Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[hugh farey]

You can find Scavone's paper at ww.shroud.com/bar.htm.
As for doubts about the d'Arcis memorandum, there is no doubt that is exists, and there is no doubt that it says what it says. There is doubt about whether it was actually sent and received, and anyone may speculate that it was a pack of lies from start to finish, but evidence for that is non-existent.

 

[Charles Freeman]

Yes, the Zittau Veil is much more advanced in conception than the Turin Shroud. I think some people have got carried away with the undoubtedly haunting nature of the remaining images on the Shroud, however made, into thinking that it is an artistic masterpiece. However, the artist could not even think beyond painting the head of Christ as if he were standing up! He does not even think through how an image would look if a cloth was laid over a actual head and then lifted off. This is a straightforward painted image as if on a board.

The Zittau Veil is interesting as a comparison because it is another painted linen where the original pigments have disintegrated ( we know they were actually steamed off) leaving shadowy images on the cloth behind. Without a comparative examination of both the Shroud and the Veil we are not able to say whether the comparison is valid but at least it shifts the log jam of- ' we have no idea of how the images on the Shroud were made'. We have an acceptable hypothesis - the images are what was left after the disintegration of the original pigments. This view is supported by earlier descriptions and depictions that show the now lost features of the painting. These have been completely bypassed- for good reasons- by the Shroudies who also, for good reason had to denigrate the microscopist Walter MCCrone when he proposed that some of the original pigments could still be found in the Shroud.

If, as there is some evidence to suggest, the pigments only distintegrated finally in the nineteenth century, then the linen itself would probably have become discoloured under the paint in the long centuries in between then and its original creation. While the Shroud images were painted as a negative -e.g the lance wound is on the left side rather than the conventional right- the different levels of discolouration may well be explained by the thickness of the original paint and so present the negative effect that is so often cited- for some inexplicable reason- in support of authenticity.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

How about identifying what that reasonable doubt is?

How would that doubt make the cloth 2000 years old, instead of 600?

Humpty Jabbaty considers himself to be reasonable and he also doubts any evidence that runs contrary to his world view, ergo "reasonable doubt."

 

[Giordano]

Humpty Jabbaty considers himself to be reasonable and he also doubts any evidence that runs contrary to his world view, ergo "reasonable doubt."

Nailed it!

Jabba- in reading your recent posts, I sometimes sense that you may be having more problems remembering your prior posts and your own citations compared to even a few years ago. There are many possible explanations (certainly including that I am not remembering your prior posts accurately, rather than you not remembering your prior posts accurately). If people you know in person agree that some of this memory stuff is more difficult for you now compared to earlier, you may wish to address this specific issue, including checking to see if there are medical concerns that can be resolved (certain medication can produce memory problems, for example). Believe me: I say this as someone whose own memory is not what it used to be, so please do not take this as an insult in any way. I often find myself in my garage trying to remember what it was that brought me there. Or found the leftovers in the cabinet above the refrigerator, where I put them in a moment of not thinking, instead of the refrigerator itself where I intended to put them.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Or it might be that "mislaying" evidence is a legitimate tactic in "honest, effective debate." Again, Jabba gets to define all his own terms.

 

[Olowkow]

Yes, the Zittau Veil is much more advanced in conception than the Turin Shroud. I think some people have got carried away with the undoubtedly haunting nature of the remaining images on the Shroud, however made, into thinking that it is an artistic masterpiece. However, the artist could not even think beyond painting the head of Christ as if he were standing up!...

Has it been ruled out that the painting was intended to be displayed vertically, draped over a horizontal support pole? Or is it the case that there is just no evidence to support this hypothesis? Why not a rising Christ to impress the flock?

 

[Dinwar]

Has it been ruled out that the painting was intended to be displayed vertically, draped over a horizontal support pole? Or is it the case that there is just no evidence to support this hypothesis? Why not a rising Christ to impress the flock?

I think we can dismiss it. The space between the heads isn't wide enough for much light to be generated between the shroud halves (remember, all light that wasn't sunlight in the Middle Ages came from flame). Doing as you suggested ran the very real risk of incinerating the shroud. Also, there would be distortions to the weave where it hung--much like jeans tend to wear out at the knees, because of the distortion to the weave at that point. The pole would generate tension, both from teh weight of the shroud and from tugging by any wind. Finally, the shroud clearly depicts a dead guy, not a risen one; there are conventions for Christ Victorious that simply aren't met here. Though I will admit that the last line of this argument is the weakest of them, and someone with more background in art history than me shoudl weigh in (I've got some, due to early discussions of depictions of Christ with family members, but I'm certainly no expert).

It's certainly not a bad idea, and is something someone should have thought of back then--but I don't think this cloth is it.

 

[Olowkow]

I think we can dismiss it. The space between the heads isn't wide enough for much light to be generated between the shroud halves (remember, all light that wasn't sunlight in the Middle Ages came from flame). Doing as you suggested ran the very real risk of incinerating the shroud. Also, there would be distortions to the weave where it hung--much like jeans tend to wear out at the knees, because of the distortion to the weave at that point. The pole would generate tension, both from teh weight of the shroud and from tugging by any wind. Finally, the shroud clearly depicts a dead guy, not a risen one; there are conventions for Christ Victorious that simply aren't met here. Though I will admit that the last line of this argument is the weakest of them, and someone with more background in art history than me shoudl weigh in (I've got some, due to early discussions of depictions of Christ with family members, but I'm certainly no expert).

It's certainly not a bad idea, and is something someone should have thought of back then--but I don't think this cloth is it.

Thanks. All good points. I do recall though that it was in a fire.

For my hypothesis, interior lighting is not required. I actually agree that the "rising or risen Christ" image is not correct. One of the strongest objections to be honest. Lacking outstretched arms.

ETA: I posted this twice before. It was originally mainly an attempt to explain the hair and blood vis-a-vis gravity, and I got a bit carried away due to my background in the theatre in college.

 

[hugh farey]

Funnily enough, there is some suggestion that some such apparatus might have been used for some such purpose (do note all the qualifications, please!) In his entertaining work, "Li estoires de chiaus qui conquisent Constantinoble de Robert de Clari en Aminois, chevalier," written in about 1203, Robert de Clari says "Et entre ches autres, en eut i. autre des moustiers que on apeloit medame Sainte Marie de Blakerne, où li sydoines, là où Nostres Sires fut envolepés i estoit, qui cascuns des venres se drechoit tous drois, si que on i pooit bien veir le figure Nostre Seigneur, ne ne seut on onques, ne Grieu, ne Franchois, que chis sydoines devint, quant le vile fu prise." Fascinating stuff, eh!

(And among those others there was another church which was called My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where there was the cloth in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday, raised itself upright, so that one could see there the form of our Lord, and no one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this cloth when the city was taken.)

 

[Olowkow]

où li sydoines, là où Nostres Sires fut envolepés i estoit, qui cascuns des venres se drechoit tous drois, si que on i pooit bien veir le figure Nostre Seigneur, ne ne seut on onques, ne Grieu, ne Franchois, que chis sydoines devint, quant le vile fu prise.

Aha! Thanks. I find that kind of interesting. Well, I studied Montaigne in the original 16th century French, but this 13th stuff is ridiculous.

Let me give it a try. Roughly...

Where the shrouds, in which our masters were covered, there was, each of the venerated ones stood upright, such that one could clearly see the face of Our Lord, no one ever knew, neither Greek nor French what became of these shrouds when the town was captured.

ETA: What is "chiaus"? Li estoires de chiaus qui conquisent Constantinoble
The stories of chiaus who conquered Constantinople.

OK. It's "chiaux", not sure what that is.

 

[Nonpareil]

You must know about the claims against the "letter."

Assume that we do. We will even, for the sake of argument, grant that the letter is wrong.

Now. How does that establish that the cloth is two thousand years old?

 

[hugh farey]

OK. It's "chiaux", not sure what that is.

I think you did a lot better than I did. I cribbed most of it from https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi02part5.pdf. I think the modern French for the title would be "L'histoire de ceux qui conquisent Constantinople."
Two minor points: firstly the singular 'Li' suggests that 'sydoines' is a singular noun (rather like 'estoires' in the title), and secondly that although modern French could only translate "la figure" as face, it may be that in older French "li figure" harked back to the more general Latin 'figura' meaning more or less any sort of form or figure. Needless to say the whole passage has been seized upon by authenticists to mean the Shroud, but de Clari is the only person who mentions anything like it at all, and Andrea Nicolotti, a historian with several researched books to his credit, thinks that de Clari is confusing one of various shrouds without images with one of various facecloths with images, which are better attested. It is not clear whether 'sydoines' is more cognate with 'sudarium' or 'sindon.'

 

[Craig B]

Aha! Thanks. I find that kind of interesting. Well, I studied Montaigne in the original 16th century French, but this 13th stuff is ridiculous.

Let me give it a try. Roughly...



ETA: What is "chiaus"? Li estoires de chiaus qui conquisent Constantinoble
The stories of chiaus who conquered Constantinople.

OK. It's "chiaux", not sure what that is.

Surely "ceux" in modern French. "Those" who conquered Constantinople.

 

[Jabba]

Nailed it!

Jabba- in reading your recent posts, I sometimes sense that you may be having more problems remembering your prior posts and your own citations compared to even a few years ago. There are many possible explanations (certainly including that I am not remembering your prior posts accurately, rather than you not remembering your prior posts accurately). If people you know in person agree that some of this memory stuff is more difficult for you now compared to earlier, you may wish to address this specific issue, including checking to see if there are medical concerns that can be resolved (certain medication can produce memory problems, for example). Believe me: I say this as someone whose own memory is not what it used to be, so please do not take this as an insult in any way. I often find myself in my garage trying to remember what it was that brought me there. Or found the leftovers in the cabinet above the refrigerator, where I put them in a moment of not thinking, instead of the refrigerator itself where I intended to put them.

Giordano,

- Nailed it!

- You're right. My memory keeps getting worse -- but partly, what you're seeing now (I think) is largely the effect of being away from this issue for a while, while getting wrapped up in another issue, elsewhere.
- Certainly, my friends have similar concerns. Could be that I'm doing worse than them -- but if so, it isn't obvious.
- Whatever, I'm still enjoying the thinking that our confrontation here requires, and it's probably good for me. Also, I still think there is significant reasonable doubt about the dating process and results -- I just want to be ready with links as I make more specific claims.
- Right now, I'm trying to add up the emotionality involved in the 10 years of preparation. For me, the back-biting, etc. involved in that process does not inspire any confidence in the findings.

- Thanks.

 

[Jabba]

Carbon Dating Doubts/Memorandum Fraud?

You can find Scavone's paper at ww.shroud.com/bar.htm.
As for doubts about the d'Arcis memorandum, there is no doubt that is exists, and there is no doubt that it says what it says. There is doubt about whether it was actually sent and received, and anyone may speculate that it was a pack of lies from start to finish, but evidence for that is non-existent.

Hugh,
- Thanks for the info.

- But, I gotta add some politics here: isn't trusting D'Arci and an "unknown artist" like trusting Hillary Clinton?
- For one thing, the artist must have been an absolute genius (on the scale of da Vinci and beyond) -- how come we've never heard of him? And, how come their is no similar artwork, anywhere?

 

[hugh farey]

Isn't trusting D'Arci and an "unknown artist" like trusting Hillary Clinton?

Not really a good analogy. For a start, lots of people, it appears, do trust Hillary Clinton, and for a second, every aspect of Clinton's character and behaviour is detailed on the internet, against which anything she says can be contrasted. As far as I know we know nothing at all about Pierre d'Arcis - he may have been a most saintly man indignant at flagrant relic abuse, or an out-and-out villain whose only motive was the pecuniary gain of his own cathedral. It may be significant that, whether or not the famous memorandum was actually sent, Pope Clement was prepared to accept that the Shroud was not genuine.

The artist must have been a genius -- how come we've never heard of him? And, how come their is no similar artwork, anywhere?

This is a much better area to investigate, as the artist, in my opinion, was indeed particularly gifted, and there are, indeed, no other examples that we know of of his work. However, here are two points to bear in mind. Firstly, it is not impossible that we do know who the artist is, and that there are other examples of his work. Actually few artists were known by name at the time, and most of them were miniaturists, but possible candidates need to have their work examined for stylistic and technical similarity with the Shroud. The other point is that probably most of the artists of the day have not left us their names, being known as "The Master of ..." somewhere, as their creations were considered routine craftwork as much as individual talent.

 

[Olowkow]

I think you did a lot better than I did. I cribbed most of it from https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi02part5.pdf. I think the modern French for the title would be "L'histoire de ceux qui conquisent Constantinople."

Two minor points: firstly the singular 'Li' suggests that 'sydoines' is a singular noun (rather like 'estoires' in the title), and secondly that although modern French could only translate "la figure" as face, it may be that in older French "li figure" harked back to the more general Latin 'figura' meaning more or less any sort of form or figure. Needless to say the whole passage has been seized upon by authenticists to mean the Shroud, but de Clari is the only person who mentions anything like it at all, and Andrea Nicolotti, a historian with several researched books to his credit, thinks that de Clari is confusing one of various shrouds without images with one of various facecloths with images, which are better attested. It is not clear whether 'sydoines' is more cognate with 'sudarium' or 'sindon.'

Surely "ceux" in modern French. "Those" who conquered Constantinople.

Right, "ceux qui" (plural of celui qui) /those who/ very likely. But /ch/, threw me off. If it were a noun it would have been "le/li chiaus", I guess. Recovering from a miserable cold.

I just got into the translation and posted before I realized that the part in parentheses was the translation. I figured "chiaux" was some kind of knight or something. I kept finding references to "they sent a chiaux..." etc., but no one ever says what it means. Googling images kept coming up with "chiots", doggies.

"Sydoines", I found this:

The word Robert uses to denote the cloth, sydoines, is simply an Old French spelling of the Greek word sindon, meaning a “linen sheet,”

"Figure", I agree, more like a "shape or form", than "face".

 

[Craig B]

"Figure", I agree, more like a "shape or form", than "face".

In Old French, absolutely agreed.

Old French figure, from Latin figura, “form, shape, form of a word, a figure of speech, Late Latin a sketch, drawing”

(Wiktionary) A shape, or the representation of a shape. The meaning "face" in French seems to be a lot later.

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,

- Nailed it!

- You're right. My memory keeps getting worse -- but partly, what you're seeing now (I think) is largely the effect of being away from this issue for a while, while getting wrapped up in another issue, elsewhere.
- Certainly, my friends have similar concerns. Could be that I'm doing worse than them -- but if so, it isn't obvious.
- Whatever, I'm still enjoying the thinking that our confrontation here requires, and it's probably good for me. Also, I still think there is significant reasonable doubt about the dating process and results -- I just want to be ready with links as I make more specific claims.
- Right now, I'm trying to add up the emotionality involved in the 10 years of preparation. For me, the back-biting, etc. involved in that process does not inspire any confidence in the findings.

- Thanks.

Thank you for the reply! Good luck and good health!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,
- Thanks for the info.

- But, I gotta add some politics here: isn't trusting D'Arci and an "unknown artist" like trusting Hillary Clinton?
- For one thing, the artist must have been an absolute genius (on the scale of da Vinci and beyond) -- how come we've never heard of him? And, how come their is no similar artwork, anywhere?

Good Morning,Mr. Savage.

This is an odd thing to say,
-given that the proportions of the image are not the proportions of a human body;
-given that the posture of the body (whether considered from the recto or the verso;
-given, in fact, that the recto and the verso do not match up in size, or shape, or position;
-given the amaterurish and physically non-possible representation of the hair, and other detaails of the anatomy;
-given the "blood flows" that defy physiology, physics, and gravity;
-given the facts of the disagreements between the "gospel" narratives of the crucifiction and what is portrayed on the CIQ;

...then your opinion that the artist must have been a genius equal to da Vinci seems more credulous than credible. One can see better-executed graphic artforms at any local Trader Joe's.