Never Mind the Bullocks, Here's the Science (21 page)

While stored in Chambéry in a casket, the Winding Sheet was almost consumed in a fire in the chapel in 1532. Some of the silver on the inside of the casket melted, and fell onto corners of the folded Winding Sheet, permanently marking it. The Shroud also suffered some charring and water damage, which is still visible today.

Shroud of Turin, 1694

In 1578, the Duke of Savoy left Chambéry for his new capital of Turin in northern Italy, some 150 km to the west-southwest. The Winding Sheet went along with him. It finally wound up in a specially built shrine in the Royal Chapel of the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin in 1694—hence the name the ‘Shroud of Turin’. The architect of the chapel was the mathematician Guarino Guarini. It has been in the Guarini Chapel ever since, apart from a brief period during World War II.

In 1958, Pope Pius XII approved of the image from the Shroud being used in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus. This was celebrated every Shrove Tuesday. (Shrove Tuesday is the last day of ‘regular’ life before the start of Lent—a period of fasting and prayer which begins on the next day, Ash Wednesday.)

On 12 April 1997, the Shroud was again almost consumed in a fire which broke out in the Guarini Chapel of the cathedral in Turin. Mr Mario Trematore was just one fireman out of 140 who came from as far away as Milan, 120 km away, to fight the blaze. He used a hammer to smash through the bulletproof glass, grabbed the silver box holding the Shroud with both hands, and ran with it to safety.

Image from Body to Shroud

If the Shroud were a simple forgery manufactured in the Middle Ages, it’s easy to understand how the image arrived on the linen.

But what if it were really the actual Shroud used to wrap the Body of Christ? How did the image transfer from the Body to the Shroud?

There are many theories.

Theory Number One.
The Body was anointed with oils and spices. The habit of anointing the corpse was common in the Middle East at that time. These oils ‘somehow’ transferred to the Body, creating an image. But why has this never happened with all the other corpses that have been anointed and then wrapped in a winding cloth?

And if the image did come from direct contact with the Body of Christ, it would have been distorted, thanks to having been wrapped around the Body. Dead bodies were indeed wrapped at that time in the Middle East. However, they were never simply laid on a long cloth, with the other half of the cloth then folded over the body.

Theory Number Two.
Vapours from the Body made the image. This theory (called ‘Vaporography’), first put forth by Dr Paul Vignon before the French Academy of Sciences in 1902, says that the corpse had sweat on it and that the urea in the sweat fermented, creating ammonia. This ammonia then wafted gently
from the Body onto the linen. There were already various oils and spices on the linen. The ammonia reacted with the impregnated cloth to produce an image.

One problem is that the image is sharp and defined, but vapours are notorious for going anywhere and everywhere. And why has an image of a body never been transferred, in all the other cases of sweaty bodies that have been anointed and then wrapped in a winding cloth?

Theory Number Three.
Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince claim that the image on the Shroud is a photograph. Leonardo da Vinci, they claim, had been commissioned to make this Shroud by Pope Innocent VIII. So Leonardo—they claim, with no proof at all—invented photography a few centuries before everybody else. They further claim that Leonardo did some advanced photo-editing, and photographically joined his own head with the body of an unknown person whom he had crucified—just to make this image.

Theory Number Four.
It is claimed that Christ was resurrected by the total conversion of His corporeal Body into energy, on the third day after he died. This energy then somehow ‘burned’ His image into the linen winding cloth.

One problem with this theory is the sheer magnitude of the energy released. Two kilograms of matter will, if totally converted into energy, deliver about 47 megatons of energy. That is roughly the amount of energy delivered by the biggest hydrogen bomb ever exploded—called the Tsar Bomba, it was detonated by the Soviets on 30 October 1961. The fireball from this blast was enormous—8 km in diameter. If the Body of Christ (weighing approximately 60-80 kg) had been turned into energy, the yield would have been about 30 to 40 times greater. Surely someone in nearby Jerusalem would have noticed?

There are many other theories, none of them scientifically
valid. The only way out is to conclude that either the image on the Shroud is indeed a miracle (i.e. not subject to the laws of nature) or just the work of a forger.

Authenticity—Many Shrouds

The first problem with the Shroud of Turin being the True and Original burial shroud of Jesus Christ is simple.

There are another 40 or more burial shrouds of Jesus Christ, each claiming to be the only True and Original Shroud. They include the shrouds at Besançon, Cadouin and Champagne in France, and Xabregas in Portugal.

The only thing special about the Shroud of Turin is that, thanks to accidents of history, it’s the most famous.

Authenticity—No Comment

The writers of the Gospel considered the Resurrection of Christ to be a miracle.

Surely the Gospel writers would have also thought the transference of the image of Christ to his Winding Sheet to be a miracle?

So why did they not mention it?

Authenticity—Sudden Fading

The Shroud first came to notice in the 14th century. We know that ‘the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed’.

But today the image on the Shroud is so faded as to be almost invisible.

How could the image keep its brightness for 13 centuries, and then lose it in the next five centuries? On the other hand, this is exactly what we would expect to find if it were a 14th century forgery.

Authenticity—Blood

There are reddish stains on the image’s wrists, feet and left side of the chest. Iron, proteins and porphyrins are found in blood. They are also found in these stains. Surely this must mean that the stains are the blood of Christ?

Nope.

First, only fresh blood is red. After a short time, it darkens to deep brown or black.

Second, iron, proteins and porphyrins are indeed found in blood—but they are also found in many red paints and pigments. Walter McCrone, a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, has testified in court on forensic cases. He analysed the ‘blood’ on the Shroud, and found that it was red ochre and vermilion in a collagen tempera medium.

Third, the element sodium is very abundant in blood. But there’s no sodium in the stains on the Shroud.

Fourth, if it were proven to be blood (and it never has been, and it’s the wrong colour anyway) a medieval artist could have used the blood of any animal.

Authenticity—Weave Pattern of Linen

The linen is a herringbone-twill weave.

This type of weave was not known in the Middle East at the time of Christ. However, it was common in medieval Europe.

Authenticity—No Brush Strokes

It is true to say that there are no signs of brush strokes on the Shroud.

Does this prove that it cannot have been painted?

Nope.

First, a technique called ‘rubbing’ has been used to give a result remarkably similar to the image on the Shroud. The technique called ‘Brass Rubbing’ involves laying a sheet of paper on top of a brass image (usually a face or a full human figure), and then carefully rubbing the paper with graphite, chalk or soft wax. And yes, ‘rubbing’ automatically gives a ‘negative’ image.

Second, there are ways to apply paint without leaving brush strokes. In 1994, Drs Craig and Bresee wrote in the
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology
of their experiments with the Carbon Dust Drawing Technique. This technique was known in medieval times, and has long been used by medical illustrators. It involves gently brushing a dry powder (charcoal or ground carbon) onto a surface with a soft artist’s paintbrush, with many short delicate strokes, each from a different angle. Each brush stroke makes hardly any difference, but many strokes do. They were able to reproduce many of the features of the image on the Shroud of Turin, including a complete lack of brush strokes.

Authenticity—3-D Information

In 1977, Donald Lynne and Jean Lorre announced that the image on the Shroud had a supposedly unique mathematical property. If you assume that the darkest parts of the image are the ones closest to the Body, and the lightest parts the ones furthest away, then you can reconstruct a 3-D image of the face. This was absolutely amazing—if it was unique to the Shroud of Turin.

But it was not. In fact, it was incredibly easy to duplicate. Doctors Craig and Bresee used the Carbon Dust Drawing Technique to make their own image on a shroud. And yes, it had the same 3-D information.

Authenticity—Pollen from Jerusalem

It was claimed by Max Frei that pollen similar to the pollen found around Jerusalem was detected on the Shroud.

First, there are doubts as to the credibility of Max Frei as a scientist. He was the man who claimed that the so-called Hitler Diaries of 1983 were genuine. They were later found to be fake, after he had authenticated them.

Second, trade between Palestine and Europe existed in medieval times and, therefore cloth (carrying pollen) could easily have been brought from Jerusalem.

Authenticity—Carbon Dating

In 1988, the Vatican sent three postage-sized samples of cloth from the Shroud of Turin to three independent laboratories in England, Switzerland and the USA. They used radiocarbon dating to measure the harvesting date of the flax, from which the cloth of the Shroud was woven. They arrived at dates somewhere between 1260 and 1390 AD (with 95% certainty).

As a result, the Roman Catholic Church announced that the Shroud of Turin was not the original shroud used to wrap Christ—but it also announced that Christians could venerate the Shroud as a memorial to Christ, or as an old (i.e. from the 1300s) imagined pictorial image of how Christ could have looked, if he was European.

Some people have argued that this dating is wrong.

First, they claim that the samples did not come from the original Shroud but from additions that were invisibly woven into the cloth to repair the damage of the 1532 fire. There are a few problems with this argument. If the additions were invisibly woven in, how can they tell that they were present? If the additions were not invisibly melded in, then surely the Vatican would have sent an original part of the Shroud, not something dating to 1532.

Second, they claim that extra new carbon (rich in Carbon-14) has been added. This could come from the hands of the pilgrims touching it in its early days, or from bacteria that have invaded the fabric of the Shroud. Yes, carbon that was rich in Carbon-14 would indeed alter the measured date to appear more recent. But, the amount of carbon needed to shift the date from 33 AD to 1300 AD would be equal to twice the weight of the entire Shroud. Surely, somebody would have noticed that the Shroud had tripled in weight and thickness.

The More Things Change…

On one hand, there is a cloth that suddenly appears out of the blue about 13 centuries after the event. In one of the earliest reports about this cloth a bishop discussed the confession of the person who forged the image. The chemicals that make up the image are clearly identified as paint. And radiocarbon dating places the fabric to around the time of the forger.

On the other hand, there is a cloth bearing an image for which there is no plausible explanation (other than being made by a forger).

It took about six centuries and lots of science to reach the same conclusion as Pope Clement VII did in the 14th century. Except for the fact that the Shroud is made from linen, it seems that people are having the wool pulled over their eyes.

References

Cadena, Richard, ‘Joe Nickell, skeptical investigator’,
The Skeptic
(Australian edition), Summer 2001, Vol 21, No 4, pp 52-57.

Craig, Emily A. and Bresee, Randall R., ‘Image formation and the Shroud of Turin’,
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology
, 1994, Vol 34, No 1.

Edwards, Harry, ‘Travels of a skeptic’,
The Skeptic
(Australian edition), Summer 1998, Vol 18, No 4, p 52.

Gigot, F., ‘Joseph of Arimathea’,
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910, Vol 8. Retrieved 7 August 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm.

Kelly, Lynne,
The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal
, Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2004, pp 20-33.

Picknett, Lynn and Prince, Clive,
Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?
, New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

Thurston, H., ‘The Holy Shroud (of Turin)’,
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912, Vol 13. Retrieved 7 August 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm.

Vikan, Gary, ‘Debunking the Shroud: made by human hands’,
Biblical Archaeology Review
, November/December 1998, Vol 24, No 26.

Weaver, Kenneth F.., ‘Science seeks to solve the mystery of the Shroud’,
National Geographic
, June 1980, pp 730-752.

Mobile Phones and Petrol Stations
(Fuelling the Rumours)

Mobile phones provide us with a really good example of just how irrational we human beings can be.

These phones are blamed for all kinds of health problems, ranging from brain cancer to memory loss. There’s not a lot of real evidence for this—and it certainly doesn’t stop people from using their phones.