Robert said
I think they also found some kind of paint pigment on a part that was tested. That’s not to say that the image was primarily painted. Some have figured out a chemical process to make a similar type of reverse 3D image with a corpse and medieval materials, but so far it is much more blurry than the image on the shroud. There are, of course, some who fervently argue for its authenticity and counter every indication of its pseudo origin. True believers.
Definitely a lot has been said and claimed. Are you interested at looking at the evidence for and against authenticity? I can understand if your mind is already made up and don’t care to take another swipe at the evidence. I was kind of at that point myself.
Is there any evidence other than the physical shroud itself? What I mean is literary evidence. Surely such an artifact that actually went back to the 1st century would show up in our historical literature before the 14th century! It is also useful to remember that the first definite mention of it comes from a letter to the Pope stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed!
What really kills it for me though is the image. It looks exactly like what a medieval painter would imagine Jesus to look like.
Did deal with it the last days a little, really seems not possible to come to a conclusion easily.
I think the evidence for a middle ages forgery is quite convincing, and I didn’t come across facts that seem absolutely impossible with that assumption.
Nevertheless I didn’t find any convincing theory of how it was made. The technique used here must be quite different from those used for other middle ages artworks.
Just because we cannot be certain how the image on the cloth was made does not mean that it isn’t a forgery. There are some curious aspects to it, but its history pretty clearly suggests that it originated around the 14th century. It may be possible that the cloth itself (without the image) is older.
I seem to recall that there was some reputable science to show that there were traces of pollen on the cloth that would place its origin in the Holy Land, or establish that it at least spent some time there. Sadly, that really does not prove much about its origins. If one was hawking religious fakes about Jesus, the Holy Land was the best place to do so.
And it isn’t as if we have any absolutely authentic examples of cloths documenting miraculous transformations after death to which it might be compared.
“Just because we cannot be certain how the image on the cloth was made does not mean that it isn’t a forgery”
I agree, but having a plausible theory how it was made would make the forgery-hypothesis much more certain.
And as there are many such theories I’d be interested if someone here came across a convincing one.
Konrad said
“Just because we cannot be certain how the image on the cloth was made does not mean that it isn’t a forgery”I agree, but having a plausible theory how it was made would make the forgery-hypothesis much more certain.
And as there are many such theories I’d be interested if someone here came across a convincing one.
The problem is that such investigations would require close analysis and handling/testing of the artifact which the Church is loath to do. it was like pulling teeth to get them to consent to the C14 dating. The church is walking the proverbial fine line. They will not come out and agree to its authenticity but on the other hand they see the effect it has on the faithful.
You know the funny part about the Shroud of Turin is that even if you could demonstrate that it was the actual burial shroud of Jesus all it would prove is that Jesus is dead. To claim that the presence of an image on the shroud and the lack of physical remains proves that Jesus was resurrected is just question begging.
Stephen said
You know the funny part about the Shroud of Turin is that even if you could demonstrate that it was the actual burial shroud of Jesus all it would prove is that Jesus is dead. To claim that the presence of an image on the shroud and the lack of physical remains proves that Jesus was resurrected is just question begging.
Technically, it would prove that he died, which even the Bible says. It is the supposed transfer of the image that seems miraculous, as a residual trace of his resurrection, if you accept that story.
It is the supposed transfer of the image that seems miraculous, as a residual trace of his resurrection, if you accept that story.
Exactly my point. To claim that the “residue” gives evidence of the resurrection assumes the thing that must be proven, that Jesus was resurrected. All we actually have for evidence is a cloth with the impression of a dead body on it.
Stephen said
It is the supposed transfer of the image that seems miraculous, as a residual trace of his resurrection, if you accept that story.Exactly my point. To claim that the “residue” gives evidence of the resurrection assumes the thing that must be proven, that Jesus was resurrected. All we actually have for evidence is a cloth with the impression of a dead body on it.
But my point is that the presence of the shroud, with the image, neither proves nor disproves anything about theological aspects of Jesus’ death and resurrection . . . whether or not it turns out to be a fake. Part of this problem is the very question of its authenticity, but beyond that is the interpretation of what it is presenting. If one were to accept the whole story of the resurrection, we have no idea what that event would really look like, or what evidence it might leave behind or not leave behind, particularly evidence that might be evaluated nearly 2,000 years later. The entire proposition is little more than a curious distraction, no matter which side of the argument one falls on.
Lots of other examples. At first, doctors were actually recommending smoking as good to clear out your lungs. I do think that it is vaguely interesting evidence of how badly people want something tangible to booster their faith. That desire can be, and often is, easily misused. (But that is not limited to religion.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert