Did Da Vinci create the shroud of turin?

A new theory about the Shroud of Turin: Lillian Schwartz, a graphic consultant at the School of Visual Arts in New York, thinks Leonardo da Vinci created it. Her reasoning is that "the face on the Turin Shroud and a self portrait of Leonardo da Vinci share the same dimensions."

The self-portrait of da Vinci and the face on the shroud do look similar, but I thought it was pretty well established that the shroud dates back to at least 1355, which would make it too old for da Vinci to have created, since he was born in 1452. [Daily Mail]

History Religion

Posted on Mon Jul 06, 2009


Hasn't this theory been around for thelast 10-15 years? Link below shows sonthing from around 1988, but I can't find a specific link. I recall seeing a TV programme about it quite a while a go.

Posted by derek  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  01:49 AM
Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett were making this claim in the 1990s (I have a 1995 edition of their book). I don't think that they were first.

The Shroud dating anomaly is "explained" because the Shroud was lost and found a few times. Earlier ones were generally dismissed as fakes, the one we have now is a pretty good fake and fooled people, it might not therefore have been the same shroud as earlier ones. This is plausible regardless of who did the faking.
Posted by Croydon Bob  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  05:01 AM
The shroud dating back to at least 1355 is not an argument against the Da Vinci hypothesis.

He could have used an old shroud.
Posted by Theo Tsecouras  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  06:40 AM
Theo Tsecouras: What I meant was that the Shroud had already been publicly unveiled before da Vinci was born, not that the fabric itself predated him. But Croydon Bob answered my question.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  08:16 AM
Oh, I see, sorry. I thought you meant radio carbon dating dated the shroud back to 1355.
Posted by Theo Tsecouras  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  08:36 AM
I think Di Vinci is the real hoax.
Posted by N E O  in  Everywhere and nowhere  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  12:25 PM
I think that if Leonardo had indeed faked the shroud, then he would have made it a lot more realistic.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Mon Jul 06, 2009  at  03:35 PM
I find that people have enough imagination.Why do they like to relate something with others?The reason can not exist at all.
Posted by Jess Holroyd  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  12:11 AM
It may or may not look like Da Vinci, but it definitely has European features compared with other portraits of Egyptians that we have from 2000 years ago. I'd expect Jesus to look pretty much like this:
Posted by Bob  on  Wed Jul 15, 2009  at  07:28 AM
actually the date of the cloth was found to be incorrect in 2009, there is no way it was De Vinci. even if he somehow got his hands on a 1,300 year old cloth...which I find highly unlikely:

On April 10, 2009, the Telegraph reported that original Shroud investigator, Ray Rogers, acknowledged the radio carbon dating performed in 1988 was flawed.[1] The sample used for dating may have been taken from a section damaged by fire and repaired in the 16th century, which would not provide an estimate for the original material. Shortly before his death, Rogers said:

"The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."[1] "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."[1] "...I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."[1]

A recent study by French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that on the shroud are traces of words in Aramaic spelled with Hebrew letters. Barbara Frale, a Church scholar, told Vatican Radio on July 26, 2009 that her own studies suggest the letters on the shroud were written more than 1,800 years ago.[2]

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

2. http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=15419
Posted by Łukasz  on  Wed Aug 05, 2009  at  04:40 PM
>"actually the date of the cloth was found to be incorrect in 2009"

No it wasn't. A random nutter made claims. There's no good reason to doubt the carbon dating.
Posted by Croydon Bob  on  Fri Oct 22, 2010  at  10:15 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.