The Shroud of Turin

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

The Shroud of Turin May 26, 2019 15:19:24 GMT

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:19:24 GMT

The Angelus - November 1989

The Shroud of Turin

(The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?)

Last May in The Angelus, an article on the Shroud of Turin pointed out how some scientists were actually trying to hide the truth concerning the shroud. The following article is the first in a series that examines the Shroud in depth: its history and description; science's investigations; and finally the actual wounds. It was written by our good friends at the St. Ignatius Retreat House in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Part 1

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1898, at an exposition of the Shroud of Turin, an Italian lawyer, Secondo Pio, was granted an unusual permission to take a picture of it. After developing the photographic plate, Secondo Pio naturally expected to see a negative image. But instead he saw the print; the positive, the actual picture of a man's face, which was believed by the Church to be the face of Jesus Christ.

This discovery, whose reverberations still continue until today, had a tremendous impact on the scientific world, since many scientists and other skeptics persisted in their disbelief in the authenticity of the Shroud. The detailed medical, historical, art, and scientific investigations followed. The new era of significant discoveries surrounding the identity of the image of the man on the Shroud was ushered in.

With marvelous irony the Shroud's secrets were "saved" for many centuries until modern times of agnosticism and atheism, when for the first time in man's history these secrets could be unveiled by means of the very science with which the skeptics have tried to deny the existence of the supernatural, or miraculous, or even the existence of God.

But what is the Shroud of Turin, and what are its remarkable qualities? Is it indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, as popes and millions of faithful have believed before us, or is it some skillful forgery from the Middle Ages, as the skeptics have generally maintained? In the following presentation, the results of miscellaneous investigations along with a very brief description of the Shroud's likeness and history will be offered for the benefit of the reader; to help him make a comparison between the evidence given below and the attempts of skeptics and unbelievers to discredit the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. He can then objectively decide whether the Shroud of Turin is genuine or not, and whether Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was buried in it.

II. DESCRIPTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SHROUD

A. Description

"The Shroud is 14 feet, 3 inches (434.3 cm.) long, and 3 feet, 7 inches (109.2 cm.) wide. It is a single piece of linen bearing the imprint of a double image—the front and back of a strongly built man. The image was apparently formed after the man was laid with his back on one end of the linen, with the other end being then put over the front part of the man's body. The image itself is difficult to discern clearly, and strangely enough, it becomes even more difficult to see the closer one comes to it—the image seems to melt away. On the other hand, the image comes out clearly when viewed from a distance or when photographed.

"The image is that of a tall (5 feet, 11 inches [181 cm.]), well-built, and bearded man whose estimated weight was 175 pounds (79.5 kg.). His age is between 30-35 years. The physical features clearly belong to the Jewish or Semitic racial group. Judging by the multiple wounds of scourging and the crucifixion marks on the image, it can be said with certainty that the man whose body was wrapped in the Shroud was severely scourged and subsequently crucified."

B. History of the Shroud Ownership

1. From the Middle of the 14th Century to the Present

Image of the front of Jesus' Body on the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud made what seemed to be its first appearance in about 1355 in the small town of Livey, in France. It was shown by the Geoffrey de Charny family, but the exhibition lasted only a short time, being stopped by a local bishop, Henri of Poitiers, who apparently did not believe it to be genuine. It was not seen again until 34 years later. But it was again branded by a local bishop, Pierre D'Arcis, as a forgery. However, there are reasonable doubts (see CCR, March '89 issue) about the condemnation both bishops allegedly made. Nevertheless, it is certain there was some opposition to the Shroud, because afterwards it was described only as the "likeness, or representation" of the Shroud of Jesus by its owners for the next 60 years. This was to avoid opposition to its exposition for the adoration of the faithful.

In 1453, the Shroud's ownership passed to the House of Savoy, and it was under Savoy's ownership that the Shroud gained its reputation as the true burial cloth of Jesus. With the support of Pope Sixtus IV, who believed it to be genuine, the dukes of Savoy built a special chapel for the Shroud in Chambery, France, in 1464. Later in 1506, Pope Julius II authorized the public cult to be given to the "very Shroud in which the Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped and laid in the tomb." Then in 1578, the Shroud was moved to Turin, Italy, where, except for six years during World War II, the Shroud has been ever since.

2. From the Middle of the 14th Century to the Time of the Death of Jesus

Until recently it has appeared, or rather, it was made to appear that there were no known records of the Shroud prior to the year 1355. However, in the last decade or so, the whereabouts of the Shroud have been traced to the time of the death of Jesus.

a. The Period From 1204-1355

From the time of the destruction of Constantinople in 1204 to about the year 1355, it has been established (cr. CCR, March '89) that after the fall of Constantinople the Shroud found its way to the monastery of Casole in Athens, Greece. Later on it passed into the possession of the Charpignys, who became allied to the de Charnys through marriage. It was then Agnes de Charpigny who brought the Shroud to Vostitza in France, and who later married Dreux de Charney, the older brother of Geoffrey de Charney, at the beginning of the 14th century. In 1355 the Geoffrey de Charney family publicly displayed the Shroud as stated above.

b. The Period From the 7th Century to 1204

The next period of the Shroud's existence extends during the 7th century to 1204, during which time it was venerated in Constantinople (the 7th-8th century), then in Edessa (the 8th-9th century), now called Urfa in Turkey, and back again in Constantinople in 944. When the Shroud arrived in Constantinople in 944, which has been historically fixed, it was called, "one-not-made-by-human-hands" by the Greeks, or the Image of Edessa, or the Mandylion. But whether it is called the Shroud of Turin or any of the above names, it has been sufficiently documented by Ian Wilson, a British historian (see his book, "The Shroud of Turin") and by others before; such as Paul Vignon (the professor of biology) in France in early 1900, or a French soldier, Robert de Clari, who described the image as he saw it in Constantinople shortly before the city's destruction. And after came others, such as Daniel C. Scavone, the professor of History at the University of South Indiana, and especially, a deciphered Greek manuscript containing the description of the Image of Edessa by Gregory, archdeacon and administrator of Santa Sophia church in Constantinople, where the Shroud was venerated. It exactly matched the present day Shroud of Turin. All these different names refer to one and the same image.

c. The Period From the Death of Jesus to the 6th Century

Lastly, it is believed (cf. CCR, March '89) that the Shroud was kept in Jerusalem from the death of Jesus until the 6th century. It was in Jerusalem where the first copies of Jesus' face were made. Some of the first copies are extant: the two images kept in Italy and the so-called Veil of Veronica. They all bear evidence of being copied from the Shroud.

