So basically when people say there is no historical evidence of the Shroud before the 14th century, what they are actually saying is there is no Western historical evidence? How can historians refute all the written, eye witness and pictorial evidence to the Shroud before then? I understand the confusion with the Mandylion but thru all my readings of dozens upon dozens of writings on the subject (mostly from Shroud.com) and In my humble opinion, there is more then enough tangible evidence to state; The Shroud and the Mandylion are quite possibly one in the same, that there are many writings proving the Shroud was in Edessa in 944 and since 545?, then Constantinople till 1204? and then in Athens as late as 1218? There is a period of 150 or so years that is blank but I have read several papers that basically show some quite intriguing evidence the Shroud was in northern France that whole period and quite possibly hidden for sake of miscommunication by the Church for even having possession of such an item.Anyways can someone explain to me why scholars/historians can turn a blind eye to these evidences.
So basically when people say there is no historical evidence of the Shroud before the 14th century, what they are actually saying is there is no Western historical evidence? How can historians refute all the written, eye witness and pictorial evidence to the Shroud before then? I understand the confusion with the Mandylion but thru all my readings of dozens upon dozens of writings on the subject (mostly from Shroud.com) and In my humble opinion, there is more then enough tangible evidence to state; The Shroud and the Mandylion are quite possibly one in the same, that there are many writings proving the Shroud was in Edessa in 944 and since 545?, then Constantinople till 1204? and then in Athens as late as 1218? There is a period of 150 or so years that is blank but I have read several papers that basically show some quite intriguing evidence the Shroud was in northern France that whole period and quite possibly hidden for sake of miscommunication by the Church for even having possession of such an item.Anyways can someone explain to me why scholars/historians can turn a blind eye to these evidences.
Ron