Researcher says text proves Shroud of Turin real

  • Thread starter Thread starter MercyMia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MercyMia

Guest
ROME – A Vatican researcher claims a nearly invisible text on the Shroud of Turin proves the authenticity of the artifact revered as Jesus’ burial cloth.

The claim made in a new book by historian Barbara Frale 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. More after the jump:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_italy_shroud_of_turin

Very interesting.
 
can’t comment on the actual research without seeing it, but to me any writing on the Shroud would tend to point toward a medieval forgery, since I can think of no reason why any words at all should be on a shroud provided hastily, as was the tomb itself, for this burial, and would have to have been added after the fact.

I also question her credentials as an “expert” if she is working in the Vatican archives she is working with photographs, microfilm or other records, not the actual document, and mistakes based on such sources are notorious in the archival world (my profession before current avocation).
 
Yeah, I am still saving my judgement but I think any news regarding the shroud is exciting. It is a great mystery.
 
Only God knows if it is real or fake but i hope its real.😃
If the world hates you remember that it hated me first,no servant is greater than his master, If they persecuted me they will also persecute you.
 
puzzleannie said:
can’t comment on the actual research without seeing it, but to me any writing on the Shroud would tend to point toward a medieval forgery, since I can think of no reason why any words at all should be on a shroud provided hastily, as was the tomb itself, for this burial, and would have to have been added after the fact.

I also question her credentials as an “expert” if she is working in the Vatican archives she is working with photographs, microfilm or other records, not the actual document, and mistakes based on such sources are notorious in the archival world (my profession before current avocation).
Click to expand...
Hi Puzzleannie,

What proof do you have that burial shrouds during the time of Jesus didn’t have writing on them?
 
Dear Friends:
Please refer to the website shroud.com for all questions regarding the shroud. I believe it to be the most up-to-date and accurate information one can read about the shroud.
The shroud is truly amazing and the new scientific research is fascinating. We are so blessed to have access to a website that is unbiased and informative.
The above topic is discussed on the website as well.
God Bless!!
 
I don’t think it’s a forgery.
I remember in High School they assured it was 14th century forgery on those Discovery Channel docs, etc. And I just took their word for it, because they made a lot of face value judgments. Later on, the interest of the shroud came back up, and the Jewish guy who put up Shroud.com examines the details…He actually makes a better case for its authenticity, it doesn’t strike me as a forgery. Catholics don’t need it for their faith, but it is a neat relic to have.

It is however threatening to those who are anti-Christianity. They’re scared.

I expect another “paid study” to be conducted after this news to say "Shroud Reproduced with inscription! " It’s a back and forth between headlines.
 
puzzleannie said:
can’t comment on the actual research without seeing it, but to me any writing on the Shroud would tend to point toward a medieval forgery, since I can think of no reason why any words at all should be on a shroud provided hastily, as was the tomb itself, for this burial, and would have to have been** added after the fact**.
Click to expand...
I’m not following your conclusion here. If it was added after the fact, why would that make it a medieval forgery? If the shroud was found by the Christian community after the Resurrection, they could have done it directly after the fact. 🤷
 
I can’t help but observe that there are those out there who are almost fearful of admitting the rational posiibility that the Holy Shroud IS the burial cloth of Christ. To me as a Protestant, I’ve been vainly waiting for the “hoax” crowd to dispel the dozens of compelling arguments for its authenticity. :rolleyes: Blessings, Rob
 
JMJ4 said:
Dear Friends:
Please refer to the website shroud.com for all questions regarding the shroud. I believe it to be the most up-to-date and accurate information one can read about the shroud.
The shroud is truly amazing and the new scientific research is fascinating. We are so blessed to have access to a website that is unbiased and informative.
The above topic is discussed on the website as well.
God Bless!!
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about the guy who runs the website is that he started out as a Jewish skeptic. He is no longer a skeptic, but he’s still Jewish.
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m not following your conclusion here. If it was added after the fact, why would that make it a medieval forgery? If the shroud was found by the Christian community after the Resurrection, they could have done it directly after the fact. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t buy this either, because if the faithful had taken the shroud directly after the fact–all the bible tells us is that Peter and John left the burial cloths there when they left to return to the others–I cannot believe they would write upon it or do anything to desecrate it, but would preserve it as is in the most careful reverent manner possible. Note, as I have said many times before, I have no opinion one way or the other on the shroud and all the claims surrounding it, except that IMO in appearance it resembles sacred art of the early medieval period. Since this thread is already off topic and we are no longer discussing the cited news story, but past TV shows, various websites etc., I predict this will be no more useful than any past thread on the topic.

I am regarding the cited newstory in light of the circumstances, namely, archival science and practice. I regard the shroud also in light of my past professional experience, as I would any other artifact with claims of ancient origin, looking for provenance and other evidence. To that type of analysis the eyes of faith are not relevant. Those belong to the spiritual realm. The author of the claim is basing it on her practice of her science, so the evidence should be analyzed in that light.

If one’s faith in the resurrection depends on the shroud, splinters of the true cross, or any created object or artifact whatever, then one has no faith to speak of.
 
puzzleannie said:
I don’t buy this either, because if the faithful had taken the shroud directly after the fact–all the bible tells us is that Peter and John left the burial cloths there when they left to return to the others–I cannot believe they would write upon it or do anything to desecrate it, but would preserve it as is in the most careful reverent manner possible. Note, as I have said many times before, I have no opinion one way or the other on the shroud and all the claims surrounding it, except that IMO in appearance it resembles sacred art of the early medieval period. Since this thread is already off topic and we are no longer discussing the cited news story, but past TV shows, various websites etc., I predict this will be no more useful than any past thread on the topic.
Click to expand...
I thought the cited news story is about the text on the Shroud of Turin. How did you or I go off topic? 🤷 I do understand your point regarding the way in which the shroud would be treated by the followers of Jesus. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that the burial clothes would have just been left for good. The fact that nothing is mentioned about them after Peter and John returned to the others does not exclude the possibility that someone got them later.
40.png
puzzleannie:
I am regarding the cited newstory in light of the circumstances, namely, archival science and practice. I regard the shroud also in light of my past professional experience, as I would any other artifact with claims of ancient origin, looking for provenance and other evidence. To that type of analysis the eyes of faith are not relevant. Those belong to the spiritual realm. The author of the claim is basing it on her practice of her science, so the evidence should be analyzed in that light.

If one’s faith in the resurrection depends on the shroud, splinters of the true cross, or any created object or artifact whatever, then one has no faith to speak of.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My faith certainly doesn’t depend on it, but I find it interesting. I hope that isn’t some sort of indictment on my faithfulness. 😉 😛 I appreciate your comments based on your experience. However, I did kind of chuckle when you went from “I have no opinion one way or the other…” to “except that IMO…” 🙂
 
RACJ said:
To me as a Protestant, I’ve been vainly waiting for the “hoax” crowd to dispel the dozens of compelling arguments for its authenticity.
Click to expand...
Dr. Garlaschelli was able to create a striking reproduction of the Shroud by placing a linen sheet over a human model, rubbing pigment on it, adding some blood, then heating and washing it. All materials and methods available in Medieval Europe. A side-by-side of the Shroud and the reproduction can be found here Slide number two.

In regards to the writing; I bet this theory will turn out just as the now debunked coin theory.
 
Other experts claim the researcher is reading too much into grainy photos:
She claimed she had been able to decipher a jumble of phrases written in three languages, including the Greek words (I)esou(s) Nnazarennos, or Jesus the Nazarene, and (T)iber(iou), which she interprets as Tiberius, the Roman emperor at the time of Christ’s crucifixion.
Click to expand...
. . .
Click to expand...
But other experts were sceptical. “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.”
Click to expand...
Link
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Dr. Garlaschelli was able to create a striking reproduction of the Shroud by placing a linen sheet over a human model, rubbing pigment on it, adding some blood, then heating and washing it. All materials and methods available in Medieval Europe. A side-by-side of the Shroud and the reproduction can be found here Slide number two.

In regards to the writing; I bet this theory will turn out just as the now debunked coin theory.
Click to expand...
I went to shroud.com and here is what I found regarding Dr. Garleschelli’s “reproduction”.Doesn’t sound like his method holds up in the wash!😉

shroud.com/latebrak.htm#oct7

"Sadly, in reviewing the article, it is apparent immediately that the author knows very little about the actual Shroud of Turin. He is not the first to suggest that the Shroud image was produced by red ochre pigment (iron oxide). In fact, he is at least the fourth to have proposed this theory in the last 30 years. Of course, this issue was anticipated by the STURP team in 1978 and a number of highly sensitive tests were performed that determined there was not enough iron oxide on the Shroud to be visible without a microscope. Iron oxide does not constitute the image on the Shroud. They also determined the image areas of the Shroud contain no more iron oxide than the non-image areas. It is more or less evenly distributed across the entire cloth.

Obviously, if the image were made in the manner detailed in the article, we would still find thousands of particles of iron oxide embedded into the image fibers of the linen and these would be clearly visible with just a good magnifying glass. Yet the microscopy done directly on the Shroud in 1978 revealed no such thing. These particles just don’t go away on their own. STURP’s instruments could detect parts per billion (a very small amount) of any substance on the Shroud and ALL known paints and pigments (including iron oxide) were excluded by the data. Interestingly, iron oxide is also a by-product of retting linen and the minute quantities found on the Shroud were pure and most likely the result of the retting process. The iron oxide used in red ochre pigment has many impurities and is rarely if ever found in its pure form.

I have stated on more than one occasion that making images on linen is relatively easy. However, making images on linen with the same chemical and physical properties as the Shroud is another story. Considering the massive amount of scientific data that now exists about the Shroud of Turin, anyone making claims such as these must submit their work for careful scrutiny and comparative analysis before drawing such dramatic conclusions. That has not been done in this case. Anyone making such claims must create an image with ALL the same chemical and physical properties as the Shroud, not just a few, if they wish to be taken seriously."
 
livnlern said:
STURP’s instruments could detect parts per billion (a very small amount) of any substance on the Shroud and ALL known paints and pigments (including iron oxide) were excluded by the data.
Click to expand...
Dr. Walter McCrone, who worked on STURP, concluded that both iron oxide and tempera were present and constituted the image and was “drummed out” for it. His successors in the project, unlike himself, had no experience in such things. Those behind the STURP project wanted yes men not objective scientific analysis.
 
puzzleannie said:
IIf one’s faith in the resurrection depends on the shroud, splinters of the true cross, or any created object or artifact whatever, then one has no faith to speak of.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We are not obliged *by faith *to believe the shroud is authentic. It is not in any way part of the deposit of faith. We ARE however obliged, as rational people, to believe what science and historical research tells us. This shows clearly that the shroud cannot be a medieval fake.

How would a 14th C forgerer paint the 3-D image without leaving brush strokes? Why would he paint it as a negative, something that was only discovered 100 years ago, when a photo was taken of it? How do you explain the traces of pollen from Asia Minor and the Holy Land that have been detected on the shroud, if during the last 600 years we know it has never left Europe? How do you explain the astonishingly accurate physiological details, such as the lashes around the body, the swollen face, the wound to the heart, etc.? Why would a 14th C forgerer draw the nail marks on the wrists, instead of where christian iconography has always placed them (in the palms), which we now know is unhistorical?

I could carry on for a long time, but you get the idea. I suggest you research this relic, which I have no doubt is authentic. I do not believe this by faith, but by empirical evidence.
 
santodomingo said:
Why would a 14th C forgerer draw the nail marks on the wrists, instead of where christian iconography has always placed them (in the palms), which we now know is unhistorical?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that often and it simply isn’t true. Not all art and iconography depicted the nails in the palms. For example, The Crucifixion by Duccio di Buoninsegna circa 1308 depicts the nails at the base of the hand/anatomical wrist.
 
I find the study of the shroud interesting…I have no idea if it is real, but anything that turns our thoughts to Christ ,and His passion, is a good thing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top