ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Shroud of Turin: Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 5]

26The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty Shroud Expositions Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:24 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Expositions in the middle ages

https://sabanasanta.org/ostensiones/

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t192

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t193

The Shroud of Turin: A History of Devotion, Art, and Dynasty

The Shroud of Turin, an enigmatic and revered religious artifact, has a complex and fascinating history. The first documented evidence of its existence is a medieval lead pilgrimage medallion found in 1855 at the bottom of the Seine in Paris, near the Pont au Change, and currently housed in the Musée de Cluny. This medallion, along with numerous other artifacts discovered in the same location, attests to the tradition of pilgrims throwing such items into the river as part of an apotropaic rite upon entering Paris. These findings underscore the devotional significance of the Shroud in France since the 14th century. The Shroud is primarily renowned for being an extraordinary image. It is a direct and objective representation that requires no mediation for recognition. Its existence as an image is undeniable, and it has been replicated in various forms since its appearance. The Shroud began to be reproduced in different styles, materials, and techniques, aimed at making this image widely accessible, especially to those unable to attend its public displays.

Initially, depictions of the Shroud were devotional in nature, a trend that persisted for a long time. The production of various images of the Holy Shroud began in the 16th century, peaked in the Baroque period, and then declined until it was virtually replaced by photographs in the late 19th century. These images were primarily designed for religious practices. Apart from devotional reproductions, a substantial number of images were created to commemorate historical events, particularly highlighting the relationship between the Savoy dynasty and this dynastic relic. The Savoy acquired the Shroud from Marguerite de Charny, a granddaughter (but not a direct descendant) of Geoffroy de Charny. The circumstances of the acquisition were complex, given Marguerite's precarious claim and legal challenges from the canons of Lirey.

Initially, the Shroud played a private, predominantly female devotional role in the Savoy household, often traveling with the court. Its public significance grew over time, notably after the 1503 public display in Bourg-en-Bresse and the 1506 granting of the liturgy of the Shroud. It gradually assumed its role as a dynastic relic, symbolizing the divine favor and legitimacy of the Savoy dynasty. The presence of such a significant religious object was a common practice in European courts, signifying divine favor and entrusting the dynasty with its care. For the Savoy family, guardianship of the Shroud, which bears the image of Christ's face and wounds, was particularly prestigious. However, this also obligated the sovereign to embody the virtues of a true Catholic prince, recalling figures like St. Charles Borromeo or Blessed Sebastiano Valfrè.

From a devotional standpoint, the Shroud of Turin has been represented in a multitude of ways. Frescoes, adorning both public and private spaces, serve as significant testimonies to the Shroud, although many have deteriorated or become illegible over time. These frescoes, often placed in highly visible areas like house doors or town entrances, served an apotropaic purpose. Representations of the Shroud alone are rare; it is usually depicted alongside the Virgin Mary, who helps present it, or with saints who had some connection to it. These saints might be linked to devotions to the Incarnation and Passion of Christ, like St. Francis, or to other local or popular devotions, or even to figures associated with the dynastic pantheon. Occasionally, these depictions include historical elements, such as public displays of the Shroud. These frescoes are found across various regions, from Savoyard France to Piedmont and even Lombardy, with less presence in areas more recently acquired by the Savoy State. Frescoes are also a part of the interior decoration in places of worship. However, the knowledge and depiction of the Shroud extended far beyond these regions, as evidenced by artworks like the large canvas attributed to Francesco Bassano the Younger in Treviso Cathedral or the late 16th-century depiction in the Vatican's Gallery of Maps. The latter illustrates the growing religious significance of the Shroud within the Savoy territories.

Additionally, there are paintings of various sizes, sometimes created by notable artists, and a variety of personal devotional items like Books of Hours, small paintings, prints, and embroideries. With the advent of printing, the reproduction of Shroud images became widespread, enabling mass dissemination. The increase in Shroud representations in the mid-16th century coincided with various needs. With Emanuele Filiberto moving the capital to Turin and asserting his dynasty after challenging years, there was a keen interest in promoting the dynastic relic. This policy continued with his successors, coupled with a genuine personal devotion shared by the sovereign, court, and public. For instance, King Charles Felix's deep religious devotion led to a public display of the Shroud during his unexpected accession. Public displays of the Shroud, especially during dynastic events, became increasingly elaborate, reflecting the relic's attributed significance. After relocating the capital from Chambéry to Turin, symbolizing a new political will, Emanuele Filiberto commissioned three works from court historian Emanuele Filiberto Pingon. These works aimed to strengthen the dynasty's image and the new political direction. They included a reconstruction of the Savoy genealogy, a text on Turin highlighting its role and antiquity, and a book on the Holy Shroud – the first dedicated entirely to the relic. Pingon's efforts, despite some challenges and lack of documentation, laid the foundation for subsequent reconstructions of the Shroud's history and confirmation of its status as a relic. Beyond the "Savoyan need," the ecclesiastical perspective played a role. Post-Council of Trent, the Church saw representations of relics and images as powerful tools for catechesis and strengthening spirituality and doctrine.

The Shroud, with its unique characteristics, emerged as a key instrument in the Catholic Reformation. Esteemed figures like St. Charles Borromeo and St. Francis de Sales championed its significance, reinforcing its role in applying the canons of the Catholic Reformation. The Shroud's influence was further amplified through literature, including the publication of sermons that, while often initiated by dynastic interests, delved into theological and pastoral perspectives. A notable example is the sermons of Camillo Balliani, a Dominican and Inquisitor of Turin, who was committed to upholding correct doctrine and promoting the Council's directives. Alongside these theological works, devotional prints featuring the Shroud, accompanied by prayers, became popular. These prints served as aids for meditation and as introductions to the mystery of salvation represented by the Shroud. Another significant method of dissemination were full-sized copies or scaled-down versions of the Shroud on canvas. These replicas, prevalent from the 16th to the 19th centuries, were often produced for solemn expositions. The Savoy family used these copies as prestigious gifts for kings, foreign ambassadors, and apostolic nuncios, employing them strategically to strengthen dynastic ties established through matrimonial and military alliances.

However, these political and diplomatic practices only partly capture the essence of replicating the Shroud. Creating a copy was seen as an act of engaging with the mystery of the Shroud, transcending mere practical or secular purposes to attain a deeply religious dimension. The process of replicating the Shroud was not just an artistic endeavor commissioned by the Prince; it was a sacred act that brought the artist's eye and hand into close contact with the image of Christ, necessitating spiritual awareness and preparation. This reverence is exemplified by the ritual prescribed by Emanuele Filiberto for creating a copy for Philip II. The Shroud was displayed in a private chapel, illuminated by numerous chandeliers and lamps. While the royal painter worked on the replica, kneeling and with an uncovered head, pious clergymen recited the prayer of the forty hours. This solemn process was intended to ensure respect and devotion during the replication, contrasting with previous instances where painters approached the task casually and subsequently encountered misfortune, believed to be a sign of divine displeasure. This anecdote, detailed in Bonafamiglia's "La Sacra historia della Santissima Sindone," highlights the profound respect and solemnity accorded to the task of reproducing the Shroud's image.

The replication of the Holy Shroud of Turin involved a unique ritualistic process, where copies were often physically placed against the original Shroud. This act was believed to transfer some of the Shroud's sacredness to the copies, allowing them to partake in and convey the mystery the Shroud represents.

These authorized and certified copies are highly valued, as not all replicas can claim direct lineage from the original due to the absence of objective verification. Around these copies, various stories, including tales of fraudulent productions or miraculous occurrences, have emerged, adding to local folklore. In some communities, these replicas of the Shroud have been integrated into official liturgical practices, particularly on Good Friday, and into various devotional forms developed by popular piety, such as the Entierro rite, mysteries, and penitential processions. Special brotherhoods have even been established to oversee the care and devotion to these copies. The oldest known copy of the Shroud dates back to 1516, currently preserved in Lierre, Belgium. While few copies bear the artist's signature, many include inscriptions affirming their resemblance to the original in Turin or come with documents of authentication, other writings, or dedications. These copies are often adorned with intricate borders and ornaments. One notable example is the copy believed to have been received by Charles Borromeo from the Bishop of Vercelli, Carlo Francesco Bonomi. Borromeo venerated this copy in his private chapel, making it a Borromean relic in its own right. Additionally, princesses Maria Apollonia and Francesca Caterina, daughters of Charles Emmanuel I and declared venerable in 1838, were known for their devotion to the Shroud. During their travels, they carried copies of the original and presented them as gifts to their hosts. Interestingly, the characteristic of the original Shroud behaving like a photographic negative was not understood during the peak period of these copies' production. This feature was only discovered after the first photograph of the Shroud was taken by Secondo Pia in 1898. Pia's subsequent attempt to photograph a reproduction of the 1670 painting by Count Gay of Montariolo revealed that these copies lacked the original's negative-like quality. Not all copies were likely made directly from the Shroud but rather using preparatory drawings or sketches. This could account for certain discrepancies between the copies and the original, often seen in groups of replicas from specific periods. These painted copies of the Shroud hold significant historical and documentary value. They are essential for understanding the evolution and spread of devotion to the sacred linen and its establishment in communities responsible for these revered objects.




In 1898 Secondo Pia took the first official photograph of the Shroud

During the 1898 Exposition of the Shroud from 25 May to 2 June, Turin lawyer, city councillor and amateur but expert photographer, Secondo Pia (1855–1941), photographed the Shroud. Pia's first attempt to photograph the Shroud on 25 May was only partially successful. But he "managed two exposures and although they were less than perfect, already evident on these negatives was a rather strange effect".

"On the evening of 28 May he [Pia] returned to the cathedral and tried again. This time his equipment worked perfectly. Having exposed four photographic plates, he returned to his studio around midnight and began the process of developing them. What Pia saw that night in his darkroom astounded him. For, as the image on the negative plate took shape before his eyes, he found himself staring not at a confusing array of lights and darks, the usual effect of a photographic negative, but at a coherent likeness of a crucified man. Instead of the flat, enigmatic image seen on the cloth, the negative plate gave the impression of a substantial figure emerging from the background, a figure that looked like a real human body lit from in front ... Instead of the glaring mask of the Shroud, the negative revealed a remarkably convincing, three-dimensional image of man's face, his eyelids closed ... It was as if the Shroud itself was a photographic negative that could be developed into a breathtaking, positive image of the crucified Jesus. `Shut up in my darkroom,' Pia later recalled, 'all intent on my work, I experienced a very strong emotion when, during the development, I saw for the first time the Holy Face appear on the plate, with such clarity that I was dumbfounded by it...".

 Secondo Pia's 1898 negative photograph of the Shroud face. Note that the bloodstains, which are dark red on the Shroud as one looks at it, being white on this negative, proves that the blood is not part of the image.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Second10


In the Museum of the Holy Shroud in Turin, which is located a short distance from the cathedral housing the Shroud itself, there is an antique plate camera with a precision Voigtländer lens dating back to the late nineteenth century. This camera played a pivotal role in reshaping the understanding of the Shroud's imprint in 1898. In that year, Italy was celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of its constitution, and as part of the festivities in Turin, there was a plan to publicly exhibit the Shroud. Don Nogier de Malijai, a twenty-seven-year-old Salesian priest and an enthusiastic amateur photographer, saw this as a unique opportunity to capture the Shroud's image through photography, a first of its kind. This concept wasn't entirely new, as back in 1842, during the celebration of the marriage of Savoy's Prince Victor Emmanuel, the Shroud had been displayed from the balcony of the Turin Royal Palace. At that time, a local instrument-maker named Enrico Jest had developed equipment that could replicate France's innovative daguerreotype photographic process. If the Shroud had been displayed on a brighter day and for a longer duration, Jest might have had the chance to create the very first photograph of it.

However, even half a century later, the idea of allowing the Shroud to be photographed was met with reluctance, as it was considered inappropriate for such a sacred relic. In the late 19th century, the Shroud of Turin, then owned by King Umberto I of Savoy of Italy, was a subject of great intrigue. Despite his initial reluctance, King Umberto eventually allowed an official photograph of the Shroud. This task was unexpectedly given to Secondo Pia, a 43-year-old lawyer with a passion for amateur photography, who had never seen the Shroud before. Pia faced several technical challenges during this assignment. He could only photograph the Shroud as it was displayed behind glass, above the altar in the dimly lit cathedral. The need for electric lighting, then a novel and unreliable technology, added to the complexity. Additionally, Pia had to construct a three-meter-high platform for his camera to capture the image from the appropriate angle. The first attempt to photograph the Shroud took place on May 25, 1898, but it was fraught with difficulties, including issues with the electric lamps. Despite these challenges, Pia managed two exposures. These initial photographs already hinted at an unusual effect, though they were not perfect. Pia returned on the night of May 28, accompanied by Don Nogier and Felice Fino, a cathedral security guard and fellow photography enthusiast. Starting at about 9:30 p.m., Pia conducted two trial exposures, followed by Nogier and Fino who also took some unofficial photos. For the final, official shots, Pia used a high-quality Voigtländer lens and took four exposures, each lasting between eight and fourteen minutes, but only officially recorded two of them. Later that night, in his darkroom, Pia developed the best of the four plates. Instead of the faint impressions of the Shroud's imprints, he observed an extraordinary effect. The images revealed something far more remarkable than anyone could have anticipated.

The negative images of the Shroud of Turin, captured by Secondo Pia, revealed a transformation of its enigmatic imprints. Where previously the figures appeared as indistinct shadows, difficult to interpret and often perceived as grotesque, they now exhibited clear, natural light and dark shading, adding depth and realism. The bloodstains, now white in the negative, seemed to flow authentically from the hands, feet, and around the crown of the head. The man in the Shroud, instead of appearing flat and undefined, was now seen as a well-built, proportionate figure. Most striking was the face, dignified even in death and remarkably lifelike against the dark background of the negative image. Pia felt a profound sense of history, believing he was witnessing the true appearance of Christ as he was laid in the tomb, captured in a photograph hidden within the fabric. The discovery quickly made headlines, with the first report appearing in L’Italia Reale Corriere Nazionale on June 1, followed by an unofficial photo. However, skepticism soon arose. The Italia Corriere suggested on June 15 that the effect was due to Pia using a yellow filter. Other theories proposed it was an accident of transparency, over-exposure, or refraction. More damaging were insinuations that Pia had tampered with the negative, creating a hoax. Over the next three years, even some prominent Roman Catholic churchmen expressed doubts, focusing on the Shroud's unclear historical origins before its appearance in 14th-century France. This skepticism cast a shadow over the Shroud and Pia's reputation, similar to the controversy following the 1988 radiocarbon dating. A new opportunity to examine the Shroud arose in 1931 during the wedding of Prince Umberto of Piedmont to Princess Maria José of Belgium. The event drew millions to Turin, and the Savoy family chose to display the Shroud publicly. Giuseppe Enrie, a professional Turin photographer, was appointed to take new, official photographs. Between May 21 and 23, Enrie captured a series of definitive black-and-white photographs, with the Shroud free from any protective glass, using advanced photographic equipment. He took twelve official photos, including full and sectional views of the Shroud, the complete back body imprint, and various close-ups of the face and wounds, all showcasing pre-digital-era photographic excellence. Enrie's work, especially the natural-size negative of the Shroud man's face, was highly acclaimed. The crown prince Umberto, for whom the exhibition was held, was reportedly overwhelmed with emotion upon seeing these images.

The historic glass plate is now a significant artifact housed in Turin’s Museum of the Shroud. This plate, along with thousands of other negative photographs of the Shroud's face taken over the years by both professionals and amateurs, has helped to dispel any lingering notions that the phenomenon first revealed by Secondo Pia in 1898 was a hoax. Remarkably, Pia, then aged seventy-six, lived to see his work vindicated. He was invited to witness the exhibition along with a public notary and photographic experts, ensuring that Giuseppe Enrie's process was free from any deception.

Four decades later, in 1973, Pope Paul VI expressed his profound reaction to Enrie’s photograph of the Shroud, which he first saw as a young priest in 1931. During a televised address accompanying the Shroud's first color television broadcast, he described the image as strikingly authentic and deeply moving, possessing both human and divine qualities unmatched by any other image. Similarly, Leo Vala, a well-known London photographer and self-professed agnostic, praised the image in a photographic journal in the same decade. Vala, experienced in various visual processes, attested to the authenticity of the Shroud's image, asserting that it could not have been fabricated with any contemporary technology, highlighting its precise photographic quality and the perfection of its negative.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 D09a6c10


http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf

https://flora.org.il/books/turin/

Shroud Expositions in recent times

1898
In a landmark moment for both history and science, a breakthrough in technology enabled the first successful photographic capture of the enigmatic Holy Shroud. The images were the work of Secondo Pia, not a professional but a fervently dedicated amateur photographer. Accounts from that era depict the Shroud bathed in electric light, creating a spectacle of extraordinary magnificence. This remarkable exhibition, which ran from May 25 to June 2, drew crowds to Turin at an astounding rate of 25,000 daily visitors, a staggering feat considering the limited transportation infrastructure of the late 19th century. As Pia processed his photographs, he was struck by the profound significance of his endeavor. He confided to his assistant that, alone in the darkroom, the sight of the sacred visage emerging on the plate overwhelmed him with such a potent mix of astonishment and elation. That year's display of the Shroud marked the high point of a series of significant milestones for the city, including the 400th anniversary of the cathedral's completion, the 300th year since the founding of the Confraternity of the Holy Shroud, and the half-century mark of the Albertine Statute.

1931:

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Ostens10

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Ostens11

In 1931, a grand exhibition in Turin celebrated the nuptials of Prince Umberto II of Savoy and Princess Maria José of Belgium. The majestic Duomo of Turin played host to not just scores of pilgrims but also an assembly of nobility and clergy, making for a grand public spectacle. The air buzzed with anticipation as many had journeyed to witness the splendor of the royal court. Newspaper headlines heralded an unparalleled procession, a cavalcade of knights, soldiers, and clerics, arrayed in their most ornate uniforms. The scene was one to behold, with throngs of pilgrims thronging the Duomo's steps, orderly managed by a robust security detail, as the devout trickled in from every direction, by foot and by carriage. The event, commencing on the 3rd of May, was a magnet for the masses, drawn to the rare public display of the Shroud from the cathedral's grilles. To accommodate the overwhelming turnout, the sacred relic was exhibited in this manner throughout. Spanning a fortnight, the exhibition was a Papal decree by Pope Pius XI, Achille Ratti, to mark the extraordinary Holy Year and the nineteen centuries since the Christian narrative of redemption. The opening day was a gathering of monarchs and the clergy, with the presence of five queens, a cardinal, and numerous bishops, as reported by the press. The cathedral was bathed in radiance, the holy linen veiled under a colossal cover. Notably striking was the sight of crutches abandoned by those who had been healed, a testament to the sanctity of the event. These were prominently displayed on June 6th, a testament from devotees hailing from Switzerland, Spain, France, and Ireland. The newspapers painted a vivid picture of the international crowd, unprecedented in its diversity. Tokens left by the Italian faithful bore the names of their hometowns, a poignant touch to the miracle-woven narrative. The humeral veil, initially presented to the gathered multitudes in Piazza San Giovanni, was later elevated by the bishops and paraded down the main aisle in a solemn procession. It was a moment of profound reverence, punctuated by the pealing of the Duomo's bells, quickly echoed by the tolling from across the city.

1969
Between the 16th and 18th of June, the revered Shroud was displayed within the hallowed confines of the Royal Palace's Chapel of the Holy Shroud. This display was not just for public veneration but also for a meticulous examination by a study committee, overseen by Cardinal Michele Pellegrino. The fabric was subject to a battery of photographic techniques, this time using color imagery, under the expert guidance of Giovanni Battista Judica Cordiglia, who was tasked with the official photographic reproduction. The photographic endeavor was comprehensive, employing various lighting conditions, including normal and infrared light, to capture and elucidate as many details as possible from both the fabric and the enigmatic image it bore. These photographs, preserved to this day, serve as a testament to this detailed analysis. Giovanni Battista Judica Cordiglia, not only an esteemed member of the Commission but also an acknowledged photographer, was specifically called upon due to a provocative hypothesis put forth by Kurt Berna, the president of Switzerland's 'Foundation of the Holy Shroud.' Berna, claiming a close friendship with Cordiglia, promulgated pamphlets bearing his controversial theory: that the Shroud had enfolded not the remains of the deceased, but a body that was still alive.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Asdfaf13

1973
The exhibition marked a historic milestone as it became the first ever to be broadcast via television. Millions of individuals watched from the comfort of their homes, while thousands of devout followers gathered in the hall of the Swiss at the Royal Palace in Turin. In a break from tradition and to facilitate the television broadcast, the Shroud was displayed vertically rather than in the horizontal orientation that had been customary until then. The live transmission, showcasing what is believed to be the image of Jesus, was initiated abruptly following scholarly studies. As reported by Ugo Buzzolan of 'La Stampa', who is recognized as a pioneer in television criticism, this strategic approach was adopted because, during the initial official display, a small fragment of the Shroud's fabric was sampled. This was done in order to conduct analyses on the material present on the fabric and to examine the numerous particles embedded within the linen's weave. Among the microtraces discovered, particularly notable were the pollen grains, meticulously identified by Swiss biologist Max Frei Sulzer, who was the head of the Zurich Scientific Police. His studies revealed the presence of over fifty distinct pollen types.

1978

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Image413

In a moment of profound synchronicity for those of the Catholic faith, a remarkable event unfolded on August 27, 1978. It was the day following the appointment of the 264th pontiff, Albino Luciani of Venice, who took the papal name John Paul I. This was also when the venerated Shroud underwent a public display, marking 400 years since its relocation from Chambéry to Turin, a ceremonial exhibition that drew over three million pilgrims to the city over a span of forty-two days. Following the period of public veneration, an international cohort of over two hundred scholars, along with the esteemed president of the Tribunal and the director of Turin's International Center of Sindonology, embarked on a meticulous examination of the Shroud's fabric, particularly areas marked by blood. Their investigations yielded findings consistent with human biochemistry, noting the presence of calcium, protein, and iron in proportions typical of the human constitution, further determining the blood type to be AB.

1998
At the dawn of the Internet age, a significant event marked the close of the second millennium: the final exhibition of the Shroud and the inaugural online transmission of the Holy Mass led by Pope John Paul II in the Duomo. This event also commemorated the 100th anniversary of Secondo Pia's pioneering photograph of the Holy Shroud. Over the course of forty-five days, Turin became a focal point for over 1.5 million individuals, including pilgrims, the inquisitive, and the scientific community, who came to witness and scrutinize the relic. Despite extensive analysis, a consensus on the Shroud's authenticity remained elusive. The preservation of the Shroud was enhanced by innovative means: encased in a dual-layered, five-millimeter-thick acrylic, with a small gap of air in between for protection, and an inner layer made of a resilient acrylic material. A specialized crystal overlay, designed to be anti-reflective and to shield against ultraviolet light, ensures the safeguarding of the fabric. Henceforth, the revered image on the Shroud, known as the Holy Face, will be securely displayed within this protective enclosure.

2000
The turn-of-the-millennium exhibition, orchestrated just a couple of years after its predecessor, was a heartfelt wish of Pope John Paul II, coinciding with the Jubilee, a significant event in Catholicism symbolizing forgiveness and spiritual renewal. This display made history not only for its unprecedented 72-day duration but also for its groundbreaking presentation: it marked the first use of a specialized aluminum case with slats, providing a new way for the public to view the mysterious image on the Shroud. As devotees made their pilgrimage from the Royal Gardens to the Cathedral, kneelers were thoughtfully provided along the path to invite moments of reflection and prayer. Despite the past adversity of a fire in the Guarini Chapel, the city proved its resilience, successfully hosting over two and a half million visitors. Turin was lauded for its exemplary management; throughout this extensive period, no untoward events occurred. Local businesses participated wholeheartedly, ensuring continuous service during the late August sales, while the city administration adeptly catered to every need of the vast crowds, offering an array of services including transportation, information booths, accommodations, and community dining experiences.

Shroud Exposition in Germany:
https://www.malteser-turinergrabtuch.de/literatur.html



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Jan 17, 2024 7:20 am; edited 17 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

The Shroud of Turin provides amazing evidence for the resurrection of Jesus

One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.

By virtue of their substance and form, physical objects require no faith whatsoever. They can be observed, examined, touched and even smelled. -- This is the very opposite of "faith."
Thomas was not commended or blessed because he had "seen" Jesus after the resurrection, but those who believe WITHOUT SEEING ARE! (John 20:29)

Christians who condemn the Shroud of Turin never come up with any ''correct, valid, well-founded, sound FACTS'' or evidence to prove the Shroud of Turin is not authentic.
They not rarely argue like this: Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus 26, Where God states " Ye shall make you no idols nor graven images". So why would God break his own laws? 

But what does the meaning of the word ''images" mean? Which means making idols with our hands. This was why God gave these commands because His people were making idols and images out of clay and then worshipping them as if they were a god.

And then they ignore the facts, there is not a single shred of evidence that the Shroud was ever made by human hands.

So the Shroud does not, in fact, break any laws of God. Unless we worship it. And no true born again believer worships anything but Jesus Christ Himself.

What about those Christians then that purchase DVD films with the ''images" of Jesus on them and watch Jesus films, with people portraying Jesus who is above.

Theses Christians who condemn the Shroud often argue that God would not break His own commands by making ''images" for people to bow down and worship. But these critics fail to understand that NO TRUE born again Christian bows down and worships anything. Except for Jesus Christ Himself.

We simply use the Shroud as an important witnessing tool. Because most of the human race believes the story of Jesus is a fairytale. Theses Christians who condemn the Shroud seem to be the same as most atheists who just refuse to believe the Shroud is authentic no matter how good or convincing the evidence is. There is to wonder what side these critics are on. When it comes to proving to the lost it is Jesus on the Shroud of Turin they seem to jump on the atheist's side and teach the many people like Doubting Thomas's The Shroud is a forgery.

Yet they believe Jesus was crucified and His burial cloths were lost or destroyed. The very fact the 2 cloths have survived for 2000 years can only prove one thing. God preserved them for today as a witnessing tool.

Peter Schumacher, the inventor of the NASA VP-8 Image Analyzer, describes the discovery of the 3 D image of Jesus Christ on the Shroud of Turin. He states: Modern science does not understand the process by which the image on the Shroud was formed and all duplication efforts have failed to duplicate all the peculiar properties of the Shroud of Turin image.

John 20:24  Thomas said:
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

How interesting. Here we have a disciple of Jesus who followed Jesus, saw Jesus change water into wine, fed the 5000 with just a 5 loaves and 2 fish.
he watched Jesus raise the dead, heal the blind and crippled calmed the storm, cast out demons and heard Jesus tell hidden secrets in his parables only he could know and many many more great miracles that each of us would desire to see just one miracle.

Yet Thomas did not have any faith in the most important time in world history. Where Jesus was to become the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, by His ultimate triumph and the Resurrection. Jesus made it clear, this was why He came into the world to be crucified and be raised from the dead in 3 days.

The greatest day ever, that changed the world forever in the whole of human history had come. The greatest day that the prophets so longed to see was for filled and Yet St Thomas became The famous Doubting Thomas who could not believe and had to see Jesus to believe.
St Thomas needed to see and touch the very holes from the nails in the hands of Jesus.
But that still wasn't enough for St Thomas to believe. He also made it clear. He demanded to see the spear wound of Jesus as well to believe.

After eight days Jesus returned and said to St Thomas: Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. John 20:27.

So there we have it, friends. St Thomas clearly needed to see to believe. And Jesus did not condemn St Thomas for wanting to SEE to believe.

Yes we born again believers already have faith in Jesus, and blessed are they who have faith without seeing.

The author of the blog from which above information was copied from, promotes the claim Jesus was created. I disagree with this view but hold to the trinitarian doctrine.  
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2015/03/doubting-thomas-and-shroud-of-turin.html

The shroud of turin

One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.

By virtue of their substance and form, physical objects require no faith whatsoever. They can be observed, examined, touched and even smelled. -- This is the very opposite of "faith." Thomas was not commended or blessed because he had "seen" Jesus after the resurrection, but those who believe WITHOUT SEEING ARE! (John 20:29)

The Shroud and the jew: Barrie Schwortz at TEDx ViadellaConciliazione
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY

The Shroud of Turin  is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century, as following amazing evidence will demonstrate. It is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man,  which based on overwhelming evidence points to be Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after the crucifixion.

The blood
The blood strains can only be seen with UV light. Why would an artist back then ever put blood there which would not be visible, and providing no advantage at all. But even more remarkable than that, the wide presence of creatinine particles bound to ferrihydrite particles is not a situation typical of the blood serum of a healthy human organism. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our experiments points a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.” What appears to be blood on the Shroud has passed 13 tests proving that it is real human blood.  The presence of "X" and "Y" chromosomes indicates that the blood is from a male.  The blood type is AB.  

When a person is cruelly tortured, the blood undergoes a terrible hemolysis, when the hemoglobin literally ‘breaks up’. In thirty seconds, the reaction reaches the liver, which doesn’t have time to deal with it, and discharges a volume of bilirubin into the veins. Alan Adler has discovered a very high quantity of this substance in the blood on the Shroud. It is this substance that, when mixed with methemoglobin of a certain type, produces that vivid red color. The color of the blood belonging to the ‘Man of the Shroud’ is chemical proof that, before dying, he suffered terrible torture.

Pollen from Jerusalem
Pollen is on the Shroud that is unique to the area around Jerusalem.  Max Frei, a botanist by training, identified spores from forty-nine plants in samples taken from the Shroud.  Thirty-three of them came from plants that grow only in Palestine, the southern steppes of Turkey, and the area of Istanbul: Since the Shroud has never left France since its appearance in Lirey in 1357, this data suggests that the Shroud was exposed to the open air in Palestine and Turkey at some point prior to 1357.  Moreover: ‘Professor Danin has identified the pollen particles.. of three plants that are found only in Jerusalem. One of them, gondelia turnaforte, was present in extraordinary numbers. It’s the same plant that scholars believe may have been used as the crown of thorns worn on Jesus’ head.’

Limestone from Jerusalem
In 1982, Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck, Scientist, with assistance from Dr. Richard Levi-Setti , compared dirt from the Shroud to travertine aragonite limestone found in ancient Jewish tombs in Israel. The particles of dirt on the Shroud matched limestone found in the tombs.’

Image on the outermost layer
The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers and the image goes just two or three fibers deep into the thread. The superficial image then disappears if a colored thread goes under another thread. The polysaccharide cover is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) the inner side is not.

The image is a photonegative
Secondo Pia's first photograph in 1898 showed that the image on the cloth is a negative. The front and back (dorsal) images of the crucified man are negative images and contain 3D or topographical information content related to the distance of the cloth from the body.

Correct anatomy of the nails
The place where the nails are in the hands is anatomically correct. The image is NOT  there are no pigments whatsoever on the Shroud. If it were a forgery, with high certainty, it would have been painted. Who of the lay population would have perceived it ?

Two nails are through one foot, but only one of the nails is through the other foot.  This allows one foot to rotate, so that the victim can push up and down on the cross in order to breath during crucifixion.  If the victim of crucifixion is not pushing up and down, then it is clear that he is dead.  The soldiers had no doubt that Jesus was dead. All paintings of the Middle Ages showed the nails through the center of the palms, but nails through the palms do not support sufficient weight since there is no bone structure above this location.  Archeology has confirmed that during crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists.  The Shroud shows the correct nail locations - through the wrist instead of through the palm.

Age of the shroud
In 2013, a research team from the University of Padua conducted three tests on tiny fibers extracted from the shroud during earlier carbon-14 dating tests conducted in 1988 The first two tests used infrared light and Raman spectroscopy, respectively, while the third employed a test analyzing different mechanical parameters relating to voltage. The results date the cloth to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.. Fanti said that researchers also found trace elements of soil "compatible with the soil of Jerusalem." "For me the [Shroud] comes from God because there are hundreds of clues in favor to the authenticity," he wrote, adding that there also "no sure proofs. The 1988 carbon C14 results may have been contaminated by fibers used to repair the cloth during the Middle Ages.

Linen is from the first century
Stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement

Scourge marks from the Roman flagrum
The Shroud shows 100 to 120 scourge marks from two Roman flagrum, one striking from each side, with dumbbell shaped weights on the ends of the straps.  The blood marks from these wounds show blood serum rings (visible only under UV) around the dried blood exudate. There are abrasions on both shoulders evidently caused by the victim carrying a heavy rough object.

Side wound from Roman Spear
The side of the front image on the Shroud shows a 2 inch wide elliptical wound - the size of a typical Roman spear. The blood running down his arms is at the correct angles for a crucifixion victim.  Two angles for the blood flow can be seen on his arms.  These two angles are consistent with the crucifixion victim shifting between two positions while on the cross in order to breath.


The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 4_byax10

Crossing Hands in Death: Burial Custom common in antiquity, but not in Medieval Europe

Example of burial custom of antiquity: The hands of the deceased are crossed over the genitals (right) Egyptian priest, found in a sarcophagus which was made around 340 B.C. British Museum. In ancient Egyptian culture, the crossing of the hands over the genitals in burial practices was often symbolic. it could represent various aspects including a sign of royal or divine status. In the context of the Shroud of Turin, if the figure's hands are indeed positioned over the pelvis, it might be more reflective of the Jewish burial customs of the time, which emphasized modesty and respect for the deceased.  In Medieval Europe, before the 14th century, burial customs varied widely, but one common practice was to place the hands of the deceased crossed over the chest, not the genitals. This was especially common in Christian burials, where the crossed hands symbolized piety and were often positioned to hold a crucifix or to be in a prayer-like stance. Direct evidence of hands placed over the genitals in Medieval European burials is not common. The Christian connotations of the afterlife and the resurrection meant that burials often reflected a sense of solemnity and religious hope rather than the protection of the body's purity. In 1st-century Palestine, Jewish burial customs were influenced by a combination of local traditions and religious laws as interpreted from the Hebrew Scriptures. The most common practice, as described in various historical sources and archaeological findings, was to wrap the body in a shroud and place it in a tomb or burial cave. The Gospels, describing the burial of Jesus, align with the known Jewish customs of the time. This is further evidence against the Middle Ages forgery hypothesis of the Shroud.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA90



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Dec 17, 2023 6:06 am; edited 11 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Notable Quotes about the Shroud of Turin

[url=Notable Quotations about the Shroud of Turin]Notable Quotations about the Shroud of Turin[/url]
https://www.academia.edu/101899942/Notable_Quotations_about_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Art expert Dr. Carlo Viale as cited in Rinaldi, Peter. “I Saw the Holy Shroud.” The
Sign, February 1975, pg. 7.6
QUOTATION: In all the art of the fourteenth century (when the Shroud first appeared in France) or in that of the period preceding it, there is no example, either in the East or in the
West, which can be even remotely compared with the cloth of Turin. I can unequivocally state that this image can in no way be related to any period or school of art presently known.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Ffffdd11

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Dddxxd10

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Fff11

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Infogr13

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Large_11

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Large_12

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Infogr15

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Infogr14

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Infogr16

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 C_9p7d10

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 C_9p7d11

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 C_9p7d12

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Fmgnrn10

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 1ff43a10

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Eddddd14

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Eddddd13

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Eddddd15

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Cdiiyh10



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Jan 07, 2024 6:53 am; edited 8 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Was Jesus wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, or, as John reports, tied by strips of linen in company with the spices?

Question: Do the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) contradict the Gospel of John in regards of the burial cloths of Jesus? Was Jesus wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω—wrap) it in a clean linen cloth, or, as John reports,     tied it (δέω—tie, bind; wrap??) by strips of linen (ὀθόνιοις—dat. of means) in company with the spices?

Answer: Barrie Schwortz (2016):  “ The Gospels  state that Jesus was tied with linen strips, yet the Shroud is a single large cloth, so it can’t be real.” That is another statement I hear frequently.  I guess most people do not realize that by the first century, even the Egyptians had stopped wrapping mummies with strips. So why are “linen strips” even mentioned in the Gospels?

One has to remember that Jesus and his disciples were Jews and his burial would be conducted according to Jewish law and tradition. The Old Testament requires Jewish men of high stature to be buried in “pure linen raiments.”  The Gospels tell us that the shroud of Jesus was provided by Joseph of Arimathea,  a wealthy man. That makes good sense since such a cloth would have been expensive by first-century standards and would most likely have been imported, quite possibly from Syria. Jewish custom requires burial in a large single sheet, as demonstrated in the accompanying  Dela Rovere painting. Once the body is wrapped in the cloth, it must be bound by linen strips to insure the cloth does not fall off when the body is transported. That is not only consistent with a first-century Jewish burial, but also with contemporary burials, and not just by Jews but by Muslims as well. When my father died in 2003, he was given an Orthodox Jewish burial and was wrapped in a white linen shroud very similar to the Shroud of Turin. When the disciples entered the tomb on Sunday morning, only the cloth and strips remained, so they are mentioned in the Gospels.

Of course, the  Gospels also tell us there was a second cloth, folded and separate from the other. I often am told that, since the Shroud is only one cloth and two were mentioned in scripture, the Shroud must consequently be a fake. Never mind the fact that over two millennia,  it is quite possible the two cloths could get separated!

The Sudarium of Oviedo – ©Centro Español di Sindonologia

So what is this second cloth and why was it there? Once again, Jewish law requires that anything containing the victim’s blood or bodily fluids be buried with the body. Once Jesus was taken down from the cross, his face and head were wrapped in a smaller cloth or napkin which absorbed the blood and pleural fluids from his nose and mouth.  We still follow a similar procedure today and typically cover the face of the dead immediately upon their passing. Frankly, it is the preservation of this second cloth and its presence in the tomb that convinces me this was an authentic Jewish burial. Even more amazing is that this second cloth, known as the  Sudarium, has survived to the present day and is now kept in the cathedral in Oviedo, Spain, where it has resided since the 7th century!
https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/08/12/five-reasons-paganism-resurrection-jesus-christ/

Perhaps the answer or solution to this apparent problem is that John, an eyewitness of these events, was not in fact speaking to exactly the same part of the burial activity as the other three writers who received their information second hand, but to a quite different aspect of the process of which he personally was aware and which is not that well known today. Taken literally, John appears to be saying that the body of Jesus was “tied with linen strips” (ὀθόνια) in connection with his burial. If we then use his account of the burial of Lazarus some chapters earlier to help with the interpretation of just what is meant (“the feet and hands bound with cords,” John 11:44) we would have to say this tying of Jesus also probably was applied to the hands and feet, not to the whole body. The Lazarus account goes on to say, “λύσατε—loose/untie him” (KJV); (not: “take off the grave clothes” - NIV) and let him depart.” Then the picture becomes clear and the items mentioned later in the gospels that were found by the first visitors to the grave, the linen strips and the folded cloth, can be put into better perspective. The gospels are not in conflict—no Scripture is. Rather, it is much more likely that our understanding of Jewish burial practices simply has not been that clear now after a span of almost 2000 years. And it may have been a preconception or simple misconception on the part of both early and later translators that attempted to force from John’s words a parallel meaning to the first three gospels in regard to the wrapping of Jesus, when in fact he was speaking to something quite different—a tying of the limbs to hold them in position at the time of burial due to rigor mortis rather than a separate wrapping or covering of the entire body with strips.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-shroud-of-turin/3199-some-ruminations-on-the-shroud-of-turin

The Shroud of Turin - The Evidence of Authenticity See after 7:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5NEY0NkPrw



Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus? With Barrie Schwortz, member of the STURP team,   Friday, 22/08 9 PM ( GMT -3 )

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHmiFbsxbw

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin

One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.

The Gospels of Matthew,[27:59–60] Mark,[15:46] and Luke[23:53] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a piece of linen cloth and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John[19:38–40] refers to strips of linen used by Joseph of Arimathea and states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head.[20:6–7]

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.

By virtue of their substance and form, physical objects require no faith whatsoever. They can be observed, examined, touched, and even smelled. -- This is the very opposite of "faith." Thomas was not commended or blessed because he had "seen" Jesus after the resurrection, but those who believe WITHOUT SEEING ARE! (John 20:29)

The Shroud and the jew: Barrie Schwortz at TEDx ViadellaConciliazione
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY

The Shroud of Turin is NOT A FORGERY FROM THE 14th century, as following amazing evidence will demonstrate. It is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man,  which based on overwhelming evidence points to be Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after the crucifixion.

Debunking The Shroud: Made by Human Hands
https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm

New study on Holy Shroud confirms: “It’s the blood of a tortured man.”
https://aleteia.org/2018/08/15/new-study-on-holy-shroud-confirms-its-the-blood-of-a-tortured-man/



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:48 pm; edited 4 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

30The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty Is the Shroud of Turin authentic? Sun May 10, 2020 9:40 am

Otangelo


Admin

A response to:  Is the Shroud of Turin authentic?

Matthew Cserhati, Robert Carter
https://creation.com/turin-shroud?fbclid=IwAR0maqWoRPKObevu93eiDgSKEyX4qLAQfrshTTO9lkG6t67G9vPlox_VnkY

Claim:  Jesus was wrapped up in multiple burial clothes, not just one.
Reply: Do the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) contradict the Gospel of John in regards of the burial cloths of Jesus? Was Jesus wrapped (ἐντυλίσσω—wrap) it in a clean linen cloth, or, as John reports, tied it (δέω—tie, bind; wrap??) by strips of linen (ὀθόνιοις—dat. of means) in company with the spices?

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-shroud-of-turin/3199-some-ruminations-on-the-shroud-of-turin

Perhaps the answer or solution to this apparent problem is that John, an eyewitness of these events, was not in fact speaking to exactly the same part of the burial activity as the other three writers who received their information second hand, but to a quite different aspect of the process of which he personally was aware and which is not that well known today. Taken literally, John appears to be saying that the body of Jesus was “tied with linen strips” (ὀθόνια) in connection with his burial. If we then use his account of the burial of Lazarus some chapters earlier to help with the interpretation of just what is meant (“the feet and hands bound with cords,” John 11:44) we would have to say this tying of Jesus also probably was applied to the hands and feet, not to the whole body. The Lazarus account goes on to say, “λύσατε—loose/untie him” (KJV); (not: “take off the grave clothes” - NIV) and let him depart.” Then the picture becomes clear and the items mentioned later in the gospels that were found by the first visitors to the grave, the linen strips and the folded cloth, can be put into better perspective. The gospels are not in conflict—no Scripture is. Rather, it is much more likely that our understanding of Jewish burial practices simply has not been that clear now after a span of almost 2000 years. And it may have been a preconception or simple misconception on the part of both early and later translators that attempted to force from John’s words a parallel meaning to the first three gospels in regard to the wrapping of Jesus, when in fact he was speaking to something quite different—a tying of the limbs to hold them in position at the time of burial due to rigor mortis rather than a separate wrapping or covering of the entire body with strips.

Claim: A separate head cloth was used, which the Lord took off after He arose from the dead.
Reply: THE SUDARIUM CHRISTI - THE FACE CLOTH OF CHRIST
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7145
In the Cathedral of Oviedo in northern Spain is a linen cloth called the Sudarium Christi, or the Face Cloth of Christ.  It is often referred to as the Cloth of Oviedo.  The Sudarium Christi is a poor-quality linen cloth, like a handkerchief, measuring 33 by 21 inches.  Unlike the Shroud of Turin, it does not have an image.  However, it does have bloodstains and serum stains from pulmonary edema fluid which match the blood and serum patterns and blood type (AB) of the Shroud of Turin.

Claim:The hair on the man in the Shroud hangs downward and his beard is also intact, both of which contradict Scripture.
Reply: Did Jesus brake the law of the OT by wearing long hair ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7135
Without a proper understanding of what the rules were regarding hair, you will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion concerning the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.   In 1 Corinthians 11:14, the Apostle Paul declares that long hair is a disgrace to men, yet the man of the Shroud apparently has shoulder-length hair.  What constitutes "long hair" depends on one's own culture's subjective view; Paul himself would probably have had shoulder-length hair, as that was the norm for Jewish men of his day; and what Paul was speaking about is "men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women"   Our concept of what Paul meant by `long hair' is usually affected by our own views of what constitutes long hair. While Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women, Paul himself would probably have worn shoulder-length hair in keeping with the hairstyle of the other orthodox Jews of his day.  As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud."  1 Corinthians points out that, based on the original Greek, what Paul was talking about was not "hair as such" but "hairdo":

"[1 Cor] 14-15 ... Vs. 4 reads: having his head covered, lit. from the head; vs. 6 distinguishes between a not covering of the head and a cutting short of the hair, apparently assuming that even if the head is not covered the hair may still be long. The solution of this question must be sought in the two different words for hair which the Greek uses. [triches and kome] The first one means hair as such; the second, which is used here, means the hairdo, hair that is neatly held by means of ribbon or lace. That also fits the context which shows that the Corinthian women did not cut their hair short (vs. 6), but that they took it down in ecstasy."  This is confirmed by the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, which shows that the words translated "a man wears long hair" (lit. "he wears his hair long") is one Greek word κομη (kome) (Marshall, A., 1966, "The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament," p.686).

Claim: There is no trace of the large quantity of sticky spices with which Jesus is known to have been buried.
Reply:
https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm
All of the Gospels convey the information that Christ's burial was hasty and incomplete because of the approaching Sabbath. In the earlier accounts of Mark and Luke, the women are said to be returning on Sunday morning to anoint the body with ointments prepared over the Sabbath, when washing a body for burial was effectively forbidden by the ritual prescription of moving or lifting a corpse.

Claim: The height of the man in the Shroud does not match that of a first century Jewish man. The arms seem to be distorted and disproportional. And the argument that the head is leaning forward is hard to believe.

Reply:  This is a weak argument. Jesus could have been a bit taller than average. There is nothing impossible in this regard. 

Claim: While the 14C dates of the Shroud may be contestable, there is still no positive evidence that the Shroud dates to the first century. Palynology has not helped to clarify anything.

Reply:  https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7139
There is plenty of new evidence that permits a rational conclusion, that the Shroud is from the 1st. Century. 

Claim: The historical record is incomplete. At best, there is a 500-year gap between the Crucifixion and the first attestation to the Image of Edessa.

Reply:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7144

In the beginning of the history of the Church, the Jesus burial sheet was probably kept hidden for several reasons: first of all, it was a very precious “memory,” having enveloped He who sacrificed Himself on the Cross. Furthermore, Christians feared that someone could seize and destroy it: the Hebrews, in compliance with Mosaic Law, considered everything that had touched a corpse as impure; and not Hebrews judged the punishment of crucifixion as ignominious. The reasons why the protectors of the Shroud wanted to keep it hidden are then clear. Nino, who evangelized Georgia under the Constantine empire (306–337), inquired after the Shroud to Niafori, his master, and to other Christian scholars of Jerusalem. He learned that the burial cloths had been for some time in possession of Pilate’s wife, and after, they were handed by Luke the evangelist, who stored them in a safe place known only to himself. In the fourth century, in Edessa there was the certainty that the city owned an image of Christ, created by God and not produced by the hands of man. It is said that when the image was shown it was folded in eight layers: the result of creasing the Shroud in this way gives a long rectangle with the head in its center, without a neck. This is exactly the same image shown in the copies of the Image of Edessa.



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Does the long hair of the man on the Shroud of Turin contradict 1 Corinthians 11:14?

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2014/12/does-long-hair-of-man-on-shroud-of.html

1) what constitutes "long hair" depends on one's own culture's subjective view; 2) Paul himself would probably have had shoulder-length hair, as that was the norm for Jewish men of his day; and 3) What Paul was speaking about is "men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women" (my emphasis):

"A. ... though the question of long hair seems overly naive, it is frequently asked. Our concept of what Paul meant by `long hair' is usually affected by our own views of what constitutes long hair. While Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women, Paul himself would probably have worn shoulder-length hair in keeping with the hairstyle of the other orthodox Jews of his day. 1 As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud." (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.149-151).

In support of this, one of my commentaries on 1 Corinthians points out that, based on the original Greek, what Paul was talking about was not "hair as such" but "hairdo":

"[1 Cor] 14-15 ... Vs. 4 reads: having his head covered, lit. from the head; vs. 6 distinguishes between a not covering of the head and a cutting short of the hair, apparently assuming that even if the head is not covered the hair may still be long. The solution of this question must be sought in the two different words for hair which the Greek uses. [triches and kome] The first one means hair as such; the second, which is used here, means the hairdo, hair that is neatly held by means of ribbon or lace. That also fits the context which shows that the Corinthian women did not cut their hair short (vs. 6), but that they took it down in ecstasy." (Grosheide, F.W., 1954, "Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians," p.260. My transliteration).

What Paul was really concerned about was not the lengths of men's and women's hair, but "that man is to be distinguished from woman":

"[1Cor] 13-15 The final point in the passage is that man is to be distinguished from woman. Thus the Corinthians are to see that the woman should not pray with her head uncovered as the man does. They are reminded that in ordinary life man with his short hair is distinguished from woman with her long hair. If a man has long hair like a woman's, he is disgraced, but with long hair the woman gains glory in her position of subjection to man. Also long hair is actually given to her as a natural veil." (Mare, W.H., "1 Corinthians," in Gaebelein, F.E., ed., 1978, "The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 10 - Romans - Galatians," p.256).

The NIV Study Bible's comment on this passage puts it succinctly, that, "Paul's point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture":

"[1Cor] 11:14 Here the word nature probably means "your natural sense of what is appropriate for men and women": it would be a disgrace for a man to look like a woman because of his hair style. Although the norms of appropriate hair style (and dress) may vary from culture to culture, Paul's point is that men should look like men in that culture, and women should look like women in that culture, rather than seeking to deny or disparage the God-given differences between the sexes." (Barker, K., et al., eds., 1985, "The NIV Study Bible," p.2207. Italics original).

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Objection: The “miraculous” things often claim credibility due to lack of natural explanation, but my conclusion is based on what I know of God’s person and divine nature from His word.
#1. God forbids man to fashion or revere any image to give the flesh a substitute for faith.
Exo 20:4 KJV Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
He defines faith in Heb 11:1 “Now faith is the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Would Jehovah provide a “visual aid” which defies His own commandment, and provides the doubting flesh with evidence? Wouldn’t this give an unrighteous advantage to those privileged to view this evidence, over the vast majority of men through out history, under requirement to believe and yet having had no opportunity to take this “evidence” into account?
#2. Scientists and intellectuals were quite encouraged to see that according to this relic, Jesus was crucified with nails through His wrists, which appealed to their reasonable minds and made the crucifixion “story” more historically feasible.
However, in Luke 24:39, the Lord instructed the disciples to “behold my hands and my feet” to see the wounds from the nails. In the original language the word used for “hands” is literally χεῖράς χείρ “instruments for grasping”
However illogical, His hands were nailed to the wood, and perhaps, as some have considered, his arms were supported by binding of some kind, to support the weight of His body. But we don’t KNOW, because God did not grant us details to satisfy our intellectual demands.
To summarize I would just remind all our seeking friends, that God is absolutely sovereign in His economy (Economy is the Greek word "oikonomia", in 1 Timothy 1:4, which refers to a household management, the household administration, the arrangement for distribution, or dispensation.)
God dispenses Himself as the Spirit, into man’s spirit, via the copper wire of faith. This economy makes no use of images of any kind, even those which SEEM to produce belief in doubters. We are warned against being distracted from the narrow way that leads to Life, into the realm of the natural mind.
1Ti 1:4 Nor to give heed to myths and unending genealogies, which produce questionings rather than God’s economy, which is in FAITH. (The substantiation of things UNSEEN)

Reply:  External information is legitimate when considering the authenticity of God. Romans 1:20.
They are legitimate when considering the historicity of biblical events.
Why would we not consider the wonder of the cloth that covered Jesus when he resurrected? The history of it fits, the pollen and flowers fit. The image fits.
Could it be abused as a graven image, for sure. Is it graven?
It is a radiograph of a resurrection.
The bible is still far and above primary. His word changes people.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

It’s often assumed that carbon dating can be trusted to give accurate results but archaeologists, who know quite a bit about how to date ancient objects, have a different view.  According to archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski,  
“In archaeology, if there are ten lines of evidence, carbon dating being one of them, and it conflicts with the other nine, there is little hesitation to throw out the carbon date as inaccurate due to unforeseen contamination.”
This video outlines just some of the scientific evidence that contradicts the radiocarbon dating result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJymwctqo-A


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDuKZSgDSI


The Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988: Prelude and Aftermath -an English-language Bibliography
https://www.academia.edu/47752372/The_Radiocarbon_Dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_in_1988_Prelude_and_Aftermath_an_English_language_Bibliography?fbclid=IwAR3QrXQFJ504bpRLz83ePSQpkku4gPEem6VMGQUp_dfNtRviANuMCfPMZW4



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun May 02, 2021 9:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

The weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the case for authenticity but science can not prove a statement 100% in the positive. It is a straw man argument to say you can prove the shroud is authentic, Just as an atheist cannot prove it is not authentic. Probability calculus has concluded that from seven independent characteristics shared by Jesus of Nazareth and the man of the shroud , The The shroud is Jesus of Nazareth with odds of 20,000,000,000 to 1. Or another way is the man of the shroud is another crucified man with out of 1 and 20 billion.

Whoever is debating was not for the strawman arguments and stick to the science data, none of which refutes the case for authenticity but in itself cannot prove it. The STURP team concluded that it is not man-made, not painted not a scotch not a photograph and gave many reasons including the fact that the blood is from a real talk to victim and includes pre-and post mortem blood with some only visible under UV light which was not available to a middle ages for you. The shred cannot be replicated today even with modern exomar Laser’s. The body image is a noncontact image it has 3D characteristics which mean the light or heat or radiation came from the body creating body cloth density based on distance.
Historical discussions can be useful to confirm that radiocarbon dating results are likely incorrect but the science of the body image and blood are the strongest arguments for authenticity.

Walter macron found 1.of paint and claimed the whole image was made by an artist and this was quickly dispelled by microscopy as McCrone only used a standard microscope and not chemistry. The burden of proof definitely lies with the atheist who hang onto data which goes against the overwhelming evidence in the other direction.

Whoever is debating should confirm the two different examples of authenticity, one is that the shroud is an ancient authentic burial cloth which contained a real torture dead body. This has been confirmed already by science. The second claim of authenticity may include the fact that the man of the shroud is Jesus of Nazareth and forensics science and mathematical probability which are compatible with scripture are the best evidence for this although it can’t be approved 100% it has extremely high odds.

It would be awesome if the atheist was open to discussing the message of the shroud which is the more important information and remind them that whether the child is authentic or not the message is timeless and shows the sacrifice of our Messiah to save us from our sins, And shows the promise of our resurrection through him.

Linen threads within the Shroud of Turin are consistent with this ancient spinning and weaving method rather than medieval practices where bleaching was done after weaving the cloth was finished. Additionally, chemical tests on linen fiber growth nodes suggest the cloth is very old and predates the medieval period.
https://reasons.org/the-shroud-of-turin-part-2-an-examination-of-the-cloth/


Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theories_about_the_Shroud_of_Turin



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin

Russ Breault: The Shroud - The Receipt Of The Resurrection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R4tI30Z5sI&fbclid=IwAR1lOWvYoceGpecpiFcz6-uT6jGwvtzAw_xCldXSqQbinaGGwBpcWfBBvg4

BOUGHT, PURCHASED, RANSOMED & REDEEMED
For you were BOUGHT at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:20
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He PURCHASED with His own blood.
Acts 20:28
"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a RANSOM for many."
Matthew 20:28
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a RANSOM for all, to be testified in due time,
1 Timothy 2:5-6
knowing that you were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1 Peter 1:18-19
These are all terms used to describe a financial transaction.
When you complete a transaction at the store the cashier gives you a piece of paper that describes the details of the price paid
It's called a 'receipt'.

Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one gets to the Father but through Me.” No other has made such claims, not even the well known religious leaders such as Confucius, Buddha or Mohammed. Jesus is the only option through which one might receive forgiveness and eternal life. Jesus alone is our ticket to Heaven. Some call this narrow-mindedness, but who’d buy a ticket to Tokyo and then argue later if the plane indeed goes to Tokyo and not Beijing? Do we see a psychiatrist when we have a toothache? So with something as important as our eternal destiny, why be casual? How can all ways be true ways, when Jesus said no one gets ’s to the Father but through Him? Someone or someones must by lying. Too many say Jesus was just a mere prophet when Jesus Himself accepted worship while He was on earth. Jesus was either a blasphemer or He was and still is God! There is no a “good prophet but not God” option.

How you can get Saved!
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2501-how-you-can-get-saved

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

David Kyle Johnson: Let's Let Go of The Shroud (of Turin) Apr 10, 2020
Claim: The claims that the Shroud contains pollen from Palestine, not just Italy (where the known history of the Shroud places it), are suspect to doubt as well. They were based off of one sample, not repeated or verified, and were made by Max Frei-Sulzer--a con artist who is known to have lied to “prove” the authenticity of the “Hitler Diaries”
https://www.gcrr.org/post/let-go-of-the-shroud-of-turin

JOE NICKELL:  Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud September/October 2001
 In an article in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Schafersman (1982) called for an investigation of Frei's work. When Frei's tape samples became available after his death, McCrone was asked to authenticate them. This he was readily able to do, he told me, "since it was easy to find red ocher on linen fibers much the same as I had seen them on my samples." But there were few pollen other than on a single tape which bore "dozens" in one small area. This indicated that the tape had subsequently been "contaminated," probably deliberately.
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2001/09/22164802/p17.pdf

Reply: William K. Stevens: Tests Trace Turin Shroud to Jerusalem Before A.D. 700  Aug. 3, 1999
Avinoam Danin, a botantist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said at a news conference at the 16th International Botanical Congress here that flowers and other plant parts apparently were placed on the shroud, leaving pollen grains and imprints. Analysis of the grains and the images, he said, identified them as coming from species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the Jerusalem region.

The pollen of one plant, a thistle called Gundelia tournefortii, was especially abundant on the cloth, and an image of the plant was identified near the image of the man's shoulder. Some scientists say this may have been the species from which Jesus's crown of thorns was plaited.

Two pollen grains of this species were also found on another ancient fabric, called the Sudarium of Oviedo, which many believe to be the burial face cloth of Jesus. A first-century origin for the face cloth has been documented, the scientists here said, and it has been in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the eighth century. The shroud has been kept in Turin, Italy, since 1578.

Both the Sudarium and the shroud appear to carry type AB blood stains, and the stains are in a similar pattern, Dr. Danin said. ''There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic, covering the same body,'' he said. ''The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century.'' He did not offer a more specific date.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/03/world/tests-trace-turin-shroud-to-jerusalem-before-ad-700.html

ScienceDaily Botanical Evidence Indicates "Shroud Of Turin" Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century August 3, 1999
An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. 

Botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. 

Avinoam Danin BOTANY OF THE SHROUD The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin 2010

“the area where the assemblage of the three indicator plants could be freshly collected and placed on the Shroud near the man’s body is the area of Jerusalem to Hebron”. As for flowering seasons, he deduces that “March-April is the time of year when the whole assemblage of some 10 of the plants identified on the Shroud is in bloom”.
https://www.nhbs.com/botany-of-the-shroud-book

Long answer:
David Kyle Johnson: Let's Let Go of The Shroud (of Turin) Apr 10, 2020
Claim: The claims that the Shroud contains pollen from Palestine, not just Italy (where the known history of the Shroud places it), are suspect to doubt as well. They were based off of one sample, not repeated or verified, and were made by Max Frei-Sulzer--a con artist who is known to have lied to “prove” the authenticity of the “Hitler Diaries”

JOE NICKELL:  Scandals and Follies of the 'Holy Shroud September/October 2001
Pollen Fraud? McCrone would later refute another bit of pro-shroud propaganda: the claim of a Swiss criminologist, Max Frei-Sulzer, that he had found certain pollen grains on the cloth that "could only have originated from plants that grew exclusively in Palestine at the time of Christ." Earlier Frei had also claimed to have discovered pollens on the cloth that were characteristic of Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) and the area of ancient Edessa—seeming to confirm a "theory" of the shroud's missing early history. Wilson (1979) conjectured that the shroud was the fourth-century Image of Edessa, a legendary "miraculous" imprint of Jesus' face made as a gift to King Abgar. Wilson's notion was that the shroud had been folded so that only the face showed and that it had thus been disguised for centuries. Actually, had the cloth been kept in a frame for such a long period there would have been an age-yellowed, rectangular area around the face. Nevertheless Frei's alleged pollen evidence gave new support to Wilson's ideas. I say alleged evidence since Frei had credibility problems. Before his death in 1983 his reputation suffered when, representing himself as a handwriting expert, he pronounced the infamous "Hitler diaries" genuine; they were soon exposed as forgeries. In the meantime, an even more serious question had arisen about Frei's pollen evidence. Whereas he reported finding numerous types of pollen from Palestine and other areas, STURP's tape-lifted samples, taken at the same time, showed few pollen. Micropaleontologist Steven D. Schafersman was probably the first to publicly suggest Frei might be guilty of deception. He explained how unlikely it was, given the evidence of the shroud's exclusively European history, that thirty-three different Middle Eastern pollens could have reached the cloth, particularly only pollen from Palestine, Istanbul, and the Anatolian steppe. With such selectivity, Schafersman stated, ".these would be miraculous winds indeed." In an article in SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Schafersman (1982) called for an investigation of Frei's work. When Frei's tape samples became available after his death, McCrone was asked to authenticate them. This he was readily able to do, he told me, "since it was easy to find red ocher on linen fibers much the same as I had seen them on my samples." But there were few pollen other than on a single tape which bore "dozens" in one small area. This indicated that the tape had subsequently been "contaminated," probably deliberately, McCrone concluded, by having been pulled back and the pollen surreptitiously introduced. McCrone added (1993):
One further point with respect to Max which I haven't mentioned anywhere, anytime to anybody is based on a statement made by his counterpart in Basel as head of the Police Crime Laboratory there that Max had been several times found guilty and was censured by the Police hierarchy in Switzerland for. shall we say, overenthusiastic interpretation of his evidence? His Basel counterpart had been on the investigating committee and expressed surprise in a letter to me that Max was able to continue in his position as Head of the Police Crime Lab in Zurich. McCrone would later refute another bit of pro-shroud propaganda: the claim of a Swiss criminologist. Max Frei-Sulzer, that he had found certain pollen grains on the cloth that "could only have originated from plants that grew exclusively in Palestine at the time of Christ." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER September/October 2001 1 » 
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2001/09/22164802/p17.pdf

Reply: William K. Stevens: Tests Trace Turin Shroud to Jerusalem Before A.D. 700  Aug. 3, 1999
Avinoam Danin, a botantist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said at a news conference at the 16th International Botanical Congress here that flowers and other plant parts apparently were placed on the shroud, leaving pollen grains and imprints. Analysis of the grains and the images, he said, identified them as coming from species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the Jerusalem region.

The pollen of one plant, a thistle called Gundelia tournefortii, was especially abundant on the cloth, and an image of the plant was identified near the image of the man's shoulder. Some scientists say this may have been the species from which Jesus's crown of thorns was plaited.

Two pollen grains of this species were also found on another ancient fabric, called the Sudarium of Oviedo, which many believe to be the burial face cloth of Jesus. A first-century origin for the face cloth has been documented, the scientists here said, and it has been in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the eighth century. The shroud has been kept in Turin, Italy, since 1578.

Both the Sudarium and the shroud appear to carry type AB blood stains, and the stains are in a similar pattern, Dr. Danin said. ''There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic, covering the same body,'' he said. ''The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century.'' He did not offer a more specific date.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/03/world/tests-trace-turin-shroud-to-jerusalem-before-ad-700.html

ScienceDaily Botanical Evidence Indicates "Shroud Of Turin" Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century August 3, 1999
An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. 

Botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. 

Avinoam Danin BOTANY OF THE SHROUD The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin 2010

“the area where the assemblage of the three indicator plants could be freshly collected and placed on the Shroud near the man’s body is the area of Jerusalem to Hebron”. As for flowering seasons, he deduces that “March-April is the time of year when the whole assemblage of some 10 of the plants identified on the Shroud is in bloom”.

In 1973, the Church authorities in Turin asked the Swiss forensic expert Dr. Max Frei to evaluate some photographs of the Shroud. His observations of a few pollen grains on the Shroud led him to apply his forensic methods. He placed a sticky tape on the linen and pressed it with his thumb, and then immediately attached the sample to a microscope glass slide and sealed it (as it remains at present). When he examined the slides, using a light microscope, he saw many pollen grains that he could not identify from his Central European experience. Knowing the history of the Shroud, he made several trips to Israel and Turkey and sampled as many plants as he could. He then compared the control pollen grains with those from the Shroud and named the unknown pollen grains accordingly. His publications drew much attention among sindonologists. During the intensive investigations of the Shroud in 1978 by STURP, he sampled again, using the same method. STURP researchers wanted to do a more controlled investigation and developed a special tool for applying equal pressure over a well-determined area and obtained only a few pollen grains. However, Dr. Frei's "thumb" method yielded several hundred pollen grains. Unfortunately he died before he could study his 1978 collection. After his death, Mr. Paul Maloney (Projects Director for ASSIST) received a few slides on loan. He wanted very much to get the pollen grains named. Unfortunately, he is not a palynologist, and hence his reports cannot provide useful information on the identity of the plants which provided the pollen grains. The present custodians of most of the scientific material of Dr. M. Frei are the founders of CSST, Dr. Alan and Mary Whanger. After the beginning of our cooperation in 1995, we managed to bring Dr. Uri Baruch, an Israeli Palynologist, to study Frei's sticky-tape slides. He used the optical equipment belonging to CSST and available at the Whangers' (Fig. 68). The results were included in our book "Flora of the Shroud of Turin" (1999). Continuing research on the collection of the sticky tape samples taken from the Shroud in 1973 and 1978 by Dr. Max Frei was facilitated by the recent availability of new advanced microscope equipment. The work was done by reviewing several, but not all, of the Frei sticky-tape slides at the end of June 2001, by palynologist Prof. Dr. Thomas Litt at his laboratory at the Institute of Paleontology of the University of Bonn, Germany. Prof. Litt had earlier asked my help in collecting plant samples in Israel, and during our mutual excursion I suggested using his expertise and equipment to review Frei's samples. In his report to CSST, Prof. Litt
wrote: "The images produced by light microscopy (interference contrast) and by confocal laser-scanning microscopy show clearly that waxes are preserved and cover the structure and sculpture of the pollen grains. This is the reason why I cannot make a precise identification of the pollen at the genus level, even less at the species level. However, with a high probability, I can exclude that the pollen I have seen on the sticky tapes belong to Gundelia." In previous examinations of the tapes by light microscopy, it was felt that the most common type of pollen grain on the Shroud could be identified as Gundelia tournefortii, a thorn from the sunflower family (Asteraceae, Compositae). The study with the more advanced microscopy was limited by time to a re-examination of most of this single type previously identified as Gundelia. Prof. Dr Litt should publish further information regarding his findings.
https://www.nhbs.com/botany-of-the-shroud-book


The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man's shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head.
Two pollen grains of this species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, widely accepted as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The location of the Sudarium has been documented from the 1st Century and it has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the 8th Century. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains, although some argue that ancient blood types are hard to interpret. What is clear is that the blood stains on both cloths are in a similar pattern.
"There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic - covering the same body," Danin stated. "The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the Shroud originated before the 8th Century."
Danin stated that this botanical research disputes the validity of the claim that the Shroud was from Europe during the Middle Ages, as many researchers had concluded in 1988 based on carbon-14 dating tests. The authors do not question the accuracy of the carbon-14 dating test which was done on only a single sample taken from one highly contaminated corner of the shroud, he said. However, their research looked at pollen grains and images from the entire piece of fabric and compared them with a fabric that has a documented history.
Another plant seen in a clear image on the Shroud is of the Zygophyllum dumosum species, according to the paper. This is a native plant with an unusual leaf morphology, displaying paired leaflets on the ends of leaf petiole of the current year during the beginning of winter.
Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum coexist in a limited area, according to Danin, a leading authority on plants of Israel. The area is bounded by lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. The area is anchored toward the Jerusalem-Hebron zone with the addition of a third species, Cistus creticus, identified as being placed on the Shroud through an analysis of pollen and floral imaging.
"This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world," Danin stated. "The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem."
Danin stated that the evidence revealing these species on the Shroud suggests that they were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth. According to Danin, his findings corroborate the following sequence of events:

* Laying the body on the linen;
* Placing flowering plants and other objects along with the body;
* Folding the cloth over the body;
* Initiation of the process that caused the formation of the images.

