Mary MacKay writes in Mystery Map Exposed in The Guardian of Charlottetown on Prince Edward Island:
It’s a mystery of history akin to the Shroud of Turin or the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And of course we are interested because of Walter McCrone’s debunking of the Vinland Map.
And since 1965 when Yale University announced the discovery of an alleged 15th century Vinland map [click on map for large, high definition, Commons freely licensed media image] that detailed an 11th century exploration of the New World by Norsemen hundreds of years before Christopher Columbus, its validity has been a source of controversy.
But McCrone isn’t even mentioned. Nonetheless, it is now once again a fake in the minds of some researchers. There is this:
Raiswell says at that level the map seems to ring true, but a key point he noticed during his research for the Treasures Decoded show had to do with one of the cartography images.
“Greenland is shown as an island. It’s really quite an important thing because nobody circumnavigated Greenland until the 20th century. So why does the person who drew this map think of Greenland as an island?
And how about this for a theory:
So who crafted the map? And when? A theory by Norse scholar Kirsten Seaver, who was also an expert on the Vinland map Treasure Decoded show, identifies an Austrian Jesuit priest in the late 1930s as a likely culprit.
“At that point Austria has just been taken over by the Nazis and this man is the head of a private religious library in Austria. The Nazis of course aren’t particularly enthusiastic about Catholics. They’re beginning to loot the treasures and so on,” Raiswell says. “And what Kirsten Seaver argues is that what this map does is shows the whole world is actually Christian very, very early. . . . so this Jesuit priest is putting this map together more as just wishful thinking and perhaps to use against the Nazis at some point as a propaganda exercise just to say ‘Well the whole world’s Christian and has been Christian since the 11th century and here’s a map which shows that Christians were the ones who discovered the New World, Christians were the ones who were in Asia and Christians were the ones who were in Africa. . . .’”
The belief is that the priest then bound the map into a book with the other medieval documents and put it in the library, which was then pillaged by the Nazis and through the fickle finger of fate made its way to Yale University where Raiswell got to view it firsthand last summer.
[Posted] August 27, 2013 By Mark Shea
He offers a  nice discussion of the state of the Question, followed by an absolutely  fascinating speculative reconstruction of its history, featuring a gob of documentation I was unfamiliar with. After this, I think it’s pretty darn hard to buy the “It was made in the 1340s” line of dogma.
My challenge to Shroud skeptics and similar Atheism of the Gaps types remains unchanged. If it’s a fake, make another one.
Again because you really should read these:
Note: I had linked to the first part (nice discussion) on August 14 with Or it is the first century burial cloth of Yussuf Schmoe?
Here is a paper I wrote last spring on the Shroud of Turin. I have to admit that I was beyond skeptical about the Shroud. I thought it was a medieval forgery and that Christians that claimed it was one of the burial cloths of Christ were bringing discredit to Christians in general. My intent in writing the paper was actually do some research so that I could speak intelligently about it being a forgery. However, facts are relentless, and the week before I started to write the paper a new dating test conclude the Shroud dates from the 1st century. If you take one fact, the carbon dating in 1988, you will come to the conclusion that it is a medieval forgery. However, all other data, points to a relic from the first century. What changed my mind was three pieces of evidence, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the fact that the piece dated in 1988 came from a part that was repaired during the 1500’s, and the new dating tests that utilize non-destructive dating methods.
One final note: The Shroud of Turin is not something that proves the Resurrection of Jesus. However, the Resurrection of Jesus is currently the best explanation as to how the image got on the Shroud.
It is a good paper. Do read it.
A high school group, the Senior High Sojourners, from First Presbyterian Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma, visits the museum in the Notre Dame Center. One student writes:
We made our way over to the holographic display of a crucified version of the man imprinted in the shroud that is behind a sheet-covered statue. My Dad explained that the sculpture is the creation —thanks to technology and computer graphics of 3 dimensional proportions of the mysterious man, allowing these technicians to built the body that was super-imposed onto the burial cloth.
As Steve and my Dad removed the draped sheet that was covering a life-sized man- drained of was all light and life. I was completely awestruck, I suddenly felt the need of a chair, for standing seemed quite difficult. I struggled to find my breath. Looking into the face of a man stricken with death– and one of the most torturous sorts. Just soaking him in, all of his lifelessness. For me it wasn’t the usual hollow emptiness of a statue. This was like no other sculpture I’d ever experienced. Because it was that…an experience.
