lumax

I would like to put out something I didn't see posted here(or maybe I missed). Even if they are actually able to date the shroud to the year of Christ's death it still doesn't prove it is his death shroud it just proves what year the cloth is from. There is no note attached that says "This is Jesus." Many people were crucified at that time(if it is real) and if it is a forgery - well many "holy relics" are not real so that should not really be a shock to the Catholics at least.

Antipope Innocent II

It's the Priory of Sion. And they do bring it into their theory about Leonardo and the "Shroud". As for the other crap, I mentioned that to give you an idea of the kind of kooks you're dealing with. These two clowns have made a living from writing books on all kinds of so-called "mysteries" and "cover ups". I suspect they laugh every time some gullible fool buys one of their crappy paperbacks.

I was referring to why the documentary you mentioned calls him "Da Vinci".

Ouch. Yet you then proceed to do just that ...

Big deal. Aristotle had described the use of a camera obscura and the medieval Arabic scholar Alhazen's works made it well known to Medieval European scholars. The fact that Leonardo was familiar with it means nothing - it was a well-understood concept.

As did thousands of earlier people who also understood the camera obscura concept. Again, big deal.

Because Picknett and Prince say so?! Give me a break. Microscopist Walter McCrone disagrees.

Because there's no consensus on how the painting was done. Plenty of theories though and none of them require Leonardo da Vinci.

Of course - he used 150 year old cloth! It all becomes clear.


Leonardo was related to a Pope? Pardon?

And the evidence for this is ... ?

Nope. This is just a fantasy cooked up by Picknett and Prince. The "Shoud" pops in and out of the documentary history about a dozen times throughout its early history simply because that's the nature of Medieval documentary evidence.

The "crazy shit" was the other "crazy shit" Picknett and Prince have been selling. If you want to trust the baseless speculations and fantasies of these two cranks, be my guest.

Excuse me for knowing what I'm talking about. I get "excited" about lots of subjects that intersect with my main historical interests. This is just one of them.

badger3k

I'm at work and skimming this, but did anyone bring up the fact that most descriptions of burial shrouds were of multiple pieces, or that the weave pattern seems to have not been in use during the first century? I remember this from another show on Nat Geo (I think - it was too skeptical to be on the History Channel), where they found a first century burial which was different than the supposed shroud (although to be fair, would they use the same covering for a corpse that was probably either going to be cremated or thrown into a common grave? - allowing for the description to be historical).

Joan of Bark

This is a point I wanted to make. It ties in with my claim that it looks like a medievelist's image of how Jesus was always portrayed: i.e. "It looks just like Jesus! So it must be Jesus!"