Posted on 06/08/2011 6:02:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Shroud of Turin was made by medieval artist Giotto, it was claimed yesterday.
The 14ft length of fabric, said to be the burial cloth of Christ, bears a faint image of a man and appears to be stained by blood.
However carbon-dating tests have suggested it was produced between 1260 and 1390.
Now Italian art expert Luciano Buso has suggested that the original cloth deteriorated and Giotto was asked to make a copy.
After months of careful examination of photographs of the Shroud - the relic is kept locked away and not available to be viewed unless on special occasions - Luciano Buso has come up with an idea worthy of a Da Vinci Code thriller.
He says that several veiled appearances of the number 15, hidden in the fabric by the artist, indicate Giotto created the Shroud in 1315 - and that it is a copy of the original which had been damaged and was then lost over the centuries. Giotto was perhaps the best known artist of his time and was made famous for his decoration of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, the fresco that depicts the life of the Virgin Mary and Christ. Mr Buso insists that 700 years ago it was common practice for artists to insert partial dates into their works so as to guarantee their authenticity and it was known only to a handful of people so as to avoid forgeries. His claims, which form part of a new book he has written, would coincide with 1980's carbon dating - which has been dismissed by the Church - and which puts the Shroud's origins in the early 14th century.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
A knight brought it from Palestine, at least that is the most likely story. That doesn’t mean it is the genuine article tho.
It could easily have been sold to that knight by a con man from Jerusalem.
On the other hand, I read the details of the Oxford carbon test and it was clear they were set to prove it was a fake. I would not trust their results at all.
My guess is that it is a fake or maybe genuine but not related to Christ but some other person who was crucified.
It sure would be interesting if someone could prove it was the real burial shroud of Christ. Not sure that could be done and even if it were many would not believe.
I've heard that carbon dating sites are good places to meet girls. Atheist girls.
Now there is a large element of “faith” in there to be sure, BUT all the “evidence” says it is real, as well. Shall I say, a preponderance of the evidence.
As with the birth certificate, a lot of you will voice your negative opinions about this, knowing NOTHING about the shroud. It will be based on what you THINK you know. Don't give me carbon dating, it was flawed, the sample was taken from the worst place on the shroud it could have been taken from, the edge (corner, I think). This part of the shroud had been handled many times and contaminated. Also this piece of cloth was a REPAIR not even a piece of the original shroud. It is NOT a painted image. It IS a “photo negative” image, before photography was invented. It is a 3D image. It has seeds & spores in the cloth native to Jerusalem. The shroud itself is consistent with the burial cloth of the day. Not a robe, more like a long, narrow sheet that the deceased was laid on then folded lengthwise back over them. It has human blood stains from wounds consistent with the crown of thorns, piercing of his side, hands (wrists actually) & feet. My memory may be a little off, but pretty close.
There is so much evidence I can't recount it here. Before you make fools of yourselves, LOOK INTO IT.
Paul Revere DID warn the British and bells were rung.
I've been burned a few times...
Lucky you! I would love to have the opportunity to see it. There was an incredible show recently on the History Channel (will try to link) that had Hollywood professional artisans/special effects artists re-create the face of Jesus from the Shroud - incredible.
http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus
At theory this specific (Giotto) is bound to get disproved unless the evidence for it is overwelming. Too easy for those more knowlegeable than I to kick holes in.
There is a claim that it is in a church in Spain. There was a show that discussed this. It claimed that images and blood marks line up with the images and blood marks on the shroud.
There is no pigment on the Shroud... we know what the image is made of... and it is not pigment. It is the aged remnants of the soapwart fullering used to treat the original linen before it was woven into cloth, some of which has aged at a different rate then the rest. It is a for of sugar caramel that coats all of the fibers so thinly that its thickness is measured in nanometers. The chemistry is known... and it is not a pigment that is, or ever was used, or could be used in art.
We also know that the C14 dating done in 1988 was done on a portion of the Shroud that was a combination of original Shroud Linen material and patch Cotton material added at a later date using a 16th Century technique called French Invisible Reweaving that was used to repair tapestries that is all but literally "invisible" unless one knows what to look for. This has been proved by two independent studies of microphotographs of the tested samples and chemical tests of threads retained from the tested area which proved to chemically different from the main body of the Shroud. One of the threads retained came apart into two pieces, one side of which was original pure linen, the other one was cotton dyed to match the original linen and then spun and rewoven into the original cloth to repair a frayed area. The C14 test accurately dated a melange of original and 16th century fibers to come up with a spurious 12th to 14th century dating.
An unauthorized, unofficial C14 test was performed on another thread from a non-disputed portion of the Shroud and its result came back with a date of 1st Century plus or minus 100 years.
Yes, it can, but not the dozens of other markers for human blood that several world class experts on human blood have found in the blood stains on the Shroud. . . It is blood... human blood. Very old denatured human blood.
Doesn’t matter - “we walk by faith, not by sight”.
Interesting.
I’m sure the debate and controversy regarding the shrould will continue for many years, if not centuries.
In regards to the shroud, it will probably all boil down to the old saying.....
“For non-believers, no explanation is satisfactory.”
“For believers, no explanation is necessary.”
That is not the reason. It would take more than the weight of the original material in soot from the fire to skew the date by enough to bring a first century artifact into the 14th century... so that cannot be the source of the contamination. We KNOW the reason the C14 date was skewed... and we know the source of the contamination... they accurately tested a 16th century PATCH combined with some original material... a mix of original and patch... resulting in a spurious date. This has been proved by THREE different approaches in THREE different peer-reviewed, published studies. The C14 test has been falsified. . . because the scientists doing it broke protocol!
please all, forgive the repeat?
but i watched the documentary on this. all is as Swordmaker says. and more. they showed the cotton fibers mixed in the weave under microscope, and more...
= = =
“...
There is no pigment on the Shroud... we know what the image is made of... and it is not pigment. It is the aged remnants of the soapwart fullering used to treat the original linen before it was woven into cloth, some of which has aged at a different rate then the rest. It is a for of sugar caramel that coats all of the fibers so thinly that its thickness is measured in nanometers. The chemistry is known... and it is not a pigment that is, or ever was used, or could be used in art.
We also know that the C14 dating done in 1988 was done on a portion of the Shroud that was a combination of original Shroud Linen material and patch Cotton material added at a later date using a 16th Century technique called French Invisible Reweaving that was used to repair tapestries that is all but literally “invisible” unless one knows what to look for. This has been proved by two independent studies of microphotographs of the tested samples and chemical tests of threads retained from the tested area which proved to chemically different from the main body of the Shroud. One of the threads retained came apart into two pieces, one side of which was original pure linen, the other one was cotton dyed to match the original linen and then spun and rewoven into the original cloth to repair a frayed area. The C14 test accurately dated a melange of original and 16th century fibers to come up with a spurious 12th to 14th century dating.
An unauthorized, unofficial C14 test was performed on another thread from a non-disputed portion of the Shroud and its result came back with a date of 1st Century plus or minus 100 years.
29 posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:39:57 PM by Swordmaker
“Supposedly the small snippet selected for dating may have been from a repair that was done about that time.”
That’s the Sudarium of Oviedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
It was later determined that the piece of cloth that was carbon tested was actually from a piece that was added in the 1200s to replace the burned edges.
Plus, a plant expert found pollen that was over around 2000 years old and is only found in the Middle East.
You are correct. The proportion of "new" material to "original" shroud material was consistent with the age the lab reported from the test... the more "new" material the younger the date they reported, consistently. The photomicrographs of the original sample showed that the reweaving took an angled join across the sample and the various samples had from a 40-60 percent old to new mix to a 60-40 percent old to new mix... and the dates went from 1260 AD to 1390 AD as you moved from one end of the sample to the other, with a 25-30 year degree of confidence for each sub sample... which expanded the range from 1230 to 1420.... 190 years of possible creation dates from ONE homogenous sample(!) with a degree of confidence of only 25-30 years? That meant that one end was outside of the degree of confidence of the other, WAY OUTSIDE! That is simply NOT POSSIBLE if the sample were truly homogenous. That was a big red flag the scientists ignored because is so conveniently validated what they really wanted to find.
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.