More on the Long Cloth Mandylion


(Please comment in the original Long Cloth Mandylion thread.)

Rice Professor writes:

Here are some possibly useful links. These links contain the picture in question. Plan to use Google translate unless you are brilliant. I think this is a picture of the shroud.

(Please comment in the original Long Cloth Mandylion thread.)

A Long Cloth Mandylion?

O.K. writes:

Some time ago I found an interesting illustration of a "long" Mandylion. First in the Holger Kersten&Elmar Gruber book "Jezus ofiarą spisku" (the polish edition of The Jesus Conspiracy) I provide a scan from it [Illustration1]. The picture is not adressed anywhere in the book, and as the source is given simply "Bibliothéque Nationale". The same picture is reproduced in Antonio Teseo blog, who gives the source as Bibliothéque Nationale, ms lat.2688, dated 1280-85.

Another time when I saw this illustration is in Francesac Saracino 2007 documentary LaSacra Sindone; la storia. [Illustration2]. It confirmed that the illustration is generally monochromatic. However it is certain that the cloth is "long" (just look on the position of hands and the frame [Illustration3]), even though nothing more except the face is seen on it. It shows that the cloth have been considered by some as much larger than often claimed, larger than just handkerchief. Possibly large enough to contain the image of the whole body (as implied by Codex Vossianus and Ordericus Vitalis), even though, as I said, only face is depicted on the presented illustration.

Illustration 1:


Illustration 2:


Illustration 3:


Comment Promoted: The Stavronikita Epitaphios

imageDaveb writes in the Discussion about the Pray Codex and it’s relation to the Shroud is over? thread:

Some two years ago on this site, there was considerable discussion [Herringbone Weave within Stavronikita Epitaphios (Revisited)] 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.

I had said then that the implications are significant. Look very carefully at the weave pattern on the burial shroud pictured (two photographs) and the enlarged section showing the cloth below the shoulder.

Photo 1:image

Photo 2:


Section beneath shoulder showing herringbone:



It’s Art, Not Science

imageDaveb, just last evening, wrote in a comment:

I personally see no hope of convincing those who swallow camels and strain at gnats and are predisposed against authenticity, no matter what proofs might come to light! it is too much of a challenge for their world-view. There is no other ancient object for which an explanation can readily be found, but one. And they yet cry “ignorance is no argument of proof!” Make one! Too difficult!

It reminded me of a recent conversation with a friend.

Him:  You say on your blog that you think the shroud is probably real.

Me:  Yes.

Him:  So how do you think the image was created?

Me:  I have no idea. I have never seen a hypothesis I liked.

Him:  Why, because it couldn’t work or because it didn’t fit your faith paradigm?

Me:  I like to this it is simply because it could not work but to be honest it is both.

Him:  So why do you think it is probably real?

Me:  Because I don’t think it is fake.

Him:  Okay but in science that is a fallacy. It is an appeal to ignorance.

Me:  But we are not talking about science.  This is a history of art problem.  We’ve looked. Admittedly, the focus has been European artistic methods and we need to look more for possible methods coming from the Middle East, even maybe Asia and Africa. It has been what, several decades or more than a century that we have been looking for a way that the images could have been manmade. Only a scientist would call that an appeal to ignorance.

Him:  But scientist are working on ways.

Me:  Art forms are not the product of scientific endeavor.  These scientists are more like Van Gogh or Monet than Einstein.  In the end a new art form that probably never existed isn’t going to make the shroud “improbably” real. Showing how it could have been made is not unlike an appeal to ignorance.  It’s art, not science.

Navy Seals at the Battle of Gettysburg? A Picture of the Shroud in 1036?

If it is the shroud perhaps it explains the poker holes

imageIs this what is now known as the Shroud of Turin being carried through the streets of Constantinople.?

(Click on the picture for a larger view)

Pam Moon writes:

. . .

Last year I spent a lot of time with the Madrid Skylitzes and I wondered if you would be interested in the image which doesn’t fit at all.

It is one of the finest images in the Madrid Skylitzes and the one every google search picks up.

But it is the equivalent of of putting a modern day company of Navy Seals into a picture of the Battle of Gettysburg. 

The army in the image is the Varangian Guard (pg 16/17) It doesn’t fit – it is 160 years out of date. 

Is the image actually of the Shroud in the 1036 exposition through the streets of Constantinople which has been redacted by a later copyist to make it fit a wrong part of history?

If it is perhaps it explains the poker holes on the Shroud?

Pam has put together a paper, The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople? Paper I: An analysis of the L Shaped markings on the Shroud of Turin and an examination of the Holy Mandylion and Holy Shroud in the Madrid Skylitzes .   Take the time to read it. It is quite fascinating.

Pictures of Ostentations

There has been a lot of discussions in the comments about clergy holding the shroud during exhibitions, or ostentations.  David Rolfe has a nice montage on his website, The Enigma of the Shroud of Turin. To view the montage, CLICK HERE and then scroll down the page. David writes:

Countless times over the centuries (even millennia if the C14 is wrong) the Shroud has been held up for display and, until only a few decades ago, this was always by grasping the corners. The potential for contamination here is infinitely greater than anywhere else on the cloth. The associated wear and tear may also have made it necessary to carry out repairs.

There is another picture on David’s website. He tell me it his favorite and I just might agree. Click on the picture to be linked to the larger version on his site.


FYI: From

os·ten·ta·tion [os-ten-tey-shuhn, -tuhn-]


1. pretentious or conspicuous show, as of wealth or importance; display intended to impress others.

2. Archaic. the act of showing or exhibiting; display.

More on the Dislocated Shoulder.

Great images to ponder

imageCarlos has sent a series of links on the dislocated shoulder question that Vatican Insider had written about as though it was new news. (See: Breaking News: New Injury Details Seen on the Shroud of Turin). Carlos provides linkage to the blog, La Sábana y los Escépticos

This is fascinating information. Google and Bing do excellent translations, particularly if you are using, respectively, the associated browsers Chrome or Internet Explorer.

More on the Abgar Icon

Can you really apply Vignon to this icon?

imageSr. Ann writes:

I was particularly pleased with what Yannick Clemente and Russ Breault had to say. As you know I have concerns about the efficacy of the Vignon Markings for determining if a work of art was derived or inspired by the Holy Shroud. Even if I’m wrong about Vignon, I doubt that even a few of his markings can be identified in the Mandylion being held by King Abgar V. I am referring, of course, to the Abgar icon at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. What do you think?

Click on the icon to see a larger size (900 x 1231)

And you are referring to Stephen Jones’ application of Vignon to that icon.

I share your concerns. The Vignon markings, themselves, are the stuff of subjectivity. They vary in significance, one marking to another. For instance, like you, I have no confidence in the open-top square, thinking that it is quite common in art; I would be surprised if there weren’t many instances of it in pictures of Jesus even if we knew for certain that the shroud was a late-medieval fake. I may disagree on other markings. Vignon is an old standard much in need of validation.

Having said that, however, I want to give Stephen Jones the benefit of the doubt and will wait for his higher resolution image of the top-right quadrant of the icon or at least of the inner picture of Jesus.

Stephen ponders (sort of) if this picture-within-a-picture-within-a-picture “alone proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Edessa cloth/ Mandylion was the Turin Shroud ‘four-doubled’ (tetradiplon)?”

It is a tag question. If I read Stephen correctly he thinks so and I would be thrilled if he could make the case. We need to wait for a higher resolution image.

A major concern is the size and image quality of the icon. Do click on the above icon to examine it. How big do you imagine the icon to be (does anyone know)? Try to imagine the size of the face of Jesus. An inch? Two? Three? What is the quality of the encaustic paint (wax) on the icon? Look at Abgar’s robe over his right knee. Why might some think that the faces seem to be in better condition (just thinking out loud).  At what point is higher resolution needed, particularly if it produces an image that is larger than real? Do we risk, “I think I see problems?” If you are going to say, “beyond any reasonable doubt,” is the analysis of this work of art thorough enough?

In the meantime, I find these web-based images of the top-right quadrant interesting. The ascending sizes are pixel counts and do not necessarily relate to true spatial resolution.

  • At Wikimedia  (321 x 411) – Very common on the web. I use it often.
  • In Digital Journal (782 x 1001) – Used by Stephen in his blog Aug 7, 2012
  • On Stephen’s blog (1620 x 2000) – Included May 18, 2014

Does anyone know the size of this icon? Can you really apply Vignon to it?

The Vignon Markings Issue: A Promoted Comment

imageAfter many thoughtful comments in the posting Vignon Was Wrong But We’ll Carry On, Yannick Clément wrote:

I have not followed the comments of people on this page… But here’s my personal opinion on the Vignon’s marking issue:

In William Meacham’s paper « The Authentication of the Turin Shroud », he cites Philip McNair, a Doctor in Philosophy who studied the history of Christianity, who said, very cleverly: “It seems to me otiose, if not ridiculous, to spend time arguing… about the identity of the man represented in the Turin Shroud. Whether genuine or fake, the representation is obviously Jesus Christ.”

And why could this man [have] said this with so much confidence? Because of the great similarity that exists between the Shroud man’s face and the most common depictions of Christ in ancient Byzantine art, starting with the Christ Pantocrator icons. Vignon could have been maybe wrong on some points (in fact, I’m pretty sure he was on a few), but if we look at the global portrait of the situation, he was certainly correct: Most of the ancient Byzantine representation of Christ (and of course, I include the Mandylion in that group) are showing great similarity with the face on the Shroud. So much in fact that it’s certainly not a coincidence due solely to hazard. It’s evident that there’s a connection there that is strong enough to be taken as a good piece of evidence for the presence of the Shroud as early as the apparition of the first known Christ Pantocrator icon, around the year 500 A.D.

Note: Image is a clipped region taken from an image in Wikimedia and flipped 90 degrees clockwise. It “is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art”  and is thus in the public domain in the United States.

Name that picture

imageMark Pedro went to the STERA Facebook page to ask:

Barry ..saw this artist take on the man upon the shroud ..I have not seen it before ..are you familiar with it you know the artist ?thank you and have a blessed day

Barrie replied, promptly, as he always does:

I have seen this image on the internet for many years, superimposed over an image of the Shroud. However, I do not know the artist. Some have actually claimed the image is "miraculous" but I am not sure in what way.

Ever seen it before? Any answers? Any other thoughts? It seems to be an overlay. What am I seeing in the margins, particularly on the left and the bottom? Could this be a morphed image?

Click on the picture above to see a larger version.

Stephen Jones’ New Discovery

clip_image001He is up with a blowup of a part of the picture on the right, as described thus in Wikimedia Commons:

Abgar with the Image of Edessa. Photo of 10th century icon at St Catherine’s monastery, Mount Sinai. This is a wing of a triptych, the missing central panel of which presumably showed the Image. “Abgar” resembles portraits of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, in whose reign the Image was brought to Constantinople in 944; the icon probably dates to soon after this. It is the earliest surviving representation of the Image or Mandylion.

CLICK HERE to see Stephen’s blowup as it is displayed in his blog space at Blog Spot. He wonders in his own interrogatory-styled caption of the blowup of the face of Jesus if this is “the most significant Shroud discovery since the Pray Codex?”


A few inches down the page in his posting he tells us that “According to a leading Shroud pro-authenticist who does not want his name to be mentioned, this is, as far as he is aware, a new discovery by me.” (me = Stephen)

What was discovered? That the picture within a picture has reddish mark where the reversed 3-shaped bloodstain is found on the Shroud of Turin and 13 of the 15 Vignon markings.

I agree with the anonymous “pro-authenticist. This may be a new discovery. I don’t recall it being mentioned before. And Stephen can use my name. The only thing is I don’t see many of the Vignon markings yet.

