Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

[DBowling]

Even though the Shroud doesn't play a significant role in my personal faith, I have become convinced over the years that based on what I've seen I think it is likely that the Shroud is in fact the burial cloth of Christ. If that is the case, then how do we get the burial cloth of Christ from Jerusalem around 33 AD to Lirey, France in 1355.

Below are links to a four article series that attempts to follow that path.

The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History
The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History is a four part review of the historical evidence for the Shroud of Turin from the 1st century to the beginning of the 15th.

The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... dessa.aspx

The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History: Part Two: To the Great City
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... -City.aspx

The Shroud of Turin's Earlier History: Part Three: The Shroud of Constantinople
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... nople.aspx

The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part 4: To Little Lirey
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... Lirey.aspx

[hughfarey]

What is wholly unsupported by the evidence are your assertions.

Really? Which ones? You need to be a little more specific. I am very aware that denying the authenticity of the Shroud can raise strong feelings, so try never to say anything unsupported by evidence. If you think anything I have said is unfounded, then by all means point it out, but vague dissatisfaction won't lead to much of a discussion.

Here is what the French reweaving evidence does explain.
- How there was cotton in the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself is made of flax.
- How there was pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself has no pigmentation.
- Why the different dates from the different labs get progressively larger as you go from one end of the sample to the other.

No, French Reweaving won't explain any of that, as any alleged mending on the Shroud is invisible, and French Reweaving is not invisible. Therefore there is no French Weaving on the Shroud so it can't be invoked to explain anything. However, you do bring up a few things which I didn't previously cover, so here goes...

- Cotton. Almost everybody to study threads or tape samples from the Shroud has commented that there is cotton on it, although some of the individual tapes seem to have contained little or none, so there is presumably a variable amount. There has been some discussion as to whether the cotton found on the main part of the Shroud is incidental or part of the thread, but this cannot be detected from a tape sample. In his book "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin" Rogers refers to "nearly pure linen" and says: "Cotton is not common in Shroud samples", which is hardly a blanket denial. Various studies on the cotton content of threads from the radiocarbon corner have come up with proportions of 100% (Villarreal), 15% (Heimburger) and 2% (Fanti), so it is clear there is a varying proportion of cotton, but the claim that the radiocarbon corner is different from the rest of the shroud in that respect is not demonstrated by the evidence published.

- Pigmentation. Rogers did find what he identified as a dye of some kind on his threads from the radiocarbon corner, while Heller and Adler found that there was no such pigmentation on the rest of the Shroud. Curiously, Rogers found that his 'dye' dissolved in water, which seems odd. I have wondered if the dye was not an attempt to make the Holland cloth blend in with the Shroud, some of which got smeared onto the shroud itself.

- The Chronological Gradient of the dates. This is a bit of a mystery, possibly related to the dye. It has no bearing on the botanical quality of the cloth. From visual inspection, it appears that the more dye there is on the cloth, the older the radiocarbon date, which is even odder, although I have some ideas about why that should be.

I could go on to analyse the rest of the video, and poor Ray Rogers's desperate but ultimately fruitless attempts to justify the interweaving hypothesis microscopically, and will if I'm asked, but this will be enough for now, I guess.

And of course you are wrong here as well...
Ray Rogers wasn't trying to justify the reweaving hypothesis. Initially he thought it was ridiculous and he thought he could easily disprove it... until he examined the evidence. That was when he realized he was wrong, and he wrote a peer reviewed article on his findings which were published in Thermochimica Acta."Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin" http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Alas, Rogers was near the end of his life when he studied the Raes threads which were the basis of his paper, which was published out of respect in the journal he himself had founded. He was certainly an out-and-out rationalist, and had no time for the lunatic fringe, but at the same time had been extremely disappointed by the radiocarbon date, and longed for it to be falsified. One is reminded of Houdini's relentless search for an 'authentic' medium after his mother died, which ironically led to his ruthless exposure of all the frauds. In Rogers's case, his findings eventually led him to a conclusion which in my opinion they did not justify.

[hughfarey]

Even though the Shroud doesn't play a significant role in my personal faith, I have become convinced over the years that based on what I've seen I think it is likely that the Shroud is in fact the burial cloth of Christ. If that is the case, then how do we get the burial cloth of Christ from Jerusalem around 33 AD to Lirey, France in 1355. Below are links to a four article series that attempts to follow that path.

The concept of the Shroud of Christ has played quite a significant role both liturgically and, more mercenarily, as a relic, since about the 12th century, before which, apart from its mention in the bible, it seems to have no special significance. However none of the alleged mentions of miraculous images, nor of shrouds, since that time are sufficiently definitive for anybody to claim a substantiated history of the Shroud of Turin, as the Biblical Archaeological Review articles agree. What is obvious is that, given quite a lot of interest in the shroud, it would be perfectly natural to want to make one to fit the role, especially in the absence of the real one.

[abelcainsbrother]

The thing that tells me the shroud is the burial clothe of Jesus is the fact that the closest scientists have got to reproducing the shroud image requires powerful equipment that emits powerful light and even then it is not exactly like the shroud image,does not have blood stains,pollen,etc on it. Also even using this kind of technology an image is only produced after many treatments.This kind of technology did not exist at anytime in the past making the controversial dating a moot point. The image could not have been produced by man until today thanks to the technology we have today that they did not have in Jesus's day,the 14th century or any other time in history. Only Jesus who is the light of the world,performed many miracles and rose from the dead could have produced the image on the shroud.

The evidence we do have tells us that man could not have produced the image on the shroud at anytime in the past including the controversial datings of the shroud. It makes no difference which date you come down on because man could not have produced the image on the shroud then and so it is only Jesus who could have. Now you may disagree but you have no evidence or reasons to doubt it based on the evidence and what we do know about the shroud image.You must come up with evidence in order to doubt Jesus was the only one who could have produced the image on the shroud and Ray Rogers spent years trying to do just that and failed.

[DBowling]

What is wholly unsupported by the evidence are your assertions.

Really? Which ones? You need to be a little more specific.

I thought it was obvious by the portion of your post that I responded to...
The specific unsupported assertion I was referring to was the following

It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence. It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Here is what the French reweaving evidence does explain.
- How there was cotton in the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself is made of flax.
- How there was pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself has no pigmentation.
- Why the different dates from the different labs get progressively larger as you go from one end of the sample to the other.

No, French Reweaving won't explain any of that, as any alleged mending on the Shroud is invisible, and French Reweaving is not invisible

The French reweaving technique is 'invisible' from both front and back. Now nothing is truly invisible, which is why the French reweaving technique was able to be detected when it was specifically being looked for.

- Cotton. Almost everybody to study threads or tape samples from the Shroud has commented that there is cotton on it, although some of the individual tapes seem to have contained little or none, so there is presumably a variable amount. There has been some discussion as to whether the cotton found on the main part of the Shroud is incidental or part of the thread, but this cannot be detected from a tape sample. In his book "A Chemist's Perspective on the Shroud of Turin" Rogers refers to "nearly pure linen" and says: "Cotton is not common in Shroud samples", which is hardly a blanket denial. Various studies on the cotton content of threads from the radiocarbon corner have come up with proportions of 100% (Villarreal), 15% (Heimburger) and 2% (Fanti), so it is clear there is a varying proportion of cotton, but the claim that the radiocarbon corner is different from the rest of the shroud in that respect is not demonstrated by the evidence published.

The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.

- Pigmentation. Rogers did find what he identified as a dye of some kind on his threads from the radiocarbon corner, while Heller and Adler found that there was no such pigmentation on the rest of the Shroud. Curiously, Rogers found that his 'dye' dissolved in water, which seems odd. I have wondered if the dye was not an attempt to make the Holland cloth blend in with the Shroud, some of which got smeared onto the shroud itself.

I have no doubt that the pigmentation in the patch was an attempt by those making the repair to make the color of the patch blend in with the color of the Shroud itself.

- The Chronological Gradient of the dates. This is a bit of a mystery, possibly related to the dye. It has no bearing on the botanical quality of the cloth. From visual inspection, it appears that the more dye there is on the cloth, the older the radiocarbon date, which is even odder, although I have some ideas about why that should be.

It has a significant bearing. You would naturally expect segments of the sample which contain a larger percentage of the 16th century patch to demonstrate a more recent date than the segments that contained a lower percentage of the 16th century patch.

Ray Rogers wasn't trying to justify the reweaving hypothesis. Initially he thought it was ridiculous and he thought he could easily disprove it... until he examined the evidence. That was when he realized he was wrong, and he wrote a peer reviewed article on his findings which were published in Thermochimica Acta."Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin" http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Alas, Rogers was near the end of his life when he studied the Raes threads which were the basis of his paper, which was published out of respect in the journal he himself had founded. He was certainly an out-and-out rationalist, and had no time for the lunatic fringe, but at the same time had been extremely disappointed by the radiocarbon date, and longed for it to be falsified. One is reminded of Houdini's relentless search for an 'authentic' medium after his mother died, which ironically led to his ruthless exposure of all the frauds. In Rogers's case, his findings eventually led him to a conclusion which in my opinion they did not justify.

