Friday 23 August 2024

Shroud of Turin Proved Real?

 
The Shroud of Turin is one of the most remarkable objects in the world. It is a piece of flax linen fourteen feet long and three and a half feet wide. It was originally carbon dated to the 13th to 14th century. Fragments of pollen trapped in the fabric match species native to the Holy Land indicating it comes from there. It was owned by a number of French aristocrats and kept in a series of churches until it was badly burned by fire. Soon after that, in 1578, it was moved to the royal chapel of the cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy, hence its name; where it has been kept ever since. What makes the Shroud amazing it that it has on it an image of a tall man with a beard and long hair. The man has wounds on his wrists and forehead and these correspond with what looks like bloodstains on the cloth. The front and back on the man are visible vertically on the cloth indicating that it was wrapped around him from head to toe; this is the traditional way to shroud a corpse in Jewish funeral rites. Obviously this man matches the biblical description of Jesus Christ and in fact the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke describe how, after his crucifixion, Joseph of Aramathea officiated the burial of Jesus and wrapped his body in a shroud. The Shroud's fame only really took off in 1898 when it was photographed and the negative revealed a positive image of the man, meaning that the image itself was a photographic negative. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, of Rennes le Chateau fame, claim that it is an unrecorded experiment in early photography by Leonardo da Vinci. They say that the face of the man resembles portraits of Leo indicating that he modelled himself. Although Leonardo was undoubtedly a very clever man who was interested in optics, there is no trace of conventional photographic chemicals on the shroud. The oldest known permanent photograph was taken over three hundred years later in 1826. The original carbon dating done in 1988 has always been called into question and now a new test has been done using "WAXS", wide-angle X-ray scattering. This reveals the age of the cellulose in the linen. The cloth is actually much older than was previously thought, about two thousand years old; so it was made at the time of Christ. Of course just because the cloth is old enough to be Jesus' shroud doesn't mean necessarily that it is. Source: https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/20/scientists-analysing-cloth-jesus-buried-in-make-huge-breakthrough-21454792/. New analysis on the marks thought to be bloodstains also supports the authenticity of the Shroud. They have chemicals in them matching those of blood from somebody who died of shock and trauma, which was the cause of death from crucifixion. According to the Gospels Jesus' received wounds where the man in the image has them. The forehead ones were caused by the crown of thorns put on his head as mockery for him being declared "King of Jews". Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13765919/shroud-turin-jesus-cloth-confirms-biblical-story.html.
 
When I brought this up on Facebook somebody replied that it had to be fake because the image was that of a white man. This is despite the fact it shows no skin colour; the long hair and beard match the traditional form of Jesus in the ecclesiastical art of Europe. These pictures also often show Jesus with pale skin. Of course Jesus would not have looked like that. Racially he was the same as the indigenous population of the region today, the Palestinians and the Sephardic Jews. In other words he would have been brown with shorter black hair. My correspondent showed me some old Egyptian Coptic pictures of Jesus and they show him this way. However it could be that Jesus styled his hair and beard to make himself look more Greek or Roman. That might have given him some status the same way that modern British men drive a particular car. I'm not sure about the Shroud of Turin. It remains enigmatic and fascinating. One thing's for sure, there are only two possibilities. Either it is one of the most extraordinary and unusual works of art and/or technology every devised; or it is the most incredible holy relic the world has ever seen. Both possibilities are exhilarating.
See here for more information: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2020/04/third-rail-radio-programme-83.html.
And: https://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.com/2014/03/ben-emlyn-jones-on-mind-set-podcast-45.html.

6 comments:

Gravity Mirror said...

Hi Ben, I don't think you can be categorical about the race of Jesus except to say he was unlikely to have been sub-Saharan African or East Asian. You can't really draw a line on a map to say where white ends and brown begins. Many people would say the Greek/Turkish border but that's more of a cultural line than a biological one and it wouldn't take long to fill a room with Turks who would pass for white or Greeks who look brown. Palestinians also show a lot of variety and there are people throughout the Arab world with pale skin and blue eyes, even in Saudi and Iraq.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi GM. I appreciate all your comments and of course I know I'm speculating on the most likely possibility, but I have heard that the racial landscape of that region has not changed much in the last 2000 years. Of course the Middle East has always, to a certain extent, been the crossroads of the world. We don't have Jesus' DNA so we don't know exactly what his lineage is. I personally don't believe he was a virgin birth. He was conceived in the usual way and Joseph was probably his father. However, it could be there was a paternity bombshell involved; it wouldn't be the first time that had happened. I personally am in two minds about the Shroud. I just think it's a fascinating object whatever its origins. It should not exist, yet it does.

Gravity Mirror said...

I have no disagreement with anyone describing Jesus as Palestinian, J**ish, Middle Eastern, Levantine or West Asian. He was arguably all of those things but none of those descriptors tell us much about his appearance except perhaps that he would have had vaguely Caucasoid features, as opposed to M*****oid or N***oid. Those groups show a wide variety of phenotyptes and it is perfectly possible, for example, that he had blue eyes as depicted in ecclesiastical paintings.

I must admit to being a bit triggered by this issue. My late mother belonged to a Unitarian sect called the Christadelphians and she was one of those people who rail against Roman Catholic depictions of Jesus, saying he would have had brown eyes because all the J**s had brown eyes until they started intermarrying with Europeans. As a young adult I once told her (in reponse to one of her outbursts in an Anglican church) that quite a few of the Iraqis I was working with at the time (Saddam era) had blue or green eyes. I was promptly told I was "a liar" because "Arabs have brown eyes because they are from Abraham like the J**ws".

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Okay, GM, I didn't know that there were people in the region who looked like that. On reflection it's not impossible seeing as so many Turks and Iranians are pretty much the same in appearance as white Europeans. I myself have only seen people with brown skin, black hair and dark eyes who originate from the Middle East. Obviously the Ashkenazi Jews of Israel are different, having moved into the region from abroad in the last couple of generations.

Gravity Mirror said...

She's not typical, but is by no means unique either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahed_Tamimi

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Interesting how she could easily be a Londoner or a Welsh-speaker from Lampeter. The genetic landscape does not always match the cultural and linguistic landscape.