Catholic or any other religion that they choose. We have not heard Mr. Farey disavow the Bahai’ Faith or say that he does not believe in the teachings of its prophet, Baha’u’llah. In fact, what Mr. Farey has revealed of his own beliefs shows him to be perfectly in line with the Bahia’ teaching that Jesus did not actually walk on water and did not reappear in the flesh after His execution.

Mr. Farey seems to be very well read and attempts to set himself up as an authority on the Shroud by referring to exotic data and research. But when confronted with favorable research on the Shroud, he discounts it simply by saying “I don’t see that,” or by making up his own data. An example of this behavior can be seen on this thread where he attempts to minimize the importance of the Image of Edessa in the Eastern Churches by altering the historical record. Let’s all be aware: when it comes to the Shroud, Mr. Farey has an agenda.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh, dearie me, this does seems to have regenerated itself. I’m sorry about that. Nevertheless, I take some comfort from the fact that anybody reading the comment from Undead Rat will be in no doubt as to which of us the more coherent, even if they believe in the authenticity of the Shroud.

For what it’s worth Mr Farey knows next to nothing about the Baha’i Faith, is not a Baha’i adherent and never has been, and has never heard of Baha’u’llah outside Undead Rat’s postings on this site. He is a committed Catholic and intends to remain so.

Mr Farey is indeed, however, both well read and an authority on the Shroud. Confronted with alleged evidence for authenticity, he examines it carefully to discover if in fact it actually exists, and then whether it suitably bears the conclusions derived from it. Of course, in judging whether or not the conclusions are valid, there must be an element of subjectivity, which is why I usually preface such comments by saying that they are ‘my opinion’ and not objective fact. Undead Rat does not usually discriminate, hence his ready use of the word ‘prove’.

On a specific note, I am accused of ‘altering the historical record’ with reference to the Image of Edessa. I assume this is because I denied that the burial cloths of Jesus were considered "the most sacred relic in all of Christianity.’ I do not know what evidence Undead Rat has to think that it was so considered. There are extant contemporary lists of relics in Constantinople before its sacking 1204 or from Constantinople afterwards, and very rarely is either the Mandylion or any burial cloths given any prominence. It is usually termed the Holy Towel, and has far less importance than, say, the cross, the nails of the crucifixion or the crown of thorns.

For instance, Nicholas Mesarites, custodian of the relics, gives a list of the ten most important ones in 1201: "“First, then, we venerate the holy crown of thorns… the holy nail… the flagellum…
the burial shrouds… the outer garment… the lance… the robe of purple… the reed… the sandals… stone from the sepulchre.” No Mandylion here at all, although it was kept in the same place.

From much later, a list of relics seen in Rome in 1637 names: “a large part of the holy cross, pieces of the crown and several thorns, the sponge, the lance, Saint Thomas’s finger, one of the thirty coins for which the Saviour was sold, the sacred portrait, the one that Christ Our Lord sent to King Abagaro, the sacred staircase on which Christ went up and down from the Praetorium, the head of the holy Baptist, the Column, the Altar on which Saint Peter said mass, and countless other relics.” The Mandylion here ranks seventh, lower than St Thomas’s finger and one of the thirty pieces of silver.

If Undead Rat has any evidence that the Image of Edessa was considered ‘"the most sacred relic in all of Christianity’, perhaps he’d like to present it.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I have a lot of confidence in C14 if we understand the samples that are taken, but I have serious doubts in the case of the shroud.

Have you seen the alleged image of the shroud that shows the four distinctive holes?
The Pray Codex predates the earliest C14 date.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The idea that threads have been found showing cotton twisted together with linen is insufficiently well evidenced for credibility, I’m afraid. The only thread sufficiently carefully studied to determine its biology was one given to Robert Villareal. It wasn’t spliced or twisted, it simply had the two ends held together in a terpene ‘glue’, and both ends were determined by Villarreal to be cotton.

I thought that was one takeaway from the discovery channel special, that they were twisted together… Its an important detail if true.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Pray Codex illustration is an example of ‘Three Marys’ iconography, a very popular theme in medieval religious art, of which hundreds of examples exist, in drawings, frescoes, sculpture and every possible artistic medium. Although each one has its own minor idiosyncrasies, they all adhere to a number of thematic elements, which in the Middle Ages included women on one side and an angel on the other, and between them a rectangular sarcophagus, a curiously twisted lid, and the shroud crumpled, twisted, folded or draped on or over the sarcophagus or lid. The Pray illustration adheres closely to the tradition, such that it is impossible that the quasi-rectangular shape with the zig-zag patterns could be the shroud, which, in keeping with dozens of similar examples, is the crumpled heap on top of it. Nevertheless, the ‘four holes’ pattern that appears on the lid is difficult to explain, and it is not surprising that authenticists cling to the idea that it could represent one of the ‘poker holes’ patterns on the Shroud. They tend to support this claim with the idea that the zig-zag patterns represent the herringbone weave, which is hardly credible. No-one, attempting to reproduce the even succession of zig-zag lines across the cloth, would begin by drawing little rectangles here and there around the edges, and then build up zig-zag pyramids around each one until they met in the centre of the cloth.