Images of Capparis aegyptia flowers, which display a distinctive pattern during daylight hours, have also been seen on the Shroud. The process of buds opening ceases when the flowers are picked and no water is supplied. The images of these flowers on the Shroud suggest they were picked in the Judean Desert or the Dead Sea Valley between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud.
The images of the flowers on the Shroud are also depicted in art of the early centuries, according to the upcoming publication. Early icons on some 7th century coins portray a number of flower images that accurately match floral images seen on the Shroud today, according to PIOT analysis by the Whangers. The researchers suggest that the faint images on the Shroud were probably clearer in earlier centuries.
Botanical investigation of the Shroud began with Max Frei's 1973 observations of pollen grains on the Shroud, which he sampled by means of sticky tape. Frei took a second set of 27 sticky tape samples from the Shroud during the scientific study in 1978. In 1979 he took 46 sticky tape samples from the Sudarium of Oviedo. In 1983 faint floral images on the Shroud linen were noted by O. Scheuermann, and subsequently in 1985 by the Whangers. Botanist Avinoam Danin began collaborating with Shroud researchers Alan and Mary Whanger in 1995. They were joined by Israeli pollen expert Uri Baruch in 1998. Frei's Shroud botanical collections were acquired in 1994 by the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin (CSST) and became the resource for this study which analyzed 313 pollen grains.
The burial cloth known today as the Shroud of Turin is a linen rectangle measuring 4.35 meters by 1.1 meter. It has been kept in the city of Turin (Torino), Italy, since 1578. In 1694, the Shroud was placed in a special chapel within the Italian cathedral of St. John the Baptist. Except for a brief period during World War II when the cloth was moved elsewhere for safety, the Shroud remained in this cathedral until the night of April 11, 1997, when a raging fire necessitated its removal. The Shroud was not damaged, and was kept elsewhere in the city until it again was placed in the cathedral for public display from April 18 through June 14, 1998.
While there have long been historical, literary, and artistic claims that the Shroud represents the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, there has been little scientific evidence to support this. In 1988, carbon-14 dating of a single sample from a corner of the Shroud was identified to be from 1260 to 1390 A.D., leading to the widespread conclusion that the entire Shroud was from the Medieval period.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm

Claim:   “just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.” (p. 24) With no apparent readily available explanations for these features of the Shroud, shroudies have concluded that the only explanation is a supernatural one: Jesus’ resurrection, by an unknown mysterious process, created the image, without pigment, after the Shroud was stained with his blood. But, instead of immediately jumping to the supernatural explanation, if they were thinking scientifically and critically, shroudies would continue to search for a natural one—which, as we shall see, is readily available (and a bit obvious when you think about it).
Reply: Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. Since either there is a God, or not, either one or the other is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however not fully comprehensible, but logically possible, must be the truth. Eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.

Besides this, we actually DO have a scientific explanation, and it points to a supernatural, or miraculous institution of the image:

How was the image made ?

Magis Center  How did the image form on the Shroud? May 27, 2019
“According to Jackson, an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” -Fr. Robert Spitzer
https://blog.magiscenter.com/blog/how-did-shroud-turin-get-image?fbclid=IwAR1RJLWSf7m0agPDmLLoWcpmA_hE-wWJ14xceXPb9HCOQ8bzx9xLkQKyjPk

Paolo Di Lazzaro Coloring of linen fabrics by ultraviolet radiation 2 Maggio 2015
From the chemical point of view, the image is due to a molecular modification of the surface of the linen fiber16 constituted of polysaccharides (chains of glucose). These polysaccharides underwent an alteration as a consequence of an acting-at-a-distance phenomenon. In particular, the chemical reaction consists of dehydration with oxidation and conjugation (acid–base reaction). The image is not composed of painting pigments or other substances of that kind.
https://www.academia.edu/12273176/Colorazione_di_tessuti_di_lino_tramite_radiazione_ultravioletta

Paolo Di Lazzaro Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image July 2010
Our results show that a very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color a linen fabric in order to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image of the Shroud of Turin, including color tone, surface coloring of the outermost fibrils of the linen, and the absence of fluorescence. However, it should be noted that the total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to IT corpor body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts

makes it impossible today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single excimer laser, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market reach a few billion watts). Rather, the work summarized in this Technical Report has demonstrated that laser radiation is a suitable tool for studying in detail the physical and chemical processes that they could be the basis of the production of the body image of the Shroud, regardless of the source of radiation (or energy) that may have generated this image.

The Shroud image presents some characteristics that we have not yet managed to reproduce, for example the nuance of the image due to a different concentration of yellow-colored fibrils alternating with non-fibrils colored. There are sophisticated diffractive optics that would allow to replicate these characteristics too, but this goes far beyond our intentions: our aim is not to demonstrate that a battery of ten thousand lasers excimer can exactly reproduce the body image of the Shroud. Our main purpose is to carry out accurate, controlled and reproducible experiments, suitable to understand the detail of the physical and chemical mechanisms that they produced the Shroud image, thanks to a powerful and versatile tool such as the excimer laser.

Claim: On top of all of that, there is (i) the fact that no Jewish burial traditions include surrounding a person in one cloth folded over at the feet. They instead wrapped them in strips of linen.
Reply: Perhaps the answer or solution to this apparent problem is that John, an eyewitness of these events, was not in fact speaking to exactly the same part of the burial activity as the other three writers who received their information second hand, but to a quite different aspect of the process of which he personally was aware and which is not that well known today. Taken literally, John appears to be saying that the body of Jesus was “tied with linen strips” (ὀθόνια) in connection with his burial. If we then use his account of the burial of Lazarus some chapters earlier to help with the interpretation of just what is meant (“the feet and hands bound with cords,” John 11:44) we would have to say this tying of Jesus also probably was applied to the hands and feet, not to the whole body. The Lazarus account goes on to say, “λύσατε—loose/untie him” (KJV); (not: “take off the grave clothes” - NIV) and let him depart.” Then the picture becomes clear and the items mentioned later in the gospels that were found by the first visitors to the grave, the linen strips and the folded cloth, can be put into better perspective. The gospels are not in conflict—no Scripture is. Rather, it is much more likely that our understanding of Jewish burial practices simply has not been that clear now after a span of almost 2000 years. And it may have been a preconception or simple misconception on the part of both early and later translators that attempted to force from John’s words a parallel meaning to the first three gospels in regard to the wrapping of Jesus, when in fact he was speaking to something quite different—a tying of the limbs to hold them in position at the time of burial due to rigor mortis rather than a separate wrapping or covering of the entire body with strips.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-shroud-of-turin/3199-some-ruminations-on-the-shroud-of-turin

The Shroud of Turin - The Evidence of Authenticity See after 7:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5NEY0NkPrw


Claim: most damning are the efforts of N.D. Wilson, who produced a replica of the Shroud, that is identical to it in every relevant way, by painting an image on a sheet of glass, placing it over a blank shroud, and leaving it in the sun for 10 days.
Reply: Episode #11: Has The Shroud Been Debunked? John Calvin vs. The Shroud Oct. 15, 2019
N.D. Wilson’s amazing 2005 article in Christianity Today, entitled “Father Brown fakes The Shroud” is a must read for Shroud enthusiasts. Unfortunately, the only possible way to read it is to get your hands on that 2005 magazine in a library somewhere, or pay CT $30 for a digital subscription - which is what I did. 15 years ago N.D. Wilson supposedly figured out how one might fake The Shroud of Turin, and since that time, I have heard several people say or intimate that The Shroud had conclusively been proven a fraud with the 1-2 punch of #1 1988 medieval dating and #2 Wilson’s reproduction.

Wilson’s method of duplicating The Shroud is ingenious. Basically, he and an artist friend painted a reverse image on a large pane of glass, and then had the sun shine through that image onto a Linen cloth over a period of several days. The sun bleached the cloth - lighter in areas of heavy paint and darker in areas of light paint. The resulting image does indeed look fairly authentic and Shroud-like to the naked eye. It does prove that it is possible, with the right equipment,  to put a negative-like image like The Shroud onto a linen cloth. Here are some objections that have been raised:

1. The cloth contains pollen from plants only found in Palestine - that would be difficult for a European forger to get. For one, he would have no idea that such a thing could potentially authenticate The Shroud. Wilson notes that the cloth could have been procured from a first century, Jewish grave, which I suppose is technically possible.

2. The figure in the Turin Shroud is pierced through his wrists, not through his hands. In recent years, it has been discovered that crucified people would have to have been pierced through their wrists (and not their hands) in order to actually be suspended from a cross. This does not at all contradict the Passion accounts in all four Gospels in the Bible, because the Greek word used for ‘hands’ can also include the wrist area, unlike our English, which more clearly delineates between the two. Almost the totality of medieval art depicts the nails used during the crucifixion of Jesus being located in the hands, rather than the wrists. If the Shroud were a forgery, it is remarkable in the extreme that the forger would have known to include nail holes in the wrists, rather than in the hands.

3. I am not an expert on 1300s era glass technology, but some who are have argued that the kind of large and flat pane windows that would have been needed to sun-bleach the painted image of a man onto a large linen cloth would not have been available in the early medieval period. This is a fairly strong objection that I don’t believe Wilson’s article - as thorough as it is - addresses fully.

4. The figure on the Shroud has real wounds and real blood. This, of course, means that it was more than merely a sun-bleached image. Wilson contends that somebody had to have been murdered in order for forgers to make The Shroud using his method. Again, such a thing is technically possible.

5. It appears to some that the figure in The Shroud has coins in its eyes - and the type of coins appear to be first century coins that would have been commonly used in Israel during the time of Christ. That a medieval forger would be able to add such a detail is fairly astonishing. Of course, as with everything surrounding The Shroud, others (and Wilson, I presume) argue that there are no coin impressions in the eyes of the Shroud-figure.

6. Finally, if The Shroud is a forgery, those who painted the image on the glass had a remarkable and accurate knowledge of both the full details of Roman crucifixion and how the body would have responded to such crucifixion. Additionally, the anonymous forgers would have had to have a strong knowledge of anatomy and wound-effects, as the wounds on The Shroud figure are consistent with what modern medical technology would expect. Wilson contends that there were many medieval people with deep and accurate knowledge of anatomy, and the only reason we don’t expect the forgers to have such knowledge is because we have a sort of bias against people from the past and assume they are unsophisticated and unintelligent. Such bias is certainly real, I will readily admit, though it does seem that medical history of the last 500 years demonstrates that medieval medicine and anatomy was indeed quite primitive.

So - did Wilson definitively prove that medieval forgers could have produced The Shroud? Maybe, maybe not. Even Wilson admits, “I have not proved much. Or, I do not think that I have. Men and women who have believed in the Shroud will continue to believe. There is a fireman somewhere in Italy who risked his life to save the Shroud. I have a great deal of respect for that man. Perhaps I've given those who disbelieve more reason for noses lifted in the air, but I have not proved that the Shroud was faked. What I have done is crudely demonstrate that such an image could easily be produced in a matter of weeks by wicked men with no scruples, a little imagination, and a little more skill. The fact that it could have been faked does not mean that it was, though I believe it to have been. ”  

I’ll say this - Wilson’s supposed forgers would have had to be: remarkably intelligent, gifted with art, well supplied with very rare (if existent) glass panes, and have an astonishing - for the time - knowledge of medicine, Roman history and human anatomy. Additionally, they would have had to be in possession of a cloth from Palestine, and possibly even pollen that had come from Palestine as well.

There have been other attempts to recreate the Shroud as well. In 2009 the University of Pavia organic chemistry professor and skeptic society member Luigi Garlaschelli produced a fairly convincing (at first glance) reproduction.

He describes his attempt: "What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak image, Then for the sake of completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns, the scorching because there was a fire in 1532."

Garlaschelli says his work disproves the claims of the shroud's strongest supporters.

"Basically the Shroud of Turin has some strange properties and characteristics that they say cannot be reproduced by human hands,"For example, the image is superficial and has no pigment, it looks so lifelike and so on, and therefore they say it cannot have been done by an artist."

"The procedure is very simple. The artist took this sheet and put it over one of his assistants," "His good idea was to wrap the sheet over the person underneath because he didn't want to obtain an image that was too obviously a painting or a drawing, so with this procedure you get a strange image, Time did the rest,"

As you might imagine, there are several people who disagree that Garlaschelli has produced a convincing replica. Dr. Thibault Heimburger has written an extensive and scientific rebuttal of Garlaschelli’s method, essentially arguing that it does not really duplicate all of the elements of the Shroud, but is only a superficial likeness. His paper, linked in the shownotes, concludes:

L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudo negative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”. I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image. 9 For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakeable.
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/bible-2021-10/episode-11-has-the-shroud-TLVEey6GpuM/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

1978 S.Tu.R.P. members:
-Joseph S. Accetta (Infrared spectroscopy), Lockheed Corporation
-Dr. Allan Adler (Biochemist, tape sample analysis), Western Connecticut State University
-Steven Baumgart (Infrared spectral measurements), Air Force Weapons Laboratory
-Ernest H. Brooks II (Scientific photography), Brooks Institute of Photography
-Robert Bucklin (forensic pathologist), Harris County, Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
-Donald Devan (Scientific photography, image analysis), Oceanographic Services Inc.
-Robert Dinegar (Chemistry, tape sample removal/analysis), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Rudolph J. Dichtl (Electric power expert), University of Colorado
-Thomas F. D'Muhala (Nuclear physicist, team lead), Nuclear Technology Corporation
-Jim Drusik (Conservation), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
-Mark Evans (Microphotography, photomicroscopy), Brooks Institute of Photography
-Joseph M. Gambescia Sr. (Medical analysis), St. Agnes Medical Center - Medical analysis
-John D. German (Electric power expert), Air Force Weapons Laboratory
-Roger Gilbert (Visible/UV spectroscopy), Oriel Corporation
-Marty Gilbert (Visible/UV spectroscopy), Oriel Corporation
-Thomas Haverty (Thermography), Rocky Mountain Thermograph
-John Heller (Biophysics), New England Institute
-John P. Jackson (Phsicist, STURP President, measurements/analysis), US Air Force Academy
-Donald Janney (Image analysis), Los Alamos National Laboratories
-Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Laboratories
-Eric J. Jumper (Thermodynamicist, STURP Vice-president, measurements/analysis), US Air Force -Academy
-J. Ronald London (X-ray radiography and X-ray fluorescence), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Jean Lorre (Image analysis), Jet Propulsion Laboratory
-Donald J. Lynn (Image analysis), Jet Propulsion Laboratory
-Vernon D. Miller (Scientific photography), Brooks Institute of Photography
-Roger A. Morris (X-ray fluorescence), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Robert W. Mottern (Image analysis, X-ray radiography), Sandia Laboratories
-Samuel Pellicori (Optical physicist, Visible/UV spectroscopy), Santa Barbara Research Center
-Raymond Rogers (Thermal chemist), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Larry Schwalbe (Physics, X-ray fluorescesnce), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Barrie M. Schwortz (Documentation Photography), Barrie Schwortz Studios
-Diane Soran (Chemistry, Archaeology), Los Alamos National Laboratory
-Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Claim: Jesus was buried with what amounted to a plaster molding, soaked in 70 pounds of herbs and spices. It would not have been something that you could simply fold like a piece of cloth.
Reply:

Giulio Fanti Science and Christian Faith: The Example of the Turin Shroud January 17, 2019

Use of Aromas for the Burial
P.L. Baima Bollone, found traces of aromas such as aloe and myrrh on the Shroud probably used to bury the body of the Man. Interestingly, according to the custom of the Jews, P. Vignon reported that rolled bandages impregnated with aromatic oils surrounded the body wrapped in the Shroud. The term “linen cloths” (from the Greek “othonia”), in the plural, was preferred by the apostle John to the term “sindon” used by the other Evangelists probably because in reference to the set of linens like Shroud, sudarion and various bandages used for burial.

a. Nicodemus, … also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about seventy-five pounds (Jn 19:39).

b. Then they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews (Jn 19:40).
https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/GJAA.MS.ID.555726.php

Shroud Spectrum International No. 13 Part 3
Immunologic Identification of Aloes and Myrrh
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi13part3.pdf

C. Barta New coincidence between Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo 2015

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sudari10
Overlap of the crown of thorn wounds at the nape area in Sudarium and Shroud highlighting the “loose ponytail”.

The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin are two relics attributed to Jesus Christ that show a series of amazing coincidences previously described. These similarities suggest that both cloths were used by the same personality.

https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2015/02/shsconf_atsi2014_00008.pdf

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

39The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty The blood on the Shroud of Turin Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:08 am

Otangelo


Admin

The blood on the Shroud of Turin

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p25-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#8991

According to the research of John H. Heller and Alan D. Adler, the stains thought to be blood on the Shroud of Turin are derived from genuine clotted wounds, having passed eleven different diagnostic tests that confirm their authenticity as blood. These tests have determined the presence of various blood constituents, such as proteins, albumen, hem products, and the bile pigment bilirubin, an area of expertise for Adler. Notably, Adler observed that in regions where blood is present alongside body image, the underlying cloth fibers do not show characteristics of the body image beneath the bloodstains. This suggests that the blood was applied to the cloth before the process that created the body image, a sequence that is inconsistent with typical artistic methods.

The presence of actual blood on the Shroud of Turin has been supported by extensive scientific analysis, particularly during the 1978 STURP testing. The findings from this research include:

1. **High Iron Content:** Detected in the bloodstained areas through X-ray fluorescence tests, indicating the presence of heme-bound iron, a component of blood.
2. **Spectral Fingerprint of Blood:** Blood's unique spectral characteristics were identified using reflection spectra analysis.
3. **Microspectrophotometric Evidence:** Transmission spectra provided indications of blood.
4. **Porphyrin Fluorescence:** Ultraviolet imaging revealed the fluorescence of porphyrin, a derivative of hemoglobin, confirming the presence of blood.
5. **Hemochromagen Tests:** These tests were positive, supporting the presence of blood.
6. **Cyanmethemoglobin Tests:** These tests also returned positive results, further corroborating the presence of blood.
7. **Bile Pigments Detection:** The presence of bile pigments, which are components of blood, was confirmed.
8. **Protein Demonstration:** Tests positively identified the presence of protein in the stains.
9. **Human Albumin Tests:** Immunological testing indicated the presence of human albumin, a type of protein found in blood.
10. **Protease Test Results:** These tests, which detect enzymes responsible for protein metabolism in living organisms, indicated that the protein had broken down into essential amino acids.
11. **Forensic Analysis:** The appearance of various wounds and marks was examined by STURP chemists, further substantiating the presence of blood.

In addition to the previously mentioned tests confirming the presence of real blood on the Shroud of Turin, further analysis has revealed the presence of bilirubin. Bilirubin is a yellow-orange compound that typically arises in the body as a result of the breakdown of red blood cells. Its presence in the bloodstains on the Shroud suggests that the individual may have suffered from significant physical stress and trauma, consistent with the infliction of torture. The presence of bilirubin in the bloodstains, as detected and discussed in scientific papers, adds another layer to the understanding of the conditions and experiences of the individual whose image appears on the Shroud​

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Table511

The research conducted by Adler and Heller, leading authorities in blood analysis, provided conclusive evidence that the stains on the Shroud of Turin were indeed real blood. At a public meeting of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in New London, Connecticut in October 1981, Adler, who had published extensively on blood research, emphatically declared that the red substance on the Shroud was undoubtedly blood. Their findings were supported by several key observations and tests:

Clotted Blood: The bloodstains were identified as clotted blood, characterized by thickening at the edges. This is typical of blood drying and forming a scab, where the edges of the clot contract and exude serum.
Serum Halos: Under ultraviolet light, every bloodstain exhibited a yellowish fluorescence, indicative of a serum exudate ring or halo around a scab. This is a common feature of blood clot retraction and was crucial in confirming the authenticity of the bloodstains.
Serum Albumin: This protein, abundant in blood plasma and produced in the liver, was found in the serum halos of the Shroud. Tests for serum albumin were positive not only in the halos but also in areas adjacent to the bloodstains, such as near the lance wound.

The cumulative evidence from these tests, conducted between 1979 and 1981, led STURP in its 1981 final report to conclusively state that the blood on the Shroud was real. This conclusion was drawn from the combined expertise and rigorous scientific analysis of Adler, Heller, and their colleagues.


Information not observable to the naked eye showed a mass of injuries, wounds in the wrists and feet and innumerable bloodstains.
Included in these innumerable bloodstains, are at least a hundred tiny dumbbell-shaped scourge marks on the Shroudman's body and legs[26], which match wounds caused by a Roman flagrum with two lead balls on the end of each of its three thongs[27] [Right [see 08Oct16] & 15Jul13]], evidently designed to cause internal bleeding so a crucifixion victim didn't die too soon of blood loss[28]. Each of those scourge wounds has tiny blood clots which each have a serum retraction `halo', clearly visible in ultraviolet light [ [29]] but barely visible, and some are invisible, to the naked eye[30]. Therefore a medieval forger would not only require a modern knowledge of the physiology of clot retraction, but would have to produce images of serum rings that are clearly evident only under ultraviolet light (which was only discovered in 1801!)[31].
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2021/07/


The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Y9hvzuey

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 54ppd5b5

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Adsfas14
Dr. Alan Adler, from the Western Connecticut Institute, analyzed the samples. This highly esteemed hematologist, who is Jewish and was not a member of the STURP team, made a definitive statement after determining the blood-like nature of the stains: "If this isn't blood, I'll eat my microscope." It was only after this assertion that he was informed about the origin of the samples. This anecdote highlights the unbiased approach and scientific rigor that Dr. Adler brought to the study of the Shroud of Turin. His expertise in hematology provided a valuable perspective in analyzing the nature of the stains on the Shroud. Dr. Adler's statement, made before knowing the samples' origin, underscores the confidence he had in his professional assessment. The fact that he was not part of the STURP team and was not initially aware that the samples came from the Shroud adds credibility to his findings, as it eliminates potential biases related to the Shroud's controversial and revered status. Dr. Adler's involvement in the analysis and his subsequent reaction upon learning the source of the samples illustrate the intrigue and complexity surrounding the Shroud. His findings, particularly about the stains being blood, contribute significantly to the body of research on the Shroud, offering insights that continue to fuel both scientific inquiry and public fascination with this enigmatic artifact.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Adsfas15
Chemical Examination. John Heller, from the New England Institute, and J. Janney, from the Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratory, conducted a chemical examination of the Shroud's fibers. Heller fully concurred with Adler's opinion. There was no doubt, it was blood. This chemical examination further substantiates the findings regarding the Shroud of Turin. The collaboration between John Heller and J. Janney, both from esteemed scientific backgrounds, adds a layer of credibility to the research. Heller's agreement with Dr. Alan Adler's assessment that the stains on the Shroud were indeed blood reinforces the conclusion drawn from independent analyses. Their work highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the scientific inquiry into the Shroud. By combining expertise from different scientific fields – hematology, chemistry, and material science – a more comprehensive understanding of the Shroud's characteristics emerges. The confirmation that the stains are blood adds to the intrigue of the Shroud, as it aligns with the historical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and the wounds he would have sustained, according to Christian tradition. The involvement of reputable scientists like Heller and Janney in the examination of the Shroud underscores the artifact's significance in both the scientific and religious communities. Their findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the Shroud's authenticity and the historical context it represents.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Adsfas16
Multiple tests were conducted on the Shroud's bloodstains, revealing that the blood is very old and partially degraded. However, Heller and Adler conducted a comprehensive analysis using twelve different tests, all of which returned positive results. These tests included checks for albumin, biliary pigments, proteins, the hemochromogen test, and Heller's critical fluorescence test. Remarkably, they also confirmed the presence of red blood cells. Adding to the complexity of the findings, the presence of bilirubin and creatinine was detected, indicating the blood of a tortured individual. Dr. Baima Bollone, a professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Turin, conducted independent analyses of the Shroud's samples. His research corroborated the findings of Heller and Adler, further solidifying the evidence. The detection of bilirubin is particularly significant, as it is often associated with the body's response to severe physical stress and trauma, consistent with the kind of suffering described in accounts of the crucifixion. Similarly, the presence of creatinine in conjunction with bilirubin suggests a scenario of significant physical exertion and muscle injury. These scientific findings add a profound dimension to the study of the Shroud. The presence of compounds associated with physical trauma supports the narrative that the Shroud wrapped a body that had undergone severe suffering, aligning with the biblical description of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This biochemical evidence, along with the detection of red blood cells and other components, contributes to the ongoing debate about the Shroud's authenticity, suggesting it could be more than a mere medieval artifact and may indeed be a relic of historical and religious significance.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 G1jj1410
The blood on the Shroud of Turin has been identified as human and belonging to the AB blood group. This determination was made by Dr. Baima Bollone, who utilized the antigen fluorescence method in his analysis. This blood type is notably frequent among the Hebrew population and quite rare globally, with only about 3% of the world's population estimated to have it. The AB blood type's rarity in Europe but higher prevalence in the Middle Eastern region, particularly in areas like Palestine, adds an intriguing layer to the Shroud's analysis. This geographical correlation is significant because it aligns with the historical and biblical accounts that place the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the Palestine region. Dr. Bollone's use of the antigen fluorescence method, a sophisticated technique for blood typing, lends credibility to his findings. The identification of the AB blood type not only contributes to the physical and forensic understanding of the Shroud but also intersects with anthropological and historical data about population genetics in the ancient world. This discovery adds to the body of evidence suggesting that the Shroud could indeed be an authentic relic from the time of Christ, given the consistency of the blood type with the region's historical population. The rarity of the AB blood group in Europe further suggests that the Shroud is unlikely to be a medieval European creation, as such a blood type would have been exceptionally uncommon in that population during that period. The convergence of scientific, historical, and geographical data surrounding the Shroud continues to fuel both scholarly and public interest in its origins and significance.


The PLOS ONE Editors Retraction: Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud 2018 Jul 19
there are not sufficient controls to support conclusions referring to human blood or physical trauma. For example, period ink and animal blood controls were not included in diffraction and STEM analyses, as would be needed to rule out alternate interpretations regarding the material on the fiber, and the creatinine findings do not provide definitive evidence of trauma or violence. Thus, we consider that the main conclusions of the article are not sufficiently supported
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6053220/

Reply to Retraction of the paper “Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud” by all the authors of the paper 26 Jul 2018
Our experimental data are compatible with creatinine with inside ferrihydrate cores. The observed nano-particles are not compatible with pigments, inks and other chemical/biological compounds, as explicitly explained.  Creatinine can be found also in sweat, but we found “creatinine bounded to iron oxide ferritin cores”. This is a different compound with a negligible presence in healthy organisms whereas can be found consistently only in the blood serum under pathological conditions producing the rupture of the cells and the interaction in the blood stream between creatinine and the ferrihydrate clusters contained in the ferritin.  This compound is toxic for the organism and it is related to acute kidney disease. This is one of the reason why many injured in strong accidents could die for kidney disease. This is the finding that can be related to strong polytrauma and that cannot be explained by supposing contamination simply with the blood of someone who accidentally touched the Turin Shroud while he was bleeding. It could be animal blood. But, if it was the case, the animal would have suffered a strong polytrauma. This would call the intention of an artist to produce an artifact; but why should he use the blood serum after torture? Should we think that an artist in the Middle Ages could have used the blood serum of a tortured person or animal to produce the exact pattern that someone, using the equipment and the technologies of many centuries later, would have detected?
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/1db55bd5-b398-468c-9536-524cb6340480

Claim: "The Microscope"(ISSN 0026-282X) is not a peer-reviewed journal and that somehow the detected artist's pigments (ochre and vermillion) don't actually exist. Wishful thinking doesn't work.
Reply: Giulio Fanti Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud May–June 2017

Samples from the Turin Shroud (TS) furnished by STERA Inc. have been analyzed and compared with both material coming from the TS and sticky tapes taken from a copy of the TS produced in 1656 and conserved at Palma di Montechiaro, Sicily, Italy. The attention has been focalized to the many reddish particles contained in these samples that appear to be of many types, shape and sizes. Some of them seem to correspond to the so called “sub-micron particles” recognized by W. McCrone in the form of red ochre (iron oxide) and vermillion (mercury sulfide); the others, as described by many researchers of the STuRP like A. Adler and J. Heller, seem typical of blood. After a detailed analysis of these particles by using various types of microscopes and by performing different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the results obtained are commented, reaching the conclusion that the analyzed reddish material, corresponding to some TS bloodstain area, contain human blood reinforced with pigments. It can therefore be supposed that the bloodstains, originally composed of blood, have been refreshed by some artist perhaps during the XVII century.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207417300092

It is this observation, “coupled with the extreme superficiality of the coloring and the lack of pigments” that “makes it extremely unlikely that a shroud-like picture was obtained using a chemical contact method, both in a modern laboratory and even more so by a hypothetical medieval forger”. “There is no image beneath the blood stains. This means that the traces of blood deposited before the image was. Therefore, the image was formed after the corpse was laid down. Furthermore, all the blood stains have well-defined edges, no burrs, so it can be assumed that the corpse was not removed from the sheet. “There are no signs of putrefaction near the orifices, which usually occur around 40 hours after death. Consequently, the image is not the result of putrefaction gases and the corpse was not left in the sheet for more than two days”.

One of the assumptions related to the formation of the image was that regarding some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength), which could fit the requirements for reproducing the main features of the Shroud image, such as superficiality of color, color gradient, the image also in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth and the absence of pigment on the sheet. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/modern-science-cant-duplicate-the-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin



Claim: "cross-reactivity precludes a definitive assignment of human or even primate blood being present on the Shroud; the blood is most correctly classified as species unknown." - this is what happens with tiny samples and HUGE confirmation biases. The albumin is a 'generic mammal'.
Reply: 

The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? 
Production of the body and ‘blood’ images involved an actual human body. The red color of much of the ‘blood,’ the high bilirubin levels detected therein, and the body image lend strong support to the view that the ‘blood’ came from a beaten individual.

Regarding the ‘blood,’ Heller and Adler (hereafter H&A) concluded that it was actual blood material on the basis of physics-based and chemistrybased testing, most tests of which will be discussed, specifically the following: detection of higher-than elsewhere levels of iron in ‘blood’ areas via X-ray fluorescence, indicative spectra obtained by microspectrophotometry, generation with chemicals and ultraviolet light of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence, positive tests for hemochromagen using hydrazine, positive tests for cyanmethemoglobin using a neutralized cyanide solution, positive tests for the bile pigment bilirubin, positive tests for protein, and use of proteolytic enzymes on ‘blood’ material, leaving no residues. The tests and data not discussed 3 are the reflection spectra indicative of bilirubin’s32 and blood’s presence,33 chemical detection of the specific protein albumin,34 the presence of serum halos around various ‘blood’ marks when viewed under ultraviolet light,35 the immunological determination that the ‘blood’ is of primate origin,36 and the forensic judgement that the various blood and wound marks appear extremely realistic.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf

Deacon Pedro Deacon-structing the Shroud of Turin: The facts September 13, 2021
Blood samples
Traces of human blood were found on the shroud. Tests have confirmed that this blood belonged to a human body at the time of death, as it was already coagulating on the skin. The blood is very dense, which is a common result of dehydration. Because of the amount of bilirubin found in the blood, it can also be concluded that the man had been beaten in the hours preceding his death.
Blood samples taken from the cloth were found to be type AB. These samples also helped determine the DNA of the man of the shroud. Experts explain that the blood samples are so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of cloning anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue, however, that so much contamination exists on the shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive.
https://slmedia.org/blog/deacon-structing-the-shroud-of-turin-the-facts

Kelly P. Kearse Blood on the Shroud of Turin: An Immunological Review 2012
In summary, the preponderance of current scientific evidence indicates that: (i) there is blood on the Shroud of Turin; (ii) the blood is of primate, i.e. human origin; and (iii) the blood type is most likely AB as determined by forward typing methods, specifically mixed agglutination and immunohistochemistry techniques. Results highlighted in green show the nucleotide sequence on the shroud is that of either a human or an orangutan. The orangutan sequence is the same as humans in this region but contains 5 nucleotide differences in other regions of the gene (not shown). That leaves us with only one option for the blood on the shroud. Human Blood! (K. Kearse 2012)
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse1.pdf

Scientific Evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus
https://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/12/scientific-evidence-for-virgin-birth-of.html

Blood on the Shroud of Turin

The bloodstains, as forensic scientists and chemists now know, were created by real blood.

Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens, reveal that the stains are human blood.  Moreover, the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth.  Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum. The forensic experts have been able to identify that some of the blood flow was venous and some was arterial, indicating that most of the blood flowed while the man was alive and it remained on his body. There are also some stains from blood that clearly oozed from a dead body.

The bloody prints on the Shroud show the outline of various parts of the body, enabling pathologists to determine the position of the cloth over the body.  There is wide agreement that the stains are from a man laying on his back on top of the 14-foot fabric.  The fabric was draped up over the man’s head, covering his face and entire length of the body, down to his feet.  As a result, scientists have also been able to determine the placement, and to some degree, the nature of the man’s wounds.

The stains along once-outstretched arms show that blood emanated from the victim’s wrists and flowed downward along the forearm, past the elbow and onto the back of the upper arm. Near the man’s armpit, the patterns of the bloodstains show several rivulets and suggest blood pooled and likely dripped to the ground.  It seems likely that blood dripped all along the man’s arms like rain drips from a tree branch in a storm. From the angles of the flows and rivulets, forensic experts have determined that this blood flowed while the man was upright with his arms at angles like the hands of a clock at ten minutes before two. They can also see from changes in bloodstream angles, suggestions that the man must have pulled himself up repeatedly.

Bloodstains on the part of the cloth over the center of the body indicate a serious wound to the chest.  The patterns of these stains show that blood likely flowed from the chest area, down the side of the body and pooled near the lower back.  Much of this blood shows to be from a postmortem wound.  Also, mingled with the large bloodstains in these areas are stains from, what scientists have determined to be, a clear bodily fluid, perhaps pericardial fluid or fluid from the pleural sac or pleural cavity.   All of these findings suggest that the man received a postmortem stabbing wound in the vicinity of the heart.

The clots, the serum separations, the mingling of body fluids, the directionality of the flows, and all other medically expected attributes would have been nearly impossible to create by brushing, daubing or pouring human blood onto the cloth. The blood, rich in the bilirubin, a bile pigment that the body produces under extreme trauma, is unquestionably the blood of the man whose lifeless, crucified body was enshrouded in the cloth; even if only for the purpose of crafting a relic-forgery in medieval times.

Ray Rogers (see curriculum vitae summary below) responds to the question:   "How do you know that there is real blood on the Shroud?"

Alan Adler was an expert on porphyrins, the types of colored compounds seen in blood, chlorophyll, and many other natural products. He and Dr. John Heller, MD, studied the blood flecks on the STURP sampling tapes [Heller and Adler, Applied Optics 19, (16) 1980]. They converted the heme into its parent porphyrin, and they interpreted the spectra taken of blood spots by Gilbert and Gilbert. They concluded that the blood flecks are real blood. In addition to that, the x-ray-fluorescence spectra taken by STURP showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.

Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that "… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don't want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination)." It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.

