A reader, having found the paper (sturp88.pdf) that Joe Marino tells us about, writes:
. . . If you strip off the file name . . . leaving http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/ you will find an extraordinary repository of Shroud of Turin files. Start reading.
I would start with Dallas.htm. I’m mentioned. That’s great. Bill Meacham agrees with me and I agree with him.
Thank you for the link !
There’s many documents that refer to one zone of the patches (when they were still sewn to the Shroud), where they could have taken some charred material under one particular patch in order to have another sample to test. But personally, I’m not so sure if it would have been a good choice. I think there would have been some danger of contamination in a place like that…
Here’s a good question about that : How would they been completely sure that 100% of the sample would have been composed of fibers from the real Shroud and that no fibers would have come from the Holland cloth, the patches and/or some other material that could have been trapped there over the years ???
Dan, Many thanks for posting this, What I found was extremely enlightening, in terms of the rather silly Shroud politicking that seems to have pervaded the 1988 Dallas “conference”. I note that Flury-Lemburg was still insisting that there had been no reveaving, despite Roger’s later work indicating quite the opposite. Hardly a “conference” in its traditional meaning; the descriptive expression “ex cathedra” seems sadly apposite. I thought the draft protocol, was an excellent objective document, which seemed well-considered and open to alternative findings, both the possibility of 14th century provenance, or the artifact being the gernune first century burial cloth.
The first and third link in your posting worked OK, but the second one referred to in Joe Marino’s quote did not – the papers had been moved elsewhere. Is there any more apart from the Bill Meacham letter, and the 17 page draft protocol? Have I missed anything?
A veritable goldmine of historical information. There are several pages that present the documents and pictures in a more friendly manner.
daveb ~ That’s because the link was done incorrectly. It is http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/
Yes, I eventually found the extra papers. As Andy says, a goldmine!
There is a fascinating 27 page paper by Ian Wilson, labelled wilson1.pdf, also a supplementary bibliog labelled wilson2.pdf. Meacham evidentally filed it faiirly recently in 2012, but I think it was written around 1984. The paper is titled: “The Shroud and the Mandylion – A reply to Professor Averil Cameron”.
The paper traverses Cameron’s objections to the Wilson theory that the two were the same object. He deals with her objections in great detail, and for me seems to be an effective response to all those Byzantine history scholars who object to his thesis. But then I’m not a Byzantine scholar and wouldn’t know, would I? I’m just an ordinary lay person, who imagines he can recognise the truth of a sound argument when it’s placed before him.
Specialists have an important role in such matters, but I’ve often found that their concentration reveals too limiting a view and cannot always be relied on to get at the full truth of things. By the way, I’ve also discovered that Wilson is not entirely ignorant of Greek as alleged in a recent posting. He at least has an O level in Greek, and also has access to expert professional advice, and is prepared to seek it, unlike some others.
I’m glad you pointed that particular paper out Daveb, I had intended to do so also and I agree it is a very effective response. Wilson1.pdf deals very well with several issues raised against the Shroud/Mandylion/Edessa hypothesis, such as the imprint being described as being from a “living Christ” or of the eyes being seen as “open” and specifically the blood. To the blood statement he mentions “if in good light” one may discern the blood markings. This is a point I tried to put forth before but was shunned. Wilson has seen the Shroud first hand, up close in semi-darkness and in good light and with no glass covering. He would know FAR better then most what is discernable and what is not, most definately. It is probable early discriptions of the Mandylion (of just the face), that one could come to the conclusion as Wilson predicts…Wilson is not alone in this area as it has been mentioned by many others, such as Pierre Barbet, whom have had the liberty to view the Shroud in it’s natural form, that it is very difficult to discern details such as the eyes, the blood etc; but especially the blood as it becomes pronounced only slightly in ‘good light’. I believe this is a strong point one must consider and also strengthens Wilson’s Mandylion/Edessa cloth/ Shroud hypothesis.
I would like to see Wilson doing the same with my 22 objections that are contained in my recent paper… ;-)
I doubt Wilson would even bother reading your paper Yannick, let alone bother answering to any of your 22 objections, whatever they are.
Note; I haven’t bothered reading it either.
Ron, the simple fact that you didn’t even look at my 22 arguments against Wilson’s hypothesis prove my point of the other day that you should look at yourself in a mirror before accusing me of being close minded ! ;-) Here in Quebec, I’m sure you know how we call the English Canadians (particularly the Ontarians)… Square heads ! LOL ! Please, don’t take my last joke too seriously… I just a joke.
From a proud “Frog” from Louiseville, Québec !!!
P.S. : I think Wilson would have a very hard time to give a rational and strong answer to many of my arguments… But nevertheless, I know very well that when you have a great imagination (like Wilson), you can always find a way to redirect things in the way you want !!!
Wikipedia entry on Professor Averil Cameron:
Dame Averil Millicent Cameron, DBE,, FBA (born 8 February 1940) is Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine History in the University of Oxford,and was formerly the Warden of Keble College, Oxford between 1994 and 2010.. She was previously Professor of Ancient History (1978-89) and Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies (1989-94), at King’s College London. At Oxford, she is Chair of the Advisory Committee on Honorary Degrees and also sits on committees for Conflict of Interest, Select Preachers, and the Wainwright Fund.
Ian Wilson’s repsonse to her several objections on his hypothesis runs to some 27 pages. To me it seems to be an effective and complete response, (but then I’m just an ordinary layman who imagines he can recognise the truth of a sound argument). I dare say it would also cover several, if not all of Mr Clement’s objections. For after all, I believe it unlikely he is as well qualified as Professor Averil Cameron in such matters, in fact by comparison a “minnow” = “1, a small slender European cyprinid fish, … 4, a small or insignificant person” (Collins). Of course this is also only a joke, isn’t it, from another “squarehead”! But nevertheless, to be fully informed on such matters, as he apparently claims to be, perhaps he should download the paper and read it for himself.
There is one thing in common that all these Byzantine scholars share, including Mr Clement. Not one of them has ever come up with an altrnative hypothesis on the whereabouts of the burial cloth, except DA who apparently claims it to have been in “Neverland”. Wilson’s hypothesis is the only one, so far, that has ever attempted a coherent and complete theory, even if it contains minor errors in its details, I patiently wait to see an alternative credible hypothesis! But I shall not hold my breath while doing so.
Because Wilson hypothesis is “the only one, so far, that has ever attempted a coherent and complete theory” versus the Shroud obscure years, that don’t make it a good hypothesis at all ! This argument is completely ridiculous. The fact is this : Unless there’s new important findings in the Byzantine or Syriac field of study, it will always be IMPOSSIBLE to write a coherent hypothesis regarding the history of the Shroud prior to, let’s say, the middle of the 12th century. In order to do that in the present state of Byzantine and Syriac study, you MUST used a bunch of speculations, extrapolations and special assumptions just to keep all the pieces of your puzzle in place ! I’ll repeat it : THAT’S NOT THE GOOD WAY TO DO HISTORICAL RESEARCH. Period. Wilson do that to sell books to people like you and get prestige in the Shroud world. Dan Brown do the same thing at a much larger scale… You will never any credible and serious historians do something like that. And you will never see me do that either. I’m not interested to write a book to defend an hypothesis that would surely look as solid as a castle of cards (just like the one defended by Wilson).
“Ian Wilson’s repsonse to her several objections on his hypothesis runs to some 27 pages.”
Actually, Wilson’s reply to Cameron runs to only 10 pages (biblio included).
Mistake… You should read : You will never SEE any credible and serious historians do something like that. And you will never see me do that either. I’m not interested to write a book to defend an hypothesis that would surely look as solid as a castle of cards (just like the one defended by Wilson).
“Wilson’s hypothesis is the only one, so far, that has ever attempted a coherent and complete theory, even if it contains minor errors in its details”.
Although I do agree with Wilson (there is a direct link between the imaged (tetradiplon) sindon of Edessa and the imaged Turin Sindon, however his theory does contain two major errors:
1/ the different Abgar Legends refer not to one but to TWO distinctive objects (a small nearly square face cloth AND a long rectangular cloth folded four times onto itself).
2/ the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion is an ingenuous false-true only -face copy (now kept in Manoppello) of the imaged face-&-body Sindon (now kept in Turin).
Typo error: “do not refer to only one but to TWO distinctive objects”
Really Max, I don’t know in which ancient manuscript you got the idea that the Abgar legend was referring to 2 separated cloths ! I’ve never seen anything of that nature. Every versions of the Abgar legend that I know are always referring to a small towel bearing the image of the face of the living Christ without any signs of injuries or bloodstains (except for 2 alternative versions that seem to refer to the image of the complete body of Jesus, but these represent a very tiny minority). Anyway, in ALL the versions I’ve read, there’s absolutely no place where I’ve read that there was 2 separated cloths with an image of Christ… Where did you get this bizarre idea ?
The imaged Edessa cloth is both described as a (transparent?) small face cloth (see e.g; Thaddai put it on his face) and a long rectangular cloth roughly more than 4m long x 1m wide (see e.g. John Damascene who mentioned it as a “himation” also called achiton/sindon when worn next to the skin).
CANNOT YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT “ALL” THE VERSIONS OF THE ABGAR LEGEND? Your selfserving omissions and ignorance are just telling about the real way you search for the truth!
you should also study the 11th-12th-first mid 13th c. CE Byzantine Yeshua/Christ’s mandylion & himation/achiton iconography in conjunction with the Empty Tomb scenes + Yeshua/Christ’s Resurrection & Descent into Hell scenes.
you wrote:”except for 2 alternative versions that seem to refer to the image of the complete body of Jesus.”
you should also read Wilson’s reply to Cameron. You’ll learn there are (and not seem to be) more than 2 alternative versions to the Abgar legend linking the Edessa cloth with Yeshua’s entire body.
Max, you should know that ancient writers often used various words to describe one single object. On the contrary to modern writers, precision was not at all important for them. Damascene uses a word in one manuscript (De Fide Orthodoxa) that refer to a long cloth (not at all a burial shroud by the way but more like a coat or something like that) and in another manuscript (De Imaginibus), he used another word to describe the Image of Edessa and that word refers to a small cloth (more like a towel or something like that). So, just with this example, you can see that it’s very risky to take these choices of words as it was really a precise physical description of the cloth… It’s the same thing for the choice of words to describe the real Shroud of Christ. In many ancient texts, the writer used the word “sudarium” instead of “sindon” ! In other words, these ancient writers were often using many different terms to describe the same relic (like I said, precision was not important for them) and, based solely on these choices of words, no one can really pretend to get a clear and precise physical description of a relic. In the end, you got to put these words in the context of the legendary text where we found them and, for the Image of Edessa linked to the Abgar legend, no doubt that the vast majority of text refers to only the image of the face of Christ and, on that base, we have to assume that this relic was not a very big cloth. In fact, that’s precisely what “Mandylion (from the arab “Mandyl”) mean ! A small towel or something of that nature and that’s precisely what all the known copies of the relic show (there’s absolutely no copy showing the Mandylion as a very long cloth like the Shroud of Turin)… I don’t think we have to extrapolate more than that.
Additional note : For the descriptions concerning the Shroud of Christ, since they mainly come from lists of relics written by eye-witnesses of the relics, we can give more credit to their description than a description found in a legendary text for example, but nevertheless, we should always keep in mind that their choices of words was not always the same to describe one particular relic. So, even in this case, we should always be very prudent not to take everything for granted…
for the THIRD (and last) time, how can you account for a HIMATION (a more than 4m long x 1m wide cloth) and NOT of a small square face cloth) as the cloth that received Yeshua’s facial imprint in John Damascene’s version of the Abgar legend (8th c. CE)? How can you explain such a drastic variation in the nature of the cloth itself?
wehther you like it or not, the size and shape of a more than 4m long x 1m wide himation worn next to the skin as achiton/sindon is consistent with the size and shape of the more than 4m long x 1m wide sindon kept in Turin.
how long will you just ignore what does not fit in “your” thesis (which actually is not even yours)? This is NOT good history AT ALL
How long will you keep selfservingly dismissed John Damascene’s version of the Abgar Legend + at least three literary testimonies identifying the Edessa cloth as a cloth bearing Yeshua’s entire body implying it was a long cloth? THIS IS JUST BEYOND ME!
Mystyping: “keep dismissing”
The logical conclusion IS that the different versions of the Abgar Legends refer not to only one but to TWO distinctive objects (a small nearly square face cloth AND a long rectangular cloth (folded or not four times onto itself). Period.
The word by Damascene can mean something else than a cloth of 4 meters long ! In his book The Image of Edessa, Mark Guscin (a linguist), while talking about the word found in the manuscript De Fide Orthodoxa mention that it normally mean “large outer cloak” !!! How in the world a “large outer cloak” can measure 4 meters long my friend ? This is a very bad extrapolation that you did about that… And for the alternative versions of the Abgar legend referring to a complete image of the body of Christ, I only know these manuscript : 1- Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69, dated from the 10th or 11th century and 2- “Historia Ecclesiastica” by Orderic Vital, dated of around 1141. There’s a third one writen by Gervase of Tilbury, dated of around 1210, but the reference of a complete image found in that one is just a copy of the story found in the manuscript of Orderic Vital, so I don’t count this one as really a third reference…
3 notes about these references :
1- On the literary corpus that refer to the Abgar legend, they represent one tiny part in front of a very vast majority of manuscript that talk about a small cloth showing only the face of the living Christ in a context that is always located BEFORE the Passion of Christ. If someone really wants to only keep these 2 references as being true physical descriptions of the Mandylion, he has to throw a great amount of manuscripts to the garbage (those that don’t refer at all to a full-length image) and I’m sorry, but acting like that is NOT the good way to do History ! When 99% of the manuscripts talked about a small cloth bearing just the image of the face of the living Christ, I don’t think it’s correct to forget about them and just focus your attention on these 2 references !
2- These 2 references to the image of a full-length body NEVER talk about the presence of injuries or blood, along with the body image and they don’t seem to refer to a double full-length image, ventral and dorsal. When you read these references, you really have a sense that the authors refer only to a frontal image.
3- These few references are all found in a legendary kind of text that is most probably using images to teach a theological message linked with the dogma of the Incarnation of Christ. In that context, no one can’t used them as a real precise description of the Mandylion… It’s only when you use bad speculations and extrapolations that you can see a description of the Shroud there. I repeat : no one of these 2 descriptions made any reference to the presence of blood or injuries on the relic and/or located the context of the story during the Passion of Christ…
Additional note : Even if a long outer cloak of greek style could be very long (let’s assume for a minute it can be as long as the Shroud), this choice of word by Damascene cannot at all be understood as a reference to a burial shroud !!! How can this doctor of the Church would have used a word meaning a large cloak to describe a burial shroud !!! This is, again, a very good example of bad speculation. A cloak is far from being a shroud ! And also, you have to consider the literary context where you found this word by Damascene : it’s during the lifetime of Christ, before his Passion !!! In that context, no way you can make a direct link between this large cloth and the Shroud of Turin ! Here’s the part of Damascene’s manuscript where we found the word “large cloth” (the translation from the greek manuscript is from Guscin) : “Abgar, kind of the city of Edessa, sent an artist to paint the Lord’s image but could not do so because of the shining brilliance of his face. The Lord therefore placed a large cloth on his divine and life-giving face wipe his own imprint onto it. He sent this to Abgar in answer to his request.”
Question : How in the world can you see any kind of reference to a burial Shroud showing a complete body of Christ with all the stigmatas of the Passion in this text ??? It’s so easy to take one word in one manuscript completely out of context (just like the expression “sindon tetradiplon” by the way) and make very bad extrapolations and speculations with it ! This is far from being great historical work and, on the contrary, I have a tendency to call this kind of acting “intellectual dishonesty”…
you wrote: “The word by Damascene can mean something else than a cloth of 4 meters long ! In his book The Image of Edessa, Mark Guscin (a linguist), while talking about the word found in the manuscript De Fide Orthodoxa mention that it normally mean “large outer cloak” !!! How in the world a “large outer cloak” can measure 4 meters long my friend ?”
The TRUE FACTS are:
The Greek word “himation” applied to the Edessa cloth CANNOT refer to a small face-cloth at all BUT ONLY to a LONG RECTANGULAR PIECE OF CLOTH.
In a preceding post, (July 2, 2012 at 9:55 am | #29), I wrote (cannot you read/haven’t you read me?)
In 730 CE, in his Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images, John of Damascus described the Image of Edessa as a himation. THIS IS A LITERARY FACT.
A himation is an ankle-length cloak/garment. It can be made of wool or heavier drape (winter/autumn wear), linen and cotton or lighter drape worn next to the skin as achiton/sindon (workwear, summer/spring wear and night/evening wear see e.g. the young-man-running-away-naked scene in the Gospel of Mark).
See Greek clothing: « Wearing the himation: The garment is worn either alone or over a chiton/ketoneh. The himation is worn draped about the body from shoulder to ankle.
a. One end of the garment is thrown over the left shoulder to hang between calf and ankle.
b. The remaining material is brought around under the right arm, across the back and thrown over the left shoulder.
c. The remaining material is draped along the length of the arm to hand down towards the left foot. ».
It does not denote a small (face-)cloth!
Had YOU proceeded to a more thorough probing of the topic, you would have been aware that for a man 5”8” to 6’2” the himation should have been roughly 420cm long & 140cm wide, which is consistent with the roughly 440cm long & 120cm wide Turin Sindon. THIS IS BOTH A PHILOLOGICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL FACT.
Additional textual pieces of evidence: in the Codex Vossianus Latinus, the Edessa Cloth is definitely not a small face-cloth but a cloth in which . . .
You can see [not only] the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body.
12th c. CE authors such as Ordericus Vitalis, Gervase of Tibury and the anonymous of “Latin Legend of Abgar” also unequivocally describe the Edessa (linen) cloth as having recorded Yeshua’s entire body. THESE ARE LITERAY FACTS.
Oftentimes in Byzantine & Medieval iconography, Yeshua/Christ wears both burial/resurrectional himation over a chiton and himation alone/next to the skin (= achiton/sindon). See e.g. the Armenian miniature by Toros Roslin or Nicolas de Verdun’s 12th C. CE decorative panels (Entombment, Resurrection & Descent ino Hell scenes. Had YOU really been aware of the Byzantine iconographic burial/resurrectional himation of Christ, YOU would also have noticed its striking similarity with the iconogrzaphic long rectangular burial/resurrectional cloth Yeshua wears e.g. in the Resurrection mosaic of Hosios Loukas, 10th century CE. ALL THESE ARE ICONOGRAPHIC FACTS.
Do you really think that SELFSERVINGLY DISMISSING TRUE FACTS as you keep doing is good history? Intellectual dishonesty is definitely on your side.
Mistyping: YOU would also have noticed the striking similarity of the Turin Sindon in shape and size with the iconogrzaphic long rectangular burial/resurrectional cloth Yeshua wears e.g. in the Resurrection mosaic of Hosios Loukas, 10th century CE.
I have 2 things to say to you Max : 1- Can you pay more attention to the literary context please ? Damascene talks about an image of only the face of the living Christ and in another earlier manuscript, he was using a common word meaning a simple cloth to describe the same Image of Edessa and again, he talked only about an image of the face of the living Christ. It’s clear that, for him, the Mandylion was simply an image of the face of the living Christ and had nothing to do with a burial cloth. If there had been bloodstains and bruises on the face, don’t you think a doctor of the Church like him wouldn’t have written about that in details ??? You look at the face on the Shroud and it’s evident (even for a child) that we see an image of the Passion of Christ !!! And you’ll make me believe that not him nor any other writers wouldn’t have said one word about that and make any link whatsoever with the Passion ? It’s simply ridiculous to even think that as a possibility. In fact, it’s completely out of context. And 2- You want real facts ? How about the fact #9 of my recent paper ? Can you please go reading again this most important fact ? When that will be done, can you please give me a rational explanation for the FACT that, in the very same manuscript, Damascene is talk about the Image of Edessa (which was for him an image of only the face of the living Christ) in link with the Abgar legend in one place, and in another complete different part of the manuscript, he’s talking about all the known relics of the Passion of Christ and, while making a list of these, he refers to the burial cloths of Christ (in the plural) while he make no reference at all concerning the Image of Edessa and/or the Abgar legend ??? This FACT is, for me, one of the most important that exist in ancient manuscript that clearly show 1- that the Image of Edessa was a different relic than the Shroud of Christ (often associated with other burial cloths) and 2- that the Image of Edessa had nothing to do with a relic of the Passion of Jesus-Christ.
Isn’t that enough clear for your brain Max ??? What do you need now to understand that Wilson’s hypothesis is as good as Dan Brown’s hypothesis concerning Mary Magdalene and Christ ? Meditate on that for a while before answering me… And when you’ll give me your answer, please give me a RATIONAL answer to explain this important FACT. Thanks !
CANNOT YOU READ ME with your brain and eye?
I wrote Wilson (and YOU too BTW) made two major errors as:
1/ the different 6th-12th c. CE versions of the Abgar Legend refer not to one but to TWO distinctive objects (a small nearly square face-cloth AND a long rectangular cloth (a 4m long x 1m wide mimation/sindon bearing the face or/and whole body imprint).
2/ the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion is an ingenuous false-true only-face copy (now kept in Manoppello) of the imaged face-&-body Sindon (now kept in Turin).
If you really want to hear about and see BLOODSTAINS IN CONJUNCTION WITH YESHUA’S BURIAL/RESURRECTIONNAL SINDON/HIMATION, don’t look up in Byzantine literature & iconography, just look up for instance in:
– Georgian literature (e.g. the 5th/8th c. CE “I, Joseph”);
– Armenian iconography (e.g. Toros Roslyn’s mid-13thc. CE miniatures);
– Latin iconography (e.g. 12th c. CE Pray Ms’ two iconographic sindons: one bearing Yeshua’s body with a mark above his right eye corresponding to the reversed `3′ bloodstain on the Turin Sindon (page III, ink drawings 3) and the other one schetchily featuring the left-right side wound in conjunction with the letf-right forearm double blood rivulet (page III, ink drawings 4).
In Byzantine liturgy, by a pious fraud, the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion was associated with the garden of Gethsemane scene implying the vision of Yeshua’s face stained with blood having perspired and trickled. Ring a bell?
Although all the contradictory versions of the Abgar Legend shall not be taken literally, they contain a kernel of truth; a kernel you just missed as you DELIBERATELY keep ignoring all the versions that most obviouly contredict “your small face-cloth thesis”.
What do you make of the visual fact a vast nimbus-like shaped light discolouration can be detected all around the Turin Sindon face not only on contrast enhanced orthochromatic, traditional silver & extensive digital Sindon overall photographs but also in situ cathedralis torinensis by standing at a distance between 15 to 30m away from the relic. NOTHING since it is contrary to your belief.
What do you make of the visual fact a short portion decal of a text in Nestorian type of Syriac script can be detected on the area just below the beard from digitally contrast enhanced 1978 Schwortz Turin Sindon face photograph. NOTHING since it is contrary to your belief.
The rare Greek word tetradilon only applied to Yeshua’s sindon/rakos (= old stained/soiled fabric) can be translated in THREE different way:
-folded/doubled in four
-folded/doubled four times onto itself
– 4 x1 = four times longer than wide
Notice the last translation can be applied to both a roughly 4m long x 1m wide current himation AND the Turin sindon but NOT to the roughly 55cm high x 40 cm wide. mandylion.
Yannick, can you REALLY/LOGICALLY account for the use of this specific word (tetradiplon) applied to a rakos/sindon receiving a facial imprint? (BTW This is the fourth time I am asking you).
Since (in two or threee previous posts) I identified the Mandylion with one of Yeshua’s burial cloths as a fine transparent Byssus face-cloth, my identification does no contradict at all with John the Damascene’s list of Yeshua’s burial relics.
Mistyping: “the different 6th-12th c. CE versions of the Abgar Legend DO NOT refer only to one but to TWO distinctive objects”
Since the Mandylion reliquary that was kept in Paris was 60cm high x 45cm wide x 8cm deep implying it was used to keep a roughly 55cm high x 40cm wide small face cloth, how then do you LOGICALLY/RATIONALLY account for the 11th-12th-13th c. CE Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion iconography featuring the face BOTH in portrait AND landscape modes (twice longer than wide)?
I am still waiting for you to RATIONALLY answer this very simple question: what made John the Damascene used the specific Greek word himation to identify the cloth which received Yeshua’s face imprint? How could he mistook a large cloth (more than 4m long x 1m wide) for a small face-cloth?
If Damascene never saw the Mandylion, I think it can explain very well is bizarre choice of word. Remember that, in another manuscript, he used a totally different word to describe the relic and many ancient authors also used a vast amount of different expressions to describe the Mandylion (most probably for the same reason than Damascene : because they never saw the relic with their own eyes). Also, you should know that precision was not at all of the same value for ancient writers as it is for us today. This is another rational explanation for this bizarre choice of word by Damascene. If all he knew was that there was a relic of the living Christ on linen bearing his face and nothing else, it is understandable that he could have used different terms to describe it in different manuscript. And because Damascene was most probably not an eye-witness of the relic, it would be a great mistake (on an historical point of view) to use the word he used one time to describe it as an actual precise description of the cloth.
In 10th-mid-13th c. CE Byzantine, Armenian and Latin Yeshua’s Entombment, Descent into Hell & Resurrection iconography, Yeshua wears an iconographic himation (either over a chiton or next to the skin as a achiton/sindon). How do you RATIONALLY account for such a use of the himation/sindon type by Byzantine, Armenian & even Latin artists?
In two 13th c; CE miniatures by the Armenian artist Toros Roslyn, the iconographic resurrectional himation is either simbolically or realistically stained with blood. What do you make of them in conjunction with John Damascene’s himation? NOTHING as they contradict your belief.
I see you have either NOTHING to oppose to my TRUE facts or only recur to pure/poor speculative arguments to back up “your hypothesis” mostly based on selfserving biased evidence, omisssions and ignorance.. Are you kidding?
According to you John Damascene (a church doctor) was so ignorant, he deliberately used the word himation (meaning a more than 4m long x 1m wide cloth) JUST to account for the way Yeshua’s face imprint was recorded on the Edessa cloth? Are you kidding?
1- An himation is a cloth used in lifetime. A burial shroud (sindon) is a cloth used after death ! How in the world you can think for 2 seconds that both terms can mean the same kind of cloth ?
2- Damascene wrote his manuscript around the middle of the 8th century. At that time, if we believe Wilson’s hypothesis, the Shroud was folded in 8 to show only the region of the face and no one knew about that. How in the world Damascene would have known this information that the Image of Edessa was a much longer cloth if all that was available to see was a towel-sized cloth showing only the region of the face ? Do your homework : 1/8 of the Shroud is much smaller than 4 meters !
3- An himation is a cloth used in lifetime. A burial shroud (sindon) is a cloth used after death. How can you believe for one second that both terms can described a same cloth ? And if he knew about the reality of the Shroud-Mandylion, why Damascene didn’t used a word like sindon or sudario or something of that nature that can express well the idea that this cloth was a burial cloth ? Don’t you agree with me that this choice of word (himation) is far from being close to the reality of the Shroud of Turin ?
It’s ridiculous to think that Damascene was doing a precise physical description of the Image of Edessa while using this term “himation”… This is pure and very bad speculation my friend. In fact, if you read again the part of the text of Damascene where he used this word (I gave it to you the other day), you’ll see that your interpretation is completely out of context.
I’ve made a mistake in point #1 of my last comment. Here’s the real point #1 :
1- It’s a fact that there was a lot of himation that were much smaller than 4 meters long. Some could probably reached a length close to that of the Shroud I guess, but you will never make me believe that it was all himation that had this kind of length… In fact, I have read in a few places on the internet that the “normal” length of this cloth was 3 meters (and not 4 !) more or less. I agree that 3 meters represent a long cloth but we’re still far from the real length of the Shroud (which is 4.4 meters).
The rest of my last comment is good.
Yannick you wrote: “An himation is a cloth used in lifetime”.
As far as Christ/Yeshua iconography is concerned, this is TOTALLY FALSE.
You’d better check the mid-10-mid 14th c. CE Byzantine, Armenian and Latin Christ’s/Yeshua’s burial and resurrectional himation/achiton/sindon iconography
How can you be so blind to TRUE iconographic facts is just beyond me!
Yannick you wrote: “Do your homework : 1/8 of the Shroud is much smaller than 4 meters !”
You’d better reread me AND UNDERSTAND what I really wrote. I wrote they were THREE different ways to translate the Greek word tetradiplon (‘folded in four’/’folded four times onto itself’ and ‘4×1’ = ‘four times longer than wide’) and don’t totally agree with both Wilson’s and Jacskon’s reconstructions.
Yannick you wrote: “It’s a fact that there was a lot of himation that were much smaller than 4 meters long. Some could probably reached a length close to that of the Shroud I guess, but you will never make me believe that it was all himation that had this kind of length…”
Methinks you are just ignorant in Ancient & Late Antique Greek clothing.The TRUE FACT is, according to a Greek clothing specialist, a roughly 420cm long x 140cm wide piece of cloth is needed to dress in himation fashion a man 5’8″-6’2″ tall (Yeshua is currently said to have been 5’11” tall). This is consistent with the roughly 440cm long x 120cm wide sindon/cloth known as the Turin Sindon.
Remember the Pray Ms Empty tomb drawing: atop of the sindon is drawn what looks somehow like a TRANSPARENT mandylion…
Thats your interpretation of what lies above the sindon Max. I interpret it differently, as in it being the bundled strips, which bound the Shroud to the body…It is all speculation though in either case.
Actually, basing the deciphering on the Byzantine iconography of the Empty Tomb, it just cannot be the bundled strips. The only alternative left to the mandylion as small face cloth is the (transparent) skullcap (now kept in Cahors).
…as both were then kept in Constantinople.
MPH, is correct about number of pages, I had not picked up that Meacham appears to have derived the paper from scanning the orginal publication from pp 19-27, 28, my error. It scarcely derogates from the soundness of Wilson’s argument in response to Cameron.
If I interpret Max correctly, at #15, 2/, I think he is identifying the Mandylion with the Manoppello relic, but that it is NOT of a “not made with human hands” icon, but in fact a man-made copy of the sindon image. From what little I’ve read of Manopello, I’m inclined to concur that it is indeed a man-made icon, and that the face geometry is a close fit with the sindon image. However if the Mandylion was in fact a separate object from the sindon, then another case can be made for it having been with other relics hoarded in Paris and destroyed during the French Revolution, and that Manapello may be yet another different copy.
Coming back to the sindon: If it is indeed the burial cloth of Christ dating from the 1st century, and there are several reasons supporting its authenticity as we all know, then it had to be located somewhere. Unless one is to believe the ancient Abgar story, which looks increasingly unlikely because of Edessa reverting to paganism, then its most likely first destination after 68 AD is Antioch, where the Apostolic church first became established. Possibly it was taken there as early as 47 AD. But it could not have remained in Antioch much after 525-540 AD, because of its destruction by a great fire, two earthquakes, and finally Persian Chosroes I, invaded all of Syria and destroyed Antioch in 540.
The Abgar legend may have its roots in the conversion of Abgar the Great, around 190 AD, and the subsequent establishment of Edessa as a major Christian center. The sindon and/or a copied icon, may have been taken to Edessa for a brief visit from Antioch at this time, giving rise to the story. So we have the destruction of Antioch no later than 540, and the emergence of the Edessa image in 544 AD, at the time of Chosroes’ abortive attack on Edessa. All of this is comprehensively traversed in two papers presented at conferences by Jack Markwardt in 1998/99 and 2008. Both papers are well documented and properly referenced, the most recent one at: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p02.pdf . Similarly the other can be found by checking out the 1998 conference.
The Shroud and other icons could not have been preserved in Edessa after 1146, when it fell to Turkish Muslims. The most likely explanation is that it was taken from there by John Curcuas, the Armenian-born commander of the Byzantine army in 944.
Where else could the sindon have been: Armenia? St Catherine’s monastery at Sinai? Ephesus? All unlikely, and there’s no case to be made for them! Nevertheless, Icons apparently based on the sindon image, appeared all over churches in the Middle East, even as far as Armenia and Georgia. Early in the fourth century, the easterns discovered what happened to relics when they were revealed to Helena, they ended up at the imperial court, where Constantine made a talismanic bridle for his horse from one of the crucifixion nails. There was good reason not to reveal the whereabouts of the sindon and other holy images.
It is hardly surprising that the whereabouts of the Shroud has remained an enigma for so many centuries. However it is an enigma on which the likes of Ian Wilson, Jack Markwardt, and various others have been able to shed some illuminating research, which they have approached industriously and comprehensively, from the purest of motives. Any comparison with the likes of the charlatan Dan Green is utterly odious.
Very well said DaveB, I agree with most all you state, but especially with your last paragraph.
Dave bwnz wrote: “If I interpret Max correctly, at #15, 2/, I think he is identifying the Mandylion with the Manoppello relic, but that it is NOT of a “not made with human hands” icon, but in fact a man-made copy of the sindon image. From what little I’ve read of Manopello, I’m inclined to concur that it is indeed a man-made icon, and that the face geometry is a close fit with the sindon image.”
I never said the Manoppello Veil was “not made with human hands”… (it is a “in-rusted reconstruction” of the Sindon face from faint marks left on the burial small transparent Byssus face cloth; the marks having been used as guide-lines/template).
Dave bwnz also wrote: “However if the Mandylion was in fact a separate object from the sindon, then another case can be made for it having been with other relics hoarded in Paris and destroyed during the French Revolution, and that Manapello may be yet another different copy.”
Too bad you cannot read 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th French and French gothic script. The lists are not referring to a cloth but to a trellis (‘trelle’ as opposed to ‘toelle’ that is a most unfortunate current misreading) as far as the Holy Mandylion reliquary is concerned. Actually the gold gilt trellised reliquary kept in Paris was associated with a Holy Face painted on a board.
Jack Markward is getting off-track. The earliest known testimonies definitely point to Edessa not Antioch.
Corrections: “Too bad you cannot read 15th, 16th, 17th & 18th French and French & Latin gothic script. The lists are not referring to a cloth but to a trellis (‘trellum’/‘trelle’ as opposed to ‘toellum’/‘toelle’ that is a most unfortunate current misreading) as far as the Holy Mandylion reliquary is concerned.”
Max, How can you say for certain it cannot be the bundled strip(s)? Do you believe the side-strip we see on the Shroud was not apparent when the Shroud was in Constantinople? Do you not believe the side-strip would have raised much question or speculation even then, as to it’s purpose?
can you show me in all Byzantine or even Latin 11th-12th or even first mid 13th c. CE Empty tomb iconography JUST ONE miniature/mosaic/fresco featuring bundled strips lying above/atop the sindon? THERE IS NONE! However if you look up for iconographic face cloths (the size of a kerchief) or skull caps (with bridles), you will find quite a few.
The 11th -12th century CE Byzantine artists just ignored the pre-burial sudarium (then kept in Oviedo) and interpreted the Empty tomb “soudarion” as a small face cloth (kercheif type) type) or a skull cap (head-dress type).
You didn’t answer any of my questions Max. I simply like to know how you can be so certain the bundled cloth is NOT linen strips…What other Byzantine art showed or didn’t show has no relevance in this argument as one must deduce that the artist of the PM must have had direct or secondary experience with the Shroud due to several points already established and almost certainly others didn’t. I’m not saying for sure it is bundled strips or that it is not the Sudarium, as I mentioned before it is all speculation.
To see bundled strips is PURE speculation in the light of ALL 11th-12th & 13th C. CE Byzantine & Latin Empty Tomb iconography. Iconologically speaking, to recognize a head-dress type in the small cloth folded into a “circleted (half transparent?) veil lying above/atop the burial sheet is the most likely. Again see Grimaldi 17th C. CE copy of the second-mid 12th-early 13th century CE “Umbella” Empty Tomb scene.
The closest face cloth/skull cap candidate to that of the Pray Ms can be seen on the 17th c. CE copy by Grimaldi of the 12th c. CE Umbella of Pope John VII side chapel where was first kept the Uronica in the 12th c.CE and then he Veronica.(from at least 1208 to the first third16th/early 17th c. CE.
Again you haven’t answered all my questions! and again I must stress Byzantine art of the 11Th, 12Th or 13Th centuries have no baring whatsoever in this discussion. It is an assumption on your part that it does or can be connected to the PM, it being a simple ink drawing, drawn by an obscure monk in a obscure monastery and prior to most all other depictions.
if NOW you want to debate on the correct deciphering of the 12th c. CE Pray Ms Empty Tomb scene, while SELFSERVINGLY IGNORING not only 11th-12th & 13th century Byzantine & Latin Empty Tomb iconography but also relic archaeology (Sudarium of Ovieodo, Veil of Manoppello & Head-Dress of Cahors) to back you purely speculative
interpretation of the cloth on top of the sindon covered tomb-lid, this is just beyond me. There is just neither rhyme nor reason to the way you tackle the iconographic and archaeological issue. Methinks I am just wasting my time with you and leave you with your questions unanswered.
Selservingly? I can say precisely the same for you Max! except I admit I’m being speculative…Funny how you think your wasting your time, but still, will not answer my questions nor can you explain how your Byzantine Iconography can reflect on the Pray Codex whatsoever…..speculative thinking maybe?
before passing any more comment on my posts here, PLEASE, do your homework and make a comparative iconographic and archaeological study to really undertand what I am talking about
I’m not closing my mind! I am most certainly aware of WHAT your 22 points most likely are. As they have probably been repeated way too many times on here on many of your previous long-winded comments!….Most of them ‘properly’ rebuked, yet simply ignored on your part, as mentioned by Max, myself and others also. So I see no reason to read your paper.
I hope you’re happy with your close mind Ron… I really hope so…
As you stated above and return the favour; Look in the mirror.
Write a paper about Wilson’s hypothesis and publish it here and I promise you I’ll read it ! ;-)
Lets also make mention and note of Leon Diaconus (c990) Constantinople, Deacon of the Imperial palace, whose version of the Abgar legend calls the Mandylion a Peplos, (i.e; a full length garment.)
Here is also a qoute from Mark Guscin in response to Yannick’s argument; “Arguing that the Image of Edessa cannot be identified with the Shroud of Turin just because there are plenty of texts that describe the image as a facial image formed in life is rather like arguing that the planet Pluto does not exist, and bringing out a pre-1930 encyclopedia to prove the point.”
Slight error in my previous post, 4th line should read as; Here is also a qoute from Mark Guscin, I would like to use in response to Yannick’s argument;
I already read the Leo Diaconus’ robe/peplos version of the Edessa cloth. However I was just focusing here on the telling-tale burial/resurrectional himation/achiton/sidon currently featured in mid-10th-mid-14th Byzantine, Armenian and Latin Entombment, Descent into Hell, Resurrection and Last Judgment iconography.
All the 4th-12th c. CE Abgar Legend versions considered, it just stares in the eyes that the imaged Edessan cloth could be identified NOT ONLY with a roughly 55cm high x 40cm wide fine transparent small face-cloth/Byssus Thaddeus would have worn on his own face BUT ALSO with a more than 4m long x 1m wide rectangular cloth.
…bearing a whole body image.
Correction: it just self-evident that the imaged Edessan cloth could be identified
Don’t be so smug Max. My statement was meant to back the fact that the Mandylion has been described in more then one mention or ‘wording’ that is was known to be a large cloth, as opposed to just using the ‘Himation’ discription. Furthermore my statement was more towards proving Yannick’s notions incorrect.
Read my Guscin quote Max.
A full length garment is NOT at all a burial Shroud and you should know that Ron… And for the comment of Guscin, I would just say : with speculations, you can believe and make believe anything you want !!! The facts are the facts and you can reflect upon them if you read my recent paper on the subject. In it, you’ll find 22 facts that goes against Wilson’s hypothesis and, as I said, people must look at the whole picture given by these 22 facts in order to get a good view of the situation and see how Wilson’s hypothesis is full of problems impossible to resolve, unless you use very bad speculations, extrapolations and/or special assumptions.
Yannick a Peplos is not just a full length garment but one that covers the full front and back and is fitted over the top…get the point?…covers both front and back, over the top.
You are the one that is speculating and in excess, I would add Yannick. Guscin’s quote makes an excellent point, a point which has either gone over your head or you refuse to accept it.
I am with you Ron.
…in terms of identifying the imaged Edessan cloth.
As far as Pluto is concerned, I have to say Guscin’ parallel is most ill-chosen as on August 24, 2006., Pluto has been officially demoted from its status as a planet…
But it still exists ;-)
…and you’ve taken it out of context also.
…however it is not exactly what one used to think it was ;-) The same conclusion should be drawn from the Abgar Legend contradictory versions of the imaged Edessa Cloth: they did not refer to one but two distinctive clothS…
…namely the prototypic entire-body image (now kept in Turin) and its most ingenuous false-true only-face copy (now kept in Manopello).
Hi people !
I just finished the reading of the paper « Response to Jackson » written by William Meacham (you can read it here : http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/response.htm)
and was very happy to read one particular quote from him about the hypothesis of John Jackson concerning the 8-fold marks on the Shroud. I dedicate this quote particularly to Ron, who seem to be a pretty good fan of this very suggestive (in consequence, not very scientific) hypothesis !!! You can find this quote in page 1 of Meacham paper. Note : the context is that of an infamous speech given by Jackson in Turin, where he was defending the 2002 restoration… Here is the quote : “I merely cut out of his speech (note: he talks about) a vague and meaningless bit (even more meaningless after translation into Italian), PLUS SOME WAFFLING ON ABOUT HIS 8-FOLD THEORY THAT HE THINKS CHALLENGES THE C-14 DATING (A TOTALLY LAUGHABLE NOTION).”
Note: If you have a good brain, it’s easy to see that Meacham completely disagree with this hypothesis of Jackson concerning the dating of the Shroud and, by extrapolation, the Mandylion’s hypothesis…
Coming from one of the Shroud researchers I respect the most in all the Shroud world, that quote was like a bit of fresh air to me ! I said to myself : Now I know why I respect him so much: because he, like me, has no fear to tell what he really think without any political consideration ! I’ve always admired people who tell what they really believe to be the truth and no doubt that William Meacham is one of them. Sadly, there’s not enough people with balls like that in the Shroud world…
And the rest of this paper go on like that ! He speaks freely and without any fear and tell us what he think of Jackson’s acting in Turin after the restoration. I’m 100% convinced that he is one of the few who had the guts to react that way (i.e. publicly, with passion) back then !!! Bravo Meacham ! Keep on speaking loud and true !!!
And concerning the paper written by Wilson for the Hong Kong conference on the Shroud in 1986 (you can read it here: http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wmeacham/wilson1.pdf), it’s interesting to note what he said, near the end, concerning this 8-folds hypothesis of Jackson. Of course, Wilson defend it, but it’s very interesting nevertheless to note that even a guy like him (who is a king of speculative arguments) had no choice to recognise that, in reality, there is just one of the 8 folds that Jackson claim to see that is really visible on the cloth without any doubt.
I’m sorry folks but one evident fold mark present at a distance of nearly 1/8 of the length of the Shroud is far from being a proof (or just even a good clue) that the hypothesis of Wilson concerning the Mandylion is correct (or just to think that the Shroud is really older than the C-14 result of 1988) !!! Again, this is just a very sad example of a hypothesis concerning the Shroud that rest almost uniquely on speculations, extrapolations and special assumptions in order to, evidently, defend a religious agenda.
Of course, this is not at all this way that any good science should be done (in hard science fields like chemistry or physics, as well as other fields like history). But sadly, in the Shroud science these days, it seem to almost be the norm !!! I’m sure there’s still some real scientists who work on the Shroud without having a religious agenda hidden in the back of their head, but I’m also sure they form a very thin minority…
There’s a little error in the quote from Meacham paper. The text “(note: he talks about)” should not be there…
So here it is again : “I merely cut out of his speech a vague and meaningless bit (even more meaningless after translation into Italian), PLUS SOME WAFFLING ON ABOUT HIS 8-FOLD THEORY THAT HE THINKS CHALLENGES THE C-14 DATING (A TOTALLY LAUGHABLE NOTION).”
Yannick, although I respect Meacham highly and have had the pleasure of reading his excellent book -The Rape of the Shroud-, amongst many of his papers. but in his book he mentions the same thoughts on Jackson’s fold hypothesis. But it is just his opinion, and not an opinion backed by any research or study!…Now taking all things into account, including the FACT that NOT ONE PERSON on this planet has studied the Shroud quite as indepth or directly as John Jackson, leads my common sense and “a good brain”, to side ‘tentatively’ on the side of actual study and Jackson’s hypothesis. Your quite welcome to believe what you like. But your use of Meachan’s opinion shows your lack of common sense, without doubt.
With my comment about Meacham opinion, I just wanted to emphasized the FACT that Jackson hypothesis is mainly suggestive since, as Ian Wilson tell in his paper, just one single fold mark among the 8 is truly visible without doubt. If Wilson’s hypothesis is correct, why the 7 other folds are not as visible as the single one point out by Wilson ??? Good question don’t you think ? We should expect to see 8 fold marks of pretty much the same visibility if Wilson’s hypothesis is correct…
actually, if you JUST double the roughly 440cm long and 110cm wide Sindon in four to have a centered face of Yeshua in lanscape mode on top of the four double layers, you get only 7 folding patterns not 8. Do your homework.
Shall repeat I don’t quite agree with both Wilson’s and Jacskon’s reconstructions (as they most likely misunderstood the Greek word tetradiplon).
I must say I had a really GOOD LAUGH too reading your 22 errors, half-truths, biased-evidence, obfuscations (mostly based on poor reasoning and even ignorance) as if they were “compelling facts”…. I wish one day yourself you could REALLY discriminate between true facts and pseudo-facts; between what is the most likely to be true and what is purely/poorly speculative.
Both Wilson AND yourself made TWO major errors/misinterpretations.
Just in case you missed that good one by Yannick Clément asking Matt not to belief me as far as “the dating of the first epitaphios” is concerned, here is my reply to Yannick (July 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm | #8):
“Don’t believe what Max said about the dating of the first epitaphios Matt !!! (…)Maurus Green clearly state that the first two epitaphios that we know were created for a chapel in the Vatican during the papacy of Pope John VII (between 705 and 707) !!! ”
Actually there are not two original epitaphioi but TWO 17th CE drawings of THE SAME Umbella as recorded by Grimaldi. Green (after Münz but before Bonnet-Eymard) just MISTOOK Grimaldi’s two drawings of the same epitaphios for two distinctive epitaphioi and so did Yannick blindly following his “Green guru”!
The fact also is we can share with I. Wilson serious doubts whether the Umbella’s appearance via Grimaldi’s two drawings could be genuinely compatible with an 8th c. CE date: the Crucified Yeshua is depicted with a loin-cloth in the Umbella scene.
Now “in the 8th c. CE and before, the commonest way to depict Yeshua was with him wearing a colobium, or long sleeveless robe as in John’s VII’s time in St Mary Antiqua Rome (see G; Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art) also in the Rabula gospels, also on the wall of Pope John VII’s chapel in St. Peter’s as copied by Grimaldi”.
Yeshua’s loin-cloth iconography only starts c. 1000 CE NOT BEFORE!
“Besides, there is NO EVIDENCE for the “Veronica” itself (which Veronica exactly since there are couple of them + the Uronica?) -the showing of which the Umbella is said to have ornemanted -having been in Rome BEFORE c. 1000 CE.”
“According to Grimaldi’s careful archiving, the shrine that housed this “Veronica”, the same shrine the window of which the Umbella ornemanted, bore an inscription ‘Pope Celestine III had this work done in the 7th year of his pontificate (…). Since Pope Celestine III’s pontificate was 1191-98, AGAIN the indications are that the Umbella did not date from the time of Pope John VII (i.e. 705-7 CE), but MUCH MORE LIKELY sometimes around the end of the 12th century CE.”
Can we still UNCRITICALLY believe Yannick Clément?
Correction: ” Yannick Clémet asking Matt not to believe me”
as far as the “TWO” alleged “8th c. CE Umbella epitaphioi” is concerned, the burden of proof is ON YOU…
Max said : “Wilson serious doubts whether the Umbella’s appearance via Grimaldi’s two drawings could be genuinely compatible with an 8th c. CE date.”
Of course Max ! Why do you think Wilson don’t follow Maurus Green dating ? Just because that represent a real problem for his personal hypothesis about the Mandylion !!!
When you seek your own truth (like Wilson do) instead of seeking THE truth, you get reactions like that… By the way, Green is not my guru, but I respect his dating of the umbella because I’ve seen this same dating elsewhere in my research !!!
Oh I forgot to thank you for the information you gave concerning the 2 drawings of Grimaldi that would represent one and the same epitaphios. I will do some researches about that to see if you’re right. If you got some link about that, please give them to me !
I do think you’re totally mistaken about Wilson’s real goal as he wrote about The “Pope John VII” Umbella and the Shroud (RILT n 11, p. 29):
“But is what can be gleaned of the Umbella’s appearance via Grimaldi’s drawing genuinely compatible with an 8th century AD date? MUCH AS IT WOULD PLEASE ME TO BELIEVE THIS (my block letters), I have serious doubts.”
I do think the problem rests not so much with Wison but with… YOU!
CAN YOU PLEASE show me the “TWO” claimed early 8th century CE epitaphioi and their iconographic/iconological analysis by an Art Historian expert? What relevant material makes you so sure “they” date from the pontificate of Pope John VII (705-7 CE)? BTW what makes you assert they were two and not only one embroidered epitaphoi on the Umbella?
Mistyping: “only one epitaphios”
shall I repeat: As far as the “TWO” alleged “8th c. CE Umbella epitaphioi” are concerned, the burden of PROOF is ON YOU…
Read Maurus Green’s article about that. I’m not an historian. I base my judgement on scholars like Green and others…
By the way, just to avoid any confusion, no… I don’t include the name Ian Wilson in the group of person that I consider “scholar” on that matter (byzantine history).
The fact is neither was Fr. Maurus Green a Byzantine ART Historian. How can he REALLY tell from two 17th c. CE Western drawn copies they are those of TWO early 8th epitaphioi? I am still waiting for YOU to provide at least ONE REAL expertise of the Umbella epitaphios (if there is any).
Ian Wilson is ALSO wrong when he writes “To find the best iconographic parallel to the crucified Jesus (wearing a loin-cloth), we need mostly to look to works of the 11th century AD and later.” or to put it in other words he is wrong when he infers Yeshua’s loin-cloth iconography only starts c. 1000 CE and NOT BEFORE! This is proven false in the light e.g. of an image depicting the crucifixion of Yeshua, found in the Gellone Sacramentary: a Masterpiece of Carolingian Manuscript Illumination Circa 790.
Shroud Literature of all persuasion is LOADED with half-truths, error, biased evidence and ofuscations…which you perfectly mirror.
For Yeshua’s pre-1000 CE iconographic loin-cloth see also e.g. miniature of the folio Bible 23 in the Stuttgart Psalter (circa 820 – 830) preserved in the Württembergische Landesbibliothek.
there is a world of a difference between doing extensive reading (as you may do as a Shroud student) and doing extensive and intensive STUDY & RESEARCH (as you most obviouly don’t do).
Yannick you wrote: “Green is not my guru, but I respect his dating of the umbella because I’ve seen this same dating elsewhere in my research !!!”
Where exactly? In one of Bonnet-Eymard’s articles? Neither is Bonnet-Eymard an Art History Expert!
Yannick, can you be “a little bit” more specific about your real sources? Your case is very weak and your file proving beyond any rational doubt the Umbella epitaphios/two epitaphioi were 8th c. CE totally EMPTY so far…
Here’s the link of the other source I found confirming that the umbella dated from the Papacy of John VII : http://www.archive.org/stream/revuedelartchr50lilluoft/revuedelartchr50lilluoft_djvu.txt
It’s a text taken from the French “Revue de l’Art Chrétien” where there was a text speaking about this umbella. I think you know the French language Max, so here’s the exact quote :
“Nous possédons cependant la reproduction
d’un de ces chefs-d’œuvre de l’art textile : je veux
parler de l’« umbella », jadis exposée dans
une des chapelles de la basilique de Saint-Pierre,
la « cappella de! Presepio ». Par suite de je ne sais
quelle fatalité, le dessin qui nous en a conservé
l’image a jusqu’ici échappé à toutes les investi-
Quelques mots d’abord sur le sanctuaire qui
lui servait d’abri. L’oratoire de la Vierge ou
« cappella del Presepio » fut construit par ordre
du pape Jean VII (705-708), à l’endroit où se
trouve aujourd’hui la porte sainte, à droite de
l’entrée (n° 1 14 du plan d’Alfarano). Cet oratoire
renfermait l’autel du saint Suaire ou de la sainte
Véronique (n° 115), et cet autel, à son tour, rece-
vait pour ornement, le jour de l’exposition de la
relique, l’« umbella » en question.”
The text specifiy that the umbella was taken to the chapel of John VII the day of the exposition of the Veronica Vail (which could well have been the authentic Shroud of Turin by the way !!! But this is just a speculation on my part).
And if this Veronica vail was in fact the Shroud of Turin, it could well be the same cloth known as the Image of Kamuliana (or Camuliana or Kamouliana) that disappeared from Constantinople around 705 (by the way, this image first appeared in Constantinople in 574, around the time the Image of Edessa became known as an Image not made by human hands, so it is possible that the first had an influence on the second), which is the same year where John VII (a Greek by the way) became the Pope and probably the same year when this chapel was built and probably the same year when the umbella was placed there, along with the relic. That make a lot of coincidences don’t you think ? I really think this would be an interesting path for a real historian to investigate more deeply in relation with the Shroud obscure years…
you wrote: “The text specifiy that the umbella was taken to the chapel of John VII the day of the exposition of the Veronica Vail (which could well have been the authentic Shroud of Turin by the way !!! But this is just a speculation on my part).”
This is not serious! Are you kidding?
1/ The text you quote is LIGHTYEARS’ SHORT form being a work of art analysis. Beside, it NEVER expressly identifies the Umbella as an 8th c. object. Is it what you call “a compelling proof” beyond any rational doubt?
2/ There is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE at all for the showing of the“Veronica” itself in Rome BEFORE c. 1000 CE. John VII’s side chapel was ORIGINALLY dedicated to the Virgin not to the Veronica.
3/ “Only” three objects (The Uronica, The Veil of Manoppello and the “Veronica” (that was substituted to the latter in the 17th century CE) can be identified as “THE Veronica” that was kept in Rome. None of them three cannot be confused with the Turin Shroud! (You are just adding up more speculation to your former speculation!)
4/ THE Veronica that was kept under the pontificate of Innocent III (1198-1216) was officially known as the Sacrosanctus Veronicae Sudarium (Le Sacrosaint Suaire de Véronique) and cannot be confused with Yeshua’s burial body-cloth. It shall be noticed that the appearance of this Veronica coincided with the disappearance of the Holy Face of The Holy Mandylion of Constantinople. This Veronica was a fine transparent nearly square Byssus face-cloth 55cm high and 40cm wide.
5/Threre was then (and still is today) a Byzantine Greek community in Rome.
6/ The John VII side -chapel Umbella cannot be simply said to be “John VII Umbella” as the Umbella was made to ornementate the window of the Veronica shrine that was built in the 7th year of the pontificate of Celestine III. Since the latter Pope ’s pontificate was 1191-98, this implies that the Umbella was made sometimes around the end of the 12th century CE.
Your file is and remains TOTALLY empty…
in spite of your alleged extensive reading on the subject, you STILL don’t know your stuff. Your information about the side-chapel Umbella epitaphios is more than suspiciously inadequate.
Read again the quote from the French paper ! Maybe you had trouble understand French ! It is clearly stated that the umbella was placed inside the chapel of John VII the same day when the relic (they call it the Veronica, but I haven’t seen any proofs showing that this was just a face cloth or something else). Since the chapel was built by John VII to house this relic, it is evident that the umbella dates from the same time (around 705) !!!
You should read “It is clearly stated that the umbella was placed inside the chapel of John VII the same day when the relic was placed there (they call it the Veronica, but I haven’t seen any proofs showing that this was just a face cloth or something else).”
Yannick, could you just discriminate between proof and extrapolation. Thank you.
you wrote: “Read again the quote from the French paper ! Maybe you had trouble understand French !”
I taught French Language and Civilisatiion at University level. Thank you I can read & understand French all right. It does seem you still cannot understand this simple fact:: all that is written is not true. I asked you to give me the link to a GENUINE Art History analysis of the Umbella epitaphios. Actually there are NONE since what we’ve got is only two 17th drawings of it by Grimadi.
I do think you have a problem to understand this last point. Have you ever heard of text criticism? Grimaldi’s testimony is not to be taken at face value as it is contradicted by historical evidence (building date of the Veronica Shrine in the Vatican, earliest known date of the Veronica cult). Can you really read my English? Do you want me pass my coments in French so that you finally can understand my viewpoint?
Mistypings: “Actually there IS NONE”.
You keep claiming/asserting Grimaldi’s 17th c. CE drawings are those of “TWO early 8th c. CE Umbella epitaphoi” as if it was a proven fact. Howevere when carefully scrutinized, your claim/assertion appears not to be based on FACTS at all but only on a MISINTERPRETATION (two drawn copies of one and the same epitaphios = TWO epitaphoi!?) and what is most likely to be nothing else than a repeated RECEIVED IDEA (Grimaldi’s). This is not serious. If anything, this just shows that you are both a very poor Historian & Art Historian.
I am STILLwaiting for your compelling proof the umbella was made under the pontificate of John VII (705-707 c. CE).
La PRIMERA imagen de Jesús “loin-Cloth” es del año 420-430, como muestro en mi blog:
Thank you Carlito, I do know it but you shall be reminded it is of a MOST DIFFERENT loin-cloth type compared to that of Grimaldi’s drawing of the Rome iconographic epitaphios under study.
Correction: “you have a problem understanding this last point”
Comments are closed.