Might the A&V Ivory have been the inspiration for the Pray Manuscript Illustration instead of the Shroud of Turin, my friend John asked in an email?
The ivory is interesting. Stephen Jones brings it to our attention in his blog at Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised #3:
Click on the image for a larger view
Stephen tells us that this lamentation scene can be found in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London. He tells us that “Jesus’ hands are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, with the right arm over the left, exactly as on the Shroud” and that Jesus is “lying on a double-length cloth which has a repeating pattern of Xs similar to those that accompany reproductions of the image of Edessa. They hint, he tells us, of the Shroud’s herringbone weave.”
Stephen offers this caption for a photograph of the ivory:
[ . . . Scenes from the Passion of Christ …The Lamentation"[13]: Part of larger carved ivory panel in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Note that Jesus’ arms cross awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, exactly as they are on the Shroud, in this 11th/12th century Byzantine icon. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud existed at least a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud.]
Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Anyone think so?
We might well think that it is based on the shroud. But we might want to consider alternatives. Are those really Xs? And why do we think they hint of the a herringbone weave? Maybe instead of what John thinks, it is the other way around. What about other lamentation scenes? What else? What is missing that we might expect?
The Victoria & Albert Museum dates it to the 12th century. Where did the c. 1090 date come from on Stephen’s blog?
Associates for Biblical Research mentions this ivory briefly in an article, The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part Three: The Shroud of Constantinople.
I mean it would be great if this thing was the proof. Could we call it the missing link?
I’m not too sure that the X’s on the shroud here represent a herringbone weave either. Those same x’s occur at the foot of the crucifixion above. However, the Christ-figure carved with a bloated chest, owl-like closed eyes, parted-in-the-middle long-hair, as well as the right wrist over the left might prove to be more of a tipping point. Good topic!
What if the two objects were derived from the same source? Carbon dating has a margin of error and the Image of Edessa was stolen in 1204.
I’ve often wondered why an artist, working with ivory or paint, would make a point of representing the herringbone weave. Why is the weave worth representing in the artwork? It seems an odd detail to capture or even notice. Unless there is a lost source artwork that did capture it (for a reason) that all others are merely copying – similar to how ‘Q’ was a source for the synoptic gospels.
Another question: among all these pieces of art is there a pattern of consistency of the right hand being shown above the left (or vice versa)? Or is it more or less random?
” Why is the weave worth representing in the artwork?”
Possibly because it can be represented in art (as a zigzag line) it’s also unique, rare and high quality weave.
“Unless there is a lost source artwork that did capture it (for a reason)”
Why would there be a “reason” for artwork Q but none for the pray codex. Any “reason” for depicting a herringbone weave in the lost “artwork Q” would apply to the found artwork (e.g. pray codex). I don’t get the point you are trying to make?
My point was rather muddled so I don’t blame you. I was wondering if the original ‘Q’ artist made note of the weave for the very reason you mentioned – unique rare etc. Centuries later the Pray artist may not have thought anything much of a weave at all but was simply reproducing from ‘Q’ faithfully.
Just thinking out loud, not exactly coherently.
There was no “Q” as a single source, there were several communities who had oral traditions that were later put down in writing. This oral tradition is of crucial importance to understand the growth of the Jesus movement that became the Church.
The crosses could both depict weave and / or be used to more clearly texturally distinguish the shroud from the base beneath it.
To claim proof beyond a reasonable doubt is without a doubt ridiculous beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this instance, yes.
I wish I knew more about iconographic traditions. The Prey manuscript is a fairly typical “Three Marys” and the ivory above is an “Entombment.” We have recently seen several examples of the “Man of Sorrows,” and there are, of course “Crucifixions,” “Depositions” and “Resurrections” among others. The general layout of these types seems fairly rigid, and sometimes a misunderstanding of the epitome give rise to absurdities, such as the ridiculously sloping coffin lid upon which the angel sometimes perches in “Three Marys” paintings. Does anybody know of a work (Belting perhaps or Shiller?) which gives a ‘family tree’ of these styles? It would be good to see whence and when each one appears to have originated. From what I gather, “Entombment” icons preceded “Man of Sorrows” icons, which seem to have derived their right-sided spear-wounds and crossed wrists from them. Some icons seem to have derived from sermons delivered by particularly notable worthies rather than directly from the bible, but I’m not sure about the authority there is for that. Some people, including the early church fathers, thought that the Pantocrator derived from the pagan image of Zeus, and condemned bearded, long-haired Jesuses for that reason. Lots of things I’m not sure about when it comes to art, in fact!
Incidentally, I notice that Stephen Jones illustrates his latest peroration with an illustration of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I, scavenged from Wikipedia. I do recommend it, as it is cluttered with Vignon markings from three sided square to assymetrical nose to wide staring eyes. The shape of the head, framed by vertical parts of his headdress, and the fullness of his facial hair are a great deal more reminiscent of the shroud that almost any of the collection we have recently examined. Are there other examples of Vignon markings on Emperors, I wonder?
