The Shroud Of Turin

[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

[Robert]

There's a Persil commecercial in here somewhere.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[DVV]

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

[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]

Problem is, Jonathan, that the 21st century scientists can't explain how it could have been faked in the Middle Ages.
Once again, Ray Rogers himself had to make a u-turn once he realized that Romero and Benford were right.
Not to say it can't be a fake, but that if it's a fake, it's not proven yet.

Amitiés,
David

[Jonathan H]

With all due respect, if it could be a fake then surely it probably is a fake?

The problem with scientists examining the mechanics of such a relic is that that they are not forgers, and therefore are potential marks even at this distance. Their expertise is neither painting nor forgery.

Look, take a cloth and wrap it around your wet head, and then see what sort of image you end up with of your own face?

The weight of the evidence -- the Medieval sources, plus modern DNA, plus the lack of sheer physical distortion -- screams hoax.

[DVV]

With all due respect, if it could be a fake then surely it probably is a fake?

I beg your pardon ???

The problem with scientists examining the mechanics of such a relic is that that they are not forgers, and therefore are potential marks even at this distance. Their expertise is neither painting nor forgery.

Look, take a cloth and wrap it around your wet head, and then see what sort of image you end up with of your own face?

It ain't that simple, Jonathan. Scientists are baffled, really.

The weight of the evidence -- the Medieval sources, plus modern DNA, plus the lack of sheer physical distortion -- screams hoax.

And I'm screaming it's Easter, my friend !

Give us a break, I beg you...

Amitiés.

[Ally]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1218457/Shroud-Turin-replica-proves-medieval-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

[DVV]

Not really up-to-date, Ally. They still mention the C14 datation (1260-1390) which is completely valueless, as demonstrated, once again, by Rogers himself (see his 2005 article).

Happy Easter,
David

[Celesta]

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.

Interesting you should say this, Stan. I thought that the black and white image of the face, which has been described as a negative, shown so often in the documentary the other night, resembled Medieval statues. In other words, the face seemed to be in the style prevalent in the Middle Ages and resembled the statues of saints, knights, etc.

[Ally]

Not really up-to-date, Ally. They still mention the C14 datation (1260-1390) which is completely valueless, as demonstrated, once again, by Rogers himself (see his 2005 article).

Regardless, the point is you said that scientists can't explain how the shroud could have been created in the middle ages. And you were wrong. It has not only been explained, but recreated, all using techniques and materials available in the middle ages.