The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

[Hugh_Farey]

silly conjecture by a skeptic

My “silly conjecture” that the Mandylion/Image of Edessa was not the Shroud is based, among other things, on seven specific differences between the two which are enumerated twice among the comments above. Nobody has seen fit to comment on them, but they explain in precise detail why the two pictures are different. To claim there is “sufficient similarity” is in my view unjustified.

The Sinai Icon reproduced above is not a “replication of the Image of Edessa”, and I’m certain Undead_rat knows that, so I’m not sure why he says it is. Perhaps he’ll explain.

 

[leonhardprintz]

undead_rat:

The idea that the carbon fourteen results show a 14th Century dating for the Shroud has been disproven. Pia’s astounding photos of 1898 proven that the Shroud was authentic, a conclusion supported by the 1978 STURP investigation.

First of all these of the words “proven” and “disproven” really don’t belong in a discussion like this, and aren’t used by the STURP team, or historians in general, or scientists in general. In science, or any empirical based investigation there is nothing that can ever rise to the level of “proof”

It is impossible for any evidence to rise the credibility of a claim to 100%, in which no alternative to the conclusion could ever be considered.

Instead the question is what sort of explanation is more reasonable, or better fitting with the evidence.

The STURP investigation does say that they don’t consider a painting, but they don’t say its authentic, has been proven authentic, or anything like that. They say specifically that the image “encodes” 3D information.

The Pia photo is just that, a photo negative of the Shroud. In that image the details are more pronounced because its easier for the human eye to discern details that are light in color against a black background, than vice versa.

I have asked you before how the Pia photo is supposed to demonstrate that the shroud is an authentic relic, and you haven’t responded to this point, other than reasserting that you consider the Pia photo just that.

undead_rat:

That event, of course, was the movement of Jesus’ corpse out of this world and into another dimension.

It is not a dogma of that Church, nor Tradition, that Christ’s body “moved out of this world and into another dimension.” We have no descriptions in Tradition at all about what ocured during those moments.

Even if Christ’s body disappeared and reappeared somewhere else, there is furthermore no reason to presume that His body would give off radiation. Or that if it gave of radiation that it would be of the right type to cause that image.

It seems to be a very complex hypothesis imported in order to justify a doubt about the Shroud being dated to the 14th Century.

I’d go at it in another direction. We have good reasons to think that the 14th Century dating is correct for all the reasons that have been listed in this thread. Its from the cloth itself, not a repair, it wasn’t heavily contaminated, and we know of no reliable way that its age could be altered in a proper way and yet leave the image in the way the Shroud has it.

The Pia photo explains to me then only something about the nature of the Shroud, giving clues as to how it was physically made.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The Pia photo is just that, a photo negative of the Shroud.

Both the Pia photos, and the Enrie photos, and many subsequent photos, were taken using methods which substantially enhanced the contrast between the image and the cloth. It is interesting to feed any of the negatives of these photos into photo imaging software and derive the positives using an ‘invert’ function. The results are quite a shock, as they look nothing like the Shroud at all in intensity, colour or contrast. This I believe is the reason that the positive photos, particularly in close-up, are seldom if ever published.

 

[tryphon]

I took this picture myself, many years ago.

 

[undead_rat]

Pia’s astounding photos were sufficient evidence for Pope Pius XI to sign off on the Shroud, and they are good enough for me. Of course Catholics are not required to believe that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus or that His image on it is miraculous. The real mystery is why anyone who purports to be Catholic would spend a great deal of time and money trying to prove that the Image on the Shroud cannot be of miraculous origin. Only the Bahai’ Faith is threatened by this proposition, so I stand by what I have said before. I believe that there is an agenda being promulgated on this forum, and I don’t buy the denials.

 

[tryphon]

I am a friend of the son of the forensic pathologist who did the first detailed study of the Shroud. He (the son) was also the first photographer to take detailed color photographs of the Shroud. I have studied the Shroud for over thirty years. I am a scientist (actually an aerospace engineer) and I have great respect for the C14 test. However, the historical significance of the image on the Shroud, the way it affected the “non painted by hand” icons through history and many other areas of forensic interest make me believe that there is a fair probability (over 50%) that the Shroud is genuine. I do not feel sanguine against non-authenticists, because, clearly, the issue is not a slam dunk. In my personal opinion, after many years of careful study of all available literature in Italian, English and Spanish, I tend towards the authenticity of the Shroud.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Belief is of primary concern, proof is only a secondary issue. I believe!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I am a friend of the son of the forensic pathologist who did the first detailed study of the Shroud.

