Yesterday on Dec 19, an Italian scientific team published the results of a study that they believe demonstrates the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.The UK Telegraph reports that the team “conducted a series of advanced experiments which, they claim, show that the marks on the shroud – purportedly left by the imprint of Christ’s body – could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period.” Here’s a link to the article.
And wouldn’t you know it, today the UK Telegraph published this article (“The Turin Shroud is Fake, Get Over It“) disputing the one that appeared the day before.
One cannot help but notice the timing of both these pieces. The first for sure is not aimed at undermining faith in birth of Christ, celebrated of course at Christmas. But neither is the second. After chiding those who believe the shroud is an authentic burial relic of Christ, the author notes (correctly): “It’s a fascinating and mysterious object, but it says nothing about the questions of whether Christ was a historical figure, whether He was the Son of God, or whether He rose from the dead.”
Personally, I’m skeptical of the shroud, but would need one thing done to really kill it for good in my mind. I’d like to see a new series of dating tests. Specifically, I’d like to see tests performed that would lay to rest (or affirm) the suspicions concerning the C-14 testing voiced by physical chemist Raymond Rogers, and that would do the same in regard to the DNA research of Dr. Leoncio Garza-Valdes. Dr. Garza-Valdes is an expert in forensic DNA analysis who developed a method for detecting the presence of an organic bacterial coating that sometimes forms over time on ancient textiles, which could in turn have distorted the dating of the shroud. He detailed his discovery and his wish to have the shroud retested in his 2001 book, The DNA of God?
I’m not holding my breath on any new testing, nor can I say I care that much, as I don’t see the authenticity of the shroud as integral to whether a person ought to embrace or reject Christianity. It would just be nice to know with greater certainty, one way or the other.
Heh. The minute I saw the article online, I could only wonder how long it would be until you addressed it!
Thank you very much for this piece. Yes, if there ARE really any doubts, then the tests should be done again. But — as a Christian — I am very cynical about this.
I remember when the Shroud was first unmasked by C14 testing. The publishers, who had been making a nice living out of selling books etc about it, were horrified. Then they rallied, and started selling books with “read the story for yourself” stuff in it. And then they tried to find some way — any way — to cast doubts on the test results. The initial attempts were rather pathetic, but, hey, this was real money we were talking about here, and it didn’t matter much if the efforts were a bit sad so long as they could keep the industry alive. And over time they’ve created this “uncertainty”.
The technical term for all this is “simony”.
I think the shroud is dubious, but I don’t like outliers when it comes to data or testing data.
MY ONLINE REPLY TO THE ARTICLE TONIGHT: Shalom & Erev tov…as a Torah Jew, let me point out that ‘Yeshua ben-Miriam’ was a fabrication of a late 2nd century CE Graeco-Roman revelatory death cult, which became crucifictionism. There was no man god, no disciples, no Miriam, no Yosef, no contemporaneous documentation, no parthenogensis, no ‘resurrection’, no Khristos, etc. There is, of course, the road to Auschwitz created by exterminating christianists, Rome’s last desparate attempt at a ‘final solution’ to the fact that living Jews refute their centuries of lies. ‘Paul’ was created by Marcion in the 3rd century CE. The ‘shroud’ (likely manufactured by da Vinci or a colleague) is a forgery (as were the 2nd century CE Greek texts). The Italian ‘study’ is pseudo-science. The best study exposing the Turin forgery was published in May 2010 by Gregory S. Paul at The Secular Web. STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
wow; count the non-sequiturs in this one.
Based on the Bad Archeology article, it seems this shroud is almost certainly a fake. Especially if Jewish burials use piecewise cloth of a different weave. But Keith also mentions some Bible quotes that also cast a lot of doubt on a single-piece shroud. His article also claims that the contamination was dealt with prior to the carbon dating (and they had what, 3 controls?). While I’m no expert, there seems to be very little support for the shroud as authentic. However, I do wonder if scientists were as general as possible. Perhaps resurrections produce a lot of high energy radiation or other space-time altering phenomena (even causing dried blood to be red)!
http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=322
The weird thing about the objection of the Torah Jew gentleman above is that he has precluded the centrality of his own religion although he clearly doesn’t even know that.
Unless his point is some of these things WILL be in the future, which is physically impossible since there is no documentation for a Jew after 70 AD meeting the various mandates for the God-Man as detailed in Torah and the writings and the prophets.
Anyway, I have always been skeptical about this shroud, but, the findings of how the image got there makes me think it may be a miraculous event. If the textile research were proven later to have been from Jesus’ era, I personally would assume it would have been Lazarus’ burial clothe, not Jesus’.
2 reasons.
1) The image looks too old for Jesus 2)Jesus’ burial clothe had a separate head piece according to John.
Personally I like the shroud and I find the information about it to be fairly compelling. Having said that it is certainly not an article of faith.
One note, I have heard numerous people argue that the shroud is inaccurate because it is a single piece and John describes a separate head cloth etc. This is not really a valid criticism of the shroud because the shroud claims do not state, or require, that it is the ONLY piece of cloth used in the burial.
In fact there is another relic known as the sudarium which is believed to be the head cloth described by John’s gospel. The Sudarium does not contain an image like the shroud, however from what I have read there is correlation between the blood stains on the two cloths. (Not having seen it for myself I, of course, don’t know that this is true for certain). The Sudarium has a longer established history going back to around the late 6th century I believe.
agreed on the “no article of faith”; I’d just like to see more testing that confronts the criticisms and new theories.
However the image was produced it is fascinating. I do 3D computer graphics and the 3D aspects of the shroud amaze me. It contains both projection (as in the cloth must be wrapped around a body for the image to come to right proportions) and depth (as in darker/lighter tints measure deeper bumps and hollows of the form) information.
That either of these 3D aspects was produced even as late as medieval times blows my mind. If the shroud is not miraculous my opinion is that it must have been created through some kind of ancient attempt at photography and not painting. I come to this conclusion because while I could see some of the old masters thinking in terms of projection, I don’t know why anyone before computer graphics would think in terms of depth information related to light/dark tints.
agreed as well; it’s pretty cool no matter what.
In regards to the 3D imaging have you seen the work of Nate Wilson? He has obtained similar results with painting on glass and sunlight. I’d be interested in your analysis of Wilson’s work.
http://www.shadowshroud.com/
since glass is reflective (as opposed to the shroud material) what correlation do you see?
I realize I wasn’t very clear in my previous comments…sorry about that. Wilson attempts to demonstrate that it is possible to create an image on cloth that has 3D imaging properties with materials available to someone in the 12-13th centuries. He does this by taking a darker cloth. He lays over is a piece of glass that has a picture painted on the glass. This is then put in the sun for a certain amount of time (he gives the details on his website). Over the course of a few days (I think that was the time frame) the sun bleaches the dark cloth except the portion where there was paint. This produces images that are strikingly similar to the Turin shroud. Also when these images are tested they also contain the same 3D imaging elements that the Turin shroud has. Wilson readily acknowledges that this does not solve all the “problems” or unique elements of the Turin shroud but he believes that he has demonstrated how to put an image with 3D elements on a cloth with materials available to someone in the Middle Ages. If you have the time take a look at his website–at least see the photos to see the similarity. Thanks.
ah – thanks for the clarification. Very interesting.
I was not aware of that exact experiment. Very interesting.
Could an ancient person have pulled this off? Maybe so. But why would a medieval forger attempt this or any other odd/expensive method vs normal painting techniques? A medieval forger’s goal would be to fool people from his own time, and normal painting could have done that. What would he gain by going to these extremes?
Who knows? I am reading a book called The Puzzle Instinct (recommended), and it would prompt me to ask why people were so fascinated with all sorts of puzzles (e.g., magic circles, crytpograms, number sequences – Fibonacci, etc.), so much so that they created collections and compendia for entertainment and brain teasers. I think it has something to do with a mischievous, playful side, or perhaps it’s ego — wanting to fool someone and be the sole gatekeeper of the secret.
Stephan Pickering fancies himself an expert on everything from religion to dinosaurs to Casey Anthony. He also talks to dead people via email, so there you go.
via email?!
Yes, via email. He consults with mediums, who give him long transcripts of conversations with dead people. Spirits also call him on the phone but of course no one is there. Google him.
well, I guess that’s using today’s methods to hoodwink today’s gullible.