Talk:Shroud of Turin

Topic

Let us to OHIO next month.   ^Contribs_Talk 01:38, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

A whine (about the Shroud, not the article)

Doesn't anyone question why said "jesus" has LONG hair, from a time when we know the fashion was basically short hair? I'm just saying....En attendant Godot 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How dare you. Jesus was white and European looking. And probably spoke English with an American accent. Sam ^Tally-ho! 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

shroud of turin education and research association??

Anyone have any actual info on these guys? Are they a scientifically valid research association (I'm guessing no, but please provide evidence of this?)

This article is pretty weak

This is the best "rational" people can do to debunk this thing? After reading this, I'd be inclined to believe this is real. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.192.246.39 / talk / contribs} 8 September 2013

You have some really poor comprehension skills then. ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.109.52.226 / talk / contribs} 22 June 2014

1. The fact you din't sign you post raises the question of whether you are reliable.
2. I found the article to be perfectly rational. There are sources. Look at them. Also: Everyone Drink!
3. Christian Apologetics are NOT very reliable for a history lesson just to let you know. Leave History to the real Scientists.--TemplarJLS (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

   In the name of science, we can all note weird stuff exists. Not every mystery pointed to by religious people is automatically an upside down cow fetus in a jar (Firefly reference). There's a bunch of legitimately weird and fascinating stuff about the Shroud of Turin that deserves (and has received) investigation. Btw, what's with the "spectrography has nothing to do with dating?" That's just patently untrue.^{— Unsigned, by: 75.90.202.132 / talk / contribs 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)}

re: the Christopher Knight bit

Do we really want to use Christopher Knight as a source? The dude who wrote The Hiram Key?

We intentionally use the word "speculate," but if you want to add that he's a raving conspiracy nut, be our guest. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little late on this, but I was sent to this article on a news website I didn't know about.

http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jutarnji.hr%2F-rijesili-smo-misterij--torinsko-platno-nije-srednjovjekovna-krivotvorina--znanstvenici-objavili-rezultate-novog-istrazivanja%2F1093805%2F

It's apparently translated by Google (The site), and while it claims scientists have found the Shroud is real(heh), I don't know the site's reputation. I still remember when I fell for a certain Blaze article...--Tsunadi (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the shroud is obviously "real" in that it "really exists".

But, even taking the translated story at face value, the best that can be said is that they claim to have shown that it is old. And, well, so what?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I did some digging around and found out the Glulio Fanti, the guy who did the research, and Saverio Gaeta were Catholics, which makes me start to wonder if this is an instance of Lying for Jesus.--Tsunadi (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"There are many articles online"

...that claim that the Greys are real and that Elvis lives, too. I'm a stranger here, but from the Rational Wiki I would expect somewhat higher standard - even the Wikipedia Shroud of Turin article states, I presume more correctly, that Fanti (an apologist, but who seems to be a scientist publishing on imagining techniques and optics) stated that the image is largely compatible with a real body image and in 2013 published a book rekindling some hypotheses on a possible corona discharge as a mean to create the image. No mention of alleged anatomical correctnes, age of the cloth and other data contradicting possible authenticity of the shroud - even if Fanti perhaps claimed so, quality of his evidence was probably too much embarrassing for other apologists to include in the article, or perhaps did not pass standards of other Wikipedia editors.

And even the reference article says that Gaeta is not a scientist, but a journalist who helped Fanti to write the book in question. -188.122.212.12 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Anotehr telling fact is no reproduction of the results has appeared in the some three years since the discovery has been made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

It was actually an artist's prop - covering a suitable chap in paint, cover him with 'the shroud', and use the resulting image for reference purposes. 86.153.166.116 (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Joke - artist 'Can I paint you? (ie your picture)' Reply 'How will I get the paint off? (me)' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I still think that a deliberate hoax to horn in on the lucrative trade in "relics" is far more likely - compare with the Holy Foreskin, the Holy Lance(s) etc. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive - a collaboration perhaps.

The question is - how was it done? 86.153.166.116 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The real story of the Shroud of Turin, if it's not an object of physics breaking nature (and people can well believe in time travelers or aliens made it before Jesus if they want) is that it seems to have been something nasty happening to someone and it being burned into the cloth.^{— Unsigned, by: 75.90.202.132 / talk / contribs 04:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)}

Sudarium of Oviedo

Basically, coincidence or not, I feel like a mention of this ancient, possibly genuine christian artifact is warranted in this article, because in the technical problems section there is a reference to something quite like it: a bloodied "separate cloth over the face" of a man crucified.^{— Unsigned, by: 37.229.68.198 / talk / contribs 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Also, add new posts at the bottom of the page, not at the top.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to write a whole article. Just write a couple of sentences on what the claimed evidence is, give some idea on how convincing this is (e.g. comparison of the estimated ages of the two shrouds, and give any counter-evidence if there is any. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

okay--37.229.68.198 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sceptical about using Guscin as a source for the authenticity of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin since he seems like the diehard defenders of the latter, e.g. by only highlighting details that support authenticity, never those suggesting the opposite as these answers to a pro-Shroud questionnaire seem to confirm.

Guscin only alluded to an investigation of the Sudarium and didn't cite any peer reviewed sources, which leads me to suspect that the investigation he mentioned was probably yet another of those where a conclusion in favour the Sudarium/Shroud was basically the starting point and the excercise was to grasp at any straw that might prop up this view

Also, the blood type claims seem extremely dubious and here are three sources disputing Guscin's claims: The Skeptic's Dictionary's entry on the Shroud, arguments pointing out that an authentic Sudarium would instead cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud, and one argument against both the authenticity of the Shroud and the Sudarium. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the argument dismissing the carbon dating of the Sudarium (ca. 700AD while historical references to the Sudarium might be traceable to the early 500s AD) is most emphatically not helping claims for its authenticity. It still leaves the Sudarium popping into the historical record half a millennium after the events that are claimed to have led to its creation and at a time in which we know there was a thriving and brisk trade in relics. So, while the carbon dating is less damning to the authenticity of the Sudarium than that of the Shroud, Sudarium supporters still have no actual evidence in favour of its authenticity and their cause is weakened by their reliance on corroboration with elements of the Shroud, a relic which has been demonstrated to be fake. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm also obliged to note that Guscin's sourcing of the Sudarium to Antoninus of Piacenza's 570AD account is dubious on several levels. First off, Antoninus' account is full of fantastic claims and also contains later interpolations. Secondly, this is what Antoninus actually wrote: "In this place there is said to be napkin that was about the head of Jesus." (Antoninus part XII, p. 11 in this translation). Thus Antoninus didn't even see this cloth itself and Guscin is engaging in the same cantilevering exercise as those identifying the Shroud with the Mandylion (Image of Edessa) in order to extend its provenance back before the time from which it can be documented with certainty. Looking at Wikipedia's sources for its article on the Sudarium of Oviedo all of them end up pointing back to Guscin and his credulous colleagues with the most egregious example being the "conference" which ends with a Sudarium Mass(!), hardly the kind of event you'd expect from a critical venue dedicated to independent scrutiny.

My impression is that the only reason that the Sudarium has not been the subject to as much debunking as the Shroud is that it is simply far less (in)famous and thus far more seldomly used as supposed "evidence" for the historical accuracy of (the Gospels' depiction of) Jesus. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think it would be worth adding a mention of Guscin's claims along with a synopsis of the problems with it as you have detailed above. Bongolian (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Bongolian. I simply meant that we shouldn't simply rely on Guscin's claims of authenticity because it seemed to me that this was what the BoN OP was suggesting (I might've been wrong in this interpretation). By any means, please do add Guscin's view if this is accompanied by a proper debunking/critical scrutiny of what I consider his far too sanguine, happy clappy apologetics approach to the subject matter. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia on the SoT

Anyone care to do an analysis of [1]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A Modern Relic

In these End Times a portrait painted on a piece of cloth does not seem very miraculous. A more miraculous relic would be a 2,000 year old USB stick containing:

• A PDF document containing Jesus' hand-written autobiography.
• A Powerpoint Presentation of Jesus' message.
• A Youtube Video of Jesus explaining what he hoped to do in Jerusalem.
• A set of selfies of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water etc

^{— Unsigned, by: Wodenoz / talk / contribs} 00:20, 4 November 2016‎ (UTC)

1. 1. Eh, there's a LOT weird about the Shroud of Turin. It being a 1000 year old cloth photograph being the weirdest part of the claim versus a painting.75.88.119.29 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)CT Phipps

Scalp Wounds

I tried Googling for the source on scalp wounds and the only thing I got that wasn't shroud apologism was this. The article itself the source points to is nowhere to be found and because of this I don't believe this is even noteworthy enough to include in the article. This was also found but the book itself appears at first glance to be arguing for the shroud. Spoony (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spoony Fair enough. It is a crank source. It argues against radiocarbon dating even though all life-forms on Earth contain this element. Nerd (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Shroud is authentic but using crank sources to support our point is generally a bad idea. Cheers! --Spoony (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. I assumed good faith on whoever added that bit. It turns out the source was not a great one. Nerd (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Church does not accept authenticity of Shroud of Turin

It has to be noted that the Vatican does not accept authenticity of Shroud of Turin, they have yet to make a formal announcement whether it is real or not. The official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that regardless whether the Shroud is real or fake, it is an icon that is acceptable for devotion and veneration (Meaning that even though it might be fake or might be real it looks awesome so you can like pray to it or something).

I have trouble finding Pope Benedict XVI's statement that the Shroud of Turin was the "authentic burial robe" of Christ, especially from pro-Catholic sources, and if he indeed did, this would have caused an uproar and a divergence from previous Popes. Popes in the 16th century might have accepted its authenticity, but modern Popes generally word their language in a careful way to avoid pronouncing its authenticity, with Pope John Paul II saying "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet."[2]. Even the aforementioned Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis carefully word their speeches with flowery language like describing it as an "icon" but refuse to explicitly pronounce its authenticity. 112.207.7.148 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The article needs modifying to reflect papal pronouncements more accurately; there is certainly no official statement to say it is genuine. Benedict came close to saying it was genuine in 2010 according to press reports, such as the one cited in the article[3]. The Vatican published a reflection by Benedict which says it is a burial sheet from a 1st-century crucifixion but doesn't quite say it was Jesus's.[4] Pope Francis has been less precise: in 2013 he referred to it as an icon rather than a relic which is taken as casting doubt on its authenticity[5], and when he visited in 2015 he was again vague about its status and to have used it largely as a metaphor for talking about other topics.[6] --Annanoon (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A rebuild

I will be gradually rebuilding this article, as it is missing a great many sources, some of the information is rather questionable (and because of the lack of sources, verification is more difficult), and the subject itself is interesting and could be greatly expanded. Normally I would say that the bronze status is inadequate, but there is potential in the article and with some work put into it something really cool can come out of it. --Papaemeritus (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)