• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
(ps. It's just occurred to me that of course you might have all this evidence and be on the point of publishing the definitive proof of the medieval provenance of the Shroud such that none could sensibly deny it. In which case I withdraw my request and look forward to its publication. I just hope I live long enough to see it.)


Well we already have that "definitive proof", don't we? Why do you think the C14 testing was done? And what do you think the results of the C14 "prove"?

We don't need any more subjective suggestions about the dimensions of the image, or about herringbone cloth weaves etc. The C14 is, as things stands, the definitive end of the matter.
 
I agree with Ian S. The issue of authenticity is no longer there. The Shroudies have had thirty-five years to come up with a single piece of scientific evidence to date the Shroud before the medieval period and they have failed.

As the Shroud is the only one of its kind that we have, however, it is still valid to speculate on the context within which it was made. The sad thing is that the Shroudies have made it to a non-subject for academics who don't dare associate themselves with it. I have had a lot of private conversations with people who say that they would prefer not to be quoted publicly. This is partly for the very good reason that they would want to do further research of their own on the Shroud before they risked their reputation but also, as one academic has said, as a subject the Shroud is 'toxic'. I was quite surprised when one professor who thought I was on the right lines and would happily advise me further then backed out.

I may be over-optimistic but I would hope that we could get to the stage where specialists will go public. So long as no further research is allowed on the Shroud itself, the best bet will be in finding comparative examples of specific features of the Shroud, e,g. the all-over scourge marks, that help fit it into a specific period with a specific original function.

There is no lack of experts who would add immeasurably to our knowledge of the Shroud if they would only get themselves involved! I hope the weaving does get done to show how a treadle loom, known only after AD 1000, is the only realistic way of effectively weaving a cloth of the dimensions and pattern of the Shroud. That would be a start.
 
Hugh, shouldn't that be "proof" rather than "evidence"?
I have no evidence that d'Arcis was lying, let alone proof.
Hugh,
- I'm not sure where that leads -- unless, you trust her.
- These days, at least, lots of people, apparently, trust D'Arci.
As an Englishman with no interest in American politics I have no idea what Hillary Clinton says, let alone whether she is trustworthy, but if I wanted to I could find out more and come to a decision. Sadly I cannot do that with Pierre d'Arcis.
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

Not really a good analogy. For a start, lots of people, it appears, do trust Hillary Clinton, and for a second, every aspect of Clinton's character and behaviour is detailed on the internet, against which anything she says can be contrasted. As far as I know we know nothing at all about Pierre d'Arcis - he may have been a most saintly man indignant at flagrant relic abuse, or an out-and-out villain whose only motive was the pecuniary gain of his own cathedral. It may be significant that, whether or not the famous memorandum was actually sent, Pope Clement was prepared to accept that the Shroud was not genuine...
Hugh,
- But the Scavone paper you linked me to gave several reasons to be suspicious of d'Arcis' claim. Do you discount them?
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

I have no evidence that d'Arcis was lying, let alone proof.
As an Englishman with no interest in American politics I have no idea what Hillary Clinton says, let alone whether she is trustworthy, but if I wanted to I could find out more and come to a decision. Sadly I cannot do that with Pierre d'Arcis.
- Doesn't Scavone's list amount to circumstantial evidence against d'Arcis' credibility?
 
No. Not posting a letter is not evidence of its mendacity. And whether or not it was posted, it seems that Pope Clement accepted that the Shroud was not authentic, which, if anything, supports d'Arcis.

Of course one may speculate that a bishop could be jealous of a minor priory suddenly acquiring a lucrative relic, but that is not evidence, just speculation.
 
Strange question. The White House is only 200 years old, but lots of people are interested in how it was designed, its architecture and environment. How does the age of an artefact lessen its interest?


The White House is not claimed by millions of worshippers to be the supernatural product of a supernatural God, is it!

And this thread is not, and never has been, a neutral discussion of whether of not the shroud image is artistically important.

The thread has been entirely about groups like STURP and the websites and books quoted here by Jabba, from which Christians reject the C14 results and continue to claim that evidence shows the shroud really is the miraculously imaged burial cloth of a supernatural god.

If people are really interested in how and why any ancient images, paintings, drawings etc. were produced, then that's really a subject for a different thread.

Otherwise, if you start mixing-up that discussion here with a thread which has been all about the claims and counter claims of authenticity, then it risks becoming a way of sidelining the C14 and instead trying a "back door" route to claiming that the shroud is too amazing to be explained by normal human means
 
Last edited:
=Charles Freeman
...The sad thing is that the Shroudies have made it into a non-subject for academics who don't dare associate themselves with it. I have had a lot of private conversations with people who say that they would prefer not to be quoted publicly. This is partly for the very good reason that they would want to do further research of their own on the Shroud before they risked their reputation but also, as one academic has said, as a subject the Shroud is 'toxic'. ...