It is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-blood.htm

Blood on the Shroud 

Forensic doctor Baima Bollone was the only qualified expert who picked up in person and analyzed the blood from the threads of the ST. In the conclusion of the paper [35] he wrote “Sui fili di macchie di ‘sangue’ sono inoltre presenti più corposi apporti di materiale di contenuto minerale corrispondente a quello di macchie sperimentali ottenute con miscele di sangue, aloe, mirra e saponina. Le indagini di ematologia forense risultano dimostrative per la presenza di sangue”. Our translation: “On the threads of 'blood' stains a larger quantity of mineral-based material is also present, which corresponds to that of experimental stains made by mixtures of blood, aloe, myrrh and saponin. Forensic investigations of haematology are demonstrative for the presence of blood”

Other important tests were carried out by Heller and Adler on threads and fibrils much smaller than those of Bollone, which confirmed the presence of blood. The most recent critical review paper on blood-related issue can be found in [37]. In this paper Kearse comments on studies by Bollone, Heller and Adler that demonstrate bloodstained fibres of the Shroud contain (human) albumin and immunoglobulin and human antibody of the IgG class, consistent with the presence of real blood. Concerning blood type AB on the Shroud, it was demonstrated using a forward typing approach only (which measures red cell antigens). In fresh blood, confirmation by additional tests known as reverse typing (which measures antibodies in serum) is necessary. Unfortunately, reverse typing tests in aged blood are somewhat problematic. They rely on antibodies both being present and maintaining a functional, working conformation over time. In aged samples of type AB, it is difficult recognising if the antibodies were never there to begin with or were once present but degraded over time. In conclusion, according to [37] human blood on the TS needs to be conclusively demonstrated, to extend the current immunological evidence beyond primate.
 
The conclusion that the ‘blood’ is actual blood concurs with and meshes with the consensus of medical community members that have studied the image that 1) the body image is anatomically and medically realistic to an extraordinary degree, and 2) production of the body and ‘blood’ images involved an actual human body. The red color of much of the ‘blood,’ the high bilirubin levels detected therein, and the body image lend strong support to the view that the ‘blood’ came from a beaten individual. In light of the foregoing, forging the Shroud would have required the use of a body beaten and crucified precisely after the manner of Jesus’ crucifixion. Such a requirement makes more unlikely the possibility that an individual went to the trouble of forging the Shroud. In short, it is highly likely that the ‘blood’ on the Shroud of Turin is not paint and is blood. Though this conclusion does not mean the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it does mean that the Shroud is less likely to be a forgery. 
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf



Is the Body Image Formed by Pigment Substances?

The Shroud of Turin FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST! , Giulio Fanti, page 324
The analysis performed by the first author on dusts vacuumed from the Shroud identifies some pigments on the linen fabric, but these are relatively rare and therefore inadequate to explain any coloration producing the body image as a result. Parallel analyses on image fibers, again conducted by the first author, definitely confirm on the other hand the absence of pigment or of any other intake substance on the image fibers, in harmony with the results obtained by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in their 1978 direct examination of the body image.

The image is in fact the product of chemical reactions (oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation) of fibers on the image’s surface. Among the pigments present in the vacuumed dusts, the first author found particles of lapis lazuli (a blue-colored precious hard stone) mixed with iron oxide particles (which are red), leading them to suspect external contamination had occurred in the course of the centuries. It is a known fact that in the past centuries artists
avowedly made copies of the Shroud, touching the sacred Linen with their paintings, in order to confer to them qualities of the highest order, but physically contaminating the Shroud in the process.

The minimal evidence of pigments found among the vacuumed particles of the Shroud is not even sufficient for reproducing a hundredth part of the whole image. Probably these traces derive from later contaminations, when artists were allowed to physically touch the Shroud with their paintings in order to create another relic. In support to this hypothesis is the fact that in the vacuumed particles have been found red particles (iron oxide) and particles of other colors (e.g., blue lapis lazuli).

Let us think of a hypothetical artist who tries to reproduce these characteristics on a linen cloth using a simple painting technique: difficulties seem insuperable. First of all, the artist should dip the brush, not in the color, because there are not pigments on the threads, but in an acid capable of shading the linen chemically. However, the artist has to see what he or she is painting, so the acid (usually transparent) should be pre-emptively colored, though, at work completed, he or she should eliminate any evidence of pigment, because on the Shroud there is no colorant. Since colored fibers are side by side uncolored ones, the brush must have only one bristle with a diameter not superior to 0.01 mm (0.00039 in.). Inexplicably, the artist also has to be able to color the part of the straw in the inner side of the bundle without coloring the adjacent straws, since the color is uniformly distributed around the circumference.

Is it a painting ?
If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes. In fact the image on the linen is barely visible to the naked eye, and wasn't identified at all until 1898, when it became apparent in the negative image of a photograph taken by Secondo Pia, an amateur Italian photographer. The faint coloration of the flax fibres isn't caused by any darker substance being laid on top or infused into them - it's the very material of the fibres themselves that has darkened. And in contrast to most dyeing or painting methods, the colouring cannot be dissolved, bleached or altered by most standard chemical agents. The Sturp group asserted that the image is the real form of a "scourged, crucified man… not the product of an artist". There are genuine bloodstains on the cloth, and we even know the blood group (AB, if you're interested). There are traces of human DNA too, although it is badly degraded.

That didn't prevent the American independent chemical and microscopy consultant, Walter McCrone, who collaborated with the Sturp team, from asserting that the red stains attributed to blood were in fact very tiny particles of the red pigment iron oxide, or red ochre. Like just about every other aspect of the shroud, McCrone's evidence is disputed; few now credit it. Another idea is that the image is a kind of rubbing made from a bas-relief statue, or perhaps imprinted by singeing the fabric while it lay on top of such a bas-relief - but the physical and chemical features of the image don't support this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668


Claim: 
According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues, the 3’ by 14’ foot cloth depicting Christ’s crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.
http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin

Reply: Walter C. McCrone, Jr. (1916-2002). Pioneer light microscopist. Leading Shroud sceptic. Was original member of STURP but never personally examined the Shroud. Claimed that just by visual microscope examination of particles taken from the Shroud by STURP in 1978, that there was no blood on the Shroud and that the image was a painting. He made these claims in the public media, being a beneficiary of lucrative publicity. McCrone's claims were refuted in every particular by exhaustive, wide-ranging, chemical, physical, xray and visual tests by STURP scientists, one of whom, Dr. Alan Adler, was a world authority in blood chemistry. McCrone breached his signed agreement with STURP that no articles would be published until all the findings could be discussed by STURP members and then they would be published in peer-reviewed journals. Unlike STURP's, McCrone's scientific papers on the Shroud were not submitted to external peer review but were published in his own journal The Microscope and in the public media. McCrone declined to defend his claims at scientific conferences to which he was invited, and in peer- reviewed journals. His unscientific prejudice against the authenticity of the Shroud was evident in his 1981 claim that, "I believe the shroud is a fake, but I cannot prove it." However, even fellow anti-authenticity critics, the late Prof. Edward Hall , Dr Michael Tite, Joe Nickell, Steven Schafersman and Picknett and Prince, regard McCrone's claim that the Shroud is a painting to be wrong. McCrone's credibility was seriously dented when his 1974 claim that the Vinland Map was a fake, turned out to be wrong. McCrone took scientific criticisms of this claim as a personal attack and refused to admit he was wrong. Prof. Harry Gove thinks McCrone was motivated by a dream of being "history's greatest iconoclast," he lacked objectivity and his testing was unsophisticated. McCrone's claim of old maps and paintings brought to his laboratory for authentication, that "very seldom do we find them to be authentic," indicates his negative mindset. His shroud papers include: McCrone, W.C. & Skirius, C., 1980, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' I," Microscope, Vol. 28, pp.105-113; McCrone, W.C., 1980, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' II;' Microscope, Vol. 28, pp.115-128; and McCrone, W.C., 1981, "Light Microscopical Study of the Turin `Shroud,' III," Microscope, Vol. 29, pp.19-38. His shroud book: McCrone, W.C., "Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud," Microscope Publications: Chicago IL, 1997. About: McCrone Research Institute, The Shroud Report, Wikipedia. Obituaries: New York Times; Shroud.com.
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/02/shroud-name-index-m.html



Forensic and Biochemical Evidence of Blood on the Shroud Affirms the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

"It is not possible to artificially reproduce, for example, the separation of blood in a liquid phase followed by a solid phase, as can happen when blood from a corpse flows out. The bloodstains that can be observed on the Shroud were indeed formed by direct contact with the wounded body of a man who had been scourged and crucified, in full accordance with what is seen in the image and what has penetrated at the opposite end of the liquid. The entire Shroud has been examined under fluorescence with X-rays (a quantitative analysis of the atomic elements present), and elements not related to the image, such as calcium, strontium, and iron, an indication of the process of linen degradation and iron oxidation, due to the blood's contact and subsequent migration to the cellulose fibers at the edges of the stains, were found. It is interesting to note that the red coating of the fibers is exclusively made of blood: in fact, it dissolves completely in water, showing that there is no trace of vermilion or any other pigment that could dissolve proteins without leaving any residue. Therefore, there are no added substances or retouching.

The first hematological studies conducted in the United States on samples taken from the Shroud of Turin have been once again carried out on a sample of blood taken from the Shroud by Adler, and compared against a standard control and a normal blood sample. The results were shown to a colleague at the New York City Medical Examiner's office, without telling him that it was from the Shroud. The colleague, in disbelief, exclaimed: "My God!" Subsequently, he was asked to clarify what he meant by that exclamation. He said, "It's the blood from a man who has been severely beaten and then crucified."
In short, all the tests conducted show that there is blood on the Shroud, and it is human blood."

The Shroud of Turin exhibits intricate details that align with what would be expected from an authentic burial cloth of a crucifixion victim. Among the most compelling features are the bloodstains, which provide profound insights into its potential authenticity. Forensic analysis indicates the presence of both venous and arterial blood on the Shroud, distinguishable by their respective characteristics. Venous blood, which is darker due to its lower oxygen content, seems to match the patterns one would expect from a body in a supine position, while the arterial bloodstains suggest a brighter hue consistent with blood that is oxygenated. This distinction between the two types of blood is particularly noteworthy because the concept of blood circulation and the differences between venous and arterial blood were not understood until the 17th century. The presence of these medically accurate depictions on the Shroud, therefore, challenges the notion that it could be a medieval creation. No artist or forger in the 14th century—the period when skeptics claim the Shroud might have been fabricated—would have had the anatomical knowledge to reproduce such details.

Moreover, the bloodstains follow the gravity flow corresponding to the positions of the wounds, as one would anticipate if the cloth had wrapped an actual body that had experienced crucifixion. The patterns of clotting and flow are consistent with what has been observed in modern forensic pathology when a body has been subjected to severe trauma. The detail extends to the image of the man on the Shroud itself, which is anatomically flawless down to the positioning and proportion of the wounds. This level of detail would be exceedingly difficult to achieve by an artist, especially considering the lack of scientific knowledge at the time the Shroud is speculated to have been created. It is also important to consider the chemical composition of the supposed bloodstains. Various studies have reported finding components such as hemoglobin and even traces of DNA, which further support the hypothesis that the Shroud interacted with a human body.

The anatomical precision, the forensically accurate positioning of bloodstains, the medically precise representation of blood types, and the chemical makeup of the stains collectively form a strong argument for the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. These are not the traits of a medieval painting but rather the marks of a genuine burial cloth of a crucified individual. The Shroud of Turin bears the hallmarks of authenticity, not only through its portrayal of anatomically correct blood flow and the distinction between venous and arterial blood but also through its biochemical markers. Crucially, the stains identified as blood have been found to contain high levels of bilirubin, a compound that the human body typically produces in greater quantities when under extreme stress or suffering from severe trauma. Elevated bilirubin would be consistent with someone who had experienced significant physical torture, supporting the narrative that the image is that of a crucifixion victim.

Additionally, the presence of creatinine in the mix, a breakdown product of muscle metabolism, often found in higher levels in the human body following extreme physical exertion and muscle injury, correlates with the physical torment associated with crucifixion. These compounds, found together with hemoglobin in the blood on the Shroud, suggest the bloodstains are not only genuine but also that they originated from a person who endured significant physical suffering. The discovery of these particular compounds significantly challenges the assertion that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. The accurate depiction of blood flow and the presence of specific markers of injury and stress in the blood provide a compelling case that the cloth is indeed the burial shroud of a man who was crucified. Given the knowledge of the time, a forger from the medieval period would not have had the understanding necessary to include such biochemical details, nor would they have had the means to do so even if the knowledge was available. These details point towards a scenario where the Shroud came into contact with a body that had been through profound physical trauma, consistent with the kind of torture that was characteristic of Roman crucifixion. As such, the biochemical evidence on the Shroud, when combined with the anatomical and forensic data, presents a strong case for its authenticity.


BLOOD EVIDENCE (vs PAINT THEORY)
Most bloodstains on the Shroud are exudates from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by contact with a wounded human body.
The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.).  This blood type is rare (about 3% of the world population), with the frequency varying from one region to another.  Blood chemist Dr. Alan Adler (University of Western Connecticut) and the late Dr. John Heller (New England Institute of Medicine) found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin, consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than normal ancient blood.  Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."

The wound on the wrist appears on the Shroud as a simple blood-stain. But if you pass an optical fibre between the cloth and the protective lining which was stitched to the Shroud in Chambéry in 1532, and photograph it from behind, the wound appears to be square. Due to dehydration, Jesus’ blood was very dense. Only in the place where the nail was removed was the blood sufficiently liquid to leave a trace, on the back of the cloth. There is a church in Rome, the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, where some objects of the Passion were donated by Saint Helen, the mother of Emperor Constantine. She had found them at Golgotha, where her son had conducted the first archaeological dig in history, thereby discovering Jesus’ tomb, over which the emperor Hadrian had built a huge pagan temple. Only centuries later was doubt first cast upon these relics which, up to then, had always been considered authentic. One of these relics was a nail said to have held Jesus to the cross.

I was overcome with emotion on discovering that the wound inflicted upon the ‘Man of the Shroud’ by the nail planted in his wrist, exactly one centimetre square, corresponds to the size of the nail found by Saint Helen. What is more, one of the other relics kept in the Church of the Holy Cross is a length of wood said to have been placed over the Cross with the name of the condemned man. On it, in Hebrew (written from right to left), Greek and Latin, is ‘Jesus the Nazarene’.
https://www.messengersaintanthony.com/content/man-shroud-has-name

https://shroudstory.com/


The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 G1ff1610

The Shroud of Turin displays bloodstains that are claimed to be consistent with a crucifixion, exhibiting characteristics that distinguish arterial from venous blood flows. Venous blood appears darker and is evident in some bloodstains, such as a large epsilon-shaped mark on the forehead, suggesting it flowed slowly from a large vein. This differentiation wasn't understood until centuries after the Shroud first emerged in historical records around 1355.

High levels of bilirubin were found in the Shroud's blood, indicative of trauma like that from flogging and crucifixion, which could account for the blood's red-to-orange hue. This challenges the critique that aged blood should appear black, instead supporting the notion that the blood belonged to someone who suffered a traumatic death.

Studies in the 1980s on blood particles from the Shroud confirmed the presence of human blood, identified the blood group as AB, and found human skin cells, particularly around the supposed nail wounds. These findings support the view that the bloodstains could have originated from a crucified man.

Additionally, bloodstains on the Sudarium of Oviedo, believed to be the face cloth mentioned in the Gospel of John, contain a mix of blood and pulmonary fluid, aligning with the medical hypothesis that the man of the Shroud's lungs were filled with fluid during crucifixion.

The sequence of bloodstains and image formation on the Shroud suggests that the blood was deposited before the image, with bloodstains showing no underlying image. This has been presented as evidence against the possibility of medieval forgery, as it implies a detailed understanding of blood clotting and image formation not known at the time.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 G1155v11

Distinction between premortem and and postmortem blood

The analysis of the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin reveals a distinct difference between blood flows that occurred before death (antemortem or premortem) and those that occurred after death (postmortem). This distinction is crucial in understanding the circumstances surrounding the death of the individual depicted on the Shroud. One significant observation is that the blood flows on the face of the man on the Shroud are all premortem. Computer mapping has demonstrated that these streams of blood flow downwards across the face, with none moving towards the back of the neck or head. This pattern suggests that the man died in an upright position, such as on a cross, and that the blood in his head drained internally while he remained upright. In contrast, postmortem blood flows are also present on the Shroud. Notable examples include the blood from the spear wound in the side, the pool of blood across the lower back resulting from that wound, and a trickle of blood from the right foot, likely after the removal of a nail. These postmortem blood flows are characterized by their direction influenced by gravity and the absence of force from a beating heart. This difference in the blood flow patterns helps to provide a clearer picture of the events and positions related to the death of the man depicted on the Shroud.

Blood and water

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Bloodw10

On the man's right side there is a large blood-The Shroud of Turin displays a stain that is interpreted as comprising blood from the heart and a watery fluid from the heart's pericardial sac and the pleural (lung) cavity. Near the top of this stain, there appears to be a wound, which aligns with the type of injury that would be inflicted by a Roman lancea, a weapon mentioned in John's Gospel as having pierced Jesus' side. This lance, if thrust upward between the fifth and sixth ribs, would likely have pierced the right atrium of the heart, which is known to fill with blood upon death. This corresponds with the biblical account in the Gospel of John, where it is noted that Jesus' side was pierced with a spear, leading to a flow of blood and water. This event is significant because Roman crucifixion squads typically broke the legs of victims to hasten death, making it difficult for them to push up to exhale. The mention of the flow of "blood and water" from Jesus' side by the Apostle John, and its later reference in one of his letters, suggests its rarity or uniqueness, especially as it was during a time when crucifixions were common. Christian apologists of the second and third centuries, an era marked by frequent public crucifixions, argued that this flow of blood and water was a miraculous event. This argument suggests that such an occurrence was not commonly observed in other crucifixions.



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:59 pm; edited 21 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Reply to the YouTube video : Is The Shroud Of Turin A HOAX? Jan 25, 2020

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p25-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#9045

Is The Shroud Of Turin A HOAX? Jan 25, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zO6gMjl0yw

Claim: Catholic community believers say it stains are the blood of while others have questioned whether the stains are even blood at all
Reply:  The blood on the Shroud of Turin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p25-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#8991

Deacon Pedro Deacon-structing the Shroud of Turin: The facts September 13, 2021
Blood samples
Traces of human blood were found on the shroud. Tests have confirmed that this blood belonged to a human body at the time of death, as it was already coagulating on the skin. The blood is very dense, which is a common result of dehydration. Because of the amount of bilirubin found in the blood, it can also be concluded that the man had been beaten in the hours preceding his death.
Blood samples taken from the cloth were found to be type AB. These samples also helped determine the DNA of the man of the shroud. Experts explain that the blood samples are so old and degraded that very few DNA segments were found, eliminating any possibility of cloning anything from the blood found on the cloth. Other DNA experts argue, however, that so much contamination exists on the shroud that no DNA test, no matter how carefully done, could ever be considered definitive.
https://slmedia.org/blog/deacon-structing-the-shroud-of-turin-the-facts

Claim:  earlier carbon-dating work has determined that it dates to 1260 to 1390
Reply:  Age of the shroud of turin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7139

Raymond N. Rogers Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin  12 September 2004
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029

RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA * 15 February 2019
Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.
Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval.

Claim: the Turin Commission concluded in 1979 that stains on the garment are likely pigment not blood
Reply: Giulio Fanti Blood reinforced by pigments in the reddish stains of the Turin Shroud May–June 2017
 After a detailed analysis of these particles by using various types of microscopes and by performing different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the results obtained are commented, reaching the conclusion that the analyzed reddish material, corresponding to some TS bloodstain area, contain human blood reinforced with pigments. It can therefore be supposed that the bloodstains, originally composed of blood, have been refreshed by some artist perhaps during the XVII century.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207417300092

Claim:  pierre DRC's the catholic bishop in troy's wrote to pope clement the seventh that the shroud was a clever sleight of hand by someone falsely declaring this was the actual Shroud in which Jesus was unfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them
Reply: 
Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
 D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/search?q=Pierre+d%27Arcis

Claim: even if the Shroud of Turin did turn out to be real and it really was this thing that Jesus died in or the the thing that Jesus was wrapped up in after he died it doesn't mean that Jesus was a divine being it doesn't mean that he performed miracles
Reply:  How was the image made ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140


Magis Center  How did the image form on the Shroud? May 27, 2019
“According to Jackson, an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” -Fr. Robert Spitzer
https://blog.magiscenter.com/blog/how-did-shroud-turin-get-image?fbclid=IwAR1RJLWSf7m0agPDmLLoWcpmA_hE-wWJ14xceXPb9HCOQ8bzx9xLkQKyjPk

Paolo Di Lazzaro Coloring of linen fabrics by ultraviolet radiation 2 Maggio 2015
From the chemical point of view, the image is due to a molecular modification of the surface of the linen fiber16 constituted of polysaccharides (chains of glucose). These polysaccharides underwent an alteration as a consequence of an acting-at-a-distance phenomenon. In particular, the chemical reaction consists of dehydration with oxidation and conjugation (acid–base reaction). The image is not composed of painting pigments or other substances of that kind.
https://www.academia.edu/12273176/Colorazione_di_tessuti_di_lino_tramite_radiazione_ultravioletta

Paolo Di Lazzaro Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image July 2010
Our results show that a very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color a linen fabric in order to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image of the Shroud of Turin, including color tone, surface coloring of the outermost fibrils of the linen, and the absence of fluorescence. However, it should be noted that the total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to IT corpor body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts

E-mail exchange with a skeptic ( 6 Dec 2023):

I watched the video.
main points against shroud from first century/jesus
#1 the bible doesnt mention any image on burial cloths

Bible References To The Burial Shroud Of Jesus
1. Matthew 27:59
And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud
2. Mark 15:46
And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
3. Luke 23:53
Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud and laid him in a tomb cut in stone, where no one had ever yet been laid.
4. John 19:40
So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
5. John 20:5
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
6. John 20:6
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there,
7. John 20:7
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

The biblical narratives related to the passion and death of Jesus confirm the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. And the Shroud of Turin confirms the authenticity of the Gospels.
So  25 multi-disciplinary tests of the STURP team are simply dismissed, in favor of a highly debated Carbon C14 test for which there are excellent reasons to believe that it was invalid?

#2 early church fathers mention no image on burial shroud
Historical Context: In the first few centuries AD, Christians faced persecution and had to practice their faith in secrecy. The reluctance to openly discuss or display sacred relics like the burial shroud could have been a protective measure. If a relic as significant as a burial cloth bearing the image of Christ were known, it might have been sought out and destroyed by those opposed to Christianity. This context supports the idea that the lack of mention by early Church Fathers doesn’t necessarily mean the image didn't exist; rather, it could imply a deliberate effort to conceal its existence to protect it.

Religious Practices: The veneration of relics became more prominent in later centuries. In the early Christian period, the focus was more on the teachings and life of Jesus rather than physical objects associated with his life and death. Therefore, the burial shroud, even if it bore an image, might not have been the subject of extensive discussion in early Christian writings.

Nature of Early Christian Writings: The writings of the early Church Fathers were primarily theological and doctrinal in nature, focusing on the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of Christ, and the organization of the Church. They were less concerned with physical artifacts. This might explain the lack of detailed descriptions of relics like the burial shroud.

Comparative Relic Analysis: There are other instances where relics only became widely known or recognized centuries after the death of Christ. The True Cross, for instance, was not identified until the 4th century. The absence of early references does not necessarily discredit the authenticity or existence of such relics.

Archaeological and Historical Evidence: While direct mentions in early texts might be scarce, archaeological and historical evidence from the period can provide indirect support. For example, the existence of other burial cloths from the period, the practices of Jewish burial customs, and the reverence for relics in the subsequent centuries lend credence to the possibility that the shroud was preserved secretly.


#3 The person who made it confessed to  a bishop and to god they made it as art in the 1300's ace
I address this in my video: Is the Shroud of Turin a fraud? Refuting the most common objections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM
The D'Arcis memorandum from 1389 -   58:25

From the video

The bible says jospeh took down the body wrapped it and carried it, possibly stopping once on the way to the tomb to anoint, there are no blood smears on the shroud
It is impossible to wrap a bloody body and carry it without any smears of blood, the blood is only in specifically placed areas by an artist not from a bloody body wrapped and carried, its impossible.
Reply:  The Man Of The Shroud Was Washed
The Lost Gospel According to Peter, section 6 which is hereby submitted because of its definitive statement regarding the fact that Jesus was washed prior to being placed on the shroud: "And he took the Lord and washed him, and rolled him in a linen cloth, and brought him to his own tomb, which was called the Garden of Joseph."
https://shroud.com/zugibe2.htm

Accepting c14 dating on the face cloth but not on the shroud is having things both ways, the testing is sound or it isnt cant have it both ways, the c14 dating shows the face cloth is not from the same time as the shroud of Turin
Reply: The testing of the facecloth puts it to the 7th century and not 1th century. So both have their problems. There are many problems in radiocarbon dating. I go more in-depth here:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

Claim:  The bible says strips of linen and strips or one piece again no smears of blood on shroud nor on face cloth the sudarium is a dirty rag in my opinion not a face cloth
Reply:  I address this in my video: Is the Shroud of Turin a fraud? Refuting the most common objections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM
A Shroud, or strips of linen as reported in John? - 1:09:06

The artist that confessed to making the shroud said it was art, the fraud claims are not what anyone says, ist a fraud when believers say its authentic, the making of the shroud wasnt with intent to commit fraud it was made as art per the man that made it and confessed to a bishop and to god he made art
Reply:  A medieval artist or artists, would need to be proficient enough in over a 100 disciplines and also collectively outweigh the intelligence of the people who performed hundreds and hundreds of tests performed on the Shroud and who are not finding any indications of a forgery.

The Plethora of Disciplines Used to Study the Shroud of Turin
https://www.academia.edu/81353305/The_Plethora_of_Disciplines_Used_to_Study_the_Shroud_of_Turin

Could the Shroud be a forgery?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7128

Claim:  AB blood showed up in the Middle Ages it didn't exist in the first century and AB results is what happens with a false positive from contamination and this video talks about contaminations that would contaminate the degraded blood on the shroud thats contaminated to yield a false positive of AB blood,  this is well known and understood by those who test blood samples and doesnt prove a first century jew that wouldnt have AB blood
Reply: Existence of AB Blood Type in History: The claim that AB blood type did not exist in the first century is not supported by scientific evidence. The AB blood type, like other blood types, is a result of genetic variation and has likely been present in the human population for thousands of years. There is no concrete historical or genetic evidence suggesting that certain blood types appeared only in more recent times.

Blood Degradation and Contamination: It is true that over time, blood degrades and can be contaminated, potentially leading to false positives in testing. However, this does not automatically imply that the AB blood type detected on the Shroud is a result of contamination. Advanced forensic techniques are capable of differentiating between original blood components and contaminants. Moreover, contamination typically introduces extraneous elements, rather than altering the fundamental characteristics of the blood type itself.

Blood Testing on Ancient Relics: When testing ancient relics like the Shroud, scientists use highly sensitive and specific methods to determine blood type. These methods are designed to minimize the risk of false positives due to contamination. The detection of AB blood type on the Shroud would have involved rigorous testing protocols to ensure accuracy.

Diversity of Blood Types in Ancient Populations: The assumption that a first-century Jew could not have AB blood is not scientifically sound. The genetic diversity in ancient populations, including those in the Middle East, was significant. There is no genetic or historical basis to claim that certain blood types were absent in these populations.

Historical Precedence of Forensic Analysis: The Shroud of Turin has been subjected to numerous scientific analyses over the years, including blood typing, DNA analysis, and carbon dating. Each of these tests has its complexities and challenges, especially when applied to ancient and venerated relics. The conclusions drawn from these tests are typically the result of extensive research and cross-validation within the scientific community.

Claim:
8th century claims of a cave that by hearsay had the face cloth in it doesnt date it to the first century and is hearsay with no evidence of it notp-r was it seen in the cave it was said it was there. those are the words in the video
Reply:
Reply: The face-cloth has a documented history back to the 6th century. And at some point, it covered the same man, as on the Shroud. That is evidence that the Shroud cannot be from the 13th century. It is much older. 

Claim:
The sturp team as all good scientists wanted multiple samples to be taken for testing,  the church at the last minute said no, only one sample, implying its the fault of the scientists is not accurate
Claims of the sample coming from a patched area are false, the patched areas were well known and the sample was not taken from a patched area, There are photos of the shroud showing the patched areas and where the sample came from, they do not match to the same area.
Reply: This is a very well studied hypothesis, and backed by many lines of evidence. 

The 1988 Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

Shroud of Turin: 1988 Carbon Dating
"Researchers, in large numbers, now believe that in the 16th century, a corner of the Shroud had been expertly repaired... leading to erroneous carbon 14 dating in 1988." -- Dan Porter, 2022
http://bereanarchive.org/articles/history/shroud-of-turin-carbon-dating

Claim:
The textile expert that worked on restoration of the shroud when patched areas were removed her name is in my video looked at the areas under a microscope and found no such weaving unlike non experts that looked at photos and made that determination that is incorrect and not made by looking under a microscope as the expert did


Reply: http://bereanarchive.org/articles/history/shroud-of-turin-carbon-dating
Likewise textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who examined the shroud in 2002, writing in 2007:
[/size]
There is no method to make a hole of 1 square centimetre disappear in this type of delicate fabric. It is of course feasible to restore the missing part, imitating exactly the weaving structure of the original, as has been described for the first example.  This method is called today invisible mending, and threads from the original are used in the process.  But even the most successful execution can ultimately not conceal the operation completely to the trained eye, and it will always be unequivocally visible on the reverse of the fabric.59

Emphasis original.  Flury-Lemberg also stresses that repairs "executed with the naked eye" should "also be recognized without a magnifying glass by the trained eye!"
Michael Ehrlich, a textile repair specialist and owner of the Without A Trace fabric repair service, disagrees[size=11]3a  While modern textile repairers have the aid of a microscope, he explains that the 16th century French Weave method would still be able to make a repaired area undetectable:

[/size]
Today, there is a modern, time-saving technique called “inweaving” that would be invisible from the surface, but easily recognizable from the back. However, the technique used in sixteenth century Europe called “French weaving” is an entirely different matter. French weaving involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is indeed, invisible. Sixteenth century owners of the Shroud certainly had enough material resources and weeks of time at their disposal to accomplish the task.55

The Without A Trace fabrice repair service also advertises their ability to do French Reweaving:

Also known as the Invisible Weave, this technique is done on select fabrics with small tears, holes and burns. Individual thread strands from hidden areas, such as a cuff or inseam, are actually woven together by hand. This creates new fabric as it closes the hole and the repair is virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. Some fabrics, such as gabardine, don’t always lend to completely invisible results.78

The House of Savoy, caretakers of the shroud in the 16th century, had great wealth and had access to expert weavers.[size=11]70c  Such a process is consistent the end-to-end spliced threads and other evidence of foreign material cited above, and could be done without knots visible on the back.79 83f



Claim: Pollen sample claims are also debunked as the pollens can come from many areas including europe they are not limited to just israel
Reply: Botanical evidence on the Shroud of Turin
Frei was able to identify 49 species of plants, the pollen of which is represented in the dust of the Shroud. From the list of these plants it can be deduced that half of them do not grow in Europe, while it is present in the Middle East;


Caim:  Faikingto reproduce the shroud does not prove its authenticity and since limited testing has been done on the shroud it limits the information available tio replicate it and degradation over time could render the possibility of knowing everything that was used may never be known. This is not he fault of scientists or artists its the fault of time and the church not allowing proper testing to be done
Reply: How was the image made ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7141

The image is not created by any paint stain or die it's not due to oil or bodily composition it's not caused by acid powder or heat interestingly there's no material whether organic or inorganic deposited on the shroud to form the image. The image does not crack at the fold.

1. It's not a painting  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
2. The entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils, the inner side is not, thus it could not have been formed by chemicals, The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers. 
3. It's not a photograph Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright. 
4. It was not made by a natural chemical process It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. The image on the shroud is the only one of its kind in this world, and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion) 
5. The image was not produced by vapors from chemicals or vapors from the corpse itself. Vapors from chemicals, or from the corpse itself, do not explain how the image is present on parts of the body where the cloth clearly did not touch the body (i.e. areas on either side of Christ’s projected nose).
6.  A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts

34 thousand billion watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation is a very large amount of power.  To give you an idea of the scale of this amount of power, it's equivalent to 34 trillion watts or 34 terawatts. This is approximately 300 times the total amount of electrical power generated in the United States in 2020.

Claim:
1:08:00 mark bible says strips and linens, the shroud is one piece and was not wrapped either so it doesn't matter which verse is used it does not match to the shroud of turin and once again no blood smears when your video says the body was repeatedly moved as well yet no blood smears on the shroud

Mark 15:46 says Joseph took down the body, wrapped it and carried it, maybe stopping along the way to anoint then carrying it again to the tomb with no blood smears.

1:11:00 mark  the shroud doesnt match wrapped claims per the bible

1;17;00 mark  long hair comment, the earliest art from the first century depicts short hair on first century jews  i asked Joe Marino to produce something contrary he said he had but failed to email it to me so i call shenanigans and he doesnt have them and the art that exists that shows short hair stands and Joe;s claim is bogus

Claiming years of research on one testing is misleading, looking at pictures by believers is not research done by actual scientists with actual samples in actual labs that all concluded its from the 1300's and subsequent papers written by those who did the testing rebutting claims against their testing, state all protocols were followed, and they stand by the date ranges given by c14 testing.



Finally the pope the church and the caretaker of the shroud accept the dates from the testing they have not refuted them and they have refuted claims that contradict the xperts as not credible and reached by using unproven methods and because they pope and the church and the caretaker of the shroud of turin accept the results including the dating results they have said they have no plans for further testing on the shroud.

