Davor Aslanovski, in an email to me, writes, “I know that [‘two posts on my blog’] express some views radically opposed to yours, but they are products of diligent research and reflection.”
Indeed! I found them very informative so I strongly recommend his very significant blog postings at Deum Videre. This snippet from his blog is intended as pure temptation:
It will be admitted that Wilson’s theory has gained the biggest part of its popularity outside the academic world, and with people who are primarily, if not exclusively, interested in the Shroud of Turin, rather than in Christian relics and art in general. But there has been no scarcity of serious academics who have also found it to be sufficiently convincing – as witness the examples of Cooper, de Várallja, Drews, Dubarle, Frale, Scavone, and, most recently, de Wesselow. [ . . . ] And at the forefront of the sometimes a little disdainful, but unfailingly knowledge-based, resistance to this development stood Professor Averil Cameron
No, I have not changed my mind. But that is not the point. Read:
No, I haven’t changed my mind either. Rather turgid prose, straining at gnats, swallowing camels, he doesn’t see the woods, too focused on the trees, twigs and leaves. I can see why academic specialists are unsuitable candidates for jury trials. There’s rather a lot more to it than he’s considered, I should say yet another victim of over-specialisation.
I first came across the Hymn of the Pearl in the 1980s while working on a Religious Studies major. Sure, it’s essentially a gnostic work, and there’s a lot of fascinating arcane symbolism in it, open to a variety of interpretations. However the particular poem referring to the image appears to be an interpolation, independent of the main work. Hence it may well have Shroud image implications – it seems to fit too well to be anything else.
He would do well to check out Jack Markwardt’s paper presented at 2008 Ohio Shroud Conference: ANCIENT EDESSA AND THE SHROUD: HISTORY CONCEALED BY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET. Markwardt’s approach is slightly different from Wilson’s, more comprehensive, and places the early location of the Shroud at Antioch, and only later at Edessa. But essentially he still considers Mandylion and Shroud to be one and the same object. It is a very comprehensive study in my view. URL is:
To DMo, CB, Menedemus etc hope they can read and Jack Markwardt’s paper presented at 2008 Ohio Shroud Conference: ANCIENT EDESSA AND THE SHROUD: HISTORY CONCEALED BY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET will ring some steganographic and/or cryptographic bell… or is there nope at all?
Jack Markwardt’s paper shall be read with extra caution though. All that is written (even International Shroud Conference peer reviewed papers) is not necessarily true…
Thank you, Dan!
I will gladly enter any serious discussion, based on arguments and direct references to the sources.
I will, of course, ignore insulting comments on my writing style and facial features, generalising remarks about the shortcomings of academics, and appeals to cryptography, steganography, and/or to misconstructions such as this Markwardt’s take on the Disciplina Arcani. (For the simple reason that these things are entirely fanciful and have no direct connection to Christian relics and art.)
What I wrote is this: the Hymn of the Pearl, the Mozarabic rite Inlatio, the homily of Gregory Referendarius, and the Otia Imperalia, often cherished as major proofs that the Image of Edessa and the Turin Shroud CAN be identified, have been grossly misinterpreted in the so-called sindonological circles. And Wilson’s interpretation of Early Christian and Byzantine art is equally mistaken.
I have put a lot of time in explaining why I think that, and have built my arguments solely on the close reading of the actual documents.
And if I can get the same level of seriousness and argumentation from my critics, I will gladly debate them. If not, I will, naturally, ignore them.
And one more point.
I think it is quite obvious from my two papers that I am not interested in the debate over the authenticity of the Shroud. What I wanted to say was simply this: there is no evidence, textual or visual, that the Shroud and the Image of Edessa are really one and the same. The Shroud, for all that we know, might be authentic. And it might even be the Image of Edessa. But, for the time being, there is no EVIDENCE for either. And the discussion of EVIDENCE, on the Image of Edessa, is what my two papers are about. Personal beliefs, ‘spy-clues’, and cryptographical protocols of the ‘Da Vinci Code’ type are not what I call evidence.
Well done, Davor, for cutting through the fantasy world that has pervaded this part of Shroud studies for too long. It is astonishing what some people have read into non-existent documents and in some cases, statements have been made that border on the fraudulent in that a careful reading of the documents show the OPPOSITE of what is claimed. (There are too many cases where whole part of documents that contradict a case have simply been ignored, so one wonders whether there is deliberate deception in some cases. No names!) Gregarius’ 944 sermon, for instance, makes it quite clear, in the opening parts, that the image of Edessa which he was welcoming to Constantinople, was, according to the legend that Gregarius believed, given by Christ to the apostle Thomas while he (Christ) was still alive and then passed on from Thomas to Thaddeus (and then to Abgar). Gregarius makes it absolutely clear that the Image by-passed the tomb altogether and yet that sermon is often quoted as it if referred to a burial shroud aka the Turin Shroud.
Keep up the scholarship!
Jesus Christ existed, he was undoubtedly crucified and buried. So once a burial shroud existed. Did it survive is the question. I have said elsewhere in these posts that some Shroud enthusiasts seem to venerate the Turin Shroud more than the man who may or may not have been wrapped in it.
I agree and disagree with you. I share your opinion that some people involved in this debate have misinterpreted, misused, and/or misrepresented the evidence. But I don’t think there is any reason to think of anything like deliberate deception. After all, these documents and images are (in one way or another) widely accessible today and there is nothing stopping anyone from examining them and forming their own opinion. And there is certainly nothing to be gained from such a ‘deception’ or ‘fraud’.
My image of an average sindonologist is, therefore, more like this: he has come to the (accurate) conclusion that the image in the Shroud is like no other in the history of human art, and that it, at least for the time being, escapes scientific explanation; he has, through various experiences in his life, become fed up (and rightly so) with the skepticism, rationalism, agnosticism, and the general disbelief that permeate the academic world today; he has done some research and has found a number of things in various scientific disciplines (in at least some of which he has no expertise of his own) that could conceivably be used to prove that the relic is authentic; he has most probably always had a healthy passion for mysteries; and he is, more often than not, passionate about his religion as well. Through a combination of these factors, he continues to been drawn to this enigmatic object. And, far from resorting to deception or fraud, he genuinely believes his own claims. He is often aware that experts have refuted some of his claims, but refuses to change his mind – because these experts are generally not very inspiring to him. Their skepticism, rationalism, and agnosticism, mentioned above, is in fact repulsive to him, and, to a great degree in deliberate opposition to them, he chooses to believe. He chooses a wonderfully mysterious fantasy over the dreary, cheerless reality. And who can possibly blame him? I certainly don’t – in the eyes of many, I am guilty of the same for my being a Christian. The one thing that I don’t understand about him, and cannot relate to, is that he somehow thinks that his study of this relic is directly connected to his Christianity. An ‘average sindonologist’ spends hours and hours on blogs and websites like this rather than to read his Bible, say his prayers, love and help his neighbors, and grow in the discipleship of Christ. One does not exclude the other, no, but we are only afforded so much time in this world and spending it on endless debates such as by what stretches of imagination the ‘Hymn of the Pearl’ can be seen to have anything to do with the Turin Shroud cannot be the best way of spending that portion that should be dedicated to religion. The Shroud is a fascinating object, but the study of the textual and visual records pertaining to it must be like any other – scientific. Belief should be left for other areas of human existence. Venerating the crucified Jesus, whether in the Shroud or in any other way needs no evidence. Studying the Shroud needs nothing but evidence. And if the Shroud is authentic, my guess (based on ‘spy-clues’ and ‘cyptographic examinations’ of how God seems to like to conduct His business) is that evidence for that will never be found.
All the best!
Davor, Thank you for your response. I suspect that we are not that far apart and you deal with the motivations of those arguing for the authenticity of the Shroud very well. As you say, most contributors have no background in the enormously complex world of Byzantine texts, where legend and history mingle and there are immense linguistic problems as well. I m not a scholar here but have immense respect for the scholarship there is.
I wonder sometimes if some of the contributors to Shroud blogs know ANYTHING about the years of patient study of Byzantine art and language the experts have undertaken. Yet some Shroud enthusiasts are prepared to make the most authoritative statements about the meaning of difficult texts e.g. the Twin Pearls or the iconography of the Pray Codex. The debates here often gave the impression that the Pray Codex was the only entombment scene some convinced commentators had ever seen!
‘Deceitful ‘ may be too strong but I think that if a contributor quotes from a document in support of their case for the authenticity of the Shroud or whatever when the full document they quote from actually says something very different, this kind of selective quoting does border on the deceitful. But I will name no names. And remember, and here I am NOT talking specifically about Shroud studies, some pseudo-historians have made a lot of money by jumping on bandwagons in the knowledge that their readers won’t check out the original documents. Try the world of the Pyramidiots!
I wonder if you recognise my pseudonym from Erasmus’s A Pilgrimage for Religion’s Sake. In this dialogue, Menedemus appears as a Catholic sceptic about the relic cults of his day but quite a gentle one I like to think.
what Roman Catholic “rationalistic” Art Historians just keep ignoring is Rabbi Yeshua’s teaching:
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you”.
The discipline of secret is to be read in the light of such a commandment and so the use of stenagography and cryptography by ealy cryptochristians, gnostics, Benedictine monk artist/scholar etc. whether “rationalistic” Art Historians like it or not…
You see, if any art historian would be likely to take the Disciplina Arcani into consideration, it would in fact be precisely a Roman Catholic one. Because it was precisely the Roman Catholic scholars, when debating their Protestant brethren on the silence of the early Church Fathers on certain important matters, that first brought up this concept in modern times.
So why you would bring up my denomination is entirely beyond me.
As is why you would think that this practice of reserve would be employed in late-12th century Pray manuscript.
And do you have any evidence for your claim?
Yes, quite a few if you ask me. On Dan Porter you can read about a couple of them: the Pray Ms 5 pen & ink drawings and the apse mosaic of the basilica Santa Pudenziana… to start with.
Santa Pudenziana? What about it?
Davor BTW when are you to answer my TWO former simple questions?
They have nothing to do with either steganography or cryptography BUT ONLY with philology and iconography considered in TS prespective. Thank you.
But I HAVE answered. On my blog, this morning.
You have answered by…TOTALLY ignoring my question about Robert de Clari’s testimony about the sydoine he saw in the Blacherne Chapel (you never give your translation of the old French words “sydoine” & “figure”) etc. You go as far as just ignoring the passage as it doesn’t fit into your pseudo rational reconstruction of the relic history!!?..You really have a most strange way to answer my questions… while NATURALLY thinking that there isn’t anything erroneous in your article(s)… Are you really an Art HISTORIAN?
The examples that Markwardt gives on Disciplina Arcani are plain enough, and the practice was clearly prevalent among Christians until the time of Constantine, when it became no longer necessary and hence fell into disuse. There may have been occasional revivals of it during bouts of iconoclasm.
Gregarius may have believed the legend of Abgar, and that the Image of Edessa.predated the crucifixion, but more llikely he was mistaken. Nor does the DA blog deal adequately with the description of the cloth as ‘tetradiplon’, that it was a much larger cloth than was apparently visible in its normal display form – its presentation in landscape aspect.fits no normal artistic convention for such an object. Following earthquake damage to Edessa’s churches in 679 AD when the cloth was temporarily removed to Jerusalem, a French bishop Arculf reports seeing a ‘trial by fire’ on the sudarium at Jerusalem, The cloth is evidently about 8 feet long, but possibly doubled over.
A major argument that the Mandylion and Shroud were one and the same object, has to be the appearance of the Vignon markings on so many of the icons and coins from about 692 AD onwards. These markings, visibly only on the Shroud, were slavishly copied even when they made no other artistic sense. Any attempt to refute Wilson’s theory has to deal with this question, but the topic is not addressed at all.
On the cloth’s first arrival in Constantinople in 944 AD, the emperor’s sons had difficulty discerning the image, and this seems to fit in with the faintness of the image visible on the Shroud. One further aspect is that the arrival of the Mandylion in Constantinople was marked by a general rejoicing, the institution of a major feast day observed annually throughout Orthodox Christianity, but no corresponding feast day for the arrival of the Shroud, a much more notable relic, which only seems to have become slowly manifest in Constantinople over a period of time, very likely when the Mandylion was removed from its framework. However the Byzantines were not about to give up on their precious Abgar legends, the stories which had become woven into their liturgies, and so the myth of the Mandylion as a separate object persisted.
The Disciplina Arcani has nothing to do with the question whether the Image of Edessa and the Turin Shroud can be shown to be one and the same object. So can we please stick to the subject?
Byzantine Greek is full of peculiar neologisms, and the word tetradyplon is not a particularly interesting one. And I HAVE dealt with it, you just haven’t read my posts very carefully. I said: ‘What remains to be examined now is the impression that some authors have believed that the image of Edessa was preserved on a large cloth and/or that the cloth bore the imprint of Jesus’ entire body and not just his face. And the essential thing to notice here is that these two notions cannot be divorced from one another. In other words, it cannot add any credence to Wilson’s theory that John Damascene used the word himation, which does indeed denote a large cloth, if this fact is contrasted with the saint’s beliefs about the image’s appearance and formation. For how can a clear statement that the image was formed when Jesus washed his face with water, and an attendant absence of any mention of either blood or full-body image, be completely disregarded on the strength of a single word that does not normally denote a face-towel? If a text is to have any bearing on our conception of what the image of Edessa was, three elements need to be speaking in unison: (i) the narrative of the image’s formation, (ii) the words or phrases describing the cloth’s size, and (iii) the account of what the image really portrays. And if this filter is applied to the extant sources, it quickly becomes obvious that the only account which comes even close to corroborating Wilson’s theory is that of Gervase of Tilbury.’
As this is obviously not clear enough, I will briefly explain.
The ‘Acts of Thaddaeus’ mention the ‘sindon tertradiplon’, but the image is said to be formed when Jesus asked to wash Himself, upon which a towel was handed over to Him and He wiped His face with it. So that’s why this text cannot pass through my ‘filter’.
The Menologion entry for Aug 16 likewise says ‘tetradiplon’, but the account of the image formation is the same (Jesus wiping His face after washing it with water).
Neither the full-body image nor the presence of blood is mentioned in any account, and both expressly state that the image was formed while Jesus was alive.
Gregory Referendarius is, just like Nicholas Mesarites, one of the few authors who have actually had first-hand, up-close familiarity with whatever the image of Edessa was. And they were both men of considerable learning. And their testimonies do not mention anything like the double imprint of a dead man on a 14-foot cloth. (Nicholas Mesarites in fact expressly distinguishes the burial shroud (‘sindones Christou’) from the towel (cheiromakterion) with the prototypal image.)
As for the bishop Arculf, let me quote what Wilson himself says: ‘he had seen in Jerusalem “the sudarium of Our Lord which was palced over His head in the tomb”. (…) It was apparently about 8 feet long, so its measurements do not appear to match our Shroud (…) But Arculf mentioned no imprint.’
How Arculf’s testimony is then relevant to this discussion – you tell me.
Just as in the case of tetradyplon, I HAVE addressed the Vignon markings – once again the problem is that you have not read my posts very carefully.
I said: ‘As is immediately obvious upon close inspection of both the “icon-evangelizing” and the “Vignon markings” claim, Wilson and his supporters do not understand that certain copies in Byzantium were precisely not to be identical. Far from being a case of meticulous examination, exact replication, and zealous dissemination of a venerated archetype, the story of the Mandylion in Byzantine art is one of virtually inexhaustible variation.” And then I corroborated that claim with close inspection of precisely those images that Wilson (and other ‘sindonologsist’) offered as proofs of their theses.
I have also pointed out that the two images that predate all the other Mandylion reproductions by several centuries do not show any of these markings. And I have stressed that a fresco of Abraham in the Karanlik Kilise ‘bears at least the following “markings”: quiffs of hair falling on the forehead; heavily accentuated owlish eyes; accentuated cheeks; asymmetrical nostrils; forked beard’.
So I don’t see how ‘the topic is not addressed at all’.
Yes, the report commissioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitos, if not in fact written by himself, says that the Lekapenoi usurpers were unable to see the image. And anyone who knows the story of Constantine’s struggle to regain the throne knows that this is most likely only his imperial propaganda. But, in any case, the account once again does not say that this was an image of a full body.
As for this part:
‘One further aspect is that the arrival of the Mandylion in Constantinople was marked by a general rejoicing, the institution of a major feast day observed annually throughout Orthodox Christianity, but no corresponding feast day for the arrival of the Shroud, a much more notable relic, which only seems to have become slowly manifest in Constantinople over a period of time, very likely when the Mandylion was removed from its framework. However the Byzantines were not about to give up on their precious Abgar legends, the stories which had become woven into their liturgies, and so the myth of the Mandylion as a separate object persisted.’
I have nothing to say other than that such an account depends entirely on your personal beliefs and not on any evidence.
You may be right.
Or, to be more precise, Daniel Scavone may be right, because, if I’m not mistaken, it is his theory.
In any case, this may be right.
Or it may be wrong.
But there is no evidence for it.
And I could just as well, off the top of my head, come up with another theory: there was no feats day for the arrival of the burial shroud because the burial shroud was a relic forged in Constantinople itself. I have no evidence for such a claim, of course, but that doesn’t seem to matter here.
Or, to be more serious, I could say ask you this: was there a feast day for the arrival of EVERY relic in Constantinople? Or this: was every relic transferred to Constantinople on the 100th anniversary of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, and was every relic so prominently mentioned by the iconodules during the iconoclastic controversy? Or was every relic used as a piece of imperial propaganda by an emperor who has been deprived of his birthright for a quarter of a century?
If you have any further questions, please first read my two posts and see if they haven’t already been dealt with there.
And see the article by Charles Freeman ‘The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa, :A Misguided Journey’ which also deals with some of these issues.e.g the tetradiplon idea and the strange story of Arculf in Jerusalem- easy to pick up online.
and what is Freeman’s interpretation or explanation of ‘tetradiplon’?
Domenico- well, you need to read the article to get his full argument- it is not hard to find.
Freeman suggests that the only way to fold the Image of Edessa without concealing or folding over the face of Christ is to have each of the four sides of the Edessa image folded back under itself to make a smaller cloth for storing which would leave the face intact at the centre, in other words ‘four double foldings’. He says that a cloth of 4 by 4 would be reduced to one of 2 by 2 with the face still exposed at the centre. So the Image of Edessa could be stored in a box and then viewed when the box was opened without having to unpack it.
So you wouldn’t need Wilson’s elaborate theory about folding up the Turin Shroud.
I haven’t seen anyone comment on Freeman’s argument so far but as Davor clearly has done a lot of work on tetradiplon his comments would be especially valuable, here or on his blog. It may be that when you get back to the original documents where the word tetradiplon is used,that they don’t support Freeman’s argument but,on the surface, it seems to have more going for it than Wilson’s.
And I do hope that when you guys say ‘I have not changed my mind’ you know that that says nothing about the cogency of my arguments.
Very good articles.
Nicolotti and you are in the same way. He analyzes other documents (more extensive comment about “tetradyplon” or Scilite codex, for example) but he arrives to similar conclusions as you.
I am not interested in the psychological explanation of sindonists. I am interested in their logical mistakes and the relationship between logical errors and militant sindonism as 21st century myth. That is, a myth using reason as ancilla of faith. And when we talk of reason in the 21st century we speak of science.
I am very interested in your reasons to believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. I think the opposite. (See my comments in this forum. Post Quote for Today. Lombatti’s Shot Down from the Ivory Tower. June 14 at 1:34 pm, June 15 at 9:44 am, June 19 at 1:59 am). I think here it is not the place for an extensive commentary, but if you write something about in your blog, I will read it carefully. A truly rational sindonist is a rara avis.
(PS: I use the word “sindonist” for someone in favor of the authenticity of the shroud. No pejorative nuance).
Please, forget this paragraph. I misinterpreted you.
David Mo the great MISINTERPRETER both in prose & iconography…
Davor Aslanovsky’s half or completly erroneous opinion is far from being a rara avis as misinterpreter in both TS linked prose & iconography…. I’ll go back over it if I have time enough. As most pseudo rational superficial Art Historians, he has a very poor descriptive knowledge of the TS and is TOTALLY IGNORANT of steganology & cryptology applied to Late Antique & Medieval Art works… A shame!
Typo error: “as that of a misinterpreter”
when it came to analyse the two Chris heads (one as if disembodied and the other with a truncated neck), did you ever ask yourself the following basic questions: Are they two different interpretations of one and the same Christ’s Face (that on the TS)? Couldn’t they rather refer to two distinct Christ Face prototypes on a cloth (a large burial/body cloth kept folded in four double layers first in Edessa and then in Constantinople and now kept full length in Turin and a smaller face cloth now kept shorter in size in Manopello)? Couldn’t the confusion result from the presence of the two Edessan copies of Christ face handed over to Byzantine Bishop Abramos in 944 and then kept at the Pharos Chapel (the Edessan Image arrived in 944 in Constantinople, followed by its two copies: one on brick known afterward as the Holy Brick and another copy painted on a cloth known afterward as the Holy Mandylion)?
Typo error: “and another copy painted on a cloth or a wooden tablet known afterward as the Holy Mandylion”
The latter was kept at the Paris Saint Chapelle. Ever heard of?
It was also known as “Veronica” or “Sainte Tolle”. Actually, it was a silver gilt flat box shaped reliquary (60cm x 41cm x 8cm) with a portrait (painted inside on a board?).
It looked like the Holy Face of The Holy Veronica then in Rome.
Most likely the “relic” known as the “Sainte Trelle/Toelle/Véronique” once kept in the Paris Sainte Chapelle Treasure was the EMPTY RELIQUARY (about 60cm x 45cm x 8cm) of the Holy Face of the Veil (shortened in size) now kept in Manoppello aka the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion once kept in Constantinople and a former Edessan true-false copy of the bloody death mask on the large burial cloth now kept in Turin. Hope you can follow….
Mentioning feast, the Eastern Churches keep the feast of the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion on August 16…
…and the Feast of the Dormition of The Theotokos (= ‘Mother of God’) on August 15….
The latter is a very old feast of the Church. It is celebrated universally by the sixth century. Hence, although the “Cloth of. Edessa” arrived in Constantinople on 15th of August 944, its Feast was set on the very following day that is the day the relic was solemnly transferred in the Hagia Sophia of Constaantinople.
just in case you ignored it (and it does seem you did), the Sacro Sancto Veronicae Sudario face has no neck at all (see the title page of the Grimaldi ms in Florence). It does appear desembodied as the Holy Mandylion faces of Laon, Novgorod etc The Holy Mandylion faces are either looking straight in front or on the left or the right. This is a tel-tale detail. I went twice to Manopello. The first time (in May 1997), I was allowed to proceed to a very close examination of the Holy Veil for more than an hour. No matter how close and wherever I stood looking at “the face in it”, IT was looking back at me straight in the eyes”… It was a quite strange and unforgettable experience.
See also “The Veronica” by the Master of Flémalle (ca. 1375–1444). It depicts the Holy Face on a finely woven and transparent cloth, exactly like the Holy Face of Manoppello.
BTW the visual effect of always looking at me/you whatever position you adopt to see.the Holy Veil face is due to a in-micropoinitillistic-painted slight convergent strabismus
Mistyping: “in-micropointillistically-painted slight convergent strabismus”
“FORME E VICENDE DEL MANDILIO DI EDESSA SECONDO ALCUNE MODERNE INTERPRETAZIONI”
Andrea Nicolotti, Università di Torino
Atti del Convegno Internazionale – Torino, 18-20 maggio 2010, a cura di
Adele Monaci Castagno. pp. 289-91
E facile da trovare on line, caro Domenico. E lei sa leggere l’italiano, penso io.
In English (Charles Freeman: “The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey”, The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website, on line: http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/freeman_shroud_edessa_misguided_journey/
For instance, when Charles Freeman writes:”The Edessa Image, later known as the Mandylion (a word not known from any other source), was the most important before 1200 when it fades from view (but probably goes to Paris)”, he is wrong not only in his opinion but also (most likely) in his fact… He should have investitaged “a little bit more”. Most obviously he cannot read 10th c. CE Byzantine Greek nor 15th/16th/17th/18th French….
I wish he could have discriminated AT LEAST between the Edessa Image (the burial cloth) and the two copies handed over to Abramos in 944 and later known as the HolyTile/Brick and tHe Holy Face of The Holy Mandylion. His very ignorance of historical facts just ruin all his demonstration….
Charles Freeman writes: “[…] it fades from view (but probably goes to Paris). This was just at the time when another image in Rome, the Veil of Veronica, an imprint of the face of Christ taken as he walked to Calvary, became the most celebrated relic in Rome. Vast crowds gathered to see it when it was exposed and often pilgrims died in the crush.”
Had Freeman been a little more attentive to this very coincidental disappearance from the East & appearance to the West of a very important Christic relic, he might have found here the very first clue of the link between the Veil of Veronica in Rome and The Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion in Constantinople (as true-false copy of the death mask on Christ’s Shroud)…
The second clue is the Holy Face of The Holy Mandylion’s precious empty reliquary/casket being housed in the Holy Chapel at Paris as:
“San(c)tam toellam/trellam tabule insertam” (“La sainte Treille [d’argent surdoré]/une bouette, de vingt deux pouces de long sur quinze de large, […] couverte de lames d’argent et garnye de quelques pierres précieuses […] insérée à la table[-reliquaire] ; au dedans de lad[ite] boîte, le fond est revêtu de lames d’or dans tout le contour, et dans le milieu […] est l’apparence/la représentation d’une effigie/la sainte face de N.S.J.C ou la Véronique ; lad[ite] trelle comme consommée contre lad[ite] table[-reliquaire], autour, environ et dans lad[ite] effigie/face”)…
Toellam/Trellam = Trelle.
In 14th-17th c. CE gothic script, the “r “& “o” letters are absolutely identical. Hence the good lesson here in descriptive context is “the Sainte TRelle” (not “the SainteTOelle”). This was a precious empty flat box/reliquary-table.
The Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion as real sweat-towel WAS NOT WITHIN THE BOX, just a representaion of it…
+ mystyping (sorry): a micropointillistically-in-painted slight convergent strabismus” (do hope you like the Elsa Poppins-sounding like phrase )
Most likely, it was micropointillistically in-painted with a rust watery solution from an archeaological template (a Veil already bearing slight markings of Rabbi Yeshua’s bloody death mask).
Typo error: “very faint” (instead of “slight”)
Correction: Better read “it was very subtly soaked with a rust watery solution” (use of a needle or long thorn)” instead of “it was micropointillistically in-painted with a rust watery solution”.
A rusty needle?
And if you’re interested in the opinion of the distinguished sindonist Emmanuel Poulle, you could read “Les sources de l’histoire du Linceul Turin. Revue critique”, Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, 2009, Vol 104, No. 3-4, p. 770. This is an article abundantly cited by sindonists without reading it. It is illustrative. It tells us that the idea that the clergy in charge of the shroud and envoys of the emperor had not seen the painting displayed suppose “a lack of curiosity taht is hard to believe.” I agree.
The Troyes bishops made a (deliberate?) confusion with the Shroud of Besançon and its painted copy (after it disappeared in the catheral fire)… Nothing new….
The Besançon Shroud (and its painted copy) had NO dorsal image.
Most Strange the way you just ignore the sydoine/burial cloth/Edessa cloth of Christ displayed in the Bacherne Chapel in Constantinople and only take into account the two copies handed over to Abramos in 944 and kept in the Pharos Chapel (the Holy Tile/Brick/Keramidion thought to be to still exist as the Anchiskhati/ანჩისხატი) and the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion (later kept in Rome and now in Manoppello)… Are you a GENUINE professional Byzantine & Medieval Art Histoy INVESTIGATOR? What do you do for a living?
Max, Can you please be constructive for once! You pile on these endless comments but as no one knows what your own take on the Shroud they are completely meaningless to all of us. You are quite clearly the world’s greatest expert on a number of arcane subjects but this matters nothing if you cannot communicate clearly. Calm down, clear some space, give a full version of what your own version of the Shroud’s history is. Cut out the abuse of everyone who has not yet reached your level of expertise -it adds nothing to what is potentially an important discussion of Wilson’s work.
I am sure your definitive version can be posted up somewhere for those interested enough to read it. Thanks.
As long as a few learned IGNORANTS on this blog will continue to belittle, decry or deny steganology and cryptology applied to Late Antique and Medieval Art works and Literature as mere fantasia and the like, I will not put on velvet gloves to handle their cheap rampant pseudo rational dogmatic comments…. if you’re asking me.
I am definitely not trying to write a research paper. here. Just passing/bombarding comments in snatches while working….
Max says “I am definitely not trying to write a research paper. here. Just passing/bombarding comments in snatches while working….”
And, as a result, wasting everyone’s time. Is there any way of making it clear to you that no one knows what you are talking about for most of the time and so your comments have no value whatsoever. Please think for yourself: “What am I hoping to achieve by entering all these comments’. Somewhere, there does need to be a proper debate on Wilson’s history and Davor’s articles , to which the links are provided , are a good place to start.
Can MRS/MR/MS EVERYONE tell me she/he is really wasting her/his time, PLEASE? If so, I shall abide by writing away MUCH LONGER CONTRUCTED comments… (it might well be even worse than what you have now).
Mistyping: “Can Mrs/Ms/Mr EVERYONE & NO-ONE tell me” Please.
Menedemus is your real name Everyone or No-one?
@ Menedemus and David Mo: I have read and I appreciate your comments. I don’t have time to read through all the nonsensical backtalk that get posted here, though, and will not take an active role in internet debates.
I did get that you took your pseudonym from Erasmus, but what is needed here is not a Menedemus the Catholic skeptic, but an Iranaeus the hammer of the Gnostics; not a satirical ‘A Pilgrimage for Religion’s Sake’ but a detailed ‘Adversus Haereses – The Detection and Subversion of Knowledge Falsely So Called’.
What DA surely means is a Talibanic IRANeus I bet…
Shall we say Amen to Roman Catholic Integrists?
Is heavily prejudiced DA taking a most diplomatical leave not to face philological, literary, iconocryptological, archeological facts?
Just one little archeaological fact DA just missed: the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion, the Holy Face of the Holy Shroud of the Holy Veronica and the Holy Face of the Holy Veil of Manoppello is ONE AND THE SAME object. Cannot DA the NATURALLY infallible Art historian digest it?
Are you too blind an Art hitorian to really SEE?
Max Patrick Hamon aka Captain Haddock.
Reading you AD, be assured I did detect what “subversion of knowlegde” means…
typo error: “ON reading you…”
Re-constructive archaeo(crypto)logical thinking is most needed in Shroud Literature to fight back cheap rampant pseudo rational dogmatic learned ignorance…
…and intellectual laziness/idleness.
typo error: “sub-version”
As far as the Turin Shroud is concerned my agenda is archeo(crypto)logical truth… What is yours Mr Davor Aslanovki?
BTW “St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130 ca. -200) recounts in his work “Against Heresies”, the followers of the Egyptian Gnostic heretic Carpocrates (2nd century), possessed and venerated images of Christ “…some painted images, others made of other material”, made according to the model executed by Pontius Pilate “during the time in which Jesus was among men”…
I just think Mr David Aslanovki is not man enough to be upfront about alternative explanations to his own preferred hypotheses… and REALLY address my questions, opinion and facts…
To David Aslanovky AS REMINDER (in 3-4 instalments):
The Edessa Image: An image left of a living or dead Yeshua?
1/ most oddly, you seem to be totally unaware of a theory that should be familiar to an art historian though: the theory of animism (that people instinctively see images as quasi-living beings). When will you realise that in Byzantine times, the Shroud face image could have been viewed animistically, that is, as a living presence? This animism is TOTALLY CONSISTENT with the coming into existence (4th -12th century CE) of both the Abgar legend versions and of Christ’s faces and Shroud face copies all depicting Yeshua’s face with wide open eyes to evoke his divine nature as resurrected Christ.
The Edessa Image: An image left on a face cloth or a garment?
2/ in Latin & Greek versions of the Abgar legends, the very fact that the living Yeshua is said to have left his face imprint on ‘his short cloak/mantle tail’, using the Latin pallium/Greek himation, ‘short outer garment’, does make the Greek sindon, ‘inner garment’, ‘linen cloth’, AS GOOD A CANDIDATE to substitute to the ‘cryptic legendary garment’ as the Lat. sudarium/Gr. soudarion, ‘sweat-towel’, ‘face towel’.
The Edessa Image: A face or an entire body image left on a cloth?
3/ in 4th -12th century CE Latin & Greek versions of the Abgar legends + several literay testimonies, the very fact that the cloth is also said to have received the imprint of Yeshua’s entire body is also CONSISTENT WITH the idea that the Edessa cloth and the Athens/Lirey/Chambery/Turin Shroud are one and the same cloth.
Correction: “in 6th-12th century CE Latin & Greek versions…”
Correction of correction: “in 6th-13th century CE Latin & Greek versions…”
+ correction: “+ several other literary testimonies”
Is it just “nonsensical backtalk”as you put it?
Max, please take this piece of friendly advice: take it easy, relax.
I hear (and somehow do understand) what you’re saying, but it is your personal conviction and nothing more.
As I said before, the Mandylion and the Shroud MIGHT very well be one and the same, but there is no EVIDENCE for that. (If the textual and visual references to the Image of Edessa we do possess can be seen as evidence at all, then that evidence points to the contrary conclusion. But to what extent it CAN be considered as evidence is a topic that goes way over your head, because you are not trained in any relevant discipline.)
But the bottom line is this: YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT. And I am not discussing whether you are right or not. We can not know that. For the last time, I am ONLY interested in whether there is, at present, any EVIDENCE for Wilson’s hypothesis.
For some reason, you are taking this all too personally and I am sorry to see you working yourself up like this.
Your very vivid imagination, as revealed both in your reading of the sources and in the endless misspellings of my name, could be put to much better use. You’ll never be taken seriously as a historian, but you could definitely make it as a writer of fiction. I am not being sarcastic. Stop wasting your time on history – there are genres of writing where eccentricity IS valued.
In any case, relax. I wish you all the best.
Once again, I am not writing a research paper on this blog just passing “a few” comments in snatches while working. If you think YOU have the monopoly of “the Historian’s genes”, you’d better make a total check-up and revised your genetics!
The fact is you claimed to be a serious relic Art Historian but just demonstrate all the contrary…
Just one instance among many, you JUST IGNORE the Robert de Clari’s testimony on the sole ground the “sydoine’ with the ‘figure” of Yeshua was housed in the Blachernae Chapel. It does seem a fact just escaped you: since the early 12th century, the Byzantine emperors were no longer living at the Boucoleon Palace but at the Blachernae… As an historian, you’d better revised “your” history….
Please, can you address your personal rebuttal of each of my first 3 points… if you cannot PROVE I am TOTALLY wrong that just mean my OPINION as “non-historian” is AS GOOD AS YOURS. Get it?
…if not better.
DA you write:
“As I said before, the Mandylion and the Shroud MIGHT very well be one and the same, but there is no EVIDENCE for that. (If the textual and visual references to the Image of Edessa we do possess can be seen as evidence at all, then that evidence points to the contrary conclusion. But to what extent it CAN be considered as evidence is a topic that goes way over your head, because you are not trained in any relevant discipline.)”.
Besides steganological, cryptological and literay pieces of evidence (textual and visual ones), YOU JUST IGNORE THERE ARE both philological and archaeological PIECES OF EVIDENCE to identify the Edessa Image with that of the TS…
The best approach here is not to limit oneself (as you do) to ONLY History or Art History (overspecialized traditional approach/dead end), but to embrace a MORE RE-CREATIVE pluridisciplined omprehansive approach. . what precisely YOU JUST CANNOT ACHIEVE BECAUSE OF YOUR VERY LIMITED VISTA OF THE WHOLE ISSUE….
I’ll come back later to expose the philological and archaeological evidence….
Just a last word. I am a former University Professor now Founder and Director of the Office for Studies and Reserach in applied archaeoCryptology. What do you do for a living? Off job Art Historian?
Were you really aware that the words used in the originals are often greatly obscured through the inconsistent variations of the translators, you would have asked yourself ‘how in the Bizantine Greek version of Abgar Legend can a Byzantine Greek himation (i.e. ‘an outer garment’) be at one and the same time a Byzantine Greek soudarion (‘a sweat/face cloth’)? What is the exact shape or specific material of the the article of dress the legend refer to? Now to paraphrase you: “To what extent it CAN be considered as A PHILOLOGICAL EVIDENCE is a topic that goes MILES way over your head, because you are not trained in any relevant discipline” I just would say…
Quote from Menedemus : “And see the article by Charles Freeman ‘The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa, :A Misguided Journey’ which also deals with some of these issues.e.g the tetradiplon idea and the strange story of Arculf in Jerusalem- easy to pick up online.”
Thank you very much for this suggestion ! I wasn’t aware of this paper. Even if I disagree with Freeman on his view concerning the authenticity of the Shroud (I really think he should read my open letter about the evidence of the bloodstains : http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/please-dont-forget-the-evidence-of-the-bloodstains/), I found his point of view concerning Wilson’s hypothesis to be very close to mine ! In fact, it is very striking to note how close I am from his own point of view, while I’ve done a complete independent research from his own research and wasn’t even aware of this guy or his work while doing my research !
For anyone who’s interested to know the TRUTH versus Wilson’s hypothesis concerning the Mandylion, I truly recommend the reading of this paper from Freeman because it is very well done. It helps to see how Wilson often “manipulates” the facts in order to comfort his personal hypothesis… For a guy like me who has done a very extensive research on the subject, these “manipulations” from Wilson are evident to see, but for someone who didn’t do these kind of deep researches, it’s not so evident. That’s why a paper like this one from Freeman is really helpful for anyone who want to judge the hypothesis of Wilson adequately…
Thanks again for this reading suggestion ! And for those who have not read this interesting paper yet, here’s a link for you : http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/shroud/articles/freeman_shroud_edessa_misguided_journey/index.htm
To DA (and archsceptics): Since an image should speak more than a hundred thousand words to any TRUE Art historian, just take a close look at:
1/the miniature by Toros Roslin (http://lasabanaylosescepticos.blogspot.com/2009/09
2/The Lamentation of Christ’ (1164), a fresco from the church of Saint Panteleimon in Nerezi near Skopje. It is considered a superb example of twelfth century Komnenian art.
3/ Le Mandylion et le Keramion, images achiropiites du Christ. Miniature d’un manuscrit de L’Échelle céleste de Jean Climaque, XIe siècle. Codex Rossinensis 251, f°12, Rome, Bibliothèque vaticane.
You’ll get “La Réponse en Images”…if you’re not too intellectually blind to see the philological iconological EVIDENCE…
So The Holy Mandylion appears as one and the same time to be an outer garment, a burial sheet and a face/sweattowel… Still not get it?
One in three and three in one. Ring a bell?
The Holy Mandylion as himation-sindon-soudarion…
Max, Max… Like we can see on every known copy of the relic and like almost every known ancient documentary sources have specified, the Holy Mandylion was a small towel showing just the face of a living Christ, without any injuries or bloodstains. Why is it so hard to understand ? ;-)
Are you intellectually blind to Byzantine iconography? Cannot you see the same Holy Mandylion characteristic decorative ornemantation is used in the Christ’s himation, sindon and soudarion Byzantine and Armenian iconography? Cryptically speaking, the three items do evoke the Holy Mandylion in conjunction with the Abgar legend. That’s a visual fact.
I do know from old, the vocable Holy Mandylion used to ALSO referred to a small towel (actually an about 55cm x 40cm fine byssus towel kept inserted in a gold gilt reliquary/vessel-table about 60cm x 45cm X 8cm and now kept in a slightly reduced size in Manoppello). Are you kidding?
CAN YOU THEN account for the Greek word ‘HIMATION’ being used in the Greek version of the Abgar legend? CANNOT YOU UNDERSTAND a ‘himation’ is definitely not “a small towel”, that’s a philological fact? It is not just ‘a small towel’!
You are not only (partially) wrong in your opinion, your are iconographically (visually) philologically (textually) wrong in your facts!
Can you really understand what I am trying to tell you?
Sorry Yannick: There is no evidence of blood in the Shroud. There is a controversial subject. Frache and McCrone used conventional tests for blood. The result was negative. Adler and Heller invented a personal test. They found traces of blood. Baima Bollone identifies the blood type, but Raymond Rogers denies this possibility. And so on.
No scientific archaeological lab has been in charge of the subject. They are who have something to say, and not experts in anything else. The detection of ancient blood is a very complex problem. Not for “amateurs”. And Frache, McCrone, Adler and Heller were “amateurs” sensu strictu. (I do not think it’s useful to talk about what some doctors think they see or not see in the evanescent image of the shroud. That’s wishful thinking).
The bloodstains provide simpler evidence. No profound reflections or hyper-scientific hypothesis are needed. «Blood never oozes in nice neat rivulets, it gets clotted in the hair. The anatomic accuracy is more what Michelangelo would have done in a painting than what actually happens to a body».” (Michael Baden, deputy chief medical examiner of New York for Suffolk County quoted by Marvin M. Mueller, reply to William Meacham “The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology”, http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm ).
The “blood” is painted. Whatever it is, is painted. That is all.
The wannabe Art Historian David Mo now AS an ARCHAEOLOGICAL blood pattern IMAGINARY/NON PROFESSIONAL expert!
Marvin M. Mueller is no ARCHAEOLOGICAL blood pattern analyst that I know of….
Sorry I meant to write:
“Michael Baden is no ARCHAEOLOGICAL blood pattern analyst that I know of….”
I very much doubt DMo can even discriminate between ARCHAEOLOGICAL & NON ARCHAEOLIGICAL blood. There is a world of a difference easily ignored by current medical examiners….
In addidition to a biochemist microanalyst’s opinion, at least three other relevant opinions are here most needed: that of a forensic archaeologist, that of a paleopathologist and that of an archaeological blood pattern analyst.
The blood issue is definitely not for “an amateur” like David Mo….
I have a three years’ experience as ARCHAEOLOGICAL blood pattern analyst…
I even devised an eidomatic numismatic reading grid based on the blood pattern analytical technique to detect the presence or absence of blood smeared coin partial decals on the Shroud man eye areas.
This allowed me to digitally & most accurately reconstruct two Pilate coin obverses…
Can e.g. DMo explain as wannabe Art Hhstorian, the negative imprint of three fingers on the Man of Shroud’s leg image?
Mystiping (sorry): “E;G., can DMo explain, as a wannabe Art historian, the negaive imprint of three fingers on the Man of the Shroud’s back foot image” and the very fact the same detail is alluded to in Christ’s Descent of the Cross & Entombment Byzantine iconography?
I’m new to the conversation so go easy on me please. Can you elaborate for me what you mean by the “negative imprint of three fingers…on back foot image?” The first thing I thought was that an angel had untied the Lord from the burial cloth! No kidding!
You surely must be an angel to think so…
You know the “spy details/clues/elements stuff”…
The fact is any BONA FIDE quester of the (forensic) archaeolo(crypto)logical truth must cut through BOTH the fantasy (archdvocates’ hypersubectivity) and zetetic (archsceptics’ pseudohyperobjectivity) world that have pervaded this part of Sindon studies for too long… The time has come to see the THIRD face of the Sindon coin… i.e. to rely on TRUE facts not to self-serving biased evidence, omissions and ignorance.
BTW it does seem Davor Aslanovski just ignores one basic principle in Art History: it sheds light on and RECEIVES light from Archaeology…
Correction: “it sheds light on and RECEIVES light from Archaeology…
Comments are closed.