C. History of Byzantine Art

Ian Wilson, in his study of Byzantine art, clearly demonstrated that, starting from the 6th century, the image of Jesus on all mosaics, frescos and icons became strikingly uniform and also bore a strong resemblance to the face of the on the Shroud. The remarkable resemblance consisted in corroborating in all of these representations a number of prominent and unusual marks which were common to all, and identical with the same marks on the face of the man on the Shroud. In the process of comparing the images one to another and with the Shroud, about fifteen of these marks were identified as consistently appearing on all images. Some of these marks were very odd, and seemed very unnatural to the rest of the face. Yet throughout the centuries they were faithfully copied by the artists, thus proving the point that they must have used the same model. Below are described some of the most unusual marks which clearly could not be accidental, or painted without having the same prototype:

A transverse streak across the forehead, in the shape of a reversed three
The three-sided "square" on the forehead
A "V" shape inside of this "square"
Heavily accentuated owlish eyes
A transverse line across the throat
An enlarged left nostril
Two strands of hair falling from the apex of the forehead

D. Conclusion

By tracing the history of the Shroud which is inseparably tied with that of the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, or the "one-not-made-by-human-hands" image, and the Byzantine art depicting the face of Jesus, we have seen that all these representations have unusual, (hard-to-paint by mere coincidence without having the same model) and the same marks (consistently reappearing throughout the centuries), all of which closely correspond to the same marks on the Shroud of Turin! As a result of this preliminary review of history and art research we have come to an inevitable conclusion: the Shroud is most probably not a forgery, or at least it is definitely dated prior to the 14th century.

—To be Continued—

N.B. The references (C.C.R.) refer to "The Scientific Rehabilitation of the Holy Shroud of Turin," the Catholic Counter Reformation, March 1989.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

Last Edit: May 26, 2019 15:19:42 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

The Shroud of Turin May 26, 2019 15:44:17 GMT

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:44:17 GMT

The Angelus - December 1989

Science and the Shroud of Turin

Part 2: Science

Further Investigation of the Shroud of Turin

This is the second part in a series of three articles examining the Shroud of Turin in depth. Last month we looked into its history and description; this month the author brings in science's investigations.

III. THE EVIDENCE OF THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

Now we can introduce the main object of our discussion, and present to the reader the facts which were discovered and confirmed during the modern scientific examinations of the Shroud of Turin, to determine whether the Shroud is genuine or a 14th century forgery, and whether Jesus Christ was the man buried in this Shroud.

A. Is the Shroud Genuine or a 14th-century forgery?

1. The Photographic Evidence

When the first picture of the Shroud was taken, and it was subsequently discovered that the Shroud was actually a negative, the very important scientific implication of this discovery came to light — if the Shroud is a forgery, how then could any artist in the 14th century ever try to paint a negative of which a true positive image could not be obtained until 500 years later? But if any artist did attempt for any conceivable reason to paint this negative image on a piece of cloth, how could he check on and physically achieve his work, considering the diffusivity of the image at a near distance and its reversibility to the real life image? Such an artist would have been like a near blind man attempting to make lines and tones that are the reverse of what he knows from nature, and this after stepping back to check his work, and continuing back and forth in this fashion to make a negative which 500 years later reveals to us on a photograpy an anatomically perfect image of a scourged and crucified man! How could this be conceivably done by any man in any century?

Two well known and professional artists, Reffo and Crissetti, tried in the 19th century to paint copies of the diffusive image of the Shroud and the results were totally unsatisfactory. In this century there were other attempts made to reproduce by various means an image on cloth comparable to the image on the Shroud, but all these efforts have proven to be a failure. Not without justification was the Mandylion called in the past, "one-not-made-by-human-hands." The impossibility of reproducing the image is further supported by the fact that even none of the Byzantine icons or other representations of Jesus' face were alike. But what they all had in common were the marks on the face of Jesus discussed earlier, because they were clear to discern and not as diffusive as the face of the man on the Shroud.

2. The Medical Evidence

The first medical research was undertaken by a small team of medical men in France at the turn of this century. This team, led by Paul Vignon, the professor of biology at the Institute Catholique of Paris (who studied the Shroud extensively for many of the following years), discovered a considerable amount of accurate data from the first photograph. The findings were presented in 1902 to the Paris Academy by the most distinguished member of this research team. His name was Yves Delage, the professor of comparative anatomy who was an agnostic. And yet, interestingly enough, he named his lecture, "the Image of Christ Visible on the Holy Shroud of Turin." In his lecture he explained how the wounds and other markings on the image were so anatomically perfect that it was practically impossible to be drawn by a human hand.

When new and better pictures of the Shroud were taken in the 1930's, medical research was continued by Dr. P. Barbet, who conducted experiments in Paris on cadavers, to prove that the wounds visible on the Shroud were indeed those of a crucified man. Other medical researchers followed. Professor H. Moedder developed experiments with volunteers hanging from their arms, to study the physical effects on crucifixion victims as shown on the Shroud. Doctors Judica Cordigilis and Sava studied the Shroud's bloodstains, and in the 1960's Dr. D. Willis evaluated all evidence available up to that time. And most recently, Dr. R. Bucklin also provided a valuable medical work on the Shroud. All of the doctors have been fascinated by the anatomical accuracy of the image and the lifelike character of the flow of blood coming out of the wounds. Consequently, they were all convinced by the data they collected, that a crucified man was wrapped in the Shroud, and that the Shroud was, therefore, genuine.