There is no lack of experts who would add immeasurably to our knowledge of the Shroud if they would only get themselves involved! ....

"Toxic" is a good word. I have suspected or assumed this to be professionals' reticence to get involved from day one of my reading shroudies' effusive claims of "scientists/experts cannot prove, etc." It's tantamount to respected scientists joining in an effort to disprove the Miracle of Fatima or the existence of Bigfoot, laughable religious delusions or folklore that really don't merit a place at the table.

Who needs zealous amateur crackpots shouting "fraud or incompetent" at you, when you could be spending your time productively on so many worthwhile pursuits in all areas of science?
 
Last edited:
By the way, just to add something to my last post -

- if you want to discuss other aspects of the shroud story, apart from it’s actual date and authenticity, then perhaps the most interesting side-issue is not how the image was produced, but how & why pro-shroud Christian groups like STURP were sanctioned by the Vatican to misrepresent their interest as if it were properly published genuine research science claiming to show that the shroud really is the burial cloth of Jesus.

If you read the book by Harry Gove (Relic, Icon or Hoax - Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud), then it’s quite shocking to find how devious and disingenuous the members of STURP and the representatives of the Vatican were throughout what became ten years of their prevarication and obstruction of so-called “protocols” agreeing to C14 tests which I expect the scientists themselves could have agreed in a week if not within a single day.
 
The White House is not claimed by millions of worshippers to be the supernatural product of a supernatural God, is it!

And this thread is not, and never has been, a neutral discussion of whether of not the shroud image is artistically important.
I think some posters have entered the thread with opinions which presuppose the age and are merely expressing their desire to figure out just how the shroud came to be as an intellectual pursuit.
The thread has been entirely about groups like STURP and the websites and books quoted here by Jabba, from which Christians reject the C14 results and continue to claim that evidence shows the shroud really is the miraculously imaged burial cloth of a supernatural god.

If people are really interested in how and why any ancient images, paintings, drawings etc. were produced, then that's really a subject for a different thread.
It's perfectly on topic to wonder who painted or created the thing. If Christians still reject the 14C dating, that's their problem.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited breach of rule 12

Otherwise, if you start mixing-up that discussion here with a thread which has been all about the claims and counter claims of authenticity, then it risks becoming a way of sidelining the C14 and instead trying a "back door" route to claiming that the shroud is too amazing to be explained by normal human means

The devout believers will never, ever believe the Shroud is other than a holy relic, no matter what a few people on an internet forum say.:rolleyes:
Just like birthers, footers, truthers, etc. No difference. Shrouders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

No. Not posting a letter is not evidence of its mendacity. And whether or not it was posted, it seems that Pope Clement accepted that the Shroud was not authentic, which, if anything, supports d'Arcis.

Of course one may speculate that a bishop could be jealous of a minor priory suddenly acquiring a lucrative relic, but that is not evidence, just speculation.
Hugh,
- But the memo apparently never sent was only one of about 15 contentions (it's difficult to separate the more specific contentions in the summary) against d'Arcis' credibility.
- You must surely be the most shroud knowledgeable on this site -- as well as, the most objective (including myself)... What am I missing, or confusing, regarding the d'Arci memo? Why don't you think these claims are (albeit, circumstantial) evidence?
 
If the letter was written last week it wouldn't make any difference to the age or 'authenticity' of the Shroud. This is just another Red Herring.
 
STURP was never sanctioned by the Vatican. They managed to get permission to view the Shroud from the Duke of Savoy, then in exile as the ex-king of Italy, who was its owner until his death in 1983 when he bequeathed it to the Vatican. So far as I can see the Vatican has always kept its distance from STURP, certainly they have turned down any attempt by STURP to become involved in further testing. This is hardly surprising as no one in the STURP team had any experience of dealing with ancient textiles- there does not even seem to have been an expert conservationist with them to offer advice when they examined the Shroud.

Having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars transporting heavy imaging equipment all the way to Turin, STURP took off surface material from thirty-two parts of the Shroud with sticky tape. Amazingly the duke of Savoy allowed them to take these tapes back to the States and keep them. Having had to withdraw their tapes from the expert microscopist Walter McCrone when he claimed to have find paint pigments on them, STURP then did their own tests which failed to find any sign of authenticity. They labelled the 'large' quantities of calcium carbonate they found on the surface of the Shroud as accumulations of dust although these were a clue of the original gesso that may have primed the shroud before painting. They were also, unsurprisingly with their lack of specialist knowledge, unaware that medieval,paintings in lines were always on the outer fibrils only , exactly what they found and were mystified by.

