October 9, 2009
Shroud of Turin Recreated by Scientist
He says his work proves the shroud is a fake and not the
burial cloth of Jesus.
Shroud of Turin Recreated by Scientist
He says his work proves the shroud is a fake and not the
burial cloth of Jesus.
SUMMARY: An Italian scientist says he has recreated
the Shroud of Turin to prove it is a medieval fake and
not the cloth in which Jesus was buried. The linen
shroud carries an imprinted image of the front and
back of a crucified man which many Christians,
especially Catholics, believe is that of Jesus Christ.
Luigi Garlaschelli wrapped a specially woven cloth over
one of his students, painted it with pigment, then baked
it in an oven for several hours, and concluded by
washing the cloth.
“What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak
image,” Garlaschelli said. “Then for the sake of
completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns,
the scorching because there was a fire in 1532.”
However, he did not have direct access to the actual
shroud. Garlaschelli is not a Christian, and he said his
work was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists
and Agnostics.
The shroud’s supporters have said it displays some
strange properties that could not have been produced
by human hands. For instance, the image is
superficial, has no pigment, looks very lifelike, and has
the characteristics of a photographic negative. The
pigment may have worn off the cloth over the centuries
since it was first “discovered” in 1355 leaving behind
the ghostly picture that remains today. Carbon dating
tests during the 1990s placed the shroud’s origin in the
Middle Ages. The shroud measures more than 14 feet
long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide
The Vatican does not have an official position on the
authenticity of the shroud. However the late pope John
Paul II insisted lessons could be learned from the relic
even if it is not genuine. "The imprint left by the
tortured body of the crucified one, which attests to the
tremendous human capacity for causing pain and
death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the
suffering of the innocent in every age," he said in an
address at Turin Cathedral, the home of the shroud.
the Shroud of Turin to prove it is a medieval fake and
not the cloth in which Jesus was buried. The linen
shroud carries an imprinted image of the front and
back of a crucified man which many Christians,
especially Catholics, believe is that of Jesus Christ.
Luigi Garlaschelli wrapped a specially woven cloth over
one of his students, painted it with pigment, then baked
it in an oven for several hours, and concluded by
washing the cloth.
“What you have now is a very fuzzy, dusty and weak
image,” Garlaschelli said. “Then for the sake of
completeness I have added the bloodstains, the burns,
the scorching because there was a fire in 1532.”
However, he did not have direct access to the actual
shroud. Garlaschelli is not a Christian, and he said his
work was funded by the Union of Rationalist Atheists
and Agnostics.
The shroud’s supporters have said it displays some
strange properties that could not have been produced
by human hands. For instance, the image is
superficial, has no pigment, looks very lifelike, and has
the characteristics of a photographic negative. The
pigment may have worn off the cloth over the centuries
since it was first “discovered” in 1355 leaving behind
the ghostly picture that remains today. Carbon dating
tests during the 1990s placed the shroud’s origin in the
Middle Ages. The shroud measures more than 14 feet
long and 3 feet, 7 inches wide
The Vatican does not have an official position on the
authenticity of the shroud. However the late pope John
Paul II insisted lessons could be learned from the relic
even if it is not genuine. "The imprint left by the
tortured body of the crucified one, which attests to the
tremendous human capacity for causing pain and
death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the
suffering of the innocent in every age," he said in an
address at Turin Cathedral, the home of the shroud.
0 Comments
| LSI stands for the Lutheran Science Institute, an organization of WELS and ELS Lutherans interested in science and health issues with a special emphasis on the creation and evolution controversy. This blog's purpose is to search the Internet to find articles of interest to Christians. Views expressed are those of the author (Warren Krug) and are not necessarily those of the Lutheran Science Institute, Inc. |
The real Shroud of Turin is due
to go on display to the public in
April and May of 2010.
(The photographs from
Wikipedia show the full length
of the shroud as well as a positive
and enhanced negative of the
face on the shroud.)
To read the entire article click on
this link to CNN.
to go on display to the public in
April and May of 2010.
(The photographs from
Wikipedia show the full length
of the shroud as well as a positive
and enhanced negative of the
face on the shroud.)
To read the entire article click on
this link to CNN.
COMMENT: The Shroud of Turin has been the object of much discussion and
debate over the years, and I don’t believe this scientist’s recreation
automatically disqualifies it as authentic. Many reasons have been given for its
authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus. First, the image of the crucified man
looks like that of a photographic negative, but if the shroud dates from the
Middle Ages, it would still have been centuries before the advent of the first
photograph. It has been asserted that this negative image may have been
made from a heavenly light at the moment of the resurrection.
