The Shroud Of Turin

[Jonathan H]

I believe that the Shroud of Turin is a Medieval fake. It is brilliant -- though it did not begin to fool people until centuries after it was created?

What an irony. In its own time it flopped, immediately and conclusively.

It was thought by significant members of the Catholic Church to be a cunning forgery. The painter, in an effort to separate it from the pack of faked holy relics, had made it look too offensively realistic; the figure being naked, the wounds located in the wrists, the savage evidence of scourging -- but these details did not help its claim.

[To me it is obviously a painting because a cloth wrapped around a face, and a body, always peels away with a hopelessly distorted image.]

The Turin Shroud hoax is one of those terrific examples of where historical methodology is complimented by scientific/forensic methods of inquiry.

For example, we would expect such an 'extraordinary object' to be venerated in its own time. Instead the Medieval source goes against its expected pious bias of denouncing it as a fake -- without reservation.

This was belatedly backed by the late 20th Century use of DNA testing.

I knew as soon as they tested it what the result would be, because of History, not science.

It was science of course, specifically photography, which gave this forgotten forgery an entirely unexpected second life at the turn of the previous century. It was considered 'impossible' that the image could have been constructed in negative, so that only a photo shows it vividly -- and so on. And it was science, this time DNA, that consigned it back to the list of famous fakes.

I also knew that Shroud Buffs would not accept the DNA results when, inevitably, they went against their cherished beliefs; their emotional investment in this failed fake being too strong. That as time passed they would come back [with a TIME cover story no less in 1997] with spurious explanations to explain away the DNA

The same thing happened with the DNA results which conclusively showed that the late Anna Anderson was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia.

Yet, again, historical methodology had always shown that 'Anna' was a lame imposter, a mentally deranged Polish girl [as, once more, the DNA confirmed] who was being willingly exploited by surviving members of the Romanov court. Shock over those results was followed by a regrouping, and then a rejection of the scientific findings, then a reaffirmation of the original belief.

I am not having a go at people's religious beliefs [people can believe as they please] as the Vatican has never claimed that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, merely that it can be venerated as an image of the Saviour [the positive legacy of the Galileo debacle.]

[DVV]

...and then we still don't know the date of the shroud, and I still hope it's from the 1st century.
Amen.

[DVV]

It's not exactly like this, Graham.
There is an "original" shroud (date unknown, made of linen).
It has to be repaired in the 16th century, with cotton (I think) that had to be tinted, so that there would be no visible difference.
Unfortunately, the samples that were analyzed were taken in a "mixed" part, where linen and cotton had been weaved together.
Hence the insignificance of the C14 datation.

Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

I accept that the 13th century date for the Shroud cannot be, but if the cloth was 'faked' by mixing modern fabric with old stuff, how in the 16th century would that occur to any actual fakers? Why should the fakers even think of adding 1500 year-old cloth to modern fabric? Did they foresee microscopy and our 21st century understanding of the analysis of biological matter?

I would respectfully suggest that, if the Shroud is indeed a 16th century forgery, then the forgers either had access to a piece of genuine 1st century cloth, or they used whatever was available to them without any real understanding of future potential scientific analysis. I suspect the latter.

Graham

[DVV]

Nice words, Graham.

Although I'm Catholic, I had accepted that it was a fake (apparently from the 14th century), until I read more. Now we know that the samples they have used are a mix of different fibres from different periods ("original" ones + 16th century).

At the present time, the C14 dating is meaningless, as demonstrated, I repeat, by Raymond Rogers (thanks to the Marino-Benford hypothesis, that turned out to be true).

Fake not proven yet.

Amitiés all

[Graham]

There's a Persil commecercial in here somewhere.

You mean as in:

"Bleedin' hell, Simon Peter! I bin washin' this soddin' Shroud for the last fortnight and can I get rid of that image of the Saviour? Can I bloody hell! Well, that's the last Shroud I ever wash for you, pal, Persil or no friggin' Persil. You come 'ere wiv yer Shrouds and yer flippin' marks of the nails and expect me ter perform miracles, eh, wot?"

Graham

[Robert]

There's a Persil commecercial in here somewhere.

[Graham]

There was a recent programme about the Shroud (I think it was repeated on British TV last night, although I didn't see it) which suggested that it was a very early, if not the earliest example of photography. The suggestion was that the cloth was treated with a silver compound, and then suspended inside a camera-obscura while the image of a body was directed onto it from outside. Well, maybe. Possibly someone like Leonardo really did go to the trouble of using a crucified corpse (but how?), and for what purpose? To fool someone? To show the world from a non-believer's viewpoint that the faithful could be easily misled?

For me, as a non-believer, the image just doesn't seem real - it's all out of proportion for a start. And if it really was the result of some kind of reaction with aloe and myrrh, then why are there not other examples of this kind of thing coming down to us over the centuries? I can't accept that it really is the true likeness of Christ.

Sara, please don't feel for one moment that you have in some way to apologise for starting this thread, or for believing in the authenticity of the Shroud. I for one respect your faith.

Regards,

Graham

[bolo]

Evening all,

when I was 11, I came across a book on the shroud of Turin in my father's study. It contained a brief history of the shroud, some insight into the controversy around its authenticity and a chapter on the methods and medical aspects of crucifixion. This last part proved to be a gruesome read, specially for a little boy of 11.

Many years later I read Jesus starb nicht am Kreuz. Die Botschaft des Turiner Grabtuchs (Jesus did not die on the cross. The message of the shroud of Turin), by Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten (1998). According to their research, the Vatican faked the result of the radiocarbon dating and surpressed other evidence which would have shown that the shroud is real and was used as a bandage soaked with aloe and myrrh that was placed over Jesus' maltreated body in order to heal his wounds. The negative image we see on the shroud is the result of a chemical reaction of myrrh and aloe with blood and sweat of the body. Gruber and Kersten believe that Jesus was still alive when Roman soldiers took him off the cross and handed his apparently dead body over to Joseph of Arimathea who then transferred the coma patient to his "healing cave".

The structure and arguments of the authors are well presented and laid out but... well... higher powers, surpressed evidence, powerful organisations... doesn't that ring a bell?

In short, I'm a fence sitter in this regard, if it's real, it's real, if not, I won't cry myself to sleep over it.

Regards,

Boris

[DVV]

Hello Sara,

are you sure you are talking to me ? or about my post ?

[SaraCarter33]

belinda i have always been a firm believer in it and i will not give reasons why i strongly believe in it, and i have had a long interest in it for a very long time. and it is impossible to fake such a thing as the shroud of turin and you and nobody else will ever change my mind.


@DVV i very much disagree with the shroud being wrapped over a statue it does not make any sense.


i am very sorry for even making this topic cause i did not think it would cause such a stir sheesh. when it comes to this topic one of my main interests besides jack the ripper. i stick to my guns and i stick to my beliefs sorry but that is the way it is.

[DVV]

My belief is that it was a cloth wrapped over a statue, otherwise hair and flesh wouldn't show up equally well. It was then apparently doctored up with blood stains and the like. The figure never looked proportionate to me either and the man looks about 73 instead of 33 years old so count me well out for now. Nobody protested the carbon 14 until they didn't get the result they wanted either. I have no problem if you think it's real though because there's still some chance that it could be.

Hi Stan,

Ray Rogers himself has finally invalidated the carbon 14 test, when he realized that the samples used contained two different fibres from two different periods (see his 2005 article).
As to the age of the figure, it's really impossible to estimate (even if it was Jesus, he was already dead - a painful death, btw - and Jesus never died at 33, but rather at about 37 /40).
I'm not saying it's the Christ shroud, but that the problem is still unsolved.

Amitiés,
David

[sdreid]

My belief is that it was a cloth wrapped over a statue, otherwise hair and flesh wouldn't show up equally well. It was then apparently doctored up with blood stains and the like. The figure never looked proportionate to me either and the man looks about 73 instead of 33 years old so count me well out for now. Nobody protested the carbon 14 until they didn't get the result they wanted either. I have no problem if you think it's real though because there's still some chance that it could be.

[belinda]

'There hasn't been enough testing done on it either way. Too much is invested in it for it to be proven to be anything.


It's really not very feasable and also the fake relic trade was at it's height at that time.

You don't have to apologise for believing in it anymore than anybody else does for not believing it to be real.

The Davinci theory is an interesting one.

You may have guessed by now that I am not religious though I do find theology interesting

Sara just wondering what made you a firm believer in it? Do you have a long time interest in it?

[DVV]

Hello Sara,

at the present time, all we can say is "fake not proven".
And that's the conclusion of Raymond Rogers himself. His 2005 article is essential to understand the problem.

Amitiés,
David