Death certificate for Jesus discovered in Shroud of Turin

[xcav8tor]

Hi rogue,

To me the shroud is hard to write off as a forgery because of all the amazing detail included that would have been beyond the capability of a medieval forger (conceptualizing a photographic negative, the 3-D information, the anatomical knowledge of the thumbs turning in when the wrist nerve is severed, scorching the top fibers instead of using pigment to create the image, including pollen from plants only found in Jerusalem, etc). I have also read that the C-14 test on the linen could give a more recent date due to several plausible reasons and that it could still date back to the first century. Yet as you point out, there are remaining difficulties.

I’ve never been a big fan of the Shroud of Turin primarily because... The account in John twice refers in the plural to “linen cloths” that Jesus was buried in (19:40; 20:6-7). Luke 24:12 also makes reference to burial cloths in the plural sense. This indicates that multiple cloths were used to wrap Jesus’ body.

I wondered about this myself. As the image on the shroud indicates direct contact with the body, could this be an inner lining with a second cloth wrapped around it - the outer cloth accounting for the use of the plural? Is there any way of determining how many cloths the Jews did customarily use to wrap a body at that time?

And distinct from the “linen cloths” was a “napkin” which was placed “about his [Jesus’] head” and was found by itself apart from the body wrappings That some sort of face covering or veil was meant is indicated by the account of the burial of Lazarus (Jn. 11:44) “his face was bound about with a napkin.” This face cloth was known to have been used in ancient Jewish burial practices and its use is specifically mentioned in the Mishnah.

Is it possible the binding "about" the head could be more like a scarf wrapped around the sides of the head, covering the ears and under the chin to keep the jaw closed (as in Jacob Marley's ghost in "A Christmas Carol" with Alistair Sim) as opposed to a veil? This could be set aside as witnessed by Peter when he entered the tomb. This may escape being detailed on the shroud as it would not appear on the front or back of the head and there seems to be a gap between the two images where the top of the head would be.

In contrast, the Shroud of Turin represents a single, draped cloth (laid under and then over the body) clearly depicting a face on the sheet as well as the rest of the body.

Even if it was a veil over the face, isn't it possible that it might be made of a thinner, more delicate fabric that allowed the facial image to penetrate through to the shroud on top? I believe fine silk fabrics were produced in Bible times, though I have no direct knowledge of them being used for such a purpose.

Further, John states that his body was bound in the burial clothes “with the spices” (John specifically mentions a mixture of about 100lbs. of myrrh and aloes) which, if present, would have distorted any image left on the shroud. And IIRC there aren’t any traces of myrrh or aloes on the shroud which is downright bizarre considering the huge amount used.

Good point. I assume the spices were meant to be placed in direct contact with the body instead of between an inner and outer cloth as I have suggest might have been used. Even if used between, there should be some traces left on the "outside" of this inner shroud. Although I have read a few books and articles on the Shroud of Turin, I don't recall any mention of this being searched for. Quite an oversight. Surely if it was noticed it would have been recorded, but if they didn't even look for it, it might still be there. It would be good to know one way or the other.

Finally, the body was normally washed before being anointed with spices (and IIRC also shaved). Both the washing and the anointing are expressly mandated by the Mishnah (Acts 9:37 mentions a pre-burial washing of the deceased). They obviously would have had time to wash the body if they had time to anoint the body with over 100lbs. of spices. The image on the shroud is of a body that obviously hadn’t been washed or shaved.

Matthew reports that Joseph of Arimathea "took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away." (Mat. 27:59-60 NIV). John adds that "He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no-one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was near by, they laid Jesus there." (John 19:39-42 NIV)

So Matthew reports the use of "a" (single) clean linen cloth, so this could have been the shroud.

None of the gospels specifically mention that they washed and shaved the body as was custom. This may have not been mentioned because it was taken for granted, but it is also possible that by the time they got permission to take the body, there may not have been enough time do the full preparation before the 6 p.m. start of the Sabbath (as haste seems indicated by John 19:42 NIV).

