Rick Dean
Registered
52
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...esusshroud.html
Jesus' Shroud? Recent Findings Renew Authenticity Debate
Bijal P. Trivedi
National Geographic Channel
April 9, 2004
The Shroud of Turinbelieved by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus and one of the most venerated relics of the Christian churchwas declared a fake in 1988 by three independent scientific institutions. Yet interest in the cloth has remained intense, and new science suggests the shroud deserves another look.
Raymond Rogers is a retired physical chemist and former leader
f the explosives research and development group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He proposes that the samples used to date the shroud in 1988 were flawed and the experiment should be repe
at
d. His conclusion is based on a recent chem
ical analysis of the shroud and previous observations made during a 1978 examination.
Rogers was one of two dozen American scientists who participated in the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)an intense five-day scientific investigation of the shroud in Turin, Italy.
In 1988 the Vatican allowed postage stamp-size pieces to be snipped from one corner of the shroud and distributed to three laboratoriesat the University of Arizona in Tucson, Oxford University in England, and the Swiss Federal Institute in Zurichfor a sensitive form of carbon dating. The results, published in 1989 in the journal Nature, revealed that the fabric was produced between 1260 and 1390.
Dyed and Repaired
In December 2003 Rogers received a s
ample of the shroud from a physicist colleague who had collaborated on STURP. The sample was taken from the same strip of cloth distributed for carbon dating in 1988.
Using chemical and m
icro
scop
ic analysi
s, Rogers revealed that a madd
er dye and mordant and gum mixture had been wiped onto yarn used on that particular corner of the shroudindicating that the cloth had been repaired. (The mordant gum would have been used to bind the dye to the fibers. Madder dye is derived from the root of the madder plant.)
What's more, these ruby colored madder dye-mordant mixtures did not reach France or England until the 16th century.
"The cotton fibers look like they have been wiped with fuzzy cherry Jell-O, and the linen fibers a little less so," Rogers said. "The area is certainly dyed to match the sepia color of the old [original] cloth. There is ample chemical and microscopic proof of that."
Rogers also found evidence of a "splice site," suggesting t
hat this patch of the cloth had not only been dyed but also repaired and rewoven. He suspects that the dye and repair job was probably done in the Near East during the Middle Ages, co
inciding
with th
e carbon dating re
sults.
"The 1988 date was undoubtedly accurate f
or the sample supplied. However, there is no question that the radiocarbon sampling area has a completely different chemical composition than the main part of the shroud," Rogers said. "The published date for the sample was not the time at which the cloth was produced."
This reinforces the earlier finding of STURP scientists who, using ultraviolet fluorescence, also revealed that the sampled corner was unlike any other region of the shroud and had been excessively handled over the years.
Rogers's analysis of the 2003 sample has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
Forging Religious Artifacts
Douglas Donahue, a retired physicist from the University of Arizona, t
raveled to Turin in 1988 to collect the shroud samples for testing. He was co-director of the National Science Foundation-University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectromet
ry Laborator
yone of the
three labs chosen to date
the shroud.
"I'm satisfied with the way it was sampled. We had sev
eral textile experts present from a number of countries, and all unanimously agreed that the sample we received was representative of the whole cloth," Donahue said. "It wouldn't be unreasonable to sample other spots of the cloth, though you can understand that they wanted to preserve it and didn't want holes cut all over the place."
Even if carbon dating links the shroud to the first century, proving it belonged to Jesus will still be near impossiblethe closest scientists are likely to get is validating the time and place where the cloth and its haunting image were made. The shroud, an approximately 14-foot-by-3-foot (4-meter-by-1-meter) cloth, is bloodstained and imprinted
with a faint image of a tortured man's face, hands, and body.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was removed from the cross and placed in a tomb, whe
re he was wrappe
d in cloth in ac
cordance with Jewish custom. But f
ew, if any, records exist from that time to detail that shroud's whereabouts.
The Shroud
of Turin entered public awareness in 1349, when a French knight named Geoffrey de Charny is said to have acquired it in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and brought it to the attention of Pope Clement VI. The shroud was held in a church in Lirey, France, and was first shown publicly in 1355.
More Evidence Contradicts Carbon Dating
Since that first exhibition many have questioned the shroud's authenticity, since forging religious artifacts was big business during medieval times.
The 1988 carbon dating results satisfied many skeptics that the Shroud of Turin was a clever hoax, and the findings stymied further research.