Another example of "What is wholly unsupported by the evidence are your assertions."

[DBowling]

Even though the Shroud doesn't play a significant role in my personal faith, I have become convinced over the years that based on what I've seen I think it is likely that the Shroud is in fact the burial cloth of Christ. If that is the case, then how do we get the burial cloth of Christ from Jerusalem around 33 AD to Lirey, France in 1355. Below are links to a four article series that attempts to follow that path.

The concept of the Shroud of Christ has played quite a significant role both liturgically and, more mercenarily, as a relic, since about the 12th century, before which, apart from its mention in the bible, it seems to have no special significance. However none of the alleged mentions of miraculous images, nor of shrouds, since that time are sufficiently definitive for anybody to claim a substantiated history of the Shroud of Turin, as the Biblical Archaeological Review articles agree. What is obvious is that, given quite a lot of interest in the shroud, it would be perfectly natural to want to make one to fit the role, especially in the absence of the real one.

It would also be perfectly natural to want to discover the history of the authentic burial cloth of Jesus as well

[Philip]

Questions for Hugh:

Hugh, you DO believe that A) Christ was resurrected and B) that such a burial shroud of his once did exist, per Scripture - correct? And if you believe this - and let's forget about this particular Shroud artifact for a moment - do you have any reasons that it is impossible for it to still exist?

[hughfarey]

What is wholly unsupported by the evidence are your assertions.

Really? Which ones? You need to be a little more specific.

I thought it was obvious by the portion of your post that I responded to...
The specific unsupported assertion I was referring to was the following

It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence.

It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

These are broad assertions. Next came more specific assertions, and detailed evidence. Didn't you spot it?

...there are four of these images covering the whole shroud (covering about one square metre each) and that all of them show a dark green area in their bottom left hand corners... ...we all have access to Shroud 2.0, we can all see that the entire Shroud is not at all consistent across its entire surface... ...if the two sides of the 'axis' were different ages, then results from one side would have come out as 1st century, results from the other side would have come out as 16th century, and only results from pieces containing the axis would have come out between the two. This is not what happened. All 12 results were medieval... ...Not only is this not a description of French Reweaving, which is far from invisible, but it describes a wholly impossible process. Consider taking a piece of cloth, say a handkerchief, and cutting a small rectangle about half an inch wide and three inches long from one corner. Then bring in a "patch" of about the the same dimensions, and unravel sufficient of its threads to enable them to be 'spliced' together. Or rather, don't just consider it, actually do it...

That's what evidence is. You are confusing an unsupported assertion with one you don't agree with.

Alas, Rogers was near the end of his life when he studied the Raes threads which were the basis of his paper, which was published out of respect in the journal he himself had founded

Do you disagree with this. Have you checked the dates of his article, his death, and the founding of Thermochimica Acta?

He was certainly an out-and-out rationalist, and had no time for the lunatic fringe, but at the same time had been extremely disappointed by the radiocarbon date, and longed for it to be falsified.

Do you disagree with this? Have you read his review of Marc Antonacci's "The Resurrection of the Shroud"? Or his contribution to globalflood.org? I think they sustain my premise.

Another example of "What is wholly unsupported by the evidence are your assertions."

The fact is, you can't just wave a flag bearing "unjustified assertions" about, and not expect some flak. I'm sure you'll agree now that every one of my assertions has been supported by evidence, even if you disagree with it. That's OK; that's what discussion is. You point out where my evidence is faulty, I resubmit it, or even change my mind, and I do the same with you. That way the whole subject moves forward. But don't just claim I'm wrong without pointing where or why. That's just boorish.

[hughfarey]

The French reweaving technique is 'invisible' from both front and back.

Nonsense. Have you ever seen any? Or studied the pamphlet "The Frenway System of French Reweaving" which illustrates it in detail. I have actually had some done, on a hole I cut out of a handkerchief, and as I say, the interweave is very obvious from the back. If you have any evidence at all that truly invisible 'reweaving' is possible, or has ever been done, then please present it.

The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.

Which evidence is that? I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of just hurling great lumps of paper at me!

I have no doubt that the pigmentation in the patch was an attempt by those making the repair to make the color of the patch blend in with the color of the Shroud itself.

People often do that. But consider. The largest proportion of interweaving (and hence dye) is usually supposed to be at the corner of the Shroud, getting less and less towards the middle. The chronological dating gradient, however, shows that the nearer the corner, the older the date. In other words, the alleged contamination does not make the Shroud appear younger, but older than its true date.

It has a significant bearing. You would naturally expect segments of the sample which contain a larger percentage of the 16th century patch to demonstrate a more recent date than the segments that contained a lower percentage of the 16th century patch.

You would. But that's not what is observed. What is observed is exactly the opposite.

[hughfarey]

Questions for Hugh:

Hugh, you DO believe that A) Christ was resurrected and B) that such a burial shroud of his once did exist, per Scripture - correct? And if you believe this - and let's forget about this particular Shroud artifact for a moment - do you have any reasons that it is impossible for it to still exist?

No, of course not. Cloth from long before the time of Christ has been preserved, all over the world and from all sorts of environments. It has also been radiocarbon dated. Cloth is particularly good material for radiocarbon dating. It is easy to remove contaminents, and because is made from fast growing plants, relatively uniform in its results. Just like the Shroud!

[DBowling]

The specific unsupported assertion I was referring to was the following

It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence. It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

These are broad assertions. Next came more specific assertions, and detailed evidence. Didn't you spot it?

And the broad assertions and conclusions were the specific items that I identified as "wholly unsupported by the evidence"

He was certainly an out-and-out rationalist, and had no time for the lunatic fringe, but at the same time had been extremely disappointed by the radiocarbon date, and longed for it to be falsified.

Do you disagree with this?

I think the characterization " but at the same time had been extremely disappointed by the radiocarbon date, and longed for it to be falsified."
is mere supposition and falls under the category of "wholly unsupported by the evidence"

The fact is, you can't just wave a flag bearing "unjustified assertions" about, and not expect some flak.

And you should also expect push back when you make fallacious statements like

It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence. It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

I'm sure you'll agree now that every one of my assertions has been supported by evidence, even if you disagree with it.

As I'm sure you will do the same and agree that my assertions have been supported by evidence... even if you disagree with it.

[hughfarey]

And you should also expect push back when you make fallacious statements like

It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence. It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.

Did you in fact read my response to that? It was quite detailed, and provided evidence. If you think any of it was fallacious, would you like to say where?

... As I'm sure you will do the same and agree that my assertions have been supported by evidence... even if you disagree with it.

You didn't support any of your assertions with evidence. You just waved them about. I disagreed with them and explained why.

Let's try again:

1) You asked: "How there was cotton in the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself is made of flax." I explained that there was cotton in varying proportions all over the Shroud. I mentioned researchers who said there was cotton all over the Shroud, and mentioned by name researchers who had measured different proportions in the threads they studied. Do you disagree with any of that?

2) You asked: "How there was pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself has no pigmentation." I suggested that the pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample was there to stain the Holland cloth to look more like the Shroud. I explained that another possibility, that some repairs to the Shroud had been stained to make them look like the Shroud, was refuted by the chronological gradient discovered by Riani and Atkinson. Do you disagree with any of that?

3) You asked: "Why the different dates from the different labs get progressively larger as you go from one end of the sample to the other." I suggested that this might be related to contamination of some sort, but denied that it had any bearing on the date of the Shroud, as all the dates are medieval. Do you disagree with any of that?

4) You claimed: "The French reweaving technique is 'invisible' from both front and back." I said this was not true and explained how I know that. Do you disagree with any of that?

5) You said: "The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition." But you do not give any of this evidence. Please explain how Rogers's evidence contradicts mine.

6) You said: "You would naturally expect segments of the sample which contain a larger percentage of the 16th century patch to demonstrate a more recent date than the segments that contained a lower percentage of the 16th century patch." And I agreed with you! But that's not what we see on the Shroud, is it?

There; I've just gone back and numbered all the points, and italicised the questions you need to respond to, so as to make it even easier to point out where I've gone wrong. Have a go.

[DBowling]

The French reweaving technique is 'invisible' from both front and back.

Nonsense. Have you ever seen any? Or studied the pamphlet "The Frenway System of French Reweaving" which illustrates it in detail. I have actually had some done, on a hole I cut out of a handkerchief, and as I say, the interweave is very obvious from the back. If you have any evidence at all that truly invisible 'reweaving' is possible, or has ever been done, then please present it.