Hi Tryphon, good to hear from you. The two names most commonly put forward as ‘forensic pathologists who studied the Shroud’ are Robert Bucklin and Fred Zugibe. I didn’t know that a son of either had taken detailed colour photos, but perhaps you are thinking of someone else. I have also studied the Shroud in some detail for some time, but have come to a different conclusion. As you say, the issue is not a slam-dunk by any means.

I was wondering about the ‘historical significance’ of the Shroud myself today, as it happens. To be perfectly honest, it appears to have had practically no significance at all. Ask far as I know, there is not a single work of art depicting Jesus having left an image on his shroud among any of the thousands of Depositions, Lamentations, Anointings, Entombments, Resurrections, or Three Marys (also called Myrrh-bearers and Holy Women at the Tomb) throughout history, except the famous della Rovere scene and a couple of derivatives (and the recent film, ‘Risen’).

Less easy to explore, so I cannot be dogmatic about it, but at least until the twentieth century there does not seem to have been any literary significance either. And apart from those two fascinating little pilgrim badges from Lirey, it does not seem to have been a major centre of pilgrimage in either Chambéry or Turin (although it is true that St Charles Borromeo seems to have been a fan).

It is frequently said, of course, that the whole of Christian iconography was influenced by the Shroud from the sixth century onwards, but this is hardly born out by the iconography itself. Very few pictures or sculptures of Christ crucified or buried seem influenced by it at all, although I appreciate that the exceptions are considered of considerable importance by those who hold an authenticist view.

 

[undead_rat]

I have great respect for the C14 test.

Thank you for saying that. So do I.
The “C-14 test” measures the relative amount of carbon fourteen to carbon twelve in an historical sample. That measurement can be used either to determine a date or it can be evidence of an event. For instance, if one tests a sample known to have originated in 1958, one finds a greater C-14 ratio than would normally be expected for that date. That result does not prove that the known date is somehow erroneous. In this case the C-14 test result would indicate an event, and that event was the atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs. These explosions caused massive neutron fluxes which converted nitrogen to carbon fourteen in the earth’s atmosphere.

In exactly the same way, the carbon fourteen test of 1988 does not indicate a date of origin for the Shroud. Rather, it indicates an event, and that event was the vanishing of Jesus corpse from His tomb. We can be certain of this because of the intensive scientific testing and historical research which the Shroud has been subjected to that more than prove its 1st century provenance.

May I suggest Mark Antonacci’s recent work, TEST THE SHROUD, 2015, which explains the Historically Consistent Hypothesis and how the atheist head of Oxford’s C-14 lab insisted on an erroneous interpretation of the Shroud’s C-14 data? TY.

 

[tryphon]

Thanks Hugh. The forensic pathologist was Prof. Giovanni Judica Cordiglia. He wrote twenty books on the Shroud, starting in the 1930s. His son, Giovanni Battista Judica Cordiglia took the first systematic series of color photographs in 1969.
I have to respectfully disagree with your comment about the historical significance of the image in the Shroud. I say the image, not the linen itself, which I believe was not revealed for what it is (a burial cloth) for many centuries. I do not want to replay the same debate that has been covered over and over. As I said, on balance, I believe in the authenticity of the Shroud. I also do respect the opinion of those who don’t. In fact, over the years, I have gradually progressed from believeing that the Shroud is a medieval artifact to tne position I hold now. It is clearly not a certainty, but rather a result of delicately balancing the pros and cons and coming to a personal (not an absolute) determination.

 

[tryphon]

Hi UR! Believe me, I am well aware of the C14 process and of the many variables that may influence its conclusions. I have read Antonacci’s books. I keep an open mind and, as I mentioned in another post, I tend towards the belief in the authenticity of the Shroud. However, I can also see why many honest judges could disagree from my conclusion.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Oh, goodness me. I’m so sorry; it was very wrong of me not to look further back into the study of the Shroud to before the work of STuRP. I must say that Judica Cordiglia’s work has been strangely neglected by the Anglophone world, although, as you say, he was certainly a leading light in its investigation in his day.

 

[nooooby]

Having explored some of the strategic points regarding the Shroud, I would like to explore some of the granular evidential points, if I may.

We have ascertained that the authentic camp regard the C14 dating as one of (or more likely the) largest issue. If the C14 dating can be discredited in any way, it really does hole the sceptics ship below the water line and tips the evidential balance towards authenticity.

To this end, what if there were alternative scientific methods of dating the Shroud? This would either corroborate the C14 dating or not.

Have there been any such alternative dating tests?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Have there been any such alternative dating tests?

Yes and no. Giulio Fanti, a professor of engineering from the University of Padua, surmised, quite reasonably, that flax fibres weaken mechanically with age, and devised ingenious methods of measuring various stresses and strains applied to fibres. He used a wide variety of materials of known different ages from modern to about 3500 BC, and produced graphs with reasonably good correlation. He then measured fibres from the Shroud, and attempted to fit these measurements to his ‘calibration’ line. The results were widely distributed over time, but by averaging them out, gave a 1st century BC provenance.
That’s a ‘yes’ bit.

However, apart from mere ‘age’, perhaps related to gradual oxidation, it is fairly obvious that heat, light, mechanical manipulation and perhaps atmospheric environment could also have an effect on the mechanical strength of fibres, to all of which the Shroud has been unusually subject. Most of the control samples were from mummies that had been virtually untouched for hundreds of years. Professor Fanti would no doubt agree that there has been insufficient experimentation with these factors to make his methods either infallible, or indeed, to have acquired any general acceptance among forensic historians. One might reasonably surmise that the Shroud would appear considerably older than it actually is, using these methods.
That’s a ‘no’ bit.

Ray Rogers reported that he had found vanillin, a temporary breakdown product of lignin, in the Raes portion of the Shroud, but none in the main body. As vanillin decays with time, he pronounced that the Shroud must be “quite old”, and quoted the Arrhenius equation to justify this.
That’s another ‘yes’ bit.

However, as his results are extremely temperature dependent, and the Shroud certainly suffered the extreme heat of a fire that allegedly melted silver onto it, any calculations of age taking this into account do not justify an ancient provenance. All this while apart from the rather controversial nature of all Rogers later experimental findings.
That’s another ‘no’ bit.

 

[nooooby]

Thank you Mr Farey for the reply.

I think this is incredibly important for this discussion and I have checked your reference to Professor Fanti. This is his resume:

Giulio Fanti is associate professor of mechanical and thermal measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua, Italy. After gaining experience in spatial structures, and also in tethered satellites and image analysis, he has directed since 1997 his interest to the Shroud to fill some gaps, especially with reference to the body image impressed in it, which is still scientifically inexplicable. He was responsible for a university research project concerning the most important relic of Christianity and has headed for more than 10 years the Shroud Science Group, a group of about 140 scientists dedicated to study of the relic. He has published more than 170 scientific works in international journals. He has authored 8 books and more than 50 scientific works on the Shroud.

I have checked your point around mechanical dating by Professor Fanti and although you acknowledge this study as pointing towards authenticity before quickly balancing this out with a BUT, it seems the eminent Professor’s work goes far further than this one study.

In 2013 he published a scientific paper on Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924203113000490

This paper details 2 chemical dating techniques using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) and Raman vibrational spectroscopy. Essentially these well used and understood techniques for chemical analysis can be used for dating linen as described extensively in the paper. Professor Fanti and 4 other scientists then used these 2 tests on genuine Shroud samples having first calibrated their methodologies on 13 control samples. I will merely quote his results and conclusion:

The dating method was applied to samples coming from the Shroud of Turin furnishing a date of 300 B.C. ± 400 years and 200 B.C. ± 500 with a 95% confidence level, respectively, in the case of FTIR/ATR and Raman spectroscopy.

https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2015/17/matecconf_wopsas2015_01002.pdf

