Is it possible that the Shroud we have now was switched and palmed off as the original?
SUBSTITUTED BEFORE 1500?
There is no proof that the Turin Shroud existed in the time of Jesus Christ.
The carbon dating says the cloth was medieval. If there was a claimed burial
shroud before that we don't know and cannot prove that the current Turin
Shroud and that cloth are one and the same. If a precious relic rotted the
Church often secretly swapped it with a duplicate.
The cloth could have been venerated for ages until somebody decided to put an
image on it.
Whoever was going to forge the image knew he had to have a very old cloth to
pull it off. People would expect discoloration, fraying and dirt on a cloth
from the first century. Since Palestinian Jews buried different to everybody
else he knew he had to get a cloth from Palestine. If he had to do without a
real cloth from the first century it would have not have mattered. It just
needed to pass for Palestinian. Nobody was going to research how burial cloths
were designed at the time of Jesus.
The Shroud might have been replaced a few times with a better production. This
could have been done any time though it is a bit more likely to have happened
when the Shroud was hidden away following its being moved out of the shrine at
Lirey. It is possible that the Shroud that the bishops opposed at the time was
a painting of blood with no image and the blood was painted on as if there had
been a body in it. Then later somebody decided to put a more mysterious image on it.
The Shroud was usually exposed in the past to celebrate the weddings of the
Savoy family and before that it was exposed once a year on the feast of the
Shroud (The Blood and the Shroud, page 132).
The Shroud went missing, apparently stolen, after very slight damage in a fire
of 1349. When it was recovered it was laid upon a dead man who came back to
life. This was a test to see if it was the right Shroud (page 8, The Holy
Shroud and Four Visions). Now the Shroud had been displayed before thousands
so there was no need for doubt if it was the same Shroud for there were plenty
of witnesses to verify it. This silly test shows that this was not the real
Shroud for the witnesses doubted that it was it. Even a priest, Richard La
Pie, who had seen the old Shroud had to see the miracle before he would
believe that it was the old one! A miracle was staged to get him to mistrust
his memory. It shows the people knew the Shroud had been a fake and knew fakes
as good.
Two bishops testified that the Shroud was a painting in the fourteenth century
and one of them set out to track down the artist and was successful. He got
professors to declare their certitude that it was forged (page 307, The Turin
Shroud).
The Turin Shroud does not look like a painting for it is a light print with
the naked eye and is only clear or more impressive when you see it in the
negative which nobody saw until Pia photographed the image in 1898 so was this
Shroud not our present Shroud? We can’t be sure but maybe the image faded
since then. Plus a painting you can hardly see is still a painting and the
bishops could have known other ways that it was a painting apart from testing
it for evidence of paintwork.
If the cloth from Lirey was an obvious painting and the current Shroud is not
then they are not the same shroud.
Bishop D’Arcis in 1389 AD declared that when his predecessor began to sue the
Shroud promoters as fraudsters they hid the cloth away for thirty-four years
or thereabouts for they were scared they would lose the case (page 308, The
Turin Shroud).
However, when they displayed the cloth again in 1389 they said it was a copy
of the Shroud. That could mean it was not the shroud condemned previously or
it could mean they were admitting the Lirey Shroud was not the Shroud of Jesus
but a copy.
The bishop did not believe it was really a copy of the Shroud condemned as a
fraud. He thought it was the fake. The bishop could have been wrong.
In any case even the promoters as good as admitted the image was a fake in the
end. That was very unusual for those times. Relic mongers usually admitted to
nothing. If the image was a good attempt at the imprint of a dead body would
the forgers have called it an artist's copy? Whatever it was, it was not as
good as the current Turin Shroud.
The Benedictine monk, Cornelius Zantiflet, said that he saw the Shroud and
that he admired it as an excellent picture of Jesus and agreed with his bishop
that what he saw was a painting. This happened in Belgium in 1449. He wrote
that it showed the outline of the whole body and showed that it showed the
outline of the whole body and showed the wounded hands and side with red blood
(page 336, The Blood and the Shroud). Wilson accepts that this is his beloved
Turin Shroud despite the fact that the monk says the picture is a painting.
But nobody would think that of something that had no sketch or brush marks and
was faint. Also, the Turin Shroud looks like its man was nailed through the
wrists and only one wrist is visible. Turin Shroud is right to say that the
vague image on the cloth would not be called remarkable or admirable (page
109) suggesting that this was not the Turin Shroud though it was supposed to
be. It was obviously a painting which was why it did not take the world by
storm like a blood print of a body would have. That superstitious age was mad
for Christ’s blood and would have just adored the Shroud if it existed then in
the form we know today.
Picknett and Prince think that the painted Shroud was replaced by Leonardo da
Vinci’s copy in 1492. The Shroud was hidden at that time so the opportunity
was there. It would be wrong to think that a new cloth would have been used
for the carbon dating shows that the 95% probability that the Shroud fibres
were cut between 1260 and 1390 must be considered. 1492 is not likely to be
the year in which the cloth was made – possible but not likely. So it could be
that an old cloth was used. Leonardo would certainly have used an older cloth
for a new length of linen would not make a very convincing forgery. Maybe he
used the original Shroud after removing the paint, to put the image on it by
photography then. Some say that there is no evidence that their idea that
Leonardo created the image and put an image of his face on the cloth is right.
The fact that the Shroud face looks exactly like a picture of Leonardo as a
young man to many is evidence enough. We know that the head of the Shroud man
does not belong to the body – the fact that it is more clearly printed than
the body proves that as does the indication of decapitation – there is even a
cut mark there where the throat would be and if the neck was there the head
would not be in such an unnatural position that no model can duplicate (page
135, Turin Shroud) shows that somebody wanted to use some important man’s face
to fake the cloth. Chances are it is a self-portrait when all that trouble was
gone to.
Leonardo could have created the Shroud image. If he didn’t then somebody did.
A SWITCH AFTER 1500?
The first copies of the Shroud were made in the 1500s (Turin Shroud, page
107). So, there is no evidence that the present image existed before then even
if the cloth did.
The Shroud was allegedly boiled in oil and then in water a lot of times in
1503 to test its authenticity (The Holy Shroud and Four Visions, page 9). It
was reasoned that if the imprints on it were the miraculous image of Jesus
Christ they could not be removed. In 1532, water was poured on the cloth to
stop it burning and these left stains which makes one wonder why there is no
discolouration from the boiling in oil and water. The Shroud that went through
all this could not have been the Turin one because the latter contains ancient
pollen which would have been washed out.
The tests are probably a pack of lies. If they really happened then the Shroud
would have been ruined and another one would have needed to be created.
The tests were unlikely for it was clear from the cloth with its burn marks
that it was not immune to damage.The Shroud had holes in it because of the
fires it nearly perished in. That is why only half of the arms are visible. A
large part of the image has therefore been lost together with the blood. When
the Shroud is not fireproof how can it be resistant to hot water and boiling
oil? Scientists today can remove “blood” from the image and cut pieces off it.
It cannot protect itself.
Also, the body not the blood image of the man rests on top of the fibres (page
37, 41, The Turin Shroud is Genuine) and so would have been easy to wash out
for they were not deep stains – unless they are simply burn marks.
It’s tempting to think that whoever forged the Shroud forged more than one.
When a Shroud was destroyed it was replaced.
SHROUD MENDED IN 1534 IS NOT OUR TURIN SHROUD
The Shroud perished in the fire of 1532.
However, later a story began to appear about how the Shroud was delivered from
the conflagration. The legend goes that in this fire, a blacksmith was sent
into the chapel to rescue the Shroud and it was saved.
The Shroud is believed by many to have got burn marks from the 1532 fire. A
cloth bearing an image and burn and water marks was brought to the nuns to
repair it in 1534.
The cloth was folded into forty-eight and one corner of the folded cloth
caught fire from the molten silver casket resulting in the burn holes that the
nuns had to fix. He threw water on it right away (page 75, The Blood and the
Shroud). But if a cloth is folded into forty-eight it has four corners and if
it is burned down one corner then you get fourteen holes. But the Turin Shroud
has sixteen holes though the four ones on the back along the arms are met but
still a pair. And the water stains that came from the dousing do not cover the
holes and only touch some of them. That water couldn’t have put anything out.
See for yourself in the diagram of the Shroud damage. Diagram 6&7 of The Blood
and the Shroud. It seems very odd that only small and unimportant parts of the
image were burned.
Five copies of the shroud were made after until 1578 but none of them show the
marks (The Blood and the Shroud, page 135-6). Was this because the Savoys were
ashamed because they could have done more to make the Shroud safe as Ian
Wilson suggests? Or was it because the Church was embarrassed at the cloth not
being able to protect itself? None of these reasons are believable for the
marks were known about and written about and the poker holes were well-known.
The copies were of another shroud and not what is now the Turin one. They are
copies of one which had been replaced by the Turin one. It seems that after,
it was decided to destroy the copy and use the Turin one only.
A 1516 copy in Belgium of the Shroud shows pre-1516 poker-holes (page 76, The
Blood and the Shroud). A 1550 copy in Lisbon shows the poker-holes but not the
1532 burns. This tells us that though the Turin Shroud was copied it was not
thought to be identical with the one that had been burned in 1532 but a good
copy of that one.
It has been suggested that he saw the Turin Shroud and copied by memory. The
copies had to touch the original to deserve and win veneration. The practice
was to lay them on top of the original (The Blood and the Shroud, page 115).
This means the artist did not need to struggle with memory for he could see
the original. There are too many features in common with the Turin Shroud for
it to be merely memory. The poker-hole burn marks are exactly where they are
on the Turin Shroud. The side-wound blood flows are the same length. Whatever
he sketched had a lot in common with the Turin Shroud of today. The
differences are very telling. Whatever he sketched had toes and other things
that the Shroud in Turin does not have. It is not the same image but close. He
did not sketch our Turin Shroud.
The burns on the Turin Shroud do not prove it is the same one that allegedly
survived the 1532 fire with a few holes for the new Shroud would have had have
these marks for it was a replacement of the old. It had to be passed off as
the old one that was destroyed. The 1516 Shroud shows Jesus with his feet
crossed and with an egg-shaped face and the crucifixion wounds on the both
hands are visible. This suggests that what the artist copied was like but was
not our present Turin Shroud for this copy differs too much from our Turin
Shroud. It shows toes and hand wounds not wrist wounds.
In 1534, nuns
repaired a cloth presented as being the Shroud pulled from the flames. This
cloth does not match our Turin Shroud. Another switch must have taken place
after 1534.
Witnesses had to be brought in about 1534 to make sure the damaged cloth that
was due to be repaired was the Shroud. The nuns, who were to sew it, described
it. They said the blood of the side-wound went to about half a foot long. It
does not. They said they saw the back of the head pierced by a cap of thorns.
They did not say they meant the blood so the cap of thorns must have been on
the image. It is not on our Shroud. There are many spots of blood on the back
of the head but they need not have come from a cap of thorns. The blood
dripping and the stains soaking into the hair would have done that. Roman
solders would not have made a cap of thorns when a ring shaped coronet would
do. Making a cap would have been harder and they didn’t want their hands all
picked.
The nuns said they noticed traces of a chain bound tight to the back. Wilson
says they incorrectly thought trickles of blood going out more or less
horizontally from the middle of the back were indications of this chain (page
347, The Blood and the Shroud). But the nuns knew if there had been a chain
there would have been similar marks on the stomach. Our Turin Shroud does not
have stomach marks. The nuns must have been implying that there were such
marks on the stomach. The nuns would not have believed that there had been a
chain around Jesus’ waist when he was laid in the tomb and would not have said
therefore that there was a chain unless they were totally sure what they saw
was a chain mark. The marks on our Turin Shroud had only a slight resemblance
to a chain so one wonders what made them say it was a chain? The answer is
that there was a chain and so the Shroud was not the Turin one.
IMAGE ALLEGEDLY MISTAKEN FOR CHAIN
Those women did not repair the Turin Shroud we have now but another Shroud.
This would mean that the Turin Shroud has been replaced and/or perhaps
retouched a few times through the centuries.
The 1534 Shroud is not the Turin Shroud.
In the middle of the 1500’s, the cloth was snatched from the cathedral in
Vercelli by a priest who hid it for years in his house to prevent it being
stolen (The Jesus Conspiracy, page 224). Another golden opportunity to get rid
of the painting if that is what it was and replace it with something more
"unexplainable".
Finally
Whatever you think of the Shroud, there is no evidence at all that its
image really existed in the time of Christ. There is evidence that
until it appeared a few hundred years ago, previous images were
obvious paintings and rubbish. A genuine relic of such importance
does not appear centuries after the man it depicts is dead.