Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

michaelshermer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 163 posts

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#41

Post by d_theorist »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #35
appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits. They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose?

And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#42

Post by codingdave »

d_theorist wrote: post #41
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the 14th century were no dumber than people living today, and painters like Duccio di Buoninsegna had a great understanding of shadows, and were capable of drawing amazing portraits. They were absolutely capable of painting a negative of a portrait.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic concept to artists, not an innovation that required photography to exist in order to conceptualize it.

In the same vein, why would it have to be made of paint? Paint is simply pigment inside a medium. Dyes are also pigment, in different medium, made to soak into and bind with cloth instead of being layered on top.

I'm not saying that is how it was created, but I highly doubt that the skills to do so did not exist.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#43

Post by d_theorist »

tsimionescu wrote: post #10
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

First of all, the thing is not a shroud, it's essentially a 14th century painting, created as one of a myriad fake relics for money and fame. Second of all, if you believed it were a real ancient shroud, you would have to explain how the image on it was produced. Corpses don't leave images on shrouds, and even if it were true that everyone in ancient Israel were wrapped in a linen shroud when they died, people certai…

Whatever else you might want to say about the shroud, one thing we know for sure is that it is not a painting. Analysis shows that the image is extremely superficial, only penetrating about 200nm into the fibres of the cloth. This is inconsistent with a painted image.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#44

Post by d_theorist »

codingdave wrote: post #42
d_theorist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they weren’t dumb, but having a great understanding of shadows is a far cry from being capable of creating a photo negative. They didn’t even have the concept of a photo negative. How would they even have thought to achieve such a thing? And for what purpose? And, by the way, the image on the shroud is not made of paint, so contemporary proficiency with painting techniques hardly seems relevant.

Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic…

Why would they have done it?

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#45

Post by codingdave »

d_theorist wrote: post #44
codingdave wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they need the specific concept of a photo negative? A negative is just a reversal of light/dark. They knew of such things. They knew primary colors, too. Painting and mixing colors is not exactly modern -- it has been around for many centuries. Artists practice playing with light and color as basic exercises, and have done so for hundreds if not thousands of years. Switching light and dark is a fairly basic…

Why would they have done it?

I have no idea, but that seems completely orthogonal to what technique was used.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#46

Post by card_zero »

appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

It's sort of semi-3D. Reasonably good imitations have been made by molding linen to a shallow sculpture (aka a bas-relief) and dusting it with pigment, which thus picks up peaks and troughs.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#47

Post by card_zero »

brentpen wrote: post #39
appguy wrote: post #20

Something that amazes me about The Shroud of Turin is that if it was created in the 14th century, how did they create a photographic negative 400 years before the first known photographic negative was created in 1826 by Nicephore Niepce. It’s the most studied artifact in history and still no one knows how The Shroud was created.

Recent research has discovered the "stroboscopic effect" in the image. The hands and feet are moving when the image was imprinted on the shroud. Strobe lights didn't exist in the 14th century either.

Which priest or other religious zealot with a vested interest found this out?

Also, is the implication that undead Jesus was twitching rapidly and flashing on and off? That is kind of cool, perhaps I should get religion.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#48

Post by atombender »

appguy wrote: post #22
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

The wounds on the man on The Shroud match those of Jesus Christ in the Bible. The crown of thorns, scourging, crucifixion, piercing on the side.

Whoever manufactured the shroud was following the story in the Bible and made sure the image adhered the description of the crucifixion.

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#49

Post by prewett »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #37
graemep wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but nonetheless worth pointing out that almost all miracles attributed to Jesus have some point and/or symbolic importance (e.g. to relive suffering, as an illustration of who he was, etc.). A miraculous shroud just seems showy.

The symbolic importance of striking barren a fig tree that had the audacity to not be bearing fruit out of season.

The usual interpretations are that the fig tree represents the people of Israel, the religious leaders of Israel, and/or the Temple-system. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree because it is not bearing fruit, then cleans out the Temple from being a exploitative financial business instead of a house of worship, then immediately afterwards the disciples observe that the fig tree withered. The implication is that the Temple-system is judged, which fits in with several other statements Jesus makes elsewhere (such as not one stone of the Temple being left in place, in Matthew, if I remember correctly).

I've also heard that fig trees had sort of a pre-fruit, so it wasn't unreasonable to expect something, but I don't know if that's actually true or not. At any rate, the symbolic interpretation is still valid. (And, having been conquered by Rome, perhaps Israel was not in a season of fruit, either, strengthening the symbolic connection.)

Re: The Shroud of Turin: History and Legends

#50

Post by atombender »

fsckboy wrote: post #4
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

I don't get why it couldn't just be anybody's shroud. Didn't everyone at that time get a shroud.

your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then. you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away. you're right, no way to prove it was his and yo…

This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list.

The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.

Post reply on HN