Meanwhile, while the cotton wars were going on in this blog, Keith Witherup, over at ReligionForum.org, was also calling our attention to some ancient words to ponder. I often ponder these words, Are they symbolically, in a literary fashion, being spoken by the risen Christ, Is the author using Christ’s voice, in a sense, to describe his own burial shroud? The words are from the Robe of Glory (Hymn of the Pearl) in the Acts of Thomas. The hymn, with a peculiar two-image segment (below), is thought by some scholars to be older than the Acts of Thomas and is sometimes attributed to Bardesane of Edessa, a Gnostic poet, writing as early as A.D. 216. The words are found in different places in different Greek and Syriac versions of the Acts.
Suddenly, I saw my image on my garment like in a mirror
Myself and myself through myself [or myself facing outward and inward]
As though divided, yet one likeness
Two images: but one likeness of the King [of kings in some translations]
Witherup writes:
If you look at a photograph of the shroud you see two full size images of a man, one in which the image is facing outward and one inward. In more modern terms we describe these as front-side and back-side images, or ventral and dorsal images. They are, indeed, as in a mirror as they are full size and seemingly perpendicular to the surface. Those words, “as though divided, yet one likeness,” resonate with the two separate images that meet at the top of the head.
Works for me.
Works for me, too. Note these alternate translations:
- Translation by Quaker scholar Hugh McGregor Ross
- Translation by William Wright
- Translation by M. R. James
And we might wonder about one of the illationes used in a late 7th century rite used in Spain, the Mozarabic Rite:
Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens.
Or about these words by Pope Stephen II, who reigned from 752 to 757:
[Christ] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.
Should we ponder these words? Do they mean what I think they mean?
[Christ] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.
Should we ponder these words? Do they mean what I think they mean?
Possibly, Dan, if like me, you think it possible that it was this kind of potent verbal imagery, from a Pope no less, that inspired someone 6 centuries later to try it out with medieval linen, intent on making an exhibit for private and/or public display, the purpose of which one can now only guess at, but which has since intrigued down through the centuries to the present day.
Oops. I forgot. “The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless.” (Dan Porter, sidebar)
Works for me. Not, of course, Colin’s arrrgh-inducing wild imagination.
The more I read what Colin has to say, the more I’m sure the shroud is real.
These quotes, combined, are more impressive to me than the possible visual metaphors like the Pray Manuscript, Stuttgart Psalter, etc. Where did these ancient writers ever come up the concept of mirror images and imprints of dead Christ if not after witnessing the Shroud? It just all seems to spot-on to be explained away as a coincidence of creative writing.
This becomes a most compelling piece of evidence when it is considered together with the ancient story of St. Jude. But you and your readers probably already knew this. Still for those who may have forgotten: Unable to fulfill a request that Jesus come heal the king of EDESSA of leprosy, the apostles send St. Jude to him with an image of Christ. To this day the iconography of St. Jude shows him bearing an image of the Divine Face.
I think it’s a lovely poem, but to derive the shroud from it is a little far-fetched. The translation “myself and myself through myself” which is glossed as “myself facing outward and inward” is not confirmed by any other translation I can find, all of which imply a single reflection. There is, it seems to me, accurate observation of optical reflection in that the author seems to see through the plane of the cloth to his reflection beyond it (appearing, of course, the same distance behind the cloth as the observer is in front of it). Interesting.
As for the words of Pope Stephen II, do we have a source?
Colin,
“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” (Matthew, 13:13)
With all respect, and I mean respect, you are the epitome of the pseudo-skeptic. That is someone who claims to be seeking the truth, but is really seeking instead to prove his or her own prejudgment.
Given the complexity of the fraud image, you can’t merely be putting up hypotheses with NO factual foundation and satisfy yourself you have succeeded in demonstrating anything.
This is a fact: no one has demonstrated the process by which the image was created. No one has explained it scientifically. I expect that someday, long after you and I have shuffled off this mortal coil it may happen but it will be a process beyond our understanding, because it will be the Resurrection. I am sure that not only you, but many Christian believers, will scoff because they want to preserve the mysticism of their faith.
