Catherine Beyer, writes in About.com:
As a historian, one might presume I’d love the History Channel. I don’t. I tend to want to scream at it, because the History Channel needs viewers to make money and apparently spectacle and scandal draws more viewers than solid history.
So far, okay. I mean, Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars. But they do some good history too.
The Shroud of Turin is going on display in Turin Cathedral, and the History Channel has cashed in on the event with a special about "the real face of Jesus," which is about showing what Jesus actually looked like through examination of the shroud.
But the History Channel production, which is now years old, was not shown to cash in on the “display” of the Shroud on March 29. It was a repeat, repeated so many times now, that I failed to even blog about its Eastertide showing this year.
Beyer went on to write:
Forget the fact that the authenticity of the Shroud has long been questioned. There’s no historical record of its existence before the 14th century. Oops. And multiple carbon-datings of the shroud dates its creation to the 13th or 14th century. Oops.
But the History Channel has an answer for that, something that might mollify casual viewers but makes no sense within the context of studying history:
Since then, however, further studies have cast doubt on those results, suggesting that the shroud may indeed date back to the time of Jesus Christ’s life and death.
No, that does not suggest the Shroud dates back to the time of Jesus. If the carbon-dating is wrong, that means we have less evidence pointing to a Medieval dating. It does not miraculously produce evidence of a Biblical dating.
Oops. History Channel show didn’t say so. Watch the video again.
Beyer went on to quote Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin. That was a good idea.
There is no mathematical certainty that the Shroud is indeed the cloth in which Our Lord was wrapped. It is quite clear to all that our Christian faith is not based on the Shroud but on the Gospel and the teaching of the Apostles.
From her bio we learn that, “Catherine Noble Beyer is an educator, illustrator and web author, as well as a practicing Wiccan.” I have no issue with any on this – any of it. My issue is with her non-objective, seemingly uninformed, approach to the shroud’s history. As an historian, has she read any books on the Shroud’s history? Has she read any papers by Scavone or Markwart? Has she ever heard of the Pray Manuscript?
Casabianca Tristan writes from France:
I am pleased to inform you that I am the author of a new peer-reviewed article on the Turin Shroud which has just been published on the internet website of the Heythrop Journal (early view) : Tristan Casabianca, "The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach", The Heythrop Journal, 54, 3, 414-423, 2013.
It will be published in the print issue of May 2013 (vol. 54, 3, pp. 414-423) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
Abstract : Criteria of historical assessment are applied to the Turin Shroud to determine which hypothesis relating to the image formation process is the most likely. To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists. The result indicates that the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high; historians and natural theologians should therefore pay it increased attention.
Just two words on me: I am French, I was born in 1982, I am Ph. D student in law and economics (Aix-Marseille University), but I also graduated in modern history (Paris-IV Sorbonne) and history of political ideas (Aix-Marseille and Como, Italia). This article is of course much more related to my "historical" background.
Best regards and bravo for your precious blog!
I will be on Good Morning America tomorrow sometime between 7-8 AM. Film crew just left my house.
That would be EDT (New York) on Friday morning:
Worldwide Live Stream Options:
Gabriel, by way of a comment to another posting, informs us, “. . . today’s VATICAN INSIDER includes very interesting article by Gian Maria Zaccone Scientific director of the Museum of the Holy Shroud of Turin, Vice-director of the International Center of Sindonology of Turin and member of the Archdiocese of Turin’s Diocesan Commission for the Shroud.”
Human Science, I like the ring of it. Indeed the article is very interesting. Take the time to read it. This will give you a sense:
. . . the scientific research into the Shroud, begun at the start of the century, has contributed to making today’s debate even more fascinating and more heated. This is because although most of this research has not led to any concrete conclusions about how the figure on the Shroud was formed, all studies seem to exclude the possibility of a man-made image, given that the Shroud has been dated back to the medieval period.
Until the end of the Nineteenth century, research into the Holy Shroud had focused above all on the historical and to some extent theological aspects of the relic, but the problem of its so-called “authenticity” – which has been the main focus of scientific research – was limited to scholarly debates which were not of much interest to the wider public.
Historically, it was the devotional aspect of the Shroud that emerged as most important, attracting the interest of ordinary people who travel for miles to attend solemn ostentations. It is not intellectual curiosity in the Shroud’s origins, or their search for material grace that attracts the masses but their drive to search for something – a face, a figure – and their anxiousness to find out something that forms part of the deepest, innermost feelings of the human soul. Mgr. Ghiberti rightly underlined the fact that man’s encounter with the Shroud (especially if he or she is a faithful) is pre-scientific. Surveys carried out on pilgrims who attended the ostensions which took place between 1978 and today reveal that very few of them were drawn to Turin because of the question of the Shroud’s “authenticity”. So this is not a core part of their relationship with the relic. Instead, many were interested in the Shroud as a “sign” that becomes a “mystery” and “speak of violence and injustice,” “an image of peace, a sign of suffering.” But a suffering that goes beyond mere suffering: for believers, meditating on Christ’s death cannot be separated from the joy of Easter and vice versa: the Shroud therefore becomes a “symbol of life and resurrection.”
This is why the Holy Father and the Church in Turin wanted to give all the people of the world the chance to come face to face with the painful image imprinted on the Shroud, leaving the scientific question aside for once; the chance to set their eyes on "the one they have pierced” (John, 19:37), on Holy Saturday, the day of great silence of which the Shroud is an icon. An icon which illustrates the deep reflections of Benedict XVI, who was among the pilgrims to visit the Shroud in 2010.
John Long has posted the second part of The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: To the Great City at Associates for Biblical Research
Excerpt The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History is a four part review of the historical evidence for the Shroud of Turin from the 1st century to the beginning of the 15th. In Part 1 a mysterious picture slowly emerges from antiquity as a cloth on which Jesus supposedly imprints his face and sends to a king in the northern Mesopotamian city of Edessa. But during the 8th through 10th centuries additional evidence suggests that this is a large, folded cloth depicting Christ’s full, bloodied body.
The site includes direct links to all of the ENEA staff shroud papers, a short movie, and some very recent photos of experiments
2) From Colin Berry – This is a new site hosted as a blog. It is Colin’s latest strategy to try to get the attention of Sir Paul Nurse and the Royal Society (the UK’s academy of science). He wants them involved in shroud science. The chalkboard design and prejudicial wording of his home page clearly says it all:
I don’t think some of us are Colin’s favorite people as he writes (in chalk):
David Rolfe (already mentioned), scientists who freely admit to having theology as part of their remit: Dr.John Jackson of the Shroud Center, Colorado, subject of the Rolfe documentary, Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro of ENSA, Professor Luigi Fanti. Other individuals whose activities are questionable re pseudoscience: Daniel R Porter, Thibault Heimburger, MD, Barrie M. Schwortz, Russ Breault, Andy Weiss, Pam Moon, John Klotz, possibly a few more.
I actually hope he pulls it off. I can’t think of better publicity leading to better incentives and perhaps some money for further studies for the shroud. Is it going to happen? I doubt it.
3) From Gian Marco Rinaldi comes “An entirely new website of the Turin Center [that] is under construction. It is, apparently, a replacement for the so-called “official” Shroud of Turin website, sindone.org
Matthias, by way of an off topic comment, asks:
I know there has been some discussion in the past that the shroud might have been the table cloth for Christ’s last supper…a Jewish scholar has denied this…however there seems to be some evidence that table cloths WERE used by Jews around Christ’s time ie:refer here
“thoughts?” he asks
I thought you would never ask. Back in August of 2011, I posted here in the blog, Paper Chase: Was the Shroud of Turin Also the Tablecloth of the Last Supper?:
* * * Repeat Posting * * *
Every now and then we hear that the Shroud of Turin might have been a tablecloth used at the Last Supper before it was Jesus’ primary burial cloth.
I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced that a tablecloth was used by most or any Jews at the time of Christ. And if so, does it even matter?
A paper, Was the Shroud of Turin also the Tablecloth of the Last Supper? by John and Rebecca Jackson appears on the web, in Italian. (I’m looking for an English version). In the meantime, if you are not proficient in Italian, you can use Google Toolbar or Microsoft Bing to read a reasonable translation in English. Here are the first four paragraphs as translated by Google:
In this paper we present the hypothesis that the relic of the ‘ Last Supper , that the cloth was used for the table, still exists. For reasons which we will discuss, we will show that this tablecloth, a requirement for the Jewish Passover is the time of Christ, in fact, the Shroud of Turin. We believe that the Shroud of Turin is at the same time, the burial cloth of Jesus and the cloth for the Lord’s Supper served. If so, it would represent an important archaeological evidence of the first Eucharist.
We present our study only as a hypothesis that we wish could provoke further scientific research. This study represents a further deepening of what has been presented at the Conference on the Face of Faces, Christ, held in 1998. 1 We argued, then, is that the Shroud of Turin, exposed to Constantinople in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was actually the burial cloth of Jesus is that the fire occurred in 1532 meant that the test did the carbon be more recent than it actually was. 2 also indicate several studies showing that the Shroud and its image has different features, cultural and ethnological Jewish origin that proved it to be placed in the first century 3 .
If the Shroud of Turin is the actual, historical burial cloth of Jesus Christ, then it would have to be present at the historical foundation of the Church when it is extended out of its cradle of Judaism. After the events of the Gospel of the Passion, Death and Resurrection, began immediately powerful currents of traditions, theologies and liturgies based on the Resurrection. If the Shroud was the property of the original Judeo-Christian communities, it is then possible, and perhaps inevitable that it (the Shroud) was involved in the dynamics of development and growth of the early Church.
Noting that writing and art were used to obtain information on the history of the Shroud, we suggest that the Liturgy of the Church is also another potential vehicle of historical information that can be examined.
Rabbi Samson H. Levey, Emeritus Professor of Rabbinics and Jewish Religious Thought at Hebrew Union College, Los Angeles, provides some answers to the question. This appears on Barrie Schwortz’ shroud.com website.
I. To get a clear picture of Jewish life and practice during the first two centuries C.E. we must rely on the primary Tannaitic sources, namely the Mishnah, the Tosefta and the other Tannaitic passages dispersed throughout the Talmudim of Babylon (Bavli) and of the Land of Israel (Yerushalim).
During this period, a table was used for meals… We find no evidence that the Jewish people used different tables for the Sabbath and festivals, including Passover, than they ordinarily used; although they probably subjected it to a thorough cleaning, same as the rest of the house, to clear away the leaven immediately before Passover. (Mishnah, Pesahim, Ch.1 et passim)
What did the table look like? It had a square top (sometimes also a square bottom), usually made of wood, (Mishnah Kelim 16:1), pottery (Mishnah Kelim 2:3); overlaid with marble (ibid 22:1). It usually had three legs (ibid 22:2), and could accommodate three or four people. For larger groups, such as weddings, long boards were used (called dahavanot) (Tosefta Kelim, Baba Metzia, 5:3).
II. Table Cover: Food was ordinarily eaten off the bare table top (Bavli, Baba Batra 57b), and only the intellectual elite seem to have used a cloth to cover part of the small table for use as napkins to wipe their lips after eating (ibid). According to Maimonides, the Mishnah refers to a leather table covering (skortia), probably designed to protect the table from the elements (Mishnah Kelim 16:4). The only explicit reference to "a cover for tables" (Mishnah Makshirin 5:8) is explained as a sheet spread over the food (not the bare table) to protect it from flies and other insects. (M.Jastrow, Dictionary, vol.II, p.1396, col.1, bot. sub Kesiyah, Cf. P.Blackman, Mishnah VI, 682).
III. A sheet of any cloth, including a mixture of materials (shatnez) may be used as a shroud (Mishnah Kilayim 9:4). It is unlikely that one would be buried in an unclean sheet. The Tannaitic principle is expressed by Rabbi Meir (second century), that at the Resurrection the dead will arise wearing the same garments in which they were interred, and unclean raiment would be a disgrace (Bavli Sanhedrin 90b). Rabban Gamallel (first century) instituted the use of a plain linen shroud for everyone (Bavli Moed Katan 27b. Cf. Matthew 27:59).
Mother Nature Network has picked up Stephanie Pappas’ article from LiveScience published last April about de Wesselow’s book. MNN is a significant MSM online family, lifestyle and environmental issues journal, with a large readership. So here it is again if you missed it before (I seem to have):
"It’s nothing like any other medieval work of art," de Wesselow said. "There’s just nothing like it." [Religious Mysteries: 8 Alleged Relics of Jesus]
Among the anachronisms, de Wesselow said, is the realistic nature of the body outline. No one was painting that realistically in the 14th century, he said. Similarly, the body image is in negative (light areas are dark and vice versa), a style not seen until the advent of photography centuries later, he said.
"From an art historian’s point of view, it’s completely inexplicable as a work of art of this period," de Wesselow said.
Note: The bracketed [Religious Mysteries: 8 Alleged Relics of Jesus] was not added to the text by me.
Hugh Farey writes:
Over on Colin’s site the Pray Codex is being discussed, but I have a wider question which your readership might know something about. Has anybody, in connection with the shroud or not, translated the writing above the interment/resurrection page? And has anybody any idea why there is a lowercase ‘A’ labelling the cloth/tomb so prominently in the lower picture?
Anyone know the meaning of the ‘a’? Anyone have the translation?
You might want to start at the top of the comments and then join in at the posting Shroudie-Alert: Day 12: time now to write that long-overdue letter to the Royal Society…
Here are four illustrations (720×1089). They are also included below (600×908):
- The living Jesus
- Jesus being taken down from the cross
- The burial and resurrection of Jesus (pertains to the Shroud)
John Long has written an interesting article, ‘The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa,” which is posted at Associates for Biblical Research:
Special thanks to Professor Emeritus of History, University of Southern Indiana, Daniel Scavone for reviewing this paper and making suggestions for improvement. Special thanks also to Mr. Ian Wilson for pictures and especially for his historical reconstruction which this article follows.
Practically unknown outside European Catholic circles at the end of the 19th century, in the last 100 years modern scientific studies repeatedly have produced evidence consistent with the view that it is an old burial cloth and not human artistry (for a brief summary of the main conclusions see: A Summary of STURP’s Conclusions (off-site link). For how these influenced a professional archaeologist, see The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology (off-site link).
Wed 3/13 6:30pm
Saturday 3/16 6:15pm
Thurs 3/21 7:00pm, Fri 3/22 7:00 pm, Sat 3/23 1:00 pm and 8:00 pm
Blessed Sacrament Church
305 Laurentian Ln
This is in conjunction with a weeklong exhibition of the Vancouver Shroud Association’s exhibit (http://www.manoftheshroud.org/exhibit/)
Easter Sunday March 31, 10:45am
A reader writes:
I want to watch the Real Face of Jesus before Easter. Will the History Channel being showing again this year?
The online schedule for the History Channel (in the U.S.) only goes out to March 16 and Easter (Gregorian) is March 31. My bet is that the History Channel will show it again around Easter in the U.S., the U.K. and on some of other international History channels. So watch the schedule.
But you have several good options for watching this highly rated Shroud of Turin documentary:
1) You can watch it by linking to YouTube or you can watch it right here.
2) For $1.99, you can purchase a downloadable version (search for “Real face of Jesus”). This can be viewed with many television set top boxes, such as TIVO, or on your computer. You can watch it as often as you want. This version is available in HD format.
3) Tor $3.99, you can also purchase an Apple iTunes version for the iPad, iPhone or your computer.
4) For $24,95, you can buy the DVD from Amazon or the History Channel. It is often on sale for less.
I keep a fully licensed version on my laptop and another one on my iPhone. I’ve used the iPhone version with a large-screen projector to show clips of the show to an audience.
If you are going to be in the area, this is a wonderful opportunity to hear Barrie. His talks, based on scientific and historical facts, are inspirational and informative. According to The Progress, the newsletter of the Archdiocese of Seattle:
It seems improbable — a Jewish man traveling far and wide to tell Christians why he believes the Shroud of Turin is the true burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
But that’s just what Barrie Schwortz has found himself doing, nearly 35 years after he traveled to Italy as a documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, a group of scientists who studied the shroud in 1978.
"We went there to answer one question: How is the image formed?" Schwortz said from his home in Colorado. "We didn’t go there to prove it was Jesus or prove it was the Resurrection. Our goal was to simply go and figure out how the image was formed."
Although the team couldn’t answer that question, 18 years later the team’s work convinced Schwortz of the shroud’s authenticity. Since then, it has been his mission to disseminate fact-based information and images on his website, http://www.shroud.com, and through presentations and lectures — including a short course this April at the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome.
And here is the schedule:
Barrie Schwortz will speak about the Shroud of Turin in seven Western Washington communities March 2–7. Most presentations are sponsored by local Knights of Columbus councils; admission is free, but donations to help cover expenses may be requested at some locations.
Saturday, March 2
Monroe – 7 p.m., St. Mary of the Valley Church, 601 W. Columbia St.
Sunday, March 3
Bremerton – 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., Our Lady Star of the Sea Church, Cammerman Hall, 500 Veneta Ave.
Vancouver – 7 p.m., St. John the Evangelist Church, 8701 N.E. 119th St.
Monday, March 4
Vancouver – 9 a.m., St. Joseph Church, 400 S. Andresen Road.
Everett – 7 p.m., St. Mary Magdalen Church, 8517 Seventh Ave. S.E.
Tuesday, March 5
Seattle – 7 p.m., Knights of Columbus Council 676 Hall, 722 E. Union St.
Call 206-325-3410 to reserve a seat.
Wednesday, March 6
Bellingham – 7 p.m., Church of the Assumption, 2116 Cornwall Ave.
Thursday, March 7
Lynden – 1 p.m. and 7 p.m., Northwest Washington Fairgrounds Rotary Building, 1775 Front St.
From a history of art perspective, it is ludicrous to think that the image on the Turin Shroud is manmade. There is nothing like it in late Greco-Roman, Syrian, Latin-Christian or Byzantine art. There is nothing like it in Barbarian or Euro-pagan art. There is nothing like it in Asiatic, North African or Iberian Peninsula Islamic art. There is nothing like it in Carolingian, Ottonian, Romanesque or Gothic art. Four criteria apply here. They are style, technology, knowledge of human anatomy and material. To suggest that the Turin Shroud is a non-evolutionary unique exception without precedent or imitation to any one of these criteria is hard to believe. Considering all four makes it impossible.
Maybe Colin is right. Maybe I should be calling it the Lirey Badge to avoid confusion. Colin writes:
Yes, with a few seemingly mild admonitions that cleverly distort the truth Porter, with a few toxic words can summon up his pro-authenticity anti-sceptic troops. The latter finish off what Porter begins, like yesterday when my thinking on the Lirey Badge, or what Porter still unhelpfully insists on calling the “Cluny Medal”
I checked in with Google and found that page counts using . . .
- Cluny Medal is 490
- Lirey Badge is 1040
I wrote about Colin’s New Blogging Style but don’t bother to read what I wrote. It’s now boring. Just go to his blog, and starting at Shroudie-Alert: Day 4 (you may need to scroll down to Day 4) read downward until you get all the way to the bottom of “Shroudie-Alert: Day1. Chief topic: the Lirey Pilgrim’s Badge and that enigmatic chain…”
Has Colin just taken “I think I see” to a new level of what was for Rogers blatant pseudoscience? Colin certainly knows (and he could be more forthright in saying so) the waist chain he sees on the Cluny Medal is highly speculative. His imbedded drawing of Jacques de Molay in such a chain is simply I-don’t-know-what. Nickell-ish? Pseudohistory? And, of course, Colin has found a similar chain on the shroud. No, no. I’m not going to summarize. Go read his blog.
Later (higher up in the text) he goes into conspiracy theory mode when it comes to the Cluny Medal and shroud authenticity in general:
There is something profoundly wrong here. The Shroud of Turin is reputed to be the most studied artefact in history, but there seems to be an attempt (organized? systematic?) to hide away or suppress the first known souvenir/representation of the Shroud in European history – mid 14th century, coinciding with its very first public viewing. If nothing else, the Lirey pilgrim’s badge shows how the Shroud might have looked before the disfiguring 1532 fire, the latter sadly obliterating much detail. Maybe that’s the problem for some who are determined to push Shroud authenticity … who carefully choose which science, which history to proselytise, and which to sweep under the carpet.
Anyways, via Colin’s blog, thanks to Hugh Farey, we are all reminded of Mario Latendresse’s great “A Souvenir from Lirey” page. But don’t tell anyone about it so we can continue “to hide away or suppress the first known souvenir/representation . . .”
My iPhone buzzed while I was pouring my first cup of coffee: a comment on the blog. This one made me miss the cup and pour the coffee on the floor. Hugh Farey, shroud scholar of many years and long running member of BSTS just wrote:
In view of Yannick’s emphasis of the uniformity of the shroud, I wonder if he has anything to say about the great fire of 1532, when the shroud, folded into 32 layers, was subjected to the temperature of molten silver in its reliquary. Is it not remarkable that the outside layers suffered no more discolouration from the heat than the inside layers?
Does it trouble anyone that figure 12 in Gazay’s paper has “been processed to underscore” the E mark. That’s like saying I processed my lover’s initials in a tree. At the very least, Gazay should show us the picture before he drew on it so we could judge for ourselves.
This sculpture is potentially an important historical indicator. David Rolfe we need you. We need close up, HD, technically perfect photographs as only you can do. And Barrie Schwortz, of course.
Link to Gazay’s paper: http://www.cirac.org/Mandylion.pdf
The Curt Jester blog, written as he tells it, “by Jeff Miller a former atheist who after spending forty years in the wilderness finds himself with both astonishment and joy a member of the Catholic Church,” points us to another blog, Aliens in This World, “which often has interesting historical tidbits regarding the Church.”:
From a thing that showed up in the very late Middle Ages, called the “Letter of Lentulus,” which was presented as being a report from a Roman official (with a known historical name) to Tiberius, about the appearance and habits of Jesus. The letter was taken as eyewitness testimony by many, and the letter in some versions described Jesus’ hair and beard as “fair” and his face as “the color of wheat.” (Although other versions described His hair and beard as “the color of a ripe hazelnut”, ie, those things on the Nutella jar that are light brown and not at all fair. They also described His complexion as “reddish,” which had the symbolic meaning of someone optimistic, energetic — and honest enough to be able to blush.) So it wasn’t racism, so much as popular scholarship and Biblical fanfic (aka “pseudoepigrapha”), that led to blonde Jesuses.
The appearance of blonde or white-haired Jesuses in previous Christian art had always represented the Jesus of the Book of Revelation, Apocalyptic Jesus, Whose hair represents Him as ancient and eternal, or transfigured in light, and Who is dressed for His office as the eternal High Priest. Also, scary and impressive. Either way, His Divinity becoming as visible as His Humanity, rather than how He looked in His life normally on earth.
Most Western art follows the tradition of a bearded, dark Jesus because that’s how the Mandylion of Edessa looked. Ditto the Shroud of Turin and the byssus veil thing. Pictures and relics should generally outweigh literary descriptions; but the Lentulus letter was popular in Germany, a fur piece over the mountains from the Shroud and the byssus veil.
Jeff then wraps it up
Now I know who to blame. I really dislike blonde Jesus’ that seem to be so prevalent. Give me a Jewish looking Jesus any day. Now I don’t mind inculturation where religious images are adapted. If Mary can appear as Our Lady of Guadalupe, who am I to complain. So maybe blonde Jesus’ would not annoy me as much if I was to visit Scandinavia.
Great blog. Have a look at Where the Blonde Jesus Thing Came From » The Curt Jester
Paper Chase and Historical C14 Challenge: Relations of a Breton Calvary with the Shroud and the Templar Knights
Joe Marino sent along a link to a paper originally presented by François Gazay at the Dallas symposium in 2005. I was there but forgot about the paper until Joe sent me the link. It is quite remarkable. To my way of thinking, this subject has received far too little attention, far to little challenge or verification:
This study suggests that if this Calvary has these remarkable characteristics it is not by chance. The only valid explanation that can [be] advanced is that the sculptor of the Calvary saw the original or an extremely precise copy of the TS « head » very closely and then engraved the various components in the stone of the Calvary.
The representation of Mandylion in the shape of an icon within a landscaped frame similar to the frame of the image of Edessa can be explained only by a precise chronology of the events which made the history of the TS.
In addition, it should be noted that while the Shroud disappeared between 1206 and 1350, a Templar worship of a « magic head » or Baphomet appeared towards 1265. This worship was declared « idolatrous » in 1307 at the time of the arrest of Templars by the King of France Philippe the Beautiful, and was used as the indictment basis for the inquisitors [ the Holy Office during the Trial of the Templars until 1314.
Link to paper: http://www.cirac.org/Mandylion.pdf