Replies

A recent article on this subject - - full text at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/002/3.22.html

Here is an excerpt:

Father Brown Fakes the Shroud
Start with a piece of glass and some white oil paint.
by N. D. Wilson

1. I am not an expert on the Shroud of Turin. But then what would it mean to be an expert on the Shroud? Spending months firing gamma rays at linen? Attempting the discoloration of linen through a controlled release of gases? I have not done these things, nor have I paid too much mind to those who have. I am not a scientist at all. I am not even an expert in hagiography and relics. I have not received a single grant or spent a dime on Shroud research that wasn't taken directly out of my wife's shopping budget. What I am, is an outlier. And, as luck would have it, I was reading the right collection of short stories at the right time. I am as unqualified to work on such a mysterious cloth as any medieval forger. And yet, like that unknown, unwashed villain of the past, I can place an image on linen using such sophisticated tools as glass and sunlight.

*
Sometime in 2000 I sat in a graduate school classroom at Liberty University and watched an amazing slide show on the Shroud. Dr. Gary Habermas presented what he knew about the sacred cloth—which was a lot. I would have liked to simply brush the issue of the Shroud aside, laugh and wonder why time was being wasted on the subject, but that was impossible. The Shroud was too complex, and there was too much weirdness surrounding it to be casually dismissed.

Habermas was careful to point out that he had not landed on one side or the other of the authenticity debate (nor did he think that he could). No one had ever shown how an image like this could be produced, and yet science had weighed in with carbon dating placing the Shroud firmly in the twelve to thirteen hundreds, a date overwhelmingly considered legitimate until very recently.

The image on the Shroud is of a man of moderate height. He is neither small nor large. The entirety of the man's front and back are shown on the same side of the cloth. The cloth is of a fine herringbone weave and is about 14 ft. 3 in. long by 3 ft. 7 in. wide. The man on the cloth has been crucified and the locations of his wounds are shown with a liberal use of human blood. He bears the stigmata, though the nail holes are not located in his iconic palms, but in his more anatomically correct wrists. His brow bears the blood resultant from the placement of a crown of thorns, there is a spear wound in his side, his face has been beaten, his nose broken (cartilage separated from the bone for Bible-believing Shroud proponents [John 19:36]), and his back has been mercilessly torn and beaten with a flail. The wounds from his whipping run all the way from his heels to the back of his scalp. He is bearded; his countenance is noble and looks much like many medieval icons of Christ.

These are all the details needed to convince some of the faithful. But scientists, never willing to take religion lying down, needed more than this to impress them.

- - - - - - - - -

*
In one of my touristy books, there is a collection of quotes on the Shroud from various popes. Most are simply statements on the impressiveness of the image, but there is one that is particularly surprising. It is attributed to Pope Pius XI and was reportedly made in 1936 while handing out photos of the Shroud to some Catholic youth.

"These are not pictures of the Blessed Virgin, it is true, but pictures that remind us of her as no other can. Since they are pictures of her Divine Son, and so, we can truly say, the most moving, loveliest, dearest ones that we can imagine."

I have been asked why a baptized Christian would want to undermine claims to the Shroud's authenticity. The answer is simple. Christians are to abhor falsehood. And at the top of the list of falsehoods to abhor should be religious lies and all other forms of Christian hypocrisy. When I first read Pius XI on the Shroud I felt something deep in my spiritual genes speak up under the name of Martin Luther. In certain Shroud circles claims about the unimportance of the Shroud's authenticity are tossed around. "Whether it is genuine or simply the work of an artist does not matter. It is a beautiful and inspiring icon." My hackles will always stand up. If it is not genuine, it is most believably the product of a murder. But even then I pity the forgers. They did not mean their work to be an icon for Mary.

*
I have not proved much. Or, I do not think that I have. Men and women who have believed in the Shroud will continue to believe. There is a fireman somewhere in Italy who risked his life to save the Shroud. I have a great deal of respect for that man. Perhaps I've given those who disbelieve more reason for noses lifted in the air, but I have not proved that the Shroud was faked. What I have done is crudely demonstrate that such an image could easily be produced in a matter of weeks by wicked men with no scruples, a little imagination, and a little more skill. The fact that it could have been faked does not mean that it was, though I believe it to have been. What I have done is close another door on the case for the Shroud. "Modern science has been unable to produce such an image" remains true enough, as I am no scientist. But no longer can it be said, "No one has ever shown how it could have been done."

N.D. Wilson (www.shadowshroud.com) is the managing editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine and a Fellow of Literature at New St. Andrews College, where he listens to the speeches and poetry of freshmen, who are dear to his heart.

[See the full article at the link,
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/002/3.22.html
if you would like to see the complete demonstration of the author's claim.]

I read through that long, tedious and boring article to see that this man made a forgery that only the gullible would consider as similar to the Shroud.

He uses panes of glass for the image that people in the 13th century couldnot have gotten. Flat glass is made using a grinding process to get a totally flat surface and was not available till the 17th century.

"Flat glass for windows was still rare during much of the 17th and 18th centuries. Small panes were made by blowing a large glob of glass, removing it from the blowing iron and then rotating the glass quickly so it would spread and flatten. Such glass had a dimple in its center, many air bubbles and a pattern of concentric circles, but it was transparent and effective in keeping out the weather. At the end of the 17th century, the French learned how to grind and polish cast glass to produce plate glass, but only the rich could afford it."

http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/histppg.htm

So to suggest that a huge pain of glass big enough for the Shroud was used to forge the image is absurd from a logistical standpoint alone - that amount of flat window glass was not available to make such an image.

And why go to such lengths to make a forgery that would fool people 7 centuries later? What possible gain would a forgerer have for going to such elaborate detail, getting a peice of linen from Palestine, for crying out loud! The author and most of these critics seem to think that the forgerers goal wasnt to cahs in at the time he would have made it but to fool us today, lol!

And it doesnt work anyway in imitating the Shrouds composition of color. Look at any close up photos of the discoloration fo the threads and it is plain to even the most casual observer that the image was made directly and not by fading everything else around it as the 'pixels' are very sharp edged and rectangular in their shape and barely penetrate into the fibers.

This is not to mention the chemical analysis done earlier this year that dates the Shroud to way before the 13th century and to at least the third century AD, IIRC.

It is amazing to see to what leaps of fantasy and elaborate processes the skeptical dive into in order to convince themselves that the Shroud is faked, when any amount of common sense should tell them otherwise.