The Real Face Of Jesus (PHOTOS): History Channel Special Examines Shroud Of Turin

Last night, the History Channel aired "The Real Face Of Jesus," a documentary featuring the work of computer artists who recreated the face of Jesus in 3D based on the Shroud of Turin.

The Shroud of Turin, a blood-stained linen that many believe was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, has been questioned for centuries on its authenticity. But new tests are underway to verify it, and the team featured on "The Real Face Of Jesus" has no doubt the Shroud is real.

"Is this the artifact of a real person or not? Definitely it is," Ray Downing, the main digital illustrator featured, told Alan Boyle of MSNBC.

The program will re-air on the History Channel on Saturday, Apr. 3 at 8 p.m. Eastern Time.

Check out screenshots from "The Real Face Of Jesus" 3D renderings below:

Comments

[hounddog1]

10:04 PM on 05/05/2010

This is an interesting article. The shroud may well remain a mystery for generations to come. As to whether Jesus Christ is real or a fake, I know for a fact that He is real and very much alive.

[Serenade]

03:20 PM on 04/21/2010

Just out of curiosity, what does the authenticity of this particular item (which I do not believe is real) have to do with the existence and deity of Jesus?

[DanGreen]

03:03 PM on 04/19/2010

This entire subject belongs in the same realm as creationism, astrology and UFO's. The Shroud of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus. It is from the 14th century. I assume all you commenters have computers connected to the internet (since you're responding to this post.) Take five minutes to visit the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm, which will provide you with the Vatican's official view of this object. Long story short: it's a work of art purported to be Christ's burial cloth. This is how it was originally presented to the Church in the 14th centyury, and the Church makes no bones about it being a representation, and not the real thing.. They also acknowledge that it has been worshipped as a holy artifact in years past, but they're also clear as can be that it's not "authentic." Any speculation that it might be real cannot be based on evidence, because none exists. Period.

[swneily]

02:50 AM on 04/12/2010

Many of you have misrepresented the process and science that was used in developing the 3D image. Based on my 3D Graphics and Animation background, I found their process to be very sound.
Christ is mentioned in Jewish and Muslim scriptures as a Prophet, not the Son of God. So the Bible is not the only historical document that mentions Jesus Christ. I would challenge those who say that the Bible is not a historical record to prove that it isn't rather than simply profess that it isn't.
There are many things about the Shroud of Turin that simply can't be explained. The pigment of the image penetrates the fibers of the Shroud by less than a quarter of the thickness of a human hair. This pigment is the same consistency across the entire Shroud with the exception of the blood stains. This is to be expected since the Shroud was placed on a bloody body.
Carbon 14 testing is not always conclusive. The explanation given for why the Carbon 14 test conducted on the Shroud of Turin may have been inaccurate is very probable. When the test was conducted more than one area of the Shroud should have been tested, preferably from unrelated areas. Frequently handled areas should always be avoided. Those who did the testing should have known this.
Rather than simply saying the Shroud of Turin is fake support your position with facts.

[DanGreen]

03:07 PM on 04/19/2010

There are no facts which can prove the existence of a negative. I say the Shroud of Turin is fake based on three different carbon dating tests by three separate labs. Those are irrefutable facts. "There are many things about the shroud that can't be explained" is not refutation of these facts, or refutation of anything. There are many things about everything that can't be explained. What does that prove? Is this what you call scientific method?

[Dunkleberger Karl]

03:37 AM on 04/20/2010

no science is irrefutable! Evidence is based on perponderance!

[lilrock01]

08:57 AM on 04/28/2010

how can you be sure anything happens now adays. everyone has faith. it depends what you believe in.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

02:30 AM on 04/11/2010

perhaps you missed it, but there was a seperate cloth that covered christs face as well,any one remembe the name of that cloth?

[TanzaniaTeacher]

12:36 PM on 04/12/2010

It would be one of the vera iconas.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

03:39 AM on 04/20/2010

thank you, and god bless , would you have knowage about the last historic event mentioning the Vera iconas?

[2tired2care]

12:47 AM on 04/13/2010

The cloth that you are referring to is called 'The Sudarium of Oviedo', and is kept in Spain.

Oddly enough, the stains on the Sudarium exactly match those on the head portion of the Shroud. Additionally, tests done on both the Sudarium and the Shroud confirmed that the blood stains on both cloths were of the same type: AB, a common blood type among Middle Eastern people but fairly rare among medieval Europeans. Pollen residues on both the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium provide strong evidence that both were at one point in the Palestine area.

Most believe that the Sudarium and the Shroud covered the same man. The Sudarium can be dated back to 570. That poses a problem for those that believe the shroud was "faked" (although they still have no explanation for how) in the 1200's.........

[leg17]

02:04 AM on 04/13/2010

2tired
These pesky things called facts will probably be ignored here. The blood, the pollen, the cloth itself, the lack of 'ochre'. How many things point to an early Palestine origin? But the preponderance of evidence will be overlooked and the carbon test will 'prove' everthing.

But there is a lot more than this Shroud that you are aware of.

True faith is not wishful thinking. It is based on TRUTH. Truth that is based on true facts. But it is more than knowing the facts. It is trusting and believing.

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Jeremiah 29:13
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

Don't stop searching. It is very important.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

03:42 AM on 04/20/2010

are their more than one cloth called the sudarium of oviedo, or the vera iconas, or are they one and the same?I know they are not the shoud ....

[booboopickle]

08:51 AM on 04/09/2010

the moment of 'resurrection" Caught on Tape!!!!!!!!! This is their most desperate and pathetic attempt yet!

[rbenjamin]

09:17 AM on 04/08/2010

An unfortunately typical example of what passes for science on the cable channels. Repetitious, yet disjointed, the argument is almost impossible to follow through the endless commercial breaks. Barely watchable if you have fast forward. What has been accomplished at the end? The tenuous provenance of the shroud is buffed up as much as possible. An animated face has been painted with state of the art computer graphics onto a heavily massaged shape. Tons of speculation was introduced about how the image on the cloth has to be remapped to account for distortion of a flat cloth lying on a 3D body. In the end, this vexing problem was solved with a store bought statue of Jesus, a magic marker and a sheet of paper. Come on, lame Os. You could do the same thing to a GI Joe or a Barbi and it would look pretty impressive. Pick the right distortion and you could use a Micky Mouse figurine. There are no contemporary images of Jesus, there are no clear accounts of what he looked like in the Gospels. All we have to judge the results against is various artistic traditions. So how do we have any idea that this expense recreation is any good? Faith, I guess, but not science. Faking relics was a big business in medieval times. Guess what. It's baaaack!!!!

[Kiri sute gomen]

04:15 PM on 04/09/2010

Spot on.

[qaan]

07:00 AM on 04/08/2010

Wouldn't it be great if there was DNA on it? Then we could replicate the DNA, put it in a mouse, and see if the mouse can walk on water. That would clear up the mystery perfectly.

The History Channel has really turned into the Speculative Channel. Super Earthquakes, Nostradamus, etc. Sure, it used to be mockingly called the Goose-Step Channel, but now it's just bad re-enactments of things.

[Kiri sute gomen]

01:21 AM on 04/08/2010

I would of expected J.C. to be a bit darker skinned, even after leaving the body.

[2tired2care]

01:31 AM on 04/08/2010

Deceased bodies tend to be pale.

[Kiri sute gomen]

08:49 PM on 04/08/2010

I have worked at a tissue bank. I have seen enough vessels to know they do not transform in color to the extent this picture wants us to believe.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

02:39 AM on 04/11/2010

only if embalmed, after 24 hours te hue of the tissue can be black/blue hues with blood pooling and riggor setting in ,frost bite and brns further darken the skin in the deceased,wih putridacaion of flesh soon to follow, this attacts animals and insects,to speed decomposition and laterdecay, of course I could be wrong as I only attended 2 autopsies, and recovered less than 2 dozen bodies fom varied states of pst mortum,not including mummified remains in Ca. and korea I never mentioned till now!(was in the army)

[jfair80]

04:07 PM on 04/07/2010

This is nonsense. Carbon Dating suggest the shroud is only about 1000 years old.

[eddiestardust]

08:40 PM on 04/07/2010

Ever hear of Pollen or Bio plastic?

[2tired2care]

12:43 AM on 04/08/2010

Scientists and textile experts have since concluded that the samples taken from the shroud were from a repair - and not the original cloth;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168962/Is-Turin-Shroud-genuine-From-grave-startling-new-claim.html

[rbenjamin]

08:44 AM on 04/08/2010

Rogers relies on a novel and unverified dating method. His textile experts are unnamed. The patch hypothesis is not a scientific consensus, it is a last ditch justification for the relic's first century age. Barely plausible in isolation, silly in the totality of evidence.

[DanGreen]

03:16 PM on 04/19/2010

Indeed? What scientists and textile experts?

[FreelanceMinion]

01:20 PM on 04/07/2010

Why is this a story? Why are people wasting air time on this? We all, Christians and Atheists, know this shrowd is a fake. This is not how 1st Century Jews wrapped their people, it dates from the wrong time and is colored by pigments not blood.
We may want to keep it as an inspirational artwork, but that's all it is.
PS-- Can we sue the History Channel saying that the use of "History" in their name is false advertising?

[eddiestardust]

08:41 PM on 04/07/2010

So, all knowing and all seeing one...

TELL US HOW IT WAS MADE, STEP BY STEP....

[TheSojourner]

06:31 AM on 04/10/2010

I can't tell you how it was made, but, I did see a demonstration on how making this was possible. By using techniques and pigments that would be easily available to the time period when this was "discovered". Looked exactly like the same conformation of this shroud.

[DanGreen]

03:22 PM on 04/19/2010

That's a bullshit argument. Tell me how the Mona Lisa was made step by step. Tell me how St. Peter's Basilica was built step by step. Tell me how the space shuttle was built step by step. Your refusal to accept the scientific evidence that's already been produced is pathetic.

[2tired2care]

01:11 AM on 04/08/2010

"Colored by pigments not blood"??? Even the skeptics concede that all scientific data done on the shroud confirms that it is blood. Not just blood, but human blood and was loaded with bilirubin - which the body only produces under extreme trauma.

[jbmorgan86]

12:31 AM on 04/07/2010

As a bible scholar I must say that neither the History Channel nor Discovery Channel can be trusted in regards to religious content. They simply present fringe scholars with absurd ideas that the guild of academia is not even concerned about. Unfortunately, the populace does not know the difference between these fringe scholars and real bible scholars.

[eddiestardust]

08:42 PM on 04/07/2010

And as a Bible Scholar, you should have told us that the Gospel does tell us that not all of the Miracles that Jesus did were told either.

[SpaceboySD]

02:09 PM on 04/06/2010

I'm pretty sure that guy in the second picture was driving the cab I took downtown last week.

[inoddwetrust83]

01:03 PM on 04/06/2010

I am willing to believe that Jesus existed as a man and that he was a mensch, a truly good person. The teachings attributed to him are valuable words of wisdom, although many of them are teachings that pre-date his life, and really seem like they ought to be common sense to me. There is documentation that other writings were left out of the BIble, that it has been translated and transliterated copiously, and that the very divinity of Jesus was voted into being. This does not, however, take away from the simple wisdom of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

But why the fixation on what Jesus looked like rather than what he said? What difference does it really make? We already know the current depiction is totally off (by the way...what happened to that bit about graven images and idolatry?) And then, assuming this aspect of the mythology is true, how can anyone be sure he'd look the same? Or even be a he?

[cocl]

05:14 PM on 04/06/2010

"what happened to that bit about graven images"?

Well, shortly after "that bit" God orders His people to make a wooden Ark with big metal angels on top of it, and make that the center of their worship. He also tells them to make a copper snake, priestly clothes full of images, and all sorts of other things. And Solomon's temple seems to have had plenty of imagery. As do the synagogue ruins that can still be seen in Israel.

So obviously that prohibition cannot mean a general prohibition of images, but a prohibition of idols, and idol worship. Otherwise God encouraged the breaking of His own laws, and Israel committed idolatry whenever they prayed, knelt or prostrated themselves before the Ark of the Covenant. Which would be kind of a silly accusation...

As for the "fixation", it is my experience that non-believers are far more fixated in disproving it. Personally, I think it's nice if it's true (and the evidence is getting stronger), but I certainly don't NEED that kind of crutch for my faith. People like to have photographs of their loved ones, though. Even Jews and such Christians who claim images are idols.

[inoddwetrust83]

08:40 PM on 04/06/2010

You know, it's very interesting that you choose to attack me, even in simply in dubbing me a 'non-believer'. I made no accusations. I said nothing disrespectful. Questions are important.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

03:12 AM on 04/11/2010

graven images , are jewish and muslim wrongs, jesus was not a jew!

[inoddwetrust83]

06:27 PM on 04/11/2010

Um...Jesus was a Jew. Very much so. And that's all I'm going to say.

[Atomicjim]

09:37 PM on 04/05/2010

"Is this the artifact of a real person or not? Definitely it is," Ray Downing, the main digital illustrator featured, told Alan Boyle of MSNBC."

But who? who is the real person whose face is on the shroud? Dowing NEVER says this is the face of Jesus.

[Cantinflas]

10:25 PM on 04/05/2010

In the past the image or person on the cloth has simply been referred to as "the shroud man." As far as I know, from reading I've done in the past, no seriuos scholar has said that it is definitely Jesus of Nazarethe but that it is the image of someone who appeared to have been beaten, flogged, stabbed in the side, and crucified.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

03:13 AM on 04/11/2010

In other words a poor person in a roman city without means nor conections (definitly not a jew)