The Shroud Of Turin

Myrddin

Well, its gone on display again for the first time in three years. What are peoples thoughts on it...real or fake? Is the the imprinted body of Christ, or is it the product of a master craftsman?

Many experts stand by carbon-dating of scraps of the cloth that date it to the 13th or 14th century.

However, some have suggested the dating results might have been skewed by contamination and have called for a larger sample to be analysed.

New research purports to date the linen - which some say was Jesus Christ's burial cloth - to around the time of his death.

The Vatican has tiptoed around just what the cloth is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/shroud-turin-display-tv-special-040229408.html#vlfIXCg

degrassinoel

Powerful symbol, yes.
Authentic? I doubt it.

Christianity has a whole bunch of sham relics. I think the best one I've ever seen was the rood of grace. This was basically a crucifix with an internal mechanism which made the figure of Christ nod, and blink amongst other things.
Channel 4 did a great documentary on it a few years back.
Rood of Grace

Wibbs

It's an interesting one. The vast majority of "relics" were obvious fakes to our eyes. The shroud is a much subtler piece. It's barely visible and apparently was always like that. Indeed some complained in the early days it was so underwhelming. It still looks "possible" to modern eyes. Hence we still discuss it.

Age wise? The evidence laid out against the C14 medieval date is compelling enough. Clearly there are later threads woven into the sections that were tested which would skew the results. They could test a larger peice, but I gather it was fumigated to protect it from fungal attack in the 90's which would bugger up the results.

It's history is interesting. The notion it was created by Leonardo DaVinci is a dead end as it was around before he was. Researchers have found references to another shroud going back to Byzantine times(4th century). Apparently it was rolled into a container and rolled out vertically on holy days. The one in Turin shows some evidence of these earlier folding patterns.

It's anatomically accurate with regard to crucifixion methods, unlke all other representations in art at the time(and over the centuries). Pierced through the wrists not the palms of the hands. It's also historically accurate in another way, the marks of flogging on the back. The marks show dumbell like shapes which would be the result of Roman style whips, which would be different to late medieval ones.

Another interesting bit is it's length. It's missing two bits cut off from a standard length of linen(it seems there was such a standard). The theory being one was for the head covering and the other narrower bit formed the bindings. Interestingly we we may have the head part in the Sudarium of Oviedo. The weave matches as do the blood stains and that's definitely earlier than late medieval, as it most certainly existed in the 7th century AD.

If the shroud is 14th century in origin that's damned impressive, if it's say 6th century in origin that's truly amazing. If its earlier than that it's truly a WTF? moment. To create that image and leave no pigment, get the historical and anatomic features on the money and even the length etc would require a true unknown genius back then. Hell we can't replicate it today and that's saying something.

The actual burial shroud of Jesus? That's another days work. For me the major problem with that beyond faith and all that stuff is the "look of him. The long haired bearded vibe. He may well have looked like that, but the earliest depictions don't follwo that description. Bearded yes but shortish hair. It seems that was the general style of Jewish guys in the first century. He looks Byzantine in style to me. IMHO it's a 4/5th century Byzantine work of serious genius. They'd have some knowledge of crucifiction and would know about the whip too. If it is that then IMH it's near a "miracle" as it is.

Myrddin

Wibbs wrote: »

If the shroud is 14th century in origin that's damned impressive, if it's say 6th century in origin that's truly amazing. If its earlier than that it's truly a WTF? moment. To create that image and leave no pigment, get the historical and anatomic features on the money and even the length etc would require a true unknown genius back then. Hell we can't replicate it today and that's saying something.

I remember a documentary on it not too long ago, & it stated that to replicate it today...we would have to use a fairly powerful source of UV light...something which didn't occur naturally until relatively recently. Yes the Sun counts as a source of UV light, but not at the required intensity to burn the image into the fabric.