Most if not all of these claims are addressed in my video with names, dates and proper citations to and of them.
Reply:  These are common objections, and addressed in my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZmIfQf1dM[/size]



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Dec 06, 2023 6:11 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic Or A Hoax? Apr 2, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYTalKE5lYE

Objection: the evidence is stacked against this assumption. Jewish burial rites required the body of the   deceased to be wrapped in strips of cloth,  not in a continuous length of material.
Reply: Perhaps the answer or solution to this apparent problem is that John, an eyewitness of these events, was not in fact speaking to exactly the same part of the burial activity as the other three writers who received their information second hand, but to a quite different aspect of the process of which he personally was aware and which is not that well known today. Taken literally, John appears to be saying that the body of Jesus was “tied with linen strips” (ὀθόνια) in connection with his burial. If we then use his account of the burial of Lazarus some chapters earlier to help with the interpretation of just what is meant (“the feet and hands bound with cords,” John 11:44) we would have to say this tying of Jesus also probably was applied to the hands and feet, not to the whole body. The Lazarus account goes on to say, “λύσατε—loose/untie him” (KJV); (not: “take off the grave clothes” - NIV) and let him depart.” Then the picture becomes clear and the items mentioned later in the gospels that were found by the first visitors to the grave, the linen strips and the folded cloth, can be put into better perspective. The gospels are not in conflict—no Scripture is. Rather, it is much more likely that our understanding of Jewish burial practices simply has not been that clear now after a span of almost 2000 years. And it may have been a preconception or simple misconception on the part of both early and later translators that attempted to force from John’s words a parallel meaning to the first three gospels in regard to the wrapping of Jesus, when in fact he was speaking to something quite different—a tying of the limbs to hold them in position at the time of burial due to rigor mortis rather than a separate wrapping or covering of the entire body with strips.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/the-shroud-of-turin/3199-some-ruminations-on-the-shroud-of-turin


The Shroud of Turin - The Evidence of Authenticity See after 7:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5NEY0NkPrw

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Reply to the video of Derek at Mythvision: The Shroud of Turin: Is It Really Jesus Burial Cloth?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p25-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#9092

The Shroud of Turin: Is It Really Jesus Burial Cloth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHardhMG4Ag

Claim:  there is no testimony of the shroud that dates from before the middle ages. 
Reply:  Pre 13th century history of the Shroud
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7144

In the beginning of the history of the Church, the Jesus burial sheet was probably kept hidden for several reasons: first of all, it was a very precious “memory,” having enveloped He who sacrificed Himself on the Cross. Furthermore, Christians feared that someone could seize and destroy it: the Hebrews, in compliance with Mosaic Law, considered everything that had touched a corpse as impure; and not Hebrews judged the punishment of crucifixion as ignominious. The reasons why the protectors of the Shroud wanted to keep it hidden are then clear. Nino, who evangelized Georgia under the Constantine empire (306–337), inquired after the Shroud to Niafori, his master, and to other Christian scholars of Jerusalem. He learned that the burial cloths had been for some time in possession of Pilate’s wife, and after, they were handed by Luke the evangelist, who stored them in a safe place known only to himself. In the fourth century, in Edessa there was the certainty that the city owned an image of Christ, created by God and not produced by the hands of man. It is said that when the image was shown it was folded in eight layers: the result of creasing the Shroud in this way gives a long rectangle with the head in its center, without a neck. This is exactly the same image shown in the copies of the Image of Edessa.

Claim:  and in fact those that do exist from the middle ages say that the shroud is a fake it is not a real relic
Reply:  pierre DRC's the catholic bishop in troy's wrote to pope clement the seventh that the shroud was a clever sleight of hand by someone falsely declaring this was the actual Shroud in which Jesus was unfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them
Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
 D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45 ], which he would have if there had been any[46 ]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47 ], nor a record of his confession[48 ], nor the source of his allegations[49 ]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50 ] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51 ]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a "], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52 ], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53 ]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355 "], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54 ]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/search?q=Pierre+d%27Arcis

Claim:  the type or style of weave of the shroud uh is typical of the middle ages uh and does not exist uh back in antiquity at the time of jesus christ
Reply: THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin#7142

Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
by J. Michael Fischer, adapted from the original article by John C. Iannone[

Stitching used to sew on the 3-inch wide side piece onto the main Shroud is nearly identical to that found at Masada which was destroyed in 73-74 AD. The size of the Shroud being very close to 2 by 8 cubits - the ancient unit of measurement

The Shroud is a linen cloth woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern, and measures 14'3" x 3'7".  These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements of 2 cubits x 8 cubits - consistent with loom technology of the period.  The finer weave of 3-over-1 herringbone is consistent with the New Testament statement that the "sindon" (or shroud) was purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a wealthy man.

In 1532, there was a fire in the church in Chambery, France, where the Shroud was being kept.  Part of the metal storage case melted and fell on the cloth, leaving burns, and efforts to extinguish the fire left water stains.  Yet the image of the man was hardly touched.
In 1534, nuns sewed patches over the fire-damaged areas and attached a full-size support cloth to the back of the Shroud.  This became known as the "Holland" backing cloth.
The Shroud was moved to Turin in 1578, where it remains to this day.

In 2002, a team of experts did restoration work, such as removing the patches from 1534 and replacing the backing cloth.  One of the specialists was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg.  She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment.
The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada.  The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD.
This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.

Stephen E. Jones The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The Shroud has almost invisible stitching in its seam that is identical to stitching found elsewhere only at the Jewish fortress of Masada, which was last occupied in AD 73. Since a medieval forger would be most unlikely (to put it mildly) to even know about almost invisible first century Jewish stitching; and even if he did know about it, he would be even more unlikely to go to the trouble of adding it to his forgery (what use would almost invisible stitching be to a forger?); and even if he wanted to use it, he would be most unlikely to have the high degree of skill needed to do such stitching.
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-evidence-is-overwhelming-that-turin.html#para07

Claim:  and then finally there's the scientific reason and that is that in 1988 the shroud was carbon dated and the results of the carbon dated verified what we already knew
Reply: Age of the shroud of turin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7139

Objection: Radiocarbon dating from 1988 demonstrated that the shroud is a fabrication from the 13th century.
P. E. Damon et al.: Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin 16 February 1989
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1038/337611a0

Reply: 
Rainbowlightstudio The Shroud of Turin: Proof of Authenticity Beyond Reasonable Doubt (1 of 2) Aug 11, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJymwctqo-A

Rainbowlightstudio The Shroud of Turin 1988 Carbon Dating: Triumph or Travesty? (2 of 2) Aug 9, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBDuKZSgDSI

Raymond N. Rogers Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin  12 September 2004
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
https://sci-hub.ren/10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029

In 2017 French researcher, Tristan Casabianca  filed a legal action against the British Museum, which oversaw the C-14 testing labs in 1988. The museum complied and finally released all the raw data. Casabianca’s research team ran new tests and conclude in their 2019 report that there were numerous dates that fell outside the range published in “Nature.” They prove that the Shroud cloth sample is not homogenous, and the 1988 results, famously reported with “95% confidence” are suspect. Casabianca’s team supports the widely-held belief that something went awry with the C-14 tests, which for the ensuing decades discouraged Shroud research and disparaged the Shroud as a medieval fake. Casabianca and his team are advocating that the Vatican authorize  a variety of new 21st-century testing methods not available in 1988 or 1978 during STURP’s testing.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html?fbclid=IwAR2Uns3ZPVtC1HFoR-jTDQc84a6PbbkkRCDiMFTwNVNaH-7HzTMv1OX22UU

RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD: NEW EVIDENCE FROM RAW DATA * 15 February 2019
Recently, we obtained the raw data and, for the first time, measured their convergence with the radiocarbon dates published in Nature.
Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.
http://sci-hub.st/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467

Claim: so it is possible that there was in fact a pigment on the surface of the cloth that would have painted the image on but that pigment is lost and then what's left behind then uh is in fact that yellowing that you see on the surface of the cloth
Reply: How was the image made ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

1. It's not a painting  If this were true, it should be possible to identify the pigments used by chemical analysis, just as conservators can do for the paintings of Old Masters. But the Sturp team found no evidence of any pigments or dyes on the cloth in sufficient amounts to explain the image. Nor are there any signs of it being rendered in brush strokes.
2. The entire image is very superficial in nature, Around 20 - 30 microns in-depth is approximately 0.2 thousandths of a millimeter (about 0.000008 inches) only on the uppermost surface of the fibrils, the inner side is not, thus it could not have been formed by chemicals, The image resides on the outermost layer of the linen fibers. 
3. It's not a photograph Secondo Pia's photograph showed that the image on the cloth is a negative: dark where it should be bright. 
4. It was not made by a natural chemical process It has been confirmed that the image is the result of oxidation, dehydration, and conjugation of the fibers of the shroud themselves. It is like the imaged areas on the shroud suddenly rapidly aged compared to the rest of the shroud. The image on the shroud is the only one of its kind in this world, and there are no known methods that can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological, or medical circumstances explain the image adequately (S.T.U.R.P's conclusion) 
5. The image was not produced by vapors from chemicals or vapors from the corpse itself. Vapors from chemicals, or from the corpse itself, do not explain how the image is present on parts of the body where the cloth clearly did not touch the body (i.e. areas on either side of Christ’s projected nose).
6.  A burst of 34 thousand billion Watts of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation produced a discoloration on the uppermost surface of the Shroud’s fibrils (without scorching it), which gave rise to a perfect three-dimensional negative image of both the frontal and dorsal parts of the body wrapped in it.” We currently do not know of any natural cause for a human corpse producing ultraviolet radiation like this. A very short and intense flash of directional VUV radiation can color the linen fabric. The total power of the VUV radiation required for instantly color the surface of a linen corresponding to a human body of medium height, equal to the corporate body surface area = 2000 MW / cm2 x 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion Watts

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

"Why did Jesus fold the cloth that covered his face at the tomb? It didn't seem important, but it is important!
The Bible records in John 20:1,7. that the linen cloth was carefully folded and placed at the head of the stone tomb.
Is that important? Definitely.
To understand the significance of the folded linen, one must know a little about the Hebrew tradition of that time. The folded linen has to do with the master and the servant, and every Jewish child knew this tradition.
When the servant set the table for his master's dinner, he took pains to set it exactly as his master wanted. The table was perfectly set and the servant waited out of sight of his master until he finished eating. The servant never dared to touch the table until the master had finished eating.
When the master finished eating, he would get up, wipe his fingers, mouth, and beard, make a roll out of his laundry, and throw it on the table. In those days, the rolled up linen meant "I'm done". When the master got up and left the folded linen next to the plate, the servant didn't dare touch the table, because the folded linen meant: "I'm not finished yet, I'll be back!"

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

MYRA ADAMS The Shroud of Turin, Authenticated Again April 16, 2016
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/shroud-turin-jesus-christ-blood-relic-sudarium-oviedo/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

45The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic Sun May 29, 2022 8:19 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Richard Ingham Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake JUNE 21, 2005
https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html

Joe Nickell: Fake Turin Shroud Deceives National Geographic Author April 23, 2015
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/fake-turin-shroud-deceives-national-geographic-author/

Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031

Remaking the Shroud--National Geographic
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031

A reply by Joseph Marino, author of: The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé  4 novembro 2020

Here are some comments.  Quotes from the article are in gray and my comments in black below them.

Claim: This is the best Shroud film ever produced probably because most of the people who have been involved in it are professional scholars and not "shroudologists": the medievalist Richard Kaeuper (University of Rochester), who speaks on the first owner of the Turin Shroud -- the French knight Geoffroy de Charny; -- the archaeologist Shimon Gibson (Texas A&M University), who refers on Second Temple burial cloths and rites, the art historian William Dale (University of Western Ontario), who deals with byzantine icons; and the chemist Luigi Garlaschelli (University of Pavia), the first scientist to remake a full-size shroud.
Reply:     Lombatti is implying that scholars who have not studied the Shroud are more objective and/or knowledgeable about the Shroud that someone who has spent years or decades studying the Shroud.  That's nonsense.  Garlaschelli's full-sized shroud was facilitated by him looking at photos of the Shroud of Turin.  What did the putative medieval artist use as a model?

Claim: The documentary is divided into three main parts. In the general introduction, we are told what the Shroud is: a linen bearing a double image of a (presumed) man who should show the marks of Jesus' crucifixion. However, there are many inaccuracies and the image is anatomically incorrect. When the relics first appeared in France around 1355, the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels. Moreover, the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one. Finally, even the owners - the French family de Charny - when asked for permission to place the relic in their church have always referred to the Shroud as a representation.

 Reply:Countless doctors and medical people have examined the Shroud and say it is anatomically and physiologically correct.  Drs. Robert Bucklin and Frederick Zugibe performed over 50,000 autopsies between them and they are among the many who believe the image is that of a real crucified (not presumed) man.  See my article Individual Medical Doctors’ Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin  (https://www.academia.edu/50848702/Individual_Medical_Doctors_Viewpoints_on_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin) for a list of doctors who believe the Shroud is authentic.

Claim: "the bishop ordered an inquiry and found out that such burial cloth with a double imprint did not find any confirmation in the Gospels."  

Reply: He didn't "find that out"--everyone already knew that.     He goes on 

Claim:  "the Pope who had to face the first controversy on the public display of the Shroud wrote in the bull that he be granted permission to show it, but it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation of the burial cloth of Jesus and not the real one."  

Reply:What about the other Popes, over 30 in number, in history who have stated they believe the Shroud is authentic.  Should Clement VII's opinion be taken as the only stance.  See my article What is the Catholic Church’s Official Position on the Shroud of Turin?  Pronouncements from The Vatican and Turin (https://www.academia.edu/45292513/What_is_the_Catholic_Churchs_Official_Position_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_Pronouncements_from_The_Vatican_and_Turin.)
     Regarding the de Charny's stance that the Shroud was a representation only, I would need to refresh on all the details but it's obviously meant to convey that they knew the Shroud was an artistic production, that's only an assumption at best.

Claim: The image is anatomically incorrect: when a scalp bleeds, it doesn't flow in rivulets, the blood mats on the scalp or in the hair. Instead, on the Shroud we can see neat artistic rivulets seeming to be levitated on the outside of the locks.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Remake%202


It's not true that the image of the hands crossed on the pelvis with missing thumbs -- which is typical of medieval art -- shows that the man of the Shroud was nailed in the wrists. We can only see one exit wound and it is in the hand

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Remake%203%20[/font


The right arm is much longer than the left, the head is too small in proportion to the body image. The "bloodstained" right footprint is anatomically impossible to obtain. If you lie on your back and place the right foot completely flat, you must bend the knee at a considerable angle, thus raising the calf of the leg a significant distance away from the underlying cloth.

 The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Remake%204

Moreover, if you think of a body lying on a linen sheet, you would expect the back image -- with all the body weight and pressure -- to be darker and more deformed than the front image. Even more absurd are the locks of hairs at the sides of the face. The hair is on the level with the cheekbones. As the body is lying on its back, these locks of hair, if they had been freed, would by their natural weight have fallen back. Finally there is a curious space between the hair and either side of the face. Last but not least, the front image measures 205 centimeters and the back 198.

Reply: Are we to believe countless doctors and surgeons or historians on medical accuracy?

Claim:  It's because of this evidence, that Garlaschelli tried to remake a full-size shroud. Garlaschelli reproduced the shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. He placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A bas-relief was used for the face. The linen was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. The pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Garlaschelli then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect.
His replica is amazing, and even the shroudologist Mark Guscin has to admit it. As for those who claim that under the microscope the image cannot be identical to the Turin Shroud, one must consider that even two coins minted in the very same mint aren't identical under the microscope. The goal achieved by Garlaschelli was to show that such a relic could easily be produced in the Middle Ages.

Reply: In the Middle Ages there were the raw materials to build an airplane, but that doesn't mean it was built back then.  As mentioned above Garlaschelli used Shroud photos to make his, and while it's somewhat visually similar to the Shroud, it certainly does not contain all the characteristics.  We know from the Shroud that the blood went on 1st and then the image.  Garlaschelli did his image and then added his blood.  Not a match.

Claim:  But shroudologists are hard to convince, and they speak of the Shroud as the "snapshot of the resurrection," thus avoiding any scientific explanation for the image formation. Richard Kaeuper is right when he says that the first historical document on this relic dates from the middle of the XIV century. Many Shroud experts agree on that, even if they quote meaningless legends and apocryphal texts to support the presumed existence of the Shroud in the first millennium. When the Pontifical Academy of Sciences chose the three university labs to perform the carbon dating, leaving aside all the church and diocese amateurs who dealt with the Shroud for years -- it confirmed its medieval origin. Thus, historical and scientific data do match.

Reply: While the 1st historical document mentioning the Shroud is from the mid-1350s, there are plenty of documented references to the burial linens of Jesus before that and they are more than just "meaningless legends and apocryphal texts."  See my recent 45-page+ article Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s (https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350s).
     Small point but it wasn't the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who chose the 3 labs.  The Academy had been involved in the preparation but was one of the many victims of the politics involved in the dating, as covered in my 800-page book on the C-14 dating.  The only thing the labs knew about the Shroud was that it historically surfaced in the mid-1350s.  You can be sure that the dates were going to be "massaged" so that the range included 1357 and that's what the 2019 article in Archaeometry by Casabianca et al. showed-- the labs had thrown out many of the bad dates, making the 1260-1390 with a 95% confidence rate a sham.

Claim:  Then Shimon Gibson is interviewed on the Akeldama shroud fragments found in Jerusalem in 1999. A very curious aspect of the whole controversy is why Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found. The answer is quite simple because they completely contradict the Shroud as a first century Jewish artifact: fabric, patteakeldama shamirrn, twist of the fibers and a four meter long cloth have nothing to share with the archaeological findings. Gibson refers to his amazing discovery of the first Jerusalem shroud ever found: it is made of wool (not linen), it has a simple 1:1 twill weave with 'S' spinning twist (3:1 complex herringbone twill weave with 'Z' spun). Moreover, despite the fact that the Akeldama shroud remained in the dirt and bacterial contamination for 2,000 years, it was carbon dated to 50 AD. So, archaeological evidence from controlled excavations of Second Temple Jewish tombs clearly prove that the Turin Shroud is not an artifact from that period.

Reply: So all shrouds in the 1st century had to be a 1:1 twill with "S" spinning twist?  This simply ignores the fact that rich people of the time could have afforded to buy more expensive linen.  It's absurd to think that a scholar would discount the Shroud simply because it was more complex than an archaeological find in the same period.

Claim:  In the last segment of the documentary, William Dale illustrates how Byzantines were those who created and used icons after the controversy among iconophiles and iconoclasts was settled. The Shroud is a "not made by human hands” image which tells the whole story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. People who were not able to read or understand the Gospels had an image to look at. It was the ideal icon for illiterate believers. In Dale's opinion, the Shroud was created just to evoke and inspire the faithful. However, bishop Pierre d'Arcis in 1389 wrote that the dean of the collegiate church of Lirey had the Shroud displayed with the deliberate intent of deceipt and cash offerings from the pilgrims (fraude premeditata). The bishop even stated that some people were paid to fake healings so that the faithful in the church could believe that miracles were happening thanks to the relic (ut subtili ingenio aurum extorqueretur ab eis, inibi confingebatur miracula mendaciter certis hominibus ad hoc precio conductis, qui se sanari fingebant in ostensione dicti sudarii, quod domini sudarium ab omnibus credebatur.) So, on this, I don't agree with Dale.

Reply: It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope.  d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair.  It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings.  The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be.  See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography" 

https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography

Claim:  Don't forget that in the XIII century there were (at least) forty burial shrouds of Jesus circulating in Eastern and Western Europe. Each of them was of course the real thing. A few of those cloths are still visible today in France (Carcassonne, Cahors, Cadouin); others have been lost or destroyed during the French revolution.


Reply: So what?  Each shroud needs to be evaluated on its own merits.  Just because there are fake $20 bills doesn't mean that every $20 bill is fake.  The Shroud is the most intensely-studied artifact in human history.  All of the other 40 shrouds never went very much investigation and most people with any sense knew those were copies.


Botanical Evidence Indicates "Shroud Of Turin" Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm

August 3, 1999

An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. The authenticity of the Shroud has been debated for centuries, with a 1988 carbon dating process placing it in the Middle Ages.

ST. LOUIS, MO. August 2, 1999 -- An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. The authenticity of the Shroud has been debated for centuries, with a 1988 carbon dating process placing it in the Middle Ages.

Botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. The peer-reviewed publication will be available in late summer.

Danin presented his research findings at a lecture series held in conjunction with the XVI International Botanical Congress. More than 4,000 scientists from 100 countries are meeting in St. Louis this week to discuss the latest research on plants for human survival and improved quality of life. Held only once every six years, the International Botanical Congress last met in the United States in 1969, when it was held in Seattle, Washington.

Danin's analysis suggests that flowers and other plant materials were placed on the Shroud of Turin, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. In addition to the image of a crucified man, the cloth also contains faint images of plants. Tentatively identifying the plant images through a method of image comparison known as Polarized Image Overlay Technique (PIOT), Alan and Mary Whanger have reported that the flowers were from the Near East region and that the Shroud originated in early centuries. Analysis of the floral images by Danin and an analysis of the pollen grains by Uri Baruch identify a combination of certain species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem during that time.

The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man's shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the "crown of thorns" on Jesus' head.

Two pollen grains of this species were also found on the Sudarium of Oviedo, widely accepted as the burial face cloth of Jesus. The location of the Sudarium has been documented from the 1st Century and it has resided in the Cathedral of Oviedo in Spain since the 8th Century. Both cloths also carry type AB blood stains, although some argue that ancient blood types are hard to interpret. What is clear is that the blood stains on both cloths are in a similar pattern.

"There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic - covering the same body," Danin stated. "The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the Shroud originated before the 8th Century."

Danin stated that this botanical research disputes the validity of the claim that the Shroud was from Europe during the Middle Ages, as many researchers had concluded in 1988 based on carbon-14 dating tests. The authors do not question the accuracy of the carbon-14 dating test which was done on only a single sample taken from one highly contaminated corner of the shroud, he said. However, their research looked at pollen grains and images from the entire piece of fabric and compared them with a fabric that has a documented history.

Another plant seen in a clear image on the Shroud is of the Zygophyllum dumosum species, according to the paper. This is a native plant with an unusual leaf morphology, displaying paired leaflets on the ends of leaf petiole of the current year during the beginning of winter.

Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum coexist in a limited area, according to Danin, a leading authority on plants of Israel. The area is bounded by lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. The area is anchored toward the Jerusalem-Hebron zone with the addition of a third species, Cistus creticus, identified as being placed on the Shroud through an analysis of pollen and floral imaging.

"This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world," Danin stated. "The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem."

Danin stated that the evidence revealing these species on the Shroud suggests that they were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth. According to Danin, his findings corroborate the following sequence of events:

* Laying the body on the linen;

* Placing flowering plants and other objects along with the body;

* Folding the cloth over the body;

* Initiation of the process that caused the formation of the images.

Images of Capparis aegyptia flowers, which display a distinctive pattern during daylight hours, have also been seen on the Shroud. The process of buds opening ceases when the flowers are picked and no water is supplied. The images of these flowers on the Shroud suggest they were picked in the Judean Desert or the Dead Sea Valley between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud.

The images of the flowers on the Shroud are also depicted in art of the early centuries, according to the upcoming publication. Early icons on some 7th century coins portray a number of flower images that accurately match floral images seen on the Shroud today, according to PIOT analysis by the Whangers. The researchers suggest that the faint images on the Shroud were probably clearer in earlier centuries.

Botanical investigation of the Shroud began with Max Frei's 1973 observations of pollen grains on the Shroud, which he sampled by means of sticky tape. Frei took a second set of 27 sticky tape samples from the Shroud during the scientific study in 1978. In 1979 he took 46 sticky tape samples from the Sudarium of Oviedo. In 1983 faint floral images on the Shroud linen were noted by O. Scheuermann, and subsequently in 1985 by the Whangers. Botanist Avinoam Danin began collaborating with Shroud researchers Alan and Mary Whanger in 1995. They were joined by Israeli pollen expert Uri Baruch in 1998. Frei's Shroud botanical collections were acquired in 1994 by the Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin (CSST) and became the resource for this study which analyzed 313 pollen grains.

The burial cloth known today as the Shroud of Turin is a linen rectangle measuring 4.35 meters by 1.1 meter. It has been kept in the city of Turin (Torino), Italy, since 1578. In 1694, the Shroud was placed in a special chapel within the Italian cathedral of St. John the Baptist. Except for a brief period during World War II when the cloth was moved elsewhere for safety, the Shroud remained in this cathedral until the night of April 11, 1997, when a raging fire necessitated its removal. The Shroud was not damaged, and was kept elsewhere in the city until it again was placed in the cathedral for public display from April 18 through June 14, 1998.

While there have long been historical, literary, and artistic claims that the Shroud represents the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, there has been little scientific evidence to support this. In 1988, carbon-14 dating of a single sample from a corner of the Shroud was identified to be from 1260 to 1390 A.D., leading to the widespread conclusion that the entire Shroud was from the Medieval period.

A Medically Accurate Picture of a Man on the Shroud


The bloodstains, as forensic scientists and chemits now know, are from real human blood. Moreover, the stains are from real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth. Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens reveal that the stains are from human blood. When the stains formed, the man was lying on his back with his feet near one end of the fourteen foot long, banner shaped piece of cloth. The cloth was drawn over the top of his head and loosely draped over his face and the full length of his body down to his feet.

Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum. The forensic experts are also able to identify that some of the blood flow was venous and some was arterial. Most of the blood flowed while the man was alive and it remained on his body. There is some blood that clearly oozed from a dead body, as was the case for stains resulting from a wound in the man’s chest. Here, the blood, with a deeper color and more viscous consistency, as is the case for blood from a postmortem wound, ran from a chest wound, flowed around the side of the body and formed a puddle about the man’s lower back.  


Mingled with these large bloodstains are stains from a clear bodily fluid, perhaps pericardial fluid or fluid from the pleural sac or pleural cavity.  This suggests that the man received a postmortem stabbing wound in the vicinity of the heart.


Blood that flowed along once-outstretched arms emanate from the victim’s wrists and course their way downward along the forearm, past the elbow and onto the back of the upper arm. Near the man’s armpit the blood pooled and likely dripped to the ground. So much blood flowed along his outstretched arms that several rivulets of blood, pulled by gravity, ran straight down. It seems likely that blood dripped all along the man’s arms like rain drips from a tree branch in a storm. From the angles of the flows and rivulets, forensic experts have determined that this blood flowed while the man was upright with his arms at angles like the hands of a clock at ten minutes before two. They can also see from changes in bloodstream angles that the man must have pulled himself up repeatedly, perhaps raising himself up to relieve the weight on his nailed feet, perhaps to relieve the pressure on his chest that he might breathe.


The clots, the serum separations, the mingling of body fluids, the directionality of the flows, and all other medically expected attributes would have been nearly impossible to create by brushing or daubing or pouring human blood onto the cloth. The blood, rich in the bilirubin, a bile pigment that the body produces under extreme trauma, is unquestionably the blood of the man whose lifeless, crucified body was enshrouded in the cloth. 
The images pick up where the bloodstains leave off in revealing even more chilling, horrific pathological detail. Within those unexplained body images, the details of piercing wounds, lacerations, bruises, contusions, and abrasions are medically accurate. The man’s once-outstretched arms are modestly folded at the wrists. It is on the images of the arms that we see the rivulets of blood. It is on the man’s chest, between the fifth and sixth ribs that we see an elliptical gash from which the blood flowed under the man’s lower back. We see the horrific wounds where the man was nailed to the cross. So accurate are the details, medical experts realize they demonstrate knowledge of pathology that was not understood in the Middle Ages; not by artists, not by crafters of fake relics, and not by the best medical minds of that age. How did this relic forger translate such medically accurate detail, both front and back images, onto the long piece of linen cloth?


What emerges from the cloth is an epic story, a reenactment of the passion sequence from the scourging, the walk to Calvary, the crucifixion, and the burial. The man of the Shroud was savagely flogged. Whatever was used, it is consistent with a Roman flagrum, a whip of short leather thongs tipped with bits of lead, bronze or bone which tore into flesh and muscle. There are dozens upon dozens of dumbbell shaped welts and contusions, the type of wound that the flagellum would have caused. There is blood from the flagellation and even a bit of tissue thought by medical experts to be a torn-out bit of muscle. From the angles of attack – the way the marks fall on the man’s back, buttocks, and legs – it seems that man was whipped by two men, one taller than the other, who stood on either side of him.


At some time, the man may have been forced to wear a crown of thorns. That seems to be a logical explanation for the numerous puncture wounds about the top of his head. But from the wounds and drops of blood, it seems to have been more like a rough bunch of thorns, or a cap of thorns, and not like the wreath shaped crown of thorns so common in artistic depictions. There are details on the shroud that suggest both a beating and falling: a severely bruised left kneecap, a dislocated or possibly broken nasal cartilage, a large swelling around the right eye socket and cheekbone. There is, too, the puzzling fact that there are significant abrasions on both shoulders. On the shoulders, welts from the apparent scourging are abraded as though rubbed over. Might this be from carrying the patibulum, the crossbeam of the cross, across both shoulders?


What is most interesting is that the man of the Shroud was crucified with large spikes driven through his wrists and not through the palms of his hands, something which contradicts all iconography of medieval and pre-medieval periods. This is evidenced by both the image and the bloodstains. This is, of course, more historically and medically plausible. It was not before the first part of the 20th century, that medical experts first realized that nails driven through a man’s palms would not support a his weight – even if his feet were nailed or supported – and that the nails would tear out. That the Romans did crucify victims by driving nails through the wrist area of the forearm was confirmed by the 1968 archeological discovery of a crucifixion victim, named Johanan ben Ha-galgol, found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar. If indeed the Shroud is a medieval forged relic, the craftsman who produced it knew how to do it right even if the nailing, the scalp wounds, and the man’s nakedness defied the sensibilities of the time. 


The Shroud is more mind-numbing than all other depictions ever made; from the earliest carvings of the crucifixion on 5th century coffins; from the wall painting of the passion so prominent in old English parish churches; from the imaginative grandeur of paintings by Rubens, Raphael, El Greco, and Velazquez; and from the spiritual visualizations of Salvador Dali. It stirs our imagination more than the drama of medieval mystery plays still performed in York or modern Broadway musicals and movies.


http://www.factsplusfacts.com/pathology.htm



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Dec 11, 2023 2:58 pm; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Apocryphal  gospels mentioning the Shroud of Turin

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p50-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#9794

The Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the Acts of Pilate)

This text, particularly in its later medieval versions, is sometimes associated with the story of the Shroud. It includes detailed descriptions of Christ's burial and resurrection, but direct references to the Shroud as known today are not explicit in the earliest versions of the text.  The Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate, is an apocryphal gospel thought to have been written in the mid to late 4th century. However, the dating is not precise, and estimates vary among scholars. The text was written in Greek and later translated into Latin and other languages. The Gospel of Nicodemus is part of the New Testament Apocrypha, a collection of texts that were written in the early Christian era but were not included in the canonical New Testament. It presents an account of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, allegedly based on a report by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor. The text was widely read and circulated in the Middle Ages and influenced Christian art and literature. Despite its historical and cultural significance, it is not considered a reliable historical account by modern scholars due to its late composition and legendary elements. 

The Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate, in its earliest versions, does not explicitly mention the Shroud of Turin as it is known today. The earliest forms of this text, believed to have been written in the mid to late 4th century, focus on the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, along with his descent into Hades and resurrection. These versions provide details about Jesus' burial but do not describe the burial shroud with specifics that would directly link it to the Shroud of Turin.

The more detailed descriptions of a burial shroud similar to what is known as the Shroud of Turin are found in later medieval adaptations and retellings of the Gospel of Nicodemus. These later versions often incorporated additional elements and embellishments that reflected the growing veneration of relics like the Shroud in the medieval Christian tradition.

The Acts of Pilate, also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus, does mention a shroud. In chapter 27, it describes Joseph of Arimathea asking for permission from Pilate to take Jesus' body and bury it in a new shroud. This mention of a shroud in the Acts of Pilate is one of the earliest references to such an item in Christian literature, and it has been suggested by some that this shroud could be the same one that is now known as the Shroud of Turin. 

But a certain man named Joseph, a member of the council, from the town of Arimathaea, who also was waiting for the kingdom of God, went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in a rock-hewn tomb, in which no one had ever yet been laid.

‘“Who are you, lord?” I said. ‘“I am Jesus, whose body you requested from Pilate. You wrapped me in a clean linen shroud and put a towel on my face, and placed me in a new tomb, and rolled a great stone across the entrance to the tomb.” ‘“Show me where I buried you,” I said to the figure speaking to me. He then took me off and showed me where I had placed him. The shroud lay there in it, along with the towel which had been on his face. Then I knew that it was Jesus.


The Gospel of the Hebrews

"And when the Lord had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, he went unto James and said unto him: 'Take, for the Lord hath risen from the dead and appeared unto Simon.'" (as quoted by Jerome in his Commentary on Matthew)

The passage is attributed to the Gospel of the Hebrews, a text mentioned by several early Christian writers, including Jerome. Jerome, a prominent early Christian theologian and historian, lived between 347 and 420 AD. He mentions the Gospel of the Hebrews in his writings, including his Commentary on Matthew, which was written around the late 4th century. The Gospel of the Hebrews itself is a lost text, known only through fragments cited by early Church Fathers like Jerome, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria. It is believed to have been composed in the 2nd century AD, possibly as early as the mid to late 1st century. This dating is based on the context of the quotations found in the works of these early Church Fathers and the theological and historical content of the cited passages. The passage you referenced is one of the few fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews that have been preserved through these citations. It mentions a linen cloth, which some scholars have speculated might be connected to the burial cloths of Jesus, but the text does not explicitly describe this cloth as the Shroud of Turin. The Gospel of the Hebrews is generally considered to be one of the Jewish-Christian Gospels, reflecting a perspective of Christianity that was closely tied to Jewish traditions.

The Gospel of Peter

"But I and my companions were grieved, and being wounded in mind, we hid ourselves: for we were sought after by them as malefactors, and as wishing to set fire to the temple. And in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when my companions and I were sleeping, there came a great sound from heaven, and the heavens were opened, and a man descended to us, and came and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it. And he shone with a great light, and he took the linen cloth which was put round the Saviour's head, and the cloth for his body, and laid them in a place by themselves." (as translated by M.R. James in The Apocryphal New Testament)

The passage  is from the Gospel of Peter, an apocryphal Christian text that provides an alternative account of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel of Peter likely dates to the second half of the 2nd century AD, possibly between 150 and 200 AD. This dating is based on various factors, including its theological content, stylistic analysis, and the historical context in which it was referenced by other early Christian writers. The Gospel of Peter was known to early Church Fathers but was considered heretical by many and did not become part of the canonical New Testament. The text was lost for centuries until a fragment was discovered in the late 19th century in a monk's grave in Akhmim, Egypt. This fragment, known as the Akhmim Fragment, contains portions of the narrative concerning the crucifixion, the burial of Jesus, and the discovery of the empty tomb. In the Gospel of Peter, the account of Jesus' resurrection is more detailed and differs significantly from the canonical Gospels. It includes a vivid description of the resurrection, with heavenly beings descending, rolling away the tombstone, and two figures emerging from the tomb, followed by a cross. The text also mentions the burial cloths, stating that the linen cloth wrapped around Jesus's head and the cloth for his body were laid in a separate place, as your quote describes.

