Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[Olowkow]

The entire narrative of this matter has unfortunately gotten to be little more than an analogue of a pointless argument over the existence of god. In my opinion those who steadfastly cling to their belief that the Shroud is 2,000 years old do so only because of religious beliefs, not as a result of any informed reasonable doubts about the science of carbon dating or a conviction that the material was hoaxed from a mended portion.

It seems that the potential for research by expert art historians who could stand a chance of making informed claims about the techniques or the type of artist capable of producing this type of medieval artwork is consistently supplanted by uninformed zealots who simply assert that no one could possibly duplicate the Shroud. Forgers have fooled experts with copies of Rembrandts, for Pete's sake.

I suspect that qualified art experts are uninterested in researching the thing, simply because the image on the shroud is just too volatile a subject for them to bother with, and there is little to be gained. Instead we have religiously like minded people holding conferences to feign expertise and stroke each other's egos with reassurances of how holy and genuine the Turin Shroud is.

I still maintain that a much more interesting question than debating its age, now that it is known to a reasonable certainty, is who made it and why? Is it even an interesting piece of art, or merely a religious icon?

 

[carlitos]

How's that for a paradigm of concise precision?

Almost as bad as your pseudo-redefinition of the word "evidence."

 

[John Jones]

[...]


And until the shroudies provide evidence it is 2000 years old, no need to further discuss the pigment analysis.

ferd

That's the long and the short of it.

 

[IanS]

No, I've lost you, John. I told you what I would attempt to sway the jury with if I had to try to support the authenticity of the Shroud, and I told you that I would expect my attempts to be discredited. I did not describe it in detail as I assume you are already familiar with it, but I will if you want. You may certainly assume that I have no evidence for authenticity that could not be discredited.

And Ian, I still think we're juggling with words. I gave some very specific evidence for a very specific hypothesis, namely that the Shroud predates the reign of Justinian II. I did not claim that it was evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old, and I did not claim that it was evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud. I did not even claim it was true, and of course, if we were certain that the Shroud was medieval (which slowvehicle seems to say he is, although you and I, being good scientists, know is not possible) then we could say that that evidence is definitely false, and that therefore, by some definitions of evidence, it isn't evidence at all. However, as, being good scientists, we know that there is no such thing as 'certainty' then we must allow some probability, however small, to the evidence I gave for the antiquity of the shroud being correct, and that being so, the evidence is indeed evidence, even though it is very probably incorrect.

How's that for a paradigm of concise precision?

OK, well I was not thinking about any of the specific situations that you mentioned (e.g. reign of Justinian II ... I've no idea who he is). I was just trying to clarify what we can and cannot reasonably lable as "evidence" of anything.

But I agree there must always remain some probability, however small, that the shroud actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. Though if you have read the thousands of posts I've made in the HJ thread (i.e., re. "did Jesus exist?"), it will be obvious that I think he may be entirely fictional anyway ... in which case the probability of it being his burial cloth would be zero.

However on the basis of everything that I've seen offered as evidence so far, I don't recall seeing/reading anything that I would regard as credible evidence of the shroud being any older that the C14 dates suggest.

I think the C14 remains the bottom line. And until that can be overturned then all the claims of authenticity are doomed to failure.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>if we were certain that the Shroud was medieval (which slowvehicle seems to say he is, although you and I, being good scientists, know is not possible) then we could say that that evidence is definitely false, and that therefore, by some definitions of evidence, it isn't evidence at all. However, as, being good scientists, we know that there is no such thing as 'certainty' then we must allow some probability, however small, to the evidence I gave for the antiquity of the shroud being correct, and that being so, the evidence is indeed evidence, even though it is very probably incorrect.

How's that for a paradigm of concise precision?

...methinks it is like unto weasel words, wilbur...

The CIQ was dated, in three independent labs, under three different cleaning protocols, to the mid-13^th Century CE (?,,,a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence..."). That "95% confidence" is not, as some take it, a 5% licesne to claim that the ¹⁴C dating was "likely inaccurate" or "due to collusion", or the "result of incompetence". It is an expression of the size ofthe error bars inherent in the measurement. As such, any assertion that the CIQ is not a manifestly medieval artifact must overcome, not the 5% error bar, bur the 95% certainty. When coupled with the history and provenance of the CIQ, and the utter lack of actual evidence (instead of unsupportable assertions) to the contrary, "manifestly medieval" it is.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[hugh farey]

I still maintain that a much more interesting question than debating its age, now that it is known to a reasonable certainty, is who made it and why? Is it even an interesting piece of art, or merely a religious icon?

Thank goodness, Olowkow. I couldn't agree more, which is why I came back to this forum in the first place. What do people think of Charles Freeman's Quem Quaeritis hypothesis, and what do people think the Shroud looked like when it was first created - as it is now, or with a brighter or more distinct image?

 

[John Jones]

No, I've lost you, John. I told you what I would attempt to sway the jury with if I had to try to support the authenticity of the Shroud, and I told you that I would expect my attempts to be discredited. I did not describe it in detail as I assume you are already familiar with it, but I will if you want. You may certainly assume that I have no evidence for authenticity that could not be discredited.

[...]

You never had me, Hugh, even though I have defended your fence-riding at least once. I realize you pay lip-service to the consensus of science, but like a twin-faced Janus, you look both ways at once.

The arguments you offer seem designed to be taken out of context in support of authenticity enthusiasts. Your appeal to coins stamped with the image of Justinian II comes to mind.

Do you know of any evidence for a 2,000 year-old Turin shroud? I know you don't, but I'm asking on behalf of the lurkers, and because Jabba won't discuss the issue.

 

[Peregrinus]

The shroud comes from a time when there was a Europe-wide cottage industry in producing "sacred relics." The shroud simply happens to be one of the best-known of them. At one point, depending on which source you use, there were anywhere from 8 - 18 "foreskins of Jesus" for the faithful to venerate. There were nearly 200 pieces of "the true cross." Martyrs' blood which will not clot even though hundreds of years old. Flim-flammery knows no bounds.

 

[John Jones]

The shroud comes from a time when there was a Europe-wide cottage industry in producing "sacred relics." The shroud simply happens to be one of the best-known of them. At one point, depending on which source you use, there were anywhere from 8 - 18 "foreskins of Jesus" for the faithful to venerate. There were nearly 200 pieces of "the true cross." Martyrs' blood which will not clot even though hundreds of years old. Flim-flammery knows no bounds.

Jabba knows this. Or at least he has been told this repeatedly.

 

[pgwenthold]

My favorite unaddressed medieval shroud fact: in ca. 1400, the image on the shroud was bright red. So from 0 AD to 1400 AD, the image stays bright and visible. But in the 600 years since then, it goes so faint that you can't even see the thing without special lighting and photography.

That's some really interesting fading kinetics, and it is a feature that is completely ignored by old shrouders.

 

[John Jones]

My favorite unaddressed medieval shroud fact: in ca. 1400, the image on the shroud was bright red. So from 0 AD to 1400 AD, the image stays bright and visible. But in the 600 years since then, it goes so faint that you can't even see the thing without special lighting and photography.

That's some really interesting fading kinetics, and it is a feature that is completely ignored by old shrouders.

Yes. That was discussed at least 2 years ago. That little inconvenience was ignored by the shroudies and their apologists.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes. That was discussed at least 2 years ago. That little inconvenience was ignored by the shroudies and their apologists.

That's where I learned about it. I found it fascinating.

I've never heard it addressed.

 

[dropzone]

I suspect that qualified art experts are uninterested in researching the thing, simply because the image on the shroud is just too volatile a subject for them to bother with, and there is little to be gained.

I suspect that most qualified art experts take one look and dismiss it as a Gothic forgery. Experts rarely shy away from controversy when there is a chance to flaunt their expertise, but here there is no controversy.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I note Jabba has stepped back from his thread now that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. Probably a good thing as all that pretending to prepare arguments and detail evidence must be tiring for someone of (asserted without evidence) advanced years.

 

[Craig B]

Yes I go with all that, Ian. In the absence of certainty (which we can't have) contradictory evidence is still evidence. Coins of the emperor Justinian II have some resemblance to the face on the Shroud of Turin. Some people think that is evidence that the coins were modelled on the face of the Shroud of Turin, and therefore that the Shroud existed before the coins. I think they're wrong. But in the absence of certainty, those coins are evidence contradicting the medieval date of the Shroud.

I haven't yet contributed on this point. Readers should be aware that the pictures on the coins explicitly depict Jesus, and not Justinian II in the guise of Jesus. This ruler displayed a portrait of Jesus on his coinage Of course the coin portrait looks like a representation of Jesus. It IS a traditional portrait of Jesus.

Byzantine solidi achieved very wide circulation across Europe and the East, and were hoarded for centuries on account of their fineness and high value. The solidus was indeed "solid". It is beyond any doubt that the plunder of Constantinople in 1204 by Western crusaders would have introduced many of these valuable pieces into the West. France in particular. That such a venerable and precious depiction of Jesus might be used as a model by a slightly later artist is not in the least surprising, if indeed that is what happened.

But perhaps not. Here's an ebay description of such a coin on sale.

An extremely fine and important coin type. A solid gold ancient Byzantine solidus of Emperor Justinian II. Struck during his second reign while ruling with his only son, Tiberius circa 705 - 711 A.D. From the Constantinople mint.
The obverse depicts the facing bust of Christ Pantocrator [Greek = "Lord of All"] The legend reading: ... "Our Lord, Jesus Christ King of Kings" ... Justinian II was the first Byzantine ruler to strike coins depicting a portrait of Christ. We see Christ as some of the earliest Christians saw him; an almost celebratory portrait of a young man; quite the contrast to later Medieval interpretations of him as a defeated, solemn looking figure.

So according to this numismatic cataloguer, the coin portrait Jesus doesn't even look much like the Shroudie representation anyway.

ETA Look at the coin image here, on the left, and make up your own mind if this Jesus resembles the Shroud representation. Far from it, in my view. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_II

 

[hugh farey]

Scientists always look two ways at once. It's an essential part of the scientific process. Ignoring any evidence, or assertion, or whatever word you like to call it, that does not concur with your conclusions is leaving an unanswered objection open and implies an inability to explain why it doesn't affect your comclusion. In science, it is simply not enough to explain why you are right, you must also explain why those who disagree with you are wrong.

I thought people here were familiar with the shroud/coin 'evidence' which is why I used it as an example. Justinian II was emperor twice. To start with, his 'model' of Jesus is long-haired and bearded, quite unlike the coins of his predecessors. This is sometimes taken as a sign that he was currying favour with the Western Empire, whose model for Christ may been based on classical images of Jupiter (himself modelled on classical images of Zeus). When he returned to rule for the second time, the Western Empire had fallen into disfavour, and his coins reverted to the more traditional Byzantine type of Christ at the time, beardless and with curly hair. In my opinion the coins have nothing to do with the Shroud, except that Craig B may be correct that they may have contributed to the establlshment of a conventional model of Christ, on which the Shroud may have been based.

I'm not surprised Jabba has stepped back. It was quite brave of him to step forward, as he does not seem to be bringing anything new to the discussion. However, seeing that the forum had reawakened after a fairly moribund year, I hoped there were contributors who might add to the Quem Quaeritis or other artistic tradition upon which the Shroud may have been based. So far all we have is the rather feebly supported assertion that the Shroud was bright red in 1400, and the fact that there were a lot of relics about at the time. Perhaps more will be forthcoming.

 

[Agatha]

The evidence is that some people think there is a resemblance between the image of the face on the shroud and the image of the face of Jesus on coins dating from Justinian II's realm.

The idea that this must mean that the shroud predates Justinian II's realm is a conclusion, not evidence. And it's not even a good conclusion, because the mere fact that some see a resemblance in the faces tells us nothing about which came first.

 

[catsmate]

The shroud comes from a time when there was a Europe-wide cottage industry in producing "sacred relics." The shroud simply happens to be one of the best-known of them. At one point, depending on which source you use, there were anywhere from 8 - 18 "foreskins of Jesus" for the faithful to venerate. There were nearly 200 pieces of "the true cross." Martyrs' blood which will not clot even though hundreds of years old. Flim-flammery knows no bounds.

Indeed, there were at least forty other supposed burial shrouds. Hence the church investigation into what's now called the Shroud of Turin which determined it was a forgery.

The evidence is that some people think there is a resemblance between the image of the face on the shroud and the image of the face of Jesus on coins dating from Justinian II's realm.

The idea that this must mean that the shroud predates Justinian II's realm is a conclusion, not evidence. And it's not even a good conclusion, because the mere fact that some see a resemblance in the faces tells us nothing about which came first.

Actual evidence would be a point by point comparison, jot difficult with today's technology.

 

[Craig B]

I thought people here were familiar with the shroud/coin 'evidence' which is why I used it as an example.

I don't remember it having been discussed here before.

Justinian II was emperor twice. To start with, his 'model' of Jesus is long-haired and bearded, quite unlike the coins of his predecessors.

Was he not the first to depict Jesus on his coins as stated in my linked source?

Justinian II was the first Byzantine ruler to strike coins depicting a portrait of Christ.

The practice later became common

In the 10th century, so-called "anonymous folles" were struck instead of the earlier coins depicting the emperor. The anonymous folles featured the bust of Jesus on the obverse

This is sometimes taken as a sign that he was currying favour with the Western Empire, whose model for Christ may been based on classical images of Jupiter (himself modelled on classical images of Zeus). When he returned to rule for the second time, the Western Empire had fallen into disfavour, and his coins reverted to the more traditional Byzantine type of Christ at the time, beardless and with curly hair. In my opinion the coins have nothing to do with the Shroud

Thanks for reminding me about the rather different earlier first reign version of the image.

If, as proposed, the Shroud image was available to the monarchs in Constantinople, and the object was not then in the West, and if it was Justinian II's model of the image of Christ, that he put on his solidi, why is it the "Italian", and not the Byzantine, image that resembles the Shroud figure? Your suggestion that the Shroud has nothing to do with it, and the Western model is derived from pagan images of Zeus, makes a lot more sense.

 

[John Jones]

Scientists always look two ways at once. It's an essential part of the scientific process. Ignoring any evidence, or assertion, or whatever word you like to call it, that does not concur with your conclusions is leaving an unanswered objection open and implies an inability to explain why it doesn't affect your comclusion. In science, it is simply not enough to explain why you are right, you must also explain why those who disagree with you are wrong.

It's been explained. There's no evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old. That conjecture about Justinian coinage somehow indicating otherwise is not evidence. It's nonsense.