Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
hugh farey said:
Should you find yourself at http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.co.uk, you will find that your "Possibly at least one of the lab techs at each of the three labs was a yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid, a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret" is seriously proposed by one Stephen E. Jones. As far as I know he is totally alone in this belief, but it's there none the less!
Click to expand...
I have recently read a comment by Stephen Jones on his website referring to my remark, in which he calls me a liar and asks me to apologise. Putting aside the "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid" nonsense, which I hope nobody took seriously, he says specifically that he does not propose that there was "a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret."

He says that: "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated."

But he believes that: "Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories."

I am happy to make clear the distinction and apologise unreservedly for any confusion.

He also says that: "I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true. And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it."

I have no wish to upset anybody, least of all Stephen, who is a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud, and am happy to be corrected.
 
Monza said:
I think it has something to do with the fact that Indiana Jones was an archaeologist, he looked for holy relics, fought the NAZIs, something about aliens.....? I get a little confused after that.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for that unit but they keep insisting on teaching us about pottery and postholes.
 
Last edited:
hugh farey said:
I have recently read a comment by Stephen Jones on his website referring to my remark, in which he calls me a liar and asks me to apologise. Putting aside the "yeti/'Squatch/human hybrid" nonsense, which I hope nobody took seriously, he says specifically that he does not propose that there was "a sleeper agent put in place to protect the secret."

He says that: "A sleeper agent is A SPY WHO IS PLACED in a target country or organization, not to undertake an immediate mission, but rather to act as a potential asset if activated."

But he believes that: "Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989) was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989) on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories."

I am happy to make clear the distinction and apologise unreservedly for any confusion.

He also says that: "I am NOT "totally alone in" in my theory that the 1325 +/- 65 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was a result of a computer hacking. At least two prominent Shroud pro-authenticists have emailed me privately that my theory may well be true. And I am sure that some of the 60+ readers a day of my blog provisionally agree with my theory. But it is early days and they are understandably reluctant to publicly agree with it."

I have no wish to upset anybody, least of all Stephen, who is a tireless worker on behalf of the Shroud, and am happy to be corrected.
Click to expand...

That's a remarkably unimpressive straw for someone to grasp at.
 
Jabba said:
- Thanks, Ward.
- I'm fine -- just even older and slower than I was.

- I've been wanting to get back for a few months now, but needed to finish something else first.
- This time, my primary interest is to see how well we can organize the pros and cons. Our topic has several sub-topics, and then layers and layers of sub-sub-topics. I would like to see how well we can list them -- and, score them.
- Seeya later.
Click to expand...

Jabba - 0
Reality - 1
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Banding

- I asked this over on the Porter blog but didn't receive an answer.
- I might have asked it over here already, but can't remember.
- When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?
 
Carbon Dating Doubts/Cotton

- Also, why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?
 
Jabba said:
- I asked this over on the Porter blog but didn't receive an answer.
- I might have asked it over here already, but can't remember.
- When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
You don't know and yet you are sure the CIQ is genuine?

Jabba said:
- Also, why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
You don't know and yet you are sure the CIQ is genuine?

Do your own research. And do it before claiming you know the answer. What evidence do you have that the CIQ is 2000 years old?
 
Jabba said:
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


And your point would be? To quibble over another detail and avoid providing scientific evidence the the C14 results were wrong? BTW, if the cotton was pre-medieval, that doesn't help you.
 
I won't be doing Jabba's homework, and I'd encourage others to follow suit. He's been playing this game for years now; there is no sense indulging him. He won't even bother to search the web or even this thread for info. Calling his approach "lazy" would be overstating the effort employed.
 
Jabba said:
When were the pictures showing banding taken? I assume that they were not taken when the Holland cloth was attached. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
No. Most photos of the Shroud from 1896 onwards show banding, but as far as I know the front of the Shroud has never been photographed without either the Holland cloth or the new (2002) backing. There is photo of the back of the Shroud (without its backing) at https://shroud.wikispaces.com/PROPERTIES, presumably lying on a cloth-covered table.
Jabba said:
Why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
Click to expand...
The different nature of the samples (threads, fibres, sticky tape extractions), and the different estimates of the proportion of cotton in them (from 0% to 100%) make any estimate of the amount of cotton anywhere on the Shroud simply a guess.
Jabba said:
I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
No. The Oxford radiocarbon scientists found some stray cotton fibres which they sent to a textile specialist who said they were "possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old." I'm afraid this statement does not exclude medieval European.
 
