The Holy Shroud
Posted on 03/28/2013 7:02:22 AM PDT by NYer
The Holy Shroud
Gian Maria Zaccone *
Rome
Discussing the Shroud without the risk of misinterpretations and dashed expectations is a complex affair. The relic (which is preserved in the Northern Italian city of Turin) has been the focus of deep devotion and huge interest but is also at the centre of a heated debate. This debate is innate to the Shroud itself: the reference to the figure of Christ and his incarnation which is linked to the signum contradictionis.
As is the case with the oldest recorded images which aimed to depict the face of Jesus, true God and true man, the so-called acheiropoieta – icons which are said to have come into existence miraculously and not created by a human painter – the Shroud has been the focus of debates and disagreements ever since its discovery. In a way it is a faithful portrayal of the outcomes and legacies of the thousand-year old question of Christian iconography, spanning eras in which the relationship between religion and society and reason and faith has been through some really rough patches. The Shroud’s religious essence and the form imprinted on the cloth which forms a link with the human sciences, make it exemplary.
The positions adopted in the modern and post modern world in relation to the Shroud, are certainly more complex and varied than in previous eras. Many consider it to be the most important relic marking Christ’s presence on Earth, it containing the real and unique effigy of the Saviour, made even more precious by his blood. Some go dangerously further than this, searching for physical traces of His glorious resurrection on the cloth.
Others underline the importance of an object which is undeniably linked to the Passion of Christ and therefore a unique object from a religious point of view; an object which has enormous pastoral and spiritual potential but is also able to attract the interest of scholars of all disciplines.
Others still, reject it as a more or less old fake which is of no interest whatsoever or, at best, could be worth displaying in a museum dedicated to history’s great tricks.
The positions adopted in relation to the Shroud have necessarily been broken down into categories here but in reality they are easily interwoven, compared and contrasted, proving that the one thing that is certain about the Shroud is that no one is indifferent to it.
In this sense, the scientific research into the Shroud, begun at the start of the century, has contributed to making today’s debate even more fascinating and more heated. This is because although most of this research has not led to any concrete conclusions about how the figure on the Shroud was formed, all studies seem to exclude the possibility of a man-made image, given that the Shroud has been dated back to the medieval period.
Until the end of the Nineteenth century, research into the Holy Shroud had focused above all on the historical and to some extent theological aspects of the relic, but the problem of its so-called “authenticity” – which has been the main focus of scientific research – was limited to scholarly debates which were not of much interest to the wider public.
Historically, it was the devotional aspect of the Shroud that emerged as most important, attracting the interest of ordinary people who travel for miles to attend solemn ostentations. It is not intellectual curiosity in the Shroud’s origins, or their search for material grace that attracts the masses but their drive to search for something – a face, a figure – and their anxiousness to find out something that forms part of the deepest, innermost feelings of the human soul. Mgr. Ghiberti rightly underlined the fact that man’s encounter with the Shroud (especially if he or she is a faithful) is pre-scientific. Surveys carried out on pilgrims who attended the ostensions which took place between 1978 and today reveal that very few of them were drawn to Turin because of the question of the Shroud’s “authenticity”. So this is not a core part of their relationship with the relic. Instead, many were interested in the Shroud as a “sign” that becomes a “mystery” and “speak of violence and injustice,” “an image of peace, a sign of suffering.” But a suffering that goes beyond mere suffering: for believers, meditating on Christ’s death cannot be separated from the joy of Easter and vice versa: the Shroud therefore becomes a “symbol of life and resurrection.”
This is why the Holy Father and the Church in Turin wanted to give all the people of the world the chance to come face to face with the painful image imprinted on the Shroud, leaving the scientific question aside for once; the chance to set their eyes on "the one they have pierced” (John, 19:37), on Holy Saturday, the day of great silence of which the Shroud is an icon. An icon which illustrates the deep reflections of Benedict XVI, who was among the pilgrims to visit the Shroud in 2010.
Repeating a specious statement or ignorant one does not make it any more true. Shrouds were not "wrapped around" the head. Using that as an example for any purpose about the shroud, positive or negative is both specious and ignorant. Why say it, much less repeat it?
No, it's not a painting and it's not a 3D image either. It's a two dimensional image with a terrain map encoded into it by analog variation of the color density of the image. It is not, therefor, a photograph, having not been created by reflected light, in that there are no light artifacts observed. Nor are there any pigments, so it is not as you characterize it, a "painting."
No, they cannot do what the Shroud does by mere conversion of intensity of light. Sorry. You are wrong. You are grasping at straws.
In any event, the original image on the Turin shroud or on a canvas or on a photographic print was not made by pressing the shroud/canvas/paper against the head/face, but from the perspective of an artist/photographer from a distance.
There you go again with you assumption of a Shroud being pressed against the body/face. Anyone who has studied the science and scholarship of the Shroud knows that was not the case. You keep repeating that mantra. The image on the cloth is so diffuse it cannot be seen close up... One has to be farther than fifteen feet away to discern it. No artist standing close enough to "paint" it could do so. . . especially to paint in the totally unknown concept of negativity . . . and perfect three dimensional perspective. By hand. Right. Sure. An art style never seen before or since and impossible to be duplicated even today.
Looks just like Jesus.
First is that it is merely the *appearance* of depth, with the aspect ratio of the 3-D detail to the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the image highly dependent on the settings used in the software; and the other issue is that nobody had software back when the Shroud was created -- nor when it is falsely accused of having been forged, either.
"If we had bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had any eggs."
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.