Shroud of Turin expert to uncover some of the mystery during local talk
From left, Ray Rogers, John Jackson and Prof. Giovanni Riggi, members of the 1978 team that performed the first ever in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin, take a first look at the underside of the cloth in 400 years.
Photo courtesy of Barrie M. Schwortz
Breault, who lives near Atlanta, has become a leading authority on the shroud. He is one of three experts prominently featured in the History Channel’s recent documentary, “The Real Face of Jesus.”
The linen cloth of hand-twisted flax fibers is 14 feet long and 3 1/2 feet wide, Breault said in a phone interview.
Many Christian believers consider it the burial cloth that was wrapped around the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, as recorded in all four Gospels.
Russell Breault presents a multi-media presentation about the Shroud of Turin at a prior appearance.
Photo by Jason Turner
Years ago, when he first started to enthrall live audiences with his story, he relied on color slides and a projector. He has put thousands of hours into the development of “Shroud Encounter,” a polished multi-media show that includes more than 150 images. “The laptop and PowerPoint allow you to step it up,” said Breault, whose name is pronounced “Bree-ALT.”
He promises audiences “can expect an experience -- they’re going to be thrilled” when he comes to Pinckney on Saturday evening.
Breault will appear at 7 p.m. at the Jane Tasch Theatre, 2100 East M-36.
“I would say that what we’re going to see there will be an exciting presentation,” said Father John Rocus, pastor of Holy Spirit Catholic Church of Brighton. The church is co-sponsoring the program along with Ave Maria Radio.
“Russ is the first person I’ve ever encountered in a forum like that, where he made a presentation with the multimedia,” Rocus said. “He was very impressive.”
Breault is considered a “Shroudie”—a sort of shroud groupie—Rocus said. There is a worldwide community of Shroudies.
Rocus’ parish owns a duplicate Shroud, which will be on display during “Shroud Encounter.”
Tom Loewe, development director for Ave Maria Radio, said the shroud is “an issue within the Catholic community that’s been discussed quite a bit.”
Witnessing a “Shroud Encounter” presentation last winter in the Detroit area was enough to demand an encore, Loewe said.
“We asked when he could come back,” Loewe said. “It’s a way of getting people to come and take a look at something that’s fairly substantive.”
The shroud has been intensely scrutinized in recent decades, but it “pops in and out of history,” Breault said.
Comments
krc
Tue, Jun 22, 2010 : 8:11 a.m.
Seems like we ought to see what the Gospels say on the matter, since they include the account of Jesus' death and the customs regarding burial at the time. After the body of Jesus was taken down from the stake it was wrapped in "clean, fine linen". The Jews customarily washed the dead and then used oils and spices to anoint the body. On the morning following the Sabbath, women friends of Jesus intended to complete the preparation of his body, which had already been laid in a tomb. However, when they arrived with their 'spices to grease him', the body of Jesus was not in the tomb. Peter arrived shortly after and found only 'the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been on his head not lying with the bandages but separately rooled up in one place'. Notice there is no mention of the fine linen - only of bandages and headcloth. John specifies these two things only. Wouldn't he have mentioned the linen, or shroud, if it had been there? Also, consider this: If the graveclothes of Jesus had his image upon them, does it not seem that it would have been noticed and talked about? Yet, beyond that there is complete silence in the Bible about the graveclothes. Even the professed Christian writers of the 3rd and 4th centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus. Yet 15th and 16th century viewers, according to Jesuit scholar Herbert Thurston "describe the impression on the shroud as so vivid in detail and colouring that they might have been freshly made." So - not in existence in the Gospel account or in the 3rd and 4th centuries, suddenly in existence in the 15th and 16th centuries. What's the conclusion? There was no shroud marked with the image of Christ Jesus. That it should suddenly appear 15 centuries later proves it to be a hoax. If you would like the Scriptural references, I will be glad to supply them.
Sarah Rigg
Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.
CSICOP.org, the Web site associated with the Center for Inquiry and the Skeptical Inquirer magazine has a rather large library of articles debunking claims about the shroud. This "Fraud of Turin" article is a pretty good one: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_fraud_of_turin/
Speechless
Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
The Wikipedia article on the Shroud of Turin is a pretty good one. It's fair and also provides an extensive list of footnotes, as well as reference lists, to jump start any desired follow-up study. Definitely recommended for anyone interested in better understanding the topic Russ Breault will discuss. Portions of this long page linked up above make for fascinating reading. While not religious, I know a thing or two about Catholicism due to my family background. Neither this religion nor the article topic is unfamiliar to me. It's disingenuous to insist other readers stay away from the discussion if they are not believers. It would, admittedly, show bad manners if I posted commentary about Shroud origins on a diocese-run web site intended for loyal parish participants. But that etiquette certainly doesn't apply here on a general news site visited by a locals of many different backgrounds. Lastly, while some readers on this site can be rude, I've noticed in more than one article that even respectful disagreement with Catholic viewpoints may quickly and angrily be labeled an intolerant attack. I've seen this kind of behavior elsewhere, under different contexts, used as a ploy to shut down discussion and bully anyone not aligned with a particular faction's views.
robyn
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 9:13 p.m.
wikipedia is NOT a great source for infomation. I'm not Catholic - don't actually belong to any church or organized religion, but I do find the studies of the shroud to be very interesting. Even more fascinating are the scientific studies - some of the most recent studies have refuted the findings of prior studies. On a side note: why is it that people who do not have religious beliefs are so eager to disavow the beliefs of those who have religious beliefs? If some of you don't believe in/care about an artifact that others hold sacred - perhaps you shouldn't comment about it. The way in which youattack the beliefs of others does not exactly come across as very decent or tolerant, which could make one wonder if the lack of spiritual values has that sort of effect on you.
