I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
That’s fine, I still have serious reservations on it. I am afraid the radiation event is not something I am willing to consider at the moment.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
irenaeuslyons
Guest
Thanks for your analysis. How is it you came to devote so much time studying the shroud? You mentioned earlier you commissioned repairs to test the French invisible mending hypothesis. So I am guessing your interest is a little deeper than most people. Just curious.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
( continued)
Gervase certainly never saw any of these relics, so derived his stories from other sources. The Edessa one may have come from the 10th or 11th century Codex Vossianus Latinus, which quotes Christ’s words to Abgar (in a letter) as: “If you truly want to see my face in actuality, I send you this linen cloth, on which you will be able to distinguish not only the form of my face, but my entire body, in its divinely transformed [human] state.” However, this is confused a little later when we learn that: “On the holy day of Easter, it divided itself into several different ages, being at the first hour of the day an infant, at the third truly a child, and at the sixth an adolescent, while at the ninth it appeared fully grown, in the state in which the son of God came to his passion and endured the suffering of the cross for the weight of our wicked sins.”
There is no possibility that this can refer to the Image of Edessa, even in the unlikely event that this cloth had been, as the Codex claims, still kept, as it has been from the earliest times, in the city of Edessa. What it may refer to is a mythical origin for some Byzantine liturgy, involving large cloths bearing images of Christ in infancy or death (melismos and epitaphios), the earliest versions of which seem to have looked more or less identical, and may have been interchanged during the course of some eucharistic rites.
This legend might in turn derive from the 8th century John Damascus’s De Imaginibus, where a full-length image of Christ is also mentioned. However this is so different from all the other descriptions of the Image of Edessa that it is more likely to be a conflation of that image with the “Image of God Incarnate”, otherwise called the Image of Camuliana, another acheiropoietos image in Constantinople, from yet another tradition.
That there were full length images of Christ in Constantinople is, I think, not at all unlikely, but attempts to link them to either the image of Edessa, beforehand, or the Shroud, afterwards, are, I think, insufficiently justified.
Gervase certainly never saw any of these relics, so derived his stories from other sources. The Edessa one may have come from the 10th or 11th century Codex Vossianus Latinus, which quotes Christ’s words to Abgar (in a letter) as: “If you truly want to see my face in actuality, I send you this linen cloth, on which you will be able to distinguish not only the form of my face, but my entire body, in its divinely transformed [human] state.” However, this is confused a little later when we learn that: “On the holy day of Easter, it divided itself into several different ages, being at the first hour of the day an infant, at the third truly a child, and at the sixth an adolescent, while at the ninth it appeared fully grown, in the state in which the son of God came to his passion and endured the suffering of the cross for the weight of our wicked sins.”
There is no possibility that this can refer to the Image of Edessa, even in the unlikely event that this cloth had been, as the Codex claims, still kept, as it has been from the earliest times, in the city of Edessa. What it may refer to is a mythical origin for some Byzantine liturgy, involving large cloths bearing images of Christ in infancy or death (melismos and epitaphios), the earliest versions of which seem to have looked more or less identical, and may have been interchanged during the course of some eucharistic rites.
This legend might in turn derive from the 8th century John Damascus’s De Imaginibus, where a full-length image of Christ is also mentioned. However this is so different from all the other descriptions of the Image of Edessa that it is more likely to be a conflation of that image with the “Image of God Incarnate”, otherwise called the Image of Camuliana, another acheiropoietos image in Constantinople, from yet another tradition.
That there were full length images of Christ in Constantinople is, I think, not at all unlikely, but attempts to link them to either the image of Edessa, beforehand, or the Shroud, afterwards, are, I think, insufficiently justified.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
One has to be careful here. All three samples showed approximately the same date, but statistical analysis suggests that the dates were sufficiently different to mean that each sample really was of a slightly different age. Trying to explain this has been the focus of several lines of thought since 1988. Authenticists promote the interpolation of more modern material in different proportions, or the nuclear radiation enthusiasts think the C14 was increasingly enriched in the direction of the body. Medievalists think minor contamination to be the answer, possibly of oil (as in ‘oil paint’) which is difficult to remove during the cleaning process.Only three postage sized samples, far away from the image, where C-14 tested. All showed the same date.
I think I fell into it, really. I have been an inquisitive scientist all my life, and was sufficiently intrigued by the work of Ian Wilson, in particular, and others, to pursue their primary sources. That’s when it all fell apart and I came to realise several things, although not all at once. Firstly that the primary sources are rarely as dogmatic as most interpreters claim, secondly that even quite serious (‘expert’) authenticists simply do not know, and do not want to know, the objections to their beliefs, and thirdly that most people with an opinion on the Shroud, for or against, owe it to very partial and sometimes completely incorrect sources. The first has made me a primary investigator into the primary sources, and the second and third have driven me to attempt to disseminate more balanced, and more correct, information, in blogs, and other publications.How is it you came to devote so much time studying the shroud?
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
the EMPEROR ROMANUS LECAPENUS & his reign, Runciman, 1929, pg.145:
"Edessa, though a devout Moslem city, was famed for possessing one of the most precious of Christian relics, an authentic portrait of Christ, the towel on which He had dried His face, leaving on it the impression, and which He had sent as a present to King Abgar of Edessa. To secure this relic would be the height of Christian excellence; and Curcuas, as he approached, announced that he would spare the town, release captives and make peace in exchange for the surrender of the image. The Edessans, . . sent to Bagdad for advice. . . .
Meanwhile Cucuas spent the summer in ravaging Mesopotamia. . . .
“At last, in early 944, as Curcuas lay out side the walls, the Edessans received word from Bagdad; and in exchange for two hundred prisoners and a peace treaty . . .they gave up the image. . . .
This holy triumph, more than all his hardly won battles, made John Curcuas the hero of the moment and the cynosure of all pious Greeks. . . .”
"Edessa, though a devout Moslem city, was famed for possessing one of the most precious of Christian relics, an authentic portrait of Christ, the towel on which He had dried His face, leaving on it the impression, and which He had sent as a present to King Abgar of Edessa. To secure this relic would be the height of Christian excellence; and Curcuas, as he approached, announced that he would spare the town, release captives and make peace in exchange for the surrender of the image. The Edessans, . . sent to Bagdad for advice. . . .
Meanwhile Cucuas spent the summer in ravaging Mesopotamia. . . .
“At last, in early 944, as Curcuas lay out side the walls, the Edessans received word from Bagdad; and in exchange for two hundred prisoners and a peace treaty . . .they gave up the image. . . .
This holy triumph, more than all his hardly won battles, made John Curcuas the hero of the moment and the cynosure of all pious Greeks. . . .”
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
History being written by the Victors. The most significant words of the passage Undead Rat quotes are “At last”. At last, indeed. The campaign had started two years previously, and no doubt both sides were looking for compromise. The Image of Edessa was appropriate tribute, provided both sides took it seriously. However, once it was achieved, what happened next?
"To the ordinary mortal the picture was in fact decidedly worn and dim; and its worthlessness as a work of art or as a portrait helped in the decline of its prestige.
For, like almost every icon that took the road to Constantinople, magnificent though the journey was, on its arrival the Image of Edessa fell into the background. There were too many rivals at Constantinople. In the Bucoleon chapel, where the Image was housed, there were the major relics of Christendom, the Crown of thorns, the Wood of the Cross, the Holy Blood, the Lance that pierced Our Lord’s side, His Seamless Coat, the Sponge that gave Him vinegar, and many others of almost equal rank. in such company this smudged piece of cloth was impressive only to those who knew its history. However, travellers to Constantinople continued to mention it amongst the objects to be noted in the great collection: William of Malmesbury, William of Tyre and Anthony of Novgorod, amongst others, put it in their lists, but gave many other relics precedence over it; and some visitors like the Scandinavian Nicholas of Thingeyrar apparently did not know clearly what it was. It was a sad afternoon to its great career."
Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa. Stephen Runciman, 1931
The triumphant General Kourkouas was almost immediately dismissed, although he seems have been quietly reinstated a couple of years later.
"To the ordinary mortal the picture was in fact decidedly worn and dim; and its worthlessness as a work of art or as a portrait helped in the decline of its prestige.
For, like almost every icon that took the road to Constantinople, magnificent though the journey was, on its arrival the Image of Edessa fell into the background. There were too many rivals at Constantinople. In the Bucoleon chapel, where the Image was housed, there were the major relics of Christendom, the Crown of thorns, the Wood of the Cross, the Holy Blood, the Lance that pierced Our Lord’s side, His Seamless Coat, the Sponge that gave Him vinegar, and many others of almost equal rank. in such company this smudged piece of cloth was impressive only to those who knew its history. However, travellers to Constantinople continued to mention it amongst the objects to be noted in the great collection: William of Malmesbury, William of Tyre and Anthony of Novgorod, amongst others, put it in their lists, but gave many other relics precedence over it; and some visitors like the Scandinavian Nicholas of Thingeyrar apparently did not know clearly what it was. It was a sad afternoon to its great career."
Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa. Stephen Runciman, 1931
The triumphant General Kourkouas was almost immediately dismissed, although he seems have been quietly reinstated a couple of years later.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
The “At last” refers to the Edessan’s delayed reception of Bagdad’s decision that the they should accept Curcuas’s terms and not to Curcuas’s campaign or Edessa’s ability to resist. The idea that either side was worn out and “looking for compromise” is nothing more than supposition. Neither Runciman nor Segal* mention any attack on Edessa actually being made by General Curcuas or being repulsed by the Edessans.
Further more, Runciman’s description of the Image as a “smudged piece of cloth” is consistent with the Shroud of Turin’s appearance. In the 19th century, before the Shroud was photographed, it had fallen into exactly the same “sad afternoon” as had the Image of Edessa.
EDESSA ‘THE BLESSED CITY’, Segal, 1970
Further more, Runciman’s description of the Image as a “smudged piece of cloth” is consistent with the Shroud of Turin’s appearance. In the 19th century, before the Shroud was photographed, it had fallen into exactly the same “sad afternoon” as had the Image of Edessa.
EDESSA ‘THE BLESSED CITY’, Segal, 1970
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
This is where primary sources are so important. I have now tracked down Theophanes
Continuatus, albeit only in Greek and Latin, and this is what it says:
“Edessa autem urbe, in qua veneranda Christi effigies posita erat, a Romano exercitu obsessa et ad extremas angustias redacta, oppidani oratores ad Romanum imperatorem mittunt, rogantes solvi obsidionem, eius muneris gratia se Christi sacram effigiem in linteo expressam daturos polliciti; huiusque ipsius muneris vicem ex suis vinctos recipere petebant, qui nobiliores essent, bullaque aurea eam ipsis praestari fidem, ut nunquam romanae copiae Edessenam regionem devastarent, quod sic utique factum.”
My Latin is not too good, and Google was not as helpful as I would have liked, but the gist of it is:
“However, the city of Edessa, in which resided a venerated image of Christ, was besieged by the Roman army and reduced to extreme suffering. The townsfolk sent a deputation to the Roman general, asking for the siege to be lifted, in return for the promise of the towel on which Christ imprinted his sacred figure freely given; and in return they would receive the nobler of the prisoners who had been captured, sealed in gold in promise of good faith, so that the Roman troops would never again destroy the region of Edessa. And all this was carried out exactly.”
So this particular primary source says that the Edessenes were indeed in dire straits, and it was they who suggested the transfer of the Image in the first place. I believe this to be at odds with other sources, but it certainly suggests that I was not too wide of the mark in suggesting exhaustion on both sides.
Continuatus, albeit only in Greek and Latin, and this is what it says:
“Edessa autem urbe, in qua veneranda Christi effigies posita erat, a Romano exercitu obsessa et ad extremas angustias redacta, oppidani oratores ad Romanum imperatorem mittunt, rogantes solvi obsidionem, eius muneris gratia se Christi sacram effigiem in linteo expressam daturos polliciti; huiusque ipsius muneris vicem ex suis vinctos recipere petebant, qui nobiliores essent, bullaque aurea eam ipsis praestari fidem, ut nunquam romanae copiae Edessenam regionem devastarent, quod sic utique factum.”
