#1  
Old 07-12-2003, 08:45 AM
Rodrigo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 222

Shroud of Turin


Linkid Jesus really exist? And what's with the Shroud of Turin?

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html


Although the radiocarbon dates were properly done and they concluded that the shroud was made in the 1300s, it poses still lots of problems.

1) How to account for the polen samples found on it, corroborating the stories told about where it was.

2) How about the marlbe sample found at the feet. That specific marble is only found in Palestine.

3) A relative unknown in this equation is the Sudarium of Oviedo. While the shroud goes around the body the sudarium goes around the head. Several analysis show that the cloth used was very similar, that the marking match on both, but we have historical proof of the sudarium eistence at least down to the 6th century and maybe even farther back.

4) Radiocarbon worls best in uncontaminated samples and the shroud is anything but that and the area where the sample was taken was particularly contaminated.

5) The tecnhique used by the alleged artist is a one-time deal. Not really convincing.

6) Why would a "faker" go to the length of putting polen and marble samples,

7) The nails on the wrists rather than on the hands would've made it a "bad fake". If I'd wanted to make it in order to sell it I'd've gone for the logical thing and gone for the palms.

Finally, my belief is in no way connected to the shroud. If it is false I wouldn't miss beat. On the other hand if we try to rationalise every miracle as impossible or a metaphor the why care about a deity who can't pull a miracle or two.
  #2  
Old 07-13-2003, 10:38 PM
nodope4us is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sheridan, Oregon
Posts: 59
Actually research shows if the nails were through the hands they would have torn through the skin, the wrists would be the logical place to put them to try to prove it to be the "real deal." But in some cases it would not matter because people would believe either way. And about the contamination its something to point out the the shroud was in a fire and was slightly burnt in some spots which could cause the dating to be off by a little or a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  #3  
Old 07-13-2003, 11:00 PM
Rodrigo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 222
Of course.

What I mean is that if the shroud is a medieval fake sold as the real thing the forger would've painted the nails on the hands, like all the drawings that existed.
  #4  
Old 07-14-2003, 01:29 AM
nodope4us is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sheridan, Oregon
Posts: 59
Oh sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.
  #5  
Old 07-14-2003, 02:09 AM
Askance is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,037
Let me turn the question round. If the shroud is not a fake, how do you account for the carbon dating, which you acknowledge was properly done? If it is correct, all those things you mention must not really be issues.
  #6  
Old 07-14-2003, 10:15 AM
Rodrigo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally posted by AndrewT
Let me turn the question round. If the shroud is not a fake, how do you account for the carbon dating, which you acknowledge was properly done? If it is correct, all those things you mention must not really be issues.
If I radio-carbon-dated my Laptop (which I can't because it is inorganic, but you get my point) and the test showed that it was made in 1776 you'd know there was something wrong, and you'd go for further analyses.

Radiocarbon is a very good technique but science should try to explain (not explain away) inconsistencies. If that carbon-date is true, then the guy (or gal) who made the shroud would make Einstein look like Homer Simpson, becausae he got so many details right, even those who could not be verified in those days that it'b be like finding a TV in Leonardo's tomb.

The biggest inconsistency is, and I mentioned, the sudarium of Oviedo, which we know existed befor the 1300s and which is almost certainly a amtch with the Shroud.

Even if the date is correct you can'r tely on lonly one source if you've got many.
  #7  
Old 07-14-2003, 05:00 PM
Padmaraga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 335
Have you read Ian Wilson's book, The Blood and The Shroud? You might find it interesting.
  #8  
Old 07-15-2003, 09:50 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,331

Re: Shroud of Turin


Quote:
Originally posted by Rodrigo
1) How to account for the polen samples found on it, corroborating the stories told about where it was.
Quote:
POLLENS. It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.) -- Recent Shroud Claims Based on Earlier, Scientifically Discredited Data, Joe Nickell, Center for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Quote:
2) How about the marlbe sample found at the feet. That specific marble is only found in Palestine.
I haven't really been able to find much about this, but given the weakness of the "pollen evidence", you will forgive me if I would like to see more data.
Quote:
3) A relative unknown in this equation is the Sudarium of Oviedo. While the shroud goes around the body the sudarium goes around the head. Several analysis show that the cloth used was very similar, that the marking match on both, but we have historical proof of the sudarium eistence at least down to the 6th century and maybe even farther back.
Quote:
OVIEDO CLOTH. Uncritical reportage suggested the Shroud of Turin gained credibility by being linked to another notorious cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, which some believe was the "napkin" that covered Jesus' face. Unfortunately like other "relics" of Jesus-some 40 shrouds, vials of his blood and tears, and other products of medieval relic-mongering-the Oviedo cloth is of questionable provenance. It has no historical record prior to the eighth century and, in contrast to the shroud, lacks a facial image. The supposed matching of bloodstains on the Turin and Oviedo cloths is but another exercise in wishful thinking. As to the alleged matchup of pollens, once again the evidence comes from the questionable tapes of Max Frei. -- Joe Nickell, see above.
Quote:
4) Radiocarbon worls best in uncontaminated samples and the shroud is anything but that and the area where the sample was taken was particularly contaminated.
Quote:
...they claim to have discovered microbial contamination on shroud samples that may have altered the radiocarbon dating. Yet for there to be sufficient contamination to raise the date thirteen centuries there would have to be twice as much debris, by weight, as the entire shroud itself! -- Shroud of Turin Exhibition Renews False Claims of Authenticity, Joe Nickell, CSICOP.
Quote:
5) The tecnhique used by the alleged artist is a one-time deal. Not really convincing.
Quote:
The shroud of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide with an image of a man on it. Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle. One anonymous critic notes that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet. This critic also thinks the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate and the arms are too long. -- "The Shroud of Turin", The Skeptic's Dictionary.
Quote:
6) Why would a "faker" go to the length of putting polen and marble samples,
See above, at least concerning the "pollen samples".
Quote:
7) The nails on the wrists rather than on the hands would've made it a "bad fake". If I'd wanted to make it in order to sell it I'd've gone for the logical thing and gone for the palms.
If that's the only argument remaining, I'd say that's pretty weak.
Quote:
Finally, my belief is in no way connected to the shroud. If it is false I wouldn't miss beat. On the other hand if we try to rationalise every miracle as impossible or a metaphor the why care about a deity who can't pull a miracle or two.
Everyone says "Of course, if the Shroud were fake, it still wouldn't shake my faith"--but a lot of people nevertheless go through all sorts of amazing contortions to defend its authenticity. (Some of them are far more remarkable than even the OP's claims--"The image on the Shroud is uniquely three-dimensional. Although most scientists believe that the image was made by the body emitting a burst of energy of some kind (which caused the body's image to be lightly burned onto the Shroud), they have no idea how this could have been done." )

There is a saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that a particular artifact is the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth is at least a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary claim. The claim that an object is the miraculous burial cloth of Jesus Christ, whose appearance cannot be accounted for by any known method, and whose formation is probably the result of a supernatural and miraculous event, is clearly an extraordinary claim.

On the other hand, the claim that an object is a 1st century Palestinian artifact is not, on the face of it, necessarily an extraordinary claim. There are certainly plenty of Palestinian artifacts that old, and many things which are much older than that. Only if we can establish the relatively ordinary claim--that the Shroud of Turin dates to the 1st century C.E.--can we consider the further somewhat out-of-the-ordinary and the truly extraordinary claims about the shroud.

To begin with, there's no record of the shroud's existence before it pops up in the 14th century. Within a generation of its having surfaced, a bishop of the Church pronounced it a fake, "cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it" (Encyclopedia Britannica, "Shroud of Turin"). Although disputed by the true believers, the best evidence is that the "blood" on the shroud is red paint. When it was finally scientifically dated, it proved to date back to--surprise, surprise!--the 14th century.

At this point, we have multiple lines of evidence--historical provenance, the official pronouncements of an investigation conducted soon after the time of the shroud's first appearance, and modern analysis both of the shroud's age through radiocarbon dating and of the composition of the "blood" on the shroud--indicating a medieval forgery. The ordinary claim--that this sucker is 2,000 years old--has now been refuted. Anyone claiming otherwise bears an extraordinary burden of proof, and hand-waving about alleged marble dust, or whether or not a medieval forger would have known where to put the wounds from Roman crucifixions, is not sufficient.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #9  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:45 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,608
Thanks, MEBuckner. I'd read all this stuff, but couldn't remember details enough to dredge it all back up.

The damn thing is paint - vermilion (sp?) and something else, two pigments available in the 1300s. The time frame is shows up is an era when relics were all the rage. Fake bones, icons, blood vials, etc were rampant. Not to mention the 40 other shrouds. It has no history prior to just showing up conveniently when fakes were abundant.

Note that supporters make a big deal out of the image being three dimensional. Actually, the shroud took on extra glamour only after the advent of photography, when the image was viewed in a reverse negative. The normal image is not nearly as spectacular as the negative. However, people complimenting the depth of the image and how it looks like a three dimensional wrap have no real world experience with trying to wrap a two dimensional cloth around a three dimensional surface and make an imprint. Go ahead, try it. Take a doll, wrap a pillowcase around it, then rub chalk or charcoal or some other substance across the face until you get a good covering, then unwrap the doll and look at the image. You'll find it stretches around the curves all out of proportion, not looking like a face much at all.

As for deities able to perform miracles, how come the only miracles he seems to perform are making stains on walls and windows, and shapes in potatoes and knots of trees? The deity I would consider worshipping would put far more attention into curing cancer and eliminating AIDS and diabetes and far less attention on making a tortilla vaguely resemble himself. Sorry, that's getting to GD territory.
  #10  
Old 07-25-2003, 02:54 PM
akrako1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 561
The carbon-14 doubters point to the fact that the shroud was in a fire. Fire could have distributed fresh carbon throughout the shroud. I seem to remember seeing a TV special (geez maybe Fox) about a new test that was being performed on a 'deeper' cut of the shroud. Anyone hear any followup on this?
  #11  
Old 07-26-2003, 03:03 AM
chorpler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South(est) Texas & Vegas
Posts: 3,691

I doubt the fire could do it...


In order to corrupt the dating of the shroud so drastically (moving its dated age from the first century AD to the 14th century AD) the fire would have to have incorporate over twice the shroud's weight in fresh carbon into the shroud. That would be pretty tough. Did anybody notice if the shroud's weight drastically increased after the fire?
  #12  
Old 10-09-2003, 03:12 AM
Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
Question--Who's to say it was faked? Could it be the burial cloth; caused naturally by someone crucified in the 14th century?

Why does it have to be someone set out to fake it?
  #13  
Old 10-09-2003, 03:47 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,331
I don't believe crucifixions were particularly common in 14th century Italy. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, crucifixion was abolished as a method of execution in the Roman Empire by the Emperor Constantine in in 337 CE. There's also the issue of the red paint masquerading as blood, which would seem to indicate deliberate fakery. Finally, the Shroud of Turin has always been represented (since it first popped up in 14th Italy) as the shroud.
  #14  
Old 10-09-2003, 06:07 PM
Kizarvexius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,145
A many years ago I considered myself very well read on the subject of the Shroud, and thought of myself as a true believer in its authenticity. When the carbon-dating results were announced, I simply dismissed them, just as any stubborn person dismissed that which conflicts with his world view. In my present stage of enlightenment, I am prepared to accept that the Shroud is not what I thought it to be. But even proving that it is not the burial cloth of JC does not begin to clear up all of the questions.

My main question is this: what on earth is it? Is it the work of a forger centuries ahead of his time? If so, why did said forger go to so much trouble to create something so rich in authentic detail that no one in his own day and age could possibly appreciate?

