Have you listened to the recent Tucker Carlson episode about this? I am inclined to believe, as neutrally as I can, that it probably does depict a 1st century Judean crucifixion victim.
The guest on the show is pretty unlikeable for me, he drips with Prot rhetoric (they love quantified factoids that are designed to land with shock value against uninformed audiences) and gets a couple details wrong, but his defense of the SOT was still really good. I am most convinced by the “blinding light” argument because I doubt either ancients or medievals had the ability to produce it. There are also, as you wrote, marks all over the Shroud that clearly indicate the unique life and death of Jesus. As in, I don’t think this is a random Galilean man. It’s either what Christians claim it is, or an attempt at copying what the shroud would’ve looked like.
Also, there are many living relics today that are not forgeries. Tucker’s guest said the same thing, that there are “only 2 miraculous relics”, when there are actually hundreds. These shouldn’t be discounted as actual evidence.
Your summary of the eastern (Orthodox) perspective appears to be spot on. We have miraculous relics, but we aren’t super interested in squeezing the Soyence out of them. For example, my bishop had aggressive cancer that defied modern medicine. The miraculous relics of a saint (unnamed for privacy) at first eased his symptoms when present and later contributed to remission of his cancer. At no point was anyone involved interested in sending them to a university for testing. Ditto for the myriad weeping icons that are almost common across the world
I cannot agree that the shroud isn't particularly impressive. Dr Nicholas Allen calls it the space program of its age. Even if he is wrong about the photographic theory, it was made in a completely original methodl. I wouldn't say that it was no big deal at the time either. I'm not an expert on relics, but I cannot think of any other so frequently depicted in medieval art. The mediaeval bishop that denounced it as a fraud was angry that it was taking tourists, or, err, pilgrims, away from his cathedral, not because it wasn't a convincing or impressive work.
Here is Dr Allen's presentation in case you haven't seen it:
“The Shroud of Turin's negative image, discovered in 1898 by Secondo Pia's photograph, is not explained by the technology of the 1300s. While the image is a negative, meaning light and dark areas are reversed compared to a normal photograph, the techniques for creating such an image were not known until much later.
Here's why this is significant:
The process of capturing and developing photographic images, which involves light-sensitive materials and chemical processes, was unknown in the 1300s.
It's not a simple reversal of tones, but a photographic negative, which requires a specific understanding of light and chemistry.”
If the shroud was indeed a forgery, as many suggest, how would someone in the 1300’s, which is when the shroud was first publicly displayed, (in the West), 500 years before photography was invented, decide to ‘paint' the image as a photographic negative? How would that have even been possible?
Listen to the video of Dr Allen's camera obscura hypothesis if you have time. Skip to about 1hr30 if you have to. He recreates the style of the Shroud's image using a method that had been known for centuries by that point
But as far as I understand it, the camera obscura itself did not use photographic negatives when it was first invented. It was a purely optical device that projected an image, not a photographic one. The development of photographic negatives came much later, with the invention of light-sensitive materials that could capture and preserve the projected image.
Can we get a physiognomy check though?
Have you listened to the recent Tucker Carlson episode about this? I am inclined to believe, as neutrally as I can, that it probably does depict a 1st century Judean crucifixion victim.
The guest on the show is pretty unlikeable for me, he drips with Prot rhetoric (they love quantified factoids that are designed to land with shock value against uninformed audiences) and gets a couple details wrong, but his defense of the SOT was still really good. I am most convinced by the “blinding light” argument because I doubt either ancients or medievals had the ability to produce it. There are also, as you wrote, marks all over the Shroud that clearly indicate the unique life and death of Jesus. As in, I don’t think this is a random Galilean man. It’s either what Christians claim it is, or an attempt at copying what the shroud would’ve looked like.
Also, there are many living relics today that are not forgeries. Tucker’s guest said the same thing, that there are “only 2 miraculous relics”, when there are actually hundreds. These shouldn’t be discounted as actual evidence.
Your summary of the eastern (Orthodox) perspective appears to be spot on. We have miraculous relics, but we aren’t super interested in squeezing the Soyence out of them. For example, my bishop had aggressive cancer that defied modern medicine. The miraculous relics of a saint (unnamed for privacy) at first eased his symptoms when present and later contributed to remission of his cancer. At no point was anyone involved interested in sending them to a university for testing. Ditto for the myriad weeping icons that are almost common across the world
I cannot agree that the shroud isn't particularly impressive. Dr Nicholas Allen calls it the space program of its age. Even if he is wrong about the photographic theory, it was made in a completely original methodl. I wouldn't say that it was no big deal at the time either. I'm not an expert on relics, but I cannot think of any other so frequently depicted in medieval art. The mediaeval bishop that denounced it as a fraud was angry that it was taking tourists, or, err, pilgrims, away from his cathedral, not because it wasn't a convincing or impressive work.
Here is Dr Allen's presentation in case you haven't seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQdZOtwrtI
What's with all the anti-christianity stuff all the sudden
“The Shroud of Turin's negative image, discovered in 1898 by Secondo Pia's photograph, is not explained by the technology of the 1300s. While the image is a negative, meaning light and dark areas are reversed compared to a normal photograph, the techniques for creating such an image were not known until much later.
Here's why this is significant:
The process of capturing and developing photographic images, which involves light-sensitive materials and chemical processes, was unknown in the 1300s.
It's not a simple reversal of tones, but a photographic negative, which requires a specific understanding of light and chemistry.”
If the shroud was indeed a forgery, as many suggest, how would someone in the 1300’s, which is when the shroud was first publicly displayed, (in the West), 500 years before photography was invented, decide to ‘paint' the image as a photographic negative? How would that have even been possible?
Listen to the video of Dr Allen's camera obscura hypothesis if you have time. Skip to about 1hr30 if you have to. He recreates the style of the Shroud's image using a method that had been known for centuries by that point
I will check it out.
But as far as I understand it, the camera obscura itself did not use photographic negatives when it was first invented. It was a purely optical device that projected an image, not a photographic one. The development of photographic negatives came much later, with the invention of light-sensitive materials that could capture and preserve the projected image.