http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:oNyVQFUqkgoJ:www.museumofhoaxes.com/turin.html+shroud+of+turin+painted+by&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8The Shroud of Turin first came to the attention of the public in 1355 when it was exhibited at the Church of St. Mary in Lirey, France. It had been given to the church by a French knight, Geoffroy de Charny, who probably acquired it in Constantinople.
The shroud soon became the subject of controversy. A report to Pope Clement argued that the shroud was merely a painting, and that it was being falsely displayed as a true relic in order to solicit donations to the church. As a consequence, Pope Clement declared the relic a fraud.
In 1453 the shroud was acquired by de Charny's granddaughter who eventually sold it to the Duke of Savoy. The Savoys exhibited it for many decades, claiming that it was the holy shroud that had covered Christ as he lay in the tomb. In 1532 it was almost destroyed in a fire. The shroud still displays burn marks from this incident.
Throughout the twentieth century researchers dueled back and forth over the shroud's authenticity. In 1982 a group calling itself the Shroud of Turin Research Project declared it to be genuine after studying samples lifted from the cloth using tape. However, radiocarbon tests performed later during the 1980s dated the shroud to approximately the fourteenth century, indicating that the relic was a fake. Nevertheless, shroud supporters found many reasons to dispute the radiocarbon testing, and so the debate raged on and likely will for the foreseeable future.
Updates:
Aug 22, 2002: The Vatican admits it has secretly been allowing a scientist to perform tests on the shroud for the past few months. The scientist is trying to get a more accurate reading of the exact age of the shroud's fibers, following criticism of 1988 tests of the age of the fibers
Apr 18, 2004:
A second face is discovered on the backside of the shroud.
January 31, 2005: New tests suggest that the shroud may be older than previously thought. Tests done in 1988 had apparently (mistakenly) analyzed patches woven into the shroud following the fire in 1532. Raymond Rogers has published a paper in Thermochimica Acta stating that the shroud itself appears to be far older, between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
March 2005: Nathan Wilson publishes an article suggesting that the shroud could have easily been created by a medieval forger if the forger painted a figure of a man on a piece of glass, placed the glass over a linen shroud, and left this setup out in the sun for a couple of days. The sun would bleach the linen, but leave behind a photo-negative image of the figure painted on the glass. And this is interesting to read:
The Shroud of Turin
by Al Seckel and John Edwards
The controversial Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth containing the faint image of a bearded man purported to be Jesus.
Misleading statements made by many newspapers, books, and television newscasts, have led many Christians to believe that the Shroud of Turin is positive proof of Christs miraculous nature. Contrary to these claims, human manufacture has not been scientifically ruled out as the method of forming the Shrouds image. In fact, historical evidence indicates that this is the most likely explanation for its existence.
Relicmania
Throughout the history of Christianity, holy relics have been venerated. The first pilgrims to the Holy Land brought back to Europe thousands of apocryphal relics, where they were sold for large fortunes.[2]
Relics were thought to ward off evils and to cure dreaded diseases.
Pilgrimages to the shrines that contained relics generated considerable revenues. So profitable a business attracted many skillful practitioners. Thousands of spurious relics were sold to individuals and churches. Monasteries in need of funds were tempted to "discover" new relics.[1]
The favorite relic was the wood of the True Cross. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, fragments supposedly cut from it were available in almost every church in Europe.[2]
If these fragments had been collected together, they would have provided enough material to build a cathedral. A church in St. Omer claimed to have bits of the True Cross, of the Lance that pierced Christ, of his Cradle, and the original stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments had been traced by the very finger of God! Three churches in France each professed to have a complete corpse of Mary Magdalene and five churches in France vowed that they had the on authentic relic of Christs
circumcision!
There were at least 26 "authentic" burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one.[3]
The Shroud is Discovered
Not all of the clergy were intoxicated by relicmania. Some were honest men, repelled by the circus that was engulfing their church and they set out to investigate certain relics. In 1357 the famous Shroud of Turin first appeared publicly for large fees. A local French bishop, Henri de Poitiers, started an investigation into its background. As a result of his findings the Shroud was declared a fake and the viewings were stopped. Thirty years later the exhibitions were revived, prompting the bishop to write a lengthy letter to Pope Clement VII. This important letter contains the earliest written reference to the Shroud.[3] It begins (translated):
"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Sometime since in this dioceses of Troyes, The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not of any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted..."[3]
The bishop then described the image on the cloth, which we today call the Shroud of Turin, along with the circumstances of the exhibitions, and continued:
"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [the Bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed. I offer myself as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged."[3]
Clement VII considered the matter and issued a Papal Bull, which ordered that the Shroud of Turin be advertised only as a "copy."[4] However, since this directive was not profitable, the Bull was gradually forgotten, and this "cunningly painted" cloth came to be the most venerated relic in Christendom.
STURP
If we know historically that the Shroud was produced by an artist, why is there so much controversy? This is because of a group called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, STURP.
STURP consists of 40 scientists, 39 of whom are professed Christians. STURP is not an objecting scientific research group; they are actively trying to prove authenticity. Before they even examined the Shroud many made statements such as: "I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy--light if you will. I think there is no question about that."[4]
After STURP scientists had actually examined the Shroud many of them kept to their preconceived conclusions; however, several scientists were forced to resign from the group when their investigations led to the result that the Shroud was a clever forgery. Though STURP scientists are careful not to conclude that the Shroud is genuine, they say that they cannot prove it is a fake, leaving the strong impression that it was miraculously formed. Independent scientists and some former STURP members point out that STURPs conclusion that no artist could have produced the Shroud is pure speculation, not demonstrated fact. Further, they charge that there is sufficient evidence that it was manufactured.
Scientific Results
Carbon dating, the first test ordinarily performed on archeological artifacts, finally has been done in 1988. Three independent tests were done and all three showed that the cloth dated from +/- 50 years of 1300 A.D. This definitely shows that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. Although that, by itself, should be enough to end all belief in the Shroud, it will not. Before carbon dating, other tests were performed, providing data upon which to base a decision, other not. Microscopic and chemical tests found vermilion (an artists red pigment used widely during the Middle Ages) in the so called "bloodstains." Walter McCrone, a world-renowned forensic microanalyst, subjected the Shroud of Turin to careful microscopic and chemical studies. His conclusion: "My microanalytical work on the sticky tapes from the Shrouds surface has proved to my satisfaction that the entire image was produced by an artist using iron earth and
vermilion pigments in a tempera medium... The amount of these pigments is greater in the area of greater image density, particularly the bloodstains..."[4]
The Shrouds weave (a three-to-one twill, herringbone pattern) shows that it was manufactured in the Middle Ages. Before that time, linen was woven in simpler weaves. All surviving cloths from the time of Jesus, including the wrappings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, have a plain weave--very different from that of the Shroud.[6]
How Was the Image Formed?
As a result of the investigation it was determined that the image was not painted in the usual manner. It was probably formed through a process of rubbing over a statue, a technique used since the twelfth century.[5] This rubbing technique can produce an image that has many of the characteristics of the Shroud image, including negativity. If care is taken in the rubbings, the resultant image is rather faint, shows no brush marks, has visually proper tonal gradations, and has a depth of color penetration limited to a few surface fibrils. [4] References 4-6 give full details on the scientific findings.
Conclusion
The Shroud of Turin is one of many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist. This is verified by recent scientific investigations which found paint in the image areas.
The Shroud of Turin is also not consistent with Gospel accounts of Jesus burial, which clearly refer to multiple cloths and a separate napkin over his face.
It is a shame that in spite of the evidence, the credulous media and public are shrouded in more confusion than was a bishop from the Dark Ages.
References
1.Durant, Will, The Age of Faith, Simon and Schuster, 1950.
2. Mackay, Charles, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Bonanza Books, 1980.
3.Wilson, Ian, The Shroud of Turin, Doubleday, 1978.
4.The Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1982.
5.Bodor, J. J., Rubbings and Textures, Reinhold Books, 1968.
6.Nickell, Joe, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, Prometheus Books, 1983.
