Talk:Shroud of Turin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shroud of Turin article.
Article policies
Former featured article Shroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
Peer review This Philrelig article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] POV

This article has too many points of view and everytime I go to put a tag as such it gets removed. We need to put some sort of a lock on this. If you claim something you must back it up with fact, not conjectur or weasel words like "Some claim" this article is full of that and it's impossible for me to change any of it as my revisions keep getting changed almost instantaneously. I have therefore requested partial protection as well.

The article is also way too long, it takes over 2 minutes almost 3 minutes to download in dial up and needs to be shortened

Please do not remove tags till you clear this up 4.142.123.117 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)eric

[edit] Restoring all active, current threads that were prematurely swept under the rug

NOTE: There may be more, Please check the archives and GFDL histories carefully, as much tampering with active discussions has been taking place. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican Position

What's the position of the Vatican on the shroud? The speech I linked to seems to suggest that he believes it's a matter for the science to determine the origin, and if the science concludes it's from the middle ages it's fine by them. However, confirmation by somebody fluent in Catholicese would be helpful.--Robert Merkel

The speech itself contains some sentences that might seem a quite enthusiastic approval by the pope. As for vatican habits, they are really very explicit in considering it as Christ's linen, no doubt seems to be left after these words. In this sense, I don't read in it that the Church is really waiting for scientific investigations: whatever might scientists say, the Shroud is a religious symbol, and it will remain a symbol even if it will eventually reveal of different times.
Looking into the "icon", as the Shroud is always defined as an "image", "inside it" and not "in it" are the religious meanings of this figure, so the Church sweetly invites scientists "to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers". This latter element is a quite clear invitation to avoid intensively looking for solutions that could break believers' illusions, and please note that the Church itself, as the owner of the reliquia, selects allowed scientists to examine it... ;-) --Gianfranco
The British Government won't let any scientist touch their mummies, I fear, either. (Even though Egyptians claim the mummies are theirs). So your argument is, you will let me say, quite biased and unjust. Pfortuny 06:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hear hear. The same could be said for scientific instruments such as SOHO, supercolliders, etc.; only one that has shown true belief by submission to the baptisms and catechisms prescribed by the priesthood gains entree to the sancta of the new cathedrals. And see the ashes made of the careers of heretics. Contrariwise, should just any jobbo off the street consume HST time, "clean" and "restore" the Sistine, or rip swaths from the shroud? How can this necessary filtering ever be done objectively? Kwantus 19:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

The official possition is that the origin is unknown. However, as with any other relic of dubious origin, personal devotion is not officially prevented or encouraged. The Pope (the present one) is clearly devout to it, but you have to take into account that the present Pope is Eastern, and so he is very devout of Icons, and the shroud can be seen as one (and one especially gifted). Pfortuny 09:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pfortuny's comments (above) are perfect examples of "adding apples and oranges". British possessiveness of the mummies in their museums is in no way analogous to the Catholic Church's habit of preventing critical investigation of the Turin shroud. The age and origin of the mummies in British museums is not in question. They've already been examined. If a question should arise regarding the authenticity of one or more of these mummies, and the British government refuses to allow an investigation, or allows only an already-biased group (equivalent to STURP) to do the investigating, then will be the time to criticize the British government for not allowing scientists to examine the mummies closely enough.

This Pfortuny has got to go. What is meant by "The present Pope [I take it this post dates from the reign of John Paul II] is Eastern, and so he is very devout of Icons"? Just because a Catholic is from an eastern European country doesn't make him "devout of icons". Polish Catholics, unless they belong to a Uniate jurisdiction, don't employ icons in their worship any more than French or Italian or Irish Catholics do. Nor do other non-Uniate Catholics. The ones who are "devout of icons" are the Orthodox, not Catholics ("eastern" or otherwise). True, most Orthodox churches are in eastern Europe or the Middle East, hence they're often called "Eastern Orthodox", but it's an incredible folly to confuse them with Polish Catholics. tom.amity129.93.17.63 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality

Just to have a comparison for the "unparalleled artistic quality" claims, here's a random Fayum mummy portrait from ancient Roman Egypt, grayscale and blurred, positive and negative:

Image:Shroud-compare1.jpg Image:Shroud-compare2.jpg

-- [DELETED IMAGE OF SHROUD CLOSEUP WAS HERE] --

Which one has the greater artistic quality? Which one provides more detail? The answer to that question is inherently POV. These mummy portraits were a commodity, by the way, they were not in any way unusual. In fact, the best artists of the time probably produced even more photorealistic images, but none survived the Dark Ages. They didn't just rot away -- many of the greatest works of art were deliberately destroyed, as Christianization brought with it iconoclasm, a curious trait of religious fundamentalism that would be revived by the Taliban many centuries later. --Eloquence* 02:42, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

A curious thing about the shroud pic above is that if you bung it into Photoshop and invert it, it is difficult not to think the pic above is not a negative, but a positive. FWIW. Moriori 03:06, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
In topics like this, Wikipedia's NPOV policy is in many ways an endlessly circular trap. If one wants to be Chomskian about it, there is literally nothing that can be said which is supportable as anything other than POV, including all statements about what is and isn't POV. To me, the above images aren't even comparable in "fidelity to life", although the viewer must have the patience to let his eye rest on each for a good while and come equipped with a certain kind of discernment which is not given to all. Assuming this patience and aptitude, the shroud image, despite its grainy media, pulls far ahead of the Roman portrait in verisimilitude, heft and dimensionality, despite the portrait's superior media (and, in this case, a better digital capture). I have long admired early Roman portraiture and never cease to be annoyed at the common statement that, in comparison to the ancient Greeks, the Romans were inartistic oafs distinguished only by their military and engineering skills. But even though the portrait above is a good representative of some of the most realistic pigment images ever made, the sheer depth of visual information in the shroud is so far beyond it that it must be classed differently. Maybe the easiest way to see this is to concentrate for a moment on the "blood stains" in the forehead area of the shroud, which, even if they are blood rather then pigment, are functionally equivalent to pigment as an applied liquid medium that has dried. Let your eye sit on the forehead stain that looks like an inverted number 3. Then slowly shift your focus to just below the inverted 3. If you have the aptitude mentioned above you will get a sensation almost like vertigo, due to a sort of drop-off from a 2D object to a 3D object. If the inverted 3 were placed on the Roman portrait it would simply look like a badly misapplied brushstroke and this exercise of slowly shifting focal point would produce no sensation... When I say the shroud image is dimensional I'm not just trying to use an impressive word. It's dimensionality has been quantified by NASA's VP8 Image Analyzer (see http://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm) and is objectively of a different nature than all pigment images as well as all photographs. An eye wired to a brain sensitive to this kind of embedded dimensional information will pick it up on the shroud and a deep intuitive sort of feeling will come to that person. He will "know" this image is qualitatively different from both the positive and negative ofthe Roman portrait... BTW, no one claimed an "unparalleled artistic quality" for the shroud. In fact, if the shroud image was produced by some strange happenstance it can't be described as "art" at all. We have been talking about unique physical properties, not aesthetic properties per se. JDG
The entire comment above (which would benefit from paragraphs, by the way) is entirely subjective. It's your opinion and as such relevant to this talk page. It's acceptable to have such opinions in the article if they are properly attributed. It is not acceptable to claim that they are uncontroversial, generally accepted facts, which they are not.
My entire problem with the style of the article as it was and to some extent still is, is that it presumes objectivity where there is very little. The points you make are at the very center of the debate about the shroud. The Skeptic's Dictionary article gives a very good overview of the arguments from the other side, including the response to the alleged unique "three-dimensionality", which is in fact to be expected for any symmetrical image (it's morbidly amusing that shroud lovers cite 1976 image processing research, that's a little like citing medical research from 1920).--Eloquence* 00:50, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
It so happens I read the Skepdic shroud page just last week. Rarely have I seen such a sorry excuse of an analysis. If this is the sort of thing that strikes you as "a very good overview"...(sentence unfinished). Let's look at just one of its statements: "Most skeptics think the image is a painting and a pious hoax." This isn't even a decent representation of what most skeptics think (at least slightly informed ones), it is also flat-out ludicrous and false. The images on the shroud were conclusively shown by electronmicroscopy in the late 1970s to be the result of discoloration of the flax and cotton fibrils from some chemical and/or heat event that caused a selective darkening of the material itself. Application of "paint" was entirely, utterly, ruled out, except for the purported bloodstains. The shroud, according to _all_ scientists in the last 30+ years, is simply not a coloration, it is a discoloration. Yet Skepdic skips blithely on and says "the image is a painting" (for obviously the Skepdic writers are skeptics and they are describing their own views here). This alone disqualifies the article from serious consideration. But there are many more hooters in it and, if I find time, I'll be back to share them. BTW, I saw no discussion of the dimensionality issue. Your assertion that dimensionality is expected for any symmetrical image makes no sense. I don't even know what you're trying to say by this. Symmetry has nothing to do with ordered depth. As for your problem with research from 1976, if you'd read the link above you would have seen it primarily describes work done in 1997 with a retooled VP8...(Added 5 minutes later) I suppose I should not have said _all_ scientists above, because McCrone, in the face of almost a dozen peer-reviewed science articles all categorically disproving his beliefs, continues to claim the shroud is "a watercolor in a tempera medium". What can one say about an individual who is uninfluenced by repeated physical proof and unanimous repudiation by his peers? I don't even think of him as a scientist. JDG
McCrone: Speaking of McCrone, the current treatment of him (which you wrote, JDG) is blatantly POV. I hope to find time this weekend to try to fix this and several other POV passages. Meanwhile, I suggest you identify the researchers you rely on and present their credentials. We'll leave it to the reader to judge whether those credentials are indeed "as impressive or more impressive." JamesMLane 03:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
James, please don't fall into this POV mantra so many others use as a catch-all. Looking back on that statement on McCrone in the article, it certainly is unsupported and should be worded differently. I saved in haste. I'll change it. JDG
I'm not using it as a catch-all. That the current passage is unsupported is one problem. The POV is a separate problem: If you add support in the form of information about other scientists' credentials, that would be good, but if you leave in the conclusion as to whose credentials are better, that conclusion, even though now supported, would still be a POV.
Yet another issue is that scientific disputes aren't really resolved by comparing credentials. Some very eminent and respected scientists have been proven wrong by upstarts and interlopers. The whole "issue" of credentials isn't really central to this article, which is getting long anyway. One approach would be that someone does a separate article on McCrone (I'll volunteer), someone else does an article on any scientist taking an opposing position, and a reader who wants to know about credentials can just click through and read about them. What would you think of revising the passage that way? JamesMLane 09:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. And I agree credentials don't resolve scientific disputes, but in certain cases it may be instructive to refer to them. McCrone is doing a real disservice to research by doggedly propping open questions that have been closed. The fact that paint was not used to create the shroud image in no way rules out the possibility of forgery or of a natural formation of the image. It's an unproductive use of time and energy to keep going back and arguing points that are really beyond argument. McCrone has attracted a lot of animosity among researchers for doing this, not excluding those who tend to believe the shroud is not miraculous. JDG
Oh, and if you do the separate piece on McCrone, please don't forget to mention his stellar work on the Vinland Map ( http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24301 ) JDG
I read the Yale link you gave and the Wikipedia article on the Vinland map. Neither of them seems to me to suggest that McCrone's work on the subject shows him in a bad light, which I assume is your interpretation (taking your "stellar" to be sarcastic). By the way, some of the information from that Yale article ought to go into our Vinland Map article. JamesMLane 01:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm having an extremely sarcastic week, for some reason. The Yale article, being Yalian, is quite understated. It uses the phrase "The map's validity was first seriously questioned...(by McCrone)". In fact, McCrone declared it a forgery and was exultant in 1990 when both the Vinland Map and a fullsize reproduction of the shroud were showcased in a British Museum exhibition entitled "Fake". The title of the Yale article is "Vinland map ruled authentic". Connect the dots. For a less circumspect treatment, see this article: http://www.shroud.com/bsts4307.htm . JDG
Whatever! What I am trying to say is that the caption to the pic on this page says "a negative rendering of the face portion of the shroud". Right then, print it on clear film (whatever) and use that as a negative to print a photographic pic. Do you get a positive print? I wish I had a darkroom, so I could try this, but I haven't, and I don't think so. Moriori 08:50, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Um, I was addressing Eloquence, not you (would have been indented one step more if I had been)... If I understand what you're asking, what you would get if you "use that as a negative to print a photographic pic" would be a positive print, but of course it would be a black and white positive without the straw color of the original. JDG
I feel nobody listens to me :/ (joking). But may I ask (to clarify): is the b/w jpg a digital image of the negative taken by the Italian photographer? Just in case I missed something. Pfortuny 09:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Pfortuny, that big paragraph wore me out and I had to check in to dreamland before writing anything else... I believe the image here is not the one by the very first photographer, Italian Secondo Pia, in 1898. I believe it's from the 1930s by somebody named Enrie or something similar. It's a B&W negative, basically a negative of a negative.JDG

Questions (mainly to JDG, bc I am at a loss)

  1. What does the "realism" in your sentences mean? Because I see different meanings in it. (in some sense, the above pictures are more realistic than the shroud, in some sense they are less).
  • Please see answer to Eloquence above comparing shroud with Roman portrait.
  1. The shroud AFAIK is made of linen. Is it possible that "that realistic effect" (whatever the meaning) is more difficult on a linen cloth than, say on a jar (clay-made), or canvas, or whatever? (I have not the faintest idea, that's why I am asking).
  • The shroud is mostly linen (flax) with some cotton. If you're talking about the usual ancient/medieval methods of image formation, using linen would not be ideal if the objective was the greatest possible realism. In the case of semi-liquid pigment, linen would tend to absorb it in ways difficult for the artist to control. In the case of something like chiaroscuro (a woodcut technique), the linen would tend to shed pigment grains in unpredictable ways. In the case of something like chalking, you'd have the same problem with grain shedding. And, generally, the weave of the linen gives an underlying grainy effect that would undermine most people's idea of "realistic"-- so, yes, canvas or baked clay would be better... Of course, linen turned out to be ideal for the way the image was formed on the shroud. Whatever or whoever the agent of image formation was, it/he/she used selective discoloration of fibril surfaces to produce the overall effect. This is partly what enabled the embedding of all that weird dimensional data-- the discolorations are at different distances from fiber tips and occupy varying lengths along entire fibers. The control needed for this is almost unthinkable (much more likely it resulted from some odd happenstance), and, no, it could not have been done on canvas or baked clay, as those surfaces force all image "information" onto a thin plane at their surfaces. JDG

Maybe those questions are related and related to the discussion, but I dunno. Answers are appreciated from anyone :) Pfortuny 07:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Fayam portrait Here's my POV as an Art Historian who is familiar with Fayam mummy portraits. To say that this is a "random" Fayam mummy portrait is a subtle excercise in wool-pulling! This is no "random" portrait. It is one of the finest and most expertly-handled, most three-dimensional and beautiful of all the known Fayam portraits. These portraits were painted by artists who undoubtedly specialised in creating these life-like images. Unlike Leonardo, their output probably ran into hundreds or thousands of portraits in a productive lifetime. Some of them were very very (POV, POV!) skilful at achieving a lifelike and 3D face. And they brought to life the dead body at which they were looking, fleshed it out and gave it "soul" as expertly as the most expert modern forensic sculptor. But, (and this of course is a value judgement, made for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this particular artform) this Fayam portrait goes well beyond the average in depiction of that which is lifelike. The writer has, I suspect, selected the finest example he could locate in order to make the point, whatever the particular point is..... ON THE VINLAND MAP - On this topic, Pfortuny is as usual immoderate. The Vinland map was "declared authentic" by a conference whose sole purpose seems to have been the discrediting of McCrone with the aim of upping the authenticity of the shroud of Turin. Nobody took this conference seriously, except the advocates of the Turin shroud for whom it's just about their favorite conference in the world. The interesting thing about this conference is that its organizers DIDN'T INVITE McCRONE, which is extremely odd since he's the one who did the work on the Vinland map to begin with! Whom do they think they're kidding? Tom.amity129.93.17.63 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) --Amandajm 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning quality problem

I wonder in all of these discussions about the accuracy of Carbon Dating (by the way, preliminary re-testing as of March 23, 2008 shows that the results are valid...though it will be another year before all the re-testing is complete) people are assuming both sides are of equal weight simply because both sides are involved, as if it were a matter of opinion. Inability to conclude scientifically how old the shroud is, or how it was made can be due to a number of reasons owing to decay of evidence and limits in technology. Nonetheless, the burden of proof that this is something supernatural lies with the side claiming that it IS, not with the scientific community.Rafajs77 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if people today know a method how to produce a picture of a man to a shroud like this, without any chemical means, resting there over several centuries; and I cannot believe that any comparable knowledge did exist within the medieval society at all. As far as I know, nobody knows one mere example of a product of medieval times. Also other than photographic methods to produce such a picture were not known, especially this exact anatomy, and art production in general etc. Maybe ancient time was a little more skilful than medieval time, but not enough, too. Up to appearance of other products of medieval time comparable with this shroud, I think it is very unlikely that it is a forgery of medieval times – although carbon measuring is a very strong argument against it.


Bader http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Bader 2007 01 12

[edit] Slight bias in favour of McCrone?

Greetings!

Fantastic article. It gives fair and equal time to all positions, neither favouring claims of the Shroud's falsehood or its authenticity. Nevertheless, and I might add that this is understandable given the past 20 years of Shroud debate, McCrone appears to be exempt from the scrutiny applied to the findings of other scientists. One final paragraph dismisses a scientist's findings on the basis that some of his samples might have been damaged or spoiled. Given that no peer-reviewed article has supported McCrone's findings in 18(or so) years, and that several others have rather concluded his research was based upon spoiled specimens and thus clearly invalid, paragraphs discussing McCrone's analysis might have a similar disclaimer. All the same, this is a fantastic article and one the supporters and readers of Wikipedia should be proud to have.

comment:

Actually, the work of McCrone is given rather short shrift in the article. I've read his book and another based on it, and both are quite well argued and illustrated with photos of microscopic enlargements of the areas he examined. It should also be noted that it took McCrone's critics a considerable amount of time to come up with the speculation (which they later stated as a fact) that McCrone's samples were spoiled. The initial complaints were that McCrone was "tampering with the faith of simple believers" and so on. Indeed, McCrone himself, as shown in the notes reproduced in his book, assumed that the colored areas were bloodstains, but after examining them microscopically he noted "I have never seen blood behave like this before." They did, however, seem to him to look and behave like paint pigments. It's true that nobody else has reached similar conclusions, but then nobody else has conducted a similar analysis. Based on his conclusions, McCrone predicted a carbon-14 dating consistent with a 14th-century origin, which is what the subsequent carbon-14 test did in fact come up with. I'm trying to see the merit in the idea that the test must have been flawed, or that the results are contaminated with extraneous matter, but I can't see how the latter could be the case unless the contaminations were in excess of the bulk of the shroud itself. Certainly the archbishop of Turin accepted the findings (and was retired before his time by order of the Vatican). Initially, so did most of those who later denied the validity of the test. All this is of importance, and perhaps a refutation of McCrone's findings should have been included in the article.

Tom Amity129.93.17.66 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion?

I removed the following:

The Carbon-14 dating, which was intended to settle the issue conclusively, and did so for many scientists, has not quelled speculation about the possible authenticity of the shroud.

THE C14 DATING EXPERIMENTS HAVE SINCE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALCIFIED (THAT IS BEYOND REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC DOUBT). CITATION: 'THE JESUS CONSPIRACY' BY HOLGER KERSTEN/ELMAR R GRUBER ANYBODY WHO HASN'T READ THIS BOOK AND STILL SUPPORTS THE C14 DATA SHOULD CONSIDER READING THIS. IT CONTAINS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF DOCTORING AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. ALSO THIS BOOK CONCENTRATES ON EVIDENCE OF THE SHROUDS ORIGENS (FROM DATA COLLECTED CONCERNING UNIQUE DESERT POLLENS FOUND ON THE WEAVE OF THE SHROUD ORIGENATING FROM PALASTINE.

Some scientists call for more radiocarbon tests of areas of the cloth containing the image, which the Holy See to date has refused. Given their expressed concerns about the destructive nature of current testing methods, it is unlikely that this resistance will change in the near future. Skeptics hold that the Vatican simply wants to avoid definite proof of forgery.

OTHERS SUGGEST THAT THE VATICAN IS QUITE WORRIED ABOUT FINDINGS THAT SUGGEST THE ORIGIN OF THE SHROUD TO BE ZERO AD!!! AFTER ALL, IF JESUS WAS RESURECTED, HOW DID THE SHROUD IMAGE FORM, DURING THE SHORT TIME THAT HE WAS PRESENT IN HIS TOMB???

Devotion to the image of the Man of the Shroud has made argument about this issue particularly heated. Because of the deeply held beliefs touched by this piece of cloth, complete resolution of the issue may never be reached to the satisfaction of all parties. If the hypothesis that the man of the shroud might have been in a state of coma is considered, the only hypothesis which allows a fully natural explanation for the formation of the image, the controversy even increases, because this touches the foundation of traditional Christianity.

Every bit of this content is mentioned earlier in the article. I think that conclusions are very un-wiki. State the facts. State all the facts. No need to restate them. No need to analyze them. The purpose of this article should not be to draw a conclusion about the Shroud but merely to present all the facts and history allowing the reader to make their own decision. Moreover, concluding with this section has the effect of shifting the tone of the article to an argument between scientific and religious theories about the Shroud, which wikipedia is not the place for. There is no concluding statement for each side. Repetition be destroyed, savidan(talk) (e@) 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform or to simply report? The same question is asked of dictionaries. Some people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply". Therefore some dictionaries report that "infer" now is a synonym for "imply". The same holds for this article. The shroud is a hoax. We know that. The statements that support its miraculous origin have been refuted over and over again. And yet, this is a featured article because it does not pass judgment, but simply reports. Just as dictionaries now report that "infer" means the same thing as "imply". I'm not trying to answer the question I raise. I'm just asking -- does NPOV require that all strongly held beliefs be given equal weight. Does, for example, the article on the Holocaust give equal weight to those who strongly believe that the Holocaust never happened? Rick Norwood 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am answering Rick Norwood's comments above. I see a difference between informing and editorializing. In this specific case, your statement "The shroud is a hoax. We know that" is your opinion, a conclusion you came to based on the evidence and your own personal bias. However, even the most cursory examination of the article and these comments shows that many others thoughtfully disagree; the question of the Shroud being a hoax is related but different from the question of its origin. So I would object to an encyclopedia representing an opinion as fact. This also shows why your analogy to a dictionary is a poor one: a dictionary documents the current consensus of what words mean. A dictionary does not and can not enforce meaning to something as dynamic and organic as a living language. On the other hand, an encyclopedia is supposed to document facts, even if the facts it documents are a summary of opinions.155.70.39.45 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Orthodox faith as a mere Catholic offshoot??

I was reading the article on the shroud and its proper ownership when I read the following incredible passage:

"However, it should also be remembered that the Eastern Orthodox and Russian Orthodox denominations took their origins from schism from the Catholic Church, and therefore, strictly speaking, owe their allegiance to the Pope anyway."

I'm sure this offends every single Orthodox Christian and it is my opinion (though I am not an Orthodox Christian) clearly a Catholic bias. The historical division between Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) Christianity was a long process in which a dogmatically unified faith begins to split into it two divergent paths EVEN starting at the close of the Early Christian era (c. 500/600) even though the official split is dated at 1054.

Perhaps most notable affirmation of union between east and west is at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Constantinople and Rome stood united against other eastern, oriental faiths such as Nestorian and Monophysite Christianity. But the division has due with linguistic social, political and theological differences of the two sides, including the nature of papal authority. And it should be noted the a cultural division between a Greek East and a Latin West was even the case for an earlier Roman empire, and aids in explaining the the eventual division of the Mediterranean wide Christian Church into its western and eastern halves.

Many Orthodox would see the above comment in the reverse--it is Catholicism that is the splinter group and it was the blatant assertion of papal authority in the later Middle Ages that was the problem, notably in emeding the Nicene Creed by unilaterally asserting the filioque clause. This was felt to be in violation of the ecumenical spirit in which the creed was made (in this case, the first two Councils: Nicea I and Constantinople I)--something established by an Ecumenical council could only be changed by a another such council and not by one part of the Church, viz., the Roman see, unilaterally.

Part of this relates to the nature of Apostolic sees in the Western vs. Eastern Mediterranean: the West just had one: Rome. The East had four: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria (though the latter three would come under Muslim dominance after the seventh century). Thus the east tended to regard Apostolic authority in a more collegial light compared to western Europeans who saw Rome as THE Apostolic See. Likewise, the political authority of the papacy in the west was naturally much greater as it filled a power vacuum owing to the collapse of WESTERN, secular Imperial Roman authority in the fifth century. No such thing occurs in the Eastern Church as Roman Imperial authority survived in the person of the Byzantine emperor and as the Eastern Roman Empire evolves into Byzantium, a continuation of the Roman world into the Middle Ages.

The book to read on this, among others, is Peter Brown's, The World of Late Antiquity (1971; 1989). Another is Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (1999).

But the idea that Eastern Orthodoxy is nothing more than an "eastern Protestantism" is really preposterous. Historically, they should be better seen, in my opinion, as two equivalent branches of an earlier faith without necessarily seeing one as subordinate to the other. The above comment ought to be scrapped.

Likewise, for the sake of argument on both historical and ethical grounds, IF the shroud is the one identified with Edessa (and a big "if") and thus was stolen from the east then it belongs to the east and the appeal to Papal authority in my mind is odd way to just a theft, let alone a sacking of venerable city, Constantinople (which John Paul II apologized for).

I removed the sentence that said, "However, it should also be remembered that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not owe any allegiance to the Pope." It seemed to be making the argument that any Orthodox claim to the shroud would be illegitimate due to their lack of allegiance to the pope. Definately not NPOV. MishaPan 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing this. I don't really understand what it was ever doing in this article anyway.—mako (talk•contribs) 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin ink on the pages of the Codex unexplainably changes

It appears that this edit has changed the external link appropriately but has incorrectly quoted what is actually written on the pages of the Codex. --Rednblu 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posterior image

I removed the sentence that said, to effect, that when the backing of the cloth was removed in 2002 and it was photographed "a posterior image of the figure" was revealed on the underside of the cloth. The deleted material was confusing because the "posterior image" ie "the back view" of the figure has always been visible when the cloth was displayed. tThe cloth shows both front and posterior, lengthwise.

The term "posterior" usually refers to a figure. In this case it was the backside of the cloth that was revealed, not the backside of the figure. One might presume that if there was an image on the reverse of the cloth, it would mirror that on the front of the cloth, perhaps fainter. I would like to insert the appropriate sentence to make up for that which I have deleted, but cannot do so as I am unfamiliar with the report and, to my recollection, have not seen a photo of the underside of the cloth. Would it be possible to say that a mirror image was revealed?

--Amandajm 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proportions

OK! I'm old and ignorant of 21st century practices.... but please will one of you explain to me why, within this article, a ratio is expressed as 1:1 and then the next ratio/proportion (well is it a ratio or what?) is expressed as 0.75 or 0.90 or some such. Are these decimal quantities supposed to mean the same as 1:75 and 1:90? Or do they really mean 0:75 and 0:90? Or do they mean 100:75 and 100:90? Or perhaps 25:75 and 10:90?

I have no doubt that you know what you mean. But just let's have some consistency and some consideration for the mathematically challenged!

--Amandajm 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It means 1:0.75 or 1:0.9 - what would be expected with thought.

--211.31.41.70 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section - original research?

Another problem with the validity of the shroud according to some is that the image of the supposed Jesus does not match with biblical accounts. They say that the Bible says that Jesus was flogged so severely by the Romans that his face no longer looked recognizable and it was so disfigured that it did not even look human. This would be consistent with the severity of Roman torture as outlined by authors such as Livy, Titus, and Julius Caesar. So if the Biblical account of Jesus' beatings are accurate then the image that we would see on the shroud would be near impossible to identify as a human let alone the face of Jesus. However, this argument is without merit. This text does not occur in the Gospels. The reference is rather to the "Song of the Suffering Servant" in the prophet Isaiah (52:14), written eight centuries before Christ, which is used in the Liturgy (e.g. on Good Friday) as a prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah. It is decidedly not an eyewitness description!

Note to this author: Livy states that flogging should occur upon the back and the chest, and predominantly upon the back. It was not usual to flog the face, especially in Palastine. Interestingly did you read reports that the Roman centurians placed a CAP of thorns upon his head!!! If you find a theologist who can translate the original Greek bible in to modern English, I bet you will find no reference to extream facial flogging? The crown of thorns mentioned in the apostle gospels is actually mistranslated and should be a cap of thorns. Did you not read also that the Pilate was anxious not to offend Jewish sentiments, especially on a Friday before Sabbath?

Are there any objections to my deleting this passage, which strikes me as a pretty obvious example of Original Research?--CJGB (Chris) 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Bad grammar, and it's analysis (original research)... it's completely off topic, if nothing else. /Blaxthos 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who dated the Shroud?

I should be grateful if editors from here could look at Edward Thomas Hall. Can you source, or disprove, the claim that he helped to date the Shroud, please? BlueValour 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See the article. The peer-reviewed papers exposing the error are considered conclusive. It's all very simple: somehow the testers were daft enough to take all their samples from one tiny portion of a corner of the shroud which had been patched due to fire damage in 1532. So, they were measuring carbon-14 decay in a medieval patch! Sometimes the blockheadedness of scientists is truly amazing. JDG 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to this author: There is no question of Prof Halls involvement. He's an author of the Nature paper on the C14 experiment isn't he!! Professor Hall was indeed the Professor in Charge at the Oxford University laboratory that took 1/3rd of the TS sample cut in 1988. To not know this means you don't know the key players involved in the experimenting. You ought to read the Nature paper on the shroud dating experiment. It can be found using the NCBI database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Read a book on the shroud that mentions the experimenters like Prof Hall, Prof Riggi, Dr Tite etc. By the way, I don't know where you sourced your claim that they dated a patch. The original book published concerning the allergations of fraud shows clearly that the samples were not taken from the patch. Read that book 'The Jesus conspiracy' by Holger Kersten 1992, its where Rogers gets most of his ideas.

There's an error in this statement. The samples for analysis were not chosen by the research team, but by officials at the Vatican. December 2006

[edit] mention of photographic negative in 1st paragraph

Codex, I apologize for clashing with you a bit here, but I feel quite strongly that this clause ("Some believe it is the cloth that covered [[Jesus of Nazareth]]

[edit] Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus the Nazarite

Note to this author: The name Nazoreth did not exist during the time of Jesus. It is a second century name. Jesus was refered to in the new testament scriptures as 'Jesus the Nararite'. A Nazarite is a person who belongs to a subsect of Essene Jewdaism. For instance, upon the cross the Romans nailed the sign 'Jesus the Nazarite, King of the Jews'. It is a mistake of translation between Greek to other languages that 'Jesus the Nazarite' became 'Jesus the Nazarene'. Later this was mistranslation was interpreted as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but only after the 2nd century, as prior to the second century no Narareth existed in Palastine, or Jordan (where Jesus was babtized by the Nazarite John the Babtist).

I assume this is meant as the justification given for changing "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus the Nazarite". I'd say it fails to meet a reasonable standard of evidence; so I'm restoring the familiar name pending a more thorough discussion of the issue. CJGB (Chris) 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong in asserting that there was no such place name as Nazareth until the second century, because you don't know that. You're assuming there was no such place because it's not mentioned in any records (other than the Gospels), but that doesn't prove there wasn't such a place. The silence of the records might mean Nazareth was an obscure, small and insignificant place and that there was no occasion to mention it. The New Testament phrase which is traditionally translated as Jesus of Nazareth, and which you render as Jesus the Nazarite, is actually Iesous Nazarenos. Now, what does Nazarenos ("Nazarene" in English) mean? "Of Nazareth" or "the Nazarite"? Take your pick. Either is possible. But even though the town called Nazareth isn't mentioned in any other records, it is mentioned in the Gospels, and in the Gospel of Luke it's identified as Jesus' hometown.

Your definition of Nazarite in terms of Essene Judaism is incorrect. Essenes may have employed the term, but it goes all the way back to Torah.

You confuse the issue with your careless misspellings (Nazoreth, Nararite, Palastine, Jewdaism). Tom129.93.17.202 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Photographic"

When he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibers as a photographic negative at or near the time of his proclaimed resurrection") should not be in the intro paragraph and in fact is misleading anywhere in the article. First, there are many image modes that people believe in that have nothing "photographic" or photography-like about them (see the sections on impressions from sculptures or bodies and image formation by bas-relief, amongst others). Second, most of the more advanced "Shroudies" and almost all scientists coming from imaging backgrounds believe the idea of the photographic negative is understandable in this case, but usually misleading. Thy believe the image is probably a negative of something, but certainly not a photographic negative and not even directly analogous to a negative photo. One must bear in mind that it is the modern photographic negative that revealed tremendous detail on the Shroud, but this is quite distinct from concluding or arguing that the Shroud actually is a photographic negative. See this paper by Peter Schumacher for a good explanation: [1]. Thanks JDG 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)... BTW, I was an original author on this article way back-- not that I'm asserting ownership or anything, but just so you know I'm not swooping down out of left field. JDG

Sorry, but this is a crucial viewpoint, it belongs in the intro and suppressing this fact seems like... well... suppression. The belief that it is a photo negative is the singular most thing that makes the shroud distinctive in the minds of many, please note that the phrase is not concluding or arguing that it actually "is a photographic negative", but only that many (perhaps even with sound reason) believe it to be one. Shouldn't the article on photo negatives at least be allowed to be linked to from this article? Of course, and might as well get to it in the intro, since that is the core of the matter. If you censor this, it seems like an attack on this belief. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be represented neutrally, which this line is careful to do; so why are you attacking the representation of a highly significant viewpoint? Reverting, and will continue to dispute the suppression of this significant point if necessary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I'm afraid you're confused about the distinctions that need to be made here. I'm not up to tussling over it right now, so I'll leave your edit in place. But I'll be back, hopefully in a week or two, and then let's try to bring in a few others to clarify and perhaps decide the issue. JDG 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to chip in like this, but I believe the dispute is specifically over the use of the phrase "photographic negative". The word "photographic" implies that the image was produced through the action of light, not any of the other possible mechanisms such as some kind of miraculous process or a chemical reaction caused by decomposition gases. Therefore JDG is correct to question the use of this phrase in the introductory paragraph, since most of the main theories do not entail a "photographic" process (i.e. there was not thought to be any light involved in the formation of the image). In fact the main theory which involves photography is one that disputes the authenticity of the shroud (i.e. the assertion that it was some kind of medieval photography)!
From the wikipedia entry on photography:

"Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of light. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects are recorded onto a sensitive medium or storage chip through a timed exposure. The process is done through mechanical, chemical or digital devices known as cameras."

If the phrase had been "something similar to a photographic negative" or something like that, there would be less problem with the phrase. That would not necessarily imply the action of light, merely an analogy with a photographic negative - although I'm sure there must be a better way of saying it!! If it is truly believed to be the result of a genuinely photographic process (i.e. caused by light) then this should be elaborated on in the "Theories of image formation" section, and a more general term (covering most of the theories propounded by believers in its authenticity) should be used in the introductory paragraph. Sorry to be so pedantic over the use of the word "photographic"; but this is, after all, an encylopedia, where pedantry is to be encouraged for the sake of accuracy!
Missdipsy 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
To repeat what I said above: The belief that it is a photo negative is the singular most thing that makes the shroud distinctive in the minds of many, please note that the phrase is not concluding or arguing that it actually "is a photographic negative", but only that many (perhaps even with sound reason) believe it to be one. Shouldn't the article on photo negatives at least be allowed to be linked to from this article? Of course, and might as well get to it in the intro, since that is the core of the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue of the negative is more than adequately addressed in the body of the article. You have completely destroyed the fine balance of the opening paragraph as it was when the article was voted to FA. Please desist. JDG 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Bollocks. It is of the utmost crucial importance to me that all POVs be represented fairly here, and not be given short shrift by partisan interests who would see them blanked. Reverting to a version 2 years old and blanking the talk page is no substitute for an honest discussion of the actual facts, what are you afraid of discussing?ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

References in the article are a complete mess: some with {{note}}, some with inline links, and some with <ref>. Any objections against converting them all to <ref>? --Tgr 12:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Textile claims

In the opening paragraphs this claim ―:

“textile and material analysis pointing to a 1st-century origin”

can be read. It’s confusing. If I remember correctly Ian Wilson (Christianity), a major pro-authenticity advocate of TS, has written in his books and newsletter that the textile evidence is ambiguous. ―Cesar Tort 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I’ve re-read Wilson’s textile passages and yes: I remembered correctly. In The Mysterious Shroud. Wilson wrote:

“Overall, Raes’s evidence is ambivalent. It shows the Shroud could have been produced in first-century Palestine, but equally plausibly it could have been produced in fourteenth-century Europe or a fourteenth-century Muslim country, from which commercially expanding countries like France and Italy were importing heavily. Troyes, only twelve miles from Geoffrey de Charny’s Lirey, was one of Europe’s most important centers for precisely this form of trade.” (pp. 42f).

Therefore, I removed the erroneous claim in article. ―Cesar Tort 06:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The textile claims do not suggest time frame at all, mearly that the shroud had middle east origin!!! only radio carbon dating can be used to date an artefact like this, and they ballsed it up on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

[edit] “dramatically lowered”

  • “This article had an intensive rewrite in early `05. 1st paragraph was result of much work and consensus. Changes and additions since then have *dramatically* lowered quality. Restoring”

JDJ wrote the above in edit summary and I endorse his comment. --Cesar Tort 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I oppose it. Also, WHO tried to sweep the last two years worth of discussion under the carpet? That isn't the procedure; discussion threads are not to be archived when there has been activity on them less than a year old. Since most of it pertained to the specific reasons for making those changes, and what's currently on this page is no substitute for the discussion on the actual issues that have already been discussed, looks like most of the current discussions that were prematurely archived, are going to have to be pasted back here again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The page was already 100 kilobytes long (and the oldest post before archiving it was of 7 December.). Isn’t there a policy to archive such long pages?
But this is beside the point, Codex Sinaiticus (BTW it cannot be a coincidence that your nic means manuscript of the Greek Bible!). The fact that the article’s opening paragraph states plainly “The image was somehow recorded on its fibers as a photographic negative at or near the time of Jesus' proclaimed resurrection” makes it look like a Christian apologetics article. —Cesar Tort 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It states no such thing. It states that this is what one point of view believes to be the case. NPOV policy requires that all POV's be given a fair shake -- even when you don't like them. It would not do justice to represent anything else as being the POV of those who believe it is a negative. This smacks of POV-pushing when one side is not allowed to present its case, and the other side is - not to mention suppression of recent active discussion on the subject from this talk page, which is about to be reintroduced since it is still being actively discussed. And how exactly is my username not a coincidence? Not a coincidence with what? To speak of a "coincidence", there have to be at least two things coinciding / not coinciding with each other; if one of those things is my username, what is the other thing? The fact that this is a topic centred on current religious belief? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead: make Wikipedia a Christian encyclopedia if you want. I won’t argue any more with you. —Cesar Tort 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag by Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus has already trespassed the 3-revert rule, as can be seen here.

Since revert #4 was the placement of the POV tag, it should be removed. ―Cesar Tort 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cesar, he didn't violate the rule. I was going to block him myself, until I realised the placing of the tag wasn't actually a revert. Thats not to say that I think the POV tag is justified because he misrepresents WP:NPOV - it doesn't state that all POV's are given a "fair shake", it says the subject must be described in neutral language and notable opinions given due prominance. I'm perfectly convinced the article does that already and that his additions introduce POV. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be removed for violating WP:3RR. Rockpocket 20:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That was an illegitimate 3RR report, as can be seen on the link. Placing a NPOV tag is not a reversion. I am disputing the neutrality of this article, because you are trying all kinds of tricks to avoid mentioning or fairly discussing the single most imporatant thing that is actually believed about the shroud - the belief that it is a photographic negative. There's no reason in the world to censor this from the intro, just because you don't like the fact that people believe this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not censoring the fact that sindonologists believe the image is a photographic negative, only that the way it was phrased brought up Christian apologetics (Jesus’ “resurrection”) in the intro paragraph (this is not a religious encyclopedia). Furthermore, the shroud is not a photographic negative. It’s a quasi-negative. The image differs from a negative in two respects:

1) There are blank spaces surrounding the various imprinted forms (for example, nose, cheeks, etc) within the outlines of the figure.

2) The beard is opposite in tone to what we should expect (dark on the original “negative” imprint) giving the effect when a positive is made that Jesus was a white-bearded old man.

―Cesar Tort 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem not to understand is that it doesn't matter if you say it is a "quasi-negative" (what is your source or authority for this?), and it doesn't matter if I think it really was a photographic negative. It doesn't matter what any of us editors think, and we aren't here to decide the factuality or non-factuality of any of these claims, because we weren't appointed to do that, in fact policy doesn't allow it here (but over at Wikiversity, it's another story, research is allowed there all you want!). What is crucial for wikipedia is that we represent the actual claims as faithfully, accurately, and as neutrally as is possible to verify them. There is no question that some - notwithstanding your own arguments - believe the shroud image is photographic in nature and have stated this. To not allow this to be mentioned is like fighting against reality, for some reason that can't really explained, so it's easier to just dodge the subject and try to simply shut it up as much as possible rather than face it. That usually backfires - if the goal was to detract attention, too much can't be done to draw attention to the actual crux of the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
“what is your source or authority for this [quasi-negative]?”
Joe Nickell.
“There is no question that some - notwithstanding your own arguments - believe the shroud image is photographic in nature and have stated this. To not allow this to be mentioned is like fighting against reality…”
Not misleading the reader in the intro paragraph that the quasi-negativity may have been caused by “flash photolysis” resurrection, as Ray Rogers put it, is the real issue here. ―Cesar Tort 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't mislead anyone who knows how to speak English to state that this is one of the key positions on the Shroud, as it previously read. That is the gist of WP:NPOV - to write from the neutral standpoint, we don't state that it unequivocally is not a photo negative, or that it is -- but we can and should cite which authors have taken each position. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding

I think I just noticed part of the problem... I hadn't actually noticed this before, but on 11 Dec., user:Brandmeister changed the wording subtly, so that instead of stating that there are those who "believe" the Shroud is photographic in nature (true), it rather stated simply that the Shroud "is" photographic in nature -- which I agree is too much for neutrality. I hadn't paid attention to that minor change when I was reverting, but it seems that is what you were looking at and removing. What I actually wanted it to say is the wording just before Brandmeister changed it on Dec. 11, that some believers "consider" it photographic. Would you accept that as a compromise? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok with me but we have to wait for JDG's opinion. --Cesar Tort 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh irony

of ironies!

Although the pov tag was placed for another dispute, now I’d like it stays there until this paragraph ―:

Raymond Rogers' January 20, 2005 paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta provides apparently conclusive chemical evidence that the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid

―is reconsidered. While it is true that Raymond Rogers tried to rebut Joe Nickell on this topic, [2] it’s far from certain that the 1988 radiocarbon dating was not valid.

As stated above, it was Rogers himself who, back in 1977 (before he actually studied the shroud directly in 1978!) coined the phrase “flash photolysis” as a “scientific” term for the hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection imprinted on the shroud. My point can be appreciated if we consider a couple of letters that Marvin Mueller, a nuclear physicist who published a critical article on the shroud in a 1982 Skeptical Inquirer, sent me. His letter was later published in no other than Joseph Marino’s newsletter: the man who first tried to refute the 1988 radiocarbon dating by claiming that the sample cut from the shroud in 1988 was not valid.

In a couple of his 1990 letters to me, Mueller wrote:

Except for perhaps two or three weeks each by McCrone, Nickell, and Fischer, there has been almost no hands-on bench work put-in by those on the skeptical side. In contrast, the total effort by STURP was probably over a hundred times larger. Shroud skeptics are not easy to motivate at the nitty-gritty, nose-to-grindstone level. Yet science, to perform properly, demands that a serious effort be made to invalidate claims and hypotheses. The image problem is not easy to address experimentally and a thorough test of Jackson’s [STURP’s main pro-authenticity advocate] conclusions could easy take months of work by a small team – preferably by a totally independent one.

But, as I mentioned in my previous letter, the chief problem lies with motivating enough scientists and artisans to undertake such a program of arduous research with a Jacksonian intensity, and the prospects of this happening seem bleak to me. There is a notable motivational asymmetry between the two sides of the Shroud controversy.

I quoted all of this because it’s clear to me that, if skeptic researchers were out there publishing like Rogers in respected peer-reviewed journals, a hole might well be found in Rogers’ argument. In other words, the motivational asymmetry between the two sides makes the research biased! And that means that Rogers, the proponent of the flash-photolysis/ resurrection hypothesis he invented before putting any hand on the shroud, is not necessarily right about what he writes in his 2005 Thermochimica Acta paper.

The tragedy is that confirming (or casting serious doubts on) the 1988 dating may be easy if the Vatican permitted a new C-14 testing. In other words, part of the mystery has to do with the church’s reluctance to allow the badly-required new battery of tests.

This situation can only favor the advocates. —Cesar Tort 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  Postscript
  • “…and repeated peer-reviewed analyses of the image mode which strongly contradict McCrone's assertions”

The above, which also appears in the opening paragraphs, further illustrates my point.

“Repeated peer-reviewed analyses” are basically STURP’s analyses. With the exception of McCrone and another agnostic, STURP was composed of almost 40 Christians and a Jew. And the STURP elite, Jackson, Jumper, Rogers, Heller and Schwalbe were latter-day champions of Christian apologetics. It cannot be a coincidence that the champions reached diametrically-opposed conclusions to the agnostic! Have McCrone’s claims, that he found traces of pigment on the shroud, being refuted by the STURP champions of Christian apologetics? I’m unqualified to answer the question. I am not a specialist. Obviously the McCrone vs. the STURP data ought to be evaluated by an independent team. Now then, a random “40 scientists” search into, say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science members would hardly give a result of 40 Christians, let alone passionate defenders of their dogma!

Can it be seen now the full force of Mueller’s point?

If the scientists who investigate the shroud are not a fair mixture of Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists and secular humanists the research itself will always be skewed to show the hidden agenda of the researchers. —Cesar Tort 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to this author: Do you think an atheist or agnostic who has the preconcieved opinion that 'Jesus and religion are hogwash' would be any less biased when considering evidence upon the shroud? Don't you think that it is best to take a neutral viewpoint upon the likelyhood of Jesus's shroud being the TS, and rather concentrate upon the allegations of scientific fraud concerning the C14 testing and the known history of the TS? Did you know that McCrone had already publically labelled the TS as a fake in his opinion long before the original C14 test??? Do you really believe Mc Crone to be an unbias Agnostic considering his views against published historical records tracking the passage of the Shroud of Turing from its home in Eddessa through to France and then finally Italy (by Pope John Paul II)? Did you know that most of the availible historical and scientific research prior to the C14 dating pointed to the TS being genuinely 1st century AD???
Here is my point for you! One should not apologise for highlighting known historical data and the contra evidence against the C14 tests being genuine. Further to your point about STURP. A Pharisitic Jew would certainly not be involved in a plot to glorify a relic proving Jesus's resurection/resusitation (resusitation is the correct translation of the Greek word used the the Bible). Jesus belonged to a group of Jews (the third largest sect after the Pharisees and the Seducees) called the Essenes. Most modern Jews do not follow Essene principles of Acetism, as practiced by Christ and the Apostles. So a modern Jew is not likely to bias in favour of Jesus. Further more, many people say they are Christian. It does not mean that atheists/agnostics are more detached and unbias when it comes to the TS issue. Would you not agree that the only people who can be relatively unbias are those who have no firm opinion about the existence or absence of God and all the related topics, ie those who truely balance all the evidence rather than infuse their own opinion??? It is also worth pointing out to everyone that STURP were excluded from the C14 test when the vatican unexplicably decided to reduce the testing groups from 6 (some of which were independent laboratories) to 3 laboratories. I ask you to consider why the Vatican did not want any independant laboratories having access to the shroud, and were affraid of due process.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

[edit] The Rivero-Borrel shroud

The present article contains this phrase:

  • “While wrapping a cloth around full life-sized statue would result in a distorted image...”

Below you can see the replica that the late Enrique Rivero-Borrel, president of the Mexican Society of Sindonology, did years ago.

I myself took several photos of this shroud, front and back, in a MITRA library (Vatican Embassy in Mexico).

A man with pigments applied onto his body was covered by a cloth of the size of an altar cloth (like the TS). Since the sides of the man were not wrapped the result, as can be seen, is an undistorted image.

If we take into consideration what I posted above, that McCrone’s observations have been challenged but not refuted, there’s the possibility that the TS image may have been fabricated in a similar way. (We must remember that there were other imaged shrouds in France, where the TS appeared for the first time in the 1350s. The shrouds were destroyed by fanatic Jacobins in the French Revolution.) Rogers himself said that McCrone was “the best in the world” in his specialized field of microanalysis. McCrone concluded that none of the TS control (off-image) tapes showed pigment or particles, while eighteen tapes from body and “blood”-image areas showed significant amounts of pigment.

This raises big questions. Is there something similar to the Rivero-Borrel shroud in the literature of TS studies? If McCrone is right about the presence of pigments and STURP wrong, the judgment day for the TS may be at hand…

If there is nothing published similar to the Rivero-Borrel shroud, I may ask the editor of Free Inquiry to publish an article on the subject authored by me. Years ago the editor became interested when I sent him printed photos of the Rivero-Borrel images.

But I’d like to know first whether or not there’s something similar in the vast field of TS studies. ―Cesar Tort 04:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to this author: This theory of yours i would suggest you ask yourself the following questions. 1) How is it possible for all the fakes to be out of proportion, whilst the TS image shows exact body proportions. 2) In experiments, dust particles from the blood marks on the linen were treated with vapours of hydrazine and formic acid, and then irradiated with ultraviolet light. This experiment showed up a red glow of porphyrin molecules under this radiation. Porphyrin occurs in a stage of haem synthesis and is considered a sure proof of the presence of blood, even when the haem itself has been destroyed by the effect of heat. Spectrographic analysis by Sam Pellicori of the Santa Barbara Research Centre in California could clearly show that the marks on the cloth which appear to be blood are in fact blood. The spectrum shows that it is a denatued metahaemoglobin. Metahaemoglobin comes from the oxidation of the haemoglobin iron in blood. McCrone claimed that iron in the marks was a celar indication of an iron oxide pigment in use only since the fourteenth century. However, McCrone had not mentioned the absence of the other transition metals also found in this type of pigment (namely manganese, cobalt and nickel. Further experiments by Profs Heller and Adler of the STURP group used experiments for identifying haematic micro traces which are accepted as legal evidence in the USA of the presence of blood. Now I have left this evidence for you to puruse, how can you maintain your view that the shroud could have been faked using Pigments??? For reference see / Website of Holger Kersten
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

[edit] broken link

In the "General Observations" section, there is a broken link to "Analysis of artistic style." Can somebody fix this to make it point to whatever it's supposed to point to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capedia (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).


If the Shroud is fake then the DNA test results would have come up negative. Has anyone(scientists and such) done DNA tests of the Shroud of Turin to make sure that real blood is present, and if it is doesn't that make it true that it is real? If real blood is not present then obviously it would be fake. If blood is present it could not be fake, (assuming the dating tests are true and they do date back to Christs time)since artists of the time period would not be so disgusting as to paint with real blood. Also to anyone who says that it is not human blood, that also would be disgustin to make a fake with animal blood, and besides what would be the point to make a fake Shroud of Christ? To have people from all over the world touch this piece of history for what purpose?


(if anyone must know i am not taking side just presenting a different view of things. email me with any questions: urie_alex@yahoo.com)

[edit] Fire

I think I heard something about the Radio carbon dating being innacurate because it went through a fire and all the carbon in the soot messed it up. I don't know if it's mentioned in the article or not, because I just skimmed over it and I don't really have the time to read the whole thing. I think someone should look it up and put it in the article.

Not even the late Rogers believed in that claim. —Cesar Tort 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Note to this author: If you enlarge the shroud photo shown on the main article page, you can see the burn marks. Actually, the samples taken were nowwhere near these burn marks, rather along the edge of the shroud.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.145.107 (talk)
I have heard this idea from a lot of people, so the misunderstanding is rather common. Those who believe it to be true don't understand how radio-carbon dataing works. If Wikipedia tried to document every false claim about a subject, there would be little room and no time to document the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.70.39.45 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Overview

I'm not sure that the article makes clear enough the fact that, despite the opponent's views on the matter, the issue as regards the image being fabricated has been more or less discredited, it's certainly not any kind of painting, McCrone was way off beam. Obviously, the article has to condense things, making rather agonising choices about what to leave out, but if you read all the literature out there on the subject as I have - both for and against - you can gain an in-depth view (as long as you're open-minded on both for and against!). Ian Wilson's marvellous work on documenting the history and also the possible early history is a great starting point. The carbon-dating is more or less discredited too, so if we put to one side exactly whose shroud it was (!) the big question still is - how was it created? That's what skeptical scientists should be applying themselves to, instead of just saying (like Gove) 'somebody got a bit of cloth and faked it up'.....hardly a scientific or satisfactory answer. It's amazing that in this day and age, with all our fantastic technology, we can't answer that question."Matthew.hartington 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"

  • It’s not amazing at all! Have you digested Mueller’s point quoted above?
  • Ian Wilson is a devout Catholic. Only Christians take his “early history” of the TS seriously. No secular historian buys Wilson’s fancy history before the 14th century.
  • The C-14 tests are not discredited. Again, Mueller’s quote explains many things.
  • I have also read all the serious sources by both skeptics and pro-authenticity advocates: books and published articles. I even subscribed the journal Shroud Spectrum International by Catholic editor Dorothy Crispino.
  • Finally, I am not saying that McCrone’s painting hypothesis is plausible, only that the Rivero-Borrell shroud may be the solution to the mystery if McCrone was right about the pigments issue. (This may be OR for the moment but if nobody has published anything similar to what I wrote above I certainly will.)
--Cesar Tort 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


  • I do appreciate your comments, and they made me take another look; Mueller does have a valid point - the only way this can be resolved is for every side of the argument to be thoroughly scientifically tested, and if you're saying that bias is endemic, then yes, any team doing the work from whatever side of the argument should be a composite of all religions and viewpoints if a true and fair consensus is to be the result, and more importantly, contain a result that can be seen to be fair and impartial.
  • Fair comment about Ian Wilson's catholicism, but as far as I can tell, he tries to be impartial in his judgements, certainly much more broad-minded than most shroud supporters. Though I do concede that with such a strongly held inner belief, some leakage could easily occur. Don't agree that 'no secular historian' buys the pre-14th century history.
Wilson said once to Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince that he felt that mundane hypotheses on TS image formation threatened him. This strikes me as if Wilson is not doing true historical research but apologetics, his hidden agenda. (BTW, do you know an atheist historian who buys Wilson’s history?) ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I know the work of several historians on the subject, but I've no idea of their faith. It's tempting to repulse such questions, but ultimately, I agree with the overall point that on an issue such as this, the faith and/or beliefs of the people doing the research HAS to be looked at. Scavone's work is compelling, if still essentially circumstantial, but I'll need to check his belief systems now, thanks to you! "Matthew.hartington 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"
  • Well let's say that the C-14 tests are not proved to be creditable either. I do agree that Mueller's quote means looking harder from that point of view.
  • I can see without prompting, the work you've done on this, all to your credit; but you seem to have your own bias operating - probably like the Wilson one, unconscious leakage! One for you to watch!
Of course I have a bias! But the point is that my bias, natural explanations are by definition not supernatural or paranormal like sindonologists’ bias. They want to prove Jesus’ resurrection using… science! (something like Buddhists trying to prove Buddha’s miraculous birth or Muslims trying to scientifically prove that Mahomet moved the mountain). In other words, my bias doesn’t need to be demonstrated. Theirs has (and with all probability it’s fantasy). ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect: _If_ the Resurrection really happened as a historic event, and _if_ by its very happening it had tangible and lasting physical effects (something that not even most Christian theologists agree upon,) then looking for scientific proof of this happening is not so irrelevant or out of place. Faith is quite secondary here: what the Shroud shows, and the way that it shows it, should be of interest to science... and if it offers some support (not necessarily "proof") to religious beliefs, so be it. To deny this possibility is as bad science as saying that it _should_ support religious belief. - Daniel_C 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's a bad way to conduct investigation - taking the premise then trying to make the facts fit. Much better to just look and see what's there, and go wherever it takes us."Matthew.hartington 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"
  • Your comment about McCrone and the Rivero-Borrell shroud are well worth looking at, and McCrone has taken some stick over the painting issue - it does seem to me that the painting hypothesis has been more or less settled in conventional painting terms - but that doesn't mean he was wrong about the pigment. You make a valid point here, I think you should publish, yes.
  • Thanks for the comments and info - very interesting. "Matthew.hartington 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"
And thanks also for your comments, Mathew. I replied to a couple of them above. ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the C-14 tests refuted?

There seems to be undue weight in the article towards Ray Rogers’ 2005 “refutation” of the 1988 Carbon-14 testing on the TS. I feel compelled to quote Nickell’s reply to Rogers in Skeptical Inquirer:

“ Longtime Shroud of Turin devotee Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist, now admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus. By tortuous logic and selective evidence, however, he uses the coloration to claim the “shroud” image was not the work of a medieval artist (Rogers 2004, 2005). Rogers follows many other shroud defenders in attempting to discredit the medieval date given by radiocarbon testing (Nickell 1998, 150–151).

In a paper published in Thermochimica Acta, Rogers (2005) claims that earlier carbon-14 dating tests—which proved the linen was produced between 1260 and 1390 (Damon et al. 1989)—were invalid because they were conducted on a sample taken from a medieval patch. “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,” Rogers told BBC News (“Turin” 2005). In fact, the radiocarbon sample (a small piece cut from the “main body of the shroud” [Damon 1988, 612]) was destroyed by the testing. Rogers (2005) relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling, together with segments taken from an adjacent area in 1973. He cites pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a “rewoven area” of repair—“As unlikely as it seems,” Rogers admitted to one news source (Lorenzi 2005). Indeed, textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams (Damon et al. 1989, 611–612). Rogers compared the threads with some small samples from elsewhere on the Shroud, claiming to find differences between the two sets of threads that “prove” the radiocarbon sample “was not part of the original cloth” of the Turin shroud (as stated in his abstract [Rogers 2005, 189]). The reported differences include the presence—allegedly only on the “radiocarbon sample”—of cotton fibers and a coating of madder root dye in a binding medium that his tests “suggest” is gum Arabic. He insists the sampled area was that of an interwoven medieval repair that was intentionally colored to match the “older, sepia-colored cloth” (Rogers 2005, 192, 193). However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). After McCrone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found. McCrone was then, he says, “drummed out” of the organization [Nickell 1998, 124–125; 2004, 193–194]. As evidence of its pro-authenticity bias, STURP’s leaders served on the executive committee of the Holy Shroud Guild. Not only did McCrone find “occasional” cotton fibers on the Shroud, but the source of Rogers’ sample, Gilbert Raes, has since been challenged as to his claim, cited by Rogers (2005, 189), that “the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern variety.” In fact, others—including French textile expert Gabriel Vial and major pro-shroud author Ian Wilson (1998, 71, 97)—believe the cotton may be entirely incidental. They point out it could have come from the cotton gloves or clothing of the Turin’s cloth’s handlers or a similarly mundane source […]. Astonishingly—and with serious implications to the spirit of peer review—Rogers omits any mention of McCrone’s findings from his report while insisting elsewhere, “let’s be honest about our science” (Rogers 2004). Although Rogers is a research chemist, unlike McCrone he is not an internationally celebrated microanalyst with special expertise in examining questioned paintings. Working in his “home laboratory,” he did not, as far as his report informs, use a “blind” approach as McCrone did to mitigate against the subjectivity that has continually plagued the work of shroud advocates. Moreover, McCrone once referred to Rogers’ and his fellow STURP co-author’s “incompetence in light microscopy” and pointed out errors in the test procedures they relied on (McCrone 1996, 157, 158–171). Rogers (2005) now also reports the presence of vanillin in the lignin of the radiocarbon-sample area, in contrast to its reported absence in other areas of the cloth. This is a dubious finding given his extremely limited samples. He attempts to date the shroud by the amount of the lignin decomposition but admits that that method can offer only an accuracy range of a whopping 1,700 years (contrasted with about 150 years by radiocarbon dating). He concedes that the decomposition could have been accelerated by the baking of the cloth in its reliquary that occurred during the fire of 1532, but thinks it unlikely the cloth is medieval […]. [3]

 ”
―Cesar Tort 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

C-14 tests are reputed in general now. For example tests on living flowers result in them being dated to hundreds of years old. Some shells are dated to 100 of years into the future etc. Wheat from Egyptians jars has dating thousands of years apart for individual grains all found in the same jar! Basically the C-14 level in thing isn't constant at any time and can't be used for anything any more. All these tests actually prove is how much C-14 is in the fabric. Getting a date from that is a guesstimate at the very best. If the cloth is older than medieval it seems it would be the only piece of cloth in existence that is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Note to the above author. It is possible that the grains found in the Egyptian jar were simply stored in an old jar to begin with no???

Actually the oldest cloth pieces are those used to wrap Egyptian mummies. And yeah C-14 test are quite unreliable in cases where the object is exposed to such abuses. -Dark Dragon Flame 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origen of the disrepute aligations concerning C14 testing upon the Turin Shroud

The C14 testing method is not questioned in general. However, it is generally aggreed that testing fabrics/fibres is difficult. Fibres must be properly prepared to remove contaminating particles. The original disrepute aligations were directed at the experimenters and the Vatican, not the C14 testing protocol. These allegations were not origionally made by Ray Rogers’ 2005 “refutation, but by earlier publication.

In the case of the 1988 radiocarbon dating experiments upon the shroud, nobody has questioned the accuracy of the measurements that were taken of the various samples tested. Rather, it is accusations (first published by respected theologian/pedagogicistin Holger Kersten, and Scientist/philosophist Elmar Gruber in the book "The Jesus Conspiracy" in 1992) that the Turin Shroud samples were switched with Samples of 'The Cope de Saint Louis'(a medieval cloth woven in the same Herringbone pattern as the Turin Shroud) directed against the Vatican Cardinal Ballestrero, and against Dr Tite (the person responsible for the overseeing of the cutting of the cloth and the sealing of the fragments into glass vials). The accusations were not only directed against these individuals, but several key figures involved in the experiements such as Professor Hall of Oxford University, Gabrial Vial of Lyon, Professor Luigi Gonella (Cardinal Ballestrero's scientific spokesman), Professor Wolfi of the Zurich laboratory, Professor Carlos Chagas, and Professor Giovanni Riggi (based in Turin). They accuse the Vatican (or elements within the Vatican along with the above mentioned scientists who were involved in the administration and conducting of the experiments) of colluding to prevent the true age of the Turin Shroud being measured. Suffice to say that this book needs to be read by any interested Shroud scholor, but for those who can't be fussed reading the book, the authors maintain a website that sumerizes their main findings.

[edit] Clearing up of the Blood stain issue

I found this article on http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm, which seems to show good scientific evidence that blood stains are present on the shroud, and also scientific evidence that conclusions made by McCrone in his 1981 paper were flawed due to a lack of perspective because he limited his experimental analysis on the cloth. I think someone should change the sections of the article citing McCrone to also include further experiments that disprove McCrone's conclusions. Here is the article in brief.

Image on the Shroud

The shadowy image on the shroud is, of course, its most unique and enigmatic feature. It displays the complete dorsal and frontal image of a severely abused and crucified individual of Semitic characteristics who was laid on the proximal portion of the cloth with the distal portion folded over the head and extended over the body thus creating, through some as yet unexplained chemical or physical process, two "head to head" images of the back and front. The ghostly, sepia colored image is nearly imperceptable close-up but discernable at a distance. It was not until the first photographs were taken of the shroud in 1898 by Turin Councillor Secondo Pia that the negative plates revealed the startling "positive" of the clear picture of the "man in the shroud." The image is of a male, almost 6’ tall, bearded, severely abused and scourged with the distinctive "dumbell" markings of a Roman flagrum. Bloodstains are evident from wounds in the wrists, feet, about the head and brow, and the left thoracic area with pooling under the small of the back and under the feet. The image of the "man in the shroud" also displays signs of beating about the face, swelling under the eye and shocks of his beard having been ripped from his face (a common form of abuse to Jews by Romans). The debate on the authenticity of the shroud focuses on whether this image was transferred to the linen by some means from a real corpse or whether it was artificed by a clever forger.

Chief among the proponents of the image as a "painting" was W. C. McCrone, one of the most respected names in particle analysis. McCrone reliably detected iron-oxide particles throughout the shroud using only optical technique and attributed it to the base of artist’s paint. (McCrone, W. C., The Microscope, 29, 1981, p. 19-38; McCrone, W. C., Skirius, C., The Microscope, 28, 1980, pp 1-13.) Particular attention in this regard was given to the purported "bloodstains" of the image.

FACT: The shroud linen contains particles of iron-oxide.

The debate on the authenticity of the shroud became centered on whether the reliable presence of iron oxide was relevent to the shroud image and the "bloodstains" on the cloth and the precise nature and origin of the iron oxide. A part of the answer to this was provided by x-ray fluorescent analysis performed by STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientists R. A Morris, L. A. Schwalbe and J. R. London which determined there was no relevence between concentrations of iron oxide particles and the varying densities of the image. (Morris, R. A., Schwalbe, L. A., London, R. J., X-Ray Spectrometry, Vol 9, no. 2, 1980, pp 40-47; Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 1982, pp 3-19)

FACT: Iron Oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth.

These findings stimulated additional attention to the bloodstains on the cloth. Were these genuine bloodstains or were they "painted" with some form of iron-oxide containing red pigment? This issue was addressed by experts in blood analysis, Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute and Dr. Alam Adler of Western Connecticut State University. Drs. Heller and Adler went far beyond the mere optical examination of McCrone. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike artist’s pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure. They discovered, through research into the procedures of flax preparation and linen manufacture, that pure iron oxide is normal to the process of fermenting (retting) the flax in large outdoor vats of water.

FACT: The iron oxide, abundant on the linen of the shroud is not the remnant of artist’s pigment. ' Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

FACT: The bloodstains on the cloth are not artist’s pigment but are real blood.

FACT: The bloodstains were applied to the cloth prior to the formation of the image.

Working independantly with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler’s findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group. (Baima Bollone, P., La Sindone-Scienza e Fide 1981, 169-179; Baime Bollone, P., Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 23, 5, 1981; Baima Bollone, Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 24, 31, 1982, pp 5-9; Baima Bollone, P., Gaglio, A. Sindon 26, 33, 1984, pp 9-13; Baima Bollone, P., Massaro, A. L. Shroud Spectrum 6, 1983, pp 3-6.)--comment unsigned

It should be noted that none of the "FACT"s listed above are actual facts, they are mere opinions from various sources. Check out WP:NPOV for how these things should be handled. DreamGuy 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for edit of "Second Image on Back of Cloth"

Where it previously read " At the same time, the second image makes the electrostatic hypothesis very probable because a double superficiality is typical of corona discharge and the photographic hypothesis somewhat less probable" I changed it to "At the same time, the second image seems to support the electrostatic hypothesis because a double superficiality is typical of corona discharge and the photographic hypothesis somewhat less probable." I found the very probable" not in keeping with the NPOV, as this one piece of information falls far short of making any one claim "very" probable. --Fitzhugh 05:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avignon Pope?

In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon pope...

According to the Avignon Papacy article, the Avignon popes reigned from 1309 to 1377, so something is obviously wrong here. Looking at the German source, it appears the pope in question was actually Antipope Clement VII. I'll amend the article accordingly. There are two references to Avignon popes in the article; I'll remove the first one (since it's not terribly relevant anyway). CJGB (Chris) 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Contemporary Record May Contradict its Authenticity

As is well known, the actual person died by stoning and consistent with biblical law, after he was confirmed dead, he was briefly suspended and then immediately taken down. There was no crucifix. Any wounds would have to be consistent with stoning and so the shround may be of doubtful authenticity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.51.17 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

If you're saying Jesus Christ was stoned to death, I have no idea where you're getting that from. The wounds identified on the shroud are consistent with being scourged and crucified in addition to the wounds consistent with a crown of thorns and a pierced side.Clashwho 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Statement

The lady here has an especially high forehead
The lady here has an especially high forehead

I changed this:

The shroud of Turin is a fake created by someone with only cursory knowledge of human facial anatomy. It should be noted that enlarging the lower part of the face and diminishing the forehead is a common error of inexperienced artists, as well as a distinguishing feature of Medieval and early Renaissance art.

To this:

The shroud of Turin is a fake created by someone with only cursory knowledge of human facial anatomy. It should be noted that enlarging the lower part of the face and diminishing the forehead is a common error of inexperienced artists.

I did so because this assumption of medieval and early Renaissance art is the opposite of the truth: in fact the foreheads were often exaggerated to match the ideal of the time. Noble women frequently plucked their hairline to make the forehead seem higher. Perhaps this is best illustrated with an example. The Hours of Englebert of Nassau have even better examples, but I didn't see any images of that manuscript. I'm just making sure not to offend any one :).--Vlmastra 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To much writing

It seems that this article has a lot of writing and it can be confusing for the person getting info off it, from expierience I know.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikomosi (talk • contribs)

[edit] photo

put in a decent photo of it, that shows something other then his face please, and other then those old ones from 1988, like the full size ones in churches.


[edit] Analysis of proportion section

I've been going through the article a bit trying to tighten it up to meet wikipedia standards. One thing that I just took out was most of the text under the subheading "Analysis of proportion". This has been in the article for quite a long time it seems, but from this diff, the editor who originally added it (here) did so from original research and from the partial memory of a textbook that he or she couldn't identify or cite. Pending more solid sourcing, it seemed this should come out of the article. I've read accounts by forensic pathologists and not seen the proportionality of the face mentioned as an issue, though I have seen about the height and length of fingers being unusual. Beyazid 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contridication?

On the "Characteristics" section of the article it says that researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.

However, later in the section on bas-relief, it says that Costanzo constructed a bas-relief of a Jesus-like face and draped wet linen over the bas-relief. After the linen dried, he dabbed it with ferric oxide and gelatin mixture. The result was an image similar to that of the Shroud. Similar results have been obtained by author Joe Nickell. Instead of painting, the bas-relief could also be heated and used to burn an image into the cloth.

I guess bas-relief shoud be removed from the first qouted sentence. Bobisbob (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one that added about the researchers not being able to replicate the effect by that list of techniques, including bas-relief. This was specifically about the property of the coloration density of the image correlating to distance information. What Nickell apparently did was just try to transfer a face-like imprint. Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read a source from him (actually there is no citation tag currently in the article to point out the verifiable, published documentation of what exactly he did with bas-relief). I don't think he did image analysis like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists. Beyazid 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess, and it does specify that the the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists in paricular couldn't reproduce the effects. Bobisbob (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] featured article?

Is this a featured article? at least the german interwikilink to this article marks it in this way. 128.230.111.195 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a former feature article; see the boxes at the top of this page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] needs a section on authenticity debate.

Arguments for and against authenticity from both Christians and non-Christians should be included. One Christian argument against authenticity is that the figure has long hair when 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 says that it is shameful for men to have long hair and therefore the figure in the shroud is not Jesus --Ted-m (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that that is what section 3.4: Textual criticism is for. Grab a source relating these verses to the shroud and explain the point. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic hypothesis

OTRS ticket#2008022410006805 refers. The last paragraph read to me as a novel synthesis from primary sources, and actually the source cited does not appear to be peer-reviewed or formally published, so I have removed it. Please be extra vigilant when mentioning living individuals to ensure that any material which might be construed as critical or controversial is properly supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Word

At least the article holds up to the typical Wikipedia standard of "skeptics" getting the last point in....virtually every subtopic.

A free encyclopedia written by anonymous unprofessionals....what more could I expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.72 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "alleged" resurrection

In the lead there is the sentence "It is believed by many to be a cloth worn by Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, two days prior to his alleged resurrection." Various editors have removed the word "alleged", others have re-instated it. My reason for deleting "alleged" is as follows:

The sentence describes a belief held by "many" people which connects the shroud to "Jesus Christ" and his "resurrection". Both Jesus and his resurrection are mentioned in this sentence as adjuncts to the belief held by the "many". Therefore it is not necessary to "allege" the resurrection in this context. This is confirmed and made clear by the (uncontested) use of the term "Jesus Christ" (the Messiah, the appointed of God) as opposed to "Jesus" (the man, subject of the Gospels) which places the "many" in the set of believers in the Christian faith and Jesus (and by extension his resurrection) within their belief system. As it stands, the "alleged" implies that the resurrection is not universally accepted within the set of people who acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ (i.e. within Christianity); as far as I know, this is not the case, and certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm kicking myself for not realizing this sooner: Why is resurrection mentioned at all in the lede? It's a (pardon the pun) thread deserving of discussion in connection with the shroud for sure, but one of secondary/tangential importance. Ergo, I removed it, which should hopefully end the revert-warring over the term "alleged".
However, I do wish to point out that I disagree with Timberframe regarding the "alleged Jesus": There is historical evidence indicating that a Rabbi named Yehoshua (a name that was Greekized, Latinized and then Anglicized to "Jesus") did exist and preached in the city of Nazareth. Groupthink (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go with your solution. I too wondered why it was so important to mention the resurrection at all in this context, but "it's been there for a long time". I accept your point about historical evidence, and my tongue-in-cheek "alleged Jesus" was to make the point that there is also historical evidence for the resurrection. It's a matter of personal choice and faith whether you accept one and not the other. My real point is that it's PC gone mad to prefix any article of faith with "alleged" in sections of the article which are overtly describing matters of faith.--Timberframe (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If this were an article on something Easter-related then I'd agree with you, but given that the primary topic at hand is about a factual item, not a faith tenant, I would assert that "alleged" is appropriate in the context of the article. Groupthink (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)