Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Does the Shroud of Turin Show Expected Elongation of the Head in 2D?"
- Thread starter abstract78
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
When he says it wrapped a living person (as opposed to a dead one), it's important to keep in mind that he rules out any supernatural causes such as fanciful physical artifacts of resurrection.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
I have perused Sarzeaud's paper, a nice piece of scholarship and an excellent overview of the medieval mindset, as well as hammering several more nails in the coffin of the shroudie beliefs.
Even more interesting is the reaction from the shroudies.
Firstly as someone familiar with the problems of historical scholarship I appreciate the work done. While the research for my doctoral thesis (the one in history) had the benefit of being in relatively modern English, Sarzeaud's study of Oresme's writings involved medieval Latin and the idiosyncratic writing of he period.
In this case Sarzeaud hit the proverbial jackpot; adding significantly to scholarship (though he wasn't the first to note these writings, the passage regarding the shroud was translated in 1934 but not appreciated).
Firstly who was Oresme? Nicole Oresme was one of those medieval natural philosophers, dabbling in the sciences,
in mathematics (he may have invented the speed/time graph so used in elementary mechanics), astronomy, theology and philosophy. He examined (in four lengthy books) the relationship between rational examination of phenomena and the accepted direct divine intervention in the workings of the natural universe.
Oresme investigated many unexplained phenomena and tried to explain them rationally; he disliked the contemporary trend of dismissing such things as divine, demonic or otherwise magical without proper investigation. Of course he did accept that God can perform miracles, though he vehemently denied that true demonic magic existed.
In addition Oresme did state that many purported "miracles" either had, or might have had if they'd been investigated properly, rational causes. He also warned that just because prople, even clericals, claimed that something was a miracle, didn't mean that it was. He specifically warned that they sometimes did this for their own advantage.
Which neatly leads us to the Lirey cloth...... Specifically:
Sarzeaud digresses here, as most people (outside the fanatics) have little knowledge of the alleged shroud. He cites three groups of late fourteenth century documents as evidence for this supposed shroud.
Much of the rest of Sarzeaud's paper is a detailed analysis of Oresme's work, and uses it as the starting point for a quite wide-ranging and scholarly philosophical exploration of the meaning and function of belief in medieval religion.
It's good stuff, and quite relevant to modern analysis of unusual phenomena.
Now, wrt the shroud (which Oresme points out is nowhere mentioned in the bible) Oresme's also remarks on it lacking any demonstrable provenance, thus the credibility of the cloth was clearly low. in his view.
Oresme uses it as an example of a blatant fraud perpetrated on a credulous public, though he was not so much criticising the clerical malfeasance as much as the popular credulity, and the danger of such belief being abused.
Sarzeaud points out that inquisitions into dubious relics were actually fairly common, and that the Lirey cloth actually had two; in 1355-6 and in 1449, both coming to the same conclusion, i.e. it wasn't genuine.
Sarzeaud also points out (and in doing so repudiates an oft-used shroudie argument) that actual suppression of a supposed relic was very rare; because the ‘alleged truth’ (as Oresme puts it) was at least a truth of sorts.
Definitively to declare falsehood was very unusual, so the compromise used in many cases (including that of the Lirey cloth) was that the object could be displayed for pilgrims, while describing it as representation, and not ‘real’. As Sarzeaud point out, this was entirely in keeping with the philosophy of the. He covers the discussion of the display and worship in 1390, and the correspondence surrounding this rather well; the discussion was not about whether the cloth was real or not (by then it's falsity went without saying) but how it should be displayed, and whether it had any spiritual value (in terms of indulgences granted to its visitors).
Later in the paper Sarzeaud mentions the case of the Shroud of Caduin; Aymeric de Peyrac, Abbot of Moissac, found himself in a similar dilemma when he determined that that cloth was a fake. The abbot permitted its continued veneration as an ‘alleged truth’, lacking information showing a deliberate fraud. Or perhaps because it was a popular devotion of the king.....
It's good stuff, interesting (if one has any interest in the Middle Ages, philosophy or the development of the scientific method. Well worth a read.
Now, on to the shroudie reaction....
Clearly many of the commentators, especially the more hysterical ones, clearly have't actually read the paper, let alone Oresme; most don't seem to have understood it.
There are the usual personal attacks, on Oresme, Sarzeaud and anybody else involved (including some people that wen't actually involved at all but have bête noire status amongst the shroudies.
