Guadalupe Tilma: Authentic or Fake?

[ocuinn]

I have been trying to convince some atheists that the Guadalupe Tilma is miraculous. I was thoroughly embarassed when they introduced this article to me. Can anyone here shed some light on this?

‘Miraculous’ Image of Guadalupe

Mexico’s Image of Guadalupe is a sixteenth-century depiction of the Virgin Mary that, according to pious legend, she imprinted miraculously on an Aztec convert’s cloak. The Indian, Juan Diego, is expected to be canonized as a saint, although new evidence confirms skeptics’ claims that the image is merely a native artist’s painting, the tale apocryphal, and “Juan Diego” probably fictitious.

The story of Juan Diego is related in the Nican Mopohua (“an account”) written in the native Aztec language and sometimes called the “gospel of Guadalupe.” According to this account, in early December of 1531 (some ten years after Cortez’s defeat of the Aztec Empire) Juan Diego was a recent convert who supposedly left his village to attend Mass in another. As he passed the foot of a hill named Tepeyac he encountered a young girl, radiant in golden mist, who identified herself as “the ever-virgin Holy Mary, mother of the true God” and asked that a temple be built on the site. Later, as a sign to a skeptical bishop, she caused her self- portrait to appear miraculously on Juan’s cactus-fiber cloak.

The legend obviously contains a number of motifs from the Old and New Testament as well as statements of specific Catholic dogma. Indeed, the tale itself appears to have been borrowed from an earlier Spanish legend in which the Virgin appeared to a shepherd and led him to discover a statue of her along a river known as Guadalupe (“hidden channel”). Moreover, the resulting shrine at Tepeyac was in front of the site where the Aztecs had had a temple for their own virgin goddess Tonantzin (Smith 1983). Thus the Catholic tradition was grafted onto the Indian one, a process folklorists call syncretism.

The image itself also yields evidence of considerable borrowing. It is a traditional portrait of Mary, replete with standard artistic motifs and in fact clearly derived from earlier Spanish paintings. Yet some proponents of the image have suggested that the obvious artistic elements were later additions and that the “original” portions-the face, hands, robe, and mantle-are therefore “inexplicable” and even “miraculous” (Callahan 1981).

Actually, infrared photographs show that the hands have been modified, and close-up photography shows that pigment has been applied to the highlight areas of the face sufficiently heavily so as to obscure the texture of the cloth. There is also obvious cracking and flaking of paint all along a vertical seam, and the infrared photos reveal in the robe’s fold what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that an artist roughed out the figure before painting it. Portrait artist Glenn Taylor has pointed out that the part in the Virgin’s hair is off-center; that her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, as they often do in paintings, but not in nature, and that these outlines appear to have been done with a brush; and that much other evidence suggests the picture was probably copied by an inexpert artist from an expertly done original.

In fact, during a formal investigation of the cloth in 1556, it was stated that the image was “painted yesteryear by an Indian,” specifically “the Indian painter Marcos.” This was probably the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino who was active in Mexico at the time the Image of Guadalupe appeared.

In 1985, forensic analyst John F. Fischer and I reported all of this evidence and more in “a folkloristic and iconographic investigation” of the Image of Guadalupe in Skeptical Inquirer. We also addressed some of the pseudoscience that the image has attracted. (For example, some claim to have discovered faces, including that of “Juan Diego” in the magnified weave of the Virgin’s eyes-evidence of nothing more than the pious imagination’s ability to perceive images, inkblot-like, in random shapes) (Nickell and Fischer 1985).

Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a “very limited palette,” the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors (“tierras”), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century (El Vaticano 2002).

In addition, new scholarship (e.g. Brading 2001) suggests that, while the image was painted not long after the Spanish conquest and was alleged to have miraculous powers, the pious legend of Mary’s appearance to Juan Diego may date from the following century. Some Catholic scholars, including the former curator of the basilica Monsignor Guillermo Schulemburg, even doubt the historical existence of Juan Diego. Schulemburg said the canonization of Juan Diego would be the “recognition of a cult” (Nickell 1997).

However, the skeptics are apparently having little if any effect, and Pope John Paul II seems bent on canonizing “Juan Diego” who is as demonstrably popular among Mexican Catholics as he is, apparently, fictitious.

Acknowledgments

I appreciate the assistance of John Moffit and César Tort who helped update me on this topic, as well as CFI staff members who helped in various ways, including Tim Binga, Kevin Christopher, Ben Radford, and Ranjit Sandhu.

References

Brading, D.A. 2001. Mexican Phoenix: Our Lady of Guadalupe Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Callahan, Philip Serna. 1981. The Tilma under Infra-red Radiation. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

El Vaticano. 2002. Proceso, May 19, 29-30.

Nickell, Joe. 1997. Image of Guadalupe: myth- perception. Skeptical Inquirer 21:1 (January/ February), 9.

Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. 1985. The Image of Guadalupe: A folkloristic and iconographic investigation. Skeptical Inquirer 9:3 (spring), 243-255.