This was all thirty seven years ago (1978). I have asked in vain where these tapes are now kept. As they are the only material from the Shroud available for further research, they are important and it needs to be clear that 1) as they are a representative sample from different parts of the Shroud, they need to have been kept together 2) As they contain a variety of organic material which may or may not included blood and animal proteins, they need to be conserved in conditions that prevent these organisms from deterioration.

The failure of STURP or its representatives to say where these tapes are and the failure to allow independent scientists to replicate the tests with the more sophisticated equipment of today makes it impossible to take the expensive STURP Turin adventure seriously.
 
I think some posters have entered the thread with opinions which presuppose the age and are merely expressing their desire to figure out just how the shroud came to be as an intellectual pursuit.

It's perfectly on topic to wonder who painted or created the thing. If Christians still reject the 14C dating, that's their problem. Personally, I feel the thread has been mostly about cruelly enabling someone with an obsession deserving of professional treatment.


The devout believers will never, ever believe the Shroud is other than a holy relic, no matter what a few people on an internet forum say.:rolleyes:
Just like birthers, footers, truthers, etc. No difference. Shrouders.


Well, ... I don’t really disagree with any of that. And I don’t think I said such discussion would be "off topic".

What I said was - if we set aside any further discussion of the C14 and just concentrate on claims that the image is too unique and amazing to have been produced by any human hand, then that risks becoming a way of Jabba and any other pro-shroud believers indulging us all once again in all the nonsense from the pro-shroud websites and books etc., whilst no longer having to deal with the fact of the C14 dates.
 
Hugh is right. No one disputes that the proclamations of Clement VII were public ones. He accepts that the Shroud is worthy of veneration,and even earns you an indulgence, but that it is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ. So from somewhere, D'Arcis or someone else, perhaps even in a personal communication not documented, Clement picked up that this could not be the real thing whatever the de Charny's tried to claim. It may well have been the evidence that it was painted that was the crucial point.

Proclaiming such veneration was not unusual in this period when there were many sacred objects, icons are a good examples, that were highly venerated without anyone pretending they were authentic relics. A painted Shroud could be seen to fall into the same category as an icon. However, an indulgence is not usually granted without some report of a miracle or vision associated with the sacred object, although, alas, we have no reports of any associated with the Shroud in this period.
 
Ray Rogers, in 'A Chemist's Perspective On The Shroud of Turin' says that "Unfortunately, the tape samples were inadvertently returned to Turin after the death of Al Adler, and they have been lost to scientific observation."
 
Hugh is right. No one disputes that the proclamations of Clement VII were public ones. He accepts that the Shroud is worthy of veneration,and even earns you an indulgence, but that it is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ. So from somewhere, D'Arcis or someone else, perhaps even in a personal communication not documented, Clement picked up that this could not be the real thing whatever the de Charny's tried to claim. It may well have been the evidence that it was painted that was the crucial point.

Proclaiming such veneration was not unusual in this period when there were many sacred objects, icons are a good examples, that were highly venerated without anyone pretending they were authentic relics. A painted Shroud could be seen to fall into the same category as an icon. However, an indulgence is not usually granted without some report of a miracle or vision associated with the sacred object, although, alas, we have no reports of any associated with the Shroud in this period.

Is this you confirming Hugh's response to me on your behalf from a couple of pages ago?

If so, are there other examples of known fakes being declared 'a forgery, but to be venerated' by the church?

Ward
 
STURP was never sanctioned by the Vatican. They managed to get permission to view the Shroud from the Duke of Savoy, then in exile as the ex-king of Italy, who was its owner until his death in 1983 when he bequeathed it to the Vatican. So far as I can see the Vatican has always kept its distance from STURP, certainly they have turned down any attempt by STURP to become involved in further testing. This is hardly surprising as no one in the STURP team had any experience of dealing with ancient textiles- there does not even seem to have been an expert conservationist with them to offer advice when they examined the Shroud.



The Vatican assumed ownership of the shroud in 1983. The C14 testing was finally agreed and done at the end of 1988, and published early in 1989 (iirc).

So throughout most of the years of those discussions, the Vatican was the owner of the shroud.

