[HN Gopher] The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends
___________________________________________________________________
The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends
Author : royalroad
Score : 36 points
Date : 2024-10-17 17:00 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (michaelshermer.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (michaelshermer.substack.com)
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't
| everyone at that time get a shroud.
| fsckboy wrote:
| your family has been passing down a family bible for many
| years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your
| great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the
| old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into
| the family back then.
|
| you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and
| lots of kids back then" and you throw it away.
|
| you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your
| life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "no point in looking for meaning."
|
| You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure.
|
| But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most
| likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning.
|
| It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the
| limited time we have on looking for meaning.
| hluska wrote:
| Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As
| soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone
| always says something like "it's just switching to more
| fruitful avenues."
|
| If something works for you, that's great. But why do people
| automatically say that their way is better? Does being
| right really matter?
|
| We could have a really great world if we'd just let people
| believe in whatever works for them.
| card_zero wrote:
| That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is:
| your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here
| is that you should never be told that your thing is not
| very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too,
| hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and
| _sometimes_ I feel like I have a right to request that
| they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we
| have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and
| constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other
| people 's business. We need room to breathe, including
| believing in stuff.
|
| However. It would _not_ be a really great world without
| criticism. It would be a world _even more_ full of
| conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts
| about the government engineering hurricanes or
| archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters
| because indulgently anti-reason people _don 't_ limit it
| to what "works" for them, they go around _pressuring
| other people_ to be similarly stupid. By the way, what
| does "works" really mean here? It's something like a
| need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine,
| I think, even vital, but only _in private._ Bring those
| weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then
| they _should_ be criticized, otherwise we 're heading
| toward folie a deux territory.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Go back and read the parent .
|
| What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling
| down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs,
| and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to
| believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow.
|
| Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot
| of years going in weird directions, so why not pause,
| look around, and figure out a better way forward.
|
| Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when
| others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree
| with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom,
| can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind
| of freedom".
|
| Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested
| reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be
| free to suggest that, and to change.
|
| But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan
| might have made some good points, or the Bible actually
| allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you
| are corrupting people, we have to stop that.
| atombender wrote:
| This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of
| ownership at all; there is no such list.
|
| The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's
| unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were
| circulating at the same time. When written sources start
| talking about the current one, they don't say where it came
| crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B,
| who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got
| it from...". It just appears suddenly.
| ted_dunning wrote:
| Furthermore, there are records that the pope of the time
| required that the shroud be labelled as a replication, not
| an authentic artifact.
| Maken wrote:
| Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to
| add a couple of extra details:
|
| 1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to
| boast about family treasures and often made up stories about
| his parents and grandparents.
|
| 2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back
| matter.
|
| But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.
| mrkstu wrote:
| Unconnected to whom it actually is, the mystery of how the
| image was generated is enough of a mystery to keep digging for
| answers.
| lisper wrote:
| There was never a time in which "everyone" got a shroud. Even
| in Jesus's time, burying someone in a shroud was a distinctly
| Jewish custom, and using linen did not become fashionable until
| after Jesus's death [1] [2]. Furthermore, for a crucifixion
| victim to be buried at all, let alone in a shroud, would be
| extremely unusual. It was generally part of the punishment for
| the body to be left on the cross after death to be displayed
| and consumed by scavengers. When the remains were finally
| removed they were generally disposed of in mass graves. [3]
|
| [1]
| https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5282847/jewis...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamaliel
|
| [3] https://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Sure. Not everyone globally, just everyone in the "distinctly
| Jewish" culture
| lisper wrote:
| OK, for that definition of "everyone" then yes, it's
| probably mostly true under normal circumstances. (Poor Jews
| may have been buried without shrouds, I don't know.) But 1)
| being crucified was not a "normal circumstance" and 2)
| linen did not become common as a material for burial
| shrouds until many years after Jesus died.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a
| 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics
| for money and fame.
|
| Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud,
| you would have to explain how the image on it was produced.
| Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true
| that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud
| when they died, people certainly didn't paint those shrouds.
| appguy wrote:
| Scientists have recently used a new x-ray imaging technique
| to date The Shroud to the 1st century. https://www.dailymail.
| co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal
| with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally,
| their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very
| narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century
| hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect.
|
| Additionally, their findings contradict a very well
| established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well
| documented and thought out study, using 8 different world
| class laboratories, for which their only explanation is
| "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is
| pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated
| using C14).
|
| Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to
| the study, not a Daily Mail article.
|
| [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47
| wrzuteczka wrote:
| These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected
| from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the
| shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the
| explanation is not as weak as it may sound.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The priests handling the shroud didn't stop handling it
| in the 14th century. The fire it survived by dousing with
| water was from the 16th century. There is no reason
| whatsoever that all 8 laboratories happened to find the
| same contaminants from the same century.
| atombender wrote:
| The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to
| pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of
| people handling it. What's more, the sample was
| vigorously cleaned before analysis.
|
| The article (the one that this thread is about, not the
| study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point
| is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who
| still decide it's within their expertise to find fault
| with the it.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| It's susceptible to contamination from millennia-newer
| cloth fibers though!
| atombender wrote:
| Did nobody here read the article? The author covered
| this:
|
| > ... to distort the result by 13 centuries the threads
| employed in the mending would have had to have been more
| numerous than the threads of the part to be mended
|
| Furthermore, the samples were examined by two textile
| experts, and later by a lab that looked for trace fabrics
| that could have affected the radiocarbon dating, and they
| all confirmed that the sample was the original fabric.
| dpratt71 wrote:
| Believe it or not, it gets worse. The authors of this
| paper are the same folks who came up with this particular
| dating technique. And I can't find any evidence the
| technique has been independently validated. Not that that
| should count for much from this layman.
| kergonath wrote:
| > That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed
| journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage.
|
| Haha, MDPI. lol. It's worse than low impact factor.
| mock-possum wrote:
| > you would have to explain how
|
| No, you're making this too complicated.
|
| It happened _miraculously_ because god is all-powerful and
| can do whatever, whenever. Boom. Solved. Easy.
| graemep wrote:
| I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth
| pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus
| have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive
| suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.).
|
| A miraculous shroud just seems showy.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| The symbolic importance of striking barren a fig tree
| that had the audacity to not be bearing fruit out of
| season.
| prewett wrote:
| The usual interpretations are that the fig tree
| represents the people of Israel, the religious leaders of
| Israel, and/or the Temple-system. In Mark, Jesus curses
| the fig tree because it is not bearing fruit, then cleans
| out the Temple from being a exploitative financial
| business instead of a house of worship, then immediately
| afterwards the disciples observe that the fig tree
| withered. The implication is that the Temple-system is
| judged, which fits in with several other statements Jesus
| makes elsewhere (such as not one stone of the Temple
| being left in place, in Matthew, if I remember
| correctly).
|
| I've also heard that fig trees had sort of a pre-fruit,
| so it wasn't unreasonable to expect something, but I
| don't know if that's actually true or not. At any rate,
| the symbolic interpretation is still valid. (And, having
| been conquered by Rome, perhaps Israel was not in a
| season of fruit, either, strengthening the symbolic
| connection.)
| codingdave wrote:
| Honestly, how would we know what all the miracles were?
| For arguments sake, whether or not you are Christian, let
| us say that Jesus did wander around performing miracles.
| The Bible is certainly not an audit trail of everything
| he did. It is the stories that survived. There would
| certainly be a bias in which stories those were.
|
| It seems reasonable to assume other miracles would have
| occurred that were not recorded, in particular
| considering that one of his teachings was to do good for
| its own sake, not to have the good be noticed by others.
| kcplate wrote:
| > Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient
| shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was
| produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds
|
| Well, they _have_ haven't they? I think you need to put
| yourself in the shoes of a believing Christian /catholic.
| There is really no need for them to try and explain
| scientifically what is explained miraculously. From the
| miraculous POV the act of resurrection itself may have
| created the image and since man cannot replicate that
| process, it's impossible to explain it scientifically. But
| what we do know is that certain energetic particles applied
| to certain mediums do leave traces and can leave negative
| images. So even science helps to lend credence to their
| theory of a miracle
|
| So _if_ it is an ancient piece of cloth and there isn't a
| scientific explanation yet that adequately explains how the
| image could be produced and since you cannot prove that a God
| does or doesn't exist...a believing Christian can easily rely
| on faith that it is what it is purported to be.
|
| So it's up to you to prove them wrong, not up to them to
| prove that they are right.
| patrickmay wrote:
| You've got the burden of proof backwards there. It is
| absolutely up to those who claim the shroud is that of
| Jesus to prove it.
| NateEag wrote:
| He's describing the average Christian's perspective, not
| saying what he himself thinks.
| recursive wrote:
| The nature of faith rejects the validity of such burdens
| of proof.
| d_theorist wrote:
| Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one
| thing we know for sure is that it is _not_ a painting.
| Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only
| penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is
| inconsistent with a painted image.
| ted_dunning wrote:
| Could easily have been sprayed on.
|
| This is a common technique done with a mouth tube in older
| times, a bulb sprayer later and an air brush most recently.
| svieira wrote:
| There is nothing on the fibers that is visible under a
| high powered microscope. Paint (even spray-paint) is
| quite visibly distinct from the fiber it covers.
| pkphilip wrote:
| 1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for
| getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments or
| dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the
| shroud.
|
| 2. About the second point - it remains a mystery but that in
| no way makes the shroud itself a fake.
| kergonath wrote:
| > 1. There is no known painting technique - even now, for
| getting this image onto the shroud. There were no pigments
| or dyes in sufficient quantity to explain the image on the
| shroud.
|
| It still does not mean that it has anything to do with
| Jesus. There are plenty of things we don't know how to make
| anymore.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Uv damage perhaps? Maybe make the imagery with selective
| application of sand and leaving it in sunlight?
| svieira wrote:
| > you would have to explain how the image on it was produced
|
| It was produced by Jesus Christ at His resurrection. He left
| it for us to see and ensured that its being set aside was
| recorded in Scripture (not with the others but rolled up in a
| separate place - https://biblehub.com/john/20-7.htm).
|
| If you mean "how did Jesus create the image"? Well, I don't
| know, we can look at the image (as some have) and come up
| with some theories. My favorite one is the one that says it
| was in the moment that the angel rolled the stone away from
| the tomb Jesus briefly shone with light, imprinting on the
| shroud the image of His suffering. That's certainly not the
| only way it could have happened, of course, but I think it's
| a very fitting image.
| jl6 wrote:
| He smartly ensured that the shroud was exactly consistent
| with a forgery so that He could sort those with true faith
| from those whose belief depends on earthly evidence.
| appguy wrote:
| The wounds on the man on The Shroud match those of Jesus Christ
| in the Bible. The crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion,
| piercing on the side.
| hulitu wrote:
| Do you have a bible with photos ? I only have one with text.
| /s
| graemep wrote:
| A text that mentions scourging, a crown of thorns and a
| spear thrust in the side of the body.
|
| It does not prove anything either way with regard to it
| being genuine or not, as a later forger/artist would have
| followed that, but if it is shown to be a genuine shroud
| with genuine marks then it makes it probable it was
| Jesus's.
| atombender wrote:
| Whoever manufactured the shroud was following the story in
| the Bible and made sure the image adhered the description of
| the crucifixion.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Whether it is 14th century or an authentic relic, I still believe
| it's simply amazing to behold. We can explain what it's made of
| and guess at how old it is, and we can guess at its provenance
| and history, but there's simply no good explanation of how it was
| imprinted. The photo-negative imprint is nothing short of
| miraculous to me. Perhaps it's a miraculous forgery--doesn't
| matter anymore.
|
| The crucifix in a local parish was commissioned just a few years
| ago, and the artisan who sculpted it in Mexico used the Shroud as
| a guide for the imagery. The painful stripes of scourging, the
| dripping of blood, the skinned knees, the pathetic expression on
| this man's face: they are all quite realistic and they perfectly
| evoke Christ's suffering for me, and for hundreds of other
| parishioners, especially the donors who contributed to beautify
| the sanctuary.
|
| There are plenty of truly authenticated relics -- actual body
| parts of saints -- and I've come into contact with some of them.
| It's really amazing to have this connection to holiness. And you
| need to really understand the relationship of Christians with
| relics. The relic has no power in itself. The relic is not a
| miraculous talisman. The relic is simply a physical manifestation
| of a saint, who is very much alive to us. Though we cannot
| embrace such a saint, or hear them speak to us, they are present
| to us through the relic, and we invoke their intercession while
| touching the relic, because body and soul are one, and will be
| reunited.
|
| My faith would not be shaken if this were proved fake. I simply
| don't rely on archaeology to prove my faith. Nobody should. I
| believe that archaeology and 99% of today's Scripture scholarship
| is an exercise in futility and misdirection. Live the life or
| don't live it. Be an atheist if you want. But don't tell us what
| to believe.
| Oarch wrote:
| Agreed, there's so much here to be thankful for on its own
| merits.
|
| Both the fact that such fine and rare objects still exist, and
| our incredible techniques for studying the ancient past.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It's perfectly fine to consider it a beautiful and unique 14th
| century icon, even though its creators were aiming to get
| money/fame off a fake relic. In that sense, it might be the
| most remarkable fake in history.
|
| And I also agree that faith shouldn't be based on physical
| proof or analysis of this kind, which is always subject to the
| specter of fraud or misunderstanding.
|
| The point of understanding the nature of the Shroud of Turin is
| not to shake anyone's faith. It is simply to understand the
| truth (an important concept to any Christian) of an item.
| hulitu wrote:
| > but there's simply no good explanation of how it was
| imprinted.
|
| I think i saw the word "paint" somewhere.
| julianeon wrote:
| There's a conflict in your paragraph I wanted to point out.
|
| > but there's simply no good explanation of how it was
| imprinted.
|
| That's a strong claim! You are implying there is a miracle
| here, something science can't explain.
|
| I can contest that, as you surely know. Imagine I produce an
| explanation here...
|
| > But don't tell us what to believe.
|
| The problem is that I can't produce an explanation without
| implying you should believe it: that's what an explanation is.
| encoderer wrote:
| The clergy in the 14th century were absolutely unmoored.
| Everything was for sale. You could pre-pay for absolution for
| future sins. They sold relics of everything - Jesus hair, even
| parts of the "burning bush" from the Old Testament. The first
| crusade brought back real treasures and relics that made the
| perfect pretense for a century of grifters.
|
| That was all pretty much stopped later that century though by a
| few bad things like the mini ice age, papal schism, 100 years
| war, and the Black Death.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| Clergy back then basically was a hacker culture- as in you get
| the suckers to buy some relic or immortality paperwork and have
| a nice life extracting resources and giving nothing in return.
| encoderer wrote:
| They sold NFTs and shitcoins basically.
| Maken wrote:
| No, those were the restrained ones. They at least put some
| effort in making their relics credible.
|
| The clergy in the 16th century literally wrote "Get out of
| Hell" cards and sell them for money. What made them stop was
| Protestantism calling them on their bullshit.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| This cannot be a coincidence, just watched
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8XRpeXopHY _The Shroud of Turin
| is still Fake_ by Rebecca Watson (Skepchick)
|
| But that video is one month old, so--?
| jfengel wrote:
| It's not a coincidence. There was a "new" analysis of the
| shroud that came out last month.
