Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"

[bobdroege7]

If I remember correctly wasn't Frei likely also responsible for the almost certainly fake Palestine pollen results?

There was also north american pollen identified on the shroud, pollen testing not conclusive, other than to say the shroud was handled a fair amount.

 

[Thermal]

I try to refrain from calling it the shroud of Christ, may have mistaken done that. I try to say the man in the shroud, who is definitely not Christ or God.

Yeah, it's confusing to say the man in the shroud, which is a burial cloth, was not dead at the time he was buried in a tomb.

But that's my opinion, that he didn't die, he survived the crucifixion attempt.

Ok, but the issue with the shroud is whether the image got there through some supernatural means. If some dude created it artificially (by specific means not presently known), it's just an interesting ...you know, thing. But if we are taking this image as having been generated by the crucified subject, then he is god-ish, whether dead or not?

Eta: or semi crucified, unfinished-ly executed, or mostly dead or whatever. Point being, if we are taking the clues in the shroud as a given (bloodstains, etc) then are we supposed to believe this is a genuinely supernaturally generated image? Cuz that's kind of a deal breaker. If it is, we got theological problems. if it's not, we just have an artistic interpretation that shouldn't warrant all this discussion.

 

[catsmate]

If I remember correctly wasn't Frei likely also responsible for the almost certainly fake Palestine pollen results?

That's him.

Thanks!!

No problem.

I don't get this two of the results over lap within one standard deviation, (68% likely hood of being accurate), and all three results over lapping with two standard deviations, (95% chance of being right). So the problem?

Looked at the paper, https://www.researchgate.net/public..._1988_Turin_Shroud_radiocarbon_dating_results, it is bad. Do they not understand standard deviations?

OK thankfully I read ahead and saw @JayUtah's post which explains it better than I could ATM (in bed, on tablet, not alone).

That's not even the worst of that nonsense. First, the publishing organization is focused on acheiropoietos. To save you from Googling, that's the pseudoscience that tries to pretend there is a scientific explanation for Christian icons that are purported to have been created by supernatural means. The organization no longer exists.

Second, the method they propose involves a technique they admit is novel—some kind of newfangled multivariate analysis of variance. So right off their claim that "robust" statistical methods give a better answer suffers from begging the question of its robustness. It's either new or it's robust. It can't easily be both. The method isn't explained in the paper. It's covered in another paper that lives—not surprisingly—at the end of a dead hyperlink. Apparently this method wasn't good enough to be actually published in a serious journal. In any case we can't evaluate the method for correctness or robustness.

Third, the method is transparently p-hacking. This is the pseudoscience practice of comparing every variance in a system to every other variance and trying to draw conclusions about positive or negative correlations that are revealed. It's a particular form of HARKing: Hypothesization After Results are Known. After bragging about their ability to exhaustively run every possible analysis, they cherry pick some of the results and declare the samples to be heterogenous.

Fourth, the premise of the paper is that samples taken from a single piece of the shroud should show a degree of homogeneity no matter how they were subsampled. The authors find heterogeneity in one axis but not in the other. This does not support the hypothesis that the fiber samples were switched.

 

[catsmate]

Not Frei's.

Try Dr. Joseph Kohlbeck.

I see you're not going to cite the alleged "research". Afraid of awkward questions about "Biblical Archaeology Review", the lack of controls, lack of alternate samples (one "source" in Jerusalem) and seemingly deliberate vagueness in the (alleged) spectrograph results.

 

[theprestige]

I try to refrain from calling it the shroud of Christ, may have mistaken done that. I try to say the man in the shroud, who is definitely not Christ or God.

Yeah, it's confusing to say the man in the shroud, which is a burial cloth, was not dead at the time he was buried in a tomb.

But that's my opinion, that he didn't die, he survived the crucifixion attempt.

Begging the questions of a man, a shroud, and a burial.

All the lines of evidence we have point to none of those things being part of the artifact's provenance.

 

[arthwollipot]

As I mentioned earlier in the list of reasons why we (or at least the rational amongst us) know the shroud is a fake is that it doesn't match Jewish burial customs.

A burial shroud is not "draped".

 

[JayUtah]

I am not the OP, you are confused.

Okay, fine. But would you like to explain how the Qur'an fits into all this and what you're trying to prove by bringing it up?

 

[catsmate]

A burial shroud is not "draped".

And they certainly wouldn't have been kept and venerated by a proto-Christian sect. They'd be ritually unclean.

 

[catsmate]

OK, so I'm alone, unbothered and sitting comfortably in front of a large screen and keyboard. Time to discuss limestone and, given that shroudies are involved, lies, fraud and stupidity. Fetch a beverage, sit down and relax, this may be a bit long. I'm in the mood to finish this particular nonsense once and fore all.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Firstly the basics; limestone is chemically, mostly, calcite a form of calcium carbonate. It's a sedimentary (or secondary if you remember your geological classifications) form of rock created by the accumulation of marine debris, mostly sea shells. It's rather useful stuff in industry and agriculture, and of course in pedagogery. The constituents and impurities can be useful in determining it's source. It's also a common matrix for fossils (remember Mary Anning?).

Specifically regarding the shroud, "limestone" is bandied about by shroudies to cover certain material removed (allegedly) by tape lifts, that is adhesive tape applied to the surface of the cloth to collect particulates there.

• As an aside Max Frei did not invent this technique, that's a lie promulgated by his supporters. It was used in criminology before him.

Now these alleged tape lifts (I'll some to why I use 'alleged' in a moment, be patient) allegedly recovered dust, pollen and other materials. I shall leave the Frei pollen nonsense aside for the moment as even the hardcore shroudies tend to play down that particular brand of nonsense these days.

Now Frei removed material from the shroud in 1973 and made a number of claims. Mainly he concentrated on the pollen but he made a number of (unpublished) assertions regarding microscopic analysis of the 'dirt' removed.

Let us more on to 1978 when the shroud was being subjected to various poorly controlled spectrographic analyses. Our old friend Ray Roger (no relation) was involved in that (remember STURP?) and (it is claimed) that an odd result was encountered at the heel of the picture. Now John Heller (mainly in his book Report on the Shroud of Turin) devotes pages to the supposed excitement caused by this, inventing much dailogue for the book.
Of course he wasn't actually there.... Oh and the account of the Gilberts' (Roger and Marty) doesn't match with theirs.

Now their published work ('Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin’) lists five spots with unusual spectral results. Specifically two on the foot stain and three other nearby points. They also make no reference to 'dirt', 'rock' or 'limestone'. Oh and their graphs show no differences between these locations and elsewhere.
Remember this.

In 1986 enter one Joseph Kohlbeck (who worked for Hercules Aerospace as a microscopist specialising in metals, not rocks or soil) and who was an old friend of a Rogers was sent some samples for analysis. Note the lack of provenance.
He published a "paper" (the scare quotes are entirely intended) called 'New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem' in a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review.
This is not a 'journal', no matter what the shroudies may say, and has no peer review or other safeguards.
The lifted dirt was sent for analysis to Ricardo Levi-Setti (at the Enrico Fermi Institute) electron probe analysis.

“further analysis was conducted by Dr. Riccardo Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute of the University of Chicago who put both shroud and Jerusalem samples through his high-resolution scanning ion microprobe and produced graphs; these graphs revealed that the samples were an unusually close match, except for the minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the shroud’s calcium and caused a slight organic variation.”

Now the problems with this article are legion; lack of experience (his co-author Eugenia Nitowski was an archaeologist, we'll get back to her in a moment), lack of comparison samples (they only compared the 'dirt' to samples taken in modern Jerusalem rather than, say, France) and lack of verified provenance for the supposed shroud samples.

