Imagining the Shroud of Turin

And here's Dr. McCrone's paper on the analysis of the Shroud.

http://www.mcri.org/CMSuploads/the_microscope_%20shroud.pdf?PHPSESSID=9656be1b9d2c99d92e3ce850978eed10

He quotes Bishop Henri of Troyes, in whose diocese it was first exhibited, and who said it was "cunningly painted as attested by the artist who had painted it."!

He found red ocher (most of the image), and vermilion (mercury sulfide, over-painted 'blood' marks, in a chemical form first compounded in 800 AD), both in a collagen tempura binder. Note that blood does NOT contain mercury sulfide in the average person.

It's a very interesting medieval artifact, and a beautiful piece of art - not a relic of Christ. Folks should respect it for what it actually is.

You might want to look at the actual chemical and microscopic analysis of the Shroud:

http://www.mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

The wildest hypothesis I've heard concerning the shroud came to me via a Catholic priest.

1. The Catholic Church, despite it's official non-committal stance, believes that the shroud might actually be the burial shroud of Jesus.

2. The Church gave researchers pieces of the shroud for carbon dating that they knew dated to the 14th century.

3. The Church did this to discredit the shroud's authenticity.

4. The Church wanted the shroud to be discredited because certain anomalies present on the cloth (e.g. the appearance of flowing blood, not clotted/dried blood) point to a body that was not dead at the time of burial.

The Shroud of Turin is a fascinating artifact, with a storied history and long trail of examination. But the ruse is obvious in the image itself, not microscopic examination as to how it was made or of what.

Principally, a burial shroud laid on a dead body would not look so picture-like as the Turin. If the body left an image through contact, miraculously or otherwise, it would be distorted, not like a stylish portrait in shape. The cloth, as it spread down around the sides of the legs and shoulders would display broad swatches of dark impression, not the slim highlight that looks so lifelike. The back image would be spread where the buttocks and upper back lay flat, not rounded as they appear. And the lower back, just above the buttocks, would scarcely have contacted the shroud at all. The Turin body image, front and back, appears neatly rendered, as artwork. Indeed, how could hair and skin, much different in texture, leave exactly the same type and intensity of impression?

The clincher for fakery is the head. The image shows the man’s hair draped neatly down the sides of the face and hanging on the shoulders as though the corpse were standing vertically, posing. For a body laid out on a slab, the hair would not drape towards the shoulders, but dangle downwards toward the back of the head, exposing the ears. And the shroud, wrapping around the face, would show cheeks and ears in a widened, distorted view – not the crisp, front on, portrait shown here with hair neatly in place over the ears.

At the top of the head, were this legitimate, the image would wrap up over the forehead and across the top of the head and down to the back in a continuous smudge. Or, with excess cloth, it would drape around the top front of the head, showing a continuous, rounded image above the forehead – not the crisp, round portrait-like picture on the Shroud.

Clearly this image was created by some pretty clever forgers. But they made it far too life-like for a burial cloth – including phony blood splatters. The reputed scourging would have happened many hours before crucifixion such that resultant bleeding would have dried, clotted and blackened. 2000 years later, it certainly wouldn’t be bright red as seen on the Shroud.

A miracle? The miracle is that anybody believes this ruse.

A further note - according to an art conservator I know, negative paintings like the shroud were a known art form in the mid 1300's.

The Shroud is very interesting in terms of a discussion of beliefs.

However: the colors on the shroud are chemically identifiable as inks, not blood, the carbon dating places it in the 1300's, AND there's a dunning letter from the year 1357 artists - asking the church to cough up the money for creating it.

In Pittsburgh there's a fairly massive reliquary, including (if I recall correctly) the head of John the Baptist at age 12. In the Topkapi museum (Istanbul) is the right arm of John the Baptist (who really got around, it seems). There's also a box containing the foreskin of Christ (oh yes, you read that right, I've seen it) next to Jesus's cloak and sword (which is an Ottoman blade pattern, not Roman).

Relics were a big business in the Middle Ages - huge draws for the public. The vast majority have, shall we say, a rather tentative connection to reality.

Mao, Stalin and other dictators were mass killers, but their misdeeds were done in the name of various political philosophies, such as communism; the killing wasn’t done, per se, in the name of atheism. Maybe all communists are atheists, although this is debatable (e.g., Catholic Liberation Theology), but it is not true that all atheists are communists or adherents of any other statist or communalistic political dogmas. Those killed by Stalin and the like were those that held opposing economic or political views as well as religious views. Actually the Communist and fascists states made accommodations for the religious who didn’t oppose their political and social system, e.g., Mussolini’s Lateran Pact with the Pope. In Stalin’s Russia it was more lethal to be a conservative, or for that matter a liberal, than a Christian.

Sigh - another step back into the Dark ages when friars and monks went around pretending to have a "nail" or "wooden splinter" from Jesus' cross.

Shades of the Cardiff Giant.

The Shroud belongs in a museum as a valuable and interesting artifact. Connecting it to Jesus? Is their any DNA in it that could be dissolved for testing? Now that would perhaps identify race.

I respect your opinion but believe that the shroud is simply a medieval forgery. As a Catholic historian you know of the ridiculous relicts hawked around churches in the middle ages-as tourist/pilgrim attractions. Such absurdities as a drop of the Virgin's milk. There were so many pieces of the "True Cross" that you could construct a cathedral with them. Some important saints they had five hands (finger bones were nice compact relicts, easily displayed in a relquary.)

The reasons these relicts were so valuable is their supposed curative value. Thankfully, medicine has moved on so there is no reason to pray to these things.

The Catholic Church needs to move out of the 14th century into (at least) the 20th. These relicts also violate the 10 commandment injunction against worshiping idols.

Yes, Humans using "Christianity" (not actual belief in Christ's message) have killed in it's name--in the millions over 2000 years probably.

Humans using "atheism" have killed as well--think of Stalin, Mao, and yes, even Hitler (who believed in astrology which isn't atheism but God was not in his thought process...). Stalin killed over 20 million is less than 10 years....

Not trying to match numbers here. Rather human beings kill in the name of many things.

Whole civilizations have been destroyed for many things---it has much more to do with the nature of man versus the nature of God, gods or other factors.

This article isn't trying to defend Christianity--it's asking why do we need/want/look for proof of life after death or of an afterlife...and why does Humanity continue to look for this "proof".

Faith and science always are hard and strange bedfellows, but they are bedfellows.

Disregarding any spiritual faith questions, the shroud shows the image of a man who was both scourged and crucified in the Roman method. The origin of the cloth, based on pollen samples found in the cloth is Palestinian. The chain of custody of the cloth into the sixteen century, with some evidence of an earlier existence which would explain the pollen samples. The pattern on the cloth is caused by an unknown reaction of something (ammonia, energy?) with the cotton fibers almost at the microscopic level.

Here science leaves us. Insofar as we cannot explain what happened before Planck time (10 -43 seconds) of the Universe's existence, nor why some collection of 60,000 atoms are non-living protein and other 60,000 atoms life, science can't close the door. To the proponents who believe it is Jesus the Christ, they cannot disprove the null hypothesis, suppose it is not Jesus the Christ, why is the hypothesis wrong. For those who do not believe in Jesus the Christ, the opposite, of course. Can it be proved either way. No.

Was the carbon dating wrong. Enough peer reviewed studies show the strong probability of error. Would proof that the cloth is 2000 years old prove anything. No, except that it the burial cloth of someone who dies 2000 years ago. CSI gets you close, but not all the way.

Secondary questions though do exist. If the burial cloth was not of someone special, why would the binding cloths (tied the cloths to the hands and the feet)be saved and attached to a burial cloth? Wouldn't the burial cloth be enough? I think there may be 6 billion answers to that question.

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed.

All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

"Unless you think this belief isn't harmless why comment at all?" Huh? Was this said in jest? You imply that Christianity is harmless? I think the thousands and tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands burned, put to the sword, stretched on the rack, etc. would beg to differ with you. Whole civilizations and cultures have been destroyed in Christ’s name. It, along with the other Abrahamic religions, are harmful to those of other or no faith.

Terrific article. The question of the origins of the Shroud of Turin is of keen interest to Christians. But in the history of Christianity, the "vera icon", "true image" of Christ, as found from very early on in the legend of St Veronica wiping the face of Christ with her veil during His passion, and the image of the sorrowful face of the Lord being imprinted thereupon, was closely related to the controversy over the use of icons in Christian worship. Since one of the Ten Commandments states that we must not make (or worship) an image, is it not illegitimate to make (and worship with the aid of) an image of Christ? People died over this question, and a lot of art and other property was destroyed because of this question. Christian orthodoxy decisively came down on the side of the rightness of icons, precisely because God became flesh. You could see Jesus with your eyes, you could touch him, you could wipe his face with a veil and it would make a mark, or take a photograph if you had a camera. The Shoud of Turin represents important theological truths, and connects us in imagination and in history to this physicality of the living, dying, and rising of Jesus.

The previous carbon dating is held in question because the sample was taken from a corner of the shroud repaired in the middle ages and, regardless, it could have been contaminated by centuries of handling and being exposed to dust, smoke, etc. The first problem is easily solved: take several samples from different areas of the shroud. The second problem should be solvable; if not, then all carbon dating is suspect as everything is tainted by the waste of the ages; no sample of an artifact is pure. This is certainly something scientists have dealt with before.

I have never understood why those who don't believe in a creator find it necessary to point out to those who do that their "belief" is foolish. The question to me is: why do you care? Unless you think this belief isn't harmless why comment at all?

The Shroud is interesting whether it is "real" or not. It is even interesting in a scientific way as it's "creation" remains a mystery (testing continues on its date so no, it isn't a proven anything, yet.)

By the question Mr. Schmatz asks is much more important: Why do we (humanity as a whole) care? (and yes, that's all you atheists apparently as the comment here prove).

I always think of the parable in the bible told in Luke (using the voice of Christ) about the rich man who dies and goes to "Hades" as asks first that the poor man who died, Lazarus and who sits at the bosom of God, come and give him just a drop of water:
________________
"...But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’

(the rich man then) said, ‘I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won’t also come into this place of torment.’

"But Abraham said to him,
‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’

"He said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

"He said to him, ‘If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.’"
__________________

The morale of the parable being---no amount of proof of life after death with convince someone who has no faith. And it's correlary: faith needs no proof.

So why are we interested? Perhaps because our faith isn't very strong....or perhaps like the rich man we think we would be less distracted by the "things" of this world is we only "knew" there was a next. Apparently the biblical writers know, that proof doesn't really change belief. Only faith does. :-).

I thought some time back they did a carbon dating test on it and proved it was a middle ages artifact. I recall the Vatican position. ... "Ooops, we will never let be tested again."

digging in the relics .^academicly^

this is so funny ,
the *ACADEMICS* are digging in the relics looking for god?

academic delusional mentality ,can you imagine the laity,s?

the above academics is another extension of the delusionism of the greco /romanism.

another *scientific* extremism of juchristianism,another delusional attempt to prove god in the scientific *academic* laboratory.

unscientific relics brown nosed.

It has long since been well-established that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Why then this column? I suppose next will be a column wondering whether thunder is truly the sound of a thunder god.

Really. It's possible to write about religion without embracing fakery. Isn't it?

This article and the most of the comments are utter drivel. The folks are still holding this piece of rag albeit blood stained in reverence is totally delusional. Especially the carbon dating has already show that the rag is of much more of a recent origin. The author's drivel about Indian Catholics' veneration is supposed to impress us somehow, or prove the authenticity of the wretched rag. Then why doesn't the African animists' veneration to other similarly ludicrous and worthless things impress him. The ignorant catholics in India venerate the damn rag, because they were told so, just as the animists in Africa were told about their venerable things.

Look at yourself believers, you are prepared to go on pilgrimage to Turin, solely because a fake piece of rag was produced and attributed to non-existing being called Jesus of Nazareth. The original faker may not have conceived this, but somebody is making money off of your credulity. Guess who that is - the Roman Catholic Church. These good for nothing custodians of the parasitical institution called RCC (a big snake oil production system) would want you to be gullible forever.

The author seems to think, or at least wants the gullible to believe that no matter what that rag is, now that RCC has accepted the improbable possibility, that it may perhaps be stained by human blood (actually it wouldn't matter if it was just some blood) it has gained some meta-physical property. This the ever gullible ignorant catholics in India and elsewhere are fed and they swallow it hook-line-and-sinker. Then you wonder in amazement how this fakery endures the test of time. My foot test of time, Mr. Schmalz is nothing but a willing facilitator of this ugly conspiracy, to continue with the swindle of the credulous people, to part with their hard earned money. YOU OUGHT BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF MR. SCHMALZ. SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, AND SHAME ON YOU.

As per Professor Crossan's analyses as found in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones i.e. there were no shrouds for Jewish rabble rousers.

As per Professor Crossan's analyses as found in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones i.e. there was no shrouds for Jewish rabble rousers.

Yes, indeed. A shroud was found, and it just so happens that of all the millions of shrouds that had been used to wrap dead people the last 1,300 years, the one that was found was that of Jesus. Why this stunning coincidence? Well, it's no coincidence because Jesus was divine, see, that's why his shroud survived the centuries.

The writer says, "Debate about scientific proof keeps that imaginative space open. If and when science finds an explanation for the material origin of the Shroud, that still will not foreclose the imaginative associations spun out by those who gaze upon its faint outlines."

What this says is that as long as science is unable to nail down exactly the origin of the shroud, it leaves open the possibility of divine intervention, and that the die-hard believers couldn't care less what scientists say, anyway. Well, I never expected otherwise. Faith is by its very nature illogical and I don't pretend to understand it.

Bravo, Mr. Schmalz. I enjoyed your article and it gave me pause to think. I keep hoping the Shroud's mysteries will remain hidden from science. It's better that way; no proof either way.

Excellent reflection, Mr. Schmalz.

Regarding "Does it really matter whether the Shroud is real?" -- you didn't mention that, if thought to be 'real', it could convince or induce someone into joining or rejoining the church.