Skip to comments.Teacher Has Theory on the Shroud of Turin
Posted on 10/08/2009 11:35:33 AM PDT by Nikas777
Teacher Has Theory on the Shroud of Turin
Thursday March 24, 2005 1:46 PM
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
Associated Press Writer
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - Nathan Wilson is an English teacher with no scientific training, but he thinks he knows how Jesus' burial cloth was made and he thinks it's not a physical sign of the resurrection.
In other words, in Wilson's estimation, the Shroud of Turin is a fake - produced with some glass, paint and old cloth. And that theory, especially with Easter this weekend, has so-called ``Shroudies'' a buzz.
``A lot of religious people are upset,'' said Wilson, 26, who teaches at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.
Wilson is himself an evangelical Christian but said his views on the shroud don't change his faith.
``I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the resurrection completely without a doubt,'' he said.
The English instructor believes a medieval forger could have painted the image of a crucified man on a pane of glass, laid it on the linen, then left it outside in the sun to bleach the cloth for several days. As the linen lightened, the painted image of the man remained dark on the cloth, creating the equivalent of a photo negative.
Wilson wrote his theory in Books and Culture, a magazine for Christian intellectuals. It was picked up by several Web sites and is being debated in shroud circles. Wilson's Web site received more than 100,000 hits from 45 countries in the first week of his article's publication.
Shroud expert Dan Porter said that while Wilson's theory is ingenious, it does not produce images identical to those on the 14-foot-long, 3-inch-wide strip of linen.
``It is not adequate to produce something that looks like the shroud in two or three ways,'' said Porter, who lives in Bronxville, N.Y. ``One must produce an image that meets all of the criteria.''
Porter contends sun bleaching cannot have produced the image, which he and many others say is the result of chemical reactions on the cloth.
``A problem with Wilson's hypothesis is that sun bleaching merely accelerates bleaching that will occur naturally as the material is exposed to light,'' Porter wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. ``Eventually, Wilson's sun bleach shroud image will fade into the background as exposure equalizes the bleaching.''
The shroud has often been displayed, sometimes in bright sunlight for days at a time, and no such image fading has occurred, Porter said.
Porter and others also question whether panes of glass at least 6 feet long were produced in medieval times, as Wilson's theory would require.
Radiocarbon tests of the Shroud of Turin were done in 1988, and dated the cloth at A.D. 1260 to 1390. But Raymond Rogers of Los Alamos National Laboratory recently argued that the tested threads came from later patches and might have been contaminated. Rogers calculated that the shroud is 1,300 to 3,000 years old and could easily date from Jesus' era.
Wilson said he wants to write a novel about his theory. The forger or perhaps forgers, Wilson theorizes, probably robbed a grave and pulled the aged shroud off a body, then crucified someone to obtain the blood and study the wounds of Jesus.
``Most likely it involved some real wicked people,'' Wilson said.
On the Web:
Wilson's Web site: http://www.shadowshroud.com
The Shroud is in the news today and I referenced this article it in a post reply so I also posted it as well. I hope it’s OK?
Most so-called athiests are like the man who is morally opposed to breakfast, but who, just to drive his point home, insists on urinating in your oatmeal.
As Garrison Keillor (in his younger, less bitter days) once said: "He was the kind of a man that struck you wouldn't learn another thing until the day he died, but who, about fifften minutes after that, was in for quite an education."
STURP found the image was not just a negative image, but a 3-D negative image. This method would not meet that criteria.
Yes, I'm sure they had 'panes of glass,' especially large ones, during that period...
Who is "this man"? The teacher who ran the experiment? The article calls him a man of Christian faith.
``Most likely it involved some real wicked people,'' Wilson said.
I'm sorry, but this guy is the same kind of filth that passed along "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as being true.
"You know, those Christians bake those 'hot cross buns' on Easter using the BLOOD OF PAGAN BABIES!!!!!!!!!!"
2. The Glass Questions
a. How big was medieval glass? Could they make big pieces, or were they all little like those in stained-glass windows?
When I first presented the Shadow Theory, tentatively, to the student body of New St. Andrews College, I did not know the answer to this question. A member of my audience, however, did. As she had worked a great deal within an artisan glass shop that still used medieval technique she was able to describe the method for blowing a sheet and told me that sheets measuring 6’x8’ were fairly common. When I looked into her explanation, before experimenting, I found that she was absolutely right. Throughout the thirteenth century glass blowers were capable of creating large sheets. They would blow cylinders, up to nine feet or more in length and then, while the glass was still molten enough, they would cut off the bowls that formed both the top and the bottom and slice the cylinder lengthwise, unfolding it into a sheet. The sheets would be cut into small pieces for use in leaded stained-glass windows, or painted while large.
As the Shroud is roughly fourteen feet in length, two pieces of glass would be necessary, both at least six feet long. The image of the front of the man would be produced beneath one and the back of the man beneath the other.
When Dr. Antonio Lombatti, Fellow Researcher in Medieval Church History at the Deputazione di Storia Patria in Parma, Italy was recently asked about the availability of glass large enough to produce the Shroud, he responded, Of course a medieval artist could have enough glass to produce that relic. He pointed out that six foot painted glass windows were not uncommon, and also mentioned that the length discrepancy between the front and back images of the man in the Shroud (1-2 inches) suggests two different phases of production.
From this article:
``A lot of religious people are upset,’’ said Wilson, 26, who teaches at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.
Wilson is himself an evangelical Christian but said his views on the shroud don’t change his faith.
``I’m a Bible-believing Christian who believes in the resurrection completely without a doubt,’’ he said.
I didn't see in the article where he ran an experiment, just that he has a theory. I'd like to see him recreate the shroud his way. I would be a lot of money he can't.
I like word association games.
I must have misread the article...I thought he was trying to persuade me that the shroud was a hoax. As a Christian myself, I am ever ready to be persuaded in favor of God's miracles, and don't go out of my way to make others question theirs.
If a significant sub-section of my faith derived hope and reassuance from believing that one specific location in Bethlehem was the offical, true, exact and guaranteed location of my savior's birth, I would have to be a very self-centered and immature Christian to stand across the street and yell, "WHooboy! Are YOU ever wrong!" (Especially if I was trying to make money selling tickets to MY official offical, true, exact and guaranteed location of my savior's birth, which, incidentally, you can read all about on my website, and I'm writing a book, and I want to get a big movie deal like that Davinci Code guy.
Seriously, it sounds to me like the guy stands to make some significant money for himself selling the idea the shroud is fake, and thereby saddening the faith of many people who believe the Shroud is genuine. Real or not (I side with real) I think it is mean to set out to put bolders in the path of new Christians who might be given hope in their growing faithwalk by the Shroud, and I wouldn't want to be the one who had to stand up in the afterlife and tell the God of All Creation "Yeah, I went out of my way to injure the faith of other Christians, what about it?"
The Shroud of Turin should not be linked to your faith since faith does not require physical evidence as Jesus told Thomas. Your ancestors did not need to to accept Jesus and neither do you.
TYPO ON MY PART CORRECTED TO READ:
The Shroud of Turin should not be linked to your faith since faith does not require physical evidence as Jesus told Thomas. Your ancestors did not need THE SHROUD to to accept Jesus and neither do you. (Your ancestors I assume accepted Jesus without ever hearing about the Shroud and the Catholic Church never has said this the authentic shroud so it violates no principal of faith to doubt the authenticity).
This kind of debunking is appropriate for situations where there is at best anecdotal evidence of a purported event, and so only auperficial, hand-waving "reconstructions" of gross features are sufficient for debunking.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed jack is king.
But the actual Shroud itself, has been available for scientific study from a variety of disciplines. All concurring lines of reproducible evidence are consistent with its being genuine.
Its amazing how some con artist back in the Middle Ages still has all the scientists stumped.
These alternate views are all nonsense. The shroud sat around for centuries before the concept of a negative image was ever understood.
I disagree with that. I am pretty sure the last scientific study of the shroud pinned its age to the Middle Ages.
If the image on the Shroud is not a man made work it is probably the Mandylion looted from Constantinople. The Mandylion was a historically verifiable image of Jesus on cloth that predated the Middle Ages.
My ancestors may have accepted Christ without ever hearing of the Catholic Church. And yet, I would never think of attacking the beliefs of those brothers and sisters in Christ in an effort to advance some agenda of my own, even though they have some articles of faith that I don't find in my Bible. But thanks for defining exactly how you need me to come to Jesus. If I am erring in believing in a miracle of God, I am sure He'll straighten me out in the first five minutes of the Afterlife, but I suspect, what with all the signing of praise and rejoicing, it's not going to really matter by then.
You don’t need to see the cross either but if it is ever found I sure would love to look at it.
I don’t know how to respond because I don’t see what you see in the Shroud as a link to your faith.
If you are referring to the radiocarbon testing, the samples were taken all from one area of the Shroud; in violation of pre-agreed-upon protocols.
The funny thing is, when you look at the raw data for the dates assigned to the samples taken, they don't match. Furthermore, the area from which these samples were taken have been shown to be comprised of different material, with a different weave, from the rest of the Shroud.
Homogeneity of the sample is vital in analytic chemistry.
The cross was found. See St. Helen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
I am pretty sure it was more than radio carbon dating. It is not like they were close and the vote was 3 for and 4 against.
I don't have a King James handy...but I believe that when Thomas said that he wouldn't believe unless he saw a miracle, I don't think Christ hid the marks on his hands and side and told him:
"Thomas! You foolish man! I'm not going to provide you any kind of evidence of God's power and glory; you're just going to have to get by on your own faith, because showing you the rapidly healing hole in my side and the shrinking wounds in my hands would be tantamount to providing proof that there is a God who would do those miracles, and if you have proof, you wouldn't be relying on your Faith, and so you would be worthless to Me, sayeth the LORD."Jesus told Thomas that his faith should be stronger...but He never hid His glory from Thomas; your own example shows God works miracles, and that they are useful teaching lessons for those whose faith is not as great as the Lord would prefer. If the Lord my God wants to allow that miracles occur, and if there are those to whom miracles provide comfort, I don't need the approval of man to believe in them. If God showed Thomas in those elder days, it is perfectly reasonable that there are proofs around us today.
My faith is solid upon Christ. The possibility of the Shroud as relic does not confirm or define it, but I reject out of hand the efforts of “wise humans” to assume that God could not use it to encourage others.
Just another yawn. Folks think that they know everything when it is apparent they do not
Are you sure? The Antikythera mechanism is comparable in sophistication to 18th century clocks, yet is dated to roughly 87 BC....
Again, I don’t see the direct evidence to Jesus and the shroud beyond an image.
The negative image was a side effect of the creation which did not matter to those making the image. The sunbleaching experiment of this teacher produces a 3D negative effect similar to the shroud’s.
Why do people want to deride those who see reverence of an old image possibly of Christ?
It seems to me there is a current religion now in worship of a 4 or 5 tone poster with the word hope on it ....
I stopped reading at that point.
Science is not determined by voting.
Have you been to either of these two websites?
Thanks Nikas777. Different from these, so the ping is here. :')
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
With that said I am not dismissing the possibility - only playing devils advocate for the most part. I find compelling evidence exists to prove the Shroud is genuine as well (wrists where nails went through vs palms). I think my position is in the middle - it was a REPRODUCTION using advanced techniques of the Greek artistic world from the original or it was the original and Byzantines enhanced the image to make it more visible. I like the idea that it would be a copy of the original - not produced as a fraud but as a genuine reproduction to allow others to view it as was common at that time to do.
If you go to the results of this teacher's experiments it is claimed they did produce a 3D negative image like on the Shroud. http://www.shadowshroud.com/images.htm
YES, I’m sure this is NOT a clock!
Virtually ALL of the tests performed by the skeptics (visible light microscopy claiming to find red ochre, radiocarbon dating, "reproductions" such as this recent one in Italy) have been investigated by other scientists and either falsified, or found (at best) non-reproducible by other parties. Furthermore, the skeptics have numerous examples of failing to supply their raw data or samples to others not already in their camp, for independent verification. And finally, there are examples of skeptics (McCrone comes to mind) who contradict their *own* findings from one presentation to the next.
All of these are indicative (at best) of piss-poor technique, not to say bias.
By contrast, the researchers whose work has indicated a non-medieval origin for the Shroud have done the best to discount their bias (Rogers for one was a skeptic of the re-weaving, but was convinced *by* the evidence), and have taken care to use control groups, utilize corroborating tests utilizing independent physical and chemical methods based on different properties of the materials tested, and to share their work.
This last guy from Italy, in the web page you link to, ducks a debate with Porter (who is on the "shroudstory" site), and waves his hands when confronted with the spectroscopic evidence of blood, rather than seeking head-on to look at the evidence.
This appears to be a "shoe on the other foot" compared to the stereotypical behaviour of believers vs. scientists, say, on some of the crevo threads. The atheists are so used to debunking things in vacuo that they don't know what to do when the physical evidence fails to back up their preconceived notions.
LOL! My point FRiend, is that ancient cultures were much more advanced than many might think. Is the Shroud the burial cloth of Christ.....I have no idea. Were they capable of producing a cloth that looked like the Shroud of Jesus......? Apparently they could make very sophisticated clockworks....I leave it as a mental exercise what else they were capable of.
Then again, for some reason, many people do care, to include atheists, wiccans, pagans, muslims, etc.. I wonder why?
No. It did not. It dated a patch on the shroud that was made in the middle ages.
“STURP found the image was not just a negative image, but a 3-D negative image. This method would not meet that criteria”
That’s what I recall as well. And the image is only on the surface of the fibers. Paint is absorbed by cloth and wouldn’t be simply a surface phenomenon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.