www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Shroud of Turin and Orthodoxy

Dear Friends,

Here is a story about the veneration of the Shroud of Turin in the Orthodox Church of Belarus:

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=26294

Is this an indication of an "official" position within Orthodoxy toward the Shroud of Turin?

Also, is the Epitaphion/Plashchanitsia or Shroud venerated in Eastern Churches connected with the Shroud of Turin?

Alex

I have heard from at least one Eastern Catholic priest that the Shroud of "Turin" is actually an Eastern shroud that made its way to Torino as a result of the crusades. If true, then it is not surprising that Orthodox would venerate it. In any case, we have nothing against the veneration of burial shrouds, as our services for Good Friday graphically attest.

Brendan

Dear Alex,

It's interesting you ask this question, as I just got through a presentation on the subject of the Shroud for a religion class I was in.

My research into the Shroud in previous years led me to discover something. I don't remember where I heard this, but here goes.

It seems that there is a tradition that after the Resurrection, the apostles took possession of the burial cloths in the tomb. After this, as the Christian community in Jerusalem would celebrate the Eucharist with the apostles, the Shroud of Christ was used as the tablecloth upon the "altar" table.

Hence, all apostolic liturgical traditions have, in addition to regular altar cloths, a special cloth upon which the bread and wine are laid out. In the Latin West, this is the simple white corporal. In the Assyrian Church, I believe a piece of animal hide is used. Among us Syrians we have a more ornate cloth placed on the altar like so:

[Linked Image]

But the Byzantine tradition gets the most graphic with this. Not only is the antimension placed on the altar so that the bread and wine are laid out on them, but often (maybe always?) there is an image of the Lord having been taken down from the Cross. The images of Byzantine antimensia I've seen have all shared striking features with the Shroud of Turin's image.

So I thought that was an interesting piece of information, and so did the folks in the class.

Dear Brendan and Catholicos,

How fascinatingly wonderful!

The Shroud of Turin truly DOES belong to the family of Geoffroi de Chancey, the Templar Crusader who was the nephew of another Geoffroi de Chancey, tortured to death with Jacques de Molay, the Commander of the Templars.

The descendants of these are still around, of course.

Some have said that the Templars were Orthodox, even though of the Latin Rite (?).

There are some groups of "vagante" Templars who have canonized as saints Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Chancey and others killed by the Inquisition. They also canonized all Templars who died fighting the Saracens in the Holy Land and the 300 Pilgrims of Jerusalem killed on their way to the Holy Sepulchre.

It was the Templars who took the relic of the Shroud from Constantinople (?) and some say the folded Shroud was what St Jude the Apostle took with him to heal St Abgar of Edessa (?).

The Epitaphion certainly remains on the Altar until Ascension and Catholicos' details are most interesting.

The Ukrainian Church also has an Epitaphion of the Mother of God that is used on the feast of Her Dormition/Assumption. The Epitaphion is usually kept in a side chapel or even in a chapel outside on the Church grounds.

However, some Orthodox sources I've consulted say that the Scriptures are clear about "cloths" being used, rather than one shroud in wrapping the Body of Christ and that, therefore, the Shroud is a fake.

And you say . . . ?

Alex

To Alex:

It's the original!!! (That was easy!) :p


AmdG

The Shroud of Turin truly DOES belong to the family of Geoffroi de Chancey, the Templar Crusader who was the nephew of another Geoffroi de Chancey, tortured to death with Jacques de Molay, the Commander of the Templars.

Actually, Alex, the owner of the Shroud, until a few years ago, was the House of Savoy, the Italian Royal Family. King Umberto II (I think) bequeathed it to the Archdiocese of Turin.

It was the Templars who took the relic of the Shroud from Constantinople (?) and some say the folded Shroud was what St Jude the Apostle took with him to heal St Abgar of Edessa (?).

This is true, and is commemorated on the Wednesday of Mid-Lent in the Syrian calendar. There is a nice icon of King Abgar holding the Mandylion that is in Saint Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai. We refer to the Apostle Jude as the Apostle Addai (Thaddeus). Also, it is said that Christ originally sent the Apostle Thomas ( ) to King Abgar Ukomo, but he handed it off to Addai, who then went to Abgar.

However, some Orthodox sources I've consulted say that the Scriptures are clear about "cloths" being used, rather than one shroud in wrapping the Body of Christ and that, therefore, the Shroud is a fake.

