He writes on his blog, Verbs Everywhere, “My name is Sam. I am a writer. This…is my story.” And then:
In other news, I just went to a lecture on the Shroud of Turin and, guys, this thing is AMAZING. I took some notes that I’ll share with you all. They’re not very detailed, but there are definitely books and DVDs and other things out there that are full of information on the Shroud.
On the authenticity of the Shroud:
- The burial style is consistent with Jewish burial customs of the time.
- The image is a negative image (which is why the negative looks more life-like) which contains distance information (i.e. how far away the skin was from the cloth when the image was made).
- There are no substances on the cloth to account for the image. Period.
- The image does not penetrate through the cloth (unlike the blood stains and water stains). In fact, the image only penetrates the top 2 microfibers of the threads!
- [ . . . ]
So it’s pretty clear that the Shroud is authentic—but how do we know that it’s Jesus??
- Crown of thorns on his head
- Severe scourging, from neck to ankles
- Crucified (Note: it was uncommon to be scourged and crucified. Usually sentences would be one or the other.)
- Legs of the crucified man were not broken
- [ . . . ]
So… I’m convinced. How about you?
Yes, I have been convinced for several months. The first time I seen a clear online image, “it” kind of told me who and what it was.
One problem here is that some of the points mentioned in favour of the authenticity of the relic were also reiterated in the conference in Spain and doubts were raised, particularly when it came to “no image under the blood stains”.
Louis, Do you have a link to a Conference paper on this matter? I went on a brief search, but unsuccessful. My understanding is that Ray Rogers asserted no image under blood stains, but others(?) have sometimes suggested that some blood stains may have been added, perhaps in medieval times over parts of the image.
David, the only link I found so far is
however it is about the use of plants in ancient funerary rituals and very interesting. Someone on this blog raised doubts about the “no image under the blood stains” a few months ago but I don’t remember who it was. There have been suggestions about blood stains that may have been added in the mediaeval period, but, once again, we only see suggestions, papers and so on, many of them rejected by Turin, and no one can say anything about another hands-on examination. To start with, the archdiocese could at least release the microphotographs in its possession, as this could stimulate better research, and we would not see people saying things and writing papers over and over again, sounding like broken records.
It was probably some of the sceptics. For them, until we check every thread under every bloodstain whether there is image or not, the question of “no image under bloodstains” remains open. But of course such approach is nonsense -such doubts are raised only to make insinuations, for propaganda purposes.
But you should know the tricks used by the sceptics -and how to deal with them.
Thinking of scourge marks, there is no clear limit between “image” and “bloodstains”.
Boo! Hiss! Enter the pantomime sceptic, twirling his black moustaches! Brothers, it was me. I think the evidence that there is no image under the bloodstains is very weak. It is certainly not apparent just by looking at the shroud, either from a distance or in close-up. There do appear to be places where the blood has worn off, and the colour of the shroud in those places is not noticeably paler than adjacent non-blood areas, imaged or not. Early examination suggested that the image was formed by corrosion of the upper surfaces of fibres, and that no corrosion was observed under the bloodstains. This might be compelling if it was quantified, and the places where the various corroded/non-corroded fibres were taken from was clear, or even if clear comparison photographs were available. I have not seen any such evidence myself. Later, it was suggested that the image was not formed on the fibres of the shroud at all, but on an impurity layer which covered the whole shroud. This rather damages the finding of the corroded/non-corroded fibres, which, by the new hypothesis, should not have occurred at all.
Hugh, I think others may also have asserted similarly as yourself. I’m going looking; went to Barrie’s site, entered in search “no image under bloodstains”, came up with over 100 responses, I’m working through them, it’s plain that they’re not all evidential, e.g. Petrus Soons, Ohio Conference 2008, response to Garlaschelli, merely asserts it in his last para: “Another little detail is the fact that on the original Shroud there is no image under the bloodstains, proving the fact that there were two image formation processes. Direct contact for the blood proper and another image formation process for the image itself. (etc)” But no citation given!