Luke tells us that "Going to Pilate, he (Joseph of Arimathea) asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb." (Luke 23:52-24:2 NIV)

Mark tells us "So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. (Mark 15:46-16:4 NIV)

On the one hand, we are told that a single cloth was used, and then elsewhere that more than one piece of linen was used, along with a head piece.

Additionally, John tells us that Nicodemus and Joseph wrapped the body with the spices, without telling us how or to what extent. We do know they were rushed to do whatever they could before the Sabbath began. Yet we are also told that the women watched where Jesus was buried, went home to prepare spices and perfumes, and returned on the Sunday morning with those spices. Why were the women taking spices for the body, if that had already been taken care of by Joseph and Nicodemus? Their actions would seem to indicate that the body had not been properly anointed or prepared and that they had come after the Sabbath to tend (or finish tending) the body.

It is probably impossible to figure out exactly what took place from the information given. I don't believe the gospels contradict each other, but I can't account at this time for the apparent discrepancies about how the spices were or were not applied. Because of not knowing the exact number of linens, how they were applied to the body, or how the spices were used, I am not yet prepared to rule out the shroud's authenticity. The spice issue, however, does provide reasonable grounds for doubt.

It just appears that the shroud is simply not consistent with John’s account of Jesus’ burial. And if anyone wants to dismiss his account concerning these details then they can’t rely on him for others. For example, the piercing of the side with the lance is only mentioned in John.

I agree with you that the words of all the gospels are telling us the truth, but an apparent inconsistency is not necessarily a real one once all the facts are known. All I'm saying is that there may be valid solutions to these alleged incongruities that we are simply unaware of 2000 years after the fact.

And one other thing always bothered me; why didn’t any of the Gospels mention such an miraculous imprint being found on Jesus’ burial clothes if it existed?

Perhaps because they didn't want it to take the focus off their message. If people knew where Moses was buried, there would have been a shrine to him to this day. In a similar way, if word spread at the time of a miraculous cloth that bore Christ's image, think of all the relic worship it would instigate because of people's foolishness. Even nowdays thousands of people from all over the world line up to see the shroud whenever it is set out for public viewing. If the shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus' burial cloth, then it seems to me that it may have been purposefully set aside by one of the apostles or family members to prevent it from being abused in such a fashion. God may even have planned for it to be preserved until the science of our day could validate it, perhaps encouraging some to take a more serious look at Christianity.

Either way, my faith in Christ's resurrection does not rely on the validity of the Shroud of Turin but on the undeniable fact of the empty tomb. If it one day could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be authentic - great. If on the other hand it is once and for all determined to be a fraud, it's no big deal. Until it is resolved one way or the other, it remains an intriguing mystery - but only one of many.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[rogue06]

Hi rogue,

To me the shroud is hard to write off as a forgery because of all the amazing detail included that would have been beyond the capability of a medieval forger (conceptualizing a photographic negative, the 3-D information, the anatomical knowledge of the thumbs turning in when the wrist nerve is severed, scorching the top fibers instead of using pigment to create the image, including pollen from plants only found in Jerusalem, etc). I have also read that the C-14 test on the linen could give a more recent date due to several plausible reasons and that it could still date back to the first century. Yet as you point out, there are remaining difficulties.

Long time no see.

Creating negative images can be traced back to Neolithic people of Europe, Egypt, India and China and thus isn’t a real shocker as some maintain. And the 3D effect has been reproduced using a variety of methods available and known to artisans of the time.

As to the pollen, it should be noted that this claim was regarded as highly controversial when made because the botanist who made them never examined the shroud itself but instead examined samples supposedly tape-lifted off of the shroud by Max Frei, a less than reputable source.

Further, even if pollen grains from plants indigenous to Jerusalem were on the shroud it means little since they could easily have been carried to the shroud by anyone who handled it. IOW, any pollen grains could well have originated in Jerusalem and contaminated the shroud at any time before or after its appearance in Italy.

And IIRC the part identified as the thumb is not clearly visible and open to speculation. Some even declare that the thumbs are completely absent from the image on the shroud.

And the main complaint against the C-14 testing is the possibility of contamination but as several experts have noted this would require that the shroud consist more of contaminants than of cloth – something that is clearly not the case.

I wondered about this myself. As the image on the shroud indicates direct contact with the body, could this be an inner lining with a second cloth wrapped around it - the outer cloth accounting for the use of the plural? Is there any way of determining how many cloths the Jews did customarily use to wrap a body at that time?

Not impossible I suppose but it seems based solely upon unsupported speculation

Is it possible the binding "about" the head could be more like a scarf wrapped around the sides of the head, covering the ears and under the chin to keep the jaw closed (as in Jacob Marley's ghost in "A Christmas Carol" with Alistair Sim) as opposed to a veil? This could be set aside as witnessed by Peter when he entered the tomb. This may escape being detailed on the shroud as it would not appear on the front or back of the head and there seems to be a gap between the two images where the top of the head would be.

Even if it was a veil over the face, isn't it possible that it might be made of a thinner, more delicate fabric that allowed the facial image to penetrate through to the shroud on top? I believe fine silk fabrics were produced in Bible times, though I have no direct knowledge of them being used for such a purpose.

More speculation that seems to be a series of tenuous “what ifs” designed to prop up the authenticity of the Shroud in absence of any actual evidence. And off the top of my head having a linen burial cloth and silk head wrapping might run afoul of the prohibition of wearing two different fabrics (although I’m only speculating here myself).

If the image was somehow projected through the veil and onto the shroud then we should expect the image of the head to be lighter than the rest of the body which didn’t have to filter through a separate layer. But that isn’t what we find.

And the word John uses for the separate piece that covered the face is sudarium (“sweat cloth”) which means handkerchief or napkin and AFAICT never used to designate a chin or jaw band of some sort. While some have even claimed to see indications of a chin band on the shroud this appears to be the result of a differently toned stripe of the cloth and was investigated and dismissed back in 1978.

If we must speculate it should have some supporting evidence backing it up. For instance, Christians in Egypt toward the end of the first century buried the bodies of their dead wound up in strips of cloth or linen bandages with a small facecloth. Such a burial seems to concur with the account in John of both Jesus’ and Lazarus’ (John 11:44) burial and the fact that the Jewish Mishnah explicitly mentions the use of a napkin to cover the face.

Good point. I assume the spices were meant to be placed in direct contact with the body instead of between an inner and outer cloth as I have suggest might have been used. Even if used between, there should be some traces left on the "outside" of this inner shroud. Although I have read a few books and articles on the Shroud of Turin, I don't recall any mention of this being searched for. Quite an oversight. Surely if it was noticed it would have been recorded, but if they didn't even look for it, it might still be there. It would be good to know one way or the other.

Quite an oversight is putting it mildly considering that if the shroud had been saturated with a mixture of myrrh and aloes the cloth today wouldn’t be soft and flexible and easily folded but would instead be stiff and brittle as if it had been lacquered. Attempts at folding it would result in it breaking.

Yet there isn’t any trace of these spices on the shroud.

Matthew reports that Joseph of Arimathea "took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away." (Mat. 27:59-60 NIV). John adds that "He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no-one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was near by, they laid Jesus there." (John 19:39-42 NIV)

So Matthew reports the use of "a" (single) clean linen cloth, so this could have been the shroud.

Notice that Matthew describes the body being wrapped (as does Mark, Luke and John) which IIRC the Greek word employed here means “to roll in,” “to wind in,” “to twist,” “to entwine,” “to enwrap,” “to wrap by winding tightly.” Winding, twisting and entwining suggest wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single enormous shroud.

In contrast the shroud, which is 434cm by 109cm (14’ 3” by 3’ 7”), is more like a double length bed sheet that apparently covered a body from front to rear, head to toe, all in one piece by being folded over it without bindings, wrappings or windings.

Further, I’d note that Luke 24:12 which mentions Peter seeing “linen cloths by themselves,” also supports the idea of multiple wrappings rather than a single huge piece of linen draped over the body.

None of the gospels specifically mention that they washed and shaved the body as was custom. This may have not been mentioned because it was taken for granted, but it is also possible that by the time they got permission to take the body, there may not have been enough time do the full preparation before the 6 p.m. start of the Sabbath (as haste seems indicated by John 19:42 NIV).

Luke tells us that "Going to Pilate, he (Joseph of Arimathea) asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid. It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb." (Luke 23:52-24:2 NIV)

But as noted above, Luke also makes mention of them in the plural: “linen cloths by themselves” (24:12).

Mark tells us "So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. (Mark 15:46-16:4 NIV)

Again please note that the author states that the body was wrapped and not draped under and over as the shroud depicts.

On the one hand, we are told that a single cloth was used, and then elsewhere that more than one piece of linen was used, along with a head piece.

If a single sheet of cloth was meant then there is indeed conflict between it and John 19:40 where the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” is employed rather than othone which means a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet.

Additionally, John tells us that Nicodemus and Joseph wrapped the body with the spices, without telling us how or to what extent. We do know they were rushed to do whatever they could before the Sabbath began. Yet we are also told that the women watched where Jesus was buried, went home to prepare spices and perfumes, and returned on the Sunday morning with those spices. Why were the women taking spices for the body, if that had already been taken care of by Joseph and Nicodemus? Their actions would seem to indicate that the body had not been properly anointed or prepared and that they had come after the Sabbath to tend (or finish tending) the body.

No matter how the spices were utilized they should have left traces on the shroud (especially considering the amount used), but there is none. And it is doubtful that Joseph and Nicodemus made the women privy to the details of the burial and they brought the materials in case the proper cleaning and anointing weren’t done.

But John’s statement that Jesus was buried in the customary Jewish manner indicates a ritualistic cleaning and anointing of the body took place. Such a washing and anointing are specifically called for in the Mishnah and mentioned in Acts 9:37. But the dried blood on the body depicted on the shroud demonstrates that this body wasn’t washed.

And I don’t think they were all that rushed if they had time to anoint the body with 75 to 100lbs of spices as John clearly states it was.

It is probably impossible to figure out exactly what took place from the information given. I don't believe the gospels contradict each other, but I can't account at this time for the apparent discrepancies about how the spices were or were not applied. Because of not knowing the exact number of linens, how they were applied to the body, or how the spices were used, I am not yet prepared to rule out the shroud's authenticity. The spice issue, however, does provide reasonable grounds for doubt.

I find things like the absence of any trace of the spices as being terminal to the claims of authenticity of the Shroud.

I agree with you that the words of all the gospels are telling us the truth, but an apparent inconsistency is not necessarily a real one once all the facts are known. All I'm saying is that there may be valid solutions to these alleged incongruities that we are simply unaware of 2000 years after the fact.

IMHO, that inconsistency is becoming more and more apparent or obvious as the facts come in.

Perhaps because they didn't want it to take the focus off their message. If people knew where Moses was buried, there would have been a shrine to him to this day. In a similar way, if word spread at the time of a miraculous cloth that bore Christ's image, think of all the relic worship it would instigate because of people's foolishness. Even nowdays thousands of people from all over the world line up to see the shroud whenever it is set out for public viewing. If the shroud of Turin is indeed Jesus' burial cloth, then it seems to me that it may have been purposefully set aside by one of the apostles or family members to prevent it from being abused in such a fashion. God may even have planned for it to be preserved until the science of our day could validate it, perhaps encouraging some to take a more serious look at Christianity.

That is a good point.

Either way, my faith in Christ's resurrection does not rely on the validity of the Shroud of Turin but on the undeniable fact of the empty tomb. If it one day could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be authentic - great. If on the other hand it is once and for all determined to be a fraud, it's no big deal. Until it is resolved one way or the other, it remains an intriguing mystery - but only one of many.

Regards,
xcav8tor

I agree with your conclusion. If the shroud were to be verified as authentic it would merely serve as icing on the cake.

[Rapalyea]

GOOD SOURCE - I found this discussion on the matter of the smaller of the two cloths mentioned in John. It is in PDF Form and I don't know how to copy from it. The entire paper is interesting, but the specifics of John and the relevant translation is on page 7. I will try to back-page to the original link for a shorter URL

http://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl...number=4&w=707

I also found a good source on the words used for the shroud itself. Its buried someplace in my bookmarks and I will try to find it. However, as I recall, the word used seems to imply, or actually mean, high quality linnen. This would be in accordance with Turin, and the fact Jos. of Ar was a wealthy man.

Cheers....

[Rapalyea]

'What Greek Word Usage Tells Us About The Burial Wrappings of Jesus":

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...4Ga4TN_VmlOplg

[NeilUnreal]

I have to continue to be a dissenting voice on the idea that the shroud is beyond an artist of the late middle ages. In fact, exactly the opposite: even if it is a unique instance, it's precisely what the kind of thing one would expect a clever and talented artist of the time to produce.

All the things that seem mysterious: the details, the "3D encoding," etc., I think are artifacts of a search process that pre-supposes belief in a genuine shroud. Even the things that make it obvious that the shroud is a painting (lack of distortion of a draped-cloth nature, distortion of an artistic nature) get subsumed under this pre-supposition that it is genuine.

However, I think it's a good idea to keep the shroud as a relic of church history. It represents a rare link to a age in Western civilization when faith, science and philosophy meant very different things, while at the same time bordering on the verge of the modern. I would no more want to see the shroud hidden than I would the great religious artworks in the Vatican and elsewhere.

I think Pope John Paul II had the right idea: the nature of the shroud itself is a matter for science. The nature of the human reaction to what the shroud represents is a matter for faith.

-Neil

[Rapalyea]

Neil

Your points are well taken but the case is far from closed. I personally have a problem with provenance. The shroud is never mentioned in any of the New Testament, for instance. However, I recommend the following general discussion of The Gospel of Thomas on that and other issues. See page 8. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbc2.pdf

[Rapalyea]

Rogue & xc - More to chew on regarding biblical accounts of various textiles. I just ran across this while noodling around. Perhaps the three inch wide, full length cut was used to bind up the body inside the shroud, then was reatached....

"The stitching pattern [of the repair] is surprisingly similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 B.C. and 73 A.D."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/prev...interview.html

[rogue06]

Rapalyea, your link in post #33 doesn't work

[KBertsche]

Notice that Matthew describes the body being wrapped (as does Mark, Luke and John) which IIRC the Greek word employed here means “to roll in,” “to wind in,” “to twist,” “to entwine,” “to enwrap,” “to wrap by winding tightly.” Winding, twisting and entwining suggest wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single enormous shroud.

In contrast the shroud, which is 434cm by 109cm (14’ 3” by 3’ 7”), is more like a double length bed sheet that apparently covered a body from front to rear, head to toe, all in one piece by being folded over it without bindings, wrappings or windings.

Further, I’d note that Luke 24:12 which mentions Peter seeing “linen cloths by themselves,” also supports the idea of multiple wrappings rather than a single huge piece of linen draped over the body.


But as noted above, Luke also makes mention of them in the plural: “linen cloths by themselves” (24:12).


Again please note that the author states that the body was wrapped and not draped under and over as the shroud depicts.


If a single sheet of cloth was meant then there is indeed conflict between it and John 19:40 where the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” is employed rather than othone which means a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet.


No matter how the spices were utilized they should have left traces on the shroud (especially considering the amount used), but there is none. And it is doubtful that Joseph and Nicodemus made the women privy to the details of the burial and they brought the materials in case the proper cleaning and anointing weren’t done.

But John’s statement that Jesus was buried in the customary Jewish manner indicates a ritualistic cleaning and anointing of the body took place. Such a washing and anointing are specifically called for in the Mishnah and mentioned in Acts 9:37. But the dried blood on the body depicted on the shroud demonstrates that this body wasn’t washed.

And I don’t think they were all that rushed if they had time to anoint the body with 75 to 100lbs of spices as John clearly states it was.

I find things like the absence of any trace of the spices as being terminal to the claims of authenticity of the Shroud.

Good points. I've seen a quote (Josephus? Tacitus?) that claims the normal first-century practice was to wrap the body like a mummy. This fits with the verb "wrap" used in the synoptic gospels. The Shroud was not a "wrapping", and there was no trace of spices.

Perhaps the Shroud was an extra cloth not mentioned in Scripture, placed over a mummy-wrapped body? Maybe, but if so, why do essentially all of Christ's wounds appear in the shroud? (pierced hands and side, crown of thorns) This seems to be more consistent with intentional artwork.

And as art experts have pointed out, a number of features are not what one would expect of a real, dead body. E.g. the hair does not flow the direction one would expect. Look at the Shroud image; the hair flows downward over the shoulders, as if the person were standing. If this were a Shroud placed over a prone body, the hair should have flowed backward, not downward.

[Rapalyea]

Rogue - I Can't get my post 33 link to work either. Maybe tomorrow.

Neil - The cloth is full of blood, hemoglobin, and billirubin. The billirubin is important because it is only detectable with modern methods such as used by STURP and is evidence of protracted trauma.

KB - Incidentally, hair matted with drying and clotted blood while hanging upright could very well keep its shape upon horizontal placement. Even so, the burial party could easily have arrainged it like that anyway.

And if this is a forgery of Jesus, it certainly is one very gruesome forgery. Makes J. Dahmer look like Little Bo Peep

[KBertsche]

And if this is a forgery of Jesus, it certainly is one very gruesome forgery. Makes J. Dahmer look like Little Bo Peep

I like the theory that it was a Medieval icon, created for liturgical purposes. That explains things like the hair and the presence of all of the wounds of the crucifixion.

(See the paper The Shroud of Turin: Relic or icon? by art historian W.S.A. Dale. His date estimate, on artistic grounds, turned out to be about 200 years too early.)

[rogue06]

Good points. I've seen a quote (Josephus? Tacitus?) that claims the normal first-century practice was to wrap the body like a mummy. This fits with the verb "wrap" used in the synoptic gospels. The Shroud was not a "wrapping", and there was no trace of spices.

Perhaps the Shroud was an extra cloth not mentioned in Scripture, placed over a mummy-wrapped body? Maybe, but if so, why do essentially all of Christ's wounds appear in the shroud? (pierced hands and side, crown of thorns) This seems to be more consistent with intentional artwork.

And as art experts have pointed out, a number of features are not what one would expect of a real, dead body. E.g. the hair does not flow the direction one would expect. Look at the Shroud image; the hair flows downward over the shoulders, as if the person were standing. If this were a Shroud placed over a prone body, the hair should have flowed backward, not downward.

Speaking of what is found on the Shroud as compared to what we might expect to find, many have pointed out difficulties surrounding the placement of the hands and the strange gap between the front and rear images, but one of the problems I have has to do with his face. That oh so recognizable visage that looks more European than Semitic.

One of the things I finding, er, striking is how recognizable he is. Aside from a little swelling the image on the Shroud depicts the face of a man in remarkably good condition. This is especially puzzling considering that John explicitly notes that the guards were “striking him on the face” (19:3) and Matt 27:30 says that they “took the reed and smote him on the head” as does Mark 15:19. And let’s not forget that Luke confirms that on the night before “the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him” (22:63).

So Jesus was beaten about the face and head by his captors on what appears to be at least two occasions, and the Romans especially were noted for their brutal treatment of prisoners.

Keep the above in mind as you consider Isaiah 52:14, a verse long thought to prophesize the treatment of Jesus, which states that, “Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness.” IOW, everyone was afraid of how he looked. He did not even look human. Nobody would recognize him as a man.

The KJV captured the moment perfectly when in John 19:5 where Pilate says “Behold the Man” as he mockingly presented Jesus after he had been scourged and savaged in the most brutal manner. Does that really look like what we have here?

Attachment 79763

I’ve been in fights that I won (or at least walked away from) and looked considerably worse.

Another thing that has bothered me is the very presence of blood flow from the crown of thorns (shouldn’t it have dried and begun clotting long before death?) shows they didn’t even wipe his face properly and yet his back, which should have been completely soaked, literally caked, in blood seems as if it were cleaned.

[Rapalyea]

KB

Whatever it might be it is certainly an improbable item, from what ever point of view one might take. I checked the URL you provided and read the '11th century' proposition. So now we have one more layer to the cake!

While logged on I might as well make a correction on a previous post were I speculated the full length seam was to reattach a strip cut, for expedience, from the new cloth in order to bind up the body that was already in the shroud.

I turns out various tests and examinations from, I believe, STURP do not show frayed ends from cutting. The sewing apparently was simply used to create a small, full lenght 'tube'. One speculation is it provided a way to run a string through the top of the cloth so as to have an easy and quick way to dangle it for display. I believe I read the shroud was displayed more often in earlier times.

[Whateverman]

Because we're not conspiracy nuts.

How do we know that the equipment making the analyses was standardized prior to the tests? How do we know atheists didn't reprogram the circuitry of the equipment to decrease sample ages by 1200 years? How do we know that Satan isn't hiding the evidence by making us read the data incorrectly?

Answer: we don't.

But once you start theorizing like this, you have to admit it's just as likely that Christians desperate to prove the existence of Jesus falsify Turin data.

As Lao Tzu implied, you can endlessly ask "what if" questions - at some point, you have to look at the weight of the evidence and come to a conclusion. The reasonable conclusion here is that the Shroud of Turin is too young.

[Rapalyea]

What - You wrote: "The reasonable conclusion here is that the Shroud of Turin is too young." It is reasonable but not the ONLY reasonable conclusion. The C14 test was flubbed in any number of ways, but I will grant the flubbing itself does not point to early manufacture either.

However, the fabric itself seems an unlikely midieval product because of the uneaven hank bleaching. For instance, a cloth made with an expensive 3 to 1 weave without near perfect bleaching would have been, well, sort of like tie-dieing an Armani Suit. By the midieval ages fabric technology had progressed to such a point that fine linen was expected to be near perfect in appearance. http://www.oldandinteresting.com/med...blecloths.aspx

In addition, I don't think a forger in his right mind would choose the uneven surface of a herringbone weave, pay the extra cost, let alone order it custom made with hank-bleached fibers that add yet more surface difficulties to the 'painter', photographer, or whatever.

Then there is vanillin. Linen fabrics evaporate this substance over time and it eventually is all gone. For instance, neither the shroud nor the dead see schrolls test possitive. Howver, the various linen patches on the shroud do test possitive. I have seen one estimate they still carry at least 1/3 of their original load.

So it just goes on and on. In fact, I have discoverred my very own Dan-Brown-Moment. One report has it a man from Caltech made two age tests on a Raes fiber back in 1982. The fiber was inconsistent from one end to the other, so he is reported to have cut it half and done both. AD 1200 and AD 200. This event was subsequently reported in a 2002 paper submitted to one or another shroud conferences.

That same year The Intellectual Property Counsel from CalTech sent a firmly worded letter to the web site containing the repeport and emphatically denying any such thing had ever been done under CalTech auspices; that CalTech did not have the mass spectrometer cited, and the researcher had no C14 expertise etc etc. However, the wording is very specific in that it does not deny the researcher did the test at all.

That same year the authors of the original report say they called the CalTech researcher who confirmed he did the test, but never to discuss the shroud with him again.

I did some research. Certainly CalTech, the institution, had nothing to do with this episode. And perhaps Caltech did not own the specific equipment cited. Perhaps it was leased. Or perhaps it was the previous model, or subsequent model. [I know it had a better later model available and someplace have the actual model number.] It is clear, however, that CalTech has had access to mass spectrometers for so long they donated one from 1968 to The National Museum of American History just two years ago.

But you can bet your bottom drachma there will never ever be any 'credible' discussion of this testing that never took place on a mass spectrometer CalTech did not even own at the time......