John 20 and the Shroud

[You]

Hey.
I read a few posts here about medieval photographs 600 years old. Except that there only seems to be one photo made during those 500 or 600 years. In contrast, I as an individual, have probably made 500-600 photos in 2 or 3 years.
So, I have a few initial problems with this theory;

1. Why does only one photo exist for the whole 500 or 600 years to the early modern period.
2. How did this one photo fix an image for 600 years.

wiki:

Black and white photographic films using silver halide emulsions are the only film types that have proven to last for archival storage. The determining factors for longevity include the film base type, proper processing (develop, stop, fix and wash) and proper storage. Early films were coated onto a nitrate base material which was prone to combustion if stored in uncontrolled temperatures, Nitrate was replaced with acetate-base films. The acetate films have now been discovered to outgass acids (also referred to as vinegar syndrome). Acetate films were replaced in the early 1980s by polyester film base materials which have been determined to be more stable that nitrate and acetate base films.

san jack photography:

What Is Archival Quality?
Archival quality simply means that it will have a suitably long life if stored or displayed correctly. Archival materials and processes are laboratory tested to not contain anything that will cause the print to deteriorate of its own accord. There are several standards for archival status. The most commonly known standard is the ‘acid free’ classification, but in photography there are even more considerations such as the fade resistance of the dyes in photographic paper and proper calibration of the chemical baths. Most professional papers are now certified for 100 years of ‘normal’ residential display before any noticeable fading. Consumer prints (drugstores, department stores, photo-mats, etc.) are not archival as they are only certified for around 20 years and usually have an actual life span much lower than that.

1. When making a photograph the light sources create highlights and shadows on the subject. The shadows in photographic prints are ‘flat’ black areas as these are areas where no light is being reflected back to the film.
   But in the shroud image this is not the case. There are shadows but they contain all the information of the form in shadow, in other words the shadows on the shroud are not ‘flat’ as they should be if they were photographic.

 

[Pieman333272]

Hello, After a careful reading of the account in John I believe you will find the scriptures explain there were two cloths. One was a head piece and the other for the body. The Shroud according to the Bible could not be the face of Jesus. The Shroud could be truly an imprint of a real person but it can not be Jesus. What do you think?

The way that worked at the time was that Jesus’ head was wrapped from being taken down to the tomb. After that, they took it off, folded it, and put it aside. They then wrapped him in the whole Shroud. Not only is this probably what John meant, it is the Jewish tradition for burial of that style at the time. In fact, the face image is sometimes taken to be the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Oh, lol, I didn’t see the previous post 1 or 2 above me which said basically the same.

 

[Pieman333272]

Just curious… Why spend so much time [and money] looking into these things when it has absolutely no bearing on one’s faith or salvation?

It’s interesting, and it relates closely with our faith - some may be inspired to study it. I just find it really cool.

 

[Pieman333272]

As for testing the linen, all tests to date show it is no older than the middle ages. Whether Rome will allow further testing I don’t know but the cloth is not dated to 2000 years ago.

What tests? The Carbon Dating was flawed in at least one way, and while pollen samples suggest that the Shroud does come from Jerusalem, they may not be trustworthy for testing for age either.

Also there is no documentary or tradition evidence prior to the middle ages.

Actually, it has been suggested that the Shroud is really the Image of Edessa. While the local legend was that King Abgar received it while Jesus lived, this legend has failed critical analysis. However, it was discovered behind some rocks in the 6th century. It was found above the gates, presumably to protect it. It is also known that the cloth was described in “doubled in fours”; which, if done to the Shroud, would only show the face.

Though the image of Edessa can only be traced as far back as 544 AD with certitude, local traditions and the circumstances of its location suggest it could go farther back. There is some evidence suggesting the image was from Jerusalem and originates from the 1st century.

Now, 400 years after its discovery, the image was taken to Constantinople. A Roman Codex states that in that city, in the 1100’s, there is an image on a Shroud not only of Jesus’ face but his whole resurrected body. It was taken from Constantinople in the 1204 Sack of Constantinople.