Is the Turin Shroud a genuine artifact or a fabrication?

Faith & Science Conversation
43

“…neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”
Luke 16:31

44
  • In spite of the many words written about the Shroud of Turin, I’ve tentatively narrowed my focus down to two items that support its “intentional human manufacture” origin vs. its “single non-human production” origin, to wit:
  • I dare to suggest that there is "no hard evidence* for the “intentional human manufacture” origin beyond those two articles and would welcome any succinct, non-“hand waving”, properly-cited reference proving my claim false.
  • Everything else written in favor of “the intentional human origin” of the image on the Shroud–including my opinions–is “internet litter”, IMO.
1 Like
45

Miscellaneous:

1 Like
46

The fact that the Shroud is first clearly documented from medieval times means that it is at least that old, and is not particularly helpful in determining how much older it might or might not be, given the far from exhaustive documentation of such things from that time.

Books & Culture had an interesting article showing that a similar effect of a non-painted image could be produced by painting an image on something transparent and then letting the sunshine make the image on the cloth.

The Shroud, unlike most medieval portrayals, is anatomically correct in its depiction of crucifixion. Interesting, but not proof of authenticity.

3 Likes
47
  • I had no objection to the change in this thread’s title from what it was
  • IMO, The title of this thread ought to be “Reviewing the evidence against the Turin Shroud”.
  • Therefore, it certainly seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that the Shroud is the “intentional product of human hands”, in which case I’d say: the claim has no indisputable evidence to support it.
  • The Books and Culture article [2005), to which I suspect you referred, was an entertaining read. Nathan is a self-acknowledged Christian, apparently Reformed Calvinist from what I could make out.
    • Interestingly, he says this in his article: “I have been asked why a baptized Christian would want to undermine claims to the Shroud’s authenticity. The answer is simple. Christians are to abhor falsehood. And at the top of the list of falsehoods to abhor should be religious lies and all other forms of Christian hypocrisy.”
  • Personally, I thought that the “similar effect of a non-painted image could be produced by painting an image on something transparent and then letting the sunshine make the image on the cloth” that he reported was very clever. It inspires me to approach Los Angeles’ Otis School of Art and Design to see if they might undertake a similar project. However, … accepting N.D. Wilson’s “It’s possible” seems to fall a little short of conclusive evidence that that was the technique used by the alleged anonymous 14th century artist.
  • Which leaves my previous claim: There are only McCrone’s and the 1988 Team’s documents in favor of “the intentional human origin of the Shroud” theory.
2 Likes
48

This is why we can’t have nice things.

49

It might sound counterintuitive, since we’re being told that the burden of proof rests on those making positive claim, not negative, and those denying the authenticity of The Shroud see themselves on the negative side.
However…
The burden of proof typically falls on the party making the claim or assertion, in this case the claim is that The Shroud was intentionally produced by people, presumably for the purpose of making money in the ‘relics business’.
It was even stated above that

If it’s relatively easy and simple to achieve, then it shouldn’t be a problem to prove.
I can’t see how the burden of proof in this case should be on those claiming that it hasn’t been made by men.

I think this(or very similar proposal) is being discussed in the YT video from the OP, there’s a time stamp at 1:14:14 titled “best replicas of The Shroud” (duration around 7 min)

Can’t disagree with this. However, in order to abhor something as a falsehood, we need to first know it to be one.

1 Like
50

Forgive my ignorance here, but what is the claim from Shroud proponents? That it is the actual cloth that was wrapped around Jesus and it miraculously preserved his features on the cloth, defying all scientific explanations? Or what specifically?

I would think the default explanation is either “intentionally made by humans” or “accidentally made by humans and later assumed to be Jesus by well meaning, but religiously devout individuals.”

2 Likes
51
  • :smile: Thanks for asking. Good question for several reasons!
    • “Shroud proponents” are’a motley crew’, and bond over one of several points ranging from Barrie Schwotz, the “name” behind The Shroud of Turin Website and Jewish photographer and Editor of the site–who, I believe, remains agnostic on the Shroud’s origin, to devotees firmly convinced that The *Shroud of Turin was the actual burial cloth on which Jesus was laid and that covered him in the tomb before his resurrection.
  • Anyone among that motley crew who thinks or says that belief that the Shroud was Jesus’ burial cloth is necessary for salvation, as far as I and many others are concerned, claims too much for it.
  • My claim, that the claim that the Shroud is an “intentional product of human hands” has no indisputable evidence to support it, is silly, of course: a fact which occurred to me like a bolt out of the sky this morning. In fact, any claim whatsoever is disputable. Ergo, I am forced by reason to retract it.
  • Coincident with that realization, I scrambled to find something that would help me recover my reason and came across Ancient Aliens – Falsifiability in Hypothesis Testing (8-1) [5:31]. which I think tells me pretty much just what you said.
  • Personally, I’m convinced that the Catholic version of the mid-14th century human origin of the Shroud is balderdash. That leaves the support for the “human origin” claim in McCrone’s work and the 1988 Team radiocarbon testing, both of which have been refuted.
  • How’s that sound to you?
2 Likes
52
  • P.S. A few additional comments:
    • The more I think about the title of this thread, which I personally did not choose but did accept, the more convinced I am that this thread ought to be something like: “The Shroud of Turin: Brute fact or Fraud?”
    • Regarding the suggestion that someone undertake an attempt “to reproduce the image on the Shroud”: it has been done … in fact, more than once, in evidence of which I point out that replicas are available on the Shroud site for a price: see SHROUD OF TURIN LIFESIZE REPLICA ON COTTON CANVAS.
    • Regarding the suggestion that “the default explanation” include “accidentally made by humans”, my imagination balks, because I am unable to imagine a scenario in which any human accidentally produced the actual image at any time in history. Someone far more imaginative than Books and Culture author, Nathan Wilson, would have to talk me through such a scenario.
1 Like
53

I’ve revised the topic title for you. I hope that’s more to your liking.

1 Like
54

Ran across this today, To me the image looks more like a old carving or sculpture than a real face.

3 Likes
55

It’s relatively simple and easy to show lots of things:

  • The age of the earth
  • The spherical, non-flat nature of the earth
  • The reality of global warming/man made climate change
  • Internal errors in the Bible
  • Paul didn’t write the Pastorals
  • Examples of fabrication in the Bible
  • Immoral atrocities attributed to God in the Bible
  • Contradictory theology in the Bible
  • That traditional authorship claims are highly problematic
  • Social Distancing and Mask Mandates helped.
    *Evolution is the best explanation and backed by a ton of evidence

None the less, many people still vehemently disagree with all these things. Not to mention, not knowing exactly how something was made would not even in and of itself mean it’s supernatural in origin. Shroud of the Gaps anyone? Methods have been put forth and several studies have shown a guilty verdict for the shroud.

I am not a fan of all this “burden of proof” talk. No truth claim gets presumption. If you think the shroud is real, provide the evidence. If you think it’s fake, present the evidence. If you think the evidence is not clear, abstain from judgment. Every positive truth claim carries a burden of proof with it.

2 Likes
56

It does not concern me much if the Shroud of Turin is a touchstone of faith for some, but as for myself, it is a fake. Reason #1 is that it made its appearance when saintly relics were manufactured on an industrial scale. It is an exaggeration that pieces of the cross were a leading cause of deforestation, but it was the kind of thing that drove Luther nuts. Reason #2 is that to accept the shroud as authentic is to dismiss the carbon dating as flawed, and the various arguments against the dating do not convince me. But even when I first looked into this fifty years ago, well before the carbon dating, reason #3 was that it just did not ring right.

3 Likes
57
  • :laughing: I’m reminded of Steve Martin and Bill Murray’s “What the h… is that?” skit on Saturday Night Live, Season 5, 1979.
58

I would think that approach would make it difficult to function. For me, ‘I own a Honda’ and ‘My head is a giant turnip’ have substantially different prior probabilities, and as a result the degree of evidence I would require to accept the one differs substantially from that needed for the other.

9 Likes
59
  • Premise 1. The image on the Shroud of Turin is a brute fact.
  • Premise 2. It is inconceivable that scientists cannot explain the source of that image.
  • Conclusion: The image was produced by human hands.
    End of discussion.
2 Likes
60

The problem here is the context of my statement which precludes incidental details in everyday life. There is debate over the shroud of Turin. This thread is a debate over the shroud of Turin. If this were a thread where we were legitimately debating the existence of your Honda or whether or not you actually owned one or whether or not your vehicle was actually a Honda, and not mistaken for another model, it’s not my job to solely prove you don’t own one or are mistaken. That is absurd. The onus is on both sides in a discussion. Yours to substantiate, the dissenter to provide reasonable doubt. Different claims require different degrees of evidence. That’s obvious but has nothing to do with my statement and is completely irrelevant. That the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial cloth of Jesus is hardly a statement in the same category as a person on the internet claiming to own a car.

Some truth claims are simply taken for granted. But not when that truth claim is the one under the microscope.

2 Likes
61
  • Regarding Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli of Youtube video “fame”, the Shroud Website offers a whopping 37 items when you search the site for his name: Garlaschelli in the Shroud Website
1 Like
62

No doubt the Shroud is a fabrication.