• As an aside, for anyone interested in the composition of limestone around Jerusalem, I recommend 'The Influence of Karst Aquifer Mineralogy and Geochemistry on Groundwater Characteristics: West Bank, Palestine’ in Water in 2018. It's examples show a distinctly different composition to that used to compare the alleged shroud sample.

Also the article published images of the graphs that were fuzzy and tiny. They're also listed as being "adapted by E. Nitowski" which is odd.

Now Kohlbeck clamed that

these graphs revealed that the samples were an unusually close match, except for the minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the Shroud’s calcium and caused a slight organic variation.

This, to use my favourite descriptor, bollocks.

Now I won't be going in to microscopic (hah!) details on the results. But let's take a look

• One of the main problems with analysing the article is the awful graphs. One might speculate that the were intended, in size, fuzziness and use of log/log scales, to be deceptive....
• Did I mention that Eugenia Nitowski was also Sister Damian of the Cross?
  

Anyway, there are better versions of the graphs around, though you have to look for them. I recommend Nitowski's unpublished 'The Field and Laboratory Report of the Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem'. I'm sure @bobdroege7 can supply a link to this important document for those interested.
Examining the graphs shows massive discrepancies that immediately invalidate Kohlbeck's assertion of an "unusually close match". Some data extraction to find the real numbers is rather interesting.....

• Now my first time using the forum's table function. OK that did not work, C&P it is.

Element or isotope	Alleged shroud fibres	Alleged Jerusalem tomb
Aluminium	55	>2000
Calcium 40	10000	4100
Calcium 42	50	22
Calcium 44	150	66
Chromium 52	25	<20
Gallium 69	75	800
Gallium 71	25	360
Iron 56	160	85
Iron 57	190	105
Lithium	<20	130
Magnesium 24	160	520
Magnesium 25	35	100
Magnesium 26	50	100
Potassium 39	176	4600
Potassium 41	105	340
Silicon 28	20	320
Silicon 29	<20	22
Sodium	700	2800

Now,. do those results look like an "unusually close match"?

To summarise. The alleged limestone on the shroud that is claimed to be identical to that from Jerusalem falls on a number of grounds.

1. There is no certainty that the supposed shroud sample is genuine.
2. There is no range of control samples, for example from near to where the shroud first emerged in France.
3. There is no certainty that the supposed Jerusalem sample is representative of that locality.
4. The motivations of those who wrote the report are questionable.
5. The data simple doesn't match up with the claims made for it.

Fast forward to 1988 and it's both a high and a low point for "shroud research". Firstly Real Science is paying attention!!!, in the form of actual experts and cutting-edge radiocarbon dating. Then October 13th rolls around and Disaster!!! Science says it's a medieval fake.



This leads to the whole nonsense about invisible patches and fakery in a pathetically desperate attempt to explain away the results.
That same year saw shroudie John Jackson claim that there was "an abundance of microscopic dust or dirt" in an article he wrote for Shroud Spectrum International. This seems to have kickstarted a tradition of shroudies frequently claiming that numerous samples were found, and sometimes identified, on the knee, the nose and elsewhere.
Curiously two papers (Eric Jumper’s 'A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin' and 'Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin' by our old friends Schwalbe and Rogers) make no such claims.

Conclusion.
There is no evidence of limestone per se on the shroud. The samples which may or may not have been taken from the cloth show no close match to any samples of Middle Eastern limestone.
The shroud remains, definitively, a medieval fake.


So @bobdroege7 will you accept the facts? Or return to conspiratorial/denialist mode?

 

[Darat]

I've long wondered why this claimed relic gets so much attention compared to all the other relics that pepper churches throughout the world.

 

[Pixel42]

I've long wondered why this claimed relic gets so much attention compared to all the other relics that pepper churches throughout the world.

When I was on holiday in Cyprus a few years ago my group (all Brits) visited a church where the local guide proudly showed us a piece of the rope used to bind Jesus to the cross. She could obviously tell we were unimpressed, and seemed genuinely mystified as to why. None of us had the heart to tell her that we didn't believe a word of it.

 

[Pacal]

OK, so I'm alone, unbothered and sitting comfortably in front of a large screen and keyboard. Time to discuss limestone and, given that shroudies are involved, lies, fraud and stupidity. Fetch a beverage, sit down and relax, this may be a bit long. I'm in the mood to finish this particular nonsense once and fore all.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Firstly the basics; limestone is chemically, mostly, calcite a form of calcium carbonate. It's a sedimentary (or secondary if you remember your geological classifications) form of rock created by the accumulation of marine debris, mostly sea shells. It's rather useful stuff in industry and agriculture, and of course in pedagogery. The constituents and impurities can be useful in determining it's source. It's also a common matrix for fossils (remember Mary Anning?).

Specifically regarding the shroud, "limestone" is bandied about by shroudies to cover certain material removed (allegedly) by tape lifts, that is adhesive tape applied to the surface of the cloth to collect particulates there.

• As an aside Max Frei did not invent this technique, that's a lie promulgated by his supporters. It was used in criminology before him.

Now these alleged tape lifts (I'll some to why I use 'alleged' in a moment, be patient) allegedly recovered dust, pollen and other materials. I shall leave the Frei pollen nonsense aside for the moment as even the hardcore shroudies tend to play down that particular brand of nonsense these days.

Now Frei removed material from the shroud in 1973 and made a number of claims. Mainly he concentrated on the pollen but he made a number of (unpublished) assertions regarding microscopic analysis of the 'dirt' removed.

Let us more on to 1978 when the shroud was being subjected to various poorly controlled spectrographic analyses. Our old friend Ray Roger (no relation) was involved in that (remember STURP?) and (it is claimed) that an odd result was encountered at the heel of the picture. Now John Heller (mainly in his book Report on the Shroud of Turin) devotes pages to the supposed excitement caused by this, inventing much dailogue for the book.
Of course he wasn't actually there.... Oh and the account of the Gilberts' (Roger and Marty) doesn't match with theirs.

Now their published work ('Ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra of the Shroud of Turin’) lists five spots with unusual spectral results. Specifically two on the foot stain and three other nearby points. They also make no reference to 'dirt', 'rock' or 'limestone'. Oh and their graphs show no differences between these locations and elsewhere.
Remember this.

In 1986 enter one Joseph Kohlbeck (who worked for Hercules Aerospace as a microscopist specialising in metals, not rocks or soil) and who was an old friend of a Rogers was sent some samples for analysis. Note the lack of provenance.
He published a "paper" (the scare quotes are entirely intended) called 'New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem' in a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review.
This is not a 'journal', no matter what the shroudies may say, and has no peer review or other safeguards.
The lifted dirt was sent for analysis to Ricardo Levi-Setti (at the Enrico Fermi Institute) electron probe analysis.

Now the problems with this article are legion; lack of experience (his co-author Eugenia Nitowski was an archaeologist, we'll get back to her in a moment), lack of comparison samples (they only compared the 'dirt' to samples taken in modern Jerusalem rather than, say, France) and lack of verified provenance for the supposed shroud samples.

• As an aside, for anyone interested in the composition of limestone around Jerusalem, I recommend 'The Influence of Karst Aquifer Mineralogy and Geochemistry on Groundwater Characteristics: West Bank, Palestine’ in Water in 2018. It's examples show a distinctly different composition to that used to compare the alleged shroud sample.

Also the article published images of the graphs that were fuzzy and tiny. They're also listed as being "adapted by E. Nitowski" which is odd.

Now Kohlbeck clamed that

This, to use my favourite descriptor, bollocks.

