The Shroud of Turin

[Berean]

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been discussed yet. I think the shroud is more interesting than the James ossuary, it is definitely more controversial.
I am generally skeptical of claims made about "relics", but I lean toward the shroud being genuine.
Any comments, friendly or otherwise, are welcome.

[Socratism]

My take is that the Shroud is a clever deliberate fraud by the brilliant Leonardo De Vinci. There was a book written about a method, supposedly demonstrated by experiments, which showed that the Shroud could have been produced by someone skilled in both art and crude techiques of photography. Probably the only person of the era in which the shroud was first "found" who had the necessary advanced knowledge and skill was Leonardo, who by an amazing coincidence was closely conected with the wealthy family that "found" the artifact.

[Berean]

Socratism:
My take is that the Shroud is a clever deliberate fraud by the brilliant Leonardo De Vinci. There was a book written about a method, supposedly demonstrated by experiments, which showed that the Shroud could have been produced by someone skilled in both art and crude techiques of photography. Probably the only person of the era in which the shroud was first "found" who had the necessary advanced knowledge and skill was Leonardo, who by an amazing coincidence was closely conected with the wealthy family that "found" the artifact

Thanks for the reply Socratism. I am familiar with the De Vinci fraud theory, and it might be correct if the image was all there was to the shroud. There are other details though that need to be explained. One often overlooked example is the pollen spores that are found on it. The spores only come from the Middle East. (I can get you more detail on this if you would like.)
The shroud has had little exposure to the open air since its known history, and none in the Middle East. There are other interesting things about the shroud, but we can start here.
I hope some others join in the discussion also.

[Socratism]

The shroud has had little exposure to the open air since its known history, and none in the Middle East.

What about its unknown history prior to its appearance? Perhaps the cloth originally came from the Middle East, which proponents of its authenticity would of course have to assume. But that would not necessarily mean that the image came with it.

[Socrates]

The Shroud is also contrary to the Bible, which says that Jesus was "bound ... in wrappings (plural) of linen" (John 19:40, NASB). Shroud proponents can explain this away all they want, but the Bible should be used to judge claimed artefacts; not the artefacts used to judge the Bible.

[Berean]

Socratism, Socrates, this could get confusing.
I'll try not to mix you two up.
Just so it's clear, I don't revere the shroud, and my acceptance of Christianity is in no way dependent on its authenticity. I simply think it is an interesting artifact.
Now to the points you both raised.

Socratism:
What about its unknown history prior to its appearance? Perhaps the cloth originally came from the Middle East, which proponents of its authenticity would of course have to assume. But that would not necessarily mean that the image came with it.

Point taken. But, there is early evedince of a clothe(spelling?) said to contain the image of Christ. ( I'll have to get back to this later this evening.)

Socrates:
The Shroud is also contrary to the Bible, which says that Jesus was "bound ... in wrappings (plural) of linen" (John 19:40, NASB). Shroud proponents can explain this away all they want, but the Bible should be used to judge claimed artefacts; not the artefacts used to judge the Bible.

I very much agree that when the Bible and artifacts are in conflict, the Bible is the standard. However, I don't think the shroud is in any way contrary to Scripture. There is a good answer to the point you brought up, and it doesn't explain anything away. I will have to get to this later this evening also, though. By the way Socrates, as a YEC myself, I have enjoyed your posts in the origins discussions.

[Pilgrim]

The only way the Shroud could be genuine is if Christ was a European. Look at the shadow...it looks nothing like a 1st century near eastern semitic person, which is what Christ was.

[Berean]

To Socratism:
As I said earlier, there is evidence, which I will get to in a moment, of a cloth that was believed to contain the image of Christ long before De Vinci's time. Admittedly, it can be debated whether or not the shroud we have today is the same one. A good case can be made for it, but part of the argument rests on historical silence. That is why I said in my first post that I only lean toward the shroud being genuine.
Now about the earlier cloth. The "Holy Mandylion"( or the " image of Edessa ), was found in a niche above the west gate of the walls of Edessa (now Urfa, in Turkey) in 525 A.D. The cloth was taken to Constantinople in 944 and the image on it was considered to be the likeness of Christ. There is a reason for this, the story of the "image of Edessa" is legendary but parts of it are backed by reliable historical evidence.
As the story goes, Abgar V ruler of Edessa was seriously ill and wrote a letter to Jesus asking him to come and heal him. Jesus wrote back declining, but He promised to send a disciple to cure him. A disciple finally came after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, bearing a cloth with the image of Christ imprinted on it. Upon seeing the cloth, abgar was instantly cured, and Edessa converted to Christianity.
The historical facts behind this are interesting. Abgar did really exist, and Edessa did convert to Christianity soon after Jesus' resurrection. Edessian tradition associates the cloth with the "holy image" with the conversion. I know this doesn't prove the shroud is what it claims, but if it is the same cloth, it poses a problem to the De Vinci fraud theory.

[Berean]

To Socrates:
The shroud does not cotradict John 19:40 at all. Before we look at Biblical passages, I'd like to make a few points about ancient Jewish burial custom. The position of the man in the shroud is consistent with the way Essenes buried their dead. Archeologial excavations at Qumran have uncovered skeletons of buried dead. They were buried on their backs, elbows out, and hands covering pelvic area (just like the man in the shroud). The Code of Jewish Law in its "Laws of Mourning", instructs that the dead be buried in a single sheet.
The gospels don't say much about ancient Jewish burial custom, but what they do say is consistent with the above. Some details are: cloth placed over face (John 11:44;20:7), and hands and feet bound (John 11:44). Notice the text mentions only Lazarus' hands and feet as being bound. He walked ( waddled? ) out of the cave on his own power, so the idea of a mummy style wrapping is not found here. The Jews did not wrap their dead like mummies, but bound only their hands and feet. This is consistent with the Scriptures and ancient Jewish burial custom as shown by the Essene excavations and the Code of Jewish Law.
John says that custom was followed in Jesus' burial ( John 19:40), so we can expect He was buried the same way. Now, It is true that John 19:40 says cloths ( plural ), but this isn't a problem when we consider each gospel's account.
Mark 15:46 says Jesus was wrapped ( Greek: eneilesen) in a linen sheet. Matthew 27:59 and Luke 23:53 describe Jesus' body as being wrapped or folded ( Gr.:enetylixen ) in linen cloth.
John 19:40 says bound( Gr.:edesan ) in linen clothes.
The verbs( bound, wrapped) are similar Greek words no method is described here. (Remember, mummy-like wrapping is impossible.) The synoptics say Jesus was wrapped in a sindon, a Greek word meaning linen cloth. John says he was wrapped in a othonia, a plural word of uncertain meaning.
It is very likely that othonia in this passage refers to all the grave clothes associated with burial, the sindon ( shroud ), and the smaller strips binding the hands and feet. This is supported by Lukes use of othonia. Luke says that Jesus was wrapped in a sindon (23:53), but later (24:12) he says that Peter saw the othonia. So he refers to the singular sheet and all the grave clothes. John just spoke of all the clothes, there is no contradiction between his account and the shroud.

[Berean]

The only way the Shroud could be genuine is if Christ was a European. Look at the shadow...it looks nothing like a 1st century near eastern semitic person, which is what Christ was.

Pigrim, I'm not sure what you mean here by "shadow". If you mean the image as it appears to the naked eye, I may agree with you. But when the image is viewed as a negative, the man has indisputable Semitic features.

[Marcus1962]

If you haven't seen the website yet on the Shroud, here is the address. They publish the scientific papers both pro and con among other things.

http://www.shroud.com/

[spl_cadet]

I'm a believer in the Shroud myself.
Regarding the multiple wrappings:
http://www.shroud.com/faq.htm#2

[Roy]

03-18-2003 @ 09:43 PM post located here
Socratism:

My take is that the Shroud is a clever deliberate fraud by the brilliant Leonardo De Vinci.

He must have been exceptionally brilliant to have forged something more than 60 years before he was born.



Roy

[Marcus1962]

The historical research appears to be connecting the dots from the Shroud in Turin today to Jerusalem in Jesus day. Decide for yourself.

http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/markward.pdf

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/scavone.pdf

[mossrose]

Know what guys? It really doesn't matter. If it is the shroud of Christ, then the danger lies in those who will want to revere it as any other "relic" has been revered -- taking the focus off of the Lord Himself, and His resurrection.

If it isn't the shroud of Christ, then it is moot.

P.S. Aren't there any girls around here besides me? Or are they all in the crochet room?