I’m happy to admit that this is one of those personal opinions which Undead Rat disagrees with so much, but I hope all will agree that it is not an unreasonable one in the light of iconographical context, even if they do not concur with it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Discovery Channel special’s section on the ‘invisible mending’ is somewhat misleading, I fear. Sue Benford’s explanation of threads being twisted together is not a feature of French reweaving, nor are there are any examples of such mending known to literature, textile history or modern reconstruction. Barrie Schwortz’s retelling of the three textile experts’ testimony is somewhat exaggerated. What they actually said is much less committed, although it is true that they observed irregularity on one side of the little sample whose photo they were shown. In fact, if there had been twisting of the weft threads as suggested by Benford, the irregularity would have appeared on both sides.

There is also a confusion, I think, between ‘threads’ and ‘fibres’. The threads of the Shroud are generally very thin, about 30 to the centimetre, but each is made up of over a hundred ‘fibres’, of some 0.01mm thick. The hypothesis was originally that new cotton threads were twisted together with old linen threads to make the ‘splice’, but apart from Robert Villareal, nobody has discovered any cotton threads on the Shroud at all, either in the main body or the radiocarbon area, only cotton fibres spun among linen fibres in the manufacture of what are, even in the radiocarbon area, almost entirely linen threads.

At 37:30, Rogers says “you’ve got photomicrographs that demonstrate this very clearly”, and at 37:35 a section of thread appears, with the commentary: “the cotton fibres from the radiocarbon sample are fairly heavily coated with the gum dye mordant.” Apart from the fact that the phrase “gum dye mordant” doesn’t mean anything, the little shred of thread does not show any such thing.

At 37:51, Joe Acetta explains that cotton was used so that it would take up a dye to match the colour of the old Shroud, but in fact, as we have seen, the proportion of cotton in the linen threads was very small, and would have had minimum effect on the ability to take up dye.

At 39:40, speaking of the thread sent to Robert Villareal which broke into pieces while being prepared for examination, the commentary says: “the threads turned out to be two separate pieces woven together, just as Benford and Marino predicted.” This is quite untrue. Villareal’s micrograph shows the two pieces with sharply truncated ends, with no sign of being woven together, and a blob of some resin which may have acted as a kind of glue. What’s more, according to Villareal, the two pieces were both of cotton, not one of linen and one of cotton, which was Benford and Marino’s claim.

Also, there is some confusion in the film, and I think throughout the studies carried out on the Shroud, between a paint and a dye. A dye or stain chemically alters the structure of its substrate, and cannot be removed by physical means. Heller and Adler, in finding that there was no pigment on the fibres they studied, claimed that this also denied the possibility of dyes and stains, which it didn’t, and Rogers’s alleged ‘dye’ dissolved in water. That’s not what a dye is.

 

[undead_rat]

The Pray Codex illustration is interesting, but not an essential item in the proof of the Shroud’s authenticity. The Shroud’s negative photographs, Barbet’s medical analysis, Wilson’s historical investigations, Heller’s Report on the Shroud’s scientific investigation, Antonacci and Rucker’s interpretation of the C-14 evidence, and Fanti’s dating of the Shroud are the determining factors.

 

[undead_rat]

Anyone who doubts the importance of the Image of Edessa should read chapter 12 of Wilson’s 2010 book, THE SHROUD. In 944 A.D. the Byzantine Roman Emperor, Romanus Lecapenos, sent General John Curcuras with an army of 80,000 to the walls of Edessa, not to conquer that city, but to negotiate for the surrender of the Image of Edessa. Persuaded by a quantity of silver and the freeing of Muslim POWs, the Muslim Emir of Edessa forced the Christian churches of Edessa to surrender the Image.

The next emperor, Constantine Porphyrogennetos, commissioned the writing of the STORY OF THE IMAGE OF EDESSA which is translated for us in Prof. Guscin’s work, THE IMAGE OF EDESSA, 2009. Wilson notes that “the coins issued by Constantine . . .exhibit a remarkable change: nothing other than what appears to have been a deliberate attemp to reproduce in the Christ face features quite uncannily close to the exact imprint that appears on the Turin Shroud.”

 

[Wm777]

Does John 20:6-7 disprove the Shroud of Turin? Or other verses from the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 50:6), like Jesus’s beard being plucked?

I’m sorry, but why do you think either of those references you mention are contrary to the authenticity of the Shroud.

I think what you are suggesting is the existence of a headcloth as separate from the rest of the shroud means the shroud couldn’t be authentic because the shroud appears to all one piece. And, since there’s a beard on the shroud, it couldn’t be Jesus because his was plucked out.

As for the headcloth, study up on the Sudarium of Oviedo (the name of the headcloth) and its relation to the Shroud; the correlation fits together like a perfect puzzle with the same DNA, fold stains and etc…

As for the beard, the pictures clearly indicate the person’'s beard had been plucked, so it actually fulfills the quote from Isaiah. You might be thinking like they pulled every hair out, but the “plucking” was like they grabbed chunks and pulled them out. You can see it in the pictures.

The video below explains a lot of it. Its a little hard to follow, but the studies these folks have done basically prove the shroud couldn’t be anything other than authentic.

The carbon dating errors were debunked a long time ago. But the fact that the transmission of light is the only thing that could have created the image, the details described in the pictures, dna and pollen studies, and the whole progress of the story make it so utterly improbable that it could be anything but the shroud it would be absurd to think otherwise.

The studies the Spacere Institute is doing right now will reveal so much more about the Shroud in the future - we have only begun to understand the Shroud… Believe it or not - all those artifacts that photo restitution revealed, like the earring, they are trying to locate and identify… that includes the crown of thorns…

They (the Spacere Institute) also haven’t had full opportunity to look at other clothes in detail yet, but eventually… and how much more will come to light…