From Hagrid to Hermione, or R2D2 to Jabba the Hutt, the Movie Franchises of the world are crammed with dozens of very different characters, and the internet is buzzing with quizzes to help you discover which of them fits your personality best. From without and within the world of Sindonology, it is sometimes assumed that authenticists and medievalists are each members of a coherent sect, unitedly facing each other across a fourteen century chasm. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no “accepted” authenticist canon, and the differences between authenticist individuals are sometimes, to my mind, greater than the differences between authenticists and medievalists.
So try this little dichotomous quiz, to find out who you really are!
1). Medieval or Authentic?
a) Medieval. Go away. This test is not for you.
b) Authentic. GO TO 2
2). Dead body or live body?
a) Dead. GO TO 3
b) Live. FELZMANN
3). Image formed according to known science, or image formed due to unknown science / miraculous process?
a) Known. GO TO 4
b) Unknown/miraculous. GO TO 5
4). Vaporograph from naturally emitted gas, or electrical coronal discharge from atmospheric conditions?
a) Vaporograph. VIGNON
b) Electricity. FANTI
5). A simple miracle with no scientific component, or a miracle with calculable scientific factors?
a) Miracle per se. GO TO 6
b) Calculable factors. GO TO 7
6). Body horizontal or upright?
a) Horizontal. PORTER
b) Upright. LAVOIE
7) Cloth collapse or atomic radiation?
a) Cloth collapse. JACKSON
b) Radiation. RUCKER
FELZMANN. Helmut Felzmann (psychologist), Wolfgang Bonte (Director of the Forensic Institute of Düsseldorf University), Miguel Lorente Acosta (Professor of Forensic Science, University of Grenada), Norman Lee (Director of the East Midlands Forensic Science Laboratory, UK), and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community are (or were; some have died) of the opinion that the scientific evidence, chiefly related to the excessive blood on the Shroud and the uniformity of the image, as well as biblical and historical evidence, point to Jesus having revived. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility of the concept of the ‘Resurrection’ being true. Perhaps, as Lee suggested, he was in such a deep coma that his revival was truly thought to be a return from the dead. However, these speculations do involve the assistance of at least two ‘third parties,’ such Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, who may have concurred in a plan to keep Jesus alive before he was crucified, or responded very rapidly to the discovery that he was alive after being taken down from the cross.
VIGNON. The two main proposers of this hypothesis are Paul Vignon and Ray Rogers, both of whom were scientists and explored its possibilities experimentally, with published results which they found supportive rather than conclusive. A variant on the theme was also explored by Colin Berry.
FANTI. I hope I am not misrepresenting Giulio Fanti here, as he may actually hold to a more miraculous version of this hypothesis, but he clearly sets forth a possible scientific explanation for his coronal discharge hypothesis in his ‘Body Image Formation Hypotheses Based on Corona Discharge: Discussion,’ at shroud.com/pdfs/ohiofanti1.pdf. “What we can say is that the TS body image can easily be explained by an intense source of energy, such as a ball of lightening.” Some experiments by Giovanna de Liso related to electrical discharge during earthquakes are also relevant here, although ball lighting is more usually related to thunderstorms. Neither phenomenon is precluded by the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection.
PORTER. I suspect that Dan Porter would (will?) cavil at being associated with this, but I hasten to say that I do not mean that it is a view he holds, rather than one he most eloquently describes in his blog, shroud story.com. He mentions it several times – I recommend the story of the 8-ball, for instance – but I chose this (somewhat abbreviated) to epitomise the view. “We are all familiar with the way a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. We can make a time-lapsed movie of it and see each and every step. Some will say they see a miracle unfolding. Others will say it is a perfectly explainable biological process. But if you were to take the first frame and the last frame from the movie of the process, and splice them together, you could demonstrate with a very short, two-frame movie that a miracle transformation had taken place without a process.”
LAVOIE. Although he is a medical doctor with some interesting ideas about the transfer of blood flows, I think that in proposing that the body was vertical when the image was created, Gilbert Lavoie places himself in a position all his own, and that along the gamut from wholly miraculous to wholly scientific, his hypothesis is too close to the miraculous end for scientific considerations to have any weight at all.
JACKSON. John Jackson’s cloth collapse hypothesis is most generously described as quasi-scientific, although it has many of the hallmarks of the pseudo-scientific, using ‘sciency’ words to describe concepts which have no scientific meaning, such as “mechanical transparency,” and “radiation” which doesn’t, in fact radiate anywhere. Nevertheless, Jackson suggests a couple of ways in which his proposal can be falsified, which just nudges it into the “scientific factors” category.