3. The Pollen Evidence

A renowned Swiss criminologist, Dr. Max Frei with a botanical background (also with an international reputation as the head of the Zurich Police Scientific Laboratory) was given permission to take some dust particles off the surface of the Shroud for analysis. Among miscellaneous particles he found a number of pollen grains which have proven to be a significant discovery in determining the whereabouts of the Shroud preceding its first exposition in the mid 14th century. During the years of 1974 and 1975, Frei examined each pollen grain and cross matched it against his files of collected varieties. His early skepticism was replaced by a belief in the authenticity of the Shroud, as he identified 49 species of plants whose location was broken down to four main groups:

a) Halophyte type desert plants of the Palestine area around the Dead Sea.
b) Stepic plants, flourishing in the area of Urfa, the present name of Edessa.
c) The group of plants characteristic of the Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) environment.
d) Northern European plants found in France and Italy. The summary of these findings can be expressed in the words of Mr. Frei himself:

"These plants (Halophyte type) are of great diagnostic value for our geographic studies ... a forgery produced somewhere in France during the Middle Ages in a country lacking these typical halophytes could not contain such characteristic pollen grains from the desert of Palestine." Consequently, his final report "permits the definite conclusion that the Holy Shroud is not an adulteration."

4. The Evidence of Scientific Investigation Between 1973-78

a. 1973 Italian Team

In 1973 a scientific team, comprised mostly of Italian scientists, investigated the Shroud. Their work was incomplete, but they found no pigment or dye in the image area. It was also revealed under the microscope that the image laid on the very top fibers of the Shroud's threads. If dye or pigment were applied by an artist, the fibers would have been penetrated below the top fibers. This confirmed earlier studies, discussed above, which concluded that the Shroud was not a painting. However, other tests, such as blood tests, proved inconclusive when standard hemoglobin tests failed to confirm blood in the bloodstained areas. Nevertheless, the scientists did acknowledge at that time that no conclusive evidence was found yet to exclude blood from the image area.

b. The Shroud of Turin Research Project

In 1977 a group of scientists formed "The Shroud of Turin Research Project" (STURP), which made additional discoveries and prepared the groundwork for the extensive and complete tests performed during their subsequent 1978 investigation. One of their most baffling discoveries was the three dimensional property of the Shroud image. Two physicists, Dr. John Jackson and Dr. Eric Juniper, found out in the U.S. Air Force Weapons Lab in New Mexico that the brightness of the image was proportionately related to the distance of the body from the cloth. This discovery, therefore, indicated that the image was formed by a three dimensional object, such as the body of a man. Furthermore, because this ratio of brightness to the body distance from the cloth was mathematically so accurate, these two scientists were able to produce a three dimensional replica of the man in the Shroud by using a VP8 Image Analyzer, which was developed for analyzing planetary and stellar photographs. Such a replica can be made from space photographs, but it is impossible to make it from normal photographs because the photographic material and lenses are not sensitive enough to reproduce, over a short distance, a minute light intensity variation on a two dimensional image.

The discovery of the three dimensional image brought to light further intriguing pieces of information. It was discovered that small round objects were placed over the eyes. After detailed study, Fr. Francis Filas, professor at Loyola University of Chicago, confirmed Jackson and Juniper's suggestion that they may be coins. He identified the one on the right side as a Lepton which was coined at the time of Pontius Pilate's governorship in Jerusalem, but only for the years of 29, 30 and 31 A.D. This discovery gives further credence to the belief that the cloth originated at the time of Jesus, because it was a Jewish custom in those days to put coins on the eyes of dead people to keep them closed. And it further explains why all the images of Jesus copied from the Shroud faithfully reproduced "heavily accentuated" owlish eyes.

c. Other Investigations

Other investigations done by the technicians J. Lorre and D. Lynn at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena clearly showed that by using the same computer assisted techniques used to study images transmitted to earth from the surface to Mars by the Viking spaceship in 1976, that there was no directionality in the image. That is, the image had no discernable brush pattern which would be visible if the painting of the image was done by the hand of an artist.

5. The Evidence of the 1978 Scientific Investigation

In 1977 eight members of STURP went to Turin to discuss the Shroud and obtain permission to perform a detailed analysis of it, with the main objective of answering three questions:

a. What is the image composed of,

b. How was the image formed, and

c. Is there blood on the Shroud?

After showing the replica, the extent of the preparatory work which had been done, and the detailed testing plan to the Church authorities, the permission was granted. All their preliminary work, done on the basis of the information obtained from the photographs and the recorded observations and research of other scientists, would be either confirmed or rejected during the actual tests on the Shroud.

a. The Composition of the Image

The Shroud was microscopically examined and new color pictures were taken and examined under the VP & S Image Analyzer. All previous findings were confirmed while some additional details were revealed:

1) The image is indeed superficial; that is, only the very topmost fibers of each thread are discolored. The image does not even penetrate through thread which is only .059 inch (.15 mm) thick. Further, the yellow discoloration consists of the same color throughout the whole image. That means that the color differences between the lighter and darker areas are not formed by the varying intensity of the yellow color — as is expected in a painting — but by the greater intensity of discolored fibers (more discolored fibers per given area) in the darker areas than in the lighter areas. These density differences are also related to the distance between the cloth and the body the cloth covered, thus accounting for the three dimensional quality of the image.

2) Furthermore, the discovery of the image also helped to explain the diffusivity of the image (or apparent lessening of focus as one approaches). This faintness is due to the lack of sharp boundaries between the image and nonimage areas brought about by the varying density of the discolored fibers in image areas (this peculiar characteristic is absent in paintings, being unique to the Shroud). The eye can see the boundaries of the diffusive image only when the image is compressed into a smaller portion of the total field of vision, as when viewed from a distance, or when photographed.

b. The Image Formation

The second question of how the image was formed has been the most complex and baffling mystery, and has not yet been satisfactorily explained. However, it does not hamper our efforts to determine whether the Shroud is Jesus Christ's burial cloth or not. On the contrary, this inability of the modern scientists to explain the process of image formation gives further credence to its supernatural origin.