I've heard this before, too, and was one point in which my presentation argued that it might be a fake. But this is easily rectified in that the gospels refer to either "a cloth" or "cloths", and the "cloths" could easily be the face shroud, a chinband, etc. that were commonly used in Jewish burials of the time.

A stronger argument for the Shroud as a forgery comes from the 1300's, when it is said it was made. A bishop from that time wrote the Pope saying that he wanted displays of the Shroud for veneration (in a church in his diocese owned by one of the Pope's relatives) to stop because he determined it was a forgery, and even met the artist who made it. The Pope subsequently allowed his relative to continue allowing the Shroud's veneration, while requiring him to acknowledge that the Shroud in question (now the Shroud of Turin) was a forgery. (Also, there is a scientific method, "Camera Obscura", which was available back then, and produces convincing effects...let me know if you want me to go into this.)

Then again, it was around the time of the Avignon papacy, if I'm not mistaken, and things weren't exactly going on in a very legitimate way back then, so...

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, I have no problem accepting that it is the original and true Shroud of Christ!

And de Chancey is, I believe, related to the House of Savoy as well.

What is truly mystifying about the Shroud, for me, is that one may count the number of lashes that Christ received, more than 120, which makes sense seeing that the scourge had three cords and 39 lashes were the maximum number.

Although the Copts and Ethiopians (and other Oriental Orthodox?) do 41 Kirie Eleisons in honour of two more scourges Christ received (am I right?).

Alex

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen


Is it necessary to couch principles of faith in the framework of "proof?' Is what the Shroud of Turin represents contingent on its capability of being “proven” to be authentic? If so, then it is a question of science and no longer faith. The scientific and historical literature that I have looked over in regard to the Shroud does not look promising to those who believe it, that is if they believe it based on scientific or historical arguments.

Aklie Semaet

Christ is Risen!

The Orthodox view of the Holy Shroud of Turin, as I have been advised by several American Bishops, now of blessed memeory, is that the shroud meets the criteria of being a true relic. One of them pointed to the fact that the Mandilion (the Cloth with the Face of Christ on it--Icon made without hands)arrived to Constantinople. Soon afterthat there is historical reference to the Royal Chapel having a Resurrection service with a tomb and everything that at a certain point an image of Christ rose out of symbolizing the resurrection. The description of the cloth used is similar to the Shoud. After the sacking of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders of Venice, both the mandilion disappeared and the Image used at the Royal Ressurrection service likewise disappeared. It was this bishop's belief that the mandilion and the shroud are the same thing. This is also mentioned as a possibility in several books on the shroud.

It is interesting to note that photos of the shroud of Turin have been displayed at Pascha in several Orthodox Churches that I have visited and were venerated as icons by the parishioners.

Is there a concensus on the Shroud in world wide Orthodoxy. No, it appears to be a personal or localized practice of honoring it as an icon made without hands.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Dear Aklie,

Christ is Risen!

The historical record regarding the Shroud indeed is shady in many key areas, and does not look terribly promising, as you said.

However, the scientific record seems to be rather evenly divided. There's really enough to go either way. One thing that supports the Shroud's authenticity is that it seems to be a "matching set", if you will, with the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain. The Sudarium is the face shroud of Christ, and while the Shroud of Turin may have a shady past, the Sudarium doesn't...it's authenticity historically is pretty well established. The Sudarium has no facial image, like the Shroud does, but it does have blood marks and similar things. Comparative scannings of the Shroud and the Sudarium show that both cloths were on top of the same human being because the "faces" are a perfect match. It's also interesting to note that the blood type on the Shroud and Sudarium, as well as the blood type of various Eucharistic miracles that have occurred is all the same...AB, a rare blood type; most of the people with type AB blood are from the Middle East/Palestine. Oh, and me.

I don't think that one's faith should be based on a cloth, but on the God Whose burial shroud the Turin Shroud allegedly is. But, I think science has its purpose, and surely it should be allowed to research the Shroud. What have we to worry about? If it's a fake, it's a fake, but the Resurrection is real! If it's real, then we have ourselves the surest relic of not just the death of Christ, but more importantly (because of the image) of the Resurrection.

I got your private message, thank you.

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.


