|
Shrouded Science — Part 2
By Jeff Messenger, Barkhamsted
Even more hostile to the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) team was its contributing expert of microscopy, Walter McCrone. One cannot read any book about the Shroud of Turin, pro-authenticity or con, without reading about the conflict between many STURP members and McCrone. Apparently, McCrone found some paint particles within the sample slides he was given. His conclusion? The Shroud was a painting. STURP argued that these random particles were not concentrated within the body image, and were found scattered along with other various, microscopic debris. They were found just as frequently in non-image areas! It is known that many medieval artists brought the Shroud to their studios, where they made crude "copies." As a blessing for their work, they would even press their finished work upon the original! Also, the Shroud was often displayed in old cathedrals, where frescos would peel and shed their layers. But, just like Nickell, McCrone doesn't take that "superficial dehydration" image finding very seriously.
Then came 1988. Three samples of the shroud were taken from one highly handled and possibly rewoven corner of the Shroud. Each sample was sent to three different labs for carbon dating. The three labs came up with a medieval date for the shroud, between 1260 and 1390 AD. This didn't seem compatible with artistic and historic references to the man on the Shroud. A Byzantine ivory, dated 1100 AD, depicts the body of Christ being laid in the tomb in the exact position of the man depicted on the Shroud. The Hungarian Pray manuscript, dated 1192 AD, has an illumination that depicts the very same Christ position. It also has the thumbs invisible, and the body is being laid on a shroud. A Roman codex written in 1130 mentions a linen cloth which bears the image of the body of Christ.
Then we have the Sudarium of Oviedo. This small linen napkin, long preserved in Spain, is believed to have once covered the face of Jesus as he was taken off the cross. A main blood stain on the cloth is one part blood, six parts pulmonary edema, which oozed from the victim's nose. This is consistent with the traditional death by asphyxia on the cross. The bloodstain outlines the victim’s nose and soaks the victim's beard. Both the nose and beard are the same length of that on the Shroud's image. The blood was tested and found to be human, Type AB. "Crown of thorns" wounds also appear on the Sudarium. The same pollens and limestone dust, many of which are specific to Jerusalem, are found on both the Shroud and the Sudarium. If these two linens were in contact with the same body, it would indicate that the Shroud's carbon dating is wrong. The Sudarium has a traceable history back to at least the eighth century AD.
Many debates are currently raging as to how reliable the carbon dating of the Shroud actually is. Many examples of ancient artifact misdatings have been published. One prominent example is the misdating of a Mayan carving called "The Itzamna Tun," which was caused by the presence of a "bioplastic coating"—a thick layer of bacteria that can grow and thrive on ancient artifacts. The shroud has since been proven to be infested with this same "bioplastic coating."
Will the shroud ever be carbon dated again? I doubt it. The Catholic Church wouldn't want another piece of linen cut off and destroyed. But another possibility of redating the Shroud exists! Perhaps a DNA profile (degraded as it would naturally be) can be performed on both the Shroud's blood and the Sudarium's blood. If a strong match occurs, this will discredit the 1988 dating and move the Shroud to at least the eighth century AD. Perhaps then a more accurate carbon dating can be performed on a piece of the Sudarium.
Do I believe the Shroud is the authentic shroud of Jesus? I'd say I'm about 80% convinced of its authenticity. What if the Shroud is medieval in origin? Then I believe it was in close proximity to some poor soul who was crucified in a cruel imitation of Jesus' execution. Somehow his image was photographically fixed upon a sensitized linen sheet, much like the linen images Professor Nicholas Allen has created with the use of a chemically treated linen, a hanging statue and a huge "Camera obscura" room—linen images that come the closest in imitating the Shroud, but still lack that "distance-related intensity." But logically, why would a medieval forger go through all that trouble? A mere painting or powder rubbing would have been enough to fool the unsophisticated, medieval faithful. Worse yet, this forger would have invented photography and carried this great invention to his grave. Photography would be undiscovered for many centuries to follow. It's all very strange.
As for now, I'm grateful to the Shroud of Turin. It continues to make the skeptical, naturalistic scientists squirm and sweat.
|
|
