Coins

Lenny’s Opinions

·         It is perceived as being part of an argument for the existence of God and as an effort to prove the Resurrection.

·         The claim by proponents that the images cannot be recreated is fallacious. It is fair to say that no one has yet figured out how. But to imply that the images are miraculous, as some do, is no different than God-of-the-gaps arguments voiced in opposition to evolution.

·         The attempts by skeptics to recreate the images (and even claim that they have), is equally fallacious. In essence they are saying that if they were able to produce a forgery of the shroud, then the shroud itself must be a forgery as well.

·         Unsubstantiated claims such as images of coins or arguments about dematerialization are  more than distractions. They are so over the top that skepticism becomes a reflex reaction.

·         Fake claims about history such as the claim by skeptics that there is no history before 1350 or the hearsay claims of a jealous French bishop are anti-intellectual. Notice that it is never historians that say this. They know better.

·         The notion that carbon dating is somehow infallible because it was performed by three laboratories is preposterous. Each of three labs performed the same one test on a fragment of the same one sample. No one ever wondered if the sample might be bad, as we now know it was.

Graven Images and Such

I sometimes receive more than a hundred of emails about the shroud in a single week. Some are from atheists who insist it is fake because—don’t I get it—God does not exist, or something to that effect. Some are from biblical literalists (creationists and fundamentalists) who insist it contradicts scripture in this particular way or that, so it is obviously fake. Some argue that the shroud is a “graven image” and God would never have created a graven image, so it must be manmade. If I think otherwise, my soul is in mortal danger. I get emails from people who say that secret Bible codes prove it is real. Others tell me that if I magnify the right eye of the man of the shroud, I will see all the proof I need. Apparently, though I cannot see it, there is another image of Jesus, visible much the same way I suppose as I might see a the face on a piece of burned toast. Some of the emails repeat all manner of conspiracy theories and flimsy logic from a multitude of web sites and blogs. Some argue that the shroud proves the Resurrection. Conversely, it proves that Jesus survived the crucifixion, thus explaining the post-Resurrection appearances (swoon theory). It is  a sweat image of the torture of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Painting, photograph, relief-rubbing, dust painting, images of coins, carbon dating, no history before 1350, dematerialization and on and on: there are so many explanations and stories that a veritable cacophony of  myth—modern myth—abounds.

Coins Over the Eyes

coins>The mythical includes reports of images of coins over the eyes in the man’s face. Lenny had mentioned these coins. The shapes, seen partially in some but not all photographs of the shroud, are probably formed by miniscule shadows of the fabric’s threads, dirt and grime of the ages and in strange patterns of dark and lighter lines that are intrinsically part of the fabric. In the minds of some observers, not only do they look like coins, they seem to contain bits of lettering and features that identify them as minted by Pontius Pilate between A.D. 29 and 32. Should that not be proof enough of the shroud’s provenance from the time of Jesus’ crucifixion? If the images are of real coins, then yes, probably. But few who carefully study the shroud agree that the coin images are real. They may be nothing more than  pareidolia, a very natural human tendency to see patterns where none exist, like a faces in a piece of burnt toast. The burden of proof lies with those who think they see the coins to convince others. That burden has not been met. Even with the use of instrumentation to help compare the images on the shroud with real museum coins, this has not happened.

I must admit I sometimes think I see the coins when I try hard enough. “I think I see,” Rogers reminded researchers frequently, “is not a scientific statement.” The big myth, however, is not the coin images but the mistaken belief that proponents of the shroud’s authenticity generally believe in the coin images.  They don’t.

Bertrand Russell

There was no bigger fan of logical positivism than Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). His early writings influenced the Circle of Vienna and their work influenced his later thinking about it. He, perhaps more than anyone, made logical positivism, particularly the notion of verifiability an important factor in the philosophy of science. It may seem intuitive, but it was not formalized.

When it comes to considering the shroud how important is verifiability? There is the claim of images of coins over the eyes. How verifiable is that claim. There is the claim that the images are 3D encoded. How verifiable is that? The list goes on and on. We will explore many facets of the shroud’s image and the data in support of authenticity, and if we are not take verifiability seriously—and there is no reason we shouldn’t—we must keep this in mind.  

Russell was unquestionably one of the 20^th century’s most important philosophers, if not the most important. He was also the century’s most prominent intellectual atheists. He was controversial, but not so much because of his atheism or his philosophy, but for everything he stood for as Western society was emerging from the Victorian era.  His pacifist activism at the outbreak of World War I was enough to land him in jail and get him fired from his teaching position at Cambridge.  Later, he was blocked from an important position at the City College of New York because he was deemed by some to be morally unfit for the job. This was largely because of views on sexual morality. He didn’t just have mistresses, he was an outspoken advocate for extra-marital relationships. He also promoted the idea of easy divorces without any the burden of responsibility except for children.

Ecclesiastical History

In the late 6^th century, Evagrius Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History mentions that Edessa was protected by a “divinely wrought portrait” (acheiropoieton) sent by Jesus to Abgar. Not yet enough for a decent inference, but at least a beginning: There was in Edessa a piece of cloth with an image thought to be of Jesus. It was not an ordinary image. The clue is that it is variously described as painted with choice pigment, of formed by sweat and not made by human hands.

There are no descriptions of Jesus’ appearance in the New Testament. Nor are there any reputable descriptions in any known early church sources.  St. Augustine of Hippo made a point of this when he wrote his monumental works in the 5th century. Yet, starting in the 6th century a new common appearance for Jesus emerged in art. We see it today in hundreds of icons, paintings, mosaics, and Byzantine coins. This common quality seems to have started in Christian Byzantium about the same time that the Image of Edessa was discovered. Prior to this time, images of Jesus were mostly of a young, beardless man, often with short hair, often in story-like settings in which he was depicted as a shepherd.

Justinian II and the Golden Pavilion

In 685, Justinian II, at the age of sixteen took the throne. He was the first Byzantine emperor to introduce a likeness of Christ on coinage of the realm. His image was on one side and Christ’s was on the reverse. Some have argued, and it seems quite possible, that the image on the coin was sourced from the Edessa image. It does seem to have many similarities. But the Philip Grierson writing in the Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and Whittemore Collection argued that was derived from an image of Christ in the Chrysotriclinos, The Golden Pavilion in Constantinople. The Golden Pavilion served as a church and a throne room for the emperor. The problem is that don’t know exactly when this was built or  when a Christ image was installed. The original image was replaced later and we don’t know anything about the original image.  It is possible that original pavilion image was created about the time that the St. Catherine icon was painted and we might speculate that it might have been inspired by the Image of Edessa.  The basic historical problem is that we don’t have enough information.

Things People See on the Shroud

The images of a person, certainly a man if we look closely, exists on the shroud. And many of well pronounced features are part of that image. But there may be other parts of the images that some people claim to see that are pareidolic perceptions.

Takeo Watanabe’s views “that subliminally learning something ‘too well’” results in false positives may explain many reported images and features of the shroud image. A botanist may see images of flowers and plants. A numismaticist may see images of ancient coins. A dentist may see what looks like teeth. It would be totally unfair to say that this is what happened when such experts saw these things. But it would be unfair to you to not suggest the possibility.

Fluffy Shaped Sponge?

People have seen coins over the eyes; and not just coins but enough details to identify them as specific coins minted by Romans for Jewish use around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. People have identified flowers and plants that are specific to the environs of Jerusalem. The list of things seen goes on and on. There are, supposedly, a hammer, a nail, a fluffy shaped sponge tied to a reed, a coil of rope, a pair of dice and part of a plaque with enough lettering in Greek, Latin and possibly Hebrew to identify it as saying, “Jesus of Nazareth.” But are these things really imaged on the cloth? Are there criteria for deciding?

Consensus among people who closely study the images is valid so long as that study is as completely objective as possible. Worldview nullification must be avoided at all cost. It is not proper to reject these images because you don’t believe the shroud is real. But it is fair to be skeptical, as in the case of the teeth (and for that matter the nail and lettering and other objects) because there is identifiable noise such as the banding.

It is my general impression that among most shroud researchers, but not all, that:

·         The evidence of scourging seen as various types of wounds is medically accurate and extraordinarily realistic. Those images are certainly there.

·         Many, if not most, and perhaps all objects are unconfirmed, unsubstantiated or suspect images; possibly pareidolia.

In the end, or sometime sooner or later, Frei’s work may be proven right after all, at least enough so to confirm the cloth’s journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople through the Anatolia. For now we must look at other evidence.

The Lepton

LEPTON>The word lepton means small or thin, and in Roman occupied Palestine, a lepton was always a low value coin, usually the smallest available denomination of a local currency. The Roman lepton was informally called a mite in the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman Empire; this use is seen in the New Testament.

Some researchers have identified images of lepta (coins), minted by Pontius Pilate for use by the Jewish population in Palestine, over both eyes of the Shroud of Turin face. But is the identification valid? Most shroud researchers, while agreeing that the Shroud of Turin is likely genuine, seriously doubt this identification.

In 1978, scientists, including John P. Jackson and Eric J. Jumper, while working with NASA's VP-8 (3D) Image Analyzer, discovered what appeared to be raised button-like shapes over each eye.

Francis Filas

Then in 1980, Francis Filas, S.J., of Loyola University in Chicago and Michael Marx, an expert in classical coins, examined the area over the right eye and detected patterns of what appeared to be the letters UCAI (from the middle of TIBERIOU CAISARUS). They also found a lituus design (an auger's staff). Filas concluded that this was a lituus lepton coin minted by Pontius Pilate between A.D. 29 and 32. Over the left eye, Filas also identified what he believed to be a Juolia lepton with a distinctive sheaf of barley design. The Juolia lepton was only struck in 29 in honor of Tiberius Caesar's wife, Julia.

Subsequent computerized image enhancement analysis at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory supports, though cautiously, the existence of the lituus lepton over the right eye and an outline of a coin over the left eye.

Points of Congruence

By overlaying polarized images, Alan Whanger at Duke University identified what he believed to be coins. Alan found 74 points of congruence with an existing lituus lepton and 73 points with a Juolia lepton. But such identification is highly interpretive and other researchers do not find the same level of congruence. Many argue that congruence analysis, as used to match fingerprints, is valid for matching two identified samples (e.g. two fingerprints or partial fingerprints) but that it is not a valid method for identifying an unknown sample (e.g. is it a fingerprint, is it a coin image).

Though the lepta minted in Palestine were Roman produced coins, the inscription of Tiberius Caesar would have been written in Greek as TIBERIOU KAISAROS. Was the C, where a K was expected, a misspelling? This was a problem that seemed to preclude positive identification until an actual Lituus lepton was found with the aberrant spelling. Several have since been found. This anomaly seems to give credence to the coins identification.

Barrie Schwortz on the Coins

Barrie Schwortz, a technical photographers who photographed the Shroud, questions the coin identification. Having studied numerous high quality negatives of the Shroud taken in 1978, he concludes:

My personal opinion, based on my photographic experience and my close examination of the Shroud itself, is that the weave of the cloth is far too coarse to resolve the rather subtle and very tiny inscription on a dime sized ancient coin...What he [Filas] saw as inscriptions, I saw as random shapes and noise. Such is the subjective nature of image analysis. For these reasons however, I cannot accept these coin "inscriptions" as viable evidence of a first century Shroud "date"...I do not argue that there appears to be something on the eyes of the man of the Shroud, and it may well be coins or potshards, since they were used in some first century burial rituals, but I do not believe we can resolve coin inscriptions.

There is no question that background noise is a severe problem for coin identification. Banding, both vertical and horizontal, encroaches on the area of the eyes, certainly adding anomalous data. Much of the fine detail claimed to be features of the coins probably comes from background noise.

Barrie Schwortz

My personal opinion, based on my photographic expe-rience and my close examination of the Shroud itself, is that the weave of the cloth is far too coarse to resolve the rather subtle and very tiny inscription on a dime sized ancient coin...What he [Filas] saw as inscriptions, I saw as random shapes and noise. Such is the subjective nature of image analysis. For these reasons however, I cannot accept these coin "inscriptions" as viable evidence of a first century Shroud "date"...I do not argue that there appears to be something on the eyes of the man of the Shroud, and it may well be coins or potshards, since they were used in some first century burial rituals, but I do not believe we can re-solve coin inscriptions.