Did a medieval artist use Emily Craig’s technique to create the Shroud’s image?

imageJon Jefferson, who along with Bill Bass, makes up the author(s) Jefferson Bass of The Inquisitor’s Key, writes about his researching the novel in Fact/Fiction: The beautifully blurry line – in writing, life, and religion:

But what I wondered about more was the image on the Shroud. Ever since the cloth was first displayed, in the 1350s, controversy has raged: Is the Shroud genuine, the faint image of the crucified Christ? Or is it a hoax from the Middle Ages – the heyday, mind you, of fake relics – created (as one bishop at the time wrote to warn the pope) by a clever artist for the cynical purpose of attracting pilgrims to Lirey, France, the town where it was first displayed?

For more than a century now – ever since a photographic negative of the Shroud created a more haunting, ghostly image – scientists have weighed in, time and again, on both sides of the authenticity question. One of these scientists – a friend of mine, a former medical illustrator who’s now a forensic anthropologist – has published a journal article explaining (and demonstrating) a simple “dust transfer” technique that a medieval artist could have used to create the faint, haunting image on linen. But did a medieval artist use that technique to create the image

I thought the world had forgotten about the strange theory of Emily A. Craig and Randall R. Bresee.

I guess we will need to wait until May 8, the planned release date, to find out Hardcover, Kindle and large-print editions will be available then.

2 thoughts on “Did a medieval artist use Emily Craig’s technique to create the Shroud’s image?”

  1. I’m wondering if there is any way they could determine if the image was forged? Wow, that is really mischievous deed for an artist to do. Even back then people’s honesty should still be questioned. This is a very interesting commentary!

  2. Again, the only thing I can say to Kirsten, Jefferson, Bass and others can be tempted to believe a medieval forger could have created the Shroud using some kind of artistic technique is this : Read my recent open letter that you can find here : https://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/please-dont-forget-the-evidence-of-the-bloodstains/#comments

    The bloodstains on the Shroud are the very best PROOF that this relic WAS NOT created by any kind of artistic technique and, on the contrary, is a REAL burial cloth of a REAL tortured, scourged and crucified man. I think the evidence of the bloodstains is always forgotten, every time someone proposed the idea that the Shroud was created by a medieval forger using some kind of artistic technique… It’s sad because that prove one thing : those people didn’t make a full and proper research on the subject before talking. Here, of course, I’m not talking about Kirsten who simply asked the question. I talk about all the Craig, Breese, Allen, Nickell and Garlaschelli of this world, along with those who support their work !!!

    And what’s important to note about my comment is that I just used the most evident proof (the evidence of the bloodstains) that the Shroud was not created by an artist ! Effectively, I could add many other facts about the body images themselves or about the fact that all the bloodstains acted in a proper forensic way for someone who died in an upward position, but I think it’s unnecessary… The lone fact that the blood on the Shroud is real blood and that this blood come from exudates of traumatic blood clots is well enough to understand that this relic is a real burial shroud of a real crucified man. Simply look at EVERY attempt of reproducing the Shroud with some kind of artistic technique and look at the blood they created ! The fact is that there is none of them who created the bloodstains with any kind of forensic credibility and none of them can proclaim their bloodstains are a perfect match with the bloodstains on the Shroud ! In reality, history tell us that the bloodstains on the Shroud are even harder to recreated than the body images ! Yes, in the sense that some artistic technique (i.e. the rubbing technique used by Garlaschelli) can produce a body image with some kind of resemblance with the Shroud body images, what I just said is true. Of course, nobody has been able to recreate perfectly the body image on the Shroud but this is even more true regarding the bloodstains !!! Why ? Simply because of the fact that those stains came from a direct contact between a linen shroud and a beaten, scourged and crucified body (who had wear a cap of thorns shortly before being put in the shroud).

    Now, for the question of authenticity versus Jesus of Nazareth, it’s another story, but even then, the odds are overwhelming in favor of the authenticity of the cloth.

    But in this case (i.e, the question of whether or not this is Jesus burial cloth), unlike the question of whether or not this is an authentic burial shroud of someone (science can say a definitive yes to that question), I have to honestly admit that science is not able (and I think science will never be able) to state categorically (without any doubt whatsoever) that this burial shroud was the real burial shroud of Jesus. It will always be a question of probabilities. In fact, the only thing science could proclaim one day is that this cloth was not the one of Jesus. And this could only happen if, one day in the future, new and solid evidence really prove that this cloth is not at least 2000 years old. But personally, having read all the important facts regarding this burial shroud, I think the chances for that to happen are EXTREMELY low (I would guess something below 1%).

    So, I’ll say it again : You can forget any hypothesis that involved some kind of artistic technique. This is not the road to follow if you really seek the truth. After all the evidence in support of the fact that the Shroud is a real burial shroud of someone, I just can’t believe that there is still people who believe it is some kind of artwork ! Incredible… That’s the word !!!

    P.S. : In addition to all the arguments I bring forward in my open letter about the bloodstains, there’s 2 important facts I should have mentioned :

    1- Around most bloodstains on the Shroud, there is a clear liquid stain that had been proved to be made of serum coming from a blood clot. How in the world an artist could have created those stains that are only visible under UV light ? You can forget about that nonsense right now !!!
    2- Under the bloodstains and even under the serum stains, there is NO body image, proving that the blood and the serum come first on the cloth and only after that, the body image was formed. In any case involving some kind of artistic technique, it’s precisely the opposite that happens. Yes, EVERYTIME, the artist would put the body image first, and then he would add the bloodstains. The opposite of that (like we see on the Shroud) goes against any known artistic method that could have been used to created a relic of the same nature than the Shroud.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: