Log in

No account? Create an account

Is the Shroud of Turin for Real?

Thomas de Wesselow is an art historian used to tackling "unsolvable" problems. He now writes full-time and has written a book about the Shroud of Turin called The Sign
The birth of Christianity, nearly 2000 years ago, has shaped the whole course of human history. Yet historians still cannot explain how it all really began. What made Jesus' followers claim to have seen him alive again, three days after his crucifixion? Why did Christianity take off so quickly? It is one of the biggest and most profound of all historical mysteries. This extraordinary book, based on seven years of research by a brilliant historian, finally provides the answer.  With historical detective work and cutting-edge scientific research, art historian Thomas de Wesselow has discovered that Jesus' followers did see something at the tomb. They saw something real but out of the ordinary - something that seemed like a miracle. It was the burial cloth of Jesus, stained with his body image. This ancient marvel was hailed as a sign of the Resurrection, and kick-started the Christian faith. The book shows that the faint image on the cloth was formed naturally through a rare chemical reaction.  Listen to Wesselow explain his work : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn9-ope010U

The Vatican's official newspaper has given strong endorsement to research which suggests that the Turin Shroud cannot be a medieval fake and may be the authentic burial cloth of Christ.


It's a fake, but it's an early mediaeval fake and that makes it interesting in its own right! (Well, as a historian, I would say that, wouldn't I? :o)
And, as it happens, a single survival of what was, apparently, a roaring trade in shrouds...
It's definitely a fake, tests on four different samples carbon dated it to, iirc, between 1260 a 1390.
Which leads to the question of what exactly is it a fake of?
I leave it to the "experts"!
are you sure about the vatican newsletter. I read a review of the book in the Sunday papers that said it was in the odd position of having the Vatican agree it was a fake and this scholar trying to claim it wasn't.

The review/interview wasn't very positive about de Wesselow, actually, as he has done no original research and his claims require a lot of suspension of disbelief. They suggest he is jumping on the Dan Brownish bandwagon and just trying to make a fast buck.

I'm intrigued enough to want to read it though!