Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Latest Shroud of Turin News with an Exclusive Message from A Renowned Scientist

Professor Giulio Fanti from University of Padua, Italy is one of the world's leading Shroud researchers and you can ask him questions.

by
Myra Adams

Bio

March 23, 2014 - 6:30 am
Shroud now 3

Professor Fanti, renowned Shroud dating expert

The research examines the rate at which the microscopic fibers comprising linen cloth are known to decay.

Fanti studied ancient linen cloths of undisputed ages by chemically and mechanically observing the strength of their microscopic fibers. Then he compared the fiber’s rate of decay to linen known to be both older and younger than the fibers found on the Shroud of Turin.

The press releases states: “The results of these studies have produced dating all mutually compatible with a date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at a 95 percent confidence level.”

Since the generally accepted date of Christ’s crucifixion is 33 AD then this date range of 280 BC to 220 AD places the first part of the 1st century squarely in the middle.

That timing is also compatible with the fact that a “fine linen cloth” which was to become Christ’s burial shroud could have been produced and purchased by a ‘rich man” named Joseph of Arimathea according to the Gospel accounts in the New Testament.

If you are unfamiliar with the Shroud of Turin here is a brief “crash-course” so you can better understand why Fanti’s research is crucial, especially since his date range includes the time when Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (14)
All Comments   (14)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Thanks so much for such an interesting and fascinating article stating all the amazing evidences concerning the shroud. May our Lord bless you richly for that...My questions for professor Fanti are: Have you in any way colaborated with mr. Barrie Schwortz? Is there enough evidence to link the shroud of Turin to head cloth of Oviedo(Spain)? Is there a reasonable evidnce to link the shroud to the Garden tomb in Jerusalem? Thanks so much and In God's Love Vlad Fischer
21 weeks ago
21 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree with Mark V. We cannot definitively prove scientifically that the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial cloth that wrapped Jesus. We don't have his DNA to match up with something extracted from the Shroud. However that does not mean we cannot make some reasonable assumptions. Courtroom evidence can either be the preponderance of evidence (civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). While I think that Fanti's work comparing the chemical decay of other known linens is very compelling, it cannot be considered definitive. Yet again the statistical analysis of the Justinian coins from 692 is also very compelling, it cannot be considered definitive either. However, at a certain point the preponderance of all the evidence does become very persuasive. To allege it is the work of a medieval artist is not a credible claim when noted art historians testify there is no basis to make such a claim. There is nothing else like it in the world of art. Art is evolutionary, each artist builds on the work of others yet there is nothing evolutionary about the Shroud. In fact there are no known artistic substances on the cloth and the blood is actual blood--AB blood type with human DNA. The most spectacular attribute of the image is that it resides only on the top two microfibers--less than 1% of a single thread. In addition the intensity of the image is identical top to bottom and front to back. It would seem a piece of modern technology would be required to achieve this effect. So far we have not discovered any process that an alleged artist could have used. So at the end of the day, the Shroud remains a profound mystery. But in this I agree with Mark V, it cannot be proven definitively, and in that sense, the Shroud can never replace faith. Science and history can only take you so far, faith has to take you the rest of the way. Perhaps the Shroud asks the same question Jesus asked of Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" The answer to that question will not come from science but from faith.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Professor Fanti 's scientific objectivity is... less than impressive.


23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Last Easter I was in Vatican during Prof Fanti published his new research. Question for Prof fanti: Blood circulation stop when someone died. However according to Gospel, Jesus resurrected from dead. So far no one resurrected from dead and we don't know what sort of magnetic fields developed when blood recirculation re started. Can that sort of magentic fields are responsible for the image in the Shroud.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
" we don't know what sort of magnetic fields developed when blood recirculation re started. "

There is no connection between circulating blood and magnetic fields.


" Can that sort of magentic fields are responsible for the image in the Shroud. "

Nobody knows what caused the image, therefore, nobody can know the answer to your question, except to point out that there is no known mechanism by which magnetism can make an image form on linen.

23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank-you for your question. I will forward it to him today. I will also ask Russ Breault to for an answer to your question as well.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
These forensic questions too, please: Citing just the Gospel of John, how do the 100 pounds of preservatives matter, if at all, and how could there be a complete facial image on the Shroud if a separate cloth covered the head of Jesus?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Leaving aside the dating, nobody has yet to figure out how the image was put on the cloth.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well-documented and thoughtful essay, Myra. Thanks for the great update on the latest Shroud research. Question for Prof. Fanti: Do you think that we ever will have conclusive proof that, indeed, the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus and, if so, what might that evidence entail?
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Well-documented and thoughtful essay"

Yes, in the same way the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders provide thoughtful commentary on the Dallas Cowboy games.

23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
"what might that evidence entail?

Physical evidence would have to be something like DNA or fingerprints. That's obviously impossible.

The only possible evidence is historical - that is, the finding of documents or artifacts which link this particular shroud with one particular person in history.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Bible does exactly state what the wounds of Jesus were and the Shroud has those exact wounds. EVERY SINGLE ONE IS MENTIONED in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' torture. None are left out and none are added.
No bones broken as I also mentioned in the piece.
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, but that is not proof that this is the burial shroud of Jesus. It may be the burial shroud of another man who was crucified. There is nothing unique about the pattern of wounds. Nor is the lack of broken bones unique. The Romans only broke legs when they needed to speed things up. Normally, victims were left to die over several days. Broken bones would be the exception, not the rule. The wound evidence is compatible with the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, but not UNIQUE to it. It's like finding a tire track from a Toyota at a crime scene. Yes, the accused has a Toyota, but so do thousands of other people. You need more evidence.

All this, of course, assumes it's not a simple fake from the Middle Ages, which is the most likely explanation. Professor Fanti's dating methods are.... Well, let's say they deviate from accepted scientific norms. How convenient that he comes up with 33 AD.

Easy to believe if you want to believe, but objective evidence? Not for anyone who prefers truth to myth.

You have some other problems with the Turin cloth, as well.

1. The image is of a fine physical specimen. Jesus began his ministry with 40 days of fasting, which would have left him skin and bones. He then began approximately 3 years of itinerant preaching, which would not be conducive to regaining a fine musculature.

2. The image is of a man with long hair. The norm at the time was short hair. It would have been a disgrace for a man to have long hair (as says the Scripture). Many have the mistaken idea that Jesus had long hair because He was a Nazarite. This is a fundamental mistake, likely a confusion between the town of Nazareth and the vow of a Nazarite, attributable only to profound ignorance of the gospel accounts. He drank wine and touched dead bodies. Both are forbidden for Nazarites. So, either He broke His vow, or he was never a Nazarite. Since there is nothing in Scripture to suggest he WAS a Nazarite, and HE could never break a vow, clearly He was not a Nazarite. In fact, the image fits the middle ages much better than the 1st century.

3. If God was so mindful of mankind's tendency to worship relics that He hid the body of Moses so that it could not be worshiped, why would he allow this relic to be left laying around for millions to worship? And worship it they do!

All in all, this cloth is very consistent with the relic racket that the Roman Catholic Church brazenly ran for hundreds of years, and still runs more quietly. It appeals to the superstitious, not to faith.



23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Romans were not in the habit of placing crowns of thorns on those crucified. This one has indications of head wounds that are in keeping with thorns...
23 weeks ago
23 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All