A Guest Posting by O.K.
Pray Codex –a probabilistic approach.
Click on image to enlarge to 895×1297 and see legend for features listed below
The discussion about the Pray Codex and it’s relation to the Shroud seems to be over.
The question of whether or not the Pray Codex had been inspired by the Shroud of Turin has been hotly debated.
Here I would like to present a probabilistic approach to that matter. I would like to estimate probability of several key elements linking the Codex with the Shroud, to occur ALL AT ONCE by pure chance, instead of being copied from the Shroud.
I take into account only a few INDEPENDENT, NON-TRIVIAL and UNDISPUTED details sharing some alleged similarity with the Shroud.
It should be noted that on the key page of the Codex, there are in fact TWO illustrations not just one. Further we will be calling upper illustration as Illustration I, an bottom illustration as Illustration II. This complicates the matter a little bit, but can be overcome.
There are several key details on both illustrations. Let’s estimate the probability of their occurrence on Entombment/Three Marys scene by random
Illustration I:
· A –the Jesus is naked, with His hands crossed above pelvis (similar on the Shroud) –let’s assume that such portrayal occurs in 1/100 instances.
· B –He has just 4 fingers on each hand, no thumbs visible (the same as Shroud) -1/100 instances
· C –He has His legs cropped by the end of page, without any obvious reason (the same as frontal image on the Shroud) -1/100 instances.
Illustration II:
· D –there is a pyramidal/zigzag pattern on alleged shroud/tomb lid –possible reference to the Shroud and it’s herringbone weave, or merely decorative pattern? Anyway, let’s suppose that we can find such pattern in 1/100 instances.
· E –two red smudges on the surface of shroud/tomb lid (just below angel’s feet). Unless this is reference to the blood belt on the Shroud, there is no obvious reason for them. Anyway, let’s suppose that we can find such pattern in 1/100 instances.
· F –the four L shaped ‘poker holes’, similar to those that can be found on the Shroud –reference to it, or just another (very strange) decorative pattern (or to the holes in the Holy Sepulcher, or anything)? No matter. Let’s estimate chance for their random occurrence as 1/100, but, as someone on the forum once pointedthat the chance for four dots to have proper L shape (instead of single line, 2×2 box, ‘T’, or 2×2 with one row translated by 1 element –recall yourself Tetris) in any orientation are 1/5, so 1/500.
So, the probability for elements A-B-C, to occur on any single illustration can be estimated as 1/(100*100*100), that is 1/1000 000=10^-6
Fine. Let’s estimate the expected number of all Entombment illustrations that could have all the elements A-B-C just by chance. Let’s assume that there were 10 millions of Entombment illustrations in the medieval. Thus expected value, is:
10 000 000/1000 000 =10.
Fine, so far, basing on our assumptions, we can expect an upper limit of 10 Entombment portrayals having elements A-B-C.
Suppose we have one such manuscript, with A-B-C elements occurring just by random (Illustration I). Now let’s estimate the probability that in the Three Mary’s Scene, right below the Entombment Scene (this is is the case of Codex Pray, Illustration II), by pure chance (we assume that both illustrations are in fact, independent on each other, and not related directly to the Shroud), there will be elements D-E-F:
The chance is:
1(100*100*500)=1/5000 000 =0.2*10^-7
Similar reasoning could be performed in the other direction (Three Mary’s Scene -> Entombment). The conclusion would be the same:
The chances that all those features A-F are randomly, and simultaneously portrayed in the Pray Codex, without direct reference to the Shroud, are negligible.
So far I can remember, no sceptic has been able to give example of illustration having two out of six key elements A-F.
The discussion about the Pray Codex and it’s relation to the Shroud seems to be over.
Don’t you think that your probabilistic approach should be based on Bayes’ theorem?
Otherwise, it just sounds like “dwindling probabilities”.
Don’t you think that your probabilistic approach should be based on Bayes’ theorem?
Otherwise, it just sounds like “dwindling probabilities”.
In general, yes.
But, you should have noticed that I used only INDEPENDENT details.
I don’t know what you had on mind writing: your probabilistic approach should be based on Bayes’ theorem.
Whether:
1 Calculating the probability of an individual Illustration (I or II) having either elements A-B-C-, or D-E-F (which are of course independent).
or:
2. Combining the probabilities of both Illustrations I & II having all the elements A-B-C-D-E-F.
Of course in the latter case the Bayes theorem plays importance, and should be fulfilled. But I don’t want to delve so deep into mathematical details, approximation of final probability etc. The conclusion is most important here.
I am also impressed by Jesus’ big beard .
(Just in case you’ll miss what I posted on another related thread)
Hopefully, I’ll have some spare time (a couple of hours) to finish my Flash Illustrative paper by the end of next week. I have changed the title and subtitle for:
Hungarian Pray Ms folio 28r lower ink drawing section:
THE CONSTANTINOPLE/TURIN SHROUD CAMOUFLAGED INTO A SARCOPHAGUS BOX & LID? (or The steganographic crucial evidence)
‘CAMOUFLAGED’. Yes and they have done it brilliantly – not sure why they needed to, of course.
I am not great on maths but if there are six different elements each of which has no more that a hundredth chance of being right (in other words is almost certainly not the the Shroud), I don’t think you end up with a very high probability overall. The one in a hundred is purely arbitrary anyway so does not provide a very good basis to start with, why not one in a thousand? The link of any one element to the Shroud has not been proved. The cut-off feet are hardly relevant, surely. The possibility that this is a herringbone pattern also seems to be zero.
If you are depicting Christ being laid out for burial in a shroud and a face cloth as shown in the Pray Codex and you are comparing it with the Shroud, either as original or created, then the possibility of some overlap is bound to be high. The obvious example is the crossed hands (your A) that are known from actual Christian burials and come into art in both east (the epitaphios) and western tradition before 1190 so you can hardly claim this as a unique link with the Shroud- it is just an overlap..
But I will pass on to the maths experts here to do the sums.
I am not great on maths but if there are six different elements each of which has no more that a hundredth chance of being right (in other words is almost certainly not the the Shroud), I don’t think you end up with a very high probability overall.
I do think that you don’t understand anything Charles.
The one in a hundred is purely arbitrary anyway so does not provide a very good basis to start with, why not one in a thousand?
Yes, for now it is just estimate. Give me examples of features A-F on some illustrations -then we will talk about better estimate.
If you are depicting Christ being laid out for burial in a shroud and a face cloth as shown in the Pray Codex and you are comparing it with the Shroud, either as original or created, then the possibility of some overlap is bound to be high. The obvious example is the crossed hands (your A) that are known from actual Christian burials and come into art in both east (the epitaphios) and western tradition before 1190 so you can hardly claim this as a unique link with the Shroud- it is just an overlap..
I am not interested in direct links -only estimation of the rate of occurence.
The main point in A is not crossed hands, but nudity -the crossed hands are somehow related to it, for obvious reasons.
Or for the purpose of understanding by mere humanists:
I am not great on maths but if there are six different elements each of which has no more that a hundredth chance of being right (in other words is almost certainly not the the Shroud), I don’t think you end up with a very high probability overall.
And that’s the point! What is the probability that those six peculiarities, resembling those on the Shroud, were placed on those illustrations just randomly, without reference to the Shroud?
You may also say that the artist-crook was inspired by the pray codex
Really? By a manuscript in hungary?
ok fine job. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with Charles, Hugh et al
You may also say that the artist-crook was inspired by the pray codex
Suppose that it may be possible. Even then, it does not change the fact that the chances that all those features A-F are randomly, and simultaneously portrayed in the Pray Codex, without direct reference to the Shroud, are negligible.
See what I mean? So an artist in obscure Lirey was not only the greatest and “most cunning” in history, but he traveled to Hungary to copy the Pray Codex for his forgery that was designed for people in the 14th century who wouldn’t have a clue? That’s more miraculous than the Shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth in my opinion.
Other similarities that could be mentioned include a seemingly high set chest and long arms
Perhaps, but I only included those that the sceptics cannot dispute in any way.
Beautiful posting OK. The beauty of this blog is that I keep learning news stuff. I never thought of the cropped legs before.
I shall take the maths on trust. I shall simply back six horses running today at a hundred to one confident that the overwhelming probability will be that I shall make a fortune.
I think that position of Jesus, the invisibility of His thumbs, and what certainly looks like a herringbone weave are pretty compelling. What appears to be a copy of the “poker holes” is icing on the cake. I don’t know how anyone couldn’t at least wonder about these things, instead of dismissing them out of hand. I sometimes think about who are the more credulous, people who see something like this and say “wow, that looks like the Shroud”, or those who just shrug and say “it can’t be related to the Shroud”, and just never want to consider they could be wrong. I myself was convinced by the C-14 tests in 1988, but I came back to a belief in at least a stronger case for authenticity because of strange “coincidences” sprinkled throughout history like the Pray codex. This was an excellent posting.
Great post OK. I have long believed the HPG is the smoking gun that definitively links the Shroud to Constantinople. As I remind audiences, if the Shroud disappeared in 1204…that is already older than the oldest carbon date of 1260…and it didn’t just get there in 1204, it had been there for hundreds of years…most likely since 944.
No. Absolutely not. OK has demonstrated, quite succesfully, that the Pray manuscript is probably unique in many ways; he has not in any way demonstrated that it is derived from the Shroud. Speculations such as the probability of finding wavy lines, or zigzag patterns, or even patterns of dots, mean absolutely nothing unless he can demonstrate that these must indicate some sort of relationship with the Shroud, which, as the previous blog and comments have shown, is far from accepted. Even the nudity, crossed hands and four fingers, which really are present on the Shroud, are not necessarily derived from it.
As usual, he does not see the importance of a control. Let’s take the Giovanni Battista della Rovere painting as a comparison. Below the section of the angels holding the Shroud, we have a section showing the Shroud actually being laid on Jesus.
1) The Shroud shows a naked man, the Rovere shows a man with a loin cloth.
2) The Shroud shows a man with feet crossed, the Rovere shows them straight.
3) The Shroud shows each hand with four fingers, the Rovere shows five.
4) The Shroud legs are covered in scourge marks, the Rovere has none.
5) The Shroud arms are covered in rivulets of blood, the Rovere arms are not.
What are the chances that a painting of the dead Jesus which is “wrong” in all these respects owes anything to the Shroud? Astromomically unlikely, I think anyone would agree. And yet there is a painting of the Shroud on the very same canvas!
An attempt to list the similarities between the Pray manuscript man and the Shroud is not worthwhile unless a similar attempt is made to list the differences.
1) The Shroud man lay on one end of the cloth, the Pray manuscript has the man in the centre.
2) The Shroud man has a big beard, the Pray manuscript man does not.
3) The Shroud clearly shows wounds, the Pray manuscript man none.
And the similarities the Pray manuscript picture has to similar “Three Marys” scenes.
1) What proportion of Three Mary’s scenes show a box-like tomb?
2) What proportion of Three Mary’s scenes show an angel sitting on an angular slab?
3) What proportion of Three Mary’s scenes show a crumpled Shroud?
If you see a Three Mary’s scene containing all these elements, what is the chance that in fact none of them correspond to their conventional significance – that the box is not a box but the bottom of a sheet, that the slab is not a slab but the top of the same sheet, and that the crumpled shroud is a repetition of that same sheet, with wavy lines to represent blood?
Chesterbelloc says something interesting: “I don’t know how anyone couldn’t at least wonder about these things, instead of dismissing them out of hand.” Well neither do I. I have wondered, tracked down endless versions of the Three Marys, and attempted to explain the anomalies without trying to hide them or explain them away. I have considered the possible significance of the zigzag pattern, the polystaurion pattern, the line of diagonal crosses and the little holes on the top surface. I have wondered about the design of the shroud crumpled on top, the sharp horizontal line that apears to slice it in two, the little Xs that appear all over it and the wiggly lines at the bottom. I have wondered why the figure of Christ is so unconventionally stubble-bearded and why the shroud he is lying on has a little pleat under his buttocks. Most of these wonders I have commented upon on this very website.
May I rephrase Chesterbelloc’s comment: “I don’t know how anyone couldn’t at least wonder about these things, instead of instantly accepting them without reserve.”
Hugh, at last.
Long post, showing that you still don’t understands the reasoning. So I comment the most important points, without answering all examples.
What are the chances that a painting of the dead Jesus which is “wrong” in all these respects owes anything to the Shroud? Astromomically unlikely, I think anyone would agree. And yet there is a painting of the Shroud on the very same canvas!
No Hugh, exactly contrary. It is very easy to draw a representation of the Shroud of Turin that has many errors and differences from the original. Just try to do it yourself, from memory, without any photos for aid.
Thus the importance of differences is much smaller than similarities.
On the other hand, to write ‘out of nothing’ a picture which has at least six pecularities of the Shroud of Turin? Extremely unlikely.
May I rephrase Chesterbelloc’s comment: “I don’t know how anyone couldn’t at least wonder about these things, instead of instantly accepting them without reserve.”
If you carefully read my post again, you will see that I do not assume that they come directly from the Shroud. I just estimate the frequence of their possible occurences.
I think you can look at this too scientifically and come to a conclusion such as Hugh’s.
We have no idea what was in the mind of the artist of the HPM, whether or not he/she had even seen the Shroud or was just producing an image from hearsay. For me, any representation of Christ lying in his burial position showing crossed arms with missing thumbs (where thumbs really should be visible) indicates something very specific that the artist has seen or heard, and it must be from a significant relic/icon otherwise why copy it? There must be a source for this kind of representation. The question becomes is the Shroud that source or is it just another representation?
I think you can look at this too scientifically and come to a conclusion such as Hugh’s.
He is not lokking at it scientifaclly, but desperately. My response for him is already awaiting moderation.
We have no idea what was in the mind of the artist of the HPM, whether or not he/she had even seen the Shroud or was just producing an image from hearsay.
This question is completely irrelevant in my presented reasoning. Just the frequency of random occurences of A-F pecularities.
The question becomes is the Shroud that source or is it just another representation?
Can you give any idea of another representation?
Last point first, without searching, I believe there are a few sculptures/images showing crossed arms and missing thumbs.
I think any discussion concerning Shroud and HPM needs proper context addressing. Did the HPM artist see the Shroud or not? This fact could drastically affect your probability weighting. Some aspects of the HPM are more certain than others when comparing to the Shroud. e,g.
1. There are certainly missing thumbs on the HPM and Shroud.
2. It is uncertain whether or not the HPM depicts a tomb lid with a zigzag pattern or whether it is the Shroud with its herringbone weave.
How do you go about weighting these perceived similarities when calculating probabilities? It seems to be highly subjective and not amenable to this type of comparison.
ChrisB
Last point first, without searching, I believe there are a few sculptures/images showing crossed arms and missing thumbs.
Point A is not crossed arms, but nudity. Crossed hands simply cover Jesus genitals, so they are not independent trait.
Anyway, those are at most 2 out of 6 elements.
Did the HPM artist see the Shroud or not?
In the presented reasoning, the answer for this question is actually the final conlcusion, not presumption.
Some aspects of the HPM are more certain than others when comparing to the Shroud. e,g.
1. There are certainly missing thumbs on the HPM and Shroud.
2. It is uncertain whether or not the HPM depicts a tomb lid with a zigzag pattern or whether it is the Shroud with its herringbone weave.
How do you go about weighting these perceived similarities when calculating probabilities? It seems to be highly subjective and not amenable to this type of comparison.
No, it works in different way.
I take into account only the facts beyond any dispute on the HPM. So thumbs are certain.
The question of whether HPM presents tomb lid, or the Shroud, is actually irrelevant to me (BTW, Ian Wilson thinks it is a lid). The only important thing is that zigzag pattern is similar to the herringbone on the Shroud, and it may (but I don’t claim that it ‘must’ or mustn’t) represent it.
Then I try to guess, how large perecentage of illustrations may have similar pattern?
Similar with other elements. The conclusion is that drawing all those six peculiar elements similar to the Shroud ‘out of nothing’ is extremely unlikely.
In criminology at least seven or eight minutiae points of congruency that are unique identification points on a fingerprint are needed to make a fingerprint match. The incredible fact is this ‘fingerprinting’ can be achieved through iconosteganogrphy as far the HP Ms-TS connection is concerned.
The incredible second truth is three-quarter of these correlated iconographic minutiae have been missed so far.
‘The only important thing is that zigzag pattern is similar to the herringbone on the Shroud’
I can’t see any resemblance at all, and even less so if you look close up If you imagine the illustrator actually sitting down and drawing in the stepped pyramid design,then it is clear that he cannot possibly have believed that he was copying a herringbone- there is not even a repeated pattern. This is one link of the six that clearly fails, as does the fact that he chose to end the picture where he did.
Crossed arms is not a problem as it was a normal way of Christian burial as excavated examples show. If you are burying someone in a tomb you need to move their arms up over the body and then cross the hands simply to narrow the width of tomb you have to construct ( this can be found as far back as Egyptian coffin burials) but the link with specifically Christian burials is also likely. Perhaps the representation reflects actual burial practices. Another possible avenue is to compare illustrations that were not open to public gaze with sculptures and paintings that were. The Holkham Bible in the British Library of 1330 has a nude Christ on the cross, for instance. When we compare the crudity of the Pray Codex with illuminated manuscripts of the same period, it was clearly not designed for public display but probably for private meditation and there is no evidence that it was ever circulated.
Max clearly believes that the illustrator was trying to conceal the fact that this was the Shroud anyway so this does not help us much.
Charles:
‘The only important thing is that zigzag pattern is similar to the herringbone on the Shroud’
I can’t see any resemblance at all, and even less so if you look close up.’
Your problem. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same like on the Shroud, it just has have ‘something in common’ with it.
as does the fact that he chose to end the picture where he did.
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/pray3.html
He ended -just ‘accidently’ cropping legs, like on the Shroud.
The Holkham Bible in the British Library of 1330 has a nude Christ on the cross, for instance.
Fine. Anything else out of remaining 5?
Max clearly believes that the illustrator was trying to conceal the fact that this was the Shroud anyway so this does not help us much.
Max’s beliefs are just his own.
You still have to cope with the probability of placing all those 6 features A-F in a couple of illustrations just by random, without any inspiration from the Shroud.
The trouble is that we can all find what we want in this illustration. If I were into medieval links with ancient Egypt and the origins of Christianity ( which is indeed a cult subject for some), I would say that the illustrator was showing the stepped pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, that the wavy lines are none other than the hieroglyph for water, which is indeed a wavy line, and that the left hand Mary is carrying a classical bust of Hermes Trismegistus, who was supposed to have the ancient knowledge of Egypt, under her right arm.
It is a good game when you start to use your imagination.
It is a good game when you start to use your imagination.
One does not need much imagination to link Pray Codex to the Shroud of Turin, instead of ancient Egypt. The context of the Shroud and illustrations in the Codex are the same, contrary to Egypt.
Charles, do you also think criminologists can find all they want in fingerprints? If it is that easy, I challenge you to find only seven or eight minutiae points of congruency that are UNIQUE identification points only to both the HP Ms and say another material object.
And BTW, for everyone who thinks it is a tomb lid, instead of the Shroud:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an angel sitting on?
O.K.,
Actually it is both since visual double-entendre is implied here: through iconographic convention, you can see a sarcophagus box with its displaced lid while through artistic license seeing the inner side of the Shroud folded so as to show only one set of four vertically inverted L shaped burn marks in conjunction with a (transparent?) cross-covered lining oddly folded onto itself to show another set of 5 P-shaped burn marks.
I don’t think so.
It hardly can be displaced lid -look on the image I posted. Check the (weakly expressed) persepctive and compare with upper illustration + position of the angel.
O.K. Don’t you rely too much on impeccable perspective laws when it come to the HP Ms sarcophagus lid. Besides, what do you know about the double or multiple bind he had to cope with to achieve such a steganographic feat? This is light years away from realistic rendering yet to the sole exception of… a few topologically correlated minutiae hidden in plain view and needing x2-x3 magnification to be compared with TS image seen at reduced scale accordingly.
Well there was a movement in the Middle Ages that tried to link the ancient wisdom of Egypt to Christianity and followers of this would no doubt use the Pray Codex for their own ends if someone had started them off and they had followed like sheep.
My point is that we can all see what we want in this and other illustrations.or we can fail to see anything out of the ordinary at all.
In other words: Tthis is and this is not, that is the answer.
Waiting for you to rove your point: (I say it again) I challenge you to find only seven or eight minutiae points of congruency that are UNIQUE identification points only to both the HP Ms IMAGE and say whatever material OBJECT.
Nicolotti and Rinaldi TOTALLY reject the HP Ms-TS connection. So do Berry and Mo.
Charles, If ever you see the image of a pipe be sure this is not a pipe.
Just try to smoke the image of it if it is not made of tobacco. Ugh!
Where are all remaining sceptics? Gian Marco Rinaldi? Andrea Nicolotti? Colin Berry? David Mo? I call you!
(Misplaced post sorry!)
Nicolotti and Rinaldi TOTALLY reject the HP Ms-TS connection. So do Berry and Mo.
I don’t think we’re getting any further. I don’t think the zigzags look anything like herringbone either, but OK thinks they’re sufficiently similar to warrant a comparison. That’s fine, but it isn’t evidence. Stalemate.
I also think the whole picture has been trimmed to make it fit the Codex, which explains why Jesus’s feet have been cut off, and possibly the angel’s wing the other side. I may be wrong, but it’s a far more likely reason than a secret allusion to the Shroud.
Max has only given half of the fingerprint identification technique. There must indeed be several ‘points of congruence,’ but also, there must be no ‘points of difference’ at all. However similar two fingerprints may appear, and however many points of congruence there are, if there are any places where the two prints are clearly different, then they are not the same. Try applying that to the Pray man.
I don’t know what that shape is behind the angel, nor do I think it relevant. The Pray manuscript picture has three prominent features in the correct configuration for it to be a fairly typical Three Marys, with rectangular tomb, oddly placed lid (if lid it truly be; I have long wondered if it is something else, misidentified, such as the annointing stone), and cloth shroud. The chance that these three elements do not, in this particular case, represent those three things is, to my mind, very remote.
Re your question:
“And BTW, for everyone who thinks it is a tomb lid, instead of the Shroud:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an angel sitting on?”.
The angel IS NOT not seated on the tomb but on a throne (as ‘archangel of the throne of G.od’). See e.g. Pala of Oro, The Holy Women to the Sepulchre, Basilica di San Marco. BTW you HP Ms folio image is unfortunately cropped.
Methinks BOTH sarcophagus box & lid-only advocates (Hugh et al) and Yeshua’s shroud-only advocates (O.K et al) do have still many blind spots re the correct decoding of the HP Ms picture!
That’s here an image archaeo(crypto)analyst comes in…
..or better said that’s where an/the image archaeo(stegano)analyst comes in…
The most telling part about the HPM is surely the four fingered hands. Why on earth would the artist miss the thumbs off? The artist is following a template laid down by something much greater. I wonder what that could be??
The chap anointing Jesus also has no thumbs. Missing thumbs are remarkably common in Byzantine art. I wonder why.
Really? I can see one thumb underneath the jar, the other is obscured through perspective. Now tell me why both thumbs are missing on Jesus when at least one should be seen?
Come on Hugh. I think you have an agenda. The lack of left hand thumb on the chap anointing Jesus makes sense in terms of perspective.
Just found this: “The_Burial_Lamentations_by_Theophanes_the_Cretan.jpg” Although Theophanes the Cretan was centuries later than the Pray artist, it appears that he was trying to convey the same surface to the slab. Some time ago I speculated that its pattern was geological rather than textile. The Stone of Unction is a red marble slab. There is also this: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_49598_fs001r which is an early Three Marys, showing the angel sitting on the stone outside the tomb, and this, from the early 12th century, showing the same – and look, red marble patterning again…
Hugh, you wrote: “Max has only given half of the fingerprint identification technique. There must indeed be several ‘points of congruence,’ but also, there must be no ‘points of difference’ at all. However similar two fingerprints may appear, and however many points of congruence there are, if there are any places where the two prints are clearly different, then they are not the same. Try applying that to the Pray man.”
Both artistic and steganological license shall ALSO be taken into account when deciphering. Besides, the TS image does ‘behave’ like an oversized Rorschach inkblot test. Hence the miniaturist could also have copied what ‘He thought he saw’ either accidentally or deliberatedly. In case the same archaeopareidolias (or optical illusions the artist/observer ‘thought he saw’ then) are detectable both in his ink drawing and the Shroud he drew, they are relevant TOO as correlated brain & sight coordinating system spy clues. They are what I would call “detailed image of archaeoperceptive congruency”.
Hugh:
I don’t think we’re getting any further. I don’t think the zigzags look anything like herringbone either, but OK thinks they’re sufficiently similar to warrant a comparison. That’s fine, but it isn’t evidence.
Just another peculiar similarity with the Shroud, one can add to registry. And estimate frequency of their random occurence.
I also think the whole picture has been trimmed to make it fit the Codex, which explains why Jesus’s feet have been cut off, and possibly the angel’s wing the other side. I may be wrong, but it’s a far more likely reason than a secret allusion to the Shroud.
Whatever the reason, the chances for random occurence of it is, I suspect 1/100, or perhaps even smaller. Anyway, the size of the Codex cards is known, so artist could plan it better, had he wanted to portray whole legs.
However similar two fingerprints may appear, and however many points of congruence there are, if there are any places where the two prints are clearly different, then they are not the same. Try applying that to the Pray man.
Handmade illustrations are not fingerprints. There are always some differences. In this case, similarities are much more important.
Have you done your homework and drawn Shroud picture out of memory, Hugh?
I don’t know what that shape is behind the angel, nor do I think it relevant. The Pray manuscript picture has three prominent features in the correct configuration for it to be a fairly typical Three Marys, with rectangular tomb, oddly placed lid (if lid it truly be; I have long wondered if it is something else, misidentified, such as the annointing stone), and cloth shroud.
See once again: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
Can’t you see that the angel is sitting on some ‘chair’ or ‘bench’ to the left? He is definetly not sitting on rectangular shape with zigzag patterns, red smudges and L-holes. Besides, compare perspective on top and bottom illustration.
Typo: “cryptoimages of archaeoperceptive congurency”.
O.K. you wrote to Hugh: “Can’t you see that the angel is sitting on some ‘chair’ or ‘bench’ to the left? He is definetly not sitting on rectangular shape with zigzag patterns, red smudges and L-holes. Besides, compare perspective on top and bottom illustration.”
It does seem you missed my comment on June 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Re your question:
“And BTW, for everyone who thinks it is a tomb lid, instead of the Shroud:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an angel sitting on?”.
My reply was: “The angel IS NOT seated on the tomb but on a throne (as ‘archangel of the throne of G.od’). See e.g. Pala di Oro, The Holy Women to the Sepulchre scene, 10th c. CE, Basilica di San Marco. BTW you HP Ms folio image is unfortunately cropped and spoiled your demonstration re C. Too bad.
I haven’t missed it. I simply have different view. I have checked Pala di Oro. Completely different context than Pray Manuscript, IMHO.
For uncropped view, see http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/pray3.html
In the absolute, the very fact the archangel Michael is seated on a throne DOES NOT RULE OUT AT ALL the presence of a sarcophagus (without its lid though) in the Holy Women’s Visitatio Sepulcri. See e.g. the reliquary plaque representing the Myrrh-bearing Women at the Tomb, Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, France or again the same scene in the Pala di Oro, Basilica di San Marco, Venice, Italy.
Reminder: most likely the Benedictine monk artist followed the court of young prince Bela (future king of Hungary) at Constantinople and saw the Constantinople Theophoron (Christophoron). Since the young prince stayed 10 years from the age of 15 to 25), most likely in the latter’s wake, the (then young?) monk should have been one of the privileged visitors of the relic.
Typo: Theophoron Sindonos, the piece of linen worn by G.od (= here Christ).
Max yes the connections were very strong but Hugh And Charles seem to ignore that
Not at all. It just isn’t very relevant.
For everyone:
The scene depicted in Pray Codex is Mark 16: 1-6:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
(NIV)
I bolded the fragments which show the details depicted on bottom illustration:
1. Three women
2. One angel.
3. Inside the tomb.
4. Angel sitting on the right side (compare with illustration, from women’s perspective)
5. Showing place where Jesus was laid.
Unlike others here who support the HPN and shroud link I don’t think the pattern is imitating the herringbone weave. But I do think it represents weave more generically.
The Scene is also called “Quem quaeristi” which seems to be a paraphrase of Luke’s “Why do you seek the living among the dead.” There are some interesting aspects of its iconography.
Firstly, in almost all the versions I can find, the angel is not inside the tomb, but outside. Earlier versions’ tombs are always depicted as buildings of some kind, and the angel is usually sitting on a stone outside. Later on, the building becomes a horizontal sarcophagus, and is nearly always clearly outside, not in a building or a cave. There are a few paintings which show both the vertical building and the horizontal sarcophagus, but not many. The angel is usually sitting or standing on or posed by a very oddly angled slab, which I think is artistically and culturally derived from the stone he sat on in the earlier versions. Very rarely, but occasionally, there are angels actually sitting or standing in the sarcophagus.
Possibly the key to the odd stone is in the word “revolvere” which is now almost universally translated as “roll.” In fact, any kind of stone that could be rolled is extremely rare in these medieval representations. The big mill-wheel thing that we have become used to is virtually unknown. It would perhaps be better to think of it as meaning “turn away” (there is certainly a turning element to it), which might account for stones swivelled horizontally across the tomb, which occurs quite often, or hinged upwards on end, which also occurs, or just twisted into any weird angle, which is common too.
Wondering if Russ Breault could respond – one of his slides from his Shroud Encounter very clearly shows this herringbone pattern. I was surprised when I saw it that it very clearly is similar to the Pray Codex.
O.K:
– there are 2 “thin” crosses on the ABDOMEN of the Virgin Mary (the central figure of 3 Marias whose “halo” is similar to that of the ” archangel 6 fingers “).
– there are the same “thin” crosses on the “supposed” LEAF of the Shroud identifying HIS CONTACT with the body of dead Jesus conceived in the abdomen of the Virgin Mary.
– it is a question evidently of the Shroud.
Very good work, O.K
Carlos
(en español)
O.K:
-Hay 2 cruces “finas” sobre el VIENTRE de la Virgen María ( la figura central de las 3 Marias cuya “aureola” es similar a la del “arcángel 6 dedos”).
-Hay esas mismas cruces “finas” sobre la “supuesta” HOJA de la Sábana identificando SU CONTACTO con el cuerpo de Jesús muerto concebido en el vientre de la Virgen María.
-Se trata evidentemente de la Sabana Santa.
Muy buen Trabajo, O.K
Carlos
Mi ordenador ha introducido unos links INDESEABLES en las palabras “CONTACT” y “Trabajo”. Ruego disculpas.
Carlos
It would seem that the scene of illustration II is indeed taken from Mark 16:1-6; Three women, one angel sitting to right of women. Matthew, despite his reliance on Mark, only has two women, but also has one angel. Luke is indefinite about the number of women, but has two angels, one at the head and one at the feet, and which de Wesselow wants to interpret as the Shroud image. John only has Mary of Magdala who arrives before dawn, but then summons two apostles Peter and another, probably John. Problem is that none of the synoptics mentions the burial cloths, only John, who has the linen cloths lying on the ground and the head cloth rolled up separately.
Nevertheless, despite Mark’s silence on cloths, the angel in the illustration is definitely pointing towards some cloths. So it might be an amalgam of both Mark and John, or just a free interpretation of scripture. Note that the top edge of the oblique rectangle is still visible underneath these cloths, so that they look more like bandages than a full shroud, although the underlying zigzag pattern does not appear here. Also, for some reason, possibly a slip-up by the artist or not, the top edge of this rectangle is out of line with its left-most extension. Might we construe that a fold is implied. Just to the left of the bandages the area is marked by + marks, and then the zigzag pattern is resumed but reversed. Also note that along the rectangle, the zigzag pattern is reversed at least twice. The area marked by + marks would seem to indicate more cloth.
If the ‘imageshack’ original is checked (see O.K. comment 5.22pm) then the underlying slab is fully visible. Its bottom edge is quite straight as can be checked with a ruler. The oblique rectangle does not pass this test, both long edges clearly have a wave, and as I’ve noted, the top edge is discontinuous. It may indicate a certain cloth with a reversing zigzag pattern.
There are several patterns of small circles on the lower drawing only: a) on the underlying slab; b) on the angel’s belt and on his wings c) on the centre woman’s collar; d) and of course those arranged as an L shape on the oblique rectangle. Nearly all of the hands show a thumb. It is only on the Christ figure where both thumbs are not visible.
I find O.K’s calculation of probabilities far too arbitrary, and it’s not Bayesian statistics. It is in the accumulation of shroud-like features that must persuade that the artist knows something of the Shroud. Any suggestion of Egyptian pyramids is utterly out of context of the Codex Pray, essentially an orthodox christian psalter and pyramids are irrelevant.
Regardless of agreement on this detail or that, the evidence mounts up that as early as 1195, even some unknown Hungarian monk knew something of the Shroud and the features unique to it. The Shroud is not the subject of his picture, and it would be a distraction to figure it in what is after all a simple representation of his subject, a Lamentation at the Christ laid out in death, and the wonder of the Holy women at his implied resurrection. He was not setting out to convince any 21st century skeptic of the authenticity of a relic, but to provide a simple meditation icon for his contemporary monks. Nevertheless he was able to draw on certain resources that he and his brethren evidently knew about, which was enough to provide robust discussion some 800 years after he had inscribed it.
Daveb as previously outlined I believe the crosses represent the shroud image. Then we have the red streaks on one side of it symbolising blood and the L shaped pattern of holes on the other. This is very similar to the shroud where the blood stains on the arms frame the image and the holes are just to the side of the image
A further feature that I’ve just this minute noticed and I don’t recall any previous comment about it. Look at the ink outline behind the upraised arm of the left-most woman, possibly disguised as draping. It looks like a left profile of a bearded head to me, or am I seeing pareidolia? Who is it I wonder? I bet it’s not meant to Aristotle or Plato, and I bet it’s not meant to be a cartoon of the monastery abbot! The eyes are looking directly at the cloths below. I wonder if I’m catching something contagious from Max?
Wow Dave just seen that now? I’ve mentioned it several times. It connects to the head cloth via the floating letter.
once again it demonstrates how symbolic and abstract this work is. The skeptics just can’t get their heads around this and its lack of literalism. Simpletons.
Another observation. I am not convinced by this one but will be interested in opinions.
The staff that the angel is holding links or points to the shroud in the upper picture thus connecting with the shroud in the lower image.
A step too far?
“Simpletons”? You in particular should cease this constant ad hom sniping at sceptics, as you refer to us Thomas. The head in question HAS been the subject of previous discussion on this site as to whom or what it represents. My own idea for what it’s worth is that it represents God, still angled as if to breathe life into a dead body, that the letter “a” was an abbreviation for “life” in Latin. Seek (Google or otherwise) and ye shall find. Personally I have better things to do than constantly recycle old debates.
Read how I concluded my “quicklime” posting yesterday under “Tongue-in-cheek finale” and you’ll see what I think of your term “sceptic” to say nothing of OK’s phoney probability calculations.
Colin
I am sure both you and Hugh are very good scientists. Science is not my strong point, I have a masters and PhD in the fine arts.
I struggle with science. With the greatest of respect I think you guys struggle with symbolism.
It’s nothing personal just a left brain right brain thing.
Still labelling I see, from “sceptic” to “simpleton” to “scientist”.
Where the HPM is concerned, and Flury-Lemberg’s “I spy, with my little eye, L-shaped poker holes”, eagerly seized upon by Ian Wilson and David Rolfe, I’m not a “sceptic”. Too polite. I’m what you might call a scoffer. Nuff said.
As I thought – googleable:
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/18/the-curious-a-in-the-hungarian-pray-manuscript/
Old, english, male, arrogant, aloof and narrow minded.
Ring any bells?
It’s a simple question between looking at the Pray Codex without preconceptions and placing it within the conventional iconography of its day or looking at a stepped pyramid pattern on the tomb lid and believing that it might actually be a representation of a herringbone pattern.
It very clearly is not a herringbone pattern and it does not have the regularity of the pattern of the Shroud so the probability that it is a representation of the Shroud is close to zero. And not a trace of any the the distinctive images on the Shroud ( Max, of course, will get round that one by saying that this is the Shroud but it is completely concealed!)
So whoever dreamt this up in the first place?
Perhaps some old arrogant aloof Englishman??
Colin, thanks for the flash-back, I now recall doing some mini-research on medieval fonts relating to the ‘a’ like symbol. Most of the discussion focused on the symbol, practically nothing on the ‘hidden head’. No need for old arguments to be recycled, but some thought it was an Alpha & Omega thing, ‘cept it’s lower case and the Alpha when used in this way is always written upper case, and there’s no Omega. Max thought it was the monk’s signature, and even gave him a name. I think it’s still a mystery.
The ‘hidden head’: Some thought it was the monk hiding himself in the drawing, some thought it was God, others someone else. I’m floating the idea that it’s a profile of a Shroud-like Jesus looking down at the burial cloths, hinting that we should look further for more clues about the Shroud hidden in the drawing! Gotcha!
Hugh: Not at all. It just isn’t very relevant.
It is just that all those odd elements O-F are unlikely to happen simultaneously just by chance.
But if everyone of the supposed connections is only the mind of the see- er what can we do about that? It is quite clearly not a herringbone pattern on the tomb lid so why should anyone believe that it is unless they have a preconceived conviction that they have to find, no matter where, some ‘ evidence’ to support their preconceptions. There is no way you can get me to see a herringbone pattern on the lid!!
But following your argument, we also need to look at other tomb patterns. If a stepped pyramid pattern is similar to a herringbone pattern , just how many other of these tomb lids actually show the Shroud in disguise? Perhaps they all do if we look hard enough.
Of course following my argument that this is actually a cult object showing the links of Christianity with ancient Egypt, ,I might point out that an Egyptian Coptic cross is always two equal lengths, as here in the illustration, while Byzantine and Catholic crosses have a long central post with a shorter cross post.
I am just showing how easy it is to construct an argument for almost anything if you want to. And there are actually people who do argue that Christianity was born out of ancient Egypt so perhaps I will get a cult following for pointing these similarities out!
Hugh:
The angel is usually sitting or standing on or posed by a very oddly angled slab, which I think is artistically and culturally derived from the stone he sat on in the earlier versions
Butin the HPM, the angel is not sitting on the slab!
Look once again:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an object, that I pointed with green arrow?
The Pray angel has both feet on the slab (you might like to look at the painting at http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pray-Codex/pray3.html, which shows rather more than your crop). I think he is standing on it. He may be sitting on something else (your green arrow) but resting his feet on it, but I don’t think so. He is, as I carefully said, “sitting or standing or posed by” an oddly angled slab, just like dozens of others in similar scenes.
He may be sitting on something else (your green arrow)
What is this ‘something else’?
The Pray angel has both feet on the slab
Yes, he has both feet on this rectangular shape. And he is not standing -look at his dress below the waist, it is not straight, as if standing, but rather curved, like sitting.
Look back to the Gospel:
As they entered the tomb (inside the tomb), they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting (on what?) on the right side
Compare (poorly expressed) perspective on the upper and down illustration.
Can it still be a slab?
Sorry, OK, I see the point you’re making, but I still think the angel is standing on the slab and the thing in the background is irrelevant. His clothes are awkward because of the angle of the slab and the incompetence of the artist.
The thing in the background is irrelevant
It is not, if the artist had drawn it -for some purpose.
Charles wrote:
“(…) looking at the Pray Codex WITHOUT PRECONCEPTIONS (my upper cases. And, as a NON medieval art historian and NON archaeological image cryptanalyst without iconographic and steganographic blind spots too, I suppose!) and placing it within the conventional iconography of its day or looking at a stepped pyramid pattern on the tomb lid and believing that it might actually be a representation of a herringbone pattern.”
Hm ‘conventional iconography’, what about medieval unconventional/cryptic/enigmatic one, never heard of it?
The true fact is I can demonstrate quite the opposite to Charles layman’s opinion on solid iconographic ground as far as iconic simplification/reduction is concerned… Too bad for his credential as Roman Historian (BTW the field here involved is definitely NOT Roman history! This makes a world of a difference as far as how reliable his non qualified opinion is).
Charles also wrote: “And not a trace of any the the distinctive images on the Shroud ( Max, of course, will get round that one by saying that this is the Shroud but it is completely concealed!)”.
How long it will take Charles to have a down to earth vista of the relic and a real vista of what it really was like under actual observation?
Shall I repeat:
Owing to lateral neural inhibition, when the TS weave pattern is visible, the body image is not. The reverse is also true. Besides iconographically speaking, when Yeshua’s body image had already been depicted in the upper section (the unction/entombment), what sense could it have made to draw it again in order to account for the EMPTY tomb? It just would have made no sense and totally ruin the overall effect. Visually, this just would have been at cross variance with the Gospels: Yeshua’s body had disappeared! Still not got the whole idea behind it?
Well you have convinced me,Max, I can’t see how I could have failed to apply the lateral neural inhibition to what was before me.
BTW one of my subjects is medieval relics and if you look up my Holy Bones, Holy Dust on Amazon.com you will find some of the reviews.
But I do Roman and Greek history too. I have been around a long time.
Dave, you wrote: “Max thought it was the monk’s signature, and even gave him a name. I think it’s still a mystery.”
Actually, it reads at three levels (3 as the 3 hypostases of the Holy Trinity).
1/ The ‘a’ correlates with the face seen hidden and in ‘letterised profile’ (LMOS) ‘with eyes shut’ in the very sleeve of Mary (Mary of Joseph = Yeshua’s mother). In Magyar the word almos is polysemic; it means ‘Sleeper’, ‘Dreamer’, and ‘The Dreamed One’. Since the face is ‘added up’/’adds up’ to the composition, it can also read in Hebrew ‘Yassaf/Yossef’. Whence the possible identification of the man’s face hidden in the sleeve as Josef Almos, the Benedictine monk artist and steganographer.
2/The ‘a’ is written in 3 strokes and can also read as ‘a ic’/’a ci’ short for the Byzantine Greek phrase anactacic iecoy, ‘yeshua’s resurrection’ or Byzantine Latin ‘anastasia iesus cristi’.
3/ In reference to some secret hidden/embedded within the image, the cryptic face can also read as apocalipsis iesus cristi’/’apokalipsis iesou christou’, ‘yeshua’s revelation’.
The very fact we have a lower cursive ‘a’ here and not an upper case one, almost totally rules out an ‘Alpha-Omega’ allusion.
Max, I read the full thread of comments at Dan’s posting of 18 March 2013, as soon as I came across Colin’s back-reference to it, and am fully conversant with all the arguments presented there. I found it a most intriguing thread, even in retrospect. I certainly agree with excluding an Alpha-Omega allusion, and I think your interpretation 3 may well be applicable, a reference to the TSM. I’m not happy with the interpretation of the ‘a’-like symbol, partly because of the font (especially when you zoom it to see the separations), and I have yet to be convinced that the monk left his signature or a cryptogram of his name there. That is why I think it remains a mystery, certainly for me anyway.
This will all, no doubt, be a lot more persuasive when we see your “crucial iconographic evidence.” Until then, it’s all makebelieve.
It is up to Max.
So what Hugh, do you surrender (maintaining honors), or go further into absurdities (like Charles and his Egypt), defending lost case?
O.K. Can you not read what I said? My point was that you can read what you want into these pictures and create any kind of scenario, even something as absurd as a link to Egypt. There is a stepped pyramid (see the famous stepped pyramid of Djoser) , a plausible Egyptian hieroglyph of water, a possible bust of Hermes Trismagistus and lots of Egyptian Coptic crosses. So that’s four elements from a single register to ‘prove’ that there was link between the wisdom of ancient Egypt and Christianity shown in the Pray Codex. Nonsense of course but can you prove me wrong?.
Try googling ‘Hermes and Siena cathedral’ – where there is actually a fifteenth century pavement showing Hermes in a Christian setting. Hermes was said to have lived at the same time as Moses.
It’s a GAME you can play with virtually any painting! You just need some imagination and you and Max have lots of it.
Am I persuaded that the artist of the Pray manuscript knew of the Shroud? No, I’m not.
EVIDENCE FOR
Some of the ‘evidence’ is sufficiently common not to require the Shroud as an explanation (the naked body, the crossed hands)
– Some of the ‘evidence’ I disagree with and have (at least to my mind) a more satisfactory explanation for (the angled slab and the pattern on it, the polystaurion pattern, the diagonal row of crosses, the cut-off feet).
– Some of the ‘evidence’ I cannot explain completely but do not think it relates to the shroud (the little holes, the wiggly lines, the thing behind the angel, the letter ‘a’).
– The cryptological evidence I think remains pure speculation in the absence of anything more convincing than Max’s enthusiasm.
EVIDENCE AGAINST (based entirely on the Shroud and the Manuscript)
– The lack of a beard or wounds on the body.
– The positioning of the body on the shroud (top picture)
– The failure to relate the top shroud to the bottom shroud in any way.
– The failure to give the Shroud more prominence (it’s a crumpled heap).
As with most sindonological studies, different people assign different weight to various pieces of evidence, even when they agree on the evidence itself, and different people attribute different meanings to patterns, designs or symbols. It’s a subjective exercise, and no evidence should be accepted or rejected without consideration. I think I fully understand OK’s and daveb’s point of view, and think they have every right to hold it. It’s just not my point of view, which I hope they understand too.
Charles: No matter your games, the fact remains, that you cannot give any reasonable explanation for the presence of elements A-F, all at once, in the Pray Manuscript, other than inspiration from the Shroud of Turin.
I am sorry that I don’t have your imagination, O.K. I think you are starting with the desperate need, that comes from somewhere, to show that the Shroud was in existence by 1195, even if that proves no more than that it might be early rather than late medieval.
I still long to know whoever dreamt this up in the first place. Not an aloof Englishman living out in Australia ,I hope!
I am sorry that I don’t have your imagination, O.K.
I am sorry too, Charles. Lack of imagination and narrowmindness may be a big handicap for someone in the research job. An inability to understand simple reasonings also.
Hugh:
I think you still don’t understand.
Some of the ‘evidence’ is sufficiently common not to require the Shroud as an explanation (the naked body, the crossed hands)
How ‘sufficiently’? Can you give an estimate? 1/100 for naked Christ? More or less? I recall you, I gave 6 independent oddities, present both on the Shroud and HPM. What is probability of finding all of them just by chance? That’s the key of the reasoning.
the angled slab
As I said, this is not a slab. Definitly. Look once again:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is this ‘irrelevant thing in the background’, as you called it? It was not drawn without reason, absolutely.
Here is the point of view of french medievist Emmanuel Poulle on the Pray Codex and the Turin Shroud (“Les sources de l’histoire du linceul : revue critique”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 2009, p. 773). He was almost certain that the Pray Codex represented the Turin Shroud. Poulle made a very interesting comparison with the holes visible in the Lierre Copy in 1516. (sorry, just in french)
“Ce manuscrit Pray […] aujourd’hui conservé à Budapest et dont la provenance originale est hongroise, contient une série de cinq dessins consacrés à la Passion, dont le quatrième représente l’arrivée des saintes femmes au tombeau du Christ; y figure en bonne place une représentation du Linceul dans le sépulcre vide, représentation que des indices permettent d’identifier de façon quasi certaine comme figurant le Linceul aujourd’hui conservé à Turin : sur le dessin du Linceul ont été tracées en effet deux séries (une complète et une partielle) de quatre trous disposés en forme de L qui se retrouvent, en quatre emplacements symétriques, sur le Linceul aujourd’hui à Turin, et qu’on ne voit sur aucun des autres prétendus linceuls, sinon sur celui d’une copie du début du 16e siècle conservé à Lierre en Belgique, et qui est une copie, reconnue comme telle, du Linceul alors détenu par la maison de Savoie ; on ignore la raison de ces trous, qui sont vraisemblablement le résultat d’un accident dérisoire, mais les dessinateurs, celui du Codex Pray et de la copie de Lierre, ont eu conscience que ces petits trous sans importance faisaient partie intrinsèque du Linceul qu’ils reproduisaient.”
Thanks, Tristan. It seems standard view on the Pray Manuscript, nothing that has not been mentioned before.
The Hungarian Pray Manuscript defends itself well. Those illustrations were derived from the Shroud. Simply, there is virtually no other option that makes sense.
It would seem that a certain “aloof English gentleman living in Australia”, who might also happen to know something of the history of Christian iconography, is not alone in his perceptions of the significance of the Codex Pray, but his views concur of those with another medievist on the opposite side of the globe in France. I wonder if Emmanuelle Poulle is also “aloof”, or is this merely a convenient ‘ad hominem’ epithet which can be applied to those with whom one might disagree, when one has no other substantive argument available!
The problem is that a certain “aloof English gentleman living in Australia” is wrong regarding Codex Pray -he thinks rectangular shape is tomb cover, (see Bantam 2010, pg. 243) while I have shown conclusively it is the Shroud – look:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
The object pointed by green arrow is definetly a bench on which angel is sitting -that means the rectangular must be the Shroud.
The words ‘aloof’ and ‘arrogant’ were first used by another contributor to this discussion ! And he wasn’t on my side of the argument!
I have tracked down the Forsyth book and should be able to give you a list of entombment scenes with circular holes in the coffin lid tomorrow. As noted before they appear to have come in from the Crusaders who had seen the actual circular holes in the Sepulchre in Jerusalem. I think that trumps Monsieur Poule’s explanation for them. The crucial question – why reproduce the holes, the damage to the Shroud, but not the images, the most important distinguishing feature of the Shroud ? I have to agree that it is beyond my limited imagination but perhaps not beyond yours.
So the Shroudies are split three ways.
1) Ian Wilson and I assume most people. This is a standard rectangular coffin lid with markings . For some reason the illustrator has transferred the poker holes from the Shroud but nothing else from the surface of the Shroud onto it. (I can’t really believe that anyone can still think that the stepped pyramid lines represent herringbones.)
2) O. K. and his followers . No, the ‘coffin lid’ IS the Shroud despite the other cloths shown on it and the iconographic evidence that this what stone coffin lids look like in these depictions. Query is the shroud folded? Otherwise why are the poker holes running across its whole width?
3) Max. This is the Shroud but you can’t actually see it because of some cryptographic mumbo -jumbo that I can’t understand.
Not sure where Daveb fits in.
I think you should fight your battles with your fellow Shroudies, O.K. before you fight them with me.
Charles:
The crucial question – why reproduce the holes, the damage to the Shroud, but not the images, the most important distinguishing feature of the Shroud ? I have to agree that it is beyond my limited imagination but perhaps not beyond yours.
Yes, it is beyond your limited imagination, but not beyond mine.
The artist didn’t intend to portray the Shroud – he simply inserted some curious elements he saw on the Shroud, presumably in Constantinople. That was simply his vision of Entombmetn/Three Marys scene. No secret code.
Schopenhauer, Eristiche Dialektik:
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist31.htm
Stratagem XXXI
If you know that you have no reply to the arguments which your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge: “What you now say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it”. In this way you insinuate to the bystanders, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. Thus, when Kant’s Kritik appeared, or, rather, when it began to make a noise in the world, many professors of the old eclectic school declared that they failed to understand it, in the belief that their failure settled the business. But when the adherents of the new school proved to them that they were quite right, and had really failed to understand it, they were in a very bad humour.
This is a trick which may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than of your opponent. A professor, for instance, may try it on a student.
Strictly, it is a case of the preceding trick: it is a particularly malicious assertion of one’s own authority, instead of giving reasons. The counter-trick is to say: “I beg your pardon; but, with your penetrating intellect, it must be very easy for you to understand anything; and it can only be my poor statement of the matter that is at fault”; and then go on to rub it into him until he understands it nolens volens, and sees for himself that it was really his own fault alone. In this way you parry his attack. With the greatest politeness he wanted to insinuate that you were talking nonsense; and you, with equal courtesy, prove to him that he is a fool.
Ultimately it is not status or authority, it is actual evidence that matters and certainly I am not playing on my own intensive researches into medieval relic cults which show that relics if portrayed are usually displayed very clearly (examples illustrated in my Holy Bones).
Once I have got the details from Forsyth (and other sources ) today I shall present evidence that there is a direct link between Hungarian clerics and Jerusalem and hence the circular holes known to have existed on the Sepulchre in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. (As I said before it is important to follow up the international Hungarian connections in this period.)
We are all agreed, I think, that we are not dealing with a professional artist here and there is no evidence that this illustration was ever intended to be circulated. It was probably only for private meditation although I would defer to experts in these specific kinds of illustrations. (See my earlier point that if we take the Holkham Bible as an example (easily found on line), the nude Christ on the cross suggests that nudity ( but without showing the genitals) was acceptable within private books- I defer to experts on this.)
Still you don’t understand anything.
Even if you give me example of naked Christ, even if you give me examples of circular holes from Holy Speulcher, and so on, you still can’t undermine my reasoning.
You have to show that the probability of portaying features A-F all together,just by random, without reference to the Shroud, is far greater than, say one in the milion.
2) O. K. and his followers . No, the ‘coffin lid’ IS the Shroud despite the other cloths shown on it and the iconographic evidence that this what stone coffin lids look like in these depictions. Query is the shroud folded? Otherwise why are the poker holes running across its whole width?
Charles:
Look once again:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an object, that I pointed with green arrow?
The object. Your guess is as good as mine.
What this object can be?
OK: are you not aware of the perils and pitfalls of what is known as “selection bias” (googlable)?
The first person to single out a particular obscure set of line drawings because they showed “L-shaped poker holes” was guilty of selection bias. It’s been downhill all the way ever since, certainly in a probability/statistics sense, especially as the said drawings are for the most part poorly executed, with many features that are obscure or ambiguous (tomb lid? shroud?) as to their interpretation, at least to the modern eye.
The first person to spot those “L-shaped poker holes” in the HPM was I understand Mechthild Flury Lemberg, who is not an art historian, but a celebrated textile restorer not noted for her expertise in probability and statistics.
Her “sample size=1” observation was then quickly taken up by celebrated historian Ian Wilson (displaying selection bias) and then by celebrated TV documentary maker David Rolfe (displaying selection bias). The latest recruit to the bandwagon is an energetic Polish Shroud scholar (displaying, guess what, selection bias).
It’s high time the HPM, essentially an inexpert medieval strip cartoon, was given a decent burial. It’s an egregious example of, guess what… ?
” drawings are for the most parts poorly executed “.
You are 100% correct Mr Berry.
OK: are you not aware of the perils and pitfalls of what is known as “selection bias” (googlable)?
I don’t know what exactly type of “selection bias” you have on mind. The presence of L-shape holes on both TS and HPM, for example, is absolute and undisputable fact.
“I don’t know what exactly type of “selection bias” you have on mind. The presence of L-shape holes on both TS and HPM, for example, is absolute and undisputable fact.”
Nope. They are burn holes on the TS, certainly, but they are small pen-drawn circles on the HPC – not necessarily intended to represent any kind of holes, least of all burn holes, and indeed almost certainly not intended as holes (given the other non-L-shaped collection on the lid/shroud that is rarely if ever mentioned, and the assortment of little circles used elsewhere on hems of garments etc etc.).
It’s also rather stretching credulity to suppose that someone wishing to incorporate a supposed image of the TS into his ’empty tomb’ scene would have chosen the so-called poker holes as his motif, inviting ridicule (“but they came much later dear chap”). He could have used an unambiguous herringbone weave, such as we see on the Lirey Pilgrim’s badge, or discreetly shown some or all the distinctive bloodstains.
Did you see what I said about your probability computation?
It’s risible to calculate the probabilities of outcomes AFTER the event. See the playing card analogy.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2014/06/might-shroud-image-have-been-produced.html
Counting points of correspondence is also statistically-flawed unless one counts points of non-correspondence too (especially when it’s a sample size of 1).
The HPM fixation has been a nonsense from the word go. I repeat- it shows total ignorance of, or indifference to, the selection bias trap.
Yawn.
I’m bored. I want the delivery van to arrive with my quicklime, having planned all my preliminary tests.
‘ The artist didn’t intend to portray the Shroud’ . Something we can agree in at last !
‘The artist didn’t intend to portray the Shroud’ . Something we can agree in at last !
He didn’t want per se, but he portrayed it -and some of its odd elements like L-holes, cropped legs, naked Christ etc.
Jesus was not buried like a gypsy, with holes in the coffin. The upper part of the image shows his body laid on a slab and being anointed by Joseph of Arimathea. It is possible to make the following interpretation when it comes to the lower part: with the L-like holes etc this part of the image can be interpreted as a burial cloth because the artist appeared to have wanted to convey a weaving pattern to show that it was a (burial) cloth that had been left, empty. In the middle, the rolled up piece of cloth could refer to the cloth that was on Jesus’ head (Gospel of John) that had been rolled up.
Since the artist did not paint a complete image of the tomb, he found this the most convenient way to show both cloths together, although one was placed over the other. But, after all, his intention was to portray the Resurrection.
There’s a few things about coffins and their lids which are fairly universal. If the lids don’t have straight edges, then they’re symmetrical about their centre-line, unless they’re intended to cover a hunch-back. The second thing about them is that when you remove the lid from a coffin, you see an open space inside it, intended to contain the body. Also, only in a few rare cases (none personally known to me) is a coffin lid provided with air holes so the occupant can breathe. I suppose they might be provided where the intended occupant is known to go into occasional catatonic trauma resembling death, and they would then provide some measure of safety for him. The American writer Edgar Allan Poe for instance had a morbid fear of being buried alive.
The edges of the oblique rectangle in the drawing are neither straight nor symmetrical about its centre-line, but have similar curved waves both sides, which may suggest a fabric of some kind. Curiously, this rectangle also has a zigzag pattern on it. This so-called ‘coffin-lid’ is also provided with air-holes arranged in an L shape. The under-lying base does have straight sides, but no containment space is shown for a body. It appears to be a stone slab with some funerary significance. There are no signs of a hunched back on the prostrate figure above, the presumed corpse to be contained, and I would suspect only an extremely remote family connection with Edgar Allan Poe!
Schopenhauer, Eristiche Dialektik:
http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist24.htm
Stratagem XXIV
This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from it other propositions which it does not contain and he does not in the least mean; nay, which are absurd or dangerous. It then looks as if his proposition gave rise to others which are inconsistent either with themselves or with some acknowledged truth, and so it appears to be in directly refuted. This is the diversion, and it is another application of the fallacy non causae ut causae.
Colin:
Your example with pack of cards is misrepresentation of my argument. The chance for particular order of cards is about 1 in 8*10^67.
But!
Suppose you have one pack of cards in particular order (that’s the Shroud).
And then you have 10 milion (10^7) of other packs, each shuffled in its own order. (that’s illustrations, like those in the Pray Codex).
What is a chance, that among those 10 millon, you find one pack in the same order as the first pack?
If you find one such pack, it is very likely, that it was not shuffled randomly -someone cheated here.
And Mona Lisa/Victoria analogy is also false. I suppose that probability of finding two potraits of four-fingered ladies with charming smile is rather cloes to 1 than 0.
So poor your case, that you refer to such primitive, flawed tricks, Colin?
Charles,
You wrote:
“Max. This is the Shroud but you can’t actually see it because of some cryptographic mumbo -jumbo that I can’t understand (…)”.
Just prepare to have A VERY BIG SURPRISE as far as crucial evidence of the HP Ms-Turin Shroud-Constantinople Sindon connection is concerned! Methinks even prepared, it still will be quite an intellectual blow to archconventional, narrow-minded view.
Yes, mark my words, I’ve got so many iconographic and steganographic trump cards to play and build a crucial evidence for the Turin Shroud-Constantinople Sindon late 8th-late 13th c. CE Benedictine connection, you just have no idea!
Typo: the HP Ms-Turin Shroud-Constantinople Sindon late 10th-late 13th c. CE Benedictine connection
I recommend viewing of Mark Evans photomicrographs on Shroudscope, especially look at the one at the eye – it clearly shows a similar stepped pattern to that of the Pray MS.
I agree. Look at ME-04. The step pattern is obvious to me.
Link here to see it at Mario Latendresse’s Site
Dan, shall I repeat, more than two years ago (see my comment below), I sent you two tale-tellin illustrations (even more telling than the one above) to demonstrate how the the TS herringbone pattern can be iconologicallly simplified into flat square-top stepped pyramid pattern. WHY did not you publish them, it would have save me time and energy… since an image speaks a thousand words.
Under appropriate magnification, the step pattern is apparent. Without a microscope (see ShroudScope or Shroud 2.0) it is not. However, even assuming microscopic eyesight, the Pray Manuscript looks nothing like the shroud. If the photo above covered a greater area, and was rotated 90° we would see these steps going up one side and down the other and then up and down again, in a sort of zigzagged zigzag. What we would not see, but what the Pray artist very clearly intended, is a series of concentric zigzag ‘semi-circles’ radiating outwards from at least six centres. This looks much more like a representation of red marble (see The Burial Lamentations by Theophanes the Cretan for a similar attempt) than any weaving pattern.
This looks much more like a representation of red marble (see The Burial Lamentations by Theophanes the Cretan for a similar attempt) than any weaving pattern.
How many times I have to repeat, this zigzag-patterned rectangle cannot be a marble nor tomb lid!
Look once again:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
What is an object, that I pointed with green arrow?
Can it be anything other than a bench, on which angel is sitting?
And as it is a bench, the zigzag-patterned rectangle cannot be a lid. Period.
That’s a bit of non-sequitur there, OK. Whether the lines behind the angel are a building, a fence, or even a chair does not invalidate the overwhelming probability that the angled slab is the same angled slab as appears in countless similar depictions of the Three Marys scene.
Further to the comment above (8.48 AM), the artist had little room to convey his description of Jesus’ resurrection in image, therefore he brought the two cloths mentioned in the gospel according to John together. Judaean tombs were crude,everything was in stone, ossuaries were in limestone, there was no marble, no embellishments, except for something carved sometimes at the entrance of tombs. It is hard to believe that the artist would have to rely on other patterns to convey that he was referring to cloth.
The HPM artist made a very crude drawing and managed to include at least three indisputable matches with the Shroud – fully naked, arms crossed and missing thumbs. Do the sceptics think that the artist arrived at this simply by chance or whether some established convention was being followed? If yes to the latter, then what do they think the source of that convention is?
fully naked, arms crossed
Fully naked and arms crossed are not independent traits -genitals must be covered by something. You need more independent elements, to prove by statistical significance, that common features of both HPM and TS are not by chance.
The HPM is a enigma, almost as potent as the Shroud. I find the stubble beard on Jesus interesting. The men prepping him for burial both have long beards. Yet the young John (I assume) in the background has no beard. Was the artist trying to show that Jesus was middle aged by comparison to the other three men? Did the artist recall the scriptures ‘they tore my beard’? The choice of the stubble beard is deliberate.
And the angel’s pinky finger in the bottom drawing…the infamous epsilon? And why is he surfing on this lid/shroud/whatever?
Clearly the artist, if he did see the Shroud, did not have time to study it closely. It ‘feels’ more like the artist may have been drawing from someone else’s memory then meshing it with his own imagination.
I tend to agree with Hugh, who has always maintained that there simply is no direct link between the HPM and the Shroud and playing with probabilities doesn’t change that. And yet the HPM hints tantalizing at a connection.
I find it incredible that skeptics can deny that the 4 holes in an L-shape is not a conclusive proof. The probability that this is a definite link is staggeringly high. A skeptic is required to show other artwork of the Middle Ages with such a pattern was common, or at least beyond one coincidence. Also, to deny that the artist’s design was to simulate the herringbone weave is an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of Shroud aficionados. Repeating over and over that “it is not a herringbone pattern” is not an effective counter.
A summary. Reflections of an arrogant and aloof English historian.
The idea that the Shroud can be seen in the Pray Codex has always seemed to me absurd as the Shroud is not highlighted, there no sign of the distinctive two images and Christ is shown without bleeding wounds as he is laid out making it impossible for him to transfer blood to the shroud in which he was wrapped. The pose of Jesus reflected ordinary burials and was increasingly common in art at this time so no surprises here. Again a decorated tomb lid is hardly unique (see below). Perhaps if I stood far off and took my glasses off I could see a similarity between the stepped pyramid and a herringbone pattern, but close up, as the illustrator would have been working, this link is clearly impossible to make.
Se we need to explain a stone or marble coffin lid with circular holes in it. The answer comes from Jerusalem. The tomb of the Holy Sepulchre was originally left as a rock tomb and in Byzantine representations of the entombment or Resurrection it was always shown like this. However in the first half of the tenth century, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII covered the tomb with a marble slab but in order for pilgrims to see into it to the original rock he drilled three circular holes, or oculi. From the tenth century in the west , and only in the west, we find artists copying the marble lid and representing the scenes of the Resurrection with a sarcophagus with a lid. In 1099 the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and between then and 1187 it was open to western pilgrims as well as the original crusaders. In the twelfth century the marble lid was increasingly shown with the oculi, two, three or four. William Forsyth gives four examples from the twelfth century e.g. before or at the same time as the Pray Codex. They are on a capital in the cathedral of Modena, on a relief at Monte San Angelo (in Foggio, Italy), on a lintel on the south portal of the west façade of Saint Gilles at Arles and on a capital on a portal in Chartres Cathedral. (He goes on to give later ones as well.)
As he puts it ( P. 9 of his book on Entombment Sculptures): ‘ These oculi were known and copied in the west. The association with Christ’s tomb lead to their being placed on the front face of the sarcophagus, the western equivalent of the tomb bench. In some French fourteenth century ivories there holes become elaborately decorated motifs resembling rose windows.’ So when we see a coffin lid with circular holes in it, I think the inspiration for these is clear.
But these are French and Italian examples. What do we know of a Hungarian connection with Jerusalem in the second half of the twelfth century? We have a very strong one. In 1169 or 70, King Bella III sent a large sum of gold to Jerusalem for the Knights Hospitallers in Jerusalem to buy land from which to have an income to support the sick. In the document Bella said that he and his wife would be making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and some of the money should be retained to entertain him and his retinue. The Wikipedia entry says that they did make the pilgrimage but there is no reference providedand an earlier study (James Sweeney, Hungary in the Crusades, 1169-1218, International History Review III, October, 198) suggests that they never made it., so I shall leave the question open. However we do know that there was a high-level Hungarian mission sent to Jerusalem with the money. One can assume that they visited the Sepulchre and saw the lid with the oculi in it.
Jerusalem was lost in 1187 but Hungarians took part in the ill-fated Third Crusade to reconquer it. (All this is in the Sweeney article.) In 1192 King Ladislaw of Hungary who had died a hundred years before, was canonised and he was presented as the idea of a warrior crusader knight. The excitement was such that in 1195 or 1196, the ageing Bella vowed he would join the next Crusade to the Holy Land. He died in 1196 before he could fulfil this vow but Jerusalem was right at the forefront of everybody’s minds in these years, the years of the Pray Codex.
This is from two hours library research in the midst of a busy day doing other things but a stone coffin lid in itself confirms Jerusalem is the model as it appears in art just about the same time Constantine placed one over the tomb and the oculi goes with them. No need to look further, I think.
The lesson is if you consider yourself a Shroud researcher, think for yourself and don’t follow Ian Wilson, who seems to have been behind this. The Pray Codex hypothesis. which never had much going for it, is surely redundant. Let’s move on.
Enter ‘google Images’ and search for ‘ Crusader Cross’ and you will find the red crosses that are on the sarcophagus. 1195 was the year when obsession with regaining Jerusalem swept Hungary and Bella made his vow to go on crusade ( see ref to Sweeney article above) So it is hardly surprising that one finds red crusader crosses on the Sepulchre that ,as the coffin lid and the oculi on the Codex, show was modelled on what could actually be seen in Jerusalem.
Whether any other features on the Codex relate to Jerusalem or the Crusaders I don’t know but clearly that is its primary focus.
I am sure that there will be people who insist on seeing the Shroud and perhaps even turtles in the Codex but it seems clear to me that the illustrator is linking Jerusalem and crusading within the traditional iconography of the burial and Resurrection scenes.
I notice the angel has six fingers, assuming it has a hidden thumb. Is that significant?
I’m going to answer my own question. It isn’t. The more I observe and reflect on the HPM the more it looks like the work of an amateur. It’s sloppy, a hodge podge. The artist has trouble drawing hands, he hides them when he can. An experienced artist has the image in his head before he starts and avoids the errors we see in this work. Truthfully, this looks like the work of a ten year old. I realize this may seem an arrogant observation and Max may take me task on it, given the crypto-symbols that may lay within it. But this drawing is so unstructured that trying to draw parallels to anything is going to be unfruitful. Charles is right. Time to move on.
Obviously the artist did not approach the Shroud with a magnifier to see the weaving pattern from close. He may not even have known about the four fingers, in fact Joseph of Arimathea is also portrayed with four fingers. As commented earlier, the point seems to have been to illustrate the resurrection as it is in the NT. He brought Joseph, the women and the two cloths together.
Hugh:
Whether the lines behind the angel are a building, a fence, or even a chair
Those are not building, nor fence. This is simply a bench. Which definitely refutes the claim that zigzag-patterned rectangle is a tomb lid. Then it hardly be anything else but the Shroud. But desperate sceptic will always try to deny the obvious.
David Goulet:
Clearly the artist, if he did see the Shroud, did not have time to study it closely. It ‘feels’ more like the artist may have been drawing from someone else’s memory then meshing it with his own imagination.
I tend to agree with Hugh, who has always maintained that there simply is no direct link between the HPM and the Shroud and playing with probabilities doesn’t change that.
You have a different understanding of the term ‘direct link’ than me. Whether artist studied the Shroud, or was drawing from his, or someone’s else memory, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that there are at least 6 independent peculiar elements, shared all together only by TS and HPM. Which makes extremely improbable that HPM was not modeled on TS.
Charles:
A summary. Reflections of an arrogant and aloof English historian.
It shows that you completely do not understand anything. You simply cannot refute simple my reasoning, instead making long speech hardly relevant to (mathematical) problem.
No one, neither Colin, nor Charles, nor Hugh, nor anyone has been so far able to refute my reasoning presented in the article above. I suppose no sceptic is. On the other hand, it seems that many either do not understand it, or pretend not to understand.
Last word from me, OK. We are looking at a glaring instance of selection bias, in which someone has singled out an an obscure series of ink drawings, allegedly showing “L-shaped poker holes” (mere circles) and then proceeding to find any number of further “correspondences”. Each of the latter has required the eye of faith – like interpreting a tomb lid as a shroud, or interpreting a zig-zag pattern as a herringbone weave. It all goes back to the initial selection of a poorly executed line drawing, with one ambiguous feature, and then, surprise, surprise, discovering more and more ambiguities, each of which has been harnessed to build a spurious case for “multiple correspondences” . Sorry, but some of us refuse to buy into this self-delusion.
Yeah, Colin. As one politician once said:
They won’t convince us that white is white, and black is black.
Behind the angel there are three lines, two more or less horizontal and one more or less vertical. How you can be so dogmatic about what they represent is beyond me. But suppose it is a bench, and the angel is sitting on it, so what? He’s still got his feet on the marble slab. I really don’t see how interpreting the ‘thing’ as a bench automatically refutes the possibility that the slab is a slab. It’s a complete non-sequitur.
He’s still got his feet on the marble slab. I really don’t see how interpreting the ‘thing’ as a bench automatically refutes the possibility that the slab is a slab. It’s a complete non-sequitur.
And as it is a bench (it is the simplest explanation, and hardly can be anything else), how angel can put his feet on angled, moved away slab (especially on the other side of the tomb- the alleged bench is behind the alleged red-crossed tomb, while alleged slab is in front of it)? Do you really want to clutch at straws and suggest that the artist portrayed such absurd thing, just to defend this slab?
Anyway, slab or the Shroud, you have not been able to refute my article. Which is enough to prove with almost certainty the HPM-TS connection.
Simply:
A) May naked Jesus on the HPM be be derived from TS? Yes.
B) May 4 fingers, without thumbs on both hands of Jesus on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.
C) May cropped Jesus legs on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.
D) May zigzag patern on HPM represent herringbone weave on TS? Yes.
E) May two red smudges on the rectangle on HPM represent blood belt on TS? Yes.
F) May the four L shaped circles on the HPM represent poker holes on TS? Yes.
The crucial question is: what is a chance of finding all those elements at random on a single card of a Codex?
The answer to that question is enough to prove connection between TS and HPM. Nothing else is needed. Discussing anything else is waste of effort, and even detrimental.
Freeman’s Oculi: None of your examples pertain. The first example had 3 circles in a row; the second had 4 circles in a square; the third example had numerous holes but none in the shape of 4 in an “L” (nor any “L”), and the last had numerous holes in a large circle. And none of those had anything to do with a tomb.
Constantine and the tomb: again, 3 holes; in fact 3 LARGE holes.
Again, 4 holes in an L-shape is so unique in HPM that it defies normal probability, and yes, they are in the middle of a herringbone weave.
The artist didn’t need a magnification of the cloth to see enough detail to make a rough imitation of the weave.
Yes.
and one only has to look at the earliest copy of the shroud pre burns and / or use some IMAGINATION (sorely lacking here) and one will know that the holes were conspicuous and it is quite understandable why they might have attained symbolic resonance.
Nabber: I am relying on Forsyth who is usually very precise so perhaps you can provide illustrations.Of course, I only included the twelfth century ones made at the same time as the Shroud, there are lots more later ones.
Sorry not ‘Shroud’ – although it may indeed have been made shortly before 1195 if shown in the Codex – I meant Pray Codex.
My comment (1.34) stated that the artist did not need a magnifier and I would go further and state that whatever the Hungarians did in Jerusalem, they certainly did not find the exact location of Jesus’ tomb.
How did the HPM artist arrive at a naked Christ with arms crossed and thumbs missing? Any sceptic of the HPM/Shroud link care to answer?
Ever searched image files for early representations of St.Lawrence of Rome being slow-roasted over hot coals? I have.
http://www.wdtprs.com/images2/11_08_10_lawrence_01.jpg
Note semi- or total nudity, strategic placing of hands. Can’t vouch for incorrect number of fingers however.
Can’t vouch for incorrect number of fingers however.
And on HPM you have all those features together. Probability around one in a milion.
Mr Berry, shall I remind you the ‘slowly roasted Lawrence idea’ comes from me and you just recycled it to have it fit into your scorch theory? Shall I remind you the Benedictine mural frescoe in Berzé-la-ville, France?
On October 16, 2013 at 9:53 am, I wrote:
“Re CB being the victim of a pareidoliac “semblance et avision” is another good example of RE-EXPERIENCED archaeopareidolia…
Actually the first “CRYPTIC SYMBOLICAL” rendering of the vision” of a man been roasted while the observer was looking at the burial Shroud (now kept in Turin) dates back to the first half of the 5th C. CE (see the Maryrdom of St Lawrence/Vincent mausoleum of gallia placidia, Ravenna). Many Turin Shroud data are here YET (steganographicaaly) ciphered.
There is another late 11th-early 12th Shroud-like cryptic Martydom of Saint Vincent/Lawrence by Benedictine Abbot-mural artist, Hugh of Cluny (1049-1109) (see his designed programme of mural paintings in the Cluniac chapel of Berzé-la-Ville in Burgundy).
Actually the two saints are currently mistaken one for the other. Addendum: the 4 series of burn holes are ALREADY cryptically featured in the Ravenna mosaic.”
Mr Berry, had you really searched, you should have mentioned the Berzé-la-Ville BENEDITCINE mural painting too and account for the fact saint Vincent/Lawrence is depicted stark naked with the two thumbs MISSING while in the link you provide, saint Lawrence/saint Vincent is depicted with one thumb HIDDEN.
As early as june 7, 2012 (at 4:04 pm and 1:40 pm), I wrote:
At macroscale, the warp side Turin Shroud weave does appear as a “(flat) square-top stepped pyramid pattern”.
June 7, 2012 at , I wrote:
“I will email Dan two illustrations to back up my comment. Hope Dan will publish them…”
Then on June 11, 2012 (at 6:15 and 6:22 am, 12:13 and 1:36pm), I wrote:
“JUST TOO BAD DAN HAS NOT PUBLISHED THE ILLUSTRATIONS (my today’s upper cases) I emailed him to back up my comment about the Turin Shroud (flat) square-top stepped pyramid weave pattern only detectable at macrolevel. It would have confirmed the Pray Ms miniaturist did represent the Turin Shroud as early as the 12th century CE…”
“See (my demonstration from) Pr. Giorgio TESSIORE 1996 macrographic ink drawing of a Turin Shroud front/warp/inner side portion (front and back covers of his monography entilted “La Santa Sindone E Il Suo Mistero”, Torino, 1997.”
“(…) To get aware of the (flat) square-top stepped pyramid weave pattern (as shown in the Pray Ms lower register miniature, fol 28; PLEASE see (my demonstration from) Giorgio TESSIORE’s macrographic pen and ink drawing along with a good quality macrophograph of the Turin Shroud front side portion. You really need magnifying glasses…”
“When I mean a macrophotograph of a sufficient portion of the Turin Shroud front/warp/inner side weave pattern, I mean a macrophotograph at a regular 24:1 scale.”
Finally on June 12, 2012 at 8:53 am, I wrote:
“The 12th century CE anonymous Benedictine monk either drew the Turin Shroud (inner) side (flat) square-top stepped pyramid characteristic weave pattern from memory (most likely) or copied it from another illumination now lost. Because the characteristic weave pattern is only discernable at macrolevel (HD macrophotographs or macrographic pen & ink drawing by Tessiore), (…) this is what I will identify as (one of the main spy clues) establishing a compelling link with the TS.”
It took MORE than two years AFTER I wrote this for Dan et al finally really start getting aware I was right… Cannot you trace the two illustrations I sent you then to back up my point, please?
Charles most misleadingly wrote:
“Perhaps if I stood far off and took my glasses off I could see a similarity between the stepped pyramid and a herringbone pattern, but close up, as the illustrator would have been working, this link is clearly impossible to make.”
Actually, if you stood far off (i.e. more than three paces off, whether with or without your glasses off, you’d be totally unable to se the stepped pyramid pattern. Your ignorance of the optical reality of the TS is flabbergasting!
Actually, close up, the link is CLEARLY POSSIBLE (see the two illustration I sent MORE THAN TWO YERS AGO TO DAN HE NEVER PUBLIHED!). Seen close up (within three paces) the body image disappears. The disappeance effect is due to lateral neural inhibition of the optical nerves. This is the FOURTH TIME I AM TELLING YOU!
The Benedictine monk artist through artistic steganographic license incorporated the herringbone weave pattern seen close up to solve the new testamental artistic steganoraphic triple bind: to hide in plain view Yeshua’s burial while composing an ink & pen tale-telling version of the Empty tomb event along with textual reference (‘He is not here’).
Plagiarism is one thing. Noting others’ suggestions, followed by go-it-alone googling is something else. That’s especially the case when the hat tip is freely acknowledged, as was the case two years ago on my own site:
April 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“In fact, you have just done me a huge favour, whether you realize it or not, by making reference on Dan Porter’s site to the martyrdom of St. Lawrence (St.Laurent in France) whom the Church accused of failing to hand over the Holy Grail/Chalice that he was suspected of hoarding (forgive me if I have got it wrong or over-simplified – this being all new to me, and from cerebral RAM).”
Nuff said.
I did realize it (the huge favour I did to you), thank you. What you just fail to realize though is this is the THIRD IDEA OF MINE you are recycling (first the ‘opaques/sand grains idea, then the saint Lawrence/Vincent idea and lately the alkaline solution). Besides iconographic blind spots, methinks you do have selective hat tips.
“The mediocre professor tells. The good professor explains. The superior professor demonstrates. The great professor inspires”. ~William Arthur Ward. Or was it the word teacher the latter used?
So where do you fit here,Max?
This was just a passing tongue-in-cheek comment for CB who seems to get really good ideas at times…
Sorry not ‘Shroud’ – although it may indeed have been made shortly before 1195 if shown in the Codex – I meant Pray Codex.
So Charles, you are already admitting the possibility that the Shroud is actually portrayed in the Pray Codex. But it is more than possibility -it is almost certainty.
O.K. Read what I actually said : ‘I only included the twelfth century ones made at the same time as the Shroud’. No, it was a Freudian slip revealing my prejudice that the Shroud falls within the medieval centuries.
BTW. I put ten pounds on six INDEPENDENT horses in six INDEPENDENT races each at a hundred to one and I lost the lot. So much for mathematical probability.
BTW. I put ten pounds on six INDEPENDENT horses in six INDEPENDENT races each at a hundred to one and I lost the lot. So much for mathematical probability.
Yes, you lost -because you don’t understand what probability is.
I considered probability for the event that illustrations in the HPM are not directly derived from the Shroud -exactly opposite to what I wanted to show.
Null & alternative hypothesis -do you know what they mean?
Enjoy the sun! It’s midwinter in NZ, we’ve just had the winter solstice, and I’ve picked up a chest infection, probably from winter socialising. So I put a towel over my head to use a steam inhalant. It’s the first time I’ve noticed that this towel has a band on it that looks to me like a zigzag herring-bone twill. I look closer. Or is it pyramids? Frankly I couldn’t see much difference. A lot depends on the angle of the weave, the number of weft and warp threads crossed. I know it wasn’t made in Egypt, most likely a China import.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs,* or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.” Matt 7:6. The early Christians understood this injunction well, were circumspect, concealed their secrets from the enemy, and despite intense persecution survived. The sacred is not the place for profane feet to trample, nor do I know why I should heed the opinion of those I think lack perception of the sacred nor understand its meaning. Aloof and arrogant of me? Possibly. Perhaps it worries me no longer. I shall see what I see. Shall I hold my counsel or proclaim it? I’m not sure. Perhaps I shall be more circumspect, and merely contemplate the divine how I see it. Let others see what they will! Or is it just the chest infection making me depressed?
“concealed their secrets from the enemy, and despite intense persecution survived”,
Double that. I think skeptics can go to great length to claim the Jesus fish doesn’t represent Jesus but merely a representation of a fish.
Jesus fish doesn’t represent Jesus but merely a representation of a fish.
It isn’t representation of a fish, but a turtle! ;-)
Stephen Hawking in A Brief History Of Time starts with the
anecdote:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once
gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth
orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the
centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room
got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is
really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle.“
The scientists asks “what supports the turtle”?
The lady replies: “its standing on a bigger turtle!”
Scientist: “And what would that turtle rest upon?”
Lady: “its no use young man, its turtles all the way down!”
To Dan (shall I ask you again and again?):
More than two years ago (see my comment below), I emailed you MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO (on June 08,2012) two tale-telling illustrations (even more telling than the one above by Mark Evans microphotographs!) to demonstrate how the the TS herringbone pattern can be iconologically simplified into flat square-top stepped pyramid pattern. WHY did not you publish them? Did not you received them? Here’s the text of the email I sent you more than two years ago:
“Dear Dan,
In order to back up one of my comments on your blog (June 7, 2012 at 11:17 am #88), please find here attached a Microsoft Word file.
Thank you. Hope the information is useful.
Archaeocryptologically Yours,
Max”
Zone contenant les pièces jointes
Prévisualiser la pièce jointe PRAY MS.doc
Word
PRAY MS.doc
On June 11, 2012 (at 6:15 and 6:22 am, 12:13 and 1:36pm), I wrote:
“JUST TOO BAD (YOU HAVE) NOT PUBLISHED THE ILLUSTRATIONS I emailed (YOU on June 08, 2012) to back up my comment about the Turin Shroud (flat) square-top stepped pyramid weave pattern only detectable at macrolevel.”
Had you, it would have not only confirmed the 12th c. CE Pray Ms miniaturist did depend from the Turin Shroud but also saved many time and energy… since an image can speak a thousand words” (June 23, 2014 at 6:07 pm)
Max, maybe I didn’t understand because it was too archaeocrytological. Just kidding. Sometimes I don’t get things. Sometimes I screw up. Sorry. Just send it to me again.
And I am still waiting for an answer what’s with Kornelimünster…
. “Sometimes I don’t get things. Just kidding.” Of course that you are just kidding, Stephen E.Jones calls you “Zeus”, and Zeus is Zeus …
I am sure that there will be people who insist on seeing the Shroud and perhaps even turtles in the Codex but it seems clear to me that the illustrator is linking Jerusalem and crusading within the traditional iconography of the burial and Resurrection scenes.
Charles, your opinion is as irrelevant, and as erroneous, like opinion of a guy seeing turtles in the Pray Manuscript.
You haven’t been able to refute my reasoning, presented in the article above.
I am sorry O.K but your reasoning seems to be on the level of ‘A dog has four legs,a cat has four legs. Therefore a dog is a cat’ . E.g. ‘The shroud has a cut off image, the Pray Codex has a cut off image . Therefore the Pray Codex is showing the Shroud’
It’s not reasoning that is important here ,it is LOOKING at the Codex and trying to work out what influenced the illustrator, in this case a Hungarian working in 1195 at the height of a Crusade fever in Hungary when his king had just taken a vow to go on Crusade.
I do wish people would not follow Ian Wilson with such complete lack of critical thought. He does seem to have been the one who really started this but those who follow him without checking his sources (and realising that in all his years of ‘researching’ the Shroud, he does not seem to have read any general books on medieval history or relic cults ) are just as much to blame.
The Codex shows Jerusalem, folks, where these scenes originally took place!
I am sorry O.K but your reasoning seems to be on the level of ‘A dog has four legs,a cat has four legs. Therefore a dog is a cat’ .
Charles, being so wise, tell us all how do you recognize that dog is a dog, and cat is a cat.
It’s not reasoning that is important here ,it is LOOKING at the Codex and trying to work out what influenced the illustrator
Guess what?
in this case a Hungarian working in 1195 at the height of a Crusade fever in Hungary when his king had just taken a vow to go on Crusade.
There is no direct link between this and Pray Manuscript whatsoever. At least you cannot prove that. Besides, those illustrations are considered to be older, dating to circa 1150s.
I do wish people would not follow Ian Wilson with such complete lack of critical thought.
Who cares about Wilson here? He, and his subjective opinions is completely irrelevant here -just like yours (and mine). The only think relevant is that there are at least six independent, undisputable similarities between the Shroud and Pray Manuscript -and extremely small probability that those similarities are just random, without direct influence of the Shroud.
You cannot reject the possibility that Pray Mansucript cannot be influenced by te Shroud. You have admitted this yourself: Sorry not ‘Shroud’ – although it may indeed have been made shortly before 1195 if shown in the Codex – I meant Pray Codex. -those are your words.
On the contrary, I can show that an option that those six similarities between Shroud and HPM are just by chance, is so improbable, that every reasonable observer would reject it. You have not been able to show anything against this argument.
And I think you also need to access pictures of the pilgrim crosses etched on the stairs leading down to the chapel of St .Helen within the Church of the Sepulchre as the pattern resembles the pattern of crosses on the Codex. It appears that The illustrator wanted to place the resurrection scene within the Church of the Sepulchre as he had heard about it or perhaps even seen it, there is not a hint of evidence that he was aware of the Shroud of Turin.
Now you’re overstating the case in the other direction. There is indeed a hint. Wilson and others see a link to the Shroud based on a few parallel points: the L shaped holes, the ‘weave’ design, etc. Those are, at first glance, hints of the Shroud.
However, what you (and Hugh, etc) have provided upon second glance are alternate explanations for those parallels. Personally, I feel your explanations are more likely to be true. This does not erase those parallels. If I knew of the Shroud and stumbled across the HPM and saw the L shaped holes, the odd weave, the corpse positioning, I too would connect it to the Shroud.
In my opinion, Wilson and now OK have made an honest mistake. They also are overstating the parallels and are not being open to the strong counter arguments.
At best the HPM should be put aside as disputed ‘evidence’ and only brought out again if some other corroborating evidence (for or against) is found.
In my opinion, Wilson and now OK have made an honest mistake. They also are overstating the parallels and are not being open to the strong counter arguments.
Simple question, David, do you understand my reasoning presented above? Yes or no.
I agree, David. The Pray Codex is irrelevant unless there is really no other evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1355. You don’t need it otherwise. If it was on the Codex, it would only tell us that the Shroud was in existence somewhere that the Hungarian might have known about, east or west, more likely west, before 1195, so possibly early medieval, certainly a time when relic cults of this kind were very popular. That does not get us much further .
But do look up the pilgrim crosses etched on the stairway of the St.Helen chapel in the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem – they might surprise you.
OK, yes I understand your reasoning. You are saying it’s the totality of the parallels that is significant. But this reminds me a bit of Ten Angry Men. Your verdict is based on totality of available evidence and it seems sound. But Charles and Hugh have demonstrated that the parts (of your sum) can be placed into reasonable doubt — thus negating your overall verdict.
I’m sure John Klotz will jump in here as a lawyer. Could the HPM be influenced by the Shroud. Yes, I see that as a possibility. Could the parallels be coincidence mixed with our reading the Shroud into them? Yes, also a possibility.
I have the sense that we are reading more into the art than the artist had ability to layer in himself. That’s just my opinion.
If the evidence was so conclusive, we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we?
What this debate doesn’t need is either side patronizing the other. It is not foolish to propose a link between the Shroud and the HPM, nor is it foolish to suggest otherwise.
As I said before, at best we’ve got a hung jury on the HPM.
Charles, you wrote: “do look up the pilgrim crosses etched on the stairway of the St.Helen chapel in the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem – they might surprise you.”
Actually I first established a parallel with the pilgrim/crusaders crosses in the stairway. Besides he fact is the symbolic ‘seeing level’ in conjunction with the Holy Sepulchre there are two more ‘seeing levels’ involved here: the literal one (Byzantine polystaurionic ornamentation) and a secret one (that will surprise you).
On June 11, 2012 at 9:20 am, I wrote:
“The picture is all the more cryptologically laden as the field of red crosses (inspired from Byzantine church liturgical garment known as polystaurion i.e. ‘many-crossed’) is here evocative of the hundreds of cross graffiti etched by pilgrim crusaders in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.” Charles you do seem much smarter using others’ ideas as if they were yours…
Instead of EITHER / OR, why is not BOTH / AND ? It is in the nature of the ‘mandala’ that its symbolism cannot be exhausted. (Jung) This raises the HPM to an entirely new level of significance! Ad hominem attacks on Wilson are utterly irrelevant. People will see what they will irrespective of who may guide them there. The concurrence of so many elements connecting to the the TS and its image are too many to set aside so lightly. Charles sees the Jerusalem tomb. He may well be right. That does not exclude the TS, but only demonstrates how well the illustrator was informed, and what use he was able to make of the conglomeration of forms in his mind.
Dave, first of all, we can be with around 99.9999 % significance certain that there are references to the Shroud in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript. That’s the point. Any other discussion about interpretations, or significance of each element in HPM, is in fact, detrimental.
Why? Because dubious interpretations are only play into hands for the sceptics! They can easily dispute them, pretending that they refuted the whole HPM!
Dave you wrote:
“Charles sees the Jerusalem tomb”. Actually he does NOW so just because I had him see it (see my comment on June 11, 2012 at 9:20 am re. the Holy Sepuchre and the crosses etched on the stairway wall). I’ll make him see more things in the PH Ms he has not yet seen, by soon.
I agree, David. The Pray Codex is irrelevant unless there is really no other evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1355. You don’t need it otherwise.
Your logic, Charles, is astounding. So is there other evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1355?
If yes, then HPM indeed may be ‘overkill’.
And if not, the HPM is enough to prove existence of the Shroud before 1195 -showing that 1988 carbon-dating cannot be trusted.
If it was on the Codex, it would only tell us that the Shroud was in existence somewhere that the Hungarian might have known about, east or west
The most important think is that it was in existence before 1195 – and so before 1260-1390 claimed by 1988 C14 dating.
It doesn’t say where, but…
more likely west
Less likely. What indicators do you have for West? None. And for the East -you have several documents showing the presence of alleged burial cloths, most notably Robert de Clari’s mention of the sydoines with the figure of Our Lord on it -exactly like on the Shroud of Turin.
so possibly early medieval, certainly a time when relic cults of this kind were very popular.
And when were they not popular?
That does not get us much further .
That, first of all, refutes 1260-1390 dates from 1988 dating. Which makes the date of the Shroud production unknown -all dates are permitted.
The fact remains that an art historian is best placed to judge whether the HPM was influenced by the shroud. De wesselow is a well qualified one and thinks the answer is ‘yes’. It would be interesting to see a peer review of de wesselow’s conclusions.
The fact remains that an art historian is best placed to judge whether the HPM was influenced by the shroud.
No Thomas, the art historians are not proper for that job. They are not better qualified than we are. They do not have methodology to determine whether there are direct relations between particular objects (like TS and HPM), and they are often uncritically stuck to their paradigms. They have the knowledge, but not understanding. The best qualified people for that job are in police.
I am traveling and I will be synthetic.
O.K.’s proposal has several basic mistakes:
1. Errors of knowledge of the medieval art. The percentages assigned to some characteristics are erroneous (very low). Croissed hands, thumbs, etc. See here: https://picasaweb.google.com/112820198650228388541/Lienzo_prolong#
2. Ambiguity in the concepts. “Similar to” is not mathematically useful. Croissed hands are not a hand over the other. Etc.
3. Confusion between different objects. The shroud of Turin is not a representation of Jesus in the tomb.
I will be more explicit Saturday morning.
We see another sceptic desperately and ignorantly trying to dispute my conclusions. Fine. Let’s show David Mo’s misunderstandings:
1. Errors of knowledge of the medieval art. The percentages assigned to some characteristics are erroneous (very low). Croissed hands, thumbs, etc. See here: https://picasaweb.google.com/112820198650228388541/Lienzo_prolong#
Excellent gallery, David Mo. It shows how improbable is to find by chance all six elements A-F I mentioned in the Pray Codex at once .It supports my view much more than yours.
2. Ambiguity in the concepts. “Similar to” is not mathematically useful.
They are similar enough to warrant comparison. And no matter of similarity, for sceptics they are inconvenient enough, that they try to reject them outright, under any slightest pretext.
Croissed hands are not a hand over the other. Etc.
Crossed hands do not interest me here at all.
3. Confusion between different objects. The shroud of Turin is not a representation of Jesus in the tomb.
Confusion present yourself, David Mo. You don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) anything.
Fools…
great gallery. But does not in any way dismiss the HPM / Shroud theory.
All it really shows is that in itself the figure of Christ in art with crossed hands was not unique.
But as we all know that is but one of many similarities between the HPM / Shroud.
Few of the images have holes / circles on the sarcophagus. In the rare case that they do they make artistic sense, unlike the circles on the HPM.
The art tradition of Jesus with short beard – consistent with the Shroud – is interesting. Jesus’s short beard in art works often contrasts with the long beards of other figures.
Where could this tradition come from, if not from the shroud? I would have thought the natural tendency would have been to portray Jesus with long beard, a sign of wisdom and knowledge in antiquity
A good point.
I’ll also take this chance to point out as just as there is an artistic tradition of showing an empty sarcophagus and lid, there is also a tradition of showing sarcophagus with no lid, and the shroud, and sometimes shroud plus head cloth – consistent with the HPM:
Dave you wrote: on June 25, 2014 at 5:58 pm, you wrote:
“Instead of EITHER / OR, why is not BOTH / AND ?”
This is exactly what I have been telling and retelling you et al in this blog for more than TWO YEARS as far as Medieval Benedictine cryptic iconography is concerned! ‘At times it takes the uninitiated eye-brain time to correctly use its coordination system and for a new and old forgotten encoded truth to finally come out…
“–the Jesus is naked, with His hands crossed above pelvis (similar on the Shroud) –let’s assume that such portrayal occurs in 1/100 instances.”
“Crossed hands do not interest me here at all.”
You were interested to crossed hands and you assigned a probability to this feature. If you change your opinion it will be correct to say it.
My mistake is that I even mentioned those crossed hands in the descritpion above.
Actuallly the only point that interest me in A is “Jesus is naked.” The crossed hands potentially can be described as just a consequence of this.
OK, yes I understand your reasoning. You are saying it’s the totality of the parallels that is significant. But this reminds me a bit of Ten Angry Men. Your verdict is based on totality of available evidence and it seems sound. But Charles and Hugh have demonstrated that the parts (of your sum) can be placed into reasonable doubt — thus negating your overall verdict.
The reality is not Hollywood. I knew that the parts can be placed into “reasonable doubt” -that’s why assigned probability of around 1/100 fro them. But conjunction of all of them is so improbable, that within all reasonable limits we can reject the possibility that HPM was not influenced by the Shroud.
If the evidence was so conclusive, we wouldn’t be having this debate, would we?
Because no matter what arguments in favor would be, the verdict certainly is unacceptable by the sceptics. That’s why they resort to anything, splitting hairs, counting on that we, supporters, get lost in all those details, and they triumphally declare their “refutation” of the Codex argument. That’s why we should abstain from any speculations and concentrate simply on reasoning -which is quite simple, and I think hardly possible to undermine.
However the sceptics, spreading the chaos in cynical way, are preying for (sorry for that term) a sucker, who would fall into doubts and say we’ve got a hung jury on the HPM That’s what they want.
Your last paragraph betrays your bias. You disparage me and any other open-minded person who dares to question your assertions by presuming to read our minds.
Your probability ratios are completely arbitrary. Can you at least provide a statistician a copy of this posting and have him/her peer review it?
Suckers are suckers because they too easily accept a single point of view, right?
Suckers are suckers because they too easily accept a single point of view, right?
No, because they are simply naive victims to someone’s else dirty games. Reading minds is quite simple, actually. And 10×10=100, no matter the bias. Probability ratios are maybe a little bit arbitrary, but given what has been presented here by the sceptics, I suppose they are good enough estimate. And whether it is 1/100, 1/50 or 1/1000 doesn’t change the final conclusion, really.
But an art historian who is trained to use his eyes will look at the Shroud and see the predominant features, its size, the images and the bloodstains. There is no evidence of any of them on the Codex and the depiction of Christ’s body shows that the artist had no idea of their being any bloodstains at all at the moment of burial,let alone any that could be transferred to the Shroud. So my guess is that he would say that this is a non-starter.
O. K. starts the other way round. He assumes that this is the Shroud and searches around desperately for any element of it that can be seen in parallel with the Codex. He comes up with just the things that an artist is unlikely to depict, the damage on the Shroud.
And it is no good pointing out that the artist is representing the Church of the holy Sepulchre Jerusalem as he had seen or heard it to be , and as we know it to have been, with a marble lid over the rock tomb, with circular openings and, in the same church red pilgrim or crusader crosses.
The Shroud was only one of many cloths claiming to be the real Shroud. There are more recorded in the west than in the east and it is especially strange that the artist would not want to distinguish it from these by showing the images , bloodstains, and size that everyone would notice at once and know exactly what his aim was..
We don’t lose anything by simply saying that there is no real evidence that this is the Shroud. It may well be that searching around can find an early depiction which matches the main features of the Shroud more closely. Accepting the dubious connection between the Shroud and the Pray Codex seems to have frozen any other kind of new research.
Charles, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense to this sucker.
Charles, back to the starting point:
A) May naked Jesus on the HPM be be derived from TS? Yes.
B) May 4 fingers, without thumbs on both hands of Jesus on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.
C) May cropped Jesus legs on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.
D) May zigzag patern on HPM represent herringbone weave on TS? Yes.
E) May two red smudges on the rectangle on HPM represent blood belt on TS? Yes.
F) May the four L shaped circles on the HPM represent poker holes on TS? Yes.
Can you prove the opposite, to any of the point A-F? No.
I am not interested what the artist actually wanted to depict.
The crucial question is: what is a chance of finding all those elements at random on a single card of a Codex?
The answer to that question is enough to prove connection between TS and HPM. Nothing else is needed.
Can you adress to those points, instead of wasting many words on rubbish talks about Church of Holy Sepulchre, etc. ?
I have a question about those poker holes. The L shaped ones on the top ‘sheet’ are very curious and remind me of the Shroud. But the ones on the under ‘sheet’ are not L shaped, but almost look like part of a circle (partially hidden). Shouldn’t they align with the upper sheet?
David (Goulet):
Charles, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense to this sucker.
If you consider Charles, to be honest and free of bias, very well. Your choice. I only warned…
I could care less about his bias, or yours. No one here is free of bias. I’m discerning what I believe based on his argument and yours. You’ve made some valid points, as he. I’ll admit I’m no expert on probability and that’s why it would be helpful if a stats person, or advanced mathematician could corroborate your probability assessment. That would bolster your case…with me anyway.
O.K. ‘ I am not interested what the artist actually wanted to depict’. Yes, you have made this clear all the way along . The rest of us ARE interested in what he was trying to depict and personally I don’t think he had ever seen or heard of the Shroud as if he had, and believed it to be in some way special, he would have made SOME effort to put some of its distinctive features into his work.
To the point Charles. We don’t look into the mind of the artist, only on the result of his job.
Me again.
A) “May naked Jesus on the HPM be be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. A figure derived from a supposedly genuine image of Jesus must look a bit like him. Specifically, it must have a full beard and a moustache. If it doesn’t have those fundamental identifying characteristics, it cannot be considered the same man, regardless of the pose or the nudity.
B) “May 4 fingers, without thumbs on both hands of Jesus on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. Byzantine pictures often show people with no thumbs, but it was not until I studied David Mo’s selection that I realised how many. A third or so of his images show Jesus, and often others, with no thumbs. If the Pray manuscript may derive from the Shroud, then so may all the other Byzantine people with no thumbs, which is absurd.
C) “May cropped Jesus legs on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. For a start we don’t even know if the image is cropped, and for a second the fact that both shroud and feet are cropped does not demonstrate any kind of connection between the Shroud and the Pray image. I consider this very far fetched indeed.
D) “May zigzag patern on HPM represent herringbone weave on TS? Yes.”
No. I’ve explained why not, and do not need to go into it further.
E) “May two red smudges on the rectangle on HPM represent blood belt on TS? Yes.”
No. The blood belt on the shroud shows interlacing lines, the Pray lines are alongside each other. It is inconceivable that an artist would represent interlacing lines with parallel ones.
F) “May the four L shaped circles on the HPM represent poker holes on TS? Yes.”
No. They are not on the Shroud but the Tomb.
“Can you prove the opposite, to any of the point A-F? No.”
No, nor can I prove that Timothy Linick was not a Soviet spy, or that Jesus wasn’t abducted by aliens. OK is confusing probability with proof.
“The crucial question is: what is a chance of finding all those elements at random on a single card of a Codex?” Well the answer is: absolute certainty. Because there is such a page. That is not the crucial question at all. The crucial question is: are the two images sufficiently similar, or do the images contain sufficient similar allusions, to make it likely that one derives from the other, and that they do not both derive from a different common source This is not a matter of mathematical calculation, as the weight of each feature is largely subjective. OK and daveb think the matter conclusive one way, Charles and I think their conclusions are wrong. So it goes.
“I am not interested what the artist actually wanted to depict.”
That is a pity, because I think the intention of the artist is a fascinating question. Does the polystaurion pattern reflect the Jerusalem staircase? Are the radiating zigzagging semicircles depictions of the marble of the Stone of Unction? Why is the Shroud shown as if it were almost transparent? And what are those little holes on the slab? These are much more interesting questions than inquiries about the supposed similarity between the Pray image and the Shroud.
Hugh, the defence of your point of view is desperate, really… Over-skepticism kills skepticism.
Me again.
A) “May naked Jesus on the HPM be be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. […]
Hugh, do you understand the difference between may and must? English is your native language, not mine. I don’t express necessities -but possibilities. And you cannot deny them.
“The crucial question is: what is a chance of finding all those elements at random on a single card of a Codex?” Well the answer is: absolute certainty. Because there is such a page.
Hugh, do you read with understanding? I wrote finding all those elements at random. That means, without direct relation to the Shroud (then it wouldn’t have been random). Someone just portrayed all those elements from Heveans know what, Holy Sepulcher, Byzantine arts, no matter. At random, that means what is probability of occurence of all those elements, without influence of the Shroud.
Don’t suggest too much David’s Mo selection, because it is selection -so it is not representative. However, even then it shows how unlikely is to obtain six independent peculiarities with the Shroud simply by chance.
“I am not interested what the artist actually wanted to depict.”
That is a pity, because I think the intention of the artist is a fascinating question.
Fascinating, but not necessary to show the relation between HPM and the Shroud -and actually only distracting from it.
I do indeed, and to be frank I do not think the figure in the Pray manuscript can derive from the Shroud. I have been trying to imagine myself as a Benedictine monk who had seen the Shroud, setting off to illustrate a liturgical text. The most important aspect of the Anointing scene would not be the furniture or even the pose of the body, it would be the depiction of he dead Christ. It is inconceivable that someone who thought he knew what Christ looked like at the very moment he was attempting to paint would not attempt to depict him accurately, complete with moustache and beard. So yes, I deny the possibility that the Pray man derives from the Shroud. Is that not reasonable?
Me again.
A) “May naked Jesus on the HPM be be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. A figure derived from a supposedly genuine image of Jesus must look a bit like him. Specifically, it must have a full beard and a moustache. If it doesn’t have those fundamental identifying characteristics, it cannot be considered the same man, regardless of the pose or the nudity.
No. An artistic representation is always that – a representation. Especially in terms of an “artist” with the obvious limitations of the HPM artist, there will be limits on his ability to represent the shroud.
Also it is not at all obvious that the Shroud Man’s beard is full and long. TO me, it is not really a big full bushy beard. Remember too that we have the benefit of digital enhancement, and photo negative, which they obviously didn’t have in the 1100s.
B) “May 4 fingers, without thumbs on both hands of Jesus on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. Byzantine pictures often show people with no thumbs, but it was not until I studied David Mo’s selection that I realised how many. A third or so of his images show Jesus, and often others, with no thumbs. If the Pray manuscript may derive from the Shroud, then so may all the other Byzantine people with no thumbs, which is absurd.
This is a good challenge. But I don’t think you can so categorically say “No.”
C) “May cropped Jesus legs on the HPM be derived from TS? Yes.”
No. For a start we don’t even know if the image is cropped, and for a second the fact that both shroud and feet are cropped does not demonstrate any kind of connection between the Shroud and the Pray image. I consider this very far fetched indeed.
I agree this isn’t the most convincing attribute. But again I don’t think it can necessarily be dismissed. I guess the artist may simply have run out of room and not planned the image properly
D) “May zigzag patern on HPM represent herringbone weave on TS? Yes.”
No. I’ve explained why not, and do not need to go into it further.
Again, your categorical dismissal is unjustified.
E) “May two red smudges on the rectangle on HPM represent blood belt on TS? Yes.”
No. The blood belt on the shroud shows interlacing lines, the Pray lines are alongside each other. It is inconceivable that an artist would represent interlacing lines with parallel ones.
I disagree with OK that these represent the blood belt. But I DO think they represent blood on the shroud, either in a generic sense, or possibly with reference to the streaks on each of the two arms.
Absolutely no compelling alternative explanation has been put forward.
“I don’t know” is not compelling.
F) “May the four L shaped circles on the HPM represent poker holes on TS? Yes.”
No. They are not on the Shroud but the Tomb.
Again, unjustified dismissal. No convincing evidence has been presented arguing what these non-decorative circles could otherwise be.
I must say, the extreme views on both sides of this debate are rather frustrating.
Ok then let’s imagine. A senior Hungarian cleric travels to Constantinople in the late 1100s in an entourage.
he sees the shroud ceremoniously displayed. The frontal figure is only displayed for reasons of modesty.
He sees the notoriously faint image of Jesus in its ephemeral mystery disappearing and appearing depending on how close he gets.
pre 1500s burns the poker holes are conspicuous, indeed the most obvious feature on the shroud.
The blood strikes a chord particularly the two prominent streaks on the arms.
Years later the cleric portrays some of these features slightly abstractly in the HPM illustration. He shows the poker holes. He shows the blood streaks. He shows the mysterious ephemeral image of Christ as an ephemeral cross filled element on the shroud which is framed on one side by the poker holes and on the other by the blood streaks
So yes, I deny the possibility that the Pray man derives from the Shroud. Is that not reasonable?
Yes, it is not reasonable. You know why? You wrote:
I have been trying to imagine myself as a Benedictine monk who had seen the Shroud, setting off to illustrate a liturgical text.
And that’s the error, you and Charles commit. You can’t imagine yorselves as Benedictine monks, trying to guess what the guy who painted those illustrations had on mind. He had his own purpose, you don’t know what, and chose those elements he considered proper for it. You cannot paint those illustrations for him, you just can analyze 800 years later the result of his job.
The fact is that there are at least six major, independent peculiar details shared between HPM and the Shroud. And the chance that they are all just combination out of anything but the Shroud, is very minute.
That’s not a fact. Three of your identities depend on a conviction that the Shroud and the Pray manuscript are related in the first place (herringbone, cut off feet and blood chain), and another depends on a denial that the rectangular blocks on the Pray manuscript are what they are in dozens of similar scenes (holes). One derives directly from the biblical situation (nudity) and the last is true of many completely unrelated Byzantine figures (four fingers). Your original collection of probabilities simply demonstrates that there is only one Pray image, not that it has any relationship to the Shroud. There are not “six major, independent peculiar details shared between HPM and the Shroud.” That is simply wishful thinking.
Only five days since the original posting, we have notched up some 210 comments, and as yet there is no resolution in sight mainly because of intransigence. I think Max has a valid point that there is much more to the HPM drawing than the two leading contenders are prepared to concede.
The idea that the Shroud might be authentic, that it actually existed before 1195, is too much of a challenge for Charles’ innate skepticism, and instead of allowing his artistic vision to perceive what might in fact be represented there, he gives the impression that his interpretation is driven from an agenda of stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the TS might even have existed at that date.
On the other hand, O.K. seems uncompromising in being prepared to concede that there may be significance in the elements present relating to the Jerusalem tomb, as propounded by Charles. He seems concerned that any such concession risks diluting his claim that the artist knew of and intended to represent elements of the Shroud.
I found the gallery of David Montero intriguing and inspected the dates there carefully. The impression I was left with was that the HPM had to be one of the very earliest attempts at representing a Lamentation or burial scene. There seemed to be few there that predated the 12th century, although I’m given to understand that there are indeed a few extant. So we might presume that the artist would not feel too constrained by precedent.
I continue to feel personally persuaded that the artist did know something of the Shroud and this influenced his depiction. However this was not the subject he chose to represent, The picture is I should think intended as a meditation object for his fellow monks, He had no agenda of establishing the Shroud’s existence. He wanted the focus to be on the laying out and burial of the dead Christ, and the sense of wonder of the Holy women that he was no longer there in the tomb on the Sunday morning and their puzzlement at the message of the angel.
Nevertheless the elements of the Shroud are clearly present. The virtually naked Christ is as far as I can recall unprecedented. The crossed arms with only four fingers showing, the omission of the feet, and other features, have to be significant. The underlying base seems to me to be more of a stone slab than an intention to represent the casket that is shown in later depictions. I am not convinced that the oblique rectangle is intended to represent a casket lid as asserted by Ian Wilson, Charles or Hugh, even though this is clearly the intention in other depictions of similar scenes. Its edges are clearly neither straight nor symmetrical, but curved, suggesting to me more of a fabric than a box lid. The zigzag pattern on this rectangle is sufficiently indicative of the herring-bone twill to at least give pause and ought not to be set aside so lightly.
The array of solid crosses and the indications of holes on the stone slab may be an echo of what returning crusaders had seen in Jerusalem. Reference has been made to King Bella and his resolution to embark on a crusade. There are several reports of important western personages being admitted to view the imperial relics in Constantinople, even with coherent reports of some viewing the Shroud. Is it not conceivable that Bella himself knew of it?
The slab circles may be intended to represent oculi that the crusaders had seen. But the fact that the four holes arranged in an ‘L’ shape are in the middle of what might be represented as a herring bone twill, are just a little too persuasive for me.
There remain other enigmas in the picture; the suggestion of a not-too-well concealed head in the woman’s drapery, and the peculiar alpha like symbol, might be interpreted in various ways, as discussed.
My personal conclusion is that O.K. has made his point, that the accumulation of features is just too persuasive to deny that the artist had some knowledge of the Shroud cloth, and judging from the prostrate Christ figure, even the image that it held. That is not to say that there may well be other factors that might also have influenced him.
The issue is not whether the Shroud existed before 1355 or not, it is whether, existing or not, it is specifically shown in the Pray Codex. I can’t see it nor can I find it anywhere on the Bayeux Tapestry and anywhere else that I have looked for a double bloodstained image of Christ. Even so if it does not exist in the Pray Codex then there may be some other evidence elsewhere for its existence.
So I would simply take it out of the argument – as the Shroud might or might not have been in existence by 1195. Perhaps it was made in 1100, perhaps made in 700 as carbon dating suggests the sudarium of Oviedo was made, perhaps even earlier. Perhaps it is 1330s after all. The Pray Codex does not help at all and the fascinating thing to me is that why it was ever picked out when one could surely find other illuminations with similar imaginative parallels. See how easy it was to fit the Pray Codex the cult that believes that Christianity came from ancient Egypt.
As commented previously, the artist wanted to emphasise the resurrection and included whatever he knew in limited space: The TS, the cloth around the head mentioned in the gospel according to John, something about the tomb in Jerusalem.
P.S . The real concern in all this is that, judging from the St.Louis programme, no one seems to have found any new historical evidence for thirty years. Everyone is still arguing over unsatisfactory sources such as the Pray Codex and no one seems to be doing any systematic work outside this. So no one has brought up any research on the early direct contacts between Constantinople and Jerusalem ( before the Arab Conquests) , no one has done anything on the relics trade between Jerusalem and Northern France that is actually documented and includes relics from the ‘Lord’s Tomb’. And we are still arguing over the Pray Codex . ( Yes, I am to blame for wasting my time on it too.)
Again no one is doing any work on the actual weave of the Shroud. It will probably be a chance event , like someone working in a conservation lab on medieval linens, who finds some key evidence that can be linked back into what we know of the chemistry of the Shroud and provide a date for it independently of the radiocarbon date. This is what happened with the Horses of St. Mark’s in Venice. No one could date them and the last big study said fourth century BC. Then the conservation lab in the British Museum working on gilded copies found conclusive evidence that the same technique of gilding on the horses was only developed in the second century AD and the issue was solved overnight. Watch out for the conservation labs, folks! There are real open- minded experts who specialise in early weaving and images on cloths and it is the failure to make any comparative studies of the Shroud with other surviving textiles which is another enormous gap in what is supposed to be the most thoroughly researched artefact of all time!
I think daveb’s comment above is excellent, which I why I left the topic for a while before popping back in. The Pray illustration is certainly a bit of a puzzle, and among others I have been grateful to Max for sending me off to find out more about polystaurion patterns, to Charles for reminding me of the Jerusalem pilgrim steps, to David Mo for his astonishing collection of images (I tried, but although Three Marys are two a penny on the internet, Lamentations seem hard to come by), and to the inspiration from others that drove me to inquire about the architecture of the buildings around the Sepulchre and the marbling pattern on the Stone of Unction. I have wondered why so many artists, seeking to preserve Jesus’s modesty, have done so with cloth which is clearly transparent, and I have sought books on the iconography of gestures (without any useful success). Anything I found which I thought was relevant I have brought to the table for inspection.
I am firmly of the conviction that sooner or later someone will find a smoking gun, maybe a Byzantine image of an angel holding up a sheet with a pair of full length bodies on it, or a sketch by Durer with ‘must complete by Tuesday’ scribbled in the corner. It will be hard to find, and to most people not worth the bother of looking, which is why the passion insired by this, and others of Dan’s postings, is so important to Shroud research.
So I ask people reading these comments, perhaps Charles, myself, Davids Goulet and Mo, on one side, and perhaps OK, Max, Daveb, Thomas, Tristan, Nabber, Louis and others on the other, let us not simply bang our heads on our various walls in frustration and think that those who think differently from us are just being obstinate, but keep Googling! The truth is out there!
Summed up perfectly, Hugh. Once more dear friends, into the Google breach…
Charles, you wrote:
“But an art historian who is trained to use his eyes will look at the Shroud and see the predominant features, its size, the images and the bloodstains. There is no evidence of any of them on the Codex and the depiction of Christ’s body shows that the artist had no idea of their being any bloodstains at all at the moment of burial,let alone any that could be transferred to the Shroud.”
Tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttotttttttttttttttttttttttttallllllllllllllllllllllllllly WRONG!
Part One of my oncoming ‘iconostaganalysis’ of the two rectangles in the lower ink section forefront (in light of the upper section stark naked Christ laying on his burial winding sheet, late 8th-late 12th c. iconography and the TS), will demonstrate beyond the shadow of a rational doubt there is a ‘staganic’ (covered) most accurate evidence of the TS predominant features in the HP Ms (namely size, weave pattern and a couple of topologically correlated bloodstain patterns for which the Benedictine illustrator even had a startling eye for their forms. A Benedictine painstaking work indeed!
To Dan, Dave, Thomas et al stay tuned.
Might I suggest tooooooooooooooootaaaaaaaaaaaaaallyyyyyyyyyyyyy as an alternative spelling? It seems to capture the elongated vowels so much better, don’t you think?
Actually,
“Tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttotttttttttttttttttttttttttallllllllllllllllllllllllllly WRONG!” is more apt, in my opinion, than “tooooooooooooooootaaaaaaaaaaaaaallyyyyyyyyyyyyy”
to tell Charles how wrong he is (That is My view point).
Methinks, the man just cannot discriminate between ‘reality”, ‘truth’, ‘the real thing’ ‘illusion’ and ‘ignorance’ (= between a consonant and a vowel).
Correction:(namely size, weave pattern, BURN MARKS and a couple of topologically correlated bloodstain patterns…)
I want to adress some points:
daveb:
On the other hand, O.K. seems uncompromising in being prepared to concede that there may be significance in the elements present relating to the Jerusalem tomb, as propounded by Charles. He seems concerned that any such concession risks diluting his claim that the artist knew of and intended to represent elements of the Shroud.
No, it’s not true. If you read my article once again, you will notice that I have written: F –the four L shaped ‘poker holes’, similar to those that can be found on the Shroud –reference to it, or just another (very strange) decorative pattern (or to the holes in the Holy Sepulcher, or anything)? No matter. Let’s estimate chance for their random occurrence… So I took into account the possibility that those are derived from the Holy Sepulcher or any other source. I do not deny that there may be some references to the Holy Sepulcher in the Pray Manuscript. But when combined with other elements, there is virtually no doubt that the illustrations in the HPM were influenced by the Shroud.
Thus Charles’ instigations on the Chruch of Holy Sepulcher are simply irrelevant. They are just distraction (like Egypt and Bayeux). Charles knows that he can’t undermine my reasoning directly (had he been able, he would have done it), so he is running away from it on another topics.
Hugh: Three of your identities depend on a conviction that the Shroud and the Pray manuscript are related in the first place…
There is no conviction. Contrary, I assumed that Pray Manuscript is unrelated with the Shroud, and estimate what is a chance of obtaining six such similarities at random. And the result in practice exclude that possibility.
Read the whole article again.
As I said earlier it does not take much to undermine reasoning of ‘A cat has four legs, a dog has four legs, therefore a cat is a dog’ variety. I really felt, and still feel, that I don’t need to do any more. This is simply not a valid way of approaching the problem unless you can find a mathematician or statistician to support your strange way of using reason (so over to you on this). As Hugh has demonstrated, the links you make are all questionable so provide no basis from which to use mathematical logic.
But, do not worry OK., have no doubts that Dan Scavone will still be using the Pray Codex at St. Louis and if he is still with us it will be taken out again together with all the same documents in 2025. This is ritual not research and the text is sacred.
O.K.s argument reminded me of the attempt by the Oxford philosopher of religion, Richard Swinburne, to use Bayes’ Theorem to prove the existence of God and the Resurrection. It aroused a great deal of ridicule including the following from a website called Faith and Theology:
“A conversation yesterday reminded me of Richard Swinburne’s 2003 book, The Resurrection of God Incarnate. Using Bayesian probability and lashings of highfalutin mathematical jargon, Swinburne argues that “it [is] very probable indeed that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ who rose from the dead” (p. 214). His mathematical apologetics for the resurrection boils down to the following argument:
The probably of God’s existence is one in two (since God either exists or doesn’t exist).
The probability that God became incarnate is also one in two (since it either happened or it didn’t).
The evidence for God’s existence is an argument for the resurrection.
The chance of Christ’s resurrection not being reported by the gospels has a probability of one in 10.
Considering all these factors together, there is a one in 1,000 chance that the resurrection is not true.
It’s almost impossible to parody this argument (since in order to parody it, you would have to imagine something sillier – a daunting task!). But let me try:
The probably that the moon is made of cheese is one in two (since it is either made of cheese or it isn’t); the probability that this cheese is camembert is also one in two (since it’s either camembert or it isn’t); and so on..”
Oxford University Press was assailed for its philosophical naivity in publishing Swinburne’s book and someone wrote in to say that within five hundred yards of where Swinburne was writing in Oxford there were probably a hundred mathematicians qualified to tell him he was talking nonsense. I rather fear the same for our friend O.K.
I don’t believe anybody would look at a zigzag pattern on a rectangular slab and say: “I wonder if that could be depicting a cloth with a herringbone weave,” unless they were previously convinced that the depiction was, indeed, just that. Nor could anyone see the torn edge and and think: “I guess the artist wants us to realise that there are no feet on the Shroud” unless they already knew that the Shroud has no feet on the ventral image. I suppose the wriggly red lines could be interpreted as depictions of blood flows, but they are no more coincident with the Shroud blood flows than they are with hundreds of other pictures. What are the chances of finding a depiction of Jesus with blood on him? Rather better than 1/100.
“Read the whole article again.” No, let’s not, I understand it perfectly and I disagree with it. Let’s try to find something new.
Minder for a (relatively) new archaeological approach (I unofficially created it in 1994):
Late Antique and Medieval Christian ‘Icono-steganography’ is the advanced crypto-mnemonic Art of embedding (for prayer & meditation’s sake) the covert image of Christ’s body image and blood on his burial winding sheet in an overtly conventional (or even non conventional) biblical, New Testament and/or hagiographic scene or iconographic ‘cover’ for the initiated eye to discreetly re-discover at will while the outsiders are not even aware of its very presence. This is an unrecognizable advanced form of cryptography for the non initiated. Archaeologists, Historians and Art Historians have no efficient detection methods or tools to tackle such an encryption form properly.
Correction: (…) non conventional) biblical, New Testament and/or hagiographic scene or iconographic ‘cover’ for the initiated eye to discreetly re-discover THE MOST SACRED IMAGE at will (…)
Additional correction (sorry):
Minder of a (relatively) new archaeological approach (I unofficially created in 1994):
At its simplest, Late Antique and Medieval ‘Iconosteganography’ is the art of literally camouflaging (i.e. hiding in plain view via a subtly equivocal interplay of iconic additions, interpolations and/or substitutions) visual (with or without textual) information within the structure of an apparently rather conventional and innocuous iconographic ‘cover’ (panel painting, sculpture, manuscript illumination, graffiti) so that outsiders are not aware of its very presence. Or to put it in other words and paraphrase Carvin, “it is simply a case of disguising a covert image within an overt one for the purposes of concealment”. Whereas Late Antique and Medieval Christian ‘Iconosteganography’ is the advanced crypto-mnemonic Art of embedding (for prayer & meditation’s sake) the covert image of Christ’s body image and blood on his burial winding sheet in an overtly conventional (or even non conventional) biblical, New Testament and/or hagiographic scenic ‘cover’ for the initiated eye to discreetly re-discover the sacred image at will.
In both cases, this is an unrecognizable advanced form of cryptography for the non-initiated. Archaeologists, Historians and Art Historians have no efficient detection methods or tools to tackle such an encryption form properly.
How’s the crucial iconographic evidence coming along, Max?
I quite see your point, Max. The Shroud is there but we can’t see it if we are archaeologists, historians or art historians. If we can ever get to what your denouement about all this (it has been a long time coming but please try and write in clear English so we historians ,et. alia, can understand what you are talking about) perhaps you will tell us who hid the Shroud in the Pray Codex and why they needed to do so.
Thank goodness for the de Charnys and the Savoys who had no such inhibitions and hung it out for all to see.
To Hugh and Charles,
it’s pretty busy around at the moment (professionally speaking I mean). Do hope I could spare another two hours’ time this week-end to finish Part One (there will be three parts in all with the annexe). I think I’ll have no time to British English language edit my Flash Illustrative Reply as usual.
The Constantinople-Turin Sindon is INDEED the ‘crux iconosteganographica’ to correctly interpret the HP Ms lower ink section.
Thomas:
“I don’t know” is not compelling… but it is a usual scientific answer.
O.K.
There is a big difference between the shroud of Turin and the other representations of the shroud. The other pictures are representations of the Holly Shroud in diverse contexts (entombment, lamentationes etc.); the shroud of Turin IS (really or supposedly) the shroud.
If we have to compare two pictures, we should compare homogeneous pictures. This is a problem because we know scarcely anything about other shrouds. We compare in fact a shroud with some pictures with a different iconic concept. We are comparing the mark or impression of the Jesus’ body in a shroud with an entombment scene.
This implies an important difference when we analyzed the idea and representation of naked Christ in the tomb and also poses a theological and pictorial problem to a painter who wants to paint the image of the body on a shroud of Christ. The Gospels say that Jesus body was wrapped in a clean shroud (Mathew, 27, 59). There are a lot of medieval representations of Christ in the entombment or the resurrection (most common), where the nudity is veiled by a shroud. Obviously, this solution to the problem was not possible with the Shroud. We don’t know what the solution of this problem in other shrouds was, because only a shroud (true or false) has come to us. We can not compare in any way. We only can compare the codex Pray illustration with others with the same motif and to check out that the codex Pray is not the unique case in which the artist has dared to paint Jesus naked. See my gallery. The codex Pray is odd but not exceptional. This is all we can conclude on this issue.
Hugh;
I don’t believe anybody would look at a zigzag pattern on a rectangular slab and say: “I wonder if that could be depicting a cloth with a herringbone weave,” unless they were previously convinced that the depiction was, indeed, just that
I wish to congratulate your ignorance, Hugh. “I wonder if…” Do you understand the difference between hypotheses, and facts? Between necessities and possibilities?
Whether the artist depicted by zigzag pattern, the herringbone, or anything else, is a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then checked with other facts. If they fit into it, and all other hypothesis can be rejected, it becames a scientific fact -at least unless someone in the future shows it incorrect. Short saying, of course.
“Read the whole article again.” No, let’s not, I understand it perfectly and I disagree with it. Let’s try to find something new.
No, you have shown that you don’t understand it. That you don’t understand the basic concepts. So how can we discuss then?
There is a difference between science and scepticism. Really.
Last but not least.
An illustrator who is intending to copy some important image doesn’t choose marginal details, because he prevents the correct identification of the subject by doing that. This is a universal rule of History of Art. There is an absolutely definitive feature that identifies the Shroud of Turin over all the others. The painter can paint some things that don’t exist in the Shroud. See the cloth on the pelvis in the paintings of Clovio o Della Rovere; or the absence of details in the fibula found in the Seine river ( http://sombraenelsudario.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/suairemedaille.jpg?w=450&h=362 ). There is one feature that mainly identifies the image as a copy of the shroud of Turin in spite of all these “infidelities” to the original image: the shape of shroud; the fact that it is folded over the head. There are some images of naked Christ, there are many representations of crossed hands without thumbs, there are pictures of Christ with big moustaches and with many blood. But there is not a single shroud with the shape of the shroud of Turin. Neither the codex Pray.
Draw your own conclusions.
Charles:
As I said earlier it does not take much to undermine reasoning of ‘A cat has four legs, a dog has four legs, therefore a cat is a dog’ variety.
I have a riddle for you, what is a creature that has four legs, barks, and wags its tail? Are those clues enough for you?
there were probably a hundred mathematicians qualified to tell him he was talking nonsense. I rather fear the same for our friend O.K.
So give one, instead of talking rubbish. Because so far, in mathematics you have shown nothing, our dear ‘historian’.
O.K.s argument reminded me of the attempt…
You seem to use many words just to show you have nothing meaningful to say.
We do have the Shroud of Cadouin, nicely presented on the Qantara website, brought back from the First Crusade. As Cadouin was on one of the routes to Santiago the abbey got very wealthy on the proceeds of pilgrims visiting it. So if the illustrator was copying a specific shroud this might have been the one.
Only in the twentieth century was it shown to be contemporary with the crusade – such conclusive denouements do sometimes happen to relics once believed to be genuine.
David Mo:
O.K.
There is a big difference between the shroud of Turin and the other representations of the shroud.
[…]
But there is not a single shroud with the shape of the shroud of Turin. Neither the codex Pray.
Draw your own conclusions.
Empty words. Everything has been mentioned long ago, and does not undermine my reasoning in any way.
I adress one error:
We don’t know what the solution of this problem in other shrouds was, because only a shroud (true or false) has come to us.
That’s not true, there has been more alleged burial clothes of Jesus, real or not. See for example:
http://en.heiligtumsfahrt2014.de/wissenswertes/heiligt–mer/
Of course some reliques of non painted shrouds exist. But we are speaking about an image on the srhoud.
Reminder for Charles: In the 12th . CE, the Byzantine Empire most sacred among state relics were to be approached only by the elite and happy few privileged visitors.
Well if the Shroud was there, someone like this artist would not have been allowed in! Probably he did not copy any specific shroud but if he did more likely to be one on public display such as Cadouin.
Fine, Charles. I will try to treat you serious. Where do you find naked Christ or l “poker holes” in the Shroud of Cadouin? ( http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1113&lang=en#_ftnref2 )
The shroud of Cadouin is a shroud and is not the naked Christ.
I have given you a more plausible explanation for the circular holes on the tomb lid which represent the circular holes drilled by Constantine VII in his marble lid of the tenth century in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The poker holes in case you had not noticed are irregular in shape and vary in size unlike the circular holes on the coffin lid.
“Sarcophagus” we’re told means ‘flesh eater’ Charles, and porous acid-neutralising rock (e.g.limestone) construction apparently aided the process. Why the need to accelerate natural decomposition? Rock tombs in short supply? Thus the need to remove remains to ossuaries a year or two later?
There’s a whole new area of crypto-necro-archaeology waiting to be opened up here methinks. Might the little holes have been needed to let oxygen in, and putrefaction gases escape? 100lbs of myrrh and aloes? Keep the flies and rodents out? Let the microbes do their job…
Personally speaking, I’d prefer to let my earthly remains nourish a new sapling at my favourite spot on the planet – Eilenroc at the tip of the Cap d’Antibes,
Constantine VII decided to cover the open rock tomb with a marble lid and then to allow pilgrims to view down into what he had covered he drilled circular holes. It was nothing t o do with letting gases out but allowing people to look in to the original rock tomb. This is what we seem to see on the Pray Codex.
Sure enough Charles. But there were plenty of other sarcophagi in the Greek/Roman era that, in view of population pressure and land shortage, needed to be cleared of their contents and removed to ossuaries in short order, making way for still more who had shuffled off their mortal coil. Death becomes a growth industry when population expands. So ventilation holes may well have been a standard feature – to speed things along.
Colin. Yes, it is possible but in this case we have documentary evidence that Constantine put circular holes in to allow pilgrims to look through his marble lid into the original rock tomb. As said 100 posts ago, they were copied by sculptors who were showing the same scene in the Pray Codex. Examples were given long ago.
The shroud of Cadouin is a shroud and is not the naked Christ.
I have given you a more plausible explanation for the circular holes on the tomb lid which represent the circular holes drilled by Constantine VII in his marble lid of the tenth century in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The poker holes in case you had not noticed are irregular in shape and vary in size unlike the circular holes on the coffin lid.
You have not answered. I remind your words:
Probably he did not copy any specific shroud but if he did more likely to be one on public display such as Cadouin.
What indicates you that the aritst in the HPM portrayed Shorud of Cadouin? Justify your opinion.
I stick to what I have just written ,that there is no reason why he should have used any particular shroud as a model. Seeing that he placed the discarded sudarium in the lower register he was probably taking the gospel of John as a source.
IF, repeat IF, he was taking his model from an actual relic of a shroud then, of course, he would have several to choose from but the shroud of Cadouin was probably the best known. There is nothing in the Codex to suggest he did which is why I prefer my first solution, that he was using the gospel source.
Usually if a relic is shown its is shown clearly as one can see with the many representations of the Image of Edessa with its open eyes.
What are alternative explanations for the red lines? I can think of a few but they seem silly to me:
The artist was testing his paint brush.
They represent sweeps of blood from the angel’s feet.
They are a decorative feature.
IF, repeat IF, he was taking his model from an actual relic of a shroud then, of course, he would have several to choose from but the shroud of Cadouin was probably the best known.
So Charles, you have acknowledged the possibility that there is the Shroud of Cadouin portrayed in the HPM. Fine. Suppose this may be true. So why there are L-shaped circles on the Shroud of Cadouin portrayed in the HPM? Where had the artist derived from two red smudges on it? Why there is a zigzag pattern on it? What inspired the artist, supposedly copying Shroud of Cadouin, to portray Christ naked , without thumbs, and his legs cropped?
You claim that the Shroud of Cadouin may be portrayed in the HPM, so please answer.
As I have just said ,O.K there is nothing in the Codex to show that he did use the Cadouin Shroud- it is simply that there were others on display in the west and he could have seen one. As I said, he is more likely never to have used a specific model at all but followed the gospels as he did with the Three Mary’s.
Max has confirmed the point I made 150 posts ago that getting access t o the imperial chapel in Constantinople would only have been for the elite. The western shrines accepted all pilgrims, did the Church of the holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem even when it was back under Muslim control.
I think the level of resistance displayed here by skeptics shows how significant the HPM is. After 200 plus comments no one has been able to even come close give a reasonable explanation for all the shroud like signs displayed on it. Despite their failure none of them have been able to concede the obvious. This has been a spectacle of their stubbornness and bias against the shroud.
You and others here are demanding that the sceptic prove a negative. “Prove that it’s NOT the Shroud that is depicted in a particular line drawing” (pre-selected needless to say).
“Prove that the moon is NOT made of green cheese.”
One is justified in being stubborn when faced with this kind of bullying. One cannot be reasonably expected to prove a negative.
I had come to a similar conclusion as Mike M some time ago way back, but had chosen to refrain from saying so explicitly.
It is possible to prove a negative. Mankind has actually landed on the moon, despite what a few weirdos might claim. Of all samples brought back to date, of which there have been several, not a single one has shown to be of any kind of green cheese! This might not satisfy some of the extreme pseudo-skeptics or scientific poseurs to be occasionally found on a certain Shroudstory.com site, but it’s called “weight of evidence”, Juries use this particular technique all the time! And it’s sufficient for them to secure a conviction, and is generally accepted by the public at large as such.
Some convictions might arise from very tenuous evidence indeed, or merely from one’s predispositions or preferences. For example one might prefer to imagine that there was no AB blood group in Europe before 1000 AD, or else prefer the evidence of one’s spouse on the question of a cross-stitch she has never seen, in preference to a qualified textile expert with hands on experience of the object in question, One might even hold that the same object is of Frankish provenance on no grounds of evidence at all.
But if there are six points of independent congruence, one ought then to be satisfied that there are adequate grounds for one’s convictions, no matter how preposterous they might appear to the skeptic.
Notwithstanding the somewhat passé turn of phrase (re the moon and green cheese) there’s a vast difference between someone claiming that two things are related on the basis of alleged “congruences”, fanciful or otherwise, and demanding that others prove that each and every one of the various propositions is incorrect. I repeat: no one should be expected to prove a negative, far less a cobbled-together list of them. Five or six weak “congruences” are not a substitute for a single compelling one,
Of course you can prove a negative!
1) You can “prove” (strong sense) that something is a self contradiction, therefore does not exist: a married bachelor.
2) You can “prove” (weak sense) that something does not exist with an inductive argument.
See, for example, Steven D. Hales, in Think, 2005: “So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative?
I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement
that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2)
a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes,
even if all the evidence is against it.”
Or, in a nutshell, from a William Craig’s debate: “a popular line you hear on a popular level all the time, but that sophisticated atheists don’t take”.
“Empty words. Everything has been mentioned long ago, and does not undermine my reasoning in any way.”
O.K.:
This is not an answer. This is an escape!
The evident conclusion is:
If the shape of the shroud of Turin is its most distinctive feature, and no artist has ever represented it till the fourteenth Century (fibula) or sixteenth Century (Clovio and Della Rovere), we must conclude that the shroud of Turin was not known till the fourteenth Century. This is elementary logic.
For example:
See this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ana_sudani/460090622/in/photostream/ . It is a panel of the altar of the cathedral of Lübeck of the beginning of the Fifteenth Century. There are more coincidences with the shroud of Turin here than in the codex Pray: the beard is divided in two, we can see the wounds of the Passion and the legs are bended. With your logic of more similarities, more copy, we ought to conclude that the artist was copying the shroud of Turin. But it is impossible because the artist has painted an absolutely different shroud both in shape and consistency and it is impossible that any image could have been impressed on this shroud. The similarities with the shroud of Turin are a coincidence or a consequence of the stylistic rules.
This refutes your argument.
The wounds on tHe body was the crucial point because no one could have seen the Shroud without seeing the bloodstains and so they would have had to put the wounds on to the body. This is one of the strongest arguments against the Pray Codex showing the Shroud. In fact ,if you look at the iconography of these scenes as a whole you don’t find Christ being shown with wounds, let alone bleeding ones , until a century later.
If the Shroud is authentic it had not made any impact on iconography of the body of Christ by this period.
Charles the final image in the HPM shows Christ’s hand wounds and side wounds.
“all the shroud like signs displayed on it. ”
“six points of independent congruence.”
“stubborn” “bias” “intransigent” “talking rubbish” “ignorance”
Both the Shroud and the Pray manuscript show a naked man, with his crossed over his groin, and four fingers on each hand. There are no other shroud-like signs, and no other points of independent congruence. No facial resemblance at all, no wounds, no double image or indication thereof.
The Pray manuscript is cut off at the edges, has a pattern of six concentric zigzag semicircles, has two unexplained groups of circles, and a couple of parallel wavy red lnes near the hem of a crumpled, transparent cloth. Only one of these (one of the groups of circles) is “shroud-like,” and none of them are “points of independent congruence.”
Again I have a problem, not with those who disagree with the view above, but with those who appear not even to understand it. Scan the last 300 comments on this topic – over two posts. How many times have the authenticists been derided as stubborn, biased, ignorant rubbish-talkers? And how many times have the sceptics?
What does scepticism mean anyway? Denial? Refusal? Obstinacy? No, it doesn’t. It means Doubt, Questioning, Inquiring. Scepticism is good.
What have we Inquirers brought to this discussion? In no particular order: the beard, the position of the arms in burial archaeology, dozens of images of the Three Marys and Lamentations, the Hookham bible, the Stone of Unction, Egyptian pyramid design, the stairs of St Helen’s, the Shroud of Cadouin.
What have the true believers brought? Is there any other example of zigzags being used to represent herringbone? Is there any other example of a rectangular slab representing cloth? Is there any other example of parallel wavy lines representing blood?
Who fails to understand whom here? Who is obstinate, ignorant and intransigent?
I understand my opponents. I do not agree with them. Can any of them say the same of me?
You have put a good epitaph for the codex Pray, Hugh. I agree with almost all. But I don’t consider an sceptical myself on this issue. I find no reason to match the codex Pray to the shroud of Turin. This is not scepticism.
You have put a good epitaph for the codex Pray, Hugh. I agree with almost all. But I don’t consider an sceptical myself on this issue. I find no reason to match the codex Pray to the shroud of Turin. This is not scepticism.
Beutiful. One guy who is does not understand elementary logic, praising another one, who does not understand anything here. Simply beautiful.
Tristan: I said no one can be reasonably expected to prove a negative, like this or that feature is NOT inspired by prior knowledge of the TS. I did not say that no negatives can ever be proved, since that’s clearly not the case. You could easily disprove someone’s contention that none of the contributors on this thread are less than 150 years of age, but might find it a lot harder to disprove that none are less than 25.
It’s to do of course with the burden of proof (as distinct from disproof). The burden of proof re the HPM rests with those who claim it incorporates features that required prior knowledge of the TS. We have seen claims for “congruence”, but one must surely agree that they fall short of proof. Do you seriously imagine they would stand up in a court of law? Attempts to switch the burden of proof, requiring sceptics to prove negatives, should be seen for what they are – an admission of defeat.
Colin, “no one can be reasonably expected to prove a negative”: thus, according to you, no one can be reasonably expected to prove that Napoleon Bonaparte was not born in the 17th century? Hmmm….
“one must surely agree that the [claims for congruence] fall short of proof” : quite the contrary. According to my knowledge of the fields (historiography, medieval period, etc.) i think the evidence compelling : there is a link between the TS and the HPM. And indeed many experts, believers and unbelievers, agree with me: I mentioned medievist Emmanuel Poulle ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Poulle ), others mentioned de Wesselow, etc.
Some two years ago on this site, there was considerable discussion on the Epitaphios Stavronikita. Several features necessarily connect it to the Shroud, one in particular was an undeniable replication of the herring-bone twill. Other features included a bloodied, scourged, prostrate Christ with crossed hands over the groin. Despite the many similarities, thumbs are nevertheless clearly visible. However, there was clearly disagreement about the date of provenance, some asserting it as late 15th – 16th centuries, while others insisted that it was as early as 12th century, a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I have attempted to pursue this further via the web, but the only references to this particular epitaphios all relate back to Dan’s web-site only. There appear to be no other web references to it. I can’t even find it on any of the Mt Athos Stavronikita monastery web-sites.
There were several other comments relating to herring-bone twill representations, including several from Max PH referring to the St Mark’s 7th century carving. Someone had found a reference to the Stavronikita in a university library, but the matter of dating it still remains unresolved.
Even though the TS was known in the west by the 14th century, would monks or artisans at Mt Athos be likely to use this knowledge as a model for an epitaphios for use in Greek Orthodox liturgies at this time? I think not! A rational explanation for whatever model was used for it, demands that some remembered features of the Shroud cloth when it was under Greek custody influenced its design.
Meantime, someone may like to pursue the date of provenance of the epitaphios stavronikita with better success and more conclusivity than I’ve been able to manage.
David Mo:
If the shape of the shroud of Turin is its most distinctive feature, and no artist has ever represented it till the fourteenth Century (fibula) or sixteenth Century (Clovio and Della Rovere), we must conclude that the shroud of Turin was not known till the fourteenth Century. This is elementary logic.
No. This is logical fault! The most distinctive feature does not mean neccessary to be portrayed.
See this picture:
It is a panel of the altar of the cathedral of Lübeck of the beginning of the Fifteenth Century. There are more coincidences with the shroud of Turin here than in the codex Pray: the beard is divided in two, we can see the wounds of the Passion and the legs are bended. With your logic of more similarities, more copy, we ought to conclude that the artist was copying the shroud of Turin. But it is impossible because the artist has painted an absolutely different shroud both in shape and consistency and it is impossible that any image could have been impressed on this shroud.
I have expected that you or someene would bring this faulty argument here.
You are mixing two different issues here. The two parameters are: the number of congruences and frequency of them. There is a large number of coincidences in the altar of the cathedral of Lübeck, ideed, and it is possible or even likely, that it was directly or rather indirectly influenced by the Shroud of Turin (the fact that portrayed Shroud is different does not change that). However the key is frequency here. Forked beard is quite common in Byzantine arts, probably copied from the Shroud, but in one particular example it does not point necessarily to the direct derivation from the Shroud of Turin. The 4 L-shape circles are, on the other hand, quite uncommon, and it is unlikely that they were derived from anything else but the Shroud of Turin (especially in combination with othere congruences).
In short, large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model. Small frequency of congruences found in one particular example, shows that it is unlikely to be derived from anything else but this model.
David Mo, you failed an exam in logic.
Time for Hugh:
Both the Shroud and the Pray manuscript show a naked man, with his crossed over his groin, and four fingers on each hand. There are no other shroud-like signs, and no other points of independent congruence. No facial resemblance at all, no wounds, no double image or indication thereof.
Obsessive scepticism turns people blind…
What does scepticism mean anyway? Denial? Refusal? Obstinacy? No, it doesn’t. It means Doubt, Questioning, Inquiring. Scepticism is good.
It means falling into absurd sometimes. Scepticism is not science.
What have we Inquirers brought to this discussion? In no particular order: the beard, the position of the arms in burial archaeology, dozens of images of the Three Marys and Lamentations, the Hookham bible, the Stone of Unction, Egyptian pyramid design, the stairs of St Helen’s, the Shroud of Cadouin.
Irrrelevant things add nothing to discussion. They show just how desperate are the sceptics.
What have the true believers brought? Is there any other example of zigzags being used to represent herringbone? Is there any other example of a rectangular slab representing cloth? Is there any other example of parallel wavy lines representing blood?
Who fails to understand whom here? Who is obstinate, ignorant and intransigent?
I understand my opponents. I do not agree with them. Can any of them say the same of me?
You failed to understand everything. Your words show it clearly.
Charles next:
As I have just said ,O.K there is nothing in the Codex to show that he did use the Cadouin Shroud- it is simply that there were others on display in the west and he could have seen one
You wrote: Probably he did not copy any specific shroud but if he did more likely to be one on public display such as Cadouin. So you claim that the Shroud of Cadouin may be portrayed in the HPM. Then it cannot be a slab from the Holy Speulcher. Then I ask what is origin of L-shape circles then? Of naked Christ, with no thumbs? Zigzag pattern and so on? Please answer that.
Colin: Tristan: I said no one can be reasonably expected to prove a negative, like this or that feature is NOT inspired by prior knowledge of the TS.
Colin, argue with David Mo who claims exactly the opposite.
My response for David Mo, after corrctions:
David Mo:
If the shape of the shroud of Turin is its most distinctive feature, and no artist has ever represented it till the fourteenth Century (fibula) or sixteenth Century (Clovio and Della Rovere), we must conclude that the shroud of Turin was not known till the fourteenth Century. This is elementary logic.
No. This is logical fault! The most distinctive feature does not mean neccessary to be portrayed.
See this picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ana_sudani/460090622/in/photostream/ . It is a panel of the altar of the cathedral of Lübeck of the beginning of the Fifteenth Century. There are more coincidences with the shroud of Turin here than in the codex Pray: the beard is divided in two, we can see the wounds of the Passion and the legs are bended. With your logic of more similarities, more copy, we ought to conclude that the artist was copying the shroud of Turin. But it is impossible because the artist has painted an absolutely different shroud both in shape and consistency and it is impossible that any image could have been impressed on this shroud.
I have expected that you or someone would bring this faulty argument here.
You are mixing two different issues here. The two parameters are: the number of congruences and frequency of them. There is a large number of coincidences in the altar of the cathedral of Lübeck, ideed, and it is possible or even likely, that it was directly or rather indirectly influenced by the Shroud of Turin (the fact that portrayed Shroud is different does not change that). However the key is frequency here. Forked beard is quite common in Byzantine arts, probably copied from the Shroud, but in one particular example it does not point necessarily to the direct derivation from the Shroud of Turin. The 4 L-shape circles are, on the other hand, quite uncommon, and it is unlikely that they were derived from anything else but the Shroud of Turin (especially in combination with othere congruences).
In short, large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model. Small frequency of congruences found in one particular example, shows that it is unlikely to be derived from anything else but this model.
David Mo, you failed an exam in logic. How to discuss with such guy, who is able only to poison the well?
Yup, that’s us, ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate and poisonous. All in a few column-inches. But we’re right, aren’t we? The six independent, non-trivial and undisputed points of congruence are crumbling away before your eyes. Shore them up, quick! Show us where else concentric semicircles represent herringbone, or a rectangular slab represents cloth, or a fringed hem represents blood? Show that David Mo is wrong, and that his collection of Lamentations (30% naked, 30% four-fingered) is unrepresentative of the whole. Show us where else a representation of the man in the shroud appears young and beardless.
Or carry on telling us we’re ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate and poisonous. That’s so much more likely to persuade us you’re right…
(You can add ‘sarcastic’ to the list now; I can take it!)
No, Hugh, by irritating me with nonsensical, faulty comments you (I mean all sceptics) won’t show that I am wrong. I have shown that David Mo is wrong and (deliberately or simply foolish) mixes several different issues. The point that you have to resort to such regrettable methods shows clearly; the sceptics actually have no serious arguments against the Codex Pray. Despite 280 comments (I don’t know what is the record for one thread on this blog), none of them was able to give any reasonable, and probabilistically significant (that means the chances for its occurence are not <<1) explanation for all features A-F I listed. Instead I have read several gibberish about Shroud not being shroudy enough, zigzags not zigzaging not enough, red smudges not smudgy, a bench not being a bench etc. Plus ancient Egypt and Shroud of Cadouin. Plus mixing necessities with possibilities, probability for one hypothesis with probability of opposite hypothesis etc. Is that a serious discussion?
Or just a massive attack against me?
I guess we’ll just have to differ. No hard feelings.
I guess we’ll just have to differ. No hard feelings.
No. Hugh. There is no draw here.
Time for us all to move on I think….far too much good football to enjoy. Loving Columbia
O.K. The massive attack is not against you, nor is it a MASSIVE attack against anyone. It is just that many of us cannot see any of the distinctive features of the Turin Shroud in the Pray Codex and that is enough to doubt that it was ever portrayed in it. It is as simple as that. No need to accuse any of us of moral turpitude!
It is just that many of us cannot see any of the distinctive features of the Turin Shroud in the Pray Codex and that is enough to doubt that it was ever portrayed in it. It is as simple as that.
This is no justification of anything.
Next topic, not unrelated? Epitaphioi? Anyone? See separate posting!
O.K.
Fault of logic? We are sure that a number of copies of the shroud of Turin are genuine. All them without exceptionpresent the characteristic shape of the Turin Shroud. Ergo this is a relevant and distinctive feature. We have also an alleged influence of the Turin Shroud on a number of images of Christ. But you intend to base this influence on some features common to medieval art. You have no reason to suppose that the altar of Lübeck is “likely” influenced by the shroud of Turin. Not a single one. Prove it!
It is you that affirm (inconsequently) that the features that matched the altar and the Shroud were common in medieval art. This claim is mine also. So you need a characteristic feature that identifies the copy of the Shroud. I have found a very reliable one: the shape of the shroud of Turin. You can not deny that this shape is characteristic of the Shroud. But you propose another: the L shape of the supposed holes. But this one is very ambiguous because…
– There is not a L shape in the “holes” of the codex Pray. There are a L form and a P form. You can not find this combination in the Shroud.
– It is not evident that the small circles are holes. The same form is used in the codex Pray to the ornaments of the dresses.
-The alleged shroud in the codex Pray is not a shroud; it is the sepulchre. There are several reasons that show this.
So you prefer an inconsistent argument instead of a solid one. This is your logic.
By the way, a “large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model” is false if you are thinking in an individual model.
A large frequency of congruences in History of Art indicates a style or an iconographic rule. If you want to establish an influence from an artist to other you ought to establish a characteristic feature and a chronology. It is at this hurdle that you fall.
My last post on this matter.
I believe skeptics are looking at the Shroud and the HPM with 21st century lenses. They need to change to 12th century lenses.
Firstly, picture what the shroud might have been like in the 1100s, if indeed it did exist then. It didn’t have the burn marks. It quite possibly had the poker holes. It quite possibly had the blood.
I’ve seen the shroud with my naked eyes. It is far less defined than what we see in photographs. In fact I would call the image somewhat ephemeral, appearing more or less defined depending on the distance from the object.
Keep all these things in mind when you form your 12th century image of the Shroud:
faint ephemeral image, conspicuous poker holes, no burn marks, conspicuous blood marks. Does the HPM image then start to make more sense?
An indisputable FACT is that the “3 Marys” image on the HPM contains PLENTY of symbolism. This is demonstrated at the very least by features such as the head next to Mary’s right arm, and the floating character. This symbolic approach differs from the literal artistry of other images in the HPM. It’s as if the artist is saying: “The resurrection and its representation must be mysterious”. In this light, I see no problem in seeing a cryptic allusion to the shroud in the object we’ve all been debating: faint image represented by central crosses, framed on one side by two wavey red lines representing the blood, and the “L shaped” poker holes on the other side.
If the artist was a senior cleric who visited Constantinople, then it’s no leap of faith to think that he might have seen the Shroud, and might then have been deeply impressed by it. It’s not then a big leap to think he might have alluded to it in his picture.
Anyhow, that’s me on the HPM.
O.K.:
There is a brand in the “forehead” in the Jesus of the entumbamiento who is own of the image of the Shroud of Turin.
(en español)
Hay una marca en la “frente” en el Jesús del entumbamiento que es propia de la imagen de la Sábana de Turín.
Carlos
I consider David Mo’s own claim to logic quite faulty.
The drawings of the Pray Codex are a style of their own, almost in a cartoon style, simple ink drawings with only two uniform primary colours. In no sense are they in the same category as their contemporary high European art, with all their concomitant artistic styles, and reliance on precedents. The Pray drawings occur in their context of the very first attempt at producing a written text in the Hungarian language. It may be regarded as a form of primal Hungarian art. Nor do I see that O.K. is basing his arguments on artistic features of representations of the Shroud in medieval art. That does not seem to be his assertion, but rather that he claims to see that there are direct congruences between the proto-Shroud itself and features appearing in the drawings.
David Mo claims to find a very reliable characteristic feature in the shape of the Shroud. Very well then! Casual inspection of the oblique rectangle in the drawing will show that it has a length to width ratio of very close to 4:1, the same proportions as the Shroud cloth, the very same object that has a zigzag pattern on it, as has the Shroud, and the very same object that has an ‘L’ arrangement of holes. A further characteristic of the Shroud is that it is of fabric, so it need not be represented as having straight sides, but can be curved, without these being symmetrical. A straight edge placed against this rectangle will show the edges are indeed curved, and without the curves being symmetrical about the centre-line.
A slightly earlier work, more in the classic style, is the Lamentation scene on the Klosterneuberg pulpit near Vienna which is said to predate 1181. Here the partially draped Christ, with crossed arms across the groin, is being laid to rest in what is clearly a patterned casket. In the background, is also an oblique rectangle, patterned in the same way as the casket, having straight sides, and is clearly intended to be the lid of the casket, which it would seem to be designed to fit very well. This is quite a different object.
Another aspect that would seem to disqualify the Pray rectangle from being a casket lid, is the absence of a casket. There is no casket shown for this to be a lid to! What is exactly the point in portraying a lid without a casket to own it? The base rectangle conveys no impression of being intended to represent a casket, so much as a kind of slab or stone, perhaps even something like the limestone shelves seen in any of the Jerusalem tombs, by wandering crusaders.
I am bemused by David Mo’s assertion that there is not a ‘L’ shape in the Codex Pray, and I do not catch whatever subtlety he is attempting. There is clearly an arrangement of circles arranged as an ‘L’ shape in the oblique rectangle, which look very much to me as an attempt to represent a similar arrangement of holes found on the Shroud unrelated to the 1532 fire. It is true that the artist for whatever reason has chosen to include arrangements of tiny circles in other locations: as dress decorations, and on the underlying slab, perhaps representing oculi, and on the waist of the angel. They might for all we can guess suggest that we ought to be looking for a more subtle arrangement of circles, such as those arranged in an ‘L’ shape!
DM: “The alleged shroud in the codex Pray is not a shroud; it is the sepulchre. There are several reasons that show this.” I venture to suggest that there are several many more reasons to assert that the oblique rectangle is intended to represent the Shroud than there are to say that it is a sepulchre!
However, all the great men have spoken and have expressed their skepticism all to their own satisfaction no doubt. I for one consider that they have all simultaneously come to an incorrect conclusion. So much for the value of consensus debate!
The reason why there is no casket is because this is a representation of what was actually in Jerusalem, a marble lid placed over the rock by Constantine VII. In fact the absence of a casket is additional evidence that the artist was copying directly from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre including the circular holes that we know Constantine drilled into that same lid in order to allow pilgrims to look through to the original rock.
In fact the absence of a casket is additional evidence that the artist was copying directly from The Church of the Holy Sepulchre including the circular holes that we know Constantine drilled into that same lid in order to allow pilgrims to look through to the original rock.
Charles.
What was the configuration of those holes?
O.K. Please tell me what position the Shroud was in so that the observer could see a set of poker holes in the same L position as on the marble lid. Please also tell me which of the four sets of poker holes you think he was copying. Presumably as he would. Have had free scope to place the holes where he wanted them he would not have needed to turn the L round. Thanks.
“The base rectangle conveys no impression of being intended to represent a casket, so much as a kind of slab or stone, perhaps even something like the limestone shelves seen in any of the Jerusalem tombs, by wandering crusaders.”
It could possibly represent the red marble stone of unction, that was brought to Constantinople in 1180. Presumably it was one of the key relics that a senior relic from Hungary might have had the privilege of viewing, along with the shroud.
There are also allusions in the final HPM image to the relics of the True Cross, and nails.
David Mo:
Fault of logic? We are sure that a number of copies of the shroud of Turin are genuine. All them without exceptionpresent the characteristic shape of the Turin Shroud.
But the HPM is not a copy of the Shroud and its image -but simply a psalter with several references to the Shroud! That’s the main difference you seem not to understand.
We have also an alleged influence of the Turin Shroud on a number of images of Christ. But you intend to base this influence on some features common to medieval art.
The problem is why they are common in medieval art. This matters the Vignon markings issue, for example (which base on frequent congruences with the Shroud). But for the case of HPM, it doesn’t matter -the establishment of direct relation between HPM and the Shroud is based on peculiar (and thus infrequent) congruences with the latter.
You mix the two different problems.
It is you that affirm (inconsequently) that the features that matched the altar and the Shroud were common in medieval art. This claim is mine also.
See above.
– There is not a L shape in the “holes” of the codex Pray. There are a L form and a P form. You can not find this combination in the Shroud.
Of course, I can find. But those P holes on the bottom red-crossed rectangle do not interest me at the moment. Just L holes.
– It is not evident that the small circles are holes. The same form is used in the codex Pray to the ornaments of the dresses.
It is enough to me that they mayrepresent holes on the Shroud.
-The alleged shroud in the codex Pray is not a shroud; it is the sepulchre. There are several reasons that show this.
There is one reason which disproves the allegation of zigzag patterned rectangle being sepulchre. See http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
There is clearly visible a bench on which angel is sitting. Thus the rectangle cannot be a tomb lid. Whenever I show this, every sceptic plays fool and tries to ignore it under any pretext.
A large frequency of congruences in History of Art indicates a style or an iconographic rule.
A large frequency of congruences… with what, David Mo? I mean of course a certain object, that can be considered a model.
Your way of faulty thinking is evident, David Mo.
I just sent a drawing as bad as the one that is being discussed that consists of in separate frames. 1 frame a body of a bearded man lying naked with hands crossed no thumbs showing. 2 frame a crossed hatched image. 3 frame circles in the same L shaped pattern. 4 frame a empty tomb. all on a larger picture being pulled on a trailer by 1965 Mustang car. Would you assume I saw the original Shroud or heard about it.
Would you assume I saw the original Shroud or heard about it.
Yes -the fact that you came to this site proves that.
I think so too. Would Sherlock Holmes think so?
daveb of wellington nz
The drawings of the Pray Codex are a style of their own, almost in a cartoon style, simple ink drawings with only two uniform primary colours. In no sense are they in the same category as their contemporary high European art, with all their concomitant artistic styles, and reliance on precedents.
The quality or technical skill of an artist is irrelevant to the membership in an artistic style. I don’t know a “Hungarian Gothic style” and the concept of “Prayan” style is inconceivable.
The Pray drawings occur in their context of the very first attempt at producing a written text in the Hungarian language. It may be regarded as a form of primal Hungarian art.
This is a common mistake among sindonists. The Pray Codex is an ensemble of texts. Only the Funeral Prayer is written in Hungarian and can be dated in 1192-95, according to E. Poulle. Other parts of the codex include a list of Hungarian kings (till 1210) and a collection of liturgical songs in Latin. The illustrations are inserted in the latter part and can be dated about the beginning of the thirteen Century (1216 as likely ante quem. All these texts and illustrations were influenced by the French and the Italian style. That is to say, they belong to the Gothic style.
Casual inspection of the oblique rectangle in the drawing will show that it has a length to width ratio of very close to 4:1, the same proportions as the Shroud cloth, the very same object that has a zigzag pattern on it, as has the Shroud, and the very same object that has an ‘L’ arrangement of holes. A further characteristic of the Shroud is that it is of fabric, so it need not be represented as having straight sides, but can be curved, without these being symmetrical. A straight edge placed against this rectangle will show the edges are indeed curved, and without the curves being symmetrical about the centre-line.
The proportions of the lid aren’t 4:1 (I think you don’t measure the part under the angel that is blurred); the zigzag lines are only vaguely similar to a herringbone; and the holes of the Turin Shroud aren’t in P and L shape as in the Pray Codex. The surface where the small circles are painted is rigid and differs completely with the representation of cloths and fabrics in the Pray Codex. The angel is seating over it, as is usual in the representations of the scene of the Holy Women. This is the lid of a sepulchre not a sheet.
However, all the great men have spoken and have expressed their skepticism all to their own satisfaction no doubt. I for one consider that they have all simultaneously come to an incorrect conclusion. So much for the value of consensus debate!
Every factual sentence is subject to possible rectification. But we have to consider it is true while we have no reason to abandon it. I don’t see any reason to abandon my claim that the Pray Codex doesn’t include any reference to the Shroud of Turin. I don’t see what kind of consensus you required here that implies I ought to say the contrary that I really think. I don’t know what great men you are thinking. I am not a great man, of course.
David Mo I agree DaveB has got the ratio wrong: it’s about 5.3:1.
To show that I, at least, am an open minded enquirer not fixed in my position, I have also come around to the view that the object is most likely a lid. I guess I have been swayed by the argument that a shroud would hardly be standing erect at such an angle, also that an angel would not be standing on it in that manner. I also don’t agree with DaveB’s comments on it’s so called wavy edges – I think the artist has tried to portray a straight edge but has got it slightly wonky.
I’ve never been convinced that the pattern represents herringbone weave. I had previously been of the view it might more generically signify weave. I’ve changed my mind. I think it represents a patterned lid.
However…
For now, I maintain the view that the Shroud IS alluded to in the work. I now think it probably the case that the cloth on top of the lid is the shroud, and that this is signified by association by the red lines (blood), the L shaped poker holes, and the head adjoining Mary’s sleeve connected by the floating letter. And of course the Shroud-like upper image.
No doubt you’re aware of the scientific congress planned for October 2015 on the shores of Lake Balaton (Hungary), Thomas.
“The Pray Manuscript: artistic allusion to the Turin Shroud or cruel delusion? The search for secure foundations”.
I think you should give the keynote address.
See link below to venue (one that should help concentrate minds).
http://kingsenglish.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/house-on-sand.jpg
nice humour Colin, much needed amongst all the serious debate!
If I was to be a “zen” Catholic (following in the footsteps of Merton) then I might say
“Master, smash the HPM, smash the shroud. It is but a distraction, an illusion, pulling us away from the truth”.
I am coming to the realisation that for too long it has been a distraction for my faith.
amen
Oops.
O.K.
But the HPM is not a copy of the Shroud and its image -but simply a psalter with several references to the Shroud! That’s the main difference you seem not to understand.
“References” is a euphemism you use to speak of imitated or copied features. The same for “congruences”. What are these if they are not imitated/copied features? I’m not mixing “different problems” I have disentangled verbal games you make.
Of course, I can find. But those P holes on the bottom red-crossed rectangle do not interest me at the moment. Just L holes.
Bravo! When reality discredits me, the reality doesn’t interest me.
It is enough to me that they mayrepresent holes on the Shroud.
The Reign of the maybe is infinite, but we are searching for the truth not the imagination. I suppose. And the truth is based on better or lesser evidences, not on vague possibilities.
There is clearly visible a bench on which angel is sitting. Thus the rectangle cannot be a tomb lid.
Why not? The angel seated on the lid or on the sepulchre by pointing the finger to the folded shroud is a usual representation of the Holy Women scene. I don’t know any image where the angel is seated on the shroud. It would be blasphemy.
Thanks Thomas. For me, the most disturbing aspect of this entire debate has been the wayward spelling of “its” (possessive) in the title…
And I apologise (belatedly) for my previous unfair comments to certain persons herein
I say, steady on old chap… We don’t welcome unseemly displays of contrition here…
Nil carborundum illegitimi…
To you all:
Yesterday I was to finish writing away Part One of my steganalysis of the PHM lower section ink drawing in light of its upper section ink drawing, 8th-13th c. CE iconography and Byzantine Easter liturgy… The fact is good old friends came over and I ended up… enjoying a couple of games of pétanque instead.
Besides to make my point quite clear, I do have to make a linen model of the HPM stepped pyramid patterned shroud with red crossed lining and accurately reconstruct the Benedictine monk artist’s steganic montage. No matter how clumsy his pen & ink drawing may seem, the guy was really brilliant as a steganiconographer.
Stay tuned. I promise, I’ll spare at least 2-4 hours this week to complete Part One and e-mail it to Dan as soon as possible (hopefully he will understand my paper this time and publish it. All the more so as am really taking my time this time and making a real effort for my English to be crystal clear to you all. It can slow down things a bit).
David Mo:
“References” is a euphemism you use to speak of imitated or copied features. The same for “congruences”. What are these if they are not imitated/copied features? I’m not mixing “different problems” I have disentangled verbal games you make.
Your complains about the names have absolutely no impact on the case.
Bravo! When reality discredits me, the reality doesn’t interest me.
Well said about yoursef, David Mo!
P-holes are out of the game. Whether red-crossed rectangle is a marble, or another part of the Shroud, this does not exclude the possibility of influence of the Shroud on Hungarian Pray Manuscript. So I simply do not take P-holes into account.
The Reign of the maybe is infinite, but we are searching for the truth not the imagination. I suppose. And the truth is based on better or lesser evidences, not on vague possibilities.
Those possibilities are compelling enough, to take them serious. The opposite thesis (the HPM has nothing to the Shroud) is also a “vague possibility”. But as I have shown -extremely unlikely.
O.K.:There is clearly visible a bench on which angel is sitting. Thus the rectangle cannot be a tomb lid.
DM: Why not? The angel seated on the lid or on the sepulchre by pointing the finger to the folded shroud is a usual representation of the Holy Women scene.
Why not? Because there is a bench, as I have shown! But like other sceptics you have disregarded this inconvenient (for you) fact! Why haven’t you adress that? Because there is no other answer?
You maintain the lid, even when proven wrong. That’s just desperate cry: “I must be right, I must be right. This must be lid, must be lid! Every similarities with the Shroud must be wrong! All sindonists are stupid!”
I don’t know any image where the angel is seated on the shroud. It would be blasphemy.
Unless you prove that, I don’t think so.
I assume that O.K saw my earlier post asking about the position the Shroud was displayed when the artist saw the Poker holes, and which of the four sets of poker holes he chose to copy onto whatever he chose to copy them on to. I assume that O.K and his supporters would argue that the artist is making an accurate representation of what he actually saw.
As early as primary school (i.e. before 1950) I had read the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant. The story originated in the Indian subcontinent, and has crossed many religious traditions, and appears in various children’s tales. Wikipedia makes this profound comment:
“It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one’s subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.”
Thus it is clear that there is an inability on the part of some to measure and calculate a simple length to width ratio. Some offer a “straw man” argument such as “when did the artist see the poker holes?” when no assertion has been made that the artist “saw” anything of the kind! In fact the artist had only heard bits and pieces of the story which he incorporated in his drawing.
Blind men continue to give their profound opinion on something they cannot perceive, admit, or even imagine!
I assume that O.K saw my earlier post asking about the position the Shroud was displayed when the artist saw the Poker holes, and which of the four sets of poker holes he chose to copy onto whatever he chose to copy them on to.
Sorry Charles, I missed it.
I assume that O.K and his supporters would argue that the artist is making an accurate representation of what he actually saw.
No. As the artist was supposedly drawing from memory, one should expect several inaccuracies there. The point is that several key features (A-F), allowing recognition of his source of inspiration, are copied into drawings.
O.K. Please tell me what position the Shroud was in so that the observer could see a set of poker holes in the same L position as on the marble lid.
In whatever position that L-holes were visible -no more speculation needed.
Please also tell me which of the four sets of poker holes you think he was copying.
The L-holes
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml?zl=5&image=3&lon=1951.0&lat=7122.0
And now, Charles, why did you refuse to answer my question?
“What was the configuration of those holes [that we know Constantine drilled into that same lid in order to allow pilgrims to look through to the original rock]?”
Instead you have arrogantly asked me several more questions? Why answering mine would be so great problem for you?
I am sorry O.K. Whenever you are challenged on the issue as to why the poker holes and the circular holes on whatever you think they are laid on, don’t marry up you just say we must expect inaccuracies!!!! Perhaps it is because these are NOT the poker holes.
If you look front on at the poker holes on the Shroud they do not present an L shape in the same pattern as on the Pray Codex. This is why I am wondering whether you do not mean the top layer of the poker holes but a lower one down. As you know they diminish the further into the folded cloth that you go but when the Shroud is fully extended you can just see them all so we cannot be sure which of the four the your artist has picked out to reproduce.over to you to tell us what you think -or perhaps if the artist is inaccurate anyway it doesn’t.’t matter but it makes your argument even weaker than it already is.
I have asked Nabber to actually show the examples of circular holes that he seems to know about, but he hasn’t. These are the examples that William Forsyth, an expert on sculptures, know represent the oculi in Jerusalem. If Nabber is right that these are sometime reproduced in a greater number than three then there are no problems with there being four Jerusalem oculi on the tomb lid but we do need to see his examples. My suspicion , that Nabber can prove unfounded, is that he actually has not seen the originals. This is because from what limited information I actually put into my posting, it would take some time to actually go through all the sculptures concerned to pick out Forsyth’s examples. I know both the cathedrals at Chartres and Modena and both have a wealth of sculpture to pick through and it is difficult, from my preliminary searches in a university library ,to find a full set of photographs. I wonder how Nabber instantly knew how to find all four of Forsyth’s examples.
To make it easier, I suggest that we go to Shroudscope, click in on the ‘poker holes’ and for O.K.to tell us which one of the four marked out images of the holes is the one he thinks has been copied by the Pray Codex artist. Taking the normal display pose of the Shroud – top left, top right, bottom left, or bottom right? Then we need to check whether the one he thinks is the right one could be represented by four CIRCLES in the pattern that can be seen on the Pray Codex.
But if we are not expecting the artist to be reproducing them accurately anyway, this does not get us much further other than, as I have said earlier, making O.K.s argument even weaker than it already is.
Anyone else is also free to have a guess which one is being reproduced. I have always assumed that the top right is the top one when the cloth is folded.
Or Charles, perhaps you have already answered that:
Charles Freeman
June 23, 2014 at 2:32 pm
[…]However in the first half of the tenth century, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII covered the tomb with a marble slab but in order for pilgrims to see into it to the original rock he drilled three circular holes, or oculi. (bolding mine)
Three holes, Charles. See also Wilson’s article http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/n67part2.pdf See also Polish Wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazylika_Grobu_Pa%C5%84skiego#Okres_wypraw_krzy.C5.BCowych They all speak about THREE holes.
So Charles, you have himself admitted you are poor in mathematics. How did you wanted to turn THREE oculi into FOUR L-shaped circles on HPM?
Nabber wrote
June 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Freeman’s Oculi: None of your examples pertain. The first example had 3 circles in a row; the second had 4 circles in a square; the third example had numerous holes but none in the shape of 4 in an “L” (nor any “L”), and the last had numerous holes in a large circle. And none of those had anything to do with a tomb.
Constantine and the tomb: again, 3 holes; in fact 3 LARGE holes.
Again, 4 holes in an L-shape is so unique in HPM that it defies normal probability, and yes, they are in the middle of a herringbone weave.
So, what Charles? Zigzag pattern is also derived from the Holy Sepulcher? Two red streaks also? Naked Christ with no thumbs and cropped legs as well?
Charles if you had thought we could get fooled, you have turned out to be a fool yourself.
OK, I’m trying to catch up here on the latest observations. Is it your assertion that the bottom rectangle with the crosses represents the tomb lid (the holes being the drilled viewing holes) while the rectangle above, with L shaped holes and pyramid weave, represents the Shroud?
I am quite certain that above rectangle is the Shroud. Anyway, even had it been a lid (which possibility is excluded by the presence of bench on which the angels is siitting, see http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg ), it doesn’t change anything in the reasoning presented in article above. I wrote there
D –there is a pyramidal/zigzag pattern on alleged shroud/tomb lid
E –two red smudges on the surface of shroud/tomb lid </B.
As to the bottom rectangle, I don't know what is it. And as it cannot deny the supposed link between HPM and the Shroud in any way, it plays no role in my reasoning.
Perhaps I’m trying to fuse together some of the discussion with Charles and others. One problem I had with the HPM is that the bottom rectangle didn’t ‘make sense’ to me. The holes on it (more of a circular pattern)didn’t match with the top rectangle (a clear L pattern).
However if the bottom rectangle is the tomb lid those holes then make sense if they are the viewing holes. And this then allows the top rectangle to be more stand alone and represent (as you believe) the Shroud.
I’m not an artist but I could then see some significance to ‘reading’ the drawing from right to left and from the bottom to layer to the top layer: tomb (death), the Shroud and discarded grave linens (death overcome) and finally the angel (heaven triumphant).
Also the very fact that the men preparing Jesus for the tomb have him on a linen is not insignificant.
I must confess that your post, and subsequent excellent comments going back and forth among the group, has me thinking that the HPM is worth the debate it’s generated.
Perhaps I’m trying to fuse together some of the discussion with Charles and others. One problem I had with the HPM is that the bottom rectangle didn’t ‘make sense’ to me.
Truly the problem is not whether something makes sense, or not, but whether a combination of certain elements in the HPM which have their equivalents in the Shroud, is likely or unlikely to occur without the knowledge of the relic. That’s the point. And as it is unlikely, the Shroud must have existed at the time those drawings in the HPM were created.
There are many inconsequences in the HPM. So wondering “what the artist had on mind” is actually, in my opinion, quite idle thing. And even detrimental -the sceptics may dispute some particular interpretation, pretending that they have refuted the whole HPM-Shroud link.
Charles:
Perhaps it is because these are NOT the poker holes.
Perhaps this, or perhaps otherwise. I maintained this from the begining.
If you look front on at the poker holes on the Shroud they do not present an L shape in the same pattern as on the Pray Codex.
So THREE oculi from the Holy Sepulchre certainly present, right?
And the zigzag pattern is also derived from the Holy Sepulcher? Two red streaks? Naked Christ with no thumbs and cropped legs as well?
I have asked Nabber to actually show the examples of circular holes that he seems to know about, but he hasn’t. These are the examples that William Forsyth, an expert on sculptures, know represent the oculi in Jerusalem. If Nabber is right that these are sometime reproduced in a greater number than three then there are no problems with there being four Jerusalem oculi on the tomb lid but we do need to see his examples.
So far, I have not seen any of your examples, to back your view.
My suspicion , that Nabber can prove unfounded, is that he actually has not seen the originals.
My suspicion is that you are desperately wriggling and shirking, after I have shown that you have no arguments at hand, while trying cynically to deceive others. The more gibberish you add the more founded this suspicion seems to be.
O.K. I shall look forward to your (and to anyone else’s) choice of the poker holes.
The basic argument is that we have a shroud with two images, apparently unique as I know of no other examples, which was heavily bloodstained but we see absolutely no sign of its size, the images or bloodstains in the Pray Codex. The artist has not even shown the wounds of Christ without which the bloodstains could not have soaked into the Shroud.
All this when,as depictions of relics such as the Image of Edessa show, artists had no inhibitions about representing painted cloths as they appeared to be. We have documentary accounts of the marble lid placed over the rock tomb in the original Church of the Holy Sepulchre and eye -witness reports of oculi in the lid. There is nothing in the Pray Codex, other than its inept artistry, that is outside conventional depictions of these scenes. However, there does seem to be a particular concentration on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre/crusader crosses that ties in with the crusading hysteria that apparently swept Hungary in the mid- 1190s after the loss of Jerusalem in 1187.
We need to get together all the examples from the twelfth century onwards that Forsyth provides to see whether we can say anything coherent from them about the positioning of the oculi in the marble lid that is illustrated in the Codex as the original is lost. Much though I would love to go and visit all these places . . .
I can see from photographs of the fine Romanesque sculptures of Modena where the scene with the tomb is but alas it is not close up enough for me to see the oculi. I have no reason to doubt an expert such as Forsyth who has no axe to grind on this issue.
Nabber tells us that he has examples of four or more oculi but we wait on him to provide them. If he is right that there are cases of four oculi then that is an argument in my favour but I suspect that as none of his are on a tomb he is looking at the wrong images so I am not counting on him for support.
So there is absolutely no reason to read the Shroud into the Pray Codex. This is a simple argument, very typical of those made by art historians every day of the week. You have to find some firm foundation stones from which to build an argument and a vague reference to what you say admit inaccurate representations of a defect in a holy relic by an artist whom you admit had no intention of representing the Shroud in the first place are simply not good enough in the real world of academia.
It is up to you go on abusing me if that is your way of conducting discussions.
And all this to ‘prove’ the existence of a particular burial shroud of Christ which may, like many of its rivals ‘genuine’ burial shrouds of Christ, have been made in the medieval period but in this case before 1195 (e.g. Cadouin has now been dated through its calligraphy to 1095).
Nice one Charles.
One tiny quibble: the issues raised go way beyond those of academia.
What the world of academia does or does not think frankly does not bother this experimentalist too greatly .
We’re down to the nitty gritty details at a more visceral level – resenting those who try to browbeat us into submission with their shallow, self-serving agenda-driven line of argument, carefully selecting what they want us to see, getting ratty and insulting when one points out the inner contradictions.
It’s a microcosm really of a battle for hearts and minds that been going on for centuries – enlightenment v mind control propaganda.
Dear Colin,
A question from a purely scientific point of view.
Approximately two decades ago, I attended two seminars given by Dr. Alan Adler, the Porphrin Chemist, who was initially a member of STURP. He performed the blood studies on the Shroud.
I distinctly remember Dr. Adler stating. “I am so good in my field that had the shroud not been exposed to a flood, causing water damage, I could have told you if Jesus was circumcized or not.” Obviously, he was referring to that private area.
With that in mind, some researchers have stated DNA studies determined a trisomy (XXY) on the sex chromosome, indictative of Kleinfelter Syndrome, while other scientific researchers determined this chromosome to be XX with a Y embedded into one of the Xs or de la Chapelle Syndrome, referred to as XX male.
Further, I have read de la Chapelle mimics Kleinfelter and, as well, de la Chapelle syndrome is often misdiagnosed.
Regardless, as to what is finally determined (Kleinfelter Syndrome or de la Chapelle Syndrome), the salient feature of both are female traits in the male.
Now, observe the full body image of the Shroud of Turin and then look closely at the upper portion of the body and then compare this image to the image posted on this site (link below)
Comment Promoted: The Stavronikita Epitaphios
http://shroudstory.com/2014/06/28/comment-promoted-the-stavronikita-epitaphios/#comment-134352
Now compare the two images mentioned above to that of the Hungarian Pray Codex.
As a woman, I am clearly able to see female breasts on all three images, indicating either Kleinfelter Syndrome (XXY) or de la Chapelle Syndrome, (XX male).
Men diagnosed with Kleinfelter Syndrome are very tall, as a rule, and have female breasts. Jesus was tall, compared to other Jewish males, at that time.
I realize, as well, most believe Ron Wyatt was a fake, but surprisingly, back in the 70s or 80s, he found blood beneath the cross hole, after engineering a a dig into Zedekiah’s cave and supposedly, he had that black blood reconstituted and scientifically analyzed. The lab analysis also revealed the trisomy XXY. This study was done prior to any of the more recent studies on the sex chromosomes.
Finally concluding, what are your thoughts concerning the relationship of female traits, found in men with an extra X chromosome, to the three images I’ve mentioned in the paragraphs above?
Are you clearly able to see what appears obvious to me or do I need an opthalmologist? :)
And if you are able to make the connection of the female traits on the shroud image to the other images, would you consider this to be a type of proof, considering sex chromosome studies verify the images?
Thanks in advance.
Best,
P.S. I failed to mention, if you look at the gospel accounts, you will notice Jesus was not only attuned to the feelings of women, but He was considerably sensitive Himself.
This would confirm, I would think, with Jesus having an innate trait for high sensitiviy, either Kleinfelter or de la Chapelle syndrome. What say you?
Jesus wept – Luke 19:41
Jesus cried – John 7:37
Jesus wept – John 11:35
Best,
Hi Angel
Sorry to be butting in, but allow me to say the following;
Professor Carlton Coon described the ethnic characteristics of the Man of the Shroud. I have seen these characteristics in an Egyptian (Sepharadi) Jew and even in a Copt. Both were friends and males.
Don’t forget: there are men who weep and cry when they are alone, and they are machos. C.G. Jung told us about the male and female characteristics in all human beings.
Hello Angel
I’m putting together a posting right now that addresses the question of what one can “see” or “not see” on the TS, with emphasis especially on male pattern hair especially (beard and moustache). It will be stressing yet again the caution that is needed given that the TS is NOT a photograph. It’s a Xograph (but what is X? How does each body feature appear in an Xograph? What is or is not accentuated?).
Even if the TS shows ‘moobs’, to use the current slang, that does not necessarily mean there’s a genetically-based feminisation. Moobs are a common sight right now in my part of the world, with so many of us fellas wearing T-shirts despite it being rainy Wimbledon fortnight. Have your read up on the likely reasons? It’s due partly to plain obesity, but there are other factors to do with the hormonal balance, and the enzyme (aromatase) that interconverts testosterone and oestrogen. So we fellas have to avoid oestrogen-like substances in food and drink (beware hops in beer!) and fairly mundane nutritional factors like zinc status can be important.
I agree with you about Jesus displaying through reported words and action an occasional softer side, but I’d never for a moment thought it might have a genetic basis. Interesting.
Thanks, Louis.
I’ll check out your reference.
I absolutely agree with you that there are men who weep or have a tendency to show a more sentimental side of their personality.
My response; however, was more aligned with the detection of a trisomy (XXY). If, in fact, Jesus had Kleinfelter Syndrome, as an example, that would more precisely explain His masculine/feminine traits, like long slender hands/fingers, along with the fact He was exceptionally tall, in comparison to other Hebrew men of the time. Men with Kleinfelter syndrome are generally tall.
There have even been some who believe Abe Lincoln suffered from Kleinfelter syndrome. I; however, never researched that matter. :)
Best,
Louis says: “Let us know more about your research.”
***Angel says: Hi, Louis.
I continue to wonder how the researcher that appeared on the video, submitted by Joe Marino, (on this website) was able to distinguish between Kleinfelter Syndrome and de la Chapelle Syndrome, especially since de la Chapelle is sometimes mistaken for Kleinfelter.
I’ve also found Kleinfelter syndrome is a genetic disease, more common in Jewish males, and if the Shroud blood analyzes as XXY, then that would at least prove the man on the Shroud was/is Jewish.
Two links:
Genetic Diseases
http://www.tomorrowachild.org/resource_list.php?cat=diseases
“Males with two or more X chromosomes have Klinefelter Syndrome. …. It is a common genetic disease among the Jewish population in the US (central and …”
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio%20101%20lectures/genetics-%20human%20genetics/human.htm
Yet, I do have a friend who heads up a Jewish ancestry DNA site and I will email him for some clarity on what distinguishes one syndrome (de la Chapelle) from the other (Kleinfelter).
Best,
Dear Colin:
Thank you kindly for your response.
Yes, you are correct!
Many of the men today are significantly overweight (a causal factor for producing *moobs*) and this may be the result of an hormonal imbalance, breast cancer, bending of the elbow or merely the tilting of the beer stein. :)
However, Jesus was not overweight and the genetic studies that were performed did confirm the trisomy, whether if be XXY or XX male.
I’m looking forward to your posting, especially since it will enlighten us further on what we see, what we don’t see or what we think we’re seeing. :)
Thanks again, Colin, for your time and effort.
Best,
edit: Line 8: whether it be
Hi Angel
You’re welcome. Yes, I’ve read that about Abe Lincoln and about the slight trembling, something to do with involuntary muscular movement, that he is said to have suffered from. Let us know more about your research.
Charles:
O.K. I shall look forward to your (and to anyone else’s) choice of the poker holes.
“June 30, 2014 at 8:25 am
The L-holes
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml?zl=5&image=3&lon=1951.0&lat=7122.0 ”
But truly, any of the remaining 3 may apply as well.
The basic argument is that we have a shroud with two images, apparently unique…
Waffling.
Colin: back to your laboratory. You are wasting your time.
Thanks for that OK. You’ve proved my point, not that it needed any further demonstration where this thread is concerned. Your entire MO is one of mind control. You are, to put it mildly, a control freak. Have a good life (but try to ease off on the mind control).
But the L is the wrong way round compared to the image on the coffin lid ( I am sorry but this lid really cannot be the Shroud itself unless it had a dose of starch at the moment of the Resurrection!) and the poker hole going out to the right is not a circle. I think you are better off with one of the other sets of poker holes as your inspiration, but as you say it could be any one of them which weakens your argument a bit. (Basically you are saying you prefer the one set of poker holes that is not of the same pattern as the L on the coffin lid but, if that doesn’t work, it could have been any one of the three others!!!).
You must be the only person in the whole world of Shroud research who thinks mentioning the two images that are the central feature of the Shroud and distinguish it from the other burial shrouds we know about is ‘waffling’. Or perhaps you are so obsessed about this defect in the Shroud’s weave (probably caused by the spilling of incense on the folded cloth) being somehow important in defining it as a sacred relic that you have missed out on the images, the size of the cloth and the bloodstains,all of which make the Shroud , authentic or not, what it is, but none of which are shown on the Codex.
I think you’re splitting hairs on the “L” Charles.
If the artist was working from memory, or from hearsay, then the general principle he was working to was that there was a prominent Shroud feature of poker holes arranged in an L shape. And he represented that.
Similarly the red streaks. They are not a precise representation of the blood on the shroud, but rather a broad and simplified reference to it.
The essential question is why he tried to hide the Shroud within the Pray Codex by illustrating peripheral defects of it instead of showing the dominant positive, from a spiritual point of view, features of it. It makes no sense at all. But Max is going to explain all!
The lid pattern in no way resembles the pattern on the Shroud- it is not even regular and the crosses are red Crusader crosses. The streaks could be anything. But ,yawn,yawn, we have been there before .
Charles you don’t concede much do you.
Good explanations have previously been provided by several people as to the lack of a literal image.
I think you are being particularly and unreasonably obstinate in your views.
No, I am not being obstinate. I am just waiting for an explanation as to why the artist should seek to conceal what are defects of a sacred relic within a spiritual picture and ignore the dominant features of the Shroud, the size, images and bloodstains.
None has been forthcoming but Max is promising to give one. At least he realises that this is a genuine problem that needs explaining.
If you look at representations of the Image of Edessa or the Veil Of Veronica, you will see that the artist made accurate depictions of a face – even to the extent of copying the open eyes – so if ,as I don’t see any reason to believe, there is the Shroud here it is reasonable to ask why it Is concealed even to the extent of not showing bleeding wounds on Jesus’s body.
Your argument suggests that the artist saw it, ignored the dominant features ( could he really have forgotten tHe images and the bloodstains?), but saw the poker holes and reproduced them inaccurately ( as now seems to be accepted) on a marble lid.
My approaches are just mainstream historical research methods- don’t make a fool of yourself by seeing what is not there- no one loses out by being cautious. It is the first time that I have been abused for saying the evidence is not good enough to satisfy a professional historian! But there is always a first for everything.
The evidence is good enough for some art historians, including de wesselow, Belting etc.
Charles said:
“There is nothing in the Pray Codex, other than its inept artistry, that is outside conventional depictions of these scenes.”
I must strongly disagree with that statement (notwithstanding some of my concessions to some of your and others’ arguments). It’s simply wrong.
There are several divergences from conventional depictions:
– Where else are there discrete, non-artistic / non-decorative red streaks on tomb lids?
– Where else are there 4 holes in an L shaped pattern on tomb lids?
– Where else do we see a lid pattern similar to the HPM?
– Where else do we see a ‘floating’ male head connected to a Shroud via a “floating” letter / character?
– Where else do we see an ephemeral pattern of crosses on top of a tomb lid?
the HPM image is clearly full of symbolism never seen before (as far as records indicate)
I now have a copy of Forsyth’s book. The images he refers to: “among numerous examples, the three circular holes are represented in the twelftth century on a capital at Modena [I can’t find this], a relief at Monte San Angelo (Foggia) [https://sites.google.com/site/modillonsetpeinturesromanes/Italie/monte-sant-angelo], the lintel over the south portal of Saint-Gilles at Arles [http://www.medart.pitt.edu/menufrance/sgilles/frieze/sgscfrieze.html]; and a capital of the south portal on the west façade at Chartres [http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/chartreswest/capitals.html]. For the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries one can cite the corona of Window E of Canterbury [http://www.themarlowestudies.org/stainedglass1.html]; a Limoges enamel shrine from Cherves, near Cognac, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art [http://www.historyandcivilization.com/Tabernacle_of_Cherves__made_in_Limoges__found_in_1896__Copper__repouss____gilt__champlev___enamel__c_1220-1230__Met_.jpg – left hand panel]; the choir screen of Bourges [I can’t find this]; a relief in Elne Cathedral [nor this], and some similar French ivories illustrated in Koechlin, III, pls. XIII and XIV.”
Thanks to Hugh. I’ll just comment on the one, the lintel over the south portal of west facade of Saint Gilles at Arles: 3 holes in the side of the tomb, not 4, no “L”, and certainly not in the Shroud, which is shown hanging out of the tomb. Seems like the 3 holes would have come from the Constantine 3-holed tomb.
Ditto the Mont San Angelo, same 3 holes, and as a side comment, these are 3 huge holes a la Constantine and not small “poker” holes (4) as in HPM.
O.K.
Why not? Because there is a bench, as I have shown! But like other sceptics you have disregarded this inconvenient (for you) fact! Why haven’t you adress that? Because there is no other answer?
You maintain the lid, even when proven wrong. That’s just desperate cry: “I must be right, I must be right. This must be lid, must be lid! Every similarities with the Shroud must be wrong! All sindonists are stupid!”
“Proven wrong”? “Shown”? Do you see three lines (?) and you think that it is proved that there is a bench? Really? You don’t see a bench. You see some lines and you arbitrarily interpret that these lines are a bench.
Are there also benches in these pictures?
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht9/IRHT_150077-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht6/IRHT_100563-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht6/IRHT_100414-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht6/IRHT_098596-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht6/IRHT_102299-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht18/IRHT_018763-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht18/IRHT_018239-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht17/IRHT_07452-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht2/IRHT_052453-p.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht8/IRHT_117499-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht8/IRHT_117025-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht6/IRHT_094014-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht4/IRHT_073106-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht11/IRHT_161367-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht5/IRHT_083246-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht2/IRHT_055921-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht3/IRHT_060804-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/emolimo/imaz/vianc2d4.jpg
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht9/IRHT_150398-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht7/IRHT_109659-p.jpg http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/savimage/enlumine/irht5/IRHT_086567-p.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Andrea_%28Nachfolge%29_Orcagna_001.jpg
http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=112612&handle=li http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=112612&handle=li http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=3409&handle=li http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=3409&handle=li http://www.cgfaonlineartmuseum.com/duccio/duccio4.jpg
http://art-roman.net/asnieres/asnieres2.htm http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=7120 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=7120
Etc., etc.
No. Benches are in your imagination.
NOTA BENE: I have never done any disqualification of your intelligence, neither of the sindonists in general. I don’t know why you think so. I don’t like this way of debating.
I apologize. At the end is repeated three pictures because I was a little sick of copy and paste.
PS to Angel. You see male breasts. Others might see chest hair, especially in those contrasty Enrie negatives.
I had wondered about chest hair, and had been looking for wispiness when, thanks to your prompting, a veritable matt was right under my nose all the time. However, I shall be displaying Enrie and Durante pix side by side, when the risk of seeing things that aren’t really there becomes all too apparent, arguably facial hair too.
If you want more.
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=11283 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=11283 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=19953 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=19953 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=27151 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=27151 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=39575 http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=39575
http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Kslides/big/K058/K058710.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Kslides/big/K021/K021567.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/NOF/big/011LAN000000383U00013000.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/NOF/big/011ROY000001D10U00007000a.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Ekta/big/E092/E092829a.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Kslides/big/K038/K038609.jpg http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/BLStudio/big/YT2/021v.jpg http://imageviewer.kb.nl/ImagingService/imagingService?id=BYVANCKB%3Amimi_76f5%3A022v_min_a1&zoom=1 http://imageviewer.kb.nl/ImagingService/imagingService?id=BYVANCKB%3Amimi_76f13%3A023r_min&zoom=1 http://imageviewer.kb.nl/ImagingService/imagingService?id=BYVANCKB%3Amimi_135e19%3A101r_init&zoom=1 http://imageviewer.kb.nl/ImagingService/imagingService?id=BYVANCKB%3Amimi_mmw_10b21%3A150r_min&zoom=1 http://imageviewer.kb.nl/ImagingService/imagingService?id=BYVANCKB%3Amimi_mmw_10b23%3A524r_min&zoom=1
http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/WLYQ6N/12-522173.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/SX9JPD/10-522123.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/4K56UR/06-504090.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/DK3I0G/07-533778.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/K3MOSV/12-571505.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/CorexDoc/RMN/Media/TR1/HY8VWB/65-003164.jpg
Virtually in all the representations of the Holy Women scene the angel is sitting on the grave or on the lid. You have to give more stronger reasons to show that the Pray Codex this doesn’t happen.
Beautiful collection David, I can’t see any of the characteristics that point to the Shroud though. This further demonstrates that, contrary to the wide spectrum of artists you brought to the table, whoever painted the HPM had something more in mind.
Nice David.
I’ve acknowledged my own change of opinion re: “the lid”.
However, whilst some obstinate folk around here still deny there is no discontinuity in the Pray Manuscript and the artistic tradition, I strongly disagree.
Surely you can agree there IS some discontinuity…I’ve seen no evidence of non-decorative and discrete red streaks, isolated / discrete circles in L shaped patters, floating greek letters, and floating heads…but if you can show me then like always I can reconsider, being one not fixated on dogmatic and inflexible perspectives.
Congratulations, David Mo!
You have disqualified your intelligence yourself!
You know why?
Because none of your examples apply! They show simply, what they show: lids
On the contrary , there is clearly a bench in the Pray Manuscript.http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
Two lines left from the angel, one vertical, slightly tilted to the left, one horizontal, slightly upwards, joining angel’s dress. That’s clealry a bench, what else could it be!
And that means the zigzag patterned rectangle cannot be a lid!
And there is more. Do you even understand my reasoning presented in the article, or is it beyond your limits of comprehension?
I have written:
There are several key details on both illustrations. Let’s estimate the probability of their occurrence on Entombment/Three Marys scene by random
Illustration I:
· A –the Jesus is naked, with His hands crossed above pelvis (similar on the Shroud) –let’s assume that such portrayal occurs in 1/100 instances.
And so on.
The more examples you deliver, the better my case.
I now have a copy of Forsyth’s book. The images he refers to: “among numerous examples, the three circular holes are represented in the twelftth century on a capital at Modena [I can’t find this], a relief at Monte San Angelo (Foggia)
Thank you Hugh. Due to your effort, we are assured that Charles claims have no basis at all. None of the examples presented by you, nor David Mo shows 4 L-shaped circles.
And as I said in the previous post, more such examples, the better my case -showing how unlikely is to find all features A-F on one page simply by chance. That’s the basis.
And something more From Wilson’s article:
http://www.west.net/~shroud/pdfs/n67part2.pdf
A depiction of the Entombment on a stone capital of c.1150 in Chartres Cathedral
is one of the earliest depictions of these portholes. However, documentary mention
of them occurs even earlier, in the writings of a Russian pilgrim called Daniel who visited
the sepulchre in 1106-7:
And now this holy bench is covered with marble plaques and one has cut in the side
three little round windows, and by these windows one sees the holy stone.’
(bolding mine)
Hey guys, Thomas, Nabber, DaveB, everyone!
May I ask for your confirmation?
There is clearly a bench on which the angel is sitting, pointed with green arrow:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
Do you agree?
Now a version for total morons, and blind:
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2554/3odxx.jpg
There is a bench, clearly. So zigzag rectangle is not a lid.
O.K.: I will confirm your point. Not only have you pointed out the bench in green lines, but the “third” line that you did not highlight in green is actually the dividing line between the bench with plain background, and the Shroud with wavy (herringbone) background.
That’s a fantastic collection, David; thank you so much.
Agree -especially as it is supporting my view.
You’re welcome, Hugh.
Ten days since original posting, 348 comments, looks like average of 35 comments per day, and there’s still no conclusion in sight!
Recurring tedious question from Charles, answered several times already, already, already!
Q: “If the artist wanted to show the Shroud, why didn’t he just show it with a representation of its main characteristic image, as is shown clearly on the several images of Edessa and Mandylion?” Response: “What is the subject of the Mandylion representations? Is it a Lamentation scene? No! Is it the visit of the Holy women? No! Is it meant to be a representation of the face of Christ not made by human hands? Yes!!! What is the subject of the HPL cartoon? Is it a Lamentation scene showing the burial of Christ? Yes! Is it the visit of the Holy women on the morning of the resurrection? Yes! Is it meant to be a representation of the Shroud image? Ahah! The image on the Shroud may be implied from the prostrate Christ but without distracting from the artist’s principal subject? Why should it be intended as the image of Christ depicted on the Shroud? Because the artist hints at it, with the zigzag pattern on the inclined, curved edge, rectangle, with its holes arranged in an ‘L’ shape, distinctly different from the “oculi” representations on the underlying slab, with the hints of blood flows on the cloth, with the crossed arms across the groin, with only four fingers showing on the hands of the Christ figure with no thumbs, and the pposture of the prostrate body!
Will Charles et al therefore acknowledge that the HPL artist knew something of the Shroud in 1192-95? Answer: No!! Why? Because there are none so blind as will not see! End of story!
Dave:
There is clearly a bench on which the angel is sitting, pointed with green arrow:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2554/3odxx.jpg
Do you agree?
Nobody seems to want to agree with you on this point, but I do. The angels tunic position implies his knees are bent and in a sitting position. Unless he is wearing a hoop skirt. Hence that square behind him is clearly meant to be a bench.
Thanks.
I think daveb makes a worthwhile point, about the miraculous relic not being the subject of the Three Marys scenes, but if I may I would disagree about the conclusions he draws. Other commentators have suggested that had the Shroud been known about when the Gospels were written it would have been mentioned in them. I don’t I agree with that. It could even be that the fact that any burial cloths are mentioned at all is evidence of their importance. However hundreds of years later, when not only the Shroud, but its images and its poker holes were known about, it would surely have been the central focus of any iconography about the empty tomb. To omit its discovery in the Three Marys scenes would be to lose one of the most important points of the occasion (the first being the disappearance of Jesus himself). The fact that no other Three Marys scenes give any great prominence to the shroud, even those from well before and well after the Pray drawing, is an indication to me that it had no great prominence, and was, in fact, not known about.
But pay no attention, as apparently now I’m a blind, ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate, poisonous, dishonest, deceitful, envious, fearful, fanatical, sychophantic moron.
However hundreds of years later, when not only the Shroud, but its images and its poker holes were known about, it would surely have been the central focus of any iconography about the empty tomb. To omit its discovery in the Three Marys scenes would be to lose one of the most important points of the occasion (the first being the disappearance of Jesus himself). The fact that no other Three Marys scenes give any great prominence to the shroud, even those from well before and well after the Pray drawing, is an indication to me that it had no great prominence, and was, in fact, not known about.
Hugh, today we have 21st century. The Shroud is known to the masses. Can you say that the image on the Shroud of Turin is the central point of Christian iconography? Can you, on contemporary (20-21st century) paintings and drawings, find the image of Christ on His burial cloth? Why? Why not?
And then use the same reasoning to the 12th century.
The burial cloth only got passing mention in the gospel and that was because the risen Christ was more important.
Louis: “The burial cloth only got passing mention in the gospel and that was because the risen Christ was more important.”
Disagree, partly. The fact that made some Disciples believe in the Resurrection, before they met the Risen Christ, was specifically the Empty Shroud, not the Empty Tomb. The “Empty Tomb” was really just a generic description of the scene (IMHO). I would not say the Shroud got “passing mention” — it was mentioned in all 4 Gospels, with details of it provided. That said, the Shroud was then kept secret because Jews were not supposed to make or keep images, nor were they supposed to have bloody items associated with death.
Hi Nabber,
Agreed, to a certain extent. It seems that Jesus timed his appearances to not give us poor humans a big shock. First the empty tomb with the empty burial shroud, then the appearances. I must add that what gave impetus to the Jesus movement was first and foremost the appearances and, yes, as you say, the Jews were not supposed “to have bloody items associated with death.” It had something to do with ritual purity That is why I have been insisting that no burial cloth was being paraded in public, by Paul or anyone else, to spread the Christian faith.
Why oh why is this topic so emotional? I think it is because for a significant number of well informed people the resurrection drawing is irrefutable non-scientific evidence that the carbon 14 dating of the shroud is wrong. That is threatening to others who cannot muster a sufficiently convincing argument that it nothing of the sort. Who is right? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. It makes for widespread and reasonable doubt about 1988 tests. Short of finding some non-interpretive and non-speculative proof that it does not contain elements from the shroud, it will remain a playable trump card for those who believe the shroud is authentic.
I agree Paulette, the reason it’s so emotional is because it’s so significant. It also demonstrates that even when faced with 6 congruence points with the shroud the skeptics can go into great length trying to distract others away from them. I think after putting out their best effort to do so, and thanks to O.K and Daveb’s (and others) perseverence in bringing back the discussion to those congruence points, they have failed to demonstrate what they represent.
I find that many of the skeptics even ignore my points. I think it’s because they can’t deal with them
Not that it will do anything to sway anybody’s mind but I have found an article on the development of the threnos- the burial and lamentation scenes ` from the ninth century, with many illustrations, by Kurt Wertzmann ( De Artibus Opuscula XL, Volume One, Text, Volume II, illustrations, 1961) that shows how classical scenes of the ‘Bewailing of Actaeon’ come into the iconography of these scenes. Actaeon was torn apart by hounds when he saw Diana bathing. Apparently the mutilated body of a man killed in his prime became equated with Christ. Wertzmann shows a sarcophagus (from the Louvre) of a naked Actaeon being laid out in a very similar pose to many Lamentation scenes and sees this as an important source from the tenth century in both east and west ,when there was a renewed interest in copying classical iconography for New Testament texts. Certainly provides a model for the nudity.
But none of this is relevant to those committed to the Shroud being somehow hidden in the Codex.
I am not emotional about the Pray Codex because even if somebody did prove to me that one could somehow see the Shroud in it it would, as I have said before, prove no more than that the Shroud might be one of the many earlier (such as the Cadouin shroud) rather than later medieval linens claiming to the the real thing. What fascinates me is how people are convinced that the Shroud is there when none of its predominant features can be seen anywhere and only its defects ( I have never in all my studies seen the damage in a relic being given prominence.)
The failure to show any wounds on Christ rules out any possibility that the artist could have envisaged this as the Christ who was wrapped in the bloodstained Turin Shroud.
Is this really the only evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1260? I had not realised that things were quite so desperate!!
Charles:
Certainly provides a model for the nudity.
Sucked out of the thumb. So the artist combined THREE oculi from the Holy Sepulchre, turned it into 4 L-shaped, combined it with the ancient myth of Actaeon, and Shroud of Cadouin. Nice try, Charles!
LOL!!!
I am not emotional about the Pray Codex because even if somebody did prove to me that one could somehow see the Shroud in it it would, as I have said before, prove no more than that the Shroud might be one of the many earlier (such as the Cadouin shroud) rather than later medieval linens claiming to the the real thing.
Where do you find A-F elements in the Shroud of Caduoin, Charles?
The failure to show any wounds on Christ rules out any possibility that the artist could have envisaged this as the Christ who was wrapped in the bloodstained Turin Shroud.
Bull^&*%
Is this really the only evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1260? I had not realised that things were quite so desperate!!
No. There are more. But this topic is on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, which is enough evidence for the existence of the Shroud before 1200.
‘Defects’? Are the blood streaks ‘defects’?
I guess you are referring to the poker holes. I have addressed this ad nauseam ie they were the most prominent feature and could easily have attained symbolic importance – eg through numerology or demonstration that the sacred shroud defied destruction.
I can’ t remember how many supposed ‘genuine’ burial shrouds of Jesus there were around in the Middle Ages – certainly more in the west than in the east and they certainly start in the west in the ninth century. Most have, of course, vanished either in the Protestant Reformation or in the French Revolution.
I have said clearly that I don’ think that the artist depicting the crumpled shroud or sudarium shown on the coffin lid was actually doing any more than reproducing what he had read in the gospels but he may have had a particular shroud, perhaps one of the vanished ones, in mind. There were lots to choose from.
My point is clear – if we have perhaps twenty five ‘genuine’ burial shrouds from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, a date for the Turin shroud of before 1195 may mean no more than it is from an earlier medieval group rather than a later one. I prefer to forget the radiocarbon date and work to find other means of placing the Shroud. As a result I just think the Pray Codex is irrelevant and am amused by the obsession that O.K has with it when it has so little to prove either way.
But I do think someone needs to be showing all the reasons why this is not the shroud or we will have another generation of shroud researchers simply repeating the same old so- called evidence year after year, decade after decade, with absolutely nothing new being discovered as seems to be the case with the St.Louis Conference. Is there any other field where ‘ research’ has not come up with anything new for thirty years? If the Shroud can be ‘seen’ in the Pray Codex there must be hundreds of other illuminated manuscripts which also illustrate the Shroud. All you need is a few holes and the mathematical methods of an O.K !
I can’ t remember how many supposed ‘genuine’ burial shrouds of Jesus there were around in the Middle Ages […] My point is clear – if we have perhaps twenty five ‘genuine’ burial shrouds from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries
In my article devoted to that problem (http://ok.apologetyka.info/ateizm/ile-byo-pocien-pogrzebowych-jezusa-cz1,749.htm ), I counted 12 alleged burial cloths -including smaller cloths, coifs and kerchiefs -not including smaller fragments – and still some of them can actually be the same, so that number may be lower.
certainly more in the west than in the east and they certainly start in the west in the ninth century.
Then you are wrong. What about Anonymous of Piacenza around 570 AD, and Arculfus, circa 670 AD? They reported burial cloths in the Holy Land, before they travelled to the West.
Poor historian you are, Charles…
Is there any other field where ‘ research’ has not come up with anything new for thirty years?
Biblical exegesis, for example.
he may have had a particular shroud, perhaps one of the vanished ones, in mind. There were lots to choose from.
And only one that has all those particular details A-F.
If the Shroud can be ‘seen’ in the Pray Codex there must be hundreds of other illuminated manuscripts which also illustrate the Shroud.
They vanished in history, or are waiting for discovery. Or they simply do not copy such peculiar details like the HPM. Anyway it doesn’t change that the Shroud of Turin is portrayed in the latter.
Hard to accept defeat, Charles?
I agree that all those shrouds that are genuine, every single one of them, originated in the east, in no less than in Jerusalem itself but only a few of these went to the eastern empire, most ended up in the west.
Your earlier response to the key point that if the artist had seen the shroud he would have put bloodstains on Christ’s body is typical of your debating style. It is actually a key point and I think irrefutable.
Yes I also agree, from limited knowledge of the subject, that biblical exegesis might just have been as stagnant in the past thirty years as research on the Shroud. But it is a close run thing.
But the key point is that all this has become ritual- so long as everyone repeats the same mantras at every conference all is well. So although this blog has shown that sindon cannot be translated as burial cloth ,especially when a separate burial cloth is mentioned in the same text, and that tetradiplon cannot be translated in any way to support the idea that a cloth is only doubled three times to make eight layers, no doubt It will still be read it out as such and no one will challenge it, any more than they challenge the liturgy of the Mass.
So I just wonder what is going to happen if someone working on ancient linens in a conservation lab comes up with irrefutable evidence that the linen of the Shroud can only be say seventh century ,or eleventh century or fourteenth century, what will happen then? Stephen Jones may yet be needed!
I am happy to accept defeat the moment when you can show me a shroud the size of the Turin Shroud, a dual image or bloodstains on crumpled shroud shown on the Codex. The fact that the body of Christ is without bleeding wounds is enough to show that it could not have stained the Shroud and that the artist cannot have been trying to depict the bloodstained Turin shroud.
It is not unreasonable to expect someone who claims that the Shroud can be seen in the Pray Codex to present evidence of one of the dominant features that would strike anyone seeing the Shroud when it was exposed.
Seeing a relic only through its blemishes would certainly be a first. Do you really think that anyone depicting the Shroud would only show the parts where there was damage?
So over to you. I have set out some perfectly reasonable criteria on which we can make a judgement.
Again you’ve ignored valid arguments from several people. Depiction of Christ’s body on the shroud – especially by a relatively unskilled artist – would appear as if Christ was still lying on the shroud WHICH DEFIES THE WHOLE LOGIC OF A RESURRECTION SCENE
I think this is a valid point and worth thinking about. However, I don’t think these scenes are ‘resurrection’ scenes. They are ‘what happened next’ scenes. Even if the Shroud had been omitted from the Gospels, which I think can be explained in terms of secrecy and uncleanness, I don’t think that, if it had any reliquary importance, it would have been omitted from later Three Marys scenes. Indeed, as I said above, one of the major themes of such scenes would have been the discovery of the relic, which must have been shown rather more explicitly than by a couple of wavy lines and some holes. (By the way, are we not making rather a large assumption in supposing these burns to have pre-dated the Pray manuscript. They may well not have occurred until much later!). OK made the point that, even after the Shroud’s incontestable date of existence, Three Marys scenes still do not show it. The reason for this, I fear, is not that artists felt it detracted from the scene, but that they didn’t think it was there in the first place. I think it most unlikely that an artist believing that the image of Christ was left behind in the tomb after the resurrection, would not include it in any depiction of it. In my experience of medieval relics (minimal), what was important to the faithful was not what it looked like – any old sheet would have done – but its provenance, and artistic renderings of its discovery would abound, rather as all those pictures of nails, crowns of thorns, whipping stones and so on tend to resemble a supposed relic rather than any actual archaeological artifact.
Or does this defy logic?
Hugh I agree it is an assumption that the poker holes existed circa. We do know they existed circa 1500 prior to the burns The point is if they did exist circa 1200 then that would help explain why a ‘defect’ may have attained significance. Of course they seem less significant to 21st century eyes in light of various burns and digital enhancements of body image…..
O.K.
Two lines left from the angel, one vertical, slightly tilted to the left, one horizontal, slightly upwards, joining angel’s dress.
There is a Spanish joke about Jaimito, his father and the teacher. The teacher was worried about Jaimito because the child saw “things” (non sancta things) in the simple lines sketched by the teacher, and called to Jaimito’s father. But when the father saw the lines (remember that they are only lines)… Well, I cannot translate adequately the joke to English and it is not very suitable for this blog. Let it stay .
That’s clealry a bench, what else could it be!
Naturlich! Two lines = a bench. Every intelligent man sees this! But the no-intelligent men see anything; for example, perhaps it is the left angle of the edge of the sepulchre. I think the artist of the Pray Codex was not very skilful. He is probably trying to copy or remember another illustration but paints badly some things. See the sceptre with the cross. Nothing appears to hold it, and there is something as four fingers in an impossible place. Or see the ornament of crosses under the so called shroud. (By the way, the shroud of Turin has not any cross similar to these that are on this alleged shroud of the Pray Codex. It is not a shroud, of course).
But this story of the bench that not seems a bench at all intrigues me. How appeared it here? Is the angel who brought it from the heaven? Perhaps he was afraid of having to wait for the Holy Women for too long (the women, you know).
Don’t worry if I don’t take too seriously your famous bench. The non-intelligent people don’t be able to understand the theories of intelligent ones. That’s why, all the painters of the Middle Ages -non-intelligent, of course-, put the angel naturally seated on the sepulchre or on the lid, exactly in the same position of the angel of the Pray Codex. No one has the very intelligent idea to paint a heavenly bench. This is another extraordinary exploit of the Pray Codex… or of your intelligent interpretation of it.
In any event, let me abandon you at this point. You’ll be tired to discuss with non-intelligent people as me, and you become the more and more interested to introducing some issues which I have not interest in discussing with you; as the level of intelligence, for example. I let you rest and be calm.
It is a bench or a slab of some sort that the angel sits on. Look at the body position of the angel. What else could it be…a public toilet?
For David Mo, surely!
Mark 16:5 (NIV) As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
David Goulet, and others:
You cannot convince a cynical boor. The only thing you can to do is to show to the public he indeed is who he is -a cynical boor.
Thomas:
Surely you can agree there IS some discontinuity…I’ve seen no evidence of non-decorative and discrete red streaks, isolated / discrete circles in L shaped patters, floating greek letters, and floating heads…but if you can show me then like always I can reconsider, being one not fixated on dogmatic and inflexible perspectives.
The artist of the Pray Codex is particularly anarchic in adorning the sepulchre: two kinds of crosses, pyramidal forms, circles and red zigzags. I don’t think we ought to find a sense to this hotchpotch.
In regard of the other features noted by you, we can search for randomly different features in other paintings and we will found also “astonishing coincidences”. Sure. I have noted above the altar of Lübeck, for example, with more consistent features. If we use vague similarities the task is easier.
And I remember you that there is not any L shape in the Pray Codex. There is a pair of L+P. It is a significant difference. I insist the unique feature clearly shared without any ambiguity by the Shroud and the Pray Codex is the nudity. Very poor evidence to counter the evident dissimilarities between them.
David Mo:
The artist of the Pray Codex is particularly anarchic in adorning the sepulchre: two kinds of crosses, pyramidal forms, circles and red zigzags. I don’t think we ought to find a sense to this hotchpotch.
Unless we accept that the Pray Codex is derived from the Shroud of Turin -conclusion absolutely unaccpetable by dogmatic sceptics.
In regard of the other features noted by you, we can search for randomly different features in other paintings and we will found also “astonishing coincidences”. Sure. I have noted above the altar of Lübeck, for example, with more consistent features. If we use vague similarities the task is easier.
There are many more coincidence with the Shroud in the HPM then only A-F -I chose only the independent, and most compelling, which are very rare, and hard to explain otherwise. This is not the case of the altar of Lübeck, on which coincidences found are more “common”, although it still can be influenced by the Shroud in some way (and I suppose it indirectly is).
And I remember you that there is not any L shape in the Pray Codex. There is a pair of L+P. It is a significant difference.
I don’t think so. There is clearly L-shape circles, the same as on the Shroud. As to P on the bottom red-crossed rectangle -it is hard to say what they, or that rectangle represent, so I simply do not take it into account. It does not exclude the HPM-Shroud link in any way.
I insist the unique feature clearly shared without any ambiguity by the Shroud and the Pray Codex is the nudity. Very poor evidence to counter the evident dissimilarities between them.
There are no dissimilarites which would exclude the HPM-Shroud link. As to ambiguity of interpretation of other marks -it is not so important. What is important is that they certainly may be atributed to the Shroud, and that the combination of them, without the prior knowledge of the Shroud, is extremely unlikely.
David: “And I remember [sic] you that there is not any L shape in the Pray Codex.”
Incredible. Absolutely incredible. For O.K.: this is the kind of skeptic that gives skeptics a bad name. You should disregard this guy completely.
Usually yes. But at times, one should show that a boor is a boor -and let he cry at his hole!
All right:
“And I remind you that there is not any L shape in the Pray Codex. There is a pair of L+P. It is a significant difference.”
Now you get it or not yet?
David: “And I remind you that there is not any L shape in the Pray Codex. There is a pair of L+P. It is a significant difference. Now you get it or not yet?”
That, my friend, is ridiculous. This whole matter must be challenging your World View to the max, for you to put up such a silly objection.
“David Mo”The artist of the Pray Codex is particularly anarchic in adorning the sepulchre: two kinds of crosses, pyramidal forms, circles and red zigzags. I don’t think we ought to find a sense to this hotchpotch.
O/K/Unless we accept that the Pray Codex is derived from the Shroud of Turin -conclusion absolutely unacceptable by dogmatic sceptics.”
Thus surely should be rewritten as
David Mo. :The artist of the Pray Codex is particularly anarchic in adorning the sepulchre: two kinds of crosses, pyramidal forms, circles and red zigzags. I don’t think we ought to find a sense to this hotchpotch.
O.K. Unless we start off with the preconception that the Pray Codex is derived from the Shroud of Turin -a preconception absolutely unacceptable by dogmatic sceptics.
DaveMo and Charles: you wrote: “The artist of the Pray Codex is particularly anarchic in adorning the sepulchre”.
The iconosteganological truth is, to the uninitiated eye, the signs on the sarcophagus box & lid may look like adornement yet they are NOT AT ALL.
Who is starting with a preconception just because he has hot the foggiest notion of what medieval Benedictine (icono)steganology is all about?
Or better they they are ONLY decorative elements as far as the Constantinople Sindon weave pattern actually was in herringbone and its lining polystaurionic…
To both ‘archinauthenticists’ and ‘archauthenticists’:
“The Image of the Invisible is a signum translatum (a translated sign)”.
Augustine of Hippo
“The invisibilia per visibilia dialectic… is suggested through a few pieces of evidence (secundum alquia indicia)”
Thomas of Aquinas
Max, I suggest this might be one of your most perceptive comments that are actually intelligible by ordinary mortals such as myself. That the message is hidden to many is only too apparent by this persistent ongoing and inconclusive thread, but I feel certain that the message is nevertheless there. The invisible suggested by the just visible perhaps, although remaining invisible to some!
I wonder where Daveb gets his ‘feeling’ that the Shroud is somehow there ,even if concealed.
At least we are coming to a consensus that, if this was the Shroud, the artist felt he had to conceal that it was for some reason.
It is up to those who can see what is not visible to many of us, some coherent reason why this concealment was needed.
I’ve already made it quite clear in several entries above my reasons for this, and repetition is tedious. You merely do not accept the reasons I’ve given and disagree with them, but I don’t see that as my problem. I assume you can read, so it mystifies me why you say “I wonder…” . I see it merely as feigning ignorance, the last ditch defence of the indefensible!
Dave I’m sorry to say that Charles is just simply incredibly arrogant and not at all open to considering other perspectives. We are simply wasting our time even trying.
There’s no concealment. I have explained why it doesn’t make any sense to portray the body image on the shroud in the lower image. Your problem if you don’t get it.
I think those who argue that the Shroud is there but concealed need to provide a coherent explanation of why it has to be concealed. You say you have but I don’t see anyone other than Max working on this and a lot of his material is incomprehensible to me. We await his authoritative summing up.
Your argument would have some credibility if you could show other examples of concealment of relics. As David and I have both pointed out, it is normal to display relics clearly in depictions of them and not conceal them – the open eyes of the image of Edessa has always been one of the main reason why Wilson has lacked credibility in his claim that the Image is the Shroud -so the onus is on you to prove your case as it would be the only example I know from all my studies of medieval relic cults of such a concealment.
If the Turin Shroud was known about but only to a very few who understood the references then the Pray Codex would indeed have provided vital information about the afterlife of the Shroud, It was some kind of cult object but who were the people who wanted to keep it secret and why ? The Templars?
Hugh Farey:
“I think it most unlikely that an artist believing that the image of Christ was left behind in the tomb after the resurrection, would not include it in any depiction of it.”
Here is the clue of a big contradiction in those who defend both the hidden signs of the Shroud in some representations of the Christ’s Passion and the wide influence of it in the medieval art. If the medieval artists had known the shroud of Turin at least some of them would have represented it unambiguously. If the medieval artists didn’t know the shroud of Turin the coincidences between it and their work are mere coincidences or something worse. Other famous relics of the Passion were represented in art in a lot of occasions, Why not the Shroud?
On this basis, the coincidences between medieval Art and the Shroud, if existing, point in a contrary direction to the sindonism.
“Arrogant” now. I’m thinking of writing a thesaurus…
Next step soon, Hugh Farey, Charles Freeman and David Mo will see, with their own awe-stricken enlarged eyes, the TS embedded in pieces in the HP Ms folio 28r lower section ink drawing and, once and for all, their ‘either/or’ tunnel vision laden ship sink for good in ten thousand thundering typhoons off the coast of Brittany (France).
Yes, I know the Brittany Coast having sailed along it with my father-in-law and it can get scary when the wind gets up, so I am putting my life on hold while I get the life raft in order.
Hugh Farey’s assertion, picked up by David Mo reveals a fallacious assumption: ““I think it most unlikely that an artist believing that the image of Christ was left behind in the tomb after the resurrection, would not include it in any depiction of it.”
The fallacious assumption is that the image was visible soon after the resurrection. Even assuming authenticity it is still not known how long the image took to form. Although the process is evidently different, one might draw an analogy with Volkringer patterns of flora which can take some considerable time to appear. A miraculist believing that the image was a byproduct of the resurrection, might assert that the image very likely formed immediately, but that is not necessary even for the miraculist. It is certainly not necessary for those who prefer a naturalist explanation. A medieval artist who knew of the Shroud might assume that the image was immediately visible after the resurrection, but evidently none did. It is of course the assertion of De Wesselow, who seems to believe that the image explains the belief in the Resurrection, while other commentators believe that John’s gospel narrative of two angels, one at the foot and one at the head, is a subtle reference to the image.
There is a considerable weight of documentary evidence that the burial cloths were present in Constantinople. The first specific reference would seem to be that of Constantine VII in a letter to his troops of 958 AD. ” … the sindon which God wore, and other symbols of the immaculate Passion.” cited by Scavone. Other documentary evidence is persuasive that the sindon bore a full body image. Various later Byzantine liturgical rites such as the melismos imply a close association with the burial of Christ with the eucharist rite. The earliest threnos mural and a liturgical epitaphios would seem to be that in Nerezi Serbia of 1164. From the 12th century, epitaphioi become prevalent in the Easter Friday liturgies. It requires little imagination, to guess what initiated this departure from preceding depictions and what their originating stimulus might have been.
From what we know of Byzantine liturgies, much of it is not for the public gaze. These are mysteries which only the privileged may witness. The eucharist rite of course is carried out behind a reredos. Consequently we cannot expect to see depictions of the sacred burial cloths with their image in Byzantine art. We are only allowed to see an interpretation by way of the epitaphioi.
It seems that in 1204, the burial cloths with their image disappeared from Constantinople, according to the report of Robert de Clari, and it is not until 1355, that the Shroud is said to appear in Lirey France. Nevertheless, despite this knowledge and although various copies were made, it still seems that it was seldom depicted as an art object in its own right, neither in the west nor in the east. But the epitaphioi continued to appear, imprinted on the Byzantine collective memory.
daveb: “The fallacious assumption is that the image was visible soon after the resurrection. Even assuming authenticity it is still not known how long the image took to form.”
I would like to add to that, dave. Even if the image was formed immediately, it may simply have not been seen because it was on the inside of the Shroud. The Apostle who collected the Shroud (Peter?) went over to the Shroud (the image not visible, being on the INSIDE of it), rolled it up, and probably soon put it in a box, leather pouch, etc. How can you determine when somebody unrolled it and looked at the inside of the Shroud, to see an image? You can’t. To add to that, the “insiders” (the new Christians), were almost all Jews and would have been reluctant to handle a bloody object related to death, and reluctant to handle something related to the Divine. If anybody saw the Shroud at all, it was probably when Peter (or the next Custodian) opened the box and said, “See?”. Then closed it right back up. IMHO.
Hi Nabber
Quite correct, the burial cloth, if indeed it is our TS, played a secondary role.
I think daveb is right that epitaphioi may play a significant part in the Shroud story. Those who think it 13th century have a responsibility to find a context for it, and liturgical rites seem a very good place to start. Just as authenticists see cryptic references to the Shroud in pre-13th century images, so non-authenticists must see some sort of reference to the easter liturgy and its traditions in the Shroud. And I freely admit this has not been well established. Yet.
Ian Wilson’s Shroud book published in 1978 and the last one “The Shroud: the 2000-year-old mystery solved” are must reads for anyone who wishes to discuss the Pray Codex. It was he who first wrote about the TS-Byzantine connection,including the liturgy, the art and provides his rationale for it.
In Ian Wison’s book cited above he says of the “Epitaphios” and two similar pieces, “In the case of all three works it is very difficult to understand how they could have been created without some knowledge, however indirect, of the image on the cloth that we know today as the Turin Shroud.” (page 254), place 27a. He also mentions the influence of the edessan image in Greece, Cyprus,Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria,Georgia, Russia, parts of Turkey not yet fallen to the Turks.
That was his original research years ago and it is surprising that this feature is being dwelt upon as though it is a fresh discovery.
What is the long pole with the small cross at the end — that appears to spring from the angel’s knee? It crosses over into top picture which is odd…although with this artist ‘odd’ is likely just a result of his lack of competence.
David, “the long pole with the small cross at the end” (as you put it) is the Cross of Victory Over Death. It literally (and most subtly) stitches the lower to the upper scene.
Daveb:
”Hugh Farey’s assertion, picked up by David Mo reveals a fallacious assumption: “I think it most unlikely that an artist believing that the image of Christ was left behind in the tomb after the resurrection, would not include it in any depiction of it.”
The fallacious assumption is that the image was visible soon after the resurrection. (…)
There is a considerable weight of documentary evidence that the burial cloths were present in Constantinople. (…)
From what we know of Byzantine liturgies, much of it is not for the public gaze. (…)
(…) But the epitaphioi continued to appear, imprinted on the Byzantine collective memory.”
Your argument has nothing to do with what we say Charles Freeman, Hugh and myself:
1. It is irrelevant if the image was produced immediately after the resurrection or two centuries later, miraculously or made by a forger. If the shroud was known at the time you like, we should have a description or an image of it. This is the point I share with Hugh and Charles.
2. Neither of the examples you cite (Constantine VIII, Clari and these other mysterious not specified by you), provide us with a description of the shrouds mentioned that can be compared with the Shroud of Turin. There is no description. There is no way to know if they were painted or not or. In the case that there were some image, we cannot know if these images were similar to the Shroud of Turin or were different. You can not make any comparison of something familiar with something that is not known. The mention of the word “shroud” can not solve the problem.
3. The epitaphioi are liturgical fabrics with representations of the dead Jesus. None of these paints or embroideries shows an identifiable image of the shroud of Turin.
4. At the end of your comment you conclude with an insubstantial reason that I find it goes against their claims. The Mandylion was also rarely exhibited and yet we have enough descriptions and pictures of their appearance. The same should be valid to the Shroud. The lack of descriptions or depictions of the Shroud of Turin until the sixteenth century implies that it was not known or did not exist. In neither case could have been a reference to the formation of Byzantine art and Gothic.
The question is simple: Do you know any accurate description corresponding to the shroud of Turin? Previous to the fourteenth century, of course.
David Mo:
Your argument has nothing to do with what we say Charles Freeman, Hugh and myself:
Neither yours have with the question of whether HPM was derived from the Shroud or not.
The Mandylion was also rarely exhibited and yet we have enough descriptions and pictures of their appearance. The same should be valid to the Shroud.
If the Mandylion and the Shroud were one and the same…
No, David Mo we do not have enough descriptions and pictures of the Mandylion to be 100 % certain how it looked like. Aside the problem of its similarities and supposed identity with the Shroud.
I will try to send some interesting illustration of the mandylion to Dan, so you’ll see.
The lack of descriptions or depictions of the Shroud of Turin until the sixteenth century implies that it was not known or did not exist.
We are certain that Shroud existed at least from fourteenth century. And there is difference between “was not known” and “did not exist”.
The question is simple: Do you know any accurate description corresponding to the shroud of Turin? Previous to the fourteenth century, of course.
No. We don’t have any direct representation of the whole Shroud before 14th century. But that not necessarily means that the Shroud didn’t exist, or was not known to the small and priviliged group of people. It seems that the Shroud, and particularly its image, was a byzantine state secret (just like greek fire and silk production), revealed only to the most notable guests. It was publically shown only on a single occasion, in the years 1203-1204, according to my theory, on the order of young Emperor Alexios IV, desperately struggling to remain in power. Then it was sawn by the Robert de Clari, who reported it in his account.
But as I said, this all is in fact irrelevenat to my above reasoning about the HPM-Shroud link. Nowhere there I adress this point.
Hi David Mo
I don’t know if you have them, but Ian Wilson’s Shroud books, published 1978 and 2010, help a lot in understanding the topic as a whole. You will even learn about the controversy surrounding the carbon dating.
No, Louis, Wilson’s books are not good in the matter of HPM. I have both 2010 (Bantam) and 1978 (Polish and English version, the English from Penguin). The HPM is only marginally mentioned in them.
If you start reading about medieval linens, especially those that were displayed in churches it is clear that there were a lot of them especially in Lent when statues and altars were covered up with so-called Lenten veils, many of which, especially those laid out to cover the opulent altar coverings, had painted images relevant to the themes of Lent.
.We have absolutely no evidence that what de Clari saw was the Shroud- even if we accept that his word ‘figure’ refers to a whole body, he only refers to a ‘figure’ in the singular.
It may even have been the Shroud of Besancon. This is definitely NOT the Turin Shroud because the painting we have of it is sixteenth century, painted by a painter visiting Besancon called Pierre Dargent, which is still in the Municipal Library there. When the BS was being painted in Besancon, the Shroud was in Chambery and then Turin.
So how can you be sure that it was not the Shroud of Besancon, or another altogether, that de Clari saw?
>>Neither of the examples you cite (Constantine VIII, Clari and these other mysterious not specified by you), provide us with a description of the shrouds mentioned that can be compared with the Shroud of Turin.<<
I think that the description by Robert De Clari is clearly a description of the Shroud as we know it. You don't have to believe in the authenticity of the TS to see that. It could have been produced for liturgical rites in Constantinople. But I highly doubt that some artist in 14th century France created the Shroud of Turin. The Byzantines were much more sophisticated in every way, and if the Shroud is ever proven to not be that which Christ was buried in, it will probably be shown to be something from the Eastern Church, not the West.
Having said that, I believe that the TS is more than likely the Shroud of Christ. But if was created by human hand, it wasn't in western Europe. IMHO.
OK, agreed, but only to a certain extent. He was the first one to mention the link, which was the start, and the general influence. The books were also recommended because the author is honest (I interviewed him for a full-page article in a leading daily, not in English) and provides a complete picture about what exactly is going on.
the author is honest […] and provides a complete picture about what exactly is going on.
After reading his latest 2010 book I am not so convinced. But this is a topic for another discussion.
What is it that you find dishonest?
For example, read chapter 7 “What’s in the date?” – I can call it with one word: “trash”.
Or his attitude towards Marion, Courage, and Castex on page 376 (Bantam edition).
Charles:
It may even have been the Shroud of Besancon.
Yes, I know this theoretical possibility, obviously.
So how can you be sure that it was not the Shroud of Besancon, or another altogether, that de Clari saw?
First, we have established that the Shroud of Turin existed before 1200.
Second (but this is another topic), we know that there were several burial cloths in the Constantinople, including the shroud with an image of the Christ, that de Clari saw.
Third (this is also another topic) we know (from iconographic evidence) that Byzantines were aware of the Shroud’s (of Turin) existence.
Fourth, we have no known traces for the Shroud of Turin elsewhere outside Byzantium.
So the only reliable conclusion is the presence of the Shroud of Turin in Constantinople, before the Fourth Crusade.
“We have established that the Shroud of Turin existed before 1200.”
‘We’ have done no such thing. ‘We’ have circumstantial evidence pointing to this, but no hard evidence or we wouldn’t be debating it.
Sorry OK but it’s this type of unsubstantiated claim that I consider ‘trash’.
No one on this site has proven the Shroud is authentic, nor has anyone disproven it. Each of us has our own belief, and that is well and good because until the Shroud’s provenance is proven a FACT, belief is all we have for now.
David, we debate it only due to refusal of sceptics to accept the evidence of HPM. Refusal of one party to accept the arguments of the other, due to the bias only (while presenting no serious counterarguments), does not weaken those arguments at all.
I think the evidence is ‘hard’ enough for every reasonable, unbiased person.
O.k. We have absolutely no evidence that the shroud that de Clari saw survived the Fourth Crusade. It is pure speculation to make a link with the shroud displayed at Lirey with the Clari shroud.
De Clari’s description could apply equally to the Besancon Shroud but again there is nothing to link that shroud to Constantinople.
Anyway ,O.K., you obviously have some bigger fights on your hands – so I will leave you to slug it out!
O.k. We have absolutely no evidence that the shroud that de Clari saw survived the Fourth Crusade.
Nor any other reasonable alternative to the conclusion presented above (“the only reliable conclusion is the presence of the Shroud of Turin in Constantinople, before the Fourth Crusade”).
We must be careful not to fall into the logical fallacy of ‘ all cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs,therefore a cat is a dog.’ So, in an age when relics were proliferating and there were lots of copy cats ( cf the Besancon Shroud), ‘There was a shroud with an image on it in the Blachernae Church in 1203-4,there was a shroud with an image on it in the church at Lirey in 1355, therefore one must be the other.’ There is simply not a shred of evidence to link the two and ,as the Crusaders landed just by the Blachernae Church the de Clari shroud was most likely destroyed in the fighting. The stories say that the much more important ‘relic’ of the church, the famous icon of the Virgin Mary, was saved by the people and not captured.
OK, Chapter 7 seems to be a well-balanced viewpoint. What exactly do you object to?
The only objection I have is that there seems to have been some sort of partiality, people in England could “see” things on the Shroud:
https://www.academia.edu/6568383/Does_the_Shroud_show_a_Mandaean_burial
while those in other countries, like the US, could not. Was that because Sherlock Holmes was English and left his know-how for future generations in England while the Americans were cockeyed?
This approach also affected French scholars, Marion, Courage, Castex, whom you cite, and who have had someone to defend them:
https://www.academia.edu/7447446/Was_there_a_link_between_the_Knights_Templar_and_the_Turin_Shroud_An_interview_with_Dr._Barbara_Frale
IW is extremely careful when it comes to “seeing” things on the Shroud. He also mentions Professor Avianoam Danin, but without committing himself.
No, Louis. Chapter 7 is really a trash, written by Wilson who does not understand the basics of carbon-dating (I know he is a historian, but learning how to solve a very basic differential equation, or at least gaining some knowledge of the basics of C14 dating, making some simple calculations is not too far for his abilities, particularly as he had some 20 years for it), adheres to the long discredited bioplastic coating theory, and does not understand Benford/Marino and Rogers work at all! It is really a trash, and I know what I am talking about!
IW is extremely careful when it comes to “seeing” things on the Shroud. He also mentions Professor Avianoam Danin, but without committing himself.
It is not the issue of “seeing” or “not seeing”. It is a matter of respect. For Danin, Wilson has at least some. But for Marion Courage, and Castex -he has shown such arrogance, that I wondered whether to write an open letter for BSTS, accusing him of dishonesty!
The Editor of the Newsletter of the BSTS will be glad to accept any submissions refuting the work of any of its members. He is unlikely to respond well to anybody who dismisses one of the most important pioneers of Shroud research ever simply by calling it “trash,” and insulting his mathematical skills. The bold words “It is really a trash, and I know what I am talking about” need substantiating or rescinding, for as they stand, they bring far more discredit to their author than they do to their subject.
My description above is not enough for you, Hugh?
Not at all.
OK, I greatly appreciate your hard work in Shroud research, but I must say that you are being unfair to IW. He showed downright honesty when I questioned him about Shroud research and related issues for our interview, which was such a success when published that even a sceptical science writer — who published in the same daily — changed his mind and became more open-minded when it came to religion. I hope to be able post it online with an English translation.
From my point of view, IW challenges the reweaving hypothesis because he was the first Shroud scholar to examine it closely and did not observe any patch. Of course, the patch is said to have been invisible because of the stitching and, for me at least, it still is one among many hypotheses on how the 1988 carbon dating results may have been skewed. IW also demonstrated support for Dr. Garza-Valdés and that was because of the relic’s surface. Today, no scientist would admit that the bacteria would be sufficient to skew the results, the contamination would have to be much more.
One must remember that Oxford is willing to open the doors of the laboratory for fresh carbon dating, but then is there any hypothesis that is accepted by each and everyone in the realm of Shroud studies and beyond it? It is for this reason that I think IW is right in saying that it is not necessary to appeal to the laboratory.
There are things in this world that are sort of “unseen”, they work behind the scenes, dropping hints, appearing spontaneously, influencing people to change their minds. That is something where IW and myself agreed with absolutely no hesitation.
Louis, I never deny your honesty, but sometimes you are simply naive.
IW seems not to understand Benford/Marino and Rogers, as well as Marion-Courage & Castex arguments at all. And if needed, I can provide you proper citations from his book to show it.
But I don’t think it is a proper thread for that.
O.K. I will not judge the hypothesis now, and as I wrote earlier it still is one among several hypotheses to explain how the C19 results may have been skewed. Beyond IW, Mme. Mecthild Flury-Lemberg and Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti also rejected it. Now you will say that Flury-Lemberg and Ghiberti are on the same bandwagon, and then what will my response be?
Turin must first make available the almost 2000 microphotographs in its possession. I think you know that the Church has a commission to investigate the provenance of the relic and that must be before Geoffrey de Charny began his expositions. I have always agreed that the de Clari document, the Pray Codex and so on are important clues, but there must be more and we must not forget the 1204-1356 gap. I hope to begin working on this in a few days from now, but that will take time since it involves genealogy, image processing as there is no point in posting guesswork.
Louis, it is not about Ghiberti, nor Flury-Lemberg. It is about IW, and what he writes in his book. It is not about one or another particular viewpoint, but about attitude.
Hugh: Not at all.
But no kidding, Hugh!
Just to quote IW (The Shroud: Fresh Light on the 200-yeart old mystery, Bantam 2011.
On the radiocarbon dating:
pg. 21-22:
In 2005 American scientist Dr Ray Rogers, dying from cancer, issued a peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming to prove that the Shroud sample used for the carbon dating was cut from an area rewoven during the Middle Ages, instead of having come from the true, original fabric. But as we will see later, even this argument lacks serious substance, and in general the 1988 radiocarbon dating finding has been able to rest unchallenged as science’s overriding ‘verdict’ on the Shroud, snuffing out any evidence, from any discipline, that might suggest to the contrary
What counterarguments Wilson presents against Rogers? As we will see, none (he mentions Rogers only twice in the whole book!), but let’s make another quote from his book.
So now this ‘trash’ -chapter 7 ‘What’s in a date?’
pg. 129-130.
More recently it has been claimed, […], that the area of the Shroud from which the radiocarbon dating sample was taken was one which had been extensively rewoven in the Middle Ages (footnote 9 : Marino and Benford 2009). purportedly the ‘new’ areahad been invisibly matched to the rest of the cloth, so the radiocarbon dating laboratories had unwittingly dated from a piece that was not part of the original cloth but added thirteen centuries later.
Thirteen centuries -here is ne clue that Wilson completely misunderstands Benford/Marino ideas. But he goes further:
Despite this idea having been put forward, even in peer-reviewed scientific journals, it has little more going for it than the ‘clandestine switch’ theory. During my eight-hour examination of the Shroud back in 1973, high among the priorities was a very carefu search fo any anomalies that may disclose an early historical display method, any ancient fold marks, signs of fastenings, etc. Every area of the linen’s surface that was accesible on that occasion (footnote 10: The dorsal half was not, being above my head, because of the upright display mode) was carefully surveyed from a glancing angle for this purpose, and the area from which the radiocarbon dating sample was later taken was well within my viewing range.(footnote 11: The opposite end of the cloth was not, being well above my head because of the upright mode of display on that occasion.) Not theslightest sign of any compositional difference was apparent.
Later, Wilson goes on bringing Vial’s and Flury-Lemberg opinions. Anyway, as we have seen, he prefers his own eye examination, back in 1973 (!), when no one had C14 dating on mind, over peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals.
And later Wilson is going on, describing generalities, how C14 is unreliable, without any proper understanding of the subject. He as far as 2009, despite his visual examination, considered discredited bioplastic coating theory as credible, and believed its presence in the C14 area (see pg. 135, and a footnote 18, that is an e-mail from Stephan Mattingly, dated 8 April 2009).
About Danin, Marion, Courage and Castex, pg. 376:
When none other than Avinoan Danin, Professor of Botany at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, very forcefully insist on seeing the images of certain plants(footnote 13: Danin et al, 1999 and 2008.), it deserves to be taken seriously -particularly given that he can in no way be accused of any pro-Christian bias. Most other such claims, however, are extremely doubtful, particularly the Latin, Greek and Hebrew inscriptions which have been ‘seen’ by two French researchers, André Marion and Anne Laure Courage. (footnote 14: Marion and Courage, 1997.) Also the claims of a French ‘scientist’, Thierry Castex, that he has found the Aramaic word ‘found’ written in Hebrew letters.
So Danin is fine, but Marion, Courage and Castex are not. And Castex does not even deserve the name of ‘scientist’. Very gentle, Mr. Wilson.
Oh, btw: what is in the Wilson’s bibliography? Marion, André, and Anne Laure Courage, Nouvelles Découvertes sur le Suaire de Turin, Paris, Albin Michel, 1997
In fact, I have a polish edition of that book? And I can say, that it is quite technical, for a popular book standard. Here I have question: had IW even read it? Because I have sense that either he had not, or he had not understood it at all. This is the only place where he adresses Marion and Courage saying simply they are bad, without any adressing to it in essential way. It is not about agreeing, or not, with Marion&Courage conclusion, but I am under impression that Mr Wilson had lost a great opportunity to remain silent on the subject (that he probably doesn’t know at all).
That’s all so far, I am going sleep. Goodnight.
The 1204 to 1355 gap may be an artificial one based on the belief that the de Clari shroud and the Lirey shroud are one and the same. So far not a shred of evidence has been found to fill the gap. Wilson had to let his imagination run riot( ‘if there is no evidence for something, bring in the Knights Templar and Barbara Frale’). I believe he then had to dump Ms.Frale.
In fact, I have a polish edition of that book?
It should be: I have a polish edition of that book (Andrè Marion, Anne-Laure Courage, Całun Turyński Nowe Odkrycia Nauki, Znak, Kraków 2000). Great pity it is not available in English. It would save the Marion’s honor from being insulted by some ignorant, and misinformed guys. That’s just what I care about -not actually whether there are real inscriptions on the Shroud or not. This will be determined later on.
Good morning, O.K.!
I agree with some of the things you say, not with everything. We could go on and on and reach no satisfactory conclusion. Turin must make the microphotographs available to researchers and perhaps the Vatican could allow what IW called some “glasnost” within its walls.
It is not that I say Yes to everything that IW writes, but I do agree with him that it is possible that the TS is not at all suitable for carbon dating, so there is no point in cutting another piece of the precious relic to be sent to Oxford. The reasons are in the book you cited and I, for one, am convinced.
Now, tell me, if fresh carbon dating does not give a first-century date what will happen? There will be an uproar and Shroud scientists, historians, enthusiasts will have dozens of articles and papers, pdf or not, peer-reviewed or not, and the problem will still not be solved. That is very probable because history clashes with science, and the science (C19 in this case) does not have the infallibility imparted to it.
You are doing exactly what IW wants! : Working on the images you can produce to see if you can detect something no one has seen so far. So both of you are in a way on the same bandwagon, not forgetting the fact that the two of you are also pro-authenticity.
Response to David Mo of Jul 3, 12:19pm:
“It is irrelevant if the image was produced immediately after the resurrection or two centuries later, miraculously or made by a forger.” It was argued by yourself and Hugh F that no medieval depictions of the discovery of the empty tomb showed an image on the burial cloths, and by extension I presume therefore that you are arguing that the Shroud image did not influence such depictions. I pointed out that there was no way of knowing whether the image was present on the burial cloths or not immediately after the resurrection. There is only tenuous evidence that it may have been. It would then be presumptuous of an artist to assume that it was visible at that time, and so none apparently depicted it as such. The tenuous evidence is found in John’s gospel when “the other disciple” entered the tomb saw the cloths and so believed, and the two angels one at the foot and one at the head. However John’s gospel is unlikely to have been written earlier than about 50 years after the event, by which time the image might then have developed to be visible. There were excellent reasons including secrecy as to why the image is not otherwise explicitly mentioned in the scriptures. There are further hints and suggestions to be found in Revelations.
You seem to complain that I have not specified other Byzantine documentary evidence. I prefer not to spoon-feed those who feign ignorance. A comprehensive review of the documentary evidence can be found in Scavone:
“Acheiropoietos Jesus Images in Constantinople: the Documentary Evidence” found at:
http://www.sindonology.org/scavone-acheiropoietos.pdf
Scavone provides further evidence in his review of the origins of the epitaphioi:
GREEK EPITAPHIOI AND OTHER EVIDENCE FOR THE SHROUD IN CONSTANTINOPLE UP TO 1204, found at:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/scavone.pdf
It does not seem to have been in the Byzantine mind-set to be overly-explicit about sacred objects, perhaps a more recent western practice. So any descriptions of the Shroud and its image are by way of general allusions only. Nevertheless, the documents and the epitaphioi clearly have a basis for their origin and appear to reflect knowledge of the Shroud. The Shroud as we know it exists as a real object, yet no-one has provided a satisfactory explanation for its characteristics and properties. There is much to support the view that it is what it appears to be, the burial cloth of Christ. There is only one piece of evidence that can challenge its authenticity, and that is the most unsatisfactory unrepresentative carbon dating, which is seriously questioned, but which is now only tenaciously clung to by the most rabid of non-authenticists.
I am happy to debate the pros and cons of the authenticity of the Shroud, and its various enigmatic properties with those prepared to discuss it with an open mind. However I see it as a rather fruitless and pointless task of continuously arguing minor details with those whose mind is made up and not prepared even to consider the possibility of authenticity no matter what arguments might be presented. That is not my mission in life, and I have rather more pressing priorities than wasting my time in such a way.
Good morning, O.K. The Church is interested in this kind of phenomena, perhaps finding it more concrete, easier to judge. No need for pdfs, peer reviews, conferences, congresses, petitions and…
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2014/07/01/fulton-sheen-and-the-miracle-of-baby-james/
I think you miss the thrust of my argument. There are various reasons why the Shroud was not mentioned in the Gospels, which could have been for reasons of uncleanliness, secrecy, or, indeed, because there was no image on it then. However, after the Shroud was known to have an image on it, that’s when I think it unlikely not to have been depicted as such. I think it unlikely that an artist would have assumed that the image was not contemporaneous with the resurrection (how could he have known?), and do not agree that the Byzantines were shy to depict their relics – the Mandylion was widely illustrated.
Rabid, now. Another for the thesaurus. I’m sorry that you have decided to class me as rabid. I wonder if you, or OK or Louis, can accept that there could possibly be such a thing as a non-rabid non-authenticist. I don’t think authenticists are rabid. I think there is much to be said for their arguments – i just don’t think they are sufficiently convincing. Perhaps one day they will turn out to be. Does this sound rabid?
Perhaps I’m old fashioned, but I would think that a group of people who describe their opponents as rabid, arrogant, ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate, poisonous, dishonest, deceitful, envious, fearful, fanatical, sychophantic and complete morons, sound just a tiny bit defensive, wouldn’t you say? When you say you are “happy to debate the pros and cons of the authenticity of the Shroud, and its various enigmatic properties with those prepared to discuss it with an open mind,” do you have anybody in mind? How can you discuss pros and cons if you think anybody who disagrees with you is a rabid fanatic?
I can answer for myself regarding what Hugh says. It can be expressed in a few words: even if the Shroud is “proved” to be authentic, even if it “proves” the resurrection of Christ, there will still be a lot more to answer. I wonder even if RD has thought about that, given that he knows little about theology and philosophy, despite his brilliance. Biology shows us a lot of discoveries as each day passes by, yet it also poses questions. That is something RD seems to be worried about and there are periods when he is is, indeed, intellectually honest.
My faith needs no TS as a prop, so I don’t accuse any anti-authenticity scholars, teachers and so forth of ignorance, I am willing to accept their arguments when they are valid,but also see the need for them to say Yes to arguments presented by those in the pro-authenticity camp when these are convincing.
Hugh F: “However, after the Shroud was known to have an image on it, that’s when I think it unlikely not to have been depicted as such.” Overlooks the facts of history:-
Early church opposed icons because of O.T. prohibitions; Cult only developed in 6th & 7th centuries, following a) Edict of Milan 4th century enabling acceptance of Christianity; b) consequential emergence of Mandylion, Edessa 6th century. Icon worshippers were persecuted 726 – 786; Council of Nicea 787 condemned iconoclasm; But Second iconoclast period 814 – 842; Icon veneration restored 843. So even if Shroud image was in fact known, and represented in art, survival of any such art works might well be unlikely. Nevertheless there are hints that it was known to a few, epitaph of Bishop Avercius Marcellus d.~200AD; Bardesanic Hymn of Pearl 2nd century; various comments alluding to chest wound.
More likely it was not generally known because it was concealed as something else, and it seems significant that references to the burial cloth only emerge in Constantinople, following the arrival of the mandylion there, and Constantine VII’s letter of 958 AD. Until the time of the Crusades, the burial cloths along with other relics were generally kept hidden in the emperor’s collection. Even so there are references to sightings of it by various western visitors. The Shroud itself as such might not be considered an attractive or appealing subject as an art work, but it is represented in the highly decorated epitaphioi, and is there given a religious significance, important to the Byzantines, rather than just its cold realism more attuned to a later age.
The two sides of the debate seem to approach the Shroud from two entirely different perspectives. For the non-authenticist, there is the appeal of the enigmatic, the inexplicable, a subject of curiosity, which may be discussed purely as an intellectual exercise with absolutely no commitment. However for the authenticist, there has to be a reason why the Shroud has been given to humanity to contemplate. It is the predecessor of all iconography, it is a divine gift, to be treated with reverence, and has the potential to affirm faith, and to evangelize. We may gaze in awe at the pyramids, and the handiwork of earlier ages. But for the authenticist, the Shroud is so much more, and creates commitment. That is the distinction between the two approaches as I see it, and what creates the difficulties in attempting dialogue between the two sides. Try telling an Islamist that the Black Stone in the Kaaba at Mecca is really a meteorite and see how much mileage you can get from that!
Well, that’s all much more sensible – I think I can stop foaming at the mouth now.
O.K.:
No, David Mo we do not have enough descriptions and pictures of the Mandylion to be 100 % certain how it looked like. Aside the problem of its similarities and supposed identity with the Shroud.
I’m not speaking about any 100%. Only relevant features in descriptions and images. The image of a barbed face with crossed halo on a rectangular clothing. A living face, of course.
No. We don’t have any direct representation of the whole Shroud before 14th century. But that not necessarily means that the Shroud didn’t exist, or was not known to the small and priviliged group of people. It seems that the Shroud, and particularly its image, was a byzantine state secret (just like greek fire and silk production), revealed only to the most notable guests.
I don’t know any document that speaks about the exhibition of the Shroud (the named Shroud of Turin, of course) in Byzantium. I don’t know any document speaking about a state secret. I would like you quote these important documents. I would like to know how you are able to identify the Shroud in these documents if there is not a description of it.
Chesterbello:
I think that the description by Robert De Clari is clearly a description of the Shroud as we know it.
De Clari:
“…where was kept the sydoine (sic) in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the features of Our Lord could be plainly seen there.”
It is impossible to know what kind of image Clari is speaking about. For example, is Clari speaking about an image painted or impressed? Naked or dressed? In what position? etc., etc. Don’t say us that you recognise the Shroud.
Well to me at least it implies something different than a painting.
“SO THE FEATURES OF OUR LORD COULD BE PLAINLY SEEN.”
This implies that what might otherwise have not been easy to observe features were made more obvious by being raised up and presented, possibly in suitable lighting.
De clari goes on to state that no one knew what happened to the shroud. That implies that it was something quite unique and special rather than an obvious painting.
Daveb:
I disagree with Hugh on some relevant issues but this one is better explained by him than me.
I think you miss the thrust of my argument. There are various reasons why the Shroud was not mentioned in the Gospels, which could have been for reasons of uncleanliness, secrecy, or, indeed, because there was no image on it then. However, after the Shroud was known to have an image on it, that’s when I think it unlikely not to have been depicted as such. I think it unlikely that an artist would have assumed that the image was not contemporaneous with the resurrection (how could he have known?), and do not agree that the Byzantines were shy to depict their relics – the Mandylion was widely illustrated.
I only add: image or not image an artist that had know the shroud of Turin would have painted the form of the sheet at least.
For the reasons I have given here I don’t see any epitaphios showing any knowledge about the shroud of Turin. I have read Scavone and I am not convinced by him at all. Perhaps you are able to change my mind.
Ladies and gentlemen, please stick to the Hungarian Pray Manuscript topic!
Other issues can be discussed in different threads.
The sceptics know they cannot cope with the arguments for HPM-Shroud link presented in article above, so they try to distract attention on another topics.
This is classical “moving the goalpost” fallacy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts )
Pro-authenticitists: please don’t get provoked.
Thanks.
The sarchofagus of stone was an INVENTION of the artists.
Jesus WAS NOT buried in a sarchofagus, Jesus was buried in a cave.
The artist of the Códex Pray does not represent a SARCHOFAGUS that is NON-EXISTENT in the Gospel, and is not an exception:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1993.19
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O137853/the-maries-at-the-sepulchre-panel-unknown/
http://hortulusjournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/munich-ivory-of-the-ascension.jpg
The artist of the Códex Pray represents to the seated angel sat in a bank, as says O.K, ó well in the stone that was covering the entry of the cave, and is not an exception:
http://www.artbible.net/3JC/-Mat-28,01_Women_Resurrection_Femmes/2nd_16th_Siecle/slides/08-18%20IVORY%20EMPTY%20TOMB%20MAT%2028.html
http://artsurveyfall2012a.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/ivorycrystalflask.jpg
Why do sceptics want that the Sheet is a sarchofagus?
They know badly the History of the Art.
(en español)
El sarcófago de piedra fue un INVENTO de los artistas.
Jesús NO FUE sepultado en un sarcófago, Jesús fue sepultado en una cueva.
El artista del Códex Pray NO representa un SARCÓFAGO que es INEXISTENTE en el Evangelio, y no es una excepción:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1993.19
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O137853/the-maries-at-the-sepulchre-panel-unknown/
http://hortulusjournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/munich-ivory-of-the-ascension.jpg
El artista del Códex Pray representa al angel sentado sentado en un banco, como dice O.K, ó bien en la piedra que tapaba la entrada de la cueva, y no es una excepción:
http://www.artbible.net/3JC/-Mat-28,01_Women_Resurrection_Femmes/2nd_16th_Siecle/slides/08-18%20IVORY%20EMPTY%20TOMB%20MAT%2028.html
http://artsurveyfall2012a.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/ivorycrystalflask.jpg
¿Por qué quieren los escépticos que la Sábana sea un sarcófago?
Conocen mal la Historia del Arte.
Carlos
If you look at the iconography of these scenes you will see that the Byzantine tradition was to represent a cave and the western Catholic tradition to show a sarcophagus. The Pray Codex is ,of course, a western depiction.
El artista representan varias cosas en un poco de espacio, sin embargo, es claro que no hay sarcófago, la losa puede de hecho representan la piedra que cubre la entrada de la cueva de entierro.
El énfasis está en la resurrecion.
Well, no. The iconography of the Three Marys very rarely has anything that looks as if it was carved out of rock – a cave. The earlier ones show the tomb as a building, sometimes just a big doorway, which I suppose could be interpreted as the built-up entrance to a cave, but mostly they seem to be round temple-like buildings, complete with domed roofs, and seem to me to be derived from the Holy Sepulchre rotunda in Jerusalem. The angel is often sitting on a squarish stone – very rarely a round one – which has sometimes been ‘turned’ to an odd angle. The modern concept of a round millwheel-like stone rolling away from a hole in the hillside is wholly foreign to these pictures. If the stone the angel is sitting on is not the entrance to the tomb, then it is probably modelled, as Carlos suggests, on the Stone of Unction.
Later there comes a transition stage in which the building is still there, but a rectangular sarcophagus is also illustrated, and later still the building goes completely and the the angel’s stone becomes the lid of the sarcophagus. This transition and one or two variations of it are very clearly evident if one prints out all David Mo’s, and Carlos’s examples. The architectural elements of the Pray manuscript fit very well into the tradition. The building has gone, the sarcophagus (the polystaurion block) remains, and the skewed ‘lid’ could be either the stone of Unction or the lid of the sarcophagus. Charles divides the tradition into Eastern and Western, and I think it is significant that the text above the Pray picture is in Latin, not Greek.
HF: “The architectural elements of the Pray manuscript fit very well into the tradition. ”
So a skewed coffin lid, with unsymmetrical curved sides, apparently intended to cover no hollow space for a body in what is said to be a sarcophagus (the only sarcophagus in history known not to contain a space for a body), and with four small circles arranged in an ‘L’ shape, decorated with a zigzag pattern, complete with two matching zigzag red stripes, with a mysterious floating head, and a peculiar alpha like symbol, is said to fit well into the traditional pattern of the Three Marys.
It’s evident that people will only see what they are predisposed to see, and nothing else!
I think I’m out of here, and will leave you all to follow your fruitless search!
Well said dave. If the likes of Hugh can’t get their heads around these various departures from artistic convention then they are clearly blinded by bias. Or not quite as clever as they make out.
I totally agree Daveb & Thomas. They see what they want to see. But I think this thread has served its purpose in demonstrating this.
I wonder if you have actually looked through Carlos’s links, especially the last one, which has dozens of Three Marys scenes with which we might compare the Pray manuscript picture. The architectural elements, as opposed to the decorative elements, really do fit very well into the tradition; the skewed slab, be it lid or Stone of Unction, and the “big block” which is often shown hollow – an incontestable sarcophagus – but occasionally solid, possibly representing the shelf on which Jesus’s body was laid, or simply the sarcophagus from sideways on. The likes of me can indeed get our heads around the various departures from decorative convention, but there is really very little departure from archaeological convention.
Throughout this saga, the sceptics have explained carefully with numerous examples why they do not believe that the Pray drawing demonstrates the pre-existence of the shroud. They have countered with dozens of similar scenes, with discussions of possible alternatives and with thoughtful suggestions as to further possible research. They have demonstrated that a large proportion of Three Marys scenes show a skewed slab over a rectagular sarcophagus, a crumpled shroud and an angel balancing like a surfer on the slab. They have pondered the meaning of the concentric zigzag ‘circles’ and the polystaurion block. They have suggested comparisons with marble and the crusader crosses. They have differed over possible explanations for the various little circles. They have researched possible connections with epitaphioi. They are not immune to the significance of the Shroud as an important Christian icon. They do not insist that authenticists instantly change their minds, but it would be nice if they could at least see some validity to their observations.
Is any of this untrue?
The response of those who believe that the Pray manuscript does derive from the Shroud, that the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of Christ, has been an unceasing tirade of invective and abuse. They have offered nothing new in the way of evidence, and demanded slavish acceptance of their point of view.
Is any of this untrue?
You think a series of concentric zigzag semicircles represent herringbone weave. I disagree. I understand your point of view, you think I’m a moron. You think the rectangular slab has sufficiently wavy edges to be considered representative of a cloth rather than a stone. I disagree. I understand your point of view; you think I’m blind. You think the wavy lines on the slab represent the blood flows on the shroud. I disagree. I understand your point of view; you think I’m arrogant. You go on and on about how you cannot bear to argue with me any more; I think that gently pointing out misrepresentations of my point of view and trying to make it clearer will enable to help undecided readers of these comments to make up their own minds; all you can say in reply is that I’m a blind, rabid, arrogant, ignorant, irrelevant, uncomprehending, illogical, obsessive, absurd, desperate, poisonous, dishonest, deceitful, envious, fearful, fanatical, sychophantic moron.
Well, good for you. With friends like that, the Shroud’s rejection as a worthless shibboleth seems assured. With friends like mine, even though we doubt its authenticity, its value as a central icon of Christianity may yet be saved. Thank goodness there are so many more of us.
Eloquent as ever Hugh – and almost certainly correct in your assessment – which I have long shared.
Incidentally, has anyone ever explained why there was only this one attempt, that we know of, to incorporate imagery into a devotional picture that (allegedly) signals to the cognoscenti that the original burial shroud has/had been conserved largely intact (bar an unfortunate mishap with something hot)? Why aren’t there scores, nay hundreds of other instances of this particular flagging-up of the Shroud, either as simple and somewhat amateurish pen-and-ink line drawings, as per Pray Codex, or more ambitious and grandiose works of art?
One’s reminded of the old joke: why is there only one Monopolies Commission?
I do not associate myself with any of the accusations which Hugh F claims have been made against his personal character. Regardless of any personal feelings I may have concerning those who differed from my own views of the matter, I thought I had constrained most of my comments to worthwhile contributions to the discussion. Occasionally I may have slipped and succumbed to provocation, but then I make few claims to personal perfection. However it seems that the only matter that has made any impression at all, is a sense of personal victimisation, and any substantive argument I may have made is ignored.
Perhaps the key point is that there has been this discussion going on about the Pray Codex ever since Ian Wilson proposed it, but I have never come across anyone outside the Shroud community who can see anything out of the ordinary there even if , and especially if, they are actually shown the Shroud. Those who claim that the Shroud is there ,and it seems everyone of these accepts that it somehow had to be concealed from the general public both in medieval times and to historians and art historians today, have failed to convince anyone outside their circle. Perhaps time to find some evidence that might actually convince a professional in these fields.
It would be good to get say 3 independent art historians to look at the issue. And privy to the complete arguments of the authenticists not just a very limited selection of the arguments.
It does not require art historians! It requires insight and perception!
AND THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX!!!
[Pun intended!]
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/vartanova/icons.htm
It is neither lid nor stone of unction, it is a burial slab.
I spy with my little eye something beginning with S…???
6th image down on this website, the 12th century image from England:
http://counterfeitbossuet.blogspot.co.nz/2013_03_24_archive.html
But hey, just a coincidence it is shroud shaped, shroud coloured, and seemingly specked with red marks
Now there’s an interesting one, I agree. The two slabs are characteristic of the genre, of course, but it is quite rare to see a tomb hovering in mid-air. One of the examples in Carlos’s last link has something a little similar, with the tomb appearing as a kind of bridge, through which we can see the dresses of the women. They seem to be derived from the style which shows huddled guards in the front of the picture, sometimes in a little hollow of their own. Take away the guards and it seems some painters interpret the space left behind as a void right through. A fascinating one to add to the collection. Thank you.
I’m not sure what Louis is referring to. Which of the pictures in his link shows a burial slab? If he is referring to my earlier comment, then I agree that one of the two blocks may have originated as the burial slab, the one that eventually slid out of the tomb building and became a sarcophagus. The other block, the one the angel is sitting on, which eventually became the llid, is more likely to have been originally either the Stone of Unction or the door of the tomb (the stone rolled away).
Well, we are talking about possibilities and probabilities, as Hugh will agree. My rationale is the following:
It is doubtful that the artist lacked culture, say, did not even read the NT before painting the image. It seems he was trying to include as much information as possible in limited space, pre- and post-Resurrection scenes.
There are problems with the interpretation:
First-century Jewish tombs had burial slabs and shelves, so it is possible that the artist intended to show the stone of unction as a burial slab, but what would the stone of unction be doing in a tomb? It is not that famous one preserved in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. We now now that the burial place was “honeycombed with tombs”, to quote Bahat, so how many dead bodies were washed on the “stone of unction”? Jesus was the only one who had his dead body washed on this “stone of unction”? Does the NT say that the body was washed? No, it doesn’t. Did the artist think about this?
If the artist intended to show a sarcophagus,then he had little culture, he was mixing Egypt with Israel, mixing Jesus with a pharaoh.
Did the artist think about the door of the tomb? The NT says that the door was rolled, not pushed. Was it round? Could be, but only four round entrance stones have been found. Did the artist visit Jerusalem before painting? Was he also an archaeologist to know that the blocking stones were more rectangular and square?
Here’s a link to a fun picture. It shows a convention of flat-earthers gathered at a carefully selected spot on the planet – Meteor Crater in Arizona.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTB2vlXbttQX_xHxKx1sRnpw3Cjprs0ZcjMrbh81UP7t8oKcviY
Sceptics are given binoculars to convince themselves that the Earth does NOT recede downwards towards the far horizon.
Some might consider their horizons somewhat limited – to say nothing of displaying selection bias.
(Apologies to those tourists in MY carefully selected graphic – chosen to make a claim that is totally at variance with objective reality).
Carlos:
No estamos discutiendo cómo eran las tumbas judías del siglo I, sino cómo se representaba la tumba de Jesús en el arte medieval tardío. Hugh Farey lo ha explicado con su habitual claridad. Pero lo que me extraña es que incluso en los ejemplos que pones el ángel está sentado sobre la tapa del sarcófago o sobre el mismo sarcófago.
We are not discussing how the Jewish tombs actually were in the First Century but how was represented the Jesus’ tomb in the last medieval art. Hugh Farey has explained this with his usual clarity. But I am surprised because in the examples you put here the angel is seated on the lid or on the sarcophagus.
Corrijo: “…el ángel está frecuentemente sentado…”
I correct: “… the antes is frequently seated…”
“… the angel is rfequently seated…”
(Damn hurry!)
Ver los comentarios en respuesta a Hugh Arriba.
See the comments in response to Hugh above.
David:
You say:
“We are not discussing how the Jewish tombs actually were in the First Century but how was represented the Jesus’ tomb in the last medieval art. ”
NOT.
We are discussing if the artist of the Códex Pray drew the Shroud of Turin or if the artist of the Códex Pray drew a NON-EXISTENT sarchofagus in the Gospels.
In the Codex Pray the SARCHOFAGUS is NON-EXISTENT, as in 4 examples that I propose the SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
You say:
“But I am surprised because in the examples you put here the angel is seated on the lid or on the sarcophagus.”
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡????????
What sarchofagus?.
In 4 examples that I propose the SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
1- “Three Holy Women at the Sepulcher”, early 10th century Northern Italy (Milan?) The Cloisters Collection and Lila Acheson Wallace.
The SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
2- “The Maries at the Sepulchre”, St Gall, Switzerland (probably´ca. 900-950)
The SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
3- “Ascension of Christ” ca.400, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich.
The SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
4- “08 Ivory empty tomb Mat 28”, scenes from the Life of Christ, Victoria and Albert Museum
The SARCHOFAGUS it is NON-EXISTENT.
(en español)
David:
Usted dice:
“No estamos discutiendo cómo eran las tumbas judías del siglo I, sino cómo se representaba la tumba de Jesús en el arte medieval tardío.”
NO.
Estamos discutiendo si el artista del Códex Pray dibujó la Sabana Santa o si el artista del Códex Pray dibujó un sarcófago INEXISTENTE en los Evangelios.
En el Codex Pray el SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE, al igual que en los 4 ejemplos que propongo el SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE.
Usted dice:
“…lo que me extraña es que incluso en los ejemplos que pones el ángel está sentado sobre la tapa del sarcófago o sobre el mismo sarcófago.”
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡????????
¡Yo soy el sorprendido!
¿Qué sarcófago?
En los 4 ejemplos que propongo el SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE.
1- “Three Holy Women at the Sepulcher”, early 10th century Northern Italy (Milan?) The Cloisters Collection and Lila Acheson Wallace
El SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE
2- “The Maries at the Sepulchre”, St Gall, Switzerland (probably´ca. 900-950)
El SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE
3- “Ascension of Christ” ca.400, Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich.
El SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE
4- “08 Ivory empty tomb Mat 28”, scenes from the Life of Christ, Victoria and Albert Museum
El SARCÓFAGO es INEXISTENTE
Carlos
Thank you, Carlos, for your examples, but you do not seem to have followed the progression of iconographic ideas outlined above sufficiently. Earlier representations do not have a sarcophagus, they have a temple-like building, inside which is the shroud and outside which sits the angel, on the Stone of Unction or possibly the door of the tomb. All your examples are of this type. As the iconography developed, a block (possibly the burial shelf) appears, and gradually makes its way outside the building. At some stage the building itself disappears, and we are left with the block, often hollowed out to become a sarcophagus, and the angel stone, often now clearly representing the lid. The Pray manuscript is an early version of this type. Your earlier link (http://www.artbible.net/3JC/-Mat-28,01_Women_Resurrection_Femmes/2nd_16th_Siecle/slides/08-18%20IVORY%20EMPTY%20TOMB%20MAT%2028.html) shows the progression clearly.
These latest examples cited by Hugh F seem to be from 11th century (mostly 1020 – 1050), and there is a stylistic uniformity that suggests just the one art school. The verse Matt 28:1 is often cited, suggesting the artists’ intentions of representing that scene. Mark’s gospel also refers to the visit of the three women, but Matthew deliberately gives the story a different twist (contrasts rebuff of Jews with the commission to teach the gentiles). If it’s Matthew 28, then there’s an earthquake, which would dislodge the stone, and so Matthew brings in the angel indicating that the earthquake is providential, and who brings the message of Christ’s resurrection to the women. Matthew 28 has the angel sitting on the stone. In few if any of the sample illustrations is the angel actually sitting on the stone. He is often either sitting or standing on a skewed rectangle, which often looks more like a Persian magic carpet, than a sarcophagus lid. This skewed rectangle seems a persistent feature whether or not the sarcophagus is shown or not. Sometimes the rectangle has a thickness suggesting a casket lid, sometimes it does not. In some cases it almost seem suspended in the air suggesting the carpet analogy. Why does the skewed rectangle persist, whether or not the sarcophagus is shown or not? It seems peculiar that this one feature endures regardless and independently of the sarcophagus.
In the HPM, 12th century (1192-95) the angel is not sitting on the rectangle but seems to be sitting on a type of rock shelf, again not necessarily the rolled-away entrance stone, and the skewed rectangle seems more part of the foreground.
I think it unfortunate that the debate seemed to reflect too much the personal agenda of the participants. Thus all non-authenticists have insisted that the HPM shows no connection with the TS, while all authenticists have insisted that it does. Clearly both sides have allowed their personal attitudes to authenticity to interpret the HPM. This is not the way to arrive at the truth of the matter. I consider that several of the illustrations from the 11th century are not all persuasive of the rectangle being interpreted as a casket lid. In fact I am wondering if there’s more of a hint in the theory that the stories about angels in the various resurrection stories, might refer to the images on the Shroud, allowing that all of the gospels were written some decades after the events they purport to recount. The fact that the angel is often shown placed on this rectangle might even suggest it!
Carlos:
First of all: I wrote: “on the lid or on the sarcophagus”. “Lid” in English means “tapa”. Please, read more attentively my words and you will not blunder again.
Hugh suggests that the rectangle may be the door of the sepulchre. Maybe. I consider more probable the rectangle represented the lid as in almost all the representations in West Medieval Art. So I see the angel is seated or stepping on a rectangle in the examples from St. Gall and the Cloisters. In the example from the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Angel is seated on a sarcophagus. I interpret this form this way on the basis of the figures of sleeping warriors that is an iconographic issue of many representations in the Medieval Western Art.
But your interpretation is mainly flawed because you put here some examples of art from different time and styles we are discussing. We are speaking about the Pray Codex and its illustrations -it is to say Thirteenth Century-, and the shroud of Turin (1350 circa as unquestionable date). All my examples (if I remember well) came from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Centuries. It is to say, a plausible time of impact of both objects in a coherent geographical space and a peculiar style: the Gothic. They are coherent with our subject of discussion. Yours aren’t.