To facilitate the study of image formation the examination was divided into two groups: the artificial, and the natural processes. The supernatural origin was not even considered, thus eliminating the possibility of a bias towards the religious aspects of the Shroud, and concentrating instead on explaining the phenomena from the natural point of view. There were four general theories of image formation to be examined:

1) the painted image,

2) the chemical agent,

3) the Vapograph Theory, and

4) the scorch effect.

1) Tile Painted Image

A number of tests were employed to determine any amounts of pigment, dyes, ink or any other chemical, which might have been used to paint the image. The microscopic observation confirmed again the previous conclusions. No pigment particles were found even under SOX magnification. The yellow color of the image did not penetrate below the very topmost fibers. Also, there was no evidence for the flow of liquids throughout the cloth on a microscopic level, as would be the case if any inorganic agent such as ink was used. Further, X-ray fluorescence tests measured the composition of the elements, and radiography recorded changes in the density of the shroud. None of them detected any particles which would support the painting theory. Other tests, which also could not find foreign substances on the Shroud, were photoelectric spectrophotometry, photoelectric and photographic fluorescence, and direct observation in visible light. "Sticky tape" samples were taken from all over the Shroud. The miscellaneous particles which adhered to the removed tapes consisted of insect parts, pollen, wax, wool, etc., but none of them could account for the yellow discoloration of the fibers. Some fragments of the yellowed and nonyellowed fibers were found on the tapes. These fragments were subjected to an intense testing which included treatment with acids, bases, organic solvents, and strong oxidants. Again it was confirmed that the Shroud contained no pigments, dyes, etc., which could be used to paint or cause the image on the Shroud, and that the yellowed fibers were resistant to any effects of chemical testing.

It was concluded that the image was not caused by any pigment or any other foreign agent, but was the result of the degradation of cellulose, the plant material in linen fibers. The cellulose fibers in the image areas had been dehydrated, as opposed to the hydrated fibers in the nonimage areas. The dehydrated fibers reflected the light to a degree proportional to its density, and caused the visible image. The scientists also confirmed that there were no variations in density in the areas burned in the fire of 1532 compared to areas located farther from the burned parts. There also were no brush marks or directionality detectable on the image area. Therefore, the STURP scientists categorically rejected the past belief that the Shroud was a painting, stating in their summary, "we have found no evidence to suggest that the visible image results from a pigment on the cloth."

2) The Chemical Agents

The second theory included all theories which held that the chemical composition of the cellulose in the fibers had been changed by a chemical agent. The most important of these theories was the one which postulated a latent image idea. That is to say, by application of sensitizing agents such as skin secretion, myrrh, and body oil, the image would gradually be formed by the combination of heat (or by aging of the linen) and body pressure during the direct contact of the body with the cloth. However, during the investigation serious shortcomings were exposed which led to the rejection of this theory.

First of all, no sensitizing agents were found on the Shroud. Another problem was how to apply the agents thinly enough to sensitize only the topmost fibers. The third objection was made in regard to forming the image by body pressure. The tests showed that even though the back image is slightly more distinct than the front image, the small difference between these images is greatly out of proportion to the pressure differences between the part of the cloth that the body laid on and the top part, which pressed against the body only by its own weight. But the most important obstacle to accepting this theory is the three dimensionality of the image. These sensitizing objects had to form the image by direct contact. How could this theory then account for the three dimensionality of the image in the areas where the cloth did not touch the body, if this worked on the principle of varying cloth body distance relationship?

3) The Vapograph Theory

This theory really belongs with those grouped in the preceding theory, but because it is the oldest theory, it was treated separately. Paul Vignon, who led the first medical research group in 1900, suggested that the crucified man buried in the cloth would have perspired a morbid sweat containing urea, and as the urea would have fermented into carbon dioxide and ammonia, ammonia would have diffused from the body to the cloth, reacting with aloes and olive oil to produce an image. This theory was also rejected on several counts. First, it was not possible for gas diffusion, which is very random, to form a highly detailed image. Chemists of the STURP also concluded that not enough ammonia would be produced from the morbid sweat to effect the image formation. Furthermore, such a reaction would be absorbed beyond the topmost fibers of the linen and thus could not explain the superficiality of the image. Lastly, this theory could not account for the three dimensionality of the image, the stability to both heat and water (the image formed by this process would be affected by heat and water—the 1532 fire accident which damaged the Shroud showed no such effects), and for the fact that no above described image forming agents were found on the Shroud.

4) The Scorch Effect

That the image was made by a scorch is the most plausible theory because it does explain some of the characteristics of the Shroud. Nevertheless, several questions regarding the validity of the scorch theory remain to be solved, and for that matter they may never be solved by purely scientific research because of the closeness of the Shroud's qualities to the supernatural.

Prior to the 1978 investigation, it was believed that the image could have been produced by some kind of scorch. Experimentally, it was found that cellulose fibers can be yellowed by a scorch the same way as those on the Shroud are yellowed. Also, the scorch on the Shroud caused by the 1532 fire has similar optical properties as the image on the Shroud, but not identical ones. The fire scorches are visibly redder than the body image and also fluoresce differently under ultraviolet light. Nevertheless, the slight differences can be explained by the different conditions under which they were formed. The fire of 1532 occurred in a sealed box, in a substantially oxygen free environment. This was proven experimentally, and the scorch this experiment produced had similar properties to the fire scorch on the Shroud.(19) However, the most difficult problem the scientists faced was the question of how the image was transferred to the cloth.

It was the major objection to the acceptance of the scorch hypothesis before the 1978 examination as well as after, since this transfer mechanism could not be explained by any scientist. Before 1978, J. Jackson showed mathematically that simple radiation emitted by a three dimensional body could not have produced the density shading and resolution so prominent in the Shroud image. He believed that this problem could be circumvented if the radiation source or something between the cloth and the body could vary the intensity of the heat or light. But then this variation would distort the image. By solving one problem, his suggestion would create another. Therefore, not all the scientists agreed with the scorch hypothesis, and even though it could not be explained from the purely scientific point of view, many members of the team stopped well short of considering that a dead man could or would radiate sufficient light and heat to scorch his burial cloth. So in the words of the STURP scientists, it is "an ongoing mystery."

c. The Blood on the Shroud

The third question involved a separate yet very important problem; namely, that the 1973 investigation failed to provide conclusive evidence that the bloodstained areas on the Shroud were indeed blood. To settle this question, the team members examined the bloodstained areas with a complete set of optical tests throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. Sticky tape samples, which contained parts of blood stained fabrics, were examined under a microscope to observe the spectrum of the visible light transmitted from them. The results of the tests suggested that hemoglobin was a component of the color. To confirm this possibility, the iron was removed from the samples and tested to determine the presence of porphyrin, a component of blood. This substance was found to be present. Thus it was strongly indicated that the bloodstained areas indeed contained blood. Several other tests confirmed the presence of blood. Both protein and iron were detected in the bloodstained areas. The conclusion of the team was that the bloodstained areas were very probably stained by real blood.

6) Conclusion

The 1978 scientific investigation represented the most extensive and detailed study of any known relic, since it was performed by very expensive, ultra sophisticated, and accurate equipment used in the space program, and was handled by experienced scientists, who performed an impartial and truly scientific investigation. With the exception of image formation, this investigation positively established that the image is superficial, and thus not made by human hands, and that there is real blood on the Shroud. It further confirmed the results of STURP preliminary work regarding the extraordinary characteristics; the "secrets," of the Shroud of Turin. They are summarized below:

Negative: The image on the Shroud is a negative.
No Pigment, Dye or Ink: None of these agents, necessary for painting, were found.
Three Dimensional: A three dimensional image was produced from a two dimensional photograph.
Directionless: The image was formed by a nondirectional process.
Superficiality: The image's discoloration reaches only the very topmost fibers.
Chemically and Water Stable: The coloration was not affected by any standard chemical agents or by water.
Thermally Stable: Even the parts of the image closest to the burns of the 1532 fire have the same color as the most remote parts.

Even though a completely natural explanation of the image formation on the Shroud has eluded the scientists, which only strengthens our conviction of the miraculous nature of the Shroud, the 1973 and 1978 scientific investigations, plus the photographic, medical, and pollen evidence, have provided significant and ample evidence, which cannot be discarded or ignored. The image on the Shroud was made by the body of a real man buried in a real tomb and, consequently, the Shroud is a real artifact, and not a forgery of the 14th century.

—To be continued—

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

The Shroud of Turin May 26, 2019 15:53:51 GMT

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:53:51 GMT

The Angelus - March 1990

Was Jesus Christ the Man Buried in the Shroud?

Conclusion of three part series

1. The Description of the Wounds

Earlier in this study we briefly listed medical data on the Shroud as part of the evidence which proved the Shroud a genuine relic. Let us now describe the medical findings on the Shroud in more detail, in order to compare it with the description of Jesus' wounds in the Gospels. This will enable us to determine whether the man covered by the Shroud was Jesus Christ or someone else. In our conclusion regarding the results of the medical research mentioned earlier, we noted that all doctors involved in this study were struck by the anatomical accuracy of the wounds and the lifelike character of the bloodstains. In the process of their investigation, they divided the wounds on the image into seven groups: a. the facial wounds; b. the head wounds; c. the body wounds; d. the shoulder wounds; e. the knee wounds; f. the crucifixion wounds, and g. the chest wounds.

a. The Facial Wounds

The doctors concluded that the facial wounds, which include the swelling of both eyebrows, torn right eyelid, large swelling below the right eye, swollen nose, triangular-shaped wound on right cheek with apex pointing to nose, swelling to left cheek, swelling to right side and swelling to left side of chin were caused by repeated blows to the face.

b. The Head Wounds

There were at least eight puncture wounds of the scalp on the back of the head, resulting in the down flowing of streams of blood. There were four or five puncture wounds in the front with their corresponding blood flows. Some of them started from the top of the forehead, flowing down towards the eyes. Other blood flows were mingled in with the hair framing the face. The way the wounds were caused strongly suggests a cap of thorns thrust on the head. Furthermore, the different direction of blood flows would suggest a tilting of the head at different times while wearing the thorny cap. The most striking of these flows is the one in the shape of a reversed number three, which most likely was obstructed in its course by a reflex contraction of the muscles of the brow from the pain of wounds.

c. The Body Wounds

There were numerous body wounds; approximately 120 on the front and the back, all dumbbelled in shape, groups of three, and approximately 1.5 inches long. The pattern of these wounds clearly indicates a whipping by, most likely, a Roman flagrum (a multi pronged whip with dumbbell-shaped pieces of lead, designed to rip out pieces of flesh, and to cause an excruciating pain).

d. The Shoulder Wounds

The next group of wounds were found just below the top of both shoulders in the areas of approximately 4 x 3.5 inches over the right shoulder, and 5 inches in diameter over the left shoulder. These wounds were so heavy that they have in some cases almost obliterated the wounds inflicted by scourging. These large wounds appear to have most likely been caused by friction from a heavy object as, for example, a beam being carried on the shoulder.

e. The Knee Wounds

There are also heavy wounds visible on both knees, especially the left knee, unmistakably suggesting repeated falls.

f. The Crucifixion Wounds

Nail wounds in the wrists and the feet, and especially the flow of blood coming from the wounds in the wrists, gave full support to the conclusion that the man in the Shroud was crucified. There were two distinct streams of blood coming down from the wrists. The angle of one of them was measured at 55 degrees from the horizontal axis of the arms, while the other was measured at 62 degrees from the same axis. This 7 degree difference indicated that the crucified man must have assumed two alternate positions: one with arms fully suspended, thus supporting the weight of the body, and the other with arms slightly flexed; when shifting the weight of the body to the legs. Thus, in order to relieve pain in his wrists and difficulty in breathing when supporting the weight of his body by the arms, the crucified man shifted the weight to his legs by pulling himself up. By being unable to stay in either position for long, he moved up and down, undergoing excruciating pain. Doctors also noted that only one nail was driven through the feet; with the left foot being on top. Experiments with freshly amputated feet confirmed that a single nail could be easily driven between the metatarsal bones at the base of the foot without breaking them, as the nail mark on the Shroud indicated. Experiments with a freshly amputated arm also confirmed that the nail could pass through an opening between the ones in the wrist, as shown on the Shroud. However, a startling discovery was made during the experiment. As the nail was driven in, an inward contraction of the thumb took place by stimulating the median nerve during the passage of the nail. That meant that the thumbs should not be visible on the Shroud when considering the position of the hands folded over the pelvic area. And, indeed, neither thumb was visible on the Shroud's image of the hands! On the other hand, the discovery of nail wounds in the wrist area does not correspond to the traditional concept of being the wounds in the palms of the hands. However, this very fact of wrist nail-wounds contributed significantly, with other medical evidence, to the total conviction of the scientists at the start of this century that the Shroud must be genuine; because they knew that due to the weight of the body, nails in the palms of the hands would tear through the flesh.

Image showing me traces of blood on both arms that flowed from the wounds of the hands.

g. The Chest Wound

The last wound to consider is the chest wound on the right side of the body. The wound opening, approximately 1.75 inches (4.44 cm.) long and 7/16 inch (1.11 cm.) wide, is elliptical in shape, and matches exactly the shape of the tip of a Roman lancia or spear. Doctors examining the wound noted its location between the fifth and sixth ribs. They also observed that the fluid flowing out was not homogenous, but separated into blood and water. Three theories explaining this phenomena were advanced by the doctors. Briefly, Dr. P. Barbet thought the water to have been pericardial fluid which accumulated in large quantities (compared to what is a normal level), after the beating and scourging. Dr. H. Moedder believed that the fluid was from the pleural sac, where it also accumulated due to the maltreatment. The most recent theory is that of Dr. Sava. Based on his surgical experience with cases of severe beatings against the chest, he believed that the fluid accumulated in the pleural cavity, thereby separating itself into the blood and water, with the water on top. As a result, when the chest was pierced by a spear, the heavier blood would come out first, followed by water as the level fell.

2. Comparison with the Gospel Accounts

After describing the medical findings of the Shroud in greater detail, we are now in a position to compare them with the Gospel's accounts in a tabular form:

The Gospel Accounts

1. Jesus was scourged. (Matt. 27, 26; Mark 15, 15; John 19, 1)

2. They struck the head and face of Jesus. (Matt. 26, 27, 30, 67; Mark 14, 15, 19, 65)

3. Jesus was crowned with a crown of thorns. (Matt. 27, 29; Mark 15, 17; John 22, 5, 19)

4. "And bearing His own cross, He went forth to that place which is called Calvary..." (John 17, 19)

5. They made Simon of Cyrene help Jesus to carry His cross. (Matt. 27, 32; Mark 15, 21; Luke 23, 26) This implies that Jesus must have fallen several times, in order to need such help.

6. Jesus was nailed to the cross through His hands and feet. (John 20, 25; Luke 24, 39, 40)

7. Jesus' legs were not broken as the legs of the two thieves, but a spear was driven through His right side and water and blood came out. (John 19, 31-37)

The image of the Man on the Holy Shroud of Turin. It is possible to count more than 600 wounds imprinted on the flesh.

The Evidence on the Shroud

1.

a) There were about 120 wounds observed on the body,

b) They were scattered on the front and back of the body and shaped like two round marks joined by a line, resembling a dumbbell,

c) It is known from history that Romans in those days used a flagrum; a short handled whip with multiple thongs, each ending with dumbbell-like lead pellets which fit exactly the shape of the marks on the body.

2. The face of the man is swollen and almost covered with blows and bruises, and there is a severe swelling under the right eye.

3. There are numerous wounds on the back and the front of the man's scalp. The way these wounds were inflicted strongly suggest a cap of thorns thrust on the head.

4. There are heavy wounds on large areas of both shoulders, caused most likely by the friction of a heavy object; a beam, carried on the shoulders. Since the smaller wounds under the large wounds are almost obliterated, it is obvious that this beam was carried after the scourging, as the Gospels relate.

5. There are visible heavy wounds on both knees; unmistakably indicating that the man fell several times on his knees, being so exhausted by carrying the heavy beam.

6. The direction of the blood flows coming from the nailed wounds of the wrists and the feet indicate that the man was undoubtedly crucified.

7. There is no sign of broken legs on the Shroud, but there is a wound on the man's right side, and of the same size a Roman spear would make. Also, water and blood have been detected on the Shroud.

Conclusion

In the medical research which has been continuous for almost a hundred years, the doctors have collected exhaustive data, which consistently turned out to be in conformity with all laws of nature. They also unanimously agreed to the anatomical accuracy of the image, which would be practically impossible to reproduce by any human artist. Having thus an accurate description of the man's wounds available, we have compared them with the Gospels' accounts, and there can be no doubt about the identity of the man: body scourged, face covered with blood, head crowned with thorns, large wounds on the shoulders, heavy wounds on both knees, hands and feet pierced, and the chest pierced with a lance—undisputably, the Shroud covered the body of a crucified man and shows such unique and distinctive characteristics, all in conformity with the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's passion that there is only one person in history to whom they can be attributed—Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

IV. The Closing Words

In this three-part study of the Shroud of Turin, overwhelming facts and evidence were presented to the reader. Based on these data, the conclusion is inescapable—the Shroud of Turin is not only genuine, but is also the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the reader is invited to form his own conclusion if he has doubts, especially in view of the recent Carbon-14 analysis. For this purpose it is strongly recommended that he read Fr. Hunter's article in The Angelus issue of May, 1989; and also CCR, March, 1989. In both articles the validity and the intention of these Carbon-14 tests are seriously questioned. We must also bear in mind that the tradition of the Church's centuries-long veneration of the Shroud must also be taken into consideration. The Church has always recognized and respected a long standing tradition as an undisputable sign of the validity of the matter at question. In closing, Fr. Hunter makes a very appropriate remark in his article:

"Over the years the Shroud has been carefully scrutinized by experts from a variety of disciplines and the more it was examined the more marvelous it appeared. Now, to expect all of this carefully accumulated data to be rejected on the basis of a single finding..." (and which has already been seriously questioned and is doubtful) "was asking too much."

The scientific evidence with which the attempts are being made to discredit the belief of our ancestors have on the contrary confirmed our tradition and thus helps us to cling to it even with more conviction in these days — the Shroud of Turin is the linen in which Our Lord Jesus Christ was buried.

References

Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin (New York: Image Books, 1979), pp. 21 and 35.

K. E. Stevenson and G. R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud (Michigan: Servant Books, 1981), p. 34.

"The Scientific Rehabilitation of the Holy Shroud of Turin," The Catholic Counter-Reformation, March, 1989, p. 9.

Dr. Pierre Barbet (in the 1930's) of St. Joseph's hospital, Paris, conducted many experiments on cadavers to show that the wounds visible on the Shroud are those of a crucifixion victim. He wrote the book, A Doctor at Calvary.

Professor Hermann Moedder, a Cologne radiologist.

Dr. Judica-Cardiglia, a professor of forensic medicine at the University of Milan.

Dr. Anthony Sava of Brooklyn, N.Y. made particular study of the side wound.

Dr. David Willis, a general practitioner in England.

Dr. Robert Bucklin, a deputy medical examiner of Los Angeles County; he is a leading pathologist in the post 1987 Shroud research.

Dr. John Jackson, physicist, Air Force Academy, assistant professor.

Dr. Eric Juniper, aerodynamicist, Air Force Academy, assistant professor.

Fr. Francis Filas, S.J., professor of Loyola University, Chicago.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Deus Vult
Senior Member

Posts: 361

The Shroud of Turin May 26, 2019 23:31:59 GMT

Post by Deus Vult on May 26, 2019 23:31:59 GMT

Barrie Schwortz was the official documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the 1978 team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud. Here he tells his story of how he was a skeptic and believed the Shroud was a fabricated, man-made fake but the scientific evidence of the study convinced him otherwise.

From the video description:

Barrie Schwortz, an Orthodox Jew, spends much of his time educating Christians that the Turin Shroud may well be an artifact of Jesus. An expert on imaging, he was the official documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), the 1978 team that conducted the first in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud. In 2009, he founded the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc. (STERA, Inc.). Schwortz began as a skeptic of the shroud, but by scientific evidence became absolutely convinced of its authenticity. To be open-minded and brave enough to immerse oneself in the evidence of beliefs that go against your own, and allow yourself to be convinced of their validity, requires a courage and honesty that not many can claim. This is what Barrie Schwortz has been doing for the past 40 years.

QMaryLArmy
New Member

Posts: 34

The Shroud of Turin Sept 7, 2019 23:09:17 GMT

Post by QMaryLArmy on Sept 7, 2019 23:09:17 GMT

May 26, 2019 15:19:24 GMT Admin said:

The Angelus - November 1989

The Shroud of Turin

(The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?)

Last May in The Angelus, an article on the Shroud of Turin pointed out how some scientists were actually trying to hide the truth concerning the shroud. The following article is the first in a series that examines the Shroud in depth: its history and description; science's investigations; and finally the actual wounds. It was written by our good friends at the St. Ignatius Retreat House in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Part 1

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1898, at an exposition of the Shroud of Turin, an Italian lawyer, Secondo Pio, was granted an unusual permission to take a picture of it. After developing the photographic plate, Secondo Pio naturally expected to see a negative image. But instead he saw the print; the positive, the actual picture of a man's face, which was believed by the Church to be the face of Jesus Christ.

This discovery, whose reverberations still continue until today, had a tremendous impact on the scientific world, since many scientists and other skeptics persisted in their disbelief in the authenticity of the Shroud. The detailed medical, historical, art, and scientific investigations followed. The new era of significant discoveries surrounding the identity of the image of the man on the Shroud was ushered in.

With marvelous irony the Shroud's secrets were "saved" for many centuries until modern times of agnosticism and atheism, when for the first time in man's history these secrets could be unveiled by means of the very science with which the skeptics have tried to deny the existence of the supernatural, or miraculous, or even the existence of God.

But what is the Shroud of Turin, and what are its remarkable qualities? Is it indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, as popes and millions of faithful have believed before us, or is it some skillful forgery from the Middle Ages, as the skeptics have generally maintained? In the following presentation, the results of miscellaneous investigations along with a very brief description of the Shroud's likeness and history will be offered for the benefit of the reader; to help him make a comparison between the evidence given below and the attempts of skeptics and unbelievers to discredit the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. He can then objectively decide whether the Shroud of Turin is genuine or not, and whether Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was buried in it.

II. DESCRIPTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SHROUD

A. Description

"The Shroud is 14 feet, 3 inches (434.3 cm.) long, and 3 feet, 7 inches (109.2 cm.) wide. It is a single piece of linen bearing the imprint of a double image—the front and back of a strongly built man. The image was apparently formed after the man was laid with his back on one end of the linen, with the other end being then put over the front part of the man's body. The image itself is difficult to discern clearly, and strangely enough, it becomes even more difficult to see the closer one comes to it—the image seems to melt away. On the other hand, the image comes out clearly when viewed from a distance or when photographed.

"The image is that of a tall (5 feet, 11 inches [181 cm.]), well-built, and bearded man whose estimated weight was 175 pounds (79.5 kg.). His age is between 30-35 years. The physical features clearly belong to the Jewish or Semitic racial group. Judging by the multiple wounds of scourging and the crucifixion marks on the image, it can be said with certainty that the man whose body was wrapped in the Shroud was severely scourged and subsequently crucified."

B. History of the Shroud Ownership

1. From the Middle of the 14th Century to the Present

Image of the front of Jesus' Body on the Shroud of Turin

The Shroud made what seemed to be its first appearance in about 1355 in the small town of Livey, in France. It was shown by the Geoffrey de Charny family, but the exhibition lasted only a short time, being stopped by a local bishop, Henri of Poitiers, who apparently did not believe it to be genuine. It was not seen again until 34 years later. But it was again branded by a local bishop, Pierre D'Arcis, as a forgery. However, there are reasonable doubts (see CCR, March '89 issue) about the condemnation both bishops allegedly made. Nevertheless, it is certain there was some opposition to the Shroud, because afterwards it was described only as the "likeness, or representation" of the Shroud of Jesus by its owners for the next 60 years. This was to avoid opposition to its exposition for the adoration of the faithful.

In 1453, the Shroud's ownership passed to the House of Savoy, and it was under Savoy's ownership that the Shroud gained its reputation as the true burial cloth of Jesus. With the support of Pope Sixtus IV, who believed it to be genuine, the dukes of Savoy built a special chapel for the Shroud in Chambery, France, in 1464. Later in 1506, Pope Julius II authorized the public cult to be given to the "very Shroud in which the Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped and laid in the tomb." Then in 1578, the Shroud was moved to Turin, Italy, where, except for six years during World War II, the Shroud has been ever since.

2. From the Middle of the 14th Century to the Time of the Death of Jesus

Until recently it has appeared, or rather, it was made to appear that there were no known records of the Shroud prior to the year 1355. However, in the last decade or so, the whereabouts of the Shroud have been traced to the time of the death of Jesus.

a. The Period From 1204-1355

From the time of the destruction of Constantinople in 1204 to about the year 1355, it has been established (cr. CCR, March '89) that after the fall of Constantinople the Shroud found its way to the monastery of Casole in Athens, Greece. Later on it passed into the possession of the Charpignys, who became allied to the de Charnys through marriage. It was then Agnes de Charpigny who brought the Shroud to Vostitza in France, and who later married Dreux de Charney, the older brother of Geoffrey de Charney, at the beginning of the 14th century. In 1355 the Geoffrey de Charney family publicly displayed the Shroud as stated above.

b. The Period From the 7th Century to 1204

The next period of the Shroud's existence extends during the 7th century to 1204, during which time it was venerated in Constantinople (the 7th-8th century), then in Edessa (the 8th-9th century), now called Urfa in Turkey, and back again in Constantinople in 944. When the Shroud arrived in Constantinople in 944, which has been historically fixed, it was called, "one-not-made-by-human-hands" by the Greeks, or the Image of Edessa, or the Mandylion. But whether it is called the Shroud of Turin or any of the above names, it has been sufficiently documented by Ian Wilson, a British historian (see his book, "The Shroud of Turin") and by others before; such as Paul Vignon (the professor of biology) in France in early 1900, or a French soldier, Robert de Clari, who described the image as he saw it in Constantinople shortly before the city's destruction. And after came others, such as Daniel C. Scavone, the professor of History at the University of South Indiana, and especially, a deciphered Greek manuscript containing the description of the Image of Edessa by Gregory, archdeacon and administrator of Santa Sophia church in Constantinople, where the Shroud was venerated. It exactly matched the present day Shroud of Turin. All these different names refer to one and the same image.

c. The Period From the Death of Jesus to the 6th Century

Lastly, it is believed (cf. CCR, March '89) that the Shroud was kept in Jerusalem from the death of Jesus until the 6th century. It was in Jerusalem where the first copies of Jesus' face were made. Some of the first copies are extant: the two images kept in Italy and the so-called Veil of Veronica. They all bear evidence of being copied from the Shroud.

C. History of Byzantine Art

Ian Wilson, in his study of Byzantine art, clearly demonstrated that, starting from the 6th century, the image of Jesus on all mosaics, frescos and icons became strikingly uniform and also bore a strong resemblance to the face of the on the Shroud. The remarkable resemblance consisted in corroborating in all of these representations a number of prominent and unusual marks which were common to all, and identical with the same marks on the face of the man on the Shroud. In the process of comparing the images one to another and with the Shroud, about fifteen of these marks were identified as consistently appearing on all images. Some of these marks were very odd, and seemed very unnatural to the rest of the face. Yet throughout the centuries they were faithfully copied by the artists, thus proving the point that they must have used the same model. Below are described some of the most unusual marks which clearly could not be accidental, or painted without having the same prototype:

A transverse streak across the forehead, in the shape of a reversed three
The three-sided "square" on the forehead
A "V" shape inside of this "square"
Heavily accentuated owlish eyes
A transverse line across the throat
An enlarged left nostril
Two strands of hair falling from the apex of the forehead

D. Conclusion

By tracing the history of the Shroud which is inseparably tied with that of the Image of Edessa or the Mandylion, or the "one-not-made-by-human-hands" image, and the Byzantine art depicting the face of Jesus, we have seen that all these representations have unusual, (hard-to-paint by mere coincidence without having the same model) and the same marks (consistently reappearing throughout the centuries), all of which closely correspond to the same marks on the Shroud of Turin! As a result of this preliminary review of history and art research we have come to an inevitable conclusion: the Shroud is most probably not a forgery, or at least it is definitely dated prior to the 14th century.

—To be Continued—

N.B. The references (C.C.R.) refer to "The Scientific Rehabilitation of the Holy Shroud of Turin," the Catholic Counter Reformation, March 1989.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

QMaryLArmy New Member Posts: 34	The Shroud of Turin Sept 7, 2019 23:31:58 GMT Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Back to Top Post by QMaryLArmy on Sept 7, 2019 23:31:58 GMT Turin Shroud Holgram Reveals The Words "The Lamb"

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:19:24 GMT

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:44:17 GMT

Post by Admin on May 26, 2019 15:53:51 GMT

Post by Deus Vult on May 26, 2019 23:31:59 GMT

Post by QMaryLArmy on Sept 7, 2019 23:09:17 GMT

Post by QMaryLArmy on Sept 7, 2019 23:31:58 GMT