I'll return the favor...
Nonsense.

With that out of the way.
No I have never read the pamphlet you refer to, and I have never tried French reweaving myself.

However, the unique feature of French reweaving (in contrast to other reweaving techniques) is specifically that it is 'invisible' from both front and back.
And French reweaving was a technique that was known to be used in 16th century France.

The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition.

Which evidence is that? I wish you'd be a bit more specific instead of just hurling great lumps of paper at me!

Ray Rogers is the technical expert, so I'll defer to Roger's technical analysis in the paper that I posted the link for.
If you wish to point out technical errors in Ray Rogers' analysis, go for it.

From the Abstract

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

It has a significant bearing. You would naturally expect segments of the sample which contain a larger percentage of the 16th century patch to demonstrate a more recent date than the segments that contained a lower percentage of the 16th century patch.

You would. But that's not what is observed. What is observed is exactly the opposite.

Are you asserting that the segments of the sample with the greater percentage of 16th century cloth gave the younger radiocarbon dates?
I'd like to see the 'evidence' for that assertion.

[Kurieuo]

Hugh, perhaps you've covered this, in the other thread. And I'm sure you'll get to it.

The shroud was cut in the corner to obtain a sample to C14 testing. I can perhaps understand they did not want to damage the shroud. Normally, as per the videos in my original post, samples ought to be obtained from multiple locations.

It seems to me, especially given what it's been through with fire and and metal melting onto it, contamination alone would be high. Such seems logical to me, though I know very little about dating techniques. So it makes sense if we're after accurate results, to take multiple portions in different locations and test each individually.

Nonetheless, presuming contamination can be locked down, the team of experts who went about restoring the shroud noticed it has also been previously repaired. So then, we don't know we've got an accurate sample. There is more than enough to throw the C14 dating into doubt. Certainly not something you'd want to bet your family's lives upon.

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but you seem to really place this above all evidence to the contrary, and I expect you are quite familiar with what is out there being someone of an expert in this field (and vice-versa, to many, the evidence to the contrary appears strong and has turned skeptics into believing it authentic). My question is, why do you place so much strength on the C14 date? Or is your position simply one of agnosticism until re-testing in the future is done?

Second, perhaps as a Catholic you can answer this. Why doesn't your Pope/the Church allow re-dating to be done? Seems like the best way to shut people up on both sides and move them closer together. It's quite deplorable in my opinion that they don't, but that's just how I feel personally.

[DBowling]

1) You asked: "How there was cotton in the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself is made of flax." I explained that there was cotton in varying proportions all over the Shroud. I mentioned researchers who said there was cotton all over the Shroud, and mentioned by name researchers who had measured different proportions in the threads they studied. Do you disagree with any of that?

Yes, the shroud itself was made of flax not cotton.

2) You asked: "How there was pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample when the Shroud itself has no pigmentation." I suggested that the pigmentation on the radiocarbon sample was there to stain the Holland cloth to look more like the Shroud. I explained that another possibility, that some repairs to the Shroud had been stained to make them look like the Shroud, was refuted by the chronological gradient discovered by Riani and Atkinson. Do you disagree with any of that?

Yes, I disagree with your 'suggestion'.
As I stated I believe the pigmentation was used to make the color of the patch blend in with the color of the Shroud.

3) You asked: "Why the different dates from the different labs get progressively larger as you go from one end of the sample to the other." I suggested that this might be related to contamination of some sort, but denied that it had any bearing on the date of the Shroud, as all the dates are medieval. Do you disagree with any of that?

Yes, the progressive dates indicate a difference in percentage of 16th century cloth to original Shroud material across the radiocarbon sample.

4) You claimed: "The French reweaving technique is 'invisible' from both front and back." I said this was not true and explained how I know that. Do you disagree with any of that?

Yes, you are factually incorrect in your assertion that French reweaving is not 'invisible' from both sides.

5) You said: "The evidence which Ray Rogers lays out in his article directly contradicts your assertion about the patch composition." But you do not give any of this evidence. Please explain how Rogers's evidence contradicts mine.

See my quote from Rogers' abstract in my previous post

6) You said: "You would naturally expect segments of the sample which contain a larger percentage of the 16th century patch to demonstrate a more recent date than the segments that contained a lower percentage of the 16th century patch." And I agreed with you! But that's not what we see on the Shroud, is it?

I'm waiting to see your 'evidence' for that particular assertion