Hey JB:

Care to give a synopsis of the latest Shroud of Turin research? I've looked over the official website, which is nicely done with divergent views, but you and Phil seem to follow this closer than most.

Well, I haven't really kept abreast beyond my last post. Phil?

pax,
jb

I'm a Shroud fan and I pretty much believe it was the burial cloth of Jesus. I've read about it extensively, including various web sites. My favorite books on it are Report on the Shroud of Turin by Dr. John Heller, which describes the findings of the Shroud research team, which examined the relic in the late 70's. A recent book by Ian Wilson entitled The Blood and the Shroud examines the significance of the blood samples taken from the relic. It also looks at the C14 dating issue, which places the Shroud around 1300 A.D. Wilson maintains that a fire at that time contaminated the Shroud with carbon from the smoke, and also killed off bacterial plaque growing on the cloth, which biased the samples. It's pretty technical reading.

But there's just too much there which points to Jesus:
- crucified man;
- scourged (horribly so--hardly any skin on the back);
- crowned with thorns;
- the image contributed to early Christian iconography;
- fabric style dating to middle East, 1st century;
- pollen from plants in the middle East;
- the blood as real blood;
- the image as not a painting, but something of a radiated burn onto the outer fibrils of the cloth;

I think it's a snapshot of the resurrection!

BTW, the man in the Shroud was about 6' tall and weighed about 180 lbs. with a strong build. That was pretty big for that time and culture!

Phil:

The Shroud website www.shroud.com has a piece documenting that several fibers of the cloth were sent to one of the University of California Schools for carbon dating. The professor who tested it supposedly found that the burnt end dated 12th century, with the uncharred end around c.200 AD. When these results were published the University evidently called and dissociated itself from the findings, stating that the professor in question never performed such a study and wasn't qualified to do so.

And so the guy who runs this website tracked down the professor at home and inquired further. The professor admitted to performing the test and confirmed the findings, but was quick to get off the phone and refused to speak further on the issue (All this according to my memory of what is posted on this particular website). Apparently the webmaster thought to record this telephone call with the professor as further documentation.

It seems that the only remaining controversy for reasonable skeptics is the dating. Beyond that it remains an enigma, of course, even when the entire collected evidence is so weighty.

Have you seen the picture of Jesus, or Shroud face, that has been developed from the photographic negative? Check it out at www.shroud.org. It looks somewhat similar to the icon you post here at Shalom.

I�m not really sure what the significance would be if the shroud is proven to be authentic to Jesus. We do know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he existed and was crucified. Still, it�s a stunning thought that the shroud might have captured the resurrection.

BTW, the man in the Shroud was about 6' tall and weighed about 180 lbs. with a strong build. That was pretty big for that time and culture!

If God were to send a messenger He might well choose someone of such stature who would automatically command a certain presence � or at least start out with no disadvantage. Many people think � and probably rightly so � this is one reason George Washington commanded such utter and total respect and loyalty. Sorry to have possibly besmirched the short people out there. It�s quality of course, not quantity!

Last night I watched the movie "Stigmata," for the second time. Those horror-religous-dramas can be poorly done and way over the top with special effects, but this to me is quite good (Patricia Arquette is, in fact, easy on the eyes), even though it lampoons the Catholic Church in a way I'm not sure is fair regarding the Gospel of Thomas.

I mention this because I'm wondering what the opinions are for the Gospel of Thomas, its dating, authenticity, etc. It does contain some intriguing, inspiring verse, but the language often seems quite different than what we have in the New Testament gospels.

I agree, Brad. "Stunning" would be my choice of words, too, should the Shroud authenticity be supported with more advanced research. There is apparently enough of the cloth fibers left to do extensive testing with new technologies that are less invasive. A Texas university did DNA research and apparently concluded the blood was both human and a man's, but far too old and denatured to perform anything more conclusive.