The Gospel of Gamaliel

"He went in, therefore, and saw the linen cloths lying; but the napkin that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths, but was rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple also entered, who had come first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." (as quoted by Jerome in his Commentary on Matthew)

Note that the reference to the Shroud is indirect in some of these texts (e.g. the Gospel of Gamaliel), but scholars believe that the "napkin" or "cloth for his body" mentioned in these texts is likely a reference to the Shroud.

The information given by other texts

Jean de Climont (2016): There  is  no  text  in  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  that  suggests  a possible  conservation  of  burial  cloths  of  Jesus  of Nazareth.  Subsequently,  some texts exploit the literary theme of burial cloths empty. Cyril of Jerusalem (387-397) saw a proof of the resurrection, Peter and John "ran to the tomb and found no more than the sudarium or the Shroud ... the remains of the dead" (Catechesis XIV, 22). But it provides no details about it, unlike for the wood of the cross. St. Jerome, in his De viris illustribus (393 AD) mentions a Gospel "according to the Hebrews" of which there remains not a trace. He cites a passage:

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 G2328h10

 "When the Lord had given the Shroud to the priest's servant, he went to Jacques and appeared to him."

The Gospel of Nicodemus, also called the Acts of Pilate, is an apocryphal text of the fourth  century.  It  gives,  in  the  first  chapters,  a very  detailed  version  of  the judgment of Jesus of Nazareth by Pilate. Jesus is not brought prisoner of the Jews, but  summoned  by  Pilate  by  a  messenger.  Signs  of  the  Roman  guards  bowed irresistibly  in  front  of  Jesus.  This  version,  adopted  by  the  Copts,  tries  to  justify Pilate, which would have converted. Moreover, after undergoing martyrdom with his  wife  they  were  considered  saints  by  Copts.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  would  have received 39 lashes under Jewish law, which does not conform to reality. Joseph of Arimathea took Christ's body and placed it in a "shroud fully clean, and he placed him in a new tomb he had built for himself." (Chapter XI). Then, Joseph of Arimathea, who was imprisoned by the Jews was liberated by Jesus and carried in  the  empty  tomb,  "and  he  showed  me  the  Shroud  and  linen  in  which  I  had wrapped his head. "(Chapter XV)

The Coptic Gospel of the Twelve Apostles mentions the burial cloths in connection with  their  worship  of  Pilate.  This  text  would  be  of  the  beginning  of  the  second century. It is mentioned by Origen in the third century. Pilate said: "O mankind! Who hate your own life, if someone had taken the body, (he would have taken) bands too. Then, they said to him: Do not you see that it is not his cloths, but of somebody else? Pilate remembered the word of Jesus: Big miracles will take place in my grave. Pilate therefore hastened to enter the tomb. He took the shrouds of Jesus. He pressed against her breast. He wept over them. He kissed joy as if Jesus was surrounded with."

The Gospel of Ethiopia, said of Gamaliel, dates from the second half of the fifth century. It would Coptic origin. In  fact,  it  takes up the themes relating to Pilate from the apocryphal gospels of the Twelve Apostles and of Nicodemus.

Problems of vocabulary

It is not, in any way, neither in my abilities nor in my intention to comment on these  texts.  I  would  just  transcribe  what  I  have  read  about  some  problems  with vocabulary.

From the standpoint of hours, Romans divided the day and night into twelve hours between  sunrise  and  sunsets.  The  duration  of  Roman hours  vary  therefore according to the season. Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross on a Friday at the ninth hour, that is to say, about three o'clock in the afternoon, two or three hours later in the evening, Josephus of Arimathea just gets his body, put it in the tomb, wrapped in the Shroud. Saturday is a day of rest for the Jews, the Sabbath. It is therefore at the dawn of Sunday morning that women went to the tomb. From Friday night where Jesus of Nazareth died to Sunday morning, which is the day of resurrection, there are less than 36 hours, very similar to Roman hours during spring equinox.

The  Shroud  itself  is  named  in  different  ways.  Latin  words: sindon,  and linteum linteamen and Greek: Sindon and othonia denote all linen fabrics. Sindon and Sindônapply rather to fine linens, like the Greek othonê whence othonia, a diminutive idea that  inspires  small  or  lightweight.  We  can  say  that  these  words  apply  in  the Gospels to the Shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.

Othonia  was  sometimes  translated  by  strips.  This  is  certainly  possible.  Either  St. John mentions only strips that were used to fix the shroud around the body or he took the term used by the Egyptians, with no other intention than to speak of burial cloths. In fact, John says that Jesus' body was wrapped according to the custom of the Jews. Finally, the Egyptians also put fabrics around the body before the strips.

In addition to these words, St. John mentions the soudarion or sudarium in latin. Misinterpretation of the text gave the meaning of shroud. The apostles had seen in the empty tomb, rolled up next to the linen and bandages lying on the ground.

In  fact,  the  Greek  soudarion  as sudarium  Latin,  word  coming  from sudor,  was  a handkerchief  for  wiping  perspiration  from  the  face.  This  very  same  word soudarion is found in the Acts of the Apostles (19.12) where it means handkerchief and especially in St. John who employs a first time (11.14) to denote the chin-piece surrounding the face  of Lazarus. However, in the case of Jesus  of Nazareth, the sudarium is a cloth used to veil the face of the dead before burial. It is possible that it was used to temporarily block the chin of Christ and keep his mouth shut, and it would have been found between the folds of the shroud. However, the browned image  does  not  suffer  discontinuity  under  the  chin.  The sudarium  would  have prevented the image to form here.

Jewish burial rites consist of two elements: the sindon or shroud, and the pathil. The pathil enveloped the hair, leaving the face uncovered and had a chin-piece. If the  pathil  would  have  been  placed  around  the  head  of  Christ,  the  fabric  of  the Shroud  would  not  have  received  the  image  of  hair  since  traces  of  blood  have prevented this impression. It was thus folded aside pending embalming, but as we have  seen,  it  may  have  been  put  in  place  and  removed.  In  the  case  of  Jesus  of Nazareth, there must also be in the grave the sudarium that veiled his face to the Descent from the Cross. Strips maybe mentioned by St. John, remains a question. Such  strips  cannot  have  been  used  because  the  body was  not  tightened  in  the Shroud, but it seems  they have even not been brought in the tomb. Presumably they were not necessary since all actions of burial were performed in the tomb. The strips were most needed to secure the shroud around the body for transport. It will never matter thereafter.

When  the  holy  women  went  to  the  tomb  to  perform  the  embalming  after  the Sabbath, they found it empty. St. Peter alerted saw there only the burial cloths lying on the ground, says St. Luke.

St. John is more explicit and the text is very important that imperfect translations have hidden until our time. A series of works restores its true meaning, which is roughly this: "Peter ... saw the burial cloths, the Shroud lying on the ground, the sudarium, which  was  on his  head, not lying with the burial cloths, but wrapped separately in the same place."

Clearly, Peter and John saw the Shroud collapsed flat. Is this really the sudarium, or the pathil, which had remained wrapped in his place? The important thing is that the body had disappeared without disturbing the burial cloths, he had not been abducted!

Thus, we can better understand the effect of the vision that the Apostles had seeing cloths remained in place. 1

The Gospel of Gamaliel

We find Pilate examining four soldiers as to dieir statement that the body of Jesus was stolen. One (the second: the testimony of the first is gone) says the eleven apostles took the body; the third says, Joseph and Nicodemus; the fourth, 'we were asleep.' They are imprisoned, and Pilate goes with the centurion and the priests to the tomb and finds the grave-clothes. He says, 'If the body had been stolen, these would have been taken too.' They say, 'These grave-clothes belong to some one else.' Pilate remembers the words of Jesus, 'Great wonders must happen in my tomb', and goes in, and weeps over the shroud. Then he turns to the centurion, who had but one eye, having lost the other in battle.

Acts of Thomas

The "Hymn of the Pearl" is a significant piece of early Christian literature, commonly dated to the early 3rd century, with estimations placing its composition around the year 216 A.D. This work is remarkable not only for its poetic merit but also for its apparent allusion to the Shroud of Turin, which suggests an early awareness of the relic.

This hymn is intricately woven into the narrative of the "Acts of Thomas," a collection of texts associated with Gnostic traditions, which are not part of the canonical New Testament. These writings detail the journey and evangelical works of the Apostle Thomas, also known as Judas Didymus, whose mission extended as far as India. According to these apocryphal acts, Thomas is credited with sending Thaddeus to Edessa, a mission that led to the healing of King Abgar V, a story steeped in the lore of early Christian miracles.

The "Hymn of the Pearl" stands out in these texts as a profound allegorical tale. It recounts the journey of a young prince sent from his heavenly home to retrieve a pearl guarded by a fearsome serpent in Egypt. Symbolically rich, the poem explores themes of loss, forgetfulness, remembrance, and ultimate redemption, mirroring the soul's descent into the material world and its yearning for spiritual return.

In a broader theological context, the hymn can be interpreted as a reflection on the Incarnation, with the prince's sojourn symbolizing Christ's descent into the world. His awakening and retrieval of the pearl may represent the Resurrection, with potential symbolic links to the Shroud of Turin as a physical testament to this event.

Extending this exploration, one could delve into the multifaceted symbology of the poem, examining the pearl itself as an emblem of purity and resurrection, perhaps an allegorical counterpart to the shroud which, in its own right, emerges as a symbol of Christ's purity and victory over death. The hymn, therefore, is not just a piece of literary art but also a theological commentary that intertwines with the physical artifacts of Christian tradition, offering a narrative that enriches the historical and spiritual tapestry of early Christianity.

Dreisbach, Jr., Rev. Albert R. “Thomas and the Hymn of the Pearl.” Presented at Sindone 2000 Shroud Conference in Orvieto, Italy, August 26-28, 2000, pp. 501-526.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbc2.pdf


1. Jean de Climont: THE MYSTERIES OF THE    SHROUD 2016



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Dec 26, 2023 3:27 am; edited 10 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

47The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty Book on the Shroud of Turin Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:37 am

Otangelo


Admin

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32655712

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32716210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32666410

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32341010

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32716010

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32703310

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32704310

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32707111

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32710210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32338110

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32716110

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32342610

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32715010

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32656710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32715811

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32715810

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32713710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32715710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32715812

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32713810

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32710211

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32716910

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32712910

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32710212

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32724510

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32343610

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32680210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32731510

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32744710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32725710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32345510

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32728410

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32728110

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32314910

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32745410

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32739210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32727210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32737110

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32744610

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32725010

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32738710

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32740110

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32745310

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32755610

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32711510

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32753910

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32757310

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32743610

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32746210

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32755611

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32746211


The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32775610





The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32768510

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32756410

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32770310

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 32756910

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people, he was punished. After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e]; by his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.

Review of the article: 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688p50-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#9908

The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax, by Spencer McDaniel,  February 24, 2020
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/24/sorry-the-shroud-of-turin-is-definitely-a-hoax/?fbclid=IwAR13bLbJhwQO6yuL5TDauCsBNvMIHz1yRocXSxV0E7qLSOmTWN6fvpIzKMI

Claim: Unfortunately, we can be virtually certain that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France in around the 1350s AD
Response:   Carbon dating controversy: The samples used for the testing came from the edge of the Shroud, which was reportedly fixed in the middle age, and therefore, the tests themselves are flawed. The 1988 Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7140

Historical records: There is a rich history of the Shroud that predates 1350. Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-the-shroud-of-turin-extraordinary-evidence-of-christ-s-resurrection#7144

Maybe the most throughout account of the pre-1350 history of the Shroud was compiled by Joe Marino, and published in the paper: Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin’s Appearance in France in the Mid1350s 2. He cites:

Documented References to the Burial Linens of Jesus Prior to the Shroud of Turin's Appearance in France in the Mid-1350s
https://www.academia.edu/75771585/Documented_References_to_the_Burial_Linens_of_Jesus_Prior_to_the_Shroud_of_Turins_Appearance_in_France_in_the_Mid_1350

2 sources from the 2nd. Century, 1 from the 3rd. Century, 9 from the 4th. Century, 3 from the 5th. Century, 10 from the 6th. Century, 5 from the 7th. Century, 4 from the 8th. Century, 3 from the 9th. Century, 5 from the 10th. Century, 11 from the 11th. Century, 7 from the 12th. Century, and 15 from the 13th century, and 2 from the 14th. Century. In total 77 sources until 1350!! Marino writes in the concluding remarks: Despite conflicting theories of the Shroud’s “pre-history,” there is no doubt there is an abundance of evidence of the purported existence of Jesus’ burial linens.

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the 14th. century
by Stephen E. Jones 4
https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2016/07/chronology-of-turin-shroud-ad-30.html#1

Claim: The Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France in around the 1350s AD by an artist trained in the Gothic figurative style as part of a faith-healing scam.
Response: The Shroud's image is that it shows features that are inconsistent with the artistic techniques of the time. For example, the image has a photographic or three-dimensional quality, with a level of detail that would be difficult to achieve with medieval painting techniques. Additionally, the image on the shroud has been found to contain certain unique characteristics that are not consistent with any known artistic technique. For example, the image is said to have a superficiality that suggests it was produced by a process of "scorching" the cloth rather than by the application of pigments or dyes. This technique would have been unknown to medieval artists. There are also other features of the shroud that are not consistent with medieval art, such as the fact that the body image appears only on the top fibers of the linen, rather than penetrating through the fabric as one would expect with paint or dye. Furthermore, the image is not affected by gravity, as it would be if it were painted or dyed onto the cloth. The image on the shroud does not appear to have any visible brushstrokes, which would be expected if it had been painted. Additionally, there is no evidence of a preparatory drawing or underpainting, which would be expected in a painting from that time period. Furthermore, the image on the shroud appears to have a level of detail and realism that would be difficult to achieve using the techniques available to medieval artists.

Claim: The earliest definitive record of the shroud is a letter recording that the forger who made it had confessed
Response: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present FOURTEENTH CENTURY Stephen E. Jones
D'Arcis provided no evidence in his memorandum to substantiate his claims[45], which he would have if there had been any[46]. D'Arcis did not provide the name of the artist[47], nor a record of his confession[48], nor the source of his allegations[49]. There is also no record of Henri de Poitiers conducting any inquiry into the origin of Shroud[50] and d'Arcis did not even know its date[51]! But there is a record of a letter of 28 May 1356[see "1356a"], from Bishop Henri de Poitiers, praising Geoffroy I, ratifying the Lirey church and approving its "divine cult"[52], which presumably refers to the Shroud[53]! It is also highly unlikely that Geoffrey I de Charny, the owner of the Shroud in the 1350s [see "c.1355"], one of France's most ethical knights, and a devout author of religious poetry, was complicit in forging Jesus' burial shroud[54]. The final refutation of the d'Arcis memorandum is that the image of the man on the Shroud is not painted

It's not mentioned that d'Arcis was upset that de Charny had gone over his head directly to the Pope.  d'Arcis' own church was in dire need of expensive repair.  It's certainly possible that he was angling to get his own hands on cash offerings.  The d'Arcis memo isn't as black and white as it's made out to be.  See my article "http://The c. 1389 d’Arcis Memorandum and the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin – an English-Language Bibliography"
https://www.academia.edu/49761930/The_c_1389_dArcis_Memorandum_and_the_Authenticity_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin_an_English_Language_Bibliography

Claim: The shroud doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings that were used in the Judaea in the first-century AD or the specific description of Jesus’s funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John.
Response: Byron R. McCane (2022): The traditional Palestinian preference for prompt burial continued throughout the first century. In Mark 5:38, funeral preparations for Jairus’s daughter begin right away, and in John 11 Lazarus is buried on his day of death. According to Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.6, a corpse should be kept unburied overnight only on rare occasions.   “Jesus was buried according to the Jewish custom. The corpse with its mingled blood was wrapped in ‘linen cloths’ and buried. Therefore, the shroud with its blood marks is consistent with the history of how the Jews buried their dead at the time of Jesus.”

Claim:  Additionally, the proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically incorrect, but they closely match the proportions of figures in Gothic art of the fourteenth-century.
Response: Joe Marino: Individual Medical Doctors' Viewpoints on the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin 2021

Starting with French biologist Dr. Paul Vignon in the early 20th-century, most medical doctors who have studied the Shroud believe that the image accurately depicts anatomically and physiologically an actual human body that has undergone the torture of crucifixion. Drs. Robert Bucklin and Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who each studied the Shroud about 50 years each and who performed a combined approximate 50,000 (!) autopsies, both believed that the Shroud image was that of a real, crucified man who died. It seems bizarre that some skeptics will bring up the aforesaid point about a difference of beliefs of where the hand wound was located as if that also practically disauthenticates the Shroud.  It’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of medical doctors believe that it’s not a forgery.

Claim: The bloodstains on the shroud are not consistent with how blood flows naturally, which suggests the stains have been painted on.
Response: Stephen E. Jones: My critique of Borrini, M. & Garlaschelli, L., 2018, "A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Forensic Sciences, 10 July
Conclusion after a careful analysis of the claims in the paper: Borrini and Garlaschelli in their paper set up a strawman of the Shroud and refuted only that. And that they are guilty of either scholarly incompetence, in not being aware of the relevant Shroud literature, or scholarly dishonesty, in being aware of that literature but concealing it from their readers. Or both. They are an example of `the blind leading the blind'
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/08/my-critique-of-borrini-m-garlaschelli-l.html

“A BPA APPROACH TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN” by Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli 
The article presents numerous formal and conceptual errors that deprive it of scientific credibility. First of all, neither author is a forensic physician, so they lack the experience and knowledge necessary to successfully deal with any kind of investigation of human bloodstains. The “experiments” have been conducted on a living and healthy human being, without traumatic wounds of any kind and with a dummy vaguely reminiscent of a human trunk. But if it is not done with a living human being who has suffered the same wounds and the same chronology as the Man of the Shroud, nor with a corpse that meets the same requirements, then the experiment does NOT reproduce, not even approximately, the circumstances in which the bloodstains originated.
[url=https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla EN.pdf]https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Hermosilla%20EN.pdf[/url]

Considerable efforts have been made to demonstrate that the Shroud is a fraud. Many books were written, attempts made to duplicate the image, but what these attempts have achieved is the contrary of the intent. Ini my opinion, the investigations to reproduce the Shroud of Turin only demostrate that the best efforts do not suffice to come even close to the image of the original. The results are far away from the original, very poor and can be easily identified as made by an artist.

All attempts to reproduce the shroud have failed. Copies have been made that look like it but they lack all of the image characteristics that make the shroud image unique. Science cannot explain nor replicate the image..the closest we have come to replicating it (allegedly) is by bombarding linen samples with VUV Excimer Lasers. 

Claim: the fabric of the shroud was made using a complex weave that was common in the Late Middle Ages for high-quality textiles but was not used for burial shrouds in the time of Jesus.
Response: Shroud 1st draft: Rodney Hoare holds an MA in Natural Sciences from Cambridge, and in his book “The Turin Shroud is Genuine” he notes “The specific cotton found within the Shroud, Gossypium herbaceum, is found only in the Middle East. Even more important is the absence of any wool fibers, which certainly would have been present on any European loom. Therefore the Shroud is not of European origin.5

Orit Shamira (2015): Israel The use of wool textile in primary use for burials and shrouds is less common than linen in the Land of Israel and was usually used for shrouds in secondary use. Linen shrouds have been discovered at burials sites in the Land of Israel. Linen shrouds dating from the Roman period have been found also at ‘En Gedi, Gesher Haziv, and Jericho – imprints of textiles were found on bones and skulls; the material used was identified as linen because of an equal number of threads in the warp and the weft. Shrouds were also found at Nahal David and Ze’elim. The best preserved shrouds are from Roman-period ‘En Gedi (2nd-1st centuries BCE, Second Temple period). They were found in eight Jewish tombs on the southern bank of Nahal ‘Arugot and in one tomb on the northern bank of Nahal David. 18

The type of flax used in the shroud of Turin is known as Linum usitatissimum, which is a species of flax commonly grown for its seeds and fibers. This type of flax is native to the Mediterranean region and the Middle East and is believed to have been widely cultivated and used for thousands of years for a variety of purposes, including the production of linen fabric. Research has shown that the shroud of Turin was made of this type of flax, which is not commonly found in Europe but is native to the Middle East. This has led some to argue that the shroud may have been created in the Middle East

Shroud from Jesus' era found, researchers say
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Dec 13, 2023 7:14 am; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

49The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Empty The Image of Edessa Wed Feb 15, 2023 12:53 am

Otangelo


Admin

The Image of Edessa

A community of Iraqi exiles residing in the serene, culturally diverse town of Fairfield near Sydney, Australia, may appear to be distantly connected to the narrative of the Turin Shroud. Yet, this devout Christian congregation, which congregates in a hall named Edessa, has deep roots that intertwine with this narrative. Their church, the Assyrian Church of the East, predates both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. Remarkably, these Assyrians continue to converse in a dialect of Syriac, remarkably similar to the language spoken by Jesus and his disciples. According to their enduring tradition, a disciple named Addai brought Christianity to their ancestors in the then-heathen city of Edessa. Correspondingly, Eastern Orthodox tradition maintains that shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, this disciple transported a mysterious cloth bearing the imprint of Christ from Jerusalem to Edessa. The conversion of King Abgar of Edessa and numerous citizens led to Edessa's distinction as the inaugural Christian city of the world.

This narrative, an amalgamation of Assyrian and Orthodox traditions, sparks considerable debate among scholars. Before delving into these controversies, a common question arises: 'What is the location of Edessa?' The Edessa in question, distinct from its namesake in Macedonian Greece or Odessa in Ukraine, is presently known as Şanliurfa, situated in south-eastern Turkey. In stark contrast to its Christian origins, Şanliurfa, a predominantly Islamic city near the borders with Syria and Iraq, does not outwardly resemble the world’s earliest Christian city. Through modern technology like Google Earth, one can virtually explore Şanliurfa's ancient core, marked by Islamic minarets, but devoid of Christian churches, making it an unlikely destination for American evangelical pilgrims.

However, the history of the Shroud often contradicts surface appearances. If it were possible to navigate through time via Google Earth to the sixth century, we would observe a city adorned with numerous Christian churches belonging to three distinct denominations, each with its theological school. Some of these churches, revered as the oldest in the Christian world, would have been centuries old, attracting pilgrims from distant lands. Among the religious relics, one would find the remains of St. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus, transported from India. Outside the city walls, countless hermit-like monks would be visible. To the Christians of the sixth century, Edessa held a revered status, believed to be divinely blessed by Jesus himself. Our exploration commences with envisioning Edessa during the era of Jesus. Initially termed Orhay in Syriac, its identity was reshaped to Edessa following Alexander the Great's conquests. In the first century, Edessa thrived as a bustling commercial hub, strategically situated at the nexus of two major caravan routes: one traversing eastward to India and China, and the other southward to Jerusalem and Egypt. The cityscape was vibrant with traders in billowing trousers and turbans, bartering silks and spices, speaking a dialect akin to the Syriac used by Jesus and his disciples. Unlike the Jews, these inhabitants, devoted to deities Bel and Nebo, had no reservations about representational art forms. Politically, Edessa functioned as a diminutive buffer state sandwiched between the colossal Roman and Parthian Empires, governed by Arab monarchs of the Aryu or Lion dynasty, successors to Alexander’s conquests. King Abgar V (AD 13–50), ruling during Jesus's time, plays a pivotal role in the narrative of the Image of Edessa and his subsequent conversion. The earliest extant Christian history, penned by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century, recounts King Abgar V’s encounter with Christianity. Suffering from an incurable ailment, Abgar, upon learning of Jesus’s miracles, dispatched a messenger to Jerusalem with a letter pleading for Jesus’s healing presence in Edessa. Jesus, constrained by his destiny in Jerusalem, commended Abgar’s faith, promising to send a disciple post-ascension to heal him and impart the Christian doctrine.

Eusebius asserts the preservation of the correspondences between Abgar and Jesus, along with another Syriac document from the Abgar era, in the Public Record Office. Although these originals have vanished, 19th-century discoveries of early Syriac manuscripts, notably the Doctrine of Addai, corroborate Eusebius’s narrative, despite some anachronistic additions. The promised disciple, revered as the founder of the Assyrian Church of the East, was Addai (referred to as Thaddaeus in its Hellenistic form by Eusebius). His arrival in Edessa, as depicted in the Doctrine of Addai, was marked by a miraculous vision witnessed by King Abgar, leading to the king's conversion and healing. Addai’s subsequent preaching in Edessa catalyzed a wave of conversions, encompassing the Jewish community and even pagan priests. Eusebius and the Doctrine of Addai concur that these events unfolded in AD 30, contemporaneous with Jesus’s crucifixion and predating St. Paul's missionary endeavors by over a decade.

Eusebius and the Doctrine manuscript remained silent on the nature of the 'marvelous vision' uniquely witnessed by Abgar. However, subsequent Eastern Orthodox tradition confidently equated this vision with the Image of Edessa, a cloth bearing the likeness of Christ. Mark Guscin's study of Mount Athos monastic manuscripts, including early versions of the Eastern Orthodox Church's tenth-century narrative, The Story of the Image of Edessa, confirms this association. This narrative details that Addai, donning the Image on his forehead, approached Abgar, who perceived an overwhelming light radiating from Addai's visage, emanating from the enshrouded Image. An eleventh-century manuscript, originating from Stavronikita monastery on Mount Athos and now housed in Moscow (pl. 14b), depicts this scene, albeit without the Image directly on Addai's forehead. Addressing the contentious aspects of this narrative, it is imperative to acknowledge the historical skepticism surrounding the Abgar legend, independent of its tenth-century Edessa Image component. As early as the fifth century, Pope Gelasius (papacy 492-496) declared the purported correspondence between Abgar and Jesus apocryphal, a view that modern scholarship generally upholds. For instance, Jesus's letter, as cited by Eusebius, refers to St. John's gospel, suggesting an anachronistic existence of the gospel during Jesus's lifetime. The letters appear to be early fabrications.

Historically, an Abgar V of Edessa did exist contemporaneously with Jesus, but historians doubt that a king would have converted to Christianity so prematurely without corroborative historical evidence. Aside from church texts like the Doctrine of Addai, no such evidence exists. The destruction of Edessa's records and churches in 1144 following the Turkish conquest, along with the absence of religious imagery on Abgar's coinage, further complicates the narrative. Tacitus's Annals, which provide a rare historical reference, depict Abgar V unfavorably as a duplicitous ruler with a Parthian bias. The dynasty of rulers named Abgar includes Abgar VIII (reigning 179-212), who is occasionally considered the more likely convert to Christianity and potential recipient of the Image of Edessa/Shroud. The Chronicle of Edessa, in its 201 entry, documents a devastating flood in Edessa, damaging a Christian church nave, implying an early presence of Christianity in the city. However, historians often overlook this evidence. A crucial point is Abgar VIII's coinage. Despite Oxford scholar Professor Sebastian Brock initially dismissing the idea of Abgar VIII's Christian conversion due to the lack of Christian symbols on Edessan coins, the presence of a Christian cross on Abgar VIII's head-dress in several coins housed in the British Museum (pl. 15a) led to a reevaluation of this stance. This subtle display of Christian faith, coinciding with the reign of Emperor Commodus, whose wife/mistress Marcia had Christian sympathies, suggests Abgar VIII's Christian leanings as early as AD 192, the year of Commodus's death. An additional piece of historical significance is an ancient, sculpted stone lion, displayed in the outdoor area of the Şanliurfa museum, bereft of any interpretative context. This lion, once a city fountain as indicated by the borehole in its maw, bears a notable Christian cross atop its head, a sight rarely observed in contemporary Şanliurfa. The Syriac term for 'lion' is 'aryu,' which coincidentally is the name of Edessa's royal dynasty. It's plausible that this fountain was erected during the Christian reign of the Aryu dynasty, a lineage that ceased with the Roman annexation in AD 215. This suggests that Christianity had established roots in Edessa during the Abgar dynasty's rule, with one of the kings embracing the faith, likely preceding AD 192, as inferred from the coinage of Abgar VIII.

The question then arises: was it Abgar VIII or his predecessor, Abgar V, who first converted to Christianity and was involved in the story of the Image of Edessa? The circumstances of Abgar VIII's reign don't align with the Doctrine of Addai's narrative, which describes Addai's evangelistic successes in Edessa and its environs, leading to his peaceful death and honored burial in the royal mausoleum. This account is more consistent with the reign of Abgar V, who died in AD 50 and was succeeded by his sons, Ma’nu V and VI. The latter's reign could plausibly account for a reactionary pagan resurgence, fitting the Doctrine of Addai's description, and explaining the brief appearance and subsequent disappearance of the Shroud in Edessa before the composition of the gospels. In contrast, the era of Abgar VIII saw a different trajectory. Following his death, his sole successor, Abgar IX, was swiftly deposed by the Romans, transforming Edessa into a Roman colony, leaving no opportunity for a successor to initiate persecutions against Christians. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Addai does not mention Roman interference in this context, despite Edessa's later history of Roman-era Christian martyrdoms. The historical validity of Addai, the disciple credited with bringing Christianity to Edessa, is often underestimated. As early as AD 190, Clement of Alexandria in his book 'Outlines' referenced Addai’s tomb in Edessa among the burial sites of Jesus's disciples. Considering Clement's lifespan (c. 150-215), it's unlikely he would include a contemporary figure in such a listing. The tomb's location, about six miles from modern-day Şanliurfa, still exists, albeit reduced to mere rubble. Historically, the remains of Addai and Abgar were transferred in 494 to a church in Edessa for safety against Persian raids. In conclusion, while the New Testament of Western Christianity may not mention the custodian of Jesus's Shroud post-crucifixion, Eastern Christianity associates the disciple Addai not only with the transport of a Christ-imprinted cloth to Edessa before AD 192, but also acknowledges him as a tangible, historical figure with a known and recorded burial site.

The proposition that Addai's missionary expedition, bearing the Image and occurring in the first century, albeit unmentioned in the canonical gospels of Western Christianity, gains credibility when juxtaposed with the map of St. Paul’s missionary travels. Paul embarked from Antioch, present-day Antakya in southeastern Turkey, extending his missions up to 500 miles west to Ephesus, further to Malta, and ultimately to Rome. In stark contrast, Edessa, a Syriac-speaking city, is merely 180 miles east of Antioch, positioned along a direct trade route from both Antioch and Jerusalem. It seems improbable that the early Christians would have overlooked Edessa, a geographically favorable and strategic location, during their initial 150 years of missionary work.

This hypothesis is supported by the chronicles from the neighboring kingdom of Adiabene, with its capital in Arbela (now the Iraqi city of Arbil). Arbela’s ecclesiastical history began with Bishop Pkhida, reliably dated to the year 104. Intriguingly, it was Addai who is said to have converted Pkhida, suggesting Addai's ministry in the first century, during the reign of Abgar V rather than in the second century under Abgar VIII. Estonian-American scholar Arthur Voobus argued that if Christianity had reached Adiabene by 100 AD, it is almost certain that Edessa would have embraced the Christian faith before the century’s end. The early arrival of the Image in Edessa is significant because it seemingly disappeared soon after, possibly due to severe persecution of the nascent Christian community, similar to the fate of Addai’s successor, Aggai. This vanishing act is corroborated by two notable observations. Firstly, when the Image was rediscovered in the sixth century, it was evident that it had been intentionally concealed for an extensive period. Secondly, during the reestablishment of Christianity in Edessa, particularly from the time of Abgar VIII onwards, there was no trace of the Image. Instead, Edessa seemed to retain a profound sense of having been divinely favored by Jesus, largely due to the supposed letter to King Abgar, despite its questionable authenticity.

Although this letter was deemed unconvincing by Pope Gelasius and modern scholars, it achieved widespread fame, with numerous copies found across regions like Egypt, Northern Anatolia, Macedonian Greece, and near Edessa itself. This letter even featured in an English Saxon-era service book, positioned right after the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. The variations in the text across different examples and manuscripts suggest the absence of a singular, authoritative version, with later versions, particularly from the fourth century onwards, mysteriously including statements about the city’s blessings and protection from enemies. If the Christ-imprinted cloth, the Image of Edessa, had been present in the late fourth century, a notable historical figure, commonly referred to as Egeria (due to the absence of definitive identification), would have likely documented it. Egeria, a pilgrim from Western Gaul or Spain, visited Edessa between 384 and 394. Given her detailed accounts of her travels, had the Image been in Edessa during her visit, it is highly plausible that she would have sought it out and provided a thorough description.

Egeria's narrative, infused with a conversational charm, recounts her visit to the recently constructed church in Edessa, housing St. Thomas's relics, reputedly transported from India. Welcomed by the local bishop, she proceeded to explore the enduring palace of the Abgar dynasty, admiring stone carvings of Abgar and his son, referred to as 'Magnus' (a reference to Ma’nu). Her journey then took her to the renowned fish pools of Edessa, a tourist attraction from her era that persists today in Şanliurfa. Her final destination was the city gate, where the bishop recited to her the text of Jesus’s letter to Abgar, reportedly engraved on the gate itself, and related a lengthy tale of its miraculous role in shielding Edessa from a Persian military siege. However, conspicuously absent from Egeria's account was any mention of the Image's presence in the city. This silence was echoed by other prolific writers of the era, including St. Ephrem of Edessa, as if the Image had never existed.

Notably, during this pre-sixth century era, closer in time to Jesus than our own, there was a pervasive ignorance regarding Jesus's physical appearance. The gospel authors, notably, omitted any description of his visage. Given the Jewish aversion to imagery, it is highly improbable that a portrait of Jesus was crafted during his lifetime. With the ascension of Christianity as a sanctioned religion of the once pagan Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine the Great, a curiosity emerged about Jesus's appearance. Despite some traditionalist churchmen's disapproval, including the previously mentioned Bishop Eusebius, representational images of Jesus began to gradually appear. One of the earliest instances is a partially preserved fresco from the mid-third century, discovered at Dura Europos, depicting Jesus healing the paralyzed man. Interestingly, this fresco portrays Jesus as youthful, beardless, and with short hair. Another significant example from the fourth century, a mosaic from a Roman villa in Dorset, England, portrays a similarly youthful and beardless figure, identifiable as Jesus only by the monogram near his head. This pattern persisted into the fifth century. Despite a few instances of bearded portrayals, the dominant representation of Jesus was of a youthful, beardless figure, reminiscent of Apollo, as seen in various depictions of his miracles on sarcophagi in the Vatican museums and the Museum of Archaeology in Istanbul. The general uncertainty regarding Jesus's appearance is further underscored by St. Augustine, who, in the same century, referred to the existing portraits of Jesus as 'innumerable in concept and design,' explicitly stating, 'We do not know of his external appearance, nor that of his mother.' It becomes evident that during the nearly half-millennium period when the Christ-imprinted cloth of Edessa was conspicuously absent from historical records, its location shrouded in mystery, there simultaneously existed a notable absence of any authoritative, either textual or visual, depiction of the human visage of Jesus. However, this situation was on the cusp of a dramatic transformation, heralded by an extraordinary rediscovery.