Not altogether off-topic because Biblical studies are part of Shroud studies, and the link below has an indirect message for Shroudies: forget the Turin Shroud!
Mme Claude Cohen-Matlofsky tells us that the “illegitmate child” Jesus is buried with his “adulterous mother” Mary in the Talpiot tomb. She has not given due attention to two things Rabbi Jacob Neusner has written:
1) “If we can dismiss as unhistorical the Gospel’s Jesus of Christianity what can we of faithful Israel save of our rabbi Moses for Judaism?”
2) Read the 3rd to 6th century rabbinic literature with circumspection (she cites them in the footnotes because of the question of marriage and compares the Hellenistic Jew and turncoat Flavius Josephus to Jesus!)
One wonders if she has read at least a few lines of:
5) Assmann – that would make her shiver
Where did the courage come from? Simcha Jacobovici, of course. Two weeks ago he led poor Father Émile Puech — world-renowned epigrapher and co-editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls — into a trap with a video-taped interview, for which some scholars are waiting for him to apologise. More? He has two replicas of the so-called Jonah ossuary, and they are different is some details.
Mme Claude’s article seems written from a very peculiar perspective indeed, I would guess one kind of a solely Jewish perspective which rejects the divinity of Jesus.
From the point of view of probabilities, I could think it quite likely that the Talpiot site may well indeed be the Jesus family tomb, as asserted by Jacobovici & Pellegrino. Although all the names appearing there were common in 1st century Palestine, I consider that the fact that all the names may be associated with one specific family are highly significant, despite arguments to the contrary and denials by the I.A.A. Pellegrino is on record as claiming that the Jesus ossuary contained little in the way of human remains, merely a carpal bone, and some shreds of linen. We might easily guess as to the reason for the carpal bone. The linen fragments might have come from the TS, or else from some other cloth used as part of the burial. As to other outrageous claims made particularly by Jacobovici, they may be dismissed as absurd, and of a Dan Brown character. It will never be known if Talpiot was the Jesus family tomb or not, because all the material found in the ossuaries were buried in a common grave, and the ossuaries cleaned, in accordance with the lack of any scientific interest in possibly early Christian sites, typical of the I.A.A.
Mme Claude cites J P Meier’s “Marginal Jew” in discussing the paternity of Jesus, but Meier clearly dismisses the allegation of bastardy as a 2nd century myth invented by those hostile to Christianity.
Whatever Talpiot is, it has to be no later than 70 AD, when the Jewish practice of placing remains in ossuaries suddenly ceased.
I would assert without fear of contradiction, that the I.A.A. has never found a set of ossuaries from any single family tomb with the same set of names as those found at Talpiot! This, despite the assertion that the said names were very common in 1st century Palestine!
There is no consensus regarding the names and those who claim that the identities are known are merely indulging in guesswork to put forward what is in their private agendas. See “Jesus was not buried in Talpiot, Parts I and II” on the Holy Shroud Guild website. There was plenty of time — till AD 70, when the Tenth Roman Legion commanded by Titus besieged Jerusalem — to expose any Christians who were spreading lies about the Resurrection.
I’ve never personally been convinced of the authenticity of ALL the bloodstains. I think the flagellation marks are quite convincing, but to me some of the stains like those on the forearms (and possibly the head), for example, look contrived. Having said that, the stains along the lower back etc to me make little sense as contrived additions.
It’s just a hunch, without any scientific or historical basis, but I feel that some of the stains are authentic, and some are add ons.
Is there evidence to suggest that all the bloodstains are of the same origin ? (ie. belong to the same being)
The typing studies done by B. Ballone included samples from the lower back & soles of the feet. Subsequent typing experiments reported by Garza-Valdes involved samples from the left hand. These results are certainly consistent with the bloodstains being of the same origin, but one would have to stop there. DNA studies would more definitively evaluate and support such findings.
I hardly see how a forger could have added blood/serum, e.g. on the forearm, fitting perfectly at the microscopic level with image borders.
to a bloodstain analyst worth his salt, the decals on the TS like those of the bloodstains on the forearms and head, DO NOT look contrived at all. On the contrary, they look very realistic as far as a crucifixion victim, re-dried remoistened freshly dried out blood and gravity laws are concerned.