In those years of discussions leading up to agreement on performing the C14 tests, the participants who took part in the discussions were certain representatives of the C14 labs (inc. the aforementioned Harry Gove, who wrote a lengthy book drawn entirely from the contemporaneous notes which his secretary took at all the meetings), various Catholic church representatives inc. most notably Luigi Gonella who was by then the Vatican's appointed main keeper of the shroud in Turin, and iirc from Gove's book, various members of STURP.

The point is this - it is very clear from Gove's book (assuming his contemporaneous personal notes and his recollection of meeting and dealing with all these church officials and members of STURP are true and correct ... for which, see his book), that Luigi Gonella in particular, but also in concert with various other Catholic church officials in and around those 10 years of meetings, was very friendly and familiar indeed with a number of members of STURP who also attended those meetings and made their representations about how any C14 should be done, who should do it, how they should do it etc. etc.

If Gove's account is anything like true at all, then it is perfectly obvious that Gonella, certain other church representatives who Gonella was working with, and the members of STURP who were all at those meetings in Turin, were constantly trying to dictate what should be done if anything at all was to be done by any C14 tests.

And in case it's not obvious what has that to do with the Vatican, the Pope, and the Catholic church in Turin or Rome - by that date the Vatican and the Pope as it's head, had become the owners of the shroud, and were therefore in charge of what Gonella and STURP could or could not do at any meetings deciding anything about investigative access to the shroud. And even before that date of 1983 when the Vatican officially took ownership of the shroud, the shroud was kept in Turin where Gonella was the main, and very senior religious employee in a catholic Church of which the Pope and the Vatican cardinals are the head ... Gonella, the archbishop of Turin and their various religious officials could not do anything unless the Vatican ultimately agreed to it.

No doubt the Pope and the Vatican always wanted to distance themselves from any controversies surrounding objects such the Turin Shroud. And certainly they tried to play down the results after the C14 dates were announced. But the bottom line is that the Vatican, the Pope and it’s Cardinals are the head and the authority of all Catholic churches in Italy, including the bishops of the church in Turin and it’s senior religious officials such as Luigi Gonella as their keeper of the Shroud. So Gonella, the bishops and the Vatican are certainly all responsible for their not inconsiderable involvement with allowing numerous members of STURP to keep having uniquely privileged access to conducting experiments on the shroud for 20 years prior to the C14.
 
Cotton was common in Rome and became largely inaccessible in Europe between the end of the Classical period 450ish and the First Crusade late 1090s. After the First Crusade it was readily available though probably not cheap as it was a Silk Road trade good imported by mostly Venitian and Genovese traders.

Jabba, how has this information shaped your objection to the cotton in the sample? Keep in mind that the CIQ is more or less right in between the two major trading powers bringing cotton cloth into Europe.
 
Hugh - I think that only applies to some of the tapes, not all of them. So far as I remember Barrie Schwortz did not know where tapes Rogers had had got to and only tracked them down via Rogers' computer after his death ( which suggests that there was no recorded supervision of who had what).I have never had a reply to my frequent requests for info that makes it clear that they are ALL back in Turin but perhaps you have.

Ian S. I agree that there were numerous attempts by STURP members to keep in with the Vatican but ultimately they were kept away from any involvement with the testing of the Shroud. It is important to note that in a strongly argued article to be found at the end of the proceedings of a conference of the Shroud held in Turin in 2000, (i.e. twelve years after the radio- carbon dating), Gonella defended the testing and the date achieved. It appears, if you read his article closely, that he had some difficulty in getting it included, which is why, perhaps, it is tagged on at the end. So at that date, whatever his relationship with individual members of STURP, Gonella was not buying into their view that the testing was flawed. After all he was there at the selection of the samples, was a scientist watching proceedings while no STURP member was present.

His passing on threads of the Shroud to Rogers does seem extraordinary - I wonder whether he expected Rogers to go public on this. It must certainly have been an embarrassment for Gonella as he can hardly have argued that he had a right to keep threads from the Shroud for himself and distribute them to his contacts outside Turin.

Ward. I am not sure what the point is here. With hundreds of thousands of relics around in the Middle Ages (see my book Holy Bones,Holy Dust) every known permutation happened somewhere. My reading is that Jeanne de Vergy had the Shroud ( so far as we know her husband Geoffrey de Charny was away fighting and on diplomatic missions until his death in 1356) and was claiming it was authentic. It was this claim that was declared fraudulent as there was evidence that it was actually a painted linen (which does NOT mean that it was originally created to deceive). However, there seems to have been some reason why, perhaps a miracle, Clement VII was prepared to allow its exposition by Jeanne's son, also Geoffrey. From 1390. However, bearing in mind the shenanigans of Jeanne, Clement insisted that it was publicly announced at each exposition that it was not authentic. This is one possible reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom