Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Jabba, seriously, what part of 1260-1390 do you not understand? So long as those numbers stand, absolutely nothing else you do will have any effect on the debate.
So get to it. Show why we should not believe the shroud is a medieval fake.
So get to it. Show why we should not believe the shroud is a medieval fake.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Greetings people! It's been a while since this thread petered out, so I'm glad you're all still here. There is something new to discuss, if any of you can bring any historical expertise to the subject.
Last Autumn Charles Freeman had an article published in History Today magazine (it's online, but although I was a full member of the randi forum I seem to have had to start all over again, so can't link to it yet!), claiming that the Shroud of Turin had started life as a painted liturgical prop for the re-enactment of the visitation of the holy women to the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, a rite known as the Quem Quaeritis ceremony, which originated in churches and later spread outside as a mystery play. He gave lots of evidence that 'shrouds' consisting of images painted on linen were extremely common throughout Europe, although as far as we know not a single one remains today (unless the Shroud is one). He also suggests that the Shroud transmutated from 'well known old sheet used in a play' to 'genuine burial cloth of Christ' via some kind of miracle that may have been attributed to it, but there is no evidence for this.
On the surface this seems quite plausible, but a number of powerful objections have been raised. Firstly it seems impossible for a painting to have lost so much pigment so uniformly that not single flake is visible today (even if there is indeed a microscopic scattering of iron oxide as described by Water McCrone).
Secondly, although engravings of the expositions of the Shroud invariably show a well demarcated body, usually with a loincloth and sometimes wearing a crown of thorns, actual copies of the Shroud, of which earliest is from 1516 or so, often show the image as vague, amorphous and nude, much as it is today.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the Shroud was associated with any miracles before it came to be venerated at Lirey in the 1350s.
Any ideas?
One more thing. There are a number of regular contributors to shroudstory.com who follow various other Shroud discussion sites, including this one. The good thing about shroudstory is that commenters are fairly evenly divided between pro- and non- authenticists, with varying degrees of commitment to their views, and some surprising expertise in the various different disciplines connected to the Shroud. It is not true that "they" have been invited to read this site and that "they" have refused, nor that, if any new points get raised here, they don't get discussed 'over there.' I think the last time this forum appeared on shroudstory was to discuss my finding a small extraneous thread in the radiocarbon sample (June 2013), which I first mentioned here. If anybody here has anything interesting to say about Charles Freeman's hypothesis, I have no doubt that will be discussed there as well.
Last Autumn Charles Freeman had an article published in History Today magazine (it's online, but although I was a full member of the randi forum I seem to have had to start all over again, so can't link to it yet!), claiming that the Shroud of Turin had started life as a painted liturgical prop for the re-enactment of the visitation of the holy women to the tomb of Jesus on Easter morning, a rite known as the Quem Quaeritis ceremony, which originated in churches and later spread outside as a mystery play. He gave lots of evidence that 'shrouds' consisting of images painted on linen were extremely common throughout Europe, although as far as we know not a single one remains today (unless the Shroud is one). He also suggests that the Shroud transmutated from 'well known old sheet used in a play' to 'genuine burial cloth of Christ' via some kind of miracle that may have been attributed to it, but there is no evidence for this.
On the surface this seems quite plausible, but a number of powerful objections have been raised. Firstly it seems impossible for a painting to have lost so much pigment so uniformly that not single flake is visible today (even if there is indeed a microscopic scattering of iron oxide as described by Water McCrone).
Secondly, although engravings of the expositions of the Shroud invariably show a well demarcated body, usually with a loincloth and sometimes wearing a crown of thorns, actual copies of the Shroud, of which earliest is from 1516 or so, often show the image as vague, amorphous and nude, much as it is today.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the Shroud was associated with any miracles before it came to be venerated at Lirey in the 1350s.
Any ideas?
One more thing. There are a number of regular contributors to shroudstory.com who follow various other Shroud discussion sites, including this one. The good thing about shroudstory is that commenters are fairly evenly divided between pro- and non- authenticists, with varying degrees of commitment to their views, and some surprising expertise in the various different disciplines connected to the Shroud. It is not true that "they" have been invited to read this site and that "they" have refused, nor that, if any new points get raised here, they don't get discussed 'over there.' I think the last time this forum appeared on shroudstory was to discuss my finding a small extraneous thread in the radiocarbon sample (June 2013), which I first mentioned here. If anybody here has anything interesting to say about Charles Freeman's hypothesis, I have no doubt that will be discussed there as well.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Hugh, The forum has changed hands. It is no longer associated with Randi.
Jabba, any comment on the highlighted above? Have you been caught-out in an act of perfidy?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Welcome to ISF (which, it should be pointed out, is no longer, in any way, associated with Mr. Randi or his august foundation).
The only observation I have to offer is that you appear, at least, to be constructing an argument from ignorance (with a side order of non sequitur); to wit, that since the CIQ is (most likely) not a Quem Quaeritis prop, it may yet be the "True ShroudTM".
The fact that is it is not, or was not, or may not have been, a Quem Quaeritis prop does not address the idea, or change the fact, that the CIQ is a manifestly medieval artifact, which could not have interacted in any way with anyone in the 1st Century CE.
You should address this issue with the poster who made the claim, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10487314#post10487314
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!
Would you care to address your earlier claim about "sarcasm" in my post?
Mr. farey's words, to wit:
Are you, perhaps, indulging in less-than-literal reporting? This is yet another reason I reject you as "anti-locutor".
Would you care to address your earlier claim about "sarcasm" in my post?
Mr. farey's words, to wit:
Are you, perhaps, indulging in less-than-literal reporting? This is yet another reason I reject you as "anti-locutor".
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,775
The shroud is a medieval fake. This has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic, spectroscopic and radioisotopic), expert examination (textile, weave and artistic style) and historical research (comparison to others, culture and documentation) and is supported by other evidence:
Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure.
Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a bo.dy lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).
Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.
Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake not many year later.
Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.
Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods.
Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.
Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.
Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue.
Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.
Historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure.
Physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn't possible for a bo.dy lying flay (the arms aren't long enough).
Textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East.
Testimony: the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake not many year later.
Artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period.
Reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods.
Analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin.
Cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355.
Serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue.
Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
I think you've misread my mind. This very forum, in its earlier manifestation, persuaded me that the radiocarbon dating was incontestable. A conclusion I came to by examining all the contrary evidence and rejecting it. Very publicly, I may say. So there's no need to throw me straws, or just make dogmatic statements of forgery. Nor am I constructing an argument, from ignorance or any other way. The Shroud must have been created into some kind of cultural context, and I wish I knew what it was. The Quem Quaeritis ceremony seems quite a reasonable one, and I have wondered if it might not have been an altar cloth, or an epitaphios, or a reredos among other things. Curiously, it does not fit well, as plenty of non-authenticists have pointed out, into the world of deliberate relic forgery, being rather unbiblical. There are just bits of evidence which don't fit. What I was hoping for was a further exploration into the medieval context in which the Shroud was created, probably, I think, shortly before 1300 AD. If anybody knows more about the Quem Quaeritis shrouds, which undoubtedly littered Europe about that time, I would be interested in their opinion. Even as a medieval creation, the Shroud is a fascinating artifact unparalleled in art, and I would like to know more about it. Wouldn't you?
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Didn't Jabba once, sometime in the 3rd or 4th century BCE, indicate that he needed to believe in the shroud because if it was fake, then his belief in Christianity would also start to crumble? Or did I dream it? It certainly expains why he refuses to accept any evidence.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Agreed, and agreed.
Jabba, given your posting history, I have no problem rejecting you as a spokesperson/translator/ anti-locutor/ interlocutor for anything said here.
You can't present your own positions in a logically consistent manner after all these years. Can you think of any reason why a person here would rely on you to present their contrary, yet responsible position to a Shroud-Believing site?
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
I think I got you.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
No, I recall that statement as well.
And it's really odd, since the Shroud is completely inconsistent with the description of Jesus's burial cloths as related by the bible. For example, how he had a cloth wrapped around his head...
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
nvm
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Really? Fair enough, so. Bear in mind that this thread has been rendered just a tad hostile by previous protagonists intransigent positions.
Since you seek opinions, I don't consider the tablecloth of turin great art, or even a great forgery. To me, the medieval forger, whoever it was, was simply too lazy to achieve anatomical accuracy. Our medieval forger knew that he/she could get away with this since he/she could be sure that no medieval scrutiny would be allowed. And our medieval forger was indeed correct, since it took 700 or so years for a scientific examination to be permitted.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
But that doesn't count until it does.
Olowkow
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 8,230
You have two registered accounts. One is hughfarey and the other is hugh farey. It might be a good idea to notify a moderator that you re-registered accidentally, since having two accounts is frowned upon and could possibly result in your banning.
I agree that it would be interesting to pursue the actual source of the Shroud of Turin as a fairly trivial work of art from the 14th century, rather than to rehash over and over the nonsense and obsessive behavior that Jabba has brought to the issue.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba,
This is insurmountable. Organizing your points is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless you want to provide a dating method that gives a first century date, sorry not much to talk about.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Many thanks, Olowkow. I had forgotten my username. I'll follow your advice.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Thank you for this. It did seem to me that you were preparing to declaim, à la manière d' Sauvage, that since the CIQ was not a QQ prop, it must be authentic. I apologize for my assumption, and will avoid, as far as possible, similar error in the future.
- Status