Brother Mor Ephrem,

In Ethiopia, Protestantism represents itself as Christianity that has adapted to the implications of the Enlightenment. This attracts many people interested in being "modern' and more western in character. The origin of this approach was a result of Latin Scholasticism trying to "prove' tenants of Christianity with scientific arguments during this period. It has produced results that are clear for everyone to see. Many theologians now reject key doctrines of the faith and even dismiss certain saints as being too mythical. Orthodox, let alone pre-Chalcedonians can not adopt to this methodology. We must stick to the words of St. Paul:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

As you said, “the Resurrection is real.” If the next Discovery Channel special on Jesus "proves' this or not, it will still be real. We should let faith guide us on matters of our Religion and rational logic guide us when we are in the lab. Trying to prove something of our Religion, on the basis of a method developed for science will lead to a dead end. Since the supporters of the Shroud of Turin have decided to make this a matter of a scientific debate (and only because of this) and not of faith, then I will present my case on the basis of Scientific evidence and not of faith.

O.K. here goes.*

First of all, what is “the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain?” Are you referring to the “Image of Edessa” which dates to the fourth century? I am not aware of any science that can "scan' over the image of two individuals and determine if they are the same people or not, unless DNA was extracted from the blood in both samples and compared and matched. But on appearance alone I do not see how that can be the case.

I think that the Biblical, historical and scientific evidence is conclusive. It leads to the conclusion that the theory of the Shroud being the burial cloth of Christ is false, but it leaves the possibility that it may be the result of another miracle much later.

Biblical Evidence
John 19: 40 clearly states that Jesus was to be buried by the “Custom ["manner' in older translations] of the Jews.” What was the burial custom of the Jews at the time of Jesus? 1) Washing the body 2) anointing it with oils 3) shaving the head and the face and 4) wrapping the body up in shroud of linen. Burial should be done within 24 hours of death. The linen used to wrap the Jews, including Jesus, were in the form of strips. John gives an interesting description of the empty tomb “And the handkerchief ["napkin' in older translations] that had been around his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself” (John, 20:7). That would make the face piece (which should have the image) separated from any Shroud. But that is not what the Shroud of Turin is. The latter is a large 14-foot by 3 �-foot piece of cloth. Such is not consistent with ancient Jewish practice. The description of John is consistent with Jewish practice.

Also, there is a paradox; if there was enough blood on the body of Jesus to make the images in the Shroud of Turin then it contradicts the scriptures that Jesus was buried in the “Custom of the Jews.” Even the image on the shroud, showing a man with a beard and long hair would contradict scripture because to be buried by the custom of the Jews you had to be shaven first!

Historical Evidence
A good history of the Shroud is covered in the 1987 book by J. Nickell Inquest on the Shroud of Turin. The shroud was not mentioned earlier than 1350 A.D. in any historical record. When it shows up in history people are already making pilgrimages and paying fees to se it. The Vatican took a very skeptical attitude toward the Shroud. The Vatican immediately launched an investigation of the claim led by Bishop Henri de Poitiers in 1359. Bishop Poiters claimed that it was all fake made to earn money from pilgrims. He even claimed to have discovered that people were paid to fake sickness and be miraculously healed in front of the Shroud. As a result of his report Pope Clement VII declared that the cloth was painted could only be displayed publicly if no candles were burned in its presence and a disclaimer was announced. The disclaimer was to the effect that: “It is not the True Shroud of Our Lord, but a painting or picture made in the semblance or representation of the Shroud (page 17 in Nickell). In 1578 it finally ended up in Turin, Italy.

Scientific Evidence
The scientific data is more damaging and clear cut than the biblical. Radiocarbon 14 dates, from three separate laboratories, dated the shroud to between 1260 to 1390AD, corresponding to the first appearances of the Shroud in historical record. Some people believe that, while maybe not being the cloth of Christ, the Shroud was at least the result of a miracle occurring in the 14th century to comfort a populace suffering the “Black Plague.” Also, textile experts say that the style of the Shroud is not that of ancient Palestine or even Egypt.

That is enough to convince me on any other scientific question, it is enough to convince me on this. None of the Apostles, the Fathers, or the Early Church relied on any Shroud to prove anything. I do not see why we must do so today. Christ is Christ even if the Shroud is not.

Aklie Semaet

*Information summarized from Feder, Kenneth L. 1999. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology.

[ 05-09-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Dear Brother Thomas,

Thank you for that wonderful information!

