-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


****************************
alt.turin-shroud FAQ V4.00
****************************

Table of Contents

New and revised sections are marked by a *

1. Introduction
1.1 Structure of this FAQ
1.2 Credits
1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud

2. About the Turin Shroud
2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?
2.2 What is the image?
2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?

3. History and Art of the Turin Shroud
3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?
3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?
3.3 How does it fit into art history?

4. Science and the Turin Shroud
4.1 What is Sindonology?
4.2 When did the scientific study of the Shroud begin?
4.3 About the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)
4.3.1 When and why was STURP formed?
4.3.2 What did the STURP team conclude after the 1978 tests?
4.3.3 Who is Walter McCrone and what does his research say?
4.3.4 Who's right, STURP or McCrone?
4.4 Is there blood on the Shroud?
4.5 What other studies have been made?
4.6 Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?

5. Concluding thoughts: Is there any middle ground between
authenticity and forgery?

6. Where can I learn more about the Shroud of Turin?

7. References

8. Revision history

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1 Structure of this FAQ

The Shroud of Turin is a subject of considerable controversy between
its supporters and its detractors. Because alt.turin-shroud is a
locus of this controversy, I [FW] have tried to make this FAQ fairly
representative of both viewpoints. Each question, to the extent
possible, has two answers -- one each from a supporter of its
authenticity and a skeptic.

As of November 25, 2002, the original author of this FAQ, William
Meacham, has requested that his comments defending its authenticity
be removed. They have been replaced by selections from published
books, articles and research papers written by assorted advocates of
his position.


1.2 Credits

The PRO answers are quotations from the published writings of
well-respected pro-authenticity authors, lecturers and researchers.
The PRO sections have been chosen by FW because they summarize the
mainstream of pro-authenticity views on the question addressed and
because the authors are well-respected within the sindonological
community. Authors' names are given in brackets immediately after
the quotation. Detailed bibliographical information has been
relegated to the References section of the FAQ.

Frank Weaver <weaver1@world.std.com>, an amateur critic of
Sindonology, wrote the ANTI answers especially for this FAQ.
His contributions are noted by the designation [FW].


1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud

This newsgroup was created on November 7, 1997 to provide an
open internet forum for discussion of all aspects of the Turin
Shroud -- scientific, art historical, historical, religious,
conservation-related, etc. It is unmoderated, but advertising,
binaries and off-topic posts are not welcome, in line with
Usenet practice. Single brief announcements of events or
services related to the Shroud, for example new organizations,
books, websites, lectures, tours, and activities, will however
be acceptable. [William Meacham, November 12, 1997]


- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2 ABOUT THE TURIN SHROUD
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?

PRO:
In Turin, Italy, there exists a 4.3 m (14-ft 3-in) linen cloth known
as the Shroud of Turin. This cloth contains visible discolorations
of the frontal and dorsal images of a human male form without obvious
side images. The image appears to be that of a crucifixion victim who
has been whipped, knifed in his right side, and physically abused.
These characteristics, reminiscent of what the Gospels describe
happened to Jesus, have led some to hypothesize that the man of the
Shroud is Jesus, while others have remained cautious, awaiting in
some cases a radiocarbon date of the Shroud. [John P. Jackson, Eric
J. Jumper, and William R. Ercoline]

ANTI:
The 'Shroud' of Turin is a piece of linen, approximately 14 ft by
1.3 ft in size, woven in a herringbone twill pattern. Since its
first appearance, it has been claimed to be the true burial cloth of
Jesus Christ containing a miraculously produced record of his
Resurrection (hereafter called 'authenticity'). There were many
other such alleged True Shrouds (from 12 to 40, sources differ), some
of which, like the Turin 'Shroud' bore allegedly miraculous images.
All have been debunked, including this one. [FW]


2.2 What is the image?

PRO:
The astonishing aspect of seeing the Shroud itself rather than a
photograph is discovering how pale and subtle the appears. The color
of the imprint can best be described as a pure sepia monochrome, and
the closer one tries to examine it, the more it melts away like mist.
... The main point is that, except when viewed from a distance, the
image is extremely difficult to distinguish. [Ian Wilson]

ANTI:
The shroud contains faint frontal and dorsal images of a man that
conforms to the conventional figure of Jesus Christ, laid out in
death in the same manner as He is frequently depicted in other
devotional images of the time. It also contains deep red 'blood'
flows from the Cruficixion stigmata and other injuries described in
the Gospels. Historical evidence indicates that the image was once a
good deal brighter than it now appears, so we are almost certainly
looking at some combination of a remnant of what the artist created
and incidental damage to the cloth over time. [FW]


2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?

PRO:
For more than four centuries, one of the most exalted and baffling
religious relics in history -- the purported burial shroud of Jesus
Christ -- has lain as an object of almost untouchable sanctity in the
northwest Italian city of Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist.
It arrived there after at least two centuries of adoring veneration,
near destruction and bitter controversy in the royal houses of France
-- and one unverified theory says by way of the Fourth Crusade to
Constantinople in A.D. 1203. Even in the relic-worshipping Middle
Ages, it is easy to understand that controversy should surround this
object: the terrible liability of making a single item an article of
supreme religious faith and indeed ultimate evidence for the
existence and death of Jesus of Nazareth was so obvious, the
implications of fraud so awesome, that many ecclesiastics wanted no
part of the Shroud from the beginning. Some don't even now. [Samuel
Pellicori and Mark S. Evans]

ANTI:
The idea that the shroud was authentic largely, but not entirely,
faded away with the Enlightenment, as it did for the other True
Shrouds. It was revived in 1898, when photographs revealed that the
image apparently looks more natural in negative than in positive.
Since that time, a religious cult has grown up around the cloth which
maintains its authenticity (almost always insisting that it's origin
is miraculous, as well) despite total lack of support for their
assertions and copious evidence to the contrary. [FW]


- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 3 HISTORY AND ART OF THE TURIN SHROUD
- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?

PRO:
The shroud first became known around 1357 when it was exhibited in a
small wooden church in the sleepy provincial town of Lirey, a village
about one hundred miles southeast of Paris. The Shroud's owner,
Geoffrey de Charny, had been killed the year before by the English at
the Battle of Poitiers. Impoverished by her husband's death, his
widow, Jeanne de Vergy,hoped to attract pilgrims -- and their
monetary offerings -- by exhibiting Jesus' burial garment in the
local church. Crowds did gather -- but only for a time. Bishop Henri
de Poitiers, the local ordinary, quickly ordered the exhibition
stopped, apparently doubting that a French noble family of modest
means could have come into possession of the true Shroud.

Jeanne de Vergy and other members of the de Charny family never
explained how Geoffrey de Charny managed to come into possession of
so fabulous a relic. Indeed, the question remains unanswered to this
day (although, as we shall see, there is a plausible explanation).
When exhibition of the Shroud resumed twenty-five years later, Bishop
Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop Henri's successor, branded the Shroud a
forgery and insisted that Pope Clement VII stop the display. Only
later, when the Shroud came into possession of the powerful House of
Savoy, was it finally accepted as the true Shroud of Christ. But even
then, acceptance came slowly. The Roman Catholic Church, in fact, has
never claimed that the Shroud is genuine. Now, in the twentieth
century, some scientists accept the Shroud's authenticity, more
readily than medieval Christians did. [Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary
Habermas]

ANTI:
The chief historical documents concerning the shroud were unearthed
by Father Ulysse Chevalier in 1905. It first appeared in the 1350's
in the possession of a minor French knight, Geoffroy de Charny, who
used it as a revenue source to support the village church he founded
at Lirey. According to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, his predecessor
investigated, exposed the cloth as a fraud, and obtained a confession
from the forger. Geoffroy, his son, also named Geoffroy, and
granddaughter Marguerite continued to support themselves by shroud
exhibitions, despite the efforts of d'Arcis and prohibitions by both
their Pope and their King, for the next century. Records indicate
that the de Charny clan engaged in acts of fraud, deceit, subterfuge
and theft in regard to the shroud, but none of the clan ever denied
the accusations that the cloth was a fake. In 1452, Marguerite sold
the shroud to the duke of Savoy. It accompanied the House of Savoy
to Turin when they became rulers of Italy. In 1983, former King
Umberto II transferred ownership to the Archdiocese of Turin. [FW]


3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?

PRO:
A point of argument against the Shroud of Turin being Jesus' actual
burial cloth is that it can be traced with certainty only from about
AD 1355. Before then, existence and provenance is much more uncertain.
According to some traditions, a disciple of Jesus brought from
Jerusalem to Edessa a cloth miraculously imprinted with the likeness
of Jesus. Shroud historian Ian Wilson speculates that this cloth was
the Shroud of Turin, and that it was hidden in a wall to be later
rediscovered during the 500s. In fact, a circa 593 account states that
a 544 siege of Edessa was repulsed by "the divinely wrought likeness
which human hands have not made" and which was discovered in the
throes of the city's distress. In 943, the 'cloth of Edessa' was
moved from Edessa to Constantinople. The year thereafter, this cloth
was described as bearing "the blood and water from his [Jesus'] very
side," and in a circa 1130 sermon borrowing from a 769 discussion,
the cloth of dessa was described as having "the glorious features of
[Jesus'] face, and the majestic form of his whole body ...
supernaturally transferred," indicating the presence of more than
simply a face. An official history of the cloth of Edessa
characterized in 945 the imprint as "a moist secretion without pigment
or the painter's art," and "due to sweat, not pigments," descriptions
that conceivably could have been the Shroud. The cloth of Edessa
disappeared around the time of the 1204 ransacking of Constantinople.
Assuming that the cloth of Edessa is identical with the Shroud of
Turin, the cloth of Edessa reappeared in circa 1355, and has been
known ever since as the Shroud of Turin. [David Ford]

ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its devotees, there is no believable
history of the shroud before the 1350s. They rely on rather
tendentious arguments that the 'shroud' masqueraded as an entirely
different legendary relic, the so-called Image of Edessa. That legend
however, first appears in a document universally regarded by scholars
of early Christian literature as a sixth century forgery. Even then,
it simply embellishes on still earlier forgeries dating from the fourth
century.

Most remarkable, shroud devotees deny every single tangible detail of
the description of the cloth in the very legends they claim as
evidence. The original Image of Edessa is clearly described and
depicted as a small hand cloth, bearing the face only of Jesus, made
while he was alive and uninjured. No part of the descriptions
mentions the injuries or blood that are obvious on the shroud of
Turin. The usual tactic is to either pretend these discrepancies do
not exist or shift the discussion to some later example of the
ever-evolving Holy Image tradition that is temporarily more congenial.
[FW]


3.3 How does it fit into art history?

PRO:
The Shroud image does not have any style and for that reason it does
not fit into any period of art history. While here I do not wish to
discuss art history and its aspects, because the richness and
complexity of that subject would take up many pages, I must say,
however, there is no such painting which would not fit with absolute
precision into a particular era of art history and point out with
reasonable closeness the artist who created the painting.

There is no directionality and no lights focus on the Shroud, neither
are outlines in any way. These three elements exist on every painting
without exception. These involve laws of nature. The lack of all these
again proves the Turin Shroud cannot be a painting. [Isabel Piczek]

ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its religious devotees, a number of art
historians have pointed to its similarity, in both style and subject,
to other 13th and 14th century devotional images. Stylistically,
they have linked it to the innovations of various Romanesque and
pre-Renaissance artists including Pietro Cavallini [1250-1330],
Cimabue [1240-1302], Giotto di Bondone [1267-1337], Duccio di
Buoninsegna [c.1255 - 1319], Simone Martini [1280-1344], and
Masaccio [1401-1428].

In theme, the shroud fits into the post 12th century focus on the
Passion and death of Jesus Christ, as revealed by the ubiquitous Man
of Sorrows imagery from 1200+, the realistic and hyper-realistic
crucifixes that began to appear around the same time, Passion Plays
(14th century onward) and the Stations of the Cross devotion (circa
1260). Prior to about 1200, Jesus was NEVER shown bloodied or
suffering, not even on those Holy Image relics that were supposedly
the shroud of Turin in disguise (see Sec. 3.2). In Byzantine art,
he was portrayed as a divine Judge or Pantocrator (Ruler of
Everything). The shroud of Turin appeared only after the
passion/suffering theme was well established in both art and
religious practice. [FW]

- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
weaver1@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBPtq2/6yjdWYzk1A5AQEvWAf+OZwOs9GNjFbrH90/CUpZDuX8pyS6Nh1O
esJD7dlAD8yU2o5+XWN16kVGWTENb+ZJa8QtBFH6CeIg1n0soHu24xeiIjrCzzeD
D1O1I5gdbR3B72OsS0OthJf+o36BxCMZp6WjnCMX2UKC5Ez/3+z9kPWQ6+Pr99h8
jZg/VXhuPxIXh9UPEN4dW5e+nGKARVLZAtbgyG8xMShQdOyAvijjB/+g3GXqmlDU
t1rlUCb8NU7X2/Z6Li2sXtxDvQEAmp9Ir9vtJfza6krfnu7nWKQ9g1Z1FXW5od51
UMvAuM12OEjGUpdhOQXoQuvHB90cNcTp/GveSIpnVmR2HQ39I4fnBQ==
=Jmfp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----