This may be my last post here at ISF.

Where is the evidence that the SoT is two thousand years old?

Without any such evidence, there is no point to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
This may be my last post here at ISF.

Where is the evidence that the SoT is two thousand years old?

Without any such evidence, there is no point to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would be saddened to see you quit.

The point is that any curious observer would quickly realise that any argument for authenticity is all flap and no wing when it comes to the question of authenticity.
 
abaddon said:
Personally, I would be saddened to see you quit.

The point is that any curious observer would quickly realise that any argument for authenticity is all flap and no wing when it comes to the question of authenticity.
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss to understand the rancor that this thing generates. I think it's funny in a way, and in another rather sad, but c'est la vie. We all have the ability to ignore or to argue with words.

To me the Shroud represents a kind of puzzle or a mystery like the Voynich manuscript for which many of us would enjoy hearing a solution.

Clearly it's age is established. It seems to appear out of nowhere and then become a symbol of Christianity that no one seems to want to claim, aside from a small cult of obsessive compulsives. Personally, I'd just like to know if some art expert out there has figured out who painted the Shroud, how it was done and possibly what its purpose was, much like Charles Freeman has very competently attempted to do. I'm glad this paper was found, and I only wish there were more discussion of his research on its merits. For example, I know nothing about gesso. How could all of the powdered material disappear from the linen? Are there records of concerns that this stuff was flaking off? So many other questions would be of interest to me.

I've always felt that the reason so few serious credentialed experts were interested in offering their views was because of the unpleasant, religious blow back, but it could also be the case that competent analysts simply find the whole issue of a bad work of art just too snickeringly silly to pursue.

I also think it's important in some small way to counter the volumes of fictional nonsense that have been written about the Shroud from a purely fact based point of view. It is eminently critical to expose those who would, without supporting evidence, stoop to accusing honest carbon dating scientists of incompetence as the frauds and dissembling toadies that they really are, while hopefully depriving a few zealots of their profits along the way. I'm guessing there are at least a few readers of this thread who have learned that the Shroud is not from the first century. That's what passes for progress in my book.
 
Olowkow said:
To me the Shroud represents a kind of puzzle or a mystery like the Voynich manuscript for which many of us would enjoy hearing a solution.

Clearly it's age is established. It seems to appear out of nowhere and then become a symbol of Christianity that no one seems to want to claim, aside from a small cult of obsessive compulsives. Personally, I'd just like to know if some art expert out there has figured out who painted the Shroud, how it was done and possibly what its purpose was, much like Charles Freeman has very competently attempted to do.
Click to expand...

Well the shroud enters history has a fraud and called such by the Catholic Church. In a letter dated to 1389 by Pierre D'Arcis Bishop of Troyes the shroud is denounced has a fraud and lie designed to get money from pilgrims going to see it in the church of Lirey France.

Pierre refers to a previous investigation, (apparently in the 1360s), by a Henry then Bishop of Troyes when the shroud was originally exhibited at Lirey. In the letter Pierre says:

Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [Henry] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. (The Image on the Shroud, H. David Sox, Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1981, p. 148. The full translation of the letter is pp. 148-152.)
Click to expand...

Henry it appears suppressed the exhibition of the shroud because it was fraudulent. Years later a renewed attempt to exhibit the shroud to rake in the dough from pilgrims was tried so Pierre's letter to the Pope in Avignon, (Then the residence of the Pope or at least one of them.), about the whole situation. Sadly the documents of the original investigation have not survived.

After Pierre's letter the Church sent instructions that the exhibition of the shroud could go ahead, but only on condition that it touted has a representation of the burial shroud of Jesus not has THE burial shroud.

The shroud seems to have been nothing more than a typical effort to get money from pilgrims like so many Medieval sacred fake relics. This letter is usually ignored by enthusiasts for the shroud and if noticed its devastating comments hand waved away.
 
Last edited:
Issue: Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?

Conclusion1 : No.

