The Shroud Of Turin

[Magpie]

I don't think the Shroud is "real" (i.e. the burial cloth of Christ).

On the other hand I don't believe the 487 extant foreskins of Christ are all "real" either (in the sense of being lopped off the Holy Todger).

However the former is still a fascinating artifact--not sure I'd stand in line to see the latter.

[GUT]

G'Day Magpie

You'd stand in line to see a foreskin!!!!!!!

[Magpie]

I believe I expressed some doubt on that one GUT.

Now if they were stitched together into some sort of poncho affair, I might venture a look see.

[GUT]

Sorry I missed the "not" my bad.

[Magpie]

Sorry I missed the "not" my bad.

No problem--that many foreskins in one post is gonna be a distraction, no doubt.

[GUT]

Serves em right.

[RivkahChaya]

BUMP

I've been reading a lot about the shroud in the last few days. I'm reasonably convinced by the carbon dating done in 1988 - I think the arguments against it are relatively weak. I also think the lack of provenance before the 1300's is damning. However there was almost certainly a similar image in Constantinople in 1204, and the shroud may have been a replica of that one or inspired by it.

What I still can't explain, however, is the exact manner by which it was made. The Italian forgery from 2009 comes very close, but here is an article about some differences between it and the shroud:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf

A guy named Joe Nickell has made very convincing replicas of the shroud using only materials available in the 13th century. The only thing about the replicas is that they are fresher and cleaner, which is frankly exactly how it looked on coins stamped with an image of the shroud made as souvenirs to be purchased at the first exhibition of the shroud by Geoffroi de Charny (not the knight Templar), the first owner of record of the shroud, some time in the first half of the 14th century.

The local bishop sent someone to check out this first exhibition, and the person came back, proclaiming the shroud a fraud, claiming to have talked with the artist who made it. It was the position then, and is the position now, of the official Catholic Church, that the shroud is a work of devotional art, and not the real shroud of Jesus.

It doesn't jibe with the descriptions in the bible, and any rate. More importantly, the hair is clearly the hair of an upright, not reclining figure, and there is no image of the top of the head. It's probably a pigment rubbing of a bas relief figure onto a cloth that was damp at the time and molded onto the bas relief. People made paper and cloth relief rubbings all the time then. It was a common hobby in the Middle Ages.

[RivkahChaya]

To the sensationalist theory currently being paraded on Channel 5 to the effect that Leonardo Da Vinci manufactured the Turin Shroud.

I have so many reasons I don't know where to begin.

I may very well complain. Or at least turn the channel over.

Leonardo was born in CE 1452, a little more than 100 years after the first well-documented exhibition of the shroud, of which there are existing souvenirs, and the medieval equivalent of advertising flyers-- the de Charny family made a lot of money exhibiting the shroud, both from charging admission, and selling souvenirs. You could begin there.

It's not so much that the shroud had no provenance before the de Charnys showed up with it, but suddenly after that it is everywhere.

And the middle ages were relic-crazy. People were manufacturing relics left and right, not to mention stealing them, or portions of them, from other churches. Few of them were actually sanctioned by the church, but news traveled slowly. Or, the truth did. The news that So-&-So had the bones of St. Peter traveled like a venereal disease. The Church's debunking of it got around like someone in an iron lung.

[Ginger]

People made paper and cloth relief rubbings all the time then. It was a common hobby in the Middle Ages.

Surely not a hobby for the common people? Paper and cloth were neither one cheap at the time.

[RivkahChaya]

Surely not a hobby for the common people? Paper and cloth were neither one cheap at the time.

No-- I don't think they did much but work and sleep. I mean among people who could afford to have hobbies. My point was it was a known technique for making an image.

[Sunbury]

i tend to agree but I am more cynical. Bishops needed big Cathedrals to be important and they needed money. The towns needed pilgrims as a source of income also. An example is the monks at Glastonbury Abbey "found" the remains of "King Arthur" suddenly whilst renovating and needing funds.

The Bishop of Chartres had the "Sancta Camisa", believed to be the tunic worn by the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of Christ's birth. When the old Cathedral was burnt down, the monks miraculously found it a few days later in the ruins.

Anyone looking at history of the Shroud should study Chartres Cathedral history. The Church back then was not all cherubs and niceness. The Bishop of Chartres went on the Fourth Crusade against the Cathars in Southern France specifically to loot to get monies to build the new Cathedral. That Cathedral still stands and I have visited it, it is awe inspiring, it's early history though is black.

[Patrick S]

Interesting to see the shroud discussed here. JtR, Turin Shroud, Zodiac, Pyramids, a few of my recurring areas of fascination over the past thirty-some years.

I find it interesting to observe the desire by the masses - both contemporary and ancient - interested in topics 'shrouded' (sorry) in mysteries such as these to ascribe them to well known or famous individuals.

Shroud = The Ripper

DaVinci = Walter Sickert

Of course we also have the personalization aspect, as well. "My father was......" In fact, I saw a news story today that the Zodiac case has been "solved" by a man who discovered that is own, sweet, dearly departed dad was the Zodiac. As best I could tell, the primary evidence seems to be that his dad looked like a police sketch of Zodiac after the Lake Barryessa attack.

[Harry D]

I'd love to know the process involved in making the 'Shroud', since we can safely say it is not the burial cloth of Buddy Christ (or anyone else for that matter). If it was an authentic burial cloth, it wouldn't have a perfect print of the subject's body, and the pose of the figure is impossible to replicate.

[Shelley]

Interesting

It's interesting as far as anyone can see about a death by Crucifixion, but over all it is just about blood, bad dna samples, breathings, secondary drownings, excruciating painful methods of dying ( almost certainly ! ) and a lot of heat like what you would find as a milder case of a traumatized abused BDSM or S & M victim. A very good piece was textiles to date the material which was 1st century ~ In the timeline period of AD 33.

[Shelley]

Christondom

Resurrection has never been proven fact as far as i know, a rare disorder of where people have been thought to be dead, just by memory a woman woke up in a morgue banging on the door, she was obviously in there because they thought that she was or could be dead.

As for Jesus Christ that Christendom claims through the Orthodox and Catholic Church primarily, how can anyone with absolute proof and certainty state, that the Jesus Christ of Christendom is actually The Christ that their holy book claims and their churches claim, it is only a belief, not solid evidence or fact ( And i wanna be a poe ! ) belief is a dualism, it could be right or it could be wrong. However, modern forensics which gain more credibility towards solid evidence and proof to assertain that it would be a fact and not a fiction, where was this available in AD 33? Because as far as i know this type of forensic evidence wasn't around in AD 33 for the Turin Shroud, as far as i am aware even the Catholic Church will not say anything as towards a claim that the Turin Shroud is the shroud of the Jesus Christ they uphold in their church.