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus...
|
| That's the least asinine article I could find. It's even dumber
| than this article suggests.
| appguy wrote:
| Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it
| was created in the 14th century, how did they create a
| photographic negative 400 years before the first known
| photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce.
| It's the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows
| how The Shroud was created.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| There's a number of weird things that knowledge of their
| manufacture has been lost. The lenses of Gotland, Greek Fire
| and the Chinese Jade burial suits all come to mind.
|
| I don't see that as a reason to Revere any item.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living
| today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great
| understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing
| portraits.
|
| They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a
| portrait.
| d_theorist wrote:
| Of course they weren't dumb, but having a great understanding
| of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a
| photo negative. They didn't even have the _concept_ of a
| photo negative. How would they even have _thought_ to achieve
| such a thing? And for what purpose?
|
| And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of
| paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques
| hardly seems relevant.
| codingdave wrote:
| Why would they need the specific concept of a photo
| negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They
| knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too.
| Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has
| been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing
| with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so
| for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and
| dark is a fairly basic concept to artists, not an
| innovation that required photography to exist in order to
| conceptualize it.
|
| In the same vein, why would it have to be made of paint?
| Paint is simply pigment inside a medium. Dyes are also
| pigment, in different medium, made to soak into and bind
| with cloth instead of being layered on top.
|
| I'm not saying that is how it was created, but I highly
| doubt that the skills to do so did not exist.
| d_theorist wrote:
| Why would they have done it?
| codingdave wrote:
| I have no idea, but that seems completely orthogonal to
| what technique was used.
| d_theorist wrote:
| It's extremely relevant to the question, which is what
| the negative nature of the image has to tell us about the
| relative probabilities of the two hypotheses (miraculous
| hypothesis vs fraud hypothesis).
|
| In my view, it is a big problem for the fraud hypothesis
| because you have to explain why and how it was done. At a
| time when the idea of a photo negative was entirely
| unknown, and when there are no other examples of negative
| images, or even any mention of the idea of making such
| images, why would the fraudsters seize on the idea of
| making their fraudulent image a negative? There is no
| record of anybody even recognising that it is a negative
| until the 19th century. So, it's not at all what you
| would expect given the fraud hypothesis. You would expect
| a straightforward image.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > At a time when the idea of a photo negative was
| entirely unknown
|
| It was not called a negative until the 19th century when
| photography came about, because before that a photo
| negative wasn't a thing. Before that it was just a
| "painting with light and dark reversed".
|
| > when there are no other examples of negative images, or
| even any mention of the idea of making such images
|
| There are many examples. See woodcuts, for example. The
| concept of creating the negative of an image was common.
|
| > why would the fraudsters seize on the idea of making
| their fraudulent image a negative?
|
| Because they, and the intended consumers of their piece,
| were not stupid and all were aware of the pattern that a
| person would leave on a cloth. Presumably it was not more
| difficult to drape a cloth over a body and observe the
| staining pattern then than it is today.
|
| > You would expect a straightforward image.
|
| No, _you_ would expect a straightforward image, because
| photographs weren 't invented until many centuries later,
| apparently.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| They inverted the colors because they were creating a
| painting of an impression of a face on a piece of cloth.
|
| If you put a piece of cloth on your face, the parts of
| the face that touch the cloth are the ones where color
| would be transferred from your face to the cloth, and
| which are therefore darker. The parts of the face that
| are more recessed, like the areas around the eyeballs,
| would not touch the cloth, and so less or no color would
| be transferred from the face to the cloth in those areas.
|
| In other words, the part of the face that would receive
| more shadow in a normal image (and would be darker) would
| receive less pigment in the painting (and would be
| lighter).
| briffid wrote:
| A face impression would be very distorted when moving
| from a 3D face to a 2D sheet. So it is not an impression.
| teolandon wrote:
| I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get
| away with not explaining why and how the miracle was
| done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because
| we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle
| which we also don't know how was done?
| exe34 wrote:
| you can ask this for any non- photorealistic art.
| svieira wrote:
| It was not dyed - the fibers that are discolored are
| discolored only on one side.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| A negative is just an inversion of the intensity of visible
| signal. It even has a manifestation in common experience.
| Stare at something for a long time, then look away. A
| negative will superimpose on whatever you're now looking at
| it. I can't think of a good reason humans of the past
| should not have been able to reproduce this kind of effect
| artistically.
| Tagbert wrote:
| They were very familiar with rubbings where you place paper
| or canvas on a sculpture or incised surface and rub
| charcoal on it to capture the image. The result is very
| much like a negative.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| "being capable of creating a photo negative"
|
| You're calling it a photo negative. It's not a photo
| negative. It's a painting that has shadows and lights
| inverted.
|
| "the image on the shroud is not made of paint"
|
| It's made of red paint.
| Fidelix wrote:
| Not true at all. No red paint in it.
|
| This has been conclusively, scientifically debunked
| multiple times.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Please provide sources.
| svieira wrote:
| Red paint that isn't visible under an electron microscope
| is some pretty advanced paint.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| It's red ochre.
| tristramb wrote:
| It could be survivorship bias. All the fake shrouds with
| botched images were recognised as fakes and thrown out long
| ago. Only this one which happens to look vaguely realistic
| has been kept.
| briffid wrote:
| Plus what must have been lost in 500 years, all
| photonegative pictures, fragments, descriptions, recipes,
| any references for such imagery etc. It is very strange
| that this is the only image that remained. And an image
| of a nude Jesus from the back. For which no other
| instance is known anywhere.
| brentpen wrote:
| Recent research has discovered the "stroboscopic effect" in the
| image. The hands and feet are moving when the image was
| imprinted on the shroud.
|
| Strobe lights didn't exist in the 14th century either.
| card_zero wrote:
| Which priest or other religious zealot with a vested interest
| found this out?
|
| Also, is the implication that undead Jesus was twitching
| rapidly and flashing on and off? That _is_ kind of cool,
| perhaps I should get religion.
| card_zero wrote:
| It's sort of semi-3D. Reasonably good imitations have been made
| by molding linen to a shallow sculpture (aka a bas-relief) and
| dusting it with pigment, which thus picks up peaks and troughs.
| observationist wrote:
| Bas relief and the play of light and shadow have been used
| since humans have tried their hand at carving. Seeing the
| impression a wet face left on dry cloth would be sufficient to
| tickle artistic inspiration, but actual artists, who spend
| their time thinking about how things appear and how to capture
| them in their respective media would have all sorts of
| opportunities for capturing the negative of an image, even if
| they wouldn't have thought of it in those terms.
|
| There are plenty of examples of engravings, carvings, intaglia,
| and so on that used what we consider to be a "negative."
| There's nothing particularly special about flipping an image,
| transposing light and dark, inverting the 3d characteristics,
| or otherwise reversing different aspects.
|
| Specifically, the inverse image might be carved for a wax seal
| ring or imprint, or it might be carved for a decoration stamp
| used in cement, or a mold for jewelry or ceramics. There are
| plenty of examples of things all throughout history that
| provide opportunity to inspire an inverted or "negative" image;
| it's simply our context of photography that is novel.
| svieira wrote:
| Not only a photographic negative, a photographic negative with
| proper depth that was painted on individual sides of the fibers
| of the shroud by something (likely heat). The fibers that are
| colored on this shroud are colored only on one side and they
| themselves are colored. There is no chemical deposition upon
| them, at least none visible to an electron microscope.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| If I had to choose between (a) an artist who decided to invert
| the light/dark palette to achieve a dramatic effect or (b) it
| actually wrapped God and the moment of His death it left
| pigment on the cloth, I'm going with (a) every time.