Reasons:

1) Jesus is not proven to exist, therefore attributing anything to him is premature.
(Assumption: Moving forward, assume that "Jesus" refers to the Jesus in the Bible.)

2) The shroud contradicts Biblical descriptions of the burial shroud.
2.A. There is no separate head cloth, which is clearly mentioned in the Bible.


3) The position of the person on the shroud is not possible for a human to achieve.

4) There is not enough space between the "front" and "back" heads for a human to have fit between them.
(Assumption: The shroud sandwiched the person between the two halves.)

5) There is no distortion of the image, which would necessarily arise from the shroud being folded around a human body.

6) Historical records (see Pacal's post) do not mention the shroud until the 14th century, when it was denounced as a fraud.
(Assumption: The records are accurate--not an incontrovertable assumption, but one that stands up to analysis in this case).

7) The image faded remarkably in the past few hundred years, when it did not fade prior to a few hundred years ago.
(This would mean that the image would have remained bright for over a thousand years, then faded wihtout any reason given.)

8) Radiocarbon dating places its origin in the Middle Ages.
(Assumptions: If I have to list these, you don't know enough to comment on anything regarding radiocarbon dating.)

Conclusion 2: The shroud was a Medieval artifact.

Reasons:

1) It's widely known that manufacturing of religious relics was an industry in the Middle Ages. See Mark Twain's writings on the topic for detail.

2) His holiness Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, argued it to be fake.

3) Known ceremonies existed at the time the radiocarbon dating presents as the origin of the shroud that involved exactly such artifacts as the shroud (as presented in this thread).

Counter-conclusion: The shroud is the burial shroud of Christ.

Reasons:

1) A poorly-controlled experiment using untested protocols and threads of unestablished provenance dates it at 2,000 years old (roughly).

2) .....

Is there a 2?
 
carlitos said:
I won't be doing Jabba's homework, and I'd encourage others to follow suit. He's been playing this game for years now; there is no sense indulging him. He won't even bother to search the web or even this thread for info. Calling his approach "lazy" would be overstating the effort employed.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Dinwar said:
Issue: Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?

Conclusion1 : No.

Reasons:

1) Jesus is not proven to exist, therefore attributing anything to him is premature.
(Assumption: Moving forward, assume that "Jesus" refers to the Jesus in the Bible.)

2) The shroud contradicts Biblical descriptions of the burial shroud.
2.A. There is no separate head cloth, which is clearly mentioned in the Bible.


3) The position of the person on the shroud is not possible for a human to achieve.

4) There is not enough space between the "front" and "back" heads for a human to have fit between them.
(Assumption: The shroud sandwiched the person between the two halves.)

5) There is no distortion of the image, which would necessarily arise from the shroud being folded around a human body.

6) Historical records (see Pacal's post) do not mention the shroud until the 14th century, when it was denounced as a fraud.
(Assumption: The records are accurate--not an incontrovertable assumption, but one that stands up to analysis in this case).

7) The image faded remarkably in the past few hundred years, when it did not fade prior to a few hundred years ago.
(This would mean that the image would have remained bright for over a thousand years, then faded wihtout any reason given.)

8) Radiocarbon dating places its origin in the Middle Ages.
(Assumptions: If I have to list these, you don't know enough to comment on anything regarding radiocarbon dating.)

Conclusion 2: The shroud was a Medieval artifact.

Reasons:

1) It's widely known that manufacturing of religious relics was an industry in the Middle Ages. See Mark Twain's writings on the topic for detail.

2) His holiness Pierre D'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, argued it to be fake.

3) Known ceremonies existed at the time the radiocarbon dating presents as the origin of the shroud that involved exactly such artifacts as the shroud (as presented in this thread).

Counter-conclusion: The shroud is the burial shroud of Christ.

Reasons:

1) A poorly-controlled experiment using untested protocols and threads of unestablished provenance dates it at 2,000 years old (roughly).

2) .....

Is there a 2?
Click to expand...
I'd add a 2B to your points; the fake shroud doesn't match Jewish burial customs or the only known first century CE shroud.
 