Before its fabled transfer to Constantinople in the year 944, the Image of Edessa had its origins in the ancient city of the same name, known in modern times as Şanlıurfa, situated in Eastern Turkey. Edessa, a significant urban center in Upper Mesopotamia, lay near the contemporary border with Syria. Founded by Seleucus I Nicator in 304 B.C. atop an earlier settlement, Edessa succeeded the waning Seleucid kingdom, coming under the rule of a series of monarchs often named Agbar. Straddling the edges of Roman and Parthian, later Persian, territories, Edessa was caught in the constant tug-of-war for dominion between these two ancient superpowers. The city's historical prominence was marked by events such as the defeat of Marcus Licinius Crassus by the Parthians at Carrhae in 53 B.C. and the infamous capture of the Roman emperor Valerian by Shapur I during the Battle of Edessa in A.D. 260.

The city's most notable geographical blessing was its abundant water supply, a feature still present today in the form of thriving fish pools noted by the itinerant pilgrim nun Egeria in the fourth century. Edessa also served as a critical juncture on the Silk Road and as a passage from Armenia to Southern Mesopotamia. By the late second century, Edessa had cemented its status as a client kingdom of Rome, epitomized by coins minted between A.D. 161 and 169 which bear the title φιλορώμαιος (philoromaios) for King Maʿnu, indicating his alliance with Rome. The subsequent reign of King Abgar VIII, son of Maʿnu, from 177 to 212, is remembered for its numismatic legacy depicting the monarch alongside Roman emperors Commodus and then Septimius Severus. Despite a brief insurrection against Severus, Abgar VIII capitulated and retained his throne until the city's transformation into a Roman colony by Emperor Caracalla in 212/213. The Abgarid dynasty saw a fleeting revival under Emperor Gordian III around 240, but this was short-lived as Edessa reverted to Roman, and later, Byzantine control following the empire's bifurcation in the fifth century.

The advent of Islam brought a pivotal change to Edessa, which capitulated to Muslim forces in 639. This transition, while altering the city's political landscape by erasing the longstanding frontier between Byzantine and Persian empires, also ushered in a period of relative peace for Edessa, no longer a battleground for Eastern and Western powers. Under Muslim rule, Christians retained the freedom to practice their faith, albeit under the conditions of paying the gizya tax, supporting the Islamic state, refraining from proselytizing Muslims, and observing restrictions on public displays of their religious symbols. These provisions became the standard for other Mesopotamian cities that fell under Muslim dominion. Life in Edessa, as in the wider region, continued under a semblance of tranquility, punctuated occasionally by disputes over taxes and instances of persecution that left the Christian community with little recourse, remote as they were from the centers of power. Over time, the Christian presence in Edessa diminished and ultimately vanished, leaving behind scant remnants of its pre-Islamic era, save for the citadel and a few other relics.

Edessa, the city that lent its name to the renowned icon of Christ, continued to be associated with the Image long after the city itself had faded from prominence. The Image of Christ was retained in Edessa for over three centuries post its capitulation to Muslim rule, indicating a period where Christian artifacts were preserved despite the community's subdued existence. This suggests a nuanced interaction with Muslim authorities, who did not engage in indiscriminate destruction of Christian relics. In ecclesiastical history, Edessa is acclaimed for being the inaugural state to declare Christianity as its state religion. Scholars like Tixeront posit that the Abgar legend is intertwined with the dawn of Christianity in Edessa, possibly aligned with the first sermons of the faith in the city. The legend, with its historical implications, supports this assertion, but it doesn't necessarily extend to the precise origins of the Image or the reputed correspondence between Christ and Abgar, assuming the latter is not contemporaneous with Jesus. Christianity likely found its footing in Edessa before the Image's arrival, as it's improbable the Image was present prior to the religion's establishment; without the context of Christianity, the Image's presence would lack purpose. Regrettably, absent any early records of the Image in Edessa, its antecedent history remains elusive.

Regarding Edessa's official embrace of Christianity, it is generally believed to have occurred under the reign of a different Abgar—Abgar VIII the Great (177-212). By his time, a Christian church was evidently active in Edessa, and the renowned scholar Bardaisan, a contemporary of Abgar VIII, likely adopted Christian tenets within his philosophical musings. The presence of Christian heretical sects like the Valentinians and Marcionites towards the second century's close also denotes an earlier foundation of the religion in the city. Tixeront conjectures that Christianity's first evangelization in Edessa happened around 160 to 170 A.D.

During the reign of Abgar VIII, there is numismatic evidence of Christian symbolism, with coins from this period bearing the cross. A bronze coin from 179-192 A.D. in the Ashmolean Museum notably features Abgar donning a tiara adorned with a cross. Similarly, a statue situated in the garden of the Historical Museum in Şanlıurfa, thought to be from Edessa, conspicuously displays a Christian cross. These artifacts testify to the early and visible presence of Christianity in the region. Christianity, having taken root in Edessa by at least the second century, was further affirmed by the association of the Image of Christ with the city, underscoring the religion's esteemed position there. Edessa was also a center for theological discourse, particularly on the nature of Christ within the Miaphysite tradition, which flourished alongside other regions like Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and Ethiopia. Miaphysites, often conflated with Monophysites by their detractors, maintained that Christ's nature was united as both human and divine, as opposed to the Monophysite view of a singular, predominantly divine nature. The theological debate was complex, as demonstrated by the contrasting interpretations of Cyril of Alexandria's writings. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the orthodox stance articulated Christ's dual natures—human and divine—which seemed to diverge from Cyril's earlier assertion of one incarnate nature of God. However, this apparent contradiction could be contextualized as a response to specific heretical claims at the time, rather than a comprehensive doctrinal statement.

The Image of Edessa entered this debate as a tangible affirmation of Christ's humanity. The human visage of Christ, believed to be miraculously self-imprinted on the cloth, was a powerful testament to his incarnation. It was argued that this image, representing Christ's entire person, encapsulated both his human and divine natures. This interpretation, however, may be anachronistic, projecting later theological understandings onto an object revered for its more straightforward, immediate proof of Christ's humanity. The veneration of the Image in Edessa, particularly within Miaphysite Christianity, implies a recognition and acceptance of Christ's human nature. Without this acceptance, the Image would not have achieved such prominence in Edessa's religious life.

The Image of Edessa emerges as a significant relic amidst theological discussions, yet its precise origins remain shrouded in mystery. Various scholars have put forth myriad hypotheses concerning where, when, and how the Image came into existence, but none have succeeded in presenting a universally compelling account. Consequently, a reassessment of both historical and contemporary sources is crucial to shed light on this enigma. The "Narratio de imagine Edessena," a text detailing the history of the Image, situates its creation during the lifetime of Jesus, specifically before his crucifixion, aligning with the consensus of numerous other accounts. The "Narratio" presents two narratives about the Image's inception: the traditional tale involving King Abgar of Edessa, who dispatched a messenger to capture Christ's likeness but instead received a cloth with Jesus' visage miraculously imprinted on it, and an alternative account placing the event in the Garden of Gethsemane, where, according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus' face was imprinted on a cloth given to him as he sweated blood. Indeed, there was a monarch named Abgar who ruled Edessa during the time of Christ, often identified as Abgar V, with a reign from approximately 13 to 50 A.D. This king, part of a lineage that shared the same royal name, is also referenced by the historian Tacitus, though his depiction therein is less than favorable.

The narrative of the Image of Edessa gains prominence amidst the backdrop of the city's history. Tacitus recounts an episode involving Abgar, the king of the Arabs, who, through deceit, delayed a young prince in Edessa, thereby altering the course of political events. However, the existence of King Abgar, contemporary with Jesus, does not substantiate the early origins of the reputed cloth bearing Christ's image. Mirković offers a succinct perspective, suggesting the portrait of Jesus associated with the Abgar legend only gained significance after the mid-sixth century, casting doubt on the idea that Eusebius deliberately omitted any reference to such a portrait in his accounts. The earliest mentions of the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, which later eclipsed the importance of the letters themselves, are devoid of any reference to the Image, thus providing little support for a first-century provenance. The oldest known written version of the Abgar legend comes from Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," dating events to the year 340 of the Seleucid era or around AD 30, close to the time of the crucifixion. Eusebius makes no mention of a physical image of Jesus in his rendition of the story, despite claiming his narrative is drawn from documents in Edessa translated from Syriac—claims which cannot be verified.

Following Eusebius, the next significant text comes from Egeria, a nun from the northwest of Spain who chronicled her pilgrimage to holy sites in the late fourth century. Egeria recounts the Abgar story as told by the bishop of Edessa, including the letters exchanged with Jesus, which she received copies of. These copies from Edessa purportedly contained more content than those she had at home, possibly including the promise that Edessa would be protected from enemies—a promise which seemed to be recognized in Edessa, as the bishop's retelling of Abgar's prayer during a Persian attack suggests. In sum, while the Image of Edessa is entwined with the city's Christian heritage and associated with miraculous legends, the earliest records do not corroborate the existence of a physical image from the time of Christ. Without further archaeological or textual discoveries, the true origins of the Image remain an intriguing but unresolved chapter in the history of early Christianity.

The discussion here revolves around the historical account of Egeria, a traveler and writer from the 4th century, and her record of the legend involving King Abgar and Jesus Christ. Egeria's account is noted for certain omissions, such as no mention of Abgar’s illness, the character Ananias in Jerusalem, or an image or portrait of Christ. This has led to debates among historians and scholars about the implications of her silence on these matters. Andrew Palmer, a scholar in this field, argues that Egeria's silence on the image or portrait of Christ should not be seen as definitive proof of its non-existence. He points out that travel literature can have curious omissions, citing Herodotus's failure to mention the Sphinx despite describing the surrounding pyramids. Palmer suggests that the image of Christ might be older than some historians, like Runciman and Averil Cameron, believe. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, a text from the early 6th century, makes no mention of the Abgar-Jesus correspondence or the Image, but it does reference a promise from Christ to protect the city of Edessa. This absence in the writings of Eusebius and Egeria presents a challenge for those arguing for the image's existence before their time.

The image of Christ first appears in a Syriac work known as the Doctrine of Addai, dating around AD 400. This text, also called Labubna, is believed to defend orthodox beliefs in Edessa and is linked to Jesus's first apostle sent to the city. In the Doctrine of Addai, Abgar’s messenger Hanan, identified as Ananias in Eusebius's account, is portrayed as an artist who paints a portrait of Christ, differing from the later belief that the image was not made by human hands. The "Chronicle of 1234" also mentions this tradition, stating that the image was initially intended to be on wood but was ultimately transferred onto cloth. In summary, the debate centers around the historical veracity and interpretation of various accounts regarding an image or portrait of Christ linked to King Abgar. The differences in these accounts and the absence of certain details in some texts like those of Egeria and Eusebius contribute to ongoing scholarly discussions about the origins and nature of this image in early Christian traditions.

The concept of Edessa as an impregnable city emerges from the narrative of Jesus' purported reply to King Abgar, as detailed in the Doctrine—an early text where the letter begins to be seen as a talisman or charm. This notion of divine protection was also echoed in a correspondence from Darius to Augustine in 429, where it was conveyed that God not only healed the king but also promised enduring safety for his city, a pledge of perpetual immunity from foes. A notable divergence between Eusebius' rendition and the Doctrine of Addai is the nature of Jesus' response to Abgar. In the Doctrine, the reply is oral and includes a vow that Edessa would never succumb to adversaries, while Eusebius records a written response from Christ. This variation underscores the evolution of the legend, illustrating how elements such as the painted portrayal of Christ and the written reply underwent transformation in subsequent retellings, eventually solidifying around the motif of a miraculously created image and a written letter of great import. The Doctrine's significance is further highlighted by its early reference (around 400 A.D.) to a depiction of Christ, serving as evidence of the legend's dynamic progression. The Image of Edessa is also cryptically alluded to in a Syriac hymn from the first half of the sixth century, commemorating the dedication of Edessa's new cathedral after the original was ravaged by floods in 525. The verses describe an "image not made by hands," but scholars such as Drijvers and Whitby interpret these lines as metaphorical, referring to the natural designs in the marble of the church walls rather than a literal, miraculous icon. This interpretation suggests that the hymn does not, in fact, reference the Holy Face, the acheiropoietos icon, but instead celebrates the inherent beauty and perceived sanctity of the church's construction materials. In the scholarly analysis of a particular strophe translated by Andrew Palmer, there's a focus on the interpretation of a Syriac verse related to an image not made by hands. Palmer's translation reads as follows: the marble is imprinted with an image not made with hands, suggesting a divine or supernatural aspect to it. The walls of the structure, possibly a reference to a church or a significant building, are described as being clad in this marble, which shines with a brightness resembling sunlight or a reservoir of sunlight. The crux of the debate lies in the original Syriac text's lack of a definite article before the phrase “image not made by hands.” This omission leaves open the interpretation of whether the marble is compared to "an image not made by hands" or "the image not made by hands.” The latter would directly reference the famous Image of Edessa, believed to be a miraculous imprint of Christ's face. In contrast, the former could imply a more general comparison to any divine or miraculous image.

When comparing this to the dedication hymn of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, no mention of such an image is found, suggesting that the Syriac verse could be unique in this aspect. The interpretation challenge arises in understanding whether the comparison is purely physical or more abstract, relating to the miraculous or divine origin of the objects. The argument extends to the cultural and religious context of sixth-century Edessa, where any mention of an image not made by human hands, especially in such a significant city in early Christian history, would likely invoke thoughts of the Image of Edessa, or the face of Christ. This understanding would be almost instinctive among the contemporaries, making any such reference in Edessa heavily loaded with this implication. The interpretation of this Syriac verse hinges on the nuances of the language and the cultural-religious context of the period. The debate centers on whether the verse subtly references the famous Image of Edessa, a miraculous imprint of Christ's face, or if it draws a more general comparison to divine or supernatural imagery.

The ‘Concealment’ Phase c.30 - c.525 AD

For Christians of the first millennium, the Image of Edessa was profoundly significant because it was believed to carry a true likeness of Jesus Christ, not created by an artist but through a unique imprint directly from Jesus himself. This concept, known as 'acheiropoietic' (meaning "not made by human hands"), is emphasized in early historical accounts. Evagrius, writing in the 6th century, is the first Greek historian to mention the Image, highlighting its miraculous origin. A century later, Andrew of Crete echoed this sentiment, noting that the Image's creation involved no painting or artistic intervention. The perception of the Image of Edessa during this period was of a powerful and authentic representation of Jesus, holding immense authority and mystique as a physical manifestation of humanity's savior. Its origins were a source of great wonder and speculation. Surprisingly, many esteemed scholars, including Steven Runciman and Averil Cameron, have focused their research on the Image predominantly through written records, potentially overlooking the insights that could be gleaned from artistic depictions of Jesus from the same era. This study aims to adopt a more inclusive approach, considering these contemporary artworks to gain a fuller understanding. It also seeks to identify various artistic and historical phases through which perceptions and understandings of the Image have evolved in significant and intriguing ways.

Only lightly to be addressed here will be the difficult question of whether the Image could have had its genesis as far back as the first century amidst the dealings between Jesus and Edessa’s ailing toparch Abgar V that are described in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. As a genuinely conscientious and reliable historian, Eusebius, writing circa 325 AD, claimed to have consulted in Edessa’s Record Office a collection of original Syriac documents relating to Edessa’s evangelization by Jesus’ disciple Thaddeus (in Syriac, Addai), shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion. The historicity of such an evangelization seems plausible: Jesus, his disciples, and the Edessans spoke a similar brand of Aramaic/Syriac, and there is a Syriac-speaking community today claiming direct evangelization by Addai. Nevertheless, whatever the true date of the Edessan source documents, the written exchange between Abgar and Jesus, Abgar’s healing of his disease, and Edessa’s subsequent evangelization are the high points of Eusebius’ narrative. Any awareness of the Image’s existence is entirely absent from his account. Similarly, when around 394 AD the lady pilgrim Egeria traveled to Edessa, she made no mention of it in her detailed memoir, despite her keen observational nature, as noted by historian Runciman. The late fourth century/early fifth century Syriac Doctrine of Addai does mention an image of Jesus, a conventional portrait that Abgar’s messenger Ananias painted on his master’s behalf, which Abgar then displayed in his palace. This could be considered the earliest historical mention of the Image, suggesting that the story of what began as a conventional artwork became embellished and divinized by later writers - a stance most modern critics take. However, most scholars agree that the Doctrine of Addai seems like a late elaboration of the same early documentary sources that Eusebius consulted earlier, even adding to Jesus’ letter a blessing of Edessa and promise of eternal protection. The Doctrine’s mention of the Image may be seen as a vague memory of some Jesus portrait that existed at Edessa, with no current whereabouts known. Corroboratively, fourth and fifth century artists’ depictions of Jesus show no indication of any authoritative likeness influencing them. Beardless depictions resembling the Graeco-Roman god Apollo are common, such as the fourth century mosaic Christ face from Hinton St Mary, Dorset, and similar depictions on sarcophagi, caskets, and Roman catacomb wall-paintings. Bearded versions from this period, like the late 4th century wall-painting in Rome’s catacombs of Commodilla, are rare and notably vague. St. Augustine of Hippo described the Christ portraiture of his time as ‘innumerable in concept and design,’ confirming the absence of any strong guideline for Jesus’ human appearance. This continued into the early sixth century, as seen in beardless depictions at the Basilica of S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna.

The ‘Discovery’ Phase c. 525-944

In the early stages of its history, known as the 'Discovery' phase, the Image of Edessa was first referenced in Greek records as an existing object during the siege of Edessa by Khosrow I Anushirvan, the Sassanian 'King of Kings', in 544 AD. This reference comes from Evagrius, who mentions the Image's role as a protective symbol for the city. Contrary to later claims, Evagrius does not suggest that the Image was discovered during this siege, and other sources, including recently uncovered Georgian manuscripts, imply an earlier emergence. These manuscripts reveal that in the early part of the 6th century, a group of Assyrian monks, led by St John of Zedazeni, embarked on a mission to evangelize Georgia. Among them were Theodosius of Edessa and Isidore of Hierapolis, each associated with an image of Christ - the former with the Image of Edessa and the latter with a similar image on a tile, known as the Keramion of Hierapolis. This evidence suggests that both the Image of Edessa and the Keramion were known and revered by the time of this mission. Despite the lack of contemporary documents detailing the exact circumstances of their discovery, the arrival of the Image in Constantinople around 944 AD prompted Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos to investigate their origins. In his work, the Narratio de Imagine Edessena, Constantine describes an almost archaeological discovery of the Image and Keramion, found in an arch-shaped niche above one of Edessa’s gates, hidden there during a period of Christian persecution centuries earlier. Although certain elements of this story, like the bishop's name Eulalios and the specific timing during the Sassanian siege, are questionable, the consistency of representing the Image over archways in later art supports some historical accuracy in this narrative. Interestingly, during this phase, neither the Image of Edessa nor the Keramion were depicted as they would be known later - as the face of Christ on cloth and a tile, respectively. Initial references, such as those by St John Damascene, describe the Image as imprinted on cloth, but it wasn’t until after 944 AD that artistic representations align with this description, marking a significant shift in the portrayal and perception of these revered objects.

It appears highly improbable that the emergence of objects as visually authoritative as the Image and the Keramion would not have significantly influenced artists' representation of Jesus’ facial likeness prior to 944. The body of surviving Christian art from this period, despite the widespread destruction during the Iconoclastic controversy, clearly supports this. During this era, without any specific verbal guidance, Christ likenesses in art abruptly and confidently adopt the long-haired, long-nosed, distinctively bearded appearance that is universally recognized as Jesus’ human appearance today. These artist-made ‘true likenesses’ are also perceived as possessing a remarkable power and wonder in their own right. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People records that in 595 AD, Augustine of Canterbury, evangelizing Anglo-Saxon England, used ‘the likeness of our Lord and Saviour painted on a board’ with ‘power from God’ to convert the Mercian king Ethelbert of Kent. Similarly, the likenesses of Christ that St. John of Zedazeni’s missionary monks attempted to create in Georgian monasteries were believed to have strange, quasi-supernatural properties. Even the massive circular mosaic face of Christ created for the basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome was rumored to have floated into place overnight.

These phase II likenesses of Christ, while collectively establishing a new distinctive bearded appearance, can be categorized into three variants, each with its own authority:

The Splayed Hair variant features Christ’s sidelocks splayed at a near 45-degree angle on either side of his head, with a rounded, somewhat pointed beard. Examples include the Christ Enthroned mosaic at S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna; the face of Christ painted in a cistern at Salamis, Cyprus (6th century); and a roundel of Christ’s face on a Ss Sergius and Bacchus icon (6th century).
The Curly-Haired variant is relatively rare, characterized by short, curly hair and a matching beard. Examples are a fresco in a burial-crypt at Abu Girgeh near Alexandria, Egypt; a miniature of Christ Enthroned with Saints in the Rabbula Gospels, Laurentian library, Florence; and the ‘Rex Regnantium’ Christ portrait on gold solidi of Byzantine emperor Justinian II’s second reign (705-711 A.D.).
The Asymmetrical Hair variant has Christ’s left sidelock hanging over his left shoulder, while his right sidelock is swept over his back, out of sight. The beard is full and blunt. Examples include the Christ Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine’s monastery, Sinai; the Christ Pantocrator fresco in the catacomb of S. Ponziano, Via Portuensis, Rome (8th century); and the ‘Rex Regnantium’ Christ portrait on gold solidi from the last three years of Byzantine emperor Justinian II’s first reign (692-695 A.D.).

During this significant phase in the history of the Image of Edessa, it is not surprising that at least three variations of the new bearded type of Christ's image emerged. The Image of Edessa, as previously discussed, appeared alongside the Keramion tile, which bore a miraculous likeness of Christ. This likeness was believed to have been formed during its close association with the cloth Image. However, a more plausible theory suggests that the Keramion was actually crafted by a ceramicist. It is thought to have been initially displayed on a gate of Edessa during a time when the city was favorably disposed towards Christianity. Such practices of displaying images of gods over city gates were common in the region. Later, when Edessa reverted to pagan practices, the Keramion, along with the cloth Image, was likely removed and concealed in the same hidden location. If this hypothesis holds true, then it can be assumed that the artistic style of the Keramion was influenced by the Parthian culture, which was dominant in Edessa before the third century. This influence is particularly evident in the 'Splayed Hair' variant of the Keramion, which closely resembles other surviving Parthian artistic works. This connection to Parthian art offers a compelling insight into the cultural and historical context in which these revered images were created and venerated.

Christ Likenesses 6th Century to 944

The Splayed Hair variant

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Full
6th century mosaic, S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Ggggg10
6th century wall-painting, Cistern, Salamis, Cyprus

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Gggggg11
6th century icon, Ss. Sergius & Bacchus (detail), St. Catherine’s, Sinai

The Curly Hair Variant, arguably deriving from the Christ-likeness on the Image of Camuliana

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Nnm144_126b

Wall-painting, Abu Girgeh, Egypt

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Screenshot-2023-01-16-at-9.27.11-am



The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Image120
6th century manuscript illustration, Rabbula gospels

The Asymmetrical Hair Variant, arguably deriving from the Christ likeness on the Image of Edessa

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Image711
6th century icon, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Ponzia10
6th century wall-painting, Ponziano Catacomb, Rome

According to numismatic scholar J.D. Breckenridge, the Curly-Hair variant of Christ’s image likely originated from the Image of Camuliana, which was among the most popular of several images competing with those from Edessa and Hierapolis. This emergence seemed to be a response to the latter's success. Notably, just as the Camuliana Image did not endure the Iconoclasm period, the Curly-haired variant similarly faded from art.

In summary, it appears that the Splayed Hair variant was inspired by the Christ likeness on the Keramion, and the Curly-Hair variant was influenced by the corresponding likeness on the Camuliana Image. Furthermore, the Asymmetrical Hair variant, which is prevalent in numerous post-944 depictions of the Image of Edessa as a face on cloth (part of Phase III), strongly indicates that this variant was derived from the Christ likeness on the Image of Edessa.


The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Holy_k10
Fresco depicting the Holy Keramion (Ceramic Tile) which the image of Christ was transferred, Visoki Dečani monastery, Kosovo, Serbia (ca. 1335).

Guscin: The Tradition of the Image of Edessa Link



Last edited by Otangelo on Mon Dec 25, 2023 6:31 pm; edited 10 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Are the mandylion and the Shroud the same artifact?

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t166

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t167
https://shrouduniversity.com/schneider5part.php


The Image of Christ which was preserved for centuries in Edessa, the capital city of Osrhoene,2 was called Mandylion ( ‘towel’) only after its translation to Constantinople from Edessa in the year 944.

The term "tetradiplon," meaning "doubled in four," arises from descriptions in early Christian texts, notably the "Acts of Thaddeus," part of the Abgar legend. This term has led to significant speculation about its connection to the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud, when folded in such a manner — in eighths or 'doubled in four' — would prominently display the face of the image it bears, which mirrors the facial features found in Byzantine iconography. The correlation between "tetradiplon" and the Shroud of Turin becomes particularly interesting when considering the halo in Byzantine art. The halo, or nimbus, is a visual element used in art to denote holiness, sanctity, or divinity and is commonly seen in depictions of Christ and other sacred figures. In many Byzantine icons, Christ is depicted with a halo that often contains a cross within it, sometimes with the Greek letters Ο Ω Ν (representing "The Being" or "I Am"), indicating Christ's divine nature. Now, if we look at the Shroud of Turin and the way the image of the face appears when the cloth is folded "doubled in four," it's possible to draw parallels with this iconic halo. The natural folds and creases of the cloth could be seen as framing the face in a manner similar to a halo in iconography. The "topless square" between the eyebrows, a notable feature on both the Shroud and in some icons, can be interpreted as a representation of the cross within the halo, further tying the image on the Shroud to traditional Byzantine depictions of Christ. The connection between the "tetradiplon" and the Shroud of Turin, when aligned with Byzantine iconography, suggests that the Shroud influenced the way Christ was depicted in art during the Byzantine period. This influence was both direct, through the image itself, and indirect, through the theological implications of an image "not made by human hands" that affirmed Christ's dual nature as human and divine, as decreed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. This duality is central to the Christian understanding of Jesus and is consistently reflected in the art of the period, possibly informed by the actual viewing of the Shroud, folded to show just the face, resembling the haloed heads of Byzantine icons. This hypothesis posits that the Shroud's role extended beyond being a mere relic; it was a template that defined the most sacred elements of Christian iconography, particularly the way in which the divine nature of Christ was visually represented.

In the 1st century, Edessa—now Urfa in southeast Turkey—was a culturally diverse kingdom, a melting pot of Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Arabic, and Jewish communities. By the 6th century, it became a hub for a burgeoning Christian populace. Historians concur that Christianity's influence in Edessa solidified in the late 2nd century during the reign of Abgar VIII, known as "The Great." The discovery of a church sanctuary from 201 AD supports this. However, Edessan Christian scribes of the 3rd century traced the gospel's arrival back to the 1st century, attributing it to Addai, a disciple of Jesus, and King Abgar V. This is detailed in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," which mentions a correspondence between Abgar and Jesus, including a celebrated letter allegedly preserved in Edessa's archives. This tale was further embellished in "The Teaching of Addai" (TA), a 4th or possibly early 5th-century text. Here, Abgar communicates with Jesus through the messenger Hanan, who is tasked with creating Jesus' portrait, which he does and presents to Abgar, who receives it joyfully. The historicity of TA is debated; it's seen by many scholars as a blend of fact and fiction, containing anachronisms typical of a later period. The Edessa Image's ancient references are scarce, leading to speculation about its existence and identification with the Shroud of Turin. Fourth-century church father Ephrem makes no mention of it, and while some scholars suggest it never existed in ancient times, others propose it was simply not widely known.

An intriguing hypothesis has been presented regarding the Shroud of Turin, particularly put forth by Ian Wilson in 1978. Wilson suggested that the famed portrait of Christ in Edessa was actually the Shroud of Turin, ingeniously folded to display only the face. This image was revered in Edessa as a miraculous depiction of Christ's face. After its transfer to Constantinople in 944, it is proposed that only a select few "privileged persons" came to realize its true form as a burial shroud, encompassing a full, bloodied image of Jesus' body. In Constantinople, the cloth is believed to have been eventually unfolded and presented as the actual burial shroud of Christ. This exposition continued until the Shroud's disappearance in 1204, during the sack of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders. The hypothesis concludes that this same shroud later resurfaced in Lirey, France. To visualize this theory, imagine an image showing what the Edessa Image might have looked like, with the Shroud of Turin folded in such a way to reveal only the face of Christ.

The discovery of a HALO around the head of the Man on the Shroud of Turin in different photographs and two other details in the neck area under the beard are a strong indication that the theory of historian IAN WILSON, that the Cloth of EDESSA and the Shroud of Turin are one and the same, is most probably correct. These details are being found also regularly in icons and mosaics portraying the face of Jesus Christ in the Byzantine Empire as of the VI-th Century A.D., showing that artists had access to the Cloth of EDESSA and copied very truthfully the details that they encountered.

Edessa, originally a small kingdom established by the Nabataeans, is located in what is now Turkey. It wasn't until 202 A.D. that the kingdom officially embraced Christianity, following the conversion of King Abgar IX. However, by the late 2nd century A.D., Edessa was already a hub for various Christian sects. During this period, Christianity was in the process of consolidating its doctrinal texts, and debates about the nature of Christ were fertile grounds for the emergence of new "heresies." In this environment, apostolic churches like those in Rome or Antioch, founded directly by prominent Apostles, became doctrinal reference points. They represented a sure and authentic Christian doctrine. Having a church established by a direct disciple of Christ conferred significant authority upon its bishop, especially in theological disputes with other Christian groups. For the church in Edessa, affirming its roots in the apostolic age was crucial to bolster its standing in the Christian world. It is within this context of religious contention that the Abgar legend likely emerged in Edessa, probably towards the end of the 3rd century A.D. The earliest known written account of this legend is by Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, in the early 4th century A.D. He narrates the story of Abgar V, a king of Edessa during Christ's time, who experienced a miraculous healing and converted to Christianity through the efforts of Addaï, a disciple sent by Jesus after his resurrection. Eusebius claimed to base his account on Syriac documents that he supposedly consulted directly in Edessa's city archives and translated into Greek. These documents, as per Eusebius, included an authentic letter from Christ to King Abgar, which was purportedly delivered by Addaï.

« King Abgar being afflicted with a terrible disease…sent a message to him(Jesus) by a courier and begged him to heal his disease. But he did not at that time comply with his request; yet he deemed him worthy of a personal letter in which he said that he would send one of his disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time promised salvation to himself and all his house. Not long afterward his promise was fulfilled. For after his resurrection from the dead and his ascent into heaven, Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, under divine impulse sent Thaddeus, who was also numbered among the seventy disciples of Christ, to Edessa, as a preacher and evangelist of the teaching of Christ. »    Eusebius Pamphilus (Bishop of Caesarea), « The Ecclesiastical History », Book I, Chapter XVIII. Translated from the original by Rev. C.F. Cruse, A.M. - Published by R. Davis and Brother, Philadelphia, 1840.

The history of the Mandylion, also known as the Image of Edessa, is deeply intertwined with the early Christian history of Edessa, a city that served as a cultural and religious melting pot in the first century. The legend of King Abgar V of Edessa and his correspondence with Jesus is a cornerstone of this history, documented in various texts including Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History" and the later "Teaching of Addai." These sources describe how Abgar, afflicted with illness, sought healing from Jesus, who replied with a letter and, according to later traditions, sent an image of his face imprinted on a cloth. Ian Wilson's research into the Shroud of Turin suggests it may be the Mandylion, historically revered as a miraculous image "not made by human hands." Wilson speculates that the Shroud was folded to display only the face, in line with the description of the Mandylion as "tetradiplon" - folded in four - a term unique to this relic. The discovery of Georgian texts at St. Catherine's Monastery corroborates the Shroud's presence and veneration in the region, with accounts of Assyrian monks, such as Theodosius of Edessa, evangelizing with icons in the 6th century. The significance of the Edessa Image persisted through centuries, with the 7th-century Nestorian Christians in Edessa describing the city as sanctified by the image of Christ's face. By the 8th and 9th centuries, the narrative solidified around the image being safeguarded by the orthodox Christian community, with stories of its copies being made and revered. The Edessan cathedral, rebuilt as Hagia Sophia, housed the Mandylion in a sanctuary, revealing it annually in a ceremony emphasizing its "incomprehensible power." The secrecy surrounding the Mandylion, its limited display, and the divine fear it inspired are mirrored in the veneration of the Shroud of Turin in later centuries.

The Shroud's historical trail is uncertain for its first 1300 years, raising questions about its authenticity as the true burial shroud of Jesus. However, Wilson's theory posits the Shroud as the Mandylion, suggesting it was brought to Edessa by a disciple of Jesus and later to Constantinople. He hypothesizes that the Shroud was known only as the face image in a frame for the first millennium, with its full nature as a burial cloth revealed later. The legend of the Mandylion outside the Bible holds it as the "first icon," revered in Eastern Orthodoxy. This narrative, which evolved over time, includes accounts of the Mandylion's rediscovery after a flood and its eventual transfer to Constantinople. The legend served to affirm the dogma of the Incarnation and played a role in the defense of the two natures of Christ within the church. While the Mandylion and the Shroud of Turin have often been conflated, historical analysis suggests they were distinct relics, with the Shroud being one of several relics in Constantinople before the 13th century. The precise relationship between the Mandylion and the Shroud remains a subject of scholarly debate, with no consensus on whether they are the same object.

