Saturday, February 11, 2012

Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (1)

Continuing from part "#1 Introduction"of this series, "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be

[Above (click to enlarge): "The Vignon markings: (1) Transverse streak across forehead, (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair." [1]]

wrong!", with this part #2 "The Vignon markings" (1).

Because of the amount of material, and its complexity, I have decided to split my originally single post into two or more.

1. The Vignon markings. The New Testament contains no description of Jesus' appearance [2]. Early Christian art depicted Jesus like a youthful, beardless pagan god Apollo. [3] Yet suddenly in the early sixth century, Jesus began to be depicted as a long-haired, bearded man. [4]

Paul Vignon (1865-1943) was a French Professor of Biology [5] and an artist [6]. He discovered there were twenty unique features of the Shroud that were found in these depictions of Christ from the sixth century onwards [7]. But Wilson reduced these to a more definite fifteen. [8] Some of these features are merely wrinkles and imperfections of the fabric of the Shroud and artistically make no sense. [9] Yet the artists slavishly copied these features found on the Shroud, including the imperfections. [10]

Vignon, in his 1939 book, Le Saint Suaire de Turin devant la Science, l'Archeologie, l'Histoire, l'Iconographie, la Logique ("The Holy Shroud of Turin in the light of Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography and Logic" [11], proposed his "Iconographic Theory" of the Shroud of Turin. [12] Vignon's theory proposed that those artistic representations of Christ's face, which contain, to varying degrees these "Vignon markings," were based, directly or indirectly, on the face image of the Shroud itself . [13]

As we shall see, Vignon's theory has proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. [14] There is simply no reasonable alternative explanation why flaws in the Shroud's linen fabric are present in artistic representations of Christ from the sixth to the twelfth century, except that the artists faithfully copied those flaws, directly or indirectly, from the Shroud itself.

Law courts determing cases of plagiarism have recognised this principle, that of two otherwise identical texts, which both claim to be the original, if a physical flaw in the paper of one of the texts (e.g. "a scrap of straw") has a meaningless counterpart (e.g. "an intrusive colon within a phrase") in the other text, then the original source is that which has the physical flaw in its paper:

"An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy." [15]

Therefore, as we shall see, it is an unanswered (and unanswerable) fact that the Shroud of Turin existed from at least the sixth century AD, and those critics of Vignon's day, such as Canon Ulysse Chevalier (1841-1923) and Fr. Herbert Thurston (1856-1939), who uncritically accepted Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (1377–1395) unsubstantiated claim that the Shroud was "cunningly painted" in 1355, [16] were wrong. And therefore, in our day, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" [17], also has to be wrong!

Continued in #2, part (2).

References
[1] Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
[2] Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.16. [return]
[3] Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.73. [return]
[4] Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.83. [return]
[5] McNair, P., in Jennings, P., ed., 1978, "Face to Face with the Turin Shroud," Mayhew-McCrimmon: Great Wakering UK, p.28. [return]
[6] Shepard, L., 1970, in Vignon, P., 1902, "The Shroud of Christ," University Books: New York NY, Reprinted, p.ix. [return]
[7] Walsh, J.E., 1963, "The Shroud," Random House: New York NY, p.157. [return]
[8] Wilson, 1978, p.85. [return]
[9] Walsh, 1963, p.157. [return]
[10] Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, pp.58-60. [return]
[11] Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places Doubleday: New York NY, pp.161-162. [return]
[12] Shepard, 1970, p.ix. [return]
[13] Adams, 1982, p.20. [return]
[14] Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.142. [return]
[15] Patterson, C., 1999, "Evolution," Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, p.117. [return]
[16] Wilson, 1978, pp.230-231. [return]
[17] Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.611. [return]

Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign& Jesus is Jehovah!

11 comments:

bippy123 said...

Stephen great article,and I have noticed that it seems like the orthodox historical experts that I have research and the hardcore orthodox that I have talked to seemed to have always associate the shroud with the mandylion. It almost seemed like common knowledge in the orthodox church.

Also forensic experts have determined that the shroud and sudarium both touched the same bodies at very close time intervals (45 minutes to an hour) and the sudarium's history is indisputable starting at 570ad. Let's not forget that length of the nose on the shroud and sudarium have both been determined by experts to be 8 centimeters in length.



It's obvious that the early iconography of that time match up very well with the image on the shroud.

The Deuce said...

There is simply no alternative reasonable explanation why flaws in the Shroud's linen fabric are present in artistic representations of Christ from the sixth to the twelfth century, unless the artists faithfully copied those flaws from the Shroud itself, thinking they must have some mystic meaning.

Or even if they thought the flaws were likely just flaws, they were (rightly, imo) more worried about the possibility of dishonoring Christ by leaving something important out than about the possibility of accidentally putting something unnecessary in.

Btw, like bippy says, I'm pretty sure that either the Mandylion was the Shroud, or that it referred to both the Shroud and to one or more painted likenesses of the Shroud that were displayed publicly while the Shroud was kept safe.

Stephen E. Jones said...

bippy123

>It's obvious that the early iconography of that time match up very well with the image on the shroud.

I will next compare side-by-side photos of art works from the 6th to 12th centuries with photos of the Shroud, highlighting the shared Vignon markings between them.

It should then be "obvious" to any one whose mind is not closed to the possibility, that the Shroud was the artists' model and therefore it existed from at least the 6th century AD.

And that therefore the AD 1260-1390 C14 dating has to be wrong!

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>Or even if they thought the flaws were likely just flaws, they were (rightly, imo) more worried about the possibility of dishonoring Christ by leaving something important out than about the possibility of accidentally putting something unnecessary in.

Agreed. But they did modify what they saw on the Shroud, e.g. the reversed 3 blood trickle became a wisp of hair.

The artists interpreted the Image through the traditional `lenses', of various `schools' remembering that an artwork is not a photograph.

Reason for the modifications include:

1) the 5th - 12th century artists were trying to paint the Shroud's image which is a photographic negative, but were unable to conceive what that was, since the invention of photography was 700-1300 years in the future.

Therefore eyes which were closed in death on the body, on the photographic negative Shroud image look like they are abnormally large and staring; and

2) the artists wanted to depict Jesus as Pantocrator ("Ruler of All") which meant that He was very much alive, not dead, so that signs of death, e.g. bloodstains, etc., had to be transformed into something else.

But that does not change, in fact in the case of 1 above it confirms, that the artists from the 6th to the 12th century were working either directly from the Shroud, or indirectly from a copy of it.

Stephen E. Jones

bippy123 said...

Guys let's also not forget the Vanillan test performed on the shroud which clearly show it to be older than the c-14 tests. That, along with what Stephen and duece point out are a few of many good reasons why the shroud is older than that allready invalidated c-14 test.

I just wished that some of the great Christian philosophers would bring more attention to this. I know Gary Habermas has been doing a little of this the last few years and has a good book out on it, but for the life of me I cannot understand why someone as brilliant as Doctor William Lane Craig hasn't done so. He is way behind in this area and seemed to have forgotten about it since the c-14 tests.

He has been brilliant at defending the Christian faith and really could get the word out to the world about the shroud.
Maybe someone will email him about this one day.
I'm just glad that there are informative blogs online like Stephen's and a few others to keep us up to date.

Stephen E. Jones said...

bippy123

>Guys let's also not forget the Vanillan test performed on the shroud which clearly show it to be older than the c-14 tests.

This does tend to be forgotten. Maybe I should have made it "Five proofs ..."?

>I just wished that some of the great Christian philosophers would bring more attention to this.

Agreed. With the exception of Gary Habermas, Christian philosophers, apologetes and theologians tend to ignore the Shroud.

>I know Gary Habermas has been doing a little of this the last few years and has a good book out on it,

In addition to his two co-authored books on the Shroud: "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981) and "The Shroud and the Controversy" (1990); Habermas has written in support of the Shroud in Elwell, W.A., ed.,
"Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (1984) and in Habermas, G.R., Flew, A.G.N. & Miethe, T.L., ed., "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?" (1987), that I am aware of.

>but for the life of me I cannot understand why someone as brilliant as Doctor William Lane Craig hasn't done so. He is way behind in this area and seemed to have forgotten about it since the c-14 tests. He has been brilliant at defending the Christian faith and really could get the word out to the world about the shroud. ...

I was reading Cowan, S.B., ed., "Five Views on Apologetics" (2000) in a Christian bookstore the other day where Habermas and Craig go head-to-head, as well as others, and it seems that while Habermas represents "Evidential Apologetics," which argues from a wide range of evidence (including the Shroud , although I could not see where Habermas mentioned it in this book); Craig represents "Classical Apologetics," which argues from a narrower range of `big picture' arguments (e.g. the Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument, etc).

>I'm just glad that there are informative blogs online like Stephen's and a few others to keep us up to date.

Thanks. It takes more than just reading blogs and online sources, to get to master any subject (the Shroud included) but I realise that not everyone has the time, treasure, talents and call to do it. I am happy to be of service to add to the knowledge, praise and glory of Him whose image is on the Shroud!

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

Fenouillet

Can anyone explain then, if this is potentially the imprint of Christ's face on the shroud, how it is that Jewish men at the time of Christ's life and death, did not wear beards or long hair? Various quotes from the gospels quote this fact.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Fenouillet

>how it is that Jewish men at the time of Christ's life and death, did not wear beards or long hair? Various quotes from the gospels quote this fact.

There are no verses in the Gospels that Jewish men did not wear beards or long hair.

In fact, according to my Bible search program, the word "beard" (or "beards") does not appear in the entire New Testament.

There is one verse, in 1Cor 11:14, where Paul says "if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him":

1Cor 11:13-15 "13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

First, how long is "long"? Shoulder length hair, as the Man on the Shroud had, may not have been thought by Paul to be long.

I am old enough to remember back in the 1960s when `short back and sides' was the norm for men, and then some young men started wearing their hair shoulder length, how shocking it seemed. But after a while, shoulder length hair became the norm for men.