Olowkow is exactly right in his assessment of how this discussion might fruitfully continue. It doesn't matter when the Shroud was made now; most of this community have established it as a medieval creation. However, as a medieval creation, it is extraordinary to the extreme. If it is indeed just a run-of-the-mill painting, then it is extraordinary that it is the sole survivor, not simply of this kind of relic, but of this artistic style and technique. If it is a bas relief imprint, or a chemical or thermal scorch, then again, it is a unique document in the history of art, and should inspire more serious investigation by medieval art, history and religious historians.

Furthermore, it is a remarkably "good" work or art. Leaving aside the anatomical inaccuracies (which all painters made, sometimes deliberately) the face of Christ as it appears on the Shroud, even though it has to be inverted to be appreciated at its best, is at least as good as, and to my mind considerably better than, almost every other contemporary depiction. Whether this was an accident of manufacture or by deliberate intent does not detract from the inherent quality of the depiction.

Let us move forward along these lines of inquiry. If all any commenter wants is a bit of Jabba-bashing, then by all means give this thread a miss for a while.
 
hugh farey said:
Olowkow is exactly right in his assessment of how this discussion might fruitfully continue. It doesn't matter when the Shroud was made now; most of this community have established it as a medieval creation. However, as a medieval creation, it is extraordinary to the extreme. If it is indeed just a run-of-the-mill painting, then it is extraordinary that it is the sole survivor, not simply of this kind of relic, but of this artistic style and technique. If it is a bas relief imprint, or a chemical or thermal scorch, then again, it is a unique document in the history of art, and should inspire more serious investigation by medieval art, history and religious historians.

Furthermore, it is a remarkably "good" work or art. Leaving aside the anatomical inaccuracies (which all painters made, sometimes deliberately) the face of Christ as it appears on the Shroud, even though it has to be inverted to be appreciated at its best, is at least as good as, and to my mind considerably better than, almost every other contemporary depiction. Whether this was an accident of manufacture or by deliberate intent does not detract from the inherent quality of the depiction.

Let us move forward along these lines of inquiry. If all any commenter wants is a bit of Jabba-bashing, then by all means give this thread a miss for a while.
Click to expand...

All good. So take it to the appropriate section of the forum, which is ART, not religion. As long as it's here, and one member continues to insist that it's the burial cloth of a specific bloke from 2k years ago, then it's still his burden to prove it.
 
I'd add Charles Freeman's loom size and weave style arguments to Dinwar's list of evidence that the Shroud is a 14th century artifact.

As for moving the thread, why not just move the Jabba bashing to its own thread instead, in CT? The report button is still available for any off topic posts.

I attended a lecture the other day about DNA and various aspects of genomics given by a widely known expert in the field, now retired. He was showing how it was in principle possible to "resurrect" (his term for cloning) various organisms, with some examples along the lines of Frankenstein's monster and Jurassic Park, along with a discussion of what it would take to "resurrect" a wooly mammoth. To further illustrate his points, suddenly a huge image of the Shroud of Turin appeared on the screen. He suggested that using the supposed blood found on the Shroud, one could ...well, he didn't actually finish. The audience was duly amused.

I hesitated, but finally decided I had to speak out even though his intent was merely for humor. I mentioned that the shroud has been reliably carbon dated to the 14th century by three competent labs, so the shroud probably isn't a very good example of "resurrection" possibilities. He was surprised, believing that the dating was under considerable doubt or controversy and asked me to send him some references, which I have done.

The point is, here is an extremely accomplished scientist who somehow was presupposing the doubts which only the religious community have inflicted upon competent scientific procedures, and in my opinion potentially embarrassing himself before an audience of educated people.
 
I am in Bologna setting up an art history tour there for later this year and I have been looking at works of art from the fourteenth and fifteenth century that leave the Shroud well behind. The artist could not even imagine that the hair would have fallen back on a lying figure and instead copied a conventional ( since c.AD 300) figure of Christ's head as if he were standing. There is nothing in it that cannot be found elsewhere in this period.

Most of these painted linens deteriorated quickly if they were not placed on a backing. Folding and refolding usually broke up the painted surface and they were thrown away. The Shroud was not a top level quality cloth - just look at paintings that show clothes from this period.

Actually judging from the descriptions and depictions of the Shroud, the original images appear to have lasted well. Depictions from the nineteenth century ( e.g of the 1868 exposition) suggest that it was then that they deteriorated and features that we know were once there, like the long hair at the back, disappeared. It was just at this point too that the cathedral authorities put it in a frame for the first time. They were clearly worried about something.