Don’t worry if you don’t see them, either. Stephen has a better picture that he just obtained permission to use and he will show this to us later, in his next posting. He probably didn’t need to get permission (but maybe so in Australia) because a U.S. court has ruled that a “slavish” photograph of flat art that is in the public domain is not protected by copyright. Read this interesting story by Bernard Starr in HuffPo.

The important thing is to see the  better picture. Why not show it now?

imageI don’t think issues regarding the Vignon Markings are resolved. See Vignon Was Wrong But We’ll Carry On. There are 53 comments on that posting. It is too bad that Stephen refuses to read comments because there is a lot of valuable information from very knowledgeable people in those comments.

There is also: A Guest Posting by O.K. – Even in China They Know Jesus’ Characteristic Features

As for quoting from Stephen’s blog, he is attempting to impose a limitation of his own making on how much can be quoted. I always apply fair use principles as defined by U.S. Copyright Act. I think that this should suffice.  Keep in mind that I am publishing my blog in the United States. Here are the guidelines as they are stated on the WordPress site:

There aren’t hard and fast rules when it comes to defining fair use. However, the Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to consider:

1. The purpose and character of the use: Why and how is the material used? Using content for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is usually fair. Additionally, using material in a transformative manner, that is to say, in a manner that adds new expression, meaning, or insight, is also more likely to be considered fair use over an exact reproduction of a work. What’s more, nonprofit use is favored over commercial use.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work: Is the original factual or fiction, published or unpublished? Factual and published works are less protected, so its use is more likely to be considered fair.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: How much of the material is used? If the “heart” (the most memorable or significant portion) or the majority of a work wasn’t used, it’s more likely to be considered fair.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work: Does the use target a different market/audience? If so, it’s more like to be fair use. It’s important to note that although criticism or parody may reduce a market, it still may be fair because of its transformative nature. In other words, if the criticism of a product influences people to stop buying the product, that doesn’t count as having an “effect on the market for the work” under copyright law.

It should be noted that Stephen quotes more than anyone I have ever encountered in blogging. In fact, he will often copy almost every paragraph of a news story into his blog and inject commentary between sentences. One example is his criticism of an ANSA English News service article, “Holy Shroud to be exhibited April 19-June 24 2015.”  I could list dozens of examples or anyone may click here for a representative list of your quotation-loaded postings.

Paper Chase: A Revolution Indeed (with revised PDF file)

O.K. has put together an extensive file, Western-type crucifixes, Shroud of Turin, Crown of Thorns, and the revolution of 12th-14th century. It is a 45 page, 9MB PDF file. Be sure to examine the charts, Q&As and notes starting on about page 31.


Mandylion of Edessa Images

imageSr. Ann sends along a link on Pinterest to: 

A collection of photo images related to the "Mandylion of Edessa", a semi-legendary relic of Christianity, a square or rectangular piece of cloth bearing the image of the face of Jesus Christ, which first appeared in the city of Edessa in the 6th century. Many believe that this relic and the face on the Shroud of Turin are one and the same.

I count 29 different images, all with captions and most with extended captions. Interesting. It should be a useful reference.

Pinterest seems interesting. I tried a search with “Mandylion of Edessa” and got similar, but different, results. It is different than Google Images.

A Guest Posting by O.K. – Even in China They Know Jesus’ Characteristic Features

imageDavid Mo gave reference to the article:

It is indeed interesting, and even mentions the Shroud. However its conclusion state:

The image [of Christ] was created through popular (low) culture and the Church had nothing to do with it. Legends and “authentic” images that came into being under low culture have generated a unanimous archetype rather than an archetype that created legends.

imageReally? One should consider the following:

Each of these Holy Figures have been portrayed with various looks, dependent on style, epoch and geographical area –their features vary significantly depending on those factors.

But since the 6th century onwards there is one dominant universal model for adult Jesus Christ with long hair, beard and skinny face!

The basic question: WHY?

Pressure of the masses? Why not in the other cases?

Vignon Markings: A Gospel of Serendipity?

imageA reader writes:

The honest way to use the Vignon marks is not to dwell on works of art that seem to prove a desired POV, but on many works that question that POV. Create a comprehensive inventory of pantokrator portraits, death portraits including epitáphios, resurrection portraits including man of sorrows depictions and lamentation scenes. This should be done without regard to the Vignon marks and other features. For each work of art try to assess geography, period and artistic style.  Then inventory the features on each work and characterize them by stylization. The results might astound us.

It is time to stop proclaiming the gospel of serendipity on your blog and do the real work.  In the end the Vignon marks may prove significant. I am hopeful.

Whereas I think some of the Vignon markings may be significant, I am also someone who is asking questions. This is a call for a systemized study. It sounds like a good idea but will anyone who is qualified really do it? That takes objectivity.

Did Leonardo da Vinci Accidentally Invent 3D Pictures

imageBT, a regular reader of this blog, brings this to our attention. This is interesting, the stuff of potential misunderstanding by some, and fuel, probably, for new da Vinci conspiracy theories. It is a paper, Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa entering the next dimension by Claus-Christian Carbon and Vera M Hesslinger in Perceptions (volume 42, pages 887-893).


For several of Leonardo da Vinci’s paintings, such as The Virgin and Child with St Anne or the Mona Lisa, there exist copies produced by his own studio. In case of the Mona Lisa, a quite exceptional, rediscovered studio copy was presented to the public in 2012 by the Prado Museum in Madrid. Not only does it mirror its famous counterpart superficially; it also features the very same corrections to the lower layers, which indicates that da Vinci and the ‘copyist’ must have elaborated their panels simultaneously. On the basis of subjective (thirty-two participants estimated painter–model constellations) as well as objective data (analysis of trajectories between landmarks of both paintings), we revealed that both versions differ slightly in perspective. We reconstructed the original studio setting and found evidence that the disparity between both paintings mimics human binocular disparity. This points to the possibility that the two Giocondas together might represent the first stereoscopic image in world history.

This article has supplementary online material:

    The full paper is behind a pay wall.

More on How Valid are the Vignon Markings?



O.K. writes:

Hello Dan. May I ask you to post this gallery of Pantocrators & mandylion compared to the face of the Shroud + Vignon marks? Maybe this would be convincing presentation that (in my opinion) assuming that all those faces are not derived from the Shroud is absurd. Having some time, maybe I will try to put the Vignon marks on all those portraits, but let the public play with them first.

Okay, here it is: Gallery of Pantocrators & Mandylions+2002 Durante positive photograph of the Shroud face (taken from Shroud Scope)+ Vignon marks (taken from

By my count (and opinion), there are 19 20 works of art, a diagram and the the face on the shroud in one very helpful PDF file.

How Valid are the Vignon Markings?

clip_image001[10]A reader writes:

I suggest that you only focus on the Shroud of Turin content on Stephen Jones’ site. Ignore what he says about you or your blog. 

Others, in comments and emails, have offered similar good advice.

Okay, here goes. On April 14, Stephen wrote:

Vignon paid particular attention to a topless square (Vignon marking 2 above) on the 8th-century Christ Pantocrator in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, Rome[11] Artistically it made no sense, yet it appears on other Byzantine Christ portraits, including the 11th century Daphni Pantocrator, the 10th century Sant’Angelo in Formis fresco, the 10th century Hagia Sophia narthex mosaic, and the 11th century "Christ the Merciful" mosaic in Berlin[12]. And at the equivalent point on the Shroud face, there is exactly the same feature where it is merely a flaw in the weave[13].

I disagree. Artistically, a topless square, or at least the right and left vertical lines of one, are quite common. It makes perfect artistic sense as some of the pictures, below, show. Maybe the artist copied the lines from the faint lines on the shroud or from a statue of Aristotle. Maybe he simply introduced it artistically.
In fairness to Stephen, he is only saying what many before him have said. I had believed it was important. It was something that helped me believe that the shroud was real. Then, one day I was shaving. (I still believe it is real but I’ve discounted this at least.)
Thoughts? Should other Vignon markings be questioned as well? Should the whole concept be reconsidered? Or, am I mistaken?

Paper Chase: Pam Moon Suggests Lucas Cranach the Elder Painted the Lier Copy

clip_image001Pam Moon has published another interesting paper, The Lier Shroud and Lucas Cranach the Elder (pictured in his self portrait) The synopsis Pam offers reads:

This paper argues that the artist who created the Shroud of Turin copy known as the Lier (or Lierre) Shroud may be Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553). It examines the signature on the Shroud and compares it with the different ways Cranach signed his name. It looks at Cranach’s relationship with Maximilian 1 the Holy Roman Emperor (1459 -1519) who was thought to have commissioned copies of the Shroud. It examines the similarity of the Lier copy to the Shroud of Turin. And finally it examines other examples of Cranach’s work particularly his Christ as the Man of Sorrows dated 1515.

The conclusion reads:

Without a more detailed examination of the signature by an art expert it is not possible to confirm that Lucas Cranach painted the Lier Shroud in 1516. However it is a possibility that could be researched further. Certainly his accurate paintings of Christ as the Man of Sorrows deserve more attention from Shroud researchers. In favour of Cranach being the painter of the Lier Shroud: what are the chances of there being two world class artists who worked for Maximilian 1 and Margaret of Austria, who spoke the Old Nuremberger dialect and had a surname beginning with a C viewing the Shroud of Turin in 1515 – 1516? The probability tips towards Cranach being the creator of the Lier Shroud.

If Cranach does prove to be the painter then we can learn more about the Shroud from his association: Cranach was a Renaissance master and capable of very accurate drawings. For example we can learn about the nature of the whip marks on the arms; possibly how the dislocation appeared before the fire; the length and condition of the cloth before the fire. It would confirm that in 1516 the corners were not missing and that there was probably more
cloth beyond the feet than we can currently see.

Finally, if Cranach is the artist it raises problems for the medieval Radiocarbon date. If a painter as accomplished as Lucas Cranach the Elder cannot come close to replicating the complexity of the Shroud in his copy, how can we possibly believe an unknown medieval artist could create it from scratch?


The paper is rich with examples. I found it fascinating.

I do have a problem with the last paragraph. It doesn’t make sense unless you are thinking of a painting of a painting. The notion that if Cranach is the artist of the Lier copy, it is a problem for the medieval results for carbon dating of the shroud seems to be an afterthought. The subject of carbon dating isn’t even mentioned before the next to last sentence of the paper.

Good Friday


Christ of Saint John of the Cross by Salvador Dalí

A friend of mine, a Jesuit priest, told me that this painting was, “the Father’s view from above.” As such, he said, it does not have any nails or blood. Theologically, that may be interesting, but Dali tells us that he was inspired by a dream to paint it this way.

According to Wikipedia:

imageThe painting is known as the "Christ of Saint John of the Cross", because its design is based on a drawing by the 16th-century Spanish friar John of the Cross. The composition of Christ is also based on a triangle and circle (the triangle is formed by Christ’s arms; the circle is formed by Christ’s head). The triangle, since it has three sides, can be seen as a reference to the Trinity, and the circle may be an allusion to Platonic thought. The circle represents Unity: all things do exist in the "three" but in the four, merry they be.

There is more at Wikipedia.

imageThe image shown above is intentionally low resolution and is not suitable for commercial printing. As with the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, the use in this blog qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

At left is a photograph showing how the painting is exhibited at the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow, Scotland. Having been attacked and damaged once, it now must be protected behind a glass shield.

Faces of Jesus: Is a Shroud of Turin Genre Evolving?

clip_image001Melanie Jean Juneau, a mother on nine, has put up a collection of faces of Jesus, most derived from the Shroud of Turin in one way or another.

Does anyone know the artist of the last picture in her posting. I’ve seen it but that is all I know about it.

I think the portraits of Jesus based on the Shroud of Turin resemble the famous painting by Akiane that Cotton Burpo*, the boy who supposedly visited heaven, claims looks like Jesus. The upcoming movie about his visit should stir that up quite a bit.

Here is what Melanie says about the faces:

This first image is a 3-D image of the Risen Christ. from an image of The Shroud Of Turin.i Beside it is the shroud of Turin overlaid on the Sinai icons. In the second row both of the small light images on the left are called the Real Face of Jesus and are not a paintings but computer generated images from the Shroud of Turin, as seen on History Channel. The image on the right, in the second row is an actual painting but once again based on the Shroud. The last. large work of art is  also based on the shroud.large painting is beautiful, capturing a strong man with deep, compassionate eyes.Don’t think I’ve ever seen this painting of Jesus. I am not sure of the artist but it is my favorite.

What do you think? Is a new Shroud of Turin genre evolving?

* Wikipedia: Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back is a 2010 New York Times best-selling Christian book written by Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent. It was published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. The book documents the report of a near-death experience by Burpo’s then-four-year-old son, Colton. The book tells how the boy began saying he had visited heaven.

By April 2012 over one million ebooks had been sold.[1] A movie based off the book, Heaven Is for Real, is scheduled for release April 16, 2014.

Christian Post: The skeptic inside of us may knee-jerk away from going to see "Heaven Is for Real." However, may I suggest fighting that impulse and instead, taking yourself to see an extremely powerful movie that, in the end, is a movie about our own questions regarding life and the life-after.

The movie is about our humanness because nearly all of us question where it is we go when we die. We may not be part of a pastor’s family, and surely most of us have never had a near-death experience, but we go about our lives doing much like the Burpo family portrayed in the movie, doing the best they can at making sense of things in day-to-day living, until the unexplainable happens.

Another Enduring Belief Question: Jesus in the Nude

But can’t we argue that a nude jesus was still and extraordinary rarity

imageJoe Marino wrote last night:

There have been several discussions on the blog recently regarding long-held Shroud beliefs, e.g, whether the bloodstains went on the cloth before the image and re finding out the VP-8 image analyzer wasn’t actually used by NASA.

I saw the May/June issue of Biblical Archaeology Review at work and noticed a letter to the editor that pertains to another enduring belief:  that early and medieval artists never depicted Jesus in the nude (and thus the nude Shroud image was a point in favor of authenticity).

And here is the letter to the editor:

Crucifixion in the Nude:

I was quite taken by the two fascinating articles on crucifixion in your March/April 2013 issue.  One was Larry W. Hurtado’s Staurogram:  Earliest Depiction of Jesus’ Crucifixion,” the other Ben Witherington III’s “Images of Crucifixion:  Fresh Evidence.”  I was especially intrigued that two of the earliest crucifixions depicted men who were crucified in the nude.  While I have nothing to add to the early pictorial history of crucifixion, your readers might be interested to learn that there is at least one depiction of Christ, crucified in the nude, although he did not stay that way very long.  The illustration occurs on a Spanish polyptych painted in Barcelona in about 1350 ascribed to Ferrer Bassa and family.  In one panel he hangs on the cross nude.  In a subsequent panel he is clothed with a loincloth.  The episode is based on a devotional text (1), according to which he “is stripped, and is now nude before all he multitude for the third time, his wounds reopened by the adhesion of his garments to his flesh.  Now for the first tie the Mother beholds her Son thus taken and prepared for the anguish of death.  She is saddened and shamed beyond measure when she sees him entirely nude:  They did not leave him even his loincloth.  Therefore she hurries and approached the Son, embraces him, and girds him with the veil from her head ..”

This devotional text clearly inspired the artist.  The polyptych is permanently on view in Morgan’s study at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York.


imageI believe that the devotional text is pseudo-Bonaventure’s Meditationes passionis Christi; Devote meditatione sopra la passione del nostro Signore.

But can’t we argue that a nude jesus was still an extraordinary rarity