shroud of turin

Real or fake? I saw a pretty good special on it and USA Today's Life section did a compelling piece on some ancient pollen found in Israel oh about 2000 years old and now extinct. I am unsure but it's pretty interesting.

Some Science on the Shroud

Very interesting. The discovery channel special went into all the theories and then disarmed them. I have heard that it was an elaborate hoax by Da Vinci, supposedly a member of an underground secret society who hated the church and snubbed it in various works of art.

This special went into why it was not painted on as some surmise, how it is consistent with the earliest drawings of Jesus (not the blond haired blue eyed effemenate rendition), how it's wounds were anatomically correct (like nail prints in wrist not hands etc.). It was pretty compelling.

Didn't look at Rastus link cause I don't have time right now. But there has been some reasonable doubt in regards to the carbon dating also, not all carbon dating just in this instance.

the rev

The link goes into that doubt in what I considered to be an even-handed way.

Very good link.

I have found some of the "skeptic" claims of fruad unfounded and even silly in the past.

If it is real, and if that is really the blood of Christ, I can't see a reason why we shouldn't clone him.

Is it even blood? I saw a show on the discovery channel that said it was only red clay or paint from the middle ages.

Think how much money relics could bring in back in the middle ages, why not make a fake one if you didn't have a real one?

I bet who ever made the shroud got reall rich of off people visiting the church it was housed in.

"Think how much money relics could bring in back in the middle ages, why not make a fake one if you didn't have a real one?"

I think that explains 99.99% of organized religion. Maybe 100%, but Im willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The show I saw said it was red ochre(sp).

If you want to see just one inconsistancy put something that will show on cloth on your face. Then place the cloth on your face. Does the imprint look anything like you?

And the radiocarbon dating was verified and shown to be consistant from three independent sources in Arizona and I think Sweden. The only people who say it's inconsistant are the True Believers who won't accept any other answer.

I have no agenda concerning the shroud, I don't care.

But what I had heard was in this kind of situation, where you have a porous material, and dust from hundreds of years that the carbon dating can be problematic and sometimes read as much as half as young. They went into the science of it, and it made sense. This was discovered working on something else, not the shroud.

There is also no explaination I have heard for the existence of spores that are only found in a small region in Jerusalem.

Like I said my faith has nothing to do with this relic.

the rev

There is historical mention of what "may" be the shroud dating back to 544.

Below are the "thoughts" of one person (who I believe entered into his study a skeptic). He is stating what he believes would be required for it to be a fruad.

1. The forger first painted the bloodstains before he painted the image.

2. The forger integrated forensic qualities to his image that would only be known 20th century science.

3. The forger duplicated blood flow patterns in perfect forensic agreement to blood flow from the wrists at 65° from vertical to suggest the exact crucifixion position of the arms.

4. The forger "painted" the blood flows with genuine group AB blood that he had "spiked" with excessive amounts of bilirubin since the forger knew that severe concussive scourging with a Roman flagrum would cause erythrocyte hemolysis and jaundice.

5. The forger "plotted" the scourge marks on the body of the "man in the shroud" to be consistent under forensic examination with two scourgers of varying height.

6. The forger also duplicated abrasion and compression marks on the scourge wounds of the shoulders to suggest to 20th century forensic examiners that the "man in the shroud" had carried a heavy weight following the scourging.

7. The forger, against all convention of medieval artistry, painted the body he was "hoaxing" as Jesus of Nazareth, nude to conform to genuine Roman crucifixions.

8. The forger, as the forensic genius he was, illustrated the nails of crucifixion accurately through the wrists rather than the hands as in all other conventional medieval representations. He also took into account that the thumbs of a crucified victim would rotate inward as a result of median nerve damage as the nails passed through the spaces of Destot.

9. The forger was clever enough to "salt" the linen with the pollens of plants indigenous only to the environs of Jerusalem in anticipation of 20th century palynological analysis.