It's undeniable that a booming trade in holy relics was widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages. And a great many of the items being peddled off must have been very obvious forgeries. Yet the gullible still flocked to see them. After all, how many people could tell the difference between a twenty year-old skull filched from a cemetary and a thousand year-old skull from Palestine? I've heard statments to the effect that enough fragments of the "True Cross" have been sold to churches, clergymen, pilgrims, tourist, etc., to build x number of churches from the ground up. The point is, forgers didn't have to work very hard to convince people that the relics they were peddling were authentic.

Now look at the Shroud. It bears crucifixion wounds that are anatomically accurate, even though they don't match the traditional representation. Nails through the wrists, even though anyone who had ever seen a crucifix "knew" that the nails were supposed to be through the hands. But it doesn't stop there.

If you examine a closeup negative image of the face on the Shroud, you can clearly make out coins placed over the eyes. Furthermore, these coins are identifiable, as bronze coins minted in Palestine during the administration of Pontius Pilatus. See here.

So, again, my question. If this was the work of a forger, why so much attention to detail?
__________________
Pax et Bonum,

Kizarvexius

________________________________________
...Because you can't strike a Marquis de Queensbury pose and announce "I'm familiar with the art of fisticuffs!" in front of a bunch of lumberjacks and not expect to get your butt kicked. - Marlitharn
  #15  
Old 10-09-2003, 07:52 PM
bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW5
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally posted by Kizarvexius
If you examine a closeup negative image of the face on the Shroud, you can clearly make out coins placed over the eyes. Furthermore, these coins are identifiable, as bronze coins minted in Palestine during the administration of Pontius Pilatus. See here.
Clearly? For a start, on the page linked to, it's unclear whether the image on the right at the bottom is an enhanced version of the image of part of the Shroud on the left next to it or if it's a coin that intended as a comparison. Is the question mark above the final ">" querying the final step of the "enhancement" or is querying an identification with a coin?
In either case, to my eye these images bear little relation to each other.
Furthermore, if one goes to other pages on the subject, one finds very different patterns being read into the "coins". Though, somehow, they're still leptons from the reign of Pontius Pilate.

Quote:
So, again, my question. If this was the work of a forger, why so much attention to detail?
I doubt it's the forger who's done any of the hard work in misleading anyone here.
  #16  
Old 04-13-2004, 04:09 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman
However, people complimenting the depth of the image and how it looks like a three dimensional wrap have no real world experience with trying to wrap a two dimensional cloth around a three dimensional surface and make an imprint. Go ahead, try it...You'll find it stretches around the curves all out of proportion, not looking like a face much at all.
I hate you! But I'm glad I ran a search before posting my realization that anybody who thinks that cloth looks like what you'd get after wrapping a body is fooling himself.

Art History Wife: "And then there's the matter of it being the perfect rendering of a Northern Gothic saint."
  #17  
Old 05-16-2004, 11:30 PM
peekskill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1

Shroud of Turin


If the image was painted it would have been the first anatomicaly correct image ever painted. One way to test the validity of the image is to compare it with the actual human body. Apparenty it meets every test of an accurate image of a crucified body. No artist at the time had the ability to produce a correct image and none was ever painted till hundreds of years later. So the unknown forger was a first in more ways than one.
  #18  
Old 05-16-2004, 11:40 PM
Askance is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,037
As mentioned above in posts #8 and #9, it is not anatomically correct and does not meet "every test of an accurate image of a crucified body", whatever such a test might be.
__________________
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. -Herman Melville
  #19  
Old 05-17-2004, 11:24 AM
APB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo
7) The nails on the wrists rather than on the hands would've made it a "bad fake". If I'd wanted to make it in order to sell it I'd've gone for the logical thing and gone for the palms.
This keeps getting repeated as if it was a self-evident fact and yet, which ever way you look at it, the issue cannot be that simple.

The 'nails through the wrist' argument derives from the work of Pierre Barbet. But Barbet's work has since been heavily criticised by Frederick Zugibe, usually regarded as the leading pathologist currently in favour of the Shroud's authenticity. But what is significant about this debate is that neither placed the exit wound in the wrist so much as at the base of the back of the hand. Or rather, what they mean by 'the wrist' isn't quite where you probably think it is.

What this means is that the distance between where Zugibe thinks the nail exited and the centre of the back of the hand is actually not that big. And here's the important point - the 'blood' stain is a smudge so the precise spot where the nail exited is open to debate. While its location is certainly consistent with Zugibe's theory, it is not at obvious that it cannot also be where a medieval artist might have thought it ought to be. The stain is not quite in the centre of the back of the hand but, then again, it's not that far from it.

But that is assuming that you can identify the centre of the back of the hand, given that where the hand ends and the arm begins is also open to debate. It could be argued that the hands seem unnaturally elongated...just like those in most fourteenth century paintings.
  #20  
Old 05-17-2004, 02:36 PM
bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW5
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by akrako1
The carbon-14 doubters point to the fact that the shroud was in a fire. Fire could have distributed fresh carbon throughout the shroud. I seem to remember seeing a TV special (geez maybe Fox) about a new test that was being performed on a 'deeper' cut of the shroud. Anyone hear any followup on this?
While the only resurrection going on here is that of old, old threads, I'll take its reappearance to draw attention to a new development on the C14 front.

Mechanisms for changing the isotopic composition of the Shroud are physically implausible for, amongst other reasons, the argument given above by chorpler. Rather than address this, Shroud enthusiasts have tended to tout the work of a Russian by the name of Dimitri Kouznetsov. He published a series of papers claiming that he could alter the C14 composition of Shroud-like samples by various means, including heat. The enthusiasts have cited him, acclaimed him, recommended his papers and even based a book on his work. In fairness, Ian Wilson has expressed disquiet about his character in the past.
The new development, reported in this article by Massimo Polidoro in the most recent edition of Skeptical Inquirer, is that everything Kouznetsov reported in the papers has been shown to be completely ficticious. The origin - and hence existence - of the samples, the people who supposedly supplied them, the institutions they were said to work for, several of Kouznetsov's collaborators, some of the papers cited, even the equipment used. Everything.

Of course, when it came to this sort of thing, Kouznetsov had form.
  #21  
Old 05-17-2004, 02:47 PM
bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW5
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Of course, when it came to this sort of thing, Kouznetsov had form.
Fixed link
  #22  
Old 05-19-2004, 12:54 AM
rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East Lansing, MI
Posts: 2,687
One of the most notable things that suggest the shroud is a fake: it looks exactly as one would expect from traditional medieval paintings depicting Jesus. The problem is that this visual depiction originated with medieval Christian art. This depiction of Jesus doesn't go back to the earliest days of the Church. From the Bible, there is almost nothing indicating what Jesus looked like. The only thing mentioned is that he was a mason. (Often in modern times he is called a "carpenter". However, the original Greek word used in the Bible could also mean "mason". Given that lots of trees don't grow in Palestine, and that ordinary construction was made out of rock, "mason" seems most likely his occupation.) Given that being a mason requires physical strength, Jesus likely was quite muscular.

The point: assuming the Shroud is real, it seems an incredible coincidence the image exactly matches what was invented by medieval Christian artists. Sort of like if an artist were to make a painting of me just based on reading this post, and that painting looked exactly like I do in real life.
  #23  
Old 05-19-2004, 01:54 AM
Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Liberal South
Posts: 14,266
I have no dog in this hunt, but I do recall reading at one time that if the substance of the image is paint, it would have been applied one fiber at a time with a brush no wider than a hair.

I have no cite for than information at all. Just something I remembered.

Quote:
Actually, the shroud took on extra glamour only after the advent of photography, when the image was viewed in a reverse negative. The normal image is not nearly as spectacular as the negative.
I had read that the image itself has the effect of being more like a photographic negative and that that is the reason that when the image is photographically reversed, it becomes even more visually profound.
  #24  
Old 05-19-2004, 08:57 AM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo
Finally, my belief is in no way connected to the shroud. If it is false I wouldn't miss beat. On the other hand if we try to rationalise every miracle as impossible or a metaphor the why care about a deity who can't pull a miracle or two.
Why would you respect a god who would violate his own laws in order to impress a crowd of goofs? He'd have to violate the natural laws of the universe to do a miracle.
  #25  
Old 05-19-2004, 09:23 AM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe
I had read that the image itself has the effect of being more like a photographic negative and that that is the reason that when the image is photographically reversed, it becomes even more visually profound.
This is a statement I have often heard, but can't understand why it is said. I could alter the image in photoshop, making it red & green with pink polka-dots, and it would be visually more profound, but so what? What does that prove about the original?

The implication is that medieval artists never saw a photographic negative, so couldn't know how to make one. This has led to at least one theory that light-sensitive chemicals were used to expose a cloth for days to a man-like painting thru a camera obscura device. This theory has to explain why no one else was aware of or used light-sensitive chemicals in this manner for the preceeding or following centuries.

I believe it was Joe Nickell (sorry, no link handy to this one either) who took a bas-relief sculpture, covered it with colored dust-like pigment, stretched a cloth over it, then gently pushed it in the depressions with a soft, blunt brush. When removed, the cloth had a "negative" image on it. You don't have to know the theory of photographic-chemical emulsions to produce such an image; it may be the natural outcome of a simple process.
  #26  
Old 05-19-2004, 01:07 PM
Fiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia - Female
Posts: 5,310
Even if the Shroud could be shown to be associated with Palestinian pollen and marble, that wouldn't prove anything either, would it?

It could just mean that the Shroud was stored among authentic Holy Land relics, and got contaminated by them. Which would be perfectly reasonable.
  #27  
Old 05-19-2004, 04:56 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 86,733
Quote:
The only thing mentioned is that he was a mason. (Often in modern times he is called a "carpenter". However, the original Greek word used in the Bible could also mean "mason". Given that lots of trees don't grow in Palestine, and that ordinary construction was made out of rock, "mason" seems most likely his occupation.) Given that being a mason requires physical strength, Jesus likely was quite muscular.
No, you're thinking of Joseph, his (foster) father. Joseph was indeed described as a builder, and may well have worked more with stone than wood. But there's no indication that Jesus followed in Dad's footsteps.
  #28  
Old 05-19-2004, 09:54 PM
John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 5,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Why would you respect a god who would violate his own laws in order to impress a crowd of goofs? He'd have to violate the natural laws of the universe to do a miracle.
Every novelist or playwright understands why this is a silly question. Miracles, like plot twists, must be judged by their effectiveness, not by their foreshadowing.
__________________
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude
  #29  
Old 05-19-2004, 10:03 PM
rfgdxm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: East Lansing, MI
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos
No, you're thinking of Joseph, his (foster) father. Joseph was indeed described as a builder, and may well have worked more with stone than wood. But there's no indication that Jesus followed in Dad's footsteps.
I checked, and you are right. However, given the typical custom at the time, it would seem rather unlikely that Jesus wouldn't have been assisting Joseph in his work while young. Kids back then didn't go to school every day. Thus, there likely would have been a time in the younger days of Jesus before he could support himself that he would have worked with Joseph.

The Bible is curiously mute as to exactly what Jesus was doing since early adulthood until he began his ministry around the age of 30. Surely the Apostles would have asked Jesus this. Yet either they kept this to themselves, or if they did tell others none of that got recorded; or if it ever was the writings were lost. Had Jesus worked as a mason like Joseph, this isn't something that would have been seen as particularly worth writing about.
  #30  
Old 05-20-2004, 08:34 AM
John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 5,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfgdxm
The Bible is curiously mute as to exactly what Jesus was doing since early adulthood until he began his ministry around the age of 30.
Ha! Everybody knows that he spent those years working for his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea (who was a tin merchant), in the faraway mythical island known to the Romans by the name Britannia.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon Englandís mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On Englandís pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In Englandís green and pleasant land.
__________________
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude
  #31  
Old 06-06-2004, 01:55 AM
ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by peekskill
If the image was painted it would have been the first anatomicaly correct image ever painted. One way to test the validity of the image is to compare it with the actual human body. Apparenty it meets every test of an accurate image of a crucified body. No artist at the time had the ability to produce a correct image and none was ever painted till hundreds of years later. So the unknown forger was a first in more ways than one.
Putting aside AndrewT's and others refutations for the moment, could you provide cites to back up your claim that this "would have been the first anatomically correct image ever painted"? It's easy to image that Leonardo, who lived roughly a century later, would have been the first to be able to do so, but that's more than likely a result of hagiography. There's no reason to believe the feat could not have been accomplished in an era previous to Leonardo, even if we may not today have records to establish this.