RUCKER. Bob Rucker’s hypothesis is the most thorough and most clearly described of all the “hopeful monsters” proposed so far. It is a quasi-scientific explanation for both the image and the radiocarbon date, based upon the decomposition of deuterium either entirely supernaturally, or by a means currently unknown to science, but which may be discovered in the future. As he explains, it accounts for all the observed characteristics on the Shroud, it is inherently simple, and it is easily falsifiable. Although aspects of the hypothesis are un-“scientific,” they are not un-“reasonable,” if I may make so bold as to distinguish between Science and Reason.
CAVEAT. I have labelled the broad divisions with names, merely as an alternative to calling them A, B and C, but I do not want to nail any of the proponents involved strictly to their label. The opinions of real people are nuanced and susceptible to change, and if any of them care to claim, “That’s not what I think!” I’ll specifically mention it above. However I think it fair so say that each is at least associated with the idea I have attached to his name.
So! Which one were you? Not many people read this, but there are some prominent characters in Shroud Science who are not mentioned above, and I wonder (but only to myself!) where they stand. The sad truth, I suspect, is that although the seven divisions above are distinct and mutually incompatible, most authenticists actually believe more than one of them at the same time, a psychological phenomenon I have called ‘cognitive assonance.’ It’s illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable, but it’s comforting and reassuring in a dark and increasingly beleaguered community…
Oh, goodness, it wasn’t Teddi, it was Dan!
Flicking up and down through the comments has bedazzled my identification sensors.
Oh, well, never mind. Life’s too short to peel a grape…
Cheers,
Hugh
Hi, Hugh,
You wrote the following: “I love this, and will probably quote it again:
“Perhaps every explanation we devise is just another way of describing the unknowable.” Good ol’ Teddi.”
It seems as if you are attributing this quote to me, yet this does not sound like anything I would think–much less write. I have certainly stated in the past that I think that there are certain things that we can know about the Holy Shroud, through science, but that I think that there are certain things that will remain unknowable, because if God were to allow mere man to recreate a miracle–which, by I think most peoples’ definitions tends to involve some sort of supernatural occurrence–then this would reduce the supernatural into the realm of the natural–and this would not make much sense to me. I have certainly said before that God lets us get enough real knowledge about the images on the Holy Shroud to let us know that we are dealing with a supernaturally created image.
But, I feel rather confident that I did not write what you wrote in quotes (because that would imply that I think that we can’t know anything about the body images and bloodstains on the Holy Shroud–and, obviously, I don’t believe that), but I’ll stand corrected if you can show me where I said this.
Best regards,
Good ol’ Teddi
Hi John,
Thanks for that. You’re quite right (if I read you correctly) that another optional response to every question could have been “c) I don’t know,” and perhaps a great many people would not get further than that. And maybe I should have added a distinction between “Unknown but not a miracle” and “Unknown but with an element of the supernatural.” You, I think, would definitely opt for the first, but I’m not clear where Jackson and Rucker stand. Although they are both quite happy with the possibility of an out and out miracle, they both suggest that further advances in scientific exploration might provide a fully natural explanation in the future. A lot depends on what we mean by ‘miracle’ and ‘supernatural,’ and the difference between ‘what isn’t known but may one day be explainable by science,’ and ‘what isn’t known and cannot ever be explicable by science.’ So I thought I’d just leave it as it was.
As for the believing of everything, all you have to do is listen to any popular lecture on the Shroud to find just about all these people thrown into the mix without discrimination, especially Lavoie, Jackson and Rucker, together with the idea that the radiocarbon test was both completely meaningless and wholly accurate, and that because several pathologists agree on authenticity they can be clumped together as a group regardless of their profound disagreements.
I love this, and will probably quote it again: “Perhaps every explanation we devise is just another way of describing the unknowable.” Good ol’ Teddi.
Best wishes,
Hugh
Hi Hugh,
That’s a fine little “character quiz” you’ve devised. A simple flow chart of the basic positions on the Turin Shroud. And a well-phrased introduction to go with it. Bravo. Very useful for Shroud beginners and intermediates especially. Yes, the range of positions is extensive, not just two.
