[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Is there physical evidence, or eyewitness accounts? Does there remain any physical evidence? Or is it simply that the ones who actually saw the physical evidence also saw the resurrected Lord and have witnessed to both?

Just asking because it seems that eyewitness accounts remain eyewitness accounts if there is no physical evidence remaining to observe, only the eyewitness accounts.

And I believe the eyewitness accounts.

Sure there is physical evidence. According to the record there was a shroud and a head wrap known as the Sudarium. The Catholic church allegedly has both artifacts. The head wrap is generally accepted to be much better documented.

The shroud is much more problematic. I taught Forensics for a couple of years and it turns out that the Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in all of human history.

First, they looked at the composition of the fabric, and the weave which experts have concluded is consistent with the period in which Jesus was crucified. The shroud is considered to have one of two possible origins, either it is legitimate, or it is a forgery made about 700 years ago in Rome. If it is a forgery it is an incredibly high quality one since getting an accurate fabric with an accurate weave would have been akin to a forger of US bills getting the actual paper they make dollars out of.

Second, they looked for pigments to explain the image and have concluded that there are no pigments on the threads. At present there is no known explanation for how the image got on the shroud though there are some interesting theories. The bottom line, is that there are both natural and supernatural theories as to how the image was imparted to the fabric through Christ's burial and resurrection. However, no one has been able to demonstrate how a forger could have successfully done it. What we do know is that this is not painted on, and it is not some kind of photographic image. The proof that this was not done as some kind of photographic image is the next point.

Third, they did a very high tech study of the image to determine if the image was actually a representation of a 3 dimensional image on a 2 dimensional surface and it was in fact 3D. Using the same software that takes satellite photos and transforms them into 3D maps they were able to show that paintings of a 3D image show up as 2D using this software whereas this image showed up as 3d. They then were able to reconstruct the actual 3 dimensional face that would have left that image and it is quite different from the image itself. It is in fact a normal middle eastern face. The strange elongation of the face is the result of a sheet wrapped around a face and then straightened out. So although they don't know how the image got on the fabric, they do know the shroud was wrapped around a person when the image was imparted.

Fourth, they found dirt particles on the shroud that were travertine aragonite limestone, identical to the limestone found in Jerusalem. Again, if this was a forgery the forger must have gone to Jerusalem, wrapped a person in the shroud and laid them in a tomb in Jerusalem as part of the process. And they must have gone to all this trouble without the slightest idea that anyone would ever know they did.

Fifth, they compared the blood type to the Sudarium (head covering) which has a very complete documentation from the time of Jesus crucifixion and it was the same blood type. I think the blood type on both artifacts is type AB, which is a relatively rare blood type occurring in about 4% of people. Since a hypothetical forger could not have known the blood type of the Sudarium there was a 1/25 chance of using the right kind of blood.

Sixth, the pollen and images of flowers found on the Shroud are from over 50 plants typical of the Jerusalem area or even exclusive to the Jerusalem area. Taken together they suggest a March/April time period for the crucifixion. One species identified is known as "the crown of thorns" plant. The theory of the Shroud is either that it is legitimate or that it is a forgery done in Rome about 700 years ago. However, the forger would have had to have actually prepared the shroud in Jerusalem during March or April and put a great number of flowers on the shroud. This is quite remarkable, even unbelievable, since the idea of being able to identify pollen was not known at the time.

Seventh, the wounds have been studied and the evidence is that they were anatomically correct, they were consistent with both someone being scourged and also with someone who had carried a heavy object on their right shoulder. Also, the wounds are consistent with someone being crucified, which is interesting since painters at the time some are suggesting that the shroud was forged would put the stakes in the wrong part of the wrist. Also, the thumb is consistent with someone who had suffered nerve damage as a result of those stakes being put through their wrist. One of the theories has been that this is in fact the burial shroud of someone crucified, just not of Jesus. The problem with that theory is that this person was both scourged and crucified, not a common practice, also someone crucified and buried in Jerusalem during March or April at the time Jesus was crucified.

On the other hand they did a radiocarbon dating of a corner of the shroud and found an age about 800 years ago. The problem with this is that it appears they may have taken the sample from the worst possible part of the shroud. It seems the shroud was repaired and there is a piece sewn in which is where it would be held during display, and it was from that piece that the sample was taken.

The leading forensic scientist felt that the shroud would immediately be proved a forgery when they checked for some kind of "paint" that produced the image. When they determined that in fact there was no pigment they were stunned (this is there own testimony of scientists, not catholics).

They then assumed the image was some kind of photograph based on a tenuous link to the earliest known experiments with photography. They felt they would easily prove this by running it through the same software that analyzes satellite images of the Earth. Again, they were shocked to learn that this was in fact an accurate rendering of a 3D image and was not photography. One would assume that your typical forger would use animal blood, but it turns out it was human blood and the same type as the Sudarium and there isn't the slightest suggestion that anyone knew about Human blood types 800 years ago. To have gotten the exact blood type is truly a 25:1 longshot. Also, there is artwork that clearly depicts the Shroud that is much older than 800 years. There is some artwork from St. Catherine's monastary that dates back to 600 AD that depicts the shroud, though obviously there is debate as to whether it is the same as the shroud of Turin. Also there are historical accounts that are over 1000 years old that talk about a shroud with an image on it.

What I found very interesting was that no other object in history has been studied forensically as much as this shroud has and yet they have never been able to find evidence that it is a forgery. One would have thought the pollen, or dirt, or blood, or image, or weave, or fabric, etc. could have proven a forgery and so you are left with either the most brilliant forgery in history or the real article.