|
| If you want to get Bayesian on it, the base rate of confirmed
| art forgeries and religious artifact forgeries is non-trivial,
| but the base rate of confirmed creators of the universe
| manifesting has human form is zero.
| briffid wrote:
| The 14th century theorem has long been debunked, as the Pray-
| codex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex contains strong
| evidence that the shroud was already known in the 12th century.
| dpratt71 wrote:
| I don't think you can "debunk" something merely with strong
| evidence.
|
| Besides that, I wasn't aware of this codex, so I'm glad you
| shared it. Has anyone suggested that (assuming there is a
| relationship) the arrow of causality might go the other way?
| That perhaps this image was a reference for the shroud itself?
| briffid wrote:
| The C14 dating is one evidence, and there are plenty of
| contradicting evidence for the 14th century dating. But my
| main point is that there is at least doubt for the 14th date,
| and any proper scientific approach should at least mention
| the codex.
| stryan wrote:
| The 14th century radio carbon dating is still by far the most
| accepted dating. Even the wikipedia article you linked
| describes the Pray-cosex as not being definitive.
|
| IMO a plausible theory here is that imagery of Jesus's death
| with those "distinctive features" was already popular at the
| time and both artifacts are representative of that imagery.
| briffid wrote:
| The best explanation to what the codex depicts, is the
| shroud. Which could be a copy of an older shroud e.g., but
| the C14 dating has its flaws (burnt material etc.).
| agarren wrote:
| The Pray codex is listed under "fringe theories" in the
| Wikipedia Shroud entry. That certainly make it wrong, but
| it does make it a little more suspect than the c14 dating
| criticism. The c14 contamination arguments seem more than
| adequately addressed in the entire last 3rd of the article.
| briffid wrote:
| Yes, the wikipedia article makes an argumentation error.
| Even if the Pray Codex doesn't show the shroud, it
| contains a very unique depiction of a nude Jesus. So the
| painter of the codex with high probability have seen the
| exact same picture as what is on the Shroud now. This
| doesn't prove that the shroud is earlier than the Pray
| codex, but this is something an unbiased scientist have
| to try to answer. I find it very annoying that all these
| very scientific-looking articles never try to explain how
| the hell is it possible that the Pray codex contains a
| depiction of the dead Jesus in a way, of which the first
| known depiction is from a century later in a
| photonegative form. Not to mention the other ridiculous
| arguments, that the shroud is one from the enormous
| amount of medieval forgeries. Where are all the other
| photonegative shrouds and pictures. I personally don't
| think that a supernatural creator omniscient etc god
| would create a photo of his resurrecting son, but I am
| really annoyed by all that bad science around the shroud.
| Ok, the C14 is real, because they told so (yeah, science
| never tries to find contradicting evidence, never
| challenges previous knowledge or belief...) but then you
| could still use Occam's razor to find simple explanations
| for like the Pray Codex depiction. At least please try to
| explain, why the drawing there is so different to all
| other drawings of Jesus in that era.
| aestetix wrote:
| I would be curious what Michael Shermer and others think of some
| of the more recent scientific investigations, as detailled by Fr.
| Andrew Dalton on Pints with Aquinas:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAbuG-oVq1Q
| francisofascii wrote:
| This reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode "Rightful Heir",
| where Kahless returned to unite the Klingon people. It turned out
| he was a clone and not the "real" or original Kahless, but in the
| end, it did not matter. Faith and spirituality transcends
| historical authenticity.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| That's a fun little plot that extends into Star Trek DS9, in
| "The Sword of Kahless" they find the sword, but this time it
| turns out that it actually is the original sword, but instead
| of uniting over it, it threatens to divide the Klingon people,
| and so they leave it drifting in space.
| slowhadoken wrote:
| The Shroud of Turin always brings out the Ancient Aliens crowd.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-18 23:01 UTC)