Good comparison to George Washington. I saw the Civil War documentary on PBS recently and heard that discussed. If this does portray Jesus, then those recorded incidents in the gospels where he has to flee the crowds for fear of his own life must have been a bummer, if in fact he was taller than most.

The other thing that most intrigues me about the Shroud is that its authenticity would mean that the image is of both Jesus in his full humanity and perhaps Christ in His resurrected glory. The nature of the image defies cruder characterizations such as pigment or even scorching, since it has photographic qualities and resolutions that cannot be reproduced, so far.

No wonder it took the church 3 or 4 centuries to settle its speculations on the divine nature.

An article in "Biblical Archaeology Review" also mentiones testing done on pollen found in the shroud cloth which suggests authenticity, but is not without it's critics.

sorry, I looked around the house (we have several piles of magazine, I'm embarrassed to say) and couldn't find the one with the article. I may have passed in on to someone else.

shanti

w.c., click here for a good explanation of why the Gospel of Thomas isn't considered canonical. This pretty much squares with what I've read from other sources.

from Brad: Still, it�s a stunning thought that the shroud might have captured the resurrection.

Yes, that's it! As w.c. noted, "the nature of the image defies cruder characterizations such as pigment or even scorching, since it has photographic qualities and resolutions that cannot be reproduced, so far." It seems to be lightly scorched onto the outer fibrils of the cloth and is even 3-D in its light/dark shading. Here is good web page to describe the image.

A research team of physicist, chemists, and others in the late 70's submitted the image to computer 3-D enhancing models and it came out perfectly bilateral and "humanoid." They tried draping a similar cloth over heated statues and could come up with nothing close to as 3-D symmetrical as the shroud. Their conclusion was that they really didn't know how to account for the image other than that it was caused by a short outburst of heat or some other form of energy.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has a stance of neutrality about the Shroud. Also, Christianity went along for almost 1200 years without knowing its whereabouts. I've often wondered if it wasn't intended all along for the people of our age, who are so badly in need of reminders of the historical reality of Jesus and that the resurrection proclaimed for him by Christians is also considered an historical event.

Well, it looks like the RC is putting its arrogance on display again, now with its latest treatment of the Shroud. Check out www.shroud.com for the details, which I'll try to summarize, but may not be effective, since I'm fuming at what I think they've done. Time will only tell, but the Church, without any consultation with Shroud scientists, began a cleaning of the relic, which included removal of the patches grafted in place as repair for fire damage in the 16th century, removing the old backing, and other measures defying the "if it aint broke don't fix it" motto. Scientists that have been involved with this relic, or at least the ones with serious credentials in chemistry, microbiology, etc . . are appalled that the archeological data of the relic has now quite possibily been lost (the analogy given by one scientist is that one wouldn't remove items from a dig until the contextual meaning of their location was established, which in the case of the Shroud is far from complete i.e. the pollen and other indicators of its history predating the 13th century).

I know we must give much credit to the Church for preserving this relic, and others, throughout the centuries (not to forget the Gnostics that possibly protected it from the Church during eras when such relics were considered heresy), but this attitude of the church with respect to the Shroud is really no different than the attitude that has embarrassed it over the sexual abuse scandel i.e., treating its arrogance as divine right, as though it had no one to answer to but itself. The Shroud belongs to the world, and with its possible meaning, even its historical significance of having been protected by numerous cultures throughout the centuries, deserves better than to be treated in this way by pre-Vatican II, JP II driven avarice.

Now that you've got my polemical reading of it, go to the website and stew over your own juices.

Here's returning to this topic, my interest awakened anew by Gibson's file.
This web page describes how bacteria and fungi growing on the shroud fibers could have distorted the C14 results. What's proposed is that the 14th C. fibers killed these microbes, and that the C14 dating didn't cleanse the fibers of them when dating the cloth. Very interesting!

Also, see the images on this page. The one with the coins is particularly compelling; hard to believe a midieval artist would have managed all those kinds of details.