The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[Ivan Seeking]

We already have a thread about this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151666&highlight=Shroud+Turin"

Threads merged at post 64

 

[hypatia]

I have often wondered if it was the cadaverine gases{their are 30 such known gases} mixing with some type of emollient, used on the corpse, that made the image.

 

[MotoH]

Can clothe really last 2000 years? I am assuming after the apostles died, there was a time where religious items pertaining to Jesus were just scattered about. Couple that with a very improper way to store it for 1500 years, and I don't think it would last that long.

Was there a shroud that wrapped Jesus before he neatly folded it and descended into hell? Yes there was. Is this that same exact shroud? Probably not. But it still represents something very, very important.

It is the idea behind the shroud, and not the authenticity of the shroud that matters. (to me at least)

 

[baywax]

I have often wondered if it was the cadaverine gases{their are 30 such known gases} mixing with some type of emollient, used on the corpse, that made the image.

The key here is the keystone effect that takes place when a fabric is wrapped around a relief or fully three dimensional object. If gasses had gassed off and created some sort of image the image would be distorted almost beyond recognition once the cloth was laid flat... the only way that an image as proportionate could have been projected on the the cloth and kept the depiction of the body in tact is by photographic technique... such as using a camera obscura and a photo sensitive emulsion to capture the features of the cadaver(s).

I put a plural on cadavers because the front image of the figure has turned out to be about 5 inches taller than the back image. This indicates there were two sessions of burning the images in the attempt to show one figure wrapped up in one long piece of cloth.

 

[GeorginaS]

It is the idea behind the shroud, and not the authenticity of the shroud that matters. (to me at least)

What's the idea that's so important? As best I can tell it's somebody trying to perpetrate a fraud on the population at large for propaganda purposes or personal gain at the time or something along those lines.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that the shroud actually is 2,000 years old because they carbon dated a repaired corner. There's absolutely nothing that proves the piece of cloth wrapped any specific individual.

Anyway, if you look back in this thread, someone recently replicated the technique using technologies available at the time the cloth is dated. So.

 

[zomgwtf]

Was there a shroud that wrapped Jesus before he neatly folded it and descended into hell? Yes there was.

Uh... there was?

But it still represents something very, very important.

And what exactly is so important that it is representing? The lengths to which some will go to mislead entire populations of people? I guess that's something very important and something us humans should be proud of.

It is the idea behind the shroud, and not the authenticity of the shroud that matters. (to me at least)

Interesting... so the idea to mislead, purposely, an entire population of people is more important than it actually being the real shroud which covered Jesus? I think that's bogus.

 

[MotoH]

I guess you have to understand the significance of Jesus dying in order to understand the idea behind the shroud.

The shroud of turin represents the idea of Jesus being wrapped in a clothe when he was taken off of the cross and placed in his tomb.

 

[zomgwtf]

I guess you have to understand the significance of Jesus dying in order to understand the idea behind the shroud.

I guess you have to understand this is a forgery so the story of Jesus dying is only significant in the 'it's going to fool the most people' aspect.

 

[TurtleMeister]

There's also the theory that the image on the shroud was created photographically by Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

[GeorginaS]

I guess you have to understand the significance of Jesus dying in order to understand the idea behind the shroud.

The shroud of turin represents the idea of Jesus being wrapped in a clothe when he was taken off of the cross and placed in his tomb.

What makes you think I don't understand the theological relevance of the story of Jesus dying?

That someone created a forgery for either personal gain or try to add some credence to the story is lying on behalf of Jesus. That's blasphemy, is it not?

 

[baywax]

I guess you have to understand this is a forgery so the story of Jesus dying is only significant in the 'it's going to fool the most people' aspect.

My theory is that Leonardo Da Vinci created the hoax as payback to the church for indiscretions that had taken place between the two, earlier on in Da Vinci's life (during which the man invented the camera obscura)

It would be an interesting study to aggressively investigate the origins of the story of the whole execution on the cross thing and who died for what cause etc...

There are two main secular beliefs that I can think of right now.

One: is that the person on the cross was a stand in and was deceptively identified as Jesus by Judas to protect what was the leader of a large revolt against Roman ideology.

Two: the story of a gentle and forgiving Jesus is a cover story masking the actual life of Spartacus whose own revolution came very close to ending Roman ideology. In both cases the story contains reference to execution by crucifixion.

 

[zomgwtf]

My theory is that Leonardo Da Vinci created the hoax as payback to the church for indiscretions that had taken place between the two, earlier on in Da Vinci's life (during which the man invented the camera obscura)

It would be an interesting study to aggressively investigate the origins of the story of the whole execution on the cross thing and who died for what cause etc...

There are two main secular beliefs that I can think of right now.

One: is that the person on the cross was a stand in and was deceptively identified as Jesus by Judas to protect what was the leader of a large revolt against Roman ideology.

Two: the story of a gentle and forgiving Jesus is a cover story masking the actual life of Spartacus whose own revolution came very close to ending Roman ideology. In both cases the story contains reference to execution by crucifixion.

The part about Da vinci was new information I've never heard about before. Thanks, do you have any sources for that or is it just a personal hunch I'd be interested in reading that further.

As for the two lines of beliefs, I haven't looked too deeply into them but I've heard of both stories, and others.

 

[baywax]

The part about Da vinci was new information I've never heard about before. Thanks, do you have any sources for that or is it just a personal hunch I'd be interested in reading that further.

As for the two lines of beliefs, I haven't looked too deeply into them but I've heard of both stories, and others.

There are websites along the same lines (da Vinci hoaxing the church with the shroud)... but CSI hasn't weighed in on the case...

Here are some of the evidences pointing in that direction...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html

and...

THE COMMISSION FOR THE SHROUD

There is evidence of Leonardo receiving a commission that could have been for the Shroud, by a powerful family under the name of the ‘House of Savoy’ in Sardinia, Italy. When Leonardo received the commission for the Shroud he was expected to create an advanced painting on the cloth of linen. However, Leonardo's method of genius demanded of him to push the frontier of his abilities and so (instead of creating a Da Vinci painting) he instead devised and applied the method of instilling a negative photograph on the shroud that subtly projected an image of Jesus.

Leonardo had previously worked for a member of the House of Savoy by the name of Giuliano de Medici, which he had become friends with. It is believed that Leonardo received the commission in 1492 at the age of 40 to create specifically a Da Vinci painting on the shroud. Upon its completion, the family’s expectations were not met and they instead received an extremely faint ghost figure on the cloth. The virtues and subtly of the work passed them by! There is said to be a record of Leonardo being refused payment for a commission by the family.

http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/da-vinci-invention-turin-shroud.html

 

[MotoH]

The shroud was transferred for its safety to the Benedictine sanctuary of Montevergine in Avellino, in the southern Campania region of Italy in 1939 and was only transferred to Turin in 1946.

The current director of the library at the abbey, Father Andrea Cardin, said the reason behind the move was because Hitler was "obsessed" with the sacred relic.

Both the Vatican and the Italian royal family, the Savoys, who were the guardians and owners of the shroud, feared that the German leader, who had an interest in the esoteric, might try to steal the linen cloth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7560669/Hitler-wanted-to-steal-Turin-Shroud.html"

Interesting!

 

[lisab]

It's on display again - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8613258.stm" .

Honestly, I've seen better images of Jesus on toast.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Ok... weird... I'm listening to 'Death Masks' by Jim Butcher (fun, corny urban fantasy, hence the audiobook as background noise)... which concerns the theft of the shroud of Turin.

There are three "Knights of The Cross", each with a sword that may or may not have been made with one of the nails from 'the crucifixtion'. One of them is an atheist. I like that.

Anyway, I wonder why the mystery is still alive?! Could it be... that The Vatican believes in faith... or that doubt+faith=revenue? I wonder...

@Lisab: Agreed, but don't you regret eating that toast, now that a sandwich sold for 30,000 USD?! Actually, that makes me want to eat toast with cyanide, but that's humanity for you. :yuck:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Anyway, I wonder why the mystery is still alive?! Could it be... that The Vatican believes in faith... or that doubt+faith=revenue? I wonder...

IIRC, The Catholic Church has never claimed that the shroud is authentic.

Maybe this has already been adressed but there were two objections to the carbon dating: First, the shroud had been damaged in a fire. The section tested was a section that had been repaired [allgedly replaced] in the 1500s or 1600s. Next, there was an enzyme on the material that could have also affected the results. Even the scientist who invented carbon dating admitted that this was a possible problem.

Have these two issues been resolved or not?

 

[Dav333]

I watched this Doco & was not convinced. But also find it hard to believe anyone cold fabricate this. Even in today's age?

 

[CEL]

I watched this Doco & was not convinced. But also find it hard to believe anyone cold fabricate this. Even in today's age?

Some time ago I saw a documentary with a researcher who painted a statue of a bearded man with oil and wrapped it with a shroud. The oil stained the cloth, providing an image of the statue.
This is perfectly compatible with medieval technology.