Smith, Jody Brant. 1983. The Image of Guadalupe. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

%between%

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The article conveniently ignores virtually all the arguments going the other way and chooses to use evidence that I’ve seen effectively rebutted. Sorry I can’t add more than that at the moment; I’m really mentally tired. Googling the tilma online will bring up some more articles for you though, rebutting many of these points and raising important evidence this article has completely ignored.

Erg, never mind, I’ll help a little bit. A couple points of evidence the article ignored: First, the tilma the image of Guadaloupe is imprinted on is made of a material that only can survive 20 years, yet this tilma has survived 400. The image also was kept of out doors for many years. People tried to recreate the circumstances of that with other images of Our Lady of Guadaloupe on tilmas of the same material, and they left their images outside, and the images were completely destroyed by the elements within one year, if I recall correctly. The article completely ignored those tests and the material survival issue. Also the fact that the image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe is in perfect condition aside from cracking they argue they can find along one vertical line. For crying out loud .

Furthermore, virtually the entirety of the image has been shown to lack any brush strokes. Note that the article you brought up only mentions apparent brush strokes around the eyes. Very, very few parts of the image show any evidence of brush strokes. The only conclusion drawn by other studies is that the image is like that of a stamp. It appears to have been “stamped” or imprinted as one whole image, colors and outlines and everything, in an instant upon the tilma beneath it. That, of course, is completely impossible except for modern technology completely unavailable in the 16th century.

The article has lots of holes and bias because it’s trying to make a case for one position. It’s conveniently ignoring the strong evidence going against what it’s trying to say. I’m tired so I won’t go into the other issues, but there are good articles online that say much more on the matters raised in that article.

 

[buffalo]

New Discoveries of the Constellations on the Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe

 

[allhers]

I have been trying to convince some atheists that the Guadalupe Tilma is miraculous. I was thoroughly embarassed when they introduced this article to me. Can anyone here shed some light on this?

Instead of being embarressed, you ought to pity them. Pray for those who would do all they can to discredit the Church, Jesus said to pray for our enemies. Some people will say and do anything in order to try to pull others away from their beliefs.

I could make up a story out of something too and get my own “experts” to say what I wanted someone else to hear, but, I am an honest person and wouldn’t do that. As we all know, some so called “experts” really aren’t experts at anything except trying to come up with something else because they can’t possibly believe in something miraclous or supernatural because then they might have to face the truth.

Even IF, the Church itself had written that article it wouldn’t change my faith one bit.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Instead of being embarressed, you ought to pity them. Pray for those who would do all they can to discredit the Church, Jesus said to pray for our enemies. Some people will say and do anything in order to try to pull others away from their beliefs.

I could make up a story out of something too and get my own “experts” to say what I wanted someone else to hear, but, I am an honest person and wouldn’t do that. As we all know, some so called “experts” really aren’t experts at anything except trying to come up with something else because they can’t possibly believe in something miraclous or supernatural because then they might have to face the truth.

Even IF, the Church itself had written that article it wouldn’t change my faith one bit.

When the Church condemns an apparition, it is extremely unwise to keep believing in it.

 

[onetruechurch]

Please purchase the book with an imprimatur first printed in 1998. I have the third printing April 2002.

ACHEIROPOETA: Not Made by Hands by Thomas Sennott
Park Press, P.O. Box 475, 355 6th Ave Nl, Waite Park, MN 56387

It gives all the arguments and then the counter-arguments. It does the same for the Holy Shroud of Turin.

If you can not find it in your Catholic book store you could probably get it from the Guadalupe Shrine in La Crosse, WI or try writing the publisher.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for the book recommendation. I looked it up on amazon and it looks great. I want to read it. I’m going to buy it.

 

[onetruechurch]

Thanks for the book recommendation.

De nada!

 

[danonwaveland]

Granted that your friends will discount this article, based on the site at which it’s published, but. . .

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16789

I had never heard of the remarks made in the article you cited, but the evidence FOR the image is so overwhelming that I am inclined to dismiss them. By the way, are your friends cohorts of Hilary Clinton? You know, the woman who told the Mexican people “You have a marvelous Virgin” and asked the bishop in Mexico “Who painted this?”

God bless,
Dan

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Granted that your friends will discount this article, based on the site at which it’s published, but. . .

If they did that, they would be hypocrites, because the article they cited was from the Skeptical Inquirer.

 

[allhers]

When the Church condemns an apparition, it is extremely unwise to keep believing in it.

While I do agree with that, that isn’t what I meant, what I meant was that my **faith **wouldn’t change. Not that I would still believe there was a St. Juan Diego in spite of what the Church said. (like IF they condemned that apparition), but…I am sure that the
Church fully knew what they were doing at the time and that to the best of our knowledge, it is still approved and I seriously doubt that will change. I don’t think the Church goes around willy nilly approving of apparitions like their article implied.

I always agree with the Church and in the past when I haven’t, I studied to find out where I went wrong, went to confession and got over it. (I got that from a Priest who converted, but…I can’t remember his name, I saw him on EWTN once.) I am not one to disagree with the Church authority, I know they know better than I.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Same here. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding .

 

[Monica4316]

what about this?
sancta.org/eyes.html

I believe this image is miraculous…

I’ve heard lots of evidence for it, which this article ignores.

when I was first researching Christianity, I came across many articles that seemed to really effectively “prove” that it was made up, borrowed from other religions, etc…that Jesus never existed… they all gave ‘evidence’, citations, etc. Then, I found counter arguments to that… so really, don’t believe everything you hear or read.

There is also faked ‘evidence’ out there… some of which is against the Church. (old forgeries from the time of the Reformation etc.) But some of them are still cited in textbooks and sound really authoritative.

 

[Desiderius75]

Be careful with this kind of information, first of all, this comes from a mexican leftist magazine. Second, they talk about a ‘study’, but this ‘study’ is not available anywhere, who analyzed the study, besides Sol and Proceso magazine? They use big words like ‘stereoscopic analysis’, but that means that they used an optical microscope with two objectives, in other words, Sol’s analysis is ocular, not chemical nor molecular. Jose Sol is just an art restorer, not a scientific.

 

[rivera01]

I saw the video to the link that Monica4316 posted about the mystery of the eyes of Guadalupe, it brought tears to my eyes.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Many people do not realize that the original miraculous image was decorated in the 16th century. The original only had the face, hands and robe of the Virgin Mary. The Mexican flag, the little angel, the spikes of light, the moon and the pattern was later added the image later.

After much scientific research, the image is still unexplainable, but the here is what the original image looked like:
img441.imageshack.us/img441/8810/guadalupeoriginal.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Erich]

Many people do not realize that the original miraculous image was decorated in the 16th century. The original only had the face, hands and robe of the Virgin Mary. The Mexican flag, the little angel, the spikes of light, the moon and the pattern was later added the image later.

After much scientific research, the image is still unexplainable, but the here is what the original image looked like:%between%

Where is this documented? I had never heard it before.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

It’s documented in the book by Mexican author Angel Camiro Gutiérrez Zamora in his book *La Imagen Histórica de la Virgen de Guadalupe *(The Historic Image of the Virgin of Guadalupe) as for the decorations, thee were added in the 17th and 18th century (not the 16th.)

img526.imageshack.us/img526/9591/guadalupe2.jpg

 

[Erich]

Furthermore, virtually the entirety of the image has been shown to lack any brush strokes. Note that the article you brought up only mentions apparent brush strokes around the eyes. Very, very few parts of the image show any evidence of brush strokes. The only conclusion drawn by other studies is that the image is like that of a stamp. It appears to have been “stamped” or imprinted as one whole image, colors and outlines and everything, in an instant upon the tilma beneath it. That, of course, is completely impossible except for modern technology completely unavailable in the 16th century.

The article has lots of holes and bias because it’s trying to make a case for one position. It’s conveniently ignoring the strong evidence going against what it’s trying to say. I’m tired so I won’t go into the other issues, but there are good articles online that say much more on the matters raised in that article.

Many people do not realize that the original miraculous image was decorated in the 16th century. The original only had the face, hands and robe of the Virgin Mary. The Mexican flag, the little angel, the spikes of light, the moon and the pattern was later added the image later.

After much scientific research, the image is still unexplainable

It’s documented in the book by Mexican author Angel Camiro Gutiérrez Zamora in his book *La Imagen Histórica de la Virgen de Guadalupe *(The Historic Image of the Virgin of Guadalupe) as for the decorations, thee were added in the 17th and 18th century (not the 16th.)

So, not only does virtually the entirety of the original image lack any brush strokes, but the 17th- and 18th century additions (according to Zamora) lack them as well? Personally, I rather doubt there were extensive man-made additions to the image on the tilma, but if there were, they had to have been made well before 1570. Why do I say this?

From ewtn.com/library/mary/olislam.htm
[O]ne of three admirals commanding the Catholic forces at Lepanto was Andrea Doria. He carried a small copy of Mexico’s Our Lady of Guadalupe into battle. This image is now enshrined in the Church of San Stefano in Aveto, Italy.
The Lepanto image is *identical *to the original Image, which means that any additions to the original had to have been made well before 1570 (the Battle of Lepanto was in 1571).

 

[Monica4316]

So, not only does virtually the entirety of the original image lack any brush strokes, but the 17th- and 18th century additions (according to Zamora) lack them as well? Personally, I rather doubt there were extensive man-made additions to the image on the tilma, but if there were, they had to have been made well before 1570. Why do I say this?

From ewtn.com/library/mary/olislam.htm
[O]ne of three admirals commanding the Catholic forces at Lepanto was Andrea Doria. He carried a small copy of Mexico’s Our Lady of Guadalupe into battle. This image is now enshrined in the Church of San Stefano in Aveto, Italy.
The Lepanto image is *identical *to the original Image, which means that any additions to the original had to have been made well before 1570 (the Battle of Lepanto was in 1571).

do you mean that the original contained the star pattern, the angel, etc? or that it did not?