|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 13, 2009 16:42:23 GMT
I had always tended to the assumption that the Shroud was in medieval in origin. However: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin Recent developments On April 6, 2009, the Times of London reported that official Vatican researchers had uncovered evidence that the Shroud had been kept and venerated by the Templars since the 1204 sack of Constantinople. According to the account of one neophyte member of the order, veneration of the Shroud appeared to be part of the initiation ritual. The article also implies that this ceremony may be the source of the 'worship of a bearded figure' that the Templars were accused of at their 14th century trial and suppression. On April 10, 2009, the Telegraph reported that original Shroud investigator, Ray Rogers, acknowledged the radio carbon dating performed in 1988 was flawed. The sample used for dating may have been taken from a section damaged by fire and repaired in the 16th century, which would not provide an estimate for the original material. Shortly before his death, Rogers said: "The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken." "It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate." "...I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus." Any views? Does it matter if the Shroud is genuine or not?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 13, 2009 17:34:52 GMT
Didn't Pierre d'Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes denounce it as a fake in the 1380s?, with pretty good reason. I don't think it makes a difference whether it is a fake or not. Jesus said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away"; and indeed, they continue to reverberate. He said nothing about his headgear.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 13, 2009 20:10:05 GMT
Of course the shroud is genuine, as anyone looking unbiased at the circumstancial evidence have realised for a long time. Long before any of that messed up C14-dating which I've never managed to take seriously.
And of course it will never be proven, absolutely.
I have never used it to the argue for the divinity of Jesus, and never will. It is more for believers than skeptics. Is is simply so convenient an evidence that it creates all kinds of suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 15, 2009 23:27:05 GMT
Didn't Pierre d'Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes denounce it as a fake in the 1380s?, with pretty good reason. An excellent reason to conclude that it's a fake. The new reference to the Templars venerating a shroud requires an acrobatic leap of logic to suddenly turn that into them venerating THE Shroud. We already know that shrouds (plural), some with "miraculous" images on them, were known before D'Arcis' predecessor found the faker who made the one that the credulous get so excited over. As for Rogers' "new" idea about why the C14 tests can be ignored - this is simply the latest in a long series of such claims by Shroud true believers since the 1988 testing. And it's about as flawed as the others. Rogers needs to explain how, if the test sample was a later patch (something the textile experts who selected the sample carefully strangely failed to notice) why the 16th Century repairers used 150-200 year old cloth for their patching work. Because that's what they would have had to have done for the dating to make any sense. The "Shroud" is a fake. All the evidence shows it's a fake. The proportions of the head don't match human anatomy (unless Jesus was a microcephalic cretin), but do match Medieval Gothic iconography. The arms are too long. The hair sits as though the figure was standing (ie as in Medieval depictions). The hair is long and the beard is forked, in keeping with Medieval artistic styles but not in keeping with what we'd expect of a devout First Century Jew, who would have kept both short in rejection of decadent Hellenistic styles. The "blood stains" are reddish in colour, not black as real blood would be after 2000 (or even 600) years of oxidation. The fabric is a herringbone twill weave well-known in the Middle Ages but not used in the First Century, when tabby-woven linen was the norm. And we have the evidence of the two Bishops of Troyes that it was a fake and the investigation of Pope Clement that upheld their findings. And the C14 dating, which fits the rest of the evidence perfectly. It takes great faith and the ignoring of a whole swathe of evidence to pretend that this obvious Medieval fake is "genuine".
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 16, 2009 16:17:05 GMT
The Tasmanian Devil has spoken
Henri de Poitiers is probably spinning in his grave. Centuries after he (according to Pierre D'Arcis) 'eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, ...discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed', said cloth now has a vast wikipedia article dedicated to it, complete with what looks like 4,000 odd words on just carbon dating and 'bacterial residue'.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 16, 2009 18:13:56 GMT
Well, that story about Poitiers has sounded false to me for years. Checking it up it seems it is from a draft of a memorandum to Clement VII (and never sent).
It is a second hand account from years earlier and about an unnamed painter who no one even today has been able to reproduce in anything like the same quality (though many have claimed, I have a book shelf on the topic).
And as it even seems it had been around before the 1300's, the story is not convincing.
Even if it rather obviously is genuine, it is still not possible to use it for anything - neither as a relic nor as a rational argument.
An interesting curiosity, though.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 17, 2009 0:43:24 GMT
The Tasmanian Devil has spoken Henri de Poitiers is probably spinning in his grave. Centuries after he (according to Pierre D'Arcis) 'eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, ...discovered how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed', said cloth now has a vast wikipedia article dedicated to it, complete with what looks like 4,000 odd words on just carbon dating and 'bacterial residue'. It's worse than that. I've just finished a lengthy two week debate with a "Shroudie" who was bombarding me with the most convoluted and technical-looking papers by "Sindologists" (ie other Shroudies), all of which amounted to ... not much. He was making a vast song and dance about a pre-14th Century illumination of what the Shroudies claimed was the "Shroud", proving the D'Arcis memorandum was a lie. Except I was able to compare it to other illuminations of the same theme ("the women at the tomb") and show that what they are claiming is the "Shroud" is actually just the lid of Jesus' sarcophagus-style tomb. My Shroudie also thought the fact that the "blood" supposedly found on the Shroud (which is disputed in itself) was type AB and that this was also found on other relics of Jesus was profounc "evidence". Unfortunately type AB blood is not found prior to around AD 700 and seems to be a recent result of the mingling of central Asian and European blood types during the Migration Age. Once again they get tripped up by their own "evidence". As a Medievalist it amuses me that the supposedly superstitous and stupid Medieval bishops sceptically exposed this thing as a fake and its supposedly rational Modern scientists who are falling over themselves to prove it genuine. Richly ironic. Well, that story about Poitiers has sounded false to me for years. Checking it up it seems it is from a draft of a memorandum to Clement VII (and never sent). Sorry, but this is quite wrong. We have two copies of the memorandum - both of them drafts. That's because most of the original contents of the Avignon Papacies archives are long since lost. But the original was clearly sent, because Clement VII responded by upholding the original finding that the "Shroud" was a fake telling the De Charnays to stop exhibiting it as the real thing. This is despite the fact he was a relative by marriage of the De Charnay family and no friend to Pierre D'Arcis. He had a good incentive to refuse D'Arcis but he didn't do so. Obviously D'Arcis' case and his evidence was difficult to argue with. See above. If D'Arcis' case was weak, why did Clement grudgingly uphold it? Clearly the evidence it had been faked that Pierre D'Arcis and Henri de Poitiers presented was clear and strong. Medieval artisans could do all kinds of remarkable things. The period that gave us the clock, eye glasses, the Gothic cathedral and the printing press was hardly without ingenuity. Perhaps if the various groups studying the "Shroud" had a few less physicists and actually included some experts in Medieval pigments, textiles and iconography we might actually understand the "Shroud" a little better. As one observer at the time noted, the original STURP team was so stacked with (Christian) physics experts and chemists it was as though they were going to lauch a space probe, not examine what is most likely a Medieval fake. The only person on that team with any background in exposing art fakes was Walter McCrone. And he was also the member of the team who was kicked off for ... declaring it a fake. It would be nice if the study of this artefact was taken out of the hands of partisan scientists and given to those who can tell us about works of Medieval art. Becuase that's clearly what this thing is.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 20, 2009 20:01:36 GMT
Well, I'll step out of this debate as I for some peculiar reason perceive it may take far too much time about a topic I think won't be scientifically decided and never has interested me as a debate.
Though I'm rather well versed in Medieval art (especially Byzantine;-)
Keep me updated on any progress in making a believable copy.
|
|