Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[Giordano]

No -- distortions as compared to what a photograph would depict are likely when the image of a corpse is imprinted onto a linen cloth in physical contact with that body.

Exactly! The problem with the shroud is that many aspects of the image on the shroud are like those of two photographs taken from the front and the back. If you wrap a cloth around a 3D body, the image would be very different.

The paper towel around one's head experiment cited by another poster is just one example you can do yourself. Wrap it tight or loose, the image of the ears will spread out like wings from both sides of the front of your face. That is not the image seen on the shroud, which looks like a passport photograph.

But even if the shroud didn't have these distortions, the 14C date says it is not the burial cloth for Jesus. That's why the emphasis of this thread on that one fact. It is the most clearly established fact about the shroud and trumps anything else unless directly proven wrong.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

You're assuming particulars from generalities -- these descriptions are incompatible with the accounts of Christ's extremely hasty burial found in the Gospels (done in a great rush, because it was the Easter vigil).



Oh good grief bad KJV translations ...

ἔλαβον οὖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸ ὀθονίοις μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων, καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν.

acceperunt ergo corpus Iesu et ligaverunt eum linteis cum aromatibus sicut mos Iudaeis est sepelire

"clothes" ? nope. Linen and vegetable matter ? yep.

I don't know what the Latin is supposed to prove - is it any better a translation than the KJV? I don't think so. Anyway, the original (as far as we can tell ...) Greek is ὀθονίοις, which is quite obviously a plural (note the -οις ending) and according to the lexicon, means 'linen wrappings' or 'linen bandages'. Which is precisely in accord with the KJV ('clothes' being an obsolete plural of 'cloth').

 

[JabbaPapa]

We've seen this kind of had-waving before.

The issue is not "tightly" wrapped. but "wrapped" at all. The image shows none of the orthographic distortion that happens when a cylindrical object is inked onto a flat surface. Seriously--do the mannequin demo.

The typical human body is not "cylindrical" ...

And there is some obvious image distortion on the image -- as would be obvious if some people were to stop and think about the internal incoherence of their ideas that the arms seem warped, and these suggestions that the image isn't.

The fact that the "image belies the assumption" that the cloth was wrapped is, in fact, another argument against authenticity.

I didn't say that it belied the wrapping, I'm saying that it belies YOUR assumptions about how such a cloth must be wrapped.

And how does this explain the anti-gravity blood rivulets flowing along (historically incorrect) hair in a gravitationally impossible direction, after the dead body (and hair) had been washed?

"historically incorrect hair" ????

What on EARTH is that supposed to be ???

Your quibbles about blood flow appear to be completely irrelevant, as you cannot have any idea whatsoever about the positions that the corpse may have been in, nor the patterns of blood stains on the fabric that would emerge, prior to whatever imprint occurred onto the linen.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

And, just to nitpick, it obviously wasn't the 'Easter vigil' as that is a Christian practice that came afterwards, it was the eve of the Passover. And the Bible passage specifically says that the burial was done in accordance with the customs of the Jews, ie, in an expected, not an unusual, fashion.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating/Explanations?/Re-weave/Patch/Patching

Hi Jabba

It’s good to have someone else around that doesn’t believe that the carbon dating settled the issue

erm, I'm a little more circumspect than that -- I simply feel that the C¹⁴ dating is somewhat incompatible with some other sources of data, which naturally raises some questions.

For my part, I believe that there are two extremist attitudes towards the Shroud that I find to be unhelpful.

1) Those with a deep-set belief in its genuine nature tend to refuse any and all contrary evidence in an irrational manner

2) Those with a deep-set belief that it is a mediaeval forgery tend to refuse any and all contrary evidence in an irrational manner

---

As for the re-weaving, my ex-girlfriend specialised in costume analysis at the Courtauld in London, and I occasionally had to assist her as she is not a native English speaker, so that I am very aware that the discipline of fabric analysis is extremely sketchy at best.

I would be loathe to assume anything at all about mediaeval fabric restoration techniques.

One thing is certain though, from everything I've read on that particular sub-subject -- no specialist fabric analysts, in the contemporary 21st century meaning, were at hand in the 1980s to verify the nature of the test samples (mainly because the discipline was virtually non-existent at that time). Furthermore, certain fabric analysis techniques are intrusive, so that unless new analysis samples are ever provided, those analysts can provide little more than hypotheses based on superficial analysis mainly.

None of which PROVES anything, of course -- but that's neither one way, nor the other.

JP,

- When I first logged on here, I figure I was about 90% convinced that the Shroud was authentic. Until you logged on, my conviction had slipped to about 80%. Now, I figure it's about 85%...
- Attaching actual numbers is sort of foolish -- but yet, in reading my own mind, that's what I get.

- I have done a lot of reading about the Shroud over the last 40 years, but I never kept good track of it... I'm trying to now, but for me, doing so takes up a lot of time.
- Whatever, my conviction is based a lot upon a pile of stuff rather than the specific sources making up that pile. Consequently, when asked for sources, it takes me awhile to dig them up -- and in the meantime, numerous new questions and comments are being posed. Then, everyone gets upset with me for being so slow in coming up with evidence.

- Glad you joined in -- it's also good to have one open mind on the thread.

--- Jabba

 

[JabbaPapa]

threads with no provenance?

If you're going to accuse members in here of "untenable, insulting, demonstrably dishonest claims", don't you think it would be wise to refrain from making similar claims yourself ?

 

[Resume]

- Glad you joined in -- it's also good to have one open mind on the thread.

