Shroud of Turin: more finds

tjadams

Ad Honoris
Mar 2009
25,362
Texas
In the latest issue of Archaeology Magazine, March/April 2010.,Vol. 63, Number 2 there's an article "First-century Focus" by Mati Milstein about some of the latest finds in Israel. It seems a team lead by the IAA archaeologist Shimon Gibson uncovered a Jewish man's burial shroud in a tomb inside a cave. I quote:
"Three recent discoveries in Israel dating to the first century A.D.-the time of both Jesus' life and the Great Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation (A.D. 66-73)-are offering new evidence of the life in the Holy Land....The researchers also announced that the shroud, radiocarbon dated to A.D 1-50, supports the idea that the Shroud of Turin had not been used to wrap the body of Jesus after his crucifixion. The Jerusalem shroud is made of simply-woven linen and wool, while the Shroud of Turin is made of a complex twill weave, a fabric not thought to have been available in the region until the Middle Ages." p. 9
Interesting food for thought.
 
Dec 2009
19,933
It seems this article is not about the famous Shroud of Turin, but another Shroud in Jerusalem.
 

Robert165

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,266
North Georgia
Interesting. But it is just a data point in the controversy.
what controversy. there's really no data that says the shroud of turin was the actual shroud used by jesus christ. fanciful claims with no evidence do not rally make a controversy.
 

vera

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,508
Israel
Interesting.

That is of course considered beside the point that Jewish people would never have entertained the thought of keeping the shroud in the first place.
 

beetle

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
3,362
St. Louis
I appreciated reading the article. Thanks for posting this thread. :)

However, I do think a bit more thought can be given to the weave and fabric of the Turin shroud. The article might be mistaken :eek: in its claim that a fabric with traces of cotton woven in a heringbone twill weave could not have been manufactured in the 1st century. It would have been an expensive "luxury" product.

No, I'm not trying to prove the Turin shroud was Jesus' burial cloth. Not even the Catholic Church tries to make that claim. But I once had subscriptions to "Archaeology", "Biblical Archaology Review", and "Bible Review" magazines. I learned that the experts in those fields argue with each other like cats and dogs, or Hatfields and McCoys (or Democrats and Republicans.) Sometimes they could be so antagonistic they were worse than posters in an un-monitored online forum. ;)
 

beetle

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
3,362
St. Louis
what controversy. there's really no data that says the shroud of turin was the actual shroud used by jesus christ. fanciful claims with no evidence do not rally make a controversy.
Naw, the Turin shroud is a phenomenal artifact. Not much was known about its unique characteristics until 1898 when a local Italian lawyer was allowed to photograph it. He found out his "negative" was actually a "positive" (the image on the photograph was far more detailed than the image on the shroud.) Since then the shroud has been a subject for serious scientific study.

To date, despite claims to the contrary, no modern expert has really demonstrated a satisfactory forgery - and, of course, all modern "forgery" attempts are based on the original, something the maker of the shroud would not have been able to base his work on.

The physical details of the person of the shroud are startling.

There is controversy. How the heck was the thing made? Who was this secret genius who made a single, startling work and then never again exercised his/her genius in this regard? It's one heck of a mystery. :)