If the Zittau Veil ( of 1472) in Zittau in Saxony, can be taken for comparison, once the pigments fall off a linen painting (in the case of the Zittau Veil they were steamed off by looters in WW II), there are shadowy images remaining in the cloth where the paint once was, just as one finds on the Shroud. What, subject to specialist support, I think we have is the discolouration of the linen as a result of centuries of being covered in paint. Walter McCrone who for obvious reasons has been much derided by the Shroudies but who was more expert in his field of microscopy than any of them, did indeed find traces of the original pigment on the Shroud surface.
None of the hundreds of so-called Shroud researchers has ever been able to find a scrap of evidence that dates the linen of the Shroud before the medieval period. This does not make the Shroud any less interesting as it may be the only surviving example of a grave cloth used in the Easter ceremony of Quem Queritis when a shroud was held up before the congregation on Easter morning to show that Christ had risen. We know that some were painted. I guess the Shroud was designed for a large congregation - perhaps in a church with a long nave and poor light. After all the figures are larger than life size for the medieval period and the artist made two of them, front and back ( but they do not match each other!),to make the cloth more visible from a distance.

It was this ability to see the Shroud from a distance that made it such an excellent relic for the Savoys as they could show it off before vast crowds. It may even have been repainted from time to time to keep it visible.

As I say whenever asked, the Shroud was never intended to deceive. No one in the medieval period would ever have been taken in by a grave cloth with images in it when none are mentioned in the gospels or medieval iconography. This is one of many so-called 'authentic' relics that started its life as something else and the de Charny family conspicuously failed to convince anyone that it was authentic.

We must get more medievalists working in the weave,painting techniques for linen and iconography. I am beginning to get some feedback from professional medievalists who are getting interested and we may at last be able to put this altogether. But we have a long way to go!
 
Olowkow said:
I'd add Charles Freeman's loom size and weave style arguments to Dinwar's list of evidence that the Shroud is a 14th century artifact.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I had forgotten about those. My mistake, Charles Freeman; those are fantastic arguments!
 
Olowkow said:
Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder whether anyone has ever depicted or proposed that the original design of the Shroud of Turin was that it be hung vertically in the long dimension, supported by a horizontal staff in the center between the rear and front heads. This would permit worshipers to walk around the work of art and view front and rear as if it were the body of Christ floating upwards to Heaven. It would make more sense than displaying it horizontally as it usually has been portrayed. It would also account for the apparently anomalous gravity effects on the hair and the blood.

Placing candles between the sheets would give the images an eerie surreal effect, but would likely have been a fire hazard.
Click to expand...

Charles Freeman said:
I am in Bologna setting up an art history tour there for later this year and I have been looking at works of art from the fourteenth and fifteenth century that leave the Shroud well behind. The artist could not even imagine that the hair would have fallen back on a lying figure and instead copied a conventional ( since c.AD 300) figure of Christ's head as if he were standing. There is nothing in it that cannot be found elsewhere in this period.....
<snipped for space>
Click to expand...

Some people have all the fun! :)
Thanks for all the comments, particularly on the missing gesso. I wonder whether you have any opinion on the above post about hanging the Shroud vertically from a horizontal pole or beam. It could have even been ceremonially raised into a hidden heaven chamber in the ceiling using a system of ropes.
 
Olowkow said:
Some people have all the fun! :)
Thanks for all the comments, particularly on the missing gesso. I wonder whether you have any opinion on the above post about hanging the Shroud vertically from a horizontal pole or beam. It could have even been ceremonially raised into a hidden heaven chamber in the ceiling using a system of ropes.
Click to expand...

The gesso is not "missing". The abundance of calcium carbonate in and on hte linen is what is left of it.
 
Charles Freeman said:
The artist ... copied a conventional (since c.AD 300) figure of Christ's head as if he were standing. There is nothing in it that cannot be found elsewhere in this period.
Click to expand...
As you know, Charles, I am quite a fan of the Quem Quaeritis origin of the Shroud, but I must query the statement that anything similar can be found elsewhere. There may have been 'inverted' colour, double full-length, front-and-back images all over the place, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. While some aspects of the Shroud image can be found elsewhere (such as the Holkham bible), in general it is indeed unique.

Charles Freeman said:
The Shroud was not a top level quality cloth - just look at paintings that show clothes from this period.
Click to expand...
From a linen point of view, with a thread count of 30/40 per cm and requiring a four-heddle loom, it's about as top level as linen for painting can get. Of course it's not silk, and it seems that even top quality painted linen was a 'cheap' substitute for embroidery, but its pretty good. Are there any better examples?

Charles Freeman said:
Depictions from the nineteenth century (e.g of the 1868 exposition) suggest that it was then that they deteriorated and features that we know were once there, like the long hair at the back, disappeared.
Click to expand...
There seem to be two distinct artistic traditions, 'copies' which resemble the modern Shroud, and 'expositions' which have loincloths and feet turned outwards, which run simultaneously for 200 years. Neither gradual deterioration nor sporadic repainting adequately explain this, but for the life of me I have no better explanation.

Charles Freeman said:
They were clearly worried about something.
Click to expand...
I think that's a speculation too far. If they were worried that their continued rolling and unrolling of the Shroud was making it disappear, a frame would not have made the slightest bit of difference.

Charles Freeman said:
The de Charny family conspicuously failed to convince anyone that it was authentic.
Click to expand...
It would hardly have been necessary to appeal to the pope for a declaration of forgery if hundreds of people had not been convinced that it was authentic.

Charles Freeman said:
We must get more medievalists working in the weave painting techniques for linen and iconography
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Slowvehicle said:
The gesso is not "missing". The abundance of calcium carbonate in and on hte linen is what is left of it.
Click to expand...

IANAA (not an artist) so I must be picturing this stuff incorrectly. I imagine gesso to be a bit like plaster of Paris or spackling compound only thinner. It dries stiff from what I have read. It's not really meant to be used on a fabric to be folded.

I would picture an old linen covered with gesso that has been carefully rolled or folded to end up with some areas of stiffened cloth to remain with the gesso layer pretty much intact but cracked, rather than losing it equally in all areas. It just seems that one would have to really work at removing the gesso for it to remain only as a vaguely detectable remnant. But, as Charles Freeman suggests, this might be what actually happened.

I'm comparing the look I expect to the oilcloth of the 50s, vinyl bonded to flannel. I remember tablecloths that started losing their vinyl covering and exposing the fabric in spots, but not equally in all areas.

ETA: Just to confirm that this thread has had at least a modicum of educational value, I will post the e-mail response I got from the professor I mentioned in my recent post #1380. I sent him a link to Charles Freeman's paper, the Wiki link to the SoT, and the link to the ShroudStory site.

Thanks for these links, which I have now looked at. The Wikipedia link summarizes just about everything that has been published on the subject, without drawing a conclusion. The RCD analyses in that report, as well as weave patterns, are the most persuasive evidence that this cloth comes from the 11th or 12th century. I like the art history analysis by Freeman because it looks at stuff not considered by most people and it makes sense. I also see the RCD and art history analyses as an intersection of the humanities and sciences, which has always appealed to me. The religious blog doesn't add much to the debate. A simple question, however, would be, if the shroud is some kind of image generated by a body, why is it that that there is no mention of this image in the gospels or other literature descended from the time by people who were close to Jesus? Surely they would have noted it.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
IANAA (not an artist) so I must be picturing this stuff incorrectly. I imagine gesso to be a bit like plaster of Paris or spackling compound only thinner. It dries stiff from what I have read. It's not really meant to be used on a fabric to be folded.

I would picture an old linen covered with gesso that has been carefully rolled or folded to end up with some areas of stiffened cloth to remain with the gesso layer pretty much intact but cracked, rather than losing it equally in all areas. It just seems that one would have to really work at removing the gesso for it to remain only as a vaguely detectable remnant. But, as Charles Freeman suggests, this might be what actually happened.

I'm comparing the look I expect to the oilcloth of the 50s, vinyl bonded to flannel. I remember tablecloths that started losing their vinyl covering and exposing the fabric in spots, but not equally in all areas.

ETA: Just to confirm that this thread has had at least a modicum of educational value, I will post the e-mail response I got from the professor I mentioned in my recent post #1380. I sent him a link to Charles Freeman's paper, the Wiki link to the SoT, and the link to the ShroudStory site.
Click to expand...

Given that the vehicle, or size, for fine gesso in the 13th would have been very dilute rabbit skin glue (not a resin), and the pigment would have been marble dust (with perhaps some powdered gypsum); if the CIQ were, in fact, gessoed, the medium would be much more likely, upon handling (including rolling and folding) to have powdered off instead of flaking or spalling. In Bright Earth, Phillip Ball points out that this is why there are so few surviving examples of large-scale painted medieval cloths.

...but I'm just a pigment grinder...
 
Hugh. Better examples- yes, if you have seen a fine linen table cloth and there is some evidence that some were about twice as fine in medieval times as the Shroud. One also has to remember the point made by the textile expert Vial in his analysis of the weave when he examined it in 1988 when they were choosing the r-c sample ( it is in the CIETA Bulletin for 1989), that the yarn used to weave the Shroud varied widely in size. He gives examples. No fine weaver would have allowed this and it also explains why there is talk of irregularities in the weave. They were the inevitable result of using disparate yarns. Vial also noted places where mistakes had been made in the herringbone pattern.
The medieval advice given when weaving a linen that was to be painted on was that the weave should be quite dense so that it could be sealed effectively by the gesso. This may in itself account for the high density of the weave.
Lots of Hugh's points above are arguable and need to be taken on.
Since writing earlier, I have been looking at the fourteenth century paintings in the Bologna
Gallery, especially the Crucifixions and burials of Christ. It is remarkable how blood running down the arms of Christ appears in the fourteenth century - for me it us part of the jigsaw of evidence that the artist of the Shroud was working within the iconography of the fourteenth century ( although the best example is the all- over flagellation, known nowhere before 1300 and unrecorded in reality, inspired apparently by taking Isaiah 1:6 as a premonition of what would happen to Christ). It is interesting that the Shroudies never explore this.
The head of a Christ from the same period in Bologna also has globules of blood very similar to those on the Shroud - compare too the globules with Holkham Bible Crucifixion scenes of 1330. These were surely painted and not the result of a liquid meeting unsealed linen.
Yes, perhaps we ought to move over to Art in the hope of attracting expert opinion. If we can just accept that the Shroud exists as a physical object, that no one, despite hundreds of hours of research, has dated it before the medieval period, then we can focus completely in the medieval context in which it might have originated.
 
hugh farey said:
Oh, I quite agree. Let's keep looking! To me the blood looks dribbled on as if with a pipette, and the scourge marks like potato prints (or whatever the grown-up equivalent is!).
Click to expand...

Well, not potato. Potatoes were not known in Europe at the time. ;)

Hans
 
Charles Freeman,

I think the central question about whether the shroud was originally designed (or used) to deceive is this:

Why is there a 1390 letter that declares it a forgery and that the forger confessed?

I think this mystery needs to be solved before the rest of your theory can fall into place.

Ward
 
Wardenclyffe. I think you need to be careful with the terminology here. I am away and have not the original text with me but I thunk that it was that the de Charney's were fraudulently making the claim that they had the real thing that was the charge. It was precisely in 1390 that the anti-pope Clement VII allowed continued exposition of the Shroud, even with an indulgence attached, so long as it was publicly announced before each exposition that it was not the real thing. This implies that the shroud was one of those many thousands of spiritual objects that gained status usually because a miracle was associated with them. This was common for icons, of course. The best fit hypothesis for the Shroud seems to be it was in this category. Clement would never have made his declaration if he had believed that the Shroud had been deliberately created to deceive .
 
Jabba said:
- Also, why can't we determine, at least roughly, the extent of cotton in the samples?
- Also, I read somewhere that the cotton was not medieval or European. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Cotton was common in Rome and became largely inaccessible in Europe between the end of the Classical period 450ish and the First Crusade late 1090s. After the First Crusade it was readily available though probably not cheap as it was a Silk Road trade good imported by mostly Venitian and Genovese traders.
 
Charles Freeman said:
Wardenclyffe. I think you need to be careful with the terminology here. I am away and have not the original text with me but I thunk that it was that the de Charney's were fraudulently making the claim that they had the real thing that was the charge. It was precisely in 1390 that the anti-pope Clement VII allowed continued exposition of the Shroud, even with an indulgence attached, so long as it was publicly announced before each exposition that it was not the real thing. This implies that the shroud was one of those many thousands of spiritual objects that gained status usually because a miracle was associated with them. This was common for icons, of course. The best fit hypothesis for the Shroud seems to be it was in this category. Clement would never have made his declaration if he had believed that the Shroud had been deliberately created to deceive .
Click to expand...

I will only take issue with your statement that Pope Clement "would never have made his declaration if he had believed that the Shroud had been deliberately created to deceive." There is lots of evidence that churches in general, and Popes in particular, were only to willing to have the populace believe in something, even if it originated under very shady circumstances, if that belief would aid in religious fever and/or the political position of the Church. Lying for xxx has been, and continues to be, considered legitimate by many religious people, with the idea that a small deception now will save someone's soul later. Add to this the fact that the Shroud was a very popular and politically important document for some sects within the Church. I actually credit Clement a great deal in his compromise in that the Shroud could be displayed, but the viewers must be warned.
 
hugh farey said:
As you know, Charles, I am quite a fan of the Quem Quaeritis origin of the Shroud, but I must query the statement that anything similar can be found elsewhere. There may have been 'inverted' colour, double full-length, front-and-back images all over the place, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. While some aspects of the Shroud image can be found elsewhere (such as the Holkham bible), in general it is indeed unique.
Click to expand...

But it is unique only by the figure represented iow : the christ, *not* by the technical mastery of the painting used, or the effect of aging on the veil , which is I think the point of Charles.
if you look at the zittau veil for example, it is on the painting mastery to my untrained eye far more advanced than the turin shroud. the aging effect can also be found on otehr painted shroud.

In other word, there is *nothing* technically which was beyond the epoch, in fact all of it seem to pass checks for the epoch. Which is to be expected for something paint at that time.

In otehr word : tehre is nothing on the mastery and technic which disprove a medieval origin.
 
I agree that the various skills involved were not beyond the epoch, or it would be difficult to believe in a medieval origin; it's just that there is actually nothing similar. I myself think that the discolouration of the linen that seems to be the principle component of the image today may be the result of an acidic medium carrying some sort of pigment no longer present, such that the denser the original pigment, the darker the present discolouration. However I have no medieval evidence to demonstrate that such an effect ever occurred elsewhere, even in the Zittau Fastentuch. Similarly, there is nothing in medieval art to suggest that a two-bodied, head to head, image is impossible or even unlikely; its just that nothing similar seems to have survived. The Shroud is genuinely, in these respects, technically and stylistically unique, even if it wasn't so when it was created.
 
Charles Freeman said:
Wardenclyffe. I think you need to be careful with the terminology here. I am away and have not the original text with me but I thunk that it was that the de Charney's were fraudulently making the claim that they had the real thing that was the charge. It was precisely in 1390 that the anti-pope Clement VII allowed continued exposition of the Shroud, even with an indulgence attached, so long as it was publicly announced before each exposition that it was not the real thing. This implies that the shroud was one of those many thousands of spiritual objects that gained status usually because a miracle was associated with them. This was common for icons, of course. The best fit hypothesis for the Shroud seems to be it was in this category. Clement would never have made his declaration if he had believed that the Shroud had been deliberately created to deceive .
Click to expand...

You are far more familiar with the evidence than I am. I brought up the challenge because your main opponents* (shroudies) cannot. They cannot use evidence that the shroud was declared a fraud in the 1300s. That would hurt their case in every other area.

So, are you suggesting that the shroud was not made to deceive, but was being used to deceive within a few decades after its creation?

Ward

* This implies that I am one of your opponents (but not a main one). I'm not. I just find the subject fascinating and your hypothesis seems reasonable, but I'm having trouble fitting the 1390 letter (which I have not even read) into the equation.
 
wardenclyffe said:
So, are you suggesting that the shroud was not made to deceive, but was being used to deceive within a few decades after its creation?
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable. Someone got greedy; it's pretty much a constant in human nature.

(Not that I'm arguing against you, just a random thought you spurred. :) )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom