Jesus Christ bombshell: Shroud of Turin NOT a hoax! - after review of original 1988 Carbon-14 test data

[Muzhik]

No bombshell, no unassailable proof of authenticity. Maybe one day, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Nope. Can’t happen. And you’ll see that if you can get your hands on a copy of the “Report On The Shroud Of Turin”, the book that covers the entire testing “thing”. From sticking the photo into the analyzer that showed the 3-D information (which was literally done just for giggles, and wound up with one of those scientists saying, “I think we’re the first people in 2,000 years who know what Jesus looked like in the tomb”) to the final set of reports and the presentation to the public, the details are fascinating. At the public presentation, a dozen people in the crowd stood up and asked in one way or another, Is this the authentic burial shroud of Jesus? The researchers all stayed silent. BECAUSE THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC TEST FOR JESUS.

If there were tissue samples that we could authenticate had been taken from Jesus and preserved 2,000 years, then we could do a genetic comparison. But we don’t. What we DO have is a ton (literally, considering all the paper that was used to print reports) of circumstantial evidence that I think any prosecuting attorney could use to show in court that the Shroud did hold the body of Jesus. It’s done all the time when the State has to prove that the corpse is actually the person that the person on trial is accused of killing. A lot more difficult before genetic testing, yet it was still done.

(NOTE: The one question that DID get a response was to the person who stood up and asked, “Have you found any evidence that this is NOT the burial shroud of Jesus?”, to which they all replied, “No”. Which frankly bugged a lot of researchers, this not being able to prove but unable to disprove.)

 

[Rubee]

Thank you, observer333, for so clearly setting out your agreement with me. “Quite old” and “more than 1300 years” do not equate to “approx. 2000” in any language.

The quote provided by Observer says ‘between 1300 and 3,000 years’ old, in any case. Not just ‘older than 1300 years’. I think that’s significant to note, so I’m noting it. That’s all.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Identifying the blood-type of very old dried blood is not easy, and in the absence of any primary source identifying the tests done on the Sudarium of Oviedo, the Miracle of Lanciano, the Tunic of Trier and various other relics, all of whom are claimed to be type AB, I haven’t really any comment at all. Suffice it (for me) to say that the ‘active’ ingredients of blood easily become inactive over the centuries, and so distort any correct assessment. It is also true that even jam and tomato sauce or red emulsion paint, since, like AB blood, they contain no Anti-A or Anti-B antibodies, would appear to be Type AB if they were not known not to be blood at all and tested by the reverse-type method. Assuming that the blood typing is correct, however, the overall probability that any two blood stained cloths selected randomly from anywhere in the world will both type AB is about 2%.

I’m interested in Rubee’s assertion that the pattern of bloodstains on the Sudarium and the Shroud “match to a ridiculously improbable level”. They don’t, of course. There are a few small clearly identifiable bloodstains on the head of the Shroud, while the Sudarium is covered with huge overlapping patches of blood. The fact that most of the Shroud stains occur in places which on analogous places on the Sudarium are also bloody is not an improbable match.

I agree that no impartial, but interested, student should be able to walk away from the Shroud saying,’ nothing to see here’; however, if he or she really studied the alleged ton of evidence, they would undoubtedly find that it does not stand up to scrutiny. I have no doubt whatever that faced with a ‘prosecuting attorney’ I could demonstrate that.

And it was good of you to defend observer333, but my first post was indeed in response to a claim that “it was approx. 2000 years old.” The subsequent claim, that “a research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old” is simply untrue, so I won’t pursue it.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Saint John of Damascus in the 7th century mentions the Edessa image in his anti-iconoclastic work On Holy Images, describing the Edessa image as being a “strip”, or oblong cloth, rather than a square, as other accounts of the Edessa cloth hold.

On the occasion of the transfer of the cloth to Constantinople in 944, Gregory Referendarius, archdeacon of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, preached a sermon about the artifact. This sermon had been lost but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004. This sermon says that this Edessa cloth contained not only the face, but a full-length image, which was believed to be of Jesus. The sermon also mentions bloodstains from a wound in the side.

 

[JoeFreedom]

The shroud will never be conclusively proved to be real. And even if it did it is unlikely to convert those hardened to pride and unbelief. Jesus Christ could come down and they would say it was some sort of magic trick. We know God will never fully make Himself known to be real as this interferes with our free will. We have faith and reason and His revelation for that. For those who never want to believe He is real that is their free will choice. For me, I will believe.

And for the record I believe the shroud is authentic. I however don’t need it to worship Christ.

 

[Rubee]

I’m interested in Rubee’s assertion that the pattern of bloodstains on the Sudarium and the Shroud “match to a ridiculously improbable level”. They don’t, of course. There are a few small clearly identifiable bloodstains on the head of the Shroud, while the Sudarium is covered with huge overlapping patches of blood. The fact that most of the Shroud stains occur in places which on analogous places on the Sudarium are also bloody is not an improbable match.

Honestly, guys, it’s interesting to me how confident you are with these dismissals (‘of course not’). In any case, here’re two papers from Spain: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/heras2016eng.pdf and (PDF) Is the Sudarium of Oviedo the key to unraveling the mystery of the Shroud of Turin? | Louis C. de Figueiredo - Academia.edu

Like I said, I don’t remember the details, but I do remember the conclusion of crazy improbability that the two did not cover the same cadaver.

EDIT: This is a newer paper published on yet another coincidence between the two pieces of cloth: I thought it good to share because it briefly describes in the introductory parts, the background of other research on coincidences btw the two with references, which you can use to find the other papers, since it appears they’ve been several: https://www.researchgate.net/public...etween_Shroud_of_Turin_and_Sudarium_of_Oviedo

 

[Rubee]

And it was good of you to defend observer333, but my first post was indeed in response to a claim that “it was approx. 2000 years old.” The subsequent claim, that “a research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old” is simply untrue, so I won’t pursue it.

The paper he was referring to is this: https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2009700229_Raymond_N_Rogers which you can read here if you don’t have subscription: http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

In the paper, (pg 4 in the Pdf), you have this:

“The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.”

I’m sure this is what Observer was referring to.

 

[Rubee]

Finally, Rubee makes common but significant error in saying: “The problem was the team that carried out the first part of the process: the sampling. They defied a basic procedure and took ALL samples from one small portion without first ensuring it was representative, then cut it up into three portions and sent it to the three labs.” Actually, as the video taken at the time shows, “the team” (two representatives of the Archbishop of Turin, not of the British Museum or of the the laboratories themselves) spent over an hour examining possible sites under magnification precisely to ensure that the chosen one was representative.

I didn’t notice this earlier. I’m sorry but I don’t think you got what I was saying (I take responsibility for maybe not explaining myself well): This process did not include a chemical analysis of the cloth. If it had, they would’ve known the difference btw the died cotton strips sewn into the shroud by the nuns after the fire and the rest of the shroud which is non-died linen. The standard, as I understand it, is not to use one portion of the cloth but several. In this case they took one small portion and divided it into three. That was not “representative of the cloth” but of that tiny corner.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Mea culpa, Rubee, and observer333; those words do indeed occur at the end Rogers’s paper, and I missed them. They are a restatement of his optimistic calculations that “at a constant 25˚C, it would have taken about 1319 years to lose a conservative 95% of its vanillin. At 23˚C, it would have taken about 1845 years. at 20˚C, it would take about 3095 years.” At 100˚C, of course, a likely temperature of a box in a fire so intense that it could melt silver, it would take about 10 minutes to lose all its vanillin.

I have read the articles on the Sudarium. I have even attended a lecture by Mark Guscin, including a demonstration, of how the Sudarium must have been folded, pinned and tied in various configurations and for various lengths of time in order to achieve the pattern of stains it carries. However, for me, they do not relate well to any of the marks on the Shroud, although it does seem that both cloths reflect an injured head. In particular the position of the head in rigor mortis is substantially different in each case.

I don’t think you have understood the provenance of the alleged interpolated threads in the radiocarbon corner. I do not think any of the authenticist scholars who have studied it think that they were the work of the Poor Clare nuns after the 1532 fire. That corner looks nothing at all like the rather clumsy patches sewn over the big burn holes. It is supposed that the radiocarbon corner mend was done much later, and much more carefully. The nearer the alleged mend was to the late 14th- / early 15th- century date, the greater the proportion of admixed threads, which in any case have to comprise some two thirds of the sample to achieve the required distortion in the date. In fact, careful study of the transmitted-light photos by Barrie Schwortz, the little piece of the radiocarbon sample retained by the Tucson laboratory (also photoed by Barrie Schwortz), and the very detailed Haltadefinizione scan of the whole Shroud show continuous threads across the radiocarbon area, and no indication of any reweaving at all.

It is perhaps true that a variety of samples from different areas of the cloth would have given less contentious results, but I guess the official custodian of the Shroud had to balance the need for in disputability against damage to the (possibly) holiest relic in Christendom, which is why only a single piece was cut off. I think it important to stress, though, that the decision to do so was not made by the laboratories, nor by the British Museum, but by the representatives of the owner of the Shroud himself.

 

[Rubee]

I don’t think you have understood the provenance of the alleged interpolated threads in the radiocarbon corner. I do not think any of the authenticist scholars who have studied it think that they were the work of the Poor Clare nuns after the 1532 fire. That corner looks nothing at all like the rather clumsy patches sewn over the big burn holes. It is supposed that the radiocarbon corner mend was done much later, and much more carefully. The nearer the alleged mend was to the late 14th- / early 15th- century date, the greater the proportion of admixed threads, which in any case have to comprise some two thirds of the sample to achieve the required distortion in the date. In fact, careful study of the transmitted-light photos by Barrie Schwortz, the little piece of the radiocarbon sample retained by the Tucson laboratory (also photoed by Barrie Schwortz), and the very detailed Haltadefinizione scan of the whole Shroud show continuous threads across the radiocarbon area, and no indication of any reweaving at all.

This is what the abstract of the new study the OP is referring to says,

“In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered.”

I just want to highlight that in reference to your comments about continuity throughout, for the sake of lurkers and readers.

Also, I never made an insinuation about motives, so to me it honestly doesn’t matter that the person responsible was a representative of the Shroud’s owner. It only matters that all the pieces that were came from one tiny sample. How this affected the result is what matters, not who should bear the blame.

 

[Rubee]

I have read the articles on the Sudarium. I have even attended a lecture by Mark Guscin, including a demonstration, of how the Sudarium must have been folded, pinned and tied in various configurations and for various lengths of time in order to achieve the pattern of stains it carries. However, for me, they do not relate well to any of the marks on the Shroud, although it does seem that both cloths reflect an injured head. In particular the position of the head in rigor mortis is substantially different in each case.

That’s a lot of analysis that has gone into matching the two, to a level that far exceeds what’s required to established similar facts by Law in some studies as far as I understand it. Do you have specific critiques about all these findings and calculations of placements and probabilities (I should say, ‘improbabilities’)?

“However, for me, they do not relate well to any of the marks on the Shroud, although it does seem that both cloths reflect an injured head.”

^^^This, frankly, is an incredible statement to make if you really read those studies. No, friend. Much more than the fact that “both covered an injured head” correlates with due respect! In addition, what doesn’t is well explained by different timings and positions (for when the cloth was put on the head) which match the account of Christ’s crucifixion. What the patterns suggest is that:

• The Sudarium covered the head loosely first in an upright position, then the body was lowered into a horizontal position. Its purpose was to cover the head of the crucified dead person from sight (for dignity) as well as to soak up the blood, hence it has more blood than the shroud.
• Later, it was removed from the head. The shroud was then used to wrap the body after in a horizontal position.

This correlates with the patterns on both, and in addition, the many points of similarities point to the same injuries and sources of bleeding, not just that "there were injuries’.

I’ll be back with specific quotations, for the sake of the lurkers who may simply assume that “Both covered an injured head” is the extent of what all these scientists behind the studies are using to claim HIGH probability that the two clothes wrapped the exact same body.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Dan; thanks for joining in.

John of Damascus wrote in Greek, and the word he used for the piece of cloth upon which Jesus wiped his face is ‘rakos’, which has connotations of a rather tatty piece of cloth, but does not in itself mean anything long and thin. The word ‘strip’ is a misleading translation.

Mark Guscin’s analysis of the Sermon of Gregory Referendarius is masterly, but although he comments on it in the light of his own conviction that the Mandylion was the Shroud, the sermon does not refer to a full length image. Mark does make something of the apparent remark that there was blood from the side-wound, but changed his mind later, saying “Originally agreeing with Dubarle’s translation, I had understood that paragraph 22 meant that it was the Image itself that was embellished with blood from Christ’s side, although I now think this interpretation cannot be defended either from the Greek text or from the internal logic of the text. If the Image had indeed been embellished with blood from Christ’s side, this could only have taken place after his death on the cross, whereas Gregory’s text clearly states that the Image was formed before the crucifixion and the resulting contradictions are excessive even for a Byzantine mentality.” (see shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3a.pdf)

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Rubee, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as, I hope, I am to mine. Given the short time available in which to dispose of the body of Christ, it makes no sense to me that he was left in three different positions (including face down) for long enough for the bloodstains to dry before being moved to another position, and another deposition of blood. I really do not see the points of similarity shared by the Sudarium and the Shroud that are not common to heads in general rather than Christ in particular.

