In reviewing the presentation of Benford-Marino at the 2008 Ohio Shroud conference, I came across something I had not taken note of before:
"’Another distinctive characteristic of the cloth also points to a pre-medieval origin of the Shroud. Although debated in the past, image-analyses tools and techniques have clearly identified the existence of horizontal and vertical bands throughout the Shroud. According to the Cambridge Textile Book,"Tapestry-woven coverlets and hangings were characterized in Hellenistic and early Roman times by ‘shaded bands’, which incorporated subtle colours of graded yarns. Combined later with figured designs, shaded bands had vanished by the fourth century’ (22). Thus, the Shroud, with its shaded bands could not likely have been created after the fourth century."
Footnote 22 reads:
"22. D. Jenkins, (ed.). The Cambridge History of Western Textiles (vol.1). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 113 (2003)."
I have to now make an admission. part of the Shroud was indeed forged – the "invisible patch" was a forgery, although a legitimate authorized forgery. The "invisible French weaving" was carefully designed to resemble the main body of the Shroud. Thus the presence of dye that Rogers found. Some have argued the the banding present on the Shroud appeared to pass through the mended area. There are two explanations for that: (1) either the carbon dating was really askew or (2) the invisible weavers when dying their patch to match the Shroud, took care ti dye it so that the bands were matched. There really were masters of weaving back in those days.
There has been some off-the-blog chatter about papers dealing with the 1988 carbon dating of the shroud. One in particular is mentioned frequently and it is one of my favorites. It is a paper by M. Sue Benford and Joe G, Marino published in Chemistry Today. I had mentioned this paper called Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud and provided links to it in 2008. Those those links have expired. However, a copy may be found HERE at shroud.com. Will shroud.com ever cease being extraordinarily useful?
I highly recommend it the Benford/Marini work.
DaveB, in an email today writes of the paper:
My recollection of the paper is that it surmised that the "invisible repairs" may have been carried out after the death of Margaret of Austria in the 16th century. This may have been too early to skew the C14 dates to ~1250, assuming the TS dates to the first century. An alternative suggesion, first suggested on Dan’s web-site by I think Max Patrick Hamon was that it may have been carried out by Princess Clotilde of Savoy after the 1868 showing. This was the last showing where it was manually held by five bishops. Clotilde replaced Valfre’s black silk lining with a red one. If the cloth showed signs of wear at this time, she may also have been the one to effect the repairs. It is significant, I think, that all future showings were done with the TS held in a frame. It would also better account for the skewing of the C14 dates.
He then goes on to write:
Other papers which I suggest you check out are:
"Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin Introduction", By Joseph G. Marino and Edwin J. Prior, 2008;
New Historical Evidence Explaining the "Invisible Patch" in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud; By M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, ©2005 All Rights Reserved.
[Possibly this is the paper you refer to below]
Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
Raymond N. Rogers 2004
The setting for the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, by Emanuela Marinelli
Valencia, April 28-30, 2012
[Describes the preliminaries for the carbon dating, involving the various people involved.]
There are several others, including a batch of papers by Pam Moon, discussing the effects of contamination, together with some excellent illustrations.
Regarding Pam’s papers I had posted the following in June of this year.
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
I think that only the first of the papers deals directly with the carbon dating. The others deal with history, which contradicts the carbon dating.
In a comment, elsewhere in this blog, Jos Verhulst points out
The 3-shaped bloodmark on the forehead is interpreted as a literal reference to the number three (9:40). However, Hindu numerals did not yet exist at the first century.
No, “9:40” is not a biblical chapter and verse number. I say that after a few frustrating minutes. It is a red line, time line for the YouTube video, Solid Proof Turin Shroud is 1st Century! in which the voiceover tells us:
The number 3 has significance. On the forehead of Jesus of Nazareth, on the Shroud of Turin, you see 3 written in blood . . .
- that represents the Holy Trinity
- Jesus died at 3 pm
- Jesus was in the tomb for three days
- Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days
There is an issue. As Jos points makes it clear. Hindu numerals (and Arabic numerals derived from them) did not exist at the time of Jesus’ burial. In fact, if this big three interpretation is solid proof of anything then it is solid proof that the shroud is medieval, at least from the 7th or 8th century on.
Kind of looks like the 3 in the Devanagari strain.
And while we are talking about 3 days, let’s ask ourselves the question that Daniel Burke asked for Religion News Service during Lent this year. He does a great job of covering all the bases:
But if Jesus died at 3 p.m. Friday and vacated his tomb by dawn Sunday morning — about 40 hours later — how does that make three days? And do Hebrew Scriptures prophesy that timetable?
Even Pope Benedict XVI wrestles with the latter question in his new book, Jesus: Holy Week, about Christ’s last days. “There is no direct scriptural testimony pointing to the ‘third day,”‘ the pope concludes.
The chronology conundrum is “a bit of a puzzle,” said Marcus Borg, a progressive biblical scholar and co-author of The Last Week, a book about Holy Week.
But Borg and other experts say the puzzle can be solved if you know how first-century Jews counted time, and grant the four evangelists a little poetic license.
For Jews of Jesus’ time, days began at sunset, a schedule that still guides Jewish holy days such as Shabbat. So, Saturday night was Sunday for them.
Ancient Jews also used what scholars call “inclusive reckoning,” meaning any part of a day is counted as a whole day, said Clinton Wahlen of the Seventh-day Adventist Biblical Research Institute in Silver Spring, Md.
Using these counting methods, a backward calculation from Sunday morning to Friday afternoon makes three days.
Besides, the four evangelists were likely not counting time literally, according to some scholars.
“Expressions like ‘three days’ and ’40 days’ are imprecise in the Bible,” Borg said. For the evangelists, “three days” means “a short period of time.”
Ben Witherington, an evangelical scholar of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky., agreed.
The phrase “three days,” is a colloquialism comparable to “directly” in Southern-speak, meaning “after a little while,” he said. It’s anachronistic to expect the evangelists to monitor time like modern-day men, Witherington said.
“The Gospel writers didn’t walk around with sundials on their wrists the way modern scholars walk around with wristwatches,” he said. “They were not dealing with the precision that we do.”
But precision, especially when it comes to the Bible, has been a hallmark of faith for many Christians — especially those who equate truth with historical facts.
Most troubling for these believers is Jesus’ own prophecy, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, that he will rise from the dead after “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
Trying to reconcile that prophecy with the Holy Week calendar, ancient Christian theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Jerusalem counted the eclipse of the sun after Jesus’ death as a night, said the Very Rev. John Behr, dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y.
Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century Christian treatise, took a more radical approach. It proposes that Jesus and his apostles followed a different calendar than other Jews and celebrated the Last Supper on a Tuesday, meaning the crucifixion happened on a Wednesday. Some fringe Christian denominations still promote that theory.
Others dismiss historical revisions and say Jesus simply misspoke.
“To be technical, Jesus made a false prophecy, and that’s not something most Christians would want to put that way,” said Robert Miller, a professor of religion at Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pa.
But the point of Jesus’ prophecy is to draw a comparison to Jonah, who was willing to die to save his shipmates (and spent three days in the belly of a big fish), not to set a timetable for the Resurrection, said Witherington.
Martin Connell, a scholar at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn., calls the chronology conundrum a “never-ending question.”
So unsettled is the evidence, and so elastic, that the debate will likely always continue,” Connell said.
The Apostle Paul wrote that the third-day Resurrection accords with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Some scholars, such as Wahlen, think Paul is pointing to a passage in the Book of Hosea, which says God will “heal” and “restore” Israel after three days.
Benedict says that theory “cannot be sustained.”
There may be a very practical reason for the Resurrection to have happened in three days after Jesus’ death, scholars say.
First-century tradition held that only after three days could you be sure someone was dead; after four days the spirit was presumed to leave the body.
Need we say more? Probably! Maybe Jesus didn’t misspeak. Maybe someone wrote it down wrong.
And was it a whale or a fish?
Paul to Timothy: When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas,
also the books, and above all the parchments.
– 2 Timothy 4:13 (NRSV)
About a week ago, Simon Brown uploaded a video, Solid Proof Turin Shroud is 1st Century! which was produced by his friend David Roberts. It runs about ten minutes. It is interesting.
Is it a bit of a stretch?
Most interesting pages from Flury-Lemberg’s " The Linen cloth of the Turin Shroud: some observations of its technical aspects". Helpful for the posting, Unraveling Unusual Stitches in the Turin Shroud.
Hat tip to Thibault Heimburger
it would seem that the stitch on the Shroud is the basic standard one
which one would use then and now to join two pieces of cloth.
Charles Freeman, by way of a (44th) comment to The Shroud is 8 x 2 Assyrian Whatchamacallits, writes:
Selvedges and stitches. I am now quite used to following up a source quoted in Wilson and finding something very different from what he suggests (the classic remains the discrepancy between Wilson’s depiction of della Rovere’s actual portrayal of Christ in the Shroud and his own version, p. 28 of my 2010 edition of Wilson’s The Shroud in which Wilson even reverses the position of the arms!).
So while I was having a research day in the Cambridge University Library, I called in the Masada Report to check out the source references given above. In my edition of Wilson the discussion is on p. 109-110.
P. 169, fig. sixteen does exist. It does show a selvedge on a goat hair cloth. The excavators appear to have illustrated it because it is woven on a tubular or two beamed loom. No other example of the use of this kind of loom or selvedge has been found this early in the Mediterranean . However, earlier examples are known in northern Europe from earlier so the suggestion is that either the cloth originated in northern Europe –more likely – see further below- – or is evidence for the first use of this kind of selvedge in the Mediterranean. Wilson then gives a reference to Gabriel Vial’s 1989 report on the Shroud in which Vial talks of the construction of the Shroud’s selvedge as ’tout a fait inhabituelle’. He does not give the page number in my edition of The Shroud, but it is p. 15 with an illustration on p.16 of the Shroud’s selvedge. (The article is in the CIETA Bulletin for 1989, Dave B quotes a reference for pages 27-9 from his edition of Wilson but this is a completely different article!) The problem is that the selvedge on the Shroud does not appear the same as the selvedge shown in the Masada report. So all we can do is agree with Vial –the article is his own report of his examination of the Shroud while they were choosing the sample for radiocarbon dating on 21st April, 1988, so is interesting and perhaps even important in its own right- that the selvedge on the Shroud is ‘very unusual’.
We next go on to the reference to figs. 111-113 on pages 201-11 of the Masada report. Yes these figs. do exist and on these pages. They all refer to the same fragment of wool. It is picked out and illustrated as it is wool, 2:2, Z twist spin, balanced diamond twill. So except for the Z spin being similar to that of the Shroud , I can’t see why this is relevant- it is not herringbone, linen or 3:1. In the discussion on the origins of the textiles found at Masada (p. 239), this cloth is placed in their group iv. The excavators’ conclusion is that these textiles probably came from northern Europe as this kind of twist (Z) and this kind of pattern is known from examples there. They suggest it may have come in with Roman soldiers who were involved in the crushing of the Masada revolt. I simply cannot see why Wilson provides a reference to a piece of cloth that has absolutely nothing in common with the Shroud except that its thread is Z spun (and thus as the excavators suggest probably spun in northern Europe).
So far nothing about stitching at all so I had to find my own reference to the stitching in the Masada report and it is found on pp 170-1 where they discuss the 45 textiles that have stitching on them. They illustrate six of these stitches on figs. 20-25 but they do not describe any of them as exceptional. So I was surprised to find that Wilson reproduces Masada fig. 23 (as his fig. 8)- which is a counter-hemming stitch- as one which the excavators ‘adjudged to be a very unusual seam’. I can’t find any reference to such a judgement but as Wilson has provided no references it may have been somewhere outside the accompanying text in this section.
Luckily I had access to a higher authority- my wife who designed and sewed theatre costumes for her degree and then went on to work in the textiles department of the Victoria and Albert Museum. She took one look at Wilson’s ‘unusual seam’ and said in fact that this was the standard stitch for joining two pieces of cloth together when one wanted to make sure the ends did not fray. Nothing unusual about it at all!
Wilson does mention that Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is on record as saying that this stitch is similar to the one on the Shroud but he gives no reference for her opinion. In fact, it would seem that the stitch on the Shroud is the basic standard one which one would use then and now to join two pieces of cloth.
And so how much more time does one waste with Wilson? I have certainly better things to do but at least I can warn Shroud researchers to take anything that Wilson says with a large pinch of salt. I had only to read into the next page to find other issues that I could have dealt with in the same way as here but life is too short and I have far more interesting and accurate historians to work with. Hugh seems the man for the job of taking a critique of Wilson further – sorry Hugh but so long as people are going on quoting Wilson in their support it needs to be done.
“It is popular to pick whichever shroud dimensions seem appropriate,
divide them by 8 and 4 as required, and then find a cubit that fits,
pronouncing the shroud as “exactly” this or that.”
. . . according to the measurement in use in the Middle East in the first century, eight cubits by two.
Mark Antonacci wrote in his book, The Resurrection of the Shroud:
Research indicated that the international standard unit of measurement at the time of Jesus was the Assyrian cubit (21.4 inches). When measured in Assyrian cubits, the Shroud is 8 cubits by 2 cubits, a strong indication that this standard unit was used to measure the linen cloth.
Book after book, website after website, have declared that the shroud was 8 x 2 cubits. But was it?
Hugh Farey, by way of an insightful comment this morning, writes:
The shroud was measured by Flury-Lemburg as 437cm x 111cm in 1998, and later by Barberis and Zaccone (2000), with its corners stretched slightly, as 437.7cm and 441.5cm (long sides); 112.5cm and 113cm (short sides). It is also quoted as varying in length by 2cm depending on humidity. (All information from Dr Zugibe’s ‘The Crucifixion of Jesus’).
Various cubit measurements have been found, all different lengths. The nearest I can find to the 1st century is the Roman cubit of about 44.4cm, which may be based on contemporary Egyptian cubits. Some excellent work on funerary slabs in various museums suggests that the Assyrians, whose empire dissolved some hundreds of years before Christ was born, may have had three cubits, of between 51cm and 57cm. Actual measuring bars, mostly from Egyptian tombs, are about 52cm long.
It is popular to pick whichever shroud dimensions seem appropriate, divide them by 8 and 4 as required, and then find a cubit that fits, pronouncing the shroud as “exactly” this or that. Whether there is any evidence that any 1st century cloth was woven (or buildings constructed) to any particular width, let alone an Assyrian cubit, I rather doubt. Does anybody know of any?
In a new posting, this morning, on the Holy Shroud Guild’s Facebook page, Giorgio Bracaglia points us to an article on the guild’s site: Was there a link between the Knights Templar and the Turin Shroud? : An interview with Dr. Barbara Frale by,
Louis C. de Figueiredo.
Sister Jeanne asks:
Is it possible that the belief in acheiropoieta of Christ began with the discovery of an image on our Lord’s burial shroud? I had learned that the idea began with the legend of the Camuliana icon. I also wonder if there are examples from other world cultures that could have led to early Christian belief in such things.
For starters there is an entry in Wikipedia (which offers several references not included here):
The image of Christ that appears in Camuliana is mentioned in the early 6th century by Zacharias Rhetor, his account surviving in a fragmentary Syriac version, and is probably the earliest image to be said to be a miraculous imprint on cloth in the style of the Veil of Veronica (a much later legend) or Shroud of Turin. In the version recorded in Zacharias’s chronicle, a pagan lady called Hypatia was undergoing Christian instruction, and asking her instructor "How can I worship him, when He is not visible, and I cannot see Him?". She later found in her garden a painted image of Christ floating on water. When placed inside her head-dress for safekeeping it then created a second image onto the cloth, and then a third was painted. Hypatia duly converted and founded a church for the version of the image that remained in Camuliana. In the reign of Justinian I (527-565) the image is said to have been processed around cities in the region to protect them from barbarian attacks. This account differs from others but would be the earliest if it has not suffered from iconodule additions, as may be the case.
One of the images (if there was more than one) probably arrived in Constantinople in 574, and is assumed to be the image of Christ used as a palladium in subsequent decades, being paraded before the troops before battles by Philippikos, Priscus andHeraclius, and in the Avar Siege of Constantinople in 626, and praised as the cause of victory in poetry by George Pisida, again very early mentions of this use of icons. It was probably destroyed during the Byzantine Iconoclasm, after which mentions of an existing image cease (however Heinrich Pfeiffer identifies it with the Veil of Veronicaand Manoppello Image ), and in later centuries its place was taken by the Image of Edessa, which apparently arrived in Constantinople in 944, and icons of the Theotokossuch as the Hodegetria. The Image of Edessa was very probably later, but had what apparently seemed to the Byzantines an even more impressive provenance, as it was thought to have been an authentic non-miraculous portrait painted from the life during the lifetime of Jesus.
I have not seen any mention of non-Christian acheiropoieta. That is an interesting and important question.
From the abstract of Thomas & The Hymn of the Pearl by The Rev. Albert R. Dreisbach:
The Acts of Thomas, which contains the Hymn of the Soul/Pearl and may well be an
adaptation of an older work redesigned to provide “spy clues” pointing to the Shroud and its image(s). The Hymn of the Pearl is one of the earliest documents we have on Edessan Christianity Possibly dating from as early as the first century A.D., this hymn is described by Ewa Kuryluk as a work which:
…assimilates into an ancient tradition the new theology of Jesus’ incarnation, resurrection and transfiguration by transforming Christ into a soul. His dual nature rendered by his splitting into a humanlike anima – a son clothed in skin – and into a divine soul, an iconic dress of paradise. In the Syrian poem the essence of divinity resides in God’s clothing – a heavenly double of the mortal human skin [Emphases added.]
Gregory Riley offers a variant interpretation:The Acts of Thomas, while containing many “orthodox” interpolations and revisions, nevertheless presents a like picture, and closes with a scene similar to that in the Gospel Easter stories; yet in the scene of the Acts, the body of the twin brother of Jesus remains in the grave, while his soul ascends to heaven. This is
supported, among other passages, by one of the most famous poems in Gnostic Christian literature, the Hi’inn of the Pearl, which describes the archetypical journey of the soul for the Thomas disciple: the soul descends into a body, and abandons it upon return to the heavenly realms. (Riley, 178-79.)
The first half of this monograph which is devoted to the significance of Thomas and the school bearing his name and their respective influence on the thought modes and writings from Edessa. Although a case can be made to support the traditional view that Thaddaeus/Addai was the original apostle who evangelized Edessa, this paper will consider the hypothesis that it was really Thomas who did so. Later, certain Docetic elements in the literature from the school associated with his name his name may have caused Thomas’ initial role to be remanded to the more obscure Jude Thaddaeus/Addai.
The second half of this paper will explore the interrelationship of the biblical Thomas, that disciple’s connection with the Shroud and the city of Edessa, the school in that region bearing his name, and a suggested interpretation of key passages in the Hymn of the Soul/Pearl which reveal both their potential dependence upon the Shroud and the latter’s significance at an early date.
Meanwhile, while the cotton wars were going on in this blog, Keith Witherup, over at ReligionForum.org, was also calling our attention to some ancient words to ponder. I often ponder these words, Are they symbolically, in a literary fashion, being spoken by the risen Christ, Is the author using Christ’s voice, in a sense, to describe his own burial shroud? The words are from the Robe of Glory (Hymn of the Pearl) in the Acts of Thomas. The hymn, with a peculiar two-image segment (below), is thought by some scholars to be older than the Acts of Thomas and is sometimes attributed to Bardesane of Edessa, a Gnostic poet, writing as early as A.D. 216. The words are found in different places in different Greek and Syriac versions of the Acts.
Suddenly, I saw my image on my garment like in a mirror
Myself and myself through myself [or myself facing outward and inward]
As though divided, yet one likeness
Two images: but one likeness of the King [of kings in some translations]
If you look at a photograph of the shroud you see two full size images of a man, one in which the image is facing outward and one inward. In more modern terms we describe these as front-side and back-side images, or ventral and dorsal images. They are, indeed, as in a mirror as they are full size and seemingly perpendicular to the surface. Those words, “as though divided, yet one likeness,” resonate with the two separate images that meet at the top of the head.
Works for me.
Works for me, too. Note these alternate translations:
- Translation by Quaker scholar Hugh McGregor Ross
- Translation by William Wright
- Translation by M. R. James
And we might wonder about one of the illationes used in a late 7th century rite used in Spain, the Mozarabic Rite:
Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens.
Or about these words by Pope Stephen II, who reigned from 752 to 757:
[Christ] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.
Should we ponder these words? Do they mean what I think they mean?
Meanwhile, while the cotton wars were going on in this blog, Keith Witherup, over at ReligionForum.org was disputing some video clips that argued that the image on the shroud is not Jesus because:
- “Jesus’ body would have been washed and prepared according to Jewish burial law . . . This would then, supposedly, preclude blood stains from Jesus’ wounds appearing on the linen shroud, . . .”
- “the Shroud of Turin is a single rectangular piece of linen, which the video author(s) argue, would not have been the case.” . . .
- “the Bible makes no mention of an image appearing on Jesus’ shroud, . . . no such image therefore exists.”
- “that God would not allow a graven image to be made of himself.”
The video clips ignore the carbon dating making me wonder why? Were the clips creators of the clips young earth creationists who have problems with the technology because it tells us that some things are impossibly too old. Note that according to various Gallup polls, somewhere between 40% and 50% of adults in the United States believe that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years"
Stephen Jones has put together a thoughtful posting on the Stuttgart Psalter image of Jesus being flogged: A 9th century depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind with the scourgers’ fingers in the shape of the reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud!
Do read it. It is nicely done. I should mention, though, I don’t find the configuration of the fingers on a hand of each man doing the scourging very compelling. The whip mark distribution and the fact that Jesus is naked in the picture in a pose that seems shroud inspired is, to my way of thinking, more important.
( A PDF Version of the following guest posting )
FLASH ILLUSTRATIVE REPLY
By Max Patrick HAMON
DOES THE TURIN SHROUD PREDATE
MORE THAN HALF-A-MILLENNIUM AT LEAST
THE RADIOCARBON DATE (1325±65 CE)?
The flogging of Christ, Carolingian iconography, early 9th c. CE, Stuttgart Psalter, fol. 43v, Wurttenmbergische Landesbibliothek, Germany Click Here
A Shroud-like dorsal image of Christ?
In 1998-2000, Pr. Heinrich Pfeiffer was the first to draw attention to the ca 800-814 CE
Stuggart Psalter miniature-Turin Shroud dorsal image connection. In a passing comment he
just wrote: “Le numerose piccole piaghe che furono causate dalla flagellazione si trovano già
[...] su una raffigurazione della flagellazione di Gesù nel salterio di Stoccarda che data agli
inizi del secolo IX.. Questa [...] miniatura mostra chiaramente tutta l’immagine dorsale della
Sindone. ” (The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging are already to be found
[…] in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuggart Psalter of the early 9th century.
The […] miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud.). See Il Gran Libro
della Sindone, p. 193, ed. Paolo, 2000 (Translation mine).
Could the ca. 800-814 CE Stuggart Psalter stark naked flogged Christ back view really predate the carbon 14 dating result of 1325 ± 65 calendar years by no less than 510-515 years; more than half a millennium?
Reminder: The fact is, for both the Emperor of the East (Byzantium) and the Emperor of the
West (The Holy Germanic Empire), the Sindon Munda and/or Sudarium Domini in connection with Yeshua’s Resurrection were the attributes par excellence of the Vicar of Christ. How could Charlemagne have ignored their very existence and not tried to learn as much as possible about them? How could he not have tried to get them or their brandea (substitute relics) at least? Actually, as early as 797 CE, Charlemagne/Charles the Great caused relics of Christ’s Passion and Saints to be searched for at Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople and Baghdad. Why not as far as Edessa then regarded as the Medieval Rome of the East?
Re the Stuggart Psalter miniature of the Flogging of Christ-Turin Shroud (TS hereafter) man’s
dorsal image connection, to the astute observer:
●Both men are stark naked with long flow of hair in the back. Part of the hair tied up like a
pigtail at the back of the head can be made out.
●Both have arm(s) bound/crossed in front. Had both no scourge marks on the inner side
arms? This cannot be checked today any longer.
●Both have bloodied furrows/scourged marks in conjunction with two whips with lashes each
fitted with doubled (metal) pellets implying two executioners.
●Both have almost feminine curved left hip & thigh (to be called later “the Byzantine curve”).
●Both are/were tied at tibiofibural level with left leg in front of right leg (TS man accurate
Forensic description: left leg in front of right leg with rope-mark in the tibiofibular fleshes).
●Both show a most unnatural/awkward feet position.
●And last but not least, by means of a very curious tailed-Epsilon hand sign each time, the
executioner on the left seem to point with his left hand index finger to his own head while the executioner on the right does point to Christ’s head with his left hand index finger too. Both left hand signs cryptically echoe the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man’s forehead, just above his left eyebrow.
All these pieces of evidence piled up into a crucial evidence: the bloodied body burial cloth now kept in Turin was already in existence early in the 9th CE. The Stuggart Psalter miniature Shroudlike Christ does predate the radiocarbon date by no less than half-a-millennium.
What really may be not that obvious to the layman’s eyes can just stare in the face of an old (yet not so old) Archaeological Image Cryptanalyst…
- Absent the Baptism of Christ iconography, the depiction of a stark naked Christ is very rare as far as Christological iconography is concerned prior to the 12th c. CE. From 1200 to 1350 CE, it is still rather uncommon.
- Iconographically speaking, most likely the early 9th c. CE Carolingian miniaturist-monk
(from the Saint-Germain-des Prés or Reims monastery that was under the Benedictine rule
then), did not copy the Shroud dorsal image directly in situ but visually stored it and painted it back onto the painting surface at the risk of interpreting it. Less likely he copied it from nother MS miniature.
Stephen Jones has just added a news account of Russ Breault’s Shroud Encounter presentation at John Hopkins. He quotes from the Baltimore Sun and then adds:
The Shroud "strikingly resembles popular images of Jesus" because our popular images of Jesus (going back to at least the 6th century) are based on the Shroud!
And then he adds:
See below images of Ian Wilson’s three examples of "artistic likenesses of Jesus originating well before 1260 … all strikingly similar to the face on the Shroud":
You should go over to his site to see the pictures in a viewer and read notes that Stephen has added. They are:
Benjamin Radford at Discovery News is reporting Scholar Claims Jesus Was a Roman Hoax
A historical scholar claims to have found evidence proving that the story of Jesus as described in the New Testament is a fiction, and that historical claims about Jesus were actually created by Roman aristocrats to control the poor.
According to a news story in The Independent:
“Joseph Atwill, who is the author of a book entitled ‘Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus’, asserts that Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.”
Atwill’s take on Jesus is of course not new. In 1844 Karl Marx famously declared religion as the opiate of the masses. History is filled with skeptics, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and other doubters who have questioned religious doctrine and dogma.
The only reference to the shroud is this:
Biblical scholars, as well as lay Christians, have long sought hard evidence of events and miracles described in the Bible, ranging from Noah’s Ark to the Shroud of Turin, with little success. New claims about proof of Jesus surface every few years.
Is that fair? To what extent are we seeking hard evidence? Some are certainly looking for that hard evidence. Others are only looking for new information. And some want to solve a mystery one way or the other. But it is fair enough. I just hate being linked with the Noah’s Arkies.
This is from the collection at the soon-to-open Shroud of Turin museum in Wabash, Indiana, courtesy of its curator, Richard Orareo. It is an 1865 print of the plaza in front of the Cathedral of Saint John in Turin. It clearly shows the simple dome of the Cathedral and the magnificent dome of the Guarini Chapel of the Holy Shroud. The chapel has been in the news lately.
OK. a regular on the blog, asks:
I am currently writing an article for http://www.apologetyka.info/portal, trying to trace all the burial cloths of Jesus (or parts of them) which were venerated all along the world at various times. While checking the list of relics sent by Latin Emperor Baldwin II to king Louis IX in César Barta’s article (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n56part5.pdf ), one thing made me curious. The list goes as follow:
1. – The crown of thorns as the most valuable
2. – A piece of the cross
3. – Blood of Christ
4. – The nappies of the infant Jesus
5. – Another piece of the cross
6. – Blood from a picture of Christ
7. – The chain
8. – Sacred cloth inserted in a picture (Mandylion)
9. – Stone from the tomb
10. – Milk of the Virgin Mary
11. – The spear
12. – A victorious cross (this is most probably reference to Titulus)
13. – The purple mantle
14. – The reed
15. – The sponge
16. – A part of the shroud (sudarii) in which Christ’s body was wrapped in
17. – The towel used to dry the Apostles’ feet
18. – Moses’ rod
19. – A part of John the Baptist’s head
20. – St. Blas’ head
21. – St. Clement’s head
22. – St. Simeon’s head.
Most of them are listed in other documents about relics in Constantinople. But what is:
6. – Blood from a picture of Christ ?
Can it have any links with the Shroud?
The AP is reporting:
Bill O’Reilly says God told him to write his new book, "Killing Jesus: A History."
The Fox News anchor explains in an interview on CBS’ "60 Minutes" that one night he awoke with the title of the book in his head. He says he believes he got that message from the Holy Spirit.
O’Reilly says the book is a researched, historic account. Despite its de-emphasis of religion, he is using his special gifts from God in a positive way.
He says it’s all part of God’s plan for him.
I’m sure he thinks so. Actually, it is Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, who also co-authored "Killing Lincoln" and "Killing Kennedy" with O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s name is just so much bigger because God told the publisher that he talks to O’Reilly.
Is the shroud mentioned? The authors come close – and oh so far. Here is a quote:
[T]hey do make the extravagant gesture of coating the body in expensive myrrh and aloe, to overwhelm the coming smell of decomposition. Then they wrap the body tightly in linen, making sure to keep it loose around Jesus’s face in case he is not really dead but merely unconscious. In this way, he will not suffocate. Jewish tradition dictates that all bodies be examined three days after apparent death. Thus the tomb will be reopened and Jesus will be observed on Sunday.
But all this is merely adherence to ritual. For Jesus is clearly dead. The spear rupturing the pericardial sac around his heart left no doubt.
Nonetheless, the tomb will be reopened on Sunday. When death is formally pronounced, his body will rest inside the tomb for a full year. Then the bones will be removed from his decomposed body and placed in a small stone jar known as an ossuary . . .
Pericardial sac? Where do we think they got that?
There is this:
As the two Marys approach the tomb, they are stunned. The tombstone has been rolled away. The crypt is empty.
Mary Magdalene cautiously steps forward and looks inside. She smells the myrrh and aloe in which Jesus’s body was anointed. She clearly sees the linen shroud in which the body was wrapped. But there is nothing else there.
To this day, the body of Jesus of Nazareth has never been found.
Mary clearly saw the shroud? Did the AP not say, “O’Reilly says the book is a researched, historic account. . . he is using his special gifts from God in a positive way.”
Yup! Got to love this paragraphs from a review of the book by New Testament scholar Joel L. Watts:
. . . While promising a researched narrative they simply rely on a fanciful retelling of the Fourfold Gospel story. It is written, I believe, to appeal to the fundamentalist and the evangelical but fails miserably in the hype induced by Mr. O’Reilly’s comments earlier this year, that somehow Jesus was crucified because he a member of the Taxed Enough Already Party.
Just in case you missed it, there is a lively discussion going on about the Hungarian Pray Codex illustration in the posting, Significant Endorsement: Former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury backs The Shroud Affair. It was supposed to be a discussion about that but it became a conversation about Ian Wilson’s work (Wilson’s name is mentioned 65 times). But then, starting with comment #61, a most thoughtful discussions on the Pray Manuscript picture began: is that the Shroud of Turin depicted in the Hungarian Pray Codex?
Why is this important? Because we often say that the Hungarian Pray Codex is historical evidence that the carbon dating is wrong and that the shroud had a history before Lirey, France of the mid-14th century.
After nearly a hundred comments, none of them insignificant, David Goulet writes:
I can see how some people connect the Pray codex to the Shroud. The L shape holes, the weave implication, red lines approximating blood. But I can also see Hugh’s argument that these are not conclusive evidence, that there could be other explanations. Confirmation bias is a legitimate problem here — seeing what we expect to see. If you deny this (I’m not saying you are) you would be deluding yourself.
and the beat goes on.
Click on the image above or here for an 883 by 1386 pixels, high resolution image of the illustration. Now pour a cup of coffee or tea or pour a tall cool something or other and click on comment #61 and start reading. Then read these past postings.
- The Curious ‘a’ in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (March 2013)
- Pray Manuscript: Thank you Colin and David Mo (June 2012)
- A Pointless Discussion of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript? (June 2012)
- A Masterly Demolition of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript? (June 2012)
- Jones on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript Codex as discussed in Wikipedia (May 2012)
- Or the artist of the fake knew of the Pray Manuscript and incorporated these signs into his forgery (May 2012)
and we are a long way from certainty and agreement. Join in. Or comment here. FYI, I still think that is the shroud in the Pray Codex. But I get it, too. And this is why I blog.
To opine, without proof, that someone is intellectually dishonest is itself intellectual dishonesty at its worst. . . .
I agree. I am troubled by the all the charges of intellectual dishonesty against a certain historian and several scientists who are members of the Shroud Science Group (SSG). I have carefully read through the charges in a guest posting and in comments with the idea of perhaps editing them. I may do so. I will certainly act on specific complaints.
To be clear, I don’t agree with any of the accusations of intellectual dishonesty. In my opinion they are unjustified and insulting. I know many of the people being accused.
From time to time, in the world of shroud studies, I find myself disagreeing with someone’s methods, someone’s interpretation of facts, someone’s derived conclusions. At times, I am frustrated to find someone championing a particular hypothesis that I think can’t be right. Sometimes I am disappointed by someone’s apparent bias; but I have to remember that believing something is not the same as acting from bias. None of this is intellectual dishonesty. None of it!
Honesty is as we saw it in Ray Rogers when he changed his mind about the possibility of invisible mending. From what I know personally and from papers and correspondence I can’t imagine any of the SSG scientists or any of the well-known shroud historians acting any other way; that is with complete honesty.
From now on, unless someone has proof that I see first, accusations of intellectual dishonesty will not be permitted on this blog.
According to an article, yesterday, in La Stampa, Secondo Pia was not the first person to photograph the Shroud of Turin. Here is a Google translation:
The first official photos taken in the Cathedral of the Holy Shroud of Turin by Secondo Pia May 28, 1898, after two test carried out on May 25, were preceded by a series of shots illegal, so far unknown, made by a photographer unauthorized, that A. Gallo. He acted at night, before 27 May and developed his plates on 1 June.
It was announced by the Museum of the Holy Shroud, directed by Gian Maria Zaccone, who has received the gift of the photographs of Gallo by his descendants, the family Beltramo Ceppi of Milan.
The news is of significant importance for the history of the sacred relic. Because the snapshots made also reveal, in the version ‘positive’ of the fabric, the image of a man. Image that had been questioned by anti-clerical, which insinuated that that effect was the result of a photomontage.
The discovery will be presented in Turin, on the occasion of the exhibition that Enzo Ferraro care 14 to 29 September in the Church of the Holy Shroud, at Via San Domenico 28. To celebrate 15 years of opening of the adjacent museum, which took place in 1998, sets out the new acquisitions. Among these are the photos of Gallo to intrigue more. Also because they are the first to portray the pilgrims who made a visit to the Cathedral during the Exposition of 1898. But to understand the "scoop" of Gallo is necessary to remember that the photo set of Secondo Pia was set up many difficulties. House of Savoy, owner of the Shroud, he feared that the photos of the fabric could become the subject of economic speculation. So it was decided that only one photographer, Pia, could do the shoot.
The Shroud was exposed on the high altar of the Cathedral. Pia to make the specimens, on the evening of 25 May, helped himself to two lighthouses rail, shielded by two frosted glass, which exploded in the heat though .. Both May 27 induced the Princess Clotilde of Savoy to be protected with a sheet of glass on canvas. So he was forced to resume Pia. With him they did it in secret even three amateur photographers and abusers:. The Jesuit Gian Maria Sanna Solaro, the Salesian Christmas Noguier, Lieutenant Xavier Up, responsible for security of the Cathedral.
Instead of Gallo in the plates do not notice the protective glass. Then he made his photos before 27 May.His descendants say that for taking them hid in a confessional. But it is more likely to be mixed between important pilgrims who had access to the Shroud at night, when it was already displaced the general public.