However, it matters little that we interpret the rectangle as the lid of a sarcophagus, as in the Western Art, or a door of the Holy Sepulchre, as in the Byzantine tradition (Russian icons included). It matters little if we see the angel sitting or stepping on the rectangle. Therefore, the rectangle ever will be a door or a lid, never a cloth. In both cases the sindonist interpretation of the rectangle in the Pray Codex is inconsistent.
Daveb:
In the Western Art the rectangle is the lid of the coffin or sarcophagus. We can understand this not by a mere game of appearances, but by the iconographic comparison of this element in a lot of representations. The rectangle takes up the place beside the coffin/sarcophagus as the other unequivocal lids. It is rigid as a lid. It is a lid.
In the Eastern Art the thing is ambiguous. See above.(The flying carpet seems to me a joke, is it not? We are not in the 1001 nights).
Daveb:
In the HPM, 12th century (1192-95) the angel is not sitting on the rectangle but seems to be sitting on a type of rock shelf, again not necessarily the rolled-away entrance stone, and the skewed rectangle seems more part of the foreground.
Two specific questions:
Why do you think that two lines represent a “rock shelf”? What have the lines to seem a rock and a shelf?
What do you mean by “foreground”? The lid can not be the “foreground” of the sarcophagus?
Thank you.
“Hugh suggests that the rectangle may be the door of the sepulchre.” Hi, David. There are a few of the early “temple-type” Three Marys scenes in which the angel is standing on a very flat slab lying on the floor. In these few I think the slab is being interpreted as the door. In many more he is sitting on a more substantial block, which I think indicates the Stone of Unction which sits outside the sepulchre even today. The later “sarcophagus-type” Three Marys scenes clearly show the angel-slab as the lid of the sarcophagus. In intermediate types the angel-slab is not so clearly a lid (the Pray manuscript being one such), but it is skewed, which I have interpreted either as the lid or the door of the tomb being “rolled away,” but could represent the Stone of Unction being thrown over by an earthquake, as daveb suggests.
I would love to get the discussion back to what is this shadowy group that was sending out hidden messages about the Shroud that only a few, then and now, could spot in the Pray Codex. Now that there seems agreement among the ‘Shroudies’ that the Shroud is hidden in the Codex, we need some explanations for why it had to be concealed in Catholic Hungary in 1195, but apparently not a few years later in the Greek Orthodox Blachernae Chapel in Constantinople. The plot thickens!
Because it wasn’t concealed in the HPM. Who is arguing it was concealed? Not I . Only that Christ’s image was not shown in the lower illustration, for very pragmatic reasons rather than any ‘secret squirrel’ reason.
Pragmatic reasons:
1. The artist had effectively shown the image we see on the shroud in the upper anointing illustration.
2. A burial scene would not show a shroud with Christ’s image on it unless the artist was particularly skilled and could convincingly show the image of the body as distinct from a body.
3. The artist didn’t have much space and was cramming in a lot of information.
Try drawing this scene – an image of a person on a discarded curled up burial shroud. It’s not at all easy! Try it for yourself. I dare you.
Well, every main feature of the Shroud, the dual image, the bloodstains and the size of the Shroud are well concealed from me. Now we have a new theory that the artist was so bad he could not show the image on the Shroud because he was not good enough! isn’t this scraping the barrel a bit?
We have many,many depictions of the images on the Shroud from the expositions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries so it could not have been that difficult.
“Now we have a new theory that the artist was so bad he could not show the image on the Shroud because he was not good enough! isn’t this scraping the barrel a bit?
We have many,many depictions of the images on the Shroud from the expositions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries so it could not have been that difficult.”
Irrelevant point!!!!! The 16th / 17th century depictions had the sole purpose of portraying the Shroud, often for expositions.
The HPM artist was portraying the empty tomb scene. Consistent with the biblical narrative he needed to show the left-behind shroud. He didn’t need or want to show the fully laid out Shroud with all its detail.
Of course, if he had recently seen the Shroud in Constantinople, and seen its very prominent blood stains and “poker holes” (pre-1500s fire) – he might have had reason to at least reference those, especially if they held some symbolic significance.
Refer this link below. Note how the poker holes seem to hold less significance as time moved on. Quite probably because visually they were so prominent pre- the fire, and conversely much less prominent after the fire:
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Western-European/manycopies.html
DM: “The flying carpet seems to me a joke, is it not? We are not in the 1001 nights.”
Matt 28:2 has the angel sitting on the rock, that sealed the tomb, and which the earthquake has rolled aside. [I’ve previously mentioned any number of instances where even moderate earthquakes in NZ and elsewhere will fling rocks from cliff faces and other outcrops several metres; I think this explains what moved the rock well enough.] I would have assumed that the artists portraying the scene of the women’s visit, would have done their homework and ought to have known that the angel was found sitting on the rock. But they show him as sitting or standing on this rectangular object. The gospel records that the tomb was sealed by a rock and there is no mention of a door. Why should the angel be sitting on the door of the tomb, the door is not in the gospel and it’s not scriptural! I agree that in some of the depictions this rectangle is shown clearly enough as the lid of the casket, and usually in those cases the casket or sarcophagus is also clearly present. However in other cases where there is no sign of a casket or sarcophagus, the rectangle is often ambiguous, and there is no evident thickness indicating the solidity of a lid. In a few cases this rectangle seems to be floating in the air with the angel perched atop it. That is the only reason why I said it looked more like a flying carpet, the closest resemblance I could think of. I am guessing that you would probably say that it is not meant to be the burial cloth, But I don’t know that we can be so certain. The images on the TS have sometimes been used to explain the appearance of the angel(s) and I think it’s possible that the ideas may be connected.
Now on the HPM, note the position of the angel’s foot. It indicates he is seated (the foot is placed well in front of him), and three lines are sketched at the extreme left of the picture, which suggest to me the bench or shelf on which he is sitting. Furthermore, the oblique rectangle is set in front of the angel and in front of the women, and appears to be resting on the slab underneath, and it is placed in the bottom one-third of the lower picture. That is why I say it is in the foreground. You may call the underlying slab a sarcophagus; I say that it is not obvious as such.
Prominent relics of Constantine of the late 12th century are shown or alluded to in various HPM images:
– the shroud
– the red marble stone of unction which arrived in the city in 1180
– the true cross
– the 3 crucifixion nails
“The gospel records that the tomb was sealed by a rock and there is no mention of a door.” This is, of course, true, but the iconography of the Three Marys scenes does not derive directly from the gospels. The earliest versions, as I have described, do not show a cave sealed by a rock. They show a building, with a doorway. Occasionally the thing the angel is sitting or standing on looks like the door which might have stood in the doorway, and more often it looks like a big stone outside. It is often shown skewed, which may be a reference to the earthquake. The thing the angel sits on, and the thing associated with the tomb (first the temple alone, then the temple and included block or sarcophagus, then the temple with the block or sarcophagus outside, then the block or sarcophagus by itself) are the only two consistent architectural elements of the scene. The other elements are the angel or angels, the women, and the shroud. Very occasionally one or more of these elements is omitted, but where they are included, they are prominent. It is inconceivable that the angel-block would ever be reduced to a couple of lines. Perhaps if the picture was complete we would be able to see more – the entrance to the tomb-building perhaps – but as it is, they’re just lines.
DaveB:
I think it unfortunate that the debate seemed to reflect too much the personal agenda of the participants. Thus all non-authenticists have insisted that the HPM shows no connection with the TS, while all authenticists have insisted that it does. Clearly both sides have allowed their personal attitudes to authenticity to interpret the HPM. This is not the way to arrive at the truth of the matter.
“all authenticists have insisted that it does”
It is not precise that I insisted that HPM in general must show connection with the Shroud. No. My article shows a different approach, approach that no sceptic has been able to undermine. I assumed that there is no direct connection between the HPM and the Shroud, and all similarities are random coincidences. Then I tested this hypothesis. It turned out that the chances that all the similarities A-F are simply random coincidences aree NEGLIGIBLE. So the conclusion of every reasonable person would be to reject that hypothesis. The HPM is based on the Shroud with estimated 99.9999 % significance -that is beyond even the most strict criteria.
Of course sceptics want to deny this -but they can’t. They are not interested in arriving at the truth of the matter, but simply in DENIAL. Thus they talk nonsense about lids (which cannot change the conclusion in any way)-but as I will show in next post their approach is faulty. The problem is that you and several other pro-authenticity guys got engaged in the discussion about lids, tombs and Three Marys portrayal -and that’s mistake. The sceptics know they cannot undermine my conclusive reasoning, so they try to change a topic, counting on that we get lost in details, and the truth gets dissolved in numerous irrewlevant discussion. That would be their victory -so don’t play by their rules!
O.K. We are still waiting for a mathematician to confirm your sums. I have only shown it to a couple of numerate people and they think you are talking nonsense from a mathematical point of view in that you don’t have a secure base of certainties/ probabilities from which to start work. Too much ‘ All cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore a dog is a cat’ reasoning!
It is not so much your reasoning that is the problem, it is that you are resting this reasoning on false assumptions. You need to go back to Euclid who taught us that mathematical reasoning can only progress from undisputed foundations that everyone accepts.And yours are not accepted.
So please don’t make out that we are morons. The objections to seeing the Shroud in the Codex are obvious ones- none of its major features are there!!
Too much ‘ All cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore a dog is a cat’ reasoning!
Shut up Charles, it s not ‘ All cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore a dog is a cat’ reasoning. On the contrary I have shown numerous times your, and your sceptical friends (deliberate!) faults, logical fallcies, lack of proper understanding and dishonest approach. You have shown nothing relevant in this discussion, but have been constantly insinuating and poisoning the well!
Just find that mathematician who supports you!
Just find that mathematician who supports you!
I don’t need it -because mathematics defends itself. That is the difference between mathematics and the so called ‘historians’ (and other ‘humanists’ ). The first one does not need to appeal to the so called ‘authorities’ in a toady way -like the latter group. It speaks for itself, and that’s its beauty and power and truth.
And that’s what you don’t understand Charles -as a mere poor ‘historian’ used to gain support by invoking to Academia guys who may be complete morons, may be totally wrong, but have ‘authority’.
If you want to undermine my reasoning, try to do it with mathematics -if you know it. If you don’t, learn it, if you cant’ learn -there is no hope for you. Like no hope to undermine correct mathematical reasoning.
We have already broken 500 comments barrier.
“If you want to undermine my reasoning, try to do it with mathematics”
I could have done that 500 comments ago, OK, using Stats and Probability 101. But it was more fun watching you paint yourself into a corner.
Some advice: never multiply probabilities, even fanciful plucked-out-the-air ones like yours, unless you are absolutely certain the events are independent.
But the features (“events”) of the HPM you cite are almost certainly non-independent, given (a) it’s just one carefully selected artist, not a random selection and (b) the work of a poor draughtsman, one who inserts one obscure or ambiguous feature after another into his illustrations (e.g. a lid/door/(rigid) shroud), is likely to introduce others too (stepped pyramid pattern, angel sitting or standing, enigmatic head, enigmatic letter/symbol, and notably those L (and P) -shaped circles) that were singled out for attention initially, elevating the HPM to its totally undeserved celebrity status in sindonology.
So those many features you list are not “independent” events.They are characteristics of a carefully-chosen ‘outlier (statistically-speaking) with serial instances of artistic vagueness (at least to the modern eye). You had no business multiplying your (fanciful) probabilities together. They are almost certainly non-independent.
You and others have made a mountain out of possible molehills (but we can’t be sure they are molehills)
The reason why there are so many comments is that you have posted an hypothesis that you have used mathematics to support and your calculations appear so nonsensical that you are bound to be challenged.
You have relied too heavily on congruences that are not supported by similar examples of this kind of illustration, you have made up some probabilities from these and then somehow you have managed to make these six congruences which you rate as each only having one in a hundred chance of being probable into over 99 per cent probability overall. That is where I am told, and common sense seems to support, your maths is nonsensical.
When a theorem is proved, it is passed round to experts to see if they support the reasoning – it is not accepted simply because it is expressed in numbers! Are you really so naive mathematically?
As this posting is your initiative and yours alone, I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect you to provide some expert support. However, I have never heard mathematics being used by anybody to show whether a work of art, even such an inept one as this, does or does not represent something. I continue not to be able to see anything that resembles the Shroud unless it is hidden very well indeed which takes me back to my earlier questions of who would want to hide it in Catholic Hungary in 1195!
Why the whole discussion about the lids is irrelevant.
From the large number of comments I chose one sentence from Hugh, showing the sceptics approach in the clearest way:
They[sceptics] have demonstrated that a large proportion of Three Marys scenes show a skewed slab over a rectagular sarcophagus, a crumpled shroud and an angel balancing like a surfer on the slab.
The sceptics logic goes more less in the way: large number of Three Marys scenes show the angel sitting on rectangular slab from the tomb -thus the similar rectangle in the HPM must also be a slab.
But this is LOGICAL FAULT! It can be described as sweeping generalization (a dicto simpliciter see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter)
The fact that large number of Three Marys scenes does not mean that similar rectangle in HPM must also be a slab -and it isn’t. I showed this many times -the presence of a bench on which angel is sitting refutes allegations that this rectangle is a slab. Then it seems that this rectangle is indeed the Shroud.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2554/3odxx.jpg
Anyway, the exceptional case of HPM precludes making any generalizations -which shows that practically all sceptcs’ arguments are faulty
And of course it does not change in any way the conclusion from my probabilistic approach, presented in article above.
We can. We do. We are.
1) We not not accept OK’s six congruences as congruences
2) We do not accept their probabilites
3) We do not agree that the methodology of probability is applicable to icons.
We agree that the picture shows a naked man, and that he has four fingers on each hand. We agree that this combination is unusual, athough a few examples have been mentioned above.
1) We do not agree that the lack of feet in the two images is a congruence. OK has not shown that it is. We have suggested that the Pray drawing has either been trimmed or was continued on another, now missng, page.
We do not agree that the zigzag pattern represents herringbone weave. OK has not shown that it does, other than by personal conviction.
We do not agree that the red wavy lines represent blood flows. OK has not shown that they do, other than by personal conviction.
We do agree that the patterns of little circles is a congruence. We do agree that one of the patterns is L-shaped, like the pattern of holes in the shroud. We think this is coincidence.
2) Over 20% of the Three Marys images posted on this blog show a naked man, and over 20% show a man with four fingers on each hand. The chances of any randomly selected Three Marys showing a naked man with four fingers is better than 1/25, not 1/10000.
3) When deciding congruence by probability, we must consider the principal features of an image first, not carefully selected details. We must also consider points of uncongrence. The Mona Lisa has two hands crossed at the wrists. So does the Shroud. Does it make sense to ennumerate the probability that one was derived from the other?
“approach that no sceptic has been able to undermine.” I beg to differ.
“sceptics want to deny this -but they can’t.” I beg to differ.
“They are not interested in arriving at the truth of the matter.” I beg to differ.
“simply in DENIAL.” I beg to differ.
“they talk nonsense about lids.” I beg to differ.
“their approach is faulty.” I beg to differ, but look forward to changing my mind after reading OK’s next post.
“they cannot undermine my conclusive reasoning.” I beg to differ.
“the truth gets dissolved in numerous irrewlevant discussion.” Well at least we can agree on something!
1) Hugh, you still do not understand the difference between necessities and possibilitites. I never claimed that all those congruences A-F must necessarly be derived from the Shroud, but simply that it is possible. And if they are not derived from the Shroud, then the cause of their occurence in the HPM does not interest me -as it is irrelevant to my further reasoning. I consider it simply random.
2) The images posted on this blog are usually non representative -as they are chosen to illustrate some point -and in many cases we should use not only Three Marys but all representations of death and burial of Christ. Also the nudity means full nudity (with only genitals covered), not gently masked by tomb, loin, or something. the same criteria we should apply to thumbs, both should have been non visible when one should clearly see them (that means both hands are easily seen, we do not take into account situations when they are obscured by perspective for example).
Anyway whether the true chances are 1/100, 1/50 or 1/200 changes little -those are just estimations. I feel good enough. The total number of relevant illustrations (10 million) is also an estimation, and quite high, I think!
3) There are no features in the HPM that would exclude its derivation from the Shroud, contrary to Mona Lisa.
OK’s ‘next post,’ and the one after that, seem to have come in while I was writing my last. Sadly I’m not persuaded to change my mind, and quoting lists of possible ‘logical faults’ doesn’t help. Over the last few comments, i have outlined the development of the Three Marys icon. The subject is not an individual whim; most religious pictures illustrate particular, often well known gospel incidents, and cannot be considered in isolation from their pictorial forebears. Any picture, or sculpture, of the Crucifixion, the Deposition, the Lamentation, the Anointing, the Resurrection, the Three Marys, the ‘Noli Me Tangere,’ and many others, is to some extent derivative from what has gone before, and the Pray manuscript does not, to me, appear to be an exception.
Of course, an image cannot be considered to belong to a class of images unless there are some generalisations which connect it to its genre. These are not sweeping generalisations or logical faults, they are the constituents which determine the nature of the image. We see that the Three Marys (or Quem Quaeritis) image has several fundamental constituents, which are common to the vast majority of the individual members of the class. There are at least three women, and at least one angel, and an angel-block and a tomb-block, and a shroud. Where these can be observed, then that is what they are. Occasionally one or two of the constituents are omitted, but where they are present, they are important parts of the composition. The Pray painting shows all of them. It is not therefore a sweeping generalisation to assume that the artist was depicting them. It would be a bold leap of fancy to suggest that one of the major constituents of the icon had been omitted or marginalised, and then replaced with something very similar which actually represented something else.
If these arguments are faulty, then I would be grateful if someone could point out where, with appropriate references, as I have done, rather than simply re-iterate opinions I disagree with.
If these arguments are faulty, then I would be grateful if someone could point out where, with appropriate references, as I have done, rather than simply re-iterate opinions I disagree with.
Hugh, I have shown this in the post before ( July 6, 2014 at 8:08 am )
Although discussion on the evolving Three Marys scene may be beneficial on its own, it does not apply to the one very specific case which the HPM is. The argument that large number of depictions show rectangular lid on which an angel is sitting, so similar rectangle in one particular HPM must be also a lid, is a faulty generalization. There is no obligation here.
Similar with Charles Freeman’s Holy Sepulchre oculi and L-shaped holes in HPM. As well as other ad hoc ‘explanations’ by the sceptics.
Only connection with the Shroud makes sense -a combination of many other potential motives is, as I have shown, very improbable.
Colin:
“If you want to undermine my reasoning, try to do it with mathematics”
I could have done that 500 comments ago, OK, using Stats and Probability 101. But it was more fun watching you paint yourself into a corner.
But you haven’t , neither then, nor now.
Some advice: never multiply probabilities, even fanciful plucked-out-the-air ones like yours, unless you are absolutely certain the events are independent.
Or have at least no reason to suspect they are dependent.
But the features (“events”) of the HPM you cite are almost certainly non-independent, given (a) it’s just one carefully selected artist, not a random selection and (b) the work of a poor draughtsman, one who inserts one obscure or ambiguous feature after another into his illustrations (e.g. a lid/door/(rigid) shroud), is likely to introduce others too (stepped pyramid pattern, angel sitting or standing, enigmatic head, enigmatic letter/symbol, and notably those L (and P) -shaped circles) that were singled out for attention initially, elevating the HPM to its totally undeserved celebrity status in sindonology.
Your attempt to ridicule those features has no basis, Colin. Even if the artist was drunken while drawing, and projected his delirium fantasies, it does not change the fact that there are Shroud-like features in the HPM!
So those many features you list are not “independent” events.They are characteristics of a carefully-chosen ‘outlier (statistically-speaking) with serial instances of artistic vagueness (at least to the modern eye). You had no business multiplying your (fanciful) probabilities together. They are almost certainly non-independent.
Of course they probably are not independent -as the HPM was almost certainly based on the Shroud, then they cannot be independent. But if we consider opposite hypothesis -that the HPM is not derived from the Shroud -we can treat them as independent. And multiply them as independent probabilities. And then see how improbable this hypothesis is.
You and others have made a mountain out of possible molehills (but we can’t be sure they are molehills)
We are rather patiently and steadily building a mountain out of the small stones.
Colin, aka sciencebod aka sciencebod. Your hysterical cries and boasting what a (poor it seems) scientist you are, makes no impression on me.
Charles:
You have relied too heavily on congruences that are not supported by similar examples of this kind of illustration, you have made up some probabilities from these and then somehow you have managed to make these six congruences which you rate as each only having one in a hundred chance of being probable into over 99 per cent probability overall. That is where I am told, and common sense seems to support, your maths is nonsensical.
The more talk of this kind the more you prove your ignorance.
When a theorem is proved, it is passed round to experts to see if they support the reasoning – it is not accepted simply because it is expressed in numbers! Are you really so naive mathematically?
Proof is a proof, if correct there is no discussion, if not -it is worthless.
The situation here is more complex, as we have statistics here, but as long as the presumptions are valid (and they still are), the conclusions are also.
However, I have never heard mathematics being used by anybody to show whether a work of art, even such an inept one as this, does or does not represent something.
That shows how little scientific the art history is.
Talking nonsense -that’s what sceptics (and Academia) are the best in.
O.k. ‘If the proof is correct there is no discussion’. So how do you explain the discussion?
I don’t think we are being too hard on OK. Not a single person, authenticist or not, has come forward to support the mathematical reasoning of a posting that was his initiative alone.
And in addition to being a mathematical genius, if as yet unrecognised, he also is telling art historians how to do their business.
Oh dear, this sounds very like the Vignon markings discussion all over again. In that case, the appearance of Vignon markings across Byzantine portraiture was a coincidence, but when they appeared on a portrait of Christ they were derived from the Shroud. In this case, the similarity between dozens of Three Marys scenes is all very well, but does not in apply in this one case. The opposite of “faulty generalisation,” I guess, is “special pleading” and here it applies to excess. The argument that a large number of depictions show rectangular lids on which an angel is sitting, so a similar rectangle in one particular depiction is most likely to be another lid is not a faulty generalisation, it is a mathematical inevitablility. I do not use the words ‘must be’ – for all I know it could be a plastic picnic table drawn by aliens – I say it is most likely to be.
If this argument is faulty, then I would be grateful if someone could point out where, with appropriate references, as I have done, rather than simply re-iterate opinions I disagree with.
No Hugh, it is not the case of Vignon markings. It is a different (and much simpler) case. I explained the difference to David Mo a couple hundreds comments ago:
June 28, 2014 at 1:44 pm
In short, large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model. Small frequency of congruences found in one particular example, shows that it is unlikely to be derived from anything else but this model.
O.K. is being pounded unnecessarily and there is reason behind his approach: no one was hiding a relic in 1195, the artist knew about the ritual in Constantinople and he put as much information as possible into little space. The emphasis was on the Resurrection, which is what the Byzantine ritual was all about.
“In short, large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model. Small frequency of congruences found in one particular example, shows that it is unlikely to be derived from anything else but this model.” Yes, I remember. The statement literally didn’t mean anything then, and it still doesn’t mean anything now. Can anyone clarify it?
Can’t help you there, Hugh. I’ve never encountered it before until today. I believe it must be “OK’s Law of Something That Has Never Occurred To Anyone Else”.
Laws cannot be proven, right, merely verified? I challenge OK to verify his law.
Let me explain it on example:
Vignon marks -the alleged congruences with the Shroud face. The frequency of their occurence on byzantine Christ icons is high (above the normal for non-Christ figures) so it indicates that for the Byzantines the Shroud was a model for Christ face.
HPM -the features A-F I pointed are congruent with similar features on the Shroud. Yet they are rare enough, that it is unlikely that they were derived from anything else than the Shroud directly (contrary to Vignon marks on Byzantine icons, which might have been simply copied from another icon, and so on).
The key is that in both cases there are congruences with the Shroud -but different kinds.
There’s another principle of statistics that seems to have been forgotten here.
Association does not prove causation. Put another way, so-called congruences may be entirely coincidental, or maybe given excessive weight due to judgemental bias.
Counting points of congruence to build a case for causation is statistically fraught with hazard unless one gives equal weight to points of non-congruence. Sample sizes of one (HPM) do not assist one’s case either.
There’s another principle of statistics that seems to have been forgotten here.
Association does not prove causation. Put another way, so-called congruences may be entirely coincidental, or maybe given excessive weight due to judgemental bias.
Yes Colin. But it wasn’t forgotten, unless by you.
If the cause was not the Shroud, there were other unknown causes. And as they were unknown, we can model them with random occurences of each feature A-F (that is naked Christ, no thumbs visible, and so on).
And as they are random and independent (what may be dependency between naked Christ and L-circles?), we can estimate the probability of the coincidental occurence of them all at once -which clearly shows that it is astronomically unlikely.
And that’s the point.
Counting points of congruence to build a case for causation is statistically fraught with hazard unless one gives equal weight to points of non-congruence. Sample sizes of one (HPM) do not assist one’s case
either.
1. There are no non-congruences which would exclude the hypothesis that HPM was based on te Shroud.
2. A sample. We estimate probabilities based not only on HPM, but on several other medieval illustrations of death and burial of Christ, as well as Empty Tomb scene. To make it in a very strict way, one should make proper survey, based on representative sample of hundreds or even thousands of such illustrations -something that no one has performed so far. But as we all have experience of several hundreds similar portrayals in mind, due to the frequent discussions on this and similar topics, 1/100 estimate for each feature is good enough to start with.
Sorry. OK. It would take too long to address each of your laboured points individually.
Suffice it to say you have driven a coach and horses through both theory and practice of probability and statistics.
At the risk of reinforcing all your misjudgements as regards me and other sceptics I have to say this: you cannot ignore or trash the most basic ground rules of those two established disciplines, and expect folk to remain silent. Not for nothing are they referred to as “disciplines”.
Be as subjective if you wish (of which we are all guilty from time to time) OR be scrupulously objective. But please desist from wrapping up your subjectivity in pseudo-objectivity, as you have done by sidelining statistics and re-writing probability theory.
That doesn’t seem to me to explain the previous statement, but I do understand it. For reasons I have explained I disagree with it. But never mind. I do not wish to pound unnecessarily. I also disgree with Louis’ summary, for which no evidence has been adduced. But let’s leave it pending new ideas or new illustration. Or Max’s blockbuster.
The Hungarians with King Emeric did certainly know quite a lot about Constantinople, they produced the cannons to besiege the city even as late as 1453. But, earlier, prior to 1204, the year of the Fourth Crusade, Emeric was involved with Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, who financed the attack.
Other areas of Shroud research, concentrating on the mediaeval period, beyond Hungary, are now my priority and this discussion seems to be making little progress. May I suggest that some art scholar be brought into the discussion as a judge? BSTS member and Courtauld-trained art historian Thomas de Wesselow would be ideal, however since he is pro-authenticity sceptics would object and the fact that he is agnostic will not help. Those in England should look for someone, preferably neutral..
For believing Christians — that is, for those believing Christians who do not need the TS as a prop for their faith — there are places in the world, where there are no relics, where the TS may not even be known, but where there is great faith. The opium there, they have realised, is Marxism, not Christianity:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/07/04/china-is-persecuting-christians-because-it-fears-china-will-one-day-be-christian/
Sorry. OK. It would take too long to address each of your laboured points individually.
Sorry Colin that you have nothing meaningful to say on that matter.
Hugh, you wrote: “But let’s leave it pending new ideas or new illustration. Or Max’s blockbuster.”
Since irrespective of the search for a very large late 8th-late 13th c. CE Benedictine iconography, it took me time (nearly 2 hours) just to check all the 944-1207 CE Greek, Latin and Old French literary testimonies and eye-witness descriptions of the Constantinople Sindon and retranslate them as accurately as possible into English before making a model of the Constantinople Sindon after three 12th c. CE miniatures and/or drawings (HP Ms folio 28r lower ink drawing section included), methink I’d e-mail my paper by short installments (about (5-6 of 4-6 pages each). Keep tuned.
Hugh is the judge for the time being, although he is sceptical, but he took my lead and passed it on to others to work on. Let’s see the result.
Several galleries of Three Mary depictions have been shown. Those that are of interest for purposes of the argument must predate 1195. Maybe there were 40 or so, but I haven’t bothered to count them.
Q1: How many showed four holes arranged in an ‘L’ shape on the rectangular object? A1: None.
Q2: How many showed a zigzag pattern on the rectangle? A2: None.
Q3: How many showed red-coloured randomly placed streaks on the rectangle that might be interpreted as representing blood-stains? A3: None.
Q4: How many include a naked prostrate Christ with crossed wrists across the groin? A4: None. Objection – This relates to a Lamentation or Threnos scene not a Three Marys scene; You need to refer to pre-1195 Threnos scenes. But there are very few such Threnos scenes predating 1195.
Development: In what ways does the HPM illustration relate to other depictions of Three Marys? There are three women present, with nimbi around their heads suggesting sanctity, one holding a vial presumably of spices, an angel is pointing to a vacant slab and seems to be giving them a message, there is a patterned oblique rectangle, all of which are consistent with earlier depictions of Three Marys.
In what ways does the HPM illustration not relate to other depictions? The draftsmanship is relatively crude, essentially an ink drawing with only limited use of two colours, primary red and blue without subtle hues or texture. It is almost a cartoon style. The illustration also includes a Threnos scene, not usually associated with Three Marys. It also includes the features Q1 to Q4.
Assessment: Does the HPM have sufficient in common with other depictions for it to be related to them? Yes, particularly with the presence of the oblique rectangle.
What is unique about the HPM illustration? Its crude draftsmanship, inclusion of a Threnos scene and the features Q1 to Q4.
What is significant about features Q1 to Q4? They can all be related to the Turin Shroud.
Where else do these features occur? Q2, Q3, Q4 frequently occur on epitaphioi from the 12th century onwards. Many of these show a connection and knowledge of the Turin Shroud. Q1 seldom appears before modern times.
Conclusion: Does the HPM illustration show a sufficient connection with the knowledge of features of the Turin Shroud? That is evidently a subjective interpretation, but I find it persuasive, more so because of the curved unsymmetrical sides of the rectangle in this particular case which I interpret as representing a burial cloth. Others for reasons best known to themselves do not find it as persuasive.
Q5: How many show a “floating” head – possibly of Jesus – connected back to the Shroud and / or tomb by a “floating” intermediary letter / symbol?
A5: None
“That is evidently a subjective interpretation, but I find it persuasive, more so because of the curved unsymmetrical sides of the rectangle in this particular case which I interpret as representing a burial cloth. Others for reasons best known to themselves do not find it as persuasive.”
Here’s one of those others who looks at the way, say, the staff and sceptre have been drawn freehand in the very same illustration, without recourse to a straight edge. So is it any surprise that the rectangle also lacks perfectly straight sides? All it means is that the hapless illustrator did not have a ruler about his person, or if he did, considered it too risky to use with an ink-loaded quill (risk of ink blots).
Why expect perfection in one object, while turning a blind eye to the crude sketchy characteristics of another that is immediately adjacent?
The power of the amateurish HPM to erode the critical faculties of what might be termed the Shroud-spotting tendency doth truly pass all understanding…
Edge of the underlying slab is straight, the nimbi around the women’s heads are reasonably circular, a brass staff would be expected to have straight edges, but a wooden staff would follow the natural shape of the branch it was made from. The edges of the oblique rectangle are curved similarly so that its width remains fairly constant.
I agree with many of your views Daveb but not on the issue of the lack of straightness in the object… I agree with Colin that it’s simply the artist’s sloppiness.
And there are many examples of that sloppiness…lines going through lines. Line mis-alignment eg. the edge of the object between the angel’s left knee and the cloth.
these are mistakes that my 9 year old might make in drawing….but you get a certain way through the drawing and you just work with the mistake rather than starting from the very beginning .
There are still more than enough clues to justify the theory!
Daveb:
(…) I would have assumed that the artists portraying the scene of the women’s visit, would have done their homework and ought to have known that the angel was found sitting on the rock. But they show him as sitting or standing on this rectangular object. The gospel records that the tomb was sealed by a rock and there is no mention of a door. Why should the angel be sitting on the door of the tomb, the door is not in the gospel and it’s not scriptural!(…) But I don’t know that we can be so certain. The images on the TS have sometimes been used to explain the appearance of the angel(s) and I think it’s possible that the ideas may be connected.
Now on the HPM, note the position of the angel’s foot. It indicates he is seated (the foot is placed well in front of him), and three lines are sketched at the extreme left of the picture, which suggest to me the bench or shelf on which he is sitting. Furthermore, the oblique rectangle is set in front of the angel and in front of the women, and appears to be resting on the slab underneath, and it is placed in the bottom one-third of the lower picture. That is why I say it is in the foreground. You may call the underlying slab a sarcophagus; I say that it is not obvious as such.
Your interpretation begins badly. There are three lines in the back of the angel, but the lower one is the edge of the lid/shroud. Then we have only two lines. And you have not answered my question. You repeat that these lines are a rock shelf (before was a bench) but you don’t explain how two simple lines can be interpreted as a rock shelf instead of a bench or an extension of the coffin (this is more according to the West Art tradition), or another else. Where can you see this rock shelf represented by two lines? How?
The angel’s feet are before the lid/shroud. The angel’s position (one leg bent and the other more extended) implies the classical angel seated on the lid or the sarcophagus, resting one foot on the lid. The other examples I put here indicate that the feet (at least one of them) are over the lid/shroud. This one is supported by the empty coffin/sarcophagus, as in the rest of representations at this time. All this obviously discards the “shroud” interpretation. I am ready to accept a correction of the most obvious interpretation but not without good reasons to do it.
The ancient illustrators of the Bible rarely were experts on the subject they were painting. They simply copied other images and sometimes added some personal incongruities. Some contradictory, or non biblical, features were repeated and sometimes magnified. For example: the Pray Codex includes two incompatible biblical traditions in the same drawing. In the first, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are anointing Jesus’ body. This is John 19: 39. In the second, the Holy Women carry still more substances for anointing. This is Mark 16:1 or Luke 24:1. This is an unlikely double anointing that the illustrator of de Pray Codex put together without any objection.
David Mo – yes, the HPM artist tries to reconcile a number of gospel discrepancies within one drawing. It is symptomatic of his desire to cram an awful lot into one drawing. And it also points to the mindset of an artist who wanted to cram in reference – even if oblique – to the shroud in the lower scene.
Hugh Farey;
(…)In many more he is sitting on a more substantial block, which I think indicates the Stone of Unction which sits outside the sepulchre even today. The later “sarcophagus-type” Three Marys scenes clearly show the angel-slab as the lid of the sarcophagus. In intermediate types the angel-slab is not so clearly a lid (the Pray manuscript being one such), but it is skewed, which I have interpreted either as the lid or the door of the tomb being “rolled away,” but could represent the Stone of Unction being thrown over by an earthquake, as daveb suggests.
On the place where the angel’s is seated: If we have a most common image (the lid or the sarcophagus) we mustn’t abandon it without some relevant reason (the Rock of Anointing). I don’t see any.
On the rectangular object under de angel’s feet: Idem and idem plus: if this rectangular object is the same as the some early and Byzantine images of the Rock of Anointing, this says nothing in support of the sindonist thesis. It continues to be a rock, and not a cloth.
On the margin: The Anointing Rock was only placed in the Jerusalem Sepulchre after the Crusader’s conquest (1100 p.q.). I seem to remember that some images of the angel on a block are from before that date. Is there any contradiction? Or this is not the Anointing Rock? Or this “substantial” block is not the Rock of the Anointing (note that it actually has not an adequate form to anointing any body)?
I think you’re quite right, David. In the Pray manuscript the twisted block is most likely the lid and the other block most likely the sarcophagus. My discussion was really about how this “lid and sarcophagus” design evolved from the “stone and temple” design. Placing exteme examples of each genre next to each other one could think the evolution absurd, rather like putting a whale next to its dog-like forebear, but by showing all the intervening links (easier with the Three Marys than with the whale!) the connection becomes clear. The Pray manuscript is an intermediate form, when the precise designations of the two slabs were often indistinct.
I’ve no idea what any original rock or stone might have been. The gospels stay “stone” so a stone was drawn. A stone shaped a bit like an altar might actually have been there (many are drawn with a larger surface area on top than at base and trapezoidal sides), and it may have been replaced by the current stone, which is rectangular but I dont know how thick (It seems to be 60cm or so, but it might just be a thin slab lying on somerhing). I have called these slabs the “Stone of Unction” more for ease of nomenclature than because I thought they were actually used for annointing. If there was any annointing not done in situ on the burial shelf, it could have been on another shelf or the floor or a wooden table for all I know.
Daveb:
Several galleries of Three Mary depictions have been shown. Those that are of interest for purposes of the argument must predate 1195. Maybe there were 40 or so, but I haven’t bothered to count them.
Q1: How many showed four holes arranged in an ‘L’ shape on the rectangular object? A1: None.
Q2: How many showed a zigzag pattern on the rectangle? A2: None.
Q3: How many showed red-coloured randomly placed streaks on the rectangle that might be interpreted as representing blood-stains? A3: None.
Q4: How many include a naked prostrate Christ with crossed wrists across the groin? A4: None. Objection – This relates to a Lamentation or Threnos scene not a Three Marys scene; You need to refer to pre-1195 Threnos scenes. But there are very few such Threnos scenes predating 1195.
Are you trying to begin the discussion again? These points have been largely discussed yet! See Charles Freeman, June 21, 2014 at 6:22 am, Hugh Farey, June 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm, my comment at June 27, 2014 at 2:10 pm. And a long et caetera.
We are still arguing over inessentials. There is no sign of any of the distinctive features of the Shroud in the Pray Codex, the size of the Shroud, its dual images and its bloodstains. We know that the artist was not aware of the bloodstains as he did not show them on the body of Christ.
The arguments for the presence of the Shroud have got weaker and weaker with time. We now have an inept artist who apparently knew of the Shroud, wanted to show it but didn’t have the space or ability to do so. It has even been accepted that the L holes are not even the right way round to represent the actual damage on the Shroud – which for some unknown reason became more important for the artist to show than the spiritual features that made the Shroud significant for the believer .
And then there is the shoddy maths,as yet unsupported by anyone on either side of the argument.
So while this is obviously a lid rather than a Shroud that has received more than its fair share of starch, this is really a sideshow.
Just look at the Shroud, let’s say in its earliest confirmed depiction, the Lirey Pilgrim badge, with its very distinct images. Just look at the Codex with its laying out of Christ in a pose already represented in the west before this . No obvious similarities – or is the earlier laying out scene in the Klosterneuberg monastery example ( Austria) with crossed arms also based on the Shroud?
And after all this, the Pray Codex does nothing either way to show that the Shroud is first century – even if it is there, it only says that it might have been made before 1195.
One thing that has been underestimated or ignored in this debate is the degree to which an object which is not considered a relic is still accepted as an object of veneration.In the east, this was ,of course, typical of most icons, except for the few of the Virgin and Child that were considered to have been hand painted by Luke.
So far as the Catholic Church is concerned the Shroud is a classic example. The Church authorities believed that it was a cloth on which the images had been painted but they still authorised it as an object of veneration – even when it was still in situ in Lirey. This tells us that they did not believe that it was a deliberate fake or they would have ordered it destroyed.
The document I would love to discover is the one that tells us why the Church considered it a worthy object of veneration even though they believed it to be recent painting. Usually there would have been some definite miracle associated with it but alas this is unrecorded.
Just one more aspect of the Shroud that deserves further research.
Sorry, I should have made clear is that the reason I posted the above is that even if the Shroud was shown on the Pray Codex, it may only have been because it was already an object of veneration ( and accepted as such, like many icons) before 1195. This may have been because, as with many icons, some miracle had been associated with it, irrespective of when it was actually made.
As those of you who have read the, essential for me at least, Beldon Scott, will know after the failed attempt in the 1350s to have the Shroud accepted as a genuine relic, it only re-emerges a such when the Savoys have it and probably its acceptance by Carlo Borromeo in 1578 in Turin was the crucial moment when it aroused widespread support from the masses, despite the Church’s continual refusal, to this day, to accept it as any more than an object of veneration.
The idea that I have come across that it is either authentic or a clever forgery does not hold water. Objects of veneration , spiritual artefacts usually associated with some apparently miraculous event, were very common in this period and this is clearly how the Catholic Church saw and continues to see the Shroud. It is just a pity that we don’t know what the miracles were.
David Mo:
The other examples I put here indicate that the feet (at least one of them) are over the lid/shroud. This one is supported by the empty coffin/sarcophagus, as in the rest of representations at this time. All this obviously discards the “shroud” interpretation.
[…]
On the place where the angel’s is seated: If we have a most common image (the lid or the sarcophagus) we mustn’t abandon it without some relevant reason (the Rock of Anointing). I don’t see any.
On the rectangular object under de angel’s feet: Idem and idem plus: if this rectangular object is the same as the some early and Byzantine images of the Rock of Anointing, this says nothing in support of the sindonist thesis. It continues to be a rock, and not a cloth.
I clearly stated this on July 6, 2014 at 8:08 am, but you have disregarded this:
“The sceptics logic goes more less in the way: large number of Three Marys scenes show the angel sitting on rectangular slab from the tomb -thus the similar rectangle in the HPM must also be a slab.
But this is LOGICAL FAULT! It can be described as sweeping generalization (a dicto simpliciter see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicto_simpliciter)
The fact that large number of Three Marys scenes does not mean that similar rectangle in HPM must also be a slab -and it isn’t. I showed this many times -the presence of a bench on which angel is sitting refutes allegations that this rectangle is a slab. Then it seems that this rectangle is indeed the Shroud.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8435/kj41.jpg
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2554/3odxx.jpg
Anyway, the exceptional case of HPM precludes making any generalizations -which shows that practically all sceptcs’ arguments are faulty
And of course it does not change in any way the conclusion from my probabilistic approach, presented in article above.”
You repeat that these lines are a rock shelf (before was a bench) but you don’t explain how two simple lines can be interpreted as a rock shelf instead of a bench or an extension of the coffin
It cannot be extension of the red-crossed “coffin” -it is a different angle on a different level, and has no crosses. It is clearly a bench, or a rock shelf serving as a bench.
Charles:
We are still arguing over inessentials.
I agree! All what is needed to prove beyond rational doubt the HPM-Shroud connection is in my commented article. No sceptic has been able to undermine it. And there is no need to add anything else to show HPM-Shroud conection -on the contrary, several dubious additions may be chalenged by sceptics, who then will be claiming thet they would have “refuted” the HPM-Shroud link. Pro-authenticity: I appreciate your efforts, but giving more questionable arguments in favor is in fact detrimental. And will make this discussion neverending.
Keep to the point, then the sceptics have nothing to say.
There is one rule: do not use more arguments then needed! If your arguments are sufficient there is no purpose in adding several more dubious ones, which may be challenged by your opponents!
Charles’ arguments introduces new material that does not relate to the Pray Codex, the principal topic here. There are several fallacies and even contradictions in his comments. They are a distraction and to be discussed adequately need a new thread. Most of them merely reflect his own subjective viewpoint.
1) The Lirey badge is a western representation of the Shroud. Byzantines didn’t do that sort of thing. Scavone provides comprehensive Byzantine documentation on the burial cloths, and also covering the question of difficulties of interpretation of these various documents. The Byzantine response as reported by various western visitors was clearly one of veneration. The Byzantine artistic response to discovery of the Shroud image was to design epitaphioi for use in their Easter liturgies, an appropriate religious response.
2) Charles asserts that there are no signs of distinctive features of the Shroud. That is his viewpoint but it has not been conceded by the authenticist camp.
3) His interpretation of the western history of the Shroud is garbled by his own predispositions against it. It draws on the fable of a non-existent memorandum said to have been sent by Bishop Pierre D’Arcis to Avignon anti-pope Clement VII from a story concocted by Jesuit Herbert Thurston and by Ulysse Chevalier, and is now discredited. Clement VII ordered D’Arcis to perpetual silence on the matter under threat of excommunication.
Ref: “THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE SHROUD”; By Jack Markwardt; 2001
Examines Chevalier & Thurston’s attempt to misrepresent D’Arcis memorandum.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n55part3.pdf
4) First western showings of Shroud at Lirey 1356, badge with De Charnay (dexter) and De Vergy (sinister) arms; 1356, 28 May Bishop Henri (Troyes) praises Geoffrey I for founding of Lirey church with canons; 19 Sep Geoffrey I killed at Poitiers; 1389, Geoffrey II displays cloth as “True Shroud of Jesus”, prompts D’Arcis complaints, royal officers seek seizure of Shroud but are foiled; 1398 Geoffrey II dies, Shroud passes to Margaret De Charnay; despite two marriages remains childless; From 1418 annual displays on Doubs River; 1443-47 Lirey canons seek return of Shroud but unsuccessful; 1449 Margaret De Charnay displays Shroud at Liege Belgium, 1452 at Macon; 1453, still childless she only then decides to pass it on to House of Savoy, receives castle and estate from Duke Louis; 1457 Margaret threatened with excommunication if she does not return Shroud to Lirey canons, Duke Louis negotiates compensation; 1460 Margaret De Charnay dies. In 1464, Francesco della Rovere (later Pope Sixtus IV) writes book, refers to Shroud kept by Savoy, ‘coloured with the blood of Christ’. ); 1506 – Pope Julius II assigns Shroud own feast day of 4 May, many subsequent public showings on this day.
5) Relics do not require an associated miracle to be declared authentic. They merely require adequate certification of provenance associated with a holy person or place, such as part of a saint’s body or clothing. Certified miracles have sometimes been associated with specific relics. In the case of the Shroud, it is venerated as an icon, which may well be an authentic relic if it was ever adequately corroborated as the burial cloth of Christ, or if Science is ever able to confirm that the image was not made by human hands, which remains a particularly difficult scientific challenge. Hence the present prudent caution. Church evidently sees authenticity as a matter of science and other scholarship. The Shroud is not regarded as part of the “Deposit of Faith essential to salvation”; The Church may at some future date make a declaration on the Shroud when more is known, but such a statement would not be binding on members of the Catholic Church as an article of essential belief.
Daveb .you have failed to spot my point : that the Catholic Church has never accepted that the Shroud is a genuine relic but it has allowed and encouraged it to be venerated. The question is why. It certainly shows that the Church regards it as more than a mere forgery. The question is what it believed it to be in the 1390s.
The question is also at what point it was first venerated. Kennedy’s introduction to his book on de Charny’s Chivalry suggests that it was an icon that Jeanne de Charny transformed into a relic while her husband was away on campaign. A possibility certainly and this would imply an earlier tradition of veneration. So my point so far as THIS posting is concerned is that even if, and I can see no sign of it, the Pray Codex showed the Shroud, it may mean no more that it had achieved the same status as hundreds of other icons.
Are you saying that the papal document allowing the Shroud to be exhibited by Geoffrey de Charny II at Lirey on condition that it was announced beforehand that it was not a genuine relic does not exist or is a forgery or that such expositions did not take place? This seems to me to be the first document that sets in place the attitude the Church has had to the Shroud ever since and later documents fall within this tradition. The point is that here the Church asserted firmly that it was NOT the genuine burial shroud. No sitting on the fence here as you suggest.
But I agree that the fundamental question as to why the Church accepted the veneration of the Shroud in the 1390s and did not condemn it as a forgery does need separate discussion ,not least to overthrow the old dichotomy that that Shroud must either be authentic or a forgery. Clearly the Church did not believe it was either and this needs further exploration.
O.K.:
Do you remember that?
“Large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model”.
This is correct. See the examples:
Iglesia de San Juan de Arroyo de la Encomienda. Castilla. Mediados del siglo XII.
http://www.lafronteradelduero.com/Imagenes/arroyo_de_la_encomienda/capitel2.jpg
Museo del Duomo de Modena. Metopa. Secolo XII.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-z_lSjygyTMg/UF6xyXKyMTI/AAAAAAAABUM/7v71wYD-l5U/s800/DSC00051.JPG
Sant Pere de Galligants, Girona. Segona meitat del segle XII.
http://www.claustro.com/claustros/Imagenes/Girona/claustros_galligants_go_c3_04.jpg
St. Genis les Fonts. Rosselló. Segle XII
http://materiagris.crisortiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/romanlovers17p_ortiz.jpg
Église de Dienne. Auvergne. 1020
http://lafeuilleamta.fr/2011/02/04/note-sur-un-chapiteau-roman-unique-en-france-dans-l%E2%80%99eglise-de-dienne/#
There is a classic pattern of the icon of the mermaid (symbol of lubricity). But what is the original model? We can not say it. We have to suppose that someone was the first to represent the mermaid, but it is impossible to know where and who.
The Pray Codex representation of the Holy Women at the tomb present a “large frequency of congruences” with almost all the images of the same scene at this time and place: the angel is placed in front of the women; the angel is seated; his arse is placed in contact with the sarcophagus (eventually lid); he points to the empty sarcophagus; on the sarcophagus there is a wrinkled cloth (the sudarium or the shroud); a rectangle is placed in diagonal and means the lid. There is almost always the same pattern of structural features with some minor variations. Unlike the random and vague features that sindonist point, these others are structural. Imply a formal and semantic structure. According to you, they imply a model. This model is the iconographic issue of the Holy Women at sepulchre. The Codex Pray fits perfectly with this model as the Romanesque capitals I quoted fit with the model “lustful mermaid”. In both cases we can not know who the first artist that used this model was. But the model is clear.
That you refuse to accept the same principle you have defended before is the last straw. Paraphrasing Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if I don’t like them… well, I have others.”
Secondly: the inaccuracy of the lines is not a sufficient reason to discard the sepulchre in the back of the angel. The Codex Pray illuminations are plenty of these inaccuracies. The angle of the lines is approximately at the same level that the right part of the sepulchre and this hints to mean that the angel is seated on it. And you continue without give us a single reason of your interpretation of these lines as a bench. What features of a bench you see? Can you see any form of legs or seat? I think you are a victim of Jaimito’s syndrome.
O.K.:
Do you remember that?
“Large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model”.
This is correct. See the examples:
Iglesia de San Juan de Arroyo de la Encomienda. Castilla. Mediados del siglo XII.
http://www.lafronteradelduero.com/Imagenes/arroyo_de_la_encomienda/capitel2.jpg
Museo del Duomo de Modena. Metopa. Secolo XII.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-z_lSjygyTMg/UF6xyXKyMTI/AAAAAAAABUM/7v71wYD-l5U/s800/DSC00051.JPG
Sant Pere de Galligants, Girona. Segona meitat del segle XII.
http://www.claustro.com/claustros/Imagenes/Girona/claustros_galligants_go_c3_04.jpg
St. Genis les Fonts. Rosselló. Segle XII
http://materiagris.crisortiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/romanlovers17p_ortiz.jpg
Église de Dienne. Auvergne. 1020
http://lafeuilleamta.fr/2011/02/04/note-sur-un-chapiteau-roman-unique-en-france-dans-l%E2%80%99eglise-de-dienne/#
There is a classic pattern of the icon of the mermaid (symbol of lubricity). But what is the original model? We can not say it. We have to suppose that someone was the first to represent the mermaid, but it is impossible to know where and who.
The Pray Codex representation of the Holy Women at the tomb present a “large frequency of congruences” with almost all the images of the same scene at this time and place: the angel is placed in front of the women; the angel is seated; his buttocks are placed in contact with the sarcophagus (eventually lid); he points to the empty sarcophagus; on the sarcophagus there is a wrinkled cloth (the sudarium or the shroud); a rectangle is placed in diagonal and means the lid. There is almost always the same pattern of structural features with some minor variations. Unlike the random and vague features that sindonist point, these others are structural. Imply a formal and semantic structure. According to you, they imply a model. This model is the iconographic issue of the Holy Women at sepulchre. The Codex Pray fits perfectly with this model as the Romanesque capitals I quoted fit with the model “lustful mermaid”. In both cases we can not know who the first artist that used this model was. But the model is clear.
That you refuse to accept the same principle you have defended before is the last straw. Paraphrasing Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if I don’t like them… well, I have others.”
Secondly: the inaccuracy of the lines is not a sufficient reason to discard the sepulchre in the back of the angel. The Codex Pray illuminations are plenty of these inaccuracies. The angle of the lines is approximately at the same level that the right part of the sepulchre and this hints to mean that the angel is seated on it. And you continue without give us a single reason of your interpretation of these lines as a bench. What features of a bench you see? Can you see any form of legs or seat? I think you are a victim of Jaimito’s syndrome.
David Mo:
he Pray Codex representation of the Holy Women at the tomb present a “large frequency of congruences” with almost all the images of the same scene at this time and place:
“Large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model” –in a population, David Mo. it does not apply to the one particular example (especially such specific like the HPM). So if a feature appears on the large percentage of example in population it is likely derived from a model. But not necessarily on one particular example, where (in specific case) it may be derived from something else.
This shows your lack of understanding of the issue.
And as to Jamito, if you like screwing, do it yourself. I don’t want to join you for your company.
Am I the only one to think that now is the right time for Dan to close comments on this thread?
Perhaps. I hardly believe there is anything relevant to add.
No. That much we are agreed upon. But there’s much that could be usefully subtracted. But it can’t or won’t happen here.
““Large frequency of congruences in a population indicates a model” -in a population, David Mo. it does not apply to the one particular example (especially such specific like the HPM)”.
In the sense I am speaking of a model it implies a structural relation between some organized features. Not an isolated feature. In this sense, when an individual shares the same structural features with a “population” he shares a common pattern. This is evident in the mermaid case and in the Holy Women case also.
What do you understand by “model”, “frequency of congruences” and “population”? It begins to be a mystery. Perhaps you can explain it better.
I asked you:
“… And you continue without give us a single reason of your interpretation of these lines as a bench. What features of a bench you see? Can you see any form of legs or seat? ”
I’m waiting for an answer.
(Dan, can you erase the duplicate comment? It has happened by a contingence of my PC. Thank you).
What do you understand by “model”, “frequency of congruences” and “population”? It begins to be a mystery. Perhaps you can explain it better.
See July 6, 2014 at 2:58 pm
A model -a certain object, material, described or imaginary, or a certain style, with characteristic features, which are mimicked in objects derived from it (eg. the Shroud -as a model- and iconography of Christ)
Congruence -a feature that on the model that is mimicked on the object derived from the model (eg. Vignon marks, L-shaped circles)
Population -a set of all objects dervived from the model (eg. byzantine icons of Christ, burial and empty tomb scenes)
Frequency of congruences -a fraction of all objects within a population sharing a particular congruence (or set of congruences).
I hope definitions are clear now.
I asked you:
“… And you continue without give us a single reason of your interpretation of these lines as a bench. What features of a bench you see? Can you see any form of legs or seat? ”
I’m waiting for an answer.
Paraphrasing you: the angel is seated; his buttocks is placed in contact with this thing consisting of those two lines -as those two lines seem to serve no other function.
And it is all clear, especially when compared with corresponding description in Mark’s Gospel (16:5, NIV):
As they entered the tomb (inside the tomb), they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting (on what?) on the right side.
O.K.
A model -a certain object, material, described or imaginary, or a certain style, with characteristic features, which are mimicked in objects derived from it (eg. the Shroud -as a model- and iconography of Christ)
Congruence -a feature that on the model that is mimicked on the object derived from the model (eg. Vignon marks, L-shaped circles)
Population -a set of all objects dervived from the model (eg. byzantine icons of Christ, burial and empty tomb scenes)
Frequency of congruences -a fraction of all objects within a population sharing a particular congruence (or set of congruences).
I hope definitions are clear now.
No. This concept of model doesn’t work in History of Art. The artist never goes to the canvas or the stone with his mind in blank. Specially in the Ancient Art, the artist has passed by a learning process, he has seen other representations of his subject and carries in his mind a model as an iconic structure. This model is dominant even when he is trying to copy an object. (For the concept of iconic structure see my previous comment).
This model is easily detectable (not always easily) when comparing a relevant set of works of art. (“congruences in a population”)
The individual model (an object) can exist, but it is weighed up by the iconic rules of the structure. In the medieval Art the individual model (another painting, a man) are almost ever undetectable. A few portraits exist as exception. In general, and this is valid even for a genius as Giotto, the structure is predominant. The genius works into the framework of the structure. (See here: http://www.berkshirefinearts.com/uploadedImages/articles/485_Padova-Padua:-Giotto512051.jpg )
This is why the aspiration to deduce imitative effects only on the basis of isolated features is doomed to failure. Because an individual feature can be similar to other only by coincidence, especially when it is defined vaguely and one rejects the contradictory elements of his interpretation as you and other sindonists do.
Paraphrasing you: the angel is seated; his buttocks is placed in contact with this thing consisting of those two lines -as those two lines seem to serve no other function.
You paraphrase, proclaim or affirm but never explain anything. If you pretend identify some object X it is necessary to identify the definitory features of this object, what identifies it as an X, not claim some vagueness as “seem to serve no other function”.
See this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vfA7f0JOFcg/UztyJoB2n1I/AAAAAAABqXo/ovCpLWVCOHo/s1600/British+Library+-+Royal+1+D+X+fol-7+Holy+Women+at+the+Empty+Tomb.jpg
What “function serve” the lines in the back of the angel? Are they similar to the Pray Codex?
And it is all clear, especially when compared with corresponding description in Mark’s Gospel (16:5, NIV):
As they entered the tomb (inside the tomb), they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting (on what?) on the right side.
New mistake. Some of us have explained here that the medieval artist does not guide himself by the Bible lecture but by the artistic conventions of his time and the iconic narrative.
“…passed through a learning process…”
(I hate the phrasal verbs).
David Mo:
I see here nothing that would contradict my approach and definitions. I will just comment a few paragraphs.
First, I would call “a model” in your understanding simply a style, but anyway.
In the medieval Art the individual model (another painting, a man) are almost ever undetectable. A few portraits exist as exception.
And so is the Shroud an exception, which exist, as you admitted.
This is why the aspiration to deduce imitative effects only on the basis of isolated features is doomed to failure.Because an individual feature can be similar to other only by coincidence,
But this is the main point, that you still don’t understand! The chances for coincidence of so many so rare features, are simply negligible!
especially when it is defined vaguely and one rejects the contradictory elements of his interpretation as you and other sindonists do.
They are precise enough to connect them with appropriate elements of the Shroud. And HPM’s “contradictory elements” are only in the sceptics imagination.
You paraphrase, proclaim or affirm but never explain anything. If you pretend identify some object X it is necessary to identify the definitory features of this object, what identifies it as an X, not claim some vagueness as “seem to serve no other function”.
Two lines are enough for a simple representation of a bench, especially in the very obvious context of this illustration.
What “function serve” the lines in the back of the angel? Are they similar to the Pray Codex?
I don’t know what lines you have on mind, and it has nothing to the different illustration in Pray Codex.
New mistake. Some of us have explained here that the medieval artist does not guide himself by the Bible lecture but by the artistic conventions of his time and the iconic narrative.
Who cares what guided a particular artist by? Was he obligued to do anything, because David Mo 800 years later orders him to follow some artistic conventions (which he likely was not even aware of) in his primitive cartoon?
You try to complicate in extremely sophisticated way a matter that is very simple. There are numerous rare congruences with the Shroud? Yes. And as the chances for their coincidental occurence are negligible, the conclusion is that the artist simply once saw the Shroud, and inserted some of its elements into his drawing. Similar way kids in kindergarten do.
O.K.:
First, I would call “a model” in your understanding simply a style, but anyway.
With the word “model” I don’t mean only a style. Iconic structures are models.And so is the Shroud an exception, which exist, as you admitted.
It would be absurd to deny that the shroud of Turin exists, but I have not admitted that the Shroud is a portrait. Foremost, this is not our subject here. The Pray Codex is not a portrait either.
If you want show that the Shroud is the individual model of the Pray Codex you ought to present serious evidence of it. For the moment you have not do so.
Me:
This is why the aspiration to deduce imitative effects only on the basis of isolated features is doomed to failure.Because an individual feature can be similar to other only by coincidence,
You:
But this is the main point, that you still don’t understand! The chances for coincidence of so many so rare features, are simply negligible!
And this is what you don’t understand: that the coincidences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex that you note are neither “rare” nor definite. And the differences are so blunt that no individual relation can be established between the two objects.
At this point you can go to the first comment of this entry and repeat all one by one. If you find anything new to say I be glad to discuss it with you.
If you want show that the Shroud is the individual model of the Pray Codex you ought to present serious evidence of it. For the moment you have not do so.
I sense that for you no evidence would be “serious” enough -because for you by definition no evidence in favor can be.
And this is what you don’t understand: that the coincidences between the Shroud and the Pray Codex that you note are neither “rare” nor definite. And the differences are so blunt that no individual relation can be established between the two objects.
Commenting such nonsense for the n-th time seems a waste of time. I don’t want to play your ridiculous games, David Mo!
The DELIBERATELY stilted language is a dead give-away that this David Mo is playing games: “This is why the aspiration to deduce imitative effects only on the basis of isolated features is doomed to failure.” Seriously?
I would bet dollars-to-donuts that sentence is a cut-and-paste.
That is an obviously nonsensical analysis. Every single number is taken from thin air without any research. Variables that may be dependent are assumed to be independent (maybe there is a correlation between how the hands are depicted, how the fingers are depicted and so on – you can’t assume that there is none without painstaking research). Finally, I love how the author calculates probabilities for the tomb lid as if it were the shroud.
None of this makes sense, sorry.
Variables that may be dependent are assumed to be independent (maybe there is a correlation between how the hands are depicted, how the fingers are depicted and so on – you can’t assume that there is none without painstaking research).
Unless anyone can show us that there is indeed correlation between some of the traits taken for analysis -I can treat them as independent. There are no obvious reasons for relation between any two of them.
Finally, I love how the author calculates probabilities for the tomb lid as if it were the shroud.
I see you don’t understand anything.
None of this makes sense, sorry.<
Mr/Mrs Skeptic.
Your post makes no sense. You have no understanding of what I have written here, nor you have taken any effort to understand it.Instead you choose to believe the nonsense about tomb lids that the same dogmatic sceptics told you to believe.
Goodbye.
“Unless anyone can show us that there is indeed correlation between some of the traits taken for analysis -I can treat them as independent.”
It’s the opposite, you can’t treat them as independent unless you can plausibly show that they are.
“There are no obvious reasons for relation between any two of them.”
Yes, there is: a possible iconographic tradition. If such exists, the elements would not be independent. It’s up to the author to show that such a tradition does not exist.
“I see you don’t understand anything.”
That’s a lovely argument. Very convincing too.
So, to sum it up:
1. The author takes the numbers out of thin air (and doesn’t even try to defend this in his response).
2. The author doesn’t show that his variables are independent.
3. The author treats the tomb lid as the shroud, thereby rendering his calculations nonsensical.
Mr or Mrs Skeptic, I see you have no idea what this whole presentation is about. I have no reason to treat those 6 traits as dependent on each other, as there are no indications of any relationship between each of them. Anyway those 6 features (1 naked body 2 four fingers 3 cropped legs 4 zigzag pattern 5 red smudges 6 L-shape poker holes) are so rare on iconographic descriptions that no ‘iconographic tradition’ around them probaly exist. Your skeptical colleagues presented dozens of ‘similar’ illustrations yet they never possesed those 6 key elements from the Codex Pray (at most one or two, but those were rare instances). And that’s the point, the chances to find all those 6 key elements by random at once are close to NULL.
If you don’t understand this, then further discussion with you is pointless.
“I have no reason to treat those 6 traits as dependent on each other, as there are no indications of any relationship between each of them.”
1. First of all, you have only 3 traits, because the traits in the second group refer to the tomb lid (and it is very easy to prove that it is a tomb lid and not a shroud by comparing this image with other manuscripts from the 11th century onwards, where the tomb lid is mostly depicted as a flat rectangle; the angel or Jesus is sometimes depicted as sitting on the lid or with his feet on the lid; the lid often has ornamental motifs). In fact, the shroud is depicted as the cloth on the lid, case closed.
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/15/183656
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/9/77410
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/31/143915
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/4/159472
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/33/76977
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/39/77199
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/26/77470
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/20/77322
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/30/143915
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/24/133203
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/23/145554
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/8/76981
2. It’s not up to the critics to disprove you, it’s up to you to prove your case, which means going through the relevant manuscripts and icons and finding the general tendencies. If you can show that there is no iconographic tradition that has Jesus depicted in such and such state, then you can proceed to whatever calculations you can do. Otherwise you’re assuming things.
But let me point you in just one direction. That Jesus is naked pretty much implies that his hands will be crossed over his pelvis, for obvious reasons.
The crossed hands in Pray Codex remind one of the Man of Sorrows type, so let’s simply google for this type and see what we find for the “crossed hands” iconography:
commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Akra_Tapeinosis.jpg
commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Colijn_de_Coter_-_Christ_as_the_Man_of_Sorrows_-_WGA5453.jpg
commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Lorenzo_Monaco_-_Christ_as_the_Man_of_Sorrows_-_WGA13601.jpg
http://www.wga. hu/html_m/c/ceccarel/sorrows.html
http://www.nationalgallery. org. uk/paintings/probably-by-jacobello-del-bonomo-the-man-of-sorrows
fineartamerica. com/featured/christ-as-man-of-sorrows-anonymous.html
http://www.betsyporter. com/Jesus.html
http://www.christies. com/lotfinderimages/d49999/d4999986x.jpg
artnow. ru/en/gallery/200/31446/picture/0/721078.html
http://www.musobl.divo. ru/collection/tk_polojenie_xvi.jpg
Plus a couple from manuscripts:
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/19/76833
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/17/76888
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/19/76926
On all of these images from different eras, including very modern images, the thumb is either barely visible or absent. Why? I propose that with this particular position of hands it is simply natural for a master to “hide” the thumb. (Note that, of course, there are also images with very visible thumbs. But that’s not the point, the point is the abundance of images without thumbs or with barely visible thumbs). So here’s one potential correlation, which would leave you with only 2 traits, because then nakedness and 4 thumbs are not necessarily independent. I’m not stating this as a proven fact, but again, it’s up to you to disprove this by doing research.
3. Finally, you still haven’t addressed that fact that you haven’t substantiated your probabilities. Why 1 in 100 and not 1 in 20? You can only claim that after doing statistical research on the relevant material. That you claim that “those 6 features … are so rare on iconographic descriptions that no ‘iconographic tradition’ around them probaly exist” is just a claim, which it’s up to you to prove. Don’t forget: *you* are making a case here.
So what we’re left with is that you basically have two traits with uncertain probabilities assigned to them. Versus the fact that the second image shows a tomb lid separately from a shroud. Which means that Codex Pray has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turin Shroud.
Correct your links, then we will talk.
OK, that was anti-spam precaution.
Fine ‘Skeptic’. You took some effort to search for illustrations with 4 fingers. Besides that a few of your examples do not pertain, you only strenghten my case (you fell into the same trap like David Mo and other sceptics before you). None of your illustrations show all 6 key features present in the Codex Pray. The more such illustrations you provide the stronger the case for the Codex Pray being unique -and witness to the existence of the Shroud before 1200 AD.
It’s not up to the critics to disprove you, it’s up to you to prove your case, which means going through the relevant manuscripts and icons and finding the general tendencies. If you can show that there is no iconographic tradition that has Jesus depicted in such and such state, then you can proceed to whatever calculations you can do
This is is the part of the job you sceptics have done for me. By providing numerous illustrations that don’t have those 6 key features. I repeat: the more such illustrations you provide, the stronger the case for the Codex Pray being unique.
But let me point you in just one direction. That Jesus is naked pretty much implies that his hands will be crossed over his pelvis, for obvious reasons.
But not the other way, the crossed hands do not imply nudity. And nudity is the key feature here, not crossed hands (maybe I didn’t explained that in the article clear enough).
On all of these images from different eras, including very modern images, the thumb is either barely visible or absent. Why?
Because you selected those images. Now when you took such large effort (I admire you for that) answer your question yourself, what is the proportion of illustrations with 4 fingers vs 5 fingers.
So here’s one potential correlation, which would leave you with only 2 traits, because then nakedness and 4 thumbs are not necessarily independent.
None of your illustrations show full nudity like in the Codex Pray.
Why 1 in 100 and not 1 in 20?
It doesn’t really matter whether 1 in 20, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000. The point is that the chance for randon accumulation of so many scarce traits, similar to those spotted on the Shroud, is really negligible. And whether its final numerical value is 1 in 1000, 1 in a million, or 1 in a bilion is not important, the conclusion is important.
Versus the fact that the second image shows a tomb lid separately from a shroud.
I took into account such possibility -but the whole reasoning is totally irrelevant on that, as it doesn’t assume whether the rectangle on the lower illustration is lid or the Shroud, or anything (just the potential possibility of it being the shroud is enough). Besides the bench I found and on which the angel is sitting clearly disproves it being a lid:
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2554/3odxx.jpg
I am going sleep. Good night.
“I have no reason to treat those 6 traits as dependent on each other, as there are no indications of any relationship between each of them.”
1. First of all, you have only 3 traits, because the traits in the second group refer to the tomb lid (and it is very easy to prove that it is a tomb lid and not a shroud by comparing this image with other manuscripts from the 11th century onwards, where the tomb lid is mostly depicted as a flat rectangle; the angel or Jesus is sometimes depicted as sitting on the lid or with his feet on the lid; the lid often has ornamental motifs). In fact, the shroud is depicted as the cloth on the lid, case closed.
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/15/183656
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/9/77410
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/31/143915
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/4/159472
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/33/76977
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/39/77199
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/26/77470
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/20/77322
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/30/143915
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/24/133203
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/23/145554
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/8/76981
2. It’s not up to the critics to disprove you, it’s up to you to prove your case, which means going through the relevant manuscripts and icons and finding the general tendencies. If you can show that there is no iconographic tradition that has Jesus depicted in such and such state, then you can proceed to whatever calculations you can do. Otherwise you’re assuming things.
But let me point you in just one direction. That Jesus is naked pretty much implies that his hands will be crossed over his pelvis, for obvious reasons.
The crossed hands in Pray Codex remind one of the Man of Sorrows type, so let’s simply google for this type and see what we find for the “crossed hands” iconography:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akra_Tapeinosis.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colijn_de_Coter_-_Christ_as_the_Man_of_Sorrows_-_WGA5453.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenzo_Monaco_-_Christ_as_the_Man_of_Sorrows_-_WGA13601.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/html_m/c/ceccarel/sorrows.html
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/probably-by-jacobello-del-bonomo-the-man-of-sorrows
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/christ-as-man-of-sorrows-anonymous.html
http://www.betsyporter.com/Jesus.html
http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d49999/d4999986x.jpg
http://artnow.ru/en/gallery/200/31446/picture/0/721078.html
http://www.musobl.divo.ru/collection/tk_polojenie_xvi.jpg
Plus a couple from manuscripts:
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/19/76833
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/17/76888
http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/19/76926
On all of these images from different eras, including very modern images, the thumb is either barely visible or absent. Why? I propose that with this particular position of hands it is simply natural for a master to “hide” the thumb. (Note that, of course, there are also images with very visible thumbs. But that’s not the point, the point is the abundance of images without thumbs or with barely visible thumbs). So here’s one potential correlation, which would leave you with only 2 traits, because then nakedness and 4 fingers are not necessarily independent. I’m not stating this as a proven fact, but again, it’s up to you to disprove this by doing research.
3. Finally, you still haven’t addressed that fact that you haven’t substantiated your probabilities. Why 1 in 100 and not 1 in 20? You can only claim that after doing statistical research on the relevant material. That you claim that “those 6 features … are so rare on iconographic descriptions that no ‘iconographic tradition’ around them probaly exist” is just a claim, which it’s up to you to prove. Don’t forget: *you* are making a case here.
So what we’re left with is that you basically have two traits with uncertain probabilities assigned to them. Versus the fact that the second image shows a tomb lid separately from a shroud. Which means that Codex Pray has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turin Shroud.
Now to the question of cut-off legs:
“· C –He has His legs cropped by the end of page, without any obvious reason (the same as frontal image on the Shroud) -1/100 instances.”
A little research here would have delivered an obvious answer.
Here are the folios:
28: http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0062.html
28 verso: http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0063.html
Note that your image is cropped above. When we look at the complete page we see some text that was cropped above. When we look at 28v (the reverse page), we see the angel’s wing cropped a bit, and the musical notes are *too close* to the margin, which is not in accordance with most of the text in other folios, where the margins are not so narrow, e.g. http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0053.html
When we look at 29v we see something similar – the text is cropped above and the margin is obviously cut off: http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0065.html
Also here: http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0014.html
So the explanation of the cut-off legs is very simple: the page is in poor condition and was partially cropped. Together with the legs, the angel’s wing, text above, etc.
For some reason I can’t reply directly to your comment, so pardon me for continuing here.
“None of your illustrations show all 6 key features present in the Codex Pray.”
That’s a red herring, as I have shown. First of all, you don’t have “6” features, but 3 at most, because whatever appears on the tomb lid is irrelevant to the question of the shroud. Even supposing you establish the uniqueness of the tomb lid there is still the brute fact that it’s not the shroud.
But the rest of your features don’t fare much better. Cut-off legs don’t count (explained in a comment above), so that’s 2. Nakedness and 4 fingers are not independent, so that’s 1…
“This is is the part of the job you sceptics have done for me”
Doesn’t work that way, sorry. The research is still up to you. More so if we skeptics are as wrong and inept as you think.
“But not the other way, the crossed hands do not imply nudity. And nudity is the key feature here, not crossed hands (maybe I didn’t explained that in the article clear enough).”
You didn’t get this one, I’m afraid. It’s not about the crossed hands. It’s about whether nudity is independent from 4 fingers.
Nudity is correlated with crossed hands, that’s a fact (because nudity needs to be covered – and if not with a cloth, then with crossed hands, unless we imagine some Austin Powers-like visual devices which surely weren’t in use back then ;) ). And it seems that crossed hands are correlated with 4 fingers. So it seems that nudity is correlated with 4 fingers and thus cannot be treated as an independent variable. Again, not a 100% proven fact, but the images I found are enough for a decent prior probability. It’s up to you to refute this.
“Because you selected those images.”
I didn’t really have to try hard to select the images, most are from the first Google Image search pages. But in any case that’s hardly an answer.
Why is the thumb absent or barely visible on the images I selected?
“None of your illustrations show full nudity like in the Codex Pray.”
Which is relevant how? Where the images are not nude, they still have crossed hands which seem to be correlated with 4 fingers. Where the images *are* nude, they *almost necessarily* have the crossed hands, and so there still seems to be the correlation between nakedness and 4 fingers. That is, where Jesus is naked, we expect with extremely high probability that his hands will be crossed over the genital area, and with a decent probability that they will lack thumbs.
“It doesn’t really matter whether 1 in 20, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000. The point is that the chance for randon accumulation of so many scarce traits, similar to those spotted on the Shroud, is really negligible.”
Oh, but it does matter. E.g. 10^-3.9 may be small, but it is still much better than 10^-6. (Not that I would agree with this number for the reasons outlined above.)
So you still owe us the reasonable probabilities and not simply something taken out of thin air.
“I took into account such possibility -but the whole reasoning is totally irrelevant on that, as it doesn’t assume whether the rectangle on the lower illustration is lid or the Shroud,”
Well, that’s the fatal flaw, because if what we see is a lid (and it is a lid) then none of the probabilities matter.
“or anything (just the potential possibility of it being the shroud is enough).”
There is no such realistic possibility. The comparative analysis with the iconography of the same era shows that the rectangle could only be a lid, while the shroud is never portrayed as a huge hard rectangle and certainly not under the angel’s feet (what is often portrayed under the angel’s feet is, again, the tomb lid). In fact, the shroud is present on both illustrations, on the top one it’s below Jesus, on the bottom one it lies on the tomb lid. This fully corresponds to the traditional iconography of the era, where the shroud takes relatively little place after the resurrection since it’s all bunched up. So there is simply no question of the rectangle being anything but the lid. If you will be consistent and apply your probability analysis to this particular issue (how many images show the shroud as a rectangle, etc., etc.), you might see this. I’m afraid that probability will be astronomically lower even that the one you have calculated above.
“Besides the bench I found and on which the angel is sitting clearly disproves it being a lid:”
That’s a non sequitur. Whatever the angel is sitting on has no bearing whatsoever on the rectangle being a shroud or a lid. Although I also disagree that he necessarily sits on a bench, just because there is something drawn there doesn’t mean he sits on that something. Although he might. Doesn’t make a difference.
So ‘Skeptic”, I start the list of your errors:
Well, that’s the fatal flaw, because if what we see is a lid (and it is a lid) then none of the probabilities matter.
There is no such realistic possibility. The comparative analysis with the iconography of the same era shows that the rectangle could only be a lid
See those two pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/White_shark.jpg/1024px-White_shark.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Dolphind.jpg/800px-Dolphind.jpg
They both look similar, fishy-like. According to the sceptical logic they are both fish.
Then look on another pair of images:
http://ica.themorgan.org/icaimages/4/m43.023r.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg/640px-Hungarianpraymanuscript1192-1195.jpg
They look similar, yes. But they are in fact different. While upper image shows tomb lid, the similar image Pray Codex shows the Shroud. Similarity does not prove identity, just like the visual similarity between shark and dolphin does not prove the latter being fish. This is the fundamental logical error most ‘skeptics’ make.
“They look similar, yes. But they are in fact different. While upper image shows tomb lid, the similar image Pray Codex shows the Shroud.”
This is incorrect, since the similar image in Pray codex can only show the tomb lid, as I have shown through comparative analysis with numerous other contemporary miniatures.
“They look similar, yes. But they are in fact different. While upper image shows tomb lid, the similar image Pray Codex shows the Shroud.”
This is incorrect, since the similar image in Pray codex can only show the tomb lid, as I have shown through comparative analysis with numerous other contemporary miniatures.
And I can show with numerous other fish photographs that dolphin is a fish as well.
Once again: crossed hands don’t imply nudity, but nudity does (with huge probability) imply crossed hands. So you giving me an image of crossed hands without nudity does not in any way address my argument.
There seems to be no argument at all. Besides, the whole discussion is pointless as nudity and crossed hands are in fact listed as one point (A, and in fact complete nudity is primary feature there).
“But this could have been as well deliberate decision of the illustrator who put the legs on the very margin to be cut while trimming.”
LOL?
Of course such possibility seems to be beyond your imagination…
Any probability calculation [that assumes that the rectangle is the Shroud, although it is of course the tomb lid] *must* account for the absence of the image on the “shroud”…
No, it must account only for those features which are considered relevant to the subject, and not some other unimportant details which neither imply relation with the Shroud nor deny it. Even the lack of body image on the purported Shroud does not say anything, as one can give plausible explanation for its absence assuming even direct relation between the Shroud and the Codex). We take into account only a few traits we consider significant and non-trivial. The quantity of coincidences is no less important than their quality.
No ‘Skeptic’, you failed to refute my arguments presented here. You make basic errors (like making selection among the sample and claiming correlation, or assuming that implication in one way forces implication in another) , and don’t understand the fundamental principles behind the reasoning. But this is rather a norm for ‘smart’ skeptics.
Next:
So the explanation of the cut-off legs is very simple: the page is in poor condition and was partially cropped. Together with the legs, the angel’s wing, text above, etc.
The fact is that the legs are indeed cropped there. This is undisputed coincidence with the Shroud. We don’t bother about any possible alternative explanation for the presence of key traits A-F. The very presence of rare non-trivial coincidences with the Shroud is important here.
The folio is trimmed, I agree. I saw this long before you joined this discussion. But it is irrelevant here. It is of course possible that the crop of the legs is merely accidental. But this could have been as well deliberate decision of the illustrator who put the legs on the very margin to be cut while trimming. So the point C is still valid.
“Because you selected those images.”
I didn’t really have to try hard to select the images, most are from the first Google Image search pages. But in any case that’s hardly an answer.
Why is the thumb absent or barely visible on the images I selected?
Because you have selected those images with invisible or hardly visible thumbs. You have admitted this here. Thus the whole your reasoning is invalid, as you introduce bias by selecting the images that favor your claims.
Besides lack of thumbs is something different, much stronger than “hardly visible thumbs” or thumbs obscured by geometric perspective. There is no obvious rationale for portraying 4 fingers on the entombment illustration in the Codex Pray, except that illustrator desired to do so for some reason.
Nudity is correlated with crossed hands, that’s a fact (because nudity needs to be covered – and if not with a cloth, then with crossed hands, unless we imagine some Austin Powers-like visual devices which surely weren’t in use back then ;) ). And it seems that crossed hands are correlated with 4 fingers. So it seems that nudity is correlated with 4 fingers and thus cannot be treated as an independent variable.
This whole reasoning is obviously wrong. Your own illustration shows why:
http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d49999/d4999986x.jpg
Here we have crossed hands, yet no nudity, as the loincloth is clearly visible. And there are 5 fingers visible on each hand.
Remember correlation is not the same as implication, although they are related. And implication can go either way, but not necessary both. Nudity implies crossed hands (to cover genitals) of course, so there is correlation between nudity and crossed hands. But crossed hands does not imply nudity nor 4 fingers..
Oh, but it does matter. E.g. 10^-3.9 may be small, but it is still much better than 10^-6. (Not that I would agree with this number for the reasons outlined above.)
But 10^-3.9 (close to 1 in 1000) is a small number, even if two orders of magnitude larger than 10^-6. it is close to null -and that’s the main point. The odds for finding 6 tiny features that reasonably coincide with the Shroud just by chance is remarkably small. Small enough to reject it by any reasonable criteria. And that’s the conclusion of the article, which you have been unable to refute.
“The fact is that the legs are indeed cropped there. This is undisputed coincidence with the Shroud.”
The ends of feet were physically cropped with the rest of the page. *We know that the feet were there earlier*. Hence it can in no way be any meaningful coincidence.
“But this could have been as well deliberate decision of the illustrator who put the legs on the very margin to be cut while trimming.”
LOL?
“Because you have selected those images with invisible or hardly visible thumbs.”
Now you are going in circles without even trying to answer the question.
“Besides lack of thumbs is something different, much stronger than “hardly visible thumbs” or thumbs obscured by geometric perspective.Э
It is, in fact, the same principle.
“This whole reasoning is obviously wrong. Your own illustration shows why:
Here we have crossed hands, yet no nudity, as the loincloth is clearly visible. And there are 5 fingers visible on each hand.”
And you have, once again, failed to grasp the very simple, really, trivial argument that I make.
Once again: crossed hands don’t imply nudity, but nudity does (with huge probability) imply crossed hands. So you giving me an image of crossed hands without nudity does not in any way address my argument.
Hopefully now that I have explained it in easy, short words for the second time, you will get it at last and stop making strawman arguments like “But crossed hands does not imply nudity nor 4 fingers..” – because of course I never implied otherwise and such a claim is irrelevant to the argument that I am making.
“But 10^-3.9 (close to 1 in 1000) is a small number, even if two orders of magnitude larger than 10^-6. it is close to null -and that’s the main point.”
That’s not the main point, because it may be 1/5 for all I know. In any case, as has been demonstrated, you don’t have 6 independent features in need of explanation. Maximum one, and that one is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the miniature depicts a tomb lid, not the shroud.
The basic point has always been that the Shroud shows extensive bloodstains and scourge marks. Anyone who had seen it would have shown something of these on the body of Christ in the upper register.
Indeed, Charles. Such nonsensical “probability calculations” are inherently one-sided, because any sensible calculation *must* account for divergent features, as well as convergent ones. Any probability calculation [that assumes that the rectangle is the Shroud, although it is of course the tomb lid] *must* account for the absence of the image on the “shroud” (which fact alone actually disproves the whole “it’s the shroud” nonsense), it *must* account for the fact that the “burn holes” are present *despite* the fact that they would not be present during the Resurrection and are thus anachronistic. It must account for the fact that there are 4 “burn holes” on one rectangle and 5 on the other (the other one is actually the sarcophagus and not another half of the shroud, but let’s ignore this for a moment).
It *must* account for what you point out – lack of bloodstains and scourge marks.
Any “probability calculation” that does not account for all of this is useless.
Tomb lid? If it’s a tomb lid, why is the tomb (to the right) not shown empty? Shouldn’t the area with the red crosses instead be black and show an empty tomb? It isn’t . Therefore, No tomb lid.
It is a tomb lid because it fully corresponds to how the tomb lid is drawn in other contemporary manuscripts: a rigid rectangle, at an angle to the sarcophagus, usually with the angel or Jesus stepping on it or sitting on it, usually decorated with some sort of an ornament. This is indisputable. It cannot be anything but the lid.
Your argument doesn’t make sense, I’m afraid, because the area with the crosses is the wall of the sarcophagus as seen from the side. It shouldn’t be “black” or anything like that. Yeah, it’s not 3D, but the drawing itself is rather crude.
Skeptic. Having seen many resurrection scenes in Italian art over the years where the tomb lid is painted so as to reflect the bursting out of the tomb by Christ at the Resurrection, it took me a long time to realise that people thought the lid was the Shroud itself! I had been looking at the cloths on the lower register, and trying to see whether there were any images on them, which,of course, there are not.
You have to realise that being able to see the Shroud on the Pray Codex is possible only for those of faith. The rest of us see stepped pyramid shapes on the tomb lid, discarded grave cloths without images,a Christ without the bloodstains and scourge marks that several observers describe as being exceptionally vivid on the Shroud in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and crusader crosses at a time in the 1190s there was an enthusiasm in Hungary for a crusade.
Perhaps one day faith will be granted to us both but until then we have to linger in the world of disbelief, unloved outcasts, doubting Thomases, who cannot believe until we see the wounds themselves, either on the body of Christ or on the grave clothes on the Codex that will give us faith.
Charles, you forgot “The rest of us see paint where there is none.”
Charles
Here’s a picture of a dress that’s all over the internet. Some say they see gold and white( that’s what I see) others look at the same photo and see the dress as Black and blue.
http://mashable.com/2015/02/26/what-color-dress-blue-black-white-gold/
CF: “The basic point has always been that the Shroud shows extensive bloodstains and scourge marks. Anyone who had seen it would have shown something of these on the body of Christ”
“I don’t think it’s any surprise that Jesus’ body and the sheet lack the wounds of the nails, of the scourging and of the spear. It’s clear the artist reported, in a stylized way, the details that had impressed him; nor can we expect that he, while portraying the risen Christ, would continue portraying Him with thumbs bent.” (E. Marinelli)
The usual explaining away of the damning evidence.
“And I can show with numerous other fish photographs that dolphin is a fish as well.”
Well, this would just show that you’re not a serious opponent.
“There seems to be no argument at all.”
There is, you’re welcome to re-read the previous comments and address what I wrote without skipping the inconvenient parts.
“Besides, the whole discussion is pointless as nudity and crossed hands are in fact listed as one point (A, and in fact complete nudity is primary feature there).”
Congratulations, you have failed to understand my uncomplicated point for the third time. Of course, I never disputed that they’re listed as one point. It’s not about “nudity and crossed hands”. It’s about the relationship between nudity, crossed hands and missing thumbs.
“Of course such possibility seems to be beyond your imagination…”
Well, I could imagine something like this, for sure. Of course, I would never, ever, write it down for the fear of being seen as a fool. This self-refuting parody of a hypothesis doesn’t really require a comment. But anyway: no, the trimming had nothing to do with the artist’s intent. The text was trimmed too. It obviously happened because of the damage to the manuscript. This it had nothing to do with the artist’s intent. Thus it cannot be a meaningful coincidence. This is in fact a perfect example of how “coincidences” can be fabricated.
“No, it must account only for those features which are considered relevant to the subject”
Which are all the divergent features too. Otherwise the calculation loses any sense.
Anyhow, as we have established through comparison with contemporary manuscripts, the picture depicts a tomb lid with the shroud lying on it, so none of your probability calculations are at all relevant.
“No ‘Skeptic’, you failed to refute my arguments presented here. You make basic errors (like making selection among the sample and claiming correlation, or assuming that implication in one way forces implication in another) , and don’t understand the fundamental principles behind the reasoning. But this is rather a norm for ‘smart’ skeptics.Э
I have either refuted your arguments or have shown where you haven’t proven your case. I haven’t made a single error and I have pointed numerous errors of yours, including some basic comprehension problems, like your constant confusion about implications and correlations. You stand refuted, enjoy :)
No, Skeppie, your argument makes no sense, and if you had given it much thought, you would realize this: If the area with the red crosses is the “wall of the sarcophagus” as seen from the side, then your fanciful “tomb lid” would be hanging magically on the side of the sarcophagus with no support. The right side of your “tomb lid” would then be off the ground and have no support. WHETHER ONE THINKS IT IS THE SHROUD OR A TOMB LID, NEITHER CAN BE ON THE SIDE OF A SARCOPHAGUS, SUSPENDED BY NOTHING. THEREFORE IT IS A CLOSED SARCOPHAGUS, MEANING THE TOP OF THE SARCOPHAGUS HAS RED CROSSES. THEREFORE THE OBJECT TO THE LEFT IS THE SHROUD. Q.E.D.
The ridiculousness of your argument competes with that of the “trimming” hypothesis by O.K. :)
Apparently you didn’t take the time to actually look at the similar resurrection/post-resurrection scenes from medieval manuscripts I posted earlier, where the tomb lid likewise “hangs with no support”. Little learning is a dangerous thing, but you seem to lack even that ^_^
Wrong again, skeppie…I’ve looked at all your scenes, and in each and every case the tomb lids are propped up by either the ground and a column, or the ground and an angel, or the like. Every time. And, “strangely”, every one of your tomb lids depicted has no design. (yeah, a look of granite or marble doesn’t count, don’t bother….). Evidently in the Pray Illustration, a “tomb lid” with a design = a shroud. Talk about lacking….
If those other tomb lids which literally hang in the air can be described as being “propped” by columns or such (even though they go “through” the columns, and some literally hang in the air, as if the angel was the “magnet” for them), then the Pray tomb lid can likewise be described as being propped by the sarcophagus.
You lose again, troll :)
Well, no, skeppie. The other tomb lids in your linked scenes ARE INDEED propped up on either end by either ground or angel or column or top of the sarcophagus, but your imagined Pray “tomb lid” is propped up by nothing, and even saying that one end is on the ground would be a kindness. Evidently your “side of the sarcophagus” is able to be a “magnet” for your “tomb lid,” and hold it fast. And oh BTW, your tomb lids have no designs, unlike the Pray shroud, which clearly has a herringbone design…..
Nabber, I don’t think it is worthy of effort.
You know that guys like ‘Skeptic’ are argument-resistant.They know only their ‘wisdom’.
Let the guy be happy. He didn’t refuted the main arguments presented here. In fact he don’t even understand them -presenting ‘correlation’ basing on preselected sample, or not catching my analogy with dolphin, which although looks very similar to the fish, isn’t a fish (and similarly the rectangle in Codex Pray although similar to the lid, is the Shroud in fact).
Let he consider himself wise’ for a moment. Discussing with fools only gives them higher ‘esteem.’
“or angel”
LOL.
Actually the tomb lid is propped up by the ground on one end and by the sarcophagus on the other. And many other lids have designs. And a herringbone design on a tomb lid would still establish nothing about the Turin shroud. Now go away, troll ^_^
Actually you could try all day and prop up the other end of a heavy tomb lid on the side of a sarcophagus, but I know from Physics that it wouldn’t stay there. Evidently you have not tried this experiment, and lack some basic science knowledge. And further, NONE of your linked pictures of tomb lids have designs. Thus, the Pray herringbone shroud of 1192, among other clues you cannot absorb, shows that the Pray Codex Illustrator had either seen or been told first-hand about the Shroud of Constantinople,a delegation having visited there in 1150. All in all, the connection puts the lie to the carbon dating of 1260-1390.
“from Physics”
LOL, the troll thinks physics is somehow relevant to the medieval iconography. And of course most of the tomb lids have designs. The tomb lid in the Pray codex has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turin shroud. Once again, with feeling: go away, troll! :D
It’s OK, homes, you’ve been schooled more than once here today, esp. well so by daveb below.
None of your examples of tomb lids had designs, so if you don’t want to appear to be continuing to lie about it, you’d better proffer up some more lids, some that have designs.
And as daveb states, “The sides of the rectangle are not straight as one would expect a tomb lid to be, nor are they symmetrical about their centre-line. It would be the only tomb-lid ever drawn with four poker holes drilled in it in the shape of an L.” BTW, you still haven’t answered how your “tomb lid” right side is suspended magically in the air, up against the “side of the sarcophagus”. Nice try, though.
All the available facts say: The Shroud. Live with it. I’m sure there are some nice skeptic sites somewhere where you could survive quite nicely.
“Go away troll” said the guy living under the bridge.
“Go away troll” said the guy living under the bridge.”
So David, you’re here to defend the troll? Doesn’t that make you a troll yourself? Something to ponder.
You need to look up the definition of troll. It means someone who pops into a blog forum with the sole intention to get people’s goat. To be fair though, you have engaged reasonably with Nabber and OK – both of whom have been on this forum for many a moon. You do not fit the role of a troll at this point, but neither do they.
BTW, I’m undecided on the Pray Codex as evidence, so I do try to see both sides of the argument. The case for authenticity does not rely on the Codex, neither does the case for a medieval artifact. The Codex is a sidebar discussion that does seem to get people’s goat. Perhaps the Codex is the real troll here. :)
Fair enough. I’m not here to argue about the authenticity of the shroud anyway, here I’m interested in this particular issue. For all intents and purposes I could be a Shroud believer (no, I’m not, but in theory…).
As for trolling: apart from what I see as dishonest misinterpretations of the miniatures in the other manuscripts, I just see his bringing up physics(!) into the discussion of medieval iconography as pure trolling He can’t be serious, now, can he?
To sum up the debate:
1. The author did not provide any justification for his probability estimates.
2. The author committed numerous errors, such as:
a) assuming that his variables are independent without doing any research (e.g. assuming that nudity is independent from 4 fingers);
b) assuming that cropped feet have any significance (even though little research would have shown him that the feet were originally there and were trimmed because the manuscript was damaged);
Hence his assertion about a number of “features” are without any basis.
3. We know from the comparison with the medieval manuscripts, the links to which are posted above, that the Pray codex depicts nothing else but the tomb lid.
4. This established fact shows that none of the probability calculations whatsoever matter, because no probability calculation will make a tomb lid into a shroud.
Ergo: this post is useless.
Addition: 5) The author willfully ignored the obviously relevant divergent features in his “calculations”, which on its own renders them invalid.
We have often been here before. The conflict of the “debate(?)” above illustrates how unproductive dogmatic statements concerning the Shroud can become, and from whatever side adduces them. I personally consider that the Pray illustration is highly suggestive of Shroud influences, and may well be indicative of its earlier presence and sighting in Constantinople by King Bela III of Hungary. As a past master of probability theory, most of which I’ve now forgotten, I consider it an error to arbitrarily designate numerical probabilities to events however rare they might be. Quantitatively, I consider the probabilities meaningless. But I consider them qualitatively highly significant.
Bela’s older brother Stephen III succeeded to the Hungarian kingship in 1162, upon which Bela moved to Constantinople in 1163, was given the name Alexios by Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, and was betrothed to the emperor’s daughter Maria, and was designated heir in 1165. As such he would have had access to the imperial relic collection. Assuming that the Shroud was part of that collection he would doubtless have seen it. The betrothal to Maria was dissolved in 1169 upon the birth of her brother, and Bela was deprived of his titles being demoted to kaiser only.
In 1172, Stephen III died, and Bela returned to Hungary and was crowned king there in 1173, surviving until 1196.
There are a number of art works preceding the Hungarian Pray codex, depicting the visit of the Holy Women. They all follow a surprisingly similar pattern. The skewed rectangle is inevitably recognised as a casket lid. However the Pray Codex illustration almost seems to be the first that includes a prostate naked Christ with arms crossed over his groin, and only four fingers visible on each hand. Whence did the concept of this representation come? Given Bela’s presumed familiarity with the imperial relic collection, it requires little to make a judgment that it was very likely the Shroud image which he had seen in Constantinople. It is unlikely that he himself was the artist, more likely some monk who may have been advised by Bela.
The drawing itself is somewhat crude in its execution. The sides of the rectangle are not straight as one would expect a tomb lid to be, nor are they symmetrical about their centre-line, a poor piece of carpentry indeed. Conceivably they may represent the cloth of the Shroud, but it cannot be so stated dogmatically. The zigzag pattern may be a representation of the herring-bone twill of the Shroud. The small cloth resting upon it, might wrap a head, but certainly not a whole body. It would be the only tomb-lid ever drawn with four poker holes drilled in it in the shape of an L.
The Pray Codex drawing is persuasive of it including Shroud-like features. It is certainly not conclusive, but it cannot be so lightly dismissed as not significant. I personally consider that the illustration was inspired by Shroud-like features at some time before 1196.
“The skewed rectangle is inevitably recognised as a casket lid.”
Thank you for agreeing. Even if you contradict yourself in the next paragraph, for there is no chance that this rectangle is anything but the lid. One need not do more than compare this with other miniatures.
In fact, one need not do more than compare the top and the bottom images, because the shroud at the top looks nothing like the rectangle at the bottom.
Oh and this: “The small cloth resting upon it, might wrap a head” – like some others, you have fallen into a trap of not studying the provided links. You can see clearly that on some of them both the covering and the shroud appear, and both are very small and “bunched up”. Moreover, it can easily be that the cloth on that image is supposed to extend up to the red zig-zag lines, i.e. the area with the crosses may belong to the shroud. Be that as it may, this has no bearing on the function of the rectangle.
“It would be the only tomb-lid ever drawn with four poker holes drilled in it in the shape of an L.”
That they’re holes is an interpretation in need of evidence. They’re circles, decorative elements beloved by the master of the Pray codex. These circles are everywhere. In fact, there are also 5 circles on the sarcophagus – which believers interpret as the second half of the shroud, thereby receiving an obvious contradiction, because the real Shroud has 4 holes on both sides.
Conclusion: there is no evidence tying the Pray codex to the shroud of Turin. Personal feelings aside, it certainly cannot be used to disprove the carbon dating.
Supposedly inspired from the shroud’s image, but I can’t see any moustache, any beard … Jesus has 4 fingers, but the other guys drawn by the artist ( a very bad artist by the way) also have 4 fingers.
Sometimes the most obvious is so invisible… So thanks for this insight. Indeed, the saint doing the anointing has 4 fingers, which means that in this position it was natural for the artist to “hide” the thumb.
“It’s OK, homes, you’ve been schooled more than once here today, esp. well so by daveb below.”
I’m afraid I’m the only one doing the schooling here. The dogmatic believers are collectively beclowning themselves :)
“None of your examples of tomb lids had designs,”
Nope, most of them did, as anyone can see for themselves. And of course your claim doesn’t make any sense, for you’re dismissing these designs on the basis of them representing marble and such (not all of them do, there’s at least one case of a purely geometrical design, so you’re lying as usual), i.e. texture of material, yet the “design” in the Pray Codex represents material texture *according to you* (herringbone weave is nothing but texture, after all). So you’re contradicting yourself. And of course there is the question of how that is relevant to the discussion at all.
“All the available facts say: The Shroud. Live with it. I’m sure there are some nice skeptic sites somewhere where you could survive quite nicely.”
Since the comparison with other medieval manuscripts leaves no doubt that this is a tomb lid, this cannot be a shroud. Live with it.
“There’s at least one case of a purely geometrical design.”
So then, two cases?
Link?
Representation of granite or marble texture is far, far different than herringbone design, and you know it.
Since the comparison with medieval illustrations leaves almost no supporting evidence that this is a “tomb lid”, it leaves no doubt this is a shroud. So Sorry for you.
The German Book of Hours
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/31/143915
ica.themorgan. org/manuscript/page/30/143915
(links mangled to avoid spam filter)
Representation of granite etc. is a representation of a texture. If you’re calling the herringbone weave texture a “design”, so I can call the alleged stone texture “design”.
In any case, whether there are designs or not (and there are) has no relevance to the issue at hand.
We know from the comparison with the medieval manuscripts that the Pray codex depicts the tomb lid.
But we also know that that rectangle is not the shroud without any external comparison: the top picture shows the shroud under Christ and it looks *nothing* like the rectangle on the bottom picture. Case closed.
Idiotic. Representation of granite would be an attempt to show how a natural object looks. OTOH, showing the herringbone design of the shroud is an attempt to show how man makes a design out of the creative mind–that is in fact why we call it a design, and not a “natural feature.” Therefore, granite is not a design.
We know from the comparison with medieval illustrations that the Pray Codex is very, very unlikely to show a tomb lid. Such tomb lids have no design other than natural granite or marble — and yet the Pray Codex shroud clearly shows a design from the human mind.
Only your misled mind could think that a shroud could not change shape. Do you think that the crumpled Shroud that St.Peter found in the tomb was the same shape as the way the Shroud is stored today?
You’re right, though, your case is surely closed.
Ah, so you’re interested in playing word games and semantics. Cool. Without me :)
The medieval manuscripts don’t allow any other interpretation of the rectangle but the tomb lid, “designs” being completely irrelevant to the issue. The usual red herring.
Plus the shroud is also depicted in the Pray codex, and it looks nothing like the rectangle, so the rectangle cannot be the shroud. Really, basic logic.
PS: and of course you ignored the purely geometrical designs in one of those manuscripts, but that’s already par for the course.
““designs” being completely irrelevant to the issue” : That’s funny, Skeppy. the Pray shroud has a design, you know, like cloths do. Your tomb lids don’t — geometrical designs? Ha. Post the picture here and let’s let everyone decide. If there were one, though, it would be a sample set of one, because the rest of your cited tomb lids have nothing of the sort. And as O.K. pointed out, your “tomb lid” does not have a matching scheme to the sarcophagus. Meanwhile, explain how your magical “tomb lid” in the P.C. sticks to the side of a vertical side of a sarcophagus. Overall, I can’t believe you’ve ever taken and/or passed a Logic course.
“Skeppy. the Pray shroud has a design, you know, like cloths do.”
You’re confusing design and pattern. Herringbone weave is not a design, i.e. something deliberately made to look like a fish bone. It is a distinctive pattern though.
“Your tomb lids don’t — geometrical designs? Ha. Post the picture here and let’s let everyone decide.”
I have already posted 2 links above in response to this same inquiry, and you predictably ignored them in order to continue to spew lies like:
“the rest of your cited tomb lids have nothing of the sort.”
You’re welcome to go back and examine the links now.
But once again you ignore the main question: how is this at all relevant to the issue? How does it matter whether there is any kind of a pattern, design or anything else on the lid?
“And as O.K. pointed out, your “tomb lid” does not have a matching scheme to the sarcophagus.”
Nor must it. There is no requirement that the patterns must match. Moreover, if you look at my miniatures one more time, you will see that the patterns on the inside and on the outside the sarcophagi often do not match. Hence we could be seeing the inner side of the tomb lid, which would match the inner pattern of the sarcophagus which we do not see. (Not that I believe in this, because I don’t believe that the artist followed any “rules” in regard to his ornaments – there are no such rules. But for someone who foolishly believes that there are such rules this explanation should suffice).
[Side note: it’s funny how you require the patterns to match for the tomb lid and the sarcophagus, yet seem blind to the fact that the pattern *must* match if those are not a lid and a tomb, but rather two halves of the same shroud, as sindonologists propose.]
“Meanwhile, explain how your magical “tomb lid” in the P.C. sticks to the side of a vertical side of a sarcophagus.”
Like most other tomb lids on miniatures do: they’re crudely drawn images without regard to physics. You would have known this if you would have actually looked at the pictures.
[No need to get personally insulting. — Dan]
Sk: “I’m afraid I’m the only one doing the schooling here. The dogmatic believers are collectively beclowning themselves”. Clearly M skeptic did not read my comments as thoroughly as he ought.
I stated: ” The conflict of the “debate(?)” above illustrates how unproductive dogmatic statements concerning the Shroud can become, and from whatever side adduces them.”
And he himself is a prize example of such dogmatism, and is no less of a clown for it, including some pedantry dogmatically dismissing a Shroud-like poker hole pattern versus his otherwise meaningless decorative circles. I gave well-reasoned arguments, why the Pray codex illustration might well have been influenced by the Shroud image. But he prefers to cling tenaciously to the dogma of a poorly executed highly suspect non-representative radiocarbon dating, For one who so dogmatically presumes to teach O.K. basic principles of probability theory, I wonder that he remains so ignorant of the basic principles of representative sampling, so totally ignored by those responsible for it, with the inevitable result of a persistent ongoing and totally inconclusive debate.
If the job had been done properly, regardless of whatever date might have been concluded, this interchange would not even happen!
Since the picture depicts these circles on the tomb lid and not on the shroud, all your musings are irrelevant.
Wow….What a scathing response. Awesome.
Why try to untie the Gordian knot when one can cut it?
No amount of paragraphs can change the simple fact that what we’re seeing there is the tomb lid, and that the shroud is also depicted there and doesn’t look like a rectangle. Really, this is a brute fact. After this all musings about “poker holes” become irrelevant.
Hi Skeptic and thank you for the Morgan Library images, which I was not familiar with before, but which all fit nicely into the general evolution of the Three Marys iconography, as I have discussed above. Also above, if you haven’t found them yet (David Mo on July 1, 2014 at 2:30 am) is another superb collection of links by David Mo.
Looked at as a whole, it is fascinating to watch the various architectural features of the scene gradually alter over the years. In particular, the rectangular element usually placed at a ridiculously odd angle across the sarcophagus may have begun life as the door of a temple, the blocking stone of the tomb or the anointing stone before taking up its familiar job as the lid of the coffin itself. Often it is sufficiently indistinct to suggest several interpretations at once. (The Shroud itself, of course, is not one of those interpretations).
In an interesting form of atavism, I have seen some recent Three Marys icons in which, although there is no cave, temple or tomb, the angel is sitting on a round stone, right next to a rectangular sarcophagus. Anyone unfamiliar with the gospel narratives could have no idea why it was there.
And finally, why is the slab often at such an absurd angle? I suspect it harks back to an actual stone slab somewhere, just as most of the earlier temple-tomb depictions seem to hark back to Constantine’s Holy Sepulchre building, but what and why I have no idea.
Thanks for the nice comment, Hugh.
To David G: although you say “The case for authenticity does not rely on the Codex”, I would just respond that the accumulation of clues from the Pray Codex Shroud/Jesus illustration imply an older date (1150 to 1192) for the Shroud of Constantinople than does the flawed carbon dating, at the very least delivering a technical-knock-out (TKO) for any 14th century hypothesis; this, in turn, opens the door for a host of other clues such as the vanillin residue, among others.
I’m not sure it qualifies though as a TKO. A TKO is a blow that is one for which there is no defense, no rebuttal. It’s a match ender. Skeptic and others have provided rebuttals – you may not agree with them but you cannot dismiss them outright. This means the evidence for the Codex/Shroud connection is not indisputable, and thus not a TKO to the C-14 dating.
An 8th century altar cloth that mimics the Shroud image…that would be a TKO.
Too bad the Pray codex has nothing to do with the Shroud, otherwise you would have a point…
An unwarranted dogmatic statement, which is in dispute. You have proved nothing!
Nope, I have provided sufficient evidence above, so not only the statement not dogmatic, it’s also true.
I have to agree with Daveb here. We cannot say that the Pray codex is linked to the Shroud, the evidence presented is not conclusive. But neither can we close off the discussion claiming there is no link. At best the proponent can say “I believe I see a link.” and the opponent can say “I see no link.”
Further discussion is pointless once one’s mind is made up either way and until some other new evidence is discovered. Time to agree to disagree.
I have to disagree. I think that any attempts to leave the door open for the Shroud connection are a kind of special pleading. There is nothing specific in the image that would suggest the connection, only very general details like Jesus being naked (which is not unheard of in the contemporary iconography) or his hands being crossed (which is pretty much entailed by him being naked; interestingly the hands are crossed at the wrists – not at all like in the Shroud, but we’re supposed to ignore it somehow).
The only way to establish a “connection” is through ridiculous ad hoc hypotheses, like that the rectangle is actually the shroud, etc.
You have asked this yourself:
b) assuming that cropped feet have any significance (even though little research would have shown him that the feet were originally there and were trimmed because the manuscript was damaged);
http://i.imgur.com/nfq6AOF.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/E9FBV3a.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/h0ozSRd.jpg
3. We know from the comparison with the medieval manuscripts, the links to which are posted above, that the Pray codex depicts nothing else but the tomb lid.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/White_shark.jpg/1024px-White_shark.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Dolphind.jpg/800px-Dolphind.jpg
Are they both fish, because they look similar?
http://i.imgur.com/IF6JAIu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wP7qKhG.jpg
Yawn. You are getting too predictable.
1. Feet: I love how you arbitrarily drew long feet. The fact is that only a couple mm are missing, and they are explained by the trimmed edge.
2. Since we are not talking about fish, your spam picture is irrelevant and my statement stands unrefuted.
3. The “bench”, even if there is one (not a proven fact), is irrelevant. I’m not sure why you bring it up every time as if it was some relevant fact. It’s not.
4. The tomb lid is not a shroud, both from the comparison with other manuscripts and from the comparison with the top picture, where the shroud looks nothing like a rectangle.
So: your disjointed illogical comment is same old, same old.
PS: here is the actual size of margins when it comes to musical notation in the manuscript:
mek.oszk .hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0064.html
Indeed, the similar margin length is evident on the right side on the illustrated page *except* for the upper group of lines. And it is of course this very group – which is the exception, not the rule – that O.K. chose to build the missing margin. Whether from this one can judge O.K.’s honesty or bias, I’ll leave to the reader to decide, but in any case O.K.’s interpretation is, once again, not in accordance with the evidence.
As a rule, medieval manuscripts had wide margins.
Because the scribes *knew* that the book would be rebound in a century or two, and since the edges of the pages would become a mess, they would be trimmed.
We *know* that this happened to the Pray codex – the text at the top is neatly trimmed, which means that the manuscript as a whole underwent just such a treatment.
It is contrary to all evidence to suggest that the current margins on that pages are the original margins give or take a centimeter. We’re most probably missing a few cm there, after trimming and rebinding.
Here’s more on the medieval page lining rules:
web.ceu. hu/medstud/manual/MMM/ruling.html
Here’s how a typical lined page would look like:
web.ceu. hu/medstud/manual/MMM/pic07.html
The margins are huge. The older the manuscript, the more the probability that lots of the margin space has been trimmed out.
DG: “An 8th century altar cloth that mimics the Shroud image…that would be a TKO.”
I believe that it as an act of divine mercy that it does not seem to be God’s style to administer TKOs, whether as regards to His own existence, the authenticity of the Turin Shroud as the burial cloth of His Son, or pretty well any other supernatural phenomenon. His style seems to be more about dropping hints and leaving clues. “My ways are not your ways” comes to mind. Hence my comments attacking dogmatism whether by fellow religionists concerning Pray Codex illustrations or by skeptics who place their faith in uncritical pseudo-scientism.
We do not have an 8th century altar cloth that mimics the Shroud image, but there are early references implying the significance of the burial cloths and what they might have been or appeared to be. Again, it is hints and clues, and that’s all apparently we mortals are entitled to know.
AD 325 Pope Sylvester I: “Celebrate Mass, clean linen altar cloth consecrated by bishop, as if clean Shroud of Christ”;
Theodore of Mopsuestia late 4th c: “Deacons who spread linens on the altar, represent figure of the linen cloth at the burial.”
St Nino of Georgia 4th c: “they did not find sudarium, but said to have been found by Peter who took and kept it; don’t know if it’s been discovered”;
Mozarabic rite 6th c: “Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints (vestigia) of the dead and risen man on the linens.“
St Jerome – “Gospel of Hebrews” 2nd c: ‘Jesus gave sindon to servant of priest’;
St Nino (above): Pilate’s wife had burial linen for a while, then passed it to St Luke, who put in a place known only to himself;
The 6th century Mozarabic rite in particular is an interesting one. This liturgy is “intimately associated with and possibly even partly rewritten” by Leandro, the Bishop of Seville, who, while serving in Constantinople from 579 to 582, would likely have learned that the emperor was in possession of a burial cloth which bore the imprints of Jesus’ dead body.
The references indicate that the burial cloths and their likely survival were considered significant from a very early stage in the history of Christianity. There are also many other independent references. The hints and clues seen on the Pray Codex illustration is only one other such. Hence the authenticity of the Turin Shroud may be seen as a rational belief. I do not see that placing one’s entire faith in an extremely suspect radiocarbon dating showing the contrary, is nearly so rational.
Yawn. You are getting too predictable.
It is nothing compared to your predictability, regretful Mr ‘historian’.
1. Feet: I love how you arbitrarily drew long feet. The fact is that only a couple mm are missing, and they are explained by the trimmed edge.
A couple mm? Had you been taking precise measurements of the legs on the rest of illustrations from HPM, you would notice that the feet are as long as hands there (or even slightly longer). On 28r we see not the endings, but almost entire feet missing. So I reconstructed them basing on hands lenght, and they are far of the edge.
It is contrary to all evidence to suggest that the current margins on that pages are the original margins give or take a centimeter. We’re most probably missing a few cm there, after trimming and rebinding.
“Most probably”? Any speculation about the original size of the card is merely a speculation. And the cropped feet are fact and link to the Shroud -no matter whether it was accidental cut o rperhaps deliberate attempt to portray another of its feature.
which is the exception, not the rule
The whole Pray Codex is exception with its unique Shroud-linked features, and not the rule. But how can you differentiate between the rules and exceptions? They apparently don’t teach you that on historical studies, while lecturing analysis. They only teach you to follow paradigmatic guidelines, which is evident by the level of nonsense presented often as ‘historical analysis’.
And is evident byt the rest of your comment about the Shroud and the tomb lid. I don’t need to comment that nonsense because i already have done that in previous posts. Thinking outside the box seems beyond you, no matter how many academic publications about the Shroud you will release.
The Codex Pray portrays the Shroud of Turin -the same Shroud that Robert de Clari saw in Blacherne in 1203.
“It is nothing compared to your predictability, regretful Mr ‘historian’.”
Thankfully, I never claimed to be a historian. ;)
Re: feet: you drew arbitrarily long feet, assuming that they were not positioned strictly vertically. But all your comments on the feet are irrelevant in any case, since, as I have shown, we are most likely missing a few cm of the margin space.
““Most probably”? Any speculation about the original size of the card is merely a speculation.”
Interestingly how quickly you elevate your speculation (e.g. about feet) to the level of a sacred truth, but dismiss the actual facts, namely:
1. The medieval manuscripts as a rule had very wide margins because the scribes expected them to be trimmed. It was a purely practical consideration.
2. We know that the Pray codex *was* trimmed because we see e.g. the marginal text which is only partially there.
Thus, from all the facts, we can conclude that we are, indeed, missing a few cm of page space.
It’s up to you to prove otherwise.
“The Codex Pray portrays the Shroud of Turin -the same Shroud that Robert de Clari saw in Blacherne in 1203.”
This is contrary to the facts as elucidated in the comments here, namely:
1. The comparison with other medieval manuscripts proves once and for all that the rectangle in question is the tomb lid.
2. The comparison of the shroud on the top picture with the rectangle on the bottom picture proves beyond any doubt that they’re unrelated objects.
““designs” being completely irrelevant to the issue” : That’s funny, Skeppy. the Pray shroud has a design, you know, like cloths do. Your tomb lids don’t — geometrical designs? Ha. Post the picture here and let’s let everyone decide. If there were one, though, it would be a sample set of one, because the rest of your cited tomb lids have nothing of the sort. And as O.K. pointed out, your “tomb lid” does not have a matching scheme to the sarcophagus. Meanwhile, explain how your magical “tomb lid” in the P.C. sticks to the side of a vertical side of a sarcophagus. Overall, I can’t believe you’ve ever taken and/or passed a Logic course.
Nabber, please stay away from this discussion for a moment. It’s a trap -and I am the prey to be hunted here.
OK, O.K……..
; ^ }
Oh, BTW, may I ask you Nabber (or DaveB) about something?
Our ‘Skeppy’ doesn’t sound like a native english speaker, does he?
“Sounds” American to me. It was peculiar to me that he should try to call texture “a design”, though.
““Sounds” American to me. It was peculiar to me that he should try to call texture “a design”, though.”
I was going with your terminology. You called the herringbone weave pattern a “design”, even though it’s not. It’s a pattern, like a marble pattern, granite pattern, etc. (Yes, one is created by humans, the others aren’t, but neither was the herringbone weave created to match the look of fish bones, it’s not an ornament and it’s not a “design”.)
[This comment and the image that followed were removed. — Dan]
Enough with the personal insults.
Fine. What about conspiracy theories?
Just for the record, the deleted comment was not a personal insult, it contained an “admiral Ackbar” joke based on the “it’s a trap!” meme.
Were any two blind Indians arguing over the appearance of an elephant ever so dogmatic in their opinions? But none of the seven were ever right, and all were wrong!
– 2+2=4.
– You dumb rationalist, of course 2+2=6, everything proves it!
– You both are dogmatists, no one can say whether 2+2 is 4 or 6. It is wise to settle on 2+2=5.
Skeppy
Thankfully, I never claimed to be a historian. ;)
Yeah, coming here you never intended to be a historian, especially proffesional medievist, right?
Nabber:
“Sounds” American to me. It was peculiar to me that he should try to call texture “a design”, though.
Oh, really? Doesn’t he sound… Italian instead? His English is of course correct, but anyway…
I don’t think this ‘Skeppy’ is entirely new to this blog. I suspect he is rather well known person here, but hiding under pseudonym. And he is looking for personal vengeance on me.
Nabber, DaveB and anyone. I would like to ask you for one thing: don’t respond to ‘Skeptic’ anymore. You are dealing with a psychopath, who wants to show his superiority in this topic over me (and the more over you). Haven’t you noticed that Mr ‘Skeptic’ is interested about this thread and only about this thread? And that he made extensive preparation to discuss with me about this thread? And some other characteristic features of his personality?
“Yeah, coming here you never intended to be a historian, especially proffesional medievist, right?”
You got that right. I think my comments show what I intended, namely, to debunk a bogus argument.
“I don’t think this ‘Skeppy’”
“You are dealing with a psychopath”
Didn’t the owner of this blog tell us to cut it out with the personal insults?
Mr. Porter, I would like your input here.
I agree with Skeptic on this. Let’s try to be more careful.
Yes, Dan, “psychopath” is maybe a strong word, but I am fairly confident who hides behind the nick ‘Skeptic’. I feel personally targeted by this person, who has a very characteristic style, and probably has a little problem with the control of his emotions. He lost a few discussions with me here and wants to discredit me at all cost. The provocative attitude towards me shows it clearly -as well as the fact that ‘Mr Skeptic’ seems to be interested only in this thread about the Codex Pray.
As I said once -this is a trap, and I am the prey here.
I have no idea of who you are and I have never debated you before. So stop with the personal insults and debate the actual arguments.
“Nabber, DaveB and anyone. I would like to ask you for one thing: don’t respond to ‘Skeptic’ anymore. You are dealing with a psychopath, who wants to show his superiority in this topic over me (and the more over you).”
Intemperance has been a feature of both sides of this debate lately, and in the past I myself have been called a stupid, blind, unintelligent moron. Psychopath is a new one. However, I believe Skeptic, whoever he be, is correct about the nature of the architectural elements of the Pray Codex, and I believe that there is ample evidence to demonstrate that. The squabbles over whether the markings are ‘texture’ or ‘design’ seem to me slightly petty – OK and Nabber are correct in that the zig-zags on the tomb-lid are not random squiggles, while the markings on most of the other Three Marys depictions usually are, but I believe that all of them are attempts to depict the actual nature of a specific slab of stone, through direct observation, imitation of others, or report, which probably consisted of veined marble. I do not think that four or five concentric ‘circles’ of zig-zag lines look anything like herring-bone weave; I do not believe that anybody attempting to depict herring-bone weave would come up with concentric circles as a method of depicting them, and I do not believe that anybody attempting to illustrate the Shroud of Turin would plant it as an irregularly placed rectangle, across a tomb, with an angel standing on it, in exact imitation of generations of ‘tomb-lid’ depictions from similar scenes over the previous few centuries.
I’m not saying that the zig-zags are random squiggles. They’re either ornaments (e.g. the crosses on the sarcophagus are purely ornamental, so why can’t be the zig-zag lines on the lid) or they very crudely represent some natural pattern as the artist saw it. Otherwise, I can only agree with you.
Hugh, you are entitled to your beliefs concerning the Pray Codex illustration, but I do not see that they can bring this ongoing debate to a satisfactory conclusion. There are in my opinion too many highly suggestive links for a Shroud influence to be rejected outright, at least as a credible possibility. But as I’ve indicated above I don’t see that such an influence can be asserted dogmatically. Nor do I believe can it be rejected.
There are strong arguments for the Shroud being part of the Imperial Relic collection. If so, it is certain that Bela III, as imperial heir-designate pro tem would have seen it at some time between 1165 and 1169, and it would have left him with an enduring impression. In 1172 he returned to Hungary and assumed the kingship. Some 20 years later, the Codex emerged. Any links with what Bela had seen may have been assisted with crude sketches from what was now a distant memory, so that exactitude could hardly be expected.
The visitation of the Three Marys to the empty tomb follows a long tradition of known art works in the West, where a tomb lid was commonly shown as an oblique rectangle. The depiction of the preparation for burial as shown does not follow such an established tradition. It may well be the first western depiction of a prostrate naked Christ in the manner shown. It certainly shows some remarkable correspondences with the Shroud image. I think this is sufficient to admit the likelihood of other recognisable Shroud-like features in a modified version of what had become a standardised Visitation illustration.
OK has proposed that the rectangle is now to be seen as the Shroud resting on the tomb, the oblique angle being a crude attempt to represent a type of perspective. Perspective in art was known to a few of the ancient Greeks, but its knowledge had been lost. This knowledge was rediscovered by the Florentine Brunelleschi (1377-1446) and later codified in Genoa by Alberti (1404-1472). so that attempts at depicting depth in any art form as early as the end of the 12th century still remained crude. Therefore OK’s proposition may be thought credible.
Your presumption that the herring-bone weave is asserted as being represented by concentric circles is I think a distortion. What I believe has been asserted is that the weave is represented by the zigzag pattern. The five small circles arranged as an L echo the Shroud poker holes whose known origin is lost to history. Nor do I see the angel as standing or sitting on the “tomb lid”. The gospel accounts merely say with some variance that the women saw the angel(s) where Jesus had lain, and that is represented in the picture.
I think there are sufficient indications to admit the possibility of a link with the Shroud. It is my personal belief that they do. But as previously stated I can agree that it cannot be asserted dogmatically as such. But nor do I believe can it be rejected. Can any further argument advance the debate? I believe not, and perhaps that is where it should rest.
“Your presumption that the herring-bone weave is asserted as being represented by concentric circles is I think a distortion. What I believe has been asserted is that the weave is represented by the zigzag pattern. The five small circles arranged as an L echo the Shroud poker holes whose known origin is lost to history.”
*Concentric* circles means circle within a circle, with a common center. Hugh is obviously not talking about the 4 circles, which are not concentric.
He is talking about the pyramid-like patterns, which he sees as exhibiting a sort of concentricity. I’m not sure why he terms them “circles” (though one time he puts the word “circles” in quotes), but his idea is more or less clear from the context.
Yes, true, they’re not really ‘circles’ as such, more like triangles, but they are concentric and they’re nothing like herring-bone!
I love how the author of this post found consolation in ad hominem arguments rather than defending his thesis. This is really all that needs to be said.
“Your presumption that the herring-bone weave is asserted as being represented by concentric circles is I think a distortion.”
Imagine yourself, with a blank rectangle and a pen, and a wish to represent a uniform herringbone weave across the surface of the rectangle. Is this what you would do?http://i.imgur.com/cNqF2OZ.png
This is not just a zig-zag pattern. It is a series of concentric circles (semi-circles to be precise) done in zig-zag lines. I do not believe that these irregular ‘stepped pyramids’, emerging from various centres around the perimeter, look anything like herring-bone weave, and I do not believe that anybody attempting to depict herring-bone weave would come up with this as a way of depicting it.
So, fair enough, we beg to differ. So come ye angels to our aid! Who else thinks that, given the task, they would sketch herring-bone as concentric zig-zag circles? OK? Nabber? Pick up a pen and give it a try…
Agreed, it’s not the herringbone weave pattern. Doesn’t look like a straight fish bone at all. Once again, this can only be established through the eyes of faith :)
PS: What’s more, what sindonologists claim is the second half of the Shroud, and what actually is the sarcophagus, has the pattern of crosses, even though it would also have to exhibit the herringbone weave pattern to be a part of the Shroud. Once again, the coincidences are imaginary.
Dan, may I suggest it’s time to close off comments on this thread. Nothing new is being discussed and the comments (including this one) are taking our eyes away from better topics on the blog.
My new summary of the debate:
This posting can be dismissed both on formal and on substantial grounds.
1. Formal grounds:
a) The author did not provide any justification for his probability estimates.
b) The author did not provide any justification for treating his probabilities as independent, which can only be established through actual statistical research of the contemporary iconography.
For example, there is a probable connection between nudity and 4 fingers (a nude figure will almost certainly be exhibited with crossed hands, and there is an abundance of images from different eras with crossed hands which lack thumbs; indeed, the person anointing Jesus’ body in the top image on f.28 of the Pray codex also lacks a thumb while his hand is in the position similar to that of Jesus; thus it is not proven that nudity and 4 fingers can be treated independently for the purpose of estimating probabilities).
2. Substantial grounds:
a) The author claims the cropping of Jesus’ feet as a significant coincidence with the Shroud of Turin, yet there are two facts that undermine this conclusion:
a1) We know that as a rule medieval manuscripts had very wide margins, because the scribes knew that their books would be rebound and trimmed several times in the next few centuries. It is thus extremely improbable that the current very narrow margins are the original margins, give or take a few mm.
a2) We know that the Pray codex *was* trimmed, because it has some marginal text neatly cropped, which means that the manuscript as a whole did undergo this standard treatment.
It is thus the default fact-based assumption that the original margins were a few cm wider than what we have now. This assumption must be proven false before one ascribes any significance to the cropped feet and uses them in any probability estimates.
The author has failed to do this.
b) The image has to be interpreted first and foremost in the light of the contemporary iconography. A comparison with other medieval manuscripts demonstrates that the bottom picture on f. 28 of the Pray codex shows three Marys standing behind the cross-adorned sarcophagus, with the angel having his feet on the lid of this same sarcophagus. The contemporary iconography allows for no other interpretation, various fishy analogies notwithstanding.
c) The author’s claim that the pyramid-like pattern on the tomb lid refers to the herringbone weave pattern is false, because it looks nothing like the actual herringbone weave pattern, which looks like a series of parallel straight fish bones. Hence this alleged coincidence is also imaginary.
d) The author’s claim that the tomb lid is actually the Shroud of Turin is also refuted by comparing the top and the bottom pictures on f.28: the top picture shows Jesus’ shroud, which, with its numerous folds and without any pattern, looks nothing like the rigid patterned rectangle on the bottom image.
e) The author only takes into account what he thinks are convergent features, while ignoring the divergent features in his probability estimates. These divergent features include:
e1) Lack of the image on the alleged shroud.
e2) Lack of the actual herringbone pattern on the alleged shroud.
e3) Lack of the corresponding pattern on the second half of the shroud (which is actually a depiction of the sarcophagus).
e4) The different number of circles on the two alleged halves of the shroud (4 and 5).
e5) Lack of wounds on Jesus’ body.
e6) Jesus’ hands are crossed at the wrists (or even above them), not at all like the hands on the shroud.
Conclusion: the author failed to show that his probability estimate is valid. Moreover, it has been shown that the rectangles on the bottom image of folio 28 in the Pray codex refer to the sarcophagus and its lid, not to the two halves of the shroud. The discussion about the Pray codex and its relation to the Shroud is now over.
Mr Skeptic, your obsession on me is really boring.
a) The author did not provide any justification for his probability estimates.
The author makes a rough estimation of probability assuming plausible order of frequency for each feature -1/100 for the simplicity of calculation. Whether actual frequencies are in fact 1 in 45 or 1 in 136 are largely irrelevant -as the actual values, even if possible to determine, would hardly change the actual conclusion. Besides the author gives the very high limit (10 milion) for the actual number of relevant medieval illustrations (estimates for total number of all medieval manuscripts oscillate about a few millions), thus likely overestimating the final number achieved.
b) The author did not provide any justification for treating his probabilities as independent, which can only be established through actual statistical research of the contemporary iconography.
The author sees no evidence for any correlation, nor for any plausible connections between discussed features.
For example, there is a probable connection between nudity and 4 fingers (a nude figure will almost certainly be exhibited with crossed hands, and there is an abundance of images from different eras with crossed hands which lack thumbs;
The attempts to show the connection between two features based on the biased, selective sample have no grounds.
2. Substantial grounds:
a) The author claims the cropping of Jesus’ feet as a significant coincidence with the Shroud of Turin, yet there are two facts that undermine this conclusion:
a1) We know that as a rule medieval manuscripts had very wide margins, because the scribes knew that their books would be rebound and trimmed several times in the next few centuries. It is thus extremely improbable that the current very narrow margins are the original margins, give or take a few mm.
a2) We know that the Pray codex *was* trimmed, because it has some marginal text neatly cropped, which means that the manuscript as a whole did undergo this standard treatment.
We cannot determine the original size of the relevant sheets in the Pray Codex. The fact that the text on the upper edge of the codex is cropped is irrellevant as height and width are two independent dimensions.
b) The image has to be interpreted first and foremost in the light of the contemporary iconography.
As the Codex Pray is unique with its exceptional Shroud-linked features, any comparisons with contemporary iconography are baseless. The exceptions defy the rules -by definition. This is the basic logic.
The contemporary iconography allows for no other interpretation
See above. Contemporary iconography cannot be applied for a single very specific example which may go against it.
c) The author’s claim that the pyramid-like pattern on the tomb lid refers to the herringbone weave pattern is false, because it looks nothing like the actual herringbone weave pattern, which looks like a series of parallel straight fish bones.
The interpretation of zigzag pattern as an attempt (even if inaccurate) to portray herringbone pattern is fully justifiable.
The author’s claim that the tomb lid is actually the Shroud of Turin is also refuted by comparing the top and the bottom pictures on f.28: the top picture shows Jesus’ shroud, which, with its numerous folds and without any pattern, looks nothing like the rigid patterned rectangle on the bottom image.
The difference between representation of the Shroud on top and bottom pictures of f:28r is irrelevant, if one takes into account other contradictory represenations in the Codex.
For example f:27 shows Jesus crucified in traditional Byzantine style implying 4 nails used, while there are only three nails on the arm of the cross hold by an angel on f:28v:
http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0060.html
http://mek.oszk.hu/12800/12855/html/hu_b1_mny1_0063.html
e) The author only takes into account what he thinks are convergent features, while ignoring the divergent features in his probability estimates. These divergent features include:
There are no features that would exclude the hupothesis that the Shroud of Turin is referenced in the Codex Pray.
e1) Lack of the image on the alleged shroud.
Irrelevant. If illustrator decided not to portray the image on the Shroud for some reason, he had the right to do so. Demands of the skeptcis 800 years so about what the illustrator should and what should not have portrayed are lacking any basis.
e2) Lack of the actual herringbone pattern on the alleged shroud.
Same as above.
e3) Lack of the corresponding pattern on the second half of the shroud (which is actually a depiction of the sarcophagus).
The second rectangle on the lower image is irrelevant -as it is hard to interpret what it represents. I have never claimed that it has to be the other half of the Shroud.
e4) The different number of circles on the two alleged halves of the shroud (4 and 5).
See above.
e5) Lack of wounds on Jesus’ body.
Irrelevant (see description for e1).
e6) Jesus’ hands are crossed at the wrists (or even above them), not at all like the hands on the shroud.
This sentence makes me laugh. Mr Historian, just look at the later copies certainly derived from the Shroud of Turin:
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Western-European/manycopies.html
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/images/LierCopyOfShroud1516.jpg
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/images/GuadalupeCopy1568.jpg
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/images/LisbonaCopy1620.jpg
The position of the hands is exactly the same as in the Shroud of Turin.
Conclusion: The main conclusions remains valid:
*There are no element that would exclude possibility that the Shroud of Turin is represented in the Codex Pray.
*The coincidental appearance of so many peculiar elements connected to the Shroud on the f:28 of the Codex Pray is so improbable, that can be rejected by any reasonable criteria.
1. a) “The author makes a rough estimation of probability assuming plausible order of frequency for each feature -1/100 for the simplicity of calculation.”
The author doesn’t provide any evidence that his numbers are plausible. Such numbers can only be based on actual research.
The point stands.
b) “The author sees no evidence for any correlation, nor for any plausible connections between discussed features.”
It doesn’t matter whether author sees anything or not. He does not provide actual evidence for independence which can only be based on actual research.
The point stands.
“The attempts to show the connection between two features based on the biased, selective sample have no grounds.”
The author has not dealt with the evidence, nor has he provided any evidence for independence between nudity and 4 fingers.
The point stands.
2. “We cannot determine the original size of the relevant sheets in the Pray Codex.”
The author admits this, thus admitting that he cannot show the significance of the cropped feet.
Also the author ignores the fact that due to reasons a1 and a2 it is simply hugely more probable that we are missing a few cm, and it is thus up to him to prove otherwise. Without such a justification his cropped legs cannot be any kind of a significant coincidence.
The points stand.
b) “As the Codex Pray is unique with its exceptional Shroud-linked features, any comparisons with contemporary iconography are baseless. The exceptions defy the rules -by definition. This is the basic logic.”
Every image is unique in some respects. This does not mean that it can be interpreted outside of the light of contemporary iconography.
“See above. Contemporary iconography cannot be applied for a single very specific example which may go against it.”
The contemporary iconography must always be applied. The author has given no reason whatsoever for ignoring it, other than special pleading.
The point stands.
c) “The interpretation of zigzag pattern as an attempt (even if inaccurate) to portray herringbone pattern is fully justifiable.”
There is no reason to suggest such an interpretation, other than mounting an apologetic for the Shroud of Turin – which leads to a logical vicious “circle”. In any case this cannot be proposed as one of the “coincidences” to be explained since it’s in itself at most a hypothesis which requires stretching of facts.
The point stands.
d) “The difference between representation of the Shroud on top and bottom pictures of f:28r is irrelevant, if one takes into account other contradictory represenations in the Codex.
For example f:27 shows Jesus crucified in traditional Byzantine style implying 4 nails used, while there are only three nails on the arm of the cross hold by an angel on f:28v:”
Non sequitur. The author tells us that the same object is depicted by the same author on the same page in absolutely different forms, so that it is actually unrecognizable from image to image, and he “explains” it by bringing up irrelevant and not immediately obvious minute differences in nail depictions(!). This is absurd on its face.
The point stands.
e) “There are no features that would exclude the hupothesis that the Shroud of Turin is referenced in the Codex Pray.”
The author misses the point. Whether or not such features absolutely exclude the hypothesis is irrelevant. They do go *against* the hypothesis, lowering its probability. Thus they must be a part of the calculation, otherwise the calculation is one-sided makes no sense. Like a trial where only evidence for one side has been presented.
The point stands.
e1) “Lack of the image on the alleged shroud.
Irrelevant. If illustrator decided not to portray the image on the Shroud for some reason, he had the right to do so. Demands of the skeptcis 800 years so about what the illustrator should and what should not have portrayed are lacking any basis.”
The author’s suggestion that this most relevant point is “irrelevant” is absurd on its face. While there may be far-fetched ad hoc hypotheses that explain this state of facts, this fact does add the “negative” (i.e. against the hypothesis) probability to the wholesale count. It must be a part of the probability calculation.
The point stands.
e2) Same as above.
e3) “The second rectangle on the lower image is irrelevant -as it is hard to interpret what it represents. I have never claimed that it has to be the other half of the Shroud.”
Fair enough, although other sindonologists have generally interpreted it as the second half of the shroud.
Which only leads to further problems for the author, to wit:
2.1: Where is the second half of the shroud on the image?
2.2: What do the P-circles on the second rectangle represent? If they don’t represent holes, why should one assume that the L-circles represent holes? How does the presence of non-hole P-circles influence the probability that the L-circles are holes rather than ornaments?
e4) The point withdrawn for this particular author. However, see e3.
e5) Same as e1.
e6) Point withdrawn.
Conclusion: most of the points stand. 3 points are withdrawn, 2 points are added. The main conclusion stays:
“the author failed to show that his probability estimate is valid. Moreover, it has been shown that the rectangles on the bottom image of folio 28 in the Pray codex refer to the sarcophagus and its lid, not to the two halves of the shroud. The discussion about the Pray codex and its relation to the Shroud is now over.”
PS: See, you can do almost without ad hominems when you try. Also, I’m not a historian.
Skeppy: as Yogi said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over”.
Most of your claims are far, far from proven.
Your Admiral Akbar reference finally betrayed you as a 20-something/30-something frustrated atheist, who acts like a teenager.
Nabber, still haven’t you guessed who this ‘Skeppy’ actually is?
And one advice Nabber (the same words directed to DaveB and others), don’t get provoked by him. This guy has a doctorate from history and desires to show that he is better than in you in this playground. His favorite tactics is to set several traps and allow the opponents to walk into them unaware.
“This guy has a doctorate from history”
I wish :D
Do tell….
Your Admiral Akbar reference finally betrayed you as a 20-something/30-something frustrated atheist, who acts like a teenager.
Based on his photography about mid 30s.
Interestingly, the personal insults still haven’t stopped, despite Dan Porter’s admonition. Now, why would that be? Or is only one side allowed to insult?
I see no concentric circles whatsoever on the illustration. I think anyone who does, either has no understanding of the normal conventions of geometry taxonomy, or else needs an urgent visit to their optician. I see a zigzag pattern on a crudely drawn oblique rectangle together with five small circles arranged in an L shape, which may well be an attempt to represent from memory what Bela III recalled from his observing the Shroud in Constantinople some 20 years previously. I have little interest in the various ad hominem comments, nor in exploring the motivations of other correspondents, nor their identity, nor their psychology.
“I have little interest in the various ad hominem comments, nor in exploring the motivations of other correspondents, nor their identity, nor their psychology.”
All else aside, I wholeheartedly agree.
Have you looked at my link, daveb? Not concentric circles, then; concentric triangles if you like. Six irregular concentric designs. But is that how you would portray herring-bone? If so, then that’s fair enough, as I said before, but I bet nobody else would.
I discuss evidence. My opponents discuss me. Sapienti sat.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Skeptic makes some good points. I think the notion that the pattern is an attempt to represent the herringbone weave is ludicrous.
I still think for other reasons that it is likely the manuscript was influenced by the shroud.
Dan please remove the two ad hom comments above. Perhaps a timeout is in order for Skeptic and Nabber.
Agreed about Nabber. Skeptic, however, did nothing wrong, he doesn’t care about double standards though ;)
Agreed about Nabber. Skeptic, however, did nothing wrong, he doesn’t care about double standards though ;)
Yeah, double-faced Mr ‘Skeptic’ does not care about double standards. He is eager to insult others, but he cries that other attack him ad hominem. Perhaps because the discussion turned form the Codex Pray (where all arguments have been actually repeated many times in this long discussion), to the not-so-mysterious person of Mr Skeptic who seems to have some kind of obsession about attacking my person, and showing that I must be wrong on this, very important for the Shroud history, issue.
As for the Codex Pray I stand by what I said. You have not been able to refute my conclusions.
And of course Mr Skeptic knows that he failed to maintain his identity secret. That’s why he panically is shouting about ad hominem attacks on him. Because he is afraid that his regretful attempts to deceive readers will be exposed.
One another thing:
Also, I’m not a historian.
That’s the point I can agree. Mr Skeptic you are not a historian, even despite your doctorate from that domain. You are just a poor denialist -which you have shown in your recent article.
“Yeah, double-faced Mr ‘Skeptic’ does not care about double standards. He is eager to insult others, but he cries that other attack him ad hominem.”
We are talking about the situation after Dan Porter told everyone to cut it out. I did immediately. The insults from OK and Nabber continued.
” Perhaps because the discussion turned form the Codex Pray (where all arguments have been actually repeated many times in this long discussion), to the not-so-mysterious person of Mr Skeptic”
Thank you for confirming that you have turned to ad hominem arguments. Just like I said.
I’m afraid you’re deluded about my person, just as you’re deluded about the Pray codex. I have asked around and searched around and I assume that you think that I am Andrea Nicolotti. Dr. Nicolotti’s knowledge of all matters pertaining to the Shroud is incomparably higher than mine. But I hope it won’t sound as an insult to say that my English is a little bit more free-flowing than his. Which anybody with a modicum of intellect and common sense would have noticed.
Hold hard, Skeptic. Stiff upper lip and turn the other cheek and all that. Although you will find that 90% or more of the personal abuse on this site is directed from authenticists to non-authenticists (and sometimes to themselves), we damage our reputation by stooping to their level. I’m certain that OK and Nabber are pillars of their communities, and if they lack the cold unemotional rigour of non-authenticist analysis, perhaps they are more fun to be with at a party.
It may be instructive to explore why this one way abuse should be the case. We must remember that most authenticists begin with a belief and work from there to the evidence, whereas most non-authenticists begin with the evidence and work from there to determine the truth. This is not invariably true – Barrie Schwortz and Ray Rogers are shining examples of those who came to their convictions from the evidence, and (beg pardon if I malign him) I think Joe Nickell was convinced the Shroud was a fake long before he investigated it in any depth.
But being generally so, I think it the case that authenticists have convictions, whereas non-authenticists have conclusions, and it is more emotionally upsetting to have one’s convictions challenged than one’s conclusions. This is why authenticists are more passionate, less logical, and more abusive. My advice is to forgive them; they know not what they do.
Nor must we deny that there are peculiarities in the Pray Codex pictures which we cannot explain. The stepped pyramids (yes, alright, ‘circles’ was an oversimplification) and the polystaurion tomb are reasonably enough derived from Constantine’s Holy Sepulchre, but the three diagonal crosses are anomalous and were clearly not a mistake. They mean something, and so do the little circles which accompany them. Just because we reject their identity with features on the Shroud does not mean that we can ignore them altogether.
Yours are words of wisdom, but I am only human. My general rule is to give tit for tat.
I agree, Hugh is amongst the best here.
“we cannot explain” – Unfortunately, in some circles, what cannot be explained equates to divine intervention.
How superciliously self-aggrandizing! Pompous generalizations ad nauseam!
I agree Hugh,
Some thoughts in haste.
I have seen all of the pictures provided by Skeptic.
In all of them, the ‘rectangle’ is obviously interpreted as the lid of the sarcophagus.
It it not at all the case for the ‘rectangle’ of the Pray Codex.
Why?
It is AS IF the author of the manuscript had tried to represent another thing.
Something with stepped pyramids (herringbone weave ?), two red lines (blood ?), rounded circles (holes ?)…
Thibault, I think this begs the question. But anyhow: do you think the two rectangles represent the two halves of the shroud?
I wrote: “I have seen all of the pictures provided by Skeptic.
In all of them, the ‘rectangle’ is obviously interpreted as the lid of the sarcophagus.
It it not at all the case for the ‘rectangle’ of the Pray Codex.
Why?”
Skeptic answered: “Thibault, I think this begs the question…”
No, this is the key point. Let me explain.
If the upper rectangle is a lid (Proposition A= true) then the lower rectangle is necessarily the sarcophagus (Proposition B = true).
A (true) implies B (true). Do you agree ?
The skeptics thinks that the upper rectangle cannot be anything else than a lid.
It is true that the rectangular shape of this object strongly suggests that it is a lid.
But it is also true that , in the context of medieval paintings and illuminations of this particular event, the lids (when present) are not similar to the ‘lid’ of the Pray Codex.
They are always depicted as an homogeneous rectangle and very often, their three-dimensional properties are obvious.
To the contrary the upper rectangle of the Pray Codex is bi-dimensional (flat) and heterogeneous (two parts with something which can be interpreted as a stylized herringbone weave, the other part with crosses).
Therefore we can not know with certainty what is the upper rectangle.
In this case, I suggest to test the hypothesis: If B is not true then A is not true.
Logically, this proposition is strictly equivalent to the previous one: If A is true then B is true.
In other words, if the lower rectangle is not a sarcophagus, then, the upper rectangle is not the lid of this sarcophagus.
Therefore the question is now: does the lower rectangle of the Pray Codex represent a sarcophagus or not ?
I have uploaded the 70 first pictures cited in David Mo:
https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/las-santas-mujeres-en-la-tumba-vacia-imagenes/
Thanks to you David for this work.
If you look at ALL these pictures, you will discover that in almost all the pictures the sarcophagus is clearly depicted as a sarcophagus. I mean a 3D object that is immediately understood as the sarcophagus of Christ (in this context).
At this time (XI-XV century), the painters were truly able to represent the 3D properties of an object via some kind of perspective (even a naive perspective).
I only could find 4 pictures in which the sarcophagus is depicted as a flat 2D rectangle.
But in these cases, the painter used some ‘trick’ so that the observer immediately understands that this object is in fact a 3D object.
The fact is that there is nothing in the lower triangle of the Pray Codex suggesting a 3D object, i.e a sarcophagus. This is the key point.
As shown by the other paintings in the Pray Codex, the author of the Pray Codex was certainly not an amateur.
In other words, if the author of the Pray Codex wanted to depict the sarcophagus in the lower rectangle, he would have used beyond any doubt some kind of 3D representation.
Therefore, the lower rectangle can not be a representation of a sarcophagus.
Therefore the upper rectangle can not be the lid of this sarcophagus.
So what is it ?
Skeptic asked: ‘ But anyhow: do you think the two rectangles represent the two halves of the shroud?’
My answer: yes.
More later….
Heimburger: “Therefore, the lower rectangle can not be a representation of a sarcophagus.” If so, where is the sarcophagus? This it the scene of the women at the sepulchre. All similar scenes, besides the women and the angel, show the sarcophacus with its lid variously displaced if not absent (the tomb may have a different form in the Byzantine area or in various periods, but a tomb there must be),
I think your explanation is ingenious, Thibault, and respect it. However I don’t think it’s correct. For a start I can’t agree that the painter wasn’t an amateur. His pictures are clumsy and appear unfinished. But chiefly I agree with Gian Marco that this is in many ways a typical Three Marys scene, which demands certain traditional elements, including (by this time) a sarcophagus and a lid, more or less rectangular, and a shroud, more or less crumpled into a heap. These elements are present. If the artist wanted to show the shroud more clearly, he would have added it to the composition, not substituted it for one of these elements, and if he had wanted to create a new icon altogether, he would not have made it so similar to the previous icon that it could easily be mistaken for it.
Dear Hugh,
” But chiefly I agree with Gian Marco that this is in many ways a typical Three Marys scene, which demands certain traditional elements, including (by this time) a sarcophagus and a lid, more or less rectangular, and a shroud, more or less crumpled into a heap. These elements are present. If the artist wanted to show the shroud more clearly, he would have added it to the composition, not substituted it for one of these elements, and if he had wanted to create a new icon altogether, he would not have made it so similar to the previous icon that it could easily be mistaken for it.”
You have understood perfectly my reasoning.
I agree that the Pray codex is a three Marys scene, that typically contains one element: the sarcophagus and very often the shroud and often the lid.
But here the problem is that the lower rectangle, which is assumed to be the ‘sarcophagus’ does not look at all like a sarcophagus for the reasons I explained.
If the only feature (the sarcophagus) that is ALWAYS found in the Marys scene is absent (i.e as a 3D object), There are 3 possibilities:
1) the painter was truly hopeless. I don’t think so. All of the paintings (even the most naive) shows that at the time everybody could represent more or less a 3D object. The high (the third dimension) of an object is always shown and obvious. For example, on the Pray Codex (upper scene), we can see that the author was able to represent the 3D (the high) of the table.
2) The painter was sure that, despite the lack of 3D characteristics, his lower rectangle would be interpreted as the sarcophagus. I cannot eliminate this hypothesis.
3) Although the whole scene is a ” three Mary scene”, the upper and lower rectangles does not represent the sarcophagus and the lid but Christ’s shroud. After all, the shroud was in the empty tomb.
Let’s try to interpret the Pray Codex this way: the Angel shows Christ’s shroud, not the sarcophagus.
More later…
Is the angel sitting on the edge of the empty sarcophagus?
I think that what makes the strength of the Shroud of Turin myth is that it (the Shroud) is now very old and in a very bad condition. What was obvious at first is now ambiguous and enigmatic due to the very bad state of the object and the fact that the image on it is now nearly invisible. In some cases deterioration due to ageing can become a force.
PHLP . Well said. If we were discussing any other artefact from the medieval era or earlier, we would START with the assumption that it is not as it once was. I am not sure why this obvious point has never been applied to the Shroud which certainly looked very differently six hundred years ago. The issue is defining how it once looked and this is where serious scholarship on the Shroud should be directed. Goodness knows how much time has been wasted on trying to reproduce the existing images without recognition that they have deteriorated from what they once were.
If you want to see a skewed tomb lid go onto Google images , find ‘crucifisso duomo Pistoia’ -and you will find the important Crucifixion scene by Coppo di Marcovaldi of about 1260. There are side panels and you need to choose the one at the bottom right and there is a tomb lid at a very odd angle but not untypical. The Shroud is inside the tomb and the angel sitting on it with the Three Mary’s approaching.
And all these old copies of the Shroud look very much the way it looks today: http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Western-European/manycopies.html
Here’s one of them in color: http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/The_Lier_Shroud_and_Lucas_Cranach_the_Elder_files/LC%20and%20the%20Lier%20Shroud%20using%20draft.pdf
Are there descriptions of the how the Shroud looked six hundred years ago?
Yes,lots. Many descriptions by observers are quoted in John Beldon Scott’s book on the Shroud which is easily available from Abebooks and should be on the shelves of anyone interested in the Shroud.
The fullest source for post 1578 depictions is the 1998 catalogue of the Savoy collection, now difficult to find- I use the copy in the Cambridge University Library.
Then there are many depictions in the Shroud Museum in Turin although the museum does not mention the obvious point that many show features of the Shroud now lost.
Others have to be researched piecemeal. The British Museum has one from 1608, the Royal Library in Turin produced one I had not seen elsewhere of 1579 and presumably there are others.
Add to these should be the copies of the Shroud, some of which may be faded if they are like the Shroud on cloth.
Only when a full database of all these has been assembled and released on the web, will scholars be able to reconstruct how the Shroud images looked originally.
Despite all the hype about the Shroud being the most researched artefact in history, these obvious sources of potentially vital evidence have been ignored.
Charles, this painting of the Shroud from 1540 seems to be very simiar to how the Shroud looks today. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#/media/File:OntstaanLijkwade_GiovanniBattista.png
Julian: Well, just to make my point. All these copies show long hair at the back. You cannot see it now and the back image is often shown today ( e.g. by Ian Wilson) as if the hair at the back was a pony tail.
So here we have a clear example of how the deteriorated images on the Shroud today do not resemble those of the 1500s. This explains why you should START research on the Shroud by trying to assemble the features of the original images that are no longer there. The descriptions are helpful , e.g. Antonio de Beatis’s comment in 1517 that the Shroud images could be seen from a distance at that date( and it would appear from at least 250 years afterwards)
This is the base to work from( as it would be for any other artefact but for some reason not the Shroud). We need to assemble the database in order to do this.
Wise words, as ever, daveb, wise words…
‘Mr Skeptic’
I’m afraid you’re deluded about my person, just as you’re deluded about the Pray codex. I have asked around and searched around and I assume that you think that I am Andrea Nicolotti. Dr. Nicolotti’s knowledge of all matters pertaining to the Shroud is incomparably higher than mine.
Oh really? How do you know how much extensive Dr. Nicolotti’s knowledge about all matters pertaining to the Shroud actually is (and whether it is higher than yours)? Unless of course you ‘Mr. Skeptic’ and Dr. Nicolotti are one the same person.
And perhaps Dr. Nicolotti’s knowledge about all aspects of the Shroud is fairly limited -especially about physical, medical and chemical aspects of the artifact. Perhaps, as he specialize in history, his knowledge about those subject may be practically null. Perhaps he does not understand the physical and chemical characteristics of this cloth, because being historian, he does not need it in his work (although some basic knowledge is necessary for someone who performs research in the subject of the Shroud).
As usual, you have missed the point. I was comparing *my* knowledge with that of Dr. Nicolotti.
Anyway, your tendency to find false coincidences and build false conclusions on their basis is amply established by now, Mr. O.Ko.
You does not surprise me at all, I have known well that you and your sceptical colleagues are spying me and started a file about me.
It is typical, semi-criminal way of yours, sceptics -to look for and gather any information that may potentialy discredit inconvenient person.
“You does not surprise me at all, I have known well that you and your sceptical colleagues are spying me and started a file about me.
It is typical, semi-criminal way of yours, sceptics -to look for and gather any information that may potentialy discredit inconvenient person.”
I can hardly believe my eyes.
This is getting very very strange.
When a medieval painter wants to paint a cloth, he paints a cloth according the iconic conventions of his epoch. When a medieval painter wants to paint a lid, he paints a lid according the iconic conventions of his epoch. The medieval conventions imply that the lid of the Three Marys scene was often represented as a rectangle and the angel seated on it. This is just what you can see at the Pray codex.
A medieval painter doesn’t paint trails of blood as broken lines (there were other conventional signs for blood) and I don’t know why he would paint a herringbone (bone of fish) as pyramids and a holes series in form of P in order to imitate some holes that had not any form of P. This sounds amazing. (And I leave aside the many differences between the Shroud and the picture of the Codex Pray in more relevant aspects).
There are two possible accounts of this: the painter of the Codex Pray was absolutely crazy or the Codex Pray bears no relation to the Shroud. I prefer the latter, obviously.
You can see a lot of images of the Three Marys and the burial of Christ in my blog. If you find some similar things to the “representations” of the Shroud in the Pray Codex you could say me, please. Here: https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/las-santas-mujeres-en-la-tumba-vacia-imagenes/ , https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/cristo-en-la-tumba-imagenes/ , https://sombraenelsudario.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/iconografia-sobre-las-santas-mujeres-en-la-tumba-vacia-ii/ . Spanish is not needed to see some pictures.
Posted on another thread:
Whereas an image is said to be worth a thousand words, O.K.’s statistical approach of the HP Ms Bifolium illustrations’ characteristics is unfortunately lacking since what is really TS-related, have not yet been correctly/convincingly ascertained in se while Skeptic’s intellectual chimera of incredulity can be killed ONLY via minute cryptological and steganological comparative study of TS-HP Ms Bifolium common striking and allegedly ‘unstriking’ details that build into a smoking gun evidence the Benedictine monk illustrator knew about the Constantinople aka Turin Shroud indeed. Most likely he (a Brother Joseph Almos?) was young Prince Bela’s confessor (and even a relative of his?) and as such had lived in Constantinople and seen ‘the sindon which G-d wore’ [theophoron sindonos] in his wake at some point between 1163 and 1173 CE.
BTW I’d like very much David Mo and Skeptic tell me what the phrase ‘theophoron sindonos’ exactly referrred to if not the Sindon/Sydoine on which the elusive silhouette/figure of Christ could be seen.
Can Charles tell us too what he thinks the ‘theophoron sindonos’ (958 CE) exactly refers to if not to the Sindon/Sydoine on which the elusive silhouette/figure of Christ could be seen?
I am not going to debate the more complex issue of authenticity here, seeing how even the extremely simple and clear-cut issue of the Pray codex couldn’t be handled rationally and honestly here. But I think we can agree that we are not seeing any God-bearing shroud on the Pray codex images, given how the shroud depicted there is blank.
Or you could have just said: “as I am not as versed in science as I am in history, I’ll stick to the one subject I can debate without looking like I’m out of my league.” You’ve chosen wisely.
Sk: “But I think we can agree that we are not seeing any God-bearing shroud on the Pray codex images, given how the shroud depicted there is blank.”
I should have thought it blazingly obvious, that the Shroud image is adequately depicted in the upper-half of the picture in the burial preparation scene. But it’s called agenda-driven blindness!
Skeptic, (just in case you have no eyes to see the most obvious in the HP Ms) in the upper section, the double-length shroud is NOT blank at all: alike the TS the ink-and-pen drawing does show the CLEAR line of the simplified ventral image of Christ!
Reminder for Skeptic (just in case you have no ears to hear): In Byzantine liturgy Mary is the Mother of God aka Christ, which means ‘theophoron sindonos’ here can equate ‘christophoron sindonos’ (‘the sindon which Christ wore’ when he appeared as a gardener to Mary Magdalene after he resurrected).
Addendum: Later Yeshu’a/Christ gave his sindon to “the servant of the priest” (see Lost Gospel of the Hebrews.)
There are a number of features in the PM that I find compelling and supportive of the theory that the PM was influenced by the Shroud. Some of these are seldom discussed:
1. Just look at the top image. I really think it is so representative of the image of Christ that we see on the Shroud. Naked, positioning of limbs etc.
2. Red mark above the eye? Really just a coincidental mark?
3. Shapely, almost feminine thighs? Another coincidental similarity?
4. High chest
5. Along with the asymmetrical 4 circles / holes, skeptics need to explain the two red streaks on the lower image. I think it is totally insufficient to just ascribe these as some sort of random decorative features. Neither make sense from that perspective.
6. Skeptics claim continuity with artistic tradition but there are several departures from artistic tradition (as mentioned above). A very curious departure is the ‘floating head’ next to the sleeve of one of the women, seemingly connected back to the shroud via a floating letter / symbol. I really don’t know what this symbolises – I can hazard some guesses. At the very least, it shows a lot of symbolism in the mind of the artist – this artist is not one who simply wishes to convey literal depictions. This is very important when considering potential meaning behind the PM.
Points 1-4 can be argued as co-incidences. I accept that. Points 5 and 6, in my opinion, cannot be so easily dismissed. Yet they are readily dismissed / ignored / inadequately explained by skeptics.
Re the ‘red smudge’ see link at https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image10.png
Reminder (see link at https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/more-than-meet-the-non.pdf):
Benedictine monk illustrator’s steganic drawing of the decal of the lower portion of the Constantinople Sindon aka TS face ‘tailed-epsilon’ shaped blood trickle on Christ’s forehead also drips onto the eyebrow ridge (2002 Durante TS face photograph and 1979 Tamburelli 3D ‘cleaned-up’ TS face close-up + Eidomatic montages with transparency © Max Patrick Hamon).
This is eye catching for the iconostegananalyst. This is the first smoking gun evidence the HP Ms Christ face is
derived from the TS face.
BTW Greek -phoron, neuter of -phoros -phorous, can also mean “bearing”, “bearer”, as such Theophoron/Christophoron can also mean “the sindon bearing (the image of Christ the son of) G-d/(the) G-d(head). Most likely the hagiographic legend of Saint Christopher (Christos + phoros) is derived from “the sindon bearing (the image of Christ the Son of) G-d”. Reminder: the TS elusive image ventral and dorsal blood decals in head-to-head discontinuity can ‘work’ like an oversized Rorschach test in terms of mnemotechnic pareidoliac projection.
Has anyone ever considered that the lower rectangle might be the Stone of Unction? This was red coloured and in 1170 Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos brought it to Constantinople.
Yes, I have considered.
But I don’t think that any interpretation of the Codex Pray elements can be proved as definite.
That’s why I prefer probabilistic approach, showing the probability that the Codex Pray images were created without the reference to the Shroud is <<1.
Yes it is cumulative similarities / suggestions that present a case, rather than any one compelling factor.
O.K. wrote: “I don’t think that any interpretation of the Codex Pray elements can be proved as definite.”
Wrong, it can for a few exceptional correlated characteristics.
If one searches ‘epitaphios’ on Google images one will see that Christ is often laid out on a red stone
Yes, Thomas. The architectural elements of Three Marys iconography have varied in meaning over the long history of the icon.
See above at June 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm, June 22, 2014 at 5:36 am and July 7, 2014 at 3:13 am.
SKEPTIC’s ‘CROCOMMENT’ of the year (or how the issue of the Pray codex is ‘extremely simple and clear-cut’ to him).”
Skeptic wrote: “We are not seeing any God-bearing shroud on the Pray codex images, given how the shroud depicted there is BLANK (upper cases mine).”
Just in case you’ve missed it, on March 9, 2015 at 3:27 am, I wrote:
“Skeptic, (just in case you have no eyes to see the most obvious in the HP Ms) in the upper section, the double-length shroud is NOT blank at all: alike the TS, the ink-and-pen drawing does show (the CLEAR line of a simplified version of) the ventral image of Christ!
It speaks volumes on how reliable Skeptic’s image analysis is!
Reminder for Skeptic (just in case he has no ears to hear): In Byzantine liturgy Mary is the Mother of God aka Christ, which means ‘theophoron sindonos’ here can equate to ‘christophoron sindonos’ (‘the sindon which Christ wore’ when he appeared as a gardener to Mary Magdalene after he resurrected. Later Yeshu’a/Christ is reported to have given his sindon to “the servant of the priest” (see Lost Gospel of the Hebrews.)”
Interestingly, quite a few of my comments are “awaiting moderation”, which shows that this blog deals in double standards and it’s hardly possible to properly “debate” anything here.
A skeptic is a person who questions all beliefs but his own….
Sounds like that fits believers too.
…and you would be wrong, JG. Believers in Shroud authenticity do not question the essential truths to be found in Jesus’ Life, Crucifixion, and Resurrection — regardless of the existence of an authentic or nonauthentic Shroud. Something which you and your ilk cannot aspire to.
…and, authenticists certainly question-and-ponder all the points made on this blog.
Re Thibault’s postings, Mar 7, Mar 8: I followed up scanning quickly through David Mo’s remarkable catalogue of early medieval “Three Marys” depictions, an exercise I should say of devoted dedication to the subject.
I noted that only a very few of the depictions, if I interpret the titles correctly, seemed not to come from Western Europe, that is France, Spain, Germany, Italy. I was particularly searching for examples from Eastern Europe, of which there seemed very few indeed. I noted a singular Turkish example, but it was quite elemental, almost crude and conveyed little. I would have liked to have seen a few examples from about the Balkans, a little closer to Hungary.
One striking example was from Bohemia. It did include an empty sarcophagus, with just a few cloths inside, and it did show an oblique rectangle rising from inside the sarcophagus, and having the suggestion of a pattern. If it was intended to represent a casket lid, then I doubt it would have covered the space. It might even conceivably represent a large sheet such as a shroud.
Is not an empty sarcophagus, more of a Western Europe tradition, reflecting that culture of burial. Certainly the gospels do not mention a sarcophagus nor any type of casket. It is essentially an artistic invention reflecting a local burial practice. I doubt that sarcophagi are represented in any examples of Byzantine Christian art of the burial, although I might be corrected on this.
The Pray Codex illustration of the Three Marys does not illustrate an empty sarcophagus, in any way like the various Western Europe examples. It appears to be more of a stone slab, which is likely a lot closer to the truth of the actual burial. It was doubtless influenced by Bela III sojourn in Constantinople, which then had no tradition of representing sarcophagi in burial or resurrection art. If then there is no sarcophagus represented, then there can be no lid to it, and the oblique rectangle in the Pray Codex Three Marys illustration, may well represent something entirely different!