In the debate about the Shroud of Turin, perhaps the strongest argument that the pro-Shroud side had going for it was that no one could figure out how a medieval forger could have created such a thing. How could the forger have etched a three-dimensional photo-negative image of a crucified man onto a piece of linen? Nathan Wilson has pretty much demolished this pro-shroud argument by showing that it would have been quite easy for a medieval forger to have done this. All he (or she, but probably he) would have needed is some white paint, a large piece of glass, and a piece of linen. You paint a figure of a man on the glass, place the glass over the linen, and leave it out in the sun for a couple of days. The sun then bleaches the material, thereby transferring a three-dimensional photo-negative image of whatever was painted on the glass onto the linen. It's one of those things that seems so obvious when you think about it, and answers so many questions about the shroud, that it has to be the solution. And yet it's taken centuries for someone to figure it out. Wilson has a great (and quite detailed) article in Christianity Today explaining how he went about solving the mystery. There's also a shorter article about Wilson's 'shadow shroud' on discovery.com. Finally, check out Wilson's website: shadowshroud.com. The thumbnail shows a shroud-of-turin replica that Wilson created using his method.
Comments
This is all explained in the article.
Have I missed something? Or did the originator of the theory have an answer to that one (I skimmed his website but found it rather indigestible)?
How big was medieval glass? Could they make big pieces, or were they all little like those in stained-glass windows?
Wilson
He answers the glass plate size question in the faq at http://www.shadowshroud.com/faq.htm. Basically it would have taken two sheets of glass at the sizes they could make.
And that's pretty substansial considering the alternative to it being a forgery.
If it is a hoax, I think you may want to revise your list of the top 100. This has got to be numero uno.
For as long as the shroud has been known, it has exactly been so famous because it seemed to contain a faint depiction of Christ.
People mistakingly believe this depiction was only discovered with the advent of photo camera's, but what they only did was make the depiction more clearly visible, people have been seeing it all along.
Remember that around 1380, shortly after the shroud (re)surfaced, a local bishop already claimed the shroud was a hoax created by painting the figure of Christ on it. Radiocarbon dating has shown that the shroud was probably made a few years before that.
It's a hoax and it's even a pretty obvious one.
In fact they claim that Leonardo is the faker who created the shroud and then delighted in watching an audience worship it while he hid to observe.
The motive? He was supposed to have been a member of a secret society that did not believe in Christianity but could not express their disbelief due to the power that the Catholic Church had at that time. This and numerous other hidden message by him, esp. in 'The Last Supper' and several other paintings are supposedd to confirm his stand against the church.
pepe
Right behind the bible, and Bryan Adams music.
In other words, the head was wrapped seperately from the rest of the body (which was wrapped in mutiple pieces of linen itself). The fact of the matter is that if the REAL shroud had been found, it would have been mutiple pieces of linen, not just one.
Of course, whoever told the egyptians that pyramids would give them eternal life must have giggled themselves to death. Since it seems likely that the Egyptian citizens (rather than the slaves) built them out of respect for their emperor/god/king dude, with promises of having their own miniature pyramids built, one could call it one gigantic pyramid scheme. *dodges groans*
And whoever talked us out of the trees with promises of digital watches should be spanked. Actually, whoever talked us out of the ocean should be spanked. Actually whoever talked us into
meiosis! Mitosis was bliss, damnit. At least as single celled organisms we were too smart to fall for christianity.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/relics.html
I don't see why a forger wouldn't have used a piece of linen taken from an old grave. It would be cheap (just rob a grave), and even folks in the middle ages might have hesitated before believing that a brand new piece of linen was the burial shroud of Jesus.
But the facts seem to be that a) the material of the shroud dates to around the 1st century; and b) it would have been relatively easy, even for someone in the middle ages, to put the image of the crucified man on the shroud by using the bleach-in-the-sun method.
Therefore it makes sense that a medieval forger bleached an old shroud in the sun. It's the simplest explanation.
The other possible theories (that it was a 1st century forger, or that the shroud really is a miracle) don't make a lot of sense.
It's real. Just kidding.
But when I read this page today, the google ads at the top of the page had a link to this... http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm
I just thought it was a funny place for it to show up...
Actually, given the prevalence of false relics and readily available shrouds, it's entirely possible that some monk, looking for good relics, pulled out a shroud and found that the previous occupant had left a bit of a stain on it.
Since relics could be made 'real' through belief in them and their ability to perform miracles, and I *think* a few miracles have been ascribed to the Shroud, then you're left with the following conclusion:
The Shroud *IS* a relic of Jesus.
While it may not have actually been worn by him, it's the belief and faith involved that matters.
Read: http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm
The actual image substance is a caramel-like product that can be scratched from the surface, pulled away with adhesive and reduced with diimide. A reverse bleach process WILL NOT produce such an image.
Also check out http://www.shroudstory.com/enhanced.htm for a summary.
Dan
Second, the method used to create the shroud has been shown to be entirely believable to any people whether they are from the middle ages or from modern times. Then why wouldnt other fake relics have been made. Especially considering that the shroud had to generate enough revenue in order to pay for the glass screens that were used. These screens could have also been used multiple times.
Third, for the forger to have acquired the material he would have needed to collect it from the middle east. The fabric, according to research, contains pollens and flaxs indigenous to the middle east region. The likelihood that a first century linen composed of these materials would be available during the middle ages is very slim. Furthermore if it was just an ordinary linen or grave linen that was swiped then why has it decomposed very little?
In all likelihood this shroud could verywell have been recovered from the tomb and been preserved by the early Christians and later recovered by the Crusaders. Just because someone discovered a method to make similar images does not necessarily indicate that is what truly happened. I would not cat my vote yet regarding this artifact.
"Sorry, Anne N, but you'll never get me to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ would actually qualify as the biggest hoax in all of history. I could easily be assassinated for saying that, although it's probably true. So I'm not. But the Shroud of Turin is less of a holy object than WE are, and it deserves to be finally debunked."
Huh? What are you trying to say here? I'm not following you.
The Shroud first appeared, as the Shroud, in 1358 in a display by an impoverished French knight. After some legal hassels and the family ending without heirs, it became the property of the cathedral of Turin where it has stayed to this day. Prior to that there is no known evidence of the Shroud. The author however, believes it was known under another name - Veronica's Scarf or Veronica's Handkerchief; this being the cloth that Veronica used to wipe the face of Jesus while on his way to be crucified. According to legend his face appeared on the cloth. It travelled to Constantinople and was lost during the sack of the 4th Crusade. The above mentioned knight had an uncle who was there at the time and later became a Templar. When the Templars were supressed, one of the charges was that they worshiped the image of a man on a cloth, or a demon on a cloth or something similar. Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed.
The author presented a case that if the Shroud was indeed the burial cloth, after the Ressurection, the followers of Jesus would have wanted nothing to do with it, since being devout Jews touching it made them ritually unclean. It went north to a non-Jewish Christian community and later to Constantinople where it was stolen by the Crusaders of the 4th Crusade.
The crusaders were kicked out of Palestine long before the Shroud was displayed, so there is no way for a forger to have gotten into the area and robbed a tomb of a 1st centruy burial cloth. The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire. The hands and feet show signs of being bound in the manner common to 1st century Palestine and the head has a hairstyle also common to that era and area. The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired. The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body, with the spaces proper for where the cloth did not touch the body.
All in all, the author presents a great deal of evidence against a forgery. The book is out of print, but I know that copies are still floating around.
"Not all of the Templar treasures were found when they were surpressed." - And this statement is based on what? Do you have knowledge of lost treasure only you are privy to?
"The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?
"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.
"The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?
"I know that copies are still floating around." Literally? Just kidding, took it out of context for the humour only.
But...the death is a specific time (Passover), b/c that's the part of the story Christ thought was significant. It doesn't matter if it's real or not (personally, I think not).
"Oh, sorry, CMG; just forgot my salutations for a second. All Blessings, - The Pope"
Oh, well, THAT clears it up for me! Now I see EVERYTHING.
No amount of evidence will convince the true believers that this isn't the true shroud of Christ, even though, as a couple of people have already pointed out here, the Bible accounts of the Resurrection actually contradict the Shroud legend.
Roman whips are known to us now but probably not to a medeival forger because of discoveries made since medeival times.
And actually, I don't think the man in the shroud would have had a hairstyle in keeping with the norm of the time. Most Jews would have kept their hair shorter.
There continues to be controversy over whether the image on the Shroud of Turin is the genuine image of Christ, produced by some supernatural process at the instant of his death, or whether it is a medieval forgery.
Radiocarbon tests completed in 1988 appeared to show that the cloth was medieval, dating from between 1260 and 1390. During the mid-1990s a South African scientist, Professor Nicholas P Allen, conducted experiments to show that, if the image on the Shroud is of medieval origin, it could have been produced in a camera obscura.
He built a room-sized camera obscura containing a lens in one wall. On the opposite wall he suspended a cloth which had been pre-soaked in a solution of a (light-sensitive) silver salt. Outside the camera he suspended a manikin which had been coated in whitewash to reflect the rays of the sun to the maximum extent. After three days he had produced an image on the cloth which he was able to 'fix' by soaking the cloth in urine - a dilute solution of ammonia. The image possessed many of the three-dimensional features of the image on the Shroud of Turin.
All the necessary chemicals would have been available in medieval times.
What about the whip?
What about the shroud bloodstains?
What about the "burst of energy from a body"?