My Latin is not too good, and Google was not as helpful as I would have liked, but the gist of it is:
“However, the city of Edessa, in which resided a venerated image of Christ, was besieged by the Roman army and reduced to extreme suffering. The townsfolk sent a deputation to the Roman general, asking for the siege to be lifted, in return for the promise of the towel on which Christ imprinted his sacred figure freely given; and in return they would receive the nobler of the prisoners who had been captured, sealed in gold in promise of good faith, so that the Roman troops would never again destroy the region of Edessa. And all this was carried out exactly.”
So this particular primary source says that the Edessenes were indeed in dire straits, and it was they who suggested the transfer of the Image in the first place. I believe this to be at odds with other sources, but it certainly suggests that I was not too wide of the mark in suggesting exhaustion on both sides.
S
schwent
Guest
John 20:6-7 does not disprove the Shroud of Turin. There is a head cloth called the Sudarium of Oveido which is kept in Spain. It can be traced back to the 6th century. Tests confirm that it was on the same body as the Shroud.
As far as Isaiah 50:6, look at other scriptures that use that same Hebrew word (marat). In Ezra 9:3, it says that when Ezra heard that the exiled Jews intermarried and did according to the abominations of the people of the land, Ezra rent his garment and mantle and plucked off (marat) the hair of his head and his beard and sat down astonied. In Nehemiah 13:25, it says that when Nehemiah saw that the Jews married the people of the land and their children could not speak Hebrew, he plucked out (marat) their hair as he rebuked them. To what degree did they pluck out hair and beards? It was an ancient mourning tradition we are not familiar with in modern times.
As far as Isaiah 50:6, look at other scriptures that use that same Hebrew word (marat). In Ezra 9:3, it says that when Ezra heard that the exiled Jews intermarried and did according to the abominations of the people of the land, Ezra rent his garment and mantle and plucked off (marat) the hair of his head and his beard and sat down astonied. In Nehemiah 13:25, it says that when Nehemiah saw that the Jews married the people of the land and their children could not speak Hebrew, he plucked out (marat) their hair as he rebuked them. To what degree did they pluck out hair and beards? It was an ancient mourning tradition we are not familiar with in modern times.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Hi schwent, welcome to one of the longest and most diverse discussions on the website. The Shroud encompasses so many different disciplines that there really is something for everyone to exercise their talents on.
The Hebrew word מָרַט (Marat) really means to rub smooth, so in the context of hair or beards certainly has connotations of complete loss, but in some biblical contexts it seems to suggest a more symbolic removal of tufts rather than a complete shave. I have no idea what the symbolic custom was, although it seems to have expressed fury rather than mourning, I think.
The Hebrew word מָרַט (Marat) really means to rub smooth, so in the context of hair or beards certainly has connotations of complete loss, but in some biblical contexts it seems to suggest a more symbolic removal of tufts rather than a complete shave. I have no idea what the symbolic custom was, although it seems to have expressed fury rather than mourning, I think.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
The decrees regarding the Holy Shroud extend over a long period. They are associated with the names of Paul II,
Sixtus IV,
Julius II,
Leo X,
Clement VII,
Gregory XIII,
Benedict XIV,
and Leo XII.
First comes the Bull of Paul II, raising the chapel of Chambery to the dignity of a collegiate church, and endowing it with many rights and privileges, simply because it contained the Holy Shroud. It more than offsets the Bull of Robert of Geneva (anti-pope) who gave a decision that was purely diplomatic.
Sixtus IV willed that the Chapel of Chambery in which the Shroud was kept should be called Holy. And in a Treatise which he composed on the Blood of Christ, he says that in the Shroud the true Blood and Image of Christ are seen.
Julius II decreed an Office and a Mass in honour of the Holy Shroud.
“This most noted Relic of the Holy Shroud,” said Benedict XIV, “is in the city of Turin; and the Supreme Pontiffs Paul II, Sixtus IV, Julius II, and Clement VII have testified that is the same in which Christ was wrapped.”
Sixtus IV,
Julius II,
Leo X,
Clement VII,
Gregory XIII,
Benedict XIV,
and Leo XII.
First comes the Bull of Paul II, raising the chapel of Chambery to the dignity of a collegiate church, and endowing it with many rights and privileges, simply because it contained the Holy Shroud. It more than offsets the Bull of Robert of Geneva (anti-pope) who gave a decision that was purely diplomatic.
Sixtus IV willed that the Chapel of Chambery in which the Shroud was kept should be called Holy. And in a Treatise which he composed on the Blood of Christ, he says that in the Shroud the true Blood and Image of Christ are seen.
Julius II decreed an Office and a Mass in honour of the Holy Shroud.
“This most noted Relic of the Holy Shroud,” said Benedict XIV, “is in the city of Turin; and the Supreme Pontiffs Paul II, Sixtus IV, Julius II, and Clement VII have testified that is the same in which Christ was wrapped.”
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Vatican experts spent some years in studying and verifying all the historical documents connected with the Shroud, and on Sept 6, 1936, Pope Pius XI made the following pronouncement:
“These are the images of the Divine Redeemer. We might say they are the most beautiful, most moving and dearest we can imagine. They derive directly from the object, surrounded by mystery, which—this can safely be said—it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the Holy Shroud at Turin. We say it is surrounded by mystery because much remains unexplained about this affair which is certainly holy as no other is. But this much can be said—it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”
With this authoritative statement, The Holy Shroud and its images received the highest endorsement of genuineness from the Catholic Church.
“These are the images of the Divine Redeemer. We might say they are the most beautiful, most moving and dearest we can imagine. They derive directly from the object, surrounded by mystery, which—this can safely be said—it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the Holy Shroud at Turin. We say it is surrounded by mystery because much remains unexplained about this affair which is certainly holy as no other is. But this much can be said—it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”
With this authoritative statement, The Holy Shroud and its images received the highest endorsement of genuineness from the Catholic Church.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
It is fortunate for Catholics that the authority of the Catholic Church does not rest on the personal opinion of Popes, or it would be changing its mind about things with every passing year. While Pius XI was happy to declare that in his opinion the Shroud was genuine, Pope John-Paul II famously announced that “since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross.”
I’m a scientist, and take the task entrusted to me by the Church seriously.
I’m a scientist, and take the task entrusted to me by the Church seriously.
T
tafan2
Guest
If you don’t mind my asking, what task has the Church entrusted to you?I’m a scientist, and take the task entrusted to me by the Church seriously.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Tafan2, the papal quote is what he is referring to. It says that the Church has entrusted scientific investigation to scientists. He is a scientist, so he is part of that.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Thanks. 10 chars
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Well spotted, Mintaka. The point, of course, is that recent Popes, at least, are well aware that the Church’s “authority” is not a concept to be used casually. Determining whether the Shroud is authentic or not is not a matter of personal conviction, even that of popes, nor of divine revelation. It is a question of rationality, as exercised most typically by scientists and historians. Evidence, interpretation and conclusion is their modus operandi, which, although it has not yet established a definitive truth either way, is increasingly leading towards a general acceptance of a medieval origin for the Shroud.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
B.A. (Open University) in Science. Science Teacher at Secondary level for 40 years. Actor - definitely. Artist - definitely not. No cigar.
T
thistle
Guest
Now you know you have maligned him are you going to apologise?He claims to be a scientist, but has no college degree in any science
U
undead_rat
Guest
Sorry, but neither having a BA in “science” nor teaching high school science qualifies one as a “scientist.” That takes a PhD and some credible research work.Now you know you have maligned him are you going to apologize?
Case in point: Robert Rucker, a nuclear physicist of some 30 years experience who has collaborated on a recent book about a possible mechanism for the creation to the Shroud’s image.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.