The Shroud of Turin is in the news again. Is it a medieval forgery or authentic? Vatican researcher says faint text proves shroud's authenticity From the Philadelphia Inquirer ROME - A Vatican researcher asserts that nearly invisible text on the Shroud of Turin proves that the artifact revered as Jesus' burial cloth is authentic. The assertion made by Barbara Frale in a book drew immediate skepticism from some scientists, who maintain the shroud is a medieval forgery. Frale, a researcher at the Vatican archives, said Friday that she used computers to enhance images of faintly written words in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic scattered across the shroud. She asserted that the words include the name "Jesus Nazarene" in Greek, proving that the text could not be of medieval origin because no Christian at the time, even a forger, would have labeled Jesus a Nazarene without referring to his divinity. The shroud bears the figure of a crucified man, complete with blood seeping out of nailed hands and feet, and believers say Christ's image was recorded on the linen fibers at the time of his resurrection. The fragile artifact, owned by the Vatican, is kept locked in a special protective chamber in Turin's cathedral and is rarely shown. Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century. While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them because of the test's results, Frale said in an interview. But when she cut out the words from photos of the shroud and showed them to experts, they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century A.D. - Jesus' time. She believes the text was written on a document by a clerk and glued to the shroud over the face so the body could be identified by relatives and buried properly. Metals in the ink used at the time may have allowed the writing to transfer to the linen, Frale said. "I tried to be objective and leave religious issues aside," Frale said. "What I studied was an ancient document that certifies the execution of a man, in a specific time and place." Frale is noted in Italy for her research on the medieval order of the Knights Templar and her discovery of unpublished documents on the group in the Vatican's archives. Earlier this year she published a study contending the Templars at one time had the shroud in their possession. That raised eyebrows because the order was abolished in the early 14th century and the shroud is first recorded in history about 1360 in the hands of a French knight. But her latest book, The Shroud of Jesus Nazarene, in Italian, raised doubts even among experts. "People work on grainy photos and think they see things," said Antonio Lombatti, a church historian who has written books about the shroud. "It's all the result of imagination and computer software." Lombatti also rejected the idea that authorities in the time of Jesus would officially return the body of a crucified man to relatives after filling out some paperwork. Victims of the most cruel punishment used by the Romans would usually be left on the cross or were disposed of in a dump to add to the execution's deterring effect.
No. The shroud was proven to be a mediaeval forgery, made on cloth manufactured in the 14th century. There is some possible evidence that it was an early mediaeval attempt at photography, but I'm not so sure on that one. The closest you'll get is the possibility that it's a copy of an original death shroud. But that's iffy, especially since it came from the high point of the age of mediaeval fake-relics.
The shroud of Turin depicts a crucified man still wearing a crown of thorns or I think its still on his head. I find it highly unlikely Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (John 19:38 & 39) who took the body of Jesus and buried it would have not removed the crown of thorns when they bound his body in linen wrappings. From my viewpoint the shroud of Turin is suspect even as a copy of the original death shroud.
Is it real, like not a hologram or some weird replica? Probably. Is it real, like the shroud of Hay-zoos with his face magically imprinted on it, giving it godly powers? Probably not. Was Jesus real, like a real person? Probably. Was Jesus a deity, like the son of god? Most probably not. ~String
Yes it is a real Fake the material it is made of is way to young to have been wraped around a Mythical Being.
Here is an article detailing the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. The results were conclusive the shroud is mediaeval. In some circles the faithful still want to debate the results.
************* M*W: Leonardo da Vinci was known to have taken corpses on the sly and examined them. The Shroud has been RCD dated to the 13th or 14th century. It is possible that Leo experimented with these corpses and created a crucified Jesus look-alike image on the cloth (blood and all). Aside note on Leo: If one examines The Last Supper (Milan version), it is pretty obvious to me that the table setting represents the 12 months of the year on either side of Jesus (the sun) in the middle. There are so many clues to this theory in the painting. Just look at Jesus's head on the horizon as if it were the rising (or setting) sun.
Leonardo da Vinci would not have been around in the 14th century. The man lived in the latter half of the 15th century and early 16th century. About a hundred and fifty years after the period the Shroud of Turin was dated to. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Let alone the Shroud of Turin?
************* M*W: Leonardo da Vinci lived from April 15, 1452 to May 2, 1519. There is speculation that he is associated with the creation of the shroud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ikmq7ddbs http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Leonardo_da_Vinci.htm "Authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in the Turin Shroud: In Whose Image (Harper Collins, NY, 1994), proposed that the shroud was an early example of photography showing the portrait Leonardo da Vinci, who created it. In this speculative scenario, the image was made using a magic lantern," a simple projector based on the camera obscura, and light-sensitive chromium salts in an egg white medium." "Their argument is based on little more than that . . . * da Vinci was a capable genius who understood the camera obscura (pin hole camera) * he understood something of the chemistry knowledge of his era * he was highly motivated to fool the church * the image on the Shroud has many facial characteristics similar to those on the Shroud * a sense that the picture could only have been made with a lens" "Leonardo da Vinci was born more than a century after the first documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe. Supporters of this speculation propose that the original cloth was a poor fake, for which Leonardo's superior hoax was substituted, though no historical reports indicate a sudden change in the appearance of the images." "The Shroud of Turin’s ghostly image of Jesus is not a painting (certainty not a traditional Da Vinci Painting). The image on the cloth has been proven to be a hoax and is possibly worthy of being called a Da Vinci Invention. Is it by coincidence that ghostly figure looks remarkably like a Leonardo Da Vinci image? The shrouds’ ghostly image is believed by a minority of academics to have been created with photographing technology dating from the high Renaissance period. But are we truly looking at a Leonardo Da Vinci photograph or one of his anatomy experiments? Or is this just wishful thinking on our part? –That the Greatest Genius of all time has left yet another lasting Legacy which has us all scratching our heads in confusion! We shall ask ourselves, is this a Da Vinci Invention or not . . ." http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/da-vinci-invention-turin-shroud.html "Overall, it is more than likely that the great Shroud of Turin is indeed a Da Vinci Invention and a spectacular Hoax. Leonardo would have enjoyed leaving a puzzle; one that would remain unsolved long after he had departed this world. He would have also enjoyed the idea that in the long run, advancing technology will solve its mystery in the same way that cutting-edge technology had created it in the first place." M*W: Just a footnote regarding da Vinci's artistic trickery.
Medicine Woman, I don't see anything compelling there to link da Vinci to the shroud. "Leonardo da Vinci was born more than a century after the first documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe. Supporters of this speculation propose that the original cloth was a poor fake, for which Leonardo's superior hoax was substituted, though no historical reports indicate a sudden change in the appearance of the images." This ad-hoc rationalisation that there must have been a swap, even though there is no evidence to support the claim, is similar to the behaviour of those who believe the shroud was the cloth of jesus.
Of course the Shroud of Turin is real. Its not an imaginary thing. They do tests on it and scientists have seen it. Of course its real.
Medicine Woman, Because Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was born almost a full century after a documented appearance of the Shroud in western Europe (1354), I have to agree with the other posters. In the article you cited it states, "His (Da Vinci) name is linked to the shroud for a number of factors". The author doesn't cite any source for any factors, only his own speculation. I don't know of any source stating Da Vinci had access later on to the shroud appearing in 1354. 1354 First historical mention of the Turin shroud. It was recorded in the hands of the famed knight, Geoffroi de Charnay, Seigneur de Lirey. 1357 The knight's widow had the shroud displayed in a church at Lirey, France (diocese of Troyes). The bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers prohibited veneration of the image. 1389 The shroud first went on exhibition at Troyes. The bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, denounced it as a "cunningly painted" fake in a letter to the pope. The bishop mentions that the painter who created it had admitted to doing so, but does not give the artist's name. c.1390 Antipope Clement VII (r. 1378–94) declared the shroud to be an appropriate object of devotion, so long as it was not regarded as the true shroud. But Julius II and subsequent popes took its authenticity for granted. 1418 Humbert of Villersexel moved the shroud to his castle at Montfort, France to provide protection against criminal bands, after he married Geoffroi de Charney's granddaughter. It was later moved to Saint-Hippolyte-sur-Doubs. 1453 Humbert's widow, Charney's granddaughter Marguerite sold the shroud to Louis of Savoy in return for a castle. The new owner stored it in his capital at Chambery in the newly-built Saint-Chapelle. 1532 The shroud was damaged by fire and water at the house of Savoy. Poor Clare nuns attempted to repair the damage with patches. 1578 Moved to the royal chapel at Turin, where it was remained ever since. The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. It has been said the RCD was done on patches used to repair the shroud. Implying the shroud itself could be much older. The repairs to the damaged shroud using patches by nuns in 1532 should have proven out in the RCD by yeilding a RCD closer to 1532, if it was actually patches that were tested instead of the original shroud.
Which is the latter half of the 15th century, to the early quarter of the 16th century. Still a hundred years off from the Shroud of Turin's manufacture.
************* M*W: Which manufactured shroud would this be? The first, second, or later? Forget about the image for a moment. The cloth was RCD to the 13th-14th century. It could have been lying around in some box until da Vinci got his hands on it. I'll stick to my post.
