F Rosa Rubicondior: Turin Shroud Forgery Shows Changing Fashions in Art.

Thursday 3 April 2014

Turin Shroud Forgery Shows Changing Fashions in Art.

Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion - life - 02 April 2014 - New Scientist

The 14th-century medieval forgery known as the Shroud of Turin, which some Christians still insist was the shroud used to wrap the body of Jesus in following his legendary crucifixion, may show how perceptions of crucifixion and how it was depicted in art changed over time.

Carbon dating has shown that the flax used to make the linen cloth grew in the late 13th or early 14th century, not long before the shroud made it's first public appearance in France. This evidence confirms the evidence from the image itself that the shroud is a medieval European forgery. Strangely, the claim that it is the genuine shroud of Jesus never explains how the linen travelled back in time some 1400 years to 1st-century Palestine and then came forward again to 14th-century France, but such details are of little consequence to people who are desperate for evidence or to a church which habitually tries to trick people with fakes and phoney tales of miracles.

The image on it appears to have been a crude attempt to reproduce a body around which the shroud was wrapped and to make the body look like it had been crucified by painting some 'blood' on the arms. The artist appears to have either been unaware that wrapping a cloth around an object does not reproduce a three-dimensional image of the object, or he/she tried to reproduce an image that many people would assume such a process would produce.

If the forger had thought about it at all, it must have been something of a dilemma to either reproduce a realistic image as produced by wrapping it round the body, that no-one would recognise as the figure of a man unless projected onto a cylindrical mirror, or to produce something laughably unrealistic to an unbiased observer but that uncritical people would recognise as a human figure and allow confirmation bias and an eagerness to be fooled to gloss over the errors. The latter psychological process is the one normally used by religions to fool people with similar 'miracles'.

From the Gorleston Psalter, c.1320-30
Now a study has shown that the forger either deliberately or by chance, reproduced a pattern of blood flow on the left forearm which would be expected if the crucified body depicted had been crucified not in the traditional cruciform position, with arms outstretched, but in a 'Y' shaped position with arms raised above the head. This may well reflect the changing perception of how crucifixions were carried out, and might be because the forgery, like many of his contemporary 14th-century artists, depicted it as a 'Y', like Rubens did less than two hundred years later but unlike the more traditional poses depicted by more contemporary artists.

It could be that the artist just decided to draw the rivulets of blood parallel to the arms for artistic reasons.

Matteo Borrini, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
We can see how the forger was influenced by other artistic and cultural traditions and assumptions of his/her time in the depiction of Jesus as a European in the same pose used for the effigies of important people on their tombs. The hands, which are too small for the size of the face - a common mistake in early art - are discretely folded over the genitalia - something that would have been difficult to maintain whilst wrapping a body in a shroud and something that would not have been regarded as important since there was no expectation that anyone would see the body naked again. But obviously, if you're going to put an image of Jesus on display you don't want to show his naughty bits because that would be disrespectful and you can't use the traditional artistic device of a loincloth because bodies aren't normally buried in them.

'via Blog this'

submit to reddit


  1. Besides, if you showed his naked penis you'd be reminding everyone that they were praying to a circumcised Jew. Quelle horreur!

    I remember that back in the mid 1980s the propaganda rag Reader's Digest ran a book selection which had purported "scientists" examining the Shroud of Turin and of course concluding that it was genuine, because of such staggering "evidence" as dirt grains in the cloth.

  2. One of my favourite 'proofs' that the cloth was from Palestine not France was the alleged discovery of pollen grains from plants which grow in Palestine but not in France. Well, guess what folks! Pollen blows about in the wind! That's how it gets dispersed. Palestine is hot and has lots of rising hot air. Pollen can be found in the stratosphere. Even if it went the long way round, pollen could easily get from Palestine to France.

    But we are dealing with Vatican 'science' here of course, where the purpose is to keep the faithful giving generously and not asking too many questions.

  3. Rosa the problem is that you didn't do your shroud of turin research throughly
    or honestly, and for obvious reasons which I understand (you want to hold onto your
    Atheistic worldview)

    If you had u would have known that clumped pollen was also found and clumped pollen had to have been places on an object not float there from the air, but the again why would you want to honestly research this ;)

    I'm gonna post this on the slight chance that my post will be published .

    But how does the position of the arms depicted in early artistic renderings prove the shroud is a forgery? These medieval art renderings also depicted Christ being nailed through the palms which the shroud also doesn't show and in fact the shroud' snail through the wrist is perfect with how a crucified person would have nailed anyways.
    If he had been nailed through the palms he would have slide off the cross.

    Have you even researched the different views of how Christ's arms would,nave been hanging or did you automatically take this research as 100% fact?

    For me I would have to research it as an honest shroud researcher. You should try that method sometimes, it might bring you some amazing results , like some facts for a change instead of the half truths you just posted here ;)

    1. Bob

      You'll need to help me out here. Why can't clumped pollen be airbourne, please, and who do you think would have gone to the trouble of collecting it from Palestine and placing it on the 14th-century flax fibres?

      The answers to your questions are in the blog you apparently haven't read.

    2. Bob

      I've just checked and none of the mentions of pollen grains in relation to the shroud refer to clumps of pollen. Of the 26 strands of fibre examined, one appeared to have been deliberately contaminated with pollen though because it contained very many more grains than any of the others.

      Bad luck.

      Did you not do your research thoroughly or honestly? I often find the Christians who open their attack with an ad hominem are trying to hide the fact that they have just done what they accuse others of doing.

  4. Again Rosa, it is apparent that your only seeing and researching what you want to see and research. Since I have studied the shroud for over 5 years I can spot lazy or biased researched.

    The significance of both the pollen and flower images is profound. The evidence of the pollen grains of Gundelia Tournefortii causes Danin to believe that “They became part of the Shroud at one event-when in Jerusalem”. In fact, they found that 40 % of the total number of pollen found on the Shroud is from this one type of plant.

    The pollen content is so high it can only mean that G. Tournefortii must have been physically laid down on the Shroud.

    Professor Danin has also found images of four leaves of the plant Zygophylum Dumosum which also indicates that the plant must have been physically laid on the Shroud. And it’s only found in Israel! The notion that the Shroud originated in Israel and was used in an actual burial ceremony now has strong new evidence.

    and it fits the botanical images found off the shroud image by the premier expert in the flowers of jerusalem professor Avinoam Danin who confirmed the images and how well they matched the pollen found.

    Danin said that the preponderance of botanical evidence – the presence of the exclusive Zygophyllum, along with the so many other species indigenous to the Holy Land, plus forensic evidence that the flowers were picked in the spring, at the time of the Passover and Crucifixion - convinces him that the shroud dates from the first century AD. (Danin says the reporter misquoted him as to any indication of a date and that what the evidence points to is that the Shroud must have originated in Jerusalem. The pollen does not indicate when, except that it was in the spring.)

    again it snot an ad hom attack if its the truth is it?

    There are afew atheists that are knowdgable about the shroud but they would have never made the argument that you made because its simply not the full facts. In fact most of the honest seeking atheists who are open to following the evidence no matter where it leads them either abandon their shroud research because they are uncomfortable with the evidence of convert over to agnostics or all the way like doctor august accetta (former agnostic before his research into the shroud and Christian after) as well as mark Antonacci who originally got into shroud research to shut his former Christian girlfriend up and was trying to prove to her that Christianitty was a fairy tale and started with the shroud. . what he initally thought would take him 2 weeks took him 20 years and he ended up converting to Christianity.

    Now your conspiracy claim of contamination of pollen is just that. Now please prove with scientific facts that it was contaminated, and while your at it maybe you can try telling professor Avinoam Danin that he was wrong.

    Do atheists make claims that they cant back up with scientific proof? Correct me if im wrong but isnt that what you state Christians do?

    1. Bob

      >again it snot an ad hom attack if its the truth is it? >

      No. It's an ad hominem to accuse me of being dishonest, like you did in your opening. I'm amazed you didn't know that.

      >Now your conspiracy claim of contamination of pollen is just that. <

      Where did I claim any such conspiracy, please?

      >Do atheists make claims that they cant back up with scientific proof? Correct me if im wrong but isnt that what you state Christians do?>

      I made no such claim. However, I draw reader's attention to the fact that YOU claimed that clumped pollen couldn't have been airborne and I asked you to explain that claim for me. You have signally failed to do so. Is this what you were thinking of?

      From Wikipedia - Shroud of Turin:
      Skeptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite, that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination.[126] Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself.[127] J. Beaulieau has stated that Frei was a self-taught amateur palynologist, was not properly trained, and that his sample was too small.

      See also Nickell, Joe: "Pollens on the 'shroud': A study in deception". Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1994., pp 379–385
      "Shroud" of Turin


      Looks like your research may have been inadequate, dishonest or highly selective.

  5. you stated this
    ""Of the 26 strands of fibre examined, one appeared to have been deliberately contaminated with pollen though because it contained very many more grains than any of the others.""

    Thats an assumption made from ignorance and your presuppositionally biased beliefs towards atheism and not a scientifc fact .. No where is it stated that this was the only clumped pollen found on the shroud, but that it was the most common pollen found.

    And if you had studied frei's work you would have known that the pollen he found couldnt have traveled more then a set distance. This isnt me speaking but Max Frei the swiss criminologist and he knew his stuff.


    He also stated: “90% of the pollen production of a given plant is deposited within 100meters. A propagation to a distance of tens of kilometers is still considered normal, whileexceptionally strong winds in times of drought (sirocco) are responsible for rare extremely fartransports of hundreds or thousands of kilometers. (...) In the case of the Shroud therepresented plants bloom in different seasons and live in well-defined, and different from eachother, ecological conditions. Their pollen is not especially suited to very far transports.Therefore the heterogeneity and the amount of pollen cannot be explained on the basis of random contamination”

    1. bob

      >Thats an assumption made from ignorance>

      Er... no. It was a statement made from evidence. I think your difficulty with the distinction there could explain your performance here.

  6. Unfortunately for you you have stumbled upon a Christian who doesnt use ad homs unless they are factual, which by definition makes them non ad homs

    I suggest you do your homework and stop being a hypocrit because I noticed that you had a littl ad hom yourself when you said what you asserted about vatican science. I guess thats ok for you to use isnt it. This time however you have stumbled across a Christian (Catholic Christian) who has doen his research on the shroud.

    When I first started studying the shroud I did so as a skeptic of the shroud not a pro authenticist as i am now.
    I was also a pro evolutionist 5 years ago, not any longer but thats another subject.

    What other wild conspiracy theories will u come up with next?
    It seems like you love to believer in conspiracies when it comes to evidences for Christianity and not when they are for Christianity. So much for the vaunted honesty in research of atheism, or Maybe not all research the shroud by doing 5 minute googlings like you do :)

    1. >you have stumbled upon a Christian who doesnt use ad homs>

      Ah! Your ad homina aren't ad homina because you're a Christian, eh?

      I'm wondering if we're going to make any further progress with this exchange, or whether your are going to claim any more privileges as an excuse for not behaving in a civilised manner because of your superstition.

  7. ""Bob
    You'll need to help me out here. Why can't clumped pollen be airbourne, please, and who do you think would have gone to the trouble of collecting it from Palestine and placing it on the 14th-century flax fibres?""

    Again I gave you info straight from Max Freis research. Your giving me wild conspiracy theories. Can we stick to the research please as atheists like you claim to love science, its very unbecoming to you to resort to wild speculation. Isnt that what you claim young earth creationists do (and dont bothercalling me a YEC because im not one, so I spared you the trouble).

    The problem is that I dont think someone went through all the trouble to place them there, and if you read my posts, neitehr does MAX Frei who is much more knowledgable in this area then you.

    Now you can stick to your conspiracy theories here, but someone like me that has honestly researched it for 5 years is not gonna gain much here but a chuckle.

    I know, we can start another conspiracy theory that Max frei was secret Vatican spy who is really in league with aliens and he planed those pollens on purpose which an expert in teh flowers of jerusalem happens to agree with him, but then again you probably think that professor Danin is probably a Catholic/alien hybrid getting ready to take over thsi planet.

    I wont go over the limestone found on the shroud with you as it seems like your allergic to real research and into conspiracy theories so I will leave you with them.

    Have a great weekend :)

    1. Bob

      >Can we stick to the research please<

      I'm afraid the facts are non-the-less facts, even when they aren't convenient to you.

      Now, let's see if you can continue in a grown-up manner from now on. If not, I'll not bother with you any further. The Universe really won't change because you shout abuse at people, you know, not even if you stamp your foot or throw all the toys out of the pram.


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Web Analytics