10. The forger was an artist who surpassed the talents of all known artists to the present day, being able to "paint" an anatomically and photographically perfect human image in a photographic negative manner, centuries before photography, and be able to do so without being able to check his work, close up, as he progressed.

11. The forger was able to paint this image with some unknown medium using an unknown technique, 30-40 feet away in order to discern the shadowy image as he continued.

12. The forger was clever enough to depict an adult with an unplaited pony-tail, sidelocks and a beard style consistent with a Jewish male of the 1st century.

13. The forger thought of such minute details as incorporating dirt from the bare feet of the "man in the shroud" consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the environs of Jerusalem.

14. This forger was such an expert in 20th century biochemistry, medicine, forensic pathology and anatomy, botany, photography and 3-D computer analysis that he has foiled all the efforts of modern science. His unknown and historically unduplicated artistic technique surpasses all great historical artists, making the pale efforts of DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael and Botticelli appear as infantile scribblings.

If the Shroud of Turin is a forgery of the 14th century, as the radiocarbonists claim, and not a genuine artifact of the 1st century, all of these qualities of the purported medieval "forger" must be accepted. If the Shroud was "forged" it would have to have been painted.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is NO paint or pigment on the Shroud of Turin leaving the only explanation of

Yeah, Ihave read that it's a fake but nobody knows how they pulled it off (see scuffler's post). I'm with the Rev on this one. My faith is not dependent on it but I do think it's neat-o.

Wow,! That's incredible. I saw the special but you summarized it perfectly. My faith is not dependent on it, but it's always been very compelling to me!

Thanks rooster, but to be fair I should point out that is the work of Jack Kilmon, I just copied it.

Might as well post from an opposing view point:1. It is clear in the Bible and from Jewish burial customs that several pieces of cloth were used in Christ's burial -- not one large sheet like the shroud. In John 20:5–7 we find that there was a separate piece wrapped around Christ's head, yet the Shroud of Turin depicts a face on the sheet. 2. The Bible indicates that Jesus was bound with linen strips, not wrapped in a large cloth (see John 19:40). The authoritative record of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is contained in the Bible, and the Bible mentions nothing of a shroud. 3. Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, said that fibers from the part of the cloth that supposedly represented the figure of Christ were imbued with a pale, gelatin-based medium speckled with particles of red ochre. 4. He also found that fibers from the "wounds" were stained not with blood but with particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth. He concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud.5. In the 1980s, Jesuit priest Robert A. Wild expressed surprise that the bloodstains, if they were really blood, showed no trace of smearing in all the movement and transportation the body would have endured. 6. Wild also noted that the hands of the body perfectly concealed the genitals. He said this couldn't be right, because no matter how one arranges a body after rigor mortis, the hands cannot be made to cover the genitals unless the elbows are propped up on the body and the hands bound tightly in place. Yet this is not what the shroud's image shows. 7. The first record of the shroud's appearance seems to be in 1353, when Geoffrey de Charny donated it to the small local church in the French town of Lirey. Three years later, in 1356, the bishop of the region wrote to the pope, in Latin, telling of his annoyance that certain people wanted this "painted" cloth exhibited as the burial cloth of Christ. The bishop added that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, "after diligent inquiry and examination," had found the artist who painted it, who attested that "it was the work of human skill and not miraculously wrought." Interestingly, this date accords with the carbon-14 tests, which dated the shroud to about the first quarter of the 1300s, and with art expert Walter McCrone's estimate of the age based on known painting styles (see point 4 above). 8. The verses that tell of Joseph of Arimathea's wrapping Jesus in linen cloth are Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, and John 19:40. According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible, the Greek words used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (entulisso and eneileo) mean "to roll in, wind in", "to twist, to entwine", "to enwrap", "to wrap by winding tightly". Winding, twisting and entwining imply wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single shroud. But if they did mean a single sheet, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke would conflict with John 19:40, which is clearer by using the Greek word othonion, meaning "linen bandage" (Strong's concordance). Had a single linen sheet like the shroud been meant, the word used should have been othone -- a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet).From this it seems that all four Gospel writers were telling us that Jesus was wrapped in the customary long strips of linen. Even if the shroud were proved to be 2000 years old -- and it certainly hasn't -- with such strong arguments against the Shroud of Turin being Christ's burial cloth, extreme caution should be taken against accepting it as genuinely showing an image of the body of Jesus Christ.

For Scrapper, a link.According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356. The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium.Wait, I thought it was an irrefutable fact that there was no paint on the Shroud. The "facts" about the Shroud all have the cold fusion vibe. "We've seen it, we've proved it is genuine, but you can't see our methods or look at the Shroud yourselves".

Interesting debate...if it's a painting, it's a pretty wonderous work.

FACT: Iron Oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth.

These findings stimulated additional attention to the bloodstains on the cloth. Were these genuine bloodstains or were they "painted" with some form of iron-oxide containing red pigment? This issue was addressed by experts in blood analysis, Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute and Dr. Alam Adler of Western Connecticut State University. Drs. Heller and Adler went far beyond the mere optical examination of McCrone. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike artist's pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure. They discovered, through research into the procedures of flax preparation and linen manufacture, that pure iron oxide is normal to the process of fermenting (retting) the flax in large outdoor vats of water.

Working independantly with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler's findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group.

It is very suggestive that the face of the "man of the shroud" and its unique features has been depicted on iconography dating as early as the 6th century CE. Superimposition of the shroud face with the 6th century icon from St. Catherine's monastery in the Sinai shows 170 points of congruity (Whanger, A. Applied Optics 24, no. 16, 1985, pp 766-772) as does the shroud face with the gold solidus of Justinian II (692 CE). Although this is very suggestive, one could pose that much of the iconography of the Byzantine period had some, now unknown, model and if the shroud was an artifice of 14th century Europe, an icon could have been used as a model. This would be a valid scientific counter-point. What would be required would be a depiction of what would be unmistakeably the shroud in a document or icon that pre-dates the 14th century date offered by the radiocarbon results. Such a representation would have to feature some unique characteristic of the shroud. Such a representation does indeed exist.

Sometime in the distant past, the folded shroud was subjected to abuse with a "hot poker," perhaps as an act of vandalism to a "Christian relic" or a "test of fire" by a zealous Christian. When folded, the four burn holes are arranged in an "L" shaped pattern. The unfolded shroud displays four sets of these four burn holes symetrically on both the dorsal and frontal halves of the shroud, evidence of the "hot poker" having penetrated the folded layers of the cloth. These burn holes are unique to the Shroud of Turin. In the Byzantine Christian era, the "gamma" and notched bands of Jewish talitoth were used as decorations on tunics and altar cloths. The Christians who adopted these patterns apparently were unaware that the band and the gamma were used on tunics of men (band) and women (gamma) respectively. See Yigael Yadin, Bar Kochba 1971, Random House, Chapter 7 "The Wardrobe" Pp 66-85. During the Byzantine period, around the 5th and 6th centuries, just at the time the "Image of Edessa" was rediscovered in the city wall, the "gamma" marking was used on altar cloths which were called "Gammadia." Did some overzealous Christian or vandal have this in mind when he burned the "gamma" shaped figure into the folded cloth?

"Hot poker" holes in Shroud

An illustration of the entombed and enshrouded Jesus of Nazareth is found in a prayer book from Budapest known as the "Pray Manuscript." The illustration not only depicts the unique "L" pattern of burn holes but also the unique weave pattern of the shroud. There can be no mistake that the Pray Manuscript of 1192 was modeled from the Shroud of Turin. So much for the 14th century date claimed by the flawed radiocarbon dating and certainly support for Drs. Kouznetsov, Mattingly and Garza.