Shroud of Turin - James Tabor and Otrangelo Grasso

[Steven Avery]

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1251518529110294/?multi_permalinks=1781986469396828

 

[Steven Avery]

The Shroud of Turin
Otangelo Grasso ·

The Shroud of Turin | James Tabor’s presentation on the Shroud of Turin makes a sustained case that the cloth is a **medieval artifact**, not a first-century burial cloth... | Facebook

James Tabor’s presentation on the Shroud of Turin makes a sustained case that the cloth is a **medieval artifact**, not a first-century burial cloth of Jesus. Among his extensive commentary, these...

www.facebook.com

James Tabor’s presentation on the Shroud of Turin makes a sustained case that the cloth is a medieval artifact, not a first-century burial cloth of Jesus. Among his extensive commentary, these are the most significant and specific arguments he uses to support a 14th-century origin:

1. Carbon-14 Dating (C-14)​

• • Main Claim: The 1988 radiocarbon dating by three independent laboratories (Oxford, Arizona, Zurich) dated the Shroud to 1260–1390 AD, centering around circa 1325 AD.
  • Rebuttals Addressed: He critiques the common counterclaims:
  • • Contamination, invisible mending, or a “repaired” area.
    • He argues that the sampling was done with extreme care and that the notion of a repair is speculative and not supported by peer-reviewed fiber analysis.
• • Conclusion: The dating aligns uncannily well with the first documented public display in Lirey, France in 1355.

2. No Historical Provenance Before 1355​

• • Main Claim: There is zero verified record of the Shroud’s existence before the mid-14th century.
  • He dismantles attempts to connect it with the Edessa cloth or Mandylion (6th century) or the Veil of Veronica.
  • Cites historical silence in centuries where a relic of such importance would have been documented if it existed.

3. Bishop of Troyes’ 1389 Letter​

• • Claim: The Bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, wrote to the Pope declaring the Shroud a forgery, claiming it had been:

“cunningly painted” and the forger had confessed.

• • Tabor concedes that it isn’t painted, but argues the bishop simply misunderstood the technique—but correctly identified it as a man-made object.

4. The Forensic Mistakes on the Image​

• • Wrist Wounds: The Shroud shows nails in the wrists, but all known archaeological crucifixion evidence from the Roman period (Jerusalem, UK, Italy) shows nails driven through the hands, not the wrists.
  • Foot Wounds: The Shroud shows a nail through the tops of the feet, stacked vertically. But archaeology shows side-pierced heels, matching actual first-century crucifixion methods.
  • Hair Posture Problem: In the Shroud, the hair hangs straight down as if the body were upright, not horizontal in burial. That’s inconsistent with a corpse laid in a tomb.

5. Anatomical and Artistic Errors​

• • The scourge marks are too uniform, suggesting they were stamped or applied, not the result of violent flogging.
  • The blood flows don’t match expected post-mortem dynamics.
  • The hands are neatly placed over the groin in a modest pose unlikely in actual Jewish burial, where the arms would have been extended or placed to the side.

6. Jewish Burial Practice vs Shroud Depiction​

• • The Akal Dama Shroud, excavated from a first-century tomb near Jerusalem, shows:
  • • Separate headcloth and body wrapping, consistent with John 20.
    • A plain tabby weave, not the 3:1 herringbone twill seen in the Turin Shroud.
    • This weave pattern of the Shroud is absent in Jewish burial cloths of the time.
    • The cloth also includes wool and linen together, which violates Jewish burial law (Deut. 22:11).

7. Nicholas Allen’s Solarographic Reproduction Hypothesis​

• • A 14th-century method using camera obscura and silver salts could replicate the Shroud image without painting.
  • Allen successfully reproduced an image nearly identical in photochemistry and 3D depth.
  • The Shroud is not a painting, but it is reproducible using techniques known or inferable from medieval optical knowledge.

8. Blood Before Image Argument Reversed​

• • Common defense: Blood is under the image, therefore not applied later.
  • Tabor counters with scientific findings (from Allen and others) showing:
  • • Blood can bleach or alter under light and chemical processes.
    • The evidence is not strong enough to reverse the conclusion that blood was applied artificially.

9. Uniform Devotional Pose​

• • The figure on the Shroud displays a modestly covered genital region, not expected in a rushed burial.
  • Tabor argues this shows artistic intent, not forensic realism.

10. The Face Looks Like Art, Not Reality​

• • The face image aligns with 14th-century depictions of Christ:
  • • Long hair (contrary to Paul’s teaching).
    • Symmetry and stylization more consistent with religious iconography.
• • Early images of Jesus (before 4th century) never show this type of face.

11. Scientific Consensus Isn’t Conclusive​

• • Tabor critiques the oft-cited statistic that “most peer-reviewed papers support authenticity.”
  • He notes a strong bias and sometimes circular reasoning among shroud defenders—using the shroud to "prove" the data rather than vice versa.

Summary of the Strongest Argument Chain:​

→ No historical record before 1355
→ C-14 dating confirms medieval origin (1260–1390)
→ Bishop’s 1389 letter confirms forgery was recognized early
→ Forensic and anatomical details incorrect for 1st-century Roman crucifixion
→ Burial cloth type and weave inconsistent with Jewish law and archaeology
→ Nicholas Allen successfully reproduced the image using 14th-century methods
Result: According to Tabor, the Shroud is a medieval creation—ingenious, artistic, and evocative—but not a relic of Jesus' tomb.


Below is a structured rebuttal to James Tabor’s main arguments against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, showing why these points fail to definitively disprove a first-century origin or Jesus’ connection to the cloth. The following objections are addressed in order of strength as presented by Tabor.

1. Carbon-14 Dating (1260–1390 AD)​

Why this is a weak argument:

• • Contaminated sample zone: The C-14 tests used a corner of the cloth now widely recognized to have undergone medieval repair, with different weave patterns and foreign cotton fibers found—not present in the rest of the Shroud.
  • Peer-reviewed rebuttals: Raymond Rogers (Los Alamos) showed through chemical and spectral analysis that the tested area was chemically distinct from the original linen, thus invalidating the test.
  • Thermal effects: The Shroud was exposed to fire and intense heat in 1532; this is known to alter the C-14 ratio through radiocarbon exchange and thermal effects.
  • Scientific anomaly: The C-14 date contradicts dozens of forensic, textile, iconographic, and pollen-based evidences suggesting a much earlier origin.

Conclusion: C-14 dating of a compromised sample is not a reliable basis for denying authenticity, especially when physical, chemical, and historical indicators point otherwise.

2. No Provenance Before 1355​

Why this is insufficient:

• • Documentary gaps are common for ancient relics. The Shroud may have been kept in secrecy during eras of iconoclasm, Islamic invasions, or Crusader looting (especially after the 1204 sack of Constantinople, which aligns with key historical hints).
  • The Mandylion connection: There is credible evidence linking the Mandylion of Edessa, described as a linen with a miraculous face, with the Shroud folded in 8 parts (the tetradiplon), consistent with the way the Shroud may have been displayed folded to show only the face.
  • Widespread relic forgery doesn't negate real relics. The existence of many false artifacts does not logically disprove one true artifact.

Conclusion: The absence of continuous records is not proof of inauthenticity, especially for an object that may have been deliberately hidden or misidentified.

3. The Bishop of Troyes’ 1389 Letter​

Why this fails:

• • His claim that the Shroud was “painted” has been scientifically refuted.
  • • STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, 1978) concluded: no pigment, no brush marks, no binders—the image is not painted.
• • His “forger confession” is undocumented hearsay. No name, no technique, no physical corroboration exists.
  • The bishop had financial and political motives to suppress the Lirey exposition, which was drawing large crowds and revenue away from his own ecclesiastical district.

Conclusion: A medieval bishop's unsupported accusation has little weight when modern science contradicts his claims.

4. Wrist and Foot Wound Forensics​

Why this objection collapses under scrutiny:

• • The Shroud shows nail exit wounds in the wrist area (base of the palm), which in ancient Greek anatomy could still be referred to as "hand" (χείρ, cheir).
  • The wrist (especially the Destot’s space) is biomechanically ideal for crucifixion to support body weight—confirmed by Dr. Zugibe and others.
  • Ankle nails are consistent with Roman crucifixion but do not preclude top-of-foot nailing—Romans used multiple methods, and archaeological data is too limited to rule out variation.
  • Jesus may have been crucified differently, especially if his execution was considered exceptional.

Conclusion: The Shroud reflects one of multiple possible crucifixion methods. Variation does not contradict authenticity—it’s an argument from silence.

5. Image Formation via Solarography / Nicholas Allen’s Method​

Why this is unconvincing:

• • Allen’s method requires a corpse or statue, a 14-foot linen treated with silver sulfate, a quartz lens, and multi-day exposure in a camera obscura with consistent sunlight.
  • There’s no historical evidence such photographic technology existed in the 14th century:
  • • No surviving camera obscura, no lenses with sufficient precision, no written record of such a process.
• • Allen produced an image similar in shape but lacking the chemical, physical, and microscopic subtleties of the Shroud.
  • STURP found no light-sensitive compounds like silver or photo-reactive residues on the cloth.

Conclusion: Allen's method is clever, but it doesn’t replicate the Shroud's complexity, and there’s no evidence it was ever used in the medieval period.

6. Blood Patterns Look “Stamped” or Too Neat​

Why this is speculative and unfounded:

• • The blood was found to be real human blood, type AB, with high levels of bilirubin, consistent with severe trauma and torture.
  • Some flow lines are consistent with post-mortem gravity, not artistic symmetry.
  • What may appear “uniform” is often due to image degradation, not design.
  • Blood was transferred first, then the image appeared—verified by spectral analysis.

Conclusion: Blood patterns align with forensic expectations, and no known forgery technique reproduces the blood-first/image-later phenomenon.

7. Jewish Burial Practice Does Not Match​

Why this is selectively interpreted:

• • The Gospels and Mishnah both describe shrouding and separate face cloths, which match John 20:6–7 and the Shroud + Sudarium of Oviedo combination.
  • The linen is not wool-linen blend but pure linen, and the wool found in Akeldama may not have been part of the actual shroud (could be secondary).
  • The 3:1 herringbone twill is rare, not unheard of—it may reflect a costly burial cloth fitting “a rich man’s tomb” (Joseph of Arimathea, Mt 27:57).
  • Jesus' burial was rushed and unconventional, due to Passover.

Conclusion: The Shroud may reflect a unique burial under emergency circumstances, not a standard rabbinic template.

8. Long Hair = Greek Iconography?​

Why this is a misleading claim:

• • Paul’s reference in 1 Cor 11 is about Gentile customs, not Jewish Nazirite practices.
  • Some Jewish men (e.g., Nazirites or Essenes) wore longer hair as a sign of separation.
  • Early Christian iconography from the 3rd century (e.g., Catacombs) shows Jesus with long hair—possibly reflecting real tradition.
  • The Shroud depicts hair falling due to gravity, consistent with a suspended corpse—not stylized iconography.

Conclusion: Hair length is not a valid authenticity test—especially given variations in 1st-century Judea.

9. Lack of Directionality and Painting Technique​

Fails because:

• • The image is non-directional, non-pigmented, and affects only the topmost fibrils of the linen, down to 200 nanometers—unmatched by any known ancient or modern technique.
  • No pigment, brushstroke, or binder is present. This defies medieval forgery techniques.
  • No artist—even today—can replicate this combination of photographic negativity, 3D encoding, superficiality, and spectral stability.

Conclusion: The image formation mechanism remains unexplained by medieval technologies—pointing to an unknown, possibly anomalous process.

10. Apologetics Determine the Evidence?​

This accusation backfires:

• • It is not the Shroud dictating the data, but the data (blood chemistry, weave, radiographic properties, etc.) that resists known explanations.
  • On the contrary, many critics engage in hyper-skepticism, dismissing physical data that doesn’t fit their preferred narrative.
  • Shroud defenders don’t dismiss science—they embrace it to a higher degree of scrutiny.

Conclusion: Accusing researchers of “wanting it to be true” ignores the massive scientific consistency the Shroud shows across disciplines.

Final Reflection:​

The Shroud of Turin presents a converging case from multiple domains—forensic pathology, textile analysis, chemistry, radiation physics, and historical consistency.
James Tabor's arguments rely heavily on secondary interpretations, partial archaeological parallels, and attempts to explain-away anomalies rather than account for their coordinated precision.
The Shroud remains the most tested, most mysterious, and most compelling artifact of ancient origin—and none of these arguments definitively prove it to be a forgery.

youtube.com
Is This The Face of Jesus? Getting the Facts Straight on the Turin Shroud
This video is TWO HOURS, as I cover the topic so thoroughly! Millions of sincere Christians believe the Turin Shroud offers something very close to a photogr...

Pavutheril Byju Michael
Wow. Lord Jesus was given a proper Jewish burial by Joseph of Arimathea his maternal uncle and their kinsman redeemer and was helped in the burial by Nicodemus another member of the Jewish council the Sanhedrin. Mary Magdelene was nearby watching and on the day of resurrection she also brought 70 pounds of burial spices to continue the embalming process as per Jewish burial practice which goes on for weeks. It was not a hurried burial. The face cloth, 'the Sudarium', was found separately by the apostle and is now in a church at Oviedo in Spain and the blood marks on that match that of 'the Sindone' shroud blood marks. The pictorial representation of the shroud in found in a Hungarian prayer mat of as early as AD 1180. A 6th century Byzantine gold coin also depicts tge shroud image, which is a negative image, and 15 or 23 congruents of the shroud image are available in the coin. There is historical records that a burial cloth of Jesus with , 'an image not done by hands' on it, was displayed to the public everyday after Sunday mass in France before it went missing in and around 1100. Crusaders mention it. King Agbar of 2nd century had it and says the cloth cured him of illness. All the earliest pictorial representations of Jesus seems to have been inspired from the shroud image looking at the features of the shroud image. Pollen grain evidence prove the flowers on the shroud and a particular pollen grain around his head area of a thorny thistle all came from the Jerusalem area. Long hair and unshaven beard was because of the Nazirite wow he had taken sometime into his ministry. Eminent forensic experts have concluded that the body of the man bears the evidence of crucifixion. If you pierce nails through his palms, it would not have borne his body's weight. The shroud was conducted 5 day examination with the best available most advanced cameras, x ray equipment, infra red imager and a VTR, a 3D imager, in 1978 led by a team of experts and the image on the shroud was found to have been in pixilated firm, meaning it has photographic information, 3D information and in 2001 a holographic image also could be made from it as it had Holographic information. A painting cannot give that.





Mark Rivera
They really need to do another Carbon 14 test and do it right this time. This would definitively debunk the old test and put the Medieval origin hypothesis into the grave. Nothing else will end this “debate”.





Larry Phiel
Why would you publish this crap?





David Emmith
He has not studied the radiocarbon dating debacle in detail.




Peter J Kopecko
Absolutely



Michael Armistead
Good anlysis and rebuttal of Tabor.

•