Posts
Matthew Kalman
June 10, 2012
Not only is the Turin Shroud probably a medieval fake but it is just one of an astonishing 40 so-called burial cloths of Jesus, according to an eminent church historian.
Antonio Lombatti said the false shrouds circulated in the Middle Ages, but most of them were later destroyed.
He said the Turin Shroud itself – showing an image of a bearded man and venerated for centuries as Christ’s burial cloth – appears to have originated in Turkey some 1,300 years after the Crucifixion.
Lombatti, of the Università Popolare in Parma, Italy, cited work by a 19th century French historian who had studied surviving medieval documents. ‘The Turin Shroud is only one of the many burial cloths which were circulating in the Christian world during the Middle Ages. There were at least 40,’ said Lombatti.
‘Most of them were destroyed during the French Revolution. Some had images, others had blood-like stains, and others were completely white.’
The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth, about 14ft by 4ft, bearing a front and back view of the image of a bearded, naked man who appears to have been stabbed or tortured. Ever since the detail on the cloth was revealed by negative photography in the late 19th century it has attracted thousands of pilgrims to the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin.
In a research paper to be published this month in the scholarly journal Studi Medievali, Lombatti says the shroud was most likely given to French knight Geoffroy de Charny as a memento from a crusade to Smyrna, Turkey, in 1346. The de Charny family are the first recorded owners of the shroud.
Lombatti found that Geoffroy was unable to join a pilgrimage to Jerusalem after liberating Smyrna, so he was given the shroud as a symbol of his participation in the crusade to Turkey.
The Catholic Church has never officially commented on the shroud’s authenticity, but has made samples available to scientists for testing.
In 2009 a Vatican researcher said she had found the words ‘Jesus Nazarene’ on the cloth, while two years later Italian government researchers claimed the image of a man had been caused by a supernatural ‘flash of light’.
But carbon tests carried out in Oxford in 1988 firmly dated the material to 1260-1390.
I ask this with all respect: I have never understood why it seems so important to the Orthodox to prove the Shroud is a fake. Is the fear that it give legitimacy to the Roman Church as long as it is in Roman hands?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Orthodox recognize many relics possessed by the Catholic Church.
ReplyDelete"http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sacra-sindone-sabana-santa-holy-shroud-torino-turin-15330/"
ReplyDelete"the main pollen residue comes neither from Ridolfia, nor Gundelia, but from Helichrysum (29.1%). Cistaceae pollen (8.2%), Apiaceae pollen (4.2%) and Pistacia pollen (0.6%) are also present on the shroud in smaller quantities. “All the plants mentioned here are entomophilous, that is, their pollen is carried by insects rather than air. This shows that there must have been direct contact with either the plants or the materials used for the funeral. The list of pollens reveals traces of the most common plants used in ancient funerals. The pollens identified clarify that the holy shroud was rubbed with oils and ointments, just as the body contained within it did.” There used to be a balm made from Pistacia leaves, fruits and bark that was also used as an ointment. However, a high quality oil was once produced from the Helichrysum and this oil was used to protect both body and shroud.
“The use of this oil in ancient funeral rites is documented in various countries, from Arabia to Greece.”
Marzia Boi concluded: “Identifying the main pollen traces found on the Shroud captures a snapshot of a funeral rite that followed the customs of Asia Minor, 2000 years ago. They are the components of the most precious oils and ointments of the time and have extraordinarily remained sealed in the fabric… The correct identification of the Helichrysum’s pollen, wrongly believed to be that of the Gundelia flower, confirms and guarantees that the body wrapped up in the sheet was an important figure.”...
Oh, and also, the 1988 tests were conducted on a piece of fabric that had been used to repair the shroud after a fire.
What 19th century French historian was studied? And was he a Christian, or an atheist seeking to discredit a relic?
Nonsense. The shroud was probably made in Syria as part of the Lenten services by Orthodox Christians in the area. Which explains any pollen matches. It was probably brought West by crusaders and who knows where else they dragged it. Burial rites of the Jews at the time of the crucifixion don't match the shroud nor is its existence corroborated by the the gospels. The shroud is as bogus as the pope's claim of being the vicar of Christ.
DeleteIf the legitimacy of the Latin church relies on a stolen or bought Orthodox religious icon from Syria, then you people's faith is built on sand.
DeleteOne would notice that no matter how many "new" arguments are adduced to "prove" the in-authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, the supreme argument remains the C-14 dating of 1988, discredited by suspicions of downright fraud, in addition to the demonstrated irrelevance of the method for this specific case.
ReplyDeleteIt must be added that all these supposed "discoveries" are made in popular media or commercial books or television programs or blogs or websites, with an eye for the "sensational" and shocking, in order to enable different know-it-all to pose in, well, know-it-alls using flippantly words like "nonsense", "bogus", "debunking".
ReplyDeleteI recommend for those really interested in the problems of the Shroud to go to The Shroud of Turin website (www.shroud.com)the most reliable one.
Until someone can tell me HOW the image was created by 14th cent. Syrians, I will continue to err on the side of it's authenticity.
ReplyDeleteThere are plausible theories, but just like many who believe the pyramids of Egypt were created by extraterrestrials due to lack of any other reasonable explanation, I doubt any reasonable explanation in this matter will be accepted either. Not even Leonardo DaVinci has ever been duplicated, despite the greatest artists trying. Personally I don't think the Shroud was made in Syria, though it is possible. This is my take on it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/03/why-shroud-of-turin-is-forgery.html