In any event, I've seen a documentary in which some professors performed experiments -- using nothing that would not have been available at the time -- employing the concept of the camera obscura (similar in concept to a pinhole camera, but the image could be room-sized), a trick that had been known at least since the days of Aristotle and was thought to have been used by Bacon in 1300. It's use as an aid in drawing (and perhaps (just) possibly some kind of vaguely photographic process) became known to various sages and luminaries (and eventually history) over time, but the idea was almost always kept as secret as possible and passed between them covertly, since these masters did not want it generally known that they used any aids at all.

The image produced would be what we would today call a photographic negative (although it would also, of course, have been upside-down). The documentary showed this would have worked quite well.

Finally, that the Shroud shows a piercing in the side of the model counts strongly against it being the New Testament's "Jesus" (whom the evidence causes me to strongly doubt ever existed anyway). The cruci-fiction story, like most of the NT, is essentially a re-casted rewrite of Psalm 22 and a few other Judeo-mythical story elements, and is historically inaccurate in regards to known crucifixion methods in detail after detail. But one of the more blatant fictional rewritings of an Old Testament scripture into the New is at the hands of the author of the non-Synoptic Gospel known as "John", which even conservative Christian scholars agree is the least historical of them all (that Gospel is merely "John's" own theology forced back into his own re-fictionalization of the Markan fable): the detail of the piercing of Jesus' side, which "John" alone describes. This comes not from history, but rather from Psalm 22:14.

The Shroud of Turin is clearly not an image of any historical "Jesus".
__________________


Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is ineluctably the chewy chocolate center of all bullshit (including this, of course).
-- ambushed
  #32  
Old 06-06-2004, 02:36 AM
ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,713

Our Beloved Savior's Childhood


Quote:
Originally Posted by rfgdxm
The Bible is curiously mute as to exactly what Jesus was doing since early adulthood until he began his ministry around the age of 30. Surely the Apostles would have asked Jesus this. Yet either they kept this to themselves, or if they did tell others none of that got recorded; or if it ever was the writings were lost.
No, they weren't! We have copies of a few of the so-called "Infancy Gospels", which describe Jesus' childhood and young adulthood. There is the Infancy Gospel of Matthew, the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. They are at least as historically reliable as the canonical Gospels.

In them we find, for example, the youthful Jesus forming some kind of big mud puddle which he then miraculously made clear (what, that doesn't seem very impressive to you?). He then made 12 sparrows out of the mud (but on the Sabbath (gasp!)) and miraculously made them into real (or at least animate) birds and commanded them to fly away. Another kid comes along (a Pharisee, of course), plays with a tree branch dipped into the water, and -- BAM! -- Jesus supernaturally murders him! Take that, you dirty Pharisee!

On another occasion, our cute little darling Jesus is walking with his foster Daddy in town, when another little boy running through the streets accidentally bumped Our Savior's arm and -- BAM! -- Darth Jesus mystically murders him, too! Serves him right for jostling our precious Messiah's itty-bitty arm, dontcha think?

Some of the people in the town weren't too happy about Jesus' reign of terror, and asked Joseph to talk to the Our Loving Lord and Son of God. Jesus' response? He strikes them all blind! Really, what else could he do?

Just keep thinking safe, happy thoughts while singin': "Yes, Jesus loves me, yes, Jesus loves me!"





Or he'll send you into the cornfield!
  #33  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:23 PM
Snickers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 5,391
Here's something else to think about: the image on the shroud doesn't match any conception I have about how a body would be wrapped up. Think about it - you have a narrow strip of cloth, maybe 3 ft. wide, that starts at the feet, goes up and over the head, down the back, ending at the feet again. Straight up, straight down. Is that really how 1st century Jews would wrap a body? No folding, no twisting, no joins where they maybe used a tie cloth, nothing like that? Simply up and down?

The straight up, straight down method of wrapping a body doesn't match the way I think I'd wrap a body. I'd probably use a much wider cloth, folded lengthwise over the body rather than at the head. Put Jesus in the center, fold the left and right sides of the cloth over the body. Or start at one end and roll him up in it. Or any other of a number of ways, but I probably wouldn't do anything that would result in a "up and back, head to head" sort of image, even if the cloth was trimmed later.

Do we know how 1st century Jews prepared their dead? I've read on these boards that modern-day Jews don't embalm the dead (and even the women only "prepared the body" or "anointed the body" of Jesus - I don't remember exactly which), but do today's Jews use any sort of wrapping cloth? Do we know how they might have done it then? This type if information could give us more clues to the legitimacy of the shroud.


Snicks
  #34  
Old 06-10-2004, 01:35 PM
Ethilrist is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Saint Paul
Posts: 27,072
Snickers--you're assuming they had access to looms that were modern-sized. Chances are they could only make cloth a couple feet wide (they were still only making it that wide much later in history, into the 15-16th century at least). In that case, laying a long strip down on the table, laying the body on top of it, then folding the cloth, would be the quickest, easiest way to wrap a body. Nobody'd want to take a bunch of 6' long sections of cloth and sew them together to get something with the dimensions of a bedsheet just so they'd have something to roll a dead body up in. Remember, no sewing machines, either.
  #35  
Old 06-10-2004, 02:18 PM
Snickers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 5,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethilrist
Snickers--you're assuming they had access to looms that were modern-sized. Chances are they could only make cloth a couple feet wide (they were still only making it that wide much later in history, into the 15-16th century at least). In that case, laying a long strip down on the table, laying the body on top of it, then folding the cloth, would be the quickest, easiest way to wrap a body. Nobody'd want to take a bunch of 6' long sections of cloth and sew them together to get something with the dimensions of a bedsheet just so they'd have something to roll a dead body up in. Remember, no sewing machines, either.
This sounds good. However, the straight up and straight down method still doesn't wash with me. Wouldn't you try to gather the sides together in some manner (like with horizontal ties or such) to completely enclose the body, or would the drape of the fabric be enough? (I'm kind of thinking of, sadly, Braveheart here, where Mel's wife is shrouded, but the body is completely enclosed. I realize this is neither a)reality or b)historically accurate, but that's the image I have in my mind). Or would you swaddle the body by wrapping cloth around somehow (sort of mummylike?). Remember, this is your Christ - quick and easy probably wasn't a concern.

And c'mon, Ethilrist, everyone knows that Mary and Jesus had enormous, wide fabric (usually blue) in which to clothe themselves - you've seen the pictures with the elegantly draped and folded cloth over their shoulders!

Snicks
  #36  
Old 06-11-2004, 09:04 AM
grg88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 75

Too many relics....


One thing to ponder is the presence of waaay too many relics from that era.

Mark Twain in his travels through Europe and the Holy Land encountered "A hogshead barrel of "true nails of the cross", enough "pieces of the cross" to build a steamboat. Other accounts list 20 to 30 alleged "shrouds of Jesus".

They can't all be genuine.
  #37  
Old 06-11-2004, 09:24 AM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 21,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by grg88
One thing to ponder is the presence of waaay too many relics from that era...They can't all be genuine.
No, but one could!
  #38  
Old 06-11-2004, 02:40 PM
RiverRunner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snickers
Remember, this is your Christ - quick and easy probably wasn't a concern.
I think that quick was a concern in this case. IIRC, the whole body procurement/interment had to be done quickly in order for those concerned to be finished by the start of the Sabbath:

Luke 23:54 - 56:
Quote:
54It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
55The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
This is also the reason the women were on their way to the tomb a couple of days later -- to finish the embalming job using the spices mentioned above.


RR
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017