73 thoughts on “Who Can He Be?”

1. Willian Guy has given presentations on the shroud that contain lots of information.
   At the end of the talk, “The Most Comprehensive Shroud Presentation on the Internet Part 1”, he presents the list we see below. Here are details of what the medieval forger/s would have needed to know, without even considering how he, she or they were to go about actualizing the article.

2. Alan Fox:
   Hmmm.

   The Wikipedia article on Wide angle xray scattering doesn’t mention the technique being used to determine age of artefacts.

   I think this use of wide-angle X-ray scattering is in its infancy, developed specifically for linen. Over the course of time, flax fibers break and the extent of the breakage is an indication of the age of the material. Wide-angle X-ray scattering can be used to determine the average size of the microfibers in the threads.

3. Flint:
   “CharlieM: Scientific research proves nothing, and neither should it. When there is conflicting results as in the case of the dating of the shroud, it becomes obvious that more research is needed. In this respect t is advantageous to gain information from as many and as varied sources as possible.”

   Flint: Sounds to me like no amount of evidence will satisfy Charlie until the results match what he wants them to be. When that happens, he will consider ANY evidence to be convincing. Sadly, this is true of most people — start with foregone conclusions and the evidence either fits or it’s insufficient.

   After 1988, my foregone conclusion on the shroud was that it was a medieval artifact. At one point I thought it could have been the work of Leonardo da Vinci, who I have a great deal of admiration for. I thought if anyone could do it, he could.

   But now that there is much more information available, even if the timing was right, I don’t believe even Leonardo could have produced it. He was born in 1452 (exactly 500 years before me 🙂 ), and it was known to have been in existence before then.

4. DNA_Jock:
   “CharlieM: In this paper they reference other dating methods that had been applied and the results that were obtained:”

   DNA_Jock: Yes, they do. Interestingly, four out of the five references they cite are to different techniques reported by the paper’s author, Giulio Fanti, an associate professor of mechanical and thermal measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padua.
   The last reference is my favorite: renaissance man that he is, Dr. Fanti wrote a book about how the iconography on coins from the period 692 – 1204 match the shroud image.
   Of course they do…

   See you can agree with evidence that points to the shroud being older than the radiocarbon dating suggests, 🙂 And I bet that’s without even having read the book. No need, it’s a foregone conclusion. 😉

   DNA_Jock: The WAXS paper is a bit of a mess: they are using WAXS as a (presumably) non-destructive way of measure the degree of cellulose breakage. Short answer: there’s too much breakage for a cloth kept for 700 years in Western Europe, although they replaced their anode between ancient samples, and only re-calibrated using the modern sample, which is a bit naff.
   They concede that brief periods of high temperature could artificially increase the apparent age of the cloth, but conclude that natural events (such as the Chambery fire) could not have achieved this degree of ageing. They are assuming their conclusion. They have not even considered the idea that a forger would need to be an expert at accelerated aging — my money is on cooking the cloth in piss and vinegar — prove me wrong!
   But hey, there’s heterogeneity in the radiocarbon data, so the British Museum needs to expand their confidence interval by 88 years. Cool, 88 years down, 1142 years to go.

   The different ages obtained by the labs were, Tucson: 646 ± 31 years old; Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old; and Oxford: 750 ± 30 years. There is plenty of historical evidence to suggest it’s much older than that.

   From here:

   Was the radiocarbon sample from the original Shroud? Joe Marino together with Sue Benford, and then later the chemist Ray Rogers, have presented objective evidence that it was not. Marino and Benford showed three different American textile experts pictures of the corner the sample was taken from. The experts replied that it was herringbone weave, but manipulated in some way, maybe rewoven. Marino and Benford published their paper in 2000, concluding that a significant portion of the sample was actually a patch of sixteenth century material. Ray Rogers, at first skeptical of Marino and Benford’s studies, later examined the evidence on his own and found that they were right. He presented his findings in a scientific article in 2005, arguing that the radiocarbon date was not valid for determining the age of the Shroud because the sample was not part of the original cloth. The radiocarbon dating done in 1988, therefore, was not a scientific test.

   Without doubt there are doubts about the age of the shroud. Historical evidence puts the radiocarbon dating in doubt, the radiocarbon dating puts the historical evidence in doubt. Do I have all the knowledge and access to all the evidence available to categorically state who is right, I doubt it.

5. CharlieM: Well I don’t hang my hat on contamination of the corner where the sample was cut. There are several reasons why the radiocarbon dating should be taken with a great deal of caution. Blind acceptance was something I was guilty of and it seems that colewd also accepted the radiocarbon dates with little question. It’s only now that I’ve had some incentive to review the evidence that I realize that it’s not as cut and dried as I had imagined.

   Oh. So because you and Bill once viewed the radiocarbon dates without question, we should doubt them now? Strange logic. I am not responsible for your gullibility, nor your inability to distinguish between a cotton thread removed via sticky tape (almost certainly came from the backing material) versus the idea that 50% of the sample is a modern “invisible” interwoven mend.

   CharlieM: Why does it have to be from Israel? There was plenty of intercontinental trade going on at that time. I’m sure the romans brought along all sorts of fancy things and wouldn’t have minded doing a bit of business with well off Jews such as Joseph of Arimathea. There are plenty of examples of herringbone weave from around the world going back way before the 1st century A.D.

   Aww, that’s sweet. There aren’t any examples of 3/1 twill, except for chinese silk. Also, it’s pretty clear it was woven on a four-shaft treadle loom, so not first century at all.

   CharlieM: Which details of the wounds are at variance with Roman crucifixions of the time?

   Nails in the upper limbs. (No, nobody thinks the mark on Jehohanan’s right radius is from a nail through his wrist anymore.)
   You missed the point about the hand positioning: try it out, lay flat on your back, cover your junk. Now relax… That’s a living model covering his junk, not a corpse.

   CharlieM: The different ages obtained by the labs were, Tucson: 646 ± 31 years old; Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old; and Oxford: 750 ± 30 years. There is plenty of historical evidence to suggest it’s much older than that.

   Please provide this historical evidence. In particular supporting the existence of the Shroud before 1203. There’s a millennium of missing history there.
   Finally, you do realize that each lab received 50g of cloth to test, whilst the Vatican retained 150g ‘for future use’. They could perform three more tests tomorrow, if they so chose. That’s the most telling piece of evidence of all.

   CharlieM: Historical evidence puts the radiocarbon dating in doubt, the radiocarbon dating puts the historical evidence in doubt.

   Like I wrote, you should learn about what evidence is.

6. Alan Fox:
   “CharlieM: Then it would be most probable that a man had been executed in the style of a Roman crucifixion and his body wrapped in a shroud, at around the time when Christ was supposed to have been crucified.”

   Alan Fox: Well, no. Because, as you say, nobody so far has been able to duplicate the process that resulted in the image.

   To reiterate what I wrote, here

   You are focusing on the image while ignoring the most telling evidence for a person being abused, scourged with a flagrum similar to that shown below, pierced over the scalp with sharp objects, crucified by being nailed to a cross, pierced with lance or similar, put into contact with the linen cloth.

   The blood-stained cloth on its own, without the image, is strong evidence for those events having taken place.

7. colewd:
   “CharlieM: These points should be seriously considered and not just lightly brushed of with a shrug of the shoulders.”

   colewd: I do agree that if someone has an open mind it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and is confirming evidence of the resurrection. No one here is able to argue against the evidence you have presented.

   The carbon dating is what got me to lose interest several years ago. I think that the current evidence makes the dating data suspect. Your argument about the mid century paintings is quite compelling along with other evidence.

   I think at the very least it is evidence of a Roman-type crucifixion and subsequent laying of the body in a shroud.

   For those who don’t know, Barrie Schwortz was the official documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, tasked with examining the shroud in 1978. He talks about his involvement in this interview. The video is over an hour long, but anyone need only watch the first ten minutes to see how his views on the shroud developed.

   He is a Jew who took little interest in the shroud prior to taking on this assignment. He began as a sceptic of its authenticity and remained basically so for seventeen years after the initial 5 days of examination, although he did think of it as a mystery. In 1995 he had a conversation with Alan Adler, also Jewish, who was the team’s expert examining the stains for blood content. This conversation finally convinced him, based purely on the scientific evidence, that the cloth really was the shroud of a man who had been subject to a Roman-stye crucifixion. And science hasn’t yet solved the mystery of how the image got onto the cloth.

8. colewd,

   If you haven’t watched the above video before, you might be interested in Schwortz discussing why he believes the figure on the shroud is that of Jesus, starting at this point in the video.

9. Flint: And the Catholic Church would surely look foolish for having revered a hoax for so long AND for having denied scientists the access to do a dispositive test for decades

   Starting here in the video I’ve just linked to, Schwortz discusses reasons for the lack of access and I learned something I wasn’t aware of. The shroud isn’t owned by the Catholic Church. It belongs to the pope personally, and he has the last say on who has access. Let’s hope a future pope will be more accommodating.

10. DNA_Jock: …and the hand position points to a living model rather than a corpse

    Lucky to get that shot. ‘Say cheese’ had hardly left the photographer’s lips when the subject suddenly jumped up and ran off into the distance. 🙂

11. Kantian Naturalist,

    This seems more or less right, except it should also be noted that by these standards, we should also be skeptical as to whether Socrates existed, or any of hundreds of names from antiquity who are attested about as well as Socrates and Jesus.

    What do you mean by more or less right? Flint made a false statement here as Jesus life is confirmed by 27 books in the NT most the books in the OT and by independent Roman and Jewish historians. Your statement comparing Jesus with Socrates over looks Judaeo Christian theology which is very different than a purely historic figure.

    Jesus is the most unique figure in all human history and has the most evidentiary support for his life and Devine nature then any other historical figure.

12. colewd:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    What do you mean by more or less right?Flint made a false statement here as Jesus life is confirmed by 27 books in the NT most the books in the OT and by independent Roman and Jewish historians.

    A book claiming it’s correct is not confirmation. The bible is fiction. No independent Roman or Jewish historians confirm any part of the new testament (although there is an interpolated (inserted later by someone else) passage in Josephus recognized as such even by Christian historians).
    Your claims here are simply not true. You might try consulting non-Christian sources for a change. Even the most passionate desire for something to be true doesn’t make it true in reality, only in your imagination.

    Your statement comparing Jesus with Socrates over looks Judaeo Christian theology which is very different than a purely historic figure.

    This is actually correct! Socrates is a historical figure with perhaps skimpy external documentation. Jesus is a fictional character, with NO external documentation. Socrates is generally regarded by more objective third parties as having existed. Jesus is a theological fiction.

    I mean, come on, man. READ the gospels. There are no authors, there are no sources, they were written at least a generation after the events they describe, and a thousand miles away, and in a different language. Yet, without a single eyewitness, they “quote” Jesus extensively. Don’t you ever wonder about that? Concerning the resurrection alone, the four gospels disagree with one another in over a dozen different ways, and not trivial ways either. By the time we get to John, there isn’t even an attempt to look historical.

    Jesus is the most unique figure in all human history and has the most evidentiary support for his life and Devine nature then any other historical figure.

    Jesus is NOT a historical figure. The evidentiary support for his life is entirely found in the new testament, which is fiction. But as a fictional character, I suppose you can say he’s as unique as Sherlock Holmes.

    And even at that, the gospel Jesus and Paul’s Jesus are entirely different characters. Claiming Mark and Paul are describing the same person is preposterous. Again, try reading your material.

13. CharlieM,

    That’s a little disrespectful to a dead Philistine, but no matter: I am glad that we agree that that is not the position of someone laid in a sepulchre.
    Next up: Charlie will claim that the body had rigor mortis in the neck and legs, but not in the arms or shoulders.
    Still waiting on all that ‘historical evidence’ you’ve been touting.

14. DNA_Jock to CharlieM:

    That’s a little disrespectful to a dead Philistine, but no matter: I am glad that we agree that that is not the position of someone laid in a sepulchre.

    My apologies to the spirit that once possessed that skeleton. But whoever it belonged to did give up ownership of it to the Earth. And for Nature, it is just material to be used as She sees fit.

    DNA_Jock: Next up: Charlie will claim that the body had rigor mortis in the neck and legs, but not in the arms or shoulders.

    Robert Bucklin, specialist in medical forensics at the Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner’s Office who was one of the investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, had a theory about this.

    Because of the short period, it was not possible for the disciples to perform the usual burial ritual which included anointing the body carefully with warm scented water and oils before placing it in the sepulchre. All that there was time to do was to wrap the body quickly in a long linen cloth which had been brought to the scene by Joseph of Arimathea and to place within the folds of the cloth and on the body a mixture of aloes and myrrh to serve as a preservative. It has been estimated that about sixty-five pounds of this preservative was used. The cloth was approximately twice the length of the body so that when the body was laid upon the cloth in a linear fashion the cloth could be folded over to cover both the front and back portions of the body. The arms were flexed over the chest, rigor mortis having been broken in order to accomplish this.

    From Robert Bucklin’s obituary:

    …for David Rolfe’s award-winning cinema and TV documentary Silent Witness. Via life-size negatives of the Shroud laid out in his Los Angeles laboratory as if these were an actual crucified body, Bucklin explained the wounds of crowning with thorns, scourging and crucifixion with such gentle authority and matter-of-factness that the scenes involving him were arguably the most powerful single contributor to the documentary’s winning of a BAFTA award. Personally, I will never forget his quiet, clinical explanations of the terrible injuries. Or his calm gazing direct at the camera to conclude with heart-melting emphasis: ‘The markings on this image are so clear and so medically accurate that the pathological facts which they reflect concerning the suffering and death of the man depicted here are in my opinion beyond dispute.’ Such authoritative assessment by a seasoned medical specialist, talking about the very basics of the subject from within his own field of professional expertise, represents the very lifeblood of what Shroud research should be all about.

    He was a very experienced pathologist and medical examiner which gives me very little reason to doubt him on what is possible when dealing with a corpse.

    DNA_Jock: Still waiting on all that ‘historical evidence’ you’ve been touting.

    It’s there if you care to look for it. For instance, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which colewd mentioned here. Recorded historical records go back much further for this than those of the shroud but there is physical evidence to link it to the shroud.

15. Jesus is NOT a historical figure. The evidentiary support for his life is entirely found in the new testament, which is fiction. But as a fictional character, I suppose you can say he’s as unique as Sherlock Holmes.

    And even at that, the gospel Jesus and Paul’s Jesus are entirely different characters. Claiming Mark and Paul are describing the same person is preposterous. Again, try reading your material.

    You’re making assertions here with no support. Your entire post is based on circular reasoning. The Bible is fiction therefor the Bible is fiction. Circular reasoning of a fringe theory is not going to persuade many people.

    Flint I think you are fooling yourself and should take a step back and reevaluate how you came to a worldview based on faulty reasoning.

16. Kantian Naturalist: This seems more or less right, except it should also be noted that by these standards, we should also be skeptical as to whether Socrates existed, or any of hundreds of names from antiquity who are attested about as well as Socrates and Jesus.

    While it is true that no one cares about whether Socrates was a real person, and lots of people care about whether Jesus was a real person, that should not affect the evidentiary standards we have for ancient documents.

    Here is something I found that addresses the matter of Socrates, in comparison with Jesus:

    To understand the rest of this chapter, it will help to grasp the analogy of Socrates. He is comparable to Jesus in being a famous sage whose influence was profound and everlasting (he is the father of what we now mean by Philosophy, in essentially the same way Jesus is of Christianity) without having written anything himself, his influence being entirely through his ‘disciples’, who each developed communities that then fragmented and modified his teachings into many competing sects. And yet Socrates’ existence is not in any doubt, nor plausibly doubtable. Why? Because very much unlike Jesus, we know the names of over a dozen eyewitnesses who wrote books about Socrates; in some cases we even know the titles of these books, and a number of paraphrases and quotations from them survive in other sources. And in two of those cases, the books even survive: we have the many works of Plato and Xenophon, each of whom was an eyewitness and disciple to Socrates, who each recorded his teachings and reported stories and other information about him. We have nothing at all like this for Jesus. Even more unlike Jesus, we also have an eyewitness account of Socrates from a relatively unfriendly source as well: The Clouds of Aristophanes is a comic play specifically written to poke fun at Socrates and his teachings and disciples, written by an eyewitness contemporary to both; Socrates even sat in the audience of its first production!19 What we knew of Jesus would be vastly more credible and quantifiable if we had anything even remotely like this for him. Yet we have none of the above: we have no eyewitness records at all, much less from neutral or hostile parties; we don’t even know of any written eyewitness accounts ever having existed (much less dozens upon dozens of them), and we certainly don’t have anything like identifiable quotations from them or their titles and authors.

17. colewd: You’re making assertions here with no support.Your entire post is based on circular reasoning.The Bible is fiction therefor the Bible is fiction.Circular reasoning of a fringe theory is not going to persuade many people.

    Flint I think you are fooling yourself and should take a step back and reevaluate how you came to a worldview based on faulty reasoning.

    Physician heal thyself. I’m saying that I regard the bible as fiction because of a serious lack of corroborating sources for any of its religious claims. To say the bible is true because the bible SAYS it’s true is circular. You keep saying aspects of your faith are “documented” because they are repeated multiple times in the same book!

    You should ask yourself, “What evidence other than the bible do I have for any of my religious beliefs?” Once you realize that a single book is the sole source of your beliefs, you should understand that your faith rests on a single leg, and that leg is not supported by any others. If that one book happens to be incorrect in ways that would be fatal to your faith, where would you turn?

    YOU might be well advised to evaluate how you came to a worldview resting on prima facie preposterous claims, made in a single book known to have been thoroughly edited by people with a powerful agenda.

    (You might also think back on what age you were first introduced to the religious faith of nearly everyone around you, including your parents. When were you taken to your first church service? At what age were you baptized? How much mature informed analysis could you actually do at the age when the indoctrination began? Most religious believers had lost the ability to reason about their faith before they were old enough to reason in the first place. Think about this.)

18. colewd:

    You might also read that section I quoted above about the comparison between Jesus and Socrates. THAT is an example of what I’m talking about when I ask for external sources. If Plato were the ONLY source of information about Socrates, I would be inclined to believe Socrates was a fictional character created by Plato.

19. The comment made by Flint to Colewd regarding the age when he (Colewd) first learnt about the god stuff is telling. Being taught this at an age that is way before the development of any skeptical faculty’s is precisely why the church wants to ‘give us the child’.

20. Flint to colewd: I’m saying that I regard the bible as fiction because of a serious lack of corroborating sources for any of its religious claims. To say the bible is true because the bible SAYS it’s true is circular.

    Truth need not come in only one form. The Gospels were not written as historical records. The message is what is important, not historical accuracy.

    They contain teachings which can be understood in various ways depending on the receptivity of the listener.

    Mark 4:33 – And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.

    But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

    and

    John 16:12 to 16 – I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

    There are many other Gospels, Christian and other writings that have been kept from public awareness because of Church politics or whatever reason. Recent findings such as at Nag Hamadi, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls give us greater insight into life around the time of Christ. And I don’t believe it is accidental that they are being revealed at this time when individuals can more fully appreciate them.

    The Gospel of Truth is one such script:

    Excerpt:
    When a will hasn’t yet been opened, the wealth of the deceased master of the house is hidden; so too all were hidden while the Father of all was invisible. They were from him, from whom every realm comes. Because of this:

    Jesus was revealed,
    put on that book,
    was nailed to a tree,
    and published the Father’s edict on the cross.

    Oh, what a great teaching!

    Drawing himself down to death,
    he clothed himself in eternal life,
    stripped himself of the perishable rags,
    and clothed himself in incorruptibility,
    which no one can take from him.

    When he entered the empty realms of terror, he passed through those who were stripped by forgetfulness, being knowledge and completion, proclaiming the things that are in the heart […] teach those who will [receive teaching].

    Also the Gospel of Thomas

    Excerpt:
    Saying 50: Our Origin and Identity
    Jesus said, “If they ask you, ‘Where do you come from?’ tell them, ‘We’ve come from the light, the place where light came into being by itself, [established] itself, and appeared in their image.’

    Saying 77: Jesus is the All
    Jesus said, “I’m the light that’s over all. I am the All. The All has come from me and unfolds toward me.

    Saying 83: Light and Images
    Jesus said, “Images are revealed to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He’ll be revealed, but his image will be hidden by his light.”

    Whatever we believe about the Turin shroud, it is only now that technology has allowed us to see it in such detail. But whatever it is, it is a mere image. The maker of that image is no longer there.

    The way we are treating this shroud reminds me of Luke 23:34

    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

    Everyone wants a piece of the shroud. In my opinion the message and inspiration engendered by the shroud is much more important than any arguments over its underlying history.

    The events in Palestine 2000 years ago was the origin of a kind of hysteresis loop or time delay that is only now reaching the point where it can be fully appreciated by the masses and not just a select few.

21. What do all the above bible quotes achieve?
    Do they add anything to the search for truth?

22. graham2:
    What do all the above bible quotes achieve?
    Do they add anything to the search for truth?

    Good questions. Here is my take:

    Any search for truth must be personal to the individual seeker. Even if we believe in one unified Truth, our way to it will be unique because we are divided by our limited individuality.

    None of us can be led to the Truth. Certain teachings can point the way, but whichever path we follow is left up to the individual seeker.

    As Thomas Troward put it:

    To hear of wonderful powers latent in man and requiring only development is beautiful and hopeful, if we could only find out the way to develop them; but who will show us the way? The answer comes with no uncertain note. The I am includes ‘ everything. It is at once “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”: not the Life only, or the Truth only, but also the Way by which to reach them. Can words be plainer? It is by continually affirming and relying on the I am in ourselves as identical with the I am that is the One and Only Life, whether manifested or unmanifested, in all places of the universe, that we shall find the way to the attainment of all Truth and of all Life. Here we have the predicate which we are seeking to complete our affirmation regarding ourselves. I am–what? the Three things which include all things: Truth, which is all Knowledge and Wisdom; Life, which is all Power and Love; and the unfailing Way which will lead us step by step, if we follow it, to heights too sublime and environment too wide for our present juvenile imaginings to picture…

    There is only one Truth, and therefore careful seeking can bring men only to the same Truth, whether they be Bible-writers or any other.

    His writings tell us of the path he believes he should follow.

    “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

    I AM is the Unity that all being partakes in. The Son is the limited individual, who in returning to the Father achieves wholeness. Those individuals who continue to believe in the ultimate division of all ‘things’, then that becomes their destiny.

    Christ’s Passion is a story of the agony of separation which must be transcended on the way back to Unity.

    That is my take, and everyone else should have the freedom to decide how things stand with them. If what I’ve quoted above is no help in your search, so be it. Know yourself and follow your own path.

23. Jesus, sorry, but what a load of word salad.
    Truth is that which agrees with reality.