Saturday, May 29, 2021

Shroud of Turin News, April 2021

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

[Previous: March 2021] [Next: May-June 2021]

This is the April 2021 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. The articles' words are bold to distinguish them from mine.

"Clues on the Shroud of Turin Tell Us What Christ Endured on Good Friday," National Catholic Register, 2 April 2021, Jim Graves ... Believed by some to be a miraculous imprint of the body of Jesus Christ on his burial cloth just after his crucifixion [Right (enlarge)[2]], the shroud [sic] is condemned by others as a religious hoax, painted by skillful artists in the 14th century. First, as far as I am aware, no Shroud sceptic has proposed that the Shroud was painted by artists (plural). They rely on the 1389 claim by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (r. 1377-1395), who claimed (falsely) that the Shroud had been "cunningly painted" by an "artist" (singular):

"... Henry of Poitiers ... then Bishop of Troyes ... after diligent inquiry and examination ... discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it ..."[3]
Second, this is a Fallacy of False Equivalence:
"False equivalence ... a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called `comparing apples and oranges.'"[4]
Those who believe the Shroud contains "a miraculous imprint of the body of Jesus Christ on his burial cloth" do so on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence (see my series "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!") whereas those who claim the Shroud is "a religious hoax, painted by skillful artists [sic] in the 14th century" cannot even say who that "artist... in the 14th century" was, for starters!

Though the Shroud of Turin is not officially recognized as a relic by the Catholic Church, it nonetheless inspires veneration by the faithful worldwide. As I have previously pointed out [see 06Oct13, 14Feb14, 150417, 160507], it is duplicitous (i.e. two-faced), for the Vatican to claim that the Shroud "is not officially recognized as a relic by the Catholic Church" when it spends the equivalent of multi-millions of US dollars conserving and exhibiting it! Clearly the Vatican, to its credit, by its actions shows that it does recognise the Shroud as the "linen shroud" that the Gospels (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53) record Jesus' dead body was wrapped and buried in.

The faint yellow image on the Shroud of Turin shows the front and back of the body of a man who died by crucifixion. Not merely "crucifixion" but [see 27Apr21]:

"[The] wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud man's image ... match the Gospels' accounts of the beatings (Mt 26:67-68; 27:30; Lk 22:64; Jn 18:22; 19:3), scourging (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; Lk 23:16; Jn 19:1), crowned with thorns (Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2,5), crucifixion (Mt 27:35,38,44; Mk 15:24-27,32; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:16-18), death (Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37,39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30), legs not broken (Jn 19:32-33), speared in the side (Jn 19:34) of Jesus"!
See the table below from Wilson (1979) which summarises the parallels between the Shroudman's wounds and bloodstains and the Gospels' record of Jesus sufferings and crucifixion:

But no one knows for certain how the image actually arrived on the linen. Nevertheless STURP founder Prof. John P. Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory" explains "all known characteristics of the Shroud image" [see 18Jan12]:

"Dr. John Jackson, one of the founders of STURP ... devised a simple theory that accounted for the Shroud's diverse characteristics with a method that is scientifically well posed and internally consistent ... Jackson's theory predicts that the Shroud's images would be encoded if the body became insubstantial and emitted ultraviolet light. As the cloth fell through the body region, each point on the cloth would receive a radiation dose in proportion to the time it was within the region. The parts of the cloth that were over the highest points of the supine body (for example, the tip of the nose) would receive the longest dose of radiation, while the parts of the cloth over the lowest points of the body would receive the least. Thus, the intensity of all points on the resultant body image on the two-dimensional cloth would be directly correlated to the distance that they originally were from the surface of the three-dimensional body. Furthermore, since the draped cloth fell by gravity, all points of the resultant body image would have aligned vertically with the corresponding body point below it. Even those parts of the body that were not initially touching the cloth, such as the sides of the nose, would be encoded in a three-dimensional and vertical direction onto the cloth"[5].
The image is a near-perfect negative ...The Shroud image is a photographic negative in the sense that it exhibits light and dark reversal[6], and left and right reversal[7], as a photograph taken by a camera and developed on chemically treated film does[8]. That is, areas of the body which would be expected to be darker, like the hollows of the eyes, are lighter[9]. And as Turin photographer Secondo

[Above (enlarge): The Shroud face: photographic positive (left)[10] compared with photographic negative (right)[11] ]

Pia (1855–1941) discovered in 1898[12], the negative image of a Shroud photograph is more realistic and clearer in detail than the positive of that photograph (see above)[13]. But, since the Shroud image is not a photograph taken by a camera[14] [See my refutations of Prof. Nicholas Allen's `medieval photograph theory: 13Jul07, 07Aug16, 05Sep16 & 16Jun19], its photonegativity has differences from that taken by a camera[15]. First, the blood is dark on the Shroud and it would have been dark on the Shroudman's body[16]. Second, the man's hair, eyebrows and beard are dark on the Shroud, whereas Jesus, being a Jew, would have had dark hair[17]. Criticisms by Shroud sceptics that the Shroud image is a "faux-photographic negative" because of these differences from a camera's negative[18] are therefore a strawman fallacy! The reason the blood is dark is because it is not part of the image and was on the cloth before the image[19] (as it was with Jesus)! And why the Shroudman's hair is dark, and also hanging stiffly, is explained by his image really being a `snapshot' of Jesus' resurrection:

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant ... its image ... becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection"[20]!
"Another observation he [Dr. Gilbert R. Lavoie] makes is that it is most interesting is that the hair of this man is dark in the negative impression of the Shroud, an indication that the color of the hair in reality was white or light blond. If one keeps in mind the dazzling whiteness spoken of in the Gospels in the narratives about the Transfiguration [Mt 17:1-13; Mk 9:2-13; Lk 9:28-36], could this be the image of the resurrected Jesus, suspended for a moment as He passed through the cloth of the shroud?"[21]
See 17Dec19 and below where a corona discharge from a Van de Graaff generator caused a man's hair to stand stiffly out from his head and his dark hair to appear white!

[Above (enlarge): "The classic is holding your hands on the [Van de Graaf generator] metal sphere as it charges, the results really can be hair-raising!"[22]. Note that not only did the corona discharge from a Van de Graaff generator cause the man above's hair to stand out from his head, it also caused part of his brown hair to appear white!]

A camera records only shades of light and dark[23], but as was first pointed out by the French biologist and artist Paul Vignon (1865-1943), the relative degrees of dark and light of features of the Shroudman's image are positively correlated with their expected relative distances from the cloth[24]. For example the tip of the nose, which would have been touching the cloth, is darker than the hollows of the eyes which would not have been[25].

At this point I will leave commenting on Graves' article, as there is so much in it that I could continue for another week or two. But it's already June and I will need to post my May 2021 Shroud of Turin News this month! I wanted to acquaint myself with some of the issues regarding the Shroud's photonegativity. All this is `grist for the mill' of my book, if (being in my 75th year) I live long enought to write it! I have listed below other linked articles that I don't have time to comment on. If there is a future `no news month' I might list and comment on them. Some of my references, as in many of my posts these days, for reasons beyond my control, will remain an `unfinished symphony'!

"The Shroud of Turin once graced Savoia’s Royal Palace," Red Hook Star-Revue, 16 April 2021, Dario Pio Muccilli

"Was the Sudarium of Oviedo really wrapped around Jesus’ head after his death?," The Catholic Leader, 19 April 2021, Guest ContributorQ&A with Fr Flader: The Sudarium of Jesus, The Catholic Weekly , 22 April 2021, Fr John Flader

"Scientist: ‘When We See the Shroud, We Are Really Seeing the Face of Jesus," National Catholic Register, 24 April 2021, Thomas L. McDonald

1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 13 May 2021. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.267. [return]
4. "False equivalence," Wikipedia, 4 February 2021. [return]
5. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.218-220. [return]
6. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.15; Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, pp.24, ; Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., 1981, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.34-57, 35; Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
7. Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
8. Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
9. Bulst, 1957, p.24. [return]
10. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," [return]
11. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, Shroud Scope: Enrie Negative Vertical, [return]
12. Bulst, 1957, pp.24, 33; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 19; Antonacci, 2000, pp.34-35; Adler, A.D., 2000c, "Chemical and Physical Aspects of the Sindonic Images," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.10-27, 11. [return]
13. Barnes, 1934, p.15; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.84; Borkan, 1995, p.19; Adler, A.D., 2000a, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 114; Adler, A.D., 2000b, "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Bloodstains," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.129-138, 130; Adler, 2000c, p.11; Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
14. Antonacci, 2000, p.35. [return]
15. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
16. Barnes, 1934, p.22; Adler, 2000a, pp.114-115; Adler, 2000b, p.130. [return]
17. Barnes, 1934, p.22; Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY, p.140. [return]
18. Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. 3 October 2002. [return]
19. Adler, 2000a, pp.114-115. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.251; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.234. [return]
21. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, p.168. [return]
22. "Experiments - Van de Graaff Generator," Physikanten & Co.," 2019. [return]
23. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]
24. Adams, 1982, p.93; Antonacci, 2000, pp.6, 39 [return]
25. Reference(s) to be provided. [return]

Posted 29 May 2021. Updated 13 September 2023.

No comments: