Enfield

Both of the above shrouds/Sudarium is used by Christians to 'prove' Jesus. I know there is doubt, but it seems the Oviedo has some merit? Its been carbon dated back to the 1st century BC. Even the shroud seems to also have some 'scientific' credibility.

How credible are these relics?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3621931.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/411366.stm

Should prove interesting.

Enfield

It seems the shroud has got a second face, hard to fake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm

yummyfur

from the BBC story you linked to

"Then, within days, Italian scientists announced that they had found a second facial image on the opposite side of the shroud, usually hidden by a large safety patch. They ruled out the possiblity that it was the forger's paint seeping through: it was only on the two outer surfaces of the cloth, not in between. "

So for some reason you don't see the rest of the body on the other side just the face?, also if the image was formed by enough sweat and blood to appear on both sides it would be on the middle as well.

So we have two images that are only on the surface of the cloth, that says to me that they had to both be painted, the one on the other side which is nowhere near as clear was probably a first attempt that was then removed.

Patrick Schoeb

Bernard Muller

Enfield:
From where did you get that?

Best regards, Bernard

Enfield

Radiocarbon analysis carried out a decade ago suggested that the shroud dated back only as far as the 13th or 14th Century.

Scientists maintained that those findings proved that the cloth, which has been held in the Italian city of Turin since 1578, was a medieval fake.

The latest research lends support to those who believe the shroud was used to wrap Jesus's body after his crucifixion.

Professor Avinoam Danin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said an examination of pollen traces and floral imprints suggested that they could only have come from plants growing in a restricted area around Jerusalem and could date back to Jesus's time.



Blood stains have been linked to those on Jesus's supposed face cloth
He said: "This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world. The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem."

The pollen grains were collected from the shroud some years ago.

His researchers also said a type of pollen from a thistle visible near the shoulder of the man's image on the shroud was believed to have come from the plant used for Jesus's crown of thorns.

Two pollen grains of this same species were also found on the another relic, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is widely believed to have been Jesus's face cloth at his burial.

That has been traced back to the 1st Century.

Blood link

Professor Danin told the International Botanical Congress in St Louis, in the US, that blood stains on the shroud were similar to those on the Sudarium.

"There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic - covering the same body," he said.

"The pollen association and the similarities in the blood stains in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the shroud originated before the 8th Century."

However independent research carried out in the US has found no evidence of blood on the shroud - ruling out the link between it and the Sudarium, according to BBC Science's Toby Murcott.

Critics say 1989's carbon dating analysis - which showed the shroud could be no more than 700 years old - remains the most compelling evidence of the shroud's age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/411366.stm

Edit: They meant the shroud had pollen stains from the 1st century.

Bernard Muller

Enfield, you did not answer my question about the carbon dating of the Sudarium of Oviedo in your latest post.

Best regards, Bernard

yummyfur

from BBC article

"Two pollen grains of this same species were also found on the another relic, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which is widely believed to have been Jesus's face cloth at his burial.

That has been traced back to the 1st Century. "


It's not the pollen that traced back, but the Sudarium. but not by Carbon dating, by it's legend, that is the story of how it got to Spain. Pretty dubious way to date something.

Patrick Schoeb

yummyfur

I beleive the Carbon Dating puts the Sudarium at 700 CE, which is inline with it's first doumented appearence in Oviedo, Spain.

edited update

There was one report I saw that claimed a carbon dating for the Sudarium, but I can't find anything authoritative to back it up, so for now I would say I can't find anything that says that the Sudarium has been Carbon dated. The eight century is the date it is first documented in Oveido though.

Patrick Schoeb

MortalWombat

The pollen/Oviedo cloth issue has been addressed about 5 years ago:

Recent Shroud Claims Based on Earlier, Scientifically Discredited Data

spin

On the subject of how Jesus is said to have been wrapped, it should be noted that

1) the synoptic gospels say that he was wrapped in linen (sindwn), ie the type of cloth, but cannot be taken as indicating the form of the cloth; sindwn could be used as a garment made of the cloth, the cloth used for straining purposes, and even as a shorthand way of talking about linen bandages (see Heroditus, 7.181.2).

2) John's gospel, 20:7, gives us the details: there was one piece of cloth which wrapped the head (soudarion) and bandages (literally, "little cloths", oQonion) for the rest of him.

The mediaeval idea of the single piece of cloth which covered the whole body doesn't seem to be appropriate for the little information we have and may be put down to a later reading of the word sindwn to necessarily mean a single large piece of cloth.


spin