Let us suppose that Vignon’s Marks are present in the Shroud of Turin and in a relevant number of Byzantine icons. I think it is not evident, but let us suppose.
There is any reason why the Shroud was an icon that influenced the Byzantine art and not conversely?
Do you know that some Vignon’s Marks are present in a number of El Fayum portraits? They were also influenced by the Shroud of Turin?
I find the fact that Christ, Emperors, Saints, Angels and so on were painted imitating an unknow image is more than strange.
I don’t find it so strange at all. Mandylion emerged in Edessa ~544AD; Moslems captured Edessa 639AD, Christian population tolerated, Hagia Sophia Cathdral housing Mandylion is admired and preserved; Orthodox pawned Mandylion to rich Monophysite ~700;
In 943 when Byzantine general John Curcuas demanded surrender of Mandylion, Caliph had to consult with Cadis of Baghdad before Mandylion given up. Features of Mandylion were widely known. It is not surprising that artists imposed some Christ-like aspects, possibly based on Vignon markings on their various depictions of others. Note that in depiction of Thaddeus presenting portrait to King Abgar V Ukkama, the features of Constantine Porphyrogenitus were used to depict Abgar.
Your answer doesn’t refer to Shroud but to the Mandylion. You match both images. This is far to be evident. Even more, there is some relevant reasons to think they are different objects. Mandylion is represented in Byzantine iconography just as a face, with open eyes and without blood stains.
So, if we very very hypothetically match the Mandylon to the Shroud as icons, why let us suppose that influence was from the Shroud to the Mandylion, and not in an inverse sense?
Because the Shroud is not a painting… and the Mandylion if not the Shroud was a painting or woodcarving.
It’s a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. Following the debacle of 1902 when Delage presented his anatomy paper to the French Academy, Vignon turned his attention to travel, examining very many icons from the 6th century onwards. Many of them claimed to be copied from the Mandylion or derivations from it. Vignon noted some 20 features that were often repeated. The same features can be found on the Shroud. He published his findings in 1938 as: “Holy Shroud of Turin: Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography, Logic”. The French Academy relented and awarded him their Prize. Clublu22014 comment above is pertinent.
What did the Church Fathers think about Jesus as the clean-shaven short-haired Apollo?
Here is a sculpture with a short-haired Zeus:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/4749961
Not sure. Theodorus Lector tells the story of the painter whose arm withered because he made Jesus resemble Zeus, and says that Jesus actually had short wooly hair. In isolation this comment doesn’t mean much, but I wonder if it reflects a time when the three centres of Christianity, Jerusalem, Rome and Constantinople, all had their own iconography of Christ, reflecting, in each case, their own characteristics. Eventually, of course, the Byzantine dominance of Christianity meant that its version of the image of Christ became the official one.
Theodorus Lector goes on to say that the painter with the withered hand had it miraculouly restored by St Gennadius, suggesting that whatever Christ really looked like, the Zeus-like image became first acceptble, and then compulsory.
That appears to have really been the way they argued and why the Byzantine dominance won in the end. If Jesus had short, wooly hair, that could mean African origin, and there are some who think, even in the realm of Shroud studies. that the Jews were descendants of Africans. “Zeus-like” would be more acceptable because Jesus was Caucasian, with a beard like that shown in sculptures of Zeus, but that leaves the question of long hair to be answered.
Dan quote: “Where did the c. 1090 date come from on Stephen’s blog?” Check the Biblical Research link: https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/03/28/The-Shroud-of-Turins-Earlier-History-Part-Three-The-Shroud-of-Constantinople.aspx
It not only shows the 12th c. Victoria & Albert museum ivory above, but also another: “11th century ivory – within a hundred years of the arrival of the Edessa Icon Byzantine art suddenly produces Lamentation art forms showing Jesus laid out on a large shroud in a manner resembling the Turin Shroud. Why? Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. 2 (Passion), lower panel of no. 595” I assume Stephen might be taking a stab at 1090 date from quoted 11th c. source.
A point I had not picked up on previously: The article notes that thumbs are visible on the other figures depicted (e.g. Nicodemus) but not on the Christ figure. I recall a Zugibe comment that the mere natural position of relaxed hands will normally hide the thumbs. But apparently not in the case of these other figures. The fact that the thumbs are concealed on the Christ figure would suggest that the Shroud image may have been the primary source. If the Schiller 11th c. date is correct, then this would have to be one of the earliest depictions of the Shroud figure. Most of the Lamentation (Threnos) scenes date from the 12th c. at earliest. Why an ivory so early, and not a painting? Perhaps any ealier painted Threnos scenes have been lost?
On the 11th c Schiller ivory, Christ’s right arm is placed across his loin cloth. Mary his mother is embracing his chest from the left, his left arm tucked behind her outstretched. Thumbs are visible on all figures including Christ. He lies on a Shroud-like burial cloth on a stone pedestal. On the 12th c. V & A ivory, Christ’s arms are crossed, right over left. His thumbs are the only ones not visible. The 12th c. V & A ivory matches fairly closely to the Pray manuscript depiction, although placing of the various figures is different. See the Biblical Research link for further details.
Fascinating.
Before I read any of the dialogue associated with this (by Dan or readers) I have formed the following views:
– The “x’s” are highly suggestive of depicting a weaved cloth
– The cloth seems to extend well up beyond Christ’s head, but does not “end” anywhere:
this is suggestive of a long shroud which would have covered Christ’s front and back
None of this implies, however, that this piece of art was based on the Shroud. The similarities noted above are consistent with the biblical tradition. The crossed hands? Maybe a Shroud influence, maybe not.
Having said that, the hidden thumbs are quite suggestive of a Shroud influence.
I’ll now read the comments and see how they reconcile with my view.
Further thought.
the extension of the length of the shroud up above Christ’s head is interesting. It certainly implies that the shroud then came down and covered Christ’s front, like “The Shroud”
In this respect this piece is more “Shroud-like” than the Pray Manuscript which suggests more width than length.
The loin cloth is there. Unlike the Pray Manuscript which was presumably something for private “monk’s use” the ivory work would have been on public display, hence modesty protection.
“the extension of the length of the shroud up above Christ’s head is interesting. It certainly implies that the shroud then came down and covered Christ’s front, like “The Shroud”
What a beautiful observation. I think this is very significant.
Note the feature under Christ’s upper calf…curious.
Might this be meant to represent the blood flow across the small of the back and to the sides?
But represented a bit low by the artist?
Or the poker holes?
Or….quite possibly, just a decorative motif (however seems rather superfluous as a decorative motif)
clublu22014
(May 10, 2014 at 6:25 am)
“Because the Shroud is not a painting… and the Mandylion if not the Shroud was a painting or woodcarving”.
If you believe that there is not a possibility, even a slight possibility, that the Shroud has been the accidental or intentional outcome of a human work, we have to face out the problem in a different way. But now my question was directed to Hugh Farey for I know he admits this possibility.
…there is not a possibility, even a slight possibility, that the Shroud has been the accidental or intentional outcome of a human work
There is not such a possibility. The chances are comparable with those the Old Man and the Sea was not actually written by Hemingway, but by some monkey playing with typewriter.
daveb of wellington nz
May 10, 2014 at 6:41 am
“(…) Vignon noted some 20 features that were often repeated. The same features can be found on the Shroud. He published his findings in 1938 as: “Holy Shroud of Turin: Science, Archaeology, History, Iconography, Logic”. The French Academy relented and awarded him their Prize. Clublu22014 comment above is pertinent”.
I have already said we can start from the (hypothetical) likeness between the Shroud and a set of byzantine icons on the basis of M. Vignon’s marks. It is your position, at least. But my question is: What reason you have to suppose that the influence is in the sense from the Shroud to the Byzantine icons and not in the other sense? I see no reason.
My answer to Clublu is worth for you also.
PS: I will like to know why the option “quote” has disappeared from the comments. A new informatic disorder, Dan? Damn you, computer!
PS: I will like to know why the option “quote” has disappeared from the comments. A new informatic disorder, Dan? Damn you, computer!
I’ll be gentle; shut up David Mo, if you cannot deal with such a minor problem with citing someone else, and have nothing meaningful to say.
And next:
I have already said we can start from the (hypothetical) likeness between the Shroud and a set of byzantine icons on the basis of M. Vignon’s marks.
Here you have some count of the Vignon marks on 20 icons of Christ: http://shroudstory.com/2014/04/27/more-on-how-valid-are-the-vignon-markings/
Find some non-Christ icon, with, say, 7 Vignon marks, than we will have something to talk. Not before.
But my question is: What reason you have to suppose that the influence is in the sense from the Shroud to the Byzantine icons and not in the other sense? I see no reason.
I see no reason why a hypothetical forger of the Shroud should have include all those peculiar 15 Vignon marks from all those Byzantine icons. Aside from the fact that forging of the Shroud is virtually impossible.
David, you can turn your attention to an aberration from the historical affirmation that the Mandylion/Shroud was an “acheiropoieta”, But if anything else, ANYTHING, ever showed up in history as a true “acheiropoieta” it is the TS. No other empirical evidence exists.
David, you can turn your attention to an aberration from the historical affirmation that the Mandylion/Shroud was an “acheiropoieta”, But if anything else, ANYTHING, ever showed up in history as a true “acheiropoieta” it is the TS. No other empirical evidence exists.
Not so sure…
http://manoppello.eu/eng/
Skepticism hold-out,,, or do you have another observable artifact that could be said to have been made “not with human hands”? O.K., you can lose the thrill of not being able to face the unique Image of the Man on the Shroud, cause and effect– AFTER HIS DEATH (the only evidence of LIFE AFTER DEATH, i.e. the obvious miracle of the Shroud) and admit that the human mind can neither play with nor fathom its depths. Or, you can pretend to “scientifically” ATTEMPT to understand the nuts and bolts of it. The Shroud is the only piece of evidence of LIFE AFTER DEATH—the only analytic viewpoint observable… cause and effect came NOT BEFORE DEATH but cause and effect came AFTER DEATH.
Hi clublu2201, breaking news that will leave you popeyed:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-denounces-planned-satanic-mass-at-harvard/
Louis, thanks. This is so Aleister Crowleyish… what a mess that guy was for performing his kooky Black Masses in the early 1900’s… thought he was quiet the intellectual as well… ended up being a child rapist and a misfit. But certain people still give him much adulation… Scientologists for some.
Sometimes I wonder why people choose to live in a “satanic” bubble? Why it even needs to be “studied”? Instantly we know its cause and effect!
Some pigment has been detected on the Manoppello image, probably an artist’s work to make the image better, the same that was done to what is preserved in Guadalupe.
O.K.
May 10, 2014 at 10:54 am Reply
’ll be gentle; shut up David Mo, if you cannot deal with such a minor problem with citing someone else, and have nothing meaningful to say.
????
I’m sorry if you are a computer, but I only blamed my computer and informatics in general. I think “shut up” is an ugly expression in English. Is it not?
O.K. This is not a Catholic blog, it is neutral, the malice can be contagious, and I think this will interest you:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/05/08/debate-whats-the-point-of-catholic-blogging/
It is not about Catholic or neutral, or any other blogging, it is about dealing with provocative trolls. Let they have what they deserve.
I understand, and if that is the case then the comments should be moderated.
Sorry if I may be upset, but that is when someone, instead of participating in constructive discussion, wants to delliberately irritate others -by deceitful argument selection.
Fully agreed, it happens particularly when comments are anonymous or pseudonyms are used, which is something ruled out by the best blogs. It is not of course always the case, when the commenter is known, but there are also known commenters who have used pseudonyms to attack and insult others with four-letter words and post misleading comments.The tactic appears to be dictated by the occasion, that is, depending on what is to be commented.
Hi David.
I’m not too bothered about the quote facility. I rarely want to quote an entire comment, and am happy to cut and paste the bits I think I need. I agree with you entirely though, I think. Most of the so-called Vignon markings are stylistic variations of earlier models dating from before the time of Christ, or reflections of contemporary hair styles. As I commented on an earlier post, some later Pantocrators do have a distinctively odd wavy brow ridge and downward nose loop which does not seem artistically relevant, and perhaps someone more au fait with Byzantine art can say what it symbolises. I do not think it derives from the Shroud, however, as the most distinctive bridge-of-the-nose irregularity is the famous open square between the eyebrows, which is completely ignored in favour of some barely visible triangles except in one single example, the St Pontianus wall painting, whose artist can hardly have had the Shroud before him as he worked.
And I’m sorry, clublu22014, that I do not see the “obvious miracle” that you do. I do not know if there are any genuine acheiropoieta, but I believe that if any exist, they were not formed by a process inexplicable (at least theoretically) scientifically.
Hugh:
I do not know if there are any genuine acheiropoieta, but I believe that if any exist, they were not formed by a process inexplicable (at least theoretically) scientifically.
Isn’t it a self-contradiction?
Most of the so-called Vignon markings are stylistic variations of earlier models dating from before the time of Christ, or reflections of contemporary hair styles.
The same what I asked David Mo; find some non-Christ icon, with, say, 7 Vignon marks. Then we can seriously discuss the topic. No one understands that Vignon Marks are relevant not because they cannot occur without the Shroud (they can in some occasions), but because of statistical analysis the frequency of their occurences?
I do not think it derives from the Shroud, however, as the most distinctive bridge-of-the-nose irregularity is the famous open square between the eyebrows, which is completely ignored in favour of some barely visible triangles except in one single example, the St Pontianus wall painting, whose artist can hardly have had the Shroud before him as he worked.
He didn’t had the Shroud before him while working -but how do you think, where this square may come from? One example of an icon that cannot be explained without reference to the Shroud proves everything -independently of statistical approach to the problem.
I’m sorry for you, too, Hugh.
Check
http://youtu.be/4G4sj8hUVaY
@22:20 mark
Audience: ” Mr. Schwortz, that was a great lecture but you will never convince me”
Barrie:”what makes you think I even care what you believe. This is between you and God. Take it up with Him”
Annette saya May 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm
“Louis, thanks. This is so Aleister Crowleyish… what a mess that guy was for performing his kooky Black Masses in the early 1900′s… thought he was quiet the intellectual as well… ended up being a child rapist and a misfit. But certain people still give him much adulation… Scientologists for some.
Sometimes I wonder why people choose to live in a “satanic” bubble? Why it even needs to be “studied”? Instantly we know its cause and effect!”
Hi Annette,
I had to post this here since there was no “reply” option.
I think these things happen because since God is slowly being edged “out” that leaves a vacuum and the “in” can be filled with just about everything, things like “Religion without God”, the above and so on.
Regarding yesterday’s query about “liberal” Harvard and the core of the NT and what is the means of procedure now, on another thread, you might appreciate the intro in:
https://www.academia.edu/4700001/What_do_we_know_about_the_Bible_An_interview_with_Joseph_A._Fitzmyer_SJ
The future, in my view, lies in the science-theology dialogue, not in scientism and fundamentalism.
To the effect that God is an “object” or an objective, Louis, there is always a resistance or an “edging out”. But how nice to realize we needn’t concern our true selves with such matters… only with what really matters: the abiding presence of God! Oh Happy & Loving Day! (As I’m sure you know.) Thanks for the interview with J.A Fitzmyer. What a great biblical scholar an a confere with G. W. MacRae, S.J. Louis, I wish I could somehow get your email address… but thanks for feeding me so well on Dan’s blog!
clublu2201, you can reach me at lcdf72@gmail.com
Moses: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_Icon_Sinai_13th_century_detail.jpg
Alexios I: http://www.avtomatik.com/c-c-c-c-g/index.html
Fayum Portrait: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/213709944788631610/
St Peter: http://museum.doaks.org/VIEO29589?sid=3288&x=5708&port=2609
St Andrew: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-87917692/stock-photo-unesco-listed-byzantine-mosaic-portrait-of-saint-andrew-the-apostle-surrounded-by-dolphins-in-the.html
Martyr of St Sebasteia (4th from right): http://museum.doaks.org/VIEO27113?sid=3288&x=57730&port=2609
St Nicholas: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Icon_c_1500_St_Nicholas.JPG
St John Chrysostom: http://icfadumbartonoaks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screen-shot-2013-05-01-at-1-42-20-pm.png
O.K.
May 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm
The same what I asked David Mo; find some non-Christ icon, with, say, 7 Vignon marks. Then we can seriously discuss the topic. No one understands that Vignon Marks are relevant not because they cannot occur without the Shroud (they can in some occasions), but because of statistical analysis the frequency of their occurences?
There is not any statistical survey about the Vignon marks. The matching is done only on a range lesser than 20 instances. This is scandalously insufficient. As Hugh says, it is not difficult to find some icons with similar features that not correspond to the Crhist image. And some icons of Christ that not matched the Vignon marks.
But there is worse. The same concept of Vignon marks is erroneous. For example, some alleged marks of Vignon do not exist. Surely, M. Vignon worked with a picture of small seizure or similar. But now we can easily enlarge the picture with any image processor. In doing so, some marks disappear because they are features of the photo not of the actual image. Let us see what occurs with the marks 2 and 3. (For Vignon marks I’m using: http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2158/24301214.jpg. And I’m working with the face of the Shroud provided by the Arcidiocesi di Torino with a common processor: Windows photo viewer).
They are seen with a lot of difficulty in a desktop size, but when enlarged a few we will see immediately as the marks will disappear. We only catch approximately the marks 2 and 3 if we contrast adequately a picture of small size in negative. Of course this is a resource that was not in reach of the people of the Byzantine Empire.
And this happens with almost all the alleged Vignon marks.
In short, the study of Vignon marks is an absolute loss of time only suitable for mettlesome amateurs. As Vignon was. And I too, I’m afraid.
“The matching is done only on a range lesser than 20 instances. This is scandalously insufficient.”
I take this as a learning experience. What is considered “honorably sufficient” in comparing to pictures and what is your reference.
“Surely, M. Vignon worked with a picture of small seizure or similar”
Again please educate me, what picture size did Vignon work with and what is your reference?
Sorry, if you can’t educate me on those 2 questions that you proposed in your comment, then I have to agree with OK’s opinion.
Imprints and markings on the TS shall be studied not only from reflected but also transmitted and raked light images + UV and X ray images and/or in alternative light not just from one photograph.
Moses: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moses_Icon_Sinai_13th_century_detail.jpg
This is very unusual, probably Christ-based icon -without a label, I would bet it is an icon of Christ.
Alexios I: http://www.avtomatik.com/c-c-c-c-g/index.html
Marks: 1, 2(?), 6(?), 7(?), 11, 12, 14 , 4-7 in sum, but this is low resolution photo.
Fayum Portrait: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/213709944788631610/
Marks: 1, 2, 5, 9(?), 15, in sum 4-5.
St Peter: http://museum.doaks.org/VIEO29589?sid=3288&x=5708&port=2609
This is good, 1, 2, 3, maybe 4(?), 12,13, 14(?), in sum 5-7
St Andrew: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-87917692/stock-photo-unesco-listed-byzantine-mosaic-portrait-of-saint-andrew-the-apostle-surrounded-by-dolphins-in-the.html
This is also good 3(?), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (?), 12, 13 (?),15, in sum 6-9
Martyr of St Sebasteia (4th from right): http://museum.doaks.org/VIEO27113?sid=3288&x=57730&port=2609
I don’t know which one you mean.
St Nicholas: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Icon_c_1500_St_Nicholas.JPG
1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14(?), 15, in sum 6-7
St John Chrysostom: http://icfadumbartonoaks.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screen-shot-2013-05-01-at-1-42-20-pm.png
1, 2, 9(?), 10, 11, 13, 15, in sum 6-7
That was easy task, Hugh. So now it will be harder -at least a dozen times.
Find 12 icons of Moses, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Nicholas and St. John Chrysostom (12 for each one!) with at least 7 Vignon marks on each!
I have found here (https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/pantocratorsmarks.pdf), without a slightest problem 16 Christ icons with 8+ Vignon Marks!
Let’s see whether other Holy Figures match this result!
Aside from the fact, that all those Hugh examples (except maybe the Moses icon) have at least one flaw -they don’t have long hair falling on the back. This disqualify them from the begining.
David Mo:
There is not any statistical survey about the Vignon marks. The matching is done only on a range lesser than 20 instances. This is scandalously insufficient.
This is enough for some basic survey. But each icon has its own specific similarities with the Shroud. Whangers claims tens, or even hundreds points of congruence, whether all of them are justified I don’t know, but I don’t suspect all of them are irrelevant.
As Hugh says, it is not difficult to find some icons with similar features that not correspond to the Crhist image. And some icons of Christ that not matched the Vignon marks.
Yes. But how many non-Christ icons with several Vignon marks are there? A few? And how many Christ icons without Vignon marks? Also a few, I think.
So if we limit ourselves to the Byzantine period, it is likely that we find, say 5 % non-Christ icons with multiple Vignon markings -and, say 5 % Christ icons without them.
We only catch approximately the marks 2 and 3 if we contrast adequately a picture of small size in negative. Of course this is a resource that was not in reach of the people of the Byzantine Empire.
And this happens with almost all the alleged Vignon marks.
I have no slightest problems with finding marks 2-3 on Shroud Scope Durante’s positive photographs of the face. But I am not responsible for your blindness.
O.K.
May 11, 2014 at 6:49 am
Reply
David Mo:
So if we limit ourselves to the Byzantine period, it is likely that we find, say 5 % non-Christ icons with multiple Vignon markings -and, say 5 % Christ iconswithout them.
Are you sure? Do you know any inquiry having established those percentages? And another that has established the percentage of icons of Christ with the Vignon marks? I don’t know how many Christ’s images can be between the Seventh and the Fourteenth Centuries but I suppose we are speaking of several hundred or thousand. So, 10 or 15 images over a total of several hundred or more possible icons sounds as an irrelevant amount. Specially, because sometimes you see some features and sometimes you see another. With this play you can match the Shroud with almost everything.
I have no slightest problems with finding marks 2-3 on Shroud Scope Durante’s positive photographs of the face. But I am not responsible for your blindness.
If you see here https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-16qRAO3e0yE/U2-aEq8hK4I/AAAAAAAAB2Q/gr5sOmMGA98/s400/il_volto.jpg
a triangle, a square and a “V”, you have super-view. But this is a strange evidence that only is seen by those who want see it! (Do you know the anecdote of leptons and Mickey Mouse?).
You can made an easy experience: put the Shroud of Turin, the face of Mannopello and the Pantocrator of Taüll in front of some people that don’t know the issue and ask them what features are common. Let us see how many Vignon marks are seeing. (If the examples seem too hard to you, you can chose other instances of the PDF that you linked).
So, 10 or 15 images over a total of several hundred or more possible icons sounds as an irrelevant amount.
That was just a sample taken from Wikipedia. I have no reason to suppose it is not representative. In fact, Vignon marks are seen even on some miniatures, for example
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg?uselang=pl
or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Surrender_of_the_Mandylion_to_the_Byzantines.jpg
Specially, because sometimes you see some features and sometimes you see another.
And they are usually complementary.
If you see here https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-16qRAO3e0yE/U2-aEq8hK4I/AAAAAAAAB2Q/gr5sOmMGA98/s400/il_volto.jpg
a triangle, a square and a “V”, you have super-view
I have no special problems with that -and I don’t consider myself as having super-view. It is rather you that have some problems with eyes or perception.
And btw, it is sometimes better to observe those features from the distance -high magnifications are not often recommended, as continuous structures break up into dots This is a basic mistake of some unexperienced observers. And of course one should remember that the Shroud image is invisible from the distance less than 1-2 metres. You seem to forgot this basic fact.
But this is a strange evidence that only is seen by those who want see it! (Do you know the anecdote of leptons and Mickey Mouse?).
It is completely different thing, the problem with leptons is not with observing some shapes (no one denies there is something), but with their interpretation. Here are some simple geometric figures, some notice them, some not. Only the first group is relevant.
Do you know the anecdote of the TS and Mickey David Mo as far as sight-and-brain perception is concerned?
He doesn’t see what is doesn’t want to see.
Typo: what HE doesn’t want to see.
Mike M
May 11, 2014 at 7:10 am
I take this as a learning experience. What is considered “honorably sufficient” in comparing to pictures and what is your reference.
I’m not a teacher and I don’t intend to do lessons to anyone. I think I have answered your question in my answer to O.K. Please see it.
(…)Again please educate me, what picture size did Vignon work with and what is your reference?
I suppose that Vignon used a relatively small photo token by Pia (perhaps a contrasted negative) because he confuses a wrinkle with the mark 13 and doesn’t notice that the square 4 his formed by two bandings of the weave. They are two things easily perceptible with a slight magnification of the image and more resolution.
You don’t teach because you don’t know. Your answer to OK was scandalously lacking of any criteria you used to declare 20 similar features were “scandalously” insufficient for comparing two images. So I guess the questions remain unanswered, and OK’s opinion of you stands.
I think there’s a bit of squirming going on here.
OK rejects portraits which do not have shoulder length hair as Shroud derivatives. And that’s fine.
Supposing I said that I reject portraits which do not have divided beards, which is surely a characteristic at least as obvious as the long hair. Then at a stroke almost all the most famous “Vignon” portraits also have to be rejected.
OK will no doubt say that they can be accepted because of all their other Vignon marks.
But if the “non divided beards” can be accepted because of all their other Vignon marks, then surely so can the “non shoulder length hair.”
Rejecting my non-Christ examples of the basis of their hair length is not a reasonable attitude, I feel.
OK rejects portraits which do not have shoulder length hair as Shroud derivatives. And that’s fine.
Supposing I said that I reject portraits which do not have divided beards, which is surely a characteristic at least as obvious as the long hair. Then at a stroke almost all the most famous “Vignon” portraits also have to be rejected.
OK will no doubt say that they can be accepted because of all their other Vignon marks.
But if the “non divided beards” can be accepted because of all their other Vignon marks, then surely so can the “non shoulder length hair.”
Rejecting my non-Christ examples of the basis of their hair length is not a reasonable attitude, I feel.
Forked bear is not as important as long hair, because less theologically-aware icon painter may not guess its significance.
On the contrary, Jesus without long hair is not Jesus. That’s the most striking feature -not present at overwhelming majority of Peter, Moses or John Chrysostom icons.
Large numbers of Vignon marks on the non-Christ icons are accidental. On the contrary, they are normal on Byzantine portraits of Christ.
You don’t think that sounds like special pleading? I do. Vignon markings on non-Christs are accidental, but those on Christs are deliberate? No, you’ll have to do better than that, I’m afraid. The few Vignon markings that appear ‘commonly’ on Christs also appear commonly on non-Christs. The few that appear rarely on Christs are equally rare elsewhere. The fact that some Christ portraits seem to have a greater number of these markings than non-Christs is a statistical effect of the far greater proportion of Christ portraits.
Hugh,
Are you saying that you feel the Vignon markings are a red herring? Or do you feel there is something to them however the case tends to be overstated?
Definitely a red herring in my view.
The fact that some Christ portraits seem to have a greater number of these markings than non-Christs is a statistical effect of the far greater proportion of Christ portraits.
It can be easily normalized.
You don’t think that sounds like special pleading? I do. Vignon markings on non-Christs are accidental, but those on Christs are deliberate? No, you’ll have to do better than that, I’m afraid. The few Vignon markings that appear ‘commonly’ on Christs also appear commonly on non-Christs. The few that appear rarely on Christs are equally rare elsewhere.
Yes on the non-Christ they are accidental. On the Christ they are related to the Shroud.
Look, even modern Mandylions have them -by tradition, not just accident:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/MandylionJW.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Estonia_-_Flickr_-_Jarvis-9.jpg/800px-Estonia_-_Flickr_-_Jarvis-9.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Katedra_polskokatolicka_mandylion.JPG?uselang=pl
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Christ_1900_-_silver_frame.jpeg?uselang=pl
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Christ%2C_central_Russia%2C_end_of_19th_cen.jpeg?uselang=pl
Hugh Farey
May 12, 2014 at 5:51 am
I think there’s a bit of squirming going on here.
OK rejects portraits which do not have shoulder length hair as Shroud derivatives. And that’s fine. (…)
I insist the problem is conceptual.
We arbitrarily choose fifteen features that never go together. Six or seven how much. (Why not the ears? Because the ears are ever present in the Byzantine iconography of Christ but not in the Shroud).
Some of these features are not clearly visible either in the Shroud or in the Byzantine iconography. Some people see them but other people don’t see them.
We enlarge arbitrarily the rank of our survey. For example, we accept the Pantocrator of Taüll but not the Pantocrator of the Cristo de la Luz of Toledo. Why? Because we think the first accomplish (??- I doubt a lot) some Vignon Marks and the latter not a single one. How long the influence of the Shroud reached ? How? These are some important points to an historical hypothesis never specified in this case.
We made some arbitrary interpretation from a blood stain to a lock of hair, but we discard some pictures when the lock of hair doesn’t correspond to any blood (St. John the Baptist). These pictures will be an evident refutation or our hypothesis.
The more common features (10, 11 and 13) are present on a lot of portraits, even long before to the alleged date to expansion of the (non recorded) presence of the Shroud in the Byzantine Empire.
And so on , and so on.
With this non rational method we can match the Venus of Milo with the Demoiselles d’Avignon. “Squirming”? May be. I don’t know this word.
Mike M
May 12, 2014 at 7:25 am
Your answer to OK was scandalously lacking of any criteria you used to declare 20 similar features were “scandalously” insufficient for comparing two images.
You are in a mistake. We aren’t speaking of 20 features.
These are your own words not mine,
“There is not any statistical survey about the Vignon marks. The matching is done only on a range lesser than 20 instances. This is scandalously insufficient”
If you don’t believe me scroll up to May11; 4:10am comment of yours. Whose mistaken?
Instances (examples) and features are different things. An instance is the Pantocrator of Daphne. A feature of this instance is the wrinkle in the neck.
O.K.
May 12, 2014 at 8:19 am
On the contrary, Jesus without long hair is not Jesus. That’s the most striking feature -not present at overwhelming majority of Peter, Moses or John Chrysostom icons.
You are in a mistake. Jesus beardless and with the short hair was an icon that persisted till the first centuries of the Middle Age. And John the Baptist was ever presented with long hair and sometimes with a curl on the front. This has no necessary relation to the Shroud nor the actual appearance of Christ but to some theological conventions. Jesus with a beard and long hair was assimilated to the philosophers and Wisdom. Jesus beardless was the symbol of the Life.
Cf: Chavanne-Mazel, Claudine A.: “Popular Belief and the Image of Beardless Christ”, Visual Resources, Vol 19, nº 1; 2003; p. 19-24. It is on line, I think.
David (Goulet)! In a word, yes. There is one interesting oddity which needs to be explained, namely the wavy line across the brows and the loop downwards over the nose (Marks 1-4 in various combinations) found in later Christs and Emperors, but I don’t think this is anything to do with the Shroud. All the other marks occur here and there across Byzantine portraiture, apart from the completely spurious ones (the 1898 crease and the change of an epsilon shaped blood mark in to two strands of hair).
David (Mo)! Squirming is wriggling uncomfortably to ease oneself out of a very tight place with pressure on all sides.
I am still awaiting a copy of Vignon’s 1938 book, where I hope he explains his ideas more clearly.
Hugh Farey
May 12, 2014 at 1:45 pm
David (Goulet)! In a word, yes. There is one interesting oddity which needs to be explained, namely the wavy line across the brows and the loop downwards over the nose (Marks 1-4 in various combinations) found in later Christs and Emperors, but I don’t think this is anything to do with the Shroud.
In what sense ‘oddity’? I think they are a ‘stilyzed’ sign, perhaps of concentration and power. (‘Stylization’: a natural feature modified in terms of an aesthetic style). But they scarcely ever or never appear as a vertical succesion of signs in form of V+rectangular box+V (2,3,4 marks) in the space between the eyebrows. Not in the Shroud, of course.
“a ‘stilyzed’ sign, perhaps of concentration and power.”
You may well be correct, and it makes a lot of sense, but I have yet to see it properly evidenced, so I held back from proposing it.
O.K.
May 12, 2014 at 9:45 am
Yes on the non-Christ they are accidental. On the Christ they are related to the Shroud.
Petitio principii. You suppose the Mandylion is the Srhoud. This is far to be demonstrated.
…And even less with a series of modern replications of Mandylion.