Anticipating the Conference: Dan Scavone on Evidence of the Shroud in Edessa

Daniel Scavone  | 12-Oct-2014  |  10:00-10:30 am


In 944 Edessa’s cloth-image of Jesus arrived in Constantinople.  It remained there until the 13th century.  Of the Edessan sources, the most important was the 6th c. Acts of Thaddaeus, which attests to a faint image of Jesus’ face on a cloth imposed during His ministry.  Importantly, the cloth was referred to as a sindon tetradiplon, literallya “burial cloth folded in eight layers.”

In Constantinople, the Edessa cloth-image was named, described, and/or depicted in art in at least 17 documents.  Some writers saw only the face of Jesus visible on the folded cloth (Mandylion).  Other eyewitnesses describe blood and full body on the cloth.  My study of these texts provides strong evidence that the imaged cloth from Edessa to Constantinople was the cloth known today as the Shroud of Turin.

Click on the title to read the full abstract. Click here for the conference home page.

Picture: (Click to Enlarge) Surrender of the Mandylion of Image of Edessa by the inhabitants of Edessa to the Byzantine parakoimomenos Theophanes, unknown 13th century author – Chronography of John Skylitzes, cod. Vitr. 26-2, folio 131a, Madrid National Library.

From Wikimedia:  The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain.

36 thoughts on “Anticipating the Conference: Dan Scavone on Evidence of the Shroud in Edessa”

  1. Perhaps we can solve here the reference that establishes ‘sindon’ as a burial cloth. It is regularly translated as such by Dan Scavone but I cannot find such use in any lexicon or Bible commentary that I have. Normally it is ‘linen cloth’ or ‘fine linen’ and no more than that (the derivation appears to be from Sind in India). The ‘fine linen’ can, of course, be used in many contexts such as a burial cloth, the garments of the priests, altar cloths,etc but I know of no direct translation as a burial cloth. It is an important point for Shroud researchers because if we are reading a Greek text that uses the word ‘sindon’ it is important to know whether it might be referring to a burial cloth.
    I am not going to reopen tetradiplon. If it means doubled four times that is, of course, sixteen layers as seen on the cloth on the Parthenon frieze. It only takes three doublings to achieve eight layers.

    1. Me too. One is tempted to misquote Voltaire: Si le Sindon n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer.

  2. Charles: “Perhaps we can solve here the reference that establishes ‘sindon’ as a burial cloth. It is regularly translated as such by Dan Scavone but I cannot find such use in any lexicon or Bible commentary that I have. ” No problem!

    E.g. Matthew 27:59, Jerusalem Bible translates as: “So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean Shroud and put it in his own new tomb … ; Likewise Mark 15:45 (he buys the shroud); Likewise Luke 23:52. Other translations may use a different word from Shroud, (e.g. burial cloth) but clearly this is meant here.

    Check Greek New Testament web-site, four versions given; Matt 27:59 can be found at:
    “kai labwn to swma o iwshf enetulixen auto sindoni kaqara”
    (You can transliterate this, I don’t know how yet.) The key word is ‘sindoni’; Jerome’s Latin Vulgate also translates it as “sindone”. I’ll leave you to navigate through the Gk NT to the Mark & Luke texts but they use the same word-root. John of course uses the term ‘othonia’. Similarly the Synoptic Resurrection stories also use ‘sindonia’, but ‘soudarion’ referring to the head-cloth.

    Whether ‘sindone’ was a common word Greek used specifically for ‘burial cloth’ is course debatable as you have indicated. However there can be little doubt that merely because of the use of this word in the original gospel narratives, this is what the burial cloths came to be called in the course of Christian history. This would not preclude the word being used for other types of linen cloths.

    1. US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) translation for Matt 27:59 has:
      “Taking the body, Joseph wrapped it [in] clean linen” So it’s linen and it’s being used as a burial shroud!

  3. I want to add a note about Eudocia and the relics from Jerusalem…
    Eudocia’s given name was Athenais, which her parents named her after the city’s protector Pallas-Athena.
    … … … …
    Upon being named Augusta, she succeeded her sister in law, Pulcheria who had been Augusta since 414. The relationship between the two women consisted of rivalry over power.
    Eudocia was jealous over the amount of power Pulcheria had within the court, while Pulcheria was jealous of the power Eudocia could claim from her. Their relationship created a “pious atmosphere” in the imperial court, and is probably an explanation as to why Eudocia traveled to the Holy Land in 438. Eudocia went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 438, bringing back with her holy relics to prove her faith.

  4. Hum. Stepping out of my depth here, but when did that stop me before?

    When somebody uses a word to describe a particular circumstance, it is natural to assume they were using a word particularly appropriate to that circumstance, and so, if there is an appropriate English word, to use that in translation, regardless of what the original word meant to the person who used it. Any cloth used in connection with a tomb may thus be assumed to mean ‘shroud,’ ‘grave-clothes,’ ‘winding-sheet’ or similar.

    However it is not clear to me that there is a Greek word which is particular to a cloth in a tomb. Searching for a Greek word meaning ‘shroud’ in (which uses Liddell & Scott, the dictionary I used as a child among others), I cannot find one. There are references to words meaning ‘shrouded in gloom’ or ‘wearing a black shroud,’ and so on, but these seem to me to be largely figurative. Thus ‘entypazo’ means ‘wrap up’ but not specifically a dead body, and ‘melanonekyoeimon’ means ‘shrouded in black,’ but as far as I can make out the base words are black-corpse-wearing, with no specific word meaning ‘shroud.’ None of the words given in association with ‘shroud’ is anything like ‘sindon’ or ‘othonia.’

    This makes me feel that neither ‘sindon’ nor ‘othonia’ nor, in fact, any other word, had any specific reference to grave clothes, until, being thus applied by the evangelists, they acquired one.

    So what did ‘sindon’ mean? To find out, we need to look at every example we can. Starting with Herodotus’ Histories, the Babylonians strain their fish stew through sindonos, people sleep wearing clothes or wrapped in sindonos, Egyptian mummifiers wrap bodies in bandages (telamon) made of sindonos, and wounded warriors are tended with the same. Lucian says that the Eyptian God Anubis wears sindosin, and Polybius says armies signalled with coloured sindona. It is fairly clear that the word had no immediate connection with the grave.

    ‘Othonia’ seems to mean very much the same. People wear it, wave it about, and let the wind blow on it to move their ships.

    I think therefore, that Charles is perfectly correct in supposing that even a post-33AD Greek text that refers to sindoni or othonia need not necessarily be referring to grave clothes, but that Daveb is also correct in that in the context of the empty tomb, they almost certainly are referring to grave clothes.

    The grey area lies in the use of these words in the context of relics, but not specifically in the context of the tomb. It might be argued that since the word othonia only occurs in the bible in the context of the tomb, it carries that context automatically. Sindon is also used for the garment the young man in Gethsemane left behind, so need not, and might refer to a different relic altogether.

    Now back to my laboratory…

    1. Thanks for the erudite reply, Hugh! I think this solves it satisfactorily so far as I am concerned. The Acts of Thaddeus, as is well known to those who have read the whole text, refer to two cloths. The first is the sindon tetradiplon that was unwrapped for Jesus to wipe his face on. It would seem that sindon could not be translated here as burial cloth as it has no relationship with the empty tomb of the gospels. The second reference to a cloth in the Acts specifically refers to the burial cloths from the tomb and this confirms that the first sindon cannot be Jesus’ burial cloth.
      Yet Dan Scavone may yet surprise us all by bringing up a meaning of sindon that does allow it to be translated as ‘burial cloth’ in the first context.

  5. Short bibliography (about Eudocia) :
    – F. Gregorovius, Athenais, Lipsia 1881;
    – Ch. Diehl, Figures byzantines, Parigi 1906;
    – G. L. Arvanitakis, Αἱ δύο Εὐδοκία, Cairo 1907.

    Another source about Eudocia :
    Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 70–91,
    ISSN (Online) 1864-449X, ISSN (Print) 0007-7704,
    DOI: 10.1515/byzs.1998.91.1.70, October 2009

    Article = L’imperatrice Eudocia e Roma. Per una datazione del de S. Cypriani. by Enrico Livrea
    — —

    So we have to take into account all the informations before to write something about :
    >the well-documented collecting of relics from Jerusalem by Pulcheria …

    Eudocia was not Pulcheria !

    Under the address :
    = Athenais – Geschichte einer byzantinischen Kaiserin. Erweiterte Ausgabe by Ferdinand Gregorovius

    There is the following description (in German language) :
    1882 veröffentlichte Gregorovius die Monographie “Athenais, Geschichte einer byzantinischen Kaiserin”, welcher die Übersetzung eines Gesangs ihres Gedichtes “Cyprianus und Justina” beigegeben ist, gewissermaßen “der ersten dichterischen Behandlung des Themas der Faustsage” (3. Aufl. 1892). Athenais war die geistvolle Tochter des heidnischen Philosophen Leontius, trat zum Christentum über, wurde als Gemahlin Theodosius’ II. Kaiserin Eudokia (421 – 441 oder 444) und endete, seit 450 Witwe, ihr Leben ca. 460 zu Jerusalem im Exil. Ihre Geschichte interessierte G. um so mehr, als sie ihm “eine zweifache Metamorphose Griechenlands versinnbildlichte: den Übergang vom Heidentum in das Christentum und vom Hellenentum in das Byzantinertum”. So konnte er mit der Erzählung der Geschicke der Athenais wieder eine höchst anschauliche, lehrreiche Schilderung jenes Umwandlungsprozesses verbinden, der ihn, wie ähnliche andere Übergangsperioden, ausnehmend fesselte.
    — —
    1882 Gregorovius published the monograph “Athenaïs, Story of a Byzantine Empress”, which is added to the translation of a song of her poem “Cyprian and Justina,” as it were “the first poetic treatment of the theme of the Faust legend” (3rd edition, 1892). Athenaïs was the spirited daughter of the pagan philosopher Leontius, converted to Christianity, was as the wife of Theodosius II, Empress Eudocia (421-441 or 444) and ended, since 450 widow, lives about 460 to Jerusalem in exile.
    — —
    Here another (vague) reference :
    Jannic Durand et Bernard Flusin, éd., Byzance et les reliques du Christ.
    Paris, Association des Amis du centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004, 258 p. (Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, Monographies, 17)

    Jolivet-Lévy Catherine, Bulletin Monumental, Année 2007, Volume 165
    — —
    Another link :

    Compte-rendu d’ouvrage
    DURAND Jannic, FLUSIN Bernard (éd.), Byzance et les reliques du Christ, Paris : Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 17, 2004, 258 p.
    Soixante illustrations photographiques (noir et blanc ou couleur) in texto ; index.
    >À l’origine de cet ouvrage se trouvent des communications effectuées en août 2001 lors de l’une des tables rondes du XXe Congrès international des études byzantines à Paris, au moment où une exposition du musée du Louvre était consacrée au trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle. Ce dernier édifice fut érigé par saint Louis afin d’abriter les reliques du Christ conservées à Constantinople avant la prise de la ville par les croisés en 1204 ; en somme, il avait pour modèle l’église dédiée à la Vierge et située dans le Grand Palais de Constantinople, près du Phare : la Théotokos du Pharos, sanctuaire où avaient été accumulées par les empereurs quantité de précieuses reliques, et parmi elles celle de la Vraie Croix. Etc., etc. , etc.

    Under :

    Click to access Sacre%20Impronte%20(Adele%20Monaci).pdf

    L’image d’Édesse, Romain et Constantin Bernard FLUSIN
    École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris
    278 (of 350) and following …
    See at page 284 :
    >Süsse Engberg, dans un article paru en 2004, remet en cause la datation du texte (B)
    And the
    Note (n. 23) = S. G. ENGBERG, Romanos Lakapenos and the Mandilion of Edessa, in J. DURAND- B. FLUSIN (edd.), Byzance et les reliques du Christ, Paris 2004 (Monographies 17), 123-142, en particulier 135.

  6. Re the word sindon, on July 3, 2012 at 12:02 pm and August 10, 2013 at 5:58 am,
    I wrote:

    “Writers (e.g., Martialis/Martial) used the Greek word sindon in LATIN as early as the 1st century CE in accounts of very fine linen, silk and sea Byssus veil/head covering from head to toes). In 4th century CE LATIN (e.g., Vulgata), THE SAME LATIN WORD comes to also refer to the linen/burial cloth of Rabbi Yeshua of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).”

    “Thus it must be reminded that the LATIN sindon can refer to BOTH Yeshua’s linen/burial cloth AND his Byssus face veil (Aramaic mindil) or head covering from head to toes (Aramaic sudara).
    One must bear in mind besides Syriac and Greek, Latin was one of the three main languages used in Edessa while Greek only took over Latin not until the seventh c CE in the Byzantine Empire.
    Both the confusion between the Greek Mandylion (as a very fine Byssus veil, Aramaic mindil) and Sindon (as Yeshua’s linen/burial cloth) could then find here its philological explanation and also be consistent with the very fact, in one point in time, the apotropaic Image of Edessa could have referred to two clothes/contact relics placed over one another and kept within one and sole reliquary tablet with central oculus showing the Holy Face with open eyes and mouth in the transparent byssus/‘mindil’ covering Yeshua’s bloody death mask on his long burial linen sheet.”

  7. Edessa would have been most unusual if Latin had been spoken there as in the east it was hardly used outside the administration that had to issue all decrees in a Greek translation to make itself understood. It was the administration that turned to Greek in the seventh century thus linking itself to the language of the Byzantine elite.
    When I researched this in depth a few years ago I was actually quite surprised at how little Latin was spoken in the east.

    1. Martial and Jerome were, of course, writing for the Latin- speaking west which did adopt some Greek words and may have used them in different contexts but this is not relevant when we are speaking of Greek or Syriac texts in the eastern part of the empire. The Acts of Thaddeus were in Greek and sindon would have its normal Greek meanings,

  8. Martial uses the word ‘sindon’ twice, once as a material to protect oneself from storms (Tyrian sindone) and once to make a ‘non cotidiana’ dress (holiday sindone), although it is occasionally confused with Sidone, meaning ‘from Sidon.’ Not really enough to generalise, but he seems to be using it a material rather than any particular piece of cloth. The Vulgate uses it in exactly the same places as the Septuagint. I’ve no idea where byssus comes in; perhaps Max will enlighten us.

  9. The Classic Greek writers clearly use sindon for a general all-purpose word to mean cloth, often linen. However the fact that the Synoptic gospel authors used it to describe Christ’s burial cloths, both at the time of burial and of resurrection suffice to explain how it specifically came to mean burial cloth in Christian history. But how, when, and by what process that came about is the challenge for a historian – linguist. In the first few centuries of the Christian era, it seems quite tenable to assert that it might well mean some other cloth artifact. Edessa had become a major centre of early Syriac Christian scholarship well before 250 AD, and the Greek synoptics would have been well known to Edessan scholars by then. Bishop Avercius Marcellus, credited with the baptism of Abgar VIII’s household and court, wrote his notable memorial epitaph in Greek.

  10. In Revelations ch 19, v-v 11-14, a white horse appears, its rider is called Faithful and True, a judge with integrity, a warrior for justice, eyes are flames of fire, head crowned with many coronets; Note that his cloak is soaked with blood, even though it’s before the battle! He is known by the name the Word of God (c.f. John ch 1). Behind him, dressed in linen of dazzling white, rode the armies of heaven on white horses. Etc.

    Now turn to Greek New Testament: The word used for the rider’s cloak is “imation” = himation (not sindon), Jerome translates it “vestem aspersam sanguine”; The word used for the linen of the celestial armies is “byssininon” (Max’s byssus) (Jerome = “albis vestiti byssinum”) . It is interesting that “sindon” is not used in any of this context. Nor does John used sindon, but “othonia”, in describing the burial cloths.

    1. It looks, from these assembled comments, that one cannot translate sindon as burial cloth except in very specific circumstances: in Christian texts referring to the empty tomb, possibly only the gospels.
      This would not apply to the the tetradiplon cloth in the Acts of Thaddeus as the same text refers specifically to the burial cloths of Jesus later in the text as separate from the tetradiplon cloth that was unwrapped for Jesus to wipe his face on. I still think tetradiplon is used to give ceremonial status to the cloth that was given to Jesus and that the term refers to four doublings , e.g. sixteen layers as shown in the ceremonial cloth handed over on the Parthenon frieze. I can’t see how the word can be manipulated to achieve eight layers and Wilson’s depiction is, as already pointed out in a posting on this site some time ago, misleading.

  11. I’m aware that Charles considers the association of the Mandylion with the Shroud a “misguided journey”, he has published a book with this title, and one does not like to see one’s own child in peril. The first known account of how the cloth came to Edessa is the 4th century work the “Doctrine of Addai”, which was modified in the 6th century becoming the “Acts of Thaddeus”, both of which works Charles will be acquainted. The 6th century work refers to the cloth as tetradiplon, acheiropoietos, and sindon. Certainly the Synoptic authors’ use of the word “sindon” in respect of the burial cloths would have been known to the author of the Thaddeus document, a large burial shroud.

    I’m coming to the opinion that anything I might say further on the subject would leave Charles quite unmoved from his views of a “misguided journey”. However he might like to take the time to read Daniel Scavone’s comprehensive documentary study of the matter so he is at least better informed of a differing professional view of the matter with supporting evidence, fully cited and annotated, together with analyses of the relevant Greek terminology used: “Acheiropoietos Jesus Images in Constantinople: the Documentary Evidence”, 2006. He can find the paper at:

    Click to access scavone-acheiropoietos.pdf

  12. Thanks, I have read it and remain unconvinced. There is no way that the Image of Edessa can be the Shroud and every professional Byzantine scholar who has read the evidence agrees with me.

  13. What I can’t understand is why Dan Scavone seems to be repeating this paper at the conference when one can read it beforehand and the conference is already overcrowded.
    I don’t know of any significant evidence in favour of the Shroud’s authenticity but if one applied Occam’s Razor to the problem of how a relic from Jerusalem might have reached northern France by 1350 ,one would start with the many direct (and documented) contacts between the two regions rather than construct a tortuous journey with a five hundred year gap at the beginning and a 150 year gap at the end with an unsubstantiated linking of the Shroud with the Image in between. But there you go.

  14. Scavone’s intended paper for St Louis is only presently available in its abstract, and it may be premature to prejudge its full content. Charles may be unaware of any significant evidence supporting the Shroud’s authenticity but that is not the view of a large body of scientists who have studied the matter in great detail. Whether or not the Shroud and the Mandylion were the one and the same object, it would seem presumptuous for every professional Byzantine scholar to assert that “There is no way that Image of Edessa can be the Shroud” when there are adequate indications that it might well be. But perhaps that is the distinction between the present state of the disciplines of the humanities and sciences. On the contrary, I know of only one particular tenuous indication of a possible early Frankish acquaintance with the Shroud image, the scourging illustration in the 8th century Carolingian Stuttgart Psalter, but that is easily explained by Byzantine-Carolingian contacts at the time. Certainly no professional Gallic scholar has ever considered it worthwhile pursuing a first millenium journey of the Shroud from Jerusalem to France, a rather more tortuous journey than that to Byzantium. Very likely, the reason is that no piece of evidence supporting a possible case has ever been discovered, whereas there are ample indications of its presence in Constantinople! The Greek Orthodox epitaphioi dating from the 12th century and depicting a Shroud-like Christ laid out in death are merely one such indication.

    1. Dave, I have a feeling that Charles is simply looking for a pretext for another brawl here. As I have no time for this already, I suggest simply ignoring him for this moment.

  15. No, I think Charles has logic on his side. If you think the Shroud is a 13th or 14th Century creation, then you won’t be particularly interested in working on its earlier history; if you think it is the Mandylion of Edessa, then you need look no further; but if you think it may be genuine but definitely not the Mandilion, then another route to France (and other reasons for it not appearing till 1350) would be well worth pursuing. I don’t know any professional Byzantine scholars who are interested in the Shroud, but if Charles thinks there is stuff to explore, then let them explore it!

    1. No, I think Charles has logic on his side. If you think the Shroud is a 13th or 14th Century creation, then you won’t be particularly interested in working on its earlier history; if you think it is the Mandylion of Edessa, then you need look no further; but if you think it may be genuine but definitely not the Mandilion, then another route to France (and other reasons for it not appearing till 1350) would be well worth pursuing. I don’t know any professional Byzantine scholars who are interested in the Shroud, but if Charles thinks there is stuff to explore, then let them explore it!

      Hugh,in that case I recommend you reading Remi Van Haelst, The Sindon Munda Of Kornelimunster, Compiegne And Cahors somewhere down on this site:

  16. I am not into brawls – I am into evidence, or the lack of it, and searching out all possibilities. We know that relics from the Lord’s tomb came to Northern France, not far from Lirey in the first millennium and although there is no evidence that a shroud was among them, there is no reason for discounting the possibility. Again we know of many relics coming into France from the Holy Land during the Crusades. Again no reason to rule out the possibility that a Shroud was among them – or should I say another shroud as that of Cadouin is well known.
    I still think that a medieval origin for the Shroud is more likely but I find myself in the odd position of being the person who is advocating research that might actually lead to it being found to be authentic – if only the Edessa/ Constantinople red herring could be thrown back into the sea, well actually the Bosphorus!

  17. It is doubful if Geffroy de Charny, who wrote a book on chivalry, and inspired the Order of the Star, would exhibit a fake. His wife, Jeanne de Vergy, was a direct descendant of Othon de la Roche and it is in this link that the mystery lies.

  18. Regarding brawls, I am acquainted with Hal Hellman’s series on “Great Feuds”, which include Mathematics, Technology, Science, and Medicine. It would seem that few real advances in certain knowledge were ever achieved without a brawl, and Hellman’s works are truly educational on the history of advances in human knowledge. However he seems to have avoided discussing the humanities. Perhaps the disputations there are incapable of being resolved to any kind of worthwhile conclusion.

    Hugh may consider that there is logic to assert that “if you think it (the Shroud) may be genuine but definitely not the Mandylion, then another route to France (and other reasons for it not appearing till 1350) would be well worth pursuing” whereas Charles has made it clear that he has no reason for believing it to be genuine. So his French proposition is merely a distraction and a chimera, and no-one to date has considered it worth pursuing.

    No parent likes to disowns his child and Charles’ “Misguided Journey” may be at stake. However to quote the great English poet, Alexander Pope (1688-1744):
    “A man should never be ashamed to say he has been wrong, which is but saying in other words that he is wiser today than he was yesterday.”

    1. De Charny is unlikely ever to have seen the chapel at Lirey as he was totally occupied with diplomatic and military missions for the king in the years until his death at Poitiers in 1356. Kaeuper and Kennedy’s introduction to de Charny’s Chivalry (1996) suggest it was Jeanne who transformed what had been an icon into a relic. This would make the Shroud analagous to the Shroud of Besancon whose status changed when a man was apparently brought back from the dead in its presence.This simply made it a object of veneration which is the same status the Church gave in the 1390s and still gives to the Shroud. The question of a fake does not come into it as there were many objects that were never believed to be the originals but which were associated with miracles.I suspect that this is how the Shroud began its spiritual life- and this is certainly what Kaeuper and Kennedy argue.
      I am quite happy for daveb to offer a critique of my ‘Misguided Journey ‘ if he wishes to do so – I am not sure whether he has read it yet. I cannot see why i should think I am wrong until there is some alternative evidence provided that trumps mine. Again and again when I checked Wilson’s sources I found that they were wrongly used. His claim that the word tetradiplon was used of the Shroud AFTER Jesus wiped his face on it instead of before is just one instance in his 2010 book. And it does not take long to dismiss the Pray Codex- there is a stepped pyramid pattern on the tomb cover, not a herringbone, and the holes are circular not ragged as the poker holes on the Shroud are. The ROUND holes are found in several depictions of the tomb lid as there were actually round holes drilled into the Sepulchre in Jerusalem which were copied by artists.
      I suspect that the reason why no one has followed up the French connections is that no one was aware of them. I refer you to Michael McCormick’s Origins of the European Economy, Cambridge, 2001. He studies the early relic trade in France in detail and on page 303, he lists relics that are found at Sens, only 90 kilometres from Lirey, that came in from Jerusalem the eighth century. There are three specific relics listed as having come from the ‘Lord’s tomb’. This shows that there was a direct link between Jerusalem and northern France in the relics trade including relics from the tomb. Now if that is not evidence that deserves further exploration i don’t know what is. To describe it as “merely a distraction and chimera’ is ridiculous.And why is Daveb so frightened of new research- he would not last long as a historian!

  19. Louis wrote: “His (Geoffrey de Charny’s) wife, Jeanne de Vergy, was a direct descendant of Othon de la Roche and it is in this link that the mystery lies.”

    On May 22, 2013 at 6:26 pm, May 23, 2013 at 5:02 am and May 23, 2013 at 5:07 am, I wrote:

    “Have (you) ever heard of the De Molay De Vergy family? If not see Acta Templarorium or La prosopographie des templiers by Jean-luc Alias.The fact is no medieval historian really know Jacques de Molay’s place of birth. There are 3 possibilities… and one of them is directly linked with the De Molay De Vergy family. Hence there may have been a known family connection between the De Molay and De Vergy families.”

  20. Charles, you most misleadingly wrote again and again:

    “And it does not take long to dismiss the Pray Codex- there is a stepped pyramid pattern on the tomb cover, not a herringbone, and the holes are circular not ragged as the poker holes on the Shroud are. The ROUND holes are found in several depictions of the tomb lid as there were actually round holes drilled into the Sepulchre in Jerusalem which were copied by artists.”

    Actually, it doesn’t take you long to totally miss… two crucial clues:

    The Turin Shroud INNER SIDE weave pattern looks a herringbone pattern when viewed AT SCALE ONE. However when seen AT MACRO- or MAGNIFYING-SCALE, the same weave pattern can be drawn in iconic reduction (= for simplification’s sake) as FLAT SQUARE (= non-loopy/non semi-circular) -top stepped pyramid pattern. The Pray codex pen & ink drawing does show the same flat square-top stepped pyramid pattern as characteristic weave pattern unit evocative of the TS inner side bearing the image.

    In medieval times, a protective marble sarcophagus with portholes used to protect the unction stone. In the Entombment of Jesus, by Nicholas of Verdun (1130–1205) in Klosterneuburg Abbey, this is precisely this sarcophagus type that cryptically features Yeshua’s burial bench.The two series of 4-5 SMALL round holes are NOT the portholes “drilled into the Sepulchre in Jerusalem” AT ALL. Are you kidding or blind?

    On September 12, 2013 at 6:52 am, I already wrote:

    with due respect, iconologically speaking, it does seem you just cannot discriminate between drawing holy sepulchre portholes and small holes in the twilled linen fabric known as the Turin Shroud and are also not very familiar with medieval Benedictine monk cryptic art to say the least. (…) Methinks Fundamentalism and Arrogance are father and mother of Ignorance.”

  21. For the earliest depiction (586 CE) of the flat square-top stepped pyramid pattern in conjunction with Yeshua as crucifixion victim, see the earliest crucifixion in an illuminated manuscript, from the Rabbula Gospels, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy

    1. Addendum: in conjunction with both Yeshua’s crucifixion AND EMPTY TOMB scenes.

  22. Re earliest (symbolic) depiction of the blackened-rimmed burn holes, on October 16, 2013 at 10:24 am I wrote:

    “For another 390-400 CE mosaic cryptically and symbolically featuring the blackened-rimmed burn holes, see the Santa Pudenziana apse mosaic of Christ in majesty: black L (for Lumens Christi) marks the latter’s pallium (= Greek himation, a very large rectangle of fabric that can be draped as a shawl, a cloak, or a head covering; a current 4,20×1,40m for a 5ft 9-6ft tall man was the correct size; a size much like the TS man)”.

Comments are closed.