I don’t think that it was simply the interpretations or scientific observations that had been discovered, dissected, and parsed from the shroud. It was more this image, or rather human being, whom I was gazing upon. A man– so emaciated by compassionless pain and forsaken death that to me was a frozen proof of horror and unimaginable sorrow staring me in the face.
Representations of this event of passion moves me, but not in the hands down irrefutable, incomparable way that this Man of the Shroud brought upon me.
An unshakable distraught-ness. A feeling of helplessness, as well as of shame, guilt, mercy and undeserved love washed over me. Regardless of the fact that the man in the shroud could very well just be a man. There was an equal possibility that he could also have been Jesus.
I have been overwhelmed before..but never have I been so emotionally, spiritually, and physically rocked by anything. I will never think of Good (unbelievable) Friday in the same way ever again– It
wasn’t that i didn’t hold a reverence for it before. But there is just some quality or characteristic that was represented in this crucified man’s face and body. a possibility of what He may have looked like– an actual crucified man, or truly the Prince of Peace’s countenance that can never be transferred through any silver screen. I don’t care who the director is.
Tonight was earthshaking of the highest caliber on my Richter Scale.
This night will be forever set apart in my mind.
This one visit makes the research and efforts of so many people all worth it.
"We have no way of really knowing its background and where it came from,"Jonathan Rosenbaum, an expert in antiquities forgery told FoxNews.com. "This is a common problem."
Nevertheless, a payout for the relics — real or fake — could be huge, according to Rosenbaum.
"If you can produce something that scholars will debate, then you’ve got the potential if you are the owner for millions," he told FoxNews.com.
By that criteria the shroud should be worth billions. Maybe the IAA just wants to bury the thing in some basement vault.
I guess Hank Campbell, author of the book, Science Left Behind, doesn’t think much about shroud science. In his blog, Science 2.0, he writes:
One writer at The Guardian says Discovery Channel is sinking to tabloid status because of this year’s "Shark Week".
Where has he been? Did he not see "The Lost Tomb Of Jesus" and those ghost hunter shows and everything featuring Zahi Hawass and that thing about ghosts invading Britain and the shows on Bigfoot and a whole catalog about the Shroud of Turin? Discovery Channel went into tabloid status long ago, right along with National Geographic and the Science Channel and its version of "Pawn Stars", which centers on an antique store for weird science stuff. I get emails from every one of those companies three time per week peddling this stuff and it doesn’t bother me.
It bothers me when Real Face of Jesus is sandwiched between Ice Road Truckers and Cajun Pawn Stars on what is only sometimes the History Channel.
Stephen Jones has added the next installment 3.4 (part 22) of The Bible and the Shroud with The man on the Shroud was beaten. It is a well organized treatment of how observed facial characteristics, presumably caused by beating, seem to be evident in some ancient artistic renderings of Jesus’ face.
Conclusion The man on the Shroud has facial injuries which closely match the Gospels’ description of the blows about the face which Jesus was subjected to. Christian artists since the sixth century have depicted Jesus with an asymmetrical face, a bent nose, a concave left cheek and a convex right cheek which matches the facial injuries of the man on the Shroud. This adds to the already overwhelming weight of evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not a forgery, but it really is Jesus’ burial sheet and the image on it really is of Jesus!
Stephen also writes:
His facial wounds include: swelling of both eyebrows, a torn right eyelid, a large swelling below his right eye, a swollen nose, a triangular-shaped wound on right cheek with its apex pointing to his nose, a swelling to his left cheek, a swelling to the left side of his chin. His right eye is nearly swollen shut, and his nose is twisted.
Why don’t I see the swollen nose in any of the art? Is it just me? His nose is twisted?
The picture, copied from Stephen’s blog is a “[t]hree-dimensional enhancement of the Shroud face, by Mário Azedvedo of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, showing the extreme degree of swelling of the man’s right cheek, under his right eye.”
It is sometimes interesting when a comment rolls in for a posting from over a year ago, in this case for Bart Ehrman’s new book: ‘Did Jesus Exist? It is always interesting and particularly nice when the new comment is thoughtfully written, meaningful and provocative, as this one is by Albert Bodt. He begins by quoting from a comment by Tony dated March 21, 2012. Dr. Bodt then writes:
“Modern day Christianity-loathing Academia is almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did in fact exist.”
Tony, it seems from your post that you have a distinct bias against academia. As an academician and scientist, while there may be individual academics that have objections to Christianity, I cannot vouch for them. I can frankly tell you that academics who study the historicity of religions, Christianity included, in general do not “loath” Christianity, or for that matter, any other religion. Biblical history academics are not concerned with theology but they are interested in the history, the actual events of the the formative Christian era. Whether this coincides with the theology is irrelevant. There is no judgment as to the beliefs of those who adhere to the theological precepts of Christianity, even if they themselves are not believers such as as myself. I do however have an abiding interest in history including ancient history. As a (non-blblical) scientist ( I am involved mostly in Medical as well as Anthropological research) and medical clinician (my background is in Biology and Cellular Biology), I am interested only in the physical evidence to determine what is going on in my fields of interest. That evidence has to be supportive of ones hypothesis, determined by diligent research and experimentation. The studies (experiments) must be reviewed by experts in the field (peer reviewed) before the results of the study can be published in a specialty journal. The study has to reproducible and yield the same results by other scientists in the field to be eventually accepted as hard evidence in support of one’s hypothesis. After several attempts to disprove one’s results, there being no evidence to falsify the conclusions, the hypothesis becomes a “theory”. After further time, and efforts to disprove the theory, it becomes generally accepted as fact, bearing in mind that science only determines the probability of a theory being true. Such is the case with several theories in biology including Evolution, which is considered fact due to the high degree of probability of it being true, as all attempts to disprove it over the last 155 years–haven’t. Obviously, historians, including Biblical New Testament historians cannot use the scientific method to the same degree as biologists or physicists, however they are quite diligent in their efforts to tease the physical historical evidence from the literature, which includes the ancient documents (most of which, if not all, are copies, as the originals are lost), in Greek, Latin and some in Aramaic. Some devote their careers to analyzing one document or even one chapter. These individuals are dedicated to discovering what really happened as opposed to those that believe what happened (despite their lack of evidence).
To respond to the second half of your statement. I am inclined to believe the evidence as cited by the academic experts in the field of Biblical, New Testament, history. The prevailing evidence seems to suggest that there was in fact an individual named Yeshua of Nazareth, who was probably baptized by a person who we know as John the Baptist, around 27CE and preached in Judea until 30CE when he was arrested for sedition and sentenced to death by the common Roman method of execution for enemies of the Roman State, crucifixion, by the governor of Judea, one Pontius Pilatus, who we know was governor from 26-36 CE. There is plentiful physical evidence to support this. The four (three synoptic) Gospels themselves, even though written decades (between 60-90 CE) after the death of Jesus, are sources that can be combed and teased for evidence for the historical Jesus. These were obviously based on earlier writings and oral traditions that go back to around 30CE. Paul’s letters offer much the same titillating tidbits of historical evidence. The picture of the historical Jesus is not at all the image that Christians see in their Jesus. The real history is nothing like what Christians believe what happened. The modern story is a construct that has been embellished by supernatural and fantastical events through the millennia, by hundreds of believers who added them for their own purposes, never mind the translational mistakes that occurred. We as scientists, have no opinion, or professional interest in theology, only in the physical evidence that describes the physical universe and what happened in it.
Kind of sweeping assumptions in those last three sentences.
Blogger Kevin Stuart Brodie has been visiting France and writing about it in his blog. In one post about Chartes, he regrettably, all too easily, dismisses the shroud while attesting to the authenticity of Mary’s Veil, a relic in this famed famed cathedral.
Those same pilgrims [= visitors to Chartes] also continue to be in awe of Mary’s Veil. The veil was supposedly worn when Mary gave birth to Jesus. It is displayed behind a locked gate, in a glass window with a golden frame. Recent tests confirm that the material itself and the weaving technique to make the cloth date to the first century, so if this isn’t the genuine article, it’s from the same time period. No bogus Shroud of Turin here.
Mary’s Veil? The Sancta Camisia? Recent tests? What tests? I can’t find anything much and nothing specific about recent tests. The Sancta Camisia
Kathy Schiffer writes in the Catholic Channel of Patheos:
In the Cathedral of Chartres, southwest of Paris, is a holy relic called the “Sancta Camisia,” the “holy veil.” A crumpled, faded cream-colored cloth, it’s protected in a glass reliquary. Tradition holds that the Sancta Camisia is the veil of the Virgin Mary—in fact, it’s the veil she wore when she gave birth to the Christ Child.
Was the Sancta Camisia really worn by Mary? Scientific study has confirmed that the veil dates to the first century. It was presented to the Cathedral at Chartres in 876 by Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, upon his return from Jerusalem. It was nearly destroyed by fire in 1194, but the Bishop of Chartres rescued it just in time.
Note another traditions is that Mary wore the veil for the Annunciation. There are also other contenders for Mary’s veil. There is the relic at St. Mary’s Syrian Jacobite Orthodox Church in Kerala, South India, which, according to tradition, was brought from Edessa by the Apostle Thomas.
Having noticed that Brodie concluded his post with a comment by the late, great Christopher Hitchens. . . .
The great literary critic and avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens once called being in Chartres the closest to holy he has ever felt. That alone should tell you about the Cathedral’s majesty and mystical beauty.
. . . . I wondered if Hitch, had he ever really pondered the mysteries of the shroud with that great mind of his, always taking in countless details, might have reacted similarly to the shroud. Not that anything could have converted him. But would he have called anything bogus without explanation given the many recent tests and the mountains of historical evidence in favor of authenticity?
Also see: Our Lady’s Veil: two tales at Catholicism: Plain & Simple.
And in this blog in the past:
Again, What tests? Anybody know about tests on the Sancta Camisia, the one at Chartes?
Matthias writes in a comment:
Was reading a book on Medieval Art today and came across this image of Otto III’s enthronement around 1000AD::
that is a very shroud-like object being held by 4 symbols of the evangelists
Fascinating painting. Lots of symbolism. Any other thoughts?
Bible Archeology, the blog, says in its masthead:
Using archaeology to prove the Bible is a historically accurate document. Over the centuries many have challanged (sic) the Bible’s accuracy. While archaeology cannot prove the existence of God, it can help prove the Bible authors were good and accurate historians. These discoveries can help us see the authors of the Bible could be trusted with teaching us histroy, (sic) as well as about the divine.
Well, no, the authors of the Bible weren’t good and accurate historians. There has been a scattershot of archaeological discoveries that attest to historical places and events. Such discoveries are fascinating and informing. But, just as the Bible is not a science book, it is not a history book. Anyway, that is not the point. Bible Archeology, the blog, has just posted a brief update on the Shroud. Here is the conclusion:
After multiple testing, there seems to be no definitive answer coming from science as to the authenticity of the Shroud. Not only are the test results inconsistent and widely vary by more than 1,000 years, another group of scientist insist the Shroud could not have been produced with the technology available during the middle-ages. Who are we to believe when the experts and scientist cannot agree among themselves? Each group makes valid points and has test results to back up their claims, but obviously they both cannot be accurate or correct. Regardless of when or how the image on the Shroud was produced, it is a fascinating artifact which continues to stir the interest of millions worldwide. Is it the burial cloth of Jesus? The Catholic Church is not certain, and it seems science is divided on the subject as well. The mystery continues.
[This] face of Christ, minted in a quite common Byzantine coin of Manuel I (1143-1180 AD) is clearly different from the much more popular TS-like face of many Byzantine coins of these centuries.
It shows short hair, no beard and a strange sign, a bubble on the chin bottom. Can someone give me more information on this face?
In particular I ask for a similar image from a fresco or an icon of this period showing a face of Christ having the same featuires.
I also ask for an explanation of the bubble on the chin bottom (it is not a defect because it also appears in other different coins).
Thank you in advance. Best regards.
Click on the picture to enlarge it.
This will probably be the hottest book about Jesus this year. Erik Wemple explains why in the Washington Post:
Fox News has done a great deal to promote Reza Aslan’s new book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” How so? An interview conducted by Lauren Green on FoxNews.com managed to so thoroughly insult and trash Aslan’s motives in writing the book that the whole world is clicking on the tete-a-tete.
The Fox News interview is available on many sites The YouTube version (below) has had over two million viewings in just two days. Cable and online excerpts extend bits of the interview to several more million people.
Erik Wemple prepared a transcript of the interview, which I enjoyed better than the video – but you have to see at least some of the video. This has to be the stupidest television interview ever.
Right now, thanks in large measure to the interview, Zealot is the number 1 best seller on Amazon. That is simply unbelievable for a scholarly historical book about Jesus – come to think of it scholarly or historical about anyone. The book is also, as of a few minutes ago, number 1 on the New York Times non-fiction list. It is sold out in many retail stores. Amazon is requiring extra days for handling and shipping. Your best bet may be Kindle or, if you like to listen to books, Audible.
I just did a scan of the book at Google books. Although Jesus’ burial and tomb are discussed, there is no mention of the shroud – not that I expected it.
Charles Freeman, by way of a comment in another posting about thread count, asks:
Does anyone have the original comment that Flury-Lemberg made about the first century sewing techniques from Masada? There were a lot of textile fragments that had been sewn (many are listed in the excavation report with notes on the sewing technique used ) and I wonder if she had specified which one it was.
Wilson discusses this at some length on ensuing pages (my pp 72-74).
My reading of Wilson is that Mme F-L seemed to envisage that the original bolt of cloth was very much wider than the present Shroud (W’s diagram implies about 3 x wider). The bolt was then expertly cut lengthwise, firstly for the main cloth of the Shroud, and then secondly for a narrow side strip. The two raw edges were then expertly sewn together, so that the final Shroud cloth presented two selvedges on its two outside edges. The seam was not visible from the face side and was only revealed when the backing cloth was removed. It seems that in her 40 years of working with ancient textiles, Mme F-L had only come across this type of invisible seam only once before, on the 1st century textiles found at Masada. Wilson provides a diagram of the seam from a Masada cloth sample. Wilson’s bibliography provides three published references by Mme Flury-Lemburg, for any further information required.
Charles then wonders what Wilson and/or Flury-Lemberg actually observed
Thanks, DaveB. ‘The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is surprisingly similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada.’ From an interview with Flury-Lemberg. If you actually look at the excavation reports from Masada- there is a very good section on the textiles in one of the volumes-they list 60 textiles 9the vast majority are wool ,not linen,) with stitchings on them. Obviously the types of stitching used varies but they are only described not illustrated. So presumably Wilson/Flury-Lemberg have either seen the originals or seen an illustrated account of them to which they have been able to relate the stitching on the Shroud .Presumably somewhere there are also illustrations of the stitching of the seam to compare the two. The evidence for these statements often proves much harder to actually pin down than one would believe.
Stephen E. Jones does not disappoint with his newest, very comprehensive and thoroughly useful addition to his series, "The Shroud of Turin." Entitled "3.3. The man on the Shroud was scourged," it is part 21 of the evolving series.
Problems for the forgery theory The scourge marks on the Shroud are physiologically accurate. When examined under a microscope, each scourge mark reveals a slightly depressed center and raised edges. Under ultraviolet light each scourge mark can be seen to have a "halo" of lighter colour surrounding it. These halos were chemically tested and found to be blood serum which is left behind after a blood clot forms and then retracts inwards as it dries, a process called syneresis. These scourge mark indented centres and raised edges on the Shroud are not visible to the naked eye, but can only be seen when examined under a microscope and the serum halos can only be seen under ultraviolet light. This is further evidence that the Shroud could not have been created by an artist in the Middle Ages because that knowledge about blood clot structure, let alone a microscope and an ultraviolet light source to see them, did not then exist for many centuries into the future.
and he quotes Thomas de Wesselow:
"Once again, though, it [the Shroud] differs dramatically from anything envisaged in the Middle Ages. The vast majority of medieval images of the dead or dying Christ fail to depict any scourge marks at all … Christ is sometimes shown bleeding in depictions of the flagellation, but the effect is always rather crude. In Duccio’s rendering of the scene, for example, the scourge marks are represented as red dribbles all over the body, including the arms but not the legs …The artist displays no knowledge of the Roman flagrum, nor any conception of how it was wielded. Even a fifteenth-century artist as accomplished as Jean Colombe, who definitely knew the Shroud, was unable to reproduce its convincing pattern of scourge marks … To attribute the marks on the Shroud to a provincial unknown working in the mid fourteenth century is therefore ridiculous".
Read it. The choice of graphics is helpful.
I just learned that Alessandro Piana has updated a paper about the missing years between Constantinople and Lirey. It is a wonderful read for all of us history buffs. I’ve been inclined towards this theory for and explanation of the missing years for a long time.
This paper was originally part of the proceeding for the Valencia Congress on the Shroud in April of 2012),
Author: Alessandro Piana
The Holy Shroud disappears from Constantinople during the Crusade in 1204. Twoelements confirms the presence of the Shroud in Athens since 1205 when, after the splittingup of the Byzantine Empire, Othon de La Roche, baron of Ray-sur-Saône, became Lord of Athens. Many tracks suggest that, after 1225, Othon came back in France with the Shroud. After his death, in 1234, the Shroud remain in Ray-sur-Saône family hands until Itshanding over to the de Vergy family. Thanks to Jeanne de Vergy, related in the fifthgeneration with Othon, the Shroud would have been shown in public in Lire
This valuable paper has been added to the Proceedings of the Valencia Congress on the Shroud that took place in April of last year.
Author: Ada Grossi
This paper studies some aspects of the Shroud of Turin in relation to Jewish funerary customs: the analysis is based on scientific literature on the subject, on ancient sources and on archaeological finds. After discussing a few specific characteristics of the Turin Shroud fabric, we delve into talmudic and traditional references to Jewish burial shrouds and into some linguistic observations (also presenting a Hebrew textile terms glossary).The Shroud of Turin appears to be a traditional Jewish burial shroud; the only really peculiar feature is the exceptional value of the cloth (which is however consistent with the range of possibilities allowed by Jewish laws)
Your thoughts and comments, please.
This past week, NBC News did a report on The archaeology of Christianity. It included several topics including First reference to Christ?, Turning water to wine, Nailed to the cross, Wrapped in a cloth, Laid to rest, The baptism cave, The bones of St. Paul and Early worship in Israel. Here is what was said about the Shroud of Turin:
A long piece of cloth, or a shroud, kept under close guard at a cathedral in Turin, Italy, is believed by many to be the burial cloth that was wrapped around the crucified Jesus. Scientific interest in the shroud began in earnest when negatives from a 1898 photograph revealed the image of man who appears to have suffered a crucifixion. Since then, biblical scholars, archaeologists and the faithful have hotly debated the authenticity of the so-called Shroud of Turin.
Vatican-approved carbon-dating tests on fibers taken from the cloth in 1988 indicated that the shroud dated to medieval times — ranging from 1260 to 1390. Scientists concluded that the claims about Jesus’ image were an elaborate hoax. Other studies have since argued that the dated fibers were from a repaired section of the cloth and that the carbon dates were therefore invalid.
Other evidence supporting the authenticity of shroud includes pollen residues on the cloth that are unique to Israel and Turkey, indicating it must have spent time in those countries. In support of the skeptics, a second burial shroud that dates to the time of Jesus is of a completely different style than the Turin shroud.
At least the repaired section and the pollen is mentioned.
The shroud was transferred for its safety to the Benedictine sanctuary of Montevergine in Avellino, in the southern Campania region of Italy in 1939 and was only transferred to Turin in 1946.
The current director of the library at the abbey, Father Andrea Cardin, said the reason behind the move was because Hitler was "obsessed" with the sacred relic.
Both the Vatican and the Italian royal family, the Savoys, who were the guardians and owners of the shroud, feared that the German leader, who had an interest in the esoteric, might try to steal the linen cloth.
In an interview with an Italian magazine, Diva e Donna, Father Cardin said: "The Holy Shroud was moved in secret to the sanctuary in the Campania region on the precise orders of the House of Savoy and the Vatican.
"Officially this was to protect it from possible bombing (in Turin). In reality, it was moved to hide it from Hitler who was apparently obsessed by it. When he visited Italy in 1938, top-ranking Nazi aides asked unusual and insistent questions about the Shroud."
Father Cardin, a Benedictine monk, said that after Italy entered the war in alliance with Hitler, and German forces were sent to Italy, the shroud was very nearly discovered in its secret hiding place.
"In 1943 when German troops searched the Montevergine church, the monks there pretended to be in deep prayer before the altar, inside which the relic was hidden. This was the only reason it wasn’t discovered."
The shroud, which is supposed to have wrapped Christ’s body after he was crucified, was returned to Turin in 1946 on the orders of Italy’s last king, Umberto II.
We now learn, (Reuters, June 9, 2013) that the U.S. government has recovered 400 pages from the long-lost diary of Alfred Rosenberg, a confidant of Adolf Hitler. The pages covering the spring of 1936 to the winter of 1944. According to Reuters . . .
Rosenberg also directed the systematic Nazi looting of Jewish art, cultural and religious property throughout Europe. The Nazi unit created to seize such artifacts was called Task Force Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
The pages, written in long hand, are being analyzed by the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. It will be interesting to see if the Shroud of Turin is discussed in the pages. Was Rosenberg one of the top-ranking Nazi aides asking questions about the Shroud in 1938?
John Klotz put me onto this article, although I guess I knew about it and had forgotten about it, and maybe I imagined I had read it. But it is too memorable to forget. So I guess I just read it for the first time last night.
John sent me a PDF from some library microfilm reader and tried to convince me it was readable. I had to find a better copy. I did. Read on.
“The Shroud of Turin: Who is this man and why does he have no navel?” by Michael Thomas in the December 28, 1978, issue of Rolling Stone may be the best piece of Shroud of Turin journalism ever published in the mainstream media. To emphasize, however, it was written in 1978, the year of STURP. Carbon dating was being talked about by some, but it would not happen until a decade later.
Rolling Stone’s Table of Contents, something that is usually hobbled together by an editor just before press time, is unfair to the gist of the story. IT REALLY IS A MUST READ.
You have few choices if you want to read the article. You can go to a public library and possibly read it on some microfilm reader. Or you can find an issue on eBay, maybe. Or you pony up 99 cents and read it online – forget about trying to print it or save it, though. I’ll tell you how to read it online, but first some wonderful clips:
1) “Until it [=carbon dating] is done, there is still room for doubt as to the shroud’s authenticity—about as much room as there is on a crowded microdot. . . . “ (The pages are really Financial Times pink):
2) “As a physicist he [=Harry Gove] agrees he can’t understand any other way the image on the shroud was formed except by some kind of thermal radiation. . . .”
Okay, so how do you read it. Sign up for a 4-week trial subscription. It will cost 99 cents. If you are happy with the magazine you can let them automatically charge your credit card $19.95 for 26 more issues. If not, you can cancel. As soon as you sign up, you can access the archives; choose the 1970s, then choose 1978 and then December 28.
I just discovered on the Rolling Stone website that you can buy a back issue (no price quoted, online) by calling 1-800-283-1549. Right now it is 5:00 am on a Saturday. I’ll try that on Monday.
I also just discovered that backissues.com sells the December 28 issue for $24.95 plus $6.00 for shipping.
You may recall that in February, I linked to a scientific paper by Pam Moon, Coloured Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM) contamination, mould damage, biocides and the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin.
Pam now has two new historical papers that explore a medieval manuscript, which is a version of John Skylitzes chronicle of the Byzantine Empire from 811 to1057. The first paper is about the so-called poker holes and the second paper about the transfer of the shroud from Edessa to Constantinople.
- The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople? Paper I: An analysis of the L Shaped markings on the Shroud of Turin and an examination of the Holy Mandylion and Holy Shroud in the Madrid Skylitzes
- The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople? Paper 2: An examination of Byzantine art depicting Christ between AD 945 and AD 1042, following the arrival of the Holy Mandylion in Constantinople in AD 944
Calm down, Yannick; these are interesting papers for the rest of us.
From the Daily Sketch more than fifty years ago (March 7, 1955) as posted at Hold the Front Page blog a couple of days ago:
This is very much a personal view by Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC and offers no scientific evidence for or against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. In 1954 Cheshire, having been inspired by a photo of the Shroud face while recuperating from tuberculosis, toured Britain with an exhibition of Shroud photographs.
Extensive scientific tests were carried out on the Shroud in October 1979 and in 1988 radiocarbon dating was done on some samples of the cloth, the results of which indicated that the shroud was no older than the 13th Century. Some authorities claimed that the samples were from a medieval repair rather than the original Shroud material, so the controversy continues but one mystery remains, apart from whether it is the image of Jesus or not, how was it made?
I have posted On the Beliefs of Group Captain Cheshire back in 2011.