 

[Frame Dragger]

IIRC, The Catholic Church has never claimed that the shroud is authentic.

Maybe this has already been adressed but there were two objections to the carbon dating: First, the shroud had been damaged in a fire. The section tested was a section that had been repaired [allgedly replaced] in the 1500s or 1600s. Next, there was an enzyme on the material that could have also affected the results. Even the scientist who invented carbon dating admitted that this was a possible problem.

Have these two issues been resolved or not?

My point was precisely that confirmation is not in their best interests, as they deal in doubt and faith, not certainties. The issue isn't dating the shroud, unless you already believe it COULD be a burial cloth, COULD have an "image" of christ on it, etc...

As CEL points out, there have been more than one (successful) attempts to recreate a "shroud of turin" using medieval technology, and it's incredibly easy using oils, mild acids (lemon juice...) and more. Dating it would be interesting, but it would also mean that the people who believe in it, would be disabused of that notion BY the church. Doubt works for everyone here, at least, it works if you're not hoofing it to see the shroud.

 

[GeorginaS]

I watched this Doco & was not convinced. But also find it hard to believe anyone cold fabricate this. Even in today's age?

It has been recreated, in today's age, even, using medieval technology.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19191-Tucson-Metaphysical--Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m10d5-Italian-scientist-claims-proof-that-the-Shroud-of-Turin-is-a-fake"

 

[Frame Dragger]

It has been recreated, in today's age, even, using medieval technology.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19191-Tuc...ims-proof-that-the-Shroud-of-Turin-is-a-fake"

Close... "You played it for her, you can play it for me!"

 

[CEL]

Of course, the fact that one could fake a shroud using medieval technology does not prove that the original shroud is a fake.
In the other way, even if tests proved that the shroud is from a first century burial, it would not prove that the cadaver in it was Jesus.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I still find it stunning, given the challenges inherent in the art of history, that anyone could believe confirmation of biblical mythology or related artifacts would be possible. Anyway, CEL is right, and even more so because this is purely an issue of WANTING to believe this. If not Turin, the Lourdes... if not that... etc... etc...

 

[GeorginaS]

Of course, the fact that one could fake a shroud using medieval technology does not prove that the original shroud is a fake.
In the other way, even if tests proved that the shroud is from a first century burial, it would not prove that the cadaver in it was Jesus.

Of course creating a new one does not prove the veracity of the first nor does it divulge whose likeness is associated with the first.

One of the long-held myths and part of the cachet of the Shroud of Turin has been the fallacy that no one else has been able to duplicate the thing. That's long been part of the associated lore that supposedly lent credence to the notion that the Shroud had to be a "miracle" because no one else had ever been able to duplicate it. So that's what the point of someone being able to make another, not using modern technology, is about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My point was precisely that confirmation is not in their best interests, as they deal in doubt and faith, not certainties. The issue isn't dating the shroud, unless you already believe it COULD be a burial cloth, COULD have an "image" of christ on it, etc...

As CEL points out, there have been more than one (successful) attempts to recreate a "shroud of turin" using medieval technology, and it's incredibly easy using oils, mild acids (lemon juice...) and more. Dating it would be interesting, but it would also mean that the people who believe in it, would be disabused of that notion BY the church. Doubt works for everyone here, at least, it works if you're not hoofing it to see the shroud.

I don't see how your point is valid here. The church has made the cloth available for testing a number of times. Clearly they are not trying to hide anything. My understanding is that the repair was noticed by a textiles expert after the carbon dating was done.

So then I assume that the age of the cloth is not yet known; thus the claim that it was the burial cloth of Jesus has not been debunked?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, at one time there were claims that pollen from plant indigenous to the Jerusalem area around 1 AD, were found. Does anyone know if this claim stands or not?

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't see how your point is valid here. The church has made the cloth available for testing a number of times. Clearly they are not trying to hide anything. My understanding is that the repair was noticed by a textiles expert after the carbon dating was done.

So then I assume that the age of the cloth is not yet known; thus the claim that it was the burial cloth of Jesus has not been debunked?

The age of the cloth is not relevant unless you believe a corpse can leave such an image. Reproductions have all been intetional. Dating it only matters if you think there was a Jesus Christ who died in the manner described, was wrapped in that cloth, and made a negative image of himself.

As for making it available, they have certainly been willing for a very fractional portion of its history, although to be fair carbon dating is the first marginally reliable method around. That said, why NOT make something which you've long since established as a relic in the minds of many, available for some testing?

The entire discussion of the shroud as a burial cloth is based on religion to begin with, much as a search for Noah's Ark. Finding a boat doesn't really matter, even if it is, "Amongst the mountains of Ararat," unless you think that is in some way proof or evidence CAN be found. I'm sorry, but I have little faith in heavily edited, translated, and expurgated literature that has been evolving in some form since Sumer and Babylon were the going thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The age of the cloth is not relevant unless you believe a corpse can leave such an image. Reproductions have all been intetional. Dating it only matters if you think there was a Jesus Christ who died in the manner described, was wrapped in that cloth, and made a negative image of himself.

As for making it available, they have certainly been willing for a very fractional portion of its history, although to be fair carbon dating is the first marginally reliable method around. That said, why NOT make something which you've long since established as a relic in the minds of many, available for some testing?

The entire discussion of the shroud as a burial cloth is based on religion to begin with, much as a search for Noah's Ark. Finding a boat doesn't really matter, even if it is, "Amongst the mountains of Ararat," unless you think that is in some way proof or evidence CAN be found. I'm sorry, but I have little faith in heavily edited, translated, and expurgated literature that has been evolving in some form since Sumer and Babylon were the going thing.

Your personal preferences are of no interest in this context. What matters is whether the claim has been debunked. Also, as stated earlier, I don't believe the church has ever claimed that the cloth is authentic. They too seem to view this matter as unresolved even given their beliefs.

What about motive? Does the church make money with this? If so, how, and please present the evidence.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Your personal preferences are of no interest in this context. What matters is whether the claim has been debunked. Also, as stated earlier, I don't believe the church has ever claimed that the cloth is authentic. They too seem to view this matter as unresolved even given their beliefs.

What about motive? Does the church make money with this? If so, how, and please present the evidence.

I would like to know what you mean by my personal preferences. I'm saying that dating the cloth, and it being a shroud for ANYONE, AND it being the shroud of a quasi-mythical individual from at LEAST 2K years ago... has nothing to do with it being authentic. The NOTION of the shroud as authentic, is based on the a priori assumption that it COULD be. One way or another, it's an article of faith, and after that fire, even if http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/36027227/ns/technology_and_science-science/" confirmed a date, it wouldn't be accepted by many. We're talking about people who see the virgin in toast, or jesus in wood-paneling... I don't think radiocarbon dating is really the issue.

Ok, I might be completely off-base here, but I get the strong sense that I'm stepping on your metaphorical toes here... and I don't want to do that. I think based on what you're saying, that I should probably withdraw from this thread post haste. I am yet to experience a good outcome in a "does the church make money from X" discussion, on or offline.

 

[Hestia]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

 

[CEL]

I know of many things that the ''church'' has done which if they were to come to general, public light would destroy the church. As for the shroud i would not be surprised if it was a fake, it will certainly not be the first time they made something up just so that more people could believe in Jesus

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

 

[jreelawg]

The Sudarium of Oviedo is a cloth that supposedly covered Jesus's face. It has blood stains which precisely match the blood stains of the shroud. Supposedly a forensic analysis has proven that the two covered the same person. The Sudarium of Oviedo has supposedly been in spain since 631 AD giving doubt to the carbon dating of the shroud.

I don't know where to get a good source for this. I saw it on a history channel documentary. You could tell beyond a doubt that the shroud, and the sudarium were either from the same body, or the shroud was created to match the sudarium, because it's a perfect match.

 

[Hestia]

Do you mind to mention some of those things you know?

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?
2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)
3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

 

[CEL]

I do but i will mention some. 1. Have you seen the amount of symbolism in their mass?

Symbolism is a constant in the rites of every religion.

2. Jesus, like many other heroes from ancient civilizations ''died for his people'', and he has the characteristics like all the others(born on the 25 dec/mothers name starts with m/died\went to the underworld to fight evil and rose on the day of the spring equinox, that kind of stuff)

The winter solstice and the spring equinox were holidays for the Romans and were adapted to Christianity in the fourth century CE.
Osiris died, resurrected and went to judge the dead, just like Christ.

3. Ever wonder why the bible is ''the word of God''? I mean did God come down her and tell them what to write? Heck no! The books are just accounts of people who saw things in their own perspective, and wrote about them. Then some guys came and compiled the ones they thought fit their teachings, and made up the rest along the way. I'm not denying that some of the bible could be true, I'm just saying don't believe everything they shove down your throats. After all What is history but a fable agreed upon? - Napoleon

Only fundamentalists believe the tale that God dictated the Bible to Moses and inspired the writing of the Gospels.
Most learned Christians and Jews believe the Bible is a collection of moral teachings, with very little of real history behind.
None of those things you pointed are any threat to the Church.