Every year, millions travel to Rome to view the shroud . . . ???

imageA reader writes:

I see some potential problems with Artifactory’s plan to release a new Shroud replica.

1/ Product descriptions for their Shroud replicas are so erroneous that it is surprising anyone would buy them.

2/ They may confront serious copyright issues using scans provided by an unnamed priest unless the Archdiocese of Turin has granted permission. 

3/ High resolution scans show the herringbone pattern of the cloth very clearly. You can’t print a herringbone pattern on herringbone cloth as they propose.

The image above is from the iPhone app, complete with an electronic watermark. For some information on the unnamed priest see comments by Louis, Barrie, DaveB and Hugh to an earlier posting on this subject.

Here is one product description from the Artifactory website:

The Shroud… Authentic image of Christ, or medieval forgery?  For centuries, this simple, tattered cloth has been surrounded by controversy.  And yet, it is one of the most widely-recognized relics in the world.  Every year, millions travel to Rome to view the shroud in its glass-protected display. But only a select-few have ever been able to get close-enough to the image to be able to examine it in detail. Until now. . .

Artifactory brings you an exacting replica of this historic Icon, recreated from a direct digital, high-resolution scan of the original.  Each replica is printed on 100% polyester canvas, 280g (9oz) weight, 14mil thick.  Both the ink and canvas are water resistant.

This partial section measures 16 inches by 20 inches.  It is a replica of the Shroud as it was displayed in 6th century Turkey, in the village of Edessa.  It remained in this folded configuration for several hundred years, and represents the only view of this sacred relic that thousands of people ever saw.

A life-sized print of the high resolution image on smooth, white paper or plastic, or better yet as a digital image file, now that would be worth something.

6 thoughts on “Every year, millions travel to Rome to view the shroud . . . ???”

  1. I don’t know Paulette, but I know one thing: The Shroud never spend one second in Edessa…

    1. In fact (and you must believe me because I made extensive researches on the subject), there is no more historical evidence to think the Shroud ever spend one day in Edessa than there is to support the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and had at least one children with him. Every credible historian who is expert in Byzantine history that is independent of mind on the subject of the Shroud will tell you : these two hypotheses don’t rest on any solid ground at all and can be seen as interesting fairy tales.

  2. YC commits the same error as Artifactory. Dogmatic assertions based on error, spin and personal belief! Artifactory claims TS is in Rome – it’s in Turin of course -, Edessa was not a village, it was the principal Christian city in the East before 500 AD, more so after the destruction of Antioch, and a major centre of Christian scholarship and a refuge for persecuted Christians; there is sufficient evidence that the Shroud MAY POSSIBLY have been in Edessa, including the likeness of icons to the TS facial image, and which were claimed to be based on an image not made by human hands and known as the “Image of Edessa”, whatever that might have been. Genuine attempts have been attempted to reconstruct a plausible history with the utmost integrity, and with such supporting evidence as can be found. They cannot be dismissed as “fairy tales” quite so easily. Such assertions originate with anti-authenticist academics, who prefer to relegate the TS to being a medieval artifact, rather than their so-called “independence of mind”. It MAY have been in Edessa. No alternative hypothesis has ever been seriously postulated, and there is not a scrap of evidence that it was anywhere else except Edessa! Of the very many relics recovered by Helena from Palestine and taken to Constantinople, there is no object recorded that could possibly be identified as the Shroud! Provocative and negative dogmatic assertions cast no illumination! Likening the “Edessa hypothesis” to Dan Brown’s fantasy of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalen bears no comparison at all.

    1. Quote: “the Shroud MAY POSSIBLY have been in Edessa”

      My reply: This is pure speculation… Period. No proof of that, whether it come from art history or scripture history.

    2. One little additional note: If I’m dogmatic about that, then every credible Byzantine experts that I have read are also dogmatic!

      Based on your line of thoughts, we can also say that “Jesus was possibly married” since all the Jewish men of his time were!!!! ;-) When you start to specualte without any credible proof, you can go very far my friend. Dan Brown knows this as well as Wilson and Scavone…

Comments are closed.