|
|
In 1999, Mark Guscin, a member of the multidisciplinary Investigation Team of
the Centro Español de Sindonología, issued a detailed forensic and historical
report entitled, “Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo.”
Guscin’s report detailed recent findings of the history, forensic pathology,
blood chemistry, and stain patterns on the Sudarium. His conclusion: the
Sudarium and the Shroud of Turin had been used to cover the same injured head at
closely different times. Here are some highlights from Guscin’s report:
In summary, Guscin wrote:
There are many points of coincidence between all these points and the Shroud of
Turin - the blood group, the way the corpse was tortured and died, and the
macroscopic overlay of the stains on each cloth. This is especially notable in
that the blood on the Sudarium, shed in life as opposed to postmortem,
corresponds exactly in blood group, blood type and surface area to those stains
on the Shroud on the nape of the neck. If it is clear that the two cloths must
have covered the same corpse, and this conclusion is inevitable from all the
studies carried out up to date, and if the history of the Sudarium can be
trustworthily extended back beyond the fourteenth century, which is often
referred to as the Shroud’s first documented historical appearance, then this
would take the Shroud back to at least the earliest dates of the Sudarium’s
known history. The ark of relics and the Sudarium have without any doubt at all
been in Spain since the beginning of the seventh century, and the history
recorded in various manuscripts from various times and geographical areas take
it all the way back to Jerusalem in the first century. The importance of this
for Shroud history cannot be overstressed.
|
The
scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the
scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than
settle it.”
And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”
Scientist-Journalist Philip Ball Nature, that most prestigious of scientific journals, that once had bragging rights to claim that the Shroud was fake, responding to new, peer-reviewed studies that discredit the carbon 14 dating and show that the Shroud could be authentic. WHAT WE KNOW IN 2005
|