There are incoherent, and uneducated, declarations that nothing new has been discovered, bizarre demands that Sarzeaud and Oresme furnish more details (the latter has been dead fro more than six centuries and therefore isn't writing much).
Glover is claiming that the whole Oresme document is a fake, and demanding a radiocarbon test......
Naturally the shroudies are still claiming hat d'Arcis was lying, while continuing to ignore the other near-contemporaneous documentation. Oh and decrying the "mainstream news media", who don't actually seem much interested in the matter.
Overall the believers are trying their usual 'pop smoke' approach (thanks Nick!) to create a smoke-screen of incredulity to hide behind. Hopefully, I suspect they think, it'll all go away like all the other awkward facts that show their pet relic is a fake.
To me one of the interesting takes from the examination of the works of Oresme (which I shall be perusing in translation, my Medieval Latin being barely existent) with regard to the Lirey cloth, is that at the time he was writing (probably around 1370), the falsity of the Lirey cloth was so generally known and acknowledged that it merited but a passing reference as an example of popular credulity.
Even more interesting is the reaction from the shroudies.
Firstly as someone familiar with the problems of historical scholarship I appreciate the work done. While the research for my doctoral thesis (the one in history) had the benefit of being in relatively modern English, Sarzeaud's study of Oresme's writings involved medieval Latin and the idiosyncratic writing of he period.
In this case Sarzeaud hit the proverbial jackpot; adding significantly to scholarship (though he wasn't the first to note these writings, the passage regarding the shroud was translated in 1934 but not appreciated).
Firstly who was Oresme? Nicole Oresme was one of those medieval natural philosophers, dabbling in the sciences,
in mathematics (he may have invented the speed/time graph so used in elementary mechanics), astronomy, theology and philosophy. He examined (in four lengthy books) the relationship between rational examination of phenomena and the accepted direct divine intervention in the workings of the natural universe.
Oresme investigated many unexplained phenomena and tried to explain them rationally; he disliked the contemporary trend of dismissing such things as divine, demonic or otherwise magical without proper investigation. Of course he did accept that God can perform miracles, though he vehemently denied that true demonic magic existed.
In addition Oresme did state that many purported "miracles" either had, or might have had if they'd been investigated properly, rational causes. He also warned that just because prople, even clericals, claimed that something was a miracle, didn't mean that it was. He specifically warned that they sometimes did this for their own advantage.
Which neatly leads us to the Lirey cloth...... Specifically:
Oh dear.
Sarzeaud digresses here, as most people (outside the fanatics) have little knowledge of the alleged shroud. He cites three groups of late fourteenth century documents as evidence for this supposed shroud.
- Firstly the correspondence between Geoffrey II de Charny and Pope Clement VII.
- Secondly the correspondence between King Charles VI and the bailiff of Troyes.
- Thirdly the memorandum of Bishop Pierre d’Arcis.
Much of the rest of Sarzeaud's paper is a detailed analysis of Oresme's work, and uses it as the starting point for a quite wide-ranging and scholarly philosophical exploration of the meaning and function of belief in medieval religion.
It's good stuff, and quite relevant to modern analysis of unusual phenomena.
Now, wrt the shroud (which Oresme points out is nowhere mentioned in the bible) Oresme's also remarks on it lacking any demonstrable provenance, thus the credibility of the cloth was clearly low. in his view.
Oresme uses it as an example of a blatant fraud perpetrated on a credulous public, though he was not so much criticising the clerical malfeasance as much as the popular credulity, and the danger of such belief being abused.
Sarzeaud points out that inquisitions into dubious relics were actually fairly common, and that the Lirey cloth actually had two; in 1355-6 and in 1449, both coming to the same conclusion, i.e. it wasn't genuine.
Sarzeaud also points out (and in doing so repudiates an oft-used shroudie argument) that actual suppression of a supposed relic was very rare; because the ‘alleged truth’ (as Oresme puts it) was at least a truth of sorts.
Definitively to declare falsehood was very unusual, so the compromise used in many cases (including that of the Lirey cloth) was that the object could be displayed for pilgrims, while describing it as representation, and not ‘real’. As Sarzeaud point out, this was entirely in keeping with the philosophy of the. He covers the discussion of the display and worship in 1390, and the correspondence surrounding this rather well; the discussion was not about whether the cloth was real or not (by then it's falsity went without saying) but how it should be displayed, and whether it had any spiritual value (in terms of indulgences granted to its visitors).
Later in the paper Sarzeaud mentions the case of the Shroud of Caduin; Aymeric de Peyrac, Abbot of Moissac, found himself in a similar dilemma when he determined that that cloth was a fake. The abbot permitted its continued veneration as an ‘alleged truth’, lacking information showing a deliberate fraud. Or perhaps because it was a popular devotion of the king.....
It's good stuff, interesting (if one has any interest in the Middle Ages, philosophy or the development of the scientific method. Well worth a read.
Now, on to the shroudie reaction....
Clearly many of the commentators, especially the more hysterical ones, clearly have't actually read the paper, let alone Oresme; most don't seem to have understood it.
There are the usual personal attacks, on Oresme, Sarzeaud and anybody else involved (including some people that wen't actually involved at all but have bête noire status amongst the shroudies.
There are incoherent, and uneducated, declarations that nothing new has been discovered, bizarre demands that Sarzeaud and Oresme furnish more details (the latter has been dead fro more than six centuries and therefore isn't writing much).
Glover is claiming that the whole Oresme document is a fake, and demanding a radiocarbon test......
Naturally the shroudies are still claiming hat d'Arcis was lying, while continuing to ignore the other near-contemporaneous documentation. Oh and decrying the "mainstream news media", who don't actually seem much interested in the matter.
Overall the believers are trying their usual 'pop smoke' approach (thanks Nick!) to create a smoke-screen of incredulity to hide behind. Hopefully, I suspect they think, it'll all go away like all the other awkward facts that show their pet relic is a fake.
To me one of the interesting takes from the examination of the works of Oresme (which I shall be perusing in translation, my Medieval Latin being barely existent) with regard to the Lirey cloth, is that at the time he was writing (probably around 1370), the falsity of the Lirey cloth was so generally known and acknowledged that it merited but a passing reference as an example of popular credulity.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
BTW, the paper is, I believe, freely available here;
in case anyone wants to read it.
in case anyone wants to read it.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Thank you for linking this interesting paper. If I may ask, where does Sarzeaud mention the result of the 1449 inquiry? I can't find a description of its outcome, only mention that it happened.
ETA: Found it. For some reason, my search function goes back and forth between thinking Bakel's name appears once or twice in the article.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Problems with searching PDFs are unfortunately common, it really is a terrible format. Glad you found what you were looking for.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
The shroudies are unhappy!!
While this tends to be their default state of mind, given their need for them to discount or otherwise avoid consideration of the mountain of evidence that the Lirey cloth is a medieval fabrication, Sarzeau's paper about the Oresme references has deeply upset them.
This has resulted, as I said previously, in massive smoke-laying to obscure the facts, along with various smears against everyone involved, not just against Nicolas Sarzeaud but also against Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti, the historians who are preparing a definitive edition of Oresme's writings (no release date or price as yet), who discovered the shroud reference and passed it to Sarzeaud., and also Andrea Nicolotti, who assisted Sarzeaud. These are all solid historians.
Everyone is conspiring against the shroudies.....
Two particular shroudies involved in this are Dale Glover and Jack Markwardt. Glover maintains, as he tend to do for any evidence that shows the Lirey cloth to be a medieval fake, that the Oresme documents are forgeries.
Markwardt is less nutty, he's been mentioned in previous shroud threads (the new search function actually works!), but is a True Believer and a significant proponent of the 'Antioch Hypothesis' which I mentioned previously in this thread (but haven't got round to discussing in detail).
He's also a conspiracy nut, vis his 2001 book The Conspiracy Against the Shroud.
Markwardt has created an odd scenario where Oresme tries to find out about the Lirey cloth and so contacts the bishop of Troyes (who was d’Arcis), and d'Arcis fed him his (in this version) faked story, which Oresme then repeats in his writings.
Now there is not a scintilla of evidence for Markwardt's version of events, but given his unswerving belief that the cloth is a Real True Shroud he has to come up with something.
Markwardt also fails to understand Oresme's mindset (not an uncommon failing in today's society) and states that Oresme didn't believe in miracles, something that is contradicted by the writings of Oresme and by his elevation to the episcopate (in 1377).
BTW, Markwardt also suggests that Oresme and d'Arcis, who were both elevated in 1377, met at a shindig for new bishops in Paris in that year, where d'Arcis poisoned him against the Lirey cloth. No evidence is provided for any of this.
Possibly the most idiotic error of Markwardt, and one that demonstrates his ignorance both of history and of Latin, is his translation of 'mirabilia' as 'miracles'. This is simply wrong, as anyone with even a basic grounding in medieval history would know.
Oresme's work was distributed by hand copying by scribes, usually monastic scribes or lay clerks (almost certainly in minor orders) working for either a religious institution or a private collector. Certainly there are copies of Oresme's works, which by the prevailing standards means it was "published".
Now, in a recent podcast, hosted by Glover
boggled Markwardt makes three blatantly untrue claims; that Oresme believed the clergy in general to be liars, and that Oresme's did not accept the existence of miracles or authenticity of relics.
Given these are easily disproved, say by reading what Oresme actually wrote, Markwardt is back in conspiracy land. I suspect he hasn't actually read the paper, or at least doesn't comprehend it.
While I accept that it can be difficult for a modern person, steeped in a skeptical, materialist, society, to understand the medieval mindset, anyone claiming to be able to speak authoritatively about the period must cultivate understanding of this state of mind.
OK, if I have time again I may address Markwardt's attempts to deny the d'Arcis memorandum, which s referenced in Sarzeaud's paper..
While this tends to be their default state of mind, given their need for them to discount or otherwise avoid consideration of the mountain of evidence that the Lirey cloth is a medieval fabrication, Sarzeau's paper about the Oresme references has deeply upset them.
This has resulted, as I said previously, in massive smoke-laying to obscure the facts, along with various smears against everyone involved, not just against Nicolas Sarzeaud but also against Alain Boureau and Béatrice Delaurenti, the historians who are preparing a definitive edition of Oresme's writings (no release date or price as yet), who discovered the shroud reference and passed it to Sarzeaud., and also Andrea Nicolotti, who assisted Sarzeaud. These are all solid historians.
Everyone is conspiring against the shroudies.....
Two particular shroudies involved in this are Dale Glover and Jack Markwardt. Glover maintains, as he tend to do for any evidence that shows the Lirey cloth to be a medieval fake, that the Oresme documents are forgeries.
Markwardt is less nutty, he's been mentioned in previous shroud threads (the new search function actually works!), but is a True Believer and a significant proponent of the 'Antioch Hypothesis' which I mentioned previously in this thread (but haven't got round to discussing in detail).
He's also a conspiracy nut, vis his 2001 book The Conspiracy Against the Shroud.
Markwardt has created an odd scenario where Oresme tries to find out about the Lirey cloth and so contacts the bishop of Troyes (who was d’Arcis), and d'Arcis fed him his (in this version) faked story, which Oresme then repeats in his writings.
Now there is not a scintilla of evidence for Markwardt's version of events, but given his unswerving belief that the cloth is a Real True Shroud he has to come up with something.
Markwardt also fails to understand Oresme's mindset (not an uncommon failing in today's society) and states that Oresme didn't believe in miracles, something that is contradicted by the writings of Oresme and by his elevation to the episcopate (in 1377).
BTW, Markwardt also suggests that Oresme and d'Arcis, who were both elevated in 1377, met at a shindig for new bishops in Paris in that year, where d'Arcis poisoned him against the Lirey cloth. No evidence is provided for any of this.
Possibly the most idiotic error of Markwardt, and one that demonstrates his ignorance both of history and of Latin, is his translation of 'mirabilia' as 'miracles'. This is simply wrong, as anyone with even a basic grounding in medieval history would know.
- For those who are unfamiliar with the terms: ‘mirabilia’ means literally 'wonders' while ‘miracula’ are miracles. It is perhaps a subtle point, but if you're going to comment on medieval history you should educated yourself.
Oresme's work was distributed by hand copying by scribes, usually monastic scribes or lay clerks (almost certainly in minor orders) working for either a religious institution or a private collector. Certainly there are copies of Oresme's works, which by the prevailing standards means it was "published".
Now, in a recent podcast, hosted by Glover
boggled Markwardt makes three blatantly untrue claims; that Oresme believed the clergy in general to be liars, and that Oresme's did not accept the existence of miracles or authenticity of relics.Given these are easily disproved, say by reading what Oresme actually wrote, Markwardt is back in conspiracy land. I suspect he hasn't actually read the paper, or at least doesn't comprehend it.