Yes, an early name for the Shroud of Turin was the Greek "Tetra-something" indicating it was folded over to emphasize the Face of the Man represented and the folds are noted in the studies surrounding the Shroud.

There really is no other explanation for the development of the strong veneration for the Epitaphion in the Eastern Church with the image of Christ depicted on it, I believe.

The charge of it being a medieval forgery is, from quite a secular (sociological ) point of view is easily overcome by one important fact often overlooked by the Shroud's detractors.

The nail marks on the hands and feet are located in the precise position that we TODAY know they had to have been driven to support the Body on the Cross, that is the wrists and ankles, not through the palms etc.

Who, at that time, would have known about that? There is not one single other artistic piece ANYWHERE that shows the actual location of the nails.

That the Moscow Patriarch and other Orthodox Churches and parishes bless and venerate the Shroud is a great tribute to their ability to see beyond modernist and scientist controversy.

The Shroud of Turin is, in fact, among those relics stolen from the East.

We venerate it through the thousands of Epitaphia and, as Catholicos said, the antimensia as well, in addition to the veneration of the Icon not made by human hands on August 29th, the "Third St Saviour" of August.

I wanted to thank everyone who has responded with such rich and insightful thoughts and facts here on this thread.

I will carry them in my heart throughout the Paschal period, which has only just begun for me, as we continue to venerate the Holy Shroud of the Lord Jesus that is now on the Altar.

Alex

To Aklie:

Quoted hereunder are excerpts on the current debate on the authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin." It seems that more and more people in the scientific world are accepting the Shroud's authenticity contrary to your conclusions.

We, Roman Catholics, also believe that above all, FAITH. But we always welcome the questioning eyes and minds of non-believers, especially those who think science can debunk the Catholic faith. In fact, we take on all-comers.

SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH THE CARBON 14 DATING

In 1988, small samples of the Shroud were subjected to Carbon 14 testing to determine the age of the cloth. On August 27, 1988, Oxford scientists, from one of the laboratories conducting the test, leaked the results. The New York Times, shortly thereafter, reported: "Test Shows Shroud of Turin to be Fraud." The conclusion, as officially published in an article entitled "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" in Nature Magazine in 1989, stated that with at least 95% confidence, the Shroud originated between 1260 and 1390.

Yet, there was, from other scientific, archeological and historical disciplines, significant evidence that the Shroud was much older. {b]Something was wrong.

There are numerous instances where radiocarbon testing has been proven to be highly inaccurate. There was also the fact that so little is known about how the Shroud might have been contaminated or chemically "rejuvenated."

In 1993, Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdez, with assistance from Professor Stephen Mattingly, head of Microbiology at the University of Texas in San Antonio, identified a bioplastic coating on some Shroud fibers. Ian Wilson sought verification from Dr. Thomas Loy of the University of Queensland, Australia's Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology who found that the coating contains live bacteria and fungi rich in carbon-14. The amount of bioplastic coating detected on the fibers examined by Dr. Garza-Valdez might be enough to skew the results of radiocarbon testing from the first century to the 1260-1390 timeframe. It is significant to note that the fibers Dr. Garza-Valdez examined were trimmed from the same area used to obtain the samples used for the carbon-14 testing. Dr. Harry Gove, the primary developer of the accelerated mass spectrometry method used for the radiocarbon testing of the Shroud has acknowledged the general validity of Dr. Garza-Valdez's findings.

In the 1532 fire at Chambery, France, the Shroud was subjected to temperatures over 900 degrees Celsius, hot enough to melt its silver container. At these temperatures isotopic ion exchange takes place. Additional carbon 14 from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, steam from the water thrown onto the Shroud to douse the fire, smoke, newer carbon from the Shrouds outer protective wrapping and contaminants on the fabric itself could have reacted chemically with the structure of the flax fibers.

Dr. Dmitri A. Kouznetsov and and Andrey Ivanov of the Biopolymer Laboratory in Moscow simulated the characteristics of the 1532 fire. In an article in the Journal of Archaeological Science in January of 1996, [b]Dr. Kouznetsov reports that a chemical modification of the textile cellulose results in a "newer" reading for ancient linen cloth by as much as 1000 years. Dr. John Jackson, one of the STURP scientists, stated that his research tends to confirm the work of the two Russians.

Dr. Kouznetsov has also theorized that linen may not be so easy to test with radiocarbon methods. Flax, the plant from which linen is made, redistributes its carbon components with a greater proportion of the carbon-14 isotope being in the cellulose part of the flax plant. This natural process, known as biological fractionation of carbon isotopes, was not considered in the 1988 testing.