Also, it is claimed that the cloth contains pollen which has been traced to the
Holy Land, that it was designed with cubits in mind, that it consists basically of
linen with traces of cotton but no wool (which was in line with Jewish law at the
time of the crucifixion), and that it shows a man with Jewish and not European
features. At least these are the claims.
Finally, I found the location of the nail marks to be very interesting. Although
most medieval paintings of the crucifixion have shown the nails driven through
the middle of Jesus’ palms, the nail marks on the shroud are located in the wrists.
This makes more scientific sense because the palms of the hands could not
have supported the weight of the body, but the wrist bones could have. (This
would not contradict Scripture because the Greek word for “hand” can include
the wrist and forearm.)
The carbon dating tests are probably the strongest scientific evidence for a
Middle Ages origin of the shroud. Yet the results of these tests have been
challenged because the fire in 1532 could have added considerable carbon to
the cloth causing it to appear much younger than it really is. Maybe more
important, St. John appears to put the authenticity of the shroud into serious
question when he speaks of “strips of linen” (John 19:40) instead of a single
cloth.
The remarks of Pope John Paul II are also very interesting. He apparently felt
the main lesson from the shroud, even if it is not genuine, is man’s inhumanity
to his fellow man. Instead, shouldn’t the main lesson be a focus on the reason
for the suffering and death of Jesus, namely the giving up of His life to pay for
our sins? This is the central doctrine of Scripture, and crucifixion paintings,
videos, and even possibly fake shrouds can remind us of this. While the shroud
will continue to be an object of interest, our faith should not rest in it or any other
relic, even one tiny bit. The proof for the death and resurrection of Jesus comes
from the Holy Bible. That’s all we really need.
Click to visit a Shroud of Turin Web site that provides results of research
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Which national park in the U.S. was once called Mukuntuweap?
**************************************************************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those
containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity or
advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow
several hours for it to appear on the blog.
**************************************************************************************
debate over the years, and I don’t believe this scientist’s recreation
automatically disqualifies it as authentic. Many reasons have been given for its
authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus. First, the image of the crucified man
looks like that of a photographic negative, but if the shroud dates from the
Middle Ages, it would still have been centuries before the advent of the first
photograph. It has been asserted that this negative image may have been
made from a heavenly light at the moment of the resurrection.
Also, it is claimed that the cloth contains pollen which has been traced to the
Holy Land, that it was designed with cubits in mind, that it consists basically of
linen with traces of cotton but no wool (which was in line with Jewish law at the
time of the crucifixion), and that it shows a man with Jewish and not European
features. At least these are the claims.
Finally, I found the location of the nail marks to be very interesting. Although
most medieval paintings of the crucifixion have shown the nails driven through
the middle of Jesus’ palms, the nail marks on the shroud are located in the wrists.
This makes more scientific sense because the palms of the hands could not
have supported the weight of the body, but the wrist bones could have. (This
would not contradict Scripture because the Greek word for “hand” can include
the wrist and forearm.)
The carbon dating tests are probably the strongest scientific evidence for a
Middle Ages origin of the shroud. Yet the results of these tests have been
challenged because the fire in 1532 could have added considerable carbon to
the cloth causing it to appear much younger than it really is. Maybe more
important, St. John appears to put the authenticity of the shroud into serious
question when he speaks of “strips of linen” (John 19:40) instead of a single
cloth.
The remarks of Pope John Paul II are also very interesting. He apparently felt
the main lesson from the shroud, even if it is not genuine, is man’s inhumanity
to his fellow man. Instead, shouldn’t the main lesson be a focus on the reason
for the suffering and death of Jesus, namely the giving up of His life to pay for
our sins? This is the central doctrine of Scripture, and crucifixion paintings,
videos, and even possibly fake shrouds can remind us of this. While the shroud
will continue to be an object of interest, our faith should not rest in it or any other
relic, even one tiny bit. The proof for the death and resurrection of Jesus comes
from the Holy Bible. That’s all we really need.
Click to visit a Shroud of Turin Web site that provides results of research
**************************************************************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail
your request to [admin@lutheranscience.org].
**************************************************************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
Which national park in the U.S. was once called Mukuntuweap?
**************************************************************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those
containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity or
advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow
several hours for it to appear on the blog.
**************************************************************************************
Zion National Park in Utah (picture
from Wikimedia Commons). The area
once was called Mukuntuweap, but
because of the difficulty in
pronouncing the name, soon after it
became a national park it was given the
name Zion, which was what the Mormon
settlers called it.
Source: USA Weekend (September
18-20, 2009)
from Wikimedia Commons). The area
once was called Mukuntuweap, but
because of the difficulty in
pronouncing the name, soon after it
became a national park it was given the
name Zion, which was what the Mormon
settlers called it.
Source: USA Weekend (September
18-20, 2009)