While I accept that it can be difficult for a modern person, steeped in a skeptical, materialist, society, to understand the medieval mindset, anyone claiming to be able to speak authoritatively about the period must cultivate understanding of this state of mind.
OK, if I have time again I may address Markwardt's attempts to deny the d'Arcis memorandum, which s referenced in Sarzeaud's paper..
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Ooopsie, I forgot one novel shroudie argument as to why the Oresme can safely be ignored. He wasn't talking about the Lirey cloth at all, but rather some other, obviously fake, "shroud of Jesus". Admittedly this is only being pushed by Theodora 'Teddi' Pappas, a crank even by shroudie standards, but I thought it worth mentioning.
For those of you who don't remember Ms. Pappas she, in the form of her awful "paper" alleging hat only a body in rigor mortis could have made the shroud image, was extensively cited by @bobdroege7. Despite her claims actually contradicting his claimed beliefs...
She was involved in the infamous “Shroud of Turin Facts” postings earlier this year; the usual collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright fabrications that typify shroudism.
ETA: I note that @bobdroege7 is back visiting the forum. I'm sure aw await his contributions regarding Sarzeaud's paper.
For those of you who don't remember Ms. Pappas she, in the form of her awful "paper" alleging hat only a body in rigor mortis could have made the shroud image, was extensively cited by @bobdroege7. Despite her claims actually contradicting his claimed beliefs...
She was involved in the infamous “Shroud of Turin Facts” postings earlier this year; the usual collection of half-truths, misrepresentations and outright fabrications that typify shroudism.
ETA: I note that @bobdroege7 is back visiting the forum. I'm sure aw await his contributions regarding Sarzeaud's paper.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
On This Day in 1988.....
In 1988 the results of the radiocarbon dating of the relic generally refereed to as the 'Shroud of Turin' were publicly released by Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin, to a surprisingly well-attended press conference.
Cardinal Ballestrero announced that the tests showed the linen cloth to date to the priod 1260–1390, with 95% confidence.
The complete report on the experiment was later published in Nature.
This has not stopped decades of efforts, and dubious science, by believers in the cloth's authenticity ('authenticists' or "shroudies") to dispute the evidence.
In 1988 the results of the radiocarbon dating of the relic generally refereed to as the 'Shroud of Turin' were publicly released by Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, Archbishop of Turin, to a surprisingly well-attended press conference.
Cardinal Ballestrero announced that the tests showed the linen cloth to date to the priod 1260–1390, with 95% confidence.
The complete report on the experiment was later published in Nature.
This has not stopped decades of efforts, and dubious science, by believers in the cloth's authenticity ('authenticists' or "shroudies") to dispute the evidence.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
You wouldn't happen to have a photo from the press conference, would you? /jk
Even finding a surviving order and invoice from it being commissioned on 13th October 1352, and a lovely trust pilot 5 star review saying how satisfied the priest was with the relic and would recommend "Relics-are-Us" to anyone needing a relic wouldn't be accepted as proof by those wanting it to be real.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
"Just got my shroud today. The anatomical accuracy is incredible! Realistic bloodstains. Excellent 3-dimensional visual encoding. 5/5. Would fake again."
Thermal
August Member
"3/5 stars. The body proportions had to be modified unrealistically to hide the dong. Would have preferred the tip poking out playfully".
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,490
Jesus never had a chubby!
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
A subject of some discussion earlier in the thread.....
Thermal
August Member
*laying in tomb*
"I went 33 years without cracking one off, but I'm dead now, so let's see you try and stop me!"
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,490
It's actually been argued? I can't imagine how that went. "Did you see the ass on Mary Magdalene? How could I help it?
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Well it was more the medieval debate over the depiction of the Divine Genitals and whether he, as Avatar of God, actually had such unnecessary bits, and whether (and to what degree) he'd been emasculated as part of the execution.
I'm not making this up.
To quote myself (it was when @bobdroege7 had discovered the Prey Codex and was wittering on about how it proved his nonsense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostentatio_genitalium
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,490
I don't think you're making it up. I also don't doubt the post hoc reasoning including the medieval codex. You would hear that kind of post hoc reasoning explaining something in the Bible they didn't like. Like bizarre explanations why Lot's daughters got their father drunk and raped him.
Last edited: