Re: In my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax #2

Continuing from part #1 of my response to a comment under my "Shroud News-January 2008." The commenter's words are bold.

[Above: Yves Delage (1854-1920), Professor of Zoology at the Sorbonne 1886, an agnostic and the first of a long line of scientists who concluded on the basis of the scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus, Station Biologique de Roscoff, France.]

[...]

Still, the only questions left to science after much investigation is how the artwork on the shroud was actually painted. Daubed, brushed, whatever. One thing that science has established is that the Shroud of Turin is not painted (my emphasis below):

"Most important, perhaps, is the consensus that the image was not painted on the cloth. This is now conceded by virtually every observer, even those who believe that the image is somehow the result of human artifice. Painters outline a figure before painting it, but there is no tell-tale outline on the Shroud. Nor is there a hint of the directionality that brush-marks would produce. Finally, there is no clear evidence of any pigment on the Shroud .... The STURP team, using microscopic, chemical laser microprobes, concluded that the Shroud shows no trace of `any of the expected dyes, stains, pigments, or painting media.'" (Drews, 1984, pp.16-17).

"One of the greatest mysteries about the Shroud is how the image was formed It was definitely not painted, as there are absolutely no traces of any kind of paint ... and there is no direction in the outline, which is impossible on a painting. Also, nobody could have painted a perfect negative before negatives and photography were even known ..." (Guscin, 1998, p.33).

"... STURP scientists ... reported: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray fluorescence and microchemistry ... preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. ... `...we had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and stains.... the images were not the result of any colorant ... the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor.' ... `.... the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand.' " (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, pp.120-121).

All this other stuff is just a point of argument and an excuse to publish another academic paper. The real answer is very simple. Sounds like, "my mind is already made up, so don't confuse me with facts"?

Now, I believe the bible is just a master work of compiled collections of ancient writers. Actually one doesn't have to believe in the Bible to be persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud is the actual burial sheet of Christ. The agnostic French anatomy Professor Yves Delage (1854-1920) concluded on the basis of the scientific evidence that "the body wrapped in the Shroud was that of Jesus":

>"... Delage ... presented these findings to the French Academy. ... he stated unequivocally, `The man of the Shroud is the Christ!' ... many of his colleagues ... jeered at Delage ... he had always been at most an agnostic, and probably an atheist ... Delage replied ... ` ... it must be recognised that their whole constitutes a bundle of imposing probabilities, some of which are very near to being proven.' .... If, instead of Christ, there were a question of someone like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection.'" (Brent & Rolfe, 1978, pp.41-42).

"... Yves Delage, an anatomy professor at the Sorbonne. In 1902 ... gave a lecture to the Paris Academy of Sciences in which he reported that the image appeared to be in every respect anatomically correct. ... Delage's peers at the Academy did not think much of it and refused publication. Subsequently, Delage wrote: `... I recognize Christ as a historical personage and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized that there still exist material traces of his earthly life.' (Culliton, 1978, p.238).

"Delage told his listeners of the existence of a strip of linen supposed to be the Shroud of Christ. .... Showing the photographs, he explained the problem of negativity that had given rise to the whole question and had led him and his colleagues into the fields of chemistry, physics and physiology in their pursuit of the truth. ... He sketched ... their conclusion that the stain-image could not possibly be a painting ... the naturalism of the bloodstains, the marvelous complexity of the wounds left by the flogging, the surprising nudity of the image, the unusual position of the wound in the wrist, and the delicate modeling of the whole figure. ... the image of the shroud is not a painting made by the human hand ...`Must I speak of the identification of the person whose image appears on the shroud?' ... there was the Shroud telling plainly of a victim who had been crucified, flogged, pierced in the side and crowned with thorns. ...there was the story of Christ's Passion, telling just as plainly of a man who had suffered those very punishments. ... in order for the image to have formed itself without being ultimately destroyed, it was necessary that the corpse remain in the shroud at least twenty-four hours ... and at the most several days ... this is precisely what happened to Christ; dead on Friday and-disappeared-on Sunday.' Then, gravely, Delage made his affirmation: `The man of the shroud was the Christ.'" (Walsh, 1963, pp.96, 98-101).

"But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Shroud as a subject of inquiry is the extent to which the visible blood flows and physical injuries have been viewed as authentic by members of the medical profession. As early as April 21, 1902 ... Yves Delage, professor of anatomy at the Paris Sorbonne, gave a lecture to the French Académie des Sciences in which he claimed that the Shroud body image and wounds are physiologically so flawless and meaningful that he found it impossible to believe they could be the work of an artist. To the scandal of his rationalist colleagues, who had always known him as an agnostic, Delage said he found no difficulty in believing that the body wrapped in the Shroud was that of Jesus." (Wilson, 1986, pp.16-17).

[...]

See quotes below hyperlinked to references above (emphasis italics original, emphasis bold mine, my transliteration). Continued in part #3.

Posted: 25 June 2008. Updated: 12 August 2024

---

"It was Delage ... who presented these findings to the French Academy. ... At the end of his lecture he stated unequivocally, `The man of the Shroud is the Christ!' ... Yet there were many of his colleagues who openly jeered at Delage and the conclusions he had endorsed. They accused him of not behaving scientifically. Knowing he had always been at most an agnostic, and probably an atheist, they said that now he had had a sudden rush of religion to the head. They said that the work he and Vignon had done was very far from being conclusive. Delage replied with a statement that remains relevant, both to Shroud studies and all similar specialities. `I willingly recognise that none of these arguments offer the features of an irrefutable demonstration; but it must be recognised that their whole constitutes a bundle of imposing probabilities, some of which are very near to being proven.' He complained that religion was being confused with science, `with the result that feelings have run high and reason has been led astray. If, instead of Christ, there were a question of someone like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection.'" (Brent, P. & Rolfe, D., 1978, "The Silent Witness: The Mysteries of the Turin Shroud Revealed," Futura Publications: London, pp.41-42).

"Since the early 1900's, the Shroud has attracted the attention of biologists interested in the anatomy of crucifixion. Among the first to approach the problem were Paul Vignon, a French biologist, and Yves Delage, an anatomy professor at the Sorbonne. In 1902, Delage gave a lecture to the Paris Academy of Sciences in which he reported that the image appeared to be in every respect anatomically correct. Although The Lancet critiqued his paper as being sound, Delage's peers at the Academy did not think much of it and refused publication. Subsequently, Delage wrote: `If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection... . I recognize Christ as a historical personage and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized that there still exist material traces of his earthly life.' [Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," W.H. Allen: London, 1963, p.107]. Physicians and anatomists in England, Italy, Germany, and the United States who have examined the image all come to the same conclusion-anatomically, it fits. Of particular interest is the observation that the nail marks penetrate the wrists rather than the palms, as is characteristic of most artistic portrayals of the crucifixion. The weight of a human body could not be supported by nails through the palms, whereas it could be held by nails through the muscles of the wrists. Those gathering evidence in support of the authenticity of the Shroud claim that a forger would have to know a lot about crucifixion to be clever enough to produce such an anatomically accurate representation." (Culliton, B.J. , 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, pp.235-239, p.238).

"As for the image itself, what meets the eye is intelligible, but how it was formed is a matter of vigorous debate. We shall need to review, although necessarily in a superficial way, the scientific analyses of the Shroud's image (detailed discussions, by writers competent in these matters, are available elsewhere). The battery of sophisticated and expensive tests conducted in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) has yielded a few significant conclusions, and these have been admirably presented by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., `Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation,' Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49] ... But although much remains unclear, considerably more is known now than was known when the Shroud was shown on television in 1973. Most important, perhaps, is the consensus that the image was not painted on the cloth. This is now conceded by virtually every observer, even those who believe that the image is somehow the result of human artifice. Painters outline a figure before painting it, but there is no tell-tale outline on the Shroud. Nor is there a hint of the directionality that brush-marks would produce. Finally, there is no clear evidence of any pigment on the Shroud .... The STURP team, using microscopic, chemical laser microprobes, concluded that the Shroud shows no trace of `any of the expected dyes, stains, pigments, or painting media.' [Ibid, p.27]" (Drews, R., 1984, "In Search of the Shroud of Turin: New Light on Its History and Origins," Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham MD, pp.16-17).

"One of the greatest mysteries about the Shroud is how the image was formed - and this mystery has not been solved. We know how it was not formed. It was definitely not painted, as there are absolutely no traces of any kind of paint, (except for tiny particles left by painted copies when they were pressed to the Shroud in order to `sanctify' the copy) and there is no direction in the outline, which is impossible on a painting. Also, nobody could have painted a perfect negative before negatives and photography were even known about. Various people have thought that the image was created by a mixture of body heat (another reason why they need Jesus to be alive in the tomb), gases and the spices which were present. However, all their attempts to reproduce the image using these methods have either resulted in total failure or in grotesque caricatures of the volunteer under the linen. Nobody has been able to reproduce anything even remotely similar to the image on the Shroud. What we do know about the image is that it appears to have been scorched into only the top few fibres in each thread, has no direction and its intensity was directly dependent on how far from the actual body the cloth was. This is why the throat is not shown on the image-the cloth would have been stretched from the chin to the chest, not tucked into every fold of the body." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.33-34).

"Many STURP scientists thought that the Shroud was simply a fake to be exposed by scientific testing. But in the 1981 meeting at New London, Connecticut, the scientists reported: `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultraviolet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.' ["Text," The Shroud of Turin Research Project, Press Release, 8 October 1981]. Ever since then, several STURP scientists have continued to report that forgery could not be the cause of the Shroud's image. [Murphy, C., "Shreds of Evidence," Harper's, November, 1981, pp.42-65, pp.61-62] Heller notes: `At the end of months of work, we had pretty well eliminated all paints, pigments, dyes, and stains.... the images were not the result of any colorant that had been added.' [Heller, 1983, p.198] Heller points out that fraud can be checked by at least two scientific methods - chemistry and physics. Concerning the first means, he said, `Adler and I had reached the conclusion that the image could not have been made by artistic endeavor.' [Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.207] The second method revealed no forgery either: `The conclusion of the physical scientists was that the Shroud could not be the result of eye/brain/hand.' [Ibid., p.209]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, pp.120-121).

"At three o'clock on the afternoon of April 21, 1902, the regular weekly meeting of the Academy of Sciences was called to attention by its president. ... When the name of Yves Delage was called, at about four o'clock and after several members had spoken, an utter and unaccustomed silence descended on the gathering. Amid the hush, the bearded and black-suited Delage moved toward the president's desk. Under his arm he carried enlargements of the face on the Shroud. Attendants hurriedly supplied a blackboard and table. In crisp tones that carried to the extremities of the hall, Delage told his listeners of the existence of a strip of linen supposed to be the Shroud of Christ. He briefly detailed its history, and outlined the facts of the exposition of 1898 and the pictures taken by Secondo Pia. Showing the photographs, he explained the problem of negativity that had given rise to the whole question and had led him and his colleagues into the fields of chemistry, physics and physiology in their pursuit of the truth. `The question poses itself,' he said, `as to how this image was made.' He sketched Vignon's painstaking studies and their conclusion that the stain-image could not possibly be a painting, either directly or by inversion of colors. He launched into a description of the naturalism of the bloodstains, the marvelous complexity of the wounds left by the flogging, the surprising nudity of the image, the unusual position of the wound in the wrist, and the delicate modeling of the whole figure. The picture of the face, he said, was extremely realistic-impeccable, without a weakness. It even showed `characteristics which are not found in any iconographic reproductions' of the fourteenth century, or in fact in those of any other period. `For these and other reasons,' he continued, `the conviction results that the image of the shroud is not a painting made by the human hand, but that it has been obtained by a physicochemical phenomenon. And the scientific question which presents itself is this: how can a corpse yield an image on the shroud which covers it, causing it to reproduce its shape with the details of the facial features?' ... Pausing, he looked round. `Must I speak of the identification of the person whose image appears on the shroud?' he asked. No answer was expected. Acutely aware of what he was about to say, the question was a way of sliding into difficult terrain, of softening the impact of the name of Jesus. The truth could be reached, he continued, along two separate lines of inquiry. On the one hand, there was the Shroud telling plainly of a victim who had been crucified, flogged, pierced in the side and crowned with thorns. On the other hand, there was the story of Christ's Passion, telling just as plainly of a man who had suffered those very punishments. `Is it not natural to bring these two parallel series together and tie them to the same object?' Glancing at his notes, he went on. `Let us add to this, that, in order for the image to have formed itself without being ultimately destroyed, it was necessary that the corpse remain in the shroud at least twenty-four hours, the amount of time needed for the formation of the image, and at the most several days, after which a putrefaction sets in which destroys the image and finally the shroud.' He paused again. He had gone as far as he could without a wrench to his own conscience. His next words were carefully phrased. `Tradition-more or less apocryphal, I would say-tells us that this is precisely what happened to Christ; dead on Friday and-disappeared-on Sunday.' Then, gravely, Delage made his affirmation: `The man of the shroud was the Christ.'" (Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, pp.96, 98-101).

"But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Shroud as a subject of inquiry is the extent to which the visible blood flows and physical injuries have been viewed as authentic by members of the medical profession. As early as April 21, 1902 ...Yves Delage, professor of anatomy at the Paris Sorbonne, gave a lecture to the French Académie des Sciences in which he claimed that the Shroud body image and wounds are physiologically so flawless and meaningful that he found it impossible to believe they could be the work of an artist. To the scandal of his rationalist colleagues, who had always known him as an agnostic, Delage said he found no difficulty in believing that the body wrapped in the Shroud was that of Jesus." (Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.16-17).