You're not doing a very good job of convincing anyone. I wonder how you managed to convince yourself?
😕
The evidence of the blood is that the arms show two trails of blood, one at 55 and the other at 65 degrees from the axis of the arm. This is consistent with the crucified person changing position, either to breathe easier or to relieve the pain alternatly in the arms and feet. The blood on the arms starts at a location known as the Space of Destot in the wrist. Medieval artists always showed the nails in the hands and it wasn't until Dr. Pierre Barbet, then Chief Surgeon of St. Joseph's Hospital in PAris, conducted some experiments in the 1930's that it was known that the space would expand and allow a nail through without breaking any bones. The blood trails on the head are consistent with a crown or cap of thorns being worn while the crucification was happening and the head moving while the blood flows. The knees show signs of injury, with a large contusion on the area of the left kneecap and several smaller ones on the right kneecap. The wounds caused by the scourging on two areas of the body show signs of further damage, after the scourging, consistent with carrying a heavy load, and the location of these are again consistent with the size and weight of what we now know to have been the standard crossbeam for a cross. The condemed carrying the crossbeam as the upright was kept in place. The side wound is consistent with a Roman LANCEA and not the more commonly known PILUM or HASTA or HASTA VELITARIS. The hair is of a style identified by German scholar H. Gressman as being typically Jewish. The Romans kept their hair short and were clean shaven (given the razors of the time perhaps stubble shaven owuld be more accurate) and the Jews had beards and long hair in a pigtail braided and tucked under their headgear. The body has been identified by Harvard Professor and ethnologist Carleton S. Coon as of a type represented in modern times by Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs. A Medieval forger would not have painted the body as anything other than European Caucasion. In 1898 two professional artists, identified as Reffo and Cussetti, painted a copy of the Shroud. They got the details of the damaged areas and the repairs right but all other details do not photograph as the Shroud does and do not have the same life-like quality of the Shroud. (An image of a dead man being life-like? We need a new phrase.) I haven't finished reading the book, ir is quite dense with information but I will add more information later.
:gulp:
For a few minutes I was willing to concede that you may not have understood what I meant about the shroud not touching Jesus' body until he was already dead and on the ground, but then I went and re-read my question. I don't really see how you could have misunderstood. My point about that is that he was not bleeding anymore when he was in the shroud, so how would his moving during crucifiction affect blood patterns on the shroud?
So, here is a not-so-quick recap of my questions. Listen closely, print them out if you have to, but just PLEASE answer them.
"The pattern of welts on the back and sides match the Roman whip, the design of which was lost after the fall of the Western Empire." - So, if the design was lost, how can it be claimed that these patterns match it?
"The bloodstains are consistent with crucifition where the torso raises and lowers as the person tries to breathe and gets tired." - But you say it is his burial shroud, not his shroud while he was still "on the cross". I'm not sure I understand what his breathing while crucified has to do with the blood patterns while back on terra firma. Please explain.
"The image is not flat as one might think, it is consistent with a burst of energy from a body with the cloth wrapped against the body" - Did I miss the burst-of-energy-from-a-body page in the textbook? What do you mean?
I wasn't clear about the point of the Roman whips, the design details were lost after the fall of the Western Empire but rediscovered long after the Shroud was known to exist.
The image on the Shroud is described as "fuzzy" and is consistent with the cloth not touching the body continuously, and then a burst of energy from the body making an imprint on the cloth. Somewhat similar to the "nuclear shadows" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The images on the cloth are not bloodstains, nor paint nor any other known substance. This was determined during the 1969 investigation of several of the threads of the Shroud by two Italian laboratories. The stains on the Shroud are on the surface of the threads where blood or paint would have penetrated the threads. Nor was there any sign of the stain between the threads. Trying to disolve the stains resulted in nothing, so the investigators Professor Frache in Modena and Professor Filogama at the University of Turin stated not only that there was no blood, but that the cause of the stain was unknown. Presuming that the stain was caused by some sort of energy burst the details of the body could be imprinted on the cloth without the cloth touching the body at any specific point.
Have I been a bit clearer? I am trying to read the book and present the points made in the book and unfortunately it is going to be piecemeal.
The Whip...
Sez you. Can you show me a couple of references? One is not enough. I would imagine something like the rediscovery of the type of whip that they beat Jesus with would have been noticed and written about extensiveley. Everything else to do with this subject has been.
The Bloodstains...
Are you deliberately avoiding the question I put forth about the bloodstains or what? And if this stuff is not blood, what the hell difference does it make if it matches the pattern of someone's wounds?
The Burst of Energy...
I fail to remember reading or finding any references to Jesus being a nuclear weapon. Also, why was the shroud not destroyed if the power of a nuclear weapon was released inside of it?
You're still doing a good job at avoiding the answers that I asked for.