Now I won't be going in to microscopic (hah!) details on the results. But let's take a look

• One of the main problems with analysing the article is the awful graphs. One might speculate that the were intended, in size, fuzziness and use of log/log scales, to be deceptive....
• Did I mention that Eugenia Nitowski was also Sister Damian of the Cross?

Anyway, there are better versions of the graphs around, though you have to look for them. I recommend Nitowski's unpublished 'The Field and Laboratory Report of the Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem'. I'm sure @bobdroege7 can supply a link to this important document for those interested.
Examining the graphs shows massive discrepancies that immediately invalidate Kohlbeck's assertion of an "unusually close match". Some data extraction to find the real numbers is rather interesting.....

• Now my first time using the forum's table function. OK that did not work, C&P it is.

Element or isotope	Alleged shroud fibres	Alleged Jerusalem tomb
Aluminium	55	>2000
Calcium 40	10000	4100
Calcium 42	50	22
Calcium 44	150	66
Chromium 52	25	<20
Gallium 69	75	800
Gallium 71	25	360
Iron 56	160	85
Iron 57	190	105
Lithium	<20	130
Magnesium 24	160	520
Magnesium 25	35	100
Magnesium 26	50	100
Potassium 39	176	4600
Potassium 41	105	340
Silicon 28	20	320
Silicon 29	<20	22
Sodium	700	2800

Now,. do those results look like an "unusually close match"?

To summarise. The alleged limestone on the shroud that is claimed to be identical to that from Jerusalem falls on a number of grounds.

1. There is no certainty that the supposed shroud sample is genuine.
2. There is no range of control samples, for example from near to where the shroud first emerged in France.
3. There is no certainty that the supposed Jerusalem sample is representative of that locality.
4. The motivations of those who wrote the report are questionable.
5. The data simple doesn't match up with the claims made for it.

Fast forward to 1988 and it's both a high and a low point for "shroud research". Firstly Real Science is paying attention!!!, in the form of actual experts and cutting-edge radiocarbon dating. Then October 13th rolls around and Disaster!!! Science says it's a medieval fake.

View attachment 58885

This leads to the whole nonsense about invisible patches and fakery in a pathetically desperate attempt to explain away the results.
That same year saw shroudie John Jackson claim that there was "an abundance of microscopic dust or dirt" in an article he wrote for Shroud Spectrum International. This seems to have kickstarted a tradition of shroudies frequently claiming that numerous samples were found, and sometimes identified, on the knee, the nose and elsewhere.
Curiously two papers (Eric Jumper’s 'A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin' and 'Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin' by our old friends Schwalbe and Rogers) make no such claims.

Conclusion.
There is no evidence of limestone per se on the shroud. The samples which may or may not have been taken from the cloth show no close match to any samples of Middle Eastern limestone.
The shroud remains, definitively, a medieval fake.


So @bobdroege7 will you accept the facts? Or return to conspiratorial/denialist mode?

Thanks again!!

Although as I mentioned above I find the whole limestone from Jerusalem to be a red herring simply because I would think that considering the shrouds history of being handled, displayed etc., that there would be any detectable alleged Jerusalem limestone anyway to be unlikely unless it had been brought in so to speak much more recently.

Further I find it interesting how the STURP group turned McCrone within their group into a persona non grata within the group when he found, via his analysis, pigments, red ochre. He was finding what they didn't want him to find. Shroud believers continue to either ignore McCrone's finds or dismiss them for no good reason. Oh and just to show how McCrone's methods are reliable. In the 60s he analyzed the inks of the Vinland map and found a very modern compound anatase among other issues, and thus concluded that the map was a modern fake. This conclusion was disputed for decades until recently a verry comprehensive analysis of the inks in the map found the inks to be modern and hence it was a fake.

As for Frei the reason I mentioned the pollen results were that it indicates a very strong likely hood of deliberate fraud on his part and hence anything he says about his alleged analysis / study of the shroud is very dubious.

Believers in the shroud in my opinion are all too often characterized by by a will to believe and in the case of Frei a will to fake.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

Thanks, it's been a long time since this forum gave me something to read over coffee that wasn't a portent of impending doom.

In 1986 enter one Joseph Kohlbeck (who worked for Hercules Aerospace...

Hercules was a major operation in my city before they dissolved into the incestuous chaos of aerospace company mergers.

He published a "paper" (the scare quotes are entirely intended) called 'New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin: Chemical Tests Link Shroud to Jerusalem' in a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review.
This is not a 'journal', no matter what the shroudies may say, and has no peer review or other safeguards.

I had a BAR subscription for about three years. It was so laughably inept, and so obviously the principal product of one charismatic editor. They tried so hard to pretend to be real scientists, but in the end it was obviously just a desperate ploy to prove Bible truth claims using pidgin archaeology. I mostly kept it around for the occasional good photograph of places I would later get to visit in person.

 

[JayUtah]

I've long wondered why this claimed relic gets so much attention compared to all the other relics that pepper churches throughout the world.

Mostly good marketing. But they really do have something extraordinary. As observed below, most relics are unimpressive: a sliver of wood from the "true cross," or a fragment of bone or cloth here and there. When I lived in Bari, Italy, I spent a fair amount of time at the Basilica of St. Nicholas where I had befriended one of the restoration workers. Not only did he let me restore a patch of the portal carvings under his supervision, he had access the crypt. Who wouldn't want to see the corpse of Santa Claus? As I said, it's unimpressive. Relics that are the remains of saints are invariably tiny bone fragments that have been sealed or encased in reliquaries. The "tomb" of St. Nicholas is just a stone box lined with these various hand-sized reliquaries.

In contrast, the Turin Shroud is gigantic and visually impressive. And it's tied directly to Jesus, whereas so many of the other relics are peripheral. There's probably a church somewhere that venerates a piece of Mary Magdelene's dental floss or toenail clippings from the local saint.

When I was on holiday in Cyprus a few years ago my group (all Brits) visited a church where the local guide proudly showed us a piece of the rope used to bind Jesus to the cross. She could obviously tell we were unimpressed, and seemed genuinely mystified as to why. None of us had the heart to tell her that we didn't believe a word of it.

There's a passage in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose in which Brother William disabuses his young novice Adso of the allure of relics.

“So it is, Adso. And there are even richer treasuries. Some time ago, in the cathedral of Cologne, I saw the skull of John the Baptist at the age of twelve.”

“Really?” I exclaimed, amazed. Then, seized by doubt, I added, “But the Baptist was executed at a more advanced age!”

“The other skull must be in another treasury,” William said, with a grave face.

The joke lands because this really is how the relic fetish works among some of the least critical congregants in Catholic countries.

 

[Thermal]

I've long wondered why this claimed relic gets so much attention compared to all the other relics that pepper churches throughout the world.

Because this one is claimed to have supernaturally generated imagery, that we can actually see in the here and now. Ropes and chunks of wood don't. That scientists examined it and can't account precisely for how the image was made stokes the believers up.

Eta: ninjaed by Mr Utah.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It looks like we're actually straying a bit into conspiracy theory territory. Maybe my request will have better luck on a different subject with a different punter. @bobdroege7 , what do you think actually happened? The best summary I can come up with is:

1. Jesus is put on the cross.
2. Jesus is injured (but not killed) as a result.
3. Jesus is removed from the cross, presumed dead by the Romans.
4. His disciples wrap him in a burial shroud.
5. They bury him.
6. An image of Jesus supernaturally appears on the burial shroud.
7. Jesus recovers from his injuries and walks away.

If this is incorrect, let me know. #4 and #5 are very strange things to do to a living person. #6 is a strange position to take for someone who (presumably) thinks the entire crucifixion involved nothing supernatural. And if #6 is denied, then how did the image get there and how can it be thought of as "authentic?"

 

[catsmate]

It looks like we're actually straying a bit into conspiracy theory territory. Maybe my request will have better luck on a different subject with a different punter. @bobdroege7 , what do you think actually happened? The best summary I can come up with is:

1. Jesus is put on the cross.
2. Jesus is injured (but not killed) as a result.
3. Jesus is removed from the cross, presumed dead by the Romans.
4. His disciples wrap him in a burial shroud.
5. They bury him.
6. An image of Jesus supernaturally appears on the burial shroud.
7. Jesus recovers from his injuries and walks away.

If this is incorrect, let me know. #4 and #5 are very strange things to do to a living person. #6 is a strange position to take for someone who (presumably) thinks the entire crucifixion involved nothing supernatural. And if #6 is denied, then how did the image get there and how can it be thought of as "authentic?"

Jesus didn't exist and the accounts area conflation of various legends?

 

[bobdroege7]

Ok, but the issue with the shroud is whether the image got there through some supernatural means. If some dude created it artificially (by specific means not presently known), it's just an interesting ...you know, thing. But if we are taking this image as having been generated by the crucified subject, then he is god-ish, whether dead or not?

Eta: or semi crucified, unfinished-ly executed, or mostly dead or whatever. Point being, if we are taking the clues in the shroud as a given (bloodstains, etc) then are we supposed to believe this is a genuinely supernaturally generated image? Cuz that's kind of a deal breaker. If it is, we got theological problems. if it's not, we just have an artistic interpretation that shouldn't warrant all this discussion.

It is not a supernatural image, and also not a painting.

Maybe we do have theological problems.

 

[JayUtah]

Ropes and chunks of wood don't.

In Catholic terminology a "basilica" is a church that contains the tomb of a saint. But as I discovered, the remains of saints were broken up in medieval times and scattered hither and yon. There was an incentive to create as many relics as possible, so the pieces are often tiny bone fragments. If there's no single object that represents the remains of a saint, then on what basis does a church get to claim to be the tomb of that saint? Do you need to prove you have at least 51% of the carcass?

Luckily the clergy at the basilica was happy to answer my questions. They'd already let me play the organ and smear glue and marble dust all over their 11th century portals, so it didn't seem too much to ask. It turns out Saint Nicholas has a summer home in Venice. The "primary" relics are in Bari. My eyeball measurements and mental arithmetic suggest they don't have 51% of the corpse, but the "primary" relics are just the largest concentration. That's why the church in Bari gets to be the basilica and the church in Venice doesn't, even though they have Santa Claus bones there too.

As far as "authentication" goes, it's the typical historical exercise bereft of any supernatural mumbo jumbo. The clergy and Catholic authorities do the best they can to examine the provenance of claimed relics and apply relatively secular judgment on each piece. And I was frankly surprised at how good the record is for some of these bone chips. Not that anyone can prove they really are the bones of the Bishop of Myra, but they can at least trace time and place to a plausible setting.

This is why it matters that the shroud has a provenance going back only to the 13th century. There are indeed other, smaller, less significant relics that were more meticulously accounted for.

 

[sackett]

Given the versatility of modern technology, in addition to the easy access to scholarly sources that we all have, why aren't more relics being discovered, publicized, advertised, and, most importantly, sold to today's faithful? Anybody, you'd think, could dummy up a plausible story from the New Testament, helped out with authentic monkish commentaries (or cherries picked therefrom), to explain a new! shocking! incredible! scientist-are-baffled! discovery from, say, a Gaza bomb crater or a trench cut to build a new Walmart in Akron -- some damn thing.

Your actual relic? Oh, maybe a 'nauthentic 4-color wax portrait of Jeebus & Mary, with genuine dirty fingerprints of St. Rinderpest of Rotterdam, ca. 303 AD. Get datable grime from various sources, hire a minion in a white coat to play the scientist who can't explain it, and

Just watch the money roll in!