Leonardo: The Man Behind the Shroud?

[snopes]

A National Geographic Channel production, this documentary looks at the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by cheeky Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-review...624143252.html

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by snopes

A National Geographic Channel production, this documentary looks at the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by cheeky Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-review...624143252.html

Leonardo da Vinci, (well known for his forging of antiquities for profit ), lived from 1452 to 1519.

Radiocarbon dating of samples taken from the shroud by 3 independent laboratories came up with dates 1260 - 1390. There is much disagreement on the validity of these dates. For example, it appears that the fibers used for testing may have come from repaired areas of the shroud (and thus not the original cloth).

Also, as I understand it, while there is controversial history of the shroud going back to at least 544, there is much better documented history of the shroud starting around 1349 or 1356.

Base Ten

[ASL]

Originally Posted by snopes

A National Geographic Channel production, this documentary looks at the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by cheeky Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci.
[/url]

Of course... If anything even remotely clever or the least bit innovative was done at anytime near 1500, it MUST have been da Vinci who did it, because it's not like there were any other intelligent people around back then...

Likewise, if we find evidence of anyone who was crucified and then put in a tomb, well, it only follows logically that it MUST be Jesus...

[ElectricBarbarella]

Actually, I think the reason they point to DaVinci as the one who did it was because of the striking resemebalance to Davinci, that the man in the shroud has.

A gentleman was able to reproduce how they think the shroud was made with a likeness of himself and the appearance as to how much it really does look like him (as opposed to a painted or drawing artists rendition) is almost 100% on.

I find the study of the Shroud fascinating. I don't believe it was the cloth of Jesus. But I do believe it was the cloth of someone famous or important--just who that is, not sure.


And Radio carbon dating as been proved to be not as reliable as once thought. There is another method of dating (name escapes me) that scientists have found to be more reliable. But they can't get near the Shroud to test it using this method.

toni

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by ASL

Likewise, if we find evidence of anyone who was crucified and then put in a tomb, well, it only follows logically that it MUST be Jesus...

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

I find the study of the Shroud fascinating. I don't believe it was the cloth of Jesus. But I do believe it was the cloth of someone famous or important--just who that is, not sure.

Well, if you assume that this shroud could be dated back to 2000 years ago, and it does indeed show the image of a crucified man, transferred to the cloth by some natural or other method, the unique details on this image are strong evidence that it would probably be Jesus, and not some random crucifixion victim.

Most notable of those would be the wounds around His head from the crown of thorns. That wasn't typical of crucifixion victims. Also noteworthy would be the wound in His side and the fact that His legs weren't broken. I believe typical Roman executions either left the victims up for days until they died, or for some Jewish victims to break the legs to hasten death.

And unlike the depictions of medieval artists, the dumbbell shape of the scourge wounds and their occurrence in groups of two or three match exactly the plumbatae (pellets) affixed to each end of the multithonged Roman flagrum (whip), a specimen of which was excavated at Herculaneum.

In fact, all the details on the shroud conform to the detailed accounts found in the Gospels.

Another thing to note is that almost all the artwork from back then (I think from the 6th to the 17th centuries) depict Christ's crucifixion with nails in the palms. The shroud shows wounds from nails in the wrists.

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

Actually, I think the reason they point to DaVinci as the one who did it was because of the striking resemebalance to Davinci, that the man in the shroud has.

Some Say the Image on the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo da Vinci
http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/davinci.htm

[snopes]

Originally Posted by ASL

Of course... If anything even remotely clever or the least bit innovative was done at anytime near 1500, it MUST have been da Vinci who did it, because it's not like there were any other intelligent people around back then...

Well, who's going to watch a program entitled "Smedley: The Man Behind the Shroud?"

- snopes

[ElectricBarbarella]

Here is another interesting site:
http://www.shroudstory.com/

I do understand the crown of thorns, scourge marks, and even the wrist punctures. One of the myth busting shows prior to the actual Myth Busters (and now that I think about it, it may have been them), did a show on whether or not someone could be supported via wrist or palm and they used cadavers to prove it.

It was conclusive that the wrist does hold the most weight. So this is definitely plausibly Christ.

BUT, what makes me doubt it as being him, is only the fact that the chamber his body was in was found empty on the 3rd day and that no evidence of a body being left there was shown (various accounts told via various shows)--eg: the comments made by witness accounts on the 3rd day said that no body was in the tomb and no evidence of a body was there either.

That isn't to say that Christ was put in some sort of Shroud.

Aside from the Crown of Thorns evidence, anyone who was crucified was done so in the same manner as Christ. Nails driven into the wrists(or palms if you want to argue about it), nails driven into the feet area, scourged (though argueably not as bad as Christ), legs broken to hasten death (though Christ did not receive this), and I can't remember the name, but the poking of the side with the blade--ahh, shoot....on the left side--kwim?

Since we are talking that only the worst of the worst got crucified, then it would stand to reason that they receive any and all punishments leading up to that. Scourging was a common punishment towards the worst criminals, and even though I do not stand by what Mel Gibson actually believes, and realizing he did take creative liberty in his movie, Scholars are saying that his movie did come the closest to what happened. And if that is the case, both theives on the Mount with Christ were scourged(though not as badly as Christ) and "poked" in the sides, just as Christ was.


They ALL received it, only Christ received the Crown ("if you want to call yourself a KING, here is your crown" ), and the legs not broken.

toni

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

BUT, what makes me doubt it as being him, is only the fact that the chamber his body was in was found empty on the 3rd day and that no evidence of a body being left there was shown (various accounts told via various shows)--eg: the comments made by witness accounts on the 3rd day said that no body was in the tomb and no evidence of a body was there either.

That isn't to say that Christ was put in some sort of Shroud.

The burial linens were definitely left in the tomb.

Luke 24
12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

John 20
5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

Aside from the Crown of Thorns evidence, anyone who was crucified was done so in the same manner as Christ. Nails driven into the wrists(or palms if you want to argue about it), nails driven into the feet area, scourged (though argueably not as bad as Christ), legs broken to hasten death (though Christ did not receive this), and I can't remember the name, but the poking of the side with the blade--ahh, shoot....on the left side--kwim?

I don't know if it was usual or not for all crucifixion victims to get a sword in the side. According to this site, it wasn't:
http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

The side wound is an ellipse corresponding exactly to excavated examples of the leaf-shaped point of the lancea (lance) likely to have been used by the militia: it does not match the typical points of the hasta (spear), hasta veliaris (short spear), or pilum (javelin) used by the infantry. The lance thrust to the side of Christ was, according to Origen of the 4th century, administered, following the Roman military custom, sub alas (below the armpits), where the wound of the Shroud image is located.
...
In deference to strong Jewish feeling against leaving a corpse exposed after sunset, the Roman administration in Palestine allowed the breaking of the legs (crurifragium) to hasten death. John's Gospel (19:32) specifically records that the thieves crucified with Christ had their legs broken in order that the bodies could be taken down before nightfall. The right tibia, left tibia, and fibula of the Johanan remains were also broken, but the legs of the Shroud man were not. There is no historical mention of any other method of hastening death or coup de grace, and indeed crucifixion elsewhere in the empire was mandated to be a slow and agonizing death, usually lasting 24-36 hours. The lance thrust to the side of Christ thus appears as a capricious and unique act by one of the guards.
...
Again out of consideration for local custom, the Romans allowed the bodies of crucified Jews to be buried in a common pit instead of being left on the cross or thrown on a heap for scavenging animals as was the general practice. Certainly the use of a sheet of fine linen cloth such as the Shroud would indicate a degree of wealth, respect, family ties, or ranking not normally pertaining to common criminals.

Base Ten

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

Leonardo da Vinci, (well known for his forging of antiquities for profit ), lived from 1452 to 1519.

Radiocarbon dating of samples taken from the shroud by 3 independent laboratories came up with dates 1260 - 1390. There is much disagreement on the validity of these dates. For example, it appears that the fibers used for testing may have come from repaired areas of the shroud (and thus not the original cloth).

Also, as I understand it, while there is controversial history of the shroud going back to at least 544, there is much better documented history of the shroud starting around 1349 or 1356.

Base Ten

If we accept the radiocarbon dating, that merely tells us the age of the cloth - not of the image itself.

It's not inconcievable that Leonardo DaVinci laid his hands on a two or three hundred year old bolt of cloth which he then used to create the image on.

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

If we accept the radiocarbon dating, that merely tells us the age of the cloth - not of the image itself.

It's not inconcievable that Leonardo DaVinci laid his hands on a two or three hundred year old bolt of cloth which he then used to create the image on.

And then he built a time machine and went back to either ...
- 1349

April 10 (or 16), 1349: The Hundred Year War had been raging between France and England for over eleven years and the Black Death had just finished ravaging most of Europe when Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight, writes to Pope Clement VI reporting his intention to build a church at Lirey, France. It is said he builds St. Mary of Lirey church to honor the Holy Trinity who answered his prayers for a miraculous escape while a prisoner of the English. He is also already in possession of the Shroud, which some believe he acquired in Constantinople.

- or perhaps 544

In 544 AD, in the city of Edessa, a folded burial cloth bearing an image, believed to be of Jesus, was found above a gate in the city's walls. We know from various sources that the cloth was a burial shroud with a faint full-body image of Jesus and bloodstains positioned on the image. The image was variously described as a reflection, produced by sweat and divinely wrought. There is even some indication that the image was thought to be negative.

- or perhaps 29-33

Luke 24
12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

John 20
5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Base Ten

[ASL]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

And then he built a time machine and went back to either ...
- 1349

- or perhaps 544

- or perhaps 29-33


Base Ten

Or maybe, just maybe... Claims to have the burial shroud of Christ were as common as claims to have a poriton of (or the whole) cross he was crussified on. No... That could never happen, God wouldn't allow it.

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by ASL

Or maybe, just maybe... Claims to have the burial shroud of Christ were as common as claims to have a poriton of (or the whole) cross he was crussified on. No... That could never happen, God wouldn't allow it.

It appears from this statement that you think this might be my attitude concerning the Shroud. Let me assure you that that's far from the truth. God has allowed many things in this world, including forged religious relics. I'm not 100% convinced that this one is indeed authentic. That can only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence, and even then, doubt will still exist.

Many famous paintings (for example the Mona Lisa) have been forged or copied numerous times. Just because there may be many copies, doesn't mean that the real one doesn't exist. It may also be the case that the original painting was destroyed, and only copies now exist. However the status of each one (copy or original) needs to be determined separately, instead of just assuming that they're all copies and pitching them into the fire without further consideration.

The question here is could Leonardo da Vinci have painted (or created somehow) the relic now known as the Shroud of Turin.

Clearly the actual Shroud itself (or linens of some sort) existed before Leonardo was born. They're mentioned in the Gospel, and also hundreds of years before Leonardo was born.

Let's assume that many "copies" of the Shroud were made. We only have one now that appears as a likely candidate to be authentic.

If it is authentic, then Leonardo didn't create it. End of supposition.

Now let's assume it isn't real. It's either a "copy" of what was real (which is either now destroyed, or lost or hidden somewhere that we don't know of), or something that was just made up.

Let's assume that it was just made up, and not copied from some original. Could the forger at the time have the materials required, the skill to make the image, and the knowledge of what the image should look like? Without an original to copy, he'd have nothing to go on except the knowledge and materials that existed at the time of the forgery. If all the artwork at the time of the forgery shows nails going through the palms, why try to forge something that would show nails going through the wrists? Who'd believe that? Would the forger be able to research the weaving pattern that existed at the time of the crucifixion and recreate that pattern? I think that's unlikely. There's just too many little details like this in the Shroud to make it plausible that someone could figure this all out on their own.

Then for it to be a credible forgery, it'd have to be a close copy of an original. There are many things I've read about the cloth and the image itself that would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate for a forger from that time period. For example, the image is only on the surface of the fibers, and not "wicked into" them like you'd expect if it were some type of paint. I've read the stories that some have claimed to have "recreated the image". I highly doubt that if what they created were examined with the same degree as the Shroud of Turin, that it would pass the same tests.

My personal opinion, is that IF it is a forgery, it was created by actually crucifying a person in exactly the same way as Jesus was crucified, and placing that body in the Shroud for some period of time.

Base Ten

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

. . . For example, the image is only on the surface of the fibers, and not "wicked into" them like you'd expect if it were some type of paint. . . .

Drybrush technique.

(I'm very fond of this artistic technique; you can achieve all sorts of clever effects with it.)

Silas

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

Drybrush technique.

(I'm very fond of this artistic technique; you can achieve all sorts of clever effects with it.)

Silas

I think drybrush technique, or any other kind of painting is doubtful.
It also wouldn't explain the knowledge of the details included in the image itself.

Painting

The interpretation of the Shroud as a painting by an unknown medieval artist emerged from its suspicious history as highly likely and has persisted with unusual stubbornness down to the present. Its prominence as the main forgery theory is such that virtually all commentators expend great effort in disproving it, believing the authenticity of the relic to be established thereby. The notion has indeed been disproved so thoroughly and absolutely that it should be permanently buried. I shall simply list yet again the numerous items of evidence, many of which would be sufficient singly to establish that the image is not a medieval painting, rubbing, scorch, or other work of art: anatomical detail, realism of the wounds, presence of blood, absence of pigment or binder, reversal of light and dark, diffuseness of the image at close range, three-dimensional information, absence of outline or shading, lack of directionality in the colored areas, lack of change in color from light to dark tones, color not affected by heat or water, detail and twin radiation of scourge marks, nailing of wrists, single nailing of both feet together, characteristic wounds of the Roman flagrum and lancea, Oriental cap rather than Western circlet crown, accuracy in Semitic appearance and Jewish burial posture, pollen from Turkey and Palestine, difficulty in reconciling the Shroud with biblical accounts, nudity of the figure. Each of these features could be explained by invoking extraordinary circumstance, e.g., absence of pigment due to the use of a thin solution and frequent washings of the relic, real blood used by the artist, pathological exactitude from the artist's genius, scourge marks and wrist nailing from intuition, a cloth of Middle Eastern origin, etc. Clearly, however, the cumulative effect is to place the painting hypothesis somewhat lower in credibility than notions of the Marlowe authorship of Shakespeare's plays or an Egyptian influence on the Mayas.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

I think drybrush technique, or any other kind of painting is doubtful.

It explains why the pigment didn't seep fully into the fiber. It is also a rebuttal to some of the objections in the paragraph you quoted, as it does not produce "outline or shading," but can produce a three-dimensional effect.

I'm not arguing that this is the explanation, only that it could be an explanation.

By the way, the Shroud of Turin contradicts the Biblical verses you quoted, specifically about the part of the shroud over the face being set aside in a separate place: hard to do with a single piece of fabric.

Silas

[Eddylizard]

Due to the slant of the documentary, we are coming from the direction that this was a hoax on the part of Da Vinci. What if it wasn't a hoax? Supposing he was experimenting with a new technique of his own devising to produce an artwork, but when it was finished, he realised that the results weren't quite as good as he thought? I mean let's face it, as a piece of art it really isn't that good in terms of clarity. So he tossed it in the cupboard, and forgot about it.

Years later, someone came across it, linked it to the historical tales of the shroud of Christ, and thought - yes, this must be it.

As to anatomical detail, Da Vinci was a master anatomist. Probably a world leader in the field. He dissected many cadavers, and produced detailed drawings. As a result of his studies, he would likely be aware that the human body cannot be supported on a crucifix if the nails are driven through the palms. So he tries to set the record straight in this failed artwork.

[Base Ten]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

By the way, the Shroud of Turin contradicts the Biblical verses you quoted, specifically about the part of the shroud over the face being set aside in a separate place: hard to do with a single piece of fabric.

This piece of cloth is called the "The Sudarium of Oviedo", and it was used to cover Jesus's face after he died, placed around his head while he was still on the cross. It was probably removed in the tomb when Jesus was placed in the shroud. If it was removed, folded or rolled, and placed to the side, that would explain everything perfectly. The history of this cloth seems to date back at least to the year 614, and seems to be pretty well documented from that point onward. (The better documentation for the Shroud's history doesn't start until 1349.)

There's a comparison of the blood (and fluid) stains on this cloth with the Shroud of Turin, and there are a striking number of similarities between the two, making it highly likely that both covered the same person.

Comparative Study of The Sudarium of Oviedo and The Shroud of Turin
http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

Supposedly both cloths have stains with AB blood type, but personally I'm not convinced that the blood type from the Shroud was ever confirmed.

Of course, I guess the possibility still exists that they're both forgeries, both made at the same time by crucifying someone in exactly the same manner as Jesus. However, that would push the date of the forgery back to at least 614 AD. This would add a lot of credence to the 544 AD account of a Shroud existing bearing the image of Jesus.

But for the Shroud of Turin to be a forgery made anytime 1200 - 1400 AD, and to match in dozens and dozens of points geometrically to a cloth from 614 AD - it doesn't seem credible to me. Even if it was Leonardo da Vinci himself creating the Shroud.

Base Ten

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Base Ten

This piece of cloth is called the "The Sudarium of Oviedo", and it was used to cover Jesus's face after he died, placed around his head while he was still on the cross. It was probably removed in the tomb when Jesus was placed in the shroud. If it was removed, folded or rolled, and placed to the side, that would explain everything perfectly . . .

Perfectly? How? This other piece of cloth would have absorbed the blood from the facial wounds, preventing them from appearing on the shroud. (Of course, the body was also supposed to have been washed... And, besides, no one prepared shrouds by doubling them over, smoothly, lengthwise, but instead wrapping them...)

It's a piece of artwork.

Silas

[damian]

Funnily enough, I watched this doco last night. The cloth contains a front and back image. Except the height of the front image is different to the back image. And the head is out of proportion, suggesting the images were made in three seperate sections.