 

[Rubee]

Rubee, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as, I hope, I am to mine. Given the short time available in which to dispose of the body of Christ, it makes no sense to me that he was left in three different positions (including face down) for long enough for the bloodstains to dry before being moved to another position, and another deposition of blood. I really do not see the points of similarity shared by the Sudarium and the Shroud that are not common to heads in general rather than Christ in particular.

It is indicated in the Gospel someone had specifically to get permission to take Jesus’ body from the cross. It makes little sense to claim that a cloth couldn’t be losely put on Jesus immediately after he died, while still hanging on a cross, then fasted after he was taken down and removed for another to be used to entomb him. How much time do you need to cover the head of a dead man on a cross? What grand procedure do you then require to take it off? This idea simply makes no sense. In addition, it’s two positions: On the cross, vertical, then after the body was taken down it was fastened behind his head, then as he was being entombed, it was taken off and the linen used to wrap him.

I really do not see the points of similarity shared by the Sudarium and the Shroud that are not common to heads in general rather than Christ in particular.

I simply asked for specific critiques, given your statements here about what ‘authenticists’ claim versus people such as yourself. I simply thought you might have a bit more than, ‘shrug, it doesn’t seem that way to me.’ That’s all. We are of course all entitled to our opinion. That’s not in question.

 

[Rubee]

If the Image had indeed been embellished with blood from Christ’s side, this could only have taken place after his death on the cross, whereas Gregory’s text clearly states that the Image was formed before the crucifixion and the resulting contradictions are excessive even for a Byzantine mentality.”

IMO, what matters is not how people in the 9th century explained how the image was formed 800 to 900 years before their time. It’s only relevant whether they are describing a cloth that exists in their own time, that matches the shroud.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It was not the Mandylion, it was simply the Shroud, folded. Bottom line, we disagree. Have a good day.

 

[PJH_74]

These threads always seem to center on some latest theory about the shroud, though rarely is are any new hard testing done. However what will always be missing is something extremely important to Archaeology, context. If we find something in the ground together with another thing they are probably related and we can use one to understand the other.

All we really know is that it showed up in the 1300s according to written accounts. Another point of context is that it appeared at a time when having a top notch relic was the mark of a prestigious city and could create good revenue through pilgrimage. However any work on the shroud will likely remain a lab experiment with uncertain corrections and interpretations. This is because there is no hard item of context associated with it. For example, people try to correct for carbon introduced in a fire, but there is no reference item to help calibrate a correction for it.

I have no real belief that the shroud is real given the lack of an item of context and more importantly that there would have been a powerful reason to have such a relic at the time of its recorded appearance. That said, I still find it interesting as an item of history and those who found faith through it, this is context we actually have. My only concern is that no one base their faith on the shroud being real.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I think Rubee makes a very important point - to me. While I have studied the Shroud to within a stitch of its existence, I have not done the same with the Sudarium, and have tended to avoid it. Mostly this has been because of the paucity of primary sources describing it, and the fact that the few that exist are in Spanish hasn’t helped, although I can read them, albeit rather slowly and with difficulty. Those who know my work (The Medieval Shroud and The Medieval Shroud 2 at academia.edu) will know the importance I attach to primary sources; indeed, it took nearly two hours last night to find a Greek text of John of Damascus (“Tou hagiou Iōannou tou Damaskēnou” on Google Books if anyone’s interested) to check whether he used the word ‘othonion’ which really does mean ‘strip’, or ‘rakos’, which doesn’t.

Anyone, of course, can get a big picture of the Sudarium and draw lines on it, but although I disagree with many of the lines drawn by Sudarium scholars, it is true that I haven’t attempted the exercise myself, which perhaps I should.

So thank you for initiating the discussion, and for tipping me into a new field of inquiry. It may take a couple of years though, so I shouldn’t stay up late waiting!