The Shroud of Turin and the Druze

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Salibi,
The Druze say that there founder was Jethro the father in law of Moses. So if this is true, some of the children of Moses would also have Druze blood. The Jethro clan travelled with the Israelites when they first came out of Egypt to take over the land of Canaan. So they did live among the other tribes and it would not be surprising if they intermarried.

It was not clear from what you wrote if the DNA was that of the person on the shroud (the blood all over) or some other DNA from other parts of the shroud. If it is the latter, then all it shows is that it was handled by someone with Druze ancestry. If it is the blood of the person on the shroud, then it shows that that person (Jesus) has an ancestry in common with that of the Druze.

Do not forget that the ancestry of Jesus is not all pure Israelite (or purely from Juda). Ruth a Moabite is one of His ancestors. The moabites lived East of the Dead Sea (Jordan today) but they also had contact with other nearby nations.

Recent genetic studies have found that the Jews and many Arabs of Palestine, Syria and nearby areas, have similar genetic sections in their DNA. Some even came to the conclusion that the Palestinians of today (both Christian and Moslems) were Jews that converted after the burning of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
 
PickyPicky said:
(I should put on record that I, too, hold a degree from the OU)
Click to expand...
Me too! Tough to do…holding down a full-time job, and studying for a fully accredited degree at the same time (as most of its students do…or did, in my time). Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
KIM.T said:
It was not clear from what you wrote if the DNA was that of the person on the shroud (the blood all over) or some other DNA from other parts of the shroud. If it is the latter, then all it shows is that it was handled by someone with Druze ancestry. If it is the blood of the person on the shroud, then it shows that that person (Jesus) has an ancestry in common with that of the Druze.
Click to expand...
I am really not sure. I do not recall if the documentary clarified this or not. Anyhow, I think the Shroud has been handled by way too many people for us to be entirely accurate.
KIM.T said:
Recent genetic studies have found that the Jews and many Arabs of Palestine, Syria and nearby areas, have similar genetic sections in their DNA. Some even came to the conclusion that the Palestinians of today (both Christian and Moslems) were Jews that converted after the burning of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Click to expand...
I have heard of such a theory.


I am aware from reading various articles that there is close genetic relation between modern day Druze, Jews, and Lebanese. Some historians and scholars have posited that the close genetic relation between Jews and Lebanese indicates that the ancient Israelites were descended from a Canaanitic population, with the Phoenicians, the ancient ancestors of modern Lebanese, being the most obvious candidate.

The Palestinians may also have been Jews who converted, however, I think considering them so now is problematic since both modern Lebanese and Palestinians are descended from a mix of races. Jews and Druze were mostly endogamous which preserved much of their original genetic information, however, the ancestors of the nations which became Lebanon and Palestine today intermarried with Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Frenchmen, Persians, and other cultures and empires which conquered the lands which they inhabited, so it wouldn’t be entirely correct to say that the Palestinians are Jews or the Lebanese are Phoenicians. However, the term “awlad ‘amna” or “our cousins/relatives” is a common term many Palestinians use for Jews.
 
Last edited:
Niblo said:
Me too! Tough to do…holding down a full-time job, and studying for a fully accredited degree at the same time (as most of its students do…or did, in my time). Congratulations
Click to expand...
Thank you, and congrats to you, too.

The students I most admired were the young women, in their thirties perhaps, with children and a job (and no doubt a bloke who one hopes, perhaps vainly, is pulling his weight) studying to improve their job prospects and therefore their family’s prospects. I don’t know how they managed it.
 
KIM.T said:
It was not clear from what you wrote if the DNA was that of the person on the shroud (the blood all over) or some other DNA from other parts of the shroud.
Click to expand...
The DNA was from dust particles hoovered up from the space between the Shroud and the Holland backing cloth in 1978. It impossible to say if it came from a body enwrapped in it or from extraneous material.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
Thank you, and congrats to you, too.

The students I most admired were the young women, in their thirties perhaps, with children and a job (and no doubt a bloke who one hopes, perhaps vainly, is pulling his weight) studying to improve their job prospects and therefore their family’s prospects. I don’t know how they managed it.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Me too (re student mums).

I was so stressed after 4 years of slog that for some months after graduating I used to break into a nervous sweat whenever an envelope with the OU logo dropped through my letterbox! Ridiculous really, but I kid you not.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
the ancestors of the nations which became Lebanon and Palestine today intermarried with Greeks, Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Frenchmen, Persians, and other cultures and empires which conquered the lands which they inhabited,
Click to expand...
I see this as the overriding issue in any attempt to single out this or that strand of the ancestry of people now living in the Middle East.
 
It is important to realize that the concept of the “nation state”, as in a state inhabited by members of a single nation, is a European concept and is completely foreign to most Middle Eastern nations (barring the Jewish state). Historically, no area in the Middle East has ever been the sole purview of a single group or people and the modern reality reflects this. One of the reasons for the constant tension in the ME is the attempt of various peoples to create states for their people alone, while ignoring rival peoples who have lived in the same territory for centuries, such as the Maronites wanting a Maronite state in Mount Lebanon while ignoring the Druze, whose presence predates the Maronites but in no way delegitimises it. There’s no problem with two nations sharing a land and it’s not necessary to create artificial nationalities for ME people or draw straight lines of historical continuity with the ancients. Middle Eastern emerged from a eclectic mix of cultures and peoples and claiming to be one group over another is inaccurate and ignores historical facts.
 
Last edited:
There is zero proof that it is not authentic. Attempting to prove or disprove the supernatural is an exercise in futility.

I for one will not tempt Our Father in heaven by doing so.
 
CradleRC58 said:
There is zero proof that it is not authentic. Attempting to prove or disprove the supernatural is an exercise in futility.

I for one will not tempt Our Father in heaven by doing so.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof lies with those claiming authenticity and not the other way round.
However you are now admitting that you don’t have proof and so you are stating your opinion only that it is authentic because “exercise in futility” means you are now saying it is not a fact.
 
I don’t need proof.

“Proof” isn’t part of the equation when discussing Supernatural things. And when discussing Supernatural things it should go without saying that anything said is the opinion of the one saying it.

For some Christians, the Shroud builds Faith. For those who don’t believe it is authentic, who are they to argue it isn’t to the detriment of piety in those who do ?
 
CradleRC58 said:
I don’t need proof.

“Proof” isn’t part of the equation when discussing Supernatural things. And when discussing Supernatural things it should go without saying that anything said is the opinion of the one saying it.

For some Christians, the Shroud builds Faith. For those who don’t believe it is authentic, who are they to argue it isn’t to the detriment of piety in those who do ?
Click to expand...
You stated “The Shroud is authentic.” That is stated as a fact. You should have made it clear you were simply expressing your opinion.

I should also add that while you are saying its your opinion that the Shroud is genuine, which you are entitled to opine on, the Shroud fanatics are desperately trying to “prove” it is genuine.
 
Last edited:
Hi Limankaro,
In my opinion all the credible evidence suggests it was made for liturgical purposes in Northern Europe in the late 13th century. It was probably slightly modified for repurposing as a fake relic in the mid 14th century, and seems to show signs of other adjustments before and since.
 
I happen to find the Shroud fascinating. I dont have a solid opinion either way, but believe it should be respected as possibly being authentic, and allowed to be studied with great care.

Out of curiosity, have you been convinced of a theory about how it was created [in the 13th century]?
 
It was probably imprinted by laying the cloth onto a damp bas relief. It is not clear if the bas relief was damp with something like paint or something more like wine or an organic stain. If the first, then the pigment was presumably washed off, leaving only a stain, while if the second, the stain itself was, and still is, the principal chromophore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top