Second, Paul himself had longer hair than he normal had at least once, because we read in Acts 18:18 that he had not cut his hair in fulfilment of a vow:

"After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow."

In the context, Paul is contrasting the relative length of men and women's hair, so probably it means that men should not have (except perhaps on special reasons, e.g. a Nazirite vow) hair that is longer than women.

Also, Stevenson and Habermas suggest that the problem at Corinth may have been more than simply men's long hair, but "men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women":

"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? ... In 1 Corinthians 11:14, the Apostle Paul declares that long hair is a disgrace to men, yet the man of the Shroud apparently has shoulder-length hair. ... Our concept of what Paul meant by `long hair' is usually affected by our own views of what constitutes long hair. While Paul was speaking of effeminate men who wore their hair in styles peculiar to women, Paul himself would probably have worn shoulder-length hair in keeping with the hairstyle of the other orthodox Jews of his day. As a matter of fact, the traditional style for an orthodox Jewish man of two thousand years ago is much the same for him today: a ponytail of hair and sidelocks-precisely what we see on the Shroud." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.149-150. Emphasis original).

Paul on at least one occasion had to clarify what he had told the Corinthians:

1Cor 5:9-10. 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.

so we should not hang too much weight on a single, ambiguous, verse, and conclude that the Shroud cannot be authentic, flying in the face of all the other evidence that it is (see my "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!"), because Paul wrote in 1Cor 11:14 that "if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him."

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

Another line of evidence. I remeber reading an article on Shroud.com ( don't remember the name)2 weeks ago. Unofficially and Unauthorized, George Rossman dated a part of the Gilbert Raes sample. The dyed sample came to 1200 AD, while the undyed sample came to about 200 AD.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>Another line of evidence ... Unofficially and Unauthorized, George Rossman dated a part of the Gilbert Raes sample. The dyed sample came to 1200 AD, while the undyed sample came to about 200 AD.

I assume this is the article you read:

"In 1982 an unauthorized Carbon-14 dating test was conducted on a single thread from the Raes sample. The experimental thread was provided by Dr. Alan Adler and given to Dr. John Heller ... Heller delivered the thread to the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) for dating by worldrenowned mineralogist Dr. George R. Rossman. Adler informed Rossman that one end of the thread contained, what appeared to be, a `starch contaminate.' Thus, Rossman cut the thread in half and, using what Adler described as Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTMS), dated each end of the thread separately ... Rossman found that the non-contaminated end of the thread dated to 200 AD while the starched end dated to 1200 AD. Although Rossman did not publish these data, Adler had confidence in his capabilities to accurately measure the age of the sample. Adler stated that Rossman is the `world's expert in it and there's no arguing with him ... if he says these are the dates he got ...' In a personal conversation with one of the authors (Benford), Rossman confirmed that he was, indeed, the person who carried out the 1982 C-14 testing on the Raes thread provided by Adler. If there is any validity to the Rossman C-14 tests of the Raes thread ... It would further support the heterogeneity of inwoven medieval restorative threads into older, possibly 1st Century, Shroud fibers in both the Raes and the 1988 sample areas of the Shroud." Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin (Benford, M.S. & Marino, J.G., "Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin," 2002).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

Here is another quote from an article about it:

"A very interesting finding is that a single weft thread has been extracted at about the midway level of where the Raes sample was removed, beginning about 1 cm medial to the rolled seam that reattached the Shroud to the backing cloth. The space of the missing thread appears to be about 8 cm in length. We do not know the history of this particular thread, but Dr. Alan Adler had a thread about 8 cm in length that came from the Shroud that he acquired in the early 1980s from an unidentified source. He detected what he referred to as starch on one end of this thread. He then had a very unofficial and admittedly inadequate radiocarbon dating done on each end of this thread in 1983. Reportedly, the starched end tested about AD 1000 and the other end of the same thread tested about AD 200. At a minimum, this would indicate that carbon dating the Shroud might be very technically problematic. Assuming that the thread that Dr. Adler had might have been the one that had been extracted at this site, we may have a highly significant, even if inadequate, finding, since the lateral 1 to 2 cm of this thread would have been in the continuation of the area from which the 1988 specimen was extracted. If this scenario is correct, we may not only have evidence that the 1988 sample-extraction-area is abnormal, but we may also have a much more accurate dating of the body of the Shroud, namely, in the range of AD 200." (Whanger, A.D. & M., "Excerpt from Radiological Aspects of the Shroud of Turin," Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin, Durham NC, 2005, pp.1-15, p.5).

Being unofficial this cannot be used as evidence against the medieval C14 dating. But it does suggest that if the Shroud is ever dated properly, it might date to AD 200. This would effectively be Jesus' time because C14 dating pre-cleaning would not be able to get rid of all new carbon from linen.

Which is why the 1988 C14 dating to AD 1260-1390 (~1325 +/- 65) was simply too good to be true.

Stephen E. Jones