Some specific thoughts now:
Your leap from #3 to #5 may be incomplete. The only two options listed in your #5 do not encompass all the possible “unknown science” of #3, but assume some sort of miracle was involved. Not so in my view. I think the cause was natural but is as yet unknown or not completely known. The precise mechanism or combination hasn’t yet been found and, perhaps because crucifixions and cave-tomb burials are no longer performed today, may never be found.
On Helmut Felzmann and his coma/swoon theory (“Jesus survived”): Its scientific supporters are really very few in number, just a handful, and limited in credibility too. Prof. Bonte looked at the Shroud on photos for only an hour or two, and his comments were very narrow in scope. An overly opinionated academic, it seems to me, sorry to say. He was confused about the “blood belt” on the back, for one thing. Norman Lee likewise: His scrutiny of the Shroud was very brief and limited, only via one set of photographs (one quarter life size?), and he made a serious mistake in suggesting that the side wound was so high up that the lance didn’t pierce the heart. Lorente Acosta made some demonstrable mistakes, too. He is still around and not old, so it might be useful if someone would contact him for any update (Bonte is gone and probably Lee too by now). You write of “the excessive blood” on the Shroud in connection with their live Jesus hypothesis, but you certainly mean instead the alleged excessive blood, because you and I and most others do not see any excessive blood there for a dead body or even for a medieval statue dabbed with blood. It’s really not that much. If the heart were still beating and pumping blood around the body, and with all the jostling movements involved in getting the body to the tomb, there would be much more blood on the cloth than there is.
Vignon/Rogers & Fanti: A combination of their vaporograph and electrical cause theories could also be proposed, not just either-or, one or the other.
Fanti: You could add Prof. Spicer to the electro- roster (his natural “charge separation” theory). Thanks for mentioning Giovanna de Liso’s seismic imaging results. More such seismic imaging experiments should be done.
Porter: Coy, vague, elusive, “hard to get,” ethereal, psychedelic, kaleidoscopic, astrophysical and metaphysical dreamer or dodger. Personally I prefer counting sheep when drifting off to sleep, not black holes or quasars. But all that said, I respect the guy.
Some readers might notice a possible slender opening for a new position or character on your list, to join all those luminaries (or lunatics if you say so from your 14th century perch), namely, Loken/de Wesselow, which is to say, the Turin Shroud Man was dead; his image formed naturally; the shroud derives from Jesus in the 1st century; and the marvelous image itself inspired, partly, largely, or entirely, the resurrection belief. Of the hundreds of thousands of alleged miracles in world history, the vast majority of them have long since been proven false, either frauds or mistakes, and, of the few that remain unsolved mysteries, most cannot be checked because access to any physical evidence for them is restricted and even prevented by religious authorities. The mystery of the Turin Shroud image therefore stands alone, with everything going against it in terms of the negligible historical record of “miracles.” Too many people have confused the form of the image with its content. The image formation is not yet solved, true, but its content is indeed solved and completely so. Jesus is dead, alas. No resurrection there (in my view).
Hugh, I’m not sure I understand when you write that, “most [Shroud] authenticists actually believe more than one of them at the same time … it’s illogical, unscientific….” But those numbered positions are not all mutually incompatible, rather mostly just grades, stages, steps on a flow chart in the process of reaching a final conclusion. It’s like the general-to-specific progression of categories of Life set out by Linnaeus in his Systema Naturae: kingdom, class, order, etc., etc. Or have I missed something?
John L.
Hi, Hugh,
Well, perhaps we can say that—especially thinking about the different types of flour— I decided to “roll” play as a mid-evil-yeast forger, and, as such, some artistic license may have been used in the creation of my quiz. . .😋😋😋 (I, however, don’t think that I was puffin things up too terribly much. Otherwise, I’d feel as though I have farm-fresh egg all over my face!)🤣🤣🤣
Cheers,
Teddi
Marvellous, Teddi! Good of you to spare the time. Indeed I could have gone on to split, say, Rogers from Vignon, or Lorente from Felzmann, but as one gets into finer detail, the distinctions get fuzzier, and I wanted to keep my ‘species’ clear, easily distinguishable and incompatible.
Your last sentence is the wisest, but not one held by many of the leading proponents of the views I have described, whose work is peppered with phrases such as “the only possible explanation,” and “absolute proof.”
I could have had a go with a Medieval quiz too, but the ideas you throw in above vastly outnumber the number of names I could attribute to them. Sadly, I’m unable to distinguish the tiger-blood from the chipmunk-blood hypothesists, or even the farm-fresh eggists from the store-bought eggists. My quiz, as you know, was based on real views held by real people, not fantasy.
Still, if you think you can assemble a similar one for the medieval point of view, be my guest, and I’ll append it!
Hi, Hugh,
Since, in addition to your having been a science teacher, you are a professional actor, you undoubtedly know that the “villains” in plays, television shows and the movies are always a lot more colorful and flamboyant with their attitudes and costumes than the heroes! Naturally, the quiz you set up (as you mention in question #1, is not for the “mid-evil-ists!” But, it seems a shame to leave them out, so let me help out a bit . . . Such a quiz for the mid-evil-ists would be peppered with questions like: Artwork? If yes, paint (egg [farm-fresh or store-bought], casein, gelatin, pigment, stain, dye, wine, flour [bleached, unbleached, bread flour, semolina, gluten-free (or not)], etc? Created “free-hand” or was a body or statue or bas relief used? If a real body was used, was it dead or alive? If dead, was it in rigor mortis or not? Knees bent or not? Real blood or paint? If paint, iron-oxide or vermilion? If blood, was it from a mouse, opossum, rat, cat, baboon, orangutan, tiger, gorilla, bonobo, puffin, elephant, chipmunk, wildebeest, leech space alien or something else??? Were the body images intentionally made or “miraculously” created “by chance?” Was there a Maillard reaction occurring or were dehydration and oxidation or acid? Natural yellowing of linen or yellowing of artistic media [gelatin?] or from sweat? Vapors or not? If a real dead body, was something odd put on the dead body (? aloes, myrrh, or ammonia from sweat to create the body image? If there is a “yes” on bloodstains are they from a real body or were they dripped onto the cloth or drawn onto the cloth or finger-painted onto the cloth or were animals with clotting wounds pressed to the cloth to transfer these blood clots? Red marks on the head. If blood, crown of thorns or some weird accident causing so many puncture wounds on the head?
The quiz for the Shroudies looks, perhaps, less complicated than the sketch of the one that I propose for the be[k]nighted mid-evil-ists!
Cheers,
Teddi
Hi Dan!
Lovely to hear from you. I think you’re right in that we can’t actually know what happened at the Resurrection, but my gut goes for the simplest description, which I guess is yours. Jesus was dead, and then he wasn’t dead. Simple as that. I don’t think flashy physics was Jesus’s modus operandum for other miracles, which lots of people witnessed, and don’t think he’d go for them when there wasn’t even anybody there.
Or maybe there were other people there – Joseph? Nicodemus? Roman soldiers? – but they didn’t say anything, or their stories weren’t reported. Probably because there wasn’t much to say. He was dead; then he wasn’t. They plugged the nail-holes and gave him some clothes…
Jackson and Rucker both assume that miracles initiate processes that resemble science—quasi-scientific, pseudo-scientific, or even paranormal—producing results that may be byproducts, side effects, or unintended consequences. Their approaches attempt to explain how a corpse might exit a tomb, how carbon-14 levels might be altered, or how an image could be imprinted on cloth. Explainable? Perhaps, but only in the same way that the Big Bang is explainable.
Does the Big Bang truly explain the creation of the universe, or just a universe? Did it emerge from nothing, or is it simply one of many black holes detonating endlessly? And if such events exist beyond space and time—assuming we are even capable of stepping beyond those limits—can we really claim to know?
In Jackson’s case, the concept of a mechanically transparent body raises questions. If the body retained mass, wouldn’t it still be subject to gravity? As the burial cloth collapses, wouldn’t the body, too, fall through the tomb floor? Or are we to assume some selective interaction with gravity, one that allows the body to vanish while the cloth remains anchored?
Rucker, on the other hand, introduces a fifth dimension—a theoretical escape route for the body. But does this explanation clarify anything, or does it simply relocate the mystery to a realm beyond verification? We see similar strategies in modern physics, from brane cosmology to the idea that our universe is embedded in a larger, higher-dimensional space. But invoking a new dimension to account for miraculous events raises the same problem: does it truly explain, or merely push the question further out of reach?
Surely, there are more ideas to be imagined. Could the body have existed in a quantum superposition that collapsed in a way that removed it from reality? Was there a shift in time or a retrocausal effect? Could the resurrection be understood through the Holographic Principle, as an event encoded in a higher-dimensional structure? Or, if we entertain the Simulation Hypothesis, was it simply a moment where the rules of reality were rewritten?
Perhaps every explanation we devise is just another way of describing the unknowable.