--- Jabba

Open minds ask for evidence; in this instance that would be evidence that overturns the medieval carbon date. And that would just be a starting point.

That hasn't happened in this thread.

 

[AdMan]

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

Is this a joke?

ETA: I see Resume et al. beat me to it.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Because if there's one thing the History Channel is known for, it's scientific accuracy.

I have already pointed out that iot is not a scientific study -- nor does it claim to be.

It is a documentary about the attempts to generate a realistic image of the Shroud Man, on the basis of 3D image analysis and computer imaging software.

This content is enlivened by some historically dubious claims about date and provenance, but these do not affect the central topic of the programme.

 

[JabbaPapa]

It's also wrong about the sides of the head, arms, and legs.

I don't see that.

The History Channel documentary points out, among other things, that there are gaps in the image corresponding to the sides of the head, arms, and legs.

This suggests that, however the image was produced, it was NOT with a wrapping of the linen fully around the corpse.

 

[Jabba]

We're not asking you to define what you meant by it, Jabba, and you know it. We're asking you to PROVE it. I realise that this may take you 30-40 more years.

Belz,
- I can't PROVE anything. Though, I think that I can substantiate a lot. Though at this point, I'm not sure exactly what you want me to substantiate. Obviously, you don't want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the attempt to "blind" was unsuccessful (ineffective) -- which is all I was trying to say.
--- Jabba

 

[Olowkow]

I have already pointed out that iot is not a scientific study -- nor does it claim to be.

It is a documentary about the attempts to generate a realistic image of the Shroud Man, on the basis of 3D image analysis and computer imaging software.

This content is enlivened by some historically dubious claims about date and provenance, but these do not affect the central topic of the programme.

Could you please post the video and the timestamp for the relevant portion. Near as I can tell, the site you posted wants to sell me a DVD of the program.

 

[AdMan]

Belz,
Obviously, you don't want me to substantiate that everyone involved accepted that the attempt to "blind" was unsuccessful (ineffective) -- which is all I was trying to say.
--- Jabba

But you didn't actually say that. Are you retracting your previous statement?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Exactly! The problem with the shroud is that many aspects of the image on the shroud are like those of two photographs taken from the front and the back. If you wrap a cloth around a 3D body, the image would be very different.

The paper towel around one's head experiment cited by another poster is just one example you can do yourself. Wrap it tight or loose, the image of the ears will spread out like wings from both sides of the front of your face. That is not the image seen on the shroud, which looks like a passport photograph.

You're comparing two extreme scenarios -- that of the 19th-21st century photographic image, devoid of all distortions ; and the full body-wrap method of maximum distortions.

Why are you assuming that it must be either the one or the other extreme ?

It doesn't make sense.

I can see people OT1H denying that it can be the real image of a corpse because it's distorted ; OTOH denting that it can be an imprint because it isn't ...

The History Channel documentary provides the only realistically acceptable solution that I've yet to see, that it is a partially distorted imprint.

Why is this so hard for some people to even conceive of ?

But even if the shroud didn't have these distortions, the 14C date says it is not the burial cloth for Jesus. That's why the emphasis of this thread on that one fact. It is the most clearly established fact about the shroud and trumps anything else unless directly proven wrong.

The dating is HARDLY the most interesting thing about the Shroud, IMO

 

[Akri]

That certain contributors' a priori views both concerning how they view the wrapping of linen around Christ's body, in relation to how they view the Shroud image, and their views on the realism of the image on the Shroud are biased and inaccurate.

And they accomplish this how? You've given us a picture of a body with a cloth draped on it. How does that prove that the Shroud, if authentic, would have been draped over a body in the same way? How does a picture of a fake body (it looks like a statue, but could be CG or something else) prove how a real body would lie? Is that fake body anatomically correct (I'm not sure we have enough in that picture to calculate this--I think we'd need to know the full height of the body, and then calculate the arm span)?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Is this a joke?

No.

It's not their bizarre views on History that I'm recommending ...

 

[Olowkow]

Why is this so hard for some people to even conceive of ?

I'll take a wild guess and say it's because we haven't seen the video. Is the jpg of the body on the table with a shroud lightly draped that you posted their scenario?

 

[Agatha]

"historically incorrect hair" ????

What on EARTH is that supposed to be ???

Do you think the 1st century Jesus, if he existed at all, would have had long flowing locks as depicted in mediaeval European art? Jews in 1st century Palestine, as far as we can tell from art on Roman friezes, from the Temple of Bel and from Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 1, would have had short hair.

 

[JabbaPapa]

You've given us a picture of a body with a cloth draped on it. How does that prove that the Shroud, if authentic, would have been draped over a body in the same way?

Authenticity is irrelevant to this question.

The blood stains and the minute detail of forensically accurate anatomy (once the distorsions are accounted for and corrected), as well as the gaps at the sides of the head, torso, arms, and legs, lead to the conclusion that the linen Shroud was draped over the body more or less as depicted (with the error, already pointed out, of the top of the head).

How does a picture of a fake body (it looks like a statue, but could be CG or something else) prove how a real body would lie? Is that fake body anatomically correct (I'm not sure we have enough in that picture to calculate this--I think we'd need to know the full height of the body, and then calculate the arm span)?

It's a statue.

There are probably better images of it in circulation -- this one doesn't exactly thrill me either.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I've no need for you to explain to me something that I've witnessed, and you apparently have not.

Watch the History Channel special and decide for yourself.

Bahahahahahahahahaha.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.