Stephen Jones reacts to Charles Freeman’s article The Origins of the Shroud of Turin in History Today. He unfortunately begins with an inappropriate barrage of ad hominem.
He subtly questions Freeman’s credentials as a historian. “Freeman has never held a actual historian position in any university,” he writes. He elaborates (see Jones’ blog posting) and then states, “This should be borne in mind when assessing the headline ‘…historian says.’”
He implies motive:
Freeman is evidently an atheist/agnostic having published papers critical of Christianity in the New Humanist online magazine, the subtitle of which is "Ideas for godless people", and is "produced by the Rationalist Association … dedicated to reason, science, secularism and humanism."
. . . so presumably Freeman was once a Catholic but is now a non- (or even anti-) Christian. If so, then according to Freeman’s presumed personal atheist/agnostic philosophy, there is no supernatural, so Christianity must be false, and the Shroud of Turin must be a fake.
“I hasten to add that I am a Protestant evangelical Christian . . . ,” Jones writes. Well, so am I. I’m a Christian anyway, Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, and I feel compelled by my belief to respect Freeman’s worldview and not try to use it as a weapon against him. I don’t agree with much of anything he said in the article but it was not because of his worldview.
The intelligent reader can only see that this is what Jones is doing. I am so reminded of the words of another atheist/secular humanist, Christopher Hitchens, speaking out about such attacks . . .
whereby if your opponent thought he had identified your lowest possible motive, he was quite certain that he had isolated the only real one. This vulgar method . . . is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.”
Okay, it sounds like I’m doing the same thing. Maybe. But I’m not calling Jones a moron. No, I’m not. I’m thinking about his methods. Maybe he will think about them, as well.
Jones moves on. He spends time arguing against the 1988 carbon dating results with his amazing conspiracy theory (does anyone else on the planet buy into this?):
But [the carbon dating] is explicable if the Shroud sample dates were computer-generated. E.g. by a computer hacker, whom I have provided evidence in my soon to be completed series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker," was Arizona Radiocarbon Laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), aided by self-confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–89), who both died of suspected `suicide’ within days of each other, presumably executed by the KGB to ensure their silence.]
Jones does spend time, appropriately as I see it, challenging other aspects of Freeman’s article. However, in a response to Freeman pointing out that the church officially regards the shroud with an open mind he falls into a trap of speculating to explain speculation (pretty much the way Freeman does in his article):
As I have stated before, the Vatican is dishonest in this. From its actions in spending the equivalent of millions of dollars preserving the Shroud and holding exhibitions for millions of people to see it, clearly the Vatican regards the Shroud as authentic. So presumably the reason it refuses to confirm or deny that the Shroud is authentic is that the Vatican would then have to say which of its other relics were authentic or fakes, and most of them would be the latter. It might be good church politics to suppress the truth in this matter but it is not Christian (Rom 1:18; . . . ).
The Vatican is dishonest, the church is suppressing the truth . . . is not Christian? And Jones, points to Romans 1:18, not as a citation but as a threat. It reads: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”
All quoting by me is in accordance with doctrines of Fair Use defined in Title 17 of the United States Code, Chapter 1, Section 106. This grants me the right to limited copying for commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
Jones also writes that #9 of his Turin Shroud Encyclopedia: “The Servant of the Priest, “is unexpectedly turning out to be both very complex (and also very important).”
Let’s wait and see.
P.S – If one wants to explain to a child the difference between Free Democracy and Dictatorship , then comparing Dan Porter’s website and Stephen E. Jones’ website would be an excellent idea.
It is difficult to be fully objective, whether one believes in God or not, whether one is Christian or humanist or just someone who has no commitment of any sort. There are many problems, really deep ones, which scholars, whether they belong to the “evangelical intelligentsia”, or some “rationalists’ club”, have not been able to address.
Was Freud wholly objective?
What happened to C.G. Jung and Father Victor White, his closest friend?
PHPL you wrote: “If one wants to explain to a child the difference between Free Democracy and Dictatorship , then comparing Dan Porter’s website and Stephen E. Jones’ website would be an excellent idea.”
Reminder: BOTH Dictatorship AND Democracy (the rule by and for the greatest number of people) can be to the expense of minorities who think and live differently. The ignorant crowd as one man can behave as a dictator and kill a prophet in advance on his time.
Max, I have over 200 spam comments this morning, mostly people trying to sell stupid stuff or lure people to gambling sites, etc. “My brother told me about your blog. You wrote about the topic so well. I’m going to come back every day to read more about the subject.” You get the idea. It takes time and work to clear these out.
I don’t have time to edit out your insults of others in this blog. So and so is not ignorant. You won’t quit. You just keep it up, trying to prove a point. Well, I’m just deleting them and the trail of typo corrections that you shoot out every few minutes afterwards. I may just need to automatically block your comments if you persist.
About time. Good.
Not “good”. Max has a gift to annoy other users, especially when he tries to prove that he can outmaneuver somebody in his own field, but he can actually bring some nice arguments when debating something that he actually knows. And for whatever reason, MPH’s stingy remarks and his persistence to keep the arguments going on have produced some pretty good rebuffs, at least during the few years that I have read this blog.
I wonder if Steve Jones has read Charles’ article?
If he had, he would know, for instance, that the expression “a little-known engraving by Antonio Tempesta” is by the Guardian journalist, and that the engraving is not called “little-known” by Charles, so he need not have devoted 15% of his article to refuting it.
I think too, and he is not alone in this, that he misses something important about shroud-related articles in general, which I think is worth commenting on. In a general “is-it-or-isn’t-it?” piece, then it is necessary to present as many arguments on both sides as you know, assess their value, and decide on balance one way or the other. But in a more specific case: “find a context for a 14th century shroud” or “could an earthquake have contributed to a 1st century shroud” then, apart from an acknowledgement that not everybody agrees with your premise, it is simply a waste of space to re-iterate all the arguments for or against it. Charles acknowledges: “There is enough uncertainty about the Shroud’s origins to convince some that it is the actual burial shroud of Christ,” and moves on. So should the reader, but Jones devotes another 12% of his article to his computer-hacker argument. Why bother?
A further 13% is devoted to Charles’ credentials as an expert. This is a very weak form of criticism of an article, which ought to stand or fall by what it says, not on the reputation of its author.
In some of his criticism, Steve is on slightly surer ground. Thibault, on this blog, for example, has successfully challenged Charles suggestion that the image was never depicted with a loincloth before the Council of Trent. I think Charles is also a little unfair is supposing that no-one has considered the kind of loom upon which the cloth may have been woven. John Tyrer’s article at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf considers this quite well, acknowledging that both the Z-twist and early 4-headle looms are typically European, casting doubt on a 1st century Middle Eastern origin, without, of course, positively disproving it. William Meacham, without giving sources, at http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm, says: “The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel.” Elsewhere we find: “Textile analysis suggests that the cloth originated in First Century Israel and that it was produced on a Syrian or Egyptian loom used during the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine. It appears to be identical to unique linen cloth found at the Masada fortress.” (Quoted, for example, at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/porter1.pdf) As far as I know there is not a shred of truth in this entire statement, but if I’m wrong it suggests that some quality research into the textile has indeed been carried out. Sources, anybody?
Farey: “William Meacham, without giving sources, says: “The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel.”” During the period ca. 1200-1500 two spinning methods coexisted in Europe: the ancient method with the spindle and the new method with a primitive type of wheel. Some people think that the thread spun with the spindle was worse (less strong, less regular, coarser). The contrary is true. The wheel spinning was worse and was used only because it was quicker and saved time and money. Indeed in many places rules were emanated that prescribed that the warp threads, which had to be stronger, had to be spun with the spindle. Only the weft threads might be spun with the wheel. It so happens that in the Shroud (according to Flury-Lemberg) the weft threads are coarser and less regular than the warp threads. This by itself does not imply that in the Shroud the warp threads were spun with the spindle and the weft threads were spun with the wheel because at any rate it was usual to use better threads for the warp threads. But surely the fact that the threads of the Shroud were “hand-spun” does not indicate that they were produced before 1200.
John Tyrer does not seem to be aware of the extensive import of cotton into Europe after 1200 and the fact that cotton and flax were often spun and woven in the same environment (as Gilbert Raes pointed out). If the Shroud was being produced specifically for the Quem Queritis ceremony, as I argue, then it would have to be in linen to match the gospel accounts but,of course, fibres of cotton ( and no more than fibres have ever been found on the Shroud), may have drifted in, either when the yarn was being spun or when the weaving was being done. That fits well with the cotton evidence that has never been more than a tiny percentage of the Shroud..
Tyrer does not also seem to be aware that while three in one SILK damasks are known from the third century ( and one expert has suggested to me that there may have been some three in one WOOL tunics from the second century) the only linen three- in-one known to exist other than the Shroud is the fragments in the Victoria and Albert Museum dated to the fourteenth century from the pattern printed on them. ( The whole question of whether a pattern was printed on the Shroud as it is on the V and A samples with the ‘blood’ added separately for the Shroud is another avenue that needs research. One of my V and A contacts has told me how I can get access to these fragments but it involves going through all kinds of security and, in any case, I would need a medieval textile/ medieval patterning on cloth specialist to come with me so as not to waste the visit.)
BTW, I took time out from lecturing in Istanbul to see what was happening in the Blachernae district. While the Church of St.Mary, where de Clari saw an imaged cloth, is now completely nineteenth century, the nearby palace is being restored as a conference centre and it looks as it if it will be a great venue right up there on the fifth century walls. I think there is one Shroudie who mixes up the palace chapel with the church. I can assure whoever it was that they are completely separate buildings.
As for our friend Stephen Jones, well they say all publicity is good publicity. It has caused much hilarity among people who have worked with me on academic issues over the years.My son has sent me his latest job appraisal from the States ( very positive), I sent him back my latest one from Australia!
I think it’s an excellent rebuttal to Charles/Guardian Journalist. Starting from the “Blind leading the blind” section.
I’m no Jones fan at all but I agree that in this case his rebuttal is strong and convincing.
Freeman’s so called scholarship leaves much to be desired in this article at least, given the weight of literature and evidence he ignores – unintentionally or otherwise (I suspect it’s the latter – from my experiences the man seems totally closed to any options that do not align to his world view. I’m pretty sure Jones is right that his apparent atheism strongly and unduly influences his opinion).
I agree, we have seen this time and time again. Those jabs fortunately don’t stand the test of time. Where is Dan Brown now with his Mary Magdalene was painted on the last supper?
Hugh, re Charles’s article (I wrote though being constantly censured by Dan with no real right to reply and denounce linguistic fraud in terms since Mr Porter does seem to be TOTALLY UNfamiliar with Medieval Latin language):
In 1988, Italian expert in Ethnology and popular culture, Massimo Centini and in 1972 Italian painter and artist graphic, Maria Delfina Fusina thought the Viverone cemetery church fresco of “the shroud itself” could date back to early 16th c. CE. [Insult removed — last warning ]
Last warning. You can say all you want. You cannot call people ignorant or use other insulting terms.
Methinks Max should heed Dan’s warning. Reminder: Jesus would much rather you treat your neighbor with charity than defend his burial clothes.
I am not defending Yeshua’s burial clothes. I’m fighting for the archaeological truth.
BTW I am no man to fear blackmailing
And ‘the politically correct’ is not my cup of tea. I drink Argentinian mate.
Argentinian mate…one of my favourites too!
“In 1988, Italian expert in Ethnology and popular culture, Massimo Centini and in 1972 Italian painter and artist graphic, Maria Delfina Fusina thought the Viverone cemetery church fresco of “the shroud itself” could date back to early 16th c. CE.”
That’s a start, Max. Now where do you get this information from?
I gave the information on the blog BUT Dan kept CENSORING ME because of the Medieval Latin main acceptations for the word fraudo issue (the true linguistic facts being the word does exist in Classical Ecclesiastical and Medieval Latin and the first person singular of the verb fraudo = “I am in bad faith”, fraudo could possibly be used as a ‘(nick)name’ in Medieval Latin e.g. Dominus Fraudo or “Mr. I Am In Bad Faith” or Fraudo (Old French Mal Foi) as late Medieval personification of the flaw in human being).
Irrespective of the Turin Royal Library miniature of the ‘Shroud itself’ dating back to mid 16th c. CE, for the Viverone cimetery Church fresco, Piedmont, Italy, I got the information from:
1/Rapporti tra Sindone e ex-voto, an article published in La Sindone, Indagine scientifiche, (Proceedings of the 4th National Congress La Sindone E La Scienza, Syracuse, Italy, 1987), ed. Paoline 1988, p. 276 + a photograph of the fresco on page 286.
2/ Maria Delfina Fustina, in Studi piemontesi, Turin 1972.
The two articles are in Italian.
“Maria Delfina Fustina, in Studi piemontesi, Turin 1972.”
Excuse me. This is not a correct way to quote. The article title is missing, and also the page number, if possible.
I’m guessing, David, but I think Studi Piemontesi, March 1972, page 94, Maria Delfina Fustina, La diffusione della iconografia della Sindone in Piemonte. As for the book, “La Sindone, indagini scientifiche: Atti del IV Congresso nazionale di studi sulla Sindone, Siracusa 17-18 ottobre 1987” at £130 I’m not going to splash out on a possible pre-Tridentine dating of a fresco unless it’s hugely important, which I don’t think it is.
Thank you, Hugh. I agree. Too much expensive to a collateral issue.
I bought the book in Italy for only 40,000 Italian lira in 1994, i.e. 18,80 USD…
“La Sindone, indagini scientifiche”, p. 276. Nothing useful, only a reference to Maria Delfina Fusina, saying: “If we accept the thesis of m. D. Fusina, that dates the fresco in the first years of the XVI century”, etc. But is said also that the fresco is cited in a pastoral visit of 1775. So, the unique source is Maria Delfina Fustina, on “Studi piemontesi” 1972 p. 98. She dates the fresco on “first years of the XVI century”, but does not explain why with sure proofs.
I think we have not a reliable date for it.
Brilliant! Thanks, Max, I’m on to it!
Charles wrote: “the only linen three- in-one known to exist other than the Shroud is the fragments in the Victoria and Albert Museum dated to the fourteenth century from the pattern printed on them.”
Iconographically speaking re the linen three-in-one,on April 23, 2014 at 6:07 pm, I wrote:
“The Gundestrup cauldron (a richly decorated silver vessel, thought to date to the 1st century BC) depicts people and deities from Celtic mythology. The most famous image from the cauldron is that depicting the celtic antlered God (one of the five rectangular long inner plates) that is mostly identified as Cernunnos, the G-od of fecundity and master of the animals. ”
Remakably “He wears a zigzag/herring-bone weave patterned linen cloth (…)”.
On July 23, 2012 at 6:14 am, I wrote:
“Well before the Pray codex (1192-1195 CE), the liturgical embroidered silk cloth known as the Epitaphios (threnos) of Thessaloniki (ca 1300 CE), that of Venice (ca 1200 CE), or the Lirey Pilgrimage leaden badge (1370-1390 CE), I hold the cathedra of Saint Mark (6th century CE) to be the earliest iconographic testimonial of Yeshua’s zigzag weave patterned burial cloth.
Besides “The “desacrated” throne is a 3D alabaster replica at reduced scale of the Hetoimassia (or relic-throne of the “Preparation” to the Second Coming of Christ). Hetoimassia, literally “preparation”, meaning “that which has been prepared” or “that which is made ready”, specifically refers to the “sign of the Son of Man” and his return at the Last Judgement. The (4th?)-6th c. St Mark’s cathedra was part and parcel of the booty from the 1204 CE sack of Constantinople by Franks & Venetians.”
“The motif essentially consists of an empty throne with a prominent cushion and various Christic relics (among which his burial cloth covering or sitting on the throne and/or his pre-burial sudarium/ burial Byssus small face-cloth draped round a crux gemmata and/or the ring of twisted rushes, to which thorns were attached to form his crown around or over the cross).”
“Here is the link to the Hetoimassia or relic-throne known as the cathedra or throne of Saint Mark:
The same herrring-bone pattern also appears in conjunction with a veil & a full length portrait of Christ in a last quarter of the 8th century CE missal miniature from the Echternach Abbey (founded in 698 CE as a Benedictine monastery by St. Willibrord, an English monk.”
“All those representations of an herringbone weave pattern cloth are very rare as far as pre-13th c. CE Religious Art Works are concerned (all the more rare e.g. as on the lower lateral and back sides of the 3D alabaster replica at reduced scale of the Hetoimassia (or relic-throne of the “Preparation”) can be seen a trellis pattern evocative of that of the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion/Sindon tetradiplon.”
Therefore to peremptorily assert linen three-in-one known can only date back to the 14th c. CE is contradicted by the very fact iconographically it existed as early as the 1st c. CE!
Last but not least: On 1988 radiocarbon dating, ‘sample 4’ was lift off the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297), a 13th c. CE ‘linen three-in-one’!
Max, I don’t know whether you have read my History today article- I am beginning to wonder whether anyone has -other than High, I think!!
No problem about herringbone- it goes back millennia- it is the combination of herringbone and three in one that seems unknown. I talked to an authority of ancient weaving and they gave me the only examples they knew about – in wool and silk but not in linen. So just referring to herringbone is a red herring here!
In my article, I simply made the point that, as we had an example of three-in-one linen in the V and A that has been dated to the fourteenth century, that weave was known in the fourteenth century and so it merely makes the point that cloths similar to the Shroud three-in-one herrngbone were being woven at the same date. Circumstantial evidence. not offered by me as anything more.
Perhaps the Shamir’s lecture in Bari can help to differenciate the fabric of the Shroud from the usual fabrics in Palestine. See Lombatti http://www.antoniolombatti.it/B/Blog01-14/Voci/2014/9/9_Orit_Sharmir_conferma__niente_di_ebraico_come_la_Sindone!.html .
What a pity that the Shamir’s lecture has not been published yet by the responsibles of the meeting!
But I think the picture in Lombatti’s blog is ilustrative.
Charles wrote: “It is the combination of herringbone and three in one that SEEMS (my upper cases) unknown”
Reminder one: Celtic priests ALIKE their G-od Cernunos used to wear a zigzag/herring-bone weave patterned linen cloth.
Reminder two: the herring-bone weave pattern is symbolic of the living waters of the Torah. It is Jewish too.
Reminder three: the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297), a 13th c. CE does combine linen herringbone and three in one and could be mistaken for the TS to the uninitiated eye.
Typo: To the uninitiated eye ‘sample 4’ could be mistaken for that of the TS.
The Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou is not herringbone and not three in one in its texture. The diagonal appearances are an added decoration.
First, could you refer me to a research paper a Medieval textile expert wrote confirming your assertions?
Whatever the case, the fact remains though this is AT WORSE the Cope (decorative) weave is in imitation of the herringbone and three-to-one linen weave of Yeshua’s burial cloth (see the zig zag and/or herringbone cloth tradition associated to Christ’s death and resurrection iconography).
Hamon, go for example to this page:
Click and enlarge the photos of details of the cope. Some of the photos are enough close-up to clearly see the texture. In some photos the cloth is only partially covered with the embroidery. Look for example at these:
Where is the 3:1 herringbone? And do you think that one needs a medieval textile expert for recognizing the 3:1 herringbone?
It is common knowledge among sindonologists that Tite and others tried to find a 3:1 medieval textile for the C14 dating but did not succeed. Now you presume that Tite’s emissaries, Vial and Evin, had a 3:1 herringbone in their hands and did not realize it: big news!
Evidently you know nothing about the cope of St Louis and I have to suppose that if you challenge me, it is because you hope that I too know nothing. No, Hamon, as a rule people assert something if they know that it is true. And before asking me to give a proof of my assertion, you should better be sure of yours.
Max: It is difficult to disentangle all your fantasies presented as apodictic truths.This is one of the most amazing.
“Remakably “He wears a zigzag/herring-bone weave patterned linen cloth (…)”.
You cannot identify any zigzag form as a herringbone cloth, and less still as linen. The zig zag forms are widespread in the Gundestrup cauldron. It represents the hair of the beasts, that is not neither herringbone fabric neither linen, or course. The most plausible interpretation is that the god of the beasts wears a fur cloth. “Cernunnos presents himself as a muscular elf with dull fur clothes…”
Truly, I am tired to chase your out of control imagination. I think i’ll take a leave.
At one and the same time (within the same short paragraph!) you BOTH PEREMPTORILY ASSERT AS AN APODICTIC TRUTH (as if it were a proven fact)
“It represents the hair of the beasts that is not neither (sic) herringbone fabric neither linen, or course (sic)”
…and then abruptly (as if at second thought you realised it is not a proven fact just YOUR OWN personal interpretation (or an HYPODICTIC TRUTH), you take down your own peremptory assertion ‘a peg or two’ and write:
“The most plausible interpretation is that the god of the beasts wears a fur cloth”.
– Could you first CLEARLY agree with yourself before disagreeing with me, PLEASE?
– Could you tell me exactly/objectively what makes you think it is ‘fur’ NEITHER ‘skin-leather’ NOR ‘linen’ or ‘silk’ or ‘hemp’ PLEASE and how YOU can detect the difference between the five materials from the Gundestrup cauldron panel?
– Re ‘your interpretation’ of Cernunnos’s cloth as a zig zag patterned fur cloth, could you refer me to research papers backing up you own claim and contradicting mine?
Re ‘your interpretation’, methinks mine (zig zag/herringbone patterned linen) is at least as good as yours if not better since Cernunnos, besides wearing an antlered short helmet and a torc, does wear a zig zag patterned V-neck short-sleeve above knee-long TIGHT FITTING one-piece cloth fastened by a belt.
See Cernunnos Gundestrup iconography at:
… and take a better look at your so-called ‘fur cloth’. Your interpretation doesn’t fit AT ALL!
Reminder: The ancient Celts were superior at making woven textiles for their Celtic clothing and linen and wool were the common clothing fabrics. Besides in the more earlv ages, the Druids (or sacrificing priests and judges) worshipped their gods in groves, and under tall venerable trees, dressed in fine linen…
Druids were dressed in fine linen…
Cernunnnos as ‘walker of the worlds’ is not only the Lord of the animals but also, among others, LIFE in the three worlds and the torques and fine linen he wears are the symbols of wealth and prosperity associated to his figure. His tight-fitting shift (most likely a V-shaped weaving patterned linen cloth) fastened by a belt at the waist reminds of costumes of horse-riding races.
Re the symbolism of the herringbone or broken zig zag pattern:
Shall I remind you LIFE is associated with waters from prehistoric times and zig zag patterns?
Shall I repeat, in the Second temple period the herring-bone weave pattern was symbolic of the living waters of the Torah?
Typo: Cernunnos, besides wearing an antlered short helmet and a torc, does wear a zig zag patterned V-neck LONG-sleeve above knee-long TIGHT FITTING one-piece cloth fastened by a belt.
I find that interesting, Max. The Stone Circle culture ended ~1150 BC after widespread crop failures consequential to ash clouds from Icelandic volcano blocking out sun. No known monuments nor ceremonial burials in Britain 1100 to 600 BC. Celtic ideas emerged 500 BC, focusing on springs and wells originating from Mesopotamian Ainu cult. Shakespeare’s ‘Herne the Hunter’ with his antlers [Merry Wives of Windsor] might likely be derived from your Cernunnos(?).
I have sometimes entertained the idea that a Roman soldier might have acquired the Shroud cloth in Gaul or Britain before being posted to Palestine where he disposed of it. There may be more to your suggestion of a 3:1 herring bone twill from Britain than has been previously considered. The Salisbury legends re Joseph of Arimathaea might be suggestive(?), although likely too late to be affirmative.
Max: Thank you for the grammatical correction.
I urge everyone to read Stephen Jones’ expose’ of the deceptive nature of Freeman’s comments on a host of Shroud topics, extending over many years. Proofs abound.
Proofs abound on this blog Nabber, his skeptical footprint is obvious, in his comments, in his articles, awkwardly hidden behind an academic vernish.
Stephen Jones did miss out on my employment by the KGB.
Never too late to do so, Charles. Although there are many people in Russia spreading their so called ‘point-of-view’ (see what’s going on about Ukraine), they will be happy to hire another one. You have good qualifications for this job, Charles.
Maybe but I don’t know how to fix radio carbon laboratories’ computer programmes so I will not be much use to them. But I was working in Oxford in 1988 so there is a smoking gun there.
This blog was Dan’s blog.
And his selection bias, but that’s kind of a skeptical footprint.
Still shall I remind you I MOST CAUTIOUSLY wrote in A TYPO on October 28, 2014 at 11:05 am:
“Typo: To the uninitiated eye ‘sample 4′ (i.e. the sample of the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297) could be mistaken for that of the TS.”
AND on October 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm:
“Whatever the case, the fact remains though AT WORSE the Cope (decorative) weave is in imitation of the herringbone and three-to-one linen weave of Yeshua’s burial cloth (see the zig zag and/or herringbone cloth tradition associated to Christ’s death and resurrection iconography).”
Thus I corrected my own assertion via a TYPO plus a RESTRICTIVE statement PRIOR TO YOUR illustrated comment. IF YOU DON’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MY TYPO AND TOTALLY OVERLOOK MY AUTOCORRECTON to misleadingly MISREPRESENT MY OPINION this is your fraudulent choice.
Contrary to what you most misleadingly imply, I WAS NOT IN DENIAL AT ALL of the possibility as MY MIND WAS OPEN to the alternative namely AN IMITATION of the Constantinople Theophoros Syndon (and/or threnoi epitaphioi broken) zig zag or herringbone pattern.
Re the Cope of Louis d’Anjou, the true fact remains though “Tite asked Jacques Evin of the Lyon carbon dating laboratory to find for him a 13th/14th. century SAMPLE AS CLOSE TO THE SHROUD FABRIC AS POSSIBLE (my upper cases). Evin found an appropriate sample, of the correct herring-bone weave and yellowish colour, from the cope of St. Louis d’Anjou who died in 1297.”
Rinaldi, don’t you MISREPRESENT my opinion just for the sake of being right, PLEASE! This is intellectual fraud.
Are you in denial of this?
Evin was no expert textile.
The quoted passage:
“Tite asked Jacques Evin of the Lyon carbon dating laboratory to find for him a 13th/14th. century SAMPLE AS CLOSE TO THE SHROUD FABRIC AS POSSIBLE (my upper cases). Evin found an appropriate sample, of the correct herring-bone weave and yellowish colour, from the cope of St. Louis d’Anjou who died in 1297.”
…is an excerpt from BSTS Newsletter N°22.
It was French Catholic monk Frére Bruno Bonnet-Eymard who reconstructed this episode from Evin and Tite’s exchange of letters.
Charles and Rinaldi,
Re PRIOR TO the 14th c. CE, the use of decorative/symbolical broken zig zag (herringbone) weave in clothes associated with Yeshua’s ultimate sacrifice and his burial cloth (as corporal),
see the late 13th c. CE Antependium of Grandson. Link at
the Antependium of Grandson
Title/name : Antependium of Grandson
Production place : Cyprus
Discovery place : Cathedral, tomb of the knight Othon de Grandson, Lausanne, Switzerland
Date / period : Late thirteenth century
Materials and techniques : Assembled embroidered taffeta and silk serge. Central section: taffeta background, red silk; point couché retiré embroidery, in silver gilt lamé thread on yellow silk core, red, blue, green, brown, green, white and black silk. Lateral sections: serge background, black silk, point couché retiré embroidery, in silver gilt lamé thread on yellow silk core.
Dimensions : H. 88 cm; w. 328 cm
Conservation town : Berne
Conservation place : Musée historique
Inventory number : inv. 18
“(…) this work (in which Western and Byzantine influences intermingled, my comment) has been attributed to a Cypriot workshop and is thought to be closely linked to the story of the knight Othon de Grandson and his sojourn in Cyprus in the late thirteenth century.”
That is at a time when the entire island of Cyprus was ‘owned’ by the Knight Templars…
Now take a good look at the Pala d’oro Hetoimassia scene and Byzantine renditions of the ‘two Marys at the Sepulchre” (art works dated PRIOR TO the fall of Constantinople in 1204), then and only then you’ll be able to spot each time broken zig zag (or herringbone) weave patterned clothes associated either with Yeshua’s burial cloth (used as throne antependium) or with the Resurrection angel, Saint Michael’s cloth.
RingRinaldi some bells?
In the antependium of Grandson e.g. both the angels’w wings and loroi show the same broken zig zag (or herringbone) weave pattern and both are the same colour as the TS…
Rinaldi, BTW you misleadingly focus on details that do not show at all HOW the uninitiated eye can mistake the Cope weave pattern for a broken zig zag pattern. Once again the fraudulent choice is yours. Shall I call you Fraudo III in I?
“IF YOU DON’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MY TYPO AND TOTALLY OVERLOOK MY AUTOCORRECTON to misleadingly MISREPRESENT MY OPINION this is your fraudulent choice.”
This reminds me of the way anti-authenticists fraudulently used the first version of Clement VII’s Bull to misrepresent the Pope’s official position as it appears in the second and definite version of the bull and have it say what the final version doesn’t say…
Hamon, I am happy to leave the last word to you! It is fatiguing to discuss with you and I am too old for bearing the fatigue.
Quoting the BSTS again: “(…) enquiries made directly to the Lyon textile specialist Gabriel Vial, and
correspondence with Pére Dubarle, who had also been in touch with Vial, reveal that the only
herring-bone to the cope was that of an overlying gold embroidery. The linen itself was plain.”
I am older than you!
Thus according to Vial (a textile expert) and Dubarle (a Shroud scholar and researcher), the Louis d’Anjou cope, if the linen itself was plain, its colour was identical and it DID SHOW a HERRINGBONE overlying gold embroidery, which confirm my two previous comments:
1/ “To the uninitiated eye ‘sample 4′ (i.e. the sample of the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297) could be mistaken for that of the TS.”
“Whatever the case, the fact remains though AT WORSE the Cope (decorative) weave is in imitation of the herringbone and three-to-one linen weave of Yeshua’s burial cloth”.
I can bear the fatigue all right to REALLY clear things
If the combination of broken zig zag or herringbone and three in one was unknown prior to the 14th c. CE), could Rinaldi (or Charles) account for :
1/- the textile facts the Louis d’Anjou cope, the Grandson antependium and a couple of threnoi epitaphioi Greek weavers tried to imitate it as early as the 12th-13th c. CE ?
2/ the iconographic facts from the (4th?-)6th to late 13th c. CE, several Yeshua’s death, resurrection and glorification scenes did incorporate the broken zig zag or herringbone pattern
iPLUS stepped pyramid pattern (as simplified version of the Shroud weave seen in close-up)?
Reminder for Rinaldi:
The important thing is not to convince anyone of anything but simply to give food for thought that are not pre-packed…
typo: The important thing is not to convince anyone of anything but simply to give food for thought that IS not pre-packed…
Rinaldi (just incase you have missed it),
The Louis d’Anjou LINEN cope, of which colour is identical to the TS depicts, the Visitatio Sepulcri or “Three Marys at the Sepulchre” scene in conjunction with a HERRINGBONE overlying gold embroidery. RingRinaldi some bells?
Reminder: this is a 13th c. CE cope NOT a 14th c. CE one.
Detail of the Grandson altar late 13th c. CE antependium:
The grandson antependium:
I don’t think anyone has claimed that the herringbone pattern was unknown before the 14th century. Herringbone embroidery seems quite common, as Max has pointed out, and zig-zag patterns very common. However there is no evidence that any of these were imitating what Charles said there wasn’t any of, which is 3/1 herringbone twill weaving. The St Louis cope, as Gian Marco has shown perfectly clearly, is an ordinary 1/1 weave. I dare say that the uninitiated eye could mistake its embroidery for a herringbone weave, but that’s not the point. The idea that everywhere we see a zig-zag we also see a reference to the weave of the Shroud is entertaining, but I disagree with it.
Hugh, you wrote:
“The idea that everywhere we see a zig-zag we also see a reference to the weave of the Shroud is entertaining, but I disagree with it.”
The TRUE fact is it is NEITHER ANYWHERE NOR EVERYWHEE but in SPECIFIC conjunction with depictions of Yeshua’s main life-death-after death Events:
Visitatio Sepulcri, Eucharist celebration, the Hetoimassia, threnoi epitaphioi.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see!
The two angels’s wings show an herringbone pattern in conjunction with the altar symbolizing Yeshua’s tomb!
The two angels also wear the loros (or Byzantine ceremonial long scarf or stole) that symbolized the burial shroud of Christ. Now BOTH loroi DO show the same herringbone pattern!
I have a photograph of Grandson antependium Saint Michael. His loros, symbolic of Yeshua’s burial, does show the same herringbone pattern as the TS. Too bad the photograph is not on line.
Typo: His loros, symbolic of Yeshua’s burial SHROUD, does show the same herringbone pattern as the TS.
Well, that’s what I disagree with. As zig-zag patterns crop up all over the place, not only including depictions of Jesus’s passion, there is no specific reason why they should imitate herringbone there but not anywhere else. I think they’re just patterns.
Methinks you need eyes-and-brain to see.
Hugh wrote: “there is no specific reason why they (the weavers) should imitate herringbone there but not anywhere else. I think they’re just patterns”
NOW most specifically in the Grandson antependium made in Cyprus late in the 13th c. CE (i.e. when the entire island was owned by the Knight Templars), Saint Michael, the resurrection angel, wears a HERRINGBONE-PATTERNED LOROS or Byzantine ceremonial long scarf or stole that symbolized the BURIAL SHROUD OF CHRIST.
Archaeocryptologically speaking, THIS is the smoking gun. It definitely makes a world of a difference…
Hugh, please STICK to your field of expertise (Science of the Earth), PLEASE. I am sticking to mine (cryptology here applied to archaeology and iconography). And get a HD photograph of BOTH the WHOLE Grandson antependium and its Saint Mchael firgure before passing comment such as “I think they’re are just patterns”! Methinks they are ‘just patterns’ to the UNINITIATED eye of a Science of the Earth high school teacher!
No Max. ‘Experts’ such as you and I know very well that our credibility does not command any respect at all merely on the grounds that we are ‘experts.’ Nor on any vague suggestion that we have been initiated into some sort of esoteric art. Any credibiility I have acquired in the scientific field comes from the research I have not only read, but quoted with references, and the reasonability of the inferences I make from them. Your credibility depends on the same.
You begin by airily announcing that there is evidence of early herringbone weave on the basis of a 1st Century silver vessel showing a character wearing a striped costume with faint alternating diagonal hatching on the stripes, the embroidery on some epitaphioi, the base of carved alabaster throne and Christ’s robe in a miniature. Your expertise lies in knowing of these artifacts and being able to demonstrate them with references, for which we thank you, but we need not agree that they all illustrate herringbone cloth, or demonstrate that it was manufactured prior to the 14th century. I don’t, for one.
Had you stuck to the Stavronitika epitaphios you could have been on stronger ground. After all, here is a picture of a Shroud with a herringbone pattern, and here is the actual Shroud which has a herringbone weave. There is a logical inference. It is not proof, or a true fact, that the one derives from the other, but it is a sensible infererence. There are counter-indications. The Stavronitika herringbone pattern is at rightangles with respect to the Shroud’s weave, and the Thessaloniki epitaphios shows herringbone embroidery as a general filler for any blank spaces, such as the sky, angels’ halos and so on. (The Stavronitika one leaves the sky unfilled)
Next you wrote: “On 1988 radiocarbon dating, ‘sample 4′ was lift off the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297), a 13th c. CE ‘linen three-in-one’!” which you amended five hours later to “Reminder three: the Cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou (1274-1297), a 13th c. CE does combine linen herringbone and three in one and could be mistaken for the TS to the uninitiated eye.” This is only partially true, as Gian Marco later demonstrated: Linen – Yes, Herringbone – Yes, but ‘three in one’ – No. The herringbone is in embroidery stitching, not weaving, and looks nothing like 3/1 twill.
Now we come to the Grandson antependium. Rather similarly to the Stavronitika epitaphios, large areas are left unembroidered, but over the embroidered area, herringbone is used as a convenient space-filler. The archangel Michael has collar, wings, halo, hem of tunic, sash and a thin central panel of his tunic in herringbone. None of them resembles a loros. He is carrying a cloth over one arm. It is not embroidered in herringbone. Not only the angels, but also a couple of insense burners are also embroidered in herringbone. Not, I think, to represent cloth.
Now Max, everybody who reads this will be able to look up all these things on Google, and check that everything I have described is true. They will admire my dedication, agree that my inferences are valid, but come to their own conclusions about whether they agree with me. Some will, some won’t. That’s how ‘being an expert’ works. It does not rely on ‘the initiated eye,’ nor anouncements of ‘true facts,’ nor cheerful epithets of ‘none so blind as those who will not see, nor even ‘fields of expertise.’
I think they’re just patterns.
Hugh, do you really know what Human Sciences are all about?
You wrote: “The archangel Michael has collar, wings, halo, hem of tunic, sash and a thin central panel of his tunic in herringbone. None of them resembles a loros.”
The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Mchael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS!
Methinks you REALLY haven’t got the foggiest notion of HOW Western and Byzantine influences intermingled in Medieval Saint Michel Iconography and HOW EXACLTLY the loreos was draped. You are NO EXPERT AT ALL in this specific field.
ShallI repeat, you’d BETER stick to your own field of expertise rather then give lesson to me. You are in the unknown, I am in the known as far as BYZANTINE & WESTERN LOROS ICONOGRAPHY is concerned.
Now in Byzantium the loros (ceremonial long scarf or stole) symbolized the BURIAL SHROUD OF CHRIST.
The Grandson antependium loros does show a HERRINGBONE PATTERN as the TS. Whence as an image cryptanalyst I can deduce there is a very strong connection between the Gandson LOROS and the TS.
Max. Fine and good, you are an expert. But that doesn’t mean I think you’re right. I have no reasons to think so. You have given me none. I’m not an expert in anything. I’ve spent my career in business and I wouldn’t invest a nickle in what you say simply because you are an expert. In other words, no sale. And if you pull any of those “methinks” or “shall I repeat” phrase on me I’ll just put that nickel in my pocket and walk away. And, no, I don’t need to have the image on the nickle crypto-whatevered.
See what Dan told you? Didn’t I advise you last year to put your “crypo-whatevered” in a pdf and ask Dan to upload it after which it can be discussed? I am sure he will do this for you.
By the way, are you sure you have not be drinking a lot of that Argentinian mate you mentioned this week, more than enough perhaps? I sipped this, just once in the morning, in the Argentinian pampas, in the Brazilian low mountains and in the Paraguayan jungles. It produces anxiety if a lot is consumed.
Argentinian mate does help me to keep late hours while working on a 16-18 hours daily basis…
I emailed Dan the first three pages of a research paper still in progress entitled
The Hungarian Pray Ms-Turin Shroud connection:
MORE THAN MEET THE NON-INITIATED EYE…
Or An Iconosteganalysis
Hope, Dan will be fair play enough to publish them in his blog.
BTW I have dozens and dozens of research papers still in progress since I have no much time to devote to the TS while working on my professional files. Most of the time I am reduced to make comments in haste (along with many typos and no time to checking up everything and give all the references, my own still unpublished research papers included)…
Max, I understand. It is like coffee for you. I think that Dan will wait till you finish the papers to then publish them on shroudstory.
After all that, Max? I’m disappointed. If you want anyone to believe you are an expert it’s no use shouting “The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Mchael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS!” You have to demonstrate your expertise.
“Shall I repeat, you’d BETTER stick to your own field of expertise rather then give lesson to me.” No, Max. I think a lesson is exactly what you need, so here goes.
The Wikipedia article on the Loros explains that it went through considerable modification. It began as a long stole looped over the neck or shoulders. The shorter end dropped down the front almost to the floor, and the longer end crossed around the back and ended up draped over the left arm. The Byzantine illustrations in the article do not show quite how the crossing round the back was accomplished. Over the course of the 11th to 13th centuries the design was modified so that the two hanging ends dropped from a wide collar. Again, the long end fell down the front, but got shorter, but the long end still came forward from behind and was draped over the left arm as before. By the 14th century the whole thing may have been sewn to the tunic beneath, but there was invariably a hanging over the left arm.
The Grandson archangel, dated about 1270, has nothing over his left arm. No loros. He does have the collar and dropping front strip, but there is no indication that his wide sash, the hem of his tunic, or the cloth over his right arm, are part of a loros. They could be stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself.
For a full discussion of the development of the loros from the Roman (pre-Christian) toga and its later adoption of the symbolism of the shroud of Christ, see, for example, pages 153 – 156 in the Chapter on “Imperial Costume and Regalia” in the “Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection” which is on Google Books.
I won’t even put the shadow a farthering on your Business Executive’s contrary opinion as far as the Western and Byzantine loros iconography and its evolution through time is concerned nor on the reliability and depth of your knowledge of the Byzantine emperor and empress’s, Archangels’ and twelve top dignitaries’ loros costume!
I cannot help thinking, you (and Dan incidentally) just discover about the loros (via my comments on this blog this year, on 13 mai 2014, and last year, on 11 juin 2013) and you NOW through Wikipedia.
I am no Wiki scholar, YOU are as far as loros is concerned. This speaks volume on your so-called expertise and makes a world of a difference between us.
On May 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm and on June 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm I wrote:
“the very word Mandylion is a Byzantine-Greek borrowed from the Arabic mandil (mindil in Syriac) i.e. a “SCARF”. Now Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos comments in his Book of Ceremonies that the loros (or ceremonial LONG SCARF or stole of Byzantine emperors) symbolized the burial shroud of Christ. The (co-)emperor(s) (+(co-)empress(es) + the 12 most important imperial figures + archangels in paintings and mosaics) normally wore it on Easter Sunday. It was draped “himation/achiton fashion” all over his WHOLE BODY: “The men’s version of the loros was a long strip, dropping down straight in front to below the waist, and with the portion behind pulled round to the front and hung gracefully over the left arm. The female loros was similar at the front end, but the back end was wider and tucked under a belt after pulling through to the front again.”
Hugh you wrote: ‘The Grandson archangel, dated about 1270, has nothing over his left arm. No loros. He does have the collar and dropping front strip, but there is no indication that his wide sash, the hem of his tunic, or the cloth over his right arm, are part of a loros. They could be stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself.”
I DID specify the BYZANTINE LOROS here is REVISITED THROUGH A WESTERNER’S EYE who literally identified the loros with Christ’s herringbone patterned burial cloth.
The antependium “has been attributed to a Cypriot workshop and is thought to be closely linked to the story of the knight Othon de Grandson and his sojourn in Cyprus in the late thirteenth century.”
“The inscriptions are in three languages (Christ’s initials in GREEK; “MAT DNI”, for Mater Domini in LATIN, in Gothic characters; and Saint Gabiel [sic] and Saint Michiel [sic] in FRENCH) in addition to certain iconographic details. They enable us to place this work in the context of a Crusader kingdom, where Western and Byzantine influences intermingled, thereby strengthening the hypothesis that it was produced in Cyprus” (in the 1270s CE i.e. when the Knight Templars i;e. Westerners ‘owned’ the entire island).
At about the same time, the Byzantine loros iconography shows the loros lavishly decorated with gems as opposed here to the (Knight Templars?) Western loros iconography.
Andronikos II Palaiologos, r. 1272 – 1328, artist unknown, Byzantine period art. – Athens College Library. Link at :
Put side by side the above depiction of the Byzantine loros and that of Archangel Gabriel with one end of his loros hung gracefully over the LEFT arm (as opposed to archangel Michael having one end of his loros hung gracefully over the RIGHT arm in inverted symmetry to Gabriel’s)
Hugh; An expert is someone that has worked on a field on years, has published some works in specialist editorials and journals preferably, has presented communications in specialist conferences and/or holds a relevant place in the academic world. An expert is recognised and quoted by his peers. An expert needn’t fulfil all these features, but someone that doesn’t fulfil any of them is not an expert certainly. However much he proclaims himself as such.
In the sindonist world alleged experts are acclaimed with an amazing frivolity. Don’t fall in the same vice, please.
No danger of that, David! All my ‘expertise,’ if such it is, can be found on this website, and any respect, if any, I have earned, depends on what I have posted here for all to see and criticise. Hier ich stehe and all that…
David Mo’s understanding of what constitutes “an expert” is rather more constraining than my own life experience of experts, as I find that they come in all kinds of human endeavour, beginning with the excellent motor mechanics at my local garage. During a very long engineering career in a major NZ Corporate, I had frequent cause to resort to consulting a wide range of experts, all specialists in their various fields in all kinds of arcane disciplines. I generally found that the expert was best at giving much-needed advice, or at working only in his own field of specialist expertise, but that it was often necessary to set the parameters within which he would work and he should not go beyond them. And they should not be relied on to give a useful decision. The industry within which I worked was complex, drew on most of the engineering disciplines, and of course several other non-engineering disciplines as well.
My first position as a young greenhorn was as an engineering cadet in a general civil engineering office. The culture was such that they regarded with some tolerant bemusement the various experts from Head Office that often descended on them intruding on what they saw as higher priorities. There was an unofficial Office Manual which was required reading by all office new-comers, so that experts might be given their proper regard. It was a text written around 1929 by one Charles Sale, entitled “The Specialist”. Some of you may well be already familiar with this classic work.
Otherwise you may find it at:
Required reading, it places the expert in his proper context.
1. We are speaking about what an expert is. In fact, you don’t challenge my definition. You just said that a non-expert can be more competent than an expert in some circumstances. I agree, but we ought to specify in what circumstances or “context” if you like.
2. For example: A practical problem is different from a theoretical one. You cannot match a mechanical problem with a physical or a historical problem. In the first case the expertise is highly dependent of experience. Aristotle spoke of technical and scientific issues. The terminology is ancient but the concept is still valid. But this is my first condition: a wide experience. Our problem is a historical problem and in History this wide experience is checked by years of study and production in specialist literature. In mechanics the checking is not the same, obviously. Perhaps we can speak of experience in the garage and success in the manipulation of objects. I don’t know because I am not an expert in this matter.
3. Of course, a non-expert can be right in a particular issue. Exceptions are possible. We have to examine all the particular circumstances and the reasoning involved. But the non-expert would claim his success not his expertise. We can say the non-expert is right but not that he is an expert. If we call a non-expert “expert” we are in a mistake. My point is that this is a mistake very extended in sindonism. And we have here in this forum an extreme case.
“I DID specify the BYZANTINE LOROS here is REVISITED THROUGH A WESTERNER’S EYE who literally identified the loros with Christ’s herringbone patterned burial cloth.” No, you didn’t. This is wholly untrue. You went on and on about “The TRUE fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf Saint Mchael wears IS EXACTLY DRAPED AS A LOROS!” You are now admitting that I am correct, and that you were wrong, by suggesting that the loros was merely a Western interpretation of a Byzantine tradition. “They could be,” I said, “stylistic elements derived from a loros, but not, as such, a loros itself.” The very fact that the two angels appear to be symmetrical is enough to show that the patterns on their garments, if they represent the loros at all, consist of stylistic elements rather than exact depictions. I have already referred to the http://www.qantara-med.org article from which you are drawing your latest ideas, and know very well that the artist may not have been familiar with the significance of the loros in the Byzantine tradition.
I freely admit, Max, that I had never heard of the loros until you introduced the term, so I wonder how it is that to the other readers of this blog I appear to be so much more of an expert on the subject than you do. Could it be because I do not try to defend my arguments by arbitrarily anouncing “the true fact is” without any reference? Or is it something to do with my not breaking into captal letters, or overusing exclamation marks? My advice is to go back to my lesson on How To Be An Expert, at October 30, 2014 at 8:49 am, and try to model your reply to this post on it. Good luck!
Hugh, you misleadingly quote me:
“I DID specify the BYZANTINE LOROS here is REVISITED THROUGH A WESTERNER’S EYE who literally identified the loros with Christ’s herringbone patterned burial cloth.”
and comment: “No, you didn’t. This is wholly untrue. ”
Don’t you play me your ‘Fraudo game’, please!
I DID. Cannot or will not you read my English?!
I literally wrote: “Methinks you REALLY haven’t got the foggiest notion of HOW Western and Byzantine influences intermingled in Medieval Saint Michel Iconography and HOW EXACLTLY the loreos was draped. You are NO EXPERT AT ALL in this specific field.”
I DID refer to the way Westerners depicted the Byzantine loros. Don’y you mispesent my opinion, please.
You got totally OFF THE MARK as YOU most stubbornly clang to the Byzantino-Byzantine way to depict loroi lavishly decorated with gems as opposed to the simpler, more austere and yet more realistic way for Westerners/most likely Templars here) to depict the said loros with herringbone patterns as symbolic of Yeshua’s burial cloth.
Besides as early as 1994 CE (that is more than twenty years ago!) I studied the Byzantine and Western loros iconography in light of the Grand Entry of the Emperor during the Mass-Medieval Holy Grail Scene connection. I can give you lesson any time on the specific issue.
Whether you like it or not the true fact is the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf BOTH Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel wear ARE EXACTLY DRAPED/WRAPPED AS LOROI. They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros. Period.
Now you’re wriggling, Max. Either the loros is depicted as ‘exactly draped’ or it is not. As I have shown, it is not. The cloth draped over the archangel’s right (not left) arm is clearly separate from other parts of his clothing, and is not embroidered in herringbone anyway. Although you did indeed say that Western and Byzantine influences were mixed in this antependium, you made it abundantly clear that you did not think the loros was ‘interpreted’ in any way, but was ‘exactly draped.’ The loros, specifically, was not ‘revisited through a Westerner’s eye.’ Now you are saying that my interpretation – that the pattern merely incorporates stylistic elements derived from the loros – is yours, and that your interpretation – stubbornly clinging to exact drapery – is mine! Clever, but no cigar.
Hugh aka Mr Fraudo,
I’m not wriggling at all, YOU are!
You wrote: “The cloth draped over the archangel’s right (not left) arm is clearly separate from other parts of his clothing”
On October 30, 2014 at 6:57 pm, I wrote:
Put side by side the above depiction of the Byzantine loros and that of Archangel Gabriel with one end of his loros hung gracefully over the LEFT arm (as opposed to archangel Michael having one end of his loros hung gracefully over the RIGHT arm in inverted symmetry to Gabriel’s).
Cannot you read English or won’t you? That is the question!
The true fact is the two Archangels Gabriel and Michael are EXACTLY draped/wrapped as Andronikos II Palaiologos is (see Byzantine period art. – Athens College Library). The only difference is the Emperor’s loros symbolic of Yeshua’s Shroudis, wound about the
body, ike a winding sheet, is yet studded with gems and
embroidered with gold.while the two Archangels is a
much simpler, more austere and realistic herringbone
Whether you like it or not YOU WERE WRONG: the herringbone patterned stole or long scarf BOTH Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel wear ARE EXACTLY DRAPED/WRAPPED AS LOROI. They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros. Period.
“They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros.” You know what, Max? I think you’re right. In fact I said this several posts ago (except for the Templar bit). I do not believe a Byzantine artist could have embroidered the loros correctly over the the Angel Gabriel’s arm but not over the Angel Michael, even for the sake of symmetry, which implies that the artist was not familiar with, or not bothered about, the importance of the style of wearing it. Now what about the fact that the drape over the arm is in plain embroidery, not herringbone?
Hugh, FINALLY first quoting me:
” “They are Western (most likely Templar) depictions of the Byzantine loros.” ”
“You know what, Max? I think you’re right. In fact I said this several posts ago.”
Reminder for you: you FIRST asserted (on October 30, 2014 at 7:16 am) “The archangel Michael has collar, wings, halo, hem of tunic, sash and a thin central panel of his tunic in herringbone. NONE OF THEM RESEMBLES A LOROS (my upper cases). He (Saint Michael) is carrying a cloth over one arm.”
You ask me: “Now what about the fact that the drape over the arm is in plain embroidery, not herringbone?”
Just take a (good) look at Andronikos II Palaiologos’s loros, see how part of the loros over his left arm is turned up and its plain pinky red lining actually showing. The Western (Templar) weaver tried to copy the same drape partly up-turned over both Saint Michael’s right arm and Saint Gabriel’s left arm and most likely find it difficult to incorporate the herringbone pattern here along with the lining.
if you take a good look too to the Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco Archangel Saint Michael (a 10th century CE fresco), you shall see the drape over the arm is in plain (green) lining. It is not a lavishly decorated gemmed drape.
Most likely the Western (most likely Templar) weaver did not incorporate the herringbone pattern here just to show the lining in the manner of former Western depictions of Saint Michael-with-loros iconography.
Typo: the Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco Archangel Saint Michael (a 11TH CENTURY CE fresco)
This is all excellent, Max. This is what an expert does, and goodness me I think you’ve proved your point, especially with your last reference, which shows the inside of the loros not only as it sweeps up from the waist to the arm, but also as it drops down the other side, which is unusual, but is the same as the Archangels in the Grandson antependium. Even the wings are the same shape. Many thanks.
Now, as regards the herringbone pattern, would it be true to say that the Grandson antependium is the only depiction of a lorus with a herringbone pattern, or are there others?
Hugh, you wrote:
“You know what, Max? I think you’re right. In fact I said this several posts ago (except for the Templar bit).”
In the Grandson antependium, the body of the two archangels’ loroi do appear without any of the addition of Byzantino-Byzantine embellishments (no embroidery or appliqued fabric/embroidery, no gemmed trim on the neckline, no pearled cuffs, no hems with pearls and/or precious gems at all. The two Archangels’ Loroi show nothing at all to give the impression of expensive fabric, which is in keeping with Knight Templars’s philosophy of clothing.
The altar antependium was made in Cyprus workshop in the 1270s. Now the Knight Templars owned the entire island at that time.
The Archangels’ loroi are definitely mingling Western and Byzantine styles. We can even read Gothic inscriptions in Old French (SAINT GABIEL and SAINT MICHIEL).
METHINKS (whether Dan like it or not), the loroi her are most likely Templar depictions of the Byzantine loros.
METHINKS the knight Templars elite knew about the Shroud (now kept in Turin).
If the weaver did not try to represent what he thought was Yeshua’s double-length Shroud (now kept in Turin) can Hugh (anyone) account for the late 13th c. CE herringbone patterned loros STRONGLY evocative of the herringbone patterned TS?
Or to put it in other words, can you (anyone) account for such an iconographic departure from the traditional depiction of the Byzantine Loros symbolic of Yeshua’s shroud in the 1270s CE?
Hugh, you wrote: “You have to demonstrate your expertise (in live).”
I think (without much effort) I HAVE.
Re ‘the cigar’, I prefer a jasmin or rose chisha (water pipe) with a couple of glasses of Ksarak (Libanesse arak), thank you.
Dan, you wrote: “Max. Fine and good, you are an expert. But that doesn’t mean I think you’re right. I have no reasons to think so. You have given me none. I’m not an expert in anything. I’ve spent my career in business and I wouldn’t invest a nickle in what you say simply because you are an expert. In other words, no sale.”
I am NO salesman! I am a professional cryptologist trying not so much to convince other as to give them food for thought since the true point is NOT to have people buy into my ideas, it is to reach the archaeological truth!
…too reach the archaeological truth in spite of Shroud anti-authenticists AND authenticists!
BTW ‘Methinks’ the way the loros ORIGINALLY used to be wrapped all around the Byzantine Emperor’s body was reminiscent of the way Yeshua appeared to Mary Magadalene all wrapped up in his sindon in the same way as a (Second Temple) garderner…
you wrote: “which shows the inside of the loros not only as it sweeps up from the waist to the arm, but also as it drops down the other side”
Don’t you forget here the Archangels with loros are late 11th and12 and late 13h c. CE. ORIGINALLY (4th c. CE) the end hanging out of the Loros at waist level was a cloth on its own. The ancient loros was symbolic of the the Shroud of Christ while ‘the end hanging out of it at waist level’ originally the mappa (manipulus/sudarium in the Western Church) was symbolic of the Mandylion.
Typo: ORIGINALLY (6TH C. CE) the end hanging out of the Loros at waist level was a cloth on its own.
Now Hugh, in conjunction with the Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco Archangel Saint Michael’s loros symbolic of the Shroud of Christ, take a good look at the face of Christ (throning in majesty just above the archangel in loros).
The very name of Michael is derived from the question מי כאל mī kāʼēl in Hebrew meaning “Who is like God? Answer: גַּבְרִיאֵל, the “Hero/Champion of G-od aka Gabriel aka Yeshua.
Second answer: רָפָאֵל (Rafa’el) which meant “the one G-od has healed”.
…and established in eternal life (Majesty Throne).
Saint Michael, Grandson antependium
The same herringbone pattern (that appears on Saint Michael’s collar and tunic hem and (11-13th c. CE) Loros depicted as a long strip, dropping down straight in front to below the waist, and with the portion behind pulled round to the front and hung gracefully over the left arm) appears on a Western-style thurible too.
That’s funny. Ian Wilson, who was the editor of the BSTS newsletter for a number of years, wrote about the loros, in fact even provided an illustration to stress his point, years ago. It was in connection with the Justinian solidi.
Remarkable! Well spotted, Louis. https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n30part1.pdf for those who wish to review Wilson’s article.
BTW on the solidus obverse we have a TS-like Christ face and on its reverse the loros symbolic of Yeshua’s Shroud. Ring some bells?
And we also have these two depictions (by Westerners in Cyprus, most likely Templars) of an herringbone patterned loros on the Grandson altar antependium depicted as an herringbone cloth. This is bad news for authenticists indeed!
Typo:This is bad news for anti-authenticists indeed!
I do understand your desperate intellectual resistance to the iconographic truth. A picture is worth a thousand words if you’re IN GOOD FAITH. Too bad good photographs of the Grandson antependium two archangels and the Holy Mary are not on line! It would have rapidly settled the matter and show how Hugh was wrong in his flawed and misleading interpretation (‘I think they are just patterns’).
The true fact is the herringbone patterns of the loroi here ARE ANYTHING BUT ‘just patterns’ since the loros is symbolic of Yeshua’s Shroud and it is depicted on soldii’s reverses in conjunction with a TS face-like Pantocrator Christ on the obverse!
Hugh, you could write further about this piece of evidence and also absorb something of Max’s research, at least what you find convincing.
There are some interesting Justinian coins, Louis, it’s true. During his first reign a number of long-haired, bearded Christs certainly appeared, but this image quickly disappeared, so that the coins of his second reign depict a beardless Christ. The coins of the intermediate emperors do not show Christ at all. The fact that the emperor wears a loros is not significant; emperors are often depicted wearing a loros throughout the history of Byzantine coinage.
One attempt to explain the ephemeral appearance of the bearded Christ suggests that he appeared in the Roman (bearded) style after 692, when Justinan was earnestly trying to reconcile the Eastern and Western Christian traditions, but that this was dropped a little later – in favour of the beardless Byzantine tradition – as the split between the two churches continued to widen.
That is true, the coins appear to have been minted according to the emperor’s whims and fancies, or in keeping with thought, as well as the conflicts, during the period. This topic requires more research and I trust Max will have some sources with images.
You wrote “this image quickly disappeared, so that the coins of his second reign depict a beardless Christ.”
MOST LIKELY YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!
On October 23, 2012 at 12:36 pm, I wrote:
“On the coin obverse, Christ does look like a rejuvenated portrait of the Byzantine emperor Justinian II (himself).”
Most likely the solidus obverse shows a portrait of the Emperor Justinian II as both a young man a,d the representative of Christ on earth, NOT the depiction of a beardless Christ!
And on August 5, 2013 at 2:44 am, I also wrote:
“The (…) symbolic mash-up (Young Emperor featured as Christ Emmanuel) is quite obvious on solidi minted after Justinian II return to the throne.”
I respect your opinon Max, as I’m sure you respect mine.
But I disagree. Most likely the Byzantine mint reverted to a beardless Christ because the bearded one lost favour.
This was the conclusion of a study in live in reply to “A Question from Giulio Fanti about a Byzantine Coin”.
On August 1, 2013 at 6:29 am, I wrote re Byzantine Emperor featured as Christ Emmanuel:
“The over stylized face-type on the coin obverse of Manuel I
(1143-1180 CE) is common to many late 12th – mid 13th century CE Byzantine coin side featuring the beardless, nimbate head of Christ Emmanuel (see Isaiah 7:14).
Besides the word-image play on the name of the emperor “Manuel”, an allusion to his young age (24) at his accession to the throne and the Byzantine tradition to use the portrait of Christ as an apotropaic shield (i.e. as both a protection of Christ for the emperor and the coin owner), the three roundels (two and one) of eyes and chin distributed in the manner of the Greek capital letter delta (Δ) upside down, could have either simply been an iconic reduction of the face or featured an interpretation of the Christ Emmanuel as a hypostasis of the Holy Trinity or both.
The Greek capital letter delta (Δ) motive in conjunction with three roundels and a portrait of Christ can also be observed in the Sakli/Hidden Church fresco of the Holy Face of the Holy Mandylion (see Sakli Church Image of Edessa Wilson The Shroud.jpg).
Symbolically speaking, as an upside down triangle (▽), the Greek capital letter delta motive could refer to Christ incarnation on earth as Byzantines believed that their emperor should represented Christ on Earth while the three beaded ear ring echoes the three roundels (two and one) of eyes and chin.
Quite possibly this could be a portrait of the young emperor Manuel, but with symbolic allusion to Christ. A visual mash-up if you will.”
I imagine I have lost an important quotation. Where is said that the loros is a symbol of the Shroud?
Although it is clearly derived from the pre-Christian toga, the loros seems to have taken on the symbolism of the shroud . http://dressforsuccession.weebly.com/byzantine-origins.html says a bit about it.
This is a theory. That is what I have been able to find out so far. I did not find any document that says that the loros symbolized the shroud of Jesus. This is contradictory with the fact that the loros was worn by diverse dignitaries in the course of other ceremonies than Easter and in its origin was a symbol of Roman power.
My particular question is if some document says the loros was the symbol of the shroud of Christ.
From my book “From the mandylion of Edessa”, etc, pp. 71-72:
“But we know that the Byzantines believed that Jesus was laid in the tomb wrapped in bands: therefore, on Easter Day, in memory of this, the imperial dignitaries would “wrap themselves with splendid loroi, in imitation of the burial bands of Christ.” (Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, II,52) The λῶρος was a long and narrow scarf, adorned with precious stones, which was worn wrapped around the body by the emperor and certain dignitaries. This quotation is noteworthy: evidently, in Constantinople at the time of Constantine, it was believed that Jesus’ body had been wrapped with long and narrow bands (σπάργανα)”
But it hardly signifies anything, as we know that in Constantinople there were three alleged burial cloths of jesus, including almost certainly our Shroud of Turin.
And Christ is always depicted in Byzantine iconography as wrapped in bands- I saw a wonderful example just a couple of weeks ago in the Greek monastery of Hosios Loukas. If the Shroud has been as influential as Wilson et.al. suggest as a source for iconography they would not have gone on showing Christ wrapped in bands.
Grazie, Andrea. I have your book, but one cannot get all into his head.
But the quotation from De Ceremoniis… says the loros was only used in Easter. This is contradictory with other data.See here: Michael F. Hendy;Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 4: Alexius I to Michael VIII, 1081-126, Harvard University press, 1999, pp.153ss. On line in Google Books.
I do not know (and no time to verify). Probably there is a difference about the use of the emperors and dignitaries (only Easter) and the emperors only (also in other occasions). It could be useful E. Condurachi, “Sur l’origine et l’évolution du loros impérial”, in «Arta si Archeologia», n. 11-12 (1935-1936), pp. 37-45.
David Mo wrote: “Where is said that the loros is a symbol of the Shroud?” and “This is a
Not al all! This is Byzantine Imperial symbolism!
As insignia triumphalia heavy with Christian symbolism, the Emperor’s loros (or long scarf adorned with precious pearls and gems) & mappa (or shorter scarf — or mandylion in Byzantine Greek — adorned with a lining of roundels) had spiritual significance and were used to visually tie the identity of the ruler with his symbolic source of power (The Risen/Triumphant Christ (in conjunction with his Holy Sindon and Holy Mandylion) as selected and adapted textile for imperial symbolism.
The loros and mappa were reserved specifically for the emperor. According to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, the loros and mappa symbolized Christ’s burial winding sheets (a long and a much shorter one). Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos also says that this type ceremonial scarfs should not be worn by any other country’s rulers, but that there were specifically meant as a gift to the Byzantines. As such, the loros along with the mappa were only worn on the holiest days of the year including Easter when the emperor represented the risen Christ.
With the passing of time i.e. in the late 13th c.CE, the loros and the mappa tended to merged into one ceremonial piece of lavishly adorned cloth (see Andronikos II Palaiologos, r. 1272 – 1328, artist unknown, Byzantine period art compare to 11th c. CE Saint Michael fresco, Sant’Angelo in Formis).
David M, Allow me to ask you the same two questions I previously aked and no anti-autenticists here has yet been able to answer:
If the Cyprus weaver did not try to represent what he thought was Yeshua’s double-length Shroud (now kept in Turin) can YOU account for the late 13th c. CE herringbone patterned loros STRONGLY evocative of the herringbone patterned TS?
Or to put it in other words, can YOU account for such an iconographic departure from the traditional depiction of the Byzantine Loros symbolic of Yeshua’s shroud in the 1270s CE?
Waiting for your substantiated reply (if you can)….
Reminder for David Mo:
The ‘Templar/Cyprus’ loros as a LONG, NARROW HERRINGBONE PATTERNED stole or scarf wrapped around the Archangel’s body is BOTH symbolic of Yeshua’s burial wrapping sheet or SINDON (in which most likely he was draped when he first appeared as a gardener to Mary Magdalene) AND evocative of the double-length herringbone patterned Turin Shroud.
Re the use of sadin or sindon worn a workwear by Second Temple period gardeners and the latter’s hairlessness (any faithful pious Judean should be able to spot them from afar in their preoccupation with ritual cleanliness (as gardeners used to be in contact with manure) se Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, 1923).
To see in light of the HERRINGBONE PATTERNED LITURGICAL cope of Saint Louis d’Anjou at about the same time (HERRINGBONE PATTERN used as background for The Three Marys at theTomb scene)
In the Grandson antependium Saint Michael’s loros BOTH Byzantine and most likely Templar influences are at work.
Typo: the Grandson antependium Saint Gabriel & Saint Michael’s loroi
Re Christ’s scourge marks comparative iconography (15th c. CE Westren realistic depiction as opposed to 13th . CE Byzantine cryptic depictions), see for instance:
(a c. 1465 CE Western fairly realistic depiction of Christ palmette-like shaped scourge marks, altar Frontal with the Man of Sorrows (detail). Wool, linen and metal thread. Germany
(a 1268 CE Byzantine Armenian symbolic depiction of Christ’s red-palmette-patterned white himation or sindon, Washington, Freer Gallery of Art, MS 32.18, Gospel, 1268, Armenian artist probably T’oros Roslin, Christ Appears to the Apostles after the Resurrection, p.535. Photo: Dickran Kouymjian)
Comments are closed.