Typo: bloodstain pattern analyst
Hugh, you wrote: “I think the evidence that there is no image under the bloodstains is very weak. It is certainly not apparent just by looking at the shroud, either from a distance or in close-up. ”
Wrong. On August 3, at 10:49 am | #99, I wrote:
“Re evidence of the sticking-unsticking process in relation to the Turin Shroud (TS) bloody body image, the exception proves the rule:
At one and the same time and at popliteal fossa level (the knees being in partially flexed position), Miller and Pellicori UV photos do show that there are scourge marks and yet no (or next to no) body image (this in conjunction with an air gap). The eye-brain coordination system has somehow “to fill the anatomical/air gap” (see Fanti’s most circumlocutive prose misleadingly describing the scourge marks “in correspondence to lower luminance levels of the body image”, A69 in Evidences for Testing Hypotheses about the Body … )
In the light of the general economy of the TS man HD bloody body image, such paradoxical visual evidence is consistent with:
1/a blood comes first-body image second scenario
2/creation of an air gap as the (watery solution in-soaked) long inner burial sheet (TS) first stuck to the body (hence the mirror image of blood transfer by direct contact) and then somehow got taut (too rapidly to be correctly recorded and 3D encoded).”
Here (re the popliteal fossae and scourge marks) the evidence that there is no image under the bloodstains is more than very high: it is a fact.
I have the Miller/Pellicori UV images enlarged before me as I type. Also shroudscope. I see nothing to suggest that the blood marks preceded the image, nor the other way round. There may well be bloodstains in places where there is no image, in which case it is not surprising that there is no image under them, but there is nothing to suggest that in places where there is both image and bloodstains, the image is not present under the bloodstains.
Becuase it cannot be detected on photo. So far I remember, it was Heller & Adler (possibly also Baima-Bollone, and Giorgio and Frache on samples taken in 1973) who cleansed bloodstained fibers from image areas and determined that there was no image beneath the blood clots. Of course checking all the fibers is impossible,but if the number of examined fibers (from various regions) is large enuogh, one can clearly establish that there is no image beneath bloodstains.
Hug, you wrote: “There may well be bloodstains in places where there is no image, in which case it is NOT SURPRISING (upper cases mine) that there is no image under them”. Really (as far as the popliteal fossae absence and scourge marks present are concerned in a blood comes SECOND-body image FIRST scenario)?
Hugh, could you account for the absence of an image of the back of the knee while there are a few scourge marks in a blood comes SECOND-body image FIRST scenario, please?
Max is assuming that the shroud is the result of it having enshrouded a dead body, in which it makes a lot of sense that moist contact blood-transfer would precede the vaporograph/radiation/whathaveyou distance transfer of the image. Forensically, however, one must not begin with that assumption, and Heller & Adler do not make such as assumption in the paper “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin.” Their contention there can be simplified (fairly drastically) as follows: There are three colours of fibre on the shroud, white, yellow and red, corresponding to non-image, image, and blood. When these three colours of fibre are tested with protease (to dissolve any animal trace), the white remains unchanged, the yellow remains unchanged, and the red disappears and becomes white. This implies that only the red derives from animals, and that there is no yellow underneath it. So far, so good.
However, observing the shroud in close up, one can see that on the whole image fibres are on the top of the middle of each exposed thread, while the most bloodstained fibres are found most heavily down the sides of the same thread. In other words, image fibres and bloodstain fibres do not closely coincide, even on quite heavily bloodstained patches. The reason for this is that the blood has mostly eroded away, leaving the image behind. It seems to me quite probable that, in selecting well-blood-stained fibres for testing, Heller and Adler unwittingly selected fibres that, although they came from an image-bearing part of the shroud, actually bore no image.
Look, for example, at the bloodstains over the right eye (on shroudscope, for example). There is the famous epsilon, and further to the side a single dark smudge. Between these two are a couple of rather poorly defined bloodmarks. All of them are characterised by pale diagonal stripes, which represent the tops of the threads running through them. The blood is clearly found mainly in the cracks down the side. Are we to understand that all these threads running right through the bloodstains actually contain no image? I don’t think there is any evidence for that.
Hugh: such examinatons using Shroud Scope can be misleading, as there are no white and yellow colors on the Shroud, the color of image and background is the same, the only difference is its intensity. The fibers with image have their own colored layer (of controversial nature), which can be visually examined with microscope.
Hugh you wrote: “Forensically, however, one must not begin with that assumption”. This is not just an assumption to begin with. This is my conclusion based on ancient bloodstain pattern analysis, Judean burial rituals in light of Biblical, Rabbinic literature and the Gospels, paleaopathology and possible medieval techniques of relic forgery.
Hugh, is your assumption that blood comes SECOND and body image FIRST?
Hugh, I am STILL waiting for you to account for the absence of an image of the back of the knee while there are a few scourge marks within the economy of a blood comes SECOND-body image FIRST scenario…
No, Max, I make no assumptions at all. I simply want to look at the fibres and see what they indicate. One way of having blood but no image behind the knees is that the image was created first, with a space behind the knees, and the blood added later. That’s what I would do if I was making a shroud myself, with some form of image making technology and a bowl of blood.
A big “IF” I would say. Can you really paint the mirror image of a flagrum having impacted human flesh on a linen? I vey much doubt it. BTW there is no image of the back of the knees… un oubli. sans doute de votre prétendu faussaire…
this is an interesting question.
Assuming authenticity, then presumably the scourge marks were created by the cloth pressing against the wounds. Yet the absence of image behind the knees implies that when the image was created there was some distance between the back of the knees and the cloth.
If the hypothetical forger was clever enough to create the shroud with no image behind the knees, he would surely have been clever enough not to imprint the scourge marks.
Therefore, returning to the authentic hypothesis, the scourge marks and blood stains may have been imprinted firstly on the cloth when Jesus was washed , then wrapped and transferred to the tomb. Then, at some point in the tomb, the image process – through whatever means – occurred. And as the image intensity relates to proximity of body parts to the cloth, that would explain why there is no image behind the knees which were raised off the cloth, but the scourge marks are there from the pre-tomb body enshrouding
Your conclusion makes sense to me. I have tried to follow what some of the other people have said but my knowledge in this field in just about nil. The image body intensity, as I follow it, was caused by the Holy Soul of our lord when he reentered the physical body just before his Resurrection. That is why his eyes are closed. I don’t follow the coins over the eyes. I firmly believe that this is Christ’s Shroud. A few months back when I was looking at some of the original photos of the shroud and then observed the “cleaned up” photo made after the 3D imagery was included – the image I saw caused a jolt in me, it kind of said “Yes, I am Lord Jesus”. Or something to that affect – it was a short statement in my mind.
As far as a painted naked scourged Christ is concerned, see late 9th c. CE Stuggart Psalter. Even a very good miniaturist cannot convincly rendered the flagrum impacting human flesh while copying… the TS dorsal image.
Correction: As far as a painted naked scourged Christ is concerned, see EARLY 9th c. CE Stuggart Psalter. Even a very good miniaturist could not convincINGly render the flagrum impacting human flesh while copying the burial Shroud blood body dorsal image stored in his memory back onto the drawing surface.
Message to Hugh F: Hugh, If you’re not already aware of it, I think you need to check out a paper by Raymond Rogers of 2004, “FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)” By Raymond N. Rogers;
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf . It cover some 19 FAQs in considerable scientific detail, which I think may interest you. Concerning image under blood stains however, Rogers merely comments at Q19(10) “No image formed under the blood stains.” He may be having recourse to Heller & Adler’s work, but he was also intimately involved in the 1978 and subsequent analytical work. It would be reasonable to assert that from all the cases where fibres were exposed from under blood stains, then no image was found. The question would then have to be if sufficient fibres were exposed to make such a definitive assertion. We might ask if any of the blood flowed from the body after the image had been formed. Then the only other way that there could be image under blood stains is if some person added any blood to the cloth over any image fibres. However there is much more in Rogers’ paper which I think could rouse your interest.
The degraded ancient blood on the shroud is not painted at all. There are haematic DECALS of wounds and rivulets on body to the sole exception of one rivulet off body (from right elbow tip).
Hugh, could you give me the name of just one 12-13th C. CE “hypernecrorealistic” painter/forger candidate to account for the TS bloody body frontal & dorsal image?
Do you really think the TS most likely was copied from the 12th c. CE Pray Hungarian MS upper panel ink drawing which pre-dates the 1988 mean C14 dating official result by 233-237 years?
The Stuggart Psalter entirely naked scourged shroud-like Christ backview pre-dates the 1988 mean C14 dating official result by no less than 610-615 years!
Typo: 510-515 years! (more than half a millenium)
Max, could you kindly provide a link to the image referred to above (Stuggart Psalter)
Max, I find a crucifixion scene with Jesus partly clothed and nailed through the wrist with thumbs and all. I don’t see a naked back view. Do you have a URL?
See Stuttgarter Psalter – Cod.bibl.fol.23
For the Scourging of Christ, Carolingian iconography, earlly 9th c. CE,, SEE Stuttgart Psalter, fol. 43v,
Wurttenmbergische Landesbibliothek, Germany
In the miniature, you’ll see two men hanfling Roman flagra of three leather thongs each with two small balls of lead attached near.
Hugh, ever heard of your own personal assumptions?
Hugh, you wrote: “No, Max, I make no assumptions at all. ”
Reminder for Hugh et al: Absent the Baptism of Christ iconography, the depiction of an entirely naked Christ is VERY RARE as far as Christological iconography is concerned..
…prior to the 12th c. CE.
Is very rare up to today.
Goodness me! A wide variety of themes to address while I’ve been off the air. Let’s see…
1) I’m very familiar with Rogers’s FAQ paper. It is deliberately fairly simplistic in tone, and addressed to people who want to understand his conclusions rather than to people who already understand them and don’t necessarily agree. Nearly every question, beginning “How do you know…” would be better begun with “Why do you think…” Many of his own beliefs are presented as fact with little or no corroboration, and several diagrams presented as if what they showed was obvious, when in fact it isn’t. For example the reflectance spectrograph labelled “image”, “blood” and “Fe2O3” shows a reflectance spectrum for blood that only barely resembles it, and the photo purporting to be a UV image of the sample area shows a bright spot for the Raes area which appears to be a retouching and looks nothing like any of the UV photos of Miller and Pellicori. While I agree with many of Rogers’s ideas, there are many I do not agree with, and none that are wholly uncontentious.
2) There are no Roman flagra in existence for us to copy, and the only two (quite different) examples used to verify the whip marks of the shroud were modelled using those very whip marks. Hardly surprising they match. Remarkably, the only reference to an archaeological find shows a flagrum made entirely, handle, thongs and plumbata, of metal. This find no longer seems to be in existence. There are a few illustrations, on coins and such, but they only go to demonstrate that there was a wide variety of designs. To claim that the shroud matches any of them is mere speculation. The only actual whippings with which one might compare the Shroud are carried out annually in Mexico and the Philippines, and they look nothing like the Shroud.
3) Do I think the Shroud was modelled on the Pray manuscript? No.
4) The Stuttgart Psalter is wonderful and I’m so glad Max mentioned it. It can be found in its entirety at http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/digitale-sammlungen/seitenansicht/?no_cache=1&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=1517&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=1 and does indeed have a picture of a naked Christ being flogged. It seems to be dated about 825, which is probably early for such a thing. Has it anything to do with the Shroud? Not obviously.
Hugh, you wrote: “Has [the entirely naked back view of Christ being flogged] anything to do with the Shroud? Not obviously.”
Just take a good look at it…
But if it has, then what Max?
825 -at this time the Mandylion was still in Edessa, while iconoclasm was still raging in Byzantium.
The miniature can be found at: http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/digitale-sammlungen/seitenansicht/?id=4870&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=1517&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=90
What then if the early 9th c. CE Stuggart Psalter miniature of an entirely naked back view of Christ being flogged] has something to do with the Shroud? Just guess…
Reminder: the carbon 14 dating result is 1325 ± 65 calendar years.
All reasonable observations but I, once again, feel your comparison of Mexican and Filipino scourging is off the mark. These types of scourging are not of the intensity, skill or using the same instruments as a Roman scourging – they are more akin to self-flagellation. The scourging of American slaves or even British sailors might be a better comparison. To use the term ‘du jour’ the former examples of scourging lack the brutality of the latter.
Iconographically speaking, from 1200 to 1390, it is less rare.
Hugh you wrote: “There are no Roman flagra in existence for us to copy, and the only two (quite different) examples used to verify the whip marks of the shroud were modelled using those very whip marks. Hardly surprising they match. Remarkably, the only reference to an archaeological find shows a flagrum made entirely, handle, thongs and plumbata, of metal. This find no longer seems to be in existence.”
Archaeologically speaking, the early 9th c. CE Carolingian miniaturist (from Saint-Germain-des Prés or Reims), does seem to be more informed than you as far as the Shroud-Roman flagra connection is concerned…
Hugh F: “… the only reference to an archaeological find shows a flagrum made entirely, handle, thongs and plumbata, of metal. This find no longer seems to be in existence. There are a few illustrations, on coins and such, but they only go to demonstrate that there was a wide variety of designs. To claim that the shroud matches any of them is mere speculation.”
Ian Wilson’s 2010 “The Shroud” fig 9c (facing p.146 in my copy) clearly shows a Roman coin c.100 BC, with a gladiator using a flagrum in a contest, with a branching lash giving four thongs at its ends. The scale of the coin is too small to show the plumbata, which might or might not have been incorporated for purposes of gladiatorial combat, as distinct from legally inflicted punishment by scourging. Fig 9d is a reconstruction of a flagrum, with three lashes each fitted with doubled metal pellets. I don’t quite see the point of Hugh’s objection. The scourge marks on the cloth’s image are clearly the result of some such instrument. Is he denying that such an instrument as a flagrum existed, or is he saying that the marks are caused by some other means, or is he merely taking his assumed scientific scepticism to a point of absurdity? If not a flagrum fitted with pellets, then what?
‘or is he merely taking his assumed scientific scepticism to a point of absurdity? If not a flagrum fitted with pellets, then what?’
Yes, I admire Hugh’s enquiring skeptical mind, but I too find he sometimes take things to the point of absurdity.
Look, theoretically a 14th century forger could have imprinted the scourge marks on to the cloth with some kind of bloodied stamp or metallic instrument. But there are a number of objections to such a theory. I don’t have time to go through them but De Wesselow presents an excellent rebuttal to such notions in his book “the Sign”.
There is an authoritative on-line reference to both Greek and Roman practices, including citations from the Classics, concerning whipping and scourging. “A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890)” by William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin, Ed. Sufficient details of both the flagellum and flagrum are presented to satisfy the morbid curiosity of even the most demanding.
As the source document is dated 1890, it predates the negative photographs of Secondo Pia of 1898, and can therefore not be said to be derivative of the Shroud image, nor of Pierre Barbet’s analysis from the 1930s!
My remarks were a specific reply to “Can you really paint the mirror image of a flagrum having impacted human flesh on a linen?” It is often said that a) the marks on the shroud fit the design of a Roman flagrum perfectly, and b) no artist could have matched the injuries due to a Roman flagrum. As there is no evidence as to the precise nature of either the instrument which made them or the injuries it inflicted, artists can do more or less what they like. For all anyone knows the marks on the shroud look nothing like genuine flagrum marks, and were dabbed on with a piece of sponge. If we must speculate about either the instrument or the injuries, then it is relevant that the only flagrum ever found, and the only wounds due to flagellation we can examine, bear no relation to the marks on the shroud. Wilson’s flagrum was made specifically to fit the injuries on the shroud, and has no archaeological justification. William Smith’s illustration would not produce the marks, nor would the knucklebones he also mentions. He derives his information about the flagrum found in Herculaneum from Rich’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, where it is illustrated. Of course all these genuine classical descriptions predate the popularity of the shroud – that’s why they didn’t feel any urge to conform to it, unlike most descriptions of flagra since. The scourge marks on the cloth may be (not must be) due to an instrument, but there is no evidence from them that it was anything like a Roman flagrum.
Hugh, you wrote: “The scourge marks on the cloth may be (not must be) due to an instrument, but there is no evidence from them that it was anything like a Roman flagrum”.
The early 9th c. CE Carolingian miniaturist (from Saint-Germain-des Prés or Reims) does depict two Roman flagra with three lashes each fitted with doubled metal pellets in conjunction with a naked back view of a Shroud-like Christ being flogged…
The late 14th c. CE Lirey Pilgrim badge depicts at least one Roman flagra with two lashes fitted with doubled metal pellets in conjunction with the dorsal and frontal image of entirely naked man on a herring-bone pattterned burial shroud…
These two pictures ALSO predates “the negative photographs of Secondo Pia of 1898, and can therefore not be said to be derivative [… ] of Pierre Barbet’s analysis from the 1930s” as Dave would have put it.
What do you make of them? NOTHING.
Sorry for all the typos, getting tired…
I don’t deny that a three-thonged two pelleted flagrum is possible. If the shroud is medieval, then its creator certainly thought it likely. There’s just no evidence that the dumb-bell marks of themselves prove that they had to be made by a Roman flagrum. I am familiar with de Wesselow’s ideas, and find them very persuasive. Nevertheless, there are contrary arguments, which mean that I can’t altogether agree with him.
On the BSTS site, where Hugh claims to have been a member since Oct 2012, he says he first became interested in the TS at age 14, upon reading Pierre Barbet’s “Doctor at Calvary”. I respectfully suggest he may like to refresh his youthful memory, by reference to Ch 4. “The Preliminary Sufferings”, p.92 of the 1963 Image edition.
The Roman coin I mentioned at #58 above had four lashes to its flagrum, Ian Wilson’s reconstruction has three lashes; William Smith apparently has other versions, so that clearly flagra were constructed as personal weapons, their design being merely limited according to the morbid imagination of their owners. HF claims that Wilson’s flagrum was designed merely to fit the case of the TS, but this is in fact not so, if he would reread Barbet.
Barbet asserts that all these wounds have the SAME shape (difficult with only a blood-soaked sponge), he likens them to a halter some 3cm long, the two circles representing balls of lead, the line joining them being the mark of the thong. They occur in PAIRS of TWO (not three) parallel wounds, and he deduces that each flagrum had TWO thongs, laid out in the form of a fan, the centre being the executioner’s hand. On the thorax they are oblique, horizontal on the loins, and oblique once more on the legs. He comments that on the FRONTAL image, there are long oblique furrows which must have been produced by the ends of the thongs. Having struck the calves of the legs with their leaden balls, they have turned around the outer edge of the leg and lashed the front with their points (a skill easily acquired by a sadistic executioner). Barbet has previously commented from his knowledge of the classics, that scourging commonly occurred with the prisoner facing the pillar to which he was bound, with his arms being bound above his head. There are no scourge marks on the arms!
Barbet deduces that there must have been two executioners, likely of different heights, for the obliqueness differs on each side. He finally notes that painters have been content at most, with vague formless excoriations, and none have ever attempted such minute details.
However if we are to follow the logic of Hugh Farey’s argument, then not only does the TS also have all its other highly unlikely properties devised by his entirely notional forger, but this genius also had the perspicacity to paint the image with identical scourge marks, apparently radiating from the hands of two executioners of different heights, either side of the prisoner, but with no marks on the arms. I wonder if Hugh has ever heard of Occam’s razor, for there is a simpler solution than the one he has to devise, and that is that the TS is in fact what it appears to be!
Barbet was of course an experienced forensic pathologist, who experimented with cadavers and amputee’s limbs, and was also extremely knowledgeable in the Greek and Roman classics. I am unaware of any credentials he may have had in teaching science at a boys’ secondary school, but this is perhaps not so relevant to the case.
Great comment Dave. I think Hugh is clutching at straws in terms of arguing the potential case for a forger potentially being responsible for the scourge marks. Really.
Having said that, these skeptical examinations which Hugh often drives are always good value, because at the end of them my confidence in the case for authenticity is usually strengthened.
At this rate we can only hope the BSTS will continue to have a raison d’etre.
Dear me. Please don’t think for a moment that I consider the case for the wounds being painted on in any way proved. Or even that I hope it will be proved. However closing one’s eyes to other evidence does not constitute a case for authenticity. The BSTS has nothing to fear from impartiality. Barbet was a wonderful man who made some interesting preliminary observations, nearly all of which have been discredited by equally knowledgeable pathologists with considerably better facilities such as Fred Zugibe. Barbet’s analysis of the scourge marks was based, of course, only on what he saw on the shroud and not on any archaeological evidence, because there isn’t any. A most interesting recent analysis of the marks is at http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FacciniWeb.pdf, which largely rewrites everything quoted by daveb above.
That’s an excellent paper. The hypothesis of multiple floggings, with different devices, seems very probable.
It’s difficult to make out, but is part of the hair tied up like a pigtail at the back of the head?
On the TS, the man’s hair are untied.
Most likely, the early 9th c. CE miniaturist did not copy the Shroud dorsal image directly in situ but either visually stored it and painted it back onto the painting surface at the risk of interpreting it or copied it from another Ms miniature.
Hugh, Roman flagrum or not, the fact remains a 9th c. CE miniaturist, a 14th c. CE pilgrim badge maker and several 20th & 21st c CE medical examiners did interpret the scourge marks on an entirely naked Christ or the Turin Shroud man as those left by a two-three lashed two pelleted whip type. Ring any bell really? Closing one’s eyes and one’s ears to such a series of facts does constitute a blatant HF case for partiality.
Max, how was it possible for the 9th c. CE miniaturist to know Jesus was beaten by TWO MEN, since this only became evident when the TS was subjected to medical forensics, performed by the Pathologist on the STURP team?
Methinks, even dumbbells are ringing (pun intended)…
To Hugh’s response to mine at #66, I think I should have rather more confidence in the judgment of an experienced forensic pathologist such as Pierre Barbet in such matters, than any attempts at human pathology by a specialist in Earth Sciences or Mechanical Engineering, or for that matter a secondary school science teacher. The differences in opinion held by Fred Zubige are well-known and remain contentious. I do not see that the paper by Faccini and Fanti rewrites Barbet. If at all, their experimental work with a cardboard carton provides additional elaborative detail of Barbet’s basic findings. Hugh Farey may if he so wishes continue with his damp sponge hypothesis, or any other highly unlikely scenario, but I see little point in continuing the discussion further.
That’s fine; each to his own.
There seems to be no difficulty in agreeing with Daveb because Barbet’s study remains a classic in Shroud studies.
Actually, no artist could have matched the injuries (adding blood) to image pattern.
I really love this blog. Unless we know HOW the image was formed, the rest is a whole lot of who-shot-John. I mean, intellectual, highly educated who-shot-John, but that is it. Conjecture. Was blood added or not, etc. The plain facts are, and to this day, NO ONE KNOWS. In the words of B.Shwartz, “We can tell you what it is not.” UNTILL we know what the image is, (I am convinced we never will, but to keep looking is only right and human) you cannot add or take away from its total construction. What I mean is, it was either a contrived artifact, or it is not. I don’t think somebody found the SOT and added any adornments or additional visual info. When (and if) we figure out how the image was made, the question of the bloodstains will pretty much answer itself, won’t it? The question of where the blood came from, at least as I see it, is inextricable from the question of how the S. was formed, simple as that.
Comments are closed.