The Abgar legend

The legend of King Abgar and the Image of Edessa stands as a significant narrative in the traditions surrounding early Christian relics. It tells of King Abgar who, afflicted with an ailment, supposedly corresponded with Jesus Christ, seeking healing. According to the legend, Jesus sent an image of His face to Abgar, which came to be known as the Image of Edessa. However, this story is not substantiated by historical evidence and is generally considered a legend rather than fact. The account was declared apocryphal by the Decree of Gelasius in the late 5th century, and early Christian scholars such as Augustine and Jerome emphasized that Jesus did not leave behind any physical writings or images. The argument by the historian Tixeront suggests that the language used in the supposed letters between Abgar and Jesus resembles the wording from the Gospel texts of Matthew and Luke, indicating that the letters were likely composed after the Gospels were written, using their text as a template. This revelation indicates that the narrative about Abgar's correspondence with Jesus and the subsequent creation of the Image of Edessa was a later invention, possibly created to inspire faith or reinforce the burgeoning Christian tradition of venerating holy images. It reflects how legends can often be rooted in earlier texts or beliefs, evolving over time to serve the needs of a developing religious culture. The narrative that King Abgar of Edessa wrote to Jesus, and received a reply, bearing an image, is now understood to be a later construction, likely apocryphal in nature. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the language in the letters echoes text from the Gospels, suggesting a post-Gospel composition. The letter attributed to Jesus includes phrases that closely resemble passages from John's Gospel, revealing direct literary influences. The presence of phrases such as "it is written about me" within Jesus' alleged reply to Abgar is an anachronism that further discredits the letter's authenticity. Such language implies the existence of Gospel writings during Jesus' lifetime, which is historically inaccurate. Despite scholarly dismissals based on textual evidence, the legend of Abgar's correspondence with Jesus persisted as truth well into the Middle Ages and beyond, reflecting a popular desire to root the Christian tradition of Edessa in the apostolic era. This desire particularly aimed to honor the conversion of King Abgar IX, who was an early adopter of Christianity around A.D. 216. While historical accuracy does not support the miraculous or supernatural elements of the story, the legend's enduring appeal has had a significant impact. The reply of Christ to Abgar, revered as a talisman, became a lasting aspect of the lore surrounding the Image of Edessa, maintaining its prominence in tradition long after the physical image itself had faded from memory. The resilience of this legend underscores the power of narrative in sustaining religious devotion and cultural heritage.

Eusebius of Caesarea

The oldest known version of the Abgar legend is found in Eusebius' "Ecclesiastical History," written in the early fourth century. This account differs from later iterations, dating the events to A.D. 30, based on the Seleucid calendar. Unlike later versions, which place Abgar's interaction with Jesus just before the crucifixion, Eusebius' version doesn't specify the timing as precisely. Eusebius doesn't identify who Jesus sent to Abgar, though he mentions elsewhere that it was Thaddaeus, one of the seventy-two disciples sent by Thomas. Notably, Eusebius' account lacks any mention of Jesus promising to protect Edessa from enemies, a detail likely added later when Edessa became a Roman border city near Persian territory. Eusebius asserts that his narrative is drawn from documents in Edessa, translated from Syriac, though this claim's authenticity remains uncertain. Importantly, these records, as Eusebius knew them, did not reference any physical image or portrait associated with the story. This omission raises questions about the existence or recognition of such an image during Eusebius' time, as later claimed in the "Narratio de imagine Edessena." The reliability of the "Narratio de imagine Edessena" as a historical source is debated, given its lack of external corroboration. In Eusebius' tale, when Thaddaeus meets King Abgar, a remarkable vision appears on his face, a detail the "Narratio" interprets as a light emanating from an image placed over Thaddaeus' face. It's unclear if Eusebius intentionally omitted the image or if his source material did not include it. The "great vision" he mentions could either be a subtle nod to the image or an unrelated detail later adapted by the author of the "Narratio." If Eusebius did omit the image, it suggests he did not associate the vision with it, or possibly overlooked this aspect in his narrative.

The Doctrine of Addai

"The Doctrine of Addai," a Syriac text dating around AD 400, introduces the Image in the story of Abgar, a significant evolution from Eusebius' earlier account. This text, also known as Labubna, after its purported scribe, aimed to affirm orthodox Christian beliefs in Edessa, tracing them back to the city's earliest apostolic connections. In this narrative, Abgar sends Hanan (possibly Ananias from Eusebius' account) to Jesus. Contrasting Eusebius, where Ananias is merely a messenger, the "Doctrine of Addai" elevates him to a prominent court official, a scribe, and an artist. Hanan creates a portrait of Christ, bringing it back to Edessa, marking the first appearance of the Image in this legend, albeit in a different form from later descriptions. The "Doctrine of Addai" also expands the story with Jesus promising to protect Edessa from enemies, a concept absent in Eusebius' version. This promise, later mentioned in a letter from Darius to Augustine in 429, implies divine protection for the city, contributing to the letter's perception as a talisman or charm. Differing from Eusebius' written response from Jesus, the "Doctrine of Addai" presents Jesus' reply to Abgar as an oral message, with similar content but including a new promise of perpetual protection for the city. This evolution from a written to an oral response marks another key difference between the accounts of Eusebius and the "Doctrine of Addai."

Here’s the relevant part of the text : 

« Hannan was not only archivist, he was also the king's painter. When he saw that Jesus spake to him like this, he painted a likeness of Jesus with chosen paints, and brought it with him to Abgar the king, his master. And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honour in one of his palatial houses. After the Ascension of Christ, Judas Thomas sent to Abgar Addai the Apostle, one of the seventy-two disciples. ».

In the period following the Council of Constantinople, it appears highly likely that the Church of Edessa introduced the concept of Christ's portrait to support and affirm the newly established dogma of Christ's dual nature, especially emphasizing his human aspect. This move was likely aimed at countering heretical views by reinforcing the belief in both the divine and human natures of Christ through the use of a physical representation.

The Acts of Thaddaeus

In the Greek text of the Acts of Thaddaeus, dated by Palmer to between A.D. 609 and 726, and published by Lipsius, there are notable additions to the earlier version by Eusebius, believed to be made towards the late fourth century. The Acts narrate the story of Lebbaios from Edessa, who journeyed to Jerusalem during John the Baptist's ministry. Baptized and renamed Thaddaeus, he becomes one of the twelve disciples. The Acts recount Abgar's story similarly to Eusebius, with minor adaptations in the king's letter to Christ. Ananias, as in the Synaxarion, is instructed to meticulously record Christ's appearance. In a manuscript variation noted by Lipsius in Vindobonensis bibl. Caesar. hist. gr. 45, dated to the ninth or tenth century, this description extends to Christ's entire body, suggesting Abgar wanted a complete depiction. The Acts introduce the concept of the Image being on cloth, referred to as "tetradiplon" and "sindon." Contrasting other accounts, Jesus' response to Abgar is brief and oral, focusing on his mission to suffer, resurrect, and uplift humanity. He promises to send his disciple Thaddaeus to enlighten Abgar and his city, guiding them to truth. This version simplifies and alters the message, integrating the Image on cloth into the narrative.

Is it possible to claim that this Mandylion was a burial shroud folded « 4 time double », bearing traces of blood and the image of an entire body?

The transformation of the Edessa Image from a painted portrait to a miraculous image purportedly made by Christ himself played a crucial role in the unification of both the Church and the Byzantine Empire. This miraculous image allowed for diverse interpretations, resonating with people of varying beliefs.

In the "Acts of Thaddeus," a 7th-century Greek text part of the Abgar legend, the creation of the miraculous image is described. According to this text, Jesus washed his face with a cloth, and his image was miraculously imprinted onto it:

"And He, knowing the heart, asked to wash Himself; and a tetradiplon was given to Him; and when He had washed Himself, He wiped His face with it. And His image being imprinted upon the linen, He gave it to Ananias, saying: 'Give this, and take back this message, to him who sent thee: Peace to thee and thy city!'"

In only one version of the "Acts of Thaddeus," the term "tetradiplon" is used to describe the cloth. This word combines the notion of "four" and the concept of "folded in two." In other versions of the text, the cloth is referred to as "strips of cloth" or a "handkerchief."

An important insight into the interpretation of this term comes from a 10th-century Arab text, which illuminates the translation from Syriac of a word related to the image's aspect:

"Hannan, who was a painter ... took a square board and painted on it Our Lord the Christ, may He be glorified, in nice and beautiful colors." This description suggests a physical representation, possibly influencing how the image was perceived and its characteristics described in various texts. The term "square" in Arabic shares a common root with the Syriac word “mbr’,” which translates to "four." This linguistic connection provides an interesting insight into the translation of the "Acts of Thaddeus." The Greek translator of this text encountered the same Syriac term used by the Arab author, but instead of translating it as "square," it was rendered as "tetra," meaning "four." Given that both the Greek and Arabic terms reflect the same Syriac expression, it is plausible to infer that either the medium or the image itself described in these texts was "square" in shape. However, it is truly possible that the cloth used as a support of the image could have been for exemple folded in two or folded twice in order to be more easily inserted in the ancient square reliquary. In this setting, the 10th-century Codex Vossianus Latinus presents a distinctive variation of the Abgar legend. In this version, Christ sends to the king a towel that bears not just the image of his face, but also the depiction of his entire body.

« If you want to physically see my person, I am sending you this towel on which you can see not only the appearance of my face, but the state, printed miraculously, of my whole body.. » 3

The story might be a post-hoc invention to explain the presence of a Christ image in Edessa. The TA could reflect a faint memory of an early Christian evangelization and an image that, due to persecution, was hidden and its history obscured. While its ancient existence is uncertain, evidence of the Edessa Image in the 6th century is more substantial. Evagrius' account from around 595 describes Edessans using the image, believed to be divinely created and not made by human hands, to miraculously save the city from a Persian siege. By the 6th century, the image was revered as the "Holy Image Not Made With Hands of Edessa." It shifted from being seen as man-made to being a divine imprint. The "Acts of Thaddaeus" narrate a version where Jesus imprints His face on a cloth, the rakos, after washing Himself. Ian Wilson, upon studying the account, found that the term tetradiplon, used to describe the cloth, was unique to the Edessa Image. He theorized that by folding the Shroud of Turin in a specific way, one could recreate this four-layered appearance, with only the face visible, mirroring early artistic representations of the Icon. This insight offered a new perspective on the Shroud's history and its possible connection to early Christian art.

The "Acts of Thaddaeus," is dated to the sixth or early seventh century. Notably, it describes the creation of the Image as a result of Jesus washing himself. More intriguingly, the cloth on which the Image was imprinted is described using the term 'tetradiplon' – meaning 'doubled in four'. This term is unique in Byzantine literature and appears exclusively in reference to the Image of Edessa, suggesting an unusual method of folding the cloth.

Experimenting with this concept using the Shroud of Turin offers an interesting perspective. If a full-length photographic print of the Shroud is folded in half and then folded in half twice more, it results in eight segments, or doubled in four, as per the sixth-century description. Folding the Shroud in this manner reveals that the face appears isolated on a landscape-oriented cloth, closely matching the later artistic depictions of the Image of Edessa. This correlation suggests a possible physical connection between the Shroud and the historical descriptions of the Image of Edessa.
This method of folding would transform the Shroud's lengthy fourteen feet into a more manageable size of approximately twenty-one inches by forty-five inches, prominently displaying the most significant part: the face. Considering the dim lighting of a church interior, where bloodstains might not be distinct in color, it's conceivable that the face on the cloth could have been perceived as having a watery origin, as described in the sixth-century "Acts of Thaddaeus."

Additionally, the "Acts of Thaddaeus" not only uses the term 'tetradiplon' to indicate a large cloth but also the word 'sindon' — the same term used in the synoptic gospels to describe Jesus’s burial shroud. This term's usage in various documents from the period hints at the Image of Edessa being a large cloth rather than a small hand-towel. While this doesn't necessarily imply that the Image was recognized as Jesus’s burial shroud at that time, it does confirm that it was considered a large piece of cloth.

Moreover, there is a further compelling indicator from the same era suggesting the Image of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are one and the same. In the seventh century, a new wave of Pantocrator-type depictions of Christ emerged, influenced by the Image of Edessa. One such depiction is found in the St. Ponziano catacomb in Rome’s Trastevere district. This depiction, similar to the Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, influenced by the Image of Edessa, contains a unique detail: a geometrical shape resembling a topless square between the eyebrows. Artistically unusual, it could be interpreted as an unnatural furrowed brow. However, the same feature appears on the Shroud face, likely a flaw in the weave. This suggests that an artist, over fourteen centuries ago, saw this feature on the cloth known as the Image of Edessa and replicated it in his Christ Pantocrator portrait. This small detail serves as a clue linking the depiction of Jesus in this artwork to the cloth we now know as the Shroud of Turin.

Egeria

Egeria, a nun from possibly northwest Spain, undertook a pilgrimage to holy sites in the late fourth century. Her journey, partially documented, included a visit to Edessa, where she heard the story of Abgar from the local bishop. Egeria's records, incomplete as they are, mention the letters exchanged between Abgar and Jesus. The bishop reportedly read these letters to her and provided copies (likely not the originals). Egeria noted that the letters in Edessa were more detailed than those she already possessed. However, the specific content of these expanded letters, possibly including the promise of invincibility for the city, remains unknown. In her surviving account, Egeria doesn't mention Thaddaeus/Addai in relation to Abgar's story, nor does she refer to Abgar's illness or Ananias in Jerusalem. Her record's incompleteness means no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these omissions. Crucially, Egeria's account contains no mention of an image or portrait of Christ. This absence suggests that neither the bishop nor others in Edessa were aware of such an image. While some infer from this that the Image of Edessa did not exist at Egeria's time, this conclusion isn't necessarily accurate. It could indicate that the Image was simply unknown to them, possibly hidden or lost, as described in the "Narratio de imagine Edessena." However, the lack of written records before the tenth century about the Image being hidden complicates this theory. The "Narratio's" account of the Image's history before its sixth-century (re)discovery might have been fabricated to trace its origins back to Christ's time. But the absence of a pre-sixth century history of the Image, constructed four centuries later, doesn't confirm its sixth-century origins. It only highlights that the true origins of the Image are shrouded in history's uncertainties.

Procopius

In the mid-sixth century, Procopius wrote about the failed Persian assault on Edessa. Notably, he doesn't mention any miraculous involvement of the Image in the city's defense. Procopius observes that the original versions of the letter between Jesus and Abgar didn't include the promise of the city's invincibility. He comments, somewhat sarcastically, that since the populace believed in this promise, it was as if God honored it to avoid undermining their faith. Drijvers argues that Procopius' silence on the Image implies its non-existence at that time, countering the belief in miracles. Meanwhile, scholars like von Dobschütz and Runciman see a historical basis in the legend. Evagrius Scholasticus, writing later in the sixth century, recounts how Christ's portrait protected Edessa during the Persian attack in AD 544. He assumes his readers are familiar with the Image but doesn't delve into its origins or arrival in Edessa. This account, found in Book IV, chapter 27 of his history, appears to build on Procopius' narrative, notably adding the Image's miraculous role in igniting wood underground – the earliest historical reference to the Image in Edessa. While Procopius describes challenges in lighting the fire during the siege, Evagrius focuses on the Image's miraculous intervention, omitting some details. Whitby notes that the miracle of the Image is seamlessly integrated into Procopius' account of the defenders' struggles.

The Oxford and Cairo Fragments of the Abgar correspondence

The Oxford Bodleian Gr. Th. b 1 and Cairo 10 736 papyrus fragments present a distinct version of the Abgar correspondence, albeit in a deteriorated state. These fragments, identified as parts of the same document and dated to the sixth or seventh century, were studied by Rolf Peppermuller, leading to several insights:

This version predates those of Eusebius and the current form of the Doctrina Addai.
The text is not a mere replication of Eusebius' work.
While sharing perspectives with the Doctrina Addai, the papyrus texts are not exact translations, evidenced by notable differences.
Compared to the papyrus, the Doctrina Addai contains both additional material and omissions, suggesting the papyri derive from an earlier Syriac source now lost.
The existence of a Greek version of the legend, independent of Eusebius, suggests a more complex history of the Abgar legend than previously thought. Despite the varying versions, Eusebius' account has exerted the most significant influence over time, largely due to his stature as a historian rather than the inherent authority of his text. The discrepancies in the correspondence as noted by Egeria further imply that there was no singular, authoritative original of the Abgar legend. From its inception, the story was subject to alterations and adaptations, with Eusebius' rendition becoming the 'standard' largely due to his reputation.

Regarding the depiction of the Image, in one version, Abgar, the king of Edessa, sends an artist to paint Jesus, but due to the divine brilliance of Jesus' face, a direct portrayal is impossible. Instead, Jesus imprints his image onto a large cloth, sending it to Abgar. In another account, if Jesus declines Abgar's invitation, messengers are instructed to capture his likeness on cloth, leading to a miraculous imprint of his image. This version transforms the Image from a human-created painting to a divine imprint. The Letter to Emperor Theophilus, often attributed to John Damascene but dating a century after his death, also mentions the Image. In this letter, Jesus wipes his holy form onto a sudarium, sending it to Abgar through Thaddaeus. This account implies that the Image was formed not just from Jesus' face but also from the divine sweat, raising questions about its similarity to the Narratio de imagine Edessena, where the Image forms when Jesus wipes his face in Gethsemane. The use of the term sudarium, typically meaning a sweat cloth, might have inspired this interpretation.

The Nouthesia Gerontos

This text, predating 787 and possibly written before 770, is among the few surviving from the First Iconoclasm period. It offers a unique take on the Abgar legend:

The narrative begins with the widespread renown of Jesus and his miracles. Abgar, the king, filled with a desire to see Jesus, sends messengers with a plea for Jesus to visit, expressing belief in Jesus as the light and glory of nations. Jesus, responding that he was sent only to the house of Israel, declines the invitation. However, Abgar instructs his messengers to bring back an exact likeness of Jesus if he refuses to come. Unable to create an image through artistic means, Jesus, observing their faith, takes a linen cloth and places it on his undefiled face. Without the use of paint or other materials, his image miraculously imprints onto the cloth. He then sends this cloth back to King Abgar, blessing him, the messengers, and the city of Edessa, fortifying its foundations. This account, as told by the God-bearing father Ephraim in his writings, emphasizes the divine nature of the image’s creation, highlighting its miraculous origin without the aid of human artistry. The cloth used for the imprint is specifically noted as linen. This version of the legend differs from later accounts, especially in the oral nature of the messages between Jesus and Abgar and the brevity and content of the communication. The focus is on the supernatural creation of the image, a departure from the traditional artistic portrayal, marking it as a divine imprint on a linen cloth.

The Narratio de imagine Edessena

The extensive version of the Abgar legend, attributed within the text to Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, represents one of the most detailed accounts of this narrative. Von Dobschutz challenges the direct authorship of the emperor, suggesting it was more likely penned by a courtier under Constantine's supervision. However, Patlagean sees no reason to dispute the emperor's authorship. Regardless of who precisely wrote it, the content of the text holds paramount importance.

Paul Hetherington notes that the author likely witnessed the arrival of the image in the Great City on 15 August 944, possibly conversing with those who escorted it. This text, integral to the Narratio de imagine Edessena, was incorporated unchanged into Symeon Metaphrastes' Menologion. Understanding the distinctions between the Menologion, Synaxarion, and Menaion is crucial. According to Noret, the Menologion provides a comprehensive account of a saint’s life or events of a particular day, with Symeon Metaphrastes' version being the most renowned. The Synaxarion offers a condensed version of these stories, as seen in the shorter rendition of the Image of Edessa narrative compared to the more detailed Menologion account. The Synaxarion's brevity sometimes results in missing context, as evidenced in its account of the discovery of the Persians’ tunnel in Edessa. The Menaion differs from both, serving as a liturgical calendar with hymns organized by date rather than subject. Some manuscripts blend excerpts from the prose Synaxarion with the hymns for specific days. Metaphrastes, in the latter half of the tenth century, expanded and detailed many earlier hagiographies in his Menologion. Christian Hogel notes significant structural changes in Metaphrastes’ reworkings, including uneven distribution of texts across months and fewer texts dedicated to Mary. The fact that Metaphrastes left the Narratio de imagine Edessena untouched in his Menologion for 16 August implies either the unavailability of further details or his satisfaction with the existing account. Hogel suggests that the voluminous Menologion was later condensed into a more practical version at Mount Athos shortly after the founding of the Megistes Lavras in the mid-tenth century. This likely marked the origin of the Synaxarion, with numerous manuscripts found in Athos libraries. The Narratio de imagine Edessena, therefore, stands as a key text in understanding the evolution and dissemination of the Abgar legend through various historical and liturgical documents.

Christianity in Edessa

Acknowledging the Narratio de imagine Edessena and the Synaxarion as factual would imply that Christianity was established in Edessa soon after Christ's crucifixion. However, the correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar, as described in these texts, is generally not considered authentic. This casts doubt on the idea of such an early emergence of Christianity in Edessa.

While legends often have a kernel of truth, however distorted, a King Abgar did rule Edessa during Christ's lifetime. The more widely accepted view, though, aligns the official adoption of Christianity in Edessa with the reign of Abgar VIII the Great, who ruled from AD 177 to 212. Notably, some coins from this period show Abgar VIII wearing a tiara adorned with a cross, suggesting his Christian faith.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Abgar%2BVIII%2Bcoin

A coin from the reign of Abgar VIII, featuring a Christian cross on his headgear, was likely minted during the reign of the Roman Emperor Commodus (177-192 AD). This suggests a period of religious tolerance. While there may have been earlier Christian rulers in Edessa, such as Abgar V, it is Abgar VIII who is recognized as the first king to openly embrace Christianity. 1

A Christian church certainly existed in Edessa during the time of Abgar the Great. Bardaisan, a contemporary philosopher and poet of Abgar, likely held Christian beliefs or at least integrated elements of Christianity into his own philosophies. By the end of the second century, the presence of Christian heretics such as Valentinians and Marcionites in Edessa indicates that Christianity had been established there earlier. Tixeront suggests that Christianity was first preached in Edessa around AD 160 to 170. Segal proposes the possibility of a Jewish mission in the first century AD having successfully influenced the region. He links the Jewish tradition of affixing a mezuzah (a small piece containing scripture attached to doorframes) to the legend of the Jesus/Abgar correspondence being attached to the city gates. Although this theory appears somewhat speculative, it could provide some context for the emergence of the legend. It is more probable that the letters and the Image became widely acknowledged first, and a story was later fabricated to trace their origin back to Christ's time. This does not necessarily negate the possibility of a pre-sixth-century origin for the Image. While there is strong evidence of Christianity in Edessa from the mid-second century, the early history of Christian origins in the city remains largely elusive and open to interpretation.

It is plausible that Christianity, which rapidly spread across the Roman Empire, could have reached an area close to Palestine like Edessa, where a similar dialect was spoken. We can highlight the geographical proximity of Edessa to significant Christian centers, noting that it is just 180 miles from Antioch, compared to the much further distances to Ephesus, Rome, and Spain. If Christianity had gained followers in the mountain village of Hadiab by the early second century, it is reasonable to believe that Edessa and Osrhoene, located on key routes connecting Arbel and Syria, would have embraced Christianity by the end of the first century. The discussion then shifts to whether the arrival of Christianity in Edessa is directly linked to the arrival of the Image (assuming it did not originate in the city). The two events don't necessarily coincide; Christianity could have arrived earlier among the populace or officially, independent of the Image. The presence of the Image in Edessa, or its origin there, seems improbable without a Christian presence in the city. This leads to an uncertain conclusion: while it's unlikely that the Image existed in Edessa before Christianity arrived, it could have been brought there anytime between the establishment of the religion and the sixth century. Thus, determining when Christianity took root in Edessa provides limited insight into the origins of the Image.

Why this painted image was transformed into an image « not made by human hands? 

In Edessa, the painted portrait of Christ was not regarded as having been created through divine intervention or possessing miraculous "protective powers." Instead, it was the letter from Christ, with its blessing on the city, that was believed to explain Edessa's successful defenses against Persian attacks in 503, 540, and 544 A.D. This belief was echoed by Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea in 550 A.D.

Yet, at the end of the 6th century A.D., another historian, Evagrius, offered a different perspective on the Persian attack of 544 A.D. According to him, the victory was attributed to the Image of Edessa, which he described for the first time in the Abgar legend as "the image that has not been made by the hand of men." This new element in the legend likely emerged from a confluence of existing beliefs and events:

The divine protection granted to Edessa in Christ's letter to King Abgar was symbolically "transferred" to the portrait displayed in the city, which then came to be regarded as a "palladium," or protective relic.
A specific incident during the battle, as described by Procopius, involved water reviving fire "with greater activity than oil would have," leading to associations of this event with divine intervention and the image.
The concept of a miraculous Christ image gained credibility due to an earlier event in 503 A.D. in the nearby town of Amid, where a different portrait of Christ was believed to have "delivered the city to the Persians because of its sins," setting a precedent for such beliefs.
Additionally, the presence of a miraculous image in the town of Kamuliana by the end of the 6th century, which was later moved in 574 A.D., reinforced this notion. The Byzantine victory over the Persians was then attributed to this transferred image.
These various factors combined to enhance the perception of the Image of Edessa as a miraculous and divinely protected icon within the evolving Christian tradition.
This image was uniquely described as being "made by miracle, and not by the craft of Embroiders or Painters." Such a characterization set a precedent for the acceptance of the Edessa Image as an icon "not made by human hands."

Moreover, there's evidence that challenges the theory suggesting the Image of Edessa was discovered during the collapse of a city wall in the flood of 525 A.D. Notably, a testimony predating this event, specifically before 439 A.D., mentions an eyewitness visiting Edessa specifically "to receive a blessing from the image of Christ that was present there." This account indicates that the image was known and venerated in Edessa well before the mid-5th century, contradicting the later discovery hypothesis. 2

THE ORIGINS OF THE IMAGE

To date, there is no definitive or universally accepted theory about the origins of the Image of Edessa. Various books and articles exploring this topic have proposed different sources, dates, and reasons for its existence, but none have emerged as conclusively more persuasive than the others. The best approach remains to examine and analyze the available sources, both ancient and modern, for insights into the Image's origins. The Narratio de imagine Edessena, one of the primary sources on the subject, dates the Image's creation to the time of Christ, specifically before his crucifixion. Notably, the Narratio presents two versions of how the Image came to be. The first and more common version involves King Abgar sending a messenger to capture Jesus' likeness, but instead, Jesus miraculously imprints his facial features onto a cloth and sends it back. The second, less typical version, sets the imprint event in the Garden of Gethsemane. In this narrative, Jesus, while sweating blood, wipes his face with a cloth, which miraculously captures his visage.

The historical existence of a King Abgar in Edessa during the time of Christ is widely acknowledged. This Abgar, likely ruling from AD 13 to 50, is even mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus, albeit in a negative context. In his writings, Tacitus recounts a situation where Abgar's actions influenced political events and decision-making in Edessa, portraying him as a somewhat manipulative figure. However, the mere historical presence of King Abgar in Edessa during Jesus' lifetime does little to substantiate a first-century origin for the Image. It's essential to consider other factors and evidence beyond the coincidence of Abgar's reign to draw more concrete conclusions about the origins of the Image of Edessa.  The first known textual reference to the Image of Edessa appears in the "Doctrine of Addai," dating to around AD 400. Eusebius, while aware of the supposed correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar, does not mention the Image in his works. In the "Doctrine of Addai," Abgar sends envoys, including the faithful archivist Hanan (Ananias in Greek versions), to Eleutheropolis with letters. Upon receiving a response, they journey to Jerusalem, witnessing Jesus' activities and the plotting against him. As an archivist, Hanan meticulously records everything they observe. Upon their return to Edessa, they relay the events to King Abgar, with Hanan reading out his detailed account. This ignites a desire in Abgar to meet Jesus himself, but he is unable to travel through Roman-controlled areas outside his jurisdiction. Abgar’s letter to Christ, largely similar to later versions, seeks healing for an illness and invites Jesus to Edessa. In this account, there's no request for a portrait if Jesus is unable to visit. Jesus responds orally, not in writing, promising to send a disciple after his ascension (the disciple remains unnamed, unlike in later texts), and assures Edessa's invincibility against enemies.

The "Doctrine of Addai" then diverges significantly in its mention of the portrait: Hanan, also the king's artist, paints a portrait of Jesus and presents it to Abgar, who receives it joyfully and honors it in his palace. This portrayal of events raises questions about the relationship between the "Doctrine of Addai" and the document Eusebius might have seen in Edessa's archives. Tixeront believes the "Doctrine of Addai" is the text Eusebius saw, albeit with minor modifications. However, the "Doctrine of Addai" includes Jesus' promise of Edessa's invincibility, a detail later omitted but restored in subsequent versions. Tixeront suggests Eusebius accepted the correspondence's authenticity but not the invincibility promise, leading to its removal. The mention of the portrait in the "Doctrine of Addai," absent in Eusebius' account, complicates this theory. Tixeront argues that since Egeria saw the letters but not the Image during her visit, the Image must not have been in Edessa then, implying it was a later addition to the "Doctrine." This conjecture highlights the challenges in asserting that Eusebius' source was the "Doctrine of Addai." The suggestion that the additional elements in Eusebius' text, specifically the promise of invincibility and the inclusion of the Image, are early instances of the story's embellishment over time is a more reasonable explanation. These additions likely represent the beginning stages of how the narrative evolved and expanded as it was retold.

THE IMAGE OF EDESSA IN ART

The Image of Edessa, while not having any surviving copies from its time in Edessa, remains a significant subject in art. Andre Grabar notes the lack of these early copies, attributing it to the Semitic population's preference for the letter from Christ to Abgar over painted art, unlike the Greeks, who focused more on the Image itself. An early artistic representation of the Image of Edessa is found in Saint Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t142

This icon is divided into four sections. In the upper left, Thaddaeus is depicted in a white robe, and opposite him is Abgar, wearing a dark blue tunic, both identified by inscriptions. Abgar is shown holding a small cloth bearing the imprinted head of Christ. This cloth appears to have been given to him by a figure on his right, likely Ananias. Below Thaddaeus and Abgar are figures of Paul of Thebes, Antonios, Ephraim the Syrian, and Basil. The icon comprises two wings of a triptych joined together after the central part was lost. The central portion likely depicted the actual Image of Edessa, with the top half showing the Image and the lower half featuring standing figures similar to those under Thaddaeus and Abgar. The cloth in Abgar’s hand is probably a smaller version of the larger Image depicted in the lost central section. The facial depiction on the miniature differs from later portrayals of Christ's face on the Mandylion, being somewhat rounder. the Sinai icon is dated to the mid-tenth century and suggests an intriguing possibility: the portrayal of Abgar may be modeled on Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This artistic choice could symbolize Constantine as the new recipient of the Mandylion, aligning him with King Abgarus in the role of protector and preserver of this revered Christian relic.

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Iczne_11

One of the most notable Western European copies of the Mandylion is housed in the Cathedral of Laon, north of Rheims. This representation, painted onto two pieces of pinewood, measures 44 x 40 cm. It was sent to Laon from Rome in 1249. According to Andre Grabar, this icon could date from any time between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. The Abgar story and the Image of Edessa have been held in high esteem in Georgia, evidenced by the inclusion of the letters in the New Testament alongside the gospels. In 1989, remnants of a painting titled "Holy Face of God" were found in the Church of the Holy Cross at Telovani, dated to the late eighth or early ninth century, a period when the Image was still believed to be in Edessa. 

The Shroud of Turin:  Christ's Evidence of the Resurrection - Page 2 Sem_t143

From the eleventh century, the Mandylion became a common feature in Georgian churches. A depiction of both the Mandylion and Keramion (the tile onto which the Image was transferred according to many versions of the story) is found in the Vatican Biblioteca Apostolica Cod. Ross. Gr. 251f I2'. The manuscript portrays the cloth on the left with tassels and the tile on the right, ingeniously painted to resemble a mirror image of Christ's face. The miniature bears the title "atX6Cxs5 atvsuμatitxai." Another well-known miniature of the Image of Edessa is in the thirteenth-century Codex Skylitzes (f. 131), located in Madrid's National Library. The miniature, titled "to aytov itavbvXtov," depicts the emperor receiving and holding the Image to his face, presumably to kiss it. The scene shows two cloths: a smaller white one with tassels, bearing Christ's face, and a larger reddish-pink cloth held in folds by the messenger. The relationship between these two cloths remains ambiguous.

Robin Margaret Jensen provides a detailed description of Jesus' face as depicted in copies of the Mandylion. The portrayal features Christ with a gaze that directly meets the viewer, situated beneath prominently defined brows and a high forehead. His nose is depicted as long and slender. Below it lies a small mouth, situated beneath a slightly drooping mustache. The beard is distinctive, coming to two sharp points. His hair is styled with a center part, flowing down to his shoulders.

WHAT WAS THE IMAGE OF EDESSA

If we consider the story of Abgar sending a messenger to Christ, and Christ imprinting his face on a cloth, as purely legendary, then the Image of Edessa, in a certain sense, never truly existed. However, the reality is more complex. There indeed was an object referred to as the Image of Edessa, which was transported from Edessa to the Byzantine capital in the tenth century and remained there until the early thirteenth century. The fact that its origins are rooted in legend doesn't negate the existence of the object itself.  The Liturgical Tract, a document concerning the Image, suggests it was deliberately kept from public view to enhance the sense of mystery and religious awe surrounding it. Von Dobschütz dates this text to shortly after the Image's arrival in Constantinople and believes it to be based on an earlier Syriac original. This implies that the rituals described might reflect practices from Edessa. The lack of direct public access to the cloth likely contributed to the limited and vague descriptions of its appearance, making the task of understanding it challenging. The term 'eikōn' is consistently used in texts referring to the Image of Edessa. This Greek word, often translated as 'icon', is deliberately rendered as 'image' here to avoid the implication of a painted artifact. The choice stems from a desire to prevent any misinterpretation since the Image of Edessa is not typically described as a painted image, except in the Doctrine of Addai. The Septuagint uses 'eikōn' in the creation narrative to signify a likeness or similarity, not necessarily a painted representation or the exact essence of something else. In the New Testament, 'eikōn' has dual meanings: it represents the emperor's likeness on a coin, as well as the visible essence of something, such as in 2 Corinthians 4:4. For the Image of Edessa, 'eikōn' should be understood in this latter sense.



1. Abgar VIII #3
2.  Text cited in « Transformations of the Edessa Portrait of Christ” - Sebastian Brock, Oxford University – He based his work on the manuscript: Paris, syr. 235, f.166r. See “Revue de l’orient Chrétien-Deuxième série-Tome
V(XV)-Paris” for the translation of the complete text in French.
3. E. Poulle, dans un article « Les sources de l’histoire du Linceul de Turin», Revue d’histoire Ecclésiastique, Vol. 104 (2009), N°3-4, page 767



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Dec 22, 2023 1:31 pm; edited 31 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum