Stephen Jones continues his series with a new posting today, The Shroud of Turin: The Shroud of Jesus?: 2.6. The other marks (1):
By "other marks" is meant those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains"). They are considered below in the order of most to least obvious (not the most to least important).
It is a short but interesting summary of the burn marks and water stains. He has provided a illustration (larger on his blog) to help us identify them.
As always, Stephen provides a useful set of notes with his postings.
An excellent paper on the burn marks and water stains was recently referenced by Hugh Farey: “FURTHER STUDIES ON THE SCORCHES AND THE WATERMARKS” by Aldo Guerreschi – Michele Salcito, Dallas Confrence 2005, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/aldo4.pdf
Authors conducted a simulation experiment of the Chambery fire, and succeeded in replicating the damage, which they deduce was from some type of hot bar in the reliquary which fell, giving the scorch marks. They also explain the previous water marks as caused by the cloth being folded concertina fashion and placed in an earthenware jar, possibly as a result of condensation. Wilson mentions a TV demonstration he was involved in with Guerreschi showing how this watermark damage could be replicated.
The authors also mention the so-called “poker holes” but refrain from an explanation. However I have often wondered if this could have resulted from a trial by fire mentioned by Wllson and reported by Bishop Arculf around 680 AD, see “The Shroud”, Wilson 2010, Ch 11, ‘Trial by Fire’. The trial was ordered by Sultan Mu’awiyah to settle a dispute between two rival factions bickering over the cloth’s ownership. Arculf reports the cloth (as he saw it) as being about 8ft long, which would match the Shroud if doubled, and account for the symmetry of the poker holes.
[I don’t need Yannick to tell me that the Shroud is not the Edessa image yet again. He doesn’t know, neither does Wilson, and neither do I!]
It seems to be a widespread idea that molten silver has burnt the shroud during the 1532 fire, whereas the most likely explanation is Aldo Guerreschi’s.
In this document (http://shroud3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/VERSI%C3%93N-JERUSALEN-INGL%C3%89S-JUNIO-2010.pdf) dated 2010, where Aldo Guerreschi appears in the acknoledgements, molten silver is still mentionned. No big deal but we should definitely forget about it.
The poker holes correspond to the shroud having been folded in four, being then 55cm across and 220cm long, more or less. Or the ends may have been folded in. The holes are then in the middle. There are not simply four neat ‘poker’ holes, but a number of extraneous burn holes round about, and a prominent ‘water stain’ with a most interesting rim which, because it too only occurs four times, must be associated with these holes and not with other damage on the shroud. To be honest, they don’t look like ‘test holes’ to me, and much more like mistakes. If they are anything to do with the “Trial by Fire” daveb mentions above, I wonder what they established, and how they established it!
Re Poker holes:
There are at least two possible explanations, either the Wilson hypothesis that they occurred from the “trial by fire” under Sultan Mu’awiyah, or else the Guerresschi / Salcito inference that they occurred, perhaps from burning incense when the Shroud, folded lengthwise and widthwise, was used as an altar cloth. There are a number of very early references that altar cloths were to be considered as the burial cloth of Christ (I can chase these references if wanted). Possibly there may have been occasion(s) when the Shroud was actually used as such.
Wilson’s hypothesis that they may have occurred as a “trial by fire” is described in Ch 11 of his “The Shroud” 2010. The trial was reported by Bishop Arculf (check internet on Bishop Arculf). Two competing groups in Edessa were claiming the cloth, The report claims that the Sultan cast the cloth towards the fire, the cloth floated over it and then drifted towards one of the claimant groups, “the believers”. Wilson also mentions another separate source which also refers to a “trial by fire and water”. Wilson notes that the use of a hot poker was a common means of “trial by fire”.
The separate source is an Arabic document found in Egypt referring to a trial of the “Image of Edessa”: “Hail Abgar, who was worthy to behold the image of the Lord made without ink on cloth, the image of the worker of miracles. It was not effaced or burnt when it was tested by fire and water before the great multitude.” This may well have been some otherwise unknown trial.
There are problems with the Wilson hypothesis: (1) It is second-hand reporting based on Arculf’s oral report of his perception to Abbott Adamnan of Iona, and recorded in Venerable Bede; (2) The event occurred in Jerusalem, but explained by being temporarily housed there during post-earthquake rebuilding in Edessa; (3) Arculf reports the cloth as being about 8 feet long which can only be the Shroud if it was folded in two; (4) Arculf does not report an image on the cloth; (5)The cloth may have been an outer burial cloth, possibly used for transporting the body from the cross to the tomb; (6) One needs to read past the legendary elements to the story; (7) The event occurred about 679 AD, which argues against Wilson’s Mandylion hypothesis. when it was still supposed to be hidden in its frame. Notwithstanding these problems, the holes may have been caused by some other unknown “trial by fire and water”, (perhaps using a hot poker) and mentioned in the Arabic document.
I gather that the point of these trials was to demonstrate that the holy object was not affected by fire. So when a trial with a poker showed exactly what would be expected with any other cloth in similar conditions, it was proved a fake? (Using the word ‘prove’ in its original sense, of course.) I’m only asking…
One needs to understand the spirit world mind-set of the ancients, which can be traced back to primeval times. There is always an underlying assumption of divine intervention in the outcome of such tests and ordeals. and it has some connection with oracular divination. The Urim and Thummim contained in the priests’ breastplates ordained in Exodus 28:30 is a relic of this belief, the drawing of lots to decide the replacement apostle in Acts, and in modern parlance we talk of drawing the short straw. In modern times we might see the outcome as a random event, but in ancient times such outcomes were seen as an expression of divine will. Even in late medieval times in Europe those suspected of being witches were subject to various ordeals to test innocence or guilt.
I am coming to the view that the event reported by Arculf may have referred to an outer burial cloth, possibly used for transporting the body from the cross to the tomb. Purpose of the Sultan’s test was to make a decision between two claimant groups. However from the wording of the Egypt Arabic report, this could well have been a separate ordeal to test whether the Image was of divine or infernal origin. In this case the Image of Edessa seems to have been specifically involved. If this was the event that resulted in the poker holes (note both fire and water are mentioned), then this would argue for the Image of Edessa and Shroud being the same object, but this can only be conjecture. The holes may well have just as easily been caused when the Shroud was being used as an altar cloth.
We like to imagine that our modern methods of testing hypotheses are rather more refined and definitive, but they certainly seem to be less hazardous, particularly if NDT.