But some scientists have persisted.
In 1999 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated at the 16th International Botanical Congress that he found pollen gr
ains on the shroud f
rom plants that coul
d only be found in and around Jerusalem,
placing its origins in the Middle East.
Further comparison of the shroud with another ancient cloth
, the Sudarium of Oviedo (thought to be the burial face cloth of Jesus), revealed it was embedded with pollen grains from the same species of plant as found on the Shroud of Turin.
The Sudarium even carries the same AB blood type, with bloodstains in a similar pattern. Since the Sudarium has been stored in a cathedral in Spain since the eighth century, the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin is at least as old.
Regardless of whether the shroud belonged to Jesus Christ, it lures millions of visitors at each public display.
"Its allure is both scientific and spiritual," said Phillip Wiebe, a professor and chair of philosophy at Trinity We
stern University in Langley, British Columbia. "It's a very mysterious object. How was the image formed and who was on it?"
;
Wiebe is prese
nting a lecture, "T
he Shroud of Turin: Authenticity and Significanc
e for Theology," at the "Man of the Shroud Exhibit" this week at the Good Shepherd Church in Surrey, British Columbia.
Archa
eological Triumph
If the image on the Shroud of Turin is a fake, then much mystery remains about how it was created. Some suggest it was painted. But STURP, using methods standard for art analysis, found no evidence of paints or pigments.
"This may well be an artifact of Jesus," said Barrie Schwortz, a photographic, video, and imaging specialist based in Los Angeles, California. Schwortz served as the official documenting photographer for STURP.
When Schwortz embarked on the study, he said, he was highly skeptical. "I fully expected to see brush strokesessentially a manufactured relicand walk
out," Schwortz said. "But I've followed the science over 30 years. And when you have eliminated other possibili
ties, the one remainingno m
atter how unlikelymust be t
he truth."
What will carbon dating another
sample prove?
"This artifact is very important. It deserves at least as much respect as Ghengis Khan's sword, the Gutenberg Bible, or something like the
Rosetta stone," Rogers said. "For me, it is not going to prove the Resurrection or any theological point. But it might bring us a little closer to the truth. And determining the actual date will be a real archaeological triumph."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...esusshroud.html
Jesus' Shroud? Recent Findings Renew Authenticity Debate
Bijal P. Trivedi
National Geographic Channel
April 9, 2004
The Shroud of Turinbelieved by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus and one of the most venerated relics of the Christian churchwas declared a fake in 1988 by three independent scientific institutions. Yet interest in the cloth has remained intense, and new science suggests the shroud deserves another look.
Raymond Rogers is a retired physical chemist and former leader
f the explosives research and development group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He proposes that the samples used to date the shroud in 1988 were flawed and the experiment should be repe
at
d. His conclusion is based on a recent chem
ical analysis of the shroud and previous observations made during a 1978 examination.
Rogers was one of two dozen American scientists who participated in the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)an intense five-day scientific investigation of the shroud in Turin, Italy.
In 1988 the Vatican allowed postage stamp-size pieces to be snipped from one corner of the shroud and distributed to three laboratoriesat the University of Arizona in Tucson, Oxford University in England, and the Swiss Federal Institute in Zurichfor a sensitive form of carbon dating. The results, published in 1989 in the journal Nature, revealed that the fabric was produced between 1260 and 1390.
Dyed and Repaired
In December 2003 Rogers received a s
ample of the shroud from a physicist colleague who had collaborated on STURP. The sample was taken from the same strip of cloth distributed for carbon dating in 1988.
Using chemical and m
icro
scop
ic analysi
s, Rogers revealed that a madd
er dye and mordant and gum mixture had been wiped onto yarn used on that particular corner of the shroudindicating that the cloth had been repaired. (The mordant gum would have been used to bind the dye to the fibers. Madder dye is derived from the root of the madder plant.)
What's more, these ruby colored madder dye-mordant mixtures did not reach France or England until the 16th century.
"The cotton fibers look like they have been wiped with fuzzy cherry Jell-O, and the linen fibers a little less so," Rogers said. "The area is certainly dyed to match the sepia color of the old [original] cloth. There is ample chemical and microscopic proof of that."
Rogers also found evidence of a "splice site," suggesting t
hat this patch of the cloth had not only been dyed but also repaired and rewoven. He suspects that the dye and repair job was probably done in the Near East during the Middle Ages, co
inciding
with th
e carbon dating re
sults.
"The 1988 date was undoubtedly accurate f
or the sample supplied. However, there is no question that the radiocarbon sampling area has a completely different chemical composition than the main part of the shroud," Rogers said. "The published date for the sample was not the time at which the cloth was produced."
This reinforces the earlier finding of STURP scientists who, using ultraviolet fluorescence, also revealed that the sampled corner was unlike any other region of the shroud and had been excessively handled over the years.
Rogers's analysis of the 2003 sample has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
Forging Religious Artifacts
Douglas Donahue, a retired physicist from the University of Arizona, t
raveled to Turin in 1988 to collect the shroud samples for testing. He was co-director of the National Science Foundation-University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectromet
ry Laborator
yone of the
three labs chosen to date
the shroud.
"I'm satisfied with the way it was sampled. We had sev
eral textile experts present from a number of countries, and all unanimously agreed that the sample we received was representative of the whole cloth," Donahue said. "It wouldn't be unreasonable to sample other spots of the cloth, though you can understand that they wanted to preserve it and didn't want holes cut all over the place."
Even if carbon dating links the shroud to the first century, proving it belonged to Jesus will still be near impossiblethe closest scientists are likely to get is validating the time and place where the cloth and its haunting image were made. The shroud, an approximately 14-foot-by-3-foot (4-meter-by-1-meter) cloth, is bloodstained and imprinted
with a faint image of a tortured man's face, hands, and body.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was removed from the cross and placed in a tomb, whe
re he was wrappe
d in cloth in ac
cordance with Jewish custom. But f
ew, if any, records exist from that time to detail that shroud's whereabouts.
The Shroud
of Turin entered public awareness in 1349, when a French knight named Geoffrey de Charny is said to have acquired it in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and brought it to the attention of Pope Clement VI. The shroud was held in a church in Lirey, France, and was first shown publicly in 1355.
More Evidence Contradicts Carbon Dating
Since that first exhibition many have questioned the shroud's authenticity, since forging religious artifacts was big business during medieval times.
The 1988 carbon dating results satisfied many skeptics that the Shroud of Turin was a clever hoax, and the findings stymied further research.
But some scientists have persisted.
In 1999 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, stated at the 16th International Botanical Congress that he found pollen gr
ains on the shroud f
rom plants that coul
d only be found in and around Jerusalem,
placing its origins in the Middle East.
Further comparison of the shroud with another ancient cloth
, the Sudarium of Oviedo (thought to be the burial face cloth of Jesus), revealed it was embedded with pollen grains from the same species of plant as found on the Shroud of Turin.
The Sudarium even carries the same AB blood type, with bloodstains in a similar pattern. Since the Sudarium has been stored in a cathedral in Spain since the eighth century, the evidence suggests that the Shroud of Turin is at least as old.
Regardless of whether the shroud belonged to Jesus Christ, it lures millions of visitors at each public display.
"Its allure is both scientific and spiritual," said Phillip Wiebe, a professor and chair of philosophy at Trinity We
stern University in Langley, British Columbia. "It's a very mysterious object. How was the image formed and who was on it?"
;
Wiebe is prese
nting a lecture, "T
he Shroud of Turin: Authenticity and Significanc
e for Theology," at the "Man of the Shroud Exhibit" this week at the Good Shepherd Church in Surrey, British Columbia.
Archa
eological Triumph
If the image on the Shroud of Turin is a fake, then much mystery remains about how it was created. Some suggest it was painted. But STURP, using methods standard for art analysis, found no evidence of paints or pigments.
"This may well be an artifact of Jesus," said Barrie Schwortz, a photographic, video, and imaging specialist based in Los Angeles, California. Schwortz served as the official documenting photographer for STURP.
When Schwortz embarked on the study, he said, he was highly skeptical. "I fully expected to see brush strokesessentially a manufactured relicand walk
out," Schwortz said. "But I've followed the science over 30 years. And when you have eliminated other possibili
ties, the one remainingno m
atter how unlikelymust be t
he truth."
What will carbon dating another
sample prove?
"This artifact is very important. It deserves at least as much respect as Ghengis Khan's sword, the Gutenberg Bible, or something like the
Rosetta stone," Rogers said. "For me, it is not going to prove the Resurrection or any theological point. But it might bring us a little closer to the truth. And determining the actual date will be a real archaeological triumph."