Speechless
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.
This article reads like a reprint from Michigan Catholic. For a balanced (and certainly more detailed) discussion of the centuries-old shroud controversy, simply go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin While not invested in the final outcome of this scientific debate over the cloth's real age, for now I'll remain highly skeptical of ancient origins. One has to wonder how this delicate item managed to safely make its way out of Palestine during Roman times, travel across the Mediterranean, and then lay low for well over a millennium. It surfaced less than 600 years ago. Also, there were alternate versions floating around at the end of the Middle Ages: "The Catholic Encyclopedia echoes the same sentiment: 'A certain difficulty was caused by the existence elsewhere of other Shrouds similarly impressed with the figure of Jesus Christ.'" Several decades ago, during the early post-Vatican II years, Catholic clergy moved further away from promoting literal belief in Biblical miracles and in miraculous objects. Instead, their favored approach to the miraculous was to view it as way to teach philosophical and doctrinal truths through use of metaphorical story and imagery. They placed the focus on the message. The shroud itself has since become a kind of metaphor, one going beyond the authenticity debate. This old cloth functions like a litmus test that helps us to identify significant ideological swings within Catholicism. The shroud's appearance remains the same, while the shifting views on how it got that way highlight changes not only in scientific methods but also in the contemporary Church's self-image. In the 1970s, when the shroud was scientifically examined for the first time, with authenticity strongly questioned, the Church was near the end of a liberal 20-year period in its history which had brought the reforms of Vatican II. In more recent years, following a generation of sharply conservative papal leadership, the shroud has again returned to public attention, this time via public efforts by some Church members to champion claims of authenticity. This strikes me as parallel to, and symbolic of, a strong conservative trend high up within the institution to revert back toward pre-Vatican II doctrines and values, toward a more magical view of history and its sacred literature.
Eileen Peck
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.
Regardless of what you think of the Shroud of Turin, you might consider doing a little reading on the most recent research. http://www.shroudstory.com/ http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html A growing body of highly reliable, supportable scientific evidence suggests that early conclusions about the age and composition of the shroud cloth are simply wrong. In short, the cloth may indeed be 2,000 years old, the historical record supports the existence of the Shroud well before its appearance in Europe in the 1300's, and few (if any) credible scientists today argue that the image on the cloth is manmade.
Sansdeities
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.
What mystery?? This shroud has benn proven to be a fraud long ago via analysis of the "blood" which turned out to be artist paint and carbon dating proved the cloth is not the age it`s alleged to be. Only Catholics cling to this magic shroud, but of course they also believe in transsubstanition..... which raises a point... why not take a "blood" sample from the shroud; then take a host soaked in wine when after the priest says his hocus pocus words to make it "actually" the body & blood of Christ; then check both samples for DNA and see if they match. Anyone think the Catholic church would submit to this test?
YpsiLivin
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
There's no magical thinking involved. The sample used to carbon date the shroud was taken from an area of the cloth that was repaired in the Middle Ages. Using current technology, investigators have found that there is no evidence of paint or pigment of any kind on the surface of the shroud. Scientists who have studied the cloth agree that the image on the shroud is not a painting and contains no known paint, pigments or dyes, and they also agree that the body of the cloth is very consistent with first century weaving techniques, but these facts won't get in the way of the haters. If the shroud is a fraud, duplicating it using 12th century production techniques should be a snap. The cloth should be no match for modern technology, yet modern technology can't seem to explain HOW the shroud was created. Is it a photograph from the 12th century? Even the most rudimentary photographic techniques weren't developed until the 19th century. Simply explain how the shroud was created on a first century cloth using no paints, pigments or dyes; why the analysis of the image on the cloth shows that it's actually 3-dimensional; and how the artist was able to perfectly create three dimensional information on a two-dimensional cloth, and I'll be happy to conclude that it's a fake. Sorry, haters. Even the scientists who have studied the cloth don't call it a fake.
silverwings
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
It's a twelfth-century fraud, not that this will stop the true believers. But that's not the issue. The problem is this: why didn't a news site include a contrasting view that's widely held among scientists who have investigated the matter?
Brad
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 7:57 a.m.
And there's that pesky carbon dating. Enough with the magical thinking, people!
YpsiLivin
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 7:21 a.m.
sh1, Actually, the shroud's blood stains have tested positive for hemoglobin and porphyrins. http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-02.htm
sh1
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 6:21 a.m.
The "blood stain patterns" have since been proved not to be blood but ocher and vermilion paint.