However, let me quote Pierre Teilhard de Chardin again:
“To outward appearance, the modern world was born of an anti-religious
movement: man becoming self-sufficient and reason supplanting belief. Our
generation and the two that preceded it have heard little but talk of the
conflict between science and faith; indeed it seemed at one moment a
foregone conclusion that the former was destined to take the place of the
latter. But, as the tension is prolonged, the conflict visibly seems to need to be
resolved in terms of an entirely different form of equilibrium — not in
elimination, nor duality, but in synthesis. After close on two centuries of
passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its
adversary. On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop
normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates
both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits
without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith.”
Teilhard, Pierre de Chardin; Huxley, Julian; Wall, Bernard (2011-06-21). The Phenomenon Of Man (Kindle Locations 5193-5200). Evergreen Books. Kindle
Edition:
This is where I part company with so many other who accept the Shroud’s authenticity. In the past two centuries science has pushed it’s knowledge so far and now is theorizing matters which intersect with the issue of the nature of human consciousness.
Once again I recommend the Hameroff video who speaks of the quantum knowledge of the universe. I would not claim that Hameroff has everything right. But the implications of his claims which are grounded in science are immense and they are science. Beyond his theories lie not just the question of survival beyond death, but the Resurrection.
Christ is not in the desert, He is in the quanta.
Oops
I think I’ve created a “Devil’s Bible” typo. “fraud image” = “Shroud image”
I shan’t attempt to address this comment point by point, if only because John shows (see below) that he hasn’t the faintest clue as to how the scientific method works in principle or in practice (which might explain why he’s currently retreating into quantum weirdness).
What he fails to appreciate, which I had hoped would be self-evident by now to those who have followed the discussions on this site, is that my real target is not those who believe in Resurrection. It is the scientists, or self-styled scientists, who use the Shroud as evidence of Resurrection (or even to insist that it merely enveloped a 1st century man).
I would like to get those same individuals to enter freely into debate here, instead of depositing their ex cathedra findings on this site as pdf documents or guerrilla-raid comments, then retreating back into to the shadows. They know who they are.
Here’s something that might drew them out. This so-called pseudo-sceptic has now established to his own satisfaction how the Shroud image can be produced in principle. It involves no magic, and is down-to-earth, almost mundane science. It involves combining elements of my own discoveries with thermostencilling and direct thermal imprinting with those of Luigi Garlaschelli, involving powder frottage and oven baking. The end-result is a faint sepia negative image residing primarily (though perhaps not exclusively) on the superficial primary cell wall of linen fibres, and thus approximately 200-600nm thick as proposed for the Shroud image, one that is a negative image, through being an analogue imprint from a 3D subject or object, and not surprisingly is then 3D-enhancible in ImageJ and similar programs that read image intensity as image height. Oh, and let’s not forget that thanks to the some crucial detail of Garlaschelli technology, not presently explained, it would probably be non-fluorescent, which for some at least, for reasons best known to themselves, serves as the ultimate criterion, the make-or-break test.
The Shroud is just one of my many interests in science (see my sciencebuzz site), and I have many interest outside of science too, none of them proselytizing or agenda-pushing in any way, so I frankly consider John’s caricature of me laughable, and one that does not help his case (whatever that is) one little bit.
But I’m here today, on this thread, on this site, merely to reiterate what I have been saying previously, albeit by a series of small bite-size instalments, namely that there is nothing in the least bit miraculous about the Shroud image – and shame on those who attempt to use the language or technology of science (invariably ill-chosen) to prove otherwise, and who in one instance at least, then ask us to ponder on the theological or philosophical implications. Science, or rather the scientific method, is not a branch of philosophy (which is not beyond questioning the validity of the scientific method) and certainly not theology. Indeed, the findings of science, using its ‘questionable methodology’ may occasionally help to inform those two entirely forms of enquiry, neither of which operates on the basis of framing and testing hypotheses that are in principle testable and indeed need to be tested if they are to gain any traction.
