2loseyourmind4
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2016
- Messages
- 27
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2018
Word limit for my essay should be 2200 but Im at 2500 and dont know where to cute it, can someone please have a skim over it and let me know? (please note, this is just a draft)
“Discuss the factors for and against the Shroud Of Turin’s authenticity in relation to being the burial shroud of Jesus Christ and evaluate its authenticity based on these factors”
INTRODUCTION
The Shroud of Turin has been a controversial subject for centuries and involves endless factors which have been tirelessly discussed, tested and refuted in order to prove or disprove its authenticity. The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth, made out of flax in the form of a herringbone weave. It measures to be 4.2 meters long and 1 meter wide. The Shroud features a faint yellow image of the front and back of a naked, bearded, crucified man with bloodstains corresponding to torture. Individuals and groups of Christian denominations state that the image on The Shroud Of Turin “matches the wounds of the crucifixion suffered by Jesus Christ” (Christian Popa, 2015) and therefore is the burial shroud of Christ himself after his torturous crucifixion. The Shroud has been preserved and revered for centuries as the real tangible burial shroud that wrapped Christ (Tia Ghose, 2015), however, there are many factors associated with the Shroud which provide questioning towards it authenticity. These factors present themselves as; biblical accounts, physical anatomical characteristics, Carbon 14 dating and evidence of blood. Due to these factors, there are continual debates between the Shroud being a medieval forgery or the extraordinary work of Christ.
BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS
The continuous debate of the Shrouds controversial authenticity begins with the biblical accounts of ‘the Passion’. There has been endless research regarding similarities and differences between the biblical accounts and physical evidence presented on the Shroud itself. A prominent feature on the Shroud is what appears to be small pools of blood at the top of the figures head, which matches the accounts of the crown of thorns which were placed upon Jesus’ head during the passion (John 19:2). This is undoubtably a persuasive factor to the Shrouds authenticity, as Jesus Christ is the only recorded man to have received a crown of thorns. It has also been examined that the claims within the New Testament, clearly match the wounds (Lynne Kelly, 2004) depicted on the shroud and the wounds are consistent with the blood of the 120 roman flagrum whips (Fred Zuckabe, 2005), the side spear, nail wounds and no broken legs. (Jesus Christ is the only man who's legs were not broken while undertaking crucifixion) The reaction to these factors is simply that they could not be the result of a super sophisticated artist who anticipated such detail (John P.Jackson, 1991).
However it has been endlessly refuted that the figure on the Shroud cannot be Jesus Christ for reasons regarding the fact that his body would be smothered in blood, (The passion of Christ, 2004) (miraclesceptic, 2009) however the shroud only presents enough intact blood which is merely smudged, in order to match with the descriptions in the biblical accounts. It is stated by skeptics that the blood flows are merely an artists representation of blood. (John L. Ateo, 2014) It has been researched and explained that many cases stated by supporters of the shroud are simply nowhere to be found. An example of this is no mention as to how many whip wounds Jesus sustained - which contradicts the 120 whip wounds that believers state is ‘undeniably a factor of the passion of Christ’(Robert Perry, year unknown) .
Furthermore, the most questioning element to the Shroud is the prominent nail marking through the individuals wrists. Nails through Jesus’ hands have always been a prominent feature within artistic portrayals over centuries, and it is believed these artists would have obtained information from the bible. However, it is stated that there is a limited chance a nail could hold a man upon a cross. Therefore, this leaves believers not wanting to question their faith, and they simply do not acquire a refute to this point without going against the Holy Bible. Continuing, John 19:40 indicates that Jesus’ burial strictly followed Jewish customs and thus the body would have been wash and wrapped in 75-100 pounds of spices with several linen clothes. However, this completely contradicts what the shroud of Turin displays, a single, dirty, unwashed body which displays no traces of spices when exposed to scientific testings. (John L. Ateo, 2014) Therefore, it can be noted that the biblical descriptions in relation to the Shroud of Turin, present arguments which contradict the physical evidence, yet somehow relate to the artefact enough for believers to identify it as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
BODY CHARACTERISTICS
Furthermore, one of the most leading factors of debate associated with the Shrouds authenticity is the anatomical characteristics which are encompassed throughout the linen. There have been countless debates regarding the anatomical composition and inconsistencies which have been both supported and refuted tirelessly. Firstly, the most questionable characteristic of the body is the height of the man who is presented to be approximately 175cm tall. This factor alone has lead skeptics to question why Jesus would possess such a height, considering people living in the 1st century would not have possessed such heights.(Joe Nickell, 2015) It has also been questioned why the miraculous height of Christ was never mentioned in the bible, a point made by skeptics is that if Christ was intact 175cm tall, there would have been no need for Judas to point Jesus out to the Romans. (John L. Ateo, 2014) Additionally, another argument put forth by skeptics is the fact that the figure is naked and features the man with hands neatly folded across his pelvis. However, a body lying limp can not physically attain this posture, for it is not possible for someone to hold their arms over their pelvis while keeping shoulders on the floor. (Antonio Lombatti, 2015) An understandable reasoning for this position is the possibility of the artist who created the shroud knew the image would be displayed and was concerned with artistic modesty for an intention to display. Moreover, there are smaller details upon inspection which provide questioning to the legitimacy of the Shroud. It has been noted that the head of the figure is far too small for the body, the back of the head does not match up to its front, especially in comparison to the arms and fingers which are ‘unnaturally thin and elongated’ (National Geographic, year unknown). There is no navel, no buttocks and in relation to facial features, the eyes have been deemed as too high, and the facial features do not represent that of a man of middle eastern descent. It should also be noted that the thumb is no where to be seen and the fingers on the hands appear to be too long. The main argument in relation to body characteristics and the inauthenticity is the fact that there is no approved recorded image of Christ and thus there is no way of visually identifying the face of the shroud. (John L. Ateo, 2014)
However, the refuted arguments from supporters of the Shroud is the fact that the height would have been distorted due to the linen cloth stretching over a period of time. (Dan Porter 2009) In correlation to the natural posture of the figure, this is due to the possibility of the individual possibly suffering from rigour mortis and the angle the figure was laid upon (with head slightly elevated and knees pulled up, not lying flat). This can explain the reason for the hand positioning near the pelvic area and a reason for a false height. Additionally, Isabella Piczek an anatomical artist, pointed out that “The head is not too small as some claim”. Some measurements of the cheeks, forehead to chin ratio and head showcase that the head is in fact correctly proportioned compared to the body type. It has also been stated that the figure, in the negative images showcases hair and beard styles which were common among ancient Jews. (Robert Perry, year unknown) The exclusive thumb on the figures hand can be explained through the anatomical explanation of “when nails go into a wrist, the median nerve will fault and thumbs will collapse in the palm of the hand” (Dave Glander, 2014). Reasoning for the extended finger length include the theory that the shroud is an X-ray image (which was formed upon generation) and thus the audience is viewing the X-ray of an individuals fingers and this provides reasoning to the extended length. (Dave Glander, 2014) Therefore, it is reasonably evident that the anatomical abnormalities evident throughout the Shroud of Turin are of the cause of immense debate in relation to its authenticity.
CARBON 14 DATING
Additionally, It is undoubtable that the AMS Carbon 14 (C14) Dating results undertaken by the Shroud Of Turin Research Project, (STURP) in conjunction with the Vatican is the most debated factor relating to the Shrouds authenticity. In 1988, a piece from the Shroud of Turin was carefully selected after much debate (John L. Ateo, 2014) and sent to 3 labs for testing in order to gain an origin year for a date. The results were in close agreement and were given added credibility by the use of control samples of known dates. (Russ Breault, 2008) After testing, the controversial results of the testing dated the Shroud around 1260 and 1390 AD with a 97% confidence (H E Grove, 1990). These results were the catalyst for further arguments from both sides of the authenticity spectrum. Supporters began to disprove the results based on theories which were not physically nor scientifically possible. Along this path were allegations of contamination over the many years, or the samples not being cleaned enough. (Joe Nickell Novel 2013) Once again, this was disproved by opposing scientists, stating that there would of had to be twice as much contamination, by weight as the weight of the cloth itself, (National Geographic, year unkown) which is clearly absurd, and the samples were tirelessly cleaned. However, besides these claims, the most compelling one made by advocates of the Shroud is the fact that the piece of the cloth that was removed for testing was in fact a piece repaired through a technique called french weaving (Dave Glander, 2014) during the 13th century, and coloured with a pigment in order to match the original linen. This therefore caused the carbon dating to result in a later date and does not reflect the correct date of the shroud.
On the other hand, the main disproved argument put forth from doubters of the Shroud is simply that the C14 testing was not flawed, for believers of the Shroud only stated the “repair patched” in fear of questioning from the Christian community. (John L. Ateo, 2014) It is strongly believed that the Vatican's scientists would have never permitted a doubtful sample to be taken for testing. Skeptics strongly claim that the pieces for testings were responsibly chosen (Wenner Gren, 1983) and the dates speak clearly of the truth of the Shroud, for the years provided correspond with the years of the ‘relic craze’ when fake Christian artefacts were being forged. (Joe Nickell Novel, 2013) Thus, it is undoubtably conspicuous that the Carbon 14 dates have caused a further arguments towards the authenticity of the Shroud and continues to provide questioning as the Vatican does not permit further testing.
BLOOD
Additionally, a prime discussion undertaken upon study of the Shroud is the visible blood and reasoning for its form and characteristics. An exceptional factor in relation to the blood on the shroud is the fact that it has not blackened over time like usual blood, nor has it smeared, or the reality that there are no sodium, chlorine or potassium species located within the ‘blood stains’. (miraclesceptic,2009). However, there is a controversial debate over the blood stains due to scientists either faking information or undertaking tests in secrecy. Supporting scientists of the Shroud have stated that there were no pigments or pants on the blood (Barry Schwortz, 2015) and have tested the alleged ‘blood’ upon the shroud and have returned with results of an AB blood type which miraculously makes up for only 0.6% of people in the world. (Myra Adams, 2016) A questioning argument of the blood never blackening has been refuted by believers with the alleged results of a substance called ‘bilirubin’ found around the blood stains. This substance is pumped through the body of torture victims and keeps allows blood to retain its red colour. However, Joe Nickell and many other serologists (not from STURP) undoubtably refute these points for the reasons that “The STURP team was not specialised in pigments” and that a secret commission was appointed to examine the shroud. Eventually the results leaked that all chemical, microscopic, biological and instrumental tests came back negative. (Joe Nickell Novel, 2013) It had also come to conclude that the “reddish granules” would not even dissolve in reagents that dissolve blood. The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture like and does not act like true blood, especially considering the lack of smudging and the fact that the blood in the hair of the figure should've matted into the hair not run in rivulets (Rachel C, 2014), for the blood has not blacked over age like genuine blood. Walter Mcrone has identified the blood as tempera paint, containing red ocher and pigments which would have been available to a medieval artist of the time, thus showcasing the reality of the possibility of the Shroud being formed of the time during medieval ages. “All empirical evidence concerning the shroud of Turin will lead to the firm conckusion that the shroud is an artefact created by an artist, and it is obvious the blood was painted onto the linen before the body image” (Steven D. Schafersman, year unknown) Concluding, there have been many corruptions in scientific analysis of the ‘blood’ stains and it is difficult to understand which factors of the blood dispute is not completely biased.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively, based on the strongest factors associated with the Shroud of Turin, there is no definitive decision as to whether the Shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ following his death. The similarities and vast differences in biblical accounts leave both supporters and skeptics constantly refuting points, for most Christian groups avoid the questioning of the Holy Bible and faith in order to authenticate the Shroud. The body characteristics of the figure evident within the Shroud provide mass contradictory in relation to anatomical features, however there are many refutable factors to explain these abnormalities. The controversial carbon 14 dating once again has been a foundation of immense discussion and reasoning for and against the Shroud. This also goes for the blood which is hard to explain and has been the subject for very biased results. Many individuals and groups have an opinion on the shroud based on religious reflections and experiences, however, based on immense discussing, scientific and logical evidence, there is no definitive answer to the complexity of the Shroud of Turins authenticity.
“Discuss the factors for and against the Shroud Of Turin’s authenticity in relation to being the burial shroud of Jesus Christ and evaluate its authenticity based on these factors”
INTRODUCTION
The Shroud of Turin has been a controversial subject for centuries and involves endless factors which have been tirelessly discussed, tested and refuted in order to prove or disprove its authenticity. The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth, made out of flax in the form of a herringbone weave. It measures to be 4.2 meters long and 1 meter wide. The Shroud features a faint yellow image of the front and back of a naked, bearded, crucified man with bloodstains corresponding to torture. Individuals and groups of Christian denominations state that the image on The Shroud Of Turin “matches the wounds of the crucifixion suffered by Jesus Christ” (Christian Popa, 2015) and therefore is the burial shroud of Christ himself after his torturous crucifixion. The Shroud has been preserved and revered for centuries as the real tangible burial shroud that wrapped Christ (Tia Ghose, 2015), however, there are many factors associated with the Shroud which provide questioning towards it authenticity. These factors present themselves as; biblical accounts, physical anatomical characteristics, Carbon 14 dating and evidence of blood. Due to these factors, there are continual debates between the Shroud being a medieval forgery or the extraordinary work of Christ.
BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS
The continuous debate of the Shrouds controversial authenticity begins with the biblical accounts of ‘the Passion’. There has been endless research regarding similarities and differences between the biblical accounts and physical evidence presented on the Shroud itself. A prominent feature on the Shroud is what appears to be small pools of blood at the top of the figures head, which matches the accounts of the crown of thorns which were placed upon Jesus’ head during the passion (John 19:2). This is undoubtably a persuasive factor to the Shrouds authenticity, as Jesus Christ is the only recorded man to have received a crown of thorns. It has also been examined that the claims within the New Testament, clearly match the wounds (Lynne Kelly, 2004) depicted on the shroud and the wounds are consistent with the blood of the 120 roman flagrum whips (Fred Zuckabe, 2005), the side spear, nail wounds and no broken legs. (Jesus Christ is the only man who's legs were not broken while undertaking crucifixion) The reaction to these factors is simply that they could not be the result of a super sophisticated artist who anticipated such detail (John P.Jackson, 1991).
However it has been endlessly refuted that the figure on the Shroud cannot be Jesus Christ for reasons regarding the fact that his body would be smothered in blood, (The passion of Christ, 2004) (miraclesceptic, 2009) however the shroud only presents enough intact blood which is merely smudged, in order to match with the descriptions in the biblical accounts. It is stated by skeptics that the blood flows are merely an artists representation of blood. (John L. Ateo, 2014) It has been researched and explained that many cases stated by supporters of the shroud are simply nowhere to be found. An example of this is no mention as to how many whip wounds Jesus sustained - which contradicts the 120 whip wounds that believers state is ‘undeniably a factor of the passion of Christ’(Robert Perry, year unknown) .
Furthermore, the most questioning element to the Shroud is the prominent nail marking through the individuals wrists. Nails through Jesus’ hands have always been a prominent feature within artistic portrayals over centuries, and it is believed these artists would have obtained information from the bible. However, it is stated that there is a limited chance a nail could hold a man upon a cross. Therefore, this leaves believers not wanting to question their faith, and they simply do not acquire a refute to this point without going against the Holy Bible. Continuing, John 19:40 indicates that Jesus’ burial strictly followed Jewish customs and thus the body would have been wash and wrapped in 75-100 pounds of spices with several linen clothes. However, this completely contradicts what the shroud of Turin displays, a single, dirty, unwashed body which displays no traces of spices when exposed to scientific testings. (John L. Ateo, 2014) Therefore, it can be noted that the biblical descriptions in relation to the Shroud of Turin, present arguments which contradict the physical evidence, yet somehow relate to the artefact enough for believers to identify it as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
BODY CHARACTERISTICS
Furthermore, one of the most leading factors of debate associated with the Shrouds authenticity is the anatomical characteristics which are encompassed throughout the linen. There have been countless debates regarding the anatomical composition and inconsistencies which have been both supported and refuted tirelessly. Firstly, the most questionable characteristic of the body is the height of the man who is presented to be approximately 175cm tall. This factor alone has lead skeptics to question why Jesus would possess such a height, considering people living in the 1st century would not have possessed such heights.(Joe Nickell, 2015) It has also been questioned why the miraculous height of Christ was never mentioned in the bible, a point made by skeptics is that if Christ was intact 175cm tall, there would have been no need for Judas to point Jesus out to the Romans. (John L. Ateo, 2014) Additionally, another argument put forth by skeptics is the fact that the figure is naked and features the man with hands neatly folded across his pelvis. However, a body lying limp can not physically attain this posture, for it is not possible for someone to hold their arms over their pelvis while keeping shoulders on the floor. (Antonio Lombatti, 2015) An understandable reasoning for this position is the possibility of the artist who created the shroud knew the image would be displayed and was concerned with artistic modesty for an intention to display. Moreover, there are smaller details upon inspection which provide questioning to the legitimacy of the Shroud. It has been noted that the head of the figure is far too small for the body, the back of the head does not match up to its front, especially in comparison to the arms and fingers which are ‘unnaturally thin and elongated’ (National Geographic, year unknown). There is no navel, no buttocks and in relation to facial features, the eyes have been deemed as too high, and the facial features do not represent that of a man of middle eastern descent. It should also be noted that the thumb is no where to be seen and the fingers on the hands appear to be too long. The main argument in relation to body characteristics and the inauthenticity is the fact that there is no approved recorded image of Christ and thus there is no way of visually identifying the face of the shroud. (John L. Ateo, 2014)
However, the refuted arguments from supporters of the Shroud is the fact that the height would have been distorted due to the linen cloth stretching over a period of time. (Dan Porter 2009) In correlation to the natural posture of the figure, this is due to the possibility of the individual possibly suffering from rigour mortis and the angle the figure was laid upon (with head slightly elevated and knees pulled up, not lying flat). This can explain the reason for the hand positioning near the pelvic area and a reason for a false height. Additionally, Isabella Piczek an anatomical artist, pointed out that “The head is not too small as some claim”. Some measurements of the cheeks, forehead to chin ratio and head showcase that the head is in fact correctly proportioned compared to the body type. It has also been stated that the figure, in the negative images showcases hair and beard styles which were common among ancient Jews. (Robert Perry, year unknown) The exclusive thumb on the figures hand can be explained through the anatomical explanation of “when nails go into a wrist, the median nerve will fault and thumbs will collapse in the palm of the hand” (Dave Glander, 2014). Reasoning for the extended finger length include the theory that the shroud is an X-ray image (which was formed upon generation) and thus the audience is viewing the X-ray of an individuals fingers and this provides reasoning to the extended length. (Dave Glander, 2014) Therefore, it is reasonably evident that the anatomical abnormalities evident throughout the Shroud of Turin are of the cause of immense debate in relation to its authenticity.
CARBON 14 DATING
Additionally, It is undoubtable that the AMS Carbon 14 (C14) Dating results undertaken by the Shroud Of Turin Research Project, (STURP) in conjunction with the Vatican is the most debated factor relating to the Shrouds authenticity. In 1988, a piece from the Shroud of Turin was carefully selected after much debate (John L. Ateo, 2014) and sent to 3 labs for testing in order to gain an origin year for a date. The results were in close agreement and were given added credibility by the use of control samples of known dates. (Russ Breault, 2008) After testing, the controversial results of the testing dated the Shroud around 1260 and 1390 AD with a 97% confidence (H E Grove, 1990). These results were the catalyst for further arguments from both sides of the authenticity spectrum. Supporters began to disprove the results based on theories which were not physically nor scientifically possible. Along this path were allegations of contamination over the many years, or the samples not being cleaned enough. (Joe Nickell Novel 2013) Once again, this was disproved by opposing scientists, stating that there would of had to be twice as much contamination, by weight as the weight of the cloth itself, (National Geographic, year unkown) which is clearly absurd, and the samples were tirelessly cleaned. However, besides these claims, the most compelling one made by advocates of the Shroud is the fact that the piece of the cloth that was removed for testing was in fact a piece repaired through a technique called french weaving (Dave Glander, 2014) during the 13th century, and coloured with a pigment in order to match the original linen. This therefore caused the carbon dating to result in a later date and does not reflect the correct date of the shroud.
On the other hand, the main disproved argument put forth from doubters of the Shroud is simply that the C14 testing was not flawed, for believers of the Shroud only stated the “repair patched” in fear of questioning from the Christian community. (John L. Ateo, 2014) It is strongly believed that the Vatican's scientists would have never permitted a doubtful sample to be taken for testing. Skeptics strongly claim that the pieces for testings were responsibly chosen (Wenner Gren, 1983) and the dates speak clearly of the truth of the Shroud, for the years provided correspond with the years of the ‘relic craze’ when fake Christian artefacts were being forged. (Joe Nickell Novel, 2013) Thus, it is undoubtably conspicuous that the Carbon 14 dates have caused a further arguments towards the authenticity of the Shroud and continues to provide questioning as the Vatican does not permit further testing.
BLOOD
Additionally, a prime discussion undertaken upon study of the Shroud is the visible blood and reasoning for its form and characteristics. An exceptional factor in relation to the blood on the shroud is the fact that it has not blackened over time like usual blood, nor has it smeared, or the reality that there are no sodium, chlorine or potassium species located within the ‘blood stains’. (miraclesceptic,2009). However, there is a controversial debate over the blood stains due to scientists either faking information or undertaking tests in secrecy. Supporting scientists of the Shroud have stated that there were no pigments or pants on the blood (Barry Schwortz, 2015) and have tested the alleged ‘blood’ upon the shroud and have returned with results of an AB blood type which miraculously makes up for only 0.6% of people in the world. (Myra Adams, 2016) A questioning argument of the blood never blackening has been refuted by believers with the alleged results of a substance called ‘bilirubin’ found around the blood stains. This substance is pumped through the body of torture victims and keeps allows blood to retain its red colour. However, Joe Nickell and many other serologists (not from STURP) undoubtably refute these points for the reasons that “The STURP team was not specialised in pigments” and that a secret commission was appointed to examine the shroud. Eventually the results leaked that all chemical, microscopic, biological and instrumental tests came back negative. (Joe Nickell Novel, 2013) It had also come to conclude that the “reddish granules” would not even dissolve in reagents that dissolve blood. The alleged blood stains are unnaturally picture like and does not act like true blood, especially considering the lack of smudging and the fact that the blood in the hair of the figure should've matted into the hair not run in rivulets (Rachel C, 2014), for the blood has not blacked over age like genuine blood. Walter Mcrone has identified the blood as tempera paint, containing red ocher and pigments which would have been available to a medieval artist of the time, thus showcasing the reality of the possibility of the Shroud being formed of the time during medieval ages. “All empirical evidence concerning the shroud of Turin will lead to the firm conckusion that the shroud is an artefact created by an artist, and it is obvious the blood was painted onto the linen before the body image” (Steven D. Schafersman, year unknown) Concluding, there have been many corruptions in scientific analysis of the ‘blood’ stains and it is difficult to understand which factors of the blood dispute is not completely biased.
CONCLUSION
Conclusively, based on the strongest factors associated with the Shroud of Turin, there is no definitive decision as to whether the Shroud is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ following his death. The similarities and vast differences in biblical accounts leave both supporters and skeptics constantly refuting points, for most Christian groups avoid the questioning of the Holy Bible and faith in order to authenticate the Shroud. The body characteristics of the figure evident within the Shroud provide mass contradictory in relation to anatomical features, however there are many refutable factors to explain these abnormalities. The controversial carbon 14 dating once again has been a foundation of immense discussion and reasoning for and against the Shroud. This also goes for the blood which is hard to explain and has been the subject for very biased results. Many individuals and groups have an opinion on the shroud based on religious reflections and experiences, however, based on immense discussing, scientific and logical evidence, there is no definitive answer to the complexity of the Shroud of Turins authenticity.