It is also worth noting Professor Fanti’s conclusion from the mechanical tests carried out on the same genuine Shroud samples:

The result is 260 AD with a standard uncertainty [11] of 137 years. This is compatible with the date of 372 AD reported in Table 4, obtained by the MMPDM [13]

https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2015/17/matecconf_wopsas2015_01001.pdf

However all of these alternative dating techniques taken together, Professor Fanti’s team concludes:

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

The resulting ages of the Turin Shroud are reported in Table 10. The expanded uncertainty there indicated has been evaluated at 95% confidence level.
First, an Opto-Chemical mean date of 140 BC has been obtained. This value has been successively averaged with the Mechanical result, obtaining the most probable date of the Turin Shroud to be 86 AD ±206 years or better 90 AD ±200 years

 

[nooooby]

I would say that looks like a YES bit then.

As an aside, I find it a bit odd that you have quoted the Fanti mechanical tests but omitted the other tests. Clearly, 4 different scientific tests published in peer reviewed papers by expert scientists carry substantially more weight when taken together.

To conclude then, it seems 1 dating technique (C14) from 1988 indicates a medieval origin, but 4 newer dating techniques from 2013 indicate a 1st century origin.

 

[undead_rat]

TY this excellent analysis. As I have noted, the 1988 C-14 data is not necessarily indicative of a date. It appears more likely that this data indicates an event.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

To conclude then, it seems 1 dating technique (C14) from 1988 indicates a medieval origin, but 4 newer dating techniques from 2013 indicate a 1st century origin.

Well, no. A piece of cloth cut from the Shroud was dated three times independently by a well recognised and frequently used method to come up with a 14th century date. A few fibres from the vacuuming of the space between the back of the cloth and its lining were tested by a sensible but untried (and not subsequently accepted) method, and came up with a date of about 800 BC. By combining these two, one would come up with a ‘date’ of about 200 AD. Not bad, but not really good enough. So A few fibres from the vacuuming of the space between the back of the cloth and its lining were tested by another sensible but untried (and not subsequently accepted) method, and came up with a date of about 200 BC. Averaging all three would give a date of about 0 BC/AD. Perfect! But wait! A few more fibres were rested by yet a third method, coming up with a date of 400 AD. If we include them, but omit the radiocarbon date, we get … and so on and so on.

It is true that Prof. Fanti’s measurements offer a straw to the conviction of a 1st century date, but even as a group, they cannot be said to be much of a threat to a radiocarbon date. Although it is statistically credible to combine the five mechanical results into a single number, combining them with the optical results as well, obtained by a wholly different process, is unsound.

As I mentioned, given the difference between the treatment of the Shroud and the reference textiles, followed by the difference in extraction method of the fibres, one might justifiably expect that the Shroud fibres would be mechanically much weaker than any reference samples of the same age (not that there were any), such that any attempt at calibration would give a much older age than they really are. The same is true of chemical results.

Needless to say, none of these methods, formally published in peer-reviewed journals though they be, have received any general acceptance as methods of dating archaeological textiles, as for any kind of reliability, the physical and chemical environment of the textile has to be known very thoroughly, and taken into calculated consideration against any reference calibration chart.

There is a certain amount of academic acrimony among the various acronyms currently in existence for the study of the Shroud (CIELT, ASSIST, CIS, etc.), but although they all agree that the radiocarbon date must be wrong, none have given any imprimatur to Fanti’s results. The church, in the person of [Cardinal Ballastero]*, has specifically repudiated any investigation at all of the fibres vacuumed from the space between the Shroud and the backing cloth by Riggi di Numana.

*Correction. Not Cardinal Ballestrero, but Bishop Nosiglia of Turin.

 

[tryphon]

The one factor that, in my opinion, stands in the way of the C14 tests is the Pray manuscript, that dates to about three hundred years before the 15th century (perhaps more) and shows the “L” pattern of burn holes that can be seen in the Shroud.

 

[Isca]

Very interesting thread. Apologies if it’s already been mentioned, but this recent research (2017) is another piece of the puzzle, indicating that the person who was wrapped in the shroud had experienced multiple traumas. Prof. Fanti was one of the researchers.

The abstract:

We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud

We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine...

journals.plos.org