The idea that hypotheses have to pass John Klotz’s tests based on his criteria of support from existing “facts” (a plastic commodity in his hands, see radiocarbon dating) is ridiculous, as is the equating of hypotheses with “prejudgements”. I test my hypotheses experimentally to see if they stand up, so how can they be prejudgements? What about his hypotheses? How many has he tested. If as one suspects the answer is none, then it is his hypotheses that are prejudgements, and it is John Klotz who is the pot calling the kettle black.
As flagged-up earlier, I intend to post copies of this response to John Klotz’s charge of “pseudo-skeptism” to both my sciencebuzz site and my main shroudie site in due course, unless, that is, anyone, John included, takes strong objection to anything I have said, and has reasonable grounds for those objections.
The belief that Jesus imprinted his likeness on cloth is ancient, it is part of the Orthodox Church’s liturgy. Go to the link:
http://www.orthodoxoutreach.net/icons/iconhistory.html
On Garlischelli: Part 1 of 13 Rebuttal to Luigi Garlischelli Shroud Forgery – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7vw7LU13U (Click on Dr. Guys avatar to get all 13 videos)
See also: Challenge To Atheists To Reproduce The Shroud Of Turin – video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6581758
I had composed a reply, quite a long one, to points raised above. Suddenly, it all disappeared, and was replaced by a Facebook log-in page, and has proved impossible to retrieve. (No, I am not a Facebook subscriber).
I never did like blogsite pages being littered with logos for social networking sites, feeling they clutter things up, and confer no obvious benefit, attracting few if any newcomers to leave comments. I like them even less now, and am in no mood to recompose (at least not today).
It does not exist. The sentence that sindonologists quote (attributed to Stephen III, not II) was not written by the pope but in reality is an interpolation of the X-XI century.
What is your source for that assertion?
You can see my book “Dal mandylion di Edessa alla Sindone di Torino”, pp. 121-127.
I’m very interested in these words. Even if they date to 10th / 11th century, they strongly hint at referring to the shroud, which would add to quite an impressive array of historic literature that points to the shroud being of an age far older than the carbon dating suggests.
I’d like to know more on this – Andrea when is your paper to be translated into English?
Dear Matthias, I do not think that this interpolation hint at referring to the shroud, and much less “strongly”. This fantastic story has nothing to do with a shroud. As the mandylion has nothong to do with any burial shroud.
When the book will be published, if you want I’ll tell you
Colin,
At last, a point of agreement.:-)
Tomorrow, I shall give a hard time, John Klotz, because this retired science bod doesn’t take kindly to being called a pseudo-anything. I shall post a copy to my sciencebuzz site. You could do a lot worse than visit my very first posting on the Shroud, on that site, and try and figure what inspired it (clue- it was not anti-religion). I now have a plane to catch.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2011/12/turin-shroud-could-it-have-been.html
PS: I had initially assumed that “pseudo-skeptic” was a term of endearment that John Klotz himself had coined. But from tapping a few keys on my interface with the Big Bad World find that is not the case – there’s in fact an entire sub-culture out there, well-financed by the looks of it, that makes heavy use of that term to support its “world view” (another of its favourite, some might say over-worked terms).
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php
There’s a fascinating and exhaustive (exhausting?) listing of the characteristics of true versus pseudo-skeptics. I am presently working my way through the latter to see whether the cap fits, though I suspect already that my willingness to dip a toe into this particular literature straightaway disqualifies me from the category through being too open to new perspectives. But here again is one of my favourite quotations (from a deeply conservative Catholic as it happens):
“The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do – you’ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think.”
William F.Buckley Jr (1925-2008)
John Klotz. “The pseudo-skeptic. That is someone who claims to be seeking the truth, but is really seeking instead to prove his or her own prejudgment.’
I agree with John (yes,agreement!) that such people exist but it seems to me that you find them across the spectrum of Shroud studies. They are easy to spot because whenever anyone puts in material that challenges them, they get a bit hot under the collar.
If the Shroud was put into a top conservation laboratory, such as that in the Metropolitan Museum, New York or, if it is still running, Florence (set up after the 1966 floods), most of its ‘secrets’ would be revealed, or at least the problems clarified, in a couple of weeks with technology that is streets ahead of anything known in 1978 or 1988. Until then we are dealing with a lot of ambiguous evidence much of it produced by people who are working in disciplines that have nothing to do with ancient weaving. So as far as the Shroud is concerned ‘we see through a glass darkly’ because we do not have enough evidence to do more.
In my own work on the medieval church, I frequently come across inventories that talk of collections of linens and silks with images on them. An inventory of the contents of the basilica of Saint-Urbain in Troyes in 1468 listed 26 silk cloths with images on them. Yes, silk here, linen in other cases. Charles V of France (ruled 1364-78) owned 57 chapelles, sets of vestments or altar cloths, some of them, like the only survivor the Parement of Narbonne, painted in grey on silk for use in Lent. That is a thousand objects.
Yet the mere mention of an image on a cloth is often taken to refer to the Shroud! (See Ian Wilson’s reference to the veneration of a cloth by the Templars, for instance.) We need to be much more critical of such claims until better evidence is found to link them specifically with the Shroud. Until then, I for one, will simply treat them as different cloths as we know that many such existed.
A fair point, Charles, but those thousands of images sound like artworks and I assume those that held them accounted them as such (though they were still considered holy). The Shroud-related images hint at an object that is something different. There’s almost an inability to explain/describe the image as it is so unique. That’s my take on the quotes, you obviously would see them differently.
As usual David, spot on. There are several historic references to an image on a shroud – whether face, body or face and body – that strongly point to something different from a painting, and instead something akin to the rather ephemeral image that is the image of the shroud. Now, its hard to say that these references definitely refer to the shroud and its image, but its even harder to discount them.
De wesselow makes some excellent comments on some of these historic references, and as a well qualified art historian I place some credibility on his views in this respect (but he’s not a theologian or a historian of religion and I dismiss his link between the shroud and the resurrection stories)
What is your source for that assertion?
You can see my book “Dal mandylion di Edessa alla Sindone di Torino”, pp. 121-127.
Would this be available online anywhere? I’m assuming then your assertion is based on original research.
1) No, is not online. But is going to be translated in English.
2) I always do original researches, but in this case is not necessary: to see that this sentence is not work of Stephanus, you can see, for example, the Christusbilder of E. von Dobschuetz (printed in 1898: not exactly a “new” release…)
For further authoritative information on the ‘Hymn of the Pearl’ see web-site of Brian Colless, NZ translator of ancient texts, and former professor of Religious Studies at Massey U. My further comments at subsequent posting header “Paper Chase: Thomas & the Hymn of the Pearl’
https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/
Thanks, daveb, what a great resource. It is going to.keep me busy this weekend.
I wouldn’t give a Gnostic text the same credibility as the Ritual text from a valid Rite or from the Pope. Aside from that, this is an interesting textual history. I would image one affected the other or perhaps one we don’t have affected all of them, perhaps?
Not “would”, wonder.
Let’s type it over since I cannot edit, “I wonder if one textual reference affected the other or perhaps one we don’t have affected all of them, perhaps?,” (wow that original typing was really bad, apologies).
Andy: Whether it’s a Gnostic text or not is neither here nor there. In studying Ancient Religions, I studied translations of ancient Babylonian, Phoenician, Egyptian, Zorastrian and several others, not to mention the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Bhagavadgita, Shinto, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddhist writings etc. You don’t take such texts at face value, but mainly what can be learnt from them, the people, what they thought, their perspectives, how a few of them occasionally echo the scriptures especially the Babylonian and Phoenician, The “Hymn of the Pearl” is a classic, probably Gnostic, quite sensivitively written. It just might be one of the earliest references to the Shroud image. Some say it does, some say it doesn’t. Brian Colless was one of professors in Religious Studies. His web-site I mentioned above, has considerable information about it, mainly his own original research.