Is the shroud Real?
Questioning the Shroud's Authenticity
He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
John 20:5~7
John 20:5~7
"The big question people are asking is, is it authentic" (Keathley).
"To those who demand proof, none can be 100%"(Castella).
"To those who demand proof, none can be 100%"(Castella).
It is difficult to place confidence in the Shroud of Turin; one must believe that this shroud was the same cloth that wrapped Jesus Christ centuries ago. Practically inevitably, myths arose concerning the Shroud’s authenticity, people questioned the Shroud claiming the image on it as forgery. “Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels. The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin,which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts. The author claims that historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to its inauthenticity. The shroud is a 14th century painting, not a 2000-year-old cloth with Jesus's image (Carroll). Other’s conclude that the “The Turin Shroud is not a medieval forgery, as has long been claimed, but could in fact date from the time of Christ’s death” (Mattingly). Opposition continues as scholars contemplate the origin of the shroud, leaving many questions unanswered. One most importantly of all: Is the Shroud of Turin a Myth?
What do you believe?
Some believed "the image on the Turin Shroud could not be the work of medieval forgers" (Wilkes); others believed the "Turin Shroud was nothing more than a medieval hoax" (MacRae).
"A team of Italian Scientists believed The Shroud of Turin could not possibly be faked with the technology available during that time period" (Times).
"Many Catholics believe that the 14ft-long linen cloth was used to cover Christ's body when he was lifted down from the cross after being crucified" (Squires).
"A team of Italian Scientists believed The Shroud of Turin could not possibly be faked with the technology available during that time period" (Times).
"Many Catholics believe that the 14ft-long linen cloth was used to cover Christ's body when he was lifted down from the cross after being crucified" (Squires).
Ten misconceptions:
"1. The image on the shroud is a painting.
We still don’t know how the image was created. Its characteristics are very complex (for example the fact that they only exist on the very outer surface).
2. The C-14 method of dating the shroud definitively showed that the cloth was made some time between 1260 and 1390.
A badly prepared and manipulated test. Applied to a strongly contaminated section. Unreliable. People are working on a new C-14 test with pieces taken from various places. But this is for now only theory.
3. Only believers assume that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
There is a list of publications by ‘unbelievers’ who also think that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
4. The shroud was made by Leonardo da Vinci.
Nonsense. The shroud existed centuries before the birth of Da Vinci and it is not a product of an artist. Discovery Channel especially kept broadcasting a documentary that implicated Da Vinci.
5. The shroud is ‘not real’, a ‘forgery’, ‘fake’.
Confusing words! What is meant is that the shroud is not that of Jesus and was (therefore) made by someone, possibly as a forged ‘relic’. But the shroud and the image were not made by ‘someone’. ‘Fake’ is a belittling term, especially when used in a sentence like, “Believers think that the shroud is that of Jesus, scientists know that it is fake.” THis is an assumption that believers are stupid enough to believe in ‘fake things’.
6. Science has proven that the shroud is not that of Jesus.
On the contrary! The argument against authenticity is yet to be found. Scientists who investigated the shroud tend to favour authenticity and there are non-Christians and atheists among them.
7. The shroud has been copied multiple times.
Wrong again. Last year we heard that one Garlaschelli had copied the shroud. But if one takes a close look at his ‘reproduction’, the differences with the real shroud immediately become clear. THis remains a challenge for science in the 21st century: who will copy the shroud with all its characteristics?
8. The Catholic Church does not accept the scientific conclusions and blocks study.
The Church authorised the studies of 1978 and 2002. And she is willing to accommodate further investigation, as long as the shroud is not damaged. High definition photographs were made in 2008, and these allow anyone to do their own investigation.
9. Like all relics of Christ, the shroud is not real.
There are indeed ’relics’ which turn out not be genuine, like Jesus’ foreskin. But the shroud and its image belongs in an exceptional category. At the moment the shroud is the best studied archeological artefact in the world.
10. If the shroud is indeed dated back to the first century, there is still no reason to assume that it belonged to Jesus. Countless men were crucified in that time.
Certainly not countless. An certainly not with the same abuse (crown of thorns, spear wound in the side). According to probability calculations there is a chance of 1 in 200,000,000,000 that this is NOT the shroud of Jesus" (Terra).
We still don’t know how the image was created. Its characteristics are very complex (for example the fact that they only exist on the very outer surface).
2. The C-14 method of dating the shroud definitively showed that the cloth was made some time between 1260 and 1390.
A badly prepared and manipulated test. Applied to a strongly contaminated section. Unreliable. People are working on a new C-14 test with pieces taken from various places. But this is for now only theory.
3. Only believers assume that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
There is a list of publications by ‘unbelievers’ who also think that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.
4. The shroud was made by Leonardo da Vinci.
Nonsense. The shroud existed centuries before the birth of Da Vinci and it is not a product of an artist. Discovery Channel especially kept broadcasting a documentary that implicated Da Vinci.
5. The shroud is ‘not real’, a ‘forgery’, ‘fake’.
Confusing words! What is meant is that the shroud is not that of Jesus and was (therefore) made by someone, possibly as a forged ‘relic’. But the shroud and the image were not made by ‘someone’. ‘Fake’ is a belittling term, especially when used in a sentence like, “Believers think that the shroud is that of Jesus, scientists know that it is fake.” THis is an assumption that believers are stupid enough to believe in ‘fake things’.
6. Science has proven that the shroud is not that of Jesus.
On the contrary! The argument against authenticity is yet to be found. Scientists who investigated the shroud tend to favour authenticity and there are non-Christians and atheists among them.
7. The shroud has been copied multiple times.
Wrong again. Last year we heard that one Garlaschelli had copied the shroud. But if one takes a close look at his ‘reproduction’, the differences with the real shroud immediately become clear. THis remains a challenge for science in the 21st century: who will copy the shroud with all its characteristics?
8. The Catholic Church does not accept the scientific conclusions and blocks study.
The Church authorised the studies of 1978 and 2002. And she is willing to accommodate further investigation, as long as the shroud is not damaged. High definition photographs were made in 2008, and these allow anyone to do their own investigation.
9. Like all relics of Christ, the shroud is not real.
There are indeed ’relics’ which turn out not be genuine, like Jesus’ foreskin. But the shroud and its image belongs in an exceptional category. At the moment the shroud is the best studied archeological artefact in the world.
10. If the shroud is indeed dated back to the first century, there is still no reason to assume that it belonged to Jesus. Countless men were crucified in that time.
Certainly not countless. An certainly not with the same abuse (crown of thorns, spear wound in the side). According to probability calculations there is a chance of 1 in 200,000,000,000 that this is NOT the shroud of Jesus" (Terra).
Technological Advances help prove the shroud is the real thing
"The Shroud of Turin gained publicity as millions of people viewed a rare televised glimpse at the Shroud of Turin, one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries. Millions believe it to be the image of Jesus. The shroud was presented on TV, and new life was breathed into the Shroud of Turin. A new app launched, taking the shroud worldwide and into the digital age for the first time, all while new research says the shroud could very well be the real thing" (Faris).
CARBON DATING results disprove shrouds authenticity
Carbon dating is used to determine the age of a particular object. Many Shroud enthusiasts believed that the tests preformed through carbon-dating would confirm the shrouds authenticity. Unfortunately for the enthusiasts, carbon dating's results proved the opposite; the Shroud of Turin was not real. "In 1988 Carbon 14 dating tests were performed on a small non-image portion of the shroud. The results were negative for the Christ Era. The three labs doing the test all concluded that the tiny portion of the sample each had received from the lower left corner of the relic had originated almost without question (95 percent certainty) between 1260 and 1380" (Wilcox). Times that far surpass the era of Christ, at around 93 AD (Perez).
Contradictory: Researchers used forensic tests to compare fibers from the shroud with a range of ancient fabric samples. And they discovered that the material could have been made in Jesus's lifetime (MacKRae).
~AND~
~AND~
"The new examination dates the
shroud to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.,
which would put it in the era of Christ" (National Catholic Reporter).
~AND~
Giulio Fanti, a professor at Padua University found that the shroud was aged between 280 BC and AD 220. Fanti, a Catholic, told the Telegraph that the results were based on 15 years of research on fibres taken from the cloth, which were subjected to radiation intensity tests. He rejected the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery. Fanti insisted that these results were skewed by laboratory contamination" (Staff).
Contradictory: Researchers used forensic tests to compare fibers from the shroud with a range of ancient fabric samples. And they discovered that the material could have been made in Jesus's lifetime (MacKRae).
~AND~
- Expert says fibers used in tests dating it to Middle Ages were contaminated
~AND~
"The new examination dates the
shroud to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D.,
which would put it in the era of Christ" (National Catholic Reporter).
~AND~
Giulio Fanti, a professor at Padua University found that the shroud was aged between 280 BC and AD 220. Fanti, a Catholic, told the Telegraph that the results were based on 15 years of research on fibres taken from the cloth, which were subjected to radiation intensity tests. He rejected the conclusion of carbon dating tests conducted in 1988 that bolstered the theory the shroud was made in the 13th or 14th century in a medieval forgery. Fanti insisted that these results were skewed by laboratory contamination" (Staff).
Image processing helps prove authenticity of the shroud
Crucifixion description (viewer discretion is advised):"Crucifixion was a popular form of punishment in the time of Jesus Christ. Before a prisoner was nailed to a cross, they underwent massive amounts of torture.
Read a step by step story about what Jesus experienced during his crucifixion :Viewer Discretion is advised "Jesus was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above His head. The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached to the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus’ shoulders, back and legs. At first the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that he is near death, the beating is stopped. The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. A small bundle of flexible branches covered with long thorns is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding (the scalp being one of the most vascular areas in the body). After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport and the robe is torn from his back. This had already become adherent to the colts of blood and serum in the wounds, and its removal, just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, cause excruciating pain - almost as though He were again being whipped, and the wounds again begin to bleed" (Truman). |
Image processing helps prove shrouds authenticity:The Bible speaks briefly of Jesus' crucifixion but many know that it was torture. According to"Image processing of the Turin Shroud (TS) shows that the Man represented in it has undergone a dislocation of the humerus on the right side and lowering of the shoulder, and has a flattened hand and enophthalmos; conditions that have not been described before, despite several studies on the subject. These injuries indicate that the Man suffered a violent blunt trauma to the neck, chest and shoulder from behind, causing neuromuscular damage and lesions of the entire brachial plexus. The posture of the left claw-hand is indicative of an injury of the lower brachial plexus, as is the crossing of the hands on the pubis, not above the pubis as it would normally be, and are related to traction of the limbs as a result of the nailing to the patibulum. The disappearance of the thumbprints is because of entrainment of the flexor pollicis longus tendons while the nails were driven through the wrists. The blunt chest trauma, which resulted in the body falling forwards, was the direct cause of a lung contusion and haemothorax, confirmed by the post-mortem leakage of clots and serum from the chest caused by the stabbing with the spear, and was a likely cause of cardiac contusion. All the evidence is in favour of the hypothesis that the TS Man is Jesus of Nazareth" (Belivacqua).
|