The Shroud over the centuries has been exposed to any number of contaminants including modern airborne industrial contaminants from industrial Turin. Over the years it was exposed to candles, burning incense, soot from fires, backing fabrics, cloths in which it was wrapped, repairs woven into the cloth, direct handling, dust, bacteria, and any number of other potential contaminants. In fact, the area from which the samples were taken were an edge area that probably received the most contamination. As Ian Wilson wrote, "… to take the sample in the form of a single sliver from the frontal image bottom corner closest to the side-strip … must be regarded as misguided in the extreme." Dr. Alan Adler, a chemist who has studied the Shroud extensively and conducted chemical analysis of different parts of the Shroud, called the sampling location "stupid." Without sufficient knowledge of the Shroud's contamination history we can't be certain of the carbon-14 results.

Finally, something that must be considered if we are to consider the problems of radiocarbon dating the Shroud from a truly scientific and objective point of view, is the image itself.
No one really knows how the image was created. One theory, being taken quite seriously by a number of scientists, is that some form of radiation created the image. We must entertain the possibility that whatever caused the image could have affected the carbon-14 isotope levels. To say that we don't know what caused the image and that we must therefore rule out the mysterious image is improper for a scientist.

The SUDARIUM AND OTHER HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:

More than anything else, it is the preponderance of evidence that the Shroud is older than its carbon 14 age, that challenges the accuracy of the radiocarbon testing.

Pollen found on the Shroud points to a time, before the Shroud was introduced in Europe in 1357, when it was in areas that include Jerusalem, Edessa and Constantinople.

The Sudarium of Oviedo with its blood stains that match those on the Shroud. The Sudarium has been in Oviedo since the eighth century and likely dates to the first century.

The similarities to fabrics from Masada, that suggest the linen is a linen from the first century.

The overwhelming evidence that the Shroud was a source for depictions of Jesus as early as the sixth century.

Historical evidence that the Shroud is the same as the Edessa Image which dates to at least the sixth century.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS:

"Contrary to much public opinion, carbon 14 dating is not an exact science. People sometimes have the idea that carbon dating is the definitive test. Nothing could be further from the truth. Archaeologists who make use of carbon 14 studies in their research know that samples occasionally give aberrant results. Carbon dating is regarded as one tool among many. If it disagrees with the preponderance of evidence, the carbon dating result is the one that routinely is assumed likely to be in error, not the other way around. But this is not what happened with the carbon dating of the Shroud." --- Mary and Alan Whanger from their book, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery

And world renowned archeologist Willam Mecham wrote:

"... no competent archeologist would trust a single date or a series of dates on just one point to define an important historical reality... No radiocarbon scientist can state with certainty that he has removed all the contamination or that a series of dates produced for a specimen are beyond any doubt its effective calendar age. The public and many non-specialist academies seem effectively to share the erroneous concept that carbon 14 dates are absolute ... The dates that have revealed themselves to be useless are so numerous, either as a result of contamination or from other causes..."

WHAT NOW?

The Catholic Church erred when it all to readily accepted the carbon 14 test results in 1988. So, too, did spokesmen for the radiocarbon dating laboratories when they spoke of 95% certainty, and failed to reveal wide-ranging errors in their own testing and the many known anomalies from radiocarbon dating. The media erred in its many headlines and stories that were not properly investigated. Many of the problems with carbon 14 testing were well known, particularly when it came to dating ancient linen.

Now, eminent scientists and scholars, who are experts in carbon 14 dating, are questioning and repudiating the findings. Few, who are knowledgeable about the inherent problems in radiocarbon dating ancient linen, give much credence to the tests. Most, who understand the other evidence for the age of Shroud, dismiss the carbon 14 results altogether.

The Vatican, upon further investigation, has repudiated the results calling
them "strange."

AmdG

Dear Brother Aklie,

You're entitled to your view with regard to not mixing science and faith, and I agree with you. I just don't see science and faith as diametrically opposed as many I know would want them to be. So science can't prove tenets of our faith...I agree. Science can't prove the Eucharist, can't prove the hypostatic union, etc. Nevertheless, I believe there can be a place for science in these matters...it's important that we recognise that the Shroud is a relic, an artifact from history, if you will...our faith is not based upon it. Personally, I see the attempts of the Discovery channel and the like to "debunk" the Bible to be more of a danger than debunking the Shroud. Our faith isn't in the the Shroud, but in the Word of God (Christ).

With that said, I must take issue with some of the "evidences" you mention. Much of what I had to say is laid out rather nicely by Amado. Basically, at this point, one really could go either way with the totality of evidence presented. But some things need to be cleared up.

First of all, what is �the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain?� Are you referring to the �Image of Edessa� which dates to the fourth century? I am not aware of any science that can �scan� over the image of two individuals and determine if they are the same people or not, unless DNA was extracted from the blood in both samples and compared and matched. But on appearance alone I do not see how that can be the case.

The Sudarium is not "the Image of Edessa". It is most likely that the "Image of Edessa" is the "tetradiplon", or cloth folded in four. When the Shroud is folded in four as the tetradiplon is said to have been folded, only the face image on the Shroud is visible, and this is in keeping with iconography of King Abgar and the cloth, esp. an icon preserved in the Greek Orthodox monastery on Sinai. The Sudarium is the face shroud, separate from the actual Shroud. Its blood stains match the Shroud blood stains in location and the like. I forget the name of the scan done to both cloths; if you're interested, I'll have to look for it again after finals are over. But the scan determines that both Shroud and Sudarium were over the same man. The likelihood of this kind of happening in regard to ancient cloths has been described in the literature as "finding two people with identical fingerprints".

As far as the Biblical evidence you present, John's account says "cloths", but Luke's says "linen cloth". So say the other Synoptics. Further, Luke writes that the perfumes and spices for the burial were prepared by the women **after** they returned from the burial of Jesus in a linen cloth, and then they didn't return to anoint the body, but rested, for it was the Sabbath. It was in the context of bringing spices that the holy myrrhbearers encountered the angels who proclaimed the Resurrection; John's account omits any myrrhbearers. So one can say that John's account is what actually happened, but then one is forced to admit that three "inerrant" Gospels got the facts wrong. This, I admit, is where science and religion don't mix. But, I submit that a single cloth was consistent with Jewish practice. If not, then I submit that, in light of the fact that the Sabbath of Pesach was to begin soon, and that the body needed to be asked for from the governor (could've taken a while), perhaps they didn't have time to do all the proper customs.

Also, there is a paradox; if there was enough blood on the body of Jesus to make the images in the Shroud of Turin then it contradicts the scriptures that Jesus was buried in the �Custom of the Jews.� Even the image on the shroud, showing a man with a beard and long hair would contradict scripture because to be buried by the custom of the Jews you had to be shaven first!

Aye, but the image on the Shroud wasn't made by blood. There is, no doubt, some blood on the Shroud. But analysis of the Shroud image shows that it was caused by an oxidative process in the linen, similar to when you leave a cut apple in the air it *browns*. In short, the image on the Shroud is not a blood image, but a scorched-in image, a burned one.

Furthermore, the image of the Shroud, as evidenced by the position of the hair and beard on the image (by the way, I never heard of the requirement to shave people, I wish I knew that for my presentation), the image of the Shroud is not of a reclining man, lying down or what not. The image is of a man STANDING UPRIGHT.

This leads one to two ideas...the Shroud is a forgery made by some method, including the strong possibility of "camera obscura" (first written about by Aristotle in the fourth century BC, and written about as recently as the late 1200's in England), or that the Shroud image was caused by some form of radiation from the body of the man clothed in it, that scorched the cloth, but that this radiation was emitted "in an upright position".

In all honesty, as I said before, I cannot dispute the historical claims you've presented, as I've read the same thing.

As far as radiocarbon dating, the method is useful, but flawed. Many scientists, even outside the realm of sindonology, know the method to have produced shady results in the past, some results claiming that an article is older than it is actually known to be, and others claiming that an article is younger than it is actually known to be. I refer you to Amado's post with regard to the "bioplastic coating".

Again, I hope not to seem like I'm picking on you (I actually do like you ), but while I agree with you that we shouldn't try to make science the basis or rationale for our faith, I am not of the opinion that some of my colleagues are (woo, did I say colleagues? ) that science and faith are so very diametrically opposed.

I should also add that the anatomical accuracy of the Shroud is impeccable. No medieval artist back then could know to make the Shroud image so anatomically correct...the scientific knowledge was thoroughly lacking.